SANDY RIVER PARK Master Plan

S a n d y R i v e r P a r k M a s t e r P l a n 1
‘ G AT E WAY T O M T. H O O D ’
S A N D Y R I V E R P A R K M a s t e r P l a n
C i t y o f S a n d y , O r e g o n
J u l y 2 0 1 1
2 S a n d y R i v e r P a r k M a s t e r P l a n
1515 SE Water Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97214
GM Project Number: 2090278.00
39250 Pioneer Boulevard
Sandy, OR 97055
www.cityofsandy.com
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
C O N S U L T A N T T E A M
GROUP MACKENZIE
Tommy King, ASLA
JIM SLAGLE RECREATIONAL TRAILS
Jim Slagle, Trail Planner
C I T Y O F S A N D Y
Nancy Ream Enabnit, Community Services Director
Seth Atkinson, Finance Director
Tracy Brown, Planning Director
Liz French-Storn, Engineering Technician
Steve Gillis, Parks Maintenance
Joe Knapp, Network Administrator
Scott Lazenby, City Administrator
Mike Walker, Public Works Director
T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E
Melanie Atkinson, Bornstedt Village Resident
Byron Ball, Sandy High School Environmental Sciences
Chris Cohen, Sandy High School Student
Jason Dumont, The Nature Conservancy
Kate Holleran, Metro
Russ Plaeger, Sandy River Basin Watershed Council
Kathleen Walker, US Forest Service
This page intentionally left blank.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 . 0 S I T E B A C K G R O U N D + I N V E N T O R Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 . 0 P L A N N I N G + D E S I G N P R O C E S S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 . 1 T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e + T A C M e e t i n g # 1
3 . 2 P u b l i c W o r k s h o p # 1
3 . 3 T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g # 2
3 . 4 P u b l i c W o r k s h o p # 2
3 . 5 T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g # 3
3 . 6 F i n a l M a s t e r P l a n
4 . 0 C O S T O P I N I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
A P P E N D I X A : P u b l i c W o r k s h o p S u m m a r i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0
A P P E N D I X B : N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e R e p o r t b y P H S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
A P P E N D I X C : 2 0 0 4 R e p o r t o f G e o t e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s f o r
S a n d y R i v e r P a r k E n t r y b y G e o D e s i g n . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
A P P E N D I X D : A n i m a l S p e c i e s I n v e n t o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 b y C h r i s C o h e n , S a n d y R i v e r H i g h S c h o o l
View of Sandy River Park (right of the river) from Jonsrud Viewpoint
The Sandy River Park is perhaps the best kept secret in the City’s park inventory. This 124-acre wooded parcel extends from the top of the hillside (level with Bluff Road) on the west, the city limits on the south and down to the Sandy River in the valley. An old logging road descends through the park, providing river access. Except for this feature, the park is formally undeveloped. Trailhead parking is limited to streetside parking along Marcy Street (a short, dead-end residential street east of Bluff Road). The site is located outside the City limits and urban growth boundary (UGB).
For those in the know, this “under-discovered” park provides an easily accessible wilderness experience. Thus, the City Council and Park Board would like to preserve the area as a natural, passive-use park, but would like to begin to develop amenities appropriate for the site with this master plan to help guide efforts and provide a tool for seeking grant funding.
The size, complex history and rich natural resources that make Sandy River Park such a special place, also necessitated a detailed approach to gaining an understanding of the background, current conditions and potential of the site and progressed into a thorough, iterative design process. Regular meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and two major public outreach workshops were key to the success of this project.
City staff, Council and Parks Board members, as well as Sandy citizens all played a significant role in the evolution of the resulting Sandy River Park Master Plan. This document supports the original goals of increasing residents’ awareness of the park and providing amenities that promote appropriate utilization of the park — improved trails, signage, trailhead parking, scenic viewpoints, seating and picnic facilities, improved shoreline conditions with potential for a pullout for kayakers/canoers using the future Sandy River Water Trail and many others detailed in the following sections of this summary.
This report provides an overview of the planning process that resulted in the final, preferred Sandy River Park Master Plan. A summary of the inventory and site analysis is followed by a chronological look at the planning and design process, including the TAC and public workshops. A thorough description of the master plan and its components is included, with the cost opinion, public meeting summaries and other important supporting documents provided as appendices.
1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N
Vicinity Map and Site Aerial Photo courtesy of Google Maps
2 . 0 S I T E B A C K G R O U N D + I N V E N T O R Y
Group Mackenzie thoroughly examined the results of previous planning work related to Sandy River Park, the current conditions of the site, and the City of Sandy’s current partnerships or close working relationships with stakeholder groups or individuals contributing to the enhancement and greater good of this special place. Such partners include:
The Nature Conservancy•
Mt. Hood Community College•
2 . 1 B a c k g r o u n d D a t a
& P a s t P l a n n i n g E f f o r t s
The City of Sandy provided a great deal of information to assist with a thorough understanding of both City-wide background and details specific to Sandy River Park. These items included:
Parks Master Plan (May 15, 1997)1.
