statutory time limit and to comply with local code procedures. The Planning Commission's <br />decision must otherwise be made in accordance with the provisionsforappeal decisions see <br />EC 9.7680, and more specifically, consistent with the applicable zone change approval criteria <br />from EC 9.8865. <br />The Planning Commission is urged to articulate any specific questions of staff following the <br />public hearing orvia emailtofacilitate response at deliberations. Final deliberation and action <br />by the Planning Commission will be scheduled at a future date, based upon when the record <br />closes followingthe publichearing. <br />PLANNING COMMISSIONS REVIEW ROLE <br />Planning Commission's review should be focused entirely on the question of whether or not the <br />Hearings Official failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with <br />the applicable criteria. The only questions at issue in this request relate to whether or not the <br />Hearings Official erred in approving the applicant's requested zone change based on the <br />approval criteria of EC 9.8865, The Planning Commission may affirm the decision, modify the <br />decision with supplemental findings; or in the event that the Planning Commission finds the <br />Hearings Official erred in approving the request and chooses to reverse the decision, the <br />Planning Commission is required to provide specific findings of fact as to why the decision was <br />in error. The Planning Commission cannot reverse the decision without such findings, <br />APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE <br />Staff's preliminary responses to the assignments of error are provided below, to be followed by <br />a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office at the public hearing to supplement this initial <br />staff report. For additional information on the subject request, please refer to the attached <br />appeal form and written statementaswell asthefull record of materials provided under <br />separate cover which includes the Hearings Official's decision, public testimony and application <br />materials. <br />F~rstAssrpnment of Error <br />The appellant asserts that the decision erred by finding that the application met the approval <br />criterion at EC 9.8865~2~, with respect to Policy 1 underthe "Land Use Element" section of the <br />applicable westside Neighborhood Plan ~1NNP~. This criterion requires consistency with <br />adopted refinement plans and the cited policy states; "Prevent erosion of the neighborhood's <br />residential character." The appellant assertsthatthe Hearings Official erred by notfindingsix <br />of the uses permitted in the City's C-~ zone enumerated in the appellant's written statement <br />to be erosive to the neighborhood's residential character and therefore inconsistent with the <br />cited policy. <br />Under this assignment of error, the appellant provides extensive argument with regard to 1NNP <br />Policy 1 andthe meaningand impactoftheterm "residential character" in this context, The <br />appellant specifically argues that the Hearings Official erred by failing to apply the proper <br />definition of"residential character" at EC 9.0500 in his decision, <br />It is not clear that the Hearings Official overlooked the EC 9.0500 definition of "residential <br />character." INhilethe HearingsOfficial'sdecision did not include a specific reference to the <br />z <br />PC Agenda -Page 27 <br />