APPLICANT ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT (1 of 2)

proposed Alder Apartments. While at first blush it might make sense to combine various phases of the same subdivision Pennington Acres Phase 1 and Pennington Acres Phase 2 in determining the traffic impact on the area, as staff pointed out that does not seem to make as much sense if a larger parcel was split up into numerous different lots with numerous different owners be required to obtain TIA approval, which does not seem to make sense. The plain language of EC h staff and the applicant that the plain meaning 8 seem to add language to the code provision that is not there. s argument provides a more defined way to determine what development must be included, I believe it suffers from the argument in that it adds language to the code provision that is not a land divis I believe this clearly refers to the application at issue and whether that application involves a land division for the proposed development. Essentially all property was subject to a land division at annexation may make some sense, there is certainly nothing in the code provision that suggests the time of annexation has anything to do with the analysis. Furthermore, EC 9.8670(1) refers to language. The code provision is contemplating future development that will occur on additional lots being created by the application at issue that do not yet exist. Such prospective language would be out of place if previous development should also be considered. I agree with staff and the division in the application at issue - not property that was involved in a land division since it was annexed into the City. Although not necessary to resolve the issue in this appeal, in response to opponent arguments that applicants could avoid the requirements of a TIA, even for enormous developments, by developing a series of smaller subdivisions that fall just under the triggers for 8 As discussed later, the way to analyze multiple phases would be to require the TIA during the first phase. Hearings Official Decision (SR 17-2) 8