2017 Remand - Public Comment (2)

* * No particular form is required, and no magic words need be employed. What is needed for adequate judicial review is a clear statement of what, specifically, the decision-making body believes, after hearing and considering all the evidence, to be the relevant and important facts upon which its decision is based. * * LUBA has stated: "In addition to their importance to the courts and this Board in review of local govern- ment land use decisions, findings serve an important purpose for the participants in land use proceedings. Adequate findings enable participants to understand the basis for the local government's decision and to determine whether an appeal is warranted. Here are some additional LUBA opinions: "We also note that LUBA has found findings to be inadequate if the findings are simply conclusions that aren't supported by substantial evidence." DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 824. (1988). "Findings are adequate and supported by substantial evidence when the decision maker assembles evidence, identifies the relevant code standard, sets out the evidence found to be persuasive and explains how that evidence led to the decision." Mountain Gate Homeowners v. Washington County, 34 Or LUBA 169 (1998). "Findings are inadequate where a local government's decision makes conclusory statements of compliance with the applicable approval criteria without giving any factual or legal analysis to support the conclusion that the application complies with each of the criteria." Larvik v. City of La Grande, 34 Or LUBA 467 (1998). "Findings made by the City must be supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. ORS 197.835(2)(b). Substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable person would rely on in reaching a decision." Brandt v. Marion County 23 Or LUBA 316, 318 (1992) (citing City of Portland v. Bureau o/Labor and Ind., 298 Or 104,119,690 P2d 475 (1984)). The takeaway from all these opinions is that - if the Planning Commission wants to adopt a decision that will withstand appeals - commissioners must take the time to be sure the decision fully addresses all the issues that have been raised and provides a clear and precise explanation of how evidence was weighed and the reasoning that led to the decision. The common practice of having chaotic discussions during the deliberative period and leaving it to planning staff to essentially write the decision is fraught with problems, as evidenced by what you signed off on in your previous "Revised Final Order." Commissioners need to deliberate in a manner that covers all the issues and carefully evaluates the reliability and weight of the evidence. Cherry-picking a few pieces of testimony, as some commissioners have done in the prior proceedings on this appeal, does not meet the court's legal standard. In the present case, there's a lot of material regarding Oakleigh Lane, but a good bit of it purporting to support the application isn't accurate or reliable and cannot provide the basis for findings that would withstand scrutiny by the courts. The best (worst) example of a grossly Conte Appeal Testimony - Legal Instructions PDT 13-1 Page 5 April 19, 2017