Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02/26/2018 - Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – February 26, 2018 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PDR2017-00005; SLR2017-00006 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests to revise portions of River Terrace Edge Planned Development Review, originally approved on February 1, 2016. The request also includes a sensitive lands review for additional improvements in the northwest corner associated with the Roy Rogers Road widening project. Improvements include a stormwater facility to treat the additional impervious surface created by the road widening and an extension of an existing culvert to allow for a wider road surface. The proposed stormwater and culvert facilities will result in impacts to the protected tree grove and sensitive area (drainage way and steep slopes) not proposed under the original planned development review. 6. BRIEFING 8:05 p.m. – Phase II Development Code Updates Focused on Housing 7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:05 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m. February 26, 2018 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, February 26, 2018 Location: Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Alt. Commissioner Brook Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Lambert Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schmidt Alt. Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: Vice President Feeney Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Assistant City Engineer COMMUNICATIONS President Fitzgerald noted that she had attended the Housing Option Taskforce meeting on the 21st. CONSIDER MINUTES February 5, 2018 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 5 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PDR2017-00005; SLR2017-00006 February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests to revise portions of River Terrace Edge Planned Development Review, originally approved on February 1, 2016. The request also includes a sensitive lands review for additional improvements in the northwest corner associated with the Roy Rogers Road widening project. Improvements include a stormwater facility to treat the additional impervious surface created by the road widening and an extension of an existing culvert to allow for a wider road surface. The proposed stormwater and culvert facilities will result in impacts to the protected tree grove and sensitive area (drainage way and steep slopes) not proposed under the original planned development review. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. None. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Lambert, Whitehurst, Jackson, Hu, Fitzgerald, Schmidt, Lieuallen, Roberts. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau introduced herself – gave a quick overview of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. This is a modification to a previously approved Planned Development that was before the commission in February of 2016. She went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit A) and gave a summary of the project: Modification to the previously approved River Terrace Edge Planned Development and Sensitive Lands Review Washington County in partnership with City of Tigard The proposed modification consists of the following elements: Additional improvements in the northwest corner associated with the Roy Rogers Road widening project. • Stormwater facility which is needed to treat the runoff from the widening of Roy Rogers Road • The extension of an existing culvert to widen Roy Rogers Road • Impacts to protected tree grove and sensitive area The proposed impacts associated with these changes: Removal of 82 significant grove trees. The vegetated corridor will be enhanced and mitigation areas will be planted as described in the Roy Rogers Road CWS SPL. Replanting to restore and enhance the area of permanent and temporary. disturbance with 122 new trees, as well as native shrubs and grasses. 4% increase in canopy coverage over what is currently existing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development Review and Sensitive Lands Review subject to the Conditions of Approval in the staff report. February 26, 2018 Page 3 of 6 STAFF REPORT REVISIONS (for clarification) Monica noted that there is one minor change to Condition 3 and a few changes to the Applicant/Owner information requested by Polygon. Staff recommends changing Condition 3 to state: “Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond or letter of assurance in the amount of…” and then continue the condition. Since this is Washington County in conjunction with the City of Tigard, Washington County will do a letter of assurance as well as a bond for that condition. Additionally, as clarification on the front-page of the staff report, staff will clarify that the owner/co--applicant of the property is Polygon NW, and that Washington County is the primary applicant. Those revisions to the staff report will be made before it goes to President Fitzgerald for signature. QUESTIONS OF STAFF – When talking about a 4% canopy increase, what is the timeframe as to when the canopy will reach that maturity level? “The arborist is here and will go into that in the applicant’s presentation.” What size are the trees that will be planted? “The applicant can include that answer in their presentation as well.” Tigard will be maintaining the stormwater pond immediately upon completion, is that accurate? It seems atypical in a planned development – is that because the applicant is actually Washington County? Assistant City Engineer Kim McMillan answered, “The Washington County/City project is a joint project. Tigard is in for $9M and WaCo is in for $18M. On projects that are in areas within a city on a county facility, the city does the maintenance. You are correct. It is not typical; it’s not part of the planned development. This is separate – it just happens to be on the Polygon property.” APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION John Kelly, Principal Planner with OBEC Consulting Engineers said he and his team are here representing Washington County, which is the primary applicant to the City of Tigard for the planned development amendment. He noted Polygon is a co-applicant in a subordinate, advisory role – mainly to make sure Polygon’s interests are adequately protected in the amendment process. OBEC Consulting Engineers is under contract to Washington County to design the Roy Rogers Road improvements project and to obtain necessary permits and approvals – including this one. Mr. Kelly introduced the rest of his team and Polygon’s team seated in the audience. He said they would be available to help if there were any questions. He noted Kim McMillan was also available in case any questions were appropriate for her to answer. Bob Goodrich – OBEC Consulting Engineers – gave some background on the Roy Rogers Road project. He went over a portion of the team PowerPoint (Exhibit B) regarding the Urban Section (Jean Louise Rd to Scholls Ferry Road). He noted there is a signal being installed at Bull Mountain Road and said the five-lane road widening section will continue out to Scholls Ferry. John Kelly continued the presentation; he described the amendment, and explained how the application complies with the various requirements in the Community Development Code. He noted that they will be adding a small pond, and that other than improvements right at the pond February 26, 2018 Page 4 of 6 and nearby, nothing else is changing in the planned development. He said to the north of the pond is an access road that will also double as a path which is part of the plan; that path extends into the development on the west side of the road. He explained how they will comply with all the application standards. Morgan Holen, a private consulting arborist, said she had developed the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan for River Terrace Edge in collaboration with Pacific Community Design. She noted a significant grove was inventoried as a stand – and that is in accordance with the City’s Urban Forestry Manual. She went over the various specifics of the stand and the understory, including among other things, an abundance of native ferns. She said the variety is very nice. She spoke about compliance with the Urban Forestry requirements of the code. She went over the tree removal & protection plan. She said she had OBEC stake the limits of the proposed work in the field and then she walked the site to assess trees along the boundary. She found there were a few decrepit Big Leaf Maples with poor structure and advanced decay that were not necessarily in the impact area; however, she recommended removal of them because they would not be suitable for retention along that new stand edge, and they would have eventually blown over. She went over the tree canopy site-plan in detail and went over the size of some of the trees at time of installation. She noted the effective tree canopy increases by 4%. John Kelly – said the last set of requirements covered in the staff report have to do with stormwater management – or storm drainage. They had submitted a stormwater management report that demonstrated the pond is adequately sized to handle the projected run-off, and will not overload existing facilities. He said that as the staff report indicates, the proposed improvements meet not only the stormwater drainage standards, but also all other applicable standards. SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Will the speed limit still be 55 MPH on Roy Rogers Rd? I believe it will be a mix of 55 and 45 depending on where you are on the Road. The arborist answered various questions about the specifics of the trees and the length of time to maturity. Who will issue the bond or letter of assurance? We think Washington County will do that. Why are the revisions being proposed now, and why weren’t they part of the original plan and included in the River Edge Development? This was approved 2 years ago this month – the design project was not nearly far enough along to identify all the needs. There was a lag between Polygon’s work and the Washington County project. What is the timeline for the road and the stormwater construction to be complete? The Willamette Water Supply Pipeline is part of the project and will add quite a bit of construction time. That project will go from Wilsonville to Hillsboro; it’s a partnership project. The total construction time will likely be a little over three years. It is going to bid this spring, so we would think it would complete somewhere in the middle of 2021. February 26, 2018 Page 5 of 6 TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION After a very short deliberation, there was a motion. MOTION Commissioner Roberts made a motion that did not include the change to Condition 3, so after a short discussion, a different motion was put forth. The following motion was made by Commissioner Middaugh and was seconded by Commissioner Roberts: “I move for approval of application Planned Development Review (PDR)2017-00005 and Sensitive Land Review (SLR)2017-00006, and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on testimony received tonight. This includes a change in Condition 3 where the words “or letter of assurance” is added after the tree establishment bond. Further, on the application summary, page 1, the owner shall be identified as Polygon Northwest, the applicant as Washington County, and the co-applicant is Polygon Northwest. VOTE All in favor – none opposed – no abstentions. RESULT Motion to approve passed unanimously 8 – 0. BRIEFING – PHASE II DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATES Associate Planner Schuyler Warren introduced himself as the planner working on the Phase II changes to the Development Code, and said he is following on the work of Phase I that had been lead by Tigard’s Associate Planner Agnes Lindor. The Phase II project includes amendments related to a number of policy changes that can be organized into a series of broad topics. Due to time constraints, his presentation would not go into detail about all of those policy changes at this time. He would focus on the policy changes related to housing at this time and will be presenting other briefings in future months providing background on the other changes proposed in this code package. Schuyler then went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit C). He took the commissioners through some background on the history of land use planning in Oregon and touched on the challenges we face as a state in looking at the future of housing. He spoke about challenges in the affordable C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e Roy Rogers Road Improvements at River Terrace Edge Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item #5 Community Development February 26, 2018 EXHIBIT A C I T Y O F T I G A R D Project Summary Modification to the previously approved River Terrace Edge Planned Development and Sensitive Lands Review Washington County in partnership with City of Tigard The proposed modification consists of the following elements: Additional improvements in the northwest corner associated with the Roy Rogers Road widening project. •Stormwater facility •Extension of an existing culvert •Impacts to protected tree grove and sensitive area C I T Y O F T I G A R D C I T Y O F T I G A R D Proposed Street Sections: C I T Y O F T I G A R D C I T Y O F T I G A R D Proposed Impacts and Mitigation Removal of 82 significant grove trees. The vegetated corridor will be enhanced and mitigation areas will be planted as described in the Roy Rogers Road CWS SPL. Replanting to restore and enhance the area of permanent and temporary. disturbance with 122 new trees, as well as native shrubs and grasses. 4% increase in canopy coverage. ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE Presentation to the Tigard Planning Commission February 26, 2018 EXHIBIT B Original Site Map Revised Site Map Original Concept Plan Map Revised Concept Plan Map QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS C I T Y O F T I G A R D Staff Recommendation Staff has thoroughly reviewed the proposed plans and recommends approval of the Planned Development Review and Sensitive Lands Review, subject to the Conditions of Approval in the staff report with a minor change to Condition #3 and Applicant/ Owner information. Revised to state: Prior to and site work , the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond or letter of assurance in the amount of… C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e Roy Rogers Road Improvements at River Terrace Edge Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item #5 Community Development February 26, 2018 City of Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it DoneCity of Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done Phase II Policy and Procedures: Housing Policy August 30, 2017 EXHIBIT C City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard 2017 Median SF Listing Price Tigard $430,869 Hillsboro $370,047 Beaverton $357,261 Portland $426,678 $500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300 $1,500 $1,700 Asking rent per unit Metro Portland Tigard SW Corridor Source: CoStar Multi-Family Property database Presented in Sold Out: PDX Report Source: Washington County Housing Department Snapshot of Housing Affordability City of Tigard FY 2017 HUD Income Limits Tigard MFI = $74,687 4 person household Maximum monthly rent Low Income 80% MFI $59,750 $1494 Very Low Income 50% MFI $37,350 $934 Extremely Low Income 30% MFI $24,600 $615 Median rent in Tigard is $999 according to the 2015 American Community Survey. More than 55% of renting households are paying in excess of 30% of their income in rent. Challenges in Affordable Housing Supply City of Tigard Senate Bill 1051 (5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design. (b) As used in this subsection, “accessory dwelling unit” means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling. All types of ADUs must be allowed subject to regulations City of Tigard Senate Bill 1051 “Needed housing” includes the following housing types: (a) Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; All housing is needed housing City of Tigard Senate Bill 1051 (4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing (6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards… a local government may adopt and apply an alternative approval process… regulating… appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if: (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; Clear and objective standards required City of Tigard Local and Regional Housing Assessments City of Tigard Missing Middle Housing Types City of Tigard All ADUs must be allowed City of Tigard City of Tigard ADU Approval Criteria •Location •Number •Size •Dimensional Standards •Ownership Requirements •Parking requirements We must provide a clear and objective approval path •Home Occupations •Walkways •Front Door Orientation •ADU “swap” •Maximum lot size •Manufactured units City of Tigard Rowhouses City of Tigard Rowhouse Considerations •Zone restrictions could be relaxed •Could be allowed outright on arterials and collectors •Design and siting standards Currently allowed in R-12 and up; limited/conditional in R-7 City of Tigard Duplexes City of Tigard Duplex Considerations •Could be allowed in all zones •Could be allowed outright on all corner lots •Minimum lot size could be reduced •Conditional use could be removed Currently allowed in R-7 and up; conditional in R-3.5 and R-4.5 City of Tigard Cottage Clusters City of Tigard Cottage Cluster Considerations •Could be allowed in some or all zones •Design, siting, and density standards •Standalone design standards chapter (Milwaukie model) Currently not covered explicitly in development code City of Tigard Courtyard Dwellings City of Tigard Courtyard Considerations •Could be allowed in some or all zones •Design, siting, and density standards •Could be allowed outright under a number of units (8?) or conditionally at more units •Could be allowed outright on corner lots, collector roads, or arterials Similar in scope to cottage clusters but attached City of Tigard Live/work Units City of Tigard Live Work Unit Considerations •Could be appropriate in some commercial and residential zones •Typically business in front, dwelling above or behind Currently not covered explicitly in development code City of Tigard Incentive Zoning •Density •Height •FAR •Parking reduction •Open space reduction Bonuses for affordable housing City of Tigard Other housing-related items •Transitional and short-term housing •Partial or full SDC exemptions for ADUs •Temporary or permanent? •Group living definition SDC Exemptions Should ADUs be allowed a partial or full exemption from system development charges? Should any exemption be limited-time to encourage timely development? No exemption currently available PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 1 OF 13 Agenda Item: 5 Hearing Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 7:00PM SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE CASE NO.: Planned Development Review (PDR) Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) PDR2017-00005 SLR2017-00006 REQUEST: The applicant requests to revise portions of River Terrace Edge Planned Development Review, originally approved on February 1, 2016. The request also includes a sensitive lands review for additional improvements in the northwest corner associated with the Roy Rogers Road widening project. Improvements include a stormwater facility to treat the additional impervious surface created by the road widening and an extension of an existing culvert to allow for a wider road surface. The proposed stormwater and culvert facilities will result in impacts to the protected tree grove and sensitive area (drainage way and steep slopes) not proposed under the original planned development review. APPLICANT: Polygon Northwest Company c/o Fred Gast 109 E 13th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 Applicant’s Representative: OBEC John Kelly 5000 Meadows Road, Suite 420 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 LOCATION: East of SW Roy Rogers Road and 900 ft. South of SW Bull Mountain Road. Washington County Tax Map 2S107000, Tax Lots 1200 and 1400. ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: R-7: medium-density residential district. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. R-12: medium-density residential district. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.770, 18.710, 18.640, 18.510, 18.520, 18.910. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = 5/31/2018 PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 2 OF 13 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Attn: Monica Bilodeau, 503-718-2427. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to any site work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. 2. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond in the amount of $51,342 (32 planted trees x $516/tree)+(90 stand grown trees x $387/tree). Fees subject to change July 2018. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements, to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KHOI LE at 503-718- 2440. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 4. Prior to commencing site improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit is required for this project to cover onsite and stormwater Water Quality and Detention Facilities. Four (4) sets of detailed improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Division. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). An Engineering cost estimate of improvements including but not limited to grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities shall be required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. 5. Prior to commencing site improvements, submit a final storm drainage report for the stormwater run-off from the Roy Roger Road widening to the City of Tigard for review and approval. The storm drainage calculations shall comply with the TRUST model. The storm system facilities associated with that treatment and detention facility shall be designed in compliance with Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards. 6. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization. Plans shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development Detailed Plans and Sensitive Lands Review will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meet the Approval Standards as outlined in Section VI of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following Conditions of Approval. PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 3 OF 13 7. Prior to commencing site improvements, an erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition) and submitted to City of Tigard with the PFI plans. 8. Prior to commencing site improvements, a final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. 9. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which areas will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as areas that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. 10. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Site Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. When a 1200-C General Site Permit was obtained as part of a larger project, the Applicant shall provide the City of Tigard a copy of the approved permit for the City’s record. 11. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. Alternatively, the geotechnical engineer can issue the City of Tigard a letter of certification that they have reviewed and approved the plans as well as inspected the construction to ensure compliances. 12. Prior to commencing of site improvements, a permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands, (Authority: Section 404, Clean Water Act, and ORS 541.605 to 641.695). A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department by the applicant. 13. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Tigard Engineering Division copies of the recorded temporary and permanent easements to the benefits of Washington County for the City’s record. 14. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a Site Permit with the City of Tigard’s Building Department. 15. Prior to commencing of site improvements, a permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands, (Authority: Section 404, Clean Water Act, and ORS 541.605 to 641.695). A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department by the applicant. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Developer shall: Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the developer. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the Developer shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 4 OF 13 An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or Cash. The Developer shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The Developer shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the Developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No public facility improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The developer's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the public facilities improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History and Vicinity Information: The subject site consists of Tax Lots 2S107000; 1200, and 1400. The property is located on the East side of SW Roy Rogers Road and 900 feet south of SW Bull Mountain Road. The site includes two zones: R-7 and R-12. The site is currently in agricultural use with two single family residences. The site abuts rural agricultural land to the east within the River Terrace Plan District, unincorporated Washington County residential development to the east. Land to the north has been approved as residential development “Polygon at South River Terrace”, and rural agriculture land to the west and south not within the Urban Grown Boundary. The site contains wetlands along the northern and southern boundary. The northern wetland is also designated as a significant tree grove and significant habitat area within the River Terrace Community Plan. River Terrace Edge was approved by the Planning Commission on February 1, 2016, as a 237-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review, and sensitive lands review on 52.57 acres. The Applicants request approval of an amendment to the Polygon River Terrace Edge THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 7 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 5 OF 13 Planned Development for additional improvements in the northwest corner of the planned development, to be constructed in conjunction with the Roy Rogers Road Improvements Project (the Project) undertaken by Washington County, in partnership with the City of Tigard. Additional improvements would include a stormwater facility and an extension to the existing culvert which allows for vehicular and pedestrian passage on Roy Rogers Road over Tributary 3. The proposed stormwater facility will be an extended dry basin used to treat stormwater from the increased impervious roadway surfaces associated with the roadway widening. The existing six-foot by six-foot concrete box culvert will be extended with eight-foot by eight-foot concrete box sections to support the wider roadway and 2:1 fill slopes. The stormwater and culvert facilities will result in impacts to protected tree groves and sensitive areas not proposed under the original application. This amendment application includes a sensitive lands review for a drainage way and steep slopes. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The applicant held a formal open house meeting on October 12, 2017 with 59 people in attendance. Neighbor concerns focused on efficiency of flagging and road closures, public trash cans, wildlife, school zone signs, and tri met coordination with bus stops and pull outs. On February 1, 2018 the city sent a notice of a pending land use action to neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site boundaries. The City did not receive any written comments. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA Only the approval criteria that pertain to the specific modification are applicable to this requested planned development amendment and sensitive lands review. The request is for a modification of previously approved open space design and sensitive lands review. No other aspects of the previously approved planned development are subject to this review. The requirements of the Planned Development Chapter, sensitive lands review, urban forestry, and storm drainage apply. Because the request is only for additional improvements in the northwest corner, only the following criteria apply: 18.770 Planned Developments 18.640 River Terrace Plan District 18.510 Sensitive Lands Review 18.520 Urban Forestry 18.910.100 Storm Drainage SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 18.770 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.760.060 Concept Plan Approval Criteria 1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural features of the site. This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. The stormwater pond does not alter the open space table on Exhibit C-5.2 of the original application, as contained on Exhibit C-5.2-R. There are two reasons for this. First, the total of the approximately 11,000 square foot area of the proposed pond, when added to the approximately 30,000 square foot area of the stormwater pond in the southwest corner of the site in the original application, still represents less than two acres. Second, because they are proportionately small, the reductions in the areas of “Parks/Trails, Landscape Areas” and “Resource Areas” from subtracting the area of the proposed pond do not alter the percentages of the site in those uses as shown the table. The percentage of land in open space remains well above 20 percent. The revisions are consistent with the approved concept plan. This criterion is met. PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 6 OF 13 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. The stormwater and culvert improvements have been designed to minimize impacts to natural resources and preserve existing trees where feasible. Trees within the work areas will necessarily need to be removed, however, trees along the east side of the work area will be protected in order to leave most of the significant tree grove intact. The site boundary will be preserved using tree protection fencing as shown on Exhibit C-L1. According to the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised, the significant tree grove referenced in the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report in the original report will be reduced by 11 percent. The Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report states on p. 3: The modifications require the removal of 11 percent of the significant grove identified as Stand 1 in Tract U that was planned for preservation under the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. The proposed tree removal is limited to the western edge of the stand where it is not possible to provide adequate tree protection due to proposed construction and necessary grading, and to remove hazardous trees at the new stand edge that will be exposed by clearing that is necessary for construction. The proposed stand edge preserves stable trees in good condition that are most suitable for preservation and can be adequately protected during the proposed work. This criterion is met. 18.770.080 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: A. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the concept plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless: 1. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces the amount of parking; 2. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping; 3. The change involves a change in use; 4. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard; and 5. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots, landscaping or other site improvements. The amendments to the detailed plan, as shown in Exhibits C-6.1R, C-7.1R, C-8.1R, and C-12.1R are consistent with the amended concept plan, as shown in Exhibit C-5.2R. These criterion is met. D. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. Exhibit C-7.1R has been updated to reflect Project changes proposed in this amendment. Impacts to existing trees, topography, and existing drainages have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable. This criterion is met. 18.640 RIVER TERRACE PLAN DISTRICT 18.640.030.E Provision of Adequate Public Facilities PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 7 OF 13 5. If compliance with stormwater management standards is dependent upon an off-site conveyance system or an on- or off-site regional facility that has not yet been provided, the applicant may propose alternative and/ or interim systems and facilities as described in the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. c. No stormwater management system or facility shall be approved if it would prevent or significantly impact the ability of other properties to implement and comply with the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan or other applicable standards. The stormwater facility provided is in addition to the regional facilities and does not inhibit the ability of the other properties to implement and comply with the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. The facility is designed to provide water quality treatment along with detention. The TRUST Model was used to size the facility per the Public Improvement Design Standard for River Terrace and the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. These criteria are met. 18.510 SENSITIVE LANDS 18.510.010 Purpose G. Location. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1. The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater; 2. Natural drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Stream Corridors Map”; 4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and 5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard “Significant Habitat Areas Map.” (Ord. 06-20, Ord. 05-01) The proposed development site is not within the 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line. As shown on the Existing Conditions Plan in Exhibit C-2 of the original application, the site contains a drainage way (Tributary 3), vegetated corridor and no wetlands designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.” Copies of the Wetland Delineation Reports are included as Exhibit L of the original application attached to this application. Concurrence Letters issued by the Department of State Lands are included in Exhibit L. A Service Provided Letter is contained in Exhibit E Revised. The subsequent CWS stormwater connection permit is anticipated to be obtained as part of this process. The drainage way on site is proposed to be constructed within open space tracts. No wetland impacts are proposed within the “River Terrace Edge” project boundary. The area surrounding Tributary 3 is listed as Moderate Value Habitat on the City of Tigard “Significant Habitat Areas Map.” (Ord. 06-20, Ord. 05-01). The site contains steep slopes of 25 percent or greater. These slopes are located within the vegetated corridor and drainage way on the north side of the site and will be partially developed as part of the project. The slopes are shown on the revised Exhibit C-7.1R and the original Exhibit C-7.2. This amendment application will adjust impacts to sensitive areas, including the drainage way, vegetated corridors, and steep slopes. 18.510.070 Sensitive Land Applications A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in 18.775.020.F and G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in subsections B through E of this section. C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 8 OF 13 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; Impacts beyond permanent land form alteration are temporary in nature to provide access to construct culvert extensions, and to cut in construction assess. Temporarily impacted areas will be restored and contours will be reestablished based on adjacent unaffected areas, then planting and seeding will occur. The development will not create permanent site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. These criteria are met. 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; There will be impacts on steep-sloped areas within the drainageway during the course of this project. When possible, construction will take place in the summer, when rainfall is less likely, and appropriate BMPs will be in place to prevent erosion prior to construction activities. The existing Tributary 3 culvert headwalls will be kept in place during construction to keep existing fill stable, and additional embankment will be placed on top. Matting, compost blanket, or other appropriate BMPs will be placed on steep slopes to help keep soil in place. Post construction seeding will occur to help prevent ground instability. The project will not result in adverse effects on or off-site hazards to life or property. This criterion is met. 4. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and The Tributary 3 culvert extensions have been appropriately designed by licensed engineers to meet to meet all current and applicable AASHTO and ASTM standards. This criterion is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The areas of permanent impact on the embankment will be re-vegetated in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening as well as City of Tigard Urban Forestry standards. Areas of temporary impact will be planted based on CWS standards. This criterion is met. D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; The applicant is requesting a sensitive lands permit for Sensitive Lands drainageway (vegetated corridor) impacts on the proposed development site. This narrative and compliance report demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title. This criterion is met. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; Proposed vegetated corridor impacts in this area include roadway widening, stormwater management, and construction access. Impact areas have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable and all temporary impact areas will be fully restored. The vegetated corridor will be enhanced and mitigation areas will be planted as described in the Roy Rogers Road CWS SPL (see Exhibit E Revised). This criterion is met. 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 9 OF 13 or property; As stated above, there will be impacts on steep-sloped areas within a drainageway during the course of this project. Construction will take place in the summer, when rainfall is less likely, and appropriate BMPs will be in place to prevent erosion prior to construction activities. The existing Tributary 3 culvert headwalls will be kept in place during construction to keep existing fill stable, and additional embankment will be placed on top. Matting will be placed on steep slopes to help keep soil in place. Post construction seeding will occur to help prevent ground instability. The project will not result in adverse effects on or off-site hazards to life or property. This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; The applicant has obtained a CWS Service Provider Letter to cover the additional impacts associated with the County's proposed amendment work. The Service Provider Letter for the proposed amendment work is included in Exhibit E Revised. The Division of State Lands (DSL) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits are required as a result of impacts to jurisdictional waterways, and a Joint Permit Application has been submitted to USACE and DSL. Copies of the permits will be provided to the city when available. As conditioned this criterion is met. 18.520 URBAN FORESTRY 18.520.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation A. General provisions. An urban forestry plan shall be in effect from the point of land use approval until the director determines all applicable urban forestry plan conditions of approval and code requirements have been met. For subdivisions and partitions, the urban forestry plan shall remain in effect for each resulting lot or tract separately until the director determines all applicable urban forestry plan conditions of approval and code requirements have been met. Prior and subsequent permitting decisions regarding the planting, maintenance, removal and replacement of trees when not associated with one of the land use review types in 18.790.020.A shall be administered through Title 8 (Urban Forestry) of the Tigard Municipal Code. B. Inspections. Implementation of the urban forestry plan shall be inspected, documented and reported by the project arborist or landscape architect whenever an urban forestry plan is in effect. In addition, no person may refuse entry or access to the director for the purpose of monitoring the urban forestry plan on any site with an effective urban forestry plan. The inspection requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual shall apply to sites with an effective urban forestry plan. C. Tree establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual. D. Urban forest inventory. Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. Changes to the Urban Forestry Plan are documented in the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised as well as on updated preliminary plans (see Exhibits C-12.1R, C-L1.04R, and C-L2.01R). New preliminary plans showing detailed impacts, tree preservation details, and the tree canopy plan for the area covered in this amendment application are also provided (see Exhibit C-L1 and C-L2). There are 82 trees previously planned for preservation that are now proposed for removal for the purposes of construction, including a stormwater pond, culvert extension, outfall pipe from the pond to the stream, and temporary access. The proposed modifications also include replanting to restore and enhance the area of permanent and temporary disturbance with 122 new trees, as well as native shrubs and grasses. Based on the proposed modifications, the total Tract U tree canopy area has potential for 397,811 square feet, or 129% of the total tract area for an increase of 4% canopy cover. Furthermore, the total tree canopy area for the development site changed from 764,439 square PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 10 OF 13 feet (86.5%) to 775,442 square feet (87.8%) based on the proposed modifications, for an increase of 1.3% canopy cover for the total River Terrace Edge development site. Tree Planting Specifications are included in the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. Overall, the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report standards of the Urban Forestry Manual have been met in the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. The applicant’s proposal does not address tree establishment. Therefore, a condition of approval is added for the applicant to provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. Section 11, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan. This is a condition of the original Planned Development at River Terrace Edge and will remain a requirement of the developer. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, certain applicable urban forestry standards are not fully met. Therefore, conditions of approval are added. CONDITION: Prior to any site work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond in the amount of $51,342 (32 planted trees x $516/tree)+(90 stand grown trees x $387/tree). Fees subject to change July 2018. 18.910.100 STORM DRAINAGE A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: The River Terrace Community Plan addresses stormwater management and the need to protect the quality of the community’s water supply, the built environment from flood damage during large storm events, and the health and function of stream corridors for habitat and recreation. A River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan was developed to address the following goals: Restore/enhance vegetated corridors Protect water quality Preserve existing hydrology Promote safe and long-lasting stormwater facilities Balance the use of regional and on-site stormwater management Preserve existing mature vegetation Maximize use of multi-benefit facilities to create community amenities Promote partnership with other public service providers Stormwater management infrastructure is needed to protect the water quality of downstream natural resource areas, the downstream receiving waters from increased rates of erosion caused by additional water quantity, and the built environment from flood damage during large storm events. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan has identified Strategy Areas A, B and C, with varying water quality and water quantity treatment tools. The River Terrace Edge Development was primarily in Strategy Area A and flows to Tributary 5, as identified in the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. A Water Quality and Detention Analysis, dated October 20, 2015 has been submitted to show compliance with the River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan dated July 1, 2015. PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 11 OF 13 The proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility is for storm runoff from a segment of the widened Roy Rogers Rd. Discharge from the pond will flow to the adjacent stream and eventually end up in the Tualatin River, known as Tributary 3. A Water Quality and Detention Analysis prepared by OBEC dated January 15, 2018 was submitted as a part of the application. The analysis shows compliance with the River Terrance Stormwater Management Plan dated July 1, 2015. 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; No sanitary sewer improvement is proposed as a part of the application. This criterion is met. 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and Storm run-off from the segment of the widened Roy Rogers Road will be collected, treated and detained prior to discharging to the adjacent stream. No surface water will be carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street. This criterion is met. 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. A grading plan was submitted showing contours of Roy Rogers Road and the adjacent property. The Applicant’s site plans also included the proposed storm system and location of the catch basins indicating how surface water drainage patterns will be after the improvement. This criterion is met. B. Easement. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The proposed stormwater facility and culvert extension are adjacent to and traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream. However, they are both located on private property under Polygon’s control. The site plans show temporary construction and permanent easements to the benefit of Washington County are proposed. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Tigard Engineering Division copies of the recorded easements for the City’s record. This criterion is met. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility is for the run-off from a segment of the Roy Rogers Road widening. The stormwater facility is sized adequately and in compliance with the TRUST model. The existing culvert is currently conveying run-off from the Tributary 3. The existing facility is a 6’ x 6’ culvert and the extension will be an 8’ x 8’ culvert. The culvert will accommodate the 50-year design storm for the entire upstream drainage area in accordance with the guidelines in Oregon Department of Transportation Hydraulics Manual. This criterion is met. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility is sized adequately and in compliance with the TRUST model. The discharge from the stormwater facility will be released at a rate that matches the pre-developed condition. There will be no additional impact to the downstream drainage. This criterion is met. PDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PAGE 12 OF 13 ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study: A Traffic Impact Study is not required. The proposed improvements will not alter the street and utility layouts at the Polygon at River Terrace Edge that were previously reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. Public Water System: There is no water system improvement associated with the proposed application. The proposed improvements will not alter the water system at the Polygon at River Terrace Edge that was previously reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. Storm Water Quality and Quantity: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations established by CWS Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Additionally, the City adopted the River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan dated July 1, 2015 where run-off generates from any developments within River Terrace are required to be in compliance with the TRUST model. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Facility Improvement permit with the City of Tigard for the review and approval of the proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility associated with the Roy Rogers Road widening located adjacent the Polygon at River Terrace Edge. Prior to commencing site improvements, submit a final storm drainage report for the stormwater run-off from the Roy Rogers Rd widening to the City of Tigard for review and approval. The storm drainage calculations shall comply with the TRUST model. The storm system facilities associated with that treatment and detention shall be designed in compliance with CWS Design and Construction Standards. Once the construction of the stormwater treatment and detention facility is completed, approved, and accepted by the City of Tigard, the City will take over the maintenance of the facility under the intergovernmental agreement between the City and CWS. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization. Plans shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Grading and Erosion Control: Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. In accordance with CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. BU L L M O UN TA I N RD ROSHAK RD D EK A L B ST B U R G U N D Y S T FINIS LNENNACT C O LONYDR162NDTER152NDPLR H U SCT WOODPLJULIETTERB R AY LN C O L ONY PLRASKTERROYROGERSRDNEMA R NIKDRP O L L A R DLNCOOPER L N 155THTERDOZIER WAYA PR I L L N 153RDAVE164THAVECABER N E T D R R-7 PR R-4.5R-7 R-4.5 R-12 R-12 R-7 Z o n i n g M a p ÄI 0 990495Feet INFORMATION ON THIS MAP IS FOR GENERAL LOCATIONONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH THE DEVELOPMENTSERVICES DIVISION. DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES. THE CITY OF TIGARDMAKES NOT WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION, OR GUARANTEE AS TO THECONTENT, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THEDATA PROVIDED HEREIN. THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NOLIBABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THEINFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. City of Tigard13125 SW Hall BlvdTigard, OR 97223503 639-4171www.tigard-or.gov COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject Site Map Printed: 17-Dec-15 Overlay ZonesHistoric District OverlayPlanned Development Overlay Legend " A Place to Call Home" Zone Description Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Central Business District Commercial Mixed Use Employment Industrial Parks and Recreation Washington County Zoning Ge n e ra liz ed Z o nin g C a te go ri es ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OFFICE: 5000 MEADOWS ROAD, SUITE 420 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: February 6, 2018 TO: Monica Bilodeau, Associated Planner FROM: Khoi Le, Principal Engineer PROJECT: SDR2017-00005 ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENT POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE MODIFICATION The proposed project is a part of the Roy Rogers Rd Capital Improvement Project under Washington County Jurisdiction and is managed by Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Department. The proposed improvements associated with this application will include adding a stormwater storage and treatment pond and an extension of the existing stream culvert under Roy Rogers Rd in the northwest corner of the previously approved Polygon At River Terrace Edge Development. Because the pond and the culvert extension are located within the sensitive land under Polygon At River Terrace’s control, Washington County and Polygon, as co-applicants, are required to go through a land use process with the City of Tigard’s Planning Department. The proposed improvements will not alter the street and utility layouts within the Polygon At River Terrance Edge Development that were previously reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. A. 18.910.100 (18.810.10 Old) Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: The River Terrace Community addresses stormwater management and the need to protect the quality of the community’s water supply, the built environment from flood damage during large storm events, and the health and function of stream corridors for habitat and recreation. A River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan was then developed to address the following goals: Restore/enhance vegetated corridors Protect water quality Preserve existing hydrology Promote safe and long-lasting stormwater facilities Balance the use of regional and on-site stormwater management Preserve existing mature vegetation Maximize use of multi-benefit facilities to create community amenities Promote partnership with other public service providers Stormwater management infrastructure is needed to protect the water quality of downstream natural resource areas, the downstream receiving waters from increased rates of erosion caused by additional water quantity, and the built environment from flood damage during large storm events. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan has identified Strategy Areas A, B and C, with varying water quality and water quantity treatment tools. The River Terrace Edge Development was primarily in Strategy Area A and flows to Tributary 5, as identified in the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. A Water Quality and Detention Analysis, dated October 20, 2015 has been submitted to show compliance with the River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan dated July 1, 2015. ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 2 The proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility is for storm runoff from a segment of the widened Roy Rogers Rd. Discharge from the pond will flow to the adjacent stream and eventually end up in the Tualatin River, known as Tributary 3. A Water Quality and Detention Analysis prepared by OBEC dated January 15, 2018 was submitted as a part of the application. The analysis shows compliance with the River Terrance Stormwater Management Plan dated July 1, 2015. 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; No sanitary sewer improvement is proposed as a part of the application. 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and Storm run-off from the segment of the widened Roy Rogers Rd will be collected, treated and detained prior to discharging to the adjacent stream. No surface water will be carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street. 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. A grading plan was submitted showing contours of Roy Rogers Rd and the adjacent property. The Applicant’s site plans also included the proposed storm system and location of the catch basins indicating how surface water drainage patterns will be after the improvement. B. Easement. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The proposed stormwater facility and culvert extension are adjacent to and traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream. However, they are both located on private property under Polygon’s control. The site plans show temporary construction and permanent easements to the benefit of Washington County are proposed. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Tigard Engineering Division copies of the recorded easements for the City’s record. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed stormwater treatement and detention facility is for the run-off from a segment of the Roy Rogers Rd widening. The stormwater facility is sized adequately and in compliance with the TRUST model. The existing culvert is currently conveying run-off from the Tributary 3. The existing facility is a 6’ x 6’ culvert and the extension will be an 8’ x 8’ culvert. The culvert will accommodate the 50-year design storm for the entire upstream drainage area per the guidlines in Oregon Department of Transportation Hydraulics Manual. ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 3 D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility is sized adequately and in compliance with the TRUST model. The discharge from the stormwater facility will be released at a rate that matches the pre-developed condition. There will be no additional impact to the downstream drainage. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study: A Traffic Impact Study is not required. The proposed improvements will not alter the street and utility layouts at the Polygon at River Terrace Edge that were previously reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. Public Water System: There is no water system improvement associated with the proposed application. The proposed improvements will not alter the water system at the Polygon at River Terrace Edge that was previously reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. Storm Water Quality and Quantity: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Additionally, the City adopted the River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan dated July 1, 2015 where run-off generates from any developments within River Terrace are required to be in compliance with the TRUST model. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit with the City of Tigard for the review and approval of the proposed stormwater treatment and detention facility associated with the Roy Rogers Rd widening located adjacent the Polygon at River Terrace Edge. Prior to commencing site improvements, submit a final storm drainage report for the stormwater run-off from the Roy Rogers Rd widening to the City of Tigard for review and approval. The storm drainage calculations shall comply with the TRUST model. The storm system facilities associated with that treatment and detention shall be designed in compliance with CWS Design and Construction Standards. Once the construction of the stormwater treatment and detention facility is completed, approved, and accepted by the City of Tigard, the City will take over the maintenance of the facility under the intergovernmental agreement between the City and CWS. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization. Plans shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 4 Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Site Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. When a 1200-C General Site Permit was obtained as part of a larger project, the Applicant shall provide the City of Tigard a copy of the approved permit for the City’s record. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a Site Permit with the City of Tigard’s Building Department. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which areas will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as areas that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. Wetland/Sensitive Area: Prior to commencing site improvements, a permit shall be obtained by the Applicant from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands, (Authority: Section 404, Clean Water Act, and ORS 541.605 to 641.695). A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department by the Applicant. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements, to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KHOI LE at 503-718-2440. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to commencing site improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit is required for this project to cover onsite and stormwater Water Quality and Detention Facilities. Four (4) sets of detailed improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Division. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 5 Facility Improvement permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard- or.gov). An Engineering cost estimate of improvements including but not limited to grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities shall be required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. 2. Prior to commencing site improvements, submit a final storm drainage report for the stormwater run-off from the Roy Roger Rd widening to the City of Tigard for review and approval. The storm drainage calculations shall comply with the TRUST model. The storm system facilities associated with that treatment and detention facility shall be designed in compliance with CWS Design and Construction Standards. 3. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization. Plans shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 4. Prior to commencing site improvements, an erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition) and submitted to City of Tigard with the PFI plans. 