Laserfiche WebLink
HOUSEL: Do you represent Crown Castle? <br />METTLER: No, I represent Verizon Wireless. <br />HOUSEL: And what’s the relationship between Crown Castle and Verizon? <br />METTLER: That’s a landlord-tenant situation. So originally Verizon Wireless owned <br />this tower, and they sold it to Crown Castle and leased back from them. <br />HOUSEL: I see. Now regarding the notification that was sent out, did Crown Castle <br />do that? <br />METTLER: Their representative did, yes. <br />HOUSEL: Their representative did. Okay. In the case of inadequate notification, I <br />don’t know, it seems like if we have two, you know, kind of seconding Rell’s concern, I’m <br />concerned about others who maybe were not notified also. <br />METTLER: I don’t know anything about that. <br />HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. <br />WATANABE: Any further questions? None? Okay, look, let’s do this. We’ve taken <br />care of – thank you for your testimony, you may be seated – we’ve taken care of the testifiers; <br />let’s take a recess. We’ll go have lunch. Let’s reconvene at about 2:00-ish because it’s going to <br />take us awhile to get across to there, etc.So we’ll reconvene at about 2:00, and then we’ll <br />continue this matter then. <br />RECESSED The Chair called a lunch recess at 12:28 p.m. <br /> Commissioner Alameda left the meeting at this time. <br />RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 2:03 p.m. <br />WATANABE: Planning Commission, please come back into order. Prior to lunch we <br />were on Agenda Item No. 4, Crown Castle International, and we had entertained all of the public <br />testimony. Now we are, I guess, at the point where we determine whether to move forward. We <br />do have a timely filing for a contested case hearing from Chris McCullough. But we also have a <br />question as to whether timely notice was served to everyone. Maija, are you aware of anyone <br />else that wasn’t served, or are you able to assure the Commission that aside from those two <br />individuals everyone else was served that needed to be served? <br />COTTLE: Sure. There were three surrounding property owners that were not <br />notified with the original notice. And when that was discovered, the applicant’s consultant <br />notified those three property owners, and two of them were here today. They were notified on <br />th <br />November 17. <br />EXHIBIT D <br />18 <br /> <br />