Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-18 tnextel PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 18, 2003 . A regularly advertised hearing on the application of NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC (SMA 03-004/SPP 03-005) was called to order at 9:28 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with First Vice-Chairperson Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones William GrahamBill Thibadeau Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC. (SMA 03-004/SPP 03-005) Applications for a Special Management Area Use Permit and a Spec the construction of an 80-foot telecommunication monopole and related ground facilities on a 600-square foot area situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The 600-foot site is a portion of a 21+-acre lot located at the north end of Laupahoehoe Gulch and makai of State Highway 19 (Hawaii Belt Road), Waipunalei, No TMK: 3-6-04: por. 7. FUJIKAWA:Application No. 2, Nextel Partners, Inc. (SMA 03-004/SPP 03- 005). Application is for a Special Management Area Use Permit and a Special Permit to allow the construction of an 80-foot telecommunication monopole and related ground facilities on a 600-square foot area situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Chairman. If I may direct your attention to the location map. The proposed site is located here, identified by a red dot. This is Mamalahoa Highway identified in black, the Hawaii Belt Road. This direction is towards Hilo. This direction is towards Honokaa. This is Laupahoehoe Point Park located in green in this area. EXHIBIT A If I may direct your attention to the site map. The proposed site, tower site, is located in red. The Applicants are proposing, theyÓre requesting to construct an 80-foot tall telecommunication tower or monopole with a 10-foot omni-directional antenna located on top. This would be in a 600-square foot area of a 21.03 acre parcel identified in blue. The request also asks for related facilities, which are a single-story structure less than 15 feet in height which will house MPIÓs Nextel Partners, Inc.Ós ground equipment as well as outdoor air-conditioning units. This area will be fenced with a 6-foot high chain-linked fence. It should be noted that on this particular property there is an identified archeological feature, the Mamala Heiau, identified in pink. This is approximately 150 feet away from the proposed tower site. In between that area is this area here identified in orange which is an old railroad trench which is approximately 20 to 30 feet deep. ThereÓs quite a bit of vegetation between the tower site and the Heiau. Comments that were received from DLNR Historic Preservation Division as well as the reports submitted by David Shideler of Cultural Surveys Hawaii h anticipate no adverse impacts to the heiau from the proposed tower site. The Planning Director is recommending approval for this request if I may, we have a recent amendment to the conditions that was this will be on Condition 2, sorry about that. The purpose of this amendment is to include a construction time requirement for the proposed tower antenna and related improvements. The amending Condition No. 2 for SMA 03-004 and S follows: ÐConstruction of the proposed telecommunication tower, antenna and related improvements shall be completed within two (2) years from the effective date of this permit. However, prior to the start of construction, including co-location of additional carriers, Final Plan Approval for the proposed tower, antenna and related improvements shall be secured from the Planning Director in accordance with the Plan Approval requirements for telecommunication towers (Zoning Code, Sections 25-2-71 (c)(3), 25-2-72, 25-2-74 and 25-4-12). Plans shall identify existing and proposed structures, fire protection measures, fencing, driveways, and parking area, and proposed tree planting associated with the use. The tower and antenna plans shall be stamped by a structural engineer.Ò Are there any questions? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. IÓm looking at page 10 of the application under E, the Valued Cultural Resources. And thereÓs a discussion there of the Mamala Heiau; and it indicates that should there be legitimate access claims to this Hawaiians, etc. Is that sufficient to safeguard legitimate claims of access or should that be included, should there be a condition reflecting that? 2 FUJIKAWA:Yeah, I think, weÓll have the Planning Director answer to this. SPRINGER:Thank you. YUEN:I think thatÓs a good point. We donÓt have a specific condition on that. I think we should have a condition that said something like, that access would be allowed. IÓm not sure how to qualify that, though. Do you have a suggestion on how it should be determined who would have a claim of access to, for cultural practices on the heiau? SPRINGER:That was going to be my next question on how we verify authenticity. But I wonder if -. ThatÓs an outstanding question and concern that is raised up here, but perhaps we should be considering for future applications as well. Could we just take the language out of the application, Ðshould there be legitimate access claims of this feature?Ñ Again, on page 10 -. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director, you want a few minutes to review this and -. YUEN:ThatÓs a possibility. Why donÓt we discuss that with the Applicant when they come forward. And I do think we should have a conditi the specific wording. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other question from the Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I have just a couple sort of minor points. On the archeological section of our Background Report, seems like there was a sequence of events where the DLNR Historic Preservation Division initially said thereÓs no effect. Then the Applicant informed them of the Mamala Heiau and then the DLNR staff said they would conduct a field check of the site and may submit revised comments. Then the Applicant subsequently submitted a report prepared by a consultant anticipating no significant impact. IÓm just wondering if the DLNR ever did follow through and do that field check they indicated they would do, or if theyÓre planning to do that, DARROW:Good question, Commissioner Graham. I did follow up on t had spoken to Mary Anne Maigret with DLNR Historic Preservation Division. She said they did conduct a field check, they did concur with David ShidelerÓs report, and that they were going to resubmit a follow-up to this. But as of this date we have not received that. But she did say verbally on the phone that they did not anticipate any adverse impacts from the proposed tower site. And she said she would try to get it in by the date of the hearing, but as of this date we have never received it. GRAHAM:Thank you. One other small thing. The pole is like an 80-foot pole. And when IÓm reading the visual impact section, my sense 3 of the pole was 20 feet higher than the highway, but it says the site is 20 feet than the highway. So if the site was 20 feet higher than the pole, it would be 100 feet higher. So I just want to be sure which it is. DARROW:Well, when youÓre traveling on the highway, that particular portion of the property, I donÓt know if youÓre familiar with that area but itÓs kind of a higher area in elevation. So from the ground elevation of where the proposed tower site is, it is 80 feet high plus the 10-foot monopole or the antenna. But when youÓre from, when youÓre on the highway at different areas itÓs going to be lower. If youÓre in a gulch, itÓs going to be, you know, quite a bit higher. But in that area you have an existing strand of different types of trees that seem to block out quite a bit of the visual impact. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? The staff? None? Okay. So the, letÓs see, as far as the height, are you clarified with it? GRAHAM:I think so. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Would the Applicant or the representative, please come forward? Mr. Fuke, youÓve been sworn in. The other two gentlemen, will you kindly raise your right hands? Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. Yes. FUJIKAWA:Please state your names, starting from the left from Mr. Fuke. IÓd like to know who you are, and your address. Go ahead. JAEGER:My name is Pete Jaeger. IÓm the Technical Operations Man for Nextel Partners. My address is 426 Poipu Drive, Honolulu. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. CHUN:Good morning. My name is Calvert Chun. IÓm Project Manage for Nextel in Hawaii. My home address is 98-839 Hiliu Place, Aiea, Hawaii 96701. YOUNG:Good morning, my name is Carl Young. IÓm a Site Acquisition Consultant, contracted by Nextel. My address is 1130 Hind Iuka Drive in Honolulu. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. LetÓs start with Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, my is Sidney Fuke, IÓm a Planning Consultant assisting Nextel on this matter. Your staffÓs report is very accurate as well as the Background Report and the Recommendation. They 4 were reviewed by the Applicant and the Applicant found all of the conditions to be totally acceptable, also, as amended by the staff. WeÓve had some discussions with the Planning Director over the last few days and weÓd like to kind of elaborate on some of them. But before doing so, before proceeding on that component of that presentation, however, IÓd like to take a few minutes to respond to Commissioner SpringerÓs comment regarding the archeological feature, actually the Mamala Heiau. We had represented in the application that, you know, we would do whatever we can, that is, we being Nextel, to work with the landowner in trying to provide access to any person or persons that, or organizations, that may have some legitimate claims to do their customary practice, if itÓs so be it, you know, with the, at the heiau. We could not directly represent that we will provide access because we do not have, I mean, Nextel does not have any controlling interest over that portion. You know, the application was only for a 600-square foot area of that parcel and the landowner is this guy by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Broda. So all we could do is, all Nextel could do is, you know, encourage Mr. Broda to say, fine, you know, that site is on your portion of the property that weÓre not going to be affecting and so if there are legitimate claims that we believe that itÓs only prudent that you provide access to them. And thatÓs why we had structured, the application was structured along that line. In our discussions, I donÓt know if IÓve answered your questions but, I mean, yeah -. SPRINGER:So the heiau at 150 feet from the proposed improvements is outside of this application? FUKE:Correct. SPRINGER:But the Applicant has expressed a willingness to facilitate a meeting of minds between bonafide practitioners and the landowner? FUKE:Yeah. You know, if, for example, a request would come, would be made of Nextel then, you know, we would then pass that informati the landowner, and let them know what the discussions and the terms of the application were. But, you know, Nextel does not have the ability to legally say that, okay, you can have access to that area, so -. SPRINGER:I understand. Thank you for that clarification. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director? YUEN:That is true but the Commission can put conditions on the, that affect the entire property outside of the immediate application site. FUJIKAWA:So, in other words, the Commission can add to the condition that they would have to recognize this -? 5 YUEN:Yes, the application is made on, is also made on behalf of landowner. So, for example, and IÓm not saying they did do this in this case, but if somebody limited an application to a portion of their property in an attempt to avoid a condition, for example -. Suppose you had a piece of oceanfront want a public access condition, and so they applied for a permit for the half of their property that did not include the oceanfront and said that you could not make a public access condition over the rest of the property. We would not recognize that attempt, just to get an example. So I understand that we could not make Nextel do anything with respect to the site, but there is a possibility if the Commission wishes of making a condition that affects property outside of the Nextel by either license or easement, whichever they have, but does affect the landownerÓs property. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Not to belabor the point but I donÓt quite understand how, I think IÓve been told many times that you cannot attach a condition to an application if it is outside of the application; and youÓre saying exactly that. I mean, the control of the surrounding land is not in the control of Nextel as such because they are leasing just ÐxÑ amount of square footage. How do we have jurisdiction then to condition the application with something that has nothing to do with the application itsel FUJIKAWA:Maybe the Corp. Counsel, Mr. Torigoe, you have any comm on this? TORIGOE:Well, it sounds like, you know, Mr. Yuen has basically explained that itÓs, Nextel is here as the applicant but they are also here basically on behalf of the landowner. The landowner has to consent and, you know, be on board with this sort of application. So to the extent that the landowner is part of this application and this project is on this particular legal parcel of land, the Planning DirectorÓs opinion is that you can attach conditions that affect the parcel with respect to access. YUEN:Let me give you another example that actually does relate directly to this application. There were representations in the application, this has to do with the visual impact and the effect of vegetation. There were representations in the application that the visual, part of the thing that softens the visual impact is that thereÓs existing vegetation on the site; and this is true. I went and looked at the site, and it is true that the existing trees and vegetation will reduce the effect on this visually. We put in a condition, though, that some of the existing vegetation has to be retained. Because if weÓre relying on it being there, we need to make sure that it is there. I know that at least one of the trees referred to in that condition is outside of their property. I think that some of the other trees are -. ThereÓs 100 feet of trees? 