Two competing bills changing Hawaii County’s permitting process for cell towers are set for a showdown in December.

In August, Kohala Council member Cindy Evans introduced at a Council committee meeting Bill 194, a measure that would require telecommunications companies to submit more documentation in order to receive county permits for building facilities on the island.

One month later the county Planning Department introduced to the Windward Planning Commission a draft measure — which does not have a bill number — that would loosen regulations for telecom companies, allowing them to erect cell towers without a permit in certain zoning districts.

The former measure also came before the commission on Nov. 1, when County Planner Tracie-Lee Camero laid out the similarities and differences in intent and execution between the two bills.

While both bills diverge significantly, they both ultimately would exempt telecommunications companies from needing permit approval by the county planning commissions.

Bill 194 does place more requirements upon telecom companies, but as long as the company meets the new requirements set by the measure and the county planning director issues plan approval for the project, it permits cell towers in any zoning district.

Both bills also require that any new cell tower be built at least 120% of the tower’s height away from any property line and at least 1,000 feet from any residence or school. They also require that the telecom company submit a plan for the eventual shutdown and abandonment of the tower.

Where Bill 194 differs most from the other bill is in the list of documents a company must submit in order to get plan approval. It includes a litany of 16 reports, including elevation and electrical drawings, fire safety requirements, a statement on the facility’s potential interference with county broadcasting, a soil condition analysis, a maintenance plan, a report on radio frequency exposure levels, and more. Camero told the commission that the Planning Department favors its own bill over Evans’, concluding that Bill 194 is inflexible and, in some places, redundant to existing requirements, while requiring more work by the Planning Department.