PDF Page 16 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal. Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 9 <br />that entitlement for all areas plan designated LDR. The Commission must rezone what is LDR. - <br />Deciding what is LDR is the city's obligation, not the applicant's,, because it is the city's plan.' <br />(2) Absence of a POS designation in the Laurel Hill Plan supports the <br />applicant's position. <br />The HO erroneously concluded that the refinement plan is uninformative because it does not <br />show any Parks and Open Space designation. Decision-at 10. <br />"As all parties note, the Laurel Hill Plan contains a land use diagram. The <br />diagram shows three land use designations: low density residential, medium <br />density residential, and commercial. There is no Parks and Open Space <br />designation on the Laurel Hill land use diagram. As such, the Laurel Hill Plan is <br />uninformative, and there is no additional information by which the Metro Plan <br />Diagram can be refined." <br />On the contrary, it is very informative. The Laurel Hill Plan only goes to the UGB. There is no <br />POS inside the UGB. It shows LDR all the way to the city limlts/UGB, which is the south line <br />of the subject property. And, in the adopting resolution, the City Council said: "The land Use <br />Diagram included in the Laurel Hill Plan Update is hereby adopted as a refinement of the <br />Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram." Res. No. 3700 (July 26, 1982), <br />section 2.- <br />(3) The HO erroneously characterizes the applicant as saying that whenever the <br />Metro Plan is not parcel specific under the 2004 amendments then one must look to the <br />refinement plan to determine the plan designation. Decision at 10 last para, "First" point. <br />This is not the applicant's argument. There are instances where the Metro Plan may not be parcel <br />specific under the 2004 amendments but it is still possible to determine the plan designation <br />without looking to a refinement plan .2 The Court of Appeals explained this is possible. See, for <br />example, footnote 6 from the Court of Appeals' decision in Knutson quoted above. However, <br />that is not the situation here. The Court explained that where the boundary line between two <br />plan designations is near a property line, then the Diagram is "unclear" and one must look to the <br />refinement plan. That is plainly the situation here. The HO is saying just the opposite - when the <br />boundary line ofthe-P6S is on the city side of the UGB near the south property line then the <br />Metro Plan is "clear" there is some POS on the property. <br />t The HO said, at page five of his decision, that the applicant said it was allot nothing on the zoning. This misreads <br />the applicant's final argument. The applicant has intended throughout this process to get the LRD area zoned R-1. <br />The Final Argument was meant to acknowledge the reality that if any part of the site-is POS, then that part of the <br />zone change must be denied and the three development applications must also be denied in their entirety. <br />2 Indeed, this is the only method in large areas of the city where there is not refinement plan. <br />78 <br />