Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-06 Exh C New Cingular dba AT&T Mobility USE 19-081WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 6, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC DBA AT&T MOBILITY (USE 19-000081) was called to order at 2:18 p.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Thomas Raffipiy presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 18 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC DBA AT&T MOBILITY (USE 19-000081) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a non -manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 180 -foot tall monopole and related equipment within a 2,500 -square foot portion of a 9.65 -acre property situated in the County's Agricultural zoning district. The subject property is located north of Kua`aina Road, approximately 0.5 miles from the intersection with Volcano Road (Highway 11), Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-7-031:031. RAFFIPIY: Without further ado, we're going to move right into the next item on our agenda. It's an application for Use Permit to allow the construction of a non -manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 180 -foot tall monopole and related equipment. So, we're gonna have we're gonna move into have the staff make the presentation, please. ANDREWS: Thank you, Commission. I'm here to present the application for AT&T Mobility. This is Use Permit Application No. 19-81. This is the location map, and it shows the general proximity. The location of the site is here. The subject property, Kea`au, is here; this is Kea`au Ag Lots. Kurtistown is here, and this is the campus of Kamehameha Schools. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct a non -manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 180 -foot tall monopole, excuse me, and related equipment within a 2,500 -square foot portion of a 9.65 -acre property situation in Ag, County's Agricultural zoning district. The monopole tower will be designed to accommodate co -location of antennas for other wireless carriers, and will comply with all Federal, State, and County rules and regulations. The proposed project serves to expand, provide expanded wireless phone service to the Kurtistown area, and expand AT&T's coverage throughout Hawaii Island. EXHIBIT C This shows the zoning map for the property and the surrounding properties. The subject property is zoned A -20a, Ag -20, 20 acres. And nearby properties are RS -20. Across the highway is RS -15 and Ag -la, and this is the highway here. The General Plan designation, called the LUPAG designation, is Low Density Urban, for the subject property and nearby is Urban Expansion. This is the Applicant's site plan, and it shows the property designated or outlined with the black line here to show the property boundaries. The site is shaded in gray, and the lease area for the, for the monopole tower and the lease area itself is outlined in red. On the left is the compound plan provided by the Applicant. On the right is the equipment plan provided by the Applicant. And, the compound plan shows the monopole sited here. This is the elevation view provided by the Applicant. Southwest on the left; northeast on the right. The aerial photo shows the site is undeveloped, and the neighboring, the neighboring neighborhood is here, and this is Kua`aina Road, and this is North Road. Upper left photo here shows the property, it's looking northwest across the property as viewed from the entry gate. On the right is a view of the entry gate itself from Kua`aina Road, and in this view, this is the entry gate here, this is the, the posted sign for the application, and this view on the bottom shows the property looking southeast from the entry gate. Photo on the left shows the road, Kua`aina Road that accesses the property. This is looking west— W. ELLWOOD (from audience): This is not Kua`aina Road. ANDREWS: —and looking on the right property, I'm sorry, on the right photo is looking south. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): This is not Kua`aina Road. CLARK: (from audience): There's a lot of lying, discrepancy here, throughout. It's wrong. ANDREWS: This is, these are coverage maps provided by the Applicant. This on the left is [the] existing coverage map, and on the right is the projected AT&T coverage map. The Applicant's analysis shows target coverage area has minimal to no service. According to the Applicant, the proposed antenna height is the minimum necessary to help fill the coverage gap relative to nearby complementary wireless facilities. The Applicant provided this in the application. This is a map showing alternative site locations that was part of the study. To clarify on this map, this red outline, as I understand it, shows the search area that AT&T used as the, the area where they wanted to provide coverage, and so the pin that's actually dropped here is not an existing tower, it just is the center of the search ring. You can see the two candidates that were alternative sites and then this is the proposed site. These maps show the coverage of alternate heights that were an analysis done by the Applicant -- one hundred four feet, one hundred fifty-four feet, one hundred seventy-nine feet. The Planning Director's recommendation is approval with conditions. That concludes my presentation. EXHIBIT C 2 RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Do you have any questions from the board, I mean from the Commission to the staff? Any questions for the staff? Okay. There's no question, we're gonna, we'd like to ask the Applicant and/or representative to please come forward. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TOMLINSON: I do, yes. RAFFIPIY: All right, thank you very much. Go ahead and state your name and your association with the Applicant, and application, and proceed, please. TOMLINSON: My name is, oh, first of all, thank you for reviewing our, AT&T's application today. I know it's been a long morning so appreciate it. My name's Andrew Tomlinson. I'm representing AT&T in this application for this site in Kurtistown. The site represents a really important site for AT&T. It's going to be part of the FirstNet program of which is a nationwide program that was started after the 9-11 Commission determined that emergency responders needed to have a network to themselves. So, this is going to be, this site would be part of the FirstNet program in Hawai` i and would provide emergency services, personnel, EMS, police, and anybody in that, who is, as part of that FirstNet network, they would have priority service during times of emergencies --lava flows, hurricanes, whatnot. And, so the idea is that there'd be continuous coverage areas. So, this particular area, because of the gap in service would provide great coverage along the highway in particular, and in this community. The site would provide 4G coverage, 4G LTE; it's not a 5G site. I've heard some, some folks talking about 5G. It's not a 5G site. And the coverage gap, it represents a significant gap that this site would cover. So, it's vitally important that this area be covered. Because of FirstNet, AT&T's contracted to cover rural areas like this along providing coverage, can't remember what the exact percentage is, but a high percentage along highways, principally for emergency response purposes, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Do you have any questions for the Applicant from the Commission? