FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(12) The proposed development shall have minimal off-site <br />impacts, including impacts such as traffic, noise, <br />stormwater runoff and environmental quality. <br />The Decision erroneously found that the PUD would have minimal off-site <br />traffic impacts. <br />The Hearings Official did not properly interpret the meaning of "minimal off- <br />site impacts." Among the errors were: not following the proper analysis to <br />interpret "minimal"; not following the proper analysis of "impacts" as set out <br />in Benjamin v. City of Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 600 (1990)2; and incorrectly <br />narrowing the meaning to impacts on traffic, and failing to evaluate impacts <br />from traffic (safety, noise, etc.). <br />Further, the Hearings Official's apparent assumption that "when none of the <br />conditions exist that would trigger a TIA under EC 9.8670, it is reasonable to <br />question whether EC 9.8320(12) is implicated as to traffic" would rob <br />EC 9.8320(12) of any meaning or purpose with respect to impacts from traffic, <br />which is an impermissible interpretation under ORS 174.010.3 This finding <br />conflicts even with the Hearings Official's earlier statement that: "In <br />interpreting related statutes or local code provisions, an interpretation must <br />be sought that harmonizes those provisions and does not leave one provision <br />as redundant or meaningless." (Decision at 52) <br />"In this case, if there was testimony in the proceedings below which focused <br />on an issue arguably relevant to the qualities of livability and appropriate <br />development in the neighborhood surrounding the proposed medical office <br />complex, the city is required to address that issue in its findings. In addressing <br />such an issue, the city must either (1) explain why the issue is not relevant to <br />the qualities of livability and appropriate development in the surrounding <br />neighborhood, or (2) identify the issue as relevant to determining the livability <br />and appropriate development in the surrounding neighborhood and assess <br />the impacts of the proposed development with regard to the issue." <br />"In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and <br />declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has <br />been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several <br />provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give <br />effect to all." <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 13 November 22, 2013 <br />