12 <br />1 vehicular traffic to one or more lots or parcels' within the meaning of `street' <br />z as defined at EC 9.0500. The parking drives are designed primarily to <br />3 provide vehicular circulation to parking spaces in the apartment complex for <br />4 parking for resident and visitor access to the apartments. We agree with the <br />5 city that the adjustment to the parking area that allows internal traffic <br />6 circulation from access points on both River Road and Lombard Lane does <br />7 not transform the parking drives into streets. Thus, the city did not err by <br />s include [sic] the parking drive area in the net density calculation." <br />9 <br />1o ER-7-8 (LUBA Rec-12-13). <br />11 4. Analysis <br />12 In construing statutes, Oregon courts use the framework set forth in PGE v. <br />13 Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as <br />14 modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-73, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). The goal <br />15 is to "discern the meaning most likely intended by the governing body that enacted <br />16 the provision of law." See DCBS v. Muliro, 359 Or 736, 742, 380 Pad 270 (2016). <br />17 The analysis begins with the text and context because "there is no more persuasive <br />18 evidence of the intent of the [governing body] than the words by which the <br />19 [governing body] undertook to give expression to its wishes. State v. Branch, 362 <br />zo Or 351, 356, 408 P3d 1035 (2018) (quoting Gaines, 346 Or at 171). This is not a <br />21 matter that is afforded "plausible" deference under Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 <br />zz Or 247, 266 (2010) because the final decision was made by the Planning <br />23 Commission, not the City Council. <br />