17 <br />planning commission and respondents' description and <br />understanding of the comments and the evidence provided in them <br />regarding whether the PUD satisfies the applicable criteria is the <br />accurate one. It is also evidence that a reasonable person would <br />rely on in reaching a decision. City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor <br />and Industries, 298 Or 104, 119, 690 P2d 475 (1984)." LUBA <br />Rec. 35-36; Slip op. 33-34 (footnote omitted). <br />As explained above, this Court may only remand LUBA's substantial <br />evidence determination if it concludes that LUBA misunderstood or misapplied <br />the substantial evidence standard. Younger v. City of Portland, supra; Citizens <br />for Responsibility v. Lane County, supra; see also Root v. Klamath County, 260 <br />Or App 665, 320 P3d 631 (2014); Gould v. Deschutes County, 233 Or App 623, <br />227 P3d 758 (2010). Petitioners have presented no argument that would <br />support such a conclusion. Neither have Petitioners even attempted to <br />demonstrate that this is a case where (1) "no evidence" supports the City's <br />findings or (2) the evidence is "so at odds" with the City's findings that the <br />Court can infer that LUBA misunderstood or misapplied its standard of review. <br />LUBA correctly explained its understanding that its task was to assess whether <br />the evidence in the record was "evidence that a reasonable person would rely on <br />in reaching a decision." LUBA understood the substantial evidence standard, <br />correctly applied its standard of review, and its determination cannot be <br />disturbed by this Court. <br />