Aerial Photography2.
g. Streams and wetlands
Urbanization Report (January 2009)4.
Urban Renewal Plan (December 1998)5.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Map 6. (October 20, 1997, last updated December 2008)
Locally significant wetlands map (June 21, 2006)7.
Transportation System Plan (December 1995)8.
Sandy River Open Space Field Survey (not dated)9.
Report of Geotechnical Services for Sandy River 10. Park Entrance (March 26, 2004)
1997 Parks Master Plan, existing and proposed facilities mapping indicates recommendation for trails at the Sandy River Park site
The Nature Conservancy restoration mapping at Sandy River Park and surrounding sites
City Comprehensive Plan indicates recommendation for a regional park at the Sandy River Park site
1 0 S a n d y R i v e r P a r k M a s t e r P l a n
2 . 0 S I T E B A C K G R O U N D + I N V E N T O R Y ( c o n t . )
2 . 2 E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s
The Sandy River Park is a 124-acre wooded parcel located outside the City limits and urban growth boundary (UGB). The property extends from the top of the hillside level with Bluff Road on the west, the city limits on the south and down to the Sandy River in the valley on the north. The site is a virtual ravine with water entering the site from all sides, providing year-round streams and wetlands, as well as challenging trail alignment decisions.
An old logging road descends through the park, providing river access. Except for this feature, the park is formally undeveloped. Many visitors access the park from the Sandy Fish Hatchery to the east, which requires crossing Cedar Creek to reach the park. Parking is limited to streetside parking along Marcy Street (a short, dead-end residential street east of Bluff Road) and available spaces at the hatchery.
Due to the relatively limited means of access to the site, Sandy River Park remains “under-discovered” and what should be an easily accessible wilderness experience is under-utilized. This condition also lends itself to undesired uses and visitors, which leads to safety concerns as expressed during the master planning process.
The Nature Conservancy is currently partnering with the City on a massive natural vegetative species restoration project. The parcel was previously commercially logged and the park is currently undergoing a first stage restoration project with full efforts due for completion in 2011. The Nature Conservancy is leading efforts to clear out invasive species (largely blackberries and alders) and replant the site with conifers and other natives. The City anticipates maintenance following the restoration will be provided in partnership with community organizations, rather than by City staff. Initial clearing of additional user trails are a side benefit to the project.
Additionally, the City previously commissioned a preliminary geotechnical analysis for the top of the slope to explore trailhead parking options accompanied by preliminary parking studies.
2 . 3 S i t e I n v e n t o r y
Group Mackenzie completed several site visits to Sandy River Park over the course of the project. These visits and research into site-specific conditions influenced the direction of planning efforts. The site inventory map and photographs are included on the next page to assist in communicating our findings and observations, which were the focus of the first Technical Advisory Committee meeting and Public Workshop.
To gain the most insight possible during site visits, Group Mackenzie was joined by City staff and other experts to support key observations and reveal hidden opportunities. The priorities expressed during the inventory process include:
More inviting entry (signage, trash, utilities masked, • viewpoint, gate) Parking and viewpoint locations • Washout locations and bank erosion• Trail access points• School district not currently interested in • participating Work collaboratively with the work done on site • by The Nature Conservancy to improve quality of vegetation (thin out alder, remove invasives, introduce evergreen natives) Access trails created can serve park visitors• Lots of water throughout site (creek(s), springs, • seeps) Viewpoint at waterfall • Trail is washed out in areas in north portion of the site• Access to river needs close evaluation for best route• Explore connections to downtown — destination for • water trail users Connections to hatchery and other adjacent • amenities Bank stabilization at river• Work with fishing enthusiasts and other conservation • groups Salmon run — interpretive value• Viewpoint coordination•
S a n d y R i v e r P a r k M a s t e r P l a n 1 1
2 . 0 S I T E B A C K G R O U N D + I N V E N T O R Y ( c o n t . )
Panorama from West to East
Site Inventory + Context
Sandy River Shoreline
Inventory + Connections
3 . 0 P L A N N I N G + D E S I G N P R O C E S S
The planning and design process took place over the course of six months and included a series of three Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, two public workshops and progress meetings between the City and Group Mackenzie. Refer to Appendix A for summaries of Public Workshop #1 and #2.
The following is a chronological account of these milestones and the feedback that helped shape the process and resulting Sandy River Park Master Plan.
3 . 1 Te c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
& TAC M e e t i n g # 1
Participants in the TAC were invited to be part of this group based on their relevant expertise, involvement with related work and anticipation that they would actively contribute to the committee.
Using the past planning efforts as a starting point, TAC Meeting #1 presented attendees with the Site Analysis, possible objectives of the project, and amenities to prioritize to assist Group Mackenzie with developing a draft trail alignment as our next step.