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question that maybe you can answer. Have you already explored co -location with towers that from other companies that might be in this area? In other words, I asked the staff earlier to please list all the cell towers in the coverage area, and they could only do a partial compilation of towers because not all of them are in their records. Are there any other cell towers within the coverage area? TOMLINSON: Sure, on, on this, could you please? ANDREWS: Yeah, so if I can just explain what we're putting up now, we did some more research, Commissioner Clarkson, and our County records show the area, this map shows a broad area around, this is the proposed monopole here, and so we looked back into the permit records and were able to compile these around the area. Now, up in Shipman Park, there are two towers here that being on State Land Use Urban designation did not go through the same EXHIBIT C 3 process, Industrial zoning, but the other towers all have, have been granted permits, and you can see the, the distribution of them. CLARKSON: Are you aware of any other towers in addition to these? TOMLINSON: On the previous figure of the air photo with the search ring, there's another tower, it was an SBA tower that we looked at, but it was outside our search ring, so it wouldn't provide coverage. So, as you can see on here just from a coverage standpoint, there would not be a facility available that would give us, fill this coverage gap. And, to answer your question, in general, we do spend considerable time looking for co -locations because it's one, a lot faster, we don't have to go through a Use Permit application, and it is much more cost effective. So I will say like in Hawaii Island right now, AT&T has a number of projects we're working on. The majority of them are co -locations. We distinctly try to do that, follow that process. It's only when we have a coverage gap, like in this particular case, that we'll go to a raw land, what we would consider a raw -land solution. CLARKSON: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Do we have any other, any other questions? Anybody have any from the Commission? All right, thank you, sir. We have 20 people signed up to testify. So, at this time we're gonna call Gene Tamashiro, Greg Kemppainen, Dwight Vicente AUDIENCE MEMBER: Greg's not here. RAFFIPIY: Dwight Vicente. AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's not here, too. RAFFIPIY: William Ellwood and Edelyn Ellwood. TAMASHIRO: We got three, yeah? Our Hawaiian Kingdom [inaudible] is going to sit there because he wants to RAFFIPIY: —Okay, Gene Tamashiro. TAMASHIRO: That's me [inaudible]. RAFFIPIY: Is a Greg Kemppainen here? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Greg's not here. RAFFIPIY: Oh, Greg's not here. Then, we'll have— TAMASHIRO: —Hello [testing microphone]. EXHIBIT C 4 RAFFIPIY: Okay, all right. Can you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. RAFFIPIY: All right, thank you. So, we'll start from you going back. TAMASHIRO: Mahalo. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. TAMASHIRO: Okay, my name again is Gene Tamashiro. I'm a sovereign Hawaiian. I'm lawful in my own country. Hawaiian Kingdom is in continuity, and we have forensic evidence where nobody in the State or the County has ever brought forth any evidence to prove that our claim that Kingdom is in continuity, and the law of this `aina is confirmed, nobody brought forward any evidence that that's not true. Okay? So, as a maxim of law, if you don't rebut or respond to a claim, then that initial claim is truth and law. So right now, I am addressing all of you, but particularly because I have been told by the Mayor, by Corporate Counsel, by prosecutor, you know, you guys gotta talk to our lawyers. And, so Malia is our lawyer here, yeah, okay. So, I'm gonna actually, Roger, I would like you to film her please. Film her. Yeah. Thank you, Malia. Yeah, smile. Okay. So, Malia, you are a US citizen, is that correct? You can just nod if you can't speak, but I prefer you speak. HALL: This is not a question or answer opportunity. TAMASHIRO: Okay, so, just, just listen and we're— HALL: Okay TAMASHIRO: —gonna film you listening HALL: Okay, sounds good— TAMASHIRO: because it's very revealing HALL: —This is public testimony and it's supposed to be on an actual agenda item TAMASHIRO: Oh yeah, this HALL: So, if you're not testifying to the actual agenda item TAMASHIRO: I am absolutely. HALL: Okay. Okay TAMASHIRO: Absolutely EXHIBIT C 5 HALL: Go ahead, continue. TAMASHIRO: Okay, here you go. So, you can just nod. You're a US citizen? Actually, everybody here I presume still is. Did you pledge to the US Constitution? I'm sure you did. Do you know that the US constitution is the highest law in America and her occupied territories? Would you agree? The US constitution that you pledged an oath to, correct? Highest law in the land. Good? Okay. Do you have any lawful evidence that the State of Hawaii and State of Hawaii courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Hawaiian Kingdom? Do you have any lawful evidence? HALL: Are we talking about cell towers? Because we're here to talk about cell towers. TAMASHIRO: Uh yeah, we're talking about your ability to lawfully adjudicate anything on this `aina. HALL: Okay. TAMASHIRO: And so do you have any law, I'm asking a very simple question. HALL: Like I told you, this is not a question and answer session. TAMASHIRO: Okay, so that's your answer. HALL: This is public testimony. TAMASHIRO: No problem. Okay, so, your answer is, no response. And as a maxim of law, no response is a response. And we've been suffering from this patiently with aloha, with, I'm not picking on nobody, I'm not even picking on you, because we were all born into this 127 -year old false presumption, and us Hawaiians, Kanaka Maoli and Hawaiians of all colors, we tired of raising our kids under false presumption of law, okay? All I require is full disclosure and substantive due process because I don't get it, our people don't get it. And because we don't get it, that's called tyranny. And so all of you have an amazing opportunity right now, all of you, yes Malia, because you know, a lot of people tell me, Gene, you take it to a higher court, and really what they saying is "I need my paycheck next week so I don't wanna get into that," but I'm glad to know that you people have, and mahalo, you're serving, volunteer, you're serving. Yeah, okay, one minute left. I can finish what I need to say. So, all we're requiring, and believe me, the truth is sovereign and the truth is known, so somebody here, anybody, would require, cause I'm making a claim, and we've made this claim for years, okay? I'm making a claim that the State court does not have lawful subject matter jurisdiction on these issues. Okay? You can still legislate and enforce, but you must legislate and enforce in accordance to the land that you occupy. US Constitution Article VI, Clause 2, is the Supremacy Clause. So, this is the good news for all you guys, and you too, Malia. Everybody. The good news is the law in American law, US Constitution, and in Hawaiian Kingdom law, is the same law. Be truthful, do no harm, and honor your word. So, all I will require, yeah, all anybody ever going require, you look in the mirror and you go, did Tamashiro or any of these people make a false claim? Because if we did, EXHIBIT C 6 then bring forward the evidence, and I saw Mitch Roth ten minutes ago and he said, "Gene, I wanna talk to you," and I said, "I would love to talk to you, brah, but you know what? Put your claim and your evidence in writing and autograph it." Because that's what we do. We put our claim and our evidence in writing. We autograph it, and we come and we stand in honor. If you guys not willing to do that, then you wen dishonor. If you don't respond, then that's your response. So here's a great opportunity if you have `aina, and you wanna do something pono, and the County and the State, I don't know, somewhere in Washington DC, they telling you what you gotta do and what you cannot do, I'm telling you, the law of this `aina, the title of this `aina, already confirmed. Already confirmed. So, it's time to enforce the law. It's time to be truthful. God bless you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Tamashiro. Ms. Ellwood. E. ELLWOOD: Good afternoon. This is my first hearing ever, so I apologize if I quiver a little but it's shaking me to the core that I'm here. I'm a property owner. I live near this proposed monopole. I do not want it. AT&T, we do not want it. I'm concerned about my health. I came back from the mainland to take care of my parents. I'm invested in my land, in my house, in my family. I don't want this. I'm worried about the preschool that's nearby. I'm worried about the over eleven hundred students and faculty at Kamehameha. Don't they know? Because they sure didn't when I called them. They know nothing. I spoke to the cofounder of the preschool. She's like, "Oh, we didn't know. The Kamehameha? Oh, we didn't know." So, what kind of notification did you give our community, AT&T? So, I can tell you something, my cell phone works great, okay? I don't have problems with my coverage. We don't need your monopole. When I bought into the property two decades ago, it says agricultural zone. Where do we plant monopoles ever? Not at 4-H. Because I went to Hilo High. Nobody told us we plant that kind of stuff. So, how is that natural? I grow avocados, mangoes, lychee. That's what we grow. Cause that feeds our people, right? It feeds us. Four G today, is it 5G next week? What kind of thing you gonna pull on us? I don't have cancer, and I sure as hell don't want it for myself or my community. So, we will not be quiet about this, even if you approve it, we will not be quiet about it. I'm sorry that I'm quivering, but this means a lot to me and means a lot to all those people who signed that pink sheet who were here at 9:15 a.m. Many had to go back to work. Many had to pick up their kids. But they came back. I see my, my, my neighbors. And you know the sad thing is, my husband went and talked to our neighbors. Some of them didn't even get a notice. We got a notice. The letter says January, but the postage on the envelope says February. How come? So, are you really telling all that that have a stake in this that this is what's going on? I don't think so. And we have the right to know. I'm invested. We're not rich people, but this is my home now, and I wanna take care of my parents, and my husband, and my community. This monopole does not do anything for us. Again, my cell phone works really well. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Ms. Ellwood. Mr. Ellwood. W. ELLWOOD: My name is William Prescott Ellwood. This is my wife you just heard of. For all the reasons that she said, I am also highly vested in our community, and in our family. I'd like to address AT&T's points to begin with, that say that there will be no 5G is a bunch of bullywap. You know, get realistic. You're gonna build a big tower, the biggest tower on the EXHIBIT C 7 island, and you're not going to put the new technology on it? Bullshit. Okay, don't lie to us. We don't like that. RAFFIPIY Please W. ELLWOOD: —The pictures RAFFIPIY: Please address the Commission, please W. ELLWOOD: Sorry, I apologize sir. This is also my first hearing. I'm shaking like a leaf. The pictures and the information provided that we just received, said that to complain I had to pay $200. The pictures were false. The maps are false. The road shown as Kua`aina Road on the maps presented today, here, is false. That is not Kua`aina Road. I live there. My neighbors can attest to this. The pictures shown are on the surrounding loop camp road. This is not Kua`aina Road. The application is incorrect. I move on these grounds alone that we dismiss the application for this tower and deny it permanently. I can't believe that this attorney would step in here and provide this false information to you, the people of this board, and all the people here. If you didn't have internet or something to look up this information, and you relied on this, their information provided by AT&T and mister lawyer guy over there, we would be living in a false pretense. We would have incorrect information provided late to us with no chance to respond. Does this sound fair to anybody? Not to me. So, we are asking that you deny this application. Required notices to individuals have again, and this is not the first time as Mr. Yee knows, that they have messed up their notifications. They improperly, they're incorrect, and they're improperly provided. I received my notification just last week by mail. That date made it impossible for me to pay your exorbitant $200 fee. The postmarks prove the lack of compliance. I could not file a written complaint. How is that due process? It's not. The map provided is wrong and, please, the photos that AT&T put on their website are horribly misleading. If you look out this window right here, you'll see a 105 -foot tower across the street by Burger King. The tower that will go to, in our area will be twice that big. Twice as big the biggest tower ever made. It's gonna carry the most powerful equipment ever made. Do we know what the effects of that are on our community and our families? Why would you choose a spot that's between two schools and with three hundred residents living right next door? Children are going to be exposed, not only at school, but they're gonna be exposed at home. Twenty-four/seven. Now when I say exposed, you know, there are down sides to these poles. I'm in the drone business. I train and fly drone flights. You cannot operate a drone or artificial intelligence within three hundred feet, I'm sorry, three thousand feet of a pole currently. It creates glitches in your mechanics, artificial intelligence won't work, the signal doesn't go through clearly, and my drones will fall to the ground. I use them for farming, clearing land, security, all sorts of different things. We train people. We are anticipating Amazon to deliver with drones. The schools will be cut off from modern technology. Our neighborhood will be cut off from modern technology. Furthermore, your cost as a board and the way it's delivered is just, makes it impossible and prohibitive for people to be here. The reason we don't have our big crowd, they all had to go to work. They can't afford the $200 to make a complaint. That's outrageous and it's illegal. These EXHIBIT C 8 documents are cost prohibitive. We have been priced out of our due process. The information is incorrect. We are being redlined. Do you people know what redlining is? Back in the lending days, banks would put up a map of a neighborhood and they'd say, they'd circle a bad neighborhood and they'd say "we're not going to lend in this neighborhood." Okay, well, that's what's happening here. They're in our neighborhood because of what we are. We are being discriminated against because we're a low-income neighborhood. Redlining is illegal. It's a federal offense. RAFFIPIY: Please wrap it up, please. W. ELLWOOD: Due process by law must be provided to us. Iwasaki is one of the oldest villages and camps in our community. It is diversified. We have veterans, we have Hawaiians, we have new people, old people, young people. This is not an industrial area. To simply grant change with permit is wrong and not the Hawaiian way. One landowner cannot be allowed to permanently degrade the entire neighborhood at the expense of others. This is not right. You have a responsibility as board owners, or as board commission members here, to ensure and help with our health and safety. The community, the character of our community will be changed forever. We understand that you have the ability to order an Environmental Assessment. Why was it not ordered on my property? I have two endangered species. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Ellwood, can you please start wrapping up please? W. ELLWOOD: Yes, I will. I'm almost done. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. W. ELLWOOD: I'm on my last few sentences here. On my property I have two endangered Hawaiian species. I have nesting owls and nesting hawks. Do you know what the effects of this are on these animals? Because Fish & Wildlife was supposed to do a report. We didn't get it till late last night. I didn't see it till this morning. How am I supposed to assess that? What's a fair shake. What's due process here? This does not sound right, okay? I feel that you are targeting, not you, the board, but we are being targeted by a group that is looking to take advantage of low- income people. I don't like it. We may be poor, but we have a nice community over there. And we don't want this tower. Now, I know I'm not supposed to talk about health, but here we go. You cannot tell me that a 1996 law can apply to today's technology. It's just not applicable. That law does not apply here. These things make people sick. Last, and wrapping up for, I know I've taken more than my time. Thank you. CLARK (from audience): Several people who had to leave asked Prescott W. ELLWOOD: If you check your yellow slips, people have allotted me their time. Thank you for the extra time. We're gonna ask that surety bonds and insurances against things that could happen, unexplored possibilities be part of this program if it goes forward. We are not been offered any such guarantees, but, you know, we think it's necessary. What does the future bring for us? We don't know. Are we all going to get brain cancer? I don't know. Doesn't sound that great. Okay. [Inaudible] losses must be addressed the minute they applied for this EXHIBIT C 9 permit. Our housing prices dropped. The sales in our area ceased entirely, and the reason is because homeowners check these things out, okay? Renters are not coming into our neighborhood if there's a tower there. Okay, they look at the tower, they're going to rent elsewhere. It will inalterably change the character of our area. Health and safety of our community are at risk. The land is for agriculture. Everyone over there knows that we have a whole bunch of organic growers. What are the effects of this on our crops? Who wants our crops from under the shadow, the dark shadow of this pole? Okay? It, the whole thing appears to me to be sort of a bum's rush. You give us the, the last, the information at the last second. You don't give us a chance to process it. We have not been able to hire attorneys to represent us because we haven't had time even to read the information. How ridiculous. New technology can be very dangerous. There's no research on this. If you're gonna tell me there's long-term research, you're just not telling the truth cause it's not here. I thank you for your time. There's a lot more to be said about this. We are not going to walk away. Would you like the largest cellphone pole in your backyard? I sure don't want it, be there. It just, it just doesn't feel right, and from all I've read, there are no real answers to the consequences of this. I've given you a written statement also. I hope you all take a look at it. Other people have signed my written statement and handed it in to you as their own also. I accept this; they do too. I spent a lot a, the last two days that I had to do on this. I talked to as many people as I could in my neighborhood and most people did not even know that this was happening. It's not fair, it's not right, the due process has been violated. I ask for dismissal now, without hearing any more witnesses, I ask you, Chairman, to make a motion to dismiss this immediately. RAPPIFIY: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from the Commission? Okay, will the following please come forward? Edmund Kellogg Clark, Byron Matthews, Richard Harbottle CLARK: He had to leave. RAFFIPIY: He had to leave—Anna Maneja-Andres, and Clarita Maneja. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. RAPPIFIY: Thank you. We'll start from my right, my left, your right and come down this way. Thank you. MATTHEWS: My name is Byron Matthews. I just simply say I object to it. I yield my time. CLARK: My name is Eddie Clark. First of all I wanna thank Prescott for his heroic effort yesterday. He has a heart condition, but he spent the whole day canvassing, walking around the neighborhood meeting people. That's quite a heroic effort. I'm sure you noticed that when we arrived this morning, we arrived with a large contingent of about twenty, thirty people who were prepared to testify against this application. These are working people. They had to go pick up EXHIBIT C 10 children. They had to go to work. A number of them you'll see asked me to speak on their behalf because I've done a lot of research. Is it possible to use the application maps? There's some slides that would be very useful for my presentation, and if I could possibly borrow that pointer too, that would be marvelous. KAY: Okay, which maps, please? CLARK: Go back to where you showed the photos of Kua`aina Road. There you go. KAY: Okay. CLARK: Let me see, no, go back one more please. No, one more. Well, that's the sign. Okay, let's, let's, go back one where you just were. It's the one where you can actually see the sign. ANDREWS: Are you looking for the photo of CLARK: The photo that was just up that showed the sign at the end of the road. ANDREWS: Two ahead I think. CLARK: There, okay. You see the sign, the square sign right there. That is at the end of the road, and if you go back a few more photos, you'll get perspective on where that sign actually is. Here, right, right here, you see the -- W. ELLWOOD (from audience): The sign is here. CLARK: Yeah. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): Kua`aina Road is here. CLARK: Is that 200 yards? W. ELLWOOD (from audience): This is the camp road, not Kua`aina Road. CLARK: It's not Kua`aina Road. We'll get to that later. But that is key because AT&T failed to follow their legal, legal obligations for notification. And I will bring up later numerous instances, thank you very much, how they've failed this application process entirely, deliberately, and arrogantly. Okay, a number of people asked me to speak on their behalf. One person actually came with her own testimony, but she had to leave to pick up her children. So, I'll speak on her behalf first. Her name is Aisha `Iaukea. Ms. `Iaukea is an indigenous descendant of the specific kuleana lands involved in this application. I'm sorry, this is not prepared. We scribbled this out together before she had to leave. Ms. `Iaukea arrived at this hearing at 9 a.m. as specified in the public notice. She had to leave to pick up her children. She asked me to speak on her behalf. Ms. `Iaukea is a wildlife advocate. She is also working with archaeologists, historians, and the EXHIBIT C 11 Hawaiian Burial Council regarding this permit application. On another note, the department of fish and game responded to this application belatedly. I just received a copy of their comments yesterday. Jessica, was that yesterday? Where's Jessica? Yeah, I believe I just received those yesterday. I've been asking to be updated all through this process and that, that information just came yesterday from fish and game. Okay, this application process cannot legally proceed until the appropriate experts from [inaudible] have had opportunity to review it. Kamehameha Schools has also expressed concerns about this tower. In my testimony, I will address the Applicant's failure to provide public notice in accordance with the law. It's because of this failure that Ms. `Iaukea and her native contingent weren't able to be here. And on to my testimony. Did I hear correctly that you folks volunteer for this? RAFFIPIY: That's correct. CLARK: Okay [laughing]. I had to go murder Albezia trees during the lunch break just to retain my, regain my sanity after this morning. Anyway, kudos to you. I don't know how you do it. Anyway, now on to my testimony. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, today you're being asked to consider application of a multi -national corporation that intends to railroad through, a facility that will cause great material harm to the surrounding community. The Applicant has shown arrogant disregard for the planning process. I am just a farmer, yet my cursory perusal of the documents revealed numerous discrepancies. The sloppy application repeatedly insults this Commission with prevarications and omissions. Doubtless, this is a proven industry strategy. I imagine they are relying on the pressure of the Shot Clock Rule to Shanghai the process. You're all familiar with the Shot Clock Rule in regard to these applications? Okay, I see some nodding heads. Anyway, this is not a nimby complaint. There is no functional reason why the proposed facility needs to be in anyone's back yard. There are so many other options. This is a high-density neighborhood. For your consideration, I would like to bring to your attention the following application discrepancies in the order they appear in the application correspondence. Section 25-2-63 pertaining to public notification of an application. The rule states the sign shall be posted at or near the property boundary adjacent to a public road bordering the property and shall be readable from said public road. So, is everyone clear on the discrepancy there? They hid this sign way down. The Applicants posted their sign on a decrepit private dirt road more than two hundred yards from any public road, in a place that is traveled by less than one percent of the citizens that reside in the area affected by the application. I was told by a County planner that AT&T had initially intended to post a sign on a gated private road that is used by none of the affected parties, North Road, specifically. All of the text that I'm quoting is contained in the application and correspondence. I sited specific sections and the written testimony that each of you have received. First, from Director Yee's October 10h letter to the Applicant. Item number six, regarding the mandated written notification. Mr. Yee had to take the Applicant to task because they omitted 16 parcels from the list of surrounding properties. Next, from Andrew Tomlinson's November 5 response to Director Yee's October 10 letter, item number seven regarding co - location equipment. Mr. Tomlinson's testimony is very interesting. He, I quote him, "We do EXHIBIT C 12 spend considerable time searching for co -locations." Please consider that in the following. Regarding