Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2010-09-14 Special
LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 Contact: Email: Phone: AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING REVISED Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 380AAvenue Robyn Christie, City Recorder rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us 503-675-3984 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us Also published on the internet at: www.ci.oswego.or.us The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Page # 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION - pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection and (h) to consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed 4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 4.1 Discussion and resolution of ground anchor claim for Lake Full phase of LOIS S. STUDY SESSION 5.1 Aging in Place in Lake Oswego (75 minutes) 5.2 Tennis Siting Study Findings and Recommendation (30 minutes) 5.3 New MS4 Permit Report to Council (45 minutes) 5.4 Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) letter regarding High Speed Rail (15 minutes) 6. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m. Friday 7:00 p.m. Sunday 7:00 p.m. Also available on live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live. Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Donna Jordan, Councilor Dan Vizzini, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at: Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-675-3984 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Pape # 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION - pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (h) to consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed 4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 5. STUDY SESSION 5.1 Aging in Place in Lake Oswego (75 minutes) 5.2 Tennis Siting Study Findings and Recommendation (30 minutes) 5.3 New MS4 Permit Report to Council (45 minutes) 5.4 Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) letter regarding High Speed Rail (15 minutes) 6. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m. Friday 7:00 p.m. Sunday 7:00 p.m. Also available on live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live. Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Donna Jordan, Councilor Dan Vizzini, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor 9./ September 14, 2010 Suggested Motion (following executive session): 1 move to authorize the City Manager to execute documents settling the claim by Advanced American Construction for an equitable adjustment of the contract price for the Lake Full Phase of the LOIS Project. The equitable adjustment shall , be in the sum of $275,000 -- consistent with the tentative settlement that was reached in mediation. 5"1-1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ACTION MEMORANDUM Mayor Jack Hoffman City Councilors Alex McIntyre, City Manager Ann Adrian, Center Manager, Lake Oswego Adult Community Center Study Session on Aging in Place in Lake Oswego September 7, 2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-635-0270 www.ci.oswego.or.us In May 2010, Mayor Hoffman requested a study session be held to provide City Council with information on needs and services for older adults continuing to reside in Lake Oswego, their community of choice. BACKGROUND The United States is experiencing a dramatic demographic shift, and the Lake Oswego population reflects this change as well. In 2007, the number of persons age 55 and over in Lake Oswego was 28.7%. In seven years, projections indicate four in ten persons residing in Lake Oswego will be over age 55. The desire to continue to reside in the community where this age cohort purchased homes, developed friendships, raised children, worked and played intensifies with age. Referred to as "aging in place", According to John Bowling, Ph.D. and author of The Future of Aging Society the Boomers demonstrate a stronger than ever preference to remain in their own homes. This has economic and social impacts to the community that can be projected and planned to keep Lake Oswego the vital community that it is. To move "aging in place" from a phrase to action will be successful as Lake Oswego takes an active part in designing for the needs of its mature citizens. Informing predictions of the kind and type of services are the most recent demographics on Lake Oswego residents. From 2005-2007, Lake Oswego had a median age of 42.6 years; thirteen percent of residents were 65 years and older. For this same time period, among people at least five years, 8 percent reported a disability. This increases to nearly one in four by age 65 (23%). Three percent of persons over age 65 in Lake Oswego live in poverty (annual income $10,830 for one person) 17% of persons receive retirement income other than Social Security; 24% receive Social Security in Page 2 the amount of $17,865. Therefore, it can be theorized that a significant minority of persons over age 65, while they cannot qualify for benefits for low income persons, (i.e. Medicaid) do have very limited incomes to sustain themselves. DISCUSSION Presently, three generations over age 55 live in our community; the "Greatest Generation" (born 1901- 1934), the "Silent Generation" (1924-1945) and the Baby Boomers (1946-1964). While the size and general nature of the Baby Boomer cohort makes it likely to have the greatest impacts in the next three to five decades, prudent planning for all three generations is needed. Services such as those provided at the Lake Oswego Adult Community Center become increasingly important. Education, wellness, social services and recreation are offered to target different age cohorts. Boomers are interested in work and retirement, understanding their aging parents and the aging process, wellness, learning, caregiver support, and opportunities for meaningful civic engagement. As the population ages, individuals are more likely to have a disability and need supportive services to remain at home. A fabric of services designed for the individual and delivered in the home via geriatric assessment; it may be a combination of transportation, balanced meals, respite, etc. Communities that have neighborhood centers, a strong level of walkability, and a mix of housing options, services and supports will support aging in place. The City's current update on the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update offers discussion of aging in Lake Owego, under the headings of Housing, and Transportation. During the study session, we will have local experts in the field of aging to address Council on issues around aging in place; the physical, social, and emotional needs and how these can vary as residents age. Ruth Cohen, Certified Geriatric Care Manager; Meagan Lawler, Ph.D. psychologist; Dr. Jennifer Sasser, Chair of Human Services at Marylhurst University; Jeanne Keevil, resident and volunteer at the LOACC; Ann Adrian, LOACC Manager will review needs and resources. Reviewed by: Department Director Finance Director N4 City Att ne 4k " Alex D: Her City Man if there is a financial impact) (if legal issues) LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 No COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Kim L. Gilmer, Director Parks & Recreation Department SUBJECT: Tennis Siting Study Findings and Recommendation DATE: September 7, 2010 57/ Z CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us ACTION Staff will present findings from the Indoor Tennis Center — Site Study in a study session with the City Council; and request City Council approval of the Rassekh park property as the site for a new indoor tennis center along with identified follow up steps. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Indoor Tennis Center is an enterprise operation managed by the City's Parks & Recreation Department. The facility was built in 1974 and paid for by a revenue based upon funds generated from tennis operations. Tennis Center operations have continued to be profitable and successful over the years as a separate enterprise within the City Parks and Recreation Department. In 2009, the City Council requested the analysis of the long-term feasibility and possible expansions and/or improvements to the existing Golf Course and Indoor Tennis Center. In December 2009, the results of this analysis, the "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study", was presented to the City Council. Tennis Planning Consultants (TPC), the consultant hired to study the tennis portion of the project found the following: • Lake Oswego has a strong tennis market. • There are approximately 24,775 existing/potential tennis players in the Lake Oswego tennis market seeking to play on 29 indoor courts (ratio of 854 players per court). • Normal player ratios for indoor facilities are approximately 250 players per court. • The Indoor Tennis Center operations and management is very strong and "Above Average", based on overall management, highly progressive and well designed programs. • The existing indoor tennis center is at capacity and unable to accommodate demand for more tennis. • A new 8 to 10 court tennis facility should be constructed in Lake Oswego to accommodate demand. Page 2 Of several sites analyzed, the Rassekh property, West End Building, and National Guard Armory sites are the best potential sites for a new tennis facility. Additional Considerations In addition to limited court space, the Indoor Tennis Center has not been remodeled to comply with the American's with Disabilities Act and is not accessible to disabled individuals. The facility does not include a viewing area separated from the courts, which creates safety problems for people entering the courts to sit and watch matches. The bathroom facilities are inadequate to accommodate current need (one toilet and one wash basin each women's and men's restrooms, no changing area or showers). It is not possible to expand the facility at its current location due to a restriction in the City's Charter, which prevents any development in Springbrook Park. The tennis property abuts residential property to the south and Springbrook Park on the remaining three sides. Therefore, adding more tennis courts is not feasible. In addition, there is little area to make needed facility improvements. In 2005, the City hired an architect to develop a conceptual design in 2005 to address ADA accessibility, an expanded lobby and bathrooms, and limited viewing area and meeting room. The resulting design marginally addressed the various needs and the estimated construction cost was $750,000 (2005 estimates). Steps were not taken to follow through on the improvements because additional tennis courts could not be added to the site. Recommended Course of Action Tennis Planning Consultants (TPC) recommended, at a minimum, that a new 8 -court tennis facility be built, with room to expand to 10 courts in the future. Funding for the new facility should be based upon the sale of the existing Indoor Tennis Center property, Tennis Fund reserves, grant opportunities, and a revenue bond secured by the City of Lake Oswego. As a result of the Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, the City Council listed as a 2010 goal to identify a site for a new indoor tennis center and directed staff to begin a tennis siting study to identify the best location. DISCUSSION In spring 2010, staff hired Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC to conduct a more in depth analysis of the three proposed sites for a new indoor tennis center. Mr. Jackson was charged with developing site specific conceptual design options and costs, and evaluating each site in detail. The information Mr. Jackson analyzed included the following: ■ City planning and zoning codes ■ Fire/emergency access ■ Traffic impacts and restrictions ■ Infrastructure and Utilities — storm water, sewer, water, etc. ■ Topography and terrain ■ Vehicular and pedestrian access and connectivity ■ Sustainability issues (solar access, etc.) ■ Sensitive lands and required setbacks ■ Parking capacity ■ Possible upgrade potential for outdoor spaces/parks ■ Neighborhood impacts Page 3 Based on Mr. Jackson's individual analysis completed for each site, a conceptual building design and site layout has been created demonstrating a functional and aesthetically acceptable tennis facility that is "site specific". There is the possibility of 2-3 design options for each site each having their own pros and cons with respect to how they fit on the site, how they function internally, and whether or not they allow for future court expansion. These site options were narrowed down to the most suitable option. The resulting cost of development for each site is based upon each selected site option and is directly related to the proposed conceptual design. Development costs include all associated project costs. In addition, the Site Study made assumptions regarding type and quality of materials, building construction methods, desired program spaces, etc. The project endeavors to incorporate as many sustainable design and building features as is financially feasible and where pay -back is beneficial. This standard was applied to each site in developing cost estimates for consistency purposes. An additional design, referred to as the "Baseline" option, was also developed. This option continues to provide an aesthetically pleasing, functional indoor tennis center that meets the primary needs of the tennis public based upon public input, yet does remove certain program spaces from the design to achieve a less costly facility. The Baseline option locates all functions at ground level with the result of being a less costly facility to construct. Indoor Tennis Center Site Study - General Findings Sites Studied 1. National Guard Armory, 1915 South Shore Boulevard, Lake Oswego Total Lot Size: The site is 5.15 acres. Total Buildable Area: Approximately 3.16 acres 2. Rassekh Park Property, 18011 Stafford Road, Lake Oswego Total Lot Size: The site is 9.59 acres. Total Buildable Area: Approximately 7.67 acres 3. West End Building, 4101 SW Kruse Way, Lake Oswego Total Lot Size: The site is 14.20 acres. Total Buildable Area: Approximately 8.2 acres Note: The Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study indicated a minimum buildable area of 4.1 acres to develop a new indoor tennis facility. Summary of Findings The following is a brief summary of Mr. Jackson's findings. A full analysis is located in the Site Study. More detail will also be provided at the City Council study session on September 14. National Guard Armory Pros of Site ■ Current zoning allows Tennis use as a Public Facility (zoned PF). ■ Development costs for site infrastructure is minimal. ■ Site is centrally located within the City promoting good access. Page 4 ■ Adjacent church property allows the possibility of a joint -use agreement for shared parking during tournament events. ■ Compact design allows for efficient floor plan, circulation, and supervision of courts. ■ Lowest development costs of all three site options, with exception of "Baseline" option. ■ May have lowest impact to surrounding neighborhood due to location. Cons of Site ■ Requires purchase of the site/land (City doesn't currently own the site). ■ Purchase price of the land is unknown and requires an assumption in the estimates provided in this report (assumes purchase price of $500,000). ■ Size of site is minimal and does not allow for future expansion beyond eight courts. ■ Size of site does not allow for development of landscape amenities, other than connections and/or pathways to creek. ■ There is added project costs to demolish existing structures. ■ The site topography cannot accommodate the single story baseline design. Rassekh Park Property Pros of Site ■ Adjacent church property would allow the possibility of a joint use agreement for shared parking during tournament events. ■ Excellent access for tennis patrons. ■ The gently sloping site allows for conventional foundations and cost effective construction. • Overall large area of site allows for flexibility, future expansion, adequate parking, and exterior amenities. ■ Aesthetically, the site is beautiful and offers many design opportunities, including future incorporation of park development. ■ The site is already owned by the City and is undeveloped park land with no structures or demolition costs. ■ Fire and emergency access around the site is excellent. ■ The site can easily accept the single story "Baseline" design option. Also the only site that can accommodate the "Baseline" option. Cons of Site ■ The site is currently outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and will require a modification of the boundary through Metro. The process will require additional time (approximately 6-8 months). ■ The site does not have easy access to sewer services. Connection is required to the sewer lift station on the west side of the creek and will require payment of a connection fee as well as construction through the sensitive lands. West End Building Pros of Site ■ Location is at the population center of Lake Oswego. ■ If WEB is retained for Parks and Recreation programs, there would be a positive synergy and overlap between the two facilities. Page 5 Cons of Site ■ Given the very high value of the land, an at -grade Tennis Center alone does not constitute the highest and best use of the land, or the investment. ■ The development of an at -grade tennis center on the site would eliminate the possibility of other future development on the site. ■ The WEB is the highest overall development costs of all three options due to topography and relocation of on-site surface parking to support WEB programs and tennis. ■ The site topography cannot accommodate the single story "Baseline" design option. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT Cost Summary The following chart is a summary of the estimated development costs for the various sites studied. Detailed cost estimates for each site are included in Appendix of the Indoor Tennis Center — Site Study. As with the summary of findings above, a more in depth review of the development costs for each site will be presented at the City Council study session. Project Site Name/Location Comparison area cost/SF TOTAL Armory Site - Design Option "A" Direction Construction Cost $69,100 GSF $66 $ 4,032,122 Site Development Cost 547,491 Soft Cost Allocation: 775,905 Purchase of Land: 500,000 Total Cost Project Cost: $ 5,855,518 Rassekh Site - Design Option "A" Direct Construction Cost: $72,500 GSF $68 $ 3,937,896 Site Development Cost: 1,111,081 Soft Cost Allocation: 913,496 Total Project Cost: $ 5,962,473 Rassekh Site - Design Option "C" - Base -Line Direct Construction Cost: $73,290 GSF $55 $ 2,985,076 Site Development Cost: 1,063,264 Soft Cost Allocation: 810,033 Total Project Cost: $ 4,858,373 WEB Site - Design Option "B" Direct Construction Cost: $69,700 GSF $85 $ 4,750,254 Site Development Cost: 1,141,930 Soft Cost Allocation: 900,349 Total Project Cost: $ 6,792,533 Page 6 Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Comments & Recommendation The results of the Indoor Tennis Center — Site Study were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) at board meetings in July and August 2010. At its August 25, 2010 meeting, PRAB unanimously approved a recommendation to City Council to site a new indoor tennis facility at the Rassekh property. PRAB commented on the need to address the on-going demand for more indoor tennis facilities and the Rassekh site is the preferred location for this new facility. The Board's decision was based upon the following: • The property is owned by the City for park and recreation purposes. • The property offers more options to locate a new facility, with an option to expand to ten courts in the future at an affordable price in comparison to the cost of developing a new facility at either the West End Building or the Armory. • The topography of the Rassekh site lends itself well to reducing the visual impact on the surrounding landscape through grading and landscaping. • Locating a new tennis facility in this area creates a nexus of recreational options. Next Steps The Indoor Tennis Center — Site Study offers a more refined review of the development issues and potential costs that can be anticipated in developing a new tennis center. The information contained in the report has been useful in identifying the best and least costly location for a new tennis facility which is important since a new facility will not rely on tax support for its development. Instead development will be accomplished through a variety of funding sources. In particular, these sources will most likely include proceeds from the sale of the existing tennis center property, build up of a capital reserve account in the Tennis Fund, grants, private funding, and a revenue bond paid back with revenues generated by tennis center operations. Additional information is needed to further refine the costs of a future project and to develop a site specific design which will generate more interest in the project. In addition, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) has indicated an interest in working with the City of Lake Oswego on this project and has recommended the City apply for a USTA facility grant once a site is selected. More importantly, for this project to be successful, the tennis playing community will need to be supportive and willing to promote a new facility. Tremendous interest in a new facility has been generated through last year's feasibility study and now with the Siting Study. It is important to retain this momentum by proceeding with next steps. However, next steps cannot be taken without securing a site for a new facility. Assuming the City Council selects the Rassekh property, the following steps are suggested. Step 1 — Fall, 2010 A. Geotechnical Analysis - A geotechnical review of the soils must be done to confirm that a new facility can be built at the selected site. This should be the next step taken. Step 2 — Late Fall 2010/Early Winter 2011 Assuming positive findings from the geotechnical report, the City should take the next steps: A. UGB Modification - Apply to Metro for a major modification of the urban growth boundary. This process will take 6-8 months. An approved adjustment to the UGB will pave the way for a future Page 7 facility assuming funding is secured. B. USTA Facility Grant — While applying for a modification of the UGB, the City should also submit a facilities grant from the USTA. This process will take up to 6 months. C. Facility Design Process Refinement — Develop a plan for next steps in the concept development and design process, including tasks necessary to move the project forward. Step 3 — Winter -Summer, 2011 A. Refine Facility Design and Estimated Costs — Develop schematic level design and complete site plan showing how building fits at the site. B. Tennis Center Facility Steering Committee — A citizen steering committee to work with the design consultant on design development and to promote the project. Could also function as private funding raising group. Step 4 — Fall, 2011 A. Establish a Tennis Fund Capital Reserve Account & Raise Tennis Fees — Upon development of a refined concept design, raise tennis fees with additional funds set aside to pay for a portion of the future tennis facility. This will require the concept design to be presented to tennis players to gain support for fee increases. Fee increases at the Tennis Center are initiated in September. B. Formalize a Tennis Center Fundraising Committee — Additional private funding will help to offset development costs. A fundraising committee should be formed to pursue this option. C. Lot Line Adjustment/Rezoning Existing Tennis Property — A lot line adjustment and rezoning from PNA to residential will need to be done to prepare the existing Tennis Center property for future sale. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Rassekh property as the site of a future indoor tennis center; and to direct staff to have a geotechnical analysis of the site conducted, followed by an application to Metro to modify the urban growth boundary assuming a favorable result from the geotechnical analysis. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A — Indoor Tennis Center — Site Study Reviewed by: DepartAient Pirector Alex D. IN City Man DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Indoor Tennis Center - Site Study s . n L*lu oswlEuo G I!dtHX1R TENNIS r"LAKE bdO'WEGO 0 P E G 0 N Indoor Tennis Center -Site Study August 28, 2010 Prepared by: Brian C Jackson, AIA Principal/Owner Brian C Jackson, Architect LLC 13640 NW Laidlaw Rd. Portland, OR 97229 503-310-8707 Input Provided by City Staff: Kim Gilmer Director of Parks & Recreation Gary Evans Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Anni Miller Tennis Director Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction & Summary 1.1 Project Background 1.2 Purpose & Scope of Study 1.3 Executive Summary 2.0 Space Program 2.1 Program Descriptions 2.2 Space Program Allocation 3.0 Site Analysis 3.1 Armory (South Shore Blvd.) 3.2 Rassekh (Stafford Rd.) 3.3 West End Building (Kruse Way) 4.0 Operational Cost Analysis 4.1 Existing Operations Summary 4.2 Facility Comparison 4.3 Financing Options 4.4 Financial Operating Projections 5.0 Concept Design Options 5.1 Design Goals and Quality of Construction 5.2 Armory 5.3 Rassekh 5.4 West End Building (WEB) 6.0 Project Cost Opinion 6.1 Basis of Design and Assumptions 6.2 Key Cost Factors 6.3 Cost Summary 6.4 Detailed Cost Analysis for Each Site 7.0 Summary & Conclusions 7.1 Summary of Findings 7.2 Conclusions 7.3 Possible Next Steps 8.0 Appendix 8.1 Detailed Total Project Cost Estimates 8.2 Market Analysis and Operations 8.3 Supplemental Design Drawings - 11 x 17 Indoor Tennis Center - Site Feasibility Study 3 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY 1.1 Project Background In January 2010, Lake Oswego City Council received and reviewed the "Golf and Tennis Feasibility Study" dated December 15, 2009. The study was commissioned in June 2009 and employed the consulting services of PBK Architects, Inc., National Golf Foundation, Inc., and Tennis Planning Consultants, Inc., as a team of experts to work with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, a 16 -member Golf -Tennis Advisory Committee, City Staff, and interested citizens of Lake Oswego with the goal of developing a facilities recommendation back to City Council with respect to the long-term feasibility and possible expansions and/or improvements to the existing Golf Complex and Indoor Tennis Center. As part of the Study, the consulting team generated various work product including: a city wide needs assessment for both Tennis and Golf functions; market penetration analysis; review and evaluation of current facility operations; and the evaluation of existing facilities with respect to improvements. Specifically to the tennis function, the team worked with the Tennis Advisory Subcommittee to establish and evaluate a series of possible alternative sites (a total of 7 sites were identified and evaluated) for the intended purpose of expanding indoor Tennis programs within the City of Lake Oswego. The original intent of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of co -locating a new tennis facility at the golf course site. This option, for a variety of reasons, was not pursued. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 4 The existing 4 -court indoor tennis facility was constructed in 1974 and paid for by a revenue bond based on funds generated from tennis operations. The revenue bonds were retired in 2005. Operations have been profitable and successful over the years as a separate enterprise within the City Parks and Recreation Department. That said, there is a very high demand for court space within the City of Lake Oswego and the Parks and Recreation Department is hard pressed to provide adequate programming time for lessons, leagues, and open play. There is a high level of support and need for additional court space within the Lake Oswego tennis community and this has been noted in the 1990 and 2001 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan(s) as well as the more recently completed 2007 Community Center Feasibility Study that was proposed for the West End Building site. The tennis facility has been maintained in good condition and is well cared for. However, the current site is located within the Uplands residential neighborhood adjacent to Springbrook Park. It is very limited in size and more importantly, it does not allow for expansion for a number of reasons. Existing on-site parking is minimal and the facility itself does not adequately support league or completive play because it does not have a viewing area, adequate restrooms and/or locker rooms, lobby functions, or a multi-purpose gathering space for warm up. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 5 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study As noted in the December 15, 2009 Tennis Feasibility Report prepared by Tennis Planning Consultants, Inc., tennis is by far, the fastest growing sport in America today and there are approximately 24,775 existing or potential tennis players in the Lake Oswego market area. These players actively seek/compete for court time within the entire Lake Oswego Market area and surrounding communities. The market area represents a total of 29 courts, which equates to 854 players per court. The national average is 250 players per court. If four (4) additional courts are constructed, then the average would fall to 751 players per court, which would represent a very modest increase in capacity for a city that has one of the strongest indoor tennis markets in the United States. Based on a clear need in the community, the feasibility study proceeded with the task of identifying possible sites for a new 8 court facility that would have the capability for future expansion to 10 or 12 courts. Of the seven sites identified, the report identified three (3) sites as possible candidates for a new indoor facility. The sites identified are: 1) Rassekh (Stafford Rd & Atherton); 2) West End Building (WEB); 3) Armory (South Shore Blvd.). Each site was then analyzed with respect to a specific market analysis, operational costs, and cost of development. In all cases, the study recommends the sale of the existing facility and 2.81 acres of land to off- set the capital costs of the development. It was estimated (in the previous study) that the real market value of the land and building is approximately $1 -million. The existing facility would continue to be occupied until the completion of a new facility so that operations and revenue income can continue uninterrupted. The 2009 report contains preliminary cost estimate for each proposed site based on a generic site design layout of the main building and location of parking. Because the Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study does not provide an in-depth analysis of each site, it was anticipated that actual costs could vary greatly beyond the general overview costs provided. As a result, City staff recommended to City Council in early 2010 that additional study be performed to develop site specific conceptual design options and to evaluate each site in detail with respect to: • City planning and zoning codes • Fire/emergency access • Traffic impacts and restrictions • Infrastructure and Utilities — storm water, sewer, water, etc. • Topography and terrain • Vehicular and pedestrian access and connectivity • Sustainability issues (solar access, etc.) • Sensitive lands and required setbacks • Parking capacity • Possible upgrade potential for outdoor spaces/parks. • Neighborhood impacts Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 6 Based on the site analysis information developed from the topics/issues above, a conceptual building design and site layout has been created that demonstrates a functional and aesthetically acceptable tennis facility that is "site specific". The associated cost of each development is therefore directly related to the proposed conceptual design and includes all associated project costs. • 1.3 Executive Summary The information provided in this report represents the collective research and • analysis as applied to the three possible site identified in the December 15, 2009 • Feasibility Study. The scope of work includes the following general categories of information: 1. Development of a detailed space program with allocated square footage for each component. • 2. Site analysis of existing conditions and city codes. • 3. Operational cost analysis. 4. Development of conceptual site and building design options. 5. Cost planning including direct construction costs and project soft costs. As a footnote, the Iron Mountain site (next to the Hunt Club) was evaluated (as it • was in the 12/15/2009 report) again to determine if the site provided any possible • chance of development. Based on meetings with City Planning and evaluation of existing sensitive lands, it was determined that the site configuration and set back restrictions precluded the development of an 8 -court tennis facility. The desired space program for the facility results in approximately 72,000 SF — 75,000 SF (square feet) of space including all "optional" spaces noted on the space program chart in this report. The program assumes that all mechanical equipment will be roof -top mounted and that the tennis court area will only receive temperate heat and the facility will not be mechanically cooled. Sustainable energy strategies will be employed to the extent that they are financially feasible. The square footage noted above is shown as a range and will vary depending upon the site and the ability to design an efficient floor plan with minimal circulation. Because the Rassekh site has a large amount of available land, the report includes two design options that demonstrate both a "base -line" design as well as a "full program preferred" design for consideration. The total square footage between the two design are very similar, but the construction costs are substantially less for the base line design because it does not include an elevated viewing area, or second floor support space. All program components are located on the ground, and large common/flexible space is provided between the two banks of courts for viewing and gathering. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 7 Each site is encumbered with restrictions based on planning code and sensitive land overlays, overall property size, and topography (slope). This report has been organized by "topic" so that the reader can easily compare each site as it relates to each issue. Additionally, the Armory site is not currently owned by the city, the Rassekh site is owned by the City, but is located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and requires connection to a sewer pump station, and the WEB property requires the relocation of on-site parking to maintain "current" WEB program functions. If additional programs and uses are located at the WEB building beyond the existing, then structured parking would be required to support the additional functions, including tennis. The operating and financial projections (revenue and expenses) are similar to what has been previously reported in the 12/15/2009 report. The current analysis shows a yearly net revenue gain of $352,570. An updated operational analysis by the parks and recreation Department has been included in this report. Site and building design options have been developed for each site and reviewed with staff. For each of the three sites, there is the possibility of 2-3 design options that each have their own pros and cons with respect to how they fit on the site, how they function internally, and whether or not they allow for future court expansion. In summary, the Armory site does not allow for any future expansion due to the physical size of the site and surrounding sensitive land setbacks. The WEB site does allow for future expansion, but at greater cost and difficulty due to access and the location of the existing WEB building. The Rassekh site allows for a multitude of design options and future expansion due to the overall size of the site and it is the only site that allows for a single level "baseline" design option. A listing/description of the pros and cons has been provided for each design option that is subject to change based on personal opinion, unknowns, and neighborhood/political factors. Total project costs have been included in the report with supporting detailed • located in the Appendix for the construction cost and project soft costs estimates • specific to each site. Pricing includes a 15% estimating contingency, but it DOES NOT include any percentage increase for escalation/inflation, which typically runs to the mid -point of construction. The current construction market is very competitive and it is common to receive outstanding pricing from well qualified Ab general contractors due to the current economical climate. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 8 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 2.0 SPACE PROGRAM 2.1 Program Descriptions The following program spaces are included in the indoor tennis facility. Spaces noted as "optional" are not included in the baseline design or estimated costs. BUILDING SUPPORT Vestibule, Lobby & Reception/Control (Baseline) The entry to the Tennis Center must be open and inviting to the public, but also safe and secure due to the extended operating hours when the facility may not be fully staffed. The lobby should make a strong statement about the facility and should foster interaction between users of all ages. Passive supervision and observation by staff from the point of control should be incorporated into the design to further ensure a safe environment. Natural light, to the extent possible should also be incorporated into the lobby area to enhance an open and inviting feeling. Merchandise/Pro Shop/Vending (Baseline) User amenities will promote the overall success of the facility, but they can also enhance the financial revenues by providing users with essential tennis equipment. From rackets and balls, to shirts, water bottles, and shoes, this functional space can generate much needed revenues for the facility. This area can also function as a snack bar that can generate large revenues during tournament events. Office/Administrative Support (Baseline) The proposed program allows for one private office for the Tennis Director/Pro, plus space at the reception control desk for two additional staff members that share the space. This area also includes storage and a small work area for office support functions (fax, copy machine, supplies, etc.). Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 9 Restrooms, Showers & Changing Rooms (Baseline) It is intended that single stall ADA accessible restrooms will be provided directly off of the Lobby for convenience. Multiple stall restrooms appropriately sized for the facility will be provided in conjunction with private showers and changing areas in front of each shower. The current program allows for 2-3 showers each for men and women. Storage/Maintenance/Workroom (Baseline) The program includes a substantial amount of space for general building storage and for storage of court equipment, which is essential for a functioning facility. Building Mechanical (Baseline) All building mechanical for support spaces and activity spaces (other than the courts themselves) will be rooftop mounted electric heat pump units. The playing courts will have ceiling mounted electric fan coil units that will provide temperate heating. Air quality and ventilation of the courts will be provided with forced air fan units at various locations. Natural ventilation will also be explored as a sustainable and energy saving strategy. COURTS & ACTIVITY SPACES 8 — Tennis Court (Baseline) The 8 -court arrangement should be as efficient as possible to minimize size of viewing area and so that staff can passively supervise players. Circulation into and between courts by players should be outside the regulation playing area. Natural light should be incorporated to the extent possible and supported by indirect lighting system. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 10 Elevated Viewing Area (Optional) Elevated viewing is provides an ideal spectator area where friend and family can watch lessons, league play, and tournament events. The viewing area should be isolated from the court area for both thermal comfort and acoustical reasons. This area should be connected to common areas for food service support if possible. Banquet/Common Area (Baseline) This space is primarily used as a support function for hosting tournament play and will be equipped with portable tables and chairs, a sink, counter space, and refrigerators available for users. This space will also host meetings and other club activities. Natural light and connections to other common/circulation areas is desirable. Meeting/Team Room (Optional) This meeting space will be used to support tennis related activities and meetings, and will be dividable into two smaller rooms to support club/school teams. Fitness/Cardio Warm-up Room (Optional) This small support room will be equipped with cardio -vascular fitness equipment designed to allow pre -match warm up and physical training of athletes. Natural light and views to the playing courts is desirable. Parking For typical non -tournament hours of operation, it is anticipated that approximately 65 spaces will be required for players and visitors, and a total of 5 spaces for City staff. Site Amenities (Optional) not included in either baseline or preferred options. Connection to the outdoors and development of exterior areas will enhance the success of the facility, especially during tournament play so that patrons and visitors can picnic and relax on site. The possibility of exterior tennis courts is also desirable when possible within the confines of the site. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 11 2.1 Space Program Allocation (SF) Space Description Base Program Net Sq. Ft. Optional Spaces Net Sq. Ft. I. Building Support Vestibule 150 Entry/Lobby 700 Reception/Access Control 150 Merchandise/Pro Shop 80 Office 100 Admin. Storage 80 Vending Alcove 80 Men's Restroom w/Changing & Shower 300 Women's Restroom w/Changing & Shower 300 General Building Storage 350 Maintenance/Workroom/Janitor 200 Mechanical NA Subtotal: Add 25% Circulation Net Building Support SF Subtotal: 2,490 623 3,113 0 H. Courts & Activity Spaces 8 - Tennis Courts 57,500 Full Court Elevated Viewing Area 2,000 Court Viewing & Common Area 4,000 Banquet/Common Area 1,000 Meeting/Team Room (Divisible into 2 rooms, 25 people each) 800 Fitness/Cardio Room 800 Subtotal: Add 5% Circulation Net Courts & Activity SF Subtotal: 62,500 3,125 65,625 3,600 SUB TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE (NSF) 90% Net to Gross Efficiency Factor (10%) TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE (GSF) 68,738 6,874 3,600 1,200 75,611 4,800 III. Parking Requirements Staff Parking 5 Visitor/user Parking 65 City Assigned Vehicles 0 Total: Exterior tennis courts and park related amenities are not included. 70 minimum Note: Net to Gross efficiency will vary based on site configuration and building design. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 12 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 3.0 SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Armory Site (South Shore Blvd.) General The National Guard Armory site is located at 1915 South Shore Boulevard across the street from South Shore Fire Station, and to the west of United Methodist Church. The northern property line of the site is defined by the West Fork of Lost Dog Creek. The site is currently owned by the State of Oregon, but the City of Lake Oswego has been informed that the State plans to vacate the property and put it up for sale by the end of 2010. Purchase/acquisition of the site, at some unknown amount would be required. The armory building on the site is a concrete tilt -up structure that houses a multi-purpose apparatus training room connected with a wood framed classroom and administrative building. Additionally, the lower section of the site contains a metal quansit-hut type storage building and secure gravel parking lot. A substantial amount of the site contains sensitive lands that requiring buffer setbacks. Site Facts & Zoning • Total Lot Size: The site is 5.15 acres, or 224,502 square feet. • Total Buildable Area: Based on aerial maps, it appears that approximately 3.16 acres, or 137,772 square feet of land is usable. The site has NOT been formally delineated to define the perimeter or extent of sensitive lands. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 13 • Zoning - The site is zoned PF for Public Facility. By Planning Code definition, this means that the site (without re -zoning) can only house Public Functions/Uses. A tennis facility meets this definition and is an allowed use, but requires Conditional Use and Design review approval. • Parking requirements would be calculated based on operational use analysis and existing facility. Quantity is currently estimated at approx. 70 stalls for users and staff. Tournaments would require adjacent joint use agreements, or a shuttle service, or both. • The site is located within the Palisades Neighborhood. • Allowable height is 45 -feet from grade (as defined by planning code). Site Features and Design Issues • Topography—The site has approximately 40 -feet of grade change from the south property line at South Shore Blvd., down to the north property line at the creek. A substantial amount of earthwork will be required for the Tennis facility. • Sensitive lands — On site delineation of the sensitive lands has not been completed. It is estimated that approximately 2.0 acres of the site is within the sensitive lands area. Current estimates are taken from aerial photos. Setback buffers from Resource Protection (RP -1) Areas is 30 -feet, RP -2 is 25 feet plus a 10 -foot construction setback from any RP area. A Resource Conservation Area does not require a buffer/setback. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 14 • Access to South Shore — Presently, there are two curb cuts onto South Shore that are expected to be retained. Sight lines are not optimal, but are within City limits/standards. • Traffic & Street Improvements — South Shore Blvd. would remain as -is and would not require widening or turn lanes. Sidewalks are not required on either side of the street. Landscaping along the road would be required to meet code. A formal Traffic Impact Study will be required as part of the Conditional Use and Design Review submittal. • Utilities and Infrastructure — All utilities are available at the site and currently serve the Armory structure. • Fire/Emergency Access — Fire truck access will primarily be achieved from the south parking lot and from the adjacent church parking lot. Additional hydrants and a possible dry stand -pipe system will allow hose connections at the northern side of the site that will have restricted access. • Screening & Buffering — Due to the slope of the site and the existing mature trees that already wrap around the site as part of the sensitive lands, the building structure will have a modest visual impact from the street. Screening from residential neighbors is not a concern. • Sustainability — The site offers many design opportunities with respect to sustainable building practices. Solar access to large roof areas is available and integration of storm water treatment measures with the adjacent sensitive lands provides various opportunities. Pros & Cons Pros • Zoning allows Tennis use as a Public Facility. • Development costs for site infrastructure is minimal. • Site is centrally located within the City promoting good access. • Adjacent church property allows the possibility of a joint -use agreement for shared parking during tournament events. • Compact design allows for efficient floor plan, circulation, and supervision of courts. • Lowest development costs of all three site options. • May have lowest impact to surrounding neighborhood due to location. Cons • Requires purchase of the site/land. • Purchase price of the land is unknown and requires an assumption in the estimates provided in this report. • Size of site is minimal and does not allow for future expansion. • Size of site does not allow for development of landscape amenities, other than connections and/or pathways to creek. • Cost impact to demolish existing structures. • The site topography cannot accommodate the single story baseline design. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 15 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 3.2 Rassekh Site (Stafford & Atherton Dr.) General The Rassekh site is located at 18011 Stafford Road, Lake Oswego. The site is at the northwest corner of the round -about traffic intersection, south of Christian City Church, and east of the Atherton Neighborhood. The eastern property line is Stafford Road and Clackamas County land beyond (Luscher Farm). The property has very good vehicular access to the community and is well positions to draw users from the surrounding area. The land itself is gently sloping with a slight crown in the middle north portion of the site. From a design standpoint, the site is very attractive and allows for many possible building configurations in addition to the possibility for enhanced outdoor amenities such as park/picnic features, nature trails, connections to the sensitive lands, and possible outdoor tennis courts. These amenities could be incorporated into the overall community park development master plan. Site Facts & Zoning • Total Lot Size: The site is 9.59 acres, or 417,873 square feet. • Total Buildable Area: Based on aerial maps, it appears that approximately 7.67 acres, or 334,018 square feet of land is usable. The site has NOT been formally delineated to define the perimeter or extent of sensitive lands. • Zoning - In 2006, the site was voluntarily removed from within the Urban Growth Boundary as a concession to Metro to bring in a portion of Luscher Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 16 Farms into the UGB. The site is currently zoned PNA for Parks and Natural Area and is within City limits. By Planning Code definition, this means that the site (without re -zoning) can only house Public Functions/Uses. A tennis facility meets this definition and is an allowed use, but requires Conditional Use and Design review approval. • All adjacent land zoning designations are R-15 (Residential for 15- units/acre). • Parking requirements would be calculated based on operational use analysis and existing facility. Quantity is currently estimated at approx. 70 stalls for users and staff. Tournaments would require adjacent joint use agreements, or a shuttle service, or both. • Stafford Road is classified as a major arterial and does not allow curb cuts within 500 -feet of the nearest intersection. Vehicular access into the site would be located on Atherton Road and located at the bend/curve, approximately 180 -feet from the round -about. • The portion of Stafford Road in front of the site is currently owned and maintained by the County. However, if the site is developed by the City for a public use, then Stafford Road would be annexed to the City of Lake Oswego and maintained by the City from that point forward. • The site is located within the Stafford -Tualatin Valley CPO Neighborhood. • Allowable height is 45 -feet from grade (as defined by planning code). Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 17 Site Features and Design Issues • Topography —The site has a gentle slope over most of the property that is not part of the sensitive land area. There is a high -spot, or crown in the middle/north half of the site. It is expected that earthwork and cut/fill for the proposed project and be balanced on site. It is also expected that the large volume spaces can be pushed down to reduce the visual mass/appearance of the structure. • Sensitive lands — It appears that the creek and surrounding area has previously been formally delineated by the City (recorded as LU 03- 0047). A 30 -foot buffer setback will be required from the RP -1 zone. • Access to Stafford/Atherton Rd. — Access into the site from Stafford Road is not allowed (other than emergency lane access). Therefore, access is proposed and approved (preliminarily) to come from Atherton Road at the "bend" prior to starting up the hill. This provides good sightline distances and adequate queuing for both egress and ingress. • Pedestrian/Bike Access — a pedestrian and bike path connection would be required at Ridge Point Drive to allow connectivity into/from the Atherton neighborhood. • Traffic & Street Improvements — There are no major improvements required at either Stafford Road or Atherton Road. A bike lane will be required to be added to Stafford Road. A formal traffic Impact study will be required as part of the Conditional Use and Design Review process. • Utilities and Infrastructure — The site does not have direct access to sewer services. Domestic water is available in Stafford Road. Storm water would be treated on-site and released into the adjacent creek. Some minor utility relocation will be required at the site access point from Atherton to relocate a fire hydrant and natural gas riser. Connection to the sewer pump station in the Atherton neighborhood (across the creek) will be required at a substantial expense to the project. The possibility of sustainable waste water treatment such as composting toilets will be explored. • Fire/Emergency Access — Fire truck and emergency access would be provided at the main entrance to the site/parking, plus an additional fire access road (w/gate) would be constructed at the northern property line at the location of the existing gravel road. • Screening & Buffering — Due to the slope of the site and the large mature trees that already exist and will be protected along the west property line, the building structure will have a modest visual impact. The size of the site allows for additional landscape buffering on all sides of the site. • Sustainability — The site offers many design opportunities with respect to sustainable building practices. Solar access to large roof area is exceptional and the possibility of a composting waste water system would have a positive and direct financial impact to the project budget. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 18 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Pros & Cons Pros • Adjacent church property would allow the possibility of joint use agreement for shared parking during tournament events. • Excellent access for tennis patrons. • The gently sloping site allows for conventional foundations and cost effective construction. • Overall large area of site allows for flexibility, future expansion, adequate parking, and exterior amenities. • Aesthetically, the site is beautiful and offers many design opportunities • The site is already owned by the City and is undeveloped park land. • Fire and emergency access around the site is excellent. • Undeveloped park land with no structures or demolition costs. • The can easily accept the single story "baseline" design option. Cons • The site is currently outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and will require annexation through Metro. The process will require additional time (approximately 6-8 months). • The site does not have easy access to sewer services. Connection is required to the sewer lift station on the west side of the creek and will require payment of a connection fee as well as construction through the sensitive lands. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 19 3.3 West End Building Site (Kruse Way) General The proposed site is located at 4101 SW Kruse Way, Lake Oswego and is defined as the portion of land located north of the existing West End Building that was purchased by the City in 2006 from Safeco Insurance. The site and building was developed in 1980 as a build -to -suit office building with surface parking for approximately 308 cars. The site is approximately 14 acres, but only 8 acres of the land has been deemed buildable due to designated on-site sensitive lands. The value of the land is very high due to its location on the Kruse Way class -A corporate office building "corridor". In 2007, a feasibility study was commissioned by the City to possibly locate a new Multi -Generation Community Center on the site. A new at grade tennis center was initially proposed as part of the Community Center program, but was removed due to the inability to fit such a large program space on the site along with the other program uses that were deemed a higher priority. The site has great access from Kruse Way and is well located within the population center of the City. The only area available to fit an 8 -court facility is at the northern half of the site, which will consume the majority of existing parking, that will then required relocation at the south end of the site between the WEB and Kruse Way. The site also slopes approximately 20 -feet and will require retaining walls and foundation systems for large building. Daniel Way runs along the east property line and is an active "cut -through" street for local residents. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 20 Site Facts & Zoning • Total Lot Size: The site is 14.20 acres, or 617,221 square feet. • Total Buildable Area: Based on aerial maps, approximately 8.2 acres, or 356,918 square feet of land is usable. The site was formally delineated in 2007 and a sensitive lands report was published. It is not known whether or not this information was approved and recorded. • Zoning—The site is currently zoned OC/R-3 for Office Campus/Residential w/3 units per acre. By Planning Code definition, the Tennis facility as a major public facility is an allowed use, but will require Design Review approval. Conditional Use and re -zoning is not required with OC zone. • Parking requirements would be calculated based on a project specific operational use analysis. Quantity is currently estimated at approx. 70 stalls for users and staff. Tournaments would require adjacent joint use agreements, or a shuttle service, or both. • Kruse Way is classified as a major arterial and provides excellent access. The existing intersection is adequate. Daniel Way was originally constructed for emergency access for the original Safeco building and is privately owned as part of the property. The road is predominately used as a cut -through route by local residents even though it is part of the parking lot circulation system and has poor sight lines. • Pedestrian connectivity via sidewalks or pathways is poor. • The site is located within the Waluga neighborhood, and near the Holly Orchards neighborhood to the north. • Allowable height is 55 -feet from grade (as defined by planning code). Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 21 Site Features and Design Issues • Topography — The site has significant slope of approximately 20 -feet from the north face of the WEB to the north building setback line that defines the edges of the sensitive lands. The majority of building area is currently a surface parking lot with curbs, lighting and storm drainage. A large retaining wall system will be required to design a level facility. • Sensitive lands — Delineation of the sensitive lands (wetlands) at the northern area of the site occurred in 2007. A stream corridor exists along the east property line and an inadequate storm water treatment facility exists at the southeast corner of the site. A protected tree grove is located at the southwest corner of the site. • Daniel Way — Access to the site from Kruse Way is via Daniel Way, which is not improved as a public street. The road is part of the parking lot circulation system and is used as a cut -through by local residents. Safety, sightline, and sidewalk improvements will be required. • Pedestrian/Bike Access — a pedestrian and bike path improvements to enhance connectivity to the surrounding area will be required. • Utilities and Infrastructure — All utility services are available on-site and will require only minor relocation/adjustment. Restoration and enhancement of the existing storm water treatment/retention pond will likely be required. • Fire/Emergency Access — Fire truck and emergency access is provided through the main entrance via Daniel Way plus the addition of a 200 -foot long fire lane at the north setback line along the sensitive lands. • Screening & Buffering —The majority of the site is already screened with existing mature trees and sensitive lands. Additional screening may be required at the west property line adjacent the Carmen Estates Apartments. • Sustainability — The site offers many design opportunities for sustainable building practices. Solar access to large southern roof area is exceptional. Pros & Cons Pros • Location is at the center of the Lake Oswego population. • If WEB is retained for Parks and Recreation programs, there would be a positive synergy and overlap between the two facilities. Cons • Given the very high value of the land, an at grade Tennis Center alone does not constitute the highest and best use of the land, or the investment. • The development on the site would eliminate the possibility of other future development on the site. • Highest overall development costs of all three options due to topography and relocation of on-site surface parking to support WEB programs and tennis. • The site topography cannot accommodate the single story baseline design. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 22 4.0 OPERATIONAL COST ANALYSIS 4.1 Existing Operations Summary Existing Operations and Needs — The summary and excerpt below has been taken directly from the Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study dated December 15, 2009 as reported by Tennis Planning Consultants Inc. A complete excerpt from the 2009 Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study has been provided in the Appendix of this report for reference. From the beginning, LOITC has been a 'beehive' of tennis activity due to its central Lake Oswego location and its exceptional management by Lake Oswego Parks . Department in general and its tennis management and tennis programs in • particular. In today's tennis world, while the LOITC facility alone would be considered to be 'Average', TPC rates the entire tennis facility and operations as very strong and 'Above Average' on the strength of its overall management and highly progressive, well-designed and enthusiastic tennis programs. • Under the direct supervision of a USPTA/PTR Master Tennis Professional and • Director of Tennis, LOITC has consistently been 'ahead of its time' in promoting general tennis play, tennis leagues, tennis tournaments and innovative tennis instruction that has consistently been years ahead of the rest of the country. For example, the current highly popular, two year old 'Quick Start' USTA tennis program . has been used in the LOITC 'Tiny Tot' tennis program for over ten years to • encourage youngsters to get started in the game in a manner in which they can have success and fun by simply 'getting the ball over the net. Other areas of innovative tennis programs have been an extremely active tennis league program for all age groups, active tennis tournament programs and extremely active, free community youth, adult and Special Olympics teaching clinics to encourage interest in tennis by less -advantaged and handicapped newcomers to the game. The building of this highly advanced, far reaching program has been created from the ground up—player to player, friend to friend, family to family, level to level and age to age appropriate. The competitive junior tennis program is widely regarded as the best in the state of Oregon with numerous boys and girls junior players graduating to high school and collegiate competition. These tennis programs have propelled LOITC to, in essence, a complete 'full 0 occupancy' situation where the facility is literally 'bursting at the seams' in terms of • not having sufficient court time to handle the demand, having inadequate support • facilities for parking, restrooms, tournament meeting rooms, warm-up areas, offices and parking facilities. The Lake Oswego tennis community is becoming increasingly ! frustrated with this condition since the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation 0 Department is unable to service Lake Oswego residents' tennis demands including Indoor Tennis Center – Site Feasibility Study 23 participating fully in the growing local tennis league programs, conducting local, regional and national tennis tournaments for all age levels and conducting broader community -wide service programs for lower income residents of Lake Oswego. As a direct result of the LOITC oversight and management by the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department and on-site tennis programs, LOITC has generated consistent and positive economic performance. Overall revenues have increased 36% over the last five years. During this time, expenses have increased 16% exclusive of Transfer Fees (Transfer Fees are the name given to funds used to pay for administrative services received from other City of Lake Oswego departments, plus excess funds returned yearly to the City of Lake Oswego general fund by the tennis facility operations). These Transfer Fees have averaged $68,007 over the last five years and in fiscal year 2008 were $103,491. These outstanding results of the LOITC operations were achieved with minimal increases in court fees from $3.50 in 1975 to $15/court/hour today and revenues from the addition of • innovative tennis programming. This is further evidence of the efficiency and success of the LOITC management and operations. The current LOITC reserve fund balance stands at $462,878 as of June 30, 2009. 4.2 Facility Comparisons The two significant public tennis facilities in the greater Portland, Oregon area that can be compared to the LOITC are the City of Portland Indoor Tennis Center and the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District Tennis Center in Beaverton. While these two indoor/outdoor tennis centers are not in the Lake Oswego tennis market, they are in the Greater Portland tennis area and provide a revealing look at the overall Portland, Oregon tennis market in terms of general tennis interest and activity in the area. City of Portland Indoor Tennis Center The most important, similar tennis facility to the LOITC is the City of Portland Indoor Tennis Center located at 324 NE 12th Street in northeast Portland (zip code --97232). This facility has four indoor tennis courts and eight outdoor tennis courts. Tennis Director, Mike Stone, reports that his facility is 97% occupied during the winter months of September through April and 87% occupied in the remaining summer months. Court fees and advance 'seasonal' court reservations for the indoor courts are based on $24/court/1.25 hour and $12/court/hour for outdoor courts. Stone does not maintain outdoor court occupancy levels. In TPC's experience, these are enormously strong indoor court occupancy levels confirmed by the fact that in summer months, indoor court occupancy is an extremely high 87% even when outdoor courts can be reserved at approximately one-half the cost of an indoor court. This fact is extremely strong testimony to the average Portland area tennis player desiring to play tennis indoors on a year round basis and for the extremely Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 24 4.3 healthy tennis activity and court use in the greater Portland area. The median household income for the market area of this facility is $60,000. Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District Tennis Center The Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District Tennis Center located at 15707 SW Walker Road in Beaverton (zip code --97006) has six permanent indoor tennis courts and then covers/encloses eight of its outdoor courts with an air -supported structure between October and May resulting in fourteen total indoor courts during the winter. 'In -district' resident court fees and 'seasonal' advanced reservations are based on $10/court/hour and 'Out -of -District' guest court fees are $30/court/hour. Tennis Director, Brian Leahy, reports that "of the 60,800 indoor court hours in 2008, 43,300 hours were used for an occupancy level of 71.3%. TPC considers this to be a high occupancy rate for a 14 court indoor facility in the United States since a 14 court indoor court facility would be in the top five percent, in facility size, of all indoor tennis projects in the country. Further, tennis play in air -supported structures is a compromise in a less desirable tennis 'bubble' when compared to tennis play in permanent tennis structures. The average size of permanent indoor tennis projects in the United States is approximately six (6) indoor courts. Of additional note, Tualatin Hills charges court fees of $5/court/hour to 'In -District' and $15/court/hour for 'Out -of -District' players with no occupancy levels maintained for their outdoor courts. The median household income for the market area of Tualatin Hills Tennis Center is $59,000. Financing Options Financing a $4,800,000 eight court indoor tennis facility can be achieved, in general, by either of two Lake Oswego revenue bond programs (see Ex. A, 100% financing or Ex. B, approximate 70% financing by applying $1,000,000 from the sale of the existing LOITC 2.81 acre site and by applying $500,000 from the LOITC Tennis Fund to reduce the $4,800,000 to $3,300,000). FINANCED AMOUNT Ex. A — $4,800,000 Ex. B — $3,300,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 'Unrated' (Unsecured by City) Approx. 7% for 30 yrs $420,000 Approx. 7% for 30 yrs $290,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 'Rated' (Secured by City) Approx. 5% for 30 yrs $315,000 Approx. 5% for 30 yrs $215,000 Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 25 Through real estate research in Lake Oswego, TPC has learned that the City of Lake Oswego can reasonably expect to receive an estimated $1,000,000 from this 2.81 acre tract if it can be zoned R-10 resulting in eight lots at 10,000 s.f. per lot being sold at an average price of $125,000 per lot. Design and construction costs can further be reduced by applying $500,000 in reserves from the Tennis Fund, which can be generated by slightly increasing fees over a period of 1-2 years to augment current reserves in the Tennis Fund. If this strategy is used, TPC recommends earmarking these funds as "capital reserves" for the project. Indoor tennis projects are extremely efficient on a daily operational and maintenance basis. This will be especially true for this proposed Lake Oswego indoor tennis project since no air-conditioning and heating equipment is anticipated to be required (proper ventilation will be the primary air movement requirement). From an operational standpoint, the recommended eight court indoor tennis complex will have a full time Manager and Assistant Manager on staff with the aid of a reservations and maintenance assistant available as needed. In addition to daily restroom cleaning, the indoor courts only require scheduled tennis lamp changing at specified intervals as well as periodic court resurfacing also at regularly scheduled intervals. 