June 16, 2017 Page 3 <br />A zoning change needs to be consistent with the Metro Plan designation. Presumably, this <br />normally happens when the owner seeks to raise the zoning to allow development of the land <br />at its highest and best use. Development during the 20 year period will occur pursuant to the <br />zoning except when the zoning is changed consistent with the Metro Plan. Thus, it is not <br />clear to me that it is appropriate to use the Metro Plan land use designations when they <br />conflict with the zoning and/or refinement plan in a manner that would reduce residential <br />density (from HDR to MDR, or MDR to LDR). Regulations preventing land from being used at <br />its highest and best use could result in Measure 49 claims. See ORS 195.310. <br />Resulting BLI data issues are discussed below in Section IV. <br />III. Buildable Land Inventory Assumption Issues <br />City staff previously indicated that the 8/1/12 BLI was used for the Eugene Land Model. <br />According to staff: "BLI is run on 8/1/13 lots w/ less than $1,000 of improvement value or a <br />vacant land use code are identified as `Vacant'; large developed lots with a vacant area are <br />[identified] as `Partially Vacant.' BLI updated to change Vacant lots with addresses (e.g. <br />building permits) on 5/20/13 to Developed." (7/8/15 Review). I assume staff meant to say <br />"8/1/12" rather than "8/1/13" above. More recently, staff advised that "our monitoring will <br />begin where our land inventory model left off (it was run at the end of August 2012)." <br />10/21/16 Email. I am assuming staff meant the beginning of August, 8/1/12, rather than the <br />end of August, 8/31/12. 1 had understood that only two BLIs had been run, which I <br />understood to be the 8/1/12 and 5/20/13 BLIs. However, I recently discovered that the City <br />produced a 2012 DRAFT Vacant (Undeveloped) Land Supply by Metro Plan Designation, <br />with a "Map based on June 19 2013 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI)." <br />If the City actually updated the BLI to consider land vacant only if it did not have an address <br />as of 5/20/13 (or 6/19/13), then the BLI is not consistent with a 2012 planning start date or the <br />population forecast as of 7/1/12 being used by the City. The City would be excluding <br />residential land supply used up by roughly a year of development within the planning period. <br />The City may have used the 5/20/13 BLI to update the data as of 12/31/12. The City stated <br />on its website that "[t]he inventory of vacant and partially vacant land * * * is now current <br />through 2012 development." See www.eugene-or.gov/2463/Part-l-Existing-Capacity. Again, <br />a 12/31/12 BLI is not consistent with a population forecast start date of 7/1/12. <br />These dates which may have been used by the City are all inconsistent with the 7/1/12 <br />population forecast start date. "The determination of 20-year residential land needs for an <br />urban area must be consistent with the appropriate 20-year coordinated population forecast <br />for the urban area determined under Rules in OAR 660, div 32 * * ` OAR 660-024-0040 (4). <br />Staff identified a lot as developed, as opposed to vacant, if it had an address when the BLI <br />was run. Staff told me that it is generally assumed that an address is issued when a permit is <br />issued. However, this leaves open the possibility that an address will be issued prior to the <br />issuance of a building permit, that an address will be issued for a non-building permit <br />(erosion, specialty, etc.), that an address will be attached to a lot with the building demolished <br />