Unfortunately, although the proper legal perspective of a commissioner regarding an <br />appeal should be clear, in most of the cases I've observed, commissioners do not follow these <br />principles. Part of commissioners' misunderstanding probably stems from the poor choice of <br />words found in EC 9.7680: <br />EC 9.7680 Decision.... Before reversing the decision, or before changing any of the <br />conditions of the hearings official or historic review board, the planning commission <br />shall make findings of fact as to why the hearings official or the historic review board <br />failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with applicable <br />criteria. <br />I've heard commissioners say, to the effect: "I don't agree with the Hearings Official's opinion, <br />but I cant find a specific error that he made." But note that the word "error" doesn't even <br />appear in EC 9.7680. <br />This type of reaction by a commissioner reflects a different "standard of review," which is <br />not applicable to Planning Commissioners regarding a local appeal. This more restrictive <br />standard of review applies, for example, when LUBA handles an appeal of a decision by elected <br />officials. In that case, LUBA must give deference to the elected officials and can only find the <br />officials "erred" if the officials made a decision that flat out contradicts the law or which no <br />reasonable person would have made, based on the evidence. <br />So, even when a commissioner believes the Hearings Official made a reasonable finding, <br />if the commissioner doesn't think the Hearings Official made the right finding, the <br />commissioner must act on what the commissioner himself or herself believes is the right <br />finding. Basically, all a commissioner needs to explain is why he or she believes a particular <br />finding is the right finding, in order to explain why he or she believes the Hearings Official <br />"failed to properly evaluate the application." The word "properly" here does not mean <br />"reasonably," it means "correctly," in the commissioner's mind. <br />Please do not misunderstand your proper "standard of review" in this local appeal. <br />Adequate findings <br />The previous two subjects dealt with somewhat abstract concepts, but ultimately the Planning <br />Commission must commit its judgements to writing and state "findings" for each decision <br />regarding an approval criterion that's subject of the appeal. <br />There are strict, although not burdensome, requirements for findings. Commissioners <br />should pay close attention to what's required because many remands from LUBA are based on <br />"inadequate findings." The Oregon Supreme Court has found that: <br />"we must require that [the decision-making body's] order clearly and precisely state <br />what it found to be the facts and fully explain why those facts lead it to the decision it <br />makes." (Emphasis added) <br />Note the words "clearly," "precisely" and "fully." Additionally, the Supreme Court described <br />its requirement for adequate findings of fact by local governments as follows: <br />Conte Appeal Testimony - Legal Instructions PDT 13-1 Page 4 April 19, 2017 <br />