As above, the Hearings Official's: reasoning on p. 54 (and of course the decision in Northgreen <br />Propery, EX. V. City of Eugene.on which it is based) would construe subsection 13 as having <br />no. distinctive statutory force. of its own (iir 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 thatstatute "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 MMontc£air v: <br />Ramsdell, as above). The reasoning of this. part of the Decision thus violates-settled law on <br />statutory interpretation. <br />In malting 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 Srtprenae 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 ofE.C 9.8320(13). <br />Some LUBA cases that are more relevant than Northgreen .Property L- LC. 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 "bulls 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(l)(a)." <br />Compatibility as different from-permitted uses: <br />Doo.b 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 derrronstrate that the proposed development is compatible with the <br />`existing land use pattern in the area.'" <br />253 <br />