f ~ <br />is permissible for any neighborhood or general commercial use' in the <br />Chambers Street Commercial Area to cause such erosion."' <br />. Furthe-r, if the Hearings official's second assumption were consistently <br />applied to all ~VI~NP subareas,$ Policy under the "Land Use Element" <br />section would be stripped of a1l~meaningful effect since all uses <br />allowed by each respective subarea's policy~ies} would be interpreted <br />as inherently not having any possibility of eroding the neighborhood's <br />residential character. The Hearings dfficial's construction would give , <br />no effect to Policy under the "Land Use Element" section10 and <br />would thus conflict with the SRS 174.010 requirement that "where <br />there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if <br />possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." <br />By relying on the erroneous assumptions identified above, the <br />Hearings ~f f icial incorrectly concluded, as under subsection A, above, <br />that no further assessment at all was required of the C-2 uses and their - <br />potential to erode the neighborhood's residential character. <br />. C, The Hearings Qf ficial improperly found that limiting C~2 uses would' be an <br />impermissx~le "collateral attack" on the C~2 Zane, <br />The- Hearings official asserted that adding a condition to the. zone <br />change whereby a specif is set of uses were not permitted would be a <br />"collateral attack" on the ordinances adapting and amending the C-Z <br />Zone: <br />"T'his quasi judicial proceeding cannot cotiateralry attack uses allowed <br />under the C-2 zone as those uses may_have changed over the years. See <br />~ It's just as implausible that City Council in 1987 was making an overarching deterrriination that <br />uses permitted then - or anytfine in the future -under the C-2 Zone could not conceivably erode <br />the neighborhood's residential character. <br />$ The Hearings Official appears to suggest as much in his statement: "At the same time, the policy <br />[preventing erosion of the neighborhood's residential character] cannot be read to require the <br />exclusion o£ uses that are specifically allowed by the then-existing zoning and the adopted <br />designations recognized by the wNP, rd," Decision at 7, 9 Under the Hearings official's interpretation of the relationship between each subarea's <br />respective "use" policies and Policy 1 under the "Land Use Element" section, even the earlier <br />LUBA interpretation v# Policy 1 would be superfluous, since all three residential subareas in the <br />VI~NP already include policies limiting the areas to "medium density residential uses," thereby <br />preventing conversion o#non-residential uses to residential use, . <br />~0 The Hearings Official appears to recognize the prvb~em potentially posed by his interpretation, <br />and attempts to counter with the statement that; "This does not read all meaning out of Policy 1, <br />As LUBA found in evaluating Policy 1, the policy still has a place in protecting the residential <br />areas of the plan area," However, as explained in the previous footnote, the policy would not <br />have any e##ect beyond the limits already imposed by respective residential subareas' individual <br />"use" policies, under the Hearings Official's interpretation, ~ - <br />Appeal Statement Z 1 ~.-3 1 a August ld, 2011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 19 <br />u <br />