Watts v. City of Tualatin

(1) LUBA reviews only the local government’s final written decision and not what individual parties, staff, or members of the decision making body stated during the proceedings. (2) In reviewing a substantial evidence challenge, LUBA's role is not to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine if a reasonable person, viewing the whole record, could reach the conclusion that the decision maker reached.

In 2011, two cities, a county, and Metro entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) providing that they would agree on a concept plan for an unincorporated area before the cities could annex and develop it. By 2015, the cities agreed that they would designate their respective portions of the area for industrial uses. On receiving testimony from petitioner, however, the city at issue changed its designation to residential, leading to a stalemate between the cities. In 2017, the cities asked Metro to arbitrate their dispute and entered into another IGA in which they agreed to be bound by Metro’s decision. In 2018, Metro decided that the area should be designated for employment. In turn, the city at issue zoned the area Manufacturing Park (MP). This appeal followed.

Petitioner argues that the city’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record because three city councilors improperly based their decision on their belief that they were required to follow Metro’s recommendation for industrial zoning. Because petitioner does not challenge the city’s findings regarding compliance with applicable criteria, and because LUBA reviews only the local government’s final written decision and not what individual parties, staff, or members of the decision making body stated during the proceedings, LUBA agrees with respondents that the statements of three city councilors (made two weeks before the city council's final vote to adopt the Ordinance and findings) do not provide a basis to reverse or remand the city’s decision and, therefore, the first assignment of error is denied.

In the second assignment of error, petitioner argues the city’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Because Metro’s previous Urban Growth Boundary decision stated that industrial land should generally have slopes of less than 10 percent, because the city’s decision leaves the city with almost 600 fewer housing units than was anticipated by Metro’s prior housing need projection, and because a prior federal housing need projection and Metro’s buildable lands inventory are evidence that the city should have applied residential zoning, petitioner argues the city should designate the area as residential. Because LUBA’s role is not to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine if a reasonable person, viewing the whole record, could reach the conclusion that the decision maker reached, and because the choice between conflicting evidence belongs to the local government, LUBA agrees with respondents that petitioner failed to established that the city’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The second assignment of error is therefore denied and the city’s decision is AFFIRMED.