Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-12-04 ACK LTR TO COLLEEN CONIFER (PL-CCH-2023-000018, PL-USE-2023-000020) Mitchell D.Roth ni {q Zendo Kem Mayor ��^ �I�L,� Director Lee E.Lord Jeffrey W.Darrow Managing Director ! ;;'� Deputy Director +f e,:•r tTE of•Nis West Hawaii Office East Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy • • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaii Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 December 04, 2023 Colleen Conifer 92-8657 Paradise Parkway Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, HI 96737 VIA EMAIL Dear Ms. Conifer: Use Permit Application No. PL-USE-2023-000020 Applicant: Renegade Towers LLC Subject: Acknowledgment of Petition for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing (PL-CCH-2023-000018) Tax Man Key: (3) 9-2-101:071 (nor.); Ocean View, Ka`u, Hawaii This is to acknowledge receipt on November 30, 2023, of the Petition for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing that you filed with the Planning Department. The petition will be forwarded to the Windward Planning Commission for their consideration. The hearing on this matter, among others, will be held beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2023, at the Hawaii County Council Chambers, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii. Your presence, or the presence of your representative will be required in person at the hearing to respond to questions that the Windward Planning Commission may have regarding the petition for standing. Please refer to Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 4 (Contested Case Hearing Procedure) for information about the contested case process. The rules can be found on the Planning Department website at: https://www.planning.hawaiicountygov/about-us/boards- committees/planning-commission-applications www.planning.hawaiicounty.eov Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning tihawaiicounty.eov Colleen Conifer December 04, 2023 Page 2 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Maija Jackson at(808) 961-8159. Sincerely, Mft'j'a ack, on Lo% Maija Jackson for(Dec 4,2023 14:31 HST) ZENDO KERN Planning Director JMA.j as \\coh0l\planning\public\wpwin60\Jessica\Letters\Conifer-PL-USE-2023-000020-AckReceiptForContestedCasePetition.doe cc w/copy of petition: Windward Planning Commission via e-mail Suzanna Tiapula, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel via e-mail Jean Campbell, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel via e-mail Zendo Kern, Planning Director via e-mail Danette Martin, MP Property Services, for Renegade Towers LLC via e- mail Donna Durgin via e-mail PETITION FOR STANDING IN A CONTESTED CASE HEARING (Page 1 of 2) NAME: l.�a 11 P h t t ADDRESS: 9 A - — i e- f S PHONE NO.: ; r'i g APPLICANT/ DOCKET NO.: A. Is your interest in this matter clearly distinguishable from that of the general public? Yes _ No If the answer is "yes", please explain: _ nd 2� ,5 tia k res er eloo,5 Q r Q6,SC bt—h Y' f2Ni PPd 1' 44t "no",If the answer is please explain how the proposed action will nevertheless cause you actual or threatened injury: B. Are you a governinent agency whose jurisdiction includes the land involved in the subject request? Yes No If the answer is "yes", please explain the nature of the agency's jurisdiction: . C. Do you lawfully reside on or have some property interest in tue land involved in the subject request? Yes No If the answer is "yes", please explain: Appendix A PETITION FOR STANDING IN A CONTESTED CASE HEARING (Page 2 of 2) D. Are you a person or persons descended from native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, who practiced those rights which were customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, or religious purposes? Yes No I If the answer is "yes", please submit any genealogical evidence and historical evidence showing the exercise of those rights to support your statement: Petitioner's SignaturiF STATE OF HAWAII ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII ) On this day of NOJZ�M''1 iZ , 2Qa- before me personally appeared CoL-Lj�NC_� R ,to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC = 4tary blic, fate of HavAii Comm.No. s`. 