' "dir. Cante's argument under the Metro Plan approval criterion is <br />premised on his assertion that the Westside Neighborhood Pdan, a <br />Metro Plan re f~'nement plan, is the ~Vletro Plan. " Decision at 3. <br />The explanation in section III.B of the JwN testimony on July 2~, <br />2x11 clearly states; <br />"The City o f Eugene's corn prehensive plan is made up a f a number of <br />documen ts, 'two o f Chase documents are the Eugene-Spring f c'eid <br />Metrapalitan Area General Plan ~Metra Tian} and the T987 Vlrestside <br />IVeighborhoad Fran ~~IIVP}." . . <br />. The testimony cites LUI~A findings in direct support. ' <br />The Hearings official apparently confused "comprehensive plan" ~ , <br />all the documents} and "Metro Plan" one of the documents} in his <br />description of the ]wN testimony, <br />Although it may seem like a fine point, the fact that the wNP <br />policies are comprehensive plan policies makes clear that statutes <br />and court decisions that refer to the "comprehensive plan" <br />encompass wNP policies, as well as those expressed in the Metro <br />Plan document. <br />2. The JWN arguments regarding applicable wNP policies are not <br />dependent an each other. <br />The Hearings official incorrectly stated; <br />"~Vir, Conte argues that Policy 1 and Chambers Policy 1 should be <br />read to limit the types o f cammerciat uses allowed an the subject <br />property. If such a limit is not imposed, argues Mr. Conte, the <br />resuming .gone change will erode the residential character of the , <br />neighborhood by placing commercial uses in the Chambers Street <br />Commercial Area that are not 'neighborhood commercial' uses or <br />'general commercial' uses appropriate for the sub-area, <br />Mr, Cante's arguments are premised on the assertion that I rnt~st <br />provide de f initions to what Chambers Policy z means by usin the ~ . g <br />terms 'neighborhood commercial' and 'general carnmercial "'Decision <br />at 5. <br />The Hearings off icial describes a dependency between the two <br />policies that is not at all part of the JwN's arguments. <br />It is not our argument that because certain uses are not consistent <br />with Policy 1 under the "Chambers Street Commercial Area" <br />sectian of the wNP ~i.e., "Chambers Policy 1" }these uses will erode , . . . . , <br />. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .the neighborhood's residential character, ~ . ~ : ~ : - ; ~ : . ~ , . , . , <br />A eal Statement Z 11-3 ~ Au ust 1b 2411 PP g <br />PC Agenda -Page 12 <br />