Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-29 Naomi Melamed Testimony Bill 194 From:Naomi Melamed To:WPCtestimony Subject:Support #8 @ 11/1/24 WPC Meeting Date:Tuesday, October 29, 2024 12:51:22 PM Attachments:Comparison between Bill 194 and Planning Bill .docx 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 “EMF”, 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: The right for a contested case and need for a special use permit vs. “streamlined” process. 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 ethically is outlined in Bill 194. People must be informed, especially those living nearby (reference cancer study within 500 ft. of a cell tower), awareness of such a construction beforehand, and there must be a venue for their voices to be heard. A use permit and contested case hearing are important elements to preserve. 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 originally 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. 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. I have looked further into a side-by-side analysis of the two bills and will attach the information to this email, which I found to be very helpful. I believe that you will also be receiving this document from CM Evan’s office. Mahalo for your time and consideration, Naomi Melamed Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader Comparison of Bill 194 and Planning’s Bill for Cell Tower Plan Approvals Bill 194 Planning’s Bill Section 25-2-74(1) requires a plot plan showing Section 25-2-74(1) requires a plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or tower location on the building site of the proposed and all buildings and uses within three hundred antenna or tower. feet thereof. Section 25-2-74(2) requires an elevation Has no such provision. drawing of the building site showing height comparisons of all existing structures on building site Section 25-2-74(3) requires building plans for Section 25-2-74(2) requires building plans for the engineer, stating the maximum load of the towermiles per hour. per hour, or the applicable standard set forth in the current building code, whichever is greater. Section 25-2-74(5) Removes a provision Section 25-2-74(3) Keeps the original provision requiring a statement from the Federal requiring a statement from the Federal Communications Commission that the Communications Commission that the application complies with the regulations and application complies with the regulations and that replaces that with requiring a report prepared Hawai‘i as a professional electrical engineer all applicable standards and regulations, emissions, of the Federal Communications Commission and the State of Hawai‘i Section 25-2-74(6) requires electrical drawings Has no such provision. equipment, prepared, designed and stamped the State of Hawai‘i as a professional electrical engineer. Bill 194Planning’s Bill Section 25-2-74(7) Has no such provision. that meets the requirements of the Hawaii Fire Department and includes a description of the vegetation to be used for screening, an access easement to the building site in favor of the Hawai purposes, and an executed agreement between applicant and the Hawaii Fire Dept to allow for the installation, maintenance, and remote access of monitoring equipment on the building site. Section 25-2-74(8) requires a statement from Has no such provision. the State department of health regarding compliance with applicable standards for noise levels. Section 25-2-74(9) requires a statement from Has no such provision. the applicant that the proposed use will not . Section 25-2-74(9) requires documentation of Section 25-2-74(6) requires a report -locate the proposed use in accordance with the order section 25-4-12(g): “No exposure levels that exceed the current standards of the Federal Communications emissions applicable to the proposed use.”