1 substitute for or amend the Metro Plan Diagram, or otherwise designate land as <br />2 residential that is not so designated on the Metro Plan. According to petitioner, <br />3 the city must either adopt an ordinance clarifying that all lands on the BLI are <br />4 designated as residential in the Metro Plan Diagram, and/or amend the Metro <br />5 Plan Diagram to clarify the designations of the parcels included on the BLI. <br />6 Petition for Review 37. Based on that premise, petitioner argues, the city's BLI <br />7 lacks specificity about the residential designations of property included on the <br />8 BLI and that lack of specificity "violates the entitlement of owners to clear and <br />9 objective standards. ORS 197.307(4); OAR 660-008-0015(2)." Petition for <br />10 Review 37. <br />11 The city responds that in order to develop the maps that are required by <br />12 ORS 197.296(4)(c) and to determine the designation of each parcel included on <br />13 the BLI, the city used a copy of a GIS layer that was used to create the Metro <br />14 Plan Diagram. Record 3893. According to the city, using that GIS layer <br />15 resulted in parcel-specific designations for residential land and accounted for <br />16 designation boundary uncertainties. Id. The city argues that, therefore, the maps <br />17 included as part of the BLI are supported by substantial evidence in the record, <br />18 and that petitioner's challenges are really to the Metro Plan Diagram, which is <br />19 outside of the scope of review of the challenged decision that adopts a BLI.9 <br />9 The city takes the position that: <br />"Adoption of the BLI improves [the lack of specificity for some <br />parcels] by providing a clear City interpretation of the Metro Plan <br />Page 17 <br />