New Search
Petitioners' second assertion regarding population projections is that, in order for the City <br />N <br />al <br />0 <br />7 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />to use a Eugene- specific population projection in the PROS Plan, the City needs to coordinate <br />that population projection with Lane County and Springfield.' Petitioners rely on Statewide <br />Planning Goal 2 as a basis for this assertion and on the following policy from the Metro Plan: <br />"Local parks and recreation plans and analysis shall be prepared by each jurisdiction and <br />coordinated on a metropolitan level. "' <br />The City's findings adopted for Resolution No. 4858 state: <br />Because the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not regulate when or how park land <br />will be acquired, but rather is an aspirational plan that sets forth the needs of the <br />community and strategies for satisfying those needs, no other governmental units <br />are affected by this resolution. <br />Even though no other governmental units are affected by this resolution, in an <br />effort to educate neighboring jurisdictions about the PROS Comprehensive Plan, <br />the City took steps to provide neighboring jurisdictions an opportunity to <br />comment on the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, in <br />accordance with the Metro Plan, notice and a copy of the proposed PROS <br />Comprehensive Plan was mailed to the Planning Directors of Springfield and <br />Lane County. Additionally, on September 27, 2005, City staff met with the Lane <br />County Board of Commissioners to provide the Board information regarding the <br />PROS Comprehensive Plan. In response to concerns raised by some of the <br />Commissioners, the Citv made a number of revisions to the PROS <br />Comprehensive Plan. On November 1, 2005.. City staff met with the Lane <br />County Planning Commission to provide the Commission with information <br />regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan. <br />(Rec. 13). Clearly, the City did coordinate with Springfield and Lane County with respect to the <br />PROS Plan, including its population assumptions, as required by Goal 2. Petitioners do not cite <br />to any requirement in the Metro Plan or Goal 2 that requires the City to take an additional step <br />to specifically confer about the Eugene- specific population projection. <br />Finally, Petitioners assert, without any support, that the PROS Plan over - estimates <br />Eugene's population and that, as a result, "the Metro region as a whole will be acquiring and <br />conflict. <br />'Presumably, this argument is made as an alternative to Petitioners' first argument since the two appear to <br />'In their brief (page 27, lines 23 - 16), Petitioners include an additional sentence at the end of this policy. <br />That second sentence was added to the Policy after the City adopted the PROS plan and should be disregarded for <br />purposes of this appeal. See Section IV.B, above. <br />Pau.- 20 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />