PDF Page 13 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 6 <br />In that case, the designation in the Metro Plan diagram would prevail over <br />an inconsistent designation in the applicable refinement plan." <br />[200 Or App at 301-302] [Emphasis added] <br />Applying this rule to the subject property, LUBA and the Court of Appeals will decide, without <br />any deference to the Planning Commission, that the plan designation for the entire property is <br />Low Density Residential: That is because the.subject property is "near the boundary between <br />use designations on the diagram" and, therefore, based only on the Diagram, the designation is <br />"unclear." Therefore, LUBA and the Court will look to the refinement plan; as they did in <br />Knutson in 2005 and Carlson in 1981. The refinement plan provides clarity; it is plainly evident <br />that LDR extends to the UGB in the refinement plan diagram. LUBA and the Court will view <br />the refinement plan as refining the unclear Diagram, not conflicting with it. <br />C. - Basic mistake by the Hearing official: failure to follow Court of Appeals' rule. <br />Here is how the Hearing Official made his mistake:' Following the staff recommendation, he <br />looked to the Plan Diagram and saw a smidgen of green on the city side of the UGB line and <br />concluded that the Diagram is clear that there is some Parks and Open Space plan designation on <br />the city side of the UGB; he then disregarded the refinement plan as being in conflict. According <br />to the Court of Appeals, he should have noted that boundary line between LDR and the Parks <br />and Open Space is very close to the UGB, which is the south boundary of the property, and then <br />concluded that the Diagram is not clear; then he should have looked to the refinement plan for <br />clarification, concluding the entire site is LDR. <br />It was a 'simple error - seeing a conflict where the LUBA and the Court of Appeals say there is a <br />clarification via the refinement plan, not a conflict. <br />D. None of the other supporting reasons offered by the Hearing Official is a basis for <br />not following the Court of Appeals direction. <br />If the HO were following the Court of Appeals rule for reading the plan, he would have posed a <br />different question for himself than he did. His basic question, posed at the top of page 8, is: <br />"The fundamental question presented, by the applicant's zone change request is <br />whether the City Council intended to apply a Parks and'Open Space designation <br />to the subject property and adjacent lands in the adopted Metro Plan Diagram. if <br />so, was it the City Council's intent to allow the Laurel Hill Plan to obviate that <br />decision through a "refinement" of the Metro Plan." <br />The question, according to the Court of Appeals, should have been: <br />The fundamental question presented by the applicant's zone change request is <br />whether the City Council intended to apply a Parks and Open Space designation <br />75 <br />