The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-09-15 Debra Greene Testimony #4 -Oppose From:Debra Greene To:LPCtestimony Subject:Oppose Item #4 Date:Sunday, September 15, 2024 12:43:08 PM Aloha Leeward Planning Commissioners, I’m writing on behalf of Safe Tech Hawaii, a grassroots coalition of residents concerned about the proliferation of wireless technology. Although we welcome an ordinance that offers some protections for the community, we find it very confusing that there are now two ordinances on cell towers and antennas - this new one introduced by the Director and one introduced by Council Member Evans on August 20 that had previously been forwarded to Planning. We support Council Member Evans Bill 194. We find the Director’s proposed ordinance to be overly sympathetic to the Telecommunications industry. Among other things, it allows cell towers and antennas in all zoning districts, with no order of priority, and insufficient requirements for plan approval. We believe this is not a viable solution to bringing the County into compliance with state law. We support Bill 194 submitted by CM Evans because we find it more protective of the public health, safety and welfare. It clearly delineates a permitting process and protects vulnerable communities such as schools, daycare centers and hospitals from intrusive tower and antenna deployments in sensitive areas that are often targeted by Telecom companies. Shockingly, the Director's ordinance seeks to rush plan approval through in a mere 30 days! Even though state law allows for a 60 day process. Further, it doesn’t include small cell infrastructure that the community feels so strongly against that the County Council adopted a protective Resolution to reflect those concerns. Why was the will of the people disregarded? Along those lines, we have been working with CM Cindy Evans on her proposed ordinance for over a year. She sought feedback from us on important points and involved our grassroots coalition at significant steps along the way. She also had reached out to Planning for feedback, so the Director knew she had an ordinance in the pipeline. In contrast, there was no outreach from the Director to our group, or any other members of the community that we know of. Yet he made the effort to contact every telecommunications corporation that does business here. But no community outreach on an issue that has vast impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the people. The Director’s proposed ordinance gives the Director almost exclusive control over Telecom infrastructure with very little involvement from other agencies or experts. And there’s too much reliance solely on the Telecom corporations for compliance. There needs to be outside involvement. There needs to be checks and balances because, unfortunately, Telecom doesn’t have a good reputation for self-policing. Speaking of policing, we disagree with the proposed installation of surveillance cameras on towers, especially at the County’s expense or those proposed to be outsourced to private companies. This is a major threat to our privacy. With data being the current cash cow, that data could be collected, marketed and sold to the highest bidder - a gross privacy invasion. In addition, we do not agree that police, fire, ambulance and other such services should be automatically exempt from any and all requirements. Telecom companies have found a way to exploit this provision in other jurisdictions to allow for unlimited deployments of their own wireless infrastructure. More oversight is necessary. Further, we notice there is no insurance provision in the Director’s proposed ordinance. Because radio frequency (RF) radiation is recognized as a pollutant by insurance companies, it’s imperative that liability insurance be required, and that the required liability insurance contain no pollution exclusion. Most General Liability Insurance policies have a ‘pollution exclusion’ under which EMF/RF are listed as pollutants. Adequate insurance must be obtained from a licensed third party insurance company, not a self-insured indemnity substituted by the Telecom or any company listed in the permit application or license agreement. Pollution Insurance for a municipality is part of any proper General Liability Insurance. It is a basic right of any municipality to protect itself from lawsuits from citizens who claim harm from RF towers. Such lawsuits could literally bankrupt the County. The future of telecommunications is in fiber optics, not wireless. Fiber is faster, safer, stronger, less hackable, more secure and more resilient than wireless. This is why companies are investing in fiber optics and why insurance giants, such as Lloyds of London and Swiss Re, refuse insure telecommunications companies' wireless infrastructure. The liability is just too great, even for them! Finally, a concern about this process. We submitted testimony on August 12 because the Director’s ordinance was listed as an agenda item (#6), yet no ordinance was provided at that time. Then we noticed that the Director’s agenda item for this September meeting had no description given in the online packet. How was the public to know what was being proposed? That description was then changed on September 15 and now reads: “PD BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT” (emphasis theirs) but fails to mention that it is in regard to a Telecommunications ordinance. Why was the description changed from the description listed in the Windward Commission packet which clearly stated that the subject was telecom? It’s the same agenda item. Why is the subject now being obfuscated? In addition, we find it challenging that the deadline for testimony for the Windward Commission was on Monday of a long holiday weekend. Members of the community feel strongly about this issue but we have lives. Government doesn’t work on holidays, yet we were expected to discover agendas and meet testimony deadlines on holidays. Is this fair? To further complicate matters, the online agenda said it was posted on August 8, but it was actually posted on Friday, August 30, of a long holiday weekend. These factors make it very challenging for the community to participate in a process on an issue that we care deeply about. Thank you for your consideration of these important points. We hope you can understand why we support Council Member Evans proposed ordinance that strikes a perfect balance between the health, safety and welfare of the people and their need for telecommunications services. Sincerely, Debra __________________________________ Debra Greene, PhD Founding Director Safe Tech Hawaii PHONE: 808-874-6441 WEBSITE: www.SafeTechHawaii.com Sent from my faster, safer, more secure HARDWIRED computer