Mr. Fred Wilson <br />September 16, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." E.g., Parratt v. Taylor, 451 <br />U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1912 (1981)." <br />(2) There is only one right line; the plan is a question of law; therefore, staff's suggestion <br />that there might be alternative reasonable lines is wrong. <br />As we explained in our initial narrative, the location of the boundary line is a question of law, <br />because the line is a part of the plan, and the meaning of the plan is a question of law. Knutson <br />Family LLC v. City ofEugene, 200 Or App 292, 114 P3d 1150 (2005) (June 22, 2005)("[T]he <br />critical issues in this case are the relationship between the Metro Plan and the WAP and the <br />methodology for determining the plan designation of the subject property. Contrary to <br />petitioners' assertions, those are not questions of fact but are legal issues that are governed by the <br />plans themselves.") <br />Finding the correct line is an exercise in interpreting an ambiguous plan provision, in this <br />instance an ambiguous plan Diagram. The interpretation rules of PGE apply. This is not an <br />exercise in policy making, that is, deciding where the line "should" be. The ultimate policy <br />choice has already been made by the City Council when it adopted the Plan Diagram. The task <br />now is to determine what that decision was. <br />II. The key issue in this application is compliance with the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />The issue is locating the ambiguous Metro Plan boundary line on the survey of the subject <br />property, that is, transferring the line from the generalized Diagram to the accurate site plan. <br />(1) We know from the LUBA holding in Round I litigation that at this location the <br />refinement plan Diagram conflicts with the Metro Plan Diagram; therefore the Metro <br />Plan Diagram controls. <br />The applicant entered Round I assuming that all of the property is plan designated LDR. This <br />assumption was based on the Annexation Order findings and staff report, which recite as such. <br />See Exhibit E. It is also based on the refinement plan Diagram that shows LDR all the way to <br />the UGB. <br />The Staff Report took a contrary position in Round I, contending that the refinement plan <br />Diagram conflicts with the Metro Plan Diagram and the latter controls. The Hearings Official <br />and Commission agreed. LUBA affirmed; the Court of Appeals AWOPed. See full case citation <br />at fn 1 in the Initial Narrative. <br />(2) We also know from the LUBA holding in Round I that some portion of the subject <br />property is plan designated LDR and part is plan designated POS. <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 50 <br />