we present two distinct arguments; ~ ' <br />a} Six specific uses conflict with Policy 1 under the "Land Use" , , <br />section of the wNP, It is the nature and impacts of these uses <br />that could erode the neighborhood's residential character. <br />This argument is in n_ o~ premised on definitions of <br />"neighborhood commercial" and "general commercial," as the <br />Hearings 4f f icial misstated. The next argument is the only one <br />. premised an the proper interpretation of "general commercial <br />. ~ uses."} <br />b~ Two specific uses conflict with Policy 1 under the "Chambers <br />Street Commercial Area" section of the wNP because they are . <br />_ not true "general commercial uses." <br />If the JWN argument with respect to Policy 1 under the "Chambers _ <br />Street Commercial Area" section were to fail, that would have no <br />implication as to the merits of the JwN argument with respect to <br />Policy 1 under the "Land Use" section. . <br />3. The JWN arguments referencing comn~excial uses allowed in the ~R- <br />~ and S-Jw zones are supportive of the proper application of Policy <br />1 under the "Land Use" section. <br />. The Hearings official incorrectly stated: <br />. "In his analysis of appropriate commercial uses for the sub-area, ~Ir, <br />Conte argues that the proper starting point is the list of "commercial" <br />. uses allowed in the ~-2 and S-JVV zones, What premise ignores <br />Chambers .Policy 1 that f Inds the sub-area appropriate far C-1 and C-2 <br />uses. " Decision at 7. <br />The JwN argument with respect to Policy 1 under the "Land Use" <br />section is presented in section V of the jwN testimony. ~n page 15, <br />we skated: <br />"both the S-JW and ~-2 zones allow many commercial uses, and ~so <br />without deeper examination, a reasonable initial presumption is that <br />those commercial uses not allowed in the R-2 and S-Jw zone are <br />prohibited because they're inherently not compatible with those zoning <br />. districts.l If this wasn't the intent of City Council, then applicant <br />needs to provide a superior explanation, which they have not done." . <br />. ~ "~Nhere legislature or administrative agency uses particular term in one provision, but <br />omits term from related provision, term is considered not to apply to related provision," <br />Perlenfein and Perlenfein, 316 ~r 16, $48 P2d 604 X1993} Xn other words, City Council <br />had some intention in leaving only certain commercial uses vut of the cited residential <br /> <br />4 Au ust 16, 2411 Appeal Statement Z 113 g k <br />PC Agenda -Page 13 <br />