Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-02 TCELLCO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 2, 2007 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (SPP 06-00035) was called to order at 9:10 a.m.in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman William R. Graham presiding. William R. GrahamKimo Alameda PRESENT: ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Fred Galdones Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Jeffrey McCall QdmdlRhq`btr` Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 8 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (SPP 06-00035) Continued hearing on the application for a Special Permit to allow the construction of a telecommunication facility consisting of a 150-foot monopole, an equipment shelter, and fencing on approximately 2,000 square feet of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The area involved is located on the south side of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19), approximately 4 miles east of the Hawaii Belt Road – Old Mamalahoa Highway intersection, Kapaaula, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK: 4-7-7: portion of 10. GRAHAM: The first item on our agenda today under Unfinished Business is a special permit application. The applicant is Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. This is an application for a Special Permit to allow the construction of a telecommunication facility consisting of a 150-foot monopole, an equipment shelter, and fencing on approximately 2,000 square feet of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District. And this is in the Hamakua District between Waimea and Honokaa. And it’s a continued hearing since it was before us in the past. Jeff, if you can begin a presentation for us. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the location map. The area of this application is within the Hamakua District of Hawaii. Just for reference, this area here identified in yellow is Honokaa. This area with portions of dark green, light green, and blue is the beginning of EXHIBIT A 1 Waimea town. This would be in the Lakeland area moving towards Waimea town. The area of the application is identified with this orange dot. This is right along the Hawaii Belt Road, that’s running in an east-west direction between Waimea and Honokaa. The applicant in this case, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, is requesting a special permit to allow the establishment of a 150-foot monopole telecommunications tower as well as an equipment shelter and fencing on 2,000 square feet of land on a 418-acre parcel that’s identified in this particular area. The reason for the request is to be able to bridge the communications gap between Waimea and Honokaa. At this time there is very little signal in that area in regards to any kind of any cellular transmissions. I’m sure many of you might have experienced that while driving through that area. The applicants do have a tower existing within Waimea as well as Honokaa. So this tower would be able to bridge that gap. Looking at the site plans that are submitted by the applicant, we have just a plot plan identifying the location of the tower as well as the equipment shelter and the fencing. And this is basically the 2,000 square foot area, this would be on the plot plan with the easement showing. The map does not show the location of the highway. Looking at the antenna design, we’re looking at a monopole antenna that’s going to have 12 panel antennas that are 8 feet in height. These are located at the top of the tower. There will be three sectors with 4 panel antennas on each sector facing in different directions. It would be identified in this type of configuration. Originally when the Planning Director had distributed the background and recommendation, the Planning Director was recommending that the application be denied, mainly because of negative visual impacts that the tower would create from the highway as well as to residents in the area. The Planning Director requested that the applicant make attempts to be able to either find an area to relocate or to lower the height of the tower. The applicant had made attempts and had submitted information in regards to their findings. And, at this point, the Director reviewed those findings and felt that rather than being able to have to place additional towers to be able to bridge this gap that we would be able to, it would be better to just have the one tower and then place some conditions in there to help minimize the visual impact. Looking at the conditions, Condition No. 4 was added in to try to be able to minimize those visual impacts. It states that the applicant shall plant, establish trees that will grow to a height of 100 plus feet along the north, west, and east boundaries of the proposed project site to minimize any negative visual impacts along the highway. Additionally, there have been concerns regarding easements. When the applicants for these cell towers get a location on a property it’s usually within that 2000-square foot area for that project area. The landscaping usually will go outside of that area. So in the past they’ve had problems with the applicants being able to get an easement to plant along the outside. So we’ve requested in Condition No. 5 that the applicant be able to provide that easement for the landscaping along the outside. EXHIBIT A 2 We have received additional information this morning from the applicant, that would be the written testimony of Debra Adams as well as the written testimony of Michael Terry. At this time the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this request. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. The lines on those maps are fairly faint. I really can’t make out anything from here. It has been a long time since we took this up before. Could you refresh my memory please, Jeff. How far from the property line is the tower? DARROW: If it is okay it will probably be a better question to ask the applicant. I’m not absolutely sure in regards to the distance between the project site to the highway. Is that the question? SIRACUSA: Yeah. Basically thinking, you know, with all these high winds we’ve had and watching trees blow down and that sort of thing, my concern is to make sure that if the tower fell it would still fall within that same parcel and not on somebody else’s property. DARROW: It appears, I mean, just from the site inspection, that it is quite a distance away from the highway. I mean definitely further than 150 feet. But I’m not sure exactly how far that would be. SIRACUSA: Okay, I’ll hold that question then for the applicant. DARROW: Thank you. SIRACUSA: My second question has to do with the written testimony of Michael Terry that was submitted, and he’s the landscape designer; and he was discussing the constraints of Condition No. 4 on the type of trees that he feels would be most suitable. So I’m wondering if Director Yuen had a chance to look at that and has expressed any thoughts on that matter to you. DARROW: We’ve just received this this morning so the Director hasn’t had a chance to look at it. It appears that, I mean, as far as the type of trees, I don’t think the condition states what type of trees that the applicant needs to plant, as long as it’s trees that have to go to a height of 100 feet. SIRACUSA: Yeah, that wasn’t the problem with Mr. Terry’s testimony. It was getting what he felt would be the most suitable trees. If he gets them at 30 feet in height they would not be able to grow as fast as they want because of their root system, and how quickly they can accommodate themselves, and transplant shock, and all that sort of thing. And so he was offering another suggestion, and that’s what I was wondering if the Director had had an opportunity to look at that. Because we might under the circumstances want to make some modifications to Condition No. 4. EXHIBIT A 3 DARROW: Sure. Yeah, at this time the Planning Director has not had an opportunity to review this. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any of the other Commissioners have any questions for Jeff at this time? Jeff, I had one other thought that just came to me from reading this initially, and it really applies to all these situations, not just to this one. You know we always have a condition that if the applicant ceases operation all they’re required is to take down the tower and kind of restore the property. Generally when we have conditions on special permits, the penalty would be maybe you don’t get to keep operating under the special permit if you don’t fulfill the conditions. But in this case it seems like that condition only comes into play when the applicant is finished with it anyway. So we can’t say, well, we’ll take away your special permit because you didn’t take the tower down after you’re finished with it. Does the Planning Department have any other way to enforce that condition, do you know? DARROW: In regards to a tower that ceased to exist operating? GRAHAM: Yes. DARROW: I’m not familiar with any but that’s something we can take a look at possibly adding in. Maybe, I’m not familiar with any, our standard condition is Condition No. 7 that asks for them to remove it after a period of time. GRAHAM: Okay, that’s fine. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. That’s something we can look at. We don’t have to debate it out today. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yeah, I just wanted to say that I’m very grateful for Debra Adam’s testimony explaining the whole process and the science behind the location, the locating of these towers because I think that we should hold on to these. There will be other applications in the future and it will give us a greater understanding of the whole thing. We won’t have to keep reinventing the wheels and asking the same questions over and over again. GRAHAM: I agree. Thank you. Would the applicant come forward at this time. I’d also like to say I don’t have anyone signed up to verbally testify. So if anybody wishes to, please check in. Could I swear the two of you in first here. I’d ask you to raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today on this matter? TESTIFIERS: I do. EXHIBIT A 4 GRAHAM: Thank you. So either of you could start first and when you start, please give you name and address first for the record. METTLER: Good morning. My name is Danette Mettler. My address is 76-6357 Kalolia Street, Kailua-Kona 96740. SIRACUSA: Could you speak into the microphone. METTLER: Okay, that’s a good idea. I’m glad that you had the opportunity to read over the affidavit. I brought Mr. Terry with me in case you have some additional questions; and he’s sitting to my right here. TERRY: Good morning. My name is Michael Terry. I live in Honolulu. My address is 111 Waihili Place, Honolulu, Hawaii. GRAHAM: Thank you. METTLER: So we’re requesting, well, first of all, do you have any questions about, you know, the reasons why we’re requesting a change to Condition No. 4? GRAHAM: I guess, our normal procedure is that whatever you would like to just present to us all you do that, and then you can stay there and people could ask any questions. METTLER: Okay, fine. What we’d like to do based on the information that we’ve received from Mr. Terry, and we really would like this to be a model project. I know that there has been problems in the past with landscaped barriers and we hope that -. We worked with the Planning Director on these conditions, not all of them, of course, but we’re hoping that this will be a model project, something that Hamakua can be proud of. What we’re requesting is in paragraph number 4, second sentence, change the middle sentence to read “These trees shall be planted in general accordance with the Kawela Loa Conceptual Tree ” Plan, which we’ll be showing you in a minute. I’m still not talking into it (microphone)? SIRACUSA: It would be nice to hear what the changes you want to make are. METTLER: Okay. Why don’t I go backwards. Mr. Terry has brought a conceptual plan for a landscaping plan. And would you like to go over that plan? If you can explain it to them. TERRY: I think the best way to explain the answer to your question is to go over our plan briefly. I brought a large-sized plat that can be reviewed. GRAHAM: Fine. METTLER: Let me show you while they’re setting that up, this is the view from the highway if you’re looking straight on into the site. You’ll see that there are some existing EXHIBIT A 5 ironwood trees. Our site will be to the right of the electric utility pole, behind it. So going into that, so it will help you visualize what Mr. Terry is proposing for the landscaped plan. GRAHAM: And that’s looking like towards Mauna Kea Mountain maybe from the highway? METTLER: Yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. SIRACUSA: Question. Because that photograph is all silhouette, I cannot tell, no, not that, the one you were just holding up, I can’t tell whether those ironwood trees behind the utility pole are behind it or in front of it. METTLER: In front of it. SIRACUSA: Okay. METTLER: Okay. And then also I have another view here. Okay, great. So the pole we’re looking at will be coming up right around here. This is, the pole that you’re seeing here is right here. Okay, so that gives you a visual as if you were driving from Kona to Hilo. Okay. TERRY: Okay. This plan is included in the packet that we distributed to you this morning. I’ve blown it up to a large size so it will be readable for the meeting today. To orient you, this is Hawaii Belt Road here. Access easement is here to the site where the antenna will be located. There is a small building proposed here for equipment, an enclosure; and we’ve indicated a landscaped plan around the facility that we’d like to present to you today that we think will work really well on this environment. A couple things about plants in this area and the problem with, you know, mitigating the visual impact of the tower -. It is certainly possible to find trees that at maturity reach 100 feet mature height in this area. There’s a lot of documentation out there that supports that trees can, in fact, reach that height out here. And the tree that we would like to propose is a type of eucalyptus that’s called a swamp mahogany. The native environment of this tree is it’s sort of a dry-wet swamp environment. So it likes wet conditions, which this area certainly is a damp climate, but also is drought tolerant because the place that this tree comes from typically is subject to some drying out periods. So these trees are adapted to this climate but they won’t die during a dry period; and that’s very important in a site like this, especially when it’s so remote. So we’re very confident that these trees, you know, would work really well out here. In addition to that we would like to propose mixing in some ironwood trees; and Danette had shown, this board shows some of the ironwood trees that are there now. There are a lot of ironwoods along the roadway frontage there. And so we think by adding some ironwood trees in with the mahogany we’ll get a little bit more of a natural feel to the screening. And I think that’s very important because in a situation like this there’s a danger of surrounding something and probably making more of a visual element of it than it really needs to be. We want it to blend in with the surroundings. So EXHIBIT A 6 we feel that the swamp mahogany with the light foliage and the ironwood tress and the mixture would be a very natural way to accomplish that. And so that’s what we’re proposing here. I know that the proposed condition that had come to us had stated 30-foot high trees. One of the issues with these types of trees is they are very fast growing. That’s the first issue. And so typically in the landscape industry here you’re not going to have a lot of source for really large eucalyptus or ironwood trees or any other tree that would get to be the height that we’re looking at because it just doesn’t make much sense from a business standpoint. Typically my experience has been with landscaped projects here, these types of trees are specified, generally they’re grown out for the job because they grow so fast. You know, it’s not nursery stock. And so what we’re proposing here is to plant these of a smaller size and have them, and that way they would have the chance to acclimate to the environment and