Loading...
09/01/1998 City Counciln Addition to Agenda EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Andrea Reid, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Ron Haworth, Interim Fire Chief Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Meg Gruwell, Planner Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks,and Recreation Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADD A CORRECTION TO THE AUGUST 18, 1998, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 4A. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Earling requested Item B (Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 25, 1998) be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL V(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25671 THRU #27173 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 24, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,871.65 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 1 eneral I (D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING and I I JULY 31,1998 roj 99 (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT (F) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING A HEARING HELD ON AUGUST Findings of 18, 1998, CONCERNING THE APPLICATION BY ALEXANDER SILAGIN FOR Fact - APPROVAL OF PAYMENT INTO THE CITY IN-LIEU OF PARING FUND FOR 14 OF A. Silagin THE PROJECT'S REQUIRED 24 PARKING SPACES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NEW File ILP -98- 122 MIXED -USE BUILDING AT 303 DAYTON STREET, PURSUANT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.050.070.A.1.0 (File No. II.P -98 -122) Meadow - ale Storm (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 25,1998, AND AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO Drainage WEST COAST CONSTRUCTION ($227,292.20, INCLUDING SALES TAX), FOR THE 1998 NORTH MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ourt ennis (H) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR YOST TENNIS COURT SITE PREPARATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LE DUC'S CONCRETE INC. ($23,622.67, Including Sales Tag) ost Tennis Court (1) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR YOST TENNIS COURT RESURFACING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ATLAS TRACK AND TENNIS ($17,810.40, Including Sales Tag) anitary Sewer (J) APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY SANITARY SEWER [Improvements IMPROVEMENTS Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 25,1998 COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN Approve HOLLEBEKE, TO AMEND THE AUGUST 25, 1998, MINUTES TO REFLECT THE CHANGE 8/25/98 FROM $2 MILLION TO $200 MILLION IN THE SECOND COMPLETE PARAGRAPH ON Minutes as PAGE 4. MOTION CARRIED. Amended COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 25, 1998, MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. Western 3.1 CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING - APPEAL BY WESTERN WIRELESS OF THE Wireless HEARING EXAAIINER'S DECISION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLIED FOR 100 -Foot Monopole UNDER CITY OF EDMONDS FILE NO. CU -98 -130 FOR A 100 -FOOT TALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION MONOPOLE TOWER AT 8505 BOWDOIN WAY (Appellant/Applicant: Western Wireless / File No. AP -98 -126, AP- 98 -26. CU -97 -130, and ADB -97 -129) Mayor Fahey explained this is a closed record appeal; only information previously presented can be referred to and no additional information can be submitted. Further, only people with standing (who have participated in this process previously) may participate. She explained once some procedural issues were addressed, the applicant/appellant would be given 15 minutes to state their case and may retain time for rebuttal. Comments from other participants will be limited to 3 minutes each. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosure. Councilmember Miller advised he read a letter and a newspaper article sent to him by Shelley Hart but did not believe the information would affect his judgment. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked how many Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 2 other members of the Council received a letter from Ms. Hart. All Councilmembers indicated they received the letter. Mr. Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is designed to preserve a quorum of the Council. He suggested a copy of the letter from Ms. Hart be made available to the applicant. Shelley Hart, 8604 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, said the article is included in the record; it was submitted at the second hearing. Mr. Snyder asked staff to locate the letter among the exhibits. Council President Haakenson advised he too received the letter from Ms. Hart but upon recognizing the name, did not open it. He explained a letter was received and entered into the record at the hearing before the Pro Tem. Hearing Examiner on May 21, 1998, from William and Mary Davis. The letter stated their concern with his participation as he is also Vice -Chair of the SnoCom Board, and SnoCom will be a co- locator on this monopole. Council President Haakenson quoted from the April 7, 1998 Council minutes (the date of the original hearing), "Council President Haakenson said he is the Vice - Chair of the SnoCom Board but was not aware of any conflict this would cause. Mayor Fahey asked if there was any objection to Council President Haakenson participating in the hearing as a result of his position as Vice -Chair of the SnoCom Board and no objections were stated at that time." Mr. Snyder explained a challenge is required to be made at the earliest possible opportunity in a proceeding. He asked Council President Haakenson if his participation on the SnoCom Board was a function of his duty as a Councilmember for the Council of Edmonds. Council President Haakenson answered yes. Mr. Snyder asked if his participation was reflective of the Council's positions. Council President Haakenson answered yes. Mr. Snyder explained as Council President Haakenson represents the Council on the SnoCom Board, a challenge on that basis would be a challenge to all Councilmembers. Mr. Snyder asked if the SnoCom lease is approved by the City Council. Council President Haakenson answered yes. Mr. Snyder clarified Council President Haakenson had no ability individually to approve the lease. Mr. Snyder advised the newspaper article sent to all Councilmembers by Ms. Hart was contained in the record on page 309. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any challenges to any Councilmembers' participation in the hearing. Jerome Hansen, 8510 214th Place, Edmonds, said Western Wireless' appeal alluded to the fact that because the Hearing Examiner and the person retained by some of the members knew each other, this made them prejudice. Therefore, he felt anyone with a wireless device who believed this facility was necessary would also be prejudice. He objected to the participation of any Councilmember with a wireless device. Mr. Snyder asked how many Councilmembers owned a wireless device. All Councilmembers indicated they owned a wireless device. Mr. Snyder said again the Doctrine of Necessity would apply. Shelley Hart, 8510 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, said in the first appeal, when they were the appellants, they were given 10 minutes and the applicant was given 10 minutes plus an additional 20 minutes to answer questions and "elaborate on anything they didn't get to cover." She said Western Wireless should also only be given 10 minutes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 3 Mayor Fahey explained the appellant always has the opportunity to present their case. In this hearing, palj 1es with standing may speak for the allotted 3 minutes which could exceed the amount of time Western Wireless has been given. Mayor Fahey said the timelines established were fair. were no other objections to the participation of any Councilmember. Mayor Fahey explained each ion was disallowed, as it would prevent all Councilmembers from participating; therefore, all ilmembers are empowered to participate in this hearing and render a decision. Fahey advised Western Wireless wished to make a challenge to the procedures of the previous Briian Knox, Preston Gates and Ellis, representing Western Wireless, introduced Kollin Min and Lorraine Spencer, and indicated any of the three may speak during the hearing on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Knox said they would prefer to focus on the merits of Western Wireless' application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as they feel the record supports approval of that permit. However, as there is now a negative Hearing Examiner decision in the record, which may influence the Council's decision, he wished to object to the Hearing Examiner process. He explained under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, a hearing must not only be fair but must appear fair. At the most recent Hearing Examiner hearing, which he did not attend, the Hearing Examiner (Bob Burke) looked up and saw Kirk Wines in the audience and made a disclosure by stating Mr. Wines and he were both consultants to the City of Medina, he as a Planner and Mr. Wines as an attorney. The Hearing Examiner said he did not see this as a problem and hearing no objections, moved on. Mr. Knox said the Hearing Examiner did not st�te the nature of the work.he did with Mr. Wines for the City of Medina although this is an important issue. The Hearing Examiner and Mr. Wines worked together for the City of Medina for 10+ years and worked on telecommunication matters. Mr. Knox pointed out the City of Medina is one of the most restrictive jurisdictions with regard to telecommunications facilities. Mr. Snyder advised Mr. Knox the material supporting this argument was distributed to the Council and Councilmembers indicated they had read the materials. Mr. Snyder asked whether there was any testimony that was excluded or any materials submitted that should have been excluded. Mr. Knox answered no, apart from the Hearing Examiner's decision. Mr. Snyder explained the City Council gives no procedural weight to the Hearing Examiner's decision on appeal -- the applicant retains the burden of proof -- and the Hearing Examiner's decision has no evidentiary value nor raises the threshold for the applicant's presentation. Mr. Snyder asked if the applicant was requesting a new Hearing Examiner be appointed and a new record made. Mr. Knox said their preference would be to have the merits of their application addressed tonight. Mr. Knox said if the Council hears the evidence tonight and are convinced the permit should be granted, there is no harm done by the negative decision in the record. If the Council hears the evidence and is not sure or finds the application should be denied, the issue should be returned to a Hearing Examiner who has no relationship with either party. His preference was for the Council to consider the evidence and make a decision on the merits of the application. Mr. Snyder said if Western Wireless had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence, his recommendation would be that the Council act on the record. He said the materials provided, particularly the articles, were probably more inflammatory than the Hearing Examiner's decision. Council President Haakenson asked whether Western Wireless had the opportunity to request another h�aring according to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine if the Council held the closed record hearing tonight and upheld the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem's decision. Mr. Snyder recommended the Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 4 determine whether there should be a new hearing and whether to abide by Western Wireless' request that the Council give the Hearing Examiner's decision no weight in the process (which the City's ordinances already require). Mr. Knox said it was important to recognize that the Hearing Examiner's decision was tainted and should be ignored. Mr. Snyder said Western Wireless had no right to request another hearing, as there was nothing wrong with the record. Councilmember Nordquist pointed out the materials refer to Steve Bullock, who as late as June 9, 1998, represented Western Wireless and is now an employee of the City of Edmonds. He asked if Mr. Bullock had been involved in the procedure. Mr. Snyder recommended the issue presently before the Council be resolved before the Council address any other issue. Councilmember Earling, a Boardmember of the RTA, advised the law firm, Preston Gates & Ellis, represents the RTA on some issues although he was not acquainted with this attorney. Mr. Snyder recommended the issue presently before the Council be resolved before the Council addresses another issue. Mr. Knox said the Hearing Examiner's failure to disclose the type of work he was involved in with Mr. Wines and the length of his service with Mr. Wines was a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Further, the Hearing Examiner must have known he might face an appeal from a person he worked with often on telecommunication issues if he granted the permit. Mr. Knox said their appeal was submitted before the record had been examined closely and may have over emphasized their objection to the Hearing Examiner's involvement with Mr. Wines; Western Wireless preferred to have the Council consider this issue based on the merits of their application. Regarding Western Wireless' failure to register a full objection at the time, he pointed out it was difficult for an applicant to make an Appearance of Fairness challenge of a Hearing Examiner who will make a determination on their application. Mr. Knox said the Appearance of Fairness section of the City's Code requires there be a disclosure by every Hearing Examiner or other officer who's conducting a hearing and requires "the presiding officer shall ask for any objections from any member based upon the contents of the disclosures. The audience shall further be informed that failure to object to any subject matter, the disclosure shall serve to waive any right to further objection." Mr. Knox pointed out the Hearing Examiner did not provide this fair warning. He noted Western Wireless was not represented by counsel at the hearing and doubted the City wanted a Hearing Examiner process that required everyone to bring a lawyer. Mayor Fahey said Councilmember Earling indicated Preston Gates & Ellis' representation of the RTA did not create any bias and he had no firsthand knowledge of any of the attorneys present or that there was any overlap between this issue and the RTA. Mayor Fahey asked if there was any challenge to Councilmember Earling's participation. There were no challenges. Mayor Fahey asked staff to address Councilmember Nordquist's concern regarding Mr. Bullock. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, explained because Mr. Bullock previously worked for Western Wireless, he did not participate in any review, write -up, discussion, or any other aspect of this case. Councilmember Nordquist asked when Mr. Bullock started work for the City. Mr. Chave estimated it was three months ago. At the request of Mr. Snyder, Mr. Chave explained Mr. Bullock had previously been a City employee, he left for a year to work for Western Wireless, and returned to City employment. By the time he returned, the Western Wireless case was well underway and was assigned to other staff. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Snyder asked if one of Mr. Bullock's primary duties while in the City's employ was working on the 6ty's wireless communication ordinance. Mr. Chave answered yes, before he began working for Western Wireless. Mr. Snyder clarified Mr. Bullock had no involvement or input on this issue since that time. Mr. Chave agreed. i Mr. Snyder asked if any Councilmember had any discussion with Mr. Bullock in the course of his employment with the City. No Councilmembers responded. Mr. Snyder asked if any Councilmember has had any discussion outside the record with Mr. Bullock during the time he represented Western Wireless. No Councilmembers responded. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any objections to the procedure based on Mr. Bullock's former employment with Western Wireless? In response to Jerome Hanson, 8510 214th Place SW, Edmonds, Mayor Fahey explained when Mr. Bullock was on staff before, he helped draft the ordinance but the permit was not pending at that time. Mr. Bullock left the City's employ to work for Western Wireless and later returned to the City but has not participated in the process since his return. Mr. Hanson objected on the basis that Mr. Bullock would have been prejudiced when he was employed by Western Wireless (the same as Western Wireless considered Mr. Burke and Mr. Wines to be prejudiced at the hearing) because he had prior knowledge of the system. Mayor Fahey pointed out Mr. Bullock had knowledge of the ordinance but that is public information. Mr. Hanson said if Western Wireless can object to the Hearing Examiner on the grounds that he had dealings with past wireless communications regulations, he was objecting on the same grounds. Mr. Snyder said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is designed to preserve public confidence in the quasi-judicial process and applies only to decision - makers. Mr. Bullock is an employee of the City and the City has done what it can to erect a barrier to his participation in this process as a City employee due to his past employment with Western Wireless. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the Council that will make the decision and therefore the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine did not apply. If the basis for the Objection was that Mr. Bullock is employed by the City, that challenge would be to all Councilmembers and no Councilmember has communicated with Mr. Bullock outside the record. Mr. Snyder recommended the Council dismiss this challenge. Shelley Hart, 8605 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, asked if she was permitted to address the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine before the Council discussion, noting a portion of their objection to the appeal was based on Western Wireless' letter regarding the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Snyder asked if she had any evidentiary material for the Council's consideration; the applicant has offered affidavits and background information that supported their Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge (which were available in the Council packet). Ms. Hart answered no. Ms. Hart explained Edmonds will make $10,000 per year for the next 30 years by locating the tower "in a disposable neighborhood because no one on the Council lives in it." She recalled Western Wireless objected to the Hearing Examiner's decision because he worked as a planning consultant for the City of Medina and helped them draft their ordinance regarding cell towers. She said if the Council threw out this decision based on the Hearing Examiner's past experience with telecommunications, the Council would be required to overturn every decision he made that involved an area in which he had previous exposure to in his consultant work. She pointed out Western Wireless must have been aware they had a 50/50 chance of getting Mr. Burke as the Hearing Examiner if this issue was remanded to the Hearing Examiner and they chose to have it remanded. She referred to Mr. Bullock's April 28, 1998, letter which states, Western Wireless supports Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 6 this course of action as opposed to any other action that might be taken. She said because Western Wireless did not notify enough neighbors, the issue had to be remanded to the Hearing Examiner but now Western Wireless does not like that decision. Mr. Snyder explained Edmonds City Code provided no weight on appeal to the decision of the Hearing Examiner -- the applicant retains the burden of persuasion and moving forward. The Hearing Examiner's decision is based on the evidence and is not evidence itself. To agree to Western Wireless' request not to consider the Hearing Examiner decision as evidence and provide it no weight is what the City's ordinances already require. Mr. Snyder suggested Mayor Fahey ask each Councilmember if he would be able to make a decision based on the evidence, giving no weight to the Hearing Examiner's decision. Council President Haakenson stated the Hearing Examiner's failure to disclose his relationship to the other attorney and to the industry was a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. However, as he believed no further information could be developed, he preferred a decision be made on this issue tonight. He said he had not yet made a decision. Councilmember Plunkett said he had not reached a final conclusion. Councilmember Miller said he lives in the immediate neighborhood of this application. He agreed there had been a fatal flaw in the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and he had not yet made a decision. Mr. Snyder asked if Councilmember Miller's reference to a fatal flaw meant the Hearing Examiner's decision in the record was fatal to his ability to make a fair decision. Councilmember Miller answered no; he believed there was a flaw in the Hearing Examiner's Appearance of Fairness disclosure. Mr. Snyder clarified Councilmember Miller would not give weight to the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Nordquist said he had one question regarding the lease before he made a decision. Councilmember White observed the record indicated the Hearing Examiner did not give any opportunity for objections to his disclosure. Based on the information in the record, Councilmember White said he would not give any deference to the Hearing Examiner's decision. He agreed there had been a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He pointed out the Council regularly overturns the decisions