I determination this criterion was satisfied is not supported by <br />2 substantial evidence. In particular, petitioner charges the <br />3 record does not include evidence demonstrating that toxic <br />4 substances, such as cement, could be safely contained on the <br />S site. Petitioner identifies a number of ways in which <br />6 pollutants from Permawood's operation could contaminate the <br />17 <br />7 rivet and adjacent lands as well as the city's sewer system. <br />A in answer to this claim, respondents again direct our <br />q attention to findings made by the city. The findings are <br />10 extensive and they address many of petitioner's concerns under <br />11 §13.130(5). Record at 19-°24, 33..35, 37-38. However, <br />12 petitioner's claim is that the findings are not supported by <br />13 substantial evidence. Respondents refl us the record contains <br />14 the necessary evidence. However, they do not provide specific <br />15 references to where this evidence may be located in the <br />16 record. We note the findings themselves also claim evidentiary <br />17 support in the record, but they too fail to contain specific <br />18 references to where the evidence may be found. <br />Under the circumst:ances, we must sustain petitioner's <br />19 20 challenge under §13.130(5) on grounds t.hat substantial evidence <br />21 does not support the city's decision. 18 City of Salem v. <br />22 Families for ~Responsible Government, supra. <br />23 c. Preservation of Flood Plains and Wetlands <br />24 Petitioner next challenges the evidentiary support: in the <br />25 record for the city's determination that 911.130(6) of the code <br />26 was satisfied. That section provides; <br />T' ge 31 <br />