As above, the Hearings Official's: reasoning on p. 54 (and of course the decision in Northgreen <br />Property LLC V. City of Eugene.on which it is based) would construe subsection 13 as having <br />no distinctive statutory force. of its own (in the overly metaphorical words of SCOTUS., it <br />would "emasculate" EC 9.8320(13)). That reasoning would imply that the drafters of the <br />Eugene City Code effectively included that statute "for no purpose" (again quoting SCOTUS) <br />since according to the Hearings Official's reasoning, a PUD applicant could satisfy that <br />subsection. by virtue of complying with entirely different subsections of the code. <br />But the rulings by the SCOTUS cited above invalidate such interpretation of any statute, and <br />enforce "giv[ing] effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute" (quoting Montclair <br />Ramsdell, as above). The reasoning of this. partof the Decision thus violates settled law on <br />statutory interpretation. <br />In making our original arguments that OMC's PUD does not comply with EC 9.8320(13), <br />Opponents of OMC were assuming that EC 9.8320(13) was an additional requirement of <br />Eugene City Code, and that it may not be satisfied by meeting separate subsections. <br />The Supreme Court precedent cited above shows that this is the only acceptable interpretation <br />of EC 9.8320(13): that by requirements of statutory interpretation, "compatible and harmonious <br />with nearby and adjacent land uses" may not refer only to the contents of other subsections of <br />code (which would render it redundant and purposeless). Instead,. it must present an additional <br />requirement with which a PUD, including OMC, must comply. <br />As Bryn Thorns and Paul Conte will argue, OMC is incompatible and inharmonious with the <br />existing land uses of Oakleigh and McClure Lanes. I ask that that evidence be reconsidered in <br />the light of the proper understanding of E.C 9.8320(13). <br />Some LUBA cases that are more relevant than Northgreen Property LLC V City of.Eugene to <br />such reconsideration include the following: <br />Relating to building size: <br />Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Flood River County, 47 Or LUBA 256 (2004). LUBA's headnote offers <br />this interpretation: "A governing body's interpretation of a design review criterion requiring <br />that the "bulk and scale of a proposed retail supercenter be "compatible" with <br />surrounding buildings as necessitating a comparison of the size of the proposed buildings <br />and surrounding buildings-and not just visual compatibility-is consistent with the text <br />of the criterion and not reversible under ORS 197.829(1)(a)." <br />Compatibility as different from permitted uses: <br />Doob v, Josephine County, 47 Or LUBA. 147. LUBA's headnote offers this interpretation: <br />"Findings that proposed residential development is consistent with permitted uses in the <br />zone are inadequate to demonstrate that the proposed development is compatible with the <br />`existing land use pattern in the area."' <br />253 <br />