HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5 - Comm/Ind. Land SurveyEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: Request for Funding for Commercial/Industrial Lands Study
Meeting Date: August 9, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 5
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Tom Coyle
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-6077
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request that the City Council provide funding in the amount of $15,000 to
match other jurisdictions funds in order that a commercial/industrial lands study can proceed.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
In 1992, Eugene completed and adopted a Commercial Lands Study. In 1993, the Metropolitan
Industrial Land Study was adopted. State rules require that comprehensive plans contain an inventory of
industrial and commercial sites and that the comprehensive plan designate lands that "at least equal the
project land needs for each category (commercial and industrial) during the 20-year planning period."
The City of Eugene's current periodic review task list from the state became official on May 25, 1995.
There is no requirement to update or revise the already adopted studies. It is likely that the City was
deemed in compliance because the studies were fairly recent. Under current rules and statutes, at the
next periodic review, the City would be required to update the commercial and industrial buildable lands
analysis (see Attachment D - OAR).
Policy Issues
Should the City Council consider helping to fund an assessment of a commercial/industrial land
inventory within the Urban Growth Boundary?
Council Goal Action Priority
None.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
There is a participating cost associated with this study in the amount of $15,000.
Other Background Information
In 2003, the Lane Metro Partnership (LMP) requested an opportunity to present a proposal to the
Eugene City Council regarding commencing a process of evaluating 1) whether the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan currently provides an adequate supply of industrial, commercial and
residential land as required by state law, and 2) if not, to study what mechanisms should be used to
remedy the shortage in any or all of these land use categories (see Attachment A). Beginning in April,
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S0408095.doc
2003, a group of citizens started meeting to discuss issues facing Eugene. As a result of their
discussions they recommended that an inventory of lands proceed as a crucial step toward making sound
land use decisions (see Attachment B). On February 11, 2004, LMP Executive Director Jack Roberts
met with the Lane County Board of Commissioners and reiterated that they are recommending that Lane
County agree to pay $15,000 toward a land supply study. He indicated they were asking the cities of
Springfield and Eugene to match Lane County's contribution (see Attachment C). In addition, the
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development has recommended that the City support and contribute
to a regional buildable lands analysis of available commercial and industrial land consistent with state
requirements. (See Attachment A, Economic Development Strategy Summary Report, included with the
Agenda Item Summary for the August 9, 2004, discussion of the Economic Development Committee
recommendations.)
Timing
None.
OPTIONS
1. The council may agree to match a $15,000 contribution from other jurisdictions and direct the LMP
to initiate a process for updating the land survey.
2. The council may take no action.
3. The council may direct staff alternatively.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Option 1.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to provide $15,000 in contingency funds for the commercial/industrial land study.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Letter from Lane Metro Partnership, dated May 30, 2003
B. An Open Letter to the Mayor and Eugene City Council signed by 16 members of study group
C. Excerpt for Lane County Board of Commissioners' Meeting on February 11, 2004 - See Section 7
on Committee Reports
D. OAR- Sections 660-009-0015, 660-009-0020, 660-009-0025
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Tom Coyle
Telephone: 682-6077
Staff E-Mail: tom.g.coyle~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S0408095.doc
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
2
Finally, we recognize that there is a ~ost associated with the process we are
recommending. It would be our hope that generous use can be made of information
already compiled and available from existing sources, and that this might reduce the total
cost. However, we are also prepared to assist in identifying funds to assist in this
undertaking as well.
On behalf of the Lane Metro Partnership, we would like to request an opportunity
to present our proposal in greater detail at one of your work sessions in the near future.
Thank you for considering our suggestion, and we look forward to hearing from you as to
when such a presentation might be scheduled.
Yours truly,
rts
"/
City Council Agenda page 62
06/22/2004 15:23 FAX 541 682 5414 CITY ~gCRS 0FFICE ATTACHMENT B
"Open Le er to the Mayor and Eugene Council
BeEinning in Ap~l, 2003, ~ ~oup of Eugenic c~c tog~ to te~ ~e' Wate~ of difference ~d
co~onaliw ~d to wei~ ~ on some of ~e most pressing issues fang ~ as a communi~ to~y.
Ad~ed~y somewhat w~ .of ~e process 9~. ~st, ~ese' co~W memb~, ~ically ~own for
possessing diff~ent ~s, ~me to ~c ~le ~o ~ W dg~ine ~e po~s~i~ or,aching ~e~ ~o~d
c~ k~ is~. D~g. ~e ~ ha~ doz~ aess~o~ o~ ~o~ looked for ~e~ of eommonali~ in hapes
~t we eo~d ~cate a fo~on ~ w~ch~to b~d ~d~ding ~d ~L We dis~vercd we value
m~y of ~c s~e ~gs ~ o~ ~sion for ~ id~l ~~W.
