G <br />S <br />, G A R V E Y S C H U B E R T B A R E R <br />3 <br />B34 <br />two criteria of EC 9.8865(1) and (2) are satisfied based on the commissioners' independent reading and <br />interpretation of the applicable standards. <br />Burden of Proof <br />The applicant has the burden of proving, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the applicable <br />approval criteria are met. Fasano v. Board of County Comm'rs, 264. Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973), <br />overruled on other grounds, 288 or 585 (1980). <br />This burden applies throughout the entire local decision-making and appeal process. Strawn v. City of <br />Albany, 20 Or LUBA 344, 350 (1990). <br />It is the applicant, and now the Planning Commission in their decision, who must provide a convincing <br />and coherent explanation that leads from the facts present to the conclusions contained within the <br />decision. South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Board of Comm'rs, 280 Or 3, 20-21, 569 P2d <br />1063 (1977). This includes a clear articulation of the facts and the legal conclusions upon which the <br />Planning Commission decision is based. <br />The Planning Commissioners should always have in mind during their deliberations on this appeal that it <br />is the applicant (not the appellant) who must provide sufficient evidence and argument to prove that <br />Ordinance No. 19855, which adopted the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) and the Willakenzie Land Use <br />Diagram (WLUD), does not determine this case. The WAP and WLUD were acknowledged as consistent <br />with the Metro Plan; and not only did the WLUD designate the subject property as Low Density <br />Residential , but also two WAP policies specifically required maintaining the low-density character and <br />use of the subject property. Neither the applicant, nor the City, nor the Hearings Official have yet <br />provided an explanation that warrants disregarding the effects of Ordinance No. 19855, particularly given <br />the ordinance (and WAP) text, diagrams and maps, as well as the context (e.g., the directions on the 1987 <br />Metro Plan Plan Diagram and the acknowledged ordinance findings that the WAP and WLUD are <br />consistent with the Metro Plan. <br />Additional considerations apply to zone changes, such as this case. Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm. <br />requires that: <br />the burden of proof should be placed, as is usual in judicial proceedings, upon the <br />one seeking change. The more drastic the change [allowed by a zone change], the greater <br />will be the burden of showing that it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan as <br />implemented by the ordinance * * * As the degree of change increases, the burden of <br />showing that the potential impact upon the area in question was carefully considered and <br />weighed will also increase. * * * As the potential impact on the area in question increases, <br />so will the necessity to show a justification." 264 Or. at 586, 507 P2d 23. <br />The requested medium-density zone allows a "drastic" increase in allowable density (doubling from 14 to <br />28 dwelling units per acre) and the number of dwellings on the lot (from the current one to 27 or 28), as <br />well as a significant increase in allowable building height (from 30 to 35 feet), loss of open space, <br />increase in traffic and so forth. Consequently the commissioners must place a substantial burden on the <br />applicant to prove that the zone is consistent with comprehensive plan provisions. <br />-24- <br />