1 ' <br />However, any findings regarding legislative intent that rely on earlier <br />versions} of code must accurately establish the text of the specific code . <br />versions} cif any} that were actually considered by the VlTestside <br />Neighborhood Planning Team, the Eugene Planning Commission, and <br />the Eugene City Council. <br />Neither applicant, nor staff nor the Hearings Official has met that <br />burden of proof . <br />C. The Hearings Dfficrai improperly found that limiting C-2 uses would be an <br />impermissible "collateral attack" on the C-Z Zone. <br />This error was discussed under section C of the First Assignment of <br />Error and the text of that section is incorporated herein, <br />We note that there are differences between the two assignments of <br />error. While it's clear that the First Assignment of Error doesn't require <br />invalidating the C-2 zone altogether, that possibility may arise as a <br />result of the arguments presented in section A of the Second <br />Assignment of Error. <br />Should the Planning Commission find that's the case, then we would <br />paint to the LUBA decision in Barnes vs. Cit o f HiZrsboro cited earlier} <br />as a basis for not rejecting this argument, <br />D, The Hearings off icial improperly f ound that limiting C-Z uses wouid <br />create a new sub-zoning designation under the Eugene Cade. <br />This error was discussed under~section D of the First Assignment of <br />Error and the text of that section is incorporated herein. <br />THIRD ASSIGNMENT QF ERRaR <br />By approving future development for any and all C-2 uses, the decision erred <br />by allowing more intensive development than the comprehensive plan <br />allows, which the 4regan Supreme Caurt determined in Baker vs. City o f <br />Milwa~kie is impermissible. 2148 500 X1975} <br />fn s~crn~nary, we concl~c~de that a comprel~ensive plan is the controlling <br />land ~cse planning instrument for a city, upon passage of a <br />co~zprelzensive plan a city assumes a responsibility to of fectr~ate ghat plan <br />and con form prier can f iic~ing zoning ordinances to it. We further hold <br />that the zonin decisions o a citt m~cst ~e in accord with that Ian and a <br />zonin ordinance which allows a more intensive use than that rescribed <br />in the~lan must fail, ~Eznphasis added.] <br />The City of Eugene's comprehensive plan is made up of a number of documents. <br />Two of those documents are the Bx~gene-Springy f field ~Vletropotitan Area General Piar~ <br />A e I Stat n 211- ~ 17 pp a eme t 3 August 16, 2411 <br />PC Agenda -Page 26 <br />