grow. And we think that they will do a lot better than say transplanting the existing eucalyptus that are in this area. Transplanting on the site and planting them, they might be 30 feet height. But the eucalyptus tree, in fact any of these really fast growing tall trees have very sensitive root systems and they have tap root. So when you transplant them you really set them back. You’ve got to cut them way back. The success rate is not that good. And, in effect, we’ve never really had the opportunity to even try to transplant a 30-foot high eucalyptus. We’ve tried to move smaller ones and it has never been that successful. The better way to do this type of planting is to come in with nursery grown container stock that’s really healthy, has a healthy root system, can be taken out of the container with a minimum of damage to the roots and planted, and then maintained properly so that we’ll achieve the heights that we want in the long-term. And so that was our thinking in terms of the species mix and also the sizes that we, you know, show in our testimony. Other than that, I know that, and in fact the applicant has related to me that they would be willing to go into a contract grower arrangement with the nurserymen to make sure that we have the trees that we need, you know, when we’re ready to plant. And so they’re willing to do that; and that’s very important because as I said these trees aren’t typically found in nurseries at any size. So in order to obtain them you would need to make preparations beforehand to have the nurserymen grow these trees out to the size that you would want. And so that’s our basic thinking on the plan. And we think that it’s something that could work really well. Eucalyptus trees grow very quickly once they’re established; and there is documentation, you know, showing that you can get a very good growth rate in an area like this with adequate maintenance. So we think that this will really work for the site; and that’s basically our plan that we would like to propose to you. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Maybe this would be a good time to take some questions from the Commissioners. WATANABE: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: My question is of you, the applicant. You know, because we just received this this morning and I don’t particularly want to continue this because it has been continued in the past, you had suggested some wording. But would you be willing to accept a wording EXHIBIT A 7 change such as this, “The trees shall meet with the approval of the Planning Director and be in place within one year of the effective date of this permit,” which essentially does the same thing except take out that specific 30-foot limit. That would afford our Director some time to try to digest the new information you’ve produced; and, you know, if you have other documentation you’d be able to also produce that to him. And I think you all should be able to work this out with, you know, without us getting much more specific about that. METTLER: That’s absolutely right. That was my concern. I didn’t want to, knowing that I couldn’t get 30-foot trees transplanted, I did not want to have the Planning Director have to come back to you the Commission if I knew at this time that that wouldn’t work. So -. WATANABE: But if we were to use that wording that I suggested, would that be something acceptable? METTLER: Yes, it would. The only comment that I have to make about that is that we really would like to get some direction. Because if this is approved today and this sounds like it might be a good plan, we can actually start, we can buy the trees now and start growing them for transplanting. So we were hoping that we could get some kind of a consensus from you today; and that wording is fine but we would like to really get started on it. And I know that we’ve got some work to do before we can apply for our plan approval. GRAHAM: Thank you. Follow-up? WATANABE: Well, with the Director, that wording that I had suggested, are you comfortable with that or do you have any other suggestions that you might be more comfortable with? I guess my concern here is I’d like the Director to feel very comfortable with whatever we’re recommending, rather than just make a change on the fly. And I think the Director has shown you already that he is flexible enough because obviously we started with a no recommendation and we’re at a place for an approval recommendation. So, you should be able to work it out. I don’t see where this should be a major stumbling block. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yeah, actually I’m comfortable with what they’re presenting here. What I would suggest is in 4, the first sentence, we take the word “established” out where it says “the applicant shall plant established trees.” Then we simply take out the entire second sentence, “The trees shall be at 30 feet in height and in place within one year from the effective date of the permit.” And then substitute a sentence that says “The applicant shall implement a tree planting program as represented,” and that will be the sentence. I think the overall, you know, there can be some changes but basically what is presented is fine. The main issues are that the trees have to be maintained. You know, there was a tree planting condition for the US Cellular tower at Malua Gulch. The trees, after several years and the applicant trying to get out of the program because it turned out they actually didn’t have site control, which is another condition on this, then they did finally plant the trees, but they haven’t maintained the trees. They’re not growing, they’re not doing anything with them. It’s not working at all. So we have to be sure that if we’re going to accept the cell tower and what is not really a great location from a visual point of view EXHIBIT A 8 with the idea that there is going to be tree planting to screen it, then they have to implement, they have to actually make sure the trees grow. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr.Yuen. Did you have any comments? METTLER: Well, I just wanted to state for the record that I have spoken to the landowner and we have redrafted an agreement for them giving us control in accordance with your recommendation, current recommendation, or modified later. Any recommendation, any condition by the Planning Department we’ll be allowed to comply with. GRAHAM: Fine, thank you. YUEN: And what I would want, you know, submit this landscaping. You do have a plan approval step, submit the specific landscaping plan with the plan approval. That will be part of the plan approval. METTLER: We’ll be doing that. And then I have one question, but I can ask you about that later. GRAHAM: Okay, fine. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. I thoroughly understand the problem with trying to secure a tree that’s already 30 feet in height from a nursery because as the tree grows, and it grows quickly, they have to keep what they call up-potting, moving it into larger and larger pots. And that’s time consuming and increases the expense and the trauma to the tree every time it’s repotted. But my question is basically about the choice of swamp mahogany. Now a lot of fast growing trees, albesia being a case in point, because they’re so fast growing, the wood is rather brittle; and it doesn’t have the structural strength of a slow-growing hardwood. And, therefore, in an area where there’s a lot of wind, and Hamakua coast certainly does have that sweeping in from the ocean, you have a tendency for wind damage to a tree, branches falling, that sort of thing. And so the choice is swamp mahogany. I’m wondering what its characteristics are in that regard and if we would have to worry about branches impacting the monopole in any way. Could you explain what their structure -? TERRY: Yeah, that’s a really good question. A lot of eucalyptus because they are fast growing they are weak wooded; and so there are ones, the citriodoora (phonetic), for example, the lemon-scented gum, very, very fast growing tree but then it drops a lot of branches, you know, breaks up and -. One of the reasons that we like the choice of this tree is it has a little bit harder wood than some of the other eucalyptus. In fact, this tree is grown in a lot of places for lumber. You know, it’s because the wood is almost like a hard wood in its density and characteristics. So I think what you raise is a very good point. You know, we wouldn’t want to , put a lot of big eucalyptus, citriodoora (phonetic) or even the lemon gum the one that has all the colors on the trunk. That one drops branches a lot. We think that this one is probably the most stable of the eucalyptus and of the types of trees that will actually achieve this height. To achieve a height like that, you do need a fast growing tree, so there’s a little bit of a trade-off there. But we think, you know, we’ve got these trees situated around the tower so that if there EXHIBIT A 9 was a really bad windstorm here and a couple of winds did fall, which can happen, even with really hard wood that can happen, the limbs will fall into a place where it won’t impact their facility. And so that’s one of the reasons why we have these trees kind of spaced around like this, is we’re trying to keep it away from this enclosure. And another issue about spacing, we’ve got these trees spaced probably a little bit farther apart than you might see in some other schemes where you’d have eucalyptus and trees like that spaced closely together. Because we want them to achieve a 100-foot height we have to space them out a little more. That’s why we’re using the spacing that you see here. You know, they are a little bit farther apart, but the bigger we want the tree to get the farther apart it has to be from the trees that are around it. So we think if we do it this way we’ll be able to get them the height we want; and we won’t risk any damage to the facility. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Terry. Commissioner Watanabe? SIRACUSA: Well, I wanted to -. GRAHAM: Oh, wait a minute, we’ll have a follow-up. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I wanted to follow-up. Thank you. I would like to suggest to the Director that in revising Condition No. 4, the second sentence, we only omit the words “at 30 feet in height and” so that it reads, “These trees shall be in place within one year from the effective date of this permit.” So that, because otherwise if you take out that whole sentence then we don’t give them a timeline for planting. And I’m wondering if that would be agreeable to you. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, does that sound appropriate? YUEN: Well, I’m not sure that it should take a year. You know, my idea is that the permit is approved, you’re going to go to the nursery, and you’re going to start getting the stock planted, and then you’re going to plant them out when -. What is the optimal time for planting them out? What would be the optimal time and size for planting them from a potted stock into the field? TERRY: Well, the way that this would probably be done is they would obtain seedling stock, and there is a facility in Kamuela that does that here, and put them in relatively large containers and then that will give the tree the chance to grow the most. And once it’s in the environment of the nursery it’s a controlled environment. You get a really fast growth rate. So we would probably want a year to get the tree up high enough so that when it’s planted that it’s stable, that it’s high up enough above anything that might compete with it for sunlight and whatnot. Now I note one of the things that has to happen, of course, is the site work for all this has to be done before we can come in and do that. So we’d want to make sure that all this was complete. That would be the time you’d want to come in and plant the trees. But a year with the eucalyptus tree and the nursery, you know, they’ll grow 5 to 10 feet the first year, you know, they really grow fast. So if we can have a year’s time, you know, that’s probably a minimum. If we had two years time that’s probably better. The main thing is to get the seedling plant started so that it’s big enough so that when it’s planted it is really ready to take off. EXHIBIT A 10 YUEN: Well, I’m fine with putting a year timeframe in there. I think somewhere there’s a year old eucalyptus robust of tree that can be transplanted -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question for the applicant. This Condition 4, I take it you’re fine with that. I just want to make sure that even though we have the trees in place and they do get to be a 100 feet at a minimum that you’d still be able to practice co-location so that we’re not looking at, you know, additional towers in the immediate vicinity. METTLER: That’s correct. We’ve designed this tower to accommodate two other carriers. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Other questions from Commissioners? I was just a little bit interested in the distance from the highway. It seems like this is going to be on a large parcel. So I’m wondering what sort of dictated a specific distance you have from the highway where you’re locating it, given that more distance from the highway would probably make it less visually intrusive and still have very little effect on your propagation. METTLER: I do have the RF engineer here that can answer that question. Would you like her to come up? GRAHAM: So the issues as I understand it is a propagation issue? METTLER: Yes. GRAHAM: I would appreciate that. METTLER: Okay. GRAHAM: Could I swear you in please first? ADAMS: Yes. GRAHAM: Thanks. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this mater today before the Planning Commission? ADAMS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. And could you give your name and address and testimony? th ADAMS: Hello. My name is Debra Adams. My address is 23535 164 Avenue, Southeast, Kent, K-e-n-t, Washington 98042. EXHIBIT A 11 GRAHAM: Thank you. Go ahead. ADAMS: Well, as to locating the facility further up the hill, as you look at the terrain in the area, it’s very rippled. There’s a lot of undulating terrain as it, it would be very hard to show. As you go up the hill, you look down, it’s almost like a fan if you look at it. And these ripples, the further back you go from the highway causes shadowing and it blocks the RF signal on the highway, which is our coverage goal for this facility. GRAHAM: So you’re saying you need it close to the highway to get the full signal strength? Is that only in the very immediate area of the highway or if you’re couple of miles down the road would it still make a difference? ADAMS: I analyzed multiple, multiple, dozens of locations along the highway, both east and west of this location, as well as north and south of the highway. And as with our Honokaa site, it is a shorter facility, granted, but it is located exactly on the highway and it lines up with that. This facility, it has a large span that it has to link up with the Waimea east side as well as our site in Honokaa. So down towards the highway the closer it is it, actually the road has leveled out due to the construction of the road, and so you have a better lineup looking east and west. You know, as you move north or south of the highway there you bring into more the terrain characteristics into play. GRAHAM: Okay, well, I certainly am not in the position to worry the details with you. It’s just that I know, it seems like it would be cost effective to you to have it as close to the highway as possible, but maybe visually effective for the community to have it farther away from the highway. So there’s that little push-pull; and I just have to accept your word, I presume, that it won’t work so well if it’s farther away. ADAMS: Well, yes, being close in this case it is advantageous; but it’s not always necessary. I mean we locate 2 to3 miles off the road if it is the best location for the propagation and it meets the criteria of the search and coverage objectives. So bringing in power and Telco facilities, we do it. We do what is best for the system, and for the coverage, and for our customers. GRAHAM: All right, thanks. And what is the exact distance from the highway that you have it located on your plan? ADAMS: Danette, do you have that? DARROW: It appears, the road is identified here. The scale shows 40 feet for this area. It appears to be about 300 feet. