06 Public Record Pages 1021-1272

I conclude that some portion of the southwestern corner of the subject property 2 bordering the East 30`' Avenue right-of-way is designated POS. 3 In addition, we disagree with petitioners that the location of the 4 generalized UGB line depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram is of no 5 assistance in determining whether some portion of the subject property is 6 designated POS. As noted earlier, the shape and curves of the UGB line 7 depicted on the Metro Plan Diagram are similar to the shape and curves of the 8 UGB line established in the 2007 annexation decision. Further, both lines 9 appear to intersect East 30`" Avenue at roughly the same point, between the 10 curve to the northwest and the next intersection with Gonyea Road to the 11 southeast. As noted, the intersection between the UGB line and East 30`" 12 Avenue forms the rough shape of an inverted triangle on both the 2004 Metro 13 Plan Diagram and the 2007 annexation map. On the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram 14 the body of that inverted triangle is entirely designated POS. There is no 15 dispute that the subject property's southern boundary corresponds to the UGB 16 line as established in the 2007 annexation decision. Because on both maps the 17 two UGB lines appear to intersect East 30"' Avenue right-of-way at 18 approximately the same point along the Avenue, and form a dip or triangle that 19 the Metro Map designates POS, the location of the UGB line on the Metro Plan 20 Diagram lends some support to the city's conclusion that at least some portion 21 of the southwest corner of the subject property within that triangle is 22 designated POS. 23 Finally, as the hearings officer observed, the 1982 Laurel Hill 24 Refinement Plan map does not shed any light on the question of whether some 25 part of the subject property is designated POS. As noted, unlike the refinement 26 plan map at issue in Knutson, the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map is not parcel Page 17 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1055