' decision was made at a time when the "residential character" <br />definition did not yet exist in Eugene Cade, <br />By relying on the much narrower LUBA interpretation of "residential <br />character," which has been superseded by an acknowledged code <br />amendment, the Hearings Official chose to assess consistency with the <br />cited policy based solely on whether a rezoning to C~2 would change a <br />residential use to a nonresidential use. <br />Consequently, the Hearings Official chose not to consider the potential <br />impacts of the six uses cited above on the proximal residential areas. <br />Neither applicant, nor Planning Division staff, nor the Hearings <br />official performed any analysis of these uses' impacts, nor did the <br />Hearings Official consider in any way the evidence in the hearings <br />record that these uses could erode the neighborhood's residential <br />character. <br />The Hearings Official explicitly acknowledged he didn't consider the <br />lack of evidence and analysis in his decision and justified the omission <br />this way; <br />"Although fir. Conte argues that the applicant failed to present any <br />evidence in response to certain issues he has raised, the issues raised were <br />legal issues requiring legal analysis of the applicable criteria, not questions <br />of fact that required the submission of particular evidence by the <br />app rcant. " Decision at 9. <br />As shown in~ this and the remaining sections, the Hearings Official <br />erred in all his findings on the legal issues that he relied upon to ignore <br />the need for evidence and analysis in regards to both Policy 1 under the . <br />"Land Use Element" section and to Policy 1 under the "Chambers <br />Street Commercial Area" section. <br />B, The Hearings Official improperly rendered Policy 1 under the "Land Use <br />Element" section irrelevant by assuming that alI C-2 uses were intended by <br />the wNP to be inherently consis#en# with Policy 1 <br />The Hearings official made the following two flawed assumptions:s . <br />1. Policy 1 of the "Chambers Street Comr~nercial Area" allows all uses ~ . <br />permitted under the C-2 Zone. ~ . <br />6 The Hearings official stated: "These C-2 uses were dekermined, at the time of adoption in 1985, <br />as appropriate uses in the subarea, and such uses would necessarily be consistent with the other <br />WNP policies. To find okherwise would mean that the City Council adopted an internally <br />inconsistent plan, In ether words, in 1985, a C-2 use on the subject property would not erode the <br />residential character of the neighborhood," Decision at 6. ~ , ~ . <br />Appeal Statement Z 113 ~ August 16, X011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 16 <br />