3 <br />It. RESPONSE TO SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <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 <br />A. Standard of Review <br />This Court's review of LUBA decisions is governed by ORS 197.850(9), <br />which provides in relevant part: <br />"The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order. The court <br />shall reverse or remand the order only if it finds: <br />"(a) The order to be unlawful in substance or procedure, but error <br />in procedure is not cause for reversal or remand unless the court <br />finds that substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced <br />thereby; <br />"(b) The order to be unconstitutional; or <br />"(c) The order is not supported by substantial evidence in the <br />whole record as to facts found by the board under ORS <br />197.835(2)." <br />Further, ORS 197.850(8) provides, in part: "The court shall not substitute its <br />judgment for that of the board as to any issue of fact." <br />Petitioners' summary of this Court's standard of review under this <br />Second Assignment of Error is incorrect and misleading. First of all, while the <br />assignment of error is framed as a legal challenge to LUBA's construction of <br />EC 9.8320(5) and (6), the argument includes a substantial evidence challenge. <br />The gist of Petitioners' second assignment of error is that the City and LUBA <br />got it wrong in determining that the traffic to be generated by the proposed <br />