Eagle_Landing__Feasibility_Study_12_29_2017_s.pdf

Eagle Landing Park Improvements Feasibility Report

Washington County Facilities and Parks Services

Prepared by BergerABAM

December 2017

Feasibility Study

Washington County Facilities and Parks Services

Submitted to

Washington County, Oregon

December 2017

Submitted by

BergerABAM

210 East 13th Street, Suite 300

Vancouver, Washington 98660

A18.0113.00

Washington County Facilities and Parks Services BergerABAM, A18.0113.00

Eagle Landing Park Improvements – Feasibility Study December 2017

Washington County, Oregon Page i of ii

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Setting and History

2.2 Improvements

2.3 Natural Features

3.0 CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES AND COST ESTIMATES

3.1 Alternative 1: Americans with Disabilities Act-Compliant Path to the River

3.2 Alternative 2: Non-Americans with Disabilities Act-Compliant Path to the River

3.3 Alternative 3: Gangway and Floating Dock

3.4 Cost Estimates

4.0 PERMIT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Required Federal Permits

4.1.1 Section 404 Clean Water Act

4.1.2 Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act

4.1.3 Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act

4.2 Required State Permits

4.2.1 Section 401 Clean Water Act – Water Quality Certification

4.2.2 Removal-Fill Permit

4.2.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – 1200-C Construction

Stormwater General Permit

4.3 Washington County Required Permits

4.3.1 Preliminary Review

4.3.2 Final Review

4.4 Permit Sequence

4.5 Permit Summary

5.0 APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

5.1 Comprehensive Plan: Rural/Natural Resource Plan Element

5.2 Zoning and Development Standards

5.2.1 Zoning

5.2.2 Development Standards

6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Comparison of Alternatives and Feasibility

6.2 Recommendations

Washington County, Oregon Page ii of ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Required Permits Table 2. Comparison of Conceptual Alternatives:

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Site Photos

Appendix B – Conceptual Site Plan Renderings

Appendix C – Cost Estimates

Appendix D – County Application Forms

Appendix E – Maps

Washington County, Oregon Page 1 of 20

FEASIBILITY STUDY

WASHINGTON COUNTY FACILITIES AND PARKS SERVICES

EAGLE LANDING PARK IMPROVEMENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Washington County Facilities and Parks Services (County Parks) is exploring options for water access improvements at Eagle Landing Park located in rural Washington County at 26001 SW Rainbow Lane (parcel number 2S209A004400) adjacent to the Tualatin

River. After high water events during the winter of 2016-2017, erosion undermined the concrete block anchoring the set of wooden stairs that provide river access at the end of the on-site path (see Appendix A: Site Photos). County Parks seeks to restore river access by constructing one of two options: (1) a durable, hard surface path to the river, or (2) a floating dock with a gangway that would provide year-round access.

BergerABAM is assisting County Parks by assessing the feasibility of permitting the two options. This report describes the existing conditions at the park and the two conceptual design options for water access improvements, and discusses the planning level costs for both designs. The report also identifies and describes the federal, state, and local permits necessary to permit each alternative. The overall purpose of the report is to provide information that will help County Parks decide whether to proceed to designing, permitting, and constructing the improvements.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Setting and History

Eagle Landing Park is located on a 0.72-acre parcel at the corner of SW Rainbow Lane and SW Patricia Lane in rural Washington County outside the Metro urban growth boundary (UGB). The site is approximately 120 feet wide on its eastern side where it meets SW Rainbow Lane and narrows to 70 feet on its western property boundary at the

Tualatin River. The lot is over 300 feet deep. According to Washington County (County) tax lot maps, the site extends to the midpoint of the river.

Originally created as part of the 55-lot Rainbow Ends subdivision in 1950, residential areas are located to the north and northeast of the project site. Single-family lots backing up to the Tualatin River on 80-foot wide lots are located to the north of the site and are accessed from SW Rainbow Lane. Five-acre, rural residential lots are located to the east and north of the site. To the south of the site is a farm with agricultural buildings and a residence on a 33-acre parcel.

The site was dedicated as a public park to the County by the developer of the Rainbow

Ends subdivision. The land likely remained vacant until the 1990s when the County partnered with local Boy Scout Troop 874 to build and maintain park improvements.

Washington County, Oregon Page 2 of 20

2.2 Improvements

Existing improvements at Eagle Landing Park include a small, gravel parking lot of

12 spaces immediately adjacent to SW Rainbow Lane, a gravel path to the river, grassy areas upland with a single picnic table near the parking lot, and four signs. The parking lot is bounded by 1- to 2-foot-diameter logs that delineate the parking lot boundaries and serve as wheel stops. The path to the river is approximately 6 feet wide, surfaced with crushed gravel, and is generally located in the center of the site with grassy areas located north of it. A removable bollard at the eastern side of the path near the parking lot prevents vehicle entry, but it can be removed to allow maintenance vehicles onto the site.

The sign nearer the parking lot is supported by wooden posts and lists rules for the use of the park and a map of water-oriented recreational sites along the lower Tualatin

River. The top of the sign has a carving of the name of the park and the image of an eagle. The second sign is located in the grassy area south of the path and warns park users that the river access is unimproved and no lifeguard is on duty (see Appendix A:

Site Photos). A third sign is located along the path as it begins to slope toward the river and warns users of a danger of falling into the river. The final sign denotes the park’s northern property boundary.

SW Rainbow Lane is a two-lane, rural road designated as an “other road” on the

County’s functional classification map. The designation means that the road is not classified as either an arterial or a collector. The road is surfaced with asphalt and is approximately 25 to 30 feet wide in a 50-foot right-of-way.

Public utilities near the site are limited or nonexistent. The site falls outside the boundaries of Clean Water Services and the Tualatin Valley Water District. A roadside swale collects stormwater from Rainbow Lane and the surrounding development. It is unknown who maintains the swale. There are no public sanitary sewer or water facilities on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, according to information from Clean Water

Services and the Tualatin Valley Water District.

2.3 Natural Features

The site’s natural features are defined by its setting in rural Washington County along the Tualatin River. The overall character of the site is a partially vegetated and partially cleared area along a historic bluff above the river. Vegetation on the site includes a mix of maintained grassy areas in upland areas of the site nearest the parking lot with large

1- to 2-foot-diameter conifer trees bordering the grassy areas on the north. To the south of the path and the grassy area, there is a drainage channel surrounded by low-growing, invasive vegetation, such as English ivy and Himalayan blackberry, interspersed with a few deciduous trees. Further to the south along the southern property line are large evergreen trees. Along the shoreline of the Tualatin River is a steep slope down to the river’s edge. Riparian vegetation along this slope is composed of native deciduous cottonwood trees with a mixed understory of native shrubs and non-native, weedy herbaceous species.

Washington County, Oregon Page 3 of 20

The site’s topography is generally flat near the parking lot and extending west to the midpoint of the site where it slopes downward toward the river along the path. The path appears to have been cut into a historic bluff of approximately 10 to 15 feet in height overlooking the river. Site slopes average 14 percent from its midpoint to the river. Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping, the entire site and adjacent areas in the Rainbow Ends subdivision are located in 100-year floodplain Zone A with no base flood elevations determined.

The Tualatin River is located along the western property boundary and is mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a permanently flooded, lower perennial, riverine wetland with an unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH). No other wetlands are mapped on the property. According to StreamNet (2017), the river is also mapped as habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed (ESA) coho salmon and steelhead.

Based on the County’s Rural and Natural Resources Plan, the Tualatin River is classified a “water area and wetland and fish and wildlife habitat” and a “water area and wetland” and is regulated by the County’s significant natural resources ordinance

(Community Development Code [CDC] Section 422), which is discussed in sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this report.

3.0 CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES AND COST ESTIMATES

This section of the report describes the three conceptual design alternatives for the site and their associated cost estimates. The conceptual designs were based on criteria established in conversations with County Parks. Initially, BergerABAM discussed developing two conceptual alternatives: an alternative providing an Americans with

Disabilities Act-compliant (ADA) access path to the water and another alternative (also

ADA-compliant) providing a floating dock and gangway comparable to the type of infrastructure found at Brown’s Ferry Park on the Tualatin River. After early draft concept designs revealed that the ADA-compliant path option would require a large number of switchbacks to the river and possibly be impractical for park users carrying watercraft, BergerABAM produced a third alternative showing a non-ADA-compliant path to the river. The draft conceptual design alternatives were provided to the County

Parks for review prior to revising.

The alternatives, design feasibility issues, and costs are discussed further below. The design feasibility is the physical limitations of the site to accommodate each alternative.

Appendix B includes a graphic rendering of each alternative.

3.1 Alternative 1: Americans with Disabilities Act-Compliant Path to the River

Alternative 1 provides an 8-foot-wide, asphalt path to the river. The path complies with

ADA requirements that establish a maximum slope of 5 percent. Given the existing slope of the site along the historic river bluff, the path would require significant grading and 12 switchbacks. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of net cut would be required to construct this option. This alternative would also require slope armoring with boulder

Washington County, Oregon Page 4 of 20 retaining walls generally parallel to the north and south property lines. The retaining walls would be less than 4 feet tall and would not require a building permit. Slopes would be revegetated for additional stabilization and to replace vegetation removed as a result of path construction. In accordance with input received from County Parks, a central path with stairs and railing through the meandering path is also included in this alternative. The central path would provide a second means of river access for park users who do not require ADA accessibility. The path could provide year-round access to the river, although it would be inadvisable to use the path at flood stage.