4.3 Financial Operating Projections The projected annual operating expenses and revenues as projected by Tennis Planning Consultants Inc. in collaboration with Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department staff are shown on the chart on the following page for the proposed 8 - Court facility (outlined in red). In summary, it is projected that the facility will generate $326,570 in net gain based on the operating and fee assumptions noted. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 26 Tennis Market, Construction and Operational Study for Lake Oswego, Oregon AweraOe Revenue Per Court 76,950 82,341 117,500 I 103,388 I 93,578 EXPENSES Facility M-Werrent & Rece0on ACTUAL LORC OPERAT10NS LAST 5 YRS AVE ACTUAL LOTTC OPMATIDNS LAST 3 YRS AVE PROJECT® OPEl?ATKM AT AT $24M 10 CATS AT S261M HEVENLIES 89.300 97.154 iaaeaor,1 �cacow � 133.952 133.852 License & Fees' 2537 2.764 3,000 0 0 YoulbMsses 101,347 113,547 185.000 214,471 214.471 Adintlt Classes 58.517 86.380 85.000 98.708 90.708 Special Evens 8,806 1 0,B55 131000 32273 32275 Daily Cart Fees 31AM 32,775 51.00D 139.104 148.592 Seasonal Cart Fees 90,986 84,320 13QOOD 312,824 413,712 linterest Income 13.841 18.2'8 22OOD 20.00D 20,000 Msc. Inoorne & Grants 501 414 1,000 12.000 12,OOD TOTAL REVENUES (4 CRTS) 307,729 329.363 470.000 1 827.182 9135.758 AweraOe Revenue Per Court 76,950 82,341 117,500 I 103,388 I 93,578 EXPENSES Facility M-Werrent & Rece0on 7D:D50 73,200 78.000 173.190 173.19D Program InOUCU rt & Coady bon 89.300 97.154 9-000 133.952 133.852 Materials & Supplies: Office Supplies 816 320 1,000 1,500 1,500 P409biridng 0 a 500 1,000 1,aw Rec- Equip. 8,388 10,427 8,000 10,000 12,000 Prof. & Tednical 13.479 12,334 B.00D 10,00D 12.000 Bnddnrtg Maintenance' 0 0 0 45,000 60.00D Bank Sgvioe Charges' 0 0 0 1 D.D00 11,ODD Training 60 79 1W 1,000 1,000 CortkerenOM 1.463 1.766 2,000 3.000 3.000 Dues 102 143 500 1,000 1,000 Tdephane 867 430 700 1.200 1,200 Conpnier Equiprt>ent 722 573 800 1.800 1.800 Bedricity 24,855 25.328 25= 52,DDD 85.000 Water. Server, Surface Water 3.867 5221 6,000 112M 16,O0D Adverts -V 1.174 1,195 -000 7.000 12,000 LocalTraW E4ernses 500 524 700 1,000 1,00D Transfers to Germ Fend: Adrrnistrative Overso t 7,957 8,817 12,000 18,DOD 18.000 Insurance 2,852 2,873 4,000 8,060 10.00D self ksiatoe 1,972 2,136 3.000 6,000 7,50D Parts & Recreab n 32.167 34.863 48.500 5.0001 "' 5.000 General 232% 25,195 35,0W 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 263,329 302 378 328,8M 500,612 546.912 Ar erage Expense Per Cant 70,832 75,595 81,200 62,577 54.691 OPERATNG GAN (4 CRTS) 24470 28,985 1412M 326.570 388.848 OPERATNG GAN (AV 1 CRT) 8,118 0 8,746 35,300 40,821 38,885 NOTES_ ProWarn revenue s based upon an 82%ofmam m capacity. WFucrh replicates the current Vogran negsbaw rate. ' A cad key system wi not be inslaled in a new fac3ry `• Bat Ser%lce Charges at costs of MatOgrarce are arrerdy included in the transfer to Pairs & Recreation Trateerred to Parks & Rendon for program caWoprie cam Indoor Tennis Center - Site Feasibility Study 27 5.0 CONCEPT DESIGN OPTIONS 5.1 Design Goals and Quality of Construction Regardless of the selected site, it is anticipated that the design of a new Tennis Center will include goals and guiding principles that will ensure a positive long term investment, using sustainable and energy conscious building practices, and that fulfills the need within the community. Building systems and materials will be selected based on performance, design aesthetics, and within a price range appropriate for a Tennis complex. Cost estimating is based on the follow systems: • Structure —Traditional foundation and retaining wall systems with a steel "Butler -barn" type long -span superstructure. The floor slab below the tennis courts will be rolled asphalt. The structure for all support functions (lobby, restrooms, fitness, etc.) will use traditional foundation systems with wood framing. Some steel will be used for additional support in specific areas for windows, etc. • Exterior Envelop —The exterior materials will predominately be metal siding and standing seam metal roofing. The metal siding will be upgraded at various public locations and may include some stone veneer and wood siding. An exterior entry canopy is planned to provide shelter for entry as well as pick-up/drop-off. The entry lobby and support program spaces include adequate windows for natural light and reduction in lighting costs. The main court spaces have been planned with a modest amount of north facing indirect windows for natural light in the court area. • Accessibility — The facility will be fully accessible and include an elevator if elevated viewing is included, and ramps for minor floor level changes. • Interior Finishes — The playing court area will include a durable hard surface (MDO wall board) from the floor up to 10 -feet. The majority of wall surface will be an exposed fabric faced insulation system that adheres directly to the metal siding system. Support program spaces will be painted gypsum board, carpet and linoleum floors, with lay -in tile and gypsum ceiling systems. Lobby finishes may be upgraded to include some wood finishes. • Tennis Courts —Tennis courts will use the Atlas Plexi -pave system over rolled asphalt. All nets, court nets, dividers, curtains, and pads have been included. • Mechanical Systems — Traditional electric heat pump forced air system for heating is provided as a back up to naturally ventilated spaces that will function in all seasons. Various sustainable ventilation strategies will be explored including night flushing. The court spaces will use electric units for "temperate" heating. Full heating is not included for the courts. The facility will have fire sprinklers throughout. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 28 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • Electrical Systems & Lighting — Traditional power and signal (data, fire, etc) systems will be employed. Lighting at the courts is proposed to be linear indirect fluorescent fixtures between the courts that bounce light off of the white fabric ceiling. It is expected that the system will achieve 100 foot- candles at the floor for tournament play. Program support spaces will receive traditional fluorescent lighting systems with occupancy sensors. The project endeavors to incorporate as many sustainable design and building features as is financially feasible and where pay -back is beneficial. The large volume roofs that are south facing make Photovoltaic panel systems an obvious option. Strategies can be explored with energy partners and companies that provide lease -to -own agreements. Natural ventilation and convection air systems for the large volume courts can also be incorporated to substantially reduce exhaust fan loads. High efficiency T8 fluorescent lighting systems will supplement the natural light design provisions. Finally, green/sustainable building materials meeting US Green Building Council standards will be used. LEED practices and standards will also be used to track performance, but LEED certification is not included at this time. The design of the facility should be inviting to the public, safe and secure. The interior spaces will be arranged to allow staff the opportunity to passively supervise patrons/players will also full -filling the functional needs of an active, state of the art tennis center that meets the needs of the community for many years. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 29 5.2 Armory Site Design Options Design Option A — Site & Floor Plans w/Exterior Perspective �aT,mlra�a.o-eua,o�s�E �1xa � _ 1 N I � 1 � r LH "U PARM � r uanac ul I I � e i lJ 1 1 A rv.o .ow r � REVVI owva TOTAL 1'4 0" A� �b=dM-dbdlgo11 lMWjft , LA �fy �4 anon C. JOaoon. Artiff d LLC �m p s.M.sr Armory Design Option B — Site & Floor Plans w/Exterior Perspective 1.7,k JAL t 224=efff.1Ec-PR0KRIY 137,7TL 13.10rc-BULDABLE (E1%) I � y�y B2~ r 1AECH T WPAMmo 47 V p mru a4+mW+arcH �+� = sw¢ 000URTS - i.rle avcwna n bomb aandr- MY dbgmm I �hrsb g �,� r Owmw Bean C..lxlmn, AmfNed LLC r•10 5.3 Rassekh Site Design Options Design Option A1— "Preferred" — Site & Floor Plans w/Exterior a,M7+ MEM 417.973!(/ 9JYaC - PROPERTY r 334,01®T! TA7ao - BUILT:IBLE a0li) ,, f7NE1J111E.� 1 .70Qt R)I LIRE ! ! / 1 R JJ ! 1COI RTE 1 / J " r l#IIRY 1 O I � ► BROM-------------rip / ORPARKAMBJTIES i Q L --------------PARK 0 0 I / J� r` ► rma■ar,.i� if 4K r wrrW i emwt�r R Ilh,111�7ti�OC71'RCL R a 101�1� OR1! M 1�1[fWC�IRO�110r �,W � dQ �retrmRo�� nw nt�pplI��Rm11� TOTAL 724OW+MEOM TR 7R1riW7r�RL01f Nr NI1A011QYRad1 8+1C0URT81+40UTD00 r■EEM&ADM Mw j SEEM/.1 10 /ICwIN A Rssaekh Property tomb caftr- abe dhomm I armtra pa, of Lmmk OrRe� Brie C. 1x1go n, /4rNted LLCor m © f+ r�r arr IRassekh Design Option A2 — Site/Exterior Perspective m ll;h Properly tomb cariter- 3d ammlaw �20 0 BdmC.Jmdmm.Ardd*dLLC Rassekh Design Option B1— Site & Floor Plan 4p00f 4. WCH IfWd R ' 417 i7if/ a.69c - PROPERTY ss+p� s�(! r Jrrc - SULDASLE (e0�6j 83A" FlRELVIE f RJ1um INDOOR FUnJRE INDOOR / COURT CDURT Is / /P BLE OUTDOOR` / COURTS OR PARK AMENITIES 40 I OR PAA !I IiiPARK� NimumCO AMENITIES f ENTRY PLAZA 0 I r k / PARK Val Vim. a n s. 131E;Wmkh Property twvts =rftr- aRn ri ft r, j mee}Yafs BtfrtC.•1sdc�on,fvtii�tted ft ofWo06 wrm {J* *, a� "V 1C eyo Rassekh Design Option B2 — Site/Exterior Perspective B2Ramekh Property -3dumrdw my Of Lwm aav%o 0 1 DAM C. Jadm% ArdtW LIC Rassekh Design Option Cl: "Base -Line Design" — Site & Floor Plan TWX 714.4W- MEM �r &'200URTLl+40clTDC loll III13 M II:I El • C1 R'a�ekh Pro tomb center- sb depem ♦+ QgtOil�Me0o.w Yrrm 0 r r,... Yf Brian C.•bckuo^,taditedLL, Rassekh Design Option C2: "Base -line Design"— Enlarged Floor Plan 74.400sf rE4 M -611n POSSIBLE OUTDOOR COURTS OR PARK AMENITIES L- --- ----------------------- IWM.MW 0 cww b. mlawommmak S &W=t i� "Pfopft mm Q ink Ardftd LLC m.hum. Rassekh Design Option C2: "Base -line Design"— Exterior Perspectives 1 ! '�� -mss tk ,.�-ra• - r IY.t _ 4 . s� � Sts- � t� - ✓ - CraLak.Ow..po ..rr..w 01 "-� �•-��0 5.4 West End Building Site Design Options Design Option A1— Site & Floor Plan 0172+r / u.ao - ar+ar�rrr YJ6.Lt Nd t 52= - 9UL.DMLE M%) r.--- ----- — Ir 1 1 I a� I 1 --------- --------- �. FFELANE ` I 1 P., ,. +14AMd LeewwM 0 ! ' SAFE00 4� !� COURTYARD i 1 k �URNARO TQI'At 77�D01f + M � � �. U Y..�.., ` R 1� �p7fllm M D OIQ- k1l MB Prg� b --.b mrAor- if dYprm I meh bM 4wr prn l ..r.�e C) maw mm dbnC.dLdraon,I1ra11Y�LLC WEB Design Option A2 - Site/Exterior Perspectives YIdMIlIBI�O lr ws��aa 0 osM e arrerne A �Mgr10! M ===., M M�nNxoo+7� r r��,sa�awsr V IY01!!r I111r•O R fi�C�LYAOtl0111i !li PAY ma le aer h.r - bw.r► soar . — .. - O em C. , obw &ahbd u -c WE�B�PID aa•r gor•-sdorendsir �.+as�o WEB Design Option B1— Site & Floor Plans 617mid 1142c- PROPBi1Y 358,21 ad / e.?ie - FkUtDABLf PA%) r- 1 1 4T.0 ------- PURINE------ / . I!w m _ 1 dSAFECO COURTYARD t MQ ♦ ` �` � rte' \ `\ �-•��_ r ♦ r '/r r T07AL ,Meat M oouKra R 11l�,R10��001116 \\ D � h irasNorumra► BAA MOEfO�OIAI� \\\` ` lIF rtrr� o1 a I. 1 r, rrr<■ao�c , B1wEB PryM=v hmr asoler- ab pYe / a� oral tbarplan-- - I ppr of lake Or�ruo fl r.+w_rn &In C. Jefton./ mMW LLC WEB Design Option B2 — Site/Exterior Perspectives wiovrr.w��o YY�1rNJ R mmoonsoYk�COMIOL C owaf ■aor ROHR h ImrYYjfIeLl/oMlY rra �Q mrarirx M Li� IY1011 ■ M1 Ylp /fta7M r rw o*�owwwao 9 roee�meurs� R OO�ILOiLrgefplK[ P,Ij Upper level SAOMW+ ME -CH 1rd- IM-I B2WEB Prope bwo=Ier-lower rLipper fl=pi�-3dwArdw piy of Lam awepo m m 0 1 aj�pcm j aft G dadom JYdid WC 6.0 PROJECT COST OPINION 6.1 Basis of Design and Cost Assumptions The costs included in this report are based on professional experience and input from local contractors familiar with this type of construction. The final estimates represent "today's dollars" and do not include escalation/inflation that might occur between the time of this report and the mid -point of construction of the facility. Construction costs have been aligned with the construction materials and systems as described in the design section of the report. Geotechnical/soils investigations have not been performed for any of the three sites, so cost contingencies have NOT been included for bad -soils if they are encountered. All soft cost estimates are subject to change as the project scope and budget are further developed. In many cases, soft cost allowances are "best -guess" estimates based on past professional experience and past projects. System Development Charges (SDC), and associated permit and connection fees have been based on the City's current 2010 fee schedule, but have not been verified by each City agency. 6.2 Key Cost Factors Organized by Site Location: Armory: • The site is constrained and does not allow for expansion or for outdoor courts. Significant slope forces a compact/efficient design that daylights. • The City does not own the property and would have to purchase the land for an estimated $500,000, possibly more. Rassekh: • The property is not inside the UGB and would require Metro annexation approval that could result in additional indirect project soft costs and be time consuming. The site is aesthetically desirable, large in size, and relatively flat with a crown in the middle. The site allows for expansion of indoor courts as well as additional outdoor courts or park amenities. • The site is the only available option where the single story "baseline" design can be built. • There is no sewer access at Stafford Road. Connection is required to the adjacent lift station on the other side of the creek and sensitive lands. It is estimated that this work will cost in the range of $200,000 - $250,000. WEB: • Site configuration and the existing WEB requires that the facility to be located in the northern section, which then requires the construction of a new surface parking lot at the front of the site that is sized to support the Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 43 WEB program functions. The sloping site also creates a cost impact for large foundation walls needs for the long/elongated structure. 6.3 Cost Summary Project Site Name/Location: Comparison area cost/SF Total Armory Site - Design Option "A" Direction Construction Cost Site Development Cost Soft Cost Allocation: Purchase of Land: Total Cost Project Cost: 69,100 GSF $66 $4,032,122 $547,491 $775,905 $500,000 $5,855,518 Rassekh Site - Design Option "A" Direct Construction Cost: Site Development Cost: Soft Cost Allocation: Total Project Cost: 72,500 GSF $68 $3,937,896 $1,111,081 $913,496 $5,962,473 Rassekh Site - Design Option "C" - Base -Line Direct Construction Cost: Site Development Cost: Soft Cost Allocation: Total Project Cost: 73,290 GSF $55 $2,985,076 $1,063,264 $810,033 $4,858,373 WEB Site - Design Option "B" Direct Construction Cost: Site Development Cost: Soft Cost Allocation: Total Cost for Structured Parking: 69,700 GSF $85 $4,750,254 $1,141,930 $900,349 $6,792,533 6.4 Detailed Cost Estimates (for Each Site) The Appendix of this report contains a detailed cost estimate for both direct construction costs and the soft costs for each of the three sites that have been evaluated. All costs are in today's dollars and do not include inflation factors. Verification of System Development Charges, Traffic Impact Fees, Connection Fees, and Owner Project Management Fees are noted as rough order of magnitude estimates. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 44 7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Summary As noted in the background introduction section of this report, the purpose of this study is to provide "site specific" analysis of each site, a conceptual site and building design that is appropriate to each site and that responds to the physical conditions of each site, as well as to develop a "total" project cost opinion for each site and design. Furthermore, it was the intent to build upon the previous feasibility study and provide a greater level of site information for the three recommended sites. The importance of accurate cost information was the driving force of the study, based on actual design options that ensure a fully functional Tennis Center. The process included multiple site visits, due -diligence meetings and input from the City Planning Office (Hamid Pishvaie), City Transportation (Russ Chevrette), Development Office (Brant Williams), and Lake Oswego Fire Chief (Phil Sample). The current construction market is very competitive due to the downturn in the economy. The cost of materials and equipment are down and there are multiple, well qualified contractors that are actively seeking work opportunities. It is recommended that the City evaluate the possibility of delivering this project as a competitive based Construction Manager/General Contractor method of contracting, or an invited low -bid contract based on 100% complete construction documents. In either case, selection will be based on the combination of both team quality and price, to deliver the project cost effectively for the City of Lake Oswego. The City of Lake Oswego has not constructed a new facility in many years. This project offers many opportunities to design a Tennis Center that is responsive to the surrounding site context and that would establish a commitment to sustainable and energy efficient building practices within a modest budget. 7.2 Conclusions 1. Zoning, Site Acquisition, and Political Impacts: • The Armory property must be purchased from the State of Oregon for an unknown price and it is not entirely known if the City will have the first right of refusal. There are no political or neighborhood impacts other than other possible developments that might be considered on the property. • The Rassekh property is owned by the City. It is large and very nice aesthetically with good access as well as offering the possibility of additional outdoor amenities that could be incorporated into the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The site is not currently in the UGB and there may be Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 45 opposition from the Atherton neighborhood. • City staff met with Metro in July 2009 to discuss the Rassekh property and the possibility of bringing it back inside the UGB. It is possible through a major modification process because the proposed use accommodates long term population needs in the community and it can be shown that there are no other sites within the City that have the size to accommodate a 10 -court tennis facility. • The WEB site is not seen as a good choice because a tennis facility is not the highest and best use of very expensive land and the construction of a tennis facility would preclude any future development/use on the site for other City services. 2. Cost to Develop: (Represents Totol Project Cost) • Armory Design Option 'A' Preferred Program is $5,855,518. (includes estimated 500K purchase price). • Rassekh Option 'A' Preferred Program is $5,962,473. (includes sewer connection). • Rassekh Option 'C' — Baseline Design is $4,858,373. (single story/at- grade viewing area) • West End Building Option 'B'— Preferred Design is $6,792,533. (includes relocated surface parking) 3. Design Impacts: • Armory site does not allow expansion and the topography requires a multi-level facility, so the baseline single story design is not possible. The resulting preferred design option is compact and efficient. • Rassekh site is large, aesthetically very nice, allows for future expansion and for incorporation of possible outdoor amenities. It is the only site that allows the construction of the single story "baseline" design option. • WEB site is difficult due to topography and location of existing West End Building which creates a somewhat inefficient building design and site layout. The single story baseline design option is not possible. The design requires a new (and very large) surface parking lot at the front of the site along Kruse Way. 4. Existing Facility: • It has been projected (in the previous study) by a local real estate broker that the existing tennis center property is work approximately $1,000,000 in today's economic climate. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 46 7.3 Possible Next Steps 1. On-site due diligence and formal investigation of selected site. • Soils investigation by geotechnical engineer. • Sensitive lands delineation by environmental consultant. • Complete site survey with topography and existing utilities identified. 2. Planning, Conditional Use, and Urban Growth Boundary. • Meet with City Planning and appropriate City staff to begin UGB modification application to Metro. • Outline and begin the Conditional Use and Design Review process. • Meet and confer with neighborhood associations and representatives once refined design work is complete. 3. Refine Design Concept and Estimated Project Costs. • Develop and refine the initial site and building design concept to a schematic level with a complete site plan, building floor plans, exterior elevations, building sections, and exterior perspectives showing how the building design fits at the site with respect to visual appearance and views to and from the surrounding neighborhood. • Engage professional cost consultant team (primarily a Civil Engineer) for design input to develop building systems for the project. Additional engineering input will better inform both the site and building construction costs based on the refined schematic drawings noted above. • Establish design and sustainability goals for the project. Investigate strategies for photovoltaic power systems (grants & partnerships) and composting waste/sewer water systems. 4. Determine project funding strategy moving forward. • Investigate and pursue Grant funding opportunities. • Evaluate user fee increase and creation of capital reserves tennis fund. • Research revenue bond rates and process. • Pursue strategies for the sale of the existing tennis property. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 47 8.0 APPENDIX 8.1 Detailed Total Project Cost Estimates 1. Armory — Design Option 'A' — Preferred Design 2. Rassekh — Design Option 'A' — Preferred Design 3. Rassekh — Design Option 'C' — Baseline Design 4. West End Building — Design Option 'B' — Preferred Design 8.2 Market Analysis & Operations 1. Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 8.3 Supplemental Design Drawings —11" X 17" 1. Additional design drawings of each of the explored options have been provided at 11" X 17" format for reference. Indoor Tennis Center — Site Feasibility Study 48 Armory - Design Option "All Full Program Lake Oswego - Tennis Center Feasibility Study Armory Site TENNIS CENTER General Conditions -10% Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% TOTAL Tennis Center: 1) Foundations Brian C Jackson, Architect LLC DATE: 08/24/2010 area cost per sf Total $3,491,015 $349,101 $192,006 68,100 GSF $59 $4,032,122 $473,900 Excavation - cut/fill and shoring tie backs 1 L5 $150,000 $150,000 Foundation retaining walls - south east & west 6,500 sf $15.00 $97,500 Retaining wall drainage system 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Typ. Footings/gross floor area -1st fir. 62,400 sf $3.00 $187,200 Interior foundation stem wall at grade trasition 1,600 sf $12.00 $19,200 tstimating Contingency (1Syo) Inflation (0%) Total 2) Vertical Structure Tennis Courts - All inclusive steel butler structure Allow @ Support area wood framed Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 3) Floor and Roof Structure 1 LS 0 sf $/11085 $0 $544,985 $0 $1,570,900 $355,130 Slab on Grade - Support area 9,020 sf $7.00 $63,140 Asphalt floor at tennis courts 53,380 sf $3.00 $160,140 Plexi -pave court surfacing 53,380 sf $1.00 $53,380 Subslab Drainage & Membrane _ sf $45.00 $0 Suspended floor - wood framing gyp topping _ 5,700 sf $5.00 $28,500 Tennis Court roof framing - incl. in stl. Struct. sf $0.50 $0 Tennis Court roof decking - incl. in stl. struct. sf $0.75 $0 Support program roof structure - framing & Deck 9,020 sf $3.50 $31,570 Exterior Decks and terraces LS $0 Misc. metals @ support 14,720 sf $1.25 $18,400 tstimating Lonungency Ilom) Inflation (0%) Total 4) Exterior Cladding yS3,Z/U $0 $408.400 $161.375 Exterior wall -Tennis court incl. in stl. structure $0 Exterior wall - architectural upgrade 1,000 $15 $15,000 Exterior wall - architectural at support area 500 sf $25.00 $12,500 Exterior Glazing 750 sf $45.00 $33,750 Entry/Egress Doors, frames and hardware 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Fascia, bands and screens 68,100 sf $0.50 $34,050 Soffits - trim & paint 1 68,100 sf 1 $0.75 $51,075 tsumaung uonungency Iln,7ol Inflation (0%) Total 5) Roofing, Waterproofing & Skylights Md. roof & insul. @ tennis -included in stl. Struct. Membrane Roofing & Insulation at support space Caulking, sealants and firestopping Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 9,020 sf Page 9 of 4 yZ4,ZUb $0 779 $0 $185,581 $120,974 6) Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing Allowance for Interior Glazing at V Allowance per Gross SF @ support Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 7) Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes Allowance per Gross SF @ support Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 81 Function Equipment & Specialties Wall Pads, curtains, nets, and div Estimating Contingency (159( Inflation (0%) Total 9) Stairs & Vertical Transportation Exit & Convenience Stairs Elevator - 2 stops Estimating Contingency (15% Inflation (0%) Total 10) Plumbing Systems Allowance per Gross SF @ Suppo Estimating Contingency (159( Inflation (0%) Total 11) Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditions Allowance per Gross SF @ Suppo Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis Estimating Contingency (15% Inflation (0%) Total sf 14,720 sf 53.380 sf $31,360 $0 $11,040 $11,040 $1,656 $0 $0 $36,064 $12,696 $122,774 $95,000 $30,000 $65,000 $14,250 $0 $109,250 $11,040 $11,040 $1,656 $0 $12,696 $82,820 $29,440 $53,380 $12,423 $0 $95,243 12) Electrical - lighting, Power & Communications $150,920 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 14,720 sf $3 $44,160 Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis 1 53,380 sf 1 $2.001 $106,760 Estimating Contingency (15%) $22,638 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 13) Fire Protection Systems $85,125 Allowance per Gross SF 1 68,100 sf-F $1.251 $85,125 Estimating Contingency (15%) $12,769 Inflation (0%) $0 Total Page 2 of 4 $173,558 $97,894 SITE DEVELOPMENT $474,019 General Conditions - 30% $47,402 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% $26,071 TOTAL Site Development: 137,750 GSF $3 $547,491 A) Site Preparation & Site Demolition $49,690 " Demolition of Existing Armory Bldg. 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 Demolition of Metal Storage Bldg. 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Strip & Remove hardscape/parking 33,600 sf $0.40 $13,440 Strip & remove softscape/top soil 40,000 sf $0.25 $10,000 Cut/fill grading & Shoring - see foundations $ 1.00 $0 Erosion control during construction 75,000 sf $0.35 $26,250 $6,000 Landscape ground cover 2,000 sf $0 tstimatnng contingency {i!)%) Inflation (0%) Total B) Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping 57,454 $0 S262.S00 Vehicular Paving & Curbs (Parking and Drives) 40,500 sf $ 5.00 $202,500 Pedestrian Paving - sidewalks & featured 3,000 sf $ 7.50 $22,500 Structures and retaining walls LS $0 Drainage @ hardscaping 3,000 sf $ 1.00 $3,000 Lighting @ hardscape and softscape 3,000 sf $ 2.00 $6,000 Landscape ground cover 2,000 sf $ 5.00 $10,000 Lawn 0 sf $ 2.50 $0 Trees 10 ea $ 750.00 $7,500 Irrigation 2,000 sf $ 1.75 $3,500 Bollards, trash and other site furnishings 1 Is $ 7,500 $7,500 tsumating contingency lisvbl Inflation (0%) Total C) Site Utilities 539,375 $0 $90,000 Electrical/Telecom, vaults, manholes & trenching 1 Is $ 15,000 $15,000 New Transformer 1 I $ 15,000 $15,000 Gas Service $0 Sewer Service 1 Is $ 20,000 $20,000 Storm Water 1 Is $ 15,000 $20,000 Domestic Water, fire, hydrants, FDC, etc. 1 Is $ 20,000 $20,000 c5umdung lommgency Moroi Inflation (0%) Total D) Special Construction Fire Access Road - Gravel j13,SW $0 $10,000 Exterior Stand Pipe - 1 LS 1 $10,000 -.O -or -$10,000 Estimating Contingency (15%) $1,500 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $57,144 $301,875 $103,500 TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 68,100 GSF 67 Including all site costs ,579,613 Page 3 of 4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $4,809 A- BasicA/E Fees (arch., struct, mech., elect.) $274,777 B- On-siteCivil Engineering $35,000 C- Landscape Architect $40,000 D- Aquatics Consultant $0 E- Lighting Consultant $7,500 F- Food Service Consultant $0 G- Signage & Graphics $0 H- Geotechnical $30,000 F Material Testing $20,000 J- Technology / Computers / CAN $0 K- Acoustical $0 L- Abatement Consultant $0 M- Surveys (Site Only) $4,000 N- Resource Delineation $5,000 O- Traffic Impact Study $10,000 P- LEED Certification - Not Included _ $0 Q- Conditional Use Application & Package $20,000 R- Enerev Modeling Sn Estimating Contingency (10%) Total FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT A- Equipment & Equipment - Tennis incl. in construction cost _ $7,500 B- Signage & Graphics/Wayfiinding (interior & exterior) $2,000 C- Technology / Computers / CAN/Data $0 C- Phones & Public Address $3,000 E- Food Service $2,500 F- Security System $2,500 $490.904 tstimating rontmgency ii(j%) $1,750 Total $19,250 OWNER'S COSTS $4,809 A- Plan Check Fee & Buildig Permit (1%) estimate $26,000 B- Conditional Use Application & Fees TBD estimate $5,000 C- Design Review Application/Review Fee $5,000 D- Owner Construction Contingency (3%) $137,388 E- Insurance ( Property / Vand'I / Fire) $p F- Move -in Costs $0 G- SDC (Systems Development Charges - City) Water Meter Connection $16,515 Sanitary Sewer - based on 2" water $15,056 Surface Water Management SA RJq Parks and Recreation $4,809 G- Misc. Grading, Utility, Erosion Control, etc. $5,000 Deliniation of RP or RC Zone Permit Fee $1,000 H- Legal Fees $0 I- Legal Advertisements $0 J- Reimbursable Expenses (5.0% of Line 5) $0 K- Miscellaneous (Renderings, Final Models, etc.) Estimating Contingency (10%) Total allowance $5,000 $24,159 $265,751 TOTAL SOFT COSTS: S775,90S Cost of Land Purchase: 50p000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 5,855,518 Soft Cost Percent of Direct Construction: 16.9% ESTIMATED BID DATE: Fall 2011 INFLATION FROM: estimated in today's dollars Page 4 of 4 Rassekh - Design Option "A" Brian C Jackson, Architect LLC Full Program / Preferred Design DATE: 08/24/2010 Lake Oswego - Tennis Center Feasibility Study Rassekh Site area cost per sf Total TENNIS CENTER $3,409,434 General Conditions -10% $340,943 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% $187,519 TOTAL Tennis Center: 72,500 GSF $54 $3,937,8% 1) Foundations $235,100 Excavation - cut/fill 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 _ Retaining wall drainage system LS Typ. Footings/gross floor area -1st fir. _ _ _$0 63,700 sf $3.00 - $191,100 Stem wall at lower grade 2,000 sf $12.00 $24,000 tsumatnng Lonungency I1- -)m) Inflation (0%) Total 2) Vertical Structure _ Tennis Courts - All inclusive steel butler structure Allow @ Support area wood framed Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 3) Floor and Roof Structure 535,165 $0 $1,396,400 1 LS $1,350,000 $1,350,000 11,600 sf --$4.00 -- $46,400 $209,460 $0 $399,325 Slab on Grade - Support area 10,900 sf $6.50 $70,850 Asphalt floor at tennis courts 52,800 sf $3.00 _ - $158,400 _ Plexi -pave court surfacing 52,800 sf _ $1.00 $52,800 Subslab Drainage & Membrane sf $45.00 $0 Suspended floor - wood framing gyp topping 10,900 sf $5.00 _ $54,500 Tennis Court roof framing - incl. in stl. Struct. _ 10,900 sf $0.50 $0 Tennis Court roof decking incl. in stl. strut- 10,900 sf $0.75 $0 Support program roof structure - framing & Deck 10,900 sf $3.50 $38,150 Exterior Decks and terraces LS $0 Misc. metals @ support 19,700 sf $1.25 $24,625 tsumaung ;-onungency IiSml Inflation (0%) Total 4) Exterior Gadding 559,899 $0 $257.125 Exterior wall - Tennis court incl. in stl. structure $0 Exterior wall - architectural upgrade ---- ---- ------ 4,000 $15 $60,000 Exterior wall - architectural at supportarea --_ _ ----- 3,500 sf - -- - - -- ----.-___-------- $25.00 --- $87,500 Exteld or Glazing 1,800 sf $45.00 Entry/Egress Doors, frames and hardware 1 LS $15,000.00 _$81,000 $15,000 Fascia, bands and screens _ 10,900 sf $0.50 $51450 Soffits trim & paint 10,900 sf $0.75 $8,175 tsumaing t-onungency Il�7,l Inflation (0%) Total 5) Roofing, Waterproofing & Skylights Mtl. roof & insul. @ tennis -included in stl. Struct. _Membrane Roofing & Insulation at support space Caulking, sealants and firestopping Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 538,569 $0 $73,575 -- -- 10,900 sf $6.00 -$65,400 10,900 sf ---$0.75 $8,1751 $11,036 $0 Page 1 of 4 $270,365 $1,605,860 $459,224 $295,694 $84,611 6) Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing $41,850 Allowance for Interior Glazing at Viewing 1,600 sf $20 $32,000 Allowance per Gross SF @ support 19,700 sf 1 $0.501 $9,850 Estimating Contingency (15%) $6,278 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 7) Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes $14,775 ------------ -------------- Allowance per Gross SF @ support19,700 sf $0.75 $14,775 Estimating Contingency (15%) $2,216 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 8) Function Equipment & Specialties__ _ $105,600 Wall Pads, curtains, nets, and dividers --j- 52,800 sf I OOT $105,600 Estimating Contingency (15%) $15,840 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 9) Stairs & Vertical Transportation $95,000 -------------- -- ---- - Exit & Convenience Stairs2 LS $15,000.00 $30,000 Elevator - 2 stops 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000 Estimating Contingency (15%) $14,250 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 10) Plumbing Systems $14,775 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 1 19,700 sf 1 $0,75F $14,7751 Estimating Contingency (15%) $2,216 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 11) Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning $92,200 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 19,700 sf- $2.00 $39,400 .-._ - --- - -- - - __ _.f -. - - 9,400 Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis 52,800 sf $1.00 $52,800 Estimating Contingency (15%) $13,830 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 12) Electrical - Lighting, Power & Communications _ _ _ $1511500 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support __ _ 19,700 sf _ $3.00 _ $59,100 Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis 52,800 sf $1.751 $92,400 Estimating Contingency (15%) $22,725 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 13) Fire Protection Systems $87,500 Allowance per Gross SF 70,000 sf $1.25 $87,500 Estimating Contingency (15%) $13,125 Inflation (0%) $0 Total Page 2 of 4 $48,128 $16,991 $121,440 $109,250 $16,991 $106,030 $174,225 $100,625 SITE DEVELOPMENT $961,975 General Conditions -10% $96,198 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% $52,909 TOTAL Site Development: 210,000 GSF $5 $1,111,081 A) Site Preparation & Site Demolition S154AW Strip & Remove hardscape/parking $0 _ Strip & remove saRscape/top soil 140,000 sf $0.25 $35,000 Cut/fill grading & Shoring - see foundations_ 70,000 sf $1.00 $70,000 Erosion control during construction 140,000 sf $49,000 _$0.35 $0 Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total B) Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping 523,100 $0 S377,500 Vehicular Paving & Curbs (Parking and Drives) 42,000 sf $ 5.00 $210,000 Pedestrian Paving - sidewalks & featured 5,000 sf $ 7.50 _ $37,500 Structures and retaining walls 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $10,000 Drainage @ hardscaping 5,000 sf $ 1.00 $5,000 _ Lighting @ hardscape and softscape 5,000 sf $ 5.00 $25,000 Landscape ground cover - - --- 10,000 sf $ 5.00 $50,000 Lawn - -_- - 0 sf $__ 2.50 $0 Trees 20 ea $__750.00 _ $15,000 _ Irrigation 10,000 sf $ _ _ 1.75 _ - $17,500 _ Bollards, trash and other site furnishings 1 Is $ 7,500 $7,500 Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total C) She thgkies $56,625 $0 S245.000 Electrical/Telecom, vauhs, manholes & trenching 1 Is $ 25,000 $25,000 New Transformer 11s $ 15,000 $_15_,000 Gas Service $0 Construction of Sewer to Lift Station 1 Is $ 100,000 $100,000 Sewer Connection Fee (see owner costs) i Is $0 Storm Water 1 1 Is 1 $ _ 60,000 _ $60,000 Domestic Water, fire, hydrants, FDC, etc 1 Is 1 $ 45,000 _ $45,000 $177,100 $434,125 estimating Lontingency (1596) y3b,/Su Inflation (0%) $0 Total $281,750 D) Special Construction _ $6000 Atherton Frontage Improvements 1 Is 1 $50,0001 $50,000 Fire Access Road - Gravel 1 4,000 sf 1 $5.001 $20,000 Fire Access - Grasscrete 1 4.000 sf 1 $10.001 S40.000 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $69,000 TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST I 72,500 GSF 69 including all site costs 5,048,977 Page 3 of 4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $0 A- Basic A/E Fees (arch., struct, mech., elect) $302,939 B- On-siteCivil Engineering _ $35,000 C- Landscape Architect $40,000 D- Aquatics Consultant $0 E- Lighting Consultant _ $7,500 F- Food Service Consultant $0 G- Signage & Graphics $0 H- Geotechnical $30,000 _ I- Material Testing -� �- $20,000 J- Technology / Computers / CAN $0 K- Acoustical - $0 L- Abatement Consultant _ $0 _ M- Surveys (Site Only) $4,000 _- N- Resource Delineation & Report estimated $5,000 0- Traffic Impact Study estimated $10,000 P- LEED Certification - Not Included _ $0 _ _ Q- Conditional Use Application & Package $20,000 R- Energy Modeling ---------- - - - --$0 Estimating Contingency (10%) $47,444 Total $521,882 FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT A- Equipment & Equipment - Tennis Ind. In construction cost$7,500 B- Signage & Graphics/Wayfinding (interior & exterior) - $21000 C- Technoloev / Comouters / CAN/Data SO C- Phones & Public Address $3,000 E- Food Service - ---- -------i---_-__-_ --- $21500 F- Security System $2,500 Estimating Contingency (10%) $1,750 Total OWNER'S COSTS A- Pian Check Fee & Buildig Permit $26,000 _ _ _estimate B- Conditional Use Application/Review Fee TBD estimate _ C- Design review Application/Review_ Fee -- - _$5,000 --- $5,000 D- Owner Construction Contingency (3%) $151,469 _ E- Insurance ( Property / Vand'i / Fire) $0 Y _ F- Move -in Costs $0 _ _ G- SDC (Systems Development Charges - City) - Water Meter Connection 24nch $16,515 _ Sanitary Sewer - based on 2 -inch water service $15,056 Surface Water Manai Transportation ($2,000 X 8 courts estimated) $16,000 Parks and Recreation 7 $687 $4,809 H- Sewer Connection to Lift Station - developer charge $82,840 I- Misc. Grading, Utility, Erosion Control, etc. - Permit Fees $5,000 J- Delinlation of RP or RC Zone Permit Review Fee $1,000 K- Legal Fees _ - - - -$U L- Legal Advertisements _ _ _ $0 M- Reimbursable Expenses (5.0% of Line 5) $0 N- Miscellaneous (Renderines.Final Models. etcl allowance SS -000 $19,250 Estimating Contingency (10%) $33,851 Total $372,364 TOTAL SOFT COSTS: 913,496 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 5,962,473 Soft Cost Percent of Direct Construction: ESTIMATED BID DATE: Fall 2D11 INFLATION FROM: estimated in today's dollars Page 4 of 4 Rassekh - Design Option "C" 15,790 sf Brian C Jackson, Architect LLC Base Program & Design 57,500 sf $3.00 $172,500 Plexi -pave court surfacing - DATE: 08/24/2030 Lake Oswego - Tennis Center Feasibility Study Subslab Drainage & Membrane sf $0 Suspended floor - wood framing gyp topping Rassekh Site _ _ $0 Tennis Court roof framing - incl. in sti. Struct. _ _ _ $0 Tennis Court roof decking - incl. in stl. struct. area cost per sf Total $3.50 $55,265 TENNIS CENTER LS $0 Misc. metals @ support $2,584,48171 General Conditions - 10% _ $5,250 $258,448 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% $142,146 TOTAL Tennis Center: 73,290 GSF $40 $2,995,076 1) Foundations___ $16_6,580 Excavation - cut/fill & Fine Grading 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Retaining wall drainage system -- -- -- LS - - -- -- $0 Typ. Footings_ /gross floor area -1st flr. 73,290 sf $2.00 $1.46,580 Stem wall at lower grade - $0 Estimating Contingency (15%) $24,987 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $191,567 2) Vertical Structure Tennis Courts - All inclusive steel butler structure 1 LST00,000 $9 _$930,964 $900,000 Allow @ Support area wood framed 1 7,741 sf $4.001 _ $30,964 Estimating Contingency (15%) $139,645 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $1,070,609 3) Floor and Roof Structure $387,900 Slab on Grade - Support area 15,790 sf $6.50 $102,635 Asphalt floor at tennis courts 57,500 sf $3.00 $172,500 Plexi -pave court surfacing - _ 57,500 sf _ $1.00 $57,500 Subslab Drainage & Membrane sf $0 Suspended floor - wood framing gyp topping sf _ _ $0 Tennis Court roof framing - incl. in sti. Struct. _ _ _ $0 Tennis Court roof decking - incl. in stl. struct. 15,790 sf $0 Support program roof structure - framing & Deck $3.50 $55,265 Exterior Decks and terraces LS $0 Misc. metals @ support sf $0 Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 4) Exterior Cladding $58,185 $0 5260.750 Exterior wall -Tennis court incl. in stl. structure $0 Exterior wall - architectural upgrade Exterior wall - architectural at support area 4,000 3,400 sf $10 $40,000 $25.00 $85,000 Exterior Glazing ---- - 1,600 sf -- -$45.00 ----$_72,000 Exterior roll -up doors _ _ 8 ea $5,000.00 Entry/Egress Doors, frames and hardware _ 1_LS $15,_000.00 _-_$40,00_0 $15,000 Fascia, bands and screens 7,000 sf $0.50 $3500 _ Soffits - trim & paint 7,000 sf _ $0.75 i _ $5,250 $446,085 Estimating Contingency (15%) 539,113 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $299,863 5) Roofing, Waterproofing & Skylights _ $99,990 Mtl. roof & insul. @ tennis -included in stl. Struct. _ $0 CaMembrane Roofing & Insulation at support space 15,790 sf -- $6.00 $_94,740 ulking, sealants and firestopping 7,000 sf $0.75 $5,250 Estimating Contingency (15%) $14,999 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $114,989 6) Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing $3,208 Page 1 of 4 - --- - -- --- -- - - -- --- I-- Allowance for Interior Glazing at Viewing sf, $0 Allowance per Gross SF @ support 6,415 sf $0.50 $3,208 Estimating Contingency (15%) $481 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 7) Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes $4,811 _ _ _ Allowance per Gross SF @ support r 6,415 sf I $0.75 $4,811 Estimating Contingency (15%) $722 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 8) Function Equipment & Specialties _ _$100,798 Wall Pads, curtains, nets, and dividers 57,599 sf r--- $1.75 $100,798 Estimating Contingency (15%) $15,120 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 9) Stairs & Vertical Transportation $0 --------------------------- Exit& convenience Stairs - ---- LS $0 _ _ Elevator - 2 stops _ LS $0 Estimating Contingency (15%) $0 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 10) Plumbing Systems $_4,811 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support p 6,415 sf $0.75 $4,811 Estimating Contingency (15%) $722 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 11) Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning $61,993 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 6,415 sf $2.00 $12,830 Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis 65,550 sf $0.75 $49,163 Estimating Contingency (15%) $9,299 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 12) Electrical - Lighting, Power & Communications Allowance per Gross SF @ Support Allowance per Gross SF @ Viewing_ Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 13) Fire Protection Systems _ Allowance per Gross SF Estimating Contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total 6,415 sf 8,050 sf 57,500 sf Page 2 of 4 $133,958 $19,245 $_14,088 $100,625 $3,689 $S,533 $115,918 $o $5,533 $71,291 $20,094 $0 $154,051 $91,613 $91,613 $13,742 $0 $105,354 SITE DEVELOPMENT 42,000 sf $ 5.00 $920,575 General Conditions - 10% 5,000 sf $ 7.50 $92,058 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% 1 LS $ 10,000 $50,632 TOTAL Site Development: 210,000 GSF $5 1.00 $1,063,264 A) Site Preparation & Site Demolition sf $__5.00 $148,000 $25,000 Strip & Remove hardscape/parking _ _51000 10,000 sf $ $0 $40,000 Strip & remove softscape/top soil sf $0.25 $32,500 $0 Cut/fill grading & Shoring - see foundations _130,000 700,000 sf $1.00 $70,000 $151000 $17,500 $7,500 _ Erosion control during construction 130,000 sf $0.35 $45,500 Estimating Contingency (15%) $22,200 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $170,200 8) Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping $367,500 Vehicular Paving & Curbs (Parking and Drives) 42,000 sf $ 5.00 $210,000 Pedestrian Paving - sidewalks & featured 5,000 sf $ 7.50 $37,500 Structures and retaining walls 1 LS $ 10,000 $10,000 Drainage @ hardscaping 5,000 sf $ 1.00 $5,000 Lighting @ hardscape and softscape sf $__5.00 $25,000 Landscape ground cover _ _51000 10,000 sf $ , 4.00 $40,000 Lawn ---- 0 sf $ 2.50 -� $0 Trees _ Irrigation Bollards, trash and other site furnishings _ 20 ea_ 10,000 sf 1 Is $ $ $ 750.00 1.75 7,500 $151000 $17,500 $7,500 estimating contingency (15%) Inflation (0%) Total C) Site Utilities �SS,1ZS $0 5245.000 Electrical/Telecom, vaults, manholes & trenching 1 Is $ 25,000 $25,000 New Transformer 1 Is $ 15,000 $15,000 Gas Service Total $46,000 $0 Construction of Sewer to Lift Station 1 Is $ 100,000 $100,000 Sewer Connection Fee (see owner costs) 1 Is $0 Storm Water 1 Is $ 60,000 $60,000 Domestic Water, fire, hydrants, FDC, etc. 1 Is $ 45,000 $45,000 0: Ps $422,625 tstimanng contingency �i9b,/bu Inflation (0%) $0 Total $281,750 D) Special Construction $40,000 Atherton Frontage Improvements 1 Is $50,000 $50,000 Fire Access Road - Gravel to back of site 4,000 sf $5.001 $20,000 _ Fire Access - at parking to access point 4,000 sf �- $5.001 $20,000 Estimating Contingency (15%) $6,000 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $46,000 TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 72,500 GSF 55 Including all site costs 1 $4,048,340 Page 3 of 4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A- Basic A/E Fees (arch., struct, mech., eied.) $242,900 B- On-siteCivil Engineering — $35,000 C- Landscape Architect D- Aquatics Consultant $0 E- Lighting Consultant _ $7,500 F- Food Service Consultant $0 _ G- Signage & Graphics _ — $0 H- Geotechnical I- Material Testing $30,000 $20,000 1- Technology / Computers / CAN _ $0 K- Acoustical $0 L- Abatement Consultant $0 M- Surveys (Site Only) N- Resource Delineation & Report O- Traffic Impact Study_ _ P- LEED Certification - Not Included _ Q- Conditional Use Application & Package estimated _ _ $51000 estimated $10,000 $0 $20,0_00 R- Energy Modeling Estimating Contingency (10%) Total $0 $41,440 $455,840 • FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT A -_Equipment & Equipment - Tennis incl. in construction cost $7500 _ B- Signage & Graphics/Wayfinding (interior & exterior) — -�� C- Technology / Computers / CAN/Data __$_2,000 _ $0 • C- Phones & Public Address $3,000 E- Food Service $2500 . F- Security System $2,500 Estimating Contingency (10%) $1,750 Tool $19,250 • OWNER'S COSTS • ---- A- Plan Check Fee & Buildig Permit estimate $22,000 B- Conditional Use Application/Review Fee TBD estimate $5,000 C- Design review Application/Review Fee $5,000 • D- Owner Construction Contingency (3%) _ _ _ $121,450 E- Insurance ( Property / Vand`i / Fire) $0 F- Move4n Costs $0 • G- SDC (Systems Development Charges - City) Water Meter Connection 2 -inch $16,515 • Sanitary Sewer - based on 2 -inch water service $15,056 Surface Water Management (storm) $4,823 Transportation ($2,000 X 8 courts estimated) - --- - $16,000 Parks and Recreation 7_ $687 _ $4,809 —$82,840 H- Sewer Connection to Lift Station - developer charge • I- Misc. Grading, Utility, Erosion Control, etc. - Permit Fees $5,000 _ 1- Deliniation of RP or RC Zone Permit Review Fee $1,000 • K- Legal Fees $0 L- Legal Advertisements - --- $0 M- Reimbursable_ Expenses (5.0% of Line 5) $0 • N- Miscellaneous (Renderings,Final Models, etc.) allowance $5,000 Estimating Contingency (10%) $30,449 Total $334,943 • TOTAL SOFT COSTS: $810,033 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $4,858,373 Soft Cost Percent of Direct Construction: 20.0% • ESTIMATED BID DATE: Fail 2011 INFLATION FROM: estimated in today's dollars • Page 4 of 4 WEB - Design Option "B" Full Program Lake Oswego - Tennis Center Feasibility Study WEB Site Brian C Jackson, Architect LLC DATE: 08/24/2010 area cost per sf Total TENNIS CENTER (on -grade) $4,112,774 General Conditions -10% $411,277 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% $226,203 TOTAL Tennis Center: 69,700 GSF $68 $4,750,2S4 , 1) Foundations 5591,740 Excavation - cut/fill & Shoring w/tie-backs 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 Retaining wall drainage system 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Typ. Footings/gross floor area -1st flr. 63,700 sf $3.00 $191,100 Foundation at back wall - 340 If x 6 ft. high 2,040 sf $12.00 $24,480 Foundation at lower court -140 If x 12 ft. high 1,680 sf $12.00 $20,160 Internal walls at lower court - 250 If x 12 ft. high 3,000 sf I _ $12.00 $36,000 tsumatnng Contingency t1SinJ inflation (0%) Total b)& /bl $0 2) Vertical Structure $1,503,300 Tennis Courts - All inclusive steel butler structure T 1 LS 1 $1,450,0001 $1,450,000 Allow @ Support area wood framed 1 13,325 sf 1 $4.001 $53,300 Estimating Contingency (15%) $225,495 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 3) Floor and Roof Structure $473,104 Slab on Grade - Support area 9,525 sf $7.00 $66,675 Asphalt floor at tennis courts 53,815 sf $3.00 $161,445 Plexi -pave court surfacing 53,815 sf $1.00 $53,815 Subsiab Drainage & Membrane 63,700 sf $1.50 $95,550 Suspended floor - wood framing gyp topping 8,025 sf $5.00 $40,125 Tennis Court roof framing - incl, in stl. Struct. 69,700 sf $0.50 $0 Tennis Court roof decking - incl. in sti. struct. 69,700 sf $0.75 $0 Support program roof structure -framing & Deck 7,325 sf $3.50 $25,638 Exterior Decks and terraces 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Misc. metals 15,885 sf $1.25 $19,856 tsumaung uonungency 1170) Inflation (0%) Total 4) Exterior Cladding j /U,9bb $0 S294.62S Exterior wall - Tennis court incl. in stl. structure $0 Exterior Wall - architectural upgrade 2,000 sf $12 $24,000 Exterior wall - architectural at support area 3,500 sf $25.00 $87,500 Exterior Glazing 1,800 sf $45.00 $81,000 Entry/Egress Doors, frames and hardware 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Fascia, bands and screens 69,700 sf $0.50 $34,850 Soffits - trim & paint 69,700 sf $0.75 $52,275 $680,501 $1,728,795 $544,069 tsumaung wnungency ItSPoI y44,194 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $338,819 5) Roofing, Waterproofing & Skylights $96,225 Mtl. roof & insul. @ tennis -included in stl. Struct. $0 Membrane Roofing & Insulation at support space 7,325 sf$6.00 $43,950 Caulking, sealants and firestopping 69,700 sf $0.75 $52,275 Estimating Contingency (15%) $14,434 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $110,659 Page 1 of 4 6) Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing $39,943 Allowance for Interior Glazing at Viewing 1,600 sf $20 $32,000 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 15,885 sf $0.50 $7,943 Estimating Contingency (15%) $5,991 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 7) Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes $11,914 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support r 15,885 sf $0.751 $11,914 Estimating Contingency (15%) $1,787 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 8) Function Equipment & Specialties $107,630 Wail Pads, curtains, nets, and dividers 53,815 sf $2.001 $107,630 Estimating Contingency (15%) $16,145 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 9) Stairs & Vertical Transportation $95,000 Exit & Convenience Stairs 2 LS $15,000.00 $30,000 Elevator - 2 stops 1 LS 1 $65,000.001 $65,000 Estimating Contingency (15%) $14,250 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 10) Plumbing Systems $34,850 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 69,700 sf $0.501 $34,850 Estimating Contingency (15%) $5,228 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 11) Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning $85,585 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 15,885 sf $2.001 $31,770 Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis 53,815 sf $1.00 $53,815 Estimating Contingency (15%) $12,838 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 12) Electrical - lighting, Power & Communications $155,285 Allowance per Gross SF @ Support 15,885 sf 1 $3.001 $47,655 Allowance per Gross SF @ Tennis 1 53,815 sf 1 $2.00 $107,630 Estimating Contingency (15%) $23,293 Inflation (0%) $0 Total 13) Fire Protection Systems $87,US Allowance per Gross SF 69,700 sf $1.251 $87,1251 Estimating Contingency (15%) $13,069 Inflation (0%) $0 Total Page 2 of 4 $45,934 $13,701 $123,775 $109,250 $40,078 $98,423 $178,578 $100,194 SITE DEVELOPMENT 97,000 sf $ 5.00 $98g,684 General Conditions -10% 3,000 sf $ 7.50 $98,868 Contractors Overhead and Profit - 5% 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $54,378 TOTAL Site Development: 277,000 GSF $4 1.00 $1,141,930 A) Site Preparation & Site Demolition 3,000 sf $ $117,225 $6,000 Strip & Remove hardscape/parking 114,000 sf $0.40 $45,600 $35,000 Strip & remove softscape 48,500 sf _ $0.25 $12,125 $0 Cut/fill grading & Shoring - see foundations 15 ea $ $0 $11,250 Erosion control during construction 170,000 sf $0.35 $59,500 $12,250 Estimating Contingency (15%) 1 Is $ $17,584 $7,500 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $134,809 B) Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping $587,500 Vehicular Paving & Curbs (Parking and Drives) 97,000 sf $ 5.00 $485,000 Pedestrian Paving - sidewalks & featured 3,000 sf $ 7.50 $22,500 Structures and retaining walls 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $5,000 Drainage @ hardscaping 3,000 sf $ 1.00 $3,000 Lighting @ hardscape and softscape 3,000 sf $ 2.00 $6,000 Landscape ground cover 7,000 sf $ 5.00 $35,000 Lawn 0 sf $ 2.50 $0 Trees 15 ea $ 750.00 $11,250 Irrigation 7,000 sf $ 1.75 $12,250 Bollards, trash and other site furnishings 1 Is $ 7,500 $7,500 csumaung -onungency 11J7b; Inflation (0%) Total C) Site Utilities }2ftf,1ZS $0 5700.000 Electrical/Telecom, vaults, manholes & trenching 1 Is $ 25,000 $25,000 New Transformer 1 Is $ $_15_,000 Gas Service _15,000 $0 Sewer 1 I $ 15,000 $15,000 Storm Water 1 Is $ 15,000 $15,000 Domestic Water, fire, hydrants, FDC, etc. 1 Is 1 $ 30,000 $30,000 Estimating Contingency lis%) $15,000 Inflation (0%) $0 Total D) Special Construction $55,000 Fire Access Road ^- r- 4,000 sf $5.00 -- $20,000 Detention pond restoration 1 Is 1 $35,000.001 $35,000 Estimating Contingency (15%) $8,250 Inflation (0%) $0 Total $675,625 $115,000 $63,250 OTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST I I 69,700 GSF 84 Including all site costs 1 5,892,183 Page 3 of 4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $4,823 _ A- Basic A/E Fees (arch., struct, mech., elect.) 8- On-siteCivil Engineering $353,531 $35,000 C- Landscape Architect $40,000 D- Aquatics Consultant _ E- Lighting Consultant $0 $7,500 F- Food Service Consultant _ _ G- Signage & Graphics $0 $0 H- Geotechnical $30,000 I- Material Testing $20,000 1- Technology / Computers / CATV _ $0 K- Acoustical _ _ $0 L- Abatement Consultant $0 M- Surveys (Site Only) _ $4,000 N- Resource Delineation $0 0- Traffic Impact Study $_1_0,000 P- LEED Certification - Not Included $0 Q- Conditional Use Application & Package $20,000 R- Energy Modeling Estimating Contingency (10%) Total $0 $52,003 $572,034 FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT $4,823 A- Equipment & Equipment - Tennis incl. in construction cost $7,500 B- Signage & Graphics/Wayfinding (interior & exterior) $2,000 C- Technology / Computers / CATV/Data_ $0 C- Phones & Public Address E- Food Service - $3,000 - - -- $2,500 F- Security System Estimating Contingency (10%) Total $2,500 $1,750 $19,250 OWNER'S COSTS A- Plan Check Fee & Buildig Permit (1%) B- Conditional Use Application & Fees C- Design Review Application/Review Fee D- Owner Construction Contingency (3%) E- Insurance ( Property / Vand'I / Fire) F- Move -in Costs G- SDC (Systems Development Charges - C tv) Water Meter Connection estimate $26,000 TBD estimate $5,000 $176,766 Sanitary Sewer- based on 2" water $15,056 Surface Water Management $4,823 Transportation $16,000 Parks and recreation _ _ $4,809 H- Misc. Grading, Utility, Erosion Control _ $5,000 I- Deliniation of RP or RC Zone permit fee $1,000 J- Legal Fees $0 K- Legal Advertisements $0 L- Reimbursable Expenses (5.0% of Line 5) _ $0 M- Miscellaneous (Renderings,FinaI Models, etc.) Estimating Contingency (10%) Total allowance $5,000 $28,097 $309,065 TOTAL SOFT COSTS: $900,349 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 6,792,533 Soft Cost Percent of Direct Construction: 1 15.3% ESTIMATED BID DATE: Fall 2011 INFLATION FROM: estimated in today's dollars Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 Lake Oswego, Oregon Tennis Market (LOTM) As determined by Nielsen and TPC in joint venture tennis studies since 1970, the average tennis player will drive a maximum of approximately fifteen minutes to play tennis in a regular, non -tournament, social/friendly tennis game. With the Lake Oswego Municipal Golf Course (`Site') as the epicenter of this market study, the following map indicates the LOTM for a proposed new indoor tennis center. In the map below, the green lines represent major highways or thoroughfares, the red lines represent zip code areas and the yellow line represents the outer limit of the tennis market area in Lake Oswego for the Site based on the standard fifteen minute drive time from the Site. The circled blue numbers represent existing or proposed tennis clubs/facilities as listed on the next 2 pages of this report. Tennis Market Area Ressekh Site 3 t O � O „ N O 6 mos 67!16 5 97:22 Q O 6=,4 97036 , 97074 Rn.wm a WNW O 970" 97062 970" Source: Tennis Planning Consultants, Inc. June, 2009 NTS With the specific LOTM now graphically depicted, an overlay of the zip code areas for this market area readily determines both the population and household median income levels for the LOTM. Where the market limits dissect part of a zip code, the resulting house `roof tops' represented by completed residential lwi;FCONSULTING T TENNIS PLANNING �� CONSULTANTS. INC. APPENDIX - Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 streets on current local street maps were used to estimate the approximate population for that zip code that was in the LOTM. Accordingly, the following zip code chart summarizes the tennis market population in each zip code and the corresponding number of tennis players in that zip code based on median household income. Zlp Code Pop. In % of ZIp Pop. In LO. Actual Pop. in LO. Zip Code Tennis Pop as Tennis Zip Code Tennis Mkt. (15 min.) Tennis Mkt (15 min.) Median Income % of Total Pop. Players In Based on Income L.O. Market 97034 18,998 100% 18,998 $101,190 18% 3,420 (L.O.) 97035 23,863 100% 23,883 $82,590 16% 3,818 (L.O.) 97068 24,781 90% 22,303 $84,117 16% 3,568 (W. Linn) 97062 24,152 500/. 12,076 $69,310 20% 2,415 (Tualatin) 97224 24,726 300% 7,418 $62,389 20% 1,484 (Tigard) 97219 36,755 40% 14,702 $72,238 20% 2,940 (Portland) 97202 37,407 35% 13,092 $51,968 19% 2,487 (Portland) 97222 35,033 5% 1,752 $47,713 7% 123 (Milwaukie) 97027 12,084 50% 6,042 $52,863 18% 1,088 (Gladstone) 97045 45,166 40% 18,066 $57,059 19% 3,432 (Oregon City) TOTALS: 138,312 24,775 Number of Indoor Tennis Courts In Market Area: SUMMARY: 25 + 8 (1..0.) = 33 Courts = 751 Players/Court 1. Lake Oswego II:C.............4 24,775 Tennis Players on 29 courts 25 + 10 (L.O.) = 35 Courts = 708 Players/Court 2. MT. Paris RC. .....................9 3. Stafford Hills (Proposed).11 854 la ers/coart ( P Y ) 25 + 12 (L.O.) = 37 Courts = 669 Players/Court 4. Eastmoreland RC...............2 5, Clackamas RC...................2 (Effective National Average is approx. 200 6. Portland Athletic Club...... l players per indoor court and as high as 250 players per court far TotaL....................................29 full occupancy levels) Somce: Te Pluming Comdr ,1A The `NUMBER OF INDOOR TENNIS COURTS IN MARKET AREA' noted in the lower left hand corner of the above zip code chart is derived from the fact that Eastmoreland Racquet Club, Clackamas River Racquet Club and Portland Athletic Club, while outside the LOTM area, draw some of their tennis players from inside the LOTM. At the same time only a portion of these clubs' courts would affect the LOTM due to such factors as location, tennis programs and tennis facilities. The lower right-hand schedule of tennis courts represents the number of indoor tennis courts based on the closing of LOITC (four courts) and then adding either 8, 10 or 12 new indoor courts. For example, closing LOITC and adding 8 new indoor courts results in the following player to court ratio of 751 existing and potential players per indoor court: 25 (Exist. indoor crts.) + 8 (new crts.) = 33 Courts; and 751 players/crt. (24,775 - 33 = 75 1) IV1:97CONSULTING 07P TENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 The thirteen Portland area tennis facilities on the Tennis Market Area Map on the last 2 pages are listed below. Each numbered facility corresponds to the numbered location on that Map. The TPC Overall Rating is based on the following criteria with primary weight given to tennis programs: AA (Above Average) Outstanding tennis programs with average or above average facility A (Average) Average tennis programs with either average or above average facility BA (Below Average) Below average tennis programs with average or below facility Name of Facility 1. Lake Oswego Indoor Tennis Center 2. Mountain Park Racquet Club 3. Stafford Hills Racquet & Fitness Club (Proposed) 4. Irvington Tennis Club 5. Eastmoreland Racquet Club 6. Portland Athletic Club 7. West Hills Racquet & Fitness Club 8. Sunset Athletic Club 9. Portland Tennis Center 10. Clackamas River Racquet Club 11. Cascade Athletic Club 12. Multnomah Athletic Club 13. Tualatin Hills Tennis Center TPC Overall Rating AA A AA (Based on current plans) AA A BA A AA AA BA BA AA AA TPC visited and analyzed each of these tennis projects, met with their key personnel, inspected their facilities and reviewed their membership and court fee structures. The TPC overall rating in the right column is for the purpose of TPC determining if a metropolitan area's number of existing or potential tennis players is consistent with the number and quality of tennis facilities in a given market area. NGsrCONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS. INC. N6?ZONAL OOLF FOUMDOT:Jn 0 9 APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 0 • TPC has concluded that the occupancy levels and above average quality of seven (7) of Portland's thirteen • indoor facilities is consistent with these seven clubs' above average locations, facilities and management. This is consistent with tennis' positive national growth since 2000. Of the seven Above Average facilities, the proposed, new Stafford Hills Racquet & Fitness Club at Nyberg Lane near 65th Avenue in Tualatin, is approximately four miles from the Site in an excellent location, is well into its planning phase and nearing its membership drive phase. Lake Oswego officials will be able to observe the results of Stafford Hills membership drive results as an excellent `test case' of TPC's findings in this report that there is an extremely strong existing and unfilled demand for indoor tennis courts in the LOTM. Lake Oswego Indoor Tennis Center (LOITC) Operations Analysis Located adjacent to Springbrook Park at 2900 Diane Drive off Boones Ferry Road in Lake Oswego, LOITC is a 4 court indoor tennis center with 19 parking spaces. The facility was built in 1975 at a cost of $335,000. The City's Charter prohibits development of any kind in Springbrook Park which limits the expansion of the existing tennis facilities at its current location. The structure was built with a pre-engineered steel building system having one small office, small restrooms, indirect tennis lighting and the four tennis courts. These facilities were considered satisfactory at the time of planning and construction yet the facility does not meet current ADA standards. There is also no tennis practice/hitting wall which is of great importance to any tennis facility. Parking space is noticeably deficient with overflow parking an on-going problem. LOITC operates from 6 AM to 10 PM and has an hourly staff person to manage the desk and facility access from 8 AM to 8 PM. From 6 AM to 10 PM, access by tennis players is by a card key system. LOITC • recently increased its hourly court rate to $15 in September 2009 with no player resistance or complaints to this increase. The LOITC was financed by a Lake Oswego Tennis Facility Revenue Bond dated May 1, 1974. The interest • rate varied between 6.25% and 6.75%. The 30 year bonds were retired in 2005. The LOITC is sited on 122,400 square feet of land (2.81 acres). With adjacent residential zoning of R-10, this property could be rezoned for approximately 6 to 8 residential lots while allowing space for green belts, road access, etc. From the beginning, LOITC has been a `beehive' of tennis activity due to its central Lake Oswego location and its exceptional management by Lake Oswego Parks Department in general and its tennis management and tennis programs in particular. In today's tennis world, while the LOITC facility alone would be • considered to be `Average', TPC rates the entire tennis facility and operations as very strong and `Above Average' on the strength of its overall management and highly progressive, well-designed and enthusiastic tennis programs. • Under the direct supervision of a USPTA/PTR Master Tennis Professional and Director of Tennis, LOITC has consistently been `ahead of its time' in promoting general tennis play, tennis leagues, tennis tournaments PW Nfof�CONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING � �� -0. CONSULTANTS. INC. . NGTIZ-1 GOLF 10UN0<T1.1 APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 and innovative tennis instruction that has consistently been years ahead of the rest of the country. For example, the current highly popular, two year old `Quick Start' USTA tennis program (dividing a regulation tennis court into four small courts with smaller nets, the use of short racquets, and styrofoam tennis balls for children as young as three years old) has been used in the LOITC `Tiny Tot' tennis program for over ten years to encourage youngsters to get started in the game in a manner in which they can have success and fun by simply `getting the ball over the net'. This is just one example of LOITC being ahead of its time in its tennis programs. Other areas of innovative tennis programs have been an extremely active tennis league program for all age groups, active tennis tournament programs and extremely active, free community youth, adult and Special Olympics teaching clinics to encourage interest in tennis by less -advantaged and handicapped newcomers to the game. The building of this highly advanced, far reaching program has been created from the ground up player to player, friend to friend, family to family, level to level and age to age appropriate. The competitive junior tennis program is widely regarded as the best in the state of Oregon with numerous boys and girls junior players graduating to high school and collegiate competition. These tennis programs have propelled LOITC to, in essence, a complete `full occupancy' situation where the facility is literally `bursting at the seams' in terms of not having sufficient court time to handle the demand, having inadequate support facilities for parking, restrooms, tournament meeting rooms, warm-up areas, offices and parking facilities. The Lake Oswego tennis community is becoming increasingly frustrated with this condition since the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department is unable to service Lake Oswego residents' tennis demands including participating fully in the growing local tennis league programs, conducting local, regional and national tennis tournaments for all age levels and conducting broader community -wide service programs for lower income residents of Lake Oswego. As a direct result of the LOITC oversight and management by the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department and on-site tennis programs, LOITC has generated consistent and positive economic performance. Overall revenues have increased 36% over the last five years. During this time, expenses have increased 16% exclusive of Transfer Fees (Transfer Fees are the name given to funds used to pay for administrative services received from other City of Lake Oswego departments, plus excess funds returned yearly to the City of Lake Oswego general fund by the tennis facility operations). These Transfer Fees have averaged $68,00 7 over the last five years and in fiscal year 2008 were $103, 491. These outstanding results of the LOITC operations were achieved with minimal increases in court fees from $3.50 in 1975 to $15/court/hour today and revenues from the addition of innovative tennis programming. This is further evidence of the efficiency and success of the LOITC management and operations. The current LOITC reserve fund balance stands at $462,878 as of June 30, 2009. Public Tennis Facility Comparison in Greater Portland, Oregon The two significant public tennis facilities in the greater Portland, Oregon area that can be compared to the LOITC are the City of Portland Indoor Tennis Center and the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District Tennis Center in Beaverton. While these two indoor/outdoor tennis centers are not in the Lake Oswego tennis market, they are in the Greater Portland tennis area and provide a revealing look at the overall Portland, Oregon tennis market in terms of general tennis interest and activity in the area. PW - NGFCONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING I� - CONSULTANTS. INC. 711.1 GOLF FOUNDATION APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 City of Portland Indoor Tennis Center The most important, similar tennis facility to the LOITC is the City of Portland Indoor Tennis Center located at 324 NE 12th Street in northeast Portland (zip code --97232). This facility has four indoor tennis courts and eight outdoor tennis courts. Tennis Director, Mike Stone, reports that his facility is 97% occupied during the winter months of September through April and 87% occupied in the remaining summer months. Court fees and advance `seasonal' court reservations for the indoor courts are based on $24/court/1.25 hour and $12/court/hour for outdoor courts. Stone does not maintain outdoor court occupancy levels. In TPC's experience, these are enormously strong indoor court occupancy levels confirmed by the fact that in summer months, indoor court occupancy is an extremely high 87% even when outdoor courts can be reserved at approximately one-half the cost of an indoor court. This fact is extremely strong testimony to the average Portland area tennis player desiring to play tennis indoors on a year round basis and for the extremely healthy tennis activity and court use in the greater Portland area. The median household income for the market area of this facility is $60,000. Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District Tennis Center The Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District Tennis Center located at 15707 SW Walker Road in Beaverton (zip code --97006) has six permanent indoor tennis courts and then covers/encloses eight of its outdoor courts with an air -supported structure between October and May resulting in fourteen total indoor courts during the winter. `In -district' resident court fees and `seasonal' advanced reservations are based on $10/court/hour and `Out -of -District' guest court fees are $30/court/hour. Tennis Director, Brian Leahy, reports that "of the 60,800 indoor court hours in 2008, 43,300 hours were used for an occupancy level of 71.3%. TPC considers this to be a high occupancy rate for a 14 court indoor facility in the United States since a 14 court indoor court facility would be in the top five percent, in facility size, of all indoor tennis projects in the country. Further, tennis play in air -supported structures is a compromise in a less desirable tennis `bubble' when compared to tennis play in permanent tennis structures. The average size of permanent indoor tennis projects in the United States is approximately six (6) indoor courts. Of additional note, Tualatin Hills charges court fees of $5/court/hour to `In -District' and $15/court/hour for `Out -of -District' players with no occupancy levels maintained for their outdoor courts. The median household income for the market area of Tualatin Hills Tennis Center is $59,000. MI;FCONSULTING N-ONAL GOLF FO--, G1 TENNIS PLANNING ICONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDIX - Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 Tennis Facility Operating and Financing Projections The projected income and expenses for an eight court indoor tennis facility is shown below (with six and ten court operational results also included). Tennis Market, Construction and Operational Studv for Lake Oswego, Oregon NOTES: Program revenue is based upon an 82% of maximum capacity, which replicates the current program registration rate. A card key system will not be installed in a new facility " Bank Service Charges and costs of Maintenance are currently included in the transfer to Parks & Recreation ••' Transferred to Parks & Recreation for program catalogue costs FM NGIrCONSULr,NG TENNIS PLANNING �� CONSULTANTS, INC. M. ACTUAL LOITC ACTUAL LOITC PROJECTED 8 CRTS 10 CRTS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS AT 824/CRTIHR AT E241HR AT $241HR REVENUES LAST 5 YRS AVE LAST 3 YRS AVE (based on 4 courts) License & Fees' 2.537 2.784 3.000 0 0 Youth Classes 101,347 113,547 165,000 214,471 214,471 Adult Classes 58,517 66,380 85,000 96,708 96,708 Special Events 8,808 10,855 13,000 32,275 32,275 Daily Court Fees 31,482 32,775 51,000 139,104 146,592 Seasonal Court Fees 90,966 84,390 130,000 312,624 413,712 Interest Income 13,641 18,218 22,000 20,000 20,000 Misc. Income & Grants 501 414 1.000 12.000 12.000 TOTAL REVENUES (4 CRTSI 307.799 329.363 470.000 827.182 935.758 Average Revenue Per Court 76.950 82.341 117.500 103.398 93.576 EXPENSES Ralariwc• Facility Management & Reception 70,050 73,200 78,000 173,160 173,160 Program Instruction & Coordination 89,300 97,154 92,000 133,952 133,952 Mata rialc R Rup,pliwc• Office Supplies 816 320 1,000 1,500 1,500 Printing/binding 0 0 500 1,000 1,000 Rec. Equip. 8,388 10,427 8,000 10,000 12,000 Prof. & Technical 13,479 12,334 8,000 10,000 12,000 Buildinq Maintenance" 0 0 0 45,000 60.000 Bank Service Charges" 0 0 0 10,000 11,000 Training 60 79 100 1,000 1,000 Conferences 1,463 1,766 2,000 3,000 3,000 Dues 162 143 500 1,000 1,000 Telephone 687 430 700 1,200 1,200 Computer Equipment 722 573 800 1,600 1,600 Electricity 24,655 25,328 26,000 52,000 65,000 Water, Sewer, Surface Water 3,867 5,221 6,000 11,200 16,000 Advertising 1,174 1,195 2,000 7,000 12,000 Local Travel Expenses 500 524 700 1,000 1,000 Trancfors to Aennral Fund - Administrative Oversight 7,957 8,617 12,000 18,000 18,000 Insurance 2,652 2,873 4,000 8,000 10,000 Self Insurance 1,972 2,136 3,000 6,000 7,500 Parks & Recreation 32,167 34,863 48.500 5.000 "' 5.000 General 23,258 25,195 35,000 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 283.329 302.378 328.800 500.612 546.912 Average Expense Per Court 70.632 75.595 82.200 62,577 54.691 OPERATING GAIN (4 CRTS) 24.470 26.985 141.200 2E.5?0 388.846 OPERATING GAIN (AV 1 CRT) 6.118 6.746 35.300 40.821 38.885 NOTES: Program revenue is based upon an 82% of maximum capacity, which replicates the current program registration rate. A card key system will not be installed in a new facility " Bank Service Charges and costs of Maintenance are currently included in the transfer to Parks & Recreation ••' Transferred to Parks & Recreation for program catalogue costs FM NGIrCONSULr,NG TENNIS PLANNING �� CONSULTANTS, INC. M. APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 TENNIS CENTER FINANCING Financing a $4,800,000 eight court indoor tennis facility can be achieved, in general, by either of two Lake Oswego revenue bond programs (see Ex. A, 100% financing or Ex. B, approximate 70% financing by applying $1,000,000 from the sale of the existing LOITC 2.81 acre site and by applying $500,000 from the LOITC Tennis Fund to reduce the $4,800,000 to $3,300,000). FINANCED AMOUNT ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE `Unrated' (Unsecured by Lake Oswego) Ex. A — $4,800,000 Approx. 7% for 30 years $420,000 Ex. B — $3,300,000 Approx. 7% for 30 years $290,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE `Rated' (Secured by Lake Oswego) Approx. 5% for 30 years $315,000 Approx. 5% for 30 years $215,000 Through real estate research in Lake Oswego, TPC has learned that the City of Lake Oswego can reasonably expect to receive an estimated $1,000,000 from this 2.81 acre tract if it can be zoned R-10 resulting in eight lots at 10,000 s.f. per lot being sold at an average price of $125,000 per lot. Design and construction costs can further be reduced by applying $500,000 in reserves from the Tennis Fund, which can be generated by slightly increasing fees over a period of 1-2 years to augment current reserves in the Tennis Fund. If this strategy is used, TPC recommends earmarking these funds as "capital reserves" for the project. Indoor tennis projects are extremely efficient on a daily operational and maintenance basis. This will be especially true for this proposed Lake Oswego indoor tennis project since no air-conditioning and heating equipment is anticipated to be required (proper ventilation will be the primary air movement requirement). From an operational standpoint, the recommended eight court indoor tennis complex will have a full time Manager and Assistant Manager on staff with the aid of a reservations and maintenance assistant available as needed. In addition to daily restroom cleaning, the indoor courts only require scheduled tennis lamp changing at specified intervals as well as periodic court resurfacing also at regularly scheduled intervals. Outdoor grounds and landscaping service are the only anticipated regular exterior project maintenance. PW NaFCONSULTING fTENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONgL OOLF FOUNDATION APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 Tennis Facility Location and Site Analysis There are seven (7) potential Lake Oswego park sites to locate a new, eight court indoor tennis facility in the Lake Oswego Tennis Market. These sites and an analysis of them are located below: Lake Oswego Tennis Sites MA►QH[ST. _ 48M 0�1 RakdpLNW � ¢ %+ Avon a 4 W 6ardn Hours j 2 Se FIavN St SeTacoma 9t90 '3 9 > F^c p r. Pe* 2 t Y Country Club Rd Lake Oswego k,al ° yr,;, Oak Grove $ t a =o Co�'dOP n oa. ono is `SeO toknse. CRyp "Hurst db f . _ s .` a eisergrove 0171 Rd, o Jeasings Lodge o Sw Childs Rd q o uala _ ji S.6 Gbdstoee Q Sw and Rd wankers comer + ° 97 J �a►® Q p west a .yaa e�C \\. ''09 jaAyDnpoa C -t �o _ v . 5 �a0 �\ N wluernott r g9 I C 2005 MapOucst Inc 'Map Dat. C2009 NAVTEO -AND A - Iron Mountain Park B - Existing Lake Oswego Indoor Tennis Center C - Lake Oswego Golf Course D - West Waluga Park E - National Guard Armory F - West End Building (WEB) G - Rassekh Site IN ANALYZING EACH OF THESE SITES FOR SUITABILITY OF A NEW EIGHT COURT INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, THERE IS A BASIC MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT THAT MUST BE MET. THIS SIZE REQUIREMENT SHOULD INCLUDE IMPORTANT SPACE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION TO AVOID A FUTURE, `LAND -LOCKED' SITUATION AS NOW EXISTS AT LOITC: 8 Indoor Courts at 7,200 sf each..................................................................................... 57,600 sf Supportfacilities............................................................................................................... 3,000 sf Expansion space for a max. four added courts & parking ........................................... 37,000 sf Parking: minimum of 70 cars......................................................................................... 21,000 sf Landscaping Buffer Zones.............................................................................60,000 sf (Approx.) TOTAL MIN. LAND REQUIREMENT .................................................178,600 sf (4.10 acres) Site A — Iron Mountain Park — Located at 2401 Iron Mountain Boulevard, the site is just north of Lake Oswego and adjacent to the Lake Oswego Hunt Club. Usable level ground approximates 175,000 square feet or 4.02 acres in a triangular shape. A new, eight court indoor tennis facility could not be easily designed on this property in an aesthetically pleasing design as there appears to be too much wasted space due to the IWOFCONSULTING NATIONAL OOLF FOVNOATION N. TENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 APPENDIX – Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 0 • land configuration. The site would likely not provide for indoor or outdoor court expansion beyond the eight • indoor courts. As a result, Lake Oswego would very likely find itself in the future of not being able to serve its tennis community in a reasonable and logical manner if the need to add additional court arises in the future—not an unlikely possibility based on current market data. The site is reasonably accessible to most tennis players in the market area. Site B – Existing Lake Oswego Tennis Center – Located at 2900 Diane Drive. The current site of the LOITC cannot be expanded in size due to Lake Oswego City Charter restrictions. Site C – Lake Oswego Golf Course (tennis facility to be placed on the site of the existing driving range) – Located at 17525 Stafford Road, the site identified is currently occupied by the golf course driving range and is 295' wide and 650' long for a total size of 188,800 square feet or 4.33 acres. The Stafford Road location is acceptable for the tennis facility due its location at the epicenter of the LOTM. However, while the site can accommodate eight, new indoor tennis courts, parking areas are marginally adequate. In addition, the golf course would lose land for any future warm up driving range or short game instruction areas. It would also require the golf course to move an important grass nursery and course maintenance area which are needed for maintenance operations of which few locations exist for relocating on this 39 acre site. The entire golf course vehicle entry on Stafford Road would need to be redesigned to accommodate the added tennis car parking. This cost is not included at this time because there are too many design variables and Stafford Road engineering requirements to arrive at the cost of redesigning the entry. TPC estimates that the added cost for these road and entry changes would be approximately $500,000. TPC further believes that additional and constant tennis traffic at the golf course would prove to be distracting to golfers with the tennis building positioned so close to the golf course as to not be architecturally pleasing and harmonious for golf course aesthetics and golfer enjoyment. Site D – West Waluga Park – Located near the intersection of Waluga Drive and Oakridge Road, this site consists of approximately 160,000 square feet of usable area (3.7 acres). The somewhat unusual shape of this property surrounded by wetlands does not make this site attractive because it is limited for future expansion. An eight court facility would have to be tightly squeezed onto this site which would not make for pleasing design possibilities. It is also not located on a primary street which, by definition, will reduce its accessibility and exposure to all existing and potential tennis players in the Lake Oswego Tennis Market Area. Increased residential street traffic by tennis players may also prove to be annoying to current residents if the proposed tennis facility were located on this site. Site E – National Guard Armory Site – Located at 1915 Southshore Boulevard approximately '/a mile off • of McVey Avenue, this site contains a total of 250,000 sf (5.7 acres) of which approximately 185,000 sf (4.25 acres) of usable square footage is available for the proposed tennis center due to its sloping terrain and sensitive lands on the northwest corner of the property. This site is in a generally good overall location relative to the Lake Oswego Tennis Market. It is currently zoned `public function' and is located on Southshore Boulevard which is categorized as a `major collector' street. The site is also buffered from • residential development with the Lake Oswego Presbyterian Church to the east, the South Shore Fire Station and Southshore Boulevard on the south, and the West Fork of Lost Dog Creek and associated natural areas creating a buffer with residential property on the west of the site. These factors make the site suitable for • locating a new eight court indoor tennis facility on it with size limitations for future expansion. Due to the sloping terrain, it is anticipated that construction costs will likely be higher at this site. This factor may lessen the chance of designing and building an operationally successful facility. Additional design i PM NGFCONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING �� I CONSULTANTS. INC. • 7. nal OOLF F07NDAT Ibn APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 studies are needed to determine actual layout of the site and subsequent estimated construction costs to determine if an indoor tennis facility can be operationally profitably at this location. It is further noted that this site was originally owned by the City of Lake Oswego before being deeded to the State of Oregon to build the National Guard Armory. The Guard has indicated to the City that they intend to vacate the property in the near future although no firm time frame has been announced. If and when this occurs, Lake Oswego would have to regain ownership of this property. If the National Guard Armory site is re -acquired, it would be TPC's third choice to locate the new tennis facility while knowing that some added site preparation costs will be required at this location. Site F — West End Building (WEB) Site — Located at 4101 Kruse Way, this site is located off a major roadway providing good access for an indoor tennis facility placed at the rear portion of the site currently containing parking and delivery areas. Depending on the site plan, the loss of parking area for WEB building activities as a result of constructing a tennis facility could be recaptured in the front of the building if not available near the tennis structure. A tennis facility at the WEB building could be constructed as a free-standing structure or could be attached to the WEB structure for the purpose of providing the support space for tennis operations, pro shop, meeting and exercise rooms and storage. Incorporating a new tennis facility attached to the WEB building is expected to add an additional cost of approximately $750,000 over and above the projected cost of a `stand-alone' facility to cover the additional costs of WEB building remodeling and renovations As a City owned property, it is noted that the disposition of the WEB building and site is currently being debated and is uncertain at this time. If the City were to make a decision to keep the property, this site would be a good location for an eight court indoor tennis center, from a market and accessibility standpoint as well as available acreage for expansion and parking. One advantage of utilizing the WEB site for the tennis operations is that positive cash flow could be potentially increased by enhancing potential leasing activity of the WEB building due to the availability of the tennis facility to WEB tenants. One possible disadvantage of utilizing the WEB site for the tennis facility would be the potential need to be able to separate the tennis facility for the City of Lake Oswego in the future should Lake Oswego sell the WEB site to an outside third party. This separation might prove to be difficult from a physical and operational standpoint. Site G — Rassekh Site — Located at the intersection of Stafford Road and Rosemont Road and Atherton Drive, this site is 9.8 acres in total size. Approximately 2.5 acres of sensitive lands exist on the west side of this site leaving a total usable area of approximately 315,000 square feet or approximately seven acres of usable property. Its location is very good for access to the LOTM and would ensure high tennis court utilization by tennis players from Lake Oswego, West Linn, Oregon City and Gladstone in support of Lake Oswego residents to provide the tennis usage to retire the recommended revenue bonds to finance construction of the project. The site is also easily accessible to other communities via Stafford Road south connecting to Interstate 205. Of additional importance is the topography of this site. The gentle changes in topographic elevation at this site will allow for abundant and desirable design/construction reshaping of the land enabling a slightly recessed tennis facility design that will blend the facility with the terrain. Existing and added abundant r3w lWaFCONSULUNGTENNIS PLANNING + CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION s APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 s vegetation and tree plantings will make the facility a very natural part of this site and partially hidden from • Stafford Road view. This would include any future courts for which the large size of the site will easily handle in the same harmonious, heavily landscaped, `green', recessed design theme of the original eight s indoor tennis courts. • S In summary, this site combines the advantages of location, size and topography/vegetation to assure maximum opportunity for design and operational success for a new indoor tennis facility. • The Rassekh site is located inside the city limits of Lake Oswego. The property was annexed into the City in • 2005. The site is currently located outside Lake Oswego's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which presently • limits extension of nearby urban utility services to this site. As a result, the Lake Oswego City Council would need to approve an application to Metro to modify the UGB. s • Recommendations 1. A new, minimum eight (8) court indoor tennis center with minimum sufficient support facilities should be built by the City of Lake Oswego at the RASSEKH, WEB or National Guard Armony sites that provides good access to the LOTM, natural and harmonious architectural design potential and reasonable space for future expansion of a maximum of two to four (2-4) additional indoor tennis courts and the potential addition of two future outdoor courts and practice wall. The initial step of this process is recommended to be establishing, in the Tennis Center budget, a capital reserve fund with existing reserves, and a staged increase in fees to generate a reserve of at least $500, 000 to be applied towards design and construction of a new eight court facility. The next stage is recommended to be the sale of the existing LOITC site on Diane Drive with those funds being applied to the development of the above project by Lake Oswego. The sale agreement should provide for Lake Oswego leasing back the facility from the purchaser at a mutually agreeable yearly lease amount, $1 per year for example, that would expire only upon the opening of the new facility. It is also recommended that Lake Oswego undertake the development of this project on a design - build basis whereby a qualified general contractor and architect team provide the plans, engineering, specifications and construction, to the approval of Lake Oswego, for a guaranteed, price of $4,800, 000 or less secured by a construction performance and payment bond. 2. It is recommended that the above new eight court facility be structured on the basis of both residents and non-residents paying an average of $24/court/hour for court time. Based on these court fees, the projected tennis operations should produce approximately $326,570 of free cash flow with which to service debt on the construction of the project plus additional tennis Transfer Funds to the City. The annual yearly debt to construct the $3,300,000 project is approximately $215,000 based on current interest rates. The facility will be managed by a full-time Director of Tennis Operations and be assisted by a full- time assistant director. Tennis instruction staff will handle all on -court tennis instruction. 3. Easy vehicular access to the recommended new eight court indoor tennis facility is not only important to Lake Oswego residents, it is also extremely important for tennis use by surrounding communities MBIWOFCONSULTING TENNIIVAS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION APPENDIX – Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 in order for the City of Lake Oswego to maximize operational income thereby retiring the revenue bonds necessary to construct the new facility. Lake Oswego residents must be keenly aware of this point—that while the proposed new tennis facility is first and foremost for the residents of Lake Oswego, operational success of the facility will be unquestionably supported and enhanced by tennis players who live in adjacent communities and within the LOTM. This fact must be looked upon by Lake Oswego residents as a `win-win' situation whereby this new facility will become an invaluable tennis facility leader to the broader Portland tennis community thereby solidifying and insuring its operational success through area -wide tennis leagues, tournaments, and community service tennis programs. This strategy was used very successfully in paying for and retiring the 1974 LOITC revenue bond. It is therefore recommended that an aggressive communication campaign with Lake Oswego residents be conducted to inform and apprise them of the important service that this new eight court indoor tennis facility will make to both Lake Oswego tennis players and tennis players from surrounding communities. p M101:CONSULTING NATIONAL 00lF FOUNDATION TENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. • 0 APPENDIX - Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 • • APPENDIX - At PROGRAMMING LEVELS FOR AN 8 CT. OR 10 CT. INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY • REVENUE PER CLASS @ PROGRAM EXPENSES PER PROGRAM 100% ENROLLMENT REVENUE FROM ALL PROGRAMS OFFERED • Total revenue Revenue 100% artic 82% artic Total #of Total Total REVENUE SOURCES • # of class # of Program Max # Total Rev. programs Total I revenue Revenue SPECIAL 430 Hrs/class sessions Instructors Cost Parfic. Class Fee Per Activity Class Fee offered experses (@ 100% panic)artic 108 YOUTH ADULT EVENTS • S 800 $ 100 2 $ 215 S 9.600 programs SUMMER TERM • $ 2.760 Hrs/Wass sessions Instructors Cost Panic. Class Fee Per Activity Class Fee offered • Junior lessons 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 110 $ 660 $ 110 63 $ 11,290 1 $ 41,580 1 $34,096 2 $ $ 34,096 200 S 2.624 $ 2,624 600 $ 1.312 $ 1,312 720 $ 5.510 $ 5,510 920 S 1,574 $ 1,574 680 $ 6,298 $ 6,298 .120 $ 5.018 $ 5.018 ,460 S 2,017 $ 2,017 960 $ 787 $ 787 .520 S 2,066 $ 2.066 .300 S 5.166 S 5,166 .784 S 12,123 $ 12.123 ,844 S 78,592 S 60,516 $ 17,289 $ 787 • TOTAL PROGRAM ANNUAL EXPENSES & REVENUES $ 133,952 $ 418,846 $ 343,3,454 $214,471 $ 96.708 $ 32,275 •ASSUMPTIONS Total program costs / 1 Current program enrollment levels at the Indoor Tennis Center average 82% of maximum capacity. This percentage is used to project revenues • for an 8 ct. facility. Total program revenue generated at 82% The numbers of programs offered at a 10 ct. facility will not measurably 2 increase over an 8 ct, facility. at least inititallyenrollment for an 8 ct. or 10 Ct. facility • • APPENDIX - Al PROGRAMMING LEVELS FOR AN 8 CT. OR 10 CT. INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY • REVENUE PER CLASS @ PROGRAM EXPENSES PER PROGRAM 100% ENROLLMENT REVENUE FROM ALL PROGRAMS OFFERED • Total revenue Revenue 100% artic 82% artic S 34,320 Tiny Tot 1 4 1 $ 54 8 $ 50 $ 400 $ 50 8 S 430 # of Grand Slammers 1 8 1 $ 108 8 $ 100 S 800 $ 100 2 $ 215 S 9.600 programs Total • $ 2.760 Hrs/Wass sessions Instructors Cost Panic. Class Fee Per Activity Class Fee offered expenses FALL TERM Summer Tennis Excellence 1.5 8 2 $ 1,788 24 $ 140 $ 3,360 $ 140 2 S 3,575 . Pre Excellence 1.5 4 1 $ 1,014 24 $ 80 $ 1,920 $ 80 1 $ 1,014 • NW Tennis Camp 3 4 2 $ 3,894 32 S 240 $ 7,680 $ 240 1 $ 3,894 • NW Tennis Camp 13.18 yrs 3.5 4 2 S 3.114 24 $ 255 $ 6,120 $ 255 1 $ 3,114 NW Tennis Camp 3 day 3 3 2 $ 1,270 12 $ 205 $ 2,460 $ 205 1 $ 1,270 $ 100 4 S 430 Grand Slammers 1 B 1 $ 108 8 $ 161 $ Boo Junior Match Play 3 1 1 $ 40 16 $ 15 $ 240 $ 15 4 $ 24 $ 400 US Junior Team Tennis 1.5 6 1 $ 396 6 $ 105 $ 1,260 $ 105 2 $ 686 24 $ Lessons - 8 ses. 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 105 $ 630 $ 105 10 $ 1,792 •Adult Drill & Play 1.5 8 1 $ 179 8 $ 132 $ 1,056 $ 132 14 S 2,509 . TOTAL EXPENSE/REVENUE FALL 24 $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 400 1 $ 5,136 • 413 $ 29,949 25 200 S 2.624 $ 2,624 600 $ 1.312 $ 1,312 720 $ 5.510 $ 5,510 920 S 1,574 $ 1,574 680 $ 6,298 $ 6,298 .120 $ 5.018 $ 5.018 ,460 S 2,017 $ 2,017 960 $ 787 $ 787 .520 S 2,066 $ 2.066 .300 S 5.166 S 5,166 .784 S 12,123 $ 12.123 ,844 S 78,592 S 60,516 $ 17,289 $ 787 • TOTAL PROGRAM ANNUAL EXPENSES & REVENUES $ 133,952 $ 418,846 $ 343,3,454 $214,471 $ 96.708 $ 32,275 •ASSUMPTIONS Total program costs / 1 Current program enrollment levels at the Indoor Tennis Center average 82% of maximum capacity. This percentage is used to project revenues • for an 8 ct. facility. Total program revenue generated at 82% The numbers of programs offered at a 10 ct. facility will not measurably 2 increase over an 8 ct, facility. at least inititallyenrollment for an 8 ct. or 10 Ct. facility • • APPENDIX - Al PROGRAMMING LEVELS FOR AN 8 CT. OR 10 CT. INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY • REVENUE PER CLASS @ PROGRAM EXPENSES PER PROGRAM 100% ENROLLMENT REVENUE FROM ALL PROGRAMS OFFERED • Total revenue Revenue 100% artic 82% artic S 34,320 • S 3.200 S 2,624 Total S 1,600 $ 1.312 # of S 7,872 S 9.600 # of class # of Program Max # s 7,872 Total Rev. S 9.600 programs Total • $ 2.760 Hrs/Wass sessions Instructors Cost Panic. Class Fee Per Activity Class Fee offered expenses FALL TERM S 1.476 $ 1,920 S 1,574 $ 250 $ 205 • $ 13,432 $ 5.040 $ 4,133 S 19.200 1 $ 15,744 $1,260 S 1.033 S 19.840 $ 16.269 Jun:or lessons 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 110 s 660 $ 110 52 S 9.318 • Tiny Tot 1 8 1 $ 108 8 $ 100 $ 800 $ 100 4 S 430 Grand Slammers 1 B 1 $ 108 8 $ 100 $ Boo $ 100 2 $ 215 • JrExcellence 1 1.5 25 2 $ 5.136 24 $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 400 1 $ 5,136 Jr Excellence 2 1.5 25 2 $ 5,136 24 $ 400 $ 9,600 S 400 1 $ 5.136 Jr Excellence 3 1.5 25 2 $ 5,136 24 $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 400 1 $ 5,136 • Jr Excellence 4 1.5 25 2 $ 5,136 24 $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 400 1 $ 5,136 • Holiday Camp 2 hr 2 3 2 $ 1,420 24 $ 115 $ 2,760 $ 115 1 $ 1,420 Holiday Camp 3hr 3 3 2 $ 2,020 24 $ 165 $ 3,960 $ 165 1 $ 2.020 • High School Tennis Prep 1 8 2 $ 1,008 18 $ 100 $ 1,800 $ 1D0 1 $ 1,008 • Pizza & Play 2 1 1 $ 27 16 $ 20 $ 320 $ 20 6 $ 161 • Special Olympics 1 6 1 $ 81 5 $ 50 $ 250 $ 50 1 $ 81 Adult Lessons 8 ses. 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 105 $ 630 $ 105 26 $ 4,659 •Adult Lessons - 16 ses. 1 16 1 $ 358 6 $ 210 $ 1,260 $ 210 4 $ 1,434 Drill & Play 1.5 12 1 $ 269 8 $ 200 $ 1,600 $ 200 12 S 3,226 . Morning Madness 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 105 $ 630 $ 105 2 $ 358 Doubles Night 3 1 1 $ 13 32 S 20 $ 640 $ 20 31 S 417 Total Total revenue Revenue 100% artic 82% artic S 34,320 S 28,142 S 3.200 S 2,624 S 1,600 $ 1.312 S 9.600 S 7,872 S 9.600 S 7,872 S 9,600 s 7,872 S 9.600 S 7,872 $ 2.760 $ 2.263 $ 3.960 S 3.247 S 1,800 S 1.476 $ 1,920 S 1,574 $ 250 $ 205 $ 16,380 $ 13,432 $ 5.040 $ 4,133 S 19.200 1 $ 15,744 $1,260 S 1.033 S 19.840 $ 16.269 REVENUE SOURCES SPECIAL YOUTH ADULT EVENTS $ 28,142 $ 2,624 $ 1,312 $ 7,872 $ 7,872 $ 7,872 S 7,872 $ 2,263 $ 3,247 $ 1,476 $ 1,574 $ 205 $ 13,432 $ 4,133 $ 15,744 $ 1,033 $ 16,269 • 0 TOTAL EXPENSEIREVENUE FALL 1 $ 45,291 -IS 149,930 1 $ 122,9431 $ 70,758 S 34,342 $ 17,843 APPENDIX - Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 ! APPENDIX -A1 PROGRAMMING LEVELS FOR AN 8 CT. OR 10 CT. INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY ! REVENUE PER CLASS @ PROGRAM EXPENSES PER PROGRAM 100% ENROLLMENT REVENUE FROM ALL PROGRAMS OFFERED • Total # of Total i Total REVENUE SOURCES • # of class # of Program Max # Total Rev. programs Total revenue Revonuo SPECIAL Hrs/class sessions Instructors Cost Partin. Class Fee Per Activity Class Fee offered expenses ((& 100% panic) (@ 82% partic)I YOUTH ADULT EVENTS WINTER/SPRING TERM • Junior lessons 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 110 $ 660 $ 110 27 $ 4,838 $ $ 14,612 17,820 $ 14,612 1 • Tiny Tot 1 8 1 $ 108 8 $ 100 $ 8D0 $ 100 7 $ 753 5.600 S 4.592 S 4,592 Grand Slammers 1 8 1 $ 108 8 $ 100 $ 800 $ 100 3 $ 323 $ 2,400 S 1.968 S 1.968 Jr Excellence 1 1.5 18 $ 4,682 $ 370 $ E 370 2 $ 9,364 $ 17,760 5 14,563 S 14.563 ! :.:80 Jr Excellence 2 1.5 18 $ 4,682 $ 370 E ,80 E 370 2 $ 9,384 $ 17,760 $ 14,563 $ 14,563 •Jr Excellence 3 1.5 18 $ 4,882 $ 370 $ 8,880 $ 370 2 $ 9,364 $ $ 14,563 17,760 $ 14,563 • Jr Excellence 4 1.5 18 $ 4,682 $ 370 $ 8,880 $ 370 2 $ 9,364 $ 17,760 S 14,563 $ 14.563 • High School Tennis Prep 1 8 $ 1,008 $ 100 $ 1,800 $ 100 2 $ 2,015 $ 3,600 S 2.952 $ 2,952 $ Plea & Play 2 1 1 $ 27 16 $ 20 $ 320 $ 20 10 $ 269 $ 3.200 $ 2,624 $ 2,624 • Special Olympics 1 6 $ 206 $ 50 S 500 $ 50 2 $ 411 $ 1,000 $ 820 $ 820 • Adult Lessons - 8 ses. 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 105 $ 630 $ 105 38 $ 6,810 $ $ 19,631 23,940 S 19,631 •Drill & Play 1.5 6 1$ 179 8 $ 132 $ 1,056 $ 132 27 $ 4,838 S 28,512 S 23.380 $ 23,380 Morning Madness 1 8 1 $ 179 6 $ 105 $ 630 $ 105 4 $ 717 S 2,520 $ 2,066 $ 2.066 Doubles Night 3 1 1 $ 13 32 $ 20 $ 640 $ 20 21 $ 282 $ $ 11,021 13.440 $ 11,021 • 1 TOTAL EXPENSEIREVENUE WINTERISPRING $ 53,711 173,072 S 141,919 $ 83,197 $ 45.077 $ 13,645 • • • • • • • • • ! ! • • • • • ! • • PMA Alf;FcONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING i CONSULTANTS, INC. • �� NATIONAL OOLi fOONOATIOM DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX - A2 LAKE OSWEGO INDOOR TENNIS CENTER (10 CT. FACILITY) Fall, Winter, Spring: Monday -Thursday Time 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 6 7 8 1 9 1 10 Total 0 days/ 7:00 AM 7:D0 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM QUARTERLY 9:30 AM 10:00 AM ADULT LESSONS 10:30 AM NEW 11:00 AM ADULT 11:30 AM LESSONS 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM CITY LEAGUE 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM PM 3:30 PM IN 4:00 PM PM JUNIOR LESSONS >JIIIORcXCcLLENCE ' -: i?i i.:. 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM .................... 7:00 PM QUARTERLY 7:30 PM ADULT LESSON _ 8:00 PM T 8:30 PM - 9:00 PM QUARTERLY 9:30 PM _ _ 10:00 PM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM3:00 3:30 PM 4:00 PMDROP 4:30 PM4:30 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM Total 0 days/ REVENUE: # of activities # ParL'activity fee;activity Revenue # of 11rs/day days/week season Total Revenue 8 COURTS Programs/Lessons Seasonal Reservations City League $ 24 15 4 39 S 56,160 Ladders $ 24 S - Seasonals $ 24 42 4 39 S 157,248 Dairy Court Fees Drop In $ 24 4 4 39 $ 14,976 Private Lessons $ 24 $ - USTA League $ 24 $ - 10 COURTS Programs/Lessons Seasonal Reservations City League $ 24 18 4 39 $ 67,392 Ladders $ 24 $ - Seasonals $ 24 66 4 39 $ 247,104 Daily Court Fees Drop In $ 24 6 4 39 $ 22,464 Private Lessons $ 24 $ - USTA League $ 24 E - CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX - A3 LAKE OSWEGO INDOOR TENNIS CENTER (10 CT. FACILITY) Fall, Winter, Spring: Friday Time 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 7:00 AM 7:30 AM - - - — — 8:00 AM 8:30 AM -- 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM - -- 11:00 AIM 11:30 AM LADDERILEAGUE PLAY 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM -- 3:00 PM 3:30 PM --- 4:00 PM - I -_�_- 4:30 PM fl 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM DROP W — f 8:30 PM I 7:00 PM -- - _ _ _ - _ . 7:30 PM - - — 8:00 PM - - 8:30 PM - PIZZA & PLAY 9:00 PM - every other Friday 9030 PM — - 10:00 PM - - -- --- -- -- - --- - -- 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM - ` - _ - -- 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:DD PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM Seasonal --- of activities R LuklersL-022L 1 Cart- In Fees-- Private j--- # PaMadivity fedacthrdy R_ everwe I# of hrs —24 -- $— 24 - —73n2 $_ 24 - --- S 24 - _ 15 24 -- _ Total # d i Jdaysh%meek# season Tatar Revenue _-- — — -- 11 1 1 — --39 _ — 39 $ 25,208 s 29.952 s 14,040 $ - CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONAL GOLF FO�NOAT/ON APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX - A4 LAKE OSWEGO INDOOR TENNIS CENTER (10 CT. FACILITY) I Fall, Winter, Spring: Saturday i Time 1 2 3 4 6 1 6 7 8 8 10 7'00 AM � I 7:00 AM 7:30 AM - - - 7:30 AM 8:00 AM - 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 8:30 AM 9.00 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10 Oo AM 1030 AM — 10:30 AM 11:00 AM — -- - 11:OD AM JUNIOR LESSONS - ---' 11.30 AM 11:30 AM 12.00 PM NEW QUARTERLY 12:00 PM 12:30 PM JUNIOR 12:30 PM 1.00 PM LESSONS 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM _ 2:00 PM 2:30 PM ADULT LESSONS 2:30 PM 3 00 PM PRIVATE - 3:00 PM t c�cntuc _. 3 30 PM 3:30 PM 4 00 PM 4.00 PM 4:30 PM - -- 4:30 PM 5:00 PM - -- 5:00 PM 5.30 PM — -- 5:30 PM 6:00 PM DROP IN 6:00 PM 6:30 PM LISTA TEAM PLAY - 6:30 PM 7:OO PM - - 7.00 PM 7:30 PM CROP IN -- 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:00 PM - 8.30 PM - --- 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM -- - - - - -- 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM • of activitks / PeNactivily -- Reverr�e 8 or Ms daph ason Total Revenuf -- _ 8 COURTS Seasonal Reservations 2a _- 0 Ladders -- --- _ i 24 - — 0- SeaeorWa i 241 _ . - 1 21 1 39.$ 19656 Dail Court Fees �� - — 8 - 24 23 1 -_ 1 $- 21' - - -- Private lessons S 24 _. 14 —1 39 S 13,104 - LISTA Play -_- -- _ -_ S 24 18 1 38 S_ 16,416 1000URT3--- - - - - - - Seasonal Reservations City Lespue _ $ 24 -- - __-- 0 Ladders - $ 24 0 I - i_ $ 24 -- 21 1' _ .-_ 39 S 198, 56_. DaiCoirtFes e _ - - - -- - -- -- D►op In $ _ 24 _ _ -_-_23 1 39 $ 21,528 Pnvate Iess0 is t 24 _ 14 1 __L:56 39 104 S 13, _ LISTA - 5 24 18 -- --1 :38TIS 16 416 - - APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX -A5 LAKE OSWEGO INDOOR TENNIS CENTER (10CT. FACILITY) Fall, Winter, Spring: Sunday Time 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 7:00 AM - — - --- — - I - -- - I - .. - - - - - -- -- - - - QUARTERLY - - - 25 reservations --- -- rE -- - DROP IN DROP IN USTA TEAM PLAY ` - - — --- - - -- -- - ADULT OPEN PLAY (MIXER) - -- - - -� — - — - -- - --- — 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 9:30 PM 1000 PM 10:00 PM REVENUE: Ia of adivldes P_ rams Lessons Seasonal Reservations — Ct'_L- Ladders Seesonais '68i Y Cart Fees -- Drop In -- Private Lessons — USTA Play- 4 Pard TOW • days/ fedadl ft Revenue s ur trs drishveek season -- TOW Revenue $ ----- _ S __. 24 0 S -.240 $ 24 — 25 1 39 S 24 20 _-- 1 39 $ - - 24 0 S 24 12 — 1 _ 38 — __ — $ 23,400 S 18720 $ $ 10.944 I _ - PW NaFCONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING =-- CONSULTANTS, INC. 7-7 GOLF FOUNOYTIOM I APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX - A6 LAKE OSWEGO INDOOR TENNIS CENTER (10 CT. FACILITY) Summer. Monday -Thursday Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - -- 7:00 AM - - - �- I _ ---- j _ - -- —.- - ----- -- -� - -� - - — I — _ - - — �_- _-- - - -- 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM - - _ - _ 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM - - - - - - 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5.30 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM -- 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM --- 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM -- -! - REVENUE: # of aGivities # ParU fed ProgranAAASsons ResaYaUons SeasonalCity Leaaw 24 (Ladders- -- i Seasonals S 24 Dail Cant Fees- _ _ Drop In _ _ S 24 Private Lessons i 25 - IUSTA Play 1- ___ _ s 24. Reverwe # of hrs Idaysfweek --- I' — -- - 3 I-- - I Total # I -I season Total Reven _ — $ - - $ - 4 12 S 3.456 --- - s - -- - - - - _--- PW iWairCONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. ,uN co�.s rou++enroe ' APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX -A7 LAKE - OSWEGO Summer. INDOOR TENNIS CENTER Friday (10 CT. FACIL.ITY))_ 7:00 AM 7:30 AM B:OO AM -- - 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM - 1:30 PM 200 PM 230 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM - - 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM - - 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM - 6:30 PM -- 7:00 PM - 7:30 PM - 8:00 PM - - 8:30 PM - 9:00 PM - 9:30 PM ! 10:00 PM - - Time 7:00 AM 1 1 2 1 - -- - - -- - - - - - - - _ - ._ - -- - - - -- - - DROP IN -- - 3 - 4 1 - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - 5 6 _ - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - 7 - - - - - - -- -- -- -- --- - 1 8 - - - - -- 9 10 - - - � -- - - -- - - - -- - - --_- --- - - -- - -- -- - - --- - - - _- -- -- - -- 7:30 AM B:OO AM - 8:30 AM 9.00 AM 930 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM - -- 1200 PM- - - - - - • - - --- --- --- --- -- ---- - - --- 1230 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM - -- - 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM - _ - 4:30 PM -- -•- ---- -- - -- 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM -- --- -- - - - 7:00 PM T30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10'00 PM p Seasonal - Daily �- 8 Ot aCtlWti05 9 PMhQirkY -RERME: essons Reservations s - - - Ladders Seasaab Courts Fees PML*e Lessons --- USTAP - 1Mfa ydY _ _ _ _Total S days/ RewMMM • oT tvs da tlwesk season - --i -- -- -- - _ - _ 5 _ 1 12 - - -- Total Revenue - s $PLO S-- S 1,440 $ - : - - - - - - - - -- - -- - $ S 24 $ 24 24 S 24_ $ --24. - - PWMaj:CONSULTING_ NA 1I 71 GOLF FOUNDATION ITTENNIS PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. M APPENDIX — Excerpt from "Golf -Tennis Feasibility Study, City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" 2009 APPENDIX - AS LAKE OSWEGO INDOOR TENNIS CENTER (10 CT. FACILITY) Stunner. Saturday/Sunday _- - Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM _ - -- -- - - 7:30 AM S:OO AM - - --- _- - - - - B:OO AM 8:30 AM - - - - - 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM _ -- -- - 9:30 AM 10:00 AM — - 10:00 AM 10:30 AM - - 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM — 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM -- - -- - 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 1:30 PM _ 1:30 PM 2:00 PM PRIVATE2:00 PM 2:30 PM LESSONS -- _ - _ - 2:30 PM 3:00 PM - -- 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM - 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PMMKM - - 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:30 PM - - 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM -- -- — 7:30 PM 8:00 PM - - - 8:00 PM 8:30 PM - -- - -- -- - - - -- - - - - 8:30 PM 9:00 PM -- -- - - --- - - - - - -- - 9:00 PM 930 PM - -_ - -- - — _-- - 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM Total O days! -- - REVENUE: txoladly SPIN—vac" teNMlivilrl Revenue_ Odhrs U shreek season !Total Revenue P tams/Lessons Season- Reservations - ,City Lespue - - __ S 24 Ladders i. 24 --- - -- S -- - - - Seasorvds -- - 3 24_ -- -- $ -- --- _ Daly CaR Fees Drop In _ ; -- 24 40 - _ 2 _ 12 $ 23!040 or- __--- - -- - Private Less_ 24 - _ S -- 1 _ 12'-$ 1,440 _ - USTA Plpy_ 24 PW _NGgrCONSULTING TENNIS PLANNING =- CONSULTANTS, INC. NGTION4L GOLF FOUNOATlON i APPENDIX 8.3 Supplemental Design Drawings —11" X 17" format Reference Drawings: Armory Design Option 'A' - Site & Floor Plans w/Exterior Perspective Armory Design Option 'B' - Site & Floor Plans w/Exterior Perspective Rassekh Design Option 'Al' - Site & Floor Plans Rassekh Design Option 'A21— Site/Exterior Perspective Rassekh Design Option 'B1' - Site & Floor Plans Rassekh Design Option 'B2' — Site/Exterior Perspective Rassekh Design Option 'Cl' — Baseline Design — Site & Floor Plan Rassekh Design Option 'C2' — Baseline Design — Enlarged Floor Plan Rassekh Design Option 'C3' — Baseline Design — Exterior Perspectives WEB Design Option 'Al'— Site & Floor Plan WEB Design Option 'A2' — Exterior Perspective WEB Design Option TV— Site & Floor Plan WEB Design Option 'B2' — Exterior Perspective _ k \ ` y t u v224,502sf / 5.15ac -PROPERTY lr 137,772sf / 3.16ac - BUILDABLE (61%) - i Ib 500sf, «¢ r I El 9 L -J 8,500sf TRII7 R2 ow BANQ (�`0 .11 W ST J ly, aA. t Ri F T ELEC c MFChI u- 7,'„4 / lower level PROGRAM AREA LEGEND { I V VESTIBULE ENTRY LOBBY /—+--�-------III--���---- + R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE / w1 S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP 100 PARKING I BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA �. FIT FITNESS S CAR M ROOM 1 TR2 TRA NGITEAM ROOM 2 / M FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING �� W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING TOTAL 74,000sf ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J MAI NTENANCE/WORKSHOP/JANITOR 8 COURTS _ _._ * preferred scheme A Armory tennis center - site diagram I analysis Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 13 . July . 2010 \ r. x u v224,502sf / 5.15ac -PROPERTY lr 137,772sf / 3.16ac - BUILDABLE (61%) - i Ib 500sf, «¢ r I El 9 L -J 8,500sf TRII7 R2 ow BANQ (�`0 .11 W ST J ly, aA. t Ri F T ELEC c MFChI u- 7,'„4 / lower level PROGRAM AREA LEGEND { I V VESTIBULE ENTRY LOBBY /—+--�-------III--���---- + R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE / w1 S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP 100 PARKING I BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA �. FIT FITNESS S CAR M ROOM 1 TR2 TRA NGITEAM ROOM 2 / M FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING �� W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING TOTAL 74,000sf ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J MAI NTENANCE/WORKSHOP/JANITOR 8 COURTS _ _._ * preferred scheme A Armory tennis center - site diagram I analysis Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 13 . July . 2010 r rosy - - t y q .'" ,r 224,502sf / 5.15ac - PROPERTY 137,772sf / 3.16ac - BUILDABLE (61%) r e. .. 0 'Jae, .ate I v 'art 5,700sf N7 I W I L lower �_ *40�' le PROGRAM AREA LEGE; V VESTIBULE .., L ENTRY LOBBY i-«- i—'- R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL Ip * O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TR1 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 r TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 2 I FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE _ M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING TOTAL 68,100sf + MECH I ST GEN EENS RALBUILDINNGSTORAGENG L 8 COURTS -z _ �^ J MAI NTENANCEANORKSH OP/JANITOR lb �" - - - ferrate scheme - "--;M — - B Armory tennis center - site diagram analysis - -- Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 13. July. 2010 1 417,873sf / 9.59ac - PROPERTY 334,018sf / 7.67ac - BUILDABLE (80%) -�r -"ki A% 8,800sf + MECH P RK - - S FU URE S I i „rl 3fi i J PA NS O � TS 59 — --- / V7A S ST M W S O -ENTRY PLAZA rope BRIDGE ------ ---------- - -� POSSIBLE OUTDOOR COURTS OR PARK AMENITIES I I � O PARK 0 O / I � � PROGRAM AREA LEGEND A RaSSekh Property tennis center - site diagram I analysis City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 31 . August. 2010 V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TRI TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 2 FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J MAINTENANCEWORKSHOP/JANITOR ,F-, I --Ps Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC I= \\\ _ ,. __.-_-0...,..—-ofVW'WV>>030 A2 Rassekh Pro ert tennis center - 3d overview p y Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale veo C 31. August. 2010 I_ 8,000sf + MECH upper level 417,873sf / 9.59ac - PROPERTY 334,018sf / 7.67ac - BUILDABLE (80%) ,; FIRELANE e 63,000sf d T I FUTURE IND T NDS R` ' COURTy +15; Osf POSSIBLE OUTDOOR COURTS OR PARK / AMENITIES i TRAIL / �-j a O \� POSSIBLE OUTDOOR ; COURTS OR PARK BRIDGE i AMENITIES f X: OENTRY PLAZA o O PARK 0 / 92 P �Rk�NG PROGRAM AREA LEGEND TOTAL 71,000sf + MECH 8+2 COURTS / +4 OUTD( V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TR1 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 2 FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J MAI NTE NANCElWORKSHOP/JANITOR B Rassekh Property tennis center - site diagram I analysis p y Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 31 . August. 2010 S 5 xell1, x /` /X i N. --- B2RaSSekh Property tennis center - 3d overview City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 4N - Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC 0 31 . August. 2010 s saw -- i der � 417,873sf / 9.59ac - PROPERTY 334,018sf / 7.67ac - BUILDABLE (80%) �i 74,400sf I - I I P RK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OS7 � ADJUSiWBLE S EC ATOR SEATING PA I I I I I I IT—E�Nls P U T ' I I I I I - I I I BRIDGE --- ---- Igo - y / A. FI.R,EUkb1E — PROGRAM AREA LEGEND O O O V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL y OFFICE S S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA VA VENDING ALCOVE TOTAL 74,400sf + MECH M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING 8+2 COURTS / +4 OUTDOOR ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J JANITOR C Rassekh Property tennis center - site diagram (D' ^ p scale 1:8031 � m Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego August.2010 ST �l 74,400sf ADJUSTABLE S EC ATOR SEATING I a ------------------------------------------------------ I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I POSSIBLE OUTDOOR COURTS pill S OR PARK AMENITIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L -- -------- ------------------------------------------------ C2 Rassekh Property City of Lake Oswego tennis center - floor plan scale 1:40 + 14, 500sf ST LOUNGE s� I VA $ O LR M S d" J O L W PS'" cV ENTRY _n CANOPY, / n (-; O 31 . August. 2010 i PROGRAM AREA LEGEND V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA VA VENDINGALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J JANITOR A, 1 - Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC K Y .. r - ....s..�..,..� -... - _. - -- r :,,.�,, •tea x l rt 1 y J� f T _ C3 Rassekh Property tennis center - 3d images --- Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale (not to scale) 31 . Augurt .2010 � 617,221sf / 14.2ac - PROPERTY " 356,918sf / 8.2ac - BUILDABLE (58%) r 1 k' ' I@ 1 1 1 1 a' — — — - – .. 36,800sf FIRELANE :,. FIT ABOVE TRS I TR2 FE F U E S +14,600sf 44 Y P R u VA S IF5T M L V n �5 o ENTRY 68 PARKING:- I COURTYARD TOT 7, Osf + ME ♦ 1 8+2+1 CO ` '�p�Rki N PROGRAM AREA LEGE V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL \ O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE \ PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 •\ TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 2 FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDINGALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING \ W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING T GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE \ ,= MAINTENANCE/WORKSHOP/JANITOR a a v n wl A 1 WEB Property tennis center - site diagram / main level floor plan Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 20 . April . 2010 l PROGRAM AREA LEGEND V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TR1 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 2 FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J MAINTENANCE/WORKSHOPMANITOR 9 LO E9 lower level 29,800sf A2 WEB Property tennis center - lower / upper floor plans - 3d overview p Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 0 20. April. 2010 617,221 sf / 14.2ac - PROPER 4 2O ...- 356 918sf 18.2ac -BUILDABLE (58% I 1 +1 a 1 1 J wpra�., qtl• .rFpsNai�.� won" COURTYARD URNAROU i TOTAL 0�+ MECH 770 P 8+2 COURTS \\ ` �RkNc \ 10 PROGRAM AREA LEGEND��- V VESTIBULE its L R ENTRY LOBBY RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL \ 0 OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP Srat 1 BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TR1 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 TR2 TRA IN NGrFEAM ROOM 2 FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VEN COVE i - M MENSS REST RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING •6T GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE s J MAINTENA ORKSHOPIJANITOR k!' �r r_ B1 WEB Property tennis _ _ center - site plan / main level floor plan - - _ __ ._.__ _. Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC City of Lake Oswego scale 1:80 O 20 . April 2010 JJ I a, -A»33 PROGRAM AREA LEGEND V VESTIBULE L ENTRY LOBBY R RECEPTION/ACCESS CONTROL O OFFICE S ADMIN STORAGE PS MERCHANDISE PRO SHOP BANQ BANQUET COMMON AREA TRI TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 1 TR2 TRAINING/TEAM ROOM 2 FIT FITNESS CARDIO ROOM VA VENDING ALCOVE M MENS RESTROOM/CHANGING W WOMENS RESTROOM/CHANGING ST GENERAL BUILDING STORAGE J MAINTENANCE/WORKSHOP/JANITOR Fri BANG open ro lobby below upper level 6,000sf + MECH LOWER COURT ACCESS lower level 16,200sf n B2 ter lower WEB Property ______ ._. tennis cen_c,e_ _ __ . _ __ upper --._ floor plans - 3d overvi 0 ew Brian C. Jackson, Architect LLC -/ City of Lake Oswego scale 1.90 20 . April . 2010 66 m O�OZ `tib jagwaldaS a m CD S m .N► A 1D o a OII a ;L) 0 Dy o nm �coe3 �5- "" =CD (w M U) C 33 cf°, a0i _ _ 1 1 y ff 0 �, a 7C' p c w 0 rn r r \� I �■ I F rt Ca CD m rt m 0. n mCL W W W a ° CD � O CD o CD 2 y CD T'i i- 1-' C- M CD CDp a' O O O N O m O CD y VI O C L U) p�" � C II1 --I , m � CS m -i m p CD \0 CD° m m:5 3 � m m m r 3 m 61 c 3 3 Fr ° Cn 3 M= c 0 0 0 n, 0 m 0) 0 d° fD 0 0 � -o C 0)S'CO K Cn M Cn m CO �, CD CD CD W '� C� O CD 0 OC OR O K G) CCD 7 `G_ m CD ._•' _ O 0 O CD ID m O N �► [D tll "� N 3 m y m S TT C ^. � � y � CD W 0 CD (� 0 CD to W m 'O O "' C• d m R 0 Z Z �O n CCD S Z = °1o,Y ° `< —'a p m c c n� m o O c a C _m < w 3 3 S- 0 Cyt =. Q Q Cn _ y= Q C. 0 O V+ CD m C CD 7 CD y CCD CD CD II°, C CCD y CD CSD S C 0� 0 3 m CD CD O y O y = H = CU 0 0 am m m0.0 mo w w CD w a mo cD CC CD S -� �� CD to 0 m C 0 w y m CD CD D. O to CD. -p nm CD CD O to D, O CD _' D m -0 CD m n,< •0 y C n CD a a o a� L o m nci O M y p CC 7 c : 3 O CD:. CD p a O- CD CD C7 = O O * C 7 @ C M. j m 7 C L = �. Cp m a i C- �'� = m n 6 g n = m m �' �, m cr 3 ° =r cc II1 m y a a mcD 3 CD C =CD 'O CD =r CDD CD CO = O S CO — -O �-_ = O.00 Om Ll O CD m •m cl) ° =.IV . nam =n f „ N m CD N QOO .d CD 0 Cp3 d =CD °oo to w CD G CO n3 0 CL °' - U) . �m 3 m a o 3 CD m CL w0 O N a C CD �. CD m m C CD m C O p^1 m Cp C `< a T T O O' (7 f% CD ° cr 3 i� 3 m CD Cr �. CD m rt�w m O 0 E -0 m m c m 'o w CD CD CD CCDM -O N °.y n n aO Oma' T'0 ° CL m m o _ N _ au a, 0 o d y Q =r CD -0 C N CD m C 7 CD CD (D =.< y D �; O `•� Z cow m a . o Co' CD -0 m c m m m a 0 3 cn CD a o. CD n o n CSD ° C m CD CD C m CD m Co 0 Ol m N d m0 WO o -v m OLOZ' �jegwa daS F2 00| f \ ƒ E § f � ƒ C 2 (A m folk | . �. -n C) C) CA CD (D rmpL ƒm £�0= } �% ) eo20 �mE � E ID"0,< \7$�\0 /// �2 mc a) ]k \Ef!A /ƒ\ < ■ J E B a ea ® = « E E E E a\ = E° 3 EE . § o 94 ER / 2 E @ q - & § ) \ CD «w E m /- ®D q e E § -U a; �7k Cl §CL°®EE w Rte/ m m aMCL CD 35 n � EmcD�/ = n__ - _ = o m +�7 a = = c w« 0 c. k//@=2 r:� c=n_o= S 7 E Q e ( $ C e p E E ca i E 2\ f§] R CLC cn 9 2 CD J\k /K ƒ\ CD \_ \ / f �cl 7 9 2 a n ° = E \ CL / 3 . \ 7\ k k ( k a ( ? o g » $ CD / k 2 o\ = a A // Z i (nq \ o § £ 2 0 2 7 /CD CD 0 E a § 0 \ CD CD E4 = 0 co ® � § 2 / ECD § 7 ¢ § \ / CD _ 00| 3.0 ELEMENT #2 — INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES The City does not contain any open or closed municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment disposal and recovery facilities, or industrial facilities that are subject to Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The City has a limited number of industrial facilities and potential high pollutant source (commercial and industrial) facilities. The City of Lake Oswego has developed an inventory of all industrial sources of stormwater discharge in the City. Over the permit tern% the City will conduct industrial facility screening activities and initiate a program to conduct inspections of potential high pollutant source facilities. 3.1 BMP M1— Screen Existing and New Industrial Facilities NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP IND 1. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.b of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Screen existing and new industrial facilities to assess whether they have the potential to be subject to an industrial stormwater NPDES permit or have the potential to contribute a significantpollutant load to the MS4. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Within 30 days after the facility is identified, notes the industrial facility and the Department that an industrial facility is potentially subject to an industrial stormwater NPDES permit. The City of Lake Oswego currently has an inventory of industrial facilities within the City limits, and no facilities on the list currently operate under a 1200-Z general industrial stormwater permit. Over the course of the permit term, the City will update this inventory as necessary with new industrial facilities (by review of building permit applications) and potential high pollutant source facilities (by review of the City's business license inventory). Potential high pollutant source facilities will be determined based on past knowledge of water quality related issues onsite, results of past illicit discharge investigations, continuing inquiries and complaints made to the City, and facility age and the types of activities conducted onsite. Annually, the inventory of industrial facilities will be reviewed to determine whether any new facility has the potential to be subject to an industrial stormwater NPDES permit. If identified, such facility and DEQ shall be notified within 30 days. 3.2 BMP IND2 — Conduct Inspections of High Pollutant Source Facilities NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP IND2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.b of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. 9 September 14, 2010 101 NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) Implement a program that establishes the priorities and procedures for inspection of and implementation of stormwater control measures for discharges from industrial or commercial areas that have been identified as sources that contribute a significant pollutant load to the MS4. Development of an inventory of high pollutant source facilities is outlined under BMP IND 1. High pollutant source facilities will be inspected annually, and such inspections may be conducted in conjunction with illicit discharge investigations or independently. Such independent inspections may be conducted during Pretreatment Inspections or Building Inspections. Development of an inspection form and/or process will be developed over the permit term. 10 102 September 14, 2010 M 0 HOZ `V � jagwa;dag m o ? 'p o 3 ul >moa 3 mO7 `D .► (C 33 o :T a O y CD y n+ � 0 = M 3 0 a 3. m d y O C1 m m a-9 N a CD 0 to M Gf 7 CC o r 3 Z v V rn_ �V C V rh o0 Cl) CD .. y Cn y W 0 -0 O o 3 3 m a-4 o CD =r a 7 a z W W 3 'o —I S 'A y = 3 an CD m to CD CD CD . . . '� CD -o r1► co mA mM =rm N 0o3.n a 3 c 'Z �� oo �0c cc G W 0 C� O C� CD N O N O CD O N 2:0 rn C c O v C y O o =. CD o CD N O CD a, CD m cc CD S 0 0► m C g � W m cn n - vmi 3� CO) 0 A' CD -• 0� a F a O O C1 ? o C O CD CD a 0 C @ m p 7 0 M@ m m 0 O m ' m p� - S fD 7 C 0 m CCn a O C) CD m �. 7 o ? _Q CD CL Q CD CS CD M 7 C N. N Cn CD = D• C1. cC] C=1 = `� m w O w C N c"D ao O O c .0 a a m CD y Wim' ID 0 .. W ai y N m.. y a- = c 0 O cD� Q. M� o'er n o Z " =.0 m CD 3 a c o o m y CD Q m acD 3(a cu �' o_ m CD o_ m e •o cn a ip m cn m o cn s� O p - Ci y to W 9 4 O O O O O O c m C "� C 3SD CD CD - r: �j 57 O O FDD N. •O CD C CS CCD 7 c 0' CD c O Cr CD CL CD N O V 00 0 3 cn zyo3? 7 = �' — CD CD n ID O O 0 CG O O -• ,�+ 7 EF -0 cL CD CO 0 n M* Cp O C n O N C� �' C CD < �. CCD CD o W y 3 n n y C C n C 3 .�. =� CD O cc CD �t O 0 �- CD CD - �, ,.,, C a CDO CD CD O c O CD O CD N• -0 N CA• 3. '11 CD T� ' • C7 O cn 3 n m 0 Cn -, a� �• y y o � m m ID 0 ^c0' Co `< � c W m � � m m ? 0 0 fJ cn m to � ��' 3 a 3- c CD ��<� 0 g a° S. m v, CD C m 3 CD 2 CD W D. C 0— �. 7 ,� 0 a m 0 7c- N a� 0 '' 0 0c� C7 CD �: cc O a com a ��CD � a y n o cn 3 rn ° C O C O y �ao3� ID 0 3 Cn 5. CD O N a P- m o =r - o c y CD nom cD m a v? m 0 N - o -, .�-. CD 0 c0 _r m -� 0 ��w< v m 0. C — 3CD - C 0 .O-• CD CU v CD c0 =r -1 CD d 0 CD v C a °m"" o m > CD >_ m O fn m m < O- 0 C 7 c =i > (n m -w CD fDC 7 C < . = N C m C CD a O C y oc 0 cn 3 -0 3 ' CD rn m l< 3 m y B CD cc m m o °' m:m o. m 0 y< o rn �, m m o ca CD G7 n=i c cc a y O. c n c Q 0, ap m a y a C O N O Q CD rt "' n 4 fB - � a -i S E _ y ^• fli C' 7 �• CD (j) N CD n O O. N a (D CD o CD (D a O - 3 co = w a C =ra m m °• 3. Cp 0) m `< m a cD a S 3 CD vC, *, n CD ? rt p ? m v, N CD O v Cn a m n> 7 c a.. 0 O c w CL7 O -" y m CD .p O CL rn CD 4.0 ELEMENT #3 — CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROL The City of Lake Oswego implements a number of BMPs associated with construction activities, erosion and sediment control. Specific erosion and sediment control requirements are outlined in LOC Chapter 52. In summary, erosion and sediment control must be addressed and an erosion control plan submitted for development, involving more than a 500 square foot disturbance (with some limited exceptions), and the plans must be submitted with the development construction plans or the building permit application. Exceptions to this threshold (e.g. certain types of residential landscape activities) are listed in LOC 52.02.040. Erosion and sediment plan requirements are tracked through the issuance of the City's Erosion and Sediment Control permits. In addition to city issued permits, Lake Oswego also requires developments to obtain DEQ issued NPDES 1200-C permits for all construction sites that meet DEQ requirements. To maintain regional consistency, Lake Oswego has adopted BMPs and erosion control procedures in the Clackamas County Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (2008), which is used by other local jurisdictions within Clackamas County. This manual provides comprehensive information, descriptions, and details of structural and non-structural erosion control measures and practices, as well as information to help assist contractors and developers in designing effective erosion control plans to effectively minimize disturbance. The manual also outlines housekeeping measures to prevent or control non-stormwater waste that may cause adverse impacts to water quality. The City also references use of their Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (2008). This technical specification references LOC Chapter 52 for erosion control associated with construction of sanitary and storm sewer pipe including the laying and jointing of pipe; the installation of pipe, manholes, catch basins, and other appurtenances; testing; and quality assurance and control. BMPs related to education and training of construction site operators is addressed under Component #4 (Section 5.0). 4.1 BMP EC1— Implement the Adopted Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual and Associated City Ordinances Related to Erosion Control NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP EC I. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.c of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Include ordinances or other enforceable regulatory mechanism that requires erosion and sediment controls designed, implemented, and maintained to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and minimize the transport of contaminants to waters of the State. 12 104 September 14, 2010 NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Require construction site operators to develop site plans and implement and maintain effective erosion and sediment control best management practices. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) Require construction site operators to prevent or control non-stormwater waste that may cause adverse impacts to water quality such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iv) Establish site plan review procedures to ensure stormwater BMPs are appropriate and address the construction activities being proposed. At a minimum, construction site erosion and sediment control plans for sites disturbing one acre or greater must be developed in accordance with the State of Oregon's 1200-Cpermit requirements. LOC Chapter 52 requires that erosion prevention and sediment control plans (EPSCP) be provided for all residential and commercial construction involving disturbance of more than 500 square feet of land and that the EPSCP (Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan) be submitted as part of the development permit process. As mentioned for the previous SMP, exceptions to this threshold (e.g. certain types of residential landscape activities) are listed in LOC 52.02.040. In addition, LOC Chapter 52 dictates that regardless of the approved EPSCP, additional measures and practices must be implemented as needed to effectively address erosion and sediment control on the construction site. As an alternative, if the development requires a DEQ issued 1200-C permit, the DEQ approved erosion and sediment plan may be submitted as an alternative to the EPSCP. EPSCP submission is tracked through the City -issued Erosion and Sediment Control permits. Requirements of the EPSCP submittal are outlined in the Clackamas County Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. In summary the EPSCP must include information on site topography, area of disturbance, nearby waterways, and stormwater drainage facilities, and must show locations and protection of sensitive lands, wetlands, and significant tree groves, as development and site disturbing activity is restricted from these areas. The EPSCP must also list structural and non-structural BMPs to be applied on site, selected in accordance with site and weather conditions. The manual also outlines various runoff control practices, sediment control practices, and other pollution control BMPs including inspection and maintenance of BMPs that would need to be included in the EPSCP submittal. Structural and non-structural BMP application varies depending on the construction activity. Issuance of the City's erosion and sediment control permit requires proper installation and maintenance of both temporary and permanent erosion control measures. On all residential and smaller commercial sites, the BMPs must include perimeter protection, inlet protection, and construction entrances designed to minimize disturbance. Commercial scale developments must include all the residential elements, as well as staging and storage areas, concrete truck wash out areas, wheel washes where 13 September 14, 2010 105 appropriate, and crew parking areas. All erosion and sediment control measures must be pre -approved, either through inclusion of the adopted Clackamas County Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, in approved city details and specifications, or through approval of City engineering staff. 4.2 BMP EC2 — Conduct Erosion Control Inspections and Enforcement NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP EC2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.c of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (v) Perform on-site inspections in accordance with documented procedures and criteria to ensure the approved erosion and sediment control plan is properly implemented.... Inspections must be documented, including photographs and monitoring results as appropriate. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vi) Describe in an enforcement response plan or similar document the enforcement response procedures the permittee will implement. The enforcement response procedures must use all means necessary to ensure construction activities are in compliance with the ordinances or other regulatory mechanisms. All construction sites that file an EPSCP are inspected by City inspection staff a minimum of two times during construction: once at the beginning of the project and once before foundations or other concrete structures are poured. All required structural BMPs must be properly installed and in good working order, as defined in the Clackamas County Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Sites with steep grades, significant aquatic resources, highly erosive soils, or a history of non- compliance or failed inspections are visited more regularly via unscheduled inspections, to the MEP. These inspections are generally scheduled and conducted on a case -by case basis. Finally, any site that is under an active enforcement action is also inspected per the schedule identified in correction notices, to the MEP. All active large-scale sites, operating under NPDES 1200-C coverage, must be inspected by a designated inspector, typically defined in the 1200-C application daily during periods of rainfall during active construction and at least weekly during non -rainfall periods. If any inspection identifies the need for additional erosion and sediment control measures, the additional BMPs must be installed within 24 hours. As erosion and sediment control permits must be obtained per City code, which requires submittal of an EPSCP and the installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment control measures, the Lake Oswego Code provides enforcement authority. Enforcement action is taken for those sites where efforts to gain voluntary compliance aren't effective. Typically, the first level of enforcement comes in the form of a verbal warning that is issued by the City Erosion Control Inspector. The inspector typically 14 106 September 14, 2010 identifies the deficiencies in the BMPs, explains why additions or modifications to the BMPs are necessary, and outlines the required corrective action. The timeframe associated with the correction is typically between 24-48 hours, depending upon the conditions. If corrective actions are not implemented in the necessary timeframe, secondary enforcement may be issued which includes a municipal court citation and/or a Stop Work Order. The timeframe for correction depends upon the severity of the violation, weather factors, the level of activity on the site, and the potential for significant impact to water quality. 15 September 14, 2010 107 108 September 14, 2010 O O U ca O C - cu c U CO C C w U y O &O aS C G: C0 c ' II O C E N mc c m m a O `m CO o R a) U aoc i E 0 y v U 3 _m : y y a y d H C O N C 2 G ° cu U C c Q .a CL >+ U .� r y CL o (/� U C1 O c A w c m" m � Z E 0" .5; R w O f0 a) "' y C U _� �° m a C N 5 = m c E E m a`6i ` `- E m E a) c m w o o E vii a) cca c c o ° d a) E a 3 w a)c o m_ m .2: c a) c o Vcco y C S2 y cd cc .yc o ° of )) E 0 0) O € �. fa W �' cQ a) of E O a, co m C v QQ) C E > - o a) a c C aci t0 c o >, m �a o E �' a M 0 m c u) ° c ° > E N v 3 �� o o o) c ca a) cc -o m— a) S c o a Q cn U N �E C c a) E U -p ` m o O 2CL m s v N L y ro cD m C o C o co m a) c aa))E c c c v ai o 3 cZ D o v� m a a 7 — cn y -p "'-' O) a) C E m ami ` `o .y -° rn E ci .25.. o m Q C 2-0 °a) � � E m E o m c -(M mm c m E c Q) � CL o E m E c c o a c Q, o- m c 0 E o '� >, o Q c U o U C m o � U o a) U s '0 a`) m m� — d y ocq -c4 O Q .0-0 .. c U C ° i C) o c a) d °— O- c° m c a) C O m E 0� 2 LM m - C CU m E N N W c 0 y z Cc ` U ca W W y cc o o o c a3 o c o•Cc C - oa c c �'cco v .. U m N a) -0 a) ,a C U _ �' = U 0. y a) a) c Q O o y j y N ca C C a) w C O) E ccC ° O U .0 U O E a) 2 C R C ca Co y '� C O '0 a) E a3 y �''O a3 a) a) w C c0 U y LO C C O O d= C m M: Y Q a.� E y m w- y O w O V 0 - m o � a3 N w- O U m C cr, 3 O 0 W O O N d m a _ o C O C Q, 'D y >, M C y — U C O C �0 'o C m C m E E a3 0 .a E a3 a) m = .II ) E U m O U o 0 o y a) E 3- is •� LL c 0 a) z z U �a) z D U) =Ny Zc0 o o U, ° cf0i c_ oc o,� o ao Q f �i m e o o m o 0� ( E m E ' m c Qi �Co (D m " 3 y � y o 'y U> > cn U� E c > cn >m u) 'O o > a3 V c ■� 0 p, a 0 w W .. �a CM D Co CD � .. y R� ami .. m °) ° m .. m aoi 0` L) a a c �a) cw 0� E E W U.� 2 (Dori 2 Uoui 2Y c c� c M Em 5* m c) � °'� c a) 0. m �o �� 2 CDZ m O L a) Q a o a) U U C N C U N E U ui Co �_ U cl Q) .