Cell towers on the Big Island could be installed without a Hawaii County permit under a proposed new policy.
The county Planning Department introduced to the Windward Planning Commission on Thursday a draft bill that would remove the requirement for telecommunication companies to apply for a use permit to build and operate cell towers in certain zoning districts.
Currently, cell towers require the county to issue a use permit to the telecom company, which entails a planning commission review process that can take up to 150 days and are subject to contested case hearings — a mechanism by which people or organizations impacted by a governmental decision can challenge it.
However, state laws require that all broadband-related permits be approved or denied within 60 days of the application’s submittal. Should no decision be made within 60 days, the permit is de facto approved.
Planner Tracie-Lee Camero said Thursday the bill is in part a response to an incident last year, when company Renegade Towers LLC proposed to build a 150-foot tower on a parcel in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. Neighboring residents, arguing that the tower would negatively impact their property values, petitioned for a contested case, and were in December 2023 granted standing by the Windward Planning Commission.
But, it turned out, that didn’t matter. The commission, discovering that it was in contradiction of state law, voided its December decisions, leading to the permit being approved by default when the 60-day deadline expired Dec. 21.
Camero said the county’s corporation counsel submitted a legal opinion later that month concluding that telecommunication tower permit applications cannot be subject to contested cases, lest the county violate state statutes.
Consequently, Camero said, to avoid future contradictions, the Planning Department hopes to transition the cell tower approval process from a public forum process to a plan approval process by the planning director.
The proposed bill itself therefore streamlines much of the permitting process and removes roadblocks for telecommunication development. For example, co-locating an antenna on a preexisting tower is permitted for a tower that the planning director issued plan approval for, so long as the co-location does not cause a “substantial change” as defined by the Federal Communication Commission — which, Camero said, entails a height increase of more than 10%, a width increase of more than 6 feet for towers within public rights-of-way, among other criteria.
Camero said the bill was drafted to take into consideration common complaints regarding cell tower development, such as visual impacts, proximity to residences and health concerns.
To address those complaints, the bill requires towers to be located at least 1,200 feet from residences or schools, and be set back from any property line by a distance greater than the tower’s height.
However, the bill also carves out an exception for “telecommunication facilities developed primarily to protect public health, safety and welfare.” Such facilities would be exempt from tower location requirements.
Other requirements for towers would include the ability to withstand sustained winds of up to 130 miles per hour, the responsibility for the permit applicant to remove the tower and related structures within 120 days of its shutdown, and the possibility of installing surveillance cameras on a tower for wildfire-detection purposes.
The bill also requires that applicants draft a statement providing the reasoning for the tower’s location and design, along with a list of efforts to meet with the surrounding community.
Strangely, despite state law mandating a 60-day approval deadline, the bill requires the planning director to make a decision within 30 days or else the application is approved by default.
The bill is at odds with another measure, Bill 194, which Kohala Councilwoman Cindy Evans introduced to the County Council in August. That measure introduces tighter requirements for telecommunication applicants, such as the inclusion of fire safety plans, electrical drawings of all equipment, decommissioning plans, geotechnical analyses, and more.
Bill 194 also includes some of the same siting requirements as the Planning Department’s bill, such as the minimum setbacks from property lines.
Evans spoke at Thursday’s commission hearing, explaining her bill was motivated by her constituents’ concerns about towers planned for development in Waikoloa and Kapaau last year, and was largely drafted independently from the Planning Department’s bill.
Evans’ bill also was markedly more popular among testifiers Thursday, many of whom accused the Planning Department of being too favorable toward telecommunications companies rather than county residents.
“There was no outreach from (Planning Director Zendo Kern) to our group, or any members of the community that we know of,” said Debra Greene, director of advocacy group Safe Tech Hawaii. “Yet, he made the effort to contact every telecommunications corporation that does business here.”
Greene said the Planning Department bill gives the director “almost exclusive control” over the approval process, and relies on telecommunication companies self-regulating themselves into compliance.
“There needs to be outside involvement, there needs to be checks and balances, because unfortunately, telecom does not have a good reputation for self-policing,” Greene said.
Another Safe Tech Hawaii representative, Naomi Melamed, said the inclusion of surveillance cameras on towers presents security and privacy concerns for residents, and notes that, although the cameras are touted as wildfire prevention measures, the bill does not require towers to have an emergency power shutoff mechanism to prevent damaged infrastructure from starting fires.
Dozens of letters were submitted to the commission, all in opposition to the Planning Department’s proposal, and many of which instead endorsed Bill 194.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Songvilay, a director of legislative affairs for AT&T, wrote that the requirements included in the measure being considered by the Windward Planning Commission are still overly restrictive.
“For example, the proposed setbacks and minimum lot size requirements reduce the number of potential sites that applicants may consider and materially inhibit the applicants’ ability to build in a location that would result in the desired benefits to customers,” Songvilay wrote. “A consequence … is likely to be that a new wireless site is not built at all.”
Ultimately, the commission moved to defer discussion of the Planning Department’s measure until its Oct. 3 meeting. At that meeting, the commission can vote to forward the bill to the County Council with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation.
Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
