Gould v. Deschutes County

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a decision. Dodd v. Hood River County, 855 P.2d 608 (Or. 1993). When reviewing the evidence, LUBA cannot substitute its judgement for that of the local decision-maker but must determine whether a reasonable local decision-maker could reach the decision it did based on the evidence presented. Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988).

Petitioner appealed the County’s approval of a site plan for Overnight Lodging Units (OLU) in a developing Destination Resort. On appeal, Petitioner made three assignments of error, the first of which LUBA focused on: that the County misconstrued three conditions of the Final Master Plan (FMP) and the County’s code, and that there was not substantial evidence to support the Resort’s compliance with those requirements. In response, the Resort, as Intervenor, argued that the conditions required only a showing of compliance with the approved FMP in each stage of planning and that compliance was adequately demonstrated.

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a decision. Dodd v. Hood River County, 855 P.2d 608 (Or. 1993). When reviewing the evidence, LUBA cannot substitute its judgement for that of the local decision-maker but must determine whether a reasonable local decision-maker could reach the decision it did based on the evidence presented. Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988).

LUBA denied Petitioner’s first assignment of error because the language of the conditions and the County code showed they either were not applicable to the OLU site plan approval or, for those that did apply, they did not require proof that Intervenor had taken steps that fully secured all of the rights and permits necessary for the completed OLUs to be in compliance with the FMP. LUBA noted that the relevant conditions served only an informative purpose of demonstrating Intervenor’s ongoing compliance with the approved FMP. LUBA concluded the County had substantial evidence of Intervenor’s compliance to approve the OLU site plans. Affirmed.