PDF Page 15 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 8 <br />there were any'ambiguity in the Metro Plan Diagram it is resolved by reference to <br />the associated Metro Plan text." <br />This reasoning does not logically support deviating from the Court of Appeals rule of thumb for <br />interpreting the plan. <br />A few undisputed facts are relevant here: <br />• The property on both sides of the ridgeline here is in private ownership. [Record cite] <br />• The UGB and city limits follow the property line at this location. [Record cite] <br />• There is no Metro Plan text that says all property, public or private, along both sides of <br />the South Hills ridgeline should be POS. There are large parts of the South Hills ridgeline <br />that are quite remote from the POS designation. <br />• For this location, in the 1982 refinement plan, the City Council explicitly stated-that the <br />Laurel Hill Plan refines the Metro Plan, and the LDR extends all the way to the UGB. <br />A plan description saying that POS is appropriate to implement the Metro Plan policies for the <br />South Hills ridgeline is not relevant to answering the question - Where does the POS stop at this <br />location? All 'the property along the ridgeline is private. <br />Following the Court of Appeals rule for interpretation recognizes the plan designation boundary <br />being at an easy to locate point on the ground-the UGB, which is the property line. If the <br />Commission picks any reason to push the POS boundary into the subject property, it has no basis <br />for determining exactly whereto draw the line. It will be guessing - making policy on the fly. <br />That is not OK, as every square foot has a plan designation and getting it right is a question of <br />law, not making policy. <br />Consider this problem: If the POS line were considered to be inside the subject property, how <br />would the Commission locate it? Staff could not locate it. The Commission should ask the staff: <br />If the LDR-line is somewhere inside the property as you suggest, why did you not recommend <br />rezoning that part to R-1? How would you resolve that question if you had to do it? <br />Other than recognizing the south property line, the only way to draw the line without guessing <br />would be to recognize the POS as going all the way to the north property line, leaving no LDR. <br />If the HO is right about the weight of the POS plan description, then including all the property in <br />the POS would implement the Metro Plan even better. But he is wrong. <br />If the Commission agrees with the HO that part of the subject property is POS, then it has -an <br />obligation to rezone the balance to R-1. We applied for R-1 on the property; we proved up on <br />77 <br />