ER-14 <br />1 Review 15-16. The city and Meadows (together respondents) respond that the <br />2 hearings officer's interpretation of the relevant EC provisions is correct, and <br />3 nothing in EC 9.2751(1)(c) or EC 9.2751(l)(b) supports Neighbors' <br />4 interpretation that areas subject to an easement must be excluded from the <br />5 calculation of net density. <br />6 We review the planning commission's interpretation to determine <br />7 whether it is correct. McCoy v. Linn County, 90 Or App 271, 275, 752 P2d 323 <br />8 (1988). We agree with respondents that the planning commission's <br />9 interpretation of EC 9.2751(1)(b) and (1)(c) is correct and gives effect to the <br />10 entire provision and each of its parts. The planning commission's interpretation <br />11 is consistent with the express language of EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1), which does not <br />12 include "easements" in the list of areas to be excluded. Neighbors' profferred <br />13 interpretation, on the contrary, reads the phrase "reserved for the exclusive use <br />14 of the residents in the development" in isolation without harmonizing the entire <br />15 provision.. <br />16 Neighbors' first assignment of error is denied. <br />17 NEIGHBORS' SECOND AND THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF <br />18 ERROR/CONTE'S SECOND AND THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />19 Neighbors' second and third assignments of error and Conte's second <br />20 and third assignments of error challenge the city's decision that the PL ID <br />21 complies with EC 9.8320(3), (4)(b), (11)(a), (12) and (13). Neighbors' second <br />22 and third assignments of error include a number of overlapping and poorly <br />23 developed or undeveloped arguments. We address each assignment of error <br />24 and each argument in each assignment of error below to the extent the <br />25 assignment of error sets out a cognizable argument. <br />Page 14 <br />000063 <br />