04-325 M commission expires: 0 ��'�qTE OF HA;'` ` ``��ttitt�iiy y P INCy'i Date: V Qf]�(� Circuit Nctary Name: ���k2e, Q / NOTARY _ Comm Ex:)Date© O-u t ) 4 _ PUBLIC _ 4c'a^,Scrai. Comm.No. Appendix A OF NP�Q``: �l�i� lll�1�1 Petition for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing Permit PL-USE-2023-0000020 Myself, Colleen Conifer, and our Paradise Ohana reside within less than 400 meters from the proposed cell phone tower. Close proximity to the proposed tower is what brings us to this meeting of the County Planning Commission and distinguishes our interests from that of the general public. We were notified by letter of the proposed tower in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Hawaii County Planning Dept. recognizing our standing as concerned residents of the Hawaiian Ocean View community. HOV, Hawaiian Ocean View community, is a major consideration in our opposition as our neighborhood is a high use area by our community for the following: A. Recreation and vital social community activities 1 . Kahuku Park is located across the street from the proposed site. The newly renovated park is a high use area for families, and its recent upgrade has attracted even more users. It includes highly used basketball and pickleball courts, a playground for pre-school and elementary school age children in the neighborhood, a community gathering space used by church groups and serves as a weekly food distribution center for dozens of local residents. Several events occur throughout the year serving children and adults at the park. Lastly, the newly renovated baseball field provides access to neighborhood youth and regular games with other local teams with support from local families/friends attending. 2. Saint Jude's Church property is located across the street from the south side of Paradise Circle. For many years people have received food, clothing, and spiritual support at this church, and it is an integral part of the Paradise Circle community. A School Bus Stop is located next to the park parking lot where dozens of parents drop off and pick up their students every week day. More details about our community and its well being are included with the attached petition we initiated against the construction of the tower with over 100 signatures stating: We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the construction and installation of ANOTHER cell tower in our neighborhood near schools, parks, churches and other community gathering places. There is a negative impact on the residents including health, safety, and property values. It is our contention that the location of the tower is highly intrusive and will create a visual and safety issue in our Paradise Circle neighborhood. It is a rural area with 1 acre lots zoned agricultural use as the Planning Dept is aware and why the permit is required. We urge the Commission to reject the proposed site and instruct Renegade Towers to search for an appropriate location with a recommended minimum of 400 meters, 1 ,320 ft, distant from homes and other high use areas in Ocean View. B. Safety 1 . Emissions Despite alarming reports of the dangers of cell tower radiation, we are informed that this is not a consideration of the Commission due to federal regulations on safety. However, it remains a high priority for those of us living in such close proximity where emissions will occur without interruption. Once again, it may take years of study to finally understand the dangers to human health, but we prefer to take the precautionary approach to living near emissions that are still not fully understood, and could have potential health risks despite current standards. 2. Fires in Cell Towers More frequent than we imagine are the numerous fires that occur, usually at the top of the tower. Following is a very short list of some of the tower fires in locations around the country. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and can be found by looking for Cell Phone tower Fires on any browser. 