Michaelson/NWDA v. City of Portland

The scope of LUBA’s review is to look at the whole record which is a direction “to evaluate the substantiality of supporting evidence by considering all the evidence in the record." ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346 (1988).

Petitioner sought review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) order. Petitioner assigned error to LUBA affirming the City of Portland’s decision to grant design review approval and a master plan amendment for a seven-story, mixed-use building. On appeal, Petitioner argued that LUBA erred in evaluating the city’s failure to explicitly address CMP Design Guidelines 4 and 7.B in its better-meets analysis because LUBA relied on findings in the city’s decision not located in the better-meets analysis section of its decision. In response, the City of Portland argued that LUBA was correct in granting the design review approval. The scope of LUBA’s review is to look at the whole record which is a direction “to evaluate the substantiality of supporting evidence by considering all the evidence in the record. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346 (1988). The Court held that LUBA properly understood and applied its scope of review when it considered the city’s findings and explanation in its entirety, “including sections more generally discussing the CMP Design Guidelines.” Affirmed.