I Intervenor also contends that in Zimmerman the Court of Appeals "addressed <br />2 this specific issue" and explained that local governments had discretion to <br />3 factor in economic booms and downturns in applying economic projections <br />4 when establishing an adequate factual basis for a UGB expansion. Intervenor <br />5 states that the REA's economic trends and forecast analysis was based on the <br />6 most recent (at that time) and readily available employment dated compiled by <br />7 OED, and compared it with the most recent information from Oregon Office of <br />8 Economic Analysis. <br />9 We agree with petitioners that respondents erred by failing to use "the <br />10 current number of jobs" as required by OAR 660-024-0040(9)(a). Since the <br />11 safe harbor was used in this case to generate the city's population-based <br />12 employment needs, we do not understand intervenor's first argument. And <br />13 Zimmerman is inapposite, as that case concerned whether allegedly stale data <br />14 constituted "best available * * * information" under OAR 660-009-0010(5).23 <br />15 Whether "the current number of jobs in the urban area" must be used in <br />23 OAR 660-009-0010(5) provides: <br />"The effort necessary to comply with OAR 660-009-0015 through <br />660-009-0030 will vary depending upon the size of the <br />jurisdiction, the detail of previous economic development <br />planning efforts, and the extent of new information on national, <br />state, regional, county, and local economic trends. A jurisdiction's <br />planning effort is adequate if it uses the best available or readily <br />collectable information to respond to the requirements of this <br />division." <br />Page 57 <br />