I that respondents did not adequately consider rezoning surplus commercially <br />2 designated lands to meet the identified need for employment lands. <br />3 Intervenor states that the 2010 Study concluded that the available <br />4 employment land inside the UGB will most likely be developed for smaller <br />5 businesses and would not be available for large lot industrial development. <br />6 Intervenor also argues the incorporated findings of the 2014 Update at Record <br />7 761-762 explain highway commercial lots identified by petitioners in the <br />8 proceeding totals only 22.5 acres and are insufficient to meet the need of a <br />9 minimum single 20 net buildable acre industrial site. <br />10 We conclude that petitioners have not established that respondents failed <br />11 to adequately consider rezoning existing commercially designated land to meet <br />12 some of the identified future need for employment land. <br />13 F. Failure to Account for Existing Regional Large Lot Supply <br />14 Petitioners finally argue that the challenged decision improperly ignores <br />15 that there are other communities in Lane County that can accommodate large <br />16 lot industrial sites, and that the findings fail to address this information and do <br />17 not explain how there can be an unmet regional need for 463 acres of large lot <br />18 industrial land when nearly that amount already exists within Lane County. <br />19 "[T]he record contains detailed evidence documenting that there <br />20 are already at least 450 acres of 20+ acre industrial sites presently <br />21 available in Lane County: a) 181 acres currently for sale in Eugene <br />22 and Creswell; b) 62 acres in Springfield; and c) 214 acres in <br />23 Goshen, most of it already served by I-5 and rail." Petition for <br />24 Review 48 (original emphasis omitted). <br />Page 62 <br />