Below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), maintenance for this alternative would include annual inspections of the asphalt and base rock, which would be subject to scour and may need to be rebuilt every few years. Above the OHWM, the asphalt and base rock would only require infrequent maintenance. Portions of the railing would need to be replaced if damaged by river debris. The addition of slope stabilization in this option could help reduce erosion and impacts from the current, but would increase the grading and impacts to the riverbank.

From a design perspective, Alternative 1 is viable and the site can accommodate the proposed ADA-compliant path and central path with stairs, although, as noted, Alternative 1 would require significant disturbance and grading to construct.

3.2 Alternative 2: Non-Americans with Disabilities Act-Compliant Path to the River

Alternative 2 features a more steeply sloped and direct path to the river than

Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, Alternative 2 proposes an 8-foot-wide asphalt surfaced path. The path, sloped at a maximum of 12 percent, would terminate at a landing with concrete stairs from the landing to the water. This option requires a total of two switchbacks in the path and stairs before terminating at the water. Unlike

Alternative 1, this option would not require that the side slopes along the path be artificially stabilized. The side slopes would be more gently sloped at 3:1 and vegetation would provide natural stabilization. Due to the reduction in the number of switchbacks, there would be far less disturbance of the riverbank and, therefore, less grading for this option than Alternative 1. This alternative would require approximately 120 cubic yards of net cut. Like Alternative 1, the path could provide year-round access to the river, although it would be inadvisable to use the access at flood stage.

Maintenance activities for the path in this alternative are expected to be less than for

Alternative 1 because the concrete stairs below the OHWM would better withstand scour than asphalt. In addition, there is far less asphalt in Alternative 2 than Alternative

1 and no retaining walls. The asphalt path would need to be inspected annually for scour and the asphalt and base rock replaced every few years below the OHWM. The stairs, although located below the OHWM, would be built below the scour mark, but would need to be inspected annually to ensure that high waters have not eroded or destabilized them. On an as needed basis, but expected to be infrequently, the stairs would need to be reconstructed or repaired if damage from scour occurred. Slope

Washington County, Oregon Page 5 of 20 stabilization could be added to this option to reduce the impacts from the current on the path and stairs and the frequency of maintenance, but would increase the grading and impacts to the riverbank.

Alternative 2 is viable from a design perspective with the site having the physical capacity to accommodate the alternative.

3.3 Alternative 3: Gangway and Floating Dock

The purpose of Alternative 3 is to provide an option with a higher level of infrastructure comparable to that found at other Tualatin River water-access sites such as Brown’s

Ferry Park. Alternative 3 features a gangway and small floating dock that rises and falls with fluctuating river levels. An 8-foot asphalt path leads to a 4-foot-wide by 80-foot-long gangway anchored to the bank by a concrete abutment. An 8- by 12-foot landing float and 8- by 16-foot float would be attached to the gangway. The gangway and dock option would be ADA-compliant; however, the slope of the gangway would vary by the water level. At low water, the gangway would be steeply sloped and ADA park users might have difficulty using the gangway without assistance. At high water, the gangway would be gently sloped and could be more easily used by ADA patrons. The gangway and dock would be inaccessible when water levels rise above the elevation of the abutment. At that extreme water elevation, the path would not connect to the gangway, preventing access to the dock and gangway. The dock may need to be grated to meet U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) light penetration requirements.

Maintenance for this alternative would include annual inspections of the dock and gangway, which could be damaged by river debris and require periodic maintenance.

3.4 Cost Estimates

BergerABAM prepared planning-level permitting and construction cost estimates for each of the three conceptual design alternatives. The cost estimates are based on available information at the time the conceptual designs were prepared and are subject to revisions as more information becomes available during project design through site surveys and special reports, including but not limited to the geotechnical, natural resources, and archaeological reports. A 30 percent construction cost contingency has been included in the estimates to account for unforeseen circumstances. In addition, a no net rise analysis will be required to comply with the County’s floodplain and drainage hazard area ordinance and has not been included in the cost estimate. Although unlikely, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) through FEMA may be needed if the selected alternative is determined to result in a change in the base flood elevation, but is unlikely to be required for any of the alternatives. Therefore, preparation of the

CLOMR also has not been included in the cost estimate. Survey work and hydraulic modeling are also not included, but are expected to fit within the project’s budget contingency.

Washington County, Oregon Page 6 of 20

Permitting and construction cost estimates for each alternative are: Alternative 1 –

$403,360; Alternative 2 – $238,600; and Alternative 3 – $324,020. The detailed cost estimates are contained in Appendix C to this report.

4.0 PERMIT ASSESSMENT

This section of the report identifies the federal, state, and Washington County permits that would be required to construct Alternatives 1 through 3 described above and to remove or relocate the snags in the river that are a hazard for boaters. The permit assessment is based on a review of the County CDC, conversations with County

Associate Planner Carine Andres, and BergerABAM’s knowledge and experience with state and federal permitting requirements. Required permits, review agencies, permit triggers, submittal requirements, and review timelines are summarized in Table 1 in section 4.5.

4.1 Required Federal Permits

4.1.1 Section 404 Clean Water Act

A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit is administered by the USACE. This permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United

States such as would be required to construct a path or stairs below the river’s OHWM in Alternatives 1 and 2. For Alternative 3, a Section 404 permit may or may not be required depending upon whether the USACE considers the pilings for the dock to be fill. Final determination of whether a Section 404 permit is required will be made by the

USACE at the time of application submittal.

The proposed activities, including the removal or relocation of snags, will require the completion of a Joint Permit Application (JPA) and will be used for a USACE permit in accordance with Section 404 of the CWA. The items that must accompany the application include completed USACE forms, background information in the form of supporting documents (wetland and waterbodies delineation, habitat assessment, revegetation plan, biological assessment, engineering plans, etc.), and graphics.

4.1.2 Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Actions of federal agencies (i.e., issuance of federal permits) that may affect endangered species or designated critical habitat must be evaluated under Section 7 of the ESA. In addition, effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) must be considered in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Based on the federal permits that probably will be required and the potential presence of ESA-listed species in the river, the project is anticipated to undergo ESA Section 7 consultation. A biological assessment will be necessary to document ESA compliance. The biological assessment also must assess potential effects on EFH as defined by MSA. This document will be used for consultation with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine

Fisheries Service [NMFS]).

Washington County, Oregon Page 7 of 20

The ESA consultation will require the project to employ the most applicable best management practices and will likely focus on any in-water work associated with river access. A Section 7 consultation may not be required if the USACE does not require a

Section 404 permit for Alternative 3.

4.1.3 Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to determine how a proposed project may affect recorded or undiscovered cultural resources and/or historic properties within the permit area. Section 106 directs federal agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed federal undertaking (i.e., federal permitting) to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. Compliance with Section

106 is a requirement of all Section 404 permits.

A cultural resource/historic property survey conducted by a professional archaeologist will be necessary before a Section 404 authorization can be completed. Applicants should be aware that Section 106 coordination and/or consultation may add significant time to the Section 404 permit application review process. A Section 106 permit may not be required for Alternative 3 if the USACE does not require a Section 404 permit for

Alternative 3.

4.2 Required State Permits

4.2.1 Section 401 Clean Water Act – Water Quality Certification

Under Section 401 of the CWA, any activity involving a discharge into waters of the

United States authorized by a federal permit must receive a water quality certification from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). ODEQ is authorized to make 401 certification decisions for activities on all federal, public, and private lands in

Oregon. A Section 401 water quality certification may not be required if the USACE does require a Section 404 permit for Alternative 3.

Under United States Code (USC) 33 USC 1341, a Section 401 water quality certification is required for the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (e.g., dock pile).

4.2.2 Removal-Fill Permit

Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990) requires projects that plan to remove or fill more than 50 cubic yards of material in waters of the state to obtain a permit from the

Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), unless the activity is within Essential

Salmonid Habitat, in which case a permit is required without regard to quantity.

Anticipated activities within the Tualatin River on the project site, including snag removal or relocation, will trigger the need to comply with these regulations. The application for a removal-fill permit requires the preparation of the JPA form, figures, a compensatory mitigation/revegetation plan, and supporting information and coordination with DSL during the review and issuance of the permit. Regardless of

Washington County, Oregon Page 8 of 20 project impacts, DSL also requires an analysis of project alternatives and documentation of avoidance and minimization.

During project design and permitting, discussions with DSL will be necessary to determine whether they have concerns regarding the distance the dock protrudes into the river. The dock at Brown’s Ferry Park projects approximately 55 feet into the

Tualatin River at a location where the river is 200 feet wide. At Eagle Landing, the dock as conceptualized would project 26 feet into the river where the river is approximately

70 feet wide.

4.2.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – 1200-C Construction Stormwater

General Permit

ODEQ regulates stormwater discharges during construction through the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for disturbances greater than 1 acre. Based on the size of the proposed construction site, approval under this program may not be required depending on the chosen alternative. Because there is no history of industrial contamination or significant risks associated with construction, we anticipate that the construction work can be authorized through the NPDES 1200-C

Construction Stormwater Permit, if required.

4.3 Washington County Required Permits

The County has a two-tiered permit process involving preliminary review by the

Current Planning Section of the Department of Land Use and Transportation and final review by the Building Services Section. The County will not complete preliminary and final review concurrently, as do some jurisdictions, so County Parks will want to give adequate consideration to the time necessary to complete these reviews sequentially.

