12 <br />to attempt to discern the intent of the legislature. In doing so, it is to begin with <br />the text and context of the statute but give due consideration to any relevant <br />legislative history. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 165-73,206 P3d 1042 (2009). <br />The context of a statute includes statutes and rules governing the same subject <br />matter DLCD v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 210, 218, 948 P2d 731 (1997), <br />rev den 327 Or 620, 971 P2d 412 (1998). Under ORS 174.020(1)(b) and <br />Gaines, the court considers legislative history as part of the first level of <br />statutory construction. <br />Although the text of ORS 197.830(7)(c) might seem to provide some <br />support for LUBA's conclusion that statute first requires compliance with "the <br />deadline set forth in paragraph (a)" of ORS 197.830(7). Paragraph (a) <br />allows 21 days for a person to file a motion to intervene, but that 21 days is <br />triggered only when the notice of intent to appeal has been properly filed <br />according to ORS 197.830(1). <br />A Notice of Intent to Appeal, properly filed under ORS 197.830(1) <br />triggers the 21-day period for filing a Motion to Intervene under ORS <br />197.830(7). ORS 197.830(1) itself doesn't state what is required for a properly <br />filed Notice of Intent to appeal. Those requirements are provided in LUBA's <br />rules, which were adopted under ORS 197.820(4), authorizing LUBA to adopt <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />