PDF Page 10 <br />jr LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 3 <br />LUBA and the Court of Appeals will not defer to any part of the Commission's decision <br />about how to read the plan. They will 'apply the Knutson rule unless the Commission can <br />point to some change in the Metro Plan that is both relevant and material for this site. <br />The HO hasnot identified any change. The Commission cannot either. <br />2. Because the HO got the plan designation wrong, he erroneously failed to evaluate the <br />tentative PUD application and the related Standards Review and TIA applications. Those <br />applications should have been approved, either outright or with conditions. <br />The HO opined at the hearing that he did not have a positive staff report to work with if <br />he wanted to approve the applications. After recommending denial of the zone change, <br />staff truncated its review of the PUD application; they did not even-give the HO a list of <br />proposed conditions in the event he approved the zoning, as they typically do. In its 71- <br />page Final Argument, attached and incorporated into this list of appeal issues, the <br />applicant gave the HO what amounts to a positive staff report supporting approval with a <br />standard list of conditions pulled.-from previous South Hills tentative PUDs. We <br />recommend that to the Commission. <br />M. Discussion <br />This discussion applies to each of the errors alleged above. <br />The Hearing Official made a simple legal error in determining the plan designation for this <br />property. He found a conflict between the Metro Plan diagram and the refinement plan diagram, <br />which caused him to defer to the Metro Plan Diagram, which he said plainly designates part of <br />this property as Parks and Open Space. <br />This is exactly the kind of error that was recommended by the staff to the Hearing Official in the <br />Knutson zone change in 2004. That Knutson staff recommendation was adopted by the Hearing <br />Official and then affirmed by the Planning Commission, only to be reversed by LUBA and the <br />Court of Appeals. See Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, Eugene, 48 Or LUBA 399, aft'd 200 Or <br />App 292, 114 P3d 1150 (2005) (June 22, 2005), relying on Carlson Y. City of Eugene, 3 Or <br />LUBA 175 (1981). In Knutson the city said there was a conflict; LUBA and the Court of Appeals <br />said there was no conflict, explaining how the Metro Plan and the refinement plan are to be read <br />together. <br />A. The language in the Metro Plan'supporting the Knutson decision is unchanged. <br />The Hearing Official attempts to distinguish the rule in the Knutson decision as not outdated, in <br />order to find a conflict between the plans in this situation. There is no basis for distinguishing <br />Knutson. The plan language in effect for the Knutson decision describes the Metro Plan as a <br />framework plan that includes refinement plans, with-the Metro Plan Diagram being generalized <br />and made more specific by refinement plans. Refinement-plans may not conflict with the Metro <br />Plan, but making the general Diagram more specific via a refinement plan is- not a conflict. <br />72 <br />