4.3.1 Preliminary Review

The purpose of preliminary review is to assess a project’s compliance with applicable zoning and development standards contained in the County CDC. Please see section 5.0 for a discussion of applicable development standards. The County’s Department of

Land Use and Transportation will require that the project undergo a Type I or Type II preliminary review process. In order to be considered a Type I application, the project must be able to meet the floodplain development standards in CDC Section 421 as explained in section 5.2.2 of this report with revegetation of the riverbank required.

Neighborhood meetings are not required for the proposed park improvements outside the UGB under a Type I or II review, but could be conducted in any case to build trust with neighbors prior to construction.

Pre-application Conference

The first step in the development review process is a pre-application conference. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to familiarize applicants with the review process, code requirements, and comprehensive plan requirements that will apply to their project. Pre-application conferences are not required for Type I reviews, but are required for Type II reviews. To schedule a pre-application conference, the applicant

Washington County, Oregon Page 9 of 20 must complete a two-page form providing information about the site and the applicant along with a scaled site plan (Appendix D). Pre-application conferences may be waived by signing a waiver form (Appendix D) with the applicant agreeing to assume greater risk if the development application is deemed incomplete or if missed development standards require project redesign and result in delays. After submittal of the required information, pre-application conferences are scheduled within two to four weeks.

Type I Review (Administrative Review without Notice)

After completion of a pre-application conference or submittal of a waiver, the applicant can submit a formal land use application for preliminary review. The proposed improvements under both alternatives 1 and 2 could be permitted under a Type I review process provided that compliance with the floodplain alteration requirements in CDC

Section 421-4.6 associated with bank restoration and stabilization can be met (see section

5.2.2 pertaining to floodplain regulations), including revegetating the river bank. Type I reviews are the most straightforward and do not require discretion and decisions; these reviews are made administratively by the Director of the Department of Land Use and

Transportation. Neither public notice nor a hearing are required for a Type I review.

After submittal, the County initiates an application completeness review and has 30 days to deem the application complete or request additional information. If additional information is requested, the applicant has 180 days to provide it. By state statute

(Oregon Revised Statutes 215.427) and the CDC, the County can take up to 150 days to review Type I applications; however, discussion with County staff indicates that Type I decisions are typically made within 30 days after the application is deemed complete.

Submittal requirements common to all application types are specified in CDC Section

203-4.2 and generally include a development application form (Appendix D), County tax lot map, site plan, narrative demonstrating compliance with applicable code standards, and application fee.

Applicants proposing floodplain alterations where base flood elevations have not been determined must submit a Floodplain Information Request Sheet to the County

Floodplain Administrator to obtain the 100-year floodplain water surface elevation. The floodplain administrator may also conduct a site visit. The Type I floodplain development application would require submittal of the following items:

A delineation of the floodplain and floodway boundaries by a professional engineer and shown on project plans. The applicant must also submit "Flood Plain/Drainage

Hazard Determination" form to the County's floodplain administrator to obtain the base flood elevation established for the site by the County.

Plan showing the topography of the site at 1-foot intervals for slopes less than 5 percent, 2-foot intervals for slopes above 5 and up to 10 percent, and 5-foot intervals for slopes above 10 percent.

Compliance narrative of review standards in Sections 421-7 through 421-14.

Washington County, Oregon Page 10 of 20

In addition to the Type I review for floodplain alteration, the proposed improvements under alternatives 1 and 2 would require preliminary grading plan review (CDC Section

410) and review under the County’s Significant Natural Resources ordinance (CDC

Section 422). Grading permits are required for development within floodplains and significant natural resource areas. Both the preliminary grading plan and significant natural resources review would be completed under the same process as the floodplain alteration. Alternatively, the applicant can elect to have the preliminary grading plan review occur separately under a Type I process. Submittal items required for preliminary grading plan review and significant natural resources alternation include:

Preliminary grading plan submittal requirements:

Completed preliminary grading review application

Vicinity map

Scaled site plan including contours, proposed elevations, retaining walls, cross sections, area of improvements/grading onsite and within 50 feet, drainage flow lines, and water quality sensitive areas with vegetated corridors

Written narrative addressing reason for grading, surface area disturbed, cut/fill volumes, soil map, provisions for preserving topsoil, disposal plans, and compliance with Section 410-3

Erosion control plan

Significant natural resources alteration submittal requirements1

Delineation by a qualified professional of significant natural resources (including wetlands, habitat, and riparian areas)

A site plan showing the significant natural resources boundary

Topographic map

Documented extent and types of plant and animal species in the natural resource area

Numerical habitat ratings

Assessment of impacts and recommended measures for mitigation.

Findings that address CDC Section 422-3.1.

