The concept of "worst case" is premised on an assumption that whatever else can be <br />developed can be accommodated by the transportation system in a manner that will not <br />degrade adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) standards as explained in more detail by <br />staff's previous memo dated January 26, 2021. The "reasonable" test is about the market <br />forces, local objectives, and site constraints that will likely affect what will actually be built. The <br />applicant states their assumptions regarding potential development on starting on page 16 of <br />the TPR Analysis (dated October 22, 2020): <br />• Allowed uses including "manufacturing," "scientific and education research center," <br />"convenience store," and "retail trade secondary to products manufactured on site" <br />• The building area is 40% of site: 74,200 sf of ground area, all buildings will be 3 stories <br />for a total of 222,600 sf <br />• 40% of the site is parking, drive isles, and loading area <br />• 20% is landscape, stormwater facilities, and setbacks <br />• Trip generation utilized rates found within the ITE Trip Generation Manuals 101h Edition. <br />In response to public testimony and commissioners' questions, staff reevaluated the <br />assumptions and conclusion of the applicant's TPR analysis and found one key issue with the <br />applicant's assumptions. The applicant's worst-case scenario proposes a 5,000 square foot <br />convenience store, which is only allowed in the 1-2 zone under certain limitations. One such <br />limitation, under EC 9.2451(4) requires convenience stores (up to 5,000 square feet) in the 1-2 <br />zone to be located on development sites with frontage on an arterial street (major or minor). <br />However, this site does not front an arterial street. Railroad Boulevard, the highest <br />classification street fronting the subject property, is classified as a major collector. Therefore, <br />"convenience store" cannot be reasonably be considered as an allowed use on the subject <br />property as part of the applicant's TPR assumptions. <br />Regardless of this error, the proposed amendment from industrial to mixed use would likely <br />result in some potential increase for traffic generation compared to the existing 1-2 zone, <br />further degrading the performance of nearby intersections. When a proposed plan amendment <br />and zone change generates more traffic than allowed by the existing plan and zoning and that <br />increase degrades the transportation system, a "significant effect" occurs. However, a finding of <br />"significant effect" does not prevent approval of a plan amendment or zone change. The City <br />has options for balancing the effects of a plan amendment with the planned transportation <br />system. In this case, to ensure no net increase in trip generation post-amendment approval, <br />staff recommends a trip generation cap condition as evaluated in the previous staff <br />memorandum to Planning Commission (dated January 26, 2021). <br />Staff note that the City's approach to these analyses has been vetted and is supported through <br />a variety of case law, including the use of "trip caps" as a method of mitigation that would <br />eliminate the possibility of having a "significant effect" on the transportation system by <br />ensuring no net increase in trip generation as a result of the proposed amendment and zone <br />change. The trip generation cap is determined by calculating traffic generation based on the <br />worst-case intensity of land uses allowed by existing adopted plans and zoning. Staff has <br />