' while the condition in Willamette Gaks was related to TPR <br />compliance, LtTBA's reasoning still applies in the present case. Directly . <br />applying LUBA's analysis: A condition limiting uses "does not <br />eliminate other EC provisions or amend the provisions of the EC to <br />include compliance with the [limitation on uses for aII applicants." <br />The Hearings ~f f icial's claim that adding a condition in this particular <br />zone change would be a de facto amendment of the Eugene Code is <br />without merit. <br />SEGoND ASSIGNMENT of ERROR <br />The decision erred by f finding the application rnet the 'following approval <br />criteria, with respect to Policy 1 under the "Chambers Street Commercial <br />Area" section of the wNP; <br />EC 9.88651}; ~'he proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions <br />of the Metro Plan. The written teat of the Metro Plan shalt take precedence over <br />the Metro flan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. <br />EC 9.886~~2y: ~'he proposed change is consistent with applicable adopted <br />ref inement plans. ~n the event o f inconsistencies between these plans and the <br />Metro Plan, the Metro t'lan controls. <br />The cited policy states; <br />"This area shall be recognized as appropriate far neighborhood and general <br />commercial uses. "31 <br />The Hearings official erred in not finding that the following uses allowed by <br />the C-2 Zone are not true "general commercial uses," which makes these uses <br />inconsistent with the cited policy: <br />• Club and Lodge of State or National Organization <br />Correctional Facility, excluding Residential Treatment Center <br />The Hearings 4f f icial relied on the following erroneous f findings: <br />A, The hearings official f ailed to apply the proper interpretation of "general <br />commercial uses" by incorrectly relying on an assumption that this term <br />rneans exactly those uses allowed by the version of the C-2 Zone in eff ect at <br />the time of any application, rather than relying on the applicable . <br />description found within the comprehensive plan text. <br />By relying on this assumption, the Hearings official chose not to <br />consider the actual characteristics of the two uses cited above and did <br />not base his findings of consistency with EC 9.SSd5~1}and ~2} an the <br />» See WIVP 3-11. <br />Appeal Statement Z 11-3 1~ August 1b, X011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 22 <br />