ATTACHMENT A <br />Staff Response to Questions and Topics Raised for Further Discussion <br />Several of the topics and questions raised by commissioners essentially seek to clarify the <br />potential off-site impacts resulting from the proposed change to the land use designation and <br />zoning on the subject property. As a preface to the more specific responses provided below, <br />staff notes the limited authority provided to the City as part of a plan amendment and zone <br />change to dictate specific outcomes or uses that would be developed as a result. <br />First, it is important to remember that plan designations and zoning can only encourage a <br />particular outcome by permitting certain uses and development standards. The City cannot <br />guarantee a specific outcome, nor can the City require a certain level of development. In other <br />words, the City cannot guarantee that housing, commercial uses, industrial uses, or a mix of <br />uses ever develops on the subject property within a given planning horizon. <br />Second, primarily due to the reason discussed above, staff cannot accurately predict all <br />outcomes based on the wide variety of development potential that would be enabled. For <br />example, the S-W Whiteaker Special Area zone permits a wide range of commercial, industrial, <br />and residential uses and regulates development based on C-2 Community Commercial or I-2 <br />Light-Medium Industrial or development standards with some exceptions. Given this reality, <br />staff must rely on modeling and reasonable scenarios to attempt to predict the extent of <br />possible outcomes and the resulting impacts of those scenarios in order to evaluate the request <br />in terms of applicable approval criteria. <br />Transportation Impacts <br />To address key issues raised in public testimony in response to the Transportation Planning Rule <br />(TPR) Analysis, staff has prepared the following responses. This is not a comprehensive list of <br />every comment received. However, staff has thoroughly reviewed all submitted testimony and <br />provides a response with the intent of addressing the common themes and primary concerns. <br />The key issues identified in the testimony are in italics, followed by staff response. <br />Transportation Planning Rule Analysis vs. Traffic Impact Analysis <br />Bef <br />(TPR) Analysis, staff recognize that additional clarification between TPR Analyses and Traffic <br />Impact Analyses (TIA) is warranted. <br />First and foremost, the TPR is a requirement at the state level, administered under OAR 660- <br />012-0060, whereas a TIA is a local process required as part of <br />analysis is triggered for land use actions that change an adopted comprehensive plan and rely <br />on theoretical development potential to anticipate impacts to the transportation system. A TIA <br />is triggered by specific development proposals and relies on the detailed development proposal <br />to measure actual impact to the transportation system. <br />A TPR is governed by a set of rules and requirements listed at OAR 66-012-0060. TPR is the tool <br />for ensuring compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation. When an applicant <br /> <br />