Nonetheless, based on the RRSC's subarea c. River Road/Hilliard diagram, it appears as if the area <br />included in the request can reasonably be interpreted to be designated for commercial use. <br />While the subarea diagram is not entirely clear, there appears to be no other plan text providing <br />more guidance in this case, nor any evidence or argument to the contrary. <br />General Land Use Policy 1.0 (RRSC page 2-7) states: <br />1.0 Minimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility between land uses, <br />especially among residential, commercial-industrial, and commercial-agricultural uses. <br />The direction of potential land use-conflicts is towards the east where the proposed C-2 <br />Community Commercial zoning would abut low-density residential uses. To ensure consistency <br />with this policy, as well as Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies 1.0 and 2.0 noted below, <br />the addition of a site review (/SR) overlay is warranted. There are past zone change decisions in <br />the area (subject to these same RRSC policies) which provide precedence for the /SR overlay being <br />used to ensure compatibility (see Z 06-3, Z 07-18 and Z 08-3). In these past zone changes, the /SR <br />overlay was proposed or otherwise required to address compatibility and other RRSC policies. <br />In the first of these three zone changes in 2006 (Z 06-3), on appeal, the Eugene Planning <br />Commission concluded that the application of the /SR overlay ensures that future commercial <br />development and redevelopment (either C-1 or C-2) will be compatible with adjacent residential <br />uses. The Planning Commission noted that "[i]f site review is sufficient to ameliorate the impacts <br />generated by C-2 uses, it is sufficient to ameliorate the impacts generated by C-1 uses." This same <br />reasoning was applied by the Hearings Official in approving two subsequent zone changes (Z 07-18 <br />and Z 08-3) that relied on the /SR overlay to address these policies. <br />No person has provided argument to the hearings official suggesting that the city's prior reasoning <br />and practice for ensuring compliance with this policy is incorrect as a matter of law or <br />inappropriate for the purpose of this zone change. Hence, the hearings official concludes the /SR <br />designation is the appropriate zoning mechanism to minimize conflicts between residential and <br />commercial uses consistent with this policy. <br />General.Land Use Policy 2.0 (RRSC page 2-7) states: <br />2.0 Adopt zoning that is consistent with the land use diagram and policies contained in the <br />land use element of the Urban Facilities Plan. <br />The findings above regarding consistency with the land use diagram are incorporated herein by <br />reference, along with the findings of compliance with other policies in the RRSC, to show that the <br />proposed C-2 zoning is consistent with this policy. <br />Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies 1.0 and 2.0 (RRSC page 2-18) state: <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 11-5) 5 <br />376