3 . 2 P u b l i c W o r k s h o p # 1
At Public Workshop #1, a more thorough site analysis was reviewed, goals specific to the park were discussed, preliminary trail alignment recommendations were presented and trailhead / parking concept plans were reviewed. The goals and program elements discussed included:
1) Entry a. Improve Appearance & Function b. Apply New Signage Design Standards c. Connect to Downtown Sandy and High School d. Include On-Site Parking 2) Vegetation a. Coordinate with The Nature Conservancy’s Work b. Improve River and Creek Bank Conditions c. Address Erosion and Wash-out Areas 3) Trails a. Connect to Off-Site Opportunities b. Recommend Locations, Amount and Hierarchy c. Address Impact of Water d. Take Advantage of Views and Unique Features e. Support and Promote River Trail 4) Amenities a. Picnic Facilities b. Seating c. Viewpoints d. Access to Fishing e. Preserve / Restore Habitat 5) Interpretive Opportunities a. Natural Resources b. Geologic Features c. Cultural Influences
3 . 0 P L A N N I N G + D E S I G N P R O C E S S ( c o n t . )
Entry
Upland Zone
Wetland Zone
River Zone
Resource Zones
* Developed for a previous entry study effort
M e e t i n g # 2
Based on the input received at Public Workshop #1, Group Mackenzie helped to facilitate a discussion during TAC #2 focused on how to achieve balance within Sandy River Park, so that natural resources and appropriate recreation activity can co-exist within the boundaries of the park. Conclusions included:
Trail alignments shall be a minimum of 100-feet from the • edge of any sensitive area wherever possible; Trails will not create a complete ring around resources so • that the open areas will help to maintain habitat value;
Trail locations will not always bring visitors direct contact • with resources recognizing that views into certain habitats are sufficient; Dogs must be leashed at all times; and• No motorized vehicles will be permitted with the exception • of safety and scheduled park maintenance.
Additionally, regional trail expert Jim Slagle, was added to the consultant team to assist with trail alignment, type, materials and environmental considerations. These decisions and conclusions are reflected in the materials that were then created for Public Workshop #2. The email messages included on this page provide further insight into the TAC meeting conversation:
From: Kate Holleran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:59 PM To: Jenny Richmond; Scott Lazenby; Linda Malone; Kathleen and Mike; [email protected]; Nancy Enabnit; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Sandy - Public Meeting #1
At the first technical advisory meeting that I attended and then again at the first community meeting, I advocated for considering the impacts of development activities on wildlife and water quality, especially in the Sandy River natural area. This email is to provide some science behind my input.
How can we make this wonderful public resource available to our community while protecting as many of its natural values as possible? Wise planning of use, conservation and protection of the resources, and education are key. I am so glad that Sandy purchased this property, that the current initial restoration work is occurring and that Sandy is being proactive and thoughtful in its development. It may seem like just a chunk of land to some people, but it is a part of the larger Sandy River Watershed and inextricable connected to the river that flows along its northern edge.
Additional trails in the area, with the associated disturbance of wildlife caused by hikers, bikers and in particular dogs will result in reduced wildlife habitat value and water quality if not carefully planned. Although there will be an inevitable reduction in these functions in any development, it is fairly easy to reduce the negative impacts of trails and associated development on water quality and wildlife. Here are some of my recommendations based both on a review of the literature and applied management experience on many natural areas similar to the Sandy River natural area. I tried to provide some options from most protective to less protective development.
1. Provide as wide a buffer to water systems as possible. 200 feet is well supported in the scientific literature, but I know that people want to be closer to water-myself included. Wider is better. Perhaps a wide buffer with small spurs into the wetland system would work.
2. If you must put a trail near water, do not encircle the water source. A loop trail leaves no refuge for wildlife using the water and will eventually result in the reduction of the riparian area around the water source due to human disturbance (think about the current condition of the natural area along the river, think of Trillium Lake, Mirror Lake, the stream in Meinig Park, etc). Every person and every other animal loves water, so this is no surprise. Once you lose the riparian veg, it is very difficult to restore it in accessible areas-increasing the erosion and degradation of habitat and water quality. I suggest using a spur trail into just one of the wetland areas-out and back but no loop- to provide access to the water and wildlife viewing (perhaps we could include a viewing blind designed into the trail plan). This would still leave a loop trail above and below the wetland areas for hikers/bikers. A compromise would be to sacrifice the smaller wetland area with a loop trail but leave the other wetland undisturbed.
The current trail design impacts both wetland systems and completely surrounds them with a trail. I suggest that neither trail be selected until a natural resource survey and assessment is completed that quantifies the water and wildlife values of the wetlands. I understand that you have a natural resources consultant on contract. I think that person might be able to either complete or recommend another bi- ologist to complete such a survey. Your decision to impact these areas should be made with as much information as possible so you are aware of what you are losing/gaining in any given alternative.
