Laserfiche WebLink
From: Naomi Melamed <br /> To: LPCtestimonv <br /> Subject: Bill 194 support testimony <br /> Date: Monday, November 18,2024 4:32:50 PM <br /> Aloha Commissioners, <br /> ahalo for your time and your work here reviewing an updated solution for <br /> fireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed and I am <br /> an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii, a voluntary group serving <br /> statewide for several years. We educate and support our local communities and we <br /> engage with the legislative process to promote the balance of connectivity and <br /> safety in Hawaii. We are composed of thousands of local members that care deeply <br /> for the protection of clean air space in Hawaii. <br /> would like to request that the planning department favorably recommend Bill 194 <br /> o the council, and allow for the council members to work out the differences <br /> between the two bills through their process. We have seen that both the PD's <br /> proposed ordinance and Bill 194 have some language to be worked out. It is unfair, <br /> despite some kinks in both bills, to favorably recommend one over the other. <br /> Especially as their was an attempt early on in the process by the council member <br /> introducing Bill 194 to collaborate -which was not honored. I appreciate that both <br /> ills will be heard alongside one another and careful consideration will be made <br /> with regards to both of them. <br /> am not an authority on county code, but I include here links to dozens of other <br /> jurisdictions that we follow. Many of them have more strictly protective ordinances <br /> instated in their areas around the US, and similar state laws, which have stood up <br /> in court. Bill 194 is in compliance with use 47 section 332, C-7-b-4 as it is not <br /> excessive in its request for information from applicants, such as regarding the levels <br /> of EMF that they emit. Bill 194 encourages more transparency with citizens and <br /> gives valuable information, taking those who may be disabled from EMF exposer <br /> into account. I appreciate that the RF emission has a mechanism for update with <br /> each co-location. Our group has conducted a state-wide monitor of EMF emission <br /> from towers and we have found some extremely high levels, which is a genuine <br /> concern for our population, regardless of zone. <br /> s some other testifiers have noted, there was a court ruling on the federal level in <br /> 2020 stating that the FCC's failure to update their acceptable levels for EMF <br /> exposure to humans and the environment was "arbitrary and capricious" and they <br /> IGNORED (judges words) the evidence (11,000 pages of it in court!) from multiple <br /> reputable sources in their most recent review. The FCC is under close watch at this <br /> time. Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC. It is simply <br /> asking to know what the emissions are and have a process outlined for how to go <br />