December 5, 2013 <br />Re: Appeal of Decision Approving Planned Unit Development, Oakleigh Meadows Co- <br />Housing - File PDT-13 <br />To the Planning Commission: <br />I am writing as party to the.appeal of the Hearings Official's Decision on the Oakleigh Meadows <br />Co-Housing PUD (File PDT-13) (hereafter referred to as "OINK"). <br />This letter is meant to support and work together with the arguments being made by Bryn Thoms <br />and Paul Conte. The analysis. below concerns unsound reasoning which violates settled law <br />on statutory interpretation by the Hearings Official in his Decision (PDT-13, WG 13-1) of <br />November 12, 2013 in relation to Eugene City Code governing approval of PUDs, specifically <br />EC 9.8320(13), the requirement that "The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible <br />and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses." <br />I argue that this portion of the Decision should be seen as therefore invalid and void, and that the. <br />opponents' arguments that the OMC PUD is incompatible and inharmonious with adjacent and <br />nearby land uses be reconsidered. <br />Reasoning of Hearings Official <br />On p. 54 of his Decision (hereafter referred to as "Decision"), the Hearings Official finds against <br />the Opponents' arguments that OMC is incompatible and inharmonious with current adjacent <br />and nearby land uses by reasoning that "a finding that the proposed PUD is incompatible and <br />unharmonious despite having complied with all the applicable provisions ofEC 9.8320 would, at <br />least in this ease, be logically and legally indefensible." <br />As precedent for his reasoning here, the Hearings Official cites LUBA's affirmation of a prior <br />Hearings Official's approach to EC 9.83 20(13) in Northgreen Propertv LLC. V. City of Eugene <br />("Decision," p. 54), in which a cell tower was.found to be "compatible and harmonious" <br />according to EC 9.8320(13) because it had complied with the other elements of E.C. <br />To reason this way is therefore to assume that the requirements of EC 9..8320(13) have been <br />met if the requirements of other subsections of code have been satisfied. That is, it reasons that <br />EC 9.8320(13) is redundant and purposeless when: a PUD is compatible with. all. prior or other <br />subsections of code. <br />General Principles of Interpretation of Statute <br />However, the Hearing Official's reasoning is in violation of established principles of the <br />interpretation .of statutory law, as affirmed by United States Supreme Court precedent, which <br />holds that Courts and other bodies must avoid readings of law which render any word or words <br />251 <br />