9 <br />1 the land use regulations. ORS 197.835(8) The challenged PUD approval <br />2 applies land use regulations and is therefore covered by this provision. <br />3 ORS 197.835(9)(a) scope of review is applicable in this case, and LUBA <br />4 must reverse or remand a land use decision if the final decision maker: <br />5 § (C) Made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the <br />6 whole record; [or] <br />7 § (D) Improperly construed the applicable law. <br />8 LUBA owes no deference to the appointed Eugene Planning Commission who <br />9 made the City's final decision, and LUBA's review must determine whether the <br />10 City's decision is correct, both as a matter of law and as to the findings. <br />11 Willamette Oaks LLC v. Lane County, 63 Or LUBA 75 (2011). <br />12 Introduction. The City failed to properly interpret and evaluate several <br />13 approval criteria that require Oakleigh Lane to provide safe and adequate use <br />14 by motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles. As a <br />15 consequence, the City also failed to adopt adequate conditions of approval to <br />16 ensure Oakleigh Lane would provide safe and adequate use by motorists, <br />17 bicyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles after the PUD was developed. <br />18 Before examining the Decision's specific errors under each criteria, it's <br />19 important to understand the relevant context in order to properly follow the <br />Rec 329 and Metro Plan policy F.26 at Rec 321. <br />