PDF Page 17 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 10 <br />The language from the 2004 amendments the HO quotes at the top of page 11 says there is a <br />need to continue to move toward a parcel-specific Diagram. That language, however, does not <br />change the rules the Court stated. in Knutson for interpreting the Metro Plan where it is not <br />parcel-specific and not clear, as is the situation here. <br />(4) The HO's assumption that the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, in areas where it is <br />explicitly not parcel-specific, is a more reliable indication of the plan designation, is not <br />based on any law. This is a legally erroneous assumption. Decision at 11 "Second" point. <br />The following undisputed facts are relevant here: <br />• The 1980, 1987 and 2004 adopted versions of the Metro Plan Diagram each show a bit of <br />Parks and Open Space area near the south boundary line of the subject property, just <br />inside the UGB. See three 11x17. copies of Diagram submitted at hearing <br />• All parties agree that with respect to the subject property, the Metro Plan Diagram <br />adopted in 2004 is not parcel-specific. See HO Staff Report at 4 para 1, 5 para 6. <br />• The 2004 Diagram was printed from the RLID database. The 1980 and 1987 Diagrams <br />were printed from some other database. <br />The Hearing Official's assumption is that because the Diagram was printed from a different <br />database, it is more reliable than the former 1987 Diagram and, therefore, more weighty in <br />determining the plan designation. It is a reason to depart from the Knutson rule's for interpreting <br />the plan designation. <br />This assumption is completely unfounded in any law. The Metro Plan text says that both the <br />1987 and the 2004 Diagrams are not parcel-specific for the subject property. Just because the <br />Diagram came out of a computer does not make it more accurate. The 1987 Diagram had <br />colored blobs with Mundy edges.. The 2004 Diagram has colored blobs with straight edges <br />because RLID prints polygons. That is very simple. <br />If any more weight is to be given to a non-parcel specific part of the 2004 Diagram than to the <br />same part of the non-parcel specific 1987 Diagram, that has to be justified in the language of <br />Ordinance No. 20319 (April 21, 2004), which adopted the'2004 amendments and Diagram. <br />There is no such justification, either in the 2004 plan diagram or in Exhibit D to the Ordinance <br />No. 20319, which was supporting findings. The Diagram was left generalized at this location, <br />with the refinement plan providing the clarity. The chronology.of plan mapping for this area is: <br />• Adoption of 1980 Metro Plan Diagram (generalized and not parcel specific at this <br />location.- <br />• Adoption of 1982 Laurel Hill refinement plan Diagram (showing LDR all the way to the <br />UGB). <br />7g- <br />