Tax lots committed to a use or development that is not reasonably likely to be discontinued <br />during the planning period, making industrial redevelopment highly unlikely during planning <br />period based on specific circumstances described on a lot by lot basis' <br />To provide some preliminary context, four high level "context" maps (one for each of the development <br />constraints) are provided at the end of Section Ill.b., below. In Section Ill.c.-f., below, as each subarea is <br />specifically analyzed in order of its ORS 197.298 priority, land with these constraints is identified and <br />dismissed from further consideration. In some cases, this results in dismissal of a small area on a tax lot. <br />In other cases, the constraint applies to an entire tax lot. <br />(2) Dismiss Candidate Land that Cannot Reasonably Accommodate the Specific Types of <br />land Needs / Cannot be Expected to Provide the Appropriate Site Characteristic for the <br />Proposed Use (ORS 197.298(3)(a) / OAR 660-024-0060(1)(e), (5)) <br />ORS 197.298(3)(a) states: <br />3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth <br />boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of <br />land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: <br />a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher <br />priority lands; <br />OAR 660-024-0060, implementing ORS 197.298, provides (with emphasis added): <br />1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to add by <br />evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with the <br />priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as <br />follows: <br />a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine <br />which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under <br />OAR 660-024-0050. <br />b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to <br />satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to <br />choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB. <br />c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the <br />identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next <br />priority is suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed using the same <br />method specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is <br />accommodated. <br />d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) to (c) of this section, a local government may consider land <br />of lower priority as specified in ORS 197.298(3). <br />' One attribute of an area designated as an "urban reserve," is that its further development is legally restricted <br />until it is brought into the UGB. This is because such development, if allowed to occur before a UGB expansion, can <br />impede efficient urbanization of the area. Eugene and Lane County have not adopted urban reserves and are an <br />illustration of the problem described above. Lane County has allowed fairly extensive development in the areas <br />surrounding Eugene's UGB. In some areas, that development is so extensive or urban in nature that it makes the <br />land unavailable for the uses needed by Eugene's growing population. <br />Appendix B to Findings May 2017 Page 5 <br />