19760413 City Council Minutes412
than single detached houses. Councilman Gellert again voiced his concern on common areas and
proper maintenance of these. Councilman Carns said one major .concern was that i:t would allow
undevelopable lots of be built upon and a cluster of theree, for example, would then leave un-
buildable areas such as a ravine for the open space, and he suggested that council not allow
any PRO of less than one acre. Councilman Gould said he would favor larger than one acre
minimum size; maybe four acres to start, and then consider a lesser area. Councilman Clement
.commented on how differently some plats might have been developed under the PRO concept, and
stated that the price mechanism by itself is going to force certain areas; that developers are
not going to give away the land.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN HERB THEN MADE A MOTION THAT THE PRD ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED BE ADOPTED, WITH THE
EXCEPTION THAT THE AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD PROCEDURE BE DELETED. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
MOTION: Following this, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS THAT THE ATTORNEY
BE INSTRUCTED TO REDRAFT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: THAT UNDER THE
GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, A MINIMUM PROVISION MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF A SUBDIVISION IN THE
ZONE BE APPLIED: THAT A PRD CANNOT BE APPLIED IN A SHORT SUBDIVISION SITUATION: THAT IN SECTION
.1.2.1.4.063 (4), THAT IT BE SPECIFIED THAT 20% OF THE NET DEVELOPABLE LAND BE OPEN SPACE AND IN
THE SAME SUBSECTION, 7 (a) BE DELETED: AND THAT THE ATTORNEY FIND AN APPROPRIATE DICTION TO
ENUNCIATE THE CITY'S POWER TO EITHER REVIEW OR REQUIRE SUFFICIENT MAINTENANCE OF COMMON SPACE.
COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, TO STATE THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES BE MODIFIED
TO STRIKE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND THE PRD ONLY APPLY TO LOT SIZES OF 3 ACRES OR LARGER. THERE
WAS NO SECOND TO THIS AMENDMENT, AND THE ORIGINAL MOTION THEN CARRIED.
PROPOSED LEASEHOLD ORDINANCE
1
The proposed leasehold ordinance, which the attorney had presented at the March 23 council meeting,
would impose a leasehold excise tax from and after January 1, 1976, pursuant to Chapter 61, Laws of •
1975-76 Second Extraordinary session, Laws of the State of Washington. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL-
MAN HERB THAT PROPOSED ORDINANCE #1833 BE PASSED, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO SIGN THE AGREE-
MENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. MOTION CARRIED.
PREPAYMENT ORDINANCE - LID 193
MOTION:. The prepayment ordinance for LID 193 was presented by the Attorney, and IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN
GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS THAT PROPOSED ORDINANCE #1834 BE PASSED, CASH PREPAYMENT PERIOD
EXPIRATION FOR LID 193, AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business on the council agenda, and the.meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M.
IR E VARNEY MORAN4 City Clerk H. H. HARRISON, Mayor
April 13, 1976
ROLL CALL
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds. Civic Center, with all councilmen present except
Anderson, who was attending a seminar in Oregon.
APPROVAL -OF MINUTES
Minutes of teh regular meeting of April 6 had been posted, mailed and distributed, and Councilman
Gellert commented that at the bottom of page 1, Councilman Nordquist's motion should have the word •
"attempt' inserted before 'to resolve the problem in 2 weeks'. Minutes were then approved as
amended.
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION
Councilman Gellert inquired as to what legally do tree cutting restrictions on a plat mean? It
was noted that there was no "legal" meaning as such; that the city has had a policy to retrict
cutting of trees by the developer, and try to reach an agreement as to which trees can be saved,
which will be topped or limbed, etc. This is designed to prevent scalping of lots by the builder,
which makes building the homes easier. However, this tree cutting restriction is only until such
time as the property is sold.
Councilman Clement asked M.A.A. Whaley about the present status of the CETA employees. Mr. Whaley
reported that tomorrow, April 14, at 10:30 A.M. the outcome will be known.
Councilman Gould advised council that at the March 30 work meeting, Councilman Carns had been
selected to serve on the committee of elected officials of the ciW es involved under Public Law
92-500, the plan for secondary sewer treatment, and that since that time he and Councilman Carns had
discussed this, and were in agreement that since Councilman Gould had a great deal of interest in
this, he would like to volunteer to serve. Councilman Carns therefore will be replaced by Council-
man Gould.
Mayor Harrison reported that the Civil Service Commission had brought to his attention that they
would like to appoint their own secretary. The work load has become too heavy for a full time
city employee to -devote this much time to Civil Service duties. The Mayor stated that he felt it
was to the city's advantage to let the Commission appoint its own secretary, and it would mean
appropriationg about $1500 for the balance -of the year to fund this -and cover other expenses. A
secretary would be paid $4.50 per hour, with no fringe benefits. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCIL-
MAN GOULD THAT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1500 BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO THE CIVIL
n
U
�13
• SERVICE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR, TO INCLUDE FUNDING OF -A SECRETARY. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrision mentioned the quarterly meeting of Snohomish County Cities and Towns to be held
April 22 in Marysville, and he read the agenda -for that meeting. Councilmen Clement, Carns, and
Gould said they would plan to attend.
JOINT MEETING WITH AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD -
The City Planner reminded council that the ADB had been established by ordinance in 1973. He
stated that their meetings are on an informal basis, with no posting, publishing, or hearings
involved. They have,often advised applicants much to the applicant's benefit. Following some
further mention of the background of this body, Mayor Harrison invited the ADB members present
to join council at the work table. There were four members present: Chairman John Latourell,
Don Westlin, Mrs. Margaret Bernhoft, and Chauncey Wight.
Chairman Latourell expressed the Board's, appreciation to meet with the council. He said that they
were not as well defined as they could be; that they very much set their own rules and polices.
He discussed attitudes, how. the -'individual members of the Board function, general policies, and the
ordinances under'which they operate. Each of the four members spoke to council on views and ideas.
Don Westlin discussed archi;tecture, and this was.followed by discussion on staggering of terms on
the Board acting as a neutralizing force against dullness or sameness of -design in the City.
Margaret Bernhoft.mentioned the initial hostil.ity felt because they were "another regulating body".
She added that they often now hear ocmpliments from some of the applicants for their help in'finding
a better.concept. The Board wants.structures to be an asset to our community. Chauncey Wight said
he had practical experience on the limitations as well as potentials of what plants and plantings
Can or cannot do. There was a great deal of discussion on the goals and functions of the Amenities
Design Board.
Mayor Harrison expressed his appreciation to the people serving,on the Board, and said that he
• looked at their prime function as being to protect neighboring properties,from something that
might be damaging next door. Councilman Carns said he thought their special noon meetings held„
in order to accomodate an applicant were outstanding, and he felt they were doing a whale of a job.
Councilman Clement noted..that a good indication of the quality showed in only 2% appeals out of
210 Board actions. Councilman Herb stated that he was not critical of the individuals, but of the
Board itself. He felt there was a danger in trying to regulate aesthetics, since there are no
standards. He said the Planning Commission and City Council -can impose those requirements that
can be regulated without the necessity of an Amenities Design Board. Each council member comment-
ed on his views, and there was a great deal of discussion between council and Board.. Councilman
Nordquist said that he had voted against the ADB initially. He noted that the Board acts in good
faith, but they need to solve the enforcement problem. He commended the members on a good job
and the long hours they spend doing the job.
Chai,rman'Latourell told council the Board would like to see one or two people work.on suggestions
on criteria for regulating designs. With the aid of the blackboard, he illustrated the possibilities
of discriminating geographically, which would imply districts in regard to signs. Councilman Carns
said he felt if certain signs are allowable under the sign ordinance, perhaps they should then
amend the sign ordinance. Councilman Gellert felt the ordinance could say that all signs allowed
must be approved by the Amenities Design Board. Number one on the list for the ADB seemed.to
reworking the sign ordinance. Councilman Clement felt the design concept might be completed
within 12 months, and Councilman Carns siad he would like to see a different regulation on signs.
Attorney James Murphy advised that council suggest the ADB work with the Planning Commission on a
sign ordinance, because this must go through the Planning Commission before coming to council.
MOTION: Following this discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS TO
INSTRUCT THE AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO REVIEW THE
SIGN ORDINANCE IN ALL ZONING AREAS. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING AGAINST.
ADB Chairman Latourell then suggested that the ADB would like 2 more members on the Board; one
• other design professional and one more lay persona Following discussion of this suggestion,
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST TO INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEY TO AMEND
THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD FROM 5 TO 7'MEMBERS, AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
Members of the Board again expressed theirappreciation for having had this meeting with Council.
DISCUSSION ON OLYMPIC VIEW (ESPERANCE) ANNEXATION POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Mayor Harrison stated that he had received a petition signed by 6 parties interested in pursuing
annexation, with notification that they'would circulate a petition for signatures to qualify
placing{the annexation of this area on the November ballot. M,A.A. Whaley commented on the data
contained in the annexation report, which Staff hoped would cover all questions that might come
from residents in that area. Joan Brown, who had written a letter to the Mayor, was in the
audience. She said she would like to meet personally with a city representative.to discuss the
the report. She made the comment that there were several points that concerned her.- Mayor
Harrison invited her to discuss these points tonight if she wished. However, she said she would
prefer to write her questions for each council member and bring them in. She was advised that
if she would bring one copy to the City Clerk's office, each council member would receive a copy
for inclusion in the Friday packets that are regularly mailed from that office, providing that
the material is brought in by Friday noon.
W. J. "Butch" Barden, for the Action Committee for Esparance,,; presented petition signatures from
approximately 1100 residents of the Esperance area who are opposed to annexation to the City of
Edmonds. He noted that due to the short notice, this was only a partial list of the signatures
the group had obtained, and indications are that they should have another 800 to 900 signatures
which they can present at a later date. His letter accompanying the petitions noted that from
the report prepared by the city, he understood that -it would cost $5,000 just to place this
matter before the voters. He said this figure does not include the time or money spent already
on the subject. Mr.. Barden added that several -residents and concerned taxpayers of Edmonds have
made the suggestion that this money and the time could be better spent on matters that are more
414
MOTION:
practical and have at least a measure of community support. There followed discussion -by -council
and COUNCILMAN CARNS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT TO ACCEPT PETITIONS FOR ANNEX-
ATION OF THE ENTIRE ESPERANCE AREA ONLY IF THE CITY RECEIVES 2000 OR MORE VALID SIGNATURES -OF
REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE AREA. M.A.A.Whaley then explained the value of facts that could be -pro-
vided the residents there on what the city council would or would not do if annexation were to
take place. If council would decide on these issues, the information could be distributed and
people would then have.facts before them before signing any petition for or against. Councilman
Anderson had prepared an outline of his feelings regarding the annexation, and provided each `•
council member with a.copy. He and stated answers to each question submitted by Mr. McRae and
his group. Council then decided to take up each of'Councilman Anderson's points, and COUNCILMEN'
CARNS AND GELLERT THEN WITHDREW THE MOTION AND SECOND.
The items were then taken up as follows:
(1) Police Services: Councilman Anderson stated that it appears the Police services can be ex-
panded to current Edmonds standards in two steps. Jan. 1, 1977 and Jan. 1, 1978, as revenues
increase in two increments.
Police Chief Marlo Foster told council it would take 5 extra patrolmen and approximately one year
to train them in order to put them into the area. In the meantime, using the trained patrolmen
would lower the level throughout the entire city. Council felt they should answer. the question
as to.whether or not the city would expand the police services to current Edmonds standards; yes,
MOTION:....or
no. Following some discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL-
MAN CARNS THAT POLICE SERVICES WOULD BE BROUGHT UP TO CURRENT EDMONDS LEVEL OF -STANDARDS BY 1.97.8.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING AGAINST.
(2) Fire and Aid Car Service: Councilman Anderson stated in his.memo that Fire and Aid Car
service would be maintained from the 231st and 83rd Ave-.-.W. station, full time. Continued cover-
age from a relocated station, if ever changed, would still be from within the area. Jack has
recommended 9 full-time personnel' rather than 8. It would seem this change would have to take
•
place in 1978 at the earliest.
Fire suppression, possible locations of stations, and aid car service were discussed by council,
MOTION:
and A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS TO APPROVE THE STATEMENT
MADE BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON UNDER (2) OF HIS MEMO, WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE EXCESS LEVY PASSES
IN NOVEMBER 1976. MOTION CARRIED.
(3) Assumption of indebtedness: Councilman Anderson stated that he favored not requiring Olympic
View to assume any Edmonds' indebtness. There followed discussion on present indebtedness, future
indebtedness if a park bond issue was submitted and passed, and the present indebtness of the area
MOTION:
in question. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT THAT
OLYMPIC VIEW (ESPERANCE) WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME ANY EDMONDS INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED PRIOR
TO 1976, BUT IF THE PARK BOND ISSUE IS PASSED IN 1976, IT WOULD BE AN OBLIGATION OT THE OLYMPIC
VIEW RESIDENTS AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE CITY OF EDMONDS; AND THAT THE PRESENT EDMONDS RESIDENTS WILL
NOT ASSUME ANY.OBLIGATIONS FOR PRIOR OLYMPIC VIEW (ESPERANCE) INDEBTEDNESS. MOTION CARRIED.
(4) Street maintenance: Councilman Anderson's memo stated that since -Edmonds does not levy a road
tax as such, we could made no quarantee to keep all streets repaved to the present quality.
discussion on present street maintenance priorities in Edmonds, the present condition of the
MOTION:
county
county streets and the system of repaving, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN HERB THAT THE CITY MAKES NO GUARANTEE TO KEEP THE STREETS_REPAVED TO THE PRESENT QUALITY.
MOTION CARRIED.
(5) Representation in government: Councilman Anderson stated that he favored election of a 5
person Community Council at the time fo the annexation election, until the next.ensuing Council
election (1978). (CITY CLERK'S NOTE: 1977)
Council discussed the possiblilities of community councils, and the pros -and cons of such a system. •
Mayor Harrision suggested expanding all Boards and Commissions with a couple more positions and
have these positions filled with residents of the area, if annexed.
MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN HERB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.CLEMENT TO ADD 2 POSITIONS TO THE PARK
AND LIBRARY BOARDS, BOARD OF APPEALS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND PLANNING COMMISSION: AND THAT THESE
APPOINTMENTS ALL BE FROM THE ANNEXED AREA; AND THAT THIS BE UNTIL THE 1.978 COUNCIL ELECTION.
MOTION CARRIED., (CITY CLERK'S NOTE: 1977)
(6) Community Parks: Councilman Anderson's memo stated that he favored placing some high priority
on lease of the Holly school site as a communtiy park.
There was discussion on locations of parks; that one of the hopes of the people in this area was
to have neighborhood parks; monies used if a park bond issue is submitted and passed; and prior-
ities.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS TO GO ON RECORD THAT IF THE
ANNEXATION IS VOTED UPON, THE CITY PLACE A HIGH PRIORITY ON THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A
COMMUNITY PARK IN THE ESPERANCE AREA. A ROLL CALL VOTE SHOWED.ALL COUNCILMEN IN FAVOR EXCEPT
GOULD AND HERB, AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
(7) Zoning: Councilman Anderson said he favored accepting the basic plan of County zoning plus
formation of a 10,000 square foot R-S zone to be more comparable to the 9,600 county zone.
MOTION: There followed discussion on city zoning vs. county zoning. On this subject, IT WAS MOVED BY
COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE ANY
ZONING CHANGES IN THE ANNEXED AREA. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCILMEN CLEMENT, CARNS
AND HERB IN FAVOR: GOULD AND.GELLERT AGAINST; NORDQUIST NOT PRESENT TO VOTE; AND THE MOTION
CARRIED.
0
U
1
1
E
1
(8) Olympic View Water District: Councilman Anderson noted that since Olympic View Water
District employees,are required by law to be absorded, I favor separate management for 2 to.3
yesars to afford absorption -of these employees. Edmonds would assume continuation of Olympic
View service quality and improvements.
MOTION: Following discussion on this subject, COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD TO DROP OUT THE PHRASE AFTER "I FAVOR" IN COUNCILMAN ANDERSON'S STATEMENT, AND ADD IN WITH
EMPLOYEES THAT SINCE OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED BY TO BE ABSORBED,
EDMONDS-WOULD ASSUME CONTINUATION OF OLYMPIC VIEW SERVICE QUALITY AND IMPORVEMENTS. THE MOTION
CARRIED.
(9) Fire District #1: Councilman Anderson's memo stated to maintai.n�what is legally permissible,
and I favor special consideration for the absorption of Fire District #1 employees into the
Edmonds system.
