HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0110.164 2024-2026CROWN Crown Castle
C CASTLE Kai 96 HamaDrive, #703
CKailua, HI 96734
June 3, 2025
`
�
to
c�
o.c-,
Hawai'i County Council
C-
Hawai'i County
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Via Electronic Submittal at counciltestimony@Hawai'icounty.gov
bo
Re: Bill 24: Amendment to Chapter 25, Articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Hawaii; County Code
Aloha Hawai'i County Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on Bill 24 (Draft 5) on behalf of Crown
Castle, a wireless communications infrastructure provider that operates and maintains a
communications network in Hawai'i County. We appreciate the work that the County has taken on this
legislation over the past year, however we remain concerned that when taken as a whole, these
regulations will make siting new wireless facilities prohibitively difficult to build near the communities
that need it most. As you know, telecommunications infrastructure, including wireless infrastructure, is
integral to daily life, business operations and governmental purposes. Wireless connectivity is an
essential service, and we need to ensure that the regulations adopted do not inadvertently create a
effective prohibition, which is explicitly prohibited under federal law.
Specifically, we urge your reconsideration of the following:
1. Setbacks from residences and schools - P. 6, Sect. 25-4-12. Draft 5 of Bill 24 includes a 600'
setback from property lines in certain districts that are adjacent to residences and schools. No
justification for this requirement has been provided. This is significantly more stringent than
current requirements (i foot for every 5' of tower height) and is not common amongst other
local jurisdictions. If this requirement is being imposed based on perceived health effects,
please be advised that this strictly prohibited by federal law. Instead, we support the proposed
120% setback from all property lines, regardless of the land use. We also recommend a waiver
option for the Director, if no other locations are available for the purpose of avoiding a
"prohibition of service" claim.
2. Minimum lot sizes - Draft 5, P. 6, Sect. 25-4-12 (c). Minimum lot sizes are required without any
justification. If the purpose of these requirements is to provide visual screening, this doesn't
necessarily accomplish that objective. Instead, we recommend adoption of objective design
standards that takes into consideration some of the many issues that arise during the siting
process.
Comm. Ro. a o' 14
The Foundation for a Wireless World. Ref. To: P I Hallui
CrownCastle.com Ref. Date JUN - 4 2025
3. Notice requirements — Draft 5, Pg. 4, Sect. 25-2-74(9)• This new provision requires notice of a
new tower to owners and lessees of properties within five hundred feet of a property line
adjacent to a property where a new tower will be installed. While we can certainly send
notifications to adjacent property owners, it is unreasonable to require notification to lessees of
those properties, whose identities may not be available via public records. Typically, notification
of this sort is provided to adjacent property owners and if they lease their property to tenants,
then it is incumbent on them to provide such notice. In addition, the requirement to provide a
construction timeline would not be reliable at this point in the process. Oftentimes these
projects take significantly longer than originally anticipated, based on a variety of factors. We
recommend deletion of this requirement, so we are not setting unrealistic expectations.
We appreciate your attention to these important matters, and we welcome continued discussion to find
solutions that work for all parties. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to
me at (425) 236-5677. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Kathy Putt
External Affairs — PNW
Crown Castle Fiber
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com