HearingExaminerDecision.pdf;h C. 189"1
CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of } NO. V-2007-81
Shaun Leiser )
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
For a Variance )
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a variance from the fifteen -foot minimum street setback requirement of the
Multiple Residential zone, in order to allow placement of structures within 10 feet of one street
and to allow placement of off-street parking spaces within ten feet of two streets, on a site
located at 24110 — 84!" Avenue W, in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Shaun Leiser (Applicant) requested a variance from the fifteen -foot minimum street setback
requirement of the Multiple Residential (RM -2.4) zone. The request would allow ten -foot street
setbacks from 80 Avenue W and from State Route 104 (SR 104) for a project comprising five
new multifamily dwelling units at 24110 — 84h Avenue W, in Edmonds, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on
December 6, 2007. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Shaun Leiser, Applicant
3. Al Rutledge
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report, dated November 27, 2007
2. Zoning and Vicinity Map
3. Land Use Application
4. LiDAR I Aerial Photo Map
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81 page I of 9
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
5. Quarter Section Map
6. Criteria Statement
7. Engineering Division Memo
8. SEPA Determination and Traffic Impact Analysis (2004)
9. Site Pian
10. EIevations and Floor Plans
11. Public Notices (Notice of Application and Hearing, including affidavits of Publication in
the Herald, and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting)
12. Staff Report to the ADB (2004)
13. ADB Meeting Minutes — pages 1, and 10-12 (2004)
14. Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner (2004)
15. Hearing Examiner's Decision for files ADB -2004-54 / V-2004-55 / V-2004-85 (2004)
16. Conceptual Landscape Plan (2004)
17. Additional recommended condition of approval, dated December 13, 2007'
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested a variance from the fifteen -foot minimum street setback
requirement of the RM -2.4 zone! The. request would reduce the required setbacks from
two public streets, providing ten. -foot street setbacks from 80 Avenue W and from State
Route 104 (SR 104) to allow the development of five new multifamily dwelling units at
24110 -- 80 Avenue W, in Edmonds, Washington.3 The subject property takes access
from the (dead end) cul-de-sac of 80 Avenue W and has no access from SR 104.
Exhibit 3, Application, Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 3.
2. The approximately 13,200 -square foot subject property is irregularly shaped, having five
sides. Viewing the parcel on a map, it is seen to be the tip of a strip of privately owned
land surrounded by public streets, abutting privately owned parcels on two sides. See
Exhibit 2. Two sides of the property abut a slope of approximately 50% located within
the SR 104 right-of-way. One side of the property abuts the cul-de-sac of 84th Avenue
W. The site is relatively flat with slight slopes. it is developed with a single-family
residence and typical single-family landscaping, including several mature evergreen
trees. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 2, Exhibit 4.
' During testimony, it was discovered that the site had not been reviewed for compliance with the City's critical
areas ordinance. Planning Division Staff requested to be able to address such review through a recommended
condition of approval. The record was held open for the Applicant to review the proposed critical areas condition;
however the Applicant did not respond to Staff s communications. Staff submitted the recommended condition
timely on December 13, 2007. It is admitted as Exhibit 17.
2 Pursuant to ECDC 21.90.140, street setback means the minimum distance required by this code for a building or
structure to be set back from the street lot line.
3 The subject property is also known as Tax Parcel Number 00463302400203. Exhibit 1, page 2.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City ofEdmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81
page 2 of 9
3. The subject property has an RM -2.4 zoning designation. Exhibit 1, page 1. The specific
purpose of the RM zones includes reserving areas for a variety of housing types and a
range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while
still maintaining a residential environment. Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 16.30.000.
4. Single-family and multifamily dwellings are permitted primary uses in the RM zones.
ECDC 16.30.010.A.1. The RM -2.4 zone requires a minimum of 2,400 square feet of lot
area per dwelling unit. The minimum required setback from adjacent streets and rear lot
lines is 15 feet. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces is required per unit. ECDC
16.30.030, Table A.4 No parking spaces are allowed within required street setbacks.
ECDC 16.20 030. C.
S. The maximum number of units that can be developed on the 13,200 -square foot property,
consistent with the zone's minimum density of 2,400 square feet of lot per dwelling unit,
is 5.5 units. The Applicant has proposed five units. The zoning code contains no
maximum permissible lot area per dwelling unit, which means there is no minimum
density required for the zone. ECDC 16.30.030, Table A; Testimony of Ms. Coccia;
Exhibit 3, Application.
6. Existing surrounding uses include single-family residential, multifamily residential, and
commercial development. All adjacent parcels share the site's RM -2.4 zoning
designation. Exhibit 1, page 3, Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map.
7. The property abuts SR 104 near its intersection with Highway 99. Because the property's
side lot lines abut two rights-of-way, "street setbacks" (rather than side setbacks) apply
along both SR 104 and 80 Avenue W. Exhibit 1, page 3. For reasons that are not made
clear in the record, the project was apparently reviewed as if there were no rear lot line.
The site plan legend states: "Rear Yard Setback: None." The lot line opposite the site
entrance has a side setback of 10 feet applied to it. Exhibit 9. The RM -2.4 zone requires
a 15 -foot rear setback. ECDC 1630.030.A.
8. The proposed project consists of four structures: three single-family detached units and a
duplex. The structures are arranged around a central parking court from which each unit
would have vehicular and pedestrian access. As proposed, two structures (one single-
family detached unit and the duplex) would be set 10 feet from the property line abutting
SR 104. The site plan depicts two surface parking spaces located approximately ten feet
from the property lines bordering both SR 104 and 84d' Avenue W.' The proposal would
provide a total of ten off-street parking spaces. Exhibit 9, Site Plan.
4 The project requires the same number of parking spaces when reviewed under the more detailed analysis of the
Off -Street Parking regulations, in ECDC 17.50, which require two off-street parking spaces per three bedrooms.
ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.
s The site plan depicts the two surface parking stalls as intruding slightly into the proposed ten -foot street setback
from SR 104, Exhibit 9.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81
page 3 of 9
9. In 2004, the City approved the variances that are currently being requested. The
Applicant originally filed for approval of a consolidated Architectural Design Board
(ADB) design review and one street setback variance (for the placement of the structures
adjacent to SR 104) on May 4, 2004. On July 7, 2004, the ADB reviewed the design and
recommended conditional approval to the hearing examiner (ADB -2004-54). One
condition recommended by the ADB required the Applicant to apply for a second
variance to allow the two surface parking stalls to intrude into the street setback along
80 Avenue W (as well as into the street setback from SR 104). On August 6, 2004, the
hearing examiner approved the design recommendation and both variances (V-2004-55 /
V-2004-85) with conditions. Exhibit 1, page 1; Testimony of Ms Caccia.
10. City of Edmonds design review decisions are valid for 18 months and variance decisions
are valid for one year. The design approval would have expired on February 6, 2006, but
approval was administratively extended until February 6, 2007 upon the Applicant's
request. The Applicant submitted a complete building permit application on February 6,
2007. Building permits are valid for one year, which means the current building permits
will expire on February 6, 2008. The Applicant's building permits are "on hold" because
the two street setback variances expired. Permission to locate structures or parking
spaces within the required street setbacks, as they are depicted on the site plan, can only
be approved by the hearing examiner through variance approval pursuant to the City's
Community Development Code. Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Testimony of Ms. Caccia; ECDC
20.85.020.
11. The current application for the two variances was submitted on September 21, 2007 and
deemed to be complete on October 2, 2007. Exhibit 1, page 2.
12. The Planning Division Staff report notes that the City's off-street parking regulations
require two off-street parking spaces per three bedrooms. Staff noted that if the variance
was not approved, the Applicant would need to reduce the number of bedrooms or
otherwise change the proposal to satisfy off-street parking requirements. Exhibit 1, page
S. However, the development standards of the RM -2.4 require a minimum of two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, so it is the number of units — in addition to the number
of bedrooms — that gives rise to the need for 10 off-street parking spaces. ECDC
16.30.030, Table A.
13. According to the Edmonds environmentally critical areas regulations, slopes greater than
4011/o with a vertical height change of ten feet or more are, by definition, landslide hazard
areas. ECDC 23.80.020.B.2. Within or adjacent to landslide hazard areas, only
development activities that have been expressly reviewed and addressed in a
professionally prepared geotechnical study are allowed. ECDC 23.80.040.A.
14. The top of the adjacent steep slope (approximately 50% grade) is at or near the edge of
the subject property. Exhibit 4, LMAR mapping. The required geotechnical review for
development adjacent to landslide hazard areas includes consideration of such items as:
parameters for design of foundations and retaining structures; allowable load and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edrnonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81 page 4 of 9
resistance capacities; installation (construction) considerations; estimates of settlement
performance; recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements, earthwork
recommendations; and mitigation of adverse site conditions. ECDC 20.80.050.
15. Planning Division Staff inadvertently overlooked critical areas review of the current
variance requests because critical areas regulations were different when the requests were
last reviewed in 2004 and the City's file for the variances is identified as having obtained
a critical areas "waiver". The 2004 design approval (as reflected in the site plan at
Exhibit 9) did not include any review of the steep slope bordering SR 104 immediately
adjacent to the proposed residential development. Staff submitted a recommended
condition of approval addressing landslide hazard area requirements.6 Exhibit 12, page 3,
Section 4, Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Exhibit 17.
16. In order to be approved, an application for variance must satisfy all six criteria for
approval established in ECDC 20.85.010. The sixth criterion requires that the applicant
demonstrate that the variance requested is the minimum deviation from zoning standards
necessary to afford the applicant the same rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning. ECDD 20.85.010. F.
17. The 2004 hearing examiner approval does not include a detailed analysis of how the
requested variances represent the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. It states; "The requested
variances appear to be the minimum necessary," and refers to an ADB discussion on
retention of mature trees. Exhibit 15, pages 5-6.
18. Regarding tree retention, in reviewing the Applicant's first request for (one) variance, the
ADB noted that the site plan presented by the Applicant depicted the two surface parking
spaces as intruding into the required 15 -foot street setback for both abutting rights-of-
way.
ights-ofway. The ADB meeting minutes included a "recommendation to amend the variance to
create a 10 -foot setback to the parking, rather than the required 15 feet, because it is in
the best interests of the comprehensive plan, the Board feels it is a better design, and it
also preserves trees, which is a part of the City's plan." Exhibit 13, ADB Minutes from
July 7, 2004.
19. The Planning Division staff report to the ADB addressed Comprehensive Plan policies
and goals regarding multifamily development. It cited Residential Development Policy
C.2.c.ii, which states: "Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural
features (trees, streams, topography, etc) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the
needs of the imposed plan." Exhibit 12, page 3. The staff report for the ADB also cites
ECDC 18.45, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting. The City's tree cutting ordinance states
that trees may only be removed pursuant to an approved clearing permit and requires
trees to be retained to the maximum extent feasible. ECDC 18.45.050.
e Staff's recommended condition of approval states that a geotechnical report would be required to be submitted
with a building permit application. Exhibit 17. However, at hearing, it appeared that Staff and Applicant assumed
that the existing, approved building permit would be relied on if the variance were approved; thus it is unclear when
Staff suggests geotechnical information would be reviewed.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examinerfor City of Edmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81
page 5 of 9
20. At hearing, the Applicant was asked to address the "minimum necessary" criterion for
variance approval. He stated that three bedroom units are preferrable given the current
real estate market and that without the variances, the mature. trees on-site could not be
saved. Testimony of Mr. Leiser; Exhibit d.
21. Planning Division Staff recommended approval of the variances, subject to conditions.
Staff based its recommendation on the fact that the variances had previously been
approved and on the fact that approval would aid in mature tree retention under the
current design proposed in the site plan. Testimony of Ms Coccia; Exhibit 1, page 8;
Testimony of Ms. Coccia
22. Notice of application and of public hearing were published in The Herald; posted on-site,
at the Public Safety Complex, the Community Development Department, and at the
Library; and mailed to residents within 300 feet of the site on October 23, 2007. Exhibit
1, page 2, Exhibit 11; Testimony of Ms Coccia. Public comment at the hearing
expressed the concern that if the variances are subject to current codes, the entire project
should be reviewed pursuant to current codes. A member of the public also expressed
concern about the building heights reflected on the site plan; however, building heights
are not relevant to the reduction in street setbacks requested. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B).
Criteria for Variance Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the hearing examiner may not grant a variance unless all of the
following findings can be made:
A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the
property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the
owner of use rights and privileges permitted. to other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of
public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and
environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and
wildlife habitats.
2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor
personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense
which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance,
the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City ofEdmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81
page 6 of 9
profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the
action of the owner or any past owner of the same property;
B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the comprehensive plan;
D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the
property is located;
E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will
not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone;
F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
ECDC 20.85.020:
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year
from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the
owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city
approves the application.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The shape and location of the site could satisfy the variance criterion A requirement
for special circumstances; however, the shape and location of the property do not
cause the need for the variance. The Applicant's proposal to place five structures
on the site appears to be the factor that necessitates variance approval.
a. Variance criterion A specifically states that "special circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as ... the ability to make
more profitable use of the property...". The Applicant acknowledged that his
proposal for five three-bedroom units was market driven The fact that 5.5
dwelling units could be built in the area of the lot does not free the Applicant from
the obligation to comply with bulk and dimensional development standards. The
zoning code establishes a maximum density for the site (5.5 dwelling units) but it
does not establish a minimum density.. Single-family development is a permitted
primary use in the RM -2.4 zone. The Applicant has no "tight" to the maximum
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City ofEdmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81
page 7 of 9
possible density if it requires deviation from bulk and dimensional standards.
