,!ifl con-: nue to be used. as a ceretery after th- amendmen , we believe accounting 'or those acres in <br />both the POS and LDR assumptions is reasonable. We agree with the applicant that 0.84 trips per <br />`or f0.5 acres %4 Leme-' e~_y use is a reas_na ble a_ss i ,apeco^d <br />..e av .Eci t~, nowev`er, c~oe'J4 swat a;", r!u~.o:b: :e6as ~r'st~a.;.:~cs .,.c@~ M ae a4"'s~± R~i:" ~ti,gR/ dtr'ru~srotl~ die <br />the POS assumption is reasonable. A reasonable worst case development scenario analysis for TPR <br />purposes is intended to determine whether a proposed amendment will significantly affect an <br />existing or planned transportation facility. As such, the scenario assumptions need to reasonably <br />correlate to the assumptions that served as the basis for the City's transportation system plan, <br />TransPlan. We can find no support for the assertion that the City assumed CIR housing development <br />on land designated as POS. Simply because a CIR application was submitted for a portion of this <br />property does not support the conclusion that CIR-level densities were assumed for this, or any, POS <br />designated property. Accordingly, for TPR analysis purposes, it is not a reasonable worst case <br />scenario development assumption that land designated as POS will be developed with CIR housing. <br />We believe a reasonable worst case development scenario trip generation for POS designated <br />property is 0.2 trips per acre. <br />Regarding the LDR density assumptions, staff believes that 5 dwelling units per acre is a reasonable <br />density assumption as the maximum density allowed under the adopted South Hills Study refinement <br />plan. We could find no support for the assertion that 2.6 units per acre served as the LDR assumption <br />for either TransPlan, or the Metro Plan. As such, even though 2.6 units per acre may be the average <br />in the south hills area, it is not a reasonable worst case development scenario assumption for <br />purposes of a TPR analysis. We agree with the applicant that the reasonable trip generation for LDR <br />is 1 peak hour trip per dwelling unit, but the 1 peak hour trip per dwelling unit must be calculated <br />with a maximum 5 dwelling units per acre as the reasonable worst case trip generation scenario for <br />LDR. <br />After gathering the traffic counts of the six identified intersections and using the reasonable worst <br />case development scenario assumptions listed above, the applicant's TPR analysis should include at <br />least the following information: <br />1. Required study area intersections analyzed. <br />2. Current (2015) LOS at each study area intersection. <br />3. 2027 (Horizon Year) LOS without the amendment and zone change (i.e. 2027 LOS with <br />29.5 acres of cemetery at 0.84 trips per acre and the remaining POS acreage at 0.2 <br />trips per acre). <br />4. 2027 (Horizon Year) LOS with the amendment and zone change (i.e. 2027 LOS with <br />29.5 acres of cemetery at 0.84 trips per acre and the remaining LDR acreage at 5 units <br />per acre and 1 peak hour trip per unit). <br />5. Mitigation measures to address a significant effect of the amendment, if needed. <br />Note: There appear to be discrepancies between the acreages used in the application narrative, the <br />Branch Engineering memorandum, and those previously proposed as part of the City-initiated <br />Envision Eugene re-designation process involving the subject property. The application materials cite <br />a total of 74.5 acres; the Branch memo cites a total acreage of 76.12; and, the prior Envision.Eugene <br />process appears to have used a total of 70.2 acres. For purposes of the application and TPR analysis, <br />