3. No dogs. As far as wildlife and water quality, dogs are not good. Sorry dog lovers. There is substantial research that shows that dogs on leash or off leash reduce the occurrence of wildlife near trails: birds, deer, etc. That could be good info for using in an interpretive sign explaining why dogs are not permitted. In addition, a recent study indicated that animal feces may be a significant non-point pollution sources in watersheds. The Sandy River is an incredibly valuable and stunningly beautiful river and habitat to rare and endangered salmonids. We are its advocates and it needs as much protection as we can provide. Wildlife: dogs are natural predators and with the possible exception of Paris Hilton’s goofy purse dogs (are those really dogs?), wildlife recognize and respond negatively to dogs. I know of course that this is a tough position to take and if protection of water quality and wildlife habitat are not objectives in the park development it is an even harder sell. But, education can go a long way.
4. Alternately: dogs on leash only, enforced. Provide doggie bags at the entrance to the natural area for picking up dog s-t. Even people who don’t know or care about water quality and wildlife, do not want to walk in dog poo or be harassed by someones’ pit bull.
5. Follow TNC’s restoration work with maintenance weed control and erosion control. I haven’t read the TNC grant that is being implemented in the natural area right now, but I suspect it doesn’t have money for 5-years of maintenance on the replanting that they are doing. In order to not lose those plantings to weed re-growth, the City must budget a relatively small amount for weed control. I can help you estimate the cost of this treatment. (Can someone send me the grant project plan or the link if it is electronic? I ‘d like to see what the planting plan is and what the plan is for weed control.)
For the real science geeks in the group, below are some references for the science regarding dogs, trails and wildlife. I can provide more if you are interested.
Please feel free to share this email (I didn’t have a list of who was at the technical adv. meeting i attended) and I welcome your comments.
Kate
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Jason Dumont <[email protected]> wrote:
Nancy,
I think Kate brings some really good points to light in her suggestions. In particular, her concerns about impacting the wetlands should be given some thought. I agree that restricting user access to the wetlands and ensuring that people stay a good distance back from the riparian boundary of the wetland is a good rule of thumb. However, finding good access to the site (other than via the road), is very difficult. Even the road has to cross through or directly adjacent to the wetlands because the wetlands essentially span the site from west to east. In reality, any trail system will need to pass close to the wetlands. This will be a balancing act but I don’t think developing a trail network on the site needs to cause great damage to the wetlands. It just needs to be done well and managed carefully. I think you’re doing the right thing by having Group Mackenzie get experts together to finalize a design taking into account many perspectives.
Regarding dogs…I agree that the best option is keeping dogs out of the park. However, realisti- cally speaking, a policy insisting that dogs be kept on leash is more workable. The more that’s enforced, the better chance the park has of maintaining its natural and wild character. The more dogs are running around, the less chance there is that the bears, elk, and other wildlife that currently inhabit the place will be able to remain. Preserving the wild character of the park, in my opinion, is critical.
I want to reiterate my perspective of the park: The city has taken a really wonderful step by investing in this park. However, the city’s property is only a small fraction of the natural space. In time, I would like to see the adjacent natural areas brought into public ownership or into conservation ownership in order to ensure that the entire 500+ acres of forested natural area that buffer both sides of the river are preserved forever. The more the local community sees the park as a resource and takes pride in having that resource, the more likely it will be that there will be support for conserving and managing the park and the surrounding natural areas. Developing and encouraging responsible public use is essential to getting local buy-in. I’m really glad that the city is working through a planning process for the park, and look forward to helping the city make the most of that resource.
Jason Dumont Portland Area Preserves Manager The Nature Conservancy of Oregon (503) 802-8151
From: Kate Holleran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:38 PM To: Jason Dumont Cc: Nancy Enabnit; [email protected]; Corey Gargano; Jenny Richmond Subject: Re: Sandy - Public Meeting #1
I am in full agreement with Jason’s comments about connecting the community to the park and its natural features that we want to conserve, if possible, with adjacent lands (just a dream right now!) I am so thankful for Sandy’s thoughtful approach to the development and Mackenzie’s open process for input. Thanks for including me in the process. Kate
3 . 4 P u b l i c W o r k s h o p # 2
Much of the input received at the second public workshop focused on the location, functionality and style of the restroom and trail types, especially materials.
Three potential restroom locations were presented — at the Marcy Street trailhead, in the center of the park and as close to the Sandy River as possible. The center of the park was not favored. Preference for the other two locations was roughly equal. The trailhead provides easy access to utilities and inclusion at the main park entry. However, the reality of those fishing using this location are slim and reducing the impact of these park visitors is a priority. Environmental and functional restrictions limit the feasibility of a restroom sited close to the river. Access for maintenance is limited to a motorized wheelbarrow or utility vehicle. The environmental benefit is great enough that a solution is a priority.
Input received regarding trail type reinforced the preference for natural surfacing, with limited use of paving, steps, wood and other hard-surface or heavy- handed options. Those offering input were very clear that they want to feel they are in a natural resource focused park. Some even prefer removing the term “park” from the name of the site. Comments confirmed that
the alignments shown are favored, with an additional connection shown to the hatchery crossing Cedar Creek.
Additional input included a request for more substantial picnic tables and strong preference to include interpretive/educational signage as soon as possible.
M e e t i n g # 3
The discussion regarding Sandy River Park at TAC #3 led to resolution of all outstanding topics. The primary restroom will be built at the trailhead, with temporary facilities at the hatchery during peak fishing seasons until a second restroom can be added at the river. The park property across the river will be addressed in a future master plan update. The trail alignment is logical and addresses the balance needed between recreation and natural resource protection.
3 . 6 F i n a l M a s t e r P l a n
Because of the limited changes to the graphics produced for Public Workshop #2 and the final plans, this summary provides the refined and finalized maps and support graphics beginning on page 19 of this booklet.
Above: Public Workshop #2 Sandy River Park Project Station
Right: Site Section and Enlargements of Key Park Amenities (produced for final master plan documents)
Proposed Trail Alignment
Trail Type 1 (Upland Zone)
The alignment in this section of trail remains relatively unchanged from the existing former logging road location and new access trail built by The Nature Conservancy. We recommend meandering the straight logging road section as shown in Alternate 1. • Width: 10 feet at emergency/maintenance route, 5 feet all other sections • Surfacing: 1/4” minus compacted gravel (this can achieve accessibility standards, yet will give the feeling of a “nature trail”) • Slope: <8.33% wherever possible, rest stations per accessible trail guidelines can be included in areas that exceed optimal slope
Trail Type 3 (River Zone (except Loop 1) and most future connections)
Once a hiker reaches the Trail Type 3 sections, they are deep into the park and ready for a more challenging adventure. This portion of the trail system traverses the steepest slopes and takes a visitor to some of the most unique areas of the site. All Trail Type 3 alignments are new sections not yet established so no alternates are proposed. • Width: 2.5 to 3 feet • Surfacing: compacted earthen surface • Slope: no limit, but attempt to not exceed 20%
Trail Type 2 (Wetland Zone and River Zone Loop 1)
The new / revised sections of Trail Type 2 will provide a lower maintenance location (positive slope/drainage) and less impact on wetland resources. As is, Alternate 2 sets up a memorable and unexpected viewpoint, but is located in a wet area that will be difficult to maintain over the long term. The recommended route will be easier to maintain and presents the same view as a surprise when hiking north. The existing Alternate 3 alignment traverses a very wet area; the recommended route is a more sustainable location a proper distance from the wetlands. Alternate 4 currently is a tricky slope to navigate and contributes to erosion adjacent to Cedar Creek. The proposed route eliminates this issue and provides a view of a second water fall. • Width: 3.5 to 4 feet • Surfacing: compacted earth • Slope: <12.5% wherever possible, rest stations per accessible trail guidelines can be included in areas that exceed optimal slope
100-foot Buffer
SANDY RIVER PARK June 3, 2010 Proposed Trail Alignment
Entry Monument
Entry Monument
Entry Monument
Site Furnishings
Signage + Furnishings
Entry, Parking and Overlook
Until the opportunities for additional connections are available, Marcy Street will be the primary access to Sandy River Park. Limited space is available for parking, with 11 stalls shown. If the restroom shifts to another location, one to two more spaces could be added. The overlook provides views of the park, a clear meeting place, and a spot to rest before or after a long hike. Signage will offer a memorable entry and interpretive
Restroom A number of restroom building options were considered. CXT Concrete Buildings is the recommended manufacturer based on durability, maintenance requirements, Cascadian design availability and their headquarters location in the Pacific Northwest. • What is the optimal restroom location? (1) Entry at Marcy Street (2) Sandy River (3) Mid-point
Riverbank Restoration Sandy River Park is an important fishing site enjoyed by many people throughout the seasons. Pressure by both people and natural systems is resulting in an eroded bank that will continue to worsen without intervention. Bioengineering techniques can stabilize the damaged area, however education via signage and volunteers to encourage positive use of the riverbank is equally important. National Marine Fisheries Services and Department of State Lands will require permit to ensure the work complies with the Endangered Species Act and the needs of this valuable salmonid habitat.
Installation Phases
4 . 0 C O S T O P I N I O N
Accuracy
The level of detail and accuracy of pricing in this estimate are consistent with the degree of completeness of the documents used for estimating purposes. The document used to prepare this estimate includes the preferred Master Plan with site base data from GIS and aerial photography provided by the City of Sandy. Additional information was obtained through discussion with the client and industry contacts.
Bid Conditions
This project has been estimated as a complete project with separate subtotals for individual portions of work for informational purposes only. If the project is bid in phases, the total estimated cost of the overall project will be higher.
Items Affecting the Cost Opinion
Items which may change the probable construction costs include, but are not limited to:
Modifications to the scope of work included in this • estimate.
Restrictive technical specification or excessive • contract conditions.
Any specified item of equipment, material, or product • that cannot be obtained from at least three different sources.
Escalation
Unit costs included herein are reflective of current costs with no escalation included. A labor and material escalation factor will need to be added once a construction period has been determined.
Exclusions
Items excluded from this estimate include any additional soft costs, permitting fees, testing and inspections.
Cost Opinion Objective
This cost opinion is intended to be used as a tool for decision making and managing construction costs during the next phases of the project. It is prepared using industry contacts, experience, and the best judgement of the professional consultants. This estimate is intended to reflect an amount close to what would be the low bid of the project with respect to the present level of design and documentation with consideration given to the current market conditions. The consultant has no control over market conditions, wage rates, or any contractor’s method of determining prices or quantities. Therefore, the consultant is relatively certain that there will be deviations between this estimate and the actual cost of construction.
4 . 0 C O S T O P I N I O N ( c o n t . )
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT NOTES
GENERAL 1 Mobilization, Bond, Insurance LS 1 PD -$ roughly 5% of construction
2 Site Prep / Trail Clearing SF PD 0.50$ -$ strip, clear, prune (not incl. plant salvage)
3 Tree Protection Fencing LF PD 3.00$ -$ 4 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures LS 1 PD -$
Sub-Total -$
TRAILS & ASSOCIATED ITEMS
5 Trail Type 1 - refine existing, 10' wide LF 1655 15.00$ 24,825$ gravel surface meeting ADA standards
7 Trail Type 1 - new, 10' wide LF 910 25.00$ 22,750$ gravel surface meeting ADA standards
8 Trail Type 2 LF 3370 12.00$ 40,440$ earth surface, 4 ft. wide
9 Trail Obliteration LF 1340 4.00$ 5,360$ 10 Bridge EA 2 10,000.00$ 20,000$ 11 Slope Restoration EA 1 4,500.00$ 4,500$ 12 Viewpoint Station AL 3 5,500.00$ 16,500$ interpretive sign, bench
13 Bench EA 5 800.00$ 4,000$ 14 Picnic Table EA 3 750.00$ 2,250$ by Keystone Building, (541) 633-0041
15 Directional Sign EA 4 400.00$ 1,600$ 16 Mileage Marker EA 5 300.00$ 1,500$ 17 Interpretive Sign EA 1 4,000.00$ 4,000$ not at a viewpoint
19 Trail Obliteration LF 1330 4.00$ 5,320$ 20 Bridge EA 1 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 21 Viewpoint Station AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ interpretive sign, bench
22 Bench EA 3 800.00$ 2,400$ 23 Directional Sign EA 1 400.00$ 400$ 24 Mileage Marker EA 3 300.00$ 900$
22 Trail Type 3 LF 2710 12.00$ 32,520$ earth surface, 2.5 - 3 ft wide, challenging
23 Viewpoint Station AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ interpretive sign, bench
24 Bench EA 2 800.00$ 1,600$ 25 Directional Sign EA 1 400.00$ 400$ interpretive sign, bench
26 Mileage Marker EA 2 300.00$ 600$
27 Trail Type 1 LF 0 25.00$ -$ gravel surface meeting ADA standards
28 Trail Type 2 LF PD 12.00$ -$ earth surface, 4 ft. wide - to hatchery, school district
29 Trail Type 3 LF 3585 12.00$ 43,020$ earth surface, 2.5-3 ft wide, challenging - to Jonsrud
30 Bridge EA 1 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 31 Viewpoint Station AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ interpretive sign (Pannier frame), bench
32 Signage and Furnishings EA PD PD -$ Sub-Total 332,475$
Cost Opinion (Master Plan)
Sandy River Park Master Plan
Project Description: Furnish all equipment, materials, and labor necessary to complete the construction of approximately ____ linear feet of trail and associated improvements.
