Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Iwashita reiterated his concern that the application is by a licensee of the owner <br />of the land and the owner of the land is not the applicant. Commissioner Domingo understood <br />Commissioner Iwashita’s concern and said as the Commission cannot foresee the future of when <br />a company may go bankrupt or with new technology the tower would no longer be needed, a <br />condition should be that the last remaining cell tower company be responsible for taking the <br />tower down. <br />A roll call vote was taken at this time on the motion to approve as recommended by the <br />Department with an amendment to Condition No. 7, that a bond for removal of the tower be <br />required at the discretion of the Planning Director. Commissioner Domingo expressed his <br />concern of requiring a bond from the applicant and felt the tower should be removed by the last <br />user of the cell tower, noting his other concern of this amendment being imposed as a standard <br />condition. Commissioner Iwashita felt the Association needed to protect itself so it would not be <br />the one responsible to have the tower removed, noting this is why he was recommending <br />Condition 7 be amended. <br />The Chair felt the amendment to Condition 7 was not necessary as the scrap metal value from the <br />tower would be worth the cost to remove it. The Chair agreed with Commissioner Domingo’s <br />comment and said he would vote against the motion as it exists now as and he did not wish to set <br />precedence for other cell phone operators if the Commission is not sure it is the best thing to be <br />done. A roll call vote was taken and motion did not carry with three ayes (Iwashita, Kern, and <br />Au) and three noes (Domingo, Ishibashi and Woodward). <br />RECESSED – At the request of Commissioner Domingo the Chair called a short recess at <br />10:40 a.m. <br />RECONVENED - The meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m. <br />It was then moved by Commissioner Domingo and seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi that the <br />application be approved as recommended by the Planning Director. Upon Mr. Kawabata’s <br />inquiry, Commissioner Iwashita clarified that his concern is based upon the Association being <br />stuck at the end to remove the tower because T-Mobile, or any successor, or assign is not able to. <br />Ms. Greene at this time said T-Mobile has guaranteed the Association that they would be <br />responsible for the removal of the tower. Mr. Kawabata said historically towers are viewed <br />more as an asset rather than just an individual structure by a Community Association as it is <br />revenue producing, noting when it goes into co-location there is also rent revenue that they share <br />with the Association. Mr. Kawabata added that he has not seen any of these types of towers in <br />the wireless industry that have been abandoned or have not been bought out by other companies <br />that do specialize in tower management. In response to Ms. Leithead Todd’s inquiry, Mr. <br />Kawabata said in the lease agreement with the Community Association there is a provision that <br />T-Mobile, its successor or assign would be responsible for the removal, noting that there would <br />be a right for the Community Association to enforce that provision if the company should go <br />bankrupt. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Domingo, Ishibashi, Au, <br />Kern, Iwashita and Woodward, with Commissioner Iwashita voting kanalua twice.) <br />3 <br /> <br />