I We reiterate that the scope of our review is not to reexamine evidence or the strength of <br />2 that evidence but rather review to ensure that LUBA understood and applied the <br />3 substantial evidence standard correctly. Here, LUBA understood the city to assert <br />4 another explanation for its projected employment-based land need. The city responded <br />5 that it was not "double-counting" employment needs or jobs that had already been <br />6 accounted for in the REA. The city's calculation anticipated a different source of jobs-- <br />7 jobs that had not already been included in the EOA. LUBA concluded that Land Watch <br />8 did not demonstrate that the calculations reflected the error that Land Watch had asserted. <br />9 Under our standard of review, we conclude that LUBA did not misapply the substantial <br />10 evidence standard. <br />11 For all those reasons, we affirm as to the petition and cross-petition. <br />12 Affirmed on petition and cross-petition. <br />18 <br />