|
RAFFIPIY: It is moved by Mr. Clarkson and seconded by—was that Mr. Replogle?
<br /> REPLOGLE: Si, yes.
<br /> RAFFIPIY: Okay, all right, that we approve based on the Director's recommendation that was
<br /> presented in our March meeting. Is that your motion, Mr. Clarkson?
<br /> CLARKSON: That's correct. And let me just briefly speak to my motion. I was originally in
<br /> favor of granting approval, and I'm even more in favor now particularly and if all of those
<br /> Commissioners want to have a solid reason for changing their mind, I think that current
<br /> circumstances which I believe are going to continue for a long, long time are a good justification
<br /> for increasing connectivity and especially in light of the fact that this program that this tower
<br /> would be a part of is to enable emergency communication by first responders, I just feel that
<br /> despite the public outcry and despite the emotional testimony, this application should be
<br /> approved.
<br /> RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Clarkson. Any further discussion? Mr. Tomlinson, were you
<br /> trying to make a statement?
<br /> TOMLINSON: Yes, yes, Mr. Chair. I didn't want to interrupt, but there were a few questions
<br /> posed by Mr. Aguinaldo that I wanted to, to address if possible. If that's okay?
<br /> RAFFIPIY: That's okay, go ahead.
<br /> TOMLINSON: So, AT&T did review co-location, particularly co-location, locations for the area
<br /> and unfortunately there is just a significant gap as evidenced in our, you know, our application.
<br /> We talked about this in previous hearings that a co-location won't suffice even if we got taller,
<br /> you know, increased the height. So, addressing the co-location. In almost every instance, AT&T
<br /> is very happy to co-locate on an existing facility if it meets its type of requirements. It's a lot
<br /> cheaper, a lot faster. We don't have to come to these hearings. So, that being said, in terms of
<br /> the testimony in opposition, I just want to point out that much of the testimony Mr. Aguinaldo
<br /> was referencing, could we put this someplace else, a lot of this testimony is coming from people
<br /> on different parts of the island who aren't even directly in the community for one. And, then, so
<br /> almost to the point of where, you know, people are going to have, have problems on any parcel
<br /> of land to a certain extent.
<br /> And, the other,the other issue is, is because of the nature of this testimony and that it's based on
<br /> the fact that people are, have emotional distress about RF emissions, that's not, by law, that's not
<br /> a legitimate reason for,to be accepting that testimony, I mean based on RF emissions and
<br /> emotion. So, from AT&T's point of view, you know, we really think that this is a good place for
<br /> this tower. It's away from—on a large parcel. It's away from close neighbors. There is no fall
<br /> zone issues, and we urge you to approve it. Thank you.
<br /> RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson. Any further discussion?
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br /> 10
<br />
|