I record where such evidence can be located. As we have <br />2 previously said, the findings themselves are not evidence. <br />3 This Board will not pick its way through an extensive record to <br />4 uncover evidence supporting a litigant's position. That task <br />5 is the sole responsibility of the litigant (here, intervenor <br />6 and the city). <br />7 Lased on the foregoing, we hold that substantial evidence <br />8 does not support the city's decision in connection with the <br />9 plan's greenway goal. <br />10 We consider next petitioner's contention under Green.way <br />11 Policy No. 3 of the comprehensive plan. The policy denotes <br />12 recreational and scenic uses as "preferred." Petitioner does <br />13 not contend the policy bars approval of Permawood's industrial <br />14 proposal, but instead claims the city failed to require <br />15 Permawood to dedicate sufficient river-front land to <br />16 recreational use. <br />17 The record indicates a previously issued permit for use of <br />1tfi this site was conditioned on dedication of a 100 foot public <br />19 use easement along the property's river frontage. Evidently, <br />20 the condition was never satisfied. Although Permawood's <br />21 proposal also included a dedication of land for recreational <br />22 use (a bike path) the proposed dedication was not identical to <br />23 the one previously required by the city. 13 Nonetheless, the <br />24 city found the proposal acceptable. Record at 28°-29, 42. <br />25 Petitioner claims the city had no factual, basis on which to <br />26 conclude, as it did, that the land to be dedicated by Permawood <br />Mage 27 <br />