Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/04/01 (2024-2026) DRAFT Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 6th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii Apil 1, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order,at 1:47 p.tn:� 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 Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, bomber Ms. Rebecca Villegas, 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 on Bill 24, Draft 2 (Comm. 110.9), and came forward when called by the Chair: Cindy Evans: Comment. Adrian Catalan: Comment. Debra Green: In opposition. Cyrus Johnasen: In opposition. Donna Grabow: In support. Kalei Kailikini: In support and comment. PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 Chris Hirose: Comment. Naomi Melamed: In support. Zoe Berg: Comment. Theodora Scarato: Comment. Megan Isaac: Comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could please proceed with Business of the Day, Bills for Ordinances. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 24: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 2,4, 5, AND 7, OF THE HAWAI`I (Draft 2) 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. 110.9 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: February 4 and 18; March 6, 2025 (Note: There is',motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Hustace ,to recommend passage of Bill 24 on first reading.) (Note: The following proposed amendments were circulated: Comm. 110.17 from Council Member Jenn Kagiwada; Comms. 110.18, 110.19, 110.20, 110.21, and 110.23 from Council Member Rebecca Villegas; and Comm. 110.22 from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated April 1, 2025.) CAR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Mr. Clerk. We have a series of amendments that have been filed for deliberation today. And to keep things fair and easy, I would like to start with the communications, as they have been filed. So, Council Member Kagiwada, we'll start with your communication. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kagiwada moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 110.17. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. Page 2 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Just overlooking the entire bill and what was proposed before, and meeting with both the Planning Director and the Deputy Director as well as staff, one of the things that I saw that I thought could be amended pretty easily was just broadening the point about light and light bothering people to include more than just shielding for migrating seabirds, but also just broadening it for neighbors. So, this wording, worked on with the Planning Department and with LRB (Legislative,Research Branch) basically to do that to make sure that neighbors are shielded from unnecessary light. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Council Member. Could I please call up representatives from the Planning Department.° Thank you for being here today so that you could hear public testimony and for being available to answer questions from this body related to the amendments that are before us. If you just introduce yourselves for the record and then provide the ; department's position on the amendment that"Council Member Kagiwada is putting forth. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner V Tracie-Lee Camaro came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Good afternoon, Chair Kierkiewicz and Vice-Chair Galimba and,members of the Hawaii County Council. Jeff Darrow, Planning Department, and with me is Tracie-Lee Camaro, Planner with our Planning Division staff. For the first amendment; e did work with Council Member Kagiwada on this. This actually is a typical condition that's placed within our telecommuni cation„permits. It was first given to us through the Department of Fish and Wildlife for protection of seabirds. But again, it also applies as light pollution: „So, it's requesting that shielding be implemented for any type of lighting on the poles. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Just to be clear, the department is in support of this amendment? MR. DARROW: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Questions or comments on this communication. Council Member Inaba. Page 3 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 MR. INABA: Just wanting clarification. What is the standard for human activity here? MR. DARROW: You know, typically, there's not much traffic going on at a cell tower site, right? I mean, you'll have maintenance once a month or once every other month. But you could have something that could happen at nighttime. And the light will need to be there. But typically, there's really not any human activity occurring at these cell sites, unless again, maintenance. So, all that was, you know, you have those sensor,lights that when somebody's there and they walk by it'll come on. But when they're gone, they would go off. So, it's just basically, very limited human activity. But if there is, it'll come on; if there isn't, it should be off. MR. INABA: Okay, thank your Director. Chair, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 2'With the contents of to Amend: Comm. 110.17 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Ka-neali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 24, Draft 2 is amended with the contents of Communication 110.17. Council Member Villegas, would you like to introduce your'amendments? Motion to Amend: Ms ,Villegas moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 110.18. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I just want to present some of the rationale related to this amendment. As we've all heard from our number of emails, and testifiers, and community reaching out, is that the community overwhelmingly wants small cells or small wireless facilities to be regulated. This regulation was originally included in Bill 194, which had been vetted by Corporation Counsel and approved of. Page 4 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 According to HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 206N-1, this is applicable. Because HRS 206N only applies to mounting small cells on publicly-owned poles. Where here, in Hawaii County, most utility poles are owned by Hawaiian Electric, a private company. Therefore, HRS 206N doesn't apply to them, which is why it's necessary that we include this in Bill 24. Small cell or small wireless facilities can and should be regulated. And this is our opportunity as a County to do so. That's why this amendment that I'm bringing forth to you is actually quite simple,'but it includes small wireless facilities as the definition of telecommunication antenna. With that I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for the overview. Planning,Director, would you like to opine on the department's position on this amendment? MR. DARROW: There definitely is a difference between a macrocell, which is our typical telecommunication tower antennas versus a small wireless facility. These are normally very small facilities that are placed on light poles or utility poles. And they're located normally,in,right-of-ways and in urban cores. The concern I have by adding this language into the definition of telecommunication tower, is that a small cell facility will be required to comply with the same requirements as a macrocell or a telecommunication tower. Minimum lot size, setbacks, whatever requirements are for these large towers, they're going to be applicable to a small wireless facility. Again, when I look at,206 -4 in regards to zoning; and we can get in to whether or not this is public or private; or County or State. But as far as zoning, it's saying that if these were in the right-of-way, that they shall be classified as permitted uses, and shall not be subject to zoning review or zoning approval if they're deployed in the right-of-way of any zone or outside of the right-of-way in property not zoned exclusively for conservation. So, basically, any other zoning. That's the concern we have in regards to this. But again; the bigger concern is if we apply the same restrictions to these, they're not going to meet them. Because they normally are found in right-of- ways in urban cores. So, again, we can discuss this more, but I mean, in regards to the Planning Department, receiving applications for a use permit from a small wireless facility, we haven't. We only get them for telecommunication towers and antennas. They don't come into us for these types of small wireless facilities. They're normally just implemented in the Urban cores. Page 5 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Council Member Kimball. You yielded as I asked for the Director, thank you. MS. KIMBALL: So,just some editorial—first of all, I don't necessarilyI looked up the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Title 47, part 74. I'm not sure that this is the right reference for Small Wireless Facilities. Has anybody had an opportunity to check that? I think that that's not the correct Federal reference. That particular section has to do with TV broadcasting and whatnot, which is also in this clause. So, I'm not sure that that's the right reference. But it would say that we have two things here,, we have antennas, and we have towers. And if you read in the definition,of antennas, it means repeater equipment wireless or broadband related infrastructure. That,s the current amended language. I would suggest that wireless, it doesn't specify large or small cell wireless. It's just wireless in general. And that small cell would actually already fall under that definition. And it doesn't need to be included as an additional thing under antennas, under 1(A), because it's already covered in the broad definition. So, my suggestion would be not to include this amendment because I think what Council Member Villegas is trying to do is already addressed. And I think the'reference from the Federal side might be improper. Thank you. CHR, KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLECrAS: Sure. My apologies. If that is the case, I have been working with PhD(Doctor of Philosophy)researchers and people that are way beyond me in the expertise of this field. I suppose my question comes then back to—it would be wonderful if it's covered already. I think that would be great. Then I come back to a question, Mr. Darrow, because if I remember correctly, a few,years ago, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and I both expressed some concerns about Hawaiian Tel bringing small cell. They were having a community meeting; I'm forgetting the exact specifics. But it turned a red flag for us because they were going into a residential neighborhood and going to start putting up 5G (5t' Generation)wireless facilities within residential neighborhoods, and there was no requirement for them to file and application or notify anybody. So, if this is already covered, why haven't you seen any applications? Page 6 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 MR. DARROW: Again, I think in regards to State law, that it is saying that these are permitted in zoning; in the right-of-way or outside of the right-of- way, except for conservation districts. MS. VILLEGAS: Can you define right-of-way just for the broader person that might not understand what the definition of right-of-way would be considered? MR. DARROW: Within the public right-of-way. So, where you will find the utility poles where most times, these small facilities will be located on. I think this particular area; we really need to maybe step back and get some clear definition and definement. Because my understanding is the County also entered into an agreement some time ago. And I think it was through AT&T. And this was part of the entire emergency network for communications. And it was all inclusive.' I can't remember the name of the entire project,,but it was,like First Alert. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ. First Net. MR. DARROW: That was all just permitted. Itwas moving forward, and that was all covered. There was no request for any permits from Planning or going before Planning Commission for any approvals. And again, in my time dealing with Use Permits for towers and Special permits, there's never been an application for a Small Wireless Facility. So,1 think it does—we really do need to get this defined and really hammer through, so, that all of us feel comfortable moving forward. As mentioned, if we end up defining it the same, they're not going to be able to be approved anywhere. They're just not going to meet the requirements of a tower. MS.