Loading...
CU0809 HE Decision.pdf`n C. 18913 CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR HEARING EXAMINER In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. CU -2008-9 Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION For a Conditional Use Permit } SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow construction of an addition and facility upgrades to an existing Local Public Facility in the Single --Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 10307 — 238" Street SW in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Rick Ashleman, on behalf of the Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club (Applicant), requested a CUP to allow construction of an addition and facility upgrades to an existing Local Public Facility in the Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 10307 -- 2386 Street SW in Edmonds. HearinnZ Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on May 15, 2008. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing. Testimony. At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: I . Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Rick Ashleman, Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club President, Applicant 3. Jeff McDowell, Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club Manager 4. John Rasmussen 5. Doug Dahl 6. Steve Waite 7. Jim Spangler 8. Philip Assink 9. Jennifer Gettman 10. Alvin Rutledge 11. Jeff Hill 12. Robert Warren 13. Janice Warren 14. Sheri Hill Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page I of 9 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Traci Shallbetter, Attorney, represented the Applicant. Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 6, 2008 2. Zoning & Vicinity Map 3. Land Use Application 4. Applicant's Criteria Statement and Supplemental Project Information 5, Site Plan 6. City of Edmonds Code Interpretation (file 2008-1) regarding "Local Public Facility" 7. Hearing Examiner Decision for CU -1996-11 (permit decision for the existing conditional use) 8. Parking Agreement Letter for CU -1996-11, dated March 20, 1996 9. Technical Committee Memos/Comment Forms 10. Public Notices and Affidavits 11. Dahl Comment Letter, received May 7, 2008 12. Applicant's PowerPoint presentation slides (2 pages) 13. Correspondence to Applicant from Snohomish Health District, dated April 10, 2008 14. Comment letter from Faith Community Church, dated May 8, 2008 15. Parking agreement between Applicant and Edmonds Homeschool Resource Center, dated May 5, 2008 16, Proposed parking agreement between Applicant and Sherwood Elementary, dated May 5, 2008 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested a CUP to allow construction of an addition and facility upgrades to an existing Local Public Facility in the Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 10307 — 238' Street SW in Edmonds.' Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit 3, Application. 2. On January 15, 2008, the City issued a code interpretation regarding whether private recreational facilities are "local public facilities" pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). According to the City's determination, private clubs that ' The subject property is known as Tax Parcel Number 27033600301900. Exhibit 1, page 2. Findings, Conclusions, and &ecision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page 2 of 9 are open to the public for membership are "local public facilities" as the use is defined in City Code, A CUP is required to operate a local public facility in the RS zones. ECDC 16.20.010.C.2. 3. The CUP application was submitted on February 5, 2008 and deemed complete on the day of submittal. Exhibit 14. 4. The 2.48 -acre subject property is generally flat and contains no critical areas. Presently, it is developed with three tennis courts, a five -lane competition swimming pool, a wading pool, locker rooms, a 1,900 square foot bathhouse, and associated amenities. The site contains approximately 32 parking spaces and is landscaped with mature ornamental vegetation and open lawn area. Exhibit 1, pages 1-2, Testimony of Mr. Ashleman; Site visit; Exhibit 4. 5. All surrounding properties share the site's RS -8 zoning designation, with the exception of the parcel to the north, which has an Open Space (OS) designation and is owned by Edmonds School District. Most properties in the vicinity are developed with single- family residences, except for Faith Community Church across 238` Street SW and a cemetery located west of the site. Exhibit 1, page 3; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Site visit. 6. The surrounding neighborhood, including the existing swim club, was annexed to the City of Edmonds in 1995. In 1996, the Applicant sought a conditional use permit (CU - 96 -11) to improve the existing private club by constructing a 254 square foot entrance to the existing bathhouse. The City's Hearing Examiner approved the CUP on March 8, 1996. Exhibit 1, page 3, Exhibit 7, CU -96-11. 7. On April 10, 2008, the Applicant received notification from the Snohomish Health District of required health and safety upgrades to the public pool facility mandated by the water recreation facilities regulations in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Specifically, by June 1, 2008, public pool facilities roust comply with new regulations concerning g pool enclosures (railings, fencing, gates, windows, and doors around pools) and concerning single main drain safety devices. Failure to complete the mandated upgrades could subject the Applicant to state and county health department penalties. A CUP is not required for the mandated pool upgrades, although a City of Edmonds building permit would be. Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr. Ashleman: Exhibit 3. 8. Other proposed improvements that would require a building permit, but not a CUP, include additions to existing restrooms that would make the facilities comply with access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 3; Testimony of Ms. Coccia. 