n <br />. ~ ~ necessary analysis of these uses or the evidence in the record that these <br />uses are not "general commercial uses." <br />Section III.E of the JWN testimony of July 2D, X011 describes the proper <br />interpretation of "general commercial uses." <br />We further note that the Hearings Official's entire argument with <br />respect to the interpretation of the "general commercial uses" term <br />used in the WNP policy is that that the C-2 zone was titled "General <br />Commercial District" which includes the words "general commercial" <br />that are also used in the policy, The~Hearings Official assumes on this <br />basis that the City Council intended the policy to mean the enact set of <br />uses permitted under C-2, at the time of adoption and at any point in <br />. the f uture, <br />Despite repeated references to this word correspondence, and multiple <br />assertions that the correspondence settles the issue of interpretatia~, the <br />Hearings 4f f tcia! has cited na other evidence, nor ar~y legal basis for his <br />f~'nding, ~ . <br />There are several problems with the Hearings official's reasoning. <br />First, he cites text on page 3-14 under the general "FINDINGS -LAND <br />US.E AND ZONING" subsection of the WNP. This subsection is not <br />within the "Chambers Street Commercial Area" section on page 3-11. <br />W~ the "Chambers Street Commercial Area" section, there's the <br />following statement: <br />- Since 1948, most o f the area has been .paned either C-Z Comr~unit <br />Cornrnerciat or C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. " Emphasis added, <br />Thus, the more immediate context of the subject policy does not <br />support the textual basis relied upon by the Hearings Official. . <br />Similarly, under the "West 7th Avenue Commercial Area" section on <br />page 3-10 and under the "Eastern Residential~Mixed Use Area" section <br />an page 3-$, C-2 is referred ~o~as "C~~ Community Commercial." <br />At the very least, the multiple uses of "C-2 Community Commercial" <br />. indicate the WNP authors and City Councilors were not sa f acused on <br />.the exiting C-2 code as the Hearings of f icial believes, or they would <br />. have been more likely not to use two different terms for the C-2 Zone <br />. on the same page, ~ . <br />Second; as explained in the following section, the Hearings official <br />relied on the wrong version of Eugene Code in supporting his <br />~ ar ument. He also resented na evidence that any of the parties g p <br />involved in the writing, revision and approval of this policy were as <br />Appeal Statement Z 11-3 ~14 August 1b, 2011 . <br />PC Agenda -Page 23 <br />