Page 1
4 . 0 C O S T O P I N I O N ( c o n t . )
TRAILHEAD IMPROVEMENTS 33 Demo & Clearing AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ remove +/- 21 trees, existing improvements
34 Erosion Control AL 1 2,500.00$ 2,500$ 35 Tree Protection LF 325 3.00$ 975$ 36 Earthwork AL 1 10,000.00$ 10,000$ excavation, embankment
37 Concrete Paving - 4" thick, pedestrian SF 2150 5.75$ 12,363$ pervious paving and subbase
38 Asphalt Paving - vehicular SF 6400 5.00$ 32,000$ pervious paving and subbase
39 Gravel Paving - vehicular SF 0 4.00$ -$ slopes likely too steep
40 Gravel Paving - pedestrian SF 710 3.25$ 2,308$ wearing course and subbase
41 Concrete Curb LF 260 12.00$ 3,120$ extruded
42 Metal Edge LF 310 8.00$ 2,480$ 43 Retaining Wall - high LF 110 125.00$ 13,750$ 44 Retaining Wall - low LF 45 75.00$ 3,375$ 45 Sanitary Line LF 140 60.00$ 8,400$ 4 - 6" line, connections, trenching
46 Water Meter with Backflow EA 1 2,400.00$ 2,400$ 47 Water Line LF 105 22.00$ 2,310$ 2" line, connections, trenching
48 Electric Improvements AL 1 5,000.00$ 5,000$ service, 2 safety lights
49 Storm Facilities SF 1000 4.00$ 4,000$ soils, plants, overflow
50 Restroom Building - facility, installation AL 1 65,000.00$ 65,000$ by CXT
51 Bench EA 4 800.00$ 3,200$ 52 Bike Rack EA 3 300.00$ 900$ 53 Bollard EA 8 600.00$ 4,800$ 54 Curb Stop EA 8 125.00$ 1,000$ 55 Entry Sign EA 1 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 56 Interpretive Sign AL 1 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Pannier frame
57 Plantings AL 1 4,500.00$ 4,500$ approx. 1500 sf
Sub-Total 199,880$
RIVER BANK RESTORATION 58 Shoreline Improvements - intensive LF 235 150.00$ 35,250$ 59 Shoreline Improvements - moderate LF 420 75.00$ 31,500$ 60 Restoration Away from Shoreline SF 43560 0.50$ 21,780$ approximate area
61 Restroom Building - facility, installation AL 1 36,000.00$ 36,000$ vault, accessible by utility vehicle to be determined
62 Educational Signage AL 1 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Sub-Total 134,530$
Project Cost 666,885$ not including project-dependent items
Contingency (15%) 100,033$ master plan, capture project- dependent items
Overhead & Profit (6%) 46,015$ contractor
Total 812,933$
includes canoe/kayak pullout as a stop for the Sandy River Water Trail
Page 2
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT NOTES
GENERAL 1 Mobilization, Bond, Insurance LS 1 PD -$ roughly 5% of construction
2 Site Prep / Trail Clearing SF PD 0.50$ -$ strip, clear, prune (not incl. plant salvage)
3 Tree Protection Fencing LF PD 3.00$ -$ 4 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures LS 1 PD -$
Sub-Total -$
TRAILS & ASSOCIATED ITEMS
7 Trail Type 1 - new, 10' wide LF 910 25.00$ 22,750$ gravel surface meeting ADA standards
9 Trail Obliteration LF 1340 4.00$ 5,360$ 10 Bridge EA 2 10,000.00$ 20,000$ 11 Slope Restoration EA 1 4,500.00$ 4,500$ 12 Viewpoint Station AL 3 5,500.00$ 16,500$ interpretive sign, bench
13 Bench EA 5 800.00$ 4,000$ 14 Picnic Table EA 3 750.00$ 2,250$ by Keystone Building, (541) 633-0041
15 Directional Sign EA 4 400.00$ 1,600$ 16 Mileage Marker EA 5 300.00$ 1,500$ 17 Interpretive Sign EA 1 4,000.00$ 4,000$ not at a viewpoint
19 Trail Obliteration LF 1330 4.00$ 5,320$ 20 Bridge EA 1 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 21 Viewpoint Station AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ interpretive sign, bench
22 Bench EA 3 800.00$ 2,400$ 23 Directional Sign EA 1 400.00$ 400$ 24 Mileage Marker EA 3 300.00$ 900$
22 Trail Type 3 LF 2710 12.00$ 32,520$ earth surface, 2.5 - 3 ft wide, challenging
23 Viewpoint Station AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ interpretive sign, bench
24 Bench EA 2 800.00$ 1,600$ 25 Directional Sign EA 1 400.00$ 400$ interpretive sign, bench
26 Mileage Marker EA 2 300.00$ 600$
27 Trail Type 1 LF 0 25.00$ -$ gravel surface meeting ADA standards
28 Trail Type 2 LF PD 12.00$ -$ earth surface, 4 ft. wide - to hatchery, school district
29 Trail Type 3 LF 3585 12.00$ 43,020$ earth surface, 2.5-3 ft wide, challenging - to Jonsrud
30 Bridge EA 1 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 31 Viewpoint Station AL 1 5,500.00$ 5,500$ interpretive sign (Pannier frame), bench
32 Signage and Furnishings EA PD PD -$ Sub-Total 332,475$
Cost Opinion (Master Plan)
Sandy River Park Master Plan
Project Description: Furnish all equipment, materials, and labor necessary to complete the construction of approximately ____ linear feet of trail and associated improvements.
Page 1
Notes:
“PD” indicates a project-dependent item requiring the next level of design development to estimate accurately.1.
