16 <br />Eugene's interpretation of two local code provisions - EC 9.83.20(5) and (6) - <br />dealing with the PUD's impacts on the transportation systems and on public <br />health and safety. In evaluating LUBA's construction of the relevant <br />provisions, the Court of Appeals applies the "ordinary principles of statutory <br />construction set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, <br />611-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 1.71-72, 206 <br />P3d 1.042 (2009), and determine the city's intent in. enacting the provisions by <br />examining the test, context, and any helpful enactment history. Gaines, 346 Or <br />at 171-72." Sellvvood-Moreland Inprov. League v. City of Portland, 262 Or <br />App 9, 17, P3d (2014). <br />ARGUMENT <br />LUBA correctly determined that the PUD demonstrated compliance with <br />all applicable City transportation standards under EC 9.8320(5), and applicable <br />public health and safety standards under EC 9.8320(6). On appeal, the <br />Intervenors-Petitioners ignore these findings and focus instead on their false <br />assumption that the PUD's access, Oakleigh Lane, is unsafe, and their own <br />faulty interpretations of the Eugene Code. However, the City determined that <br />Oakleigh Lane is adequate to accommodate local traffic, including trips from <br />the proposed PUD, and LUBA correctly affirmed the City's reasonable <br />interpretations of the Eugene Code. Accordingly, Intervenors-Petitioners' <br />