30 <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b). <br />LUBA's interpretation misconstrues the text and context of EC 9.8320(5) <br />and, contrary to the requirement of ORS 174.010, leaves EC 9.8320(5)(b) bereft <br />of meaning. Subsection (b) simply notes that, whatever must be required to <br />show safe and transportation systems, that requirement must apply to "adjacent <br />and nearby [within 1/a mile for pedestrians and 2 miles for bicycles] residential <br />areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks and industrial <br />parks." If the standards in EC 9.8320(5)(a) do not apply in the evaluation of EC <br />9.8320(5)(b), what standards do apply? The only way to read EC 9.8320(5) and <br />give effect to all portions of the provision is to find that, overall, the section <br />requires "safe and adequate transportation systems." Subsection (a) states the <br />specific applicable standards and subsection (b) enumerate several <br />transportation modes where those standards apply.9 <br />As LUBA recognized, a portion of subsection (b) requires the City to "make <br />findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements." <br />However, the City never even began that evaluation; as noted elsewhere, the <br />EPWD never analyzed EC 9.8320(5)(b) - it skipped directly from EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) to EC 9.8320(5)(c) without discussing subsection (5)(b). Rec p <br />1265. Although the "constitutional requirement" provision could alter the <br />City's analysis, it does not allow the City to simply ignore the provision <br />entirely. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />