SUBJECT: Washington County Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 008-12
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption.
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached.  A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office.  
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL:  Tuesday, September 18, 2012 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption  pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government.  If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline.  Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice
of the final decision from the local government.  The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).  Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
*NOTE:     The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
        government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
        DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA  
       Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
Cc: Paul Schaefer, Washington County
Jon Jinings, DLCD Community Services Specialist
Anne Debbaut, DLCD Regional Representative
<paa> YA
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
09/04/2012
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist
~ ~2 DLCD 
D D In person D electronic D . ~ A mmled 
T oe.P' ot: 
E 
Notice of Adoption s M.\6 2 S 1\\\'2. T A LAND coNSERVAi\ON 
M AND oEVELOPMENT This Form 2 must be mailed to DLCD within 5-Working Days after the Final 
Ordinance is signed by the public Official Designated by the jurisdiction 
and all other requirements ofORS 197.615 and OAR 660-018-000 
p For Office Usc Only 
Jurisdiction: Washington County Local file number: 12-222-PA 
Date of Adoption: 8/23/2012 Date Mailed: 8/24/2012 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? C8J Yes D No Date: 7/12/2012 
0 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment C8J Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
0 Land Use Regulation Amendment D Zoning Map Amendment 
D New Land Use Regulation D Other: 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
Proposal to convert R-15 Residential (12-15 units per acre) land use designation to Community Business 
District (CBD) designation for three parcels encompassing 2.24 acres. 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? No, no explaination is necessary 
Plan Map Changed from: R-15 to: CBD 
Zone Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A 
Location: 18470 SW Farmington Road & 6250 & 6290 SW 1851h Av Acres Involved: 2 
Specify Density: Previous: 15 units per acres New: N/A 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 
~~DDDDDD~~~~DDDDDDD 
Was an Exception Adopted? D YES C8J NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment. .. 
35-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? 
DLCD file No.-----------
C8J Yes 
DYes 
DYes 
ONo 
0No 
DNo 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Tualatin Valley Water District, Clean Water Services, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Metro, TriMet, 
Beaverton School District, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District, City of Beaverton 
Local Contact: Anne Elvers 
Address: 155 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 350-1 
City: Hillsboro Zip: 97124-
anne _ elvers@co. washington.or. us 
Phone: (503) 846-3519 
Fax Number: 503-846-4412 
E-mail Address: 
Extension : 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This Form 2 must be received by DLCD no later than 5 working days after the ordinance has been signed by 
the public official designated by the jurisdiction to sign the approved ordinance(s) 
per ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 
1. This Form 2 must be submitted by local jurisdictions only (not by applicant). 
2. When submitting the adopted amendment, please print a completed copy of Form 2 on light green 
paper if available. 
3. Send this Form 2 and one complete paper copy (documents and maps) of the adopted amendment to the 
address below. 
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the final signed ordinance(s), all supporting finding(s), 
exhibit(s) and any other supplementary information (ORS 197.615 ). 
5. Deadline to appeals to LUBA is calculated twenty-one (21) days from the receipt (postmark date) by DLCD 
ofthe adoption (ORS 197.830 to 197.845 ). 
6. In addition to sending the Form 2 -Notice of Adoption to DLCD, please also remember to notify persons who 
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. (ORS 197.615 ;). 
7. Submit one complete paper copy via United States Postal Service, Common Carrier or Hand 
Carried to the DLCD Salem Office and stamped with the incoming date stamp. 
8. Please mail the adopted amendment packet to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
9. Need More Copies? Please print forms on 8~ -112xll green paper only if available. lfyou have any 
questions or would like assistance, please contact your DLCD regional representative or contact the DLCD 
Salem Office at (503) 373-0050 x238 or e-mail plan.amendments@state.or.us. 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml Updated December 30,2011 
8 WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION ROOM 350-14 155 NORTH FIRST AVENUE HILLSBORO, OREGON 97124 
(503) 846-3519 fax: (503) 846-4412 
WoNW.co.washington.or.us 
NOTICE OF PLANNING 
COMMISSION DECISION 
(Plan Amendment) 
PROCEDURE 'TYPE Ill 
CPO: 6 
COMMUNITY PLAN: Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountajn 
EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICT(S): 
R-15 (Residential - 15 units per acre) 
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: 
CASE FILE NO.: 12-222-PA 
APPLICANT: 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
Attn : Tom Rocca 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 
Perkins Coie, LLC 
1120 NW Couch Street 
Tenth Floor 
Portland, OR 97209 
CONTACT PERSON: Dana Krawczuk 
OWNER: 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 
ASSESS,OR MAP NO(S): 1S1 1988 
TAX LOT NOS: 800, 901 & 100Q 
SITE SIZE: 2.24 acres 
ADDRESS: 18470 SW Farmington Road and 6250 & 6290 SW 185Ui 
Avenue 
Change the curr~llt R-15 District (Residential'.:.: 15 units per acre) to Community Business District (GBD) 
DATE OF NOTICE MAILING: J\ugust 24,2012 
A SUMMARY OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION IS ATTACHED. 
THE COMPLETE ORDER, FINDINGS, AND FILES ARE ON 
RECORD AT THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND 
TRANSPORTATION AND ARE AVAILABLE; FOR REVIEW .. 
THIS DECISION MAY BE APPEALED AND A PUBLIC HEARING 
HELD BY FILING AN ASSIGNED PETITION FOR REVIEW 
(APPEAL), AS DESCRIBED ON THE ATTACHED SHEET, WITHIN 
14 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE THIS NOTICE WAS . 
PROVIDED. A MOTION FOR RECONSIQERI\TION.MAY·Be FILED, 
~~:L~~~~~NC~~~:~~~T~~~-t~~:N~~~~~· \ HE · . - ·· 
DATE Tl--iiS NOTICE WAS PROVIDED. BUT DOES NOT ~TOP THE . 
APPEAL PERIOD FROM RUNNING AND IS-AVAILABL.E ONLY AS 
AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY WHEN A MISTAKE OF LAW'OR 
FACT HAS OCCURRED. ONLY THOSE PERSONS WHO MADE AN 
APPEARANCE OF RECORD (INCLUDING SUBMiSSION OF 
WRITTEN COMMENTS OR TESTIMONY) ARE ENTITLED TO FILE 
A PETITION FOR REVIEW (APPEAL) OR MOTION FOR . 
RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION. 
THIS DECISION WILL BE FINAL iF NO APPEAL IS FILED BY THE 
DUE PATE AND A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS NOT 
GRANTED BY THE REVIEW AUTHORITY. 
THE COMPLETE APPLICATION, REVIEW STANDARDS,RECORD 
OF PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS FOR THE DECISION AND 
DECISION ARE AVAILABLE AT THE COUNTY FOR REVIEW. 
..:·. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: 
Anne Elvers, Associate Planner 
WASlnNGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE 
AND tRANSPORT ATION (503) 846-3593 
* SUBJI;CTPRQPERTY 
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, 
VENDOR OR SELLER: 
ORS CHAPTER 215 REQl)IRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE 
THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO 
THE PURCHASER. 
SUMMARY OF DECISION- CASEFILE 12-222-PA 
At the August 15, 2012 Planning Commission hearing, staff provided the Commission 
with a summary of the written staff report, which noted that the request complied with 
most of the applicable policies. However, staff pointed out that the staff report included 
alternative findings for three of the policies applicable to this plan amendment request. 
The written staff report noted alternative findings for three policies: Comprehensive 
Framework Plan for the Urban Area Policies 1, 18 and 20. 
The first set of findings for each policy outlined historic interpretations used by staff and 
served to support the Planning Commission 's decision in the event of a decision to 
deny the request. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 8 to 1 
to rely on the alternative interpretations and findings for the policies and approved the 
request from R-15 Residential to Community Business District (CBD). 
The Planning Commission determined that Policy 1, which requires evidence of a lack 
of alternative sites to accommodate the proposed use, was satisfied bythe applicant's 
use of a "trade area" to eliminate alternative sites. Additional alternative sites were 
eliminated for the following reasons: visual barriers to the site, lack of traffic, functional 
classification of adjacent roadways, multiple ownerships for aggregated sites, and non-
compete lease restrictions within commercial centers. 
The Planning Commission also relied on the alternative findings forPolicies 18 and 20, 
which took into account market factors such as a shortage of commercial land in the 
area, commercial sales leakage to neighboring areas, and the requirement by 
Walgreens corporate policy that no new Walgreens store may be located within the 
trade area of an existing Walgreens store located on Tualatin Valley Highway. 
Findings in support of the alternative interpretations for Policies 1, 18 and 20 are found 
in the staff report and application materials submitted by the applicant. 
The Planning Commission approved the plan amendment subject to the Conditions of 
Approval listed below: 
1. Any additional amount over and above the fee depos.it submitted with this 
application which is determined to be owed to the county shall be paid upon 
receipt of a statement of balance due, consistent with the agreement for 
payment of fees for quasi-judicial plan amendment application processing 
previously signed by the owner. 
2. Any development of the subject property shall comply with all conditions of 
Casefile 12-185-AMP. 
3. Subsequent development of the subject property shall comply with the transit 
oriented design standards identified as part of the staff report and agreed to by 
the applicant. 
Tax Map: 1511988, Tax Lots 800, 901, and 1000 
Casefile No.: 12-222-PA 
Legend: · Area of Consideration 
. ,,_ 
Applicable land Use Districts:· 
•· . 
.. R~1'5 . Residential (12-15 units p~r; acre) 
CBD (Community Business District) 
Applicable ·Goals.· Policies & Regulations: . 
A . Washington C~untyComprehensive ' Framework Pl~n f~r the Urban 
·· · Area Pblicies~ 1, 2, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23; 30, 31, ;32, 36, 39 & 40 
B. Washington County Aloha-Reedville-Cooper MouA'tain Cdmrrionity 
Plan, General Design Elements 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,14, 15, 16 
.. and 21 and tile fa;~ingtortRoad C~rridorSubarea {equireme.nts :. , 
c. vva~IJingtQ!l COU(lty Qomm~nity Develppin~nt Code; Article 111, 
Section '30'5 (R-1$), 313' (CBD), 38.0 (Conve:n!elitAceess t~>Transit) · 
& 431 (Transit0rienlei:1 Design) · ·· · · · · 
D. OAR 660-012-0060- Transportation Planning Rule 
E. Washington County Transportation Plan Policies 1 .• 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 
1.2, 14, 15 and 19 
F.' Metro Regional Urban GroWthManagement FunctiOnal PlanTitles 
1, 6, 8 and 12 
G. Metropolitan Housing Rule - (OAR 660-007) 
S :\PLNG\WPSHARE\Pian Amendments\Casefiles\2012\ 12222_ Walgreens\Notices\NOTICE-OF-DECISION_12-222-PA.doc 
APPEAL INFORMATION 
CASEFILE 12-222-PA 
A PETITION FOR REVIEW (APPEAL) TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL CONTAIN 
THE FOLLOWING: 
1. The name of the applicant and the County case file number; 
2. The name and signature of each petitioner and statement of interest of each petitioner to determine 
party status. 
Multiple parties may join in filing a single petition for review, but each petitioner shall designate a single 
Contact Representative for all contact with the Department. All Department communications regarding 
the petition, including correspondence, shall be with this Contact Representative; 
3. The date that notice of the decision was sent as specified in the notice (date mailed); 
4. The nature of the decision and the specific grounds for appeal. Unless otherwise directed by the 
Board, the appeal shall be limited to the issue(s) raised in the petition; 
5. If desired, a request for a partial or full de novo hearing as provided in Section 209-5.4 of the 
Community Development Code (CDC); 
' 6. A statement listing the number of pages of the petition and that all pages are present. 
7. A statement setting forth the appeal fee as specified in the notice of decision; and 
8. The appeal fee adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of $725, which is a deposit on the cost 
for processing the appeal. The appellant will be required to pay the actual cost, which may be more or 
less than $725. A transcript will be prepared for all appeals pursuant to CDC Section 209-4. The 
appellant will 'be provided a written estimate of the cost for preparation ofthe transcript by the ·County 
after the petition is accepted. Within fourteen (14) days of notification of the estimated transcript fee, 
the appellant must either pay the estimated cost or notify the Director in writing that the appellant will 
prepare the trimscripL The appellant must also reimburse the County forti me and materials cost over 
eight hours. 
Failure to· file a signed original petition with the Department of Land Use and Transportation by 5:00 p.m. on 
the due datel with. the proper fee,· shall be a jurisdiction~ I defect. Please call the Long Range Planning 
Division ·at 503-846-3519 if you hav.e. any questions. 
For further information, plea~e c;qntact: Ann~ Elvers, Associate Planner 
Washington County, Department of Land Use and Transportation 
(503) 846-3519 . 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 
FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 
fu the Matter of a Proposed Plan 
Amendment Casefile 12-222-PA 
For Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
) 
) 
) 
RESOLUTION AND ORDER 
No. 2012.-3 
This matter having come before the Washington County Planning Commission 
(Commission) at its meeting of August 15, 2012; and 
It appearing to the Commission that the above-named applicant applied to Washington 
County for a Plan Amendment to change the plan designation for certain real property described in 
the Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit "A"), attached and incorporated herein, from R-15 
Residential (R-15) to Community Business District (CBD); and 
It appearing to the Commission that notice of the public hearing was sent to property 
owners as required by Community Development Code Section 204; and 
It appearing on August 15, 2012, the Commission heard the staff report including 
alternative findings for Policies 1, 18 and 20 of the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban 
Area in support of the request. The Commission thereafter invited the applicant to offer testimony 
in support of the request and heard testimony from the public. 
It appearing that on A,ugust 15, 2012 the Planning Commission voted 8-1 to approve the 
staff report findings (Exhibit "B") including the alternative findings for Policies 1, 18, and 20 in 
support of the request; and 
It appearing to the Commission from testimony provided by the applicant and their 
representative, evidence and findings in the staff report with attachments (Exhibit "B"), the 
information set forth in the Application (Exhibit "C") and the Supplemental Application Materials 
(Exhibit "D"), attached and incorporated herein, that the aforementioned application should be 
approved, subject to conditions of approval ensuring compliance with certain applicable policies of 
Page 1 -PLANNING COMMISSiON RESOLlJTION AND ORDER No. 20 r '2.. - 3 
WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 
155 N . FIRsT AVE, 5UITE340- MS#24 
HILlSBORO, OR 97124 
PHONE (503) 846-8747- FAX (503) 846-8636 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
the Comprehensive Plan for such a Plan Amendment, as described in Exhibit "E"; now, therefore, 
it is 
RESOLVED AND ORDERED that Casefile,No. 12-222-PA for a Plan Amendment for 
property described in Exhibit-"A" is hereby approved subject to certain Conditions of Approval 
(Exhibit "E"), particularly conditions of Casefile No. 12-185-AMP, the approved Access 
Management Plan for the property (Exhibit ''F'), and the requirements for transit oriented design 
identified by and agreed to by the applicant to apply during future development review of the 
property (Exhibit "G"). 
8 votes Aye, 1 vote Nay. 
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 
#~cv~~ 
CHAIRMAN 
~"~;a ~~CYuu.Je.eM_~ 
RECORDING~ECRETARY 
Page 2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ,AND ORDER No. 2 0 I '2- - 3 
WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 
155 N. FIRSr AVE, 5UITE340- MS#24 
HILLSBORO, OR 97124 
PHONE (503) 846-8747- FAX (503) 846-8636 
• 
WASHINGTON COUNTY 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 
LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION 
ROOM 350-14 
155 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 
HILLSBORO. OREGON 97124 
(503) 846-3519 fax: (503) 846-441 2 
www.co.washington.or.us 
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 
HEARING 
CASE FILE NO.: 12-222-PA 
PROCEDURE TYPE Ill 
CPO: 6 
COMMUNITY PLAN: Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mtn. 
EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICT(S): 
R-15 (Residential-15 units per acre) 
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: 
APPLICANT: 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
Attn .: Mr. Tom Rocca 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 
Perkins Coie, LLP 
1120 NW Couch Street 
Tenth Floor 
Portland, OR 97209-4128 
CONTACT PERSON: Dana Krawczuk 
Phone: 503-727-2036 
OWNER: 
Exhibit A 
12-222-PA 
Page 1 of 3 
Westside Community Church of Washington County 
18390 SW Farmington Road 
Beaverton, OR, 97007 
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 
ASSESSOR MAP NO(S): 1S1-19BB 
TAX LOT NO(S): 800, 901, 1000 
SITE SIZE: 2.24 Acres 
ADDRESS: 18470 SW Farmington Road and 6250 & 
6290 SW 1851h Avenue 
LOCATION: Beaverton, OR 97007 
Change the current R-15 District designation (Residential-15 units per acre) to Community Business District 
(CBD) 
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will review 
the request for the above stated proposed plan amendment at a 
meeting on : August 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM in the auditorium of 
the Washington County Public Services Building , 155 North First, 
Hillsboro, Oregon. 
All interested persons may appear and provide written or oral 
testimony (written testimony may be submitted prior to a hearing). 
Only those making an appearance of record shall be entitled to 
appeal. The public hearings will be conducted in accordance with 
the rules of procedure as adopted by the Board of County 
Commissioners . Reasonable time limits will be imposed. 
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired 
hearing and can be scheduled for this meeting by call ing (503) 
846-8611 (voice) or (503) 846-4598 (TOO-Telecommunications 
Devices for the Deaf) no later than 5:00p.m. on the day before the 
meeting . The County will also upon request endeavor to arrange 
for the following services to be provided : qualified sign language 
interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments. and 
qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must ~e 
scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as 
much lead time as possible. Please notify the County of your need 
by 5:00p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE CONTACT: 
Paul Schaefer, Senior Planner 
AT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE 
AND TRANSPORTATI ON, (503) 846-3519. 
• SUBJECT PROPERTY 
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, 
VENDOR OR SELLER: 
ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE 
THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO 
THE PURCHASER. 
Exhibit A 
12-222-PA 
Page 2 of 3 
All interested persons may appear and provide written or oral testimony (written testimony 
may be submitted prior to the hearing but not after the conclusion of the hearing). Only 
those making an appearance of record (those presenting oral or written testimony) shall be 
entitled to appeal. Failure to raise an issue in the hearing, in person or by letter, or failure 
to provide sufficient specificity to afford the Review Authority (Planning Commission and/or 
Board of County Commissioners) an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal 
to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on the issue. 
The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the following rules of procedure as 
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Reasonable time limits may be imposed. 
RULES OF PROCEDURE 
1. The staff will summarize the applicable substantive review criteria. 
2. A summary of the staff report is presented. 
3. The applicant's presentation is given. 
4. Testimony of others in favor of the application is given. 
5. Testimony of those opposed to the application is given. 
6. Applicant's rebuttal testimony is given. 
Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the 
hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. Such an 
extension shall be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.428 or 227.178. 
When the Review Authority reopens a record to admit new evidence or testimony, any 
person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for 
decision-making which apply to the matter at issue. 
A copy of the application , all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and 
applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost at the Department of Land Use 
and Transportation. A copy of this material will be provided at reasonable cost. 
A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at the Department of 
Land Use and Transportation at least seven days prior to the hearing. A copy of the staff 
report will be provided at reasonable cost. 
For further information, please contact: Paul Schaefer, Senior Planner, Department of Land 
Use and Transportation, at (503) 846-3519. 
, 
Exhibit A 
12-222-PA 
Page 3 of3 
Tax Map: 1511988, Tax Lots 800, 901 , and 1000 
Case File Number: 12-222-PA 
Legend: Area of Consideration 
Appl icable Land Use Distri cts: 
R-15 (12-15 units per acre) 
CBD (Community Business District) 
R-24 
D 
Applicable Goals, Pol icies & Regulations: 
A. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban 
Area (Urban Plan) Policies and Implementing Strategies: 1, 2, 14, 
18, 20, 21 , 22 , 23, 30, 31 , 32, 36, 39, &40 
B. Washington County Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community 
Plan, General Design Elements 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 
and 21 and the Farmington Road Corridor Subarea requirements 
C. Washington County Community Development Code: Article Ill , 
Section 305 (R-15) , 313 (CBD), 375 & 431 (TOO) 
D. OAR 660-012-0060 -Transportation Planning Rule 
E. Washington County Transportation Plan Policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,1 0, 12, 
14, 15, and 19 
F. Metro Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Policies 
(Titles 1, 6, 7, 8, and 12) 
G. Metropol itan Housing Rule - (OAR 660-007) 
S:IPing\WPSHARE\Pian Amendments\Master Forms\Hearing Notices\Hrg Notice for PC_12-222-PA.doc 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
1 of 51 
e 
WASHINGTON COUNTY 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND 
TRANSPORTATION 
LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION, 
SUITE #350-14 
155 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 
HILLSBORO, OREGON 97124 
(503) 846-3519 
STAFF REPORT 
PROCEDURE TYPE: Ill 
COMMUNITY PLAN: 
Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain 
CPO: 6 
EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICT(S): 
R-15 District (Residential15 Units Per Acre) 
CASEFILE NO.: 12-222-PA 
APPLICANT & OWNER: 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 941 07 
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 
Dana Krawczuk 
Perkins Coie, LLP 
1120 NW Couch Street 
Tenth Floor 
Portland, OR 97209-4128 
ASSESSOR MAP NO.: 1 S1 19BB 
TAX LOT NO(S): 800, 901 & 1000 
SITE SIZE: 2.24 acres 
ADDRESS: 18470 SW Farmington Road and 6250 
and 6290 SW 185th Avenue 
LOCATION: Southeast corner of SW 185th Avenue 
and SW Farmington Road 
REQUEST: Remove the current land use designation of Residential 15 Units Per Acre (R-15) and apply the 
Community Business District (CBD) designation to the subject property. 
Casefile No. 12-222-PA Staff Report for the 
August 15, 2012 Planning Commission Hearing 
(The hearing will begin no sooner than 7:30 p.m.) 
I. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 
A. LCDC Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12 
B. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) 
C. Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007) 
D. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan: Titles 1, 6, 8 and 12 
E. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan Policies (and Implementing Strategies): 
1, 2, 14, 18, 20, 21 , 22 , 23, 30 , 31,32, 36, 39, and40 
F. Washington County Transportation Plan Pol icies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 19 
G. Aloha Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan , General Design Elements 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 
12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 21 and the Farmington Road Corridor Subarea 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
2 of 51 
H. Washington County Community Development Code: 
Article Ill , Land Use Districts 
Section 305 R-15 Residential District 
Section 313 Community Business District (CBD) 
Section 380 Convenient Access to Transit Overlay 
Section 431 Transit Oriented Design Principles, Standards and Guidelines 
II. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES: 
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation 
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) 
Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) 
Clean Water Services (CWS) 
Washington County Sheriff 
Beaverton School District #48J 
Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD) 
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 
Metro 
TriMet 
Ill. FINDINGS 
A. General 
Applicant: See pages 2-5 of the applicant's narrative. 
August 8, 2012 
Page 2 of 33 
Staff: The applicant is requesting that the current R-15 Residential plan designation for three 
parcels totaling 2.24 acres (hereafter referred to as "subject property" or "property") be 
changed to Community Business District (CBD). 
The applicant is proposing a 15,000 square foot Walgreens store and a 3,000 square foot fast 
food restaurant, each with a drive thru . These uses are allowed through a Type II procedure in 
CBD. 
Property Description: The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the 
intersection of SW 1851h Avenue and SW Farmington Road and is located with in the Aloha-
Reedville - Cooper Mountain Community Plan area . The property is further identified as tax lots 
800 , 901 and 1000 on tax map 1 S 119BB. Each of the tax lots has a detached single family 
residence, and there is cell tower located near the southeast corner of tax lot 800. 
The subject property has a gradual north to south slope with the lowest elevation along SW 
Farmington Road . There are no significant natural resources on the property. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
3 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 3 of 33 
Land Use History: The property was designated R-15 Residential in 1983 when the Aloha-
Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan was adopted. The community plan addressed 
several factors including community issues and related citizen comments, Comprehensive 
Framework Plan policies and existing community character. 
Density: Under the current R-15 designation, a minimum density of 12 units per acre is 
required and a maximum residential density of 15 units per acre is allowed. If developed under 
the R-15 designation, the subject property would require a minimum of 27 units and a 
maximum of 34 units would be allowed. 
Neighboring Properties: 
The properties located on 
the northeast, northwest and 
southwest corners of the 
intersection of SW 1851h 
Avenue and SW Farmington 
Road are designated as 
Neighborhood Commercial 
(NC) and are developed with 
various commercial uses. 
The parcel to the east of the 
subject property is 
designated Institutional and 
is the location of the 
Westside Community 
Church. Properties adjacent 
to the south are designated 
as R-9 (Residential 9 Units 
Per Acre) and are developed 
with single family homes. 
Testimony: The Oregon 
Department of 
Transportation (ODOT) 
submitted a letter dated 
August 8, 2012 . A copy of 
this letter is included in the 
Planning Commission 
hearing materials. 
B. Statewide Planning Goals 
Statewide Planning Goals ICJSui>,ocos;,. ~ 
applicable to th is proposal · '"' 
are addressed under related policies from the Washington County Comprehensive Framework 
Plan for the Urban Area. 
C. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) 
Appl icant: The applicant has submitted the TPR analysis in a separate document. See also 
page 40 of the applicant's narrative for the plan amendment. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
4 of 51 
August 8, 201 2 
Page 4 of 33 
Staff: See Attachment "A. " The findings in Attachment "A" also pertain to Statewide Planning 
Goal12, Transportation . 
D. Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007) 
"The purpose of this division is to ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate 
numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metropolitan 
Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development 
process and so to reduce housing costs. OAR 660-007-0030 through 660-007-0037 are 
intended to establish by rule regional residential density and mix standards to measure 
Goal10 Housing compliance for cities and counties within the Metro urban growth 
boundary, and to ensure the efficient use of residential land within the regional UGB 
consistent with Goal14 Urbanization. OAR 660-007-0035 implements the Commission's 
determination in the Metro UGB acknowledgment proceedings that region wide, planned 
residential densities must be considerably in excess of the residential density assumed 
in Metro's 'UGB Findings'. The new construction density and mix standards and the 
criteria for varying from them in this rule take into consideration and also satisfy the 
price range and rent level criteria for needed housing as set forth in ORS 197.303." 
Staff: The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the county maintain plan designations that 
allow for at least fifty (50) percent of housing as attached units. In the Final Periodic Review 
Order for the Urban Area, it was calculated that in 1989 the potential ratio was 52,416 ( 4 7.3%) 
single family residences to 58,426 (52 .7%) multi-family residences , a difference of 6,010 
dwelling units. Urban plan amendments since 1989 have not changed this ratio significantly. 
Multi-family dwelling units are allowed outright in R-15 and as a Type Ill use in C8D, subject to 
specific standards. If the applicant was proposing a residential or a mixed use development per 
the C8D standards, there would not be a loss of multi-family units. Since the proposal is for a 
commercial development only, there may be a negligible loss of residential units should the 
plan amendment be approved. Staff finds that the C8D designation may comply with the Metro 
Housing Rule, but R-15 designation may more closely comply with the rule. 
E. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 
1. Title 1, Housing Capacity, states: 
THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN CALLS FOR A COMPACT URBAN FORM AND 
A "FAIR-SHARE" APPROACH TO MEETING REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS. IT IS THE 
PURPOSE OF TITLE 1 TO ACCOMPLISH THESE POLICIES BY REQUIRING EACH 
CITY AND COUNTY TO MAINTAIN OR INCREASE ITS HOUSING CAPACITY EXCEPT 
AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3.07.120. 
Applicant: See pages 8-10 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Title 1 was updated by Metro in 2010 when the Metro Council adopted Ordinance 
No. 10-12448. Table 1 housing allocations ofTitle 1 are no longer applicable. The adopted 
Metro ordinance replaced Table 1 of Title 1 with a "no net loss" provision . The county has 
until December 16, 2012 to amend its Comprehensive Plan to implement Ordinance No. 
10-1 2448. 
Section 3.07.120 Housing Capacity allows the county to reduce the minimum zoned 
capacity of a property within a Corridor so long as the reduction has a negligible effect on 
the county 's overall minimum zoned residential capacity . 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
5 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 5 of 33 
If developed under its existing R-15 designation, the 2.24-acre subject property would be 
required to construct a minimum of 27 dwelling units. Per CDC Section 313-4 .3 D., housing 
is allowed in CBD through a Type Ill review process. Housing not built in conjunction with a 
commercial use is subject to the R-25+ District standards which allow for a minimum of 
twenty-five (25) units per acre. In this case, the subject property would be required to build 
a minimum of 56 units. When housing is included in the same building as a commercial 
use, no minimum density is required . 
Although CBD allows for residential development, the applicant proposes only commercial 
uses. In order for the proposal to satisfy Title 1, the applicant must show that the loss of 
housing units will have only a negligible effect on the county's overall minimum zoned 
residential capacity. 
Urban plan amendments since 1989 have only resulted in a relatively small number of 
acres of residential land lost to non-residential plan designations. In 2007, the Planning 
Commission approved a plan amendment for Murray Village, which authorized a range of 
91 to 129 additional dwelling units. This plan amendment resulted in an overall countywide 
increase of between 482 to 520 residential units. If the subject property is changed to CBD 
and developed without residential units, it could result in a loss of a minimum of 27 units, or 
0.05% of the county's 51,469 total housing units. This leaves the county with between 455 
to 493 added units since 1989. Staff finds this is a negligible loss of units and that the 
request complies with Title 1 of the UGMFP. 
2. Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets states: 
THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN IDENTIFIES CENTERS, CORRIDORS, MAIN 
STREETS AND STATION COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE REGION AND 
RECOGNIZES THEM AS THE PRINCIPAL CENTERS OF URBAN LIFE IN THE 
REGION. TITLE 6 CALLS FOR ACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS BY CITIES AND 
COUNTIES, COMPLEMENTED BY REGIONAL INVESTMENTS, TO ENHANCE THIS 
ROLE. A REGIONAL INVESTMENT IS AN INVESTMENT IN A NEW HIGH CAPACITY 
TRANSIT LINE OR DESIGNATED A REGIONAL INVESTMENT IN A GRANT OR 
FUNDING PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY METRO OR SUBJECT TO METRO'S 
APPROVAL. 
Applicant: See page 11 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: A portion of SW Farmington Road serving the subject property is identified as a 
Transit Corridor per Policy 40 of the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area. 
The corridor extends east from the intersection of SW 1851h Avenue and SW Farmington 
Road , along SW Farmington Road , to the Beaverton city limit located just west of SW 
Murray Boulevard. The corridor also extends north along SW 1851h Avenue from its 
intersection with SW Farmington Road. 
Accord ing to Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets need a mix 
of uses "to be vibrant and walkable" and a mix of housing types "to be vibrant and 
successful. " 
Along the Transit Corridor, there is a mix of residentia l and commercial land use 
designations and uses. Developing the subject property under its current R-15 designation 
would add to the diversity of housing types found along the corridor. If the property is 
developed under a CBD designation, its new retail and restaurant establishments would 
add to the diversity of commercial uses along the corridor. Staff also finds that either 
residential or commercial development would promote a walkable corridor because an R-
Exhibit 8 
12-222-PA 
6 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 6 of 33 
15 development would bring additional people within walking distance of a developed 
commercial area, and the applicant's proposal would bring new commercial uses within 
walking distance of existing residences in the neighborhood. 
Staff finds that both the existing and proposed land use designations comply with Title 6. 
3. Title 8, Compliance Procedures states: 
3.07.810 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUNCTIONAL PLAN 
F. AN AMENDMENT TO A CITY OR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND 
USE REGULATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO COMPLY WITH THE FUNCTIONAL 
PLAN AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION E ONLY IF THE CITY OR COUNTY 
PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE COO AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION A OF 
SECTION 3.07 .820. 
Applicant: See page 12 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Notice of this appl ication was sent to Metro on July 5, 2012; therefore, this application 
is in compliance with Title 8. No comments from Metro have been received. 
4. Title 12, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods states: 
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE 2040 
GROWTH CONCEPT. THE INTENT OF TITLE 12 OF THE URBAN GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN IS TO PROTECT THE REGION'S RESIDENTIAL 
NEIGHBORHOODS. THE PURPOSE OF TITLE 121S TO HELP IMPLEMENT THE 
POLICY OF THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN TO PROTECT EXISTING 
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, NOISE AND 
CRIME AND TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LEVELS OF PUBLIC SERVICES. 
Applicant: See page 12 & 13 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Under the R-15 plan designation, development on the subject property is not 
required to comply with the county's screening and buffering standards provided in the 
Code to mitigate impacts on the properties surrounding the site. However, trees, shrubs, 
other vegetation or fences may be required to buffer CBD lands from the R-9 properties to 
the south should the plan amendment be approved. Staff finds that the plan amendment 
request can comply with Title 12. 
F. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area 
1. Policy 1, the Planning Process, states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ESTABLISH AN ONGOING 
PLANNING PROGRAM WHICH IS A RESPONSIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR 
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND 
ACCOMMODATES CHANGES AND GROWTH IN THE PHYSICAL, ECONOMIC AND 
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY'S 
CITIZENS. 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 
A LANDOWNER OR HIS/HER AGENT TO INITIATE QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS 
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS. IN ADDITION, THE 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
7 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 7 of 33 
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION MAY INITIATE THE CONSIDERATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL MAP 
AMENDMENTS AT ANY TIME DEEMED NECESSARY AND A LANDOWNER OR 
HIS/HER AGENT MAY INITIATE A QUASI-JUDICIAL MAP AMENDMENT IN A NEW 
URBAN AREA AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR. 
Applicable Implementing Strategy: 
f. Approve a quasi-judicial plan amendment for properties outside of New Urban 
Areas to the Primary Districts on the Community Plan Maps and/or the Future 
Development Areas Map, including the implementing tax maps, only if the 
Review Authority determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the 
proposed designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive 
Framework Plan, and when applicable, the provisions of Policies 40 and 41; the 
Community Plan Overview and sub-area description and design elements; 
complies with the applicable policies, strategies and systems maps of the 
Transportation Plan; complies with the applicable regional functional planning 
requirements established by Metro; and demonstrates that the potential service 
impacts of the designation will not impact the built or planned service delivery 
system in the community. This is a generalized analysis that in no way 
precludes full application of the Growth Management Policies to development 
permits as provided in the Code. 
Quasi-judicial and legislative plan amendments for property added to the 
Regional Urban Growth Boundary through an approved Locational or Minor 
Adjustment, to any plan designation other than the FD-10 or FD-20 Districts, 
shall include documentation that the land was annexed into the Urban Road 
Maintenance District, the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District and, where applicable, 
the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Annexation into these districts 
shall be completed prior to the County's determination that a quasi-judicial plan 
amendment application is complete and prior to the County's adoption of a 
legislative plan amendment. · 
Applicant: See pages 14 and 15 of the appl icant's narrative. 
Staff: The property is currently located within the service boundaries of the Urban Road 
Maintenance District, the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District and the Tualatin Hills Park & 
Recreation District as required by Policy 1. 
Staff has provided findings for all codes, pol icies and standards applicable to th is plan 
amendment proposal. 
In addition , the proponent shall demonstrate one of the following: 
***** 
2. A lack of appropriately designated suitable alternative sites within the 
vicinity for a proposed use. Factors in determining the suitability of the 
alternative sites are limited to one of the following : 
a) Size: suitability of the size of the alternative sites to accommodate the 
proposed use; or 
b) Location : suitability of the location of the alternative sites to permit the 
proposed use. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
8 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 8 of 33 
Staff: Compliance with Policy 1.f (2) is required for approving a plan amendment 
application . The policy requires that the applicant demonstrate that there is not another site 
in the subject property's vicinity that is of a suitable size or location for the proposed use. 
Note that this policy focuses specifically on the applicant's proposed uses. 
Historic Interpretation of Policy 1 and Staff Analysis 
Vicinity 
Generally, the vicinity (hereby known as "study area") used for plan amendment 
applications is determined jointly by staff and the applicant after considering the proposed 
use and proposed land use designation. For example, more densely populated areas with 
larger amounts of commercial land may require a smaller study area than a sparsely 
populated and developed area. Staff discusses with the applicant what they believe is an 
appropriate study area prior to the submittal of an application . 
In this case, staff met with the applicant and recommended a study area encompassing a 
two mile radius from the subject property. Staffs reasoning follows the Policy 18 Plan 
Designations and Locational Criteria for Development location criteria for CBD which states 
that "the distance between a Community Business District and any other commercial center 
should be between 2 and 5 miles depending on market area and population density. " 
Size and Location Criteria 
Once the study area is determined, the applicant provides staff with an analysis of all 
properties within the study area having a comparable land use district. After identifying 
those properties, the applicant must show why none of them are suitably sized or located 
for the proposed use, as required by this policy. 
The applicant analyzed all CBD-designated properties within a two mile radius of the 
subject property, as requested by staff. The applicant concluded that none of the 175 CBD-
designated tax lots in this study area were available or suitable. The applicant eliminated all 
CBD-designated properties within a 1.5 mile radius because they are located within the 
trade area of the Walgreens store located at 19975 SW Tualatin Valley Highway. 
A trade area limitation has not been used as a basis for eliminating potential alternative 
sites within a study area for past plan amendments. In the past, applicants have shown 
physical constraints when demonstrating why there are no suitable alternative locations. 
For example, an applicant could cite poor visibility or limited right-of-way access as location 
constraints. 
Based upon past practice, staff does not support the applicant's finding that the trade area 
of an existing store is the sole basis for eliminating potential alternative sites. Therefore, 
staff evaluated the list of 175 CBD-designated properties within the two mile study area and 
identified four possible alternative sites for the proposed uses. 
Alternative Sites 
Historically, staff has recommended denial of a plan amendment application if there is a 
single site that is the suitable size or has a suitable location for the proposed use within the 
study area. Out of the list of 175 study area properties, staff identified four sites that are 
comparably sized and are vacant or underutilized. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
9 of 51 
The four alternative sites are: 
1. 3140 SW 2091h Avenue 
Total acres: 3.02 
Plan Designation: CBD 
Location: Intersection of SW 2091h Avenue and SW Alexander Street 
Road Classifications: Collectors 
Site Dimensions: Approximately 215' x 61 0' 
Tax Lot: 1300 
August 8, 2012 
Page 9 of 33 
This property is in residential use and supports a single family dwelling and several 
outbuildings. See figure below: 
Alternate Site 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
10 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 10 of 33 
2. West side of SW 1741h Avenue between SW Alexander Street & Tualatin Valley 
Highway.: 
Total acres: 2.41 
Plan Designation: CBD 
Road Classifications: Freeway (Tualatin Valley Highway), Collector (SW Alexander Street) 
& Local Street (SW 17 41h Avenue) 
Site Dimensions: Approximately 250' x 405' 
Tax Lots: 100, 201 , 400, 490 & 700 
Tax lot 201 was the location of a Shell Service Station. The service station is no longer in 
operation , but the site improvements remain . Tax lots 400 and 409 are currently 
undeveloped. Tax lot 100 has a structure that appears to be vacant, and tax lot 700 has a 
single family dwelling and is used as a residence. See figure below: 
Alternate Site 
Historically, groupings of small tax lots have been considered a single site when evaluating alternatives under Policy 1.f 
(2) . The two mile study area for this proposal includes the CBD properties along Tualatin Valley Highway between SW 
209'" Avenue and SW 170'" Avenue which is comprised mainly of small tax lots . Tax lot groupings are considered 
because it is possible for small lots to be combined into one larger, more suitable development site. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
11 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 11 of 33 
3. East side of SW 1741h Avenue between SW Alexander Street & Tualatin Valley 
Highway 
Total acres: 2.25 
Plan Designation: CBD 
Road Classifications: Freeway (Tualatin Valley Highway), Collector (SW Alexander Street) 
& Local Street (SW 1741h Avenue) 
Site Dimensions: Approximately 227' x 437' 
Tax Lots: 600, 700, 800 & 801 
Tax lot 700 is the former site of Reo's Ribs restaurant. The commercial building and the 
single family dwelling on the site are current vacant. Tax lot 801 was developed with 
commercial buildings, but it currently vacant. Tax lot 800 also has a vacant structure. Tax 
lot 600 is vacant. See figure below Alternative #2 on page 10 of this report. 
4. 17800 SW Kinnaman Road 
Total acres: 5.00 
Location: Northwest of the intersection of SW Kinnaman Road and SW Farmington Road 
Plan Designation: CBD 
Road Classifications: Collector (SW Kinnaman Road) , Arterial (SW Farmington Road) 
Site Dimensions: Approximately 490' x 550' 
Tax Lot: 101 
Per county Assessment and Taxation records, there is an approximately 37,000 square 
foot vacant commercial building on the site and a parking lot. There is also an 
approximately 0.5 acre vacant portion of land along SW Kinnaman Road . See figure below: 
Alterna te Site 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
12 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 12 of 33 
Staff finds that these four sites are alternative sites for the purpose of this plan amendment. 
The historical interpretation of this policy would cause staff to recommend denial of the plan 
amendment based on Policy 1.f (2) . 
Alternative Interpretation and Applicant Analysis 
Applicant: See pages 14 and 15 of the application and the Market Overview for 
Washington County Retail Development Memorandum by Eric Hovee dated July 31 , 2012. 
In the Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Memorandum 
(memorandum), the applicant stated that the following six criteria "need to be met for a site 
to be suitable for the proposed use." They are: 
1) 1. 5 miles or greater from an existing Walgreens pharmacy. 
2) On the corner of an intersection of two major roadways. 
3) Site size for a Walgreens pharmacy plus second building pad of an estimated 1. 5-
3.0 acres- depending on such factors, as access, cross-easements and internal 
circulation. 
4) Flat ground with no on-site wetlands with the building pads. 
5) Minimum site dimensions of 185' by 260' - inside the setbacks and sidewalks. 
6) Avoidance of sites with extremely high volume traffic or rail tracks- whether 
presenting real or perceived barriers to site access and egress. 
The applicant states that a Walgreens Real Estate Manager determined that "the trade 
area for a Walgreens in a suburban area that has a population density of the Aloha-area of 
Washington County is 1. 5 miles." The applicant identified the closest Walgreens to the 
subject property as being located at 19975 SW Tualatin Valley Highway, approximately 1.5 
miles from the subject property. For this reason , the applicant asserts all sites within 1.5 
miles of the existing Walgreens are not suitable alternatives due to their location (See 
Exhibit 4 of the application). 
The applicant states on page 4 of the application that "(m)any of the parcels that are 
excluded on the proximity basis also have other defects that have not been elaborated 
upon in the lot by lot analysis, such as parcel size, location north of Tualatin Valley 
Highway, or not located on a busy enough intersection." However, "proximity to existing 
store" is the only reason listed for 171 of the 175 properties. 
In Exhibit 4, the applicant states that although three of the remaining four properties on the 
list are beyond 1.5 miles from an existing Walgreens , they are unsuitable because they are 
already developed. The remaining property is described as being beyond 1.5 miles from 
the existing Walgreens, but was disqualified due to having a "pond/park/wetlands area." 
The memo submitted by the applicant addresses two of the four possible alternative sites 
identified by staff. The applicant's responses are as follows 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
13 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 13 of 33 
1. West side of SW 17 41h Avenue between SW Alexander Street & Tualatin Valley 
Highway 
The applicant evaluated tax lots 100 and 201 only and found them to be unsuitable 
because they total less than 1.5 acres (approximate total is 0.6 acre) and they are at a "T" 
intersection that is not signalized. The applicant also states that the lack of signalization 
makes access "challenging and unsafe" due to the speed of passing traffic. 
2. East side of SW 1741h Avenue between SWAiexander Street & Tualatin Valley Highway 
The applicant evaluated tax lots 700, 800, 801 and 1000 and found that the combined area 
is less than 1.5 acres (approximate total is 1.31 acres) and it has the same access 
concerns from a lack of signalization on Tualatin Valley Highway as the site on the west 
side of SW 1741h Avenue. 
Conclusion: Because Policy 1.f (2) does not define "vicinity", the Planning Commission 
has may use discretion when determining the appropriateness of the vicinity used by the 
applicant. Discretion is also allowed when determining what constitutes "suitable" site 
alternatives. 
Staff believes our role is to analyze this policy based upon a methodology that has been 
historically utilized. Given this, staff finds that the proposal does not satisfy Policy 1.f (2) 
because trade areas have not historically been accepted as a factor for eliminating sites 
within a study area, and staff has identified four alternative sites within the study area that 
have comparable locations and acreages and are already designated as CBD. 
If the Planning Commission finds that the application does not comply with this policy, the 
findings provided in the "Historic Interpretation of Policy 1 and Staff Analysis" section are 
applicable. If the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's analysis is satisfactory, the 
findings provided in the "Alternative Interpretation and Applicant Analysis" support this 
decision. 
(These findings a/so pertain to Statewide Planning Goa/1, Citizen Involvement) 
2. Policy 2, Citizen Involvement, states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND TO PROVIDE 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUING INVOLVEMENT AND EFFECTIVE 
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THEIR COUNTY GOVERNMENT. 
Applicant: See pages 15 & 16 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: A quasi-judicial plan amendment such as this must be considered through a Type Ill 
procedure. In accordance with Code Section 204-1 , the County placed a legal notice of the 
hearing in The Oregonian on August 2, 2012 . Pursuant to Code Section 204-4 , a notice of 
the public hearing for this application was sent to all owners of record of property within 500 
feet of the subject property on July 26, 2012. 
A copy of the plan amendment application was also mailed to the representative for the 
local Citizen Participation Organization (CPO 6) . Finally, the staff report was available to all 
interested parties at least seven days prior to the hearing as required by Code Section 203-
6.2. Based upon these actions, the requirements of Policy 2 have been met. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
14 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 14 of 33 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goai1,Citizen Involvement.) 
3. Policy 14, Managing Growth, states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO MANAGE GROWTH IN 
UNINCORPORATED LANDS WITHIN THE UGB SUCH THAT PUBLIC FACILITIES AND 
SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT ORDERLY URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 
Applicant: See page 16 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: As required by this policy, the applicant included in the application service provider 
letters from Clean Water Services, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tualatin Valley Water 
District, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, Beaverton School District, Tri-Met and 
the Washington County Sheriff. Each service provider stated that they can adequately 
serve the subject property should the plan amendment request be approved; therefore, 
Policy 14 has been satisfied . 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal11, Public Facilities and Services.) 
4. Policy 18, Plan Designations and Location Criteria for Development, states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO PREPARE COMMUNITY PLANS 
AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAND USE 
CATEGORIES AND LOCATION CRITERIA CONTAINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE 
FRAMEWORK PLAN. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will : 
a. Utilize the land use classifications for the community planning program 
characterized in this section as plan designations. In determining the appropriate 
land use designations for community land, the location criteria should be utilized. 
Through the preparation of Community Plans the application of the plan 
designations may deviate from the general characterizations of those designations. 
Such deviations shall be characterized in the Community Plans. 
Applicant: See pages 16 and 17 of the applicant's narrative and supplemental materials 
received August 1, 2012. 
Staff: Policy 18 contains criteria used to establish land use designations. Unlike Policy 1.f 
(2) which focuses on the applicant's proposed uses, Policy 18 bases the appropriateness 
of a land use district for a site upon characterization and location criteria specific to the 
proposed district. 
Policy 18 contains the characterization and location criteria for each of the county's land 
use districts. On page 17 of the application , the applicant states that the districts conta in 
"non-mandatory terms such as 'generally' and 'should'. Therefore the county has 
considerable discretion in determining the appropriate designation for a site." Although 
Policy 18 uses general terms and discretion may be used, staff would not agree that 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
15 of 51 
Augusta, 2012 
Page 15 of 33 
"considerable" discretion may be exercised because the intent of the policy must be 
maintained. 
Per Policy 18, fluctuating factors such as market conditions and population density are 
taken into account when determining whether a CBD designation is appropriate for a 
specific site. Therefore, the location criteria uses general terms so that there is some level 
of flexibility. Despite this flexibility, it is important to consider the characterization and 
location criteria of the district. 
The intent of the characterization and location criteria in Policy 18 is to ensure that the 
types of uses allowed by each land use district and their potential impacts to surrounding 
properties, as well as their transportation needs and impacts, are considered. If the Review 
Authority bases its decision solely on market factors, the result could be a property that is 
designated for a use that is economically viable for that location, but may overload an 
already insufficient roadway or be incompatible with adjacent uses. Conversely, if market 
factors are not considered, the result could be a site whose development is accommodated 
by existing roadways and that is physically compatible with adjacent properties, but is not 
economically viable. 
Staff has analyzed the criteria for the existing R-15 designation and the proposed CBD 
designation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider these findings when 
determining whether or not the proposed CBD designation satisfies Policy 18. 
R15 
Characterization: This class of uses includes attached residences, mobile home parks and 
subdivisions and detached residences, and appropriate accessory uses. These uses will 
occur at a density of no more than 15 units per acre and no less than 12 units per acre. 
When allowed by a legislative or quasi-judicial plan amendment, assisted living units, that 
are part of a mixed-use residential development, may be used to satisfy the minimum 
density requirement. 
Location Criteria: Residences in this class should be located on or near Neighborhood 
Routes and Arterials both to allow ready access to transit and discourage the use of local 
streets for through traffic. If residences are located at or near Collector-Arterial 
intersections, construction and design features to buffer the impact of noise and air 
pollution must be provided. This class of uses should not be located at the intersection of 
two Arterials unless particular care is taken to minimize potential environmental impacts. 
If appropriate design features can protect the area from potential adverse impacts, adjacent 
land uses may include detached and attached residences, retail commercial , office 
commercial , and industrial uses, and mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions. 
Applicant: See pages 16-18 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: As stated previously, the subject property was designated R-15 in 1983 when the 
Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan was adopted, and it is located at the 
intersection of two Arterial roadways. 
Consistent with location criteria , the subject property is located on Arterials and has ready 
access to TriMet bus stops on SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue. The location 
criteria also states that R-15 should "not be located at the intersection of two Arterials 
unless particular care is taken to minimize potential environmental impacts." Consistent 
with th is criteria , the General Design Element #1 0 of the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain 
Community Plan require noise reduction measures for all new developments located 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
16 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 16 of 33 
adjacent to Arterials . General Design Element #1 0 lists vegetative buffers, berms, walls 
and other design techniques such as insulation and orienting windows away from the roads 
as acceptable noise mitigation techniques. This requirement will be addressed through the 
development review process when the subject property is developed regardless of its land 
use designation. 
Staff finds the existing R-15 designation is consistent with Policy 18. 
Community Business District (CBD) 
Characterization: Commercial centers in this district are intended to provide the community 
with a mix of retail, service and business needs on a medium to large scale within a mixed 
use planned development. Medium and high density residential uses, as well as various 
office and institutional uses, may be permitted. 
As the need for regional shopping centers is adequately provided for in existing or planned 
facilities, the location of any new regional scale shopping centers or major department 
stores larger than 50,000 square feet, must undergo public review and demonstrate need. 
Commercial activities within this district occur almost entirely within enclosed buildings. 
Location Criteria: The exact location of CBD sites should be jointly determined by market 
factors and the community planning process with consideration of existing land use 
patterns. Generally, a Community Business District location should be at an Arterial 
intersection and on a transit route. The distance between a Community Business District 
and any other commercial center should be between 2 and 5 miles depending on market 
area and population density. 
Applicant: See pages 18 and 19 of the applicant's original submittal and the Market 
Overview for Washington County Retail Development Memorandum by Eric Hovee dated 
July 31 , 2012. 
Staff: Consistent with the location criteria , the subject property is located at the intersection 
of two Arterials , both of which are served by TriMet bus routes. The remaining location 
criteria-market factors , consideration of existing land use patterns and distance from 
commercial centers-are not as definitive as the roadway classification and transit route 
factors. This means discretion may be used when deciding whether or not the plan 
amendment request satisfies those remaining criteria. The applicant's response to the 
remaining CBD criteria and staff's find ings are as follows: 
Market Factors 
Applicant: The applicant submitted a market study which includes information on 
Walgreens trade area and an evaluation of retail sales potential for the subject property . 
In Exhibit 4 of the application , the applicant describes the Aloha-Reedville area south of 
Tualatin Valley Highway as "starved for quality commercial development" and "(o) f the 
entire Aloha-Reedville planning area, only about 2% is zoned for commercial use, which 
means that residents have to drive to obtain needed services, contributing to congestion in 
the area." 
The appl icant 's Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development 
Memorandum (memorandum) discusses "sale leakage" as an indicator that the community 
is in need of a Walgreens and fast food restaurant at the proposed location . The 
memorandum describes sales leakage as something that occurs "(w)hen retail uses are 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
17 of 51 
not provided at the density 
that is supportable (i.e., an 
area is underserved, such as 
Aloha), then customers 
travel outside of the market 
area to have their needs 
met .. . " 
Page 6 of the memorandum 
discusses the leakage study 
completed within a 2 mile 
radius of the subject 
property, excluding the land 
within the radius that is 
located north of Tualatin 
Valley Highway 1 . The 
memorandum states that 
"sales leakage and 
unnecessarily long shopping 
trips could be reduced if 
more sites were made 
available for retail 
commercial uses 
located .. .particularly [in] the 
portion of the community 
south of the Tualatin Valley 
(TV) Highway. " Also, "(s)ales 
leakage is great enough to 
warrant new retail 
development as proposed 
while still maintaining the 
capability of existing 
competing businesses to 
remain viable." 
August 8, 2012 
Page 17 of 33 
e ven Hill s Ocvclopmcnl - Conl c xluallnformalion 
Ne~r~y . l~h a rrn a~~~crv~~<: S e 
f :~;:~::y.... 8~~:·~::::~~,., , ::~ 
i<'.:¥"· <'li.:.1m¥m»~-""--"">t~~t-~';;~~·,:~!f!·'t~..,~j;~~"M-" :v,rr;Y>!~ 
The applicant states "more than one-half (52%) of resident generated demand for all retail 
activity within 1.5 miles of the proposed development site is spent outside this area-as 
residents travel elsewhere to shop." Also, "residents who live in the immediate 
Aloha/Farmington area satisfy many of their retail needs by traveling further than would be 
needed if appropriate goods and services were available closer to home." 
The memorandum also states that generally a population of approximately 30,000 people 
is needed to support a 15,000 square foot pharmacy, such as the proposed Walgreens. 
Approximately 750 residents are needed to support an approximately 3,000 square foot 
restaurant, also proposed by the applicant. 
As mentioned, the 2010 population within a 2 mile radius of the subject property is 
approximately 51,400 residents. The applicant states that the area will experience a 7-8% 
growth rate between 2010 and 2015, and that "this population growth will support yet 
further retail demand across all merchandise categories-including health/personal care 
and dining." 
1 The memorandum states that this area was excluded from the 2 mile study area because Tualatin Valley Highway creates 
a physical and psychologica l barrier which discourages customers from crossing it to get to retail establi shments. Staff notes 
that the vast majority of the land within the 2 mile radius is located south of Tualatin Va lley Highway. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
18 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 18 of 33 
Staff: County data shows approximately 3.7%, or 205 acres, of the total 5,508 acres in the 
Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan has a commercial land use 
designation. Staff notes that the area contains vacant or underutilized CBD-designated 
properties along SW Tualatin Valley Highway. 
Including the existing Walgreens located at 19975 SW Tualatin Valley Highway, there are 
five retail stores with pharmacies within a two mile radius of the subject property. While 
staff does not question the validity of the applicant's assertions regarding sales leakage 
and potential population growth, staff questions whether the existing and projected 
population within the two mile radius can support a new 15,000 square foot Walgreens in 
addition to the existing Walgreens, Rite Aid stores and Bi-Mart within a two mile radius. 
The applicant states that approximately 30 ,000 people are needed to support a 15,000 
square foot Walgreens store. If the applicant's population growth estimates are correct, a 
7% growth in the two mile radius would equal approximately 55,000 residents. According to 
the applicant's methodology, this is enough people to support the proposed Walgreens. 
However, it is unclear to staff how that population will support the proposed Walgreens as 
well as the other six retail stores with pharmacies in the area. 
Consideration of Existing Land Use Patterns 
Applicant: The applicant did not address this criteria. 
Staff: Part of the CBD location criteria is to consider existing land use patterns. Staff 
evaluated the area immediately surrounding the subject property, the lands immediately 
west of the intersection of SW Kinnaman Road and SW Farmington Road and the lands at 
the intersection of SW Kinnaman Road and SW 1851h Avenue. 
As previously mentioned, there is NC-designated land at the other three quadrants of the 
SW 1851h Avenue and SW Farmington Road intersection. The northwest quadrant contains 
8.46 acres of NC-designated land, the southwest quadrant contains 0.88 acre and the 
northeast quadrant contains 2.08 acres. These properties are developed with retail uses 
including an Albertson 's grocery store, Bi-Mart and numerous small-scale retail 
businesses. There is a 3.34 acre parcel designated Institutional and developed with a 
church adjacent to the east of the subject property and 0.34 acre R-9 designated property 
with a single-family dwelling adjacent to the south. 
There is approximately 25 acres of CBD-designated land located immediately west of the 
SW Kinnaman Road and SW Farmington Road intersection, approximately 0.25 mile from 
the subject property. This commercial center is known as Farmington Mall , and it has a 
variety of commercial uses including a grocery store , bank and various restaurants. On the 
south side of SW Farmington Road , there is a 23-acre property designated as Institutional 
and home to Mountain View Middle School. Adjacent to the east of the middle school is an 
0.86 acre R-9 property with a single fami ly dwelling. The east side of the SW Kinnaman 
Road and SW Farmington Road intersection is designated as R-24 and is developed with a 
mix of high and low density residential. 
At the intersection of SW Kinnaman Road and SW 1851h Avenue, approximately 0.7 mile 
from the subject property, there is a mixture of land use designations . The northwest and 
northeast corners are designated as Office Commercial (OC), the 0.93 acre parcel on the 
southeast corner was designated NC through a plan amendment appl ication approved in 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
19 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 19 of 33 
2012 and the southwest corner is the location of Aloha High School, which is approximately 
17 acres designated as Institutional. 
The three major roadway intersections described above each have a mix of land use 
designations and support a variety of land uses. Staff finds that both the current R-15 
designation of the subject property and the proposed plan amendment to CBD would be 
consistent with the three areas analyzed, and could therefore be considered consistent 
with the existing land use pattern in the immediate area. 
Distance from Commercial Centers 
The Policy 18 location criteria states that "(t)he distance between a Community Business 
District and any other commercial center should be between 2 and 5 miles depending on 
market area and population density. " 
"Commercial center" is not defined in Policy 18 or any other portion of the Comprehensive 
Plan. For this analysis, staff considers nearby commercial centers to be Farmington Mall 
and the corridor of CBD-designated properties along Tualatin Valley Highway between SW 
2091h and SW 1701h Avenues due to their CBD designation, the intensity of commercial 
development and the range of services provided. 
Applicant: As mentioned, Farmington Mall is located approximately 0.25 mile from the 
subject property at the intersection of SW Kinnaman Road and SW Farmington Road and 
is designated as CBD. The applicant again states that the Policy 18 criteria are non-
mandatory due to the use of the word "should" instead of "shall"; therefore, it is not required 
that the subject property be at least two miles from a commercial center. 
The applicant also asserts that "the market area and population density support 
commercial uses in closer proximity. Therefore the proximity of the CBD-zoned Farmington 
Mall to the site (approximately 0.25 miles) does not detract from the site 's suitability for the 
CBD designation because the market area and population density support considerably 
more commercial development than is provided in Aloha." 
Staff: Historically, staff has required applicants to show that there is at least two miles 
between a CBD site and any other commercial center. The two mile minimum has been 
required to avoid an overabundance of commercial uses in a concentrated area. The 
separation of commercial centers has also been viewed by staff as necessary to ensure 
that there is enough population to support the uses. 
As mentioned, there is approximately 26 acres of commercially developed CBD land at the 
intersection of SW Kinnaman Road and SW Farmington Road , approximately 0.25 mile 
from the subject property. Therefore, staff finds that because there is a commercial center 
less than one two miles from the subject property, the proposal does not satisfy this criteria. 
Conclusion: The appl icant asserts there is a lack of retail supply within a two mile 
radius of the subject property. However, it is not clear from the applicant's analysis that the 
area can support current and new retail/pharmacy uses. Based upon th is and the less than 
two mile separation between the subject property and the nearest commercial center, staff 
finds that the Policy 18 CBD characterization and location criteria have not been satisfied . 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
20 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 20 of 33 
Staff also finds that if additional commercial land is needed based upon sales leakage and 
population growth, there appear to be suitable CBD-designated properties in the two mile 
study area (see findings for Policy 1) for the proposed use. 
Should the Planning Commission agree that Policy 18 has not been satisfied , the findings 
prepared by staff support the decision. If the Planning Commission determines the 
applicant's analysis adequately demonstrates compliance with Policy 18, the applicant's 
findings support this decision. 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning.) 
5. Policy 20, Urban Area Economy, States: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE AND PARTICIPATE 
IN ACTIVITIES WHICH STRENGTHEN THE LOCAL ECONOMY THROUGH: 
(1) Retention and expansion of existing businesses and industry; 
(2) Provision of diverse employment opportunities; 
(3) Education and training of the local labor force; and 
(4) Continued diversification of the County's economic base. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
b. Help create a healthy climate for economic development by designating an 
adequate amount of serviced commercial and industrial land to ensure choice in 
the regional market place. The supply will be subject to periodic review to 
ensure that the economy is not harmed due to the fact that there is not enough 
land or that the size and location of remaining land does not meet market needs. 
Applicant: See pages 21 and 22 of the application and supplemental information received 
August 1, 2012. 
Staff: As discussed in the find ings for Policy 18, the applicant states that the two mile 
radius surrounding the subject property is underserved by existing retail businesses which 
results in residents needing to travel outside the area for goods and services. The appl icant 
also states that "(s)ales leakage is great enough to warrant new retail development as 
proposed while still maintaining the capability of existing competing businesses to remain 
viable." The applicant asserts that a plan amendment to CBD would address the lack of 
retai l services in the area and that there is a large enough population to support the new 
uses. 
Staff again questions the applicant's conclusion that there is ample population to support a 
sixth retail/pharmacy use within a two mile radius. Also, staff identified possible alternative 
CBD-designated properties within a 2-mile area that could accommodate additional retail 
commercial uses in the Pol icy 1 findings. These properties are a mix of vacant and 
underutilized sites. Although staff does not question the applicant's methodology, the 
existence of these undeveloped and underdeveloped commercial sites prompts questions 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
21 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 21 of 33 
of whether an increased supply of commercial land is truly needed, and whether increasing 
the commercial lands in the area will delay the development of existing commercial lands. 
According to the Aloha-Reedville Study's Local Real Estate Market Analysis2 , the area is 
generally self-sufficient in terms of retail supply, and in fact experiences a surplus of some 
retail categories. 
Staff is concerned that adding more commercial land to the existing inventory while there 
are a number of developable commercial properties within the study area will not promote a 
healthy climate for existing businesses in the community. Also, Policy 20 calls for 
"(c)ontinued diversification of the County's economic base." Staff finds that adding a sixth 
retail/pharmacy use in a two mile radius is not necessarily diversifying the local economy, 
even if there is a population base to support it. 
Staff is also concerned that adding another CBD property to the area before existing CBD 
properties are developed may perpetuate blighted conditions in the community, most 
notably along Tualatin Valley Highway. Comments expressed by community members 
during the Aloha-Reedville Study have called for abandoned businesses such as the 
former Shell gas station and Reo's Ribs locations on Tualatin Valley Highway to be cleaned 
up and redeveloped . Both sites were identified by staff as suitable alternatives to the 
subject property in the findings for Policy 1. 
Staff finds that Policy 20 may not be satisfied. 
If the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has not satisfied Policy 20, the findings 
prepared by staff support the decision. If the Planning Commission finds that Policy 20 has 
been satisfied , the applicant's findings for Policy 18 support this decision. 
6. Policy 21 , (Urban Area Housing) Housing Affordability , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE THE HOUSING 
INDUSTRY TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 
ALL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE UNINCORPORATED URBAN COUNTY AREA. 
Applicant: See pages 22 and 23 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: The plan amendment may result in a loss of up to 27 residential units. Housing is 
allowed in the CBD District, however the applicant has indicated that only commercial uses 
will be developed on the property. 
Implementing strategy a. calls for the county to plan residential lands appropriately to 
provide new housing at an average overall density of at least 8 units per acre, and at least 
10 units per net buildable acre in New Urban Areas (the property is not located in a New 
Urban Area) . The majority of the remaining planned residential capacity of urban 
unincorporated Washington County will be provided significantly through development and 
redevelopment (infill) of high density residential lands. 
In Washington County's Final Periodic Review Order for the Urban Area , it was calculated 
that in 1989 there was an opportunity to construct new housing on the remaining residential 
land in the urban unincorporated area, given 1989 designations, at an overall density of 8.6 
units per acre (11 0,842 potential units divided by 12,848 vacant acres). 
Page 24 of the document, prepared by Leland Consulting Group I ECONorthwest I The Nielson Group, 
dated 1211912011 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
22 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 22 of 33 
Urban plan amendments since 1989 have only resulted in a relatively small number of 
acres of residential land lost to non-residential plan designations. However, Casefile 07-
049-PA, approved in 2007, resulted in an increase to housing capacity. This plan 
amendment increased housing units by a minimum of 91 units to a maximum of 129 units. 
That change resulted in between 482 to 520 additional units countywide since 1989. That 
increase helps to offset the loss of units resulting from this request. 
It is staff's opinion that a potential loss of 27 units would be mitigated by increases in 
planned residential densities achieved through recently approved urban plan amendments. 
Staff finds that the proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 21 . 
7. Policy 22, (Urban Area Housing) Housing Choice and Availability , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE THE HOUSING 
INDUSTRY TO MAKE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AVAILABLE, IN SUFFICIENT 
QUANTITIES, TO THE HOUSING CONSUMER. 
Applicant: See page 23 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: The subject of this policy is the potential ratio of attached and detached dwelling 
units developed on vacant residential land in the urban unincorporated area. In the Final 
Periodic Review Order for the Urban Area, it was calculated that in 1989 the potential ratio 
was 52 ,416 (47.3%) single family residences to 58,426 (52.7%) multi-family residences, a 
difference of 6,010 dwelling units. Urban plan amendments since 1989 have not changed 
this ratio significantly. 
Multi-family dwelling units are allowed outright in R-15 and as a Type Ill use in CBD, 
subject to specific standards. If the applicant was proposing a residential or a mixed use 
development per the CBD standards, there would not be a loss of multi-family units. Since 
the proposal is for a commercial development only, staff finds that this plan amendment 
may not be consistent with Policy 22. 
(These findings also apply to Statewide Planning Goal10, Housing.) 
8. Policy 23, (Urban Area Housing) Housing Condition , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE THE MAINTENANCE 
AND REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IN UNINCORPORATED 
AREAS. 
Applicant: See 23 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: The applicant states that the subject property is currently vacant; thus "Policy 23 's 
aspirations related to maintaining existing housing stock is not applicable." However, as 
stated previously, each of the parcels comprising the subject property supports a detached 
single family residence . 
Based on the conceptual plans included with the request , approval of the plan amendment 
would result in the loss of the existing housing. Therefore, staff finds that this plan 
amendment is not consistent with the intent of Policy 23. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
23 of 51 
(These findings also apply to Statewide Planning Goal10, Housing.) 
9. Policy 30, (Publ ic Facilities and Services) Schools, states: 
August 8, 2012 
Page 23 of 33 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO COORDINATE WITH SCHOOL 
DISTRICTS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN PLANNING FUTURE 
SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ENSURE PROPER LOCATION AND SAFE ACCESS FOR 
STUDENTS. 
Applicant: See page 7 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: In 1994, the Beaverton School District adopted a school facility plan (plan) to comply 
with ORS 195.110. The District updated the plan in 2002 and 2010. The updates were in 
response to the periodic review requirements of ORS 195.110. 
According to the District's service provider letter, the proposed plan amendment is not 
anticipated to result in impacts to the school district. 
Staff finds that the proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 30. 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal11, Public Facilities and Services.) 
10. Policy 31 , (Public Facilities and Services) Fire and Police Protection, states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO WORK CLOSELY WITH 
APPROPRIATE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO ASSURE THAT ALL AREAS OF THE 
COUNTY CONTINUE TO BE SERVED WITH AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF FIRE AND 
POLICE PROTECTION. 
Applicant: See pages 24 and 25 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: The service provider letters from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and the Washington 
County Sheriffs Department state that these providers could adequately serve the property 
(see also staff findings addressing Policy 14). 
The proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 31. 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal11, Public Facilities and Services.) 
11. Policy 32, Transportation , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO REGULATE THE EXISTING 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE 
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE COUNTY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
Applicant: See page 25 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Concurrent with this request , the appl icant has requested approval of an Access 
Management Plan (AMP) to allow access to both SW 185th Avenue and SW Farmington 
Road . 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
24 of 51 
August 8, 201 2 
Page 24 of 33 
The proposed plan amendment complies with Policy 32 (see Attachment "A", which also 
includes the Transportation Staff Report for this plan amendment.) 
12. Policy 36, Commercial Conservation , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE ENERGY-SAVING 
BUILDING PRACTICES IN EXISTING AND FUTURE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
a. Encourage cluster development of mixed uses, with a variety of commercial, 
office, residential uses, to promote energy conservation and to allow more 
efficient centralized energy systems. 
b. Discourage strip-commercial development and other scattered office-commercial 
development. 
Applicant: See pages 25 and 26 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Policy 36 references reducing energy consumption through shared wall construction 
and central heating. Although the applicant's proposal of two separate commercial 
buildings on the subject property may not reduce energy consumption , Policy 36 states that 
energy consumption may be reduced through the development's size, design, construction 
and landscaping. It is possible that this policy will be satisfied at the time of development 
should this plan amendment request be approved. 
Policy 36 states "significant energy savings could be achieved through a reduction of 
vehicle miles traveled for commercial purposes." Developing the subject property as 
proposed could result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled by residents in the area by 
adding to the variety of commercial uses on all four corners of the intersection of SW 
Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue. 
Staff finds that the proposal may satisfy Pol icy 36 . 
13. Pol icy 39, Land Use Conservation , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO DEVELOP LAND USE 
STRATEGIES WHICH TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DENSITY AND LOCATION TO REDUCE 
THE NEED TO TRAVEL, INCREASE ACCESS TO TRANSIT, INCREASE THE USE OF 
ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING TRANSIT, AND PERMIT 
BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS WHICH INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF HEATING 
AND COOLING RESIDENCES. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
c. Plan for higher density urban development in areas with convenient access to 
public transportation. 
d. Encourage close locational relationships between living, working, shopping, and 
recreation areas in accord with the development concept. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
25 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 25 of 33 
e. Encourage development of compact communities containing a range of 
commercial and residential uses. 
Applicant: See page 26 of the appl icant's narrative. 
Staff: The subject property is located near other commercial developments, residential 
areas of varying densities, the Westside Community Church and Mountain View Middle 
School. Also, the subject property has access to TriMet bus service on SW Farmington 
Road and SW 1851h Avenue. 
Policy 39 states that land use policies affect energy use in two ways. Specifically, they 
"influence the amount of travel through the arrangement of land uses, and they determine 
the number and design of buildings which can be built in a given area." If the subject 
property is developed under the R-15 designation, the new dwelling units would bring more 
residents to the area. These residents have the option of walking or riding the bus to 
nearby commercial and institutional uses. Similarly, the proposed commercial development 
would be easily accessible by bus and by walking from nearby residential neighborhoods. 
Staff finds that development under either R-15 or CBD would add to the mix of commercial 
and residential uses in the community. Therefore, staff finds that both the existing and 
proposed land use designations may satisfy this policy. 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal12, Transportation, Goal13, 
Energy Conservation, and Goal 14, Urbanization.) 
14. Policy 40, Regional Planning Implementation , states: 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO HELP FORMULATE AND LOCALLY 
IMPLEMENT METRO'S REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN A 
MANNER THAT BEST SERVES EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS AND 
BUSINESSES. 
Applicant: See pages 26-28 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Pol icy 40 was adopted through Ordinance 561 , which appl ied the 2040 Growth 
Concept Design Types to all unincorporated urban areas of Washington County. There are 
nine design types: Regional Center, Town Center, Town Center-Area of Interest, Station 
Community, Neighborhoods, Main Street, Transit Corridor, Employment or Industrial Areas. 
The property has frontage along SW Farmington Road , which is designated as a Transit 
Corridor by Pol icy 40. The section of 1851h Avenue north of Farmington Road is also 
designated as a Transit Corridor. 
Transit Corridors are defined in Pol icy 40 as: 
" ... areas along transit routes that have or will have frequent service. Transit 
Corridor development will include a mix of complementary land uses, including 
rowhouses, duplexes, apartments, office or retail buildings, institutional uses and 
mixed commercial and residentia l uses. Commercial and offices uses will be 
allowed at specific points along the Transit Corridors and not in a linear matter that 
promotes strip commercial development and tra ffic congestion. Collectively, these 
land uses will generate increased pedestrian and transit ridership. Therefore, 
these areas will feature a high-quality pedestrian environment with wider sidewalks 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
26 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 26 of 33 
and pedestrian amenities. Transit Corridors will evolve into environments that 
provide for walking, cycling and transit. Mixed-use development will enhance the 
vitality of businesses since they can provide services for employees during the day 
and goods and services to area residents during the evening." 
While this area is designated as a 
Transit Corridor, the county has not 
undertaken specific corridor 
planning along this section of 
Farmington Road. Staff finds that 
the lack of specific planning on this 
section complicates decisions 
regarding how to treat plan 
amendments with respect to Policy 
40. 
Residential uses are allowed in 
Transit Corridors, while 
"Commercial and office uses will 
be allowed at specific points." The 
2040 Growth Concept Plan 
Tra nsi t C orr id or 
::0 
::;;; 
* Subject Property 
designates these major transportation routes simply as "Corridors" and not "Transit 
Corridors" (both terms generally refer to the same major transportation corridors.) The 
applicant proposes to impose as Conditions of Approval certain transit oriented district 
design standards in response to the property being located along a corridor (see also 
findings addressing Section 431 below.) 
For these reasons, and with the additional transit oriented design elements included in the 
potential site design, staff finds that the request may comply with Policy 40. 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning.) 
G. Washington County Transportation Plan and Transportation Planning Rule 
Applicant: See pages 28-33 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: Attachment "A" (by this reference incorporated into this staff report) contains discussions 
on whether the plan amendment complies with the Transportation Plan and the Transportation 
Planning Rule. Based on the applicant's written materials and the findings in this report , staff 
concludes that this proposed plan amendment will not "significantly affect" a transportation 
facility as defined in OAR 660-012-0060. 
Staff finds the proposed plan amendment is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule 
and the applicable Transportation Plan policies. 
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goals 11, Public Facilities and Services and 
12, Transportation.) 
H. Aloha Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan 
Community Plan Overview, Applicable General Design Elements: 
Applicant: See page 33-36 of the appl icant's narrative. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
27 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 27 of 33 
7. All new subdivisions, attached unit residential developments, and commercial 
developments shall provide for pedestrian/bicycle pathways which allow public 
access through or along the development and connect adjacent developments 
and/or shopping areas, schools, public transit, and park and recreation sites. 
Staff: Sidewalks will be required along both street frontages as part of the half-street 
improvements that would be required pursuant to Article V. Publ ic access through the 
development will be addressed through a subsequent land use process. 
8. Pedestrian/bicycle pathways identified in the County's Transportation Plan and 
this community plan shall be included in the design of road improvements that are 
required of new developments to meet the County's growth management policies. 
Staff: The applicant will be required to provide improvements in accordance with this design 
element under either plan designation as part of future development. Half-street improvements 
noted in 7. above will provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle access along the street 
frontages. 
9. The County shall emphasize non-auto (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) measures 
as an interim solution to circulation issues. These measures shall be used to 
facilitate access to transit centers. 
Staff: The property is adequately served by transit. A bus stop and shelter currently exist east 
of the site along Farmington Road to serve an eastbound bus line. A wide shoulder suitable for 
bicycling exists along the Farmington Road and 185th Avenue frontages. The applicant will be 
required to provide any other pedestrian/bicycle improvements in accordance with this design 
element under either plan designation as part of future development. 
10. Noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into all new developments located 
adjacent to arterials and Collectors or rock quarries. Noise reduction alternatives 
include vegetative buffers, berms, walls and other design techniques such as 
insulation, setbacks, and orientation of windows away from the road. 
Staff: The applicant will be required to comply with this design element under either plan 
designation at such time that the property is developed. 
11. Where the impact of noise and lighting associated with commercial development 
does not meet the standards in the Community Development Code, the commercial 
development shall be subject to limited hours of operation. 
Staff: The applicant would be required to comply with this design element as implemented by 
the Code under the proposed plan designation, if approved, at such time that the property is 
developed. 
12. New development within the Planning Area shall be connected to public water and 
sewer service; except as specified in the Community Development Code. 
Staff: Development to occur on the property will be required to connect to public water and 
sewer, regardless of plan designation. Both TVWD and CWS indicate that they can adequately 
serve the property. 
13. New development shall , when determined appropriate through the development 
review process, dedicate right-of-way for road extensions and alignments 
indicated on Washington County's Transportation Plan or the 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
28 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 28 of 33 
Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan. New development shall also 
be subject to conditions set forth in the County's growth management policies 
during the development review process. 
Staff: The applicant will be required to comply with this design element under either plan 
designation. The applicant anticipates the need to dedicate an additional 20 feet along both 
street frontages. Right of way dedication will be determined during the development review 
process. Dedication would be required prior to issuance of final land use approval and/or prior 
to issuance of the building permit. 
14. Maintenance of existing housing and neighborhoods in the community shall be 
encouraged through public financial assistance where appropriate (e.g., Federal 
Community Development Block Grant funds) and through consistent enforcement 
of the Community Development Code. 
Staff: The applicant stated under Design Element 14 and elsewhere that the subject property is 
vacant. The property comprised of three parcels supports a detached single family residence 
on each parcel. Conversion of the property from R-15 to CBD will result in the loss of the 
existing housing on the subject property. 
15. New access onto arterial and Collector streets shall be limited. Shared or 
consolidated access shall be required prior to the issuance of a development 
permit for land divisions or structures located adjacent to these facilities, unless 
demonstrated to be infeasible. T.V. Highway Corridor subarea design elements 
shall apply in that subarea (as defined in Design Element 1 of that subarea). 
Staff: Farmington Road and 1851h Avenue are both Arterials ; thus maintain access spacing 
requirements of 600 feet. Neither street frontage measures 600 feet long; therefore , the 
applicant request an Access Management Plan for the property to allow limited access to both 
streets. The Access Management Plan approval (Casefile 12-185-AMP) was issued on July 31, 
2012 and is included in Attachment "A" to this staff report. 
16. Bicycle parking facilities shall be required as a part of all commercial, industrial 
and institutional developments. Residential developments which have parking lots 
of 20 or more spaces shall provide bicycle parking facilities. 
Staff: The applicant will be required to comply with this design element under the CBD plan 
designation at time of development review. If the property were to remain R-15 , depending on 
the size and type of residential development that might be proposed on the subject property, 
bicycle facilities may be required . 
21. The required amount of parking for development shall be determined by the 
Parking Maximum Designations and the standards of the Community Development 
Code. 
Staff: The applicant will be required to comply with this design element and Code standards 
under either plan designation at time of development review. 
FARMINGTON ROAD CORRIDOR SUBAREA 
The Farmington Road corridor angles diagonally across the planning area in a 
west/southwest direction. Farmington is an arterial with some transit service. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
29 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 29 of33 
Some properties along Farmington are already developed with higher intensity uses 
including the Farmington Mall, a few convenience stores, several apartment projects, 
two mobile home parks, Mountain View Middle School, and three churches. The Jenkins 
Estate, operated by Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), is located 
southwest of the intersection of Farmington Road and 2091h Avenue. Transportation 
access and public transit service make many properties in this corridor, includ ing most 
developable and redevelopable properties up to one-quarter mile north and south of 
Farmington, suitable for higher intensity use. 
The Community Plan map shows three Neighborhood Commercial centers located along 
Farmington at its intersections with 170th, 185th, 195th and 209th Avenues. All of these 
are located approximately one mile from other commercial areas, with the exception of 
the Neighborhood Commercial properties at 185th and Farmington, which are about a 
quarter mile from the Farmington Mall. 
Other undeveloped or underdeveloped properties along or near Farmington, but away 
from major intersections, are appropriately designated for residential development at up 
to 15 or 24 units per acre. The highest densities occur close to commercial centers, 
especially around Farmington Mall and the planned Neighborhood Commercial center at 
Farmington and 156th. The latter is also close to a park and ride facility (see the 
characterization of the Tualatin Valley Highway corridor), and a major employment 
center (St. Mary's property/Tektronix/Floating Point Systems/Nike). 
The area to the west of 2091h Avenue, between Farmington Road and Rosedale Road, 
was added to the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002 and is designated Future 
Development- 20 Acres (FD-20). The area is approximately 45 acres in size. The 
predominant land use is residential/agricultural on small acreage. The area shall 
maintain the FD-20 designation until the planning for this new urban area is complete. 
The planning for this area shall be consistent with the requirements of the 
Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area and Title 11 of Metro's Urban 
Growth Management Functional Plan. 
Staff: The subject property is located within the Farmington Road Corridor Subarea. 
I. Washington County Community Development Code 
1. Article Ill , Land Use Districts: 
Section 305, R-15 Residential District (Residential12-15 units per acre) : 
305-1 Intent and Purpose 
The intent and purpose of the R-15 District is to implement the policies of the 
Comprehensive Plan for areas designated for residential development at no more 
than fifteen (15) units per acre and no less than twelve (12) units per acre, except as 
otherwise specified by Section 300-2 or Section 300-5. 
Applicant: See page 37 of the appl icant's narrative. 
Staff: The R-15 plan designation is appropriate for the property. given its location along 
Farmington Road, designated as a Corridor. Retaining the current residential designation 
will provide future residents with the ability to comfortably walk to nearby commercial uses, 
including grocery stores, drugstores/pharmacies. restaurants ar'1d banks. The subject 
property is also conveniently located near parks, schools and churches. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
30 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 30 of 33 
Residential developments are generally not adversely impacted by access limitations to the 
same extent as commercial developments that may be located at arterial/arterial roadway 
intersections. Finally, the subject property complies with the minimum dimensional 
requirements of the R-15 District. The property could support a residential development 
with multiple housing types and a density range of 27 to 34 units. The property may also 
serve as a good location for senior or group care housing due to its close proximity to 
shopping and availability of transit. Staff finds that the property meets the intent and 
purpose of the R-15 Residential District. 
313 Community Business District- (CBD) 
313-1 Intent and Purpose 
Commercial centers in this District are intended to provide the community 
with a mix of retail, service and business establishments on a medium to 
large-scale. Medium through high density residential uses, as well as 
various office and institutional uses, may be permitted. 
Applicant: See pages 37 and 38 of the applicant's narrative. 
Staff: The applicant's proposal of a Walgreens store and a fast food restaurant would 
provide the community with retail uses and would be considered a medium-scale 
development. This proposal generally meets the intent and purpose listed above. 
380 Convenient Access to Transit Overlay District 
380-1 Intent and Purpose 
The intent of the Convenient Access to Transit Overlay District is to ensure 
new retail , office and institutional buildings at or near major bus stops shall 
provide for convenient pedestrian access to transit. The requirements of this 
district implement the access to transit provisions of OAR 660-012-0045(4)(b) 
and the applicable public transit provisions of the Regional Transportation 
Plan (RTP). 
Staff: The Farmington Road and 1851h Avenue intersection is subject to the requirements 
of this section as the property is located near a major bus stop. As such fu ture 
development of the property is subject to the development standards of Section 380-4. 
Pursuant to Section 380-4 , the applicant has the flexibility of complying with either 380-4.1 
or 380-4 .2. These sections read as follows: 
380-4.1 Building location and building entry 
A. All Buildings shall be located within twenty (20) feet of the bus stop, the 
street where the bus stop is located, or any other public street within the 
major bus stop area. 
B. If the applicant chooses to locate the building within twenty (20) feet of the 
bus stop or the street where the bus stop is located, an entrance intended 
for use by members of the general public shall face the subject stop or 
street or be within fifty (50) feet of the side of the building that faces the 
stop or street. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
31 of 51 
380-4.2 
August 8, 2012 
Page 31 of 33 
C. If the applicant chooses to locate the building within twenty (20) feet of any 
other public street within the major bus stop area, an entrance intended for 
use by members of the general public shall face the subject public street or 
be within fifty (50) feet of the side of the building that faces the public 
street. 
Pedestrian Plaza 
A pedestrian plaza is a small semi-enclosed area which provides a place for 
pedestrians to sit, stand or rest. They are generally located at a transit stop, a 
building entrance or an intersection. They connect directly to adjacent 
sidewalks, walkways, transit stops and buildings. Pedestrian plazas have 
amenities, such as seating and pedestrian scaled lighting. 
In brief, the purpose of these standards is to site development in a way that ensures safe 
access to and from the development and transit. The development standards reflect many 
of the transit oriented district design standards (Section 431, as amended by the applicant) 
proposed by the applicant to be imposed on the future development. Section 431, in turn, 
provides a greater level of transit-supportive I pedestrian-friendly design standards that 
capture the intent and purpose of Section 380. 
So absent the imposition of any of the Section 431 standards, Section 380 requirements 
ensure that either the future drugstore is located at/near the bus stop or that site 
development includes a pedestrian plaza. Full review of the site plan in accordance with 
Section 380 will be completed during development review regardless of if the property is 
developed with residential or non-residential. 
431 Transit Oriented Design Principles, Standards and Guidelines 
431-1 Intent and Purpose 
The following design principles, standards and guidelines shall be applied to the 
review of all development occurring in transit oriented districts, for those uses listed 
in Section 375. Principles are the broad, fundamental rules upon which the 
standards and guidelines are based. All Type Ill applications for development in 
transit oriented districts shall demonstrate compliance with applicable principles 
and/or standards of this section . Standards are specific, usually quantitative, rules 
which development applications must comply with if processed through a Type I or 
II procedure. Guidelines are advisory statements that should be considered when 
designing a development in a transit oriented district, but are not mandatory. 
Because an application for a development may vary from a standard in this Section 
when the application demonstrates, through a Type Ill process, compliance with 
the related design principle, a variance or hardship variance pursuant to Section 
435 shall not be granted from any standard in this Section. 
Applicant: See page 38 of the applicant's narrative and applicant's Exhibit 8, as amended. 
Staff: The applicant proposes to incorporate several of the transit oriented design 
standards set forth in Code Section 431 . Pursuant to Implementing Strategy f. of Policy 40, 
the plan amendment may be conditioned to include the transit oriented design standards 
identified by the applicant in Exhibit 8 to the application. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
32 of 51 
August 8, 2012 
Page 32 of 33 
Incorporating these design standards should result in a more transiUpedestrian-friendly 
development, with the exception of the increase in amount of sign age available under the 
TOO standards. Additionally, locating the building closer to one of the street frontages 
would strengthen the pedestrian environment. Any development of the property would be 
subject to the standards of Section 380. Section 380 provides the option of providing a 
transiUpedestrian plaza or locating the building closer to the street. 
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
Staff has reviewed the application and supplemental findings provided by the applicant and finds that 
the application complies with the majority of applicable rules, policies and strategies. In the staff 
response for Policies 1, 18 and 20, staff has identified the historical application of these policies and 
their implementing strategies, but has also provided alternative interpretations for the Planning 
Commission 's consideration. 
At the conclusion of the public hearing for this quasi-judicial plan amendment, the Planning 
Commission should consider the alternatives and indicate whether 1) the historic or 2) the alternative 
findings should be used to support a decision for denial or approval of the plan amendment. Should the 
Planning Commission approve the plan amendment, the following conditions of approval should be 
applied : 
1. Any additional amount over and above the fee deposit submitted with this application which is 
determined to be owed to the County shall be paid upon receipt of a statement of balance due, 
consistent with the agreement for payment of fees for quasi-judicial plan amendment appl ication 
processing previously signed by the owner. 
2. Any development of the subject property shall comply with all conditions of Casefile 12-185-AMP. 
3. Subsequent development of the subject property shall comply with the transit oriented design 
standards identified by the applicant in Attachment "B" to this staff report. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
33 of 51 
Casefile No. 12-222-PA 
Staff Report for the August 15, 2012 Planning Commission Hearing 
August 8, 2012 
Page 33 of 33 
S:IPLNG\WPSHAREIP/an Amendments\Casefiles\2012\ 12222_ Walgreens\Staff Report\PC Staff Report\PC_ Staff_Report_12-222-PA.doc 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
34 of 51 
Attachment "A" 
Applicant: 
TRANSPORTATION REPORT 
CASEFILE N0.12-222-PA 
Seven Hills Properties 
August 6, 2012 
Location: At the SE comer of SW Farmington and SW 185th Avenue . 
Tax Map/Lot: 1S119BB Tax Lots 800, 901, and 1000 
Site Size: 2.29 acres 
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the applicable transportation 
planning policies and rules and submits the following findings and recommendations. 
FINDINGS 
A. General: 
1. · The proposed plan amendment would change the plan designation on the subject 
parcel from R-15 (Residential12-15 Units per Acre) to CBD (Commercial Business 
District). 
2. The subject ~roperty is located at the southeast corner of SW Farmington Road 
and SW 185 Avenue. Both SW 185th Avenue and SW Farmington Road are 
arterials. SW 185th Avenue is under Washington County jurisdiction while SW 
Farmington is under the jurisdiction of Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT). The applicant states that the proposed development will include a 
pharmacy (Walgreens) and fast-food restaurant on the subject property. 
3. Due to site conditions and access needs; the applicant submitted and was granted 
approval of a Type II Access Management Plan (Casefile 12-185-AMP) by 
Development Services Division on July 30, 2012. The Notice of Decision of 
Casefile 12-185-AMP includes specific conditions of approval which are binding on 
the applicant and development of the subject site. A copy of the Notice of Decision 
and Staff Report for Casefile 12-185-AMP is attached to this Transportation Staff 
Report and is incorporated by reference herein (Attachment 1 of Attachment A) . 
Note: The applicant requested an expedited review of this plan amendment. As a 
result, this transportation report was prepared prior to the end of the appeal period 
for Casefile 12-185-AMP. The findings in this report are written as if Casefile 12-
185-AMP stands as approved. 
4. The following standards are applicable to this request and are addressed in this 
staff report: 
a. OAR 660, Division 12, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule: 
Section 060 - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 
b. Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Policies: 
1.0 Travel Needs Policy 
2.0 System Safety Policy 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
35 of 51 
Casefile 12-222-PA 
Attachment "A"- Plan Amendment Transportation Report 
Page 2 of5 
4.0 System Funding Policy 
5.0 System Implementation and Management Policy 
6. 0 Roadway System Policy 
1 0.0 Functional Classification Policy 
19.0 Transportation Planning Coordination and Public Involvement 
Policy 
B. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule 
1 . . The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, requires an analysis 
of the impact of a proposed plan amendment on the planned transportation system ·· 
to determine whe~her the proposal will 'significantly affect' the planned transportation · 
system in the area. 
2. Pursuant to the OAR, the proposed plan amendment would 'significantly affect' SW 
185th Avenue, SW Farmington Road and/or the surrounding transportation network if 
it does any of the following as measured at the end of the planning period identified 
in the adopted TSP (year-2020}- note that the county is using a planning horizon of 
year -2035 in evaluating this plan amendment as it is consistent with the analysis 
performed for the access management plan (see Casefile 12-185-AMP): 
• Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation 
facility; 
• Changes the standards implementing a functional classification syste111; 
• Allow types or leveis of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional 
classification of an existing or p'fa!llrred transportation facility; or 
• Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such 
that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the Transportation 
SystemPian or c:omprehenslve plan; or 
• Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is 
otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the 
Transportation System Plan or comprehensive plan. 
3. Considering the criteria above, in order to determine if a plan amendment will result 
in a 'significant impact' on transportation facilities, the County generally requires a 
comparative analysis of a reasonable worst-case development of a site under 
current and proposed land use designations. A 'reasonable worst case' 
development would be one with the greatest potential trip generation based on a 
reasonable build-out of the site over the planning horizon of the adopted 
Transportation Plan. 
4. The county evaluates roadway performance based on the volume to capacity ratios 
(V/C), measured at signalized intersections. Table 5 of the 2020 Transportation Plan 
sets forth the applicable performance criteria for plan amendment requests. For this 
plan amendment, performance of the SW Farmington Road/SW 185th Avenue 
intersection was considered (see findings below). Evaluation and traffic analysis of 
unsignalized intersections is not required by the 2020 Transportation Plan. · 
5. The applicant provided a traffic analysis with the plan amendment request. In 
addition, a traffic analysis was required in order to obtain Access Management Plan 
approval (see Casefile 12-185-AMP) prior to the processing of the plan amendment 
request. This traffic information has been reviewed by both transportation planning 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
36 of 51 
Casefile 12-222-PA 
Attachment "A"- Plan Amendment Transportation Report 
Page 3 of 5 
and traffic engineering staff. According to the traffic analysis, with the proposed plan 
amendment, the subject site would generate approximately 137 additional trips in 
the PM peak compared to current zoning on the nearby roadway system. The 
applicant's proposed zoning analysis uses ITE codes 851 (Convenience Market), 
934 (Fast-Food Restaurant with a Drive-Thru), and a 944 (Gasoline/Service Station) 
for the basis of the reasonable worst case scenario. 
6. The applicant evaluated two intersection performance scenarios: 1) 1851h south of 
Farmington with a 3-lane approach consistent with Policy 10.0 of the County's 2020 
Transportation Plan; and 2) 1851h south of Farmington with a 5-lane approach 
consistent with project #1 0560 of the Metro RTP Financially Constrained list, which 
identifies the widening of Farmington Road to 5 lanes from 1701h Avenue to the 
intersection of 1851h Avenue. The widening of all approaches within 500 feet of the 
intersection of 1851h and Farmington to 5-lanes, including 1851h south of Farmington, 
is consistent with the county's Transportation Plan and other regional projects of 
intersecting arterials. The county accepts scenario #2 as a reasona.ble basis for 
analysis. The applicant's traffic analysis indicates that with the proposed plan 
amendment, the nearest signalized intersection (SW ·Farmington Road and sW 
185th Avenue) will function with a VIC ratio of 0.89 (LOS D) under the 3-lane 
scenario and a V/C ratio of 0.78 (LOS C) under the 5-lane scenario in the PM Peak 
Hour in year 2035. The county's performance measures identify a V/C ratio of 0.99 
(LOS E) as the minimum acceptable threshold. Therefore, under both scenarios 
impacts to the transportation system associated with the proposed plan amendment 
will comply with the adopted performance criteria found in the 2020 Transportation 
e!~..O. ~.;;;.,.~ 
7. Considering the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment will 
not significantly affect the capacity or levels oftravel on the nearby transportation 
network as defined in the Transportation Planning Rule. 
8. No changes in functional classification are proposed or required in order to 
accommodate the proposed plan amendment. Furthermore, the plan amendment 
will not affect the standards implementing the functional classification system as set 
forth in Policy 10.0 of the County's 2020 Transportation Plan nor will it significantly 
affect the capacity of the surrounding transportation network. Due to its proximity to 
the intersection of 185th and Farmington and. insufficient site frontage to meet county 
arterial access spacing requirements, an Access Management Plan was req!Jired to 
be approved prior to processing this plan amendment request. Casefile 12-185-AMP 
approved an access management plan for the subject site; conditions of approval for 
Casefile 12-185-AMP shall continue to apply to any future development of the 
subject site. Based upon these facts , staff concludes that the proposal is consistent 
with the identified function , capacity, and level-of-service for affected transportation 
facilities, consistent with Section 060 of the Oregon Transport~tion Planning Rule. 
C. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan For The Urban Area 
This plan amendment request is subject to Policy 1. f. from the County's 
Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP). This policy states the following : 
A quasi-judicial plan amendment to the Community Plan Maps, including 
the implementing tax maps, shall be granted only if the Review Authority 
determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
37 of 51 
Casefile 12-222-PA 
Attachment "A"- Plan Amendment Transportation Report 
Page 4 of 5 
designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive 
Framework Plan, the Community Plan Overview ahd the sub-area . 
description and design elements, complies with the regional plan, and 
demonstrates that the potential service impacts ofthe designation will not 
impact the built or planned service delivery system in the community. 
This is a generalized analysis that is no way precludes full application of 
the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided in 
the. Code. 
STAFF: As it pertains to transportation, this policy requires the County to analyze 
the existing transportation system as well as the planned system. With the proposed 
plan amendment, the future performance of nearby transportation facilities will 
comply with the adopted performance thresholds of the 2020 Transportation-Plan. 
Based on this, the plan amendment will be consistent with Policy 1.f. with regard to 
transportation. 
D. Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan · 
The proposed plan amendment is subject to seven policies from the County's 
2020 Transportation Plan, which are iisted and addressed below. · 
1.0 TRAVEL NEEDS POLICY 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO PROVIDE A MULTI-
MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT ACCOMMODATES THE 
DIVERSE TRAVEL NEEDS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY RESIDENTS AND 
BUSINESSES. ~"'''"-' 
STAFF: As explained above in this report, the proposed plan amendment is not 
expected to have a detrimental impact on the capacity or level of service on any of 
the transportation facilities in the impact area since there is no anticipated significant . 
increase in potential trip generation. The proposal therefore does not conflict with 
Policy 1:0. 
2.0 SYSTEM SAFETY POLICY 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO PROVIDE A 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT IS SAFE. 
STAFF: Any traffic safety impacts associated with potential future development qn 
the subject property will be subject to the traffic safety regulations set forth in the 
Community Development Code and Resolution and Order 86-95 which implement 
Policy 2.0. In addition, the applicantis required to comply with the conditi.ons of 
Casefile 12-185-AMP which will ensure safe access to the site. 
4.0 SYSTEM FUNDING POLICY 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO AGGRESSIVELY 
SEEK ADEQUATE AND RELIABLE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION 
FACILITIES AND SERVICES, AND TO ENSURE THAT FUNDING IS 
EQUITABLY RAISED AND ALLOCATED. 
STAFF: If development occurs on the affected property, it will be subject to payment 
of the appropriate Transportation Development Tax toward future capacity 
improvements. Payment of the Transportation Development Tax is consistent with 
the strategies included under Policy 4.0. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
38 of 51 
Casefile 12-222-PA 
Attachment "A" - Plan Amendment Transportation Report 
Page 5 of5 
5.0 SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICY 
· IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO EFFICIENTLY 
IMPLEMENT THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND TO EFFICIENTLY 
MANAGE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 
STAFF: Significant impacts on capacity or roadway safety are not anticipated under 
the proposed plan designation due to the relatively minor increase in trips. The 
proposal is therefore consistent with Policy 5.0. 
6.0 ROADWAY SYSTEM POLICY 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENSURE THAT THE 
ROADWAY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN A MANNER THAT 
ACCOMMODATES THE DIVERSE TRAVEL NEEDS OF ALL USERS OF 
THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 
STAFF: The applicant's traffic analysis demonstrates that the proposed plan 
amendment will not result in significant degradation of the planned motor vehicle 
system and that the amendment will be consistent with the performance measures 
set forth in the strategies for implementation of Policy 6.0. 
10.0 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFiCATION POLICY 
IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO ENSURE THE 
ROADWAY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED AND OPERATES EFFICIENTLY 
THROUGH USE OF A ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 
SYSTEM. 
ST APP~''fhe proposed plan amendment will not affect the Functional Classificmron 
of any nearby street or highway, nor will it result in land uses that are inconsistent 
with those identified in the Transportation Plan. 
19.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COORDINATION AND PUBLIC 
INVOLVEMENT POLICY 
IT. IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO COORDINATE ITS 
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING WITH LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND 
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN PLANNING PROCESSES. 
STAFF: Policy 19 provides that all plan amendments be reviewed for consistency 
with the applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-
0060). This request has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the 
applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (see findings in Section B., 
above). The plan amendment request is therefore consistent with Policy 19.0. 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the find ings in this report, staff concludes that th is plan amendment proposal 
wi ll not "significantly affect" a transportation facility as defined in OAR 660, Division 12. 
However, the conditions of Casefile 12-185-AMP shalf continue to apply to any future 
development of the subject property in order to ensure consistency with the county's 
standards for access to arterial roadways . 
\\nutdat\LRPLAN\Shared\PLNGIWPSHARE\Dyami\Pian Amendments\Seven Hills PA\12-222-PA Seven Hills 
Transporta tion Report.doc 
Attachment "B" 
July 23, 2012 
Thomas Rocca 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
. 88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
. 
. 
. 
• 
• 
. 
.. 
• . 
. 
. 
• 
. 
. 
RE: Transportation Oriented District Code Summary for.'eroposed Plan Amendment (Case 
File 12-222-PA) • •• 
. 
• 
Dear Tom, • • • 
• . 
·. 
Your pending application requests a plan amendment to the CBD CtfSitr:ict, but elects to 
follow many of the Transportation Oriented District (TO:RC) code requ1i'e~ts as they 
pertain to the design of the future development for the site (pharmacy arid"rasVtbblr •"' 
restaurant). 1 The proposed project will blend development standards from both the CBD 
and TO:RC zones, resulting in an attractive site that encourages all modes of 
transportation. 
.;&;:rf,"tt· 
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the Transportation Oriented District Codes 
(TO:RC) that we are requesting be conditioned upon Case File 12-222 PA. 
Exhibit 3b, of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Change application, schematically 
Illustrates the proposed future development which will include construction of two 
buildings, an approximately 15,000 square feet Pharmacy with drive-through and an 
approximately 3,000 square feet pad building with drive-through. Direct, straight-line 
pedestrian connections will link the main entrances of each building as well as provide 
access to the abutting right-of-ways, common open space and parking. These areas will 
be clearly marked and well-designed to ensure pedestrian safety and way finding. Both 
adjacent street right-of-ways will be improved with street trees and code compliant 
pedestrian walkways. Additionally, the SW Farmington right-of-way will be accented with 
two large pedestrian plazas (common open area) which will include a colonnade featuring 
decorative art and provide overhead pedestrian protection from the elements. The plazas 
will also include benches and pedestrian scale lighting to create an inviting and active 
street-front. 
Each building will be constructed of high quality and durable materials that are compatible 
with both an urban environment and adj acent existing development. Stark and imposing 
1 Seven Hills requests that a condition of approval be imposed upon the plan amendment 
that requires the site to be developed in compliance with the TO:RC approval criteria listed 
on the attached table, which updates and replaces Exhibit 8 of the application. 
79648-000 l!LEGAL24178330.1 
Baysinger Partne}) Architecture 
1006 SE Grand Ave., Suite 300 
Portland, OR 97214 
Phone 503-546-1600 
Fox 503-546-1601 
www.BaysingerPortners.com 
. .. 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
40 of 51 
building facades will be avoided through the use of articulation expressed by variation in 
materials as well as changes in material colors. Main entries and active business areas, 
with code compliant glazing, will be placed toward the right-of-ways; increasing visibility 
and safety for patrons on-site as well as providing "eyes on the street" visibility from 
within the development. With public areas presented towards the streets, utilitarian 
functions for each building will be located way from the right-of-ways and appropriately 
screened increasing vehicular and pedestrian safety as well as improving site aesthetics. 
Parking for the development will meet many of the principles for the TO:RC district. 
Parking has been designed to be unobtrusive, use appropriate screening and landscaping, 
clearly define vehicular areas and minimize vehicular and pedestrian interaction to 
improve safety. Patron parking will be separated from both loading areas and drive-
throughs by placing them on opposite sides of the buildings to further improve on-site 
safety. 
None of the proposed site elements are required by the CBD zone, but Seven Hills has 
volunteered to incorporate these transit, pedestrian and design features into the project. 
To insure that the site is developed with the features envisioned by the applicant, Seven 
Hills requests that a condition of approval be imposed upon the plan amendment that 
requires the site to be developed in compliance with the TO:RC approval criteria listed on 
the attached table, which updates and replaces Exhibit 8 of the application. 
We identified the TO:RC approval criteria that have been requested to apply to the site by 
designing the best possible development that balances transit, pedestrian and vehicles. 
We t'he'rFanalyzed all of the TO:RC approval criteria and determined which stfutdards could 
be met on the site, and which standards were not attainable or not applicable. This letter 
summarizes the TO:RC standards that will apply to the site and an identification and 
explanation of those that cannot be met on the site . 
TO:RC Development Standards Proposed for the Site 
The TO:RC standards that are requested to be applicable to the site emphasize pedestrian 
orientation and aesthetics through a variety of standards, including circulation system 
design, emphasis on building facades, the provision of open space and enhanced lighting 
and landscaping. As described above, illustrated in Exhibit 3b and listed on the attached 
table (wh ich updates and replaces Exhibit 8 to the application), Seven Hills request the 
following TO:RC development standards be conditioned . 
• 375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses in Transit Oriented Districts, 23.b 
(accessory outdoor seating ) 
• 431- 1 Transit Oriented Design Principles, Standards and Guidelines, Intent and 
Purpose 
• 431-4.2.0 Circulation System Design, Design Standards 10 (ci rculation design ) and 
11 (pedestria n crossings) 
• 431-5.1. B Streetscapes for Pedestrians, Standards 2 (st reet t rees), 3 (underground 
utilities) , 4 (minimum sidewalk w idths) and 6 (pedestrian scale lighting 
• 431-5.2.B Build ing Entrance Standards 5 (minimum lighting leve ls), 6 (main 
entrance open du ring business hours) and 7 (sheltered ent ries) 
• 4 31-5.3.B Building Facades Standards 1 (grou nd floor windows), 2 (t ransparent 
wi ndows) , 3 (m inimum window areas), 6 (a rticu lat ion), 7 (change in materia ls) , 8 
(du rable qual ity materials), 9 (exterior lig hting), and 10 (uti litarian funct ions 
screening) 
• 431 -6.1.B Parking Area Standard 2 (setback) 
79648-000 J!LEGAL24 178330.1 2 
• I 
;· ~ 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
41 of 51 
• 431-6.2.B Parking Area Design Standards 3 (perimeter landscaping), 4 (minimum 
parking landscape area), and 5 (cross property access) 
• 431-7.1.B Common Open Space Standards 1 (common open space) 
• 431-7.2.B Common Open Space Standards 1 (maintaining common open space), 2 
(minimum size of common open space) and 4 (percentage of common open space) 
• 431-7.3.B Open Space Design Standards 1 (amenities), 3 (lighting) and 5 
(encroachments) 
• 431-9.2 Landscaping Standards: minimum required area 
• 431-10.2 Water Quantity/Quality Facilities Standards: location of non-vaulted 
systems 
• 431-11.2 Signs 
• 431-11.3 Exceptions to Sections 414-1 and 414-2 A (maximum area of fac;ade 
mounted signs), B1 and B2 (ground mounted monument standards) and C 
(prohibited signs) 
TO:RC Development Standards that are Not Applicable to the Site 
TO:RC approval criteria that are not applicable to the site were excluded. For example, 
CDC 431-4.2.C includes design standards for blocks and E. includes standards for new 
street connections; both were excluded because the site is not a full block and no new 
street connections are proposed. The following standards are not applicable: 
• 431-3 Definitions 
• 431-4.2.C (Blocks), D{1)-(9¥ -ar<ld (12)-(14), and E (Circulation/Connections) 
• 431-5.1.B Streetscapes for Pedestrians, Standards (5), (7)-(10) 
• 431-5.2.B Building Entrances, Standards (2), (3) and (8) 
• 431-5.3.B Building Facades, Standards (4), (5), (11) and {12) 
. • 431-6.1.B Parking Areas, Garages and Parking Structures Location, Standards (4), 
and (5) 
• 431-6.2.B Parking Areas and Garage Design, Standards (1), (2), (6)-(8) 
• 431-7.1.B Common Open Space Standards (2)-(3) 
• 431-7 .. 2.B Common Open Space Amount and Size Standards (3) and (5) 
• 431-7.3.B Common Open Space Design Standards (2) and (4) 
• 431-8 Transitions in Density 
• 431-11.2. Sign Standards (B) (residential) 
• 431-12 Peterkort Station Area Design Standards 
TO:RC Development Standards that are NOT Proposed for the Site 
While the project meets all of the principals for the TO:RC zone, for the reasons explained 
below, the following specific standards cannot be met and are therefore not requested to 
be imposed as conditions of approval: 
• 375-8 Dimensional Requirements for Transit Oriented Districts 
• 375-9 Density Requirements for Transit Oriented Districts 
• 431-5.1.8 standard 1 (frontage requirements) requires that a specific percentage 
of street frontage (50%) be occupied by building and 11 (building compatibility) 
• 431-5.2.8(1) and (4) (Building Entrances), prohibits having a building entrance 
separated from the street by a vehicle area. 
• 431-6.1.8 Parking Area Standards 1 and 3 (location of parki ng area)' 
• 431-6.2.B Parking Area Design Standard 4(a) 
79648-000!/LEGAL241 78330.1 3 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
42 of 51 
Many of the standards that are not suggested as conditions discourage vehicle areas 
between a building and the street. It is not possible to attain this design objective on the 
site and still provide the vehicle circulation areas that are necessary for the success of the 
project, and also provide the proposed pedestrian amenities (i.e., the open space plaza). 
The proposed project will adhere to the CBD allowed setbacks and place the buildings back 
from the street frontage. The design will still meet the TO:RC principles and intents by 
placing the active portions of the buildings, main entry and windowed facades toward the 
streets. Direct, clearly marked pedestrian walkways will connect the right-of-way to these 
areas. The frontage on SE Farmington will retain the active and engaging pedestrian 
environment intended by the code through several large pedestrian plazas and the 
colonnade representation of building wall. 
Section 431-6.1.8, Parking Area Standards 1 and 3 (surface parking locations), do not 
allow off-street parking between a building and street or within 40 feet of a corner. The 
proposed project will place parking to the side of both buildings; however, will include 
parking in front of the pharmacy, between the building and the street and within 40 feet 
of the corner. To increase on-site vehicular and pedestrian safety, parking and pedestrian 
areas were separated from the main vehicular drive a isle through site, drive-through 
traffic and loading areas. This provides the parking to the street side and front of the 
building allowing for the utilitarian functions to be placed interior to the site. Due to the 
sites narrow configuration this increased safety separation could not be adequately 
provided with both areas interior to the site. 
Section 375-9 Density Requirements specify a minimum F.A.R. of .25. The proposed 
project WRfProvide less than the required TO:RC F.A.R. in order to provide tli~"tequired · 
open space common areas, landscaping and pedestrian walkways required by the TO:RC 
standards as well as minimum required parking. · 
Section 431-6.2.8 Parking Area Design Standard 4a (curbs and bumpers) prevents 
bumper overhang of landscape and walkway areas through the use of wheel stops. The 
proposed plan will include perimeter parking curbs and raised sidewalks, however, 
independent wheel stops will not be provided due to narrow site dimension, 20 foot right 
of way dedication and their impediment to easy cleaning of parking areas. 
We have also suggested that Section 431-5.1.8 standard (11) not apply because it 
requires individual build ings to be compatible with neighbors. Because the surrounding 
properties are not zoned transit oriented and the existing buildings have not been subject 
to transit oriented design standards, it is not appropriate to require compatibility. 
Potential Conflicts in COB and TO:RC Standards Applicable to the Site 
At this time, we do not anticipate that any of the TO: RC standards that we have requested 
apply to the site will confl ict with the CBD requirements. However, in case a conflict 
arises in the future, we request that the conditions of approval specify that in the event of 
a conflict between the requirements of the TO:RC section and requirements of the CBD 
section, the requirements of the CBD section shall control, except any code provision 
specific to Section 418-3 (Corner Vision), 421 (Floodpla in and Drainage), 422 (Significant 
Natural Resources) or 501-8.5 F. (Sight Distance). 
The intent of the th is project is to construct an aesthetically pleasing, highly functional and 
safe urban development through the combination of the CBD and TO: RC development 
sta ndards as stated above; ensuring that the high quality development expected in 
Washington County cont inues with this project. We therefore trust that t he outli ned 
79648-000 I fLEGAL24 I 78330. I 4 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
43 of 51 
conditions above will be to your satisfaction and look forward to your informed response in 
the near future. 
Sincerely, 
BAYSINGER PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE PC 
William M. Ruecker, AlA 
Principal 
cc: File 
Dana Krawczuk- Perkins Coie 
79648-000J/LEGAL24178330.1 
~~~.:..:~~.~ 
5 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
44 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS 
375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses in Transit Oriented Districts 
. 23.b. Accessory outdoor seating related to the principal eating or drinking establishment use 
may be permitted, provided that the outdoor space is placed within a common open space. 
Sidewalks may be utilized for accessory outdoor seating if they meet the unobstructed width 
standards set forth in Section 4315.1 B.(4) and approval is obtained from the Operations 
Division Manager. In addition, the area devoted to the accessory outdoor seating does not 
exceed: 
1) an area greater than the equivalent of fifteen (15) percent of the dining, drinking, 
or both floor area; or 
(2) seven-hundred and fifty (750) square feet. 
TOO PRINCIPALS, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 
431-1 Intent an~ Purpose 
The following design principles, standards and guidelines shall be applied to the review of all 
development occurring in transit oriented districts, for those uses listed in Section 375. 
Principles are the broad, fundamental rules upon which the standards and guidelines are based. 
All Type Ill applications for development in transit oriented districts shall demonstrate 
compliance with applicable principles and/or standards of this section. Standards are specific, 
usually quantitative, rules which development applications must comply with if processed 
r:-- • .. througQ~.!Jpe I or II procedure. Guidelines are advisory statements that should .be consJ$!~f_yd 
when designing a development in a transit oriented district, but are not mandatory. Because an 
application for a development may vary from a standard in this Section when the application 
demonstrates, through a Type Ill process, compliance with the related design principle, a 
variance or hardship variance pursuant to Section 435 shall not be granted from any standard in 
this Section. 
1431-4 Circulation System Design 
431-4.1 Principals 
A. Pedestrian routes in a transit oriented district shall, to the extent practicable, directly connect 
major activity centers (concentrations of employment arid households, major public buildings and 
spaces, institutional uses and parks & common open spaces, and shopping areas) and transit 
stops, particu larly light rail stations; 
B. Block dimensions and perimeters shall be at an urban ra.ther than a suburban scale 
C. Provide accessways and greenways, as needed , to supplement pedestrian routes along 
pedestrian streets; and 
D. Provide clearly marked and well-designed pedestrian street, driveway, loading area and surface 
parking lot crossings 
431-4.2 Standards 
D. Design 
(10) Whether publicly or privately owned, a pedestrian street, accessway or greenway shall 
conform to the section design specified for its functional classification and remain accessible 
to the public at all times 
Page 1 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
45 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
(11) Pedestrian crossings of streets, driveways, surface parking lots and loading areas shall 
be designed to be consistent with the provisions of Section 408.1 0.3B. In transit oriented 
districts, striping alone is not an acceptable way to identify connections 
431-5 Streetscapes for Pedestrians 
431-5.1 Streetscapes- Transit Oriented Districts 
B. Standards 
(2) Street trees are required on all pedestrian streets with an average spacing of no more 
than thirty (30) feet on center on both sides and two (2) to four (4) feet from back ofcurb. 
Street trees shall not be spaced or located so as to result in a violation of Section 418-3. 
Trees in the County right-of-way or in sidewalk easements shall be approved by the County 
as to size, quality, tree well design if applicable, and irrigation (see Section 407-7). 
(3) All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the 
sidewalk area, provided that they are flush with the sidewalk and provide for a safe 
pedestrian walking surface during all types of weather 
(4) Minimum sidewalk widths in Transit Oriented Districts shall be the widest identified by the 
Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards for the adjacent Special 
Area Street (as shown in the 2020 Transportation Plan, Figures 6 through 8), except for 
Special Area c;;ommercial Streets. Special Area Commercial Streets shall have sidewalks 
that are a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width. On arterials within or adjacent to Transit 
Oriented Districts and which are designated as 'Boulevards' on the Regional Street Design 
Overlay Map in the 2020 Transportatipn Plan, the minimum sidewalk width shall be twelve 
(12) feet (see Technical Appendix·~!f'(jf the 2020 Transportation Plan for typical roadway 
cross-sections). 
(6) Pedestrian scale street lighting, such as that described in the county's Pedestrian Design 
Guidelines Booklet shall be provided 'along all pedestrian streets. 
431 -5.2 Building Entrances 
The following principles and standards apply to building entrances in transit oriented districts: 
A. Principles: 
Provide for safe, convenient, direct and identifiable access for pedestrians between pedestrian 
streets, accessways, transit facilities, and adjacent buildings. 
B. Standards: 
(5) Minimum lighting levels shall conform to the standards as set forth in Section 415-4. 
(6) For non-residential buildings, or non-residential portions of mixed-use buildings, main 
building entrances fronting on pedestrian streets shall remain open during normal business 
hours for that building . 
(7) All entries fronting a pedestrian route shall be sheltered with a minimum four (4) foot 
overhang or shelter. 
431-5.3 Building Facades 
The following principles, standards and guidelines apply to building facades in transit oriented 
districts: 
Page 2 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
46 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
/" 
A Principles: 
{2) Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of pedestrian streets 
and other public spaces by maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the pedestrian 
street. 
{3) Ensure compatible building designs along a pedestrian street through similar massing 
{building facade height and width as well as the space between buildings) and frontage 
·setbacks. 
{4) Avoid building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform design style, roof line 
or facade treatment, which results in an uninteresting and unattractive pedestrian 
environment 
(5) All new comm.ercial, industrial, office, .institutional, mixed use, and multifamily residential 
buildings shall, on any facade facing a pedestrian route, incorporate discernible architectural 
features, such as, but not limited to: cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, bays, 
recesses, arcades, display windows, unique entry areas or other architectural treatments for 
visual interest, to create community character and to promote a sense of pedestrian scale. 
The overall design shall recognize that the simple relief provided by window cutouts or sills 
on an otherwise flat facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this 
subsection 
{6) lighting of a building facade shall be designed so that lighting complements the 
architectural design. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building. 
{7) All buildings, of any type, constructed within any transit oriented district, shall be 
constructed with exterior building materials and finishes that are of high quality to convey an 
...,..,.,.,<~ imprEts,§_jpJl of permanence and durability. ..,,""' "l-i ~~~i:<" 
(8) To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall be 
emphasized 
B. Standards: 
(1) Ground floor windows shall be provided on building facades facing a 
pedestrian route or common open space. Garage door windows shall not count towards 
compliance with this standard 
(2) Darkly tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two-way visibility are prohibited 
as ground floor windows. ' 
(3) Except as provided in Section 431 -12, ground floor building facades along a pedestrian 
street in the TO:RC or TO: BUS Districts must contain unobscured windows for at least fifty 
(50) percent of the wall area and seventy-five (75) percent of the wall length within the fi rst 
ten (1 0) feet of wall height. Required windows shall allow views in to lobbies or similar areas 
of activity, building entrances, or merchandise type displays. Lower window sills shall not be 
more than three (3) feet above grade except where interior floor levels prohibit such 
placement, in which case the lower window sill shall not be more than a maximum of four (4) 
feet above the finished exterior grade. 
(6) In all transit oriented districts, building frontages greater than two hundred (200) feet in 
length along pedestrian routes shall break any flat, monolithic facade by including 
architectural elements such as bay windows, recessed entrances, changes in materials, or 
other articulation so as to p rovide pedestrian scale to the ground floor. 
Page 3 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
47 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
(7) Except as provided in Section 431-12, building facades along a pedestrian route in the 
TO:RC or TO: BUS Districts shall not have more than forty (40) linear feet of ground floor 
wall area without a change in materials or an eight (8) inch minimum vertical or horizontal 
wall relief. 
(8) In all transit oriented districts, the exterior walls of building facades along pedestrian 
routes shall be of suitable durable building materials including the following: stucco, stone, 
terra-cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled or ship-lap or other narrow-course 
horizontal boards or siding, vertical board & batten siding, articulated architectural concrete 
masonry units (CMU), or similar materials which are low maintenance, weather resistant, 
abrasion resistant and easy to clean. Prohibited building materials include the following: 
Plain, smooth, untextured concrete; plain, smooth untextured concrete block; corrugated 
metal; unarticulated board siding (e.g., T1-11 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard); and 
similar quality, non-durable materials. 
(9) No exterior lighting shall be provided above the second floor of buildings for the purpose 
of highlighting the presence of the building, except for facade sign lighting. 
(10) Buildings and sites shall be organized to group the utilitarian functions away from the 
public view. Delivery and loading operations, mechanical equipment (HVAC), trash 
compacting/collection, and other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the 
overall design of the building(s) and the landscaping. The visual and acoustic impacts of 
these functions, along with all wall or ground-mounted mechanical, electrical and 
communications equipment shall be oul£,._tyJew from adjacent properties and public 
pedestrian streets. Screening mate'ftfils"and landscape screens shall be architecturally 
compatible with and not inferior to the principal materials of the building and primary 
landscaping. The visual and acoustic aspects of roof-mounted equipment, vents and 
chimneys shall be minimized by placing equipment behind parapets, within architectural 
screening, roof-top landscaping, or by using other aesthetically pleasing methods of 
screening and deadening the sound of such equipment. 
431-6 Parking Areas, Garages and Parking Structures 
431-6.1 Location 
A. Principles: 
Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings, other than 
single family residences, that front on pedestrian streets where onstreetparking is allowed. 
Parking at mid-block or behind buildings is preferred . Exceptions to this principle may be 
appropriate for uses that require new buildings to be clustered near existing groups of 
· buildings located away from a pedestrian street, such as expansions of a campus 
development 
B. Standards: 
(2) Garages and off-street parking areas shall be set back at least five (5) feet 
from adjacent primary building facades. 
431-6.2 Parking Area and Garage Design: 
A. Principles: 
(1) Garages, parking structures and off-street surface parking areas shall be designed to be 
as unobtrusive, and as attractive in appearance, as possible. 
Page 4 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
48 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
(2) There shall be low bushes or a low wall or berm at the perimeter of surface parking lots 
to reduce their visibility from the surrounding area. Barriers around the perimeter of a 
parking lot shall not be so high, however, that it becomes a safety or security problem. 
(3) Trees shall be used extensively at the perimeter and in the interior of surface parking lots 
to break up large parking areas and provide shade 
(4) Accessways through surface parking lots shall be clearly identified through the use of: 
different paving materials, grade separation, or landscaping, pedestrian-scale lighting, and 
be as short as practicable. 
B. Standards: 
(3) Surface parking areas shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to a 
pedestrian street which meets one of the following standards: 
(a) A five (5) foot wide planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area. 
The planting strip may be pierced by pedestrianaccessible and vehicular 
accessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen hedge. Hedges shall 
be no less than thirty-:-six (36) inches or more than forty-two (42) inches in height at 
maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall be planted and maintained to afford 
adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the parking lot; or 
(b) A solid decorative wall or fence thirty-six (36) inches to forty-two (42) 
inches in height parallel to and not nearer than .two (2) feet from the right-of-way line. 
The area between the wall or fence and the pedestrian street line shall be 
"""'' .. ~ lart~s~~ped. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow .tePaccess tO.;r-;•· .. :·~ 
the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall be constructed and maintained to 
afford adequate sight distance as described above for vehicles exiting the parking lot. 
Perimeter landscaping shall not be required where two (2) parking lots using a 
common driveway are joined by a common circulation aisle or other traffic area. 
Landscaping may be reduced or eliminated adjacent to landscaped open space in 
order to transition the open space landscaping into the parking area and afford better 
access between the two areas. 
(4) Surface parking areas shall provide interior landscaping which meets the following 
standards: 
(b) Landscaping shall be installed within planting bays, and in any other 
area where parking stalls, circu lation aisles, driveways, or pedestrian 
movements would not be precluded by the landscaping. Landscaping 
around and with in surface parking areas shall not be less than ten 
(1 0) percent of the total area of the parking area (see Section 407 for 
(5) Except in residential areas, parking associated with new development shall 
be designed to the extent practicable to connect with auto parking areas on 
adjacent sites to eliminate the necessity of utilizing the pedestrian street for 
parallel movements. 
Page 5 
£'i 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
49 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
1431-7 ~Q!Jlmon Open Space 
431-7.1 Location 
A. Principles: 
(1) Common open spaces shall be located within walking distance of all those living, working 
and shopping in transit oriented areas. 
(2) Common open spaces shall be easily and safely accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. 
(3) For security purposes, common open spaces shall be visible from nearby residences, 
stores, a pedestrian route and/or pedestrian street or offices. 
(4) Common open space shall be available for both passive and active use by people of all 
ages. 
B. Standards: 
(1) Common open space shall be located within all residential and all mixed residentiaVnon-
residential developments with four or more dwelling units, as well as all non-residential 
developments on sites exceeding one-half acre. Alternatively, common open space for a 
development may be located within thirteen hundred (1,300) feet walking distance of the 
development. However, if common open space for a residential development is located off-
site, it shall be unnecessary to cross an arterial street to gain access to the site. 
1431-7.2 Amount and Size 
A. Principles: 'd!;'' '·'~'' 
(1) CommQn open spaces may vary in si'ie''ifepending on their function and location. 
(2) The total amount of common open space provided in a transit oriented community shall 
be adequate to meet the needs of those projected (at the time of build-out), to live, work, 
shop and recreate there. 
B. Standards: 
(1) All residential developments of four (4) or more dwelling units, and all nonresidential 
or mixed-use developments, shall be required to reserve, improve and establish 
commitments to maintaining common open space. 
(2) Any common open space shall be at least four hundred (400) square feet in area, and 
shall be able to encompass a square area at least twenty (20) feet wide and twenty (20) feet 
long. 
(4) Common open space in a mixed use and non-residential development shall equal at 
least two (2) percent of the development site's total acreage after netting out those portions 
of the site within areas listed under CDC Section 300-3.1. 
1431-7.3 Open Space Design 
A. Principles: 
(1) Common open spaces in transit oriented communities shall be designed to 
accommodate a variety of activities and users ranging from active play by children to passive 
contemplation by adults, but shall generally be able to accommodate a relatively intensive 
level of use. They shall be pedestrian friendly, with amenities such as benches, directional 
signs, water fountains, and good lighting. They shall be attractive and interesting, with good 
landscaping and possibly public art or a water feature. And they shall be safe places to be 
at any time of day. 
Page 6 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
50 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
B. Standards: 
l431-9landscaping 
(1) Common open spaces shall include at least two (2) of the following 
improvements: 
(a) A bench or benches for seating; 
(b) Public art such as a statue; 
(c) A water feature such as a fountain; 
(d) A children's play structure including a swing and a slide; 
(e) A gazebo; 
(f) Picnic tables with a barbecue; 
(g) An indoor or outdoor sports court for one or more of the following: 
tennis, basketball, volleyball, badminton, racquetball, handball/paddleball; or 
(h) An indoor or outdoor swimming and/or wading pool suitable for children to use. 
(3) For security purposes, all common open spaces shall be adequately 
illuminated during hours of darkness. 
(5) Common open spaces shall be free from all structural encroachments (i.e .• roof 
overhangs, awnings and other architectural features) of structures on 
abutting properties. 
Well-designed and located landscaping can soften the edges of buildings and paving, add aesthetic 
interest and generally increase the attractiveness of a community. The following principles, standards 
and guidelines apply to landscaping in transit oriented districts. 
431-9.1 Principles: 
. ( 
A The 5rzeuf the laodscaped area on a development site in a transit-oriented community. "Shaft be ·'-~""'' 
in inverse proportion to the density of development on the site. 
B. Landscaping shall primarily be located to serve as a screen or buffer for or to soften the 
appearance of unattractive structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls, or to 
increase the attractiveness of common open spaces 
431 -9.2 Standards: 
No minimum landscaping standard shall be set as a percentage of a development site. 
Landscaping may be required, however, in conjunction with parking lot design (see Section 431-
6.2), building desi.gn or the provision of common open space. 
431-9.3 Guidelines: 
A Stormwater detention facilities may be incorporated into landscapes (see Section 431-10.1 ). 
!431-10 Water Quantity/Quality Facilities 
Water quantity/quality facilities are necessary elements of the urban landscape in Washington County, 
but their location and appearance can influence the attractiveness of a community. The following 
principles and standards apply to water quantity/quality facilities in transit oriented districts. 
431 -10.1 Principles: 
Stormwater detention and treatment facilities shall be integrated into the design of a development 
site and, if visible, shall appear as a component of the landscape rather than as a utility element. If 
practicable and acceptable by to the Clean Water Services, such facilities shall be consolidated to 
serve multiple developments in a location away from the center of the community. 
Page 7 
-\;1":t ! ~:>.:~--~­
"'' 
Exhibit B 
12-222-PA 
51 of 51 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
431-10.2 Standards: 
1431-11 Signs 
Non-vaulted surface stormwater detention and/or treatment facilities shall not be located between 
a pedestrian street and the front of an adjacent building. 
The principles and standards of Sections 431-11.1 and 431-11..1.-~e,Jow shall apply to all permitted 
signage within transit oriented districts. Exceptions to these standards are designated in Section 431-
11.3. 
431-11 .1 Principles: 
A Signs in transit oriented district communities shall be located and scaled to the function of the 
pedestrian street on which they front 
B. Signs within any transit-oriented district shall be consistent with the visual quality and aesthetics 
of the surrounding neighborhood. 
C. Signage must be of high quality in design and materials. 
D. Signage shall be consistent throughout a development 
E. Signage attached to a building shall complement the building's character (e.g., wall signs shall 
·avoid covering building columns). 
431-11 .2 Standards: 
A. In the TO: BUS and TO:RC Districts, the standards of Article IV- Section 414-2 shall apply, 
except as noted in Section 431-11.3. 
431 -11 .3 Exceptions to Sections 414-1 and 414-2 
·:r-.... ~~·::.:·.:~ 
·~:..;;.. 
A. Favade-mounted, non-residential signs shall not exceed five (5) percent of the area of the 
favade upon which it is mounted, up to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet per favade or 
four hundred (400) square feet per building. 
B. Ground-mounted monuments or site entry markers up to fifteen (15) feet in height may be 
approved subject to the following: 
(1) Total area and volume of the portion of the monument or marker incorporating sign 
letters shall not exceed forty-five (45) square feet or ninety (90) cubic feet; and 
(2) Position of the monument or marker shall not obscure roadway visibility or result in 
potential traffic hazard(s) as may be determined by the County Engineer. 
C. Prohibited signs: 
(1) Free-standing signs (e.g., pole-mounted signs) as defined in Section 1 06193.4 ; 
(2) Signs with moving or flashing lights; 
(3) Signs with exposed electrical conduits, ballast boxes, or other equipment; 
(4l_Sign~ incorporating audible or odor-producing elements; 
(5) Roof-mounted signs; and 
(6) Other signs prohibited under Article IV Section 414. 
Page 8 
~
 
r
-
~
~
m
 
0 
1\
J 
X 
0 
c 
_
,
N
~
 
::::
::f 
:::
::J 
1
\J
I\
JC
" 
1\
JN
;::
:::
:o
.: 
"
"
-
bo
 
-
c
 
0
-
)>
 
-
,
 
'-
co
 
c:
: 
=
r
 
V
I 
C
l) 
(I
) 
:::
::; 
l>
 
V
\ 
<
 
C
l) 
-
o
 
-
·
 
.
f"
"\
 
0 
c 
:::
::J 
-
+
 
-
·
 
0 
0 
:::
::J 
:::
::J 
c
..
 
N
 
0 ::::
J 
:::
::J 
c
c
 
3
: 
0 
"
'
C
 
l>
.
 
:::
:J 
.
.
J
 
C
l) 
:::
::J 
' 
c
..
 
:::
::J 
.
.
J
 
C
l) 
'
:::
::J 
-
WA
lGR
EE
NS
 -1
85
th 
&.
FA
RM
+N
GT
ON
 
.
 
.
 
' 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
2 of 223 
APPLICATION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 
DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL-IS (R-15) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS 
DISTRICT (CBD)-
Supplemented to respond to April 27, 2012 Notice of Incomplete Application 
APPLICANT 
OWNER 
PROJECT TEAM 
Legal Counsel 
Architect 
Transportation 
Market Analysis 
79648-000\ /LEGAL237 18885 .2 
Seven Hills Properties LLC 
Attn: Torn Rocca 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
415-247-7377 
trocca@sevenhillsprop.com 
Westside Community Church of Washington County 
18390 SW Farmington Road 
Beaverton, OR 97007 
Dana Krawczuk 
Perkins Coie LLP 
1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor 
Portland, OR 97209 
503-727-2036 
dkrawczuk@perkinscoie.com 
William M. Ruecker, AlA 
Baysinger Partners Architecture PC 
1006 SE Grand Avenue, Suite 300 
Portland, OR 972 I 4 
503-546-1614 
BillR@BaysingerPartners.com 
Chris Clemow, PE, PTOE 
Group Mackenzie 
1515 SE Water Avenue, Suite 100 
Portland, OR 97214 
503-224-9560 
CCiemow@grpmack.com 
Jeff Olson 
Commercial Realty Advisors NW, LLC 
733 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 
Portland, OR 97204 
503-274-02)] X 160 
J eff@cra-nw .com 
-1-
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
3 of 223 
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 
The site's address is 18470 SW Farmington Road, which as Assessor Map No lSI 19BB, 
Tax Lot number~ 800, 901 and 1000. 
PROPOSAL SUMMARY 
Amend plan designation from R-15 Residential to Community Business District (CBD), 
with a specific finding that drive-thrus are allowed and a condition of approval that 
requires that the development of the site be .subject to the transit oriented design criteria 
listed on Exhibit 8. 
Once rezoned, the applicant intends to d~velop the site with an approximately 15,000 
square foot Walgreen's drug store and approximately 3,000 square foot commercial 
building. The development will include several pedestrian and transit-oriented amenities, 
and each building will have a drive-thru. A conceptual site plan is attached as Exhibit 3b. 
An Access Management Plan for the proposed development is being reviewed separately 
from the plan amendment application. , 
,· .. 
SITE DESCRIPTION ' ( 
The site ofthe proposed zone' change is located at 18470 SW Farmington Road, an 
approximately 2.24 acre parcel at the ~outheast comer of the SW Farmington Road and 
SW !85th Avenue intersection, in the Aloha area of Washington County. The site is 
subject to the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan, is located along the 
Farmington Road Corridor SubArea, and is located in CPO 6. 
The site's two road frontages, SW Farmington Road and SW !85th Avenue, are both 
designated as Arterials by the County's Transportation System Plan. Figure 4E of the 
Washington County Functional Classification SystemL Farmington Road adjacent to and 
east ofthe site is designated as a Transit Corridor by Washington County (Policy 40), but, 
the roadway is not so designated by the Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map. See 
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//Concept 011411.pdf and Exhibit 5. 
The site is currently developed with 3 residences. No inventoried wetlands or other 
natural resources are on site. Westside Community Church ofWashington County owns 
the site, ;;tnd the adjacent parcel that is developed with a church. The table below 
describes the existing land uses surrounding the site. A zoning map and aerial map of the 
vicinity are also provided. 
-2-
79648-0001 !LEGAL23 718RR5 .2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
4 of 223 . 
I Area Plan/Zoning Land Use 
f 
North Neighborhood Commercial US Bank, Laundry, and 
I 
Office Building/Shops 
East Institutional Church 
East Institutional Church 
South Residential (R-9) Single Family Housing 
Southwest Neighborhood Commercial Retail and Bar/Grill 
Northwest Neighborhood Commercial Retail , Restaurant, Bi-Mart 
and A]bertsons 
'l 
NOR1H 
COMMUNITY OUTREACH 
The reques ted amendment is a quasi-jud icial plan amendment and must be reviewed 
th rough Washington County's Type III procedure. Th is procedure will involve notice of 
-3-
79648-000 l/ l£GAL2 37 18885 .2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
5 of 223 
a public hearing that will afford an opportunity for public comment. The Community 
Planning Organization will be provided notice and a:n opportunity to participate in the 
public review process. The applicant has. gone beyond the required citizen outreach by 
making a presentation to the Aloha Business Association, meeting with the chair of CPO 
6, Eric Squires, meeting with the Westside Economic Alliance and outreach to the 
neighboring church, Westside Community Church. 
BACKGROUND 
The Aloha area of Washington County is predominately residential, with only 2% of the 
land area being developed commercially, and the largest available commercial site is only 
4 acres. Washington County's Aloha-Reedville Study and Livability Community Plan 
website describes the area a.s having some transit amenities (particularly light rail, which 
is in the far northern part of the area), but: 
Despite strategic advantages, the area has begun to show signs of 
physical and economic decline. Recent analysis indicate that the 
community suffers from gaps in existing services and amenities, 
and needs the jo!;>s and opportunities revitalization and 
development will bring. More information is needed to discover 
why existing plans have not realized the area's full potential. The 
community needs a plan with a shared and supported vision, goals, 
and strategies t~ help it become healthy, vibrant, and sustainable. 
http://www.co.washington.or.us/alohareedville 
Washington County is seeking to remedy these issues through the Aloha-Reedville Study 
and Livable Community Plan 2011-2013, which includes as its stated goals identifying 
local needs and improvements, creating plans to support and sustainable community, 
including safe and accessible walking and bicycling options and improved transportation 
connections. 
The proposed rezoning of the site is ~n opportunity to take an immediate step to address 
the long range concerns by providing the Aloha area much needed commercial services 
in a pedestrian and transited oriented format that will serve as a model as the community 
redevelops. As illustrated on the conceptual plan attached as Exhibit 3b and explained in 
this application, the applicant proposes a "hybrid" zoning designation of CBD, with a 
condition of approval that subjects the development of the site to the transit-oriented 
design standards listed in Exhibit 8. The conditions will reqJlire that the development of 
the site resemble the conceptual site plan, so that it may include pedestrian features such 
as a pedestrian plaza along Farmington Road that would be suitable for a future relocated 
bus stop, extrawide sidewalks and features along streets and pedestrian connections that 
enrich the pedestrian environment. The proposal to conditionally zone the site CBD 
strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging multi-modal transportation and 
serving the immediate needs of the community by providing convenient and needed 
commercial services. · · 
-4-
79648-000 I /LEGAL23718885 .2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
6 of 223 
The rezoning and subsequent development will also provide a much-needed economic 
. boost. The proposed use is expected to create a minimum of 34 construction jobs and 23 
to 31 long tenn jobs. The assessed value of the property will increase to approximately 
$7.5m, which will add a minimum of$80,000 in annual tax revenue, up from $0 because 
of the current property owner's tax exempt status. · 
APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA 
I. Amend DesignatiQn for Tax Lots 800, 910 and 1000 from R-15 to 
Commercial Business De~elopment 
The county's pre-application conference summary and April27, 2012 Notice of 
Incomplete Application identify the general policies and criteria that are applicable to the 
proposed amendment as follows: . 
A. . Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 · 
B. Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 12. 
C: Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area 
Policies l.f.2, 2, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 36, 39, and 40. 
D. Washington County Transportation Plan Polices 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 
15, and 19 . 
. E. Additional Transportation Considerations 
o Transportation analysis demonstrating compliance with the 
Transportation Planning Rule. 
o Access Management Plan 
F. Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan Overview and 
General DesignElements 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 21, . 
including the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain description of the 
Farmington Road Corridor Subarea. 
G. Land Use Districts Purposes and Permitted Uses 305(R-15), 311 (NC), · 
313 (CBD), 375 & 431 (TOD), 430-41 , and 413 . 
H. State Transportation Planning Rule 
I. Metropolitan Housing Rule- OAR 660, Division 7 
-5-
79648-0001 /LEGAL23 71 8885.2 
I 
Exhibit C 
12c222-PA 
7 of 223 
A. Statewide Planning Goals · 
0 
/ 
While not all of Oregon's nineteen statewide planning goals apply to the proposed 
am·endment, the following goals specifically address distinct aspects of the proposed map 
amendment. Additionally, the statewide planning goals are implemented by correl(lting 
polices frotn the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban 
· Areas, which are also addressed in this application. See Section I. C. · 
· Goall -Citizen Involvement 
~. 
To.develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens 
to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 
. . 
Response: The requested amendment is a qmisi-judicial plan amendnient and must be 
reviewed through Washington County's Type III proc.~dure. This ·procedure will involve 
notice of a public hearing that will afford an opportunity for public comment. The 
Community :Planning Organization will be provided notice and· ~m opportunity to 
participate in the public review process. The requested amendment is consistent with . 
· Goall. · 
Goal 2 -Land Use Planning 
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all 
decision and actions related to use ofland and t6 assure ~m adequate factual base for s~ch . 
decisions. · 
Response: This proposed map amendment is consistent with Goal 2 by demonstrating 
compliance with the state, regional, and local land use plim policies established by the 
Department of Land Conservation and Development, Metro, and Washington CountY, 
The subject site is located within an Urban Growth Boundary and is thus subject to the 
policies prescribed for urban lands. The findings in this narrative address applicable 
policies set forth in the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, Metro Regional Functional 
Plan, Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan, Washington County 
Transportation Plan, and Washington County Development Code. 
Goal 9 - Economic Development 
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state. for a variety of economic 
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. 
Response: Goal 9 requires that comprehensive plans for urban areas contain policies 
concerning the economic development opportunities in the community; and provide for at 
least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a 
variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. Goal 9 also 
specifically requires jurisdictions to limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific 
industrial and commercial uses to those which. are compatible with proposed uses . 
-6-
· 79648-000IILEGAL237 !8885 .2 
J 
Exhibit C 
1 2-222~PA 
8 of 223 
The Washington County Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan implements Goal 9 and 
. includes policies concerning growth and development opportunities in the community. 
This narrative includes an analysis of the suitaqility ofthe subject site to accommodate 
uses for economic development (commercial retail) in comparison to. potential alternative 
suitable sites: The proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 9. 
Goal 10·- Housing 
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. 
Response: The applicant is requesting an amendment from 'R-15 to CBD. As addressed 
· in more detail in response to Metro Title I and Policy 18, the CBD zone allows 
. residential development at a density higher than theexistingR-15, so housing 
opportunities are not diminished by the rezone. 
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services 
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public 
facilities and services to serve as a frame~ork for urban and rural development. 
·Response: The subject site is located inside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, within 
unincorporated Washington County and is readily serviceable by public faciiities. · 
Washington CountyComprehensive Framework Plan Policy 14 divides services into 
three categories: Ciiitical, Essential, and Desirable. The applicant has received a 
Statement of Service Availability from each affected serviceproviderand has received · 
favorable responses from each. Service Provider Letters from the required public 
facilities and service providers are included in Exhibits 7a through 7h. The applicant has 
demonstrated that services are available and that adequate capacity exists to serve the 
proposed project. · The request is consistent with Goal 11 . 
( 
Goall2- Transportatidn 
. . 
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. 
Response: Per the requirements ofGoall2 and OAR 660-012, Group Mackenzie 
prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated April 4, 2012, that identifies potential 
impacts to affected transportation facilities, as required by OAR 660-012. Group 
Mackenzie supplemented the TPR TIA on May 10, 2012, in response to questions by the 
County and ODOT, including those raiseq in the County's April27, 2012 Notice of 
Incomplete Application and the May 9, 2012 email correspondence from Washington 
County. 
The April 4th TPR TIA and May 1Oth revised operations analysis determined that the 
zone change would have no significant affect on the transportation system. The 
intersection ofFarmington and 185th Avenue continues to perform at acceptable v/c 
ratios, even under the extreme estimate of worst-case site generation that was included in 
the TIA as a sensitivity analys is. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are required for 
the proposed rezone. ' 
" 
-7-
79648-000 I /LEGAL2371 8885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
9 of 223 
Goal 13 -Energy Conservation 
To conserve energy~ 
.\ 
Response: The design of the transportationsystem in this area provides direct, efficient 
and convenient access. The site~s frontage along Fannington. Road is a transit corridor, 
and the applicant agrees to incorporate many tran~it-oriented design elements into the 
development of the site. · See discussion of Policy 40. For example, theapplicant's 
conceptual site plan proposes a pedestrian, plaza and room for future covered bus shelter 
along SW Farmington Road, which will conserve energy by encouraging the use of 
transit. Exhibit 3b. · . 
Goal 14:.... Urbanization 
· To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to 
accommodate urban population and urba.n employment inside-urban groWth boundaries, 
. . 
to ensure efficient use ofl<ind~ and to provide for livable communities. . · 
Response: The erttire subject property is located within an existing Urban Growth 
Boundary. All required public facilities and services can be ma.de available to the 
·property. The u~e of the site as proposed will contribute to an efficient arrangement of 
land uses within the UGB, and to the efficient use ofurban services, consistent with .the 
directives of this GoaL The proposal does not affect the size ortocation of the UGB. In 
accordance with the findings presented above, the request is consistent with Goal 14. 
B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 
Several titles of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan were 
amended in December 2010 (Ordinance No. 10-12448). The December 2010 
amendments qave not yet been .acknowfedged by LCDC, and are therefore not yet 
effective. This application addr~sses the relevant portions of the currently applicable 
Metro titles. 
Title 1- Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation 
3.07.110 Purpose and Intent 
One goal of the Framework Pl~m is the efficient use of land. Title 1 intends to use land 
within the UGB efficiently by increasing. its. capacity to accommodate housing and 
employment. Title 1 directs each city and county in the region to consider actions to 
increase its capacity and to take action if necessary to accommodate its share of regional 
growth as specified in this title. 
(Ordinance No. 97-7158, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance 02-969B, Sec. 1.) 
3.07.120 Housing and Employment'Capacity 
-8-
79648-000 I /LEGAL237 18885 .2 
I 
' · 
' 
"i. 
A. 
Exhibit c 
12-222-PA 
10 of 223 
' 
Each city and county shall detem1ine its capacity for housing and employment in 
order to ensure that it provides and continues to provide at least the capacity for 
the city or county specified in Table 3.07-1, supplemented by capacity resulting _ 
from addition of territory to the UGB. Local governments shall use data provided 
by Metro unless the Metro Council or the Chief Operating Officer determinesthat 
data preferred by a City or county is more accurate. 
B. · . A city or county shall determine its capacity for dwelling units by cumulating the 
minimum number of dwelling units authorized in each zoning district in which 
dwelling units are authorized. A city or county inay use a higher number of 
dwellings than the minimum density for a zoning district if development in the 
five years prior to the determination has actually occurred at-the higher number. 
Table 3.07-1 · 
Zoned Capacity for Housi ng and Employment Units - Year 1994 to 2017 
Section 3.07.120(A)(1)(b) 
City or Coun ty Dwelling Unit Capacity Job Capacity 
Washington County 51,649 55,921 ·. ~ · 
. / . . (Ordinance No. 97.-7I5B, Sec. I. Amended by Ordinance 02-969B, Sec. l.) 
Response: Title I directs the County to maintain capacity for housing and jobs at the 
level specified in Table 3.07-1. The County's last Title I Compliance:analysis estimated 
that Washington Countyhas capacity for 5I,75I dweliing units and 53,862jobs. See 
Exhibit 2. The County's estimated housing capacity exceeds the target in Table 3.07 -I, 
but falls short of the job capacity target. Because the proposed CBD zone allows both 
housing at a higher density and commercial uses, compared to the R -I5 zone that only 
allows housing, the proposed rezone will slightly improv~ the County's housing and job 
capacity efforts, 
Title I regulates only zoned "capacity," which for housing, is the minimum number ·of 
dwelling units that can be developed under a zoning designation. The approximately 
2.24 acre site has a zoned capacity for approximately 27 units, when the R 15 location 
criteria that require buffers and design features are considered, the zoned capacity of the 
site should be reduced. See Response to Policy 18 . When calculating projected capacity, 
Title I does not consider what is ultimately developed on the site. If it did, the proposed 
rezoning would create a negligible effect on the county's overall minimum zoned 
residential capacity. The loss of27 units out of51,649 is a reduction of0.05% ofthe 
County's housing capacity. If actual construction were considered, the loss would be 
even less because the site's size, configuration, and expected restrictions on acces~ make 
it infeasible to develop the site with the required residential housing while providing the 
required buffers and design features. 
The County's Title 1 Compliance Report and the newly adopted Title I amendments both 
recognize that capacity targets and compliance are not an exact science. The County's 
-9-
79648-000 I/LEGAL237 18885 .2 
' -
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA-
11 of 223 
report explains that it "substantially'' complies with capacity targets when it falls short of . 
a target by 6%. The new Title 1 includes an exception that allows the zoned capacity of a· 
. single lot to be -reduced so long as the reduction has a "negligible effect'' on the county's · 
overall minimum zoned residential capacity. The proposed rezone of a single lot and loss . 
of approximately 27 units, if relevant to a capacity analysis, has the negligible effect of 
reducing the County's overall residential capacity by less than 1%, which means the · . 
County will continue to substantially comply with Title 1 . . Any potential loss in housing 
capacity is offset by the expected minimum 34 constructionjobs and 23 to 31 long term 
jobs that will be created b_y( the deyelopment. 
Title 2- Regional Parking Policy 
3.07.210 Intent 
/ 
The State's Transportation Planning Rule calls for reductions in vehicle mi)es traveled per 
capita and restrictions on construction ofnew parking spaces as a mearis of respon.ding to 
·transportation and land use impacts of growth. The Metro 2040 Growth Conceptcalls for 
more compactdevelopment as a means·to encourage more efficient use~ of land promote 
non-auto trips arid protect air quality. In addition, the federally mandated air quality plari 
adopted by the stat~ relies <?n the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving 1ts transportation 
objectives. Notably, the air quality plan relies upon reducing vehicle trips per capita and 
related parking spaces through minimum and maximum parking ratios. This title 
addresses these state and federal requirements and preserves the quality of life .of the 
regiOn. 
A compact urban form requires that each use of land is carefully considered and that 
more efficient forms are favored over less efficient ones. Parking, especially that 
provided in new developments, can.result in a less efficient land usage arid lower floor to 
area ratios. Parking also has implications for transportation.- In areas where transit is 
provided or other non-auto modes (walking, biking) areconvenient, less parking can be 
provi~ed and still allow accessibility and mobility for all modes, including autos. 
Reductions in auto trips when substituted by non-auto modes can reduce congestion and 
increase air quality. 
(Ordinance No. 97~715B, Sec. 1.) 3.07.220 Performance Standard 
1\. Cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and 
implementing regulations, if necessary, to meet or exceed the following minimum 
stand?rds: 
1. Cities and counties shall require no more parking than the minimum as · 
shown on Table 3.07-2, Regional Parking. Ratios, attached hereto; and 
2. Cities and counties shall establish parking maximums at ratios no greater 
than those listed in the Regional Parking RatiOs Table and as illustrated in 
the Parking Maximum Map. The designation of A and B zones on the 
Parking Maximum Map should be reviewed after the completion of the 
Regional Transportation Plan and every three years thereafter. lf20-
-10-
79648-000I /LEGAL2371 8885 .2 
Exhibit C 
12.-222-PA 
12 of 223 
minute peak hour transit service has become available to an area within a 
one-quarter mile walking distance for bus transit or one-half mile walking 
distance for light rail transit, that area shall be added to Zone A. If 20-
minute peak hour transit service is no longer available to an area within a 
one-quarter mile walking distance for bus transit or one-half mile walking 
distance for light rail transit, that area shall be removed from Zone A. 
Cities and counties should designate Zone A parking ratios in areas with 
good pedestrian access to commercial or employment areas (within 1/3 
mile walk) from adjacent residential areas. · · 
(Ordinance No. 97-7l5B, Sec. 1.) 
Response: Title 2 is implemented by the Community Development Code. Specifically, 
Zone A,Frequerit Transit Areas, and Section 413-15 (maximum off-street parking 
. requirements) of the Community Developri1ent Code. address Title2 requirements, and 
will apply to the development of the site. Therefore, the requested amendment is 
consistent with Title 2. · 
Title 6 - General City, Regional Centers, Town Centers arid Station Communities 
. ., 
. 3.07.610 Purpose and Intent 
The success of the 2040 Growth Concept depends upon the maintenance and 
enhancement of the Central City, Regional and Town Centers and Station Communities 
as the principal centers ofurbart life in the region. Title 6 intends to e_nhance Centers by 
encouraging development in these Centers that will improve the critical roles they play in 
the region and by discoun'lgingdevelopment outside Centers that willdetract from those 
roles. As used in this title, the tem1 "Centers" includes the Central City, Regional and 
Town Centers and Station Communities. 
(Ordinance No. 97-7158, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 98-721A, Sec. 1; 
Ordinance No. 02-9698; Sec. 7.) 
. "' 
Response: The requested amendment will riot impact the County or Region's ability to 
maintain and enhance the Central City (Portland), nor will it detract from the region's 
ability to develop identified Regional Centers. The scale of the requested amendment is 
highly unlikely to have any impact, positive or negative, on the region's ability to provide 
for the development of Centers. The requested amendment is consistent with this Title. 
Title 7- Housing Choice 
3.07.710 Intent 
The Regional Framework Plan calls for establishment of voluntary affordable 
housing production goals to be adopted by local· governments and assistance from local 
governments on reports on progress towards increasing the supply of affordable housing. 
It is the intent of Title 7 to implement these policies of the Regional Framework Plan. 
-ll-
79648-000 l /LEGAL23718885.2 
\ 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
13 of 223 
(OrdinanceNo. 97-715B, Sc:<c . 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2; 
Ordinance No. 06-1129B, Sec. 2.) · 
Response: Title 7 does not include any mandatory approval criteria that apply to this 
application. Instead, Title 7 recommends that local governments establish ·voluntary 
affordable housing production goals. Because the policy statements in Title 7 do not 
contain mandatory approval criteria, it is not applicable to the application. 
Title 8- Compliance Procedures 
3.07.810 Compliance With the Functional Plan 
A The purposes of this chapter are to establish a process for ensuring city oi- c,ounty 
compliance with requirements of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and for 
evaluating and infonning the region about the effectiveness of those requirements. Where 
the terms "compliance" and "comply" appear in this title, the terms shall have the · ·, 
meaning given to "substantial compliance" in section 3.07.1 010. 
(Ordinance No. 97~ 7158, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 98-730C, Sec. 4. 
· Readopted and amended by Ordinance No. 00-839, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No . . 
00-882C, Sec. 2; Ordinance No. 01-925E,Sec. 1; Ordinance No. 02:..972A, Sec. l; 
Ordinance No. 05-1077C, Sec. 6; anq Ordinance No. 10-1244B, Sec. 7) .. · 
Response: Title 8 is directed at the County's general obligations to bring its 
comprehensive plan and land use regulations into compliance with Metro's Urban Growth 
Management Functional Plan. Title 8. does not require that this application demonstrate · 
that the entirety of the County's comprehensive plan and zoning code is in compliance 
with Metro's Functional Plan. • Instead, only the proposed amendment to the County's 
plan designation· is required to comply with the applicable sections of the Functional 
Plan, and compliance is demonstrated by the appiication narrative. 
Title 12- Protection of Residential Neighborhoods 
3. 07.121 0 Purpose and Intent · 
Existing neighborhoods are essential to the success of the 2040 Growth Concept. The 
iritent of Title 12 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is to protect the 
region 's residential neighborhoods .. The purpose of Title 12 is to help implement the 
policy of the Regional Framework Plan to protect existing residential neighborhoods 
from air and water pollution, noise and crime and to provide adequate levels of public 
services. 
· (Ordinance No. 02-969B, Sec. 3.) 
* * * 
3.07'. 1230 Access to Commercial Services 
-12-
· 79648-000I /LEGAL2371 8885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
14 of 223 
/ 
I 
A. In order to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion, and to make commercial retail 
services more accessible to residents of Inner and Outer Neighborhoods, a city or county 
may designate in its comprehensive plan and land use regulations one or more 
Neighborhood Centers within or in close proximity to Inner and Outer Neighborhoods to 
serve as a convenient location of commercial services. · 
) 
B. To ensure that commercial development serves the needs of the residents ofinner and 
Outer Neighborhoods but does not generate excessive traffic, noise or air pollution, a city 
or county that designates aN ~ighborhood Center shall adopt limitations on the scale of 
commercial services in Neighborhood Centers. In a Neighborhood Center, a city or 
county shall not approve: · · 
1. A commercial retail use with more than 20,000 square feet of gross leasable 
area in a single building; or · 
2. Office commercial ~ses with more than 10,000 square feet of gro~sleasable . 
area in a single building or on a single lot or parcel. · · 
(Ordirta11-ce No. 02-969B, Sec. 3.) 
Response: . Title l2 is directed at the County's discretionary authority to designate 
Neighborhood Centers; it does not require the designation of Neighborhood Centers or 
lim!t comm.ercial zoning to a Neighborhood Center. 1 The designation of Centers requires 
compliance with Metro Title 6. The prcipo~ed rezone does not designate a Neighborhood 
Center. Accordingly, neither Title 12 nor Title 6 are applicable to the proposal. 
C. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan PoliCies 
Policy 1 -The Planning Process 
. It is the policy of Washington County to establish an ongoing Planning Program 
which is a responsive legal framework for comprehensive planning and community 
development and accommodates changes and growth in the physical , economic and 
social environment, in response to the needs of the County's citizens. 
· It is the policy of Washington County to provide the opportunity for a l ando\Vn~r 
or hi s/her agent to initiate quasi-judicial amendments to ·the Comprehensive Plan on a 
semi~annual basis. In addition, the Board of Commissioners, the PlanningDirector or the 
Planning Commission may initiate the consideration of quasi-judicial map amendments at 
1 
"Neighborhood Center" is not defined in Metro's Functional Plan and is not a designation on Metro's 2040 
Growth Concept Map (Aloha in the vicinity 'of !85th and Tualatin Valley Highway is designated as a 
· "Town Center" ). The County's Comprehensive Plan and Code do not define a "Neighborhood Center," and 
it is unclear if the County's "Neighborhood Commercial" zone is intended to implement Metro's undefined 
concept of a "Neighborhood Center. 
-13- ' 
79648-0001 /LEGAL23 71 8885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
15 of 223 
"\ 
any time deemed necessary and a landowner or his/her agent may initiate. a quasi-judicial . 
map amendment in a New Urban Area at ariy time during the year. 
Response: The policy statements quoted above do not contain mandatory approval 
criteria. Regarding the policy statement, this application narrative contains applicant's 
request for quasi-judicial amendinents to the county's comprehensive plan. Implementing 
strategy 1 (f) is addressed belo\v. 
Policy 1-: Implementing Strategy 1(0 
f. Approve a quasi-judicial plan amendment for properties outside of New Urban 
Areas to the Primary Districts on the Community Plan Maps and/or the Future · 
Development Areas Map, including the implementing tax maps, only if the Review 
Authority detenriines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed designation 
. conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, and when . 
applicable, the provisions of Policies 40 and 41; th.e CommunityPlan Overvie\V and sub-
area description and design elements; complies with the applicable policies, strategies . 
and systems maps ofthe Transportation Plan; complies with theapplicable regional 
• functional planning requirements established by Metro; and demonstrates that the 
potential service impaCts of the designati<?n will not impact the built or planned service 
delivery system in the community. This is ·a generalized analysis that in no way precludes 
full application of the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided 
. • . . ) . 
in the Code. · 
In addition, the proponent shal(demonstrate one of the following: • 
'> 
2. A lack of appropriately designated suitable alternative sites within the vicinity 
for a proposed use. Factors in detemiining the suitability of the alternative sites are 
lirriited to one of the following: 
a) Size: suitability of the size of the alternative sites to accommodate the 
. proposed use; or 
b) Location: suitability ofthe location ofthe alternative sites to permit the 
proposed use. 
Response: Policy 1 reiterates many of the approval criteria that are·independently 
applicable to the proposal , and addressed els~where in this application, such as 
compliance with Policies 40 and 41 andthe County's Transportation Plan. Those 
responses are not repeated here, but are incorporated by reference. . 
The approval criteria that are unique in Policy 1 are found in Policy 1(f)(2), which 
requires an analysis of alternative sites within the vicinity ofthe site to determine ifthe 
-14-
79648-000 I /LEGAL237 18885 .2 
ExhibitC 
12-222-PA 
16 of 223 
alternative sites are suitable for the proposed use, based upon size or location 
characteristics. Commercial Realty Advisors Northwest LLC (CRA) has provided a 
. market analysis, which is attached as Exhibit 4, that provides evidentiary support for their 
expert opinion that tbere is a lack of CBD zoned alternative sites in the vicinity of the 
project site that are suitable for the proposed use. 
} . 
. ' . 
Consistent with the approval criteria, CRA defined the proposed use as an approximately 
15,000 sfWalgreens and second approximately 3,000 sf building pad, both with drive-
thnis, and the vicinity as 2 miles from the site. CRA then elaborated on size.and location 
characteristics that are required in order for a site to be suitable for .the propos~d use, and 
applied those requirements to each of the 175 CBD-zoned tax lots in the vicinity. CRA 
. concluded that notwithstanding the number of tax lots with_the appropriate zoning, no 
alternative sites are suitable for the proposed use for the following three primary reasons: 
I) The alternative parcels are within the 1.5 mile trade area of the existing 
Walgreens at 199975 SW Tualatin Valley Highway; 
2) The alternative parcels are already developed with commercial uses 
(including a center that includes a competing drug store that has the exclusive right to 
occupy the center); and/or 
3) The alternative parcels are. not at the intersection of busy enough 
roadways. 
CRA's analysis concluded by recommending that the highest and best use of the site was 
a CBD zoning designation, and explained that the market area and population density 
could support viable commercial uses on the site. 
Policy 2- Citizen Involvement 
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage citizen participation in all 
phases of the planni_ng process ahd to provide opportunities for continuing involvement 
and effective communication between citizens and their County government. 
· Implementing Strategies: 
4. Providing opportunities for citizen involvement during the 
formulation, revision and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and all its 
constituent parts, including the Comprehensive Framework Plan, Community 
Plans, Community Development Code, capital improvement plans, and functional 
plans (e.g., transportation, parks and r.ecreation). · 
Response: The requested amendment is a quasi-judicial plan amendment and must be 
reviewed through Washington County's Type III procedure. This procedure will involve 
notice of a public hearing that will afford an opportunity for public comment. The 
Community Planning Organization will be provided notice and an opportunity to 
-15-
79648-000 l /LEGAL23 718885.2 
\ 
Exhibit C 
12~222-PA 
17. of 223 
participate in the public review process. The applicant has gone beyond the required 
citizen outreach by making a presentation to the Aloha Business Association, meeting 
with the chair of CPO 6, Eric Squires, meeting with the Westside Economic Alliance and 
outreach to the neighboring church, Westside Community Church. The requested -
amendment is consistent with Policy 2. 
Policy 14 - Managing Growth 
It is the policy of Washington County to manag·e growth on unincorporated lands 
within the UGB such that public facilities a:nd services are available to support orderly 
. urban development. This policy applies to urban unincorporated lands, except in New 
. . Urban Areas which are subject to Policy.44. . . 
Implementing Strategies · 
The County will: 
e. Apply the· growth management standards to all new development actions 
. as provided in the Community Development Code: 
Response: The entir:e proposed project is located within the existing Urban Growth 
Boundary, and is not in a New Urban Area. Exhibits 7a through 7h include all ofthe 
service provider letters, which is evidence that sufficient public facilities and services are 
available. The proposal does not affect or seek to alter the size or location of the UGB. 
Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with Policy 14. 
Policy 18 - Plan Designations and Locational Cr.iteria for Development 
It is the policy of Washington County to prepare community plans and 
development regulations in accordance with land use categoriesand locational criteria 
centained in the Comprehensive Framework Plan. 
Implementirig Strategies 
The County will : 
a. Utilize the land use classifications for the community planning program 
characterized in this section as plan designations. In detenninirig the appropriate land use 
designations for community land, the location criteria should be utilized. Through the 
preparation of Community Plans the application ofthe plan designations may deviate . 
frqm the general characterizations of those designations. Such deviations shall be 
characterized in the Community Plans. 
-16-
79648-0001 /LEGAL23 718885 .2 . 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
18of223 
Response: The location criteria of each zoning designation provide general guidance, so · 
it is possible that more than one designation may be suitable for a particular site. For 
example, each of the districts includes non-mandatory terms such as "generally" and 
."should." Therefore, the County has <?Onsiderable discretion in determining the 
appropriate designation for a site. The locat~on criteria for the existing R15 zone, 
proposed CBD zone, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Transit Oriented- Retail 
Commercial District (TO-RC) are detailed below; all other designations are obviously not 
applicable to the site. . · ·· . 
As detailed below, the appropriate Hmd use desigriation for the site is CBD. However; 
given the site's location on a transit line, it is appropriate to incorporate some transit . 
. oriented features into the development of the site. Therefore, the applicant offers to have 
the zone change conditioned upon having the development of the site subjectt<? identified 
TOD approval criteria. This "hybrid" zoning designation ofCBD with TOD elements is 
· discussed in more detail in response to Policy 40, and the applicable TOD criteria are 
attached as Exhibit 8. The conditions will require that the development of the site 
resemble the 'conceptual site plan, so that it may include pedestrian features such as a 
pedestrian plaza along Farmington Road thatwould be suitable for a futurerelocated bus 
. stop, extra wide sidewalks and features along streets and pedestrian connections that 
enrich the pedestrian environipent. The proposal to conditionally zone the site CBD · 
strikes an aimropriate balance between encouraging multi-modal transportation and 
serving the immediate needs .of the community by providing convenient and needed 
commercial services. 
R15 . 
* * * 
Location Criteria: Residences in this class should be located on or near 
Neighborhood Routes and Arterials both to allow ready access to transit and discourage 
the use oflocal streets for through traffic. If residences are located at or near Collector~ 
Arterial intersections, construction and design features to buffer the impact of noise and 
·air pollution must be provided. This class of uses should not be located at the intersection 
of two Arterials unless particular care is taken to minimize potential environmental 
impacts . 
If appropriate design features can protect the area from potential adverse impacts, 
adjacent land uses ay include detached and attached residences, retail commercial, office 
commercial and industrial uses, and mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions. 
Response: The site is currently designated R 15, which is a medium density [esidential 
zone that allows attached and .detached residential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. 
The location criteria for the R 15 zone indicate that residential uses should not be located 
. . 
at the intersection of two arterials unless "particular case is taken to minimize the 
potential environmental impacts." The subject site is located .at the intersection of SW 
Fanningtori. Road and SW 185th Avenue, which are both arterials. Design features that 
protect residential uses from potential adverse impacts from adjacent non-residential uses 
-17-
79648-000 1/LEGAL237 18885.2 
\ 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
19 of 223 
are also encouraged. The site's southern boundary is adjacent to detached residential 
uses. All of the other adjacent uses are commercial or institutional, which would warrant 
special design feah.lres, including, but not limited to, additional setbacks and buffering. 
The site's size, configuration, and expected restrictions on access make it infeasible to 
develop the site with the required residential housing while providing the required buffers 
and design features. therefore, the Rl5 designation is not appropriate for the site. · 
' ' . . 
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 
* ** 
Location Criteria: The precise location of these uses should be jointly determined 
by market factors and the community planning process. Generally, they should be located 
at Collector and or Arterial intersections and at interVals a mile apart. These uses may be -_ 
grouped on sites of up to 10 acres. . . 
Response: All quadrants ofthe SW Farmington Road and SW 185th intersection, except 
for the site, are zoned NC, and the total NC-zoned land area is over 10 acres. The subject 
site is ineligible for NC zoning because the NC zone location criteria do not allow for 
commercial nodes in excess of 10 acres. Even if the NC zone was available for the site, it 
is 1;16t ari appropriate zone for the proposed use, which includes art approximately .15,000 
sf drug store, because the zone restricts drug stores to no more than 10;000 sf. CDC 311-
3.14. The NC designation is not appropriate for thesite 
Commmiity Business (CBD) 
* * * / 
Location Criieria: The exact locatjon of CBD sites should be joint! y determined · 
by market factors and the community planning process with consideration of existing 
land use patterns. Generally, a Communi~y Business District location should be at an 
Arterial intersection and on a transit route. 'Fhe distance between a Community Business 
District and any other com~ercial center should be between 2 and 5 miles depending o~ 
market area and population density. 
Response: The Aloha area of Washington County has a severe deficit of commercially 
zones land (only 2% of the land base). A contributing factor to the lack of commercially 
zoned land is the street pattern provides few intersections of arterial streets, including a 
stre.et with a transit route, such as the site. Because the site is one of the few locations in 
Aloha to be located on the intersection of two arterials and on a transit route, it should be 
zoned CBD. 
While the location· criteria suggests that a CBD zoned site should be between 2 and 5 
miles from a commercial center, that is not a mandatory approval criterion and the market 
area and population density support commercial uses in closer proximity. Therefore, the 
proximity of the CBD-zonedFarrnington Mall to the site (approximately 0.25 miles) does 
not detract from the site's suitability for the CBD designation because the market area and 
-18-
79648-000 I /LEGAL23 71 8885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
20 of 223 
. . 
population density support considerably more co~mercial development than is provided 
in Aloha. The site provides an opportunity for viable commercial· development. CRA's 
market analysis, which is attached as Exhibit 4, explains the several reasons the /site is 
well suited for the CBD designation. · 
Because the site is located on a transit li~e, it is appropriate to incorporate some transit 
oriented features into the development of the site. Therefore, the applicant offers to have 
th~ zone change conditioned upon having the development of the site subject to identified 
TOO approval criteria. This "hybrid" zoning designation of CBD with TOO elements is 
discussed in more detail in response to Policy 40, and the applicable TOD criteria are 
attached as Exhibit 8. 
Transit Oriented Districts 
The land use districts described below are intended for application in station 
communities and· to'fn centers; and along main streets and corridors, as defined by the 
Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The land use and design provisions of these districts shall 
direct and encourage development that is transit oriented. Transit oriented development 
generally has the following characteristics: 
• designed to encourage people to walk; 
.. • Gontainsa-mixoflanduses;~- ··· - - --· -- . -- ... -
• . density consistent with the type of transit service provided to the area; 
• interconnected to the street system; 
• includes narrowed neighborhood streets; and 
• designed to accommodate transit stops and access. · 
, Each of the following transit oriented district addresses these characteristics 
through its land use and design provisions: 
Transit Oriented- Retail Commercial District (TO-RC) 
The TO-RC District is primarily intem;led to provide the goods and services 
needed by people living and working in 9r near LRT station communities, regiomil and 
town centers, main streets and corridors. Uses in the district must be pedestrian oriented 
in design and function. Auto-oriented uses, such as motor vehicle service stations, may be 
allowed if appropriately designed, and in compliance with minimum FAR standards. 
Retail uses that market primarily to an area larger than a station community may also be 
allowed if located at least one-quarter mile from an LRT station or in a town center, or 
along a main street or corridor. Hotels, apartments; and town houses are also allow(;!d on 
the upper floors of a building with first floor retail commercial uses. In a station 
community, the minimum FAR in the TO-RC District is 0.5 within one~quarter mile of an 
LRT station, 0.35 between one-quarter mile and one-half mile from an LRT station, and 
0.25 beyond one-half mile from an LRT station. · 
Response: Policy 18 directs the County to determine the appropriate land use 
designation based upon the location criteria listed in Policy 18. The Transit Oriented , 
-19-
79648-000 I/LEGAL23 7 18885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
21 of 223 
Districts (''TODI') do not include a section on location criteria like other designations in 
the County. The only reference to Jocational considerations for designation is TOD 
· designations are intended to be implemented along Metro 2040 Growth Concept station 
communities, town ceriters, main streets andcorridors. A TOD designation is not 
appropriate for the site because neither Farmington Road nor SW I 85th A venue, in the 
vicinity ofthe site, are designated as a corridor (or any of the other listed designations) on 
Metro's 2040 Growth Concept Map. See 
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//concept 01141l.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 5. 
Notwithstanding the lack of a Metro 2040 Growth Concept designation in the vicinity of 
the site, as contemplated by Policy 18, Policy 40 of the County's Comprehensive 
-Framework Plan for Urban Areas designated Farmington Road adjacent to the site as a 
Transit Corridor. The County's rriore aspirational designation of one of the site's 
frontages (SW Farmington Road) as a corridor for bus service does not justify a TOD 
designation for the site. The TOD designations apply to a hierarchy of transit proximate 
sites, with LR T stations and regional centers being the pinnacle, and corridors being the 
lowest rung. The County has implemented the TOD designations by locating them 
almost exclusively proximate to light rail. No sites south of TV Highway carry the TOD 
designation, and the nearest TOD-RC parcel to the site is near the Merlo Road/158th light 
rail station and Nike's World Headquarters. 
- Policy 18's description of TOD focuses primarily on the characteristics and design 
aspects of development that encourage transit use, rather than articulating the kirids of . 
uses that are appropriate. The code foiJows suit-- the Transit Oriented Design Principles, 
Standards and Guidelines section of the code (CDC 431) is 3 7 pages long, and the TOD 
use regulations (CDC 375) are another 12 pages long. This level of regulation is not 
appropriate for a single, isolated 2.24 ~ere site that is in an area of the community that is 
lacks sidewalks and is approximately 2.8 miles from a light rail station and the nearest 
· TOD designated parcel. Washington County's Aloha-Reedville Study and Livability 
Community Plan website describes the area as having some transit amenities (particularly 
light rail, which is in the far northern part of the area), but: 
D,espite strategic advantages, the area has begun to show signs of 
physical and economic decline. Recent analysis indicate that the 
community suffers from gaps in existing services and amenities, 
and needs the jobs and opportunities revitalization and 
. . 
development will bring. More information is needed to discover 
why existing plans have ~ot realized the area's full potential. The 
community needs a· plan with a shared and supported vision, goals, . 
and strategies to help it become healthy, vibrant, and sustainable. 
http: //www.co.washington.or.us/alohareedville 
The Aloha community needs services and jobs, and the CRA market analysis 
demonstrates that the site is appropriate for the proposed use and CBD designation . 
However, in order to be commercially viable, the physical development of the project 
must be responsive to the market demands. In this case, the proposed use must have 
-20-
79648-000 1/LEGAL23718885 .2 
,-
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
22 of 223 
drive-thru's in order to be competitive arid successful. The entirety of the TOD 
regulations is not feasiblefor whatthe market will support at this location at this time. 
For example, drive-thrus are not allowed in the TOD-RC zone. However, the applicant 
. desires to be a catalyst for the Aloha community; and voluntarily offers to incorporate 
many TOD elements in the development ofthe site. The response to Policy 40 elaborates 
upon the TOD design feature that can be accommodated on the site, along with drive- . 
thrus for the two buildings . . The applicant suggests imposing the TOO design features 
listed on Exhibit 8 as conditions of approval on the CBD designation of the site. 
. . ! . 
Policy 20 - Urban· Area Economv 
It is the policy ofWashiri.gton County to encourage and participatein activities which 
strengthen the local economy through: , 
. . 
. ( 1) Retention and expansion of existing businesses and industry; ·. 
(2) Provision ofdiverse employment opportunities; 
(3)Educatiori and training .ofthe local)abor force; and 
( 4) Continued diversification of the County's economic base. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
a. Clarify and streamline the development review process in the Community 
Development Code. Development standards will take into account the availability of 
technology which can mitigate possible negative impacts of business and industrial uses, 
impact which can affect the location and co11duct ofthose uses. 
b. Help create a healthy climate for economic development by designating an 
adequate amount of serviced commercial and industrial land to ensure choice in the 
regional market place. The supply will be subject to periodic review to ensure that the 
economy is not harmed due to the fact that there is not enough land or that the size and 
location of remaining land does not meet market needs. 
c. Take advantage of Federal and State programs, which may become available for 
construction of public faciliti es and services or for other assistance needed to support 
economic development in the County. 
Specific C ounty actions will include continued participation in the Federal 
Community Development Block Grant program. 
Summary Findings and Conclusions 
-21-
79648-000 l /LEGA L23 718885 .2 
Exhibit C 
1~-222-PA 
23 of223 
The County's economic future is optimistic because of the availability ofa good supply 
of land and labor although service devdopmerit and maintenance cost data may be 
inhibiting factors . Washington County may need to undertake public sed or activities to 
attract business and industrial development. The County can assist in economic 
development by assuring an adequate supply of serviced industrial and commercial land, 
In addition, the county-can help by making sure that land available for business and 
industrial development is properly located and accounted ror in facilities planning and . 
that the development review process is clear, consistent, and does .not cause undue delay 
before deCisions are made,. 
~esponse: Policy 20 does· riot 6ontain mandatory app~oval criteria. · The policy simply . 
descripes the County's aspinitional goal of encouraging and participating irt activities that 
wili strengthen the local economy. While Policy 20 does notinGlude ~riteria' that apply to 
this quasHudicial plan amendment application, approving the proposal is consistent With 
. . ' 
Policy 20 qnd its implementing strat.egie~. · · 
As relevant to the proposal, Policy 20 and its strategies .strive to stimulate the economy . 
by designating "an adequate amount of se.rviced commercial. .. land to .ensure choice in 
the regional market place," · an effort that will provide "diverse employrrient 
opportunities" and "continued diversification of the County's economic base." The Aloha 
· area of Washington County desperately rieeds diversification of zoning, services and 
employment opportunities. Aloha is predominatelyresidential, with only 2% of the land 
. area being developed 'commercially, and the largest available commercial site is only 4 
acres. 
This severe imbalance of land designations and the related need for stimulating the local 
economy can be addressed, in part, by the proposed map amendment. The rezoning and 
subsequent development will provide a much-:needed econo.mic boost. The proposed use 
is expected to create a minimum of 34 construction jobs and 23 to 31 long tem1 jobs. _yhe 
assessed value ofthe property will increase to approximately $7.5m,which will add a 
minimum of $80,000 in annual tax revenue, up from $0 because of the current property 
owner's tax exempt status. 
The Aloha community needs commercially zoned land, services and jobs. · The CRA · 
market analysis demonstrates that the site is appropriately located for the proposed use 
and CBD designation. The site is serviced: Approving the proposed map amendment is 
consistent with Policy 20. · 
Policy 21- Housi~g Affordability 
It is the policy ofWashington County to encourage the housing industry to 
provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for all households in the . 
unincorporated urban County area. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
-22-
79648-000 I/LEGAL23 718885.2 
· .. 
J 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
24 of 223 
a. Provide for an average overall density for new housing constructed in the · 
urban unincorporated area of at least 8 units per net buildable acre, and at least 10 units 
per net buildable acre in New Urban Areas. 
f. Encourage compatible development in partially developed residential areas to 
make optimal use of existing urban service facility capacities and maximize use of the 
supply of residential tan d. · 
Response: As explained in response to Policy 18, the site is not appropriate for 
- residential development because it is at the intersection of two arterial streets and is 
surrounded on three sides by commercial, and institutional uses. The land cost, required 
,buffering, landscaping and design features , coupled with the required density, site size, 
configuration and expected access liniitations means that if the site could be developed 
. with a viable residential use, the cost of the project would result in market rate housing, 
unless significant subsidies were available~ Quite simply, developing the site with 
affordable housing would not encourage compatible development, and is inconsistent 
with Policy 21. Therefore, the County's ability to satisfy the aspirations of encouraging 
affordable housing is not compromised by rezoning this site CBD. 
· Policy.22- Housing Choice and Availability 
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the housing industry to make 
a variety of housing types available, in sufficient quantities, to the housing consumer. 
Response: Policy 22 does not contain mandatory approval criteria. }he policy simply 
describes the County's aspirational goal of encouraging a variety of housing types. As 
explained.throughout this application, the site is not suitable for residential use, so 
redesignating the site for commercial purposes will not undermine the County's ability to 
encourage a variety ofhousingtypes. Policy 22 is satisfied. -
·Policy 23 - Housing Condition 
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the niaintenance and 
rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in unincorporated areas. 
Response: The site is currently vacant, so Policy 23's aspirations related to maintaining 
existing housing stock is not applicable . 
Policy 30 - Schools 
It is the poli'cy of Washington County to coordinate with school districts and other 
educational institutions in planningfuture school facilities to ensure proper location and 
safe access for students. 
Implementing Strategies 
/ 
-23-
79648-000 1/LEGAL237 18885.2 
/ 
,. 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
25 of223 
The County will : 
a. Include as an element of the Resource Document of the Comprehensive 
· Plari, the School Facility Plaris adopted by high growth school districts pursuant to ORS 
195.110. The County will also provide notice to the affected high growth school district 
when considering a 'plan or land use regulation amendment that affects school capacity. 
Response: The pr9posed amendment is not expected to affect school capacity because, 
although the CBD zone allows residential use, as desc.ribed throughout this application, . 
residential development is infeasible on the site. Instead, the site's characteristics . . 
facilitate commercial development, which does not create demarid oh school districts. 
The site is located in the .Beaverton #48 School E>istrict, which provided a service 
provider letter that confirmed that the service level is adequate to serve the proposed 
project. Exhibit 7f. The requested arnendtnent to conv~rt the site from a residential 
designation to .a commercial designation will actually improve school: capacity and is 
consistent with Policy 30. · · 
Policy Jl_._ Fire and Police Pr otection 
It is the poUcy of Washington County.to work closely with appropriate. service 
providers to assure that all areas of the County continue to be served with .an adequate· 
level of fire and police protection. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
a. Require in the Community Development Code that: 
1. New developments are designed to permit access and maneuyering 
by fire, police and other emergency vehicles; 
2. Water service is available to new developments at sufficient 
pressures for both domestic consumption and fire protection purposes; and 
3. · . The appropriate fire district and the County Department of Public 
Safety have the opportunity to review and comment on all development proposals 
subject to the growth management standards. 
Response: The applicant is requesting approval of a comprehensive plan amendment. 
Subsequent development will be required to receive development review approval, at 
which time the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with provisions 1 
and 2 set forth above. The applicant has attached service availability statements from the 
·washington County Sheriffs Department and the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue within 
Exhibits 7g and 7c demonstrating that both agencies had the opportunity to review imd 
-24-
79648-000 l/LEGAL23 718885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
26 of223 
comment on this proposaL The requested amendment is consistent with the intent and 
purpose of Policy 31. 
Policy 32 -Transportation 
It is the policy of Washington County to regulate the existing transportation 
system and to provide for the future transportation needs of the County through the 
development of a Transportation Plan as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan; 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
g. Amendments to the Community Plans shall be consistent with the . 
r . . 
applicable policies and strategies ofthe Transportation Plan. 
Response: The applicant ;understands that it is th.e policy ofWashingto~ County to 
regulate the existing transportation system and to provide fot fut:ure transportation needs 
. . 
. of the County through the development ofa Transportation Plan as an element of the 
Comprehensive Plan. Group Mackenzie prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated 
April 4, 20 12 ~ that identifies potential impacts to affected transportation facilities, as 
required by OAR 660-012 and Policy 32. Group Mackenzie supplemented the TPR TIA 
on May I 0, 2012, in response to questions by the County and ODOT, including those 
raised in the County's April27, 2012 Notice of Incomplete Application and the May 9, 
2012 email correspondence from Washington County. 
The originalTPR TIA and May lOth revised operations analysis determined that the zone 
change would have no significant affect on the transportation system. The intersection of 
Fami.ington and I 85th Aven:ue continues to perform at acceptable v/c ratios, even under 
the extreme estimate of worst-case site gen~ration that was included in the TIA as a 
sensitivity analysis . Accordingly, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed 
rezone. 
Policy 36 ...,. Commercial Conservation 
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage energy-saving building 
practices in existing and future commercial structures. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will : 
a. Encourage cluster development of mixed uses, with a variety of 
commercial, office, residential uses, to promote energy conservation and to allow more 
efficient centralized energy systems. 
-25-
79648-000 I/LEGAL23 718885 .2 
Ei<hibitC 
12-222"PA 
27 of 223 
b. Discourage strip..:commercial development .and other scattered office-
commercial development. . ' - ' 
Response: Policy 36 does not include mandatory approval criteria; it is ~m aspirational . 
. policy statement Nonetheless, the proposed CBD desigrtati9n coupled with the transit-
oriented development design elements and proximity to transit are. factors that will 
encourage energy-efficient development and discourage a single building, multi-tenant, 
strip commercial development ' ' . 
Policy 39 .._,Land Use Conservation 
It i~the policy ofWas~ington County to develop land use strategies which take 
advantage of density and· location to reduce the need to travel, increase access to transit, 
_increase the use of alternate modes of transportation, inciuding transit, and permit · 
building configurations which increase the efficiency of heating and cooling residences. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will: 
a. Limit low-density sprawl development, and create a multi-centered land 
use pattern in the preparation of Coinmunity Plans to decrease travel needs. 
b. Encourage infilling of passed-over vacant land and revitalization of older 
areas, especially where a major transpm1ation corridor is close by. 
Response: Rezoning the site to CBD will serve as a catalyst for redevelopment of the · 
southeas"t quadrant of a major intersection in the Aloha Reedville area. If the existing 
Rl5 zoning is retained, the church-owned property will continue to stay vacant because 
developing the site ~ith residential uses is infeasible. The applicant is willing to accept 
as conditions of approval that particular transit-oriented design elements apply to the 
CBD zone site (see response to Policy 40), whi9h will require that the development of the 
site include transit-supported elements while also serving uses that are convenient to 
automobiles (i.e., drive-thru). The proposed zoning and conditions represent an 
appropriate solution for the market demands on the site in a manner that is consistent 
with the community's long-range vision for revitalizing the area. 
Policy 40- Regional Planning Implementation 
It is the policy of Washington CountY: to help fornmlate and locally implement 
Metro 's regional growth. management requirements in a manner that best serves existing 
and future residents and businesses. 
Response: The narrative addresses applicable policies set forth in the Metro Regional 
Functional Plan. Additionally, this narrative addresses Washington County's local 
-26-
79648-000 I /LEGAL23 71888S.2 
/ 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
28 of 223 
implementation strategies to demonstrate compliance with regional planning 
implementation. 
Implementing Strategies 
The County will : 
e. · Require applicants proposing plan map amendments to demonstrate that 
their proposal is consistent with the applicable 2040 Growth Concept Design Type. 
f. Plan amendment approvals may be conditioned by the Review Authority 
in a mannerthat will promote excellence of urban design. Good design involves both · 
building and site design and their relationship to neighboring uses in order to: ensure a 
sens~- of place and personal safety; create a development pattern conducive to face to face 
community interaction; and, encourage multi-modal means oftransportation. 
Design Type Characteristics 
Transit Corridors: Tr.ansit Corridors generally include areas along transit routes 
that have or will. have frequent service. Transit Corridor development will include a mix 
of complementary land uses, including rowhouses, duplexes, apartments, office or retail 
buildings, institutional uses and mixed commercial and residential uses. Commercial and · 
offices uses will be allowed at specific points along the Transit Corridors and not in a 
linear matter that promotes strip commercial development and traffic congestion. 
Collectively, these land uses will generate increased pedestri~m and transit ridership. 
Therefore, these areas will feature a high-quality pedestrian environment with wider 
sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. Transit Corridors will evolve into environments that 
provide for walking, cycling and transit. Mixed-use development will enhance the vitality 
of businesses since they can provide services foremployees during the day and goods and 
services to area residents during the evening. 
Response: As noted in response 'to Policy 18, neither Farmington Road nor SW 185th 
Avenue, in the vicinity ofthe site, are designated as a corridor (or any ofthe other listed 
designations) on Metro's 2040 Growth Concept Map. See 
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//concept 01141 Lpdf Exhibit 5. However, a County 
map implementing Policy 40 designates Farmington Road adjacentto the site as a Transit 
Corridor: It is not clear if the County's more aspirational designation of one of the site's 
frontages (SW Farmington Road) as a corridor for bus service triggers the transit corridor 
design type characteristics in Policy 40. The basis for the County's transit corridor 
designation is unclear. Currently, two Tri-Met bus line runs along SW Farmington Road 
in the vicinity of the site (line 52 and 88), and neither line is a frequent service route. 
http://trimet.org/schedules/freguentservice.htm. Only bus line 88 has a stop at the site. 
According to Tri-Met's website, due to budget concerns, Tri-Met is reducing the number 
for frequents ervice route~ , not increasing them, so it does not appear that either line is 
planned to be a frequent service line. 
Regardless of the ambiguity of if the site is a transit corridor, and the basis for that 
COUf!!Y designation , the applicant desires to be a catalyst for the Aloha community. 
-27-
79648-000 !/LEGAL237 18885 .2 
· Exhibit C' 
12-222-PA 
29 of 223 
.) 
J 
Therefore, the applicant voluntarily offers to incorporate many TOD design elements in 
the development ofthe ·site, which will promote excelience in design and encourage 
multi-modal transportation. The applicant's conceptual site plan is attached as Exhibit 
3b. The development isnot linear or a "strip" commercial development. Instead, the 
applicant has strived to incorporate as many high-quality pedestrian environment features 
as possible. The pedestrian amenities are balanced with .the drive-thrus for each building, 
which are necessary for a vital commerc~al use' in the market area. Examples of the · 
features that contribute to a multi-modal environment on the site include: 
• a pedestrian plaza along Farmington Road that would be Sl!itable for a future 
relocate'!_ bus stop; 
· • orienting the Walgreen's entry towards the corner and plaza in a manner that 
integrates the pedestrian plaza and sidewalks for better pedestrian connectivity; 
~ pedestrian oriented features, suchas colonnades at the corner of SW Farmington 
and SW 185th that create an urban feel and add pedestrian interest, while 
maintaining sightlines; . . 
• . new landscape strips and. extra wicle sidewalks along both frontages that w111 
increase pedestrian circulation and accessibility ori and around the site; · . 
