' The Hearings official seems to have made the same mistake that the . <br />Oregon Supreme Court addressed in the landmark Baker vs. City o f <br />Milwaukie X21 ~R 500 X1975}} decision: <br />"We agree with the ptainti f f and the amicx curiae ~I~orthwest <br />Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Environmental Council, and <br />~regan Chapter o f the American institute a f Planners} that the pasiiion o f <br />defendants evidences a fundamental misunderstanding afthe relationship <br />between planning and zoning. <br /> <br />~'he basic instrument for county or municipal land use planning is the <br />'comprehensive plan,' ~'he plan has been described as a eneral tan to S p <br />control and direct the use and development o f pro perty irc a n~unicipaZzty. <br />[citing Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 ~r 574, 582, 507 <br />P2d 23 X1973}~ <br /> <br />Zoning, on the other hand, is the means b y which the comprehensive plan <br />is e f f ectuated, " . <br />Vlle turn next to the Hearings official's second assumption, Even if the <br />first assumption were correct, there is neither text in the WNP nor any <br />ether evidence supporting the assumption that it would be "internally <br />inconsistent" for Policy 1 under the "hand Use Element" section to <br />restrict certain uses}allowed under Policy 1 of the "Char~ibers Street <br />Commercial Area," <br />In general, two refinement plan policies are not necessarily internally <br />inconsistent merely because one policy may add additional restrictions <br />on what would otherwise be allowed by the other policy considered in <br />isolation. <br />The most straightforward interpretation, based on the kext and <br />structure af,the WNP sections, is that Policy 1 under the "Land Use <br />Element" section is an overarching policy that applies to all the <br />subareas, and that what is allowed in a subarea are those uses allowed <br />by the policies in the WNP section for the subarea, as tong as they don't ` <br />erode the neighborhood's residential character. <br />it's completely implausible that City Council intended the pair of W1VP <br />policies in this case to mean has the Hearings ~ffieial would have it}: <br />"Prevent erosion of the neighborhood's residential character; except it <br />Appeal Statement ~ 11-3 9 August 16, 2011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 18 <br />