Staff Report on Appeal - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff Report on Appeal MAJ Eugene Polk Street (TIA 21-2 and ARA 21-14) Page 7 of 18 Appeal Issue 4: Public Works referral comments referenced but not in the record Summary of Appellant’s Argument The fourth appeal issue finds fault that the decision mentions Public Works referral comments without citing a specific document in the record. Also, that the referral documents do not appear on the City’s website or in documents provided in staff’s email responses to Paul Conte’s information requests. Planning Director’s Decision Referral comments from Public Works are referenced on page 4 of the decision. Public Works staff provided comments on Traffic Engineer Massoud Saberian’s testimony enumerating 13 deficiencies in the TIA application. Applicable referral comments are incorporated into the decision. Additional Comments on Appeal The Public Works referral comments were placed in the official paper record upon receipt by Planning staff. The two documents, one each from Doug Singer and Michele Wilcox, are both dated January 20, 2021 and are now available on the City’s website. The applicant’s attorney states in part on page 4 of his letter, and staff concurs, that this is a procedural argument that is fully cured by the de novo appeal hearing since the comments are in the Planning Director decision, so the appellant can raise any substantive issues with the comments in their appeal. Further, the Public Works comments are set forth in the Planning Director decision, which itself is substantial evidence the Hearing Official can rely on in reaching a decision on the appeal. Finally, the source documents for these Public Works comments are in the record and are or will be available on the City’s website more than seven days prior to the hearing. Appeal Issue 5: Only conclusory statements provided for TIA General Application Requirements Summary of Appellant’s Argument The fifth appeal issue raised is similar to Issue 3. It states that the Director provided nothing but conclusory statements of conformance with EC 9.8675. This land use code section is tied to the City’s Administrative Order No. 58-02-02-F which establishes Administrative Rule R-9.8650, including TIA application requirements at R-9.8650-F (see Attachment H). Planning Director’s Decision Please see summary under Appeal Issue 3 above. Additional Comments on Appeal It is unclear how this issue is substantially different then Issue 3. The appellant provides the text of EC 9.8675 and the Director’s language addressing the code section. Public Works staff reviewed the application in detail to confirm that all requirements were met. The applicant’s traffic engineer