Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/04/15 (2024-2026) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 7th Session West Hawai`i Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i April 15, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 11:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley 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, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business. FROM THE 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: Michael Trask: Bill 24, Draft 3 (Comm. 110.24), in opposition. Chris Hirose: Bill 24, Draft 3 (Comm. 110.24), in support. Debra Greene: Bill 24, Draft 3 (Comm. 110.24), in support. (representing Safe Tech, Hawai`i) Naomi Melamed: Bill 24, Draft 3 (Comm. 110.24), comment. Kalei Kailikini: Bill 24, Draft 3 (Comm. 110.24), in support. Rebecca Melendez: Bill 24, Draft 3 (Comm. 110.24), comment. PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 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 3) 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. 110.24 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz(B/R) Postponed: February 4 and 18; March 6; and April 1, 2025 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Hustace,to recommend passage of Bill 24 on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 110.18 from Council Member Rebecca Villegas dated April 1, 2025 and Comm. 110.63 from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated April 14, 2025, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 24,Draft 3; and Comm. 110.62 from Police Chief Benjamin T. Moszkowicz dated April 9, 2025,transmitting the department's opposition to Bill 24, Draft 3, were circulated.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Just want to call out, in our pinkie folder, a communication received by Police Chief Benjamin Moszkowicz regarding the department's opposition to Bill 24. It is the department's belief that the bill would discourage the new building of telecommunication towers hindering the betterment of cellular connectivity on our island. And as we know, connectivity is critical, particularly for our first responders. At this time, I also wanted to call up Fire Chief Kazuo Todd, who has relentlessly pursued our office, and also communicating the Fire Department's opposition to certain aspects of Bill 24. And wanted to provide you, Fire One,the opportunity to share your concerns directly with this body and to be available for any questions folks might have. Chief Todd. Page 2 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 (Note: At this time, Fire Chief Kazuo Todd came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR, TODD: Chief Todd from the Hawai`i Fire Department. So, at least in the current iteration of this bill,there is a section in there with a 1,200-foot distance requirement. So I can't, as a Fire Chief, speak to the health concerns or radiowaves or anything else that's outside of my expertise, essentially and whether this is healthy or not healthy or things like that. All I can bring forth is that public safety side of the discussion. So,the primary concern for our public safety perspective is that, at least currently, the way that we're able to communicate information both to our responders and to the public nowdays have shifted. And in the past we used to, you know, send out alerts on television; we'd send it out on the radio, and we've been informing the public of what was going on that way. This has really shifted in the last 20 years, and nowdays I would say most people are getting their messaging from their cellphones, on Facebook, or text messages and other things like that. So,the infrastructure that goes into our cellular networks has become kind of into the domain of public safety,because a resilient infrastructural system that supports cellphone communication and cellular communications is affecting whether people are getting the evacuation notices. If a fire is coming through their town such as in Lahaina, or you know,the notice that there's influenza or a tsunami might be coming and things like that. So, all of these things are kind of relying on this. So, I do want to say, I like some of the amendments that have been made in regards to bringing up the topic of resiliency in terms of data pathways to cellphone towers as well as power redundancy, but one of my concerns in the current iteration of the bill is the 1,200-foot distance requirement. And just on, you know, my math, if I'm saying a tower goes in, and there can be nothing within 1,200 feet per residentials or schools or things like that. We basically say that 1,200 feet to the right, 1,200 feet to the left; so, 2,400 feet,there can be nothing in that region. So,we end up with this 2,400 foot by 2,400-foot plot of land,which is essentially about 130 acres of land. And when I look at a lot of the areas of our island, the people that I'd want to communicate with is a Fire Chief oftentimes for the places I'm sending my firefighters or I want to get data to our computers is in these residential areas. That's where we're responding to and that's where we have to communicate to. Page 3 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 But we're going to say, that we need 130-acre parcel to build a new tower, which I think is a little bit weird considering the sentence right before puts in like these one and five-acre parcels. I think that needs to be cleaned up. I see some issues in that how that could prevent us from building future towers. And I'm not for or against them. I'm just saying that it seems a little bit weird, and I have some concerns because it could effectively make it so that it becomes very onerous on cellphone towers to expand that service. And then eventually it starts impacting the public's safety domain where it becomes difficult for us to communicate to the public, because we're relying on only a few towers to send those messages out, and whether they're resilient or not, could be an issue. So,that's I guess from the public safety domains, my current concerns with that is that could effectively limit where we can place towers, and I think that's important. Any other questions for me? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chief Todd. Please stick around for any questions folks might have for you,but your concerns are noted. For the record, I just wanted to share that we have Planning Director Jeff Darrow here in Kona Chambers. And participating in Hilo, Tracie-Lee Camero, Planner V, and Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Department, Jean Campbell, in case folks need to ask them any questions. See lights on, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Actually, with Chief Todd's introduction there,,I wanted to start by introducing the amendment that's included in Communication 110.63. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 110.63. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I know this looks like a pretty extensive amendment. But actually,the main thing that it does is that it removes that extra clause about the 1,200 feet. That was item (2),but then it also simplifies the language for that entire section into one phrase. So, the only significant substantive change is that removal of the distance so that 120 percent of the tower height is going to be the setback for all properties except where it's not required. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Anything back from the Planning Department on this proposed change? Director or Tracie. Page 4 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 (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: Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and members of the Hawai`i County Council. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. We are supportive of the change. It seems like it's a been a contentious issue from the beginning. I believe I had stated this previously,this was our attempt to have a starting line. We had done a lot of research throughout the nation on different setbacks. And this was a setback that was sort of in the middle. It wasn't too extreme; it wasn't too minimal. So, we started with that in the particular bill, but we are amenable based on the information that we're receiving through testimony to stay focused on the actual building setback or the tower setback from the properties. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Council Member Kimball,you still have the floor. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I'm just going to summarize by saying, you know,the 1,200-foot setback requirement would be a significant barrier to building out in some key areas that we need for continuity of coverage, especially for police and fire services. So, the 120 percent deals with the physical safety requirements around celltower and should be sufficient. So, I ask everybody to support this amendment. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. There's a motion on the floor to amend Bill 24, Draft 3 with the contents of Communication 110.63. All those in favor,please say, "aye." Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, could we please do a roll call vote. Thank you. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 3 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 110.63 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: Committee Members Inaba and Villegas—2. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 3,with the contents of Comm. 110.18. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. Page 5 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Chair. You know, we went around and around on this one during our last meeting, and I went ahead and withdrew it because there were commitments made by Corp. Counsel. Thank you to Jean Campbell and also by Chair in order to come up with answers. There seemed to be confusion. Some Council Members were operating under the belief system that we didn't have to add the terminology "Small Wireless Facilities,"because it was already covered somewhere else. Planning's opinion was, we couldn't do this because it then kind of essentially prohibited any passage of permits for these facilities. And so, I'm bringing this back today because it's my understanding that Corp. Counsel Campbell had some definitive answers, and I really wanted the public to be able to get some clarity. We have a number of community members who are very passionate about this legislation. Very grateful for Bill 24. It puts us on the forefront as a County for creating some parameters and boudaries around wireless facilities and towers, which provides health and safety on one hand for our communities. Especailly with access to first responders. However, on the other side,there's potential health risks. And there are people who are living in more rural areas because they don't want to be impacted by electromagnetic radiation, or they're already sensitive or have issues. So, with that I'll go ahead and hand it over to Corp. Counsel Jean Campbell to go ahead and provide information about whatever we're able to find out about this. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. CAMPBELL Good morning. Thank you, Council. Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell. The question I was asked to look into specifically, was does Bill 24 as it's drafted today conflict with State law? And as I mentioned to all of you in a memo that I provided earlier this week. As currently drafted, Bill 24 does go too far and does, in fact, conflict with State law. HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) Chapter 206N provides for a very,very limited ability of the counties to regulate what it defines as"Small Wireless Facilities." And Bill 24 as it's currently drafted goes significantly further than that. And so, it would be, in fact, in conflict. Page 6 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 So, my recommendation is that Bill 24 be amended to specifically exclude "Small Wireless Facilities,"as they are defined in Chapter 206N from applicability of Bill 24. I think that's the cleanest and the most direct way to do this, and if the County wants to look into how and where it's appropriate for the County to regulate small wireless facilities, I think that's a discussion for a different day. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: So excuse my novice legalese here. But in lay women's terms, what that essentially is saying, or what you're saying is the amendment contained within Communication 110.18 would not be legal for us to pass at this time. And in fact, we need to go back and delineate in Bill 24 that the legislation doesn't include anything to do with small wireless facilities. Is that correct? MS. CAMPBELL: Yes,that's correct. I think Communication 110.18 would, in fact, conflict with State law. So, not recommended. And then again,my recommendation would be to include, I believe it would go in Subsection 25-1-5. Under Subsection 2 there, you have a list of things that are not included. And my recommendation would be to add a Subsection(e)that specifically identifies again, facilities that fall under the definition of small wireless facilities, as that definition is set forth in HRS, Chapter 206N. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Corp. Counsel. I suppose for the sake of conversation, and for Council Members having the opportunity to ask questions related to this regardless if this amendment,you know, I would most likely be— I'm not sure what I'm going to do. But I'm also looking to Chair for potential guidance of overall this piece of legislation may need to be postponed until these deeper adjustments are made. Because until this is clarified, all the other amendments seem very manini (small or insignificant). Chair, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you for bringing this forth so we could have the converation. I hope all Council Members received the memo that was sent by Corporation Counsel Campbell. My intention is to postpone on this measure today,because in further conversations with Planning Department,we just need to make sure we are going through this ordinance line by line so that we are not in conflict with any HRS or Federal law. There is new information that was brought to my attention in terms of how telecommunication towers and antennas have gone through the special permitting process. And it is my intention that this existing process be codified, so that Page 7 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 members of the public know exactly the parameters in which the industry must comply with. Okay, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you Chair. Ms. Campbell,the 206N Section you spoke to in the HRS, does it provide a definition of small wireless facilities? MS. CAMPBELL: It does. Scrolling down here, it is small wireless facilities; it's kind of a long definition. Would you like me to read it to you, or do you jsut trust that it's there? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, say again Ms. Campbell? MS. CAMPBELL: There's a rather lengthy definition of"Small Wireless Facilities" in the HRS. Would you like me to read it, or do you just simply trust that it's there? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I trust that it's there. I trust you to tell me that it's there. MS. CAMPBELL: I tell you that it's there. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So,perhaps then, given what I think the Council is trying to do, and what you are bringing to our attention, and the possible overlap there,that we should just refer back to State Codes as far as what we consider small wireless facilities and incorporate that into our own language. MS. CAMPBELL: Yes,I would recommend that we simply refer back to the definition that's in State law. Because what we wouldn't want to do is essentially copy and paste State definition into our Code, because then we would need to update our code anytime that the State law changes. So, you know, simply for drafting purposes and ease of Councils going forward, not having to,you know,pay attention and revise everytime the State law changes, it would be cleaner and simplier to simply refer to a carve-out saying, anything that is defined under State law,which pre-emps us anyway, is a simplier way to do it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And where again, are the sections that are contradictory to State Code in this Bill 24, Draft 3? MS. CAMPBELL: I think there're actually quite a number of them. Essentially; any of the obligations, any of the regulations applicable to cell towers in Bill 24 that exceed the rather limited authority that we have as a County to regulate small wireless facilities, all of those would be in conflict. Page 8 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, I guess I'm differentiating between the difference between the definition of small wireless and then our ability to regulate small wireless. Am I saying that correctly? MS. CAMPBELL: Yes, I think you are. So,the definition of small wireless for us lay folks is essentially; and I'm going to say this,totally wrong. It's a small antenna facility of some sort. And I know that I'm missusing the word, antenna. That's also a technical term in the cellular industry. But for our lay people's understanding,there are antennas that are smaller, and those are small wireless facilities They're generally things to get on utility poles, for lack of a better kind of picture in our mind of what they are,they're those small wireless facilities, and those things are, in fact, significantly different than the things that