Applicant Final Argument (3-17-17)

Mr. Fred Wilson March 17, 2017 Page 3 to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings authority shall reopen the record pursuant to subsection (7) of this section." (emphasis added) Thus, between the seven day period and the 14 day period, a person may submit evidence responding to evidence submitted during the first seven day period. That is not a time to submit evidence responding anything submitted prior to or at the hearing. It is also not a time to submit evidence responding to anything that was submitted early during the second seven day period. All or part of three submissions by opponents on the 14th day violate this limitation and should be stricken or disregarded. The 14 day submission by James Brock should be stricken, with the exception of the third paragraph on page one. That single paragraph responds to the seven day submission of Sandow Engineering; hence it is in the scope of what is allowed in the second seven day period. The balance is all material that could have been submitted at the hearing or in the first seven day submittal, or includes new evidence that is not allowed. The 14-day submittal by Mr. Fodor, dated March 15, also contains material that should be stricken. Section 5 on page 6 of this document contains material that should been submitted at the hearing. It is not responsive to any seven day submittal. The 14 day submittal of Mr. Collinge dated March 15 should be stricken because it is responsive to the 14 day submittal of Jon Lauch, which was dated March 14. A 14-day submittal filed early cannot be the target of another party's 14-day submittal. B. Substantive Issues There should be an order to this decision that starts at a pretty high level and then, in answering a series of questions, eventually moves down into the detailed nuances of traffic engineering. The applicant believes the inquiry should end at a fairly high level, with the Hearing Official affirming the Director's decision. The logical order of the questions should be: 1. Is a TIA requirement relevant to allowing this use, which is permitted outright by the code? 2. If the TIA approval is required to allow this use: (a) Is the City prohibited from applying the TIA Rule it because it is not an acknowledged land use regulation? (b) Is the TIA Rule a source of substantive standards for this decision, or is it just an information requirement that is not relevant at this juncture?