Appellant also points out a discrepancy with respect to the dates of WNP adoption and <br />adoption of correlatingcommercial code provisions referenced bythe Hearings official, <br />However, the datediscrepancyappearsto raise no substantive issuethat is relevant inthis zone <br />change approval. In addition, appellantre-asserts arguments relatedto legal principles of <br />statutory construction and proper local policy analysis, which will be further addressed in a <br />separate memofrom the CityAttorney. <br />At its core, the appeal seemsto hangon atheoryof refinement plan interpretationthatwould <br />override a clear commercial designation identified in the Metro Plan and the "Chambers Street <br />Commercial Area" of theWNP,which underanyothercircumstancewould allowC~2zoning <br />wherethere is noexpresslanguagethatclearlyprohibits it. <br />Again, if the PlanningCommission agrees thatthe Hearings official properly evaluated the <br />relevant policy and approval criteria based upon ail the available evidence and testimony, then <br />the zone change may be approved without condition or modification. Similarly, the appellant's <br />sub-assignments of error may be rendered essentially moot by such a determination, <br />eliminating the need for further analysis or findings. <br />Third Assignment of Error <br />The appellant finally asserts that by approving future development consistent with the City's C- <br />2zone, the decision erred by allowing more intensive development than the comprehensive <br />plan allows, which the Oregon Supreme Court determined in a case known as Baker vs. City of <br />Milwaukee, is impermissible. The appellant apparently quotes a portion of this court decision <br />with emphasis on the statementthat: "zoning decisions of acity must be in accord with that <br />plan and a zoning ordinance which allows a more intensive use that prescribed in the plan must <br />fail." The appellant then incorporates evidence and arguments made under prior assignments <br />of error, acknowledging that while the substantive arguments are the same, the legal <br />foundation is based on statutory requirements and not local land use code. <br />To the extent that the appellant makes legal argument with respect to interpretation of the <br />cited decision in Baker vs. Cety of Melwaukie, and its application to this case, staff defers to the <br />City Attorney's response which is forthcoming, ~ Initially, staff re-emphasize that no specific use <br />or development isorcan be approved forthe subject property bythe proposed zone change in <br />this instance; the particular impacts of a given use and the extent of development to <br />accommodate that use on the site cannot be accurately or properly addressed at this stage. <br />Furthermore, the appellant has provided no compellingorsubstantialevidence inthe record to . <br />demonstrate that certain uses are in fact more intense hand such evidencewould seem <br />impossible to provide withoutaspecefic development plantoevaluatey, Staff also reminds the <br />Planning Commission thatthe codified C-2 use listwas found to be consistentwith the <br />comprehensive plan and has been adopted by City Council and stands as acknowledged <br />regulation, on this point, the Hearings Official notes the following: "If a particular C-2 use is <br />arguably contrary to [WNP] Policy 1orChambers Policy 1, that argument should have been <br />made atthetimethe GityCouncil amendedtothe C-2 use list. As an acknowledged zoning <br />code provision,the C-2 use list cornplieswith the Metro Plan, and I am without authorityto <br />decide otherwise." With respectto any "as-applied"challenge that might arisefrom this <br />5 <br />PC Agenda -Page 5 <br />