HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-18 Naomi Melemed From: Naomi Melamed
To: LPCtestimonv
Subject: Bill 194 support testimony
Date: Monday, November 18,2024 4:32:50 PM
Aloha Commissioners,
ahalo for your time and your work here reviewing an updated solution for
fireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed and I am
an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii, a voluntary group serving
statewide for several years. We educate and support our local communities and we
engage with the legislative process to promote the balance of connectivity and
safety in Hawaii. We are composed of thousands of local members that care deeply
for the protection of clean air space in Hawaii.
would like to request that the planning department favorably recommend Bill 194
o the council, and allow for the council members to work out the differences
between the two bills through their process. We have seen that both the PD's
proposed ordinance and Bill 194 have some language to be worked out. It is unfair,
despite some kinks in both bills, to favorably recommend one over the other.
Especially as their was an attempt early on in the process by the council member
introducing Bill 194 to collaborate -which was not honored. I appreciate that both
ills will be heard alongside one another and careful consideration will be made
with regards to both of them.
am not an authority on county code, but I include here links to dozens of other
jurisdictions that we follow. Many of them have more strictly protective ordinances
instated in their areas around the US, and similar state laws, which have stood up
in court. Bill 194 is in compliance with use 47 section 332, C-7-b-4 as it is not
excessive in its request for information from applicants, such as regarding the levels
of EMF that they emit. Bill 194 encourages more transparency with citizens and
gives valuable information, taking those who may be disabled from EMF exposer
into account. I appreciate that the RF emission has a mechanism for update with
each co-location. Our group has conducted a state-wide monitor of EMF emission
from towers and we have found some extremely high levels, which is a genuine
concern for our population, regardless of zone.
s some other testifiers have noted, there was a court ruling on the federal level in
2020 stating that the FCC's failure to update their acceptable levels for EMF
exposure to humans and the environment was "arbitrary and capricious" and they
IGNORED (judges words) the evidence (11,000 pages of it in court!) from multiple
reputable sources in their most recent review. The FCC is under close watch at this
time. Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC. It is simply
asking to know what the emissions are and have a process outlined for how to go
about measuring.
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
he planning dept. was approached for collaboration, but chose to take another
path. Our group was pleased to offer our expertise where appropriate, particularly
as we document other jurisdictions who have enacted protective ordinances related
o wireless infrastructure.
Bill 194 is robust legislation as it accordingly reflects the will of the residents of this
island over the desires of big business from abroad. Simultaneously, it lays out a
process which allows for connectivity for all. I appreciate that two bills related to
he same topic coming through the Commission can be confusing, but I encourage
he Commission to favorably recommend Bill 194 and allow the elected council
members to make sense of both bills upon equal ground.
Technology is changing rapidly and one thing I appreciate from Bill 194 is it
includes the regulation of small cells, which are a new and untested part of 5G.
Small cells pose greatly increased exposure due to their buildout and must be
considered in any modern-day legislation. In contrast, they are not mentioned in
he Planning Director's proposed bill. This is a very important point which was not
outlined in the Nov. 1st Commission meeting as a difference between the PD
proposed ordinance and Bill 194.
The Big Island is in great need for Bill 194 to protect the beauty, safety, well-being,
and property values of all who live on or frequent our island. Council member
Evans bill goes into great detail about a fire plan, and site approval requirements,
which puts me as a resident at ease. In contrast I have noticed that in the Directors
ill, there are question marks about who will operate security cameras, also a lack
of easements for access by the fire department, and lack of a comprehensive fire
plan, despite there being other provisions.
do not see it as a competition, as I support collaboration and consideration. But I
must admit that after following both Bill 194 and the Directors bill, the timing of
he two has been interesting, and I hope for cohesion moving forward.
Thank you very much for reading my testimony.
ahalo for your time and consideration,
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader
Sent from Proton Mail