' ~ superseded by Eugene City Council adopting a definition of <br />. ~ "xesidential character" at EC 9.0500 that became effective on ruly ~ . <br />2009,4 This code amendment was acknowledged by DLCD. . <br />` The retard of the "Minor Code Amendments Process" ~MiCAP} up to <br />and including Council deliberationss proves that the adopted <br />definitian was in direct response to the LUBA ~mis}interpretation of <br />Policy 1 under the "Land Use Element" section and that Council's <br />intenk in adopting a definition into the land use code was to clarify this <br />policy and other land use policies and code that used khe term without <br />roviding an accompanying definition. p <br />The text of Policy 1 under the "Land Use Element" section is also . <br />adopted at EC 9.9b8o~1}~a} and is specif ically identified in the code as <br />' "Policy 1" under the Land Use Element of the Westside Neighborhood <br />Plan Policies, The kexk of the policy in Eugene Code can be interpreted <br />. ~ in only one reasonable way - which is using the definition of <br />"residential character" that is~ also in the code. ~ . <br />. Since the same policy could not reasonably be interpreted in wholly <br />different ways, both copies of the policy ~i.e., in the WNP text and at <br />EC 9.96801}~a}} must be based on the definition of "residential <br />character" found in the code, This is consiskent with City Council's <br />clear intent to clarif y the WNP policy. <br />Vlre also pate that the definition at EC 9.0500 contains no qualification <br />on the scope of the definition or its application, and that the code <br />amendment creating this definition has been acknowledged, If there <br />. were an argument khat the defini~.on could nok apply to the policy at <br />EC 9.9b80~1}~a} because the definition conflicted with the VVNP policy, <br />such an argument was required to be made at the time ordinance <br />24417 was ado ted, Raising such an argument in the present case p <br />would be an impermissible collateral attack on the acknowledged <br />• ~ amendment, <br />In his decision, the Hearings official did not mention the definition of <br />"residential character" found at EC 9.0540, nor did he provide any <br />justification for ignoring it in favor of the earlier LUBA decision. Zt <br />. appears the Hearings off icial may not have recognized that the LUBA <br />a See Ordinance 2047, Council adopted this ordinance an August 1.~., Z006, The ordinance took <br />- effect on July 4, X009 after LUBA denied an appeal on other provisions in the ordinance. ~No ore <br />contested the "residential character" definition,} <br />~ The evidence to be submitted includes a-mail correspondence between the two authors of the <br />definition; Randy Hledik, who was at the time and is currently a Planning Commissioner, and . <br />• myself, <br />Appeal Statement Z 11-3 . 6 ~ August 16, 2011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 15 <br />9 <br />