r <br />r <br />. Thus, at least the first step in, interpreting.this comprehensive plan <br />policy is quite simple and direct: The policy designates the <br />. encompassed area for "Neighborhood Commercial Facilities" and <br />"Communit~r Commercial Centers," as described in the.Nletro Plan. <br />The fact that there's a strong abut not perfect} correspondence between <br />the C-2 zone and the "Community Commercial Centers" Metro Plan <br />category is no coincidence - C-2 has clearly been the zone intended to <br />im. le~nent the "Community Commercial Centers" category, and C-2 is p _ <br />now even titled "Community Commercial Zone." <br />But this only strengthens the argument far interpreting the WNP <br />olicy based on the Metro Plan categories, since land. use code must <br />P conform to the comprehensive plan and not vice-versa. Thus, it makes . <br />more sense to see the ~1'NP policy and the Metro Plan category <br />descriptions as the combined definition of what is allowable in the <br />"Chambers Street Commercial Area"; and where a use permitted in <br />C-2 is not a use within the "Commurity Commercial Centers" <br />category, that use cannot be allowed.12 <br />B. The Hearings official relied in his findings on an erroneous date for , <br />adapt~an of the WNP, and a version of Eugene code, that were two years . <br />earlier than the actual date the WNP was adopted. <br />In his anal sis, the Hearin s official stated at least seven times that the Y g . <br />_ ~IIINP was adopted in 19$5, when the actual adoption date was January <br />12,19$7. For example: ~ . <br />"fn date 1984 when the VIP was being developed and early 1gS5 when <br />the -City Council adopted the WI~1~', Decision at 5; . <br />The~Hearings official then went on to build his entire findings <br />regarding Policy 1 under the "Chambers Street Commercial Area" <br />section on the version of Eugene Code in eff ect~on September 15,1984. <br />Correctin this mistake would not change the fact that, to interpret g <br />refinement ,plan ~i.e., 'WNP} text - which is inherently,part of the <br />tom rehensive plan, the Hearings official should have first looked to p <br />the descriptive text in the Metro Plan, which is part of the same <br />comprehensive plan; as discussed above. <br />~ [t isn't a far reach to see the Hearings Official's Ending as implying that City Council can redefine the <br />"Community Commercial Centers" category in the comprehensive plan merely by amending the C-2 uses in the code, While the City is permitted to make an implementing zone more restrictive <br />than the <br />comprehensive plan, the decision in Baker makes clear that a Cade amendment can allow more~intensive <br />uses than the comprehensive plan allows. <br />A~pea~ Statement Z 11-3 16 August 16, 201-1 <br />PC Agenda -Page 25 L <br />