Root v. Klamath County

To reverse a LUBA decision, the evidence must be so at odds with LUBA's evaluation that it is reasonable to infer that LUBA either misunderstood or misapplied its scope of review.

Root appealed a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) final order, which affirmed an amendment to Klamath County’s comprehensive plan and zoning maps. JWTR, LLC owns land in Klamath Country, where it seeks approval to build a destination resort. To address concerns that the proposed zoning map would affect an inventoried Goal 5 resource the county excluded land from the proposed map to avoid a conflict. The county also conducted a more extensive analysis of the potential impact to off-site Goal 5 resources. To address compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule, the county adopted a condition that no new uses are allowed and that this decision does not significantly affect any transportation facility. The Court cannot reverse LUBA’s decision unless the evidence is so at odds with their evaluation that the Court could then infer that LUBA either misunderstood or misapplied its scope of review. The Court held that LUBA correctly applied the substantial-evidence standard and did not err in rejecting the petitioners’ challenge to the county’s Goal 5 analysis, but did err when it rejected as premature Root’s challenge to the county’s determination that the amendment would not affect a transportation facility. Reversed in part and remanded; otherwise affirmed.