Instead, in 2004 the City Council adopted the following language on this issue: <br />There is a need for continued evaluation and evolution to a parcel specific <br />diagram. The Metro Plan designation descriptions below, Metro Plan policies, <br />adopted buildable lands inventory analyses, refinement plans, and local codes <br />provide guidance to local jurisdictions in determining the appropriate plan <br />designation of parcels that border more than one plan designation within the <br />metropolitan UGB. II G-2. <br />This section, and related sections, could have stated that non-parcel specific portions of the <br />Metro Plan Diagram require automatic reference to refinement plans. Such language is absent, <br />and reading that language into the Metro Plan by negative implication violates ORS 174.010 by <br />adding words or concepts to a provision that have been omitted. <br />Second, since the decision in Knutson, the jurisdictions participating in the Metro Plan have <br />sought to make the diagram more accurate and more useful to understanding the expressed <br />land use designations.z A simple visual comparison between the adopted 1987 and 2004 Metro <br />Plan Diagrams shows that that the 2004 diagram is a significant improvement in resolution and <br />specificity. More specificity was added to the diagram in the area of the subject property, <br />clearly indicating the Parks and Open Space designation. In addition, new text was added to <br />the Metro Plan to explain that Regional Land Information Database information was used to <br />improve the diagram. <br />The original Metro Plan Diagram adopted in the 1982 Metro Plan and <br />subsequently amended was not tax-lot specific * * * The use of the Regional <br />Land Information Database (RLID) data for long-range planning studies led to the <br />decision to base the Metro Plan Diagram on RLID data, as described below. <br />The use of RLID information as the basis for the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram will certainly not <br />clarify all questions with regard to zone changes, and ambiguities are still likely to emerge. <br />However, these changes, which are post-Knutson improvements, are evidence that the Metro <br />Plan Diagram is more reliable and accurate in depicting land designations than those at issue in <br />Knutson. Understanding the use of the RLID in the 2004 diagram is a strong indication that the <br />Parks and Open Space designation was intended to be placed on the subject property and is not <br />an artifact from the prior "blob map" diagrams. <br />Third, the applicant's argument that Knutson demands an automatic reference to the Laurel Hill <br />Plan is based on an incorrect premise. That premise is that the question at issue for this zone <br />change is: "which one of two land use designations applies to the subject property?" That was the <br />question in Knutson where the dispute was whether the diagram showed the subject property as <br />2 Remember that Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 48 Or LUBA 399 (2005), was decided based on the rules and <br />regulations in place in 2003 when that application was deemed complete. LUBA and the Court of Appeals ruled on <br />the 1987 version of the Metro Plan Diagram. The case does not, and cannot, completely circumscribe how the <br />2004 amendments to the Metro Plan are to be applied in the future. <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5 11 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1031 <br />