18 <br />SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: LUBA Misconstrued the <br />Requirements of EC 9.8320(5) and (6) and Failed to Enforce the <br />Requirement for "Safe and Adequate Transportation Systems" and to <br />prevent a "Significant Risk to Public Health and Safety." <br />1. Preservation of Error. <br />The question of how to interpret EC 9.8320(5) and (6) was raised in <br />Conte's Petition for Review, LUBA Rec pp 457 - 84. LUBA resolved these <br />issues in its decision, ER pp 29-36. This issue was preserved. <br />2. Standard of Review. <br />The Court of Appeals shall reverse or remand a LUBA final decision if it <br />is "unlawful in substance." ORS 197.850(9)(a); Zirker v. City of Bend, 233 Or <br />App 601, 227 P3d 1174 (2010). When the judicial review involves the <br />interpretation of a city ordinance, the Court reviews the interpretation to <br />determine if LUBA incorrectly interpreted the ordinance. Because the <br />interpretation was done by the Eugene Planning Commission, not the Eugene <br />City Council, the Planning Commission's interpretation is not entitled to any <br />deference. Green v. Douglas County, 245 Or App 430, 437-8, 263 P3d 355 <br />(2011). Instead, the court reviews LUBA's interpretation under the court's <br />familiar framework first set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 <br />Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and reset in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P3d <br />1042 (2009). In general, the court examines the text and context of the statute, <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />