Item 5 - Comm/Ind. Land Survey - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT A Lane Metro Partnership May 30, 2003 ~YCITy-. The Honorable James Torrey, dON - 2 20 3 Mayor of Eugene, ~d Mem~rs of the Eugene City Council 777 Pearl Street, Room 105 Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Mayor To~ey ~d Council Mem~rs: At its meeting on May 15, ~e bo~d of directors of ~e ~e Metro Pmnership voted unanimously to request that the cities of Eugene and Spfin~eld, together with Lane County, commence a process of evaluating (1) whether the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan cu~ently provides an adequate supply of industrial, commercial and residential land ~ required by state law, and (2) if not, to study what mechanisms should be used to remedy ~e sho~age in any or all of these land use categories. This r~uest comes ~ter our bo~d completed sever~ monks' review 0f av~lable data suggesting that the existing supply of av~lable indusffi~ l~d may not be adequate to meet the economic needs of our community t~ay, much less ~e re~onably anticipated needs for the ne~ future. While ~e s~ific concern of ~e ~e Metro Pannership is the supply of industri~ land (in p~icul~, the supply of sites l~ge enough to accomm~ate ~e needs of a new business locating here or of an existing business wishing to exp~d here), we understand ~is factor c~not be considered in a vacuum. Therefore, we ~e requesting that both the supply and ~ticipated ~ture need for residential and commercial land be reviewed along with industrial land. In panicul~, we are concerned that without an adequate supply o{ commercial and residential land, the pressure to conve~ available industrial land to those other uses could unde~ine our efforts to increase the industrial land supply. We also recognize that, while the ~ne Metro P~nership's responsibility is to encourage and suppo~ economic development, the land use system must reflect ~1 of the needs and interests of the community and therefore any review of the adequacy of l~d supply must reflect that broader range of interests as well. In m~ing this request, the ~ne Metro Pa~nership does not presuppose the results of such an evaluation, nor do we believe ~at a single remedy will necessarily be appropriate to redress any sho~f~l that may be dete~ined. If sho~falls exist, we recommend examining strategies such ~ removing cons~aints on lands cu~ently within the UGB, possible exp~sion of ~e UGB, ~d ways (such ~ p~cel ~sembly or urban renewal) to m~e vacant and underutilized l~d wi~in the UGB available for development or redevelopment. In c~e of UGB expansion, we texize that the state requires detailed analysis that may go beyond the process suggested by this letter. In that event, we fully suppo~ the need to follow the state requirements. ~c~ PhOn~: 5x~ ~k.t .'.;' Fax 'Council. Agenda page 61