6 <br />1 <br />z <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />s <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />1s <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />expect most neighbors would readily support a project with a nod to the needy, and <br />a design that is elegant and architecturally friendly.") <br />The city hearings official held a hearing on the application and approved the <br />development in a written decision. Opponents appealed the hearings official's <br />decision to the City. The City held a hearing and approved the development in a <br />written decision that adopted and modified part of the hearings official's decision. <br />Petitioners appealed the City's decision to LUBA. LUBA affirmed the City's <br />decision. <br />IL FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR - LUBA erred in affirming the Planning <br />Commission's interpretation of the Eugene Code, finding that the leasing <br />office, maintenance shed, and streets within the proposed apartment complex <br />did not need to be excluded from the "net density" calculation. <br />A. Preservation of Error <br />Petitioners preserved this error before LUBA and the local government. See <br />LUBA Rec-10-16, 215-225; Rec-737-740, 480-482. <br />B. Standard of Review <br />This Court reviews LUBA's decision for errors of law. ORS 197.850(9)(a); <br />Protect Grand Isle Farms. v. Yamhill County, 249 Or App 223, 225, 275 P3d 201, <br />202 (2012). This Court does not defer to LUBA's interpretation, Sellwood- <br />Moreland Improv. League v. City of Portland, 262 Or App 9, 16-17, 324 P3d 549 <br />(2014), and, instead, applies ordinary principles of statutory construction by <br />examining the text, context, and any helpful enactment history. Id.; Tonquin <br />