APPEAL STATEMENT <br />TIA 21-2 and ARA 21-14MAJ EUGENE POLK STREET <br />The Planning Director failed to provide adequate findings, made unsupported and erroneous <br />conclusions, and misinterpreted the applicable laws. Accordingly, both decisions must be <br />reversed, and the applications denied. <br />Standing <br />Staff has produced no formal record for these proceedings; however, appellant provided <br />written testimony in an email to Mike McKerrow on Wednesday, December 29, 2021, <br />at 9:37 AM and other occasions. Appellant has standing. <br />Standard of review <br />Notwithstanding EC 9.7605(3), which conflicts with state law, the Traffic Impact Analysis and <br />Adjustment Review (collectively, the “MAC Applications”) are applications for permits as <br />defined in ORS Chapter 227; and this appeal of the planning director’s decisions is not limited to <br />the issues raised in the following appeal statement. (EC 9.7065 Quasi-Judicial Hearings- <br />Procedures. (1) … Where these procedures conflict with requirements of state law, state law <br />shall prevail.) <br />As a de novo hearing for the City’s Final Decision, the burden remains on the Applicant. <br />EC 9.7085 Quasi-Judicial Hearings- Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is upon th e <br />applicant. A decision to resolve the issues presented shall be based upon reliable, <br />probative, and substantial evidence in the record. <br />As outlined below, the Planning Director failed to meet the requirements for reliable, <br />probative, and substantial evidence in the record to resolve issues raised in opponents of the <br />MAC Applications. <br />Notwithstanding EC 9.3670(2), the Hearings Official must determine the correct decision. No <br />deference is due the Planning Director. The Hearings Official is not required by law and must <br />not be bound to finding “error” in the Planning Director’s decision. The Hearings Official <br />(obviously) must consider both the record and new evidence and argument that may warrant <br />different findings and decision, irrespective of whether or not the Planning Director erred. <br />Planning Division staff have not produced the formal record that is required . (EC 9.7605 Filing of <br />Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision (2) * * * The record from the planning director’s <br />proceeding shall be forwarded to the appeal review authority.) Appellants are entitled to the <br />record prior to the commencement of the appeal proceedings. Failure to provide a clear and