|
<br />INABA: Can I just go over everything.
<br />
<br />ISHIBASHI: Yeah, go ahead, go—
<br />
<br />INABA: I was, so did you guys did get that letter—
<br />
<br />ISHIBASHI: Yes, we have that letter—
<br />
<br />INABA: So, there’s no sense in my going over the letter again because you’ve all read that,
<br />right? It wouldn’t have any more effect. But um, just on the application itself, I can just go over
<br />what you know, was kind of discouraging to me. On Page 3 of the application right at the top, it
<br />says, “No cultural materials of any kind were observed during the archaeological inspection.”
<br />And you know, I went and read further on into this document which references an Exhibit C, and
<br />that’s a historical properties assessment by T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. In the
<br />introduction, it says, “The primary focus of the project was on the discovery and appropriate
<br />treatment of historic properties within the area of potential effect. The goals of the investigation
<br />were to determine whether the installation of the telecommunications facility, including an
<br />antenna monopine, would have direct or visual effect on historic properties.” And on Page 4 of
<br />the Exhibit C, under Background Research, it says, “No field inspection of the proposed site was
<br />conducted by T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.” So they haven’t even been on site.
<br />And, you know, it didn’t seem right that they’re using this report prepared by a professional and
<br />they never even been on site. So I kept reading, and again on Page 9, it reiterates that, “No field
<br />inspection was conducted by T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.” And it says, “No permits
<br />for the subject property were found to indicate that any grubbing or grading has occurred on the
<br />parcel.” I don’t know who this is but, “Bureau Veritas North America interviewed the real estate
<br />broker for the current owner, who indicated that the subject property has never been developed
<br />and has never been used as agricultural land.” But if you go back to the applicant, the
<br />application, Page 3, it says, according to the property owner’s realtor, Hank Correa, the property
<br />was recently grubbed. So, I’m going back and forth in this document and they’re saying one
<br />thing here and they’re saying the complete opposite in other areas, so you know, I was just
<br />concerned about that, and the exhibit goes on to say, “A review of the archaeological literature,
<br />historic maps, and information provided by Bureau Veritas North America shows that the project
<br />site is unmodified and lava tube caves may be present. Caves may contain cultural resources.
<br />Based on this situation, it is recommended that an inspection by a qualified archaeologist be
<br />conducted for the entire parcel.” And I’m thinking this guy is supposed to be a qualified
<br />archaeologist. That’s the title of his company. So it just wasn’t making sense to me.
<br />
<br />So, I kept you know looking into it more with Jeff’s help, and I came up with a couple of other
<br />things. Something very similar. I guess a special use permit application went through, regarding
<br />a property in Orchidland Estates, and that was denied in March 2006. And I feel that our
<br />situation is, is worse than that particular case cause over there, they were dealing with two-acre
<br />parcels. The right-of-way was 60 feet, and one of the owners, I believe his names was Mr. Pa, he
<br />was 200 feet away, and he was allowed to intervene and his voice was heard in that matter. And
<br />that application was denied. Although it was determined unusual, it was determined not
<br />reasonable for that Chapter 205-6 purposes, and they cited adverse effects on property values,
<br />adverse effects on the views that include whoever can see the tower, and the fact that the cell
<br />8
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
<br />
|