New Search
I developing too much park land." (Pet. Br. 27, lines 7-8). While Petitioners clearly take issue <br />2 with the accuracy of the population projections in the PROS Plan they do not assign error as to <br />3 the projection per se. Petitioners' allegation of error seems to center around the concern that the <br />4 PROS Plan mandates that the City provide a certain number of parks and that the number is too <br />5 high. However, Petitioners argument that the PROS Plan will cause the City of Eugene to <br />6 establish too many parks is not well founded. As discussed more thoroughly Section IV.A and <br />7 B of this brief, the PROS Plan was adopted to serve as "an aspirational and guiding document <br />8 for the City as it conducts long -range planning for parks, recreation and open space." (Rec. 10). <br />9 Nothing in the PROS Plan requires the City to acquire or develop more park land. <br />10 C. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Dundee, 203 Or App 207, 124 P3d <br />1249 (2005). <br />11 <br />12 Petitioners argue that the City's adoption of the PROS Plan constitutes "the same kind <br />13 of error that the Court found in Dundee." (Pet. Br. 25). In fact, Dundee bears little resemblance <br />14 to this matter. The facts of that case are extremely different from those presented here and, at <br />15 most, the Court's holding in Dundee is informative only as to the City's future use of the PROS <br />16 Plan. <br />17 In Dundee, the Court rejected an amendment to the City of Dundee's comprehensive <br />18 plan. The Plan amendment was to allow for a highway bypass. The bypass project would have <br />19 impacted land specifically designated by the City for future residential use based on the needs <br />20 identified in the City's adopted and acknowledged Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). Dundee, <br />21 Or App at 209 -210. Dundee's bypass amendment was in direct conflict with its adopted and <br />22 acknowledged BLI. In support of Dundee's plan amendment, it made findings relying on an <br />23 unadopted study that concluded, contrary to the conclusions in the adopted BLI, that Dundee had <br />24, an adequate supply of lands for housing and would not need the affected land. Id. The Court <br />25 of Appeals determined that the City could not justify an action that was prohibited by its adopted <br />26 and acknowledged BLI, even if new information contained in an unadopted study showed that <br />Page 21 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />