City of Portland Hayden Island Existing Conditions Reports September 7, 2007 Prepared by: Table of Contents Hayden Island Existing Conditions Reports by Memorandum Number 1. State Rules Regarding Floating Homes and Moorages .......................................................... 1-1 2. Real Estate Values (ED Hovee) ............................................................................................. 2-1 3. Site Design and Building Characteristics ............................................................................... 3-1 4. Potentially Contaminated Sites .............................................................................................. 4-1 5. Drinking Water ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 6. Emergency Services ............................................................................................................... 6-1 7. Sanitary and Storm Sewer Infrastructure ............................................................................... 7-1 8. Natural Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 9. Natural Resources Inventory, the Quality/Quantity of Natural Resources, and Federal and State Permitting .......................................................................................... 9-1 10. Airport Noise Issues ............................................................................................................. 10-1 Figures Floating Homes and Moorages Map ...................................................................................... 1-5 Hayden Island Building Types Map ...................................................................................... 3-2 Sanitary Sewer Map ............................................................................................................... 7-5 Storm Sewer Map ................................................................................................................... 7-6 Relative Earthquake Hazards Map ......................................................................................... 8-5 FEMA 100 Yr Floodplain Map .............................................................................................. 8-7 1996 Flood Area Map ............................................................................................................ 8-9 Hayden Island Zoning Map .................................................................................................... 9-6 Environmental Zone Map ...................................................................................................... 9-7 Noise Exposure Map ............................................................................................................ 10-5 Memorandum 1 1-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Sharon Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report State Rules Regarding Floating Homes and Moorages Introduction: The people of Oregon are the owners of the submerged and submersible land underlying most navigable, tidally-influenced waters, non-tidally-influenced beds, banks and lakes in Oregon. In most cases, this ownership, which was granted by the federal government when Oregon became a state, extends to the line of ordinary high water or high tide. The federal government did not specify which rivers should be publicly-owned, and over the ensuing years, portions of the beds and banks of 12 rivers have been determined to be publicly-owned through: court cases; legislatively directed studies; acts of the Oregon Legislature; and, since 1995, a study process established in Oregon law (ORS 274.400 to ORS 274.412) and the department’s rules governing this process (OAR 141-121-0000 through 141-121-0040). Most of Oregon’s submerged and submersible land is held and managed by the State Land Board, which consists of the Governor, Secretary of State, and State Treasurer. As the Land Board’s administrative arm, the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) is responsible for most of the day- to-day management of publicly-owned submerged and submersible land. In administering this land, DSL must consider Constitutional and statutory requirements, Land Board directives, and the public trust interests of all Oregonians. In many places throughout Oregon, marinas, wharves, docks, floating homes, log rafts, and ship repair facilities have been constructed on publicly-owned submerged and submersible waterway land. Often, because of its desirability, restaurants, hotels, and tourist facilities are situated next to or on submerged and submersible land. This land is also sometimes dredged by privately-owned companies to produce commercial grade sand and gravel. Given the high public demand for the state’s submerged and submersible land, it is critical that this resource be carefully managed and the citizens of Oregon be fairly compensated for its use. DSL issues leases, licenses, temporary-use permits and registrations for uses of state-owned submerged and submersible land. Other public agencies have responsibility for water quality, safety, and public access (e.g., the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Marine Board). The following uses of state-owned submerged and submersible lands require a lease from DSL: • Industrial and/or commercial business areas • Houseboats and houseboat moorages • Commercial and workboat moorages 1-2 • Log storage and booming areas, including millside boom makeup and breakdown areas • Historical vessels • Combination boat houses and combination boat house moorages • Marinas • Private non-commercial docks/floats and boat houses larger than 2,500 square feet (excluding gangways, dolphins, pilings and protective booms) • Floating recreational cabins larger than 1,500 square feet (excluding gangways, dolphins, pilings and protective booms) • Aquaculture of plants and animals for domestic or commercial use (excluding oysters, clams and mussels) • Other structures not qualifying for registration • Sand and gravel removal • Other uses not exempted by law The following uses on or over state-owned submerged and submersible lands may require a license, easement or right-of-way from DSL: • Water ditches for irrigation, manufacturing, mining • Water ditches or pipes for domestic use or fire extinguishments • Domestic and industrial water supply mains and sanitary pressure mains • Outfall structures, including storm water, sewer, cooling water outfalls and other structures that discharge material • Water gas, electric, or communication service lines, fixtures and facilities • Railroad tracks, bridges and related facilities • Roadways and bridges for motor traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians • Skylines, logging lines, ferry skylines and cable footbridges • Boat ramps, landing, transient docks/floats and viewing structures owned by a public agency Regulations: Floating homes and moorages are regulated by the State of Oregon and local jurisdictions. The state regulations are defined in state law and administrative rules. The primary applicable State of Oregon regulations include: 1. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 274 defines state law regarding submersible and submerged lands, including moorage and floating home uses on waters of the state. A copy can be at the following web link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/274.html . This statute defines submerged lands as below the line of ordinary low water, and submersible lands as between ordinary high water and ordinary low water. It defines that jurisdiction of these lands is vested in the State of Oregon. It states that no person can acquire any right, title or interest in these lands except as provided by statute. The statute defines the Department of State Lands (DSL) as the regulatory authority over these lands and makes provisions for DSL to lease, sell or grant easements over the lands, with the approval of the State Land Board. 2. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 90.680 defines state law regarding residential land lords and tenants, and includes rights related to rental of moorage space for floating homes. A copy can be at the following web link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/090.html . Floating home structures are typically owed by the residents, but are frequently located in moorages in leased or rented 1-3 spaces. In this statute floating homes and manufactured homes located on leased space are treated similarly. 3. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 830.700 defines state law regarding the floating home and boathouse registration and titling system. A copy can be at the following web link: http://www.paperadvantage.org/ORS/830.html . This statute defines the regulations for registering and recording ownership of floating homes and boathouses, and defines the processes for transferring security interest in floating homes. Ownership of Floating homes is treated differently than homes sited on land. 4. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 82 (OAR 141-082-000) implements ORS 274 and governs the management of, and issuing of leases, licenses, temporary use permits and registrations for structures on, and uses of state-owned submersible land. A copy can be at the following web link: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_100/OAR_141/141_082.html . These rules govern the management of state owned submerged and submersible land for a wide variety of commercial and non-commercial uses and structures, including floating homes and moorages. 5. Oregon Administrative Rules Division 10 (OAR 250-010-0300) implements ORS 830.700 and defines the statewide floating home/boathouse registration and titling system. The City of Portland also regulates floating homes within the city. The primary City of Portland regulations for Floating Homes and Moorages include: • Title 28 Floating Structures. A copy of Title 28 can be at the following web link: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28192 • Title 33 Planning and Zoning. A copy of the title 33 regulations related to floating structures can be found at the following link: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=53311 Following are selected questions and answers from Oregon DSL regarding the management of submerged and submersible land. Additional information can be found on the DSL web link below. (http://www.oregonstatelands.us./DSL/LW/leaseqa.shtml) Question: How does the Land Board and DSL manage this publicly owned submerged and submersible land? Answer: The Land Board and DSL hold these lands in trust for the public (under the "Public Trust Doctrine"). DSL works to clarify title and manage uses of these lands in the public’s best interests to ensure that any uses (for example, marinas, docks, sand and gravel mining, and log rafts) are authorized and pay their fair share as compensation to the public for the use of public land. Question: What is the Public Trust Doctrine? Answer: This doctrine of law provides that the State of Oregon holds submerged and submersible land in trust for the benefit of all the people. The general public has a right to fully enjoy these resources for a wide variety of public uses including commerce, navigation, fishing, and recreation. 1-4 Question: Did the state ever grant any of its submerged and submersible land to private owners? Answer: Yes. In the late 1870s, the Oregon State Legislature granted parcels of submersible land (between ordinary low and high water) to certain upland owners along the Willamette, Umpqua, Coquille, and Coos Rivers. This program ceased in 1878. As a result of the grants, some present upland owners along these particular rivers do have ownership down to the line of ordinary low water. In addition, along some other rivers, the state sold tideland and other submersible land to private owners. Even where the state granted or sold title to its submerged and submersible land to private individuals, the courts say that the granted lands are still subject to some public use rights under the Public Trust Doctrine. However, it is not legally clear what these rights may be in practice or whether later state action may limit such rights. Question: When must I obtain a lease or other form of authorization from DSL to use or occupy state-owned submerged and submersible land? Answer: You must obtain a lease or other form of authorization from DSL to undertake a wide variety of activities on state-owned submerged and submersible land such as aquaculture; industrial and/or commercial business areas; floating homes and floating home moorages; some residential uses; commercial and workboat moorages; and log storage and booming areas. DSL currently has about 400 waterway leases on over 30 waterways. If you own a non-commercial, private use dock, float and/or boat house; floating recreational cabin; or water sport structure located on state-owned submerged and submersible land, you may not have to obtain a lease from DSL. Instead, the structure may qualify for a registration with DSL. DSL also issues temporary use permits and public facility licenses. Temporary use permits are granted upon application to DSL for uses usually less than one (1) year in duration. Public facility licenses are issued by DSL to public agency owned, operated and maintained transient use docks, floats, boat ramps, and other similar structures where no or minimal entry or use fees are charged. Question: Why do some people along the same waterway have to obtain a lease and others do not? Answer: There are several reasons why you or your neighbors may have to obtain a lease and other persons living along the same waterway may not be required to do so. As already mentioned, not all submerged and submersible land is state-owned, even along the same waterway. In some areas, the state may have granted or sold its ownership; in others, the state may own only to the ordinary low water line. In some areas, dredging has created privately owned submerged land. The type of use and size of structure also affect whether a lease is required. Oregon law and/or Land Board rules exempt from lease a number of uses such as wharves; navigation aids placed by public agencies; and structures, piers, docks/floats owned, operated by, or under contract to a government agency under certain circumstances; and non-commercial, private-use docks, floats, floating recreational cabins, and water sport structures. An Air Photo showing the locations of Floating Homes and Moorages accessed from Hayden Island is on the following page. Memorandum 1 1-5 1-6 Photos of Hayden Island Houseboats, Boathouses and Marinas: Looking southwest to the North Portland Harbor houseboats with Railroad Bridge in the background. Looking southeast from the mobile home park to the North Portland Harbor houseboats and boathouses with I-5 Bridge in the distant background. Looking southwest toward slough from public park to Houseboats. Looking southeast from the public park and public beach across the slough to boathouses and marina. 1-7 View of private moorages in the slough from the public park, with houseboats in the background. View of houseboats and marina along the slough from the public park. Typical access to docks for boathouses and marinas limit public access. Typical upland parking along the slough for boathouses and marinas. E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC Economic and Development Services MEMORANDUM 2 To: Ruth Cullen, URS Corporation From: Eric Hovee and Andrea Logue Subject: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Date: July 11, 2007 (Revised) E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC is assisting URS Corporation to complete Task 2c for the Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report. Task 2c involves preparation of a draft and final memorandum to the City of Portland on the recent real estate transactions and values for Hayden Island. This revised report responds to questions and comments received from City Staff. The remainder of this memorandum is organized to cover the methodology of our analysis detailing each step taken to compile and analyze recent real estate transactions and values for Hayden Island. This is followed by subsequent observations from the data analysis to portray Hayden Island’s existing real estate conditions. Detailed statistical data tables are attached as an appendix to this memorandum. METHODOLOGY To compile recent real estate transactions, RLIS Lite data from Metro Data Resource Center was employed. Using geographic information system (GIS) software, taxlots within the Hayden Island neighborhood were selected. A total of 744 taxlots are within the Hayden Island neighborhood boundaries. As a point of comparison, taxlots within the City of Portland boundaries were also selected – for a total of 213,922 taxlots reviewed. Revisions with this Updated Memorandum. This city-wide comparison is provided in response to comments on the initial draft report. We have also reviewed the question of obtaining data for mobile home and houseboats – which does not appear to be possible with the RLIS Lite data base. This is because mobile homes and houseboats are taxed as personal rather than real property. Methodology for Hayden Island Real Property Transactions. The initial data set of 744 Hayden Island taxlots was separated according to land use: residential, commercial, or vacant. 2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666 (360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 • Fax (360) 696-8453 E-mail: edhovee@edhovee.com 2-1 Then, taxlots with a sale date within the last five years (or 2002-2006) were selected and the other taxlots without transaction activity were removed from the data set. These remaining 234 taxlots in the Hayden Island neighborhood boundaries represent the real estate transactions and associated values considered for analysis. It is noted that land area was available for single- family transactions but not multi-family residential units. Methodology for City of Portland Real Property Transactions. For purposes of comparison, taxlots within the City of Portland boundaries were processed in essentially the same manner as the Hayden Island taxlots. First, the taxlots were identified as residential, commercial or vacant land use. Only taxlots with a sale date with the last five years, from 2002- 2006, were selected. Taxlots without transaction activity were removed from the data set. This resulted in a total of 64,655 taxlots in the City of Portland boundaries with a real estate transaction recorded in the last five years. This much larger set of city-wide transactions is intended to serve as a frame of reference for the Hayden Island neighborhood transactions. OBSERVATIONS The Hayden Island and Portland real estate transactions are characterized as follows: Residential • 225 total Hayden Island residential taxlots have sold between 2002 and 2006, comprising 0.4% of the 59,431 residential taxlots sold throughout Portland during this time period. • 94% of the Hayden Island real estate transactions have been for single-family attached residential, with the remaining 6% for single-family detached residential. By comparison, Portland residential transactions break down to 13% single-family attached versus 87% single-family detached. • The most recent Hayden Island transactions are in 2006, averaging $251,250 in sales price of attached product and $659,750 for detached product. In contrast, the average sales price of transactions throughout Portland in 2006 for attached product is just slightly higher (at $362,760) than for detached product ($309,210). • Hayden Island average 2006 sales prices represent an increase of 51% for attached and 18% for detached over 2002 sales prices. Price appreciation on Hayden Island has been below that of the entire city; sales prices in Portland increased 60% for attached and 56% for detached product from 2002-2006. • On a per square foot of building area basis, 2006 attached product pricing is $220 versus $251 for detached residential product in the Hayden Island neighborhood. City-wide attached housing is price above Hayden Island at $292 per square foot, whereas detached product is below Hayden Island at $191 per square foot. • The increase in per square foot pricing from 2002 to 2006 is 65% for attached and 45% for detached on Hayden Island, below the appreciation of 66% for attached and 58% for detached product experienced throughout Portland. • Over the 2002-2006 time period on Hayden Island, year-to-year square foot pricing exhibited only positive gains. The most significant increase in sales price per square foot from one year to the next was 36% from 2005-2006 for attached and 22% from 2004- E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 2 2-2 2005 for detached units. During this same five year span, Portland’s year-to-year square foot pricing also indicates year-to-year increases, except for a decline of 3% from 2003- 2004 for attached residential product. • Tax assessed valuation of all Hayden Island transactions is $46.3 million, which equates to $169 per square foot of building area. Approximately 94% of assessed value is assigned to the building (equating to $159 per square foot). Total sales pricing of the residential transactions from 2002-2006 equal more than $47 million, or $172 per square foot of building area. • Portland transactions total $16 billion in tax assessed value, also averaging $169 per square foot of building area. Nearly 64% of assessed value is assigned to the building (equating to $108 per square foot) – with more assigned to land value than is the case on Hayden Island. Total sales pricing of the residential transactions from 2002-2006 equal more than $15.6 billion, or $164 per square foot of building area. Commercial • 7 Hayden Island and 2,194 Portland commercial taxlots are identified as having been sold between 2002 and 2006. • Tax assessed valuation of all 7 Hayden Island transactions is at $45.6 million, which equates to $75 per square foot of building area. Over half (54%) of assessed value is assigned to the land (equaling $40 per square foot). Total sales pricing of the commercial transactions from 2002-2006 equates to $34.5 million, or just under $57 per square foot of building area. In contrast with residential use, total sales value for commercial property for the 2002-2006 period was below the 2007 tax assessed valuation. • Portland transactions have a tax assessed value of $3.5 billion, equating to $102 per square foot of building area – a figure substantially above that of Hayden Island. Over 67% of assessed value is attributed to the building (equaling $68 per square foot). Total sales pricing of the commercial transactions from 2002-2006 equates to $3 billion, or just over $88 per square foot of building area. Vacant Land • 3 Hayden Island vacant taxlots, segmented into 2 transactions, sold between 2002 and 2006. In Portland, 3,030 vacant taxlots sold during the same time period. • Tax assessed valuation of these 2 Hayden Island transactions is at $1.1 million, which equates to $13 per square foot of land area. All of the assessed value is assigned to the land. Total sales pricing of the vacant transactions from 2002-2006 equates to $1.02 million, for $12 per square foot of land area (about 8% below assessed valuation). • Tax assessed valuation of the Portland transactions is $387.7 million, which equals $7 per square foot of land area. Over 97% of the assessed value is assigned to the land. Total sales pricing of the vacant transactions from 2002-2006 equates to $954.9 million, close to $17 per square foot of land area. Unlike Hayden Island, sales value for vacant property for the 2002-2006 period city-wide exceeded the 2007 tax assessed valuation. E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC appreciates the opportunity to provide this draft memorandum. Questions and comments regarding any aspect of this analysis are appreciated. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 3 2-3 APPENDIX. STATISTICAL DATA TABLES Figure 1. Summary of Hayden Island Residential Transactions (2002-06) # of Avg Avg Avg Avg Building Sales/ Sales Bldg Price/ Year Year Type Year Price SF Bldg SF Built 2002 Single Family 1 $560,000 3,234 $173 1987 Attached 32 $166,880 1,251 $133 1978 Total 33 $178,790 1,311 $136 1979 2003 Single Family 3 $471,000 2,570 $183 1985 Attached 30 $149,860 1,062 $141 1982 Total 33 $179,050 1,200 $149 1982 2004 Single Family 3 $545,000 2,664 $205 1985 Attached 49 $161,300 1,054 $153 1982 Total 52 $183,430 1,147 $160 1982 2005 Single Family 2 $579,750 2,319 $250 1984 Attached 53 $186,270 1,149 $162 1979 Total 55 $200,580 1,192 $168 1979 2006 Single Family 4 $659,750 2,626 $251 1983 Attached 48 $251,250 1,143 $220 1981 Total 52 $282,680 1,257 $225 1982 Source: Metro Data Resource Center - RLIS Lite February 2007 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Figure 2. Hayden Island Residential Transactions (2002-06) Land Building Land Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Area (SF) Use Land Building Total Year Amount R426901800 ANSBOURY SARAH J NA 1,184 MFR $0 $128,400 $128,400 2006 $175,500 R173111980 SOROS CHARLOTTE NA 889 MFR $0 $161,520 $161,520 2006 $269,000 R368200560 JOHNSON MORGAN & NA 1,663 MFR $0 $349,710 $349,710 2006 $545,000 R173120720 SAWDY MICHAEL L NA 858 MFR $0 $146,610 $146,610 2006 $188,000 R173110840 GHAZIMAHALLEH CARRIE NA 771 MFR $0 $135,990 $135,990 2006 $225,000 R173111140 COOPER JOANNE E NA 875 MFR $0 $211,920 $211,920 2006 $340,000 R173122310 WHITE DARALYN NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,300 $205,300 2006 $259,900 R173121440 ROSS RANDY NA 858 MFR $0 $146,610 $146,610 2006 $219,000 R708930220 BENDER FRED H-80.12% & NA 2,091 MFR $0 $308,580 $308,580 2006 $415,000 R173112160 ADAMS JOHN T & NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2006 $188,000 R173111020 WIMER COURTNEY NA 729 MFR $0 $131,180 $131,180 2006 $195,000 R173112310 HEINEMANN JOHN C JR & NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2006 $180,000 R173122430 ERICSON GLEN & NA 858 MFR $0 $157,170 $157,170 2006 $279,000 R510700430 OGDEN JUDITH D 6,534 2,209 SFR $214,000 $281,300 $495,300 2006 $744,000 R426900300 TAKACS LAURIE L NA 1,120 MFR $0 $130,610 $130,610 2006 $175,250 R539700420 NELSON MICHAEL M NA 1,448 MFR $0 $173,600 $173,600 2006 $239,950 R173110150 WHITE CHARLES L TR NA 844 MFR $0 $162,290 $162,290 2006 $289,000 R173111740 SATY MICHAEL P & NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2006 $135,000 R173111620 SEMINARA ERIC NA 724 MFR $0 $132,310 $132,310 2006 $219,785 R173121410 WEBER PROPERTIES NA 1,230 MFR $0 $234,360 $234,360 2006 $279,777 R173120570 WILLIAMS BRIGHAM TR & NA 1,230 MFR $0 $183,590 $183,590 2006 $295,000 R708900460 COONS PAM & NA 1,772 MFR $0 $289,420 $289,420 2006 $380,000 R426900440 DAWSON LINDA L NA 1,120 MFR $0 $129,060 $129,060 2006 $161,500 R426902880 BOUWMEESTER RENATA NA 576 MFR $0 $77,170 $77,170 2006 $115,500 R539700330 JARVIS HARRY A III NA 1,448 MFR $0 $173,600 $173,600 2006 $215,000 R426902100 CARROLL MICHAEL D & NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2006 $148,000 R539700110 CHRISTENSEN CHRISTOPHER C NA 2,018 MFR $0 $213,760 $213,760 2006 $279,000 R173112370 WESTERN STATES DEVELOPMENT NA 844 MFR $0 $155,830 $155,830 2006 $235,000 Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 4 2-4 Land Building Land Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Area (SF) Use Land Building Total Year Amount R173122640 STILLEY LINDA NA 858 MFR $0 $157,170 $157,170 2006 $203,000 R368301030 WESTERN STATES DEVELOPMENT 4,792 3,525 SFR $241,000 $398,800 $639,800 2006 $662,000 R426900580 FRANCIS JASON K NA 1,120 MFR $0 $123,030 $123,030 2006 $154,950 R426901840 MICHALEC DAVID NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2006 $134,000 R173112010 LANG RYAN C NA 889 MFR $0 $152,640 $152,640 2006 $268,400 R173112220 BANDY MICHEAL J NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2006 $196,405 R708930290 THORNTON ROGER L & NA 2,015 MFR $0 $302,160 $302,160 2006 $440,000 R539700210 CONNELL DALROY A NA 2,067 MFR $0 $215,980 $215,980 2006 $287,000 R173112100 BENDER FRED H NA 844 MFR $0 $158,660 $158,660 2006 $290,000 R173111560 BENDER FRED H NA 889 MFR $0 $274,600 $274,600 2006 $240,000 R173112040 RAGEN CAROLYN O NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2006 $213,000 R173122670 HESSICK KRISTIN NA 858 MFR $0 $157,170 $157,170 2006 $212,000 R173121020 CHURCHILL DAVID A & NA 1,230 MFR $0 $152,980 $152,980 2006 $287,777 R368300170 GROSMICK CHRISTOPHER A 4,792 2,512 SFR $238,000 $311,440 $549,440 2006 $660,000 R708900350 TORFASON INGOLFUR R & NA 1,917 MFR $0 $299,000 $299,000 2006 $434,950 R708900310 HOWELL WOODROW H & NA 2,015 MFR $0 $304,070 $304,070 2006 $349,750 R708930100 TALLEY JAMES E NA 2,078 MFR $0 $308,790 $308,790 2006 $405,000 R173121230 SELVA JOSEPH A & NA 1,023 MFR $0 $249,770 $249,770 2006 $239,900 R173120390 PINTO CHRISTOPHER NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2006 $283,500 R426900900 SMITH MATTHEW A NA 1,120 MFR $0 $123,030 $123,030 2006 $147,450 R173122040 FREEMAN DIANA B NA 858 MFR $0 $200,900 $200,900 2006 $189,900 R173121260 CHANDLER ANDY J NA 1,023 MFR $0 $249,770 $249,770 2006 $234,000 R368300200 BALLARD ROBERT J & 4,792 2,256 SFR $238,000 $288,020 $526,020 2006 $573,000 R173122610 KHAW LU LU NA 858 MFR $0 $203,390 $203,390 2006 $203,000 R426900520 RUSSELL DUANA L NA 1,120 MFR $0 $118,730 $118,730 2005 $133,500 R708900050 FINNEMORE BRIAN L & NA 2,217 MFR $0 $322,970 $322,970 2005 $419,000 R426902260 WRIGHT ESTHER E TR NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2005 $143,000 R173122130 SHELBY BARBARA Y NA 1,023 MFR $0 $203,030 $203,030 2005 $200,000 R173120660 BENZ DEBRA C NA 858 MFR $0 $188,450 $188,450 2005 $174,000 R368300790 PUTNAM MALCOLM G TR & 4,792 2,913 SFR $238,000 $387,310 $625,310 2005 $601,000 R173110900 WOLGAMOTT ROBERT C NA 899 MFR $0 $258,030 $258,030 2005 $267,900 R173120510 AYLWARD THOMAS J & NA 1,023 MFR $0 $274,200 $274,200 2005 $265,000 R708930210 GILBERT MELVYN M NA 2,015 MFR $0 $302,160 $302,160 2005 $280,000 R426901420 RAMSUM HARVEY TR NA 1,184 MFR $0 $126,870 $126,870 2005 $135,000 R426901900 GILBERT MELVYN M NA 576 MFR $0 $75,500 $75,500 2005 $70,000 R426902540 METRO HOUSING & REDEVEL LLC & NA 576 MFR $0 $75,500 $75,500 2005 $77,000 R426900820 WELLMAN LINDA K NA 544 MFR $0 $73,510 $73,510 2005 $65,000 R708930360 PADDOCK JAMES J & NA 2,015 MFR $0 $296,650 $296,650 2005 $392,000 R539700270 PINTO CHRISTOPHER NA 1,876 MFR $0 $248,980 $248,980 2005 $272,000 R539700230 CHERRY ROBERT G & NA 2,067 MFR $0 $227,070 $227,070 2005 $208,000 R173110360 KIEF RICHARD F TR-1/2 & NA 889 MFR $0 $256,030 $256,030 2005 $264,777 R173110180 HODGINS JAMES NA 724 MFR $0 $136,330 $136,330 2005 $185,000 R173122760 LEVANGER JENNIFER "CARI" NA 1,023 MFR $0 $228,110 $228,110 2005 $239,000 R173121380 GRAY SANDRA K NA 858 MFR $0 $162,910 $162,910 2005 $162,600 R510700220 FOSSI JON & 7,405 1,724 SFR $226,000 $326,850 $552,850 2005 $558,500 R426900140 BARNARD KENNETH R & NA 576 MFR $0 $78,850 $78,850 2005 $72,600 R426900340 JULIAN KIMBERLY A NA 1,120 MFR $0 $123,030 $123,030 2005 $110,000 R426901940 ALLWINE ERIN Q G NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2005 $105,000 R173121740 CHEN FANG KUN NA 858 MFR $0 $155,240 $155,240 2005 $135,000 R173120060 BUEL STEPHEN K NA 858 MFR $0 $158,880 $158,880 2005 $165,000 R708900420 BUSH ROBERT E & NA 2,078 MFR $0 $310,700 $310,700 2005 $298,000 R426900600 MAZOUR RODNEY V & NA 1,120 MFR $0 $125,610 $125,610 2005 $115,000 R708930230 WELCH STEVEN A & NA 2,078 MFR $0 $397,520 $397,520 2005 $398,777 R426901620 WOODS CRAIG NA 1,184 MFR $0 $126,870 $126,870 2005 $122,000 R539700070 WALKER JUDI C NA 1,669 MFR $0 $243,400 $243,400 2005 $229,950 R173110930 LITTLEFIELD VANESSA NA 844 MFR $0 $241,670 $241,670 2005 $265,000 R173121920 MAURRY JASON P NA 858 MFR $0 $155,240 $155,240 2005 $147,900 R426900160 MAZOUR KENNETH G NA 1,120 MFR $0 $118,730 $118,730 2005 $114,000 R708930340 LINDSEY EDWARD D & NA 2,078 MFR $0 $398,300 $398,300 2005 $400,000 R426901560 DICKEY CAROLYN A NA 608 MFR $0 $77,560 $77,560 2005 $66,250 R426902740 RUCKER DANE L NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2005 $112,500 R173121680 HUYNH YEN K NA 858 MFR $0 $155,240 $155,240 2005 $130,000 R173121170 SIMPSON MARTHA NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2005 $179,900 R173120150 CRISPO SALLY R NA 858 MFR $0 $146,660 $146,660 2005 $156,900 Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 5 2-5 Land Building Land Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Area (SF) Use Land Building Total Year Amount R708900470 SLAPIKAS MARTIN G & NA 2,356 MFR $0 $418,270 $418,270 2005 $349,900 R708930170 LAMPE RICHARD C & NA 1,927 MFR $0 $387,400 $387,400 2005 $425,000 R426902500 WARD SUSAN K NA 1,184 MFR $0 $126,870 $126,870 2005 $120,000 R173111650 LOTER DONNA L NA 844 MFR $0 $192,510 $192,510 2005 $229,000 R173111470 LIEPA ERVINS & NA 771 MFR $0 $220,980 $220,980 2005 $199,900 R173121710 CARNAHAN JUDITH W NA 858 MFR $0 $155,240 $155,240 2005 $130,000 R173122280 KNIGHT DAVID B & NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,300 $205,300 2005 $174,500 R426901860 LARSON-HUNTER EILEEN G NA 576 MFR $0 $75,500 $75,500 2005 $70,000 R708900320 BOTKIN JACK K & NA 1,464 MFR $0 $253,100 $253,100 2005 $235,000 R426901360 ROMINE JEANNE NA 576 MFR $0 $75,500 $75,500 2005 $65,500 R426900920 OLSEN CHERIE A NA 544 MFR $0 $74,160 $74,160 2005 $75,000 R426902140 FOLKERTS JAMES NA 576 MFR $0 $75,500 $75,500 2005 $73,000 R173120540 ANSBOURY NANCY D NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2005 $220,000 R426902080 LILLA RICHARD J & NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2005 $108,000 R426901440 COHEN BARBARA D NA 1,184 MFR $0 $143,370 $143,370 2005 $121,000 R426902400 LE VASSEUR ROBERT J NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2004 $102,000 R173110960 MAIZE RUSSELL NA 899 MFR $0 $161,110 $161,110 2004 $174,000 R173122190 PINTO JONATHAN NA 1,023 MFR $0 $203,030 $203,030 2004 $164,000 R173121800 PINSLER MARIANNE I & NA 858 MFR $0 $125,000 $125,000 2004 $119,250 R708900060 SCHMAUDER JAN NA 2,078 MFR $0 $318,280 $318,280 2004 $299,900 R426902120 HILL VANESSA T NA 1,184 MFR $0 $126,010 $126,010 2004 $110,000 R173110810 FINE PHILLIP L & NA 728 MFR $0 $157,320 $157,320 2004 $155,777 R173122250 MAHLAU CYNTHIA M NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,300 $205,300 2004 $167,000 R173120480 DEL CAMPO ALICIA M & NA 1,023 MFR $0 $219,260 $219,260 2004 $215,000 R173120600 HUNTER FRANCIS & NA 858 MFR $0 $146,610 $146,610 2004 $143,900 R173120270 BROOKS PHILLIP W & NA 858 MFR $0 $146,610 $146,610 2004 $158,250 R173110990 PRIEST ROGER & NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2004 $130,000 R173120360 KNIGHT WARREN S & NA 1,230 MFR $0 $283,120 $283,120 2004 $267,900 R510701590 WEISENSEE LLOYD & 9,583 1,863 SFR $139,000 $251,510 $390,510 2004 $305,000 R708900260 THOMPSON MARIANNE G NA 1,816 MFR $0 $285,420 $285,420 2004 $295,000 R426901000 HEROLD GEORGE D NA 1,120 MFR $0 $146,260 $146,260 2004 $125,000 R173111710 WILKINS BRADLEY D & NA 889 MFR $0 $181,610 $181,610 2004 $249,000 R510700160 BUCKLEY KIM T & 7,405 2,805 SFR $216,000 $323,960 $539,960 2004 $680,000 R708900180 VOLTZ MARY R TR NA 2,015 MFR $0 $304,070 $304,070 2004 $260,000 R426902160 RUSHING CASEY J NA 608 MFR $0 $77,560 $77,560 2004 $75,000 R173120180 COUCH ELIZABETH A TR NA 1,230 MFR $0 $260,070 $260,070 2004 $255,000 R426900460 SOBALLE DAVID M & NA 1,120 MFR $0 $123,030 $123,030 2004 $105,500 R426901220 HECHT EVELYN NA 1,120 MFR $0 $121,310 $121,310 2004 $110,500 R708930310 DOBBINS WENDY J NA 2,078 MFR $0 $316,370 $316,370 2004 $205,000 R173110090 SMITH CUMA H & NA 728 MFR $0 $249,080 $249,080 2004 $150,000 R173111380 ALEXANDER JANICE E NA 899 MFR $0 $161,110 $161,110 2004 $162,000 R173122850 SANDBERG COLLEEN K NA 1,023 MFR $0 $203,030 $203,030 2004 $188,000 R173122700 FITZPATRICK FRANK J TR & NA 1,230 MFR $0 $248,030 $248,030 2004 $229,000 R173121590 GOLDSTEIN ELFRIEDE NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2004 $177,000 R426901540 EARL ROBERT J & NA 576 MFR $0 $75,500 $75,500 2004 $67,000 R539700030 LAUGHLIN JOHN NA 1,434 MFR $0 $215,120 $215,120 2004 $205,000 R173111770 VAN DEN BERG AMILIE M NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2004 $159,777 R173111050 PUPPO ANNE M NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2004 $128,000 R173120930 SHEEHAN JULIA R NA 858 MFR $0 $146,610 $146,610 2004 $126,500 R173120450 TESSIORE LERESH L NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2004 $187,000 R173112070 GAMES ROSALIE A TR NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2004 $127,500 R368300910 GILL RICHARD M TR-1/2 & 7,405 3,325 SFR $238,000 $436,300 $674,300 2004 $650,000 R426901260 TOBIAS KATHLEEN M NA 1,120 MFR $0 $121,310 $121,310 2004 $106,000 R426900680 WAGNER ALYCE NA 1,120 MFR $0 $123,030 $123,030 2004 $106,000 R539700310 SNEDEKER PATRICK J NA 1,434 MFR $0 $171,500 $171,500 2004 $160,000 R173111950 SCOVILLE-WRIGHT CHENNIE NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2004 $119,000 R173110030 ENGELN MICHAEL J NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2004 $124,000 R173121320 LIVELY BONNIE NA 858 MFR $0 $146,610 $146,610 2004 $127,000 R426900220 BERGERON KARLA A NA 1,120 MFR $0 $118,730 $118,730 2004 $103,000 R173112250 WANG ASHLEY NA 889 MFR $0 $144,460 $144,460 2004 $136,777 R173111170 MELLOW JUDITH NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2004 $125,000 R173111410 GRUBE DENNIS R & NA 899 MFR $0 $182,700 $182,700 2004 $150,000 R173122730 HOSOI MASAAKI & NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,300 $205,300 2004 $190,000 R426902240 DENTINO AVA J R NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2004 $114,000 Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 6 2-6 Land Building Land Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Area (SF) Use Land Building Total Year Amount R173111860 LEA CAROLE A NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2004 $121,000 R173110510 WARILA JEFFERY W NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2004 $128,000 R368200110 GROSS ROBERT J NA 1,740 MFR $0 $358,030 $358,030 2004 $300,000 R708930080 WRIGHT GARY J & NA 1,927 MFR $0 $319,490 $319,490 2003 $325,000 R173111230 KLAAR MICHAEL & NA 889 MFR $0 $135,950 $135,950 2003 $118,000 R173110480 DORMANDY THOMAS NA 724 MFR $0 $251,500 $251,500 2003 $143,500 R426901380 MAZOUR RODNEY V & NA 608 MFR $0 $87,110 $87,110 2003 $67,500 R173111830 HORCHHEIMER ANGELA NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2003 $118,000 R510701500 DIEHL ELIZABETH T 9,583 2,306 SFR $139,000 $234,030 $373,030 2003 $308,000 R426900540 WELLING MARGARET J NA 1,120 MFR $0 $130,610 $130,610 2003 $115,500 R708900170 LLEWELLYN MARLEAH C NA 2,015 MFR $0 $304,070 $304,070 2003 $238,300 R173112340 SIMPSON CHARLENE A NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2003 $110,900 R173120780 EVERETT GREGORY C & NA 1,230 MFR $0 $168,290 $168,290 2003 $161,300 R368300350 JOLY CHRISTIAN H & 5,227 2,881 SFR $241,000 $436,520 $677,520 2003 $660,000 R173111530 FIORE GABRIELLA & NA 724 MFR $0 $132,310 $132,310 2003 $118,000 R173111590 PAPADOPOULOS DEBORAH B NA 728 MFR $0 $131,040 $131,040 2003 $120,000 R510700370 CHURCHILL RICHARD A JR & 5,663 2,528 SFR $224,000 $311,450 $535,450 2003 $445,000 R173111080 BARRY JUDY NA 771 MFR $0 $135,990 $135,990 2003 $136,900 R173110570 BUSH ROBERT E & NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2003 $115,000 R173122160 JOHNSON DAVID C NA 1,023 MFR $0 $203,030 $203,030 2003 $145,000 R173120030 NPR MANAGEMENT L L C NA 1,230 MFR $0 $257,800 $257,800 2003 $200,000 R173120210 WILLIAMS SHANE NA 1,230 MFR $0 $292,960 $292,960 2003 $213,000 R426900380 BASH GAIL S TR & NA 1,120 MFR $0 $118,730 $118,730 2003 $90,000 R368200530 PALMER ROBERT A NA 1,740 MFR $0 $358,030 $358,030 2003 $295,000 R173111260 124 COLUMBIA LLC NA 729 MFR $0 $131,180 $131,180 2003 $141,000 R173121650 KAADY MARNA R TR NA 1,230 MFR $0 $245,510 $245,510 2003 $138,500 R426901680 HALMAGYI DAVID E & NA 608 MFR $0 $77,560 $77,560 2003 $64,000 R173121890 BERRY ROBERT S & NA 1,230 MFR $0 $155,880 $155,880 2003 $149,385 R173122400 ELLIS JULIE A NA 858 MFR $0 $196,470 $196,470 2003 $130,000 R173121620 MATTHEWS CAROL NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2003 $170,000 R708900290 YOUNG ANNE N & NA 1,917 MFR $0 $299,000 $299,000 2003 $269,000 R426901400 MILTON ZALIKA M NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2003 $103,000 R173122220 MCCORMACK WILLIAM W NA 1,023 MFR $0 $223,330 $223,330 2003 $142,475 R173122790 GRAPER VIRGINIA V NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,300 $205,300 2003 $162,500 R426901780 REICH JENNIE W TR NA 1,184 MFR $0 $126,870 $126,870 2003 $125,000 R426902900 GRIESSER BETTY NA 608 MFR $0 $84,050 $84,050 2003 $69,900 R708900440 DAPP KARI E NA 2,015 MFR $0 $304,070 $304,070 2002 $194,000 R173111890 KLAAR MICHAEL & NA 844 MFR $0 $165,880 $165,880 2002 $174,000 R708930180 JARMER CAROL NA 2,078 MFR $0 $308,790 $308,790 2002 $245,000 R426902200 JENKINS GLEN E & NA 608 MFR $0 $77,560 $77,560 2002 $62,500 R368200230 BENDER FRED H & NA 2,027 MFR $0 $390,370 $390,370 2002 $389,000 R426901020 MAZOUR RODNEY V & NA 1,120 MFR $0 $121,310 $121,310 2002 $90,000 R708930110 GREEN LAURA J NA 2,091 MFR $0 $402,100 $402,100 2002 $250,500 R173112280 MAZOUR RODNEY V & NA 889 MFR $0 $144,460 $144,460 2002 $130,000 R173110870 HUGHBANKS ANDREA E NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2002 $125,000 R426900120 JAMES TIMOTHY NA 544 MFR $0 $73,510 $73,510 2002 $59,900 R173110210 BRAUNLE COLLEEN P NA 728 MFR $0 $131,100 $131,100 2002 $130,000 R173121110 CONWELL GLORIA H NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2002 $163,500 R426901760 TOCCI MARTIN & NA 1,184 MFR $0 $126,870 $126,870 2002 $103,000 R539700190 DOWSETT STEPHEN J NA 1,448 MFR $0 $175,460 $175,460 2002 $149,665 R173122550 HILGENBERG E JEAN NA 1,230 MFR $0 $248,030 $248,030 2002 $225,000 R173121830 BYER MARY C NA 858 MFR $0 $155,240 $155,240 2002 $113,950 R173121860 NPR MANAGEMENT L L C NA 1,230 MFR $0 $245,510 $245,510 2002 $166,000 R510700190 EVANS CHRISTOPHER A & 7,405 3,234 SFR $214,000 $379,580 $593,580 2002 $560,000 R539700400 SMITH HORTON & NA 1,448 MFR $0 $176,880 $176,880 2002 $135,000 R173110750 BEACHELL RICHARD J & NA 889 MFR $0 $161,290 $161,290 2002 $172,000 R173111440 NEWMAN CAROLYN S NA 729 MFR $0 $131,180 $131,180 2002 $122,000 R426902760 MILLER SUSANNE M NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2002 $105,000 R708930090 WHITE KARLA K NA 1,927 MFR $0 $296,910 $296,910 2002 $287,000 R426902840 BOTOFAN VICTORIA A NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2002 $108,000 R173121140 PETTIGREW H FRAN & NA 1,023 MFR $0 $205,650 $205,650 2002 $139,500 R708900120 SHAFER FRANK K & NA 1,816 MFR $0 $285,420 $285,420 2002 $275,000 R426901500 BEST AARON NA 1,184 MFR $0 $122,570 $122,570 2002 $111,977 R426902680 JENKINS GLEN E & NA 608 MFR $0 $77,560 $77,560 2002 $65,000 Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 7 2-7 Land Building Land Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Area (SF) Use Land Building Total Year Amount R708900210 RICHARDSON LEONA TR NA 2,078 MFR $0 $310,700 $310,700 2002 $310,000 R539700150 HUTCHINS CLIFTON M & NA 1,448 MFR $0 $173,600 $173,600 2002 $154,000 R368200350 ANDERSON JOHN A & NA 2,027 MFR $0 $390,370 $390,370 2002 $356,000 R173111920 TOWN LYNNAE E NA 724 MFR $0 $132,370 $132,370 2002 $122,500 R426900200 ZAMBRANO DAVID NA 1,120 MFR $0 $123,030 $123,030 2002 $106,000 Totals 85,378 273,421 $2,806,000 $43,496,130 $46,302,130 $47,078,181 Per Building SF 225 units $10.26 $159.08 $169.34 $172.18 Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale Note: MFR = multi-family residential, in this case owner-occupied as in condominiums and townhouses. SFR = single-family residential. Source: Metro Data Resource Center - RLIS Lite February 2007 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Figure 3. Hayden Island Commercial Transactions (2002-06) Land Building Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Area (SF) Zoning Use Land Building Total Year Amount R951340260 PORTARTHUR LLC 22,651 7,856 COM Office supply store $248,800 $1,732,100 $1,980,900 2006 $500,000 R951330600 VIDEO ONLY INC 74,923 21,080 COM Electronics Store $1,636,200 $3,279,840 $4,916,040 2005 $3,250,000 R951340360 RBC PROPERTIES LLC 34,412 6,802 COM Multi-tenant office/ retail building $682,960 $621,430 $1,304,390 2005 $760,000 R951340510 HAYDEN ISLAND ASSOCIATES 116,741 41,760 COM Multi-tenant office building $1,738,020 $1,741,400 $3,479,420 2005 $113,000 R951340140 THUNDERBIRD HOTEL LLC 597,208 247,408 COM Hotel $9,597,090 $5,291,220 $14,888,310 2004 $21,083,250 R951340340 JBH PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS LLC 601,999 280,708 COM Hotel $9,717,670 $8,110,380 $17,828,050 2004 $7,666,750 R951340170 ECO CAR WASH INC 27,443 2,380 COM Car Wash $829,600 $325,750 $1,155,350 2004 $1,100,000 Totals 1,475,377 607,994 $24,450,340 $21,102,120 $45,552,460 $34,473,000 Per Building SF 7 units $40.21 $34.71 $74.92 $56.70 Land Designation & Use Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale Source: Metro Data Resource Center - RLIS Lite February 2007 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Figure 4. Hayden Island Vacant Land Transactions (2002-06) Land Parcel # Owner Area (SF) Zoning Zone Class Land Building Total Year Amount R368301170 HUTCHINS JIMMY & 4,792 CG MUR5 $226,000 $0.00 $226,000 2005 $318,500 R649774990 NILI INVESTMENTS LLC 80,586 CG MUR5 $875,350 $0.00 $875,350 2003 $700,000 & R649774980* Totals 85,378 $1,101,350 $0.00 $1,101,350 $1,018,500 Per Land SF 1.96 acres $12.90 $0.00 $12.90 $11.93 Land Designation & Use Assessed Valuation (2007) Last Sale *Note: When these two taxlots were sold in 2003, the land was designated vacant and there was no building value. In 2004, a commercially zoned building was built on R649774990. For purposes of comparison, the 2007 assessed building value has been removed. CG = general commercial. MUR5 = Mixed use commercial and residential with FAR maximum of about 1.5. Source: Metro Data Resource Center - RLIS Lite February 2007 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 8 2-8 Figure 5. Summary of Portland Residential Transactions (2002-06) # of Avg Avg Avg Avg Building Sales/ Sales Bldg Price/ Year Year Type Year Price SF Bldg SF Built 2002 Single Family 7,137 $198,570 1,643 $121 1947 Attached 558 $227,090 1,294 $176 1969 Total 7,695 $200,640 1,616 $124 1949 2003 Single Family 8,854 $214,070 1,656 $129 1948 Attached 823 $309,670 1,292 $240 1979 Total 9,677 $222,200 1,625 $137 1951 2004 Single Family 10,641 $237,300 1,673 $142 1950 Attached 1,575 $295,160 1,266 $233 1975 Total 12,216 $244,760 1,621 $151 1953 2005 Single Family 13,389 $274,120 1,668 $164 1950 Attached 2,294 $307,150 1,168 $263 1979 Total 15,683 $278,950 1,595 $175 1954 2006 Single Family 11,846 $309,210 1,619 $191 1948 Attached 2,314 $362,760 1,243 $292 1977 Total 14,160 $317,960 1,557 $204 1952 Source: Metro Data Resource Center - RLIS Lite February 2007 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Figure 6. Portland Real Estate Transactions (2002-06) Land Building Last Sale Totals Area (SF) Area (SF) Land Building Total Price Residential 436,649,796 95,123,165 $5,798,314,520 $10,245,100,810 $16,043,415,330 $15,561,266,385 Per Building SF 59,431 units $60.96 $107.70 $168.66 $163.59 Commercial 94,726,012 34,284,022 $1,144,349,750 $2,341,398,530 $3,485,748,280 $3,023,451,389 Per Building SF 2,194 units $33.38 $68.29 $101.67 $88.19 Vacant Land Classifications: Residential 27,779,083 51,590 $188,113,258 $3,060,640 $191,173,898 $507,717,547 Commercial 20,007,108 114,199 $156,838,170 $6,885,140 $163,723,310 $339,867,512 Industrial 1,528,956 0 $8,204,830 $0 $8,204,830 $63,666,856 Tract 3,325,370 0 $1,826,069 $110,800 $1,936,869 $1,892,660 Multi-family 1,855,220 0 $21,943,370 $72,300 $22,015,670 $39,966,981 Recreation 3,260,902 0 $659,560 $0 $659,560 $1,766,477 Total Vacant Land 57,756,640 165,789 $377,585,257 $10,128,880 $387,714,137 $954,878,033 Per Land SF 1,326 acres $6.54 $0.18 $6.71 $16.53 Assessed Valuation (2007) Source: Metro Data Resource Center - RLIS Lite February 2007 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for URS Corporation: Recent Real Estate Transactions & Values for Hayden Island for the City of Portland Page 9 2-9 Memorandum 3 Date: September 5, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: David Zagel, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Site Design and Building Characteristics Task Purpose The purpose of this memo is to generally characterize the overall layout of Hayden Island and to inventory and describe the general characteristics of the existing buildings on the island. In general, the Island is divided into the following sub-areas: • West Island, the large undeveloped part of the island, owned by the Port of Portland, that is west of the BNSF Railway alignment • Central West Island, the developed part of the island east of the BNSF Railway route and west of Interstate 5 • Central East Island, the developed part of the island east of Interstate 5 and west of the former Tomahawk Island • East Island, the developed part of the island located on the former Tomahawk Island Figure 1: Overall Layout of Hayden Island Overall Site Layout of Hayden Island The overall layout of Hayden Island is most mostly influenced by its geographic features and by the transportation infrastructure that has literally shaped the island. Being an island, the area is of course formed and defined by the channels of the Columbia River on the north shoreline and the North Portland Harbor along the south shoreline. Today’s four-mile long shape of the island is the result of two formerly separate islands (Hayden and Tomahawk), being joined together by a short, narrow land mass. 3-1 Site Design Characteristics The nature of how properties are laid out on Hayden Island is mainly influenced by the nature of the access to those properties. And the predominant type of access to island properties, whether they are commercial, industrial or residential, is single-point, auto access. Interstate 5, for automobiles (and to a limited extent bicycles and pedestrians), and the Columbia River and North Portland Harbor, for boat traffic, provide the only access to the island. For autos, the network of streets on Hayden Island can be likened to the structure of a tree: the on- and off-ramps to and from I-5 form the trunk of the tree and North Hayden Island Drive and North Tomahawk Drive form the main stems of the tree from which only a few other smaller public and private streets branch. Building Characteristics on Hayden Island Figure 2: Building Characteristics by Land Use Commercial Buildings The commercial buildings on the island are primarily clustered into roughly three areas: • The commercial area adjacent to the I-5 interchange west of the freeway (the easternmost section of the “West Central Island” area) • The commercial area adjacent to the I-5 interchange east of the freeway (the westernmost section of the “East Central Island” area), and • The Jantzen Beach SuperCenter 3-2 Auto-oriented businesses comprise the commercial development adjacent to the I-5 interchange west of the freeway. These businesses include an auto service station, numerous fast-food and sit-down restaurants, multi-tenant commercial buildings and a now-closed hotel. Auto-oriented businesses also comprise the commercial development adjacent to the I-5 interchange on the east side of the freeway. These businesses include: an auto fuel station/convenience store; multiple fast-food and sit-down restaurants; a multi-tenant, multi- floor office building; multi-tenant commercial buildings; both an operating grocery store and a vacant grocery store; and two motels. Originally developed as a single, enclosed mall, the Jantzen Beach Super Center complex has recently expanded west into a multiple-building conglomeration of large-foot-print (big box) retail stores with external entrances for each tenant. This revised layout, with the 350,000 square foot mall remaining as the center’s largest structure on its eastern side and the new big box retail stores clustered toward the west, has resulted in a landscape that is dominated by the parking areas sited adjacent to these stores. Industrial Buildings Industrial buildings on the island are roughly grouped into two areas: • The relatively large industrial area just east of the railroad line, and • The smaller industrial area on the island’s south shore towards its eastern tip that is devoted to marine services The large industrial area near the railroad has three main uses and several building types. A large auto auction business has both single-story wood-framed and pre-engineered steel buildings that provide both office space and car service areas respectively. Also in this area both north and south of N. Hayden Island Drive, multiple light-industrial tenants and warehouse uses are housed in single-level, non-descript buildings that appear to be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels with internal steel support columns. The final industrial use in this area, marine services, uses both a single-level, engineered steel building and a single-level, concrete panel building. The small industrial area on the island’s south shore towards its eastern tip provides marine services and is mainly comprised of approximately a half-dozen pre-engineered steel structures. These buildings provide space for sales, service and storage functions for marine related businesses. Residential Buildings Residential buildings on the island are roughly organized into the following areas: • The two floating home communities west of I-5 • The three floating home communities east of I-5 • The manufactured home and recreational vehicle park west of I-5 and north of N. Hayden Island Drive • The manufactured home park west of I-5 and south of N. Hayden Island Drive • The condominium homes east of I-5 and north of N. Tomahawk Island Drive • The condominium homes east of I-5 and south of N. Tomahawk Island Drive 3-3 • The single-family detached homes east of I-5 just off of N. Tomahawk Island Drive On the north shore of the island, the manufactured home and recreational vehicle (RV) park west of I-5 and north of N. Hayden Island Drive (Hayden Island Mobile Home Park) forms the largest residential area on the island. Most of this development is made up of older (more than 20 years old) manufactured homes that are semi-permanently secured to their lots. While there are some newer “double-wide” manufactured homes interspersed throughout, the park mostly contains “single-wide” homes. Each space has a relatively simple wood-frame constructed carport that provides some weather protection for vehicles and small storage areas. These wooden car ports also provide one element of cohesiveness throughout the park. The age of the park also means that the landscaping surrounding the homes is relatively mature; landscaping around the homes appears to be relatively well-maintained. A section of the manufactured home/RV park closest to N. Hayden Island Drive provides an area for both overnight and longer term stays for RVs. Due to the smaller space sizes (compared to those for the manufactured home section) and the relatively high proportion of each space devoted to asphalt concrete to park the RV, this area has an overall setting that is more open but less tranquil than the rest of the park. Since carports are not provided in this section, no permanent structures are present that might give a cohesive quality to the area beyond the general grouping of the RVs and residents’ automobiles. Temporary hook up facilities for water and power are included at each RV site. The manufactured home park west of I-5 and south of N. Hayden Island Drive, which also features manufactured homes that mostly appear to be more than 20 years old, is accessed via a short private drive (“South Shore”) and enjoys a fairly tranquil setting. This tranquility is derived mainly from several factors: the park’s distance away from Hayden Island Drive; its position near the back (less active) portions of adjacent properties and its position on the North Portland Harbor; narrow, gently meandering private streets with little traffic; and relatively mature landscaping. The repetition of fairly simple, wooden carports provides some continuity from one space to the next along each street. The condominium homes east of I-5 are mainly clustered near N. Tomahawk Island Drive as it stretches east from the freeway and are sited along the south shore line (North Portland Harbor) and the marina situated on the island’s north shore. Most of these condominium units are semi-attached wood-frame, two-story structures that have been built over the last 30 years. While the units on the south side of Tomahawk Island Dr. have direct (driveway) access to this street, the units on the north side of the street have access via private streets or via shared vehicle courtyards. Two new large-scale, multiple-story condominiums are under construction in this area: the first, which is nearing completion, is being built around two U-shaped courtyards that front the Columbia River just east of the Red Lion Hotel on the River; the second multiple-story development (Salpare Bay) is being built around a new marina toward the eastern end of the island on the Columbia River shoreline. Just east of the semi-attached wood-frame condominiums are a cluster of single-family detached homes. On the south side of Tomahawk Island Dr., a group of homes line a private 3-4 lane (N. Lotus Isle Drive); these homes all feature southern views toward the North Portland Harbor and were designed at different times with various, unrelated floor plans. Similarly, on the north side of Hayden Island Drive, a group of homes line another private lane (N. Lotus Beach Drive) and all feature northerly views toward the Hayden Bay Marina. 3-5 3-6 Looking west within manufactured home park along the island’s south shore. Looking west along the island’s south shore within manufactured home park. View down one of the internal streets within the Hayden Island Mobile Home Park. Looking east along the island’s north shore from Hayden Island Mobile Home Park. Memorandum 3 Photos of Hayden Island: Residential/Manufactured Home/RV Parks 3-7 hotos of Hayden Island: Residential/Condominiums P View looking into shared area for vehicle parking for condominiums. Looking west adjacent to attached condominium units along the north side of N. Tomahawk Dr. Looking west along north shore of Hayden Island at new multi-story condominium building. Illustration of new multiple-level condominium buildings and marina (Salpare Bay) being constructed along the north shore. 3-8 Looking west at single detached homes along N. Lotus Isle Dr. Looking east at single detached homes along N. Lotus Isle Dr. Looking at exit from private lane (N. Lotus Isle Dr.) along south side of N. Tomahawk Dr. Photos of Hayden Island: Residential/Single Unit Detached Homes 3-9 Memorandum 4 4-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Jennifer Renninger, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Potentially Contaminated Sites/Hazardous Materials URS has prepared this memo to document existing conditions and to perform a preliminary assessment of hazardous materials on Hayden Island within the City of Portland area. In addition, areas of concern or potential issues associated with hazardous materials were identified for consideration of future projects. For the purpose of this preliminary assessment, the project area was defined as the eastern portion of Hayden Island extending to the railroad that lies west of I-5. Subject Property Description and General Use The area consists primarily of commercial/industrial and residential properties. To the west of I-5 and along the southern boundary of the island lies the Jantzen Beach Retail Center and includes Home Depot, Safeway, Target as well as many other retail chain stores. West of the retail center is a commercial business park, a mobile home park and the Portland Auto Auction. Floating homes and private boat docks are located along the southern shore of the island. The western most boundary of the subject property is the Burlington Northern Railroad. Schooner Creek Boat Works is located directly north of the Auction site and is directly adjacent to Canoe Bay, an embayment of the Columbia River. Directly east of Canoe Bay lies a large mobile home park and RV park. Several vacant buildings that are part of the Red Lion Hotel complex lie between the Mobile Home Park and I-5. Directly east of I-5 is the main Red Lion Hotel complex and other commercial properties including a gas station, dry cleaners and a motel. Single family residences and condominiums are located to the east of the commercial area. Boat docks and a marina are located in a small embayment on the east side of the island as well as additional commercial and industrial properties on the southeastern end of the island. Floating homes and boat moorages are located along the south shore of the island. Based on zoning records obtained from the City of Portland, approximately 15-20% of the island is zoned for residential use, 60-65% for commercial use and 20-25% for industrial use. Hazardous material and petroleum use is primarily limited to boat or marine related activities, one dry cleaner, the auto auction lot located on the western side of the area, and gas stations located near I-5. Chemicals or contaminants of concern include petroleum products at the gas station and marinas, fiberglass, paint and solvents at the boat works and auto auction, and TCE from the dry cleaners. Environmental Database Preliminary Results A search of DEQ’s online environmental databases was performed to identify sites within the subject property. Results were returned from five databases including the Environmental Contaminated Site Inventory (ECSI), Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), Underground Storage Tank (UST), Hazardous Waste Management Sites (HWMS), and SIS databases. Forty two sites were listed within the defined area including five ECSI sites, 15 Hazardous Waste Management Sites, ten LUST sites, five SIS sites and seven UST sites. Below is a list of the facility name and address for each of the sites as well as the database listing information. Figures 1 and 2 show the database listing locations. Figure 1 – DEQ Facility Profiler Site Locations Map East of I-5 within subject property boundary 4-2 Figure 2 – DEQ Facility Profiler Site Locations Map West of I-5 within subject property boundary Two of the five ECSI sites have received a No Further Action status from DEQ. The remaining three are summarized below: • Hayden Island Drum is located east of the I-5 bridge along the Columbia River is listed as a contaminated site requiring additional site investigation. No further information was available regarding the site on DEQ’s online database. The two remaining ECSI sites are also listed on the Confirmed Release Inventory (CRL). • Hayden Island Landfill is identified on the ECSI database (#1559) for metals and gasoline impacted groundwater. The site was formerly an unregulated landfill located in a seasonal lake basin and operated approximately from 1950 to 1970. In 1970, approximately 7-8 feet of clean fill was placed at the site. An ARCO facility opened at the site later in 1971 at the eastern edge of the former landfill. A site investigation was initiated by ARCO in 1989 and identified gasoline contamination in groundwater. The site was added to DEQ’s Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) program (LUST #26-89-0149) in 1989 related to this contamination and received a Cleanup Completed Status in 1998 with conditional groundwater monitoring requirements. • Schooner Creek Boat Works is identified on the ECSI database (#3333) for contaminated sediments. Contaminants include PCBs, PAHs, PCP, phenols, DDTs, chlordane, metals and 4-3 4-4 low concentrations of diesel fuel and oil. The source of the contaminants and extent of the contamination has not been defined as of this report writing. Sediment sampling is ongoing and DEQ is providing further guidance on the investigation. Of the ten LUST sites listed within the subject property, all but two have been cleaned up and closed in accordance with DEQ guidelines. • Shell Oil Company (LUST #26-89-0267) located at 12235 N Jantzen Drive, is listed for gasoline and waste oil contaminated soils and groundwater that was discovered during a tank decommissioning in 1990. Groundwater monitoring is currently being conducted at the site. • Chevron Jantzen Beach (LUST #26-97-0505) located 12105 N Jantzen Drive, is listed for gasoline contaminated soils and groundwater that was discovered during a tank decommissioning in 1993. Groundwater monitoring conducted at the site was last reported in 2005. Seven active USTs were listed on the DEQ database and include the Chevron site referenced above, the Columbia River Yacht Club and the Jantzen Beach Moorage. The contents of the USTs are reported as gasoline and diesel fuels. Fifteen HWMS sites were reported on DEQ’s on line database with one Large Quantity Generator, four Small Quantity Generators, and ten Conditionally Exempt Generators. Three of these sites are no longer active, including the LQG. Waste materials of the one large quantity generator generally include paints, paint thinners, aerosols, batteries, acids, and fuels. Five Industrial stormwater permits (NPDES) were identified within the subject property boundaries as listed in Table 1. No violations were note for the sites. Areas of Concern/Conclusions Based on the preliminary research and a review of DEQ’s online databases, the following sites or issues have been identified for further assessment: • The former landfill west of I-5 has been documented with known groundwater contamination. Soil instability is also a known issue in this general area and should be considered for future development. • Schooner Creek Boat Works and the associated sediment contamination. Schooner Creek and Portland Auto Auction each have 1200Z Stormwater General permits that require the owners to comply with stormwater quality regulations. • The two open LUST cases should be assessed to identify concerns at the time of the proposed project. • Sites with hazardous material usage within adjacent to I-5 would likely include the gas stations and dry cleaners. • Alternative alignments of I-5 could be impacted by the marinas. Attachment: ƒ Table 1 – Hazardous Materials Sites Related web links for additional information: ƒ DEQ Facility Profiler: http://deq12.deq.state.or.us/fp20/StartPage.aspx ƒ DEQ LUST database: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/tanks/lust/LustPublicLookup.asp Memorandum 5 5-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Ela Whelan, Project Water Resources Engineer, URS Corporation Sharon Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Infrastructure Systems Condition - Drinking Water The Portland Water Bureau (PWB) was contacted for information on the existing water system on Hayden Island. City staff1 provided anecdotal information as well as a water system summary, a map of existing systems, and portions of a 1988 Portland Water Bureau Public Facilities Plan to inform this technical memo. Multnomah County was the governing jurisdiction for the study area prior to annexation into the City of Portland. The water system was annexed by the Portland Water Bureau in the late 1980’s. Originally put in as a private system and the water distribution pipe was run as a private water district by the Jantzen Beach Water Company (JBWC). With no water source on the Island, JPWC maintained the distribution system and purchased water from the Portland Water Bureau. The PWB has made a number of improvements over the years, but some of the old pipe still remain including some transite (asbestos) pipe and 2-inch mains in some of the older residential areas of the island. A 16-inch Ductile Iron (DI) pipe, installed in 1984 across the I-5 Bridge, provided the main source of water to the island for a number of years until a new, 20-inch High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE), was constructed in 1997, on the far east end of the island. This additional line provides a supplemental source of water to the Island, strengthening the overall water system and reducing the risk of relying on a single supply line. The HDPE line was tunneled under the North Portland Harbor and ties in to a 12-inch DI pipe on Marine Dr. Attached is a PWB map showing the water supply and distribution system on Hayden Island. PWB has systematically upgraded the water system on the Island since annexing the system. A new 16-inch diameter DI transmission line was installed in 1997 to connect the new 20-inch supply line with the existing 16-inch line that serves the island at the I-5 Bridge. Twelve-inch diameter DI transmission main line, constructed between 1989 and 1992, increased the capacity of water service to the west parts of the developed areas of Hayden Island. Some of the old original piping still exists on the Island. Eight inch to twelve inch diameter transite pipe is in use behind the Jantzen Beach Center. Asbestos pipe is not a hazard when it is 1 Personal telephone communication with Greg Drechsler, Principal Engineer, and Chad Talbot, Senior Engineer, on April 23, 2007. 5-2 wet. Per the PWB, these pipe are safe to use and currently adequate in size. As needs change and new development occurs, pipe would be upgraded to DI pipe per PWB standards. Old cast iron (CI) pipe and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe serve some of the older residential areas throughout the Island. Likewise, these are currently adequate and would be upgraded as necessary. The PWB 1988 Public Facilities Plan discussed a second supply line to the Island on the west part of the developed area, in conjunction with a new bridge accessing the Island. The bridge was never installed and the supply line was built on the eastern edge of the Island. Future plans for the Island include annexation of the west side of the Island for industrial purposes. At that time, the PWB would evaluate the need for upgrading the water supply network to the Island and strengthening the main distribution system. The water system on the Island, per PWB assessment, is adequate for current development and Fire Bureau established fire flow requirements. Changes to development or new development would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis by the PWB. Attachment: Map of Hayden Island Water Distribution System Memorandum 6 6-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Ela Whelan, Project Water Resources Engineer, URS Corporation Sharon Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Emergency Services Emergency services for fire, police, and medical services are provided for Hayden Island by the City of Portland. Portland Fire and Rescue A City of Portland fire station is located on the Island, at 848 North Tomahawk Drive, just east of the freeway exit. The fire personnel at this station respond to a variety of emergencies including medical first aid and water related emergencies. Water related issues include removal of navigational and environmental hazards, keeping beaches safe, and responding to life and safety emergencies. In fiscal year 2005-2006 (July, 2005 through June, 2006), the fire station responded to 1,053 calls, of which 161 were River emergencies. Built in 1994, the fire station has five personnel on duty including a company officer, a harbor pilot, an engineer and a Firemedic. Equipment available at the fire station includes a fire engine and two boats, one a fire boat and the other a rescue boat. Police Emergencies Hayden Island is located in the North East Precinct of the City of Portland and is served by the police station at 449 NE Emerson St. The City of Portland police website indicates the majority of crimes committed on Hayden Island are theft related. Crime listings on the City of Portland Police website provide various terminologies for theft including burglaries (thefts out of buildings, structures), larceny (thefts from people such as pickpockets), theft from auto, and vehicle theft. Medical Emergencies Immediate response for medical emergencies is by the Fire Stations’ Firemedic. Portland Fire and Rescue provide one paramedic with each fire engine and work with the American Medical Response (AMR) as first responder for medical emergencies. Further assistance is provided at hospitals, the closest is about 4 miles away in Vancouver Washington, the Southwest Washington Medical Center. Portland hospitals include Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital at 1015 NW 22nd Ave., and Legacy Emmanual Hospital, located at 2801 N. 6-2 Gantenbein Ave. Both hospitals are about 7 miles away from the I-5 Freeway on Hayden Island. Additional hospitals in Portland are located within 10 – 15 miles away, including Woodland Park Hospital and Providence Portland Medical Center. Legacy Salmon Hospital is located about 9 miles away in Vancouver, at 2525 NE 139th St. Emergency Response Todd Kiethley1, Battalion Chief, assigned to Hayden Island, responded to questions with regard to response times, backup strategies, ability to respond, and I-5 traffic concerns. Response times are highly variable and not readily available, depending on the location of the incident, the type of incident and access for the fire department. Hayden Island includes a large number of marinas with locked gates. If additional keys are required for entrance, it may take some time to access the location of the emergency. The Fire Department participates in all meetings and discussions related to major construction projects including options for the I-5 Bridge crossing. Stressing the need for access to emergencies, the Fire Department requests advance notice of any potential limits to their mobility. In addition to servicing Hayden Island, the Fire Station responds to calls from North Portland and to problems on the I-5 Bridge. For issues with advance warning, such as traffic jams related to July 4th traffic, or for major construction projects, the Fire Station makes sure that one company (staff of 4) does not leave the Island. If there is further concern, they can assign a second company to the Fire Station. Reconfiguration of resources, involving additional personnel or equipment, is the main strategy for addressing potential problems with emergency response. The Hayden Island Fire Station is unique in that they have cross trained personnel and equipment. They have the ability to respond to emergencies with either a fire boat or a fire engine. Previous policies provided for a dedicated crew each to the fire boat and the fire engine. Current policies and training provide for the ability of staff to use either piece of equipment. With a marine fire, it is often faster to respond from the water due to accessibility of the emergency. If there is reason to believe there will be a significant delay in response, the fire station will send out the on-site crew with the fire boat and bring in a second crew to use the fire engine. The Fire Department can also send out a second fire engine if needed. Current policies appear to be working well. There have not been any recent problems with resources to address emergencies. Highway I-5 can slow traffic, particularly during rush hour. For highway emergencies, the policy is to send a company in each direction as it is not always clear where the emergency is located, and in which direction of traffic. The company that does not wind up responding returns to the fire station, and in non-emergency mode, this can take up to an hour during heavy traffic. Multnomah County Sheriff is generally responsible for water related emergencies, and is backed up by the US Coast Guard, if required. 1 Telephone Conversation between Ela Whelan and Todd Kiethly, Portland Fire Battalion Chief, on July 19, 2007. Memorandum 7 7-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Ela Whelan, Senior Project Water Resources Engineer, URS Corporation Sharon Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Infrastructure Systems Condition – Sanitary and Storm Sewers Introduction Prior to annexation by the City of Portland in the late 1980’s, utility services were provided by the Hayden Corporation, a private company that at one time owned the developed portion of the Island. In the late 1980’s, the City of Portland annexed the east area of the Island into the City limits and purchased parts of the sanitary and storm system. The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) owns and maintains the majority of the main lines and trunk system for the sanitary sewer system. BES declined to accept parts of the sanitary system that belongs to trailer parks or gated communities that do not permit open access. BES insisted on having access to sanitary or stormwater systems in the event of an emergency. The majority of the stormwater system on the Island is privately owned. BES is currently working on identifying the existing drainage infrastructure, particularly the elements that they own and are responsible for maintaining. Existing plans, transfer documents, agreements, and easements, are tools being used to identify the storm drainage system. A 102 inch diameter pipe crosses Hayden Island west of the Railroad Bridge; it then divides into three 84-inch lines at the northern part of the island and discharges into the Columbia River. These are the discharge lines for the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant, and as treated effluent, the water quality is considered equivalent to that of stormwater, rather than sewage, and therefore shows up on the stormwater layer of the GIS map. These are not local stormwater pipes and are not accessible to individual landowners. Information for this memo came from GIS maps provided by the City of Portland; the City’s online mapping system, and discussions with staff1 at BES. 1 Telephone conversations between Ela Whelan, URS, and: Steve Hawkins, Senior Maintenance Engineer, BES, on May 2, 2007, and Craig Rosborough, Mapping Manager for BES, on May 15, 2007. Sanitary Sewer Facilities A number of public and private lines flow to 12 pump stations before being pumped to a 20-inch diameter concrete cylinder pipe (CCP) that takes the effluent to the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment and disposal. Five of the pump stations are private facilities and seven are owned and maintained by BES. Not all of the private, or public, lines are identified at this time. Private gravity lines vary from 4-inch to 24-inch in diameter and include PVC (plastic – polyvinyl chloride), CSP (concrete sewer pipe) and unknown materials. Pressure lines vary from 4-inch PVC to 18-inch HDPE (plastic – high density polyethylene). Public sewer gravity lines varied from 8-inch diameter to 24-inch. Pipe materials included CSP, PVC, RCP (reinforced concrete pipe), and some unknown materials. Old asbestos lines appear to have been abandoned. Public pressure lines include 6-inch to 15-inch PVC, and 10-inch HDPE. A pump station at the end of the bridge collects all of the sewage on the Island and transports it through a 20-inch CCP across the I-5 bridge to tie into gravity lines that flow to the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Facility. From the mapping provided by the City, it appears the majority of the gravity lines are privately owned and maintained, Bureau of Environmental Services owns five pump stations and the majority of the pressure lines are publicly owned and maintained. All of the remaining pump stations are privately owned. In discussions with City staff, the existing system appears adequate and there are no current plans for upgrades. The biggest maintenance issue for sanitary systems on the Island is grease in the sanitary lines from the restaurants on the Island. This is a typical issue for urban sanitary systems. There are few other requests for service, an indication that the system is adequate and functioning appropriately for current needs. Stormwater Facilities Greater unknowns exist with stormwater facilities on Hayden Island. A combination of inlets, catch basins, manholes, and pipe with outfalls to the River or Harbor, comprise the drainage system on the Island. Catch basins typically include baffles to separate oil and sediment from the stormwater prior to draining to the River or Harbor. The majority of the system is privately owned and maintained, particularly the system that drains the Jantzen Beach Shopping Center. Of the pipe that has been identified, pipe sizes for PVC (plastic) pipe vary from 10-inch to 15- inch diameter. A twenty-four inch diameter CMP (Corrugated metal pipe) and one 12-inch Reinforced Concrete Sewer Pipe (RCP) are shown on the GIS map of the storm drainage system. Concrete sewer pipe (CSP) ranges in size from 12-inch to 36-inch diameter. Unspecified pipe materials are shown for pipe and range between 8-inch and 24-inch diameter. An 18-inch DIP (ductile iron pipe) is shown on the east end of Tomahawk Island. DIP is often used when the pipe is very shallow and there is concern for damage from heavy loads. Much of the stormwater system is shallow and flat due to the minimal elevation of the Island above sea level and the flat topography. As such, there is flooding when there are heavy rains. 7-2 Roadways on the Island, particularly private roads, show signs of water damage indicative of chronic flooding of the roadway or underground movement of water. BES maintenance department does not receive more than occasional complaints and very few requests for service, indicating the flooding is likely not severe, nor prolonged in duration. There are no major improvements planned at this time with the exception of better identification and clarification of the existing drainage system. Attachments: Hayden Island Sanitary System Map Hayden Island Storm System Map 7-3 7-5 7-6 Memorandum 8 8-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Ela Whelan, Senior Water Resources Project Engineer, URS Corporation Sharon Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Natural Hazards and 100 Year Floodplain Introduction Natural hazards are occasional serious events that occur in the environment including earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruption, wildfire, extreme weather, and floods. These events can be problematic for developments that neither expect any changes to the local environment nor incorporate mitigating measures for these potential hazards. Earthquakes relieve pressure underneath the earth’s surface, but can be devastating to structures not designed to handle major earth movements. Likewise, floodplains provide areas of storage for large volumes of runoff from major storms, and replenish nutrients in the soils that get flooded, however, buildings in floodplains can be destroyed if not properly designed, built or protected. Understanding natural hazards is an important component to planning to minimize damage to life, health and property during these events. This memo provides a brief overview of natural hazards that could apply to Hayden Island. While we cannot control these events we can plan to minimize their impacts, such as building earthquake resistant structures, and limiting construction in floodplains, or provide adequate warning for evacuation, such as in the event of severe weather or volcanic eruption. As the planning agency for the Portland area, Metro developed a regional policy and planning guide for natural hazards1 in 1999, using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding. In collaboration with other agencies, Metro has also developed a series of Natural Hazards Maps that depict hazards on different map layers for the region. Earthquake and Liquefaction zone: Earthquake hazards are a factor in the Portland region for several reasons. On a regional level, a subduction zone is at work along the coast, which stretches from Vancouver Island to California, with the plate that the Pacific Ocean is resting on gradually moving underneath the North American plate. Known as the Cascadia subduction zone, this movement has the potential to generate large earthquakes. In addition, there are a number of faults that run through Portland, such as the Portland Hills fault, which may produce earthquakes that range from undetectable to large enough to cause damage. 1 Regional Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide, Reducing Disaster Losses, Metro, June 1999 Metro collaborated with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) to identify, and map, areas of potential earthquake hazard and the relative risk of each area for associated potential damages. Several factors contribute to the risk associated with an earthquake including: liquefaction of soils, landslides, and extent of ground movement. Liquefaction zones are a hazard created when an earthquake causes soil to change its structure and the soil behaves as a liquid, destabilizing the ground within the zone and any structures on it. Liquefaction may occur in sandy soils that are not well compacted, as is the case with the soil structure in the urban area of Hayden Island2,3. The soil on the east side of the Island is classified as 33A, Pilchuck urban land complex, a sandy alluvium typically found in floodplains. Figure 14 is a Seismic Hazard map for Hayden Island, showing the study area largely in red, with some orange areas near the freeway and on Tomahawk Island. Areas shown on the map as red have the potential to be impacted by two or more of the risk factors (as described in the previous paragraph) associated with earthquakes. Lighter colors have less relative risk, such as orange and paler shades of red and orange. Landslides: Landslides are not considered a potential hazard on Hayden Island due to the low elevations and relatively flat terrain. The highest elevation of the island is at 30’ above sea level, sloping down to 20 ft. and 10 ft. around the outer edges of the Island. Volcanic Eruption: Nearby volcanoes include not only Mt. St. Helens, but also Mt. Hood, Mt. Adams and farther away, but also in the vicinity, is Mt. Rainier. The Portland area has experienced ash deposition from several occurrences of eruptions of Mt. St. Helens. Potential damage5 from ash fall and acid rain would be the likely impacts to Hayden Island from nearby volcanic eruptions. Wildfire: Wildfire is also not a major concern due to the lack of natural forested and/or grassland on the east end of the island. The western, unincorporated part of the Island is heavily vegetated, and wildfires could occur. Extreme Weather: Extreme weather can include high winds, ice storms, thunderstorms, and tornadoes. Thunderstorms and tornadoes are rare, but have been known to occur in the Portland area. Wind storms and ice storms are a more likely. High winds can occur through the Columbia Gorge, bringing cold weather as well as high east winds. High winds are also caused by hurricanes from the Pacific. Winds of 90 mph can occur as the weather moves north. A rare 2 NRCS Soil Survey, August, 1983; 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_liquefaction 4 Metro website for all figures in this report: http://mica.metro- region.org/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=hazard&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True&Encode= ... 9/5/2007 5 Regional Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide, p. 17. 8-2 event the Columbus Day 1962 storm recorded winds of 119 mph6. Heavy winds can damage trees, power lines, and other utilities, particularly when accompanied by ice. Per Metro’s Natural Hazard Map, there are a number of electrical substations and electrical transmission lines on the Island that could be affected by extreme weather events. 100 Year Floodplain: Floods occur when sufficient rain, or rain and snowmelt, cause water to overtop the banks of streams and rivers. Natural channels usually form naturally to contain up to two year storm events, typical rainfall for the area. Larger rainfall, for storms that occur less frequently, such as once in ten years, or once in 25 years, will often cause water to rise and fill the adjacent floodplains for the waterways. Although not very frequent, 100 year storms are capable of filling wide swaths of floodplain adjacent to streams and rivers and can cause extensive property damage and risk of loss of lives. To protect life and property, FEMA requires both delineation of the 100 year floodplain and development restrictions within the floodplain. The 100 year floodplain identifies the flooding that is expected to occur during a storm event that would statistically occur once every 100 years. Flooding from storm events and resulting flooding can be impacted by a number of things, including snowmelt and frozen ground. Prolonged rainfall, over a number of days, may also increase flooding during heavy rainfall events. As an example, a large storm in February, 1996, an unclassified storm event, caused extensive flooding in the Portland area and was the result of prolonged rainfall, frozen ground and snowmelt. Hayden Island is bordered on the north by the Columbia River and the south by the North Portland Harbor. Figure 2 is the FEMA floodplain map for Hayden Island. The 1996 flood was apparently higher than the 100 year floodplain since more areas on the Island flooded during this event, per Figure 3, the 1996 Flood Map. Flood elevations in the Columbia River at Vancouver were recorded to be 28.87 ft. FEMA floodplain mapping shows large areas of Tomahawk Island in the 100 year floodplain area, fringes of the boundaries of the island, with the exception of the levy on the north side of the island, and all of the undeveloped western part of the island. All of these areas were flooded in the 1996 flood and some additional low lying areas throughout the island flooded as well. Flooding in the Willamette and Columbia Rivers have been recorded since June, 18944. The highest elevations of recorded historical flooding occurred in June, 1948, at 32.8 ft., and June, 1894, at 36.0 ft. Eight floods have occurred between 1894 and 1996, six of which have recorded elevations, ranging from 21.5 ft. to 29.5 ft. One caution should be noted regarding the elevations listed for the 1996 flood as well as the FEMA floodplain and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) mapping: elevations between different maps, including FEMA mapping, 1996 River Gauge Elevations, and USGS maps are not the same. Different datum (starting elevations for vertical measurements, level zero is different for each datum) are used for each set of measurements. The elevations can 6 Regional Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide, p. 12. 7 Regional Hazard Mitigation Policy and Planning Guide, p. 10. 8-3 8-4 only be used in comparison with other information from the same data set. For example, recorded elevations for flooding, in Metro’s report, can be compared with one another, but should not be compared to USGS elevations on their topography maps. The levies, along the northern part of Hayden Island, are privately owned, and appear to keep the northern part of the island out of the 100 year floodplain. Although it is unknown what level of protection these levies provide, it is worth noting that the 100 year floodplain is based on statistics resulting from a rain event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. A large event, statistically greater than the 100 year storm, could overtop the levies and place the entire island under water. Erosion along the island river banks, and in particular on the levies, occurs continually with tidal fluctuations, storms, and wave action by passing watercraft. Large storms, particularly of the magnitude of 100 year storms or greater, have the potential to have a significant impact on erosion and structural stability of the levies. Current maintenance efforts of the levies are unknown, but regular inspection, particularly after major storms, should be a minimum level of effort. Reinforcement of sections of the levy may be necessary after major storms. Dredging of the Columbia River is being pursued by the Corps of Engineers to deepen the River for maintenance of the river channel and to accommodate the ever increasing size of vessels hauling goods along the River. Dredging is currently occurring at River Mile 105.5, about 1 mile downstream of the I-5 bridge. Previous dredging has taken place, in previous years, from River Mile 91 to 104. Tidal influences have an impact on the Columbia River up to the Bonneville Dam. Changing with the seasons, river level high tide to low tide fluctuations vary from about 3 feet to 5 feet, per the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tides and Current Website8. Attachments: Figure 1 – Relative Earthquake Hazard Figure 2 – FEMA 100 Yr. Floodplain Map Figure 3 – 1996 Flood Area Map 8 NOAA Tides and Currents Website: www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/station_retrieve.shtml?type=Tide%20Data&sort=A.STATION_ID& state=&id1= Fi gu re 1 - R el at iv e Ea rt hq ua ke H az ar d Pa ge 1 of 1 M ap O ut pu t 9/ 5/ 20 07 ht tp :// m ic a. m et ro -r eg io n. or g/ se rv le t/c om .e sr i.e sr im ap .E sr im ap ?S er vi ce N am e= ha za rd & C lie nt V er si on =4 .0 & Fo rm =T ru e& En co de =. .. 8-5 I5 MA RI NE HA YD EN IS LA ND PO RT LA ND FOR CE EXPO SU TT LE 8T H BA N K BR ID G ET O N UN IO N H AN E Y CO LU MB IA VI C TO R Y TO M AH AW K IS LA N D JA NT ZE N UN NA M ED FIR VA NC OU VE R CEN TER SW IF T 2ND FAR R BR O AD AC RE ELM MACRUM 13TH RI VE R PI ER 9 9 EX PO T C AN CH O R UP LA ND KING H AY D E N B AY KE LL Y PO IN T PA RK CY PR US M EN ZI ES PO RT FL O W ER 1ST 5TH SOU TH SHO RE I5 U N N AM E D UNN AME D UN NA ME D JAN TZE N Le ge nd ST R E ET S 10 0Y R F LD P LA IN VA C A N T LA N D R IV E R F IL L 0 2, 00 0 4, 00 0 Fe et FI G U R E 2 - H AY D EN IS LA N D 1 00 -Y EA R F LO O D PL A IN D at a S ou rc e: R LI S 20 03 W A SH IN G TO N 8-7 Fi gu re 3 - 19 96 F lo od M ap Pa ge 1 of 1 M ap O ut pu t 9/ 5/ 20 07 ht tp :// m ic a. m et ro -r eg io n. or g/ se rv le t/c om .e sr i.e sr im ap .E sr im ap ?S er vi ce N am e= ha za rd & C lie nt V er si on =4 .0 & Fo rm =T ru e& En co de =F al se 8-9 Memorandum 9 9-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Dautis Pearson, URS Environmental Planner Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Natural Resources Inventory, the Quality/Quantity of Natural Resources, and Federal and State Permitting Requirements Introduction: This memo assesses the quality and quantity of the shorelines habitat and conditions, vegetation types and function, and wildlife and fisheries species that occupy those habitats and their diversity. This memo is based on information from City of Portland, review of information from National Marine Fisheries Service, Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Northwest Wetland Inventory (NWI), and a site visit. This report will outline the existing conditions for vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, and shorelines and discuss permitting requirements development or requested changes in these natural resource elements, and provide any conclusions appropriate for this type of review. Hayden Island is a sandy island, located in the Columbia River between Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon. The Columbia River is on the northern border with a smaller channel of the Columbia on the south side. This smaller channel is known as North Portland Harbor. The eastern half of Hayden Island is within the City of Portland and forms one of its 95 neighborhoods, known as Hayden Island. The half of the Island west of the BNSF railroad tracks is not within the City of Portland, but is within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary. The east end of the island has extensive development including retail, hotels, industry and offices, manufactured housing, condominium complexes and single family houses (Figure 1, Zoning). Additionally, along the south side of the island there is extensive build out of houseboat moorages and marinas. Interstate 5 crosses the island and connects the island to Portland south and Vancouver north. The island has a rich history including its ferries and streetcar service to its amusement parks. Most of the eastern end of the island has been or is under development or redevelopment. Throughout its history Hayden Island hass been filled with dredge spoils including the area between Hayden Bay and North Portland Harbor. This is area was the original shipping channel and now connects what was Tomahawk Island with Hayden Island. The west side of the island is undeveloped and included in the urban growth boundary. The Port of Portland purchased the land with the intention of Port facilities expansion. This portion of Hayden Island is not considered in this assessment. Existing Conditions Vegetation, Wildlife Habitat and Species The eastern end of Hayden Island has been extensively developed and is currently experiencing redevelopment along Tomahawk and Hayden Dr. Vegetation and habitat for wildlife species throughout the Island is minimal on the western portion of the island do to the extensive industrial, residential and commercial development. Vegetation in these areas are dominantly planted species such as grasses, ornamental trees, and shrubs. This vegetation supplies habitat for some wildlife species including birds and some small mammals but is limited by the ability to migrate to and from the island. The Port of Portland properties provide a greater abundance of habitat that provide functioning habitat for most species but again are limited due to the ability to migrate any distance. Port of Portland Properties Hayden Island is a unique island habitat in an urbanized area of the Columbia River corridor. It serves as a fringe habitat and is an important regional and local wildlife/bird corridor. NWI wetland mapping has a record of one existing wetland in the northwest corner of the developed area next to the railroad bridge (Figure 2, Environmental Zones). This area and an extended area along and beneath the railroad bridge are considered an environmental zone by the City (Figure 2, Environmental Zones). Environmental zones protect resources and functional values that have been identified by the City as providing benefits to the public. The environmental regulations encourage flexibility and innovation in site planning and provide for development that is carefully designed to be sensitive to the site’s protected resources. The shorelines buffers are part of the environmental conservation zone or “c” zone classification and are 25 feet in width. These areas provide some habitat function for birds and wildlife but is considered minimal based on past shoreline diking and shoreline modification to prevent flooding. Small mammals and migratory birds use the existing habitat and landscaping for foraging and some small birds for nesting and fledging. The diversity of mammals is minimal in the environmental zones due to the isolation of the island and the amount of habitat. Species that have the potential to occur in such areas include raccoon, opossum, deer mouse, house mouse (non-native), gopher snake, common garter snake, red-tailed hawk, Steller’s jay, and a large number of songbirds, particularly swallows and chickadees, may be found in developed areas. Many bats rely on residential and commercial structures for roosting and rearing sites. No bald eagle nests are recorded in the area (Isaacs & Anthony, 2005) however eagles and other raptors may use the area for Environmental Zone 9-2 foraging. The eastern portion of the island provides minimal vegetation and habitat for most wildlife species. Avian species (birds) and avian migratory species exist in the trees, shrubs, and shoreline environmental areas that provide a moderate degree of diversity and habitat function. Other areas of landscaping also provide some habitat function for avian species. Aquatic Habitat and Species Aquatic species use the Columbia as a migratory route. This includes Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Lower Columbia River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). This area is also identified as critical habitat for salmon, coho, and steelhead. The North Portland Harbor portion or the southern shores of the Island is lined with boat and house moorings close to the shorelines. The shoreline riparian habitat is mostly non-native vegetation or landscape vegetation which provides shoreline stability but minimal value for the shoreline waterway interaction and function. Although specific aquatic habitat (cove or irregular shallow water) is minimal water quality is of importance for migratory species moving through this area. It is also unknown what effect, if any, the houseboats moored along the southern portion of the island have on migrating species. Fish species use the waterways around Hayden Island for migration. Minimal or no habitat exists for spawning, rearing, or juvenile use along or in close proximity to the shorelines. Development in these riparian areas would have to consider the environmental “c” zones for protection of those aquatic and terrestrial resources. Shorelines The shorelines on Hayden Island consist of a variety of fill materials that have armored and elevated the shoreline to prevent flooding. There is minimal riparian habitat within the 25 foot “c“ zone buffer and these area do not provide any channel conditions and dynamics (cove habitat or irregular shorelines that produce pools and estuaries) that are of higher quality. Most of the East Hayden Island shorelines have been or are in the process of being altered mostly for marine storage areas or moorings. The exception is the eastern tip of the Island that is in its natural state. It is this eastern end of the Island that provides the higher quality riparian and upland habitat. The Port of Portland lands to the west have more natural shorelines. Shoreline Fill Areas The environmental overlay for the environmental zones are a Conservation Overlay Zone or “c” zone where environmental resources and functional values can be protected while allowing environmentally sensitive development. (Figure 2, Environmental Zones). 9-3 For Development within Environmental Conservation Zone: If the project complies with the permitting requirements, applicant can choose to go through discretionary environmental review process or to meet objective standards. If the proposed project does not meet General Development Standards: (33.430.140) “The proposed development must be set back at least 50 feet from…the top of bank of any identified water body within the Columbia Corridor, or any identified water body within a protection zone on lots zoned R10, R20, or RF” Environmental Review (33.430.210) is required if project does not meet development standards. This would also be required if applicant wishes to fine-tune the zone boundary location. Type II procedure (required for development within conservation zone): Impact evaluation must demonstrate that all of the following are met: • Proposed development minimizes loss of resources and functional values, consistent with allowing those uses generally permitted or allowed in the base zone without a land use review. • Proposed development locations, designs, and construction methods are less detrimental to identified resources and functional values than other practicable and significantly different alternatives. • There will be no significant detrimental impact on resources and functional values in areas designated to be left undisturbed. • The mitigation plan demonstrates that all significant impacts will be compensated for. • Mitigation will occur within same watershed as proposed use or development and within Portland city limits except when purpose of mitigation could be better provided elsewhere. • Applicant owns mitigation site; possesses legal instrument that is approved by City sufficient to carry out and ensure success of mitigation program; can demonstrate legal authority to acquire property through eminent domain. Permitting Requirements Federal and State regulations typically do not require permits specific to local land use planning activities. Typically permitting requirements are triggered when specific development proposals are made. During the planning phase of this project no federal or state permits are required. However, coordination with Federal and State regulatory agencies may be appropriate during the planning process to ensure that Federal and State regulations are taken into account and anticipated for future development. If future development is proposed within the area, permitting would likely be required, depending on the specific development proposal. The type of permitting that would be required would vary, depending on the nature of the specific proposal and the project proponent. For example, the Columbia River Crossing Project that is examining alternative improvements to I-5 would be required to obtain a broad set of permits from Federal, state and local agencies, and the requirements 9-4 would be different than the permits required for a proposal to redevelop a portion of the Jantzen Beach Mall. A list of the types of potential permits that could be required for development in this area is included below by category (Federal, State, or Local). Federal • Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service is required if a federal nexus exists through federal funding or federal lead agency. • Joint Permit Application and attendant documentation for the Corps, DSL, and DEQ in support of regulatory compliance requirements of §404 and §401 of the Clean Water Act, §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the State Removal-Fill Law. This would be required for any cut and fill permit application triggering ESA and Cultural consultation. Depending on the extent or intensity of the project the Corp through the 404 (b)(1) guidelines could federalize the project and trigger the NEPA process. • If federal funding or oversight is a component of the project it may be necessary to initiate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess impacts to the natural and physical environment. The NEPA process would also “umbrella” consistency with all other federal laws mentioned above. • NPDES Compliance at Federal and State levels for any additional water discharge including stormwater compliance for any addition impervious surface. • Federal Air Quality and Noise Compliance (if applicable). • Compliance with the Endangered Species Act. State • Submerged/Submersible Lands Lease Application if any land would be converted to marinas or lost to waterways from DSL. • Access Agreement for Fill/Removal Action would be required if fill material is to be move to another site for disposal. • State Goal Requirements for land use and conservation areas and waterways would have to be reviewed for consistency where adopted by the county and city. • State Historic Preservation Office compliance (Section 106 of the Antiquities Act) would be required of all ground disturbing activities. • NPDES requirements for changes in water discharge, use, and storage. • State Air and Noise requirements (if applicable). Attachments: Figure 1 is Hayden Island Zoning Figure 2 is Environmental Zones 9-5 9-6 Figure 2, Environmental Zones are the green highlighted areas and are considered “c” zones or “conservation zones” for protection. The wetland area is on the left hand corner of the text box. 9-7 Memorandum 10 10-1 Date: August 30, 2007 To: Joe Zehnder, City of Portland Planning Bureau John Gillam, City of Portland Department of Transportation Patrick Sweeney, City of Portland Department of Transportation From: Sharon Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, URS Corporation Subject: Hayden Island Existing Conditions Report Airport Noise Issues The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief overview of airport noise related issues and regulations to inform the City of Portland’s land use planning effort for East Hayden Island. Portland International Airport (PDX) is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Hayden Island, and Hayden Island is within the flight path of the airplanes taking off from, and/or landing at the airport. Land uses and activities on Hayden Island periodically experience noise related to aircraft takeoffs and landings at PDX. Existing airport noise contours for PDX are shown on the attached map. The map is located at the following web link: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/portlandcontour.pdf. For an explanation of how to better understand aircraft noise, refer to the following web link: http://www.fican.org/pdf/aircraft_noise.pdf The noise contours on the map indicate that the north side of East Hayden Island is within the 65 DNL noise contour. Because a portion of the island is within this noise contour, additional specific City of Portland development regulations would apply to new development and redevelopment in the area. Airport Noise Regulations Airport related noise is managed and/or regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the City of Portland, and the Port of Portland. In general federal regulations defined by the FAA regulate the noise environment around airports. The City of Portland also has noise regulations, but cannot supersede the federal regulations. The Port of Portland, as the owner of the airport manages compliance of airport related noise. FAA noise related regulations can be found at the following web link: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ The City of Portland regulates impacts of airport noise through its land use planning and regulatory processes. The city has adopted the “Portland International Airport Noise Impact Zone” as one mechanism for reducing the impact of noise on development within the noise impact area surrounding the Portland International Airport (for the full details of the City of Portland regulations, refer to Chapter 33.470 of the Portland City Code). The city code limits residential densities and requires noise insulation, noise disclosure statements, and noise easements in certain areas. The Ldn 65 noise contour (as defined in the 1990 Portland International Airport Noise Abatement Plan Update) is the boundary for the PDX Noise Zone. All lands within the Ldn 65 noise contour are subject to the city’s regulations. New residential uses are prohibited within the Ldn 68 noise corridor. The Port of Portland, as the owner of the airport, is responsible for the airport’s compliance with FAA noise regulations. The Portland International Airport (PDX) Noise Compatibility Study1 (Part 150 Study - http://www.flypdx.com/Prj_PDX_Part_150_Home.aspx) is part of the Port of Portland's ongoing effort to reduce aircraft noise impacts while operating a vital international airport and regional asset in a growing metropolitan community. Details of the study can be found at the following web link: http://www.flypdx.com/Prj_PDX_Part_150_Doc.aspx The goal of the study was to evaluate and recommend measures that will aid in reducing aircraft noise impacts to residential communities and other noise-sensitive areas. These measures must be safe, realistic and legal in order to gain FAA approval. The Port had tremendous participation in this effort by airport stakeholders, including the airlines and pilots, business and environmental groups, as well as surrounding community members when the Noise Compatibility Program was in developmental stages. The Port of Portland Commission approved the Part 150 Study recommendations on August 10th, 2005. The study was then submitted to the FAA for review. In December, 2006, the FAA issued a notice—which was posted in local newspapers—giving the general public 60 days for comments. The comment period ended on February 15, 2007 and the FAA had 180 days to reach a decision on the PDX Noise Compatibility Program. In June 2007, the FAA completed their review of the Part 150 Update. The Port has received the Record of Approval dated June 7, 2007. The Noise Management Department is beginning development of an implementation plan for approved recommendations. For more information about the PDX Part 150 Study, aircraft noise impacts or flight operations, contact the Noise Management Department at 503.460.4100 or 800.938.6647. Following are some frequently asked questions and answers from the Port of Portland regarding PDX noise issues2: What is a Noise Abatement Procedure? A noise abatement procedure is a recommended flight path aircraft follow to minimize noise over a populated area. An example of this type of procedure is the recommendation that commercial jets follow the Columbia River on departures and arrivals. Because this is a recommended procedure, pilots may decline to follow it due to safety concerns or operating limitations. For some noise abatement procedures, a pilot must be able to see specific visual cues. If the visual cues are not visible, the pilot will not be able to safely follow the noise abatement procedure. Other procedures rely on navigational equipment capabilities. Why do planes fly over my house? Depending on where you live, you may have small aircraft or large jets flying overhead. Airplanes land and take-off into the wind and must be safely aligned with the runway. Arriving jets typically 1 http://www.flypdx.com/Prj_PDX_Part_150_Home.aspx 2 http://www.flypdx.com/Noise_Mgmt_FAQ.aspx 10-2 lineup with the runway several miles away. Their angle of approach is about three degrees. This translates to about 300 ft. of altitude for every mile from the arrival end of the runway. In other words, if an aircraft is three miles from the arrival end of the runway, its altitude will be approximately 900 ft. Because they are slower and more maneuverable, smaller aircraft will typically fly a designated pattern that allows them to approach mid-field from the north or south. Why do some planes fly lower than others? Aircraft arriving at PDX will generally have an approach altitude assigned by Air Traffic Control several miles before landing. These assigned altitudes vary depending on other air traffic and weather conditions. As aircraft get closer to the airport, pilots will either visually adjust their approach altitude or use a radio beacon. A large aircraft will appear closer to the ground than a smaller one at the same altitude. Wind and weather, in addition to the aircraft type and weight, will also affect the speed and altitude of ascending or descending aircraft. What happens when I submit a noise complaint? The noise office will log your complaint in the complaint database. First-time callers will receive an information packet in the mail. Your complaint will be researched and any necessary action will be taken. If it is determined that the aircraft in question was not following an established FAA procedure, the FAA and/or the airline will be notified. This information is also shared with the Citizen Noise Advisory Committee (CNAC). Can the noise office change flight paths? No. The FAA controls and regulates the airspace. Any change in departure or arrival flight paths must be approved and implemented by the FAA. What can I do to make a change in flight paths? The FAA will only consider recommendations from the CNAC. These recommendations are then thoroughly researched and evaluated. The FAA is committed to reducing noise, but will not consider moving the noise from one neighborhood to another. Why don't all aircraft fly over the river during departures and arrivals? The airport uses two parallel runways. Typically, departing commercial jet aircraft will turn to intercept a navigational signal that will take them out over the river. However, from time to time this signal is not available for navigation, and as a result, commercial jets will fly straight out from the runway. Smaller, slower aircraft are usually turned north or south by air traffic control to keep them out of the way of faster jet aircraft. Can the Port of Portland restrict noisier aircraft from flying over a particular neighborhood? The Port cannot restrict access to "noisier" aircraft or dictate departure or arrival routes. The airport may advocate for a certain noise abatement procedure to reduce noise, but it must be approved and implemented by the FAA. What is the 'Mill Visual Approach'? This is a noise abatement approach that most jet aircraft arriving from the east and landing to the west will follow. Its intent is to keep aircraft over the Columbia River as long as possible before aligning with the runway for their final approach. The entry to the approach is between the Camas pulp mill on the north shore of the Columbia River and the Reynolds Aluminum plant just north of Troutdale Airport on the south shore of the Columbia River. Not all aircraft will follow this route. During 10-3 periods of peak traffic both parallel runways will be used. Aircraft landing on the north runway will follow the river while aircraft landing on the south runway will be assigned a straight-in approach. The pilot must be able to see visual landmarks on the ground in order to execute this approach. For safety reasons or other operational requirements, the pilot may request a straight-in approach. Will aircraft become quieter? Newer aircraft currently being manufactured are much quieter than older aircraft. For example, the new Boeing 777 is one-tenth quieter than the older Boeing 727-200, yet it can carry twice the number of passengers. Horizon Air has replaced most of its older, noisier, F28 jet aircraft with new, quieter, regional jets. Because aircraft typically have life expectancies of about 20 years, it could take years before airlines can update their fleet with the newer, quieter aircraft. Why do aircraft sound louder at night than they do during the day? Nighttime noise events seem louder because the ambient noise is lower. More noise events may be noticed at night compared to daytime hours when there exists a higher ambient noise level. Who controls the aircraft? The FAA is solely responsible for the movement of aircraft on the ground and in the air. Air traffic controllers work for the FAA. The FAA is also responsible for the lateral and vertical separation between aircraft as well as determining hazards such as tall buildings or mountains. What is ANOMS and for what is it used? ANOMS stands for Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System. This system collects noise data from 10 community monitoring sites in addition to flight track data from the FAA. It is the main tool used by the noise office to research complaints and to monitor noise abatement procedures. 10-4 Memorandum 10 10-5