co-locationed equipment, it is impossible to determine at this time if other carriers will desire to collab, to co -locate equipment on the proposed tower, and it is not possible to calculate needed space in anticipation of future undefined potential co -location tenants as their number and cabinet space needs cannot be determined at this time. There's some slick bully play for you. If I sat on this Commission, I would see this statement as an insult to my intelligence before, as an insult to my intelligence before AT&T built a hugely expensive two hundred foot tower, they signed agreements with co -location tenants for lease of tower and cabinet space. This is standard business procedure in business, whether one is building a tower or a shopping center, and Mr. Tomlinson very clearly cooperated that. They would not commission such an investment without commitments from tenants. In my estimation, this statement conveys disregard to for the integrity of this esteemed panel and the intelligence of its constituents. This tower will be a monstrosity, of bristling antennas and other hardware. It will not look anything like what you saw on the photos, or the pictures that mock up, etcetera. Next, proposed project details, subject property. It says, "The property is not in use for agriculture." The property owner's a real estate speculator. He fenced the property and keeps a few animals in the unmanaged pasture in order to avoid paying property taxes. From a legal and tax standpoint, the property is being, is being used for agriculture. Undoubtedly, he also claims income tax benefits from the sham farming operation. In fact, the pasture's dominated by weed species that are toxic to livestock because he's never cared for it. Like most real estate speculators in Hawaii, he is gaming the system. Next, access and parking. The text says, "The access road is within the Property parcel and is owned by Richard [and Yvette] Umiat." The access road in question is Iwasaki Camp Loop. This is not Mr. Umiat's road, and it is not contained within his parcel. This road belongs to all the properties and owners on the access road. Mr. Umait is not entitled to sell use of the road to other entities without permission from all the owners. AT&T will be driving heavy equipment on our privately maintained road. The road is already in poor condition. The heavy AT&T construction traffic will make the road undriveable for the passenger cars that Iwasaki Camp residents must use to access their homes. They don't have any options. Next, project description, wireless facilities and equipment, ground equipment. The text states that the tower infrastructure will include "50 -kW back-up generator that will power the facility in case of emergency." Then in 2.3.1 they state, "The equipment associated with the facility will operate virtually noise -free." I hope you all caught that. Apparently, in whatever rainbow bubble the Applicant's live, they have access to virtually noise -free fifty kW diesel generators. Perhaps they can order one of these for me while they're at it. And maybe a unicorn too. Apparently escaped their awareness that power outages are routine in Puna. The emergencies of which they speak are normal here. The neighborhood would have to endure the racket of this generator at all hours of the day and night. Oops, no mine is not double -sided, yours is, sorry. Next, AT&T network coverage and services, statement of objectives for proposed facility. The text states, "...this new site will provide coverage to the immediate area." I have previously EXHIBIT C 13 lived in the shadow of an AT&T tower and experienced constantly troubled reception. Big Island AT&T network Chief Engineer, Jeff Yamane, explained to me that one is, when one is directly situated directly adjacent to a cell tower, the signal will go over the cell user. The customer cellular device picks up signals reflected off nearby objects, as well as signals from other cell towers. This results in extraneous noise, echos, and other distortions that make conversations impossible. Mr. Yamane explained to me that this phenomena is well known as tower shadow. I addressed this in other concerned, other concerns to the Applicant in writing on December 9h, shortly after receiving notification of the permit applications. Mr. Tomlinson responded with boiler plate brush-offs to all of my concerns. Had AT&T been willing to engage in any meaningful dialog, we might not now be engaged in a divisive battle. I was one of AT&T's first cellular customers on this island. I'm all too familiar with their routine prevarication and arrogance. Regardless of whether this Commission approves this permit, AT&T will soon learn that it is not in their best interest to build this tower. They've got a big head start, but we are just getting started. Environmental health and health effects prohibited from from consideration. "Any testimony or documents introduced relating to the environmental or health effects of the proposed Facility should be disregarded in this proceeding." Yeah, so, we're aware of the law. But ask you Commissioners, are any of you, of you Commissioners familiar with this sordid history of this statute? Long before there was any cellular network, long before any of this technology existed, stakeholders in the wireless communications industry had the foresight to realize that saturating the planet with high-powered radio waves would eventually raise the public outcry. Much like the petrochemical industry, they conducted their own research as to the detrimental health effects of the saturation of radiation. We may never know the carefully sequestered results of their clandestine research. We do know, what we do know, for fact, is they spent millions lobbying for legislative, legislation that prohibits you from considering testimony and documents relating to the environmental or health effects. So, I will not offer any such testimony. What we can address is the proven damage to property values caused by the pervasive perception that radiation has chronic detrimental health effects. Regardless of whether such perception have any factual basis, the damage caused by the perception is very real. The loss and sale ability and prices of properties located near transmission towers is well-documented. Now for my personal part. That's just where AT&T messed up. Just in their arrogance did not bother to follow permit process. They did it however they felt, they did it however they felt, and they said what they felt like saying without regard whether or not it applied to the rules. I spent more than decades searching for an affordable farm property. The difficulty finding such a property is entirely due to the control the speculators such as Mr. Umiat exert on the market. I spent my life studying and practicing sustainable farming methods. Such methods are the most cost-effective means of returning carbon into the soil where it came from. These methods are known as regenerative farming. Three years ago, I purchased property immediately adjacent to the proposed cell tower for the specific purpose of providing a facility for young people to come learn this indispensable technology. This long-term apprenticeship program is free of charge to participants. Apprentices are housed and fed free of charge for the duration of their training. One of the principle attractions of this program is the opportunity to live and work in a healthy, pleasant environment. This farm is the parcel adjoining the proposed facility. It is uphill from the proposed cell tower, so the 24-hour flashing lights, noise, and looming presence would be EXHIBIT C 14 inescapable from anywhere on our farm. Furthermore, environmentally conscious people are predominantly health conscious, regardless of the suppression of medical evidence. Such people are not inclined to subject themselves to the perceived radiation risk. Attracting and retaining qualified apprentices would become exceedingly difficult if this tower is built. This is my life savings invested in this. Everything I've worked for, for my entire life is invested in this property. AT&T stands to make huge, obscene profits on this, and they're shutting everybody else down. The tower would damage the operation in many other ways, for example, in order to be competitive in a global marketplace, the small farmer must use every tool available. Aerial drones have become an indispensable tool in agriculture for every aspect of managing farm property, crops and pest control. Drones cannot be used within, my understanding, is one thousand foot of the tower. We're way closer than that. Last but not least, AT&T is very skilled in their site scouting process. One of their principle motivations for focusing on this site is demographic. During their scouting, they observed that this is an economically depressed neighborhood occupied predominantly by non -Caucasian residents. Iwasaki Camp is still struggling to recover from the closing of Puna Sugar. Despite the high population density, AT&T choose this site because they believe the residents would be too ignorant and busy with their own problems to give them any trouble. Please do not add to the heavy burdens of this neighborhood by approving this monstrosity. There are huge areas of remote vacant and agricultural land in Puna. The owners of those lands would be delighted to share in AT&T's obscene profits by leasing them space for a tower. I beg the Commission to deny this application without further consideration. If you do so, perhaps next time AT&T will not attempt to subvert the permit process or arrogantly disregard the welfare and will of our community. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you Mr. Clark. Ms. Andres? MANEJA-ANDRES: Aloha, thank you for listening to my statement. My name is, I'm going to attempt to speak without being emotional, but my name is Anna Maneja-Andres and I wanted to go on record to say that my entire family and I oppose the proposed development of the AT&T cell phone tower and facility. My family and I live together, with my mother and my sister's family. My sister and my brother-in-law had to leave because they have to work. We live on a ten -acre property on 17-4101 Kua`aina Road, directly across the proposed location. We're against it because we're concerned about the possible adverse effects it could have on human and animal health and our agriculture. On our property, we have macadamia nuts, banana trees, literally dozens of trees, flowers, and plant types that my mother, a retired DOE teacher, and our family cultivate. I'm not sure if an environmental impact study is required for such a project, but in viewing information online, it seems that these types of towers pose health risks not only for our plants and animals, but also for our children, our elderly community, and everyone in general. Many of the people in our community are low-income households. Many of them have English as a second language, many who do not understand exactly what's happening or what's going on. And I don't think that enough time or effort has been put forth to educate them about what exactly is happening. My family and I are against the location of the proposed tower because of possible health risks it poses, possibly. My mom purchased this property in 1996 as a location to retire to in the country with her children and her grandchildren, to be able to garden and farm on her land. This structure takes away from our land being country. This is one EXHIBIT C 15 hundred eighty feet of a proposed tower in the midst of cows, macadamia nut trees, avocado trees, banana trees, coconuts, and papaya trees. That no longer makes it country. My mother, who is a breast cancer survivor, she and we did not ever expect that our home would be in such close proximity to something that would ever be possibly emitting microwaves, radio waves, whatever kind of waves that might jeopardize us or by something that could possibly cause cancer or pose a risk to her family and our children. We're just regular people like you guys, and I feel like looking at the map that they put up and them saying that we're living in a low-density population area, that we don't matter. So, let's place the cell tower where other, other people wouldn't want it in their back yard, and I'm here to tell you that we do matter. We're mothers, we're fathers, and children, and contributing members of the community. We matter, too. And I hope that you find it in your hearts to believe that we matter. MANEJA: That's my daughter, and I'm Clarita Maneja. I'm speaking on behalf of my family and myself. I strongly disagree with the proposed construction of the cell tower in Kea`au. My residence is just a few hundred feet away from that proposed location. I'm retired and I love gardening. I spend most of my waking time outside. I plan to spend the rest of my life in the community that is free from the dangerous emissions from that tower. Cell phones are good; we have good signal too. I use one. However, I think that they should look, the AT&T, for a different site that is not so close to a neighborhood. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, given the number of people who asked me to speak on their behalf, I have one more comment. This is an Ilocano community, Iwasaki Camp. It's one of the last ethnic camps left. I have lived next door to Ilocano's for most of my life and one of the main reasons why most of these people were not aware of this tower and why they aren't here today is you probably all know that the Ilocano work ethic is practically insane. I wasn't able to communicate with a lot of them because if the sun is up, they're out working. We did our best, but given notification and the incorrect notification, just honor these people and their work, and what they've contributed to this Island and this State. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from the Commission? All right, the next following individuals please come forward --Eunice Harbottle. AUDIENCE MEMBER: She left for work. RAFFIPIY: Cheryl Cobile. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): She had to go back to work also. RAFFIPIY: Maria Cobile. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): She is 86 years old and had to go home and take a nap. RAFFIPIY: Jaerick Medeiros-Garcia, Lauretta Bentosino, Julie Murcia, Julie? Do we have James Rusch? I think he deferred time to Mr. Clark. Kirk Weston? EXHIBIT C 16 W. ELLWOOD (from audience): These are working people. RAFFIPIY: Claudia Rohr. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): Many of these are what they say [inaudible] and left their yellow sheet there, but they wanted to speak but every minute they spend here is time that they lose. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): A day's work. CLARK (from audience): They are blue collar workers. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): Blue collar workers. RAFFIPIY: Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead first, Mr. Garcia. MEDEIRO S -GARCIA: Hello everybody, again. Thank you for you guys' time, listening to our response to this application. My name is Jaerick Medeiros-Garcia, and I reside in Pepe`eke6, which we call Makahanaloa before it was named Pepe`eke6. We deal with the same issues, excuse me, with the towers in Pepe`eke6. I oppose this permits that is being requested for put these towers up, but I do have a suggestion to the AT&T gentleman. We have a nice community up the road called Sunrise Ridge, and the expansion road, Highway 2000 to Saddle Road, they got a new subdivision in there. They might need towers there, you know. Because there's where all the rich people live, they got none of those up there. They not even thinking of giving them permits to do it up there. Right, Mr. Yee? Other than that, the thing is I oppose these permits because there is solutions for these towers. Solutions like holding the FCC accountable to update their information so that our County can care for our health and welfare of our people of our County. Right now you folks are tied behind your back, your hands are tied behind the back, you guys cannot make a decision on the health and welfare of these towers. FCC not never updated their information since 1993, not '96, 1993. I've been studying these things for a while now. And yes, they do not give the proper paperwork to let notify anybody to come in and sit and oppose these things. Cause I am a subject to it. I am a victim to this things. People do get sick because of these things. There is research out there for you folks to go look up. Go check `um out. It's for real. There is updated research. This thing is cancerous. I'm amazed that these guys like to target low income, schools, churches, health food stores, everyplace where people live, people go to. Kids, children, kupuna. Everybody that is important to each other. This is for real. We don't need no more cell towers. We gotta hold them accountable before allowing any more towers approved, have some mandatory policies and procedures. You know? EIS, EXHIBIT C 17 boundaries around these things. No homes within 600 feet or so to make it a little safer if that's what the County really wants. For me it's a, you know, fighting the one in my community. Geez Corp Counsel got hands on top that TMK; a lot of papers missing now from that TMK. Missing for three weeks, but lucky thing I get the RFP from two years ago. You know? Other than that, ag land, ag zoning should never have these things because it does damage flowers, fruits. I have proof. My tropical flowers are burning. Trees are turning all yellow. January 251h I drove down the road below Waiakea High School, AT&T workers on the tower. I wait there till they done just so I can talk to them about monitoring and regulating the RF's, the microwaves, whatever coming off these. You know what they told me? Amazing this Island, scary, bouncing in the red off of their meters. He had to go up there and turn down AT&T. He couldn't touch the Verizon one because he's not contracted to touch those. A majority of all the towers that he drove up to bouncing in the red. Meaning FCC's not monitoring and regulating these things. It's concerning. I concerned for your family, your keiki-s, your kupuna, whatever, your, your mo`opuna-s. It is very serious. It is health issues that I'm concerned about. Other countries ban these things from their country because it's dangerous to the human body. Please, you guys, just deny these permits. Have standards, have policies, and procedures for these towers to even put one permit out there and request to be built in these communities. Mahalo for you time. RAFFIPIY: Thanks a lot. Go ahead. BENTOSINO: Aloha, my name is Laurette Bentosino. I reside in Kurtistown. I moved here from Oahu. The property that I own, I bought that in December the 3rd, 1990. I still live there. And, I'm just here to say that I definitely oppose the permit for this location. I do have with myself three generations that have, that will occupy. I'm a owner -occupant of the home that I reside, and to hear just a gesture of what they wanna bring into a place where I believe is my home and my next generation's is appalling, but I'm just here to say that I oppose for the permit. Thank you for your time. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. Do we have any questions from the Commission? Anybody in the audience want to testify that hasn't testified, that need to W. ELLWOOD (from audience): May I say something, sir? RAFFIPIY: Fifteen seconds. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): Yes, I'll be as quick as possible. HALL: You have to use the microphone. RAFFIPIY: Use the mic please. W. ELLWOOD: Thank you for listening to me. The population that we're talking about is much, much larger than represented here. The owners of the properties are the parents, maybe the children, multi -generational all of these houses. Some of these houses have twenty or even more people living in them. Three or four different related family units. It may not be legal, but EXHIBIT C 18 that's who's there. So, when they say this is not a densely populated area, it's simply not true. You have no idea how many people are in that camp. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, sir. Any questions from the Commission? Can I get a motion to close public testimony? CLARKSON: Oh, I thought you meant for the testifiers. I have questions for staff. REPLOGLE: I move that we close public testimony. AGUINALDO: Second. RAFFIPIY: It is moved and seconded. AUDIENCE MEMBER: This gentleman wants to speak. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Get one more tower that they going build right across—in Paradise Park. HALL: That's the next, the next item. RAFFIPIY: Yeah, that's the next item. It is moved and seconded that we close public testimony. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. RAFFIPIY: Those opposed say nay. Now public testimony is now closed. Can I get a motion for action? CLARKSON: Well, before we do that, I just have a question about the claim that was made. This has come up before for a right of access to this proposed site. There was a claim made that there's no legal access across the route that is planned to be used. Can staff clarify that for us, please? DARROW: Thank you, Commissioner Clarkson. If I may direct your attention to the site plan. In reviewing Real Property Tax records—is this working? Okay, this particular road here, there's two ownerships of roads for these roads in the camp area. The outer road as well as the internal roads. The outer road is identified through Real Property Tax records as being owned by the same person who owns this property. CLARK (from audience): That's not what my deed says, sir. Would you like to DARROW: Again, that's what Real Property Tax records identify as ownership. The internal road is identified as various owners, and it doesn't list a name, which normally identifies all the surrounding owners within that area. EXHIBIT C 19 W. ELLWOOD (from audience): What would be the access through my property then? I would have no access whatsoever. DARROW: Again, I'm just stating the facts. As far as W. ELLWOOD (from audience): I have a legal right DARROW: Again, I'm just stating the facts as what it says. Thank you. CLARK (from audience): Could you please site the specific fact, what you're quoting? DARROW: This is the County of Hawaii Real Property Tax records for the TMK that is identified CLARK (from audience): —Cite the text. DARROW: I just did. CLARK (from audience): No, I'm just hearing your words. I wanna hear what it says in the DARROW: I just passed the text out to the Commission and that's what they're looking at. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): We have a right to have a copy of that too, sir DARROW: —It's available HALL: On the Real Property Tax website DARROW: On the Real Property Tax website. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): No, right here so we can see. DARROW: You can access it at this time. CLARK (from audience): [Inaudible] DARROW: Anyway— CLARKSON: So, just to help out, just to help out here, this parcel number that's highlighted here is the one you're talking about, that's— DARROW: —That is the property. I made a reference to the property. So that's this particular property. CLARKSON: Okay. EXHIBIT C 20 DARROW: If you go to the other one, it says "road" right there, and that is the TMK. If you go to the second page, you'll see what that TMK entails. CLARKSON: Okay, so the TMK, for your information you were asking for it, is 170171550000. That's the TMK for the road, and this shows it as being owned by three people. Richard Nobles Umiat, and Yvette Galima Umiat, and Ka Po Sze. DARROW: So again, on, you'll see a reference to one that says interior road, and that is the interior roads, and again, they are identified on that website. I mean, you can see them highlighted on that first page right there. CLARKSON: Oh, here we go. DARROW: Yeah. CLARK (from audience): Mr. Chairman, may we be recognized? CLARKSON: Well public testimony has already been closed. RAFFIPIY: Yeah, public testimony has been closed. W. ELLWOOD (from audience): Why? DARROW: Again REPLOGLE: Excuse me. RAFFIPIY: He's trying to answer the question, please. REPLOGLE: Excuse me. RAFFIPIY: Let him answer the question, please. REPLOGLE: We're not the enemy here, and you guys are taking a very aggressive tone with everybody. We're here to help and understand. CLARK (from audience): Would somebody like to see my deed and his deed? DARROW: Your deed may allow access through that road— W. ELLWOOD (from audience): That's not what it says. DARROW: Well again, when we, as the Planning Department refer who owns a piece of property, we go to the Real Property Tax information. Now, if something has changed recently, then that's not updated, but this is currently what is identified as the ownership for that particular EXHIBIT C 21 road. So if you have an issue with it, you need to talk to the County of Hawaii Property Tax office, okay? W. ELLWOOD (from audience): That is false information. DARROW: Again, we are just presenting the facts. W. ELLWOOD (from audience) No, you're not! CLARK (from audience): What would be our opportunity to DARROW: Anyway, do you, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Chairman, are there any other questions that you'd like me to answer? RAFFIPIY: Anybody, any Commissioner have any questions for any staff member? CLARKSON: I had