• on site bollards,. site lighting and pedestrian paths that tie the site into the newly 
created pedestrian connections; and 
_/ 
. • sustainabie building design features such as shading devices and shelving that day 
. light the interior ·and lower air conditioning requireme11ts and native landscaping 
that reduces irrigation requirements while completing the pedestrian environment. . 
The applicant requests that the County approve the CBD zoning designation, find that 
drive-thrus are appropriate for the site, and impose as a condition of approval that the 
TOD de~ign elements requited by the criteria listed on Exhibit 8 be imposed on the 
propertY: · 
D. Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan 
·~ 
1.0- Travel Needs Policy 
It is the policy of Washington County to provide a multi-modal transportation 
system that accommodates the diverse travel need~ of Washington County residents and 
businesses. 
Response: The proposed amendment would not impact the County's ability to provide a 
multi-modal transportation system: for residents and businesses that includes convenient 
and balanced transportation options forpede~trians, bicycles, and vehicles. The site is 
located along an existing transit corridor (SW Farmington Road), with a bus stop ·. 
(without a shelter) for Tri-Met bus route 88; which runs approximately every 30 minutes 
during peak hours . . Tri-Met bus route 52 passes by the site, but does not have a stop. The 
/ -28-
79648-000 l/LEGAL23718885 .2 
\ • 
I ' 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
30of 223 
multi-modal system will be enhanced when the site is developed with rnimy transit-
oriented features, such as extra wide si<;:lewalks and a pedestrian plaza. Access and · 
convenience for cars will be maintained thro].lgh the proposed drive-thrus. Sidewalks 
will be built to provide for pedestrian circulation. The proposal is consistent with this 
policy. · · 
2.0 -'- System Safety Policy 
It is the policy of Washington County to provide a transportation system that is 
safe. 
) 
. \ 
Response: Future developmentofthe site will provide a safe transportation system that 
includes convenient ~ and balanced transportation options for pedestrians, bicycles, and 
\_ vehicles. Future development proposals will be subject to review for compliance with 
design requirements implemeri.tedin the Washington County Development Code that are -
intended to provide for a safe transportation system. 
4.0 - System Funding Policy 
. \ 
\ It is the policy of Washington County to aggressively seek adequate arid reliance 
funding for transportation facilities and services, and to ensure that funding is equitably 
raised and allocated. -
Response: The applicant is willing to comply with any reasonable a:nd equit'!.ble solution 
· to funding transportation improvements found to be proportional and related to the 
proposed impact of the development. 
5.0 - System Implementation and Plan Management Policy 
It is the policy of Washington Countyto efficiently implement the transportation ·· 
plan and to efficiently manage thetransportation system. 
-, 
_ Response: The applicant has filed a separate Access Management Plan application for 
the proposed development of the site; a-process that will allow the applicant, County and 
other agencies to work together to identify transportation issues relative to the proposed 
developinent. 
6.0 -Roadway System Policy 
1 It is the policy of Washington County to ensure that the roadway system is 
designed in a m~nner that accommodates the diverse travel needs of all users of the 
transportation system. 
Response: The applicant understands that future proposed development must comply 
with local street connectivity, access management, parking, and other applicable 
regulations in the Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, Transportation 
Plan, and State Transportation Planning Rule. Compliance with these standards will be 
ensured by the County during subsequent land use reviews, such as the Access 
\ 
-29-
- 79648-000 11LEGAL237 18885.2 
/ --
/ 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
31 of 223 
r.· 
-..., 
Management Plan application that the applicant has filed . The present amendment • 
proposal does riot seek to eliminate or alter any transportation opportunities. As noted 
elsewhere in this ·application, the multi.;modal system will be enhanced when the site is 
developed with many.transit:-oriented features, such as such as extra wide sidewalks and a 
pedestrian plaza; ·Access and convenience for cars will be maintained through the 
prop<?sed drive-thrus. · · 
10.0- Functional Classification Policy 
It is .the policy-of Washington County to ensure the roadway system is designed 
and operates efficiently" through use a roadway functional classification system. · 
Strategies: \ 
10.1 Applythe Washington C~unty roadway ~ystem functjonakclassificatiort 
system described below and illustrated in the Fl_lnctional Classification System Map (See 
Figures 4a-f). · 
Functional Classification Descriptions:·. 
. . . . . . . 
B. Arterial Streets interconnect and support the Principal Arterial highway. 
I ' • • 
system. ·· 
Arterials intended to provide general mobility for travel within th~ region. 
Correctly sized Arterials at appropriate intervals .allow-through trips to remain on the . 
Arterial system thereby discouraging use of Local streets for cut-through traffic. Arterial 
streets link major commercial, residential, industrial-and institutional areas . 
. Characteristics of Arterials include: · 
' 
• Arterials serve as primary conneCtions to Principal Arterials, and should .. 
. also connect to other Arterials, Collector and Local streets, where · 
appropriate. 
• Arterials in the rural area provide urban~to~urban secondary connections to 
neighboring cities, and -farm-to-market access between urban and rural 
areas. Urban-to-urban rural Arterials provide key connections to the 
regional motor vehicle system and 2040 land-use components inside the 
urban growth boundary. Farm-to-market rural Arterials provide farm-to- , 
market access betweenurban and rural areas. Most rural Arterials serve a 
mix of urban-to-urban and fann-to-market traffic. 
• Arterials provide freight movement in support of Principal Arterials. 
\ .. 
• Arterials have moderate access control for cross streets and driveways . 
Typically, residential driveways are not allowed access to Arterials. 
Response: The site has frontage on two arterials streets, SW Fam1ington Road and 
S W I 85th A venue.-In a separate, but parallel, land use process the applicant is pursuing 
-30-
79648-000 I /LEGAL237 18885.2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
32 of 223 
an Access ManageinentPlan for theproposed drugstore and second building pad (both · 
with drive-thrus). The AMP process will ensure that the functionality, efficiency and 
safety of the arterial streets will be maintained. 
12.0 -Transit Policy . 
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage and support development of 
transit facilities and services that increase transit use in Washington County. 
Strategies: 
.\ 
._ 12.5 Ensure that road impro-vements and private developme~t in close 
proximity to major bus stops, commuter rail stations ~nd existing and proposed light rail 
stations include appropriate features to support and coni.plementexisting and future 
transit services. · 
Response: . The site is locateq along an existing transit ·corridor (SW Fam1ington Road), 
with a bus stop (without a shelter) forTriMet bus route 88; which runs approximately 
every 30 minutes during peak hours. Future development proposals will be subject to 
review for compliance with design requirements implementedin the Washington -County 
Development Code at which point in time confonnance with this standard and the TOD · 
elements that are conditioned on the site will be assured. As noted elsewhere in this 
application, increased' transit usage will be encouraged when the site is developed with .. 
uses allowed in the CBD zone,which are uses that provide services to the surrounding · 
community (i.e., the proposed drugstore). Additionally, the transit system will be 
enhanced and transit ridership will be encouraged when the site is developed with many 
transit-oriented features, such as extra wide sidewalks (where there currently are 
none ).and a pedestrian plaza. 
14.0- Pedestrian Policy 
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage and support greater pedestrian 
activity in the county by providing and maintaining an environment .where walking is a 
safe, convenient and pleasant mode oftravel. 
Strategies: 
14.5 Require that new urban development provide for . safe, convenient and 
pleasant pedestrian travel as provided through the Transportation Plan, the Community 
Plans and/or the Community Development Code. 
Response: Like much of the Aloha Reedville area, the site currently does not have 
sidewalks. Upon development ofthe site, sidewalks in compliance with County 
standards will be installed on both frontages. Additionally, the transit-oriented 
-31-
79648-000 I /LEGAL23 718885 .2 
-./ 
\ 
Exhibii C 
12-222-PA 
33 of 223 
development elements that the applicant voluntarily agrees to impose as conditions of ·. 
approval will result in a development that is more attractive for pedestrians. For 
example, the concept plan at Exhibit 3b features a pedestrian plaza at the front entrance 
of the proposed drugstore. 
15.0 ~Bicycle Policy 
. . .. 
It is the policy ·o[Washin:gton County to encourage and support greater bicycling 
·activity in Washington County by providing an environment in ~hich bicycling is -a safe 
· andconvenient mode of traveL . · 
Strategies: 
"" 
. . 
15 .II ·. Require design features for bicycle facilities to be incorporated . in new 
.urban developme1,1ts, including bicyele access and p·arking facilities in accordance with 
the Community Development Code. · · · 
. . . . . 
Respo~se: When the site develops, the-project ~ill comply with all community . 
developim;nt code sta~dardsrehited to bicycle facilities. · 
19.0- Transportation-Planning Coordination and Public Involvement Policy · 
It is the policy of Wasl)ington County to coordinate its transportation planning 
with local, regional, state and federal agencies and to provide opportunities for citizens to 
participate .in planning processes. 
. . . . . 
Response: The applicant will _participate in the public involvementprocess for the 
proposed plan amendment and during the future development review proc~ss . . 
· E. . Additional Transportation , Consideration~ 
o Transportation Analysis Showing Compliancewith the 
. Transportation Planning Rule and ODOT Requirements 
Response: Group Mackenzie prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated April4, 
2012, that identifies potential impacts to affected transportation facilities, as required by 
OAR .660-0I2. Group Mackenzie supplemented the TPR TIA on May 10, 2012, in 
response to questions by the County and ODOT, including those raised in the County's 
April27, 2012 Notice oflncomplete Application anqthe May 9, 2012 email 
correspondence .from Washington County. 
The original TPR TIA and May 1Oth revised operations analysis determined that the zone 
change would have no significant affect on the transportation system. The intersection of 
Farmington an<i I 85th Avenue continues to perform at acceptable v/c ratios, even under 
the extreme estimate of worst-case site generation that was included in the TIA as a 
-32-
79648-000 1/LEGAU37 18885.2 
) 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
34 of 223 
\ 
sensitivity analysis. Accordingly, no mitigation measu~esarerequired for the proposed 
rezone. .\ 
0 Access Management Plan 
Response: As noted elsewhere, the applicant has filed a separate Access 
Management Plan application for the proposed development of the site; a process that 
will allow the applicant, County and. other agencies to work together to identify 
transportation issues rela~ive to the proposed development. . 
. I • 
F. Aloha~Reedville-Cooper Mountain CommunityPlan 
General Design Element7 
· All new subdivisions, attached unit residential developments, .and commercial · 
d~velopments shall provide for pedestrian/bicycle pathways which allow public access 
through or along the developmentand connect adjacent developments and/or sh0pping 
areas, schools, public transit, arid park and recreation sites. · 
General Design Element 8 
Pedestrian/bicycle pathways identified in the County's Transportation Plan and 
this community ph'm ·shall be included in the design of road improvements that are 
required 9f new developments to meet the County's growth management policies. 
General Design Element 9 
The County shall emphasize non..:auto (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) measures -
as an interim solution to circulation issues. These measures shall be used to facilitate 
access to transit centers. 
Response: Upon application for specific development, pedestrian/bicycle pathways will 
be provided in accordance with this design element. The transit-oriented .design elements 
that the applicant has agreed to impose as conditions of approval on the plan amendment 
will further emphasize pedestrian and bicycle amenities through the site. For example, 
the concept plan at Exhibit 3b depicts the internal pedestrian circulation system, the 
proposed pedestrian plaza at the front entrance of the Walgreens and the proposed bus 
shelter. Additionally, like many sites in the Aloha Reedville area, the site currently does 
not have sidewalks. Upon development ofthe site, 20 feet of right of way willbe 
dedicated on both frontages and sidewalks that comply with or exceed County standards 
will be installed on both frontages. 
General Design Element 10 
... 
Noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into all new developments located 
adjacent to arterial or Collector streets or rock quarries. Noise reduction alternatives will 
include vegetative buffers, berms, walls and other design techniques such as insulation, 
set backs, and orientation of windows away from the road. 
" " -.) .) -
79648-000 I/LEGAL237 18885 .2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
35 of 223 
General Design Element 11 
Where the impact of noise and lighting associated with commercial development 
does not meet the standards in the Community Development Code; the commercial · 
development shall be subj~ct to limited hours of operation. . . 
Response: Upon application for specific development, noise reduction measures that are 
appropriate for coriupercial development will be considered, in accordance with these 
policies and theWashingto11 County Development Code. · 
. General Design Element l i . 
. .. 
. New development withiri the Planning Area shall be connected to public water ··. 
and sewer service; except as specified in the Community Development Code. . 
Response: Upon application for specific development, required public water and sewer 
will be installed and connected in accordance with the Washington County Development 
Code .. 
General Desh!ii' Element 13 
New dev~lopment shall, when determined appropriate through the development 
review process, de_dicate right-of-way for road extensions and alignments indicated on . 
Washington County's Transportation Plan or the A-loha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain 
·Community Plan. New development shall also ·be subject to conditions set forth in the 
County's growth management policies during the development review process. 
Response:. Upon application for specific development, a right-of-way will be dedic~ted 
· in accordance with the Washington County2020 Transportation Plan qnd the Aloha-
. Reedville.:.Cooper Mountain Community Plan. As depicted on the conceptual site plan 
attacDed at Exhibit 3b, in accordance with preliminary discussion with County staff, the 
applicant anticipates dedicating 20 feet right-:of-way along both street frontages ; and has 
designed the development accordingly. . · 
General Design Element 14 
Maintenance of existing housing and neighborhoods in the community shall be 
encouraged through public financial assistance where appropriate(e.g., Federal 
Community Devdopment 'Block Grant funds) and through consistent enforcement of the 
Community Development Code. · 
Response: The site is vacant and is not located in an existing residential neighborhood; -. 
so the design element related to maintai_ning existing housing in neighborhoods is not 
applicable. · 
../ 
-34-
79648-000 l /LEGAL237 18885 .2 
\ 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
36 of 223 
General Design Element 15 
) 
New access onto Anerial and Collector streets shall be limited. Shared or 
· consolidated access shall be required prior to the issuance of a development permit for 
land divisions or structures located adjacent to these facilities, unless deinonstrat~d to be 
infeasible. . 
Response: Upon application for specific development, access onto Artetial streets to the 
site will be evaluated for compliance with the Washington County Pevelopme11t Code, . 
In a separate but parallel land use reviewprocess; the County is reviewing the applicant's 
proposed Access Management Plan forthe proposed development of the site. The AMP 
wili ensure compliance with General Desigt~ Element 15. 
General Design Element 16 
-.... 
Bicycle parking facilities shall be required as apart of all commercial; industrial 
and institutional developments. Residential developments which have par'l~ing lot~ or20 
0[ more spaces shall provide bicycle parking facilities , .. '- . 
Response: Upoh application for specific development, bicycle parking facilities will be 
included in design of the development proj'ect. . · .. · 
· Genei·al Desig~ Element 21 
The required amount of parking for development shall be determined by the 
Parking Maximum Designations and the standards of the Community Development 
Co&. J · 
Response: Upon application for specific development, Parking Maximum Designation 
measures in accordance with this policy and· the Washington County Development Code 
. will be provided. 
Farmington Road Corridor Subarea 
The Farmington Road corriqor angles diagonally across the planning area in a 
west/southwest direction. Farmington is an arterial with some transit service. Some 
properties along Farmington are already developed with higher intensity uses including 
the Fam1ihgton Mall , a few convenience stores, several apartment projects, tWOJTIObile 
home parks, Mountain View Middle School, and three churche,s, The Jenkins Estate, 
operated by Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), is located southwest of 
the intersection of Farmington Road and 209th Avenue. Transportation access. and public 
transit service make many properties in this corridor, including most developable and 
redevelopable properties up to one-quarter mile north and south ofFarmington, suitable 
for higher intensity use. 
-35-
79648-000 l /LEGAL23 718885.2 
'-, 
Exhibit C · 
12-222-PA . 
37 'of 223 
The Community Plan map showsthree Neighborhood Commercial centers .· 
· located along Farmington at its intersections with 170th; 185th, 195th and 209th 
A venues. All of these are located approximately one mile from ·other commercial areas, 
with the exception ofthe .. Neighborhood Commercia(properties at L85th and Farmington, · 
· which are abo4t a quarter mile from the Fannington Mall. ·.· · 
. Other undeveloped or underdeveloped properties along or near Farmington, but 
. away from major intersections~ are approprtately designated for residentiaL development 
at up to 15 or 24 units per acre. The highest. qensities,occur close to commercial centers; 
especially around Farmington Mall and the planned Neighborhood Commercia1 center at . 
· Farmington and 156th. Thelatteris also close to a park arid ridefacility(see'the 
characterization. of the Tualatin Valley Highway corridor), and a major employinent 
center (St. Mary's property/Tel<.tronix/Floating Point Systetns/N.ike ). ' 
The. area to the west of209th Avenue, b(!tween: Fa~ington Rpadand Rosedale 
Road, was added. to the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002 and is designated Future 
Development- 20 Acres (FD~20). The area is appr'oximately 45 acres .in size. The . 
predominant l'and use is resideritial/agricultural on small acreage. The area shall maintain 
the FD-20 designation until the planning for this new urb.an area is complete. The 
· planning for this area shall be consistent with the requirements oftheComprehensive· 
· Fr~mework Plan for the Urban Area and Title 11 o!Metro's Urba11 Growth Management · 
Functional Plan. ' 
Response: The Farmington Road corridor subarea does not include arty criteria that are 
applicable to the site. However, redesignating the site to CBD is generally consistent 
- with the subarea's description ofthe intersection ofSW Farmington Road andSW 185th 
A venue as being a commercial node and having residential designations located away 
from major intersections::. 
G. Community Development Code 
. \ 
Response: Development is not proposed as part of this application, but the applicant . 
intends to seek entitlements for the proposed use (an approximately 15,000 sfWalgreens 
· and a second appr6ximately·3,000 sfbuildingpad, both with drive-thrus) immediately 
after the site's zone is changed to CBD. The pre-application notes listed SDC Sections 
305 (R-15), 311 (NC), 313 (CBD), 375 and 431 (TOD), Sections 430-40 (Standards for · 
Drive-in or Drive-up Establishments) and 413 (Off-Street Parking- Zone A) as · 
applicable regulations. Because development is not yet proposed, and if the application 
is approved, not all of the listed sections of the CDC will apply to the site (i.e., the R15 
standards), all of the criteria· listed in the pre-application notes do not apply to the zone 
change application. Nonetheless, the application provides briefresponses to each of the 
sections listed in the pre-application conference notes. 
·,, 
-36-
79648-000 I/LEGAL23718885.2 
-, 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
38 of 223 
305- R-15 District (Residential15 Units Per Acre) 
305-1 __,Intent and Purpose 
'-.. 
The intent and purpose ofthe-- R-(5 District is to implem:ent the policies of the 
Comprehensive Plan for areas desigmited for residential development at no more than 
fifteen (15) units per acre and no less than twelve ( 12) units per aci-e, except as otherwise 
specified by Section 300-2 or Section 300-5. 
. . . 
Response: As described elsewhere in this application, the site'scharacteristics make 
residential development infeasible for the site, so the intent and purpose ofthe R-15 
District cannot be implemented under the current designation. Additionally, the proposed ·. 
use ofthe site, an: approximately 15,000 sfWalgreens arid asecond approximately 3,000 
sf building pad(bothwith drive-thrus), is not permitted i~ the R~15 zone: · · 
311- Neighborhood Commercial District 
:ni-l- Intent and Purpose 
- . 
. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial District is to allow small to medium sized 
shopping and service facilities 'and limited office use in Neighborhood Commercial 
Centers. This District is intended to provide for the shopping and service needs of the 
immediate urban neighborhood. Neighborhood Commercial locations should be easily 
accessible by car and foot frorn neighborhoods in the area. Centers should have minimal 
negative irnpact on surroui1ding residential properties. 1 . · 
Response: The Neighborhood Commercial District is not appropriate for the site · 
because the locational factors for the district provide that neighborhood commercial 
districts cannot exceed 10 acres in size. Policy18 . . All quadrants ofthe intersection of · 
SW Farmington Road an:d SW 185th, other than the site, are zoned NC, and the 
commercial area is in excess of 10 acres. Therefore, additional land cimnot be added to 
the existing Neighborhood Commercial District. Additionally, theproposed Walgreens 
that is suitable for the population density and market demand is approximately 15,000 
sq.ft. The Neighborhood ~ommercial District limits drugstore to 10,000 sq. ft., so the 
zone is not appropriate for' the market area or proposed use. CDC 311-3.14. 
313- Community Business District 
313-1- Intent and Purpose 
Commercial centers in this District are intended to provide the community with a mix of . 
retail, service and business establishments on a medium to large-scale. Medium through 
high density residential uses, as well as various office and institutional uses, may be 
permitted. . 
Response: The site is one ofthe few locations in Aloha to be located on the intersection 
of two arterials and on a transit route, it should be zoned CBD. The site provides an 
opportunity for viable commercial development. CRA's market analysis, which is 
-37-
79648-000 l/LEGAL237 1888 5.2 
_/ 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
39 of 223 
'• 
attached as .Exhibit 4, ,explains the several reasons the site iswell suited for the CBO 
designation. ·· 
-::-j _. 
375- Transit Oriented Districts 
375-1- Intent and Purpose 
The inte11t of the transit oriented districts is to direct and encourage development 
that is transit supportive and pedestrian oriented in areas within approximately one-half 
· . mile of light rail transit stations; within one-quarter mjle o(existing and planned primary 
bus routes and intowncenters and regional centers ~ 
- . . . . 
· The purpose of the transit oriented districts is to limitdevelopmentto.thatwhich 
· ( 1) has a suffiCient density ofeniployees, residents' or users to be supportive of the type of 
. transitprovidedto the area; (i) generates a relativelyhighpercentage oftrips serviceable · 
by transit; (3) contains a complementary mi.x of land uses; ( 4) is designed to encourage 
people to walk; ride a· bicycle or use trai1sit for a significant percentage of their trips . 
. 431. ~Transit Oriented Design Principles, Standards. and Guidelines . ( 
· · 431-1.:.... bitentand Purpose 
The following design principles; standards and guidelines shall be applied to the . 
review of all development oq:urring in transit oriented districts, for those uses Us ted in 
. Section 375; Principles are the broad, fundamental rules upon which the standards and 
guidelines are based. All Type III applications for development in transit oriented 
districts shall demonstrate ccimplianc6 with applicable principles and/or standards of this 
section; Standards are ·specific, usually quantitative, rules which development . 
applications must comply with if processed through a Type I or II procedure. Guidelines 
are advisory statements that should be considered when designing a development in a 
transit oriented di~trict, but are not mandatory. 
- \ 
A Because an application for a development may vary :from a standard in this 
Section when the applic'ation demonstrates, through a Type III process, compliance with 
the related design principle, a variance or hardship variance pursuant to Section 435 shall 
not be granted from any standard in this Section . 
Response: As explained in more detail in response to Policies 18 and 40, the entirety of 
the TOO regulations is not feasible for what the market will support at this location at this 
time. For example, drive-thrus are not allowed in the TOD-RC zone. However, the 
applicant desires to be a catalyst for the Aloha community, and voluntarily offers to · 
incorporate many TOD elements in the development of the site. The response to Policy 
40 elaborates upon the TOD design(feature that can be accommodated on the site, along 
with drive-thrus for the two buildings. The applicant suggests imposing the TOD design 
features listed on Exhibit 8 as conditions of approval on the CBD designation of the site. 
-38-
79648-000 IILEGAL2371888S .2 
Exhibit c 
12-222-PA 
.40 of 223 
430-41 "--.'Drive-in or Drive:.upEstablishment 
Anyestablishnient or portion of an establishment desigt1ed .and operated to serve a 
patron while seated in an automobile (not including drive-in theaters). 
430,.41.1 Entrances and Exits: 
A. Access shall be determined based upon a site inspectionwhich considers the 
following: 
(1) Site size; 
(2) Road Classification; 
,, (3) Sight distance and allowed M.P.H.; 
(4) Adjacent development. 
B. Consolidation of access with adjoining· uses shall be encouniged; and 
C. Driveway entrances and exits shall be clearly marked; 
430-41.2 
Drive-in facilities located in the parking lot or part of a larger commercial center 
shall not have ~eparate access points to the street and shall utilize the center's access 
points; . · . -
430-41.3 
,· 
. Lighting, -sigt1 illumination and height, and hours of operation n:iay be restricted 
through the development review process to insure compatibility within the Office 
Commercial District; and 
Response: The viability ofcommercialuses on the site depends upon the availability of 
drive-thrus for each building. Upon application for a specific development, the applicant 
will demonstrate compliance with the drive-in approval criteria. Additionally, the 
applicant has filed a separate Access Management Plan application for the proposed 
development of the site; a process that will allow the applicant, County and other 
agencies to work together to identify transportation issues relative to the proposed 
development. For the sake of clarity, the applicant requests specific findings that, 
notwithstanding the conditions related to transit-oriented development features, drive-ins 
that are compliant with Section 430 of the Community Development Code are permitted 
for each building constructed on the site. 
413- Parking and Loading 
The following off-street parking and loading and on-street parking standards shall 
apply in all Districts. Requirements include minimum on-street parking (Section 413-6), 
minimum off-street parking (Section 413-9), minimum vanpool/carpool parking (Section 
-39-
79648-000 1 /LEGAL23 71 8885.2 
\., 
Exhibit C 
12~222-PA . 
41 of 223 
/ 
413-11 ), maximum 0ff-street parking (Settion 413~ 15), and minimum off-str.eet loading 
(Section 413-16). . . 
· 413-1- Development Permit for Parking Areas 
A development peimit shall be required for any area used for off-street parking 
. . . . I . 
except the parkingallowed for a detached dwelling on an existing lot or parceL · 
,. . . . . . 
. : . . . . . . 
. Response: Development review of the proposed project will ensure compliance with all 
off-street parking st~ndards. . · · . · . 
H. State Transportation Planning Rule 
·Response: Amendments to the State Transportation Planning Rules (TPR) were adopted 
by the Oregon Land Conse~ation imd Deve!opm~nt Commission on December 9, 2011. 
The amended rules were filed with the Oregon Secretary o(State ori December 30, 2011, 
and became effective on January l, 2012: The County utilize~- a "one rnap" system, 
meaning that the proposed rezone amends both the coinprehensive plan and zoning ri1ap. 
Therefore, the "no changing the goal posts" rufe does not apply, ~nd the application is 
subject to the revi~'ed TPR. - · -
~ . . . . . . 
· Group Mackenzie prepared .a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated April4, 2012, that . 
-identifies potential impacts to affected transportation facilities, as required by OAR660-
. 012. Group Mackenzie supplemented the TPR TIA on May 10, 2012, in response to 
questions by the County and ODOT,includingthose raised in the County's April 27, 
2012 Notice oflnGomplete Application and the May 9, 2012 email correspondence fro~ 
Washington County; 
The original TPR TIA and May 1Oth revised operations analysis determined that the zone . 
change would have no significant affect on the transportation system. The intersection of 
Farmingtonand 18Sth Avenue continues to perform at acceptable v/c ratios, even under 
the extreme estimate o-f worst-:-case site generation that was included in the TIA as a 
sensitivity analysis. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed 
rezone. 
I. Metropolitan Housing Rule- OAR 660, Division 7 
OAR 660-0007-0000- Statement of Purpose 
The purpose of this mle is to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate 
numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metropolitan 
Portland (Metro} urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development 
process and so to redw;:.e housing costs. OAR 660-007-0030 through 660-007-0037 are 
intended to establish by rule regionalresidential density and mix stand~rds to measure 
Goal 10 Housing compliance for cities and counties within the Metro urban growth 
boundary, and to .ensure the efficient use of residential land within the regional UGB 
consistent with Goal 14 Urbanization. OAR 660-007-0035 implements the Commission's 
determination in the Metro UGB acknowledgment proceedings that region wid_e, planned 
-40-
79648-000 1 /LEGAL237 18885 .2 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
42 at 223 
. : \ . . . .:· . . . . 
residential densities inust be considerably in excess of the residential density as'sumed in 
Metro's "UGB Findings". The new construction density andmix standards and the 
criteria for varying from them in this rule take into consideration and also satisfy the 
price range and rent levelcriteria for needed housing as set forthin ORS 197.303. 
Response: The applicant is requesting an amendment from R-15 to CBD. As addressed 
in. more detail in response to Metro Title .l and Goal 10, the CBD zone allows residential 
development at a density higher than the existing R-15, so housing.opportunities are not 
.diminished by the rezone. 
'· 
79648-000 1 !LEGAL23718885.2 
I 
-41-
·-=--
J 
\. 
../ 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
43of 223 
EXHIBITS 
'>. 
1. Clean Water Services Sensitive Area Prescreen 
2. County Title 1 Report 
3-: E;l(hibit Maps 
a. Vicinity Map · 
. b. Conceptual Site Plan: · 
I 
c. · Washington County Tax Assessrrtent Map .·. 
· 4. Market A11alysis 
5. Metro 2040 GroWth Map 
. . . 
6. PlanAni.endme11t Pre-Application Conference Summary 
7. Service Provider.Letters · 
.. ( 
a. Clean Water Services: Sanitary Sewer 
b. Clean Water Services: Surface Water 
c. Fire 
d. · Public Water 
e. Park 
f. School 
g. Sheriff 
h. Tri-Met 
8. Tr~nsit Oriented Design Standards Summary 
79648-000 l!LEGAL22970861 .1 
\ 
Exhibit C 
1 12-222-PA 
· 44 of 223 I Exhibit 1 I 
~ Clean Wat~ Services Clean Water Services File Number I 12- ot.Jt)2-?> o I 
Sensitive Area Pre.-Screening Site Assessment 
1. Jurisdiction: Wash ington County . 
2. Property Information (example 1 S234AB01400) 
Tax lot ID(s): 1 S119BB Tax Lots: 800, 900 and 1 ;000 
Site Address : 184 70 SW Farmington Rd 
City, State, Zip: Beaverton 
Nearest Cross S::-t-,.re-e-t: "1-;:;85;::-;t:;-h--;A;:-v-e ___ :...._~----
4. Development Activity (check all that apply) 
0 Addition to Single Family Residence (rooms, deck, garage) 
0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Minor Land. Partition 
0 Residential Coridominlum 0 Commercial Condominium 
0 Res idential Subdivision 0 Commercial Subdivision 
0 Single Lot Commercial 0 Multi Lot Commercial 
Other Plan Amendment from R15 to CBD 
3. Owner Information 
Name: Gabe Kolstad , 
Company: Wes.tside Community Church of Wash. Co. 
Address: 18390 S'f/ Farm,ington Rd 
City, State, Zip: Beaverton OR 97007 · 
Phone/Fax: 503~784~7688 
E-Mail : 
------~---------
5. Applicant Information 
Name: Dana Krawczuk 
Company: Perksins Coie LLP 
Address: 1120 NW Couch St 
City, State, Zip: Portland OR 97209 
Phone/Fax: 503~727 ~2036 
E-Mail:===-------------
6. Will the project Involve any off-site work? 0 Yes 0 No ~ Unknown 
Location and description of off-site work-------------------------------
7. Additional comments or Information that may be needed to understand your project-------'---------
This application does NOT replace Grading and Erosion Control Permits, Connection Permits, Building Permits, Site Development Permfts, DEQ 
1200·C Permit or other permits as Issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army 
COE. All reGuired permits and approvals must be obtained a·rid completed under applicable local, state, and federal law. 
By signing this form, the Owner or Owner's authorized agent or representative, acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority 
to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to !he. project si te. I certify 
that I· am familiar with the information contained in th is document, and to the best of my knO'Medge and belief, this information is true, complete. and accurate. 
PrlnUType Name Prlntffype Title ______________ _ 
Signature Date _______ _ 
FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY 
0 Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or v.ith in 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRJ OR TO .ISSUANCE OF A 
SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report 
may also be required . 
·0 Based on review of the submitted materials and best available Information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on sile or within 200' of the site . This 
Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if \hey are subsequently 
discovered. This document will se'rve as your SeNice Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20, Section 3.02. 1. All required permits and 
approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, State, and federal law. 
0 Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced projecl will not significantly impact the existing or potentially 
sensitive area(s) b .md near the site. This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect additional y.oater 
quality sensitive areas if they are subsequenUy discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 
07-20, Section 3.02. t Al l required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, stale and federal law. ' 
0 JHis Service Provider Letter is not valid unless __ CWS ap , roved site p\an(s) are attached. 
fSj(The proposed activity oes not meet the de_finition ofdevelopmentlor the lot was platted after 9/9/95 ORS 92.040(2). NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR 
SERVICE porll t<nc< 
E>h;bit c I E h•b•t 21 
12-222-PA . . X I I ~ 45of223 . 
· ~ . WASHINGTON COUNTY 
~ . OREGON 
June 6, 2000 
TO: Board of County Commissioners 
FROM: Brent Curtis, Planning Manager ~ 
SUBJECT: UPDATE: METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL 
PLAN ., TITLE 1 COMPLIANCE. 
_, 
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS re: TITLE 1: 
The following outline summarizes the County's overall status relative to compliance with 
applicable requirements of Title 1: 
A) GROWTH CAPACITY TARGETS: 
1. Employment: . 
Staff and Planning Commission recommendations would comply with the 
Metro requirements by providing approximately 1 02% of target capacity 
(53,862 of 52,578 jobs). 
2. Housing: 
The staff and Planning Commission recommendations provide the same 
total housing capacity jurisdiction-wide ~ These recommendations would 
substantially comp/V with the Metro requirements by providing 
approximately 94% of assigned target capacity (51 ,751 of 54,999 dwelling 
units). 
B) 2040 DESIGN TYPE BOUNDARIES: 
Final boundaries for 2040 Design Types within uninc9rporated Wa$hington 
County are being mapped and will be incorporated within the Comprehensive 
Framework Plan .through the adoption of Ordinance 561 . Adoption of this 
Ordinance will fulfill the Metro requirement. 
C) MINIMUM DENSITIES: 
Adoption of Ordinance 555 will establish minimum densities for R-5 and R-6 
lands and thereby complete.the implementation of minimum densities on all 
residentially zoned lands as required under Title 1. 
Department of Land Use & T ransportation • Planning Divis ion 
155 N First Avenue . Suite 350- 14. Hllls.boro. OR 97124-3072 
phone: (503) 640-3519 • fax : (503) 693-4412 
Exhibit C 
12-422cf'P. 
PallB 6f'2~3' -Title 1 report 
PURPOSE: 
The purpose of this report is to provide an update' on the overall status of Planning 
Division .efforts toward compliance with the requirements of Title 1 of Metro's Urban 
Growth Management Ft,mctional Plan (UGMFP). , 
SUMMARY: 
Washington County has made significant progress toward compliance with the 
requirements .of Title 1 of the Metro Functional Plan . As discussed in further detail 
below, Ordinances and Agreements· currently scheduled for completion during this 
ordinance season should fulfill a majority of the Title 1 requirements~ · 
. ~ . ·. . 
The primary requirements of Metro's Title .1 include: a) adoption of 'Design Type 
Boundaries', b) application of minimum density standards on all residentially zoned 
lands, and c) demonstration that the County ean. meet assignE;ld job and housing unit 
targets. · ·· · 
The 'Design Type Boundaries' requirement will be fulfilled upon adoption of Ordinance 
561 which includes Design Type descriptions and mapped boundaries for each of the 
. 2040 Growth Concept Design Typ~s that are applicable to Washington County (Station 
Communities, Town Centers, Main Streets ... etc.). Hearings on Ordinance 561 are 
scheduled to begin in August, 2000. · 
The final phase of the implementation process for minimum density standards will be 
completed with the adoption of Ordinance 555, This ordinanc~ establishes minimum ·· 
densities within the R-5 and R-6 land use districts. · 
The jobs and housing targets prescribed by the commonly referenced Title 1 ~Table 1, 
(for most jurisdictions), is the most demanding of Functional Plan requirements. For 
Washington County this element of Title 1 requires a demonstration that the zoned 
I 
capacity of remaining buildable lands will accommodate an additional54,999 housing 
units (dwellings) and 52,578 jobs. Following a detailed analysis of our buildable lands 
capacities, it was determined that we could accommodate the assigned jobs but our total 
housing capacity would fall just over 10,000 units shy of the target number. 
In accord with prior Board directives to attempt to meet the growth capacity targets 
allocated to Washington County, staff has undertaken and is inthe process of 
completing a number of Comprehensive Framework Plan changes d~signed to increase 
allowable densities within unincorporated areas of the County. Assl!ming that staff 
recommended capacity additions included in ordinances and agreements currently in 
process are adopted, the County's total housing capaCity will: be approximately 51 ,750 
dwellin.$l units. This figwe represents approximately 94.1% of our assigned housing 
target. · 
' 
Exhibit C 
12-~22,PJI · Pa~~ o) 2~Y -Title 1 report 
Title 1 Requirements: 
As. previousiy discus~ed with_ the Board, Title 1 of the UGMFP specifies requirements for 
local jurisoiction accommodation of housing and employment needs emanating from 
growth within the Portland Metropolitan area during the time period between 1994 and 
2017. There are three primary·requirements for compliance with Title 1: · 
1) Adoption of 'Design Type' bouhdari.es for the applicable 2040 Growth · 
Concept design types as shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map; 
2) Application of minimum density standarc:Js on all residentially zoned,lands; 
. 3) Demonstration that the calculated capacity of buildable lands will achieve the 
target 9apacities for jobs and dwelling units as assigned to the Jurisdiction. in 
. Table-1 of the Functional Plan appendix. · 
As noted, there are 'three specific requirements under Title 1; the following discussion . 
provides a brief summary of our overall status with complying with the first two 
requirements as listed above while our primary focus which follow~ will provide an 
update ori compliance with the Growth Capacity Targets of Title 1 (Table 3.07-:1). · 
Des-ign Type Boundaries: 
. . 
Section 3.07.130 of the UGMFP states that " .. county comprehensive plans shall · 
·be amended to include the boundaries of each (Design Type) area; determined 
by the county consistent with the general locations shown on the 2040 Growth 
Concept Map". 
. . 
. . . . . ·. :. 
In order to comply with this requirement, staff has drafted and is currently refining 
· a series of Design Type area descriptions and an associated boundary map for 
each of the Design TypeswhiCh falls within unincorporated Washington County. 
These descriptions and boundaries will be incorporated within the 
Comprehensive Framework Plan through the adoption of Ordinance 561. 
Hearings on Ordinance 561 are scheduled to begin in August 2000. 
Minimum Densities: 
Section 3.07.120_of the UGMFP states " .. counties shall apply a minimu'm density 
standard to all zones allowing residential use ... " .. 
Over the course of the past three years, the county has developed a series of 
ordinances which, when implemented, will achieve this requirement. Following is 
a list of these ordinances together with a brief note on their resulting actions in 
establishing density minimums: - · · · - · · . · 
1. Ordinance 486, adopted October 28th. 1997, establis~ed 'Transit Oriented 
Land Use Districts' with associated minimum and maximum allowable 
den~ties. . 
. 2. Ordinance 517, adopted October 27th, 1998, applies minimum residential 
density requirements to al,l non 'Transit Oriented' land use districts except for 
the R-5 and R-6 low density single family districts. 
c.. · 
Exhibit C . 
Paij:J~J;~- Title I report . 
3. · Ordinance 555, filed on May 19th, 2000, will set minimum density 
requirements for the R-5 and R-6 districts . 
. Growth capacities on buildable lands: 
Section 3.07.150 of the Functional Plan requires counties to calculate the zoned 
. capacity of its comprehensive plan and implementing ordini:mces, compare this 
capacity with assigned growth targets and to increase this capacity wh~re the . 
· targets cannot be met. Directly related to this, section 3.07.160 set$ fqrth the 
requirements for ulocal Plan Accommodation of Expected Growth Capacity for . 
Housing and ~mploymerit". Following is an overview of the specific requirements · 
of these sections of the Functional Plan and a review of our compliance efforts 
and status to date. 
o Calculated Capacity: The county was required to calculate the housing and 
employment capacity of all buildable lands within its jurisdictional boundaries 
as of Jurie 1 , 1996. The results of this analysi$ are shown on the attached 
Table-'A' in the section titled 'BUILDABLE LANDS CAPACITIES'. Pursuant to 
section 3.07.160 requirements, t~e capacity estimates are · divided between 
mixed-use and non mixed-use areas . . 
. . 
• As of June 1, 1996, unincorporatedWashington.County had an estimated 
8, 180. net acres of buildable land. As shown on Table-'A', these lands had an 
estimated capacity of 44,956 dwelling units and 53,862 jobs. preliminary 
estimates of the mixed-use area splits for these figures are also shown on 
Table-'A' . . It is important to note however, that these splits were not based 
upon final b'ounda'ries for these areas. (Refer to the preceding discussion on 
Design Type Boundaries). · · 
"' Under section 3.07.160 of the UGMFP, the County is required to 
;' .. demonstrate that ... calculated capacities will achieve the target capacities 
for dwelling units and full-time and part-time jobs contained in Table 3.07-1, 
including bqth jurisdiction wide expected capacities and capadties for mixed-
use areas ... ". The target capacities for unincorporated Washington County 
are shown on the attached Table-'A'. 
. . . 
• By comparing the applicable 'target capacities' with the estimated capacity of 
our buildable lands we find that the County falls just over 1 0,000 dwelling 
units shy of the housing target and has a surplus of approximately 1 ,280 jobs. 
In mixed-use areas, we fall nearly 5,400 units below the target number for 
housing and have a deficit of nearly 7,300 jobs (again, the status in mixed-
use areas is in part due to the preliminary boundaries utilized in these · 
calculations). · ·. 
( 
(J Section 3.07.150(0.) of the Functional Plan states: "If any of the calculated 
capacities are determin~d.to be less than any of the city or county target 
Exhibit C . 
Pa~~-g~r- Tide 1 report 
dwelling unit and job capacities iil Table 3.07-1 ; either ji.Jrisd iction~wide or in 
mixed-use areas, or both, then the city or county shall comply with the · 
performance standards in section 3.07.160 of. this title by amending its 
comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to increase calculated 
capacities, as needed, to comply with the calculated capacities required in 
Table 3.07-1".· In essence, this standard requires the County to increase 
allowable densities on its inventory of buildable lands in order to 
· accommodate the assigned target capacities. · 
. o ·In August of 1998, staff presented to the Board a series of "policy choice 
options" structured to achieve the Title 1 ta·rget capacities. These options . · 
included a number of recommended plan changes 'and code amendments 
which, when fully implemented, would result in achieving the growth targets. 
' . .. . . . 
Table 'B' (attached) lists the policy options which the Board elected to pursue, 
·together with a status report on implementation and an overall summary of 
resulting growth capacities. · 
\ 
• · As shown on Tabl~ 'B', assuming completion of ordinances arid agreements 
currently in process and that final decisions'on these ordinances and 
agreements do not reduce proposed housing. densities; the Countywill have 
final growth capacities of 51,751. dwelling units and 55,921 jobs. These 
. figures represent an overall deficit of 3;248 housing units and a surplus of . 
3,343 jobs relative to our Title 1 assigned totals. Within designated mixed-
use areas, our final capacities will be 14,751 dwelling units and 33,961 jobs. 
These estimates are 1 r .1% and. 33.4% respectively above our mixed-lise . 
area targ~ts. 
( 
Tl-BCC-5 '23 ' 00 
( 
--=· 
J U L Y  3 0 ,  1 9 9 B  
T A B L E  ' A ' .  
.  C O M P L I A N C E  . A N A L Y S I S  ·  
M E T R O  U R B A N  G R O W T H  M A N A G E M E N T  F U N C T I O N A L  P L A N  
T I T L E  1 - T A B L E  1  
W A S H I N G T O N  C O U N T Y  
U R B A N  U N I N C O R P O R A T E D  A R E A  
T A B L E ;  1  T A R G E T  C A P A C I T I E S :  
.  D W E L L I N G  
U N I T S  
T O T A L  U N I N C O R P O R A T E D  A R E A :  
5 4 , 9 9 9  
M I X E D  U S E  A R E A S :  
1 3 , 2 7 3  
B U I L D A B L E  L A N D S  C A P A C I T I E S :  
T O T A L  U N I N C O R P O R A T E D  A R E A :  
4 4 , 9 5 6  
M I X E D  U S E  A R E A S :  .  
.  7 , 8 8 6 .  
S U R P L U S  I  D E F I C I T S :  
T O T A L  U N I N C O R P O R A T E D  A R E A :  
~.10,043 " 
M I X E D  U S E  A R E A S :  
.  - : 5 , 3 8 7  
\  
\  
· J O B S  
5 2 , 5 7 8 .  
2 5 , 4 5 0  
. .  
5 3 , 8 6 2  
1£~,168 · 
· 1 , 2 8 4  
.  - 7 , 2 8 2 "  
I  
(]l ~ m 
0 1 ' 0 X  
o N : 2 :  
~N O" 
1 \ J N ; : : : : : ; . :  
t l l : J o  
) > .  
~ 
c o  
r  
m  
>  
.  ~ 
. ,  
- - - - - - - - - - - -· - - -POLICY CHOICE OPTIONS TO INCREASE CAPArT'TY: 
(Worl<ing Assump ... ms)" 
' DIFFICULTY I DWELLING UNIT JOBS 
ACTION: PRIORITY · INCREASE INCREASE . . 
· STATUS· MAY 2000 
.. <n~m 
~rvx 
STAP'!' RECOMMENDATIONS: . I o~;!. 
1. WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER 0 ;:j~g; 0 
MUABOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 1 33 (a) 47 (a) Regional Center Pian did riot upzone R-5 lands 'but rv•o 
&. UP-ZONE OF R-5 LANDS TO R18·24: 2 668 34 ' will acCommodate the 668 un~s wi_thin city oi Tigard. ""j; 
2. ESTABLISH NEW TOWN CENTER BOUNDARY FOR ALOHA· 
(185th@ T.V. Hwy.): 1o574 (a) 1o184 (a) (Mixed·use.area boundary adjustment- no net gain) 
3. BETI'iANY TOWN CENTER . Property was Included In 'ProJect Master Plan for the area 
UP·ZONE OF APPAOi<. 7.11 AC. FROM R-15 TOA·24: 63 3 actus_! gain .on the· original 7.1 1-acres wll likely _exceed 63. (/l 
~ 4. CEDAR MILL TOWN CENTER a: 
Town· Center Pl_annlng p~ss has accommodated only 217 < MUA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ~ncl.. Teufel' site) 1 2o520 (a) 529 (ai I Ul 
"' 
.&. MISC. UP-ZONES: \ 2 \ 435 21 0 of the assumed-435. Net loss ,. -21 a ·units. . · . 
:::> 0 
c I 
Lands have been annexed to Beaverton - overall Town Ul 5. MURRAY I SCHOLLS TOWN CENTER r" 0 0 >< IMPLEMENTATION OF DRAFT MASTER PLAN: . 715 1o212 I Center· Plan coUld a<x:ommodate the ·715 units. ~ 
0 
0 . 
6. RALEIGH HILLS TOWN CENTER 
. <a> MUA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT : 1 156 (a) 14 Planning Commission recommended plan In dudes a total . 
& UP-ZONE OF AS LANDS E. OF LAUREL WOOD TO R-24: 2 116 6 . ' housing unit capacity. of 288 units- net gain= +16 units. 
7. BEAVERTON CREEK STATION I· 0 
NIKE & SEQUENT EXPANSIONS: 0 3,947 0 (non residential) · 
8. HILLSBORO STATION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS 
RE·ZONE UNiNCORPORATED LANDS TO IMPLEMENT CITY PL ' 1 787 804 Adopt_ed Ordinances accommodate 787·urihs. 
9. TEKTRONIX STATION 
Not lnduded In current ordinance proceedings -UP~ZONE & ASSUME REDEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME PA 2 196 
ASSUME HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY ON TEK SITE: . 1 a.ooo . (0) results In net loss. of the assumed gain: -196 unns 
0(1) 13. FD-10 LANDS: -IGA0S. currently being negotiated with cities· still assume we 
!;to SCENARIO 08': MINOR UP-ZONES: 2 4,515 226 a total net gain of 40515.units from FD-10 lands. 
a:O 
o::t: 
14. RE-ZONE SELECTED BUILDABLE LANDSw~n CORRIDORS: 2 665 33 N·ot tnduded_ In current ·ordinance proceedings -a.. a: a:O (Approx. 360 acres I• (AN~ YSIS INCOMPLETE) results In net loss of the assumed gain: -665 units · om 
o:I: 
zS! 
20. DENSITY INCREASE ON R-5 & A-6 LANDS: 2 2,226 Current draft of Ordinance 555 results In no net gain. in ~~ 111 
· '(toss to Bull Mtn. Areal:' -302 · capacity for these land use ·districts: net toss ·2,226 units 
STATUS RELATIVE'TO ASSIGNED TARGETS 
--. 
IQIAL DWELLING~ 
' 0 IOTALJOBS 
TOTAL INCREASE IN CAPACITY: 10o084 2o450 I 6o795 2o059 0 
0 
>- BUILDABLE LANDS CAPACITY: 44,956 53,862 I 44o956 . 53o862 a: 
· ' < · 
' ::0 \ I ::;; TOTAL CAPACITY: 55,040 56,312 51,_751 55o921 
:::> 
' (/l 
TITLE 1 ALLOCATIONS: 54 999 52 578 . 54 999 52 578 
!l.Yof~,gLUS/DEfiCrJ': · ... "'-:·:~· .": ... __ :~· .. ·.····· ::-: . :. ;:~ ., . , ~-,'~+M?':. '•".': ' .. . ·:.:;.' ' 3l(M; . :. ;~+~;· ,:,l :·'<··:· -.~:~·=·-' ·-:.· .c•~;~4B" • 3i343 
notes: 
a. Transfer to MUA • no net gain. 
b. Worl<lng Assumptions. based upon staff recommended actions which were reviewed by the Board at its August 18th, 1998 meeting and Included In the . 
County's August 19th; 1998 report to METRO on Functional Plan compliance. ·. · . · . . · '· 
c. Estimated total employment on thB. TEK campus was over 120000 during the eMy to mid 1980's; current employment Is estimated at under 40000. 
m
n
o
 
HU
lON
 ~ 
CZ
Z 
JO
 Z
S 
Vd
·Z
ZZ
·Z
~ 
::>
 I1
Q1
4X
3 
I I I I I I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
53 or 223 
NORTH 02.20.1 2 
I  
I  
I  
I  
I  
I  
I  
I  
I  
_ _  j  
r  ~~ 
I  '  
- - - . ,  
I  v  
. .  ~~···A'~~s;T V 4 E W  
I  ~-~. =-- - ~-~~~~ --
1  
I  
I  
I  'st6~.t.::-t ! W ' , , U ' W A J , E S T  · v t : E W  
~ · R" ' \  
I  ~--
\ :   
\  :  I  !  
' I  
I  
i  I  
S I T E  D A T A  
D R U G S T O R E  B L D G  A R E A  1 4 , 5 5 0  S F  
P A R K I N G  P R O V I D E D  _ M 5 PA C E S  ! 4 . 4 / 1 0 0 0  S F )  
-<i  " " /  f AST F O O D  B L D G  A R E A  
: ; : : ; , . - / P A R K I N G  P R OV I DE D  
3 , 0 0 0  S F  
1 8  S P A C E S  {6 / 1 0 0 0  SF !  
, /  
r ,  
,  I  
I  I  
I  
I  
E x h i b i t  3 b  
,_·dv~ f l 4 ', r ! ! < /N G r -
~-
~O.JCO..S~ 
~as:>~~ 
+  
S/r,t::~N 
1 '  
N O R T H  
r  
!  
t : l  
i  
' j  
j  
r :  
! i .  
! : " :  r  
~ · £  
! !  ~ 
~ : 
~ !II' 
~ :~_l i  
El f!\ ! ~ 
~ 1 1 -
~ lH : =  
~ ~~ i i > \  
i H j  j  
i l ! i ,  s  
eiJ j ~ 
§ '~ I "  
~~ ' ·~ 
~ 
'  
I  
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhib1tC 
12-222-PA 
55 of 223 
... _ ...... 
... ~ -
.) 
I 
' w 
l:l 
z 
"" ~- -- ·-
'· I -· ~ 
~ , 
"'" ··~ 
.! 
s 
t! t 
> ~ 
-::.- J 
--
'' ~ 1.0 h • 
. ;':? . -
-I ' sw 
. .L- ' ~ > ' 
·' ·-
.. ::.,.-~ .. .:~ ... 
3o10"'• '• 
................................. _ .............................. _ -----
., 
--------···-- .. -------.--
51-50 
..... _ 
-
,; 
IIY. 
'""' ""' 
< ; 
. 
• 
. ,. 
• . 
lS 119BB 
"'o').' .. \~ .... 
:.~" 
·:< 
:.110 
' 
a 
''!' ·-
..... ,.. ...... 
.... 
""" ·--c:. .
.; 
c·~ ""' 
' 
''• 
_;,.. 
"'{' 
''J" 
: 
-
. :- ; J ~~· 
15 1 1998 
[] 
WASJ!IN(OTON COVNTY OR~'GOIII 
HW11411W1)4.S£<TlOH 1tT18 R1WWM 
'IC.AL£ ., ,. - tOO' 
.. •• 9 1:1 .. .. ... 
, . 
,, , r< 
" " 
" 
.. 
" 
,. .. , 
" lt d '" 11 :: .. )< " 
"' 
.. • 
, ., JO 
"' "' 
.. t t u D ... .. .. ,, 
.-(.hii~ICW'.fil~U#$ Vitn' ~di • t•tnt.-r 
_n_..~._ .. ., 
"" 
•• 
SECTION 19 
"" 
,.. 
"" 
"' 
C<l I;IC 
~,~,... ~-,~-
llt'J":trll"'~~-
- .. 
., 
... 
I>) 
1 ~>1 ~0~ 
IU)I OA ! bi,I....,":)L21)1() 
i qt; t\L)..:i:::;:~'•\fJ: l'lf I ,_~OM!-1 .'-1 ~ 
~tw.:oHB~~~, .. Jf~t ~.'N 
_,~..,..,w,w .. "-.,-~ .... ..,W\.-.·- ........ _ 
~ . ., .......... ___ ...... -- .... 
"'*"':....'ll>"><{l<Jo. ......... "I>M ,. . .  _. . ___ ,.. ... 
15 1 1988 
Exhibit 3c 
I 
I 
I 
I. 
J. 
I~ 
I 
I 
. I
I. 
.I 
I 
I 
I 
.I 
I 
I 
.I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
56 of 223 I Exhibit 4 J 
C~o ivll\J E RCJ i\ L 
REALT\,7 
AD\lJSORS 
.\i 0 R I II I'< 1·. 'i I I. I I . 
February 29, 2012 
RE : Market Analysis for Proposed Walgreens at SW 185th Avenue & Farmington Rd 
Aloha, OR 97007 
seven Hills Properties has applied to rezone the approximately 2.25 acre site at SW 185th Avenue and 
Farmington Road in Aloha, Oregon (the "Site") from R-15 to CBD. Seven H.ills intends to develop the site 
with an approximately 15,000 sf Walgreens and second approximately 3,000 sf building pad, both with 
drive-thrus (the "Proposed Use") . 
Seven Hills has requested that our office provide an analysis of the lack of suitable alternative sites that 
are currently ioned CBD in the vicinity of the Site, why the Site is an appropriate location for the 
Proposed Use, and why the drive-thrus are needed in the market area. 
Proposed Use Size and location Requirements for a Site 
Based upon our experience in the Portland Metropolitan area suburban market and discussions with a 
Walgreen Co. Real Estate Manager, we have identified the following size and location characteristics 
that a site must include in order to be,suitable for the Proposed Use: 
1)At least 1.5 miles away from an existing Walgreens. 
2) On the corner of an intersection of two major roadways . Strong preference for both streets 
being arterials, but will consider having one street a collector, so long as the other street is a principal 
arterial. ''T'' intersect ions do not work 
3) When a second use/building pad is developed with a Walgreen 's, li ke the Proposed Use, the 
· min imum site size is generally 1.5 acres, but factors such as access, cross-easements and internal 
circulation can result in a larger minimum site size. the maximum site size is approximately 3.0 acres, 
subject to market conditions, i.e. demand for additional retail space in the given trade area. 
4) Flat and no wetlands on the bui lding pad . 
5) M inimum dimens ions of 185' x 260' (inside the setbacks and sidewalks) . 
6) Our experience also demonstrates that extremely high vo lume streets, such as principa l 
arterials or freeways, and ra il road tracks can serve as a barrier, meaning that customers are reluctant to 
' · 
J. 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
57 of 223 
. . . . . ·. . . . . \ . 
cross a road such as TV Highway in order to access. a store because of the perceived inconven ience of 
navigating a busy street ~nd/or passing over rail crossings. 
These size and location requ irements are demonstrated by the existing Walgreens' stores on Tualatin 
Valiey Highway in the .. vicinity of the Site -19975 SW Tualatin Valley Highway, Aloha and 6215 SE 
Tualatin Valley Highway, Hi llsboro. \The stores have drive-thrus, are approximately.1.72 miles apart, are 
located on the corner of a prihcipal arterial and collector streets roadways, and are located on flat sites 
with no wetlands. The nearby stores differ from the Proposed Use because they are s~arid alone 
Walgreens. Because there is no second building pads the site sizes are slightly smaller thim the 
minimum acreage required for the Proposed Use . 
. · . . . 
· "Vicinity" of Analysis of Aiternative Sites 
. Walgreen's Real Estate Manager has determined that their ~rade are~ -for a Walgreens in· a suburban . 
area that has a population density ofthe Aloha-area of \Nashington County is 1.5 miles. Accordingly, the 
spacing between Walgreens at TV Highway & Centu'ry and IV Highway & ,198th is l. 7_ miles, all~wing for a 
· trade area for each store. In an effort to be more inclusive, we expanded ttie "viCinity" for the market · 
analysi~ by identifying all CB.D zon~d property within 2 miles of the Site,\ whiCh is 0.5 miles beyond the 
Walgreens market area. We then ideptified the dos(;!st existing Walgreens (19975 SW Tualatin Valley 
Highway)to the Site and overlaid the !.Smile market area for that existi~g star~ on the alternative site 
map. 
Summary of Analysis of CBD Zoned Prop~rty Within 2 Miles of Site 
Our analysis identified 175 tax lots with CBD designations in the 2 mile vicinity of the Site. 
Notwithstanding the n~mber of tax lots with the appropriate zoning, 'no alternative sites a~e available or 
. . 
· suitable for the Proposed U~e for three primary reasons : 
.. 1) 
Highway; 
The parcels are within 1.5 miles of the existing Walgreens at 199975 SW Tualatin Valley 
t 
. 
2) · The parcels are already developed with commercial uses (including a center that 
'includes a competing drug store that has the exclusive right to occupy the center); and/or 
. ' 
3) The parcels are not at the intersection of busy enough roadways. 
Each tax lot is described .in more detail in the " Par~el-by-Parcel Analysis of CBD Zoned Property Within 2. 
Miles of Site" section, below. 
Appropriateness of CBD Designation for the Site 
\ 
Our parcel by parcel analysis demonstrates that there are no available alternative sites that are suitable 
for the Proposed Use. Seven Hills has also asked for our expert opinion on if the Site is an appropriate 
location for a CBD zoning designation and Proposed Use, considering market factors, population density, 
the existing land use patterns/uses and street network. 
-2 
\' 
I 
·I. 
I 
I 
·I 
I 
I 
I 
'I 
I 
.I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhi.bit C 
12-222-PA 
58 of 223 . 
_Most of the ·size and location site demands described above are not unique to thetroposed Use; they 
would also apply to most medium scale commercial uses. The most important lodltional requirements 
for a commercial use permitted in the CBD zone is the site must be located on a busy street, ideally at an 
intersection, with good visibility and access. The site will need to be loc;ated 'in an area that has 
adequate residential density to support the use, and is not oversaturaf~d with other competing 
, . . ' . ·. 
commercial uses. With the e>:<ceptiori .of trade areas related to specific uses and/or brands (i.e., 
Walgreen's trade·area of 1.5 miles), there is not a generally accepted market f~ctor metricfor minimum 
or maximum distance between commercial uses that is a reliablepredictor of success of a site. - r 
We believe that the market area and population density will support rezoning the Site CBD. ·The. 
Farmington Mall (approximately 0.25 miles from the site) and other commercial uses at the intersection 
of SW 185th and Farmington Road and north of Tualatin Valley Highway are inadequate to serve the 
market area and population given the residential density relatiye to the amount of retail/service space 
available. In contrast ,to areas such as Orenco Station and Beaverton Town Square, services are limited 
in the Farmington submarket. · 
The Aloha~Reedville area; particularly south ofTualatin Valiey Highway, is s.tarved for quality commercial 
) .. . . . . . . . 
deveJopment._ Of the entire Aloha-Reedville planning area, only about 2% is zoned for commercial use, 
which means that residents have to drive to obtain needed services, contributing to congestion in the 
area. One reason for the lack of com~ercialland in Aloha is the street network does not include many 
. intersections of arterial roads. For example; the only east/west arterial or higher roads in the vicinity of 
the Site are Tualatin Valley Highway and Farmington Road. The Site is a rare example of an arterial 
. intersection on a transit route, so commercial development is the highest and best use for the Site. We 
note that the other three quadrants of the SW Farmington and SW 185th intersection are developed 
with commercial uses that are appropriate for the CBD ~one. It is unusual to have only three sides of an 
arteri.al intersection developed with commercial uses, while leaving the fourth quadrant as residential. 
Proposed Use's Need for Drive-Thrus 
Drive-thrus are allowed in the CBD zone, which is another reason the CBD designation is appropriate for 
t he ~ite. In the Site 's suburban market area, a drive-thru is necessary in order for the proposed use to 
be competitive and successful. Approximately 15%-of the population within the subject trade area is 
above the age of 60, and approximately 39%are households with young children . A drive-thru is an 
important component to servicing pharmacy customers who may be suffering from aliments or physical 
cond itions which may limit their ability to easily exit their transportation and walk inside the store, 
particularly in areas with the demographics of the vicinity of the Site. 
We understand that Seven Hills intends to incorporate many pedestrian and transit oriented design 
features into the development, such as a pedestrian plaza and a bus shelter. Appropriate design 
elements enhance the aesthetics of a project, and make it more appealing to consumers. However, in a 
suburban market like Aloha and a property such as this Site that is not on light rail or in a town center, 
some design features are not appropria!_e. For example, regulations that require for parking to be 
located behind a bu ild ing or prohib it drive-thrus are inappropriate and not supported by the market 
3 
I 
·I . . 
I· 
I 
I 
I. 
.I. 
I 
I-
I 
:1 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I' 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA. 
59 of223 
, · 
. because retailersfind these conditions to be a hindrance to servicing their customers and ultimately . 
operating a succe~sful' business over the long term .. Similarly, burden~ome approval criteria and 
. . . . ·. ·. ( . . . 
processes; such as those associated with the TOO designations, can increase the cqst of arid lengthen 
the entitlement process for a project so that the development becomes infeasible; If the development · 
costs become. too expensive, and/or the design elements are not consistent with the retailers' criteria, 
1 th!s significantly jeopardizes the overall viability of the. development]. The nega~~ve impact of some 
design features and the related standards and processes are exater,bated if they apply only to an 
isolated site, such as if the Site was the only TOD-RC south of TV Highway, because ·it puts the Site at a 
. . 
competitive disadvantage in the market area. 
Parc_el-by-Parcei.Analysis of CBD Zoned Property Withi~ 2 Miles of Site 
Attached to this report are tax _lot maps for all of the CBD zoned limd in the vicinity of the Site. · Each 
parcel is labeled and individually analyzed below to determine-if the alternative sites are suitable for the 
Proposed Use~ based upon the size and location factors identified above. If the parcel is developed, the 
building size is noted. l 
I 
Given the number ofparcels, we relied upon a property's proxirnity to the exis~ing Walgreens ~tl9975 
SW Tualatin Valley Highway as a gate keeping size and location requirem~~t. Many of the parc~ls that 
are excluded on the proximity p~sis also have other defects that have not been elaborated upon in the 
lot by lot analysis; such as parcei size, location north of Tualatin Valley Highway, or not located on a busy . 
enough intersection. As noted above, no available alternative sites within the 2 mile vicinity of theSite 
are suitable for the Proposed Use. 
1) · RefPa!cel # 1S212DA 05700 I Parcel# .R0359702 
Lot Size: 0;3i AC (.i3,504 SF) 
-.-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
2) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 05601/ Parcel # R0359695 -
. Lot Si~e:.0.53 AC {23,087 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. '- · 
3) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 05800 I Parcel# R0359711 
Lot Size: 0.28 AC {12,197 SF) 
Building Size: 1,947 SF 
· - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
4) . Ref Parcel# 1S2i2DA 05600 I Parcel# R0359686 
Lot Size: 0.24 AC {10,454 SF) 
-ExCluded by proximity to existing store. ' 
5) Ref Parcel# 1S212£:?A 05500 I Parcel# R0359677 
Lot Size: 2.25 AC {98,010 SF) 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
6) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 05402 I Parcel# R0994277 
Lot Size: 0.24 AC (10,454 SF) 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. · 
4 
" 
I 
1. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
'I 
I 
I 
I 
:I 
I 
I 
I' 
I. 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222"PA 
60 of 223 
7) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 07000 I Parcel# R0359739 
Lot Size: 1.90 AC (82, 764 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
8) Ref Parce.l # 1S212DA 05100 /Parcel# R0359659 
Lot Size : 0.19 AC (8,276 SF) . 
Build ing Size: 4,141 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
9) Ref Parcel# 1S2120A 07001 I ~arc~l # R0359748 
Lot Size : 0.26 AC (11,326 SF) 
Building Size : 3,354 SF 
- Exd~ded by proximity to existing store. 
10) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 01500 I parcel# R0359196 
.. Lot Size: 0.14 AC (6,098 SF) 
. I 
Building Size: 704 SF , -
· - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
11) Ref Parcel # 1S212DA 01400 I Parcel.# R0359187 
lot Size : 0.14 AC (6,098 SF) 
Building Size : 1,224 SF . 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. r · 
12) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 01300 I Parcel# H0359178 
Lot Size: 0.23 AC (10,019 SF) 
Building Size : 768 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
13) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 01200 I Parcel# R0359169 
Lot Size : 0.26AC (11,326 SF) ! 
Build ing Size : 1,900 SF 
. . 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
14) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 01100 I Parcel# R0359150 
Lot Size : 0.24 AC (10,454 SF) 
Building Size : 1,910 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
15) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 01000 I Parcel# R0359141 
Lot Size : 0.13 AC (5,663 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
16) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 01001 I Parcel# R1199973 
' Lot Size: 0.18 AC (7,841 SF) 
Build ing Size: 1,335 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
17) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 00900 I Parcel # R0359132 
Lot Size : 0.22 AC (9,583 SF) 
Bu ilding Size: 1,036 SF 
-Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
5 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
61 of 223 · 
18) RefParcel # 1S212DA 00801 I Parcel# R0359123 
Lot Size: 0.25 AC (10,890 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to exist ing store. 
19) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 00800 /Parcel# R0359114 
LotSize: 0.20 AC (8;7l2 SF) 
. . 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
20) Ref Parcel # 1S212DA 00700 I Parcel# R0359105 · 
Lot Size: 0:45 AC (19,602 SF) 
Building Size: 884 SF / 
~ Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
21) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 00500 I Parcel# R0359089 · 
Lot Size: 0.45 AC (19~602 SF) 
Building Size: 1;010 SF 
- Exc,luded by proximity to existing store . · 
22) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 00501 I Parcel# R132S854 
Lot Size: 0.10 AC (4,356 SF) 
.· - Ex~luded by proximity to, existing: store . 
23) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 00600 I Parcel# R9359098 
Lot Size: 0.11 AC (7;405 SF) 
Building ·size: no SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
2.4) Ref Parcel #.1S212DA 00400 I Parcel# R0359070 
Lot Size: 1.33 AC (57,935 SF) 
Building Size: 1,305 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
. 25) Ref Parcel # 1S212DA 00100 j Parcel# R0359034 
. Lot Size : 1.14 AC (49,658 SF) 
Bu ilding Size: 3,882 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to 'existing store. 
26) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 00300 I Parcel# R0359061 
Lot Size: 0.17 AC (7,405 SF) 
Building Size : 700 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
27) Ref Parcel# 1Si12DA 00301 I Parcel # R1166972 
Lot Size : 0.20 AC (8,712 SF) 
Bui lding Size : 780 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store . 
28) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 04900 I Parcel# R0359631 
Lot Size: 0.33 AC (14;375 SF) 
Building Size : 1,887 SF 
- Excluded by proximity t o existing store . 
./ 
.~ 
/ 
~ 
6 
I Exhibit C 12-222-PA 
62 of 223 
I 29) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 04800 I Parcel# R0359622 
I 
Lot S i z~ : 0.15 AC (6,534 SF) 
Building Size: 572 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
I 30) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA05000 I Parcel# R0359640 · Lot Size : 0.38 AC (16,5S3 SF) 
Building Size: 1,408 SF 
I -Excluded by proximity to existing sto're. 1 31) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 04700 I Parcel# R0359613 
I Lot Size : 0.49 AC (21,344 SF) Building Size : 728 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
I 32) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 04600 I Parcel # R0359604 LotSize :0.19 AC(8,276 SF} 
Building Size: 1,280 ~F 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 33) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 04500 I Parcel# R0359597 . 
.I Lot Size: 0.25 AC (10,890 SF) Building Size : 1,618 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
J 
I 34) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 09700 I Parcel# R2087623 . Lot Size r.1.06 AC (4~,174 SF) 
I 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
35) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 09800 I Parcel# R2087624 
Lot Size: 1.03 AC (44,867 SF) 
I Building Size : 6,660 SF \ - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
36) Ref Parcel# 1S2l2DA 07400 I Parcel# fW360148 
I Lot Size : 0.65 AC (28,314 SF) ~uild i ng Size: 9,210 SF 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 37) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 07500 I Parcel # R0360139 
Lot Size: 0.32 AC (13,929 SF) 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 38) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 07600 I Parcel# R0359999 
Lot Size: 0.52 AC (22,651 SF) 
I Building Size : 5,040 SF 
-' Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
.I 39) Ref Parcel# 1S212DA 07700 I Parcel# R03599980 / Lot Size: 0.56 AC {24,394 SF} 
Building Size: 572 SF 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
I 7 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I . 
I 
I 
I 
I 
1\ 
' 
Exhibit c · 
12-222-PA 
63 of 223 
40) Ref Parcel# 1S212.0A 07300 I Parcel# R0359J75 
Lot Size: 0.20 AC (8,712 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
41) Ref Parcel # 1S212DA 07100 I Parcei # R0359757 
Lot Size: 0.18 AC (7,841 SF) 
- ExCluded by proximity to existing store. 
42) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 01300 I Parcel# R0047185 
Lot Size: 2.61 AC (113;692 SF) 
Building Si_ze: 62,619 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
43) Ref Parcel# 1S~07CB 0360i I Parcel# R0047522 . 
Lot Size: 1.46 AC. (63;598 SF) 
- Exc.luded by proximity to existing store. 
44) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03l00/ Parcel# R0047531 
. Lot Size: 0.31 AC (13,504 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store~ .· 
45) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03701 I Parcel# R0047540 
Lot Siie: 0.14 AC (6,098 SF) 
Building Size: 936 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
46) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03500 I Parcel# R0047504 
Lot Size: 0.14 AC (6,098 SF) 
- Excluded by pro~imity to existing store. 
47) Ref Par~;el # 1Sl07CB 03501 I Parcel# R0047513 
Lot Size: 0.38 AC {16,553 SF) 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
48) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03200 I Parcel# R0047498 
Lot Size: 0.94 AC (40,946 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
49) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 02800 I Parcel# R0047443 
Lot Size: 0.19 AC (8,276 SF=) 
Building Size : 1,093 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
SO) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 02900 I Parcel# R0047452 
· Lot Size: 0.18 AC (7,841 SF) 
Building Size: 1,179 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
51) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03000 I Parcel# R0047461 
lot Size : 0.25 AC (10,890 SF) 
Building Size : 4,456 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
8 
I 
I ) 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
·I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
64 of 223 
52) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03100 I Parcel # R0047470 
Lot Size: 0:22 AC {9,583 SF) 
Build ing Size : 3,180 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
53) Ref Parte!# 1S107CB 03101 I Parcel# R0047489 
Lot Size : 0.24 AC {10,454 SF) 
Building Size : 720 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store . - . 
54) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03800/ Parcel# R0047559 
Lot Size: 0.40 AC (17,424 SF) 
Building Size : 5,280 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
55) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 03900 I Parcel# R0047568 
. Lot Size : 0.55 AC {23,958 SF) 
Build ing Size : 11,214 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
56) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04100 I Parcei. #R0047577 
Lot Size: 0 .11 AC (4,792 SF) 
\ 
'· Bu ilding Size: 1,071 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
57) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04200 I Parcel# R0047595 
Lot Size: 0 .15 AC (6,534 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
58) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04101 I Parcel# R004i586 
Lot Size: 0.30 AC {13,068 SF) 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
59) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04300 I Parcel# R0047602 
Lot Size: 0 .25 AC {10,890 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
60) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04301 I Parcel# R0047611 
Lot Size : 0.315 AC {13,504 SF) 
Build ing Size : 3,500 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
61) Ref P~rcel # 1S107CB 04400 I Parcel# R0047620 
Lot Size : 0.99 AC {43,124 SF) 
Build ing Size : 2,074SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store . 
62) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04500 I Parcel# R0047639 
Lot Size: 0 .27 AC (11,761 SF) 
Building Size : 2,580 SF-
- Excluded by proximity to exist ing store. 
" 
9 
I Exhibit C 12-222-PA 
65 of223 · /. 
I 63) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 04600 I Parcel# R0047648 
I. Lot Size : 0.63 AC (27,443 SF) · . -Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
64) Ref Parcel# lS107CB 04700 I Parcel# R0047657 
I Lot Size: O.i4 AC (10,454SF) Building Size: 1,176 SF 
- Exch1ded -by proximity to existing store . 
I 65) Hef Parcel# lS107CB 04800 I Parcel # .R0047666 .. r Lot Size: 0:25 Ac·(10,890 SF) 
I 
Building Size: 648 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . · 
. . . 
66) Ref Parcei # 1S107CB 04801 I Parcel# R0047675 
. . . - I 
,I ._· Lot Size: 0.22 AC (9,5S3 SF) · 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store . ; . 
67) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB o'4900 I Parcel# R0047.684 
I Lot Size: OA1 AC (17,860 SF) Building Size; 1,488SF 
I -Excluded by prpximity to existing store. 68) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 05000 I Parcel# ROM7693 
Lot Size : 0.42 AC (18,295 SF) . 
I Building Size: 1,154 SF ' . 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store , 
I 
69) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 051001 Parc.el # R0047700 
Lot Size: 0.67 AC (29,185 SF) .. 
Building Size: 2,830 SF 
I -Excluded by proximity to existing store . 70) Ref Parcel# 1S107CB 05101 I Parcel# R0047719 
Lot Size: 0.67 AC (29,185 SF) 
1- ~ Excluded by proximity to existing stor:e. 
j 71) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC01201 I Parcel# R1367167 
I Lot Size: 0.04 AC (1,742 SF) -Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
72) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 01200 I Parcel# R0047988 
I Lot Size: 0.16 Ac (6,970 SF) Building Size: 1,161 SF 
I 
- Excluded by pr~ximity to existing store. 
73) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 01100 I Parcel# R00479'79 
Lot Size: 0.16 AC (6,970 SF) 
I Building Size: 1,869 SF - Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
74) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC01000I Parcel# R0047960· 
I Lot Size: 0.08 AC (3,485 SF) 
I 10 
I 
I 
,I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
; 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
66 of 223 
Building Size : 1,226-SF . 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
75) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00900 I Parcel# R0047951 
Lot SiZe: 0.23 AC (10,019 SF) · 
Build ing Size: 4,000 SF 
-Excluded by p·roximity to existing store. 
76) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00800 I Parcel# R0047942 
Lot Size: 0.45 AC (19,602 SF) 
Bu ilding Size : 9,495 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
77) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC Q0700 I Parcel# R0047933 
Lot Size : 0.17 AC (7,405 SF.) 
Building Size: 1,699 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . . 
. . 
78) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00500 I Parcel# R0047924 
Lot Size : 0.32 AC (13,939 SF) 
Building Size : 1,396 SF and 704 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
79) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00400 I Parcel# R0047915 
Lot Size: 0.13 AC (5,663 SF) 
Building Size : 1,111 SF 
- ExCluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
80) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00301 I Parcel# R0047906 
Lot Size: 0.24 AC (10,454 SF) 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
81) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00300 /Parcel# R0047899 
Lot Size: 1.86 AC (81,022 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
82) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00201 I Parcel# R0047880 
Lot Size : 0:46 AC (20,038 SF) 
- Bu ilding Size : 2,116 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to e)dsting store. 
83) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00200 I Parcel# R0047871 
Lot Size : 0.50 AC (21,780 SF) 
Bu ilding Size : 2,240 SF and 4,200 SF 
-Exc luded by proximity to exist ing store. 
84) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00102 I Parcel# R0047862 
Lot Size : 1.03 AC (44,867 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existi ng store. 
85) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00100 I Parcel# R0047835 
Lot Size: 0.68 AC (29,621 SF) 
" 
11 
I 
I 
I 
I. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
67 of223 ( 
Building Size: 5,040 SF and 4,320 SF 
· - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
86) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 00101 I Parcel# R0047844 
Lot Size : 0.23 AC (10,019 SF) 
Building Size : 2,400 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. . . 
87) Ref Parcel# 1S~07CC 01301 I Parcel# R1346715 
Lot Size: 0.22 AC (9,583 SF) 
-ExCluded by proximity to existing store. 
88) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 01600/ Parcel# R0048013 
Lot Size: 0.19 AC (8,276 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . . 
. · 89) Ref Parcel.# 1S107CC 01501 I Parcel# R1200685 
Lot Size : 0.04 AC (1, 742 SF) 
- Excluded by proximityto existing store. 
90) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 01800 I Parcel# R0048031 
Lot Size: 0:08 AC (3,485 SF) 
Building: 1,128 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
91) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 01700 I Parcel# R0048022 
Lot Size: 0.24 AC(J0,454 SF) 
. - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
92) Ref Parcel# 1S107CC 01900 I Parcel# R0047906 
Lot Size: 0.24 AC (10,454 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
93) Refparcel # 1S107CA 02100 I Parcel# R0046907 
Lot Size: 0.19 AC (8,276 SF) 
Building Size : 1,055 SF · 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
94) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 01900 I Parcel# R0046881 
Lot Size: 0.28 AC:. (12,197 SF) 
BuildingSize: 1,030 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
95) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 01801 I Parcel# R1449953 
Lot Size: 0.20 AC (8,712 SF) 
Building Size : 881 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
96) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 02000 I Parcel# R0046890 
Lot Size: 0.12 AC (5,227 SF) 
Building Size: 864 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
-: 
12 
I Exhibit C 12-222-PA 
68 of 223 _ J 
I 97) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 01700 I Parcel # R0046863 
I 
Lot Size : 0.34 AC {14,810 SF) 
Building Size: 881 SF 
- . 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
I 98) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 01600 I Parcel# R0046854 Lot Size: 0.39 AC {16,988 SF) . 
Bu ilding Size : 848 SF 
I. -~ Excluded by proximity to existJ ng store. _ 99) RerParcel # 1S107CA 01400/ Parcel# R0046827 
I Lot Size: 0.44 AC {19,166 SF) Building Size : 1,362 SF 
- Excluded by'proxim ity to existing store. 
I 100) Ref Pa rcel# 1S10iCA 01200 /Parcel# R0046809 Lot Size : 0.43 AC {18,731SF) 
Building Size: 1,454 SF 
I - Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 101) Ref_Parcel # 1S107CA 01100 I Parcel# R0046792 
I Lot Size : 0.52 AC {22,651 SF) Building Size : 1,568 SF and 1,960 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
I 102) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 00800 I Parcel# R0046I65 Lot _Size : 0.63 AC {27,443 SF) 
I 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
103) Ref Parcel# 1Sl07CA 00801 I Parcel# R1449953 
Lot Size : 0.20 AC {8,712 SF) 
I Build ing Size : 881 SF - Excluded by proxim ity tq existing store . 
104) Ref Parcel# 1S107CA 00701 /Parce l # R0046756 
I Lot Size: 1.27 AC {55,321 SF). Bu ilding Size: 2,542 SF 
I - Excluded by proximity to existi ng store. 105) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00900 I Parcel# R0048834 
Lot Size : 0.20 AC {8, 712 SF) 
I Building Size : 1,568 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
I· 
106) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 01000 I Parce l # R0048843 
Lot Size : 0.22 AC {9,583 SF) 
Building Size : 2, 785 SF 
I - Excluded by proxim ity to exist ing store. 107) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00800 I Parcel# R0048825 
I 
Lot Size : 0.50 AC {21,780 SF) 
I -
I 13 
I Exhibit C 12-222-PA 
69 of 223 
I. Building Size : 3,000 SF 
I 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
108) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00700 I Parcel # R0048816 
Lot Siie: o:84 AC {36,590 SF) 
. " 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. . 109) Ref Parcel# 1$107CD 00500 I Parcel # R0048807 -· . 
Lot Size :. 0.48 AC {20,909 SF) ·. 
I . Building Size: 2,216SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
I 
HO) Ref Parcel'# 1S107CD 00401 I Parcel #R0048781 
Lot $ize: 0.58 AC (25,265 SF) 
Bu ild ing Siz~ : 13,884 SF 
I ~ Excluded by proximity to existing store: 111) Ref parcel# 1S107CD 00400 I Parcel# R0048772 
Lot Size: 0.18 AC {7,841 SF) 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store . 112) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00490 I Parcel# R0048790 
I Lot Size: 0.38 AC {16,553 SF) - Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
113) · Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00100 I Parcel# R0048754 
I Lot Size : 0.24 AC {10;454 SF) -Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
I 
·114) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00201 I Parcel# R0048763 
Lot Size : 034 AC {14,810 SF) 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store . · 
I 115) Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 03300 I Parcel# R2050536 Lot Size: 0.07 AC {3,049 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to exist ing store. 
I 116) Ref Parcel# 1S107DC d0600 I Parcel # R0049762 Lot Size: 1.25 AC (54,450 SF) 
I 
- Excluded by proxim ity to exist ing store. 
117) Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 00700 I Parcel # R0049833 . 
Lot Size: 0.46 AC {20,038 SF) 
I - Excluded by proxim ity to existing store . 118) Ref Parcel# 1~107DC 00800 I Parcel# R0049842 
Lot Size : 0.13 AC {5,663 SF) 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 119) Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 00801 I Parcel # R0049851 
I Lot Size: 0.41 AC {17,860 SF) - Excluded by proxim ity to exist ing store . 
120) Ref Parcel # 1S107DC 00601 I Parce l # R0049771 I _, Lot Size: 0.19 AC {8,276 .SF) 
I 14 
' ' 
I _x hlio " ~ 1/-2?? PA 
7L 
I ~ 1 ~ <> : 2,112 SF 
· ' xcluded by proximity to existing store. \ 
I ~·' ' , f Parcel# 1S107DC 00602 I Parcel# R0049780 
· ; .>1t.e : 0.18 AC (7,841 SF)' 
.I jj u JI JJng Size: 2,304 SF 
Exclu ded by proximity to existing store. 
1 7"" Ref " f1rcel # 1S107DC00603 I Parcel# R0049799 
I l o1 ·~~z e : 0.30 AC .(13,068 SF) 
L l .g S1.:.e: 2,304 SF 
I - Eyr·luded by proximity to existing store. ' ' . lc;. .. I eel # 1S107DC 00606 I Parcel # R0049824 
.ot :> ize. 0.20 AC (8,7l2 SF) 
~,, il di ng Size: 2,304 SF 
~XL t d by proximity to existing store. 
[ / 1' Ref r ·1rcel # 1S107DC 00604 I Parcel# R0049806 
I _,., ' 0.22AC (9,583 SF) J 
· 4 Size: 3,444 SF 
r ~ I 1ded by prOXimity tO eXiSting StOre . 
. # 1Sl07DC 00605 I Parcel# R0049815 
0.22 AC (9,583 SF) 
I >- ', ,,, .. ,,ze: 3,444 SF · I . ' · ny proximity to existing store. 
I 
~"'.; . ,; _, . ..;, eel# 1S107DC 01000 I Parcel #H0049860 
. ,)1 )1 -ce· 0.31 AC (13,504 SF) 
l1u•!rl ing ~ i ze: 3,600 SF 
I E. I _.j by proximity to existing store. 1 • ': A~ oarcel # 1S107DC 01001 I Parcel# R0049879 
0.21 AC (9,148 SF) 
P • h " Size: 1,997 SF 
" j ;Jy proximity to existing store. 
1'JRI RPf Parcel # 1S107DC 01110 I Parcel# R0049888 
J2 AC (22,651SF) 
"' '"' :.'u '-'Y proximity to existing store. 
I '..,,., , "'rr narc ·_I # 1S107DC 01300 I Parce l # R0049897 I _1• : 1.15 AC (50,094 SF) 
I 
1 by proxim ity to existing store. 
1 "Jn\ R"f rh ~,.. , # 1S107DC 00500 I Parcel# R0049753 
c.O, JILL. 0.87 AC (37,897 SF) 
I , 10 ),ze: 768 SF and 1,299 SF Excluded by proximity to exist ing store. 
.. :L. f ';:n e rt 1S107DC 00400 I Parcel # R0049744 
I II""(" ' 0 .52 AC (22,651 SF) 
I 15 
I 
I 
I 
·I 
I 
I 
. I
I 
lr 
I. 
I 
I 
I-
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
·"\ . 
Exhibit c 
12-222-PA 
71 of22~ 
~uilding Size: 1,506 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
132) · RefParcel # 1S107DC 90000/ Parcel# R1201S3~ 
Lot Size: 0.44 AC {19,346 SF) 
~ Excluded by proximityt~ existing store . . . 
133) . Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 90001 I Parcel# R1201540 
Lot Size: . 0.01 AC (476 SF) 
134) 
Building Size: 1;024 SF 
. . . . . 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
Ref Parcel# 1S.107DC 90002 I Parcel # R1201559 
• • t • • • • • 
Lot Size: 0.01 AC (526 SF} 
Building Size: 1!024 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. · . 
135) ·Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 90003 I Parcel it R120156.8 
'Lot Size: 0.01 AC (561 SF) 
Building Size: ·1,024 SF 
-Excluded byprcixi"mityto existing store . . 
. 136) Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 90004/ Parcel# R1201577 
Lot Size: 0.01 AC (544 SF) 
Building Size: 1,024 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
137) Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 90005/ Parcel# R1201S86 
Lot Size : 0.01 AC{S52 SF) 
Building Siie: 1,024 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. ·· 
138) · Ref Parcel # 1S107DC 90006 I Parcel # R1201595 
Lot Size: 0.01 AC (536 SF) 
· Building Size: 1,024 SF 
-Too small 
·-Inferior location, not on the main intersection of trade area 
139) Ref Parcel# 1S107DC 00100 I Parcel# R0049708 
Lot Size: p.26 AC (11,326 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store_ 
140) RefPartel # 1S107DC 00201 I Parcel# R0049726 
Lot Size: 0.19 AC (8,276 SF) 
Building Size : 1,897 SF ( 
-Excluded by proximity·to existing store . 
141) RefParcel # 1S107DC 00200 I Parcel# R0049717 
.. Lot Size : 0.10 AC (4,356 SF) 
Building Size : 644 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing stOre. 
i . 
\ 
16 
' 
' 
I Exhibit C 12-222-PA 
72 of223 
I 142) Ref Parcel # 1S1070C 01400/ Parcel # R0049904 
I 
Lot Size: 0.85 AC (37,026 SF) \.. 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store ~ 
143) Ref Parcel# 1S1070C 05600 I Parcel# R0050893 
I Lot Size : 0.74 AC (~2,234 SF) I Bu ilding Size: 7 ;316 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to .existin15 store. 
I . 144) Ref Parcel# iS2120B 03700 I Parcel# R035.6625 . . Lot Size: 0.40 AC (17,424 SF) 
I 
- Exclui:led by proximity to existing store. 
145) Ref Parcel# 1S212bB 0.3800 I Parc~l # R0356616 
/ 
·. Lot Size: 0.40 AC (17,424SF) \· 
I Building Size : 1,602 SF -Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
146) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 01100/Parcel # R035989l 
I Lot Size: 0.77 AC (33,5:41 SF) . Building Size: 3,314. SF 
I -Excluded by proximity to existing store. 147) Ref Parcel# iS2120~ 01200 I Parcel# R0359908 
Lot Size: 0.35 AC (15;246 SF) 
I Building Size: 1,196 SF (-
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
I 
148) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 01300 I Parcel# R0359917 
LotSize : 0.27 AC (11,761 SF) 
Bui lding Size : 1,554 SF 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store . 149) Ref Parcel #.1S2120B 01400 I Parcel# R0359926 
Lot Size : 0.32 AC (13,939 SF) 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store . . ,150) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 01500 I Parcel# R0359935 
I Lot Size : 0.42 AC (18,295 SF) . Building Size: 1,388 SF 
- Exc~ uded by proximity to existing store: 
I 151) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 03900 I Parcel# R0356778 Lot Size : 0.91 AC (39,640 SF) 
Build ing Size : 7,134 SF 
I - Excluded by proximity to existing store. 152) , Ref Parcel# 1S212DB 04100 I Parcel# R2079050 
I . Lot ~ize : 0.27 AC (11,761 SF) - Excl uded by proxim ity t o exist ing store. 
153) Ref Parcel # 1521206 04200 I Parcel # R2079051 
I Lot Size: 0.20 AC (8, 712 SF) ' 
I 17 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I '· 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
73 at 223 
.· Building Size: 1,690 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
. . . ' . 
154) Ref Parcel# iS2120B 04000 I Pare~ I# R2079049 
.·. Lot Size: 0.42 AC (18,295 SF) 
Building Size : 7,000 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. · 
155) RefP~rcel # 152120B 01600 IPar.cel # R0359944 · 
Lot Size: 0.30 AC (13,068 SF) 
Building Size: 5,814 SF . 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store . 
156) Ref Parcel.# 1S2120B 01601 I Parcel# R0359953 -
Lot Size: 0.45 AC (19,602 SF) 
Building Size: 2,108 SF 
~ Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
157) · Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 01602/ Parcel # R2001154 
LotSize: 0.04 AC {1,742 SF) . 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store·. · 
158) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 02500 I Parcel# R0360059 
Lot Size: 0.20 At (8,712 SF') 
Building Size: 801 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
159) RefParcel # 1S2120B'02600 I Parcel# R0360068 
LofSize : 0.21 AC{9,148 SF) 
Building Siie : 1,287 SF 
" Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
160) · Ref Parcel# 1S212DB 02700 I Parcel# R0360077 
Lot Size: 0.2t AC {9,l48 SF) 
Building Size: 1,618 SF 
·- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
161) · Ref Parcel # 1S2120B 02800 I Parcel #.R0360086 · 
Lot Size : 0.81 AC {35,284 SF) 
Building Size: 1,450 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
162) Ref Parcel # 1?2120B.02801 I Parcel# R0360095 
Lot Size: 0.25 AC {~0,890 SF) 
Building Size: 2,480 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store: 
·· 163) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 02400 I Parcel# R0360040 
Lot Size: 0.37 AC {16,117 SF) 
Building Size: 1,712 SF 
-Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
. . ./~· 
18 
I 
I 
.I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
74 of 223 
164) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 02300 I Parcel# R0360031 
Lot Size: 0.40 AC (17,424 SF) 
Bu ilding Size:816 SF • 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
165) . Ref Parcel# 1S212DB 02200 I Parcel# H0360022 
Lot Size: 0.40 AC (17,424 SF) 
~uilding Size: 816 SF. 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store . . 
166) Ref Parcel# 1S212DB 02100 I Parcel ·# R0360004 
Lot Size: 0.28 AC (12,197 SF) 
Building Size: 1,105 SF · 
- ExCluded by proximity tci existing store. 
167) Ref Parcel # 1S2120B 02101 I Parcel # R0360013 
Lot Size: 0.56 AC (24,394 SF) · 
Building Size : 2,544 SF 
- Excluded by proximitVto existing store . 
. . 168) Ref Parcel# 1S212DB 02802 I Parcel # R0360102 
Lot Size: 1.01 AC (43;996 SF) 
Building Size : 4,983 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to existing store. 
169) Ref Par~el # 1S212DB 02900 I Parcel# R0360111 
Lot Size: 0.67 AC (29,185 SF) 
Building Size : 2,485 SF 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
170) Ref Parcel# 1S2120B 02901 I Parcel# R0360120 
Lot Size : 0.42 AC (18,295 SF) 
- Excluded by proximity to existing store. 
171) Ref Parcel# 1S118CA 00101 I Parcel# R0155307 
Lot Size : 5.00 AC (217,800 SF) 
Building Size: 36,854 SF 
- Excluded by proxim ity to_existing store . 
172) Ref Parcel# 1S118CA 00102 I Parcel# R0155316 
Lot Size : 16.40 AC (714,384 SF) 
- Excluded because it is an existing shopping center with Rite Aid as an anchor who has an 
exclusive . 
173) Ref Parcel# 1S118CA 00100 I Parcel# R0155290 
Lot Size: 3.09 AC (134,600 SF) 
- Excluded due to pond/park/wetlands area 
174) Ref Parcel# 1S118CA 00103 I Parcel# R0155325 
Lot Size:· 0.69 AC (30,056 SF) 
Bu ilding Size: 2,833 SF 
.__; 
19 
I 
I 
I 
I: 
-I · 
I. 
I 
I 
. I 
I 
I 
1-
I 
I 
I 
I· 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C .· 
12-222-PA 
75 of 223 
- Excluded because it is an existing shoppin& cent er with Rite Aid as an anchor who has an 
exclusive. · 
175) RefParcel # 1S118CA 00300/ Parcel# R01S5334 
Lot Size: 0.55 AC (23,958 SF) . . . . . . . 
-Excluded · because it is an existing shopping centeri.vith Rite Aid as an anchor who has an · 
exclusive. 
. . . . . . 
*All other parcels zoned CBD on maps 1S~12CA, ·iS212CB and 1S211DA are excluded due to the 
proximity ofthe _Walgr~ens store at 19975 SW TV Hwy. 
· Sincerely, 
(&«~ · 
Jeff Olsori 
Commercial Realty Advisors NW, LLC . 
733 SW 2"d Ave; Suite 200 
Portland, OR 97204 
P: 503-274-0211 x160 
F: 503-274-0985 . 
C: 503-957-1452 • I 
.. . 
...._ 
20 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
1. 
