PDF Page 14 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 7 <br />to the subject property and adjacent lands in the adopted Metro Plan Diagram. If <br />the Metro Plan Diagram is unclear because it shows a boundary between two plan <br />designations near the subject property line, does Laurel Hill Plan clarify the <br />intention of the City Council? <br />So, the Hearing Official's analysis started out on the wrong foot. The balance of his analysis is <br />focused on a number of reasons justifying his conclusion that there is a conflict. - We address <br />each element of his reasoning here. None of his reasons is a lawful basis for'straying from the <br />Court of Appeals' directive about how to read the plan in a situation like this. <br />(1) The HO erred in conchiding that the Metro Plan text description of the <br />Parks and Open Space designation supports pushing the POS into the subject property <br />Looking to the text of the Metro Plan for guidance, the HO says that the description of the Park <br />and Open Space plan designation indicates an intention to apply it to the private property at this <br />location. Decision at 9..It does no such thing. The description quoted by the HO is: <br />"This designation includes existing publicly owned metropolitan and regional <br />scale Parks and publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries in <br />recognition of their role as visual open space. This designation also includes <br />other privately owned lands in response to Metro Plan policies, such as the South <br />Hills ridgeline, the Amazon corridor, the Q Street, ditch, and buffers separating <br />sand and gravel designations from residential lands." <br />This language says what kinds of land can be given the POS designation; it does not say how far <br />the POS designation extends at any-particular location. For example, if this language actually <br />describes what lands have the POS designation, then the POS designation would extend along <br />the length of the South Hills ridgeline. It does not; large areas of the ridgeline are nowhere near <br />POS. Were the POS can be applied does not tell you where it is applied. <br />In addition, the operative phrase in this definition is "Metro-Plan policies; such as the South Hills <br />ridgeline." However, no such Metro Plan policies are discussed by.the HO. Giving meaning to <br />this phrase would require looking at Metro Plan South Hills ridgeline policies, which was not <br />done. The applicant sees no Metro Plan policies saying that private land along the ridgeline <br />should be plan designated POS: Instead of identifying relevant policies, the HO includes. <br />simply at page 9: <br />"The identification of the South Hills ridgeline as being privately owned lands <br />that fall within the POS plan designation is a significant indication that the City <br />Council intentionally adopted the Parks and Open Space- designation in that area <br />of the city. Therefore, the Hearings Official concludes that the Metro Plan text <br />and the Metro Plan Dia ram are consistent and strongly indicate an intention to <br />impose the Parks and Open Space land use designation on the subject property. If <br />76 <br />