PDF Page 42 <br />that it was adopted in 1980 and acknowledged in 1982 for the area inside the UGB and in 1985 <br />for the balance of the Metro Area. The Metro Plan. the Diagram has been readopted <br />periodically. The applicant submitted at the hearing a copy of the three Metro Plan Diagrams - <br />1980, 1987, and 2004, as well as the current online version (2013, which has not been <br />separately adopted). <br />The Metro Plan remains a framework plan. That is, it is supplemented by various area plans <br />and functional plans. <br />"[T]he Metro Plan is a framework plan, and it is important that it be <br />supplemented by more detailed refinement plans, programs and policies." <br />* * * "Refinements to the Metro Plan can include: * * (c) neighborhood <br />plans or special area studies that address issues that are unique to a specific <br />geographical area. In all cases the Metro Plan is the guiding document, and <br />refinement plans and policies must be consistent with the Metro Plan. <br />Should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the prevailing policy <br />document." Metro Plan at 1-5. <br />The nature .of the Metro Plan as a framework plan has been discussed in several cases. See, for <br />example, Carlson v. City of Eugene, 3 Or LUBA 175 (1981); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or LUBA <br />135, 146-47 (1989); Graville Properties, Ltd. v. City of Eugene, 27 Or LUBA 583, 585 (1994); <br />laquo v. City of Springfield, 46 Or LUBA 134, 144-45 (2004), reversed in port 193 Or App 573, 91 <br />P3d 817 (2004); Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 48 Or LUBA 399, oyd 200 Or App 292, <br />114 P3d 1150 (2005). (For a more detailed discussion of these cases, see the 2005 Knutson <br />petition to LUBA in LUBA No. 2004-100 at 9-15, which was submitted by the applicant as <br />Hearing Exhibit 1.) <br />The cases listed above reflect the status of the Metro Plan prior to 2004 amendments to the <br />text and Diagram, which was accomplished by Ord. No. 20319. The 2004 amendments were. <br />part of the periodic review process, and are commonly referred to the "Housekeeping <br />Amendments." As explained in the Benson decision at 8: <br />"By Ordinance No. 20319, the City Council adopted a new Metro Plan Diagram, <br />replacing the prior version in its entirety, and provided additional guidance on . <br />the question of when and where the Metro Plan Diagram should be considered <br />parcel specific." [Footnote 2 omitted] <br />New text added to the Metro Plan in 2004 explained in what circumstances the Metro Plan <br />Diagram is parcel-specific after the Housekeeping Amendments. The language appears on page <br />]I-.G-2: <br />"The Plan designation of parcels in the Metro Plan Diagram is-parcel-specific in the <br />following cases: <br />Laurel Ridge Applicant Final Argument - Page 8 <br />91 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 846 <br />