definition at EC 9,0500, opposing JWN testimony which addressed this issue was referenced on <br />page 2 of the decision page 35 of the record} as part of the documents specifically considered <br />by the Hearings Official see Hearing Exhibit B and additional JWN testimony provided on July <br />20, 2011}. For reference, the Hearing Official addresses opposing testimony with respect to the <br />relevant approval criterion and 1NNP Policy 1, on pages 4-9 of the decision. He specifically <br />addresses Policy 1 and the question of possible erosion of residential characteratthe bottom of <br />page 4, in his decision; <br />The subject property is located within the WlyP's sub-area designated f or commercial <br />uses and that plan's text refers to commercial uses being appropriate f or this sub-area <br />within the larger neighborhood, Continued use of the subject property, which carries a <br />commercial designation under the WNP, will not erode the neighborhood's residential <br />character. To the contrary, continued commercial use of the subject property will <br />maintain the status of the property as commercial, and maintain this property's <br />relationship with the rest of the neighborhood as contemplated by the Wive, <br />Maintaining the status quo as contemplated by the Wive does not cause erosion. <br />The appeal suggests that additionalevidence, includinge-mail betweentheappellantandone , <br />of the PlanningCommissioners,will be submitted tofurther addressthis issue, Staff cautions <br />the Planning Commission that this zone change appeal is restricted to the record of evidence <br />established before the Hearings Official, and its consideration must be based on whether he <br />erred based onthe evidence before him. In otherwords, the PlanningCommission may only <br />consider the evidence that was placed before, and not rejected by the Hearings Official in the <br />course of his proceedings, The appellant's related challenge to the Hearings Official's apparent <br />reliance on a 2005 LUBA decision that interpreted the meaning of "residential character" in the <br />context ofa residential partition, instead of the more recently adopted definition of the term in <br />EC 9.0500, will be further addressed in the City Attorney's memorandum to follow. <br />The appeal raises additional legal issues regarding collateral attackand defacto amendmentof <br />the Eugene Code. These will also be addressed in the City Attorney's memo, <br />~Nith respect to the appellant's proposed interpretation of the approval criterion and related <br />policy in this instance, it could lead to an impossibletask with respect to future zone change <br />applications, by requiringa levelof nuanced analysisof developmentcharacteristicsand <br />impacts that is not based on enough specifics orsubstantial evidenceto effectively <br />respond. Keep in mind that no specific use is or can be approved for the subject property by <br />the applicant's proposed zone change, and consistentwith Iong~standingCity practice based on <br />applicable law, unlessthere is a specificapplication fordevelopmentthat is proposed <br />concurrent with the zone change, the particular impacts of a given use and the extent of <br />development to accommodate that use on the site cannot be accurately or properly addressed <br />at this stage --except perhaps, with regard to statutory requirements under the Transportation <br />Planning Rule. ~TPR}, to address hypothetical worst-case traffic impacts under a proposed zone, <br />In theory, appellant's approach would appear to obligate the City to evaluate every possible use <br />under a proposed zone without sufficiently specific policy language, applicable development <br />standards or substantialevidence inthe recordto properlydirectsuch anevaluation as partof 3 <br />PC Agenda -Page 3 <br />