I 
I 
I 
:) JIQ14X3 I 
-I 
I 
I 
I 
1: 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Exhibit C 
?f~blson 
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 
Commercial Realty Advisors NW, Portland, OR, 2004to present- Member/broker 
representing national and local retailers in site acquisitions and providing leasing services to 
shopping center owners 
Coca-Cola, Portland, OR &: Los Angeles, CA, 1998 to 2004 - Managed sales and marketing of 
Coca-Cola products to local, regional and national retailers 
EDUCATION 
Graduated from Washington State University in 1998 with a BA in International Business 
AWARDS AND AFFILIATIONS 
International Council of Shopping Centers ( 'ICSC') 
Commercial Association of Realtors ('CAR') 
2009 CAR "Retail Broker of the Year" 
2010 CAR "Retail Broker of the Year" 
. LICENSES 
Broker - State of Oregon 
Associate J3roker - State of Washington 
PERSONAL 
Born in Portland, OR 
Married 9 years, 4 sons 
• 
I 
I 
I 
I. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
-
I 
I 
I 
I 
~~~pJe Projects~ Clients 
J:- •• rtia l list of retail clients include: 
7 Gln en, Cl1.1se, Del Taco, Burger King, Palm Beach Tan/Desert Sun Tanning, Les Schwab Tire 
, ' enter .;;_ Rt r-A-Center, Ufe Time Fitness, Dutch Bros. Coffee, Great Clips for Hair, Relax the 
ri ct\.k. l' \1\ h..ugs, Outlaw BBQ Company,Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, Fitness Together, 
'~lt r, u l hcrapeutic Massage, Black Bear Diner, Kool Smiles Dentistry for Kids, Regency 
l_,,_ ,IUt\ [IlSUtute 
!-' , · 1al list .1r developer clients include: 
d.Lirust , Atlas Investments, Seven Hills Properties, Pacific Star, Kimco Realty, Regency 
·-nte1s, W estwood Development, KFS Properties, West Coast Investment Realty, MAJ 
11evelnprn ~nt Corp · 
,AI\' I L .t: PROJECTS 
. ~i te ar n.1 isitions for Chase in Oregon & SW Washington 
'lite .lt l~tlsitions for 7-Eleven in Oregon & SW Washington 
• , .tions for Burger King in Oregon & SW Washington 
h~ .,_ .. ke tin leasing of The Crossroads at Orenco Station, Hillsboro 
1 icasing of Clackamas Promenade, Portland 
·.,ia•' ·' ting & leasing of the Columbia Tech Center Retail at 192nd & Mill Plain Blvd, Vancouver 
· l v, ht ing est leasing of Columbia Crossing, Vancouver, WA 
)i c ·, _ w;itions for Life Time Fitness in Oregon & SW Washington 
Site .__q,,; itions for Del Taco in Oregon & SW Washington 
,;; ,a · " · · leasing of the Gateway Shopping Center, Portland 
M;c 1 · · " -~ J.2asing of Eastport Plaza, Portland 
i'vh ·k >t 11w N::t. leasing of Uptown Shopping Center, Portland 
•:~ leasing of Harbor Shops@ Jantzen Beach, Portland 
Mark r-~ 1 1 n(r, & leasing of Greenhouse Square, Clackamas 
•
1tr l' • sitions for Palm Beach/Desert Sun Tanning, Oregon & SW Washington 
~)<t.: a• 11::.:' 1ons for Dutch Bros. Coffee, Portland/Vancouver Metro Area 
.J Ui ' ,ons for KeyBank in Oregon & Washington 
Sitt (~'-t ' '"JLlOns for Great Clips for Hair, Oregon&: SW Washington 
1 ,. :,ms for Relax the Back, Portland Metro Area 
l ea.-,tdg & surplus disposition for NW Rugs, Portland 
-I 
I 
I. 
I. 
I. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I · 
&ferences 
12-222-f:'A 
Andrew Jones, Vice President 
PacT rust 
Portland, OR 
DaVid Caldwell, President 
West Coast Investment Realty 
Encinitas, CA 
lou Elliott 
Elliott Associates 
Portland, OR 
Ken Simon 
KFS Properties 
Santa Monica, CA 
) 
Richard loffelmacher, Director of Retail Development 
PacT rust 
Portland, OR 
Bareq Peshtaz, President 
Palm Beach Tan 
Seattle, WA 
Brian Heitzman 
New Plan Development 
Dallas, TX 
Patrick Flanagan 
KeyBank Corporate Real Estate 
Portland, OR 
503-624-6300 
760-481-7900 
503-224-6791 
310-576-6666 
503-624-6300 
425-433-1900 
I 
972-668-2989 
503-353-2266 
"  
@  
" '  
u ·  
0  
0  
" '  
$  - - -
· " '  
c  
0  
< J >  
0  
2 0 4 0  G r o w t h  C o n c e p t  M a p  
J a n u < J r y  1 ,  2 0 1 1  
· - - = = - -, m i O • • •  
~77:.~:~.:.:.::.?:::~.:..:-::0:: . . .  ~~~~::;:_·:;.:~.:..:-.:..-:::.;::~·_:: 
. " : ' Y  
f~: " *  
~ ~ 
, , m  
.  - . ! - '  
& &  f t  
i \  
~. 
4 . ! 1  
a  
( ! }  
' " '  
. ; ; >  
:!-'-<'·'~ 
' t r <  
< ! ! >  
"'~!:;}, 0  
o.~,..,e,. t~o M e i • O  1 0 < 0  Go--.~ t c n c . p >  ,.,.-..,.~ c l l o n o  •~<loJ<! •n1 : •~• I O J S  II.C I '""~' l r . t n " " ' r u t • l l n  
1~0 ' " ' " ' < > I  r ( l o " " l i l f O W ' t l >  f r w l  <l~ioDment l c : w  P l 1 n  t~t C h l < h n • o  , . . . . . . , < l , t t N I I , i . . ,  l n ; i l l • p l c  . , o < l a  o t  
, , . . P o r u . . , . , M C , o o o M ; a n • c t • O " T h t G t < > o o 1 h  " ' " ' " " " • t i o n  . •  n < l • < o _ . . , . . . , , , o l o u l o o l . . , . . ,  
C o n w o o  . .  .,,.IOI>tC<I •nO..u..,~tl9tiii>•Oulh • n d i " " " ' ' " ' ' " l l t l ' > a t w i l l t > o h > t h o • • • • " " " " ' " '  
ll>f~EiooiiQooO •Wl""'& ;oNII>UIIIo<•-kool"'tnl I < <  . . . . . . . . .  O d O I O I " ' " " ' " " " " i n h > < O n t U ' I , I O I I  . . . . . . . .  
Q I ' O < O O I .  n  . .  C O f t C . p t  f t  ~lffO<Id 1 0  I I ' I > Y M i o  l O n e ·  • n d  f m g l v f m . . . , l  O ! U I .  
lr<"' &IO'WI.hmf,..le-NIIIt~e<e(IO~ 
f D f  m o • c  ' " ' O • . . , f \ 1 0 " " "  l l > n f  ""'i>~ioe\. -~ 
l h •  m a p  h ' ' " ' ' J I ' \ . 1  • l t . . - w n t l  o l  J I . I  . . .  C I  p l o n " " ' c  " " g  ~~--DffC0""'01tO.(Ov/10ot(l 
< ! ) > ' .  
t  
- U i  
e >  
"  
•.~ 
" "  
·  . .  r ,  
( ! }  
~ 
- . . *  
...~~. 
· - · -
" '  
. .  
. J t  
i J l ·  
I f '  
I  
. .  
h"istircht&hup.city\~rl5i1 CountybO<Jnd~ritl 
P\~nnf'd h i & h  u p n i t y  l r<~nsit ( : 1  Urb~"' & r D W l h  b o u n d 1 r i e '  ~Metro 
4  Ctnl~l t i f y  E m p l o y m t ' n l  l~nd 
4 i ! f S  R t J I O f ' l • l u - n t t r  4 J .  Pllh•ndnltur.~~l•rn\ 
T o w l ' l  c e n l f ' (  N t i l h b o r h o o d  
P r o p o u : d  h t l h  C I I P I C ! I Y  t~ "'SII l < t f  1  N t • l h b o r  citlt~ 
M a k i n g  a  g r e a t  p l a c e  
S l l l i t > n t o m m u n i l i t i  - M 4 i n \ l f l ! t l i  
M•inltne fre i~ht 2 i  A l f P C H ' U  
-
Hilhi~t'dr••• J l  t n t e < t l l y r a • l t e r m i n • t  
··a··· .ONCOUNTY · · D ;~OF LAND USE A~;,_.o fRANSPORTATibN 
~. . L if!: PLANNING DN!SION 
• 
Rb 4 
. 155 N.ORTH FIRST AVENUE 
. HILLSBORO, OREGON . 97124 
· (503) 646-3519 rax: (503)846-4412 
DECEMBER 1, 2011 
PL:AN AMENDMENT 
-P-RE-APPLICATION 
CONFERENCE SUMMARY 
PROC!;:DURE TYPE Ill 
CPO: 6 
COMMUNITY PLAN: Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain 
PRE-APPLICANT: Exhibit 6 
Seven Hills Properties LLe · 
Attn.: Mr. Tom Rocca 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San francisco, CA · 94107 
Phone: 415-247-7377 
PRE-APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 
Bai~Janik, LLP. 
Attn.: Ms. Dana t<rawciuk 
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 
. Portland, OR 97204 
Phone: 503-228-2525 
OWNER: 
Westside Community Church of washington County 
18390 SW Farmington Road 
Beaverton, OR 97007 
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 
ASSESSOR MAP NO{S): 1S1' 19BB 
TAX LOT NO(S): 800, 901, 1000 
.SITE SIZE: 2.24 acres 
ADDRESS: 18470 SW Farmington Road 
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of the SW Farmington Road 
and sw 1851" Ave interseCtion . 
EXISTING -LAND USE DISTRICT(S): Residential15 Units per Acre {R-
15) 
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: 
.Change Designation from R-15 to ~I GB~ 
DATE OF PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES: 12/01/11 and 
08/29l2011 . 
PRE-APPLICANT PHONE: 503-228-2525 fapplicant's·rep) 
LONG RANGE PLANNING STAFF: Paul Schaefer and Aisha Willits, Senior Planners. J~anne Rice and Andy Back, Prin·cipal Planners 
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DEADLINE AND OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS:N/A 
. . . "\ . . . 
FEBRUARY 15 (generally) for SPRING/SUMMER HEARINGS - AUGUST 15 (generally) for FALUW/NTER HEARrNGS 
(NOTE: AN APPLICATION WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL IT IS ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE. A COMPLETE APPLICATION ADDRESSES All .APPLICABLE 
PROVISIONS OF THE VARIOUS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS AJiiD OTHER APPLICABlE REQUIREMENTS, AND HAS All NECESSARY FORMS FilLED OUT COMPLETELY AND 
CORRECTLY, AND INCLUDES THE SPECIFIED FEE DEPOSIT AND THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY THE OWNER AGREEING TO PAYMENT OF ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 
APPLICATION PROCESSING.) . 
. I 
. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 
URBAN COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK PLAN CONSIDERATIONS : 
DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITHTHE FOLLOWING POLICIES AND APPLICABLE IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES 
UND_ERTHESE POLICIES: 1.f.2, 2, 14, 18, 21. 22. 23, 30. 31. 32, 36, 39, and 40 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: . 
DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING POLICIES AND APPLICABLE IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES 
• UNDER THESE POLICIES: 1, 2, 4. 5. 6, 10, 12, 14. 15, and 19 
' \ 
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS: 
o Application for the plan amendment must include transportation analysis demonstrating cbmpliance with the Transportation Planning Rule and ODOT 
requirements. 
o Application for an Access Management Plan lAMPl mus·t include traffic•analysis demonstrating that the proposed AMP satisfies all applicable review 
criteria (noting that Hearing Officer's decision on the AMP must be issued prior to issuance of a decision by the Planning Commission on the tiuasi-. 
judicial plan amendment) More information wili be provided by Current Planning Division staff · 
COMMlJ.NITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: 1 
.. DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ALOHA-REEDVILLE-COOPER MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLAN OVERVIEW, GENERAL DESIGN 
ELEMENT NUMBER(S).7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, & 21, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMINGTON ROAD CORRIDOR SUBAREA, 
SUBAREA DESIGN ELEMENT NUMBER{S) N/A, PRESCRIPTIONS FOR AREA OF SPECIAL CONCERN N/A , AND SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AND 
HISTORIC & CU!-TURAL RESOURCE{S) DESIGNA TION(S) OF N/A ON THE PROPERTY. 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSIDERATIONS: 
APPLICABLE LAND USE DISTRICTS {PURPOSE & PERMITTED USES): Sections 305 (R-15); 311 INC), 313 (CBD), and 375 & 431 (TOOl 
OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: Sections 430-41 (Standards for. Drive-in or Drive-up Establishments); 413, Off-Street Parking !Zone Al 
PHYSlGI\L L t11 rt\,., )i'< (•r SITE (SECTIONS 421 , 422): . . N/A 
.· · n · . [ o : C . · · 
On.s!te Public ~o5ii52~f_1if;P:1/r;•if'nt (Rurat A1"'d On_ly):_ Section 204-1.4 requires the site to be pos.ed with a public notice sign and an affidavit of 
postmg filed Wl thmz ~enf¥-eJght (28) days of appl1cat1on acceptance. . . . · . 
. OTHER CC!I~S I DEr JNS. . I . . · . . ·• . 
Metro Urban Growth f.1. mc(Jl tc lt Functional Pla11 Titles 1, 2, 6, and 7 and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0060, the State Transportation 
Planninr ..... , .r; '' ·o: .i tanHpusing Rule · 
REVIEW JH p ·pn <!! V· ~ Planning Commission 0 Board of County Commissioners** 
. . . . : . 
**For plan <-.nenJo ,t~ it ..voh-111g the three resouree districts (EFU, EFC and AF~20), the Planning Commission will hOld an initial hearing to provide th~ 
Board of Coun!v Con·!< I!Ssio.~ ers with a recommendation fr;;r approval or denial of the request. · · 
GENE II'~ r.oRMATION 
PREVIOUS Cl SE FtLES (!0-4_88-SU/D(C); and 02-325-D(R) 
OUTST i\i~P' f\IG COt tr•l' IONS AND VIOLATIONS:' None 
OTHEk N i.::• "T t:.L >~.:>Jt lt:S AND ORGANIZATIONS: Metro and ODOT 
HAN DOUT 'Tf "'"'UTE 
~ ·:_,:,N ;\I• ·-=N r Jilhll AP PLICATION FORM. 
[81 PL\1~ t r~Div1EIJT PROCEDURE SUMMARY 
[81 AGREE " f: NT TO PAYMENT OF FEES FOR APPLICATION PROCESSING 
[81 REQUE~ ~. 1\TEMENT OF SERVICE AVAILABILITY FORMS 
0 TR/\FFIC IPI\'-'T STATEMENT FORM . 
DOCUME,r : Ei MITTEDWITH APPLICATION 
"(NUMPf=F . • . ,"" 1)0 •1"_~: 
1l ' RY 
.1_§ HAt i .• :viC.NC; -~~I HPPUCATION FORM - (One signed copy submitted August 10, 2011} 
18 Vvi ' l i :EN t:XPLANA q o N, JUSTIFICATION (Submit one copy for initial completeness review) 
1 FEE CONTRAC (SIGNED) - (One signed copy submitted August 10, 2011) 
1 WA"'HING f. ·: CO''NTY TAX MAP(S) (must be obtained from Assessment & Taxation Department) 1S1 1988 
N/ A -Ll REP· , • ' , · .QGS) FOR All SECTIONS WITHIN ONE HALF.MILE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 
S L \!1 .•~ ,-, v• C:R LETTERS 
18 18 PARK 
18 ;:IRE 18 SURFACE WATER 
18 18 TRI-MET 
18 S' Ll\ 18 ODOT - CONTACT Marah Danielson, 503-731-8258 
18 PUBLIC V\1 /.IJER N/A CITY OF __ _ 
N/A yTrlER_ 
·-----[g) FEE DEPOSIT OF $3.500 (this is an initial deposit towards payment of the true cost to process the application) - Deposit paid on August 10, 2011 
0 r,:, IL .,G L10T f<·, J oviAP FOR PROPERTIES IN AN ADJACENT COUNTY 
THESE 
MAYB 
WASHING v. COU1. 
S:\PLNG\Wi c ' 'lE\Pi. · 
,_ 
' ' "I! :~· TIJRE ANO ARE NOT INTENDED TO COVER ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT MAY SURFACE IN THE REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION. ADOITIONAL INFORMATION 
1 UC 1NT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO PROCESS AN APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BY OREGON LAW AND 
r,ND REGULATIONS. 
'~ \Master Forms\PreappNores.doc- Revised 81812008 
/ 
Exhibit C Exhibit 7a 
-1') "l'l") D/\ 
. 83 . . PRE-APPLICATION DATE: iPI~.ulON~o~ =~~~~:u~~& ~0\11 ~ m ·r·;~;,;j~~·~;~~;~~;;·~;.-~;;~R~r~R~·~H;;;c;;~·~o~ ....... f ~ 3_ Development SeM . Jisioh.I.D l . ~ : APPLICANT: : ,· ·. · · ~. Current Planning Se 10 · · , \I : : ~ 155 N. 1 .. Avenue, - 3 JAN 2 3 Z01Z I~ I\ : COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representat£ve) 
0 ~~ Hillsboro, OR 97124 \_j~ : . : ~Jao Ph. (503) 845-8.761 03) 846-2908 ! ; CONTACT: Dana Krawczuk : 
http://www.co.washl ton.or.us d ~ ADDRESS: 1120 NW Couch St 
Request For Statemen&f-servtee · ~ i Portland, OR 97209 
Availability (Service Provider Letter) . ~ PHONE: 503.727.2036 · · : 
. . 
............................................. .... .............. , ....................... . 
0 . WATER DISTRICT: ______ _ OWNER(SJ: Westside Community Church of Washington County 
0 · FIRE DISTRICT:-.,-----------
0 CITY OF:--------'------
IX] CLEAN WATER SERVICES (Sanitary Sewer) 
Additionally, you'll need our separate, individual 
request forms titled: 
+ Clean Water Services (Surface Water Mgmt.) 
+ Tri-Met · 
• · S.chool 
+ Sheriff I Police. 
+ Tualatin Hills Park&. Recreation District 
NAME: c/o Gabe Kolstad 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW Farmington Rd 
Beaverton, OR 97007 
PHONE: . 503.784.7688 
Property Desc.: Tax Map(s): 
01S01W19bb 
Lot Number(s): . 
800, ~if' and 1000 
.:otu' 
Site Size: Approximately 2.24 acres 
Site Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd 
Nearest cross street (or directions to site) : 
185th Avenue 
PROPOSEDPROJECTNAME: ~W~a~lg~re~e~n=s~1=8~5t~h~&~F~a~r~m~in~g~to~n~----------------------~--------­
p RO POsED DE VEL 0 p MEN T ACT I 0 N: (OEVELOPMENT R!OVJEW. SUBOIVISION. MINOR PARTITION. SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R 15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: Residential PROPOSED USE: '--C_o_m_m_e_rc_la_l ______________ _ 
IF RESIDENTIAL: 
Pharmacy= - 14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w/drlve thru = -2,625 SF 
IF INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: ____ _ TYPE OF USE: See above NO. SQ. FT. 
,------
NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEESIMEMBERS: _ . _ SINGLE FAM. MUL TI-FAM. __ _ NO. OF SQ. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) __ 
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• . ' . . 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE. PROVIDER***** • 
• 
• PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE {ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). 
. : RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS. LISTED ABOVE. 
• 
• l 
• 
• 
: (Do NOT return this form to Washington County . The applicant wil l submit the completed form with : 
• their Land Development APPlication submittal). • 
.. ;;- .......•..............................•..•............•.......... 
~SERVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUAT-E TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT: (Use additional sheets if necessary.) . 
.Please Indicate what Improvements, or revisions to the proposal are needed for you to provide adequate service to this projecl 
f ~...._____ SIGNATUR~-t-cy·.e_ 'f!:a6.!0?'l, . ') . POSITION: £ T 3 DATE: i/30 /(z__ 
D SERVICE LEVEL 1s INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJEcT: 
Please Indicate why the service level Is Inadequate. 
SIGNATURE:--------------- POSITION: DATE:-------
Service Pro General 10/20/10 
. ExhibitC 
IL.-L~rf\ 
. r:to
111 
WAfmiNGTON COUNTY _ 
I Exhibit 7b ] 
PRE-APPLICATION DATE: --:-:-:-:-:---:---:-~-:---~,.,----
.· ·.~~w., k ... ·. C'oG< Dept. of Land u !a~j m rc: ~I ,?~ , Development S ~t{Jji<\_'S lJ ~~ \l; ~ ~. "~...._..,. ':l Current Plann!n n - I f'';~-~i~~-;;;~~;~~;:·;;~~~~~-~~-~~-;;~·;~/~·F~~-~-~~;·······1 . APPLICANT: ·;~;>;,.~ · 155 N. 1.ot Aven ~50-13 ~· 
''..::·.,. ·t: Hillsboro,OR9 . JAN 2 3 20\2 \ 0 1lfG0 · Ph. (503) 846-8 ax (503) 846-2908 L 
COMPANY: Perkins Cole LLP (applicant's representatiye) 
http:/fw.Nw.co.w s ngton.or.us ! 
CONTACT: Dana Krawczuk 
ADDRESS: 1120 NW Couch St 
Portland, OR 97209 
. PHONE: 503.727.2036 
Request For State· e.nt.9..LDe&ign:- -1 
Considerations For Surface Water 
·Management. {Clean Water Ser-Vices) ····················································································· . ' 
OWNER(S): Westside Community Church of Washington County 
[XJ CWS (Clean Water Services) 
2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy 
Hillsboro, OR . 97123-9379 
503-681-3600 
NAME: c/o Gabe Kolstad 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW Farmington Rd . 
Beaverton, OR 97007 
PHONE: 503.784.7688 
0 OTHER __________________ __ Property Desc.: Tax Map(s): 01501W19bb Lot Number(s): aoo.~nd 1 ooo 
'\0. 
Site Size: Approximately 2.24 acres 
Sit~ Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd · 
Nearest cross street (or directions to sl.te) : 
185th Avenue 
PROPOSEDPROJECTNAME: ~W~a~lg~r~e~en~s~1~8~5~th~&~F~a~rm~in~g~to~n __________________________________ __ 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, MINOR PARTITION, SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R 15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: Residential PROPOSED USE : ~C..:..om~in-=e_rc=-ia=-1-- '--------
IF RESIDENTIAL: 
Pharmacy =- 14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w/drive thru = -2,625 SF 
IF INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
TYPE OF USE: See above NO. SQ. FT . . 
---
NQ. OF DWELLING UNlTS: _____ _ 
SINGLE FAM. MULTI-FAM . NO. OF SQ, FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS: 
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 
• • 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** · • 
. . 
• PLEASE INDICATE THE lEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). 
: RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE. 
• (Do NOT return this form to Washington County. The applicant will submit· the completed form with their Land 
: Development Application submittal). 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
........................................ ~ •.......•.......•........• 
ATTACH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO THIS APPLICATION: 
1. Topographical map (minimum scale 1"= 200' , contour Interval no closer than 5 feet) 
2. Development layout (streets, lots , parking areas, build ing configuration , pathways, creeks, wetland, landscape areas) 
3. Vicinity map (minimum.scale 1" - Y. mile) 
TO BE CO~PLET~~ BYG~VERNING JURISDiivCT ON. DEVELOPMENT ACTION S~BMIT~AL MUST CONSIDER: j 
Water Quality Facility required • . D N rwater Quantity Facility required . 'El y 
Hydraulic and hydrological analysis require~ Y 0 N .\r Vegetated corridor required 0 Y ~ 
COMMENTS/E:XPLANATION: D. { 'p?(lu;.( S CVLct;,vJ. y <; 4• ') 
. I 
POSITION: {;:: L~ DATE: ~ ~ -
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
85 of 223 
I Exhibit 7c I 
WASHINGTON COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION DATE: --'-----------'--
c,"lONa ,~ Dept. of Land Use & Transportation j ~ Development Services Division ; · · ~~~;~~-~;~;;~~;_: ';;!.'&:;~-~~;~~N-~~;; ·;~~;:;;~·:· · · · · -·; 
···~~-< Current Planning Section . APPUCANT: . ·~;~ 155 N. 1" Avenue, #350-13 
ci '- ;., '{~~ Hillsboro, OR 97124 COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representat~e) 
R(GO Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) ~46-2908 
http://www.co.washington.or.us 
CONTACT: ·awczuk ~ Dana K1 
1120 NW ADDRESS: Couch St : 
Request For Statement Of Service 
Availability (Service Provider Letter) 
JR 97209 ~ 
. PHONE: 7.2036 . ~ 
: ..... .... ... .... .. ... ... !'. ....................... .... .. ... · ...... ..... ............... : 
0 WATER DISTRICT:------- OWNER(SJ: Westside Community Church of Washington County 
IXJ FIRE .DISTRICT: _TV!..·~F~R~-----
0 CITY OF: ______ _,__ _ _ 
0 CL.:EAN WATER SERVICES (Sanitary Sewer) 
Additionally, you'll need our separate, individual 
request forms titled: 
• Clean WaterS ervices (Surface Water M gmt) 
• Tri-Met 
NAME: c/o Gabe Kolstad 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW Farmington Rd 
Beaverton, OR 97007 
PHONE: 503.784.7688 
Property Desc.: Tax Map{s): 
01S01W19bb 
Lot Number(s): 
800, 900 and 1000 
Site Size: Approximately 2.24 acres 
• Sch~ol· , . Site Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd 
+ Shenff I Pollee Nearest.cross street (or directions to site): 
~ Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District1 ,.a...,s .... t.._.h-"A""y..,e.._n...,u .... e _______________ _ 
PROPOSEDPROJECTNAME: ~W~a~lg~r~e~e~ns~18~5~th~&~F~a~rm~in~g~to~n~~-------------------------------­
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, MINOR PARTn:ION, SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensi.ve Plan Amendment from R 15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: Residential PROPOSED USE: _c_o_m_m_e_r_ci_a_l --------
Pharmacy=- 14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w/drive thru = . ..:.2,625 SF 
IF RESIDENTIAL: IF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS :. _ ___ _ TYPE OF USE: See above __ __ NO. SQ. FT. . 
SINGLEFAM MULTI-FAM. _ _ _ NO. OF SQ. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) ___ NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/MEMBER~: __ 
••••••~•••••••ooeeooeoo .oo~~s••••••••••o••••••~oeooo•••••••••••••• 0 . ' . ,; 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** • 
• 
• PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). 
: RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE. 
• 
0 
.. 
<> 
: (Do NOT.return this form to Washington County . The applicant will submit the completed form with : 
• their Land Develo oment Application subm ittal) . · • 
__ Q_~ ~- • •- ~ -~ . • G • _a . • • • ~ ·" · ~ • . . • !t 5l ~ e __ !IJ_ • e e • o • ~ • o o 9 m • • • ~ e o • • " • e o .• • • • ~ • • • • a e ! s -~ • o • o 
. ' 
THIS IS NOT A FIRE DISTRICT APPROVAL 
The Fire District has personnel and equipment in the area that can respond to an emergency 
incident and implement such actions as may be necessary for fire and/or rescue operations. 
Drawings and/or plans illustrating fire apparatus access and :fire:fighting water supply 
requirements ~onsistent with duly adopted fire code standards shall be submitted to Washington 
County for their approval. 
See approved, stamped plans for additional information. 
~ 
Ty Darby, Deputy Fire Marshal 
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 
North Operating Center 
'1{-zsl \-z__ 
Date 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
86 of 223 
WASHINGTON COUNTY 
Dept. of land Use & Transportation 
Development Services Division 
Current Planning Section 
· 155 N. 1" Avenue. #350-13 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
Ph . {503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846-2908 
h(tp ://www .co.washington.or.us 
Request For Statement Of Service 
Availability (Service Provider Letter) 
[ZJ ·WATER DISTRICT: _T:_V:__:WD....:.=:.. ____ _ 
0 FIRE DISTRICT: _______ _ 
0 CITY OF: _________ _ 
0 CLEAN WATER SERVICES (Sanitary Sewer) 
Additionally, you'll need our separate, individual 
request forms titled: 
o Clean Water Services {Surface Water Mgmt.) 
o Tri-Met 
o School 
o Sheriff I Police 
~ Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District 
! .Exhibit 7d I 
PRE-APPLICATION DATE:-----------
... ~ .... ........ ........ ....... ..... -.... ... ...... ........ . 
' . 
Service Provider: PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: 
• . APPLICANT: 
COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representat~e) 
CONTACT: Dana Krawczuk 1 · 
ADDRESS 1120 NW Couch St 
Portland, OR 97209 
PHONE: 503.727 .2036 
. . 
·~ o o • • • • • o o 0 o o to o • o a o o t • • • to 1 t o o • o o a o o t oo o o t o o o o o o • t t 'o • • t • o o 0 a o o o o • o o 1 • o o o o t •.• o o too o o0 
OWNER(S/: Westside Community Church of Washington County 
NAME: c/o Gabe Kolstad 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW Farmington Rd 
Beaverton, OR 97007 
PHONE: 503 .784 .7688 
Property Desc.: Tax ·Map(s): 
01 S01W19bb 
Loi Number(s): 
800, 900 and 1000 
Site Size: Approximately 2.24 acres 
Site Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd 
Nearest cross street (or directions to site): 
185th Avenue 
PROPOSED PROJECT NAME: ~W.:..:a:.:;lg...:r-=e-=en:..;.s::...:..18.:.:5::....:t:..;.h-=&::....:F_.:a:..;.r :.:.m.:..:in..:.;gz.:.to.:.:n_:.__ _______________ _ 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION : (DEVELOPMENT REVI EW. SUBDIVISION. MINOR PARTIIJON, SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R 15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: Residential PROPOSED USE: _C_o_m_m_e_r_c_ia_l _______ _ 
Pharmacy= - 14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w/drive thru = - 2.625 SF 
IF RESIDENTIAL: IF INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
· TYPE oF usE See above NO. sQ. FT. 
- - -
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: _ _ ___ _ 
SiNGLE FAM.___ MULTl-FAM NO. OF SQ. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA)__ NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS. 
aoooooooooooooooooooooooo•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 
• • 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** • 
0 . . • 
• PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). o 
: RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE, ! · : 
: ,(Do NOT return this form to Washington County . The applicant wil l submit the completed form with · : · 
• the ir Land Development Application submittal) . • 
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • $ • • • • s •• • • $ • • • • ~ • o • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • ~ • • e • = • o o $ 
~SERVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT (Use. additional sheets if necessary.} 
Please indicate what imp rovements, or revisions to the proposal are needed for you to provide ad equate service to this project. 
S,ONA<U"~~ OQSI<<ON 5, ~pe--/ 
D SERVICE LEVEL IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOS ED PROJECT. 
DATE I -J_:};. (2--
Please indicate why the service level Is inadequate. 
SIGNATURE: ________________________________ _ POSITION: DATE:--------
Service Pro General 10120/10 
·Exhibit C 
12-222-PA I Exhibit 7e I 
PRE-APPLICATION DATE:----------
),."(,,o:vc0 WASHINGTON COUNTY 
.................. .................................................................... 
. . 
~~'i . Dept. ofLand Use & Transportation . . Service Provider: PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: . 
· i'~~ Current Planning Services . . APPLICANT: 
--.., 155 N. 1'1 Avenue, #350-13 
Ollr<;o" 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
Ph. (503} 846-8761 Fax (503} 846-2908 
http://'Www.co.washington.or.us 
COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representati~e) 
CONTACT: Dana Krawczuk 
Request For Statement Of Service 
Availability THPRD 
ADDRESS: 1120 NW Couch St 
Portland, OR 97209 
PHONE: 503.727.2036 
. . 
······················································································ 
TUALATIN HILLS PARK & REC. DISTRICT OWNER(SJ: Westside Community Church of Washington County 
NAME: c/o Gabe Kolstad 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW Farmington Rd 
Beaverton. OR-97007 
PHONE: 503.784.7688 
Property Desc.: Tax Map(s): 
01S01W19bb 
Lot Number(s): 
800, 900 and 1000 
Site Size: Approximately 2.24 acres 
Site Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd . 
Nearest cross street (or directions to site): 
1 85th AvE!n IJP. 
PROPOSEDPROJECTNAME: W~a=~~re=e~M~18=5=fu~&~E=a~~=i=ng~t=on~----~~---------~ 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SUBOIVlSION. MINOR PARTITION. SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensive Plan A'"mendment from R-15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE:Residential ~~~~------------------ PROPOSED USE:C ,;;....;;.;om;.;..;;..;.m.;...;e.;..;rc;..;.;ia;..;.;l ______ ___,_ 
IF RESIDENTIAL: 
Pharmacy=- 14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w/drive-thru = -2,625 SF 
IF INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
TYPE OF USE: See above NO. SQ. FT. 
---
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS:._· ____ _ 
SINGLE FAM. ___ . MULTI-FAM. __ _ NO, OF SQ. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) __ NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS: 
e • e • m • • • ~ • • • • e • e • e • • • • • •·• e & e·o • e e e • • e • • • • e c e 8 • • • e & e • & o e 8 o e 9 .e e •·• • e·e . . . 
• "'****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** e 
. . . 
• PL!=ASE INDICATE THE l-EVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). • 
: RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE. : 
: (Do NOT return this form to Washington County. The applicant will submit the completed form with 
• their k.and Development Application submittal) : 
• 
• 
• 
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••m•••••••••••••oeemee~em•••••••••••••••• 
~SERVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. (Use additional sheets if necessary.) 
Please indicate what improvements. or revisions to the proposal are needed for you to provide adequate service to this project. 
~ This project is IN the THPRD. 
0 This project is OUT of the THPRD. 
D This project IS required to annex into the THPRD service district prior to plat recordation. 
D This proie · 
SIGNATURE: T'{tg V~ POSITION: ~Ntfl<; 91«.(;C:T?l,e. . DATE: I~~ -12.-
0 SERVICE LEVEL IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
Please indicate why the service level is inadequate. 
SIGNATURE: _________________________ ~--- POSITION: DATE: - --------
Service Pro THPRD 6/24/08 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Exhibit 7f 
ffilol223 
~v"TOtvc-0 WASHINGTON COUNTY ···· ····· ·· ···· · ...... ....... .. ........ .... ........... . . ~~ ~ j_ Se111 APP ice Provider: PLEASE RETURN THIS F,ORM TO: UCANT: 3:~ 
0R~co~ 
Dept. of Land Use & Transportation 
Development Services Division 
Current Planning Section 
155 N. 1" Avenue, #350-13 
Hillsboro, OR 971 24 
COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representa~ve) 
Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846·2908 
http://www.co.washington.or.us 
CONTACT: ·awczuk ~ Dana K1 
1120 NW ADDRESS : Couch St : 
Request For Statement Of Service 
Availability For Schools 
IZJ SCHOOL DISTRICT NO .: Beaverton #48 
PHONE: 
· .. ... ... ....... .. ... . 
OWNER(S): 
Portland , OR 97209 
503 .727 .2036 
NAME: Westside Community Church of Washington County 
ADDRESS: 18390 SWFarmington Rd . 
Beaverton , OR 97007 
PHONE: 
' 
503.784.7688. 
Property Desc.: Tax Map(s): 
01S01W19bb 
Lot Number(s): 
800 , 900 and 1000 
Site Size: Approximately 2:24 acres 
Site Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd 
Nearest cross street (or directions to site): 
185th .A.. venue 
PROPOSEDPROJECTNAME : ~W~a~lg~r~e~e~ns~18~5~th~&~F~a~rm~in~g~to~n __________________________________ _ 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION : (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. SUBOIVISION. MINOR PARTITION, SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R"15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: _R:..:.e...::.si...::.d=.:en..:..::t:..:::ia::....l ----------------- PROPOSED USE: .....:C.....:o...::.m...::.m.....:e;;;_r....:cc....:cia_l --------
Pharmacy= - 14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w /drive-thru = -2 ,625 SF 
IF RESIDENTIAL: IF INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: ____ _ TYPE OF USE: See above NO. SQ. FT. ___ _ 
SINGLE FAM.___ MUL TI-FAM. __ _ NO. OF SQ. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) __ NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS: 
• • • • • • • • • s • v • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • . . . . . 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** • 
• • 
10 PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). 
: RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE. 
: (Do NOT return this form to Washington County. The applicant will submit the completed form with their Land 
., Development Application submitta l). 
. 
• 
• 
.. 
10 
0 
•eeo•e••••eoee~so•••••a•~e•e••~•eeeeeaoeoe•••eeo•••••eeeaeeoee g •e• 
0 SERVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJ ECT. (Use additional sheets if necessary.) 
Please indicate whai improvements, or revisions to the proposal are needed for you to provide adequate service to this project. 
'J\\\~ f"o\t.c.+ \~ II\~+ U~.V\.-hc...\.pA..k.J +b f"ts"'-lt rV\ l'Mf""-cAs 
+c {..Lc.. ~t.~UtlftU\A- ~l...oo\ Dl~-Nu:.+, (.ll.:) r+ 1 ~ Ct>V\1\Mevc.v;t\ 
(.OV\~~IAC.fWV\. 1 ('~~V" ~t-\. v"t.Sicl <t. IA..~~t. 
SIGNATURE: 7 J""'""' ·- · .......- - - 1 
1 
POSITION: J::xMO.OVAf kt V 
D SERVICi LEVEL IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
DATE: T"lt\ . 23 12012 
If the present or future service level is inadequate, please provide information documenting your inability to provide an adequate level of 
service. Additionally, provide information regarding whether the use of alternative means can be employed to provide an adequate service 
level. Documentation of adequacy and alternatives to provide an adequate service level may include but not be limited to the following : 
1. Amount of bonded indebtedness; 2. Use of double shifting; 3. Extended school periods; 4. Bussing to underuti lized facilities; 5. Year-around 
school ; 6. Construction of new facilities; 7. Portable Classrooms; 8. Impact Fees; 9. Any combination of these or other alternatives. 
SIGNATURE:------ ---------- POSITION: DATE:----- ---
Service Pro Schools 10120/10 
Exhibit C ;.R.~--A~P_uc_~r~o~_oAr~ - .. ___ .. I Exhibit 7g~-~ 
.. .... .. . .. .. .... . ... .. . ..... ... . 
12-222-~ 
asWASHINGTON COUN1Y 
Dept. of Land Use & Transportation 
Development Services Division 
Current Planning Section 
Service Provider: PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: 
APPLICANT: 
155 N. 1" Avenue, #350-13 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representative) 
Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846-2908 
http://www.co.washington.or.us 
Request For Statement Of Service 
Availability For Sheriff I Police Services 
CONTACT: Dana Krawczuk . 
ADDRESS: . 1120 NW Couch St 
Portland , OR 97209 
PHONE: 503.727.2036 
. . 
.................................................. ····· ·· ··· ... 
IX] WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF 
OWNER(S): 
NAME: 
Westside Community Church of Washington County 
c/o Gabe Kolstad 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW. Farmington Rd · 
Beaverton , OR 97007 
PHONE: 503 .764.76oo 
Property Desc.: Tax Map(s): 
01S01W19bb 
Lot Number(s): 
800, 900 and 1000 
Site Size:. Approximately 2 .24 acres 
Site Address: 18470 SW Farmington Rd 
Nearest cross street (or directions to site): 
185th Avenue 
PROPOSEDPROJECTNAME: _W_a~lg~r_e_e_ns __ 18_5_t_h_&_F_a_r_m_in~g~to_n __________________________________ __ 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION : (DEVElOPMENT REVIEW. SU801VISION, MINOR PARTITION, SPECIAl USE) 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R-15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: Residential PROPOSED USE: Commercial 
----~~------------------ --------------------------
Pharmacy::::- 14,550 SF & Bank .or Fast Food w/drive-thru = -2,625 SF 
IF RESIDENTIAL: IF INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: ________ _ TYPE OF USE: See above NO. sa. FT. ___ _ 
SINGLE FAM. MULTI-FAM. NO. OF sa. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS: 
• • · • • • e. e • e. e e e e G e • e ·e • e e e e • e e e. e e e e e e e e e e e • e • e • • e e e •. • e e •••• e e e e • e 
. ' . 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** • 
• 
• PLEASE INDICATE THE lEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). 
: RETURN THIS COMPlETED FORM TO THE APPliCANT AS LISTED ABOVE. 
. • (Do NOT return this fo'rm to Washington County. The applicantwilf submit the completed form with their Land 
• 
• Development Application submittal). 
• 
.. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
··~······························································· ~RVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. (Use additional sheets if necessary.} ~ ~~ease indicate what improvements, or revisions to the proposal are needed for you to provide adequate service to this project. 
SIGNATURE: '-~ 1 ,t fYVI /f- jC PosiTioN: Ue'f./~cm~ DATE: ~ 2..0 {__( 1._ 
D i SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
If the present or future service level is inadequate, please provide information documenting your inability to provide an adequate level of 
service. Please also provide information regarding whether the use of alternative means can be employed to provide an adequate service 
level. Documentation of adequacy and alternatives to provide an adequate service level may include but not be limited tci the following: 
1. Contracting with private agency; 2. Contracting with other public agency; 3. Impact fees; 4. Any combination of these or other alternatives. 
SIGNATURE:. _______________ -'-------------- POSIT ION: DATE: --'-----------~-
Service Pro Sheriff 10120/1 0 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
90 of 223 
~xhibit7h 
PRE-APPLICATION DATE: 
"""GiONc-0 
WASHINGTON COUNTY ...... ... ............... . ............. ~ ..-:-:-.. :-:-... :-:-.. 7..,7:',.":":'., :-:-.. ,7-.. ~ ..-:-:-.. :-:-... :-:-.,7.,.7..,":":".,:-:-.. :-:-... :-:-.. 7-,.7:',.. 
~~~ Dept. of Land Use & Transportation Development Services Division Current Planning Section ~ ServiCe Provider: PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: : : APPLICANT: . ~~~,' (. ~\. ,._)~~:s· ·· · 
o~ido>A 
155 N. 1'' Avenue, #350-13 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
COMPANY: Perkins Coie LLP (applicant's representat ive) 
Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846-2908 
http://www,co.washington.or.us 
CONTACT: Dana Krawczuk • 
Request For Statement Of Service 
Availability for Tri-Met Services 
ADDRESS: 1120 NW Couch St 
Portland, OR 97209 
PHONE: 503.727.2036 
. . 
.................... ... .............................................................. · 
OWNER(S}; [X] TRI-MET 
NAME: Westside Community Church of Washington County 
ADDRESS: 18390 SW Farmington Rd 
Beaverton , OR 97007 
PHONE: 503.784.7688 
Property Desc.: Tax Map(s): 
01S01W19bb 
Lot Number(s): 
800, 900 and 1000 
Site Size: Approximately 2.24 acres 
Site Address: 184 70 SW Farmington Rd 
Nearest cross street (or directions to site): 
185th Avenue 
PROPOSED PROJECTNAME: _Walgreens 185th & Farmington 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SUBDIVISION. PARTITION. SPECIAL USE) 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R-15 to CBD 
EXISTING USE: Residential PROPOSED USE: _C=-o=m.:...;.m;.;..;...::.e:..::rc=ia:.:....l -------
IF RESIDENTIAL: 
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: _____ _ 
SINGLE FAM MUL TI-FAM. __ _ 
Pharmacy= -14,550 SF & Bank or Fast Food w/drive-thru = -2 ,625 SF 
IF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: 
TYPE OF USE: _..o:S:.oee.oe"-=a=b..:::O"'-V..:::ec..._ ___ _ 
NO. OF SQ . FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) __ 
NO. SQ. FT. - --,.-
NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEES/M EMBERS __ 
i 
8 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • . • • · • •••••••••• 
• *****ATTENTION SERVICE PROVIDER***** • •  
• 
• PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE). 
: RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE. 
• (Do NOT return this form to Washington County. The applicant will submit the completed form with their Land 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• : Development Appl ication submittal) . 
. . 
a 9 8 9 $ 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e a e e a e e 0 e S e ·e e e 0 e e 0 $ ~ 0 e Q e ·o 0 0 o · a a G ~$a e e 8 8 e e e 8. e 8 a 8 e e e 8 
1:8) SE RVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
Please indicate what improvements, or revisions to the proposal are needed fo r you to provide adequate service to this project. 
~ 
'({2o.)Sc1 ) ) S t! Q_.LA:r £) 8 ~" I 12-A r.J S. iT o -0 fA (L(lrJ J 1\JG)D 0 
~~JJ_ 
SIGNATURE: 14:5 I Leo~ . POSITto~/2A. J tJfJ2.--- J / DATE: -. 
0 SERVICE LEVEL IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
Please indicate why the service level is inadequate. 
SIGNATURE:--- ----- --------
Service Pro Tri-Met 10/20/10 
POSITION: DATE: ___ _;_ _ _ _ _ 
Exhibit C 
TOO Analwis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
91 of22~ - · 
TRANSIT ORIENTED .DISTRICTS 
375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses inTransit Oriented Districts 
23.b. Accessory outdoor seating related to the principal eating or drinking establishment use 
may be permitted, provided that the outdoor space is placed within a common open space. 
Sidewalks may be utilized for accessory outdoor seating if they meet the unobstructed width 
standards set forth in Section 4315.1B.(4) and approval is obtained from the Operations 
Division Manager. In addition, the area devoted to the accessory· outdoor seating does not 
exceed: 
1) an area greater than the equivalent offifteen (15) percent of the dining, drinking, 
or both floor area; or 
· (2) seven-hundred and fifty (750}sguare feet. 
.. TOO PRINCIPALS, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 
l r:o...-r:~~ ... l· '""' l"·tl' ·'~'s'"'•t " ~n"•· ·,x~<=l! , ... :!i.~ • .:.. s.eu a on , Yll!lit;!!!.9.fZ:::~~
431-4.1 Principals 
A . Pedestrian routes in a transit oriented district shall , to the extent practicable, directly connect 
major activity centers (concentrations of employment and households, major public buildings and 
spaces, institutional uses and parks & common open spaces, and shopping areas) and transit 
stops, particularly light rail stations; · 
B. Block dimensions and perimeters shall be at an urban rather thari a suburban scale 
C. Provide accessways and greeriways, as needed, to supplement pedestrian routes along 
pedestrian streets; and 
D. Provide clearly marked and well-designed pedestrian street, driveway, loading area and surface 
parking lot crossings 
D . Design 
(10) Whether publicly or privately owned, a pedestrian street, accessway or greenway shall 
conform to the section design specified for its functional classification and· remain 
accessible to the public at all times 
(11) Pedestrian crossings of streets, driveways, surface parking lots and loading areas shall 
be designed to be consistent with the provisions of Section 408.10.3B. In transit oriented . 
districts, striping alone is not an acceptable way to identify connections 
(12) Special Area Off-Street Pathways (Accessways and Greenways) shall be developed 
consistent with Section 408. Special Area Off-Street Pathways shall be at least ten (10) 
feet in paved, unobstructed width when bicycles are intended to share the Special Area Off-
Street Pathway. When bicycle travel is otherwise adequately provided, Special Area Off-
. Street Pathways shall be at least five (5) feet in paved, unobstructed width 
431 -5 Streetscapes for Pedestrians 
431-5.1 Streetscapes- Transit Oriented Districts 
B. Standards 
(1) In the TO: BUS and TO:RC Districts along pedestrian streets where onstreet 
parking is allowed, except as provided in Section 431-12 or in an 
applicable Community Plan provision, bu ildings shall be built to the 
sidewalk edge for a minimum of ninety (90) percent of their site's pedestrian 
street frontage (excluding street, driveway and accessway intersections). 
However, where a development site has frontage on two or more 
pedestrian streets with on-street parking, buildings are not required to meet 
the frontage requirements on both streets. · Notwithstanding the above, a 
building shall be built to the sidewalk edge of both intersecting streets at 
their intersection. 
'f'here a development site has frontage on two pedestrian streets with onstreet 
parking on only one of the streets, buildings are required to meet the 
frontage requirement on the street that allows on-street parking. 
Notwithstanding the above, a building shall be built to the sidewalk edge of 
both intersecting streets at their intersection. 
Page 1 
I Exhibit al 
A 
Exhibit C 
TOD A~~~s for Walgr.eens 185th and Farmington 
Where a development site in a TO:BUS District fronts only .on a pedestrian streetthat 
· does n0t allow on-streei parking, buildings shall be built"to ttie sidewalk edge for a 
minimum of seventy-five (75) percent or, the site's pedestrian street frontage (excluding 
street and accessway'intersecticins). Where a development site in a TO:RC District 
fronts only on a pedestrian street that does not allow on-street parking, buildings shall be 
built to the sidewalk edge for a minimum of fifty (50) percent of their site 's pedestrian 
street frontage (excluding street and accessway intersections). · · 
(2)_ Street trees are required on ·au pedestrian streets with an average spacing of no more 
than thirty (30).feet on center on both sides and two (2) to four (4) feet from bac:;k of curb. 
Street trees shall not be spaced or located so as to resuli in a violation of Section 418-3." 
Trees in the County right-of-way or in sidewalk easements shall be approved by the County 
as to size, quality; tree well design if applicable, and irrigation (see Section 407 -7). 
(3) All utility lines shall .be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the 
sidewalk area , provided that they are flush with the sidewalk and provide for a safe 
pedestrian walking surface during all types of weather 
(4) Minimum sidewalk widths in Transit Oriented DistriCtsshall be the widest identified by 
the .Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards far the adjacent 
Special Area Sireet (as shown in the .2020 Tre~nsportatian Plan, Figures 6 through 8), except 
for Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area . Commercial Streets shall have 
sidewalks that are a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width . On arterials within or-adjacent to 
Transit ·oriented Distri<_:ts and which are designated as :saulevards' an the Regional Street 
Design Overlay Map in the 2020 Transportation Plan , the minimum side\',{alk width shall be 
twelve (12) feet (see Technical Appendix B-8 of the 2020 Transp<)rtatian Plan for typical 
roadway crass-sections). 
(6) Pedestrian scale street lighting, such ·as that described in the county's Pedestrian 
Design Guidelines Booklet shall be provided along all· pedestrian sireets. · 
Provide far safe, convenient, direct at:~d identifiable access far pedestrians between pedestrian 
streets, ac~essways, transit facilities , and adjacent buildings. 
· B. Standards: 
(5) Minimum lighting levels shall conform to the standards as set forth in Section 415-4. 
(6) For nan-residential buildings, or non-residential portions of mixed-use buildings, main 
building entrances fronting an pedestnan streets shall remain open during normal business 
hours far that building . 
(7) All entries fronting a pedestrian route shall be sheltered with a minimum four (4) foot 
overhang or shelter. 
A. Principles: 
(1) The dominant feature of a building frontage shall be the habitable area with its 
accompanying windows and doors. Parking lots, garages, and solid wall facades (e .g., 
warehau~es) shall not dominate a pedestrian street-frontage. · 
(2) Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of pedestrian 
streets and ather public spaces by maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the 
pedestrian street. 
(3) Ensure compatible bui lding designs along a pedestrian street through similar massing 
(building facade height and width as well as the space between buildings) and frontage 
setbacks . 
Page 2 
_./ 
I · 
'· 
. · Exhibit C . . . . 
TOO A~~J~s f~r Wal·greens 185th and Farminigton 
1.· 
\ 
(4) Avoid building designs that result in a street frontage with a unifonn design style, roof 
.line or facade treatment, which results in an uninteresting and unattractive p~de,strian 
environment. ' · 
· (5) All new commercial; industrial, office, institutional, mixed use,. and multifamily residential 
buildings shall , on any facade facing a pedestrian route, incorporate' dis<;:ernible architectural 
features, such as, liut not limited to: com ices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, bays, 
re.cesses, arcades; display windows •. unique entry areas or other architectural treatments for 
·visual interest,.' to create community character and to promote a sense of pedestrian scale~ 
The overall design shall rec.ognize that the simple relief provided by .window·cutouts or sills 
on an. otherwise flat facade,. in and of itself, does npt meet the requirements of this 
subsection · 
(6) Lighting of a building facade shall be designed so that lighting complements the 
archite.cturar design: . Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building. 
(7) All b!Jildings, of any type, constructed within any transit oriented district, shail be 
constrUcted with exterior building materials and finishes that' are of high quality to convey an 
impression of permanence and durabiiity. · 
.(8) To. balance horizontal features on longer facades, .vertical building eleimerits shall be 
eMphasized · · .· · · · 
B. Standards:: · 
(1) Ground. floor windows shail be. provided on building facades facing a 
pedestrian route or cpmmon open space. Garage door windows .shall not ~ount towards . 
compliance with this. standard 
(2) Darl<:ly tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two-way visibility are-prohibited -
as ground floor wfndows. · . · · · . 
(3) Except as provided in Section 431-12, ground floor building facades alqng a pedestrian 
street in the TO:RC or TO: BUS Districts must contain unobscured windows for at least fiftv 
(50) percent of the wall area and sevEmtV-five c75l percent of the wall length within the first · 
ten (1 0) feet.of wall height. Req!Jir'ed windows shall allow views in to lobbies or similar 
areas of activity, building entrances, or merchandise type :displays: Lower window.sills shall 
. not be more than three (3) feet above grade except where 'interior floor levels prohibit such 
placement, in which case the lower window sill shall not be more than a maximum of four 
.(4) feet above the finished exterior grade . . ' 
(6) In all transit oriented ·districts, building frontages greater than two hundred (200) feet in 
length alorig pedestrian routes shall break any flat, monolithic facade by including . 
architectural elements such as bay windows, recessed ·enirances, changes in materials, or 
other articulation so as to provide pedestrian scale to the ground floor. 
(7) Except as provided in Section 431 -12, building facades along a pede~trian route in the 
TORC or TO: BUS Districts shall not have more than forty (40) linear feet of ground floor 
wall area without a change in materials· or an eight (8) inch mihimum·vertical or horizontal 
wall relief. 
(8) In all transit oriented districts, the exterior walls of building facades along pedestrian 
routes shall be of suitable durable building materials including the following : stucco, stone, 
terra-cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles , beveled or ship-lap or other narrow-course. 
horizontal boards or siding, vertical board & ba.tten siding, articulated architectural concrete 
masonry units (CMU), or similar materials·which.are low maintenance, weather resistant, 
abrasion resistant and easy to clean . Prohibited building materials include the following: 
Plain, smooth, untextured concrete; plain , smooth untextured concrete block; corrugated 
metal; unarticulated board siding (e.g., T1-11 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard); and. 
similar quality, non-durable materials. 
(9) No exterior lighting shall be provided .above the second floor of buildings for the purpose 
of highlighting the presence of the bui lding, except for facade sign lighting. 
I 
' 
Page 3 
) 
( 
(,_ 
----
) . .1.~1(.fi~sb lgreens 185th and Farmington 1 cr • ., .., 
1g!· and sites shall be organized to group the util itarian functions away from ~e 
Ueli very and loading operations, mechanical equipment-(HVAC), trash 
llection, and other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the 
·J t' .'!II destgn of the building(s) and the landscaping. The visual and acoustic-Impacts of 
1 J'lCfions, alon-g with all wall or ground-mounted mechanical , electrical !!nd ) 
n., '1ns equipment shall be out of view from adjacent properties and publ ic 
u•., ..,u ian streets. Screening m~terials and landscape screens shall be architecturally 
• ·• ,, le wi th and not inferior t6 the prinCipal materials of the building and primary 
landscaping. The visual and acoustic aspects of roof-mounted equipment, vents and 
chimneys shall be minimized by placing equipment behind parapets, with in architectural 
<>creem; 19, roof-top landscaping, or by using other aesthetically pleasing methods of 
'' ·~" d deadening· the· sound of such equipment. · 
~ J':t, ( I 
·1·:3'-
~ --·-···· ~ ·~-~ 
,, surfa·-e parl<ing lots .. shall be located to the side· or rear of buildings, other than 
, ul> ,,dences, thai front on pedestrian streets where onstreetparking is allowed. 
Pa " 'n<:1 ' •1'lid-block or behind buildings is preferred. ·Exceptions to this principle may be 
lor uses that require n"ew buildings to be clustered near existing groups of 
tg:. lv~..J ted away from a pedestrian street, such as expansiqns of a camp~s 
.Je..; .e.·' . 
-, d a nJ~· 1' ~ tr<>r>' r.11rface parking lots sha ll not be located between a front facade 
I<'. ·~1 at>, dcent to a pedestrian street where on-street parking is 
. , · r ,J the pedestrian street: · 
"·· ·· K off-street parking areas shall be set back at least five (5) feet 
, nmary building facades. 
1\ ''• 1-,,., lot<; , garages, including garages serving residential uses, and 
, ,r >huctures shall not be located with in forty (40) feet of a street 
.f.) fi l L 9Xcept when the first floor. of the parking structure is develope:~d with 
• ~ ·cupied by) commercial/retail uses. · 
'<ir u 
1:) ri l r ~,....,r 
., 1 l<ing structures and off-s_treet surface paoong areas shall be designed to be 
JL ' '· ,., . and as attractive in appearance, as possible. 
--- -. - - ---,---,----,---..,.,.---------:----:--- -:-:---,--
. e •,·' · low bushes or a low wall or berm at the perimeter of surface parking lots 
._ rcc · "' , vts ibility from the surrounding area. Barriers around the perimeter of a 
n ' '" '1•1 lot shall not be so high, however, that it becomes a safety or security problem. 
ii i I bu used extensively at the perimeter and in the interior of surface parking 
.. , '"rge pati<ing· areas and provide shade 
.,, ' '; through surface parking lo~ shall be clearly identified through the use of: 
,g materi als , grade separation , or landscaping, pedestrian-scale lighting, and 
,,, -,~ practicable . 
.• ng areas shall provide perimeter parl<ing lot landscaping adjacent to a · 
n R ·stnfln <; frpef which meets one of the following standards: 
Page 4 
. Exhibit C . . 
. TOD A~s for Walgreens 185th and Farmington-
(a) A five (5) foot wide planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area . . 
The planting _strip may be pierced by pedestrianacces.sible and vehicular 
aCcessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen hedge. Hedges 
shall be no less than thirty-sfx (36) inches or more than fort)i-two (42) inches in 
height at maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall be planted and maint'ained 
to afford adequate sight distance for vehides exiting the parking 'lot; or 
_(b) A solid decorative wall or fence th,irty-six (36) inches to forty-two (42) 
inches' i'n height paral_lel to and not nearer 'than tWo (2) feet from the right-of-way line. 
The area between the. wall or fence and the pedesirian street line shall be 
landscaped. The required wall or screening. shall be designed to allow for access to 
the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall be ~nstrueteci and maintained to 
afford adequate sigtit distance as described above for vehicles exiting the parking 
·lot ' 
Perimeter landscaping shall not pe fequired .:...tiere ~o (2) parking lots u~lpg a 
common driveway are joined by a common circulation aisle or other traffic area. 
_ Landscaping may be reduced or eliminated adjacent to landscaped open space in 
order to tran-sition the open space landscaping'into tt:ie parking area and afford better 
access between the two areas. 
(4) Surface parking_ areas shall provide interior landscaping which meets·the follow\ng 
standards: 
(a) Angled or perpendicular p-arking spaces shall prgvide, where needed, 
extruded curbs (tire .stops) or widened curbs to prevent bumper overhang into · 
. required landscape areas and/or over walkways. 
(b) Landscaping shall be installed withi_n planting bays, and in any other 
area where parking st.alls, circulation aisles, drive-ways, or pedestrian 
movemel}ts would not be precluded by the landscaping. Landscaping 
around and within surface parking areas shall not be ies~ than ten 
(1 O) percent of the total area of -the parking area (see-Section 407 for 
(5) Except in residential areas, parking associated with new development shall _ 
be designed to the extent practicable to connect with auto parking areas on 
adjacent sites to eliminate the necessity _of utilizing the pedestrian street for. 
-parallel movementS. 
(3) For security purposes, .common open spaces shall be visible from neart?y residences, 
stores; a pedestrian route and/or pedestrian street or offices. 
(4) Common open space shall be available for both passive and active use by people of all 
ages. 
B. Standards: 
(1) Common open space -shall be located within all residential'and all mixed residential/non-
residential developments with four or more dwelling units, as well as all non:residential · 
deve-lopments on sites exceeding one-half acre. Alternatively, common open space for a 
development may be located within thirteen hundred (1 ,300) feet walking distance of the 
development However, if common open spa-ce for a residential development is located off-
site, it shall be unnecessary to cross an arterial street io gain access to the site . -
Page 5 
Exhibit C 
TOO A!!~~s for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
(2) The total amount of common open space provided ~i n a transit oriented community shall 
be adequate to meet the needs ofthose projected (at the time of bu ild-out), to live, work, 
s~op and ·recreate there. 
B. Standards: 
(1) All residential. developments of four (4) or more dwelling units, and all nonresidential 
or mixed-use developments, shall be required to reserve, improve and establish 
commitments to maintaining common open space. · 
(2) Any c·ommon· open space shall be at least four hundred (400) square feet in area, and 
shall be able to encompass a square area at least twenty (20) feet wide and twenty (20) feet 
long . 
(4) Common open soace in a mixed use and non-residential development shall equal at 
least two ·(2l percent of the development site's total acreage after netting out those portions 
of the site within a'reas listed under CDC Section 300-3.1: 
~ - ~·~'""""""'"""""'~· .,.,., •. -~,-..~. < .,....,~""""'~~·""~rf!:!it:~'t!""' " 'ttrr.::.!~""'-lfG!.~'»¥"""1"~~"·~,'£{""', .!1:3 1 -/l;JJ; Qp~n:~p<3~~!'l.~I91J><f~''-" 'li>:·~~ ·''-'"f?l">/"l''"'> <•''''~cd~w-·~"·''""'"'"h'f>";$t\fl!Q"N>.'N' tJ5.1 
A. Principlf;ls: · · 
(1) Common ,ope~ spaces in transit oriented communities shall be designed to 
accommodate a variety of activities and users ranging .from active play by children to 
passive contemplation by adults, but shall generally be able to accommodate a relatively 
intensive level of use. They shall be pedestrian friendly ,with amenities such as benches, 
directional signs, water fountains , an{! good lighting: They shall be attractive and 
(nteresting , with good landscaping and possibly publ ic art or a water feature. And they shall 
b'e safe places to be at any time. of day. · · 
B·. Standards: 
(1) Common open spaces shall include at least two (2) of the following 
improvements :· 
.(a) A bench or benches for seating; 
(b) Public art such as a statue; 
(~)A water feature such as a fountain; 
(d) A children:s·play structure including a swing and a slide; 
(e) A gazebo; 
(f) Picnic tables with a barbecue; 
(g) An indoor or outdoor sports court for one or more of the following: 
tennis, basketball, volleyball , badminton, racquetball , handball/paddleball ; or 
. (h) An indoor or·outdoor swimming and/or wading pool suitable for children to use. 
\ 
(3) For security purposes, all c<immon open spaces shall be adequately 
illuminated during hours of darkness. 
(5) Common open spaces shall be free from all structural encroachments (i.e., roof 
overhangs, awnings and oth~r architectural features) of structures on 
abutting properties. 
B. Landscaping shall 'primarily be located to serve as a screen or buffer for or to soften the 
appearance of unattractive structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls, or to 
increase the attractiveness of common open spaces 
14tiT -.1 OW.ater .auar:ltit}'t.OualitY. Facilmifs. -;'t1.'J. 
Page 6 
· Exhibit C . · 
. TOO Anatvsis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
· 97 of123 · · 
.\ 
Water quantity/quality facilities are necessary elements of the urban landscape in Washington County, 
but their location and appearance can influence. the attractiveness of a community. The following · 
principles and standards apply to wate:~ quantity/quaiity facilities in transit oriented districts, 
A. 
\. 
Page 7 
./ 
TOO A~~~s for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
98 of~23 ·. . 
,, .. 3--.~.--.-.·o""'•"o~"""'"'l'~' ~ .,,~..,.~.~it1&'a~."""';,.~'t'i:~.· .~.- . · .. -fi.· . ~' '~+lll"f:.:'l!iwP{®iif.'~"'NrA:...ticio:1'!.'*'itti '~. ~,- · -~ ':01' ·L'~-- .::!_l ~:~r;:-n_OCIR ~S~~Y··~t·~\~¥'J,~R,;.:r;r~~f~~~::-1v'1t9£"~~'m'"¥ 11- 't · ):S?i\~Rt-•t3r,~:#~ ~l~M'~7M·;&n:~h-~ 
Stormwater.detention and. treatment facilitiesshail be integrated into the design of a development 
site and, if visible, shall appear as a component of the landscape rather than as a utility element 
If practicable and acceptable by to the Clean Water Services, such facilities shall be consolidated 
to .serve multiple developments in a location away from the center of the community. 
a ped~strian street and the front of an adjacent building. 
~~4~3•1..,__,1.•rs·......,..,~ i;cy~<,4~',~'\IM!.'~.· · .. · .. '.'Jii.· ~~*-.. ·. ·• ,M: ·•!: 1'<f\i*"'~l'l!;,..,_t,&<.YJ.•'e~'ki}kl" .. '"-'"-~.,_X?'l?J.!l"S<'J.'!I!-:I'~~ ""' ._ ,;. ..z .. th ... ... JQP~>t.: _. ... ,H,:.Jf'~,;·! ~;d<:>'?fl'~ · .. ·- - - _ -- -- - -~~~~~~4~"\jfr~.fft~.:<,t~:thm'7t~Z"J1~:#'~~~""-,.:;ki$'~!t•~rtr~t~WJj 
The principles and standards of Sections 431 ~11 . 1 and 431-11 .2 below shall apply to all permitted 
signage within transit oriented districts. Exceptions to these standards are designated in Section 431-
11.3 . . 
r·4· c3·1- ,.,.,,~.l'b~-~,...,, 1· ~-7.;;~ ~-~~"'""'*".-'t i:i\'t"-'·v:s~:.-<":l;%1:' ,.,,,,,,,,"' , • .a-:~· ,,.:. , ., __ ;;:,_,_J1Wfl!i1.Gip_.~.S ,$'l;ili'< ··. · . . 0 '' ~ :.s;.-~4;!l.»f.t~·~""!'f~,~·~IJilii~'~\1~~:;&1!'(c;,~~.:a! 
A. Signs in transit oriented district communities shall b.e located and scaled to the function of the 
pedestrian street on which they fron't. 
B. Signs within .any transit-oriented district shall be consistent with the visual quality and 
aesthetics of th~ surrounding neighborhood. 
C. Signage must be of high quality in design and materials. 
· D. Sjgnagtil shall be consistent throughout a development. 
E. Signage attached to a building shall complement the building's character (e.g., wall signs shall 
avoidcovering building columns) . . 
i!W1.1;M2!S.,taMiJfas~'liW;-'~~~-~~!;i\l?~'"~~lt\14t--!fD~~~~·;:w.r•,.,1;.1i~~R~1?1 
A. In the TO: BUS and TO:RC Districts, the standards of Article IV- Section 414-2 shall apply, 
except as noted in Section 431-11 .3. 
~3ii}' 1 -1 . 3?Exceptions--to',s"e'Ctions·_4J:4~1~anat~,1~12~\il'~:~~W:2~~!t~:~:r"r,rJ£;~;R.4~1t~:r•~ 
A. Far;;ade-mounted, non-residential signs shall not exceed five (5) percent of the area of the 
far;;ade upon which it is mounted, up to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet per far;;ade or 
four hundred (400) square feet per building . 
B. Ground-mounted monuments or site entry markers up to fifteen (15) feet in height may be 
approved subject to the following: 
( 1) Total area and volume of the portion of the monument or marker incorporating sign 
letters shall not exceed forty-five (45) square feet or ninety (90) cubic feet; and 
(2) Position of the. monument or marker shall not obscure roadway visibility or result in 
potential traffic hazard(s) as may be determined by the County Engineer. · 
C. Prohibited signs: 
(1) Free-standing signs (e.g., pole~mounted signs) as defined in Section 106193.4; 
. (2) Signs with moving or flashing lights; 
(3) Signs with exposed electrical conduits, ballast boxes, or other equipment; 
(4) Signs incorporating audible or odor-producing elements; 
(5) Roof-mounted signs; and 
(6) Other signs prohibited under Article IV Section 414. 
Page 8 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
99 of 223 
GROUP 
.--- I 
I . M-A C K E N Z I E . 
'~ 
GROUP MACKENZIE 
Since 1960 
RiverEast Center 1 PO Box 14310 1 Portland. OR 97293 
1515 SE WaterAve. Suite 100 1 Portland. OR 97214 
T 503.224.9560 1 F 503.228. 1285 I www.grpmack.com 
TRANSPORTATION 
IMPACT ANALYSIS 
FARM INGTON/lSSTH 
PROPERTY REZONE 
Aloha, O regon 
/ 
Prepared For 
Seven Hills 
Pro perties 
Completed On 
April 4, 2012 
(Revised May 30, 2012, 
and June 15, 20 12) 
Submittal To 
Washington County 
Project Number 
21 20065.00 
GROUP. 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
100 of 223 
• &fA C K EN Z I E 
TABLE OF. CONTENTS PAGE 
I. Introduction .' ... .. ... :' .. ........ ........... ...... : .. .. ........... .. ... .. .. ...... ...... ... . ..... 3 . 
II. Existing Condi tions ... . .. ~ ...... ..... ........... . ....... . .. ... .. .. .... .... ... .. ...... . : ..... 5 
Ill. Plan Year Conditions ..... .. . ·~ ... ...... . ..... .... ... .... .. .... .. ... ..... ....... .. ...... . .. 7 
V. Intersection and Roadway Analysis ...... ....... . .......... .... .. . . .. ........... 11 
VI. Supplemental Analysis ......... . .. . : ......... : ........ . ... ........ ........... . .. .. . .. .. 13 · 
' ' . 
VII . Summary .. . .. ,. • . .' .. .. ...... . ... .... . ... .... .. .... .... , ... ..... .. . ... . ....... ........... ,., ...... 14 
VIII. Appendi x .. .. ~ ... .... : .... . . .' ...... . . : .. . ....... ... .. .. .... ........ . .. .. . ~ . ........ . ....... . ... ·· 1 6 
LIST OF TABLES 
' Table 1 -Study Roadway Characterist ic s .. ... .. ... .. . ......... ... .. .. .... .. ... ... . .. ...... .. . 6 
Table 2- Trip Generation .. .. . : ...... ... ... ...... ..... ..... ... .......... . : .. .... . . : .... .. .... ... .... .. 9 
Table 3- 2035 Intersection Operat ions - v /c ra tio (Planned · 
Widening on SW Fannington Road Onl y ) .... .. ... ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. ... . .. 12 
Table 4- 2035 Intersect ion Operat ions- v/c ra tio [Planned 
Widening of both SW Farm ington Road and SW 1851h . 
Ave n u e ) .. . 
1 
•••••• ••••• •••• • • ••• •• • • ••• •• • • • ••• .' • ••• ••• •• •••• • •••• •• •• :. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• • • 1 2 · 
/" 
) 
H:\Projects\21 X'JJ6SJJ\ WP\ 120404-TIA-TPR-REV2.doc 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
101 of 22:3 G R.Pf1PAC KEN Zl E1 
LIST OF FIGURES 
1. Vicinity Map 
2. Existing Traffic Volumes .- Weekday AM Peak Hour 
3. Existing Traffic Volumes -Weekday PM Peak Hour 
4. Future Traffic Growth- Weekday AM Peak Hour (24 Years) 
5. Future Traffic Growth- Weekday PM Peak Howr (24 Years) 
6. Year 2035 Background Traffic Volumes- Weekday AM Peak Hour 
I 
. . \ . 
7. Year 2035 Background Traffic Volumes- Weekday PM Peak Hour 
8. Assumed Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Devices (Current Zoning) 
9. Assumed Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Deyices (Proposed Zoning) 
10. Primary ~ite Trips- Weekday AM Peak Hour (Current Zoning) 
. . . . . 
11. Primary SiteTrips- Weekday PM Peak Hour (Current Zoning) 
12. Primary Site Trips- Weekday AM Peak Hour [Proposed Zoning) 
13. Pass-by Site Trips- Weekday AM Peak Hour (Proposed Zoning) 
14. Primary Site Trips- Weekday PM Peak Hour (Proposed Zoning) 
15. Pass-by Site Trips- Weekday PM Peak Hour (Proposed Zoning) ·I 
16. Year 2035 Traffic Volumes- Weekday AM Peak .Hour (Current Zoning) 
17. Year 2035Traffic vOlumes- Weekday PM Peak Hour (Current Zoning) 
18. Year 2035 Traffic Volumes- Weekday AM Peak Hour (Proposed Zoning) 
19. Year 2035 Traffic Volumes- Weekday PM Peak Hour [Proposed Zoning) 
H:\Prqecl'i\217fJ.)IS.X)\ 'NP\ 1 'iD404-11A-TPR-REV2.doc 2 , 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
102 of 223 
I. INTRODUCTION · 
GROUP · 
1YfACKENZ I E 1 
This transportation impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared to .address a proposed plan 
amendment and zone change for three contiguous properties located on the southeast corner 
of the SW 185 1h Avenue/ SW Farmington Road (OR 1 0) intersection in Washington County. 
Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing property location and the surrounding roadway system. 
The three subject properties are currently zoned for residential uses (R-15) and are 
proposed to be rezoned to Community Business District (CBD). The applicant is also 
offering to condition the zone change so that · specifically identified transit-oriented 
development standards apply to the site. While the Applicant's (Seven Hills Properties) 
intent is to construct a smal.l retail development consisting of a pharma<:;y and fast-food 
restaurant (both with drive-through windows), a more intense development scenario is 
contemplated for the proposed zoning iri order to evaluate the traffic impacts ofa worst-
case condition, both in terms of site trip generation and access scheme. 
TPR COMPLIANCE 
A plari amendment and zone change application requires a transportation analysis to 
address Transportation · Planning. Rule (TPR) requirements as outlined in Oregon 
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060. Specifically, OAR 660-0 12-0060(1.) applies, 
stating, "where an amendment to functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or. 
a land use regulation would significantly affect a·n existing or planned transportation 
facility, the local government will put in. place measures to assure that allowed land uses 
are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level 
of service, volume to capacity ratio , etc.) of the facility. " 
As identified in the transportation analyses findings of this report, the proposed plan 
amendment and zone change does not significantly affect an existing or planned 
transportation facility · as measured at the end of the planning period; therefore, .no 
mitigation is necessary to meet TPR requirements. 
SCOPE OF REPORT 
Based on a February 22, 2012 scoping meeting with Washington County and ODOT's 
planning and engineering staff, and a March 21 , 2012 Washington County scoping letter, a 
study area and analysis scope were defined to address TPR compliance. 
The identified study area includes the following intersections : 
SW 185 1h Ave:nue /SW Farmington Road (OR1 0) 
SW Farmington Road (OR 1 0) /Westside Community Church 
SW 185 1h Avenue/Buddies Sports Bar Retail Driveway 
Existing/Future Site Accesses to SW Farmington Road and SW 185 1h Avenue 
H:\Projecfs\212Clli5CO\ WP\ 120404-TIA-TPR-REV2doc 3 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
103 of 223 
GROUP 
FJ\ifA C K E N Z I E 1 
Analysis is presented for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of the . roadway system. 
Impacts are greatest during these time periods 'and any mitigation necessary to 
accommodat1e weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic will <llso accommodate traffic demand 
during other periods . ·PM peak hour analysis is consist~nt with the · locally adopted 
·. Washin'gton County Transportation System , Plan (TSP) and the METRO Regional 
Transportation Plan (RTP), while AM peak hour analysis is a Washington · County 
requirement. To address TPR r.equirements, the METRO RTP 2035 plan year was used to -
evaluate long-range transpor:tation conditions versus the Washington County TSP 2020 · 
plan year . 
For study purposes, t.lle following plan year scenarios are analyzed : 
2035 Current Zone Designation . 
2035 Proposed Zone Designation · 
H:\ Projects\ 21 'XJJ6S:JJ\ WP\ 120404-11A-WR-REY2doc 
' . 
) 
4 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
104 of 223 
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 
SITE CONDITIONS 
GROUP 
. . . . I 
r.rvrA C K E N Z l E' 
The subject site is approximately 2.29 acres and is identified by the Washington County 
Assessor's Map as Township 1 S Range 1 E Section 19BB, Tax Lots #800, #90 1, and 
#1000. Alo·ng the northern site frontage, SW Farmington Road (OR10) is under Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT) jurisdiction. Along the western site frontage, SW 
185 th A vehue is under Washington County jurisdiction. 
There are currently three residential dwelling units on. the subject properties. Two 
residences access SW 185 1h Avenue and one residence accesses SW Farmington Road 
(ORl 0). There is also a cell tower on the subject site that will remain. 
Along the east site boundary is Westside Community Church, which have their own parking 
lof, several buildings for church-related uses, and a single driveway directly accessing SW 
Farmington Road. 
Established retail developments are located · on the other three corners of the SW 18 5th 
Avenue/SW Farmington Road intersection . On the northeast cbrner is a US Bank, Nail 
Salon, and Coin-Op Laundry business. On the southwest corner are Buddi.es Sports Bar and 
other specialty retail businesses such as a Domino's Pizza. On the northwest corner is 
Farmington Vill~ge; a large retail development consisting of an Albertson's, Bi-Mart, 
Shari's Restaurant, and other specialty retail uses. Each of these r'etail developments has at 
least orie driveway accessing both '$W Farmington Road and SW 185 1h Avenue. 
Immediately south of the site is an established resideqtial neighborhood, with a single 
family residence (not a part of this application) located between the subject site and 
SW Deloris Lane. . . 
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 
/ 
To identify existing traffic patterns, manual turn movement traffic counts were conduc'ted 
at the study intersections on Thursday, December 81h, 2011 and data is included in the 
appendix. Intersections include: 
SW 185 1h , Avenue/ SW Farmi!fgton Road (ORl 0) 
SW Farmingt,on Road (ORlO)/Westside Community Church 
SW 185 1h Avenue/Retail Development . 
Figures 2 and 3 present existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the 
study intersections. A single exiting (AM) trip and single entering (PM) trip were assigned 
to each of the three single family residential driveways to reflect current access volumes . It 
should be noted throug'h traffic volumes on ORl 0 were increased by 3% to account for 
peak seasonal conditions and the 30 1h Highest .Design Hour Volumes (30 DHV). This 
increase was determined usirig signal detection count data from the SW 185 1h 
Avenue/Tualatin- Valley Highway intersection just over a mile to the north . Specific details 
on adjustment factor determination are-provided in the appendix . 
_./ 
H:\Projed>\21 'lffJ!:SXJ\ WP\ 120404-TIA-lPR-REV2.doc 5 
GROUP 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
105 of223 
·. I MACK E N Z I El 
TRANSPORTATION FACI LITlE$ 
The following table sum,marizes study area 'roadway functional classifications and 
descriptions as identified by Group Mackenzie, based on field observations and a review of 
the METRO R TP and Washington County TSP, accounting for planned future funded and 
unfunded transportation improvements. · 
.. TABLE 1 -STUDY ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS 
Roadway Classification ·Posted Travel Bike On•Street Sidewalks· Speed Lanes Lanes Parking 
SW Farmington Road (OR10) Arterial 40 2-3 1 No No Intermittent (District Highway) 
SW 185111 Avenue Arterial .35 32 No No Intermittent 
1 METRO RTP and Washington Co1,1nty TSP identify funded, financially con~trained project to widen to 5-laries wah bicycle lanes and 
sidewalks. east of SW 185111 Avenue . . . · . 
2 METRO RTP and Washington County TSP identifrnon-funded, nnancially unconstrained project to widen to 5-lanes with bicycle 
lanes and sidewalks nortti cif SW Far(l'lington Road 
.\ 
SW F armington Road (ORJO) 
SW Farmington Road is classified as an Arterial roadway by Washington County and a 
District level highw~y by ODOT. The facility extends southwest-northeast through th.e 
study area, connecting the rural agricultur·ar coinmunities to the west and the Aloha area 
with the City of B eaverton to. the east. Similar to SW 1851h Avenue; this roadway also 
provides access to adjacent . retail developments . and ·public street · connections to 
established 'residential neighbor.hoods. 
In the site vicinity, the roadway has a three-lane cross-section with dedicated left-turn 
lanes at the SW 185 1h Avenue ap proaches. East and west of the study area; the roadway has 
<l two-lane cross-section . The posted speed is 40 mph and there are currently no bkycle 
lanes or on-street parking . Sidewalks a·re provided at intermittent locations and are iacking 
along the subject site property frontage . · 
S W 1 85rh A venu e 
SW 185 1h Avenue is classified as an Arterial roadway by Washington County and extends 
north-south through the study area. The roadw~y provid.es a regional connection through 
the Aloha area and provides direct · access to adjacent retail developments and 
local/collector. street accesses to established residential ~eighborhoods. 
In the site vicinity, the roadway has a three-lane cross -section with continuous two-way 
left-turn la.nes at most driveways and exclusive left-turn lanes at major intersections . The 
posted speed is 35 mph and there are currently no bicycle lanes or . on-street parking. 
Sidewalks are provided at intermittent locations and are lacking along the subj ect site 
property frontage ~ 
H:\Prqects\2 l ~WP\120404-TIA-TPR-REV2doc 6 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
106 of 223 
GROUP 
~ACKENZ IE' 
Ill. PLAN YEAR COND ITIONS 
FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH 
. Future roadway traffic growth trends were determined using the Washington County travel 
demand model, based on the METRO 2035 Financially Constrained Roadway Network 
. . 
traffic model. Washington County staff supplied 2010 base year and 2033 plan year 
weekday PM peak hour model data. . 
Using the increase in traffic volumes between the base and plan years, future traffic growth 
patter.ns were established for the weekday PM peak hour. Twenty-four (24) yeats of growth 
were applied to 2011 traffic counts to determine 2035 plan year volumes . : 
The Washington County model is PM based, and AM information is not available. 
Th.erefore, AM background growth was determined by assuming the directional growth in 
PM model volumes would occur in the opposite direction during the weekday AM peak 
hour. All traffic forecast data . a~d calculatiohs, including Washington County model 
projections, are include.d in, the appendix. Resulting 24-year traffic growth estimates for all 
study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 4 and 
5 , respectively. 
' 
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate year 2035 background traffic volumes for all existing study 
intersectio.ns during the weekday AM ·and PM peak hours. The volumes shown represent a 
43% increase in traffic between 2010 and 2035, or a 1.75% linear annual growth rate. This 
growth rate was compared tobistorical growth trends on SW Farmington Road, which are 
monitored annually a~d detailed in the ODOT Traffic Volume Tabies. Based on the latest 
10 -years of data, SW Farmington Road volumes have decreased and havea negative annual 
growth rate. Based on this evidence, using 'the positive growth predicted by the Washington 
County model yields a conservative estimate of future traffic conditions. 
PLANNED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 
The METRO RTP and Washington County TSP .identify ·a series of planned capacity 
enhancement projects anticipated to be in place by 2.035, including: 
Widening SW Farmington Road to 5 lanes east of SW 185 1h Avenue 
Widening SW Farmington Ro~d to 31anes west of SW 185 1hAv enue 
Widening SW 185 1h Avenue to 5 lanes north of SW Farmington ~oad 
Widening SW 185 1h Avenue to 3 lanes south _of SW Farmington Road 
Based on discussions with Washington County land use planners and engineers, it is 
assumed the 5-lane SW Farmington Road widening project extends more than 600 feet west 
of SW 185 1h Avenue to prov ide a proper transition through the intersection. The same is 
assumed for the S-lane S W 185 1h Avenue widening project. It is also a.ssumed FYLT A 
signal phasing is established on the north and south approaches of the SW Farmington 
Road/ S W 185 1h Avenue intersection. ODOT staH concurs with this ass umption , due to 
concerns regardin g intersection skew and ri ght -turn channelization that prevent FYLTA 
phasing froi:n being es.tablished on the east and west approaches until SW 185 1h Avenue is 
widened to 5 lanes. 
It sho uld be noted the wi dening of SW 185 1h Avenue does not meet the TPR definition of a 
" planned transportation facili ty" as it is not identified in a financially con·straine d project 
list. Nevertheless, Washington County requested th is stud y address conditions both without 
and with the projec t. 
', 
H:\Projecfs\212C065(X)\ WP\ 1204Q4.11A-1PR-REY2doc 7 
GROUP · 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
107 of 223 1\ifAc K E N z 1 E' 
SITE ACCESS 
Figure 8 illustrates the lane configurations and traffic control devices assumed in-place at 
all study area intersections in 2035 with planned improvements and the site fully developed 
under the current R-15 zoning. It is assumed all existing residential (lccesses remain and 
that each individual parcel develops independently with its own access point to the 
adjacent roadway system. · . 
Figure 9 illustrates the lane configurations and traffic control devices assumed in-place at 
all study area intersections in2.035 with planned improvements and the site fully developed 
under the proposed CBD ion in g .. It is as.sumed that any development under the proposed 
CBD zohing will have multiple access points t9 meet retail development circulation needs. 
In this scenario, it is assumed there will be a single access ~n SW 185 1h A ~enue across 
from the existing the retail development driveway (Buddies Sports Bar), and · another 
·independent access onto SW Farmington Road. 
FUTURE CURRENT ZONING DEVELOPMENT 
The subj ec_t property is currently zoned R-15, allowing for · a maximum density of 15 
housing units. per acre . Although the site. is 2.29 acres in size, approximately 0.28 acres 
will be dedicated for future right-of-way along the two roadway frontages, leaving 2.01 
acres ofdevelopable property. Based on this area, a maximum of 30 townhome-style units 
can be developed under the. current zoning, with 18 townhome units on the north parcel, 
and .6 'uni.ts each on the central and south parcels~ 
) 
FUTURE PROPOSED ZONING DEVELOPMENT . 
A much higher de-velopment density was assumed for study purposes reflecting land uses 
. having "worst-case" trip generation than the applicant intends to develop . Land uses 
include a 3:500 SF .fast-food restaurant with drive through, .a 3,500 SF convenience store, 
and a separate gasoline station with 12 fueling positions. 
TRIP GENERATION ' 
Development trip generation estimates forth~ current and proposed zoning -designations 
·_were determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 
Manual, 81h Edition, and supplemental data provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 
rd Edition. ITE Land Use 230 (Residential Condomiriium:/Townhouse) was used for the 
current zone designation . ITE Larid Use · 934 (Fast-Food with Drive-Through) , 851 
(Convenience Market), and 944 (Gasoline/ Service Station) were used for the proposed zone 
designation. . · 
The following sections describe developmen-t trip types fo'llowed by a summary of the 
expected site trip generation. 
Total Trips 
Total trips are simply tl;le number of vehicle trips to / from the proposed development and 
con sist of internal, pass-by, and primary trips . For analysis purposes , all trips are 
conservatively assumed to be made by motor vehicles. While it can be assumed aportion of 
the trips , especially those in the commercial zone designation with transit or iented design 
elements , will be made alternate modes including bicycles and pedestrians, no reduct ion s 
are made for these trip types . 
H:\ Prcjects\ 21'XfJ6!JXJ\ WP\1204()4-11A-TPR-REV2doc 8 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
108 of 223 
GROUP · 
~AC KEN ZIE 1 
Internal Trips . : . . . . . .. 
Internal trips are those traveling to / from adjacent developments on the subject property and 
have both trip ends on the property. As such , these trips do not exit the property and do not 
affect the external access or adjacent roadway system . 
Pass:..By Trips . . . 
Pass-by trips are those traveling to /from the site and are already on the adja·ceni roadway 
system. These trips do not increase total roadway traffic volumes, but do add to site access 
turning movement volumes. For the retail development , pass-by trips are a component of 
total trips. · . . · 
Primary Trips . . 
. Primary trips are .the net new trips on the roadway system whose primary purpose is to visit 
the site. · · 
Anticipated trip generation for the current and proposed czoning development scenarios are 
shown in the following table. Calculations for the internal capture rates associated with the 
proposed CBD zoning are provided in the appendix. · 
Zoning/Land Use 
Convenience Market 
Fast-Food w/ Drive-Thru 
Gasoline/Service Service 
Station 
ITE 
_851 
934 
944 
H:\Projects\21 'lfr:ISXJ\ WP\ 120404-TIA-TPR-REV2.doc 
12 
Pumps 
9 
G R.O UP 
ExhibitC 
12-222-PA 
109 of 223 
. l\ifA c k E N z IE l 
'-
/ 
As shown in the previous table, during the AM peak hour, current zoning ~evelopmentwill 
generate 14 primary vehicle trips (3 enter, 11 exit) and proposed zoning development will 
. generate 165 primary vehicle trips (84 enter, 81 exit). Therefore, the net increase in 
primary trips resulting from the zone. change is 151 vehicles (81 enter, .70 exit) . 
During the PM peak hour, cur;rent zoning development will gener~te 15 primary vehi~le 
trips (10 enter, 5 exit) and proposed zoning development will generate 152 primary vehicle 
trips (78 enter, 74 exit). Therefore, the net increase in primary trips resulting from the 
zone change is 137 vehicles (68 enter, 69 exit). 
'-
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 
Trip distribution is based on existing intersection turning movement · patterns and 
professional judgment. The distribution patterns are. described as follows: 
• ' 20% to and from the north on SW 185 1h Avenue 
20% to and from the ·s.outh on SW 185 1h Avenue 
• 30% to and from the east on SW Farmington Road 
30% to and from the west on SW Farmington Road 
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the weekday AM and PM. peak hour primary site trip 
assignments for all study i1;1tersections ,with current zonirig development (30 townhome 
units). Figures 12 and 13 _illustrates the weekday AM peak hour primary and pass-by site 
trip assignments for proposed zoning development, with primary and pass-by site trip 
assignments for the weekday PM peak hour shown in Figures 14 and 15, respectively . 
2035 CURRENT ZONING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 
2035 weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the current zoning scenario are 
shown in Figures 16 and 17 for all study intersections. These volumes reflect site traffic 
volumes added to 2035 background traffic volumes . 
2035 PROPOSED ZONING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 
203 5 weekday AM anei PM peak hour traffic volumes for the proposed zoning scedario are 
shown in Figures 18 and 19 for all studyintersections. Thesevo1urp.es reflect the pritpary 
and pass-by site traffic volumes added to the 2035 background traffic volumes, and reflect 
assumed changes previously describe'd for external site access. 
H:\ Prqects\2l'KJJ6!JYJ\ WP\ l20404-llA-TPR-REV2doc 
'-
10 
Exhibit c 
12-222-PA 
110 of 223 
V.INTERSECTION ANDROAPWAY ANALYSIS 
OPERATION ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION 
GROUP 
i &fA c K E N z IE I 
Intersection operation characteristics are generally defined by two measurements : volume-
to-capacity ratio and level-of-se'rvice . Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is a measurement of 
capacity used by a given traffic movement or for an entire intersection. It is defined by the 
rate 'of traffic ,flow or traffic demand divided by the theoretical capacity. Level~of-service 
(LOS) represents a range of average control delays for drivers and is expressed as a letter 
ranging from LOS "A" which indicates good operating conditions, to . LOS "F" which 
indicates a high level of congestion and delay. . 
The study intersections along SW Farmington Road.(ORlO) are under ODOT jurisdiction. 
Therefore, the rp.obility .standards set forth in ODOT's 1999 Oregon Highway Plan 
- (inc-luding OHP amendments through the end of December 2011) apply. Based on the OHP, 
the ORl 0 mobility standard is a peak hour v/c r'atio of 0.99 or le.ss, The sarrie v/c ratio of 
0 .99 or less applies to accesses along SW 185 1h Avenue, per Washington County TSP 
standards. 
Intersection capacity calculations were conducted using methodologies presented in the 
2000 Highway Capacity ManuaL Synchro (Version 7) was used to prepare capacity and 
level-of-service calculations. Data output sheets from the analyses are in the appendix . 
To ensure this analysis was· based on reasonable. "worst-case" conditions, the weekday AM 
and PM peak hour 15-minute flow rates were used to evaluate intersection operations. For 
this reason, the analysis reflects conditions anticipated to occur for 15 minutes during the 
peak hour. Operations at all other hours will be better than those described in this report. 
OPERATION ANALYSIS RESULTS 
Analyses were performed for the following scenarios: 
2035 Current Zone Designation 
2035 Proposed Zon'e Designation 
H:\Projecfs\2120065ixJ\WP\ l~TIA-TPR-REV2doc ll 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
111 of 223 
J . 
GROUP .. 
· ... ·,·f\ilACKENZIE 1 
Analysis results are summarized in th.e following two tables. The first table assumes only 
the planned 5-lane widening on SW Farmington Road- directly addressing TPR analysis 
assumptions .. The '' second table assumes the planned 5~lane widening of both SW 
Farmington Road and SW 185 rb A venue- directly addressing Washington County analysis 
. assumptions .. 
. . 
Calculation sheets forboth analyses are i·ncluded i~ the appendix. 
TAaLE 3- 20351NTERSECTION OPERATIONS -VIC RATIO . 
(PLANNED WIDENING ON SW FARMINGTON ROAD ONLY) 
Intersection 
.. 
1) SW Farmington Rd (OR10)/SW 1851h Avenue 
2) SW Farmington Rd (OR10)/Site Driveway . 
3) SW Farmington Rd (OR 10)/Westside Community Church 
4) SW 185ih Ave,nue/North Site Driveway 
5) SW 185111 Avenue/Retail Driveway, 
6) SW 1851h Avenue/South Site Driveway 
• 
1 Traffic demand is low for critical movement. resulting in a vic ratio of 0.00. 
, NiA = Not available, as driveway has been removed.. _ 
Current 
Zoning (R~15) 
AM PM 
0.84 0.88 
0.01 0.01 
0.01 0.03 
. 0.02 0.00 1 
. 0.01 0.17 
0.01 0.00 1 
.TABLE 4-2035 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS· VIC RATIO 
Proposed 
Zoning (CBD) 
AM PM 
0.91 . 0.89 
0.40 0.35 
0.00 1 0.03 
N/A2 N/A 2 
0.15 0.20 
N/A2 N/A 2 · 
(PLANNED WIDENING OF BOTH SW FARMINGTON ROAD AND SW 185TH AVENUE) 
Intersection 
1) SW Farmington Rd (OR10)/SW 1851hAvenue 
2) SW Farmington Rd (OR10)1$ite Driveway 
3}_ SW FarminQton Rd (OR 10)/Westside Community Church 
4) SW 185111 Avenue/North Site Driveway 
5) SW 185111 Avenue/Retail Driveway 
6) SW 1851h Avenue/South Site Driveway 
·
1 Traffic demand is' low for critical movement. resulting in a vic ratio of 0,00. 
, NiA = Not available, as driveway has been removed .. 
Current 
Zoning 'R-15) 
AM PM 
0.63 0.76 . 
0.01 0.01 
0.01 0.03 
0.01 0.00 1 
0.00 1 0.08 
0.00 1 0.00 1 
. Proposed 
ZoninglCBDJ 
AM PM . 
