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 />1 am writing as party to the.appeal of the Hearings Official's Decision- on the Oaldeigh Meadows <br />Co-Housing PUD (File PDT-13) (hereafter referred to as "OMC"). <br />This letter is meant to support and Work together withlbee 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 hannonious wih adjacent and nearby land uses." <br />I argue that this portion of the Decision shouldbe seen as therefore invalid and void, and that the <br />opponents' arguments thatthe OMC PUD is incompatible and inharmonious with adjacent and <br />nearby land uses be reconsidered. - <br />Reasoning of blearinas Official <br />On p. 54-of his Decision (hereafter referred to as "Decision"), the Hearings Officiaffinds against <br />the Opponents'arguments that OINK is incompatible -and inharmonious with current adjacent <br />and nearby land uses by reasoning that "a f inding that the proposed PUD is incompatible and <br />unharmonious despite ha.ving complied with all the applicable provisions of EC 9.83 0 would, at <br />least in this case, 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 Property LLC. V. City of Eugene <br />("Decision," p. 54), in which a -cell tower was found to be "compatible and harm- on ous" <br />according to EC 9.8320(13) because it had complied with the other elements ofE.G. <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 />bolds that Courts and other bodies must avoid readings of law which render any word or words <br />251 <br />