HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_FinalDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Project Location Map
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
Decision: APPROVED APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DENIED
Report Date: May 21, 2025
Project File Number: PR25-000024
Project Name: Deck Replacement Project
Land Use File Number: LUA25-000094, V-A
Project Manager: Clark H. Close, Current Planning Manager
Owner/Contact: Tom Jarzynka,1110 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98056
Applicant: Amy Hirsh, 1110 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98056
Project Location: 1110 N 36th St Renton, WA 98056 (APN 3342103090)
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance from the provisions
of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) to construct an approximately 726 square
foot deck within the regulated rear yard setback as part of a code violation
case (CODE25-000047) at 1110 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98059 (APN
3342103090). The 7,950 square foot parcel is located in the Residential-6
(R-6) zoning district and is designated Residential Medium Density (RMD) in
the Comprehensive Plan. The site currently contains an existing single-
family dwelling unit and the proposed uncovered replacement deck would
encroach approximately five feet (5’) into the required 25-foot (25’) rear yard
setback. No changes are proposed to the height of the new deck from the
old deck that has been removed. No trees are proposed to be removed.
According to City of Renton (COR) Maps, the site has identified regulated
slopes (>15% & <=25%) through portions of the property.
Site Area: 0.18 acres
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 2 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
B. EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Existing Site Plan Map
Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Detail Maps
Exhibit 5: Project Narrative
Exhibit 6: Variance Request Justification
Exhibit 7: Public Comments from Jonathan Bye, Nyle Campbell, Don & Leilani Fleming, Libby
Green, Albert & Becki Kao, Kelvin Lank, Pamela & Paul Miller, Koichi Osada, Joyce
Segur, and Phillip Ussery
Exhibit 8: Staff Response to Public Comments
Exhibit 9: Owner’s Comment
Exhibit 10: Advisory Notes
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record: Tom Jarzynka and Amy Hirsh,
1110 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98056
2. Zoning Classification: Residential-6 (R-6)
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation:
Residential Medium Density (RMD)
4. Existing Site Use: Existing single-family residence on a single-family
residential lot
5. Critical Areas: Regulated Slopes (>15% & <=25%)
6. Neighborhood Characteristics:
a. North: Single-family residential. Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Residential-6 (R-6) Zoning District
b. East: Single-family residential. Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Residential-6 (R-6) Zoning District
c. South: Single-family residential. Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Residential-8 (R-8) Zoning District
d. West: Single-family residential. Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Residential-6 (R-6) Zoning District
7. Site Area: 0.18 acres
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 3 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date
Comprehensive Plan N/A 6153 12/09/2024
Zoning N/A 6154 12/09/2024
Annexation (Kennydale) N/A 2531 12/31/1969
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations
c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards
d. Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts
a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations
3. Chapter 9 Permits – Specific
a. Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates
4. Chapter 11 Definitions
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
G. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF):
1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on
March 24, 2025 and determined the application complete on April 9, 2025. This Type II Permit
complies with the 100-day review time period.
2. The applicant’s submittal materials comply with the requirements necessary to process the
administrative variance request (Exhibits 2-6).
3. The project site is located at 1110 N 36th St Renton, WA 98056 (APN 3342103090).
4. The project site is currently developed with a single family dwelling which has two (2) exterior doors
that lead to the rear yard deck.
5. Access to the site would be provided via an existing driveway extending north from N 36th St.
6. The site is located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Land Use
Designation.
7. The site is located within the Residential-6 (R-6) zoning classification.
8. The site is mapped with regulated slopes (>15% & <=25%) through portions of the property.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 4 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
9. The applicant has partially completed the deck without a permit. The applicant estimates the deck
to be seventy five percent (75%) complete with deck boards and railing remaining.
10. The following variance regulations have been requested by the applicant:
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Variance
RMC 4-2-110A, Development
Standards for Residential Zoning
Designations (Primary Structures)
and footnote 4.
RMC 4-2-110E.4.c, Conditions
Associated with Development
Standars Table for Residential
Zoning Designations, Allowed
Projections into Setbacks – Steps
and Decks: Uncovered steps and
decks not exceeding eighteen
inches (18") above the finished
grade may project to any property
line. Uncovered steps and decks
having no roof covering and not
exceeding forty two inches (42")
high may be built within the front
yard setback.
