4 <br />PUD is not enough to pose a safety risk to travelers on Oakleigh Lane. As <br />discussed in more detail below, that is an evidentiary challenge, and Petitioners <br />have an uphill battle in demonstrating that LUBA misunderstood its scope of <br />review in affirming the City's determination that the transportation system <br />would be safe. <br />1. Interpretation of Local Ordinance <br />Petitioners misstate the correct standard of review applicable to their <br />challenge of LUBA's affirmance of the City's interpretation of the relevant <br />code provisions. This Court does not review the interpretation of a local <br />ordinance "to determine if LUBA correctly interpreted the ordinance." <br />Petitioners' Opening Brief 18. Neither is the Court to decide how it would <br />interpret that local code provision in the first instance. Rather, this Court may <br />only review LUBA's decision, which was a review of the City's interpretation, <br />and determine whether LUBA's order is unlawful in substance. I. e., did LUBA <br />err in affirming the City's interpretation of its local ordinance? <br />2. Substantial Evidence <br />With regard to evidentiary challenges, this Court's review authority is <br />significantly more limited. This Court has explained that in reviewing LUBA's <br />determination of substantial evidence: <br />"our task is not to assess whether the local government erred in <br />making a finding, but to determine whether LUBA properly <br />exercised its review authority. Thus, we do not substitute our <br />judgment for LUBA's on whether a reasonable person could make <br />