' The "initial presumption" in our testimony clearly refers to the <br />commercial uses that would be consistent with Policy 1 under the <br />"Land Use" section; i.e., that would nat erode the neighborhood's <br />residential character. This statement has no rhino to do with our <br />arguments with respect to which uses Policy 1 under the <br />"Chambers Street Commercial Area" section would permit when . <br />considered in isolation, <br />FIRST ASSIGNMENT aF EIZRGR <br />The decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion with respect to Policy 1 under the "Land Use Element" section of the <br />WNP: . <br />EC 9,8865~2~; ~'he proposed change is consistent with applicable adopted <br />re f ~'nement plans. fn the event off' inconsistencies between these plans and the <br />Metro Plan, the iVletro Fran controls. <br />The cited policy states: <br />"Prevent erosion o~'the neighborhood's residential character, "2 <br />The Hearings Official erred in not finding the following uses, permitted _ <br />under the C-2 Community Commercial Zone, could erode the <br />neighborhood's residential character, which makes these uses inconsistent <br />with the cited policy: <br />• Manufacturing except as allowed under the C-1 zone <br />• Correctional Facility, excluding Residential Treatment Center <br />• Drug Treatment Clinic -Non-residential <br />• Plasma Center <br />• Recreational vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Serviee <br />• Manuf actured Dwelling SaleslService/Repair <br />The Hearings official relied on the following erroneous findings: <br />A. The Hearings official f ailed to apply the proper interpretation of <br />"residen#ial charac#er," <br />The Hearings Official relied on an outdated LUBA interpretation of the <br />term's meaning as of April 23, 2QQ73. That interpretation was <br />zones. The unsuitability of the excluded uses when proximal to residences is the most <br />obvious reason. <br />2 See WNP 3-1, and EC 9.968~~1}~a~. <br />3 April 23, X007 is the applicakion date for PT 47-19, which was appealed to LUBA, The LUBA <br />. decision was No.Zoos-~5 issued September 12, 208. ~ . ~ - <br />Ap eal Statement Z 11-3 5 ~ Au ust 16, 211 p g <br />PC Agenda -Page 14 . <br />