� oo rOi� CL F- 0 F- O U y:c F - of c � H in a,U L7 'Q oO 0 cc C'J m as a) o a) = H v O y U 0 O d N U am r U c N U cc r m UV r Ut EL o CL a a•E , N a s c m a� L tea) mO H mm mc. -W Q D> ' ♦ c A� W V Y V C I ` C F .yr !Q V♦ c m c a E�� LL Q 0 m 0 U ` t0 a E w V � � O C cm OLU `y O = cy0 R _ J2 O m W mm 108 September 14, 2010 � September 14 2010 109 f CD ca $ (a \7t ° »CL k ) E 0) cc k }ca cn 75 #b @ _ § 7 � k (D % \ E a) o Co2 / \ F k 2 o ) \ t o e O o § / 5. f CL 2 D) M( Q m \ / \ b 13 > G= a ae �I §2 z k 2k/k 2 E =g § ® cc E \0 o ■� 0 _E 2 2ca E �f = �Ek 2 oM F— 7 i (DU) CL $f £E O 26 {7\ 7g 22 CD e§ E 5 2 0 { o / $ 2E M e 2 E ci— �Ek EZ 'a) »t \\ ZCD 0 \k CD \kk cc 2f =�2 con £ Q) /0 §2 D 2 § 2\ UJ k 7� § ;0 U% _ _ 4 ° co 2 = cn \cc\ e 2U)( 9o 0 J U) 6 o a)__\ . �( C> /k 7a �$ \%� B/>� �3 0©� eE k kkk\ M / $_C c 0cn o—� E o 2 IL U) � O � � M cn � ui cm M E 0 U. o s a. ^ § 0 c 2 . . a � September 14 2010 109 5.0 ELEMENT #4 — PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Public education, outreach, and training activities are conducted as required in the City of Lake Oswego's MS4 NPDES permit. Although not specifically outlined as a requirement in the permit, coordination with other jurisdictions and involvement in stormwater related professional groups is necessary for the training of City staff and to continue to ensure sound stormwater management related decisions and adaptive management. Coordination with other jurisdictions and involvement in stormwater related professional groups is implemented to the MEP. BMPs associated with intergovernmental coordination are provided in this Section as well. 5.1 BMP PE1— Provide Public Education and Outreach Materials Regarding Stormwater Management NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PEL Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.c of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Continue to implement a documented public education and outreach strategy that promotes pollutant source control and a reduction ofpollutants in stormwater discharges.... The public education and outreach strategy may incorporate cooperative efforts with other MS4 regulated permittees or efforts by other groups or organizations provided a mechanism is developed and implemented to track the public education and outreach efforts within the MS4 regulated area and the results of such efforts are reported annually. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Provide educational materials to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities describing the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies and the steps or actions the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) Provide public education on the proper use and disposal of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and other household chemicals if identified as a concern by the co permittees. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vi) Conduct or participate in an effectiveness evaluation to measure the success ofpublic education activities during the term of this permit. The effectiveness evaluation must focus on assessing changes in targeted behaviors. The results of the effectiveness evaluation must be used in the adaptive management of the education and outreach program. NPDES Permit Requirement — (viii) Promote, publicize and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges through the use of newspapers, newsletters, utility bills, door hangars, radio public service announcements, videos, televised council meetings, brochures, signs, posters or other effective methods. 18 110 September 14, 2010 The City employs a public education strategy aimed at reducing the discharge of pollutants associated with a variety of activities. The focus of Public Education and Outreach strategies will be on pollutant source control and the reduction of pollutants in stormwater. The City provides a variety of educational information to the public through the City's website and the City's newsletter. Educational information is also relayed to the public through ancillary programs or facilities that the City develops (e.g., during the opening of the dog park at Hazelia Field in Lake Oswego, City staff promoted the "Canines for Clean Water Campaign"). The City also works with many watershed education entities (Oswego Lake Watershed Council, Friends of Tryon Creek, Lake Oswego School District, Lake Oswego Corporation) to provide local educational opportunities related to pollution prevention and pollutant minimization. Educational information is generally related to impacts of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on water quality, proper pet waste disposal, recycling and litter control, and locations and times for oil, paint, and hazardous material recycling and disposal. Specifically, article topics in periodicals and newsletters( including the City's newsletter "Hello LO", weekly publications ("LODown", Council Digest) the Lake Oswego Review, the Oregonian and on the City's website) cover current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, BUT implementation for residential lots (rain gardens), lawn watering practices, car washing, roof cleaning, fertilizer and pesticide use, stream bank health on private property, leaf disposal, construction site erosion control, vehicle maintenance, low impact development, and a variety of sustainability practices related to stormwater management. Finally, the surface water hotline (Watershed Hotline), a City -operated call number for citizens to report illicit discharges and spills, is publicized on the City's website and on the storm drain markers that are placed by volunteers. The hotline is also featured in the City's monthly newsletter, and inspections are conducted in accordance with citizen reports and inquires as received by the City. To aid in public education related to proper disposal of waste materials, the City of Lake Oswego conducts City-wide catch basin marking. Engineering and Planning staff coordinate with area volunteers to complete the marking. Storm Drain Marking is currently conducted on a volunteer basis and staffed solely by volunteers. The City has developed the "Storm Drain Marker Project Leadership Guide " to assist volunteer organizations in organizing, identifying, and placing these markers. The City also uses outreach information and materials from METRO and the Regional Coalition of Clean Rivers and Streams, of which the City is a member, to further educate the public regarding proper disposal of waste products and the impacts of chemical landscaping products on receiving water quality. 19 September 14, 2010 111 Finally, over the permit berm, the City of Lake Oswego will coordinate with its Clackamas County Phase I MS4 co -permittee jurisdictions to provide information related to an education and outreach effectiveness evaluation. The effectiveness evaluation information will focus on assessing changes in targeted behaviors and will allow for additional information that can be used in adaptive management of the City's education and outreach strategy. 5.2 SMP PE2 — Provide Educational Training Opportunities for Construction Site Operators NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PE2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule AAA of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (v) Provide notice to construction site operators concerning where education and training to meet erosion and sediment control requirements can be obtained. To assist engineers, contractors and developers, the City of Lake Oswego provides physical and online access to the adopted Clackamas County Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, which provides in-depth information on the causes and effects of erosion, information on the types and proper installation procedures for BMPs, as well as detailed information on designing an effective erosion control plan. Landscape projects and small construction projects that don't trigger formal erosion control permits or submittal of an ESPCP are provided information on the City's storm water system and information about how sediment and pollutants adversely affect water quality. Additionally, all permit holders are provided with specific information on the Wet Weather Season (October 1 through May 31) construction requirements. The City also participates in the Regional Erosion Prevention Awards program, designed to provide onsite instruction on the proper use and installation of BMPs, as well as recognize excellence in construction site erosion prevention. 5.3 BMP PE3 — Conduct Staff Training for Pest Management NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PE3. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.d of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vii) Include training for municipal employees involved in MS4-related activities, as appropriate. The training should include stormwater pollution prevention and reduction from municipal operations, including, but not limited to, parks and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new municipal facility construction and related land disturbances, design and construction of street and storm drain systems, discharges from non -emergency fire fighting -related training activities, and stormwater system maintenance. 20 112 September 14, 2010 The City of Lake Oswego ensures that all City employees performing pesticide application are trained and licensed in accordance with the Oregon Department of Agriculture regulations. As the City's Integrated Pest Management Practices are updated, in conjunction with BMP PEST2, City staff will also be trained accordingly. 5.4 BMP PE4 — Conduct Staff Training in Spill Response NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PE4. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.d of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vii) Include training for municipal employees involved in MS4-related activities, as appropriate. The training should include stormwater pollution prevention and reduction from municipal operations, including, but not limited to, parks and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new municipal facility construction and related land disturbances, design and construction of street and storm drain systems, discharges from non -emergency fire fighting -related training activities, and stormwater system maintenance. The City of Lake Oswego requires training for select employees that participate in spill response activities. 5.5 BMP PE5 — Promote Staff Education and Participation with Local Organizations NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PE5. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule AAA of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vii) Include training for municipal employees involved in MS4-related activities, as appropriate. The training should include stormwater pollution prevention and reduction from municipal operations, including, but not limited to, parks and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new municipal facility construction and related land disturbances, design and construction of street and storm drain systems, discharges from non -emergency fire fighting -related training activities, and stormwater system maintenance. A variety of training is provided to City staff associated with stormwater management including attending seminars, conferences and task specific training. Training and advisory committee opportunities are also made available to City staff through state, and local agencies and groups involved with a broad range of water quality issues including stormwater. Such training is conducted annually or every other year, depending on the number of employees being trained. Training opportunities are implemented to the MEP. The City will also conduct regular staff meetings two to four times per year for staff with BMP implementation responsibilities. Meetings will be used to track progress on BMP implementation and to present training type materials related to stormwater quality and the MS4 NPDES permit requirements. 21 September 14, 2010 113 The City of Lake Oswego Engineering, Planning, Building, Parks, and Public Works - Operations staff regularly attend conferences, meetings, and seminars hosted by AWRA, ACWA, APWA, Regional Erosion Control Awards Committee, and the Tualatin Basin Policy Advisory Committee. Attendance of conferences, meetings, and seminars, etc is implemented to the MEP. Additionally, the City of Lake Oswego continues to meet and coordinate with other Clackamas County co -permittees regarding regional water quality efforts. Areas for coordination include MS4 issues, education, public outreach and monitoring. These opportunities for coordination help promote additional staff education. 22 114 September 14, 2010 M N September 14, 2010 115 C O O O C C N U f— m > ° E :� U 0 ° n c W C N O w cc O CED a CD CDC Cc a7 75 U — a) w O a7 y c E y f ai O cn j. :� � E2 [� j a) CC C O a) a7 �_ N U n y a3 Q) Q) ` O a) L v w aJ C y U a3 0 ca U .O a) C a) 0 U U O O) N y y p_ d a C cu U '� y U U f0 ca c U C n y C c c My O a) n C 'a N f0 Q aJ Q U W 'D y ai a7 U Q 0 0 Q 40 CO c� 'U O O a) °� rn to cE � m 0 a rn c m E °�� E rn c A �� ° ° �3 y n m mm mo �° s a c ° 'r 3 �, o 0 CII E C S 7 a)CU _ a) C � U L co U a ani Q e M CO � Co p t E M ° a) m C 0 y CD CD a) O 1) N U L d L y C a '> 0 y d O LC p 0 $ p ° U O CL U O y C m E " - 0 aJ y a) � -p a) to — o O ami - _0n U) O CmII ) U O C) C O L � E Cp > �O – c w U) - CL y 0„ N C Cl yW n a) C a7 C O - C "0) > > N N U Mm °T o 0 om y 0 a L E m > a) c c°ia) c Up O` a) a7 p� a) C U 'O o a) °E aJ .Ly Q, aJ n — y y L) UU cu c CD a) — U d +' a) E ” C a7 C N C `O O U9 ca a7 a) > w C — C fC O U p y O S yo o vi gE C CD° a 0 ayi a m o M CD .c L U Y O a7 tC C m Q) U d T3 n m m V a) a) .n .�. a) .— »c-. — a) C U a) 'C y ..L–. Q) 'C O C a3 'O y a7 y as y a) n y O C O p L () V 7 cc '� N a) O w c a) L 7 a p` Q .0 L y >O ,p 0 "a CO i "" cO a) 'L-' C N a .0 O 76 y 0 -O N � C $ W 3> O. O 0 – a) a) c Um a) a) c.y L V C Co L C .3o C C a) `= d O. cc ,� ° a) •> °R O En m 0ca O w as 3 L O a) (C ° 'c C V '_ .cc . d $ C O E - y C E'er w W U a �? ° o R c w Wu c-0-2 ccC a) v .2-o cn ° C> ~ w C 7 U C O V '� 3 N �_ .D C vi n 7 Z ani •C a) E Z O C 7 > a) >. V a; hi C p y C O 7 0 C7 — aS .... c ° W a y a. o 3 C°) U c ami H = .M a7 .... 0 CL.. V O y '– Cc U, M y cc .. y N y as L ., y cn cc '' E O 0- E a Octj C a) a) L E— O 0 0 E -o O E O O E O U N 2 a O y m O c d Z ° a) U .� m _ m a) a U > ° C7 0 U U a) N W m a) V U - CD C CD a yZ d 'O �> a) =M C 7 r- a) C C N Y° C Y N a C Y m fC C' .9 Qf �> E 4) �a) C L O ° .L... O rn O R 7 o• -,.e U cC Co cc U U L c` U c` U co ,O U O O U 0 a) 'O �M a` ° Ma C It co ° Ma — Ho ° c H ° co F- O a C E c V c` u) y y U) U a) as a) ,� a) a) .a aJ COOQ a) a) r MCL a) '°O W O Cl) r 2 3 0 O 0 O 0 a) O N a) r, it 0 2 a) =w a a a V ) a a E- IL �� m m m .■ a E- �C 4) V V♦ � �+ C a7 V N U C 0 Q) O �\ :+ .G tlJ w 3 a C 3 _ U) y m w a r M N September 14, 2010 115 116 September 14, 2010 , a) a) U c —>' c ca c ca 0 C13ai y o W > U c .= C O U c O C (, a7 N titto Offi 0 to .L-. Cl) W E (D r _ cc C C O Q o o) c c U c ca E co IL a) oz as m o=o c $? d c E 4' - y �mv as o E 3 io c as E c a i io qi is 0 R o a. o LU M to U E € 'o E tlJ L O f0 —M O w a) �. O O) d 0) � (`9 cm O C 'DT a) p. wm cmc c o) co p o 2 w 4) r c 0 io U a) 3 -a E'y ami a 0 Lo p CD m m m m Co° Ig ca �+ 3 o 'V c M E _ > a3 o to C •� 3 C C U) O C N p a7 "O -Q ci as .- .2 .2 C N •1". E ,n (D - to 0 N `a N CO .O o U N E o E 0 a� E E o c c O-0 p co ao) >, 0) c a'0 o o p 0 > w a� p 4 M o S E .Q O 0 U m p. C C tri c a7 L E 0 a d) a) �� 0 0 0 cc y o m =m m a� c m a m c O ° o 'c 0 aa)) U o c o U g E 3 m o m cc o as > o aa) i LCY) c p a E a - v� c a� '+ V m O c E Y o m o y(L c ar h C F- 4-- C 0 - w O y N p U Co w O to (D ��.. U 7 o" a) C a) L a`) ^+o ° c U.0 L- U CCs 0 c o c0CL II 1-° LW to R a) E Lp' c CD LLI a) p0 d U cn d E p° 7 c a c >+ aJ c w L 0 m a) = — O ,� O C L .3 O O •'= O p ca .� V C p co O U) d a) O d w C C o N ° O d top C CU O C a E L E C O N Y U N U t4 N �, L p D y L a) III a M. 0 a> c a) p p :: m e 0 o m 3 o m a) ° c '50. ) o U �- n w U 3 U 3 a 3 d 0 'p > a) -0 _ .. to co m a3 .. v> m .. U) co .. v U a) L O 0)'II a p °a° a d ca O. cc U) � • $0$ rn oan a� °7? wm 'p3 Y Y O co ca Y>m NC 0> -0 C M M O`y C = 9) O O O O a) C 'O V co a` cm I— a) co p U M U co U d co m I a)o I I I I` I E W W o W o o m W W W 0 W >1 a) a a a IL a c a� v; y =° (� a a a a a: aX. _ .> Y o. o a� m m ■. m m m p me F -cc Z a a co .�.d rd c � w .O E a, C L O C O. Vias C 7 o E �\ y C � C d fi ii LU d 0 2 6'L' �' m 116 September 14, 2010 kn N September 14, 2010 117 .N cc •c C CD ca ca E m rn o c •� c m c U o (D L cu a h � cc o c cc E � L U C O Q) = O ca O 2 N a) N_ cc ` L' U "c w � a) p a) M E U c) (DCD CD cc d C f° E n c cm M a) 2-0 o o m U CU a — . U T O L a C a) cc ., E m ° 3 aci � E O o c y o a7 ch C y T� O m -Q C O U C 0 O O LV L M CL C C C O aV) •� N r cn -L U N Cl) CD L U L C a d U R L 3 C)b. > W t ca = "a N d CN V h o a) " C w d CL c to a v7 J w LL_a �� H C 5 W !0 a MG kn N September 14, 2010 117 6.0 ELEMENT #5 — PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Per Schedule A.4.e of the City's MS4 NPDES permit, the City of Lake Oswego requires the following: NPDES Permit Requirement - (e) Co permittees must adopt a public participation approach that provides opportunities for the public to effectively participate in the development, implementation and modification of the co permittee's stormwater management program. The process must include provisions for receiving and considering public comments on the SWMP and the TNDDL pollutant load reduction benchmark development. This public involvement does not apply to adding BMPs, and revisions or updates to existing BMPs that do not change the substance of the BMPs. The City provides opportunity for public participation in the development, implementation, and modification of the policies, practices, procedures, and codes that comprise the City's Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and pollutant load reduction benchmark development. SWMP revisions and pollutant load reduction benchmarks are required for submittal to DEQ at the permit renewal submittal (180 -days prior to permit expiration). Prior to submittal of these items, the City will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the revisions to the SWMP and proposed pollutant load reduction benchmarks for a minimum of 30 days. Comments on the documents will be collected and considered, and response to comments will be publically provided. No measurable goals or tracking measures are outlined for this permit requirement. 26 118 September 14, 2010 7.0 ELEMENT #6 — POST -CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROL The City conducts plan review activities for new and redevelopment applications within its jurisdiction. Existing stormwater development standards focus on stormwater quality for new development based on phosphorus removal efficiencies and stormwater quantity control to protect downstream flooding. By the end ofthe permit term, the City of Lake Oswego will review their existing stormwater treatment design standards and applicable code provisions for consistency with the City's M84 NPDES permit requirements related to maintaining predevelopment hydrologic function, implementing low -impact development and green infrastructure (GI) design approaches, and promoting the minimization of impervious surfaces and reducing stormwater runoff where applicable. 7.1 BMP DEVI — Development Review NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP DEV 1. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.f of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) By the end,of the permit term, the post -construction stoimwater pollutant and runoff control program applicable to new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace 3,OD0ftZ of impervious surface must meet the following conditions:]) Incorporate site-specific management practices that target natural surface or predevelopment hydrologic functions where practicable; 2) Minimize site specific post -development stormwater runoff volume and rates of discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)..; 3) Prioritize and implement Low -Impact Development (LID), Green Infrastructure (GI) or equivalent design and construction approaches; and, 4) Capture and treat 80% of the annual average runoff volume, based on a documented local or regional rainfall frequency and intensity. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Co permittees must eliminate code and development standard barriers that inhibit design and implementation techniques intended to minimize impervious su7 faces and reduce stormwater runoff (e.g., Low Impact Development, Green Infrastructure), and have been identified by and are within the jurisdiction of the permittee.... Co permittees must review code and development standards, and modify barriers, such as by policy, code, rules, ordinance or similar mechanism, as required within three years of identification. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) To reduce pollutants and mitigate the volume, duration, time of concentration and rate of stormwater runoff, the co permittees must develop or reference an enforceable post -construction stormwater quality management manual or equivalent document by the end of the permit term that, at a minimum, includes the following: 1) A minimum threshold for triggering the requirement for post - construction stormwater management control and the rationale for the threshold; 2) A defined design storm that allows for or identification of an acceptable continuous simulation method to address the capture and treatment of 80% of the annual average runoff volume; 3) Applicable LID, GI or similar stormwater runoff reduction approaches, 27 September 14, 2010 119 including the practical use of these approaches; 4) Conditions where the implementation of LID, GI or equivalent approaches may be impracticable; and, 5) Best Management Practices. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iv) Co permittees must review, approve and verb proper implementation ofpost-construction site plans for new development and redevelopment projects applicable to this section. NPDES Permit Requirement — (v) Where a project site is characterized by factors limiting on-site stormwater capture and treatment or flow reduction... the Post - Construction Stormwater Management program must require equivalent measures, such as off-site stormwater quality management. Off-site stormwater quality management may include off-site mitigation, a stormwater quality structural facility mitigation bank or a payment -in -lieu program. The City of Lake Oswego Planning, Public Works, and Building divisions share review responsibilities for new development applications. Specifically the Planning and Engineering Divisions review development proposals for consistency with any applicable regulatory Comprehensive Plan policies, and for consistency with applicable community development code requirements (i.e., zoning and development standards), including compliance with natural resource protection standards for wetlands, stream corridors, floodplains, etc., and with other City code provisions related to development. The Engineering Division specifically evaluates development proposals and conducts site plan reviews with regards to proposed stormwater conveyance, treatment, and disposal. Such development standards specific for stormwater conveyance, treatment, and disposal are specified in LOC Chapter 50. Through the development review process, the City currently requires surface water qualily control (treatment) for new development where the net increase in impervious surface is greater than or equal to 6,060 square feet. This threshold was established when the City began implementing surface water quality standards and controls in 1990, in response to the Tualatin River TMDL for phosphorus. The surface water quality standards were required for all new development activities, with the exception of one or two family dwellings, and surface water quality treatment facilities were required to remove 65% of the phosphorus from 100 percent of newly constructed impervious surfaces including pavement, buildings, public and private roadways. In accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Section 340-41-455, Subsection 3(d)(B)), construction of one or two family dwellings on existing lots of record are exempt from the requirement to provide facilities to satisfy the 65% phosphorus removal standard. The City has a Surface Water Technical Guidance Handbook (2003) that provides design guidance and criteria for stormwater quality facilities. Typical approved stormwater treatment facilities include bioswales, extended dry detention ponds, retention ponds, vegetated filter strips, pollutant control manholes and proprietary stormwater treatment devices. Updates to the Surface Water Technical Guidance Handbook are proposed under BMP DEV2. 28 120 September 14, 2010 7.2 BMP DEV2 — Review and Update Applicable Code and Development Standards Related to Stormwater Control NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP DEV2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.f of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) By the end oflzeperriut term, the post -construction stormwater pollutant and runoff control program applicable to new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace 3, OOOft2 of impervious surface must meet the following conditions :1) Incorporate site-specific management practices that target natural surface or predevelopment hydrologic functions where practicable; 2) Minimize site specific post -development stormwater runoff volume and rates of discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)..; 3) Prioritize and implement Low -Impact Development (LID), Green Infrastructure (GI) or equivalent design and construction approaches; and, 4) Capture and treat 80% of the annual average runoff volume, based on a documented local or regional rainfall frequency and intensity. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Co permittees must eliminate code and development standard barriers that inhibit design and implementation techniques intended to minimize impervious surfaces and reduce stormwater runoff (e.g., LID, GI), and have been identified by and are within the jurisdiction of the permittee.... Co permittees must review code and development standards, and modify barriers, such as by policy, code, rules, ordinance or similar mechanism, as required within three years of identification. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) To reduce pollutants and mitigate the volume, duration, time of concentration and rate of stormwater runoff, the co permittees must develop or reference an enforceable post -construction stormwater- quality management manual or equivalent document by the end of the permit term that, at a minimum, includes the following: 1) A minimum threshold for triggering the requirement for post -construction stormwater management control and the rationale for the threshold; 2) A defined design storm that allows for or identification of an acceptable continuous simulation method to address the capture and treatment of 80% of the annual average runoff volume; 3) Applicable LID, GI or similar stormwater runoff reduction approaches, including the practical use of these approaches; 4) Conditions where the implementation of LID, GI or equivalent approaches may be impracticable, and, S) Best Management Practices. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iv) Co permittees must review, approve and verb proper implementation of post -construction site plans for new development and redevelopment projects applicable to this section. NPDES Permit Requirement — (v) Where a project site is characterized by factors limiting on-site stormwater capture and treatment or flow reduction... the Post - Construction Stormwater Management program must require equivalent measures, such as off-site stormwater quality management. Off-site stormwater quality management may include off-site mitigation, a stormwater quality structural facility mitigation bank Or a payment -in -lieu program. 29 September 14, 2010 121 In conjunction with the provisions and timeframe outlined in the City's MS4 NPDES permit, the City of Lake Oswego will review their existing stormwater treatment design ......................... ...... standards and applicable code provisions by the end of the permit term to ensure that barriers that could inhibit low impact development and green infrastructure are minimized and eliminated where practicable. As part of the review, the City will review the Surface Water Technical Guidance Handbook and regionally applicable examples of stormwater management manuals. It is anticipated that this review will ensure that the anticipated revisions to the Handbook are promoting the design and implementation of practices to minimize impervious surfaces and reduce stormwater runoff, optimizing onsite retention practices, and reducing post -construction stormwater runoff volumes and rates. As applicable, the City will update the Surface Water Technical Guidance Handbook impervious area threshold for stormwater pollutant and runoff control and the design storm that would result in capture and treatment of 80% of the average annual runoff volume. In conjunction with proposed revisions to the City's Community Development Code, provisions related to factors and activities that would limit on-site stormwater capture and treatment including approved equivalent measures for off-site stormwater quality management will be included, to the MEP. 30 122 September 14, 2010 September 14, 2010 123 CO LU 76 N tII U •cn 3 E d c m Q Z •• L j m p a7E CO CD U V V) ' m 3 0 3 a c yi CO a 76 m ° E > in cf62 € uJ 3 'O O V C N fCD U U a) O N o a3 o a) c d m :: R :: o Q, ' o, 2 o a m aCOi v 2 in 3 €€ 3 c ''0 - uci m s rnc p � X a) U) O O O p U y c m co a) .O a) c c La vi rn ^C caa7 'O a) j U w 3 $ ` c 0 cc � E cc 3 >O Q� o a) N .+ d c 'y O W r w E U d N E L M N D m >, o m CL M2 > o Z O fn a)> p c o c E aa)) CL v v D o ate) ran CL U ui y Op co c C cc a) v y p n CL `o .- o= �C 0 O as y m e Co D O O a m wcc M en f4 Q c o$ .� w rn c a) cm C C O U R N 3 W 'p C O O) m C c m a U) a 0 CU +Cy. a y E aUi a)` c0 o E m 'v) a) 2 y O a) � o uJ Q L E a aci > me c oao v Q°)o CL m E E v oco cC a•E�. w � y c a 0 p w in a N rn °' c ca aa)) Q E m(D a) m ,c cU o NC c y 13 E CL a) m D vii w c 'R� c `a) E :: 'y R 4) v O m> = m a as o y > 3 'o 0 � ( LU 2 a) cr v c R ca aUi .��. Co c m m 3 Q 3 0 °) Q y N� v, v o M m m 2 i 3 c ` o 0 E o c o- CD c �� o E a)CD € a) Z 0 np 70 > E d U a) y a)CO c c O b fi C e 0 C .T d N C 0 IL a p E N o E w c iso. Z 0 O `� o. a) o 3 d aXi C R Q "' a y 4? p N 'U N= -Co d d v 3 D CD m a) c c z as c m 0 w e `� E c n ._ m C m U 45a tr o o`m Ow E Q h a c H U O O i.r a CD E 0 0 g o C7rn o� r �wwa 0 0 m o uoi CD 'Q M M(a >, .0 wd y m ° o) Vm E mM vi 0 (D O 7 O y C O p Y Y U ~ y 7 !4 V% I aJ C~ I 'M en M C I (n J J O O y L O o w 2 a 2 E > o� o ao'i Co ` I- m j o> L 0 o Q e W W W y a m >, h J s W .n V = CL G CL . O IL • . O IL E p N a3 w U V O u �- O a y ,0 d s n.aUi o o a) a) Y w O La n m m m E m E -j� U m to V1 .. .� Q CL_ Y cc 7 cb V C w R I W C M 6. i U) ♦^ H .y+ C fn w = U) }' !c0 Erd +' C ,Q E E ryr G (� R E v d m ° E W a m E UL Q c d V ar c L A i-. i+ W !Q y 0 y iii. W 3 3 W y c` y = a) 'C 2 -o +y+ c O w i0 M la :p M O a R R a) m W Q _ 22 <Z � a w It September 14, 2010 123 8.0 ELEMENT #7 — POLLUTION PREVENTION FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS The City of Lake Oswego conducts a variety of activities focused on the prevention of typical stormwater pollutants (sediment, hydrocarbons, trash and debris, nutrients, metals) from entering the MS4 system. Such activities include the maintenance and repair of City streets; the maintenance of public parks and recreational areas with the intent of minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use; the maintenance of municipal facilities; control of potential cross -connections from the sanitary sewer system; and master planning for stormwater quality improvement. It should be noted with respect to NPDES permit requirement A.4.g.v. (implement a program to control the release of materials related to fire -fighting training activities) that fire fighting training activities do not occur within Lake Oswego. Therefore, a BMP was not developed to address this requirement. 8.1 BMP OM1— Street Sweeping of Curbed Arterial and Residential Streets NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM1. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Operate and maintain public streets, roads and highways for which the permittee has authority in a manner designed to minimize the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the MS4, including pollutants discharged as a result of deicing activities and yard debris reduction and disposal programs; The City of Lake Oswego conducts street sweeping activities throughout the City. Street sweeping is conducted on all major and minor curbed arterial streets and all curbed residential streets. Curbed arterial streets are swept between 13 and 22 times per year, and all curbed residential streets in the City are swept between 2 and 6 times per year. Both sweeping frequencies will be based on iterative management findings and MEP. A vacuum sweeper is used to minimize wash water from entering the stormwater conveyance system. 8.2 BMP OM2 — Deicing and Leaf Pick-up Activities NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Operate and maintain public streets, roads and highways for which the permittee has authority in a manner designed to minimize the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the MS4, including pollutants discharged as a result of deicing activities and yard debris reduction and disposal programs; 32 124 September 14, 2010 The City of Lake Oswego applies washed gravel to roadways when ice is present. Street sweepers sweep up the applied gravel after the ice has melted and as promptly as resources and weather allows. The City's contracted waste hauler, Allied Waste, provides weekly yard debris collection for grass clippings, leaves, etc year round. The City's Operations staff also collects fallen leaves seasonally in City streets. The City Operations Program addresses leaf debris in City streets and is primarily implemented to prevent flooding issues from clogged inlets. 8.3 BMP OM3 — Road Maintenance and Repair Activities NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM3. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.9 of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Operate and maintain public streets, roads and highways for which the permittee has authority in a manner designed to minimize the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the A94, including pollutants discharged as a result of deicing activities and yard debris reduction and disposal programs; The City of Lake Oswego conducts road maintenance and repair activities on an ongoing basis to prevent erosion and future pollution from occurring. Repair work is generally scheduled during the dry season when possible, to minimize polluted discharges from entering the stormwater conveyance system, the MEP. City -conducted road maintenance and repair activities that would trigger erosion control requirements (an erosion and sediment control plan and/or permit) require that the project is monitored for erosion control compliance by City Staff, to the MEP. 8.4 BMP PESTI — Reduce Pollutants in Discharges Associated with the Application of Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PEST1. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.9 of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Implement a management program to control the use and application ofpesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on municipally -owned properties; The City of Lake Oswego has adopted standard operating procedures (SOPS) for pest and landscape management activities, which utilize components of the City's Integrated Pest Management Practices. The City's Integrated Pest Management Practices define appropriate application procedures and protocols along roadways, within City parks, and around water quality facilities for staff to adhere to during maintenance activities. Per the SOPS, the following activities are typical: • Application of chemicals is reduced and/ or eliminated where possible; • Regular removal of invasive plant species is conducted, to the MEP; 33 September 14, 2010 125 • Native plants are used for revegetation projects; and • Only spot spraying is conducted for blackberry removal. In addition, any work that is conducted within public right-of-ways requires certified, licensed applicators. Specific education measures and staff training are discussed under Section 5.0 — Element #4 - Public Education and Outreach. 8.5 BMP PEST2 — Update the City of Lake Oswego Integrated Pest Management Practices NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP PEST2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Implement a management program to control the use and application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on municipally -owned properties; The City of Lake Oswego has been using its Integrated Pest Management Practices for close to thirty years. In spite of this, the City has set a measureable goal of revising the current Integrated Pest Management Practices with a more current version that reflects the current state of practice related to the City's Integrated Pest Management, and review current practices for areas of improvement or modification for efficiency. The City currently incorporates a variety of Integrated Pest Management Practices, for example: • Operations staff has long concentrated on buying disease resistant plants and plants that attract beneficial insects so they stay healthy without insecticides. • Turf maintenance began with experimenting with low phosphorus fertilizer twenty years ago by working with manufacturers to mix a special Lake Oswego blend. • Water management was improved by installing a computerized irrigation system twelve years ago. For many years wetting agents have been used as standard practice at the golf course and park turf areas to increase water absorption. • Every year all the shrub beds are mulched with a compost/dark bark mix to help organically feed the soil, smother weeds and retain soil moisture. Medians are filled with plants, which reduces weed growth since healthy plants shade out and out -compete weeds. This technique also works for a lawn since healthy vigorous turf can out -compete weeds and thus no chemicals need to be used. • The Operations staff are constantly experimenting with new disease -resistant plant varieties and drought tolerant plants in an effort to showcase how sustainable and beautiful water -wise gardening can be. Revisions and updates to the City's Integrated Pest Management Practices will be incorporated over this permit term. 34 126 September 14, 2010 8.5 BMP OM4 — Implement a Program to Reduce the Impact of Stormwater Runoff from Municipal Facilities NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM4. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.9 of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) Inventory, assess, and implement a strategy to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff from municipal facilities that treat, store or transport municipal waste, such as yard waste or other municipal waste not already covered under a 1200 series NPDES permit; The City of Lake Oswego currently operates various maintenance facilities that have the potential to treat, store, or transport municipal waste. Such facilities include the Public Works Operations Building/Yard, Lake Oswego Municipal Golf Course, and Parks Maintenance Buildings. Over the pep i lprin, the City of Lake Oswego will inventory these facilities and assess strategies to minimize pollutant discharge from these facilities. 8.6 BMP ILL3 — Control Infiltration and Cross Connections to the Stormwater Conveyance System NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP ILL3. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iv) Implement controls to limit infiltration of seepage from the municipal sanitary sewer system to the MS4 where necessary. The City of Lake Oswego implements an inflow and infiltration (I&I) abatement program for the sanitary sewer system. Sanitary lines are tested via smoke -testing, T.V. techniques, and flow metering for any cracking or breakage that would possibly result in infiltration from the sanitary to the storm system. The City's Engineering Division reviews new and re -development plans for possible cross -connections. The City's illicit discharge program also works to control and prevent any cross -connections during their outfall inspections and dry -weather field screening activities. 8.7 BMP DEV3 — Master Planning for Stormwater Quality Improvement NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP DEV3. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vi) Assess co permittee flood control projects to idents potential impacts on the water quality of receiving water bodies and determine the feasibility of retrofitting structural flood control devices for additional stormwater 35 September 14, 2010 127 pollutant removal. The results of this assessment must be incorporated and considered along with the results of the Stormwater Retrofit Assessment required by this permit,- The ermit; The City of Lake Oswego operates under a number of planning and development -related documents with goals to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. The City's Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1984 and is currently being reviewed and updated (as part of Periodic Review). It is anticipated that the review will take two to three years to complete. The review ensures the plan addresses current state land use planning regulations. Specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan address water quality and the state land use goals (Goal 5, Goal 6 and Goal 11). The City's Public Facilities Plan was originally adopted in 1990 as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and updated in 1997, and it provided an inventory and conditions analysis for the major elements of the City's infrastructure including stormwater management facilities. Specific to stormwater master planning, the City finalized and adopted the Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan, in November 2009. The Clean Streams Plan serves as an update to the previous surface water management master plan (dated 1992). The Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan serves as the basis for the stormwater management and facility infrastructure portion of the Public Facilities Plan described above. The Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan contains a number of recommended capital improvement projects (CIPS) for flow control and water quality that the City will reference for future utility and infrastructure improvement, as an update to the City's original 10 -year CIP Plan. Such CIPs include low impact development technologies where practicable, as many areas of the City of Lake Oswego contain soils that don't support effective infiltration. Prioritization of CIPs is generally based on overall planning goals, cost, public safety, and environmental impact. As funding is available, the City implements the CIPs and continues to update the CIP inventory. Future updates to the City's CIP are expected to include provisions related to hydromodification and retrofit opportunities for water quality, per the City's new MS4 NPDES permit. LOC 38.24.505 and .510 creates the Surface Water Management Utility, which plans, designs, constructs, maintains, administers, and operates public surface water facilities including those projects identified within the City's prioritized CIP list. Utility user charges are also established by LOC 38.06.030, which fund portions of CIPs. Generally, there is limited opportunity for retrofit of existing flood control facilities because there are very limited facilities that solely address flood control. Most public drainage facilities are constructed for both flood control and water quality. The City of Lake Oswego operates one major flood control facility and works with the Lake Oswego Corporation (Lake Corp.), which operates the gates, weirs, and overflow facilities related to operation of Oswego Lake. Water quality is always taken into account if the City is repairing, retrofitting or constructing new infrastructure, through compliance with their development standards and erosion and sediment control practices. 36 128 September 14, 2010 r- en September 14, 2010 129 O c n — v as a) ca o) c O) d O O` y U O c 7 U. 'Q n M n �' 0 U U C ca O c° U cc 0(DC.)f0 R H c O O IL E 0 U_ ° E ° ca, o ° ° ca � v, `p cc n 2 m m C 7. C CO O) 'C U Y M! ami .a a) 'D a) cca 2 ° ca C O c 'rn O U 0 U > is u0i m m e 0 n II n` 0 a` )) 0`a) co E y U p U j — a) M L p �' a N On p N V U) N i E C.0 p °) c aJ v, _° a cca m 'CC N O C C ?j U O CD N C V CD ■� OL O N N 'O 0 y .' j O C Ef N ca ca ILCL C m ca 0 y a m >, 0 °° ami v c L o) a 3 h t o U) o a E U Q± 3 0 0> 0 Q o o) Q. c a) a) CD Ca 3 c- U ` 0 c °) OE ` .. y 0 rn 0 c E o CL m m s 'N o ea w N co p c h m >, O o M is (n ° in c as >, — ai a) w ,n o s = a)E M CD W 0 0 U cc ; '� O C n 0 CU � d d a3 v, N p U E -p �_ r>,, 0 O` E o d .o J .� �_ p y y a) aa) .0 n - o w a c a) >, a) 0 ci ° c m m CO uUi g o o° c U Q y aNi > .0 N of � o- a) a) d U C a) O 0 C fa U N 0 .fl d 0 M �° w °: E ° > a) 5 3 d M U � :4) E 0_• 0 � 0 � 0 m CO y C O O U O C a) 0 _ 0 � m -00 > ccnn E y cc 0 Q cm R � = = a) m 3 m L ° 0 0 .0 :, c c 3 'R (D ani awns a O CL E m 'Q a) V ani 0 v Q C °> ° CL 0 cci N O >, > E �~ y— y— 3 c�6 'C T n Q' ) G a) O 0 Y O p 7 >. a7 >, a7 Y _C a) N d U 'C ._ c C w 7 7 N R O `� �' U 7 w J 3 V) J o O. n 7 n C 0 w p E cn c as O '�' o Ll c Q c Q N w O e C 4 Q 0 a CD U1 C Q j Q j J tl d aJ C ° 7 7 w U U c0i a) 0 io U caCU U) m 'C cu N ca o N ca O m W m in a) a) t d o 0 O 0 R o 0 0 C7 0 c 0 a 0 0 0 co o cc 3 C7 2 C9 o C9 2 'R m y 2 2 .2 m a) tm C L co e �+ a) Y Y C .0 d cu W C 'B CL .0 L 0 U U E UU M y U U C 0 0 w 7 N (a m cc d p w 7 N 7 w M O7 E I 0 (a (II I U) I I N a) N E I c y H t Co N N a) a) 0 0 g o g o cm g g o 2.2 0 M° 2 o o w 2 0 W O O O a a }+ ao a) 0 . . . . . 2Co a) . CL L— 2 2 I CL m m m IL— m m .. a J � J I — ti F— cc v W �d o� L a EO Vy O Y U � ca M W W .. d r- en September 14, 2010 129 130 September 14, 2010 PO C aJ a) C =N in Vi w f0 C IQ O a) C O o °' E = a.❑ " U Z c fUQ 0 L cuC p a7 cu M a)= C En O N E d E L m cu 0) -o -''C o U _ a3 C w a a) U 0 _a U W 0 N O •V N C. LLI �.. N CL - w c N 16R u0. E ��a 0) � S c o S :: a>i > 2 E _m m > a�0i _ y 0 O -003 c c M U U E O E n. C O •O C C C d �. L a) 0 >. O• C a) C d) m a) O U >+ 0 cu CL O � CQ C a7 a) O w > > 7 a) df V U O t� O C C N 0 E O N (D O E a7 `wyl�J 3 cu V a) a3 > w a7 V E w U a) w a) c C w •c a3 U a) C O C. C/� L 6._ C d a O 3 N CE 0 d 7 0 L 'C = � O a > O 3 E a) € `�° m O O C. = oCu = E O. a) a a) d � O C O Ot5 O U U`Q N L) C N m R 7 Q _N a di C L C 'O C m .D O_ 'a N C ■CL � O m d C 0 C .E E0 U E 0 -O o y M U)a7 0 E CU M O 04 LL u0i CD =O O (D C y 'C a) fn O. LO N Z d a) a) d 'O c•O� O � cu a) C � O � cu u) C U U a7 L = a7 C a) U .+ 0 ai Cu>� ? C E CO M O C CO O 'p 0 = 'NQ 0).- .O Cq CQ C 0 O C CO d w Cu >, .�.i .�... N U = V Q y O O U m L V v 't3 a` )) > > c= cQ as Y c - 0 m a c c a) c O 0 T5 w- c :: c a o E m 76 E a>i m °> Y U iQ ° Cu p .. .0 y a w o a3 y °' - o c Cu a) c 0 E O E ` C O m C O = Z C 0 .� a) N N Z' a) Q) C a O +� U � 'C > .� fT a) C C m N �, w p U N � lz _ as Oa R O ++ o m o `c m !' +. m arca) � U m �o 0 a 0 L. .. r=n 0 E 0 I-w o z j E U mo O a, a+ O a3 a) =_ a7 N t O 0 � U E '=O w 0 L fl- ui c (7 c O •+ a) m > C •�- m- O 0) O 0)� a) iE o a) u) Uaz w C 0a) O M m E Cl)o a) a) i U o� > CL.- c L m cu Y .o Y ` c a) `0 a) 0 c .c acu U y as a W 0■. ° = R 0 c0�a > > 0 CL c Q) 3 E cm t y N Li F- 1 O .E a) a Y �c U L f` = a F-L = E a7 I d' a) O I N O N I a) W J �... J o a) a7 a) O N y c C O>E O O M J 11l O. N O w O ami Y L ~ fC d .� 0 J c. 0 ccnT Y " m -j �O La tea; m m m m O C L t t CYE � � :a � L E COQ 0 d a) ■■ ■1r a cE .. H h J c U fn Q d m 00 N w a �1 J d o _ W d Cc F. � C J V cow as E Cu �� W E=c, E- a 0 R U. CIO o. is c �o E o .. r�� M o G r c� O O N m > w c 4) o M W O 'p O C. R W Q Q' 0 130 September 14, 2010 PO 9.0 ELEMENT #8 — STRUCTURAL STORMWATER FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The City of Lake Oswego conducts a variety of activities focused on the prevention of typical stormwater pollutants (sediment, hydrocarbons, trash, debris, nutrients and metals) from entering the MS4 system. Such activities include the installation, tracking, and maintenance of stormwater conveyance system components and structural stormwater facilities. 9.1 BMP OM5 — Inspection and Maintenance of Publicly Owned Conveyance System Components NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM5. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.9 of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Co permittees must implement a program by the, -end of the permit term] to verify that stormwater structural facilities and controls are inventoried, mapped, inspected, operated and maintained far effective pollutant removal, infiltration and/or flow control. At a minimum, the program must include the following: 1) Legal authority to inspect and require effective operation and maintenance; 2) A program to inventory and map public and private stormwater treatment facilities as provided under Schedule A.4.h. ii.; and, 3) Public and private stormwater facility inspection and maintenance requirements for stormwater facilities that have been inventoried and mapped as provided under Schedule A.4. h. ii. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) As part of the Stormwater Structural Facilities and Controls Inspection and Maintenance program, co permittees must develop and implement a plan or approach by the"end of thepermit term that guides the long-term maintenance and management of all publicly -owned and identified privately -owned stormwater structural facilities and controls. At a minimum, the plan or approach must describe thefollowing: 1) Publicly -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities inventory and mapping process, inspection and maintenance schedule, inspection, operation and maintenance criteria and priorities, description of inspector type and staff position or title, and, inspection and maintenance tracking mechanisms; and 2) Privately -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities procedures for and types of stormwater facilities that will be inventoried and mapped, inspection criteria, rationale, priorities, inspection frequency and procedures, required training or qualifications to inspect private stormwater facilities, reporting requirements, and, inspection and maintenance tracking mechanism. 39 September 14, 2010 131 The City of Lake Oswego will inspect publicly owned conveyance system components during the permit term. Components of the public conveyance system include culverts, conveyance ditches, inlet structures, and catch basins without sumps. Problem areas are identified during the inspections, and maintenance and/or repair/replacement activities are addressed to the MEP. Inspections of public conveyance system components (specifically drainage pipe) also occur in conjunction with citizen complaints and inquiries, to the MEP. During inspections, problem areas are identified and maintenance and/or repair activities are scheduled and promptly conducted, to the MEP. A database tracking system is updated during each maintenance reporting period to allow the City to track and inventory their conveyance system. 9.2 BMP OM6 — Inspection and Maintenance of Publicly Owned Catch Basins with Sumps NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM6. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Co permittees must implement a program by the end of the permit term to verb that stormwater structural facilities and controls are inventoried, mapped, inspected, operated and maintained for effective pollutant removal, infiltration and/or flow control. At a minimum, the program must include thefollowing: 1) Legal authority to inspect and require effective operation and maintenance; 2) A program to inventory and map public and private stormwater treatment facilities as provided under Schedule A.4.h. ii.; and, 3) Public and private stormwater facility inspection and maintenance requirements for stormwater facilities that have been inventoried and mapped as provided under Schedule A. 4. h. ii. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) As part of the Stormwater Structural Facilities and Controls Inspection and Maintenance program, co permittees must develop and implement a plan or approach by the end of the permit term that guides the long-term maintenance and management of all publicly -owned and identified privately -owned stormwater structural facilities and controls. At a minimum, the plan or approach must describe the following: 1) Publicly -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities inventory and mapping process, inspection and maintenance schedule, inspection, operation and maintenance criteria and priorities, description of inspector type and staff position or title, and, inspection and maintenance tracking mechanisms; and 2) Privately -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities procedures for and types of stormwater facilities that will be inventoried and mapped, inspection criteria, rationale, priorities, inspection frequency and procedures, required training or qualifications to inspect private stormwater facilities, reporting requirements, and, inspection and maintenance tracking mechanism. 40 132 September 14, 2010 There are approximately 5500 catch basin inlets in the City of Lake Oswego. Of that 5500, the City of Lake Oswego operates approximately 1700 publicly owned, sumped catch basins. Sumped catch basins are classified by the City of Lake Oswego as those catch basins with a 12" deep or greater sump. The City inspects all of their publicly owned, sumped catch basins annually. Problem areas are identified during the. annual inspection, and maintenance, repair, or replacement activities are scheduled thereafter. Ninety percent of all sumped catch basins are cleaned at least once annually during the pernut term Maintenance activities primarily occur during the dry weather season. In general, cleaning of publically owned sumped catch basins involves removing standing water and debris from the catch basin and sump. Debris levels in catch basins are qualitatively noted on data collection forms along with other observations and background information (site location, date cleaned, etc). As with the stormwater conveyance system maintenance (BMP: OM5), inspections of public sumped catch basins also occur in conjunction with citizen complaints and inquiries, to the MEP. As a result of public complaint or inquiry, problem areas are identified and maintenance and/or repair activities are scheduled as necessary. A database tracking system is updated during each maintenance cycle to allow the City to track maintenance efforts and inventory existing sumped catch basins. 9.3 BMP OM7 — Tracking, Inspection, and Maintenance of Water Quality Treatment Facilities NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP OM7. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.d and A.4.g of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — Schedule A. 4. d. iv As appropriate, provide public education on the proper operation and maintenance of privately -owned or operated stormwater quality management facilities. NPDES Permit Requirement — Schedule A. 4.g. i Co -permittees must implement a program by the end of the permit term to verb that stormwater structural facilities and controls are inventoried, mapped, inspected, operated and maintained for effective pollutant removal, infiltration and/or flow control. At a minimum, the program must include the following: 1) Legal authority to inspect and require effective operation and maintenance; 2) A program to inventory and map public and private stormwater treatment facilities as provided under Schedule A. 4. h. ii.; and, 3) Public and private stormwater facility inspection and maintenance requirements for stormwater facilities that have been inventoried and mapped as provided under Schedule A.4. h. ii. 41 September 14, 2010 133 NPDES Permit Requirement — Schedule A. 4.g. ii As part of the Stormwater Structural Facilities and Controls Inspection and Maintenance program, co permittees must develop and implement a plan or approach by the :end of tlie' permit term that guides the long-term maintenance and management of all publicly -owned and identified privately - owned stormwater structural facilities and controls. Ata minimum, the plan or approach must describe thefollowing: 1) Publicly -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities inventory and mapping process, inspection and maintenance schedule, inspection, operation and maintenance criteria and priorities, description of inspector type and staff position or title, and, inspection and maintenance tracking mechanisms; and Privately -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities procedures for and types of stormwater facilities that will be inventoried and mapped, inspection criteria, rationale, priorities, inspection frequency and procedures, required training or qualifications to inspect private stormwater facilities, reporting requirements, and, inspection and maintenance tracking mechanism. The City of Lake Oswego owns and operates public, structural water quality facilities. Such structural facilities currently include detention and sedimentation ponds, swales, pollution control manholes, and filter vaults that provide for pollutant removal by controlling flow, promoting infiltration, providing for sedimentation, and filtering pollutants from stormwater. Public stormwater facility maintenance records are currently tracked at the Public Works Operations Division. Public structural water quality facilities are inspected throughout the permit term and routine maintenance is conducted to the MEP. Typical routine maintenance activities include mowing, trimming, inlet/outlet maintenance, and removal of debris. Watering vegetation in water quality treatment facilities is conducted until new vegetation is established. Based on the results of the inspections, non -routine maintenance activities may be warranted. Non -routine maintenance activities include planting vegetation, reshaping/reconstructing, and silt and sediment removal. Proprietary system maintenance typically falls under non -routine maintenance activities. By the end of the permit term the City will formalize their current inspection and maintenance schedules, inspection and maintenance criteria, and inspection and maintenance tracking mechanisms. The City of Lake Oswego is also beginning to implement a program to track private, structural water quality facility maintenance. Private facilities typically are owned and operated by homeowner associations or similar private entities in Lake Oswego. As a result, some do not realize that they are legally responsible for the operation and maintenance of these privately owned facilities. The City has compiled an inventory of all known (existing) private structural water quality facilities and updates to the inventory occur annually. New facilities are tracked in conjunction with receipt of the facility's operations and maintenance agreement (required for submittal during development plan review). During the permit term, the City follows up with property owners to ensure that a copy of the maintenance agreement is on file with the City and conducts spot inspections of private water quality facilities. 42 134 September 14, 2010 In accordance with the schedule outlined for public water quality facilities, the City is formalizing inspection and maintenance schedules, inspection and maintenance criteria, and inspection and maintenance tracking mechanisms for structural control facilities by the end of the permit term. Such information will also be made available to private facility owners to assist them in conducting independent inspections and maintenance of private structural control facilities. Additionally, by the end of the.permit term, the City will research permanent funding mechanisms to cover items such as private structural BMP owner education and outreach, operation and maintenance (O&M) plan review, and implementation of the private facilities O&M plans. 43 September 14, 2010 135 136 September 14, 2010 V) O T 0 C CD cc c co ai E ci U f6 O E C c6 .a 4) 0 a7 CL s ... °? 0 y E E O V O U _ 'D co U ..CD _ U .«T. _ �' C C U C € U cu = Q ° a) C> O >, C T U CL vj N C ° C L „O, •Q' U v E U ccO C O '> co -0 � 0 a) a C C U U O - O � U C ■� C y d O N L �' > T CD C 0 d 7 n W >. T 0 C ° C` c c a) a m c � ac) o- m c a) C C O N L `CL C .E cr C C C C >, C a) .O U_ CD = ca C N o E 0 v= a5 ... �' f0 N eu E N w C o m E O o cu C c c 3 y d CII C '� = o— = c E w E c a E c o •ca c=- •U o .° c0 M co cca E c y p E N � O. N c L CD LL C -0 �; M .� n > a= o m e a) S •IQ c c° co fa > U) -p - U 0 UM 15 0 E f•Cc _ C m .� M eu a)_ y° m >' H Co uni m a cc0 o C cu '" U CL to L E eco �, aa) > o amici cc = = y c ~ �+ - 'OM c0 E io '=' > c 4) d > c C n .0 c M 0 C� t o c p vi m=- co 3 CII 3 o E CL n E O 0 E O" m cn M a, n a C ° .0 �a c o o`) o ami R io T 'C n c .� m U O Td f0 3 cD m 0 E = m CO cC°i w a cOi rCD oat ° a CU �' c 0. CD co ; � U c 6 R � m a> m pN (n c0 c. co) O ami c o o $ c c .0 o c Q • >+ o cpi v, m Em �, p `o o p O a7 0 0. o V C M p .L.. a C 2 T C 7 C V U a) w 76 3 a T o y m .0 - o o 2 0 C eo � aa)) — U C 0 Cc L D 0 = > a U o = m c— E w a o- = c n :; E ° M CL '� E °' O 0 7 p `O o ma ` ° C O N w C E cu v, c = eQ cn 7 U - C n ri `m m = o co c m E as o ` 0 L o eco d Cl) ami m a� ° N m o a� o Cl)cm. c a Z Z '° O c 'eo Z Z c > H m Z m Z_ a' = m v0') m m g rL m S a) c m .0 0 c E c U Co do Qc co a eco .. U V1 .. (� C .. �C y .. C °= N >Z c .. oCD y .. y .. V) c0 L a) C ° c ° C «S C ° fC ° C (9 0 O f0 O U O m :; m E o) c v) 3 V m m 0) a) w C e w U a� C (u — C c eT C p p) C p 0) c C a f c YU a 2 cc L 0 n m ) Ca Y C m eLQ [iQ ccC cL0 co L L V) U _C '(p O N C y f— I— y 0 y y O) CLa ~ y c`9 N N cc E 0 L ' c0 .. a) R a) 0O 1 co a) m a) a) C c0 m m () m_ a) U H O= Ln 2 .S O O U O - O p O ti O 2 O 2 a O a� OO O CL a a a Y A+ V ^W I FS FS /^ A W � �1♦■d♦ C to R O L C d O ^ li r� W 0m 0 W 0 12 136 September 14, 2010 September 14, 2010 137 C a) C O mTE M api (D a o m C L Up h C - co c >1 n R /• y C 3 a) A p a) y c E —y Vow a O w cn ca N CL d� cc M a)ca c O C C f0 N Co R CD "0 a) N 'C y O O '� U R C a) R a) ca >+ (SII L w L .>'. = EU a) .a: a aE o a)Cj a) '� o ° m up, v 0 a)o m ■� a) D) C > Y C a) D a) = y 7 w °o Via) w CL 0 wR-�a`>c O w O R a) — p �' U •R d C a L c .c N pE.G- 'C � w 3 U a) s N E C .� N W °a CD m 0 m 3 R C'1 c a) R a, 3 �'� > c E� >1 p w c O co U R Q) R a ._ c " U C co O O C R — C ) Ua O 7�LLU U) E D' `V p .R- ..>'. R a cn D' CL C R d .— 0 °' > = Co 3 52—ca — mw O.LD 4? R a N '� C R C •fin C S R C .D m y 7E a) L wt— O U 0 °' �'� 2�c 'm cc o y Q± .� = cu > _ o Q a) -L) y 5 a� `D0EC B `� ) m w .FJ Q a c a) a ioa 0 0 R ° c a) a p m o o 2 3 a) f ym=a -o C) o a ° �coi c a) ° .� R a o C a .� E c€ o 3 v U a) .5 D o D c c CO c o.R cn E mono o�� 3 ° m aa) R fQ� ?3 m R > (D a R `- m e a) C c a) ?+ N R CO C c ° � '° E Q E m U v °� c UR _c E a: L •c a w c a) a R R > o 0 R O a)m m° O CC C c R a) c"- � E> 0 E c a 0 U N U ) (: a) N V CD fn of (C Z c 'o t C a) W v a) L :Q otic ° ccaa(D Cr�oo c �_ �R Ecco a_ —a) c ¢ aa)) Sc -yiaE a c €L :?a) Qm U) m 5 �'�� a— a)Eo0 C a) ° E 0CY) O a•C �R C L O Cl O R OD cRn c O y L Q a) II = E C 7 O � .a) R a) .— L, c U 0 � H U= a cc III Y 'RD U E' w R `� L 7 E R D) U 0) a) a) L .0 y R — aa)i � ER t 00o cn a)E .D V" a � � L° 0 a D3 20 cn cn c M co cu � I- C c C I C O 0 C CD C p O` C L O G y � •V � E 2 U o r—_ ca R c� R a] ) ` O a . ca L. .0 2 O R p m J o t aT C (n G y Of0M E v J-- 5) N� in R v R ° a> v) p dE ...ca m.(D �•+ ciC2 a U) :oR ?' sE Ro «. do ca SERE co U am COy tn> 4) >. A+ a) � 0 o t` R cn cow c d C m C J R n o "' a c 0 LL L) R a E5 o li O C to >% O a, r :. a) �+ Ow °n. cc a m W Q Q September 14, 2010 137 Glossary ACWA Association of Clean Water Agencies (Oregon and National Chapter) APWA American Public Works Association AWRA American Water Resources Association BMP A BMP is a technique, process, activity, or structure used to reduce the pollutant content of a storm water discharge. BMPs include simple nonstructural methods, such as good housekeeping and preventive maintenance. BMPs may also include structural modifications, such as the installation of bioretention measures. BMPs are most effective when used in combination with each other, and customized to meet the specific needs (drainage, materials, activities, etc.) of a given operation. Catch Usually a grated inlet that serves as a inlet for surface water to a storm sewer, Basin having at its base a sediment sump designed to retain dirt and other organic and inorganic debris below the point of overflow. DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon) EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPSCP Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination LOC Lake Oswego Code MEP Maximum Extent Practicable MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES A national program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. OAR Oregon Administrative Rule SOP Standard Operating Procedure TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load, is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards 46 138 September 14, 2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO STORMWATER MONITORING PLAN (2008) 1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirement, the City of Lake Oswego is required to develop and implement a stormwater monitoring program. The NPDES stormwater monitoring programs require two components. The first component is program monitoring, which involves the tracking and assessment of programmatic activities, as described in the City's Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), through the use of measurable goals and tracking measures. The second component is environmental monitoring which includes the actual collection and analysis of samples. The purpose of this monitoring plan is to address the environmental monitoring component of the requirements. Lake Oswego's current Stormwater Monitoring Plan includes the following elements as required by Schedule B of the existing 2004 NPDES MS4 permit: • a list of monitoring sites, • a list of parameters to be analyzed, • the media sampled, • sample collection frequencies, • targeted conditions (e.g., weather conditions), and • protocols for quality assurance/quality control. The current monitoring plan prepared for the City's 2004 MS4 NPDES permit was submitted in 2006 with the City's Interim Evaluation Report. As part of the adaptive management process, updates to this plan have been made for the 2008 MS4 NPDES Permit Renewal Submittal. Pending the results of the MS4 permit negotiations and the issuance of a new MS4 permit for the City (anticipated in 2009), additional modifications may also be needed. Changes to the current monitoring plan for the 2008 permit renewal submittal include the following: • The addition of two to three wet weather, stormwater outfall monitoring sites. This allows the City to better characterize their MS4 discharges and determine the effective of source control activities. An expanded list of instream and outfall monitoring parameters. This was done to better correspond with the parameters that other Clackamas County co -permittees are monitoring. • A description of how the City intends to begin work to characterize pesticides based on a request from DEQ in included in Section 5.0. The following Stormwater Monitoring Plan is organized into the following sections: September 14, 2010 139 Section 2 describes the proposed ambient monitoring activities including frequency, locations, and parameters. Section 3 describes the proposed MS4/ Stormwater outfall monitoring activities including frequency, locations, and parameters. Section 4 describes the proposed biological monitoring activities. Section 5 describes the proposed pesticide monitoring approach that the City will participate. Section 6 provides a summary of sampling procedures including QA/QC. 2.0 AMBIENT MONITORING Ambient or instream monitoring is conducted to determine the overall quality of receiving water bodies that collect stormwater runoff from the City and to collect data in order to evaluate long- term trends in receiving water quality associated with stormwater discharges. If samples are collected during wet weather conditions, instream data can be compared with the samples collected during dry weather conditions to attempt and characterize the impacts from MS4 discharges. The following section provides the locations, parameters, and frequency of ambient monitoring activities. 2.1 Locations The seven Lake Oswego ambient monitoring sites are provided in Table 1, along with the location by watershed. Table 1: Ambient Monitoring Sites Site Description Station ID Watershed Ball Creek downstream of Kruse Oaks Blvd Temple Fanno Creek/ Tualatin Boones Ferry Creek at Lakeview Blvd Bryant Oswego Lake/ Lower Willamette Carter Creek at Bangy Road Bangy Fanno Creek/ Tualatin Lost Dog Creek at the end of Lake Front Road Lost Dog Oswego Lake/ Lower Willamette Springbrook Creek at Railroad Culvert Springbrook Oswego Lake/ Lower Willamette Nettle Creek at Iron Mountain Trail Access Tryon Tryon Creek/ Lower Willamette Boons Ferry Creek behind 5189 Rosewood Rosewood Oswego Lake/ Lower Willamette 2 140 September 14, 2010 2.2 Sampling Frequency and Analytes Each of the above sites will be monitored once per month during dry and/or wet weather conditions. Samples will be collected as a single grab. A list of analytes and sample methods is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Ambient Analytes 3.0 MS4/STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING Outfall sampling will be conducted to characterize runoff from typical land uses in Lake Oswego and potentially to detect trends in runoff concentrations over time. MS4 monitoring may also allow the City to evaluate the source of specific pollutants. 3.1 Locations The City of Lake Oswego has 17 major outfalls (as defined by EPA'). The City will perform wet weather monitoring on a representative selection of these outfalls (two to three outfalls), representing major but differing land uses within the City's permit area. ' The City of Lake Oswego has identified 531 outfalls, of which 17 are defined as "major outfalls". The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a "major outfall" as one that is 36 -inches in diameter or greater and drains more than 50 acres from residential areas, or one that is 12 -inches in diameter or greater and drains more than two acres from areas with industrial activity. September 14, 2010 141 Method Number Sample Type Temperature SM 2550 B Grab Specific Conductivity SM 2510 B Grab H EPA 150.1 Grab Dissolved Oxygen SM 4500-0 D, SM 4500-0 G Grab Total Suspended Solids TSS SM 2540 D Grab E.coli SM 9223 B Grab Total Phosphate as P SM 4500-P E Grab Ortho Phosphate as P SM 4500-P E Grab Nitrate and N EPA 353.2 Grab TKN EPA 351.2 Grab Hardness SM 2340 B Grab Total Copper EPA 200.8 Grab Dissolved Copper EPA 200.8 Grab Total Lead EPA 200.8 Grab Dissolved Lead EPA 200.8 Grab Total Zinc EPA 200.8 Grab Dissolved Zinc EPA 200.8 Grab 3.0 MS4/STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING Outfall sampling will be conducted to characterize runoff from typical land uses in Lake Oswego and potentially to detect trends in runoff concentrations over time. MS4 monitoring may also allow the City to evaluate the source of specific pollutants. 