Brochure 5 in Findings Series

Where There Is Focused Testimony Raising Legitimate Concerns about Compliance with a Relevant Approval Criterion, the Local Government’s Findings must Address Such Concerns

Must Address Relevant Issues Raised By Public

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.

5. State that the approval standards are met or that compliance is feasible and impose conditions that will ensure compliance.

This brochure is one of several in the "findings" series 1.

LUBA Opinions

LUBA has held on many occasions that when the public raises legitimate issues in a quasi-judicial land use proceeding concerning a relevant approval criterion, a local government’s findings must address such issues. If it does not LUBA may remand back to the local government.

• Knight v. City of Eugene, 41, Or LUBA 279 (2002)

• Boly v. City of Portland, 40 Or LUBA 537 (2001)

• Dayton Prairie Water Assoc. v. Yamhill County, 38 Or LUBA 14 (2000)

• Wood v. Crook County, 36 Or LUBA 143 (1999)

• Doob v. City of Grants Pass, LUBA No. 98-006 (1998)

• Rouse v. Tillamook County, 34 Or LUBA 530 (1998)

• Port Dock Four, Inc. v. City of Newport, 33 Or LUBA 613 (1997)

• Harcourt v. Marion County, LUBA No. 97-028 (1997)

• Thomas v. Wasco County, 30 Or LUBA 302 (1996)

• Le Roux v. Malheur County, 30 Or LUBA 268 (1995)

• Moore v. Clackamas County, 29 Or LUBA 372 (1995)

• Suydam v.Deschutes County, 29 Or LUBA 273, aff’s 136 Or App 548 (1995)

• McKenzie v. Multnomah County, 27 Or LUBA 523 (1994)

• Eppich v. Clackamas County, 26 Or LUBA 498, 507-08 n4 (1994)

• Gage v. City of Portland, 123 Or App 269, ___ P2d ___, adhered to 125 Or App 119 (1993)

• Eskandarian v. City of Portland, LUBA No. 93-012, October 15, 1993

• Angel v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 649, 656-57, aff’d 113 Or App 169, 831 P2d 77 (1992)

• Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551 (1992)

• Blosser v. Yamhill, 18 Or LUNA 253, 264 (1989)

• McCoy v. Linn County, 16 Or LUBA 295 (1987), aff’d 90 Or App 271, 752 P2d 323 (1988)

• Ash Creek Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Portland, 12 Or LUBA 230, 236-38 (1984)

• Hillcrest Vineyard v. Bd. Of Comm. Douglas Co., 45 Or App 285 (1980)

• City of Wood Village v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 48 Or App 79 (1980)

• Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 849, 853, 604 P2d 896 (1979)

• Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 279 Or 249, 566 P2d 1193 (1977)

Boly v. City of Portland, 40 Or LUBA 537 (2001)

We have explained that "[w]here there is focused testimony raising legitimate concerns about compliance with a relevant approval criterion, the [local government’s] findings must address such concerns." See Neighbors for Livability v. City of Beaverton, 37 Or LUBA 408, 429-30 (1999) (citing Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 849, 853, 604 P2d 896 (1979) and White v. City of Oregon City, 20 Or LUBA 470, 477 (1991).

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