New Search
I the adopted BLI was incorrect. In short, the Court held that a city cannot rely on "new data that <br />2 is inconsistent with the information on which the comprehensive plan was based." Id at 216. <br />3 There are some very significant differences between this case and Dundee. The most <br />4 significant difference is that, unlike the action at issue in Dundee, Petitioners in this case have <br />5 not shown that the City's action (adoption of the PROS Plan) is actually inconsistent with an <br />6 adopted acknowledged plan. Petitioners have not shown that the PROS Plan's longer planning <br />7 period and Eugene- specific population projections are inconsistent with the Metro Plan. Second, <br />8 unlike Dundee's comprehensive Plan amendment, Eugene's adoption of the PROS Plan has no <br />9 effect on the potential uses allowed on any land. (Rec. 15). The PROS Plan does not change a <br />10 zone or designation. It does not identify any land as a future park acquisition. It does not contain <br />11 policies, mandates, criteria or standards that must be applied in the future. As the adopting <br />12 resolution states, the Plan is an "aspirational and guiding document for the City as it conducts <br />13 long -range planning for parks, recreation and open space." (Rec. 10). Dundee simply does not <br />14 apply to LUBA's consideration of this appeal. <br />15 3. Conclusion. <br />16 The City did not violate Goal 2 or act inconsistently with its comprehensive plan when <br />17 it adopted the PROS Plan having a longer planning period than the Metro Plan and having a <br />18 Eugene - specific population projection. <br />19 G. Response to Seventh Assignment of Error <br />20 The Metro Plan does not require that the PROS Plan include private recreational <br />facilities as partially meeting the demand in Eugene. <br />21 <br />22 Petitioners assert that the "Metro Plan requires that private recreation facilities and open <br />23 space be considered in the park planning process." (Pet. Br. 28, lines 2 -3). To the extent that <br />24 the City was required to consider private recreation facilities and open space in the park planning <br />25 process, the PROS Plan sufficiently considers such private facilities. <br />26 <br />11 Page 22 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />