2024-10-31 Naomi Melamed Updated Testimony

Home

From: Naomi Melamed To: WPCtestimonv Subject: Re:Support#8 @ 11/1/24 WPC Meeting Date: Thursday,October 31,2024 12:26:50 PM Aloha, This is an update to my previous testimony. I had confused some of the language of "Special Use Permit" and "Plan Approval" used in the discussion of the agenda item#8. Mahalo, Naomi Melamed My corrected testimony: Aloha Committee Members, Mahalo for your dedication on this committee and your thorough investigation into a Pono solution for wireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed and I am an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii.A 100%volunteer group,serving statewide for several years.We educate,support,empower,and engage with the legislative process to ensure the balance of connectivity and safety is met for Hawaii.None of our work involves monetary compensation or personal promotion.We are composed of thousands of members across the state that care deeply for the protection of the clean air space of Hawaii. You may know that the frequencies emitted from cellular infrastructure are called"electromagnetic"or"EME",which is categorized as an air pollutant by all major insurance companies by legal framework. This point is crucial in understanding a vital difference between bill 194 and the directors ordinance:A rigorously considered plan approval that supports the needs of local residents vs. a"streamlined"process for plan approval that sides too strongly with big,outsourced,business ventures. If we are considering an air pollutant,we must realize that involuntary exposure will be commonplace nearly everywhere with the proliferation of this technology.The least we can do to prevent undue exposure and still ensure connectivity is outlined in Bill 194.People must be informed,especially those living nearby(reference cancer study within 500 ft.of a cell tower:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/SO013935122011781),awareness of such a construction beforehand,and there must be a venue for their voices to be heard within the framework of a plan approval.This plan approval must reflect the will of the Hawaii Island residents above those of Big Tech and outside developers. I appreciate that your branch of the planning department requested to view council member Cindy Evan's Bill 194,which had already been introduced on the county council level,when the planning director introduced his version of an ordinance relating to the same topic to Windward Planning. As I testified at that time,I hold that Bill 194 is a superior legislation as it accordingly reflects the will of the residents of this island over the desires of telecommunications and development industries. The Big Island is in great need to a bill of this sort to protect the beauty,safety,well-being,and property values of all who live on or frequent our islands.Council member Cindy Evans recognized this need and her bill should be commended for its response to a need that has been legally required for the county for over a decade,in relation to HRS 46-89. Bill 194 was in the works for about a year.It has been crafted with careful consideration taken from a wide-range of community members and groups.Even the planning director was approached for collaboration,but chose to take another path.Our group was pleased to offer our expertise where appropriate. Mahalo for your time and consideration, Naomi Melamed Safe Tech Hawaii,Hawaii Island Leader Sent with Proton Mail secure email.