Type II Review (Administrative Review with Notice)

Like Type I reviews, Type II reviews are administrative with a final decision made by the Director. Type II reviews are intended for development with “reasonably objective” review criteria and involve limited discretion, and the development’s impact on adjacent properties may require conditions of approval as mitigation. Key differences between

Type I and Type II review include that the Type II applications require public notice and have a longer review time and a higher fee, but both application types would be subject

1 Submittal requirements for developments in Significant Natural Resource Areas are established by the

17 February 1998 Community Development Code Interpretation

Washington County, Oregon Page 11 of 20 to the same review criteria for the proposed park improvements. The two application types have the same completeness review period (30 days) and applicant response period (180 days), if the application is deemed incomplete. The notice period runs for 14 days and properties within a 1,000-foot radius are required to be noticed. The property also must be posted with signage informing the public of the proposed development. As with Type I applications, state statute affords the County 150 days to make a decision.

According to Department of Land Use and Transportation staff, Type II decisions are typically made in a 4 to 6 month period, significantly longer than the 30-day average for

Type I decisions. Land Use and Transportation staff issue a staff report for the Type II application discussing its compliance or non-compliance with code criteria, issuing the

County’s decision, and specifying conditions of approval.

Submittal requirements for Type II applications are the same as for Type I, with the exception that the applicant must provide a list of the addresses of properties within

1,000 feet of the site for noticing purposes.

Permit Expiration and Appeals

Type I decisions are appealable within 10 days and Type II decisions within 12 days after the written decision. Appeals of administrative decisions are heard by the County’s

Hearings Officer. Permits expire after four years, if construction has not been started, but may be extended by an additional two years if construction has not been initiated.

4.3.2 Final Review

After preliminary approval is received for the Type I or II floodplain alteration, preliminary grading plan, and significant natural resources review, the applicant can submit plans to the Building Services Section for final review. In this case, a final grading plan review and approval would be required before the site could be altered.

The dock in Alternative 2 would need to undergo structural review as well. See

Appendix D for final grading and building permit forms and checklists.

Final grading plan review requires that many of the same items be submitted as for preliminary grading plan review, but plans are expected to be further developed based on comments provided during preliminary review. Key differences between preliminary and final grading plan review requirements are that the final review requires the submittal of a geotechnical report, grading and drainage calculations, and surveyor benchmark. The geotechnical report can optionally be submitted during preliminary review and resubmitted during final review. The Building Services Section would also conduct a review of drainage and stormwater during the grading review. Given that a relatively small amount of changes and new impervious surface would be included in alternatives 1 and 2, the Section anticipates that stormwater detention and treatment likely would not be required and the stormwater report would likely be a few paragraphs indicating that drainage would not affect adjacent properties. In addition to the final grading plan review, Alternative 2 (new dock) would require the submittal of

Washington County, Oregon Page 12 of 20 structural plans and calculations and these would be reviewed at the same time as the final grading plan.

Discussion with the Building Services Section indicates the overall review schedule for final grading plan and structural review is approximately six to eight weeks, not including the time required for the applicant to prepare or revise plans and reports based on staff requests. The review time is composed of a 1- to 2-day completeness check, a 30-day review period and, on average, two to four weeks of additional review after plans have been revised based on the County’s first review.

4.4 Permit Sequence

Most federal and state permits are submitted concurrently using the JPA form. The

Section 404, ESA/MSA, Section 106, and Section 401 reviews happen simultaneously.

Review times for these permits vary and generally take from 6 to 18 months. The state removal/fill permit from DSL and the NPDES – 1200C permits are not required to be submitted with the other permits and take less time to review, but nonetheless are usually submitted concurrently with the other state and federal applications. Timelines for County preliminary reviews vary from approximately 30 days for a Type I review process to between 4 to 6 months after the application is deemed complete.

At the 17 November 2017 on-site kickoff meeting with County staff, Parks staff expressed a desire to construct improvements during summer 2018. Achieving that start date may be unlikely given state and federal review times. The in-water work window for the Tualatin River is 1 June to 30 September. Completing the design and obtaining

County, state, and federal permits by that time is improbable. Permits could be submitted as soon as possible with the understanding that review might not be completed until late 2018 or early 2019 with construction in 2019. County submittal and review can occur concurrent with or after the submittal of state and federal permit applications.

If no federal permits (e.g., Section 404 permit, Section 7, and Section 106 reviews) or associated Section 401 permit are required for Alternative 3, only state permits through

DSL and Washington County permits would be required. In this case, review times could be closer to 6 months, but would still likely push permit decisions to the fall or winter of 2018 with construction in early 2019.

4.5 Permit Summary

The following table summarizes the federal, state, and County permits necessary to permit Alternatives 1 through 3.

Washington County, Oregon Page 13 of 20

Table 1. Summary of Required Permits

Permit Review Agency Permit Trigger Submittal Requirements Review Timelines

Federal Permits

CWA Section 404 Authorization USACE Dredge and fill activities (pile placement) in waters of the United

States (e.g., Tualatin River)

JPA form; graphics; engineering drawings; mitigation/revegetation plan; wetland and waterbodies delineation/habitat assessment

6-18 months

ESA Section 7 Consultation U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

NOAA Fisheries/

NMFS

Federal agencies must consult with USFWS and NMFS when actions have the potential to affect listed species. The Tualatin

River is habitat for multiple listed salmonids.

