1 specific, and does not depict the boundary between the two plan designations at <br />2 issue. The 1982 Laurel Hill Refinement Plan area depicted on the map might <br />3 include all of the subject property, as the property was configured in 2007, but <br />4 it easily might not, and there is simply no way to tell. It is possible that the <br />5 southern portion of the subject property as it was configured prior to 2007 was <br />6 located beyond the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan area. It is also possible that <br />7 when the precise location of the UGB was established in 2007, and the property <br />8 boundaries were made consistent with the new UGB line, that some portion of <br />9 the subject property as then configured extended south beyond the area <br />10 included in the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan area. The refinement plan map <br />11 purports to designate only lands within its planning area, and does not purport <br />12 to designate any lands outside its planning area. While the refinement plan <br />13 map depicts the plan area line and the UGB line as parallel lines, the location of <br />14 the UGB on the refinement plan map is approximate, and may bear little <br />15 relationship to the UGB line and property boundaries that were eventually <br />16 established in 2007. Further, the southwest end of the UGB line depicted on the <br />17 refinement plan map does not show the same sharp southern dip in the line <br />18 depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram and particularly on the 2007 <br />19 annexation map. The hearings officer correctly concluded that the refinement <br />20 plan map provides no useful information for purposes of determining whether <br />21 any part of the subject property is designated POS. <br />22 Petitioner's contrary position, as we understand it, is that the Laurel Hill <br />23 Refinement Plan map represents the city's policy choice in 1982 to designate <br />24 all lands immediately north of the UGB-wherever the UGB line is ultimately <br />25 located-as LDR. Petitioner argues that it makes no sense for the city council <br />26 to adopt the first Metro Plan Diagram in 1980, which appears to depict a slice <br />Page 18 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1056 <br />