10.25.2023 Andover, MA 10.25.2023 San Antonio, TX 9.28.2023 Sacramento, CA 7.14.2022 Seattle, WA 4.25.2022 Las Vegas, NV With all of the wildfire damage on the Hawaiian islands we need to avoid any additional fire hazards, and potential damage to the community. This area as shown in many photos in the application has dense vegetation, and the proposed site has been studied by an environmental company in Las Vegas, NV. However in Hawaii we know too well the danger of fire in dry areas. Ocean View has one of the lowest rainfalls on the island. After contacting our local volunteer fire dept. we found that there are no plans for this type of fire. We can only imagine our volunteer firefighters trying to extinguish a 150' high fire surrounded by dense vegetation on adjacent lots and homes. We ask what the County has planned with regard to managing and responding to cell phone tower fires. C. Property Values and Cell Phone/Internet Service It is a fact that no one wants a cell tower next to their home. So much so, that there are estimates by federal agencies that a drop of 5 -20% on average in property values occurs for homes located near a tower. A recent survey by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) found that 94 percent of homebuyers are "less interested and would pay less" for a property located near a cell tower or antenna.Jul 29, We've also learned that cell phone service and wireless service can be negatively affected by being within the tower's umbrella. For those of us in close proximity, we can expect a decrease in broadband internet service as well as cell phone reliability. In other words, the company applying for the permit will reap the financial rewards of leasing space on the tower to AT&T while property owners will suffer the financial harm and actual loss of services that we now enjoy. D. Service Area According to the permit application, it appears that the extension of coverage from the tower would primarily serve the Ranchos neighborhood located across highway 11 from our location. Our area in Ocean View is already sufficiently covered by the existing 150' tower located on Reef Parkway. Any tower serving the Ranchos location should be sited in an adjacent area across the highway away from homes, parks, and churches such as we have in Paradise Circle. E. Esthetics We all know, without any studies, that towers detract from the visual environment. We know that this fact is not usually a consideration, but it has been recognized by the courts in some instances that this factor must be taken into consideration. Our neighborhood built on the slopes of Mauna Loa got its name from the beautiful ocean views so many of us enjoy, and why we bought property here. The name, Ocean View, actually applies to our beautiful rural location. We live here because of the beauty of our Big Island and our access to the ocean, and we therefore oppose the visual damage to our beloved view of the ocean and surrounding neighborhood caused by the tower. F. Application Issues We find a disturbing number of inaccuracies in the application, many of which were pointed out in emails to the company from the Dept. of Planning which they were required to address. 1 . Height of tower was inaccurate in portions of the application and subsequently corrected to 150'. However, the company's 2nd letter to residents cited a 180' tower. When asked for a correction with another letter, the company agreed to do so, but we have not received a correction to date. 2. The Planning Dept. stated in a September 22, 2023 email that a minimum of 2 service providers must have a commitment to leasing the tower before approval of the permit. Only AT&T had made this commitment at that time. We read the company's response that "both T-Mobile and Verizon have shown a strong interest in collocating on the tower." We question whether they have met the criteria of two committed service providers in their application, though they state that "information has been added to the application". 3. From the Planning Dept's email from Sept. 22nd, they also request a statement on how the remaining land area will be used in accordance with the agricultural zoning, as the permit is for a portion of the property. Though we have not seen the applicant's response, we know from living here that agriculture on the site will not be feasible after construction of the tower due to the absence of people living, working on and caring for the land. 4. Notification of Property Owners by the applicant missed several properties according to the Planning Dept. as compared to the Real Property Tax Office list. We still have no way of determining whether all property owners were notified though in our informal survey, we found that at least one owner did not receive the notice, and was given a copy by us. 5. Structural Engineer's Letter was initially rejected by the Planning Dept. Such a significant supporting document was in error describing a 100' tower and incorrect building dept codes. The corrected letter is not referenced,but we assume that the Planning Dept. has done their