of the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Earling said he had not made a decision. Councilmember Van Hollebeke indicated he had not made a decision. Councilmember White clarified the question was not whether Councilmembers had made a decision but whether the Council would give weight to the Hearing Examiner's decision as he may be perceived as having more education in this matter or being more familiar with this type of law. He invited Councilmembers to indicate if they planned to give the Hearing Examiner's decision a great deal of weight. Councilmembers gave no response. Mr. Snyder said although the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine allows challenges, it is up to the individual members to recuse themselves. He recommended the Council proceed with the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE FOR ONE HOUR MOTION CARRIED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 7 Plarining Manager Rob Chave explained the proposal before the Council is to place a 110 -foot Monopole II at Five Corners between the water tanks and the fire station. He commented the packet contained site plans as well as numerous drawings illustrating the pole. He explained under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), there are two sets of criteria the proposal must meet, 1) specific criteria related to monopoles and 2) Conditional Use Permit criteria. He said the Hearing Examiner considered this Icriteria in his decision. icilmember Nordquist referred to the lease on page 394, Section 4, and the statement in the lease "nothing contained within this Lease shall infringe upon the City's right to use the Facility upon h Lessee's equipment and improvements are installed." He questioned whether that usage was .dered in staff s review. Mr. Chave answered as it was contained in the lease, it was part of the -d but did not figure into staffs decision. Mr. Snyder recalled staffs recommendation and the itectural Design Board's (ADB) recommendation, included in the record, indicated that any ional antenna array placed on the pole would require additional review and approval. Mr. Chave approval was only for those specific antennas /facilities that were part of this application. Any er co- location would require additional approval. He said other facilities shown for illustrative uses on the pole were deleted as recommended by the ADB because they were not part of this Mayor Fahey inquired whether "facility" in the language Councilmember Nordquist referred to meant the area where the tower would be located, not the monopole. Mr. Snyder referred to the provisions regarding the monopole (page 6 of the lease and page 299 of the Council packet), "Further, Lessee agrees to clo- locate SnoCom public safety telecommunications equipment on the antenna support structure." He commented staffs recommendation as well as the ADB's was to require additional review of new antenna array. Mr 1 Snyder explained the Federal Communications Act requires the City provide an ordinance structure that will permit full coverage of the City by competing interests. In order to enact the City's wireless communications provisions Chapter 20.50, the Council was required to find that the ordinance is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted one of the Hearing Examiner's concerns was that the height of the pole violated some provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder said the Council already made a legislative determination that the ordinance is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He and staff believe a variety of issues remain to be resolved by the CUP such as screening, color, antenna array, substations, etc. and do not feel height alone is a disqualifying factor. Council President Haakenson asked if a public hearing was held when the Council enacted that height. Mr. Snyder answered it was a lengthy process. He explained issues regarding the propriety of this zoning district existing at this site and with these characteristics are appropriate for citizens to bring to the Council's attention and for the Council to initiate a review of the ordinance at a future date to determine whether its provisions need to be changed. He stressed, however, the applicant has the right to have its applications considered under the ordinance as it currently exists. n Knox, Preston Gates & Ellis, representing Western Wireless, stated that Western Wireless Id prefer to site the antenna somewhere in the City where it would not displease anyone, but did not that was possible. The proposed site was chosen based on the City's wireless facilities ordinance, :h allows monopoles up to 110 feet on the proposed site via a CUP process. This site was selected as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 8 it was believed to be a site with the least objection and still be functional. He said it was easy to understand how this site was identified in the ordinance as it has all the features to have the least impact, 1) located on a high area so it can reach a long way and function well, 2) there are existing utility structures on the site including two 45 -foot tall water tanks that provide important screening, 3) existing land uses - a publicly zoned parcel with fire department operations and an existing 100 -foot tall antenna. He said the proposed utility use would blend with what is already on site. He pointed out the City's ordinance allows antennas up to 150 feet; their original proposal was a 120 foot pole which was reduced to 110 feet, the minimum to provide the desired coverage. He agreed the pole would be visible on top, which it must be in order to work. Fortunately, the unique features of this site will assist in concealing the pole. He explained the monopole will be located behind the water tanks to block the bottom portion of the tower from the nearest residents and existing trees on the property and across the property line will help screen the monopole. The 100 -foot SnoCom antenna is located on a condemned building; there is a provision in the lease to relocate that antenna onto this monopole, further minimizing the affect of the monopole. He pointed out this area is fairly level without spectacular views that the tower would impede. With regard to whether the proposal would have a significantly detrimental effect on property values in the neighborhood, Mr. Knox explained it is complicated to predict what impact a facility will have on property values. He remarked there was a big difference between existing residents who may not like the pole and the conclusion that it therefore significantly affects property values. When property values arose as an issue, Western Wireless submitted two studies developed by experts in property appraisals, which indicate people buy properties with many features in mind. Some people may find a monopole objectionable but the studies indicate that would not affect the property values because monopoles are not the type of intrusive use that affects everyone. He said the evidence indicates the pole will not have a significantly detrimental impact on property values of the type that would justify denial of the application. Mr. Knox said landscaping was not originally proposed around one side of the pole as it was thought it was not needed. He said they are willing to accept the landscaping conditions