I prepared in support of petitioner's challenge.ll <br />2 In answer to this aspect of the petition, respondents <br />3 direct our attention to findings made by the city concerning <br />4 the waste water issue and also to a half-page document in the <br />S record entitled "waste water." This exhibit is unsigned. It <br />6 appears as an attachment to a planning staff report. ]record at <br />7 119. Clearly, the findings themselves do not constitute <br />8 evidence. On the other hand, the exhibit is evidence. <br />9 however, standing alone, this evidence doe; not support the <br />10 findings summarized above. <br />11 The "waste water" exhibit contains some data pertaining to <br />12 Permawood's proposal for waste water discharge, but it does not <br />13 describe the direct discharge system referred to in the <br />14 findings, identify the chemical. content of the waste water or <br />15 discuss the question of thermal pollution. Moreover, we find <br />16 no indication of the author or source of this document, making <br />17 it impossible for us to determine whether it meets the <br />18 substantial evidence test. There may well be other evidence in <br />19 the record pertaining to this aspect of the petition, or <br />20 elaborating on the material contained in the cited exhibit, but <br />21 respondents have not brought such material to our attention. <br />22 For the above reason, we must sustain petitioner's <br />23 challenge under 511. 040 (.l.) of the development code„ 12 <br />24 2. Consideration of Special Site Features <br />25 The site plaid criteria include a requirement that "any <br />26 special features of the site (such as topography, hazards, <br />Page 20 <br />