due diligence in pursuing this important document, and whether the tower is built to code 6. Lack of Confidence in company applying for permit. So many errors in the application lead to a lack of confidence in the company's competency to build and maintain the complex infrastructure of the proposed tower. We also found the company's lack of transparency disturbing in notifying residents of their application. No company letterhead was used nor a return address on the envelope. The packet obscured the origin of the letter to the degree that the signer Danette Martin did not disclose her connection or position with Renegade Towers though she provided her phone contact for questions. She was subsequently contacted about the error in the 2nd notice dated Nov. 10. 7. Inadequate Time for Residents to Respond We see that the company has been working on their application for several months before we were notified of what was being planned. The Cultural Resources Review and Field Inspection report was completed in June of this year. Our first notification letter was dated Oct. 26 with a Nov. 1st postmark and no information on the date of the Commission meeting which was subsequently set for Dec. 7th. Just a little over a month from the first notice. Our second notice regarding the date of the Commission meeting was dated Nov. 10th, less than a month before the meeting. With a notification time of months not weeks, this petition for standing would have been more thorough. We did not have adequate time to determine whether all of the affected residents received their notice or to verify all of the information in the application which is why we have a County Planning Dept. working on our behalf. We count on them to determine what meets the standards for tower construction, and what is in the best interests of the community. But with only 3 min each to present our case to the Commission, we are at a severe disadvantage compared to the time allotted to the applicant to present their information and make requested modifications. We are also aware that we cannot submit any additions to this petition once it is submitted 7 days prior to the Commission Meeting, though the applicant is given access to our document with time to prepare rebuttals for the Dec. 7th meeting. CONCLUSION We conclude with the recognition that we are a small group of residents opposing corporate financing and a large staff who have prepared their plan with extended time, care and expense. The odds are not in our favor and we ask that the Commission take into consideration all of the people who will be negatively affected by this project. We came here to find peace, beauty, and a rural healthy lifestyle. We will lose too much, along with a substantial financial loss to our property value, with the approval of the permit application. We ask that the Commission rules in favor of the people it serves over profits to a company that has no stake in our community's well being. There are better alternatives to the site currently under consideration, and we ask the Commission to deny the permit and seek another location for construction of the tower. LOCATING A 150-FOOT CELL TOWER AMONG OCEAN VIEW HOMES has drawn strong opposition from nearby residents and a petition signed by more than 90 community members. The proposal will be considered by the County of Hawai'i Planning Commission at its Thursday, Dec. 7 meeting in Hilo. Renegade Towers, LLC, based in Oakland, is applying for a Special Permit or Use Permit to construct the tower on a one-acre lot at 92-8627 Paradise Circle, close to the county-owned Kahuku Park, St. Jude's Church and man homes. According to County records, Renegade Towers purchased the one-acre lot in 2021. The community petition states that the tower"will be a commercial use that is inappropriate for a rural neighborhood and ill have a negative impact on our community, culture, roadway, property values and quality of life. "The proposed location for this facility is within 500 feet of a newly updated community park and proposed skate park. A neighborhood church is also within sight. "The proposed development includes a 150-foot-tall monopole tower, which includes equipment cabinets, utility H-frame and 2 diesel emergency generators. The tower will include 21 eight-foot antennas and 27 RRUs (remote radio units) stacked behind the antennas for AT&T and proposed T-Mobile equipment. Future carriers could be added to