19 <br />as well as any legislative history offered by the parties, to determine the intent <br />of the City Council in adopting the provision at issue. <br />In addition, this Court has made clear that local governments must <br />specifically articulate its findings and explain how it reached its decision. 1000 <br />Friends of Oregon v. Metro, 174 Or App 406, 410, 26 P3d 151 (2001). If the <br />City has not specifically articulated and explained its findings, it is not the <br />Court's function to "make assumptions and draw inferences from other portions <br />of the local government's findings in order to surmise what the local <br />government's decision really was." Id., at 411. As the Supreme Court noted <br />some time ago: <br />"We wish to make it clear that by insisting on adequate findings of <br />fact we are not simply imposing legalistic notions of proper form, <br />or setting an empty exercise for local governments to follow. No <br />particular form is required, and no magic words need be employed. <br />What is needed for adequate judicial review is a clear statement of <br />what, specifically, the decision-making body believes, after <br />hearing and considering all the evidence, to be the relevant and <br />important facts upon which its decision is based. Conclusions are <br />not sufficient." <br />Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 21, 569 P2d 1063 <br />(1977); see also Martin v. Board ofParole, 327 Or 147, 157, 957 P2d 1210 <br />(1998). <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />