But you reached a hasty conclusion in combining our case with that of Manoa as "not examples of what the neighborhood boards are supposed to do."
I regret that as many as six Mililani board members have resigned due to their potential exposure to legal action in this matter. The city is unwilling or unable to support them in their efforts to prevent the degradation of the view planes in the residential areas around Mililani Recreation Center No. 3 by the erection of a 70-foot (60-foot monopole topped by a 10-foot antenna) phallic symbol to accommodate cellular phone transmissions in place of an existing 35-foot tennis court lighting standard.
In my former capacity as executive director of the High Technology Development Corp., I had positive experiences in both Mililani and Manoa to resolve concerns over the development of the Mililani Technology Park and the Manoa Innovation Center. These projects proceeded with the full support of the communities involved.
However, there is a keen difference between the situations in Manoa and Mililani. The Manoa Neighborhood Board was involved in a disagreement with a private landlord on behalf of a potential private tenant.
The Mililani board's disagreement was with a government agency, the Department of Land Utilization (DLU), to which the board had an advisory responsibility as it was considering a request for a height variance from the cellular telephone company, VoiceStream.
The board expressed objections to the proposed 80-foot tower prior to the DLU's granting of the conditional use permit.
The DLU's response was to reduce the height of the tower to 70 feet and grant the permit with the statement that the lower monopole at 60 instead of 70 feet "should not be conspicuous from the nearest residential lots along Kehepue Loop."
The DLU letter contained the statement that "any party (to the case) wishing to appeal the director's action must submit a written petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals." The board did not interpret this direction as a call to take "legal action," but as an invitation to continue its advisement to the governmental agency.
To determine how conspicuous the installation would be from the nearest residential lots along Kehepue Loop as well as other locations in the area, members of the board floated a 36-inch diameter balloon adjacent to an existing tennis court lighting standard to a height of 70 feet to simulate the monopole and antenna.
The results indicated that the installation will be conspicuous and obtrusive when viewed from the Kehepue Loop residences. It also will adversely affect the view from many different positions throughout the neighborhood because the area is relatively clear of tall trees and the tennis court sites are elevated about 10 feet above the street.
It appeared to the board that the only way available to advise the DLU of its findings was to file an appeal. And so at its Feb. 16 meeting, the board passed a resolution to appeal the conditional-use permit.
After the appeal was filed, the city corporation counsel advised the board that this was not an advisory action but a legal action and that the city could not defend us from the threat of legal action from MTA.
At our March 26 meeting, the appeal was unanimously rescinded even though we continue to have questions regarding this corporation counsel's interpretation of the appeal as being outside the board's authority.
Your editorial was quite correct in its statement that "the limits of the board's functions should have been spelled out more clearly by the Neighborhood Commission or another authority to avoid such problems."
I believe the primary problem in this case is that neighborhood boards do not have adequate access to legal counsel if and when they need it. The Neighborhood Commission should have its own, independent legal counsel or the ability to engage same to work with the neighborhood boards in anticipation of such actions.
In this case, the same legal unit, the corporation counsel, was charged to advise the board as well as the DLU, whose action was being appealed. This seems to be a conflict of interest and does not relieve our concern over the corporation counsel's interpretation in this case.