5. Prior to commencing site improvements, a final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. 6. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which areas will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as areas that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. 7. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Site Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. When a 1200-C General Site Permit was obtained as part of a larger project, the Applicant shall provide the City of Tigard a copy of the approved permit for the City’s record. 8. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. Alternatively, the geotechnical engineer can issue the City of Tigard a letter of certification that they have reviewed and approved the plans as well as inspected the construction to ensure compliances. 9. Prior to commencing of site improvements, a permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands, (Authority: Section 404, Clean Water Act, and ORS 541.605 to 641.695). A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department by the applicant. 10. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Tigard Engineering Division copies of the recorded temporary and permanent easements to the benefits of Washington County for the City’s record. 11. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a Site Permit with the City of Tigard’s Building Department. ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 6 IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Developer shall: Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the developer. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the Developer shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or Cash. The Developer shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The Developer shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface- mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the Developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No public facility improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 7 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The developer's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the public facilities improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 15, 2018 To: Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner, City of Tigard From: Jackie Sue Humphreys, Clean Water Services (CWS) Subject: Roy Rogers Road Improvements at River Terrace Edge, PDR2017-00005 & SLR2017-00006 Please include the following comments when writing your conditions of approval: PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON THE SITE A Clean Water Services (CWS) Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization must be obtained. Application for CWS Permit Authorization must be in accordance with the requirements of the Design and Construction Standards, Resolution and Order No. 17-5, (or current R&O in effect at time of Engineering plan submittal), and is to include: a. Detailed plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.04. b. Detailed grading and erosion control plan. An Erosion Control Permit will be required. Area of Disturbance must be clearly identified on submitted construction plans. If site area and any offsite improvements required for this development exceed one-acre of disturbance, project will require a 1200-CN Erosion Control Permit. If site area and any offsite improvements required for this development exceed five-acres of disturbance, project will require a 1200-C Erosion Control Permit. c. Detailed plans showing each lot within the development having direct access by gravity to public storm and sanitary sewer. d. Provisions for water quality in accordance with the requirements of the above named design standards. Water Quality is required for all new development and redevelopment areas per R&O 17-5, Section 4.05. Access shall be provided for maintenance of facility per R&O 17-5, Section 4.02.4. e. If use of an existing offsite or regional Water Quality Facility is proposed, it must be clearly identified on plans, showing its location, condition, capacity to treat this site and, any additional improvements and/or upgrades that may be needed to utilize that facility. f. If private lot LIDA systems proposed, must comply with the current CWS Design and Construction Standards. A private maintenance agreement, for the proposed private lot LIDA systems, needs to be provided to the City for review and acceptance. g. Show all existing and proposed easements on plans. Any required storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water quality related easements must be granted to the City. h. Site contains a “Sensitive Area.” Applicant shall comply with the conditions as set forth in the Service Provider Letter No. 17-003807, dated January 4, 2018. i. Clean Water Services shall require an easement over the Vegetated Corridor conveying storm and surface water management to Clean Water Services that would prevent the owner of the Vegetated Corridor from activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose of the corridor and any easements therein. j. Detailed plans showing the sensitive area and corridor delineated, along with restoration and enhancement of the corridor. Additional 10,240 SQFT to be planted per the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Standards, located within permanent roadway fill slope, to meet Public Benefit Area Standards. k. If there is any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide Clean Water Services or its designee (appropriate city) with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits. l. Vegetated Corridor mitigation in the form of Payment to Provide has been authorized for encroachment related to the above referenced project in accordance with R&O 17-5, Section 3.08.3. Fee is waived, per R&O 13-12, due to associated wetland impacts mitigated through purchase of wetland bank credits. m. Any proposed offsite construction activities will require an update or amendment to the current Service Provider Letter for this project. CONCLUSION This Land Use Review does not constitute CWS approval of storm or sanitary sewer compliance to the NPDES permit held by CWS. CWS, prior to issuance of any connection permits, must approve final construction plans and drainage calculations. www.tvfr.com Training Center 12400 SW Tonquin Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140-9734 503-259-1600 South Operating Center 8445 SW Elligsen Road Wilsonville, Oregon 97070-9641 503-259-1500 Command & Business Operations Center and North Operating Center 11945 SW 70th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-9196 503-649-8577 February 13, 2018 Monica Bilodeau City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Roy Rogers Road Improvements at River Terrace Edge Tax Lot I.D: PDR2017-00005 and SLR2017-00006 Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed revisions to the site plan surrounding the above named development project. The revisions shown do not appear to negatively impact previously approved fire department access or firefighting water supply, therefore, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue has no objections to the revisions proposed. If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, John Wolff John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal II Email John.wolff@tvfr.com Cc: A full copy of the New Construction Fire Code Applications Guide for Commercial and Multi-Family Development is available at http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1296 Amendment Application Polygon River Terrace Edge Planned Development Index 1 Summary Memorandum 2 Focused Site Plan 3 Abbreviated Narrative and Compliance Report 4 Exhibit A Revised, Copies of Application Forms (Includes Deeds) 5 Exhibit B Revised, Copy of Neighborhood Meeting Materials 6 Exhibit C Revised, Preliminary Plans 7 Exhibit E Revised, CWS Service Provider Letter 8 Exhibit F Revised, Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report 9 Exhibit I Revised, Copy of Pre-Application Meeting Notes January 16, 2018 To: Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development From: John Kelly, Principal Planner Subject: Roy Rogers Road Stormwater Treatment Pond and Culvert Extension Amendment, Polygon River Terrace Edge Planned Development/Subdivision This memorandum summarizes the application the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation and Polygon WLH, LLC, have submitted to the City of Tigard to amend the approved Polygon River Terrace Edge Planned Development/Subdivision. The amendment is to add a stormwater storage and treatment pond and an extension of the existing stream culvert under Roy Rogers Road in the northwest corner of the planned development. The treatment pond is for stormwater runoff from a segment of the widened Roy Rogers Road. Widening Roy Rogers Road necessitates extending the culvert that now passes a stream under the road. The stream flows into the Tualatin River and is known as Tributary 3. Washington County is widening Roy Rogers Road in partnership with the City of Tigard. Polygon WLH, LLC, owns the land where the pond and culvert are located and is developing the Polygon River Terrace Edge Planned Development, which the City approved in 2016. This memorandum summarizes how the stormwater storage and treatment pond (the pond) and the stream culvert extension (culvert extension) will alter the planned development as approved by the City and why the pond and culvert extension comply with Development Code Chapter 18.510, Sensitive Lands, including Section 18.510.070, which addresses steep slopes, and Section 18.520.030, Urban Forestry Plan Requirements, including Section 18.520.050, Flexible Standards for Tree Planting and Preservation. These are the substantive requirements of the Development Code the City of Tigard’s pre-application conference notes directed the applicants to address. This memorandum supplements the narrative that provides findings based on the applicable approval standards, which the applicants have submitted to the City. The purpose of the proposed pond is to treat stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surface resulting from the widening of Roy Rogers Road, pursuant to regulatory requirements. The pond will have a bottom width of approximately 30 by 60 feet and an internal swale for water quality treatment. A location for the pond is not available within the road right-of-way. The proposed culvert extension consists of 8-foot by 8-foot concrete box sections that will lengthen the existing 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culvert under the widened roadway and fill slopes. A buried 12-inch pipe will drain the pond to the stream near the end of the culvert extension. The primary consequence of the pond and culvert extension will be the removal of additional trees in the northwest corner of the planned development where the pond and culvert extension will be located. For this reason, this memorandum first addresses the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.520, Urban Forestry. Monica Bilodeau, City of Tigard Community Development January 16, 2018 Page 2 18.520.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Applications The proposed amendment requires compliance with approval criteria for modifying an approved urban forestry plan. These include certification by an arborist that the approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that led to the need for a plan modification, that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification, and that the revised plan complies with Section 18.520.030. The arborist who prepared the original plan prepared the revised plan. While the revised plan provides for the removal of additional trees to accommodate the pond and culvert extension, the total tree canopy area for the development site will increase from 764,439 square feet in the original plan to 775,442 square feet, or 1.3 percent. This takes into account credits for the condition and preservation ratings of preserved stands and replanting with 122 new trees and native shrubs and grasses to restore and enhance the area of permanent and temporary disturbance. The modified urban forestry plan demonstrates compliance with the requirements of Section 18.520.030. As with the original plan, the modified plan does not use the flexible standards for tree planting and preservation in Section 18.520.050. Chapter 18.510, Sensitive Lands, Including Section 18.510.070 Chapter 18.510 places conditions on development within sensitive lands, which include portions of the land where the pond and culvert extension will be located. Project improvements and construction activity within the sensitive areas have been limited to the maximum extent practicable. Applicant Washington County expects to obtain a stormwater connection permit from Clean Water Services (CWS) and has obtained a service provider letter from CWS. Impacts beyond permanent land form alterations will be temporary in nature to provide access to construct the pond and culvert extension. Temporarily impacted areas will be restored and contours will be reestablished, then planting and seeding will occur. When possible, construction will take place in the summer, when rainfall is lower, and appropriate best management practices (BMPs) will be used to prevent erosion. Matting, compost blankets, or other appropriate BMPs will be placed on steep slopes to help keep soil in place. Post-construction seeding will be used to help prevent ground instability. The areas of permanent impact on the embankment will be revegetated per City of Tigard Urban Forestry standards. Areas of temporary impact will be planted based on CWS standards. Washington County will obtain necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. The pond and culvert extension have been designed by licensed engineers to meet all applicable standards. cc: C. Stearns P. Arellano R. Goodrich ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OFFICE: 5000 MEADOWS ROAD, SUITE 420 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 1 Abbreviated Narrative and Compliance Report Roy Rogers Road Stormwater Treatment Pond and Culvert Extension Amendment POLYGON RIVER TERRACE E DGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY 2 II. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (NOW 18.770) 3 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES (NOW CHAPTER 18.710, LAND USE REVIEW PROCEDURES) 10 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS (NOW 18.510) 14 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (NOW 18.520, URBAN FORESTRY) 26 18.810.100 STORM DRAINAGE (NOW 18.910.100) 29 III. CONCLUSION 30 LIST OF EXHIBITS A REVISED COPIES OF APPLICATION FORMS (INCLUDES DEEDS) B REVISED COPY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MATERIALS C REVISED PRELIMINARY PLANS E REVISED CWS SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER F REVISED URBAN FORESTRY PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT I REVISED COPY OF PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 2 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY Applicants: Polygon WLH, LLC Washington County Capital 703 Broadway Street, Ste. 510 Project Management Vancouver, WA 98660 1400 SW Walnut Street (360) 695-7700 Hillsboro, OR 97123-5625 Contact: Jason Baker Contact: Charles Stearns Applicants’ Pacific Community Design, Inc. OBEC Consulting Engineers Representatives: 12564 SW Main Street 5000 Meadows Road, Suite 420 Tigard, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2224 (503) 941-9484 (503) 620-6103 Contacts: Stacy Connery, AICP John Kelly Jim Lange, PE James Stupfel Property Owner: Polygon WLH, LLC 703 Broadway Street, Ste. 510 Vancouver, WA 98660 Subdivision Name: Polygon at River Terrace Edge Site Location: East of SW Roy Rogers Road, 900 ft. South of SW Bull Mountain Road Map and Tax Lots: Tax Lots 1200, 1400 Tax Map 2S107 Size: 52.57 AC City Land Use Classification: R-7, R-12 River Terrace Plan District Neighborhood Meeting Date: October 12, 2017 Pre-Application Meeting Date: November 9, 2017 Request: Amendment of Planned Development Approval to Allow Stormwater Pond and Stream Culvert Extension Sensitive Lands Permit (Drainage Way=Vegetated Corridor) Steep Slopes Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 3 The Applicants request approval of an amendment to the Polygon River Terrace Edge Planned Development for additional improvements in the northwest corner of the planned development, to be constructed in conjunction with the Roy Rogers Road Improvements Project (the Project) undertaken by Washington County, in partnership with the City of Tigard. Additional improvements would include a stormwater facility and an extension to the existing culvert which allows for vehicular and pedestrian passage on Roy Rogers Road over Tributary 3. The proposed stormwater facility will be an extended dry basin used to treat stormwater which was created to comply with regulatory requirements as a result of the increased impervious roadway surfaces associated with roadway widening. The existing six-foot by six-foot concrete box culvert will be extended with eight-foot by eight-foot concrete box sections to support the wider roadway and 2:1 fill slopes. The stormwater and culvert facilities will result in impacts to protected tree groves and sensitive areas not proposed under the original application. This amendment application includes a sensitive lands review for a drainage way and steep slopes. II. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (NOW 18.770) 18.350.010 Purpose A. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the city; and 2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and 3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and 4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and 5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the city; and 6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. (Ord. 06-16) Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 4 18.350.020 Process A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development. B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; 2. The approval of the detailed development plan; and 3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone. C. Decision-making process. 1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050. 2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by a means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept plan. 3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the detailed plan. 4. Applicants may choose to submit the concept plan and detailed plan for concurrent review subject to meeting all of the approval criteria for each approval. All applicants are advised that the purpose of separating these applications is to provide them clear direction in developing the detailed plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a corresponding rejection of the detailed development plan and overlay zone. 5. In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone, once construction of the detailed plan has been completed, subsequent applications conforming to the detailed plan shall be reviewed under the provisions required in the chapter which apply to the particular land use application. 6. If the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant may also apply for preliminary plat approval and the applications shall be heard concurrently with the detailed plan. D. Concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed plan. In the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan, including subdivision applications, the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning Commission shall take separate actions on each element of the planned development application (i.e., the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval); however each required action may be made at the same hearing. (Ord. 06-16) Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 5 Response: The applicant has submitted both the concept plan and detailed development plan for concurrent review, to be processed by means of a type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050. The applicant also requests a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The following sections address compliance with the requirements of this chapter. As the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant is also applying for preliminary plat approval, to be heard concurrently with the detailed plan. Preliminary Plans depicting the PD Concept Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat are included in Exhibits C-5.2 and C-6.1-6.2, respectively. Upon approval of this application, a final plat will be prepared in accordance with any relevant conditions of approval. Amended Response: The Applicants are submitting an application to amend certain components of the Preliminary Plans which the City of Tigard approved by final order files dated February 8, 2016, to be processed by means of a type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.770.060, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.770.060. The following sections address compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Exhibits C-3R, C-5.2R, C-5.3R, C-6.1R, C-7.1R, C- 8.1R C-12.1R, C-L1.04R, L1, L2, and C-L2.01R show the revisions to the Preliminary Plans in the original application. Minor revisions to the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan reflecting the proposed Project are included. A copy of the complete original application is included with this application. It includes the PD Concept Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat, which were Exhibits C-5.2 and C-6.1-6.2, respectively. The amended version of the Preliminary Plan will be included in the final plat to be prepared in accordance with any relevant conditions of approval. 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements (Now 18.770.050) B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the director: 1. Existing site conditions; Response: The existing site conditions are shown on the Opportunities and Constraints Plan (see Exhibit C-5.1). Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing types, and their general arrangement on the site; Response: The site concept including the types of proposed land uses and their general arrangement on the site is shown on the Concept Plan Map in Exhibit C-5.2. The concept plan proposes single-family detached and attached residential housing, as well as open space uses. Amended Response. This amendment application updates the Concept Plan (Exhibit C-5.2R) to show the general location of the new stormwater facility and revised protected tree stand limits. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 6 3. A grading concept; Response: The site topography is shown on the Opportunities and Constraints Plan (see Exhibit C-5.1), which includes contours showing existing site grades and general site elevations. As shown on the attached Opportunities and Constraints Map (see Exhibit C-5.1), the site generally slopes gently away from the top of the knoll located in the northwest portion of the site. The site slopes steeply down towards SW Roy Rogers Road in the northwest corner of the site. The site includes slopes with grades ranging from 3-21% throughout the entirety of the site and an area of steeper slopes along the drainage way to the north. Proposed grading will preserve the natural slope of the site as much as possible through the use of split level detached single family homes in the northern and western portions of the site to minimize impacts to the site’s natural topography. With this land use application the applicant is requesting the approval of an Early Grading Only Authorization. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s); Response: A landscape concept that shows the general location and types of proposed open space is included in the Concept Plan Map (see Exhibit C-5.2). The targeted amounts of proposed open spaces is identified as 20% of the site. Amended Response. This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. The stormwater pond does not alter the open space table on Exhibit C-5.2 of the original application, as contained on Exhibit C-5.2-R. There are two reasons for this. First, the total of the approximately 11,000 square foot area of the proposed pond, when added to the approximately 30,000 square foot area of the stormwater pond in the southwest corner of the site in the original application, still represents less than 2 acres. Second, because they are proportionately small, the reductions in the areas of “Parks/Trails, Landscape Areas” and “Resource Areas” from subtracting the area of the proposed pond do not alter the percentages of the site in those uses as shown the table. The percentage of land in open space remains well above the 20 percent target. 5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790; Response: An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790 is provided and described in detail in proceeding sections of this report. The Concept Plan Map (see Exhibit C-5.2) designates an area for tree preservation along the northern site boundary, and identifies that the 40% tree canopy standard will be met through street tree plantings and tree plantings in parks/open spaces (see typical street section on Exhibit C-5.2). Amended Response: An amendment to the urban forestry management plan has been prepared to account for impacts related to the County's proposed roadway widening and stormwater improvements. The amendment demonstrates continued consistency with Chapter 18.790 (see Exhibit F Revised, Urban Forestry Plan Modifications- December 13, 2017). The 40% tree canopy standard continues to be met. Tree preservation and planting plans for the County's proposed Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 7 imact areas are included (see Exhibit C-L1 and C-L2). 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria (Now 18.770.060) A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural features of the site. Response: The Concept Plan Map in Exhibit C-5.2 shows specific designations for areas of open space. Open space areas provide for the preservation of an existing drainage way, wetlands, existing trees, and vegetated corridor in the northern and southern portions of the site. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. Response: The Opportunities and Constraints Plan in Exhibit C-5.1 shows trees and existing natural resources and identifies methods for their preservation. The site has been designed to preserve existing trees where it is feasible. The site contains existing trees, most of which are concentrated along the northern site boundary. Most of the trees along the northern site boundary will be preserved using tree protection fencing during construction and minimizing grading near the preserved trees. The concept plan includes an area designated for the preservation of existing drainageways along the northern and southern portions of the site. Amended Response: The stormwater and culvert improvements have been designed to minimize impacts to natural resources and preserve existing trees where feasible. Trees within the work areas will necessarily need to be removed, however, trees along the east side of the work area will be protected in order to leave most of the significant tree grove intact. The site boundary will be preserved using tree protection fencing as shown on Exhibit C-L1. According to the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised, the significant tree grove referenced in the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report in the original report will be reduced by 11 percent. The Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report states on p. 3: The modifications require the removal of 11% of the significant grove identified as Stand 1 in Tract U that was planned for preservation under the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. The proposed tree removal is limited to the western edge of the stand where it is not possible to provide adequate tree protection due to proposed construction and necessary grading, and to remove hazardous trees at the new stand edge that will be exposed by clearing that is necessary for construction. The proposed stand edge preserves stable trees in good condition that are most suitable for preservation and can be adequately protected during the proposed work. See Sheet L1, Tree Removal & Preservation Plan, in Exhibit C Revised. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 8 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements (Now 18.770.070) A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by 18.350.040.B and the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. Response: With this report the applicant has submitted an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by 18.350.040.B and the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. Amended Response: With this narrative, the applicants have submitted an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by 18.350.040.B, and the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the detailed development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information: 1. Contour intervals of one foot, unless otherwise approved by the director, and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed. Response: The attached Preliminary Grading Plan in Exhibit C-7.1-7.2 includes contour intervals of one foot and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed. With this land use application the applicant is requesting the approval of an Early Grading Only Authorization. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. Exhibit C7.1R updates the Preliminary Grading Plan to reflect the proposed amendment. 2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, public improvements, building construction, and landscaping for each phase. Response: The proposed development will be developed in one phase, site construction is expected to be initiated in 2017. Site construction will include demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, grading, and public improvements. Home construction is expected to be initiated in 2017-2018. Landscaping on residential lots will follow home construction. Amended Response: Construction of the proposed stormwater pond and culvert extension is expected to be in 2018 or early 2019. This will include tree protection installation, tree removal, grading, and construction of the pond and culvert extension. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria (Now 18.770.080) A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 9 A. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the concept plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless: 1. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces the amount of parking; 2. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping; 3. The change involves a change in use; 4. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard; and 5. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots, landscaping or other site improvements. Response: The detailed plan is consistent with the concept plan, as the detailed plan has been submitted for concurrent review with the concept plan. No changes are reflected in the detailed plan. Amended Response: The amendments to the detailed plan, as shown in Exhibits C-6.1R, C-7.1R, C-8.1R, and C-12.1R are consistent with the amended concept plan, as shown in Exhibit C-5.2R. D. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; Response: The streets, buildings and other amenities in the proposed development have been designed so as to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainages to the greatest degree possible. Existing drainage ways on the site will be protected within an open space tract in the northern and southern portions of the site. Most of the trees on the site will be preserved along the northern edge of the site using tree protection fencing during construction and grading will be minimized near the trees. As described in the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report, the 40% tree canopy standard will be met through tree preservation, street tree planting, and tree plantings in open spaces. Grading on the site will be limited in order to preserve existing topography, as shown on the Grading Plan in Exhibit C-7 As shown on the attached Opportunities and Constraints Map (see Exhibit C-5.1), the site generally slopes gently away from the top of the knoll in the northwest portion of the site. The site slopes steeply down towards SW Roy Rogers Road in the northwest corner of the site. The site includes slopes with grades ranging from 3-21% throughout the entirety of the site and an area of steeper slopes along the drainage way to the north. Proposed grading will preserve the natural slope of the site as much as possible through the use of split level detached single family homes in the northern and western portions of the site to minimize impacts to the site’s natural topography. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 10 original response. Exhibit C-7.1R has been updated to reflect Project changes proposed in this amendment. Impacts to existing trees, topography, and existing drainages have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES (NOW CHAPTER 18.710, LAND USE REVIEW PROCEDURES) 18.390.050 Type III Procedure (Now 18.710.070) 1. Preapplication conference. A preapplication conference is required for all Type III actions. The requirements and procedures for a preapplication conference are described in 18.390.080.C. Response: A pre-application conference was held on September 23, 2015 meeting the requirements of this subsection. Amended Code Provision: 18.710.030.A. A pre-application conference is required for all Type II, and III applications. Legislative applications are exempt from a pre- application conference. * * * Amended Response: A pre-application conference was held November 9, 2017, meeting the requirements of this subsection. Amended Code Provision: 18.710.030.B: Neighborhood meetings. A person considering filing an application shall hold a neighborhood meeting prior to filing the following applications: comprehensive plan map amendment (quasijudicial), conditional use, sensitive lands review, site development review, subdivision, planned development review and zoning map amendment (quasi-judicial). Response to Amended Code Provision: A community open house on the Project was held on October 12, 2017. Exhibit B Revised contains a copy of the notice of the open house that was mailed out, a map showing to where the notice was mailed, the press release announcing for the open house, the sign-in sheets for the open house, the written comments received at the open house, and the map and boards displayed at the open house. 2. Application requirements. 1. Application forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the director as provided by 18.390.080.E.1. 2. Content. Type III applications shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all persons who are property owners of record as specified in Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 11 subsection C of this section. The records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation shall be the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; Response: A completed and signed application form and accompanying fee have been submitted. A copy of the application and check is provided in Exhibit A. The fee for mailing labels will be paid upon notification of application completeness. Amended Code Provision: 18.710.030.C.3 The application shall include, at a minimum, the following items. The director may waive items listed if they are not applicable to the proposed application. a. Application form, including signature( s) ofthe property owner or public agency initiating the application. b. Deed, title report, or other proof of ownership. c. Detailed and comprehensive description of existing site conditions, all existing and proposed uses and structures, including a summary of all information contained in any site plans. d. Narrative that demonstrates how the proposal meets all applicable approval criteria, regulations and development standards. e. Site plans, landscape plans, grading plans, elevation drawings, preliminary plat, or final plat, or similar. f. Any other materials required by a specific land use application. g. Any required service provider letters, including but not limited to Clean Water Services, waste disposal company, or other entity. h. Any required studies or reports, including but not limited to a traffic impact analysis, wetland delineation report, or geotechnical report. i. Copy of any existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. j. Payment of all fees, based on the fee schedule in effect at time of submittal, as adopted by city council. k. Copy of the pre-application conference notes, if applicable. l. Copy of the mailed neighborhood meeting letter, the mailing list, affidavits of mailing and posting, copy of the meeting sign-in sheets, meeting minutes, and any handouts provided at the meeting, including the site plan, if applicable. Response to Amended Code Provision: A completed and signed application form and accompanying fee have been submitted. Copies of the application forms and check are provided Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 12 in Exhibit A Revised. The fee for mailing labels will be paid upon notification of application completeness. Exhibit A also includes deeds proving ownership. Exhibit I Revised contains a copy of the pre-application meeting notes. Exhibit C Revised contains the preliminary plans that were revised for this amendment application. Exhibit E Revised contains the CWS service provider letter. This narrative contains the other elements required by Section 18.710.030.C.3. C. Notice of hearing. 1. Mailed notice. Notice of a Type II administrative appeal hearing or Type III hearing shall be given by the director in the following manner: a. At least 20 days prior to the hearing date, notice shall be sent by mail to: i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site which is the subject of the application; ii. All property owners of record within 500 feet of the site; iii. Any affected governmental agency which has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the city which includes provision for such notice, or who is otherwise entitled to such notice; iv. Any city-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; v. Any person who has submitted a written request, and who has paid a fee established by the City Council; and vi. In actions involving appeals, the appellant and all parties to the appeal. b. The director shall cause an affidavit of mailing of notice to be prepared and made a part of the file, which demonstrates the date that the required notice was mailed to the necessary parties. c. At least 10 business days prior to the hearing, notice of the hearing shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. An affidavit of publication concerning such notice shall be made part of the administrative record. d. At least 10 business days prior to the hearing, notice of the hearing shall be posted on the site by the applicant, pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection C. An affidavit of posting concerning such notice shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted and made part of the administrative record. Response: The fee for mailing labels will be paid upon notification of application completeness. The applicant will post a notice of the hearing on the site at least 10 business days prior to the hearing, pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection C. The applicant will prepare an affidavit of posting concerning such notice and will submit the affidavit as part of the administrative record. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 13 Amended Code Provision: 18.710.070. A. Notice of hearing. 1. A notice of hearing shall be provided as follows: a. At least 20 days prior to the hearing date, a notice of hearing shall be mailed to: i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the proposed development site; ii. All property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development site; iii. City' s interested parties who have requested to receive notice of all land use notices; iv. Any city-recognized neighborhood group and community organizations whose boundaries include the proposed development site; v. Any affected governmental agency that is entitled to such notice. vi. In actions involving appeals, the appellant and all parties to the appeal. b. The director shall prepare an affidavit of mailing such notice that indicates the date that the notice was mailed to the necessary parties. The affidavit shall be made part of the record. c. At least 14 days prior to the hearing date, a notice of the hearing shall be posted on the proposed development site by the applicant. An affidavit of posting such notice shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the record. 2. A mailed notice of hearing shall include: a. An explanation of the application, including case number, and the proposed use or uses that could be authorized; b. A description of the proposed development site, including street address, map and tax lot number or other easily understood geographical reference to the proposed development site and zoning designation; c. List of criteria and development standards applicable to the application; d. Include the name and the telephone number of the city contact person to obtain additional information; Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 14 e. State the date, time, and location of the hearing; f. State the failure to raise an issue at the hearing, in person, or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the approval authority an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue; g. State that a copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and that copies shall be provided at a reasonable cost; h. State that a copy of the staff report shall be available for inspection at no cost at least 7 days prior to the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided at a reasonable cost; i. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submittal of testimony and the procedure for conducting hearings; j. Contain the following notice: " Notice to mortgagee, lienholder, vendor, or seller: The Tigard Development Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser." Amended Response: The fee for mailing labels will be paid upon notification of application completeness. Applicant Washington County will post a notice of the hearing on the site at least 14 business days prior to the hearing, prepare an affidavit of posting, and submit the affidavit as part of the administrative record, pursuant to Section 18.710.070.A.1.c. 18.660 RIVER TERRACE PLAN DISTRICT (NOW 18.640) 18.660.030.E.5.C. (NOW 18.660.040.E.5.C) 5. If compliance with stormwater management standards is dependent upon an off-site conveyance system or an on- or off-site regional facility that has not yet been provided, the applicant may propose alternative and/ or interim systems and facilities as described in the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. * * * c. No stormwater management system or facility shall be approved if it would prevent or significantly impact the ability of other properties to implement and comply with the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan or other applicable standards. Response: The stormwater facility provided is in addition to the regional facilities and does not inhibit the ability of the other properties to implement and comply with the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. The facility is designed to provide water quality treatment along with detention. The TRUST Model was used to size the facility per the Public Improvement Design Standard for River Terrace and the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 15 18.660.070.E. (NOW 18.640.070.E) E. Shared open space facilities. The shared open space facility requirements of Subsection 18.350.070.D.13 shall not apply. In lieu of these requirements, the following open space requirements and development enhancements shall apply. These requirements are intended to provide the community with added benefits that are consistent with the overall development vision for River Terrace as described in the River Terrace Community Plan and River Terrace Park System Master Plan Addendum. 1. The development shall provide parks, trails, and/or open space that: a. Meets a need for neighborhood or linear parks, open space, and/or trails that is identified in the River Terrace Park System Master Plan Addendum with respect to both location and the plan’s level of service standard; and b. Will be dedicated to the public if the proposal is for a neighborhood park, linear park, or trail. Response: The proposed development will provide parks, trails, and/or open space that meets a need for neighborhood or linear parks, open space, and/or trails that is identified in the River Terrace Park System Master Plan Addendum with respect to both location and the plan’s level of service standard. The site is within a ½ mile buffer for one community park and within a ¼ mile buffer of two neighborhood parks identified on the River Terrace Park System Addendum. One of the neighborhood parks has been approved as “Polygon at Roshak Ridge” and the other is on the future development site to the east. The site incorporates a section of River Terrace Boulevard and the associated trail corridor to be dedicated to the public. The proposed development contains a 7.1 acre neighborhood park and hard and soft nature trails in the northern portion of the site. The park contains a shelter and play area with nature play nodes along the trails. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. The proposed stormwater pond and culvert extension will not alter the location of the trail in the northern portion of the site the response in the original application refers to. See the Focused Site Plan. 2. The development shall include at least three (3) of the following development enhancements: a. Trails or paths that augment the public sidewalk system and facilitate access to parks, schools, trails, open spaces, commercial areas, and similar destinations. Trails and paths shall meet all applicable ADA standards and be dedicated to the public or placed in a public access easement. Trails and paths in a public access easement shall be maintained by a homeowner association. b. Nature trails along or through natural resource areas or open spaces. Trails through protected natural resource areas must obtain all necessary approvals and meet all applicable development standards. Trails shall meet all applicable ADA standards and be dedicated to the public or placed in a public Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 16 access easement. Trails in a public access easement shall be maintained by a homeowner association. c. Trails, paths, or sidewalks that provide direct access to a public park or recreation area that is no further than one-quarter mile from the development site. Trails and paths shall meet all applicable ADA standards and be dedicated to the public or placed in a public access easement. Trails and paths in a public access easement shall be maintained by a homeowner association. d. Intersection treatments that are acceptable to the City Engineer and that elevate the pedestrian experience through art, landscaping, signage, enhanced crossings, and/or other similar treatments. e. High-quality architectural features on attached and detached single-family dwelling units and duplexes that meet the building design standards in Subsection 18.660.070.I. Response: The proposed development will include a, b, and c of the development enhancements identified in this section, as described throughout this report and shown on the attached Conceptual Elevations in Exhibit J. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 3. For those properties that abut Roy Rogers Road or River Terrace Boulevard, one or more of the following enhancements may be provided in lieu of one or more of the enhancements listed in Subsection E.2 above: a. Long-term maintenance plan administered by a homeowner association that is acceptable to the applicable road authority for any proposed and/or required landscaping in or adjacent to the Roy Rogers Road or River Terrace Boulevard right-of- way that is not part of a stormwater management facility. b. High-quality visual and noise buffer along Roy Rogers Road that includes both a vegetative and solid barrier component outside of the public right-of-way. c. Park facilities in the River Terrace Trail corridor, including but not limited to benches, picnic tables, lighting, and/or small playground areas (i.e. tot lots or pocket parks). Provision of such facilities may allow the applicant to count the trail corridor as a linear park facility, thus contributing to meeting the city’s level of service standards in the River Terrace Park System Master Plan Addendum for both linear parks and trails. The Public Works Director shall determine whether the proposed facilities elevate the trail corridor to a linear park facility. Response: The proposed development will include a, b, and c of the development enhancements identified in this section, in addition to the enhancements listed in Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 17 Section E.2 above. Landscaped tracts maintained by a Home Owners Association will be provided between the proposed development and SW Roy Rogers Road and along River Terrace Boulevard. A fence will be placed along SW Roy Rogers Road to serve as a high-quality visual and noise buffer. Conceptual representations of the fence are provided in the River Terrace Community Elements Book (see Exhibit N-7). Improvements along SW Roy Rogers Road will be made as shown on the Circulation Plan in Exhibit C-9.1 -9.2. The River Terrace Boulevard trail corridor will be landscaped and include public amenities such as pocket parks, small play areas for children, and an overlook area facing the wetland on the southern portion of the site. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS (NOW 18.510) 18.775.020 Purpose (Now 18.510.010) G. Location. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1. The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater; 2. Natural drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Stream Corridors Map”; 4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and 5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard “Significant Habitat Areas Map.” (Ord. 06-20, Ord. 05- 01) Response: The proposed development site is not within the 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line. As shown on the Existing Conditions Plan in Exhibit C-2, the site contains a drainage way, vegetated corridor and wetlands which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.” Copies of the Wetland Delineation Reports are included as Exhibit L. Concurrence Letters issued by the Department of State Lands are included in Exhibit L. A Service Provider Letter has been issued for the site by CWS and a copy is included as Exhibit E. The wetlands and drainage way on site are proposed to be retained within open space tracts. No wetland impacts are proposed within the “River Terrace Edge” project boundary. Road crossings will span the wetlands. The site contains steep slopes of 25% or greater. These slopes are located within the vegetated corridor and drainage way on the north side of the site and will not be developed. The slopes are shown on Exhibit C-7.1 and C-7.2. The applicant is requesting a sensitive lands permit from the City for the drainage way (vegetated corridor) on the site. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 18 Amended Response: The proposed development site is not within the 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line. As shown on the Existing Conditions Plan in Exhibit C-2 of the original application, the site contains a drainage way (Tributary 3), vegetated corridor and no wetlands designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.” Copies of the Wetland Delineation Reports are included as Exhibit L of the original application attached to this application. Concurrence Letters issued by the Department of State Lands are included in Exhibit L. A The Service Provided Letter is contained in Exhibit E Revised. The subsequent CWS stormwater connection permit is anticipated to be obtained as part of this process. The drainage way on site is proposed to be constructed within open space tracts. No wetland impacts are proposed within the “River Terrace Edge” project boundary. The area surrounding Tributary 3 is listed as Moderate Value Habitat on the City of Tigard “Significant Habitat Areas Map.” (Ord. 06-20, Ord. 05-01). The site contains steep slopes of 25% or greater. These slopes are located within the vegetated corridor and drainage way on the north side of the site and will be developed as part of the project. The slopes are shown on the revised Exhibit C- 7.1R and the original Exhibit C-7.2. This amendment application will adjust impacts to sensitive areas, including the drainage way, vegetated corridors, and steep slopes. 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses – Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming (Now 18. 510. 020, Applicability) A. CWS stormwater connection permit. All proposed development must obtain a stormwater connection permit from CWS pursuant to its design and construction standards. As used in this chapter, the meaning of the word “development” shall be as defined in the CWS “Design and Construction Standards”: All human-induced changes to improved or unimproved real property, including: 1. Construction of structures requiring a building permit, if such structures are external to existing structures; 2. Land division; 3. Drilling; 4. Site alterations resulting from surface mining or dredging; 5. Grading; 6. Construction of earthen berms; 7. Paving; 8. Excavation; or 9. Clearing when it results in the removal of trees or vegetation which would require a permit from the local jurisdiction or an Oregon Department of Forestry tree removal permit. 10. The following activities are not included in the definition of development: a. Farming activities when conducted in accordance with accepted farming practices as defined in ORS 30.930 and under a Senate Bill 1010 water quality management plan; b. Construction, reconstruction, or modification of a single- family residence on an existing lot of record within a subdivision that was approved by the city or county after Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 19 September 9, 1995 (from ORS 92.040(2)); and c. Any development activity for which land use approvals have been issued pursuant to a land use application submitted to the city or county on or before February 4, 2000, and deemed complete on or before March 15, 2000. Response: The proposed development includes land division, so a CWS stormwater connection permit is required. A CWS stormwater connection permit will be obtained during construction plan review and permitting. Amended Code Provision: 18.510.020.A All proposed development shall obtain a stormwater connection permit from CWS in compliance with its design and construction standards. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. Exhibit E Revised contains a Service Provider Letter. The subsequent CWS stormwater connection permit is anticipated to be obtained. D. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map,” do not require a sensitive lands permit. The city shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable city requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100-year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. Response: Wetland Delineation Reports and Concurrence Letters are provided in Exhibit L. The site contains drainage ways and wetlands which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.” A Service Provider Letter has been issued for the site by CWS and a copy is included as Exhibit E. No development is proposed within the wetlands. Road crossings will span the wetlands. The proposed development site is not within the 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation. Amended Response: This amendment application will adjust impacts to sensitive areas, including the drainage way, vegetated corridors, and steep slopes. A Service Provider Letter is included in Exhibit E Revised. Project development has been limited within these sensitive areas to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts will be offset as required by CWS and other applicable agencies. An application for impacts to drainageways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands will be submitted by Washington County. No work will take place prior to all necessary state and federal permits being obtained. F. Sensitive lands permits issued by the director. a. The director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the following areas by means of a Type II procedure, as governed Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 20 in Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070: a. Drainageways; b. Slopes that are 25% or greater or unstable ground; and c. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, state, or federal agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.” b. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in paragraph 1 of this subsection F when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction; c. Residential and nonresidential structures intended for human habitation; and d. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. Response: A sensitive lands permit is required for the proposed vegetated corridor impacts, which will involve more than 50 cubic yards of material. The sensitive lands review requested with this application is subject to the Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070, but is submitted concurrent with the Type III Planned Development. Amended Code Provision: 18.510.020.F. Sensitive lands approvals issued by the director. 1. Sensitive land reviews within drainageways, slopes that are 25 percent or greater or unstable ground, and wetland areas that are not regulated by other local, state, or federal agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard" Wetland and Streams Corridors Map" shall be processed through a Type II procedure, as provided in Section 18. 710.060 for the following actions: a. Ground disturbance( s) or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction; c. Residential and nonresidential structures intended for human habitation; and Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 21 d. Accessory structures that are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. 2. The approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a a sensitive lands review application using the approval criteria provided in Section 18.510.070. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions (Now 18.510.030) A. Interagency coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. As governed by CWS “Design and Construction Standards,” the necessary permits for all “development,” as defined in Section 18.775.020.A, shall include a CWS service provider letter, which specifies the conditions and requirements necessary, if any, for an applicant to comply with CWS water quality protection standards and for the agency to issue a stormwater connection permit. Response: The applicant has obtained a CWS service provider letter for the proposed development (see Exhibit E). The applicant acknowledges that the appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. Copies of all necessary permits will be submitted to the City. Amended Response: A Service Provided Letter is included in Exhibit E Revised. 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits (Now 18.510.070) A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in 18.775.020.F and G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in subsections B through E of this section. C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; Response: The narrative demonstrates that the project complies with the applicable code sections. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 22 original response. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; Response: Parks, trails, and plantings follow contour lines around the slope in order to minimize impacts. By conforming to the slope, the development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. Amended Response: Impacts beyond permanent land form alteration are temporary in nature to provide access to construct culvert extensions, and to cut in construction assess. Temporarily impacted areas will be restored and contours will be reestablished based on adjacent unaffected areas, then planting and seeding will occur. The development will not create permanent site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on- site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; Response: The inclusion of plantings on areas of steep slopes stabilize the slopes and minimize erosion. The plantings will reduce stream sedimentation by reducing erosion. No impacts are proposed in high slope areas or in easements. Therefore, the project will not result in adverse effects on or off-site or hazards to life or property. Amended Response: There will be impacts on steep-sloped areas during the course of this project. When possible, construction will take place in the summer, when rainfall is lower, and appropriate BMPs will be in place to prevent erosion prior to construction activities. The existing Tributary 3 culvert headwalls will be kept in place during construction to keep existing fill stable, and additional embankment will be placed on top. Matting, compost blanket, or other appropriate BMPs will be placed on steep slopes to help keep soil in place. Post construction seeding will occur to help prevent ground instability. The project will not result in adverse effects on or off-site hazards to life or property. 4. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and Response: All structures on site will be appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development; however, no structures are proposed within the steeply sloped areas. Amended Response: The Tributary 3 culvert extensions have been appropriately designed by licensed engineers to meet to meet all current and applicable AASHTO and ASTM standards. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 23 Response: Areas where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development will be replanted in an open space tract with trees and other plants to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Amended Response: The areas of permanent impact on the embankment will be re-vegetated per City of Tigard Urban Forestry standards. Areas of temporary impact will be planted based on CWS standards. D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; Response: The applicant is requesting a Type II sensitive lands permit for the drainage way (vegetated corridor impacts) and steep slopes on the proposed development site. This narrative and compliance report demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title. Amended Response: The applicant is requesting a Type II sensitive lands permit for the drainage way (vegetated corridor impacts) and steep slopes on the proposed development site. This narrative and compliance report demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; Response: Proposed vegetated corridor impacts include two segments of the north- south neighborhood collector street River Terrace Boulevard that cross creek corridors at the northern part of the site and the southern part of the site. The vegetated corridor will be enhanced and mitigation areas will be planted as described in CWS SPL # 15-003283 (see Exhibit E). The proposed impacts minimize disruption to the drainage channel by limiting the number of road crossing of each creek corridor to one. The proposed development includes the provision of open space tracts along the northern and southern edge of the site to integrate the creeks, wetlands, and vegetated corridors into the design of the open space area. Therefore, the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. Amended Response: Proposed vegetated corridor impacts in this area include roadway widening, stormwater management, and construction access. Impact areas have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable and all temporary impact areas will be fully restored. The vegetated corridor will be enhanced and mitigation areas will be planted as described in the Roy Rogers Road CWS SPL (see Exhibit E Revised). 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 24 Response: Proposed vegetated corridor impacts include two segments of the north- south neighborhood collector street River Terrace Boulevard that cross creek corridors at the northern part of the site and the southern part of the site. The vegetated corridor will be enhanced and mitigation areas will be planted as described in CWS SPL # 15-003283 (see Exhibit E). The proposed impacts minimize disruption to the drainage channel by limiting the number of road crossing of each creek corridor to one. The proposed development includes the provision of open space tracts along the northern and southern edge of the site to integrate the creeks, wetlands, and vegetated corridors into the design of the open space area. Therefore, the proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. Amended Response: As stated above, there will be impacts on steep-sloped areas during the course of this project. Construction will take place in the summer, when rainfall is lower, and appropriate BMPs will be in place to prevent erosion prior to construction activities. The existing Tributary 3 culvert headwalls will be kept in place during construction to keep existing fill stable, and additional embankment will be placed on top. Matting will be placed on steep slopes to help keep soil in place. Post construction seeding will occur to help prevent ground instability. The project will not result in adverse effects on or off-site hazards to life or property. 4. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; Response: The water flow capacity of the drainageways will not be decreased as a result of the proposed vegetated corridor impacts as they do not affect the identifiable channel of the 25-year storm flow. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; Response: Where natural vegetation is removed for proposed impacts, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, as shown on the Landscape Plans in Exhibit C-L1.01 - L5.02. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 6. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; Response: A public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan, as documented in the Preliminary Storm Report Memo attached in Exhibit H, will be provided as part of the proposed development. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 25 Amended Response: The Project includes a culvert extension that will be a public facility of adequate size to accommodate the maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; Response: The applicant has obtained a CWS Service Provider Letter for the proposed development (see Exhibit E). DSL/COE permits are not required as a result of River Terrace Edge proposed development as no wetland impacts are proposed. River Terrace Boulevard will be bridged to avoid impacting the wetlands on site. The project includes provides mitigation in the southern wetland for the fill of a wetland on the site of “South River Terrace” (CWS SPL #14-003260). Copies of the documents and permits will be provided to the city when available including the DSL/COE joint permit application for “South River Terrace.” Amended Response: The applicant has obtained a CWS Service Provider Letter to cover the additional impacts associated with the County's proposed amendment work. The Service Provider Letter for the proposed amendment work is included in Exhibit E Revised. DSL/USACE permits are required as a result of impacts to jurisdictional waterways, and a Joint Permit Application has been submitted to USACE and DSL. Copies of the permits will be provided to the city when available. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Response: The subject site is not within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. This subsection is not applicable. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements (Not in Amended Title 18) All applications for uses and activities identified in 18.775.020.A through G shall be made on forms provided by the director and must include the following information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the following is available from the director: A. A CWS stormwater connection permit; B. A site plan; C. A grading plan; D. An urban forestry plan per Chapter 18.790 (for 18.775.020.F and G); and E. A landscaping plan. (Ord. 12-09 §1) Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 26 Response: This sensitive lands review application is provided on forms provided by the director and includes the information specified in this subsection in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form, as discussed in previous sections of this report. The applicant has obtained a CWS service provider letter for the proposed development (see Exhibit E) and will obtain a CWS stormwater connection permit prior to construction. A Site Plan is included in Exhibit C-11.1-11.2, a grading plan is included in Exhibit C-7, an urban forestry plan supplemental report is provided in Exhibit F, and a landscaping plan including urban forestry plan information is included in Exhibit C-L1.01 – C-L5.02. Amended Response: This sensitive lands review application is provided on the Master Land Use Application form provided by the director and includes the information specified in this subsection in graphic, tabular, and/or narrative form, as discussed in previous sections of this report. The applicant has obtained a CWS service provider letter for the proposed development and will obtain CWS stormwater connection permit prior to construction. A modified grading plan covering the County's proposed roadway and stormwater improvements is included in Exhibit C-7.1R, an Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report is provided in Exhibit F Revised, and updates to the landscaping plan, including urban forestry plan information, are included in Exhibits C-L1.04R, C- L2.01R, C-L1, and C-L2). 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (NOW 18.520, URBAN FORESTRY) 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements (Now 18.520.030) A. Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual Response: The Landscape plans (see Exhibits C-L1.01 – C-L1.06, C-L2.01, C-L3.01-C- L3.05, C-L4.01, C-L4.02, C-L4.03, and C-L5.01 – C-L5.02) include sheets associated with the Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report (see Exhibit F), which has been prepared by a landscape architect in accordance with the Urban Forestry Manual. Amended Response: This amendment application updates referenced plans (where impacted) and includes an Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised to update the Urban Forestry Management Plan in the original application. B. Tree canopy fee. If the supplemental report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site (excluding streets) or that the 15% effective tree Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 27 canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), then the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in the tree canopy fee calculation requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual. C. Tree canopy fee use. Tree canopy fees provided to the city shall be deposited into the urban forestry fund and used as approved by council through a resolution. Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report (see Exhibit F) demonstrates that the project will comply with the required tree canopy cover through the proposed street tree planting. Thus, a tree canopy fee is not required. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 18.790.050 Flexible Standards for Tree Planting and Preservation (Now 18.520.050) Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report (see Exhibit F) and the associated Landscape plans (see Exhibits C-L1.01 – C-L1.06, C-L2.01, C-L3.01-C-L3.05, C-L4.01, C-L4.02, C-L4.03, and C-L5.01 – C-L5.02) demonstrate compliance with the minimum mature tree canopy requirements for the overall site and per each residential lot. Additionally, the proposed residential lots comply with the standards of their respective zone, as addressed in preceding sections of this report. Therefore, use of flexible standards for tree planting and preservation is not needed. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation (Now 18.520.060) A. General provisions. An urban forestry plan shall be in effect from the point of land use approval until the director determines all applicable urban forestry plan conditions of approval and code requirements have been met. For subdivisions and partitions, the urban forestry plan shall remain in effect for each resulting lot or tract separately until the director determines all applicable urban forestry plan conditions of approval and code requirements have been met. Prior and subsequent permitting decisions regarding the planting, maintenance, removal and replacement of trees when not associated with one of the land use review types in 18.790.020.A shall be administered through Title 8 (Urban Forestry) of the Tigard Municipal Code. B. Inspections. Implementation of the urban forestry plan shall be inspected, documented and reported by the project arborist or landscape architect whenever an urban forestry plan is in effect. In addition, no person may refuse entry or access to the director for the purpose of monitoring the urban forestry plan on any site with an effective urban forestry plan. The inspection requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual shall apply to sites with an effective urban forestry plan. Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 28 C. Tree establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual. D. Urban forest inventory. Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report is attached as Exhibit F and associated Landscape plans are included with the preliminary plan (see Exhibits C- L1.01 – C-L1.06, C-L2.01, C-L3.01-C-L3.05, C-L4.01, C-L4.02, C-L4.03, and C-L5.01 – C- L5.02). The Applicant understands that the Urban Forestry Plan shall remain in effect from the point of land use approval until the director determines all applicable urban forestry plan conditions of approval and code requirements have been met. The Applicant understands that implementation of the approved Urban Forestry Plan shall be inspected, that trees shall be planted, and that spatial and species specific data shall be collected in accordance with these standards. Amended Response: Changes to the Urban Forestry Plan are documented in the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised as well as on updated preliminary plans (see Exhibits C-12.1R, C-L1.04R, and C-L2.01R). New preliminary plans showing detailed impacts, tree preservation details, and the tree canopy plan for the area covered in this amendment application are also provided (see Exhibit C-L1 and C-L2). 18.520.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Application C. Approval criteria. The approval authority shall approve or approve with conditions the modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use application when all of the following are met: 1. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; Response: The project arborist has provided a report and certifies that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification. See p. 3 of the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised. 2. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification; and Response: The project arborist has provided a report and certifies that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification. See p. 3 of the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised. 3. The project arborist or landscape architect demonstrates through a revised urban forestry plan, compliance with Section 18.520.030. (Ord 12-09 § 1) Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 29 Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised and Sheet 12.1R, Tree Preservation Plan; Sheet L1, Tree Removal and Preservation Plan; Sheet L1.04R, Tree Canopy Planting Plan; Sheet L2, Tree Canopy Plan; and Sheet L2.01R, Open Space Planting Plan in Exhibit C Revised demonstrate compliance with Section 18.520.030. See p. 3 of the Urban Forestry Plan Modifications report in Exhibit F Revised. 18.810.100 STORM DRAINAGE (NOW 18.910.100) A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. Response: The attached Preliminary Utility Plan (see Exhibit C-8.1-8.2) shows the proposed storm drainage system. The Preliminary Storm Report in Exhibit H provides sizing calculations and stormwater drainage system details. The storm water drainage system will be separate and independent from the proposed and existing sanitary sewer system. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. Response: The subject site is traversed by drainageways flowing east to west through the southern edges of the site. As demonstrated in the attached Preliminary Plat (see Exhibits C-6.1 and C-6.2), the proposed development includes protection of the drainageways in an open space tracts. Easements will be provided as required. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. The proposed stormwater pond will be within a permanent easement held by Washington County. By interagency agreement, the City of Tigard will be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater pond and its discharge to the creek. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Amendment to Planned Development – River Terrace Edge Pacific Community Design, Inc. January 30, 2018 OBEC Consulting Engineers Page 30 Response: The attached Preliminary Utility Plan in Exhibit C-8.1-8.2 shows the proposed improvements to storm drainage. The proposed stormwater management system is further described in the attached Storm Report in Exhibit H. This system has been designed to accommodate potential runoff from the upstream drainage area. Amended Response: This amendment application does not alter any of the representations in the original response. The proposed stormwater facility has been sited due to constraints within existing right of way. The facility will treat and detain County road runoff and will not change the storm drainage plans for River Terrace Edge as originally proposed. The facility is sized using the TRUST Model per the Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace. Per guidance in the Oregon Department of Transportation Hydraulics Manual, the extended culvert will accommodate the 50-year design storm for the entire upstream drainage area. The Hydraulics Report for the Roy Rogers Road project will contain the complete hydraulic analysis. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: The attached Preliminary Utility Plan (see Exhibit C-8.1-8.2) shows the proposed improvements to storm drainage. The proposed stormwater system has been designed to adequately accommodate onsite runoff. Amended Response: This amendment application updates the Preliminary Utility Plan to show the addition of the Project's proposed stormwater facility south of Tributary 3. The design and sizing of the stormwater facility is based on the TRUST Model and the Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace. Because quantity management will be provided, the project will not contribute additional runoff that could potentially overload existing drainage facilities. The Stormwater Management Report for the Roy Rogers Road project will contain the complete analysis. III. CONCLUSION This narrative and the attached exhibits demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. Therefore, the Applicants respectfully request approval of the proposed amendment to the planned development/subdivision. City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application I:\Community Development\Forms\Pre-Application Packet\Word Pre App Packet Documents\SubmittalRequirementsChecklist20160815.docx (updated: 11/07/2017) APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL SUBMITTALS. ALL ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED AT ONE TIME. This form is required to complete your submittal. The applicant must check the box next to the item verifying that the information is present. Staff will check off the items at intake. Three (3) copies of all materials are required for the initial review process. The balance of the copies will be requested once your submittal is deemed substantially complete. Each packet must be collated. Plans are required to be 24” x 36” or 22” x 34”. Plans must be FOLDED, rolled plans are not accepted. Applicant Staff Documents, Copies and Fees Required Completed Master “Land Use Permit” Application with property owner’s signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed Written summary of proposal Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria (as specified in the Pre- Application Conference notes) Documentary evidence of Neighborhood Meeting: Neighborhood Meeting Affidavits of Posting & Mailing Notice, Minutes, Sign-in Sheets Service Provider Letter Impact Study per Section 18.390.040.B.2(e) Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes Filing Fee (see fee schedule) Preliminary Sight Distance Certification Preliminary Storm Calculations Urban Forestry Supplemental Report Traffic Report (if Required) Maps or Plans (Plans must be 24” x 36”) Architectural Drawings (elevations & floor plans) Existing Conditions Map Landscape Plan Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan Preliminary Utilities Plan Public Improvements/Streets Plan Site Development Plan Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map Topography Map Urban Forestry Plan Vicinity Map Once your application has been deemed substantially complete you will be notified by the Planning Division in the form of a completeness letter indicating that you will need to provide envelopes (please see Request for 500’ Property Owner Notification form). Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Engineering and Construction Services Division 1400 SW Walnut St., MS 18 Hillsboro, OR 97123-5625 PRSRT STD ECRWSS U.S. POSTAGE PAID HILLSBORO, OR PERMIT No. 53 Roy Rogers Road Project Open House 5-7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017 Scholls Heights Elementary 16400 SW Loon Drive Beaverton, OR 97007 ********ECRWSSEDDM***** Local Postal Customer Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Engineering and Construction Services Division 1400 SW Walnut St., MS 18 Hillsboro, OR 97123-5625 PRSRT STD ECRWSS U.S. POSTAGE PAID HILLSBORO, OR PERMIT No. 53 Roy Rogers Road Project Open House 5-7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017 Scholls Heights Elementary 16400 SW Loon Drive Beaverton, OR 97007 ********ECRWSSEDDM***** Local Postal Customer Washington County Project Open House Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road and 2500 feet south of Bull Mountain Road PROJECT OPEN HOUSE 5-7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017 hosted at Scholls Heights Elementary 16400 SW Loon Drive Beaverton, OR 97007 Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation (LUT) invites you to attend an open house to learn about proposed improvements for Roy Rogers Road. Representatives from LUT and Willamette Water Supply Program will be available to answer questions. No formal presentation is planned. Project Description This project will widen Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road and 2,500 feet south of Bull Mountain Road to five lanes (two travel lanes each way and a center turn lane). The project will include continuous bike lanes and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage upgrades and safety enhancements. Willamette Water Supply Program, a partnership between Tualatin Valley Water District and the city of Hillsboro to build an additional regional water supply system in Washington County, will be constructing a 66" drinking water pipeline with the roadway improvements. Project Schedule Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 with substantial completion anticipated in spring 2020. Contact Information Land Use & Transportation Engineering and Construction Services Division Phone: 503-846-7800 email: lutproj@co.washington.or.us Project Information www.co.washington.or.us/transportationprojects www.ourreliablewater.org Traffic Alerts www.wc-roads.com Assistive Listening & Other Services: Assistive Listening Devices, language, and/or sign language interpreters can be arranged. Please notify the County if you require any of these services by calling 503-846-7800 or 7-1-1 for telecommunications relay service. Washington County Project Open House Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road and 2500 feet south of Bull Mountain Road PROJECT OPEN HOUSE 5-7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017 hosted at Scholls Heights Elementary 16400 SW Loon Drive Beaverton, OR 97007 Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation (LUT) invites you to attend an open house to learn about proposed improvements for Roy Rogers Road. Representatives from LUT and Willamette Water Supply Program will be available to answer questions. No formal presentation is planned. Project Description This project will widen Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road and 2,500 feet south of Bull Mountain Road to five lanes (two travel lanes each way and a center turn lane). The project will include continuous bike lanes and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage upgrades and safety enhancements. Willamette Water Supply Program, a partnership between Tualatin Valley Water District and the city of Hillsboro to build an additional regional water supply system in Washington County, will be constructing a 66" drinking water pipeline with the roadway improvements. Project Schedule Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 with substantial completion anticipated in spring 2020. Contact Information Land Use & Transportation Engineering and Construction Services Division Phone: 503-846-7800 email: lutproj@co.washington.or.us Project Information www.co.washington.or.us/transportationprojects www.ourreliablewater.org Traffic Alerts www.wc-roads.com Assistive Listening & Other Services: Assistive Listening Devices, language, and/or sign language interpreters can be arranged. Please notify the County if you require any of these services by calling 503-846-7800 or 7-1-1 for telecommunications relay service. Select Routes Find an Expert Using EDDM® ® Mailpiece Size Checker › 97223,97224 Order Summary USPS.com® - Every Door Direct Mail https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/customer/routeSearch.action 1 of 1 9/27/2017 10:04 AM Select Routes Find an Expert Using EDDM® ® Mailpiece Size Checker › 97007,97140 Order Summary USPS.com® - Every Door Direct Mail https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/customer/routeSearch.action 1 of 1 9/27/2017 10:08 AM 11/20/2017 Roy Rogers Road project open house Oct. 12 http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/News/royrogersoh2017.cfm 1/1 County Home Land Use & Transportation Publications Roy Rogers Road project open house Oct. 12 Roy Rogers Road project open house Oct. 12 For Immediate Release: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Sponsored by: Department of Land Use and Transportation, Engineering and Construction Services Division An open house for the Roy Rogers Road improvement project will be 5-7 p.m. Oct. 12 at Scholls Heights Elementary, 16400 SW Loon Drive. The open house, sponsored by Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation (LUT), provides the public with the opportunity to learn about final design for upcoming road improvements on Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road and 2500 feet south of Bull Mountain Road. The Roy Rogers Road project is coordinating with the Willamette Water Supply Program pipeline installation. Representatives from LUT and Willamette Water Supply will be available to answer questions. No formal presentation is planned; stop in any time during open house hours. This project will widen Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road and 2500 feet south of Bull Mountain Road to five lanes (two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane). The project will include continuous bike lanes and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage upgrades and safety enhancements. The Willamette Water Supply Program, a partnership between Tualatin Valley Water District and the city of Hillsboro to build an additional regional water supply system in Washington County, will be constructing a 66 inch drinking water pipeline in conjunction with the roadway improvements. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 and is expected to be substantially completed in spring 2020. The $24.9 million road improvement project is funded through the MSTIP Bonding Cost-share Program. For more information, visit the project website, or contact Engineering and Construction Services at 503-846-7822 or lutproj@co.washington.or.us. More information about the Willamette Water Supply can be found at www.ourreliablewater.org. If you need a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or a language interpreter, please call 503-846-7800 (or 7-1-1 for Telecommunications Relay Service) at least 48 hours prior to this event. Washington County is committed to planning, building and maintaining a great transportation system, ensuring the safety of all roadway users, and operating the County roadway system in a cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. Media Contact: Melissa De Lyser, Communications Coordinator 503-846-4963 melissa_de_lyser@co.washington.or.us Search this site More Search Options Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. Roy Rogers Rd. Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. 175th Ave.175th Ave. SW Jean Louise Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Appledale Rd. Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. Roy Rogers Rd. Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. 175th Ave.175th Ave. SW Jean Louise Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Appledale Rd. Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. Roy Rogers Rd. Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. 175th Ave.175th Ave. SW Jean Louise Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Appledale Rd. Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. Roy Rogers Rd. Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. 175th Ave.175th Ave. SW Jean Louise Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. SW Bull Mountain Rd. Existing Proposed Roy Rogers Rd.Roy Rogers Rd. Appledale Rd. FUNDING MSTIP Bonding Cost-sharing Program Washington County, in partnership with the cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro and Tigard, has developed a transportation finance program for four major residential growth areas: • North Bethany/Bonny Slope West (unincorporated Washington County) • South Hillsboro (city of Hillsboro) • South Cooper Mountain (city of Beaverton) • River Terrace (city of Tigard) Sharing the Cost Two-thirds of the $140 million cost of identified capacity and safety road- improvement projects will be funded by Washington County; the remaining one-third will be funded by the cities and by development. • County issued bonds fund two-thirds of the project costs. • Cities may use Transportation Development Tax (TDT) and other development-based revenues to fund one-third of the project costs. www.co.washington.or.us/CostShare SW RIVER TERRACE BLVDSW EASTON LN SW TRAVIS LN SW 165TH AVESW JAMISON WYSW EUDORA LN SW 166TH AVESW R I V E R T E R R A C E B L V DSW 169TH AVESW 168TH AVESW HARLOW RD SW HA R L O W R D SW C H A R L SW EMMA MAY CT SW D AI S Y C T SW DELTA PL SW LAN D O N C T SW WILLA JEAN LN SW CASSIDY TERSW KESSLER LN O T T E C T PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY FACILITIES TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY FACILITIES C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(3R) AERIAL.dwg - SHEET: 3 Dec 20, 2017 - 11:11am bsailerAERIAL PHOTOGRAPH C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(3R) AERIAL.dwg - SHEET: 3 Dec 20, 2017 - 11:11am bsailerPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE SW ROY ROGERS RDZONE R-7 ZONE R-12 RIVER TERRACE BLVDPUBLIC ROW/ PRIVATE STREETS 16.11 AC 3.32 AC 10.13 AC RESOURCE AREAS SLOPES > 25%, WETLAND, DRAINAGE WAY & VEGETATED CORRIDOR PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN SPACES 52.57 ACTOTAL PROJECT AREA LOTS 19.38 AC 3.63 ACPUBLIC PARKS/ TRAILS DENSITY CALCULATIONS MAP & TABLES N:\proj\395-045\09 Drawings\03 Planning\Sheets - Planning Submittal\395045.(4) DENSITY.dwg - SHEET: 22x34 Dec 02, 2015 - 7:22pm prePOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE EXISTING WETLAND SW ROY ROGERS ROADPRESERVATION OF EXISTING STANDS OF TREES 10' WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT PROVISION FOR FUTURESTREET CONNECTIONTRAFFIC SIGNAL (TIMING TO BE DETERMINED) EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING STREAM CONCEPT PLAN MAP C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(5.2R) CONCEPT.dwg - SHEET: CONCEPT Dec 06, 2017 - 11:21am edeleonPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE SW ROY ROGERS ROADN:\proj\395-045\09 Drawings\03 Planning\Sheets - Planning Submittal\395045.(5.3) SITE MAP.dwg - SHEET: 5.3 Dec 03, 2015 - 7:53am erikSITE MAP N:\proj\395-045\09 Drawings\03 Planning\Sheets - Planning Submittal\395045.(5.3) SITE MAP.dwg - SHEET: 5.3 Dec 03, 2015 - 7:53am erikPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE 209.5'3 0 . 6 ' 18.5'50.0'18.5'30.6'82.2'34.5'88.4'49.0'44.0'178.2'8.5'74.8'30 . 3 ' 53.6'60.0'60.0'50.0'60.0'60.0'76.7'22.0'40.9'50.0'7.3'8.0'101.5'70.9'3.0'26.6'60.0'63.5'45.8'36.5'60.0'50.0'60.0'50.0'50.3'37.8'2 2 . 0 ' 76.0'54.0'76.0'22.0'41.0'45.0'45.0'45.0'45.0'45.0'45.0'419.5'83.6'1,228.1'78.0'15.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'23.0'2 2 . 0 ' 66.0'20.0'61.0'29.8'18.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'15.0'50.0'76.0'48.0'60.0'60.0'50.0'60.0'51.0'22.0'86.0'77.6'2 1 . 9 ' 51.1'60.0'50.0'60.0'60.0'60.0'37.7'32.8'35.7'34.2'0.0'81.0'2 9 . 8 ' 36.0'60.0'22.0'2 2 . 0 ' 24.0'50.0'50.0'28.9'10.0' 46.1' 4 6 . 3 '46.3'33.1'14.3'50.0'50.0'12.3'34.2'43.1'40.1' 19.4'30.7'50.0' 50.0'50.0'19.3'24.9'50.0'50.0' 84.1'27.3'29.7'8.2'41.9'50.0'40.0'2.9'35.0'2 5 . 5 ' 80.8'24.0'73.5'21.2'48.8'50.0'6.7'45.2'192.3'45.2'9.2'50.0'50.0'25.5'8 3 . 6 ' 35.1' 45.3'15.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'37.0'37.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'32.0'15.0'10.2'1.9'60.0'60.0'50.0'60.0'60.0'66.2'21.0' 609.2'86.3'85.7' 571.4' 8.4'165.6'50.3' 50.3' 59.4' 50.0' 50.0' 39.8'10.2' 104.3'89.1'50.9'21.4'50.0'50.0'68.4'75.7'48.0'2.5'99.0'94.0'90.0'90.0'90.0'91.6'9 3 . 5 ' 92.3' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0'6 (10.0' 78.9'78.9'71.7'3.8'90.0' 90.0'46.2'2.5'90.0'47.5'2.5'50.0'90.0' 90.0' 90.0'55.0'55.0'40.0'50.0'50.0'90.3' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0'98.5'97.9'97.4'96.9'96.3'40.0'55.7'90.1' 92.1'64.9'60.0'91.5'50.0'91.1' 90.5'50.0'90.0'50.3'90.0'51.8'65.0'91.6'60.0'91.6'50.0'91.6'60.0'91.6'60.0'91.6'60.0'91.6'55.0'100.0'100.0'100.0'100.0'100.0'100.0'80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0'80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0' 80.0'50.0'5.0'90.0'46.0'5.0'90.0'45.0'7.0'90.0'41.0'9.0'90.0'41.0'9.0'90.0'41.0'9.0'90.0' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0' 90.0'55.0'90.0'45.0'90.0'45.0'90.0'45.0'90.0'45.0'90.0'45.0'90.0'45.0'130 4,824 SF TRACT X 14,660 SF 121 4,500 SF 120 5,112 SF TRACT J 8,611 SF 119 5,344 SF 128 4,500 SF127 4,500 SF 125 6,699 SF 122 4,500 SF TRACT H 63,693 SF 134 4,500 SF 136 5,041 SF TRACT K 9,109 SF 133 4,501 SF 135 3,600 SF 131 5,077 SF129 4,995 SF 123 5,397 SF 124 6,154 SF 126 4,511 SF 132 4,514 SF 138 2,560 SF 139 2,560 SF 137 2,883 SF TRACT T11,217SF140 2,560 SF 141 2,560 SF 142 2,560 SF 143 2,560 SF 144 2,560 SF 145 2,560 SF 111 6,186 SF 113 4,388 SF 114 4,500 SF 108 4,573 SF 110 4,500 SF 109 4,500 SF TRACT I 5,238 SF 115 4,344 SF TRACT S 1,200 SF TRACT L 1,200 SF 215 8,074 SF 212 4,579 SF 204 6,000 SF 211 5,495 SF 203 5,000 SF 210 5,495 SF 202 6,000 SF 209 5,495 SF 201 6,458 SF 208 5,026 SF 214 5,911 SF 207 5,423 SF 206 6,000 SF 213 5,495 SF 205 6,000 SF 229 4,621 SF 223 5,852 SF 228 4,531 SF 227 4,512 SF 226 5,446 SF 225 4,565 SF 224 5,509 SF 222 4,466 SF 221 4,958 SF 220 5,762 SF 219 5,796 SF 218 4,857 SF 217 5,859 SF 216 5,894 SF 235 4,050 SF 236 4,050 SF TRACT V 96,394 SF 230 4,908 SF 231 4,050 SF 232 4,050 SF 233 4,050 SF 234 4,050 SF 112 5,961 SF 184 2,918 SF 183 2,560 SF 182 2,560 SF 181 2,560 SF 180 2,560 SF 179 2,560 SF 178 2,560 SF 177 2,560 SF 176 2,560 SF 60.0'SW RIVER TERRACE BOULEVARDSW EASTON LANE SW KESSLER LANE SW TRAVIS LANE SW 165TH AVENUESW JAMISON WAYSW WILLA JEAN LANE SW EUDORA LANE SW 166TH AVENUESW 165TH AVENUESW 166TH AVENUE50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 72.0'50.0'50.0' 54.0' 50.0' 44.0' 72.0'251.3'940.4'251.3'940.4'TRACT U 309,371 SF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SLOPE EASEMENT 89.0'TRACT NN 924 SF93.2'91.6'10.0' 10.3' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY ROAD FACILITIES PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY ROAD FACILITIES 2 2 . 0 '22.0'PRELIMINARY PLAT (NORTH)C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(6R) PPLAT.dwg - SHEET: 6.1 Dec 20, 2017 - 11:15am bsailerPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH) EX 2-FT CONTOUR EX 10-FT CONTOUR FG 2-FT CONTOUR FG 10-FT CONTOUR 324 320 EX WETLANDS BUFFER EX STREAM EX WETLANDS PROPOSED WETLANDS BUFFER C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(7R) PGRAD.dwg - SHEET: NORTH Dec 20, 2017 - 3:45pm bsailerPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE 112 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 138 139 137 TRACT T 140 141 142 143 144 145 111 113 114 108 110 109 TRACT I 115 TRACT STRACT L 146 175 235 236 TRACT V 230 231 232 233 234 215 212 204 211 203 210 202 209 201 208 214 207 206 213 205 229 223 228 227 226 225 224 222 221 220219218217216 130 TRACT X 121 120 TRACT J 119 118 128 127 125 122 TRACT H134 136 TRACT K 133 135 131129 123 124 126 132 SW RIVER TERRACE BLVDSW ROY ROGERS RDSW 164TH AVESDSDSDSD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWW W W W W W W WWWWW W W W W W W W PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT, TYP. PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT, TYP. 550 PRESSURE ZONE 410 PRESSURE ZONE 16" WATER20" WATER CONNECT TO FUTURE UTILITIES (POLYGON AT SOUTH RIVER TERRACE) 550 PRESSURE ZONE 550 PRESSURE ZONE 550 PRESSURE ZONE 550 PRESSURE ZONE 8" WATER8" WATER8" WATER8" WATER8" WATER CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATERLINE (550 PRESSURE ZONE) 550 PRESSURE ZONE SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SS SS SSSSSSCONNECTION TO DETENTION/WATER QUALITY FACILITY NORTH OF SITE PROPOSED ARCH CULVERT 29' WIDE X 59' LONG TRACT NN WASHINGTON COUNTY STORMWATER FACILITY PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY 185 200 199186 187 198 188 197 189 196 190 195 194 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (NORTH) NOTES: 1.SANITARY SEWER TO BE 8" IN DIAMETER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.WATER LINES TO BE 8" IN DIAMETER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROPOSED THRUST BLOCK PROPOSED AIR RELEASE VALVE EX AIR RELEASE VALVE PROPOSED BLOW-OFF EX BLOW-OFF PROPOSED WATER VALVE EX WATER VALVE PROPOSED WATER METER EX WATER METER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EX FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT EX STORM CLEANOUT EX CATCH BASIN PROPOSED SANITARY CLEANOUT EX SANITARY CLEANOUT EX STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE EX SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE EX BURIED POWER LINE EX GAS LINE PROPOSED WATER LINE EX WATER LINE EX STORM DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EX SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LINES EX OVERHEAD POWER LINE EX TELEPHONE LINE EX CABLE TV LINE D C D S C S XCOM XOH XE XSD XW W XG XSS SS SD C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(8R) PCOMP.dwg - SHEET: NORTH Dec 20, 2017 - 11:33am bsailerPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE SW DEKALB STREETSW RIVER TERRACE BLVDSW ROY ROGERS ROADNEW COLLECTOR STREAM CENTERLINE EXISTING WETLAND AND BUFFER PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION FENCING PER DETAIL THIS SHEET, TYP. REFER TO ENLARGED PLAN 1 PER SHEET 12.2 REFER TO ENLARGED PLAN 2 PER SHEET 12.2 STAND 1 71757 71759 71758 71760 71756 PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION FENCING PER DETAIL THIS SHEET, TYP. EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE GROVE DRIP LINE EXISTING WETLANDS BUFFER PROPOSED WETLANDS BUFFER EXISTING WETLAND AND BUFFER TRACT U TRACT V TRACT W TRACT X N:\proj\395-045\09 Drawings\03 Planning\Sheets - Planning Submittal\395045.(12.1-12.2) TREE PRESERVATION.dwg - SHEET: 12.1 Dec 03, 2015 - 7:54am erikPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN I, MORGAN HOLEN, ATTEST THAT THIS TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 10, PART 1, OF THE CITY OF TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL. MORGAN HOLEN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST PN-6145A DATE: NOTES: 1.COORDINATE WITH PROJECT ARBORIST PRIOR TO REMOVING OR MOVING TREE PROTECTION MEASURES TO SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION IN PROTECTION ZONE. 2.REFER TO "ATTACHMENT A: EXISTING TREE INVENTORY DATA" PREPARED BY MORGAN HOLEN & ASSOCIATES FOR CANOPY RADIUS DIMENSIONS. 3.SEE SHEET 2 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TAX MAP INFORMATION. 4.SEE SHEET 7.1-7.2 FOR THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN AND RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS. 5.SEE SHEETS 8.1 -8.2 FOR THE PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN. 6.SEE SHEETS L1.01 -L3.01 FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN. EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED DECIDUOUS CONIFEROUS WETLAND DRAINAGEWAY TREE NUMBER (REFER TO "ATTACHMENT A: EXISTING TREE INVENTORY DATA" FOR TREE DETAILS) 70824 EXISTING TREE TO BE RETAINED WITH TREE PROTECTION FENCING PER DTL 1, THIS SHEET MODERATE VALUE HABITAT BOUNDARY LOWER VALUE HABITAT BOUNDARY HIGHEST VALUE HABITAT BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLANDS BUFFER EXISTING DEGRADED WETLANDS BUFFER TO BE IMPROVED PROPOSED WETLANDS BUFFER PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT TREE GROVE EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE GROVE PROPOSED TO REMAIN. NOTE: NOTIFY MORGAN HOLEN & ASSOCIATES BEFORE CONDUCTING ANY WORK WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF TREES FENCES SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION! A.TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS 1.TREE PROTECTION ZONE. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL DESIGNATE THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ). WHERE FEASIBLE, THE TPZ SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE DRIPLINE OF PROTECTED TREES AS A MINIMUM. IF INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE INSTALLED CLOSER TO THE TREES, THE TPZ MAY BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE DRIPLINE AREA IF THE PROJECT ARBORIST DETERMINES 7+$77+(75((6:,//127%(81'8/<'$0$*('¬7+( LOCATION OF THE TPZ SHALL BE SHOWN ON CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. ¬ 2.PROTECTION FENCING. PROTECTION FENCING. ALL TREES TO BE RETAINED SHALL BE PROTECTED BY FENCING AS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST, SEE TREE PROTECTION DETAIL THIS SHEET. PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE SECURED TO STEEL POSTS PLACED NO FURTHER THAN 8-FEET APART AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF THE TPZ..¬ 3.PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL BE ON SITE TO DISCUSS METHODS OF TREE REMOVAL AND TREE PROTECTION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 4.PRUNING. THE PROJECT ARBORIST CAN HELP IDENTIFY IF AND WHERE PRUNING IS NECESSARY ONCE TREES RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND THE SITE IS STAKED AND PREPARED FOR CONSTRUCTION. PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED TREE SERVICE. 5.TREE PROTECTION ZONE MAINTENANCE. THE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL NOT BE MOVED, REMOVED, OR ENTERED BY EQUIPMENT EXCEPT UNDER DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST. 6.STORAGE OF MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE TPZ. 7.EXCAVATION. EXCAVATION WITHIN THE TPZ SHALL BE AVOIDED IF ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. IF EXCAVATION WITHIN THE TPZ IN UNAVOIDABLE, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL EVALUATE THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION TO DETERMINE METHODS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO TREES. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE TPZ SHALL BE UNDER THE ON-SITE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST.¬ 8.TREE PROTECTION INSPECTION. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL INSPECT AND VERIFY THE LOCATION OF PROTECTION MEASURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, MONITOR TREE PROTECTION MEASURES REGULARLY, AND PROVIDE BIWEEKLY WRITTEN REPORTS TO THE CITY DURING PERIODS OF ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION. 9.POST CLEARING EVALUATION. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL VISIT THE SITE AT THE TIME OF CLEARING TO RE-ASSESS TREES PLANNED FOR PRESERVATION IN TERMS OF GENERAL CONDITION AND POTENTIAL RISK. IF TREES ARE FOUND TO BE HAZARDOUS, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL UPDATE THE URBAN FORESTRY PLAN FOR THE CITY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 10.FINAL REPORT. AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL PROVIDE A FINAL REPORT THAT DESCRIBES THE MEASURES NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE REMAINING TREES. DRIP LINE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (NOT TO SCALE) 1 TREE PROTECTION DETAIL 8' TYP TO BE PROTECTED FENCE SHALL IDEALLY BE LOCATED AT THE OUTER PERIMETER OF THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. SEE TREE PROTECTION PLAN THIS SHEET 5' CHAIN LINK FENCING. 2" MESH CHAIN LINK SECURED TO 1-1/2" DIA STEEL OR ALUMINUM POSTS NORTH0 FEETSCALE 20 10 4020 TREE REMOVAL & PROTECTION PLAN2 C:\MZLA PROJECTS\16.25-ROY ROGERS ROAD\XREFS\RRR URBAN FOREST BASE.dwg - SHEET: TRIB 3 PROTECTION Dec 11, 2017 - 3:29pm TeresaPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE 8'-0" MAX. EXISTING TREE 5'-0"TREE PROTECTION FENCING N.T.S.1 L1TREE REMOVAL &PRESERVATIONPLANTREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. TREE PROTECTION ZONE. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL DESIGNATE THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ). WHERE FEASIBLE, THE TPZ SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE DRIPLINE OF PROTECTED TREES AS A MINIMUM. IF WORK IS PROPOSED CLOSER TO THE TREES, THE TPZ MAY BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE DRIPLINE AREA IF THE PROJECT ARBORIST DETERMINES THAT THE TREES WILL NOT BE UNDULY DAMAGED. THE LOCATION OF THE TPZ SHALL BE SHOWN ON CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 2. PROTECTION FENCING. ALL TREES TO BE RETAINED SHALL BE PROTECTED BY 5-FOOT TALL 2-INCH MESH CHAIN LINK FENCING SECURED TO 1½-INCH DIAMETER STEEL OR ALUMINUM POSTS PLACED NO FURTHER THAN 8-FEET ON CENTER AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF THE TPZ. 3. PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL BE ON SITE TO DISCUSS METHODS OF TREE REMOVAL AND TREE PROTECTION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 4. TREE PROTECTION ZONE MAINTENANCE. THE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL NOT BE MOVED, REMOVED, OR ENTERED BY EQUIPMENT EXCEPT UNDER DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST. 5. STORAGE OF MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE TPZ. 6. EXCAVATION. EXCAVATION WITHIN THE TPZ SHALL BE AVOIDED IF ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. IF EXCAVATION WITHIN THE TPZ IN UNAVOIDABLE, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL EVALUATE THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION TO DETERMINE METHODS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO TREES. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE TPZ SHALL BE UNDER THE ON-SITE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST. 7. TREE PROTECTION INSPECTION. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL INSPECT AND VERIFY THE LOCATION OF PROTECTION MEASURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, MONITOR TREE PROTECTION MEASURES REGULARLY, AND PROVIDE BIWEEKLY WRITTEN REPORTS TO THE CITY DURING PERIODS OF ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION. 8. FINAL REPORT. AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL PROVIDE A FINAL REPORT THAT DESCRIBES THE MEASURES NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE REMAINING TREES. I, Morgan Holen, attest that this Tree Preservation and Removal Plan meets the requirements in Section 10, part 1, of the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Morgan Holen ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-6145B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Date: TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TYP. SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET MODIFIED STAND 1 BOUNDARY MODIFIED STAND 1 BOUNDARY TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TYP. SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET 1"-1.5" DIA. STEEL POSTS 5'-0" CHAIN LINK, 2" MESH EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN LEGEND EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION FENCING 1 5 DEC 17 RRR WIDENING UFP MODIFICATION CUT LINE FILL LINE FILL LINE FILL LINE PENDING LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EASEMENT TEMPORARY CUT LINE ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: December 13, 2017 TREE CANOPY - PLANTING PLAN4N:\proj\395-045\09 Drawings\03 Planning\Sheets - Planning Submittal\Landscape\395045.(L1) STREETTREE.dwg - SHEET: L1.04 Dec 03, 2015 - 8:23am ben POLYGON NW COMPANYWWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM[T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442POLYGON ATRIVER TERRACEEDGE5/09/97OREGON369PLANNING DOCUMENTS MATCHLINE SEE SHEET - L1.01MATCHLINE SEE SHEET - L1.03 TREE CANOPYPLANTING PLANSW RIVER TERRACE BLVDSW WILLA JEAN LN.SW 166TH AVE.SW ROY ROGERS ROADSW HARLOW RD. SW EASTON LN.SW 165TH AVE.SW TRAVIS LN.SW 168TH AVE.SW 169TH AVE.VICINITY MAP1234 L2TREE CANOPY PLAN1 WATER QUALITY POND NORTH 0 FEETSCALE 20 10 4020 TREE CANOPYPLANTREE CANOPY NOTES: NEW TREES THAT ARE PLANTED TO MEET THE EFFECTIVE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS IN THE TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL. THEY SHALL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) STANDARDS FOR TREE PLANTING (A300, PART 6) AND ADDITIONAL STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE OREGON LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS BOARD. NURSERY STOCK SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1) FOR GRADE NO.1 OR BETTER. DOUBLE STAKE TREES IF NEEDED FOR STABILITY DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. I, Morgan Holen, attest that this Tree Canopy Site Plan meets the requirements in Section 10, part 2, of the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Morgan Holen ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-6145B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Date: TREE PROTECTION FENCE SEE DETAIL SHEET L1 ROY ROGERS ROAD PERMANENT EASEMENT BOUNDARY PERMANENT EASEMENT BOUNDARY RESTORATION SHRUB MIX Gaultheria shallon / Salal 1 gal 3' oc Holodiscus discolor / Ocean-spray 1 gal 6' oc Ribes sanguineum / Red Flowering Currant 1 gal 6' oc Rosa gymnocarpa / Dwarf Rose 1 gal 4' oc Sambucus racemosa / Red Elderberry 1 gal 8' oc Symphoricarpos albus / Common White Snowberry 1 gal 4' oc GRASS Bromus carinatus / California Brome-Grass seed Elymus glaucus / Blue Wildrye seed PLANT LEGEND C:\MZLA PROJECTS\16.25-ROY ROGERS ROAD\XREFS\RRR URBAN FOREST BASE.dwg - SHEET: TRIB 3 CANOPY Dec 11, 2017 - 3:13pm TeresaPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE UPLAND FOREST PLANTING MIX TREES Abies grandis / Grand Fir 1 gal 10'-0" o.c. Acer circinatum / Vine Maple 2 gal 20'-0" o.c. Acer macrophyllum / Big Leaf Maple 2 gal 15'-0" o.c. Alnus rubra / Red Alder 2 gal 20'-0" o.c. Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas Fir 2 gal 12'-0" o.c. SHRUBS Holodiscus discolor / Ocean-spray 1 gal 6'-0" o.c. Polystichum munitum / Western Sword Fern 2 gal 3'-0" o.c. Ribes sanguineum / Red Flowering Currant 1 gal 6'-0" o.c. Rosa gymnocarpa / Dwarf Rose 1 gal 4'-0" o.c. Sambucus racemosa / Red Elderberry 1 gal 6'-0" o.c. Symphoricarpos albus / Snowberry 1 gal 4'-0" o.c. GRASS Bromus carinatus / California Brome-Grass seed Elymus glaucus / Blue Wildrye seed TREES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING Acer macrophyllum / Big Leaf Maple 1 1/2" cal. 25'-0" o.c. Thuja plicata / Western Red Cedar 6` ht. 25'-0" o.c. Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas Fir 6` ht. 25'-0" o.c. SIZE SPACING SIZE SPACING RANDOMLY PLANT SPECIES, OFFSET PLANTS TO AVOID STRAIGHT ROWS THROUGHOUT PLANTING AREA TYPICAL TRIANGULAR SPACING GRID RANDOM PLANTING DETAIL2 QTY 13 9 10 TEMPORARY EASEMENT BOUNDARY TEMPORARY EASEMENT BOUNDARY ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: December 13, 2017 PLANTED STAND 2 OPEN SPACE - PLANTING PLAN1N:\proj\395-045\09 Drawings\03 Planning\Sheets - Planning Submittal\Landscape\395045.(L2) OPENSPACE.dwg - SHEET: L2.01 Dec 03, 2015 - 8:25am ben POLYGON NW COMPANYWWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM[T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442POLYGON ATRIVER TERRACEEDGE5/09/97OREGON369PLANNING DOCUMENTS OPEN SPACEPLANTING PLANSW RIVER TERRACE BLVDSW WILLA JEAN LN.SW 166TH AVE.SW ROY ROGERS ROADSW HARLOW RD. SW EASTON LN.SW 165TH AVE.SW TRAVIS LN.SW 168TH AVE.SW 169TH AVE.VICINITY MAP Urban Forestry Plan Modifications – River Terrace Edge, Tigard, OR Roy Rogers Road Improvements December 13, 2017 MHA17082 Purpose Morgan Holen & Associates (MHA) was contracted by OBEC Consulting Engineers (OBEC) to prepare a supplemental arborist report to describe proposed modifications to the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan for River Terrace Edge. Changes are solely related to the County’s improvements to Roy Rogers Road that require easements and impacts to trees previously planned for preservation. This report describes the proposed modifications in compliance with Tigard Code Section 18.790.070. Proposed Modifications The Roy Rogers Road Improvement project impacts the edge of the significant grove identified as Stand 1 in the River Terrace Edge Urban Forestry Plan dated October 22, 2015. Specifically, 82 trees previously planned for preservation are now proposed for removal for the purposes of construction, including a stormwater pond, culvert extension, outfall pipe from the pond to the stream, and temporary access. I visited the site on November 27, 2017 in order to visually assess trees located within the proposed construction area and then coordinated with OBEC and Polygon Northwest to discuss recommendations for tree removal and protection. The project will create a new western edge to the Stand 1 boundary, exposing trees along the new edge that were previously sheltered within the stand. During my site visit I identified trees that would not be suitable for preservation along the new edge due to poor structure and trunk decay that would make them hazardous to workers in the area once exposed by adjacent tree removal. Therefore, a few of the trees are planned for removal just beyond the active work area because of hazardous condition. The trees planned for preservation along the new stand boundary are in good condition and with generally good structure, including several bigleaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) and very large Douglas‐firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii). In the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan, Stand 1 is divided into Tracts U and V. Only the portion of Stand 1 located in Tract U is affected by the proposed modifications. I coordinated with Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects (MZLA), who prepared the enclosed Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan drawings specific to the proposed Roy Rogers Road Improvement project area requiring modifications to the River Terrace Edge Urban Forestry Plan. The Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan depicts the previously approved Stand 1 boundary as approximated by Pacific Community Design (PCD) and the modified Stand 1 boundary currently proposed based on my recommendations, actual dripline measurements, and coordination with MZLA. The difference between the two boundaries is 27,663 square feet based on calculations provided by MZLA. Note that the previously approved Stand 1 boundary was approximated by PCD and did not account for all of the trees within the stand based on the individual tree survey OBEC more recently conducted for the Roy Rogers Road project. Individual trees located beyond the Stand 1 boundary as depicted on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan drawing are indeed part of Stand 1, but no canopy cover credit has ever been accounted for, for these particular trees. 971.409.9354 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P 220 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 morgan.holen@comcast.netConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management River Terrace Edge – Urban Forestry Plan Modifications for Roy Rogers Road Improvements December 13, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Based on the proposed removal of 27,663 square feet of Stand 1, the total canopy planned for preservation in Tract U changes from 192,727 square feet to 165,064 square feet. The total canopy preserved in Stand 1, including both Tracts U and V, changes from 229,123 square feet to 201,460 square feet, for a difference of 11% (attachment A). Two times canopy credit is provided for preserved stands with condition and preservation ratings greater than 1. Therefore, the canopy cover credit for Stand 1 preservation in Tract U changes from 385,454 square feet to 330,128 square feet. The proposed modifications also include replanting to restore and enhance the area of permanent and temporary disturbance with 122 new trees, as well as native shrubs and grasses. The planted tree inventory and plant stand inventory are provided as attachments B and C, respectively. As described in the planted tree inventory and depicted on the Tree Canopy Site Plan, 32 individual trees measuring 1.5‐ inch caliper are proposed, including 13 bigleaf maples, 10 Douglas‐firs, and nine western redcedars (Thuja plicata). These 34 individual trees are all native species and provide 1.25 times canopy credit, for a total of 55,553 square feet. In addition, two planted stands are proposed as described in the planted stand inventory and depicted on the Tree Canopy Site Plan. MZLA specified an upland forest planting mix that includes 90 trees (1‐ and 2‐gallon container stock) of five different species, as well as shrubs and grasses. The total mature canopy area delineated at the outer edge of the two proposed stands is 8,621 square feet. The planted stands are all native species and provide 1.25 times canopy credit, for a total of 10,776 square feet. This is in addition to the 1,354 square feet of planted stands in Tract U accounted for by PCD in the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. Attachment D provides the Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary specific to the proposed modifications. Prior to the proposed modifications, the total Tract U tree canopy area was 386,808 square feet, or 125% of the total tract area. Based on the proposed modifications, the total Tract U tree canopy area is now 397,811 square feet, or 129% of the total tract area for an increase of 4% canopy cover. Furthermore, the total tree canopy area for the development site changed from 764,439 square feet (86.5%) to 775,442 square feet (87.8%) based on the proposed modifications, for an increase of 1.3% canopy cover for the total River Terrace Edge development site. The Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan specific to the proposed modifications are enclosed as attachments E and F as required by Section 10 of the Urban Forestry Manual, which illustrate how the Urban Forestry Plan requirements continue to be met. Tree Protection As depicted on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan, tree protection fencing should be installed at the dripline of protected trees at a minimum. Where driplines of edge trees do not extend across easement boundaries, tree protection fencing should follow the easement limits. The only exception is a minor encroachment beneath the dripline of tree #39137, a 50‐inch diameter Douglas‐fir, where fill is proposed at the outer edge of the dripline. Because of the steep slope in the area below this tree to the west, the proposed fill is not likely to result in any impacts. Protection fencing should be installed at the limits of proposed work adjacent to tree #39137 and the project arborist should monitor and document work within the encroachment area. Tree Protection Specifications are provided on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. River Terrace Edge – Urban Forestry Plan Modifications for Roy Rogers Road Improvements December 13, 2017 Page 3 of 4 City Requirements The applicant should be aware that, as Conditions of Approval, the City will require regular tree protection monitoring inspections with reports prepared by the project arborist twice each month during periods of active construction, and may require a tree establishment bond for the proposed new plantings and an Urban Forest Inventory Fee. Although the changes result in a greater amount of future tree canopy and restore and enhance areas of disturbance, the proposed modifications are not exempt from the Type 1 process because trees previously identified for preservation are now planned for removal for construction and the location of tree protection fencing has been adjusted. An application fee may be required. Applicable Code Criteria Section 18.790.070.D. provides the approval criteria for modifications to the Urban Forestry Plan components of an approved land use permit. Each of the pertinent criteria are addressed below. 1. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; The previously approved Urban Forestry Plan did not account for the circumstances that led to the proposed modifications. The proposed Roy Rogers Road project and associated stormwater pond, culvert extension, outfall pipe from the pond to the stream, and temporary access were not part of Polygon’s planned development. The County is proposing to do this work within easement areas, which has triggered a modification to Polygon’s previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. The modifications require the removal of 11% of the significant grove identified as Stand 1 in Tract U that was planned for preservation under the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. The proposed tree removal is limited to the western edge of the stand where it is not possible to provide adequate tree protection due to proposed construction and necessary grading, and to remove hazardous trees at the new stand edge that will be exposed by clearing that is necessary for construction. The proposed stand edge preserves stable trees in good condition that are most suitable for preservation and can be adequately protected during the proposed work. 2. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification; and Tree removal and replanting is necessary in order to construct the proposed stormwater pond, culvert extension, and outfall pipe from the pond to the stream, and to provide temporary access for the work to occur. There is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification that would allow for the needed improvements. 3. The project arborist or landscape architect demonstrates through a revised urban forestry plan, compliance with Section 18.790.030. This report and the attachments provided herein demonstrate compliance with Section 18.790.030, detailing the proposed changes to the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan and demonstrating that the effective tree canopy cover requirements will continue to be satisfied. No payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu of planting or preservation is proposed. We hereby attest that, to the best of our knowledge: the attached Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; the attached Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in River Terrace Edge – Urban Forestry Plan Modifications for Roy Rogers Road Improvements December 13, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Section 10, Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and, this Supplemental Report meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual as it pertains specifically to proposed modifications of the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. The client may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations contained herein, or seek additional advice. Neither this author nor Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC, have assumed any responsibility for liability associated with the trees on or adjacent to this site. Thank you for choosing Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC, to provide consulting arborist services for River Terrace Edge and the Roy Rogers Road Improvements projects in Tigard. Please contact us if you have questions or need any additional information. Thank you, Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC: Morgan E. Holen, Member/Owner ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, PN‐6145B ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Forest Biologist Enclosures: Attachment A: Existing Stand Inventory Data Attachment B: Planted Tree Inventory Attachment C: Planted Stand Inventory Attachment D: Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary Attachment E: Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment F: Tree Canopy Site Plan Attachment A ‐ Existing Stand Inventory DataMHA15068 River Terrace Edge ‐ Tree Data 10‐13‐15 Rev. 11‐27‐17.xlsxPage 1 of 1Existing Stand Inventory Prior to the Proposed Modification:Stand No.Dominant Tree SpeciesTree Species Common of 2ndTree Species Common of 3rdAvg DBH 1Avg DBH 2Avg DBH 3Avg Cond 1 Avg Cond 2Avg Cond 3Overall Stand Preservation Rating Total Canopy (sq ft)Total Canopy Preserved (sq ft) CommentsDouglas‐fir (Pseudtosuga menziesii)34 3bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)17 2Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)14 2Existing Stand Inventory Based on the Proposed Modification:Stand No.Dominant Tree SpeciesTree Species Common of 2ndTree Species Common of 3rdAvg DBH 1Avg DBH 2Avg DBH 3Avg Cond 1 Avg Cond 2Avg Cond 3Overall Stand Preservation Rating Total Canopy (sq ft)Total Canopy Preserved (sq ft) CommentsDouglas‐fir (Pseudtosuga menziesii)34 3bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)17 2Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)14 2DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5‐feet above the ground level, in inches.Cond is the numerical condition rating (0‐3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:RATING VIGORCANOPY DENSITY FAILURE HISTORY PESTS DECAY0 dead to severe decline <30% >1 scaffold Infested major conks and cavities1 declining 30‐60% scaffold branch Infested one to a few conks; small cavities2 average 60‐90% small branches Minor present only at pruning wounds3 good to excellent 90‐100% none None absent to present only at pruning woundsPres is the numerical suitability for preservation rating (0‐3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:RATING0123Total Canopy is the average tree canopy area (in square feet) calculated by Pacific Community Design.CONSIDERATIONSNuisance trees are the dominant species in the stand and/or continued viability of the stand is unlikely due to pests, competition from nuisance tree or plant species, hydrologic changes or other factors.The stand requires a currently cost prohibitive level of investment and management of pests, diseases, nuisance tree or plant species, hydrology or other factors to become viable.The stand is viable but requires more frequent management and monitoring of pests, diseases, nuisance tree or plant species, hydrology or other factors for continued viability than a stand rated as a "3".The stand is viable but requires less frequent management and monitoring of pests, diseases, nuisance tree or plant species, hydrology or other factors for continued viability than a stand rated as a "2".DEADWOODmajor scaffold branchestwig and branch diebacksmall twigslittle or none13 249,904 Tract U: 165,064Tract V: 36,396TOTAL:201,460(81%)Douglas‐fir is dominant and bigleaf maple is common. Other tree species include Oregon ash, English hawthorn, sweet cherry, red alder, and western redcedar. Understory includes blackberry, filbert, and abundant native ferns. Trees in variable condition, but intact stand is in excellent condition.13 249,904 Tract U: 192,727Tract V: 36,396TOTAL:229,123(92%)Douglas‐fir is dominant and bigleaf maple is common. Other tree species include Oregon ash, English hawthorn, sweet cherry, red alder, and western redcedar. Understory includes blackberry, filbert, and abundant native ferns. Trees in variable condition, but intact stand is in excellent condition.Morgan Holen & Associates, LLCConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan.holen@comcast.net | 971.409.9354 Attachment B: Planted Tree Inventory MHA15068 River Terrace Edge ‐ Tree Data 10‐13‐15 Rev. 11‐27‐17.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Tree No. Species Name / Common Name Size Mature Canopy Spread (ft.) Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) Spacing Available Soil Volume (cu. ft.) Structured Soil Volume (cu. ft.) 1 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 2 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 3 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 4 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 5 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 6 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 7 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 8 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 9 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 10 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 11 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 14 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 15 Acer macrophyllum / bigleaf maple 1.5" 50 1,963 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 16 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 17 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 18 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 19 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 20 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 21 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 22 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 23 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 24 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 25 Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir 6' 40 1,256 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 26 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 27 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 28 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 29 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 30 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 31 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 32 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 33 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A 34 Thuja plicata / western redcedar 6' 30'707 20‐30' O.C.1,000+ N/A Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 morgan.holen@comcast.net | 971.409.9354 Attachment C: Planted Stand InventoryMHA15068 River Terrace Edge ‐ Tree Data 10‐13‐15 Rev. 11‐27‐17.xlsxPage 1 of 1Planted Stand No.Species Name / Common NameContainer SizeNumber of TreesAverage Spacing (ft)Total Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) Delineated at the Outer Edge of the Stand Comments175 (15 of each species)7,438215(3 of each species)1,18310‐20' on center (see random planting detail on sheet L2)Upland Forest Planting Mix also includes native shrubs and grasses. Upland Forest Planting Mix:Abies grandis / grand firAcer circinatum / vine mapleAcer macrophyllum / bigleaf mapleAlnus rubra / red alderPseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas‐fir1 gal2 gal2 gal2 gal2 galConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan.holen@comcast.net | 971.409.9354 Attachment D: Effective Tree Canopy Cover SummaryMHA15068 River Terrace Edge ‐ Tree Data 10‐13‐15 Rev. 11‐27‐17.xlsxPage 1 of 1Applicable Excerpt of the Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary for R‐7 Zoning District Prior to the Proposed Modification:Lot No.Lot Area (sq. ft.)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Trees (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Stands (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)1.25 x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Native Planted TreesMature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Non‐Native Planted Trees1.25x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Planted StandsTree Canopy Area (sq. ft.) per LotEffective % Canopy (Canopy Area / Lot Area)TRACT U 309,371 ‐ 385,454‐ ‐ 1,354 386,808 125%Total Development Site 883,673 ‐ 458,246‐ 235,885 70,308 764,439 86.5%Applicable Excerpt of the Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary for R‐7 Zoning District Based on the Proposed Modification:Lot No.Lot Area (sq. ft.)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Trees (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Stands (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)1.25 x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Native Planted TreesMature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Non‐Native Planted Trees1.25x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Planted StandsTree Canopy Area (sq. ft.) per LotEffective % Canopy (Canopy Area / Lot Area)TRACT U 309,371 ‐ 330,12855,553‐ 12,130397,811129%Total Development Site 883,673 ‐ 402,92055,553235,88581,084775,44287.8%Notes: Effective tree canopy cover is required to be calculated on a lot/tract by lot/tract basis only in the R‐1, R‐2, R‐3.5, R‐4.5 and R‐7 districts.The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract in the R‐1, R‐2, R‐3.5, R‐4.5 and R‐7 districts shall be at least 15 percent.The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site shall be at least: i. 40% for R‐1, R‐2, R‐3.5, R‐4.5 and R‐7 districts, except for schools (18.130.050(J)); ii. 33% for R‐12, R‐25, R‐40, C‐N, C‐C, C‐G, C‐P, MUE, MUE‐1, MUE‐2, MUC, MUR and I‐P districts, except for schools (18.130.050(J)); and iii. 25% for MU‐CBD, MUC‐1, I‐L and I‐H districts, and for schools (18.130.050(J)) in all districts.Morgan Holen & Associates, LLCConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan.holen@comcast.net | 971.409.9354 Attachment E: Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan NORTH0FEETSCALE20 10 4020TREE REMOVAL & PROTECTION PLAN2C:\MZLA PROJECTS\16.25-ROY ROGERS ROAD\XREFS\RRR URBAN FOREST BASE.dwg - SHEET: TRIB 3 PROTECTION Dec 11, 2017 - 3:29pm TeresaPOLYGON NW COMPANYWWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM[T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442POLYGON ATRIVER TERRACEEDGE8'-0" MAX.EXISTING TREE5'-0"TREE PROTECTION FENCINGN.T.S.1L1TREE REMOVAL &PRESERVATIONPLANTREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS1. TREE PROTECTION ZONE. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL DESIGNATE THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE(TPZ). WHERE FEASIBLE, THE TPZ SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE DRIPLINE OF PROTECTED TREES AS AMINIMUM. IF WORK IS PROPOSED CLOSER TO THE TREES, THE TPZ MAY BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THEDRIPLINE AREA IF THE PROJECT ARBORIST DETERMINES THAT THE TREES WILL NOT BE UNDULYDAMAGED. THE LOCATION OF THE TPZ SHALL BE SHOWN ON CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.2. PROTECTION FENCING. ALL TREES TO BE RETAINED SHALL BE PROTECTED BY 5-FOOT TALL 2-INCHMESH CHAIN LINK FENCING SECURED TO 1½-INCH DIAMETER STEEL OR ALUMINUM POSTS PLACEDNO FURTHER THAN 8-FEET ON CENTER AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF THE TPZ.3. PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL BE ON SITE TO DISCUSS METHODSOF TREE REMOVAL AND TREE PROTECTION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.4. TREE PROTECTION ZONE MAINTENANCE. THE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL NOT BE MOVED,REMOVED, OR ENTERED BY EQUIPMENT EXCEPT UNDER DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST.5. STORAGE OF MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE MATERIALS OREQUIPMENT WITHIN THE TPZ.6. EXCAVATION. EXCAVATION WITHIN THE TPZ SHALL BE AVOIDED IF ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. IFEXCAVATION WITHIN THE TPZ IN UNAVOIDABLE, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL EVALUATE THEPROPOSED EXCAVATION TO DETERMINE METHODS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO TREES. ALLCONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE TPZ SHALL BE UNDER THE ON-SITE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION OF THEPROJECT ARBORIST.7. TREE PROTECTION INSPECTION. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL INSPECT AND VERIFY THE LOCATIONOF PROTECTION MEASURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, MONITOR TREE PROTECTION MEASURESREGULARLY, AND PROVIDE BIWEEKLY WRITTEN REPORTS TO THE CITY DURING PERIODS OF ACTIVECONSTRUCTION.8. FINAL REPORT. AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL PROVIDEA FINAL REPORT THAT DESCRIBES THE MEASURES NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THEREMAINING TREES.I, Morgan Holen, attest that this Tree Preservation and Removal Plan meetsthe requirements in Section 10, part 1, of the City of Tigard Urban ForestryManual.Morgan HolenISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-6145B ISATree Risk Assessor QualifiedDate:TREE PROTECTIONFENCE, TYP. SEEDETAIL THIS SHEETMODIFIED STAND 1 BOUNDARYMODIFIEDSTAND 1BOUNDARYTREE PROTECTIONFENCE, TYP. SEEDETAIL THISSHEET1"-1.5" DIA.STEEL POSTS5'-0" CHAINLINK, 2"MESHEXISTING TREES TO REMAINLEGENDEXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVEDTREE PROTECTION FENCING1 5 DEC 17 RRR WIDENING UFP MODIFICATIONCUT LINEFILL LINEFILL LINEFILL LINEPENDINGLOCATION OFADDITIONALTEMPORARYEASEMENTTEMPORARYCUT LINEISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: December 13, 2017 Attachment F: Tree Canopy Site Plan L2TREE CANOPY PLAN1WATERQUALITYPONDNORTH0FEETSCALE20 10 4020TREE CANOPYPLANTREE CANOPY NOTES:NEW TREES THAT ARE PLANTED TO MEET THE EFFECTIVE CANOPYREQUIREMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS IN THETIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL. THEY SHALL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) STANDARDSFOR TREE PLANTING (A300, PART 6) AND ADDITIONAL STANDARDS ADOPTEDBY THE OREGON LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS BOARD. NURSERY STOCK SHALLMEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMENFOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1) FOR GRADE NO.1 OR BETTER. DOUBLE STAKETREES IF NEEDED FOR STABILITY DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.I, Morgan Holen, attest that this Tree Canopy Site Plan meets the requirements inSection 10, part 2, of the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual.Morgan HolenISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-6145B ISA TreeRisk Assessor QualifiedDate:TREE PROTECTION FENCESEE DETAIL SHEET L1ROY ROGERS ROADPERMANENT EASEMENTBOUNDARYPERMANENT EASEMENTBOUNDARY RESTORATION SHRUB MIX Gaultheria shallon / Salal 1 gal 3' oc Holodiscus discolor / Ocean-spray 1 gal 6' oc Ribes sanguineum / Red Flowering Currant 1 gal 6' oc Rosa gymnocarpa / Dwarf Rose 1 gal 4' oc Sambucus racemosa / Red Elderberry 1 gal 8' oc Symphoricarpos albus / Common White Snowberry 1 gal 4' oc GRASS Bromus carinatus / California Brome-Grass seed Elymus glaucus / Blue Wildrye seed PLANT LEGENDC:\MZLA PROJECTS\16.25-ROY ROGERS ROAD\XREFS\RRR URBAN FOREST BASE.dwg - SHEET: TRIB 3 CANOPY Dec 11, 2017 - 3:13pm TeresaPOLYGON NW COMPANYWWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM[T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442POLYGON ATRIVER TERRACEEDGEUPLAND FOREST PLANTING MIXTREESAbies grandis / Grand Fir 1 gal 10'-0" o.c.Acer circinatum / Vine Maple 2 gal 20'-0" o.c.Acer macrophyllum / Big Leaf Maple 2 gal 15'-0" o.c.Alnus rubra / Red Alder 2 gal 20'-0" o.c.Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas Fir 2 gal 12'-0" o.c.SHRUBSHolodiscus discolor / Ocean-spray 1 gal 6'-0" o.c.Polystichum munitum / Western Sword Fern 2 gal 3'-0" o.c.Ribes sanguineum / Red Flowering Currant 1 gal 6'-0" o.c.Rosa gymnocarpa / Dwarf Rose 1 gal 4'-0" o.c.Sambucus racemosa / Red Elderberry 1 gal 6'-0" o.c.Symphoricarpos albus / Snowberry 1 gal 4'-0" o.c.GRASSBromus carinatus / California Brome-Grass seedElymus glaucus / Blue Wildrye seedTREESBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMESIZESPACING Acer macrophyllum / Big Leaf Maple 1 1/2" cal. 25'-0" o.c. Thuja plicata / Western Red Cedar 6` ht. 25'-0" o.c. Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas Fir 6` ht. 25'-0" o.c.SIZESPACINGSIZESPACINGRANDOMLYPLANTSPECIES,OFFSETPLANTS TOAVOIDSTRAIGHTROWSTHROUGHOUTPLANTINGAREATYPICALTRIANGULARSPACING GRIDRANDOM PLANTING DETAIL2QTY13910TEMPORARYEASEMENTBOUNDARYTEMPORARYEASEMENTBOUNDARYISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: December 13, 2017PLANTED STAND 2 CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are V alid for Six (6) Months) PRE-A PP 201 7 i\fee ting D ate: November 9. 2017. S taff Present: MB /KL RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT/OWNER:~O~B~E~C~--------Email: ___________ _ CONSULTANT/CONTACT: ________ _ Email: PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENE RAL LOCATION: TAX N1A P (S)/LOT #(S): 251070001200. 2S 107000 1400 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: _S='e=n=s=iu~·v~e=L=an=d=s'-'R=e=v=ie='v-'----"'(S=L=R-=--) _______________ _ Planned D evelopment Review (PDR) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Roy Rogers R oad Improvements (culvert an d detention facility) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: =M=e=di=.u=m~D~e=n=s=itJ+-'~R=e=si=d~en=t1.=.a=l _________________ _ ZONING MAP DESIGNATION:~R~-7~--------------------- ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18. 510) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 5 000 sq . ft. Av erage I\1in. lot width: 50 ft. Max. building height: 35 ft. MAXIM UM SITE COVERAGE : 80% Minimum land scap ed or natural vegetation area: 20% Setbacks: Front: __12_ ft. Side: _.5__ ft. Rear: -15.._ ft. Street side: _.1Q_ ft . Garage: _2Q_ ft. ~ NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to th e Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PA RT I E S , AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minim.um o f two (2) weeks b etwee n the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification hand out concerning site p osting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your ap pli cation or th e application will not b e accep t ed. *NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF T IG,\RD Pre-Application Co nferenc e N otes Rcmknttal /\pp ltcaticm/ll Jannmg [)),·is 11 1n Sl'c ru m Page 1 of8 ~ NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBM IT A NARRATIVE which p rovides findings b ased on the ap p licab le approval standard s. Fa ilur e to provide a narrative or adequately addre ss criteria would be reason to consider an application incomple te and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the co de fo r applicable criteria . ~ IMPACT STUDY (R efer to Code Se ctions 18.390.040 an d 18.390.050) As a part of the J\PPLIC~TI ON_ SU Bivl~TTAL REQU IR E~ENTS, ap plicants are required to INCL UDE AN IMP ACT STUDY with thetr subrruttal package. The unpact study shall quannfy t he effect of the developmen t o n p ublic faciliti es and se rvices. 111e study shall address, at a minimum, th e transportation syste m, including bikeways, th e drainage syste m, the p arks sys tem, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each pub1ic fa cili ty syste m an d type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to rrunimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected p rivate property use rs. In situations where the Community D evelopfI?.ent Code ~equires the . dedicatio n of re?ll property 111ter_ests, the applicant sha ll ~ither speci ficall y concur with the dedica tion reqUltement, or prov ide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not ro ughly proportiona l to the p rojected-impacts of the development. D ACCESS (Re fe r to Chapters 18.705and18.765) lvlinimum number o f accesses: 1 /par cel :tv1inimum pavement width : 10 ft Minimum access wi dth: 15 ft. D WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.705) Within all ATTACHED H OUSING (except two-famil y dwellings) and multi-family developments, each res idential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALK WAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKJ NG AR EA , COMMON OPEN SPACE AND R ECREATION FACILITIES. 0 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (Refer to Code Chapter 18.715)-See example below. The NET RES IDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of th e devclopable land by the minimum number o f squa re feet required per dwelling unit as specified b y the applicable zoning de signa tio n. N et develo pment area is calc ula te d by subtracting the following land ar ea(s) from the total si te area: All sensitive lands areas including: >-Land with.in the 100-year fl oodplain; >-Slopes exceeding 25 %; ?-D rainageways; and ?-Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4 .5 and R-7 zoning distric ts . Public ri ght-of-way dedic ation: ;;.;:.. Sin gle-family allo cate 20 % o f gross acres for public fac ilitie s; or ? Multi-family allocate 15 % of gross acre s for public facilities ; or ?-If av ailable, the actual publi c facility square footage can be used for deduction. All land proposed for priv ate Streets SEE NOTES FOR ESTIMATED DENSITY CALCULATIONS. I EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMU M LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family 43,560 sq . ft. of gross site area 8.712 sq. ft. (2 0%) for public right-of-way NET: 34,84 8 square feet 3 050 (minimum lot ar ea ) 11.4 Units Per .A cr e (m aximum) CITY OF TfG.-\RD Prc -.-\pplicarion Conference Notes Rcs u.l t!ntial :\pphcation / Pbnnmg D1\'l s1o n Section lvlulti-F amily 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 6.534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-way NET: 37,026 square feet 3,050 (minimum lot ar ea) 12 .1 Units Per Acre (m aximum) Page 2 o f 8 • The Development Code requires that the net site area exist for the next whole dwelling unit. NO ROUNDING UP IS PERl\11TfED. • 1v1.i.nimum Project Density is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO DETER.NlINE, MULTIPLY THE ~'UMUM BY .8. D SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.730) )> STREETS: feet from the centerline of --------- )> FL\G LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. )> ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation sh all be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. )> MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multip le -family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foo t minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcel s of at least 2.5 acres in size. (See applicable zoning district for the primary structures' setback requirements.) 0 FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) MA..t'UMUM HEIGHT OF 11/z STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is le ss in most zones; 21/z stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. 0 BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) In order TO INCREASE PRI\TACY AND TO E ITHER REDUCE OR ELHv1INATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas arc described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergre en trees and sluubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and h orizontal plantings. Site o b scuring screens or fences may also be required ; these arc often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes m ay be found in the Development Code. The ESTJMA TED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is: Buffer Level _______ along north boundary. Buffer Level. _______ along east boundary. Buffer Level along south b o undaty. Buffer Level along west boundary. SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: ___ _ 0 STREET TREES & PARKING LOT TREES (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745and18.765) STREET TREES SHALL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE (TYPE III), DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW (TYPE II & III), l\1INOR LAND PARTITION (TYPE II), PLA NNED DEVELOPMENT (TYPE III), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (TYPE II), AND SUBDIVISION (TYPE II & III). The minimum numb er of required street trees shall be detennined by dividing the linear amou nt of street frontage wit hin or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet (if the number is a fraction, round to the nearest whole number). The trees shall be placed within the public right-of-way whenever possible but n o more than six (6) feet from the right-of-way boundary. Street tre es shall be plant ed according to Section 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual and adequate soil volumes shall be provided in accordance with Section 12 of the Urban ForestLy Manual. Existi ng trees may be used to meet the street standards. Further information on regulations affectin g street tre es may be obtained from the Planning Division. PARKING LOT TREES ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE (TYPE III), DO\XINTO\XIN DESIGN REVIEW (TYPE II & III), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (TYPE III), AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (TYPE II). All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the CITY O F TIG.-\RD Pre -. .\.pplication Conference Notes Page 3 of8 Rc.:s1d L·1·111 al 1\ppl1 ca t1 tm/t>Janning 1)1,·1s 1un ~(:Ct 1tJ11 parking area in accordance wi th Sec tion 13 of the Urban Forestry tvfanual. 0 RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRA NCHISE HAULER FOR REVIE\V AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Loca ting a trash/recyc ling encl osure with.in a clear vision area such as at the intersec tion of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pti.d e Disposal's Service area. Pride Disposal can be reac hed at (503) 625-61 77. 0 PARKING (Refer to Code Chapters 18 .765 & 18.705) ALL PAIU<ING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. )> Single-family............ Requires: Multiple -family ......... Require s: One (1) off-street parking space p er dwelling unit; and One (1) space per unit less than 500 square feet. 1.25 spaces p er unit for 1 b edroom; 1.5 spaces per uni t for 2 bedrooms; and 1. 7 5 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) r equired spaces shall provide parking for th e use of guests and shall consist of 15% o f the to tal required parking. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND /OR DIMENS IONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dim ensioned as foll ows: )> Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 fe et, 6 inche s. )> Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 fe et , 6 inche s. )> Handicapped parking: All p arking areas shall provide appropriately loca te d and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. 'I!ie mirumum number o f disabled per ~on p ar1:cing spac~~ .to be provided, as well as the parkiiig stall dimens10ns , are mandated by the Americans with Disabilittes Act (A DA). A handout i s ava ilable upon request. A handicapped parking space sy mbol shall be painted on the parking spa ce surfac e and an appropriate sign sh all be posted. 0 BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) BICYCLE RA CK S are required FOR MULTI-FAM ILY, COMMERCL\L AND IN D US TRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bic ycle racks shall b e l ocated in areas protec ted fr om automobile traffic and in convenient locations . ~ SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.775) The Code provides REGULATIONS F OR L\NDS WHICH ARE POTENTL\LLY UNSU ITA BLE FOR DEVE LOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN T HE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 P E RCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will a ttempt to preliminary identify sen sitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the r espo n sibility to precisely id entify sensitive land areas, and their b o undarie s. is the re spo nsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions o f sensitive lands must be clearly indicated o n plan s submitted with the dev elopment applicati o n. Chapter 18.77 5 also provides re gulati ons for the u se, protection, or modifica ti on of sensitive lands area s. RESIDEN TIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITH IN FLOODPLAINS. SOME RESIDENTIAL RELATE D DEVELOPMENT IS EXEMPT. ~ STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.070.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, pti.or to iss uance of a final ord er, a geo tcchnical rep ort must be submitted which addresses the approval standard s of th e Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.77 5.080.C. The r eport shall be ba sed upon field exploration and inves tigation and shall include specific recommendations for ac hie ving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. CI1Y o r TfG .\RD Prc-.-\ppltcation Con ference N otes Rcstdcnual Applicat1on/Pl:i.nn u1~ D"·iston Sl·c11on Page 4 o f 8 D CLEANWATER SERVICES (CWS) Service Provider Letter PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a C\XIS Se1-vice Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the C\XIS R&O 0 7-20 sen sitive area requirements. If there are no sen sitive areas, C\XIS must s till issue a letter stating a C\XIS Set-vice Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18 .780) SIGN P ERMITS MUST BE O BTA I NED PRIOR TO INSTALL\ TION OF A NY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code SL'ln dards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (Refer to Code Section 18 .790.030.C and the "Tree Canopy Requirements" Brochure) AN URBAN FORESTRY PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Conditional Use (Type III); Downtown Design Review (Type II and III); :tvlinor Land Partition (Typ e II); P lanned Development (Type III); Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III); Site Development Review (Type II); and Subdivision (Type II and III). The plan needs to be prepared by an IS A certified arborist or landscaped architect. Percentage of mature canopy cover required: 40% for the overall development site and 15% for any lot or trac t (R~(er to Appendix 2-6 in Urban Forest~)! Ma1111alfor a list qftrees 1JJith mature canopy cover areas) An urban forestry plan shall: Be coordinated and approved by a land scape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor (the project arborist); Meet the tree preset-vation and removal site plan standards in Section 10, par t 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; Meet the tree canopy si te plan standards in Section 10, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and Meet the supplemental repo rt standards in Section 10, part 3 of th e Urban Fores try Ivfanual. TREE CANOPY FEE. If the effective percentage of tree canopy cover cannot be met, the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forest1y Manual. 18.790.040-Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option In lieu of providing payment of a tree canopy fee when less than the standard effective tree canopy cover required b y Section 10, part 3 of th e Urban Forestry ~fanual •vill be provided, an applicant may apply for a discretionary urban forestry plan review. The di scretionaty urban forestry plan review cannot be used to modify an already approved urban forestry plan, any tree preservation or tree planting requirements established as part of another land use review approval, or any tree preservation or tree planting requirements required by ano ther chapter in this title. 1:8:1 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES (Refer to Code Section 18.790.050.C.) To assist in the prese1-vation and/ or planting of tr ees and significant t ree groves, the director may apply one or more of the following fl exible standards as part of the land use review approval. Use of the flexible standards shall be requested by the project arborist or landscape architect as part of the land use review process. The fl exible standards arc only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. Appropriate specie s of trees in good condition and suitable for pres ei-vation receive a 200 percent credit based on their existing canopy area. Refer to Section 11-Part 3 of the Urb an Forestry Manual for submittal requirements. D CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE r...iA INTA INED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND CI1Y OF TIG.\RD Pre-Application Conference Notes Rcsidcnlml r\ppbca rn1n/Plann1ng l)i\·t:m>n Scchcm Page 5 of8 EIGHT (8) FEET IN H E IGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. T11e size of the required clear visio n area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear visio n area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on the site p lan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. 0 FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.030.F.) A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: )> Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. T11e plan shall sh ow the pattern of exis ting and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the pro posed land division and shall include other pa rcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. )> Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilitie s, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where nece ssa1y to give access or p ermit a satisfactor y future division of adjoining land, streets shall b e extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. 0 ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810 .060) MINHvfUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. L ots created as part of a partition must have a minin1um of 15 feet of frontage or have a minin1um 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2 1/2 TIMES T H E AVE RAGE WI D TH, unless the parcel is less than 1 V2 times the minimum l ot size of the applicable zoning district. D BLOCKS (Refer t o Code Section 18.810 .040) The perimeter of BLOCKS FOIUvIED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2,000 FEET measured along the ri ght-of-way center line except where street location is preclu ded b y natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, p re-exi sting dev el opment. CODE CHAPTERS D 18.330 (CondiUonal Use) D D 18.340 (Directo~s Interpretation) D l::8'.] 18 . 350 (Planned Developmen t) D D 18.360 (Sile Development Review) D D 18.370 (Variances/Adjustments) D D 18. 380 (Zoning Map/Text Amendments) D D 18.385 (Miscellaneous Pennits) D l::8'.] 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) D D 18.410 (Lol Line Adjustments) D D 18.420 (Land Partitions) D D 18.430 (Subd ivisions) D l::8'.] 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) l::8'.] D 18. 520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) D D 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) D 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18. 630 (Washington Square Reg ional Center) 18.640 (Dumam Quarry Design Standards) 18.705 (Access/Egress/Circulation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18. 715 (Density Computations) 18.720 (Des ign Compatibility Standards) 18. 725 (Environmental Perfonnance Standards) 18. 730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) 18. 7 40 (Historic Overlay) 18. 7 4 2 (Home Occupation Pennits) 18. 7 45 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regul atio ns) 18. 755 (Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: 1. See attached notes from D evelopment Engineering. 2. Application fees: P lanned Development Review= $9,388 Sensitive Lands Permit = $3,242 CITY OF TIG,\RD Pre -.\pplication Conference Notes Rcsnk nl1;\) Applu.:a1 1tui/l,lann 11tg l)t\1s1on ${-ctu m D 18. 760 (Nonconforming Situations) D 18. 765 (Off-Stree t Parking /Lo ad ing Requ ire ments) ~ 1 8. 77 5 (Sensitive Lands Review) D 18.780 (Signs) D 18. 785 (Temporary Use Permits ) l::8'.J 18. 790 (Urba n Foresby Plan) D 18. 795 (Visual Clearance Areas) D 18. 798 (W ireless Commun ication Facili ties) l::8'.J 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standa rds) l::8'.J 18. 660 (River Terrace Plan District) Page 6 o f8 PROCEDURE D D ~ D Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS • • • • • • All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices . PLEASE NOTE: A lications submitted b mail or dro ed off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The cashier closes at :30 PM. 1be application must include the completed Land Use Permit Application Checklist. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded in advance to 81/2 11 x 11 ". One, 81/z" x 11" map of a proposed project shall also be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Applications with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS • Plans for building and other related permits will not be accepted for review until a land use approval has been issued and the Public Facility Improvement permit has been submitted. • • Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there arc building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. PLEASE NOTE: ~n1e conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the d evelopment of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide tnformation required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). CI1Y OF TIG.-\RD Pre -,-\pplication Conferenc e Notes Rcsi<lcntial Apphe<lhon/Pbnnmg Di\'1sion S<.:ctio n Page 7 of8 Prior to submittal of the application you will need to schedule an appointme nt with the Permit Counter (503- 718-2421). Please make the appointment as soon as possible, once you have all submittal elements. PLEASE NOTE: Applications s ubmitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. PRE PARED BY: Monica Bilod eau CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISI ON -STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE -APP. ME ET ING PHONE : 503 -718-2427 E l\ilAIL: monicab@tigard -or.gov CITY OF T I G .. \RD Pre-;\pp!J ca tio n Conferen ce Notes Rcs1Jcnti.al !\pphcf\l l<n l/l>Jannnt~ l)an.,.um ~cc1i(111 Page 8 o f 8 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH) EX 2-FT CONTOUR EX 10-FT CONTOUR FG 2-FT CONTOUR FG 10-FT CONTOUR 324 320 EX WETLANDS BUFFER EX STREAM EX WETLANDS PROPOSED WETLANDS BUFFER C:\obec\pwobec01\d0335650\395045.(7R) PGRAD.dwg - SHEET: NORTH Dec 20, 2017 - 3:45pm bsailerPOLYGON NW COMPANY WWW.POLYGONHOMES.COM [T] (360) 695-7700 [F] 360-693-4442 POLYGON AT RIVER TERRACE EDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Overall Basin Map ...................................................................................................................... 3 Table 1: Stormwater Management Requirements .................................................................................. 4 Table 2: Stormwater Treatment Summary ............................................................................................... 5 Watershed Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3: Impervious Areas per Drainage Basin ...................................................................................... 7 Stormwater Management Design ............................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Facility Number and Type ................................................................................................ 10 Water Quality Planters – L1-L4........................................................................................................ 10 Water Quality Swale – R1 ................................................................................................................ 10 Extended Dry Basin – R3 .................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5: Water Quality Swale R3 Summary Table..................................................................... 11 Table 6: Extended Dry Basin R3 Summary Table ........................................................................ 12 Figure 3: Extended Dry Basin R3 Duration Summary Graph ..................................................... 12 Interim Water Quality Wetland – R4 .............................................................................................. 12 Table 7: Interim Water Quality Wetland R4 Summary Table .................................................. 13 Figure 4: Interim Water Quality Wetland R4 Duration Summary Graph ............................... 14 Water Quality Swale – R4A ............................................................................................................. 14 Table 8: Water Quality Swale R4A Summary Table .................................................................. 14 Water Quality Swale – R4B .............................................................................................................. 15 Table 9: Water Quality Swale R4B Summary Table .................................................................. 15 Facility Maintenance................................................................................................................................... 15 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: NRCS Soils Map and Soil Data Appendix B: Stormwater Details Appendix C: Storm Sewer Calculations Appendix D: Stormwater Management Calculations Appendix E: River Terrace Stormwater Report Excerpts Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 1 Washington County, Oregon STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT for Roy Rogers Road Improvements (Urban Growth Boundary – Scholls Ferry Road) Washington County, Oregon Overview Introduction This stormwater management report addresses the storm sewer and stormwater management design for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements project between the City of Tigard Urban Growth Boundary and Scholls Ferry Road. The proposed improvements include widening Roy Rogers Road and improving intersections along the length of the project. These improvements are coordinated with the adjacent development of River Terrace, a planned community within the City of Tigard. Upgraded storm sewer and new storm water management facilities are also included in the project. A vicinity map showing the project location along with the adjacent development is provided as Figure 1. Regulatory Requirements The project is located within both Washington County and the City of Tigard jurisdictions with the storm sewer and stormwater management improvements governed by both Clean Water Services (CWS) regulations and the Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace. Due to the need for a fill permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the project will also comply with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) V requirements. DEQ guidelines require all roadway stormwater runoff to be treated for water quality, but leave quantity management requirements in the purview of the local jurisdictions. The design for stormwater conveyance, quantity, and quality will be based on the most stringent standard of the above governing agencies. Table 1 below summarizes the regulatory requirements for this project. Per DEQ and NMFS requirements, all stormwater runoff from new and existing impervious areas in addition to the off-project, contributing impervious areas within the right-of-way requires treatment. To accomplish this, numerous best management practices (BMPs) are used. Many of these facilities are located within the adjacent River Terrace Development. River Terrace as a part of the planning and approval process was required to provide stormwater treatment and management for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements. A list of the facilities used to treat and manage the roadway runoff along with their locations is presented as Table 2 below. The project storm sewer and stormwater facilities outfall to four unnamed tributaries of the Tualatin River. These tributaries are labeled as Tributary 1 – 4 and are located as shown on the Overall Basin Map included as Figure 2. DEQ Oregon 2012 Integrated Report shows several “Unnamed Stream” records listed on the 303(d) list within the Tualatin River subbasin, but there is no obvious way from the 303(d) list to determine if any of the “Unnamed Streams” are Tributaries 1-4. However, the listings are only for biological criteria, and the improvements to Roy Rogers Road will not impair Tributaries 1-4 in regards to this constituent of concern. 5TH AVEMINT E R BRIDGERD185TH AVE10THAVEBULL MOUNTAIN RD EVERGREEN PKWY MAIN ST WA L K ERRD HORNECKER RD BA RNES R D BASELINE ST 72ND AVEROSHAKR DCORNELIUSPASSRD G A L E S CRE EKR D BASELINE R D F A R M IN G T O N R D PACI FIC AVE DENNEY RD ALLEN BLVD DAVIES RD5TH ST PARK WAY4TH AVECORNELL RD PACIFICHWYBEAVERTON HILLSDALE HWY 6 T H S T C A N Y O N R D SCHOLLS F E RRY R D GRAHAMSFERRYRDEDY RD BAR R OW S RDT HATCHER RDC ONNELLAVEDAVIS RD ALEXANDER S T JOHNSON ST BETHANYBLVDDURHAM RD SPRING V IL L E R D IMLAY AVEB E E F B E NDR DBROOKWOODPKWYLOIS ST 170THAVEBUTN E R RD KEMMERRD H E R M A N R D WALNUT ST OAK ST TUALATIN VALLEY H W YBROOKWOODAVE BRONSONRD SAGERT ST ELLIGS E N RD B A LD P E A K R D QUATAMA RD 80TH AVEW A L N U T ST198TH AVE19TH AVE DIVISION ST P I N E ST32NDAVEMAIN STE VERGREEN RD GRANT STCORNELIUSSCHEFFLINRD WEIR RD AVERY ST173RD AVEOAKSTRO C K RD 65TH AVEROSA RD KAISERR DTUALATIN RD W E S T UNION RD SUNRISE LN SPRI NGHILLRDBANY RDROODBRIDGERD LAIDLAWRD SUNSET BLVD OAK ST RIGERT R D B ON NI E LN PA T TON VALL EY R DT HOMPSONRD ROSEDAL E RD OAK ST LEAHY R DTU A L A T I N S H E R W OO D R D G E R MANTOW N R D DAVIS RD SCHOLL SSHERWOOD RD KINNAMAN RD DIXON MILL R D TON Q U I N R DSCOGGINSVALLEYRDELM ST2 5 T HAVE150TH AVETETONAVETONGUE LN D AVID HILL RD W R EN RD R OCKC REEK B LVD VER B O O R T R D RI T C H E Y RDLAUREL RD TILEF L A T RDZ I O N CHURCH RD LAURELWOO D RD VA NDERSCHUERE R DMEEK RD HILLSIDE R D KERKMANRDBUR K H ALTER RD G A S TON RD CENTURYBLVDE L SNERRDPURDIN RD KEMPER RD 1ST AVE153RDDRSUSBAUERRDHALLBLVD MURRAY BLVDGAARDE ST O L E S O N RDROY ROGERS RDHELVETIARDCEDARH IL L SBLVDJACKSONSCHOOLRDELWERTRDHILLSBOROHWYBSTGLENCO ERDRI VERRDBOONESFERRYRD209TH AVE121STAVEEST158THAVEUNGER RDFERNHILLRD 15TH AVE231STAVES TRINGTOWN RD SALTZMAN RD229THAVE155THAVENIMBUSAVECLARKHILLRDMARTINRDJOHNSON SCHO OL RD CHAPMAN RDIOWAHILLRDGOLFCOURSERDROYRD CASCADE AVE SEIFFERT RDJ:\Workgroups\GISPlanning\TSP_2035\TSP_User_Guide\RoadwayElement\TSP_UserGuide_11x17_FC_urban.mxdEffective: November 27, 2015 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Division 1 inch represents 10,000 feet Transportation System Plan User’s Guide 021 Miles Freeway Principal Arterial Arterial Collector Neighborhood Route Proposed Arterial Proposed Collector Proposed Neighborhood Route Refinement Area Other Roads Urban Area County Online Map: http://arcg.is/1Fitela Roadway Element Functional Classification This map displays an unofficial representation of elements adopted as part of Washington County Ordinance No. 783. It is not to be considered as the official Washington County Transportation System Plan. Please contact Washington County Long Range Planning at (503) 846-3519 with any questions regarding this map. Figure 3-9 (Urban Area) www.PolygonHomes.com R IVER TERRACE BASIN MAP Offsite area tributary to Basin 2 Offsite area tributary to Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 1 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 Basin 8 Basin 9 LEGEND DENOTES AREA THAT CANNOT BE TREATED IN BASINS 1, 3 OR 4 DENOTES AREA THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE TREATED IN BASIN 4 Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 4 Washington County, Oregon Table 1: Stormwater Management Requirements Design Criteria Jurisdictional Requirement Controlling Standard CWS River Terrace DEQ NMFS Water Quality Water Quality Volume equivalent to 0.36-inch rainfall over 4 hours with a 96 hour return interval applied to the project impervious area Same as CWS 50% of the 2-year, 24- hour storm event applied to the project contributing impervious area Same as DEQ DEQ Water Quantity Restrict post developed flow rates to pre-project rates for the 2-year, 24- hour storm through the 25- year, 24-hour storm (Application of this requirement is contingent upon downstream capacity) Requires continuous simulation modeling using the Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) to meet flow magnitude and duration requirements from 50% of the 2-year storm through the 10-year storm n/a – defers to local jurisdiction Restrict post developed flows to natural conditions from 42% of the 2-year, 24-hour storm through the 10-year, 24-hour storm River Terrace Downstream Analysis Required n/a n/a n/a CWS Storm Sewer 10-year design storm for inlets, 25-year design storm for pipes n/a n/a n/a CWS Note: Stormwater facility design is guided by CWS layout, slope, and depth requirements, etc…. Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 5 Washington County, Oregon Table 2: Stormwater Treatment Summary Roy Rogers Road Station Limits Basin #1 Facility Type(s)2 Facility Location(s)2 "RR" 230+61 to "RR" 232+30 west side R4A Water Quality Swale Roy Rogers Road Right of Way "RR" 230+61 to "RR" 232+30 east side R4B Water Quality Swale Roy Rogers Road Right of Way "RR" 232+30 to "RR" 239+50 R4 Interim Water Quality Wetland River Terrace Edge "RR" 239+50 to "RR" 256+70 R3 Swale/Extended Dry Basin Between River Terrace South & River Terrace Edge "RR" 256+70 to "RR" 262+00 1 Extended Dry Pond Roshak Ridge "RR" 262+00 to "RR" 272+25 L1/R1 Water Quality Planters/ Water Quality Swale Roy Rogers Road Right of way "RR" 272+25 to "RR" 281+75 west side "RR" 286+25 east side 6 Extended Dry Pond River Terrace West "RR" 281+75 west side to "RR" 299+51 west side 5 Extended Dry Pond River Terrace Northwest "RR" 286+25 east side to "RR" 299+51 east side 8 Extended Dry Pond Multi-Family Neighborhood/ River Terrace East Eastern portion of intersection return at "RR" 299+51 10 Existing Scholls Ferry Road Swale/Extended Dry Pond Scholls Ferry Road Right of Way/River Terrace East Notes: 1. Basins 2-4, 7 and 9 are omitted from this list since they do not include any portion of Roy Rogers Road or its runoff. 2. Facilities in Bold are constructed as a part of this project, others are constructed as a part of the River Terrace subdivisions. A downstream analysis of the existing storm sewer and/or open channel conveyance system is typically required by CWS as shown in Table 1 above. The purpose of the downstream analysis is to determine the need for quantity management for the proposed development. However, since the Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace require quantity management for the roadway, the downstream analysis is not performed. The contributing stormwater area for this project extends from the beginning of the project at the City of Tigard Urban Growth Boundary to the end of the project at the Scholls Ferry Road/Roy Rogers Road intersection. The total contributing impervious area for the roadway project is 15.14 acres. The project will construct 6.95 acres of new impervious surface within the project limits in addition to the existing 8.19 impervious acres. Site Investigations Information regarding the project site was gathered from several sources including OBEC field surveys of existing features and contours. Additional on-site information was gathered from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Soil Survey of Washington County Area, Oregon; geotechnical explorations performed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; and design/as-built plans provided by Pacific Community Design for the River Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 6 Washington County, Oregon Terrace development. Aerial photos for off-site areas were referenced to provide land use information. In addition, the engineer performed site visits to confirm information provided by the above sources. The NRCS Soil Survey was used to determine the existing soil classifications. The soils through the project generally have Type B, C, and D soil classifications, and are classified as Loam, Silt Loam, and Silty Clay Loam. See Appendix A for the Soil Survey data. Utilities Utility information for this project was obtained from field surveys, design plans, as-builts, and potholes. OBEC requested that the Oregon Utilities Notification Center mark the locations of existing utilities; OBEC field surveys then provided locations of the features. In the proposed design, the stormwater management facilities are situated to prevent conflicts with existing utilities as much as practical. However, because of the site constraints, conflicts cannot be prevented at some locations. Watershed Characteristics Existing Conditions Tributaries 1-4 flow in a westerly direction through the project. The Tributary 1 onsite watershed is located at the northern end of the project and encompasses 7.95 acres of Roy Rogers Road. The Tributary 2 onsite watershed is located in the middle of the project and encompasses 3.75 acres of Roy Rogers Road. The Tributary 3 and 4 onsite watersheds are located in the south end of the project and encompasses 4.39 acres and 2.64 acres respectively of Roy Rogers Road. There is also an additional 0.07 acres of Roy Rogers Road at the intersection with Scholls Ferry Road that flows to the northeast into the Scholls Ferry Road storm sewer system and into an existing water quality swale. Roy Rogers Road in the existing conditions is an open section road for most of its length and runoff sheet flows from the roadway into roadside ditches and is conveyed to the tributaries through a combination of open ditch and roadside culverts. Each of these tributaries has additional offsite areas associated with the River Terrace development that isn’t included in the numbers presented above. In the existing conditions (pre- road widening and River Terrace), runoff from the River Terrace development would sheet flow to the channels and then be conveyed to the Tualatin River. In addition, there is existing residential development upstream of the River Terrace Development for each of these tributaries. This can be seen on the Overall Basin Map in Figure 2. The Roy Rogers Road Improvements project site is divided into eleven drainage basins: three that drain to Tributary 1, three that drain to Tributary 2, one that drains to Tributary 3, three that drain to Tributary 4, and one that drains to the northeast to an existing water quality swale in the Scholls Ferry Road right of way. As noted above, an overall basin map is presented as Figure 2. Table 3 below shows the total areas and existing impervious areas within each basin. Note that in this report the term "basin" refers to the stormwater facility divide and "drainage area" refers to the storm sewer inlet divides. Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 7 Washington County, Oregon Proposed Conditions In the proposed conditions, the basin divides remain the same, although the impervious areas increase with the widening of Roy Rogers Road. In addition, piped storm sewer systems are installed to handle the increase in flows and are located at the new curb lines. A discussion of the improvements and the stormwater management provided for each basin follows. Table 3 below shows the increase in impervious area for each of the project basins. Table 3: Impervious Areas per Drainage Basin Basin Total Onsite Area (ac.) Existing Onsite Impervious Area (ac.) Proposed Onsite Impervious Area (ac.) Increase in Onsite Impervious Area (ac.) 1 1.30 0.79 1.11 0.32 5 2.83 1.39 2.35 0.96 6 3.19 1.29 2.72 1.43 8 1.93 0.76 1.50 0.74 10 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.01 L1 1.06 0.58 0.96 0.38 R1 1.39 0.53 1.11 0.58 R3 4.39 1.83 3.43 1.60 R4 2.17 0.80 1.58 0.78 R4A 0.24 0.09 0.16 0.07 R4B 0.23 0.10 0.18 0.08 Total 18.80 8.19 15.14 6.95 The improvements listed in Table 3 within Basins 1-10 include widening the roadway and adding sidewalk in addition to constructing the storm sewer system at the new curb line. As noted above in Table 2, treatment is provided by facilities located within differing River Terrace subdivisions. No additional stormwater treatment facilities are proposed for Roy Rogers Road within these basins since both treatment and quantity management are provided in these River Terrace facilities. Excerpts from the River Terrace Stormwater Management Reports are included in Appendix E. Basin 10 consists of 0.07 acres of the intersection between Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road that flows north east along Scholls Ferry Road and into an existing water quality swale. Calculations were completed to verify the swale capacity to handle the additional 0.01 acres of impervious area and provide adequate treatment. Calculations are presented in Appendix D. Similar to the other northerly basins along Roy Rogers Road, quantity management is not provided in the existing swale and is to be provided by over management within the stormwater facility constructed as a part of River Terrace East subdivision. The improvements within Basin L1 include widening the roadway and constructing four green street style water quality planters behind the curb to treat runoff from Roy Rogers Road. Basin L1 is comprised of only the western side of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. Runoff from the roadway improvements enters the planters through modified CG-30 inlets and flows over concrete flow spreaders before entering a ditch inlet that conveys overflow from one planter to the next. The planters are designed in series to take maximum storage and infiltration benefit of Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 8 Washington County, Oregon the facility. Runoff leaving the last planter flows into a ditch inlet which directs the runoff into Tributary 2. Additional discussion of the planters is provided below. The improvements within Basin R1 include widening the roadway, adding sidewalk and constructing a green street style water quality swale between the curb and sidewalk to treat runoff from Roy Rogers Road. Basin R1 is comprised of only the eastern side of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. Runoff from the roadway improvements enters the swale through curb cuts and is conveyed down the swale to a ditch inlet that directs the runoff into the storm sewer system which discharges into Tributary 2. Additional discussion of the swale is provided below. The improvements within Basin R3 include widening the roadway, adding sidewalk, building two retaining walls, and constructing a water quality swale and an extended dry basin to treat and detain runoff from Roy Rogers Road. Runoff from the roadway improvements enters the storm sewer system and discharges to the water quality swale located within the extended dry basin. Runoff then flows through the swale for treatment and then outfalls into the extended dry basin for quantity management before being conveyed to Tributary 3. Additional discussion of the extended dry basin is provided below. The improvements within Basin R4 include widening the roadway, adding sidewalk and constructing an interim water quality wetland within the River Terrace Edge subdivision. Basin R4 is comprised of Roy Rogers Road and the interim water quality wetland only. Runoff from the roadway improvements flows to inlets in the roadway through the storm sewer system and into the interim facility. Runoff leaving the interim facility is conveyed in pipes to Tributary 4. The interim water quality wetland is constructed since the Roy Rogers improvements will be constructed before the River Terrace Edge subdivision. Upon construction of the subdivision, the water quality wetland will be expanded and converted to an extended dry basin per the private development designs. Additional discussion of the interim water quality wetland is provided below. The improvements within Basin R4A include widening the roadway and constructing a water quality swale within the existing roadside ditch prior to the beginning of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. Basin R4A is comprised of only the western side of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. Runoff from the roadway improvements flows off the end of the curb and gutter and into a modified ditch inlet. The ditch inlet conveys the runoff through an existing culvert that daylights to the newly constructed swale. Once runoff leaves the swale, it continues down the roadside ditch and then discharges to Tributary 4. Additional discussion of the swale is provided below. The improvements within Basin R4B include widening the roadway, adding sidewalk and constructing a water quality swale within the existing roadside ditch prior to the beginning of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. Basin R4B is comprised of only the eastern side of the Roy Rogers Road improvements. Runoff from the roadway improvements flows off the end of the curb and gutter and down a riprap slope before entering the newly constructed swale. Once runoff leaves the swale, it continues down the roadside ditch and then discharges to Tributary 4. Additional discussion of the swale is provided below. Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 9 Washington County, Oregon Stormwater Management Design Analysis Methods The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the stormwater design were performed following River Terrace, CWS, DEQ, and NMFS requirements as indicated in the regulatory requirements section above. Site hydrology for the stormwater management facilities was determined using the Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) Model except for the water quality swales R3, R4A and R4B which used standard CWS hydrologic requirements for the water quality storm. The TRUST Model is a continuous simulation model and not a single event (hydrograph) model like the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph and is used for volume based facilities such as the extended dry basin and the interim water quality wetland. This model compares the pond design to historic rainfall data specific to the Tualatin River watershed and determines both the flow rate and flow duration of the resulting routed flows. Flows analyzed within the program range from 50% of the 2-year flow through the 10-year flow events. Storm sewer calculations were performed using the Rational Method for hydrology and Manning's equation for hydraulic capacity. The Tc is set at a minimum of 5 minutes. The rainfall intensity data are taken from CWS Drawing No. 1275: Rational Method Rainfall Intensities. Storm Sewers Stormwater runoff will be conveyed through a new proposed storm sewers system throughout the project. Storm sewer inlets were sized using the 10-year storm and the storm sewer pipes were sized using the 25-year storm event. In order to coordinate curb opening inlets with guardrail locations along the project, CG-48MH inlet structures are used to align the pipes behind the guardrail. Details for the inlets are presented in Appendix B. Calculations for the storm sewer design are presented in Appendix C. Stormwater Facility Designs The stormwater BMPs are designed to address typical roadway runoff pollutants. The target pollutants are metals (both dissolved and particulate), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs), sediment, hydrocarbons (oils and greases, etc.), and temperature increases in the roadway runoff. The following is a summary of each stormwater BMP included in the Roy Rogers Road Improvements project. Below is a table listing the facility number and type. Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 10 Washington County, Oregon Table 4: Facility Number and Type Facility No. Facility Type L1-L4 Water Quality Planters R1 Water Quality Swale R3 Swale/Extended Dry Basin R4 Interim Water Quality Wetland R4A Water Quality Swale R4B Water Quality Swale Water Quality Planters – L1-L4 The water quality planters for Basin L1 are located on the west side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 263+61 and “RR” 269+63. The planters are designed to treat runoff from the west side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 262+00 to "RR" 272+25. The drainage basin for the planters is 1.06 acres total; 0.96 acres is impervious and 0.10 acres is pervious. There are four planters named L1 through L4 that total 500 feet in length. The bottom of the planter is 5 feet wide and the planters are interconnected by overflow inlets and pipes. These inlets and pipes serve as a way to keep the planters hydraulically connected across the driveways that connect to Roy Rogers Road within the planter length. Treatment of the roadway runoff is accomplished through filtration through the planter media. An 8 inch underdrain collects the filtered water in each of the planters and then connects to the overflow inlets where the runoff is eventually conveyed to Tributary 2. Details for the planters are included in Appendix B. The planters are designed to provide treatment of Roy Roger Road runoff only with no quantity management provided. This can be seen in the TRUST Model output in Appendix D. Quantity management for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements within Basin L1 is provided within the pond that is being built as part of the Roshak Ridge subdivision. Pacific Community Design has accounted for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements project within their design. Excerpts of their design are included in Appendix E. Maintenance access to the water quality planter is from the Roy Rogers Road shoulder along the planter length. Water Quality Swale – R1 The water quality swale for Basin R1 is located on the east side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 262+50 and “RR” 269+75. The swale is designed to treat runoff from the east side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 262+00 to "RR" 272+25. The drainage basin for the swale is 1.39 acres total; 1.11 acres is impervious and 0.28 acres is pervious. The swale is a continuous green street style swale that totals 725 feet in length. The bottom of the swale is 2 feet wide with 3H:1V side slopes. Treatment of the roadway runoff is accomplished through filtration through the swale media. A 4 inch underdrain collects the filtered water in the swale and then connects to the overflow inlet where the runoff is eventually conveyed to Tributary 2. Details for the swale are included in Appendix B. Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 11 Washington County, Oregon The swale is designed to provide treatment of Roy Roger Road runoff only with no quantity management provided. This can be seen in the TRUST Model output in Appendix D. Quantity management for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements within Basin R1 is provided within the pond that is being built as part of the Roshak Ridge subdivision. Pacific Community Design has accounted for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements project within their design. Excerpts of their design are included in Appendix E. Maintenance access to the water quality swale is from the Roy Rogers Road shoulder along the swale length. Water Quality Swale/Extended Dry Basin – R3 Water Quality Swale/Extended Dry Basin R3 is located to the east of Roy Rogers Road between Sta "RR" 244+00 and "RR" 245+00 and between the River Terrace Edge and River Terrace South subdivisions. The facility is created to treat runoff from Roy Rogers Road from Sta. "RR" 239+50 to Sta. "RR" 256+70. The drainage basin for the facility is 4.39 acres; 3.43 acres of it is impervious and 0.96 acres pervious. The facility outfalls north to Tributary 3. The R3 extended dry basin bottom is approximately 67 feet long and 28 feet wide with the water quality swale set along its northern interior slope. Side slopes are set at 3H:1V within the basin and 2H:1V above the wall. A wall is needed within the facility in order to minimize facility grading on the parcel. Due to the presence of the wall and the depth of the facility a fence is included around the extended dry basin for safety. The water quality swale is contained within a concrete wall system within the pond. The swale is 8 feet wide with vertical side slopes, 115 feet long and has a bottom slope of 0.50%. There is riprap at both the entrance and exit of the swale. A flow spreader is also included in the middle of the swale to perpetuate sheet flow along the swale bottom. The swale enters the main bay of the extended dry basin at elevation 247.00 which is above the Frequent Flood Storage Elevation. One ditch inlet and a flow control manhole are used for the facility outfall structure; the ditch inlet serves as a trash/debris rack for the outlet while the flow control manhole serves as the control structure for the facility. The details for the facility and outfall are presented in Appendix B. The R3 extended dry basin is designed to provide water quality treatment and quantity management for the Roy Rogers Road improvements within the R3 basin. Calculations for the quantity management are presented in Appendix D. The design flows and water surface elevations of the extended dry basin are summarized in the table below and shown in Appendix B with the Stormwater Details. The duration analysis is summarized in Figure 3 shown below with the blue circles representing the predeveloped conditions and the red triangles representing the proposed conditions. Table 5: Water Quality Swale R3 Summary Table Impervious Area (sf) Jurisdiction WQf (cfs) Bottom Width (ft) Required Length (ft) Provided Length (ft) 149,411 CWS 0.31 8 88 115 DEQ/NMFS 0.64 115 Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 12 Washington County, Oregon Table 6: Extended Dry Basin R3 Summary Table Flow Rates Water Surface Elevation (ft) Basin R3 (cfs) Routed (cfs) Water Quantity Storms 2-Year Pre-Developed 0.57 2-Year Post-Developed 1.01 0.41 250.43 10-Year Pre-Developed 0.77 10-Year Post-Developed 1.28 0.63 251.35 25-Year Pre-Project 0.84 25-Year Post-Developed 1.38 0.75 251.68 100-Year Post-Developed 1.52 0.91 252.09 Figure 3: Extended Dry Basin R3 Duration Summary Graph Maintenance access to the R3 extended dry basin and outfall structures is provided from the relocated portion of the adjacent existing driveway and a turn off that is added into the basin. Interim Water Quality Wetland – R4 The R4 interim water quality wetland bottom is set at elevation 232.00 and approximately 112 feet long and 30 feet wide. Interior and exterior side slopes are set at 3H:1V. The permanent pool elevation is at 232.35. Runoff enters a pretreatment vault prior for sediment removal prior to entering the water quality wetland, this takes the place of the normal CWS water quality manhole. The pretreatment vault is sized for the Roy Rogers Road improvements along with the entire River Terrace Edge subdivision. The outfall structure consists of a stand pipe and a flow control manhole. The stand pipe is also sized for both the Roy Rogers Road improvements along with the River Terrace Edge subdivision. A concrete curb is placed around the base of the stand pipe to create the permanent pool for the interim water quality wetland. This curb will be Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 13 Washington County, Oregon removed when the wetland is converted into an extended dry basin. The flow control manhole for the interim water quality wetland is also designed with the conversion to the extended dry basin in mind, internal orifice and weir elevations are placed based upon the extended dry basin design and then the orifice sizes are modified to suit the interim water quality wetland. The details for the facility outfall are presented in Appendix B. The interim water quality wetland is designed to provide quantity management for the Roy Rogers improvements from Basins R4, R4A and R4B. Over detention is provided in the interim water quality wetland to account for Basins R4A and R4B that do not provide any quantity management. Calculations for the quantity management are presented in Appendix D. The design flows and water surface elevations of the interim water quality wetland are summarized in the table below and shown in Appendix B with the Stormwater Details. The duration analysis is summarized in Figure 4, shown below with the blue circles representing the predeveloped conditions and the red triangles representing the proposed conditions. Table 7: Interim Water Quality Wetland R4 Summary Table Flow Rates Water Surface Elevation (ft) Basin R4 (cfs) Basin R4A (cfs) Basin R4B (cfs) Combined Basins (cfs) Routed1 (cfs) Water Quantity Storms POC32 POC2 POC1 POC4/POC53 POC4 2-Year Pre-Developed 0.27 0.035 0.037 0.34 2-Year Post-Developed 0.51 0.045 0.048 0.62 0.21 234.04 10-Year Pre-Developed 0.36 0.054 0.053 0.45 10-Year Post-Developed 0.65 0.059 0.062 0.78 0.26 234.75 25-Year Pre-Project 0.40 0.062 0.061 0.49 25-Year Post-Developed 0.71 0.065 0.068 0.84 0.28 235.07 100-Year Post-Developed 0.78 0.072 0.075 0.92 0.31 235.51 Notes: 1. Routed flows are indicative of the Interim Water Quality Wetland outflows plus the unmanaged flows from Basins R4A and R4B. 2. POC labels indicate which Point of Compliance (POC) the Basins are associated with in the TRUST Model. 3. The Combined Basins with no routing through the Interim Water Quality Wetland are associated with POC4 and POC5 for the Pre-Developed and Post-Developed conditions respectively. Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 14 Washington County, Oregon Figure 4: Interim Water Quality Wetland R4 Duration Summary Graph Maintenance access to the R4 extended dry basin and outfall structures is provided from a temporary access road connected to Roy Rogers Road. The connection to Roy Rogers Road is located within the final location of one of the River Terrace Edge street intersections with Roy Rogers Road and will be relocated upon subdivision construction. Water Quality Swale – R4A The water quality swale for Basin R4A is located on the west side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 229+16 and “RR” 230+16. The swale is designed to treat runoff from the west side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 230+61 to "RR" 232+30. The drainage basin for the swale is 0.24 acres total; 0.16 acres is impervious and 0.08 acres is pervious. The swale is 100 feet in length, has a bottom width of 2 feet wide with 3H:1V side slopes within the treatment depth. Above that, slopes tie out at 4H:1V adjacent to Roy Rogers Road and at 2.5V:1H on the back slope. After runoff passes through the swale it is conveyed via roadside ditch to Tributary 4. The design of the swale is summarized in the table below with calculations provided in Appendix D. Details for the swale are included in Appendix B. The swale is designed to provide treatment of Roy Roger Road runoff only with no quantity management provided. Quantity management for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements is included within the interim water quality wetland R4. Table 8: Water Quality Swale R4A Summary Table Impervious Area (sf) Jurisdiction WQf (cfs) Bottom Width (ft) Required Length (ft) Provided Length (ft) 6,930 CWS 0.01 2 74 100 DEQ/NMFS 0.025 98 Stormwater Management Report OBEC Job No. 165-31 Roy Rogers Road Improvements Page 15 Washington County, Oregon Maintenance access to the water quality swale is from the Roy Rogers Road shoulder along the swale length. Water Quality Swale – R4B The water quality swale for Basin R4B is located on the east side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 229+46 and “RR” 230+56. The swale is designed to treat runoff from the east side of Roy Rogers Road between Sta. "RR" 230+61 to "RR" 232+30. The drainage basin for the swale is 0.23 acres total; 0.18 acres is impervious and 0.05 acres is pervious. The swale is 110 feet in length, has a bottom width of 3 feet wide with 3H:1V side slopes within the treatment depth. Above that slopes tie out at 3H:1V adjacent to Roy Rogers Road and at 2.5V:1H on the back slope. After runoff passes through the swale it is conveyed via roadside ditch to Tributary 4. The design of the swale is summarized in the table below with calculations provided in Appendix D. Details for the swale are included in Appendix B. The swale is designed to provide treatment of Roy Roger Road runoff only with no quantity management provided. Quantity management for the Roy Rogers Road Improvements is included within the interim water quality wetland R4. Table 9: Water Quality Swale R4B Summary Table Impervious Area (sf) Jurisdiction WQf (cfs) Bottom Width (ft) Required Length (ft) Provided Length (ft) 7,962 CWS 0.02 3 86 110 DEQ/NMFS 0.036 108 Maintenance access to the water quality swale is from the Roy Rogers Road shoulder along the swale length. Facility Maintenance Maintenance of the stormwater facilities will be performed regularly as recommended by the agencies and the Operations and Maintenance Manuals. The City of Tigard will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater facilities with the exception of the Interim Water Quality Wetland R4 which will be the responsibility of the developer of River Terrace Edge until the completion of the River Terrace Edge Subdivision. Annual inspection of the facilities should occur to ensure their proper function. Operation and Maintenance Manuals will be submitted under separate cover. Conclusions The stormwater management systems for the Roy Rogers Road project provide water quality and quantity management for site runoff as required by the City of Tigard, CWS, NMFS, and DEQ to the maximum extent practicable. These facilities provide treatment of reasonably expected pollutants from roadway runoff. Therefore, it is demonstrated that the stormwater management provided for the project meets the regulatory requirements. Stormwater Management Report – Appendix A Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon (Roy Rogers Road) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 1 of 450279005028200502850050288005029100502940050297005030000503030050306005027900502820050285005028800502910050294005029700503000050303005030600510600510900511200511500511800512100512400512700 510600 510900 511200 511500 511800 512100 512400 512700 45° 25' 47'' N 122° 51' 57'' W45° 25' 47'' N122° 50' 14'' W45° 24' 11'' N 122° 51' 57'' W45° 24' 11'' N 122° 50' 14'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Feet 0 200 400 800 1200 Meters Map Scale: 1:14,500 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 16, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 8, 2010—Aug 23, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon (Roy Rogers Road) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Washington County, Oregon (OR067) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Aloha silt loam C/D 69.0 17.9% 7B Cascade silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes C 45.0 11.7% 7C Cascade silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes C 1.3 0.3% 11B Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes C 23.6 6.1% 11C Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 7 to 12 percent slopes C 61.0 15.8% 11D Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 12 to 20 percent slopes C 10.0 2.6% 14 Cove clay D 11.4 3.0% 16C Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes D 27.4 7.1% 22 Huberly silt loam C/D 6.8 1.8% 30 McBee silty clay loam C 7.3 1.9% 37A Quatama loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 15.8 4.1% 37B Quatama loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes C 0.6 0.1% 37C Quatama loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes C 11.1 2.9% 45A Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 4.8 1.3% 45B Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes C 49.0 12.7% 45D Woodburn silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes C 13.1 3.4% 46F Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steep B 23.5 6.1% W Water 5.4 1.4% Totals for Area of Interest 386.0 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon Roy Rogers Road Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 3 of 4 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon Roy Rogers Road Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 4 of 4 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)—Washington County, Oregon (Roy Rogers Road) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 1 of 450279005028200502850050288005029100502940050297005030000503030050306005027900502820050285005028800502910050294005029700503000050303005030600510600510900511200511500511800512100512400512700 510600 510900 511200 511500 511800 512100 512400 512700 45° 25' 47'' N 122° 51' 57'' W45° 25' 47'' N122° 50' 14'' W45° 24' 11'' N 122° 51' 57'' W45° 24' 11'' N 122° 50' 14'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Feet 0 200 400 800 1200 Meters Map Scale: 1:14,500 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons <= 0.2000 > 0.2000 and <= 3.7273 > 3.7273 and <= 5.1147 > 5.1147 and <= 6.0195 > 6.0195 and <= 7.1447 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines <= 0.2000 > 0.2000 and <= 3.7273 > 3.7273 and <= 5.1147 > 5.1147 and <= 6.0195 > 6.0195 and <= 7.1447 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points <= 0.2000 > 0.2000 and <= 3.7273 > 3.7273 and <= 5.1147 > 5.1147 and <= 6.0195 > 6.0195 and <= 7.1447 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 16, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 8, 2010—Aug 23, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)—Washington County, Oregon (Roy Rogers Road) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 2 of 4 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)— Summary by Map Unit — Washington County, Oregon (OR067) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (micrometers per second) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Aloha silt loam 3.7273 69.0 17.9% 7B Cascade silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 4.5292 45.0 11.7% 7C Cascade silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 4.5292 1.3 0.3% 11B Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes 6.0195 23.6 6.1% 11C Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 7 to 12 percent slopes 6.0195 61.0 15.8% 11D Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 12 to 20 percent slopes 6.0195 10.0 2.6% 14 Cove clay 0.2000 11.4 3.0% 16C Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 3.4421 27.4 7.1% 22 Huberly silt loam 2.5795 6.8 1.8% 30 McBee silty clay loam 7.0527 7.3 1.9% 37A Quatama loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4.4522 15.8 4.1% 37B Quatama loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 4.4522 0.6 0.1% 37C Quatama loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 4.4522 11.1 2.9% 45A Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 5.1147 4.8 1.3% 45B Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 5.1147 49.0 12.7% 45D Woodburn silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 5.1147 13.1 3.4% 46F Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steep 7.1447 23.5 6.1% W Water 5.4 1.4% Totals for Area of Interest 386.0 100.0% Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)—Washington County, Oregon Roy Rogers Road Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 3 of 4 Description Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. The numeric Ksat values have been grouped according to standard Ksat class limits. Rating Options Units of Measure: micrometers per second Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Fastest Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): All Layers (Weighted Average) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)—Washington County, Oregon Roy Rogers Road Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2017 Page 4 of 4 Stormwater Management Report – Appendix B LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-2 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-3 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-3A LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-3B LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-3C LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-3D LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-3E LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-4 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-4A LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-4B LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-4C LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-4D LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-5 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-6 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-7 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-8 LAND USE &ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OFCAD:PLOT STAMP:REVISIONSNO.PATH:www.obec.comCorporate Office:920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100BEUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089100255WASHINGTON COUNTY(URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD)STORMWATER DETAILSRS-9 Stormwater Management Report – Appendix C Stormwater Management Report – Appendix D Clean Water Services Water Quality Storm Project:Roy Rogers Road Improvements Calcs By:BPW Project #:165-31 Date:1/11/2018 Variables: A =On Site Impervious Area WQv =Water Quality Volume WQf =Water Quality Flow Equations: WQv = [0.36(in) x A(sf)]/12(in/ft) WQf = WQv/14,400(s) Basin WQv WQf #(cf)(cfs) R3 4482 0.31 R4 2064 n/a R4A 208 0.01 R4B 239 0.02 6,930 7,962 Impervious Area (sf) 149,411 68,804 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2015 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.4 Monday, 01 / 15 / 2018 Hyd. No. 3 R3 Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 0.641 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 480 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 10,401 cuft Drainage area = 4.390 ac Curve number = 93* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min Total precip. = 1.25 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = n/a * Composite (Area/CN) = [(3.430 x 98) + (0.960 x 74)] / 4.390 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) R3 Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2015 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.4 Monday, 01 / 15 / 2018 Hyd. No. 5 R4A Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 0.025 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 480 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 430 cuft Drainage area = 0.240 ac Curve number = 90* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 1.25 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = n/a * Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.160 x 98) + (0.080 x 74)] / 0.240 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 Q (cfs) Time (min) R4A Hyd. No. 5 -- 1 Year Hyd No. 5 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2015 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.4 Monday, 01 / 15 / 2018 Hyd. No. 6 R4B Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 0.036 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 478 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 545 cuft Drainage area = 0.230 ac Curve number = 93* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 1.25 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = n/a * Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.180 x 98) + (0.050 x 74)] / 0.230 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 Q (cfs) Time (min) R4B Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Year Hyd No. 6 Job Name: Roy Rogers RoadDesigned By: bpwJob Number: 165‐31Design Date: 1/15/2018Comments:Scholls Ferry Road Existing Swale Capacity DeterminationChecked By:Checked Date:Existing drainage area to swale = 4.68 acresIncrease in drainage area to swale = 425 sf (approx. 0.01 ac.)Proposed drainage area to swale = 4.69 acresNMFS/DEQ water quality flow rate = 1.26 cfs (1/2 of the 2‐year 24‐hour storm event)Capacity of low flow pipe beneath Scholls Ferry Road = 2.52 cfs flowing full2.52 cfs > 1.26 cfs ‐‐ Low flow pipe has capacity to convey increase in drainage area and associated runoff to swaleCapacity of existing swale = 1.32 cfs 1.32 cfs > 1.26 cfs ‐‐ Swale has capacity to accept additional drainage area and treat the runoffWater Quality Swale Capacity Determination Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2015 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.4 Monday, 01 / 15 / 2018 Hyd. No. 7 Scholls Ferry Road Swale Extg. Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 1.252 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 474 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 17,576 cuft Drainage area = 4.680 ac Curve number = 98 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 1.25 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = n/a 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Scholls Ferry Road Swale Extg. Hyd. No. 7 -- 1 Year Hyd No. 7 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2015 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.4 Monday, 01 / 15 / 2018 Hyd. No. 8 Scholls Ferry Road Swale Prop. Hydrograph type = SBUH Runoff Peak discharge = 1.255 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 474 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 17,613 cuft Drainage area = 4.690 ac Curve number = 98 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 1.25 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = n/a 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Scholls Ferry Road Swale Prop. Hyd. No. 8 -- 1 Year Hyd No. 8 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Jan 15 2018 Scholls Ferry Low Flow Pipe Circular Diameter (ft) = 1.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 293.40 Slope (%) = 0.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 5 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 1.00 Q (cfs) = 2.518 Area (sqft) = 0.79 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.21 Wetted Perim (ft) = 3.14 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.68 Top Width (ft) = 0.00 EGL (ft) = 1.16 0 1 2 3 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 292.50 -0.90 293.00 -0.40 293.50 0.10 294.00 0.60 294.50 1.10 295.00 1.60 Reach (ft) Swale Comps.xls Scholls Ferry Reproduction Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/15/2018 Comments:Scholls Ferry Road Existing Swale Capacity Determination Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 9.0 0.08 1.0* 17.01 1.32 0.18 100 16.80 7.16 2 2 15 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.0028 0.45 TRUST PROJECT REPORT RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:RR1_V2 Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:1/10/2018 Gage:Lower Tualatin Pump Station Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2014/09/30 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2017/09/07 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:10 Year RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin R1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Flat 0.155 C, Lawn, Flat 0.705 Pervious Total 0.86 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.53 Impervious Total 0.53 Basin Total 1.39 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 4 Basin L1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Flat 0.155 C, Lawn, Flat 0.325 Pervious Total 0.48 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.58 Impervious Total 0.58 Basin Total 1.06 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 5 Mitigated Land Use Basin R1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.24 D, Lawn, Flat 0.04 Pervious Total 0.28 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 1.11 Impervious Total 1.11 Basin Total 1.39 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Surface Swale R1 Surface Swale R1 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 6 Basin L1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Flat 0.02 C, Lawn, Flat 0.08 Pervious Total 0.1 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.96 Impervious Total 0.96 Basin Total 1.06 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Planters L Surface4 Planters L Surface4 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 7 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 8 Mitigated Routing Swale R1 Bottom Length: 725.00 ft. Bottom Width: 2.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: Amended 3.0 in/hr Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):4 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):201.821 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):201.929 Percent Through Underdrain:99.95 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:18 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Landscape Swale Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0389 0.0372 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 0.0411 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.1167 0.0450 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 0.1556 0.0489 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 0.1944 0.0527 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 0.2333 0.0566 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 0.2722 0.0605 0.0052 0.0000 0.0000 0.3111 0.0644 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.3500 0.0683 0.0072 0.0000 0.0000 0.3889 0.0722 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.4278 0.0761 0.0095 0.0000 0.0000 0.4667 0.0800 0.0107 0.0000 0.0000 0.5056 0.0839 0.0120 0.0000 0.0000 0.5444 0.0879 0.0134 0.0000 0.0000 0.5833 0.0918 0.0148 0.0000 0.0000 0.6222 0.0957 0.0162 0.0000 0.0000 0.6611 0.0996 0.0178 0.0000 0.0000 0.7000 0.1035 0.0194 0.0000 0.0000 0.7389 0.1074 0.0210 0.0000 0.0000 0.7778 0.1113 0.0228 0.0000 0.0000 0.8167 0.1152 0.0245 0.0000 0.0000 0.8556 0.1191 0.0264 0.0000 0.0000 0.8944 0.1231 0.0283 0.0000 0.0000 0.9333 0.1270 0.0303 0.0000 0.0000 0.9722 0.1309 0.0323 0.0000 0.0000 1.0111 0.1348 0.0344 0.0000 0.0000 1.0500 0.1387 0.0365 0.0000 0.0000 1.0889 0.1427 0.0388 0.0000 0.0000 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 9 1.1278 0.1466 0.0410 0.0000 0.0000 1.1667 0.1505 0.0434 0.0000 0.0000 1.2056 0.1544 0.0458 0.0000 0.0000 1.2444 0.1584 0.0482 0.0000 0.0000 1.2833 0.1623 0.0508 0.0000 0.0000 1.3222 0.1662 0.0534 0.0000 0.0000 1.3611 0.1702 0.0560 0.0000 0.0000 1.4000 0.1741 0.0587 0.0000 0.0000 1.4389 0.1780 0.0615 0.0000 0.0000 1.4778 0.1820 0.0643 0.0000 0.0000 1.5167 0.1859 0.0673 0.0000 0.0000 1.5556 0.1898 0.0703 0.0000 0.0000 1.5944 0.1938 0.0734 0.0000 0.0000 1.6333 0.1977 0.0766 0.0000 0.0000 1.6722 0.2017 0.0798 0.0000 0.0000 1.7111 0.2056 0.0831 0.0000 0.0000 1.7500 0.2096 0.0864 0.0000 0.0000 1.7889 0.2135 0.0899 0.0000 0.0000 1.8278 0.2175 0.0933 0.0000 0.0000 1.8667 0.2214 0.0969 0.0000 0.0000 1.9056 0.2254 0.1005 0.0000 0.0000 1.9444 0.2293 0.1041 0.0000 0.0000 1.9833 0.2333 0.1079 0.0000 0.0000 2.0222 0.2372 0.1117 0.0000 0.0000 2.0611 0.2412 0.1155 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000 0.2451 0.1195 0.0000 0.0000 2.1389 0.2491 0.1234 0.0000 0.0000 2.1778 0.2530 0.1275 0.0000 0.0000 2.2167 0.2570 0.1316 0.0000 0.0000 2.2556 0.2610 0.1358 0.0000 0.0000 2.2944 0.2649 0.1400 0.0000 0.0000 2.3333 0.2689 0.1443 0.0000 0.0000 2.3722 0.2728 0.1487 0.0000 0.0000 2.4111 0.2768 0.1532 0.0000 0.0000 2.4500 0.2808 0.1577 0.0000 0.0000 2.4889 0.2848 0.1622 0.0000 0.0000 2.5278 0.2887 0.1734 0.0000 0.0000 2.5667 0.2927 0.1847 0.0000 0.0000 2.6056 0.2967 0.1961 0.0000 0.0034 2.6444 0.3006 0.2077 0.0000 0.0034 2.6833 0.3046 0.2195 0.0000 0.0034 2.7222 0.3086 0.2314 0.0000 0.0034 2.7611 0.3126 0.2435 0.0000 0.0034 2.8000 0.3165 0.2558 0.0000 0.0034 2.8389 0.3205 0.2681 0.0000 0.0034 2.8778 0.3245 0.2807 0.0000 0.0034 2.9167 0.3285 0.2934 0.0000 0.0034 2.9556 0.3325 0.3062 0.0000 0.0034 2.9944 0.3365 0.3192 0.0000 0.0034 3.0333 0.3404 0.3324 0.0000 0.0034 3.0722 0.3444 0.3457 0.0000 0.0034 3.1111 0.3484 0.3592 0.0000 0.0034 3.1500 0.3524 0.3728 0.0000 0.0034 3.1889 0.3564 0.3866 0.0000 0.0034 3.2278 0.3604 0.4005 0.0000 0.0034 3.2667 0.3644 0.4146 0.0000 0.0034 3.3056 0.3684 0.4289 0.0000 0.0034 3.3444 0.3724 0.4433 0.0000 0.0034 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 10 3.3833 0.3764 0.4578 0.0000 0.0034 3.4222 0.3804 0.4726 0.0000 0.0034 3.4611 0.3844 0.4874 0.0000 0.0034 Landscape Swale Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 3.4611 0.0333 0.4874 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5000 0.3884 0.5024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5389 0.3924 0.5176 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5000 0.3939 0.4235 0.0000 0.1007 0.0000 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 11 Surface Swale R1 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Swale R1 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 12 Planters L1 - L4 Bottom Length: 500.00 ft. Bottom Width: 5.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: Amended 3.0 in/hr Material thickness of second layer: 1.5 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.666666666666667 Orifice Diameter (in.):8 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):170.083 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):170.314 Percent Through Underdrain:99.86 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Flow Through Planter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0574 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0419 0.0574 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0837 0.0574 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.1256 0.0574 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 0.1675 0.0574 0.0039 0.0000 0.0000 0.2093 0.0574 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 0.2512 0.0574 0.0058 0.0000 0.0000 0.2931 0.0574 0.0068 0.0000 0.0000 0.3349 0.0574 0.0078 0.0000 0.0000 0.3768 0.0574 0.0088 0.0000 0.0000 0.4187 0.0574 0.0097 0.0000 0.0000 0.4605 0.0574 0.0107 0.0000 0.0000 0.5024 0.0574 0.0117 0.0000 0.0000 0.5443 0.0574 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 0.5862 0.0574 0.0136 0.0000 0.0000 0.6280 0.0574 0.0146 0.0000 0.0000 0.6699 0.0574 0.0156 0.0000 0.0000 0.7118 0.0574 0.0165 0.0000 0.0000 0.7536 0.0574 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.7955 0.0574 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.8374 0.0574 0.0195 0.0000 0.0000 0.8792 0.0574 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.9211 0.0574 0.0214 0.0000 0.0000 0.9630 0.0574 0.0224 0.0000 0.0000 1.0048 0.0574 0.0234 0.0000 0.0000 1.0467 0.0574 0.0243 0.0000 0.0000 1.0886 0.0574 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 1.1304 0.0574 0.0263 0.0000 0.0000 1.1723 0.0574 0.0272 0.0000 0.0000 1.2142 0.0574 0.0282 0.0000 0.0000 1.2560 0.0574 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 13 1.2979 0.0574 0.0302 0.0000 0.0000 1.3398 0.0574 0.0311 0.0000 0.0000 1.3816 0.0574 0.0321 0.0000 0.0000 1.4235 0.0574 0.0331 0.0000 0.0000 1.4654 0.0574 0.0341 0.0000 0.0000 1.5073 0.0574 0.0351 0.0000 0.0000 1.5491 0.0574 0.0361 0.0000 0.0000 1.5910 0.0574 0.0371 0.0000 0.0000 1.6329 0.0574 0.0380 0.0000 0.0000 1.6747 0.0574 0.0390 0.0000 0.0000 1.7166 0.0574 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000 1.7585 0.0574 0.0410 0.0000 0.0000 1.8003 0.0574 0.0420 0.0000 0.0000 1.8422 0.0574 0.0430 0.0000 0.0000 1.8841 0.0574 0.0440 0.0000 0.0000 1.9259 0.0574 0.0450 0.0000 0.0000 1.9678 0.0574 0.0460 0.0000 0.0000 2.0097 0.0574 0.0470 0.0000 0.0000 2.0515 0.0574 0.0480 0.0000 0.0000 2.0934 0.0574 0.0490 0.0000 0.0000 2.1353 0.0574 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 2.1771 0.0574 0.0510 0.0000 0.0000 2.2190 0.0574 0.0520 0.0000 0.0000 2.2609 0.0574 0.0530 0.0000 0.0000 2.3027 0.0574 0.0540 0.0000 0.0000 2.3446 0.0574 0.0550 0.0000 0.0000 2.3865 0.0574 0.0560 0.0000 0.0000 2.4284 0.0574 0.0570 0.0000 0.0000 2.4702 0.0574 0.0580 0.0000 0.0000 2.5121 0.0574 0.0590 0.0000 0.0000 2.5540 0.0574 0.0600 0.0000 0.0000 2.5958 0.0574 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 2.6377 0.0574 0.0620 0.0000 0.0000 2.6796 0.0574 0.0630 0.0000 0.0000 2.7214 0.0574 0.0640 0.0000 0.0000 2.7633 0.0574 0.0650 0.0000 0.0000 2.8052 0.0574 0.0660 0.0000 0.0000 2.8470 0.0574 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 2.8889 0.0574 0.0680 0.0000 0.0000 2.9308 0.0574 0.0690 0.0000 0.0000 2.9726 0.0574 0.0700 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 0.0574 0.0706 0.0000 0.0000 Flow Through Planter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 3.0000 0.0574 0.0706 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.0419 0.0574 0.0730 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.0837 0.0574 0.0754 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.1256 0.0574 0.0778 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.1675 0.0574 0.0802 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.2093 0.0574 0.0826 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.2512 0.0574 0.0850 0.0000 0.1736 0.0000 3.2931 0.0574 0.0874 0.0020 0.1736 0.0000 3.3349 0.0574 0.0898 0.0027 0.1736 0.0000 3.3768 0.0574 0.0922 0.0036 0.1736 0.0000 3.4187 0.0574 0.0946 0.0048 0.1736 0.0000 3.4605 0.0574 0.0970 0.0062 0.1736 0.0000 3.5024 0.0574 0.0994 0.0078 0.1736 0.0000 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 14 3.5443 0.0574 0.1018 0.0097 0.1736 0.0000 3.5862 0.0574 0.1043 0.0119 0.1736 0.0000 3.6280 0.0574 0.1067 0.0144 0.1736 0.0000 3.6699 0.0574 0.1091 0.0172 0.1736 0.0000 3.7118 0.0574 0.1115 0.0203 0.1736 0.0000 3.7536 0.0574 0.1139 0.0237 0.1736 0.0000 3.7955 0.0574 0.1163 0.0275 0.1736 0.0000 3.8100 0.0574 0.1171 0.0316 0.1736 0.0000 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 15 Planters L Surface4 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Planters L1 - L4 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:39:52 PM Page 16 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.86 Total Impervious Area:0.53 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.28 Total Impervious Area:1.11 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.184244 5 year 0.222225 10 year 0.243537 25 year 0.267256 50 year 0.283072 100 year 0.297596 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.101202 5 year 0.117305 10 year 0.127543 25 year 0.140152 50 year 0.149371 100 year 0.158483 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.187 0.101 1950 0.133 0.099 1951 0.189 0.100 1952 0.235 0.100 1953 0.180 0.099 1954 0.233 0.100 1955 0.206 0.098 1956 0.278 0.101 1957 0.185 0.094 1958 0.130 0.100 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 17 1959 0.214 0.098 1960 0.108 0.089 1961 0.222 0.101 1962 0.183 0.100 1963 0.214 0.101 1964 0.215 0.100 1965 0.200 0.101 1966 0.201 0.100 1967 0.139 0.100 1968 0.207 0.101 1969 0.236 0.101 1970 0.189 0.099 1971 0.150 0.101 1972 0.185 0.101 1973 0.196 0.101 1974 0.183 0.101 1975 0.169 0.099 1976 0.181 0.100 1977 0.137 0.098 1978 0.261 0.101 1979 0.150 0.099 1980 0.205 0.101 1981 0.252 0.101 1982 0.233 0.100 1983 0.180 0.100 1984 0.188 0.100 1985 0.137 0.101 1986 0.113 0.085 1987 0.178 0.101 1988 0.147 0.101 1989 0.155 0.096 1990 0.212 0.100 1991 0.157 0.099 1992 0.177 0.100 1993 0.234 0.101 1994 0.133 0.100 1995 0.238 0.293 1996 0.245 0.139 1997 0.185 0.202 1998 0.148 0.099 1999 0.174 0.101 2000 0.124 0.100 2001 0.176 0.080 2002 0.252 0.100 2003 0.217 0.100 2004 0.121 0.100 2005 0.127 0.100 2006 0.192 0.100 2007 0.157 0.101 2008 0.114 0.101 2009 0.219 0.101 2010 0.200 0.098 2011 0.163 0.098 2012 0.161 0.100 2013 0.279 0.101 2014 0.246 0.100 Ranked Annual Peaks RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 18 Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.2788 0.2925 2 0.2781 0.2019 3 0.2608 0.1394 4 0.2524 0.1007 5 0.2522 0.1007 6 0.2459 0.1007 7 0.2446 0.1007 8 0.2380 0.1007 9 0.2357 0.1007 10 0.2350 0.1007 11 0.2342 0.1007 12 0.2333 0.1006 13 0.2327 0.1006 14 0.2220 0.1006 15 0.2193 0.1006 16 0.2167 0.1006 17 0.2153 0.1006 18 0.2143 0.1006 19 0.2138 0.1006 20 0.2115 0.1006 21 0.2071 0.1006 22 0.2060 0.1006 23 0.2051 0.1006 24 0.2012 0.1005 25 0.2003 0.1005 26 0.1999 0.1005 27 0.1960 0.1005 28 0.1920 0.1005 29 0.1892 0.1005 30 0.1890 0.1005 31 0.1885 0.1005 32 0.1868 0.1004 33 0.1851 0.1004 34 0.1850 0.1004 35 0.1846 0.1004 36 0.1829 0.1004 37 0.1827 0.1004 38 0.1812 0.1004 39 0.1801 0.1004 40 0.1798 0.1003 41 0.1785 0.1002 42 0.1775 0.1001 43 0.1761 0.1001 44 0.1736 0.1001 45 0.1695 0.1000 46 0.1633 0.1000 47 0.1612 0.1000 48 0.1572 0.0998 49 0.1566 0.0996 50 0.1551 0.0995 51 0.1499 0.0990 52 0.1498 0.0990 53 0.1481 0.0989 54 0.1468 0.0987 55 0.1390 0.0987 56 0.1370 0.0985 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 19 57 0.1367 0.0984 58 0.1333 0.0980 59 0.1332 0.0979 60 0.1301 0.0977 61 0.1269 0.0975 62 0.1240 0.0961 63 0.1209 0.0936 64 0.1145 0.0890 65 0.1126 0.0855 66 0.1082 0.0802 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 20 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0921 995 2155 216 Fail 0.0937 931 1962 210 Fail 0.0952 900 1744 193 Fail 0.0967 858 1483 172 Fail 0.0982 815 1179 144 Fail 0.0998 779 791 101 Pass 0.1013 736 19 2 Pass 0.1028 704 18 2 Pass 0.1044 670 18 2 Pass 0.1059 631 18 2 Pass 0.1074 595 17 2 Pass 0.1089 564 17 3 Pass 0.1105 537 17 3 Pass 0.1120 510 17 3 Pass 0.1135 488 17 3 Pass 0.1151 467 17 3 Pass 0.1166 452 17 3 Pass 0.1181 435 16 3 Pass 0.1197 411 15 3 Pass 0.1212 396 15 3 Pass 0.1227 375 15 4 Pass 0.1242 352 15 4 Pass 0.1258 334 14 4 Pass 0.1273 319 14 4 Pass 0.1288 301 13 4 Pass 0.1304 296 13 4 Pass 0.1319 279 13 4 Pass 0.1334 265 12 4 Pass 0.1349 250 12 4 Pass 0.1365 241 12 4 Pass 0.1380 228 12 5 Pass 0.1395 221 11 4 Pass 0.1411 211 10 4 Pass 0.1426 202 10 4 Pass 0.1441 193 10 5 Pass 0.1457 190 10 5 Pass 0.1472 186 10 5 Pass 0.1487 178 10 5 Pass 0.1502 169 10 5 Pass 0.1518 162 10 6 Pass 0.1533 159 10 6 Pass 0.1548 159 10 6 Pass 0.1564 156 9 5 Pass 0.1579 144 9 6 Pass 0.1594 129 7 5 Pass 0.1609 124 7 5 Pass 0.1625 122 7 5 Pass 0.1640 117 7 5 Pass 0.1655 115 7 6 Pass 0.1671 113 7 6 Pass 0.1686 108 7 6 Pass 0.1701 102 7 6 Pass 0.1717 97 7 7 Pass 0.1732 95 7 7 Pass RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 21 0.1747 91 7 7 Pass 0.1762 89 7 7 Pass 0.1778 87 7 8 Pass 0.1793 82 7 8 Pass 0.1808 77 7 9 Pass 0.1824 73 7 9 Pass 0.1839 68 7 10 Pass 0.1854 65 7 10 Pass 0.1869 63 6 9 Pass 0.1885 63 6 9 Pass 0.1900 57 6 10 Pass 0.1915 55 5 9 Pass 0.1931 54 5 9 Pass 0.1946 52 5 9 Pass 0.1961 50 5 10 Pass 0.1977 47 5 10 Pass 0.1992 44 5 11 Pass 0.2007 41 5 12 Pass 0.2022 39 4 10 Pass 0.2038 38 4 10 Pass 0.2053 35 3 8 Pass 0.2068 34 3 8 Pass 0.2084 32 3 9 Pass 0.2099 32 3 9 Pass 0.2114 32 3 9 Pass 0.2129 30 3 10 Pass 0.2145 27 3 11 Pass 0.2160 24 3 12 Pass 0.2175 23 3 13 Pass 0.2191 21 3 14 Pass 0.2206 20 3 15 Pass 0.2221 19 2 10 Pass 0.2237 19 2 10 Pass 0.2252 18 2 11 Pass 0.2267 18 2 11 Pass 0.2282 18 2 11 Pass 0.2298 18 2 11 Pass 0.2313 18 2 11 Pass 0.2328 17 2 11 Pass 0.2344 15 2 13 Pass 0.2359 12 2 16 Pass 0.2374 11 2 18 Pass 0.2389 10 2 20 Pass 0.2405 10 2 20 Pass 0.2420 9 2 22 Pass 0.2435 9 2 22 Pass The development has an increase in flow durations of more than a 110% for the full range of flows. RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 22 Water Quality Swale R1 Water Quality Analysis RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:07 PM Page 23 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.48 Total Impervious Area:0.58 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.1 Total Impervious Area:0.96 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.18273 5 year 0.215313 10 year 0.233286 25 year 0.253061 50 year 0.266124 100 year 0.278041 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.164263 5 year 0.196765 10 year 0.219253 25 year 0.248769 50 year 0.271576 100 year 0.295107 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.178 0.173 1950 0.137 0.156 1951 0.177 0.161 1952 0.241 0.179 1953 0.172 0.171 1954 0.209 0.173 1955 0.197 0.131 1956 0.257 0.294 1957 0.202 0.155 1958 0.140 0.153 1959 0.222 0.150 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 24 1960 0.112 0.129 1961 0.210 0.169 1962 0.179 0.158 1963 0.204 0.185 1964 0.203 0.147 1965 0.191 0.173 1966 0.194 0.168 1967 0.144 0.164 1968 0.201 0.159 1969 0.223 0.166 1970 0.181 0.153 1971 0.146 0.160 1972 0.178 0.172 1973 0.185 0.171 1974 0.177 0.173 1975 0.167 0.148 1976 0.176 0.172 1977 0.149 0.122 1978 0.243 0.243 1979 0.155 0.167 1980 0.207 0.162 1981 0.234 0.171 1982 0.218 0.234 1983 0.168 0.172 1984 0.201 0.173 1985 0.138 0.168 1986 0.123 0.106 1987 0.172 0.170 1988 0.150 0.159 1989 0.156 0.121 1990 0.212 0.173 1991 0.171 0.157 1992 0.176 0.172 1993 0.225 0.188 1994 0.137 0.161 1995 0.229 0.351 1996 0.235 0.319 1997 0.184 0.201 1998 0.149 0.146 1999 0.169 0.173 2000 0.123 0.158 2001 0.193 0.123 2002 0.233 0.163 2003 0.237 0.163 2004 0.132 0.155 2005 0.139 0.172 2006 0.197 0.167 2007 0.157 0.165 2008 0.115 0.132 2009 0.209 0.250 2010 0.218 0.164 2011 0.161 0.154 2012 0.170 0.171 2013 0.257 0.169 2014 0.232 0.163 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 25 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.2566 0.3508 2 0.2565 0.3186 3 0.2432 0.2938 4 0.2413 0.2496 5 0.2370 0.2430 6 0.2352 0.2335 7 0.2343 0.2006 8 0.2332 0.1877 9 0.2320 0.1852 10 0.2289 0.1789 11 0.2254 0.1735 12 0.2229 0.1733 13 0.2216 0.1733 14 0.2184 0.1731 15 0.2175 0.1728 16 0.2119 0.1726 17 0.2101 0.1725 18 0.2090 0.1724 19 0.2090 0.1718 20 0.2069 0.1717 21 0.2041 0.1716 22 0.2034 0.1715 23 0.2019 0.1713 24 0.2007 0.1710 25 0.2006 0.1707 26 0.1975 0.1707 27 0.1970 0.1698 28 0.1942 0.1692 29 0.1926 0.1689 30 0.1908 0.1680 31 0.1852 0.1678 32 0.1839 0.1673 33 0.1808 0.1672 34 0.1794 0.1664 35 0.1783 0.1654 36 0.1781 0.1639 37 0.1773 0.1637 38 0.1770 0.1632 39 0.1763 0.1630 40 0.1760 0.1627 41 0.1725 0.1625 42 0.1718 0.1611 43 0.1712 0.1607 44 0.1704 0.1602 45 0.1686 0.1593 46 0.1682 0.1589 47 0.1671 0.1583 48 0.1612 0.1576 49 0.1569 0.1572 50 0.1556 0.1558 51 0.1552 0.1551 52 0.1503 0.1545 53 0.1494 0.1538 54 0.1492 0.1531 55 0.1460 0.1526 56 0.1435 0.1498 57 0.1400 0.1478 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 26 58 0.1389 0.1471 59 0.1375 0.1460 60 0.1373 0.1320 61 0.1370 0.1312 62 0.1318 0.1289 63 0.1231 0.1230 64 0.1230 0.1223 65 0.1154 0.1214 66 0.1122 0.1056 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 27 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0914 1104 2028 183 Fail 0.0928 1053 1937 183 Fail 0.0942 1001 1857 185 Fail 0.0957 949 1779 187 Fail 0.0971 909 1718 188 Fail 0.0985 876 1636 186 Fail 0.1000 838 1566 186 Fail 0.1014 800 1502 187 Fail 0.1028 761 1445 189 Fail 0.1043 724 1394 192 Fail 0.1057 690 1338 193 Fail 0.1071 663 1300 196 Fail 0.1086 633 1249 197 Fail 0.1100 604 1205 199 Fail 0.1114 569 1173 206 Fail 0.1129 542 1134 209 Fail 0.1143 515 1098 213 Fail 0.1157 499 1069 214 Fail 0.1172 484 1040 214 Fail 0.1186 457 1013 221 Fail 0.1200 441 975 221 Fail 0.1215 417 942 225 Fail 0.1229 398 901 226 Fail 0.1243 379 859 226 Fail 0.1258 362 837 231 Fail 0.1272 340 805 236 Fail 0.1286 321 771 240 Fail 0.1301 312 741 237 Fail 0.1315 296 716 241 Fail 0.1329 285 688 241 Fail 0.1344 272 656 241 Fail 0.1358 259 623 240 Fail 0.1372 249 603 242 Fail 0.1387 237 581 245 Fail 0.1401 227 559 246 Fail 0.1415 218 530 243 Fail 0.1430 210 510 242 Fail 0.1444 199 491 246 Fail 0.1458 194 475 244 Fail 0.1473 186 460 247 Fail 0.1487 184 441 239 Fail 0.1501 176 416 236 Fail 0.1516 168 399 237 Fail 0.1530 161 377 234 Fail 0.1544 154 353 229 Fail 0.1559 146 323 221 Fail 0.1573 142 304 214 Fail 0.1587 137 279 203 Fail 0.1602 135 263 194 Fail 0.1616 132 246 186 Fail 0.1630 129 211 163 Fail 0.1645 125 192 153 Fail 0.1659 119 176 147 Fail 0.1673 114 159 139 Fail RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 28 0.1688 110 133 120 Fail 0.1702 106 119 112 Fail 0.1716 99 95 95 Pass 0.1731 93 70 75 Pass 0.1745 87 39 44 Pass 0.1759 84 36 42 Pass 0.1774 77 36 46 Pass 0.1788 73 35 47 Pass 0.1802 71 33 46 Pass 0.1817 69 33 47 Pass 0.1831 67 32 47 Pass 0.1845 64 31 48 Pass 0.1860 63 30 47 Pass 0.1874 60 29 48 Pass 0.1888 58 28 48 Pass 0.1903 57 27 47 Pass 0.1917 52 27 51 Pass 0.1931 50 26 52 Pass 0.1946 48 26 54 Pass 0.1960 48 25 52 Pass 0.1974 44 25 56 Pass 0.1989 42 25 59 Pass 0.2003 41 24 58 Pass 0.2017 38 23 60 Pass 0.2032 35 23 65 Pass 0.2046 33 23 69 Pass 0.2060 32 23 71 Pass 0.2075 28 23 82 Pass 0.2089 28 23 82 Pass 0.2103 25 23 92 Pass 0.2118 24 23 95 Pass 0.2132 22 23 104 Pass 0.2146 21 23 109 Pass 0.2161 20 23 115 Fail 0.2175 20 23 115 Fail 0.2190 17 23 135 Fail 0.2204 17 23 135 Fail 0.2218 15 23 153 Fail 0.2233 14 23 164 Fail 0.2247 13 23 176 Fail 0.2261 12 23 191 Fail 0.2276 12 23 191 Fail 0.2290 12 23 191 Fail 0.2304 11 22 200 Fail 0.2319 11 22 200 Fail 0.2333 9 21 233 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations of more than a 110% for the full range of flows. RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 29 Water Quality Planters L1-L4 Water Quality Analysis RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 30 POC 3 POC #3 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 31 POC 4 POC #4 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 32 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 33 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:18 PM Page 34 Mitigated Schematic RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 35 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 RR1_V2.wdm MESSU 25 PreRR1_V2.MES 27 PreRR1_V2.L61 28 PreRR1_V2.L62 30 POCRR1_V21.dat 31 POCRR1_V22.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 16 PERLND 7 IMPLND 1 COPY 501 COPY 502 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin R1 MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Basin L1 MAX 1 2 31 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 D, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 36 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4 1 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 37 # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin R1*** PERLND 16 0.155 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.155 COPY 501 13 PERLND 7 0.705 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 0.705 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.53 COPY 501 15 Basin L1*** PERLND 16 0.155 COPY 502 12 PERLND 16 0.155 COPY 502 13 PERLND 7 0.325 COPY 502 12 PERLND 7 0.325 COPY 502 13 IMPLND 1 0.58 COPY 502 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 38 # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 39 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 RR1_V2.wdm MESSU 25 MitRR1_V2.MES 27 MitRR1_V2.L61 28 MitRR1_V2.L62 30 POCRR1_V21.dat 31 POCRR1_V22.