2024-09-09 Naomi Melamed Testimony #4

Home

More specific information that I have to share with the committee: I find some major concerns. This ordinance overall seems to want to expedite the build out of wireless infrastructure for the benefit of telcom. 1. Section 25-2-61 I strongly disagree with expediting the process of permitting a telecommunications tower as stated below. This will cause a lack of public trust and could create a faulty system in the future. Relating to Applicability; Use Permit required. Section 25-2-61 This amendment is necessary to expedite the development of telecommunication infrastructure by removing the requirement for use permits and comply with the 60-day action requirement on telecommunication permits found in HRS §46-89. 2. This emphasis on health and safety is avoiding the elephant in the room, which is the real and justified concerns that testifiers are bringing forward. I understand that there is a constraint with the 1996 telecommunications act in its interpretation regarding "health and the environment", which is why these themes are not mentioned in the ordinance. However, nonetheless, there are concerns with health and safety and we must work together to create the most robust ordinance to protect those elements for our island and residents in the ways we are able. Section 25-4-12(b) pg 10~ 3. I agree with the reservation which was noted in the Windward Planning Committee that the following is vague and lacks transparency. What will these entities process be, what will the towers be used for specifically, etc. Relating to Standards for Telecommunication antennas and towers. Section 25-4-12(b) is proposed to be added as follows: (b) Telecommunication facilities developed primarily to protect public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to facilities for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency dispatch services, shall be exempt from the telecommunication tower requirements outlined in this chapter. Reasons for the Amendment: The proposed amendment to Section 25-4-12(b) aims to exempt telecommunication facilities that are developed primarily to protect public health, safety, and welfare from the standard telecommunication tower requirements. Facilities supporting police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency dispatch services are essential for the safety and well-being of the community. Exempting these facilities from certain requirements ensures that they can be established and maintained without unnecessary delays, ensuring uninterrupted emergency services. (2) Telecommunication towers must be sited at least 1,200 feet from nearby residences and schools not on the subject property. (this is an important part of the ordinance, please do not cave to the suggestion of Verizon representative to reduce this.) 3. Section 25-4-12(h) pg 15- Will this monitoring be at the expense of tax-payers? What will be the process involved? What protections will be implemented to ensure privacy of individuals? In the case of these cameras being installed next to residences? Relating to Standards for Telecommunication antennas and towers. Section 25-4-12(h) is proposed to be added as follows: (h) To enhance wildfire detection and response capabilities, telecommunication towers located in areas identified as high-risk for wildfire activity may be required to provide space for a surveillance camera system designed to monitor and detect wildfire activity as a condition of Final Plan Approval. High-risk wildfire activity areas shall be determined by the director in consultation with any relevant federal, state, and county emergency service agencies. Please consider Council Member Evans proposed ordinance which has clear, attainable permit requirements. It is the perfect balance between the health, safety and welfare needs of the people and the needs of the tech industry. Mahalo for your time and consideration, Naomi Melamed