2006-02-03 TCellco - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LEITHEAD-TODD:On the top of page 14, the paragraph that starts Reasons for Conclusion of Law # 4, the second sentence following that that says The inquiry is not into the effect that the desired use will have on the subjective feelings of the surrounding property owners. We believe that sentence should be deleted when you are going into decision-making because we dont think its appropriate. ALAMEDA:Okay. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I have no objection to those deletions because those were areas that I had underscored in red myself on my own copy. ALAMEDA:And also please note that these are like revisions when we go into making the decision if were going to accept this report or not. So we havent gotten there yet. But, you know, just so you guys know that. Okay, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I have no objections specifically to what was said. I was just wondering procedurally if were getting more into testimony than clarification because it doesnt seem like anybody asked a specific question to that. However -. ALAMEDA:Right, right. WATANABE:However, that said, it would seem that all of the recommended deletions areactuallystatingthattheintervenorhasavalidconcern.SoIwouldnotobjecttothechanges based on that, but -. ALAMEDA:Okay. It is a bit ahead of ourselves, so if you still have any questions for the parties to help you clarify things, I would -. Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I have one for Mr. Young. I believe when I read the transcript, one of the witnesses that came in after you folks had really concluded with your cross-examination and all made some point, well, we ought to just go ahead here and the neighboring property owners who perhaps are losing property value could be compensated and just go forward. So my question to you is, my understanding is that you the applicant will be paying the property owner that holds the tower a rental fee of whatever to have your tower. But, in fact, the adjoining property owners will have the tower right next door maybe just as close as the property owners house to their house but theyre getting nothing. Is there any background, is there any precedent, is there any ability or interest in compensating neighboring property owners for having a tower in full view of their homes nearby? Is that something that youve considered, or it is considered, or you know if that has been done in situations like this? ALAMEDA:Mr. Young? YOUNG:Im not aware of that, Im not aware of that having been done in the past in Hawaii. I did bring that subject up about six months ago to Verizon; and their response was that that is something which they would not consider. GRAHAM:Thank you. 13EXHIBIT B