MOTION: There was discussion on the'ETr-e District, and resulted in A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN HERB TO MAINTAIN WHAT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR FIRE DISTRICT #1 EMPLOYEES.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: At this point, COUNCILMAN CARNS MADE A MOTION OT ACCEPT THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION ONLY IF THEY
HAVE A COMPARABLE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OF THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED THE ANTI -ANNEXATION PETITION,
AND BY MAY 4, 1.976. THIS MOTION WAS LATER WITHDRAWN.
MOTION:: IT WAS THEN MOVED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS THAT THE CITY EXPRESS THAT
IT NEITHER ENDORSES NOR TAKES A STAND AGAINST ANNEXATION OF THE ESPERANCE AREA.EXCEPT UPON
PRESENTATION OF 1000 VALID SIGNATURES BY JUNE 15, 1976; AND THAT THE PRESENT LEADERS OF BOTH
MOVEMENTS (PRO AND ANTI) BE PRESENTED WITHIN A WEEK OF -THIS MEETING, THE ITEMS.AS VOTED UPON
TONIGHT IN REGARD TO THE CITY'S VIEWS ON THE ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED.
It was decided that the city staff would prepare petition forms for the people to circulate in
the area.
REPORT FROM ATTORNEY ON IMPACT OF SUB. H.B. 90 ON CITY OF EDMONDS
The City Attorney had sent a memo to each council member explaining that the only change made
by Substitute House Bill 90 that is relevant to the Edmonds Gambling Ordinance allows the city
to tax sports pools. Subsequent amendments to -::the city gambling law have removed fishing derbies
from the definiation of gambling add accordingly, they should be removed from the Edmonds
MOTION: Ordinance as a taxable form of gambling. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEREFORE MOVED, SECONDED..BY COUNCIL. --
MAN HERB TO INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEY TO DELETE FISHING DERBIES FROM THE TAXABLE GAMBLING FORMS OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION ON DATE FOR JOINT DINNER MEETING WITH MOUNTLAKE TERRACE COUNCIL
Councilman Gellert noted that Councilman Nordquist had been the one to bring this item before
MOTION: council., and since Councilman Nordquist was not present at this time, COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB TO SET THIS MATTER OVER FOR ONE WEEK. VOTE ON THE MOTION SHOWED
TWO COUNCILMEN IN FAVOR; TWO AGAINST; AND THE MAYOR BROKE THE TIE FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY.
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBILITY OF SENDING REPRESENTATIVE TO SEMINAR IN OLYMPIA
MOTION: In regard to the seminar being held June 9-11 in Olympia, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT THAT COUNCILMAN HERB BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND, AND M.A.A. WHALEY IF HE
WISHED TO ATTEND ALSO. MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before council, and the meeting was therefore adjourned
at 11:15 P.M.
April 20, 1976
ROLL CALL
Regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor Harve Harrison at
7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center, with all council members present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 13 had been posted, mailed and distributed, and with no
omissions nor corrections, they were approved as written.
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION
Councilman Gellert stated that he and Councilman Nordquist had attended a meeting on the Senior
Center and since funding via grants can be applied for when the approval has been given for the
architect, etc., and only the first phase hasbeen.approved, he asked that an item be, placed on
next week's agenda approving the architect for future phases so that applications can be pro-
MOT;ION: cessed for funding. IT,WAS THEREFORE MOVED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED ON THE APRIL 27 COUNCIL AGENDA, AND THE MOTION CARRIED. This
item is for Senior Center remodeling.
Councilman Gellert noted that on the Board of Adjustment agenda -for tomorrow night there was an
item regarding Liberty Cable TV antenna at the water tank site along with other equipment, and
MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GO
ON RECORD AS FAVORING THE VARIANCE WHICH WOULD PERMIT LIBERTY CABLE TV TO PLACE THE RECEIVING
ANTENNAS ATOP THE CITY WATER TANK AND "HEAD END" EQUIPMENT ON THE TANK SITE NEAR FIVE CORNERS
BECAUSE THIS SITE IS ONE -OF THE HIGHEST WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS;,.THE•RESULTING IMPROVED
RECEPTION WOULD BENEFIT A LARGE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS: THIS SITE
WOULD FACILITATE OBTAINING IMPORVED RECEPTION FORM CANADIAN TV VIA MICROWAVE REPEATERS; THE