~ correctly found in favor of the JINN position presented in section ` <br />~ III.F of the ]AWN July 20, 2011 testimony: . <br />"In accordance with EC 9.7330, ~ am required to approve, approve ~ja~ <br />r ' ~ ~ „t ~ with conditions, or den this T e III land use a lication or a zone <br />~ y yp pp f ~ change, " Decision at 3. <br />We note that less than three years ago, during the appeal of Z o8-4, <br />City staff had argued a position diametrically opposite staff's <br />. position in the current case: <br />Appeal issue 2 <br />"Tlte ~Iea~ings O f f iczal erred by imposing a condition o f <br />approval on a zone change." <br />The Eugene Code provides authority for the Hearings ~f f~'cial ~o . <br />impose a condition o f approval on a zone change, which is a Type III <br />application. Section 9.7330 o f the Eugene Code states, in part: "unless <br />the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days following ' <br />the close of the record, the hearings o f f~'ciai or historic revfew board <br />shall a p prove, approve with conditions, or deny a Type III <br />application," This is consistent with ~IZS ~27.175~4~ which provides <br />authority for a Hearings f~f f ~'cial, in approving a zone change, to <br />"include such conditions as are authorized by DIES 221.215 or any <br />city Legislation. " As such, the Hearings ~~f iczai d1d not err by <br />imposing a condition o f approval on a zone change. In accordance with <br />the information provided above, staf f recommends that the .Planning <br />Commission a}f irm. the Hearings n f f ~'cial's decision with regard to <br />Appeal Issue Z. See page 3 of Alissa Hansen's September 9, 2008 <br />memo to the Planning Commission,} <br />In their appeal decisions on Z 08-4, both the Pugene Planning <br />Commission and the State Land Use Baard of Appeals ~LUBA} <br />upheld the legality of imposing Conditions on an approved zone <br />Change. <br />B. Clarifications <br />The Hearings official incorrectly stated JAN positions expressed in <br />our submitted testimony. <br />chile these errors are not a basis far appeal, the Hearings official's <br />mischaracterizations may confuse the issue and need to be set straight. <br />' 1. VVNP policies are part of the comprehensive plan <br />The Hearings Of f iCial incorrectly stated: <br />Appeal Statement Z 11-3 2 August 1b, 2011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 11 <br />l <br />