06 Public Record Pages 1021-1272

I subject property is designated POS. Petitioners argue that where this 2 conclusion goes astray is in presuming that the UGB line depicted on the 2004 3 Metro Plan Diagram is a reliable "referent" that can be used to determine 4 whether any part of the subject property is designated POS. 5 As explained above, the UGB line as depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan 6 Diagram (and earlier snaps) is approximate and generalized in this area, and the 7 UGB line was not located with precision until the 2007 annexation decision. 8 According to petitioners, the dashed line representing the UGB on the 2004 9 Metro Plan Diagram is approximately 1/201h of an inch wide, which at the one 10 inch to 7,000 feet scale of the map represents a width of approximately 350 feet 11 on the ground. Petitioners argue that the area designated POS is also somewhat 12 generalized on the 2004 map, in the sense that it is not tied to specific property 13 boundaries. Petitioners contend that, given a generalized UGB line that is 14 approximately 350 feet wide, and a generalized POS designation that is not 15 linked to property boundaries, the city cannot reliably conclude anything from 16 the Metro Plan Diagram regarding the relationship between the UGB line and 17 the POS designation, much less whether there is a POS designation on any part 18 of the subject property. Therefore, petitioners argue, the city must rely on the 19 Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map to determine the subject property's plan 20 designation. 21 If the UGB line depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram were the only 22 available referent, petitioners would have a stronger argument that the Metro 23 Plan Diagram does not include the information necessary to reliably determine 24 whether any part of the subject property is designated POS. However, the 25 Diagram also depicts the location of the East 30`" Avenue right-of-way, and Page 15 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1053