Laserfiche WebLink
206 June 3,1992 <br /> Council has four alternatives for action: 1) Affirm the <br /> Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance; 2) Remand the <br /> proj) ect tondstaff to generate specific additional information; <br /> or 4)p Make additionalon of g Environmental nl Impact <br /> those Statement; <br /> findings anfindings, <br /> revise the Mitigated Determination of Staff <br /> recommends upholding the responsible official's decision <br /> to <br /> issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. <br /> The issues appealed were as follows: 1) DNS procured by <br /> misrepresentation or 2The <br /> Threshlmaterialack of <br /> old Determinattanwas not based on reasonably sufficient <br /> information to evaluate the environmental impacts;3) MDNS <br /> failed to include ad rst-case analysis; 0) 0N5 failed to <br /> include worst-case analysis; 5) Thera are probable <br /> g <br /> 6) The eadverse a <br /> DNS is defectivein that the warranting <br /> preparation mentalfactors werof an e <br /> not considered in a manner <br /> sufficient to comply with SEPN; and <br /> 7) The City prevented the Lowell Civic Association from <br /> reviewing the file and re cords of the proposal prior to this <br /> appeal,contrary to law. <br /> Mr. Ervine presented corrections to the staff report as a�'1 <br /> follows: 1) Findings under Section D-the correct <br /> ect NAC number �./ <br /> is 333-ES4; 2) Findings under Section F - der item I3, <br /> delete the words "posted on the site and"; and 3) Findings <br /> under Section 7-under item fl to delete "prior to a public <br /> hearing for a Special Property Use permit and variance"and add <br /> concuerently with the IIB decision of March 24,1992.• <br /> Mr. Ervine reviewed each of the issues under appeal end <br /> recommended that Council uphold the Responsible Official's <br /> Decision to issue a Determination of Non-Significance and deny <br /> the appeal. Mr. Ervine submitted, as Exhibit 1, the Staff <br /> Report with attachments of: <br /> a. Letter of Appeal <br /> b. DNS <br /> c. Vicinity/Zoning Map <br /> d. Site Plan <br /> e. Agency Comments <br /> P. Environmental checklist <br /> g. Burlington Northern exhibits. <br /> Or. Ermine submitted as Exhibit 2, EET Bulletin No. 56, <br /> Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potentioal <br /> Hazards of Radiofrequency Radiation". <br /> Mark Stowe, representing the Appellant, the Lowell civic <br /> Association, voiced objections for the arecord; 1, hearing was <br /> more than 45 days after the appeal and 2, the document Pers U <br /> to a DNS and should be a MD.and therefore notice was invalid. <br />