|
know, that corporations can do this, no problem, or, you know, and residents and small
<br /> businesses can't, we will see.
<br /> The current tower serves the community well, whereas this new facility is well beyond a cell
<br /> tower replacement. It is a massive steel lattice structure that would take up over 2,000 square
<br /> feet of agricultural land, soaring 260 feet into the slcy, and it's designed to house multiple cell
<br /> antennas and microwave dishes. Once this thing is built, they can add to it with more and more
<br /> antennas, and more and more microwave dishes, and you have no control over that. They don't
<br /> need permits to add to it, they can add to it till their heart's content. The visual blight caused by
<br /> this huge structure would devastate the region. They can say that it's currently not 5G, but it will
<br /> be changed to 5G with a simple software update. That is a fact. So, you know,please be aware
<br /> of that because the, you know—people have spoken, we don't want more wireless infrastructure.
<br /> Resolution 278-20 passed almost unanimously by the Hawaii County Council. Please honor the
<br /> will of the people and our elected officials. This huge massive lattice structure is unnecessary
<br /> and unneeded. Kona enjoys adequate cell service, so the construction of this is unwarranted.
<br /> Please review records of dropped calls in the area. These records can be produced with a click of
<br /> a mouse. The chances are you'll find that there is adequate phone coverage, which is all that is
<br /> required by the FCC. There is no requirement for data coverage. There is no requirement for
<br /> any cell carrier to have to provide for people to stream movies on their smart phones,play games
<br /> on their smart phones, scroll Facebook on their smart phones, which is what this new structure,
<br /> this new facility, not a tower, this new facility is all about. There's plenty of coverage and no
<br /> need to build this behemoth. It is not a replacement. This is a completely different animal. So,
<br /> it's being proposed by a site developer. They're notorious for installing unneeded and
<br /> unnecessary cell facilities because they build them fast and cheap, and they make money for the
<br /> life of the facility by collecting rent from their tenants, the carriers. So please ask for proof of
<br /> dropped calls and coverage gaps. That's all, that's the only way that you will be required to
<br /> approve this, if there are dropped calls and coverage gaps. And we believe those do not exist.
<br /> And that means this facility is unnecessary. Replace it with a tower that is the same as the one
<br /> that needs to be removed. Replace it with the same one.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you, Debra. Thank you. Okay, does anyone have any questions for
<br /> Debra? Commissioners? (Pause) No? Okay. I believe, Debra, you're going to provide
<br /> testimonysorry, my timer is going off—testimony on behalf of Naomi Melamed?
<br /> GREENE: Yes.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Okay, go ahead.
<br /> GREENE: So, Naomi says, "Aloha, and my apologies as I had not anticipated the length of the
<br /> first item on the agenda and did not make childcare arrangements. I would like to discuss a
<br /> couple of points in relation - - - I have seen through antennasearch.com, that there are other
<br /> tower options for service in the area, which are used by the same providers. If needed, it makes
<br /> sense for another tower to be constructed, but taking up 2,000 square feet of agricultural land and
<br /> constructing a lattice tower and large facility, which will allow major increase of antenna
<br /> densification lower to the ground, thus closer to life on the ground nearby, as this structure is not
<br /> as tall as the one they want to take down, that seems excessive for the area. The FCC is currently
<br /> 8
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />
|