Biological assessment 6-18 months

NHPA Section 106 USACE

State Historic

Preservation Act

Federal agencies must consider impacts of federal actions on cultural and historic resources

Cultural resources report 6-18 months

State Permits

CWA Section 401 – Water Quality

Certification

ODEQ Applicants seeking federal approval must receive water quality certification prior to issuance of federal permit

JPA form; graphics; engineering drawings; mitigation/revegetation plan; water quality specific information; wetland and waterbodies delineation/habitat assessment

3-6 months

Removal-Fill Permit Oregon DSL Removal or fill activities of 50 cubic yards or greater within waters of the state; or any activity within Essential Salmonid Habitat

(e.g., Tualatin River)

JPA form; graphics; engineering drawings; mitigation/revegetation plan; wetland and waterbodies delineation/habitat assessment

4 months

NPDES – 1200-C Construction

Stormwater General Permit

ODEQ Construction disturbing more than

1 acre of land will require a general or individual NPDES construction stormwater permit.

Application form; land use compatibility statement; erosion and sediment control plan

2 months

Washington County

Pre-application Conference Washington County Optional for Type I, Required for

Type II unless waived (CDC Section

203-2.1)

Application form, scaled site plan Scheduled 2-4 weeks after submittal

Washington County, Oregon Page 14 of 20

Permit Review Agency Permit Trigger Submittal Requirements Review Timelines

Type I/Type II Floodplain

Alteration

Washington County Development (grading) within mapped floodplain

General submittal requirements:

development application form; tax lot map; site plan; compliance narrative;

application fee; list of addresses within

1,000 feet (Type II only)

Floodplain alteration requirements:

floodplain & floodway delineation; plan showing existing topography; CLOMR

(if applicable); hydrologic/hydraulic analysis demonstrating no net rise and no change in flood velocity; floodplain/ drainage hazard determination form;

compliance narrative

Type I: 30-day review on average (150 days allowed by statute)

Type II: 120- to 140-day review on average (150 days allowed by statute)

Preliminary Grading Plan Review Washington County Grading in the floodplain Preliminary grading review application, vicinity map, site plan, cross sections, narrative, erosion control plan

Reviewed concurrently with floodplain alteration permit

Significant Natural Resources –

422 of Development Standards

Washington County Development within riparian areas, water areas and wetlands, or water areas and wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat

Site plan delineating significant natural resource boundaries, topo map, soil map, wetland delineation (if applicable), riparian delineation, extent and type of plant species, wildlife habitat rating, impact assessment, mitigation measures, narrative addressing CDC 422-3.1

Reviewed concurrently with floodplain alteration permit

Grading Permit (Final Grading

Plan)

Washington County Grading within the floodplain Grading/rural erosion control permit application, final grading plans containing information specified in

CDC 410-1.2, statement as to intention/purpose of grading work, geotechnical engineering report, drainage analysis report

6 weeks on average

(1 month initial review, 2-4 week second review)

Structural Review (Dock Only) Washington County Development of a structure (dock) Building permit application form; plans

(sheet index, vicinity map, site information, structural engineering plans, site plan, code summary, civil sheets, structural plans); structural calculations: geotech report

Reviewed concurrently with grading permit

Washington County, Oregon Page 15 of 20

5.0 APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

5.1 Comprehensive Plan: Rural/Natural Resource Plan Element

The site is designated Agriculture and Forest – 5-acre (AF-5) minimum on the County’s

Land Use Districts map and is not located in one of the County’s community planning areas that set policies and standards for urban areas. Because the site is located in a rural area of the County, the Rural/Natural Resources Plan Element of the County’s

Comprehensive Plan sets policy and land use designations for it – in particular, Policy 10 of the Rural/Natural Resources Plan Element, which requires that the County implement the recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection

Plan for Washington County. In a preliminary review of the Tualatin Basin Goal 5

Program Implementation Report, there did not appear to be development practices in the report that apply to the restoration of river access at the site that would be problematic to meet.

5.2 Zoning and Development Standards

This section of the report summarizes the zoning and development standards that apply to the project based on the County’s desire to restore river access and conceptual development as envisioned for the site.

5.2.1 Zoning

The County CDC regulates zoning and development standards on the site. The site is zoned AF-5, which implements the Comprehensive Plan designation of the same name.

The purpose of the AF-5 zone is to “promote agriculture and forest uses on small parcels in the rural area” according to the CDC. Parks are a permitted use in the zone under a

Type I or Type II process (see discussion below regarding permit process).