0.70 0.78 
0.44 0:39 
0.00 1 0.03 
N/A 2 N/A2 
0.14 0.10 
N/A 2 N/A 2 
As shown in the prev io u s two tables, all study intersections are anticipated to .openite at an 
acceptable mobility standard for both the current and proposed zoning development 
scenarios; considering funded and unfunded planned roadway improvements . Based on 
these . results; the proposed zcine change does not significantly affect the existing or 
planned transportation sys,tem. Therefore , no mitigation beyond the site access 
improvements, necessary right -of-way dedication, and antici pate prop·erty frontage 
improvements described herein is recommended. 
I 
I 
H:\Proie<:;ls\21 XX>6Y:YJ\ WP\ 1204J4-TIA-TPR-REY2doc 12 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
112 of 223 
VI. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 
GRO UP 
. "&fA C K E N Z I E 1 
During the development of this TPR a·nalysis report, Group Mackenzie niet with 
Washington County DLUT :and ODOT staff on multiple occasions to review for -study 
completeness and compliance with TPR analysis procedures , From this series of meetings, 
Group Mackenzie prepared two supplemental technical letters responding to several agency 
comments and requests for additional information. The letters, dated April27 and May 10, 
2012, are provided in separate appendices in this report. · 
As detailed in the two technical letters, even with ultra~conservative factors built into the. 
analysis of long-range traffic operations (i.e . higher external site trip generation, a lefF 
turn egress restriction at the site ·access to Farmington Road), the results show all study 
intersections continue to operate at an acceptable mobility standard for both the current 
and proposed zoning development scenarios. Based on these sensitivity tests, the proposed 
zone change will riot sign~ficantly ·affect the existing or planned transportation system, 
. \,_ 
~ 
', 
H:\Projecls\ 21 'X'fY:HXJ\ WP\ 120404-TIA-Tf'R-REY2doc 13 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
113 of 223 
G RQ UP .. • . . . . . .. 
.. 'M AC KEN ZIE ' 
VII. SUMMARY 
The following sections describe key findings, conclusions, and reCOJ;nmendations based on 
the analysis contained in this report: 
BACKGROUND 
• This transportation impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared to address a· proposed plan 
amendment and zone change f~r three contiguous properties located on the southeast 
corner of the · SW 185 1h Avenue/SW Farmington Road (OR1 0) intersection in 
Washington County. 
• The pro posed land use action will change the subject site zoning from Residential 
(R-15) · to Community Business District (CBD) with select transit oriented design 
elements. 
. . . 
• This TIA addresses the Transportation Pl~mning Rule (TPR) ryquirements as outlined in 
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060. . .I 
. . . . 
• The studyarea boundary and scope of the analysis was defined based on a meet.ing with 
Washington County and ODOT planning arid engineering staff. 
• The 2035 plan year analysis is for the critical weekday AM and PM peak hours. 
EXISTING CONDITIONS 
• 
• 
' 
The subject · site is approximately 2.29 acres and · currently .has 3 single-family 
residences. The single-family residences have individual driveways accessing 
SW Farmington Road (1 location) and SW 18~th Avenue (2 locations) . There is also a 
cell tower on the subject site that the Applicant intends to keep . 
Existing traffic conditions are bas.ed on weekday AM and PM peak period traffic counts 
cond':Jcted in December 2011 . Existing through volumes on OR 10 were increased by 3% 
to account for seasonal conditions and the 30th Highest Hour Design volumes. 
FUTURE CONDITIONS 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Plai:med and funded improvements assumed in-place by 203 5 include widening 
SW Farmington Road in the study area to 5 lanes . The possibility of an unfunded 
project to widen SW I 85th Avenue to 5 ianes is also considered, but is not relied upon 
to find TPR compliance . 
,. 
Future traffic growth projections were determined using the Washington County travel 
demand model and represent an approximate 43 % increase in existing traffic le vels. 
Reasonable worst-case development under current R-15 zoning is 30 townhome units . 
A worst-case de velo pment scenario under propo sed CBD zoning is a 3,500 SF fast-fo od 
re sta urant with dri ve-throu gh, a 3,500 SF convenience store, and a separate gas sta tion 
faci lity with 12 fueli ng po si tions. 
H:\Projects\21 XXY:S:IJ\ WP\ 12J404..nA-TPR-REV2doc 14 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
114 of 223 
GROUP 
-+JvfA c K E. N. z I E I 
• The proposed zoning development will generate a net increase of 151 primary vehicle 
trips (81 enter, 70 exit} during the AM peak hour and 137 primary v:ehicle trips (68 
enter, 69 exit)" during the AM peak hour. 
• All study intersections will operate at an acceptable mobility standard (v/c ratios of · 
0.99 or less) during the 2035 weekday AM and PM peak hours, for.both the current and 
proposed zoning development scenarios . . 
• Based on additional sensitivity tests (i.e ., higher external site trip generation, a left~ 
turn egress restriction at the site access to Farmington Road), all study intersections 
continue to operate at an acceptable mobility standard for both the current . and 
proposed zoning development scenarios. 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
• The proposed zone change does not significantly affect the existing or planned 
transportation system·. · 
• No mitigation beyondthe site access improvements, necessary rigi:lt-of~way dedication, 
and anticipate property frontage improvements described herein is recommended. 
"' - -"\21 XXJ650J\ WP\ l20404-TlA-TPR-REV2doc 
' 
' 
' 
15 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
11 5 of 223 
VIII. APPENDIX 
A. Figures 
B. Traffic Count Summaries 
C. Site Trip Internal Capture Rate Calculations 
D . , Capacity Calculations 
E . Technical Letter (Aprq 27, 20l2) 
F'. Technical Letter (May 10, 2012) 
I 
\ 
H:\Projects\21 'XJJ6SXJ\ WP\ 120104-TIA-1l'R-REV2doc 
GROUP 
· ~ACK EN ZlE 1 
16 
<( 
X
 
(/') 
0 
Q) 
z 
'
-
w
 
::J 
& 
_0) 
<(
lL
 
G R 0 U P 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
117 of 223 
f -M A C K E N Z I E I 
Portland OA Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
603.224 .9680 360.696.7879 20!1.749.9993 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRA'ti!N BY: I<LA 
Q-iECKED BY: BJD 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
VICINITY MAP RGURE 
SEVEN HIU..S PROFEH I 'f 1 
OPTION 1 - SITE DATA 
DRUGSTORE BLDG AREA 14,550 SF 
PARKING PROVIDED 59 SPACES (4.]/1000 Sfl 
FASTFOOD BLDG AREA 
PARKING PROVIDED 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I \a I 
1-4--~------~~ l :r : 
~~ I 
DRUGSTORE 
97'xl50' 
14,550 SF 
----------
'1' 
I!Oilll 
• t 
i 
~ 2 0 
$ ~ c ~ *-
" ~ "' 
;;: 
~ 
~ 0 
'I 
"' 
\:! ~ 
t< z 
ll' ~ ., 
~ ~ J' 
~ 
~ 
~ 
0 
z 
.. 
"' 
=:! ~ 
x i ;:; ~ ; 
03.26.12 
w 
8N 
[[ 
z 
:5 ~ 
n.. ~ ~ Cl) ~ -
..J ~~ <( t ~~ ~ 
z Wi 0 () 
~ 
-c-l j c 0 0 0 --, 
....,. !:1:: ID I() 
0 ~ ID 
>' m 0 m 0 .. o 
~ w ~ N LJ "' u 
... < w tO~ 
<( a: :.:: ~N 0 0 u 
ltj~ 
~~ 
0 !i "' < ~ ~" 3::~ ~ w 
oa "' ~ ~~ _ ... 
:: t-..: ~ ~!!' 
.. ., ~ ~a '"O "'~· ;;~a" 
<( N 15 ° 
;;~< "' 6 ~5 ,._ ~ ~~ ~a:; 
...... § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :i~ 8~ ::IE ~~ 
co a "'El .. ., 
"'"' 
l'i ~~'a 
0 <ii' :1~ a: o> ; ~ ou> 
.. ~ l'i "' ~ ;~ c.,. o= .. ,. ;: c) 
Cl 00 Q.U) 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
119 of 223 
582- -260 
G R 0 U P 
102--... .;---28 
\ t I 
1 
4 
o--' 
3--... 
\ 
5 
6 
....._ , 
y-O 
I 
~ 
~0 
7 \ ~ ....._ 1 
I 
coo 
N 
l[) 
.;---0 
FMACKENZIE I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle VIA 
503.224.11560 360.6115.78711 208.7411.1111113 
CROOP UAO<OIZIE 2012 ALL RI~TS RESOh£0 
@TH5~0A~~~~(~E~ ~EQ~N~ t.;,%"tJt~J!E~~~:tt~kJ~ BE 
2 
DON 
J ! \ 
o--' ....._2 
760-
o--... 
\ 
4 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
1-
l{) 
ro 
..--
3: 
(/) 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
---+----':--5 
8 
000 
,, 
m 
NOT TO SCALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
3 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
120 of 223 
G R 0 U P 
r-M -A cTI--N -z-i E 1 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.Q580 380.8Q5.7B7Q 208.74Q.QQQ3 
CROUP IJACKENZIE 2011 All RtGHS RESERV£0 
©THG~DR~~~~E~~ ~EO~N~ c;,~cJl'~~~~~~~~isJ~BE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ D 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
FIGURE 
4 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
121 of223 
1"-Q')I'"l 
n:=n 
J ! \ 
73--" '---42 
000 
J ! \ 
1 ~ 2~ 3' 000 
4 " 'd 
-------
<.0 
w 
> 
<( 
:r: 
"-o \ I I-I.{) 
CX) ty-J ; 
J ~ 
OCl o~ ' _, I 
J ! 
o--" 
o~ll J 4 
S RETAIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
8 
I 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
"-o 
SW DELORIS LANE 
G R 0 U P 
t 
""' 80 6 
"-o 
y-0 
f M A cKEmN z IE I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.Q5&o seo.eg5.7B7Q 20&.74g.gggs 
CAOOP t.IAO<OWE: 2D12 ALL RtGiTS R[S(R't£D 
© TH~~DR~,~~J:~1N ~EOt~N~ ~~r·Wta11~fr0rr~~h;~ BE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH 
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 
(24 YEARS) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
5 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
122 of 223 
r<">OlN r--~v 
37~ 1 ! \ 
1 
4 
5 
6 
G R 0 U P 
85-
34---... 
\ 
0~ 
o---... 
Ol Ol.,..... 
lD~N 
~~ 
/ 
\ 
/ 
'-o 
y-O 
'-o 
y- O 
r-M--A-c --K E N ITfl 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.9560 360.695.7879 206.749.9993 
CROUP IJACJ<OIZ![ 2012 ALL RIG-I TS RES£R~D 
© rn5~oDR~~m~E~~ ~EO~N'& ~~:cJr"~J1~fr~~~kJ~ BE 
2 
D---... y-O 
\ / 
000 
4 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
6 
000 
J ! \ 
o~ '-o 
125-
o---... 
\ 
-342 
y-O 
/ 
000 
3 
w 
> 
<{ 
I 
f-
LO 
co 
..--
3':: 
(f) 
m 
NOT TO SCALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02 .12 
DRAWN BY: Kl.A 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH 
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 
(24 YEARS) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERlY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
AGURE 
6 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
123 of 223 
1 
4 
5 
6 
G R 0 U P 
0_...., 
3--.... 
\ 
......_ 1 
r-0 
I 
r--
~0 
! \ ......_ 1 
l r- 0 ~ I 
I"') a 
Ill 
r MUAC K E NZTUEI 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11580 380.8115.78711 208.7411.1111113 
CA!l.JP IJAOCEJWE 2012 AU RIGH TS REsl:R't£0 
@lHij~ODA~~~C:J:~E:Di~EQ~~c;.~t~~~~fr~AA~h_J~BE 
2 
o--.... l ~a ~ 
4 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
e 
DO N 
J ! \ 
0_...., ......_2 
11 02--
o--.... 
\ 
DOD 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
1--
l[) 
co 
..--
~ 
(/) 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: Kl.A 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
YEAR 2035 BACKGROUND 
TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY 
AM PEAK HOUR 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
7 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
124 of 223 
1 
4 
~ 
,.... 
mr-.. 
~co 
22_.; J ! 
26 --... 
\ 
s"' 
(' 
~ 
6 
G R 0 U P 
'--o 
y-O 
! 
'-- o 
r-0 
! 
1 MACKENZIE ! 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11560 360.6115.76711 206.7411.1111113 
CROUP IJACKENZ{[ 2D12 ALL RIGHlS RES[A't£0 
@ll1~~DDR~~~~~E~1.. ~~EO~N~ ~OXf~f~~J~~~~~~hJ~& 
2 
691-
o--... 
\ ! 
000 
y-1 
4 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
6 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
1--
l[) 
co 
........ 
3: 
(f) 
g_.i 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
lDOI'"l 
J ! \ 
y-1 
! 
No~ 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04_02. 12 
DRAWN BY: Kl.A 
CHECKED BY: BJ D 
JOB NO: 
2120065 .00 
YEAR 2035 BACKGROUND 
TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY 
PM PEAK HOUR 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
8 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
125 of 223 
FYLTA' ) ! \ 
~ ~ 
~ 
~ '\ y 
1 * 
lj \ 
4*~ 
~ 4 \ 
< 
tt '\ y 
5*~
~ ~\ 
> 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
~T+ 
-
~+ 
2 3 
·~ 
<( 
I 
I-
l{) 
co 
..-
3: 
(f) 
I 
4 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
8 
SW DELORIS LANE y 
6* 
FYL TA = FLASHING YELLOW LEFT TURN ARROW 
* OPTIONAL ANALYSIS WAS DONE FOR AN ADDITIONAL THRU LANE ON NORTH 
AND SOUTHBOUND LEGS OF INTERSECTION ON 185TH AVE. FYL TA WAS ALSO 
ASSUMED ON ALL APPROACHES OF INTERSECTION 1 DURING THIS SCENARIO. 
G R 0 U P 
r -M A C K E N Z I E I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11560 360.6115.78711 206.7411.1111113 
CROOP UAO<OW£ 2D12 ALL RIGi ts RESlJh{D 
©nt5~DR~~~~:~~E0~N~ ~~f~~~~~~~~k.J~BE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ D 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
ASSUMED LANE CONFIGURA TIO 
AND TRAFFIC CONTROL 
DEVICES (CURRENT ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
9 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
126 of 223 
FYLTA ) ! \ 
~ ~ 
181 -
~ '\ ~ y-
1 * -
~ \ tt 
+ 
~ 
y-
tt '\ ~ 5*~ 
2 
m 
NOT TO SCALE 
T+ _, I~ 
- - \:; ~ y- t .a. 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
I-
l.() 
co 
...-
3: 
(f) 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
SW DELORIS LANE 
FYL TA = FLASHING YELLOW LEFT TURN ARROW 
* OPTIONAL ANALYSIS WAS DONE FOR AN ADDITIONAL THRU LANE ON NORTH 
AND SOUTHBOUND LEGS OF INTERSECTIONS ON 185TH AVE. FYLTA WAS ALSO 
ASSUMED ON ALL APPROACHES OF INTERSECTION 1 DURING THIS SCENARIO. 
G R 0 U P F-MA c K E N zi-El 
Por tland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11580 380.895.78711 208.74 11.1111113 
CROUP IJACXOWE 2012 All ~IGHTS RESERYED 
© Tt10~oDR~~~~~E~~ ~EO~N~ ~~Jr"~J~~~~E~~1~~~& 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: Kl.A 
CHECKED BY: BJ D 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
ASSUMED LANE CONFIGURA TIO 
AND TRAFFIC CONTROL 
DEVICES (PROPOSED ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
10 
ExhibitC 
12-222-PA 
127 of 223 
1 
4 
5 
6 
G R 0 U P 
000 
J ~ \ 
0___.., '-1 
o- -o 
1~ ...--o 
\ t t 
N~o 
o~ 
~ \ '-2 
...--1 
t 
~o 
o~ 
0___.., J ~ 
0~ 
~~ 
~o 
~ \ '-1 
...--1 
t 
o~ 
I MACKENHZIE I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.Q560 360.6Q5.787Q 206.74Q.QQQ3 
CROUP UACKOW£ 2DI2 ALL RIGHTS RESDl't£0 
@ TH5~DA~~~c:J::~ PR.:;Ecr:.H~ ~~t~a1')R'frc:r~~~g.. B£ 
2 
o- -o 
0~ ...--1 
\ t t 
~oN 
4 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
6 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
1--
l() 
<X) 
..--
3: 
(f) 
000 
J ~ \ 
o__.., '-o 
2-
0~ 
\ 
-1 
...--o 
t 
000 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ Q 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
PRIMARY SITE TRIPS - WEEKDAY 
AM PEAK HOUR (CURRENT 
ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERlY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
11 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
128 of 223 
1 
4 
5 
6 
G R 0 U P 
oo~ 
J ! \ 
o..-A" .....__ , 
2-- --o 
o---... \ l / ;-- 0 
~~ o 
T\ \ 
.....__ , 
" 
(,-/ 
00 
o..-A" J ! 
o---... 
\ 
ON 
00 
! \ .....__, 
;-- 0 
/ 
I MAc KHE N z I E-1 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.Q560 380.6Q5.7B7Q 206.74Q.QQQ3 
CROUP 1./ACKEIW£ 2!112 ALL RIQiTS RESERV£0 
@ TH5~o00J~~c:u~E~EIN ~EO~N~ ~~cJl'WtJ1~-rr~E~~r~~~ BE 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
2 
o-- --o 
3---... \ l / ;--2 
~ o N 
4 
RETAIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
8 
000 
o..-A" J ! \ 
2--
o---... 
\ 
000 
3 
w 
> I~ 
l[) 
co 
..--
3: 
(f) 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04_02.12 
DRAWN BY: Kl.A 
CHECKED BY: 8J D 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
PRIMARY SITE TRIPS - WEEKDAY 
PM PEAK HOUR (CURRENT 
ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
12 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
129 of 223 
1 
5 
G R 0 U P 
0!0!0 
o---" 
/ ! \ 
13--
13---.._ 
\ 
N !0 0 
~ 
OON / ! \ 
o---" '-20 
o--
o---.._ 
\ 
--o 
,;----16 
( 
1 M-A-CK E N-Z I E I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11560 360.6115.78711 206.7411.1111113 
CROOP IJACKDWE 2DI2 All RICH lS RESERVED 
©TH5~DR~~~~~1N ~EQ~N~ ~~f~ci1~'t~~~hJ~BE 
2 
--o 
,;----25 
( 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY, 
5 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
I-
I.() 
CX) 
..-
3': 
(f) 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
000 
o---" 
/ ! \ 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04-02-12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: 8JD 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
PRIMARY SITE TRIPS 
- WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 
(PROPOSED ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
13 
E_ ,dJJ bil C 
I .... ,. l r · ... 
j: L 
·-
.::-o 
\ 
" I 
N ~,(~ 
• - J 
I 
'· O 
- - o 
- 0 
~- - 16 
- 0 
"" - 24 
2 
I' I") 
I") N 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
1--
L() 
co 
.,-
3: 
(f) 
000 / ! \ 
o----' '-o 
o-
o~ 
\ 
- o 
y- O 
( 
000 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
/ RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
---+--
5 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 0 4.02.12 PASS-BY TRIPS - II FIGURE 
I'"' ~ I I I [" I II DRAWN BY: KLA WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 
Por 
' 
I w,. II CHECKED BY: BJ D (PROPOSED ZONING) 
II 14 50S 224 ~ ' G 71- ' JOB NO: SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
@ n15~D~':.1 ..,,?'"!, uv "~ ·,· dA~" ,' .v ~. ~/~~vE:~~~~JsJ1~BE II 21200 65.00 185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
131 of223 
1 
5 
G R 0 U P 
ococo 
J ~ \ 
0___.,. ....__8 
12--
12-...... 
--11 
y-0 
\ / 
;: IXJo 
0 
DON 
0___.,. 
J ~ \ 
o--
o-...... 
\ 
O OI.D 
~ 
F-M A C K E N Z I E I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11560 360.6115.78711 206.74Q.QQQ3 
CA()JP UAOCOa!E 2D12 ALL RIGHlS RE5£Riy{D 
©™~~DR~~~~~~ ~EO~N~ ~~t~~~~~~~~k.Jg..BE 
2 
--o 
y-22 
/ 
c:::i 
RETAIL DRIVEWAY • 
5 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
f-
LO 
ro 
..---
3':: 
(f) 
I' 
000 
0___.,. 
J ~ \ 
21--
o-...... 
\ 
000 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KlA 
CHECKED BY: BJQ 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
PRIMARY SITE TRIPS 
- WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 
(PROPOSED ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
15 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
132 of 223 
1 
5 
G R 0 U P 
000 / ! \ 
0~ ....._0 
o-- --o 
o--.... y-O 
\ t I 
000 
0~ ' ....._ 12 
o-- --o 
o--.... y- 19 
\ t I 
0...--. t'"l t'")~ 
~ 
........ 
~ - ---- ------- --------1 
MACKENZIE 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11560 360.6115.78711 208.7411.1111113 
CROUP IJACJ<OWE 2.012 All RIG-HS RE5£RVEO 
© THG~oOR~'k~~~E';r~ ~EC~N~ ~~~rA~~~~~n:~~~~nsJ~~ BE 
( 19)--
19---... 
\ 
2 
m 
N 
--(31) 
y-31 
I 
CXl 
~ 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
f-
l.() 
<X) 
.--
3:: 
(f) 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
000 / ! \ 
0~ ....._0 
o-- --o 
o--.... y-O 
\ t I 
000 
RETAIL DRIVEWAY 
DATE: 04.02 . 12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
_ ___. __ 
5 
SW DELORIS LANE 
PASS-BY TRIPS -
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 
(PROPOSED ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
16 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
133 of 223 
174_..... 
81 1-
G R 0 U P 
172---. \ l 
""' 
tDC tOe; 
1 
-----
""' 
4 
0_..... 
3---. 
\ 
5 
6 
r--
Ol 
v~ 
! \ 
( 
NO 
'2 
I") 
!Xl 
( 
"'--3 
y--1 
"'--2 
y-- 1 
F-M A c KEN z 1-E I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.11580 380.8115.78711 208.7411.1111113 
CRClJP UACKEJ'IZI[ 2012 All RICHlS RE~Q 
©TH~~OA~,~~:1N ~EO~N~ ~~fWrJI~~~~~IsJ~& 
2 
y--1 
( 
~on 
4 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
5 
6 
OON 
J ! \ 
0_..... "'--2 
1104-
o---. 
\ 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
1-
LO 
co 
..--
3: 
(f) 
000 
/ 
/ 
~ 
NOT TO SC ALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 
(CURRENT ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
17 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
134 of 223 
~,.) 181- -829 
163---..... y-- 199 
'\ l ( 
1 ~ 
'-1 \ 
"' 
" { .-") 
4 
..-----
" mr--. ~IX) 
22___...... 
J ! 
26~ 
5 lD 
'-1 
y- O 
( 
"" 
li)~ 
"! 
6 
G R 0 U P 
1 MACKENZIE ! 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.Q560 360.6Q5.787Q 206.74Q.QQQ3 
GROUP I.I ACKENZ[[ 2DI2 ALL RIGHlS RES£RV'ED 
©THQ~o00~~~~~E'J1EIN PR~EO~N~ c;,~Jl·~~~~-rr~E~~IsJ~ BE 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
lDOI'"l 
J ! \ 
\9~ \691- -1105 84 3---..... y--3 
o--....... \ lf y--1 
'\ l ( 
~oN 
2 3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
I I-
1.[) 
OC) 
..--
3: 
(f) 
4 
RETAIL DRIVEWAY 
--5 
6 
I 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 
(CURRENT ZONING) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON AD 
FIGURE 
18 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
135 of 223 
1 
5 
G R 0 U P 
Ol 
lOlO 
n..r..r 
0__..., 
J ! \ 
o--
3~ 
\ 
F-M A C K E N Z I E I 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.Q560 360.6Q5.7B7Q 206.74Q.QQQ3 
CROOP UACKO'ill[ 2DI2 ALL RIGHlS RES0h£D 
@TH5~DR~~~~:~ ~EO~N~ ~~t~JIE~i1~~~hJ~BE 
2 
--407 
_y--63 
( 
RETAIL DRIVEWAY • 
5 
O ON 
0__..., 
J ! \ 
11 27--
0~ 
\ 
000 
3 
w 
> 
<( 
I 
f-
lO 
co 
..--
3: 
(/) 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
SW DELORIS LANE 
DATE: 04.02.12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065 .00 
YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 
(PROPOSED ZONE) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
19 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
136 of 223 
1 
5 
G R 0 U P 
r--
mll10 
~co<t 
/ ~ \ 
'-- 3 1 
-+-- 3 4 
.;-- 29 
( 
1 MACKENZIE ! 
Portland OR Vancouver WA Seattle WA 
503.224.g5eo seo.eg5.7B7g 2oe.74g_ggg3 
CR()JP UACKDWE 2D12 ALL RIGH l S R[S[Ih{D 
© Tl15~DR~~~C:,~:E~ ~E0l1N~ ~OXf~f~Jl~"fr~E~~h.J~ BE 
2 
( 
co Ol 
<t r') 
;--53 
tDOr'l 
/ ~ \ 
9_....., '--6 
703-
3 
w 
> 
<( 
:r: 
1-
l.{) 
co 
..--
3: 
(f) 
0~ .;--1 
\ ( 
No~ 
~ 
NOT TO SCALE 
RET AIL DRIVEWAY 
DATE: 04.02. 12 
DRAWN BY: KLA 
CHECKED BY: BJ 0 
JOB NO: 
2120065.00 
----+--
5 
SW DELORIS LANE 
YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 
(PROPOSED ZONE) 
SEVEN HILLS PROPERTY 
185TH AVE AND FARMINGTON RD 
FIGURE 
20 

Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~iikmr being reported : User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: SW 185th Ave-- SW Farmington Rd 
CITY/STATE: Aloha , OR 
QC JOB#: 10690201 
DATE: Thu , Dec 08 2011 
342 443 
_j : 181 7~L 
oJ • ... 
Peak-Hour: 7:00AM --8:00AM 
Peak 15-Min : 7:40AM -- 7:55AM 
6.7 7.0 
_j1:7 1.7 
oJ • :OL 
7.9 + 139 .t /) \. 188 .. 77 
21 +~+ 67 
455 .. 101 .t \. 32 .. 312 
565 + ~ .. 252 
4.3 + 6.9 " r 3 6 + 3 2 768 + 102 " r 28 + 742 .._ . ~ 
1 1!0310 ~~ A~ 
31 1 529 
_j~L 
1 t <i> t 4 
~~~ 
_j: : ~L 
.. .t~t.. .. 
NA +- + NA 
+ • r + 1: N: :1 
\..,L. Qu~l·i~y ~.~.~~~~ 
___JJ l L lL 
'L_ 
+--
..-
_J 
-----+ 
----. 
~ n["l 
.._ . ~ 
1 5. 0 3.5 5. 1 1 
3.5 4.2 
_j o o o L 
..,) . ... 
0 .t <6> \. 0 
1 + 010 + 0 
o '\ r o 
I"' • ,.1 I o o o I 
_j,.J N: ... L 
.t~ \. 
NA + • . . .. NA ~ 
" r I" N: ,.1 
5-Min Count 
Period 
Beginning At Left 
SW 185th Ave 
(Northbound) 
Thru Riqht 
SW 185th Ave 
(Southbound) 
SW Farmington Rd 
(Eastbound) 
SW Farmington Rd 
(Westbound) 
U I Left Thru Riqht U I Left Thru Riqht U I Left Thru Riqht U Total 
Hourly 
Totals 
7:00AM 
7:05AM 
7:10AM 
7:15AM 
7:20AM 
7:25AM 
7:30AM 
7:35AM 
I 
7:40AM 
7:45AM 
_ 7:50AM 
7:55AM 
8:00AM 
805AM 
8:10AM 
8:15 AM 
820 AM 
8:25 AM 
830 AM 
8:35AM 
84 0AM 
845AM 
850 AM 
8:55 AM 
8 
9 
9 
14 
8 
7 
12 
8 
14 
13 
10 
8 
16 
14 
11 
10 
4 
11 
8 
9 
1 
11 
7 
5 
20 
26 
28 
25 
21 
23 
38 
31 
32 
20 
29 
17 
28 
16 
14 
20 
10 
18 
15 
18 
19 
23 
10 
14 
5 
11 
10 
12 
16 
2 
8 
7 
7 
5 
7 
9 
14 
3 
9 
8 
13 
10 
8 
11 
7 
11 
7 
0 6 11 5 0 6 58 6 0 4 19 1 0 
0 3 8 4 0 3 50 5 0 0 15 2 0 
0 7 8 2 0 4 52 7 0 1 15 1 0 
0 0 9 3 0 11 44 9 0 2 20 3 0 
0 7 12 6 0 11 45 7 0 3 15 3 0 
0 9 13 6 0 13 51 11 0 3 23 1 0 
0 9 24 9 0 10 34 9 0 1 17 4 0 
0 8 21 10 0 9 53 6 0 1 17 0 0 
o I 15 30 16 o I 7 44 9 o I 1 25 3 o 
0 7 13 13 0 14 49 17 0 6 30 4 0 
0 5 18 4 0 9 41 10 0 5 29 5 0 
o I 2 14 5 o I 4 44 6 o I 1 27 5 o 
0 4 7 9 0 7 31 5 0 0 16 3 0 
0 6 8 3 0 7 43 1 0 1 17 5 0 
0 8 8 7 0 11 46 1 0 0 4 19 2 0 
0 6 8 4 0 6 60 6 0 1 18 1 0 
0 4 8 8 0 4 49 6 0 2 27 2 0 
0 9 1 0 1 0 0 6 42 4 0 6 20 5 0 
0 6 9 5 0 1 0 38 7 0 3 25 1 0 
0 7 6 6 0 9 51 5 0 1 27 3 0 
0 4 6 4 0 8 56 7 0 5 24 2 0 
0 6 12 3 0 12 35 4 0 3 13 1 0 
0 3 9 1 0 7 35 5 0 3 23 0 0 
14 0 4 9 2 0 8 36 9 0 8 21 4 0 
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 
Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 
All Vehicles 148 324 76 0 1 108 244 132 0 120 536 144 0 I 48 336 48 0 
Heavy Trucks 4 16 4 8 4 24 24 16 12 4 28 8 
Pedestrians 0 4 0 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stopped Buses 
Comments. Need full TMC 
149 
136 
144 
152 
154 
162 
175 
171 
203 
191 
172 
142 
140 
124 
149 
148 
137 
151 
135 
153 
143 
134 
110 
134 
Total 
2264 
152 
4 
0 
1951 
1942 
1930 
1935 
193 1 
1914 
1903 
1863 
1845 
1785 
1728 
1666 
1658 
I 
Report generated on 12/20/2011 12:19 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http ://www.qualitycounts .net) 1-877-580-22 12 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~iikmr being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: Westside Community Church Dwy- SW Farmington Rd 
CITY/STATE: Aloha, OR 
0 0 
_j : 0 ~L 
... . ... 
0 .. 0 .I t. 0 .. 0 
0 
0 . ~ .. 0 
• o "\ r o• 
I~.,., 0 0 0 • t 
0 0 
_j.:.L 
ot<$>to 
~~~ 
_j:::L 
.. .l~t. .. 
NA + .... NA 
+ "\ r + 1: :A :r-
0 
5-Min Count 
""estside Community Church Period 
,. ... "'' Beginning At Left rnru "RT<ifif u ! 7:00AM 0 0 0 0 
7:05AM 0 0 0 0 
7:10AM 0 0 0 0 
7:15AM 0 0 0 0 
7:20AM 0 0 0 0 
7:25AM 0 0 0 0 
7:30AM 0 0 0 0 
7:35AM 0 0 0 0 
7:40AM 0 0 0 0 
7:45AM 0 0 0 0 
7:50AM 0 0 0 0 
7:55AM 0 0 0 0 
8:00AM 0 0 0 0 
8:05AM 0 0 0 0 
8:10AM 0 0 0 0 
8:15AM 0 0 1 0 
8:20AM 0 0 0 0 
8:25AM 0 0 0 0 
8:30AM 0 0 0 0 
8:35AM 0 0 0 0 
840AM 0 0 0 0 
845AM 0 0 0 0 
8:50AM 0 0 0 0 
8:55AM 1 0 0 0 
Peak 15-Min Northbound 
Flow rates Left Thru Riaht u 
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 
Pedestrians 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stopped Buses 
Comments: Turns only 
Peak-Hour: 7:00AM --8:00AM 
Peak 15-Min: 7:00AM--7:15AM 
a:: Quality Counts 
___J L 
.-
--.. 
I 're 
~ide Community Church 0 SW Farmington Rd wy (Eastbound) 
Left ~fl}'~h~~q'h\- U Left Thru Right U 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 :D 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 
Southbound Eastbound 
Left Thru Riaht u Left Thru Riaht u 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
QC JOB #: 1 0690213 
DATE: Thu, Dec 08 2011 
0.0 0.0 
_j o•o o.o oto L 
.J • ... 
0.0 .. 0 0 .I ~ 1. 0 0 .. 0 0 
00 + .-., .. 00 
o.o + o o "\ r o o • o o 
,~. ~, 
0. 0 0.0 0. 0 
0.0 0.0 
_j o o o L 
.J • ... 
0 .1~-- t. 0 
0 • ~ .. 0 
o "\ r o 
~"\. ,., 
I o o o I 
_j ... : ... L 
.t~ t. 
NA + ~--, .. NA 
.. 
'\ - r 
~~ N: ~~ 
SW Farmington Rd 
(Westbound) Hourly Total Left Thru Right u Totals 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 2 2 
0 0 0 0 1 3 
0 0 0 0 1 4 
0 0 0 0 0 4 
0 0 0 0 0 4 
0 0 0 0 1 5 
0 0 0 0 0 5 
0 0 0 0 0 5 
0 0 0 0 3 8 
Westbound Total Left Thru Riaht u 
0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 
0 0 0 0 
I 
Report generated on 12/20/2011 12:19 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts , LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type cMSeiikmr being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: Coin Laundry Dwy -- SW Farmington Rd QC JOB #: 1 0690211 
CITY/STATE: Aloha, OR DATE: Thu , Dec 08 2011 
2 2 Peak-Hour: 7:00AM --8:00AM 
_j: ~L 0.0 0.0 0 Peak 15-Min : 7:25AM -- 7:40AM _j 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 L • 0 . o J \. 2 . 2 ., . '-
0 .. ~ · 0 0.0 . o.o J ~ \. 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 .. ,...,, . • 0.0 
0 + 0 'l t' O + 2 w I; • ~~ Cl: Qu.~l ity ~~,u~~= 0.0 .. 0.0 ... . t' 0.0 .. 0.0 ,~. ~, 0 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 0 
0.0 0.0 
_j _:.. L _j: 0 ~L • 
t<i>t ~h L 0 :~: 0 1 0 0 0 0 -. ''" r 0 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ • :r-0 
_j: NA .L _j_, NA L ~ 
. '- ~ re . '-• J ~\. • J~ \. NA + . ;jill: . .. NA NA + .. .. NA -~ + -. r + " . r 1: • :r- ,~ . ~, NA NA 
5-Min Count Coin Laundry Dwy Coin Laundry Dwy SW Farm ington Rd SW Farmington Rd 
Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u Totals 
7:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
7:05AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
7:1 0AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o, 0 
7:20AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 7:25AM 0 ?. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (j 
.\\ g 0 0 0. 0 :9 
• @ "'I 7:30AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7:35AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
7:40AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
7:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
7:50AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
7:55AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 
800AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
8:05AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
810AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 
815AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 
8:20AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
825AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 
8:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 
835AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 
8:40AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 
8:45AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 
8:50AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 
8:55AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
Peak 15-M in Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbou nd Tota l Flowrates Left Thru Riaht u Left Th ru Right u Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u 
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Pedestrians 0 0 4 0 4 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stoooed Buses 
Comments. Turns on ly 
I 
I 
Report generated on 12/20/201 1 12:19 PM SOURCE : Quality Counts, LLC (http ://www .qualitycounts .net) 1-877-580-2212 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~llkmr being reported : User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: SW 185th Ave- Buddies Sports Bar Dwy 
CITY/STATE: Aloha, OR 
3 0 
_j ! 0 ~L 
., . '-
+ 0 J \. 0 + 0 
a .. 1 0.44 1 • a 
3 + 3 "l r a + a 
I~ t ,., 1 0 0 • t 
3 1 
_j....:..L 
0 t<!>t 0 
~~~ 
_j: N: :L 
• J~\. • 
NA + !{Ill . + NA 
+ • r + 1: :A :r-
5-Min Count 
Period 
Beginning At 
7:00AM 
7:05AM 
7:10AM 
7:15AM 
7:20AM 
7:25AM 
7:30AM 
I. 
7:35AM 
7:40AM 
7:45AM 
7:50AM 
7:55AM 
8:00AM 
8:05AM 
8:10AM 
8:15AM 
820 AM 
8:25AM 
8:30AM 
835 AM 
8:40AM 
8:45AM 
8:50AM 
8:55AM 
SW 185th Ave 
(Northbound) 
Left Thru Riqht U 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
Peak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM 
Peak 15-Min: 7:35AM--7:50AM 
a Q~r:~J~~X-S~~~~: cc:tu:c t~0\4 
_j 
-t 
~ 
SW 185th Ave 
(Southbound) 
Left Th ru R iq ht 
0 0 1 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 1 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 1 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
u 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
~ 
'I 
Buddies Sports Bar Dwy 
(Eastbound) 
Left Thru Riqht U 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
2 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound 
Flowrates Left Thru Right U _!.e_ft Thru __ Rigll_! __ U L«1fi Thru Right U 
AIIVehicles l 4 o o o -- ~ - o o 4 o ---~ --0 o 8 o 
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Pedestrians 0 0 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stopped Buses 
Comments. This is the 1st drive south of Farmington Rd on 185th going west. 
QC JOB #: 10690225 
DATE: Thu, Dec 08 2011 
0.0 0.0 
_j o•o o.o oto L 
.J • '-
0.0 • a. a J .. A.'' '- a.a • a. a 
a.a .. <M ') • a.a 
0.0 .. 0.0 • 
I a; 
0.0 
r o.o + a. a t ,., 
o.o oto I 
0.0 
_j o a oL 
., . '-
0 J~, \. 0 
0 .. ~· . 0 
a "l ··· r a 
, ... t ,., 
I a a a I 
_j.,: ... L 
J [el- \. 
NA + • . • • NA ~ 
'\ r 
~~ N: r~ 
Buddies Sports Bar Dwy 
(Westbound) 
Left Thru Riqht U Total 
Hourly 
Totals 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 . 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
Left 
0 
0 
0 
Westbound 
Thru Right U 
0 0 0 
0 0 
0 
0 0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
1 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
Total 
16 
0 
0 
0 
7 
7 
8 
8 
8 
10 
12 
12 
12 
10 
9 
9 
8 
I 
Report generated on 12/20/2011 12:19 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts . LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~ilkmr being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION : SW 185th Ave-- SW Farmington Rd QC JOB#: 10690202 
CITY/STATE : Aloha , OR DATE: Thu, Dec 08 2011 
583 357 Peak-Hour: 4:55 PM -- 5:55 PM 2.2 2.2 _j1~0 346 1~7L Peak 15-Min: 5:20PM--5:35PM 
_j 0.8 1.7 5.6 L oJ • '-
.J • '-875 .. 80 J \. 44 .. 746 394 .. ~ .. 583 1.8 .. 1 3 J ~ \. 9 1 .. 2 7 10 .. ,.., . 26 603 .. 129 "l I' 119 .. 564 
... t ,. a: 0.8 • 0 0 "l ' I' 0 8 • 2 3 1 1:2233 ~~ ... t ,.1 QuaU~y';~~.~~~.~ l o+ 1.3 ~8 594 458 1.2 1.3 
_j 1 L 
_j : 1 ~L ..... • t~t ____Il j 1 ~ lt_ 0 J ~\. 0 2 3 0 . · , . 0 ~'':c;c '· ·. / 0 "l I' 0 
~~~ ..__ 1 : t :I +-- 0 
..---
_j: :L 
_j 
_joJ NA ----> NA L 
• 
-----.. . '-
.. J ~\. .. ~ HI' J rel \. NA .. ...... . + NA NA + •• + NA ~
• "l I' • "l I' 
1: 
t ,.1 1 ... t r~ NA NA 
t 
5-Min Count SW 185th Ave SW 185th Ave SW Farmington Rd SW Farmington Rd 
Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Riqht u Left Thru Riqht u Left Thru Riqht u Left Thru Riqht u Totals 
4:00PM 11 17 4 0 15 32 14 0 10 26 7 0 8 37 6 0 187 
405 PM 6 17 8 0 13 31 17 0 10 30 13 0 10 41 4 0 200 
4:10PM 8 10 8 0 7 18 9 0 7 40 6 0 3 49 6 0 171 
4:15PM 22 16 3 0 13 30 15 0 8 29 13 0 4 42 4 0 199 
420 PM 6 9 5 0 7 30 18 0 14 35 6 0 6 45 3 0 184 
4:25PM 11 13 11 0 8 22 8 0 10 32 11 0 8 51 5 0 190 
4:30PM 10 16 6 0 16 23 12 0 4 37 7 0 3 53 7 0 194 
4:35PM 13 19 3 0 6 23 9 0 7 40 9 0 16 57 5 0 207 
4:40PM 21 13 5 0 11 27 9 0 7 31 9 0 9 40 7 0 189 
4:45PM 12 15 3 0 17 28 14 0 8 35 13 0 14 46 2 0 207 
4:50PM 14 18 6 0 9 21 10 0 5 28 11 0 9 61 4 0 196 
4:55PM 10 15 5 0 4 20 16 0 8 35 11 0 6 53 4 0 187 2311 
5:00PM 16 14 5 0 9 21 15 0 7 23 10 0 9 54 2 0 185 2309 
5:05PM 11 16 9 0 10 29 7 0 11 30 5 0 12 43 3 0 186 2295 
5:10PM 12 18 3 0 17 34 5 0 3 23 9 0 10 58 4 0 196 2320 
5:15PM 12 12 1 0 9 32 9 0 9 33 14 0 9 47 2 0 189 2310 I 5:20PM 18 27 10 0 3 21 15 0 5 34 18 0 16 45 9 0 221 2347 I 5:25PM 25 24 6 0 5 21 7 0 12 50 13 0 6 42 3 0 214 2371 
5:30PM 14 20 6 0 8 33 16 0 5 29 7 0 8 48 6 0 200 2377 
5:35PM 14 20 3 0 14 30 11 0 2 35 8 0 12 41 1 0 191 2361 
5:40PM 9 21 5 0 12 34 9 0 4 37 12 0 14 54 5 0 216 2388 
5:45PM 12 22 7 0 10 28 10 0 4 33 12 0 12 52 1 0 203 2384 
5:50PM 9 24 3 0 6 43 10 0 10 32 10 0 5 46 4 0 202 2390 
5:55PM 5 19 8 0 8 22 11 0 11 24 11 0 18 40 3 0 180 2383 
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru RiCJht u Left Thru RiCJ ht u Left Thru RiCJht u Left Thru RiCJht u 
All Vehicles 228 284 88 0 64 300 152 0 88 452 152 0 120 540 72 0 2540 
Heavy Trucks 0 4 8 4 4 0 0 4 0 4 4 12 44 
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stopped Buses 
Comments. Need full TMC 
Report generated on 12/20/2011 12:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~ilk~r being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: Westside Community Church Dwy -- SW Farmington Rd QC JOB#: 10690214 
CITY/STATE: Aloha OR DATE: Thu, Dec 08 2011 
0 0 Peak-Hour: 4:55 PM -- 5:55 PM 
_j: ~L 0.0 0.0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:40PM--5:55PM _j o•o o.o oto L • 2 + 0 J \. 0 + 1 oJ • '-
0 .. ~ · 0 0.0 + 0.0 J ~ \. 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 .. .- • 0.0 
0 • o ~ I' 1 .. 1 I; t ~~ o.o • o.o "" r o.o • o.o ,~ t ~, 0 cr Qu:~:;xs~~~;~ o: 0.0 0. 0 1 3 
r,.:Oi.:.t.:...r:uN :le.I\-Vh .. C:. 0.0 0.0 
_j.:..L _j: 0 ~L .. 
t¢ t _j lL 0 J ~\. 0 0 0 0 .. ~. 0 0 '\ t" 0 ~~~ ~~ • :r-.- 0 
_j::~L _jol NA L --. . '-
• J ~\. • ~ 'I J [e] \. NA .. ... + NA NA .. .. + NA !!..__.!! 
• "" r • "" (' 1: . ~, ,~ . ~, NA NA • 
5-Min Count Westside Community Church ~ide Community Church 0 SW Farmington Rd SW Farmington Rd Period wy (Eastbound) (Westbound) Hourly 
Beginning At Left '·(i~ht>w,<lyff U Left '"rnr'~· "Ri :Wr u Left Thru Rioht U Left Thru Rioht u Total Totals 
4:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:05PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
410 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
420 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 
4:25PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 
4:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:35PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:40PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:45PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 
4:50PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:55PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
5:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
5:05PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 
5:20PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
5:25PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 
5:30PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 
5:35PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 I 5:40PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I 5:45PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 5:50PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
555 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flow rates Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right u 
All Vehicles 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Rail road 
Stopped Buses 
Comments: Turns only 
Report generated on 12/20/20 11 12:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts , LLC (http ://www.qualitycounts .net) 1-877-580-2212 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~Qkmr being reported : User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: Coin Laundry Dwy -- SW Farmington Rd QC JOB#: 10690212 
CITY/STATE: Aloha, OR DATE: Thu , Dec 08 2011 
! 1s Peak-Hour: 4:55 PM -- 5:55 PM o.o o.o 
_j 6 0 ! L Peak 15-Min: 4:55PM--5:10PM _j • t L 0.0 0.0 0.0 
ol • '-
6 + 9 J \. 6 + 6 .J .... 
~ 0.0 + 0.0 J ~.. \. 0.0 . 0.0 
0 
.. ~ • 0 0.0 .. ~. 0.0 
9 ~ "~ t ,. ~ 3 A .,._, o.o .. o.o • r o.o • o.o 
I! " :I . \..JL. Qu,a,L ;;~ ~~~~~~ ~~ .'. ~:~ 
_j..:..L _j:: ~L 
· t<»t · ~.l L : ~ ; : 
~~~ ~ ~~::1 
_j:::L ~ _jol:'"L 
• J~\. • 1 re·· .J [e) \. NA .. ... + NA NA .. ~~ + NA 
• • r • • r 1: ::1 1" : ,.1 
5-Min Count Coin Laundry Dwy Coin Laundry Dwy SW Farmington Rd SW Farmington Rd 
~eri~d (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) T t 1 Hourly Begmnmg At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 0 a Totals 
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 
4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:10PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 
4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 
4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 
4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 
4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 
I 
4:55PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 25 I 
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 25 
5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 28 
5:10PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 29 
5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 27 
5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 28 
5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 29 
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 
5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 
5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 29 
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 
5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 
5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound T t 1 Flowrates Left Thru Ri<1ht U Left Thru Ri<1ht U Left Thru Ri<1ht U Left Thru Ri<1ht U 0 a 
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 32 
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stopped Buses 
Comments: Turns only 
L__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----~~-~~--~~---
Report generated on 12/20/2011 12:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
Type ~!lf<mr being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume 
LOCATION: SW 185th Ave-- Buddies Sports Bar Dwy 
CITY/STATE: Aloha, OR 
19 22 
_j ~ 0 ~L 
.J • "-
31 • 22 J \. 0 • 0 
0 .. ~ . 0 
48 + 26 "\ I" 0 .. I; t ~, 0 0 t 
12 26 
_j ..:.. L 
ot<$>to 
~~~ 
_j: N: ~L 
• J~\. • 
NA + - + NA 
.. "\ I" .. 1: :A :r-
5-Min Count 
Period 
Beginning At 
4:00PM 
4:05PM 
4:10PM 
4:15PM 
4:20PM 
4:25PM 
4:30PM 
4:35PM 
4:40PM 
4:45PM 
450 PM 
4:55PM 
5:00 PM 
5:05 PM 
r 
5:10PM 
5:15PM 
5:20 PM 
5:25PM 
5:30PM 
5:35PM 
5:40PM 
5:45PM 
5:50PM 
5:55PM 
SW 185th Ave 
(Northbound) 
Left Thru Riaht 
0 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
2 0 0 
1 0 0 
0 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
2 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
3 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
0 0 0 
u 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
Peak-Hour: 4:55 PM -- 5:55 PM 
Peak 15-Min: 5:10PM-- 5:25PM 
""~ ~Q~,~tt!t;~~~~~~ 
_j 
-{ 
~ 
SW 185th Ave 
(Southbound) 
Left Thru Riaht 
0 0 1 
0 0 1 
0 0 2 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 3 
0 0 1 
0 0 1 
0 0 1 
0 0 0 
0 0 2 
0 0 1 
0 0 2 
0 0 0 
0 0 2 
0 0 1 
0 0 3 
0 0 2 
0 0 3 
0 0 0 
0 0 3 
0 0 2 
0 0 0 
0 0 2 
u 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
~ 
'I 
Buddies Sports Bar Dwy 
(Eastbound) 
Left Thru Riaht U 
1 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
1 0 2 0 
0 0 1 0 
0 0 3 0 
3 0 0 0 
1 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 2 0 
4 0 0 0 
2 0 0 0 
3 0 1 0 
2 0 3 0 
2 0 3 0 
2 0 5 0 
0 0 1 0 
2 0 1 0 
2 0 3 0 
2 0 6 0 
1 0 1 0 
0 0 2 0 
1 0 2 0 
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound 
Flowrates Left Thru Riaht U Left Thru Riaht U Left Thru Riaht U 
AH Vehides l - 8 o o o I o o 24 o I 24 o 44 o 
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Pedestrians 0 0 0 
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Railroad 
Stopped Buses 
Comments: This is the 1st drive south of Farmington Rd on 185th going west. 
QC JOB #: 1 0690226 
DATE: Thu , Dec 08 2011 
0.0 0.0 
_j o•o o.o oto L 
~ . "-
0.0 • o.o .t A. 1. o.o • o.o 
0.0 + <~) • 0.0 
0.0 .. 0.0 "\ I" 0.0 .. 0.0 
I a; t ~, a.a a. a I 
0.0 0.0 
_j o o oL 
.J • "-
0 J ~\. 0 
0 + ~. 0 
0 "\ I" 0 1"1 t ~, 
I a a a I 
_j.~ : ""L 
j [e)- \. 
NA + ~~ + NA 
'l . I" 
~~ N: ~~ 
Buddies Sports Bar Dwy 
(Westbound) 
Left Thru Riaht U 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
Left 
0 
0 
0 
Westbound 
Thru Riaht U 
0 0 0 
0 0 
0 
0 0 
Total 
3 
2 
3 
1 
3 
4 
4 
4 
3 
2 
6 
5 
5 
5 
9 
6 
10 
6 
7 
6 
12 
5 
3 
5 
Total 
100 
0 
0 
0 
Hourly 
Totals 
40 
42 
45 
51 I 56 
63 
65 
68 
70 
79 
82 
79 
79 
Report generated on 12/20/2011 12:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts . LLC (http://www.qualitycounts .net) 1-877-580-2212 

Exhibit c 
12-222-PA 
147of223 
ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET 
(ITE, Chapter 7, Trip Generation Handbook) 
Project Number: 2120065.00 Project Number: 
Project Name: ;':IW;:a~ll:'gr:':e':'en::_:s::..·-:1-;85;::1~hi;::Fa::r::m:;:ln::gt;:o::n--- .,.;..;.;;J.;~,;.;.;;;;.;;.;;;;;.;.;..~ 
Enter from External : ~ ----+ 
Exit to External: +---
Land Use B: 
ITE LUC: 
Size: 
Enter 
Exit 
Total 
% 
Demand 
Fast Food 
934 
3.5 KSF 
Total Internal 
88 32 
85 32 
173 64 
100% 37% 
Enter from Externai:EB ____.... 
Exit to External : 0 +---
Demand 20.0% 0 ~ 
Balanced 0 ~emand 20 . 00~ 0 
~ 20.0% 0 0 Balanced 
20.0% 0 Demand 
External 
56 
53 
109 Demand 20.0% 23 
63% Balanced 17 
17 
Enter from External :~ --+ 
Exit to External : 44 +---
Land Use A 
ITE LUC: 
Size: 
Total Internal External 
Enter 0 0 0 
Exit 0 0 0 
Total 0 0 0 
% 
Demand 20.0% 0 
Balanced 0 
Demand 20.0% 0 
Demand 
emand 
. r 
Balanced 
Demand ';;-Ba"i21~:::-~=:::~:':' d;t--;;--i 
Demand '-"'20"'.0'-'%-'-+-"---' 
Land Use C: Gas Station 
ITE LUC: 944 
Size: 12 VFP 
Total Internal External 
Enter 74 30 44 
Exit 72 28 44 
Tatar 146 58 88 
% 100% 40% 60% 
20.0% 
Balanced 
20.0% 
NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT 
Version= 1.3; 1/4/00 
File Name= H:\Projects\212006500\TRAFFIC\Trip Gen\{lnternal Cap Speadsheet.xls)298.03 AM 
Print Date = 04/04/12 
Print Time = 9:17AM 
Category 
Enter 
Exit 
Total 
Single Use 
Trip Gen Estimate 
A 
0 
0 
0 
0 
Land Use 
B c D Total 
Fast Foo Gas Stat Conv. M 
56 44 86 186 
53 44 84 181 
109 88 170 367 
173 146 234 553 
Internal Capture = 33.63"/. 
Scenario : ;Post·Development 
Analysis Period: (PM~ Middai(_-?'""""A""M""" .. x"""'. ___ :J ...
Analyst : ,_fK:::LA-'---....,----" 
Date : 104.02.12 
18 
18 
23 
Enter from External :~ ----+ 
Exit to External : ...,...__ 
I--"";;"-~,...,Ba.,-i~"'~'-c.,-edo'Demand 
'-'=:..:::.._,_ _ _:..:..__.JDemand 
Land Use o· Conv Mkt 
ITELUC: 851 
Size: 3.5 KSF 
Total 
Enter 117 
Exn 117 
Total 234 
% 100% 
Internal 
31 
33 
64 
27% 
External 
86 
84 
170 
73% 
E x h i b i t  C  
1 2 - 2 2 2 - P A  
1 4 8  o f  2 2 3  
E n t e r  f r o m  E x t e r n a l :  ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  
E x 1 t t o  E x t e r n a l .  ~ 
V e r s i o n =  1 . 3 :  1 / 4 10 0  
L a n d  U s e  B ·  F a s t  F o o d  
I T E  L U C ·  
9 3 4  
S i z e ·  3 . 5  K S F  
T o t a l  
E n t e r  6 2  
E x i t  
5 7  
T o t a l  1 1 9  
%  1 0 0 %  
D e m a n d  
I n t e r n a l  
2 4  
2 2  
4 6  
3 9 %  
I T E  M U L T I - U S E  P R O J E C T  I N T E R N A L  C A P T U R E  W O R K S H E E T  
( I T E ,  C h a p t e r  7 ,  T r i p  G e n e r a t i o n  H a n d b o o k )  
L a n d  U s e  A  
I T E  L U C :  
S i z e :  
T o t a l  I n t e r n a l  
E x t e r n a l  
E n t e r  f r o m  E x t e r n a l :  E 8  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  
E n t e r  
0  0  0  
E x 1 t  t o  E x t e r n a l :  0  ~ 
E x i t  
0  0  0  
T o t a l  0  0  
0  
%  
D e m a n d  
2 0 . 0 %  
0  ~ 
B a l a n c e d  0  
~emand 
I  
2 0 . 0 %  0  D e m a n d  
2 0 . 0 %  0  
~ 
2 0 . 0 %  0  B a l a n c e d  
0  
0  
B a l a n c e d  
D e m a n d  
2 0 . 0 %  
0  
2 0 . 0 %  0  D e m a n d  
E x t e r n a l  
3 8  
D e m a n d  2 0 . 0 %  1 2  
3 5  
B a l a n c e d  1 2  
7 3  
D e m a n d  I  2 0 . 0 %  I  
1 9  
I  
6 1 %  
B a l a n c e d  1 1  
I  
I  
D e m a n d !  2 0 . 0 %  1 1  
r  
2 0 . 0 %  
1 8  
D e m a n d !  2 0 . 0 %  1  u  1  
B a l a n c e d  
1 2  
D e m a n d !  2 0 . 0 %  I  u  I  
B a l a n c e d  
D e m a n d  I  2 0 . 0 %  ~ 2 0 . 0 %  j  1 7  ! D e m a n d  
B~~a~~~~ f - - - - ; ; ; C - ; ; ; ; ; - - f - - ; 1 " ' 7 - - - " ' " " -
D e m a n d !  : l U . U " / o  1  1 1  . J . . -
: : >  
L a n d  U s e  C :  G a s  S t a t i o n  
I T E  L U C :  9 4 4  
S i z e :  1 2  V F P  
T o t a l  I n t e r n a l  E x t e r n a l  
E n t e r  f r o m  E x t e r n a i : B B  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  
E n t e r  
8 3  
2 8  5 5  
E x i t  t o  E x t e r n a l :  5 4  . , . . . . . _ _  
E x i t  
8 3  2 9  
5 4  
T o t a l  1 6 6  5 7  1 0 9  
%  I  1 o o o ; ,  3 4 %  6 6 %  
N E T  E X T E R N A L  T R I P S  F O R  M U L T I - U S E  D E V E L O P M E N T  
L a n d  U s e  
C a t e g o r y  A  8  c  D  T o t a l  
F a s t  F o e  G a s  S t a t  C o n v .  M  
E n t e r  0  3 8  5 5  6 6  1 5 9  
E x i t  
0  3 5  5 4  6 1  
1 5 0  
T o t a l  0  7 3  1 0 9  1 2 7  3 0 9  
S i n g l e  U s e  
T r i p  G e n  E s t i m a t e  0  1 1 9  1 6 6  1 8 4  4 6 9  
I n t e r n a l  C a p t u r e =  3 4 . 1 2 ' / ,  
F i l e  N a m e =  H : \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 2 0 0 6 5 0 0 \ T R A F F I C \ T r i p  G e n \ ( l n t e r n a l  C a p  S p e a d s h e e t . x l s ] 2 9 8 . 0 3  P M  
P r i n t  D a t e  =  0 4 10 4 / 1 2  
P r i n t  T i m e =  9 : 1 9 A M  
L a n d  U s e  0 :  C o n v .  M k t  
I T E  L U C :  8 5 1  
S i z e :  3 . 5  K S F  
T o t a l  I n t e r n a l  
E x t e r n a l  
E n t e r  f r o m  Externa l :~ _ . , . .  
E x i t  t o  External : , . . _ _ _ _  
E n t e r  9 4  
2 8  6 6  
E x i t  9 0  2 9  6 1  
T o t a l  1 8 4  5 7  
1 2 7  
%  1 0 0 %  
3 1 %  6 9 %  

Exhibit C 
Hcij~~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
_,;. 
---+ "'). ~ -+- -\.. ~ 
Movement---_-· E~EBT , EEf~§I'"';'rwsT WBR NBL 
Lane Configurations ~ tf+ 
" 
tf+ 
" Volume (vph) 138 667 137 108 489 66 191 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3483 1752 3434 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 
Satd. Flow (~erm} 1787 3483 1752 3434 374 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 145 702 144 114 515 69 201 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 11 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 827 0 114 573 0 201 
Confl. Peds. (#ihr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#ihr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%} 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Turn Type Prot Prot pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
Permitted Phases 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 29.5 8.8 26.9 37.3 
Effective Green, g (s) 11 .4 29.5 8.8 26.9 37.3 
Actuated giC Ratio 0.13 0.33 0.10 0.30 0.42 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1148 172 1032 314 
vis Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.24 0.07 0.17 c0.07 
vis Ratio Perm 0.20 
vic Ratio 0.64 0}2 0.66 0.56 0.64 
Uniform Delay, d1 37.1 26.4 38.9 26.3 19.2 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tOO 
Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 2.6 7.9 1.0 3.7 
Delay (s) 41.8 29.0 46.8 27.3 22.9 
Level of Service D c D c c 
Approach Delay (s) 30.9 30.5 
Approach LOS c c 
Intersection Summa~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 36.6 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
0.84 
89.5 Sum of lost time (s) 
78.2% ICU Level of Service 
15 
4i2i2012 
t !" '. + ..; 
NBfrr-f;f8R- SBL SBT SB 
f+ 
430 97 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.97 
1.00 
1823 
1.00 
1823 
0.95 0.95 
453 102 
7 0 
548 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
27.3 
27.3 
0.31 
4.0 
2.3 
556 
c0.30 
0.99 
30.9 
1.00 
34.2 
65.1 
E 
53.9 
D 
D 
17.0 
D 
~ t ~ 
120 370 156 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1770 1863 1562 
0.17 1.00 1.00 
308 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
126 389 164 
0 0 120 
126 389 44 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
31 .1 24.2 24.2 
31 .1 24.2 24.2 
0.35 0.27 0.27 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
220 504 422 
0.04 0.21 
0.16 0.03 
0.57 0.77 0.11 
23.0 30.1 24.5 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
2.7 6.8 0.1 
25.6 36.9 24.6 
c D c 
31 .8 
c 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
HCij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewa~ 
---+- ..,. 
.f +-
"" 
I" 
ovement EBT · EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations ti+ lj tt v 
-Volume (veh/h) 
·--~ 
884 0 1 662 1 3 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade - ,,0% o% 0% 
-Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
-Hourly flow rate (vph} 931 0 1 697 1 3 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenfBiockage c· . 
Right turn flare (veh) 
-Median type · Non'e None 
Median storage veh) 
-Upstream signal @ 
-
13~ 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.79 0.79 0.79 
vC, confljcting volume ~ -- 931 -· ~.,-......, 1281 465 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vCf stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 392 834 0 
---tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
.. 
--- --pO queue free % 100 100 100 
--- ---------
eM capacity (veh/h) 923 243 860 
:Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB2 WS1 WB2 WB3 NB1 
Volume Total 620 310 1 348 348 4 
Volume Left 0 0 1 0 0 1 
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 3 
cSH 1700 1700 923 1700 1700 526 
Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.01 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 1_1.9 
Lane LOS A B 
ApJ)roach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11 .9 
Approach LOS B 
nterseaion Summa!}: 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR -Worst Case 
15 
A 
4/2/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~f9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmington Rd & Westside Community Church Dwy 
.,}-
---+- "'). 
.f 
,._ 
'- ~ t 
0 0 663 2 0 0 
Free Free Stop 
0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 934 0 0 698 2 0 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.80 0.80 0.80 
vC, conflicting volume 700 934 1283 1634 
vC 1, stage 1 conf val 934 934 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 349 700 
vCu, unblocked val 700 410 847 1287 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.5 6.5 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 
IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 893 908 414 342 
ior raM?~' :ri"~;;-Es~:r*'EB.2 ~ El'f3""VVs1- "wt:r2 ,tTW83J:'.NB71~sa 1J 
622 
Volume Left 0 0 
Volume Right 0 0 
cSH 1700 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.37 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 
Approach LOS 
ltersectiOnsUi'Tlfi1art- :w~~qr:P~ ""-· 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
311 
0 
0 
1700 
0.18 
0 
0.0 
0.0 
34.5% 
15 
0 465 235 0 2 
0 0 0 0 2 
0 0 2 0 0 
1700 1700 1700 1700 385 
0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.01 
0 0 0 0 0 
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 
A B 
0.0 0.0 14.4 
A B 
ICU Level of Service 
!" 
0 
0.95 
0 
0.80 
467 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
870 
A 
4/2/2012 
'. ! .; 
2 0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 0 
0.80 0.80 
1166 1633 350 
699 699 
467 934 
701 1286 350 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
99 100 100 
385 343 652 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
4: Existin9 North Drivewal & SW 185th Avenue 
.( -\.. t ~ '-. + 
:Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 
Lane Configurations ¥ f+ 4' 
Volume (veh/h) 1 3 715 0 1 614 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
-Grade 0% 0~/o 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 3 753 0 1 646 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent BloCkage n 
Right turn flare (veh) 
------- --·-Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
- -- -· Upstream signal (ft) 226 
- -- -~--pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 
-· 
......... ""~-- ·-· 
vC, conflicting volurne 1401 753 753 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 1377 753 753 
-~-- -
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
- -
.. -
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
- -pO queue free % 99 99 100 
-- -
eM capacity (veh/h) 128 410 857 
:Direction, Lane# WB1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 4 753 647 
Volume Left 1 0 1 
Volume Right 3 0 0 
cSH 265 1700 857 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.44 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 18.8 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS c A 
Approach Delay (s) 18.8 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS c 
;Intersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.1 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
15 
A 
4/2/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~na lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies Sports Bar & Grill Dwy & SW 185th Avenue 
_,J 
EB[ 
Lane Configurations v 
Volume (veh/h) 0 
Sign Control Stop 
Grade 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 
vC, conflicting volume 1401 
vC 1 , stage 1 cant val 646 
vC2, stage 2 cant val 755 
vCu, unblocked val 1376 
tC, single (s) 6.4 
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 
tF (s) 3.5 
pO queue free % 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 364 
Direction, Lane# 
Volume Total 3 
Volume Left 0 
Volume Right 3 
cSH 501 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 
Queue Length 95th (It) 0 
Control Delay (s) 12.2 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 12.2 
Approach LOS B 
lntersectionSumma!:Y 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
t ~ t + ..; 
EBR ,~ %NB[ NBT SBT-SB~' 
~ t ~ 
3 1 715 612 3 
Free Free 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 1 753 644 3 
TWLTL None 
2 
308 
0.81 0.81 
646 647 
439 441 
6.2 4.1 
3.3 2.2 
99 100 
501 901 
1 753 647 
1 0 0 
0 0 3 
901 1700 1700 
0.00 0.44 0.38 
0 0 0 
9.0 0.0 0.0 
0.0 0.0 
0.0 
47.6% ICU Level of Service 
15 
A 
4/2/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 5 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
6: Existin9 South Drivewa~ & 185th Avenue 
f" '- t ~ '-. + 
ovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SB 
Lane Configurations v ~ 4' 
-Volume (veh/h) 
-
0 2 711 1 0 615 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
-Grade 0% 0% 0% 
-
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
·-·-Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2 752 1 0 647 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage -
Right tum flare (veh) 
Median type TWLTL TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 2 
Upstream signaf (ft) ~ ~~- ~--- 376 
-pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 
vC, conflicting *volume - 1399 752 - -- 753 
-
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 752 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol - 647 
-
vCu, unblocked vol 1375 752 753 
~ -·-··---·---·---
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
----
_,____ --· ____ .-.... __ 
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 
- - --- ' -tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
-- ·-- - --pO queue free % 100 99 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 362 410 857 
;Direction, Cane# WB1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 2 753 647 
Volume Left 0 0 0 
-· --Volume Right 2 1 0 
-
cSH 410 1700 857 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.44 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 13.8 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 13.8 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS B 
ntersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
15 
A 
4/2/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 6 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~{~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
~ 
Movement EBL 
Lane Configurations "i 
Volume (vph) 117 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 
Frt 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.95 
Satd. Flow {~erm) 1787 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 123 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 
Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 
Turn Type Prot 
Protected Phases 5 
Permitted Phases 
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 
Effective Green, g (s) 8.9 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 
Vehicle Extension {s) 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 152 
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 
v/s Ratio Perm 
v/c Ratio 0.81 
Uniform Delay, d1 47.0 
Progression Factor 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 25.3 
Delay (s) 72.3 
Level of Service E 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
lntersectionSumma~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Wast Case 
__.. 
""). .( 
EBT a E.BR WBL 
t~ "i 
483 163 199 
1900 1900 1900 
5.0 4.0 
0.95 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
0.96 1.00 
1.00 0.95 
3439 1752 
1.00 0.95 
3439 1752 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
508 172 209 
31 0 0 
649 0 209 
1% 1% 3% 
Prot 
2 1 
29.7 14.8 
29.7 14.8 
0.28 0.14 
5.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 
976 248 
0.19 c0.12 
0.67 0.84 
33.1 43.8 
1.00 1.00 
2.2 21.6 
35.2 65.3 
D E 
40.9 
D 
44.7 
0.88 
104.6 
87.1% 
15 
+--
'- ~ 
WBf"""iWBR.. '~. NBL 
t~ "i 
829 78 232 
1900 1900 1900 
5.0 4.0 
0.95 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
0.99 1.00 
1.00 0.95 
3453 1787 
1.00 0.12 
3453 217 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
873 82 244 
7 0 0 
948 0 244 
1 1 
3% 3% 1% 
pm+pt 
6 3 
8 
35.6 45.7 
35.6 45.7 
0.34 0.44 
5.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 
1175 260 
c0.27 c0.10 
c0.31 
0.81 0.94 
31.4 26.9 
1.00 1.00 
4.7 38.8 
36.1 65.7 
D E 
41 .3 
D 
HCM Level of Service 
Sum of lost time (s) 
ICU Level of Service 
t I'" 
NBT NBR 
~ 
353 61 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.98 
1.00 
1835 
1.00 
1835 
0.95 0.95 
372 64 
5 0 
431 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
34.7 
34.7 
0.33 
4.0 
2.3 
609 
0.23 
0.71 
30.5 
1.00 
3.3 
33.8 
c 
45.3 
D 
D 
12.0 
E 
3/30/2012 
'-. + .; 
SBL ,w SBT-_-SB~ 
"i t 'f 
150 535 203 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1769 1863 1562 
0.26 1.00 1.00 
483 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
158 563 214 
0 0 134 
158 563 80 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
40.5 32.1 32.1 
40.5 32.1 32.1 
0.39 0.31 0.31 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
290 572 479 
0.04 0.30 
0.17 0.05 
0.54 0.98 0.17 
23.0 36.0 26.5 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.4 33.3 0.1 
24.4 69.3 26.6 
c E c 
52.0 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~19nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewa~ 
--+ "'). • 
,.__ ~ ~ 
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations t~ 
"' 
--Volume (veh/h) 
.... _ .. _ 
691 3 3 1105 1 2 
Sign Control Free Free 
-~--Grade 0% 0% 
-
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
-Hourly flow rate (vph) 727 3 3 1163 1 2 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenCslockage --
Right turn flare (veh) 
-Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
-
133 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 
- - -vC, conflicting volume 731 1317 365 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 289 989 0 
--··-·-.. tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
---tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
-----pO queue free % 100 99 100 
--eM capacity (veh/h) 
-
1063 203 908 
r irection, Lane# EB ~ EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 
Volume Total 485 246 3 582 582 3 
- -Volume Left 0 0 3 0 0 1 
Volume Right 0 3 0 0 0 2 
cSH 1700 1700 1063 1700 1700 421 
Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.14 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.01 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 13.6 
Lane LOS A B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.6 
Approach LOS B 
ntersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.5% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Wast Case 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7- Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HCiJ8~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communitl Church Owl 
~ 
-+- "'). ~ +-- "-- ~ 
EBr--EBT w "EB~WBLWBT WBR m ,1\W NBL 
Lane Configurations ., tf+ 
Volume (veh/h) 9 684 
Sign Control Free 
Grade 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 720 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft} 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 1164 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 1164 
tC, single (s) 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 
pO queue free % 98 
eM capacity (veh/h) 596 
Direction, Lane# -- EB1 EB2 
Volume Total 9 
Volume Left 9 
Volume Right 0 
cSH 596 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 
Control Delay (s) 11 .1 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.1 
Approach LOS 
Intersection Summa~ 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Wost Case 
480 
0 
0 
1700 
0.28 
0 
0.0 
0 
0.95 
0 
EB 3 
240 
0 
0 
1700 
0.14 
0 
0.0 
0.2 
40.6% 
15 
., t f+ 
1 1100 6 2 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
1 1158 6 2 
TWLTL 
2 
0.84 0.84 
720 1326 
739 
587 
302 1019 
4.2 7.5 
6.5 
2.2 3.5 
100 99 
1055 373 
ws1-ws2 WB3 NB1 
1 772 392 3 
1 0 0 2 
0 0 6 1 
1055 1700 1700 465 
0.00 0.45 0.23 0.01 
0 0 0 1 
8.4 0.0 0.0 12.8 
A B 
0.0 12.8 
B 
ICU Level of Service 
t 
NBT 
4+ 
0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 
0 
0.84 
1905 
739 
1166 
1704 
6.5 
5.5 
4.0 
100 
236 
SB 1 
9 
3 
6 
324 
0.03 
2 
16.4 
c 
16.4 
c 
3/30/2012 
~ '. + .; 
N~SBL 
1 
0.95 
1 
0.84 
360 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
922 
A 
3 0 6 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 0 6 
0.84 0.84 
1543 1902 582 
1163 1163 
380 739 
1276 1701 582 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
98 100 99 
203 244 461 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
ExhibitC 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
4: Existin9 North Drivewa~ & SW 185th Avenue 
~ 
....._ t !" '-. + 
ovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 
Lane Configurations ¥ ~ 4' 
--Volume (veh/h) 0 1 645 1 1 896 
--Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade ---"' 0% ,~Q~. 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
-Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 679 1 1 943 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percenfl31ockage -
Right turn flare (veh) 
.....,.-·-·-------·---~- ----·-·-Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
- -- --Upstream signal (ft) 226 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 
vC, conflicting voiUme 1625 679 680 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 1678 679 680 
- - -----tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 
-- ~--· ---= 
eM capacity (veh/h) 73 451 912 
WB1 NB 
1 680 944 
0 0 1 
1 1 0 
451 1700 912 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.40 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 13.0 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 13.0 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS B 
ntersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.0% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Wost Case 
15 
B 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page4 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies S~orts Bar & Grill Owl & SW 185th Avenue 
,}-
Movement EBt.: 
Lane Config~rations v 
Volume (veh/h) 22 
Sign Control Stop 
Grade 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 
vC, conflicting volume 1615 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 933 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 682 
vCu, unblocked vol 1665 
tC, single (s) 6.4 
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 
tF (s) 3.5 
pO queue free % 92 
eM capacity (veh/h) 287 
Direction, Lane# -~- EB 1-
Volume Total 51 
Volume Left 23 
Volume Right 27 
cSH 301 
Volume to Capacity 0.17 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 
Control Delay (s) 19.4 
Lane LOS c 
Approach Delay (s) 19.4 
Approach LOS 
1tersection Summa~ -
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Wost Case 
..... ~ t + ..; 
EBR e'Nit~NBt.: ANB=r-8sr-s-8R 
"'i t f+ 
26 12 624 877 19 
Free Free 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
27 13 657 923 20 
TWLTL None 
2 
308 
0.70 0.70 
933 943 
691 705 
6.2 4.1 
3.3 2.2 
91 98 
314 625 
NBT NB2- SB1 
13 657 943 
13 0 0 
0 0 20 
625 1700 1700 
0.02 0.39 0.55 
2 0 0 
10.9 0.0 0.0 
B 
0.2 0.0 
-·-· 
0.7 
57.3% ICU Level of Service 
15 
B 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 5 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
6: Existin9 South Drivewa~ & 185th Avenue 
~ '- t ~ '-. + 
ovement WB[ WBR NBT ~BR SB[ SBT 
Lane Configurations v ~ 4' 
-~ Volume (veh/h) 0 1 635 1 1 902 
--Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
--Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 668 1 1 949 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenfBiockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
---
Median type TWLTL TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 2 
- -- ----Upstream signal _(ft) 376 
-pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 
vC, conflicting volume 1621 669 -~--- 669 
~ 
vC1 , stage 1 confvol 669 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
-
952 
vCu, unblocked val 1672 669 669 
-tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 282 458 921 
Direction, Lane# WB1 NB 
Volume Total 1 669 951 
Volume Left 0 0 1 
Volume Right 1 1 0 
cSH 458 1700 921 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.39 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft} 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 12.9 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 12.9 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS B 
,Intersection Summa~ 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.3% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - Wast Case 
15 
B 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7- Report 
Page 6 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~§~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
_,)-
--+ 
EBL- EBT 
Lane Configurations "i 
Volume (vph) 174 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 
Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 
Frt 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.95 
Satd. Flow (~erm) 1787 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 183 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 183 
Confl. Peds. (#ihr) 1 
Confl. Bikes (#ihr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 
Turn Type Prot 
Protected Phases 5 
Permitted Phases 
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 
Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 
Actuated giC Ratio 0.13 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 
vis Ratio Prot c0.10 
vis Ratio Perm 
vic Ratio 0.80 
Uniform Delay, d1 44.8 
Progression Factor 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 
Delay (s) 62.3 
Level of Service E 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
Intersection Summa 
HCM Average Control Delay 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
t~ 
824 
1900 
5.0 
0.95 
1.00 
1.00 
0.97 
1.00 
3476 
1.00 
3476 
0.95 
867 
18 
1043 
1% 
2 
35.6 
35.6 
0.34 
5.0 
4.7 
1171 
c0.30 
0.89 
33.2 
1.00 
9.2 
42.5 
D 
45.4 
D 
"'). 
.f 
,EBR WBL 
"' 
184 26 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.95 
1752 
0.95 
1752 
0.95 0.95 
194 27 
0 0 
0 27 
1% 3% 
Prot 
1 
2.3 
2.3 
0.02 
4.0 
2.3 
38 
0.02 
0.71 
51.4 
1.00 
43.1 
94.5 
F 
42.5 
0.91 
105.7 
90.4% 
15 
-+- ...... ~ 
WBT WBR NBE 
t~ "i 
357 85 166 
1900 1900 1900 
5.0 4.0 
0.95 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
0.97 1.00 
1.00 0.95 
3390 1786 
1.00 0.49 
3390 920 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
376 89 175 
19 0 0 
446 0 175 
1 1 
3% 3% 1% 
pm+pt 
6 3 
8 
24.4 47.3 
24.4 47.3 
0.23 0.45 
5.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 
783 453 
0.13 0.02 
0.15 
0.57 0.39 
36.0 18.9 
1.00 1.00 
1.4 0.3 
37.4 19.2 
D B 
40.6 
D 
HCM Level of Service 
Sum of lost time (s) 
ICU Level of Service 
t !" 
NBT i'IBR 
~ 
507 179 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.96 
1.00 
1799 
1.00 
1799 
0.95 0.95 
534 188 
11 0 
711 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
42.3 
42.3 
0.40 
4.0 
2.3 
720 
c0.40 
0.99 
31.4 
1.00 
30.0 
61.4 
E 
53.2 
D 
D 
16.0 
E 
3i30i2012 
'. ! .; 
SBL 
"i 
119 
1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.95 
1770 
0.09 
163 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
125 324 126 
0 0 71 
125 324 55 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
54.3 45.8 45.8 
54.3 45.8 45.8 
0.51 0.43 0.43 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
213 807 677 
c0.05 0.17 
0.25 0.03 
0.59 0.40 0.08 
22.3 20.5 17.6 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
3.1 0.2 0.0 
25.4 20.7 17.6 
c c B 
21.1 
c 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Site Drivewa~ 
--+-
if-;1ovement EBT 
Lane Configurations t~ 
- -· Volume (veh/h) 1077 
Sign Control Free 
Grade 0% 
-Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
-Hourly flow rate (vph) 1134 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage ' 
Right turn flare (veh) 
-Median type- None 
Median storage veh) 
-Upstream signal (ft) 
-
133 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, CODflicting volliflle -
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2; stage fconfvol 
vCu, unblocked val 
tC, single (s) 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
-,~ 
tF (s) 
pO queue free % 
---- -------· 
cMcapacity (veh/h) 
EB 1 
756 
0 
0 
1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.44 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay·(s) 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 
Approach LOS 
ntersection Summa 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
"'). 
.f 
EBR WB[ 
., 
45 63 
0.95 0.95 
47 66 
0.72 
-- ~1181 
461 
- 4.1 
2.2 
92 
- 786 
EB2 WB1 
425 66 
0 66 
47 0 
1700 786 
0.25 0.08 
0 7 
0.0 10.0 
B 
1.3 
2.0 
50.9% 
15 
+- ~ !" 
WBT NB[ NBR 
tt v 
407 57 49 
Free Stop 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
428 60 52 
None 
0.72 0.72 
·- 1504 591 
912 0 
·-· __ , 
6.8 6.9 
3.5 3.3 
67 93 
179 777 
WB2 WB3 NB 1 
214 214 112 
0 0 60 
0 0 52 
1700 1700 278 
0.13 0.13 0.40 
0 0 46 
0.0 0.0 26.4 
D 
26.4 
D 
ICU Level of Service A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7- Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communit~ Church Ow~ 
~ 
"'t .( -+-- "-- ~ t --+ 
Movement EBL EBT EBR' WBL WBT WBR~ ': NBL NBT 
Lane Configurations , 
Volume (veh/h) 0 
Sign Control 
Grade 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 497 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 497 
tC, single (s) 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 1063 
Direction, Lane'# -EBl 
Volume Total 0 
Volume Left 0 
Volume Right 0 
cSH 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 
Approach LOS 
Intersection Summarz: 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
t~ 
1127 0 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 
1186 0 
None 
299 
EB 2 . EB 3 
791 395 
0 0 
0 0 
1700 1700 
0.47 0.23 
0 0 
0.0 0.0 
0.0 
41 .2% 
15 
, t~ 4+ 
0 470 2 0 0 
Free Stop 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
0 495 2 0 0 
TWLTL 
2 
0.72 0.72 0.72 
1186 1434 1683 
1186 1186 
247 497 
491 833 1178 
4.2 7.5 6.5 
6.5 5.5 
2.2 3.5 4.0 
100 100 100 
767 360 339 
WB 1 WB2 WB3 NB1 SB1 
0 330 167 0 2 
0 0 0 0 2 
0 0 2 0 0 
1700 1700 1700 1700 508 
0.00 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00 
0 0 0 0 0 
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 
A B 
0.0 0.0 12.1 
A B 
ICU Level of Service 
~ 
NBR 
0 
0.95 
0 
0.72 
593 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
789 
A 
3/30/2012 
'-. + ..; 
SBL • ;&,, SBT SB~ 
4+ 
2 0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 0 
0.72 0.72 
1089 1682 248 
496 496 
593 1186 
356 1177 248 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
100 100 100 
508 339 758 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies S~orts Bar & Grill Dw~ & SW 185th Avenue 
~ "'). ~ +-- -\.. ~ --+ 
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL 
Lane Configurations 4t ~ 'ft. ~ 
-----·· 
Volume (veh/h) ., ___ 0 0 3 40 0 36 1 
Sign Control Stop Stop 
Grade -~-- ~ 0% 0% 
. 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly ftow rate (vph) ·-·-·«<> 0 0 3 42 0 38 1 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercentBfockage 
Right turn ftare (veh) 
-------------...-x-- . ._ ...... , .. , Median type -
_____ ,.,....--. ...... ,....-
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal{ft) -
-
~ 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 
vC, conflicting volume - 1490 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol - 592 
vc2: stage 2 confvol -· 898 
--
vCu, unblocked vol 1489 
tC, single (s) 7.1 
~ 
·-
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 
tF (s) 3.5 
pO queue free % 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 226 
Direction, Lane 11 EB 1 
Volume Total 3 
Volume Left 0 
·-Volume Right 3 
cSH 606 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay (s) 11 .0 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 11 .0 
Approach LOS B 
)ntersection Summa!1 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
0.88 
1487 
592 
895 
1485 
6.5 
5.5 
4.0 
100 
268 
WB1 
42 
42 
0 
282 
0.15 
13 
20.0 
c 
18.4 
c 
--
0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 
495 1471 1471 875 497 
877 877 
594 594 
364 1467 1467 875 366 
6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 
6.1 5.5 
3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 
99 85 100 89 100 
606 282 297 348 1055 
1WB"2 NB 1 NB¥2 SB 1 SB 2 
38 1 893 48 497 
0 1 0 48 0 
38 0 35 0 3 
348 1055 1700 760 1700 
0.11 0.00 0.53 0.06 0.29 
9 0 0 5 0 
16.6 8.4 0.0 10.1 0.0 
c A B 
0.0 0.9 
1.3 
60.4% ICU Level of Service 
15 
t 
NBT 
t 
815 
Free 
0% 
0.95 
858 
TWLTL 
2 
-
3/30/2012 
~ '. + ..; 
NBR SBL SBT SB 
~ 'ft. 
33 46 469 3 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
35 48 494 3 
None 
----
-
- ---
----
B 
308 
893 
893 
4.1 
2.2 
94 
760 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
_,;. 
---+-
'Movement · ii' EBL- EBT 
Lane Configurations "i 
Volume (vph) 117 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 
Frpb, pad/bikes 1.00 
Flpp, ped/bikes 1.00 
Frt 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.95 
Satd. Flow (~erm} 1787 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 123 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%} 1% 
Turn Type Prot 
Protected Phases 5 
Permitted Phases 
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 
Effective Green, g (s) 8.9 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 149 
vis Ratio Prot 0.07 
v/s Ratio Perm 
vic Ratio 0.83 
Uniform Delay, d1 48.1 
Progression Factor 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 28.8 
Delay (s) 76.9 
Level of Service E 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
lnie7Se'C'ti cii1'Summa~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
t~ 
493 
1900 
5.0 
0.95 
1.00 
1.00 
0.96 
1.00 
3434 
1.00 
3434 
0.95 
519 
33 
670 
1% 
2 
29.6 
29.6 
0.28 
5.0 
4.7 
954 
0.20 
0.70 
34.6 
1.00 
2.8 
37.4 
D 
43.2 
D 
"'). 
EBR 
175 
1900 
0.95 
184 
0 
0 
1% 
46.4 
0.89 
106.6 
88.5% 
15 
~ +--
....._ ~ 
WBL , WBT WBR . ·Ns[ 
"'I t f+ "'I 
199 840 85 242 
1900 1900 1900 1900 
4.0 5.0 4.0 
1.00 0.95 1.00 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 0.99 1.00 
0.95 1.00 0.95 
1752 3450 1787 
0.95 1.00 0.11 
1752 3450 209 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
209 884 89 255 
0 7 0 0 
209 966 0 255 
1 1 
3% 3% 3% 1% 
Prot pm+pt 
1 6 3 
8 
14.9 35.6 48.0 
14.9 35.6 48.0 
0.14 0.33 0.45 
4.0 5.0 4.0 
2.3 4.7 2.3 
245 1152 272 
c0.12 c0.28 c0.11 
c0.32 
0.85 0.84 0.94 
44.8 32.8 28.5 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
23.4 6.0 37.5 
68.2 38.9 66.0 
E D E 
44.0 
D 
HCM Level of Service 
Sum of lost time (s) 
ICU Level of Service 
t ,.. 
f:JB~NBR · 
f+ 
359 61 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.98 
1.00 
1835 
1.00 
1835 
0.95 0.95 
378 64 
5 0 
437 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
36.0 
36.0 
0.34 
4.0 
2.3 
620 
0.24 
0.70 
30.7 
1.00 
3.2 
33.9 
c 
45.6 
D 
D 
12.0 
E 
3/30/2012 
'-. ~ ..; 
SB[ SBT SB~ 
"i t ~ 
157 542 203 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1769 1863 1562 
0.26 1.00 1.00 
485 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
165 571 214 
0 0 133 
165 571 81 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
42.2 33.1 33.1 
42.2 33.1 33.1 
0.40 0.31 0.31 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
302 578 485 
0.05 0.31 
0.17 0.05 
0.55 0.99 0.17 
22.9 36.6 26.7 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.4 34.0 0.1 
24.3 70.5 26.8 
c E c 
52.6 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Site Drivewa~ 
--+ "'). 
ovement EBT EBR 
Lane Configurations 
-
t~ 
Volume (veh/h) 
-
672 39 
Sign Control Free 
Grade 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 
-Hourly flow rate (vph) 707 41 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Bh5Ckage ' 
Right turn fla~ (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
-Upstream sfgnal @ 133 
-pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflictmng volume - --
. ... . ~. -. 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage2confvol 
vCu, unblocked vol 
tC, single (s) 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 
--- -~-
pO queue free % 
·- ----
eM capacity (veh/h) 
-
472 
0 
0 
1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.28 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 
Approach LOS 
jntersect1on Summa 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
EB2 
277 
0 
41 
1700 
0.16 
0 
0.0 
.( 
WBL 
~ 
53 
!;:;:.,.,., 
0.95 
56 
0.83 
748 
281 
4.1 
2.2 
95 
1059 
WB1 
56 
56 
0 
1059 
0.05 
4 
8.6 
A 
0.4 
1.4 
41.4% 
15 
,..__ ~ ~ 
WBT NBL NBR 
tt ¥ 
1074 48 39 
Free Stop 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
1131 51 41 
None 
0.83 0.83 
---
1405 374 
1074 0 
·-- 6.8 6.9 
3.5 3.3 
70 95 
169 898 
WB2 WB3 NB 1 
565 565 92 
0 0 51 
0 0 41 
1700 1700 265 
0.33 0.33 0.35 
0 0 37 
0.0 0.0 25.6 
D 
25.6 
D 
ICU Level of Service A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HCij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communitl Church Owl 
_.} 
---+- ... .f +- '- ~ t 
Movement EB[- EBT f EBR WBL WBT WBR•;;'IhNBL NBT 
Lane Configurations llj t~ .., t~ ~ 
Volume (veh/h) 9 703 0 1 1119 6 2 0 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 740 0 1 1178 6 2 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 
vC, conflicting volume 1184 740 1356 1945 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 759 759 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 597 1186 
vCu, unblocked vol 1184 314 1047 1747 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.5 6.5 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 
pO queue free % 98 100 99 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 585 1040 365 231 
Direction, Lane# -- EB1 EB2"'"'" EBJ WB 1 WB 2 ~~WB 3~ ... NB 1 5 81 
Volume Total 9 
Volume Left 9 
Volume Right 0 
cSH 585 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 
Control Delay (s) 11 .3 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.1 
Approach LOS 
tteiSection Summa~ -~· 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR -Worst Case 
493 247 
0 0 
0 0 
1700 1700 
0.29 0.15 
0 0 
0.0 0.0 
-· . 
0.2 
41 .1% 
15 
1 785 399 3 9 
1 0 0 2 3 
0 0 6 1 6 
1040 1700 1700 457 317 
0.00 0.46 0.23 0.01 0.03 
0 0 0 1 2 
8.5 0.0 0.0 12.9 16.7 
A B c 
0.0 12.9 16.7 
B c 
ICU Level of Service 
~ 
NBR 
1 
0.95 
1 
0.84 
370 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
918 
A 
3/30/2012 
'. ! .; 
SBC 
3 0 6 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 0 6 
0.84 0.84 
1573 1942 592 
1183 1183 
390 759 
1304 1743 592 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
98 100 99 
198 238 454 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies S~orts Bar & Grill Ow~ & SW 185th Avenue 3/30/2012 
~ 
...... .( +-- ~ ~ t ~ '-. + .; ---+-
Movement EBL EBT ~BR · · WBL . WBT WBR . Nsi-:"I~JBrr:JB~SBL SBT SB 
Lane Configurations 
--.. -~, 
4t ~ f+ ., f+ ., f+ Volume (veh/h} ·~····· 
-
22 b . 26"' 34 0 31 12 609 29 40 857 19 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Gr.§.de ~ _:_ -- 0% 0% 0% ora_~ 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
HourlyHow ~a,te (vph) ··-······ 23 0 27 36 0 33 13 641 31 42 902 20 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width- (tt) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Perce ritBfockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
TWLTL Median~ 
--~---~--·""'~-"""'-~~--
Median storage veh) 
Upstr!!arn sign~! (f!L-::- =- _:-::-.::, -- -
pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 
vC,}:oriflis}ing vq}Ume - 1695~m. -169f - fi 912 f69§_ f68] 656 
-
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 996 996 682 682 
vc2, stage 2confvof :.._- 699-n~J397-- - ~ .1014- '' 1066 
vCu, unblocked vol 1780 
tC, single (s) " ....... 7T .... 
---·""'-·--
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 
----tF (s) 
--
·¢ 
3 . 5~ 
pO queue free % 89 
= ........... -
eM capacity (veh/h) 206 
1 
51 
Volume Left 23 
--Volume Right 27 
cSH 258 
Volume to Capacity 0.20 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 
Control Delay (s) · 22.4 
Lane LOS c 
. -Approach Delay (s) 22.4 
Approach LOS c 
ntersectton Summa 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - Worst Case 
1777 658 1780 1769 656 
6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 
5.5 6.1 5.5 
4:0 - 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
100 92 81 100 93 
222 327 191 219 465 
WB1- WB2 NB1- NB2 SB 
36 33 13 672 42 
36 0 13 0 42 
0 33 0 31 0 
191 465 641 1700 91 9 
0.19 0.07 0.02 0.40 0.05 
17 6 2 0 4 
28.2 13.3 10.7. 0.0 9.1 
D B B A 
21 .1 0.2 0.4 
c 
1.7 
62.4% ICU Level of Service 
15 
2 
0.70 
922 
672 
. . ..., ... ...,--..,., 
4.1 
B 
308 
672 
672 
4.1 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 3/30/2012 
.,J-
--+- "'). ~ +-- 4.... ~ t !" '. + ..; 
Eer-E's'i'M EBR .,:::wsr ws·r:rWt3R w 'R ~sL,, ,, . Nst~~·s"R~sst~Bt-.vsfi~ 
Lane Configurations ., 
Volume (vph) 138 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 
Frt 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.30 
Satd. Flow {~erm} 574 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 145 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea'1 Vehicles{%) 1% 
Turn Type pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 
Permitted Phases 2 
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.3 
Effective Green, g (s) 38.3 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 
Vehicle Extension {s} 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 
v/c Ratio 0.36 
Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 
Progression Factor 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 
Delay (s) 12.5 
Level of Service B 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
ritersection Summa[}: 
HCM Average Control Delay 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
t ft "i 
667 137 108 
1900 1900 1900 
5.0 4.0 
0.95 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
0.97 1.00 
1.00 0.95 
3483 1752 
1.00 0.23 
3483 427 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
702 144 114 
16 0 0 
830 0 114 
1% 1% 3% 
pm+pt 
2 1 
6 
30.0 32.3 
30.0 32.3 
0.38 0.41 
5.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 
1314 262 
c0.24 0.03 
0.15 
0.63 0.44 
20.2 15.5 
1.00 1.00 
1.3 0.7 
21 .5 16.2 
c B 
20.2 
c 
23.9 
0.63 
79.5 
68.8% 
15 
t ft ., tft 
489 66 191 430 
1900 1900 1900 1900 
5.0 4.0 4.0 
0.95 1.00 0.95 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
0.98 1.00 0.97 
1.00 0.95 1.00 
3437 1787 3465 
""''" 1.00 0.22 1.00 
3437 415 3465 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
515 69 201 453 
10 0 0 19 
574 0 201 536 
1 1 
3% 3% 1% 1% 
pm+pt 
6 3 8 
8 
27.0 28.8 19.0 
27.0 28.8 19.0 
0.34 0.36 0.24 
5.0 4.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 2.3 
1167 319 828 
0.17 c0.08 c0.15 
0.15 
0.49 0.63 0.65 
20.8 19.0 27.2 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
0.6 3.3 1.5 
21.4 22.3 28.7 
c c c 
20.6 27.0 
c c 
HCM Level of Service 
Sum of lost time (s) 
ICU Level of Service 
97 
1900 
0.95 
102 
0 
0 
4 
1% 
c 
16.0 
c 
., t ft 
120 370 156 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 
1.00 0.95 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 0.96 
0.95 1.00 
1769 3369 
0.29 1.00 
536 3369 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
126 389 164 
0 43 0 
126 510 0 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt 
7 4 
4 
25.6 17.4 
25.6 17.4 
0.32 0.22 
4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 
300 737 
0.04 0.15 
0.09 
0.42 0.69 
20.0 28.6 
1.00 1.00 
0.6 2.5 
20.5 31.1 
c c 
29.1 
c 
Synchro 7 · Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewal 
__... 
"'). ~ 
...,__ 
"\ ~ 
;Movement EBr-EBRVVBL * WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations tf+ 'tlj tt 
_.,,~ 
v 
Volume (veh/hf - · 88( 0 ,., .. 1 662 1 3 
-Sign Control Free Free Stop 
--· Grade OJo _ _ 0% 0% 
....... -
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow,rate(vJ?h) 931 0 1 697 1 3 
Pedestrians 
Lane Widfti (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
F>eTcen~-
Right turn flare (veh) 
Medianlype - - - None~ ------- None 
..,.,_ ._ -
Median storage veh) 
Upstream -s~9n.·~n~r - 133 
-pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81 
vc, conflicting voHime ~· r· .. -... -·---···-.. 931 1281 465 
.. . . .  .,., ~ 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 
vc2, stage "2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 445 878 0 
tC, single (s}' - M 4.1 6.8' 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 
pO queue free % 
eM gapacity (veh/h) 
Plrection, Lane#- EBT '"-.EB2 
Volume Total 620 310 1 348 348 4 
Volume Left 0 0 1 0 0 1 
-·-- ~-Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 3 
cSH 1700 1700 900 1700 1700 518 
Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.01 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 
Lane LOS A B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.0 
Approach LOS B 
Jnterseation Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communitl Church Owl 
~ 
---+- ""). 
0 
Free 
0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 934 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 700 
vC 1, stage 1 conf val 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 700 
tC, single (s) 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 893 
Pireoti~Lane #:'".§ 'h'*~ 1~ :r"' EB1111EBJ¥" 
Volume Total 0 
Volume Left 0 
Volume Right 0 
cSH 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 
Approach LOS 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR- 185th Improved 
622 
0 
0 
1700 
0.37 
0 
0.0 
311 
0 
0 
1700 
0.18 
0 
0.0 
34.5% 
15 
.(" +-- 4.... 
0 663 2 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
0 698 2 
TWLTL 
2 
0.81 
934 
464 
4.2 
2.2 
100 
885 
0 465 235 
0 0 0 
0 0 2 
1700 1700 1700 
0.00 0.27 0.14 
0 0 0 
0.0 0.0 0.0 
0.0 
ICU Level of Service 
"\ t 
0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 
0 0 
0.81 0.81 
1283 1634 
934 934 
349 700 
892 1323 
7.5 6.5 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 
100 100 
397 337 
0 2 
0 2 
0 0 
1700 384 
0.00 0.01 
0 0 
0.0 14.4 
A B 
0.0 14.4 
A B 
!" 
0 
0.95 
0 
0.81 
467 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
889 
A 
3/30/2012 
'-. + .; 
~ 
~ 
2 0 0 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 0 
0.81 0.81 
1166 ' 1633 350 
699 699 
467 934 
749 1322 350 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
99 100 100 
384 337 652 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 5 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
6: Existin9 South Drivewai: & 185th Avenue 
~ -\.. t ~ '. + 
,Movement wac WBR , $lBT i'lBf\ SSt.: SBf 
Lane Configurations ¥ tt+ 4t 
Volume (veil/h) ·w :'>:1:-~..-- o- ~2 714'> 1 0 615 
-·-Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Gn3de 0% 0% 0% 
= 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) - 0 2 752 1 0 647 
Pedestrians 
LanewTdfh( tt) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenfB1<2§i<aQe "" 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type . -· n - TWLTL ·-;~;.............--- TWLTL 
----· Median storage veh) 2 2 
QP,~treafflsfunal (ttf ~ "fl!lllli'fl' -- ---··-··-·-·- 376 
• .Jil\ 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 
vC, c~nfilCting volume . M = 1076 376 753 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 752 
vt2, stage 2 cant val · 324 
vCu, unblocked val 844 376 753 
tC~ single (~) -- 6.8 6.9 4.1 
-~ -~- - --
< 
tC , 2 stage (s) 5.8 
-- --
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 409 621 853 
' ·-·· . 
~iredlon,.lane # W81 ' NB t NB 2-- SB 1 SB2 
Volume Total 2 501 252 216 432 
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 
Volume Right 2 0 1 0 0 
cSH 621 1700 1700 853 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.29 0.15 0.00 0.25 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 10.8 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS B 
intersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR- 185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 6 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~&lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
~ 
(Movel)1ent ~t, . . ~; ,~; ;;~~!!lfJ. EBI!' 
Lane Configurations "'i 
Volume (vph) 117 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 
Lane Uti I. Factor 1.00 
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 
Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 
Frt 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.14 
Satd. Flow (~erm) 263 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 123 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 
Confl . Peds. (#ihr) 1 
Confl. Bikes (#ihr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 
Turn Type pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 
Permitted Phases 2 
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.2 
Effective Green, g (s) 38.2 
Actuated giC Ratio 0.40 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 
vis Ratio Prot 0.04 
vis Ratio Perm 0.17 
vic Ratio 0.54 
Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 
Progression Factor 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 
Delay (s) 21 .8 
Level of Service c 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
lilrerseCtionsumma~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
---+- ""). I' 
E~Tm =w:EBR · · WBL 
t~ 
483 163 199 
1900 1900 1900 
5.0 
0.95 
1.00 
1.00 
0.96 
1.00 
3439 
1.00 
3439 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
508 172 209 
29 0 0 
651 0 209 
1% 1% 3% 
pm+pt 
2 1 
6 
30.5 43.8 
30.5 43.8 
0.32 0.46 
5.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 
1099 340 
0.19 c0.07 
0.21 
0.59 0.61 
27.2 17.3 
1.00 1.00 
1.2 2.6 
28.5 19.9 
c B 
27.4 
c 
31.0 
0.76 
95.4 
80.2% 
15 
+--
-\.. ~ t ,. 
WBT= WBBt:t NBC '" NBr:wr:;;NBR · 
829 78 232 353 61 
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
873 82 244 372 64 
7 0 0 13 0 
948 0 244 423 0 
1 1 4 
3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 
pm+pt 
6 3 8 
8 
33.3 41.4 28.8 
33.3 41.4 28.8 
0.35 0.43 0.30 
5.0 4.0 4.0 
4.7 2.3 2.3 
1206 317 1052 
c0.27 c0.10 0.12 
c0.23 
0.79 0.77 0.40 
27.9 20.7 26.5 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
3.9 10.1 0.1 
31 .8 30.8 26.6 
c c c 
29.6 28.1 
c c 
HCM Level of Service c 
Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 
ICU Level of Service D 
3i30i2012 
'-. + ..; 
SBL#i!( SBl'U SBR 
150 535 203 
1900 1900 1900 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
158 563 214 
0 36 0 
158 741 0 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt 
7 4 
4 
33.3 24.7 
33.3 24.7 
0.35 0.26 
4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 
384 875 
0.04 0.22 
0.11 
0.41 0.85 
22.2 33.6 
1.00 1.00 
0.4 7.4 
22.6 41 .0 
c D 
37.9 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
ExhibitC 
Hcij;~19nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewal 
--+ t ~ +-- ~ !" 
Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations tf+ ltj tt ¥ 
----.. Volume (1/~!1{11) . · · 
··-
691 3 3 1105 1 2 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Gr.ade ~ -~ -- Oo/d ,.,. 0% 0% 
·-
~ 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
Hou~yJJ.Q~a.te (vph) -··..,.,- 751 3 3 1201 1 2 
Pedestrians 
LaiieVVidth (tt} 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percen[Bfockage "' 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type - None- -- None 
Median storage veh} 
-Upstr~m~ si.91J.§!ffitL . 
-· 
133 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 0.85 0.85 
vC, COQ,flicfu)g voj~m~e - ~- - ~754 - 1360 377 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
v(2, stage i conf vOi 
. - ---~ 
vCu, unblocked vol 349 1064 0 
tC, single (s} ~· '~ ·--------------·,x~- 4.1 --... -....... 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
--~"- --tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
~ 
- ---pO queue free % 100 99 100 
~....,...,. ,..,.,-·--· -·--~-~ ~ 
eM capacity (veh/h) 1022 184 919 
n "EB'2. WB"'1 s WB 2 WB3 NB 1 
501 254 3 601 601 3 
0 0 3 0 0 1 
0£ 3 0 0 0 2 
1700 1700 1022 1700 1700 394 
Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.15 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.01 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 14.2 
Lane LOS A B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.2 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.5% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR- 185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HC~~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communitl Church Owl 
.,;. 
---+- "'). 
,Movement ,&t!wr' 
--···-·-·····-----····- ·························-·--···-······· 
Lane Configurations 
Volume (veh/h) 9 
Sign Control 
Grade 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ftls) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 1164 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 11 64 
tC, single (s) 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 
pO queue free % 98 
eM capacity (veh/h) 596 
Dlredion, Laiie # 
Volume Total 
Volume Left 
Volume Right 
cSH 
Volume to Capacity 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 
Control Delay (s) 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
684 0 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 
720 0 
None 
299 
0.2 
40.6% 
15 
f 
,.__ 
-\.. 
1 1100 6 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
1 1158 6 
TWLTL 
2 
0.86 
720 
346 
4.2 
2.2 
100 
1033 
ICU Level of Service 
~ t !" 
2 0 1 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 1 
0.86 0.86 0.86 
1326 1905 360 
739 739 
587 1166 
1052 1726 0 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
99 100 100 
366 235 937 
A 
3/30/2012 
\. + .; 
3 0 6 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 0 6 
0.86 0.86 
1543 1902 582 
1163 1163 
380 739 
1304 1722 582 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
98 100 99 
203 243 461 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
4: Existin9 North Drivewal & SW 185th Avenue 
~ 4.... t ~ '-. ! 
ovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SB[ SBT 
Lane Configurations v tf+ 4t 
-Volume (veh/h) 0 1 645 1 1 896 
--Sign Control Stop Free Free 
-·---... ---...,---,. 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
~ 
.... ____ 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
-Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 701 1 1 974 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenCBiockage 
Right tum flare (veh) 
---Median type- TWLTL TWLTL ____ . _____ ,. _____________ 
""--'"- "'--"'"'"'"'" ------~ 
Median storage veh) 2 2 
Upstream sig_llal (ft) - - ·----·-- 226 
- - -pX, platoon unblocked 0.80 
vC, gonflic!lng_yQ}yme - 1191 351 ~-- -·- 702 
vC1, stage 1 confvol 702 
vC2, siage' i con fvol 
-
489 
vCu, unblocked vol 740 351 702 
- --- - -tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 
-
~-
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 
- -
eM capacity (veh/h) 430 645 891 
81 NB 1 NB2 SB 1 SB2 
1 467 235 326 649 
Volume Left 0 0 0 1 0 
-Volume Right 1 0 1 0 0 
cSH 645 1700 1700 891 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.38 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS B 
!Intersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.5% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR -185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~'t9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies S~orts Bar & Grill Owl & SW 185th Avenue 
_,)-
Movement. . ·w EBl 
Lane Configurations v 
Volume (veh/h) 22 
Sign Control Stop 
Grade 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 
vC, conflicting volume 1287 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 933 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 354 
vCu, unblocked vol 885 
tC, single (s) 6.8 
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 
tF (s) 3.5 
pO queue free % 95 
eM capacity (veh/h) 439 
EB. f 
51 
Volume Left 23 
Volume Right 27 
cSH 603 
Volume to Capacity 0.08 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 
Control Delay (s) 11 .5 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 11 .5 
Approach LOS B 
1tersection Summa~ -
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
"'). ~ t ! ..; 
EBR'~p# NSL " NBT SBT 
+f-t -t~ 
26 12 624 877 19 
Free Free 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
27 13 657 923 20 
TWLTL TWLTL 
2 2 
308 
0.81 0.81 
472 943 
0 461 
6.9 4.1 
3.3 2.2 
97 99 
884 888 
.NB1 NB2 SB 1 SB-2 
232 438 615 328 
13 0 0 0 
0 0 0 20 
888 1700 1700 1700 
0.01 0.26 0.36 0.19 
1 0 0 0 
0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 
A 
0.2 0.0 
--n 
0.4 
35.8% ICU Level of Service 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 5 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
~ 
..... 
(' +-- "- "\ --+ 
~ovement EBL- EBT .. EBR WB[ WBT WBR NB[ 
Lane Configurations 
~ 
"i t~ "i tf+ "i 
Volume (vph) _ .. 174 824 184 26 357 85 166 
-Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time_(s). - 4.0 5.:..0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
-- - --Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
""-----
-·· ~ 
Flpb, ped/bikes_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
--- -· Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 
-~ ~-
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd.FiOw (prot) -~ 178'r ' 3476 1752- 3396 - 1787 
-
-··-. 
Fit Permitted 0.36 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.38 
saTcl. Flow {eerm} - 675 3476 - n 341 3396 721 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) _ - -:_-- 183 867 194- i l 376 89 - 175 
RTOR R~duc_t!~ .J~e_hl_ __ 0 17 0 0 20 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 183 1044 0 27 445 0 175 
Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles{%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Tum Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
·- . Permitted Phases 2 6 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 41.1 35.8 28.5 27.2 30.3 
-
- -·-
Effective Green, g (s) 41 .1 35.8 28.5 27.2 30.3 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.42 0.33 0.32 0.36 
- ·-
~~ 
Clearance Time (s} 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 455 1462 136 1085 364 
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.30 0.00 0.13 0.05 
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.06 0.12 
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.71 0.20 0.41 0.48 
Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 20.4 19.6 22.7 19.7 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 
Delay (s) 13.5 22.4 20.0 23.1 20.3 
Level of Service B c B c c 
Approach Delay (s) 21.1 23.0 
Approach LOS c c 
1
ntersection Summa~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 25.0 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
0.70 
85.1 Sum of lost time (s) 
72.6% ICU Level of Service 
15 
t !" 
NBT NBR 
tf+ 
507 179 
1900 1900 
4.0 
0.95 
·--1.00 
--1.00 
0.96 
-- -
1.00 
3419~ -
----
1.00 
3419 
0.95 0.95 
534 ~ 188~ 
33 0 
689 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
-
21.7 
·---21.7 
0.25 
- -4.0 
2.3 
872 
c0.20 
0.79 
29.6 
-
1.00 
4.7 
34.3 
c 
-31 .6 
c 
c 
17.0 
c 
3/30/2012 
'. + .; 
SB[ SBT SB 
"i tf+ 
119 308- - 120 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 
1.00 0.95 
1.00 1.go 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 - 0§6 
0.95 1.00 
1769- 3378 
0.18 1.00 
333 ~3378 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
125 - 324--126 
0 38 0 
125 412 - 0 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt 
7 4 
4 
31 .7 22.4 
31 .7 22.4 
0.37 0.26 
4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 
281 889 
c0.05 0.12 
0.12 
0.44 0.46 
19.3 26.3 
1.00 1.00 
0.7 0.2 
20.0 26.5 
B c 
25.1 
c 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~'t9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewal 
"'). t'" 
.._ ~ ~ --+ 
ovement EBT EBR . : WBL WBT 'fl!; NB[ NBR' 
Lane Configurations tf+ ~ tt v 
Volume (veh/h) 1077 45 63 407 57 49 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1134 47 66 428 60 52 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 133 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.75 0.75 0.75 
vC, conflicting volume 1181 1504 591 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 591 1019 0 
tC, single (s) 4.1 . 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 91 63 94 
eM capacity (veh/h) 741 160 819 
- ------ - EB'1-"'EB"2- WB"1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 
756 425 66 214 214 112 
0 0 66 0 0 60 
0 47 0 0 0 52 
1700 1700 741 1700 1700 255 
Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.25 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.44 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 7 0 0 52 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 29.6 
Lane LOS B D 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 29.6 
Approach LOS D 
1tersection SU"mma~ ~-
2.2 
50.9% ICU Level of Service 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communit~ Church Ow~ 
.,}-
--+ ~ .f +- "--
"" 
t 
[Movement , , " E:Bl- . EBT- , I:BR WBL WBT WBR NBL 
Lane Configurations "i tf+ ., tf+ 
Volume (v~/ti) ~ 0 .. 1127 0 0 470 2 0 0 
-- -Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Gr~e _ _ - - ~' 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1186 0 0 495 2 0 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Wldtfi (ft} 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercerifBiocKa"Qe ' 
Right turn flare (veh} 
....,...,---~---------w------~ Me~dian type w None TWLTL 
--~ -~-'"---~---
Median storage veh} 2 
Upstreaiii signal (ft) _ 299 
--pX, platoon unblocked 0.76 0.76 0.76 
vC~confliCiinRvof~riie . 497 ·········-·.,.,... 1186 _.., ............... ,..,....,..-= ...... 143~ 1683 
"''~""' -
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 1186 1186 
vcr stage i con'fvol ' --- -- - 247 497'-
-- -- =-
vCu, unblocked vol 497 623 947 1274 
tc,"single '(s) 4.1 ----- 4.2 -· --~..,.- 6.5 
~ 
7.5 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 
tF.(sl ·- - - 22 - ~ 2.2 3.5 4.0 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 100 
- - - -- -- -
eM capacity (veh/h) 1063 723 321 319 
EB2 EB 3- WB t-WB~WB 3 ~.:-· Nl31 - $8"1 
0 
Volume Left 0 
- -Volume Right 0 
cSH 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 
Approach LOS 
htersectlon Summa 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR -1 85th Improved 
791 395 
0 0 
0 0 
1700 1700 
0.47 0.23 
0 0 
0.0 0.0 
0.0 
41 .2% 
15 
0 330 167 0 2 
0 0 0 0 2 
0 0 2 0 0 
1700 1700 1700 1700 499 
0.00 0.19 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 
0 0 0 0 0 
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 
A B 
0.0 0.0 12.3 
A B 
ICU Level of Service 
I" 
0 
0.95 
0 
0.76 
593 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
832 
A 
3/30/2012 
\. + ..; 
2 0 " 0 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 0 
0.76 0.76 
1089 1682 " 248 
496 496 
593' 1'186 
496 1273 248 
7.5 ·· 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
100 100 100 
499 319 758 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~fflnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies Sports Bar & Grill Owy & SW 185th Avenue 3/30/2012 
__}-
--+ ---.. f +--
...__ ~ t !" '-. + ..; 
,Mqveme11t~"" 0± 0 • ®: , "' ;(f EBC !!i Ea1)J1~ 'EBff--'FWBC .. * WB!¥iK%-lWaEtw FJsc .. iz;tJB'liw'*,,Hs&, . sse,··• se:r·t '*' sas 
Lane Configurations 
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 3 40 0 36 1 815 33 46 469 3 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 3 42 0 38 1 858 35 48 494 . 3 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type TWLTL None 
Median storage veh} 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 308 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 
vC, conflicting volume 1061 1487 248 1224 1471 446 497 893 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 592 592 877 877 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 469 895 347 594 
vCu, unblocked vol 924 1380 54 1099 1363 446 320 893 
tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 
IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 86 100 93 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 377 278 941 293 311 560 1155 
-~Ef:f~mwWa:r"l~JJV802.~J!!fa~nll!l:t~la~,z;:rNB'~~~ sa~1.i;*~sEf2Wfis:SJ3 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 
Control Delay (s) 8.8 
Lane LOS A 
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 
Approach LOS 
lrersection Summa~ a 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR -185th Improved 
0.14 0.07 0.00 
12 5 0 
19.4 11.9 8.1 
c B A 
15.8 0.0 
:;,~(!_'(f 
1.2 
45.8% 
15 
48 
48 
0 
755 
0.34 0.19 0.06 
0 0 5 
0.0 0.0 10.1 
B 
0.9 
ICU Level of Service 
329 
0 
0 
1700 
0.19 
0 
0.0 
168 
0 
3 
1700 
0.10 
0 
0.0 
A 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
Hcij;WOOalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
,)-
"'). I' +-- -\.. ~ __., 
ovement EBl EBT EBR war WBT WBR NBl 
Lane Configurations llj ttt llj ttt llj 
-Volume (vph) 117 493 175 199 840 85 242 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (sL 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
--Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
-.........---- ~--Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
-- -- -Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
---
-Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 
-- -Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
sa!cf'Ffow (prot)~ =: 1787 - 3434-~ 1752 3453 --- 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.14 
Satd. Flow (~erm} h - - 248 3434 400 3453 259 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Fiow (vpb)- - = 123 - - 519~ '184 209 884 89 255 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 7 0 0 
Lane-Group Flow (vphf" - 123 672~ 0 209 966 0 255 
Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%} 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Tum Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
·-· Permitted Phases 2 6 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.9 31.3 44.5 34.1 42.5 
-Effective Green, g (s) 38.9 31.3 44.5 34.1 42.5 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.32 0.46 0.35 0.44 
--
··-- .... ~~ Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s} 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 1106 328 1211 324 
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.20 c0.07 c0.28 cO. 11 
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.22 c0.24 
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.61 0.64 0.80 0.79 
Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 27.8 
·-
17.8 28.4 21 .2 
-Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 1.3 3.3 4.2 11.3 
Delay (s) 22.9 29.1 21 .1 32.7 32.5 
Level of Service c c c c c 
- -Approach Delay (s) 28.2 30.6 
Approach LOS c c 
ntersection Summa 
HCM Average Control Delay 32.0 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR -185th Improved 
0.78 
97.2 Sum of lost time (s) 
81.5% ICU Level of Service 
15 
t ~ 
;;Jar NBR 
ttt 
359 61 
1900 1900 
4.0 
0.95 
. ·-1.00 
1.00 
--0.98 
---~ 
1.00 
--3487 
~~· ~-
1.00 
3487 
0.95 0.95 
378 64 
13 0 
429 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
29.8 
29.8 
0.31 
- ·-4.0 
2.3 
1069 
0.12 
0.40 
26.6 
1.00 
0.1 
26.8 
c 
28.9 
c 
c 
12.0 
D 
3/30/2012 
'-. ! ..; 
SBL SBT SB~ 
llj ttt 
157 542 203 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 
1.00 0.95 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 0.96 
0.95 1.00 
11sr 3382 
0.47 1.00 
874 3382 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
165 -~ 571 214 
0 36 0 
165- 749 0 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt 
7 4 
4 
33.8 25.1 
33.8 25.1 
0.35 0.26 
4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 
384 873 
0.04 0.22 
0.11 
0.43 0.86 
22.8 34.4 
1.00 1.00 
0.5 8.2 
23.3 42.6 
c D 
39.2 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
HCij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewal 
--+ "'). .( +- ~ !'" 
EST . EBR " WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations t~ ""i tt v 
Volume (veh/h) 672 39 53 1074 48 39 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 730 42 58 1167 52 42 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
-Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 133 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 
vC, conflicting volume 773 1451 386 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 351 1157 0 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC , 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 94 65 95 
eM capacity (veh/h) 1012 150 912 
E:s 2- ws·rwsrws 3 NB 1 
487 286 58 584 584 95 
Volume Left 0 0 58 0 0 52 
Volume Right 0 42 0 0 0 42 
cSH 1700 1700 1012 1700 1700 240 
Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.17 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.39 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5 0 0 44 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 29.4 
Lane LOS A D 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 29.4 
Approach LOS D 
lntersection~Summa!}': 
Average Delay 1.6 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communit~ Church Ow~ 
...)-
[Movement EBL 
Lane Configurations "i 
---Volume (veh/h) " 9 
~- --~ 
Sign Control 
-- -·· Grade 
rg; 
·-Peak Hour Factor 0.95 
-Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage~ 
Right turn flare (veh) 
-------Median type 
--~--~..._ 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream sfgn_al (ft) • ---
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting ~olume 1184 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked val 1184 
tC, single (sf " - 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
.. ---- ... --.. 
tF (s) 2.2 
pO queue free % 98 
-
eM capacity (veh/h) 585 
!Direction, Lane# EB 1 
Volume Total 9 
Volume Left 9 
Volume Right 0 
cSH 585 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 
Control Delay (s) 11 .3 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.1 
Approach LOS 
intersection Summa 
Average Delay 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
-+- t (' +-- -\.. 
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 
t~ 
"' 
t~ 
703 0 1 1119 6 
Free Free 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
740 0 1 1178 6 
None TWLTL 
------ ---
2 
299 
0.86 
740 
-
371 
---- - 4.2 
- -2.2 
100 
1012 
EB 2 ·--EB 3"" 'WB 1 WB~2-Wff3 
493 247 1 785 399 
0 0 1 0 0 
0 0 0 0 6 
1700 1700 1012 1700 1700 
0.29 0.15 0.00 0.46 0.23 
0 0 0 0 0 
0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 
A 
0.0 
0.2 
41 .1% ICU Level of Service 
15 
~ t 
NBL NB 
4+ 
2 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 
2 0 
0.86 0.86 
1356 1945 
759 759 
597 1186 
1088 1773 
7.5 6.5 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 
99 100 
356 229 
NB1 SB"1 
3 9 
2 3 
1 6 
449 317 
0.01 0.03 
1 2 
13.1 16.7 
B c 
13.1 16.7 
B c 
~ 
1 
0.95 
1 
0.86 
370 
0 
6.9 
3.3 
100 
938 
A 
3/30/2012 
'. ! .; 
3 0 6 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 0 6 
0.86 0.86 
1573 19{2 592 
1183 1183 
390 """' 759 
1340 1769 592 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
98 100 99 
198 237 454 
Synchro 7- Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
Hcij~ ~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies Sports Bar & Grill Owy & SW 185th Avenue 
,)-
--+ ""'t ~ +-- -\.. 
Mo~eme'nt.; _," ."' ""· ·,;w, i4~tlfi}l EBL:l, '"EB'r:-:e~~.~wsl;" ili ,vyer:-:-wBR, " 
Lane Configurations 
Volume (veh/h) 22 0 26 
Sign Control Stop 
Grade 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.92 0,95 
Hourly ftow rate (vph) 23 0 27 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn ftare (veh) 
Median type 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81 
vC, conflicting volume 1379 1697 461 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 999 999 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 379 698 
vCu, unblocked vol 992 1386 0 
tC, single (s) 7,5 6,5 6,9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 
tF (s) 3.5 4,0 3.3 
pO queue free % 93 100 97 
eM capacity (veh/h) 337 294 881 
ne'#;l1!!!'1Jl01,9\?fu'T!P'illEB ·1· ""'YVJ8': 
51 
23 
27 
506 
Volume to Capacity 0.10 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 
Control Delay (s) 12.9 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 12.9 
Approach LOS B 
1tersectian sU'm*ma~ w,~-~, -
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 
TPR- 185th Improved 
37 
37 
0 
373 
0.10 
8 
15.7 
c 
13.4 
B 
·~, ~r~10~-~b~'~1£ 
1.2 
47.1% 
15 
34 0 31 
Stop 
0% 
0.92 0.92 0.92 
37 0 34 
0.81 0.81 
1247 1691 336 
682 682 
565 1009 
830 1379 336 
7_5 6,5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
90 100 95 
373 304 660 
ICU Level of Service 
3/30/2012 
~ t ,.. '-. + .; 
NB[ >;~) NBJ;;;;; @•NBR~[:SB[ Mili·@SBT03S~J1 
12 609 29 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.92 
13 641 32 
TWLTL 
2 
0.81 
922 
427 
4,1 
2.2 
99 
912 
A 
40 857 19 
Free 
0% 
0.92 0,95 0.95 
43 902 20 
None 
308 
673 
673 
4,1 
2.2 
95 
914 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
HCij9~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
6: Existin9 South Drivewa~ & 185th Avenue 
~ -\.. t ~ '. + 
Movement 
Lane Configurations 
Volume (veh/h) 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
-Hourly flow ra~ (vph) 0 1 690 1 1 980 
Pedestrians 
Lane Widtli (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage-
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type - TWLTL TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 2 
- --· 
.-~ -~~ -~- -Upstream signal (ft) 376 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 
vC, conflicting-volume 1183 346 691 
vC1 , stage 1 confvol 691 
vC2, stage 2 con( vol 492 
vCu, unblocked vol 782 346 691 
--··" 
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 
. 
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 
. 
IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 434 650 899 
Direction, lane# WB1 NB 1 NB2 SB 1 SB2 
Volume Total 1 460 231 328 654 
Volume Left 0 0 0 1 0 
Volume Right 1 0 1 0 0 
cSH 650 1700 1700 899 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.38 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 10.5 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS B 
ntersection Summa 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 
2035 PM Peak Hour Current Zoning 
TPR - 185th Improved 
15 
A 
3/30/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 6 
,
_
 
a
.>
..-... 
:t:::C
\J 
Q
)-r-
_
J
Q
 
C\J 
w
ro
l'--
0 
:::S
.
-
C\J 
0 
c 
z 
.
.c 
·;:: 
w
o
o
.
 
o..
Q
)<
( 
~ ~ 
'
-
-
-
'
 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
191 of 223 
t G RCLU_E __ _ 
"' 
.... 
"' o- ~ 00 
"' "' .... r-.. 
o- o- :e 
"" "' 0 
"' "' 0 0 
-o' "' c: -o ;; 
~ c: c 
"' "" 0 E Q. 0 0 
Q. u 
~ 
0 
-
u 
;;; "' 0 E ::. 0 0. 
-X <J) 
0 .. ~ co 
::J ~ 0 c/1 ~ 
Q. 
..ii .. -
.. 
> ~ ~ 
.. 
-
0 
c: .. 
"' .. 
- "' u 
"' 
o-
3 .... 
"' 
"' "' u.o 
"' 
,_;
w c/1 0 
.. 
"' "' > 
-
-.; 
"" 
"' 
-
.... 
Group 
Mnc-kontlo . 
ln~r>rporo l n:i 
t,.,.(~1il:ttJJ: 
M ACKENZ I E 
April 27, 2012 
ODOT Region I 
Attention: Martin Jensvold 
123 NW Flanders Street 
Portland, OR 97209 
Washington County DLUT 
Attention: Jinde Zhu 
1400 SE Walnut Street, MS-51 
Hillsboro, OR 97123 
Re : Response to ODOT and Washington Coun ty Comments- Farmington/1 851h Site 
Project Number 2120065.00 
Dear Mr. Jensvold and Mr. Zhu: 
Group Mackenzie has prepared this letter as a technical response to comments received from you 
during the Friday, April20, 2012 meeting. At this meeting, ODOT and Washington County staff 
commented on the traffic impact analysis contained in the April4, 2012 Transportation Planning 
Rule (TPR) Analysis and the March 29, 2012 Access Management Plan (AMP) prepared for the 
Applicant's (Seven Hills Properties) proposed land use action, which includes rezoning and 
developing commercial uses on the three vacant lots located on the southeast comer of the 
SW Farmington Road/SW 1851h Avenue intersection. Specifically, meeting comments focused on 
the assumptions used in the preparation of these analyses. The key comments and concerns voiced 
by agency staff are provided below followed by our technical responses. 
AGENCY COMMENTS AND CONCERNS 
I . ODOT expressed concern regarding use of a seasonal adjustment factor determined from 
Tualatin-Valley Highway to the north. ODOT believes TV Highway is saturated; therefore, 
peak hour data cannot properly show seasonal fluctuations . It was recommended Fannington 
Road historical traffic counts to be evaluated to determine the seasonal adjustment factor. 
2. ODOT expressed concern regarding the TPR Analysis assumption that 33-34% of total 
development trips are internal trips is too high . It was recommended that a sensitivity test be 
conducted on the effects of reducing the internalization rate by 50%. 
3. ODOT expressed concern regarding TPR Analysis pass-by trip assumptions. Specifically, it is 
requested the Applicant substant iate assuming 58% AM pass-by for the convenience market 
where ITE has no data and substantiate assuming 61% PM pass-by for the gas station where 
ITE identifies 42%. 
4. Washington County noted that in the AMP the internalization of trips does not balance bet\veen 
the Phannacy and Fast-Food uses on the site. It is requested this inconsistency be corrected . 
H:\Proj ecrs\2 12006500\WP\L TRI J20427· Response to ODOT and County Commenls l e!ler.doc 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
192 of 223 
ODOT Region 1/ Washington County DLUT 
Response to ODOT and Washington County Comments - Farmington!! 85th Site 
Page 2 
Res ponse to Agency Concer n #1 
To address Agency concerns regarding seasonal fluctuation of traffic volumes, historical weekday 
traffic volume data on Farmington Road was obtained from Quality Counts, a professional traffic 
counting service . This data is presen ted in the following tab le with counts provided in the appendix 
of this Jetter. 
TABLE 1- FARMINGTON ROAD AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 
Count Location Count Date Volume 
May 16, 2006 16,625 
Farmington Road March 8, 2007 15,462 
(0.10 mile east of 1851h Avenue) May 22,2008 14,758 
March 5, 2009 14,847 
As identified in the table above, there is no clear positive seasonal traffic groW1h trend between the 
months of March and May. It should be noted that the same trends shown in the tab le above apply 
to the weekday PM peak hour traffic data captured in the same counts. Likewise, it is not 
ant icipated there will be a clear pattern of change between the month of December, when the TPR 
Analysis and AM P volumes were obtained , and any other month of the year. 
An important poi nt to note from the table above is that traffic volumes decreased on Farmington 
Road from 2006 to 2009 . This same declining trend was also identified in the AMP analysis noting 
that data contained in the ODOT Traffic Volume Tables show negat ive annual traffic growth rates 
on SW Fam1ington Road over the past 10 years. As such, the Applicant 's assumption ofpositive 
fu ture traffic growth in both the AMP and TPR studies yield a conservative estimate of future 
traffic conditions. 
Based on the historical data collected for Farmington Road, there is no clear or positive seasonal 
adjustment factor that can be derived . Therefore, the Applicant' s use of the growth factor from 
Tualatin-Valley Highway, the nearest comparable eas t-west urban arteria l roadway, is appropriate. 
Also, as sta ted at the April 20th meeting, the 9-month history of hourly traffic patterns at the TV 
Highway/ l85th Avenue in tersection clearly show no ri sing seasonal trend between winter months 
(December) and surruner months (June) . Thi s fact is true for both the peak hour and off-peak hour 
periods shown in the appendix table. Based on this information, the Applicant's assumption to use 
a 3% seasonal growth rate to reflect a December-to-June adj ustmen t is valid. 
Last ly, it should be emphasized that Washington County does not require the use of seasonal traffic 
adjustments for AMP analysis. There fore, the AMP analysis, which uti lized a seasona l traffic 
adjustment, represents a conservative es timate of future traffic conditions. 
Response to Agencv Concern #2 
As a sensitivity test, we have updated the site trip gene ration table for the TPR analysis to reflect a 
lower possible internalization (reduction of 50% from 33 -34% to 17%). Below is the adjus ted 
tab le. Also shown in the table is the appropriate PM pass-by trip reduction rate of 42% for a 
gaso line/service station. It should be noted that the pass-by rate of42% was inconectly labe led in 
the trip table of the original TPR study, even though the resulting numbers shown in that table were, 
in fact, corTect. 
H:\Projec ts\212006500\WP\L TR\ 120427- Response to ODOT nnd Cou my Comments Letter. doc 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
193 of 223 
ODOT Region 1/ Washington County DLUT 
Response to ODOT and Washington County Comments- Fannington/185'h Site 
Page 3 
Zoning/Land Use 
Convenience Market 
Fast-Food w/ Drive-
Thru 
Gasoline/Service 
Service Slalion 
As shown in the previous table, during the AM peak hour, a worst-case development scenario under 
the proposed zoning generates 205 primary vehicle trips (I 04 enter, I 01 exit) and 255 pass-by 
veh icle trips (I 28 enter, 127 exit). During the PM peak hour, the proposed zoning generates I 89 
primary vehicle trips (96 enter, 93 exit) and 201 pass-by vehicle trips (1 03 enter, 98 exit). 
The following two tables present results of additional 2,035 operations analysis for the proposed 
zoning development scenario using the updated site trip generation estimates shown in the table 
above. Analysis calculations are included in the appendix. 
TABLE 2- 2035 TPR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS- V/C RATIO 
(PLANNED WIDENING ON SW FARMINGTON ROAD ONLY) 
Intersection 
1) SW Farmington Rd (OR10)/SW 1851h Avenue 
2) SW Farmington Rd (0R10)/Site Driveway 
3) SW Farmington Rd (OR 10)/Westside Community Church 
4) SW 1851h Avenue/North Site Driveway 
5) SW 1851h Avenue/Retail Driveway 
! 6) SW 1851h Avenue/South Site Driveway 
1 Traffic demand is low for critical movement, resulting in a vic ratio of 0.00. 
l N/A = Not available, as driveway has been removed. 
Proposed 
Zon in (CBD 
AM PM 
0.97 0.90 
0.54 0.45 
Q.OQ I . 0.03 
N/A2 · N/A2 
0.19 0.24 
N/A2 1 N/A2 
H:\Projects\212006500\WP\L TR\ 120427-Response to ODOT and County Comments Leller.doc 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
194 of 223 
ODOT Region 1/ Washington County DLUT 
Response to ODOT and Washington County Comments - Farmington/185'11 Site 
Page 4 
TABLE 5-2035 TPR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS · V/C RATIO 
PLANNED WIDENING OF BOTH SW FARMINGTON ROAD AND SW 1BSTH AVENUE 
Intersection 
1) SW Farmington Rd (OR10)/SW 1851h Avenue 
2) SW Farminqton Rd (OR10)/Site Driveway 
3l SW Farmington Rd (OR 10)/Westside Community Church 
4) SW 185tn Avenue/North Site Driveway 
5) SW 185111 Avenue/Retail Driveway ____ ··--· 
6) SW 1851h Avenue/South Site Driveway 
1 TraffiC demand is low for critical movement, resulling in a v/c raUo of 0.00. 
2 N/A = Not available. as driveway has been removed. 
Proposed 
Zoning (CBD) 
AM I PM 
o.71 I o.78 
0.59 j 0.51 
0. 00 1 . L___Q.:QL 
NfA2 t NfA2 
0 . 18 _,~ 
NfA1 · NfA2 
As shown in the previous two tables, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable 
agency mobility standards during the weekday AM and PM peak hou r periods. Therefore, analysis 
findings and conclusions documented in the original TPR Analysis remain unchanged . 
Response to Agency Concern #3 
Trip generation for a convenience market has a significant pass-by component, not unlike a gas 
station . The ITE Trip Generation Handbook 2"d Edition does not contain weekday AM peak hour 
pass-by trip data for a convenience market. 
It should be further noted, that if the site were to develop with convenience market and gas station 
uses, they would be developed as a combined use and not separate uses. ITE data for combined 
Gasoline Service Station wi th Convenience Market has a 62% AM peak hour pass-by rate. 
Therefore, applying pass-by data for a Gasoline/Service Station (which has a 58% AM peak hour 
pass-by rate) to the convenience market is conserva tive and appropriate. 
As previously noted, the PM pass-by rate of 42% for a gasoline/service station was incorrectly 
labeled in the trip generation table of the original TPR study, even though the resulting trip numbers 
shown in that table were correct. The trip generation table provided in this letter shows the correct 
pass-by percentage labeling. 
Response to Agency Concern #4 
The trip table presented in the AMP has been rev ised to correctl y show the proper balance of 
internal trips between the pharmacy and fa st-fo od restaurant uses. 
H:\ProjcCIS\1 12006500\WP\L TR\ 120427-Rcspo nse to ODOT and Co unty Comme ru s Lcner.doc 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
195 of 223 
' 
ODOT Region 1/ Washington County DLUT 
Response to ODOT and Washington County Comments - Fannington/ l85'h Site 
Page 5 
TABLE 3- REVISED TRIP GENERATION AMP ANALYSIS) 
Land Use ITE Size Trip Type Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Code Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit 
Total 39 22 17 150 75 75 
Internal (7) (4) I (3) Pharmacy w/ Drive-Thru 881 14,550 SF (8% am, 15% pm) (21) (10) (11) 
Pass-By (16) (8) (8) (63) (31) (32) (49% am, 49% pm) 
Total 148 75 73 102 53 49 
Internal (7) (3) (4} Fast-Food w/ Drive-Thru 934 3,000 SF (8% am, 15% pm) (21) (1 1) (10) 
Pass-By (59) (35} (34) (41) (21) (20) (49% am, 49% pm) I 
Total Trips 187 97 90 252 128 124 
Less Internal Trips (14) (7) (7) (42) (21) (21) 
Less Pass-bv Trios (85) (4jj (42) (104) (52) (52) 
Total Primary Trips 88 47 41 106 55 51 
Rela tive to the original AMP analysis, total primary trips increased by I trip to 88 trips during the 
weekday AM peak hour, and decreased by 2 trips to 106 during the weekday PM peak hour. The 
changes are insignificant and do not alter the analysis findings and conclusions of the original 
AMP. 
CONCLUSIONS 
IfODOT or Washington County have any further questions or comments regarding this letter and 
the transportation impact analysis contained within the AMP and TPR studies prepared for Seven 
Hills Properties' proposed land use act ion, please feel free to call me. 
Sincerely, 
~/d ,$~/~--
Brian .~nn, P.E. 
Traffic Engineer 
Enclosures: 
c: Tom Rocca- Seven Hill s Properties 
Dana Krawczuk - Perkin s Co ie, LLP 
H:\P rojects\212006500\WP\L TR\120427-Response to ODOT and Coun ty Comments Lwer.doc 
<( 
X
 
0 z w Q_ 
Q
_ 
<( 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
197 of 223 
Type of report : Tube Count- Volume Data 
LOCATION: Farmington Rd .10 E of 185th Ave 
SPECIFIC LOCATION: .10 E of 185th Ave 
CITY/STATE: Tiqard , OR 
Start Time Mon Tue Wed 16-May-06 17 -May-06 
12:00 AM 117 
1:00AM 61 
2:00AM 30 
3:00AM 40 
4:00AM 128 
5:00AM 373 
6:00AM 868 
7:00AM 1110 
8:00AM 1062 
9:00AM 831 
10:00 AM 
11 :00 AM 865 
12:00 PM 992 
1:00PM 893 
2:00PM 1052 
3:00PM 1169 
4:00PM 1281 
5:00PM 1370 
6:00PM 1286 
7:00PM 1028 
8:00PM 857 
9:00PM 652 
10:00 PM 356 
11 :00 PM 204 
Day Total 12005 4620 
% Weekday 72.2% 27.8% Average 
% Week 72.2% 27.8% Average 
AM Peak 11 :00 AM 7:00AM 
Volume 865 1110 
PM Peak 5:00PM 
Volume 1370 
Comments: 
Report generated on 4/26/2012 3:42 PM 
Thu Fri 
Page 1 of 1 
QC JOB#: 10181604 
DIRECTION: EBIWB 
DATE: May 16 2006 - May 17 2006 
Average Weekday Sat Sun Average Week Average Week Profile 
Hourly Traffic Hourly Traffic 
117 117 a 
61 61 
30 30 ~ 
40 40 
128 128 c 
373 373 I 
-868 868 
1110 1110 I 
1062 1062 ' I 
831 831 - I 
865 865 I 
992 992 I 
893 893 I 
1052 1052 
1169 1169 I 
1281 1281 .. 
1370 1370 
1286 1286 ""'1 
1028 1028 I 
857 857 I 
652 652 .. 
356 356 a=' 204 204 
16625 16625 
100.0% 
7:00AM 7:00AM 
1110 1110 
5:00PM 5:00PM 
1370 1370 
SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http ://www.qualitycounts.net) 
E x h i b i t  C  
1 2 - 2 2 2 - P A  
1 9 8  o f  2 2 3  
T y p e  o f  r e p o r t :  T u b e  C o u n t - V o l u m e  D a t a  
L O C A T I O N :  F a r m i n g t o n  R d  . 1  0  E  o f  1 8 5 t h  A v e  
S P E C I F I C  L O C A T I O N :  . 1  0  E  o f  1 8 5 t h  A v e  
C I T Y / S T A T E :  W a s h i n q t o n  C o u n t y ,  O R  
S t a r t  T i m e  '  M o n  T u e  W e d  
1 2 : 0 0  A M  
1 : 0 0 A M  
2 : 0 0 A M  
3 : 0 0 A M  
4 : 0 0 A M  
5 : 0 0 A M  
6 : 0 0 A M  
7 : 0 0 A M  
8 : 0 0 A M  
9 : 0 0 A M  
1 0 : 0 0  A M  
1 1 : 0 0  A M  
1 2 : 0 0  P M  
1 : 0 0 P M  
2 : 0 0 P M  
3 : 0 0 P M  
4 : 0 0 P M  
5 : 0 0 P M  
6 : 0 0 P M  
7 : 0 0 P M  
8 : 0 0 P M  
9 : 0 0 P M  
1 0 : 0 0  P M  
1 1 : 0 0  P M  
D a y  T o t a l  
% W e e k d a y  
A v e r a g e  
% W e e k  
A v e r a g e  
A M  P e a k  
V o l u m e  
P M  P e a k  
V o l u m e  
C o m m e n t s :  3 8 2  
R e p o r t  g e n e r a t e d  o n  4 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 2  3 : 4 2 P M  
T h u  
0 8 - M a r - 0 7  
9 4  
7 0  
6 3  
5 2  
1 1 0  
3 2 9  
8 4 1  
1 0 5 1  
1 0 2 1  
7 8 1  
7 8 8  
8 0 5  
8 5 0  
8 9 7  
9 5 2  
1 0 0 3  
1 0 9 5  
1 0 2 0  
1 0 4 0  
8 5 2  
6 5 1  
5 5 8  
3 4 0  
1 9 9  
1 5 4 6 2  
1 0 0 . 0 %  
1 0 0 . 0 %  
7 : 0 0 A M  
1 0 5 1  
4 : 0 0 P M  
1 0 9 5  
F r i  I  A v e r a g e  W e e k d a y  I  
H o u r l y  T r a f f i c  
9 4  
7 0  
6 3  
5 2  
1 1 0  
3 2 9  
8 4 1  
1 0 5 1  
1 0 2 1  
7 8 1  
7 8 8  
8 0 5  
8 5 0  
8 9 7  
9 5 2  
1 0 0 3  
1 0 9 5  
1 0 2 0  
1 0 4 0  
8 5 2  
6 5 1  
5 5 8  
3 4 0  
1 9 9  
1 5 4 6 2  
1 0 0 . 0 %  
7 : 0 0 A M  
1 0 5 1  
4 : 0 0 P M  
1 0 9 5  
S a t  S u n  
D A T E :  
A v e r a g e  W e e k  
H o u r l y  T r a f f i c  
9 4  
7 0  
6 3  
5 2  
1 1 0  
3 2 9  
8 4 1  
1 0 5 1  
1 0 2 1  
7 8 1  
7 8 8  
8 0 5  
8 5 0  
8 9 7  
9 5 2  
1 0 0 3  
1 0 9 5  
1 0 2 0  
1 0 4 0  
8 5 2  
6 5 1  
5 5 8  
3 4 0  
1 9 9  
1 5 4 6 2  
7 : 0 0 A M  
1 0 5 1  
4 : 0 0 P M  
1 0 9 5  
P a g e  1  o f  1  
Q C  J O B # :  1 0 2 4 0 2 1 4  
D I R E C T I O N :  E B I W B  
M a r  0 8  2 0 0 7  - M a r  0 8  2 0 0 7  
A v e r a g e  W e e k  P r o f i l e  
C J  
0  
0  
0  
c  
r = : = }  
'  "  w  ••  , . , . .  
< ' : 1 1  
···~ 
r · · · c ' ' T ' ' " " " " " " "  ···-·········--"~-~ . 
c - , . . . _ ,  
p · : ,  ~-: : : ; :  : · w : :  : :  •  
r - - - - - - - - m - - - - - - - - - " · · ·  
: l  
c~-w~,~-;~~~7'~·~) 
r~·~---~-~-~--~~-----, 
- - " ; : : )  
'<':~  " " " " " ' '  
c  
~ 
R ? ' : ' ' " " ' T ' o / " ' ' " " " ' " ' " ' "  . •  ,  
~ 
~. '  !§!~{ & W i  '  
~ 
r " " " ' "  I  
~ 
•  
-~-----l 
" )  
S O U R C E :  Q u a l i t y  C o u n t s ,  L L C  ( h t t p : / / w w w . q u a l i t y c o u n t s . n e t )  
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
199 of 223 
Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data 
LOCATION: Farmington Rd 0.10 E of 185th Ave 
SPECIFIC LOCATION: Station# 382 
CITY/STATE: Washington County, OR 
Start Time Mon Tue Wed Thu 22-May-08 
12:00 AM 108 
1:00AM 52 
2:00AM 68 
3:00AM 43 
4:00AM 126 
5:00AM 375 
6:00AM 727 
7:00AM 1013 
8:00AM 846 
9:00AM 691 
10:00 AM 666 
11:00 AM 702 
12:00 PM 709 
1:00PM 723 
2:00PM 821 
3:00PM 995 
4:00PM 1082 
5:00PM 1121 
6:00PM 1095 
7:00PM 923 
8:00PM 727 
9:00PM 606 
10:00 PM 348 
11 :00 PM 191 
Day Total 14758 
% Weekday 100.0% Average 
% Week 100.0% Average 
AM Peak 7:00AM 
Volume 1013 
PM Peak 5:00PM 
Volume 1121 
Comments: 
Report generated on 4/26/201 2 3:42PM 
Fri Average Weekday 
Hourly Traffic 
108 
52 
68 
43 
126 
375 
727 
1013 
846 
691 
666 
702 
709 
723 
821 
995 
1082 
1121 
1095 
923 
727 
606 
348 
191 
14758 
100.0% 
7:00AM 
1013 
5:00PM 
1121 
Page 1 of 1 
QC JOB#: 10348651 
DIRECTION: EBIWB 
DATE: May 22 2008 - May 22 2008 
Sat Sun Average Week Average Week Profile 
Hourly Traffic 
108 0 
52 
68 
43 
126 Cl 
375 1 
727 1 
1013 •• 
846 "1 
691 1 
666 
702 1 
709 1 
723 • 
821 I 
995 .. 
1082 -. 
1121 
1095 I 
923 I 
727 .. 
606 I 
348 
191 . c:::l 
14758 
7:00AM 
1013 
5:00PM 
1121 
SOURCE: Quality Counts. LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 
E x h i b i t  C  
1 2 - 2 2 2 - P A  
2 0 0  o f  2 2 3  
T y p e  o f  r e p o r t :  T u b e  C o u n t - V o l u m e  D a t a  
L O C A T I O N :  F a r m i n g t o n  R d  0 . 1 0  E  o f  1 8 5 t h  A v e  
S P E C I F I C  L O C A T I O N :  3 8 2 f t  f r o m  
C I T Y / S T A T E :  U N  W C ,  O R  
S t a r t  T i m e  I  
M o n  T u e  W e d  T h u  
0 5 - M a r - 0 9  
1 2 : 0 0  A M  1 0 3  
1 : 0 0 A M  6 6  
2 : 0 0 A M  3 6  
3 : 0 0 A M  3 9  
4 : 0 0 A M  9 6  
5 : 0 0 A M  
2 7 9  
6 : 0 0 A M  
6 8 2  
7 : 0 0 A M  9 2 1  
8 : 0 0 A M  8 7 3  
9 : 0 0 A M  
7 8 3  
1 0 : 0 0  A M  7 0 1  
1 1 : 0 0  A M  7 3 0  
1 2 : 0 0  P M  8 1 7  
1 : 0 0 P M  
8 7 6  
2 : 0 0 P M  8 9 5  
3 : 0 0 P M  1 1 1 4  
4 : 0 0 P M  
1 1 4 4  
5 : 0 0 P M  
1 2 0 4  
6 : 0 0 P M  
1 0 9 6  
7 : 0 0 P M  8 1 6  
8 : 0 0 P M  
5 6 6  
9 : 0 0 P M  5 0 0  
1 0 : 0 0  P M  3 1 8  
1 1 : 0 0  P M  
1 9 2  
D a y  T o t a l  
1 4 8 4 7  
% W e e k d a y  I  
A v e r a g e  
1 0 0 . 0 %  
% W e e k  
1 0 0 . 0 %  
A v e r a g e  
A M  P e a k  
7 : 0 0 A M  
V o l u m e  
9 2 1  
P M  P e a k  
5 : 0 0 P M  
V o l u m e  
1 2 0 4  
C o m m e n t s .  
R e p o r t  g e n e r a t e d  o n  4 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 2  3 : 4 2  P M  
F r i  I  A v e r a g e  W e e k d a y  I  
H o u r l y  T r a f f i c  
1 0 3  
6 6  
3 6  
3 9  
9 6  
2 7 9  
6 8 2  
9 2 1  
8 7 3  
7 8 3  
7 0 1  
7 3 0  
8 1 7  
8 7 6  
8 9 5  
1 1 1 4  
1 1 4 4  
1 2 0 4  
1 0 9 6  
8 1 6  
5 6 6  
5 0 0  
3 1 8  
1 9 2  
1 4 8 4 7  
1 0 0 . 0 %  
7 : 0 0 A M  
9 2 1  
5 : 0 0 P M  
1 2 0 4  
S a t  
S u n  
D A T E :  
A v e r a g e  W e e k  
H o u r l y  T r a f f i c  
1 0 3  
6 6  
3 6  
3 9  
9 6  
2 7 9  
6 8 2  
9 2 1  
8 7 3  
7 8 3  
7 0 1  
7 3 0  
8 1 7  
8 7 6  
8 9 5  
1 1 1 4  
1 1 4 4  
1 2 0 4  
1 0 9 6  
8 1 6  
5 6 6  
5 0 0  
3 1 8  
1 9 2  
1 4 8 4 7  
7 : 0 0 A M  
9 2 1  
5 : 0 0 P M  
1 2 0 4  
I  
P a g e  1  o f  1  
Q C  J O B # :  1 0 4 1 0 4 7 7  
D I R E C T I O N :  E B / W B  
M a r  0 5  2 0 0 9  - M a r  0 5  2 0 0 9  
A v e r a g e  W e e k  P r o f i l e  
a  
0  
Q  
Q  
e : l  
r~"'"' 
! " - · - - - = · ·  
c-F~ 'Y'l''~"Q\~~'<9<(~~:) 
e  - - - .  - " " ' - - .  
E;:-"*'''"~w~rw-w- "~·'?]fr'!"'*'""""') 
f ' : : w  ' ' ' ' W '  ' " i % ? ' : ' ? : W W W " '  ' • " ' ' V \ T ! : ' )  
4 '  @  
c = :  
: · • & : .  
r  ; : ·  
: J  
r:=-0W.~!«!!i!~~~,lli'~l':' •';' 
r;==;~,;~rw~::w-';-:wg;c:wc~! . . .  ,r~w· 
f i  . w .  " - - •  
r~-------,.-,. . . . . . .  ,  . . . .  ~··"""·········• 
f  ' s  ' " l  
r • • • • • n > % 0 ' W ' > w w : p ' )  
'  '  
c : : J  
S O U R C E :  Q u a l i t y  C o u n t s ,  L L C  ( h t t p : / / w w w . q u a l i t y c o u n t s . n e t )  
)>
 
-
o 
-
o m
 
z 0 x
 
OJ
 
Exhibit C 
HcM~li~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
,)-
--+ "'). .f +- '- ~ 
Lane Configurations "i t l+ "i tl+ "i 
Volume (vph) 174 827 187 26 360 84 169 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3475 1752 3391 1786 
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.49 
Satd. Flow (eerm} 1787 3475 1752 3391 915 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 183 871 197 27 379 88 178 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 183 1050 0 27 449 0 178 
Confl. Peds. (#ihr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#ihr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%} 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Turn Type Prot Prot prn+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
Permitted Phases 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 35.7 2.3 24.5 47.2 
Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 35.7 2.3 24.5 47.2 
Actuated giC Ratio 0.13 0.34 0.02 0.23 0.45 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s} 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1174 38 786 450 
vis Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.30 0.02 0.13 0.02 
vis Ratio Perm 0.16 
vic Ratio 0.80 0.89 0.71 0.57 0.40 
Uniform Delay, d1 44.8 33.2 51.4 35.9 19.1 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 9.5 43.1 1.5 0.3 
Delay (s) 62.3 42.7 94.5 37.4 19.5 
Level of Service E D F D B 
Approach Delay (s) 45.6 40.5 
Approach LOS D D 
l ntersection'Summa~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.7 Sum of lost time (s) 
Intersection Capacity Util ization 90.8% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3i1 i2012 TPR - Worst Case 
KLA 
4i27i2012 
t !" \. + ..; 
> .. N~f ,"'. N~R)bw SB~.4: <i$BTw ;;$8~ 
l+ 
509 179 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.96 
1.00 
1799 
1.00 
1799 
0.95 0.95 
536 188 
11 0 
713 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
42.2 
42.2 
0.40 
4.0 
2.3 
71 8 
c0.40 
0.99 
31 .6 
1.00 
31 .5 
63.1 
E 
54.5 
D 
D 
21 .0 
E 
"i t ., 
121 310 120 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1770 1863 1562 
0.09 1.00 1.00 
163 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
127 326 126 
0 0 72 
127 326 54 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
54.2 45.7 45.7 
54.2 45.7 45.7 
0.51 0.43 0.43 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
213 805 675 
c0.05 0.18 
0.26 0.03 
0.60 0.40 0.08 
22.3 20.6 17.6 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
3.4 0.2 0.0 
25.8 20.8 17.7 
c c B 
21.2 
c 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
ExhibitC 
Hc~;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Site Drivewa~ 
"). .( +-- ~ ~ ---+-
ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations 
Volume (veh/h) 1072 55 78 398 72 61 
- -· Sign Control Free Free Stop 
~ 0-M 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1128 58 82 419 76 64 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage- · 
Right turn flare (veh) 
-Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
-Upstream signal (ft) 133 
"'"---
pX, platoon unblocked 0.71 0.71 0.71 
vC~confliCting vojyme -- 1186 1531 593 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 
vC2," stage 2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 459 942 0 
·---·~- --~--
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
- - - -tF (s) 
--
2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 90 55 92 
--· 
eM capacity (veh/h) 784 167 774 
irection, lane# EB 1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 
Volume Total 752 434 82 209 209 140 
----
Volume Left 0 0 82 0 0 76 
Volume Right 0 58 0 0 0 64 
cSH 1700 1700 784 1700 1700 261 
Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.26 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.54 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 9 0 0 73 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 33.7 
Lane LOS B D 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.7 33.7 
Approach LOS D 
'ntersection Summa l 
Average Delay 3.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR - Worst Case 
KLA 
A 
4/27/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HCM~~'fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communitl Church Owl 
__)-
_. ..,. ~ +-- '- ~ 
JV!ovement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT- WBR ~ NBC 
Lane Configurations llj t~ llj t~ 
Volume (veh/h) 0 1133 0 0 476 2 0 
Sign Control Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1193 0 0 501 2 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 0.72 
vC, conflicting volume 503 1193 1443 
vC 1, stage 1 conf val 1193 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 251 
vCu, unblocked val 503 493 841 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.5 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 1058 764 358 
EB 1~82"'EB 3- WB'"1- WB 2 ws·3:-Ns1 
0 795 398 0 334 169 0 
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.47 0.23 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.00 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS A 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS A 
Intersection Summa!}: 
Average Delay 0.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41 .3% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR - Worst Case 
KLA 
t ,.. 
NBT NBR 
4+ 
0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 
0 0 
0.72 0.72 
1696 596 
1193 
503 
1191 0 
6.5 6.9 
5.5 
4.0 3.3 
100 100 
337 787 
2 
2 
0 
504 
0.00 
0 
12.2 
B 
12.2 
B 
A 
4/27/2012 
'-. + .; 
· SBC :q&"1L SBT SB~ 
4+ 
2 0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 0 
0.72 0.72 
1098 1695 252 
502 502 
596 1193 
363 1190 252 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
100 100 100 
504 337 754 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies SEorts Bar & Grill Dw;t & SW 185th Avenue 
,;. 
___...,. 
..... .f +- "'-- ~ 
[Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL 
Lane Configurations 4+ "'I ~ "'I 
Velum~ (vehltir-~ ~ __:_=: 0 b 3 50 0 .46 1 
Sign Control Stop Stop 
Gra~~ ··-~ _ ~ -- 0% 0% 
- ~"'"'""--Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hour:IY flo~ rate (vph) .-...-.... 0 0 3 53 0 48 1 
Pedestrians 
L~aneWiilln(fi) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
'Percenf810c:kage · 
Right turn flare (veh) 
-,~- -- -
.Median type 
·-~-"<--~-------=·~ ............ --,_.__...._.._v«--1';-______ ,.,~~"0;....,.,.,.,..,.w.•-.~~~-'''"'··v.~-~-• 
Median storage veh) 
Up_st@a!!l siRnaf (it) -.- - --~...,. ·~ ¥1..-'111' 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 
vC~c'OnfiTctingvofume-- ·~ 1513~ 1508 489 1488 1488 875 
. ·=="--&"-~-'-c '="-"- ,..._. _ i""''""'- -~ ,.,, _s ='- ~ -
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 609 609 877 877 
vc2:Stage icorifvol . - .:= 904 . ~~- §99 611 611 
vCu, unblocked vol 1515 1509 357 1486 1486 875 
tC, j ingleJ s) -- 7.1 ~ 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 
-
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 
-·--
tF (s)_ m 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
'""'- --· pO queue free % 100 100 99 81 100 86 
,~........-«< 
eM capacity (ve~Jh) 206 257 612 278 292 348 
B2 NB 1 
3 53 48 1 897 60 
Volume Left 0 53 0 1 0 60 
.~- --Volume Right 3 0 48 0 43 0 
cSH 612 278 348 1061 1700 757 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.19 0.14 0.00 0.53 0.08 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 17 12 0 0 6 
Control Delay (s) 10.9 21.0 17.0 8.4 0.0 10.2 
Lane LOS B c c A B 
- -Approach Delay (s) 10.9 19.1 0.0 1.1 
Approach LOS B c 
/rltersection ·SummarY 
Average Delay 1.7 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1 /2012 TPR - Worst Case 
KLA 
0.88 
491 
359 
4.1 
2.2 
100 
1061 
491 
0 
3 
1700 
0.29 
0 
0.0 
4/27/2012 
t ~ \. ~ ..; 
, NEiT~R SBL SBT SB 
ft .. ~ 
811 4i 57 463 3 
Free Free 
0% 0% 
~ 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
854 43 60 487 3 
TWL TL ------- None 
2 
~-----..,.-------------.....,--.,.,.-~ 
·= ~- .,.__ ~~- -~ 
--
~ --~ 
B 
308 
897 
897 
4.1 
2.2 
92 
757 
Synchro 7- Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
HC~~~ll~lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 4/27/2012 
.,}-
__. 
" 
.f 
.,.__ 
'- ~ t !" '-. + .; 
Movement . , &~~ill sffj," ."~, J~B[. **~' ~Bl~;SBR !LWBt;t~ M W81:-¥WB~ .. , ,;1 Nar~~rNe:r~~" NBRs? SBI¥J'ISBJ;~{vsa~ 
Lane Configurations "'i t~ lj t~ lj 
Volume (vph) 117 495 177 199 843 86 245 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3433 1752 3449 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.11 
Satd. Flow {eerm) 1787 3433 1752 3449 210 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj . Flow (vph) 123 521 186 209 887 91 258 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 7 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 674 0 209 971 0 258 
Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles{%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Turn Type Prot Prot pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
Permitted Phases 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 29.7 14.9 35.7 47.9 
Effective Green, g (s) 8.9 29.7 14.9 35.7 47.9 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.28 0.14 0.33 0.45 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 149 956 245 1154 272 
v/s Ratio Prot O.Dl 0.20 c0.12 c0.28 c0.11 
v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.70 0.85 0.84 0.95 
Uniform Delay, d1 48.1 34.6 44.8 32.9 28.8 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 28.8 2.8 23.4 6.2 40.1 
Delay (s) 76.9 37.4 68.2 39.1 68.9 
Level of Service E D E D E 
Approach Delay (s) 43.3 44.2 
Approach LOS D D 
lnterseCtiooSumma~t'"'-n"""""" ' ",_,,·wr 
HCM Average Control Delay 46.9 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.7 Sum of lost time (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- Worst Case 
KLA 
~ 
360 61 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.98 
1.00 
1835 
1.00 
1835 
0.95 0.95 
379 64 
5 0 
438 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
35.9 
35.9 
0.34 
4.0 
2.3 
617 
0.24 
0.71 
30.9 
1.00 
3.3 
34.2 
c 
47.0 
D 
D 
12.0 
E 
"'i t 7' 
159 544 203 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1769 1863 1562 
0.26 1.00 1.00 
478 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
167 573 214 
0 0 132 
167 573 82 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
42.3 33.1 33.1 
42.3 33.1 33.1 
0.40 0.31 0.31 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
301 578 485 
0.05 0.31 
0.17 0.05 
0.55 0.99 0.17 
23.0 36.7 26.8 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.6 35.1 0.1 
24.5 71.7 26.9 
c E c 
53.4 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Site Drivewa~ 
--+ "'). .f 
..._ ~ I" 
Movement EBT EBR WBL . WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations tf+ "i tt v 
~-
Volume T•eh/h) 667 48 67 1067 59 51 
-Sign Control Free Free Stop 
--Grade 0% 0% 0% 
--Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
--Hourly~now...ra.lEt (vph) 702 51 71 1123 62 54 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
:PercentBigckage " 
Right turn flare (veh) 
~earan"fYp~ ·- , .. None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstrea mslgnailt!f. 133 
-pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.83 
vC, conflicting volume - 753 1430 376 
.,,..,, T -< 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vc2: stager2'Cortfvol 
vCu, unblocked vol 283 1102 0 
tC, single (s) ~------ 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage .(s) 
~~,··-"" 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
- -pO queue free % 93 61 94 
----
eM cap(l(;ityj veh/h) 1056 159 897 
~frection, Lane '# !~ .I EB 1 " EB2 WB 1- WB2- WB3 NB~1 
Volume Total 468 285 71 562 562 116 
Volume Left 0 0 71 0 0 62 
·-Volume Right 0 51 0 0 0 54 
cSH 1700 1700 1056 1700 1700 257 
Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.17 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.45 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5 0 0 55 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 30.0 
Lane LOS A D 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 30.0 
Approach LOS D 
'ntersect[on Summa~ 
Average Delay 2.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- Worst Case 
KLA 
A 
4/27/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HCM~~fflnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communitl Church Owl 4/27/2012 
.,)-
--+ 
" 
.( .,._ "'- ~ t I'" '. + ..; 
Movemenf7 --c:; p; .. ~: ··: " EBL , £rreB1%B*~EBR'* '". WBL •: WBl;; ~WI3R *':JJB!ltc,r~ NBTil¥~t:lB~~;1 "$8~"ts;,': B~T, :nt$)3,~ 
Lane Configurations .. t~ .. t~ 
Volume (veh/h) 9 710 0 1 1126 6 
Sign Control Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 747 0 1 1185 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 
vC, conflicting volume 1192 747 
vC 1, stage 1 conf val 
vC2, stage 2 conf val 
vCu, unblocked val 1192 325 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 98 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 582 1031 
:-_ ·<-·r~'t"·~·p, .. ~ .. ~ ~~~~#:~:, · - · - - ZIIW'-·':"''~-Pfrection, Lane · .iiF'1!7,,;, ·"' Yli .,:EB 1 · ... E62 ·~ · ~8'3 "';.Ws tJJJr WB 2 •.. +.WB·3. ·· 
Volume Total 9 498 249 1 790 401 
Volume Left 9 0 0 1 0 0 
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 6 
cSH 582 1700 1700 1031 1700 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.29 0.15 0.00 0.46 0.24 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 
Approach LOS 
41.3% 
15 
ICU Level of Service 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- Worst Case 
KLA 
~ 
2 0 1 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 1 
0.84 0.84 0.84 
1367 1960 374 
766 766 
601 1194 
1061 1765 0 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
99 100 100 
361 228 919 
A 
~ 
3 0 6 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 0 6 
0.84 0.84 
1584 1957 596 
1191 1191 
394 766 
1319 1761 596 
7.5 6.5 6 .. 9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
98 100 99 
196 236 452 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
HCM~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies Sports Bar & Grill Dwy & SW 185th Avenue 
_,}-
---+-
---.. f +-- 4.... 
ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR. 
Lane Configurations ~ "i f+ 
-,,.,;0;.,--, Voiume (ve_h/~)'~ ··~ .. 2i ___ 0 26 43 0 38 
-Sign Control Stop Stop 
Grad~ --~ - - ---- -...... '1?8't 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
-H9,urly tlC!.Yf.r~te_(yph) 23 0 27 45 0 40 
Pedestrians 
LaneWidth(tt) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Perce~fBfocka[e 
Right tum flare (veh) 
Median M>.e ""'''"~.. .. .... · -n 
~ 
Median storage veh) 
lJe§![.eam §ig§a(@ ~ -- -·----~ 
~. 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 
vC,£2n~j£ti~g vj}lume .. _ 1713 .. 1710 907 1709 1702 656 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf val 1010 1010 682 682 
vC2,s tagi 2cont val - 703 700 1027 1020 
-
vCu, unblocked val 1806 1801 649 1800 1789 656 
tc ,.~ingle (s) .. _ ...... -' i1 ' 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 ____ __,_, 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 
tF(s) '.~ ~ ---- ~ 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
---pO queue free % 88 100 92 76 100 91 
-·· 
eM capacLty (veh/h) 19~" 215 330 185 213 465 
·-· 
1' WB1 w WB2 N.BT""'""'N B' 2 """'!!SB' 1 
51 45 40 13 675 52 
Volume Left 23 45 0 13 0 52 
~-~--Volume Right 27 0 40 0 37 0 
cSH 252 185 465 645 1700 916 
Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.24 0.09 0.02 0.40 0.06 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 23 7 1 0 4 
Control Delay (s) 22.8 30.7 13.5 10.7 : 0.0 9.2 
Lane LOS c D B B A 
--Approach Delay (s) 22.8 22.6 0.2 0.5 
Approach LOS c c 
fri tersection Summa 
Average Delay 2.1 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1 % ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR ·Worst Case 
KLA 
4/27/2012 
~ t ~ '. + ~ 
NB-r-Nst--NBR~- - SBL SBT SBR 
"i f+ 
12 606 35 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
13 638 37 
TWLTL 
2 
0.70 
917 
664 
~~~--4.1 
2.2 
-- -
98 
645 
SB'2 
917 
0 
20 
1700 
0.54 
0 
0.0 
B 
., f+ 
49 852 19 
Free 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
52 897 20 
None 
308 
675 
675 
4.1 
2.2 ' 
94 
916 
Synchro 7 · Report 
Page 4 
Ex td.._.,L ~ 
...._ """?-P~"· 1ZtYl Intersection Capacity Analysis 
.S r , "~l' n~ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
.,)-
--+ "'). .( +-- ""- ~ t 
Movement 
~ ~Jiii!J 
EB[ EBT EBR 
- --·- -
WBL WBT WBR. ~ru NBL NBT 
':lit.,' ' 11 S ~ tt+ ~ tt+ ~ tt+ 
olume (vph) 174 827 187 26 360 84 169 509 
Ideal Flow (Vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Los' time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 
Lane Util. ,: aciUr 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
l=rfl'' r '!.,,kes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
,.- lpb, pea. bii·.Ps 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
,-rt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 
:=It Pi\•L•;· ltd 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
·)i. ~~- .. 'oro+~ 1787 3475 1752 3397 1787 3419 
. I• P t-11'11 '"cl 0.36 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.38 1.00 
::,atd. how \Perm) 671 3475 332 3397 722 3419 
PPak-hour f:ortor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
F' 1 183 871 197 27 379 88 178 536 
k i ll ""' '"' •.!Jil (vph) 0 18 0 0 20 0 0 33 
l_ane Gro!i~ r: 'JW (vph) 183 1050 0 27 447 0 178 691 
Confl. Pe< /hr) 1 1 1 
Confl . B i ~ 'ls (#/hr) 
'Ieavy VehiciPs (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 
Turr ,.., " pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt 
Pro hases 5 2 1 6 3 8 
" , .itter' C''- 'lSCS 2 6 8 
'l 1lec! ·~rc"" G (s) 41 .1 35.8 28.5 27.2 30.5 21.8 
T. ivr. , fJ Is\ 41.1 35.8 28.5 27.2 30.5 21.8 
l• 0.48 0.42 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.26 
r. c i." ''8 (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 
t! i lh.,iu t xt,-; h10n ( s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 2.3 
I, ne Grp Cap (·i' 'l) 452 1457 132 1082 366 873 
c.. Ratir "Jrt"·~ c0. 05 c0.30 0.00 0.13 0.05 c0.20 
. · 3liL. .-err .. 0.15 0.06 0.12 
atio 0.40 0.72 0.20 0.41 0.49 0.79 
13.3 20.6 19.7 22.8 19.8 29.7 
p, 118SSIG dCh 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
I .I ·>ntal ' ,, 0.3 2.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 4.7 
ir· ·l 1 13.6 22.7 20.2 23.3 20.4 34.4 
Le• ·el of .-erv1ce B c c c c c 
\-. 21.4 23.1 31.6 
c c c 
-
... ~ ~-----...,-.·------
11 ;rseCltu.• 0umr~ 
l :~.~ '. Ira! Delay 25.2 HCM Level of Service 
·-:apacity ratio 0.71 
t" ,ua ·~"· (s) 85.4 Sum of lost time (s) 
In terser. o1v1, ,aJ;a<Ay Uti lization 72.9% ICU Level of Service 
n, 15 
c Altical Ldne Group 
· · ~ - w,.,,. 'rnp0sed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR -185th Improved 
L 
~ 
NBR 
179 
1900 
0.95 
188 
0 
0 
4 
1% 
c 
17.0 
c 
4/27/2012 
'-. + .; 
SBL·"\ SBT 
~ tt+ 
121 310 120 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 
1.00 0.95 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 
1.00 0.96 
0.95 1.00 
1769 3379 
0.18 1.00 
330 3379 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
127 326 126 
0 38 0 
127 414 0 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt 
7 4 
4 
32.1 22.6 
32.1 22.6 
0.38 0.26 
4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 
284 894 
c0.05 0.12 
0.12 
0.45 0.46 
19.2 26.3 
1.00 1.00 
0.7 0.2 
19.9 26.5 
B c 
25.1 
c 
-
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
HCM~~~nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin£i!ton Rd & Existin£i! Drivewa~ 
__,.. 
..... ~ +-- ~ ~ 
[Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR" 
Lane Configurations tf+ "'i 
-Volume (veh/h) · 1072 55 78 398 72 61 
-Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade ~ = 
.. 
0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1128 58 82 419 76 64 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width. {ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenfBiOCkage , 
Right turn flare (veh) 
-·····-··--·· ··-· -·-· ····--Median type .,._.,. ~· - None None 
Median storage veh) 
lipsp-earii'~signa({ft) 133 
~-"-pX, platoon unblocked 0.75 0.75 0.75 
vc :Conflicting y olUme 
---
--- 1186 1531 593 
vC1 , stage 1 confvol 
vc2:· st~ge2 confl/ol 
vCu, unblocked vol 587 1046 0 
tC~ single (sf-~n '~ ----- -- 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
---- ·--tF (s} 2.2 3.5 3.3 
----pO queue free % 89 49 92 
-· -
eM capacity (veh/h) 740 150 815 
-~-
piiietion,'tane # H Es 1-rs-r··vr~wEr~ws :3" NEf1 
Volume Total 752 434 82 209 209 140 
Volume Left 0 0 82 0 0 76 
- -Volume Right 0 58 0 0 0 64 
cSH 1700 1700 740 1700 1700 239 
Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.26 0.11 0.1 2 0.12 0.59 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 9 0 0 83 
Control belay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 39.3 
Lane LOS B E 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.7 39.3 
Approach LOS E 
'ntersection Summa!Y 
Average Delay 3.5 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- 185th Improved 
KLA 
A 
4/27/2012 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~'fflnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communit~ Church Ow~ 
.,;. 
__. t .f +-- "'- "\ t ~ 
,Mpvem~nt · o-:- ~, ~·· ~---:EaLlr:-:- EB11tl~EBRth : WBL"'-WBJ~Wij~r{" 7-,_ ~B-~ ~~ *'NaTifr.s-NaR 
Lane Configurations "i tf+ "i t f+ 
Volume (veh/h) 0 1133 0 0 476 2 
Sign Control Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1193 0 0 501 2 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.76 
vC, conflicting volume 503 1193 
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 503 624 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
IF (s) 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 100 100 
eM capacity (veh/h} 1058 720 
PJrectitin,' Lane --
Volume Total 0 795 
Volume Left 0 0 
Volume Right 0 0 
cSH 1700 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.47 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 
Approach LOS 
41 .3% 
15 
ICU Level of Service 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- 185th Improved 
KLA 
4+ 
0 0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
0 0 0 
0.76 0.76 0.76 
1443 1696 596 
1193 1193 
251 503 
953 1285 0 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
100 100 100 
319 317 830 
A 
4/27/2012 
'-. + ..; 
SBL "' -:s~"J:, 
4+ 
2 0 0 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 0 
0.76 0.76 
1098 1695 252 
502 502 
596 1193 
500 1284 252 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
100 100 100 
494 317 754 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies S~orts Bar & Grill Dw~ & SW 185th Avenue 
~ 
--+ -,. .f +- ...... ~ 
EBR war Wsi'- WBR, NBC 
Lane Configurations 
Volume]Q.~h/h) : = ,, ~-- 0 0 -~ 3 50 '' 0 46 ' 
Sign Control Stop Stop 
Gr_£de__:_. 
·------
0% 0% 
-Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Ho~.[ly flow r ate (vph) -- d 0 3 53 0 48 1 
Pedestrians 
Lan~,WJ.sLth (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Med1anty~ -w<' -------· ---~--~~--
Median storage veh) 
Upi!ream siQnal (ttf - - ::- ---
·.'81' 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 
vg: S9nfHcting) oltnpe ... .. = 1086 1508 245 1244 1488 448 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 609 609 877 877 
vC'2, st~e 2'confv0f - -- 471 899 367 611 
vCu, unblocked vol 962 1411 66 1130 1390 448 
it.~sing)e(s} - ......... .... ~7 . 5 6.5 6.9 ' 7.5 6.5 6.9 
~-----
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 
tF(s):~. ·~ --- 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
pO queue free % 100 100 100 82 100 91 
eM capacity (veh/h) 353 265 930 290 306 558 
IDirectiOil,lane # : "w' " EB·1 WB f~WB2 NB f''~ N82 NB3 
Volume Total 3 53 48 1 569 328 
Volume Left 0 53 0 1 0 0 
Volume Right 3 0 48 0 0 43 
cSH 930 290 558 1154 1700 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.33 0.19 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 16 7 0 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 8.9 20.1 12.1 8.1 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS A c B A 
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 16.3 0.0 
Approach LOS A c 
'Intersection Summa 
Average Delay 1.5 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR - 185th Improved 
KLA 
0.94 
491 
327 
4.1 
2.2 
100 
1154 
"sa 1 
60 
60 
0 
753 
0.08 
6 
10.2 
B 
1.1 
4/27/2012 
t ~ '-. + .; 
. NBT'. NBR 
811 '~ 41 57 ., 463 3 
Free Free 
0% 0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
854 43 60 487 3 
TWLT[ " ----- None "'' 
2 
" 
--~~--
SB2 '!' SB"3 
325 166 
0 0 
0 3 
1700 1700 
0.19 0.10 
0 0 
0.0 0.0 
A 
308 
897 
897 
4.1 
2.2 
92 
753 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
Exhibit C 
HCM~~{~Iized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
_,)-
--+ 
" 
.f +-- '- ~ 
Mfveffi~nt~', $*Wii. · 
Lane Configurations ~ tf+ 
"' 
t f+ 
"' Volume (vph) 117 495 177 199 843 86 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3433 1752 3452 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.14 
Satd. Flow (~erm) 243 3433 396 3452 258 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 123 521 186 209 887 91 258 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 7 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 676 0 209 971 0 258 
Confl. Peds. (#ihr) 1 1 1 
Confl . Bikes (#ihr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 39.1 31.5 44.7 34.3 42.8 
Effective Green, g (s) 39.1 31 .5 44.7 34.3 42.8 
Actuated giC Ratio 0.40 0.32 0.46 0.35 0.44 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 217 1107 326 1212 326 
vis Ratio Prot 0.04 0.20 c0.07 c0.28 c0.11 
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.23 c0.24 
vic Ratio 0.57 0.61 0.64 0.80 0.79 
Uniform Delay, d1 20.9 27.9 18.0 28.6 21.3 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 3.6 4.4 11.8 
Delay (s) 23.4 29.3 21 .5 33.0 33.1 
Level of Service c c c c c 
Approach Delay (s) 28.4 31 .0 
Approach LOS c c 
Intersection Summa~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 32.3 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.7 Sum of lost time (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81 .8% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3i1 i2012 TPR - 185th Improved 
KLA 
t I'" 
360 61 
1900 1900 
0.95 0.95 
379 64 
13 0 
430 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
30.1 
30.1 
0.31 
4.0 
2.3 
1075 
0.12 
0.40 
26.7 
1.00 
0.1 
26.8 
c 
29.1 
c 
c 
12.0 
D 
4/27/2012 
'-. + .; 
159 544 203 
1900 1900 1900 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
167 573 214 
0 36 0 
167 751 0 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt 
7 4 
4 
33.9 25.2 
33.9 25.2 
0.35 0.26 
4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 
384 872 
0.04 0.22 
0.11 
0.43 0.86 
23.0 34.6 
1.00 1.00 
0.5 8.6 
23.5 43.2 
c D 
39.7 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
2: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Existin9 Drivewa~ 
"'t ~ +-- "\ /*' --+ 
[Movement EBT ~ E[R . WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations +~ "i ++ v 
--Vgluffie (v!Wih) 
·-
667 48 67 1067 59 51 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
--
Grade ~=· 0% 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
--Hourly flo'!" rate (vph) 725 52 73 1160 64 55 
Pedestrians 
Lane wTdlh(tt) 
Walking Speed (fils) 
Percen(Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
rVie~ian tYPe 
____ .... ___ 
None None 
Median storage veh) 
up~fr~ar:rislgl)aJ (fO' ·.... .. -·- 133 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 
vc ~·con~ictifig ~volume - -- 777 - 1477 389 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vc:Csta9e2 corilvol 
vCu, unblocked vol 353 1186 0 
tt-:smgle ·(sl - -· - -- ---- -------- 4.1 6.8 6.9 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
~-- -~ ~~-- -
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO q~eue free % 93 55 94 
...,. -.... --
-
eM capacity (veh/h) 1010 141 911 
Plrectlon, Lane # EB'1 EB2 .WB 1 . WB 2- WB 3 ~ . NB. 1" 
Volume Total 483 294 73 580 580 120 
Volume Left 0 0 73 0 0 64 
Volume Right 0 52 0 0 0 55 
cSH 1700 1700 1010 1700 1700 232 
Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.17 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.51 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 0 0 67 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 35.8 
Lane LOS A E 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 35.8 
Approach LOS E 
Intersection Summa~"" 
Average Delay 2.3 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- 185th Improved 
KLA 
-
A 
4/27/2012 
Synchro 7- Report 
Page 2 
Exhibit C 
HCM~~fgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
3: SW Farmin9ton Rd & Westside Communit~ Church Ow~ 4/27/2012 
~ 
-+- .... -(" ~ -\.. "\ t I" '. + ..; 
[Mover;nenL . ,~,. rl\, .," &i:lfa EB[Jt;,! EBT~~;I:BR~WBE!'\ WBJ.+ .. Wa~ ·"w~ NBC "'"'ll NBT;--::NBR ·~ $BL J~t * SBCSB~ 
Lane Configurations 
Volume (veh/h) 9 710 0 1 1126 6 
Sign Control Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 747 0 1 1185 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None TWLTL 
Median storage veh) 2 
Upstream signal (ft) 299 
pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 
vC, conflicting volume 1192 747 
vC 1, stage 1 cant val 
vC2, stage 2 cant val 
vCu, unblocked val 1192 383 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 98 100 
eM capacity (veh/h) 582 1003 
t5irectio711 1!aiiei-tr.,,. 
Volume Total 
Volume Left 
Volume Right 
cSH 
Volume to Capacity 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 
Control Delay (s) 
Lane LOS 
Approach Delay (s) 
Approach LOS 
rter'Sectio5SiJITlma£{~1W"""'"""'<?rw¥:z~i0' ""'-""""'ir-"' 
0.2 
41.3% ICU Level of Service 
15 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- 185th Improved 
KLA 
2 0 1 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
2 0 1 
0.86 0.86 0.86 
1367 1960 374 
766 766 
601 1194 
1103 1792 0 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
99 100 100 
352 227 939 
A 
3 0 6 
Stop 
0% 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
3 0 6 
0.86 0.86 
1584 . 1957 596 
1191 1191 
394 766 
1355 1788 596 
7.5 6.5 6.9 
6.5 5.5 
3.5 4.0 3.3 
98 100 99 
196 234 452 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 3 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~tgnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
5: Buddies S~orts Bar & Grill Ow~ & SW 185th Avenue 4/27/2012 
..}-
--+- "'). (' ~ -\.. ~ t ~ '-. + ..; 
ovemenl EBC EBT EBR WBC WBT WBR NBC NBT NBR SBC SBT SB 
Lane Configurations 4t llj ~ llj t~ llj t~ 
--Volume (veh/h) 
·-·-· 
22 0 26 43 0 38 12 606 35 49 852 19 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
. - -
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 
--Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 0 27 47 0 41 13 638 38 53 897 20 
Pedestrians 
Lami'Widffi (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
PercenfBiockage~ 
Right turn flar~ (veh) 
----- - - --- -~----- ~-- ~--Median type 
-
_........, ..... 
- - - --Median storage veh) 
Upstream signa((tt) ,. - ---
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 
vc, .fOnfl!£tlf1g v'§f~.!lle 1399 1715 458 1264 1706 338 
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol 1013 1013 682 682 
vC2, stage 2 ~conf vol 386 701 582 1023 
vCu, unblocked vol 1018 1409 0 852 1398 338 
tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 
- -. 
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 
-- -
IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
- -. 
pO queue free % 93 100 97 87 100 94 
·-
eM capacity (veh/h) 323 285 881 370 298 658 
[Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 NB2 NB3 
Volume Total 51 47 41 13 425 251 
- -Volume Left 23 47 0 13 0 0 
"'-'·~- ~-
Volume Right 27 0 41 0 0 38 
cSH 492 370 658 916 1700 1700 
Volume to Capacity 0.1 0 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.25 0.15 
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 11 5 1 0 0 
Control Delay (s) 13.2 16.1 10.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 
Lane LOS B c B A 
Approach Delay (s) 13.2 13.6 0.2 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersection Summa!!: 
Average Delay 1.4 
Intersection Capacity Util ization 47.0% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR - 185th Improved 
KLA 
TWLTL 
2 
-· -
0.81 
---------917 
421 
-4.1 
2.2 
99 
916 
SB 1'- SB 2 SB3 
53 598 319 
53 0 0 
0 0 20 
911 1700 1700 
0.06 0.35 0.19 
5 0 0 
9.2 0.0 0.0 
A 
0.5 
A 
None 
308 
676 
676 
4.1 
2.2 
94 
911 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 4 
lo..... 
Q) 
.
.
-
-
.
.
 
:::::N 
Q
)-r-
_
jO
 
C\J 
u
_
 
co 
-
x
O
O
 
o
 
·c
 
-r-
z 
.
.c 
~
 
w
 
() 
\V
 
&
Q
)2
 
<r:: I-
_
_
.
.
.
 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
219 of 223 
,...--.~-"' --·- - ,_, ------~ 
,., v Vl 
<>-
- "' N N N 
~ ~ 
<>-
"' 
.., 
N 
"' 
N 
0 
"" "' 0 
0 
". Vl 
c -u' ;; 
"' 
c 
" "' "' 0 E 0. 0 0 
0. u 
X 
0 
-
u 
"' 
,., 
0 E v 0 ~ 
-
" 
01 
0 ~ 'i CD 
~ ~ 0 (/) ~ 
0. 
..0 .; 
.. 
> ~ <{ 
"' 
0 
c Q; '<> 
Q) 
- "" u "' 
':
3: v N 
"' 
N 
"' "' 
,., 
~ (/) 0 
"' "" 
Vl 
> -
"' 
Vl .. 
- '"' 
Gt·~·l.!p 
~Iuck.e<nil.l~l 
ln ~orpotGle 
L~') i! lonf!l: : 
G R O.U.P ____ ..... _ ... ... __ 
~lV[ACKENZIE 
• 
May 10,2012 
Washington County DLUT 
Attention: Paul Schaefer 
150 N. Firs t Avenue, Suite 350 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
ODOT Region 1 
Attention : Martin Jensvold 
123 NW Flanders Street 
Port land, OR 97209 
Re: Revised TPR Traffic Impact Analysis- Farmington/185'h Site 
Project Number 2120065 .00 
Dear Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Jensvold: 
This letter summarizes the revised operations analysis findings supporting Seven Hills Properties' 
proposal to rezone the three parcels located on the southeast comer of the Farmington Road/185'11 
Avenue intersection in Washington County. Specifically, this letter addresses comments received in 
an email from Mr. Schaefer (Washington County) dated May 9, 2012, requesting a revision to the 
April27, 2012 supplemental traffic analys is letter, which addressed the proposed zone change and 
compliance with Transportation Plann ing Rule (TPR) requirements . 
BACKGROUND 
As part of the County's technical completeness review for the proposed zone change, the May 9, 
2012 email from Mr. Schaefer states: 
"The TPR ana~}lsis needs to be revised without a left-out from the site onto Farmington. 
Removal of the left-out will result in more trips accessing the system from /85th (and not 
Farmington). As such there will be more left tum and north bound trips entering the 
intersection from 1 85th. The analysis, in particular, needs to re-evaluate the vic ratio of the 
intersection for all legs of the intersection. " 
REVISED ANALYS IS 
A revised operations analysis was completed consistent with revisions requested by Mr. Schaefer. 
For the analysis, all left-tum egress movements from the site access onto Fam1ing Road were 
re-routed to the site access on 185'h Avenue and then north to the Farmington Road/185 '11 Avenue 
intersection in a manner consistent with the assumed trip distribution parameters documented in the 
original TPR traffic study dated Apri14, 2012. 
Traffic operations analyses were then conducted for the Farmington Road/185'h Avenue intersection 
to determine revised trip assignment impacts. Revised analysis results, reflecting a no left-tum 
restriction from the site access onto Farmington, indicate intersection v/c ratios of0.91 and 0.89 for 
the 2035 weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. These results continue to meet 
H:\Projecls\212006500\WP\L TR\ 1205 I O-Re vised TPR An~ lysis Leuer.doc 
Exhibit C 
12-222-PA 
220 of 223 
Washington County DLUT I ODOT Region I 
Revised TPR Traffic Impact Analysis- Farnlington/185'11 Site 
Project Number 2120065 .00 
May 10,2012 
Page 2 
the ODOT mobility performance standard, which is an intersection v/c ratio of0.99 or less during 
peak hour conditions. Revised operations analysis results are provided in the attached appendix . 
It is important to note the revised analysis results reflect the following conservative factors : 
I. Assumes the planned widening ofFam1ington Road to five lanes, but not the planned widening 
of 185'h Avenue to five lanes. Resulting v/c ratios will be even lower with the widening of 
l85'h. 
2. Results are based on an extreme estimate of worst-case site trip generation, as it assumes a 
much lower trip internalization rate than suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers 
Handbook, thus maximizing external site trips. This adjustment was requested by ODOTand is 
summarized in our April 27, 2012 letter. While higher external site trip generation was 
evaluated for this revised analysis effort, Group Mackenzie considers this internalization rate 
too low and this analysis should be used as a "sensitivity" test for illustrative purposes only . 
Other key assumptions and findings regarding the revised analysis results are as follows : 
!. AM and PM peak hour analysis results identify a slight increase in the Famlington/185'h 
intersection cycle length from the current I 10 seconds to 120 seconds. This modification is 
allowed per the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual, Chapter 7, Page 38. 
2. AM and PM peak hour analysis results also show all individual approach m£>vements at the 
Famlington/185'h intersection function adequately with v/c ratios below 0.99 . 
3. Because all legs of the Farmingtonl185'h intersection continue to function acceptably under the 
revised TPR analysis, there is no significant effect. Therefore, no additional modifications to 
the intersection are needed . 
CONCLUSIONS 
Based on the revised operations analysis detailed in this letter, our previous finding of no 
significant affect documented in the original April4, 2012 TPR traffic study and supporting April 
26, 20 I 2 supplemental analysis still stands. Furthem1ore, as this issue relates to the Access 
Management Plan, our previous findings that a shared right-in/right-out/left-in only site access to 
Farmington Road will operate adequate and safely and will maintain the classified function and 
integrity of the roadway remains unchanged. If ODOT or Washington County have any further 
questions or comments regarding th is letter and the transportation impact ana lysis contained within 
the AMP and TPR studies prepared for Seven Hill s Propert ies' proposed land use action, please feel 
free to call me . 
Sincerc!K 
./ 
., 
' / 
,/ 
.,. . :-·_ v --·--- ~ 2 ·, .. - / / .. -:;:.-- ~ ---··----~ /." 
Brian j,r.Dunn, P.E. 
Traffic Engineer 
Attachment : Appendix A- Revised Operations Analysis Results 
c: Tom Rocca - Seven Hi li s Properties 
Dana Krawczuk- Perkins Coie, LLP rt:=VPJRES: ,i,;1··J / "/JI.V il ~~-----
H:\Projeets\2 12006500\WP\ L TRI 1205 1 0-Revised TP R Analysis Lcll cr.doc 
)>
 
""
"0 
""
"0 m
 
z 0 X )>
 
Exhibit C 
HC~~l{&lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin~ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 5/10/2012 
.,)-
"'). 