the hardware and the software, and everything else that goes into what we're intending to regulate as cell towers. Cell towers are obviously significantly bigger, and they actually have a lot of things on top of them, right? So,we're looking in Bill 24 to regulate both the construction of the tower itself and the stuff that gets stuck on that tower. So,things like the setbacks, and again this is a poor example, because you just took the setback away. But any number of those things that we are proposing in Bill 24 to regulate,you know, in your mind that picture of the big tall cell tower whether it's a big triangular tower; whether it's a monopine,whatever it is, we've put in Bill 24, a lot of regulation and requirements around where those towers can go. And if we apply those to utility poles, essentially,the small antenna things that can go on a utility pole,we've gone significantly further in regulating those than the State law allows us to do. The State law does allow us to have some,you know,prepublished standards for where those small wireless facilities can go under State law, but it's a pretty narrow alleyway that we get to regulate there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Where can I find the regulations guiding what the County's ability to legislate regarding small wireless facilities? MS. CAMPBELL: Everything that we are authorized to do is in Chapter 206N. And we have the ability to adopt reasonable design standards, and it didn't just go to design. Tracie, do you have the language in front of you; what we are allowed to do? Anyway, there are standards that we are allowed to adopt for the placement and operation of small wireless facilities. And we're allowed to adopt those;they need to be published ahead of time before they become applicable. Page 9 f ' PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 Obviously,they would need to be in line with Federal law because the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is really the governing body for regulating small wireless facilities. So, we're allowed to, again, adopt a small amount of standards. To my knowledge, I honestly do not know whether the County has ever adopted that. That wouldn't be something that's done by the Planning Department. Here's the language. We're allowed to have, "Pre-established nondiscriminatory feasible design in colocation standards." And I am not technically adept enough to tell you exactly what those are. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I guess just to sumarize then. Right now, Ms. Campbell feels that this bill has stepped outside of the allowable activities by the County under(HRS) 206N. MS. CAMPBELL: Yes, if you are intending to include small wireless facilities in Bill 24. If you specifically exclude small wireless facilities,then you don't have a conflict with 206N. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Got it. Okay, I yield, Chair. Thank you very much, Ms. Campbell. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else on this? Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: I'm just wondering how come we're only finding out about this now when there are now two bills on this topic. And this is a Planning Department initiated bill that has been in the works for months. MS. CAMPBELL: To my knowledge,the Planning Department's original bill didn't anticipate the regulation of small wireless facilities. MR. INABA: So, somebody amended Bill 24 to include small wireless, and that's where we ended up in the trouble we're in now? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: No, it's being proposed. MS. CAMPBELL: That's what's being proposed in, I believe, it's Communication 110.18. MR. INABA: I know, but your recommendation is that the bill as it currently stands needs to be reworded to exclude the "small wiress facilities,"right? Page 10 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MS. CAMPBELL: I think to clarity, it would be a better practice. Again, I don't think that there was an anticipation that the bill, as originally drafted by the Planning Department,was in fact,broad enough to include small wireless facilities. MR. INABA: Okay,well I think at this point, we've been postponing, and postponing, and postponing and still don't have it right. So, Planning Director if you can please be sure to work with Deputy Corporation Counsel and whichever Council Member is going to be engaging in this. But we need to either get it right or end this, because we keep going in circles. And I think we're wasting the public's time everytime they come to testify. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Director Darrow. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. If I could just kind of back up a little bit. This was, again, a very unique situation. I don't ever recall it happening similar in the past where we had two bills come before Council that were at the same time, regarding the same topic to try to regulate a particular area. Those bills received favorable recommendations from the Planning Commissions and came forward. At the time, it made more sense to take a bill and then rework that bill incorporating some of the areas within the other bill into this bill that made sense. And so,that's what we've been working on. Small cell facilities were actually in Bill 194. They were not included in Bill 24. Now it's being proposed to be put in Bill 24. So,that's where the issue of small cell facilities are coming up. But again, it is a difficult situation to try to come up with a combination bill that incorporates the best of both to come out with that. And we're working diligently on that and will continue to work diligently until we get that final product. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you. I just had a question for Director Darrow, Chair. In regards to the two bills,just for clarification, Bill 194 were there conversations with that Council Member and the Planning Department to come work through that process, at the same time,the Planning Department is bringing Bill 24 forward? MR. DARROW: Yes, we had worked in conjunction. Council Member Evans was working with a member of Corporation Counsel, as well as working with staff. We were trying to assist in answering questions,but there was a clear direction change in regards to which way Bill 194 was going versus Bill 24. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Director. Page 11 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Council Member Villegas, in light of the discussion that we're having,would you like to withdraw this motion or would you like us to move forward with the vote? MS. VILLEGAS: I actully want to move forward with the vote just because I would like for the public to know that attempts have been made here to pass legislation that would idealy take care of some of their concerns whether or not it's feasible or not. The statement that also—I suppose I'm dissapointed that regardless of how much effort is made on this,that we still end up—I get different stories from different sources. So, it leaves me wondering what the truth is. And when navigating something as important as this, it's important to know what's included and not included. So, for public record, we could vote this up or down, and then move forward with the postponement. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 3, as amended with the to Amend: contents of Comm. 110.18 was carried by the following (Failed) roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Member Villegas— 1. Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. There are other amendments that you have put forward. Council Member Villegas, would you like to take those up today? MS. VILLEGAS: I guess I would ask for Corp. Counsel's advice on this. Renee, if this was going to be postponed and potentially rewritten and whatnot, does it make sense to waste time and energy for me to try and pass these amendments? Because in prior conversations in our last meeting and through my conversations with Corp. Counsel Campbell, since then,these amendments with slight changes in terminology and verbiage that were discussed in our last meeting. So, I want to get these included if can, but if we're going back to the drawing board with the whole thing. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Renee Schoen came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SCHOEN: Good morning, Renee Schoen, Corporation Counsel. I really think it's up to this body as to how you want to proceed. It makes sense to me, if it's going to be postponed that all of the proposed amendments be, I guess, discussed with the Planning Department and our office prior to it coming before the body. Page 12 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MS. VILLEGAS: If they have been discussed with the Planning Department and Corp. Counsel prior, and these are reflective of those conversations I've already have had,then bringing them forward now for the disussion is advisable? MS. SCHOEN: No, I'm hearing that there might be other work that is being done to those that are in front of the body right now. So,while you may be discussing the amendments, they in light of the fact that there are other things to be considered, may make your amendments moot. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, if I hold off on them I can bring them back when we discuss whatever version Bill 24 ends up in once it's fixed. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: You know,just to be clear. And I'm not trying to— please let me know if we're violating any Sunshine law, Corporation Cousel. It was brought to my attention, in conversation with Planning Department about how one would go about erecting a new tower, and how a carrier would apply to colocating an antenna on an existing tower. And in review of the bill,these distinctions are not clear, and the processes for both are very different. And I want those processes to be abundantly clear to eveyone. So, would like to revise Bill 24 to reflect that. If you would like, I'm happy to work with Corporation Counsel to include what you have here today, Council Member. We can also just review as a body right now, these amendments that you've worked on. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Yeah, in light of all the confusion and my humble admission that I am not an attorney, nor am I a telecommunications expert,I'll go ahead and hold off. But I would appreciate for these amendments to be taken into consideration because it was said on public record during our last meetings that Planning thought that these were okay, and these are amendments that I have worked on. And community members who are experts in the telecommunications industry and what's currently going on with legislation and litigation around the country have advised for amendments. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And just noting that your amendments have to deal with notification clarity around notification of neighbors, and insuring that there is a complete submission of an application before the 60-day review commences. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, no longer shot clock. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay,thank you. Council Member Kimball. Page 13 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MS. KIMBALL: Yes. So,I think there's one that actually the 60-day clock, I think we kind of all agreed on that. And I think that one is probably okay to go in. But,yes, as I promised to do last time,but to add antenna versus tower and some inconsistencies through the bill about when we were talking about antennas and towers and just antennas or just towers,there may be some reorganization necessary. This particular one is okay,but maybe not the other one. So, I think we can go ahead with Comm. 110.65 at this time. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Are we on the amendment or just the bill as a whole? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: The bill as a whole. Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Just to the Director,that I was reading through this yesterday, and what caught my attention is we've shifted the language for antenna and tower from needing a use permit to being Director approved. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Plan approval, correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Plan approval, which is by the Director. No public scrutiny whatsoever. MR. DARROW: Correct. And again, this was based on State law, a change in 46-89 in the Hawai`i Revised Statues. And it says it puts a timeline and action. So it says within 60 days, an appliation needs to be approved; approved with modifications or denied. So, our process with the use permit could not be done realistically in 60 days, especially because it offers the opportunity for a contested case. And once a contested case is filed,timing is not really clear at that point. It could take months and months, sometimes years. By basing that, if you do not make that decision within 60 days, it's automatically approved. And so,that's why we had to make the shift. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then with that in mind,this bill will allow for all zonings to be permitted to have towers and antennas in them, correct? MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Was it that way before? Was that a requirement of State law? Page 14 i PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MR. DARROW: It was allowable with a use permit, right? So,you had to go through a use permit. It wasn't just permitting. There are certain districts where it's permitted but still plan approval, like commercial-industrial districts. But in certain districts,residential, open, and agriculture, it would reqiure a use permit, which goes before the Planning Commission and has a public hearing. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciated that component of the public scrutiny on a tower or antenna in an area that has density. And that we moved away from that in this bill,I think it's worrisome, but also I think it goes with the intention of Cindy (Evans); and maybe what is being asked by the public as far as what they wanted from this bill. Because we've taken away the public component now,because now it's just a Director approval or Planning Department approval,which is really your kuleana or your deputies'. And then,we've also opened up the rezonings for the implementation for this infrastruture and removed all public tie in to any of the process. That to me, and while I understand, I've sat in Planning Commission hearings regarding cellphone towers, and they were very contested in some cases. But given the public testimony that we've had, looking at the direction of this bill, I would really like the department to think on what the public is asking for; what we've just done with this bill, and this language that entitles and I guess just tie those two together, do they still create the same intention and guidelines for the public? I understand the State and Federal laws kind of move us towards making a decision quickly and take away some of our rights. But I am unwilling to give sometimes when told we have to do it; X, Y, Z. But there's always room for us in the County to make room for our residents. MR. DARROW: If I could respond to this. Thank you. So, in Council Member Villegas' amendments, it asks for the applicant to send out notification within 500 feet of the proposed towers through certified mailings. That would give notification as to where the other areas within the bill talk about attempts to do community meetings and those kinds of things. Again,what I was trying to say previously, is that there's no opportunity for a contested case as you did in a use permit. Notification will inform them that this is happening. The only ability to challenge it would be as if they did not do specifically what is required in the plan approval section. They could file an appeal through the Board of Appeals. What's unclear is once that 60-day clock is finished regardless if it's in an appeal or not, if it's automatically approved. Page 15 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MR. KANEALI I-KLEINFELDER: The previous cases that I've sat through and watched, by that time they are hitting the court, because we got sued by AT&T, it had to be dismissed because we were required automatic approval as well as dropped and then we went and the tower went in, and the community was angry. That was the end result. So,there's really a piece missing here. I think Cindy was trying to rectify to help the community feel heard, give them a chance to weigh in, and have it be of some value and not just an automatic approval process. Just not go around in circles and everyone gets mad at us for being required to do what the Federal and State bodies have enacted via legislation. MR. DARROW: So, again, what we're all trying to do here is come up with the best bill that captures everything we want to see to be submitted by these telecommunication companies as part of their submittal. So that the public,you know, is heard now through this process, and it's codified as part of this submittal for plan approval. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agee. So, I think what I'm saying right now is, if we do postpone this, great. If this comes back to us,those are my big issues with it is, we've taken away the public, and they're asking for our help and making sure these don't go up in their backyard. So,that's where we have to do a little bit better. Just to put it out there, the Federal Communications Act of 1996 is outdated by 30 years. So, if we're basing their build-outs and requirements based on that Act of 1996,that thing's outdated. That was even before some of the stuff we all carry in our pockets right now. So, our guiding light being a very outdated piece of legislation from the Federal Government,that's problematic in itself. So, I'm not laying this on the Planning Department, even the State. We just don't have anything new to work with. I yield, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Just for general conversation here and just to point out what Director Darrow said about the best bill moving forward. And I'd like to refer back to Communication 110.19 in terms of—to me the best bill is about the language and the language piece within the bill. And what was proposed in Comm. 110.65,you know, this other additional language may not be necessary. So, Council Member Villegas, I thank you for bringing these amendments forward,but your measure in Comm. 110.19 that was reviewd by LRB (Legislative Research Branch); so,we already had that kind of matching lines that Page 16 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 we see in ordinances. So, I kind of like to shift back to what's in there if you're bringing it back forward. That's my recommendation. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Corporation Counsel Schoen, I'm sorry,you left too soon. So, as we are, you know, moving through this process with the Planning Department,you know it's very clear that the current process,the Special Use Permit process was in conflict with HRS. And in the process of trying to create this plan approval process,you know, we've been hearing members of the community come out and express their frustration about public health impacts related to telecommunications. I think we're all feeling a little bit stuck because we hear our community, but it feels as if our hands are tied. Are we unable to regulate public health through this ordinance? MS. SCHOEN: You are. So,per Federal law,we're not able to regulate based on health and radioactive emissions. So,yeah,the Council is precluded from going there per Federal law. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay,thank you for sharing that for the record,because I know members of this body are really trying. But we're certainly in conflict on the Federal side. And I think that's why it's so important for these processes that we are reviewing,that they're crystal clear to the community. And after communication be provided to residents that may be impacted by these new towers; additional antennas. But to the point that Director Darrow mentioned earlier,with the notifications; wanting to make sure that we're managing expectations because there is a, you know,public perception that is,you get this letter; there is some kind of appeals process. And what I'm hearing is,there would no longer be that with this bill. MR. DARROW: If I could respond to that? Whenever the Director makes the decision on any internal type of approval process,there's always the opportuity to appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals. But they're looking at whether the Director err or did not err in the decision making. And if the applicant did exactly what is required by Plan approval,there's no area to err. It's just, did they submit this,yes,they submitted this. It's not a difficult discretion type decision. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. And I'm going back to,we're going to work together to make sure that every aspect of the application; everything that you are requiring is noted in the Code. So that everybody is aware of what needs to be provided to the department in order to make the decision. Any other questions or comments? Council Member Kagiwada. Page 17 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to mention the communication from the Police Chief regarding this bill. And because I don't know based on the information he provided, I don't understand what the specifics are. So, I just think if you're going ahead,you might want to have a deeper conversation with him to find out what his serious concerns are here. That's all. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. At the risk of not following exact procedures, I will just make the statement that I'm going to wait then, on bringing forth the other amendments at this time. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Anyone else? May I please have a motion to postpone Bill 24, Draft 3, as amended to our next Committee hearing, which I believe is Tuesday,May 6th. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 24, Draft 3, as amended to May 6, 2025. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Do you think that the issues can be resolved May 6th? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: It is my sincere hope. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I would just like to put in there that if there is some wisdom in adding another two weeks,that might be advisable, given the burden that's already on everybody. MR. ONISHI: Yeah, I would recommend that too, give us a month. Withdraw Motion: Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to postpone Bill 24, Draft 3, as amended to May 6, 2025. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 24, Draft 3, as amended to May 20, 2025. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor,please say, "aye." Any opposed? Page 18 PCPLUED-7 April 15,2025 The motion to postpone Bill 24, Draft 3 as amended to Vote on Motion p p to Postpone: May 20, 2025, 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: The measure is postponed to May 20th. That brings to the end of our agenda. We are adjourned at 12:11 p.m. Thank you. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 12:11 p.m. Approved: fi /2 Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development AK/dt Page 19