Much of ~ ~c~sion of ~c ~oup ~ ~9 ~t ~ve~ monks h~ fo~ on l~d ~e plan~ing ~elud~g
the Na~ ~eso~ces S~dy and ~e proposal ~om ~e M~o P~~p for ~ overall ~v~to~ of
After extensive discussion and a complete airing of our group's various points of view, we recommend the
following:
· We urge that political differences be set aside and that the City of Eugene proceed on an inventory of
lands as a crucial step towards making sound land use decisions.
· The rem'_]ai,.ing four steps of th~ Natural Resources Inv.cntory ~hat was adopted by thc City Council ia
2003 sho~lld be completed by April, 2005.
· To'complete a comprehensive and appropriate inventory of natural resources within Eugene, an
"Upland- Wildlife Habitat Land Study" should be initiated to apply environmental and economic
analysis and to establish conservation priorities and mechanisms for the upland areas identified in the
spring 2.003 Draft NRS Inventory.
· The City Council should allocate the limited funds reqtested to help provide for the inventory of
commercial and industrial lands in the metn~politan area, along with Springfield .and Lane County.
· While th.ese studies are not directly .linked, we view the completion and resolution of the Natural
l~csources Study as -an important component in any inventory of commercial and industrial lands.
We believe that we cannot, as a community, make sound decisions for our future without first
understanding and inventtrying our assets_
Specifically we suggest that:
· A study of.available commercial and indus~al lands be undexiaken within the methodology outlined
in the 2001 Oregon House Bill 3557.
· The land studies be completed and '.adopted. by the Eugene City Council.
· The studies be used by the planning agenties of the City.
Discussion and background to our recommendation:
Natural Resour_ cgs Study
Many important issues in our commullity are driven by opposing vicw~ and fear of future implications. We
feel this to be the case with the 'lqatural Resources Study and the possible inventory of commerciM and
industrial land..One part. of the community is extremely interested in completing the Natural P, esources
Study and.providing protection of critical natural resources. Another'part of o~ community is concerned
about the impact of the Natural Resources Sthdy inventory on their land and the potential unkmowns about
restrictions that. may be placed on private lands. These points of view are legitimate, but need to be
overcome to' move this.community forward on this important issue. Finalization of the Natural F, esources
Study-inventory and related work will provide certainty to the development community and can also provide
for protection of critical resourccs.'
06/22/2004 15:23 FAX 541 682 5414 CITY MGRS OFFICE ~002
~ -
The community interest r~quires that disposition' of dwindling upland wildlife habitat areas be planned
through a thoughtful and constructive public process. Completing an Upland Wildlife Habitat Overlay
Study will take advantage of the substantial community invcstmellt already made in delineation of existing
upland habitat areas, Because it would be independent from 6ac primary state-mandated Goal $ process, it
can follow a more understandable, transparent, and less threatening locally designed process.
Inventory. o. fCommcrciol and Indtlstrial _Lands
Again thc .various comm,_miry constituencies have different views and fears about this pv0posal. One part of
the community is concerned that thc inventory will be used to overrun thc urban gw..wth boundary/nd create
sprawl. Another.part of the community hopcs this inventory wil. l. automatically force an expansion of the
urban growth boundary to provide addition:~l developable land. Our group views this. proposed inventory,as
a request for good data without the expectation of. any particular outcome as a' .cpnscquence of its findings.
We also feel this study needs to be done by a neutral and independent co~tractor to provide community
acceptance of its findings and conclusions . ..
Who we me: ' ·
Since April of last year we have met on a regular basis. Thc members of our group, none of whom, in this
forum, are representing any organizations to which .they .~. long, are: : ,/
Rick Duncan Bob O~Brien
Rusty Rexius
Sandy 1 Jolm VanLandinghm
Rob Zako
February 11, 2004 REG MTG AM ATTACHMENT C
· 'B~OARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
-February 11, 2O04
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Conference Room
APPROVED 3/10/04
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna
Morrison and Peter Sorenson present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa
Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1.
Morn uested an item that was discussed at AOC on Monday be
Business. wyer requested a letter to the E-Board also be put under Commissioners' Busi
2.
Bruce Tate, 465 Eugene, stated he owns a piece of property at 81 Fisher Road. He
wanted to put a the property and had applied for an agricultural he received. He
said since he the County stated they would take a .f his land and also his
driveway. He noted his 1,323 feet on the east side and has a u-~, off
Royal onto Fisher. He didn't to lose his driveway with no place property.
Mona Lindstromberg, 87140 Veneta, stated in 1996 on development was put
into effect by the City of Veneta of an inadequate system. She said that
moratorium was lifted a couple of She noted been rapid develoPment.
She said there was a recent attempt by the to blanket variance to its own wetland
protection ordinance. She noted that Veneta suffering from increased flooding from
excess runoff due to poorly planned and She requested the Board do what it can
to make sure that its constituents do not suffer the. of Veneta's lack ofjudgment.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
None.
Dwyer commented that Home only applies within city boundaries.N'~/ith regard to ambulance
service, he said state law pre/-~Home Rule and directs them the responXsi, bility of determining the
boundaries. He noted thefifanl Clara Fire District was something negotiatedXw4th the City of Eugene.
He added Lane County/didn't meddle in the Peace Health decision even though t~ impact is of a
regional nature. He 9dted Lane County contributed $5.2 million toward the roadwhy,,even though the
city changed thy/gding' He said they need t° w°rk t°gether' ~_ ~
Sorenson rep2d, ed _T~_ e. Regist?r-Guard of February 11, 2004, editorialized that Representa~,,e Jeff
Kmse' ;~j~l the 100~ay .m.a.rk living out of his district. He wanted the Board to puton its a~,,~da a
period ~:~me to confer with legal counsel about what role Lane County government has in tryii~ to
' the Oreg°n C°nstituti°n that requires state legislat°rs t° live~i~ill ~j~t~cii,~ ,NN~
if the Board wanted to make that an assignment, she would be willing to work on that.
http://www.co.lane.or.us/bcc info/meetine info/2004/2004Minutes/Februarv/04-2-1 l am.h... 6/24/2004
February 11, 2004 REG MTG AM Page 2 of 20
~renson wanted to not only define what role county government has but also what role the Board o
.Co.~missioners might have with the legiSlative delegation. He thought there could be things the
legis~[s could do separate from what county goverument could do.
5. RESOLUTIONS .
X
a. RESOLU~N 04-2-11-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming the Week of February 9, Family
Resource Cente~xeek. .
to approX, SO . IO
M°rds°n .M.OVED,. H.~..t°n SECONDED.
Green read the resolution intOx[~e record.
VOTE: 5-0.
6.
a. AOC Report.
Morrison explained the legislative group met She noted that a special task force Was
formed last spring regarding government: negotiations, and they have had
continuing discussions. She stated California is attempting to get NACo to pass a
resolution and to start the movement toward on having counties and local
governments more involved in compacts that in the state. She noted there is a special
workshop in Washington, D.C. and she and be attending for Oregon. She
discussed a document that will be' (copy in file). She requested the
Board read the document and to her. said if they did put together a
resolution, it would not be acted on at the annual meeting.
b. Letter to E-Board to Health Plan Plus and Gambling Addiction Services.
Dwyer read the letter into the He wanted the letter to be sent Board.
MOTION: to move to letter to the E-Board.
Dwyer MOVED, SECONDED.
Tony Bieda, Relations, indicated in the Lane County delegation, only E-Board
district in Lane County is Senator Messerle. He said he would letter to all
the members emergency board who come from other parts of the state.
his motion would be to send it to all members of the E-Board.
suggested tweaking the letter.
5-0.
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS
httv://www.co.lane.or.us/bcc info/meetin~ info/2004/2004Minutes/Februarv/04-2-1 lam.h... 6/24/2004
February 11, 2004 REG MTG AM Page 3 of 20
. a. REPORT BACK/Lane Metro Partnership Proposal.
'Jack Roberts, Lane Metro Partnership, reiterated that they are recommending that Lane County agrees to
pay $15,000 toward the study with the total cost not to exceed $50,000. He said they are asking the
Cities of Springfield and Eugene tomatch Lane County's contribution. He added they were asking Lane
County to be the lead agency to put this together. He said they are recommending that the study be
contracted out instead of asking staff to undertake it.
Dwyer asked what information they based all their reports on.
Roberts responded the information they received was the testimony of people who appeared at the five
publicly-held hearings. He said issues were raised about adequacy of land supply. He said they
recommended an inventory be done and recommended the Board follow up on it. He said they were
suggesting that under the land use laws, there is a requirement of local governments to ensure there is an
adequate land supply for commercial, industrial and residential lands. He said they have reason to
believe it had not been meet in the past and asked the Board to accept the responsibility.
Dwyer commented there was a provision in the law requiring them to do a natural resource study and
they hadn't been able to find the money to do this study.
Sorenson asked why the private sector wasn't paying for the study.
Roberts responded that when it would be delivered that people would complain that there was a vested
interest in the private sector paying for the study.
Sorenson asked why they needed to do a study of industrial lands when they have unused industrial park
space.
Roberts stated they had to have capacity in outlying areas to market the entire county. He didn't think
there was evidence they could meet the land supply if there was not available land in the metro area.
Hampton thought there should be partnerships where the private sector puts up money. He encouraged
the outlying areas to be included.
Green said it would be up to the Board to ensure the product is what they are asking for. He didn't see
any problem with public agencies funding it.
Dwyer said the natural resources study was important and he wanted to find a way to do it.
Green explained the motion before the Board was about industrial lands. He said if they want to have a
discussion about how and when to fund the natural resource study, they need to give the assignment to
the agenda team and they will have the discussion.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Dwyer asked the agenda team to flag the issue on how they could move forward with other studies that
are required.
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
http://www.co.lane.or.us/bcc_info/meeting_info/2OO4/2OO4Minutes/February/04-2-11 am.h... 6/24/2004
ATTACHMENT D
660-009-0015
Economic Opportunities Analysis
Cities and counties shall review and, as necessary, amend comprehensive plans to
provide the information described in sections (1) through (4) of this rule:
(1) Review of National and State and Local Trends. The economic opportunities analYsis
shall identify the major categories of industrial and commercial uses that could
reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area based on available
information about national, state and local trends. A use or category of use could
reasonably be expected to locate in the planning area if the area possesses the appropriate
locational factors for the use or category of use;
(2) Site Requirements. The economic opportunities analysis shall identify the types of
sites that are likely to be needed by industrial and commercial uses which might expand
or locate in the planning area. Types of sites shall be identified based on the site
requirements of expected uses. Local governments should survey existing firms in the
planning area to identify the types of sites which may be needed for expansion. Industrial
and commercial uses with compatible site requirements should be grouped together into
common site categories to simplify identification of site needs and subsequent planning;
(3) Inventory of Industrial and Commercial Lands. Comprehensive plans for all areas
within urban growth boundaries shall include an inventory of vacant and significantly
underutilized lands within the planning area which are designated for industrial or
commercial use:
(a) Contiguous parcels of one to five acres within a discrete plan or zoning district
may be inventoried together. If this is done the inventory shall:
(A) Indicate the total number of parcels of vacant or significantly
underutilized parcels within each plan or zoning district; and
(B) Indicate the approximate total acreage and percentage of sites within
each plan or zone district which are:
(i) Serviceable, and
(ii) Free from site constraints.
(b) For sites five acres and 'larger and parcels larger than one acre not inventoried
in subsection (a) of this section, the plan shall provide the following information:
(A) Mapping showing the location of the site;
(B) Size of the site;
(C) Availability or proximity of public facilities as defined by OAR
chapter 660, division 11 to the site;
(D) Site constraints which physically limit developing the site for
designated uses. Site constraints include but are not limited to:
(i) The site is not serviceable;
(ii) Inadequate access to the site; and
(iii) Environmental constraints (e.g., floodplain, steep slopes, weak
foundation soils).
(4) Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential. The economic
opportunities analysis shall estimate the types and amounts of industrial and commercial
development likely to occur in the planning area. The estimate shall be based on
information generated in response to sections (1) through (3) of this rule and shall
consider the planning area's economic advantages and disadvantages of attracting new or
expanded development in general as well as particular types of industrial and commercial
uses. Relevant economic advantages and disadvantages to be considered should include
but need not be limited to:
(a) Location relative to markets;
(b) Availability of key transportation facilities;
(c) Key public facilities as defined by OAR chapter 660, division 11 and public
services;
(d) Labor market factors;
(e) Materials and energy availability and cost;
(f) Necessary support services;
(g) Pollution control requirements; or
(h) Educational and technical training programs.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1986, f. & ef. 10-10-86
660-009-0020
Industrial and Commercial Development Policies
(1) Comprehensive plans for planning areas subject to this division shall include policies
stating the economic development objectives for the planning area.
(2) For urban areas of over 2,500 in population policies shall be based on the analysis
prepared in response to OAR 660-009-0015 and shall provide conclusions about the
following:
(a) Community Development Objectives. The plan shall state the overall
objectives for economic development in the planning area and identify categories
or particular types of industrial and commercial uses desired by the community.
Plans may include policies to maintain existing categories, types or levels of
industrial and commercial uses;
(b) Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites and Facilities. Consistent with
policies adopted to meet subsection (a) of this section, the plan shall include
policies committing the city or county to designate an adequate number of sites of
suitable sizes, types and locations and ensure necessary public facilities through
the public facilities plan for the planning area.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1986, f. & ef. 10-10-86
660-009-0025
Designation of Lands for Industrial and Commercial Uses
Measures adequate to implement policies adopted pursuant to OAR 660-009-0020 shall
be adopted. Appropriate implementing measures include amendments to plan and zone
map designations, land use regulations, and public facility plans:
(1) Identification of Needed Sites. The plan shall identify the approximate number and
acreage of sites needed to accommodate industrial and commercial uses to implement
plan policies. The need for sites should be specified in several broad "site categories,"
(e.g., light industrial, heavy industrial, commercial office, commercial retail, highway
commercial, etc.) combining compatible uses with similar site requirements. It is not
necessary to provide a different type of site for each industrial or commercial use which
may locate in the planning area. Several broad site categories will provide for industrial
and commercial uses likely to occur in most planning areas.
(2) Long-Term Supply of Land. Plans shall designate land suitable to meet the site needs
identified in section (1) of this rule. The total acreage of land designated in each site
category shall at least equal the projected land needs for each category during the 20-year
planning period. Jurisdictions need not designate sites for neighborhood commercial uses
in urbanizing areas if they have adopted plan policies which provide clear standards for
redesignation of residential land to provide for such uses. Designation of industrial or
commercial lands which involve an amendment to the urban growth boundary must meet
the requirements of OAR 660-004-0010(1 )(c)(B) and 660-004-0018(3)(a).
(3) Short-Term Supply of Serviceable Sites. If the local government is required to prepare
a public facility plan by OAR Chapter 660, Division 11 it shall complete subsections (a)
through (c) of this section at the time of periodic review. Requirements of this rule apply
only to local government decisions made at the time of periodic review. Subsequent
implementation of or amendments to the comprehensive plan or the public facility plan
which change the supply of serviceable industrial land are not subject to the requirements
of this rule. Local governments shall:
(a) Identify serviceable industrial and commercial sites. Decisions about whether
or not a site is serviceable shall be made by the affected local govemment. Local
governments are encouraged to develop specific criteria for deciding whether or
not a site is "serviceable." Local governments should also consider whether or not
extension of facilities is reasonably likely to occur considering the size and type
of uses likely to occur and the cost or distance of facility extension;
(b) Estimate the amount of serviceable industrial and commercial land likely to be
needed during the short-term element of the public facilities plan. Appropriate
techniques for estimating land needs include but are not limited to the following:
(A) Projections or forecasts based on development trends in the area over
previous years; and
(B) Deriving a proportionate share of the anticipated 20-year need
specified in the comprehensive plan.
(c) Review and, if necessary, amend the comprehensive plan and the short-term
element of the public facilities plan so that a three-year supply of serviceable sites
is scheduled for each year, including the final year, of the short-term element of
the public facilities plan. Amendments appropriate to implement this requirement
include but are not limited to the following:
(A) Changes to the short-term element of the public facilities plan to add
or reschedule projects which make more land serviceable;
(B) Amendments to the comprehensive plan which redesignate additional
serviceable land for industrial or commercial use; and
(C) Reconsideration of the planning area's economic development
objectives and amendment of plan policies based on public facility
limitations.
(d) If the local government is unable to meet this requirement it shall identify the
specific steps needed to provide expanded public facilities at the earliest possible
time.
(4) Sites for Uses with Special Siting Requirements. Jurisdictions which adopt objectives
or policies to provide for specific uses with special site requirements shall adopt policies
and land use regulations to provide for the needs of those uses. Special site requirements
include but need not be limited to large acreage sites, special site configurations, direct
access to transportation facilities, or sensitivity to adjacent land uses, or coastal shoreland
sites designated as especially suited for water-dependent use under Goal 17. Policies and
land use regulations for these uses shall:
(a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use;
(b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions and
permissible uses and activities to those which would not interfere with
development of the site for the intended use; and
(c) Where necessary to protect a site for the intended industrial or commercial use
include measures which either prevent or appropriately restrict incompatible uses
on adjacent and nearby lands.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1986, f. & ef. 10-10-86