.f +-- -\.. "\ t ~ \. + ..; ---+-
EBR':,)lii1WB[ ·WBT WBR,IIqffiJB~ *.NBI¥;-j!NBR~'m'SB&1;¥'t\~,$BT,.;; SBR 
Lane Configurations llj t~ llj t~ llj 
Volume (vph) 174 827 187 26 345 74 231 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3475 1752 3398 1787 
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.38 
Satd. Flow (eerm} 1787 3475 1752 3398 705 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 183 871 197 27 363 78 243 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 15 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 183 1052 0 27 426 0 243 
Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles(%} 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Turn Type Prot Prot pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
Permitted Phases 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 38.2 2.2 24.7 56.9 
Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 38.2 2.2 24.7 56.9 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.35 0.02 0.22 0.52 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 254 1203 35 761 476 
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.30 0.02 0.13 0.05 
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.87 0.77 0.56 0.51 
Uniform Delay, d1 45.2 33.8 53.8 38.0 16.3 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 7.8 64.1 1.4 0.6 
Delay (s) 53.9 41.6 117.9 39.4 16.9 
Level of Service D D F D B 
Approach Delay (s) 43.4 43.9 
Approach LOS D D 
.Intersection Summa~ 
HCM Average Control Delay 40.7 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.3 Sum of lost time (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 AM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning 3/1/2012 TPR- Supplemental Analysis 
KLA 
~ 
520 179 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.96 
1.00 
1800 
1.00 
1800 
0.95 0.95 
547 188 
10 0 
725 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
46.8 
46.8 
0.42 
4.0 
2.3 
764 
c0.40 
0.95 
30.6 
1.00 
20.6 
51 .2 
D 
42.7 
D 
D 
17.0 
F 
llj t 7' 
121 310 120 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1770 1863 1562 
0.10 1.00 1.00 
180 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
127 326 126 
0 0 79 
127 326 47 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
47.6 41 .5 41 .5 
47.6 41 .5 41.5 
0.43 0.38 0.38 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
166 701 588 
cO 04 0.18 
0.29 0.03 
0.77 0.47 0.08 
25.3 26.0 22.1 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
17.6 0.3 0.0 
42.9 26.3 22.2 
D c c 
29.0 
c 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit C 
HcM;~§~Iized Intersection Capacity Analysis 
1: SW Farmin9ton Rd & SW 185th Avenue 
""" 
--+ ... .f +-- 4.... ~ 
,Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL 
Lane Configurations .. t~ .. t~ .. 
Volume (vph) 117 495 177 199 829 77 295 
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
-Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 
Satd.~Fiow (prot) 1787 3433 1752 3454 1787 
-Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.10 
Satd. Flow {~erm) 1787 3433 1752 3454 182 
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 
Adj. Flow (vph) 123 521 186 209 873 81 311 
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 6 0 0 
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 677 0 209 948 0 311 
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 
Hea~ Vehicles{%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 
Turn Type Prot Prot pm+pt 
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 
Permitted Phases 8 
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 28.9 15.7 35.6 58.6 
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 28.9 15.7 35.6 58.6 
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.25 0.14 0.31 0.50 
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 
Vehicle Extension {s) 2.3 4.7 2.3 4.7 2.3 
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 854 237 1058 331 
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.20 c0.12 c0.27 c0.14 
v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.79 0.88 0.90 0.94 
Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 40.8 49.3 38.5 34.7 
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
Incremental Delay, d2 45.2 5.7 29.1 10.5 33.5 
Delay (s) 98.3 46.6 78.5 49.1 68.1 
Level of Service F D E D E 
Approach Delay (s) 54.3 54.4 
Approach LOS D D 
Intersection Summar1: 
HCM Average Control Delay 51 .3 HCM Level of Service 
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.2 Sum of lost time (s) 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
c Critical Lane Group 
2035 PM Peak Hour Proposed Zoning TPR- Supplemental Analysis 
KLA 
t !'" 
NBT NBR 
~ 
370 61 
1900 1900 
4.0 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.98 
1.00 
1836 
1.00 
1836 
0.95 0.95 
389 64 
5 0 
448 0 
4 
1% 1% 
8 
45.3 
45.3 
0.39 
4.0 
2.3 
716 
0.24 
0.63 
28.6 
1.00 
1.4 
30.0 
c 
45.5 
D 
D 
8.0 
F 
5/10/2012 
'. + ..; 
SB[ ssr--ssR 
.. t 'f 
159 544 203 
1900 1900 1900 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.99 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
1.00 1.00 0.85 
0.95 1.00 1.00 
1768 1863 1562 
0.34 1.00 1.00 
637 1863 1562 
0.95 0.95 0.95 
f67 573 214 
0 0 124 
167 573 90 
4 1 
2% 2% 2% 
pm+pt Perm 
7 4 
4 4 
46.6 37.3 37.3 
46.6 37.3 37.3 
0.40 0.32 0.32 
4.0 4.0 4.0 
2.3 2.3 2.3 
346 598 501 
0.04 0.31 
0.15 0.06 
0.48 0.96 0.18 
23.8 38.7 28.4 
1.00 1.00 1.00 
0.6 26.3 0.1 
24.4 65.0 28.5 
c E c 
49.7 
D 
Synchro 7 - Report 
Page 1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
1 of 57 
Supplemental Application Materials 
• Supplemental Market Analysis Evidence dated August 1, 2012 from 
Dana Krawczuk, Perkins Coie (8 pages) 
• Transportation Oriented District Code Summary- Proposed Setback 
Explanation dated July 31 , 2012 from Baysinger Partners (4 pages) 
• Supplemental Market Analysis for Proposed Walgreens at SW 185th 
Avenue and SW Farmington Road dated July 31 , 2012 from Jeff Olson, 
Commercial Realty Advisors NW, LLC (4 pages) 
• Economic Impact Overview Analysis -Washington County Retail 
Development dated April2 , 2012 from Eric Hovee, E. D. Hovee & 
Company, LLC (6 pages) 
• Economic Impact Overview Analysis- Washington County Retail 
Development dated Apri14, 2012 from Eric Hovee, E. D. Hovee & 
Company, LLC (7 pages) 
• Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development dated 
July 31 , 2012 from Eric Hovee, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC (14 pages) 
• Executive Summary and Response to Staff Report- Case file 
12-222-PA dated August 14, 2012 from Dana Krawczuk, Perkins Coie 
(4 pages) 
• Suitability of Alternative Sites for the Proposed Use and Unsuitability 
of Site for Residential Development Under the R-15 Zone dated 
August 14, 2012 from Thomas J. Rocca , Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
(5 pages) 
• Response to Washington County Staff Report dated August 13, 2012 
from Eric Hovee, E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC (4 pages) 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
2 of 57 
Dana L. Krawczuk 
PHONE: (503) 727-2036 
FAX: (503) 346-2036 
EMAIL: DKrawczuk@perkinscoie.com 
August 1, 2012 
VIA EMAIL 
Paul Schaefer 
Washington County 
Department of Land Use and Transportation 
Room 350-14 
115 North First Avenue 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
Re: Supplemental Market Analysis Evidence - Case file 12-222-P A 
Dear Paul: 
Perkins i 
Coie l 
1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor 
Portland, OR 97209-4128 
PHONE, 503.727.2000 
FAX, 503-727.2222 
www.perkinscoie.com 
In response to preliminary feedback from staff, Seven Hills Properties, LLC offers the following 
supplemental market analysis evidence in support of the pending proposed plan amendment 
referenced above: 
• Supplemental Market Analysis for Proposed Walgreens at SW I 85th Avenue & 
Farmington Rd., July 31, 2012, by Commercial Realty Advisors Northwest, LLC (the 
"CRA Supplement") 
• Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development, July 31,2012, by E.D. 
Hovee & Company, LLC (the "Hovee Report") 
• Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washington County Retail Development, April2, 
2012, by E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC (the "Hovee Supplement") 
Please include this letter and the attachments in the record for the above referenced case. 
This letter, the attached reports and the previously submitted application narrative and Market 
Analysis for Proposed Walgreens at SW I 85th Avenue & Farmington Road, Aloha, OR 97007, 
February 29, 2012, by Commercial Realty Advisors Northwest, LLC (the "CRA Report") 
79648-0001/ LEGAL24299981.2 
ANCHORAGE BEIJING BELLEVUE BOISE CH I CAGO DALLAS DE N VER LOS ANG E LES MADISON N EW YORK 
PALO A LT O PHOEN I X PORTLAND SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SEATTL E SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. 
Perkins Coie LLP 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
3 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page2 
(Exhibit 4 to the application narrative) all provide evidence to address Policy 1(f), Policy 18 and 
Policy 20 of Washington County's Comprehensive Framework Plan. The Policies relate to 
economic development, land supply and appropriate plan designations. 
Interpreting Policy l(t) and Policy 20 
There is some overlap between Polices, but also significant distinctions. Accordingly, one must 
carefully read the precise text of each policy and interpret them so that they harmonize, rather 
than being at cross purposes. 
Policy 1 (f) requires a plan amendment applicant to demonstrate "a lack of appropriately 
designated suitable alternative sites within the vicinity for a proposed use" based upon size or 
location factors related to the "proposed use." By its terms, Policy 1(f) focuses on a proposed 
use (in this case, an approximately 15,000 square foot Walgreens and a second 3,000 square foot 
building pad, both with drive-thrus) rather than all uses permitted in the zone. 
As important as what is expressed in Policy 1(f) is what is not required by the Policy. Policy 1(f) 
does not specify what is considered a "lack" of suitable sites. While a possible interpretation 
could be that if a single alternative suitable site is available, there is not a "lack" of sites, so there 
is no basis for a plan amendment, that interpretation is inconsistent with Policy 20. Policy 20 
directs the County to: 
Help create a healthy climate for economic development by 
designating an adequate amount of serviced commercial and 
industrial land to ensure choice in the regional market place. 
The supply will be subject to period review to ensure that the 
economy is not harmed due to the fact that there is not enough 
land or that the size and location of remaining land does not meet 
market needs. 
Policy 20, Implementing Strategy (b). Emphasis added. 
Policy 1 (f) and Policy 20 must be interpreted so that they support one another. Policy 20 is 
focused on the needs of the market, and responding by providing choice in the market, which 
means more than a single site must be available for a proposed use. Accordingly, Policy l(f) 
cannot mean that so long as a single site is available for a proposed use, a plan amendment 
cannot be approved, because that interpretation does not provide choice in the regional market 
place or an adequate amount of commercial land. Instead, the lack of suitable sites in Policy l(f) 
must correlate to the requirement in Policy 20 that an adequate amount of commercial land be 
supplied to ensure market choice. Therefore, an applicant may comply with Policy 1(f) and 
Policy 20 by demonstrating that while there may be more than one suitable alternative site 
79648-0001/LEGAL24299981.2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
4 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page 3 
available, there is still an inadequate supply of commercial land (i.e. no market choice or unmet 
consumer demand). However, in this case, as discussed in multiple reports and below, there are 
no suitable alternative sites for the proposed use, which means that there is no choice in the 
regional market place. Moreover, there is significant market demand for the proposed use. 
Evidence in Support of Policy l(t), Policy 18 and Policy 20 
Policy l(t) 
The CRA Report and CRA Supplement provide the analysis of the suitability of alternative sites 
for the proposed use; the findings and conclusions in those reports are corroborated by the Hovee 
Supplement. 
The CRA Report addresses each ofthe elements of Policy 1 (f) by: 
• defining the "Proposed Use" as an approximately 15,000 square foot Walgreens and 
second approximately 3,000 sf building pad, both with drive-thrus; 
• defining the "Vicinity" as 2 miles from the site of the proposed plan amendment1; 
• defining six size and location factors2 that make a site suitable for the Proposed Use; 
and 
1 The "Vicinity" is different than the market or trade area for a Walgreens. The "Vicinity" was identified as 2 miles, 
which is the concentric circle drawn around the site and is the area in which alternative sites were analyzed to 
determine ifthey were suitable. One of the "location" suitability factors was the alternative site not within the 1.5 
mile market area of an existing Walgreens. 
2 The six size and location factors include: 
I) At least 1.5 miles away from an existing Walgreens. 
2) On the comer of an intersection of two major roadways. Strong preference for both streets being 
arterials, but will consider having one street a collector, so long as the other street is a principal arterial. "T" 
intersections do not work. 
3) When a second use/building pad is developed with a Walgreen's, like the Proposed Use, the minimum 
si te size is generally 1.5 acres, but fac tors such as access, cross-easements and internal circulation can result in a 
larger minimum site size. The maximum site size is approximately 3.0 acres, subject to market conditions, i.e. 
demand for additional retail space in the given trade area. 
79648-0001/LEGAL24299981.2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
5 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page4 
• identifying every CBD zoned parcel within the Vicinity of the site and analyzing if the 
parcels were suitable for the Proposed Use, based upon the size and location factors. 
Most of the size and location factors described in the CRA Report are self explanatory. 
However, County staff has requested more information about the 1.5 mile market or trade area 
for Walgreens and why the alternative sites north of Tualatin Valley Highway are unsuitable. 
The first location factor identified in the CRA Report was that the alternative site must be at least 
1.5 miles from an existing Walgreens. The 1.5 mile market area spacing between an existing 
Walgreens and a proposed new store is required by W algreens, and is consistent with the spacing 
of existing stores in the Washington County suburban market. The reasonableness of this market 
area is confirmed in the Hovee Supplement, which explains that a single 15,000 sf pharmacy can 
be supported by approximately 30,000 residents and that there are 39,776 residents within 1.5 
miles of the site. 
The last location factor identified in the CRA Report was that manmade facilities, such as high 
volume streets (principal arterials or freeways) or rail road tracks, can serve as a physical and/or 
psychological barrier for potential customers. As a result, the market or trade area for a proposed 
use generally does not cross a significant barrier because potential customers will travel further 
to avoid crossing a busy street or rail road track. The Hovee Supplement confirms this location 
factor, explaining that Tualatin Valley Highway "serves to bifurcate the day-to-day convenience 
retail market for the Aloha-Reedville community," "major roadways, such as TV Highway, can 
function as a barrier for uniform flow of traffic within a trade area. This is especially the case if 
the travel corridor is relatively congested and/or has a limited number of effective north/south 
highway crossings" and "the real and psychological market barrier posed by TV Highway is 
accentuated by the rail track which runs parallel to the highway on the south side." As a result of 
the barrier posed by TV Highway, when the Hovee Supplement analyzed the population and 
market area that could support the area's existing pharmacies plus the proposed Walgreens, the 
report excluded the area north of TV Highway. 
4) Flat and no wetlands on the building pad. 
5) Minimum dimensions of 185' x 260 ' (inside the setbacks and sidewalks). 
6) Our experience also demonstrates that extremely high volume streets, such as principal arterials or 
freeways, and rail road tracks can serve as a barrier, meaning that customers are reluctant to cross a road such as TV 
Highway in order to access a store because of the perceived inconvenience of navigating a busy street and/or passing 
over rail crossings. 
79648-0001/LEGAL24299981.2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
6 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page 5 
The CRA Report concluded that none of the 175 tax lots zoned CBD were suitable alternative 
sites for the proposed use. All but one parcel, the Farmington Mall, were deemed unsuitable 
because they were within the 1.5 mile trade area of an existing Walgreens and are north of TV 
Highway.3 The Farmington Mall is not a suitable alternative site because it does not have vacant 
space that could accommodate the proposed W algreens, and includes as a tenant a Rite Aid, who 
has the exclusive right to occupy that commercial center. 
The CRA Supplement provides a more refined analysis of two sites that are of interest to the 
County, the former Reo's Ribs and former Shell gas station at the intersection of SW 174th 
Avenue and TV Highway. Both sites were deemed unsuitable in the CRA Report because they 
are within 1. 5 miles of an existing Walgreens. As detailed in the CRA Supplement, neither site 
is a suitable alternative because they are both located north of TV Highway (the sixth factor, 
which is related to location), they are both too small (less than 1.5 acres, the third factor, which is 
related to size) and the intersection is unsuitable because it is an unsignalized "T" intersection 
with a local street that feeds a residential neighborhood (the second factor, which is related to 
location). 
Policy 18 
Policy 18 includes location criteria that guide the determination of appropriate plan designations 
for a particular site. As explained in the application narrative, while the location criteria suggests 
that a CBD zoned site should generally be between 2 and 5 miles from a commercial center, that 
is not a mandatory approval criterion. Instead, the "exact location" of CBD sites are determined 
by "the community planning process with consideration of existing land use patterns" and 
"market factors," which means market area, population density and sales leakage are all relevant. 
As described in more detail in response to Policy 20, the Aloha-Reedville area south of TV 
Highway is a "retail desert." The Hovee Supplement concludes that their analysis of sales 
leakage: 
"clearly indicates substantial need for added CBD-compatible 
[sites] to better serve the portion of the Aloha-Reedville 
community south of TV Highway. The locational criteria [in 
Policy 20) appropriately provide County discretion to consider 
3 The CRA Report depicts some CBD zoned parcels near the southwest quadrant of the intersection of SW !98th 
Avenue and SW Tualatin Valley Highway. That area is actually zoned Industrial (IN D). Even if the parcels were 
commercially zoned, they are directly across the street from the existing Walgreens at 19975 SW Tua latin Valley 
Highway. 
79648·0001/ LEGAL24299981.2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
7 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page 6 
closer spacing of CBD zones which appears especially warranted 
in this case within a neighborhood community that remains 
substantially underserved with retail services." 
Policy 20 
While Policy l(f) addresses the supply side of available sites, Policy 20 focuses on the demand 
for commercial sites and how the supply measures up to the demand. Policy 20 includes three 
implementing strategies and four aspirational policies goals. Compare Implementing Strategies 
("The County will ... ") to the policy goals ("It is the policy of Washington County to 
encourage ... "). Implementing Strategy (b) requires the County to ensure that there is an 
adequate amount of commercial land that is responsive to market needs, including market 
choice. Among the aspirational policies is " ... to encourage and participate in activities which 
strengthen the local economy through ... retention and expansion of existing businesses and 
industry." Policy 20(1 ). It is not a plan amendment proponent's obligation to ensure that every 
existing business in the County survive, regardless of the health of the corporate entity or their 
business model. However, the Hovee Supplement addresses both the existing need for additional 
commercially zone land and an analysis of the impact on existing businesses if additional 
commercial land is designated. 
The Hovee Supplement concludes that "the current supply of CBD and NC land in the Aloha-
Reedville community south of the TV Highway corridor does not comply with Policy 20 because 
there is an inadequate supply of land" and describes this area as a "retail desert." This is 
consistent with the statement in the CRA Report that "the Aloha-Reedville area, particularly 
south of Tualatin Valley Highway, is starved for quality commercial development." The 
evidence and analysis in support of these conclusions is based upon the large quantity of sales 
leakage from the Aloha-Reedville area south of TV Highway. Sales leakage occurs when 
commercial services are not provided in a market area that would support the services (based 
upon population), so customers are required to travel outside of the market area to have their 
needs met. The Hovee Supplement determined that the existing and expected population growth 
over 5 years within a 2 mile market area of the site (excluding residents north of TV Highway, 
which is a manmade barrier for the market area) creates sales leakage that "is great enough to 
warrant new retail development as proposed while still maintain the capability of existing 
competing businesses to remain viable." 
79648-0001/lEGAl24299981.2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
8 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page7 
Other Considerations 
Economic Impact of Proposed Use 
The Hovee Report is an analysis of the economic impact of the planned development, which is 
an approximately $8.7 million project that will generate new construction activity and, when 
completed, will generate employment and payroll for area residents together will added tax 
revenue to the state and local jurisdictions. The economic impact, including direct, indirect and 
economic multiplier effects are estimated to be: 
• One Time Construction Benefits - Direct and Economic Multiplier Effects that include: 
· o $18.9 million for on-site expenditures and indirect spending throughout the metro 
region associated with construction 
o 135 jobs regionally related on-site construction plus indirect jobs 
o A total multiplier impact of $6.7 in construction payroll, including both on-site 
construction and indirect jobs 
• On-going Operational Benefits- Direct and Economic Multiplier Effects that include: 
o On-site spending and indirect spending for a combined annual benefit of $21.8 
million 
o On-site employment and indirect employment that result in approximately 50 
jobs, with a total added payroll of$1.47 million 
• Fiscal Effects to State and Local Jurisdictions 
o Total property tax revenue from the completed project of approximately $270,300 
per year (approximately $90,7000 of which is distributed to multiple taxing 
jurisdictions in Washington County and regionally), as compared to $0 from the 
current tax exempt owner 
o An estimated $173,100 annually in added Oregon income tax 
o When calculated over a 20-year time frame, the net present value of the annual 
tax generated by the completed development is estimated at approximately $4.05 
million for all benefiting state and local jurisdictions combined. 
79648-0001/LEGAL24299981.2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
9 of 57 
Paul Schaefer 
August 1, 2012 
Page 8 
Proposed Drive-Thrus 
Drive-thrus are allowed in both the CBD and TOD zones. The CRA Report and Hovee 
Supplement both evaluate the need for drive-thrus at both the proposed pharmacy and second 
building pad. The Hovee Supplement concludes that based upon their analysis, "drive-thru 
capability is important if not essential for all the customer service oriented commercial functions 
being considered with the subject SW 185th Avenue and Farmington Road property." Both 
reports also conclude that the site is well suited for drive-thrus because of the highly traffic 
intersection which it is located. Finally, under separate cover, the project architect has detailed 
the TOD features that will be incorporated into the project so that it is attractive to users of all 
modes of transportation. 
Dana L. Krawczuk 
DLK:crl 
Enclosures 
cc: Tom Rocca, Seven Hills Properties, LLC (via email) (w/encs.) 
Eric Hovee, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC (via email) (w/encs.) 
Jeff Olson, CRA (via email) (w/encs.) 
Aisha Willits, Washington County (via email) (w/encs.) 
79648-0001/LEGAL24299981.2 
July 31, 2012 
Thomas Rocca 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
RE: Transportation Oriented District Code Summary for Proposed Plan Amendment (Case 
File 12-222-PA) Proposed Setback Explanation 
Dear Tom, 
You have asked us to elaborate on why we have designed the proposed Walgreens at SW 
185th Avenue and SW Farmington Road so that the pedestrian friendly vehicular parking 
and maneuvering area of the proposed pharmacy is located between the structure and the 
street. 
The proposed Walgreens' setback from the street is comparable to or less than nearby 
retail uses. However, unlike the nearby retail uses, the proposed Walgreens is oriented so 
that entry is towards the corner, which is inviting to pedestrians coming from either 
direction. The attractive corner orientation and proposed setback also allow for safe and 
convenient parking in close proximity to the entrance. Having easily accessible parking, 
including handicapped parking, is particularly important for a pharmacy, whose customers 
are frequently elderly or ill. 
When designing the site we explored many alternatives for building orientation and 
setbacks. The limiting factors on the site include the location of the access points (which 
are required by the County-approved Access Management Plan), the long and narrow 
configuration of the site, needing to have the Walgreens relate to both street frontages, 
accommodating truck loading, the lack of on street parking, and providing functional, safe 
and convenient parking for customers. While our design also accommodates a drive thru, 
the drive thru did not dictate the design of the site. If the building was not setback from 
the street, a drive thru could still be provided. 
The deciding factor for setting the building back from the street was providing accessible 
parking for customers . If the building was moved up to the lot line and the entry is 
oriented to the corner, pharmacy customers would need to travel a minimum of 200 feet 
from the nearest parking space (including handicapped spaces) to the building entrance. 
Many spaces would be substantially farther away. Once parked, customers would also be 
required to walk or navi.gate their wheelchair through the loading and drive thru areas in 
order to access the pharmacy, which is potentially hazardous. This scenario is contrary to 
many requirements in the code that require generally direct and uncircuitous accessways 
that ensure safe and convenient access for all modes of travel - vehicular, pedestrian, 
bicyclists and transit users. CDC 408-6, CDC 408-10.3, CDC 403-10.3 and CDC 413-7.3. 
Baysinger Partners Architecture 
1006 SE Grand Ave., Suite 300 
Portland, OR 97214 
: 503-546-1600 
503 -546-1601 
www.Bay;inge rPa rlners com 
E xhibit D 
12-222-PA 
11 of 57 
Based upon all of these considerations, we designed the project so that the building is 
setback from the street. While accommodating customer parking was important to the 
design, it is not a vehicle oriented project. Instead, several pedestrian oriented features 
are offered, such as a colonnade feature with rain protecting roofs and public plazas that 
create the street edge desired by the maximum TOD setback ordinance. Our conceptual 
designs were attached as Exhibit 3b to the application. The attached photographs are 
representative of the kinds of pavers, bollards and colonnades that are envisioned for the 
project. 
We understand that the County has inquired about why the Walgreens you recently built 
in Hillsboro on lOth and Baseline was able to be constructed without being setback from 
the street. From the outset, when comparing store designs, one must consider the unique 
characteristics of each site. The site of the proposed Walgreens at 185th and Farmington 
Road is substantially different in its geometry and access from the recently completed 
Hillsboro Walgreens at lOth and Baseline. The Hillsboro Walgreens' site was unique 
because it has an alley, which enabled us to put the loading dock along 10th with the entry 
off of Baseline and secondary access off of the alley. The Hillsboro Walgreens is not 
setback from the front lot line, but the store's entrance does not face the corner. Instead, 
the entrance is mid-block on the western edge of the building, abutting the parking lot. 
With this configuration, safe and convenient parking is provided adjacent to the front door 
with access directly off Baseline. The need for accessible parking is why we did not design 
the Hillsboro Walgreens so that front entrance was oriented to the corner. 
I look forward to sharing the site plan and preliminary design of the proposed urban 
landscape to help alleviate any concerns about the proposed building site plan and 
setbacks at the upcoming public hearing. 
1111am M. Ruecker, A -
Principal 
cc : File 
Dana Krawczuk - Perkins Coie 


Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
14 of 57 
COlVIlVIERCIAL 
REALTY 
ADVISOI~S 
:-,: 0 R <I II \ \ ' I' ' ' I . I. I. L 
July 31, 2012 
RE: Supplemental Market Analysis for Proposed Walgreens at SW 1851h Avenue & Farmington Rd 
Seven Hills Properties has applied to rezone the approximately 2.25 acre site at SW 185th Avenue and 
Farmington Road in Aloha, Oregon (the "Site") from R-15 to CBD. Seven Hills intends to develop the site 
with an approximately 15,000 sf Walgreens and second approximately 3,000 sf building pad, both with 
drive-thrus (the "Proposed Use"). The trade are for the Proposed Use was defined as 2 miles (the 
"Vicinity"). 
On February 29, 2012, our office provided an analysis of the lack of suitable alternative sites that are 
currently zoned CBD in the vicinity of the Site, why the Site is an appropriate location for the Proposed 
Use, and why the drive-thrus are needed in the market area . This memorandum supplements our 
February 29, 2012 report and provides supplemental analysis for a few sites identified by the County. 
Proposed Use Size and Location Requirements for a Site 
As explained in our February 29th report, the following are size and location characteristics that a site 
must include in order to be suitable for the Proposed Use: 
1) At least 1.5 miles away from an existing Walgreens. 
2) On the corner of an intersection of two major roadways. Strong preference for both streets 
being arterials, but will consider having one street a collector, so long as the other street is a principal 
arterial. "T" intersections do not work. 
3) When a second use/building pad is developed with a Walgreen's, like the Proposed Use, the 
minimum site size is generally 1.5 acres, but factors such as access, cross-easements and internal 
circulation can result in a larger minimum site size. The maximum site size is approximately 3.0 acres, 
subject to market condit ions, i.e . demand for additional retail space in the given trade area . 
4) Flat and no wetlands on the building pad . 
5) M inimum dimensions of 185' x 260' (inside the setbacks and sidewalks). 
6) Our experi ence also demonstrates that extremely high volume streets, such as principal 
arterials or freeways, and rail road tracks can serve as a barrier, mean ing that customers are reluctant to 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
15 of 57 
cross a road such as TV Highway in order to access a store because of the perceived inconvenience of 
navigating a busy street and/or passing over rail crossings. 
Supplemental Analysis of Particular CBD Zoned Properties in the Vicinity of the Site 
Our February 29th report analyzed 175 tax lots with CBD designations in the 2 mile vicinity of the Site. 
We started by applying the first size and locational requirement for the Site (that a site must be at least 
1.5 miles from an existing Walgreens), which eliminated almost all of the alternative sties as potential 
alternatives. In our February report, we recognized that many of the parcels that were excluded on the 
basis of proximity to an existing Walgreens also had other defects that were not elaborated upon in the 
lot by lot analysis, such as parcel size, location north of Tualatin Valley Highway, or not located on a busy 
enough intersection. Washington County has requested that we provide additional analysis for a few 
sites, which are detailed below. 
1. Former Reo's Ribs (17375 SW Tualatin Valley Highway) 
The former Reo's Ribs site is not a suitable alternative site for the Proposed Use because it does not 
have the following size and location requirements (numbers correlate with the list provided above): 
1) It is within 1.5 miles of an existing Walgreens. 
2) It is aT intersection without a light that includes a local street. Without a signal at SW 174th 
and TV Highway, given the speed of passing traffic, access is challenging and unsafe. Furthermore, SW 
174th is not a primary commercial artery-the local street heads directly into a residential 
neighborhood. 
3) It is less than 1. 5 acres. Relying upon County GIS maps and other online sources, it appears 
as if the Reo's Ribs site is comprised of at most four tax lots, 1 which total 57,065 square feet 
(approximately 1.3 acres) . 
6} It is north of TV Highway. Properties north of TV Highway are not in the same trade area (or 
Vicinity) as the Site because both TV Highway and the railroad track serve as a physical and psychological 
barrier for potential customers. 
2. Former Shell Gas Station (17455 SW Tualatin Valley Highway) 
The former Shell gas station site is not a suitable alternative site for the Proposed Use because it does 
not have the following size and location requirements (numbers correlate with the list provided above) : 
1 The former Reo's Rib site appears to consist of the following tax lots: 
Ref Parcel# 1S1070C 00800 I Parcel# R0049842, Lot Size: 0.13 AC (5,663 SF) 
Ref Parcel# 1S1070C 00801 I Parcel# R0049851, Lot Size: 0.41 AC (17,860 SF) 
Ref Parcel # 1S1070C 00700 I Parcel# R0049833, Lot Size: 0.46 AC (20,038 SF) 
Ref Parcel# 1S1070C 01000 I Parcel# R0049860, Lot Size: 0.31 AC (13,504 SF) 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
16 of 57 
1) It is within 1.5 miles of an existing Walgreens. 
2) It is aT intersection without a light that includes a local street. Without a signal at SW 174th 
and TV Highway, given the speed of passing traffic, access is challenging and unsafe. Furthermore, SW 
174th is not a primary commercial artery-the local street heads directly into a residential 
neighborhood. 
3) It is less than 1. 5 acres. Relying upon County GIS maps and other online sources, it appears 
as if the former Shell station site is comprised of at most two tax lots, 2 which total 25,264 square feet 
(approximately 0.6 acres). 
6) It is north of TV Highway. Properties north of TV Highway are not in the same trade area (or 
Vicinity) as the Site because both TV Highway and the railroad track serve as a physical and psychological 
barrier for potential customers. 
3. 17495 SW Farmington Road- Rite Aid 
The Farmington Mall is a multi-tenant shopping center that is anchored by a Bales Thriftway, and 
includes a Rite Aid . Standard business practice for multi-tenant centers such as Farmington Mall is the 
property owner will grant "exclusives" which protect a tenant's business by prohibiting a similar use 
from locating in the same center. For example, if Starbuck's leases a space in a shopping center it will 
require an exclusive so that the landlord doesn't lease the space at the other end of the strip 
development to Peet's. Sometimes these exclusives are recorded, but frequently the exclusives are in 
the lease, which are not recorded . This is the case for the Rite Aid at Farmington Mall. The standard 
form Rite Aid lease includes an exclusive use provision, but the exclusive is not recorded . 
Another reason that the Farmington Mall site is not suitable for the Proposed Use is the center is built 
out with existing businesses. There are no tenant spaces available that could accommodate an 
approximately 15,000 sf pharmacy. 
2 The Shell site appears to consist of the following tax lots: 
Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00201 I Parcel# R0048763, Lot Size: 0.34 AC (14,810 SF) . 
Ref Parcel# 1S107CD 00100 I Parcel# R0048754, Lot Size: 0.24 AC (10,454 SF) 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
17 of 57 
Conclusion 
This supplemental report further supports our previous conclusion that notwithstanding the number of 
tax lots with the appropriate zoning in the Vicinity of the Site, no alternative sites are available or 
suitable for the Proposed Use. 
Sincerely, 
~~aL 
Jeff Olson 
Commercial Realty Advisors NW, LLC 
733 SW 2"d Ave, Suite 200 
Portland, OR 97204 
P: 503-274-0211 x160 
79648-0001/LEGAL22961844.2 4 
Exhibit D 
~!~.Hovee 
& Company, LLC 
Economic and Development Services 
To: 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
MEMORANDUM 
Thomas J. Rocca 
Seven Hills Properties LLC 
Eric Hovee 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis- Washington County Retail Development 
April 2, 2012 
Seven Hills Properties LLC is planning the development of an approximately 17,820 square foot 
retail development on a 2.24 acre site at the southeast corner ofthe intersection of 185th Avenue 
and Farmington Road in Washington County. The approximate $8.7 million development will 
generate new construction activity and, when completed, will generate employment and payroll 
for area residents together with added tax revenue to state and local jurisdictions. 
At the request of Seven Hills Properties, the economic and development consulting firm E. D . 
Hovee & Compan y, LLC has prepared an analysis of the economic impacts ofthis planned 
development. 1 This analysis describes economic impacts in terms of one-time construction 
benefits, realized over the duration of construction. This is followed by assessment of on-going 
economic benefits over the life of the improvements on the property. 
Economic benefits are quantified for employment, payroll and total spending (or economic 
output). This analysi s also distinguishes between direct effects from on-site development plus 
indirect (including induced) or multiplier effects as experienced from other economic activity 
stimulated elsewhere in the metro region, primarily Washington County.2 
Tax benefits are estimated only for direct on-site activity - with primary revenues being property 
taxes accruing to Washington County and oth er local jurisdictions plus Tri-Met payroll taxes and 
State of Oregon personal and corporate income tax revenue. 
The remainder of thi s anal ys is is organized to cover the following topics: 
Anticipated Devel opment Program 
One-Time Constructi on Benefits 
On-Going Economic Benefits 
Fi scal Effects to State & Local Jurisdicti ons 
2408 Mai n Street • P.O . Box 225 • Vancouver. WA 98666 
(360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1 4 14 · Fax (360) 696-8453 
E-mai I: edhovee@edhovee.com 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
19 of 57 
ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
As currently planned, the development is anticipated to have two primary commercial uses- a 
14,820 square foot Walgreens pharmacy and an approximately 3,000 square foot fast food 
restaurant Anticipated value on completion is $8.7 million. 
The development will occur on an approximate 2.24 acre site comprising three tax parcels. Real 
market valuation as assessed by Washington County is $580,610- of which more than 75% is 
comprised of land value and less than 25% of the value of existing building improvements 
Anticipated Development Program - SW lSSth Avenue & Farmington Road 
Total Site 
Walgreens Fast Food Development Comments 
De~~lopment Cost 
l site Area (Acres) 2.24 Assemblage of three tax parcels ~v-- - v-t••_;.;.:.:. - "'"" v- ~- 0 "- • • .::.~.-~·.::;,;; 
~~~diJ:IgArea (Sq Ft) 
Total Development Cost 
"820 3,000 17,820 Per Seven Hills Prope1ties LLC 
' less Existing ImprcJVementl) 
j}\letj\dded~eaiProperty Value . i 
Changed Property Ratios 
, ]Re~I Property . .. 
Net Added Taxable Valuation (TAV) 
$8,700,000 Added real market vall]e (RMV) 1 
($142,000)' 
$8,558,000 
0.6550 Commercial property FY 2011-12 i 
$5,605,000 RMV x change ratio 
Source: Seven Hills Properties, LLC, Metro RLIS, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
Added assessed valuation, net of existing improvements to be removed from the property, is a 
net increase of more than $5.6 million to the tax base of unincorporated Washington County. 
Q,NE· TIME CONSTRUCTlON BENEFITS 
On-site construction is anticipated to occur over an approximate 8-month time period. Economic 
benefits are considered as a one-time economic benefit, largely coinciding with the time period 
of construction activity. 
One Time Construction Benefits- Direct & Economic Multiplier Effects 
Construction Effects Economic Benefits Economic 
(One Time) Direct Indirect Total Multiplier Comments 
Investment/ Spending 
Employment 
Payroll 
Average I lob 
$8,700,000 
65 
$3 ,548,000 
$54,600 
$10,179,000 
70 
$3,193,000 
$45,600 
Source: IMPLAN and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, l lC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
$18,879,000 
135 
$6,741 ,000 
$49,900 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washington County Reta il Development 
2.17 
2.04 
1.90 
Effects are typically 
limited to duration of 
construction 
Page 2 
Exhibit 0 
12-222-PA 
20 of 57 
As depicted by the chart on the foregoing page, these one-time construction benefits are 
calculated as including: 
• On-site expenditure of$8.7 million plus indirect spending throughout the metro region of 
an added $10.2 million- for a combined one-time spending benefit of$18.9 million. 
• On-site employment of approximately 65 jobs over the duration of construction plus 
indirect benefit of an added 70 jobs- for combined regional benefit of 135 jobs. 
• Direct construction payroll of$3 .5 million together with an indirect benefit of$3.2 
million elsewhere in the region- for total multiplier impact of$6.7 million (at an overall 
average wage of nearly $50,000 for on- and off-site employment). 
QN .. GOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS 
Once construction is completed and the retail spaces are occupied, the development will result in 
on-going economic benefits continuing over the duration of the building improvements and their 
business occupants. 
On-Going Operational Benefits - Direct & Economic Multiplier Effects 
Operations Effects Economic Benefits Economic 
(On-Going Annual Avg) Direct Indirect Total Multiplier Comments 
Annual Spending $12,660,000 $9,115,000 $21 ,775,000 1.72 Effects are on-going 
Employment 35 15 50 1.37 through the economic 
Annual Payroll $930,000 $539,000 $1,469,000 1.58 life ofthe on-site 
Average I Job $26,600 $35,900 $29,400 - development 
Source: Oregon Employment Departm ent. IMPLAN, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
These on-going economic benefits are estimated as including: 
• Annual spending at on-site businesses of close to an estimated $12.7 million per year plus 
indirect spending throughout the metro region of an added $9.1 million annually- for a 
combined annual spending benefit of $21 .8 million . 
• On-site employment of the pharmacy and fast food restaurant at a combined total of 
approximately 35 jobs plus indirect benefit of an added 15 jobs supported elsewhere- for 
combined region-wide benefit of approximately 50 jobs. 
• Direct payroll of$930,000 per year for employees on-site together with an indirect 
benefit of$539,000 in added annual payroll elsewhere in the region- for total multiplier 
impact of$1.47 million in added annual regional payroll. 
Average wages reflect a mi x of higher paid pharmacy and entry level fast food workers- both of 
which are important in a time period of continued unemployment especiall y among younger and 
part-time workers. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Ana lysis - Washing ton County Retai l Developmen t Page 3 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
21 of 57 
FISCAL EFFECTS TO STATE & l OCAL JURIS.DICTIONS 
Upon completion and occupancy of the retail development, on-going tax benefits will be realized 
from primary sources of property tax, Tri-Met payroll tax and Oregon personal and corporate 
income tax. Total tax revenue from these sources is estimated at approximately $270,300 per 
year. 
Annual Tax Benefits to Local & State Jurisdictions- From On-Site Development 
. Project 
Fee or Tax Revenue Category Rate Charged Applied To Total Comments 
N~T J\.O.DE[) (?_N~_QI!'!~.:~~y~_N.Y.~-~ JJ\!:1.~~~-~~~-~~L.......... ..J ........... . As addition to curre!:ltl!l.x~s 
Property Tax Revenues . $16.1927 i!$1,000 TAV $5,605,000 net value add 
' -- -· ............ ........ . ..... ..• -------- -~------~- ·--·~ --·"- ... . .. 
$90,700 2011-12 levy rates _____ _ 
Washington County $2.2484 
Wa~hington CoUJ1ty I,()L A,fter • $05900 
Washingto_n __ CO_UJ1ty}3()~ _ $0,_1}60
4 
1BeavertonSchool District $4.6930 j 
Bond SD #48 Beaverton $2.1673 : 
ESDNW Regional - ,$0.1538 : 
-· -·-- ._._, . . ·- ----- --- -·-.>-
Portland Community CoUege $0.2828 
Bond Portland Community CoUege $0.1632 
Bond Portland Community CoUege After $0. 1521 
Port of Portland $0.070 I 
Park Tualatin Hills 
Bond Tua latin Hills Parks & Rec 
Metropolitan! Service District (Metro) 
Bond Metro Service District 
Bond Metro Service After 
Bond TriMet 
Fire TV Fire & Rescue 
Fire TV Fire & Rescue LOL 
Bond Fire TV Fire & Rescue After 
Urban Road Maintena nc e 
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol 
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol LOL 
$1.3073 
$04315 
$0 0966 
$0. 1311 
$0.0877 
$0.0583 
$15252 
$0.2500 
$0. 1550 
$0.2456 
$0.6365 
$0.6112 
$12,600 
$3,300 
$800 
$26,300 
$12,100 
$900 
$1,600 
$900 
$900 
$400 
$7,300 
$2,400 
$500 
$700 
$500 
$300 
$8,500 
$1,400 
$900 
$1,400 
$3,600 
$3,400 
TriMet Payroll Tax 
Orego n Inco m e Tax 
0. 7018% rate $930,000 payro!Vyear $6,500 Rate effective January I, 20 12 
$ 173,100 
Personal Income Tax 8.0% average rate $930,000 payrolVyear $74,400 Below state average of 7.3% 
Corporate Income Tax 7.6% marginal rate $1,331 ,000 net income $98,700 Marginal rate>$250,000+$16,500 
Total Net Added Annual Revenues (at project completion in 2010-11 dollars) $270,300 
20 Year Net Present Value (NPV) 6.00% discount rate 20 year period I $4,054,000 I 
(of One 1ime+Ongoing Revenues) 3 00% inflation rate 
Note : All estimates are in 2012 doll ars -and rounded to the nearest $ 100. 
Source: Seven Hill s Properties, LLC, Washington County Tax Assessor, State of Oregon Department of 
Revenue, and E. D. Hovee & Co mpany, LLC 
As depicted by the chart above, components of this added revenue includes: 
• An estimated $90,700 per year in added tax revenue, distributed to multiple taxing 
jurisdictions in Washington County and regionally. 
• Approximately $6,500 per year in added Tri-Met payroll tax. 
ED. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washington County Retail Development Page 4 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
22 of 57 
• An estimated $173, I 00 annually in added Oregon income tax- allocated about 43% to 
personal income tax from employees and 57% to corporate income tax from on-site 
businesses. 
The tax revenue benefit is substantially greater when considered on a multi-year basis. 
Recognizing that a dollar of revenue received in 20 years is less than the value of a dollar 
received today, this multi-year benefit is calculated in terms of net present value (NPV) . This 
assumes a relatively conservative 6% annual discount rate coupled with 3% annual inflation in 
revenues. 
When calculated over a 20-year time frame, the NPV of this annual tax revenue stream is 
estimated at approximately $4.05 million for all benefiting state and local jurisdictions 
combined. 
E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC appreciates the opportunity to provide this economic impact 
overview on behalf of Seven Hills Properties LLC . We would be happy to address questions with 
regard to any aspect of this analysis. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis- Washington County Retai l Development Page 5 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
23 of 57 
END NOTES 
Information for this analysis has been compiled from sources generally deemed to be reliable. However, E. D. 
Hovee & Company, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of information obtained from third party sources. All 
information is subject to change without notice. The findings contained in this report are those of the author and 
should not be construed as representing the opinion of any other party without express approval , whether in 
whole or in part. 
Economic multiplier effects include indirect effects created as a result of business purchases from other 
businesses in the metro region together with induced effects of added household purchases. Multipliers are from 
the nationally recognized IMPLAN input-output model with data specific to the Portland metro region for 
2007/09. All estimates with this analysis are rounded. 
This economic impact analysis has been prepared for WinCo by the economic and development consulting firm 
E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC (EDH). Since 1984, E. D. Hovee has conducted market and feasibility studies, 
economic and fiscal impact analyses and related socioeconomic assessments for private, non-profit and public 
agency clients- with particular focus on the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington. 
Assessments cover a range of industrial , commercial office and retail , tourism/recreation, and public facility project 
assignments. Related project experience includes: 
Market trade area and impact assessments conducted directly for regional and national retail clients such as Fred 
Meyer, Walmart, Home Depot and WinCo. 
Market and feasibility assessment for real estate development clients including Gramor Development, Killian 
Pacific, Birtcher Properties, Opus Northwest, PGE, Schnitzer Investment, Hoyt Street Properties, Con-way, 
Grayco Resources, Realvest, Newland Northwest, and Rifer Development. 
Economic opportunity assessment and related market/feasibility studies have been conducted for Washington 
County and other communities in the county including the Cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard , and Forest 
Grove. 
Regionally, similar assessment have been conducted for Metro and in for other metro area citi es including, 
Portland, Wilsonville, Gresham and Vancouver- as well as in other Oregon communities such as Salem, 
Albany, Eugene, Medford , Astoria, Newport, Bend and Hood River. 
Economic and development consulting assignments elsewhere in the U.S . for the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation and National Main Street Center- together with consultation in citi es including St. Joseph 
(Missouri); Boise (Idaho); Ketchikan (Alaska); Vancouver, Tacoma and Spokane (Washington); Santa Cruz, 
Paso Robles and Stockton (California); Reno (Nevada); and San Antonio (Texas). 
Analysi s preparers are Eric Hovee (Principal) and Andrea Logue (Research Coordinator). 
E.D. Hovee & Company. LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washington County Retail Development . Page 6 
Exhibit D 
~l;r).Hovee 
& Company, LLC 
Economic and Development Services 
To: 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
MEMORANDUM 
Thomas J. Rocca 
Seven Hills Properties LLC 
Eric Hovee 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis- Washington County Retail Development 
April4, 2012 
Seven Hills Properties LLC is planning the development of an approximately 17,820 square foot 
retail development on a 2.24 acre site at the southeast corner of the intersection ofSW I 85th 
Avenue and Farmington Road in Washington County. The approximate $8.7 million 
development will generate new construction activity and, when completed, will generate 
employment and payroll for area residents together with added tax revenue to state and local 
jurisdictions. 
At the request of Seven Hills Properties, the economic and development consulting firm E. D. 
Hovee & Company, LLC has prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of this planned 
development. 1 This analysis describes economic impacts in terms of one-time construction 
benefits, realized over the duration of construction. This is followed by assessment of on-going 
economic benefits over the life of the improvements on the property. 
Economic benefits are quantified for employment, payroll and total spending (or economic 
output). This analysis also distinguishes between direct effects from on-site development plus 
indirect (including induced) or multiplier effects as experienced from other economic activity 
stimulated elsewhere in the metro region, primarily Washington County. 2 
Tax benefits are estimated only for direct on-site activity- with primary revenues being property 
taxes accruing to Washington County and other local jurisdictions plus Tri-Met payroll taxes and 
State of Oregon personal and corporate income tax revenue. 
The remainder of this anal ysis is organized to cover the following topics: 
Summary Findings 
Anticipated Development Program 
One-Time Construction Benefits 
On-Going Economic Benefits 
Fi scal Effects to State & Local Juri sdictions 
2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vanco uver, WA 98666 
(360) 696-98 70 • (503) 230-1414 ·Fax (360) 696-8453 
E-mail : cdhovee@edhovee.com 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
25 of 57 
SUMMARY fiNDINGS 
Development of an $8.7 million retail project can be expected to improve economic 
opportunities along the Farmington A venue corridor at SW 185th A venue, resulting in the 
following quantified economic and fiscal benefits: 
• An increase in $5.8 million in the taxable value lVfthe site on which property tax will be 
paid- due to the added taxable value of new commercial construction plus conversion of 
what has been the tax-exempt property back onto the Washington County tax roll. 
• One-time, up-front spending of an estimated $18.9 million realized directly and indirectly 
over the 8-month duration of project construction - together with an estimated 135 jobs 
and payroll of$6.7 million experienced both locally and regionally. 
• On-going economic benefits of $21.8 million annually in added spending- associated 
with 50 jobs and annual payroll of nearly $1.5 million generated directly and indirectly 
from the development over the multi-year duration of retail operations. 
• Annual tax benefits estimated at $273,800- including $94,200 in local property tax, 
$6,500 in Tri-Met payroll tax and $173,100 per year in Oregon personal and corporate 
income tax. Over a 20-year time period the net present value (NPV) of this tax revenue 
stream is conservatively estimated at an added $4.1 million in local, regional and state tax 
revenues. 
Whi le not quantified with this analysis, this retail investment can also be expected to serve as a 
catalyst for added development and enhancement to an Aloha community which has begun to 
show signs of physical and econom ic decline in recent years.3 A related issue identified by other 
analyses for Washington County indicates that the community suffers from gaps in existing 
services and amenit ies- a concern that is addressed with this initial project development. 
The remainder of this report provides a more detailed explanation of each of the findings 
outlined above. 
ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
As currently planned, the development is antic ipated to have two primary commercial uses- a 
14,820 square foot Walgreens pharmacy and an approximately 3,000 square foot fast food 
restaurant. Anticipated value on completion is $8.7 million. 
The development will occur on an approximate 2.24 acre site comprising three tax parcels. Real 
market valuation (RMV) as assessed by Washington County is $580,610- of which more than 
75% is comprised of land value and less than 25% of the value of existing building 
improvements. 
Current tax assessed valuation of the property is $276,730- equivalent to 48% ofRMV. 
However, the property currently is not taxable as it has been owned by Westside Community 
Church as a tax-exempt use. 
E.D. Hovee & Company. LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washing ton County Retail Development Page 2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
26 of 57 
Anticipated Development Program- SW 185th Avenue & Farmington Road 
Total Site 
Walgreens Fast Food Development Comments 
Development Cost 
Site Area (Acres) 
Building Area (Sq Ft) 
Tc:>._~:<! l Development Cost 
less_ Existing Improvements 
Net Added Real Property Value 
Changed Property Ratios 
Real Property 
NetAdded Taxable Valuation (TAV) 
14,820 3,000 
plus Land Value on Tax Roll estimated at 
Increase In Valuation Subject to Property Tax 
2.24 Assemblage of three tax parcels 
17,820 Per Seven Hills Properties LLC 
$8,700,000 Added real market value (RMV) 
($142,000) 
$8,558,000 Added real market value (RMV) 
0.6550 Commercial property FY 2011-12 
$5,605,000 New RMV x change ratio 
$210,000 Change from tax-exrnpt to taxable 
$5,815,000 Total incremental taxable value 
Source: Seven Hills Properties, LLC, Metro RLIS , and E . D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
Added assessed valuation, net of existing improvements to be removed from the property, is a 
net increase of more than $5.6 million to the tax base ofunincorporated Washington County. 
With conversion of the property from tax-exempt to taxable status, another approximately 
$210,000 of taxable assessed land value will be put back on the tax roll. This brings the total 
increase in assessed valuation subject to property tax at more than $5.8 million . 
ONE-TIME CONSTRUCTION BENEFITS 
On-site construction is anticipated to occur over an approximate 8-month time period. Economic 
benefits are considered as a one-time economic benefit, largely coinciding with the time period 
of construction activity. 
One Time Construction Benefits- Direct & Economic Multiplier Effects 
Construction Effects Economic Benefits Economic 
(One Time) Direct Indirect Total Multiplier Comments 
Investment/ Spending 
Employment 
Payroll 
$8,700,000 
65 
$3 ,548,000 
$54,600 
$ 10, 179,000 
70 
$3 ,193,000 
$45 ,600 
$ 18,879,000 
135 
$6,741 ,000 
$49,900 
2. 17 
2.04 
1. 90 
Effects are typica lly 
lim ited to duration of 
construction 
Average I Job 
Source: IMPLAN and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
As depicted by the chart on the foregoi ng page, these one-time constructi on benefits are 
calcul ated as including: 
• On-site expenditure of$8.7 million plus indirect spending throughout the metro region of 
an added $10.2 million- for a combined one-time spending benefit of$ 18 .9 milli on. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impac t Overview Analysis - Washing ton County Retai l Development Page 3 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
27 of 57 
• On-site employment of approximately 65 jobs over the duration of construction plus 
indirect benefit of an added 70 jobs- for combined regional benefit of 135 jobs. 
• Direct construction payroll of $3.5 million together with an indirect benefit of $3.2 
million elsewhere in the region- for total multiplier impact of $6.7 million (at an overall 
average wage of nearly $50,000 for on- and off-site employment). 
QN .. GOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS 
Once construction is completed and the retail spaces are occupied, the development will result in 
on-going economic benefits continuing over the duration of the building improvements and their 
business occupants. 
On-Going Operational Benefits - Direct & Economic Multiplier Effects 
Operations Effects Economic Benefits Economic 
(On-Going Annual Avg) Direct Indirect Total Multiplier Comments 
Annual SJ?ending $12,660,000 J $9,115,000 $21,775,000 1.72 Effects are on-going 
Employment 35 15 50 1.37 through the economic 
Annual Payroll $9~~00J+ $53~0Q.O $1 ,469,0Q_Q 1.58 life of the on-site 
,... 'Y -·~• ---·· ·- · - ~ 
Average I Job $26,600 $35,900 $29,400 - development 
Source: Oregon Employment Department, IMPLAN, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
These on-going economic benefits are estimated as including: 
• Annual spending at on-site businesses of close to an estimated $12.7 million per year plus 
indirect spending throughout the metro region of an added $9.1 million annually- for a 
combined annual spending benefit of$21.8 million. 
• On-site employment ofthe pharmacy and fast food restaurant at a combined total of 
approximately 35 jobs plus indirect benefit of an added 15 jobs supported elsewhere- for 
combined region-wide benefit of approximately 50 jobs. 
• Direct payroll of $930,000 per year for employees on-site together with an indirect 
benefit of$539,000 in added annual payroll elsewhere in the region- for total multiplier 
impact of $1.47 million in added annual regional payroll. 
Average wages reflect a broad mix ofhigher paid pharmacists with annual salaries of in a 
median range of$110,000+ together with mid-range technician/cashier and entry level fast food 
workers- all of which are important in a time period of continued unemployment especially 
among younger and part-time workers.4 
E.D. Hovee & Company, l lC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washington County Retai l Development Page 4 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
28 of 57 
fiSCAL EFFECTS TO STATE & LOCAL JURISDICTIONS 
Upon completion and occupancy of the retail development, on-going tax benefits will be realized 
from primary public revenue sources of property tax, Tri-Met payroll tax and Oregon personal 
and corporate income tax. Total tax revenue from these sources is estimated at approximately 
$273,800 per year. 
Annual Tax Benefits to local & State Jurisdictions- From On-Site Development 
• Project Fee or Tax Revenue Category Rate Charged Applied To Total Comments 
NET ADDED ONGOING-REVENUES (Annualized) 
Property Tox Revenues $16.1927 /$ 1,000 TAV $5,815,000 net va lue add 
Washington County 
Washington County LOL After 
Washington County Bond 
Beaverton School District 
Bond SD #48 Beaverton 
$2.2484 
$0.5900 
$0.1360 
$4 6930 
$2.1673 
$0. 1538 
$0.2828 
$0 1632 
$0.152 1 
$0.070 1 
$13073 
$04315 
$0 0966 
$0.1311 
$0 0877 
$0.0583 
$1.5252 
$0 2500 
$0.1550 
$0.2456 
$0 6365 
$0. 6112 
As addition to current taxes 
$94,200 @ 2011-12levy rates 
$13,100 
ESD NW Regional 
Portland Community College 
Bond Portland Community College 
Bond Portland Community College After 
Port of Portland 
Park Tualatin Hills 
Bond Tualatin Hills Parks & Rec 
Metropolitan! Service District (Metro) 
Bond Metro Service District 
Bond Metro Service After 
Bond TriMet 
Fire TV Fire & Rescue 
Fire TV Fire & Rescue LOL 
Bond Fire TV Fire & Rescue After 
Urban Road Maintenance 
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol 
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol LOL 
$3,400 
$800 
$27,300 
$ 1 ~,6_00 
$900 
$1 ,600 
$900 
$900 
$400 
$7,600 
$2,500 
$600 
$800 
$500 
$300 
$8,900 
$ 1,500 
$900 
$1 ,400 
$3,700 
$3,600 
TriMet Payroll Tax 0. 7018% rate $930,000 payro!Vyear $6,500 Rate effective January I, 2012 
Oregon Inc ome Tax $173,100 
Personal income Tax 8.0% ave rage rate $930,000 payro!Vyear $74,400 Below state average of 7.3% 
Corporate Income Tax 7.6% marginal rate $1 ,331 ,000 net income $98,700 Margina l rate>$250,000+$16.500 
Total Net Added Annual Revenues (at project completion in 2010-11 dollars) $273,800 
20 Year Net Present Value (NPV) 6 00% discount rate 20 year period I $4,107,000 I 
(of One Time+Ongoi ng Reven ues ) 3 00% inflation rate 
Note: All estimates are in 20 12 do ll ars and rounded to the nearest $ 100 . 
Source: Seven Hills Properties, LLC, Washington County Tax Assessor, State of Oregon Department of 
Revenue. and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
As depicted by the chart above, components of thi s added revenue includes: 
• An estimated $94,200 per year in added tax revenue from new on-site devel opment plus 
conversion to taxabl e status, distributed to multiple taxing jurisdictions in Washington 
County and reg ionall y. 
• Approximately $6,500 per year in added Tri -Met payro ll tax. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Econom ic Impact Overview Analysis - Washington County Re tai l Development Page 5 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
29 of 57 
• An estimated $173,100 annually in added Oregon income tax- allocated about 43% to 
personal income tax from employees and 57% to corporate income tax from on-site 
businesses. 
The tax revenue benefit is substantially greater when considered on a multi-year basis. 
Recognizing that a dollar of revenue received in 20 years is less than the value of a dollar 
received today, this multi-year benefit is calculated in terms of net present value (NPV). This 
analysis assumes a relatively conservative 6% annual discount rate coupled with 3% annual 
inflation in revenues. 
When calculated over a 20-year time frame, the NPV of this annual tax revenue stream is 
estimated at approximately $4.1 million for all benefiting state and local jurisdictions combined. 
E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC appreciates the opportunity to provide this economic impact 
overview on behalf of Seven Hills Properties LLC. We would be happy to address questions with 
regard to any aspect of this analysis. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impac t Overview Analysis- Washington County Retail Development Page 6 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
30 of 57 
END NOTES 
Information for this analysis has been compiled fi·om sources generally deemed to be reliable. However, E. D. 
Hovee & Company, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of information obtained fi·om third party sources. All 
information is subject to change without notice. The findings contained in this report are those of the author and 
should not be construed as representing the opinion of any other party without express approval, whether in 
whole or in part. 
Economic multiplier effects include indirect effects created as a result of business purchases from other 
businesses in the metro region together with induced effects of added household purchases. Multipliers are from 
the nationally recognized IMPLAN input-output model with data specific to the Portland metro region for 
2007/09. All estimates with this analysis are rounded. 
These issues are cited by the "Aloha Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan-Summary," included with 
the FY 2012-13 Unified Planning Work Program: Transportation Planning in the Portland/Vancouver 
Metropolitan Area, March 22, 2012. 
Oregon Employment Department Data indicates that the Washington I Multnomah County median annual wage 
for pharmacists was $1 12,757 as of20 II . Source is http://www.qualitvinfo.org/olmisj /OIC. 
This economic impact analysis has been prepared for WinCo by the economic and development consulting firm 
E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC (EDH) . Since 1984, E. D. Hovee has conducted market and feasibility studies. 
economic and fi scal impact analyses and related socioeconomic assessments for private, non-profit and public 
agency clients- with particular focus on the Paci fie Northwest states of Oregon and Washington. 
Assessments cover a range of industrial , commercial oftice and retail , tourism/recreation , and public facility project 
assignments. Related project experience includes: 
Market trade area and impact assessments conducted directly for regional and national retail clients such as Fred 
Meyer, Walmart, Home Depot and WinCo. 
Market and feasibility assessment for real estate development clients including Gramor Development, Killian 
Pacitic, Birtcher Properties, Opus Northwest, PGE, Schnitzer Investment, Hoyt Street Properties, Con-way, 
Grayco Resources, Realvest, Newland Northwest, and Rifer Development. 
Economic opportunity assessmen t and related market/feasibility studies have been conducted for Washington 
County and other communities in the county including the Cities of Beaverton, Hill sboro, Tigard, and Forest 
Grove. 
Regionally, similar assessmen t have been conducted for Metro and in for other metro area cities including, 
Portland, Wil sonville. Gresham and Vancouver - as well as in other Oregon communities such as Salem. 
Albany, Eugene, Medford , Astoria, Newport, Bend and Hood River. 
Economic and development consulting assignments elsewhere in the U.S. for the National Trust for Hi storic 
Preservat ion and Nati ona l Main Street Center - together with consultation in cities including St. Joseph 
(Missouri); Boise (Idaho) ; Ketchikan (Alaska); Vancouver, Tacoma and Spokane (Washington); Santa Cruz, 
Paso Robles and Stockton (California) ; Reno (Nevada); and San Antonio (Texas). 
Analysi s preparers are Eri c Hovee (Principal) and Andrea Logue (Research Coordinator). 
ED. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Economic Impact Overview Analysis - Washing ton County Retail Development Page 7 
Exhibit D 
~!~O.Hovee 
& Company, LLC 
Economic and Development Services 
MEMORANDUM 
To: 
From: 
Thomas J. Rocca, Seven Hills Properties LLC 
Eric Hovee 
Subject: 
Date: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development 
July 31,2012 
In April of this year, the economic and development consulting firm E. D. Hovee & Company, 
LLC prepared an economic impact analysis for an approximately 17,820 square foot retail 
development proposed on a 2.24-acre site at the southeast comer of SW I 85th Avenue and 
Farmington Road in Washington County. The development is currently planned for two primary 
commercial uses- a 14,820 square foot Walgreens pharmacy and a 3,000 square foot fast food 
restaurant or similar use, both with drive-thru capability. Anticipated value on completion is $8.7 
million. The site is proposed to be re-designated from R-15 to CBD zoning with transit oriented 
development elements that wou ld allow for the commercial uses as planned. 
At the request of Seven Hills Properties LLC, this memorandum provides a supplemental market 
analysis overview for the proposed project addressing questions related to: 1 
• Geographic market trade area - that could be most effectively served from the SW 
185th A venue and Farmington Road subject site. 
• Evaluation of retail sales potential - focused on reducing existing reta il leakage and 
serving anticipated 5-year population growth. 
• Relationship of the proposed development to Washington County Plan Policies - as 
related to Policy I (f) locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, Policy 18 
for specific plan designations, and Policy 20 support for urban area economy. 
• Need for drive-thru facilities- for the uses anticipated with site development. 
The remainder of this analysis is organized to cover the following topics: 
Summary Findings 
Market Trade Areas 
Retail Sales Potential 
Relationship to County Plan Polic ies 
Drive-Thru Need 
2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666 
(360) 696-9870 • (503) 230- 14 14 • Fax (360) 696-8453 
E-mail: edhovee@edhovee.com 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
32 of 57 
SUMMARY FINDINGS 
Principal findings from this market overview report are summarized, by question, as follows: 
• Market Trade Areas - were initially defined at alternative distances of 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 
miles from the subject SW 1851h and Farmington Road site, encompassing approximately 
40,000, 117,000 and 239,000 residents respectively. Further analysis suggested a 2.0-mile 
radius as most appropriate, but not extending north of the TV Highway which serves to 
bifurcate the day-to-day convenience retail market for the Aloha-Reedville community. 
• Retail Sales Potential - Demand is substantial for the Aloha-Reedville area which 
remains underserved for retail needed to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of local 
residents- especially for the trade areas at up to 1.5 and 3.0 miles from the subject site, 
with the demand being most acute south and west of the site, which has little retail 
development or opportunities for retail development. There is substantial sales leakage 
for health/personal care (including pharmacy) retail and for dining (including fast food 
service)- as well as for all retail combined. Sales leakage and unnecessarily long 
shopping trips could be reduced if more sites were made available for retail commercial 
uses located in closer proximity to the Aloha-Reedville community, particularly the 
portion of the community south ofthe Tualatin Valley (TV) Highway. Sales leakage is 
great enough to warrant new retail development as proposed while still maintaining the 
capability of existing competing businesses to remain viable. 
• Relationship to County Plan Policies - involving re-designation of the subject site 
from R- 15 residential to CBD commercial use appears appropriate, both to provide a 
suitable site with no other viable site alternatives currently identified and thereby better 
address retail commercial needs of the underserved Aloha-Reedville community. 
• Drive-Thru Need - appears to be critical for all of the customer-service oriented retail 
functions being considered with the subject 2.24-acre SW 1851h A venue and Farmington 
Road property. These uses also represent a good fit for the subject site due to location at a 
highly trafficked arterial intersection offering convenient access and visibility that is 
needed to readily provide greater diversity of local commercial retail service options in 
the immediate neighborhood area. Convenient and attractive access for pedestrians and 
other modes of transportation are also addressed by the transit oriented development 
standards that have proposed for the site. 
The remainder of this report provides a more detailed explanation for the findings noted above. 
MARKET TRADE AREAS 
Market trade areas depend upon the density and demographics of an area. Generally speaking, 
the population needed to support an approximately 15 ,000 square foot pharmacy is in the range 
of30,000 residents whi le a much smaller population base of as few as 750 residents is needed to 
serve an approximately 3,000 square foot restaurant. 
When retail uses are not provided at the density that is supportab le (i.e., an area is underserved, 
such as Aloha), then customers travel outside of the market area to have their needs met; a 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
33 of 57 
concept known as "leakage."When expanded or new stores enter an underserved market where 
sales leakage is experienced, existing retailers should not be appreciably affected to the extent 
that the new market entrant does not exceed the available remaining demand. 
Based upon the population density in the area, three alternative geographic trade areas centered 
on the subject development site were initially identified for purposes of this analysis. 
Alternative Market Trade Areas (and Populations) Served by Subject Site 
II 
:t 
1 
t 2}J ' 
~A ""='SW lru.1 rej 
(2010 Population) 
Source: ESRI and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
These initial trade area alternatives are as illustrated by the above map and briefly described as 
fo llows: 
• 1.5 miles - considered as serving neighborhood retail needs and preliminarily identified 
by Walgreens as within the range of a potentially appropriate trade area for the Aloha 
area of Washington County based on current population density.2 Note: A somewhat 
larger 2.0-mile radius represents the geography for which an alternative sites analysis for 
Policy 1, Implementing Measure (f)(2) was conducted. 
• 3.0 miles - representing the larger end of serving neighborhood retail center needs in an 
area with a lower density popu lation base or the smallest trade area for a community 
retail center which might include large format and/or specialty destination retail uses. 
This larger market area was also evaluated to determine the demand for the proposed uses 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 3 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
34 of 57 
as well as more generalized retail activity, and to evaluate ifthe proposed uses could be 
detrimental to existing similar businesses. 
• 4.5 miles- representing the mid to upper end of a trade area required for a substantial 
community retail center? This largest of the three market areas initially considered was 
also assessed to determine the demand for the proposed uses as well as more generalized 
retail activity, and to evaluate if the proposed uses could be detrimental to existing 
similar businesses. 
As is indicated by this trade area map, 2010 population within the most proximate trade area of 
1.5 miles is estimated at close to 40,000 residents. This is an area from which a significant 
portion of customers would typically be drawn for day-to-day convenience needs such as 
pharmacy, grocery and fast food purchases. From the subject site at SW 1851h and Farmington, 
this trade area extends north to about the TV Highway and west to about SW 2091h Avenue. 
Population increases to nearly 117,000 at a 3.0-mile distance- reaching north to about SW 
Walker Road. The subject site could also be expected to serve some portion of this population 
base, especially to the extent that this second ring is also underserved with existing retail. 
At a 4.5-mile ring, population reaches to about 239,000 residents. This more extensive trade area 
extends north to the Sunset Highway (U.S. 26) and east to beyond the Highway 217 corridor. 
As further described in the following section, the trade area most applicable for the proposed 
development was subsequently refined based on more detailed area travel patterns including 
consideration of location of existing retailers. 
RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL 
Potential added retail sales available to be served by new development can be distinguished 
between opportunities to: 
• Recapture existing sales leakage- which currently occurs as local residents travel outside 
the immediate trade area to make purchases elsewhere; and 
• Serve population growth anticipated in the near term - estimated for this analysis as the 
time period through 2015. 
Sales Leakage Recapture. Current sales leakage is depicted by the graphs on the following 
page for each of the trade areas considered with this market overview analysis. Sales leakage is 
shown for two specific categories of interest - health and personal care (including pharmacies) 
and for dining (including fast food restaurants) - as well as for all retail activity. 
As illustrated, more than one-half (52%) of resident generated demand for all retail activity 
within 1.5 miles of the proposed development site is spent outside this trade area - as residents 
travel elsewhere to shop. Sales leakage drops to about 25% of demand at 3.0 miles, then to 
virtually zero for all retail activities combined at 4.5 miles. In effect, residents who live in the 
immediate Aloha/Farmington area satisfy many of their retail needs by traveling further than 
would be needed if appropriate goods and services were available closer to home. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 4 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
35 of 57 
Retail Sales leakage as a % of Resident Trade Area Demand (201 0) 
1.5 Miles 3.0 Miles 4.5 M iles 
58% 54% 
27% 
-1% 
All Retail Health/Personal Dining All Retail Health/Personal Dining All Retail Health/Personal 
Care Care Core 
Source: ESRI and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. 
While this is the overall picture (for all retail activity combined), leakage patterns are more 
pronounced when considered specifically for health/personal care and dining activities: 
0% 
Dining 
• For health/personal care, sales leakage equates to 40% of demand at a 1.5-mile radius 
and actually increases to 48% of cumulative unmet demand for residents at 3.0 miles. 
Sales leakage is reduced to about 27% of resident demand at 4.5 miles with the presence 
of added pharmacy retailers in this outer ring; however, the actual volume of unmet 
demand actually increases somewhat due to the large added population to be served. 
• With dining activity, sales leakage at a 1.5-mile distance equates to 58% of resident 
need, meaning that the majority of resident demand must be met by traveling outside the 
immediate Aloha/Farmington area for dining purposes. At the 3.0-mile radius, leakage 
drops somewhat to 54%. At 4.5 miles (approaching the outskirts of Washington Square), 
sales leakage is essentially reduced to zero. However, this indicates substantial added 
travel time and unnecessary use of road capacity presently occurring for fast food and sit-
down dining that is not accommodated closer to home for Aloha residents. 
Near-Term Effects of Population Growth. Projected growth needs over the 5-year time 
horizon from 20 I 0-15 can be added to existing unmet demand estimated based on available 2010 
data. Over this period, resident population of the 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5-mile trade areas are all forecast 
by ESRI to experience growth by between 7-8% above 2010 population estimates.4 Whi le 
relatively modest, this population growth will support yet further retail demand across all 
merchandise categories- including health/personal care and dining. 
Refined Trade Area Analysis. Retail trade areas are often defined based on distance to a 
proposed site as with the concentric circles illustrated above. However, adjustments are often 
made in order to reflect area travel patterns including barriers and locations of existing retailers. 
Two such adjustments are noted for the subject site at SW 1851h Avenue and Farmington Road: 
I) The trade areas considered are not uniformly served based on locations of existing 
pharmacies. For example, neighborhoods situated north of TV Highway appear to be best 
served by existing pharmacies. Conversely, the portion of the trade area south ofTV 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washing ton County Retail Development Page 5 
Exhibit 0 
12-222-PA 
36 of 57 
Highway appears less well served by existing pharmacies- especially to the south and 
west of the subject property. 
2) Major roadways, such as TV Highway, can function as a barrier for uniform flow of 
traffic within a trade area. This is especially the case if the travel corridor is relatively 
congested and/or has a limited number of effective north/south highway crossings. 
The real and psychological market barrier posed by TV Highway is accentuated by the 
rail track which runs parallel to the highway on the south side. All four vicinity area 
pharmacies on TV Highway are located on the north side of the roadway, further 
illustrating the orientation of these stores more to the portion ofthe trade area located 
north than south in the direction ofthe proposed Farmington Road development. 
Given the relatively small size ofthe portion ofthe Walgreens' directed initial 1.5-mile trade 
area considered coupled with the location of existing pharmacies and TV Highway as an 
effective trade area boundary, a refined trade area has been defined for the subject property as 
en com passing: 
An approximately 2.0-mile concentric ring around the subject site, except that the portion 
of this 2.0-mile circle north of the TV Highway is excluded from the trade area most 
suited to the SW Farmington site. This adjusted trade area has a 2010 population 
estimated at 51,400 residents. This 2.0-mile trade area is consistent with what CRA 
evaluated in their February market study. 
Within this adjusted trade area, sales leakage is estimated to be 70% of resident generated 
demand for all retail. For pharmacy related retail, leakage is estimated at 51% of resident 
generated demand; leakage is at 77% for dining activities. In effect, rates of sales leakage 
are greater for this adjusted trade area than for all three of the 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 -mile rings 
initially considered - indicating the extent to which this southern portion of the Aloha-
Reedville community (south of the TV Highway corridor) functions as a retail desert. 
Combined Leakage Recapture & Growth Potential. Within this southern portion ofthe 
Aloha-Reedville trade area south of the TV Highway, the combination of recapturing existing 
sales leakage and supporting anticipated population growth through 2015 is estimated to support 
sustain an added 15,000 square feet of pharmacy space through 2015. Serving unmet needs 
within this adjusted Aloha-Reedville trade area is particularly important to the south and west of 
the subject site- as there are no identified pharmacy retailers serving this population base at 
present and no commercially zoned property that could be developed with a pharmacy. 
Of added note is that anticipated retail need actually increases to an estimated 31 ,000 square feet 
-at a full3.0-mile radius and to 41 ,000 square feet at up to 4 .5 miles from the subject site. In 
effect, while a 14,820 square foot Walgreens pharmacy can be expected to draw primarily from 
a core southern Aloha-Reedville trade area (with current 51% sales leakage), there is opportunity 
for substantial supplemental support at the 3.0-mile ring and further added potential at even the 
4.5-mile distance as well. 
The proposed Walgreens, as well as other existing pharmacies, have the opportunity to better 
serve portions of thi s remaining unmet need for the larger 3.0 to 4.5-mile trade areas. Over the 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC lor Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 6 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
37 of 57 
longer tenn, this remaining need might also be met by some combination of existing store 
expansion and new phannacy locations. 
Potential Aloha-Reedville demand is also strong for added local dining. With unmet dining 
demand indicated at more than 170,000 square feet for the adjusted Aloha-Reedville trade area 
through 2015, a 3,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru capability would serve just 
a portion of the local resident demand that is currently traveling elsewhere for out-of-home 
dining. The demand is most acute south and west of the site because no commercially zoned 
property could be developed with a fast food restaurant. 
As previously noted, the unmet need is even greater at a 3.0-mile distance, before lessening with 
more diverse food service options available at a 4.5-mile distance from the SW !85th and 
Fannington area. However, providing more dining options closer to home within the Aloha-
Reedville area reduces the need for out-of-direction travel and can better serve local objectives 
for a more livable community. 
RELATIONSHIP TO COUNTY PLAN POLICIES 
This discussion of retail market need is useful to address three pertinent policies ofthe 
Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area: 
• Policy l(f) locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan- including 
"demonstration of a lack of appropriately designated suitable alternative sites" in terms of 
suitability of site size and location for the proposed use. 
• Policy 18 support for appropriate plan designations for the commercial use-
especially in instances where it is possible that more than one plan or zone designation 
may be possible for a particular site. 
• Policy 20 support for urban area economy - for continued diversification of the 
economic base of Washington County with implementation to include creation of a 
"healthy climate for economic developmept by designating an adequate amount of 
serviced commercial and industrial land to ensure choice in the regional market place." 
This is a need to be met not just for the uses proposed with the subject site, but also for 
the full range of commercial uses allowed in the zone to meet all local market needs. 
In effect, Policy l(f) appears focused on the suitability ofthe current site inventory as it exists 
today for the proposed use while Policy 20 is aimed toward strengthening the local economy 
with "continued diversification" over a longer term planning horizon, considering the range of 
uses that are allowed in a zone. Policy 20 encourages market choice and avoiding harming the 
economy due to a lack of si tes that are responsive to market needs. Policy 18 also addresses 
locational criteria for development, but is especially important for the determination of which 
specific commercial plan and zone designation may be most appropriate to accommodate the 
uses being considered with the applicant's proposal. 
All three of these policy objectives appear to be well addressed by the Market Analysis for 
Proposed Walgreens at SW 1851h Avenue and Farmington RD - Aloha, OR 97007 as prepared by 
Commercial Realty Advisor Northwest, LLC (CRA), February 29, 2012. This market overview 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Reta il Development Page 7 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
38 of 57 
memorandum summarizes key findings ofthe CRA analys is, as related to the above noted 
Framework Plan policies. 
Policy 1 (f) - Lack of Suitable Alternative Sites. The CRA analysis identified six size and 
location characteristics that need to be met for a site to be suitable for the proposed use: 
1) 1.5 miles or more from an existing Walgreens pharmacy. 
2) On the corner of an intersection of two major roadways. 
3) Site size for a Walgreens pharmacy plus second building pad of an estimated 1.5-3.0 
acres- depending on such factors, as access, cross-easements and internal circulation. 
4) Flat ground with no on-site wetlands with the building pads. 
5) Minimum site dimensions of 185' by 260' - inside the setbacks and sidewalks. 
6) A voidance of sites with extremely high volume traffic or rail tracks- whether presenting 
real or perceived barriers to site access and egress. 
Our experience with commercial development both in and outside the Portland metro region 
supports the appropriateness of these criteria as identified by CRA. Being able to provide sites 
that meet the location and size needs of specific retailers is of even greater importance when 
there are few, if any, alternatives available to accommodate underserved retail needs as is the 
case for the Aloha-Reedville community south of the TV Highway corridor. 
With these criteria in mind, CRA identified 175 tax lots with the CBD zoned designation and 
located within two miles ofthe proposed subject Walgreens property. CBD designation is 
indicated by the CRA analysis as best matching the site and location needs of the proposed uses 
because this zone emphasizes commercial uses that require location on well traveled streets, 
ideally at an intersection, and offering good visibility and access. 
Despite the large number of tax parcels considered, CRA found that "no alternative sites are 
available or suitable" for the uses proposed. Based on the listing compiled, parcels considered 
were disqualified from consideration for the proposed uses for three location-specific reasons: 
• Proximity closer than 1.5 miles to an existing Walgreens - at 19975 SW Tualatin Valley 
Highway (l71 parcels) . 
• Beyond 1.5 miles but already developed with existing commercial use - specifically 
involving a competing pharmacy with lease that would exclude the proposed use (3 
parcels). 
• Beyond 1.5 miles but excluded due to pond/park/wetlands area (I parcel of3.09 acres). 
The CRA specified exclusions appear reasonable in the context of this specific market area and 
current retailer requirements. Location away from an existing store ofthe same franchise is 
important both to avoid undermining existing retail activity and to best address underserved 
portions of the market. Exclusion of existing properties with competing pharmacy use is 
important from a community perspective to maintain competitive alternatives and to assure net 
gain rather than displacement of existing retail. A voidance of other small environmentally 
constrained properties is important because site size and configuration would not be adequate to 
prov ide for a viable development accommodating the uses planned . 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 8 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
39 of 57 
Policy 18 - Plan Designations for Commercial Development. The current property is 
currently designated for R 15 residential use. This use is generally not viewed as appropriate at 
the intersection of two arterials unless "particular care is taken to minimize potential 
environmental impacts." The subject site represents the only quadrant ofthe SW 185th Avenue 
and Farmington Road intersection designated for residential uses; the three other quadrants are 
designated for commercial use. 
The current residential use is isolated from the residential neighborhood as all surrounding uses 
except on the immediate southern property boundary are now commercial. The size of the site is 
not large enough to provide effective buffering from the highway and adjoining use. The 
combination ofthese factors makes continued R15 designation not longer suitable for sustained 
or more intense residential use. 
There are several commercial designations that could be considered by Washington County for 
the property- Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Transit Oriented-Retail Commercial District 
(TO-RC); and Community Business (CBD). Each of these is briefly considered in tum: 
• Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is the commercial designation currently applied to the 
three non-residential quadrants of the SW 185th and Farmington Road intersection. 
However, this does not appear to be a viable designation for the subject property because 
the existing NC-zoned area already exceeds the 1 0-acres maximum currently allowed. 
Even ifthis maximum were not in effect, NC designation would not facilitate 
development of the proposed uses because the proposed pharmacy would exceed the 
10,000 square foot building size limit allowed by the zone. The proposed building of 
14,820 square feet is consistent with pharmacies currently being developed by Walgreens 
regionally and nationally. NC designation would effectively preclude development of the 
proposed pharmacy facility. 
• The Transit Oriented- Retail Commercial (TO-RC) designation is primarily aimed to 
facilitate transit oriented development (TOO) in proximity to light rail stations. This is 
not a factor for the subject site and the designation has not been applied to any sites south 
ofTV Highway. The site also is not designated through the Metro 2040 Growth Concept 
as a town center, main street or corridor which are the other designations that may be 
considered for TO-RC use. 
While TO-RC is not applicable to the subject property, it is intended that the proposed 
development will voluntarily incorporate TOO elements as conditions of CBD 
designation of the site. 
• Community Business (CBD) appears as the most appropriate designation of the subject 
site, both because the property meets the locational criteria for the designation and 
because this is the on ly commercial designation that readily would accommodate the uses 
proposed. The CBD designation also is consistent with locational criteria for being 
located at an arterial intersection and on a transit route. 
CBD zoning accommodates drive-thru facilities which are integral to the proposed 
development. As noted by the prior CRA market analysis, the "most important locational 
requirements for a commercial use permitted in the CBD zone is the site must be located 
on a busy street, ideally at an intersection, with good visibility and access." 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 9 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
40 of 57 
While the subject site is about ~ mile away from an existing CBD-zoned Farmington 
Mall, this overview market analysis clearly indicates substantial need for added CEO-
compatible to better serve the portion of the Aloha-Reedville community south ofTV 
Highway. The locational criteria appropriately provide County discretion to consider 
closer spacing ofCBD zones which appears especially warranted in this case within a 
neighborhood community that remains substantially underserved with retail services. 
Policy 20 - Land for Choice in the Regional Market Place. In the absence of existing 
suitable commercial sites found, a remaining question becomes one of finding alternative sites 
that could be appropriate and suitable to meet the demonstrated retail need. While the focus of 
much of this analysis is on the demand for the proposed uses including a Walgreens, Policy 20 
also addresses consideration of the full range of commercial use to meet a broader range of local 
commercial retail and service needs. 
Policy 20 is particularly concerned with avoiding the detrimental effects of an inadequate supply 
of commercial lands as needed to meet the market needs of the area. The policy also strives to 
encourage the retention and expansion of existing businesses. As demonstrated above, the 
Aloha/Farmington area south of the TV Highway is underserved by commercial uses 
(particularly pharmacy and dining options), which results in significant sales leakage and 
unnecessary resident travel for day-to-day convenience needs. 
The current supply ofCBD and NC land in the Aloha-Reedville community south ofthe TV 
Highway corridor does not comply with Policy 20 because there is an inadequate supply of land. 
Designating the site CBD is also consistent with the County's aspiration to encourage business 
retention because even if a portion ofthe current leakage is recaptured by on-site commercial 
development, remaining market demand will continue to adequately support existing businesses. 
The previously cited CRA report has noted: "The Aloha-Reedville area, particularly south of 
Tualatin Valley Highway, is starved for quality commercial development." This is an 
observation that is supported by our evaluation of existing and projected 5-year commercial 
retail demand - whether at 1.5, 3.0 or 4.5-mile distances from the subject proposed site. Rates of 
sales leakage area even higher for an adjusted 2.0-mile trade area defined as including only those 
residential areas south ofthe TV Highway corridor. 
While it would be possible to consider re-designating other properties in the Aloha-Reedville 
community for CBD use, the CRA report makes a clear case for the proposed site being 
especially well suited for this re-designation: 
• Three ofthe four quadrants ofthe SW I 85th and Farmington intersection are already 
developed with commercial uses appropriate for CBD designation - so that re-
designation of the 4th quadrant for CBD use would be clearly consistent with the existing 
pattern of use at this intersection location. As noted by the CRA analysis: "It is unusual to 
have only three sides of an arterial intersection developed with commercial uses, while 
leaving the fourth quadrant as residential." 
• The site is also a " rare example" of an arterial intersection on a transit route, making 
commercial use for the remaining quadrant of this intersection especially appealing - and 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Page 10 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
41 of 57 
as a means to better serve both county land use planning and regional transit accessibility 
objectives. 
Consistency with Washington County Framework Plan Policies. From this review, re-
designation ofthe subject site from R-15 residential to CBD comm~rcial use appears appropriate, 
as a means to provide a suitable site with no other alternatives currently identified and to better 
address retail commercial needs of the currently underserved Aloha-Reedville community-
especially the portion of the community south ofthe TV Highway corridor. 
DRIVE ... THRU NEED 
A final ~uestion addressed by this report is the need of the retail uses anticipated for the subject 
SW 185 and Farmington property to have on-site drive-thru facilities. The CRA analysis 
indicates that, in a suburban market area, drive-thru facilities are necessary for the uses as 
proposed to be "competitive and successful" - as currently allowed within the CBD zone. Our 
analysis supports this conclusion as critical for customer acceptance and business sustainability 
for the specific uses being considered. 
The importance of drive-thru business facilities to achieve customer support as cited by CRA is 
not limited to this metro area, but is consistent with our experience nationally. The drive-thru 
business format has an extensive history across the U.S., first pioneered in the 1930s with a 
drive-up window teller at the Grand National Bank in St. Louis, Missouri.5 Over the succeeding 
eight decades, drive-thru services have been expanded to a variety of additional types of retailing 
activity- most notably fast-food dining and, more recently, pharmacy retail. 
As noted, planned uses include a Walgreens pharmacy and fast food, or a similar high-customer 
use such as branch bank facility. These uses are all typically associated with drive-thru capability 
as integral to viable business operations. This is the case locally and for similar market locations 
both regionally and nationally. Consequently, this analysis focuses on the drive-thru needs of 
each of these three types of commercial use currently considered. 
Pharmacy. A Walgreens pharmacy represents the lead or anchor tenant for the proposed 
development. In recent years, drive-thru facilities have become increasingly important to meet 
customer needs for convenient service, especially prescription drop-off and pick-up. 
From the company's inception, Walgreens has emphasized its role as an industry innovator with 
"pioneering focus on customer service and an array of product offerings unmatched by any other 
drugstore." The company' s web site notes that the first freestanding store with a drive-thru 
pharmacy opened in 1992. Providing this added customer service has resulted in "substantial 
sales increases and a company-wide business model shift."6 Most new Walgreens constructed 
since the mid-1990s have included a drive-thru pharmacy. Nationwide, more than 80% of all 
Walgreen stores currently offer this convenience. 
The other major national pharmacy serving that trade area of the subject site, Rite Aid, has a 
similar dependence on drive-thru pharmacies for its stand-alone facilities. Across the U.S., 60% 
of Rite Aid pharmacies are in freestanding locations, and now a majority (51%) of Rite Aid 
stores include a drive-thru pharmacy.7 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washing ton County Retail Development Page 11 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
42 of 57 
There is currently only one pharmacy, a Rite Aid store, located within the most immediate 1.5-
mile trade area served by the subject site (or the portion of a 2.0-mile trade area south ofTV 
Highway). Located within the Farmington Mall strip center, this pharmacy does not have a drive-
thru. In effect, there are no pharmacies at present that offer the customer convenience of a drive-
thru within the immediate Aloha-Reedville area south ofTV Highway at present. 
Within a larger 4.5-mile radius are located 9 pharmacies, including 3 Walgreens, 5 Rite Aid 
pharmacies,-and the independent Beaverton Pharmacy. Five of these 9 pharmacies have drive-
thru facilities, inc luding all 3 Walgreens and 2 Rite Aids. 
In summary, drive-thru facilities have become of increased importance in recent years, to better 
meet customer needs for convenient prescription drop-off and pick-up. Provision of this 
customer convenience is important to pharmacy business sustainability and as a means to best 
meet resident needs for both routine and critical prescription services. 
Fast Food Service. With development as is presently planned, the second on-s ite use is 
anticipated to most likely be a fast food restaurant. This is an industry that is continuing to 
experience continued sales growth, even through a period of more constrained overall economic 
growth . Except for high density/urban core locations, fast food restaurants are generally highly 
dependent on drive-thru facilities for customer service and business viability. 
As cited by the national quick service restaurant publication QSR, "drive-thru is the order 
method of choice at hamburger, Mexican, and chicken fast food restaurants ."8 Relative shares of 
customer visits accommodated by drive-thru facilities are noted as follows: 
• Hamburger fast-food restaurants- drive-thru accounts for 57% of fast food hamburger 
visits, compared to 17% for carryout and 27% for eating on premise. 
• Mexican fast food -shares are 40% drive-thru, 26% carryout and 34% on-premise. 
• Chicken fast food - 38% drive-thru, 36% carryout and 25% on-premise. 
Banking. As an alternative to fast food service, a branch banking use for the SW 1851h and 
Farmington Road property may also be considered . While the banking and financ ial services 
industry is go ing through a period of rapid change, drive-thru banking remains integral to 
phys ical bricks-and-mortar stand-alone banking facilities outside of urban core areas.9 
Consistent with trends being experienced across the U.S. and globa lly, banking institutions are 
increas ingly looking to right-size and upgrade their presence within the trade area served by the 
subj ect property, as well as elsewhere th roughout the metro region. Dri ve-thru capability can be 
expected to remain of critica l importance for stand-alone branch bank fac ilities. 
At present, out of 54 banking facilities located within 4.5 miles of the subject site, a majority 
fi gure of 3 1 banking fac ilities are at stand-alone sites. Of the 31 stand-a lone bank branches, 27 
(or more than 85%) offer drive-thru capability as a market-responsive customer service . Thi s 
indicates the continued critical importance of drive-thru fac ilities fo r competiti ve banking 
services. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hi/Is Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washing ton County Retail Developmen t Page 12 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
43 of 57 
Summary Drive-Thru Need. As this analysis indicates, drive-thru capability is important if 
not essential for all of the customer service oriented commercial functions being considered with 
the subject SW I 85th Avenue and Farmington Road property. These uses also represent a good 
fit for the subject site due to location at a highly trafficked arterial intersection and ability to 
better serve as yet unmet trade area retail needs. 
E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC appreciates the opportunity to provide this retail market overview 
analysis on behalf of Seven Hills Properties LLC. We would be happy to address questions with 
regard to any aspect of this report. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development Pagel3 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
44 of 57 
END NOTES 
Information for this analysis has been compiled from sources generally deemed to be reliable. However, E. D. 
Hovee & Company, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of information obtained from third party sources. All 
information is subject to change without notice. The findings contained in this report are those of the author and 
should not be construed as representing the opinion of any other party without prior express approval , whether 
provided in whole or in part. 
The initial 1.5 mile market area for Walgreens is based upon input to CRA from a Walgreens Real Estate 
Manager, as explained in the CRA prepared Market Analysis for Proposed Walgreens at SW 1851h & Farmington 
Rd - Aloha, OR 97207, February 29, 2012. Current spacing of two existing stores in the vicinity of the subject 
site is 1.72 miles. The two existing stores are located at 19975 SW Tualatin Valley Highway (Aloha) and 6215 
SW Tualatin Valley Highway (Hillsboro). Given the location of existing pharmacy retail and the barrier posed by 
TV Highway, the trade area in our analysis and CRA's report has been adjusted to 2.0 miles to better serve areas 
without nearby pharmacy to the south and west but not extending north of the TV Highway corridor. 
Typical center sizing is drawn from the Urban Land Institute, Shopping Center Development Handbook, 1999. 
Neighborhood retail centers may serve a trade area population ranging anywhere from 30,000-100,000 persons, 
often with an urban population focused in as little as a 1-1 .5 mile trade area. Community centers may serve a 
trade area population ranging from I 00,000-450,000 persons and serving a 3-5+ mile trade area radius. 
Annualized growth is anticipated at rates averaging about 1.4-1 .5% per year for all three trade areas considered. 
Per Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, www.en.wikipedia.org. 
Per Walgreeens web site, www.walgreens.com. See specifically pertinent references at 
http://careers.walgreens.com/about-us/ innovation.aspx and 
http://news.walgreens.com/article display.cfm?article id=1046, as of July 17, 2012. 
Source is the Form 10-K Annual Report filing of the Rite Aid Corporation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission, for the fiscal year ended March 3, 20 I 2. 
Per QSR Magazine web-site, http ://www.gsrmagazine.com/news, Industry News, June 4, 2012. This article also 
notes that, as of20 11 , an estimated 12.4 billion visits were made through fast-food drive-thrus, representing an 
approximate 2% increase from the prior year. 
Stand-alone banks are those which have a distinct physical building address with staffed facilities . This 
definition excludes non-staffed ATMs and banking facilities located within or as part of another larger business 
footprint , as with grocery stores. Information is from Jones Lang LaSalle, Global Retail Banking: Key Trends 
and implications for Retail Banking Real Estate, 2012. 
This retail market analysis has been prepared for Seven Hills Properties LLC by the economic and development 
consulting finn E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC (EDH ). Since 1984, E. D. Hovee has conducted market and 
feasibility studies, economic and fiscal impact analyses for private, non-profit and public agency clients - with 
particular focu s on the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington . 
Related retail market assessments have been conducted directly for regional and national retail clients such as 
Fred Meyer, Safeway, Walmart and Home Depot - together with similar assessments for real estate development 
clients including Gramor Development, Killian Pacific, Birtcher Properties, Opus Northwest, PG E, Schnitzer 
Investment, Hoyt Street Properties, Con-way, Grayco Resources, Realvest, and Newland Northwest. The firm 
has al so conducted economic opportunity analysis (EOA) and related market/feasibility studies for other 
communities in th e metro region including Metro and the Cities of Beaverton, Portland, Hill sboro, Tigard, 
Wil sonville and Gresham. 