3.1 Locations The City of Lake Oswego has 17 major outfalls (as defined by EPA'). The City will perform wet weather monitoring on a representative selection of these outfalls (two to three outfalls), representing major but differing land uses within the City's permit area. ' The City of Lake Oswego has identified 531 outfalls, of which 17 are defined as "major outfalls". The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a "major outfall" as one that is 36 -inches in diameter or greater and drains more than 50 acres from residential areas, or one that is 12 -inches in diameter or greater and drains more than two acres from areas with industrial activity. September 14, 2010 141 3.2 Sampling Frequency and Analytes Wet weather samples will be collected during the wet weather season (October 1 -April 30) at each outfall. Two storm events2 will be targeted each year of the permit term. Flow proportioned samples will be collected. Table 3: MS4/ Outfall Monitoring Analytes Variable Method Number Sample Type Temperature SM 2550 B FPC (Flow Proportion Com osite)EMC Specific Conductivity SM 2510 B FPC H EPA 150.1 FPC Dissolved Oxygen SM 4500-0 D, SM 4500-0 G FPC Total Suspended Solids TSS SM 2540 D FPC E.coli SM 9223 B Grab Total Phosphate as P SM 4500-P E FPC Ortho Phosphate as P SM 4500-P E FPC Nitrate and N EPA 353.2 FPC TKN EPA 351.2 FPC Hardness SM 2340 B FPC Total Copper EPA 200.8 FPC Dissolved Copper EPA 200.8 FPC Total Lead EPA 200.8 FPC Dissolved Lead EPA 200.8 FPC Total Zinc EPA 200.8 FPC Dissolved Zinc EPA 200.8 FPC Flow Area Velocity NA 4.0 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING The City of Lake Oswego will contract biennial macroinvertebrate sampling at a representative coverage of perennial streams within the City of Lake Oswego. Site selection will include representative perennial stream reaches. Samples will be collected in late summer of 2009, 2011 and 2013. Monitoring and analysis of stream health will assist the City with understanding conditions relative to each of the City's programmatic goals and will allow biological trends in stream conditions to be examined in relation to the community's growth. 5.0 PESTICIDE MONITORING In addition to the analytes provided in Tables 2 and 3, for the 2009 permit renewal application, DEQ has requested that pesticides be included in the monitoring plan. With respect to 2 A "storm event" for this monitoring component is defined as rainfall of greater than 0.10" in a 24 hour period. 3 A flow proportioned sample or "FPC" is a sampling method whereby automated sampling equipment is connected to flow measurement equipment at an outfall. Sample volumes are subsequently collected proportionate to the flow volume through the rise and fall of the hydrograph. Samples are either collected discretely or composited. 4 142 September 14, 2010 pesticides, monitoring will be conducted for selected pesticides at selected monitoring locations during the upcoming 2009-2014 MS4 permit term. It is very likely that many, and possibly all, of the other Clackamas County co -permittees will conduct this monitoring jointly in a single coordinated study. An initial meeting with USGS was held on June 17, 2008, and it appears likely that the USGS will be able to serve as a partner in this study. If a formal agreement is established, the USGS' role will likely include, at a minimum, creation of the study's design, the provision of laboratory analytical services, data interpretation, and final report writing. MS4 co -permittees may be responsible for collecting surface/stormwater samples and for conducting GIS work for the report, although this has not been determined with certainty. At least two storms, one in spring and one in summer or early fall, will be captured at each selected monitoring location during this coordinated study. The pesticides to be analyzed have not yet been selected, but both herbicides and insecticides will be chosen. The monitoring locations have also not been selected, but no less than six will be selected in representative locations in the study area. If, for some reason, the final USGS proposal for conducting this study is not appropriate or feasible for an individual Clackamas County co -permittee or a group of co -permittees, those not participating in the proposed USGS Study would prepare and submit coordinated or individual monitoring proposals with the first annual report to address the analysis of pesticides. 6.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND QA/ QC Field grab sampling is proposed for the instream (dry and wet weather) monitoring locations for all parameters and for the outfall monitoring locations (during wet weather monitoring for bacteria only). Field grab sampling is necessary for parameters that have short holding times. Composite sampling is proposed for the outfall (wet weather) monitoring locations. The City is proposing to use flow weighted composite sampling for the outfall monitoring locations. Field and laboratory analyses will be conducted for both instream and outfall locations. ACWA developed detailed QA/QC procedures for stormwater data collection and analysis as part of the ACWA UIC Monitoring Study. Attachment 1 provides Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for tasks associated with surface water quality monitoring extracted from this document. The City will use laboratories that have comprehensive Quality Assurance Programs and are approved by both ODEQ and EPA for permit compliance water quality analysis (NELAC/ORELAP Accreditation). 7.0 REFERENCES (ODEA), O. D. (2004, March). Laboratory and Environmental Assessment -Quality Assurance. Retrieved from Oregon DEQ -Laboratory Division: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techipts/docs/DEQ03LAB0036SOP.pdf APHA, A. W. (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: United Book Press, Inc. Carpenter, K., Sobieszczyk, S., Arnsberg, A. J., & Rinella, F. A. (2008). Pesticide Occurrence and Distribution in the Lower Clackams River Basin, Oregon 2000-2005. USGS. Portland Oregon: USGS. September 14, 2010 143 Graham, M. B. (2005). Using Statistical Methods for Water Quality Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. USGS. (2005, August 2005). Discharge measurements at gaging stations. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri3a8/ 6 144 September 14, 2010 Attachment 1: Standard Operating Procedures September 14, 2010 145 Attachment 1: Standard Operating Procedures From the WES Sampling Program (prepared by Water Quality Laboratory) SOP A-1: Grab Sampling......................................................................2 SOP A-2: Chain of Custody Records.........................................................3 SOP A-3: Transporting, Packaging, and Shipping Samples from Field to Lab ......... 4 September 14, 2010 147 SOP A -l: Grab Sampling Set up a safety zone, if appropriate (this may include the placement of traffic cones, etc.). Then provide access to the sample collection point. Take notes regarding site conditions and sampling notes in the notebook. Grab Sampling The grab sampling technique is described as follows: • Place the sample bottle in the middle of the flow stream. If the sample collection location is deep, a long -handled sample collection pole or rope w/bailer will be needed. One can also "zip tie" the bottle onto the pole and collect the sample in the bottle. E.coli samples must be collected directly into the bottle. • Once the bottle is filled to the proper level, replace the lid on the sample bottle, fill out the label (or write directly on the bottle with a sharpie pen) and place it in the cooler with ice. • Write the sample collection time and other relevant information in the notebook. 2 148 September 14, 2010 SOP A-2: Chain of Custody Records A chain of custody record (COC) is a legal document designed to track samples and persons who are responsible for them during preparation of the sample container, sample collection, sample delivery, and sample analysis. These forms are supplied by the WQL. The procedures for filling out these forms are as follows: Prior to sampling After bottles are labeled and placed in iced coolers, and you're in the field, fill out the general information on the COC form including: • Source/Location LIMS ID • Persons sampling • Type of sample (composite or grab) • Parameters desired for analysis Place COC in a Ziploc bag in the cooler or in another secure location. After sampling is complete After sampling has been completed, fill out remainder of the COC including: Time and date that sampling was initiated At Laboratory or upon transfer to another person Whenever custody of the samples is relinquished: • Provide signature, date, time, and job title • Relay special instructions, if any 3 September 14, 2010 149 SOP A-3: Transporting, Packaging, and Shipping Samples from Field to Lab • Keep the chain of custody record form with the samples. • Pack samples well within ice chest to prevent breakage or leakage. • As was stated previously, samples should be packed in ice or an ice substitute to maintain a sample temperature of four degrees Celsius during transport. Acquire more ice at a convenience store, if necessary. • Samples must be delivered to the WQL within 6 hours of bacteria sample collection. • Samples will be preserved by laboratory personnel upon arrival. 4 ISO September 14, 2010 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 iii COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder City Manager's Office ✓ ' (-/ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) letter regarding High Speed Rail DATE: September 8, 2010 ACTION Provide comments on the draft letter from the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) letter regarding High Speed Rail. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Letter Reviewed by: Alex D. Mclnt City Manager Dear Chair Achterman, Clackamas County commends ODOT for its work in developing the recently published Rail Study and the work that has been underway over the past year regarding setting the foundation for High Speed Rail in the state of Oregon. As you know, existing passenger rail service travels through Clackamas County, with a stop in Oregon City and on through Milwaukie to Portland. The High Speed Rail discussions have also focused on a second existing line that traverses Clackamas County through the communities of Lake Oswego, Tualatin and Milwaukie. The impact of high speed rail is likely to be significant in Clackamas County regardless of the route, and we are asking that the following three items be incorporated into the next steps or the high speed rail discussion- • A decision making process be developed that highlights transparency and accountability; and • Counties that will likely be significantly impacted by new rail projects, such as Clackamas County, be included in the decision making body; and • The project be managed by an experienced third party to bring specific proficiency to the project that may not currently exist within ODOT Clackamas County has been working with the region to grow the grid of frequent bus lines and high capacity light rail lines for 30 years. Oregon City's Amtrak Station that opened 6 years ago was a great start to passenger rail access in the county. And with the recent opening of the Green Line MAX last September we have started connecting our citizens to the region with higher speed, higher capacity service. Within the next 5 years, we are looking forward to opening day of the Portland Milwaukie Light Rail route, the opening of a streetcar to Lake Oswego and construction starting on a high capacity transit option in the Barbur Boulevard area. Beyond five years we are eager for another cross -region connection between Tualatin and Milwaukie for both rail and trail and high capacity transit extending to Oregon City. We can envision a future where the state grows an efficient passenger rail system which allows our citizens: • an easier commute to Salem, • more options for travelling south to Eugene and north to Seattle, and • in the long term, potential for connection further south and even possibly to a nation-wide network. But the transportation issues we face today in Clackamas County include these realities: • longer commutes, both in miles and in minutes, • high levels of congestion for both passenger cars and freight on the 1-5 and 1-205 corridors, with particular bottlenecks at the Boone Bridge, 1-5/1-205 interchange, and the Abernethy bridge, • blockages due to heavily used industrial areas in Tualatin, Wilsonville and the Clackamas, and • increasingly difficult travel to and from the airport along 1-205. These issues negatively impact our economic development, our quality of life and our environment. It seems we have too many different demands on our limited resource of interstate highway space. These competing needs include interchange hopping for local trips, regional trips, statewide trips and freight movement. Clackamas County is not alone in facing these issues, they are state wide and we need to make sure as we are making decisions related to our collective future that we all agree on the vision and we are all involved in and invested in the process. Clackamas County and its cities, staff and elected, met on September 2"d, 2010 to discuss why higher speed commuter connections are important and what a long-term high speed rail system would look like in the future for our state and county. It is evident from this conversation there are strong feelings that economic development could result if a well designed project is implemented. However, it seems at this time that there are many questions about not only the vision, but the process and that a consensus on our vision and our future has not yet been reached. We feel strongly that the state should not begin investing in the existing rail lines with the idea that these will be the corridor for high speed rail in the future. While a slight increase in passenger rail traffic on either of these lines may be tolerable to the surrounding communities as a short term fix, the cost of these gains, $2 billion for a small increase in reliability and speed, would be better spent on formulating and working toward a long term vision. Other states have shown that the attempt to put passenger rail on existing freight lines has turned out to be much more costly and difficult than ever imagined. We should learn from their experiences. In order to achieve a vision and address our collective mobility and reliability issues we need to establish the RIGHT decision making process. The outcomes of this process will be with us for generations to come, and Clackamas County and its cities will be dramatically impacted. Because of this we feel strongly that we should have a representative from the county intimately involved in the decision and policy making. We would recommend the Tri -Met model of project decision-making which highlights accountability and transparency as a great process for this type of work. The California High Speed Rail Authority works in a similar method and their peer-reviewed studies and transparent procedures are no small part of their success in gaining national funding. According to their website they have been working with "local and regional agencies, transportation agencies and providers, counties and regional governments, organizations, and the general public as well as with other state and federal agencies" for over a decade. In addition an external, trusted, experienced third party manager is crucial not only to a transparent process, but also to bring needed expertise into the state. We may need a third party project manager who can effectively help us get from visioning to prioritization to financing to construction. Beyond process for decision-making and representation, there were specific questions and issues that came to the forefront. They are not questions that affect Clackamas County alone, and though we have unique issues, so do all jurisdictions. Weare hopeful that they will be reflected in the development of a state-wide decision making process. These are included attached to this letter. As we move towards a future with new rail options made possible our state legislature's long term interest and recent national investment into solving mobility and reliability problems, we are excited to join the conversation. Respectfully, Chair and Mayors Enclosure: Questions Questions from the Clackamas County Cities group • What is the vision for high or higher speed rail in the state? What is the market demand/need? Who are we serving? What issues are we trying to address? • If we have a goal of true High Speed Rail in the future, does it make sense to invest in infrastructure that will not meet those standards in the short term? • The region and state are working on a Salem to Beaverton extension of WES Commuter Rail. Is this to be considered separately or should it be considered as part of a coordinated ramp up of service for the entire valley? • Why were only the two existing rail lines evaluated in the recent ODOT study? How do we add the 1-5 and 1-205 right of way corridors to the study of potential paths for rail? • What are we trying to connect? Downtown Portland may be one option. The airport may be another. Depending on speed and number of stops, we would like to look at the economic benefits that can be achieved in the southern part of the region through access to the system — specifically from Wilsonville up the 1- 205 corridor. • How do we use this to achieve compact development in the Willamette Valley at the rail stops but not adversely impact the very communities we are serving with infrastructure that could bisect communities and decrease quality of life for those living in the affected areas? • How does this plan help move more freight? How is the ownership of the rails affecting and influencing the conversation related to coordinated future passenger rail and increased demand for freight rail? • Are considerations being made for buying local infrastructure? • How do we add capacity, frequency, and ideally speed? • Are we designing to a national system standard so that we can connect with a potential future network? • Are we looking at public/private partnership? Where is Amtrak in this discussion? Are they our provider? If so, should they be convening the discussion? • Will there be an EIS process? Who is the owner of the EIS? What is the timeline? What are the costs and benefits of various alignment options? How will the public involvement process be conducted? Who will be responsible for creating the approval criteria and how will it be created? And then, who are the ultimate decision makers? • Will there be the opportunity to have a rail with trails discussion? • When we look at costs, will "Quiet Cities" and "Quiet Zone" costs be included? LAKE 0SWEG0 Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: David A. Gilbey -Water Quality Program Coordinator Public Works s3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: City of Lake Oswego National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System — Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES-MS4) Permit Renewal and 2010 Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) DATE: September 7, 2010 ACTION No action from the Mayor or City Council is needed; this presentation is for informational purposes only. The Mayor and Council will need to consider the City's proposed 2010 Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) as it relates to the soon to be released Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES-MS4) Discharge Permit. The City of Lake Oswego's Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) outlines the practices, techniques, or provisions associated with protecting water quality and satisfying requirements of the NPDES-MS4 permit INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This report is being prepared to apprise the Mayor and City Council of changes mandated in the soon to be renewed NPDES-MS4 Permit. This is the City's stormwater discharge permit. The changes in the City's Stormwater Program include updates to the City of Lake Oswego NPDES-MS4 Monitoring Plan and Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The Draft NPDES-MS4 Discharge Permit, Permit Evaluation Report, Stormwater Management Plan and Monitoring Plan have been attached as reference. HISTORY In the early 1990s, the Federal Clean Water Act required municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 to apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for their stormwater discharges. In Oregon, this program was delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). As a result, DEQ directed six Oregon jurisdictions and associated co -permittees to apply for and obtain a municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Clackamas County was one of the jurisdictions required to obtain an NPDES permit, and the City of Lake Oswego is one of the 13 co -permittees on the Clackamas County permit. The City of Lake Oswego anticipates the renewal issuance of the MS4 permit in December of 2010. MS4 permits are scheduled to Page 2 be renewed every five (S) years. PURPOSE OF THE MS4 PERMIT AND SWMP The MS4 permit is a license, issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEA), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), granting the City permission to discharge municipal stormwater to waters of the state in conformance with the requirements and conditions set forth in the permit schedules. The intent of the MS4 Permit is to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), harmful pollutants from being washed by stormwater runoff into local creeks, rivers, streams and Oswego Lake through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the SWMP. The SWMP can be thought of as the implementation plan for the MS4 Permit. The SWMP contains the required elements to implement the conditions set forth in the MS4 permit, to the MEP. These elements can be thought of as implementation tools for managing stormwater and protecting water quality (attaining water quality standards). Although the primary benefit to implementing City of Lake Oswego's is compliance with the MS4 permit, there are ancillary benefits that are just as important. These benefits include addressing flooding from increasing stormwater runoff volumes that can cause property damage and maintaining water resource conditions that provide safe recreational opportunities for swimming, boating and fishing. The MS4 Permit, SWMP and even the City's MS4 Monitoring Plan assist the City in making conscientious decisions about the quality of water within the City's jurisdiction, based on real information. This information helps direct the limited City resources to provide a level of service in the City's stormwater program while also meeting the regulatory mandates set forth in the MS4 Permit. SYNOPSIS OF SWMP ELEMENTS The August 31, 2010 DRAFT MS4 Permit (attached) outlines eight required elements. A description about each element will be provided on 9/14/2010 including what each element is designed to accomplish, what the City has done to address this element in the past, and changes to the SWMP level of effort through the next permit term (and what this means to residents/ratepayers). CURRENTSTATUS Between September 2008 and the present, the Oregon Phase I communities have coordinated with DEQ through the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (Oregon ACWA) to discuss the content and intent of the revised 2010 NPDES-MS4 Discharge Permit. The City has revised the 2008 SWMP to include the revised list of elements and address additional requirements outlined in the 2010 the Draft NPDES-MS4 Discharge Permit. It should be noted that the 2010 SWMP was developed using the most recent draft of the NPDES-MS4 Permit available at the time (April 2010). Minor changes will need to be made to the August 2010 SWMP (attached) to ensure language and content are consistent between the NPDES-MS4 discharge permit, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and Monitoring Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MS4 PERMIT The Public Comment period for the August 31, 2010 NPDES-MS4 Discharge Permit and supporting documentation (attached) is tentatively scheduled to be held from October 4th 2010 through November 17th 2010. The Public will have the opportunity to make comment on the NPDES-MS4 Draft Discharge Page 3 Permit, the NPDES-MS4 Draft Permit Evaluation Report, the 2010 Stormwater Management Plan and the 2008 Monitoring Plan. The City of Lake Oswego will be notifying the public via City's Website about the opportunity to comment and directing the interested parties to the DEQ resources setup to take comments on the NPDES-MS4 Draft Discharge Permit, the NPDES-MS4 Draft Permit Evaluation Report, the 2010 Stormwater Management Plan and the 2008 Monitoring Plan. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The City of Lake Oswego discharges stormwater to waters of the state and therefore is required to renew and comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES-MS4) Discharge Permit. Also, the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan states in Goal 6, Section 2, Water Resources Quality that: • [the City of] Lake Oswego is required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) surface water regulations • Water bodies within the Tualatin River and Oswego Lake drainages have been designated as being "water quality limited" by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The Willamette River TMDL was approved by EPA in 2006 and also lists "Water Quality Limited" resources within the Springbrook Creek and Tryon Creek Watersheds. The City of Lake Oswego FY 10/11 Budget includes several MS4 Permit related activities. The Stormwater Fund (625) currently identifies professional and technical services contracts for two specific efforts that ware required by the Permit: stormwater code revisions and a revised surface water design manual are updates to address the Post Construction Control elements required in Schedule A of the Draft permit. The fiscal impact of the Draft NPDES-MS4 Permit and associated Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and Monitoring Plan do not include any additional budgetary impacts this fiscal year. However, there will be fiscal impacts in following fiscal years (2011-2012 through 2015-2016) due to specific permit elements that include Stormwater Retrofit Plan development, Hydromodification Assessments, and Adaptive Management planning. A summary of an implementation schedule and due dates for permit implementation activities were part of the August 31, 2010 draft NPDES-MS4 Discharge Permit (page 15 of permit). Should this implementation schedule end up in the final permit, the due dates will be used to start project planning and to establish budget requests in future fiscal cycles. RECOMMENDATION No action is necessary at this time. City Staff and Council are encouraged to review the documents and provide comments by September 20th (end of permittee review period) to DEQ. Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1) 8/31/2010 Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit -Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2) Clackamas County, Oak Lodge Sanitary District, and Incorporated Cities within Clackamas County - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System -Permit Evaluation Report and Fact Sheet -DRAFT 3) City of Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Plan SWMP (2010) 4) City of Lake Oswego Monitoring Plan (2008) Reviewed by: Department Directo Ei�y C��uwc Alex D. McIntyre City Manager DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Interesting Facts • Stormwater within the City of Lake Oswego eventually drains to one of two major watersheds: Tualatin River Watershed or the Willamette River Watershed • There are forty-three (43) 9 stormwater basins within the City of Lake Oswego and two hundred ninety-one (291) stormwater I subbasins • The largest stormwater basin is 5.3 square miles in area (Tryon Creek) t and the smallest is 0.2 square miles (Oswego Pointe Basin) • The average impervious area within the City's stormwater basins is 29% • The City has had an MS4 Permit since 1995 �+ I i City of 5 11 �5_13 Water Quality Acronyms 303(d) LiSt List of impaired waterbodies ACWA Association of Clean Water Agencies AWRA American Water Resources Association BMP CWA 'CWP DEQ DMA . EPA EPSCP I7T LOC MEP M S4 NPDES OAR QAPP SOP TMDL W LA WQMP Best Management Practice Clean Water Act Center for Watershed Protection ' Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon) Designated Management Agency Environmental Protection Agency Erosion Prevention and Sediment f Control Plan Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination C Lake Oswego Code E Maximum Extent Practicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Oregon Administrative Rule Quality Assurance Project Plan Standard Operating Procedure Total Maximum Daily Load Waste Load Allocation Water Quality Management Plan Attachments 15 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) DISCHARGE PERMIT Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Portland OR 97201-4987 Telephone: 503-229-5263 Issued pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 468B.050 and the Federal Clean Water Act ISSUED TO: Clackamas County Clackamas County Service District #1 Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County City of Gladstone City of Happy Valley City of Johnson City City of Lake Oswego City of Milwaukie City of Oregon City City of River Grove City of West Linn City of Wilsonville Oak Lodge Sanitary District EPA REFEREIE NO.: ORS1080 This permit is issued in response to XXX, Water Quality Manager Northwest Region PERMITTED ACTIVITIES SOURCES COVERED BY THIS PERMIT: This permit covers all existing anissarges stormwater from the Municipal Separate Storm ��_ ste within Clackamas County Urban Growth Bounder and with' ervices boundaries of the co -permittees. COUNTY: Clackamas MAJOR RECEIVING WATERBODIES. - ,. Basin(s): Willamette River Sub-basin(s): Lower Willamette River, Clackamas River, Tualatin River Waterbodie(s): Carli Creek, Clackamas River, Cow Creek, Deep Creek, Deer Creek, Johns`' ellogg Creek, Mt. Scott Creek, Phillips Creek, Richardscktreek, Greek, Sieben9Creek, Willamette River, Tryon Creek, Matin Rtwego Lake WAS*%DAD ALLWATIONS- A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that include �eloodallocations for urban stormwater has li�tablished for they ette Basin and Sandy River Basins, and tlf bia Slough. Waste load allocations are addressed in SclNeWof this permit. received on August 18, 2008. Date Until this permit expires or is modified or revoked, the co -permittee is authorized to discharge municipal stormwater to waters of the state in conformance with the requirements and conditions set forth in the attached schedules. Where conflict exists between specific conditions (found in Schedules A -D) and general conditions (Schedule F), the specific conditions supersede the general conditions. September 14, 2010 17 Schedule A...............................Page ............................................................— Controls and Limitations 1 Schedule B................................................................. — Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 16 ScheduleC.............................................................................................. — Compliance Schedules 31 ScheduleD.................................................................................................... — Special Conditions 31 ScheduleF................................................................................................. — General Conditions 37 SCHEDULE A Controls and Limitations for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 1. Prohibit Non-stormwater Discharges The co -permittees must effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 unless such discharges are otherwise permitted under Subsection A.4.a.xii., another NPDES'permit or other applicable state or federal permit, or are otherwise exempted or authorized by the Department. 2. Reduce Pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable Each co -permittee must reduce the discharge of pp ft ', .from the MS4 o' the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Compliance with this permit -and irriplementation of a`stormwater management program, including the Department -.approved Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), establishes this MEP requirement, unless or until the Department reopens the permit as provided in Oregon Administrative Rule (DAR) 340-045-0040 and 0050 to require additional controls. 3. Implement the Stormwater Management Plan The co-permitteesmust..implement and 11 continuously assess the effectiveness of its Department - approved SWMP. The SWMP must guide eacho=permittee in the implementation of its stormwater-management program.' a The SWMPs and any Department -approved amendments thereto, are hereby incorporated inio the permit by reference. `The applicable SWMP is as follows: i. For Clackamas County,: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-applicatio i and amendment received by the Department on August 27, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. ii. For Clackamas County Service District No. 1: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 15, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. iii. For Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 15, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to Revised August 30, 2010 rf2 18 September 14, 2010 the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. iv. For the City of Happy Valley: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 15, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. V. For the City of Gladstone: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 13, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to the in' cordance with the conditions of this permit. vi. For the City of Johnson City: The SWMP is the Y = osed ed with the NPDES permit re-application, and any subsequen s made to yin r accordance with the conditions of this permit. vii. For the City of Lake Oswego: The SWMP is the propose submitted with the NPDES permit re-application and amendm eceived by t p,�hment on August 10, 2010, and any subsequent changes e SWMP in a° ,ance with the conditions of this permit. viii. For the City of Milwaukie: 7 NPDES permit re-applicatio: 10, 2010, and any subsequer conditions of this permit ' t ix. For the " on City: ermit r patio �' p. k 2010, and any su'i er � ,Zonditions of this pern 1MP submitted with the the Department on August in accordance with the is the proposed SWMP submitted with the v� neat received by the Department on August ode to the SWMP in accordance with the X. the City of River G�oye: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the permit re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 15and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the � MP xi. For the Ci `" est Linn: The SWis the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES pemut re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 10, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. xii. For the City of Wilsonville: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-application and amendment received by the Department on August 16, 2010, and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. Revised August 30, 2010` 3 September 14, 2010 .- 19 xiii. For Oak Lodge Sanitary District: The SWMP is the proposed SWMP submitted with the NPDES permit re-application, and any subsequent changes made to the SWMP in accordance with the conditions of this permit. b. Each co -permittee is responsible for compliance within its jurisdiction as identified in this permit, and is not responsible for compliance outside of its jurisdiction. c. The SWMP must be electronically available through direct incorporation into the permittee's website and/or other similar method approved by the Department. 4. Stormwater Management Plan Requirements Each co -permittee must implement a SWMP that outlines the practices; techniques or provisions associated with protecting water quality and satisfying requirements of this permit and includes measurable goals for the stormwater program elements idenfified in subsections a=h. Each measurable goal must be designed to identify the progress of � implementation. The measurable goals must identify actions the permittee will undefte !o implement best management practices (BMPs), and include the frequency, timelitiO idlor location where the BMP actions will occur. a. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: Co -permittees must continue to implement a program to detect, remove, and eliminate illicit discharges to the MS4. The program must: i. Prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, illicit discharges into the permittee's MS4. ?: x ii. Include documentation in an -enforcement response plan or similar document by November 1, 201 ldescribing the enforcement response procedures the permittee will implement when 'an Illicit discharge invest gation identifies a responsible party. iii. Develop or identify pollutant parameter action levels that will be used as part of the field screening and analysis. The action levels will identify concentrations for identified .pollutants that, if exceeded,' will require further investigation, including laboratory sample analyses, to identify the source of the illicit discharge. The pollutant parameter actionlevels and rationale for using the action levels must be documented in an enforcement response plan or similar document, and reported to the Department by November L. 2011:' iv. Conduct annual dry -weather inspection activities during the term of the permit. By June 30, 2012, the dry -weather inspection activities must include annual field screening of identified priority locations documented by the co -permittee. Priority locations must, where possible, be located at an accessible location downstream of any source of suspected illegal or illicit activity or other location as identified by the permittee. Priority locations must be based on a balanced consideration of hydrological conditions, total drainage area of the location, population density of the location, traffic density, age of the structures or buildings in the area, history of the area, land use types, personnel safety, accessibility, historical complaints or other appropriate factors as identified by Revised August 30, 2010 20 '' "4 September 14, 2010 � the co -permittee. The dry -weather field screening activities must occur after an antecedent dry period of at least 72 -hours. The dry -weather field screening activities must be documented and include: 1. General observations, including visual presence of flow, turbidity, oil sheen, trash, debris or scum, condition of conveyance system or outfall, color, odor and any other relevant observations related to the potential presence of non -storm water or illicit discharges. 2. Field Screening - If flow is observed, and the sour, must be conducted to determine the cause of the:' M -ea analysis must include representative samplingor polluta to be found based upon the suspected source 'schag+ investigatory approaches or means to identify ce stormwater or illicit discharge. The field analysi a the field screening pollutant parameter action bels ft Suspected sources of discharge include, but are not lim connections or leaks, spills, seepage fro orage contaii discharges or other residential, co ., dustrial or activities. 'field analysis . The field -1ters that are likely ;orn or cause by the permittee. sanitary cross - 3. Laboratory Analysis — If general oWiffvations and screening indicate an illicit discharge and the source oriWW se of thehicit discharge cannot be identified through other investigatory methods, the co-perrn3 t collect a water quality sample for SON laboratory analyses f ing dischargk a water quality sample must be analyzed -,Ht : oHut aut para eters or identifiers that will aid in the determination of the,, sem mit disci e- The types of pollutant parameters or identifiers ay MCI de, ' t lirmto etic markers, industry -specific toxic pollutants, or oth llutant parameters that may be specifically associated with a source type. v id'gentify response procedures to investigate portions of the MS4 that, based on the results ofteneral observations,4field screening, laboratory analysis or other relevant mforaaic�n, such as acomplaint or referral, indicates the likely presence of an illicit discharghe response procedures must reflect the goal to eliminate the illicit discharge, gate impacts from such discharges in a timely manner, as specified in subsections and viii. below. vi. Maintain a system for documenting illicit discharge complaints or referrals, and suspected illicit discharge investigation activities. vii. Once the source of an illicit discharge is determined, the permittee must take appropriate action to eliminate the illicit discharges, including an initial evaluation of the feasibility to eliminate the discharge, within 5 working days. If the permittee determines that the elimination of the illicit discharge will take more than 15 working days due to technical, logistical or other reasonable issues, the permittee must develop an action plan to Revised August 30, 2010 i 5 September 14, 2010 ,.. 21 eliminate the illicit discharge as soon as reasonably possible. The action plan must include an appropriate timeframe for elimination. viii. The co -permittee must establish, document and implement a schedule by November 1, 2011 to resolve typical illicit discharges, such as, but not limited to cross connections and illegal washing activities. The schedule developed as part of this requirement may serve as the illicit discharge action plan required by Schedule D.4.a.vii for the applicable types of illicit discharge. ix. Require spill prevention measures, and upon notificatiori,`;t�espond to ' contain and mitigate spills that may discharge into the MS4. Spills; or other sirhilar illicit discharges, that may endanger human health or the environment must be reported in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, includi4g-proper.,notificaft6 to the Oregon Emergency Response System. x. In the case of a known illicit discharge that originates within: he co-permittee's MS4 regulated area and that discharges directly to a storm sewer, system or property under the jurisdiction of another municipality, the co ermittee must notify,Vw,,affected municipality as soon as practicable, and af`leasf 'within one work7tng' day of becoming aware of the discharge. xi. In the case of a known illicit discharge that -is identified within the co-permittee's MS4 regulated area, but is determined to originate3..frorn a contributing storm sewer system or property under the jurisdiction of another m""" i- pality, the co -permittee must notify the contributing municipality f municipality with,,y— sdiction as soon as practicable, and at least within,one working daydf identifying the illicit discharge. xm. Unless the following non-stormwater discharges are identified in a particular case as a significant .source of pollutants to waters of the State by the permittee or the Department, they are�not considered illicit discharges and are authorized by this permit: water line flushing; Widsca a irrigation; diverted stream flows; rising ground waters; uncontaminated -'groundwater infiltration; uncontaminated pumped ground water; discharges ,from potable water sources; start up flushing of groundwater wells; aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells; potable groundwater monitoring wells; draining and flushing of municipal potable water storage reservoirs; foundation drains; air conditioning condensate; irrigation water; springs; water from crawl space pumps; footing drains; lawn watering; individual residential car washing; flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; street wash waters; discharges of treated water from investigation, removal and remedial actions selected or approved by the Department pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 465; and, discharges or flows from emergency fire fighting activities.. If any of these non - Revised August 30, 2010 6 22 September 14, 2010 0 stormwater discharges under the co-permittee's jurisdiction is a significant source of pollutants, the permittee must develop and require implementation of appropriate BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants associated with the source. b. Industrial and Commercial Facilities: Co -permittees must continue to implement a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the MS4 from facilities that are subject to a Department -issued industrial stormwater NPDES permit or have been identified as contributing a significant pollutant load to the MS4. Co -permittees must: i. Screen existing and new industrial facilities to assessher %e h e the potential to be subject to an industrial stormwater NPDES permit r ve t.'e tential to contribute a significant pollutant load to the MS4. ii. Within 30 days after the facility is identified, noti � = c ustrial facil the Department that an industrial facility is potentially su oto an industna tmwater NPDES permit. iii. Implement a strategy that establishes the priories and procedi" "spection of and implementation of stormwater control m; '' discharges mdustrial or commercial facilities where site -species inform s identified a discharge as a source that contributes a significant pof'ntant load t v _ $4. This strategy must be implemented by January 1, 2013 oone Galen from the date a source contributing a significant pollut band to 4 has been identified. c. Construction Site Runoff Ci. Co-permitteet continue to implement a program to reduce pollutan15 ctormwater;Jqunoff to the MS4 from construction activities. The program muse. x a .ice.. i Include ordinances orenforceab regulatory mechanisms that require erosion pevention and sedimenttrrtrols bsigned, implemented, and maintained to prevent AR erse impacts to water` 'lity and minimize the transport of contaminants to waters of tate. By January 1, 4, the construction site runoff control program ordinances or othorceable regulatiry mechanism must apply to construction activities that result Ma in a Iaiturbance o `,000 square feet or greater. 'ell 41 ii. Require co _ `n site operators to develop erosion prevention and sediment control site plans, aria -1, and to maintain effective erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices. iii. Require construction site operators to prevent or control non-stormwater waste that may cause adverse impacts to water quality such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste. iv. Describe site plan review procedures to ensure that stormwater BMPs are appropriate and address the construction activities being proposed. At a minimum, construction site erosion prevention and sediment control plans for sites disturbing one acre or greater Revised August 30, 2010 tr7 September 14, 2010 23 must be consistent with the substantive requirements of the State of Oregon's 1200-C permit site erosion prevention and sediment control plans. v. Perform on-site inspections in accordance with documented procedures and criteria to ensure that the approved erosion prevention and sediment control plan is properly implemented. Inspections of construction sites must include disturbed areas of the site, material and waste storage areas, stockpile areas, construction site entrances and exits, sensitive areas, discharge locations to the MS4, and, if appropriate, discharge locations to receiving waters. Inspections must be documented, including photographs and monitoring results as appropriate. A.� vi. Describe in an enforcement response plan or similar document the enforcement response procedures the permittee will implement. The enforcement response procedures must ensure construction activities are in compliance with thelordinances or other regulatory mechanisms. d. Education and Outreach: Co -permittees must implement an education and outreach program designed to achieve measurable goals based on target audtence ; specific stormwater quality issues in the community, o identified pollutants of 6bncern. The program must: i. Continue to implement a documented public education and outreach strategy that promotes pollutant source control and a reduction of pollutants in stormwater discharges. The strategy must;identify targeted -pollutants of concern, the targeted audience, specific educatib: ' ivities, and tn6. ify or individual responsible for implementation: The public diication and outreach strategy may incorporate cooperative efforts with other MS4�regulated permittees or efforts by other groups or organizations provided a mechanism a developed and implemented to track the public education and outreach efforts within the MS4 regulated area and the results of such efforts are reported annually. ii. Provide educational materials to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities describing the;impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies and the steps or actions the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. iii. Provide public :education on the proper use and disposal of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and other household chemicals if identified as a concern by the co -permittees. iv. As appropriate, provide public education on the proper operation and maintenance of privately -owned or operated stormwater quality management facilities. v. Provide notice to construction site operators concerning where education and training to meet erosion prevention and sediment control requirements can be obtained. vi. Conduct or participate in an effectiveness evaluation to measure the success of public education activities during the term of this permit. The effectiveness evaluation must Revised August 30, 2010 8 24 September 14, 2010 focus on assessing changes in targeted behaviors. The results of the effectiveness evaluation must be used in the adaptive management of the education and outreach program, and reported to the Department no later than November 1, 2014. vii. Include training for co -permittee employees involved in MS4-related activities, as appropriate. The training should include stormwater pollution prevention and reduction from municipal operations, including, but not limited to, parks and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new municipal facility construction and related land disturbances, design and construction of street and storm drain systems, discharges from non -emergency fire fighting -related g C-bvit fs, and stormwater system maintenance. viii. Promote, publicize and facilitate public reporting licit discharg'" " ough the use of newspapers, newsletters, utility bills, door hanger a ublie service ou cements, videos, televised council meetings, brochures, signs, `.tizs or other eff ethods. Public Involvement and Participation: participation approach that provides oppo the development, implementation and mo( management program. The approach must public comments on the SWMP and the T: development, and be consistent with WIC This public involvement does not a to Co -permittees must 1�ment a I?ublic rtunitie,�for the public t tively participate in BMPs that do not change the substance of the f Post -C )ermittts stormwater for receiving and considering reduction benchmark cols outlined in Section D.5. revisions or updates to existing must continue to implement their post - program. i By anuary 1, 2014, t', construea stormwater pollutant and runoff control program applicable to n-' !41evelopirient and redevelopment projects that create or i' e lace impervious surfaust meet conditions described in this subsection. The _,mmmium project thresholdpplicable to the co -permittees post -construction stormwater poIlutnt and runoff contiol program is identified in Table A-1. The post -construction storr�site runoff Cmditions are as follows: 1) Incorp rate4isite=specific management practices that target natural surface or predevelopinent hydrologic functions where practicable. The site-specific management practices should optimize on-site retention based on the site conditions; 2) Reduce site specific post -development stormwater runoff volume and rates of discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to minimize hydrological and water quality impacts from impervious surfaces; 3) Prioritize and include implementation of Low -Impact Development (LID), Green Infrastructure (GI) or equivalent design and construction approaches; and, Revised August 30, 2010 C��9 September 14, 2010 , 25 4) Capture and treat 80% of the annual average runoff volume, based on a documented local or regional rainfall frequency and intensity. TABLE A-1 Post -Construction Minimum Thresholds Co -Permittee Minimum Project Threshold ftZ Clackamas County* 1,000 City of Gladstone 1,000 City of Happy Valle_ 1,000 City of Johnson City" :5,000 City of Lake Oswego � ,�=3-000 City of Milwaukie 1;000 City of Oregon City 1,000 City of River Grove 1,000 City of West Linn 1,000 City of Wilsonville W 5,000 Oak Lode Sanitary District 1 000 /�11 *Includes jurisdictional areas within CCSD#1, SWMACC, and jurisdreti ' areas with post - construction program oversight by the Clackamas County,, Department o Transportation and Development ii. Co -permittees must identify, and wherepracticable, minimize or eliminate code and development standard barriers that inhibit design and,,implementation techniques intended to minimize impervious surfaces andduce'stormwater runoff (e.g., Low Impact Development, Green infrastructure), and have been identified by and are within the jurisdiction of theTermitEee he minimization or elimination of a code and development•standardbarrier conflicts withpublic and environmental health and safety standards, the co -permittee may modify, the code and development standard accordingly to address such conflicts—Co-permittees must review code and development standards for minimization or elimination, and appropriately modify within three years of -,"identification of the code or=development standard as a barrier. iii. To reduce, pollutants and mitigate the volume, duration, time of concentration and rate of stormwater runoff, the.co-permittees must develop or reference an enforceable post- construction-stormwater quality management manual or equivalent document by January �w 1, 2014 that,' at, nun.imum, includes the following: 1) A minimum threshold for triggering the requirement for post -construction stormwater management control and the rationale for the threshold; 2) A defined design storm that allows for identification of an acceptable continuous simulation method to address the capture and treatment of 80% of the annual average runoff volume; 3) Applicable LID, GI or similar stormwater runoff reduction approaches, including the practical use of these approaches; Revised August 30, 2010 0 26 September 14, 2010 e 4) Conditions where the implementation of LID, GI or equivalent approaches may be impracticable; and, 5) BMPs, including a description of the following: a. Site-specific design requirements; b. Design requirements that do not inhibit maintenance; c. Conditions where the BMP applies; and, d. Pollutant removal efficiency performance goals that maximize the reduction in discharge of pollutants. n iv. Co -permittees must review, approve and verify pro er implemri of post - construction site plans for new development and re; elopment pro . plicable to this section. v. Where a new development or redevelopment projeefffiteM Mharacterized by factors limiting use of on-site stormwater management methods tea� ve the post-constructior im site runoff performance standards, such as hater table, S i bedrock, poorly - drained or low permeable soils, contammate� .."'Nsteep slopes ober constraints, the Post -Construction Stormwater Management pro ust require equivalent measures, such as off-site stormwater quality managemen t 0 stormwater quality management may include off-site�mitixtan, such as cNif of a structural -:: stormwater facility within the saab3watershed,a stormwater quality structural facility mitigation bank or a payment -in -lieu program .. vi. A description of�the enfo cementtxesponse procedures the co -permittee will follow when addressim„�e�� �npliance .with the enforceable post -construction stormwater g. Pollution Prevention for 11Vlauicipal Operations: Co -permittees must continue to cQ AMment a program to reds c� he discharge of pollutants to the MS4 from properties owned or 'Oa�d by the co -permittee for which the permittee has authority, including, but not limite&ha*iarks and open spies, fleet and building maintenance facilities, transportation .= systems ane -fighting trarmng facilities. The co -permittees must conduct, at a minimum, the followG ' rogram activities: i. Operate and �ma7ntai n public streets, roads and highways over which the permittee has authority in,amanner designed to minimize the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the MS4, including pollutants discharged as a result of deicing activities and yard debris reduction and disposal programs; ii. - Implement a management program to control the use and application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on municipally -owned properties; iii. By January 1, 2013, inventory, assess, and implement a strategy to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff from municipal facilities that treat, store or transport municipal waste, Revised August 30, 2010 1 September 14, 2010 .,' 27 such as yard waste or other municipal waste and are not already covered under a 1200 series NPDES permit; iv. Implement controls to limit infiltration of seepage from the municipal sanitary sewer system to the MS4 where necessary; v. Implement a program to control the release of materials related to fire -fighting training activities; and, vi. Assess co -permittee flood control projects to identify potexrtial4mpacts on the water quality of receiving water bodies and determine the,feasibility ofxetrofitting structural flood control devices for additional stormwater pollutant removal;,Thexesults of this assessment must be incorporated and considered along with the results of the Stormwater Retrofit Assessment required by this permit. h. Structural Stormwater Controls Operation and Mainten�nceActivities: i. Co -permittees must implement a program by January 1, 2013 ::o'verify that stormwater structural facilities and controls are inventoried""' mapped, inspected; .operated and maintained for effective pollutant removal,'iinfiltration and/or flow,control. At a minimum, the program must include the following: 1. Legal authority to inspect and require effective operation and maintenance; 2. A program to inventory andmap public andprivate stormwater treatment facilities as provided under Schedule k4.h.ii.; and, 3. Public and mivate stormwater facility inspection and maintenance requirements for stormwater facilities that have teen `inventoried and mapped as provided under Schedule AA.hdi. u As„part of the Stormwater.Structural Facilities and Controls Inspection and Maintenance program, co -permittees must develop and implement a strategy that guides the long-term maintenance and management of all publicly -owned and identified privately -owned stormwater, structural facilities and controls. At a minimum, the strategy must describe the following: 1. Publicly -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities a. Inventory and mapping process; b. Inspection and maintenance schedule; c. Inspection, operation and maintenance criteria and priorities; d. Description of inspector type and staff position or title; and, e. Inspection and maintenance tracking mechanisms. Revised August 30, 2010 2 28 September 14, 2010- 2. Privately -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities a. Procedures for and types of stormwater facilities that will be inventoried and mapped, including the rationale and criteria used. At a minimum, the inventory and mapping must include the following: i. Private stormwater facilities for new development and redevelopment projects constructed under the permittee's post -construction management manual or equivalent document after [issuance date of permit]; H. Private stormwater facilities identified by the co -permittee and used to estimate the pollutant load reduction as a enchmark evaluation; and, W. Any major private stormwater facilities. r structures. b. Inspection criteria, rationale, priorities, freq mid procedt of private stormwater facilities that have been oried and c. Required training or qualifications to inspect privatewater faciliti d. Reporting requirements; and, e. Inspection and maintenance 5. Hydromodification Assessment: assessment and submit a report by impacts related to the co-permitte'c alteration to stormwatelow, volt degradation TI �l�escnbe ez have identifie"& address, �t� wing o .ees and conduct an initial hydromodification 1, 20 es the hydromodification ,harge, an' suaing erosion, sedimentation, and/or ation that may cause or contribute to water quality efforts and proposed actions the co -permittees a. Collect and maintain inforn"O" n that w111 inform future stormwater management decisions �- xeWa ld to hydromodification*based on local conditions and needs; 9_ � � ., b. Identify or,,develop strategies to address hydromodification information or data gaps related to waterbadte within the cQ-permittee's jurisdiction; A c. Identify strateg and priorities for preventing or reducing hydromodification impacts related to the peri''_ e's MS4 discharges; and, d. Identify or develop, with the goal to utilize, effective decision-making approaches and tools to address hydromodification. 6. Stormwater Retrofit Strategy Development: Co -permittees must develop a stormwater quality retrofit strategy identified in a plan that applies to developed areas identified by the co - permittee as impacting water quality and that are underserved or lacking stormwater quality controls. Revised August 30, 2010 ;. -3 September 14, 2010 :,.�` 29 a. The stormwater retrofit strategy must be based on a co -permittee -defined set of stormwater quality retrofit objectives and a comprehensive evaluation of a range of stormwater quality retrofit control measures and their appropriate use. The co -permittee -defined objectives must incorporate progress towards applicable TMDL wasteload allocations. Development of the stormwater retrofit strategy must allow for public comment and consider public input. b. The co -permittees must develop and submit a stormwater retrofit plan to the Department by November 1, 2014 that the permittee will use to guide the implementation of its stormwater retrofit strategy. The stormwater retrofit plan must describe or reference the following: i. Stormwater retrofit strategy statement and summary, including objectives and rationale; ii. Summary of current stormwater retrofit control measures being implemented, and current estimate of annual program resources directed towards stormwater retrofits; iii. Identification of developed areas or land uses impacting water quality thatare-high priority retrofit areas; iv. Consideration of new stormwater control measures; - V. Preferred retrofit structural control measures, including rationale, vi. A retrofit control measure project"or approach priority list, including rationale, identification and map of potential, stormwater retrofit:locations where appropriate, and an estimated timeline and cost for implementation of each project or approach. c. By November 1,".2014, the co -permittees must identify one stormwater quality improvement project, at a to 'be constructe and/or implemented during the permit term. The project must target the reduction of applicableTMDL pollutant parameters. The project must be associated with a Capital Improvement`Prcject or other municipal -related project. This requirement does not apply to the City of Johnson City. -yz Revised August 30, 2010 4 30 September 14, 2010 7 The following implementation schedule provides a summary of due dates for the new permit conditions identified in Schedule A. Revised August 30, 2010 ;, ` x . 5 September 14, 2010 ,� 31 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION -EERMIT.COI�T ,1UON , SCHEDULE ACTIVITIES DUE,DATE, :,., Illicit Discharge Detection and 1. Document enforcement response November 1, 2011 Elimination — A.4.a. procedures 2. Develop or identify pollutant November 1, 2011 parameter action levels 3. Develop response schedulefor , ca ' Nber 1, 2011 illicit discharges s *42W 4. Identify and map dry -weal er 1 2 Daly 012 screeningprioritylocations Industrial and Commercial 1. Implement industrial andtoinmerct Facilities — A.4.b facility inspection and stoa , ia4r Janu X35 01 control Rroaam. Construction Site Pollutant 1. Implement updated construction � Control — A.4.c. runoff control.program Janua 1 2014 ry ' Education and Outreach — A.4.d. 1. Conduct or partictpa ffectiveness ovember 1, 2014 evaluation Post -Construction Site Runoff — 1. Implement`dated post c� auction :: January 1, 2014 A.4.f site runoff _. Pollution Prevention for 1. InveAtory an assessanunicipal January 1 2013 Municipal Operations — A.4. o exons .<,, _,,J ' Structural Stormwater Controls 1. mlement structuraltarawater Operation and Maintenance ctntftls operation and maintenance January 1, 2013 Activities — AA.h. p ro Hydromodification..Assessmerit Conduct hyomodification assessment November 1, 2014 — A.S. d subm��' ort Stormwat Retrofit Strategy ' L Develop st6irnwater retrofit strategy November 1, 2014 Developtnont — A.6. �atid submit stormwater retrofit plan F ; 41 2 ` ,Bentify stormwater quality November 1, 2014 41 rovement project 3 . Construct stormwater quality Permit expiration t �im rovement project date Revised August 30, 2010 ;, ` x . 5 September 14, 2010 ,� 31 SCHEDULE B Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 1. MONITORING PROGRAM - Each co -permittee must continue to implement a monitoring program to support iterative stormwater management and the evaluation of stormwater management program effectiveness in reducing the discharge of pollutants from the MS4. a. The monitoring program must incorporate the following objectives: i. Evaluate the source(s) of the 2004/2006 303(d) listed pollutants applicable to the co - Revised August 30, 2010 �, 6 32 September 14, 2010 Q DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Revised August 30, 2010 September 14, 2010 „� 33 Table B-1- Gladstone Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Locations Monitoring Frequency Analyte(s) Instream MAN Field; Conventional; Metals (Total Monitorin g One (])site Three (3) events/year & Dissolved); Nutrients Instream Biological Conduct or contribute to an instream biological monitoring project/task Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this Pesticide requirement include any pesticides currently used by the City of Gladstone within the jurisdictional areas Monitoring and the following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, ImidaclopridFipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr,2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (AMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring\ location. '1140 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted"biological monitoringcmethodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rivers and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte category in Table B-1 are as follows; Field Conventional Nutrients— " Metals (Total & Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia coli (E. coli) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Copper pH Hardness Nitrate -Nitrite (NO3-NO2) Lead Temperature Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODO , Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) � Zinc Conductivity E Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Total Phosphorus (TP) l Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PO4) 1 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Volatile Solids (VS) Revised August 30, 2010 September 14, 2010 „� 33 z!Y1. Table B-1— Johnson City k Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Location(s) Monitoring Frequency Analyte s) Instream Monitoring One (1) Site Five (5) events Field; Conventional; Metals (Total - & Dissolved); Nutrients Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte category in Table B-1 are as follows: Field .... _.-.___-..._ ..... Conventional I Nutrients ..................... .... _......... ................. ........ ..._.__.-- Metals (Total & Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia coli (E. coli) I Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Copper pH Hardness Nitrate -Nitrite (NO3-NO2) Lead Temperature ; Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 3 Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Zinc Conductivity i Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Total Phosphorus (TP) € Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Ortho -Phosphorus (O -PO,) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Volatile Solids S z!Y1. k Revised August 30, 2010 $ 34 September 14, 2010 Table B-1— Lake Oswego Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Location(s) Monitoring Fre uency Analyte(s) Instream g Monitoring Seven (7) monitoring sites Twelve (12) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total & Dissolved); Nutrients Stormwater Monitoring , Two (2) sites Two (2) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total & Dissolved); Nutrients; Flow Wet Weather Instream Biological Ten (10) monitoring sites One (1) event N/A Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide include any pesticides currently used by the City of Lake Oswego within the jurisdictional areas and the Monitoring following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imidacloprid, Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (RMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole,'M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring location. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rigs and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte categ , Table B-1 are as follows ------ ---- ............ Field Conventional Nutrients Metals (Total &Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen i Escherichia coli (E. coli) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Copper pH ? Hardness te-Nitrite (NO3-NO2) Lead Temperature0�,Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) onia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Zinc Conductivity Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PO4) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ., Volatile Solids (VS) e Revised August 30, 2010 `' ., 9 September 14, 2010 35 Revised August 30, 2010 .'0 rA 36 September 14, 2010 , Table B-1- Milwaukie Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Locations Monitoring Frequency Analyte(s) Instream Monitoring One (1) site Four (4) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total & Dissolved); Nutrients Temperature Continuous Conductivity Instream One (1) monitoring station Ongoing Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Total Dissolved Solids PH Flow Stormwater Monitoring — One (1) site Three (3) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total Wet Weather & Dissolved); Nutrients Instream Biological Conduct or contribute to an instream biological monitoring project/task. Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide include any pesticides currently used by the City of Milwaukie within the jurisdictional areas and the Monitoring following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imidacloprid, Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (AMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events -per monitoring location. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rivers and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte category in Table B-1 are as follows: Field Conventional Nutrients11 Metals (Total &Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia coli (E. coli) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Copper pH Hardness Nitrate -Nitrite (NO3-NO,) Lead Temperature Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Zinc Conductivity Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ITotal Phosphorus (TP) TotalSuspended Solids (TSS) ? Ortho -Phosphorus (0-PO4) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) :.' Volatile Solids (VS) i Revised August 30, 2010 .'0 rA 36 September 14, 2010 , Table B-1 - Oregon City Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Locations Monitoring Fre uency Analyte(s) Instream i..: r .: i:. .� Y ua , Field; Conventional; Metals (Total Monitoring Six (6) Sites Four (4) events/year & Dissolved); Nutrients Stormwater Monitoring — 21 = Two (2) sites Three (3) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total & Dissolved); Nutrients; Wet Weather Instream Biological Conduct or contribute to an instream biological monitoring project/task. Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide include any pesticides currently used by the City of Oregon City within the jurisdictional areas and the Monitoring following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imidacloprid, Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (RMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring loc4n. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Riy d Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte cate min Table B-1 are as follows: SKF Field Conventional'�Qv Nutrients Metals (Total &Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen t Escherichia coli (E. coli)a� Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) pHHardness' v Nitrate -Nitrite , (NO s -NO _) chemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 4 onia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Temperature e Copper Lead Zinc .Conductivity , , Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) �f `` Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PU4) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Volatile Solids (VS) Revised August 30, 2010 f� 1 September 14, 2010 37 Revised August 30, 2010 �2 38 September 14, 2010 �- Table B-1— West Linn Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Location(s) Monitoring Frequency Analyte(s) Instream Monitoring Three (3) sites Five (5) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total & Dissolved); Nutrients Stormwater Monitoring — One (1) site Three (3) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total ` Wet Weather & Dissolved); Nutrients Instream Biological Conduct or contribute to an instream biological monitoring project/task. Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide include any pesticides currently used by the City of West Linn within the jurisdictional areas and the Monitoring following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imidacloprid, Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (AMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring location. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rivers and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte category in Table B-1 are as follows: ...... Field _ ....--- - — Conventional P Nutrients Metals (Total & Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia coli (E. coli) ` , Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 3 Copper � pH Hardness q gk Nitrate -Nitrite (NO3-NO2) Lead Temperature Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODSy�sQ R@nmonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) I Zinc Conductivity Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PO4) 3 . Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Volatile Solids (VS) Revised August 30, 2010 �2 38 September 14, 2010 �- M° All 01"w Revised August 30, 2010 1-13 September 14, 2010 39 Table B-1 - Wilsonville Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Location(s) Monitoring Frequency Analyte(s) Instream Field; Conventional; Metals (Total Monitoring Three (3) sites Four (4) events/year & Dissolved); Nutrients Stormwater ..: h 3�r 9.... Field; Conventional; Metals (Total " Monitoring — One (1) site Three (3) events/year i & Dissolved); Nutrients Wet Weather Instream - Biological Conduct or contribute to an instream biological monitoring projectitask. Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide - include any pesticides currently used by the City of Wilsonville within the jurisdictional areas and the Monitoring following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imidacloprid, Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (RMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthahn; and, Fungicides: ' Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutand Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring, location. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rivers and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte category in Table B-1 are as follows: Field Conventional Nutrients = Metals (Total & Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen q"coli,(E. coli) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Copper pH ess Nitrate Nitrite (NO3-NOS) Lead Temperature Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODSnmonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Zinc Conductivity Chemical Oxygen Deman(COD) Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Suspended SolidsL,(7TSS) , Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PO4) Total Dissolved Soli Volatile Solids M° All 01"w Revised August 30, 2010 1-13 September 14, 2010 39 Table B-1— Clackamas County Water Environment Services (CCSD#1, SWMACC), Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development, Happy Valley, and River Grove Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Locations Monitoring Frequency Analyte(s) Instream Monitoring Twelve (12) sites Nine (9) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total & Dissolved); Nutrients Continuous Instream Two (2) continuous monitoring Ongoing Field; Flow Monitoring stations Instream Biological Fourteen (14) sites One (1) event N/A Monitoring Geomorphic Condition Fourteen (14) sites One (1) event N/A Monitoring Stormwater Monitoring — Six (6) sites Three (3) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total Wet Weather & Dissolved); Nutrients - Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or mstream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide include any pesticides currently used by Clackamas County within the jurisdictional areas and the following: Monitoring Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imidacloprid, Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4 -D, -Glyphosate & degradate (RMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring location. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rivers and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. 3) The Geomorphic Condition monitoring must reflect a generally accepted geomorphic assessment methodology (e.g., Reconnaissance Level Assessment, Rapid Resource Inventory for Sediment and Stability Consequences). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte category in Table B-1 are as follows: Field Conventional ! Nutrients Metals (Total & Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia coli"(E. coli) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Copper pH Hardness Nitrate -Nitrite (NO3-NO2) Lead Temperature ! Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 1 Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Zinc Conductivity j Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 6 Total Phosphorus (TP) s Total,Suspended Solids (TSS) Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PO4) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Volatile Solids S Revised August 30, 2010 4 40 September 14, 2010 �- 3 Table B-1— Oak Lodge Sanitary District Environmental Monitoring Monitoring Pollutant Parameter Type Monitoring Location(s) Monitoring Fre uency Analyte(s) Instream Three (3) sites Four (4) events/year Field; Conventional; Metals (Total Monitoring & Dissolved); Nutrients Stormwater Monitoring — Three (3) sites Three (3) events/year Field; Metals (Total &Dissolved); Nutrients Dissolved); ; Wet Weather Instream Biological Conduct or contribute to an instream biological monitoring project/task. Monitoring Conduct or contribute to a pesticide stormwater characterization monitoring or instream pesticide monitoring project/task. The pesticide pollutant parameters that must be considered for purposes of this requirement Pesticide include any pesticides currently used by the City of Wilsonville within_ the jurisdictional areas and the Monitoring following: Insecticides: Bifenthrin, Cypermethin or Permethrin, Imdacloprid Fipronil, Malathion, Carbaryl; Herbicides: Triclopyr, 2,4-D, Glyphosate & degradate (AMPA), Trifluaralin, Pendamthalin; and, Fungicides: Chlorothalanil, Pro iconazole, M clobutanil Special Conditions: 1) The monitoring frequency reflects the required number of sample events per monitoring location. 2) The Instream Biological monitoring must follow a generally- accepted biological monitoring methodology (e.g., DEQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocol for Wadeable Rivers and Streams). The methodology must be documented or referenced in the monitoring plan. 3 Oil & Grease monitoring must use the Silica GeUrea ei d Hexane Extractable Material analytical method. Pollutant parameter(s) identified in each analyte cat � Table B-1 areas follows: Field ConventionalNutrients Metals (Total & Dissolved) Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia coli (E. coir) o. Total, Kj eldahl. Nitrogen (TW Copper pH Hardness' itrate-Nitrite (NO3-NO2) Lead Temperature iochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Zinc Conductivity Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Total Phosphorus (TP) i Total Suspended Solids (TSS) t Ortho -Phosphorus (O-PO4) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Oil & Grease 2. MONITORINC">�kT,he°-co-permittees must develop and implement a monitoring plan by July 1, 2011 that erneates the following elements: a. Identifies how ach monitoring objective identified in Schedule B. La. is addressed and the sources of information used. The co -permittees may use Stormwater Management Plan measurable goals, environmental monitoring activities, historical monitoring data, stormwater modeling, national stormwater monitoring data, stormwater research or other applicable information to address the monitoring objectives. b. Describes the role of the monitoring program in the iterative management of the stormwater program. Revised August 30, 2010 5 September 14, 2010C�l41 Describes the relationship between environmental monitoring and a long-term monitoring program strategy. d. Describes the following information for each environmental monitoring project/task: i. Project/task organization ii. Monitoring objectives, including: a. Monitoring question and background; of n, and )n, lowing rovide Cr Plan roposed 'k,- may emay proceed with implementation of the proposed modification without written i. The co permittee is unable to collect or analyze any sample, pollutant parameter, or information.due to circumstances beyond the co-permittee's control. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, abnormal climatic conditions, unsafe or impracticable sampling conditions, staff turnover, equipment vandalism or equipment failures that occur despite proper operations and maintenance; or, ii. The modification does not reduce the minimum number of data points, which are a product of monitoring location, frequency, and length of permit term, or eliminate pollutant parameters identified in Table B-1. Revised August 30, 2010 6 42 September 14, 2010 .-7 f. Modifications to the monitoring plan in accordance with Schedule B.2.e. must be documented in the subsequent annual report by describing the rationale for the modification, and how the modification will allow the monitoring program to remain compliant with the permit conditions. 3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS — Co -permittees must exercise due diligence in collecting and analyzing all environmental monitoring samples required by this permit. All monitoring must be conducted in accordance with design and procedures identified in Schedule B.2.d. a. In -stream monitoring i. A minimum of 50 percent of the water qua:Cdays n st be collected during the wet season (October 1 to April 30). ii. Each unique sample event must occur at a b. Stormwater monitoring , ' i. All water quality samples must be collected during a st ent that is greater that 0.1 inch of rainfall. ii. Samples must be collected after an atecede1?eriod of aminimum of 24 hours. iii. The intra -event dry period mint nof�i;ee&6 hour'g,i ei-ss a 24 -hr flow -weighted composite sample collectioi��=t�aefhod is epiployed iv. Sample Collection Method.: flow-weightedi6binposite sample must be collected for �mtr the entire en of the s ent discharge for storm events less than three hours in duratzcm r�ymum ' ee hours of the storm event discharge for all other AW.storm events."'li -weights �mposite sample collection must be initiated as �. soon as feasible, dater thanone hour after stormwater runoff begins. LA time -come sampling method or grab sampling method may be used for a specific env rburnental monitoring project/task if the monitoring plan identifies the feasibili of the flow -weighted composite sampling method or flow-weighte&composite sampling is scientifically unwarranted based upon 2 "the develop Ent of plan requirements identified in Schedule B.2.d. For time mpositd1sampling or grab sampling to be considered valid for the purpose of M. s t requirement, the rationale for the use of these alternative sampling m T s and sampling procedures must be described in the monitoring plan. 2.The flow -weighted sampling method requirement is not applicable to the collection of samples for the pollutant parameters requiring the grab sampling method, such as bacteria, oil & grease, pH or volatiles or for samples collected for purposes of halogenated pesticide or chlorinated herbicide water quality screening. Revised August 30, 2010 C�*7 September 14, 2010 ,_ 43 ►.� 5. 3.Grab samples may be collected during any part of a wet -weather event which produces sufficient runoff for sampling. The grab samples must be collected in a manner to minimize any potential bias in the results. V. Flow or rainfall data must be collected, estimated or modeled for each stormwater monitoring event. If flow or rainfall is modeled or estimated, the procedure must be described in the monitoring plan. c. Samples must be analyzed in accordance with EPA approved meth( recent publication of 40 CFR 136. The analysis must utilize approp] Assurance/Quality Control protocols, such as routinely analyzing rc laboratory control samples and spiked samples, and quantitation lin sampling objective. Field analytical kits are acceptable.if the under 40 CFR 136. This requirement does not apply to illicit elimination field screening activities conducted by the co -pen A.4.a.iv. Use of alternative test procedures must be done in a kits use detection listed in the most Quality ,ates, blanks, appropriate for the 'method approved as required by Schedule jnce with 40 CFR 136. d. If an approved analytical method is not identified in 40 CFR 136, the:co-permittee may use a suitable analytical method if the method is described in the monitoring plan, and submitted to the Department for review and approval poor to use. e. Analyzed samples must comply with preservation, transportation and holding time recommendations cited in 40 CFR 136, in the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, or as applicable to the analytical method if no approved analytical method ,in 40 CFR 136 or the. most recent edition of Standard Methods for the Examination.,of Water and Wastewater exists. f. Analytical data must be available to the. Department in a useable electronic format COORDINATED MONITORING- Monitoring conducted to meet a permit condition may be coordinated among permittees or..conducted on behalf of a permittee by a third party. Each co - permittee "Who participates in the coordinated monitoring to meet a permit condition is responsible for conducting monitoring in accordance with Schedule B requirements. Each co - permittee may utilize data collected by another permittee, a third party, or in another permittee's jurisdiction to meet's permit condition provided the co -permittee establishes an agreement prior to conducting coordinated;monitoring. ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT - Co -permittees must submit, by November 1 of each year, an annual report for the time period July 1 of the previous year through June 30 of the same year. One printed copy and an electronic copy must be submitted to the appropriate Department regional office. An electronic copy must also be made available on the co- permittee's website or and/or other similar method approved by the Department.. Each co - permittee is responsible for the portion of the annual report applicable to its jurisdiction. Each annual report must contain: a. The status of implementing the stormwater management program and each SWMP program Revised August 30, 2010 ,8 44 September 14, 2010 element, including progress in meeting the measurable goals identified in the SWMP. b. Status and/or results of any public education program effectiveness evaluation conducted during the reporting year and a summary of how the results were or will be used for adaptive management. c. A summary of the adaptive management process implementation during the reporting year, including any proposed changes to the stormwater management program e.g.,new BMPs) identified through implementation of the adaptive management Process. d. Any proposed changes to SWMP program elements pollutants to the MEP. e. A summary of total stormwater program expenditures reporting fiscal year, and those anticipated in the next f. A summary of monitoring program results, including monitor throughout the reporting year and/or assessments evaluations g. Any proposed modifications to the adequate data and information are h. A summary describing the public education programs. i. An overview. assrelated to areas is of ongoing field to the elements iv November 1. nature reduce TMDL that are accumulated iry to ensure that program assessments. actions, inspections, and 4Z,tsoharges, of concept planning, land use changes and new curr� the Urban Growth Boundary �GB) expansion and - ast for the following year. Bing andollow-up activities related to illicit discharges. ed under Schedule B.5.a. through B.5 j., the annual report 14 must include: i. Th�j.,MIDL Pollutant --Load Reduction Evaluation as described in Schedule D.3.c. ii. ThM oad Allocation Attainment Assessment as described in Schedule D.3.b. iii. The 3+Yaluation as described in Schedule D.2. 6. MS4 PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION PACKAGE - At least 180 days prior to permit expiration, the co -permittees must submit a permit renewal application package to support its proposed modifications to the SWMP for the renewed permit. One printed copy and an electronic copy must be submitted to the appropriate DEQ regional office. An electronic copy must also be made available on the co-permittee's website or and/or other similar method approved by the Department. The application package must include an evaluation of the adequacy of the proposed SWMP modifications in reducing pollutants in discharges from the MS4 to MEP. The application package must contain: Revised August 30, 2010 '9 September 14, 2010 46 a. Proposed program modifications including the modification, addition or removal of BMPs incorporated into the SWMP. b. The information and analysis necessary to support the Department's independent assessment that the co-permittee's stormwater management program addresses the requirements of the existing permit. Co -permittees must describe how the proposed management practices, control techniques, and other provisions implemented as part of the stormwater program were evaluated using a co -permittee -defined and standardized set of objective criteria relative to the following MEP general evaluation factors: i. Effectiveness — program elements effectively address stormwater pollutants ii. Local Applicability — technically feasible considering local' oils:,geography, etc. iii. Program Resources —program elements are being .implemented considering availability to resources and the permittees stormwater management program priorities. c. An updated estimate of total annual stormwater pollutant loadsFfor applicable TMDL ., pollutants or applicable surrogate parameters, and the following pollutant parameters: BODS, COD, nitrate, total phosphorus, dissolved,phosphorus, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. The estimates must be accompanied by a description of the procedures for estimating pollutant loads and concentrations, including any modeling, data analysis and calculation methods. d. A proposed monitoring program objectives matrix and.proposed monitoring plan including the information required in Schedule B.2.d. for each proposed monitoring project/task. e. A descriptionservice area expansions that are anticipated to occur during the following permit term and a.finding as to,whether or not the expansion is expected to result in a substantial increase in area, intensity:or pollutant loads. f : A fiscal evaluation summarizing program expenditures for the current permit cycle and projected program allocations: for next permit cycle. g. UpdatedMS4,maps, including the service boundary of the MS4, projected changes in land use and population densities, projected future growth, location of co -permittee -owned operations, facilities; or properties with storm sewer systems, and the location of facilities issued an industrial NPDES permit that discharge to the MS4. h. If applicable, the established TMDL pollutant load reduction benchmarks, as required in Schedule D.3.d. Revised August 30, 2010 ° o 46 September 14, 2010 �-= SCHEDULE C Compliance Conditions and Dates Compliance conditions and dates are not included at this time. SCHEDULE D Special Conditions 1. Legal Authority Each co -permittee must maintain adequate legal authority tkiro g Ld' ; ,e(s), interagency agreement(s) or other means to implement and enforce th ''�rovisions� rmit. 2. 303(d) Listed Pollutants:. a. The requirements of this section apply to receiving water as impaired im 03(d) list without established TMDL waste load allocations t hrc� 0., co -permittees MS4 discharges. The co -permittees must: i. Review the applicable pollutants that are on the.2010 303(d) It FA ost recent USEPA approved list preceding the 2010 t if a 2010 3(il`list has not been approved within three years of the issuance date s permit, that are relevant to the co- permittee's MS4 discharges, and eval whetii pis easonable likelihood for �. ;yo- . N stormwater from the MS4 to cause or contnbufe to watt lity degradation of receiving waters. Al, ii. Evaluate whether the BUT the existing 5 effective in reducing the 303(4) pollutants. If the co-pe� determines the` m the existing SWMP are ineffectivereducng the appble 303 (d) pollutants, the co -permittee must describe how the S e modifies ur pdated to address these pollutants. iii. Subm" a report sii " a�� � rig the result % the review, evaluation and proposed mofiifications or update 1 the SWM by November 1, 2014. 3 ToMkximum Daily Loads (3�Ls) a: Appua?ality: The requiremext of this section apply to the co -permittees MS4 discharges to receivmgters with establis ed TMDLs or to receiving waters with new or modified TMDLs a� ` ived by EPA within three years of the issuance date of this permit. Established TM4,DLs ar ote on pe' l of this permit. Pollutant discharges for those parameters listed in the TMDL witkilhcable wasteload allocations ()VLAs) must be reduced to the maximum extent practicablefhough the implementation of BMPs and an adaptive management process. b. Wasteload Allocation Attainment Assessment: The co -permittee must complete an assessment of WLA attainment, including identifying information related to the type and extent of BMPs necessary to achieve pollutant load reductions associated with an established TMDL WLA and the financial costs and other resources that may be associated with the implementation, operation and maintenance of BMPs. The results of the assessment must be submitted to the Department by November 1, 2014. Revised August 30, 2010 1 September 14, 2010 ,_ 47 c. TMDL Pollutant Load Reduction Evaluation: Progress towards reducing TMDL pollutant loads must be evaluated by the co -permittee through the use of a pollutant load reduction empirical model, water quality status and trend analysis, and other appropriate qualitative or quantitative evaluation approaches identified by the co -permittee. The results of this TMDL pollutant load reduction evaluation must be described in a report and submitted to the Department by November 1, 2014. The report must contain the following: i. The rationale and methodology used to evaluate progress towards reducing TMDL pollutant loads. ii. An estimate of current pollutant loadings without considering BMP implementation, and an estimate of current pollutant loadings considering BMP implementation for each TMDL parameter with an established WLA. The:difference between -these two estimated loads is the pollutant load reduction. iii. A comparison of the estimated pollutant loading with and without BMP implementation to the applicable TMDL WLA. iv. A comparison of the estimated pollutant load reduction to:the estimated TMDL pollutant load reduction benchmark established for the permit term, if applicable. V. A description of the estimated effectiveness of structural B1VIPs vi. A description of the estimated effectiveness of iron -structural BMPs, if applicable, and the rationale for the selected approach. vii. A water quality trend analysis, as sufficient data are available, and the relationship to stormwater discharges for receiving waterbodies within the permittee's jurisdictional area with an approved TMDL :If sufficient data to conduct a water quality trend analysis is unavailable fora receiving waterbody_�°the permittee must describe the data limitations. The collection ofsufficient data�musfbe prioritized and reflected as part of the monitoring project/task°propasal required in Schedule B.6.d. viii. A narrative.summarizing progresslowards the applicable TMDL WLAs and existing TMDL-benchmarks, if applicable. If thp�,co-permittee estimates that an existing TMDL -benchmark was not achieved during the permit term, the co -permittee must apply their adaptive management process to reassess the SWMP and current BMP implementation in order to address TMDL pollutant load reduction over the next permit term; and, ix. If the co -permittee estimates that TMW DL LAs are achieved with existing BMP implementation, the permittee must provide a statement supporting this conclusion. d. Establishment of:TMDL Pollutant Reduction Benchmarks: A TMDL pollutant reduction benchmark must be developed for each applicable TMDL parameter where existing BMP implementation is not achieving the WLA. The TMDL pollutant reduction benchmark must be submitted wi hfi the permit renewal application, as follows: i. The TMDL pollutant load reduction benchmark must reflect: 1. Additional pollutant load reduction necessary to achieve the benchmark estimated for the permit term, if not achieved per Schedule D.3.c.iv.; and, 2. The pollutant load reduction proposed to achieve additional progress towards the TMDL WLA during the next permit term. ii. The TMDL pollutant load reduction benchmark submittal must include the following: Revised August 30, 2010 2 48 September 14, 2010 1. An explanation of the relationship between the TMDL waste load allocations and the TMDL benchmark for each applicable TMDL parameter; 2. A description of how SWMP implementation contributes to the overall reduction of the TMDL pollutants during the next permit term; 3. Identification of additional or modified BMPs that will result in further reductions in the discharge of the applicable TMDL pollutants, including the rationale for proposing the BMPs; and, 4. An estimate of current pollutant loadings that reflect the implementation of the current BMPs and the BMPs proposed to be implemented during the next permit term. 4. Adaptive Management Each co -permittee must follow an adaptive management mach to -asses modify,�as necessary, any or all existing SWMP components and adop�w revised co r mponents to achieve reductions in stormwater pollutants. The adaptive agement appro'` . ` t include routine assessment of the need to further improve a titere J; and protection of beneficial uses, review of available technologies and practices, revue if monitoring data and analyses required in Schedule B, and evaluation of resources availabl ' lenient the �... g... technologies and practices. The co -permittees muu a description heir planned process for conducting their adaptive management approach d e permit term by November 1, 2011. 5. SWMP Modifications The co -permittee may modify its S,� during the rm in accordance with the following procedures: _ iQU i. Adding BMP - ontrols or regw,,r, eats to the SMWP may be made at any time. The co - permitted, i written qq�cation to the Department at least 5 days prior to impl�rrientation, e ubat as umrnai:f such modifications to the Department in the §,uissequent annual rep"rt�; ii,o*,educing, replacing or elmnating BMP components, controls or requirements from the S�[TMP-require subrmttall written request to the Department at least 60 days prior to the t1, d reduction, replacement, and/or elimination. The co-permittee's request must praA&information that will allow the Department to determine if the nature or scope of the Sis substantially changed, and include the following: 1. Proposed' ductioi , replacement or elimination of the BMP(s), control, or requirem��d schedule for implementation. 2. An explai R6 of the need for the replacement, reduction or elimination. 3. An explanation of how the replacement or reduction is expected to better achieve the goals of the stormwater management program or how the elimination is a result of the satisfactory completion of the BMP component, control or requirement. iii. The co -permittee must not implement a reduction, replacement or elimination without receiving written approval from the Department. If a request is denied, the Department must send the co -permittee a written response providing a reason for the decision. iv. Modifications requested by the Department will be made in writing, set forth the time schedule for the co -permittee to develop the modifications, and offer the co -permittee the opportunity to propose alternatives to meet the objective of the requested modification. Revised August 30, 20103 , September 14, 2010 49 All changes requested by the Department will be made in accordance with 40 CFR §§ 124.5, 122.62, or 122.63, and OAR 340-045-0055, as appropriate. 6. CITY OF GLADSTONE: Conduct Stormwater Master Planning a. The City of Gladstone must complete and submit a stormwater master plan to the Department by January 1, 2014. The stormwater master plan must identify stormwater quality controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal separate storm sewers, and may focus on the identification of capital improvement projects for stormwater quality. 7. OAK LODGE SANITARY DISTRICT: TMDL Pollutant Load Reduction Evaluation a. Oak Lodge Sanitary District must evaluate TMDL pollutant load reductions representing jurisdictional areas identified on the Oak Lodge Sanitary District MS4 Regulatory Map. The evaluation must use a pollutant load reduction empirical model, and may incorporate the results of a water quality status and trend analysis for waterbddies to which the Oak Lodge Sanitary District MS4 discharges. The evaluation must idlect:the estimated'TMD,L`pollutant loads and estimated pollutant load reductions for all applicable T:MDL pollutant parameters as estimated for the year of 2010. The results of this TMDL pollutant load reduction evaluation must be described in a report and submitted to the Department by January 1, 2012. The report must include all of the information required in Schedule D:3.c.i-ix. Completion of activities to achieve compliance with this condition may not be conducted in lieu of requirements described in Schedule D.3. b. Oak Lodge Sanitary District must develop a TMDL pollutant reduction benchmark for each applicable TMDL parameter where zexisting BMF:implernentation is not achieving the WLA. The TMDL pollutant reduction_ benchmark may be:used'for purposes of comparison, as required in Schedule D.3.c.iv. c. The appropriate co -permittees must assist Oak'Lodge Sanitary District by providing existing information the co -permittee maintains related jurisdictional roads and land uses within Oak Lodge Sanitary District's jurisdictional area for incorporation into Oak Lodge Sanitary District's pollutant load reduction empirical model. 8. Definitions: a. Adaptive Management: A structured, iterative process designed to refine and improve stormwater programs over time by evaluating results and adjusting actions on the basis of what has been Learned.. b. Antecedent dry;period: The period of dry time between precipitation events that include less than 0.1 inch of precipitation. c. Best Management Practices (BMPs): The schedule of activities, controls, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures and other management practices designed to prevent or reduce pollution. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control stormwater runoff. d. Dry -weather field screening pollutant parameter action levels: Pollutant concentrations Revised August 30, 2010 , 4 50 September 14, 2010 or concentration ranges used by a co -permittee to identify an illicit discharge may be present and further investigation is needed. e. Illicit Discharge: Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer system that is not composed entirely of stormwater except discharges permitted by a NPDES permit or other state or federal permit authorized except as allowed in A.4.a.xiii. f. Impervious Surface: Any surface resulting from development activities that prevents the infiltration of water or results in more runoff than in the undeveloped condition. Common impervious surfaces include: building roofs, traditional co oUm t�paving on ���w _IOI walkways, driveways, parking lots, gravel roads, and paok &iarth �terials. g. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): The statutory§s�tandard`that es �, s the level of pollutant reductions that operators of regulated MS4s riNd"kgeve. This considered met if the conditions of the permit are met. , h. Measurable Goals: BMP objectives or targets used to implementation. Measurable goals are prosp Measurable goals describe what the co-permi i. Redevelopment: A project on a previously d replacement of impervious surface. , R j. Replace or Replacement: The,emoval of an by the placement of an impervious surface. R maintenance activities. on structuress facilitil the use of the, ;" from the retnatr or dentifY, gress of SWMP whereve sstble quantitative. to do and wrt they intend to do it. in the addition or u m%0'1 s"surface that exposes soil followed ;p' nt does not include repair or s taken to prevent decline, lapse or cessation in ng as no additional hydrologic impact results k. Storinwater Management Pri►gram: Acomprehensive.set of activities and actions, utciuding policies, procedures, standards, ordinances, criteria, and best management practices established to reduce the discaige of pollutants from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System �n fhe Maximum Ext'ent Practicable, to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality reiquirements of the Clean Water Act. 1. Time of Concentration: Travel time for a drop of water to travel from most hydrologically remote location inn defined catchment to the outlet for that catchment where remoteness relates to time of travel rather than distance. m. TMDL Pollutant Load Reduction Benchmark (TMDL benchmark): An estimated total pollutant load reduction target for each parameter or surrogate, where applicable, for waste load allocations established under an EPA -approved TMDL. A benchmark is the anticipated pollutant load reduction goal to be achieved during the permit cycle through the implementation of the stormwater management program and BMPs identified in the SWMP. A benchmark is used to measure the effectiveness of the stormwater management program in making progress toward the waste load allocation, and is a tool for guiding adaptive Revised August 30, 2010 5 September 14, 2010 __ .51 management. A benchmark is not a numeric effluent limit; rather it is an estimated pollutant reduction target. Benchmarks may be stated as a pollutant load range based upon the results of a pollutant reduction empirical model. n. Water Quality Trend Analysis: A statistical analysis of in -stream water quality data to identify improvement or deterioration. o. Waters of the State: Lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Pacific Ocean within the territorial limits of the State of Oregon, and all other bodies of surface or° underground waters, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private (except those private waters that do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters) that are located wholly or partially within or bordering the state or within its jurisdiction. Revised August 30, 2010 6 52 September 14, 2010 SCHEDULE F NPDES Permit General Conditions for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems SECTION A. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Duty to Comply with Permit The co -permittees must comply with all conditions of this permit. Failure to comply with any permit condition is a violation of the Clean Water Act and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 46813.025, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §122.41(a), andgrounds for an enforcement action. Failure to comply is also grounds for the Department t fy° evo re or deny renewal of a permit. 2. Penalties for Water Pollution and Permit Condition Violati TE 0,"` '�' a. ORS 468.140 allows the Department to impose civil pertain to $10,00(3����r violation of a term, condition, or requirement of a permit A&onally 40 C41(a) provides that any person who violates any permit conditon,r requirement maybe subject to a federal civil penalty not to exceed $32,500 per day fort, a`ch violation. b. Under ORS 468.943 and 40 CFR § 122.41(a), �aVa, ater pollutioi committed by a person with criminal negligence, is punishable by iup to $25900 imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Each day on w�ch a w6lifi ccurs or continues is a separately punishable offense.'' 3. c. Under ORS 468.946, a person waste into the waters of the stz carried into the w,atersf the exceed $200-0610 and:utx ro .1 person w o..imowmgiyi the stat:*For in a location to a federal civil who knowingly disci_ M"Cs,:;places, or causes to be placed any atea location wherewthe waste is likely to escape or be tatubhject to a Class B felony punishable by a fine not to years ,ATnson Additionally, under 40 CFR § 122.41(a) any es, placed gym` causes to be laced an waste into the waters of ��n��. P Y the waste iicely to escape into the waters of the state is it to exceed $100,000, and up to 6 years in prison. The co-penmttees must take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or dispo§dJm' solation of this permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the nvironment. In addition, upon request of the Department, the permittee must correct any adverseact on the environment or human health resulting from noncompliance with this permit, inclining such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact o£he non -complying discharge. 4. Duty to Reapply If any or all of the co -permittees wish to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the co -permittee must apply to have the permit renewed. The application must be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit. The Department may grant permission to submit an application less than 180 days in advance but no later than the permit expiration date. Revised August 30, 2010 .7 September 14, 2010 ,_ 63 5. Permit Actions This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause including, but not limited to, the following: a. Violation of any term, condition, or requirement of this permit, a rule, or a statute b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all material facts c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge d. The permittee is identified as a Designated Management Agency or allocated a waste load under a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) e. New information or regulations f. Modification of compliance schedules g. Requirements of permit reopener conditions h. Correction of technical mistakes made in determining permit conditions i. Determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment j . Other causes as specified in 40 CFR §§122.62,122.64, and The filing of a request by the co -permittee for a permit modification, revocation or reissuance, termination, or a notification of planned changes or:anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition. The permittee must comply with all terms; conditions of the permit pending approval. 6. Toxic Pollutants The co -permittee must comply with any applicable effluent°standards or prohibitions established under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-041-00334ortoxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations..that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requarsinent. 7. Property Rights and Other Legal'.Requirements The issuance of this permit does not :convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege; ;or authorize any injuryto,persons or property or invasion of any other private rights, or any infringement of federal, tribal, state, or local laws or regulations. 8. Permit References Except for effluent standards or prohibitions established under OAR 340-041-0033 for toxic pollutants and standardslor sewage sludge use or disposal established under Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act, all rules and statutes referred to in this permit are those in effect on the date this permit is issued. 9. Permit Fees The co -permittee must pay the fees required by OAR 340-045-0070 to 0075. The co -permittee must pay annual compliance fees by the last day of the month prior to when the permit was issued. For example, if the permit was issued or last renewed in April, the due date will be March 31 st. If the payment of annual fees is 30 days or more past due, the permit registrant must pay 9% interest per annum on the unpaid balance. Interest will accrue until the fees are paid in full. If the Department does not receive payment of annual fees when they are Revised August 30, 2010 g 54 September 14, 2010 ---' due, the Department will refer the account to the Department of Revenue or to a private collection agency for collection. SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS Proper Operation and Maintenance The co -permittee must at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) that are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality ass c oce&res. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or sir�te are installed by the permittees only when the operation is necessary to achieve .compliance conditions of the - permit. °��. � 2. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense It must not be a defense for the permittee in an enforcement necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to 3. Removed Substances Solids or other pollutants removed in the such a manner as to prevent any pollutant causing nuisance conditions, or creating a �*] x 71I MOAK OW11 I to 7100%1_1"M3XV-4 '71 y 2. dbobla,t would have been nta 4. hance with this permit. the MS4 must be disposed of in p. ontering waters of the state, Representative Sam,�p ""` ���', Sampling and measu neaat taken as r& under this Permit must be representative of the volume and nature of the ftffitored dischsamples must be taken at the monitoring points specified ui'this permit, and 11i taken, ess otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is dillut�d'by any other waste strdy ofwater, or substance. Monitoring points may not be changedwthout notification to anMthe approval of the Department. Monitoring mte conducted, cording to test procedures approved under 40 CFR part 136, unless other test pra+r"edures have been specified in this permit or subsequent permit actions. 3. Penalties of The Clean Water Acf*ovides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit may, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment is a fine not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four years, or both. 4. Additional Monitoring by the Co -permittees Revised August 30, 20109 �~ September 14, 2010 ,Ye 55 If the co -permittees monitor any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring must be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in annual reports required by Schedule B. Such increased frequency must also be indicated. 5. Retention of Records The co -permittees must retain records of all monitoring information, including: all calibration, maintenance records, all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit for a period of at least 3 years from tlidl . - e of the sample, measurement, report, or application. This period may be ext "by request of the Department at any time. a. Enter upon a co permittee's premiseswhere a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where ,records .must b6-4,pt under the conditions of this permit; b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit, c. Inspect at reasonable times any„fkilities; equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit, and d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by state law, any substances or parameters at any location within the MS4. SECTION D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Planned Changes The permittee must comply with OAR chapter 340, division 52, "Review of Plans and Specifications” and 40 CFR § 122.41(1)(1). Except where exempted under OAR chapter 340, division 52, no construction, installation, or modification involving disposal systems, treatment works, sewerage systems, or common sewers may be commenced until the plans and specifications are submitted to and approved by the Department. The permittee must give notice to the Department as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Revised August 30, 20100 56 September 14, 2010 2. Anticipated Noncompliance The co -permittees must give advance notice to the Department of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activities that may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. 3. Transfers This permit may be transferred to a new co-permittee(s) provided the transferee(s) acquires a property interest in the permitted activity and agrees in writing to fully comply with all the terms and conditions of the permit and the rules of the Commission. No permit may be transferred to a third party without prior written approval from the Department. The Department may require modification, revocation, and reissuance of the permit to char e. p � of � permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary un ,. rp q y ary ler�`�l Cle ter Act (see 40 CFR § 122.61; in some cases, modification or revocation and rel uance is w . The co - permittees must notify the Department when a transfer of p� „erty interest Lace tha .results in a change of co-penzittee(s). 4. Compliance Schedule Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress repo;M. interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule o s permit mus omitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date. Any reports pliance mu i elude the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and-#eprob of meeting the next scheduled . �. requirements. 5. Duty to Provide Informationk` The co -permittees must furnish to the Deartment wi p � � p ���r"sonable time any information that the Department requests to determffie"compliance wit. The co -permittees must also furnish to the Departme"on request,,,, g ies of records required to be kept by this permit. Other v facts or Departr 6. Signatd All app: in accoi it must promptly 7. Falsification of is or mtI CFR §1 tteeb oz aware that it has failed to submit any relevant nation iMepermit application or any report to the such facts or information. submitted to the Department must be signed and certified Under ORS 468.953,y person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or 11 certification in any re'dord or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance, is subject to a Class C felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000 per violation and up to 5 years- in prison. Additionally, according to 40 CFR § 122.4 1 (k)(2), any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or non-compliance must, upon conviction, be punished by a federal civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation, or by both. Revised August 30, 2010 1 September 14, 2010 w 57 SECTION E. DEFINITIONS 1. CFR means Code of Federal Regulations. 2. Clean Water Act or CWA means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483 and 97-117; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 3. Department means Department of Environmental Quality. 4. Director means Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. 5. Flow -Weighted Composite Sample means a sample formed by collection and mixing discrete samples taken periodically and based on flow. 6. Grab Sample means an individual discrete sample collected over a period of time not to exceed 15 minutes. 7. Illicit Discharges means any discharge to a municipal separate -storm sewer that is not composed entirely of stormwater except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. 8. Major Oufall means a municipal separate storm sewer outfallthat,discharges from-i4iingle pipe with an inside diameter 36 inches or more or its equivalent (dschargefrom a single conveyance other than circular pipe which is associated with a drainage area of more than 50 acres); or for municipal separate storm sewers that receive stormwater=from lands zoed.for-industrial activities (based on comprehensive zoning plans or the equivalent),, an outfall that discharges from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 12 inches or more or from its equivalent (discharge from other than a circular pipe associated with a drainage area of;2 acres or more). 9. mg/L means milligrams per liter. 10. mLIL means milliliters per liter. 11. MS4 means a municipal separate storm sewer system 12. Municipal Separate Stone Sewer means a conveyance, of system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains)- a. rains) a. Owned, or operated by a date,city, town, "borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State Law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater or' -other wastes, including special districts under State Law such as a1,s" er district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian Tribal, organization, or a designated and approved management agency under §208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; b. Designed or used for collection or conveying stormwater; c. Which is not a combined ,sewer; and d. Which is not part' a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined by 40 CFR § 122.2. 13. Outfall means a point "source as defined by 40 CFR § 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the United States and does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewers, or pipes, tunnels or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other waters of the United States and are used to convey waters of the United States. 14. Permit means the NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit specified herein, authorizing the permittees listed on Page 1 of this permit to discharge from the MS4. 15. Stormwater means stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage. 16. Year means calendar year except where otherwise defined. Revised August 30, 2010 f %12 58 September 14, 2010 Clac Clac City ston US( Disc The was The Dist the c of tb This CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OAK LODGE SANITARY DISTRICT, AND INCORPORATED CITIES WITHIN CLACKAMAS COUNTY National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Evaluation Report and Fact Sheet - DRAFT [DATE] Oregon Department of Environmental Quality File No. 108016 ;y of ohnson operate 33 (MS4s). permit 2008. unitary ;gelate ;newal September 14, 2010 59 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Legaland Policy Analysis............................................................................................................... 4 CoverPage....................................................................................................................................... 7 Schedule A Controls and Limitations for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s ............................... 8 Schedule B Monitoring and Reporting.....................................................................23 Schedule C Compliance Conditions and Dates...........................................................27 Schedule D Special Conditions .............................................. ................_..........27 Schedule F General Conditions ............................................... ............................34 60 September 14, 2010 DRAFT CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OAK LODGE SANITARY DISTRICT, AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY NPDES MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT EVALUATION REPORT AND FACT SHEET OVERVIEW Clackamas County, Clackamas County Service District No. 1, Surfaq . ; ter an ` ement Agency of Clackamas County, the Oak Lodge Sanitary District, and the citie sof Gladstone- "y Valley, Johnson City, Lake Oswego, Milwaukee, Oregon City, River Grove, Wes inn, and V�ilsztn a own and operate storm sewer systems that serve Clackamas County, Oregon. N<<y The urban areas of unincorporated Clackamas County cover approxtte'L 21 square rrulo@pfin the urban growth boundary. The co -applicants cover an area of appro maa square miles, with the Cities and the County being responsible for providing drainage systems, pdly for flood control. The 11011 co -applicants' systems includes storm sewers (engineered J ed systems), s"'00' rpsage systems, and waters of the state. One major drainage area is within the permit are this is su durther into a specific subbasin. The major receiving waters that cce form vat.,r dr �ge from the permit area are the Carli Creek, Clackamas River, Cow retic, Deep Creek, per Creek Johnson Creek Kellogg Creek, Mt. Scott Creek, Phillips Creek, Richardson Gree' 1G, Creek, Sieben Creek, Willamette River, Tryon Creek, Tuala Rlver, and 0§*6'go"Lake. The current permt`sMarch 2fl{14Fand,expired on February 28, 2009. The proposed permd action is issu renewed NMIES;-permit to the Clackamas County group, as described ab€ ve, in response to renV�ral Apple on Nos. 101348, which was received by the Departmexi�§on August 29, 2008 This is the second renewal of this municipal NPDES The permit is its5u6d pursuant to state law and implements applicable federal and state law. The federal requirements specific to NPDES permits for municipal stormwater systems are set out in 33 USC § 1342(p)(3��3��xand 40CFR § 122.26. ORS 468.065 and ORS 468B.050 provide specific state authority of, e permits. In addition, ORS 468B.035 authorizes the implementation of the federal Clean Water Act and regulations adopted under the Act. September 14, 2010 61 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 4 of 32 DRAFT LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS Andbackslidinz Review The Department believes that the CWA prohibition on backsliding does not apply to MS4 permits. By its terms, the CWA prohibition on backsliding applies to effluent limits specifically established under 33 USC § 131l(b) [CWA Section 301(b)] and 33 USC § 1313(d). Such limits are not applicable to MS4 permits. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F. 3rdl 159, 1164- 66 (9' Cir. 1999). The Department has determined that the MS4 permit will satisfy federal and Oregon law by requiring controls that effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges and that reduce stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The principal mechanism for controlling discharges is the development and implementation of a stormwater management plan (SWMP). Both the original and renew al„permits require the SWMP to control pollutant discharges to the MEP standard. In addition, this renewal permit includes provisions that are expected to lead to a SWMP that is even more effective than the program established under the previous permit. As noted in.the antidegradation review section of this report, this renewal permit is not expected to result in increased discharge loads even with projected growth. Antideeradation Review The Department's antidegradation policy in OAR 340-041-0004 protects waters of the state from unnecessary degradation fromnew or increased sources of pollution, and ensures protection of existing beneficial uses. Permit renewals imposing the same or more stringent requirements as the prior permit are not considered to lower water quality from existing water quality. Here, both the previous 'MS4 permit and this renewal MS4 permit require the permittees to reduce the discharge of pollutant loads to the MEP and to prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewer system: As noted above; some of the receiving waters covered by the previous permit and this renewal permit are water quality --limited. ”: The Department has determined that the MS4 permits will satisfy the requirements of federal and Oregon law by requiring controls that effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges and that reduce stormwater discharges to the MEP. To the extent that water quality standards are not being met, the Department determines that implementation of the measures set out in the proposed permit will reduce the relevant waste load contributions to the maximum extent practicable as required by federal law. This renewal permit also includes all available and reasonable controls as required by state law, as discussed below. Moreover, the renewal permit is not expected to result in an increased discharge load from that authorized under the previous permit. 62 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 5 of 32 DRAFT With respect to receiving waters that are high quality waters or that attain water quality standards for some but not all relevant parameters, the proposed renewal permit is not expected to allow a discharge of an increased load beyond that allowed in the prior permit because it requires the [co -]permittees to develop and implement plans to reduce overall pollutant loadings and address TMDL waste load allocations to the MEP. The renewal permit requires the co -permittees to ensure that all new development and redevelopment follow local construction and post -construction stormwater regulations designed to minimize the discharge of polluted stormwater to the MS4."� u om6jincrease in discharges might be expected from these new developments ,at'r evel tints, the quantity and concentration of stormwater pollutants will be significantly�ess than iformwater management requirements were implemented. Further, the - 4 renewal p quire the co - permittees to reduce stormwater pollution from existing dev is to the rii55- h tent practicable, and develop a stormwater retrofit strategy intendettiude the reduaff stormwater pollution from existing developments in the futue: C?ve five-year permit term, a range of programs will be implemented and enhanced to minimize seater pollution discharges from existing residential, commercial, andmdustrial developme These programs 1 .� pl6ernE include roadway pollution reduction activities im@ the co permittees, education and outreach to the general public and businesses, an&industpal water technical assistance and regulatory programs. Thus, the combination of s",alati6ns to ize new sources of pollution from new developments and the reductiontmTolluhon�'rom exxstmg developments is expected to result in a net decrease in stormwater pollution dischaM7 to the MS4 during the renewal permit period. The law recognizes tl t s'. i _ Wal control due to topogr'aphy;lrl u storms). The I" ore, the law eii dischargesind the co -permittees management practices to reduce I renewed perm:i is a net reduction Therefore, no changes are being y quality for the p,gT,W of this ant: 1�arges are highly variable in nature and difficult to weath6 di ferences (e.g., intensity and duration of an ad4"' *6 management process for reducing these quir4&6 regularly review and refine their best nts to the maximum extent practicable. The goal of the lutant loadings over the five-year permit term. -d that would be expected to cause a lowering of water gradation review. The permit does allow f Frevisions to the stormwater management plan (SWMP) through a prescribed process of ahve management. [see Schedule D(2)(a)] Such revisions are expected to improve the overall effectiveness of the SWMP and not contribute to increased degradation. Any change to the SWMP that meets the criteria set forth in Schedule D(2)(f)(iii) will be subject to formal permit modification procedures and antidegradation review. September 14, 2010 63 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 6 of 32 DRAFT State Agency Coordination Requirements The permit at issue is a renewal permit and DEQ is not required to obtain land use compatibility statement or make an independent land use determination for renewal permits. OAR 340-018- 0050(2)(b); OAR 660-030-0090; and OAR 660-031-0040. The renewal permit exception to the LUCS requirement does not apply if the renewal permit involves a substantial modification or intensification of the permitted activity. Id. Under the applicable rules, a substantial modification or intensification of the activity exists when: (i) The permitted source or activity relates to the use of additional properfy.or a physical expansion on the existing property; (ii) The permitted source or activity involves a significant merease.in discharge, _waters or into the ground; or (iii) The permitted source or activity involves the relocation, an outfall outside of the source property. ` OAR 340-018-0050(2)(b)(B). The co -permittees have documented and the Department finds that the permitted activities under the prior and the renewal permits are virtually. identical. Both the.pror and renewal permits are issued on a system -wide basis, require measures that effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges and require controls to the maximum extent,practicable. Both permits include adaptive management measures designed to improve the management practices and thus reduce waste discharges. As part ofthe antidegradation review, the Department determined that the renewal permit will not allowa significant increase in discharges. Since the prior permit covered all existing and future discharges from the systen, the renewal permit does not allow the use of additional; property, a physical expansion, or arelocation of an outfall as those terms are used in the rule: All water quality permits must meet the requirements of state law. Oregon statutes in general give the EnvironmentalQuality Commission and the Department broad authority to impose permit requirements needed to prevent, abate, or control water pollution. See ORS 468B.010, 468B.015, 468B.020, and 468B 110. However, direct statutory requirements applicable to discharge permits are more limited. ORS 468B.020(2)(b) directs DEQ to require the use of all available and reasonable methods necessary to protect water quality and beneficial uses. DEQ interprets this requirement to be no more restrictive than the federal directive that requires MS4 permits to control pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The Department further has determined that the renewal permit and the requirement to control discharges to the maximum extent practicable appropriately addresses Oregon's environmental policies and adequately protects the health, safety and welfare of Oregon citizens. ORS 468B.050 also requires that 64 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 7 of 32 DRAFT discharge permits specify applicable effluent limits. The Department has determined that the effluent limits applicable to the renewal permit are the effective prohibition on non-stormwater discharges and the requirement to control stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. COVER PAGE Receiving Stream Information The front page of the renewal permit includes information about the re g tream(s) to which the permittee's MS4 discharges storm water. In addition, erect✓ is M Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that establishes wasteload atIl &Ii6ns (WLAs) s ba stormwater in the Lower Willamette River, Clackamas River arty �'�ualatin Riverstns. This . reference does not create any permit requirements or represent numb effluent limits. Rather, it is simply designed to acknowledge the existence of the TMDL andThe,methods by which the permittee is required to address TMDL arS4mribed in ;che and Schedule D of the permit. Controls and Limitations lI 'r"Stormwifer Discharees from MS4s Schedule A provides a summary ofIth�tuired controls and limitations for stormwater discharges from per es." Adidi requirements related to some of the controls and limitations discuscan b ffiohmndhi other schedules of the permit. For exam le Condition 2 states tli , rmittee' be in compliance with the maximum extent p 0 :. practicabledard (MEP) if thea ttee complies with the permit requirements and impleme is stormMP water management plan (SW). The detailed requirements for SWMP developmnl`and implementation around in Schedule C and D. The proposed revisions to the 11 substantive%�iA and requir�ients in most of Schedule A's conditions are consistent with what was inclu ,ii, the renewal=Termit under reconsideration. The notable proposed changes to the renewal Deter summatized below. Condition I Prohibit Non-Stormwater Discharges This permit condition simply prohibits non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 that are not otherwise authorized, in accordance with federal regulations.' 1 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1) September 14, 2010 65 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 8 of 32 DRAFT Condition 2 Maximum Extent Practicable The permit condition reflects the underlying compliance standard for the permit and SWMP under federal and Oregon law. The MS4 permittees are required to implement controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), in accordance with Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342 (p)(3)(13)(iii), and ORS Chapter 468B. Each co -permittee is required to implement reasonable and available controls to satisfy the MEP requirement. Implementation of available and reasonable controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable will serve to protect, maintain and improve the quality of waters of the state and will protect the beneficial uses of such waters consistent with ORS 468B.015 and ORS 468B.020. ORS 46813.020 requires the use of all available and reasona>7 e:methods of coni cfto.ach eve Oregon's water quality goals described in ORS 468B.015, and`OR5w468B.048. Iri.addition, ORS 46813.035 provides the EQC and the Department authority to implemcnt federal regulations and guidelines established by the EPA in accordance with the Clean Wates Act. With respect to the MS4 systems at issue in this permit, the Clean Water Act and federal regulations require permittees to control the discharge of pollutants that maybe contained in municipal stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. DEQ interprets the MEP requirement to require all controls that are reasonable and available. The Department has further concluded that the permit conditions, including the requirement to control discharges to theIEP standard appropriately addresses Oregon's environmental policies -and adequately protects the health, safety and welfare of Oregon's citizens. Accordingly, control measures rneetizithe MEP requirement satisfy the requirements in both Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1342 (p)(3)(13)(iii) and ORS Chapter 468B. The Department has reviewed the SWMP submitted with each permit application and concluded tha ,the program elements included in the permittees' SWMPs, in conjunction with theprovisions contained within the permit, are designed to protect, maintain and``improve the quality of the waters of the state for the protection of the designated beneficial uses of such waters and will serve to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. In recognition of thedifficultiesregulating discharges from municipal separate storm sewers, EPA has intentionally,not provided a precise definition of MEP to allow maximum flexibility in MS4 permitting. EPA does:envision, however, that the evaluative process MS4s undertake to meet the MEP standard will: "...consider such factors as condition of receiving waters, specific local concerns, and other' aspects included in a comprehensive watershed plan. Other factors may include MS4 size, climate, implementation schedules, current ability to finance the program, beneficial uses of receiving water, hydrology, ecology, and capacity to perform operation and maintenance."2 The Department understands that what constitutes MEP for a particular permittee may change over time. Therefore, the Department has adopted monitoring and reporting requirements described in Schedule B to ensure continued compliance with the MEP standard. 