this structure. "The facility will be enclosed by a six-foot fence. Work lights will be installed. Natural vegetation will be modified in the construction of this tower. All of this is located 30 feet from the rear of the lot and within 70 feet of a neighbor's home and less than 500 feet from Kahuku County Park, with its ballfield, basketball court and future skateboard park." "We urge decision-makers to reconsider their plans for a cell tower and communications facility in ou community. The height of the current cell tower has just been raised from 100 feet to 150 feet, which should bring better coverage to the area." The petition says the signers are "not against cell towers" but request that a less intrusive plot of land be investigated for the project. The county published a list of ten items for Renegade Towers to address. It requires "a statement from the applicant that diligent, but unsuccessful efforts to install or co-locate the applicant's telecommunications antennas on existing towers or feasible antenna support structures have been made."Applicants are instructed to "identify those sites that you have investigated and explain how those sites are inadequate and how the site selected is the least obtrusive". The county also asks if the applicant has "met with adjacent landowners and/or community regarding the development?" Donna Durgin, a resident of Ocean View for 27 years and owner of SolarWorks!, owns a property near the site of the proposed tower. She told The Ka`u Calenda that the first she knew of the cell tower proposal was a sign on the lot. "Renegade Towers put the sign on the wrong lot", she explained, "so that caused confusion. They have never held community meetings or met with me or any of my neighbors. "If built, the tower will significantly reduce the value of our properties. According to the federal agency, HUD, a tower will drop the value of homes by five to 20 percent. They take these things into account hen they appraise the value of a home. "This tower should be away from homes and on a larger plot of land. "We already have a 150-foot-tower on the corner of Reef Boulevard and Palm Parkway. There used to be a 1 00' one on that land, but they built a new 150-foot one and then demolished the 100-foot one", she added. Durgin and her neighbor Al Sherman have been collecting signatures at the Ocean View swap meet, held each Saturday morning and said that those who would like to sign the petition can contact Durgin at 808-937-8260. PL - U 5 - ,20,-Z 3 , 0000r:-2D The proposed placement works against the well-being of this community. Ocean View is an agricultural subdivision of one acre lots. It is a rural neighborhood of homes and small businesses dedicated to the interests of the public health and welfare of the people located in that area. The most demonstrative opposition to this application is that there is no need for additional wireless service in the Ocean View neighborhood. Our current service is fully sufficient and functional. Any individual seeking more service can have it installed directly in their homes. Many times, signals are blocked due to materials and partitions within the home and improvements need to be made within the home as opposed to outside the home. Additionally, we are overlapping coverage if another tower were to be placed in the OV subdivision. If coverage is needed for the highway and Ranchos area, why not place the tower in the Ranchos subdivision on a three acre parcel and it would cover surrounding area there. AT&T works well at the lower part of OV and at the market areas. T-Mobile works excellent also. Ocean View currently has a cell tower on Palm Parkway which was just heightened from 100 to 150 feet tall in 2021. The 100-foot tower had been servicing the area and the additional height should bring advancements. This tower is located on a 2 acre parcel. The tower also brings a negative impact as you can see the abandonment of trash and vehicles, the cell batteries have been a source of theft, and just plain vandalism. It is also enclosed by a fence. Doesn't help. Our current towers include a monopole at the mile 86 and a tower at Kamaoa and South Point road. Those are serving us well. The citizens of Ocean View do not feel we should be subjected to additional overlapping coverage for an area southwest of us, which could have their own communication tower. Zoning was created to provide basic framework of land uses. The intent is to preserve and protect the development of lands in the StatE for that which it is best suited. As the requested use is not permitted by the Iz id use board, a Special Use Permit is required to allow for the use to be permitted Natural vegetation will be destroyed in the construction of this tower. The location is across from a newly renovated county park nd a proposed skate park. The area is also a bus stop for the school district. A church is just outside the 500 foot area of properties required to receive notice. This area is also used for community events such as food pantry, distribution of pet food, distribution of shots for covid, and many parties and events at the park and the church. The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the FCC continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. The distance needed to reduce exposures down to the General Public Precautionary Level of 100 microwatts per meter squared is often around a quarter of a mile (1320 feet). Notification of property owners is 500 feet in the ag zoned area. The Palm Parkway tower has 2 homes within the 500 foot area and the 100 foot tower was constructed previous to the building of those homes. Proposed construction on Paradise affects 14 homes currently built. A one-acre parcel is not sufficient area to develop for a cell tower. A height of 150 feet is an aesthetic impact. Electric power poles are 40 feet high in this area. There is a negative impact on the residents and their property values. This site is nested within our home radius where we habitate for SAFETY, and this would be directly in front of and within a dangerous radius of where we as a community sleep, eat, and care for our children. Dept of Housing categorize cell towers with "hazards and nuisances," and HUD (Housing and Urban Development) requires its certified appraisers to take the presence of cell towers into consideration when determining the value of single-family residential properties. Studies have shown that proximity to a cell tower can lower property values from 5 to 20%. We oppose construction and installation of cell towers and other wireless facilities near schools, parks, homes and other community gathering places. HEALTH - SAFETY — AESTHETICS - PROPERTY VALUES - COMMUNITY Basically we are noting— 1- Health risks associated with exposure to wireless err ssions — particularly by the county park, proposed skate park and church. 2- Negative impact on neighborhood values and prope ty values 3- Negative impact on community — safety— aesthetics To County Planning Department: We ask you to support us in preventing this cell installation near our parks, church and homes. We ask for your help to put an end to this community threat, distracting us from caring for ourselves and our children. We ask for help to keep cell towers out of our neighborhood communities - away from homes and neighborhood community public space. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important matter. r I 6c 7 +i I a This is our original petition — which is not very professional — but I have never done this before. I have never felt so motivated to protest something which will affect the community as a whole. The Palm Parkway tower has few surrounding homes and the tower has been up a long time. This new installation has many homes, park, church, proposed skate park and many community events happen in this location. Pages 1 and 2 are before we did a professional paper — but all the signatures are concerned about the location specifically. We are not against the tower — we need the internet. We are against the 1 acre lot close to community. Please review and take our concern thoughtfully.... Mahalo, Donna Durgin Pages 1-10 plus petition plus this cover.... Residents and concerned citizens of Ocean View arE strongly opposed to a cell tower and communications facility in our community. We believe that this development will be a commercial use that is inappropriate for a rural neighborhood, and will have a negative impact on our community, culture, roadway, property values and quality of life. The proposed location for this facility is on a one acre lot in a rural neighborhood directly adjacent to residents' homes. It is also within 500 feet of a newly updated community park and proposed skate park. A neighborhood church is also within sight. The proposed development includes a 150-foot-tall cell tower which includes equipment