This policy seems to provide both broad direction to the local government for long-term <br />planning, and direction when regulating development; however, the "means of protecting open <br />space" include only long-term planning strategies, not anything that is related to a specific <br />development proposal. The statutory construction maxim of ejusdem generis advises that <br />when a provision of law lists specific classes or types, then other general statements within that <br />provision apply to only things similar to those listed. Here, applying ejusdem generis to the <br />general statement, "including but not limited to," would indicate an intent to include only other <br />long-term planning strategies, not to means of regulating specific development proposals. <br />Consistent with this policy, the existing golf course includes a /PD overlay, which requires any <br />development on the golf course to be reviewed through the PUD process. <br />Environmental Design Element <br />Policy E.4 Public and -private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that <br />preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and <br />promotes their sense of identity. <br />In a prior decision of the hearing official, Z 09-6, the hearing official concluded,. "This policy is <br />broad direction to the city. As applied to a PUD, this policy is implemented by numerous <br />criteria, including EC 9.8320(3), (4), (8), (12), and (13). The Planning Commission and LUBA <br />affirmed that overall decision of the hearing official. Two CUP criteria also implement this <br />policy: EC 9.8090(2) and (3). <br />Mr. Reeder, representing Northgreen, argues that this policy applies to this proposed <br />development and that the proposal does not meet this policy. He cites to "hundred S2 Of <br />written and oral comments received into the record for the Application that the design and <br />location of the Proposal will not only not preserve and enhance desirable features of the local <br />and neighborhood areas and not promote the local and neighborhood identities, but will <br />degrade the same." Letter from Michael Reeder (July 6, 2011) at 6. Even though the hearing <br />official believes this policy provides broad direction to the, city, the hearing official notes that <br />this decision addresses the criteria that implement this policy below; it is not necessary to <br />conduct an independent review of the proposed development for consistency with this policy. <br />2 The hearing official did not count the number of comments in the record, but "hundreds" is <br />probably inaccurate because it connotes comments from more than 200 different individuals. <br />The record does contain well over 100 pages of comments, but many people submitted <br />multiple comments, many of the comments are more than one page long, and many of the <br />comments have attachments. Such hyperbole is unnecessary; a more accurate and less <br />bombastic word would be "numerous." For another opinion on the use of strong language, see <br />http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/dirty_dozen/. Regardless, approval or denial of <br />land use applications is not a popularity contest; the hearing official would give the same <br />attention to the issues if they were raised in a single well-composed comment. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 8 <br />