an additional question. I made some notes here about the 50kW generator. Are there any noise standards that apply to a facility like this when it's in emergency operating mode with the back-up generator? DARROW: The only requirements I understand for noise complaints or noise levels comes under the Department of Health. They monitor that, and in the agricultural district, it's quite high, which is 70 dBa. It's as high as industrial zoning. Residential comes down to 55 dBa. CLARKSON: Thank you. AU: Mr. Chair, a question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead, Commissioner Au. AU: So, Jeff, question for you. We, we rely on staff to provide us whatever information you can, oh, excuse me, whatever information we need to make the best decision we can make on every applicant. So, there were some comments made by the testifiers about non-compliance, specifically about the mailouts, and I'm looking at this document, 500 -foot radius, I see the list of all the people that were notified, and it's true that a lot of the testifiers are, are landowners. So, I just wanna make sure, put it on record, that it, the Applicant is in compliance and notified the proper, the proper landowners. DARROW: Yeah, the, just to explain the process, is when an application is submitted to the Planning Department, there's a period of time where we review for acceptance and completeness. Once we've accepted it, then our staff sends a letter to the applicant, and puts in that letter that they have to do the first notification and they have to do posting of signage. So, we, we'll get the information from the applicant showing proof that they've sent out the first notification, including normally a copy of the letter and a list of the TMKs that they've sent it to. Additionally, when we agendize the hearing, which is normally twenty days before the hearing, the applicant has within ten days of that letter to send out the second notification. The only EXHIBIT C 22 difference between the two is that the second notification will have the date, time, and location of the Planning Commission hearing. In this case, the Applicant submitted information that he sent out two notifications. The first notification, which the letter is identified as being sent out on December 2nd, and the second letter being identified as beingI don't, I cannot say it was sent out on that date, it was dated December 2nd, and the second letter was dated January 15, 2020. The Applicant would have to verify that on what day they sent that letter. Normally, when we receive, there's several ways they can submit evidence of sending it out. One is through an affidavit where they do a signed affidavit stating I sent out these mailings on this date. Okay, in this particular case, he had an affidavit saying he sent it out, but it didn't say specifically what day, but we did receive the first notification and the second notification in January. So, we'll have to ask the Applicant specifically when he sent out, those dates. The other way that we prefer is that you actually submit a notarized, I mean a certified list or certified mailings because there's no question at that point, but the law allows them to submit an affidavit stating that they did send it out. AU: Okay, well thank you, and you know, just a comment for my fellow Commissioners. You know, we trust our Planning Director and his staff to provide us whatever information we need, and if it's not there and it's not true, then that's in question, but we are provided what we need to know to make the decision. And you know, there's a lot of emotional testifiers, on various applicants that we have, but we have to remember to vote on what the agendized item is. DARROW: If I could just chime in real quick. It seems like a common issue that we run into all the time when people say they weren't notified, it's because they are renters and not owners. So, the only way that an applicant can notify surrounding property owners is through the information provided on the Real Property Tax website, which is the owners or lessees of record. Renters normally aren't listed on there as a lessee of record. CLARKSON: I have one other question. There was an assertion made that the notification sign that was shown in the photo has to be on a public road. DARROW: That is correct. CLARKSON: And what will the status of this application be since it's clear that the property, if it's correct that the sign was put on the corner of the Umiats' property, it was not, therefore, put on a public road. It was obviously their property that they put the sign on. DARROW: I would agree with that, but that is the Commission's decision to make that call, as far as what they want to do with that, but in this particular case it appears the sign was not placed fronting a public road. AU: I have another question. So, there was also a testimony saying, talking about Kam schools, so did you get any correspondences from Kamehameha Schools on record? DARROW: We did not. AU: Okay. EXHIBIT C 23 DARROW: What I will do is have Jessica confirm that they were notified just looking at the list. AU: Yes, they were notified. DARROW: Okay. AU: I do see Bishop Estates, TMK Kamehameha Schools address, P.O. Box in Honolulu. So, they were notified according to these documents. DARROW: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Do we have any other questions from any Commission member? I'd like to call a five-minute recess. Chair Rafpiy called a recess at 3:39 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 3:48 p.m. RAFFIPIY: Windward Planning Commission back in session. Any future questions before we go into, calling for motion for action. I need a motion for action. CLARKSON: I have a motion. I move that in light of the fact that it appears that the project was improperly noticed and there's still questions, might be some questions about the access road to the property, that the application be continued until such time the staff can verify proper notification and be absolutely certain that the Real Property Tax records are correct as to the ownership, or as to the access of the property. DELA CRUZ: Second. REPLOGLE: Second. AGUINALDO: Third [jokingly]. DARROW: If I could just get clarification. So, we did confirm notification to the property owners was valid, and it was, it was sent out according to our rules. For first and second notification. Again, the sign issue, being on a private road, that should, that could be an issue that they should post the sign on the public road that fronts the property. Additionally, we'll speak with Real Property Tax records to confirm or deny the ownership issue on that roadway. Thank you. AGUINALDO: I agree. AU: I have a question for staff real quick, Jeff. So that public road would be the main highway? Okay, that's the only road, right? DARROW: No. The public road would be Kua`aina Road, which is EXHIBIT C 24 HALL: At the point. DARROW: Yeah, it's right at the point here. It would be in the AU: And what about that road behind, is that a public that's a private road? DARROW: Yeah. AU: Okay, so it would have to be right on that little piece of land right there. DARROW: Yeah, it's gonna have to be right there. AU: So, where exactly is the existing sign now? DARROW: I believe it's right in the corner, let me get this, this thing is really tweaky. Right here. AGUINALDO: Right there. AU: Okay. DARROW: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Any other questions? AGUINALDO: No. RAFFIPIY: Discussions? Okay. ANDREWS: And who, who was the second who? REPLOGLE: Me. Second to this? ANDREWS: There had a motion that was moved by AGUINALDO: Oh, and Donn. ANDREWS: Commissioner Clarkson? AGUINALDO: I was third. HALL: Everybody seconded. ANDREWS: I just need to record who did. RAFFIPIY: Donn. EXHIBIT C 25 ANDREWS: Okay. HATA-FINLEY: I have Donn. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead and poll the Commission. ANDREWS: The was a motion to continue. Can I take a vote? AGUINALDO: Yes. ANDREWS: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. ANDREWS: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. ANDREWS: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. ANDREWS: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. ANDREWS: Chair Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. ANDREWS: Vice Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. ANDREWS: The motion passes. RAFFIPIY: Motion carried. The discussion ended at 3:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT C 26