Refer to page 20 for additional detail regarding Trail Type 1, 2 and 3.2.
Plant / habitat restoration work to be completed by The Nature Conservancy is not included in this opinion.3.
Soft costs (permitting, consultant, etc.) are not included in this opinion. 4.
A P P E N D I X A
Workshop #1 Summary:
Exhibits: goals, location map and existing conditions site photos, preliminary trail alignment recommendations, trailhead concepts
Level of Improvements
Balancing impacts to the site with preservation (and • enhancement) of natural resources ranked high for most attendees.
The 3-zone concept with a hierarchy of loop trails was • well liked.
Install the trails to minimize impact include • spurs, not loops, in the wetland zone.
Take advantage of views and exposure to • unique features = big benefit of the site.
Future connections were very important to some, • and not a concern to others.
Hatchery and Dodge Park were highest • priority.
Not many knew about the opportunity to • link into the BLM water trail.
Many neighbors are concerned about lights and • noise.
Signage (entry and interpretive) and benches ranked • high on the priority list with picnicking facilities (tables, shelters) as a second priority (concern that if these come too soon, before use increases, that transient users may not use appropriately).
User Groups
Some attendees were interested in mountain bike • trail(s).
Accommodating fishing is a high priority.•
Dogs were a hot topic — highly recommended to • enforce on-leash only.
Equestrians may / will use the site regardless of what • is formally allowed — plan for this.
Parking / Vehicles•
If on-site parking goes in, the majority of • attendees wanted it to include the maximum number of spaces possible.
Except for emergency and maintenance • vehicles, the parking right at the entry was the extent of tolerable vehicle traffic on-site.
Almost 100% consensus for no motorized vehicles on-• site (except for emergencies and maintenance) — no BMX, 3-wheel, 4-wheel recreation.
Other
The name of the park was a hot topic with the • suggestion that the work “park” be dropped from its title to communicate the assumed more nature-based approach.
Most attendees were interested in trail width, • surfacing, etc. This will be addressed in the next step of planning.
A P P E N D I X A ( c o n t . )
Workshop #2 Summary:
Exhibits: proposed trail alignment, 100-foot buffer map, signage and furnishings map and examples, main entry / trailhead concept plan, restroom recommendation, riverbank restoration options, trail type summaries
Large Group Presentation:
Many pros and cons to each restroom location option • and type (vault, locker, composting, standard).
Is the park limited to one restroom? •
The trailhead is considered the primary meeting • place, entry location and takes advantage of the viewpoint.
Construction and long-term maintenance becomes • more difficult the farther from the entry / closer to the river.
Why aren’t improvements to the island and farthest • north portion of the site shown?
The 3-loop approach to the trail design has stood up • to re-design. Specific alignments changed and four alternatives are shown for your consideration.
Small Group Comments:
Overall Site Plan•
Show a connection to the hatchery with a • bridge over Cedar Creek.
Positive general feedback.•
Alternate Routes 1 – 4•
No opposition to installing the alternate • routes. Everyone seemed to be in favor of routes that provide a more sustainable / lower maintenance location (out of wet areas, on slopes, fewer bridges required).
Trail Types•
Keep Trail Type 2 and 3 as “natural” looking • as possible — no steps. Safety is important. Don’t use wood that will have contact with the ground.
Installation Phases•
General agreement with Phases 1, 2 and 3.•
When would connection to northern most • areas (island, etc.) happen? Phase 4+?
Signage and Site Furnishings•
Benches and tables should be as beefy as • possible.
Don’t install until enough eyes on the park to • deter vandalism.
Interpretive signage is a priority.•
Marcy Street Entry•
Will the cars impact the neighbors? There • could/will be more cars on Marcy Street, but people currently park on the street to use the site. The drop in the grade from the entry point to where the cars are located will buffer some of the view of the cars.
Bollards and entry signs acting as a gate • were seen as positive features.
Benches at the overlook were well liked.•
Restroom•
Preference for a single stall, small building.•
One vote for each location (Marcy Street • Entry or Sandy River or Mid-Point).
Isn’t there a lower tech, simple option that is • cost effective enough that a restroom can be installed at multiple locations? Why not an old-fashioned outhouse?
Work with the hatchery — collaborate on • temporary facilities during fishing season.
Removable vault facility above the floodplain • serviced by a motorized wheelbarrow and access through the hatchery was recommended.
Riverbank Restoration•
Complete this work as soon as possible. •
A P P E N D I X B
A P P E N D I X B ( c o n t . )
A P P E N D I X C
A P P E N D I X C ( c o n t . )
A P P E N D I X D
39250 Pioneer Boulevard
Sandy, OR 97055
www.cityofsandy.com
Please return to the City of Sandy or Group Mackenzie for re-use.
1515 SE Water Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97214

SANDY RIVER PARK Master Plan

Documents

Transcript of SANDY RIVER PARK Master Plan