2 December 8, 1999 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 235, Page 68754. 66 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 9 of 32 DRAFT The Department has determined that the permit conditions, including the requirement to control stormwater discharges to the MEP standard through SWMP implementation, conforms to OAR 340-041-0101 & 340-041-0340 (Columbia and Willamette River basins respectively), which require that water quality be managed to protect beneficial uses. Policy guidelines in OAR 340- 042-0001 provide that the Department "will continue to manage water quality by evaluating discharges and activities, whether existing or a new proposal, on a case by case basis, based on information currently available and within limiting framework of minimum standards, treatment criteria and polices ..." One such treatment criterion and polic define is „ ` forth in OAR 340-041-0009(8), which provides that "Storm Sewer Syste u ct t cipal NPD-- ES Permits: best management practices must be implemented4tted storm sewers to control bacteria, to the maximum extent practicab L!.' fR Condition 3 Implementation of Stormwater Management Plan <,- kication This permit condition references a specific file number to identify thof.the current R SWMP and any future SWMP revisions. This referee _ 11 assist the pu�bciiid other interested parties in obtaining access to the SW N on, SWMPs est be electronically available through direct incorporation into the ca -permittee vpbsite andlor accessible via a co - permittee weblink. This permit condition also spe es thatea i cQ permittee within a group permit is responsible for compliance withmts own Jurisdictiong Condition 4, r Stormwater Management Plan Reyuzrnts The Department devel+oe� ermit cone tion for the 3rd generation of MS4 Phase I permits to reflect the Depart%nenP��c tment to conttuued, mprovement with successive iterations of the �VJ� w f , MS4 permits The broad requnement;in this permit condition highlights the importance of the implementation of a SWMP that m tporates measurable goals for program elements identified in sectwti a -through h. of ConditinA .Sections a. through h. under this permit condition 9 include M&�tft nimum measures.1equired in 40 CFR 122.34, and a hydromodification assessmentLa�ofit strategy development. Measurable goalsr6ffebtively replace the tracking requirements found in the existing (2004-2009) permit, including Tota gVl�rimum Daily Load (TMDL) performance measures and performance indicators. Measurable goads are functionally similar to the performance indicators in the existing permits. Measurable goals'`are objectives or targets that quantify the progress of SWMP implementation and outline the practices; techniques or provisions associated with protecting water quality. Measurable goals are quantitative, prospective and, wherever possible, describe what the [co]permittee intends to do and when they intend to do it. Measurable goals may be stated as a range. USEPA has developed guidance related to the development and expression of measurable goals.' To maintain the flexibility for identifying, tracking and addressing measurable goals, the Department is not ' EPA's measurable goals guidance can be found on the web at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/measurablegoals/index.cf n September 14, 2010 67 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 10 of 32 DRAFT mandating specific types of goals or measurement tools. However, the permittees must consider, USEPA's guidance when evaluating the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measurable goals that are identified in their SWMPs. Condition 4(a) Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) Program The MS4 permittees have implemented IDDE programs since the initial issuance of the MS4 permits in the mid-1990s. An illicit discharge detection and elimination program, including the enforcement of such program, is necessary to avoid illicit discharges or.improper disposal. The enforcement response plan permit requirement is designed to_ensure clarity and consistency in enforcement response actions by focusing enforcement resources on the most important violations and violators. The Department has also included permit requirements to promote improved communication between permittees to improve consistency and timely,.:response to illicit discharges. For example, this permit condition requires a!permittee to notif-an authority with jurisdictional oversight if the source of an illicit discharge originates outside of the jurisdictional area of the permittee. An effective IDDE program incorporates preventative management strategies as necessary, such as sanitary cross -connection reviews as part of building occupancy inspections, development and training of spill response standard operating procedures, and ongoing sanitary and storm sewer maintenance and replacement programs. An=IDDE°program also includes approaches and techniques to identify or detect illicit discharges or improper disposal, such as dry -weather screening inspections and televising sanitary or storm sewer, systems, in a timely manner so the discharge do not turn into catastrophic discharges to receiving waterbodies. The Department maintains_that ongoing field screening activities play an important role in a comprehensive illicit discharge detection and elimination program. To enhance the existing permit language that generally requires a program to detect and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer, the Department has incorporated specific permit language that requires the permittees to identify and prioritize annual field screening locations. The Department'encourages the permittees to consider dry -weather field screening locations in areas of known or suspected illicit discharges, areas discharging to sensitive waterbodies, areas where the age ofthe structures or stormwater system are near the end of their design life, or other m relevant areas that ayiiave an increased likelihood for illicit discharges or improper disposal. The Department has also'included permit language to identify or develop dry -weather field screening pollutant parameter `action levels' that the permittee will use to identify sources of illicit discharges or assist in differentiating between an illicit discharge and other types of discharges (e.g., non-stormwater discharges). In identifying or developing the `action levels', the Department suggests the permittees review illicit discharge detection and elimination program guidance developed by the Center for Watershed Protection and referenced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (h"://www.ppa.goy/npdes/pubs/idde chapter-1.2.pdf). 68 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 11 of 32 DRAFT Condition 4(b) Industrial and Commercial Facilities Federal stormwater regulations envision states and municipal permittees cooperating in addressing pollutants in stormwater discharges to municipal storm sewers from industrial facilities. Currently, Clean Water Services and the cities of Eugene and Portland, through Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the Department, act as agents for industrial NPDES permits within their jurisdictions. The MOAs outline both the Department's agerrt'Wesponsibilities in carrying out permit administration and compliance, and include, ee s� agreement. Agent's major responsibilities typically include processing new permitIpp',.' ions and making permit registration decisions; assisting the Department wrjp-,J_n o al, wing stormwater discharge monitoring reports; reviewing actioecting srf being the first -responder for complaints and permit compliance. For those co -permittees that do not act as the Department's agent, tlir,§', mS t condition requires co -permittees to screen existing and new businesses, ann,otify the faci'Wnndthe Department WOMW when they identify businesses that may require a Departtn issued industrral NPDES permit. Industrial activities that are subject to permittin equire r e determined by SIC codes listed in the federal regulations This requirem �uvill assist impartment in identifying 7,7µi businesses that need an industrial stormwa r.NPDES hermit an' ill assist the co -permittees in evaluatingindustrial stormwater dischar esthat are ocadurnn within their jurisdictions. g __.. �. g J This condition also requires that I stormwater control meas �,� specific informatiiin `ass i, load to the MS4.' Although this cp all commercial and industrial sow jam: this praF,grp the Department anti pollutionevention activities are sources at tris. e:. The Departn complement reormwater r operations and program, or the irocedures or inspection and implementation of industrial and commercial facilities where site- ischdfg�asource that contributes a significant pollutant vft ion does�l�specifically require the permittees to evaluate within their jurisdiction that may potentially be subject to tes the current IDDE program, monitoring efforts, and 3cient to identify the appropriate commercial and industrial anticipates this requirement will further strengthen and gement efforts, such as IDDE, education and outreach, ral controls, an existing fat, oil and grease (FOG) reduction priority retrofit approaches or areas. Condition 4(c) Construction Site Runoff Control The [co]permittees, through ordinances or other regulatory mechanisms, must implement a construction program that controls polluted runoff from construction sites associated with minimum threshold of land disturbance. Even though construction sites that disturb one acre or more of land are covered by Department -issued construction stormwater NPDES permits, the construction site runoff control requirements in this permit are needed to induce more localized 4 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.26(b)(14) and (15). September 14, 2010 69 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 12 of 32 DRAFT site regulation and enforcement efforts, and to enable the MS4 co -permittees to more effectively control construction site discharges into their MS4s. For purposes of clear administration of the stormwater program, the applicable land disturbance minimum threshold triggering coverage under the local construction site program required by the permit is based on the minimum threshold identified for the post -construction stormwater management program. The requirements in Conditions 4(c) (i) through (vi) describe the Department's minimum expectations for co -permittees' construction stormwater programs. The requirements are similar to those found in the current permits, but are more specific about the actions that co -permittees are required to perform. The main elements include having anz ordinance to;require controls and impose sanctions, requiring implementation and maintenance of BMPs, preventing or,controlling site construction wastes from impacting water quality, site plan reviewprocedures, site -inspection procedures, and enforcement procedures. Condition 4(d) Education and Outreach The existing permit requires co -permittees to conduct proper management and disposal of used oil and toxic ational acti cilitate the provideeducational opportunities for construction site operators, and=consider using education programs to address the application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers based on mid -permit term submittal. This permit condition consolidates these education anifoutreach program -requirements under a single program element, and further clarifies and; expands the: education and outreach program minimum expectations. Anticipating the permittees -will build upon previous education and outreach program implementation experiences, this permit condition requires implementation of an education and outreach program designed to,aehieve measurablchanges based on target audiences, specific stormwater, quality issues in the community, or.dentified pollutants of concern. The permittee has the flexibility to identify the audience(s) and pollutant(s) of concern that will be targeted, but the permittee must document and report the specific activities that will be conducted, and the individual or entity responsible for implementing the strategy. The permit also identifies general education and outreach program requirements that must be met, including training of municipal employees involved in a, variety of MS4-related activities. This permit condition also'requires permittees to conduct or participate in a group effort to conduct an effectiveness evaluation to measure the success of public education activities during the permit term. The effectiveness evaluation will focus on quantifying changes in targeted behaviors, and should be conducted in a manner to provide a reasonable estimate of pollutant reductions that may be achieved through the implementation of a targeted education and outreach program. The Department expects the results of the evaluation will be used to adaptively managing the education and outreach programs, and provide information that can be incorporated in the permittee's TMDL pollutant reduction estimates and benchmark development efforts. 70 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 13 of 32 DRAFT The Department acknowledges that conducting this evaluation may be difficult, particularly when identifying and isolating factors that may influence the effectiveness of an education and outreach program are considered. A recent Center for Watershed Protection and University of Alabama report provides guidance related to designing a quantitative study to monitor public education programs, particularly a defensible examination of a pollutant load reduction estimate achieved through the implementation of an education program. Condition 4(e) Public Involvement and Participation Federal regulations require MS4 permittees to establish a pt development of their stormwater management program.6 H involvement requirement in the federal regulations regardiu evaluation of the stormwater management program. The DE involvement will assist the permittees in maintaining a high program that meets MEP. This condition of the permit specifies that co -pen process that provides opportunities for the public implementation and adaptive management of they t expects unpien in the process for the o explicit public �Anr ntation and participation program. Specifically, the process must include provision x receiving an tconsidering public comments on the SWMP and the TMDL pollutant loadredi f10 benchmark' e to the relative importance of these components in a stormwater management program Although the Department excluded a i of the addition ofBMPs, and revision oru dates to existmgBMPs that do not change the substance of the BMPs, from this permit condittiop.ffie Departnenf also anticipates the permittees will provide the public t44; a' ? ' to comrrient on such changes, particularly if the changes will impact the costo fpr"ovidmg��roved °a *9rgased service. Post -Caste ction Site Runoff This,per ciandition expands on the previous requirements by identifying minimum performance standards.The07,epartment based theWperformance standards on its review of the current post - construction srte nano ff programs in Oregon, post -construction program requirements in other states, scientific literature, gomments,and guidance from USEPA. A post -construction program is an important component of a comprehensive municipal stormwater management program. Urban stormwater pollutant loading from developed areas is generally a function of increased stormwaterxunoff volume and rate from increased impervious surfaces, and is related to the type and intensity of a land use activity. An effective post -construction management program can result in reduced pollutant loading to receiving waters from developed areas if the program requires development 5 Center for Watershed Protection. 2008. Monitoring to Demonstrate Environmental Results: Guidance to Develop Local Stormwater Monitoring Studies Using Six Example Study Designs. Center for Watershed Protection:Ellicott City, MD. pg.SD5-Ito SD5-17. 6 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.26 (d)(2)(iv) September 14, 2010 71 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 14 of 32 DRAFT projects to minimize impervious surfaces, reduce runoff, and provide adequate stormwater quality treatment. ' The threshold where the post -construction requirements become applicable to new development and redevelopment projects can have a substantial impact on the water quality benefit. For example, research in the Pacific Northwest indicates biological stream functioning may substantially degrade when the Total Impervious Area (TIA) in a watershed related to urbanization reaches a level between 5% and 10%.8,9 If the requirements of a post -construction program do not apply to a majority of the projects creating new impervious surfaces, increased stormwater runoff volume and its ability,to carry increasing pollutant loads will not be adequately addressed. This permit condition identifies,aminimum threshold for permittee's that reflects an evaluation conducted by the permittee based on the goal to identify a minimum threshold that would cover an estimated 90% of all new or replaced impervious surfaces within their jurisdiction. The minimum threshold identified in this permit.eondition also considered factors such as minimum lot sizes, distribution of land uses, average impe v�ous�area associ� d with single- family dwellings, development patterns, additional or reallocated tesource needs, and the overall benefit/cost of establishing a particular minimum threshold. J, a permittee did not conduct the specific evaluation, the Department assigned the lowest minimum threshold identified by a co - permittee within a group permit or other MS4 Phase Lpermittee, as app ropriate:lo The Department expects that the requirements for post -construction stormwater management will be tailored by individual permittees in order to best accommodate local conditions, watershed priorities and achieve the Maximum Extent Practicable requirement ITT Departmentrecognizes that time and resources will be necessary to update and refine their post cpnstruction program and related enforceable documents. As a result, this permit condition requires the permittewto continue implementation of the current post -construction program until the anew requirements can'be reflected and incorporated into the post -construction management program by;Jamuary 1, 2014. The post -construction requirements'byand large_follow.a''hierarchical structure in which the post - construction management program goals are identified,followed by enforceable guidelines for the post - construction stormwater quality management manual or equivalent document (e.g., ordinance). The program goals identified in this permit. condition reflect a post -construction stormwater management approach that stresses the importance of pollutant and runoff prevention first, followed by site-specific runoff reduction, and finally the capture and treatment of pollutants, as highlighted in the 2008 National Research Council report.11 The Department expects the permittees will identify how applicable new development and redevelopment projects can meet the program goals. The Department anticipates that the permittees will identify how the program goals can achieve by developing or revising an enforceable r National Research Council: 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 8 Booth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System—Impacts, Solutions and Prognoses. Northwest Environ. J. 7(1):93-118 9 Waite, I.R., Sobieszczyk, Steven, Carpenter, K.D., Amsberg, A.J., Johnson, H.M., Hughes, C.A., Sarantou, M.J., and Rinella, F.A., 2008, Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in the Willamette River basin and surrounding area, Oregon and Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5101-D, 62 p. 10 Department of Environmental Quality memo. Guidelines for Determining the Post -Construction Impervious Area Minimum Threshold for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permits. June 3, 2009. ' � National Research Council. 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 72 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 15 of 32 DRAFT stormwater management manual or equivalent document. The permittee must use the enforceable requirements in its review and approval of site-specific post -construction stormwater management plans for applicable new development and redevelopment projects. This permit condition clarifies the minimum performance standards that the post -construction program must meet by generally requiring the stormwater management manual or equivalent document(s) include methods, approaches and requirements to reduce pollutants and mitigate the volume, duration, time of concentration and rate of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects. The Department expects using this general language with more specific requirements related to what must be incorporated into a stormwater management manual or equivalent d, �t(s 1 the permittee flexibility to identify the most effective and understandable approa b�or 'the pment community and general public. For example, this permit condition requires the pezmittees ideri0 J 'nimum design storm or an acceptable method to conduct a continuous simulate appr natele the benefits s example, if(i.e., pollutant ant reductions) of implementing site stormwatmeasure the design storm approach was identified by the permittee, the Dep anticipates th method the Aw permittee could use to ensure pollutants are reduced, and the volume, on, time of concentration and rate of stormwater runoff are mitigated, is through the identification of a vo -based (e.g., first Y2 inch of a 24hr. event), storm event percentile -based (e.g., 951h percentile storm ev x annual average runoff -based (e.g., 80% of annual average runoff) minimumktmust be rets'n the development site. In other words, the permittee would identify theperfoririance standard that s' analogous to maintaining or restoring pre -development hydrgf is functt�m d reducing pollutant loading (i.e., general conditions of the post-constructiongram requ �meuts), while providing a clear, understandable target that a project developor gener�i public ctuld design to and show compliance with the local post -construction program requuements. This permit condition als�ecifically� qu "=', Jhat new development and redevelopment projects are designed to capture a��se;�%mmum of `S0°la�of the annual average runoff. The average annual runoff can be calculaEeflfis`s runoff ester and using rain event characteristics appropriate for the region or loaity. This perfo" w ee Standard is aced upon a review of the requirements currently employed be MS4 Phase I jurisIn addntion, if represented as a design storm for the Phase I MS4 pe�rmiftees, this performance stapdard reflects a range between a one and two inch /24-hour storm event,ahata ysirnilar to a design storm recently identified in technical guidance for federal projects under Section 438`othenergy Independencerand Security Act based on the 95`s percentile storm event for the P 12 Portland area (r „�=00-daily precipiotion). The Department anticipates many development sites may achieve the requirement to capture iftid treat 80% of the annual average runoff by using site design methods and approaches tlzat mitigate the volume, duration, time of concentration and rate of stormwater runoff, such as Low Impae�iewelopment and Green Infrastructure. The prioritization and implementation of Low Impact Development (LID), Green Infrastructure (GI) or equivalent stormwater management approaches as part of an enforceable standard is a key requirement of this permit condition, and reinforces the overall goal of the stormwater management programs "to reduce the discharge ofpollutants to the maximum extentpracticable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods."" LID and GI are a set of management 12 USEPA. Dec. 2009. "Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act". EPA 841-B-09-001. Office of Water Washington D.C. 13 Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) September 14, 2010 73 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 16 of 32 DRAFT approaches and technologies that utilize and/or mimic the natural hydrologic cycle processes of infiltration, evapotranspiration and use, and are becoming increasingly prevalent in Oregon and across the country. These approaches consider site design that seek to integrate hydrologically functional design with pollution prevention measures by using small-scale, decentralized practices that infiltrate, evaporate, retain for reuse, and transpire stormwater. 14 This permit condition requires applicable and practical uses of LID, GI or equivalent approaches be identified, and conditions where these approaches may be impracticable. For example, the use of infiltration in an area highly susceptible to landslide hazards may be identified by the permittee as being impracticable. The permittees must incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into an enforceable stormwater management manual, including a description of site-specific design requirements and pollutant removal efficiency performance goals that maximize the reduction in discharge of pollutants, by January 1, 2014. The BMPs, if properly designed and constructed in accordance to identified BMP specifications, will be presumed to have met the related permit condition. The Department acknowledges that actual pollutant removal performance will vary based on individual site conditions, rainfall patterns, the inflow concentration of pollutants, and maintenance. This permit condition identifies the minimum performance standard that must be achieved by the permittees. Permittees may need to tailor their local requirements based on local issues or water resource and planning priorities. If there are receiving waters or land uses of concern, more stringent criteria may be developed to provide greater protection. For example, several co -permittees currently implement requirements for a 65% reduction in phosphorus from new development. These local requirements are designed to address water quality issues in the Tualatin River basin. Where site-specific conditions make the post -construction requirements infeasible, co -permittees' programs must require an equivalent approach to address potential impacts, such as off-site stormwater quality management. The Department expects that, these alternative options will be granted by permittees on a project-by-projectbasis: In some cases, watershed benefits may be realized when off-site mitigation projects are implemented in place of on-site practices;,.depending on a variety of factors, such as the location and nature of the regional projects and the ancillary benefits they offer (habitat, recreation, open space, flood control, etc.). Condition 4(g) Pollution Prevention for Municipal Operations The existing permit requires the stormwater programs reduce the discharge of pollutants from the operation and maintenance of public streets, roads and highways and in the management of operating or closed municipal landfills or other treatment, storage or disposal facilities for municipal waste. In addition, controls for application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer in public right-of-ways and at municipal facilities are required. This permit condition consolidates and expands these conditions under the pollution prevention for municipal operations program element, and includes requirements intended to prevent or reduce pollutants from properties owned or operated by the municipality. The types of properties or facilities the Department envisions to be included under this program include parks and open spaces, fleet and building maintenance facilities, transportation systems and fire -fighting training facilities. The Department considers the actions, activities and approaches related to this permit 14 Prince George's County, Maryland. Department of Environmental Resources. 1999. "Low Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach." 74 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 17 of 32 DRAFT condition important since the permittee has direct control of these types of operations, and anticipates that the actions, activities and approaches may play a role in education and outreach as a broader example of the type of efforts that can be done. In addition, the Department anticipates the results of an ongoing flood control project retrofit assessment will complement the stormwater retrofit strategy development requirement identified in Schedule A, Condition 6. Condition 4(h) Structural Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Activities The long-term operational performance of structural stormwater rcantr( and facilities hinges on ongoing, effective maintenance. Regularaminanc facilities continue to function properly and achieve their des gn objects ' infiltration, flow control, pollutant removal or a combinati hof objectives. permit condition is to have the permittees establish or refine that ensures structural stormwater controls and management operated in a manner that ensures they function properly ovE The Department reviewed the MS4 Program E identify the types of questions to ask and infon operation and maintenance program. Based on minimum, a long-term maintenance program n and track stormwater management facilitie$,,m requirements, which is reflected in this per�ur ut The Department recognizes that it it#Wfb treatment facility. For pcale, the` sinal operated structur�o ,._ h as i direct oversight5by the mumcria mor cc properties,may be costly and dit to ible ensure that Ther it is tent of this a'!4 are mamtame� d L anceis d`-.edtby USEPA to to have an etive long-term eDepartmendetermined that, at a tthority, the ability to identifying �w pection and maintenance =ittees to track every stormwater I potentially numerous privately -owned or .dens installed at single family residences without �0—MW, snn parking lots at multi -family or commercial and the benefits of constant and direct oversight) these types of facilitie4�.y be of limited value. As a result, the Department S differenttatehe requirements between publicly -owned and operated facilities, and those facilities thaie ,owned or operatety a private entity. The Department, however, encourages 4. each permittee:am a general'', uirement under its legal authority that stormwater treatment facilities be DroDe_ bDerated and maintained. The requirements relate io, publicly -owned or operated stormwater quality facilities include inventory, mapping, inspection, maintenance and related criteria, priorities and record-keeping procedures. The Department anticipates additional efforts related to this requirement will be minimal as a result of existing permit requirements (Schedule D.2.c.i.1.) related to municipal operation pollution prevention activities. 15 USEPA. January 2007. "MS4 Program Evaluation Guidance". Office of Wastewater Management: Washington D.C. September 14, 2010 75 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 18 of 32 DRAFT The requirements for privately -owned or operated stormwater controls or facilities are similar, but with some clarifications. For example, this permit condition only requires new privately - owned or operated facilities or controls required under the post -construction program, any facility or control used to estimate the TNIDL pollutant load reduction or other major facility be incorporated into the inventory and mapping. As a result, only these types of facilities will be specifically subject to the inspection criteria and procedures, and operation and maintenance requirements. The Department expects permittees will define "major private stormwater facility or structural control" as it relates to their jurisdiction, along with the rationale for including or excluding specific types of private stormwater facilities or structural controls"''under it definition. In considering what types of private stormwater facilities or structural controls should be included under the definition of major, the co -permittees should consider 'the magnitude of the impact to water quality if the facility or control was not adequately or properly maintained. Condition S Hydromodification Assessment A principle goal of the Clean Water Act is "to restore and maintain the chemical„physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 16 However, attainment of this goal -has been partially limited in many watersheds as a result of the alteration of hydrologic characteristics, or hydromodification17, caused by urbanization. The 'Department 'has determined that hydromodification impacts associated with urbanization, including -impacts related to changes in the volume, velocity, duration and quality of stormwater runoff, are a significant water quality issue, and has included requirements in this permit condition to gather information regarding existing efforts and conceptually develop proposed actions to address hydromodification where applicable. The Department acknowledges that:addressing hydromodification issues has not previously been required by the MS4 permits. The Department appreciates the challenges, complexities, cost and resource issues that a permittee faces as it attempts to understand and address hydrologic modifications caused by urbanization:, Therefore, the Department has developed hydrorriodification requirements that reflect and account for the existing local hydromodification focus or knowledge, and recognizes that there may be existing knowledge gaps or uncertainty. However, the Department also presumes the permittees will need to consider a variety of issues as they address the hydromodification-specific requirements. These issues may include, but are not limited to, the localwariables causing hydromodification, the severity of hydromodification impacts on local streams, the risk or susceptibility of waterbodies to current and future hydromodification, andrexisting data or knowledge gaps. The Department anticipates this effort may be refined within their adaptive management process, and may serve as the initial phase for identifying and conducting additional and more targeted hydromodification assessments and studies. Likewise, the Department considers this 16 33 U.S.Code § 1251(a). 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA -840 -B -92-002B. Washington, D.C. 76 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 19 of 32 DRAFT hydromodification requirement part of an iterative MS4 permitting approach, and anticipates the results of the assessment may serve as the foundation for future hydromodification permit requirements. Furthermore, the Department anticipates the hydromodification assessment will assist in the development of the post -construction performance standards, and may be used to inform and complement the development of the stormwater retrofit strategy. To ensure the permittees have adequately completed this initial assessment, the Department expects the permittees will describe in their hydromodification assessment report the rationale supporting how current MS4 efforts address or relate to hydromatlfica a Department will �� : review the information submitted in the report for adequacy xr determm tune or additional action is necessary. As part of the adaptive management ap "'oach emplp t the permittee, the permittee must consider how future or additional action be incto their stormwater management program, and the Department anticrpa coordinatio C W permittees, as necessary. Condition 6 Stormwater Retrofit Strategy Development The historic focus of stormwater management in drainage problems and flooding. As a result, wat the related stormwater quality management issue Stormwater retrofits help improve water qy)_- ty 1 where practices previously did not exist or were : Oregon w generally related to cts caused by urbanization and M een documented. ding st6fmwater treatment in locations ve, including urban areas such as parking lots, residential streets, conv��e systems, I.� scaped areas. The Department acknowledges that it may take decades�nr longer to address the water quality impacts from existing urban develo�eiat::� s permit card tion reflects this fact by requiring the permittees to development ast rna trategy; epic"iuding objectives and rationale. In addition, the permit requirements direct the permittees to suinrnanze current efforts and costs, evaluate new stormwatezbntrol measures, ide high priority retrofit areas and stormwater control measure projects roaches,and provi estimated timeline and cost if the retrofit strategy were to be ixnnleniented..;:< The Department acknowledges the; permittees may be at different stages of information gathering, developand implementation of a comprehensive stormwater retrofit strategy. The Department expe e�ermittee s efforts to address this permit condition will reflect their current status, with the Imderstanding that the development and implementation of a retrofit strategy will require anongoing, systematic evaluation, modification, and implementation over multiple NPDES permit cycles. The Department anticipates the information that is identified in the retrofit strategy plan will be used in the development of stormwater retrofit requirements in subsequent permits. The Department expects the permittees will consider a variety of issues and concepts as they develop their stormwater retrofit strategy, including how stormwater quality problems or pollutants of concern will be targeted, consideration of local development factors and existing conditions, potential construction, operation and maintenance cost implications, and how September 14, 2010 77 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 20 of 32 DRAFT implementation of the retrofit strategy will complement other resource, restoration or municipal planning efforts. The Department encourages the permittees to promote pubic involvement early and often throughout the retrofit strategy development process. The Department suggests the permittees review and use existing urban retrofit guidance, such as guidance from the Center for Watershed Protection. 18 The Department has included an implementation schedule at the end of Schedule A summarizing the due dates for completion of program element activities or tasks required in Schedule A or the submittal date for information or reports related to these activities or tasks. SCHEDULE B Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Condition I Monitoring Program The results of the monitoring program are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the stormwater management program in reducing the discharge of pollutants. Although knowledge of stormwater management is continually increasing, significant knowledge gaps remain. In an ongoing effort to reduce the knowledge gaps as they relate to MS4 program management in Oregon, the requirements in Schedule B provide flexibility for implementing a monitoring program to improve adaptive program manages ent while identifying an appropriate monitoring approach for gathering specific information:about storniwater program effectiveness. The Department reviewed a recent National Research Council report that evaluated urban stormwater management in'the United States:,prior to the development of the Schedule B permit conditions.' Many of the report's monitoring;suggestions are broad in scope and involve cooperation among regulated`entities to improve'efficiencies and work toward watershed -based programs. The MS4 monitoring section of the report discusses structuring monitoring programs for the purpose of addressing monitoring objectives. The Department has interpreted this to mean that MS4 permittees should have flexibility to make the most efficient use of resources in addressing specific monitoring objectives. The report also focused on monitoring methods, increasing the value of storm event data sets, and elements of site characterization. In addition, statistical approaches to assess monitoring goals and developing a baseline determination of site characterization are suggestions in the NRC report. The Department also considered the extensive resources necessary to conduct a monitoring program to produce quality data, and the importance to appropriately balance the expenditure of limited program resources between implementation and verification of program effectiveness. In 1s Center for Watershed Protection. July 2007. Urban Stonnwater Retrofit Practices, Version 1.0. Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual #3. 19 National Research Council. 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 78 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 21 of 32 DRAFT the near term, the Department anticipates that a higher degree of stormwater program resources will be spent on pollutant source identification, BMP implementation, and individual BMP effectiveness evaluation until sufficient BMPs have been implemented .20 However, the Department expects a suitable level of environmental monitoring (i.e., field monitoring) be conducted, along with the identification and evaluation of supplemental data/information, in order to continue to build datasets and knowledge for the iterative management of the stormwater programs. This permit condition continues to require that the monitoring s monitoring objectives similar to the monitoring objectives lid. m ` e epi minor modifications for clarification. The six monitoring octives estab a broad monitoring program intended to address complex isa�t related to management, including source evaluation, best management " - N ce effec discharge characterization, and the related status and trend in ualip This permit condition also continues to require an appropriate level i be conducted during the permit term to ensure ongonl$ollection of effective stormwater management decision-making5andentific, improvements. The environmental monitoring reqs on the Department's review of the permittee's pr commitment that the environmental momto'n a` , monitoring objectives. Table B-1 also ensures that 303(d) and TMDL pollutant par; methods that will allow for appr pesticides in urban stomaw4* � �� A (e.g., macromverte'`brte SuPve��= The existing permit requirement and perfprtnance indicator metri effective1' e" laced by the meas as previousl;ihscussed. )rate six permits, with .e foundation for cental monitoring data to support ter quality B-1 are abased ionit I program, and reflect a will contribute to addressing the six ;am .data collection for applicable continued, ri i i"'&approaches and collection tistical analysis are utilized, and data related to oftable B-1 includes instream biological monitoring —Ole assessment of water quality. duct program monitoring, including monitored activities been removed from this permit condition, and has been goals requirements identified in Schedule A, Condition 4, Condition 2 Monitoring Plan The development and implementation of a comprehensive monitoring plan is required by this permit condition. The monitoring plan should guide the permittee in addressing the monitoring program objectives and serve as a key component in the adaptive management of the stormwater program. Addressing the six monitoring objectives will typically require a different monitoring strategy or project design, and resource availability often limits the number of sample events, sample locations and pollutant parameters that can reasonably and cost-effectively collected and 20 ASCE and EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring: A Guidance Manual for Meeting the National Stormwater BMP Database Requirements. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Washington D.C. EPA -821-B-02-001. September 14, 2010 79 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 22 of 32 DRAFT analyzed during a permit term. As a result, this permit condition allows the permittees some discretion on the types of information that can be used to support the evaluation of program effectiveness. The Department anticipates the permittees will use a variety of information sources and environmental monitoring activities to address the monitoring program objectives, including measurable goals, historical monitoring data, stormwater pollutant load modeling, national stormwater monitoring data, academic stormwater research, and/or results from coordinated monitoring efforts conducted through intergovernmental agreements. This permit condition specifically requires the identification of how each,of the six monitoring objectives is addressed. For example, a permittee must document'in a monitoring objectives matrix or similar document what sources of information, stormwater program'best management practices or environmental monitoring projects or tasks will be used.to address the six monitoring objectives. The permit no longer incorporates the monitoring plan by reference, but.prescribes specific conditions that must be met for permit compliance. This approach will provide the permittees the flexibility to design, implement, and modify a monitoringprogram, particularly specific environmental monitoring projects or tasks, based on changing conditions or additional information without necessitating a formal permit`modification for each -slight modification to the monitoring project or tasks. Modifications to the plans will still.require the permittee to request and receive approval unless the specific conditions highlighted in this section are met. The Department anticipates this permitting approach will result in more detailed monitoring plans, which will provide additional transparency into the collection, analysis, assessment, and use of monitoring data. The Departmeint:also expects this'approach provides the public with a reasonable assurance that..the.development and, implementation of the monitoring program is based on the outlined ' ermit requirements, and can,be appropriately used to evaluate program effectiveness. This permit condition outlines the specific information that must be included in the monitoring plan for each environmental monitoring project or task. This permit condition generally requires documentationof the planning, implementation, and assessment procedures, including specific quality assurance and.quality control activities, which are necessary to obtain the type and quality of environmental data and information needed for its intended use. The Department has developed a template as an example of an acceptable format for documenting the procedures.21 This documentation is of -particular importance since the environmental monitoring projects or tasks will often be conducted to address the permit requirements identified in Table B-1. Likewise, this permit condition further strengthens the relationship between monitoring and stormwater program decision-making by requiring the permittee to identify the relationship between permit -term monitoring activities (e.g., environmental monitoring) and a long-term monitoring strategy. By identifying this relationship, there will be further guarantee that an 21 Department of Environmental Quality. January 20, 2010. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Template. Version 2.4. DEQ04-LAB-0029-TMPL. 80 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 23 of 32 DRAFT ongoing and prioritized collection of monitoring data is collected and available to iteratively manage the stormwater programs. Condition 3 Sampling and Analysis The sampling and analytical requirements presented in this permit condition establish the provisions for collection and analysis of environmental monitoring data to ensure appropriate data is available to support iterative stormwater management. In -stream monitoring supports an overall assessment of watershed health, and can be used to detWO-0 ter ality status and 1'trend. Although the permit allows in -stream monitoring d�eason in western Oregon, which is useful for seasonal comparisons, this permit conditioner': s at least 50% of all instream monitoring are conducted during the wet -sea; are more prevalent. A minimum time period between in established to address potential auto correlation in the mo sampling requirements specify what conditions qualify as Sample collection for stormwater monitoring must composite method during the entire storm discharg of a storm discharge event that lasts longer than fb A4_ infeasible or scientifically unwarranted. In allowm V. acknowledges a specific monitoring prod e po'1 time -composite or grab sampling method,i3it ultin rationale in the monitoring plan thatpfi',,,-tbe revie` Condition 4 Coordinated Moh to *ik This permit condition specif coordinated -monitoring as a environment monitoring re ;harges _ ": m the MS4s ring e A, so been Similarly,' `` rmwatei storm event. :ea via mei,; oportional during a mipunum of three hours Mess this method is shown to be Gy;�-�he Department iffhay warrant the use of the the permittee to document their red by the Department. it must be met for a permittee to use environmental monitoring requirements. The are identified in Table B-1. Condition 5� Annual ReporlinkRequirement "'` The annual reporting-requiremenis are similar to existing permit requirements and are largely tomwater regulations. 22 This permit condition has been modified to derived from the feLw add clarity and reflect updated permit language, such as reporting progress towards meeting measurable goals, and has added requirements to report status of the education and outreach effectiveness evaluation and proposed modifications to the monitoring plan. The permit condition requires the annual report be made available electronically as part of the formal submittal to the Department and on the permittee's website or accessible via a co - permittee weblink to further enhance the transparency of the stormwater programs. 22 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.42(c) September 14, 2010 81 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 24 of 32 DRAFT Condition 6 MS4 Permit Renewal Application Package The permittees must submit a permit renewal application 180 days prior to the permit expiration date to continue permit coverage for MS4 stormwater discharges in the event the permit has not been renewed prior to expiration. This permit condition describes the information that must be provided in the renewal application. Renewal applications must contain the modifications to the stormwater program the permittee proposes to make, including proposed alterations to the SWMP. The Department anticipates the permittee's will provide a narrative summary of the proposed modifications in the renewal application, and will formally.update their SWMP or other documents to reflect the Department's determination of the adequacy of the stormwater program in reducing pollutants to the MEP prior to public notice of the, draft permit or in accordance with new permit conditions once the permit has been renewed. The Department will evaluate the stormwater programs based upon the information. submitted with the permit;renewal application and all other relevant information, such as annual repots, Total MaximumDaily Load (TMDL) pollutant load reduction evaluation, applicable scien-ft c -studies, federal requirements, and guidance from USEPA. This permit condition differs from the existing permit condition in that it includes a requirement for permittees to provide the Department with the information and analysis necessary to support the Department's independent determination that the co,permittee,s stormwater management program reduces pollution to MEP, including,an'evaluation of,&, agement practices, control techniques and other provisions using three'MEP general evaluation factors (i.e., effectiveness, local applicability, and program resditrces). Since each MS*stormwater management program is unique in how they achieve the MEP.standard, often employing different BMPs or emphasizing different program areas, this requirement calls for the use of a defined set of standardized and objective criteria for each of the three MEP evaluation factors. Using a permittee -defined set of objective criteria will ensure a consistent application and equitable assessment of the stormwater programs, and a reasonable certainty that the stormwater programs are achieving the MEP standard. The Department encourages the permittees to coordinate the identification and development of the .objective criteria with other MS4 permittees, and involve the Department early in the permit term to guarantee the appropriateness and usefulness of the objective criteria for the Department's independent evaluation. The MS4 permit renewal pppkage must also include a proposed monitoring program objectives matrix and monitoring .'The monitoring objectives matrix and monitoring plan proposal should complement tha-,16ng-term monitoring strategy identified in the existing monitoring plan, as required in the monitoring plan permit conditions, and should consider the type of additional environmental monitoring data that is needed in the implementation of the adaptive management process. The Department anticipates that the permittees may be notified during the permit term about monitoring approaches, pollutants of concern or other factors the permittee should consider when developing their monitoring objectives matrix and monitoring plan proposals. The Department anticipates the proposal will be used in future development of the specific monitoring requirements to be incorporated into Table B-1. 82 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 25 of 32 DRAFT The remaining requirements in this permit condition generally reflect the existing permit requirements, except the submittal of the water quality trends analysis and the evaluation to determine progress towards applicable TMDL wasteload allocations or previously developed TMDL benchmarks (i.e., TMDL pollutant load reduction evaluation), which will be submitted as part of the 4t' year annual report. Compliance dates and condit: Condition I Legal Authority The language in this conditio: implement and enforce the pr the existing permits, which re regulations2 , and required th areas. Although the six specil identified in this condition, th reflect the complexity of this Condition 2 303(d) Listed] This permior bodies fc�hic �� A. and determra SCHEDULE C to From ;ific fically to to edition. ition requires permittees to evaluate 303(d) listed pollutants for those water TMDLs have notetbeen approved by USEPA and that the MS4 discharges to, likelihood that discharges from the MS4 cause or contribute to the water 3r quality degig2kton. The requirements are similar to the existing permit requirements. The exception is that the 2010 303 (d)fij k of "impaired" waterbodies and associated pollutants list, or the most recent p list approved by USEPA, must be used to meet the requirements of this condition. The Deprtmerif understands that the permittees have completed an evaluation of the 2004/2006 303(d) pollutant list, and expects this information may be used to address the requirements of this condition if a subsequent list has not been developed by the Department and approved by USEPA. If stormwater discharges from the MS4 are determined to be a contributor of the applicable 303(d) pollutants, the permittee must identify effective BMPs in reducing the discharge of the identified pollutants, and make appropriate changes to their stormwater management program 23 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.26(d)(2)(i), 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.34(b)(3)(ii)(B), (b)(4)(ii)(A), and (b)(5)(ii)(B). September 14, 2010 83 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 26 of 32 DRAFT and/or SWMP. This condition ensures that MS4s will consider and undertake actions to address pollutants of concern in the short term for those waterbodies that are water quality limited, as required by an adaptive management approach. The Department expects that many of the modifications the permittees make to their stormwater management program and/or SWMP to address these pollutants may be similar to modifications made in response to the TMDL conditions of this permit. Where applicable, the Department anticipates the permittees may be "credited" for the reductions of 303(d) pollutants for new or modified BMPs implemented between the approval date of new TMDLs .and the incorporation of new TMDL pollutant reduction permit requirements if the permittees identifies a 303(d) pollutant loading baseline and completes a pollutant load reduction estimate representing the new or modified BMPs that have been implemented. In this instance, the TMDL benchmarks. established in the following permit cycle will reflect the reductions made in previous ,years. Condition 3 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) The Department has developed TMDLs for "water qualitylimited" or "impaired" waterbodies in accordance with Oregon Administrative Code .24 T,he TMDLs define how much an identified pollutant in a specified waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. The TMDL wasteload allocations (WLA),areuthe-identified maximum load of pollutants an identified point source is allocated to discharge into a.particular waterway that will allow the goals identified in the TMDL to be achieved. The NPDES permits serve as the mechanism to require point sources subject to the MS4:permit requirements to address the WLAs.25 The integration of TMDL WLAs into these MS4 NPDES permits is reflected in the narrative effluent limits identified in this permit and specific requirements found in this condition. This permitting approach is supportedby=USEPA guidance highlighting an expectation that most effluent limits for MS4s will be in'the form of BMPs and numeric limits for such permits will .only be used in "rare instances". 26 This approach was also recently affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals. 27 The Department anticipates implementation of BMPs to the maximum extent practicable, and the use of an adaptive management process, is sufficient to demonstrate continued progress:iowards the applicable WLA identified in TMDLs. The requirements of this .condition apply to receiving waters to which a jurisdiction discharges where TMDLs have been approved by USEPA at the time of issuance or within three years of the date of issuance of this permit. The list of receiving waters with approved TMDLs with applicable WLAs to the permittees is identified on page 1 of the permit. The objective of this 14 Oregon Administrative Rule 340-042-0040 25 Oregon Administrative Rule 340-045-0015 (2) 26 Wayland, R.H. and J.A. Hanlon. Nov. 22, 2002. Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs. United States Environmental Protection Agency Memo. Office of Water. 27 Tualatin Riverkeepers et.al. v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. April 28, 2010. 84 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 27 of 32 DRAFT condition is to ensure a timely pollutant reduction response to TMDLs. Since requirements of this condition include compliance dates for submitting information (i.e., TMDL pollutant load reduction assessment; permit renewal application 180 days prior to expiration), the permittees will likely need to begin a comprehensive program evaluation to address any specific pollutants or sources identified in the TMDL and develop appropriate revisions to the stormwater management program and SWMP at least a year and a half in advance of the compliance dates. Therefore, the Department anticipates the permittees will have adequate time to address this condition if the TMDL is approved during the first three years of this permit cycle. The Department anticipates that if a new or modified TMD the fourth year of this permit cycle, the subsequent permit address the TMDL WLAs. In addition, it is important to no Department orders. Should the Department determine that c time frames are appropriate and incorporated into the TMD opened during the permit cycle. The existing permit requires each permittee to "revie reducing TMDL pollutant discharges to the maximA load reduction benchmark(s)."28 This permit contti( pollutant discharges to the maximum extent praal including a wasteload allocation attainmealssessf the type and extent of BMPs and associa%" Tesource This information is intended to aid tb Department in i appropriateness of the progress being' '11,1ards the T approve „. r e beginning of include equirements to M iat T�Ls ai��ued as, r��lementatiort i;quuements or mut can be sirsequently re - S, 'A"111-11- to d ` e its adequacy in "practicable as develop pollutant dues to require permittees reduce aspe�cpands this requirement by requfrds the permittees to estimate aaiy to attain the existing WLAs. imation regarding the adequacy and The Department, 11- 11 of anattainment assessment will add clarity with regards to thettainability of fl��L WLA bed on current environmental, technological, s. and socio economic factors, but i y also assist the Department as it reevaluates TMDLs in the future The Department expects the�iermittees will use pollutant load reduction modeling, evaluatidh,of monitoring data, revietws of BMP pollutant removal effectiveness and appropriate use, cost -be t«fifi�analysis and other.,appropriate assessment techniques to identify a reasonable estimate of the�e� extent and resources necessary to achieve the TMDL WLAs. The Department anticrpat s the wast0oad allocation attainment assessment may also complement or serve as a key component ofmthe permittee's stormwater retrofit strategy. This evaluation must be conducted at least once during the permit term, and submitted with the annual report completed for the 4t' year of permit cycle (i.e., November 1, 2014). The evaluation must be based on an empirical pollutant load reduction model, water quality status and trend analysis, and other applicable and acceptable quantitative and qualitative assessment approaches. The evaluation should reasonably estimate and reflect the land use, stormwater runoff, pollutant loading, and implementation of stormwater control measures and their effectiveness near the end of the 5 -year permit term. 28 Schedule D.2.d.v. September 14, 2010 85 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 28 of 32 DRAFT The evaluation must incorporate an estimation of the pollutant load reduction achieved through the implementation of stormwater control measures, including any structural (e.g., vegetative filter swale, rain garden) and non-structural BMPs (e.g., education and outreach). The pollutant reduction model used by the permittees to estimate pollutant load reductions must reflect generally accepted scientific modeling practices and approaches (e.g., Simple Method, Stormwater Management Model `SWMM'). The methodology and rationale for the model must be described in the evaluation report, including any data or model limitations, data input assumptions, and the estimated effectiveness of structural and non =structural.BMPs. The permittees may incorporate the pollutant reduction credit for<any structural BMPs for this evaluation if operation and maintenance of the structural BMP is covered'bytheir Structural Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Activities program required in Schedule A.4.h. of this permit. In addition, if pollutant load reductions achieved through implementation of the education and outreach program activities are incorporated into thepollutant reduction model, credit for pollutant reduction must reflect the effectiveness evaluation used to measure the success of public education activities completed during the term of this permit. , The evaluation must also incorporate the results o£a• ik quality trend analysis and summarize the relationship of this analysis and municipal stormwater discharges. The' water quality trend analysis must be completed for each waterbodywvith an approved TMDL that is listed in Table D-1. The waterbodies identified in Table D ' ;correspond to existing waterbodies where a water quality trend analysis was previously completed or where adequate data is or may be available at the end of the permit cycle. Table D -f also reflects a reasonable representation of all of the waterbodies the permittee discharges with; applicable TMDLs, and includes a consideration of the resources that are.required to collect adequate monitoring data to complete a water quality statistical trend analysis. The permittees are also required to provide a narrative summarizing progress towards applicable WLAs and TMDL benchmark(s) in the evaluation report. A permittee may not have been previously required to develop a TMDL benchmark as a result final TMDL approval timing, as discussed earlier in this section, or a determination by the Department that an applicable WLA has been achieved. As a result, the Department expects this will be reflected accordingly in the evaluation report. The Department will evaluate the TMDL pollutant load reduction report, and determine whether the TMDL WLAs have been achieved based on the submitted information. The Department anticipates it will notify a permittee within 90 days of receiving the TMDL pollutant load reduction evaluation whether the Department concurs with the permittee's conclusion that the existing BMP implementation reduces pollutant loads to make progress towards achieving the applicable TMDL WLAs. The TMDL benchmarks are not numeric effluent limits, and the Department expects the TMDL benchmarks to be permit -cycle (i.e., 5 -year) targets used to assess progress towards meeting the WLA. The Department anticipates the MS4 permittees will continue to iteratively manage their 86 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 29 of 32 DRAFT MS4 stormwater programs to reduce pollutants, and identify the TMDL benchmarks accordingly. Condition 4 Adaptive Management This permit condition continues to require the use of an adaptive management approach to support and improve the management of the municipal stormwater programs, including showing progress towards applicable TMDL wasteload allocations. The Department acknowledges that "the term `adaptive management' can be understood from a v ref vexnacp`ar and technical perspectives, and at many scales."29 In the scientific literaturae�e ' ed t urce management, the adaptive management approach has generally been outlined as a struo iterative process that facilitates knowledge through experimental inquiry mtoefinedoals a ssociated objectives. This inquiry is conducted in the context of a defin-Ttinitoring progr �aA the results of the monitoringare critically assessed to re-evaluate l y policy or managelm,�e�" approach that initiated the inquiry. The Department has mclt�ed" " linition of `adaptive management' in Condition 6 of this section to provide additional clai a arding the meaning of adaptive management in the context of the mumciptaormwater permtogram. The adaptive management approach generally accepts tha Jedge of resource systems is ��Hv incomplete and often elusive, and action should�tz be pbstp6n6dti1 the necessary information to `fully' inform the decision exists,3o 31 32 ,; should".be is recognized that there is always risk Asa resul involved in resource management decision=making, ar�� :the adaptive management process, if properly designed and implemented, ,'I urtced provide feet b c ' io the decision -maker in a timely manner to reduce the risk from the rtauities. Consequently, the Department considers the continued use of adayagementenportant to managing the municipal stormwater programs to addreAsstlianabliy�n stAl ormier duality, complexities related to local resource issues, and the ongoing insighfs anxmprovements to stormwater management. The potentia ,for effective feedback, it"roved `learning' and process transparency can diminish when the adaptive ma- ;ement approach is not clearly described. 33 This permit language clarifies existing permit condibby requiring the permittees to submit a description of the adaptive management 4""4' h the permittee intends to use. The adaptive management approach the permittees submitse Department must be used to routinely assess their stormwater program's 29 Allan, C. and A. Curtis. 2'605. "Nipped in the Bud: Why Regional Scale Adaptive Management is Not Blooming" Environmental Management. Vol. 36(3). pp. 414-425. so Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising Adaptive Management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3. Online URL: http://ww%,.consecol..org/vol3/iss2/art/. 31 Ralph, S.C. and G.C. Poole. 2003. Putting Monitoring First: Designing Accountable Restoration and Management Plans. In: Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, Mongomery D.R., S. Bolton and D.B. Booth, editors. University of Washington Press : Seattle, WA. 32 USEPA. 2003. Watershed Analysis and Management (WAM) Guide for States and Communities. EPA Watershed Analysis and Management Project. EPA -841-B-03-007. 33 Stankey, George H.; Clark, Roger N.; Bormann, Bernard T. 2005. Adaptive management of natural resources: theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. September 14, 2010 87 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 30 of 32 DRAFT effectiveness in addressing water quality and protection of beneficial uses. The Department has identified five operational `phases' that the Department anticipates the permittees will use when identifying their adaptive management approach they intend to use. The five operational `phases' include 1) implementing a stormwater program, 2) collecting data and information, 3) evaluating the stormwater program, 4) assessing and identifying stormwater program needs, and 5) developing or modifying existing program. If the adaptive management approach is identified, documented and followed, the Department anticipates the actual benefits of adaptively managing the stormwater programs., including the effective modification of management practices, control techniques and'systems, and design and engineering methods, will be more clearly understood. This includes considering how monitoring data will be collected, analyzed, evaluated, and principally used, °-since this feedback is critical to informing decision -makers during the evaluation `phase' of the adaptive management approach (i.e., what has occurred and what is likely to happen in the_f iture).34,3s The Department expects the stormwater monitoring program requirements identified in Schedule B will complement and support the adaptive management approach.identified by the permittee. Therefore, the Department has provided the permittees the flexibility in Condition 6 of Schedule B to develop and propose a monitoring program as,part ofthe permit renewil application process that addresses monitoring objectives and information needs that will be used in future implementation of their adaptive management approach.,. The Department expects the permittee's have already developed the foundation for the continued implementation of an effective adaptive management approach that will address the five operational `phases' based on the existing permit requireixierifs, such as evaluating the stormwater program and -reporting annually. However, the Department acknowledges the timeframe necessary foobtaining the type of information that would lead to a SWMP revision is typically greater than one year. -,Consequently, the Department anticipates the permittees will identify an adaptive management approach that will be followed annually for examining some elementsofaheir stormwater program, while a more comprehensive adaptive management approach will be completed at the end of the permit cycle (i.e., permit renewal application process). 