There are other options that the Commission could pursue as well, including not limiting <br />building height in the plan area, although staff would not recommend this option based on the <br />importance of this issue to the community throughout the process. <br />Concern about impacting development potential or Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI): The <br />proposed code amendments do not impact the City's adopted supply of commercial or <br />industrial lands for employment development'. No land is being re -designated and the <br />amendments do not otherwise diminish the lands available for employment use. At the time <br />the adopted BLI was developed, the capacity of the Vacant and Partially Vacant land supply for <br />new employment development was based on historical employment densities of existing <br />development. The historical development trends that the employment density was based on <br />consisted of buildings of varying heights in sample sites throughout the city. This BLI <br />employment capacity is not directly derived from the square footage of a building, but the <br />capacity for a number of jobs per acre. Setbacks and height limitations do not necessarily limit <br />the employee capacity on a site. A small amount of additional jobs capacity was also assumed <br />city-wide, through redevelopment of Developed BLI land, which also considered a variety of <br />building forms. The Employment Land Supply Study also assumed that existing buildings would <br />accommodate a portion of the new jobs without any change to the building footprint. <br />Additionally, in the C-2 zone, the list of uses is very broad and even allows building housing -only <br />structures. We do not know how any particular property is going to develop, some properties <br />will develop at maximum capacity and some below, so there is not an assumption that all <br />buildable land will develop to its maximum capacity. Therefore, when determining BLI <br />employment capacity, the City took this into account by generally assuming future land capacity <br />based on average levels of development. For these reasons, the proposed height limit and <br />setback requirements will not impact the supply or availability of employment lands included in <br />the City's adopted BLI. <br />4. Metro Plan Amendments — Repeal of the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan <br />a. What prompted the initial pursuit of a new neighborhood plan? <br />b. Can the 1987 Urban Facilities Plan be amended instead of repealed and replaced? <br />Why wasn't this the path that was chosen? <br />c. Can we layer the new Neighborhood Plan on top of the 1987 plan? <br />d. Is it possible to do a land use diagram? What are the options? <br />e. Will there be a parcel -specific diagram for outside the City/inside the UGB? <br />f. Without a more focused land use diagram, won't there be less direction and <br />certainty for property owners and businesses? <br />a. What prompted the initial pursuit of a new neighborhood plan? <br />1 As provided in Part IV, Employment Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) of the Envision Eugene Employment Land <br />Supply Study (ELSS) (2012-2032). <br />11 <br />Page 10 of 21 <br />