I ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />2 Petitioners argue that the planning commission misconstrued the <br />3 applicable law in concluding, based on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, that <br />4 some portion of the subject property is designated POS. According to <br />5 petitioners, the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map controls the plan designation <br />6 of the subject property, and demonstrates that the city intended to designate the <br />7 entire property LDR. <br />8 Petitioners' argument rests almost entirely on the holdings in Knutson v. <br />9 City of Eugene, 48 Or LUBA 399, aff'd 200 Or App 292, 114 P3d 1150 (2005). <br />10 In Knutson, the city relied upon the then-applicable 1987 version of the Metro <br />11 Plan Diagram to conclude that the commercially-zoned subject property was <br />12 designated residential instead of commercial. The 1987 Metro Plan Diagram <br />13 included no referents in the area of the subject property, such as street <br />14 intersections, that could be used to locate the subject property with relation to <br />15 the adjoining residential area and the indistinct commercial "blobs" of color. <br />16 Based on the 1987 Metro Plan Diagram, it was impossible to determine <br />17 whether the subject property was located entirely within a residential <br />18 designation, as the city found, partially within the residential designation, or <br />19 entirely within the commercial designation. 48 Or LUBA at 414. The <br /> <br />* * The HO [Hearings Official] disagreed with the applicant's application of Knutson in <br />this case noting that the Metro Plan text and diagram have changed since the case, including <br />more accurate and improved resolution in the 2004 diagram. The HO also agreed with <br />opponents of the application that noted that the existence of reference points differentiated this <br />case from the Knutson case. The Planning Commission finds that while the rules for the <br />Knutson case directs that ambiguities be resolved by referencing the refinement plan, in this <br />case there is no ambiguity. There is a conflict or inconsistency between the two in which case <br />the Metro Plan prevails. Relevant to this case and material to this site are reference points <br />including a road and the UGB which were not available in the Knutson case. These reference <br />points help clearly identify the POS designation on the subject property." Record 6-7. <br />Page 11 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1049 <br />