I In sum, we agree with petitioner that the city's action in rejecting the CIR-CUP <br />2 application is not authorized by its code and is inconsistent with the city's statutory <br />3 obligations under ORS 227.175 and 227.178. <br />4 The first assignment of error is sustained, in part.7 <br />5 SECOND ASSN NT OF ERROR <br />6 In a December 10, 2002 order, the Board resolved petitioner's record objections, <br />7 sustaining some of those objections and denying others. The order also denied a contingent <br />8 motion to take evidence outside the record, in order to establish by deposition exactly what <br />9 documents were placed before the planning director. Petitioner's overarching record <br />10 objection was that the city had failed to establish that any document in the record, other than <br />11 the September 13, 2002 letter, was "placed before" the planning director, and thus properly <br />12 in the record. OAR 661-010-0025(1)(b). We rejected that overarching argument, but <br />13 sustained petitioners objection with respect to certain documents that the city made no effort <br />14 to show were placed before the planning director. <br />15 In the second assignment of error, petitioner renews its objections to the record, and <br />16 argues that the Board should reconsider the portion of our December 10, 2002 order that <br />17 denied petitioner's objections. Petitioner also renews its contingent motion to take evidence <br />18 outside the record.. Petitioner argues that, if the Board reconsiders its order and sustains <br />19 petitioner's overarching objection, then there is no evidence at all supporting the planning <br />20 director's decision, and thus that decision must be remanded for that additional reason. <br />21 Even assuming that petitioner's request for reconsideration of our December 10, 2002 <br />22 order is timely and properly asserted in an assignment of error, petitioner offers no <br />23 substantial reason to reconsider our ruling. Accordingly, we reject that request, as well as <br />The city's brief does not respond to petitioner's arguments under ORS 197.307(6). Given our disposition <br />of the first assignment of error on other grounds, we do not reach or resolve those arguments. <br />Page 12 <br />