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. All right, do we have any other Commissioner questions? I don’t have anybody signed up for public testimony. Is there anybody else here that would like to make any public testimony on this application? Well, if we have no further EXHIBIT A 12 questions from the Commissioners, I imagine we can go into our decision-making. And you folks can stand back; and if we have a question we need to ask we’ll just ask explicitly. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move to approve special permit application SPP 06-000035 based on the Director’s recommendations and with the amended Condition 4 as stated earlier. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any second? GALDONES: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Do we have any comments from the Commissioners? Mr. Yuen, I had one question for Jeff Darrow earlier in the proceeding where I might just, as long as you’re here now, just pop it your way. One of the conditions we had typically on these towers like is Condition 7 which says within 120 days of the permanent abandonment the applicant shall remove the tower, etc. And I was just wondering if the Planning Department has any leverage to enforce that condition, seeing that generally you would revoke a permit; but in this case, you know, the permit is not used anymore anyway if you get to that point. So I was just wondering if you had any thought on that. YUEN: Well, it would be a violation. There would also be fines that could be imposed as a violation of the Zoning Code. GRAHAM: Okay, fine. Thank you. Do we have any other -? Commissioner Rho? RHO: I just wanted to make sure that Item No. 4 that it really did include this one year timeframe. So, I mean, we had lots of discussion but I’m not sure exactly what Number 4 will now say. So I just want to make sure that it includes that time limit of one year. GRAHAM: Is that your understanding, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: That is correct. It was the Director agreed to that one year and because the applicant was actually asking for potentially two years and, you know, as I recall the Director did indicate surely there is some eucalyptus trees in that area already 10 feet tall somewhere. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Since the landscaping cannot go until the tower construction is completed, I would like to ask the applicant if they could tell us how soon after we approve the permit they could get the tower completed. And then, you know, then we can gauge the timefame for the landscaping based on that. GRAHAM: Ms. Mettler, do you have a comment on that? METTLER: I think we could probably start construction in approximately nine months. EXHIBIT A 13 GRAHAM: Approximately nine months? METTLER: Yes. It’s taking quite some time to have building permits approved lately. SIRACUSA: If you start at nine months, how long would it take to complete construction then? METTLER: Probably six weeks after starting. SIRACUSA: So according to that then it seems like they would be able to get the trees in the ground especially if they were having them grown out in the nursery within the one-year timeframe, tight but possible. METTLER: We don’t have a problem with that. SIRACUSA: Okay. METTLER: The reason why I came back up here is I just wanted to see if I understood what was being proposed; and that would be to remove the word “established” in the first sentence and then in the second sentence delete “at 30 feet in height and,” and then leave the rest the same. Is that what you were talking about? GRAHAM: Is that what you had in mind, Commissioner Watanabe, with your motion? WATANABE: Essentially, essentially yes. You know, the Director had come up with “Applicant shall implement a tree planting program as represented,” and if we add one year to that I think that would be appropriate because, you know, you have presented a scenario here. If we leave it the other way it’s not as, it might be open to anything. METTLER: I appreciate that. WATANABE: So I think if we do that then it’s clear on the record what types of trees you’re talking about, the spacing, etc. and everything else you’ve represented you will have to abide by. GRAHAM: Fine. Are we all in accord then? We understand? GALDONES: Yes. GRAHAM: All right, are there any questions or comments before I have Jeff take the roll call and a vote on the motion? Go ahead, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion is to approve with the amendment to Condition 4, if I might read that, “The applicant shall plant,” we will be deleting the word “established,” “trees that will grow to a height of 100 plus feet along the outside of the north, west and east boundaries of the proposed project site to minimize any negative visual impacts to EXHIBIT A 14 the highway. These trees shall be,” we will be deleting the words “at 30 feet in height and” “in place within one year from the effective date of this permit.” We will be adding a third sentence, “The applicant shall implement a tree planting program as represented” and the remainder of the condition will be the same. Does that sound correct? WATANABE: Sounds good to me. DARROW: With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you for your thorough presentation today. We will notify you in writing of our decision. The discussion ended at 9:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 15