1 (Economic Development) and is not supported by an adequate factual basis.4 <br />2 Under this subassignment of error, petitioners advance two arguments. First, <br />3 citing Opus Development Corp v. City of Eugene, 28 Or LUBA 670, 691 <br />4 (1995), petitioners contend that developing the east-west bypass will reduce the <br />5 amount of land now available for commercial and industrial uses in the Coburg <br />6 NIA, and the county's decision fails to account for this loss or demonstrate that <br />7 there will remain a sufficient inventory of land for commercial and industrial <br />8 uses, as it is required to do under directive 3 of Goal 9.5 Id. Second, <br />9 petitioners assert that the TSP does not comply with directive 4 of Goal 9, <br />10 which requires that local governments "[l]imit uses on or near sites zoned for <br />4 Goal 2 requires that amendments to a comprehensive plan are supported by <br />a factual basis demonstrating compliance with applicable statewide planning <br />goals. Goal 2 Guideline C.1. <br />5 Goal 9 provides that "[c]omprehensive plans for urban areas shall: <br />'T Include an analysis of the community's economic patterns, <br />potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies as they relate to <br />state and national trends; <br />"2. Contain policies concerning the economic development <br />opportunities in the community; <br />"3. Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable <br />sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of <br />industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan <br />policies; <br />"4. Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and <br />commercial uses to those which are compatible with <br />proposed uses." <br />Page 7 <br />