Uncovered steps and decks
exceeding eighteen inches
(18") above the finished grade
are required to maintain the
minimum 25-foot (25’)
minimum rear yard setback
for the R-6 zone.
Requesting an
Administrative Variance
under RMC 4-9-250B.6 to
allow the proposed deck
over eighteen inches (18")
above the finished grade to
project five feet (5’) into the
required rear yard setback.
11. Staff received twelve (12) public comments (Exhibit 7) and one (1) owner comment (Exhibit 9) during
the public comment period. To address public comments, the following report contains analysis and
project information related to the proposed deck encroachment into the rear yard setback.
12. No other public or agency comments were received.
13. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify
and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the
official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections
of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report (Exhibit 10).
14. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Residential Medium Density (RMD) on the
City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. The RMD district applies to areas that can support high-quality,
compact, urban development with access to urban services, transist, and infrastructure, whether
through new development or through infill development. The proposal is compliant with the
following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies if all conditions of approval are met:
Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis
✓ Policy LU-46: Consider scale and context for infill project design to preserve
privacy and quality of life for residents.
✓
Policy LU-48: Respond to specific site conditions such as topography, natural
features, and solar access to encourage energy savings and recognize the unique
features of the site through the design of subdivisions and new buildings.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 5 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
15. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical
Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if
all conditions of approval are complied with:
Compliance Critical Areas Analysis
✓
Geologically Hazardous Areas: Based upon the results of a geotechnical report
and/or independent review, conditions of approval for developments may
include buffers and/or setbacks from buffers. A standard 15-foot building
setback is required for all structures from Protected Slope areas.
A 50-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback are required from Very High
Landslide Hazard Areas.
Staff Comment: According to City of Renton (COR) maps, the site contains slopes
greater than 15% and less than or equal to 25% throughout portions of the
property. Per RMC 4-3-050, these slopes are not classified as Sensitive or
Protected Slopes and therefore, the proposed development is not subject to a
critical area buffer or critical area setback requirements. No Very High Landslide
Hazard Areas are mapped on the site. The proposed replacement deck would
have limited land disturbance as it would occupy a similar footprint and height as
the previously existing rear yard structure with no grading proposed. As such, the
project does not trigger additional review or mitigation related to geologically
hazardous areas under current code provisions.
16. Reasonable Use Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance from
the provisions of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) to construct an approximately 726 square foot
uncovered deck within the regulated rear yard setback as a result of a code violation case (CODE25-
000047). The proposal complies with the variance criteria under RMC 4-9-250B.6. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the requested variance, if all conditions of approval are complied with:
Compliance Variance Special Review Criteria and Analysis
✓
a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and
the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of
the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to
deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that granting the setback variance
would allow for a residential use of the property that is consistent with
surrounding single-family properties in the R-6 zone. The applicant states that
strict adherence to the 25-foot (25’) rear yard setback would deprive them of
rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The
applicant further contends that many nearby homes on N 36th St, including
those within the Kennydale neighborhood, have primary, secondary, or tertiary
structures such as decks that encroach into the required rear setback area. The
applicant has observed a pattern of development where such encroachments
are commonplace and notes that several recently built properties appear to be
constructed within the 25-foot (25’) rear yard setback. Without a setback
variance, the applicant believes they would be unfairly restricted and placed at
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 6 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
a disadvantage compared to neighboring property owners who enjoy similar use
of their rear yards (Exhibit 6).
Staff has received and reviewed twelve (12) public comments (Exhibit 7) in
support of the variance, with neighbors citing similar constraints on their lots and
expressing no objection to the proposed five-foot (5’) encroachment into the
required 25-foot (25’) minimum rear yard setback (Exhibit 7 and 8). This level of
neighborhood support and the replacement nature of the existing 536 square
foot deck with an approximately 726 square foot replacement deck, supports the
finding that strict application of the zoning code may cause unnecessary
hardship by depriving the applicant of the rights and privileges commonly
enjoyed by other nearby property owners who are under the same zoning
classification by applying setbacks greater than the setbacks in place at the time
of initial construction.
Furthermore, the applicant’s rear yard is partially constrained by topography of
the lot, limiting the functional buildable area within the rear yard. Moreover, the
main access from the home to the rear yard is elevated above the finished grade.