6 FUKE:Probably, yeah, within the road right-of-way, I think. I would imagine some of the trees fall within the road right-of-way since itÓs outside of the property. YUEN:Of that 100 feet, of the 100-feet condition is in the road right-of- way? FUKE:Some of which would fall within the road right-of-way. Correct. YUEN:Okay. At any rate, some of it is outside of their immediate area that theyÓre applying for. We do have the ability to put conditions on the use of a property. That is in a situation where theyÓre applying for only a portion of a legal parcel, we can put conditions that affect the rest of the parcel. KUBOTA:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:That answers your question, Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:It certainly does, yes. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I would just like to interject. My own personal sense would be, is that if the staff has not determined that, where this site is, is a suitable public access route to the heiau, then it seems like it would be sort of unfair for us to throw a requirement on this Applicant to, in the nature of what weÓve been talking about. But if any way this was clearly a route that would be taken to access the site, then it seems like it would be appropriate. So that seems like that responsibility would fall on the staff to know whether, in fact, this should be deemed such a route. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Is there any other question from the Commission? KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. KUBOTA:That was my next point and I fully support Mr. GrahamÓs stance. I have a couple of questions while I have the microphone. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. You may proceed. KUBOTA:Mr. Fuke, on your application page 4, you refer to a community meeting on May 15th? FUKE:Yes. 7 KUBOTA:And it says that the fate of this application will somewhat be influenced by comments. WhatÓs the follow-up on that? What was did you have one, or -? FUKE:Yes, we did have a meeting with the North Hilo Community Association. It was just a presentation. The association had elected not to provide either a letter of support or a letter of objection. And when I spoke with the associationÓs president, I guess, within the last two or three weeks and asked them whether they were going to testify or provide comment, they said, well, itÓs all up to the individuals. But we walked away with a sense that it was basically, after the visual inspection, excuse me, the visual simulation was done, that the community, as a whole, did not have any objections to the location. See, at that meeting what we had agreed to do was to put a simulated tower, you know, just to give the community a sense as far as if constructed what would be the visual impact, and we had informed the community. And it was up, I think, on one weekend, like on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. And then based upon that then I had subsequently contacted the associationÓs president and the secretary, and then they said that they had not heard any objections to that. KUBOTA:I have another question, Mr. Chair. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. KUBOTA:Above the community meeting paragraph, MPI, Nextel, made conscious effort to lower the height of the tower, at the same time diminishing the effectiveness somewhat. And yet we talk about co-location being our, you know, our goal so that we wouldnÓt have all these things springing up here and there. And, yet, at the same time, by lowering it you have effectively cut off co-lo one more that you speak of. Talk to me about that. FUKE:IÓm glad you raised that question because thatÓs essentially, indirectly, the discussions that weÓve had with the Planning Director over the last few days and as recently as this morning. The ideal situation, of course, would be to have like a higher tower in this particular area. But the Applicants were rather mindful of the visual impact and, so, they had consciously decided to reduce it from maybe an idealized height of about like 100-120 feet down to like only 80 feet. But maybe I should just kind of, at this point in time, turn it over to Mr. Jaeger, who did a lot of this kind of search ring analysis. And then he can provide, I guess, the Commissioners and also reconfirm some of the discussions weÓve had with the Planning Director relative to how or why this particular site was taken, you know, in light of the fact that you do have other existing towers, either existing or proposed towers in that area, and why those towers were dismissed. And I think you can have a better understanding so - FUJIKAWA:Mr. Jaeger, go ahead. JAEGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke, and Commissioners. What we tried to with Nextel is we established a specific search ring for our site builts; and the search ring 8 geographic area is determined by basically holes in our network. And, so, in this particular case we have a hole in our network between the town of Paauilo and the town of Ninole. And the search ring was centered in the town of Ookala, and itÓs called the Ookala search ring. And the particular area that we have chosen is one that is right along the highway, offers a great view from an RF perspective towards the Paauilo site, and then back down towards the Ninole site, and gives us the optimum coverage in an 80-foot configuration. WeÓve looked at other candidates in the area. I think the AT&T tower which is on the ridge outside of Ookala is certainly a good RF consideration as far as a candidate goes; and we would be applying for that if we had the opportunity to secure that property. We have a co-location agreement, a master agreement, with AT&T, so itÓs very easy for us to kind of co-locate on their towers. But, in this particular case, that tower is not available to us. FUJIKAWA:The other testifier, are you ready to testify, also, pertaining to this? What is your name? CHUN:I was just going -. IÓm sorry, Calvert Chun with Nextel Partners. FUJIKAWA:Okay, Mr. Chun. CHUN:Yeah, Calvert Chun. I actually was going to expand a little bit more on Ms. KubotaÓs question about the 80-foot tower and the fact that we will have a design and engineer to accommodate one more carrier at the 60-foot level. But itÓs true, weÓre trying to, that Nextel is trying to strike a balance here between the visual impact and co-location. Because if we attempt to accommodate three carriers, for example, this pole is going to have to be taller than 80 feet, obviously. And itÓs going to be sticking up, right? So another carrier, I mean, to strike that balance, 80 feet is about where it should be and just have a second carrier at 60 feet; and thatÓs all it can do because of the physical limits and conditions surrounding the property. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I read somewhere in your application that because of the choice in your conscious effort to reduce the height of the tower itself, the efficiency is not at its optimum. Now, youÓre giving up efficiency for height visibility, I guess. And, I guess, my question is, are you, what is the consumer getting for that? If youÓre not offering optimum service, or what do you call that, conductivity or transmission, then the consumer is not getting its moneyÓs worth. And, I guess thatÓs the philosophical conceptual concern that I have when we talk about co-location visibility, and such, and so. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Chun, Mr. Jaeger? 9 JAEGER:IÓd like to address that question. We will be giving our the optimum in service using the 80-foot height or the 90-foot overall height for this tower and we use three measurements for making that determinatio coverage, we have in-car coverage and we have in-building coverage; and we use three different levels for our propagation studies to make determinations. And, in this particular case, on-street coverage is most important in the area going up towards Paauilo, and we will be providing that coverage using the height that weÓve proposed. KUBOTA:Okay. I found the sentence that was bothering me. ItÓs Mr. FukeÓs response on July 8, 2003, the last bullet. Says, ÐGiven the above, Nextel elected to seek out its own site at a location that would not be visibly conspicuous, although coverage would be less than optimal because of a conscious decision to minimize visual impact.Ñ ThatÓs what triggered this concern, I guess. FUKE:Sure. Since itÓs my letter, I guess, IÓve got to answer. You know, if I can kind of step back a little, and this thing is basically all new to me, too, as I go into the application. And a lot of it was information that I gleaned as a result of working on a project like this. But from what I understand in the NextelÓs situation, you know, they have a tower in Ninole, well, they have a facility in Ninole, right, and they also have another one out in Paauilo. And so they need to have, just to fill in like a small little gap. And the primary gap is in that area from like Waipunale, you know, and heading back towards, I mean, heading north towards Paauilo. Now, thatÓs why if they were to have a tower like on the Laupahoehoe side or like Laupahoehoe side of the Laupahoehoe Gulch in Laupahoehoe town, for example, then it would not, it would duplicate their existing services that they already have thatÓs been provided by the Ninole tower and it would not provide the optimum coverage that they would need on the Ookala side. And this is why that they were looking for an area that was on the north side of the Laupahoehoe Gulch. When you look at that area, they were primarily like, you know, there were several sites that were evaluated; and the idealized one would have been the site that was issued to the U.S. Cellular by this Commission and which is on State land. And there have been some on-going discussions between the State, the U.S. Cellular and its transfer subsequently to AT&T. Now, as Mr. Jaeger had explained earlier, you know, Nextel already has this agreement to co-locate with AT&T. But their, the negotiations with AT&T over the last three years have not really been productive because of this, the lag itÓs taking to have AT&T fully assume control of that tower. WeÓre not really at liberty to disclose like what all of the problems are because they relate to the current carrier and discussions with the State on that particular matter, but itÓs beyond AT&TÓs control and itÓs beyond the ApplicantÓs control. But in the meantime time kind of marches on and they have to find a facility. So they also look at alternative sites and then they came into this so-called, what we call it the Broda site, the owner of the property. In looking at this area, ideally, you know, a taller tower would mean like, you know, you would not have any glitches, you know, in terms of services. But this tower like from NextelÓs perspective is, itÓs 80 feet, itÓll provide service but youÓll have a few spotty 10 areas. But itÓs not, you know, like gillck, gillck (sound), those kind of sound but it will not mean that you would not have that full optimum coverage as though youÓre right here in Hilo. But theyÓre willing to make that slight compromise in the interest of trying to maintain, out of respect for the visual considerations. Now this is like the, this is NextelÓs network. Now you have like another carrier which maybe like AT&T and then their locations are a little bit different again. And so where, I donÓt know what, you know, they may have another carrier which has, they may jump on the same poles but on the other hand they may have different poles that may not, you know, Nextel may have certain poles that may not service AT&TÓs needs, more like another one, for SprintÓs needs, for example, because they all have different locations for their networks. And thatÓs the reason why like the U.S. Cellular-AT&T tower on the Ookala side would have been ideal, but the unconstructed tower that the Commission approved in the Laupahoehoe site would not have worked for Nexte KUBOTA:Okay. To bring this to, my questions to closure, thank you for the long explanation. I guess -. WeÓve been talking about co-location for so many years, I mean, I have as long as IÓve been on the Commission and telecomm have been in discussion. I guess, I have a note to myself that says, ÐFor co-location to be brought to fruition, the many, many variables need to mesh tightly,Ñ and weÓre finding the meshing to be very, very difficult. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? YUEN:If I could jump in on this. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. YUEN:First, the failure to co-locate on the existing towers, particularly the Ookala one, was a red flag in the application. So we did, and as Sidney said that Ookala tower would have been ideal, so we did make inquiries with them of what the problem was. If the problem had been the unwillingness of AT&T which has the tower permit from the Planning Department to allow co-location or to negotiate on an agreement like that, then we would have stepped in because our condition with AT&T does require them to allow co-location. Without getting into what the problems were, it was not that. It was not a problem with either the original permittee, U.S. Cellular, or the current holder of that site, AT&T. So we were satisfied with that point. On the question of the height of a tower, when this originally came in the office, frankly, I was extremely skeptical and somewhat hostile because the, itÓs not the kind of location generally that I would favor from a visual point of view because it is at the edge, it is at the rim of the gulch, it is a scenic location for drivers in the area, the Laupahoehoe Gulch, as a point, as a scenic point. The visual, they did put up the tower, a simulation of the tower and I went to look at it. And it really, it wasnÓt that bad; and the things that make it not that bad are itÓs not that high, itÓs a fairly low profile in that they just have, rather than having big dish antennas, itÓs just these poles, these stick-type antennas. I donÓt know 11 whatÓs the technical name for them. ThereÓs a lot of vegetation in the area; thereÓs not that much of a roadside view of it. The view from a car of the site is fairly brief because of how the road cuts are and how you go into the turn. And, finally, thereÓs, there are the poles, the anchors for the electrical poles are pretty close to it and visually rather similar or actually somewhat larger. Had they come in with a regular lattice-type tower, that might have ended up being a, carrying a number of antennas, I would personally think this would be a very bad site for it; and I would have opposed it. I do have some questions that IÓll get into, and letÓs go through some other questions. But I do have some questions about the suitability of the site that we approved about six months ago in Laupahoehoe, which I think is either that blue dot or that red dot on the map here and which is maybe a mile to a mile-and-a-half from -. built yet but we approved the permit from American Tower for a 160-foot tower at that location. But I think if we could go through some of the, if the Commissioners have some questions and maybe we can hear from the public, and then I further questions about that, about using that tower site. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer, go ahead. SPRINGER:In that regard, then, Mr. Director, when you receive an application such as this one coming before you, do you take into account also those sites which have been approved for antenna development but have not yet been constructed? YUEN:WeÓd have to take it into account, and then we have tried to find why theyÓre not intending to use that site. And it would be of interest whether the person that applied to build the site is still going to go forward with the site. If theyÓre going to abandon the site, then we would take that into account. But if weÓre going to allow another site based on the idea that one site is going to be abandoned, then maybe we would want to see that permit voided for the other site. FUJIKAWA:Are there other questions from the Commissioners? Go a Mrs. Springer. SPRINGER:It would seem, during Commissioner GiffinÓs time, during her chairmanship, there was this discussion of looking at the island as a whole. And I think in the General Plan discussions this came up about whether to have, there was a suggestion to have sub-zones that were developed, a network of sub-zones for communication tower development. And it seems as though this might be an issue that would be worthwhile for the Commission to develop perhaps in the Because weÓve considered the notion of co-location, but then weÓve run into the matter of visual impacts and community sense of aesthetics; and there may be Contested Cases that draw out the time of the application period where usefulness is diminished. But without opportunities for co-location, we can then anticipate proliferation of shorter towers and perhaps a clustering of them. I donÓt know how my colleagues feel about this, but sometimes I feel as though IÓm having this discussion in a vacuum. Although we have the dots on the map that indicate where other applications have been made and have been 12 approved, IÓm still having a hard time grasping where we stand w efficiency of the network. YUEN:Can I comment on that? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. YUEN:There are a number of companies that are involved and then have, you have tower companies that put up towers. What the Commissioner said before, and is entirely correct, that itÓll be much better to try to do this on a comprehensive basis rather than on a site-by-site, permit-by-permit basis. ThereÓs no question about that. We did make some effort in the department to move toward that end. obvious to me, though, that for the department to do it, I would have to contract it out, I would have to secure money from the County budget and, that we would not be able to do this in-house due to staffing limitations and, also, due to a lot of the technical aspect. ItÓs a very technical area. I have not, due to overall requests from the County administration about how much they, how much you were supposed t ask for additional funding, I have not requested funding for that project. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? None? You, Mr. Chun, go ahead. CHUN:If I may, on the matter of co-location, for the record, Nextel in Hawaii, well, Nextel Corporate, we encourage and support co-location for other carriers to come on our towers and for ourselves to go on other carriersÓ towers. In fact, as we speak this morning, we are under construction on two 18-T towers on the south side of the Big Island, Pahala and KaÓu. I mean, it made no sense for us to build another tower when thereÓs towers right there, right? When we look at and evaluate a search ring, the first thing we do is look at existing towers. Only if weÓre unsuccessful for whatever reasons in securing that tower, then we have to look at building our own tower. We donÓt like to build our own towers. I mean, theyÓre expensive, you know, cost a lot of money, itÓs a lot of planning, lot of hassle, that sort of thing. So we do support co-location. FUJIKAWA:I understand. And you are sitting there very quietly. You are also testifying on this behalf? Are you with Nextel? YOUNG:IÓm a consultant with them, yes. FUJIKAWA:You have anything to say? YOUNG:Well, as far as the -. FUJIKAWA:Your name was -? YOUNG:Carl Young. 13 Regarding the height that she brought up, one comment is that, Nextel doesnÓt want to alienate the community theyÓre trying to serve, thatÓs the main point. And theyÓre trying to sell phones in that area, and so they donÓt want to get everybody angry and then try to sell phones to them. I think thatÓs the main point there. And, so, the question also is, will you have something or have nothing? If you put something up there, youÓll have nothing. Something large, exactly what you want, youÓll get nothing. So theyÓve compromised and got something to provide something for the community. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question from the Commissioners to these testifiers? Mr. Jaeger, you have anything? All done? JAEGER:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Yeah, just one follow-up, I guess, to the Planning Director. You know, we had a discussion earlier and we wanted to get him a copy of, you know, NextelÓs efforts to, you know, the search ring one. But, unfortunately, that person is on military leave right now and we will be able to produce that document for your records and file maybe in just a few days after he returns. And if you feel comfortable in wanting to have this condition be subject to Nextel providing that documentation to your office and that be the effective date of the permit, the Applicant has no objections to it. But we canÓt produce that right now. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Okay. There are some, I want to go through this discussion on the record but I think if we could wait till we hear other public testimony or other questions from the Commissioners. And then weÓll, IÓll go and, I have some questions about the, whether they can use that American Tower in Laupahoehoe and whatÓs wrong with it. FUJIKAWA:Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? None. Testifiers? None. Is there any testifier from the outside public? Have you signed in? CRITTENDEN:No. FUJIKAWA:Would you like to -. Sharon? Okay, how do you pronoun last name, Charles? CRITTENDEN:Crittenden, sir. Crittenden. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Can you kindly raise you right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii Planning Commission? CRITTENDEN:Yes, sir. 14 FUJIKAWA:State your name and address, please? CRITTENDEN:Charles Crittenden. IÓm at 17-337 Volcano Highway. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. CRITTENDEN:You know, I just had a question. IÓm actually here on the next thing thatÓs on the agenda which is right across the street from my property. But when I was here, you know, IÓve seen these towers coming up all over the island and especially the ones that are recently, that came up down south. And the communities around it and, you know, they had a big uproar about it after they put it in. I think a lot of the people, you know, wasnÓt heard. And I donÓt know about this particular tower in the area that itÓs in. But one of my, I was a paramedic in the United States Air Force and thereÓs a lot of, where I grew up thereÓs Dow Chemical Company, and the automobile thereÓs a lot of people that are right around that direct area that had a lot of medical problems that came up later, such as cancer and stuff like that. You know, do you guys do surveys to see if thereÓs any kind of medical impact, you know, on anybody thatÓs directly around these towers besides the visual impacts? FUJIKAWA:Maybe the Applicant can answer the question. Mr. Jaeger? JAEGER:Commissioners, we do studies. We operate under the guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission and also under the RF comp emissions, which is OET-65 of the FCC guidelines. And we operate a low-powered cellular telephone transmission facility. The effective radiated power of these towers is 100 watts, which is similar to, say, an average light bulb. So itÓs very low-powered. And in the case of 80 feet, weÓre categorically exempt from any sort of safety issues regarding that facility. FUJIKAWA:Does that answer your question? CRITTENDEN:Yes, sir. It does. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions that you have? CRITTENDEN:Yeah, my other question is, is there any kind of, do you guys have a limitation on how many towers youÓre going to allow on the Big Island or is it just kind of like if they keep applying, you just kind of keep -? FUJIKAWA:I would let the Planning Director, Mr. Yuen, answer that. YUEN:We donÓt have an overall limitation, no. And at the moment, we are going to keep dealing with the applications on a case-by-case basis. We would rather do it more comprehensively but we havenÓt been able to. As I mentioned a little earlier, we would really need to get funding for a consulting contract in order for the Planning Department to do that. 15 CRITTENDEN:Sure. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Thank you. The Applicants, please stand forward guess thereÓs no one from the general public who wanted to testify. Okay. Any of you testifiers, do you have any comments, any questions? FUKE:No, I think that would, weÓre just waiting for what the Planning Director may have so they can respond to them. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioners, none? Go ahead, Planning Director. YUEN:I just had some questions about and the possible use of the American Tower that was approved by the Commission in Laupahoehoe; and as I refer back to the site map, itÓs either that large red dot or the small blue dot. I think it is the blue dot, okay. ItÓs the blue dot on the map; and if you see their proposed towers off on the dot on the far right, itÓs about a mile-and-a-half away. When we had the application from American Tower, they provided us with whatÓs called a propagation exhibit. And their propagation exhibit said that that tower would provide coverage as far as Ookala, in that direction. Ookala is about the, is about at the 30-mile marker, and then it would provide coverage about, between Laupahoehoe and Malua Gulch in the Hilo direction, about to the 23-mile marker. And I was asking the Applicant for their propagation exhibit to try to understand what the problem would be using the American Tower. When American Tower applied for that, they did say that Nextel had expressed an interest in using that tower, so thatÓs my question on this. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Jaeger, can you answer this to the question of the Director? JAEGER:Yes, Chairman. Chris, Mr. Planning Director, sir, the tower that has been permitted for American Tower is outside of what we cons search ring. If you remember, one of the criteria that we used is to try to fill existing holes within the Nextel network. And, in this particular case, the area to the north of Laupahoehoe Gulch is what we consider to be our prime target area for our tower site location. We did look at the American Tower location and we did a propagation analysis on the location. We thought that, we knew that it was about 2.5 miles location and it was at about eight mile off of the highway and there was existing vegetation there which would, we felt hindered the propagation characteristics from that location. And thatÓs why we thought that it was not optimum for us to pursue that particular site. YUEN:With reference, where is your Paauilo tower site? JAEGER:ItÓs on top, itÓs right in Paauilo town, and itÓs right on top of an apartment building there Òcause itÓs a low height site. 16 YUEN:And what the Laupahoehoe Tower, what they show is a going o to about the 30-mile marker along the highway. Do you think thatÓs too optimistic or what is -? JAEGER:Well, I canÓt comment, really, on how they did their propagation characteristics or -. You know, cellular carriers operate in two different frequency bands. They operate at 800 megahertz and at 1,900 megahertz and, so, 800 megahertz will travel farther than 1,900 megahertz. So if you do a propagation study for 1,900, youÓre going to get one result which will be a smaller coverage area; and if you do the propagation characteristics at 800 megahertz, which is what Nextel operates at, you get a larger coverage area. And, so, you know, you showed me the plat right before we came here so I didnÓt see what the legend said as far as the frequency and the, you know, the -. YUEN:It was done for Voice Stream. JAEGER:Voice Stream operates at 1,900 megahertz. YUEN:So Voice Stream goes farther or you go farther? JAEGER:We would go farther. The other consideration with American Tower is we had a very difficult time dealing with them on a previous permit situation in the Ocean View Estates area. And our belief was that they had stopped building facilities in Hawaii and were not offering that product to carriers any longer. That was what we were under the impression of. Or I may be wrong about that, but thatÓs the latest we had on them. YUEN:What are the gaps from your Paauilo tower -? How far is your good coverage presently going in the Hilo direction? JAEGER:About, well, we have other sites -. The Paauilo tower covers about three miles to the south of this site. ThereÓs a second site that fills in the road along that particular stretch of highway and thatÓs the Iole haihai location, which is a pinnacle tower, thatÓs at about the 8,100-foot level up, probably directly west of Paauilo. And so that, the Paauilo tower, the Iole haihai all fills in that stretch of road there. And the Ookala location would be a perfect fit in the puzzle from an RF perspective to fill in the coverage there. YUEN:You mean the AT&T, the old AT&T Ookala tower is the perfect one for you? JAEGER:Well, either the Ed Broda property which weÓre applying for or the AT&T property would work nicely. YUEN:So, do you know what mile marker your Paauilo tower is at? YouÓre talking about it giving you three miles or -. 17 JAEGER:I couldnÓt tell you on mile marker, itÓs right in town. YUEN:ItÓs right about 35, I think. CHUN:Mr. Yuen, you want to know the location of the Paauilo site? YUEN:Well, IÓm just trying to get an idea for, you know, youÓre me, if Paauilo is at 35-mile marker and you got three miles, then you got coverage at the 32-mile marker presently; and the American Tower is showing that they would have coverage out to the 30-mile marker. CHUN:Yeah, the Paauilo site is located on the Nakahara apartment building, you know, into your, right. YUEN:Yes, I mean, I know where it is. I just donÓt know the mil CHUN:Right. We can, I think, as Pete mentioned earlier, we can supply you with this information, you know, the RF information. IÓm so handy right now. I also just wanted to share, though, that regarding American Tower, I think it was maybe about a year ago they came to our office and they met with us, B and they were kind of, they were basically pulling out of Hawaii, they were leaving Hawaii, abandoning. They had plans to build about five sites ar recall, this particular Laupahoehoe site, Bill said he had an option maybe for a year which I believe has since expired. I checked my e-mails last night and I had to e-mail to Carl to have Andy Mayes, our RF engineer, do the propagation analysis on those coordinates, the longitude, latitude, above the school, that sort of thing. Andy came back, it doesnÓt work for our coverage objective, so we did study it. YUEN:I think weÓve taken this about as far as we can. I would ask the Commission to, IÓm still willing to stick with our positive recommendation but I would like to see further documentation. And, so, IÓd like to ask of the Commission to put in a condition that the approval is subject to Planning Director being furnished with documentation that the American Tower site in Laupahoehoe is not a feasible option. FUJIKAWA:Okay. How does Commissioners feels about it? Go ahead. JAEGER:Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. JAEGER:We have no objections to that. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Great. 18 SPRINGER:To the Special Permit or to the SMA? YUEN:It would be a condition to both, actually. It would work if it were to either, Òcause they canÓt really proceed without either one. But, I mean, as a technical matter, I would prefer that the condition be to both. FUJIKAWA:I have a question with the Director, Chris Yuen. At the time that we accepted the American Tower, wasnÓt it in the agreement that theyÓre to work with other carriers? YUEN:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Okay. And, Mr. Jaeger, were they willing to work with or what? What happened? CHUN:IÓll answer that question if you donÓt mind. Yeah, they were very nice and willing to work with us. They came to our office. TheyÓre basically, like Chris mentioned earlier, a tower company. TheyÓre providing a product service, theyÓre trying to sell, theyÓre trying to get carriers to go on their product; but their product didnÓt work for us. FUJIKAWA:I see. CHUN:Yeah, thatÓs all. FUJIKAWA:Oh, I see. It doesnÓt work. Okay. CHUN:I have a question, if you donÓt mind. Could we get a copy of the American Tower RF propagation studies so we know what weÓre dealing with? YUEN:We can give you all of that. CHUN:All right. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Everyone satisfied? Commissioners, satisfied? Applicant? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:Just with regard to that earlier discussion on the Mamala Heiau. I concur with the comments by Commissioner Graham and the support that Commissioner Kubota gave to Commissioner GrahamÓs comments. I would just look to the staff for any 19 guidance on that as to whether or not the staff has a recommendation on the matter of the Heiau. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director Chris Yuen or staff to follow up. YUEN:Well, there are two possibilities. One is just to leave it to informal arrangement in the future. I have some wording if the Commission would like to put in a condition, a formal condition. The wording would be, ÐThat the access to the Mamala Heiau to Native Hawaiians with legitimate claims to access to carry out cultural and religious practices. The landowner shall be entitled to reasonable prior notice and may impose reasonable restrictions on the number of visitors, hours of access, frequency, duration, general conduct and access route. Any dispute regarding access shall be referred to the Planning Director.