2024-09-03 Debra Green Testimony -Oppose

Home

From:Debra Greene To:WPCtestimony Cc:Debra Greene, PhD Subject:Debra Green Oppose Item #8 Date:Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:05:26 AM Aloha Windward 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 public, we support Council Member Evans Bill 194. We find it very confusing that there are now two ordinances on cell towers and antennas - this new one and one introduced by Council Member Evans on August 20 that had previously been forwarded to the Commission (see Exhibit B in item #8 packet). 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 vulnerable communities that are often targeted by Telecom companies. We find the Director’s proposed ordinance to be overly sympathetic to the Telecommunications industry because it allows cell towers and antennas in all zoning districts, with no permitting process whatsoever, and insufficient requirements for plan approval. The Director’s proposed ordinance places near total control with Planning and Telecom companies and does not include involvement with enough outside agencies. We believe this is not a viable solution to bringing the County into compliance with state law. There is much more to say about this but not enough time because of the holiday weekend and deadline. In addition, we do not agree that police, fire, ambulance and other such services should be automatically exempt from any requirements. Telecom companies have found a way to exploit this provision in other jurisdictions to allow for unlimited deployments of their own infrastructure. More scrutiny 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. The correct 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. Finally, a concern about this process. We find it challenging that the deadline for testimony 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 are expected to discover agendas and meet testimony deadlines on holidays. Is this fair? To further complicate