9. For efficiency's sake and to provide the best possible facilities to members, the Applicant proposes to undertake additional upgrades not mandated by state or federal regulations at the same time as the required upgrades. The additional proposed work, for which a CUP is required, includes: one additional lane and a walk-in (stair) access in the competition pool; renovations to the existing wading pool; and upgrades to an existing mechanical Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page 3 of 9 area resulting in 210 new square feet of deck area. Exhibit 4; Testimony of Mr. Ashleman; Exhibit S, Site Plan. 10. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Single Family Urban 1 ". City Planning Staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals of residential development as applicable to the current proposal: B.5.a Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. B.5.d Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. 2006 Comprehensive Plan, page 54. 11. The purpose of the RS zones includes the intention to provide for additional nonresidential uses that complement and are compatible with single-family dwelling use. ECDC 16.20.000. 12. Development standards applicable to new RS -8 zone development (including the proposed expansion) require: a minimum street setback of 25 feet; a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet; a minimum rear setback of 15 feet; a maximum structure height of 25 feet; and a maximum lot coverage of 35%. ECDC 16.20030. 13. As proposed, all improvements would comply with maximum height and minimum setback requirements. A total of 37,332 square feet of lot coverage would be allowed pursuant to zoning standards. With the proposed expansion, the project would remain below the maximum lot coverage. Exhibit 1, page 4; Exhibit 5, Site Plans, Testimony of Ms. Caccia. 14. The club, which operates seasonally, is open to members from approximately June through October. It is closed for the other eight months of each year, during which time there is minimal site traffic. Exhibit 4; Testimony of Mr. McDowell. Average daily attendance was 74 people per day from May through September of 2007. Testimony of Mr. Ashleman. 15. The club has a self-limiting membership in that it seeks to balance adequate revenues from membership dues with the desired level of privacy and service to its members. Currently 94 families belong to the club, resulting in a total membership of approximately 220 individuals. The Applicant stated that it intends to maintain a membership of between 200 and 245, as it historically has. There is a four to five year waiting list to join the club. Membership turnover is common in early summer, which is a time when families with high school graduates tend to choose to give up their memberships. None of the proposed improvements would result in increased membership numbers; rather, they are intended to provide a higher level of service to the current number of members. Exhibit 4; Testimony of Mr. Ashleman. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page 4 of 9 16. The club participates in the Seattle Summer Swim League. According to member testimony, the League consists of six or seven private clubs in addition to the Applicant's, organized into 16 swim teams. All swimmers are youths, high school age or younger. The Klahaya Swim Club takes turns hosting summer swim meets on a rotating basis, so that each summer it hosts either three or four meets. Swim meets are evening events that have traditionally run from 6 pm to 9;45 pm, with the lights and public address (PA) system turned off by 10.00 pm. The club also hosts one or two post -season meets, which are typically daytime events held in the month of August. The club sometimes rents out its facilities for private events, such as end of year school parties, and also hosts an evening dance event (although it is not clear from the record whether the dance is a regularly recurring event). Exhibit 4, Testimony of Mr. Ashleman, Testimony of Mr. McDowell, Testimony of Mr. Hill; Testimony ofMs. Hill. 17. Swim meets involve approximately 130 swimmers participating from 82 families. According to the Applicant and regular community attendees of the swim meets on-site, the addition of one more lane to the competition swimming pool would decrease the expected length of each swim meet. With an additional swimmer in each heat, fewer heats would be conducted in the course of each meet. The proposed expansions and upgrades would not result in an increased number of swim meets held on-site. Exhibit 4,- Testimony ,Testimony of Mr. Ashleman, Testimony ofMs Hill. 18. During the 1996 CUP review, availability of parking was an issue of concern. In 1996, the Applicant provided a parking agreement between itself and Faith Community Church (across the street from the site), by which the Applicant had permission to use the church parking lot for events that drew more vehicles than could be accommodated on-site. According to Applicant testimony, which was broadly supported by public testimony, since 1996 the Applicant has undertaken to prevent swim club guest parking on 238t` Street SW through several means. The club posts signs (on sawhorses) in the right-of- way along 238t` Street reminding guests not to park on the street. Swimmers have been encouraged to carpool to the extent possible. Other efforts to improve neighborhood relations have included the practice of distributing notice of swim meet dates to neighbors at the beginning of each swim season Testimony of Mr. Ashleman, Testimony of Mr. McDowell; Testimony of Mr. Dahl; Testimony of Mr. Waite; Testimony ofMtn Spangler; Testimony of Mr. Assink; Testimony of Mr: Warren. 