Resolution 3650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Conclusions: The Appellant, while raising the important concern of public health and safety, has not provided conclusive data which provides proof of probable significant adverse impacts (emphasis added) . The appeal contains many comments which are not supported by specific facts or evidence. The conclusion that there would be a danger to the community is not supported by an analysis of EMF that will result from the proposed US West tower. The Appellant has not met the burden of proof requirement of establishing that the proposed action will have probable significant adverse impacts. ISSUE - THE MDNS IS DEFECTIVE DUE TO A LACK OF CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS The sixth and final item appealed raises the issue of whether the Responsible Official acted in compliance with SEPA, RCW, and the City's SEPA Ordinance in preparing the threshold determination. There are three sub-issues: 1) whether the Threshold Determination was issued at the earliest point in the planning process; 2) whether adequate consideration was given to environmental factors; and 3) whether public comment and notice were provided for the SEPA determination. Findings: 1) The SEPA determination was issued prior to a public hearing for a Special Property Use permit and variance. 2) Environmental factors have been evaluated based on studies by technical experts and a review of EMF standards and guidelines, and as set forth in this staff report. 3) A 15-day public comment period was provided for the SEPA determination. In addition, notice of the City's decision was posted on the site and mailed to individuals and organizations on the City's SEPA mailing list. Conclusions: The City fulfilled all of its procedural requirements under SEPA, (Chapter 197-11 WAC, Chapter 43 . 21 .0 RCW and City Ordinance #1348-87) . 8