INDEX <br />I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................1 <br />A. Questions Presented on Appeal ..................................................1 <br />B. Summary of Arguments I <br />C. Statement of Material Facts l <br />II. RESPONSE TO SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3 <br />LUBA did not err in affirming the City's determination that the <br />proposed PUD complied with EC 9.8320(5) and (6) and would <br />provide a safe and adequate transportation system 3 <br />A. Standard of Review 3 <br />1. Interpretation of Local Ordinance 4 <br />2. Substantial Evidence 4 <br />B. Introduction 5 <br />C. Argument 6 <br />1. Interpretation of EC 9.8320(5) 8 <br />2. Finding of Compliance with EC 9.8320(5) Supported by <br />Substantial Evidence ........................................11 <br />3. EC 9.8320(6) .................................................................18 <br />III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................19 <br />TABLE OF AUTHORITIES <br />Cases <br />Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County, 218 Or App 339, 345, <br />180 P3d 35 (2008) 5,17 <br />City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 298 Or 104, 119, <br />690 P2d 475 (1984) .......................................................................................17 <br />Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 114 S.Ct. 374, 2309 (1994) ....................13 <br />Gould v. Deschutes County, 233 Or App 623, 227 P3d 758 (2010) .............17 <br />Regency Centers, L.P. v. Washington County, 265 Or App 49, 60-61, <br />P3d (2014) 9 <br />Root v. Klamath County, 260 Or App 665, 320 P3d 631 (2014) ..................17 <br />Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 359, 752 P2d 262 (1988) 5,17 <br />