Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 36 of 56 <br />land that are based on a simple methodology using land value rather than on a map-based or GIS <br />method based method. <br />Section (1) directs the city to classify existing employment zoning districts within the UGB as <br />either "commercial" or "industrial." Districts that allow both commercial and industrial uses <br />must be classified as one or the other, based on the predominant use. <br />Section (2) directs the city to use assessor tax lot data to categorize each tax lot in the <br />employment land inventory as vacant, partially vacant, or developed. The city must examine the <br />ratio of real market improvement value to the real market land value. Tax lots where the <br />improvement value is greater than 40 percent of the land value are considered developed. Tax <br />lots where the improvement value is greater than five percent and less than 40 percent are <br />considered partially vacant. Tax lots where the improvement value is less than five percent or the <br />improvement value is less than $5,000 are considered vacant. <br />This proposed method of categorizing existing inventory relies on easily available data. As <br />discussed above, completing a parcel-by-parcel survey or GIS-based lot coverage analysis would <br />be an alternative method. Neither method is precise, but ORS 197A requires the rules to include <br />a simplified method. <br />In the traditional process, land inside the UGB was sorted in two categories, vacant and <br />developed. ORS 197A provides that partially vacant land must also be considered. Comments <br />suggest that the evaluation of partially vacant lands should be more elaborate than it is in the <br />method proposed in Draft 3, and should be based on a spatial inspection rather than on the <br />suggested rule of thumb that uses land and improvement value. The department recommends the <br />simple land value method. We note that, historically, many cities have used the rules of thumb <br />outlined here for determining "vacant" and "developed" land. There is not as much historical use <br />or agreement on the proposed rule of thumb for "partially vacant" land. However, the numbers <br />suggested for the proposed rule of thumb lie between those used for "developed" and "vacant" <br />land, and certainly provide a simple methodology. <br />It may be helpful to think about partially vacant as land that is underutilized for any number of <br />reasons. A site may have few structures and clearly part of it may allow additional development; <br />thus it is partially vacant. However, due to outdoor use requirements or other factors, sometimes <br />such sites should be considered fully utilized. Also, some sites may be significantly developed <br />but with structures that are idle or dilapidated. Each situation would require individual <br />examination and probably a set of findings under the traditional method. To provide a simplified <br />method, a standard must be provided under which a city may evaluate all employment zoned <br />land and its capacity to accommodate future employment. No method will be perfect, but the <br />proposed rule of thumb seems to be the best way unless a parcel by parcel method is employed, <br />which would require detailed findings and often GIS capability, which many small cities do not <br />have. <br />The department also recommends that it would be inaccurate to split portions of existing tax lots <br />when assembling the BLI-based determination of current employment density. One commenter <br />