2008-11-24 TCELLCO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

it’s the intent that co-location be required, you know, from obviously maximizing the productivity of having this tower constructed and minimizing the need to have other companies come in and ask for additional towers because Verizon is not actually allowing co-location -. WATANABE: Okay, I understand what you are saying. IWASHITA: I’m thinking stronger language should be used. And the other point I wanted to make is it talks about the existing tower as opposed to the tower. The existing tower is not 60 feet high, right? COTTLE: Correct. IWASHITA: So if the intent is to allow co-location on whatever tower exists, then I think the word “existing” should be taken out. It should just be: “Co-location on the tower shall be required” would be my suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Yuen, any comments regarding those, Mr. Iwashita’s -? YUEN: Well, I agree on the point of the “existing” tower. You know, we could, I think the clause is reasonably clear otherwise, although, you know, anything could be reworded. Is this what we normally have been putting in? A standard clause? COTTLE: Yes. WATANABE: So in the past, I know we’ve had, so this is a standard. Okay, so then a short of putting stronger language for “allow,” then we are in agreement that Condition No. 4 will be revised to remove “existing” and just refer it to “the tower.” Is that what I heard? YUEN: Yes, that will be fine. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: So, I don’t know, is it a practice now to, or is it a practice of the industry that the wireless companies are sharing their infrastructure and co-locating antennas, or not? YUEN: They are supposed to when we have this clause in the permits, I mean, that was idea behind it. If a carrier came to us and said we ask to co-locate, we wanted to enter into negotiations on a reasonable price, we believe it’s technically feasible, but the other carrier says, no, you can’t; if they are operating under a permit that has this kind of language, the Planning Department would say to the tower owner, no, you must. We are not going to set the price it has, you know, if they say, well, it’s $600,000 a month, I think we would intervene. But to the point of saying that you are required to offer the ability to co-locate on reasonable terms to other carriers, that is what this clause means. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita, I think the key point might be that it’s a Special Permit that could be revoked. So if they don’t cooperate, you could technically revoke it. EXHIBIT C 4