1 adjustment to allow one of the four buildings, Building 2, to be built to 131 feet <br />2 in length based upon a finding that Lombard Apartments proposal "provides <br />3 evidence of articulation, multiple building entrances, private patios, and decks." <br />4 Record 30. <br />5 In the fourth assignment of error, petitioners argue that the planning <br />6 commission's findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. <br />7 Petitioners argue that the above-referenced architectural features are not depicted <br />8 in the building elevations and, thus, the city's finding is not supported by <br />9 substantial evidence. Petitioners also argue that those architectural features are <br />10 common to all four buildings in the development. <br />11 The city relied on Lombard's adjustment review application narrative, <br />12 which described architectural features for Building 2. Record 384-85. Lombard's <br />13 application narrative constitutes substantial evidence upon which a reasonable <br />14 person would rely. Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 360, 752 P2d 262 <br />15 (1988) (setting out substantial evidence standard). The fact that other buildings <br />"(a) Maximum Building Dimension. The requirements set <br />forth in EC 9.5500(6)(a) may be adjusted if the <br />proposal creates building massing and/or facades that: <br />"1. Create a vibrant street facade with visual detail. <br />"2. Provide multiple entrances to building or yards." <br />(Boldface and underscoring in original.) <br />Page 22 <br />