Together the regulated slopes and the existing access points to the rear portion
of the home create practical difficulties and an unnecessary hardship for the
applicant to build a rear yard deck less than eighteen inches (18") above the
finished grade as the height of the proposed deck must align with the height of
the existing doors that lead to the backyard. Staff concurs that many other
residential property owners in the vicinity have elevated decks that encroach into
the rear yard setback above what is allowed by current code and that strict
interpretation of the development regulations would deprive the applicant of
provileges enjoyed by those nearby owners.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone in which subject property is situated.
Staff Comment: The applicant asserts that granting the variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity. The new deck is intended to replace the previous
deck, which has been in place since 2015, and was removed due to health and
safety concerns. The proposed deck is similar in size and design to the old deck,
meaning it would have the same impact on the neighborhood. The applicant
notes that the height of the deck remains unchanged, meaning it would not affect
uphill or downhill neighbors’ properties. Since the deck is proposed to be
uncovered, it would not obstruct views or light exposure for surrounding
properties. Additionally, the applicant points out that their northern neighbor,
who shares the rear property line, has a large parcel with no structures near the
rear of the property, further minimizing the impact on neighboring lots (Exhibit 6).
Staff has reviewed the applicant’s justifications and concurs with the applicant’s
statement that the proposed variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to surrounding properties. The new deck would
replace an existing structure and the design and height would not differ from the
previous deck, ensuring minimal impact on the surrounding area (Exhibits 2-5).
Since the deck is uncovered and setback at least 20 feet (20’) from the rear
property line, it would not obstruct views or light exposure for neighboring
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 7 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
properties. The absence of objections from neighboring properties, along with
the twelve (12) public comments in support of the variance, further supports the
finding that the variance would not be injurious to nearby properties or
improvements (Exhibits 7 and 8). Additionally, the proposed deck would not
negatively affect the character of the neighborhood, as it aligns with the
established development patterns in the area. Staff concludes that granting the
variance would not harm public welfare or neighboring properties within the R-6
zone. To ensure minimal impact on the surrounding area, staff recommends a
condition of approval, that the applicant’s deck replacement project maintain a
minimum 20-foot (20’) rear yard setback and remain uncovered to ensure
minimal impact on surrounding properties.
✓
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is situated.
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that there are many homes on N 36th St
with structures and decks that encroach into the 25-foot (25’) rear yard setback.
The applicant further contends that approval of the variance would not be
considered a special privilege as many structures in the vicinity already
encroach into the current 25-foot (25’) rear yard setback applicable to the R-6
zone. The applicant maintains that the proposed deck is essential to their daily
life, serving as an important space with value beyond its cost or potential resale
value. The applicant contends that granting the variance would allow them to
use their property in a similar way to other homes in the neighborhood while
staying within the typical range of encroachments and would enable them to use
their home in a way that is important to their family, similar to other properties in
the vicinity, without negatively impacting their neighbors (Exhibit 6).
Staff has reviewed the applicant’s justification and concurs with the applicant
that granting the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent
with other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning designation. Prior
to the R-6 rezone, many homes on N 36th St, as well as other properties in the
surrounding area, include structures and decks that encroach into the current
25-foot (25’) rear yard setback. The proposed deck replacement would align with
this established development pattern and would not introduce a unique or
privileged situation for the applicant. Furthermore, granting the variance request
would allow the applicant to use their property in a manner that is similar to other
properties in the neighborhood, including the opportunity for ingress and egress
into and out of the existing house to the backyard. As a result, staff concludes
that granting the variance would not create a special privilege but would enable
the applicant to reasonably use their property consistent with other properties in
the vicinity.
✓
d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired
purpose.
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the approval of the variance is the
minimum necessary to accomplish their desired purpose. Within the rear yard
setback, the new deck replacement is 47 feet (47’) in length by 10 feet (10’) wide
of the back of the house (Exhibits 2 and 3). As a result, the proposed deck
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 8 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
replacement project would be two feet (2’) wider than the old deck, increasing
the deck’s size slightly from eight feet (8’) wide to 10 feet (10’) wide, and the
length of the deck in the rear yard setback by four feet (4’). The applicant further
contends that the additional two feet (2’) in width is necessary to make the deck
more functional, emphasizing that the additional deck encroachment into the
rear yard setback is not more than is necessary to provide a usable, safe, and
enjoyable outdoor living space. In addition, the proposed deck replacement is
the minimum size necessary to provide the desired functional space without
negatively impacting the surrounding area, meet the applicant’s goals, and not
encroach on side yard setbacks.
Staff reviewed the variance request and concludes that the proposed setback
encroachment and size of the replacement deck would be the minimum
variance necessary to achieve the project goals and provide functional outdoor
space without negatively impacting the surrounding area. Additionally, the deck
replacement is not covered, further minimizing its impact on the surrounding
area. Therefore, the proposed deck replacement project is found to be the
minimum size necessary to achieve the desired purpose of the project.
H. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject site is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan
designation and complies with the goals and policies established for this designation, see FOF 6 and
FOF 14.
2. The subject site is located in the Residential-6 (R-6) zoning designation and complies with the zoning
and development standards established for this designation, provided the applicant complies with
City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 7.
3. The proposed variance application complies with the Critical Areas Regulations, provided the
applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 15.
4. The proposed variance meets the four (4) variance decision criteria to be considered in making a
decision on a variance request as established by City Code, provided the project complies with all
advisory notes and conditions of approval contained herein, see FOF 16.
5. Key characteristics of the project include the construction of an uncovered approximately 726
square foot replacement deck, at the same height as the old deck that was removed, within the
regulated rear yard setback.
I. DECISION:
The Deck Replacement Project Variance, File No. LUA25-000094, V-A, as depicted in Exhibit 2, is approved
and is subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant’s deck replacement project shall maintain a minimum 20-foot (20’) rear yard setback
and shall remain uncovered to ensure minimal impact on surrounding properties.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 9 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date
TRANSMITTED on May 21, 2025 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact:
Owner/Contact: Applicant:
Tom Jarzynka
1110 N 36th St
Renton, WA 98056
tomjarzynka@hotmail.com
Amy Hirsh
1110 N 36th St
Renton, WA 98056
amy_hirsh@hotmail.com
TRANSMITTED via Email on May 21, 2025 to the Parties of Record:
Jonathan Bye Nyle Campbell Don & Leilani Fleming
jon@jonbye.com nylecampbell@gmail.com flemdl@hotmail.com
Libby Green Albert & Becki Kao Kelvin Lank
glibby49@gmail.com anadrmos@gmail.com kelvin.lank@gmail.com
becki.kao@gmail.com
Pamela & Paul Miller Koichi Osada Joyce Segur
pj.miller@comcast.net ko@icejava.com jsegur@msn.com
prmiller@comcast.net
Phillip Ussery
phillip.ussery@me.com
TRANSMITTED on May 21, 2025 to the following:
Gina Estep, CED Administrator
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Director
Stephanie Rary, Property Services Specialist
Clark Close, Current Planning Manager
Nathan Janders, Development Engineering Manager
Anjela Barton, Fire Marshal
J. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION:
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the
decision date.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the
Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on June 4, 2025. An appeal of the decision must be filed within
the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Appeals must be submitted
electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub
Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
5/21/2025 | 1:51 PM PDT
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Deck Replacement Project
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA25-000094, V-A
Report of May 21, 2025 Page 10 of 10
D_Administrative_Variance_LUA25-000094_250520_Final
a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid on the
first floor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and
additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office,
cityclerk@rentonwa.gov.
EXPIRATION: A variance decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A single one (1) year
extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be
reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily
discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After
review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original
decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action
must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)
communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial
decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval
date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this
permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly
rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by
the Court.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Deck Replacement Project
Land Use File Number:
LUA25-000094, V-A LUA25-000094, V-A
Date of Report
May 20, 2025
Staff Contact
Clark H. Close
Current Planning Manager
Project
Owner/Contact
Tom Jarzynka
1110 N 36th St
Renton, WA 98056
Project Location
1110 N 36th St
Renton, WA 98056
(APN 3342103090)
The following exhibits are included with the Administrative report:
Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Existing Site Plan Map
Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Detail Maps
Exhibit 5: Project Narrative
Exhibit 6: Variance Request Justification
Exhibit 7: Public Comments from Jonathan Bye, Nyle Campbell, Don & Leilani Fleming, Libby
Green, Albert & Becki Kao, Kelvin Lank, Pamela & Paul Miller, Koichi Osada, Joyce
Segur, and Phillip Ussery
Exhibit 8: Staff Response to Public Comments
Exhibit 9: Owner’s Comment
Exhibit 10: Advisory Notes
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E2B55F3-6ADA-4562-8508-5633F3BBE391