PDF Page 12 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 5 <br />B. LUBA and the Court of Appeals have stated the rule for reading the Metro Plan. <br />When LUBA reversed the city's zoning decision in Knutson, it pointed to a much earlier case <br />where the City Council correctly explained the relationship between the Metro Plan and <br />refinement plan diagrams Carlson v. City of Eugene, 3 Or LUBA 175 (1981). When the Court <br />of Appeals affirmed LUBA's decision in Knutson, the Court explained in crisp terms how to read <br />the Metro Plan and the refinement plan together. <br />"As we have already indicated, however, the critical issues in this case are the <br />relationship between the Metro Plan and the WAP and the methodology for <br />determining the plan designation of the subject property. Contrary to petitioners' <br />[opponents'] assertions, those are not questions of fact but are legal issues that are <br />governed by the plans themselves. [200 Or App at 300] <br />u**** <br />'"In other words, the Metro Plan is not the only planning document that must be <br />considered in determining the designation of a particular site. Instead, the Metro <br />Plan expressly contemplates that refinement plans will be considered as well. [200 <br />Or App at 301] <br /> <br />"Although it is clear that the Metro Plan is the guiding document and takes <br />precedence over a refinement plan where inconsistencies exist, the Metro 'Plan <br />diagram is only a generalized depiction of land uses. The Metro Plan diagram <br />provides few clear boundaries between land use designations. Although some <br />designations appear to border named streets, most do not, and the diagram's <br />comparatively small one inch to 8,000-foot scale does not include any depiction <br />of individual lots. As a consequence, the land use designation for properties <br />near the boundary between use designations on the diagram is unclear. As <br />indicated by the Metro Plan, those ambiguities require reference to local <br />government refinement documents to conclusively determine the applicable <br />designation. Under those circumstances, there is no inconsistency between the <br />Metro Plan and a refinementplan..Instead, the refinement plan serves to <br />resolve the inherent ambiguities that exist in a general diagram such as-the <br />Metro Plan diagram.FN6 <br />"FN6. Under different circumstances; however, an inconsistency between <br />the Metro Plan and a refinement plan could clearly exist. For example, if it <br />were possible to locate a subject property based on the minimal referents <br />in the Metro Plan diagram and the location of the property was not near <br />the boundary between two use designations, the Metro Plan diagram, as a <br />matter of law, might indicate the subject property's land use designation. <br />74 <br />