Brochure 3 in Findings Series

Identify of the Facts Which Were Believed and Relied upon by the Decision Maker(s)

Facts Which Were Believed And Relied Upon By Decision Maker(s)

Findings Must:

1. Identify of the relevant approval standards (i.e., standards and criteria).

2. Identify of the facts which were believed and relied upon by the decision maker(s).

3. Explain how those facts lead to the conclusion that the standards are, or are not, satisfied.

4. Respond to specific issues relevant to compliance with applicable approval standards and criteria that were raised by citizens in the proceedings.

Substantial Evidence

LUBA will remand a decision that is not "supported by substantial evidence in the whole record."2 This means that LUBA will send a decision back to the local government if:

1. there was virtually no evidence to support the decision, or

2. the supporting evidence was so undermined by other evidence that it was unreasonable for the local government to decide as it did.3

Land use decisions often involve valid evidence both for and against a given proposal. It is up to the local government, and not LUBA, to decide which evidence deserves more weight in these cases.4 Likewise, evidence may be subject to more than one legitimate interpretation, in which case a reasonable interpretation by the local government controls.5

More Information

The local government has freedom to base its decision on one side’s reliable evidence, even if that evidence has been controverted by the other side. But it cannot rely on unsupported assertions to justify a decision.6 If conflicting evidence directly and credibly undermines evidence relied upon to support a decision, the final decision should explain why the evidence is still adequate to support the decision.7

It is very frustrating when you know the other side’s evidence is inaccurate or misleading, but you don’t have the resources to engage in a "battle of the experts." Even if you did have the resources, there is no guarantee you will win the battle. Evidence in support of a proposal may be challenged by a much greater amount of evidence in opposition, and still the local government can often base its decision on supporting evidence without being overturned.

Would you like to learn more about citizen involvement in land use planning? Contact a member of the Land Use Committee of the Hugo Neighborhood.

Land Use Advisor

Jim Just, Executive Director

Goal One Coalition

39625 Almen Drive

Lebanon OR 97355

541-258-6074

Footnotes

1. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 2003. Land Use Decisions: What Are Findings?. Brochure 1 in Findings Series. Grants Pass, OR.

2. OAR 661-010-0071(2)(b); OAR 661-010-0073(2)(b); ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C); ORS 197.828(2)(a).

3. Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 752 P.2d 262 (1988); Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 855 P2d 608 (1993).

4. Stefan v. Yamhill County, 18 Or LUBA 820, 838 (1990); Boumon v. Jackson County, 23 Or LUBA 628, 641 (1992); Harwood v. Lane County, 23 Or LUBA 191 (1992).

5. Dority v. Clackamas County, 23 Or LUBA 384, 388, aff’d 115 Or. App. 449, 838 P2d 1103 (1992), rev. den. 315 Or 311 (1993); McInnis v. City of Portland, 25 Or LUBA 376 (1993).

6. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 405-406, 752 P2d 271 (1988).