Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-24 TCELLCO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 24, 2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (SPP 1147) was called to order at 11:20 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman C. Kimo Alameda Shelly Ogata Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel  Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager OgxkkhrEtihlnsn+Rs`eeOk`mmdq Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And seven people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (SPP 1147) Amendment to Special Permit No. 1147 to increase the height of the existing tower from 25 feet to 60 feet and replace the existing omni antennas with 12 panel antennas.The property is located approximately 600 feet east (mauka) of South Kona Belt Road (Highway 11), 660 feet above the Royal Kona Coffee Museum, Keei 2nd, South Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 8-3-12: Portion of 38. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 3, the applicant is Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, and it’s Special Permit No. 1147. I believe this is to increase the height of an existing cell tower. Maija, are you going to be handling this one? COTTLE: I am. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, great. COTTLE: The next application is a request to amend Special Permit 1147. The applicant is Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. And they are requesting to increase the height of an existing 25-foot telecommunication tower to 60 feet, and replace the existing antennas with 12 panel antennas. EXHIBIT C 1 If I can direct your attention to the screen, the zoning map shows the location of the property. It’s in South Kona, in the Keei area. And it’s just to the east of Hawaii Belt Road, which runs in a north-south direction in the middle of the map. The property is outlined in red, and there is a little dot here showing the location of the existing tower on the property.Most, actually, all of the surrounding properties are zoned Agricultural. And this is an aerial photo that shows again the Hawaii Belt Road running in a north-south direction. And it’s a little hard to see, but the current lease area on the property is outlined in read, and the tower is located in this area here surrounded by coffee trees and other vegetation, and it’s about 600 feet from the highway. The site plan again shows the lease area and the location of the equipment and the existing tower. And this is a graphic showing the existing tower outlined in a light dash pattern, and the proposed 60-foot tower with the panel antennas.So this is the west elevation and it would be what you would see looking from the highway, although the highway is set below this, so the tower wouldn’t be visible from the highway. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the applicant’s request to amend the Special Permit. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: Yeah, could you go back to the aerial photo, please? COTTLE: Sure. HOUSEL: It looks like there are some homes above mauka of the site there. COTTLE: Yes. HOUSEL: Would this tower be in their viewplane? COTTLE: I’m not certain. The applicant may be able to answer that, but I’m not sure. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Is it a requirement that the applicant send notices to the surrounding areas in this particular case? COTTLE: Yes, it is. DOMINGO: Okay. So I would assume that they’ve been notified. And I guess the representative will be coming up to make a presentation. What I’d just like to clarify is the agreement provides for an automatic extension for four additional five-year terms, plus additional extensions as necessary. Four five-year terms, we are looking at 20 years. EXHIBIT C 2 COTTLE: This is for leasing the communication tower area on the property, so it’s a lease between the property owner and the applicant. DOMINGO: So that means that every five years they’ll be coming up for renewal or whatever. WATANABE: No, it’s a lease rent. So it’s between the landowner, as Maija indicated, and the tenant, Cellco. So it’s not necessarily coming towards us; it’s not with regard to, the extension is not even in reference to the Special Permit, just lease terms. So every five years, they can renegotiate the lease rent. DOMINGO: Well, that’s another, perhaps another question I’d like to ask with regards to rather than just making one lease for the entire duration of the use of that area and rather than just going through four years because I know in the lease agreement that they agreed to pay an X number of dollars lease rent on a per-year basis. And I guess perhaps the owner of the land rather have it such so that every four years they can negotiate for a higher lease rent. That may be the case. But it’s just a thought that crossed my mind. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Mr. Alameda? ALAMEDA: I don’t mind the four five-year terms; make the Planning Commission no more four five-year terms, you know. Could you summarize the main conditions that the Director had for our Commissioners and for the audience? COTTLE: Sure. Most of it is just changing the text of the original conditions to include the 60-foot tower. There is a new condition added that the co-location of the antennas on the existing tower shall be allowed by various tenants – that’s Condition No. 4. Those are the main changes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. COTTLE: You are welcome. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: I just had a couple of questions on the co-location provision. Is it the intent to require co-location as a condition of this Permit? It’s not clear to me the way it’s worded. WATANABE: I believe that’s correct. I believe allowing or requiring co-location minimizes the impacts so that competitors will be able to put their antennas on the same tower as opposed to building another tower. IWASHITA: I understand that. I guess, when it says “allowed,” to me that’s not a requirement. You know, Verizon can say, yeah, it’s allowed but we are not going to do it. So if EXHIBIT C 3 it’s the intent that co-location be required, you know, from obviously maximizing the productivity of having this tower constructed and minimizing the need to have other companies come in and ask for additional towers because Verizon is not actually allowing co-location -. WATANABE: Okay, I understand what you are saying. IWASHITA: I’m thinking stronger language should be used. And the other point I wanted to make is it talks about the existing tower as opposed to the tower. The existing tower is not 60 feet high, right? COTTLE: Correct. IWASHITA: So if the intent is to allow co-location on whatever tower exists, then I think the word “existing” should be taken out. It should just be: “Co-location on the tower shall be required” would be my suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Yuen, any comments regarding those, Mr. Iwashita’s -? YUEN: Well, I agree on the point of the “existing” tower. You know, we could, I think the clause is reasonably clear otherwise, although, you know, anything could be reworded. Is this what we normally have been putting in? A standard clause? COTTLE: Yes. WATANABE: So in the past, I know we’ve had, so this is a standard. Okay, so then a short of putting stronger language for “allow,” then we are in agreement that Condition No. 4 will be revised to remove “existing” and just refer it to “the tower.” Is that what I heard? YUEN: Yes, that will be fine. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: So, I don’t know, is it a practice now to, or is it a practice of the industry that the wireless companies are sharing their infrastructure and co-locating antennas, or not? YUEN: They are supposed to when we have this clause in the permits, I mean, that was idea behind it. If a carrier came to us and said we ask to co-locate, we wanted to enter into negotiations on a reasonable price, we believe it’s technically feasible, but the other carrier says, no, you can’t; if they are operating under a permit that has this kind of language, the Planning Department would say to the tower owner, no, you must. We are not going to set the price it has, you know, if they say, well, it’s $600,000 a month, I think we would intervene. But to the point of saying that you are required to offer the ability to co-locate on reasonable terms to other carriers, that is what this clause means. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita, I think the key point might be that it’s a Special Permit that could be revoked. So if they don’t cooperate, you could technically revoke it. EXHIBIT C 4 IWASHITA: I understand that, Mr. Chair, but you know, the first agenda item we heard today shows the types of problems can arise once an owner becomes entitled to certain activity on the property. Then all the due process and all those other kind of arguments come up about any effort by this body to order the Department to contract or reduce those uses. So I’d like this to be as clear as possible upfront what the requirements are. WATANABE: Understood. Thank you. Do we have any further questions of staff? With that, may I call the applicant or the applicant’s representative up? May I swear you in, ma’am? Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? METTLER: Yes, I do. WATANABE: And would you state your name and address for the record, please? METTLER: My name is Danette Mettler, and my address is 76-6357 Kololia Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. WATANABE: Janet? METTLER: Danette. D as in Daniel, A-N-E-T-T-E. WATANABE: Okay. There is a request for you to speak into the mike. METTLER: Okay. Can you hear me better now? WATANABE: Okay. METTLER: Thanks. WATANABE: We are all getting older, so the hearing is going. Okay. Ms. Danette, have you had an opportunity to review the recommendation by the Planning Director, and do you have any concerns or -? METTLER: No. Well, there is only one concern: It talks about the tower and the antennas being 60 feet. The tower is 60 feet, and the antennas, if you look back at the elevation, extends four feet above the tower. So the overall height is really 64 feet. WATANABE: I see Condition No. 2, “Construction of the proposed 60-foot telecommunication ….” Well, it says “60-foot telecommunication tower and replacement of the antennas,” it doesn’t say -. METTLER: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. EXHIBIT C 5 WATANABE: Yeah, I think you are all right with this. Other than that, you don’t see any problems with it, and you are in agreement with the removing “existing,” I assume, from Condition 4? METTLER: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions of the applicant’s representative? Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Just a follow-up to my previous question. Have all the surrounding owners been notified? METTLER: Yes, they have, twice. DOMINGO: Thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Do you know if it’s common practice now of the companies on this island to co-locate on the antennas? METTLER: It’s common practice, and throughout the United States also co-location is being required by mostly all jurisdictions. So it is common place that they rent from each other, they all have master agreements with one another, and they would accommodate, I think in our application I said they could accommodate one or two additional carriers on this tower. IWASHITA: Okay. Can you explain why my coverage hasn’t improved? WATANABE: She’s going to tell you, wrong provider. Do we have any further questions of the applicant’s representative? Seeing none and since you agree, you may be seated, Danette. Do I have a motion? Mr. Alameda? ALAMEDA: Is there any testimony? WATANABE: Excuse me, excuse me, I’m sorry. I skipped over an important step. We do have one individual that has signed up to testify. Mr. Robert Meierdiercks? Is that correct? Mr. Meierdiercks, may I swear you in? Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? MEIERDIERCKS: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. Would you state your name and address for the record, please? MEIERDIERCKS: My name is Robert Meierdiercks. My address is 83-5397C Mamalahoa Highway, Captain Cook, Hawaii. I am not exact neighbor landowner; I am in the proximity. I EXHIBIT C 6 did receive the two mailings by the applicant. I’m speaking for myself and my wife as individuals, as landowners in this area. And we are in favor of this amendment to Special Permit No. 1147. WATANABE: You think it’ll improve your communications there? MEIERDIERCKS: Yes. I am not with Verizon, but I’m in favor of any communication enabling efforts in areas anywhere on the island. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of Mr. Meierdiercks? Thank you for coming forward, Mr. Meierdiercks. MEIERDIERCKS: Thank you. WATANABE: You may be seated. It’s your turn, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I’ll make a motion on Agenda Item No. 3, Applicant: Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless, that the Planning Commission approve the Special Permit No. 1147 to increase the height of the existing tower from 25 feet to 60 feet and replace the existing omni antennas with 12 panel antennas, with the amendment as stated by the Director. WATANABE: That will be to Condition 4 removing “existing.” IWASHITA: Second. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Iwashita. It’s been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion that is necessary on this? Seeing none. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Woodward? EXHIBIT C 7 WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: The motion passes, six-zero. WATANABE: Okay, thank you very much. The discussion ended at 11:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 8