<br />Staff Report on Appeal MAJ Eugene Polk Street (TIA 21-2 and ARA 21-14) Page 8 of 18 <br /> <br />has also provided a detailed analysis of where each of the TIA requirements are located in the <br />application (see Attachment J). <br /> <br />Appeal Issue 6: The evaluation does not ensure that needed facilities to accommodate traffic <br />impacts will be provided <br /> <br />Summary of Appellant’s Argument <br />The sixth issue states that the application, and Director’s incomplete evaluation of it, do not <br />ensure that the development will provide the facilities necessary to accommodate the traffic <br />impact as required by EC 9.8650. This appeal issue includes six specific sub-issues: <br /> <br />a. The Director didn’t address future bike lanes between West 7 th Avenue and West 8th <br />Avenue along Polk Street. Appellant asserts there may be potential impacts with the <br />reconfigured access to the proposed development and the future bike lane. <br /> <br />b. Assertion that the Director agreed to a project scope that did not include the four-way <br />stop at West 8th Avenue and Polk Street, which could be impacted by the new <br />development. <br /> <br />c. The Director does not cite evidence in the December application documenting why <br />there is agreement with the applicant’s pass-by trip reduction. <br /> <br />d. The Director does not cite evidence in the December application documenting why <br />there is agreement with the applicant’s reduction for the previous use. <br /> <br />e. The Director asserts that the applicant’s engineer analyzed all intersections in the study <br />area but doesn’t address the insufficiency of the project scoping. <br /> <br />f. The Director did not address both requirements of EC 9.8680. The findings only state <br />that the traffic analysis demonstrates that the transportation system can accommodate <br />the traffic and will operate above the required minimum level of service. <br /> <br />Planning Director’s Decision <br />Regarding sub-issues a. and b., the Planning Director’s decision did not directly address these <br />issues. <br /> <br />Regarding sub-issue c., the Planning Director’s decision agrees with the applicant’s analysis of the <br />pass-by trips in the middle of page 7. <br /> <br />Regarding sub-issue d., the Planning Director’s decision agrees with the applicant’s analysis of the <br />reduction of the previous use on page 8. <br /> <br />Regarding sub-issue e., the Planning Director’s decision references the scoping topic in comments <br />2 and 6 on page 5, bottom of page 6, middle of page 7, and the bottom of page 8. <br />