designation on the subject property. The text of the Metro Plan controlling the Parks and Open <br />Space designation indicates that it is intended to apply along the South Hills ridgeline which is <br />where the subject property is located. As such, he concludes, "[t]he Applicant's proposed plan <br />designation would not only frustrate Metro plan policies for the South Hills ridgeline, but also <br />nullify any POS designation." <br />Analysis <br />The fundamental question presented by the applicant's zone change request is whether the City <br />Council intended to apply a Parks and Open Space designation to the subject property and <br />adjacent lands in the adopted Metro Plan Diagram. If so, was it the City Council's intent to allow <br />the Laurel Hill Plan to obviate that decision through a "refinement" of the Metro Plan. <br />In determining the meaning of a statute, the method set forth in PGE v. BOLL, 317 Or 606 (1993) <br />requires an examination of the text and context of the given provision. The same analysis applies <br />to the construction of local ordinances. Ramirez v. Hawaii T & S Enterprises, Inc., 179 Or App 416, <br />425 (2002). The methodology has been modified slightly by the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling in <br />State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) which found that while the correct analysis still begins with the <br />text and context of the given provision, legislative history can also be relied upon even where the <br />text itself does not on its face appear to be ambiguous. The goal of this analysis is to ascertain and <br />apply the City Council's intent regarding the code provisions or planning documents in question. <br />What the Metro Plan Diagram Shows <br />The Hearings Official agrees with staff and the opponents that the Metro Plan Diagram shows that <br />a portion of the subject property along its southern boundary adjacent to the UGB is designated <br />Parks and Open Space. I have reviewed the 2004 diagram at the "11 x 17" scale and have no <br />trouble determining, without magnification, that the diagram designates some portion of the <br />subject property north of the UGB and to the east of E 30th Avenue as Parks and Open Space. <br />agree with both staff and Mr. Malone that the UGB and 30th Avenue are sufficient reference points <br />upon which to locate the subject property and determine, simply by looking at the map, that the <br />Parks and Open Space designation has been applied to this area. <br />What the Metro Plan Text Shows <br />As described above, the applicant argues that all areas of the Metro Plan Diagram that are not <br />"parcel specific" should be considered inherently ambiguous and require immediate reference to <br />the associated refinement plan. While referring to the refinement plans may be necessary in <br />many circumstances, rushing prematurely to review the refinement plans skips an important step <br />in determining the City Council's intent with regard to the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />Although the Hearings Official concludes that the Metro Plan Diagram is not ambiguous on the <br />issue of whether the subject property is partially designated Parks and Open Space, if there were <br />an ambiguity, reference to the Metro Plan text would be the next step in determining legislative <br />Hearings.Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 1275 8 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1028 <br />