`VILLEGAS':, Thank you, Director Darrow. I appreciate that. it feels like I'm moving in a dystopian nightmare. I don't know how many movies you guys watch, but I watch a significant amount of movies and TV shows. And sometimes, you know, art imitates life. And the art being created in movies brings some serious concerns to me. This was my attempt to clarify, and working with those who have expertise and are connected to national organizations and other municipalities that are doing their best to protect their communities from coverage essentially of 5G. There are cities where 5G is covering things. And it is for self-driving cars. It is for high-tech capacities. Page 7 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 I don't ever want it to be perceived that I would want to deny people in our rural communities from access to what the digital world provides. I also want to point out some of the reasons why people live in rural areas, is so that they're not bombarded with electromagnetic potential harm. I mean myself just saw a practitioner yesterday, and she utilizes microcurrents for healing energies. And when managed appropriately, can be very beneficial to humans. But we're living in a world where we're exposed to so much more than we may ever know. One of my daughter's classmates died of brain cancerat 25-years-old last week. And there are more and more instances of people being harmed. And now it's hard to tie it back because it's invisible. But forme,this is my attempt to clarify; to rectify. I've heard that's it's already in there but I'm hearing that the States approved it So, I'm not getting a clear answer, butwhat I'ni looking for is a clear pathway for these small cell towers to be included; Because as we all know, assuming that a cellphone this big from the 1980's is more powerful than this right here, would be a fullish assumption, correct? So, the size of the tower does not necessarily reflect the power or emissions being generated. You know, I've worked with Council Member Evans who brought this forward to begin with, and with some of the advocates and PhDs who work within this industry to help mitigate. And I would like to once again thank those that have shown up to testify in opposition of this. They're people who work for telecommunication companies. So, that is their job. Their job is to advocate for these things. Itwould be up to my colleagues. I have a number of what I believe are simple amendments thatcover what the people have been asking for. But I'll leave it to my colleagues to decide. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kimball, I'm going to go Council Member Onish, because he hasn't had a turn yet. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Okay, thank you, Chair. I guess I wanted to see if, Chief do you have anything to say. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: He's here for another amendment later. Thank you. MR. ONISHL Okay, got it. Thanks, I yield. Page 8 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I just wanted to offer a point of clarification. So, the language around the definition of antenna includes wireless in Bill 24, in the language that we're adding in. It's not in there now. But it's already in the bill. I'm just saying, I don't think it needs to be amended. Right there in Section 2, "telecommunications antenna" means an antenna, repeater equipment, wireless or broadband related infrastructure: Since it doesn't qualify, what type of wireless, I would believe that I wouldn't think that it's reason to interpret that that's already small cell included in there. And it doesn't need to be separately enumerated under 1(A) because it's already in that phrase in the bill. Lt's not in the Code yety but it's in the bill. MS. VILLEGAS: May I ask a question, Chair? So, then Director,would you agree with that statement, and will that be the way that this bill, if passed, will be interpreted by Planning? MR. DARROW: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Again, the difficulty would be that if we applied it exactly how we apply it now to other towers, they would not be able to permitit. They would not meet the restrictions that would be placed on a tower. MS. VILLEGAS: But wait, okay but that's another issue from the question I'm asking about what Council Member Kimball is stating. Because then what she's stating is it's already covered. What you're stating is then how it would,be potentially perceived and acted upon, which all actually comes back together to the reason,for this specificity of small. Them,not meeting the requirements is not my concern, quite frankly. They need to meet requirements. They have billions and legal teams, and all the different things to come up with the standards that are there for the health and safety of our communities. MR. DARROW: As I brought up earlier, I believe that the County is in a contract or has already initiated a project that has utilized small cell facilities across the island within First Net. So, we really need to make sure that if what we're saying is, if small cell facilities are included in this bill, it's going to have an impact to our emergency services around the island that have implemented First Net. So, we definitely want to make sure that, Number 1: Is it covered under this bill or is it exempt from this bill based on 206N-4, or is there other exemptions that are applicable to these particular systems? I'm not sure. Page 9 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 But I know that if I was to have to get a plan approval for a small cell facility, and they had to meet the same requirements as a telecommunication tower in a right-of-way, they wouldn't be able to make it. It would just be denied. MS. VILLAGAS: Thank you. So, is your recommendation then that we need to postpone this legislation until we have answers on this? Because it sounds like, as a County, we're potentially already in conflict; Even with this draft, as it's written. If it doesn't, in fact, include—I mean it includes wireless which you know,potato,potato, whether or not that's small or large. MR. DARROW: Up to this point, we did not interpret wireless and small wireless facilities. We, as mentioned, saw those as exempt systems under zoning. They are permitted uses in4he right-of-way and out of the right-of-way except in the conservation district. So, I just want to be clear on this matter moving forward, that's all. I don't see a big problem with any of the other amendments coming in, maybe some minor adjustments. But this one is a real stickler that we should address. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for acknowledging that; because I see the irony and the kind of dichotomy and all this. There's no clear answer. And at a time, when loopholes become black holes for things happening that we may not, and,that the people are expressing they do not want happening. I think it's pivotal that we get very clear on what's allowed and what's not allowed; what's already been committed to. So, whatwould lie—I'd like to move forward with the other amendments, if possible. And I don't'know what the process would be on this. And perhaps when we get through the amendments, then we'd look at postponement, because these are questions that need to be answered. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Here's what I'm going to suggest, I think we're going to talk ourselves around in circles today. I'm going to suggest that Corporation Counsel be posed a legal question, right. Because Director mentioned that this body had approved a resolution entering into some kind of agreement with AT&T to install these small cells in public right-of-ways. So, if the interpretation is wireless facilities, also means Small Wireless Facilities, we're in potential conflict here. And so, I think it's really important to understand what we've adopted and how that agreement would be impacted or not by this potential amendment. Page 10 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 Corporation Counsel is that something that we can get either from you personally, or the department's Deputy to investigate in the next couple of weeks. She is saying, "yes." Great. At time, Council Member Inaba, did you want to weigh in on this? If not, I'm just going to ask Council Member Villegas to withdraw. Weigh in? Go ahead. MR. INABA: Yes, real quick. Maybe just to make that question clear. If we can get a"yes or no," on whether small wireless facilities are covered under part 74 of Title 47, FCC. Because that would ultimately„tell us if the reference is correct here. I don't want to mis-xreference. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, there' 'a couple of things. There's what you mentioned, and then what Council Member Kimball mentioned,'which is she's interpreting the broader definition of telecommunication antenna where we say "wireless"to cover the small'wireless facilities. Corporation Counsel, Schoen, I'll work with you on the question, Okay, thank you. Director? MR. DARROW: Thank you. Could I also add,a,,review of 206N-4,just so that we cover all of our bases. Again, I bring up'First'Net because I was involved in meetings. It wasn't a Planning Department initiative, but it was involving all of the different emergency operations in the County. I don't know,if it got off the ground. I just remember there were quite extensive meetings on it and discussions. And it was in regards to that particular small cell facilities. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Thank you for that. Council Member, Would you'"like to withdraw your motion? Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, to Amend' with the contents of Comm. 110.18. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. Moving on to the next communication. MS VILLEGAS: I won't be bringing forth there was a mix-up, and Comm. 110.19 should have been different. It will show up later as Comm. 110.23. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, we are skipping Comm. 110.19 and moving to Comm. 110.20. Page 11 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 110.20. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, thank you. Appreciate this. I'm going to move forward with some of the rationale for bringing forth this amendment. So, we all know with current weather changes, increased high velocity winds post a serious threat to residents from towers potentially failing and falling. Cell tower failure has been linked to destructive wildfires in California and Maui. Section 7, subsection 25-4-12 (f) includes hard'survivability for sustained winds of 130-miles-per-hour, but there's no way to verify,this. No accountability. A sustained wind requirement of 100-miles-per-hour was originally included in the Building Plan requirements of Bill 24,but was removed. So, now the only verifiable requirement is to meet Building Code minimum. But this creates a loophole. - The Building Code doesn't have uniform requirements. The Building Code has different requirements for different building materials and different wind zones with different risk categories. And there are no specific requirements for towers. This complicates compliance. It couldaeopardize application deadlines and creates a potential loophole to be exploited. Since a 13 -mile-per-hour sustained wind survivability is required in Section 7, there should be no problem for 100-miles-per-hour sustained wind survivability to be included in the Building Plan requirements Section 5. Current Building Code sustained wind-requirements start at 130 miles per hour and go up to 160-miles per-hour. This amendment would close the loophole and put back in the very reasonable 100-mile-per-hour sustained wind requirement as part of the Building Plan certified by a licensed structural engineer. Mr. Darrow would you like to share your,perspective on this proposed amendment? MR. DARROW: 'Sure. Thank you, Council Member Villegas. We had lengthy discussions on this; I think in the beginning. And there was a miles-per-hour within the bill. It was removed. And the language was, meet the requirements of the Building Code. The Planning Department doesn't have any problem having a minimum of 100-miles-per-hour. I like the idea that it still has, "meet the requirements set forth in the Building Code, whichever is greater." So, we don't need to come back and amend the Code if the wind speeds are amended in the future. So, at least we have a minimum. My understanding was the minimum at this time was 100-miles-per-hour. But again, I'm not an expert in that field. So, at this point, we're in support of it. Page 12 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Director Darrow. I appreciate it. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay, seeing none, we have a motion on the floor to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 110.20. All those in favor,please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 2 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 110.20 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: Committee Member Kimball — 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 24,,Draft 2 is amended with the contents of Comm. 116.20. ,Next amendment: Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 110.21. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR: KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. MS."VILLEGAS: Great. Thank you. This amendment is being brought forward with the intention,of clarifying the vague language, such as "Notify, engage, affected'community and adjacent landowners." With some concern, it would be confusing and,open to dispute. So, this recommendation, this amendment creates specific requirements needed to be defined for clarity and to avoid confusion with the attempt to remove any possibility of a loophole or exploitation and to protect as what was stated earlier. You know �I hear from so many people on so many issues. How did II wasn't notified. How would I ever know that there was no—and I want to make sure that that's something that we can avoid in this circumstance by making very specific and clear language of how people and who would be notified; and in what timeframe that would be done. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Director Darrow, do you have any comments on this amendment. Page 13 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 MR. DARROW: So, this one's a tough one. Again, I fully understand the need for informing people; informing neighbors, informing the community. The difficulty is in Plan approval process is, with all other plan approvals, there is no notification process. So, we are adding a process for this particular plan approval application process. The concern is that it will give the misunderstanding that people can oppose the project in the sense of, like there's a permit; like there's a„public hearing, and they can show up and testify against the hearing. They can submit testimony, but if the applicant has done what they're supposed to do as far as submitting the required information, the Planning Director is'required to approve it within that 60-day time period. So again, the concern is just this false hope that might be given,that might indicate that we're all going to get together and come and oppose this. >And why didn't you listen to us? Why didn't'you deny this? It doesn't mean that there aren't options that even if the Director does approve it,people can file a Board of Appeals appeal through that process. But again, that's why we kept it more in the sense of having a community meeting or informing the adjacent landowners. I'mnot against this but again I think that just the concern is thaf possibility of creating false hope that they may think there's a process that they can submit a contested case or show up at a public hearing or something. I mean we've seen the passion with people. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. MS. VILLEGAS Do I still have the floor Chair? CHR. KIEIKIEWICZ: N'o but you may ask him questions, if you'd like. Go ahead; MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I hear you. This is going to make your job harder. Because people might think that, and I hear you on that. That they might think that alien there's a point to intervene. But on the flipside, it gives people is an opportunity to decide that if project goes forward, they can decide if they're going to move. They can decide if they're going to remove their own body; their family, you know, whatever it is; they want to move. But if they don't know, they're aren't given that option. So, I would say that, you know, here we advocate so consistently for education and people to know what's going on around them. So, they can make educated decisions. And whether or not they can come back, and as you said, protest or you know, if the people who are putting in these projects are filing through with everything they're supposed to do, I think that this amendment provides Page 14 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 opportunity, and it fulfils part of our responsibility as a County to notify the people who live in areas. It looks like you have something you want to share with us. MR. DARROW: So, there was a concern we had regarding this and it's a simple one. Normally, with notification to surrounding property owners, we wait until an application is accepted. Then we give the applicant 10 days from the date of acceptance to send us the list of notifications. That way they don't prematurely send it out and then we reject it. And then, who knows how long it May take for them to come back and get the applications submitted. MS. VILLEGAS: So, do you have a,recommendation then for an amendment to this amendment that would rectify that potential issue? MS. CAMERO: Hi, thank you so much, members of the committee. What I would possibly do is, I would include this asa separate line item, because the first line item is really the documentation of the proactive efforts that were made to meet with and inform the adjacent landownersof the affective community. That's going to be included in'the application when'they submit it, or have this requirement that it be done before the submittal of the application. So, it's not the five days after the application submittal. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So,what I would propose then, is I would be okay since we're still in Committees,to withdraw this today. And can I reach out to you for some guidance on how to edit this in order to encompass what we wanted to without adding undo burden? Okay, and will you remind me of your name? MS: CAMERO: I,apologize. Tracie-Lee Camero, Planner within the Planning Division: MS. VILLEGAS: Thanks, Tracie, will do. Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, to Amend: With the contents of Comm. 110.21. CAR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. The next amendment is mine. So, I'm going to ask someone to make a motion on my behalf, please Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 110.22. Seconded by Mr. Hustace. Page 15 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: This amendment is being introduced at the request of our Hawaii Fire Department. We have Fire II, Chief Volpe here to answer any questions folks might have. But this is to insure that documentation related to compliance with National Fire Protection Association standards is met and filed with the Fire Department. And there was also a suggestion of redundant power supply„on site. So, Chief I will turn it over to you to provide greater details about what's being put forward here. The final thing is, after thorough Corporation Counsel review, there is one section that we are going to have to remove from the bill regarding installation of surveillance camera systems on these towers. Because it could be interpreted as a taking. Chief Volpe, thanks for being here. (Note: At this time, Deputy Fire Chief Daniel Volpe came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. VOLPE: Sure. Thank you Council Members. Just to again, kind of reiterate what Council Member Kierkiewicz mentioned, is that NFA (National Fire Association) 76 is'a regulation that provides for fire protection that provides for the construction of cellphene towers in these large tower facilities to inherent fire risks. So, like fire detection, fire suppression, access to fire engines; things that will insure that the tower, in the event of an accident within the construction of the tower, within the surrounding area that the tower will hopefully withstand that threat: And again, with the interest of keeping the towers in service as long as possible. There are areas in the State Fire Code that do mention towers. It's not very specific, but Chapter 76 specifically does. NFA 76 does refer specifically to these tower types of construction. It's generally recognized as a safe resilient means of building them. Again, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to withstand the wildfire as the wildfire pushes through. But this will hope to provide access to the tower by the Fire Department as well as provide some inherent safety within the tower and the facility itself. So, that's why that recommendation was made. The other one regarding power redundancy. So, this is something that you see in natural disasters, in elements in our radio system and our microwave system in communications islandwide that when one of our radio sites goes down, we do see significant impacts to our radio communications. Page 16 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 Understanding that cellular communication is going to be a primary way of us sending emergency messages to the public, as well as the public calling 911 and getting to our services. We want to make sure in times of natural disasters; in times of other conditions outside of wildfire, that there is some redundancies to the power to enable these powers to stay powered for 24 to 48 to 72 hours. Up to that time period. Again, hopefully as we move through the emergency phase of an incident and towards recovery, this allows the tower to stay up and running to allow for communications to go back and forth. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that additional context. And I hope you are able to stay to answer any questions folks might have.,- - MR. VOLPE: I will do my best. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Sorry, I didn'tget a chance to explain why I voted "no" on that other one. And that's because we're going to have some inconsistencies here with that amendment and this amendment because that amendment puts in the 100-miles-per=hour. This one, in a different section takes out what was 130, which references the Building Code. The commentwas made that the Building Code doesn't include specifications for,towers and whatnot. And it actually does based on it. I didn't have the folder in front of me right here. But I would suggest that we actually need to have DPW (Department of Public Works) come in here and affirm what is actually covered by the International Building Code. It's noon our Chapter 5, but it doesn't have to be because we've adopted the 2018 Code which has reference to Tower requirements including wind requirements, climbing requirements; a bunch of requirements. So, that's why I voted "no'k on the other one because I do support the changes in here. I think we have a little bit of conflict now that we'll have to resolve it in a future time. But'l also think we need DPW to come in and speak to what is actually already covered in either the International Building Code or something called the TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association) 222, which is what regulates the construction of towers of all kinds. Thank you. Page 17 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I will work on getting a representative from Public Works here at a future meeting. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to amend the bill before us with the contents of Comm, 110.22. All those in favor, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 2 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 110.22 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Chief, thank you for being here today. Council Member Villegas. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 24,Draft 2, with the contents of Comma 110.23. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, I just want to quickly go through the rationale and,reasoring behind this particular proposed amendment. It's that other ,jurisdictions have disputed when the 60-day shot clock actually begins. And so, sometimes this confusion causes delays and provides a potential loophole that has been,exploited,by applicants., I believe that'Bill 24 should include a form that specifies all permit application requirements must be completed before the 60-Day shot clock begins. In a recent Ninth Circuit-Court ruling of October 20, 2024, the court clarified that 60-day shot clock regarding modification requests. The Court;upheld the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) decision that the EFR(Eligible Facilities Request) shot clock begins when an applicant satisfies the following criteria: Takes the first procedural step that the local jurisdiction requires and submits written documentation showing proposed modification isn't eligible facilities requests. Under this rule, the County should adopt it's own permit application form and require that all permit applications including EFR applications must be made on that form to ensure that this is the first procedural step in triggering the shot clock. Mr. Darrow, any reflections on shot clocks? Page 18 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 MR. DARROW: No, I appreciate the clarity on this. We were talking about it as well. We have a term acceptance. But this seems to bring more clarity as to when that time starts. We do have a simple request, and that is, if we could change the term permit? Like in the first line, if we could instead of permit, put plan approval. And for the second one, we just delete permits. So, it says, the Director that states all requirements are due. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, an application for plan approval, on a form approved for such purpose by the Director that states all requirement's are due before the 60-day shot clock begins. And that's submission.of said form, as the first procedural step in triggering the 60-day clock. The form includes Eligible Facilities Requests EFR and shall be accompanied by the following list. MR. DARROW: Which my understanding is the list of everything you have to comply with. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. MR. DARROW: So, that makes it pretty clear. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, I would be happy to make those adjustments. And if the best form of procedure would be to withdraw this and bring forth the amendment with those agreed upon changes at,our next meeting, I'd be happy to do so. CHR: KIERkIEWICZ: Great. I'm going to allow folks to weigh on the contents of this communication before you do that. Thank you. Council Member Kagwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. First, generally supportive of the time. Wondering about the term, shot clock maybe not being the general term that we use ri'our Code: Maybe just clock or not sure. But maybe we can change that. Andthen, I just wdrit'to go back to the notifications. Are we going to have issues if we say this; if we're going to allow notifications to happen after, or are we just needed to snake sure that when we're that, that we're cognizant that we're putting this�amendment in as well. So, we might have to look at how we do that. I guess I'm asking Planning if that's something we can do. MR.FARROW: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. So, the term shot clock, my understanding is a term used by the telecommunication towers or the laws that trigger that. That's what they've been terming it as, the shot clock. It's been kind of a term used for some time now. And they bring it up quite often. I agree it's up to you folks if you feel like adding that term or not having it. It's not going to make a difference. Page 19 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 In our Code, we have a period of time to accept an application. Within a 15-day period, we have the time to reject it. So, if they submit an application, and we go through everything, it takes us time. When they submit and we haven't rejected within 10 days, we'll want to see if that's what we end up changing. We will want to see that list before we will accept it. The list of the notifications to surrounding property owners. MS. KAGIWADA: So, does the time start after you see the list? MR. DARROW: The time for the 15-day review would be when they submit. Because let's say we accept on the I Ph day, that first I l days counts as part of the 60-day clock. MS. KAGIWADA: That's what I'm asking. So, after you get the list. The 60 days starts when they submit the paperwork. When you get the list'is not going to change the time here. MR. DARROW: We can make that time less if 10 days seems too long, because they will be trying to get their requirements in'line if five days is sufficient. But it seems like they'll want an"indication that their'application is pretty complete by that time. The concern is again that you know, we end up somehow rejecting the application: And then, notice went out, and we start getting all the letters coming in, and we don't'have an application yet. So, we have to wait for the application to get,resubmitted, and then we compile everything back and try to figure out what's going on., MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. I just want to thank you for bringing that ups:because we had this discussion also. Thank you to the maker for being persistent with these amendments. Thank you for letting the public know the realities around this. Because I do think it's really important. And even if they can appeal it, what they're appealing is this is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong,"they're appealing that the applicant didn't do all the things; checked all the boxes and do all the things that are required. They're not really appealing your decision so much as if those things were or were not followed. Because if they are followed, you do not have a decision to reject it. Correct? MR. DARROW: Correct. It puts us in a tough spot, you know, because basically, we have to follow the law. And the law has said, we have to do this within this timeframe. I mean the way it was going was, in all honesty, the correct way to do it; to allow the opportunity for people to participate in the Page 20 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 process; to engage; to be able to testify; submit, contest the case; bring their concerns forward. This process basically streamlines it. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you so much, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Director, there's no other terminology other than a shot clock? MR. DARROW: Clock. MR. HUSTACE: Just clock. Because and just for the maker,;,if you want to put it in quotes or something, it's a borrowed term; like a colloquial term if you want to use shot clock. But it's not really like a proper term for Planning purposes MS. VILLEGAS: Chair, is it okay for me to just respond? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'll have them wrap a their comments. MR. HUSTACE: No,just a recommendation, if you want to use it,put in quotes or something. Thank you. CHR: KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS."VILLEGAS: Just in a quick response, I did notice that already later on in the sentence, it says, "the first procedural step in triggering the 60-day clock." So, I'll just remove the shot, although I do tend to like them sometimes; different kinds of shotsx and just go with clock. So, thank you, Council Member Kagiwada for bringing that up as a point of sensitivity;„and also, to Council Member Hustace for the suggestion for terms like that. Quotation marks can be helpful. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to ask Council Member Galimba to share her mana`o and then we'll wrap up this conversation. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. Thanks Director Darrow and Tracie. I'm just a little bit—this may be a silly question, but I'm just trying to understand or visualize the difference here between, "all requirements are due before the 60-day clock begins." And that form being the procedural step in triggering the clock. Page 21 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 So, this form, is it that perhaps there's some requirements that come in before the form? And then it doesn't actually trigger, except they turn in a map before they turn in the form. Is that kind of what we're trying to say here? I'm not understanding what the difference is. MR. DARROW: My understanding, Council Member Galimba, is that it goes hand in hand. The application has to be submitted with all of the requirements that follow this subsection. So, if you see the last sentence there, "the form includes eligible facilities requests and shall be accompanied by the following." So, if they just submit the application form, we would reject it. It wouldn't meet the requirements to be a completed application. MS. GALIMBA: So, in that second phrase then—maybe this is to the maker. I'm not really understanding how it would be anything different than the form being the first step. Is there like a situation where the form would not be the first step in triggering the 60 days? MR. DARROW: Obviously, that's the first step. So, I think that's what the maker of the motion is doing, is making it clear what the process is. And when we identify a completed application or an accepted application. If you just submit the form without all of the requirements, the clock does not start. MS. GALIMBA: Right. Got it. MR DARROW: So, again I think the key`thing for us here is the fact that it identifies, because what was lacking before was a clear identification of when the clock starts. MS. GALIMBA: Which is when all requirements required by the form which specifies such,right? Okay, thank you. MS.`VILLEGAS':, If there were a clearer way to work with the semantics, if that's the right terminology. When I reach out to you to talk about the other amendment, perhaps we can navigate some of that together. MS. CAMERO: Yes, we can definitely look at that together. MS VILLEGAS: Thank you, appreciate it. Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 2, to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 110.23. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Let the record reflect that the motion has been withdrawn. Seeing as there are no other amendments. Anyone, amendments? Not at this time, okay. Just want to make sure that we know what actions are Page 22 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 coming out of this meeting. There's a legal question that I'm going to pose to Corporation Counsel regarding small wireless facilities. Council Member Villegas is going to be making some adjustments to the notifications, the certified mailings amendment, as well as the clarification for application for plan approval, and when the 60-day clock starts ticking. Did I miss anything? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Just also consulting with DPW regarding that. And I only had a chance to kind of personally review it with this"lens, but I do think we might have some conflation of tower versus antenna. Not all towers have antennas, but all antennas are on towers. Something like that. So, I'm'happy to do that with the department, or if you want to do it. But I duo think we just need to walk through the bill one more time to make sure that the references are correct on that. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Are you volunteering to take that on? MS. KIMBALL: I will happily spend time with Jeff and Tracie. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I know they're great people. And yes, I will work with Public Works to,get,a representative here to talk about the Building Code, windspeedy and survivability. Thank you for taking on clarifying the definitions. May I please have a motion to postpone this bill to our next meeting, which,is Tuesday, April 15tn Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 24, Draft 2, as amended to April 15y 2025. Seconded by Mr. Onishi. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Inaba. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 24, Draft 2, as amended to April 15, 2025, to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 24, Draft 2, as amended, is postponed to our Kona Meeting, April 15t'. We are at the end of the agenda. I am adjourning at 3:24 p.m. Thank you. Page 23 PCPLUED-6 April 1,2025 ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 3:24 p.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development AK/dt Page 24