Planning commission continues hearing on "The Cove" master plan after extensive questions on flood, slope and contamination risks

The Oregon City Planning Commission on a continued record heard staff and the applicant present a concept development plan, detailed development plans for Phases 1–2, a tentative subdivision, a water quality resource permit and an unstable slopes/floodplain review for a proposed mixed‑use project called “The Cove.” Staff described the site and procedural requirements of the quasi‑judicial hearing and said the record would remain open and the hearing continued to Jan. 26 to allow additional information into the record.

The Cove project team proposes to redevelop about 92 acres around Clackamas Cove, of which roughly 46 acres are water. The applicant proposes leaving about 33 acres as public park and open space and developing roughly 13 acres with mixed uses including about 224 waterfront condominiums, approximately 80,000 square feet of medical office, roughly 58,400 square feet of general office, restaurants and public amenities including an esplanade and a waterfront recreational center. Staff said the proposal would be built in eight phases across roughly a 10‑year horizon; the applicant asked for concurrent approval of the concept plan and the detailed development plans for Phases 1–2.

Staff and the applicant emphasized two technical constraints that will be central to future findings: FEMA designations and local flood management rules, and the city’s Water Quality Resource Area standards. Staff said the site is within a FEMA 100‑year floodplain with a base flood elevation of 50.7 feet and that the city’s code requires habitable spaces to be built at least 1 foot above that elevation. The applicant told commissioners it intends to design habitable floors to about 52 feet and to use ground‑level garage space as non‑habitable flood storage. Staff also described the city’s 200‑foot buffer for anadromous fish‑bearing streams, noting the code allows a reduction to 50 feet where the riparian corridor is degraded; the applicant has requested a variance/adjustment for limited encroachment in one corner, a net riparian corridor gain, and other adjustments such as a wider (20‑foot) esplanade and altered parking ratios for medical office.

The project team described grading and balanced cut‑and‑fill across the site to avoid net loss of flood storage capacity. The applicant’s engineers proposed regrading steep banks to a 3:1 slope, restoring native riparian plantings, and using four stormwater best management practices (porous pavement, rain gardens, vegetative filter strips and vegetated swales) to treat and cool runoff. The team said Phases 1–2 would establish the esplanade, North Park and initial infrastructure, with vertical building on the condominiums and medical office to follow as market conditions permit.

Commissioners questioned applicants and staff at length about slope stability, precedent projects, long‑term survivability of replantings following high‑water events, dark‑sky lighting impacts, and the scale of earthmoving required for balanced cut‑and‑fill. Commissioners also pressed for technical documentation on flood behavior and transport of material between the river channel and the cove (a local gravel bar that affects exchange and water quality). Several commissioners asked staff to provide additional reports on transportation impacts and on the floodplain/flood‑storage calculations for the next hearing.

Several residents and specialists gave public testimony. Supporters cited the developers’ record on waterfront restorations and encouraged habitat enhancements; residents raising concerns asked for independent third‑party review of soils, water‑quality and landfill/leachate risks, and questioned long‑term maintenance financing for new public parkland. On the landfill issue, staff and project representatives said Tri‑Cities and other agencies have pursued capping and remediation, and that the project would design drainage to limit infiltration to capped areas; staff said further documentation would be entered into the record.

After public testimony and extended questioning, a motion to continue the hearing and leave the record open carried on roll call (Commissioners Stein, Groener, Lejois and Chairperson Paul voting aye; Commissioner Dunn declined to vote because her term had expired). The hearing was continued to Jan. 26, and the record was left open for additional materials, agency responses and third‑party reports.

What’s next: staff and the applicant will provide the detailed staff report, supplemental studies and requested agency responses before the continued hearing. The record remains open for additional written testimony and evidence.