2. Policy 1 under the "Land Use Element" section cannot restrict any <br />users}allowed under Policy 1 of the "Chambers Street Commercial <br />Area" or the two policies would be "internally inconsistent," <br />. Based on these assumptions, he then concluded that all C-2 uses are <br />~ inherentl consistent with Polic 1 under the "Land Use Element" Y Y <br />section. <br />The first assumption is addressed more fully under the Second <br />Assi nment of Error, below, which dennonstrates that at least two C-2 g <br />uses are not consistent with Policy ~ of the "Chambers Street <br />Commercial Area." ~ ~ . <br />The Hearings Official, however, compounded his errors in that respect <br />when relying on the first assumption above in his findings with regard <br />. to Policy 1 under the. ""Land Use Element" section. The Hearings <br />Official claimed: <br />"Nlr, Conte would have me read folic ~ as orbiddin certain C-2 uses in y f S <br />the sub-area. ~Ie makes this argument despite the fact that these uses ~C-2 <br />' uses were allowed in the sub-area in 1985 when the plan was adopted. <br /> <br />In 1985, Chambers Policy I determined that general commercial uses, <br />without tirn1tation ~ were appropriate within the sub-area." (emphasis <br />added} Decision at 7, . <br />These claims go well beyond the Hearings Official's assumption that <br />Policy 1 of .the "Chambers Street Commercial Area" allows all C-2 <br />uses. Nothin in the wNP or in any evidence in the record supports a <br />sweeping funding that C-2 uses were allowed in this area "without <br />limitation" by the wNP. Policy 1 under the `"Land Use Element" <br />section is precisely a limitation imposed by the wNP upon C-~ uses in . ' <br />this area, as discussed below. <br />From the Hearin s Official's statement, it a pears he may believe that ' <br />g p the fact certain C-2 uses were allowed when.the wNP was adapted <br />. implies the VIrNP intended for these uses to remain allowed, However, <br />there is no requirement for a refinement plan to be consistent with <br />. existing land use code at the time the plan is adopted; and, in fact, <br />Oregon's land use laws anticipate that the comprehensive plan <br />including refinement plans} will always be the controlling local land <br />use instrument. Thus, the local jurisdiction will evolve the' plan over <br />. time; and, in due course, update the Land use code as the <br />i ~ implementation mechanism consistent with the plan. <br />A eal Statement Z 11-3 $ ~ Au ust 1b, 2011 Pp g <br />PC Agenda -Page 17 <br />