|
JAEGER:IÓd like to address that question. We will be giving our
<br />the optimum in service using the 80-foot height or the 90-foot overall height for this
<br />tower and we use three measurements for making that determinatio
<br />coverage, we have in-car coverage and we have in-building coverage; and we use three
<br />different levels for our propagation studies to make determinations. And, in this
<br />particular case, on-street coverage is most important in the area going up towards
<br />Paauilo, and we will be providing that coverage using the height that weÓve proposed.
<br />KUBOTA:Okay. I found the sentence that was bothering me. ItÓs
<br />Mr. FukeÓs response on July 8, 2003, the last bullet. Says, ÐGiven the above, Nextel
<br />elected to seek out its own site at a location that would not be visibly conspicuous,
<br />although coverage would be less than optimal because of a conscious decision to
<br />minimize visual impact.Ñ ThatÓs what triggered this concern, I guess.
<br />FUKE:Sure. Since itÓs my letter, I guess, IÓve got to answer. You know,
<br />if I can kind of step back a little, and this thing is basically all new to me, too, as I go into
<br />the application. And a lot of it was information that I gleaned as a result of working on a
<br />project like this. But from what I understand in the NextelÓs situation, you know, they
<br />have a tower in Ninole, well, they have a facility in Ninole, right, and they also have
<br />another one out in Paauilo. And so they need to have, just to fill in like a small little gap.
<br />And the primary gap is in that area from like Waipunale, you know, and heading back
<br />towards, I mean, heading north towards Paauilo. Now, thatÓs why if they were to have a
<br />tower like on the Laupahoehoe side or like Laupahoehoe side of the Laupahoehoe Gulch
<br />in Laupahoehoe town, for example, then it would not, it would duplicate their existing
<br />services that they already have thatÓs been provided by the Ninole tower and it would not
<br />provide the optimum coverage that they would need on the Ookala side. And this is why
<br />that they were looking for an area that was on the north side of the Laupahoehoe Gulch.
<br />When you look at that area, they were primarily like, you know, there were several sites
<br />that were evaluated; and the idealized one would have been the site that was issued to the
<br />U.S. Cellular by this Commission and which is on State land. And there have been some
<br />on-going discussions between the State, the U.S. Cellular and its transfer subsequently to
<br />AT&T.
<br />Now, as Mr. Jaeger had explained earlier, you know, Nextel already has this agreement to
<br />co-locate with AT&T. But their, the negotiations with AT&T over the last three years
<br />have not really been productive because of this, the lag itÓs taking to have AT&T fully
<br />assume control of that tower. WeÓre not really at liberty to disclose like what all of the
<br />problems are because they relate to the current carrier and discussions with the State on
<br />that particular matter, but itÓs beyond AT&TÓs control and itÓs beyond the ApplicantÓs
<br />control. But in the meantime time kind of marches on and they have to find a facility. So
<br />they also look at alternative sites and then they came into this so-called, what we call it
<br />the Broda site, the owner of the property.
<br />In looking at this area, ideally, you know, a taller tower would mean like, you know, you
<br />would not have any glitches, you know, in terms of services. But this tower like from
<br />NextelÓs perspective is, itÓs 80 feet, itÓll provide service but youÓll have a few spotty
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|