PDF Page 18 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 11 <br />• Adoption of 1987 Metro Plan Diagram (generalized and not parcel specific at this <br />location. <br />• Adoption of 2004 Metro Plan Diagram (generalized and not parcel specific at this <br />location: <br />No tweeking of the Diagram was necessary in 2004 because there was no conflict between the <br />Metro Plan Diagram and the refinement plan Diagram at this location. <br />We' explained to the Hearing Official that in each printed version of the Metro Plan Diagram <br />(1980, 1987 and 2004), the location of the UGB line at this site, and the amount and location of <br />POS green near the south property line, wiggled around a bit. There is no decision by the City <br />Council saying that these changes are policy choices. The text of the Metro Plan says the UGB <br />line at this location is to be firmed up at annexation, which occurred in 2007. The ebb and flow <br />of the POS green near the property line is just the vagaries of the printing process for an <br />explicitly non-parcel specific part of the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />(5) The HO has mischaracterized the applicant's position as a straw man. The <br />applicant is not arguing that every property can have only one plan designation. The <br />applicant is saying to apply the Court of Appeals rule: Where the boundary between plan <br />designations is near the property line the Diagram is unclear, and the refinement plan is to <br />be consulted for more clarity. (Decision at 11, last para, "Third" point.) <br />The Hearing Official says we are arguing that a piece of property can have only one plan <br />designation. The applicant is not saying that. That position is not stated in the plan and is <br />contrary to the plan. <br />We are simply saying that the rule stated by the Court of Appeals in Knutson applies here: <br />Where the plan boundary line is close to a property line the plan Diagram is "unclear" and the <br />refinement plan is to be consulted for clarity. The Knutson rule is qualified by the 2004 <br />amendments that say for which parcels the Metro Plan Diagram is now parcel-specific. That <br />post-Knutson qualification does not apply here, as everyone seems to agree. <br />80 <br />