<br />Staff Report on Appeal MAJ Eugene Polk Street (TIA 21-2 and ARA 21-14) Page 2 of 18 <br /> <br />For ease of reference, the issues as the appellants assert have been kept in the same order as they <br />appear in the written appeal statement: <br /> <br />1. December 16, 2021 public notice did not meet statutory requirements. <br /> <br />2. Applicable development standards were ignored. <br /> <br />3. No citing of specific evidence that all TIA requirements were met. <br /> <br />4. Public Works referral comments referenced but not in the record. <br /> <br />5. Only conclusory statements provided for TIA General Application Requirements. <br /> <br />6. The evaluation does not ensure that needed facilities to accommodate traffic impacts will <br />be provided. <br /> <br />7. Missing elements of the TIA report were ignored. <br /> <br />8. Adjustment evaluation is flawed. <br /> <br />a. Adjustment #1 – The decision does not provide sufficient findings or quantitative <br />measures to approve an adjustment for a 7 th Avenue access within the minimum 250-foot <br />influence area from 7th Avenue and Polk Street. <br /> <br />b. Adjustment #2 – The decision does not provide proper analysis and findings to approve <br />the adjustment to the 200-foot major arterial access connection spacing along West 7 th <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />c. Adjustment #3 – The decision misconstrues and misapplies EC 9.8030(28)(a) regarding <br />the proposed access to the site from West 7th Avenue. <br /> <br />d. Adjustment #4 – The decision approves an adjustment to the 50-foot internal stacking <br />area without proper analysis of the impacts. <br /> <br />9. Dismissal of Traffic Engineer Massoud Saberian’s analysis is not based on substantial <br />evidence. <br /> <br />10. Issues in previous testimony not specifically raised in Appeal Statement are issues. <br /> <br />Based on the arguments in the appeal statement, the appellant asserts that the Planning Director’s <br />decision should be reversed, and the applications denied. <br /> <br />In accordance with EC 9.7615, public notice of the March 2, 2022 appeal hearing was mailed on <br />February 10, 2022. A second notice was sent on February 14, 2022 to clarify that the March 2, <br />2022 meeting is a “de novo” hearing and allows additional issues and information to be added to