19. In order to address parking concerns in the context of the present request, the Applicant offered evidence of a renewed agreement with Faith Community Church for swim meet/event access to the Church's 75 parking spaces across 238h Street SW. The Applicant also provided evidence of an additional parking agreement with Edmonds Homeschool Resource Center (providing an unknown number of spaces) at 23200 —10& Avenue W. A third parking agreement, with Sherwood Elementary, was under discussion at the time of the hearing.. Testimony of Mr. Ashleman; Testimony of Mr. Assink; Exhibit 14, Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2408-9 page 5 of 9 20. Commercial recreational uses are required to provide off-street parking at a rate of one space per 500 square feet or one space per customer allowed by the facility's maximum occupancy load. ECDC 17.50.020(8)(8). Total building area on-site, as proposed, would be less than 3,000 square feet, requiring six parking spaces. However, given the average daily attendance of 74 people last summer and the larger number of attendees to special events, parking based on square footage would not be appropriate. In order to address any future concern about adequacy of event parking, Planning Staff recommended a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to submit a parking management plan addressing special events. Planning Division Staff would administratively review such a plan for compliance with off-street parking requirements prior to building permit issuance. Exhibit 1, page 7, Testimony of Ms. Caccia. 21. The existing club is subject to the provisions of the City of Edmonds noise ordinance in ECDC Title 5.30. Testimony of Ms Coccia. The Applicant indicated that the current PA system in use on-site uses two speakers aimed towards the audience, away from the building. An acoustical engineer who happens to be a member is currently working with the club's leadership on a new PA system design that would use more speakers sited closer to the audience, which would allow for the use of lower volumes. Testimony of Mr. Ashleman. 22. The City's Technical Committee, comprised of the Engineering Division and the Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments, reviewed the proposal. The Engineering Division and Building and Fire Departments submitted comments indicating that improvements would be reviewed for compliance with the standards overseen by these departments during building permit review. Exhibit 1, page 3; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Exhibit 9. 23. The Applicant requested that CUP approval, if granted, be transferable. Exhibit 3. Planning Division Staff concurred in this recommendation. Exhibit 1, page 6; Testimony of Ms. Caccia; Exhibit 3. 24. Applicant indicates that, if approved, construction pursuant to the permit is anticipated to begin immediately after the end of this summer season, most likely in September 2008. Testimony ofMr. Ashleman, 25. City staff reviewed the CUP application and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Staff opined that recommended conditions of approval would address any potential impacts to surrounding residential uses from the expanded facilities on-site. At hearing, the Applicant concurred with the City's analysis and agreed to the recommended conditions of approval. Exhibit 1, page 8, Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Testimony of Mr: Ashleman; Comment of Ms. Shallbetter•. 26. The proposed conditional use is exempt from review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Exhibit 1, page 2. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page 6 of 9 27. Notice of public hearing was published in The Herald on February 22, 2008 and was posted on-site and mailed to neighboring property owners within 300 feet on May 1, 2008, consistent with the notice provisions of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.91. Exhibit 1, page 2, Exhibit 10; Testimony of Ms. Coccia. 28. The City received public comment from one neighbor expressing concerns about: noise on swim meet nights; noise during the proposed construction; and possible future increase in number of events due to improved facilities. This comment noted that most nearby residential neighbors of the club are not members and so do not enjoy the benefits of having the facility in the area. Of particular concern to this commenter were hours of construction operation and the potential for disruptive noise impacts to surrounding residences due to the topography of the area Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr. Dahl. One commenter expressed concern about parking availability. Testimony of Mr Rutledge. 29. Planning Division Staff indicated that hours of construction operation would be governed by building code regulations. Staff also emphasized that any neighbors with complaints about noise from the Applicant's facility should notify the City of Edmonds Police Department. Testimony of Ms. Coccia. 30. Numerous individuals offered public comment in support of the requested permit. This testimony taken as a whole expressed a uniform opinion that the club provides a needed recreational amenity to the community; provides recreational and social opportunities that the City is not able to fund and that families could not afford individually; and acts proactively to be a good neighbor in its residential setting. Testimony of Mr. McDowell, Testimony of Mr. Rasmussen; Testimony of Mr Waite; Testimony of Mr. Spangler, Testimony of Mr 4ssink, Testimony of Ms. Gettman, Testimony of Mr Hill, Testimony of Mr. Warren; Testimony of Ms. Warren; Testimony of Ms. Hill. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide CUP requests pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010.A.3 and 20.05.010. Criteria for Review: Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010, the Hearing Examiner may not approve a CUP unless the following findings can be made: A. That the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, B. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance; C. Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page 7 of 9 nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity; and D. Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed expansion of the existing local public facility would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed expansion would not increase the number of special events per season nor the number of memberships offered by the club. Conditions of approval addressing parking plan review would ensure that parking at on- site special events would conform to all applicable City code requirements, protecting the surrounding residential uses from adverse impacts. At all times, all uses of the site must comply with the City of Edmonds noise ordinance or be subject to enforcement action. Findings Nos. 10, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 21. 2. The proposed expansions to the facility would be consistent with the purposes of the RS - 8 zoning district. Local public facilities are allowed in single-family zones with conditional use approval. All proposed construction would comply with RS -8 development standards. Conditions of approval would ensure that the new construction complies with current building and fire code provisions. Findings Nos S, 11, 12, and 13. 3. With conditions, the expanded facility would not result in any detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed project would not increase the number of special events or memberships in the club and thus is not anticipated to increase impacts already experienced by surrounding residential uses. The proposed pool, wading pool, and restroom improvements would bring the existing facility up to current state and federal standards for health, safety, and access. The addition of a lane in the competition pool would speed up completion of swim meets.. A condition requiring approval of a parking management plan prior to building permit issuance would ensure that future special event parking would not negatively impact the neighboring residences. Findings Nos. 7, 8, 9, 1.5, 16, 17, and 20. 4. The CUP would be transferable to future owners of the subject property. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a CUP to allow construction of an addition and facility upgrades to an existing Local Public Facility in the Single -Family Residential (RS -S) zone at 10307 — 23e Street SW in Edmonds, Washington is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must obtain a building permit before undertaking the proposed improvements. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 page 8 of 9 2. A revised "Parking Management Plan" for special events (swim meets and dances) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division and must be administratively approved prior to building permit issuance. 3, The Conditional Use Permit shall be transferable and run with the land. 4. This application is subject to all requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. CUP approval sloes not excuse the Applicant from the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the various provisions contained in the City code. 5. The Applicant must act on the approved Conditional Use Permit within one year from the date of its approval or the Conditional Use Permit shall expire and become null and void. The Applicant may file for a one-year extension of permit approval before CUP expiration. Only one one, -year extension is allowed. An example of sufficient action to satisfy this requirement is submission of a building permit application. DECIDED thisZY day of May 2008. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Klahaya CUP, No. CU -2008-9 Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: Sharon A. Rice page 9 of 9 me 189" CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. An person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Dgpgg ent for finiher procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(5), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee. TIME UMiTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The time Iimits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020(C) of the ECDC states: "Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building permit is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date." NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. • Incorporated August 1I, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan me 1Sgv CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON APPLICANT ) Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club ) For a Conditional Use Permit__. I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare: Case No. CU -2008-09 DECLARATION OF SERVICE GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 1. That I am a partner in the frrm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity; 2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; 3. That on May 21, 2008 I did serve a copy of the decision in case CU -2008-09 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail. Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club PO Box 74 Edmonds, WA 98020 Rick Ashleman 19803 15th Avenue NW Shoreline, WA 98177 Doug Dahl 23618 102nd Pl W Edmonds, WA 98020 Jeff McDowell 9402 215" Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Jennifer Gettman 20113 150` Avenue NW Shoreline, WA 98177 Jim Spangler 10316 238' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Steve Waite 111 Elm Edmonds, WA 98020 Philip Assink 23202 83'd Avenue W Edmonds, WA 98026 Jeff and Sherry Hill 19523 22n' PI NW Shoreline, WA 98177 Robert and Janice Warren 17140 Sealawn Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Alvin Rutledge 7101. Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Traci Lynn Shallbetter Shallbetter Law 3201 Airport Rd Cle Elum, WA 98922-9222 Clerk of the Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds Planning Division City of Edmonds Building Division City of Edmonds Engineering Division City of Edmonds Fire Department 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct: J05 - DATED THIS LA day of 2008 "- Washington. Sharon A. Rice Toweill Rice Taylor LLC Serving as 1jearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington