Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-09 Naomi Melamed Testimony #4 From:Naomi Melamed To:LPCtestimony Subject:LPC 9/19/24 Agenda Item #4 Testimony Date:Monday, September 9, 2024 8:17:01 PM Aloha Commissioners, Mahalo to you all for your great work for the Leeward side of this beautiful Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed, and I am a part of a grassroots coalition Safe Tech Hawaii. I work together with a group of Hawaii residents to educate and empower individuals, schools, businesses to take a responsible approach to technology. We support connectivity and have been advocating for increased privacy, health, and safety, with the fastest connectivity possible. We have been in communication with Hawaiian Telcom and other IT companies local to the Big Island as they embarked upon connecting Fiber Optics widely in the last few years. We fully support Fiber Optics and hope to promote more of its buildout as it is the fastest, safest and most secure connection. Other juristictions who have chosen Fiber Optics brag many economical and social advantages, not to mention the threat of injury through EMF exposure is greatly reduced. Fiber Optics could be a public utility, and is in other areas across the country. Moving in the direction of fast-tracking cell tower installation is a big business venture, which puts the power of connectivity at high cost to the consumer, greater risk for privacy invasion, and greater exposure of the public to harmful radiation, to name a few challenges... I support Council Member Cindy Evans' proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, which had already been forwarded to you. The new ordinance proposed by the Director is too sympathetic to the telecommunications industry with not enough protections for our community. It allows for towers and antennas in ALL zoning districts with NO permitting process and not enough requirements. It gives total power to Planning with no other agencies involved. 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. 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 Sent with Proton Mail secure email.