Mr. Fred Wilson <br />September 16, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />The holding by LUBA in Round I was limited to the issue in Round I, which was whether any <br />part of the subject property was plan designated POS. Because the answer was yes, the city <br />denial of the application was affirmed. <br />(3) LUBA's suggestions in the Round I decision about how to locate the line was just <br />suggestive; it was dictum. The LUBA decision did not rule on the line location <br />methodology. <br />There is discussion in the LUBA decision about the difficulty and methodology of locating the <br />plan boundary line on the subject property if the site was not entirely LDR. LUBA's discussion <br />of this issue was dictum because LUBA was not reviewing either how to locate the line or <br />locating it at any particular place. Thus, the parties' reliance on LUBA's language about <br />locating the line is really reliance on dictum in that decision. <br />III. Our rendering of the line worked with the following known things. <br />Some relevant facts are known and not in dispute. Some law that applies is also not in dispute. <br />We set that information out here in shopping list form as context and a starting point for drawing <br />the line. <br />(1) We have used the adopted, printed 2004 version of the Metro Plan Diagram as <br />our based map. This is the only correct starting point for a plan Diagram <br />because: <br />(a) The text of the Metro Plan says so. <br />The current Metro Plan was adopted in 2004. A legislative version of the 2004 <br />ordinance is Exhibit R. The final version of the ordinance appears as Exhibit Q. Both <br />included a new Metro Plan Diagram. It is a color Diagram, which the text of the plan <br />says was printed from the RLID database. See Exhibit R at page 57 para 3. <br />(b) LCOG agrees that the 2004 printed Diagram is the only official Diagram. <br />LCOG was generous in working with the neighbors and getting them printouts of <br />various digital databases to work with. That is what LCOG does. However, LCOG <br />staff concluded their discussion with the neighbors with their standard caveat about <br />the Metro Plan Diagram. The email from B. Clingman of LCOG to Gunnar <br />Schlieder, dated August 12, 2015, and submitted with opponents hearing materials <br />concludes thusly: <br />"Even now, after several iterations of adoption and amendment, it is worth <br />noting that the only version of the Metro Plan Diagram that is considered <br />official is the one produced at the l lx 17 size and scale, on which the <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 51 <br />