Laserfiche WebLink
202 <br /> June 3,leg2 <br /> 0 <br /> Mr. Hendrickson reviewed each of the items under appeal and <br /> noted that no evidence of adverse impacts was evident in the <br /> appeal issues. Mr. Hendrickson introduced the following <br /> exhibits: <br /> igig:IT Response latter L. Hendrickson, <br /> Attorney representing US West NewVector <br /> group,Inc. <br /> Exhibit 12 City of Seattle Telecommunications Policies, <br /> Resolution No.28484 <br /> Exhibit 13 City of Seattle Radiation Ordinance No. <br /> 116057 <br /> Exhibit 14 King County Ordinance 10021, regulating <br /> om unication facilities <br /> Exhibit 15 CoZlete SPU Findings, Conclusions, and <br /> Decision-Thurston County SUP-7-91 <br /> 11,1redancthtny CJI:c41Ilphold the Responsible Official's <br /> John Hunt, of Kirkland, an independent planning consultant, <br /> said that there is no basis for the requirement of an <br /> Environmental Impact Statement. That there have been 101 state <br /> sites and no EIS has been required for any site. <br /> Jim Hatfield of Seattle, an electrical Professional Engineer, <br /> reviewed the creation of the new ANSI standards and the <br /> comparison to the old standards. He reported on measurements <br /> in South Everett and measurements for comparison in Seattle. <br /> Dr. Don Justesen, professor of neuropsychology at the <br /> University of Kansas, stated that the biological effects of <br /> exposure are extremely low; lower than some household <br /> appliances. <br /> Mr. Hendrickson summarized the testimony and exhibits of US <br /> West NewVector Group and stated that there is no probability of <br /> adverse impact in the City by the tower placement. <br /> ::bquir=tessInd 7=1=es.De"rtme"t' reviewed the notice <br /> Moved by Councilmen Diamond, seconded by Councilman Pope to <br /> close the public hearing. <br /> Roll was called with all councilmen voting yes except <br /> Councilman Noses and President Gipson who were excused. (:) <br /> Motion carried. <br />