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 7 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 4 COPY 1 COPY 501 COPY 2 COPY 502 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Surface Swale R1 MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Planters L Surface4 MAX 1 2 31 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 2 1 1 502 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 D, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 40 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 16 0 4 1 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 16 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 41 <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin R1*** PERLND 7 0.24 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 7 0.24 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 16 0.04 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 16 0.04 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 1.11 RCHRES 1 5 Basin L1*** PERLND 16 0.02 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 16 0.02 RCHRES 3 3 PERLND 7 0.08 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 7 0.08 RCHRES 3 3 IMPLND 1 0.96 RCHRES 3 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 7 0.24 COPY 1 12 PERLND 16 0.04 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 1.11 COPY 1 15 PERLND 7 0.24 COPY 1 13 PERLND 16 0.04 COPY 1 13 PERLND 16 0.02 COPY 2 12 PERLND 7 0.08 COPY 2 12 IMPLND 1 0.96 COPY 2 15 PERLND 16 0.02 COPY 2 13 PERLND 7 0.08 COPY 2 13 RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 8 RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 4 8 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 16 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 RCHRES 4 1 COPY 502 16 RCHRES 3 1 COPY 502 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 42 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Surface Swale R1-024 3 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Swale R1 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 3 Planters L Surfa-028 3 1 1 1 28 0 1 4 Planters L1 - L4-027 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.14 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3 3 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4 4 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 43 END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 2 67 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.288797 0.000000 0.000000 0.038462 0.288797 0.000274 0.000000 0.076923 0.284788 0.000579 0.000000 0.115385 0.280781 0.000913 0.000000 0.153846 0.276777 0.001277 0.000000 0.192308 0.272775 0.001672 0.000000 0.230769 0.268776 0.002096 0.000000 0.269231 0.264779 0.002551 0.001028 0.307692 0.260784 0.003036 0.001357 0.346154 0.256792 0.003551 0.001785 0.384615 0.252803 0.004096 0.002319 0.423077 0.248815 0.004671 0.002967 0.461538 0.244831 0.005276 0.003735 0.500000 0.240849 0.005912 0.004629 0.538462 0.236869 0.006578 0.005655 0.576923 0.232891 0.007274 0.006820 0.615385 0.228916 0.008001 0.008127 0.653846 0.224944 0.008758 0.009584 0.692308 0.220974 0.009545 0.011194 0.730769 0.217006 0.010362 0.012963 0.769231 0.213041 0.011210 0.014896 0.807692 0.209078 0.012088 0.016998 0.846154 0.205118 0.012997 0.019272 0.884615 0.201160 0.013936 0.021725 0.923077 0.197205 0.014905 0.024359 0.961538 0.193252 0.015905 0.027179 1.000000 0.189302 0.016935 0.030189 1.038462 0.185354 0.017996 0.033394 1.076923 0.181408 0.019088 0.036797 1.115385 0.177465 0.020210 0.040402 1.153846 0.173524 0.021362 0.044213 1.192308 0.169586 0.022545 0.046582 1.230769 0.165650 0.023759 0.048234 1.269231 0.161717 0.025003 0.052468 1.307692 0.157786 0.026278 0.056919 1.346154 0.153857 0.027583 0.061591 1.384615 0.149931 0.028919 0.066486 1.423077 0.146008 0.030286 0.071608 1.461538 0.142087 0.031684 0.076960 1.500000 0.138168 0.033147 0.082545 1.538462 0.134252 0.034642 0.088365 1.576923 0.130338 0.036169 0.094421 1.615385 0.126426 0.037727 0.100694 1.653846 0.122518 0.039317 0.100694 1.692308 0.118611 0.040938 0.100694 1.730769 0.114707 0.042591 0.100694 1.769231 0.110805 0.044275 0.100694 1.807692 0.106906 0.045991 0.100694 1.846154 0.103010 0.047739 0.100694 1.884615 0.099115 0.049518 0.100694 1.923077 0.095224 0.051329 0.100694 1.961538 0.091334 0.053172 0.100694 2.000000 0.087447 0.055047 0.100694 2.038462 0.083563 0.056953 0.100694 2.076923 0.079681 0.058891 0.100694 2.115385 0.075801 0.060861 0.100694 2.153846 0.071924 0.062862 0.100694 2.192308 0.068050 0.064896 0.100694 2.230769 0.064177 0.066961 0.100694 2.269231 0.060307 0.069058 0.100694 2.307692 0.056440 0.071187 0.100694 2.346154 0.052575 0.073348 0.100694 2.384615 0.048713 0.075541 0.100694 2.423077 0.044853 0.077766 0.100694 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 44 2.461538 0.040995 0.080023 0.100694 2.500000 0.037140 0.082312 0.100694 2.500000 0.033287 0.164624 0.100694 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 1 27 6 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.033287 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.038462 0.292809 0.011185 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.076923 0.296823 0.022524 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.115385 0.300839 0.034017 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.153846 0.304858 0.045665 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.192308 0.308880 0.057468 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.230769 0.312903 0.069425 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.269231 0.316930 0.081538 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.307692 0.320958 0.093805 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.346154 0.324990 0.106227 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.384615 0.329023 0.118804 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.423077 0.333059 0.131536 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.461538 0.337098 0.144424 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.500000 0.341139 0.157467 0.000000 0.100694 0.000000 0.538462 0.345182 0.170665 0.120025 0.100694 0.000000 0.576923 0.349228 0.184019 0.339117 0.100694 0.000000 0.615385 0.353276 0.197529 0.621878 0.100694 0.000000 0.653846 0.357327 0.211194 0.954243 0.100694 0.000000 0.692308 0.361380 0.225016 1.326139 0.100694 0.000000 0.730769 0.365436 0.238993 1.728554 0.100694 0.000000 0.769231 0.369494 0.253126 2.152583 0.100694 0.000000 0.807692 0.373554 0.267416 2.589127 0.100694 0.000000 0.846154 0.377617 0.281861 3.028884 0.100694 0.000000 0.884615 0.381683 0.296463 3.462517 0.100694 0.000000 0.923077 0.385750 0.311221 3.880926 0.100694 0.000000 0.961538 0.389821 0.326136 4.275612 0.100694 0.000000 1.000000 0.393893 0.341208 4.639092 0.100694 0.000000 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 4 73 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.057392 0.000000 0.000000 0.041868 0.057392 0.000973 0.000000 0.083736 0.057392 0.001946 0.000000 0.125604 0.057392 0.002920 0.000000 0.167473 0.057392 0.003893 0.000000 0.209341 0.057392 0.004866 0.000000 0.251209 0.057392 0.005839 0.000000 0.293077 0.057392 0.006812 0.002003 0.334945 0.057392 0.007785 0.002709 0.376813 0.057392 0.008759 0.003626 0.418681 0.057392 0.009732 0.004769 0.460549 0.057392 0.010705 0.006154 0.502418 0.057392 0.011678 0.007794 0.544286 0.057392 0.012651 0.009702 0.586154 0.057392 0.013624 0.011892 0.628022 0.057392 0.014598 0.014376 0.669890 0.057392 0.015571 0.017165 0.711758 0.057392 0.016544 0.020272 0.753626 0.057392 0.017517 0.023706 0.795495 0.057392 0.018490 0.027479 0.837363 0.057392 0.019463 0.031601 0.879231 0.057392 0.020437 0.035343 0.921099 0.057392 0.021410 0.036082 0.962967 0.057392 0.022383 0.040932 1.004835 0.057392 0.023356 0.046160 1.046703 0.057392 0.024329 0.051775 1.088571 0.057392 0.025303 0.057787 1.130440 0.057392 0.026276 0.064205 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 45 1.172308 0.057392 0.027249 0.071037 1.214176 0.057392 0.028222 0.078291 1.256044 0.057392 0.029195 0.083136 1.297912 0.057392 0.030168 0.085976 1.339780 0.057392 0.031142 0.094099 1.381648 0.057392 0.032115 0.102669 1.423516 0.057392 0.033088 0.111693 1.465385 0.057392 0.034061 0.121179 1.507253 0.057392 0.035058 0.131133 1.549121 0.057392 0.036056 0.141562 1.590989 0.057392 0.037053 0.152470 1.632857 0.057392 0.038050 0.156587 1.674725 0.057392 0.039047 0.163861 1.716593 0.057392 0.040044 0.173611 1.758462 0.057392 0.041042 0.173611 1.800330 0.057392 0.042039 0.173611 1.842198 0.057392 0.043036 0.173611 1.884066 0.057392 0.044033 0.173611 1.925934 0.057392 0.045030 0.173611 1.967802 0.057392 0.046028 0.173611 2.009670 0.057392 0.047025 0.173611 2.051538 0.057392 0.048022 0.173611 2.093407 0.057392 0.049019 0.173611 2.135275 0.057392 0.050016 0.173611 2.177143 0.057392 0.051014 0.173611 2.219011 0.057392 0.052011 0.173611 2.260879 0.057392 0.053008 0.173611 2.302747 0.057392 0.054005 0.173611 2.344615 0.057392 0.055002 0.173611 2.386484 0.057392 0.056000 0.173611 2.428352 0.057392 0.056997 0.173611 2.470220 0.057392 0.057994 0.173611 2.512088 0.057392 0.058991 0.173611 2.553956 0.057392 0.059988 0.173611 2.595824 0.057392 0.060986 0.173611 2.637692 0.057392 0.061983 0.173611 2.679560 0.057392 0.062980 0.173611 2.721429 0.057392 0.063977 0.173611 2.763297 0.057392 0.064974 0.173611 2.805165 0.057392 0.065972 0.173611 2.847033 0.057392 0.066969 0.173611 2.888901 0.057392 0.067966 0.173611 2.930769 0.057392 0.068963 0.173611 2.972637 0.057392 0.069960 0.173611 3.000000 0.057392 0.148286 0.173611 END FTABLE 4 FTABLE 3 21 6 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.057392 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.041868 0.057392 0.002403 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.083736 0.057392 0.004806 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.125604 0.057392 0.007209 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.167473 0.057392 0.009612 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.209341 0.057392 0.012015 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.251209 0.057392 0.014417 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.293077 0.057392 0.016820 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.334945 0.057392 0.019223 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.376813 0.057392 0.021626 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.418681 0.057392 0.024029 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.460549 0.057392 0.026432 0.000000 0.173611 0.000000 0.502418 0.057392 0.028835 0.002525 0.173611 0.000000 0.544286 0.057392 0.031238 0.197756 0.173611 0.000000 0.586154 0.057392 0.033641 0.536143 0.173611 0.000000 0.628022 0.057392 0.036044 0.970075 0.173611 0.000000 0.669890 0.057392 0.038446 1.480154 0.173611 0.000000 0.711758 0.057392 0.040849 2.053405 0.173611 0.000000 RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 46 0.753626 0.057392 0.043252 2.679084 0.173611 0.000000 0.795495 0.057392 0.045655 3.347179 0.173611 0.000000 0.810000 0.057392 0.046488 4.047772 0.173611 0.000000 END FTABLE 3 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 3 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 RCHRES 4 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1022 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1023 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1024 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1025 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1030 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1031 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1032 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1033 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 8 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 8 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 47 END MASS-LINK 16 MASS-LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 17 END MASS-LINK END RUN RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 48 Predeveloped HSPF Message File RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 49 Mitigated HSPF Message File RR1_V2 1/10/2018 6:40:19 PM Page 50 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2018; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com TRUST PROJECT REPORT Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:Basin R3 V2 Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:1/13/2018 Gage:Lower Tualatin Pump Station Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2014/09/30 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2017/09/07 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin R3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 2.75 Pervious Total 2.75 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 1.64 Impervious Total 1.64 Basin Total 4.39 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Basin R3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.96 Pervious Total 0.96 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 3.43 Impervious Total 3.43 Basin Total 4.39 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater R3 Pond R3 Pond Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 6 Mitigated Routing R3 Pond Depth:8 ft. Discharge Structure: 1 Riser Height:5.6 ft. Riser Diameter:22.92 in. Orifice 1 Diameter:2.25 in.Elevation:0 ft. Orifice 2 Diameter:2 in.Elevation:3.25 ft. Orifice 3 Diameter:3 in.Elevation:4.1 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 SSD Table Hydraulic Table Stage Area Volume Outlet (feet) (ac.) (ac-ft.) Struct NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.034 0.016 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.500 0.052 0.059 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.500 0.078 0.124 0.217 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.500 0.089 0.207 0.311 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.500 0.100 0.301 0.567 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.500 0.112 0.407 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.500 0.124 0.525 11.75 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.500 0.136 0.654 16.89 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 7 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.75 Total Impervious Area:1.64 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.96 Total Impervious Area:3.43 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.57753 5 year 0.697771 10 year 0.765325 25 year 0.840571 50 year 0.89078 100 year 0.936912 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.404758 5 year 0.536845 10 year 0.624208 25 year 0.734844 50 year 0.817609 100 year 0.900791 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.542 0.626 1950 0.423 0.296 1951 0.583 0.398 1952 0.747 0.426 1953 0.575 0.360 1954 0.751 0.426 1955 0.673 0.250 1956 0.817 0.700 1957 0.571 0.270 1958 0.403 0.396 Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 8 1959 0.679 0.280 1960 0.331 0.227 1961 0.728 0.540 1962 0.590 0.403 1963 0.685 0.617 1964 0.646 0.441 1965 0.653 0.576 1966 0.590 0.449 1967 0.441 0.318 1968 0.674 0.389 1969 0.763 0.321 1970 0.564 0.291 1971 0.441 0.472 1972 0.540 0.484 1973 0.643 0.472 1974 0.537 0.420 1975 0.538 0.301 1976 0.583 0.444 1977 0.423 0.277 1978 0.796 0.664 1979 0.470 0.309 1980 0.657 0.306 1981 0.748 0.614 1982 0.671 0.628 1983 0.558 0.441 1984 0.570 0.526 1985 0.437 0.491 1986 0.348 0.204 1987 0.570 0.522 1988 0.472 0.388 1989 0.485 0.237 1990 0.679 0.483 1991 0.485 0.322 1992 0.552 0.410 1993 0.764 0.568 1994 0.423 0.302 1995 0.725 0.938 1996 0.798 0.755 1997 0.596 0.675 1998 0.474 0.297 1999 0.563 0.534 2000 0.400 0.470 2001 0.545 0.220 2002 0.822 0.299 2003 0.671 0.312 2004 0.375 0.318 2005 0.393 0.429 2006 0.623 0.379 2007 0.495 0.364 2008 0.370 0.381 2009 0.717 0.681 2010 0.621 0.306 2011 0.524 0.298 2012 0.506 0.427 2013 0.923 0.560 2014 0.726 0.439 Ranked Annual Peaks Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 9 Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.9229 0.9384 2 0.8220 0.7551 3 0.8175 0.7004 4 0.7979 0.6808 5 0.7962 0.6745 6 0.7639 0.6640 7 0.7634 0.6284 8 0.7505 0.6259 9 0.7475 0.6175 10 0.7473 0.6137 11 0.7282 0.5761 12 0.7263 0.5683 13 0.7247 0.5595 14 0.7170 0.5398 15 0.6855 0.5335 16 0.6793 0.5258 17 0.6793 0.5217 18 0.6739 0.4908 19 0.6726 0.4839 20 0.6708 0.4833 21 0.6707 0.4718 22 0.6567 0.4717 23 0.6533 0.4704 24 0.6460 0.4493 25 0.6434 0.4444 26 0.6234 0.4411 27 0.6209 0.4410 28 0.5962 0.4388 29 0.5903 0.4293 30 0.5896 0.4270 31 0.5827 0.4264 32 0.5827 0.4256 33 0.5748 0.4201 34 0.5714 0.4103 35 0.5699 0.4028 36 0.5696 0.3977 37 0.5644 0.3961 38 0.5631 0.3889 39 0.5577 0.3884 40 0.5517 0.3812 41 0.5451 0.3787 42 0.5418 0.3636 43 0.5403 0.3595 44 0.5384 0.3218 45 0.5371 0.3215 46 0.5238 0.3183 47 0.5065 0.3181 48 0.4946 0.3116 49 0.4848 0.3087 50 0.4846 0.3062 51 0.4744 0.3060 52 0.4718 0.3019 53 0.4703 0.3007 54 0.4409 0.2991 55 0.4406 0.2979 56 0.4368 0.2966 Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 10 57 0.4234 0.2958 58 0.4232 0.2912 59 0.4229 0.2801 60 0.4031 0.2770 61 0.3998 0.2697 62 0.3929 0.2503 63 0.3745 0.2366 64 0.3703 0.2269 65 0.3484 0.2204 66 0.3313 0.2040 Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 11 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.2888 956 919 96 Pass 0.2936 897 844 94 Pass 0.2984 856 784 91 Pass 0.3032 802 722 90 Pass 0.3080 760 677 89 Pass 0.3128 733 648 88 Pass 0.3176 686 615 89 Pass 0.3225 641 576 89 Pass 0.3273 617 552 89 Pass 0.3321 587 530 90 Pass 0.3369 558 515 92 Pass 0.3417 531 488 91 Pass 0.3465 507 467 92 Pass 0.3513 485 453 93 Pass 0.3562 464 432 93 Pass 0.3610 444 419 94 Pass 0.3658 431 399 92 Pass 0.3706 403 387 96 Pass 0.3754 382 375 98 Pass 0.3802 369 357 96 Pass 0.3850 350 344 98 Pass 0.3899 330 327 99 Pass 0.3947 312 310 99 Pass 0.3995 299 293 97 Pass 0.4043 281 277 98 Pass 0.4091 270 266 98 Pass 0.4139 263 255 96 Pass 0.4187 250 246 98 Pass 0.4235 240 237 98 Pass 0.4284 228 228 100 Pass 0.4332 222 218 98 Pass 0.4380 213 208 97 Pass 0.4428 197 196 99 Pass 0.4476 191 191 100 Pass 0.4524 188 187 99 Pass 0.4572 180 177 98 Pass 0.4621 173 171 98 Pass 0.4669 171 165 96 Pass 0.4717 165 153 92 Pass 0.4765 157 140 89 Pass 0.4813 150 135 90 Pass 0.4861 144 128 88 Pass 0.4909 136 117 86 Pass 0.4958 128 112 87 Pass 0.5006 124 109 87 Pass 0.5054 121 108 89 Pass 0.5102 116 103 88 Pass 0.5150 110 97 88 Pass 0.5198 106 95 89 Pass 0.5246 102 93 91 Pass 0.5295 97 91 93 Pass 0.5343 92 88 95 Pass 0.5391 90 87 96 Pass Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 12 0.5439 85 86 101 Pass 0.5487 84 82 97 Pass 0.5535 78 79 101 Pass 0.5583 75 75 100 Pass 0.5631 73 70 95 Pass 0.5680 69 70 101 Pass 0.5728 66 66 100 Pass 0.5776 63 63 100 Pass 0.5824 63 61 96 Pass 0.5872 60 58 96 Pass 0.5920 55 54 98 Pass 0.5968 54 54 100 Pass 0.6017 53 50 94 Pass 0.6065 52 48 92 Pass 0.6113 48 47 97 Pass 0.6161 46 43 93 Pass 0.6209 45 40 88 Pass 0.6257 42 39 92 Pass 0.6305 40 35 87 Pass 0.6354 39 32 82 Pass 0.6402 38 29 76 Pass 0.6450 37 28 75 Pass 0.6498 35 27 77 Pass 0.6546 33 27 81 Pass 0.6594 31 25 80 Pass 0.6642 29 19 65 Pass 0.6691 29 18 62 Pass 0.6739 26 16 61 Pass 0.6787 24 15 62 Pass 0.6835 22 13 59 Pass 0.6883 20 12 60 Pass 0.6931 20 11 55 Pass 0.6979 18 11 61 Pass 0.7027 18 10 55 Pass 0.7076 17 10 58 Pass 0.7124 17 10 58 Pass 0.7172 17 10 58 Pass 0.7220 16 9 56 Pass 0.7268 14 9 64 Pass 0.7316 12 9 75 Pass 0.7364 12 9 75 Pass 0.7413 12 6 50 Pass 0.7461 12 5 41 Pass 0.7509 10 5 50 Pass 0.7557 9 5 55 Pass 0.7605 9 4 44 Pass 0.7653 7 4 57 Pass Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 13 Water Quality Swale Comps.xls R3 Swale Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/11/2018 Comments:R3 Swale - Clean Water Services Water Quality Storm Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate 0.31 V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 11.8 0.07 1.0* 8.48 0.31 0.16 115 8.00 1.92 0.001 0.001 8 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.005 0.24 Swale Comps.xls R3 Swale (DEQ) Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/11/2018 Comments:R3 Swale - DEQ/NMFS Water Quality Storm Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 9.0 0.12 1.0* 8.74 0.64 0.21 115 8.00 2.98 0.001 0.001 8 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.005 0.37 Water Quality Swale/Extended Dry Basin R3 Flood Frequency Elevation Determination Plot Data Excerpts Stage (feet) hr 0.1708 65896 0.1909 62656 0.2110 59590 0.2311 56830 0.2512 54291 0.2713 51855 10% Exceedance occurs at 57800 hrs. Looking at the above excerpt from the R3 facility output, the Flood Frequency Depth is 0.22 feet. Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 14 POC 2 POC #2 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 15 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:48 PM Page 16 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:49 PM Page 17 Mitigated Schematic Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 18 Predeveloped UCI File Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 19 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Basin R3 V2.wdm MESSU 25 MitBasin R3 V2.MES 27 MitBasin R3 V2.L61 28 MitBasin R3 V2.L62 30 POCBasin R3 V21.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 7 IMPLND 1 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 R3 Pond MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 20 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 21 # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin R3*** PERLND 7 0.96 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 7 0.96 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 3.43 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 7 0.96 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 3.43 COPY 1 15 PERLND 7 0.96 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 R3 Pond 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 22 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 9 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.028857 0.000000 0.000000 0.500000 0.034022 0.015720 0.097142 1.500000 0.052158 0.058810 0.168256 2.500000 0.077893 0.123835 0.217217 3.500000 0.088567 0.207065 0.311288 4.500000 0.099954 0.301326 0.567252 5.500000 0.111616 0.407111 0.773984 6.500000 0.123600 0.524719 11.75255 7.500000 0.135859 0.654448 16.88845 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1024 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1025 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 23 END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 24 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 25 Mitigated HSPF Message File Basin R3 V2 1/13/2018 2:05:50 PM Page 26 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2018; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com TRUST PROJECT REPORT Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:25 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:Basin 4_RRR Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:1/10/2018 Gage:Lower Tualatin Pump Station Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2014/09/30 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2017/09/07 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:10 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC3:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC3:10 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC4:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC4:10 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC5:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC5:10 Year Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:25 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin R4B Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Mod 0.13 Pervious Total 0.13 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.1 Impervious Total 0.1 Basin Total 0.23 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tributary 4 Tributary 4 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:25 PM Page 4 Basin R4A Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Mod 0.15 Pervious Total 0.15 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.09 Impervious Total 0.09 Basin Total 0.24 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tributary 4 Tributary 4 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 5 R4 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod 1.12 Pervious Total 1.12 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.78 Impervious Total 0.78 Basin Total 1.9 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tributary 4 Tributary 4 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 6 Mitigated Land Use Basin R4B Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Mod 0.05 Pervious Total 0.05 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.18 Impervious Total 0.18 Basin Total 0.23 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Surface Swale R4B Surface Swale R4B Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 7 Basin R4A Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Mod 0.08 Pervious Total 0.08 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.16 Impervious Total 0.16 Basin Total 0.24 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Surface R4A Swale Surface R4A Swale Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 8 R4 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod 0.1 Pervious Total 0.1 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 1.8 Impervious Total 1.8 Basin Total 1.9 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater RT Edge RRR Pond RT Edge RRR Pond Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 9 Basin R4B - Copy Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Mod 0.05 Pervious Total 0.05 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.18 Impervious Total 0.18 Basin Total 0.23 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tributary 4 - Copy Tributary 4 - Copy Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 10 Basin R4A - Copy Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D, Lawn, Mod 0.08 Pervious Total 0.08 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.16 Impervious Total 0.16 Basin Total 0.24 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tributary 4 - Copy Tributary 4 - Copy Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 11 Basin R4 - Copy Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod 0.1 Pervious Total 0.1 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 1.8 Impervious Total 1.8 Basin Total 1.9 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tributary 4 - Copy Tributary 4 - Copy Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 12 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Tributary 4 Bottom Length:100.00 ft. Bottom Width:2.00 ft. Manning's n:0.03 Channel bottom slope 1:0.01 To 1 Channel Left side slope 0:3 To 1 Channel right side slope 2:3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0 ft. Riser Diameter:0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Channel Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1111 0.006 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.2222 0.007 0.001 0.917 0.000 0.3333 0.009 0.002 1.936 0.000 0.4444 0.010 0.003 3.355 0.000 0.5556 0.012 0.004 5.209 0.000 0.6667 0.013 0.006 7.533 0.000 0.7778 0.015 0.007 10.36 0.000 0.8889 0.016 0.009 13.73 0.000 1.0000 0.018 0.011 17.67 0.000 1.1111 0.019 0.013 22.23 0.000 1.2222 0.021 0.015 27.42 0.000 1.3333 0.023 0.018 33.28 0.000 1.4444 0.024 0.021 39.85 0.000 1.5556 0.026 0.023 47.15 0.000 1.6667 0.027 0.026 55.21 0.000 1.7778 0.029 0.029 64.07 0.000 1.8889 0.030 0.033 73.75 0.000 2.0000 0.032 0.036 84.28 0.000 2.1111 0.033 0.040 95.68 0.000 2.2222 0.035 0.044 107.9 0.000 2.3333 0.036 0.048 121.2 0.000 2.4444 0.038 0.052 135.4 0.000 2.5556 0.039 0.056 150.6 0.000 2.6667 0.041 0.061 166.8 0.000 2.7778 0.042 0.065 184.0 0.000 2.8889 0.044 0.070 202.3 0.000 3.0000 0.045 0.075 221.7 0.000 3.1111 0.047 0.081 242.2 0.000 3.2222 0.049 0.086 263.8 0.000 3.3333 0.050 0.091 286.6 0.000 3.4444 0.052 0.097 310.6 0.000 3.5556 0.053 0.103 335.7 0.000 3.6667 0.055 0.109 362.1 0.000 3.7778 0.056 0.115 389.8 0.000 3.8889 0.058 0.122 418.8 0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 13 4.0000 0.059 0.128 449.0 0.000 4.1111 0.061 0.135 480.6 0.000 4.2222 0.062 0.142 513.5 0.000 4.3333 0.064 0.149 547.8 0.000 4.4444 0.065 0.156 583.4 0.000 4.5556 0.067 0.163 620.5 0.000 4.6667 0.068 0.171 659.0 0.000 4.7778 0.070 0.179 699.0 0.000 4.8889 0.072 0.187 740.5 0.000 5.0000 0.073 0.195 783.4 0.000 5.1111 0.075 0.203 827.9 0.000 5.2222 0.076 0.211 873.9 0.000 5.3333 0.078 0.220 921.4 0.000 5.4444 0.079 0.229 970.6 0.000 5.5556 0.081 0.238 1021.0.000 5.6667 0.082 0.247 1073.0.000 5.7778 0.084 0.256 1127.0.000 5.8889 0.085 0.266 1183.0.000 6.0000 0.087 0.275 1240.0.000 6.1111 0.088 0.285 1299.0.000 6.2222 0.090 0.295 1360.0.000 6.3333 0.091 0.305 1423.0.000 6.4444 0.093 0.315 1487.0.000 6.5556 0.095 0.326 1553.0.000 6.6667 0.096 0.337 1621.0.000 6.7778 0.098 0.347 1691.0.000 6.8889 0.099 0.358 1762.0.000 7.0000 0.101 0.369 1836.0.000 7.1111 0.102 0.381 1911.0.000 7.2222 0.104 0.392 1988.0.000 7.3333 0.105 0.404 2067.0.000 7.4444 0.107 0.416 2148.0.000 7.5556 0.108 0.428 2231.0.000 7.6667 0.110 0.440 2316.0.000 7.7778 0.111 0.452 2403.0.000 7.8889 0.113 0.465 2492.0.000 8.0000 0.115 0.478 2583.0.000 8.1111 0.116 0.490 2676.0.000 8.2222 0.118 0.503 2771.0.000 8.3333 0.119 0.517 2868.0.000 8.4444 0.121 0.530 2967.0.000 8.5556 0.122 0.544 3069.0.000 8.6667 0.124 0.557 3172.0.000 8.7778 0.125 0.571 3278.0.000 8.8889 0.127 0.585 3386.0.000 9.0000 0.128 0.599 3496.0.000 9.1111 0.130 0.614 3608.0.000 9.2222 0.131 0.628 3723.0.000 9.3333 0.133 0.643 3839.0.000 9.4444 0.134 0.658 3958.0.000 9.5556 0.136 0.673 4079.0.000 9.6667 0.138 0.688 4203.0.000 9.7778 0.139 0.704 4329.0.000 9.8889 0.141 0.719 4457.0.000 10.000 0.142 0.735 4587.0.000 10.111 0.144 0.751 4720.0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 14 Mitigated Routing Swale R4B Bottom Length: 100.00 ft. Bottom Width: 2.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: Amended 3.0 in/hr Material thickness of second layer: 0 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0 Orifice Diameter (in.):0 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):31.527 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):31.535 Percent Through Underdrain:99.98 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Tributary 4 Landscape Swale Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0275 0.0273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0549 0.0268 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0824 0.0263 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.1099 0.0259 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.1374 0.0254 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1648 0.0250 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0246 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.2198 0.0241 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.2473 0.0237 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.2747 0.0232 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.3022 0.0228 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.3297 0.0223 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.3571 0.0219 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0215 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.4121 0.0210 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.4396 0.0206 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.4670 0.0202 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.4945 0.0197 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.5220 0.0193 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.5495 0.0189 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.5769 0.0184 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.6044 0.0180 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.6319 0.0176 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.6593 0.0172 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.6868 0.0167 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.7143 0.0163 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.7418 0.0159 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.7692 0.0155 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 15 0.7967 0.0150 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.8242 0.0146 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 0.8516 0.0142 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.8791 0.0138 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.9066 0.0134 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 0.9341 0.0130 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000 0.9615 0.0126 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 0.9890 0.0122 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 1.0165 0.0117 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 1.0440 0.0113 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 1.0714 0.0109 0.0027 0.0000 0.0000 1.0989 0.0105 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 1.1264 0.0101 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 1.1538 0.0097 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 1.1813 0.0093 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 1.2088 0.0089 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 1.2363 0.0085 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 1.2637 0.0081 0.0036 0.0000 0.0000 1.2912 0.0077 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 1.3187 0.0073 0.0038 0.0000 0.0000 1.3462 0.0069 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000 1.3736 0.0065 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000 1.4011 0.0061 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 1.4286 0.0058 0.0044 0.0000 0.0000 1.4560 0.0054 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 1.4835 0.0050 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000 1.5000 0.0046 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 Landscape Swale Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 1.5000 0.0275 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5275 0.0280 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5549 0.0284 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5824 0.0289 0.0071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6099 0.0294 0.0079 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6374 0.0298 0.0087 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6648 0.0303 0.0095 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6923 0.0307 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7198 0.0312 0.0112 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7473 0.0317 0.0121 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7747 0.0321 0.0130 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8022 0.0326 0.0139 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8297 0.0331 0.0148 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8571 0.0335 0.0157 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8846 0.0340 0.0166 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9121 0.0345 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9396 0.0350 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9670 0.0354 0.0195 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9945 0.0359 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0220 0.0364 0.0214 0.0346 0.0000 0.0000 2.0495 0.0369 0.0224 0.1165 0.0000 0.0000 2.0769 0.0373 0.0235 0.2257 0.0000 0.0000 2.1044 0.0378 0.0245 0.3555 0.0000 0.0000 2.1319 0.0383 0.0255 0.5015 0.0000 0.0000 2.1593 0.0388 0.0266 0.6597 0.0000 0.0000 2.1868 0.0393 0.0277 0.8261 0.0000 0.0000 2.2143 0.0398 0.0288 0.9966 0.0000 0.0000 2.2418 0.0402 0.0299 1.1671 0.0000 0.0000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 16 2.2692 0.0407 0.0310 1.3333 0.0000 0.0000 2.2967 0.0412 0.0321 1.4914 0.0000 0.0000 2.3242 0.0417 0.0332 1.6378 0.0000 0.0000 2.3516 0.0422 0.0344 1.7695 0.0000 0.0000 2.3791 0.0427 0.0356 1.8845 0.0000 0.0000 2.4066 0.0432 0.0367 1.9818 0.0000 0.0000 2.4341 0.0437 0.0379 2.0620 0.0000 0.0000 2.4615 0.0442 0.0391 2.1274 0.0000 0.0000 2.4890 0.0447 0.0404 2.1826 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000 0.0449 0.0408 2.2635 0.0000 0.0000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 17 Surface Swale R4B Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Tributary 4 Swale R4B Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 18 R4A Swale Bottom Length: 100.00 ft. Bottom Width: 2.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: Amended 3.0 in/hr Material thickness of second layer: 0 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0 Orifice Diameter (in.):0 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):28.846 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):28.846 Percent Through Underdrain:100 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Tributary 4 Rain Garden Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0275 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0275 0.0273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0549 0.0268 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0824 0.0263 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.1099 0.0259 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.1374 0.0254 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1648 0.0250 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0246 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.2198 0.0241 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.2473 0.0237 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.2747 0.0232 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.3022 0.0228 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.3297 0.0223 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.3571 0.0219 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0215 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.4121 0.0210 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.4396 0.0206 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.4670 0.0202 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.4945 0.0197 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.5220 0.0193 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.5495 0.0189 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.5769 0.0184 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.6044 0.0180 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.6319 0.0176 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.6593 0.0172 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.6868 0.0167 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.7143 0.0163 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.7418 0.0159 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.7692 0.0155 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.7967 0.0150 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.8242 0.0146 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 19 0.8516 0.0142 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.8791 0.0138 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.9066 0.0134 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 0.9341 0.0130 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000 0.9615 0.0126 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 0.9890 0.0122 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 1.0165 0.0117 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 1.0440 0.0113 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 1.0714 0.0109 0.0027 0.0000 0.0000 1.0989 0.0105 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 1.1264 0.0101 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 1.1538 0.0097 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 1.1813 0.0093 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 1.2088 0.0089 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 1.2363 0.0085 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 1.2637 0.0081 0.0036 0.0000 0.0000 1.2912 0.0077 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 1.3187 0.0073 0.0038 0.0000 0.0000 1.3462 0.0069 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000 1.3736 0.0065 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000 1.4011 0.0061 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 1.4286 0.0058 0.0044 0.0000 0.0000 1.4560 0.0054 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 1.4835 0.0050 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000 1.5000 0.0046 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 Rain Garden Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 1.5000 0.0275 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5275 0.0280 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5549 0.0284 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5824 0.0289 0.0071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6099 0.0294 0.0079 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6374 0.0298 0.0087 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6648 0.0303 0.0095 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6923 0.0307 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7198 0.0312 0.0112 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7473 0.0317 0.0121 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7747 0.0321 0.0130 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8022 0.0326 0.0139 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8297 0.0331 0.0148 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8571 0.0335 0.0157 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8846 0.0340 0.0166 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9121 0.0345 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9396 0.0350 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9670 0.0354 0.0195 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9945 0.0359 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0220 0.0364 0.0214 0.0346 0.0000 0.0000 2.0495 0.0369 0.0224 0.1165 0.0000 0.0000 2.0769 0.0373 0.0235 0.2257 0.0000 0.0000 2.1044 0.0378 0.0245 0.3555 0.0000 0.0000 2.1319 0.0383 0.0255 0.5015 0.0000 0.0000 2.1593 0.0388 0.0266 0.6597 0.0000 0.0000 2.1868 0.0393 0.0277 0.8261 0.0000 0.0000 2.2143 0.0398 0.0288 0.9966 0.0000 0.0000 2.2418 0.0402 0.0299 1.1671 0.0000 0.0000 2.2692 0.0407 0.0310 1.3333 0.0000 0.0000 2.2967 0.0412 0.0321 1.4914 0.0000 0.0000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 20 2.3242 0.0417 0.0332 1.6378 0.0000 0.0000 2.3516 0.0422 0.0344 1.7695 0.0000 0.0000 2.3791 0.0427 0.0356 1.8845 0.0000 0.0000 2.4066 0.0432 0.0367 1.9818 0.0000 0.0000 2.4341 0.0437 0.0379 2.0620 0.0000 0.0000 2.4615 0.0442 0.0391 2.1274 0.0000 0.0000 2.4890 0.0447 0.0404 2.1826 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000 0.0449 0.0408 2.2635 0.0000 0.0000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 21 Surface R4A Swale Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Tributary 4 R4A Swale Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 22 RT Edge RRR Pond Depth:8.65 ft. Discharge Structure: 1 Riser Height:5 ft. Riser Diameter:19 in. Orifice 1 Diameter:2 in.Elevation:0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Tributary 4 SSD Table Hydraulic Table Stage Area Volume Outlet (feet) (ac.) (ac-ft.) Struct NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed 0.000 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.650 0.096 0.058 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.650 0.119 0.165 0.139 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.650 0.143 0.296 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.650 0.169 0.452 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.650 0.196 0.634 0.234 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.650 0.225 0.844 6.549 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.650 0.255 1.084 10.42 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.650 0.286 1.354 13.15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.650 0.319 1.657 15.40 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 23 Tributary 4 Bottom Length:100.00 ft. Bottom Width:2.00 ft. Manning's n:0.03 Channel bottom slope 1:0.01 To 1 Channel Left side slope 0:3 To 1 Channel right side slope 2:3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0 ft. Riser Diameter:0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Channel Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1111 0.006 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.2222 0.007 0.001 0.917 0.000 0.3333 0.009 0.002 1.936 0.000 0.4444 0.010 0.003 3.355 0.000 0.5556 0.012 0.004 5.209 0.000 0.6667 0.013 0.006 7.533 0.000 0.7778 0.015 0.007 10.36 0.000 0.8889 0.016 0.009 13.73 0.000 1.0000 0.018 0.011 17.67 0.000 1.1111 0.019 0.013 22.23 0.000 1.2222 0.021 0.015 27.42 0.000 1.3333 0.023 0.018 33.28 0.000 1.4444 0.024 0.021 39.85 0.000 1.5556 0.026 0.023 47.15 0.000 1.6667 0.027 0.026 55.21 0.000 1.7778 0.029 0.029 64.07 0.000 1.8889 0.030 0.033 73.75 0.000 2.0000 0.032 0.036 84.28 0.000 2.1111 0.033 0.040 95.68 0.000 2.2222 0.035 0.044 107.9 0.000 2.3333 0.036 0.048 121.2 0.000 2.4444 0.038 0.052 135.4 0.000 2.5556 0.039 0.056 150.6 0.000 2.6667 0.041 0.061 166.8 0.000 2.7778 0.042 0.065 184.0 0.000 2.8889 0.044 0.070 202.3 0.000 3.0000 0.045 0.075 221.7 0.000 3.1111 0.047 0.081 242.2 0.000 3.2222 0.049 0.086 263.8 0.000 3.3333 0.050 0.091 286.6 0.000 3.4444 0.052 0.097 310.6 0.000 3.5556 0.053 0.103 335.7 0.000 3.6667 0.055 0.109 362.1 0.000 3.7778 0.056 0.115 389.8 0.000 3.8889 0.058 0.122 418.8 0.000 4.0000 0.059 0.128 449.0 0.000 4.1111 0.061 0.135 480.6 0.000 4.2222 0.062 0.142 513.5 0.000 4.3333 0.064 0.149 547.8 0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 24 4.4444 0.065 0.156 583.4 0.000 4.5556 0.067 0.163 620.5 0.000 4.6667 0.068 0.171 659.0 0.000 4.7778 0.070 0.179 699.0 0.000 4.8889 0.072 0.187 740.5 0.000 5.0000 0.073 0.195 783.4 0.000 5.1111 0.075 0.203 827.9 0.000 5.2222 0.076 0.211 873.9 0.000 5.3333 0.078 0.220 921.4 0.000 5.4444 0.079 0.229 970.6 0.000 5.5556 0.081 0.238 1021.0.000 5.6667 0.082 0.247 1073.0.000 5.7778 0.084 0.256 1127.0.000 5.8889 0.085 0.266 1183.0.000 6.0000 0.087 0.275 1240.0.000 6.1111 0.088 0.285 1299.0.000 6.2222 0.090 0.295 1360.0.000 6.3333 0.091 0.305 1423.0.000 6.4444 0.093 0.315 1487.0.000 6.5556 0.095 0.326 1553.0.000 6.6667 0.096 0.337 1621.0.000 6.7778 0.098 0.347 1691.0.000 6.8889 0.099 0.358 1762.0.000 7.0000 0.101 0.369 1836.0.000 7.1111 0.102 0.381 1911.0.000 7.2222 0.104 0.392 1988.0.000 7.3333 0.105 0.404 2067.0.000 7.4444 0.107 0.416 2148.0.000 7.5556 0.108 0.428 2231.0.000 7.6667 0.110 0.440 2316.0.000 7.7778 0.111 0.452 2403.0.000 7.8889 0.113 0.465 2492.0.000 8.0000 0.115 0.478 2583.0.000 8.1111 0.116 0.490 2676.0.000 8.2222 0.118 0.503 2771.0.000 8.3333 0.119 0.517 2868.0.000 8.4444 0.121 0.530 2967.0.000 8.5556 0.122 0.544 3069.0.000 8.6667 0.124 0.557 3172.0.000 8.7778 0.125 0.571 3278.0.000 8.8889 0.127 0.585 3386.0.000 9.0000 0.128 0.599 3496.0.000 9.1111 0.130 0.614 3608.0.000 9.2222 0.131 0.628 3723.0.000 9.3333 0.133 0.643 3839.0.000 9.4444 0.134 0.658 3958.0.000 9.5556 0.136 0.673 4079.0.000 9.6667 0.138 0.688 4203.0.000 9.7778 0.139 0.704 4329.0.000 9.8889 0.141 0.719 4457.0.000 10.000 0.142 0.735 4587.0.000 10.111 0.144 0.751 4720.0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 25 Tributary 4 - Copy Bottom Length:100.00 ft. Bottom Width:2.00 ft. Manning's n:0.03 Channel bottom slope 1:0.01 To 1 Channel Left side slope 0:3 To 1 Channel right side slope 2:3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0 ft. Riser Diameter:0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Channel Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1111 0.006 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.2222 0.007 0.001 0.917 0.000 0.3333 0.009 0.002 1.936 0.000 0.4444 0.010 0.003 3.355 0.000 0.5556 0.012 0.004 5.209 0.000 0.6667 0.013 0.006 7.533 0.000 0.7778 0.015 0.007 10.36 0.000 0.8889 0.016 0.009 13.73 0.000 1.0000 0.018 0.011 17.67 0.000 1.1111 0.019 0.013 22.23 0.000 1.2222 0.021 0.015 27.42 0.000 1.3333 0.023 0.018 33.28 0.000 1.4444 0.024 0.021 39.85 0.000 1.5556 0.026 0.023 47.15 0.000 1.6667 0.027 0.026 55.21 0.000 1.7778 0.029 0.029 64.07 0.000 1.8889 0.030 0.033 73.75 0.000 2.0000 0.032 0.036 84.28 0.000 2.1111 0.033 0.040 95.68 0.000 2.2222 0.035 0.044 107.9 0.000 2.3333 0.036 0.048 121.2 0.000 2.4444 0.038 0.052 135.4 0.000 2.5556 0.039 0.056 150.6 0.000 2.6667 0.041 0.061 166.8 0.000 2.7778 0.042 0.065 184.0 0.000 2.8889 0.044 0.070 202.3 0.000 3.0000 0.045 0.075 221.7 0.000 3.1111 0.047 0.081 242.2 0.000 3.2222 0.049 0.086 263.8 0.000 3.3333 0.050 0.091 286.6 0.000 3.4444 0.052 0.097 310.6 0.000 3.5556 0.053 0.103 335.7 0.000 3.6667 0.055 0.109 362.1 0.000 3.7778 0.056 0.115 389.8 0.000 3.8889 0.058 0.122 418.8 0.000 4.0000 0.059 0.128 449.0 0.000 4.1111 0.061 0.135 480.6 0.000 4.2222 0.062 0.142 513.5 0.000 4.3333 0.064 0.149 547.8 0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 26 4.4444 0.065 0.156 583.4 0.000 4.5556 0.067 0.163 620.5 0.000 4.6667 0.068 0.171 659.0 0.000 4.7778 0.070 0.179 699.0 0.000 4.8889 0.072 0.187 740.5 0.000 5.0000 0.073 0.195 783.4 0.000 5.1111 0.075 0.203 827.9 0.000 5.2222 0.076 0.211 873.9 0.000 5.3333 0.078 0.220 921.4 0.000 5.4444 0.079 0.229 970.6 0.000 5.5556 0.081 0.238 1021.0.000 5.6667 0.082 0.247 1073.0.000 5.7778 0.084 0.256 1127.0.000 5.8889 0.085 0.266 1183.0.000 6.0000 0.087 0.275 1240.0.000 6.1111 0.088 0.285 1299.0.000 6.2222 0.090 0.295 1360.0.000 6.3333 0.091 0.305 1423.0.000 6.4444 0.093 0.315 1487.0.000 6.5556 0.095 0.326 1553.0.000 6.6667 0.096 0.337 1621.0.000 6.7778 0.098 0.347 1691.0.000 6.8889 0.099 0.358 1762.0.000 7.0000 0.101 0.369 1836.0.000 7.1111 0.102 0.381 1911.0.000 7.2222 0.104 0.392 1988.0.000 7.3333 0.105 0.404 2067.0.000 7.4444 0.107 0.416 2148.0.000 7.5556 0.108 0.428 2231.0.000 7.6667 0.110 0.440 2316.0.000 7.7778 0.111 0.452 2403.0.000 7.8889 0.113 0.465 2492.0.000 8.0000 0.115 0.478 2583.0.000 8.1111 0.116 0.490 2676.0.000 8.2222 0.118 0.503 2771.0.000 8.3333 0.119 0.517 2868.0.000 8.4444 0.121 0.530 2967.0.000 8.5556 0.122 0.544 3069.0.000 8.6667 0.124 0.557 3172.0.000 8.7778 0.125 0.571 3278.0.000 8.8889 0.127 0.585 3386.0.000 9.0000 0.128 0.599 3496.0.000 9.1111 0.130 0.614 3608.0.000 9.2222 0.131 0.628 3723.0.000 9.3333 0.133 0.643 3839.0.000 9.4444 0.134 0.658 3958.0.000 9.5556 0.136 0.673 4079.0.000 9.6667 0.138 0.688 4203.0.000 9.7778 0.139 0.704 4329.0.000 9.8889 0.141 0.719 4457.0.000 10.000 0.142 0.735 4587.0.000 10.111 0.144 0.751 4720.0.000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:26 PM Page 27 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.13 Total Impervious Area:0.1 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.05 Total Impervious Area:0.18 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.036689 5 year 0.046741 10 year 0.053048 25 year 0.060714 50 year 0.066246 100 year 0.071651 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.048203 5 year 0.057259 10 year 0.062284 25 year 0.067834 50 year 0.071513 100 year 0.074877 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.046 0.052 1950 0.023 0.036 1951 0.051 0.049 1952 0.040 0.070 1953 0.037 0.045 1954 0.047 0.055 1955 0.031 0.037 1956 0.065 0.071 1957 0.035 0.048 1958 0.031 0.034 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 28 1959 0.037 0.054 1960 0.024 0.036 1961 0.042 0.048 1962 0.030 0.050 1963 0.042 0.056 1964 0.054 0.050 1965 0.032 0.052 1966 0.051 0.057 1967 0.026 0.045 1968 0.032 0.038 1969 0.041 0.053 1970 0.049 0.047 1971 0.036 0.044 1972 0.048 0.051 1973 0.031 0.045 1974 0.046 0.053 1975 0.036 0.044 1976 0.040 0.049 1977 0.026 0.026 1978 0.060 0.067 1979 0.031 0.042 1980 0.045 0.049 1981 0.058 0.064 1982 0.056 0.060 1983 0.050 0.050 1984 0.046 0.051 1985 0.035 0.040 1986 0.021 0.030 1987 0.035 0.047 1988 0.026 0.044 1989 0.035 0.040 1990 0.034 0.060 1991 0.032 0.045 1992 0.037 0.050 1993 0.035 0.056 1994 0.023 0.036 1995 0.057 0.065 1996 0.062 0.062 1997 0.040 0.047 1998 0.027 0.036 1999 0.036 0.044 2000 0.024 0.035 2001 0.033 0.042 2002 0.045 0.051 2003 0.044 0.052 2004 0.023 0.033 2005 0.024 0.039 2006 0.034 0.060 2007 0.032 0.044 2008 0.020 0.035 2009 0.033 0.058 2010 0.042 0.063 2011 0.034 0.045 2012 0.029 0.051 2013 0.039 0.063 2014 0.059 0.069 Ranked Annual Peaks Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 29 Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0651 0.0713 2 0.0624 0.0701 3 0.0599 0.0691 4 0.0587 0.0671 5 0.0576 0.0647 6 0.0571 0.0642 7 0.0562 0.0628 8 0.0541 0.0626 9 0.0511 0.0623 10 0.0505 0.0602 11 0.0495 0.0597 12 0.0493 0.0596 13 0.0476 0.0577 14 0.0467 0.0571 15 0.0463 0.0562 16 0.0461 0.0559 17 0.0456 0.0547 18 0.0448 0.0536 19 0.0446 0.0533 20 0.0438 0.0530 21 0.0424 0.0524 22 0.0417 0.0518 23 0.0416 0.0517 24 0.0410 0.0513 25 0.0405 0.0512 26 0.0402 0.0510 27 0.0397 0.0506 28 0.0392 0.0502 29 0.0371 0.0501 30 0.0367 0.0500 31 0.0366 0.0499 32 0.0362 0.0494 33 0.0361 0.0489 34 0.0357 0.0487 35 0.0352 0.0484 36 0.0351 0.0480 37 0.0348 0.0470 38 0.0348 0.0468 39 0.0346 0.0466 40 0.0343 0.0449 41 0.0342 0.0448 42 0.0337 0.0447 43 0.0332 0.0447 44 0.0332 0.0445 45 0.0325 0.0442 46 0.0323 0.0442 47 0.0320 0.0440 48 0.0317 0.0439 49 0.0314 0.0436 50 0.0311 0.0422 51 0.0309 0.0417 52 0.0306 0.0403 53 0.0299 0.0396 54 0.0287 0.0393 55 0.0267 0.0381 56 0.0264 0.0374 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 30 57 0.0258 0.0363 58 0.0255 0.0362 59 0.0240 0.0356 60 0.0239 0.0356 61 0.0235 0.0351 62 0.0232 0.0345 63 0.0229 0.0340 64 0.0227 0.0332 65 0.0213 0.0298 66 0.0197 0.0263 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 31 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0183 1176 3052 259 Fail 0.0187 1118 2893 258 Fail 0.0190 1061 2770 261 Fail 0.0194 1011 2648 261 Fail 0.0197 960 2562 266 Fail 0.0201 904 2433 269 Fail 0.0204 858 2289 266 Fail 0.0208 807 2193 271 Fail 0.0211 758 2093 276 Fail 0.0215 712 1999 280 Fail 0.0218 681 1911 280 Fail 0.0222 648 1831 282 Fail 0.0226 617 1751 283 Fail 0.0229 580 1672 288 Fail 0.0233 554 1603 289 Fail 0.0236 534 1542 288 Fail 0.0240 506 1482 292 Fail 0.0243 483 1431 296 Fail 0.0247 466 1378 295 Fail 0.0250 440 1326 301 Fail 0.0254 415 1274 306 Fail 0.0257 399 1210 303 Fail 0.0261 380 1157 304 Fail 0.0264 369 1097 297 Fail 0.0268 351 1045 297 Fail 0.0271 338 997 294 Fail 0.0275 329 953 289 Fail 0.0278 315 913 289 Fail 0.0282 300 865 288 Fail 0.0285 284 833 293 Fail 0.0289 267 799 299 Fail 0.0292 259 768 296 Fail 0.0296 244 740 303 Fail 0.0299 231 711 307 Fail 0.0303 219 684 312 Fail 0.0306 212 661 311 Fail 0.0310 200 645 322 Fail 0.0313 190 625 328 Fail 0.0317 184 604 328 Fail 0.0320 174 591 339 Fail 0.0324 169 570 337 Fail 0.0327 160 551 344 Fail 0.0331 151 529 350 Fail 0.0334 147 503 342 Fail 0.0338 139 477 343 Fail 0.0341 134 450 335 Fail 0.0345 129 433 335 Fail 0.0348 122 413 338 Fail 0.0352 117 400 341 Fail 0.0355 115 386 335 Fail 0.0359 111 365 328 Fail 0.0362 105 342 325 Fail 0.0366 100 317 317 Fail 0.0369 86 304 353 Fail Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 32 0.0373 79 297 375 Fail 0.0376 77 290 376 Fail 0.0380 76 285 375 Fail 0.0383 75 275 366 Fail 0.0387 74 262 354 Fail 0.0390 71 256 360 Fail 0.0394 68 252 370 Fail 0.0397 66 241 365 Fail 0.0401 65 229 352 Fail 0.0404 64 222 346 Fail 0.0408 63 217 344 Fail 0.0411 60 211 351 Fail 0.0415 59 203 344 Fail 0.0418 54 194 359 Fail 0.0422 52 182 350 Fail 0.0425 50 170 340 Fail 0.0429 49 170 346 Fail 0.0432 47 167 355 Fail 0.0436 44 164 372 Fail 0.0439 41 158 385 Fail 0.0443 40 149 372 Fail 0.0446 38 141 371 Fail 0.0450 36 136 377 Fail 0.0453 35 130 371 Fail 0.0457 33 123 372 Fail 0.0460 33 118 357 Fail 0.0464 30 113 376 Fail 0.0467 30 108 360 Fail 0.0471 28 104 371 Fail 0.0474 28 103 367 Fail 0.0478 26 100 384 Fail 0.0481 26 92 353 Fail 0.0485 26 90 346 Fail 0.0488 25 87 348 Fail 0.0492 24 84 350 Fail 0.0495 22 81 368 Fail 0.0499 21 78 371 Fail 0.0502 20 71 355 Fail 0.0506 18 68 377 Fail 0.0509 17 67 394 Fail 0.0513 16 64 400 Fail 0.0516 16 61 381 Fail 0.0520 15 57 380 Fail 0.0523 14 53 378 Fail 0.0527 14 47 335 Fail 0.0530 14 44 314 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations of more than a 110% for the full range of flows. Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 33 Water Quality Swale Comps.xls R4B Swale Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/11/2018 Comments:R4B Swale - Clean Water Services Water Quality Storm Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate 0.02 V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 11.5 0.13 1.0* 3.25 0.02 0.16 110 3.24 0.12 3 3 3 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.051 0.04 Swale Comps.xls R4B Swale (DEQ) Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/11/2018 Comments:R4B Swale - DEQ/NMFS Water Quality Storm Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate 0.036 V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 9.2 0.18 1.0* 3.36 0.036 0.20 110 3.34 0.18 3 3 3 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.051 0.06 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:36 PM Page 34 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.15 Total Impervious Area:0.09 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.08 Total Impervious Area:0.16 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.03557 5 year 0.046622 10 year 0.053704 25 year 0.062447 50 year 0.068837 100 year 0.075142 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.044673 5 year 0.053883 10 year 0.059051 25 year 0.064803 50 year 0.068638 100 year 0.07216 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.047 0.053 1950 0.022 0.031 1951 0.053 0.049 1952 0.037 0.062 1953 0.036 0.042 1954 0.047 0.048 1955 0.028 0.033 1956 0.067 0.072 1957 0.031 0.044 1958 0.031 0.031 1959 0.033 0.047 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 35 1960 0.023 0.034 1961 0.041 0.044 1962 0.027 0.045 1963 0.040 0.050 1964 0.055 0.050 1965 0.032 0.046 1966 0.051 0.057 1967 0.025 0.040 1968 0.029 0.034 1969 0.039 0.049 1970 0.050 0.047 1971 0.037 0.043 1972 0.049 0.052 1973 0.030 0.040 1974 0.046 0.053 1975 0.037 0.040 1976 0.041 0.046 1977 0.023 0.023 1978 0.061 0.067 1979 0.030 0.039 1980 0.046 0.049 1981 0.059 0.064 1982 0.058 0.060 1983 0.051 0.047 1984 0.045 0.048 1985 0.035 0.039 1986 0.019 0.026 1987 0.034 0.044 1988 0.025 0.039 1989 0.034 0.038 1990 0.031 0.053 1991 0.031 0.042 1992 0.036 0.047 1993 0.032 0.050 1994 0.022 0.032 1995 0.058 0.058 1996 0.064 0.055 1997 0.039 0.044 1998 0.026 0.033 1999 0.036 0.042 2000 0.022 0.031 2001 0.030 0.037 2002 0.043 0.047 2003 0.043 0.050 2004 0.020 0.029 2005 0.022 0.035 2006 0.031 0.053 2007 0.031 0.041 2008 0.018 0.031 2009 0.030 0.052 2010 0.042 0.056 2011 0.035 0.041 2012 0.026 0.045 2013 0.036 0.056 2014 0.060 0.069 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 36 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0667 0.0720 2 0.0643 0.0693 3 0.0606 0.0666 4 0.0598 0.0641 5 0.0586 0.0621 6 0.0577 0.0605 7 0.0575 0.0579 8 0.0553 0.0572 9 0.0529 0.0558 10 0.0514 0.0556 11 0.0512 0.0555 12 0.0505 0.0533 13 0.0488 0.0529 14 0.0473 0.0528 15 0.0466 0.0528 16 0.0463 0.0519 17 0.0456 0.0517 18 0.0448 0.0501 19 0.0434 0.0498 20 0.0428 0.0496 21 0.0424 0.0495 22 0.0413 0.0489 23 0.0412 0.0488 24 0.0404 0.0486 25 0.0393 0.0484 26 0.0389 0.0483 27 0.0373 0.0474 28 0.0368 0.0473 29 0.0365 0.0471 30 0.0363 0.0469 31 0.0360 0.0468 32 0.0357 0.0459 33 0.0355 0.0457 34 0.0350 0.0448 35 0.0350 0.0447 36 0.0339 0.0442 37 0.0338 0.0440 38 0.0330 0.0438 39 0.0322 0.0435 40 0.0318 0.0435 41 0.0314 0.0420 42 0.0313 0.0418 43 0.0313 0.0416 44 0.0312 0.0407 45 0.0308 0.0407 46 0.0308 0.0400 47 0.0301 0.0399 48 0.0301 0.0396 49 0.0301 0.0394 50 0.0299 0.0392 51 0.0286 0.0389 52 0.0279 0.0379 53 0.0273 0.0365 54 0.0260 0.0349 55 0.0258 0.0342 56 0.0254 0.0336 57 0.0247 0.0334 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 37 58 0.0232 0.0328 59 0.0232 0.0323 60 0.0223 0.0312 61 0.0223 0.0311 62 0.0221 0.0306 63 0.0215 0.0306 64 0.0204 0.0293 65 0.0192 0.0265 66 0.0178 0.0234 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 38 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0178 1153 2700 234 Fail 0.0181 1075 2553 237 Fail 0.0185 1030 2433 236 Fail 0.0189 989 2316 234 Fail 0.0192 923 2209 239 Fail 0.0196 870 2107 242 Fail 0.0200 827 1991 240 Fail 0.0203 778 1894 243 Fail 0.0207 736 1804 245 Fail 0.0211 687 1721 250 Fail 0.0214 650 1644 252 Fail 0.0218 613 1569 255 Fail 0.0221 590 1486 251 Fail 0.0225 564 1410 250 Fail 0.0229 536 1338 249 Fail 0.0232 509 1273 250 Fail 0.0236 493 1218 247 Fail 0.0240 466 1165 250 Fail 0.0243 446 1107 248 Fail 0.0247 433 1056 243 Fail 0.0250 415 1009 243 Fail 0.0254 393 976 248 Fail 0.0258 369 929 251 Fail 0.0261 355 879 247 Fail 0.0265 338 836 247 Fail 0.0269 321 807 251 Fail 0.0272 308 777 252 Fail 0.0276 292 749 256 Fail 0.0279 281 717 255 Fail 0.0283 269 690 256 Fail 0.0287 253 670 264 Fail 0.0290 242 645 266 Fail 0.0294 231 614 265 Fail 0.0298 221 579 261 Fail 0.0301 208 551 264 Fail 0.0305 199 523 262 Fail 0.0308 187 503 268 Fail 0.0312 179 478 267 Fail 0.0316 168 460 273 Fail 0.0319 162 433 267 Fail 0.0323 156 403 258 Fail 0.0327 151 382 252 Fail 0.0330 146 373 255 Fail 0.0334 139 362 260 Fail 0.0337 131 343 261 Fail 0.0341 124 333 268 Fail 0.0345 124 318 256 Fail 0.0348 117 306 261 Fail 0.0352 112 297 265 Fail 0.0356 108 289 267 Fail 0.0359 100 278 278 Fail 0.0363 97 258 265 Fail 0.0367 93 243 261 Fail 0.0370 89 230 258 Fail Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 39 0.0374 83 223 268 Fail 0.0377 78 218 279 Fail 0.0381 75 213 284 Fail 0.0385 73 208 284 Fail 0.0388 73 200 273 Fail 0.0392 69 190 275 Fail 0.0396 66 185 280 Fail 0.0399 65 176 270 Fail 0.0403 63 167 265 Fail 0.0406 62 162 261 Fail 0.0410 61 155 254 Fail 0.0414 58 151 260 Fail 0.0417 58 145 250 Fail 0.0421 58 140 241 Fail 0.0425 55 130 236 Fail 0.0428 50 128 256 Fail 0.0432 49 124 253 Fail 0.0435 48 117 243 Fail 0.0439 45 112 248 Fail 0.0443 42 108 257 Fail 0.0446 42 105 250 Fail 0.0450 38 101 265 Fail 0.0454 38 99 260 Fail 0.0457 36 94 261 Fail 0.0461 34 90 264 Fail 0.0464 33 86 260 Fail 0.0468 32 78 243 Fail 0.0472 31 71 229 Fail 0.0475 29 68 234 Fail 0.0479 29 67 231 Fail 0.0483 28 60 214 Fail 0.0486 27 55 203 Fail 0.0490 26 51 196 Fail 0.0494 26 50 192 Fail 0.0497 25 45 180 Fail 0.0501 25 43 172 Fail 0.0504 24 39 162 Fail 0.0508 22 38 172 Fail 0.0512 22 37 168 Fail 0.0515 18 36 200 Fail 0.0519 18 34 188 Fail 0.0523 18 33 183 Fail 0.0526 17 33 194 Fail 0.0530 16 27 168 Fail 0.0533 15 25 166 Fail 0.0537 14 25 178 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations of more than a 110% for the full range of flows. Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 40 Water Quality Swale Comps.xls R4A Swale Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/11/2018 Comments:R4A Swale - Clean Water Services Water Quality Storm Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate 0.01 V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 12.2 0.10 1.0* 2.25 0.01 0.14 100 2.24 0.08 3 3 2 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.0386 0.04 Swale Comps.xls R4A Swale (DEQ) Job Name:Roy Rogers Road Designed By:bpw Job Number:165-31 Design Date:1/11/2018 Comments:R4A Swale - DEQ/NMFS Water Quality Storm Checked By: Checked Date: Design Storm: WQ event Input n =Manning's "n" SO =ft/ft Channel Slope d =ft Depth of Flow z1 =z:1 Side Slope #1 z2 =z:1 Side Slope #2 B =ft Bottom Width L =ft Channel Length Output T =ft Top Width A =sq ft Cross Sectional Area P =ft Wetted Perimeter Q =cfs Flow Rate V =fps Average Velocity TR =min Residence Time (in channel) τo =lb/sf Unit Tractive Force τp =lb/sf Permissible Tractive Force * Class C Retardance per Table 8-3 ODOT Hydraulics Manual 2014 9.2 0.15 1.0* 2.40 0.025 0.18 100 2.38 0.14 3 3 2 Water Quality Swale Design 0.24 0.0386 0.06 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:47 PM Page 41 POC 3 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:1.12 Total Impervious Area:0.78 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:0.1 Total Impervious Area:1.8 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.27289 5 year 0.329118 10 year 0.360667 25 year 0.395778 50 year 0.419189 100 year 0.440688 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.139144 5 year 0.157223 10 year 0.167126 25 year 0.17801 50 year 0.185208 100 year 0.191789 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.251 0.172 1950 0.201 0.123 1951 0.278 0.140 1952 0.356 0.143 1953 0.272 0.130 1954 0.355 0.142 1955 0.322 0.110 1956 0.374 0.173 1957 0.272 0.109 1958 0.193 0.141 1959 0.325 0.115 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 42 1960 0.157 0.103 1961 0.344 0.156 1962 0.278 0.141 1963 0.324 0.159 1964 0.305 0.141 1965 0.305 0.167 1966 0.276 0.146 1967 0.211 0.126 1968 0.322 0.144 1969 0.361 0.134 1970 0.267 0.118 1971 0.205 0.146 1972 0.253 0.151 1973 0.307 0.143 1974 0.250 0.149 1975 0.255 0.120 1976 0.274 0.141 1977 0.201 0.116 1978 0.371 0.165 1979 0.225 0.125 1980 0.314 0.128 1981 0.345 0.166 1982 0.311 0.161 1983 0.266 0.142 1984 0.272 0.155 1985 0.206 0.153 1986 0.166 0.095 1987 0.268 0.153 1988 0.223 0.142 1989 0.231 0.107 1990 0.323 0.145 1991 0.230 0.126 1992 0.261 0.138 1993 0.360 0.150 1994 0.202 0.125 1995 0.344 0.197 1996 0.375 0.174 1997 0.278 0.188 1998 0.226 0.118 1999 0.265 0.154 2000 0.187 0.149 2001 0.259 0.100 2002 0.389 0.122 2003 0.319 0.128 2004 0.178 0.124 2005 0.187 0.142 2006 0.296 0.132 2007 0.234 0.141 2008 0.172 0.144 2009 0.335 0.169 2010 0.296 0.121 2011 0.249 0.122 2012 0.242 0.141 2013 0.435 0.159 2014 0.336 0.136 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 43 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.4353 0.1966 2 0.3891 0.1884 3 0.3749 0.1741 4 0.3742 0.1735 5 0.3708 0.1723 6 0.3614 0.1690 7 0.3602 0.1665 8 0.3562 0.1657 9 0.3555 0.1652 10 0.3447 0.1615 11 0.3441 0.1595 12 0.3440 0.1586 13 0.3355 0.1556 14 0.3352 0.1545 15 0.3250 0.1544 16 0.3241 0.1534 17 0.3229 0.1531 18 0.3225 0.1511 19 0.3217 0.1501 20 0.3191 0.1493 21 0.3145 0.1491 22 0.3108 0.1462 23 0.3068 0.1462 24 0.3050 0.1455 25 0.3050 0.1444 26 0.2958 0.1441 27 0.2956 0.1433 28 0.2783 0.1432 29 0.2777 0.1421 30 0.2775 0.1419 31 0.2760 0.1418 32 0.2741 0.1417 33 0.2725 0.1413 34 0.2725 0.1411 35 0.2718 0.1408 36 0.2682 0.1406 37 0.2667 0.1406 38 0.2665 0.1405 39 0.2647 0.1402 40 0.2612 0.1381 41 0.2593 0.1362 42 0.2552 0.1341 43 0.2532 0.1322 44 0.2508 0.1299 45 0.2503 0.1282 46 0.2487 0.1279 47 0.2416 0.1264 48 0.2342 0.1258 49 0.2314 0.1249 50 0.2305 0.1245 51 0.2256 0.1239 52 0.2245 0.1229 53 0.2234 0.1219 54 0.2111 0.1217 55 0.2064 0.1206 56 0.2049 0.1203 57 0.2017 0.1181 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 44 58 0.2015 0.1178 59 0.2012 0.1157 60 0.1926 0.1153 61 0.1869 0.1099 62 0.1868 0.1095 63 0.1782 0.1071 64 0.1725 0.1026 65 0.1657 0.1000 66 0.1568 0.0954 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 45 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.1364 931 678 72 Pass 0.1387 879 590 67 Pass 0.1410 838 497 59 Pass 0.1432 795 400 50 Pass 0.1455 756 321 42 Pass 0.1478 721 285 39 Pass 0.1500 678 250 36 Pass 0.1523 639 210 32 Pass 0.1546 605 172 28 Pass 0.1568 582 146 25 Pass 0.1591 551 123 22 Pass 0.1614 528 101 19 Pass 0.1636 503 86 17 Pass 0.1659 483 66 13 Pass 0.1682 461 55 11 Pass 0.1704 443 48 10 Pass 0.1727 419 38 9 Pass 0.1749 404 33 8 Pass 0.1772 390 29 7 Pass 0.1795 366 26 7 Pass 0.1817 346 23 6 Pass 0.1840 334 21 6 Pass 0.1863 312 17 5 Pass 0.1885 294 11 3 Pass 0.1908 280 9 3 Pass 0.1931 266 8 3 Pass 0.1953 261 4 1 Pass 0.1976 250 0 0 Pass 0.1999 239 0 0 Pass 0.2021 227 0 0 Pass 0.2044 216 0 0 Pass 0.2067 203 0 0 Pass 0.2089 195 0 0 Pass 0.2112 191 0 0 Pass 0.2135 185 0 0 Pass 0.2157 181 0 0 Pass 0.2180 173 0 0 Pass 0.2202 170 0 0 Pass 0.2225 163 0 0 Pass 0.2248 154 0 0 Pass 0.2270 151 0 0 Pass 0.2293 145 0 0 Pass 0.2316 137 0 0 Pass 0.2338 129 0 0 Pass 0.2361 123 0 0 Pass 0.2384 117 0 0 Pass 0.2406 115 0 0 Pass 0.2429 109 0 0 Pass 0.2452 104 0 0 Pass 0.2474 101 0 0 Pass 0.2497 96 0 0 Pass 0.2520 91 0 0 Pass 0.2542 88 0 0 Pass Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 46 0.2565 85 0 0 Pass 0.2587 83 0 0 Pass 0.2610 80 0 0 Pass 0.2633 77 0 0 Pass 0.2655 73 0 0 Pass 0.2678 70 0 0 Pass 0.2701 68 0 0 Pass 0.2723 66 0 0 Pass 0.2746 63 0 0 Pass 0.2769 59 0 0 Pass 0.2791 54 0 0 Pass 0.2814 52 0 0 Pass 0.2837 52 0 0 Pass 0.2859 51 0 0 Pass 0.2882 48 0 0 Pass 0.2905 45 0 0 Pass 0.2927 44 0 0 Pass 0.2950 41 0 0 Pass 0.2973 38 0 0 Pass 0.2995 38 0 0 Pass 0.3018 38 0 0 Pass 0.3040 36 0 0 Pass 0.3063 33 0 0 Pass 0.3086 30 0 0 Pass 0.3108 30 0 0 Pass 0.3131 29 0 0 Pass 0.3154 28 0 0 Pass 0.3176 27 0 0 Pass 0.3199 25 0 0 Pass 0.3222 23 0 0 Pass 0.3244 18 0 0 Pass 0.3267 17 0 0 Pass 0.3290 17 0 0 Pass 0.3312 17 0 0 Pass 0.3335 17 0 0 Pass 0.3358 15 0 0 Pass 0.3380 15 0 0 Pass 0.3403 15 0 0 Pass 0.3425 14 0 0 Pass 0.3448 11 0 0 Pass 0.3471 11 0 0 Pass 0.3493 11 0 0 Pass 0.3516 11 0 0 Pass 0.3539 11 0 0 Pass 0.3561 9 0 0 Pass 0.3584 8 0 0 Pass 0.3607 7 0 0 Pass Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 47 Water Quality Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:56:58 PM Page 48 POC 4 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:1.4 Total Impervious Area:0.97 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:0.23 Total Impervious Area:2.14 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.338868 5 year 0.408534 10 year 0.447611 25 year 0.491092 50 year 0.520081 100 year 0.546698 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.212646 5 year 0.244686 10 year 0.262896 25 year 0.283476 50 year 0.297426 100 year 0.310427 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #4 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.347 0.269 1950 0.237 0.178 1951 0.369 0.216 1952 0.429 0.242 1953 0.337 0.184 1954 0.434 0.212 1955 0.367 0.155 1956 0.507 0.298 1957 0.326 0.188 1958 0.234 0.188 1959 0.387 0.200 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 49 1960 0.209 0.153 1961 0.397 0.240 1962 0.334 0.188 1963 0.400 0.241 1964 0.404 0.230 1965 0.361 0.240 1966 0.378 0.234 1967 0.260 0.185 1968 0.369 0.199 1969 0.433 0.194 1970 0.360 0.186 1971 0.279 0.229 1972 0.350 0.222 1973 0.348 0.215 1974 0.343 0.211 1975 0.312 0.192 1976 0.335 0.207 1977 0.240 0.150 1978 0.487 0.286 1979 0.281 0.184 1980 0.368 0.203 1981 0.458 0.289 1982 0.424 0.272 1983 0.354 0.228 1984 0.355 0.218 1985 0.261 0.207 1986 0.212 0.145 1987 0.337 0.235 1988 0.268 0.199 1989 0.297 0.164 1990 0.378 0.235 1991 0.292 0.204 1992 0.335 0.216 1993 0.418 0.240 1994 0.238 0.182 1995 0.452 0.288 1996 0.460 0.274 1997 0.342 0.276 1998 0.266 0.183 1999 0.313 0.231 2000 0.231 0.210 2001 0.315 0.153 2002 0.465 0.211 2003 0.395 0.206 2004 0.216 0.176 2005 0.229 0.197 2006 0.350 0.214 2007 0.297 0.192 2008 0.207 0.200 2009 0.399 0.264 2010 0.354 0.219 2011 0.297 0.202 2012 0.295 0.221 2013 0.497 0.260 2014 0.457 0.265 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #4 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 50 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.5071 0.2978 2 0.4971 0.2886 3 0.4870 0.2882 4 0.4647 0.2859 5 0.4604 0.2757 6 0.4578 0.2738 7 0.4570 0.2718 8 0.4523 0.2691 9 0.4335 0.2654 10 0.4325 0.2637 11 0.4289 0.2603 12 0.4243 0.2422 13 0.4181 0.2411 14 0.4040 0.2404 15 0.4003 0.2402 16 0.3992 0.2400 17 0.3975 0.2351 18 0.3945 0.2349 19 0.3868 0.2336 20 0.3778 0.2309 21 0.3776 0.2295 22 0.3689 0.2285 23 0.3688 0.2280 24 0.3677 0.2220 25 0.3667 0.2210 26 0.3608 0.2189 27 0.3599 0.2184 28 0.3551 0.2162 29 0.3539 0.2161 30 0.3538 0.2155 31 0.3502 0.2144 32 0.3501 0.2117 33 0.3482 0.2115 34 0.3466 0.2108 35 0.3431 0.2099 36 0.3418 0.2069 37 0.3370 0.2066 38 0.3369 0.2063 39 0.3355 0.2043 40 0.3354 0.2026 41 0.3336 0.2019 42 0.3265 0.2004 43 0.3154 0.1996 44 0.3133 0.1988 45 0.3123 0.1987 46 0.2975 0.1975 47 0.2974 0.1945 48 0.2972 0.1923 49 0.2948 0.1919 50 0.2920 0.1881 51 0.2813 0.1878 52 0.2788 0.1877 53 0.2683 0.1860 54 0.2657 0.1847 55 0.2605 0.1840 56 0.2604 0.1836 57 0.2399 0.1829 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 51 58 0.2385 0.1820 59 0.2372 0.1776 60 0.2335 0.1757 61 0.2306 0.1638 62 0.2292 0.1548 63 0.2165 0.1534 64 0.2115 0.1530 65 0.2094 0.1502 66 0.2068 0.1445 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 52 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.1694 997 763 76 Pass 0.1722 950 708 74 Pass 0.1751 907 647 71 Pass 0.1779 864 574 66 Pass 0.1807 816 519 63 Pass 0.1835 773 468 60 Pass 0.1863 739 416 56 Pass 0.1891 709 376 53 Pass 0.1919 677 335 49 Pass 0.1947 650 304 46 Pass 0.1975 617 273 44 Pass 0.2003 583 250 42 Pass 0.2032 558 223 39 Pass 0.2060 530 199 37 Pass 0.2088 502 171 34 Pass 0.2116 479 149 31 Pass 0.2144 458 135 29 Pass 0.2172 438 117 26 Pass 0.2200 415 107 25 Pass 0.2228 395 96 24 Pass 0.2256 376 88 23 Pass 0.2284 360 83 23 Pass 0.2313 348 75 21 Pass 0.2341 327 68 20 Pass 0.2369 313 65 20 Pass 0.2397 300 58 19 Pass 0.2425 283 49 17 Pass 0.2453 268 43 16 Pass 0.2481 263 36 13 Pass 0.2509 247 33 13 Pass 0.2537 236 30 12 Pass 0.2565 228 29 12 Pass 0.2593 219 29 13 Pass 0.2622 210 25 11 Pass 0.2650 203 23 11 Pass 0.2678 196 19 9 Pass 0.2706 189 13 6 Pass 0.2734 179 12 6 Pass 0.2762 176 9 5 Pass 0.2790 169 9 5 Pass 0.2818 159 8 5 Pass 0.2846 155 6 3 Pass 0.2874 153 5 3 Pass 0.2903 147 1 0 Pass 0.2931 142 1 0 Pass 0.2959 137 1 0 Pass 0.2987 131 0 0 Pass 0.3015 124 0 0 Pass 0.3043 118 0 0 Pass 0.3071 114 0 0 Pass 0.3099 111 0 0 Pass 0.3127 105 0 0 Pass 0.3155 100 0 0 Pass Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 53 0.3184 95 0 0 Pass 0.3212 94 0 0 Pass 0.3240 93 0 0 Pass 0.3268 87 0 0 Pass 0.3296 86 0 0 Pass 0.3324 84 0 0 Pass 0.3352 80 0 0 Pass 0.3380 73 0 0 Pass 0.3408 70 0 0 Pass 0.3436 65 0 0 Pass 0.3465 65 0 0 Pass 0.3493 62 0 0 Pass 0.3521 58 0 0 Pass 0.3549 55 0 0 Pass 0.3577 53 0 0 Pass 0.3605 49 0 0 Pass 0.3633 46 0 0 Pass 0.3661 44 0 0 Pass 0.3689 40 0 0 Pass 0.3717 39 0 0 Pass 0.3746 39 0 0 Pass 0.3774 37 0 0 Pass 0.3802 34 0 0 Pass 0.3830 32 0 0 Pass 0.3858 31 0 0 Pass 0.3886 29 0 0 Pass 0.3914 28 0 0 Pass 0.3942 28 0 0 Pass 0.3970 27 0 0 Pass 0.3998 21 0 0 Pass 0.4027 20 0 0 Pass 0.4055 19 0 0 Pass 0.4083 19 0 0 Pass 0.4111 18 0 0 Pass 0.4139 18 0 0 Pass 0.4167 18 0 0 Pass 0.4195 17 0 0 Pass 0.4223 17 0 0 Pass 0.4251 16 0 0 Pass 0.4279 16 0 0 Pass 0.4308 14 0 0 Pass 0.4336 13 0 0 Pass 0.4364 12 0 0 Pass 0.4392 11 0 0 Pass 0.4420 10 0 0 Pass 0.4448 10 0 0 Pass 0.4476 10 0 0 Pass Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 54 Water Quality Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 55 POC 5 POC #5 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. POC 5 Output Flow Frequency Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC#5 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 Year 0.6189 5 Year 0.7199 10 Year 0.7764 25 Year 0.8395 50 Year 0.8817 100 Year 0.9207 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Mitigated. POC#5 Year Mitigated 1949 0.5415 1950 0.4965 1951 0.5577 1952 0.8518 1953 0.5697 1954 0.6444 1955 0.6609 1956 0.7841 1957 0.7444 1958 0.5166 1959 0.7863 1960 0.3925 1961 0.6951 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 0 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 100 705 Cumulative Probability 1962 0.6121 1963 0.6826 1964 0.6325 1965 0.6376 1966 0.6803 1967 0.5086 1968 0.6771 1969 0.7336 1970 0.5687 1971 0.4671 1972 0.5520 1973 0.6124 1974 0.5564 1975 0.5667 1976 0.5953 1977 0.5511 1978 0.7514 1979 0.5722 1980 0.7211 1981 0.6955 1982 0.6384 1983 0.5480 1984 0.7182 1985 0.4789 1986 0.4540 1987 0.5769 1988 0.5544 1989 0.5442 1990 0.7345 1991 0.6314 1992 0.5930 1993 0.7564 1994 0.4840 1995 0.7963 1996 0.7888 1997 0.6368 1998 0.5194 1999 0.5700 2000 0.4225 2001 0.7105 2002 0.7529 2003 0.8740 2004 0.4854 2005 0.5123 2006 0.7211 2007 0.5376 2008 0.4226 2009 0.6955 2010 0.8037 2011 0.5514 2012 0.6142 2013 0.8280 2014 0.7044 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 56 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:09 PM Page 57 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 58 Mitigated Schematic Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 59 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Basin 4_RRR.wdm MESSU 25 PreBasin 4_RRR.MES 27 PreBasin 4_RRR.L61 28 PreBasin 4_RRR.L62 30 POCBasin 4_RRR1.dat 31 POCBasin 4_RRR2.dat 32 POCBasin 4_RRR3.dat 33 POCBasin 4_RRR4.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 17 IMPLND 1 PERLND 8 RCHRES 1 COPY 501 COPY 502 COPY 503 COPY 504 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 DISPLY 4 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin R4B MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Basin R4A MAX 1 2 31 9 3 R4 MAX 1 2 32 9 4 Tributary 4 MAX 1 2 33 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 503 1 1 504 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 60 # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 17 D, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 17 0 4 1 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 8 0 6 0.05 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 17 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 17 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 8 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 17 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 61 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin R4B*** PERLND 17 0.13 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 17 0.13 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 0.1 RCHRES 1 5 Basin R4A*** PERLND 17 0.15 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 17 0.15 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 0.09 RCHRES 1 5 R4*** PERLND 8 1.12 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 8 1.12 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 0.78 RCHRES 1 5 Basin R4B*** PERLND 17 0.13 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 0.13 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.1 COPY 501 15 Basin R4A*** PERLND 17 0.15 COPY 502 12 PERLND 17 0.15 COPY 502 13 IMPLND 1 0.09 COPY 502 15 R4*** PERLND 8 1.12 COPY 503 12 PERLND 8 1.12 COPY 503 13 IMPLND 1 0.78 COPY 503 15 ******Routing****** RCHRES 1 1 COPY 504 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 62 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 3 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 4 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Tributary 4 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.004591 0.000000 0.000000 0.111111 0.006122 0.000595 0.269828 0.222222 0.007653 0.001360 0.917364 0.333333 0.009183 0.002296 1.936266 0.444444 0.010714 0.003401 3.355370 0.555556 0.012245 0.004677 5.209198 0.666667 0.013776 0.006122 7.533353 0.777778 0.015307 0.007738 10.36322 0.888889 0.016838 0.009524 13.73355 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 63 1.000000 0.018369 0.011480 17.67832 1.111111 0.019900 0.013606 22.23074 1.222222 0.021432 0.015902 27.42327 1.333333 0.022963 0.018368 33.28762 1.444444 0.024494 0.021005 39.85486 1.555556 0.026026 0.023812 47.15543 1.666667 0.027557 0.026789 55.21918 1.777778 0.029089 0.029936 64.07540 1.888889 0.030621 0.033253 73.75288 2.000000 0.032152 0.036740 84.27993 2.111111 0.033684 0.040398 95.68440 2.222222 0.035216 0.044226 107.9937 2.333333 0.036748 0.048224 121.2350 2.444444 0.038280 0.052392 135.4347 2.555556 0.039812 0.056730 150.6193 2.666667 0.041344 0.061239 166.8147 2.777778 0.042877 0.065918 184.0465 2.888889 0.044409 0.070767 202.3400 3.000000 0.045941 0.075787 221.7202 3.111111 0.047474 0.080976 242.2120 3.222222 0.049006 0.086336 263.8397 3.333333 0.050539 0.091866 286.6275 3.444444 0.052071 0.097567 310.5995 3.555556 0.053604 0.103438 335.7794 3.666667 0.055137 0.109479 362.1906 3.777778 0.056670 0.115691 389.8564 3.888889 0.058203 0.122072 418.7999 4.000000 0.059736 0.128624 449.0439 4.111111 0.061269 0.135347 480.6112 4.222222 0.062802 0.142240 513.5241 4.333333 0.064335 0.149303 547.8050 4.444444 0.065868 0.156536 583.4759 4.555556 0.067401 0.163940 620.5588 4.666667 0.068935 0.171514 659.0755 4.777778 0.070468 0.179259 699.0475 4.888889 0.072002 0.187174 740.4963 5.000000 0.073535 0.195259 783.4432 5.111111 0.075069 0.203515 827.9093 5.222222 0.076603 0.211941 873.9155 5.333333 0.078137 0.220538 921.4829 5.444444 0.079670 0.229305 970.6320 5.555556 0.081204 0.238243 1021.383 5.666667 0.082738 0.247351 1073.758 5.777778 0.084272 0.256629 1127.775 5.888889 0.085806 0.266078 1183.455 6.000000 0.087341 0.275697 1240.819 6.111111 0.088875 0.285487 1299.887 6.222222 0.090409 0.295447 1360.677 6.333333 0.091944 0.305578 1423.210 6.444444 0.093478 0.315879 1487.506 6.555556 0.095013 0.326351 1553.584 6.666667 0.096547 0.336993 1621.463 6.777778 0.098082 0.347806 1691.163 6.888889 0.099617 0.358789 1762.703 7.000000 0.101152 0.369943 1836.101 7.111111 0.102686 0.381267 1911.378 7.222222 0.104221 0.392762 1988.552 7.333333 0.105756 0.404427 2067.641 7.444444 0.107291 0.416263 2148.665 7.555556 0.108827 0.428270 2231.641 7.666667 0.110362 0.440447 2316.589 7.777778 0.111897 0.452795 2403.528 7.888889 0.113432 0.465313 2492.474 8.000000 0.114968 0.478002 2583.448 8.111111 0.116503 0.490861 2676.466 8.222222 0.118039 0.503892 2771.547 8.333333 0.119575 0.517092 2868.709 8.444444 0.121110 0.530464 2967.970 8.555556 0.122646 0.544006 3069.348 8.666667 0.124182 0.557718 3172.861 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 64 8.777778 0.125718 0.571602 3278.526 8.888889 0.127254 0.585656 3386.361 9.000000 0.128790 0.599880 3496.384 9.111111 0.130326 0.614276 3608.612 9.222222 0.131862 0.628842 3723.063 9.333333 0.133398 0.643578 3839.754 9.444444 0.134935 0.658486 3958.702 9.555556 0.136471 0.673564 4079.925 9.666667 0.138007 0.688812 4203.439 9.777778 0.139544 0.704232 4329.263 9.888889 0.141080 0.719822 4457.412 10.00000 0.142617 0.735583 4587.904 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 503 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1018 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1019 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 504 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 65 END RUN Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 66 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Basin 4_RRR.wdm MESSU 25 MitBasin 4_RRR.MES 27 MitBasin 4_RRR.L61 28 MitBasin 4_RRR.L62 30 POCBasin 4_RRR1.dat 31 POCBasin 4_RRR2.dat 32 POCBasin 4_RRR3.dat 34 POCBasin 4_RRR5.dat 33 POCBasin 4_RRR4.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 17 IMPLND 1 PERLND 8 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 4 RCHRES 5 RCHRES 6 RCHRES 7 COPY 1 COPY 501 COPY 2 COPY 502 COPY 3 COPY 503 COPY 5 COPY 505 COPY 4 COPY 504 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 DISPLY 5 DISPLY 4 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Surface Swale R4B MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Surface R4A Swale MAX 1 2 31 9 3 RT Edge RRR Pond MAX 1 2 32 9 5 Tributary 4 MAX 1 2 34 9 4 Tributary 4 MAX 1 2 33 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 2 1 1 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 67 502 1 1 3 1 1 503 1 1 5 1 1 505 1 1 4 1 1 504 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 17 D, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 17 0 4 1 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 8 0 6 0.05 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 17 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 17 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 8 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 68 ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 17 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin R4B*** PERLND 17 0.05 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 17 0.05 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 0.18 RCHRES 1 5 Basin R4A*** PERLND 17 0.08 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 17 0.08 RCHRES 3 3 IMPLND 1 0.16 RCHRES 3 5 R4*** PERLND 8 0.1 RCHRES 5 2 PERLND 8 0.1 RCHRES 5 3 IMPLND 1 1.8 RCHRES 5 5 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 69 Basin 4*** PERLND 17 0.05 RCHRES 6 2 PERLND 17 0.05 RCHRES 6 3 IMPLND 1 0.18 RCHRES 6 5 Basin 5*** PERLND 17 0.08 RCHRES 6 2 PERLND 17 0.08 RCHRES 6 3 IMPLND 1 0.16 RCHRES 6 5 Basin 6*** PERLND 8 0.1 RCHRES 6 2 PERLND 8 0.1 RCHRES 6 3 IMPLND 1 1.8 RCHRES 6 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 17 0.05 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 0.18 COPY 1 15 PERLND 17 0.05 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 4 16 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 7 6 RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 7 7 RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 8 PERLND 17 0.08 COPY 2 12 IMPLND 1 0.16 COPY 2 15 PERLND 17 0.08 COPY 2 13 RCHRES 4 1 COPY 4 16 RCHRES 4 RCHRES 7 6 RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 7 7 RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 4 8 PERLND 8 0.1 COPY 3 12 IMPLND 1 1.8 COPY 3 15 PERLND 8 0.1 COPY 3 13 RCHRES 5 1 COPY 4 16 RCHRES 5 RCHRES 7 6 PERLND 17 0.05 COPY 5 12 IMPLND 1 0.18 COPY 5 15 PERLND 17 0.05 COPY 5 13 PERLND 17 0.08 COPY 5 12 IMPLND 1 0.16 COPY 5 15 PERLND 17 0.08 COPY 5 13 PERLND 8 0.1 COPY 5 12 IMPLND 1 1.8 COPY 5 15 PERLND 8 0.1 COPY 5 13 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 16 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 RCHRES 4 1 COPY 502 16 RCHRES 3 1 COPY 502 17 RCHRES 5 1 COPY 503 16 RCHRES 7 1 COPY 504 16 RCHRES 6 1 COPY 505 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 3 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 505 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 5 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 4 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 70 in out *** 1 Surface Swale R4-006 3 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Swale R4B 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 3 Surface R4A Swal-009 3 1 1 1 28 0 1 4 R4A Swale 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 5 RT Edge RRR Pond-015 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 6 Tributary 4 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 7 Tributary 4 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 6 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 7 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3 3 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4 4 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 5 5 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 6 6 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 7 7 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 71 6 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 2 56 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.027525 0.000000 0.000000 0.027473 0.027253 0.000027 0.000000 0.054945 0.026800 0.000055 0.000000 0.082418 0.026349 0.000086 0.000000 0.109890 0.025899 0.000119 0.000000 0.137363 0.025450 0.000155 0.000000 0.164835 0.025002 0.000192 0.000000 0.192308 0.024555 0.000232 0.000000 0.219780 0.024110 0.000274 0.000000 0.247253 0.023666 0.000318 0.000000 0.274725 0.023223 0.000364 0.000000 0.302198 0.022782 0.000412 0.000000 0.329670 0.022342 0.000463 0.000000 0.357143 0.021903 0.000516 0.000000 0.384615 0.021465 0.000571 0.000000 0.412088 0.021028 0.000629 0.000000 0.439560 0.020593 0.000688 0.000000 0.467033 0.020159 0.000750 0.000000 0.494505 0.019726 0.000814 0.000000 0.521978 0.019295 0.000881 0.000000 0.549451 0.018865 0.000950 0.000000 0.576923 0.018436 0.001021 0.000000 0.604396 0.018008 0.001094 0.000000 0.631868 0.017581 0.001170 0.000000 0.659341 0.017156 0.001247 0.000000 0.686813 0.016732 0.001328 0.000000 0.714286 0.016309 0.001410 0.000000 0.741758 0.015888 0.001495 0.000000 0.769231 0.015467 0.001582 0.000000 0.796703 0.015048 0.001672 0.000000 0.824176 0.014631 0.001764 0.000000 0.851648 0.014214 0.001858 0.000000 0.879121 0.013799 0.001955 0.000000 0.906593 0.013385 0.002054 0.000000 0.934066 0.012972 0.002155 0.000000 0.961538 0.012560 0.002259 0.000000 0.989011 0.012150 0.002365 0.000000 1.016484 0.011741 0.002473 0.000000 1.043956 0.011333 0.002584 0.000000 1.071429 0.010927 0.002698 0.000000 1.098901 0.010521 0.002814 0.000000 1.126374 0.010117 0.002932 0.000000 1.153846 0.009714 0.003052 0.000000 1.181319 0.009313 0.003175 0.000000 1.208791 0.008913 0.003301 0.000000 1.236264 0.008514 0.003429 0.000000 1.263736 0.008116 0.003559 0.000000 1.291209 0.007719 0.003692 0.000000 1.318681 0.007324 0.003828 0.000000 1.346154 0.006930 0.003965 0.000000 1.373626 0.006537 0.004106 0.000000 1.401099 0.006145 0.004249 0.000000 1.428571 0.005755 0.004394 0.000000 1.456044 0.005366 0.004542 0.000000 1.483516 0.004978 0.004692 0.000000 1.500000 0.004591 0.009567 0.000000 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 1 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 72 38 6 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.004591 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.027473 0.027980 0.000762 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.054945 0.028436 0.001537 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.082418 0.028893 0.002325 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.109890 0.029352 0.003125 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.137363 0.029811 0.003938 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.164835 0.030272 0.004763 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.192308 0.030734 0.005601 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.219780 0.031198 0.006452 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.247253 0.031663 0.007315 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.274725 0.032129 0.008191 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.302198 0.032596 0.009080 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.329670 0.033064 0.009982 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.357143 0.033534 0.010897 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.384615 0.034005 0.011825 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.412088 0.034477 0.012766 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.439560 0.034950 0.013719 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.467033 0.035425 0.014686 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.494505 0.035901 0.015666 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.521978 0.036378 0.016659 0.034569 0.000000 0.000000 0.549451 0.036857 0.017665 0.116539 0.000000 0.000000 0.576923 0.037336 0.018684 0.225672 0.000000 0.000000 0.604396 0.037817 0.019716 0.355486 0.000000 0.000000 0.631868 0.038299 0.020762 0.501498 0.000000 0.000000 0.659341 0.038783 0.021820 0.659695 0.000000 0.000000 0.686813 0.039267 0.022892 0.826090 0.000000 0.000000 0.714286 0.039753 0.023978 0.996598 0.000000 0.000000 0.741758 0.040240 0.025077 1.167052 0.000000 0.000000 0.769231 0.040729 0.026189 1.333311 0.000000 0.000000 0.796703 0.041218 0.027315 1.491422 0.000000 0.000000 0.824176 0.041709 0.028454 1.637810 0.000000 0.000000 0.851648 0.042202 0.029606 1.769522 0.000000 0.000000 0.879121 0.042695 0.030773 1.884482 0.000000 0.000000 0.906593 0.043190 0.031952 1.981777 0.000000 0.000000 0.934066 0.043685 0.033146 2.061968 0.000000 0.000000 0.961538 0.044183 0.034353 2.127417 0.000000 0.000000 0.989011 0.044681 0.035573 2.182633 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.044881 0.036065 2.263538 0.000000 0.000000 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 4 56 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.027525 0.000000 0.000000 0.027473 0.027253 0.000027 0.000000 0.054945 0.026800 0.000055 0.000000 0.082418 0.026349 0.000086 0.000000 0.109890 0.025899 0.000119 0.000000 0.137363 0.025450 0.000155 0.000000 0.164835 0.025002 0.000192 0.000000 0.192308 0.024555 0.000232 0.000000 0.219780 0.024110 0.000274 0.000000 0.247253 0.023666 0.000318 0.000000 0.274725 0.023223 0.000364 0.000000 0.302198 0.022782 0.000412 0.000000 0.329670 0.022342 0.000463 0.000000 0.357143 0.021903 0.000516 0.000000 0.384615 0.021465 0.000571 0.000000 0.412088 0.021028 0.000629 0.000000 0.439560 0.020593 0.000688 0.000000 0.467033 0.020159 0.000750 0.000000 0.494505 0.019726 0.000814 0.000000 0.521978 0.019295 0.000881 0.000000 0.549451 0.018865 0.000950 0.000000 0.576923 0.018436 0.001021 0.000000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 73 0.604396 0.018008 0.001094 0.000000 0.631868 0.017581 0.001170 0.000000 0.659341 0.017156 0.001247 0.000000 0.686813 0.016732 0.001328 0.000000 0.714286 0.016309 0.001410 0.000000 0.741758 0.015888 0.001495 0.000000 0.769231 0.015467 0.001582 0.000000 0.796703 0.015048 0.001672 0.000000 0.824176 0.014631 0.001764 0.000000 0.851648 0.014214 0.001858 0.000000 0.879121 0.013799 0.001955 0.000000 0.906593 0.013385 0.002054 0.000000 0.934066 0.012972 0.002155 0.000000 0.961538 0.012560 0.002259 0.000000 0.989011 0.012150 0.002365 0.000000 1.016484 0.011741 0.002473 0.000000 1.043956 0.011333 0.002584 0.000000 1.071429 0.010927 0.002698 0.000000 1.098901 0.010521 0.002814 0.000000 1.126374 0.010117 0.002932 0.000000 1.153846 0.009714 0.003052 0.000000 1.181319 0.009313 0.003175 0.000000 1.208791 0.008913 0.003301 0.000000 1.236264 0.008514 0.003429 0.000000 1.263736 0.008116 0.003559 0.000000 1.291209 0.007719 0.003692 0.000000 1.318681 0.007324 0.003828 0.000000 1.346154 0.006930 0.003965 0.000000 1.373626 0.006537 0.004106 0.000000 1.401099 0.006145 0.004249 0.000000 1.428571 0.005755 0.004394 0.000000 1.456044 0.005366 0.004542 0.000000 1.483516 0.004978 0.004692 0.000000 1.500000 0.004591 0.009567 0.000000 END FTABLE 4 FTABLE 3 38 6 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.004591 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.027473 0.027980 0.000762 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.054945 0.028436 0.001537 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.082418 0.028893 0.002325 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.109890 0.029352 0.003125 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.137363 0.029811 0.003938 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.164835 0.030272 0.004763 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.192308 0.030734 0.005601 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.219780 0.031198 0.006452 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.247253 0.031663 0.007315 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.274725 0.032129 0.008191 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.302198 0.032596 0.009080 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.329670 0.033064 0.009982 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.357143 0.033534 0.010897 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.384615 0.034005 0.011825 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.412088 0.034477 0.012766 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.439560 0.034950 0.013719 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.467033 0.035425 0.014686 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.494505 0.035901 0.015666 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.521978 0.036378 0.016659 0.034569 0.000000 0.000000 0.549451 0.036857 0.017665 0.116539 0.000000 0.000000 0.576923 0.037336 0.018684 0.225672 0.000000 0.000000 0.604396 0.037817 0.019716 0.355486 0.000000 0.000000 0.631868 0.038299 0.020762 0.501498 0.000000 0.000000 0.659341 0.038783 0.021820 0.659695 0.000000 0.000000 0.686813 0.039267 0.022892 0.826090 0.000000 0.000000 0.714286 0.039753 0.023978 0.996598 0.000000 0.000000 0.741758 0.040240 0.025077 1.167052 0.000000 0.000000 0.769231 0.040729 0.026189 1.333311 0.000000 0.000000 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 74 0.796703 0.041218 0.027315 1.491422 0.000000 0.000000 0.824176 0.041709 0.028454 1.637810 0.000000 0.000000 0.851648 0.042202 0.029606 1.769522 0.000000 0.000000 0.879121 0.042695 0.030773 1.884482 0.000000 0.000000 0.906593 0.043190 0.031952 1.981777 0.000000 0.000000 0.934066 0.043685 0.033146 2.061968 0.000000 0.000000 0.961538 0.044183 0.034353 2.127417 0.000000 0.000000 0.989011 0.044681 0.035573 2.182633 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.044881 0.036065 2.263538 0.000000 0.000000 END FTABLE 3 FTABLE 5 10 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.081657 0.000000 0.000000 0.650000 0.095845 0.057688 0.087514 1.650000 0.118756 0.164989 0.139431 2.650000 0.142998 0.295865 0.176702 3.650000 0.168503 0.451616 0.207379 4.650000 0.195776 0.633756 0.234070 5.650000 0.224816 0.844052 6.548950 6.650000 0.254867 1.083893 10.42245 7.650000 0.286065 1.354360 13.15390 8.650000 0.318549 1.656667 15.40443 END FTABLE 5 FTABLE 7 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.004591 0.000000 0.000000 0.111111 0.006122 0.000595 0.269828 0.222222 0.007653 0.001360 0.917364 0.333333 0.009183 0.002296 1.936266 0.444444 0.010714 0.003401 3.355370 0.555556 0.012245 0.004677 5.209198 0.666667 0.013776 0.006122 7.533353 0.777778 0.015307 0.007738 10.36322 0.888889 0.016838 0.009524 13.73355 1.000000 0.018369 0.011480 17.67832 1.111111 0.019900 0.013606 22.23074 1.222222 0.021432 0.015902 27.42327 1.333333 0.022963 0.018368 33.28762 1.444444 0.024494 0.021005 39.85486 1.555556 0.026026 0.023812 47.15543 1.666667 0.027557 0.026789 55.21918 1.777778 0.029089 0.029936 64.07540 1.888889 0.030621 0.033253 73.75288 2.000000 0.032152 0.036740 84.27993 2.111111 0.033684 0.040398 95.68440 2.222222 0.035216 0.044226 107.9937 2.333333 0.036748 0.048224 121.2350 2.444444 0.038280 0.052392 135.4347 2.555556 0.039812 0.056730 150.6193 2.666667 0.041344 0.061239 166.8147 2.777778 0.042877 0.065918 184.0465 2.888889 0.044409 0.070767 202.3400 3.000000 0.045941 0.075787 221.7202 3.111111 0.047474 0.080976 242.2120 3.222222 0.049006 0.086336 263.8397 3.333333 0.050539 0.091866 286.6275 3.444444 0.052071 0.097567 310.5995 3.555556 0.053604 0.103438 335.7794 3.666667 0.055137 0.109479 362.1906 3.777778 0.056670 0.115691 389.8564 3.888889 0.058203 0.122072 418.7999 4.000000 0.059736 0.128624 449.0439 4.111111 0.061269 0.135347 480.6112 4.222222 0.062802 0.142240 513.5241 4.333333 0.064335 0.149303 547.8050 4.444444 0.065868 0.156536 583.4759 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 75 4.555556 0.067401 0.163940 620.5588 4.666667 0.068935 0.171514 659.0755 4.777778 0.070468 0.179259 699.0475 4.888889 0.072002 0.187174 740.4963 5.000000 0.073535 0.195259 783.4432 5.111111 0.075069 0.203515 827.9093 5.222222 0.076603 0.211941 873.9155 5.333333 0.078137 0.220538 921.4829 5.444444 0.079670 0.229305 970.6320 5.555556 0.081204 0.238243 1021.383 5.666667 0.082738 0.247351 1073.758 5.777778 0.084272 0.256629 1127.775 5.888889 0.085806 0.266078 1183.455 6.000000 0.087341 0.275697 1240.819 6.111111 0.088875 0.285487 1299.887 6.222222 0.090409 0.295447 1360.677 6.333333 0.091944 0.305578 1423.210 6.444444 0.093478 0.315879 1487.506 6.555556 0.095013 0.326351 1553.584 6.666667 0.096547 0.336993 1621.463 6.777778 0.098082 0.347806 1691.163 6.888889 0.099617 0.358789 1762.703 7.000000 0.101152 0.369943 1836.101 7.111111 0.102686 0.381267 1911.378 7.222222 0.104221 0.392762 1988.552 7.333333 0.105756 0.404427 2067.641 7.444444 0.107291 0.416263 2148.665 7.555556 0.108827 0.428270 2231.641 7.666667 0.110362 0.440447 2316.589 7.777778 0.111897 0.452795 2403.528 7.888889 0.113432 0.465313 2492.474 8.000000 0.114968 0.478002 2583.448 8.111111 0.116503 0.490861 2676.466 8.222222 0.118039 0.503892 2771.547 8.333333 0.119575 0.517092 2868.709 8.444444 0.121110 0.530464 2967.970 8.555556 0.122646 0.544006 3069.348 8.666667 0.124182 0.557718 3172.861 8.777778 0.125718 0.571602 3278.526 8.888889 0.127254 0.585656 3386.361 9.000000 0.128790 0.599880 3496.384 9.111111 0.130326 0.614276 3608.612 9.222222 0.131862 0.628842 3723.063 9.333333 0.133398 0.643578 3839.754 9.444444 0.134935 0.658486 3958.702 9.555556 0.136471 0.673564 4079.925 9.666667 0.138007 0.688812 4203.439 9.777778 0.139544 0.704232 4329.263 9.888889 0.141080 0.719822 4457.412 10.00000 0.142617 0.735583 4587.904 END FTABLE 7 FTABLE 6 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.004591 0.000000 0.000000 0.111111 0.006122 0.000595 0.269828 0.222222 0.007653 0.001360 0.917364 0.333333 0.009183 0.002296 1.936266 0.444444 0.010714 0.003401 3.355370 0.555556 0.012245 0.004677 5.209198 0.666667 0.013776 0.006122 7.533353 0.777778 0.015307 0.007738 10.36322 0.888889 0.016838 0.009524 13.73355 1.000000 0.018369 0.011480 17.67832 1.111111 0.019900 0.013606 22.23074 1.222222 0.021432 0.015902 27.42327 1.333333 0.022963 0.018368 33.28762 1.444444 0.024494 0.021005 39.85486 1.555556 0.026026 0.023812 47.15543 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 76 1.666667 0.027557 0.026789 55.21918 1.777778 0.029089 0.029936 64.07540 1.888889 0.030621 0.033253 73.75288 2.000000 0.032152 0.036740 84.27993 2.111111 0.033684 0.040398 95.68440 2.222222 0.035216 0.044226 107.9937 2.333333 0.036748 0.048224 121.2350 2.444444 0.038280 0.052392 135.4347 2.555556 0.039812 0.056730 150.6193 2.666667 0.041344 0.061239 166.8147 2.777778 0.042877 0.065918 184.0465 2.888889 0.044409 0.070767 202.3400 3.000000 0.045941 0.075787 221.7202 3.111111 0.047474 0.080976 242.2120 3.222222 0.049006 0.086336 263.8397 3.333333 0.050539 0.091866 286.6275 3.444444 0.052071 0.097567 310.5995 3.555556 0.053604 0.103438 335.7794 3.666667 0.055137 0.109479 362.1906 3.777778 0.056670 0.115691 389.8564 3.888889 0.058203 0.122072 418.7999 4.000000 0.059736 0.128624 449.0439 4.111111 0.061269 0.135347 480.6112 4.222222 0.062802 0.142240 513.5241 4.333333 0.064335 0.149303 547.8050 4.444444 0.065868 0.156536 583.4759 4.555556 0.067401 0.163940 620.5588 4.666667 0.068935 0.171514 659.0755 4.777778 0.070468 0.179259 699.0475 4.888889 0.072002 0.187174 740.4963 5.000000 0.073535 0.195259 783.4432 5.111111 0.075069 0.203515 827.9093 5.222222 0.076603 0.211941 873.9155 5.333333 0.078137 0.220538 921.4829 5.444444 0.079670 0.229305 970.6320 5.555556 0.081204 0.238243 1021.383 5.666667 0.082738 0.247351 1073.758 5.777778 0.084272 0.256629 1127.775 5.888889 0.085806 0.266078 1183.455 6.000000 0.087341 0.275697 1240.819 6.111111 0.088875 0.285487 1299.887 6.222222 0.090409 0.295447 1360.677 6.333333 0.091944 0.305578 1423.210 6.444444 0.093478 0.315879 1487.506 6.555556 0.095013 0.326351 1553.584 6.666667 0.096547 0.336993 1621.463 6.777778 0.098082 0.347806 1691.163 6.888889 0.099617 0.358789 1762.703 7.000000 0.101152 0.369943 1836.101 7.111111 0.102686 0.381267 1911.378 7.222222 0.104221 0.392762 1988.552 7.333333 0.105756 0.404427 2067.641 7.444444 0.107291 0.416263 2148.665 7.555556 0.108827 0.428270 2231.641 7.666667 0.110362 0.440447 2316.589 7.777778 0.111897 0.452795 2403.528 7.888889 0.113432 0.465313 2492.474 8.000000 0.114968 0.478002 2583.448 8.111111 0.116503 0.490861 2676.466 8.222222 0.118039 0.503892 2771.547 8.333333 0.119575 0.517092 2868.709 8.444444 0.121110 0.530464 2967.970 8.555556 0.122646 0.544006 3069.348 8.666667 0.124182 0.557718 3172.861 8.777778 0.125718 0.571602 3278.526 8.888889 0.127254 0.585656 3386.361 9.000000 0.128790 0.599880 3496.384 9.111111 0.130326 0.614276 3608.612 9.222222 0.131862 0.628842 3723.063 9.333333 0.133398 0.643578 3839.754 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 77 9.444444 0.134935 0.658486 3958.702 9.555556 0.136471 0.673564 4079.925 9.666667 0.138007 0.688812 4203.439 9.777778 0.139544 0.704232 4329.263 9.888889 0.141080 0.719822 4457.412 10.00000 0.142617 0.735583 4587.904 END FTABLE 6 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 3 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 RCHRES 4 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1003 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1004 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1005 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1006 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1007 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1008 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1009 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 5 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1014 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 5 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1015 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 3 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 703 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 803 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 7 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1020 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 7 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1021 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 4 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 704 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 804 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 6 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1022 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 6 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1023 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 5 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 705 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 505 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 805 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 6 RCHRES ROFLOW RCHRES INFLOW END MASS-LINK 6 Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 78 MASS-LINK 7 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 7 MASS-LINK 8 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 8 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 MASS-LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 17 END MASS-LINK END RUN Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 79 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 80 Mitigated HSPF Message File Basin 4_RRR 1/10/2018 3:57:10 PM Page 81 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2018; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Stormwater Management Report – Appendix E 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 WATER QUANTITY ........................................................................................................................ 5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 5 PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE ............................................................................................. 6 EXISTING SOILS .................................................................................................................. 6 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 6 MODELING PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 9 WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 10 PHASED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................ 12 INTERIM POND DESIGN ................................................................................................... 12 IN STREAM POND DESIGN .............................................................................................. 13 TRANSITION OF INTERIM POND TO ULTIMATE OFFLINE POND ................................ 13 TRANSITION OF INTERIM POND TO IN STREAM POND ............................................... 14 OPERATION AND MAINTENENACE ............................................................................................. 15 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 16 Exhibit 1 – Existing Conditions Map ............................................................................. 17 Exhibit 2 - Soil Survey Map ........................................................................................... 18 Exhibit 3 – Developed Conditions Map ........................................................................ 19 Exhibit 4 - Trust Project Report .................................................................................. 20 Exhibit 5 - Water Quality Calculations ....................................................................... 21 Exhibit 6 – Ultimate Offline Pond Transition ............................................................ 22 Exhibit 7 - Ultimate Instream Pond Transition ......................................................... 23 3 INTRODUCTION This report represents the analysis done for the Roshak Ridge subdivision water quality and detention facility in order to demonstrate compliance with City of Tigard (City) and Clean Water Services (District) standards. These standards include the City’s Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, Stormwater Management 2015, dated July 1, 2015. All calculations and supporting figures are included with this document. This analysis anticipates that the full width of Bull Mountain Rd., along the entire project frontage, will be constructed as part of this development. The analysis also includes detention and water quality treatment for all portions of the future, full width construction, of Roy Rogers Rd. that are tributary to these facilities. The proposed facility will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include a detention pond designed to meet City standards for the construction of all streets and alleys as well 150 homes. The second phase will increase the capacity of the pond to meet City detention requirements for the entire development, as well as the future widening of Roy Rogers Rd. Water quality treatment for the entire development, including Roy Rogers Rd. will be constructed in phase 1. DESIGN STANDARDS The City created stormwater design standards specific to River Terrace that are intended to supplement the District’s Design and Construction Standards dated June 2007. The goal of the City standards was to increase the onsite stormwater detention requirements in order to reduce the effects of hydro-modification on the receiving streams in, and downstream of, River Terrace as a result of development activities. To this end, the City requires that developments shall maintain the duration of flows at their pre-development levels for all flows between one-half of the 2-year peak flow and the 10-year peak flow. 25-year peak flows are required to be attenuated to predevelopment levels. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Roshak Ridge subdivision is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Roy Rogers Rd. and Bull Mountain Rd. The development site is comprised of tax lots 100 through 106 of Washington County Tax Map 2S1W07. The project site, and all area tributary to the project, are in included in Basins T3-2a through T3-2d; within Strategy Area A as shown in the City’s Stormwater Master Plan for River Terrace. 4 The proposed 40.0 acre development will consist of 166 single-family homes on lots of varying size, 76 single-family attached row home, and associated street and utility infrastructure. The proposed development will also include the creation of an onsite stormwater treatment and detention pond. This development creates a unique opportunity to mitigate historical increases in runoff from approximately 60.5 acres of existing development to the east of the Roshak site. This offsite development pre-dates requirements to detain stormwater to prevent flooding or mitigate hydro modification of natural streams. In order to realize this additional benefit, the existing creek that bypasses the proposed pond will have to be diverted into the pond, which will require Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) approval. Since these approvals cannot be secured prior to construction of site improvements, an interim design that provides the flexibility to divert the creek in the future is being proposed. As previously stated, the interim pond will have enough detention capacity to mitigate the additional runoff created by paving all streets and alleys as well as construction of 150 homes. If the required DSL and Corps approvals are obtained, the pond will be enlarged to the north, and the stream will be diverted into the pond. This will provide enough capacity to mitigate increased runoff from all of the following to the new City standard: 1. Full development of the Roshak site 2. Full width widening of Roy Rogers Rd. 3. 25% of the existing offsite development to the east of the Roshak site If the required DSL and Corps approvals cannot be obtained, additional capacity will be added to the interim pond by constructing a two and a half foot high wall on the west and north sides of the interim pond. This will create enough capacity to meet City requirements for the first two items listed above, but will not do anything to mitigate the additional runoff from the existing offsite development. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property slopes from an elevation of 380 feet at the southeast portion of the site to 160 feet at the northwest corner. The existing gradient across the developed portion of the site varies from 4 to 16 percent, with an average gradient of about 9 percent. The following table summarizes the slopes that were used to model the pre-developed condition. 5 TABLE 1 0% - 5% 5% - 15% 15% Area A-1 31% 63% 7% Area A-2 11% 86% 2% Offsite Development 19% 69% 12% The project site is bound by Roy Rogers Rd. to the west, Bull Mountain Rd. to the south, residential development to the east, and agricultural farming to the north. There is one single-family residence and associated accessory buildings on the southeast portion of the property. The remainder of the project site includes agricultural pasture. The northern portion of the site, shown as Area A-1 on the Existing Conditions Map, drains to an existing agricultural ditch that crosses Roy Rogers Rd in three culverts at the northeast corner of the site, shown as POC #3 in Exhibit 1. This ditch will be relocated and enhanced with native plantings as part of the project construction. Area A-1 also includes some property north of the project site that will be diverted to the regional facility being constructed with River Terrace East No. 2. The southern portion of the site, shown as Area A-2, drains overland to roadside ditches on Bull Mountain Rd, and Roy Rogers Rd., ultimately crossing Roy Rogers in a culvert located north of Bull Mountain Rd., shown as POC #2. Area A-2 includes a portion of the property south of Bull Mountain Rd. that will be diverted away from POC #2 as part of the development of South River Terrace. See Exhibit 1 for the Existing Conditions Drainage Map. WATER QUANTITY METHODOLOGY The Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) was used to model both a flood flow frequency analysis, and a flow duration analysis for this project. TRUST uses the U.S. EPA Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran (HSPF) to create a continuous model of flow from the site in both the pre-developed and post-developed condition. The duration of one hundred flowrates between half of the 2-year pre-developed flow and the 10-year pre-developed flow are compared to the duration of those same flowrates in the post-developed condition. In order to meet the City standards, the duration of each of the post-development flowrates may not exceed the pre-developed condition by more than 10%. 6 PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE A majority of the River Terrace area was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002. In their proposed standards, the City defines the pre- developed land use conditions using 2002 aerial topography, and has developed shapefiles of the various land uses for all of River Terrace. Exhibit 1 shows the development site plan, together with the current topography and the land use shapefiles. Total areas for the various land uses that were used in the TRUST model are also shown. A total of 3.04 acres of impervious area, consisting primarily of pavement for Roy Rogers and Bull Mountain Roads, was included in the pre-developed model of the site. Existing impervious surfaces associated with the onsite residence, and the residences south of Bull Mountain are also included in this total. These areas are shown as impervious cover in Exhibit 1. EXISTING SOILS Cascade, Cornelius and Kinton, and Delena silt loams (shown as soil unit numbers 7, 11 and 16 respectively) dominate the site. Cascade, and Cornelius and Kinton silt loams are classified as soil type C while Delena silt loam is classified as soil type D by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soils in group C are considered to be moderately well drained while those in group D are considered to be poorly drained. For purposes of the TRUST modeling, 89% of Area A-1 was modeled using soil type C, and 11% was modeled using soil type D. All of Area A-2 was modeled using soil type C. These ratios were applied to the existing pasture and lawn land uses in the pre- developed condition. The same ratios were used to model the pervious lawn areas for the developed condition. The soil survey map is shown in Exhibit 2 and a breakdown of pre-developed drainage basins by slope, soil type, and land use is shown on pages 3 through 7 of the TRUST report in Exhibit 4. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS In the developed condition, a majority of the development site drains to the detention pond located at the northwest corner of the site, ultimately discharging to the existing culverts at POC #3. This area includes the east half of Bull Mountain Rd., and the south half of Roy Rogers that both previously drained to POC #2. 7 The north half of Roy Rogers, which is too low to drain to the pond, and the relocated stream corridor that conveys all offsite water from the east of the site, both bypass the pond and also discharge to POC #3. The west half of Bull Mountain Rd., and the offsite area of south of Bull Mountain Rd. will continue to drain to POC #2. Since the area tributary to POC #2 is reduced dramatically as a result of this development, detention of runoff from these areas is not needed to meet the City’s standards. In the future, the offsite area south of Bull Mountain Rd. will be diverted to a detention facility constructed as part of the development of South River Terrace, further reducing flows to POC #2. A map showing the developed drainage basins and the locations of the POC’s is included as Exhibit 3. For the developed condition, both the onsite public right of way and the Roy Rogers right of way were modeled at 80% impervious. The Bull Mountain right of way was modeled at 85% impervious, while a 95% impervious fraction was used for the private alley tracts. These ratios reflect full widening of Roy Rogers Rd. and Bull Mountain Rd. to County standards, even though widening of Roy Rogers Rd. will not be part of this development. For purposes of detention, the actual impervious area of the proposed 166 detached single family lots was estimated based on site plans for similarly sized lots, with an allowance for owner constructed patios and walks. This was done because almost a third of these lots are under 2,900 ft2 in total area, so the District standard of 2,640 ft2 of impervious area per lot is overly conservative. The District standard was used for purposes of sizing the water quality treatment facilities as is required. The row home lots were modeled as 80% impervious, while 60% impervious was used for the row home open space tracts. Finally, the reconstructed stream corridor tract, the pond tract, and the open space tracts were modeled using 0%, 4%, and 10% impervious fractions, respectively. Table 2 includes a summary of both the total and impervious areas used to model the site as shown on pages 16 through 21 of the TRUST report in Exhibit 4. 8 TABLE 2 Entire Residential Site Total Area (Ac) Impervious Area (Ac) Row (80%) 10.24 8.19 Alley Tracts (95%) 1.17 1.11 Row Home Lots (80%) 2.11 1.69 Row Home Tracts (60%) 0.19 0.11 Pond Tract (4%) 1.48 0.05 Open Space Tracts (10%) 2.80 0.28 166 Detached Lots 15.95 9.06 Sub-Total 33.95 20.50 Roy Rogers Rd. Into Pond (80%) 1.85 1.48 Stream Corridor (0%) 3.16 0.00 Roy Rogers Rd. Bypass Pond (80%) 2.44 1.95 Bull Mountain Rd. Bypass Pond (85%) 0.78 0.66 Offsite S/O Bull Mtn. Rd. Bypass Pond 1.24 0.12 MODELING PROCESS The first step is to denote the site on the map information sheet and confirm that the program is using the Tualatin rain gage as the source for historical rainfall data. The next step is to input the pervious and impervious information for the pre-developed scenario as discussed earlier in this report. The pre-developed scenario is then run to calculate the flow duration data for the pre-developed condition over the entire 66-year record. The next step is to input the pervious and impervious information for the post- developed scenario and then run the scenario to calculate the flow duration data into the detention pond. Finally, the Auto Pond routine is run to iteratively determine the smallest pond size and associated outlet control structure that will ensure that durations of all flowrates between half of the 2- year and the 10-year are not exceeded as a result of development. The planimetric areas of the 1-foot pond contours as shown on the grading plan are then used as the basis of the stage-storage table. Straight line interpolation between the even 1-foot contours are used to calculate the stage-storage information on the 0.1 ft. intervals that the program uses. This information is entered into the SSD (stage-storage-discharge) table in the program. The outlet configuration that was designed during the Auto Pond 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 WATER QUANTITY......................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 4 PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE ......................................................................................................... 5 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 5 MODELING PROCESS ..................................................................................................................... 6 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 7 OPERATION AND MAINTENENACE ............................................................................................... 8 GEOTECHNICAL ............................................................................................................................. 9 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 1 - Land Use Map .............................................................................................. 10 Exhibit 2 - Soil Survey Map ........................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 3 - Trust Project Report .................................................................................. 12 Exhibit 4 - Water Quality Swale Calculations ........................................................... 13 Exhibit 5 – Preliminary Plat .......................................................................................... 14 Exhibit 6 – Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 7 – Figure 4A: Stormwater Management Plan .............................................. 16 3 INTRODUCTION This report represents the analysis done for the south detention and water quality facility serving the Polygon at the River Terrace Edge subdivision to demonstrate compliance with City of Tigard (City) and Clean Water Services (District) standards. These standards include the City’s Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, Stormwater Management 2015, dated July 1, 2015. All calculations and supporting figures are included with this document. DESIGN STANDARDS The City created stormwater design standards specific to River Terrace that are intended to supplement Clean Water Service’s Design and Construction Standards dated June 2007. The goal of the City standards is to increase the onsite stormwater detention requirements in order to reduce the effects of hydro-modification on the receiving streams in and downstream of River Terrace as a result of development activities. To this end, the City requires that developments maintain the duration of flows at their pre-development levels for all flows between one-half of the 2-year peak flow and the 10-year peak flow. 25-year peak flows are also required to be attenuated to predevelopment levels. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed subdivision is located on tax lots 1200 and 1400 of Washington County Tax Map 2S1W07, on the east side of Roy Rogers Rd., south of Bull Mountain Rd. All developed flows from the lots located on tax lot 1200, lots 208-227 as shown on the Preliminary Plat, will drain to a detention and water quality pond developed as part of the South River Terrace subdivision. Analysis of the facility that will detain and treat the stormwater from this portion of the development will be included in a report submitted as part of a subdivision modification application for South River Terrace. The portion of tax lot 1200 that is being developed is in drainage basin T4-4b which is part of Strategy Area A per the River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan and is designated to drain to Pond #12 located at the southwest corner of tax lot 1200. This approach was determined to be infeasible due to the dense forest canopy and steep grades that dominate the proposed site. For this reason, stormwater will be diverted to Pond #11 as shown on the stormwater management plan which is located within the South River Terrace subdivision. All 4 discussion in the remainder of this report will be limited to the portion of the development that is located on tax lot 1400 and drains to Pond #13 as shown in the stormwater management plan. A copy of Figure 4A of the stormwater management plan is included as Exhibit 7. The project site and all area tributary to the project are in included in Basin T5-5a and a portion of Basin T4-4b, both within Strategy Area A and a portion of Basin T5-6b in strategy area B as shown in the City’s Stormwater Management Plan for River Terrace. The proposed 37 acre development will consist of 162 single-family homes on lots of varying size, 56 single-family attached row houses, and associated street and utility infrastructure. The proposed development will also involve the creation of an onsite stormwater treatment and detention pond. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property slopes from the high point of 338 feet at the northwesterly portion of the site to 238 feet at the southwestern corner. The existing gradient across the developed portion of the site varies from 4 to 30 percent with an average gradient of about 9 percent. The property is bound by Roy Rogers Rd. to the west and a mix of agricultural pasture and forest to the north, east and south. There is one single-family residence located on the highest point on the property. The remainder of the developed portion of the project site is dominated by agricultural pasture. The stream corridor on the southerly portion of the property and the associated wetlands at the southeast portion of the property will remain largely untouched by this development. See Exhibit 6 for existing conditions. WATER QUANTITY METHODOLOGY The Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) was used to model both a flood flow frequency analysis and a flow duration analysis. For the flood flow frequency analysis, TRUST uses the Bulletin #17B method from the United States Geological Service to predict discharges for both the pre-developed and developed condition for return intervals between 2 and 100 years. For the flow duration analysis, the TRUST model uses the results of the flood flow frequency analysis to determine the range of flows that will be analyzed for the site. The duration of one hundred flowrates between half of the 2-year pre-developed flow and the 10-year pre-developed flow are compared to the 5 duration of those same flowrates in the developed condition. In order to meet the City standards, the duration of each of these flowrates may not exceed that of the pre-developed condition by more than 10%. PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE A majority of the River Terrace area was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002. In the new standards, the City is defining the pre-developed land use conditions using 2002 aerial topography and has developed shapefiles of the various land uses for all of River Terrace. Exhibit 1 shows the development site plan together with the 2002 aerial photograph and the land use shapefiles. Total areas for the various land uses that were used in the TRUST model are also shown. A total of 0.36 acres of impervious area representing the existing pavement in Roy Rogers that is visible in the 2002 photo was included in the model. The impervious area associated with the existing single-family residence was not included in the model since construction of the residence occurred after 2002. EXISTING SOILS A variety of silt loams dominate the development site, a majority of which are included in hydrologic soil group C. A total of 20% of the soil is included in soil group C/D while 5% is included in group D. Soils in group C are considered to be moderately well drained, group C/D soils are considered moderately to poorly drained, and group D soils are considered to be poorly drained. A majority of the group C/D and group D soils are located in the wetland and buffer areas that will not be developed and are not tributary to the detention pond. For purposes of the TRUST modeling, 5.5% of the area tributary to the pond was modelled as soil group D and the remainder group C. This ratio was applied to the onsite pasture land use in the pre-developed condition. The same ratio was used to model the pervious lawn areas for the developed condition. The soil survey map is shown in Exhibit 2. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS For the developed condition, all of the right of way tributary to the pond was modeled at 80% impervious. This includes half of the right of way for portion of Roy Rogers Rd. that can drain to the pond. The private alley tracts were modelled as 98% impervious. The location and areas of these right of ways is shown on Exhibit 5. 6 The 56 row home lots were modeled as 80% impervious while the 162 single family lots were modelled as 60% impervious. These numbers are typical for lots of this size and configuration and will be verified during the engineering design process when more information on the final building product is known. Table 1 summarizes all of the pervious and impervious areas that were used to model the site. Exhibit 5 shows the site layout including the location of all lots and tracts listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 Area (Ft2) (Ac) Impervious (Ac) C Lawn Mod (Ac) Onsite R/W (80%) 400,710 9.20 7.36 1.84 Private Alleys (98%) 43,882 1.01 0.99 0.02 56 Row Homes (80%) 135,422 3.11 2.49 0.62 Open Space Tracts (30%) 84,834 1.95 0.58 1.36 Open Space Tracts (50%) 6,364 0.15 0.07 0.07 Pond Tract (5%) 71,741 1.65 0.08 1.56 162 SF Lots (60%) 675,123 15.50 9.30 6.20 Total 1,418,076 32.55 20.87 11.68 MODELING PROCESS The first step in the modeling process is to denote the site on the map information sheet and confirm that the program was using the Tualatin rain gage as the source for historical rainfall data. The next step is to input the pervious and impervious information for the pre-developed scenario as discussed earlier in this report. The pre-developed scenario is then run to calculate the flow duration data for the pre-developed condition over the entire 66-year record. The next step is to input the pervious and impervious information for the post- developed scenario and then run the scenario to calculate the flow duration data that will be flowing into the detention pond. Finally, the Auto Pond routine is run to iteratively determine the smallest pond size and associated outlet control structure that will ensure that durations of all flowrates between half of the 2-year and the 10-year are not exceeded as a result of development. 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 WATER QUANTITY......................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 4 PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE ............................................................................................. 4 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 5 MODELING PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 6 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 7 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 8 OPERATION AND MAINTENENACE ............................................................................................... 9 GEOTECHNICAL ............................................................................................................................. 9 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 10 Exhibit 1 - Land Use Map .............................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 2 - Soil Survey Map ........................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 3 - Trust Project Report .................................................................................. 13 Exhibit 4 - Water Quality Swale Calculations ........................................................... 14 Exhibit 5 - Geotechnical Memorandum ...................................................................... 15 Exhibit 6 – Street Right of Way .................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 7 – Preliminary Plat .......................................................................................... 17 Exhibit 8 – Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... 18 3 INTRODUCTION This report represents the analysis done for the River Terrace Northwest subdivision water quality and detention facility to demonstrate compliance with City of Tigard (City) and Clean Water Services (District) standards. These standards include the City’s Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, Stormwater Management 2015, dated July 1, 2015. All calculations and supporting figures are included with this document. DESIGN STANDARDS The City created stormwater design standards specific to River Terrace that are intended to supplement Clean Water Service’s Design and Construction Standards dated June 2007. The goal of the City standards was to increase the onsite stormwater detention requirements in order to reduce the effects of hydro- modification on the receiving streams in and downstream of River Terrace as a result of development activities. To this end, the City requires that developments shall maintain the duration of flows at their pre-development levels for all flows between one-half of the 2-year peak flow and the 10-year peak flow. 25-year peak flows are also required to be attenuated to predevelopment levels. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed River Terrace Northwest subdivision is comprised of tax lots 1500, 1600, and 1800 of Washington County Tax Map 2S1W08, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Roy Rogers Rd. and Scholls Ferry Rd. Tax lot 1700 which is to the northeast of the project site is outside the project limits but is used in the analysis for detention pond and water quality swale sizing purposes as is half of the right of way for both Roy Rogers Rd. and Scholls Ferry Rd. along the project frontage. The project site and all area tributary to the project are in included in Basins T2-5a and T2-4c within Strategy Area A as shown in the City’s Stormwater Master Plan for River Terrace. The proposed 46.1 acre development will consist of 151 single-family homes on lots of varying size and 65 single-family attached row houses, and associated street and utility infrastructure. The proposed development will also involve the creation of two onsite stormwater treatment and detention ponds. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property slopes from the high point of 318 feet at the northern portion of the site to 202 feet at the southwestern corner. The existing gradient across the developed portion of the site varies from 4 to 10 percent with an average gradient of about 7 percent. The property is bound by Roy Rogers Rd. to the east, Scholls Ferry Rd. to the north, a vegetated drainage to the south, and vacant land to the west. There is one single- family residence and associated accessory buildings on the northeast portion of the property. The remainder of the developed portion of the project site includes agricultural pasture. The stream corridor on the southerly portion of the property and the associated wetlands at the southwest portion of the property will remain largely untouched by this development. See Exhibit 8 for existing conditions WATER QUANTITY METHODOLOGY The Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) was used to model both a flood flow frequency analysis and a flow duration analysis. For the flood flow frequency analysis, TRUST uses the Bulletin #17B method from the United States Geological Service to predict discharges for both the pre-developed and developed condition for return intervals between 2 and 100 years. For the flow duration analysis, the TRUST model uses the results of the flood flow frequency analysis to determine the range of flows that will be analyzed for the site. The duration of one hundred flowrates between half of the 2-year pre-developed flow and the 10-year pre-developed flow are compared to the duration of those same flowrates in the developed condition. In order to meet the City standards, the duration of each of these flowrates may not exceed that of the pre-developed condition by more than 10%. PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE A majority of the River Terrace area was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002. In the proposed standards, the City is defining the pre- developed land use conditions using 2002 aerial topography and has developed shapefiles of the various land uses for all of River Terrace. Exhibit 1 shows the development site plan together with the 2002 aerial photograph and the land use shapefiles. Total areas for the various land uses that were used in the TRUST model are also shown. 5 A total of 0.42 acres of impervious area at the north end of the project site that is visible in the 2002 photo was included in the model. These areas are shown as impervious cover in Exhibit 1. EXISTING SOILS Aloha silt loam and Huberly silt loam (shown as soil unit numbers 1 and 22 respectively) dominate the southern portion of the site. These soil types have been included in the C/D hydrologic soil group by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Cascade silt loam (soil unit number 7B) at the northern portion of the site is classified as soil type C. Soils in group C are considered to be moderately well drained while those in group C/D are considered moderately to poorly drained. For purposes of the TRUST modeling, half of the area covered by the Aloha and Huberly silt loams was considered soil type C and half soil type D, while all of the Cascade silt loam was included as soil type C. The result of this approach was that 62% of the site was soil type C and 38% was Soil type D. This ratio was applied to the onsite pasture and forest land uses in the pre- developed condition while the offsite parcel to the northeast was modeled entirely as soil type C. The same ratio was used to model the pervious lawn areas for the developed condition. The soil survey map is shown in Exhibit 2. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS For the developed condition, all of the right of way tributary to the onsite ponds was modelled at 80% impervious. This includes half of the right of way for both Scholls Ferry Rd. and Roy Rogers Rd. as well as the onsite public right of way and the private street tracts. The location and areas of these right of ways is shown on Exhibit 6. The 151 single family lots were all considered to have 2,640 ft2 of impervious area. Lots 152 through 216 are row homes lots smaller than 2,000 ft2. These lots together with Tracts J-W were modelled at 80% impervious. Tract I which is the future sanitary pump station site was considered to be 60% impervious due to the fill slope on the southerly edge of the tract. Tracts B, D, E and H which include the parks and pond sites were all determined to be 5% impervious. The remaining 8.05 acres which includes the pervious portion of the single family lots and the parks and pond tracts was divided to be 62% soil type C and 38% soil type D as previously discussed. Table 1 includes a summary of the 6 pervious and impervious areas used to model the site. Exhibit 7 shows the site layout including the location of all lots and tracts listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 Area (Ft2)(Ac) Impervious (Ac) C Lawn Mod (Ac) D Lawn Mod (Ac) Scholls Ferry & Roy Rogers R/W (80%)138,956 3.19 2.55 0.40 0.24 Offsite to the northeast (R-12) (55%)87,120 2.00 1.10 0.90 Onsite R/W (80%)385,506 8.85 7.08 1.10 0.67 151 SF Lots (2640 SF/Lot)9.15 Lots 152-216 & Tracts J-W (80%)122,673 2.82 2.25 0.35 0.21 Tract I (60%)15,610 0.36 0.22 0.09 0.05 Tracts B, D, E and H (Parks and Ponds)(5%)231,311 5.31 0.27 Remainder of Site 8.05 4.99 3.06 Total 22.62 7.82 4.24 MODELING PROCESS The first step in the process was to denote the site on the map information sheet and confirm that the program was using the Tualatin rain gage as the source for historical rainfall data. The next step was to input the pervious and impervious information for the pre-developed scenario as discussed earlier in this report. The pre-developed scenario was then run to calculate the flow duration data for the pre-developed condition over the entire 66-year record. The next step was to input the pervious and impervious information for the post-developed scenario and then run the scenario to calculate the flow duration data that will be flowing into the detention pond. Finally, the Auto Pond routine was run to iteratively determine the smallest pond size and associated outlet control structure that will ensure that durations of all flowrates between half of the 2-year and the 10-year are not exceeded as a result of development. The planimetric areas of the 1-foot pond contours as shown on the grading plan were then used as the basis of the stage-storage table. Straight line interpolation between the even 1-foot contours was used to calculate the stage-storage information on the 0.1 ft. intervals that the program uses. This information was entered into the SSD (stage-storage-discharge) table in the program. The outlet configuration that was selected during the Auto Pond routine was then entered into the same SSD table so that the stage-discharge relationship could be added to the SSD table. 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................3 DESIGN STANDARDS ..................................................................................................................3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..............................................................................................................4 WATER QUANTITY .....................................................................................................................4 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................................4 PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE ......................................................................................................4 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................5 MODELING PROCESS .................................................................................................................6 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................7 WATER QUALITY .......................................................................................................................7 OPERATION AND MAINTENENACE ............................................................................................8 GEOTECHNICAL .........................................................................................................................9 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 1 – Existing Shed Map .................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2 – Proposed Shed Map .................................................................................. 12 Exhibit 3 – Soil Survey Map ........................................................................................ 13 Exhibit 4 – Trust Report ............................................................................................. 14 Exhibit 5 - Water Quality Swale Calculations .......................................................... 15 Exhibit 6 – Geotechnical Memorandum .................................................................... 16 3 INTRODUCTION This report represents the analysis done for the South River Terrace subdivision water quality and detention facility to demonstrate compliance with City of Tigard (City) and Clean Water Services (District) standards. These standards include the City’s Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, Stormwater Management 2015, dated July 1, 2015. All calculations and supporting figures are included with this document. DESIGN STANDARDS The City created stormwater design standards specific to River Terrace that are intended to supplement Clean Water Service’s Design and Construction Standards dated June 2007. The goal of the City standards was to increase the onsite stormwater detention requirements in order to reduce the effects of hydro- modification on the receiving streams in and downstream of River Terrace as a result of development activities. To this end, the City requires that developments maintain the duration of flows at their pre-development levels for all flows between one-half of the 2-year peak flow and the 10-year peak flow. 25-year peak flows are also required to be attenuated to predevelopment levels. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed South River Terrace subdivision is comprised of tax lots 1300, 1302, 1303, 1305, 1900, and 2000 of Washington County Tax Map 2S1W07, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Roy Rogers Rd. and Bull Mountain Rd. The proposed facilities are being designed to also meet detention and water quality requirements for future development of Tax lot 1200 and a small portion of Tax Lot 1400, both to the south of the proposed development, as well as the future widening of Roy Rogers Rd. along the project frontage. The project site and all area tributary to the project are in included in Basins T4-4a and T4-4b within Strategy Area A as shown in the City’s Stormwater Master Plan for River Terrace. The proposed 27.3 acre development will consist of 127 single-family homes on lots of varying size, 63 single-family attached row houses, and associated street and utility infrastructure. The proposed development will also involve the creation of an onsite stormwater treatment and detention pond. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property slopes from the high point at an elevation of 334 feet at the northeastern portion of the site to an elevation of 250 feet at the southwestern corner. The existing gradient across the developed portion of the site varies from 5 to 15 percent with about 10% of the site flatter, and 5% of the site steeper. The property is bounded by Roy Rogers Rd. to the west, Bull Mountain Rd. to the north, a vegetated drainage to the south, and residential development to the east. There are four single-family residences and associated accessory buildings on the north portion of the property. The remainder of the developed portion of the project site includes agricultural pasture. The stream corridor on the southerly portion of the property and the associated wetlands at the southwest portion of the property will remain largely untouched by this development. See Exhibit 1 for existing conditions WATER QUANTITY METHODOLOGY The Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) was used to model both a flood flow frequency analysis and a flow duration analysis. For the flood flow frequency analysis, TRUST uses the Bulletin #17B method from the United States Geological Service to predict discharges for both the pre-developed and developed condition for return intervals between 2 and 100 years. For the flow duration analysis, the TRUST model uses the results of the flood flow frequency analysis to determine the range of flows that will be analyzed for the site. The duration of one hundred flowrates between half of the 2-year pre-developed flow and the 10-year pre-developed flow are compared to the duration of those same flowrates in the developed condition. In order to meet the City standards, the duration of each of these flowrates may not exceed that of the pre-developed condition by more than 10%. PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE A majority of the River Terrace area was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002. In the proposed standards, the City is defining the pre- developed land use conditions using 2002 aerial topography and has developed shapefiles of the various land uses for all of River Terrace. Exhibit 1 shows the development site together with the land use shapefiles from the City’s stormwater master plan. Total areas for the various land uses that were used in the TRUST model are also shown. 5 A total of 1.76 acres of impervious area at the north end of the project site was included in the model as well as 0.48 acres of existing pavement in Roy Rogers Rd., along the project frontage. These areas are shown as impervious cover in Exhibit 1. EXISTING SOILS Cornelius and Kinton, Woodburn, and Cascade silt loams (shown as soil unit numbers 11, 45 and 7 respectively) dominate the site. These soil types have been included in the C hydrologic soil group by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls (soil unit number 46) along the drainage channel at the southern portion of the site is classified as soil type B. Soils in group C are considered to have slow infiltration while those in group B are considered to have moderate infiltration. For purposes of the TRUST modeling, 90% of the area tributary to the detention pond was considered type C and 10% was considered type B. This ratio was applied to the onsite pasture, lawn, and forest land uses in the pre-developed condition. The same ratio was used to model the pervious lawn areas for the developed condition. The soil survey map is shown in Exhibit 3. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS For the developed condition, all of the right of way tributary to the onsite ponds was modeled at 80% impervious. This includes half of the right of way for Roy Rogers Rd. as well as the onsite public right of way. The private alleys were modeled as 98% impervious. The location of these right of ways is shown on Exhibit 2. The 145 single family lots were all considered to have 2,640 ft2 of impervious area. The row homes lots are all smaller than 2,000 ft2 and were modelled at 80% impervious, while the open space tracts and the pond tract were modeled as 30% and 5% impervious, respectively. The remaining 9.25 acres, which includes the pervious portion of the single family lots and the parks and pond tracts, was divided to be 90% soil type C and 10% soil type B as previously discussed. Table 1 includes a summary of the pervious and impervious areas used to model the site, including the future offsite development to the south. 6 TABLE 1 Area (Ft2) (Ac) Impervious (Ac) Pervious (Ac) Roy Rogers R/W (80%) 45,713 1.05 0.84 0.21 South River Terrace R/W (80%) 287,262 6.59 5.28 1.32 Private Alleys (98%) 48,879 1.12 1.10 0.02 Row Homes (80%) 74,845 1.72 1.37 0.34 Open Space Tracts (30%) 49,540 1.14 0.34 0.80 Pond Tract (5%) 24,769 0.57 0.03 0.54 127 SF Lots (62%) 482,269 11.07 6.86 4.21 Upchurch R/W (80%) 80,544 1.85 1.48 0.37 21 SF Lots (2,640/Lot) 118,039 2.71 1.27 1.44 Total 27.82 18.58 9.25 MODELING PROCESS The first step in the process is to denote the site on the map information sheet and confirm that the program is using the Tualatin rain gage as the source for historical rainfall data. The next step is to input the pervious and impervious information for the pre-developed scenario as discussed earlier in this report. The pre-developed scenario is then run to calculate the flow duration data for the pre-developed condition over the entire 66-year record. The next step is to input the pervious and impervious information for the post- developed scenario, and then run the scenario to calculate the flow duration values that will be routed through the detention pond. Finally, the Auto Pond routine is run to iteratively determine the smallest pond size and associated outlet control structure that will ensure that durations of all flowrates between half of the 2-year, and the 10-year, are not exceeded as a result of development. The planimetric areas of the 1-foot pond contours as shown on the grading plan are then used as the basis of the stage-storage table. Straight line 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 NEW STANDARDS........................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT DESCRITION .................................................................................................................. 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 3 WATER QUANTITY......................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 4 PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE ............................................................................................. 4 EXISTING SOILS.................................................................................................................. 5 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 5 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 7 OPERATION AND MAINTENENACE ............................................................................................... 7 GEOTECHNICAL ............................................................................................................................. 8 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 8 Exhibit 1 - Land Use Map ................................................................................................ 9 Exhibit 2 - Soil Survey Map ........................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 3 - Trust Project Report .................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 4 - Water Quality Swale Calculations ........................................................... 12 Exhibit 5 - Geotechnical Memorandum ...................................................................... 13 3 INTRODUCTION This report represents the analysis done for the Polygon at West River Terrace subdivision water quality and detention facility to demonstrate compliance with City of Tigard (City) and Clean Water Services (District) standards. These standards include the recently adopted Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, Stormwater Management. All calculations and supporting figures are included with this document. NEW STANDARDS The City adopted the design standards for River Terrace on July 1, 2015. The biggest change in these standards was to increase the onsite stormwater detention requirements in order to reduce the effects of hydro-modification on the receiving streams in and downstream of River Terrace as a result of development activities. To this end, the City requires that developments maintain the duration of flows at their pre-development levels for all flows between one-half of the 2-year peak flow and the 10-year peak flow. 25-year peak flows are also required to be attenuated to predevelopment levels. PROJECT DESCRITION The proposed Polygon at West River Terrace subdivision is located on tax lots 2900, 3000, and 3200 of Washington County Tax Map 2S108, west of Roy Rogers Rd., south of Scholls Ferry Rd., in the River Terrace Community Plan area. Future development of the parcel immediately to the south of the project (TL 3100) was not considered in this study since the City anticipates a proposed revision to the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan will remove this parcel from the regional basin that is tributary to the stormwater facility being built by this project. The proposed 19.01 acre development will consist of 91 single-family homes on lots of varying size and 46 single-family attached row houses, and street and utility infrastructure. The proposed development will also involve the creation of an onsite stormwater treatment and detention facility. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property slopes from the high point of 274 feet at the southern portion of the site to 219 feet at the northeastern edge of the site. The existing gradient across the property varies from 1 to 26 percent, however a majority of the developed portion of the site is sloped at less than 5 percent. The property is bound by Roy Rogers Rd. to the east, a vegetated drainage to the north, vacant land to the west, and several residential properties to the south. There 4 are three single-family residences and associated accessory buildings on the eastern portion of the property. The remainder of the project site includes recently logged land, agricultural fields, and an overgrown Christmas tree farm. Under the current pre-developed conditions, the majority of the site drains north into existing drainage corridors while a small portion of the site drains south. This site is not within a designated FEMA flood plain. WATER QUANTITY METHODOLOGY The Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST) was used to model both a flood flow frequency analysis and a flow duration analysis. For the flood flow frequency analysis, TRUST uses the Bulletin #17B method from the United States Geological Service to predict discharges for both the pre-developed and developed condition for return intervals between 2 and 100 years. For the flow duration analysis, the TRUST model uses the results of the flood flow frequency analysis to determine the range of flows that will be analyzed for the site. The duration of one hundred flowrates between half of the 2-year pre-developed flow and the 10-year pre-developed flow are compared to the duration of those same flowrates in the developed condition. In order to meet the new City standards, the duration of each of these flowrates may not exceed that of the pre-developed condition by more than 10%. PRE-DEVELOPED LAND USE A majority of the River Terrace area was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002. In the new standards, the City defines the pre-developed land use conditions using 2002 aerial topography and has developed shapefiles of the various land uses for all of River Terrace. Exhibit 1 shows the development site plan together with the 2002 aerial photograph and the land use shapefiles. Total areas for the various land uses that were used in the TRUST model are also shown. A total of 0.46 acres that was included in the City’s “Forest” shape file was modeled as pasture since it was clearly devoid of trees in the 2002 aerial photo. A total of 0.64 acres of existing impervious area on the easterly portion of the site that is visible in the aerial photo is also included in the model. 5 EXISTING SOILS Existing soils on the site are made up of Cascade, and Woodburn silt loam soils which are within hydrologic group C and Aloha silt loam which is within hydrologic group C/D. Soils in group C are considered to be moderately well drained while those in group C/D are considered moderately to poorly drained. Approximately 20% of the site is within group C/D, half of which is modeled as group C and half as group D for both the pre-developed and developed conditions. The soil survey map is shown in Exhibit 2. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS The site will drain to the north and will be connected to a proposed drainage system that ultimately discharges to the proposed onsite detention pond. The onsite street runoff will be collected by a series of catch basins and the lots will drain into storm laterals that will be connected to storm mains in the interior streets. A majority of the drainage from the westerly half of Roy Rogers will also be collected and diverted to the onsite system. All runoff will be directed to a flow splitter structure that will divert all flows up to the water quality storm flowrate to the water quality swale. All flows in excess of the water quality flowrate will bypass the water quality swale and flow directly to the detention pond. The sump in the flow splitter structure is sized to meet the storage requirements of the 25-year storm (5.09 cfs) for the entire site. The entire developed area was modeled using an average of 71.4% impervious. This number is typical for the proposed densities in this development given that a significant portion of the pond tract will be lined and the project does not include a park site. The areas for the various proposed land uses and the methodology used to determine the impervious fraction are shown in Table 1. 6 TABLE 1 Impervious Area Total Area (ft2)Total Area (Ac) Impervious Area (Ac) Pervious Area (Ac) Row Homes (80% Imp)(Lots 1-37, 129-137)63,802 1.46 1.17 0.29 Townhomes (60% Imp.)(Lots 38-82, 114-128)172,178 3.95 2.37 1.58 Larger Lots (2640 ft2/lot)(Lots 83-113)150,799 3.46 1.88 1.58 Tracts C,I,J,K,N,O,P,Q (100% Imp.)54,912 1.26 1.26 0.00 Tracts E,F,G,R,T (60% Imp)5,291 0.12 0.07 0.05 Tracts B,H,D,S (20% Imp.)7,793 0.18 0.04 0.14 Tract L (Pond Tract, liner)48,325 1.11 0.92 0.19 Onsite Public Streets(80% Imp.)223,151 5.12 4.10 1.02 Roy Rogers (85% Imp)31,653 0.73 0.62 0.11 Total 17.40 12.42 4.97 RESULTS Results of the TRUST flood frequency analysis determined that peak flowrates being discharged from the proposed detention facility do not exceed the pre- developed peak flowrates for return intervals between 2 and 25 years. A summary of these results is given in Table 2. Results of the flow duration analysis show that the duration of all flowrates between half of the 2-year and the 10-year pre-developed flowrates were not exceeded by more than 10 percent as a result of the development of this project. Detailed results are available on Pages 18 and 19 of the TRUST Project Report included as Exhibit 3. TABLE 2 Peak Flowrates (cfs) 2-YEAR 5-YEAR 10-YEAR 25-YEAR 100-YEAR Pre-Developed 0.80 1.18 1.43 1.74 2.18 Developed 3.71 4.34 4.70 5.09 5.60 Mitigated Developed 0.43 0.61 0.76 0.98 1.38 A detention pond will be constructed with this development to detain the onsite developed runoff and to release the stormwater into the existing stream at or below pre-developed levels. The stage-storage-discharge table for the Page 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN (CIP) for Phase II Development Code Amendments Related to Housing Project Background In 2013, as part of a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan required by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the City of Tigard commissioned a housing needs analysis. The resulting Housing Strategies Report, prepared by Angelo Planning Group, made a number of policy recommendations related to allowing a wider variety of housing typologies in the city. These typologies generally fit into the “missing middle” of housing types that have been identified as needed region-wide, most recently by Metro’s 2016 Equitable Housing Strategies document. These missing middle housing types are intended to bridge the gap between low density detached single-family residential housing types and higher-density multifamily and mixed-use structures. These housing types provide flexibility for families and allow older residents to age in place. One missing middle housing type, the accessory dwelling unit (ADU), has specifically been promoted by the American Association of Retired Persons for more than two decades as a solution to providing housing for seniors that allows them to remain integrated with their neighborhood and community. Missing middle housing has the added benefit of providing an affordable option to young couples and small families. Housing availability has become a major issue region- and state-wide. According to Emily Lieb, Equitable Housing Project Manager at Metro, the 2010-2014 American Community Survey showed that there were 67,000 renter households (over ¼ of all renter households) in Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah Counties paying more than half of their income toward rent. About half of these households (33,130) lived in Portland; the other half lived outside Portland in the rest of the three-county region. Rents have risen approximately 25% since these data were published, while incomes have increased at a slower pace over the same period, leading to an expectation that even more households are cost-burdened. The issue of housing availability and the concomitant problem of housing affordability have become so pressing in jurisdictions across the state that in 2017, the state legislature stepped in. In addition to other changes to encourage increased housing supply and affordability, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 1051. This bill requires all jurisdictions to provide for detached, attached, and interior ADUs in all residentially-zoned areas. Currently, the City of Tigard only allows attached and interior accessory dwelling units. Staff is currently developing amendments to the Tigard Development Code to address the requirements of SB1051 as well as the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report for a greater variety of missing middle housing typologies in accordance with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 10. Page 2 Because these amendments represent policy changes, staff has developed a public engagement plan to meet Goal 1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan: To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Citizen Involvement Plan (CIP) explains how the City will garner public input regarding proposed Development Code changes. Goal of Citizen Involvement Plan To provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the preparation and adoption of amendments to the Tigard Development Code. Input Desired Tigard Development Code section 18.510 provides standards for the development of residentially-zoned properties. TDC section 18.710 provides additional standards for the development of accessory dwelling units. Each of these sections of the development code provides a guiding statement based on the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose statement of Section 18.510 in particular is to: PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible nonresidential development— schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services—at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Another purpose of these regulations is to create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-occupied and rental housing at affordable prices is encouraged. This can be accomplished by providing residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs. Citizen Involvement Strategies GENERAL PUBLIC OUTREACH General public outreach will utilize the media and the internet to reach a broad population. Media coverage – The city will prepare periodic press releases. City website – A page on the City’s website will provide information about the proposed code amendments, specific information about how to provide input on the code amendments, and contact information for the project manager. City’s Facebook page and Twitter – Posts will alert viewers about the code amendment Page 3 process. Cityscape - The City’s email newsletter will contain articles about the code amendment process. Interested Parties Mailing List – As people express interest, the City will develop an interested parties list in order to maintain contact with those who want to follow the land use process. This list will include people from the developer interest groups, the community interest groups, and the general public. Open House – The City will host an Open House to explain and gather input on the proposed development code changes. The Open House will be advertised in various community calendars, as well as through all the outreach efforts listed above. COMMUNITY GROUPS OUTREACH Staff will send notice of the Open House and public hearings to the following organizations: Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, affordable housing providers, neighborhood associations, and additional groups that could have an interest in the project or that have requested notifications. HOUSING TYPOLOGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Staff has proposed convening an advisory committee to provide guidance and feedback on proposed changes. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION The Planning Commission will hold at least one work session to consider the recommendations of staff and the advisory committee and to review and incorporate public input. All planning commission agenda packets are posted on the city’s website. MEASURE 56 NOTICE Although the proposed changes to housing policy are not anticipated to included changes that limit or prohibit currently permissible land uses, the rest of the code package most likely will. As a result, pursuant to Measure 56, notice will be provided to all property owners in Tigard who are likely to be affected by the changes. PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to Tigard Development Code section 18.390.060.D, notice of all public hearings pertaining to amending the Tigard Development Code will be published in the Tigard Times newspaper. Notices will also be sent to the list of interested parties and the agenda packets sent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s respective mailing lists. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council will hold public hearings on the proposed legislative code amendments. NOTICE TO DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT The State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will be notified of development code amendments prior to the Tigard Planning Commission public hearing on proposed changes. DLCD will be notified after these amendments have been adopted by the Tigard City Council. 1 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Schuyler Warren, Associate Planner Re: Policy and Procedures Project – Housing Items Date: February 20, 2018 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a briefing on proposed policy changes to the development code. These changes are part of a grouped package of amendments that follow the Phase I Admin and Procedures update passed in November 2017. This memorandum will only cover amendment package items related to housing policy updates. Future briefings will cover procedural changes, strategic plan implementation, and miscellaneous policy changes. The Citizen Involvement Plan for this project is attached. A Housing Options Task Force has been formed, and will help provide valuable feedback on proposed changes to housing policy. This group will meet for the first time on February 21 and will consider changes to the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) code. Based on direction from Planning Commission and the Task Force, certain proposed changes will be brought to a public Open House later in the spring. 1. Accessory Dwelling Units Oregon Senate Bill 1051, passed in the 2017 legislative session, has mandated a number of changes to housing policy statewide. Among these is a requirement for all cities with a population over 2,500 to allow ADUs in all zones where single-family detached housing is allowed, subject to reasonable design and siting regulations. Currently, the Tigard Develo pment Code only allows attached ADUs, and includes some requirements that are not clear and objective. As part of the bill, the legislature also redefined “needed housing” as any housing. While the bill is not clear, many planning practitioners across the state interpret this to mean that the requirement for clear and objective standards applies to ADUs. Since Tigard has not allowed detached ADUs prior to these amendments, no clear and objective standards for the siting and design of ADUs exists in the code. 2 The addition of detached ADU standards also provides an opportunity to revisit many of the current ADU standards in the code, including parking requirements, maximum size, setbacks, and dimensional standards. Additionally, the Tigard Development Code currently includes a requirement that an owner occupy either the primary unit, or the ADU. It is not clear if this requirement is legal and there are questions of enforceability. Finally, the code will need to address allowable uses for ADUs. Currently, the code allows only one home occupation in a primary residence with an ADU (two are typically allowed otherwise). In addition, it may be worthwhile to consider expressly prohibiting using ADUs for short-term rentals. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Design and siting standards - Parking requirements - Ownership requirements - Home occupations - Short term rentals 2. Rowhouses One of the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report was to allow attached single-family housing city-wide. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Should attached single-family housing be allowed in all zones? - What, if any, additional design and siting standards should apply? 3. Duplexes Similarly, the 2013 Housing Strategies Report recommended reducing the minimum lot sizes for duplexes and allowing them outright, rather than as a conditional use. Currently, duplexes are not allowed in the lowest density zones, and are a conditional use in medium-density zones. The only approval criteria in the conditional use chapter for duplexes is that they meet the minimum lot size. This standard is clear and objective and could be met without conditional use review. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Duplexes could be allowed in all zones - Duplexes could be allowed outright on all corner lots - Minimum lot size could be reduced - Conditional use review requirement could be removed 3 4. Cottage Clusters Cottage clusters, recommended in the 2013 report, are a single-family detached housing type that clusters smaller units (typically 1,000 square feet or less) around a common green area with parking access at the periphery. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Cottage clusters could be allowed in all zones - Minimum lot size - Cottage clusters and density standards 5. Courtyard Living Courtyard units are an important missing middle housing type that has received renewed interest in recent years. Exclusionary zoning in many cities in the post-war era effectively outlawed this previously common housing type. Courtyard units have the advantage of providing pedestrian- friendly residential development that blends well with single-family residential uses. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Courtyard units could be allowed in some zones outright. - In some zones, courtyard units could be allowed by right under 5 units, or conditionally at 5 units or above. - In some zones, courtyard units could be allowed on collector roads or at intersections of higher-classification roads. 6. Live/Work Units Another recommendation of the 2013 report was for live/work units allowed in some commercial zones. This housing type is typically arranged with a dwelling unit either above or behind a small commercial retail or light industrial use. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Live/work units could be compatible in certain commercial zones 7. Incentive Zoning Other jurisdictions have implemented density and height bonuses as an incentive to the creation of more affordable housing. The 2013 report makes a recommendation to consider this option in Tigard. Currently, no density or height bonuses are provided for in the code. Incentive bonuses have been a popular item of discussion in jurisdictions throughout the Metro region, however few cities have implemented them. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Bonuses could be an option for incentivizing affordable housing development. 4 - Options include bonuses to density, height, FAR, or reduction in required parking, open space, or other standards 8. Group Living and Transitional Housing Federal law prohibits standards that treat group living differently than household living. The development code currently includes restrictions and procedures for group living that may not be allowed. The code currently includes a definition for both group living and transitional housing. If tenancy under these types is presumed to be the same, the distinction may not be permissible. Other jurisdictions include transitional housing as a separate use category, but base the use on short-term tenancy rather than on the types of tenants. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Transitional housing could be redefined as short-term (30 days or less) tenancy. Attach: Citizen Involvement Plan (CIP) Page 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN (CIP) for Phase II Development Code Amendments Related to Housing Project Background In 2013, as part of a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan required by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the City of Tigard commissioned a housing needs analysis. The resulting Housing Strategies Report, prepared by Angelo Planning Group, made a number of policy recommendations related to allowing a wider variety of housing typologies in the city. These typologies generally fit into the “missing middle” of housing types that have been identified as needed region-wide, most recently by Metro’s 2016 Equitable Housing Strategies document. These missing middle housing types are intended to bridge the gap between low density detached single-family residential housing types and higher-density multifamily and mixed-use structures. These housing types provide flexibility for families and allow older residents to age in place. One missing middle housing type, the accessory dwelling unit (ADU), has specifically been promoted by the American Association of Retired Persons for more than two decades as a solution to providing housing for seniors that allows them to remain integrated with their neighborhood and community. Missing middle housing has the added benefit of providing an affordable option to young couples and small families. Housing availability has become a major issue region- and state-wide. According to Emily Lieb, Equitable Housing Project Manager at Metro, the 2010-2014 American Community Survey showed that there were 67,000 renter households (over ¼ of all renter households) in Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah Counties paying more than half of their income toward rent. About half of these households (33,130) lived in Portland; the other half lived outside Portland in the rest of the three-county region. Rents have risen approximately 25% since these data were published, while incomes have increased at a slower pace over the same period, leading to an expectation that even more households are cost-burdened. The issue of housing availability and the concomitant problem of housing affordability have become so pressing in jurisdictions across the state that in 2017, the state legislature stepped in. In addition to other changes to encourage increased housing supply and affordability, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 1051. This bill requires all jurisdictions to provide for detached, attached, and interior ADUs in all residentially-zoned areas. Currently, the City of Tigard only allows attached and interior accessory dwelling units. Staff is currently developing amendments to the Tigard Development Code to address the requirements of SB1051 as well as the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report for a greater variety of missing middle housing typologies in accordance with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 10. Page 2 Because these amendments represent policy changes, staff has developed a public engagement plan to meet Goal 1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan: To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Citizen Involvement Plan (CIP) explains how the City will garner public input regarding proposed Development Code changes. Goal of Citizen Involvement Plan To provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the preparation and adoption of amendments to the Tigard Development Code. Input Desired Tigard Development Code section 18.510 provides standards for the development of residentially-zoned properties. TDC section 18.710 provides additional standards for the development of accessory dwelling units. Each of these sections of the development code provides a guiding statement based on the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose statement of Section 18.510 in particular is to: PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible nonresidential development— schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services—at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Another purpose of these regulations is to create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-occupied and rental housing at affordable prices is encouraged. This can be accomplished by providing residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs. Citizen Involvement Strategies GENERAL PUBLIC OUTREACH General public outreach will utilize the media and the internet to reach a broad population. Media coverage – The city will prepare periodic press releases. City website – A page on the City’s website will provide information about the proposed code amendments, specific information about how to provide input on the code amendments, and contact information for the project manager. City’s Facebook page and Twitter – Posts will alert viewers about the code amendment Page 3 process. Cityscape - The City’s email newsletter will contain articles about the code amendment process. Interested Parties Mailing List – As people express interest, the City will develop an interested parties list in order to maintain contact with those who want to follow the land use process. This list will include people from the developer interest groups, the community interest groups, and the general public. Open House – The City will host an Open House to explain and gather input on the proposed development code changes. The Open House will be advertised in various community calendars, as well as through all the outreach efforts listed above. COMMUNITY GROUPS OUTREACH Staff will send notice of the Open House and public hearings to the following organizations: Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, affordable housing providers, neighborhood associations, and additional groups that could have an interest in the project or that have requested notifications. HOUSING TYPOLOGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Staff has proposed convening an advisory committee to provide guidance and feedback on proposed changes. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION The Planning Commission will hold at least one work session to consider the recommendations of staff and the advisory committee and to review and incorporate public input. All planning commission agenda packets are posted on the city’s website. MEASURE 56 NOTICE Although the proposed changes to housing policy are not anticipated to included changes that limit or prohibit currently permissible land uses, the rest of the code package most likely will. As a result, pursuant to Measure 56, notice will be provided to all property owners in Tigard who are likely to be affected by the changes. PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to Tigard Development Code section 18.390.060.D, notice of all public hearings pertaining to amending the Tigard Development Code will be published in the Tigard Times newspaper. Notices will also be sent to the list of interested parties and the agenda packets sent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s respective mailing lists. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council will hold public hearings on the proposed legislative code amendments. NOTICE TO DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT The State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will be notified of development code amendments prior to the Tigard Planning Commission public hearing on proposed changes. DLCD will be notified after these amendments have been adopted by the Tigard City Council. 1 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Schuyler Warren, Associate Planner Re: Policy and Procedures Project – Housing Items Date: February 20, 2018 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a briefing on proposed policy changes to the development code. These changes are part of a grouped package of amendments that follow the Phase I Admin and Procedures update passed in November 2017. This memorandum will only cover amendment package items related to housing policy updates. Future briefings will cover procedural changes, strategic plan implementation, and miscellaneous policy changes. The Citizen Involvement Plan for this project is attached. A Housing Options Task Force has been formed, and will help provide valuable feedback on proposed changes to housing policy. This group will meet for the first time on February 21 and will consider changes to the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) code. Based on direction from Planning Commission and the Task Force, certain proposed changes will be brought to a public Open House later in the spring. 1. Accessory Dwelling Units Oregon Senate Bill 1051, passed in the 2017 legislative session, has mandated a number of changes to housing policy statewide. Among these is a requirement for all cities with a population over 2,500 to allow ADUs in all zones where single-family detached housing is allowed, subject to reasonable design and siting regulations. Currently, the Tigard Development Code only allows attached ADUs, and includes some requirements that are not clear and objective. As part of the bill, the legislature also redefined “needed housing” as any housing. Whil e the bill is not clear, many planning practitioners across the state interpret this to mean that the requirement for clear and objective standards applies to ADUs. Since Tigard has not allowed detached ADUs prior to these amendments, no clear and objective standards for the siting and design of ADUs exists in the code. 2 The addition of detached ADU standards also provides an opportunity to revisit many of the current ADU standards in the code, including parking requirements, maximum size, setbacks, and dimensional standards. Additionally, the Tigard Development Code currently includes a requirement that an owner occupy either the primary unit, or the ADU. It is not clear if this requirement is legal and there are questions of enforceability. Finally, the code will need to address allowable uses for ADUs. Currently, the code allows only one home occupation in a primary residence with an ADU (two are typically allowed otherwise). In addition, it may be worthwhile to consider expressly prohibiting using ADUs for short-term rentals. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Design and siting standards - Parking requirements - Ownership requirements - Home occupations - Short term rentals 2. Rowhouses One of the recommendations of the 2013 Housing Strategies Report was to allow attached single-family housing city-wide. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Should attached single-family housing be allowed in all zones? - What, if any, additional design and siting standards should apply? 3. Duplexes Similarly, the 2013 Housing Strategies Report recommended reducing the minimum lot sizes for duplexes and allowing them outright, rather than as a conditional use. Currently, duplexes are not allowed in the lowest density zones, and are a conditional use in medium-density zones. The only approval criteria in the conditional use chapter for duplexes is that they meet the minimum lot size. This standard is clear and objective and could be met without conditional use review. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Duplexes could be allowed in all zones - Duplexes could be allowed outright on all corner lots - Minimum lot size could be reduced - Conditional use review requirement could be removed 3 4. Cottage Clusters Cottage clusters, recommended in the 2013 report, are a single-family detached housing type that clusters smaller units (typically 1,000 square feet or less) around a common green area with parking access at the periphery. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Cottage clusters could be allowed in all zones - Minimum lot size - Cottage clusters and density standards 5. Courtyard Living Courtyard units are an important missing middle housing type that has received renewed interest in recent years. Exclusionary zoning in many cities in the post-war era effectively outlawed this previously common housing type. Courtyard units have the advantage of providing pedestrian- friendly residential development that blends well with single-family residential uses. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Courtyard units could be allowed in some zones outright. - In some zones, courtyard units could be allowed by right under 5 units, or conditionally at 5 units or above. - In some zones, courtyard units could be allowed on collector roads or at intersections of higher-classification roads. 6. Live/Work Units Another recommendation of the 2013 report was for live/work units allowed in some commercial zones. This housing type is typically arranged with a dwelling unit either above or behind a small commercial retail or light industrial use. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Live/work units could be compatible in certain commercial zones 7. Incentive Zoning Other jurisdictions have implemented density and height bonuses as an incentive to the creation of more affordable housing. The 2013 report makes a recommendation to consider this option in Tigard. Currently, no density or height bonuses are provided for in the code. Incentive bonuses have been a popular item of discussion in jurisdictions throughout the Metro region, however few cities have implemented them. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Bonuses could be an option for incentivizing affordable housing development. 4 - Options include bonuses to density, height, FAR, or reduction in required parking, open space, or other standards 8. Group Living and Transitional Housing Federal law prohibits standards that treat group living differently than household living. The development code currently includes restrictions and procedures for group living that may not be allowed. The code currently includes a definition for both group living and transitional housing. If tenancy under these types is presumed to be the same, the distinction may not be permissible. Other jurisdictions include transitional housing as a separate use category, but base the use on short-term tenancy rather than on the types of tenants. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: - Transitional housing could be redefined as short-term (30 days or less) tenancy. Attach: Citizen Involvement Plan (CIP)