cabinets, utility h-frame and two diesel emergency generators. The tower will include 21 — eight-foot antennas and 27 RRU's (remote radio units) stacked behind the antennas for AT&T and proposed T-Mobile equipment. Future carriers could be added to this structure. The facility will be enclosed by a six-foot fence. Work lights will be installed. Natural vegetation will be modified in the construction of this development. All of this is located 30 feet from the rear of the lot — and within 70 feet of a neighbors home. We urge decision-makers to reconsider their plans or a cell tower and communications facility in our community. The cur -ent cell tower has just been raised from 100 feet to 150 feet which sh )uld bring better coverage to the area. Instead they should consider alternative solutions which do not require developments that re unwanted, inappropriate and disrespectful to our community. Current towers are located on larger plots of land than a 1 acre AG zor --d parcel. We are not against cell towers but request that a better pla t of land be investigated and is less intrusive. I am signing this Petition because I oppose a Cell Tc wer and Communications Facility on 92-8627 Paradise Circle , Ocean View. C'e I k r-d eta---, L I ILA Cl. q�2- &do i vd .6iv-d 1 "lz 5-15 92 44 ALAN SHERMAN 92-1521 KEAKA PARKWAY KIM WEIGHTIER 92-1881 HUKIKAU DR PHILIP SHAW 92-2431 ALOHA BLVD RICHARD ROGERS 92-1581 DONALA DR GAVIN YOUNG 92-8928 PLUMERIA LN RICHARD BLAINE 92-1815 ALOHA BLVD *JEFF 92-2812 HUKILAU DAVID STOKES 92-8543 LAUHALA DR *ANTHONY 94-2148 SOUTH POINT PAT GROTH 92-8573 JASMINE DR LISA BIGAM 92-9042 LEHUA LN WARD LAMBERT 92-8488 BOUGAINVILLEA DR MICHAEL SHARP 94-1527 KAALUALU RD CHRISTINE SMOTRYS 92-840 KONA GARDENS RD KATHY CABLAY 92-8973 LOTUS BLOSSOM LN GAYLE BEKISH 92-1600 PRINCESS KAIULANI MIKE STEVENS 92-1501 KEAKA JONNY BROWDER 92-8644 MARLIN BLVD LINDA GAIL SANABRIA 92-1831 POHA BLVD LEIGH MITCHELL 92-8572 CATAMARAN LN KARYNA SHEVCHENKO 92-1969 KONA DR LARRY CASSIDY 92-9210 LOTUS BLOSSOM LN THOMAS PAVEK 92-1733 LUAU DR SHARON CUNNINGHAM 92-8618 PLUMERIA LN JAMES CUNNINGHAM 92-8618 PLUMERIA LN WALTER WATSON KING KAM BLVD JOHN JOAQUIN 92-2031 CORAL 0 r �a q S� tlj �r. .� 4 { 0 @0 NO 96 7,3 7 X � ��� � � 96 T " �►�� � load il�� -57 /�,i`19.E Tl"nl��=�l� Poi C 5 0 . Cl �_ 7�3 7 ..<. t Jos �•-,1.�, , �h 1�737 L-- ( � CAL ci l'Y A 9 —A v..r. Gi z— 7 z �l •c.; l .t i DONNA DURGIN 92-1515 KEAKA PKWY CARMELA FAITH 92-1889 PRINCESS KAIULAR BERNICE SNAVELY 92-2066 PALM PARKWAY MIKE FLOREZ 92-8832 JASMINE DR ANN BOSTED 92-843 ALIT BLVD CHERYL VOS 92-812 MAIKAI BLVD �Crr�iTu CONNIE FLOOD 93-2707 LORENZO RD RICK COLLIER BAMBOO LN (3-9-2-63-19) PAT WHEELER 92-1827 COCOANUT DAMIAN EATINGER 92-8320 HIBISCUS DR JOHN HILL 92-1705 KONA DR JEREMY HEWITT 92-1606 CORAL KAREN INGRAHAM 92-8832 JASMINE DR BRADLEY RICH 92-2518 PALM PKWY TRACI BARBOZA 92-9182 TREE FERN LN JASHUA VIERNES 92-8782 HAWAII BLVD Ael�l l � Z y _ {{ 'p @ �---- ► 22 O = Z m D Z ` Z 2 D O tin € Z m C) � I ! O D O 1 Lin -< z � G) o m p 0 Z cn O c t N p y m ! mm Z 7 2 > N N m t ? = o m D C7 z = mLm C Z m / n ! m L A 'O n `Q ° IV- IT C, �zz) rn m �e D C cn z rn z D m C V ( Z = 0 �S oLA .tl 75 :rA� z < = z L(' O ;ozn C) 0 —� = .< 4 1 z C = O rn O O = V1 � m N 0 > m � ^ 0 rn n N Pn if ..1 z C �n LA I Z Lrn/1 D t O + f = m rnD zp Z D =1 = -az Z 2 O z N m z T!� �� �� i f m Lnn r f ?�► � ' \ i� � � T1z0 Z R -� n G�l m 1 I p M D C7Zm J I S Z D rn Z � 2F) C m = � mOm c ° z �' -Ti D r ! oq � o z 1 p z n z c = o � D m O OrTl 1-� • � ,�; z Ln LA oo I Omxt -4 �-, N ` ' m n n O n = O Z ►" C Z ` ► I _ o Z m C E D = z ° m C z fN z � oD p�. o z D n � i N w f v � � c � v p z > Z i _. am r N o m t VA ;Q o r > C V)> Z m M C i m z E) Z,:, z 9 ,o z , m c: z O ;o z f N O N to C) Z C= 0 (') ;vrm .0 m rm z �c om >= r- cz zo Z m r > > M 0 :1 -m—r z rn > 0 Z Z 0, >z Z M — cn = Z > � � f 12) rri CfS) c =j 00OZ -n t Ol > > > gist Z C) rn rm --i 0�A 00 m z E) O , D O toV 0 2 � 'Z t p z no Otn N 0 D rn m � N to rn � Z C � LA Z z C f y � D r = r = rn m z ( -< ZDrpD 9 Z N! Z LA m D N t E Z = Z DcZrn G) x I i Ds n �' ! � r- r m -H 0 E { i t O �n a -H 9 > rn c m z a) rn = 0 m V-) = > 0 = :d 0 < M 0 Z — 0 m 0 z -n PO V) z l n 0 z 0 0 rn C) > 0 M m z L/I rn j � � } v Z m C J t l Y m � p 2 -n QAI tZ r (Mn < Im > rn mr- 7 ' O d i D Z m = � Ocn l -t � 00 f ( x oo ;a o z G) � = o O rn -� rn t r* N ZrpD to ' LI) C rn 's D Z "< --IZ D C Z m m G) f + �ON � m r r m —1 cn 0 i m l