Laserfiche WebLink
207 <br /> June 3,lg. <br /> C <br /> Mr. Stowe reviewed the items of appeal, noting the close <br /> proximity of the tower location to the residential areas, the <br /> view obstruction, reduction of real estate values and <br /> unanswered concerns regarding the tower emissions. <br /> No.Stowe introduced the following exhibits: <br /> Exhibit 3 map of the area <br /> Exhibit 4 letter of appeal <br /> . Exhibit 5 Cobb summary a supporting documentation <br /> Exhibit 6 Portion of SRI apolication findings, <br /> conclusions a decision - Thurston County <br /> File No.SP11-7-91 <br /> Exhibit 7 San Diego Gas S Electric v.Daley <br /> Exhibit 0 Petition from neighborhood <br /> Mr. Stowe asked that council, after review of the information <br /> and exhibits,require an Environmental Impact Statement for the <br /> proposed tower siting. <br /> Carroll Cobb, Bioengineer/Health Physicist, testifying fox the <br /> appellants, reviewed the possible dangers and unknowns in the <br /> non-thermal bioeffects upon the human organism. <br /> (I Loren Watson, 2120 Main St., of the Lowell Civic Association, <br /> gave a review of the neighborhood and the negative impacts of <br /> the proposed tower site on the neighborhood. <br /> Gail Chism, 4601 S. Fourth, Chair of the Lowell Civic <br /> Association, reviewed the historic significance of the <br /> neighborhood. She introduced three photos of the neighborhood <br /> as Exhibit D. <br /> Shirley Watson, 2120 Wain Street, and Arlie Marcell,5307 South <br /> 3rd,also spoke on the adverse effects on the neighbors and the <br /> neighborhood of the tower placement site. <br /> Mx. Stowe summarized the Lowell Civic Association concern and <br /> reiterated that Council uphold the appeal. <br /> Robert E. Walkley, representing the Applicant, Burlington <br /> Northern, offered objections to Exhibits 3, 4 and 6 as <br /> irrelevant to the Burlington Northern proposal. <br /> Mr. Walkley said that Burlington Northern had applied far a <br /> building permit for the construction of a microwave facility,a <br /> permitted use on land zoned M2. He stated the appeals were not <br /> filed in a timely manner and should be denied. <br />