proposed by staff and the ADB. He summarized this is a good site; it was a good site when it was originally identified by the City Council in adopting the ordinance and the existing features will allow this use to fit in with a reasonable lack of strong impact to other properties. Council President Haakenson asked if the existing SnoCom antenna was 100 -feet tall including the building. or from the top of the building. Mr. Knox responded the measurement of the antenna was taken from the ground and therefore he assumed the height of the antenna included the building height. Councilmember Miller recalled the issue of newer technology was mentioned at one of the hearings such as NECCA or strand micro towers that are only 16 inches x 24 inches. He asked whether a feasibility analysis was done using that type of technology. Mr. Knox said, based on the record, there did not appear to be a lot of information developed on other technology. The record was developed based on the criteria in the Code which require the facility to fit in with the site and to modify the impacts of the technology chosen; the technology is left to the applicant. He assured if there were technologies that fit and would not create community objection, Western Wireless would make them work. The fact that Western Wireless went to the expense and faced the opposition to a monopole is evidence that other alternatives had been exhausted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 9 Councilmember White asked whether it was appropriate to inquire about other technology at this hearing. Mr. Snyder said it would be appropriate if information is in the record as the applicant can only comment on the record. Public Comment (those with standing) Jerome Hanson, 8510 214th Place SW, Edmonds, stated that property was provided at Woodway High School, an open area, that would not have the visual effects this pole will have. Regarding property values, Western Wireless' studies cited New York and North Carolina, which do not apply to the Edmonds area. On a recent trip to the mid -west, he saw monopoles located '/4 mile and 2 miles from a farm. He said the proposed property is 260 feet by 180 feet; the City's Code requires the pole to be located so that if it falls, it will not be on private property. He pointed out a 110 -foot pole would go 20 feel onto private property. He said due to time limitations, there was not adequate time to cite all applicable codes. - He said the Code also prohibits two poles within a certain distance but GTE and SnoCom plan to co- locate on the pole. The Code also requires a public hearing before any co- location occurs but the SnoCom antenna is already included in the drawing. Shelley Hart, 8605 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, pointed out the two certified appraisals presented by Western Wireless only included North Carolina and rural New York and were agricultural sites that ranged in size from 7 - 28 acres each at a value of $400 - $1100 per acre with houses valued under $150,000 that did not even view the site or were houses more than 3/4 mile away from the site. The $10,000 the City will collect each year is likely the amount their houses will depreciate when the pole is erected. She said the Hearing Examiner considered testimony regarding local properties; the residents in the area are experts on their properties and their value and are representative of a potential buyer. She referred to a letter from Jody Whiteman, Redmond, which stated their home sold prior to notice of the proposed cell tower installation. The day the notice was erected, the buyers rescinded, specifically citing the tower as their reason to withdraw. They had a great deal of interest in their home but there were always questions about the tower. The week they were told GTE was willing to withdraw their application for the cell tower, their home sold. The proposed cell tower was to be installed on a water tower lot adjacent to the Whiteman's lot with trees covering the water tower but are only 60 feet tall. Ms. Hart referred to a photograph showing the height of the proposed monopole, pointing out the trees did not hide the top of the tower. She said residents providing oral and written testimony have been told by the City Attorney that the FCC prohibits the discussion of potential health hazards, yet Section 25, page 15 of the lease agreement states "in the event the Lessee's transmission technology or facilities emit electromagnetic impulses, EMS, or radio frequency emissions, the Lessee expressly agrees that this indemnity provision extends to any and all claims for injury, sickness, or death of any person arising out of or caused by said emissions." She said this allows the City to protect itself financially but the residents living under the pole are not permitted to address it. If the proposed tower was to benefit the entire community, she questioned why no one has provided testimony in support of the tower. She stressed the community was not involved in the process of selecting the site; she attended the June 1996 meeting and submitted a letter but did not hear anything further until January 1998. Les Hart, 8605 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, said the Federal Communications Act did not pre -empt any local land use authority and does not require any specific.level of service and cities do not have to accommodate the carrier's desired level of service. Therefore, Western Wireless could build the pole at this site only by meeting the CUP criteria, which the Hearing Examiner's decision indicates they do not. Western Wireless has other options to achieve their desired level of service in Edmonds; the residents do not. The ADB voted 4 -1 against this application and the second Hearing Examiner, after hearing more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 10 complete evidence from both sides, denied the application and every resident who has provided oral or written testimony wants the application denied. He urged the Council to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Jim Bloom, 8503 214th Place SW, Edmonds, said the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the application should be upheld because not one homeowner in the Five Corners area has been contacted regarding this issue. He pointed out the applicant's response to concern regarding property values were studies done outside Washington. He urged the Council to deny the application. Gina Dahlquist, 8427 214th Place SW, Edmonds, hoped the Council had read the numerous pages of evidence, noting there was enough evidence to convince the Hearing Examiner to deny the application. She said the Hearing Examiner gave Western Wireless adequate time to provide realistic and appropriate appraisals to show the proposal would not negatively affect property values which Western Wireless did not do. She referred to the letter from a local property owner indicating their property was affected by a tower and said if the tower truly did not affect property values, Western Wireless should have been able to provide a comparable assessment. As Western Wireless did not provide a comparable assessment, the decision was based on the evidence presented. She summarized the proposed structure did not meet the ECDC requirements as it will have a substantial impact on the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. She said the ADB determined the tower would have negative aesthetic impacts; ample evidence was provided that, Western Wireless could achieve their coverage goals without "an eyesore at Five Corners" but Western Wireless persisted with this application because they don't want to spend the time or money to develop a low impact alternative. She said Western Wireless is asking residents to subsidize their business with their property values, a business that serves only 5% of the Puget Sound population (according to KIRO Radio). She urged the Council to consider the testimony and to weigh the evidence. William Davis, 21101 Summit Lane, Edmonds, said he and his wife would be severely affected by the proposed structure and are strongly opposed to the erection of this monopole. He referred to the letter he submitted on May 19, 1998, which outlined their specific objections. He felt strongly their property values would be negatively affected by the proposed pole. He urged the Council to make a fair decision tonight and remember that there are residents affected by this proposal. There were no other parties with standing who wished to speak. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Knox reiterated Western Wireless would prefer to locate a tower without disappointing anyone. They feel the location they chose will affect comparatively few people and the impact at the proposed site is slight because of the features that will help screen the tower. He said the real question is, after considering the evidence, whether Western Wireless meets the criteria the CUP establishes. He said the City's Planning staff, after considering their application three,times, concluded Western Wireless meets the criteria and recommends approval. He pointed out most of the issues raised are addressed in the record. Western Wireless feels the property value issue is addressed completely. He acknowledged the studies were not in Edmonds but do illustrate the way people make property purchase decisions. The information in the studies is not refuted by anything in the record; it is established by two studies done by unrelated, professional appraisers who indicate this is not the type of use that has a significantly detrimental impact on property values. He said Western Wireless does not claim the tower will be invisible but overall this is a good site because it will be seen by fewer than any. He pointed out Western Wireless followed the Council's direction in selecting this site because it is publicly zoned and has Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 11 existing tall features on and around the site that will minimize the impact. He said Western Wireless has agreed in the lease to co- locate the SnoCom tower and have agreed to other co- location to minimize the overall impact in compliance with the ordinance, subject to any permit review the City requires. Mr. iKnox concurred with Mr. Snyder's analysis of the Federal Communications Act which restricts the City's ability to block technologies. He said with the erection of the tower, service will be improved and be available to residences in downtown Edmonds due to the location of this tower in an area that does not have an intrusive impact on property values or aesthetics and without the necessity of erecting multiple poles. He pointed out the size of the pole has been minimized and Western Wireless has done their best to make it fit in an area where there are uses that make this a suitable site. He urged the Council to give their attention to the record. Councilmember White referred to the Hearing Examiner's concern that Section 20.50.050 (F) and (G) regarding screening of the support equipment and the possibility that the existing vegetation that provides screening could be removed and the facility exposed. Mr. Knox answered there is natural screening present; the second Hearing Examiner overlooked the fact that some of the trees that provide screening are on this property. He agreed Western Wireless did not have rights to the trees on the other side of the property line and could not enforce their retention. If that property (which is zoned multi- family residential) was developed, the owner would have every incentive to retain those trees if the tower is considered an objectionable view. He pointed out additional landscaping was not originally proposed because the view from the west was blocked by the water tower and the view from the east was blocked from the fire department and it did not appear additional landscaping was necessary. Western Wireless is willing to comply with the conditions staff and the ADB imposed to screen the bottom of the pole. Councilmember Plunkett recalled Mr. Knox's statement that few people will be impacted and asked how they will be impacted. Mr. Knox responded based on the record, they indicate view, and property values as primary impacts. Councilmember Plunkett asked what the "minimal impact" would be. Mr. Knox answered Western Wireless feels the impact is minimal because much of the tower will not be visible due to screening provided by the water towers and, unlike a pole located in an area surrounded by residential development where there would be no blending, this site already has public utility uses, allowing the pole to blend in. Councilmember Plunkett asked what the minimal impact on property values would be. Mr. Knox said the I reference to a minimal impact would be in reference to the criteria that is required to deny the CUP, that there be a significantly detrimental impact to property values. He said the concluding paragraphs of the, studies summarize the role monopoles have /don't have on property values. He said although testimony has indicated the studies were from different areas and included houses unlike this area, the studies actually contain some houses that are similar to Five Corners and the appraisers felt the study represented the actual impacts monopoles have. Although the properties in the study were not exactly the same, the studies indicate people make property purchases based on a multiplicity of factors. The evidence suggests a monopole does not significantly impair property values. Councilmember Plunkett asked if property values would be decreased if fewer people were interested in it. Mr. Knox said the evidence in the record indicates fewer people interested in a property did not affect property values as long as there are others who are interested. He said the studies indicate monopoles are not a feature that is universally disliked. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 12 1 [1 Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Knox when he was retained by Western Wireless. Mr. Knox answered their firm has done work for Western Wireless longer than he has been with the firm. Councilmember Nordquist asked if Mr. Knox attended the Hearing Examiner hearing. Mr. Knox answered no. Councilmember Nordquist said it was peculiar Mr. Knox was not included in the Hearing Examiner process. Mr. Knox said the decision to have counsel represent Western Wireless is made based on many siting opportunities and legal attention tends to be given to locations that involve significant legal issues which this one did not appear to be as the pole is located in an area designated by City ordinance, was less than the height allowed, and did their best to screen it. Councilmember Nordquist referred to the comment if the tower fell over it would land on private property. Mr. Snyder said this referred to criteria in Section 20.50.050 (H) which requires Monopole II facilities next to a single family zone to be setback a distance equal to the height of the structure from the nearest property line. The record indicates the new proposal is for a 110 -foot pole and the closest single family residential property line is 120 feet away. Council President Haakenson observed the City selected the Five Corner's site as a place for monopoles in the telecommunications ordinance. Mr. Snyder agreed. Council President Haakenson asked if the City was required to set aside a place for monopoles. Mr. Snyder answered the City was required to provide a rational structure which would provide for competitive coverage in the City. Mr. Snyder said the Federal Communication Act does not pre -empt the City's land use authority but very stringent limits are placed on the City's ability to establish zoning criteria. Mr. Snyder explained the record contains a zoning map illustrating the various areas set aside. Mr. Knox referred to this when he indicated the City provided several ways to address the issue such as a lot of small panel antennas on buildings, medium- sized antennas at a variety of locations, or one big antenna. The Code criteria must be applied to the proposal as submitted. As Mr. Knox indicated, if there was one large antenna, the neighbors there would react, if there were antennas on multiple sites, multiple neighborhoods would react. The Council provided a variety of alternatives, as required by the Federal Communication Act, so that an applicant could determine how to compete most competitively with existing providers. He said whether cell phones work depends on who the service provider is; the Council must be careful not to provide a competitive advantage and to prevent this, the ordinance provides a variety of alternatives (one big pole, a number of smaller poles, etc.) Council President Haakenson recalled there was a comment regarding two poles not being allowed within a certain distance and asked if there was room for more than one pole in this area. Mr. Chave referred to Section 20.50.050 (I) Distance Requirements which states two Monopole II facilities shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater to 1,320 feet. Council President Haakenson asked if more than one pole could be erected on this site. Mr. Chave answered one pole would be the maximum. Council President Haakenson observed a public hearing was required for future co- locations and asked if the SnoCom antenna was included in this application. Mr. Chave said the SnoCom antenna is included in this application; any additional antennas would require another hearing. Hearing no further questions, Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Miller said he had serious concerns about the proposed monopole's ability to meet the visual and aesthetic character requirements of the ECDC. He did not believe the applicant's proposal to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 13 i landscape the base of the pole would provide a significant, positive impact. He said the record is clear there may be alternative technologies but nothing beyond micro facilities was discussed. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 20.105.040(E) REGARDING VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CHARACTER AND RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH A DECISION WITHIN SIX MONTHS. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City has far exceeded the 120 day requirement. He suggested the Council could only remand this issue with the agreement of the applicant or could uphold or deny the appeal. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A MONOPOLE. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION FAILED (34), COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, MILLER, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE, VAN HOLLEBEKE, EARLING, AND HAAKENSON OPPOSED. Councilmember White expressed concern with the way the Hearing Examiner came to his decision, regardless of his prior involvement with Mr. Wines. Councilmember White said the question appears to be; whether the nine provisions in the ECDC for approval of a CUP are met. The Hearing Examiner and the opponents appeared to focus on (F) and (G), which address whether the pole would be significantly detrimental to nearby private property or improvements. While he agreed it would have some effect on value to a certain group of people, there may be no effect on value to another group. When this issue first arose, Western Wireless provided property appraisals. He pointed out only one letter was submitted in addition to the residents' testimony regarding their belief the pole would be detrimental to property values. Although he did not want to minimize the residents' opinion, he believed there were those who would not find the pole detrimental to the property value. He said the Code requires the Council find there is a significant detrimental diminution in the value but he did not find the record supported a significant detrimental diminution in value. Councilmember Earling said he has reiterated his objection to the visibility of towers and no matter what is done, they still look like towers. He explained, in their review of this issue the Council is an independent body adjudicating the information. Although he abhors cell towers, he acknowledged federal law required the City to put an ordinance in place that proposed certain locations in the city for these facilities. After reviewing the evidence, he did not find that the applicant failed to follow the criterion the City established. Based on that information, he supported overruling the Hearing Examiner's decision, granting the appeal and overturning the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the proposed monopole. ouncil CPresident Haakenson recalled the ADB voted not to approve the application when they first considered this proposal; however, they stated if the application was approved contrary to their recommendation, the applicant should not be allowed to attach additional appliances to the antenna Without additional approval; the two 4 -foot diameter microwave antennas shown in the applicant's di`awings will not be included; and additional landscaping shall be required at the base of the pole. He said this indicated the ADB realized their recommendation would be wrong and drafted conditions. The original Hearing Examiner included the ADB's conditions in his approval of the original application. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 14 1 Based on Councilmember White and Earling's comments, he agreed the Council had no choice but to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S JULY 10, 1998, DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED MONOPOLE PROPOSAL, BUT REQUIRE THAT APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS GIVEN IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FEBRUARY 12, 1998 DECISION AS GIVEN IN FILE NO. ADB- 97- 129/CU -97 -130 IN EXHIBIT 6 AND THAT THE POLE IS 110 FEET RATHER THAN 120 FEET. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE, VAN HOLLEBEKE, EARLING, AND HAAKENSON IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, MILLER, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. 4. AUDIENCE Revenue I Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said he appeared before the Council in 1996 and 1997 and provided copies of newspaper articles indicating some Council and the Mayoral candidates felt $1.2 million was not sufficient revenue for the City. He said this would be one of his major issues when he runs for office in 2000. He said officials in Las Vegas have indicated they will eliminate entertainment shows in 3 -5 years because they do not generate sufficient income. Las Vegas is also take demolishing old buildings and constructing new ones so visitors will see new things. On another matter, Pallinger he urged the Council to provide funding for improvements at Lake Ballinger. 4B. CORRECTION TO THE AUGUST 18.1998, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ection to 8/1898 Councilmember Miller referred to the August 18, 1998, City Council meeting minutes. On page 12, inures Section 10, with regard to term limits for the Mayor's position, the vote on the motion indicated Councilmember Miller voted no. This was incorrect; the motion should reflect that Councilmember Plunkett voted no. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO REVISE THE AUGUST 18, 1998, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES TO REFLECT A NO VOTE BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT ON PAGE 12 (REMOVING LIMITS ON TERMS). MOTION CARRIED. 5. MAYOR'S REPORT Western Mayor Fahey acknowledged how difficult the decision regarding Western Wireless' application for a Wireless monopole was for the Council. She explained, unfortunately, when an ordinance is in place, the Council Decision must adhere to the ordinance until it is changed. As a Councilmember who assisted in drafting the wireless communication ordinance, she was aware of how difficult it was to set parameters that would meet the requirements of the Federal Communication Act and site towers in locations where they would have the least impact. She acknowledged there was no place that would have no impact and she was sensitive to the concerns of those that would be impacted to some degree by this tower. She said Council's couldn't always make decisions that are in the best interest of their city because of parameters the federal government has established. For example, the National League of Cities is spending a great deal of time trying to resist having all local control /authority eroded from cities by Congress. She commented as the City's ability to locally control group homes was eroded by the Supreme Court, the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 15 Federal Telecommunications Act eroded the City's ability to truly determine where telecommunication facilities are sited and the City has been impacted by regulations regarding sexually oriented businesses as well. She said, given the information provided in the record, she would have made the same decision the Council made tonight. 6. COUNCIL REPORT estem Council President Haakenson agreed no one on the Council wanted to have a cell tower in an Edmonds fireless neighborhood but often the Council must make choices that are opposite the wishes of some citizens. He Decision explained he did not want to remand the issue back to the Hearing Examiner because he felt the outcome was inevitable, after listening to tonight's testimony. He thanked the Council for their consideration of this issue. As the Council would not meet as a full Council until September 14, Mayor Fahey advised she may be in ct Meeting Washington DC on September 15 to participate in the process with HUD to develop an agreement g regarding the Fair Housing Act. If the meeting date did not change, she would leave on September 14 ransporta- and would not attend the September 14 meeting. On September 16, she will be in Oregon attending the Ition Forum Cascadia Metropolitan Transportation Forum pertaining to transportation issues up and down the corridor that will have ramifications for the multimodal project. ell Tower Councilmember Nordquist agreed the Council put a telecommunication ordinance in place but some echnology Councilmembers were troubled at the time that a tremendously tall tower was recommended on Edmonds Way (near the Shell Station), a smaller tower recommended in the Westgate area, and now a short tower was located near the bowling alley. He recalled some Councilmembers questioned whether a 11'0 -foot tower was necessary and/or whether there was newer technology that could be utilized. He hoped the issue of newer technology for cell towers could be pursued further. Executive 7• EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS Session i Mayor Fahey adjourned the Council to Executive Session at 9:28 for approximately 30 minutes for discussion of labor negotiations. She said City Attorney Scott Snyder also asked to include a brief discussion regarding a legal issue. She said no action was anticipated and the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session. BARBARA S. FAHEY, MIA OR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 16 1 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE si II 1 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25671 THRU #27173 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 24, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $245,871.65 (D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1998 (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT (F) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING A HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1998, CONCERNING THE APPLICATION BY ALEXANDER SILAGIN FOR APPROVAL OF PAYMENT INTO THE CITY IN -LIEU OF PARKING FUND FOR 14 OF THE PROJECT'S REQUIRED 24 PARKING SPACES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NEW MIXED -USE BUILDING AT 303 DAYTON STREET, PURSUANT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.50.070.A.1.0 (File No. ILP -98 -122) (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 25, 1998, AND AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO WEST COAST CONSTRUCTION ($227,292.20, INCLUDING SALES TAX), FOR THE 1998 NORTH MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (H) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR YOST TENNIS COURT SITE PREPARATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LE DUC'S CONCRETE INC. ($23,622.67, Including Sales Tax) (1) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR YOST TENNIS COURT RESURFACING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ATLAS TRACK AND TENNIS ($17,810.40, including Sales Tax) (J) APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 3. (60 Min.) CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING — APPEAL BY WESTERN WIRELESS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLIED FOR UNDER CITY OF EDMONDS FILE NO. CU -98 -130 FOR A 110 -FOOT TALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE TOWER AT 8505 BOWDOIN WAY (Appellant/Applicant: Western Wireless / File Nos. AP -98 -126, AP -98- 26, CU -97 -130, and ADB -97 -129) 4. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 5. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 6. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT 7. (30 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.