The AF-5 zone sets standards for lot area and width, yard requirements (setbacks), structure height and access. Given the County’s desire to develop the site with a path to the river and/or a dock on the river with no buildings proposed, standards for lot area and width, yard requirements, and structure height do not apply to the development of the site. The structures proposed in the concept site plan drawings in Appendix B (dock) will not exceed the 35-foot height limit in the AF-5 zone. Lots must abut a public street or receive access from an easement; the subject site is accessed from SW Rainbow Lane and meets the access requirement.

5.2.2 Development Standards

This section summarizes the standards applicable to the development of river access improvements in the form of a path and/or dock.

Open Space (CDC Section 405)

This code section requires that certain areas be set aside as open space and preserved and maintained in perpetuity. These areas include rivers and land within the floodplain, drainage hazard area, or riparian zone except as allowed by CDC Sections 421 (Flood

Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development) and 422 (Significant Natural Resources).

Washington County, Oregon Page 16 of 20

Because the entire site is located in the regulated floodplain, development is allowed in accordance with Section 422 as discussed below. Required maintenance must include the removal of litter and hazardous planta. Rivers are to remain free flowing and floodplain levels must not be affected.

Grading and Drainage (CDC Section 410)

The County has a two-step process for review of grading plans: a preliminary grading plan and a final grading plan (see section 4.0). The applicant must comply with the grading criteria contained in CDC Section 410-3, including that grading is no more extensive than necessary, will not cause erosion or interfere with off-site drainage, and is blended with adjacent site topography.

Screening and Buffering (CDC Section 411)

Based on a discussion with Land Use and Transportation Associate Planner Carine

Andres and a review of the CDC, screening and buffering requirements do not apply to the site.

Parking and Loading (CDC (Section 413)

County Parks is not proposing to improve the parking lot adjacent to SW Rainbow Lane.

Furthermore, based on a conversation with Current Planning Services, the County does not consider the restoration of river access to be a new use that would trigger the need for new parking and a review under the County’s parking code. Therefore, the parking and loading standards do not apply to the project.

Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development (CDC Section 421)

Based on FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Map number 41067C0525E, the entire site is located within the 100-year floodplain with no base flood elevations determined and is subject to CDC Section 421. Either a Type I or a Type II process applies to development within the regulated floodplain (see section 4.0). The proposed development of river access can be considered “restoration and stabilization of the bank of a river” under CDC

Section 421-4.6 subject to a Type I process provided that associated criteria can be met:

The project responds to a demonstrated bank failure from a specific flood event or which has occurred in the last two years.

The project restores and stabilizes the bank to its original location before failure.

The length of the bank does not exceed 250 feet.

The project is located outside the UGB.

If riprap is used, it will be keyed into the bed and bank of the river.

Revegetation of the bank is required with five plants per 100 square feet, 20 percent of which must be trees.

Based on BergerABAM’s review of the criteria and conceptual design level completed to date, we believe it is possible for the project to meet the Type I permit requirements.

However, should preliminary designs later reveal that one or more of the Type I criteria

Washington County, Oregon Page 17 of 20 cannot be met, a Type II process would be required under CDC Section 421-5.15 with the proposed improvements classified as a park. Both Type I and Type II developments would be subject to the development standards in CDC Section 421-7 and the general standards in CDC Section 421-14 including:

A hydraulic/hydrologic analysis that demonstrates that the development and future basin development will not result in a net increase in flood levels.

Floodway encroachments have been designed to minimize the risk they will catch debris or impede floodwater flows.

The proposals will not increase the existing velocity of flood flows.

All cut and fill will be structurally sound and designed to minimize erosion.

Fill will be balanced with cut onsite or offsite.

Disturbance to the riparian area has been minimized.

All state and federal permits will be obtained prior to development in the floodplain.

Significant Natural Resources (Section 422)

The County’s Rural/Natural Resources Plan, Goal 5 Resources map (Appendix E) identifies the site as containing significant natural resources. All upland areas of the site are designated as “Water area and wetland” and the Tualatin River is designated as

“Water area and wetland and fish and wildlife habitat.” As such, development of the site is subject to CDC Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources). Water areas and wetlands include the 100-year floodplain, drainage hazard areas, and ponds except those already developed. Water areas and wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat include water areas and wetlands that are also fish and wildlife habitat. As previously discussed, the site is within the 100-year floodplain and the Tualatin River contains wildlife, including ESA-protected fish species.

Uses allowed within significant natural resources include “bank maintenance, restoration, or stabilization including riprapping for erosion control, of a river…provided there is compliance with the requirements of Section 421-4.6”– the

County’s floodplain development ordinance. CDC Section 421-4.6 is discussed above in

“Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development” and requires that the bank be vegetated for stabilization purposes. Development in significant natural resource areas also requires a finding that “the proposed use will not seriously interfere with the preservation of fish and wildlife areas and habitat identified in the Washington County

Comprehensive Plan, or how the interference can be mitigated” in accordance with CDC

422-3.6.2 Submittal requirements are guided by the Director’s Interpretation issued 17

February 1998 and are…