Findings Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 19, ECDC 16.30. 010.
b. Fifteen -foot setbacks are required from both streets and rear lot lines in the RM -
2.4 district. It is not clear from the record why no rear lot line was identified and
why no fifteen -foot setback was required. The site's mature trees are not unique
in the neighborhood. Although the city code and comprehensive plan place
emphasis on tree retention, the site's mature trees do not constitute special
circumstances inherent in the land that distinguish the site from surrounding
parcels in the RM -2.4 zone. Nothing in the record supports an assertion that
residential development of the site cannot comply with all bulls and dimensional
standards of the. RM -2.4 zone. It is the proposed site design, not the
circumstances of the property, which necessitates variance approval. Findings
Nos 4, 7, 19, and I — 21.
2. Because the variances are not necessary due to special circumstances inherent in the
land itself, approval would constitute a grant of special privilege. All property
owners in the RM -2.4 district are subject to the bulk and dimensional standards of the
district. A variance would be appropriate if no use could be made of the property without
deviating from the applicable development standards. Nothing in the record supports an
assertion that no project that could comply with all development standards of the
underlying zone is possible on-site. Washington courts have said, ",[r]easons for a
variance must be reasons pertaining to the property itself which prevent full. use of the
property to the extent other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning can be
used." St Clair v. Skagit County, 43 Wn. App. 122, 126 (1986); Findings Nos. 3, 4, and 1
—21.
3. The requested variance is not the minimum necessary to allow the Applicant to
enjoy the same rights as those afforded to surrounding properties. The Applicant
and all neighbors in the RM -2.4 zone enjoy the options of development consistent with
the bulk and dimensional development standards of the zone. The Applicant's proposal
to place five dwelling units is not the minimum necessary to allow enjoyment of the same
rights afforded to other parcels in the zoning district. Findings Nos 3 and 4.
4. Because the application does not satisfy all criteria established in ECDC 20.85.010,
the variance must be denied. It is unfortunate that the Applicant did not act on the
approval obtained in 2004 under which the current proposal could have been built. The
record does not explain the extensive delays, but they appear to have been caused by the
Applicant. Although the project received approval in 2004, the Applicant didn't apply
for building permits until February 6, 2007 — two and. a half years later — and those
building permits expire in approximately two months. The current variance application,
complete as of October 2, 2007, must be decided pursuant to the land use code in effect at
the time the application was complete. The record presented does not support the
conclusion that the application satisfies the six criteria for variance approval and it must
be denied. ECDC 24.85.010; Findings Nos. 8, 9, 10, and I — 21.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Leiser Variance, No, V-2007-81
page 8 of 9
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and. Conclusions, the request for a variance from the fifteen -
foot minimum street setback requirement of the RM -2.4 zone to allow placement of structures
within 10 feet of the SR 104 right-of-way and to allow placement of off-street parkin spaces
within ten feet of both SR 104 and 84" Avenue W on property located at 24110 — 84h Avenue
W, in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED.
DECIDED this Lbday of December 2007.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
B
Sharon A. Rice
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Fxaminer for City ofEdmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81 page 9 of 9
-t,2 C. 1B9\3
CITY OF E D M O N D S 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. Any pgson wishing to file or Mond to a Mquest for reconsideration or an ashould
contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further 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(B), 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.
TEVIE LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. 1f 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 20.85.020(C) of the ECDC states, "jt]he approved variance must be acted on by the owner within
one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files
an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
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 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan,.Japan
ncC. 189
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, )
Shaun Leiser )
)
For a Variance )
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. V-2007-81
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
1. That I am a partner in the firm 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 December 17, 2007, I did serve a copy of the decision in case V-2007-81 upon the
following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Shaun Leiser, Applicant
PO Box 60216
Shoreline, WA 98160
Clerk of Edmonds City Council
CIO City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
DATED THIS day of 2007 at-e(yX&S , Washington.
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan