1020 N BROADWAY EVCC STUDENT HOUSING - WHOLE SITE 2022-05-23

64. The Applicant argued that the Appellant witnesses' testimony positing increased crime and noise from ECC students not living in College -supervised housing was speculative. Applicant Briefing. 65. No crime data or any other empirical information regarding crime increases resulting from the construction of new apartment buildings near college campuses was offered in evidence. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: Pursuant to EMC 15.16.090.A.2, the Everett Hearing Examiner has jurisdictional authority to hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions of the Planning Director. Pursuant to EMC 15.24.310.C, the City's Examiner has authority to hear and decide appeals of the City's SEPA Responsible Official's environmental threshold determinations. Criteria and Standards for Review Ap peal of a Type II Decision: Pursuant to EMC 15.24.400, the Hearing Examiner shall affirm, reverse, or remand an administrative determination under appeal. Pursuant to EMC 15.24.370 and .400, the Appellant bears the burden of proof in such appeals. Specific to review of the Planning Director Interpretations, Washington Courts have held that construction of a statute is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. McTavish v. City of Bellevue, 89 Wn. App. 561, 564 (1998). Because municipal ordinances are the equivalent of a statute, they are evaluated under the same rules of construction. McTavish, 89 Wn. App. at 565. When a statute is unambiguous, construction is not necessary and the plain meaning controls. McTavish, 89 Wn. App. at 565. Where a statute is ambiguous, the agency's interpretation is accorded great deference in determining legislative intent. Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 628 (1994). In determining whether an appellant has met the burden of proof, Courts have held that an administrative agency's action is clearly erroneous when it leaves the reviewing [authority] with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Lakeside Industries V. Thurston County, 119 Wn. App. 886, 894 (2004), citing Schofield v. Spokane County, 96 Wn.App 581, 586 (1999). When applying the clearly erroneous standard, the Hearing Examiner must not substitute his or her own judgment for the judgment of the City. See Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). SEPA Appeal The State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW or "SEPA") specifies the environmental review procedures the City must follow for proposals that may have an impact on the environment. RCW 43.21 C. 030(b). The SEPA threshold determination is a determination as to whether a proposal is "likely to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact." Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions in the Everett Comm. College Appeals of Koz Student Housing Administrative Decisions REV II # 17-016, PDI # 15-02, PDI # 18-02, and SEPA # 17-013 Everett Hearing Examiner page 28 of 32