E.D. Hovee & Compa ny, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Market Overview for Washington Coun ty Retail Development Pagel4 
' 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
45 of 57 
Dana L. Krawczuk 
P.HONE: (503) 727-2036 
FAX: (503) 346-2036 
EMAIL: DKrawczuk@perkinscoie.com 
August 14, 2012 
VIA EMAIL 
Aisha Willits 
Washington County 
Department of Land Use and Transportation 
Room 350-14 
115 North First Avenue 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
Per~ Coie 
1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor 
Portland, OR 97209-4128 
PHONE, 503.727.2000 
FAlt 503-727.2222 
www.perkinscoie.com 
Re: Executive Summary and Response to Staff Report -Case file 12-222-P A 
Dear Aisha: 
Executive Summary 
The requested plan designation amendment will facilitate the development of an approximately 
15,000 square foot Walgreens and 3,000 square foot second building pad (likely a fast food 
restaurant), both with drive thrus. The applicant has offered to condition the plan amendment so 
that many transit oriented development criteria apply to the CBD site, which will ensure that the 
development on site will encourage pedestrians and transit use, while also providing convenient 
access by vehicle. There are no traffic issues associated with the proposal, and an Access 
Management Plan has been approved for the site. The applicant has done considerable outreach 
in the community, and has enjoyed wide support from the business and local community. We 
are not aware of any opposition to the project. Our economist has estimated the significant 
economic impact of the proposed development, which includes one time construction benefits of 
$18.9 million in spending and the creation of 135 jobs with $6.7 million in payroll and on-going 
annual operational benefits of$21.8 million in spending and 50 new jobs with an a total added 
payroll of $1.4 7 million. 
The staff report is generally supportive of the request. However, staff raises potential issues with 
(a) three inter-related polices that address the supply of commercial property; and (b) policies 
addressing the County's capacity for residential units. Staff has offered the Planning 
79648-0001/LEGAL24403984.1 
ANCHORAGE BEIJ I NG BELLEVUE BOISE C H ICAGO DALLAS DENVER LOS ANGELES MADISON NEW YORK 
PA.LO A LTO PHOENIX PORTLAND SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C . 
Perkins Coie LLP 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
46 of 57 
Aisha Willits 
August 14, 2012 
Page 2 
Commission two alternative sets of findings - findings for denial based upon staffs historic 
interpretation of the criteria and findings for approval based upon the evidence offered in this 
application that support a market-influenced interpretation of the criteria. 
The issues before the Planning Commission boil down to how overlapping policies should be 
interpreted, and if each policy should be read in isolation, or if they should be read together so 
that they harmonize. As explained in our August 1, 2012letter, we encourage the Planning 
Commission to interpret Policy 1(f), Policy 18 and Policy 20 so that they support one another. 
Given Policy 20's emphasis on responding to market needs and providing market choice, Policy 
l(f) quite simply cannot mean that if a single alternative CBD zoned site is available, there is an 
adequate supply of commercial land so a request to re-designate property CBD must be denied. 
Similarly, the subjective locational suggestions in Policy 18 about the distance between 
commercial centers (2 to 5 miles) should not be applied rigidly as a reason to deny the requested 
re-designation, notwithstanding uncontested expert testimony that the Aloha-Reedville area is 
underserved for a broad range of retail development. 
A considerable amount of expert testimony and evidence has been offered in support of the 
application. To facilitate the Planning Commission's review, below we have provided a 
summary of the outstanding policy and issues, and our responses. 
Additional Evidence 
In response to the staff report for the August 15th hearing, Seven Hills Properties, LLC offers the 
following supplemental analysis and evidence in support of the pending proposed plan 
amendment referenced above: 
• Suitability of Alternative Sites for the Proposed Use and Unsuitability of Site for 
Residential Development Under the R-15 Zone, August 14, 2012, by Seven Hills 
Properties (the "Applicant's Response"); and 
• Response to Washington County Staff Report, August 14,2012, by E.D. Hovee & 
Company, LLC (the "Hovee Response") 
Please include this letter and the attachments in the record for the above referenced case. 
Suitability of Alternative Sites 
Staffs primary concern with our analysis of the suitability of alternative sites for the proposed 
use (required by Policy 1 (f)) is the reliance on market based "location" factors, including that a 
site must be at least 1.5 miles from an existing Walgreens and south of TV Highway (the so 
called "trade area"). Policy 1 (f) limits the factors relied upon for determining suitability of the 
79648-0001/ LEGAL24403984.1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
47 of 57 
Aisha Willits 
August 14, 2012 
Page 3 
alternative sites to location or size. A voiding the trade area of an existing Walgreens is a 
iegitimate locational factor, as confirmed by the project's economist. No contradicting evidence 
has been offered. Accordingly, the location factors cited by the applicant should be relied upon, 
and the conclusion that there are no suitable alternative sites available should be adopted. 
Even absent the trade area-based location factor, the applicant (who is an experienced site 
selector and developer) has offered expert testimony from an economist and broker that details 
why there are no suitable alterative sites available for the proposed use. The four sites discussed 
in the staff report are unsuitable because they are not located at a 4-way intersection with enough 
traffic volume to support the proposed use. 
Market Factors and Need for CBD Land 
Policy 18 requires that the location of CBD sites should be guided by market factors. Policy 20 
focuses on ensuring that there is an adequate amount of commercial land to provide for market 
choice, while simultaneously encouraging the retention of existing businesses. In response to 
Policies 18 and 20, the project's economist analyzed a number of concentric trade areas and 
roughly correlated the population of those areas to general assumptions about the population 
needed to support an additional pharmacy. It is not a precise equation. Instead, whether or not 
trade area can support an additional retail use depends upon realistic market factors, such as 
travel patterns and perceived convenience. Therefore, "sales leakeage" is a better predictor of 
market need than a population analysis. Based upon the "substantial" sales leakage, the 
economist concluded that in addition to the existing stand alone pharmacies and pharmacies in 
grocery stores within and near the 2 mile market area of the site, "there is market capacity to 
support an added 15,000 square feet to meet the pharmacy needs of the immediate 2.0 mile trade 
area." 
The deficiency trend continues as one goes farther from the site- i.e., there is the need for two 
additional15,000 sf pharmacies 3.0 miles from the site, and a third pharmacy within 4.5 miles 
from the site. The "substantially underserved" Aloha-Reedville market area contributed to the 
economist's conclusion that "there is more than ample market need to accommodate added 
pharmacy retail without negatively impacting existing pharmacies." 
No contrary evidence has been offered and the methodology of the economist's market analysis 
has not been challenged. 
Distance Between Commercial Centers 
Policy 18 includes characteristics and location criteria that are guidelines on the appropriate plan 
designation for a site. Policy 18 notes that the exact location of CBD sites should be determined 
by market factors, considering existing land use patterns, and suggests that commercial centers 
79648-0001/LEGAL24403984.1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
48 of 57 
Aisha Willits 
August 14, 2012 
Page4 
should generally be located between 2 and 5 miles apart. "Commercial centers" are not defined. 
Staff notes that historically a proposed CBD site has been required to be at least 2 miles from a 
commercial center in order to avoid an overabundance of commercial uses in a concentrated 
area. Because the CBD-zoned Farmington Mall is approximately 0.25 miles from the site and 
staffs belief that there are suitable alternative CBD sites in the area, staff suggested that the 
requested plan amendment should be denied. 
We have offered two alternative interpretations. First, regardless of the distance between 
commercial centers, the evidence supporting the application demonstrates that there is a deficit 
of commercially zoned land in the Aloha-Reedville area. Therefore, rather than relying on the 
"general rule of thumb" about separation of commercial centers, the site and area specific 
detailed analysis is more persuasive and reliable. In the alternative, the subject site is the only 
quadrant of the intersection of SW 185th and SW Farmington Road that is not commercially 
designated. The existing commercial development at this intersection is a "commercial center" 
and the proposed designation is simply an expansion of it. Accordingly, the general guidelines 
for locating a new commercial center are inapplicable. 
Residential Capacity 
A few County Policies and other regulations related to the supply of residential land describe the 
need to maintain the County's housing capacity. OAR 660-007, Metro Title 1, and Policies 21, 
22 and 23. Staff notes that since the County first started tracking its supply of housing units and 
mix of multi-family and single family units, the number of housing units has increased, 
particularly multi-family. Therefore, staff is not concerned about the potential loss of27 units 
(the minimum density under the site's R-15 designation) ifthe site is developed commercially. 
While we agree with staffs conclusion that the cited criteria are satisfied, we think it is important 
to note that all of the criteria regulate the residential "capacity" of a site's zoning (i.e., the range 
of units that is allowed under a particular zone), not what is actually built. 
Very truly yours, 
~~(/ 
Dana L. Krawczuk 
DLK:crl 
Enclosures 
cc: Tom Rocca, Seven Hills Properties, LLC (via email) (w/encs.) 
Eric Hovee, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC (via email) (w/encs.) 
Jeff Olson, CRA (via email) (w/encs.) 
79648-0001/ LEGAL24403984.1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
49 of 57 A. 
SEVEN HILLS 
J> Ji 0 f t # t 
August 14, 2012 
Washington County 
Department of Land Use and Transportation 
Room 350-14 
115 North J:irst Avenue 
Hillsboro, OR 91124 
E S 
RE: Suitability of Alternative Sites for the Proposed Use and Unsuitability of Site for Residential 
Development Under the R-15 Zone- Response to Casefile No. 12-222-PA Staff Report forthe 
August 15, 2012 Pl~nning Commission Hearing; 
Dear Planning Commission and Staff; 
Seven Hills Properties LLC as Applicant appreciates this opportunity to provide supplemental 
evidence in .support ofthe pending proposed plan amendment that will be heard on August 15, 
2012 . 
I. Suitability of Alternative Sites for Proposed Use 
Enclosed please find an additiOnal report that address concerns cited in the Staff Report. 
• ''Hovee Response" dated August 10, 2012, by E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, Memorandum 
Subject: Response to Washington County Staff Report Cosefile No 12-222 PA 
Additionally, we offer the following findings in response to Washington County Comprehensive 
Framework Plan for the Urban Area, Policy 1.f(2) with specific regard to your discretionary decision 
that the proponent has demonstrated the following: 
2. A lack of appropriately designated suitable alternative sites within the vicinity for a 
proposed use. Factors in determining the suitability of the alternative sites are 
limited to one of the following: 
a) Size; suitabil ity of the size of the alternative sites to accommodate the proposed use; or 
b) Location: suitability of the location of the alternative sites to permit the proposed use. 
Both location and size factors eliminate the possibility of the (4) alternative sites described in the 
August 151h Staff Report. The previously submitted expert testimony provided by Commercial Realty 
Advisors Northwest, LLC and E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC identified six size or location factors that 
were relied upon to determine if an alterative site was suitable for the proposed use. Staff has 
rejected the trade area based locational factors- that a site must be at least 1.5 miles away from an 
existing Walgreen's and must be located south of TV Highway, a principal arterial that has a rail road 
88 Perry Street Su ite 800, San Francisco, CA 94107 
79648-0001/LEG/\L24396454.1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
50 of 57 
track along the southern edge, because the manmade improvements serve as a barrier that 
customers are reluctant to cross. We understand that the basis for staff's opinion is that historically 
staff has not considered market based size and location criteria. Respectfully, trade and market 
areas are critical to the viability of any commercial site, and is a "location" based factor as 
contemplated by Policy 1.f(d), as demonstrated by the expert testimony offered in support of our 
application. Please refer to Supplemental Memorandum dated August 10, 2012 from E. D. Hovee & 
Company that demonstrates the market analysis conclusion that pharmacies located north of TV 
Highway are effectively serving a different market area and therefore should not be considered as 
addressing Aloha-Reedville needs south of this highway corridor. Additionally, the Applicant has 
previously submitted market analysis provided by Commercial Realty Advisors Northwest LLC (CRA) 
providing evidentiary support for their expert opinion that there is a lack of CBD zoned alternative 
sites in the vicinity of the project site that are suitable for the proposed use and that Tualatin Valley 
Highway creates a real and present trade area delineation. 
Although trade area-based location factors are critical to identifying a suitable site, so that we are 
responsive to staff's concerns, we offer the analysis below to explain why one or more of the 
remaining factors are a basis for characterizing each of the four alternative sites identified by staff as 
unsuitable. To summarize, the remaining relevant size and location factors that have not been 
rejected by staff include: 
• The second factor (a location factor) that was previously identified explained that a site 
must be located at the corner of an intersection, with either both being arterials or one 
street being a collector so long as the other street is a principal arterial. "T" intersections do 
not work. 
• The third previously identified factor (a size factor) is a minimum site size of approximately 
1.5 acres and a maximum site size of approximately 3.0 acres. 
The six factors previously identified are consistent with the preliminary site selection and trade area 
analysis conducted by Seven Hills for potential sites . As each property, market and proposed use is 
unique, we also conduct a more nuanced and detailed analysis of potentially suitable sites. Below 
we explain some of these more refined filters, and how they confirm that none of the sites identified 
by staff are suitable alternatives. 
Alternative Site 1: 3140 SW 2091h Avenue 
Pre liminary six size and location factors : 
The site is at a ''T'' intersection of two collector streets, which fails the second factor. 
Additionally, the site is within 1.5 miles of an existing Walgreens and is north of TV Highway, which 
fails the first and sixth factors. 
Add it ional factors that contribute to unsuitab ility: 
The requ irement that a suitable site be on a particular classification of roadway is to ensure that 
there is adequate veh icular traffic to support the use. SW 209th Avenue and SW Alexander Street 
79648-0001/LEGAL24396454.1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
51 of 57 
are both classified as Collector roads. However, commercial uses such as a pharmacy require a 
minimum of 8,000 daily vehicular trips on all tangential roadways. In other words, commercial 
projects have minimum traffic thresholds in all four directions to be suitable. SW 2091h Avenue has 
an average daily traffic count of 5,953 trips and SW Alexander Street has an average daily traffic 
count of 2, 746 trips.1 Seven Hills eliminates a site like this due to its failure to meet minimum traffic 
counts and the lack of a fourth leg of the intersection (i.e., Alexander "T"s into 209th Avenue). 
This site is also unsuitable because it has visual barriers because it is located behind two developed 
commercial lots, 20745 SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (APN R0346432) and 20625 SW Tualatin Valley Hwy 
(APN R0346441). The four (4) commercial buildings that block views to the Alternative Site means 
that the lack of visibility eliminates this site as a possible viable alternate CBD zoned site. As noted 
on page 8 of the staff report, poor visibility is a location factor that has been relied upon historically 
to determine that a site is unsuitable for a proposed use. A corollary of the locational requirement 
that the use must be located on the corner of two arterials (or a principal arterial and a collector) is 
that the site must actually be visible from those roadways_ 
It is noted that this site is actually 2.5 miles from proposed project site if calculated based on 
vehicular road distance. Although Alternative 1 is 2 miles as the crow flies, vehicles would need to 
travel L3 miles north on 1851h and then L2 miles east on Tualatin Valley Hwy. 
Finally, we are skeptical that this site is actually available for commercial use given that it is occupied 
by a residential use and appears to be actively used for agriculture and livestock. 
Alternative Site 2: West side of SW 1741h Ave btwn SW Alexander St & Tualatin Valley Hwv 
(Former Shell Station) 
Alternative Site 3: East side of SW 1741h Ave btwn SW Alexander St & Tualatin Valley Hwv (Former 
Reo's Ribs) 
Preliminary six size and location factors : 
Both sites are at a "T" intersection (because southbound traffic is prohibited from crossing TV 
Highway) and SW 174th is characterized as a local street, not a collector or arterial roadway, which 
fails the second factor. 
The former Shell station site is large enough for the proposed use only if tax lot 700 is added to the 
site. In addition to the difficulty in aggregating multiple tax lots that are held in different ownership 
into a single site, it would be particularly difficult in this situation because the residentially 
developed tax lot 700 is occupied. 
Additionally, the sites are within 1.5 miles of an existing Walgreens and are north of TV Highway, 
which fails the first and sixth factors . 
Additional factors that contribute to unsuitability: 
1 Trip counts provided by Group Mackenzie, the transportation engineer for the project. 
79648-0001/LEGAL24396454. 1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
52 of 57 
Lack of adequate vehicular access presents a locational barrier. Tualatin Valley Highway is defined as 
a Freeway in the Staff Report. This intersection is not signalized, and Tualatin Highway received 
40,000 average daily trips, making this busy Freeway dangerous to turn left for eastbound traffic 
without a traffic light. 
Furthermore, SW 174th is defined as a Local Street, not a Collector or Arterial roadway. Local Streets 
such as 174th do not meet the project's minimum location requirement of 8,000 daily vehicular trips. 
Like many loca l streets, 174th does not connect to any other Arterial roads, but rather dead-ends in 
the neighborhood. 
Therefore both Alternative Sites 2 and 3 do not meet the Project's locational requirements of being 
tangential to at least 2 collector, preferably arterial, streets with minimum daily traffic in all four 
directions. 
Alternative Site 4: 17800 SW Kinnaman Road 
Preliminary six size and location factors: 
Th is site is not located at an intersection, so it fails to meet the second factor. Also, the 5.0 acre site 
is too large (the third factor) . 
Additionally, the site is within 1.5 miles of an existing Walgreens, which fails the first factor. 
Additional factors that contribute to unsuitability: 
This site was elim inated due to Rite Aid restrictions that prohibit competitive pharmaceuticals sales. 
Rite Aid is located on the tangential east property at 17405 SW Farmington Road . Accord ing the 
broker representing Alternative Site 4, the parcel would have to prohibit pharmaceutical sales due 
to a lease exclusive by Rite Aid that covers these properties. Inability to operate a drugstore 
eliminates this Alternative Site 4 for development. 
Furthermore, the owner of 17800 SW Kinnaman .is interested in ground lease only, so the property is 
not for sale. Not being able to purchase the property to obtain free and clear title eliminates this 
site as a possibility. 
The final reason that this site is unsuitable is the size of existing infrastructure. With an existing 
building size of 36,854 square feet, this site is cost prohibitive (by more than 2X) to purchase based 
on the a resa le value set by a recent appraisal that has identified the asking renta l rate and 
capita lization rate provided to Seven Hills by the property's representative listing agent . With such 
a high purchase price, it is financially prohibitive to either retrofit with multiple tenant improvement 
or to demolish and then build smaller, more appropriate sized retail buildings after a fee simple 
transaction. Consequently, this location was el iminated by the Applicant as too big in size of 
existing infrastructure to redevelop. 
79648-0001/LEGAL24396454.1 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
53 of 57 
II. Unsuitability of Site for Residential Development Under R-15 Zone 
Seven Hills analyzed this site for potential multifamily viability under the existing R -15 designation. 
We concluded that this site is not feasible for multifamily based on criteria established by our 
experience from developing over 1,000 units of residential units. The size and location of this site 
create physical constraints that increase construction costs and reduce market rents deeming a 
project not financially viable . First, the buildable area, after subtracting setbacks and parking 
requirements, leaves a remaining leasable square footage size that does not support the cost of new 
construction, especially given immediate-area rents of current vacancies at $0.85/ square foot-
$1.30/ square foot. Second, noise from the Collector streets causes both a construction cost 
increase to use building materials that mitigate noise, plus reduces potential rental income for all 
units that face the noisy streets in order to maintain occupancy. Third, the Westside Community 
Church cross- access easement for circulation to SW 185th Ave would bifurcate any multifamily 
project, thus increasing construction costs and reducing leasable square footage, further reducing 
the viability of a project. 
Ill. Conclusion 
Seven Hills uses its best professional analysis when choosing a site, and we hope to convey that an 
exhaustive market search is always conducted to ensure that a site is chosen for its highest and best 
use. Many additional filters are applied that eliminate sites, and we are available at any time to 
answer additional questions you may have about our site selection analysis. Our site selection 
process has a proven track record- we have successfully developed 35 Walgreens on the west coast 
and over 1,000 residential units. 
Best regards, 
/sf Tom Rocca 
Thomas J Rocca 
Seven Hills Properties LLC 
88 Perry Street, STE # 800 
: San Francisco, CA 94107 
D 415.247.7377 
c 415.505.4040 
F 415.247.7376 
Email trocca@sevenhillsprop.com 
79648-0001/LEGAL24396454.1 
Exhibit D 
~l~.Hovee 
& Company, LLC 
Economic and Development Services 
To: 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
MEMORANDUM 
Thomas J. Rocca, Seven Hills Properties LLC 
Eric Hovee 
Response to Washington County StaffReport 
Casefile No 12-222 PA (Seven Hills Properties, LLC) 
August 13, 2012 
This memorandum is intended to provide follow-up comments to the above referenced staff 
report for Planning Commission Hearing on August 15, 2012- related to our earlier July 31 
submittal of a Market Overview for Washington County Retail Development on behalf of Seven 
Hills Properties, LLC. Topics addressed by this follow-up are: 1) Trade area determination, 
2) Competitive effects to existing pharmacies, 3) CBD zone size and spacing, and 4) Use of 
market factors for alternative sites review. 
1) Trade Area Determination. As noted by the Staff Report discussion of location criteria 
for CBD designated sites : "The exact location of CBD sites should be jointly determined by 
market factors and the community planning Trade Area for Seven Hills Properties 
process with consideration of existing land use Proposed Development 
patterns." Our July 31 market overview analysis (2.0 Miles Bounded on North by TV Highway) 
was conducted with a focus on market factors 
that would pertain to commercial uses as 
planned by Seven Hills Properties, LLC. 
~~~ -"·---
~~:::-l ! 
As illustrated by the map to the right, the trade 
area used as the primary focus for this analysis 
was a 2-mile trade area bounded on the north by 
TV Highway. This determination was based 
after preliminary review of 1.5 , 3.0 and 4.5 mile 
trade areas and then adjusted based on reali stic 
market factors reflecting area travel patterns -
most specifically the barrier that the Tualatin 
Valley (TV) Highway places on travel for 
routine daily shopping needs between the 
northern and southern portions of the Aloha-
Reedville community. Source: ESRI and E. D. 1-! ovee & Co mpany, LLC. 
2408 Main Street• P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666 
(360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 ·Fax (360) 696-8453 
E-ma il : edhovee@ ed hovee.com 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
55 of 57 
While the area north of TV Highway is relatively well served by pharmacies, the portion of the 
Aloha-Reedville community located south of TV Highway currently has only one store (Rite 
Aid) that is primarily a pharmacy (and not embedded within a larger grocery store operation). 
Based on independent retail data from the national GIS/demographics firm ESRI as documented 
by our July 31 Market Overview report, there is market capacity to support an added 15,000 
square feet to meet the pharmacy needs of the immediate 2.0 mile trade area. This need is in 
addition to the sales represented by the only other existing primarily pharmacy store (Rite Aid) 
in the trade area. This need is also in addition to pharmacy related sales occurring as an 
ancillary activity within grocery stores (as with Bi-Mart)- which are reported as a separate retail 
activity and therefore not included in the 15,000 square foot need calculation. 
There is a second Rite Aid store located at the edge or just beyond the two mile distance at SW 
Murray and Allen (and therefore not included with the ESRI calculated 2-mile radius data). Most 
of the trade area readily accessed for this store is via travel on Murray and Allen (extending east 
from Murray) which is beyond a 2-mile radius from the proposed subject site. 
Even if this site were to be included in a 2-mile trade area, this area would still be underserved-
as defined by retail sales leakage. Looking at the totality of the alternative trade areas considered 
at up to 4.5 miles from the subject site, it is also clear that while store location decisions were 
made over time for a variety of reasons that may not match current ideal conditions, the 
pharmacy market for this Beaverton to Aloha area remains underserved across all alternative 
trade area geographies considered. This is demonstrated by pharmacy sales leakage as the most 
direct indicator of remaining market need . 
While acknowledging that the July market analysis reflects only needs south of TV Highway, the 
Staff Report nonetheless questions "whether the existing and projected population within the two 
mile radius can support a new 15,000 square foot Walgreens in addition to the existing 
Walgreens, Rite Aid stores and Bi-Mart within a two mile radius." The StaffReport does not 
address the market analysis conclusion that pharmacies located north of TV Highway are 
effectively serving a different customer market area and therefore should not be considered 
as addressing Aloha-Reedville needs south of this highway corridor. 1 
Our market conclusion is that the TV Highway is relatively congested, existing corridor 
pharmacies (all on the north side of the highway) are not easily accessed from the south due to 
limited north/south crossings, and that this barrier is further accentuated by the rail line running 
parallel to the highway on the south side. As is also noted, the second Rite Aid at SW Murray 
and Allen also primarily serves a market extending beyond the 2-m ile trade area. 
These are all realistic market location factors which have led Walgreens to conclude that the 
proposed Farmington Road site more effectively reaches the underserved portion of the Aloha-
Reedville community. In the absence of Staff comment or evidence to the contrary, it is proposed 
that the applicant analysis of relevant market trade area geographies be accepted as presented. 
2) Competitive Effects to Existing Pharmacy. ln practice, customer travel patterns and 
market trade areas often function differently on-the-ground than in theory. This is why the July 
market overview report considered pharmacy needs at several different levels. In addition to the 
E.D . Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Response to Washing ton County Staff Report- Casefile No 12-222 PA (Seven Hills Properties, LLC) Page 2 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
56 of 57 
2.0 mile trade area (bounded by TV Highway) deemed as most applicable, separate calculations 
of the degree to which resident needs are served by existing pharmacies were also considered at 
1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 mile distances from the subject site. 
For all of the alternative trade areas considered, it was concluded that there is substantial 
existing sales leakage, meaning that residents are traveling outside of their immediate 
neighborhoods to obtain substantial shares of their pharmacy needs. This conclusion is drawn 
from review ofESRI retail sales demand and supply data- as a mix of existing store sizes and 
locations. While a 1.5 mile ring alone (though underserved) is not fully adequate to support an 
added 15,000 square feet of pharmacy space, the market is adequate at 2.0 miles (even when the 
portion above TV Highway is not included within the most pertinent trade area) . 
At a 3.0 mile ring, there is a current deficiency oftwo added pharmacies of about 15,000 square 
feet each. Within 4.5 miles, the even more encompassing trade area is underserved by almost 
three pharmacies. As previously indicated, what is noteworthy about this analysis is that the 
pharmacy market appears to be underserved across all of the alternative market geographies 
considered- at up to 4.5 miles from the proposed subject site. This combined evidence 
conducted from multiple perspectives more definitively supports the conclusion of a pharmacy 
retail gap than would be the case with consideration of unique locational history and 
characteristics of any one specific trade area, considered solely on its own. 
In short, even when considered in the larger market context of other pharmacy alternatives and 
varied local consumer travel patterns, the Beaverton to Aloha-Reedville area appears 
substantially underserved to meet existing population and near term growth needs to 2015. While 
any new store inevitably introduces new competition into immediate and broader market, our 
analysis has demonstrated that there is more than ample market need to accommodate added 
pharmacy retail without negatively impacting existing pharmacies- but with room for added 
sales growth or business expansion by existing or other new store facilities. 
While raising questions about potential competitive effects, the StaffReport does not question 
the specifics of our market analysis which has been conducted from multiple trade area 
perspectives. In the absence of evidence that would support an alternative conclusion, it is 
proposed that the Planning Commission accept findings that an added pharmacy at the subject 
site would not create undue competitive effects for existing pharmacies nearby or even in the 
larger vicinity of up to 4.5 miles from the proposed development. 
3) CBD Size & Spacing. While Policy 18 does not definitively limit CBD spacing to less than 
two miles, the StaffReport indicates that this guideline has historically been applied to "avoid an 
overabundance of commercial uses in a concentrated area. " Looking beyond the needs of 
pharmacy alone, our July market report also indicated that the trade area is substantially 
underserved for a broad range of retail , especially for the portion ofthe Aloha-Reedville 
community that is south of the TV Highway corridor. 
While not a primary focus of our anal ysis, it is apparent that the approximately 26 acres of 
commercially developed CBD land situated about 0.25 miles from the subject proposed site is 
too small in size to meet local neighborhood needs for a broad range of commercial retail 
services. Rather than an overabundance of retail activity, this southern portion of the Aloha-
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Response to Washington County Staff Report- Casefile No 12-222 PA (Seven Hills Properties. LLC) Page 3 
.. 
Exhibit D 
12-222-PA 
57 of 57 
Reedville community remains underserved with CBD-related retail uses as exemplified by the 
applicant's proposal. As an under-retailed community, the Policy 18 distance guideline appears 
to be not applicable in this instance. Rather, more CBD designated land area is needed to more 
effectively serve local resident needs. 
In the alternative, the County could consider the existing commercial development at the other 
three quadrants ofthe intersection of I 85th and Farmington Road as a "commercial center," so 
amending the plan designation of the site simply completes the commercial center. Under this 
interpretation, the entire intersection would be a commercial center (similar to the nodes of 
commercially designated property along TV Highway), in which case, Policy 18's suggestion of 
a 2 to 5 mile separation between CBD designated commercial centers (i.e., distinct commercial 
clusters) is not applicable. 
4) Market Factors for Alternative Sites Review. The July Market Overview report 
supports the findings of the alternative sites analysis prepared by Commercial Realty Advisors 
Northwest (CRA) from a trade area perspective. The Staff Report indicates that: "Based upon 
past practice, staff does not support the applicant' s finding that the trade area of an existing store 
is the sole basis for eliminating potential alternative sites." However, the County's CBD zone 
location criteria explicitly recognize that site locations be determined by market factors as well 
as community planning and existing land use patterns. 
Whi le not the on ly location criterion indicated by CRA, based on our retail analysis experience 
we concur that proximity to existing pharmacies should be considered as a significant 
location factor in the alternative sites analys is. With all but one of the non-grocery pharmacies 
in 4.5 mi les ofthe subject site operated by either Walgreens or Rite Aid, it is of considerable 
importance to recogn ize location factors that are significant if not pivotal to investment decisions 
by existing viable business operators. Walgreens stated criterion of a minimum 1.5 mile distance 
between its stores logically should be accepted as indicated by the CRA report. 
Summary. Key observations ofthis supplemental memorandum support findings that: 
• The 2.0 mile trade area south of TV Highway represents an applicable trade area for the 
uses as proposed by the applicant- wi th substanti al existing sales leakage and therefore 
adequate local market support for an added pharmacy as planned by Walgreens. 
• Unmet needs of the trade area populations at di stances of up to 4.5 miles from the subject 
site coupled with anticipated population growth to 2015 provide more than adequate 
support for new pharmacies and expansion by existing operators without negatively 
affecting existing viable pharmacy operators. 
• The underserved portion of the Aloha-Reedvi ll e com munity south ofthe TV Highway 
warrants expansion of CBD zoned commercial activities, especially at locati ons 
consistent with the full range of applicable Washington County policies and regulations. 
• The Walgreens stated criterion of a minimu m 1.5 mile distance between its pharmacies 
should be maintained as documented by the CRA sites analys is of February 20 12. 
E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC appreciates the opportunity to provide these added comm ents and 
wou ld be happy to address questions in conjunction with Planning Commission deliberation. 
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for Seven Hills Properties LLC: 
Response to Washing ton County Stoff Report- Cosefile No 12-222 PA (Seven Hills Properties, LLC) Page 4 
SUMMARY OF DECISION 
Exhibit E 
12-222-PA 
Page 1 of 2 
At the August 15, 2012 Planning Commission hearing, staff provided the Commission 
with a summary of the written staff report, which noted that the request complied with 
most of the applicable policies. However, staff pointed out that the staff report included 
alternative findings for three of the policies applicable to this plan amendment request. 
The written staff report noted alternative findings for three policies: Comprehensive 
Framework Plan for the Urban Area Policies 1, 18 and 20. 
The first set of findings for each policy outlined historic interpretations used by staff and 
served to support the Planning Commission's decision in the event of a decision to deny 
the request. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 8 to 1 to rely 
on the alternative interpretations and findings for the three policies and approved the 
request from R-15 Residential to Community Business District (CBD). 
The Planning Commission determined that Policy 1, which requires evidence of a lack 
of alternative sites to accommodate the proposed use, was satisfied by the applicant's 
use of a "trade area" to eliminate alternative sites . Additional alternative sites were 
eliminated for the following reasons: visual barriers to the site, lack of traffic, functional 
classification of adjacent roadways, multiple ownerships for aggregated sites, and non-
compete lease restrictions within commercial centers. 
Findings in support of the alternative interpretation for Policy 1 are found in Exhibit B 
(Staff Report), Exhibit C (Application) and Exhibit 0 (Supplemental Application 
Materials). 
The Planning Commission also relied on the alternative findings for Policies 18 and 20, 
which took into account market factors such as a shortage of commercial land in the 
area, commercial sales leakage to neighboring areas, and the requirement by 
Walgreens corporate policy that no new Walgreens store may be located within the 
trade area of an existing Walgreens store located on Tualatin Valley Highway. The 
applicant's findings are contained in Exhibit B (Staff Report), Exhibit C (Application) and 
Exhibit 0 (Supplemental Application Materials). 
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 
At the August 15, 2012 hearing, the Planning Commission voted 8-1 to change the 
existing R-15 Residential land use district to the proposed CBD land use district, with 
stipulated conditions as set forth herein . 
1. Any additional amount over and above the fee deposit submitted with this 
application which is determined to be owed to the county shall be paid upon 
receipt of a statement of balance due, consistent with the agreement for payment 
of fees for quasi-judicial plan amendment application processing previously 
signed by the owner. 
Exhibit E 
12-222-PA 
Page 2 of 2 
2. Any development of the subject property shall comply with all conditions of 
Casefile 12-185-AMP. The AMP has been included as Exhibit F to the Resolution 
and Order memorializing the decision for this plan amendment request. 
3. Subsequent development of the subject property shall comply with the transit 
oriented design standards identified and agreed to by the applicant. These 
standards are included as Exhibit G to the Resolution and Order memorializing 
the decision for this plan amendment request. 
S:IPLNG\WPSHARE\Pian Amendments\Casefi/es\2012\ 12222_ Walgreens\R&O _ exhibits\Exhibit E_ Summary_12-222-PA.doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
1 of 15 
• 
Washington County 
Department of Land Use and 
Transportation 
Current Planning Services 
155 N First Ave, Suite 350 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
NOTICE OF DECISION 
& STAFF REPORT 
PROCEDURE TYPE: _II_ 
CP0:_6_ COMMUNITY PLAN: 
Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain 
LAND USE DISTRICT: 
R-15 (Residential 15 units per acre) 
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 
ASSESSOR MAP#:--:-1..:.:-=S~1:..-.1!.!:9,__,B""'B::...._ ___ _ 
LOTS#: 800.901, 1000 
SITE SIZE: 2.24 acres 
.. -
CASEFILE: 12-185-AMP 
APPLICANT: 
Seven Hills Properties 
Thomas J_ Rocca 
88 Perrv Street. Suite 800 
San Francisco. California 94107 
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 
Perkins Coie LLP 
Dana Krawczuk 
1120 NW Couch St. 1Oth Floor 
Portland, Oreqon. 97209 
OWNER: 
Westside Communitv Church 
18390 SW Farminqton Road 
Beaverton.Oregon .97007 
LOCATION: On the southeast corner of the 
intersection of SW Farmington Road and SW 
1851h Avenue. 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: Request for an Access Management Plan for vehicular access 
to SW Farmington Road and SW 185th Avenue to accommodate future development at the southeast 
corner of the intersection. 
July 30, 2012 
DECISION: 
Approval Approval with Conditions J Denial ______ _ 
Signature C\..MJ ,:) c:..mJy Date ~\ 2>0 ~ \ 2-
Nadine Smith Cook, Principal Planner, Current Planning Services 
Staff Planner: Ross A. VanLoo, 503-846-3872 
Attachments: A. - Vicinity Map 
B. - Conditions of Approval 
C. - Staff Report 
D. Transportation Report 
E. - Appeal Information 
F :\Shat ed\Cun en!Pianoing\USERS\ROSSV\wpdata\sta lf reportS\ 12-020-E-reports.doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
Pagez2of15 ATTACHMENT A VICINITY MAP 
TAX MAP/LOT NO_ 1S1 19 8800800, 00901,01000 CASE FILE NO_ 12-185-AMP 
B 1$2130000100 
152130000101 
NC 
1S224AA00100 
R-24 1S224AA00102 
1 S224AA03700 
R-15 
224AA01B03 
A01802 
if NORTH 1111 AREA OF CONSIDERATION 
SCALE: 1" TO 250' 
SITE & SURROUNDING LAND USE DISTRICTS: 
R15 (Residential12-15 units/acre) 
INST (Institutional) 
R9 (Residential 7-9 units/acre) 
R6 (Residential 5-6 units/acre) 
NC (Neighborhood Commercial) 
1$118CC01000 
1S118CC00800 
R-15 
REVIEW STANDARDS FROM CURRENT OR 
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE OR PLAN 
A. Washington County Comprehensive Plan 
B. Applicable Community Plan (See Front of Notice) 
C. Transportation Plan 
D. Washington County Community Development Code: 
ARTICLE I, Introduction & General Provisions 
ART ICLE II , Procedures 
ARTICLE Il l , Land Use Districts 
ARTICLE IV, Development Standards 
ARTICLE V, Public Facilities and Services 
ARTI CLE VI, Land Divisions & Lot Line Adjustments 
ARTICLE VII . Public Transportation Faci lities 
E. R & 0 86-95 Traffic Safety Improvements 
F. ORO. NO. 738, Design and Construction Standards 
G. ORO. NO. 691-A & 729, Transportation and Development Tax 
-'· 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
~~Siefile 12 -185-AM P 
Attachment 8 
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 
Note·: No permits for public improvements, or building permits for site 
development shall be issued until such time as a subsequent land use 
decision for Development Review has been approved for commercial 
development of the site 
I. ·PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL AND/OR ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL: 
1. Coordinate with ODOT, determine the final location of the proposed access on 
SW Farmington Road, and construct the access on SW Farmington Road as a 
right-in/right-out/left-in only access. This site access will be shared with the 
existing church to the east. The existing access to the church shall be closed. 
2. Construct the northern access on SW 1851h Avenue as a right-in/right-out/left-in 
only access: 
a. Construct a half pork-chop island and install a RIGHT TURN ONLY sign at 
the proposed access. The design shall effectively restrict vehicle movements to 
right in/right out/left in only. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the 
· access restrictions are adequate on SW 1851h Avenue to restrict movements to 
right-in/right-out/left in only. Washington County will monitor the access to 
assure that it operates as a right-in/right-out/left in intersection. If it is found that 
there are a significant number of violations of the restricted turning movements or 
safety/operational problems arise, the applicant will be responsible for assuring 
the safe operation of the driveway. This may require that the applicant retrofit 
additional traffic control devices to limit turning movements and/or physical 
improvements to the roadway. All changes will be subject to Washington County 
approval. If the retrofit(s) are unsuccessful the County reserves the right to 
further limit and/or close the access. 
3. Install DO NOT ENTER signs at the southern access on SW 1851h Avenue to 
restrict the access to exit only access. 
4. Provide adequate intersection sight distance at all the proposed site accesses in 
accordance with the Washington County Community Development Code. 
5. Establish continuous two-way left turn lane striping on SW 1851h Avenue from 50 
feet north of the Buddies Sports Bar access to 35 feet south of the access. 
Extend the storage length of the northbound left turn lane on SW 1851h Avenue 
from the intersection with SW Farmington Road to 160 feet. 
F :\Shared\CunentP~nning\USER$\ROSSV\wpdata\statf reports\1 2 · 1~AMP. OOC. 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
4 of 15 
Casefile 12-185-AMP 
Attachment B -Conditions of Approval 
Page2 
6. Provide adequate illumination at both accesses on SW 1851h Avenue. Adequate 
illumination shall consist of at least one 200 watt high pressure sodium cobra 
head luminaire mounted at a minimum height of 20 feet on existing utility poles if 
available. The fixture shall have a full-cutoff type Ill distribution_ The pole shall 
be within the area defined by the radius returns of the intersection. The fixture 
shall be oriented at 90 degrees to centerline of the collector or arteriaL For 
intersections of collectors with arterials, or arterials with arterials, the luminaire 
fixture shall be installed at 90 degrees to the higher classified roadway. If the 
intersecting roadways are of the same functional classification, the fixture may be 
·oriented at 90 degrees to either roadway. If no existing utility poles are available 
within the intersection area defined by the radius returns, the developer shall 
meet the requirements of the Department of Land Use and Transportation 
Roadway Illumination Standards, latest revision . Illumination provided within the 
proscribed intersection area shall be a minimum of 1.5 times the required 
illumination level of the highest roadway classification at the intersection. 
Washington County may require illumination in addition to the above-stated 
minimums. Direct technical questions concerning this condition or the current 
Roadway Illumination Standards to Traffic Engineering, at (503) 846-7950. 
7_ Close all existing accesses on SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue, 
which serve the· site. 
8. Provide access easement to the church to the east for both the proposed 
accesses on SW 1851h Avenue. 
F:\Shafed\CurrentPlanning\USERS\ROSSV\wpdala\slalf reports\ 12·165-AMP .doc 
·'· 
Exhibit F · 
12-222-PA 
~Mefile 12-185-AMP 
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS 
Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan 
Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan 
Washington County Community Development Code: 
1. Article II, Procedures: 
Section 202-2 
Section 207-5 
(Type II Procedure) 
(Conditions of Approval) 
2. Article Ill, Land Use Districts: 
Section 305 (R-15 District) 
3. Article IV, Development Standards: 
Section 404 (Master Planning) 
4. Article V, Public Facility Standards: 
Attachment C 
STAFF REPORT 
Section 501-8.5 (Access to County and Public Roads) 
Washington County Transportation Plan 
II. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS 
Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation 
Oregon Department of Transportation 
IlL FINDINGS 
A. Background Information: 
1. The applicant requests approval of an Access Management Plan for vehicular 
access to property at the southeast corner of the SW Farmington Road I SW 
1851h Avenue intersection. An Access Management Plan {AMP) is necessary 
because access to the site is not able to comply with Washington County 
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 501-8.5.B.4 which requires that 
accesses to Arterial streets be at least 600 feet apart. SW Farmington Road 
and SW 1851h Avenue are identified as Arterial streets on the Washington 
County Transportation Plan. One access driveway (right in/right ouU left in) is 
proposed on SW Farmington Road . The final location of this access will either 
be located approximately 200 feet east of the intersection or directly opposite 
the Coin-Op Laundry/US Bank access. This proposed access will be shared 
with the existing church to the east and will replace the existing church access. 
Two accesses are proposed to SW 1851h Avenue with the north access (right 
in/right-ouUieft in) located dtrectly opposite the existing access to Buddies 
Sports Bar, and an out-on ly access located proximate to the south property line. 
F:\Sh:ared\.CurrentPianning\USERS\ROSSV\wpdata\s laff reports\ 12·185·AMP.doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
6 of 15 
Casefile 12-185-AMP 
Staff Report 
Page 2 
The applicant has submitted a request for a Plan Amendment to change the land 
use district plan designation from R-15 Residential to Community Business 
District (CBD). The traffic assumptions for the Access Management Plan are 
based on a reasonably typical use for properties in the CBD. The decision for 
the Plan Amendment will occur subsequent to the decision of the proposed 
Access Management Plan. 
2. Two letters of comment were received prior to the writing of the staff report. One letter 
expressed concern about property taxes, an issue beyond the scope of this review. The 
second letter expressed concern about traffic impacts to nearby residential streets, but 
was neither in support of nor opposition to the proposal. Staff notes that this application 
relates to access to Arterial streets and will not impact nearby local streets. 
B. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan: 
There are no specific Plan policies or goals, which .affect this request that are not 
implemented by the Code or the Community Plan. The Framework Plan requires 
development applications to be in compliance with the· Community Development Code 
and the applicable Community Plan. By demonstrating. in this report that the request 
complies with the standards of the Code and the Community Plan, this Plan requirement 
will be satisfied. 
C. Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan: 
The site is located in the Farmington Road Corridor subarea. None of the Farmington 
Road Corridor Subarea Design Elements apply to the subject property. · 
The site is not located in an Area of Special Concern. 
The site is not designated as a Significant Natural Resource. 
The Community Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. When built 
in conformance with the Conditions of Approval , the project will be in compliance with 
the Community Plan. 
D. Washington County Community Development Code: 
1. Article II , Procedure: 
Section 202 Procedure Type and Determination of Proper 
Procedure 
202-2 Type II 
202-2. 1 Type II land use actions are presumed to be appropriate in the 
dis trict. They generally involve uses or develepment for which 
review criteria are reasonably objective, requiring only limited 
discretion. Impacts on nearby properties may be associa ted with 
F :\Shated\Curren1P1anning\USERS\ROSSV\wpda\a\stalf reports\ 12·185-AMP .doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
7...of 15 
'-'asefife 12-185-AMP 
Staff Report 
Page 3 
STAFF: 
STAFF: 
2. 
STAFF: 
3. 
STAFF: 
these uses which may necessitate imposition of specific 
conditions of approval to minimize those impacts or ensure 
compliance with this code 
This request is being processed via the Type II procedure as required by CDC 
501-8_5_8.4.a. 
207-5.1 
207-5 Conditions of Approval 
The Review Authority may impose conditions on any Type II or 
Ill development approval. Such conditions shall be designed to 
protect the public from potential adverse impacts of the 
proposed use or development or to fulfill any identified need for 
public services within the impact area of the proposed 
development. Conditions shall not restn"ct densities to less 
than that authorized by the development standards of this 
Code. · 
Conditions of approval will be imposed as necessary to ensure compliance 
with the standards of the Code and other County regulations and to 
mitigate any adverse impacts the proposal may have on the surrounding 
area. 
Article Ill, Land Use Districts: 
Section 305 R-15 District (Residential 15 Units Per Acre) 
The site is currently designated R-15. The purpose of this application is to 
determine the feasibility of an access location for the site based on the Access 
Management Criteria of CDC 501-8.5.C.3: As noted previously in this report, the 
applicant has submitted a request for a Plan Amendment to change the land use 
designation of the subject property from R-15 Residential to Community 
Business District. The assumptions for the Traffic Impact Analysis were based 
on a reasonably typical development pattern for properties in the Community 
Business District. Because the Plan Amendment has yet to be adjudicated, the 
current plan designation continues to apply. However, as this request is 
specifically associated with vehicular access, none of the standards of the R-15 
Di.strict apply to this request. 
Article IV, Development Standards: 
Section 404 Master Planning 
The Master Planning section describes the site plans required for review of 
development proposals. Development of the property will not be approved until 
the applicant has received Plan Amendment approval and an application for 
Land Development is submitted. The purpose of the request is to approve the 
feasibility of an access location. Given the limited scope of review, the plans 
submitted and contained within ·the casefile are adequate . 
F;\Shared\CurrcniPianmng\USERS\ROSSV\wpdata\slatf reports:\ 12· 18$-AMP .doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
8 of 15 
Casefile 12-185~AMP 
Staff Report 
Page4 
4. Article V, Public Facilities and Services 
Section 501-8.5 Access to County and Public Roads 
All developments shall have legal access to a County or public road. Except for 
interim access as provided in Section 501-8.5 E. [Interim Access}, access onto 
any County road in the unincorporated or incorporated urban area shall be 
permitted only upon issuance of an access permit upon demonstration of 
compliance with the provisions of the County road standards and the standards 
of Section 501. · 
A. Roadway Access 
See following access diagram where R1W =Right-of-Way; and P.l. = Point-of-
Intersection where P.l. shall be located based upon a 90 degree angle of 
intersection between ultimate right-of-way lines. 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
R/W liNE 
Minimum right-of-way radius at intersections shall conform to the County 
Road Standards. · 
All minimum distances stated in the following sections shall be governed by 
sight distance requirements according to County Road Standards. 
All minimum distances stated in the following .sections shall be measured to 
the nearest easement line of the access or edge of travel lane of the 
access on both sides of the road. 
All minimum distances between accesses shall be measured from existing 
or approved accesses on both sides of the road. 
Minimum spacing between driveways shalf be measured from Point "C" to 
Point "C" as shown below: 
11.1 
wjz z< 
-..J 
..J..J 
.... ,w 
w w 
zw wz 
<jz ~~< 
..J :::i ..J _, 
~,... ~--~~ 
> z z > 
UIUI Zlz <-
_,_, 
'""lt-wz 
>w 
R/W LINE 
RADIUS 
P~OINT 
z> 
w< ~,a: 
Ull-(1) 
..c:UI Ul< a:,~ ~,a: 
1-UI Ult-
(1) (/) 
<,~ a:w 
... (/) 
RADIUS 
POl~ 
<((/) 
w j ~ (/)lc( c(l(/) (/) Ul Ul (/) w Ul 
< ~~UI 
0 
I ~ 
0 0 
~1. MINIMUM j~ 
DRIVEWAY SPACING I I 
~I 
-<j>p, 
POINT •A• 
P.C., 
PQINT •a• POINT •c• 
R/W LINE 
-<?pi 
POINT •A• POINT ·•c• 
P.C. 
POINT 'B" 
B. Roadway Access: 
F \Shored\Curren!Picmning\USERS\ROSSV\wpCia!a\slaff reports\12-lBS...AMP doc. 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
~sefile 12-1ss-AMP 
Staff Report 
Page5 
STAFF: 
No use will be permitted to have direct access to a street or road except as 
specified below; or as provided in Section 501-8.5.E (Interim Access). Access 
spacing shall be measured from existing or approved accesses on either side of 
a street or road. 
(4) Arterials 
Direct access to arterial roads shall be from collector or other arterial 
streets. Exceptions for local stre(;}ts and private accesses may be allowed 
through a Type II process when collector access is found to be unavailable 
and impracticable by the Director. Access 'to arterials shall comply with 
the following standards: 
(a) Arterials 
Direct access to an arterial will be permitted provided that Point ~'of 
such access is more than six hundred (600) feet from any intersection 
Point ~'or other access to that minor arterial (Point 'C?. 
As noted previousiK in this report, the proposed accesses to SW Farmington 
Road and SW 1851 Avenue do not meet the 600 foot access spacing 
requirement and do not meet the requirement that access to an arterial be only 
from a collector or arterial. Access to a collector is currently unavailable to this 
site so the desired access hierarchy can not be met. 
C. Exception to Access Criteria 
(1) Alternate points ofaccess may be allowed if an access management plan 
which maintains the classified function and integrity of the applicable facility 
is reviewed and approved by the Review Authority after considering the 
applicant's compliance with this Article. 
(2) An application for an Access Management Plan shall explain the need for 
the modification and demonstrate that the modification maintains the 
classified function and integrity of the facility. References to standards 
or publications used to prepare the Access Management Application shall 
be included with the application. 
(3) An access management plan shall address the safety and operational 
problems which would be encountered should a modification to the access 
spacing standards be granted. An access management plan shall be 
prepared and certified by a traffic or civil engineer registered in the State of 
Oregon. An access management plan shall at minimum contain the following: 
(a) The minimum study area shall include the length of the site 's frontage 
plus the distance of the applicable access spacing standard, as set 
forth in Section 501-8.5 B. , measured from the property lines or access 
point(s), whichever is greater. For example, a property with 500 feet of 
frontage on a minor arterial (required 600 foot access spacing standard) 
shall have a minimum study area which is 1, 700 feet in length. 
F:\Shared\CurrentPtanning\USERS\ROSS\1\wpdala\statf reports\12-1B5-AMP.doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
10 of 15 
Casefile 12-185-AMP 
Staff Report 
Page 6 
STAFF: 
(b) 
(c) 
(d) 
The access management plan shall address the potential safety and 
operational problems associated with the proposed access point. The 
access management plan shall review both existing and future access 
for all properties within the study area as defined above. 
The access management plan shall include a comparison of all 
alternatives examined. At a minimum, the access management plan 
shall evaluate the proposed modification to the access spacing 
standard and the impacts of a plan utilizing the County standard for 
access spacing. Specifically, the access management plan shall 
identify any impacts on the operations and/or safety of the various 
alternatives. 
The access management plan shall include a list of improvements 
and recommendations necessary to implement the proposed access 
modification, specifically addressing all safety andoperational 
concerns identified. 
(4) Notice for a proposed access management plan shall include all property 
owners within the study area defined in 501-8.5 C. (3) (a). 
The Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the applicant's proposed Access 
Management Plan. Traffic Engineering's review is included in this report as 
Attachment D. Their review concludes that the Access Management Plan will 
maintain the classified function and integrity of SW Farmington Road and SW 
1851h Avenue subject to the construction of certain transportation improvements 
as identified in the Traffic Engineer's Memorandum. 
E. Ordinance No. 524 -Uniform Road Improvement Standards: 
STAFF: All required public improvements shall be designed and constructed in 
accordance with the approved road standards through the Facility Permit 
process. The findings and recommendations for transportation standards are 
found in the Transportation Report, and are incorporated as findings herein. 
IV. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION: 
The applicant has requested approval of an Access Management Plan for access to SW 
Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue. Traffic Engineering has reviewed the proposal and has 
found that the Access Management Plan will mainta in the classified function and integrity of SW 
Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue subject to the improvement$ as outlined in the Traffic 
Engineering Division Memorandum. Based on the find ings in th is report and the materials in the 
casefile, th is request for an Access Management Plan is hereby approved, subject to the 
Cond itions of Approva l contained in Attachment B. 
F :\Shated\CurrentPtanning\USERS\ROSSV\wpctala\slalf reports\ 12-1 B~AMP doc 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
11 of 15 
0 W ASIDNGTON COUNTY, OREGON Department of Land Use and Transportation, Engineering/Surveying Division 1400 SW Walnut St., MS 17A, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 (503) 846-7900 ·FAX: (503) 846-7910 
DATE: July 23, 2012 
TO: Ross Van Loo, Senior Planner 
FROM: Jinde Zhu, P.E., Traffic Engineer 
Attachment D 
CC: Assurances, Gary Stockhoff, Traffic Analysis File #1494, C/File 
RE: REVIEW OF PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN 
FARMINGTON/185TH SITE 
WASIDNGTON COUNTY 
This report examines the submitted Access Management Plan conducted for the 
Farmington/185th site development, which consists of a 14,550 square foot pharmacy and a 3,000 
square foot fast food restaurant. The site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of 
SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue in Washington County. Currently there are three 
residential dwelling units on the subject site, which will be removed with the proposed 
development. One access driveway (right-in/right-out/left-in) is proposed on SW Farmington 
Road. The final location of this access will be either located approximately 200 feet east ofthe 
intersection of SW Farmington Road/SW I 85th A venue, or directly across from the existing 
Coin-Op Laundry/US Bank access. This proposed site access will be shared with the existing 
church to the east and will replace the existing access which serves the church. Two accesses are 
proposed on SW I 85th Avenue with the north access (right-in/right-out/left-in) located directly 
across from the existing access to Buddies Sports Bar and an outbound only access located along 
the site south property boundary. Bo~h SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue are 
classified as an arterial by Washington County with a required minimum access spacing of 600 
feet, and the access spacing between the proposed accesses on both SW Farmington Road and 
SW 185 1h Avenue and the existing accesses/streets falls below thi s county access spacing 
requirement. This submitted Access Management Plan is intended to fulfill the requirements of 
Washington County CDC Section 501-8.5C "Exception to Access Criteria". 
The Access Management Plan analysis is contained in the report, "ACCESS MANAGEMENT 
PLAN, FARMINGTON/I 85TH SITE DEVELOPMENT, ALOHA, OREGON", Group 
Mackenzie, May 30, 2012. The findings and recommendations given below are based, in part, 
on information provided in the Access Management Plan. 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
12 of 15 
It should be noted here that SW Farmington Road is under ODOT jurisdiction. This traJfic staff 
report addresses the SW Farmington Road access only to meet the Washington County CDC 
requirements. The applicant needs to apply for ODOT final approval of any site access on SW 
Farmington Road. 
FINDINGS: 
Section 50 1-8.5C (1) Alternate points of access may be allowed ifan access management plan 
which maintains the classified function and integrity of the applicable facility is reviewed and 
approved by the Review Authority after considering the applicant's compliance with this Article. 
The submitted Access Management Plan proposes an access ·on SW Farmington Road and two 
accesses on SW 1851h Avenue. The submitted Access Management Plan addressed the traffic 
impact of the proposed development. 
Section 50 1-8.5C (2) An application for an Access Management Plan shall explain the need for 
the modification and demonstrate that the modification maintains the classified function and 
integrity of the facility. References to standards or publications used to prepare the Access 
Management Application shall be included with the application. 
The access spacing standard for both SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue, Arterial, is 
600 feet. None of the proposed accesses meet the access spacing standard. The submitted plan 
concludes that the proposed accesses on both SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue will 
maintain the classified function and integrity ofSW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue as 
an arterial 
Section 50 1-8.5C (3) An access management plan shall address the safety and operational 
problems which would be encountered should a modification to the access spacing standards be 
granted. An access management plan shall beprepared and certified by a traffic or civil 
engineer registered in the State of Oregon. An access management plan shall at minimum 
contain the following: 
(a) The minimum study area shall include the length of the site's frontage plus the distance of 
the applicable access spacing standard, as set forth in Section 501-8.5B, measured from the 
property lines or access point(s), whichever is greater. For example, a property with 500 feet of 
frontage on an arterial (required 600 foot access spacing standard) shall have a minimum study 
area which is 1, 700 feet in length. 
The proposed Access Management Plan has been certified by a registered engineer in the state of 
Oregon. The study area in the plan extends from the proposed access on SW Farmington Road 
to a point approximately 600 feet east and 600 feet west of the proposed development property 
line and from the proposed accesses on SW 1851h Avenue to a point approximately 600 feet north 
and 600 feet south of the proposed development property line. 
(b) The access management plan shall address the potential safety and operational problems 
associated with the proposed access point. The access management plan shall review both 
existing and future access for all properties within the study area as defined above. 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
1t~dfeport calculated that the proposed site will generate 187 and 252 total trips during the AM 
peak hour and PM peak hour respectively. 
The report determined that the proposed access to SW Farmington Road will be restricted to 
right-in/right-out/left-in only access. The location of this proposed access will be located either 
approxi~ately 200 feet east ofthe intersection ofSW Farmington Road/185th Avenue or directly 
across from the existing access to Coin-Op Laundry and US Bank. 
The report determined that two access driveways are needed on SW 185th Avenue to serve the 
site especially trucks. The northern driveway on SW 185th Avenue is located directly across 
from the Buddies Sports Bar access. This access will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in 
only access. The southern access, located along the south property boundary, is also needed to 
provide outbound access from the site. 
The report determined that all the access/intersections within the influence area are expected to 
operate at an acceptable level of service during the weekday peak hours. 
(c) The access management plan shall include a comparison of all alternatives examined. At 
a minimum, the access management plan shall evaluate the proposed modification to the 
access spacing standard and the impacts of a plan utilizing the County standard for access 
spacing. Specifically, the access management plan shall identify any impacts on the operations 
and/or safety of the various alternatives. 
The Access Management Plan did not evaluate other feasible locations to locate the driveway 
accesses on either SW Farmington Road or SW 185th A venue to meet the county access spacing 
standards because there is no alternative access to the site on either SW Farmington Road or SW 
1851h which can meet the county access spacing standards. 
(d) The access management plan shall include a list of improvements and recommendations 
necessary to implement the proposed access modification, specifically addressing all safety and 
operational concerns identified. 
The submitted Access Management Plan recommended the following traffic/street 
improvements, as summarized in thefollowing section. 
RECOMMENDATIONS: 
The submitted Access Management Plan is projected to maintain the function and integrity of 
SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue subject to the following conditions: 
1. Coordinate with ODOT, determine the final location of the proposed access on SW 
Farmington Road, and construct the access on SW Farmington Road as a right-in/right-out/left-
in only access. This site access will be shared with the existing church to the east. The existing 
access to the church shall be closed. 
2. Construct the northern access on SW !85th Avenue as a right-in/right-out/left-in only 
access: 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
14 of 15 
a. Construct a half pork-chop island and install a RIGHT TURN ONLY sign at the 
proposed access. The design shall effectively restrict vehicle movements to right in/right 
out/left in only. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the access restrictions 
are adequate on SW 185th A venue to restrict movements to right-in/right-out/left in only. 
Washington County will monitor the access to assure that it operates as a right-in/right-
out/left in intersection. If it is found that there are a significant number of violations of 
the restricted turning movements or safety/operational problems arise, the applicant will 
be responsible for assuring the safe operation of the driveway. This may require that the 
applicant retrofit additional traffic control devices to limit turning movements and/or 
physical improvements to the roadway. All changes will be subject to Washington 
County approval. If the retrofit(s) are unsuccessful the County reserves the right to 
further limit and/or close the access. 
3. Install DO NOT EN~R signs at the southern access on SW 185th Avenue to restrict the 
access·to exit only access. 
4. Provide adequate intersection sight distance at all the proposed site accesses in 
accordance with the Washington County Community Development Code. 
5. Establish continuous two-way left tum lane striping on SW 185th Avenue from 50 feet 
north of the Buddies Sports Bar access to 35 feet south of the access. Extend the storage length 
ofthe northbound left tum lane on SW 1851h Avenue from the intersection with SW Farmington 
Road to 160 feet. 
6. Provide adequate illumination at both accesses on SW 1851h A venue. Adequate 
illumination shall consist of at least one 200 watt high pressure sodium cobra head luminaire 
mounted at a minimum height of 20 feet on existing utility poles if available. The fixture shall 
have a full-cutoff type III distribution. The pole shall be within the area defined by the radius 
returns of the intersection. The fixture shall be oriented at 90 degrees to centerline of the 
collector or arterial. For intersections of collectors with arterials, or arterials with arterials, the 
luminaire fixture shall be installed at 90 degrees to the higher classified roadway. If the 
intersecting roadways are ofth~ same functional classification, the fixture may be oriented at 90 
degrees to either roadway. Ifno existing utility poles are available within the intersection area 
defined by the radius returns, the developer shall meet the requirements of the Department of 
Land Use and Transportation Roadway Illumination Standards, latest revision. Illumination 
provided within the proscribed intersection area shall be a minimum of 1.5 times the required 
illumination level of the highest roadway classification at the intersection. Washington County 
may require illumination in addition to the above-stated minimums. Direct technical questions 
concerning this condition or the current Roadway Illumination Standards to Traffic Engineering, 
at (503) 846-7950. 
7. Close all the existing accesses on SW Farmington Road and SW 1851h Avenue, which 
serve the existing site. 
8. Provide access easement to the church to the east for both the proposed accesses on SW 
1851h A venue. 
JZ:da 
Exhibit F 
12-222-PA 
15 of 15 
~c,10Nc0 ~~~ $~ 
OR£ GO~ 
WASHINGTON COUNTY 
Depl of Land Use & Transportation 
Current Planning Services 
155 N. 1'1 Avenue, #350-13 
Hillsboro, OR 97124 
Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846-2908 
http://www.co.washington.or.us 
Appeal Information 
ATTACHMENT"E" 
TYPE (II) 
CASEFILE: 12-185-AMP 
Attached is a copy of the Land Use and Transportation Department's Review Authority 
decision on this request for a Development Action. 
Any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to written notice pursuant 
to ORS 215.416{ 11) may appeal the decision by filing a written appeal. 
Failure to file a petition for review with the Department of Land Use and Transportation 
by 5:00 p.m. on the due date, with the fee specified in the Notice of Decision, shall be a 
jurisdictional defect. 
The decision, including conditions of approval, may be appealed and a public hearing held by 
filing a signed petition for review (appeal) within twelve {12) calendar days of date written 
notice is provided (date mailed). 
APPEAL PERIOD: 08/01/12 (Date Mailed) to 4:00p.m. on 08/13/12 (Appeal Due Date) 
This decision will be final if an appeal is not filed by the due date. 
The complete file is available at the County Department of Land Use and Transportation for 
review. 
A petition for review (appeal) must contain the following: 
1. The name of the applicant and the County case file number; 
2. The name and signature of each petitioner filing the petition for review (appeal). 
If a group consisting of more than one person is filing a single petition for review, 
one individual shall be designated as the group's representative for all contact 
with the Department. All Department communications regarding the petition, 
including correspondence, shall be with this representative; 
3. A statement of the interest of each petitioner; 
4. The date the Notice of Decision was sent as specified in the notice (date mailed); 
5. The nature of the decision and the specific ground for appeal. For applications 
with multiple requests, specify the particular request(s) and/or specific conditions 
of approval being appealed; 
6. A statement listing the number of pages of the petition and that all pages are 
present; 
7. A statement setting forth the appeal fee as specified in the Notice of Decision; 
and 
8. The appropriate appeal fee of $250. 00 
For further appeal information, contact the Appeal Secretary at the Washington County 
Department of Land Use and Transportation. Phone 503-846-8134. 
F :\Shared\LDS\LI B RARY\Forms\Private\Documen 13 
July 23, 2012 
Thomas Rocca 
Seven Hills Properties, LLC 
88 Perry Street, Suite 800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 1 of 13 
RE: Transportation Oriented District Code Summary for Proposed Plan Amendment (Case 
File 12-222-PA) 
Dear Tom, 
Your pending application requests a plan amendment to the CBD district, but elects to 
follow many of the Transportation Oriented District (TO:RC) code requirements as they 
pertain to the design of the future development for the site (pharmacy and fast.:food 
restaurant). 1 The proposed project will blend development standards from both the CBD 
and TO:RC zones, resulting in an attractive site that encourages all modes of 
transportation . 
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the Transportation Oriented District Codes 
(TO:RC) that we are ·requesting be conditioned upon Case File 12-222 PA. 
Exhibit 3b, of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Change application, schematically 
illustrates the proposed future development which will include construction of two 
buildings, an approximately 15,000 square feet Pharmacy with drive-through and an 
approximately 3,000 square feet pad building with drive-through. Direct, straight-line 
pedestrian connections will link the main entrances of each building as well as provide 
access to the abutting right-of-ways, common open space and parking. These areas will 
be clearly marked and well-designed to ensure pedestrian safety and way finding. Both 
adjacent street right-of-ways will be improved with street trees and code compliant 
pedestrian walkways. Additionally, the SW Farmington right-of-way will be accented with 
two large pedestrian plazas (common open area) which will include a colonnade featuring 
decorative art and provide overhead pedestrian protection from the elements. The plazas 
will also include benches and pedestrian scale lighting to create an inviting and active 
street-front . 
Each build ing will be constructed of high qual ity and durable materials that are compat ible 
with both an urban environment and adjacent existing development. Stark and imposing 
1 Seven Hil ls requests that a cond it ion of approva l be imposed upon the plan amendment 
that requ ires the site to be developed in compliance with the TO: RC approval criteria listed 
on the attached table, which updates and replaces Exhibit 8 of the application . 
79648-000 I/LEGAL24178330.1 
Baysinger Partners Archi tecture 
I 006 SE Grand Ave , Sui te 300 
Portland, OR ?7214 
. ,,, ,. 503-546-1600 
loi· 503-516-1601 
'1/IYI'I.BoysingerPortners com 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 2 of 13 
building facades will be avoided through the use of articulation expressed by variation in 
materials as well as changes in material colors. Main entries and active business areas, 
with code compliant glazing, will be placed toward the right-of-ways; increasing visibility 
and safety for patrons on-site as well as providing "eyes on the street" visibility from 
within the development. With public areas presented towards the streets, utilitarian 
functions for each building will be located way from the right-of-ways and appropriately 
screened increasing vehicular and pedestrian safety as well as improving site aesthetics. 
Parking for the development will meet many of the principles for the TO : RC district. 
Parking has been designed to be unobtrusive, use appropriate screening and landscaping, 
clearly define vehicular areas and m inimize vehicular and pedestrian interaction to 
improve safety. Patron parking will be separated from both loading areas and drive-
throughs by placing them on opposite sides of the buildings to further improve on-site 
safety. 
None of the proposed site elements are required by the CBD zone, but Seven Hills has 
volunteered to incorporate these transit, pedestrian and design features into the project. 
To insure that the site is developed with the features envisioned by the applicant, Seven 
Hills requests that a condition of approval be imposed upon the plan amendment that 
requires the site to be developed in compliance with the TO:RC approval criteria listed on 
the attached table, which updates and replaces Exhibit 8 of the application. 
We identified the TO : RC approval criteria that have been requested to apply to the site by 
designing the best possible development that balances transit, pedestrian and vehicles. 
We then analyzed all of the TO:RC approval criteria and determined which standards could 
be met on the site, and which standards were not attainable or not applicable. This letter 
summarizes the TO:RC standards that will apply to the site and an identification and 
explanation of those that cannot be met on the site. 
TO:RC Development Standards Proposed for the Site 
The TO :RC standards that are requested to be applicable to the site emphasize pedestrian 
orientation and aesthetics through a variety of standards, including circulation system 
design, emphasis on building facades, the provision of open space and enhanced lighting 
and landscaping . As described above, illustrated in Exhibit 3b and listed on the attached 
table (which updates and replaces Exhibit 8 to the application), Seven Hills request the 
following TO:RC development standards be cond itioned . 
• 375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses in Transit Oriented Districts, 23.b 
(accessory outdoor seating) 
• 431-1 Transit Oriented Design Principles, Standards and Guidelines, Intent and 
Purpose 
• 431-4.2.0 Circulation System Design, Design Standards 10 (circulation design) and 
11 (pedestrian crossings) 
• 431-5.1.B Streetscapes for Pedestrians, Standards 2 (street trees), 3 (underground 
util ities) , 4 (minimum sidewalk widths) and 6 (pedestrian scale lighting 
• 431-5.2.B Building Entrance Standards 5 (minimum lighting levels), 6 (main 
entrance open during business hours) and 7 (sheltered entries) 
• 431-5 .3.B Bu il ding Facades Standards 1 (ground floor windows), 2 (transparent 
windows), 3 (minimum window areas), 6 (articulation), 7 (change in materials), 8 
(durable quality materials), 9 (exterior lighting), and 10 (utilitarian functions 
screening) 
• 431-6 . l.B Parking Area Standard 2 (setback) 
79648-000 I /LEGAL24178330.1 2 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 3 of 13 
• 431-6.2 .B Parking Area Design Standards 3 (perimeter landscaping), 4 (minimum 
parking landscape area), and 5 (cross property access) 
• 431-7 .1.B Common Open Space Standards 1 (common open space) 
• 431-7 .2.B Common Open Space Standards 1 (maintaining common open space), 2 
(minimum size of common open space) and 4 (percentage of common open space) 
• 431-7.3 .B Open Space Design Standards 1 (amenities), 3 (lighting) and 5 
(encroachments) 
• 431-9.2 Landscap ing Standards: minimum requ ired area 
• 431-10.2 Water Quantity/Quality Facilities Standards: location of non-vaulted 
systems 
• 431-11.2 Signs 
• 431-11.3 Exceptions to Sections 414- 1 and 414-2 A (maximum area of fa~ade 
mounted signs), B1 and B2 (ground mounted monument standards) and C 
(prohibited signs) 
TO:RC Development Standards that are Not Applicable to the Site 
TO:RC approval criteria that are not applicable to the site were excluded . For example, 
CDC 431-4.2.C includes design standards for blocks and E. includes standards for new 
street connections; both were excluded because the site is not a full block and no new 
street connections are proposed. The following standards are not applicable : 
• 431-3 Definitions 
• 431-4.2.C (Blocks), D(1)-(9) and (12)-(14) , and E (Circulation/Connections) 
• 431-S. l.B Streetscapes for Pedestrians, Standards (5) , (7) - (10) 
• 431-5 .2.B Building Entrances, Standards (2), (3) and (8) 
• 431-5.3.B Building Facades, Standards (4), (5), (11) and (12) 
• 431-6.1.B Parking Areas, Garages and Parking Structures Location, Standards (4), 
and (5) 
• 431-6.2 .B Parking Areas and Garage Design, Standards (1) , (2), (6)-(8) 
• 431-7.l.B Common Open Space Standards (2)-(3) 
• 431-7.2.B Common Open Space Amount and Size Standards (3) and (5) 
• 431-7.3.B Common Open Space Design Standards (2) and (4) 
• 431-8 Transitions in Density 
• 431-11.2. Sign Standards (B) (residential) 
• 431-12 Peterkort Station Area Design Standards 
TO:RC Development Standards that are NOT Proposed for the Site 
While the project meets all of the principals for the TO: RC zone, for the reasons expla ined 
below, the following specific standards cannot be met and are therefore not requested to 
be imposed as conditions of approval: · 
• 375-8 Dimensional Requirements for Transit Oriented Districts 
• 375-9 Density Requirements for Transit Oriented Districts 
• 431-S .l.B standard 1 (frontage requ irements) requ ires that a specific percentage 
of street frontage (50% ) be occup ied by bu ild ing and 11 (bu ilding compatibility) 
• 431-5 .2.B(1) and (4) (Bu ild ing Entrances) , proh ibits having a bu ilding entrance 
separated from the street by a veh icle area. 
• 431-6 .1.B Parking Area Standards 1 and 3 (l ocat ion of parking area) ' 
• 431 -6.2 .B Parking Area Design Standa rd 4(a) 
79648-000 I/LEGAL24 I 78330. I 3 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 4 of 13 
Many of the standards that are not suggested as conditions discourage vehicle areas 
between a building and the street. It is not possible to attain this design objective on the 
site and still provide the vehicle circulation areas that are necessary for the success of the 
project, and also provide the proposed pedestrian amenities (i.e ., the open space plaza). 
The proposed project will adhere to the CBD allowed setbacks and place the buildings back 
from the street frontage . The design will still meet the TO:RC principles and intents by 
placing the active portions of the bu ildings, main entry and windowed facades toward the 
streets. Direct, clearly marked pedestrian walkways will connect the right-of-way to these 
areas. The frontage on SE Farmington will retain the active and engaging pedestrian 
environment intended by the code through several large pedestrian plazas and the 
colonnade representation of building wall. 
Section 431-6.1.B, Parking Area Standards 1 and 3 (surface parking locations), do not 
allow off-street parking between a building and street or within 40 feet of a corner. The 
proposed project will place parking to the side of both buildings; however, will include 
parking in front of the pharmacy, between the building and the street and within 40 feet 
of the corner. To increase on-site veh icular and pedestrian safety, parking and pedestrian 
areas were separated from the main vehicular drive aisle through site, drive-through 
traffic and loading areas. This provides the parking to the street side and front of the 
building allowing for the utilitarian functions to be placed interior to the site. Due to the 
sites narrow configuration this increased safety separation could not be adequately 
provided with both areas interior to the site . 
Section 375-9 Density Requirements specify a mm1mum F.A.R. of .25. The proposed 
project will provide less than the required TO:RC F.A.R. in order to provide the required 
open space common areas, landscaping and pedestrian walkways required by the TO: RC 
standards as well as minimum requ ired parking. 
Section 431-6.2.B Parking Area Design Standard 4a (curbs and bumpers) prevents 
bumper overhang of landscape and walkway areas through the use of wheel stops. The 
proposed plan will include perimeter parking curbs and raised sidewalks, however, 
independent wheel stops will not be provided due to narrow site dimension, 20 foot right 
of way dedication and their impediment to easy cleaning of parking areas. 
We have also suggested that Section 431-5.1.B standard (11) not apply because it 
requires individual buildings to be compatible with neighbors. Because the surround ing 
properties are not zoned transit oriented and the existing buildings have not been subject 
to transit oriented design standards, it is not appropriate to require compatibi lity. 
Potential Conflicts in COB and TO:RC Standards Applicable to the Site 
At this time, we do not anticipate that any of the TO:RC standards that we have requested 
apply to the si te will conflict with the CBD requirements . However, in case a conflict 
arises in the future, we request that the conditions of approval specify that in the event of 
a conflict between the requirements of the TO: RC section and requirements of the CBD 
section , the requ irements of the CBD section shall control, except any code provision 
specifi c to Section 4 18-3 (Corner Vis ion), 421 (Floodpla in and Drainage), 422 (Sign ificant 
Natural Resources) or 501-8 .5 F. (Sight Distance) . 
The intent of the this project is to construct an aesthetically pleasing, highly functional and 
safe urban development through the combination of the CBD and TO:RC development 
standards as stated above; ensuring that the high qua lity development expected in 
Washington County continues wi th th is project. We therefore trust that the outlined 
79648-000 I /LEGAL24 178330. I 4 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 5 of 13 
cond it ions above will be to your satisfaction and look forward to your informed response in 
the near future . 
cc: Flle 
Dana Krawczok - Perkins Coie 
7964$-000 ltLl'GAL241 7SHO.I 5 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS 
375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses in Transit Oriented Districts 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 6 of 13 
23.b. Accessory outdoor seating related to the principal eating or drinking establishment use 
may be permitted , provided that the outdoor space is placed within a common open space. 
Sidewalks may be utilized for accessory outdoor seating if they meet the unobstructed width 
standards set forth in Section 4315.1 B.(4) and approval is obtained from the Operations 
Division Manager. In addition, the area devoted to the accessory outdoor seating does not 
exceed: 
1) an area greater than the equivalent of fifteen (15) percent of the dining, drinking, 
or both floor area; or 
(2) seven-hundred and fifty (750) square feet. 
TOO PRINCIPALS, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 
431-1 Intent and Purpose 
The following design principles , standards and guidelines shall be applied to the review of all 
development occurring in transit oriented districts, for those uses listed in Section 375. 
Principles are the broad, fundamental rules upon which the standards and guidelines are based. 
All Type Ill applications for development in transit oriented districts shall demonstrate 
compliance with applicable principles and/or standards of this section . Standards are specific, 
usually quantitative, rules which development applications must comply with if processed 
through a Type I or II procedure. Guidelines are advisory statements that should be considered 
when designing a development in a transit oriented district, but are not mandatory. Because an 
application for a development may vary from a standard in this Section when the application 
demonstrates, through a Type Ill process, compliance with the related design principle , a 
variance or hardship variance pursuant to Section 435 shall not be granted from any standard in 
this Section. 
1431-4 Circulation System Design 
431-4.1 Principals 
A. Pedestrian routes in a transit oriented district shall, to the extent practicable , directly connect 
major activity centers (concentrations of employment and households, major publ ic buildings and 
spaces, institutional uses and parks & common open spaces, and shopping areas) and transit 
stops, particularly light rail stations ; 
B. Block dimensions and perimeters shall be at an urban rather than a suburban scale 
C. Provide accessways and greenways, as needed, to supplement pedestrian routes along 
pedestrian streets; and 
D. Provide clearly marked and well-designed pedestrian street, driveway, loading area and surface 
parking lot crossings 
431-4.2 Standards 
D. Design 
(1 0) Whether publicly or privately owned , a pedestrian street, accessway or greenway shall 
conform to the section design specified for its functional classification and remain accessible 
to the public at all times 
Page 1 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 7 of 13 
(11) Pedestrian crossings of streets, driveways, surface parking lots and loading areas shall 
be designed to be consistent with the provisions of Section 408.1 0.3B. In transit oriented 
districts, striping alone is not an acceptable way to identify connections 
431-5 Streetscapes for Pedestrians 
431-5.1 Streetscapes- Transit Oriented Districts 
B. Standards 
(2) Street trees are required on all pedestrian streets with an average spacing of no more 
than thirty (30) feet on center on both sides and two (2) to four (4) feet from back of curb. 
Street trees shall not be spaced or located so as to result in a violation of Section 418-3. 
Trees in the County right-of-way or in sidewalk easements shall be approved by the County 
as to size, quality, tree well design if applicable, and irrigation (see Section 407-7). 
(3) All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the 
sidewalk area , provided that they are flush with the sidewalk and provide for a safe 
pedestrian walking surface during all types of weather 
(4) Minimum sidewalk widths in Transit Oriented Districts shall be the widest identified by the 
Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards for the adjacent Special 
Area Street (as shown in the 2020 Transportation Plan, Figures 6 through 8), except for 
Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area Commercial Streets shall have sidewalks 
that are a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width . On arterials within or adjacent to Transit 
Oriented Districts and which are designated as 'Boulevards' on the Regional Street Design 
Overlay Map in the 2020 Transportation Plan, the minimum sidewalk width shall be twelve 
(12) feet (see Technical Appendix B-8 of the 2020 Transportation Plan for typical roadway 
cross-sections). 
(6) Pedestrian scale street lighting, such as that described in the county's Pedestrian Design 
Guidelines Booklet shall be provided along all pedestrian streets. 
431-5.2 Building Entrances 
The following principles and standards apply to building entrances in transit oriented districts: 
A. Principles: 
Provide for safe, convenient, direct and identifiable access for pedestrians between pedestrian 
streets, accessways , transit facilities , and adjacent buildings. 
B. Standards: 
(5) Minimum lighting levels shall conform to the standards as set forth in Section 415-4 . 
(6) For non-residential buildings, or non-residential portions of mixed-use buildings , main 
building entrances fronting on pedestrian streets shall remain open during normal business 
hours for that build ing. 
(7) All entries fronting a pedestrian route shall be sheltered with a minimum four (4) foot 
overhang or shelter. 
431-5 .3 Building Facades 
The following principles, standards and guidelines apply to building facades in transit oriented 
districts: 
Page 2 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
A. Principles: 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 8 of 13 
(2) Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of pedestrian streets 
and other public spaces by _maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the pedestrian 
street. 
(3) Ensure compatible building designs along a pedestrian street through similar massing 
(building facade height and width as well as the space between buildings) and frontage 
setbacks. 
(4) Avoid building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform design style, roof line 
or facade treatment, which results in an uninteresting and unattractive pedestrian 
environment. 
(5) All new commercial , industrial, office, institutional, mixed use, and multifamily residential 
buildings shall , on any facade facing a pedestrian route, incorporate discernible architectural 
features , such as, but not limited to: cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, bays, 
recesses, arcades, display windows, unique entry areas or other architectural treatments for 
visual interest, to create community character and to promote a sense of pedestrian scale. 
The overall design shall recognize that the simple relief provided by window cutouts or sills 
on an otherwise flat facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this 
subsection 
(6) Lighting of a building facade shall be designed so that lighting complements the 
arch itectural design. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building. 
(7) All buildings , of any type, constructed within any transit oriented district, shall be 
constructed with exterior building materials and finishes that are of high quality to convey an 
impression of permanence and durability. 
(8) To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall be 
emphasized 
B. Standards: 
(1) Ground floor windows shall be provided on building facades facing a 
pedestrian route or common open space. Garage door windows shall not count towards 
compliance with this standard 
(2) Darkly tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two-way vis ibility are prohibited 
as ground floor windows. 
(3) Except as provided in Section 431-12, ground floor building facades along a pedestrian 
street in the TO:RC or TO: BUS Districts must contain unobscured windows for at least fifty 
(50) percent of the wall area and seventy-five (75) percent of the wall length with in the first 
ten (1 0) feet of wall height. Required windows shall allow views in to lobbies or similar areas 
of activity, building entrances, or merchandise type displays. Lower window sills shall not be 
more than three (3) feet above grade except where interior floor levels prohibit such 
placement, in which case the lower window sill shall not be more than a maximum of four (4) 
feet above the finished exterior grade. 
(6) In all transit oriented districts, building frontages greater than two hundred (200) feet in 
length along pedestrian routes sha ll break any flat , monol ithic facade by including 
architectural elements such as bay windows, recessed entrances, changes in materials, or 
other articulation so as to provide pedestrian scale to the ground floor. 
Page 3 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington 
Exhibit G 
12-222-PA 
Page 9 of 13 
(7) Except as provided in Section 431-12, building facades along a pedestrian route in the 
TO:RC or TO: BUS Districts shall not have more than forty (40) linear feet of ground floor 
wall area without a change in materials or an eight (8) inch minimum vertical or horizontal 
wall relief. 
(8) In all transit oriented districts , the exterior walls of building facades along pedestrian 
routes shall be of suitable durable building materials including the following : stucco, stone, 
terra-cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled or ship-lap or other narrow-course 
horizontal boards or siding , vertical board & batten siding , articulated architectural concrete 
masonry units (CMU), or similar materials which are low maintenance, weather resistant, 
abrasion resistant and easy to clean . Prohibited building materials include the following: 
Plain, smooth, untextured concrete; plain, smooth untextured concrete block; corrugated 
metal; unarticulated board siding (e.g. , T1-11 siding, plain plywood , sheet pressboard); and 
similar quality, non-durable materials. 
(9) No exterior lighting shall be provided above the second floor of buildings for the purpose 
of highlighting the presence of the building, except for facade sign lighting. 
(1 0) Buildings and sites shall be organized to group the utilitarian functions away from the 
public view. Delivery and loading operations, mechanical equipment (HVAC), trash 
compacting/collection, and other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the 
overall design of the building(s) and the landscaping. The visual and acoustic impacts of 
these functions, along with all wall or ground-mounted mechanical, electrical and 
communications equipment shall be out of view from adjacent properties and public 
pedestrian streets. Screening materials and landscape screens shall be architecturally 
compatible with and not inferior to the principal materials of the building and primary 
landscaping. The visual and acoustic aspects of roof-mounted equipment, vents and 
chimneys shall be minimized by placing equipment behind parapets, within architectural 
screening, roof-top landscaping, or by using other aesthetically pleasing methods of 
screening and deadening the sound of such equipment. 
431-6 Parking Areas, Garages and Parking Structures 
431-6.1 Location 
A. Principles: 
Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings, other than 
single family residences, that front on pedestrian streets where onstreetparking is allowed. 
Parking at mid-block or behind buildings is preferred. Exceptions to this principle may be 
appropriate for uses that require new buildings to be clustered near existing groups of 
buildings located away from a pedestrian street, such as expansions of a campus 
development. 
B. Standards: 
(2) Garages and off-street parking areas shall be set back at least five (5) feet 
from adjacent primary building facades. 
431-6.2 Parking Area and Garage Design : 
A. Principles: 
(1) Garages, parking structures and off-street surface parking areas shall be designed to be 
as unobtrusive, and as attractive in appearance, as possible. 
Page4 
Exhibit G 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington ~!~2:~6~ 13 
(2} There shall be low bushes or a low wall or berm at the perimeter of surface parking lots 
to reduce their visibility from the surrounding area . Barriers around the perimeter of a 
parking lot shall not be so high, however,- that it becomes a safety or security problem. 
(3) Trees shall be used extensively at the perimeter and in the interior of surface parking lots 
to break up large parking areas and provide shade 
(4) Accessways through surface parking lots shall be clearly identified through the use of: 
different paving materials, grade separation, or landscaping, pedestrian-scale lighting, and 
be as short as practicable. 
B. Standards: 
(3) Surface parking areas shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to a 
pedestrian street which meets one of the following standards: 
(a) A five (5) foot wide planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area . 
The planting strip may be pierced by pedestrianaccessible and vehicular 
accessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen hedge. Hedges shall 
be no less than thirty-six (36) inches or more than forty-two (42) inches in height at 
maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall be planted and maintained to afford 
adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the parking lot; or · 
(b) A solid decorative wall or fence thirty-six (36) inches to forty-two (42) 
inches in height parallel to and not nearer than two (2) feet from the right-of-way line. 
The area between the wall or fence and the pedestrian street line shall be 
landscaped. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for access to 
the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall be constructed and maintained to 
afford adequate sight distance as described above for vehicles exiting the parking 
lot. 
Perimeter landscaping shall not be required where two (2) parking lots using a 
common driveway are joined by a common circulation aisle or other traffic area. 
Landscaping may be reduced or eliminated adjacent to landscaped open space in 
order to transition the open space landscaping into the parking area and afford better 
access between the two areas. 
(4) Surface parking areas shall provide interior landscaping which meets the following 
standards: 
(b) Landscaping shall be installed within planting bays , and in any other 
area where parking stalls, circulation aisles, driveways, or pedestrian 
movements would not be precluded by the landscaping. Landscaping 
around and within surface parking areas shall not be less than ten 
(1 0) percent of the total area of the parking area (see Section 407 for 
(5) Except in residential areas, parking associated with new development shall 
be designed to the extent practicable to connect with auto parking areas on 
adjacent sites to eliminate the necessity of utilizing the pedestrian street for 
parallel movements . 
Page 5 
Exhibit G 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington ~~~2;~~p~ 13 
1431-7 Common Open Space 
431-7.1 Location 
A. Principles: 
(1) Common open spaces shall be located within walking distance of all those living, working 
and shopping in transit oriented areas. 
(2) Common open spaces shall be easily and safely accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. 
(3) For security purposes, common open spaces shall be visible from nearby residences, 
stores, a pedestrian route and/or pedestrian street or offices. 
(4) Common open space shall be available for both passive and active use by people of all 
ages. 
B. Standards: 
(1) Common open space shall be located within all residential and all mixed residential/non-
residential developments with four or more dwelling units, as well as all non-residential 
developments on sites exceeding one-half acre. Alternatively, common open space for a 
development may be located within thirteen hundred (1 ,300) feet walking distance of the 
development. However, if common open space for a residential development is located off-
site, it shall be unnecessary to cross an arterial street to gain access to the site. 
1431-7.2 Amount and Size 
A. Principles: 
(1) Common open spaces may vary in size depending on their function and location. 
(2) The total amount of common open space provided in a transit oriented community shall 
be adequate to meet the needs of those projected (at the time of build-out), to live, work, 
shop and recreate there. 
B. Standards: 
(1) All residential developments of four (4) or more dwelling units , and all nonresidential 
or mixed-use developments, shall be required to reserve, improve and establish 
commitments to maintaining common open space. 
(2) Any common open space shall be at least four hundred (400) square feet in area, and 
shall be able to encompass a square area at least twenty (20) feet wide and twenty (20) feet 
long. 
(4) Common open space in a mixed use and non-residential development shall equal at 
least two (2) percent of the development site's total acreage after netting out those portions 
of the site within areas listed under CDC Section 300-3.1. 
1431-7.3 Open Space Design 
A. Principles: 
(1) Common open spaces in transit oriented communities shall be designed to 
accommodate a variety of activities and users ranging from active play by children to 
passive contemplation by adults, but shall generally be able to accommodate a relatively 
intensive level of use. They shall be pedestrian friendly,with amenities such as benches, 
directional signs , water fountains, and good lighting . They shall be attractive and interesting , 
with good landscaping and possibly public art or a water feature. And they shall be safe 
places to be at any time of day. 
Page 6 
Exhibit G 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington~~~:;;~ 13 
B. Standards: 
1431-9 Landscaping 
( 1) Common open spaces shall include at least two (2) of the following 
improvements: 
(a) A bench or benches for seating; 
(b) Public art such as a statue; 
(c) A water feature such as a fountain; 
(d) A children's play structure including a swing and a slide; 
(e) A gazebo; 
(f) Picnic tables with a barbecue; 
(g) An indoor or outdoor sports court for one or more of the following : 
tennis, basketball, volleyball , badminton, racquetball, handball/paddleball ; or 
(h) An indoor or outdoor swimming and/or wading pool suitable for children to use. 
(3) For security purposes, all common open spaces shall be adequately 
illuminated during hours of darkness. 
(5) Common open spaces shall be free from all structural encroachments (i.e ., roof 
overhangs, awnings and other architectural features) of structures on 
abutting properties. 
Well-designed and located landscaping can soften the edges of buildings and paving, add aesthetic 
interest and generally increase the attractiveness of a community. The following principles, standards 
and guidelines apply to landscaping in transit oriented districts. 
431-9 .1 Principles: 
A. The size of the landscaped area on a development site in a transit-oriented community shall be 
in inverse proportion to the density of development on the site . 
B. Landscaping shall primarily be located to serve as a screen or buffer for or to soften the 
appearance of unattractive structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls , or to 
increase the attractiveness of common open spaces 
431-9.2 Standards: 
No minimum landscaping standard shall be set as a percentage of a development site. 
Landscaping may be required, however, in conjunction with parking lot design (see Section 431-
6.2), building design or the provision of common open space. 
431-9.3 Guidelines : 
A. Stormwater detention facilities may be incorporated into landscapes (see Section 431-10 .1). 
1431-1 0 Water Quantity/Quality Facilities 
Water quantity/quality facilities are necessary elements of the urban landscape in Washington County, 
but their location and appearance can influence the attractiveness of a community . The following 
principles and standards apply to water quantity/quality facilities in transit oriented districts . 
431-10.1 Principles: 
Stormwater detention and treatment facilities shall be integrated into the design of a development 
site and , if visible , shall appear as a component of the landscape rather than as a utility element. If 
practicable and acceptable by to the Clean Water Services , such facilities shall be consolidated to 
serve multiple developments in a location away from the center of the community . 
Page 7 
Exhibit G 
TOO Analysis for Walgreens 185th and Farmington ~:~;~;~ 13 
431-10 .2 Standards: 
1431-11 Signs 
Non-vaulted surface stormwater detention and/or treatment facilities shall not be located between 
a pedestrian street and the front of an adjacent building . 
The principles and standards of Sections 431-11 .1 and 431-11 .2 below shall apply to all permitted 
signage within transit oriented districts. Exceptions to these standards are designated in Section 431-
11 .3. 
431-11 .1 Principles: 
A. Signs in transit oriented district communities shall be located and scaled to the function of the 
pedestrian street on which they front. 
B. Signs within any transit-oriented district shall be consistent with the visual quality and aesthetics 
of the surrounding neighborhood. 
C. Signage must be of high quality in design and materials. 
D. Signage shall be consistent throughout a development. 
E. Signage attached to a building shall complement the building's character (e.g., wall signs shall 
avoid covering building columns). 
431-11 .2 Standards: 
A. In the TO:BUS and TO:RC Districts, the standards of Article IV- Section 414-2 shall apply, 
except as noted in Section 431-11 .3. 
431-11 . 3 Exceptions to Sections 414-1 and 414-2 
A. Fayade-mounted, non-residential signs shall not exceed five (5) percent of the area of the 
fac;;ade upon which it is mounted, up to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet per fac;;ade or 
four hundred (400) square feet per building . 
B. Ground-mounted monuments or site entry markers up to fifteen (15) feet in height may be 
approved subject to the following : 
(1) Total area and volume of the portion of the monument or marker incorporating sign 
letters shall not exceed forty-five (45) square feet or ninety (90) cubic feet; and 
(2) Position of the monument or marker shall not obscure roadway visibility or result in 
potential traffic hazard(s) as may be determined by the County Engineer. 
C. Prohibited signs: 
(1) Free-standing signs (e .g., pole-mounted signs) as defined in Section 1 06193.4; 
(2) Signs with moving or flashing lights; 
(3) Signs with exposed electrical conduits, ballast boxes, or other equipment; 
(4) Signs incorporating audible or odor-producing elements; 
(5) Roof-mounted signs; and 
(6) Other signs prohibited under Article IV Section 414 . 
Page 8 
W A S H I N G T O N  C O U N T Y ,  O R E G O N  
D e p a r t m e n t  o f  L a n d  U s e  &  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  
L o n g  R a n g e  P l a n n i n g  D i v i s i o n  
1 5 5  N  F i r s t  A v e n u e ,  S u i t e  3 5 0 ,  M S  1 4  
H i l l s b o r o ,  O R  9 7 1 2 4 - 3 0 7 2  
D E P T  O F  
A U G  2  8  2 0 1 7  
l A N D  C O N s e R V A T I O N  
A N D  D e V e L O P M e N T  
A T T N :  P L A N  A 1 ' 1 E N D M C N T  5 P E C I A U S "  
D t ; ; P I ·  O f "  L A N D  C O N S c R . V A T I O  N  ~ D E V C : L 0 P t \ 1 C N T  
( o 3 S "  C A P I T O L  s - r  N E  S T G  I S  
'  
S A L E M .  0 1~ C \ 1  ' 3 0 1 - 2 . . S 4 - 0  
( ;