Ñ FUKE:Speaking, I guess, on behalf of the Applicant, you know, we cannot necessarily agree to that commitment, Òcause itÓs a commitment thatÓs to the landowner. YUEN:Right. FUKE:And weÓre just leasing a portion of that land so we canÓt speak for the landowner relative to that. FUJIKAWA:So this will be applied to the landowner, right? YUEN:Yes. And as far as, I understand that they canÓt commit to it. I think it is something that is within the power of the Commission to put in. IÓm, if you want my recommendation, IÓm neutral on it because I donÓt think itÓs that live an issue, to tell you truth, as far as there being any traditional use of the Heiau. I think that we could put it in. I think as worded itÓs a reasonable condition that would respect interest that the landowner might have or in preventing misuse of the site. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fuke, I guess that would apply for the landowner and not Nextel. FUKE:But this is why like, I guess, you know, if the Commission wishes to put a condition that somehow addresses or at least, yeah, addresses that issue, we would have no objection in incorporating the language that we had represented that we would do; and it might not really amount to much. But what it would read would be like, ÐShould there be legitimate access claims to this feature,Ñ this being the heiau, Ðby Native Hawaiians for the purpose of exercising Native Hawaiian culture and religious practices, the Applicant,Ñ which is Nextel, Ðwould work with the landowner to make appropriate access accommodations.Ñ And, you know, so if there are claims t and, you know, and ask for a report because your condition, I guess, one of your Annual Report conditions requires that they provide the Planning Director or the Planning Commission with an Annual Report and, you know, we could incorporate that. But, and, 20 you can say like, well, somebody has been asking us so, you know, weÓve talked to the landowner, and this is what the landowner has agreed to or not agreed to. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director Yuen, is this satisfactory to you? YUEN:I think that would work as well. FUJIKAWA:Good. If so -. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:IÓd just like to commend the Applicant for bringing this discussion forward Òcause oftentimes the discussions of PASH and Ka PaÒakai O Ka ÒAina seem to be limited to gathering rights, and this speaks to other aspects of traditional and customary practice. So, I donÓt desire to make, increase the burden but I do certainly appreciate that the discussion was, has been candid on this matter. So, thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay, great. Any other questions? None. If none, do we hear, entertain a motion? Remember we have some amendments changed in Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:A question to Corp. Counsel. If we were to amend by addition, on which permit would be attached that access issue on? On both or TORIGOE:You could put them on both. I think itÓll be relevant to both if you wanted to do that. KUBOTA:To both? TORIGOE:Yeah. KUBOTA:Okay. Then I am ready to make a motion. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that, we want SMA first, yeah? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, you may go ahead with the SMA. KUBOTA:I move the approval of SMA 03-004 by this Commission, alo with the Findings and Recommendations submitted by the Planning a couple of additional conditions. One being in reference to the access. Do I need to read it? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. KUBOTA:Okay, IÓll read it. I know where it is. 21 One additional condition being in relation to access points worded as such: ÐShould there be legitimate access claims to this feature by Native Hawaiians for the purpose of exercising Native Hawaiian cultural or religious practices, the Applicant will work with the landowner to make appropriate access accommodations.Ñ ThatÓs one. I donÓt know what number it is, okay? The other one has to do with the life of this permit being conditioned upon documentation provided by the Applicant regarding the feasibility of co-location on the American Tower site. And I think it was AT&T, did you say? YUEN:No. The wording would be, ÐThe permit is subject to the Pl Director being supplied with documentation to establish that the American Tower Laupahoehoe site is not a feasible alternative.Ñ At this point, weÓre satisfied that there is a roadblock toward using the Ookala AT&T site. Now, if they go, you know, if theyÓre able to use that site, they donÓt need to have the Laupahoehoe site. They may abandon it, and then we have an abandonment clause on this particular permit. But we were, my questions were really only with respect to the American Tower Laupahoehoe site. ItÓs clear that the Ookala site is the best site, but there is a problem not of their making and not of AT&TÓs making. KUBOTA:So itÓs not the AT&T but the Laupahoehoe? YUEN:Yes. Right. FUJIKAWA:Okay, staff, you got that? HAYASHI:Before we, just clarification on the first condition, that added condition that you had proposed, I think rather than just stating this feature, it should spell out that this would be the Mamala Heiau, just to -. KUBOTA:Mamala Heiau, yeah. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Also, Commissioner Kubota, about the two years in construction added to it, the amendment? KUBOTA:No, this one is Condition No. 2 on the next one, the special permit. This is not for the SMA. MCCALL:They wanted it for both of them. KUBOTA:Oh, they wanted it for both of them? TORIGOE:This maybe the staff can clarify whether you want the two-year construction on -. DARROW:Correct. ThatÓll be on both permits. 22 TORIGOE:On both, okay. KUBOTA:Oh, I see. IÓm sorry. I thought it was for the Special Permit but it is for the SMA, too, also. FUJIKAWA:Right. KUBOTA:So I will make corrections by addition for three conditio FUJIKAWA:Yes. KUBOTA:Two new conditions and one an amended condition for No. 2 supplied by, as suggested by the staff. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota. Do I hear a second? MINA:Second. FUJIKAWA:Seconded by Commissioner Mina. Is there any question? Staff? DARROW:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Francis Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:And Chairman? 23 FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:The ayes have it. FUJIKAWA:Okay. The Special Application S -. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that SPP 03-005 be approved by the Planning Commission, along with the Findings and Recommendations provided to us by the Planning Director, as well as with additions to the conditions regarding documentation to be provided to the Planning Director, as well as the condition speaking to the access points, as well as the amendment to Condition 2 as provided by the Planning Department. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Mina. Any questions? Staff? DARROW:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:Again the ayes have it. 24 FUJIKAWA:Okay. So, the applicant, youÓll be informed in writing of the CommissionÓs decision. FUKE:Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:43 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 25