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.