7 <br />Zirker v. City of Bend, 233 Or App 601, 227 P3d 1174 (2010). As this case <br />involves the interpretation of statutes, the Court's role is to "ascertain and <br />declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what <br />has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted." ORS 174.010. LUBA's <br />interpretation is not entitled to any deference and the Court reviews the statutes <br />at issue consistent with the methodology described in PGE v. Bureau of Labor <br />and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as amplified in State v. <br />Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). In general, the court examines the <br />text and context of the statute, as well as any legislative history offered by the <br />parties. <br />3. Argument. <br />At the time the application was submitted, Simon Trautman lived2 within <br />2 As noted in the affidavit filed by Mr. Trautman with his motion to intervene, <br />Mr. Trautman lived at 109 Oakleigh Lane, but had to relocate temporarily for <br />work. Ultimately, the location of Mr. Trautman's residence is immaterial as all <br />that is required for standing and to receive notices is to participate in the local <br />process. In its reply brief at LUBA, the Applicant argued that Mr. Trautman's <br />actual residence was elsewhere. LUBA Rec 271-72. LUBA correctly <br />disregarded that argument. Mr. Trautman's actual residence has no role in this <br />matter - Mr. Trautman provided the City with his address and that was where <br />the City was required to mail notice. Regardless of Mr. Trautman's actual <br />residence, the City was required to provide notice to him at the address he <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />