Court Opinion

ID: 9851461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:13:08.743138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:56.800947
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring.
The LUBA order suggests that LUBA may have evaluated the evidence as required by Part II of the majority opinion. However, because there is some question whether LUBA misapplied the substantial evidence test, I concur in the remand to LUBA.
The remand to LUBA does not necessarily require a new hearing. What is required is a reconsideration in light of the rules stated in the majority opinion. If LUBA affirms the City’s decision, on the substantial evidence question, the order should state that LUBA considered all the evidence in the whole record and that the evidence supporting the City’s decision is substantial, after giving full consideration to all the evidence, whether it bolsters or detracts from the evidence supporting the decision.
Jones, J., joins in this concurring opinion.