34 Stankey, George H.; Clark, Roger N.; Bormann, Bernard T. 2005. Adaptive management of natural resources: theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 Bernard T. Bormann, Patrick G. Cunningham, Martha H. Brookes, Van W. Manning, and Michael W. Collopy, 1994, Adaptive Ecosystem Management in the Pacific Northwest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-341, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 88 September 14, 2010 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 31 of 32 DRAFT Condition S SUMP Modifications The SWMP identifies the structural and nonstructural actions and activities the permittee will use to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The SWMP is incorporated into the permit by reference; therefore, the actions and activities identified in the SWMP are permit conditions subject to permit modification process in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule 340-045-0040 and 0055. These actions and activities often address the program elements required in Schedule A and other permit conditions.., Implementation of an adaptive management approach provides a stru e to identify alterations to the stormwater program or modifications to thi SMWP, b plication of an adaptive management approach does not absolve the Departiftent from adhe federal and state requirements associated with modifying permit condrti W— x In the development of this permit condition, the Departmene&nte .ted how to allow permittees the flexibility to efficiently change the SWMP actions an�wities while providing a reasonable assurance that the public has the opportunity to,comment on mtacations that could change the "nature and scope" of the permit conditi, Ous trigger th permit modification process. This permit condition requires the permittees subirut all proposer SWMP revisions to the Department prior to initiating the SAW mo' fication, a&outli es a series of conditions and timelines for approval of the SWMP niochfications`T\The Department did not include specific ,._ms criteria related to the basis for determm�ng a'substantiachange in the nature or scope of the ho SWMP because the Department concluded the range ofential SWMP revision could not be Amt E addressed with detailed criteria. AAMM, In the D therefore accordingly: revrew�storical S� modifications, the Department determined that .t would changet nature .cope of the permit conditions were rare, and initiate the permigtMmodificatio process. The Department anticipates most 01 es to the stormwaterprogram requiring a modification of the SWMP will occur M, e permit term, and will be addressed during the permit renewal process The Department a,"1So uutiate changes to the SWMP based on concerns about water quality impacts of stormwat�,>> eed to maintain compliance with federal or state regulations, or information demonstratithat certain BMPs are no longer appropriate becomes available. This permit condition describes the actions the Department will take to initiate a SWMP modification and the permittee's opportunity to respond. Condition 6 Definitions The definitions provided in this permit condition provide additional clarification related to MS4- related terms, and generally reflect commonly understood and agreed upon descriptions to municipal stormwater concepts. September 14, 2010 89 Clackamas County MS4 Group NPDES MS4 Permit Evaluation Report & Fact Sheet p. 32 of 32 DRAFT SCHEDULE F General Conditions The general conditions that are applicable to all NPDES permits are included in this section. They address operation and maintenance, monitoring and record-keeping, and reporting requirements. The Department recognizes that some of these conditions do not readily apply to municipal stormwater discharges. However, the stormwater permits are NPDES permits, and these conditions are required for all such permits. Where a conflict exists, the general conditions included in this section are superseded by the conditions in Schedules A, and D. 90 September 14, 2010 c"oyf LAKE OSWEGO O R E G O N Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Designed to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Eiimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Seger Systern (M54) Permit Stewardship for a Sustainable Future September 14, 2010 91 City of Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Plan (2010) 1.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ORGANIZATION The City of Lake Oswego's 2010 Stormwater Management Plan ("SWMP") is prepared to comply with the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements of 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A through D) and the City's MS4 NPDES Permit (#101348) requirements listed in Schedule A.4 of the April 30, 2010 draft Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit, issued by DEQ. The SWMP is organized into the eight major stormwater program elements listed below. The eight major elements correspond to those outlined in the MS4 NPDES permit (i.e., Schedule A(4)(a-h). Element #1: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Element #2: Industrial and Commercial Facilities Element #3: Construction Site Runoff Control Element #4: Education and Outreach Element #5: Public Involvement and Participation Element #6: Post -Construction Site Runoff Element #7: Pollution Prevention for Municipal Operations Element #8: Structural Stormwater Facilities and Controls Operations Public Involvement and Participation and Maintenance Each of the eight SWMP element sections begins with the applicable permit requirements and contains a description of applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). At the end of each section, a table (BMP fact sheet) specifies the measurable goals associated with the BMP(s) and tracking measures that the City will report on for the MS4 annual reports. Each BMP has an assigned prefix, number, and name that help in identifying the activity and associated responsible party. Table 1 provides a summary of the BMP number prefixes and associated BMP categories and indicates the relevant SWMP element. Table 1 BMP Name and Category Designations BMP Number Prefix Associated BMP category Associated SWMP Element ILL Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Element #1 and #7 IND Industrial and Commercial Facilities Element #2 EC Construction and Erosion Control Element #3 PE Public Education and Outreach Element #3, #4, and #7 PI Public Involvement and Participation Element #5 DEV Planning and Development Element #6 and #7 OM Operations and Maintenance Elements #4, #7, and #8 PEST Landscape Practices and Pest Management Element #7 September 14, 2010 93 2.0 ELEMENT #1— ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION The City of Lake Oswego prohibits illicit discharges to the storm sewer system by the provisions of Lake Oswego Code (LOC) Article 38.26. Specifically, LOC 38.26.920 prohibits connection of a sanitary sewer or wastewater pipe to the City's surface water drainage system. This code section also prohibits dumping of pollutants into the surface water drainage system. LOC 38.26.935 provides the code authority to enforce and issue penalties for Code violations, and LOC 34.04.106 provides the City with the legal authority to investigate potential illicit connections. In an effort to proactively ensure that illicit discharges are not occurring, the City implements a program of inspections, dry weather field screening, and monitoring to eliminate any potential illicit discharges to the MS4 system. The City of Lake Oswego also implements spill response measures through coordination with the City's Fire Department to ensure all spills are reported (if necessary) and promptly addressed and contained, to the MEP. Spill prevention and illicit discharge prevention and reporting are conducted by the City through specific public education and outreach activities and campaigns, as described under SWMP Element #4 (Section 5.0). 2.1 BMP ILLI — Implement the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP ILLI. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.a of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (i) Prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, illicit discharges into the permittee's MS4. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ii) Describe in an enforcement response plan or similar document, by the end of the permit term, the enforcement response procedures the permittee will implement when an illicit discharge investigation identifies a responsible party. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iii) Develop or identify dry -weather f eld screening pollutant parameter action levels that will be used as part of the field analysis to idents the source of an illicit discharge or other type of discharge.... by the end of the permit term. NPDES Permit Requirement — (iv) Conduct annual dry -weather inspection activities during the term of the permit. The dry -weather inspection activities must include annual field screening of all priority locations identified and documented by the co permittee.... The dry -weather field screening activities must be documented and include: 1) General observation; 2) Field Screening; and 3) Laboratory Analysis. 2 94 September 14, 2010 NPDES Permit Requirement — (v) Require investigations of portions of the MS4 that, based on the results of general observations, field screening, laboratory analysis or other relevant information, indicates the presence of illicit discharges or non-stormwater discharges not exempted under the provisions of 4.a.xii of this section. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vii) By the end the permit terrii the program procedures should ensure appropriate action is taken to remove illicit discharges from the MS4 within [S business days] of detection. If it has been determined that removal of the illicit discharge will take more than 5 working days due to technical or other reasonable issues, the co permittee must notes the Department within 5 working days of detection. The co permittee must develop an action plan to eliminate the illicit discharge and submit the action plan to the Department within 15 working days of detection. The action plan must include an appropriate timeframe for elimination. NPDES Permit Requirement — (viii) Maintain a system for documenting and procedures for responding to known or suspected illicit discharges or public complaints relating to illicit discharges. NPDES Permit Requirement — (ix) In the case of a known illicit discharge that originates within the City's permitted area and that discharges directly to a storm sewer system or property under the jurisdiction of another municipality, the City must notify the affected municipality as soon as practicable, but no longer than one working day. NPDES Permit Requirement — (x) In the case of a known illicit discharge that is identified within the City's permitted area, but is determined to originate from a contributing storm sewer system or property under- the jurisdiction of another municipality, the City must notes the contributing municipality or municipality with jurisdiction as soon as practicable, but no longer than one working day. NPDES Permit Requirement — (xi) Maintain maps identifying major- MS4 outfalls discharging to waters of the State. The dry -weather screening locations must be uniquely identified. NPDES Permit Requirement — (xii) Unless identified as a significant source of pollutants to waters of the State by a co permittee or the Department, the following non- stormwater discharges are not considered illicit discharges: (see Schedule A.4.a.xi for list of discharges). If a non-stormwater discharge is identified as a significant source of pollutants, the co permittees must develop and require implementation of appropriate BMPs to reduce the discharge ofpollutants associated with the source. The City of Lake Oswego has the authority to prohibit illicit discharges in accordance with LOC 38.26.920 and 38.26.935. The City of Lake Oswego conducts inspections to identify potential illicit discharges on an annual basis, typically during dry -weather conditions (between July and September) at all of the City's priority outfalls. Priority outfalls are identified based on the City's outfall September 14, 2010 95 reconnaissance survey conducted August 2009 -August 2010. Priority outfalls were identified based on a process identified by the Center for Watershed Protection. Inspections are also conducted in accordance with citizen complaints as received via the Watershed Hotline, a City -operated call number for citizens to report watershed concerns, illicit discharges and spills. This activity is further described under Element #4 (Section 5.0). City personnel complete data inspection forms that are consistent with those shown in Part 1 of the City's original NPDES Permit Application while inspecting priority outfalls. The City also uses a tracking database system to monitor the inspection results. The City will refine these inspection forms over the permit term to better address pollutants of concern in the urban services boundary of Lake Oswego and make consistent with language outlined in the City's MS4 NPDES permit. Dry weather inspections are conducted in conjunction with the Center for Watershed Protections Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) manual (Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments, Center for Watershed Protection and Robert Pitt (2004)). Dry weather flows are initially inspected for a variety of visual characteristics, and sources of flows are characterized as either permissible (listed in Schedule A.4.xii of the MS4 NPDES permit) or potentially non -permissible. If potentially non -permissible discharges are discovered, the City of Lake Oswego conducts sampling, analysis, and investigation to the MEP in conjunction with the following procedure: 1. Use a drainage map and other source identification data, to attempt to locate the potential sources upstream of the discharge location. 2. Investigate potential sources using one or more of the following techniques: onsite inspections, dye -testing, smoke testing, and/or TV inspection of lines. 3. Collect a water sample and analyze it for the suspected contaminant group. The City will review, and if necessary revise its current pollutant parameter action levels taken from the Center for Watershed Protection IDDE manual referenced above to ensure local applicability by the end of the permit term. Results of field screening activities are recorded and entered into a database. The City Public Works Director or Appointee will be notified of all positive identifications of illicit connections and the City will take all necessary steps to eliminate them as quickly as possible (to the MEP). Illicit discharge complaints that are registered in the City's call center software will indicate the resolutions to illicit discharge investigations. Guidelines related to appropriate follow-up time frames, notification procedures, and enforcement activities will be incorporated into the City's procedures for illicit discharge detection and elimination investigations by the end of the permit term. If necessary, in accordance with the annual dry -weather inspection activities, the City updates their GIS files related to existing and priority outfall locations. 4 96 September 14, 2010 At the end of the permit cycle, the City's overall illicit discharge detection and elimination program, including inspections and follow up measures, will be reviewed to determine whether significant improvements to the MS4 system have been made as a result of the outfall inspections, investigation activities and follow up measures. Resources may be adjusted as necessary to ensure that the City continues to meet their MEP standard. 2.2. BMP ILL2 — Implement the Spill Response Program NPDES permit requirements are listed below, as pertaining to BMP ILL2. Applicable provisions are outlined under Schedule A.4.a of the City's MS4 NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit Requirement — (vi) Require spill preventative measures, and upon notification, respond to, contain and mitigate spills that may discharge into the MS4. Spills that may endanger health or the environment must be reported in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws including proper notification to the Oregon Emergency Response Systems. The City of Lake Oswego implements spill prevention in accordance with public education BMPs described under Element #4 (Section 5.0). Emergency response to chemical and hazardous waste spills within the City is under the authority and administration of the Lake Oswego Fire Department. The City of Lake Oswego Fire Department utilizes the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR) to respond to hazardous waste spills. City Public Works personnel serve in a support and advisory role under the Fire Department and are responsible for notification (as necessary) of 1) the Tyron Creek Treatment Plant, 2) the Lake Oswego Corporation, 3) Clean Water Services and 4) the City of Portland Environmental Services personnel. The City operates the Watershed Hotline (503-675-3982), a call number for citizens to report watershed concerns, illicit discharges or spill activity. This hotline is advertised on the City's website and periodically in the City's monthly newsletter "Hello LO". During normal business hours, the City's Engineering staff answer this phone line and respond to non -emergency calls within one business day. Emergency calls taken during normal office hours are redirected to the City of Lake Oswego Fire Department. All calls reporting a spill are forwarded to LOCOM (503-635-0238 - Lake Oswego Non Emergency Number) for Fire Department dispatch. If received after hours, calls are prioritized based on the status of the spill (emergency or non -emergency). Fire Department personnel notify TVFR regarding hazardous materials if they determine the situation warrants. Notification of the Oregon DEQ will be conducted by the hazardous material team or the Incident Commander. LOCOM shall also notify the Operations Division of Public Works (formerly Maintenance Division) "stand-by" personnel if the event occurs outside normal working hours. September 14, 2010 97 Fire Department spill response is outlined in the City of Lake Oswego Hazardous Materials Annex (2008). General spill response procedures are as follows: 1. Spill reported to City of Lake Oswego (via email, phone, and personal contact). 2. City of Lake Oswego Fire Department called and alerted to "Level 1 Emergency". 3. City Water Quality Program Coordinator and City Stormwater Superintendent alerted to incident. 4. City Fire Department acts as point of contact for incident; maintenance and engineering services act in supportive role. 5. Nature of spill or illicit discharge is determined by Lake Oswego Fire Department or related emergency management division; containment and cleanup measures are identified. 6. If spill is determined hazardous, TVFR is notified and presence is requested onsite. Notification to the Oregon Emergency Response System is initiated and Clean-up options are identified. 7. If spill is determined to be non -hazardous, and a responsible party can be identified, the City will direct that entity to provide resources to mitigate the spill. If no responsible party can be identified or the responsible party does not have the resources to mitigate the spill, Public Works Operations and Engineering staff are responsible for either conducting the spill clean-up or contacting a qualified private vendor for cleanup activities. The City then bills the responsible party for such clean up activity, if a responsible party can be identified. 8. If hazardous, TVFR will coordinate spill response with DEQ. All spills to natural waterways OR over 42 gallons on land are reported to DEQ by the City of Lake Oswego. 6 98 September 14, 2010 � CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES September 14, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. on September 14, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini (6:08) Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Ann Adrian, Adult Community Center Director; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Erica Rooney, Asst City Engineer; David Gilbey, Water Quality Project Coordinator 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilor Jordan recused herself from the discussion of the Executive Session item because she had a possible conflict of interest. Her husband's law firm represented some parties involved in the discussion. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 6:07 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection and (h) to consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 4.1 Discussion and resolution of ground anchor claim for Lake Full phase of LOIS Mayor Hoffman reconvened the open session at 6:33 p.m. Councilor Hennagin moved to authorize the City Manager to execute documents settling the claim by Advanced American Construction for an equitable adjustment of the contract price for the Lake Full Phase of the LOIS Project. The equitable adjustment shall be in the sum of $250,000 — consistent with the tentative settlement that was reached in mediation. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. Councilor Jordan recused herself from the vote and discussion, citing a potential conflict of interest. Her husband's law firm, Jordan Schrader, represented the entity in question. Mr. Komarek referenced his September 2, 2010, memo, which recounted the history of this claim by Advanced American Contractors for additional compensation by the City for the materially different circumstances encountered while installing the ground anchors during the Lake Full Phase. He noted that the contractor successfully installed 428 ground anchors to hold the buoyant pipe underwater, but he had to install the anchors in the deep basalt layer instead of in the shallower gravel layer (an option allowed by the City), and in conditions that made a successful installation extremely difficult. He indicated that the City rejected the contractor's first two claims for extraordinary expenses. However, the City and its Claims Analysis Team acknowledged that some compensation was due to the contractor for the 20 to 30 anchors installed at depths of 250 to 270 feet. He said that the team determined a compensation amount of approximately $175,000 based on the contractor's City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 19 September 14, 2010 records and labor costs and the City's field reports. He explained that both parties agreed to non- binding mediation as the first step in attempting to settle the claim. He reported that, at the August 31 mediation meeting, the mutually agreeable neutral third party mediator successfully brought the two parties to a tentative settlement amount of $275,000, subject to Council approval. He explained that this amount included both what the City's team believed was equitable compensation for the deep anchors and the trial costs that the City would incur if this went to arbitration. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractor's initial claim had been for $810,000. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that, even with this settlement, the project budget for this phase came in at $1.8 million below budget. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Vizzini voting `aye.' Councilor Jordan recused herself. [6-0] 5. STUDY SESSION 5.1 Aging in Place in Lake Oswego Mayor Hoffman spoke to the critical nature of this topic in Lake Oswego, which was an aging city, per the FCS report that Council would hear on September 21. He recalled his attendance at an Adult Community Center (ACC) program in the spring of 2010, which hosted different expert panels exploring a variety of issues related to aging in place. He commented that both the elderly and their children attended the program. He indicated that the issues of housing and how the City accommodated the elderly within its boundaries would inform the Comprehensive Plan discussion. He mentioned the upcoming Council Round Table at the ACC on October 23, where community members could share their experiences and the challenges inherent in growing old in a community like Lake Oswego. He recalled hearing people at the ACC talk about how the elderly often became prisoners in their own homes because of their inability to get out and be mobile. He mentioned that he wanted this discussion televised, as the ACC program had not been televised. Ms. Adrian introduced Ruth Cohen, a consultant working with families navigating the aging process, Dr. Meagan Lawler, Social Service Director at Marabella and adjunct faculty at Marylhurst, and Jeanne Keevil, a community volunteer. Mayor Hoffman mentioned speaking last night with Karen Brown -Wilson from the PSU Institute on Aging. Ms. Adrian defined "aging in place" as the desire to remain in the community of choice in one's own home as one grew older. She observed that that desire was practically universal. She saw an opportunity with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan process for the City to look at the policy issues supporting aging in place, such as attainable housing, conservation, and sustainability practices. She defined 'older people' for the purpose of this discussion as 55 plus. She reviewed the various no cost Social Services programs available through the Adult Community Center (ACC). These included Meals on Wheels, a congregate meal site at the ACC, a volunteer - based medical escort system, a respite program for people with Alzheimer's and other dementias, home visits, geriatric assessments, information and assistance, family consultations, the AARP Safe Driver program, medical equipment loans, low energy assistance, Medicare and health insurance assistance, Project Alert, blood pressure checks, foot care services, Care Sure nutrition, TriMet lift assistance, assisted medical devices, a lunch and shop program, and several support groups. Ms. Cohen referenced the handout, "A Continuum of Care," which listed the services and programs offered in home and in the community. She mentioned the three elements of a livable community, as identified in a 2005 University of Arizona study.. affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and services, and adequate mobility features. She spoke City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 19 September 14, 2010 of the numerous options available for community services and housing already available in Lake Oswego to assist people in remaining as independent as possible as they grew older. She discussed case management, provided by both the public and private sectors, as a means of helping older individuals and their families or caregivers determine which of the many options available was the most appropriate for their particular situation. She noted that the ACC staff provided a case management system for the older adults in Lake Oswego. She described how case management provided a comprehensive assessment of the individual's strengths and challenges, including discussing the individual's values, followed by a plan of action to support the individual's abilities while mitigating the challenges. She noted that the delivery system for getting services to those who needed them was fragmented, with gaps in the local delivery system. She commented that the most effective way that the City could support its older residents was to make sure that the professionals providing these services were supported and given the tools needed to help residents access the services available in the larger community. She observed that sometimes the biggest challenge for caregivers was finding out how to access services that they had heard existed somewhere. Another challenge was obtaining what one needed in a timely manner at an affordable cost. She indicated that Lake Oswego had the framework for helping older people find and utilize the services but it needed expansion and strengthening to meet the challenges of the aging community into the future. Dr. Lawler indicated that she was asked to address the psychological aspects of why someone might want to stay in his/her own home or not. She observed that most people started out wanting to stay in their own home. She cited the example of her parents: her father said that he would live his home horizontally, and he did, while her 93 year old mother told her today that she wished she had moved into an assisted living facility three years ago when Dr. Lawler's father died. She indicated that the biggest obstacle was a family's unwillingness to look at the effects of aging until they absolutely had to. She stated, "It's never going to happen until the crisis happens." She mentioned that, while staying in one's home was a comfortable idea, it could also be overwhelming and distressing as the person became unable to keep the house and yard up as he/she did in the past. Yet not everyone could afford to move to a facility. She spoke of having the resources available so that people could access them when they needed to, which they would not do before they needed to. Ms. Keevil discussed the things that older people brought to a community. She mentioned the many volunteer services and activities provided by seniors at the ACC. She commented that seniors bought locally, used local auto services, banked locally, and patronized local doctors, dentists, and beauty shops. She pointed out that senior volunteers did library work, such as shelving, that the City would otherwise have to hire someone to do, and they staffed the Booktique. She pointed out that seniors provided audiences at the Lakewood Theater. She spoke of seniors donating generously to charities and supporting churches and other organizations. She commented that the many retirees living in Lake Oswego residences paid taxes. She described seniors as having many assets of value to the community. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Olson asked if living on a fixed income was becoming more of a problem in Lake Oswego and an obstacle for people wanting to stay in their own homes here. She wondered whether what she has heard about it getting harder to stay in Lake Oswego because of the cost of living was an accurate perception. She observed that housing was not the only cost. Ms. Keevil observed that almost everything else has gone up but Social Security payments. She mentioned her alarm over a 30% increase in the sewer bill. She observed that it was expensive to live in Lake Oswego and maintain the community lifestyle, especially in this economy. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 19 September 14, 2010 Ms. Adrian mentioned that there was a misunderstanding that no low-income people lived in Lake Oswego when 3% of people over 65 lived in poverty (less than $11,000 a year) with a significant number living solely on Social Security. She commented that it was important to take those kinds of things into account when thinking about economic and age diversity. Councilor Hennagin asked what the status was of the housing supply available within the financial capabilities of Lake Oswego's aging population. Ms. Adrian said that she did not have the statistics on that, but she could obtain them. She mentioned the anecdotal information she had that there was not much housing stock for downsizing or with universal design elements for accessibility by disabled persons. Councilor Jordan suggested asking the 50 plus Advisory Board to conduct a survey of people 45 and older to find out where they saw themselves if they stayed in Lake Oswego. She pointed out that all the Council had was anecdotal information about older people unable to find housing in Lake Oswego but no specifics about whether people wanted to rent or buy, what their price point was, or what type of housing or floor plan they wanted. She spoke of the ACC staff and the Advisory Board ferreting out that information, which would help inform the Comprehensive Plan update. She wondered where people moved to outside of Lake Oswego. She commented that their information indicated that the cost of living in the surrounding communities was as high as or higher than in Lake Oswego. She mentioned her concern with basing anything on anecdotal information. Ms. Adrian indicated that they had no statistics on that issue, which sounded like it needed a good study. She mentioned hearing that the lack of diversity in housing stock was an issue. Dr. Lawler spoke from her experience that families living elsewhere either moved the parents in with them in another state or moved them into assisted living facilities. Mayor Hoffman recalled hearing at the ACC program about the psychological trauma of change for elderly citizens and the difficulty in moving out of their house. He referenced Greg Hadley's book talking about the change. He asked Dr. Lawler to address the psychology and the challenge of change for elderly citizens when they have to move. Dr. Lawler mentioned no wish to change and a fear of an unknown situation as the primary factors leading to the crisis and its associated resistance. She noted that many people improved their physical and psychological well-being in a structured situation. She observed that the ideal situation was a careful search for the right place, which some families did do. She commented that she has seen a fair amount of forced re -locations recently when someone could no longer afford to stay in a facility and had to move somewhere else, followed by a marked decline in health. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she thought the resistance was the usual resistance of humans to change, but a good presentation of options could ameliorate the change. Ms. Keevil commented that innovative planned kinds of living arrangements were starting to show up around the country, such as a commune -type system or individual homes built around a centralized location, but Lake Oswego has not yet reached that point. She observed that, for seniors, losing one's independence, life-long possessions, and property added to the stress of moving, which already ranked as one of the top five most stressful life activities. She pointed out that the emotional characteristics of these situations required a case-by-case approach, as what was difficult for one person might not be difficult for another person. She applauded the Council's efforts to survey the community to find out what people wanted. Ms. Cohen described the low-income congregate housing off Boones Ferry Road as a good start. She commented that it had a congregate feeling to it without being institutionalized. Councilor Moncrieff stated that she shared Councilor Jordan's questions about where people were moving for cheaper living situations, as she had the same information regarding the cost of living in Lake Oswego being on par with the surrounding communities. She wondered what City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 19 September 14, 2010 specific things the City could do to allow aging in place in neighborhoods with their walkability and access to transit, such as encouraging attractive housing stock with universal design elements and providing more support for the existing services. Ms. Adrian commented that, while she did not have statistics to back this up, her intuition told her that a universally designed single -level home with a small or no yard care would be attractive housing to seniors. She said that she would be glad to assist with any kind of surveying. She mentioned the likely interest of the 50+ Advisory Board in such work, citing their advocating for zoning changes to facilitate secondary dwelling units. Councilor Moncrieff spoke to the importance of meeting the needs of the citizens. Dr. Lawler observed that those needs would change over time as the aging population changed. Councilor Tierney observed that, from a policy perspective, the housing stock question was critical because the City could deal with that sort of issue. He asked if staff has forecasted what additional services the City would need to provide in the future, looking at them from both a service delivery and a financial perspective. Ms. Adrian commented that the most important thing they could do in the next five years would be to develop a strategic plan for provision of these services. Ms. Adrian indicated to Councilor Tierney that there were many great models available from other communities to help the City in determining what services to provide in the future. She mentioned the CDC's program on Healthy Aging and AARP's programs. Councilor Tierney raised another policy issue of what the City needed in its development code in order to provide for an appropriate housing stock. He spoke of specific integration with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Adrian mentioned that Sidaro Sin was interested in the aging of the population and developing age -friendly communities, and attended meetings on the subject. Councilor Tierney observed that, from a housing stock perspective, seniors moving out would free up homes for younger families, which would help with the vitality of the community and the School District population concerns. Councilor Hennagin commented that this Council has been concerned about housing stock and looked at a variety of different types. He agreed that they needed to find out what the people wanted, not only in housing stock and location, but also in transportation and transit options. He recalled that the City determined several years ago that a local circulator bus was cost -prohibitive at the time, but he wondered if people might be willing to pay something for that service if they did not want to drive. Councilor Vizzini encouraged seniors to consider moving to a community facility, citing the advantage his father discovered in doing so as a male in his 70s. He asked if staff has seen more seniors participating in the meals program because of affordability issues. Ms. Adrian indicated that, while the participation numbers were on par with last year, what they have seen is the number of seniors unable to contribute something towards the cost of the meals increase from 27% two years ago to 40% last year. Councilor Vizzini asked if the caseload per case manager in the case management system was manageable or did staff foresee a need for additional case managers in the next five to ten years. Ms. Cohen mentioned that last year 4,700 individuals utilized some aspect of the services offered through the Social Services Department at the ACC. Ms. Adrian clarified that the two case managers at the ACC did not manage all those individuals. Ms. Cohen indicated that the State case managers handled a caseload of around 400 clients. Councilor Vizzini commented that it sounded like the current system of case management in the public, private, and non-profit sectors was adequate; it was the services in the community that might not be adequate. Councilor Vizzini suggested changing the term from `strategic plan' to `social contract.' He argued that they needed to get beyond planning to an agreement between the various public and private institutions in the community to take action. He commented that one advantage of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 19 September 14, 2010 Comprehensive Plan process was the opportunity to look beyond urban housing design to how to knit together the services, the housing, and the mobility in the landscape of the community. He encouraged Ms. Adrian to push Mr. Sin beyond the typical kinds of discussions. He pointed out that the need for services for an aging population at the local level might also represent an employment cluster. He suggested looking into an economic development strategy to encourage the marketplace to grow in Lake Oswego to serve that population. Ms. Adrian commented that one thing they all could learn from tonight was the need to start thinking about their own individual aging process. Dr. Lawler recalled a quote from Harry Moody in reference to business development focused on aging: "You know, there's gold in silver." Ms. Keevil suggested that the Council call a forum of people between the ages of 50 and 62 to discuss what happened as one aged and what kinds of housing they wanted to live in. She mentioned that her personal preference was a little single-family cottage on a small plot. Mayor Hoffman summarized the themes he heard in the discussion: the issue of fixed incomes and how to plan for service delivery and housing in 10 to 15 years. He asked if the panel knew of any communities that deferred utility fees as a lien on a property payable upon property transfer. Councilor Vizzini mentioned that the City of Portland had a low-income assistance program that reduced a utility bill by 30%. Mayor Hoffman commented that Lake Oswego had a similar program. Mayor Hoffman requested a memo from Ms. Adrian discussing how the community should start planning for service delivery. He noted that they could consider housing as part of the Comprehensive Plan's 20 -year outlook. He suggested that the Council start the ball rolling on this, as it would take five to ten years to get something done. Councilor Jordan commented that she was very involved with these issues, as last year she helped her parents move into a facility. She asked if most cities of Lake Oswego's size offered the same range of social services. Ms. Adrian reported that a poll staff did found that other senior centers in Clackamas County offered similar services. She recalled that the County voted in 2008 to return its social service money to the State, and transferred all its case managers to the State. She indicated that the County and the State were lessening the services that they offered. She mentioned the decrease in Lake Oswego's County funding from $85,000 last year to $44,000 this year. Councilor Jordan suggested including in a survey on possible future services, information on the costs of those services and a question on whether people would be willing to pay on a sliding scale to have those services offered in their own community. 5.2 Tennis Siting Study Findings and Recommendation Ms. Gilmer introduced Brian Jackson, the architect who worked with staff on this study. She reviewed the project background (p.4), beginning with the City's 2009 Golf Course and Tennis Facility feasibility study. She noted the reasons why the City needed a new and larger tennis facility (p.5). She discussed the scope and findings of the 2009 study (p.4). She reported that the study found a huge unmet need for indoor tennis facilities in Lake Oswego's market area, indicating a strong tennis market and a need for more courts to reduce the player to court ratio (P.6). She mentioned the seven potential sites included in the 2009 feasibility study (p.6). She noted that, while the City did not own the Armory site, there were indications that the National Guard would vacate the site in the next 18 months. Therefore, staff decided to analyze its suitability as a tennis facility site. She reported the feasibility study consultant's recommendation that the City build eight courts with a future growth capacity to 10 to 12 courts, and all the amenities lacking in the current tennis center. He reduced the number of potential sites to three: West End Building, National Guard City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 19 September 14, 2010 Armory, and Rassekh park property. Ms. Gilmer mentioned needing a minimum of 4.1 acres to site the facility (more if there were topographic issues). She recalled the consultant's recommendation to use a combination of different funding sources. She reminded the Council that the tennis center was an enterprise fund that paid for itself out of the fees generated through the programs. She stated that the intent was that this new facility would not require general tax support for either construction or operations and maintenance. She mentioned the consultant's recommendation to sell the existing tennis center property, build up a reserve in the tennis fund to pay off some of the debt for a new facility, and pay the balance with a revenue bond. She noted that they could also look at additional private funding and grant opportunities as well. She indicated that the City hired Mr. Jackson in the spring of 2010 in response to the Council 2010 goal to site a new tennis center and its direction to conduct a siting analysis to determine the best site. She explained that Mr. Jackson looked at the three sites in specific terms, as opposed to the more general look of the 2009 study. Mr. Jackson gave a PowerPoint presentation. He described the process he used in achieving the four goals/tasks he undertook: to look at all zoning codes (p.6), to develop a space program, to develop conceptual site designs, and to look at cost planning. He noted assumptions they made for the cost estimate (pp.7-8), including a prefabricated engineered building. He observed that contractors had very competitive pricing in the current market, making now a good time to build a building. He reviewed the elements of the space programming, both baseline and optional (pp.9- 12). He discussed the Armory site (pp. 13-15), which the City did not own. He noted the 3.16 acres of buildable area due to sensitive lands on the site. He described the design as compact and efficient with a well laid out building (pp.30-31). He reviewed the site design and topographic issues (pp. 14-15). He pointed out that this site had no room for future expansion beyond an eight -court facility. He explained that the site slope allowed entrance onto the upper level but also required significant retaining walls. He clarified to Councilor Olson that the Armory site currently had no retaining walls, as the building itself was its own retaining wall. Councilor Olson commented that the information slated for presentation next week during Executive Session regarding whether the Armory site might revert to the City for as little as the $1 that the City sold the site for would have been helpful in making this decision. Mr. Jackson discussed the Rassekh site (pp. 16-19). He mentioned the 7.67 acres of buildable land and the possibility of several different building configurations (pp.32-35), including the use of sustainable energy strategies, such as solar panels (pp. 18-19). He noted the access issues and the possible expansion to 12 courts (p.18). He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the sewer access through the wetland had an $82,000 connection fee to reimburse the developer who put in the sewer pump station to serve the area plus around $150,000 in sewer line construction costs for a total of around $250,000. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City should explore sewer alternatives, such as self - composting toilets. Ms. Gilmer said that Parks & Rec was investigating composting toilet systems for general park purposes, as they were less costly to build. She mentioned that the Brooklyn Zoo in New York City has a successful system. She observed that such a system needed to be no different aesthetically then a flush toilet system. Councilor Vizzini commented that the Rassekh site could accommodate a living machine, which treated the flow from a normal low flow toilet in the greenhouse and then conveyed it to the creek. Mr. Jackson agreed that there were opportunities for sustainable practices at this site, but that was a research project in and of itself. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 19 September 14, 2010 Mr. Jackson confirmed to Councilor Vizzini that the $82,000 sewer connection fee was unique to the Rassekh property, and over and above the SDCs paid at any of the other sites. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that she would have to check on whether the sewer pump station served the Atherton Heights neighborhood. She recalled that the City worked closely with the developer who put it in for the Street of Dreams in order to make sure that the City could connect to it when it developed a park at this site. Councilor Vizzini expressed concern about the narrowness of the elevated viewing area (20 feet wide), as that would not allow seating to watch a game. Mr. Jackson presented an alternate baseline design for the Rassekh property for a single story facility (pp.36-38), which would eliminate the costs of two-story access. He noted the 30 -foot wide common area that replaced the elevated viewing and the elimination of the cardio/fitness room and the two -team room. He mentioned that this design cost $1.2 million less than the other design). He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that it probably would add substantially to the cost to expand the 30 -foot viewing area to 40 to 50 feet because it would require column supports instead of the traditional beams with a 30 -foot span. Ms. Gilmer reported on a conversation they had with the contractor building the new tennis facility at George Fox University, who was building a similar design with six courts. She said that the contractor was trying to build a facility that required as minimal amount of modification to the "Butler Barn" structures as possible, because modification increased costs. She reiterated that this facility needed to pay for itself as an enterprise fund, and staff has tried to keep the costs within the budget. Councilor Hennagin asked why they would not build 10 courts (given that eight courts were still insufficient to meet market demand) to generate more fees and pay off the revenue bond faster. Ms. Gilmer agreed that it would make more sense to build the 10 courts at this time to take advantage of lower construction and financing costs. She recalled a suggestion from the Parks & Rec Advisory Board (PRAB) that the City build an eight court indoor facility with two outdoor courts positioned for covering in the future. Ms. Gilmer commented that staff's intent had been to estimate the costs of building on these sites. She explained that staff took a conservative approach to revenue estimates from the needed combination of class/event fees and hourly court fees possible at an eight -court facility. She mentioned that, in the event of a revenue bond, she had not wanted to assume that the center would generate large amounts of money if it could not do so. She indicated that staff could retool the operating and site development cost estimates. Councilor Tierney questioned the assumption made for all the sites that the center would be a prefabricated metal building. He wondered whether the community would allow a private tennis facility to build a prefabricated metal building. He argued that a metal building did not stand the test of quality and sustainability desired by the community. Mr. Jackson clarified that they tried to compare apples to apples on all the sites. He speculated that there was flexibility in the cost estimates to enhance the exterior of what would be a big building. Councilor Tierney expressed concern about the costs to build a building, as opposed to a barn or a prefabricated metal structure. Mr. Jackson answered that they would have to look at what the cost impacts would be to make more aesthetic upgrades to the exterior. He pointed out that the long span structure would be a Butler Barn -looking piece in any case. Ms. Gilmer cited the storage facility at Hazelia Field as an example of a pole barn with stipulated design features and exterior cladding that allowed the building to work with the site design. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Tierney that the cost estimates included funds to pass the community standard, and that staff has not underestimated the cost of the building. Councilor Tierney commented that one of the Council's concerns was doing it right. Councilor Vizzini observed that landscaping could also help. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 19 September 14, 2010 Mr. Jackson discussed the West End Building site (pp.21-22, 39-42). He indicated that 8.2 acres of the 14.2 -acre site were buildable. He explained that, with the only location for tennis courts being on the northern side of the site where the current parking lot lay, there would be additional costs to replace the south lawn with a parking lot. He noted that the issues on this site were grading issues (p.22). The need to step down the hill made it difficult to construct a viewing area to cover all eight courts. He commented that, given the other potential uses for the property, clearly a tennis center was not the highest and best use of the WEB site. Mr. Jackson indicated to Councilor Hennagin that all the land to the north was protected, except for a half -acre next to Daniel Road. He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that the building would not fit along Kruse Way and still meet the setback requirements. He reviewed the key cost factors for each site (pp.43-44). He presented the cost summary chart (p.44), showing the Armory site at $5.8 million (including $500,000 for purchase), the Rassekh site at $5.9 million (full option) and $4.5 million (baseline), and the WEB site at $6.8 million. Ms. Gilmer recalled that the consultant's recommendation from the 2009 tennis center feasibility study to fund a new facility from a variety of sources assumed a revenue bond backed by the full faith and credit of the City and a rough facility cost of $4.8 million. She mentioned that staff assumed a $24 per hour court fee in its projected operating budget for an eight -court facility. She pointed out that the Armory site cost could be $5.3 million if the City acquired the property for $1. However, the Rassekh full option at $5.9 million and the WEB at almost $6.8 million were significantly higher than the consultant's original estimate, which made a new facility based on $24 an hour impractical and the baseline option more realistic financially. She presented a slide showing the current rates (from the City Bond Counsel) for full faith and credit bonds and basic revenue bonds. She indicated that a 30 -year bond for $3 million had a payback of $173,000, which was less than the 20 -year bond payback of over $200,000 identified last year in the feasibility study. Councilor Olson stated that she recalled a discussion last year of revenue bonds, and not full faith and credit bonds backed by the revenue of the City. Mr. McIntyre clarified that staff was trying to show the different options available. Mr. Jackson indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a one -level facility design on the Rassekh property was possible, which would eliminate the high costs of elevator access to two levels. Councilor Tierney asked whether the $24 per court hour generated sufficient revenue to afford more building if the bond prices were lower. He commented that he preferred to build something that had a longer life, was more appealing to the community, and looked like a building. He acknowledged that it would cost more money. Ms. Gilmer concurred that that made sense. She indicated that staff would drill down to find the answers to those questions, once Council approved a site. Councilor Tierney commented that he wanted to make sure that a tennis center fit into the community values, which included a walkable, densely populated community. He expressed his concern that the Rassekh property did not fit those values. He said that he would rather spend more if financially possible to put the center in a location that met those values. Ms. Gilmer confirmed to Councilor Vizzini that the monies the City would use to repay the bonds were tennis revenues, and that the only question for the bondholders was whether the City would provide the additional security of its full faith and credit backing the bonds. Councilor Olson disagreed that that was the only difference. She argued that the City kept issuing full faith and credit bonds backed by a revenue stream but those were not revenue bonds, as some thought. She commented that the City did have a limit on the amount of its full faith and credit. Councilor Vizzini mentioned that his calculations after the last commitment for LOIS found the City at less than half its limit. Councilor Olson pointed out that the water project was coming up at $240 million. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 19 September 14, 2010 Ms. Gilmer presented the PRAB recommendation of the Rassekh property as the most logical place to put a new tennis center, based upon the goals of siting a center and the feasibility of paying for it with tennis revenues. She reviewed the basis of their decision (p.6, staff report). She discussed the potential next steps (pp.6-7, staff report). She commented that, given the current momentum and enthusiasm in the community for a new tennis center, she thought that delay in identifying a location would make it more difficult to maintain that momentum and generate additional private funding from the tennis community as well as acceptance of increasing court fees needed to generate a capital reserve. She discussed the need for more site due diligence as Step 1 (p.8, staff report). She noted that the UGB modification process took six to eight months, and that the US Tennis Center Facilities Grant Program required selecting a site before it would consider a grant application (pp.8-9, staff report). She pointed out that the timelines for Steps 3 and 4 (p.9, staff report) were flexible. She pointed out that design work to let the tennis community see the proposal would help generate interest in private funding and the fee increases. She stated that the final recommendation was to approve the Rassekh property as a future site for an indoor tennis center, to initiate the geotechnical analysis on the site, and to apply to Metro for the UGB modification. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Moncrieff expressed her appreciation for the staff, PRAB, and Tennis Study Group's time put into arriving at this recommendation. She remarked that she sympathized with the urgency to move now to take advantage of the tennis community's enthusiasm and the low interest rates and construction costs. She stated her support of the PRAB recommendation to select the Rassekh property but with reservations as voiced by Councilor Tierney. She said that the lack of transit access was a concern to her, but she felt that the benefits of the site outweighed its detriments. She said that she was also sympathetic to the neighborhood association that has been waiting for a park and natural area for many years. She spoke of developing a natural area along Pecan Creek with a picnic shelter for neighborhood gatherings, and working to preserve trees. She mentioned looking at the most sustainable practices during the design process and balancing any additional costs with lifetime energy savings. Councilor Tierney stated that, while he supported the concept of a new tennis facility, he did not support locating it at the Rassekh site, which was on the edge of the community. He suggested that there were possibilities to acquire a School District site in the not too distant future that was more community oriented. He indicated that, while he did not desire to delay the process, he thought that Step 1 should be updating the financial model and re-examining the assumptions, given the differences between the initial cost estimate of $4.8 million and the cost estimates provided in this study. He mentioned that he preferred the Armory site because people could walk to it. He said that he would not oppose the Rassekh site if there were no other option but he would like to explore options with the School District. He argued that the City would be in a better position if it considered these things. Councilor Jordan stated that she supported a tennis center but she too was concerned about the Rassekh property being out on the edge of the community. She asked what a modification of the UGB entailed. Ms. Gilmer explained that, because the property was inside the City limits but outside the UGB, it did not require an annexation vote. Metro staff told City staff last year that the City would need to demonstrate the need for bringing the park property inside the boundary, which the City could do, as it was very difficult to site this facility within the city limits on the properties available to the City. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 19 September 14, 2010 Councilor Jordan mentioned the outdoor tennis courts at Bryant and Jean Roads and the large property adjacent to the school. Ms. Gilmer said that staff looked at that property but did not include it in the feasibility study because it served as ball fields for the school. She indicated that the City would have to replace those ball fields elsewhere in the city if it used the site for an indoor tennis facility. Councilor Jordan commented that she would hate to choose a site in the rural part of the city if the City could find a site within a more accessible area on one of the empty School District properties. She remarked that she was not opposed to this but she did think that they were pushing it because of the momentum consideration. She described her greatest concern as whether they have given this siting issue the most opportunity, since the City only had a few sites that it felt it could study. She indicated that she supported expanding the tennis center to a 10 to 12 court facility if possible, but she was not certain that the Rassekh property was the right location. Councilor Hennagin stated that he shared the concern about location, as he had hoped that staff would be able to find a site more centrally located for an expanded indoor tennis center. He asked if play spread out evenly over the day or concentrated in the mornings and evenings. Ms. Gilmer indicated that currently the tennis center was solidly booked from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday, and in the mornings into early afternoons on Sundays. She said that the peak usage occurred from November/December through April. She mentioned selling seasonal reservations for off -hours during the season because otherwise there was not enough court time. Councilor Hennagin commented that people were not going to walk to a tennis center during the winter, which made the Armory site not much different from the Rassekh site in his opinion. Mayor Hoffman indicated that both he and Councilor Vizzini could assure the Council that people drove to play tennis. They did not walk. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that a shorter drive would be nice, and yet having an athletic/sports center out in the Luscher Farm area had its advantages. Councilor Hennagin asked if the City would have to trade a property to get the Rassekh site inside the UGB, as it did to get Hazelia Field inside the UGB. Ms. Gilmer said no, as the land swap in the Hazelia Field project had been a simpler method of making a minor modification to the UGB from Metro's point of view. The Rassekh property involved a major UGB modification, and staff was not considering a land trade. Councilor Hennagin commented that he did not know of any other property near the center of town, even a School District property, which would accommodate this facility. He said that he did not think that they had any realistic alternative to siting it at the Rassekh property. Mayor Hoffman noted that the School District has not contacted the City about selling their property. He commented that he knew of no neighborhood that would accept this facility. Councilor Olson mentioned several reasons why the Armory property was the optimal property. She noted that it was the least expensive option and might be available relatively soon. It was a developed site on a bus line, had all utilities available on site, and a shared parking option with the adjacent church. She commented that an informal poll of her tennis -laying friends found that most felt that eight courts would be plenty, given the movement to the Jim Zupanic's club in Tualatin. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that the City has not yet delineated the sensitive lands on Rassekh, although the property did have a sensitive land overlay on it. Councilor Olson cited the concerns shared by other Councilors regarding the location of the Rassekh property on the edge of the city, and the aesthetics of a parking lot and metal tennis center as the first thing people saw coming in from south of the city. She mentioned that she has not heard whether staff has contacted the Stafford CPO or Stafford Basin residents regarding this project but she would be interested in their input. Councilor Olson commented that she has heard many neighborhood concerns but no discussion from staff regarding neighborhood concerns, such as cut through traffic and the visual impacts to City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 19 September 14, 2010 the neighborhood of looking down on a metal building with mechanical facilities on top. She indicated that she would like to know what work staff has done with the neighborhood. She pointed out that this was not an allowed use under the current zoning on the Rassekh property. She recalled that the City purchased this land with money from the Parks & Natural Areas bond with the intent of developing it as a passive park. She questioned whether using it for a tennis center violated the terms of the bond. She said that she had great difficulty designating any kind of use for the Rassekh property in advance of completing the Parks Master Plan. She cited the City telling the neighborhood for years that it could not do anything on the property until after the City had a new Parks Master Plan. She shared the concern about putting a sewer under the wetland. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that the City should pursue a more optimal site, such as the Armory site. She reiterated that it was more centrally located, easy to get to, and already paved and developed with utilities to the site. She acknowledged the concern that it was smaller, but wondered whether the City should keep the old tennis center for lessons, if all it could get for the site was $1 million. Councilor Vizzini commented that the problem he saw with any site closer to the neighborhoods were the issues of neighborhood impact and highest and best use of the property. He pointed out that Lake Oswego neighborhoods were well organized and would do so around an issue like this. He agreed that it made no sense to locate the facility at the WEB because it was not the highest and best use of that property. He pointed out that this was a recreational facility that would work as a barn on a property in the Stafford area. He shared the concern about getting the permitting to go through the creek for a sewer connection. He indicated that he did not have as many problems with the Rassekh property as others have expressed. He commented that the Armory site was a tight fit on a bus line that did not run on weekends. He agreed that transit was limited in Lake Oswego, which made transit not an issue for a tennis center. He discussed his primary concern that putting this decision off to keep looking for a site lost the window of opportunity to do a project in a counter -cyclical cycle with opportune bidding. He observed that he would hate to spend another year looking for the ideal site, only to have the financing then blow them out of the water. He framed the question before the Council as whether this was an opportunity that the Council needed to move on now and choose the best option, knowing that all three had limitations, or did the Council put this off and run the risk of not being able to make it work later. Mayor Hoffman said that he shared most of Councilor Vizzini's concerns and support of the Rassekh site. He acknowledged that staff could identify potential School District sites but he could not think of a site that the District would want to sell or that the neighborhood would have concerns about a 24/7 operation. He reiterated that his experience found that people drove to play tennis. They did not take mass transit or walk. He commented that they have not heard people saying that the City should not have sited Hazelia Field out there because it was not on mass transit. He indicated that the City bought the parcel with the 1998 Parks & Open Space bond money with the intention of using it for organized and active sports, as identified in its Master Plan, because it was flat. He recalled that the Luscher Farm Master Plan showed baseball fields on that site. He mentioned that he has thought about the Armory site but the configuration was tight and the City did not own the property. He commented that there was no promise that the City would ever own it, making this issue such an unknown that it could feed into a lost opportunity with respect to the market and construction. He recalled that the tennis community has actively supported all the City's parks and open spaces bond measures, and it has been asking for a new facility for years. He mentioned the City's responsiveness to the tennis players by Lakeridge in their request for a tennis facility. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 19 September 14, 2010 He said that he did not see any other site. He commented that, given the amount of urban agriculture activities in the Luscher Farm area, he did not see Rassekh as a rural part of the city. He pointed out that the heaviest use of the indoor courts was during bad weather, which meant that people would drive to the facility. He stated his support of the PRAB recommendation and the many tennis players who have asked for this facility. Councilor Moncrieff recalled that the Rassekh property had been her last choice for the tennis site because she wanted to preserve it as an Oregon White Oak savanna for passive recreation only. She indicated that, in light of the whole community needs, she supported the baseline option at Rassekh as the lowest cost option and the only one with the opportunity to expand to 12 courts to meet the long-term need. She said that she had no concerns regarding the aesthetics, citing the restroom at Hazelia Field that looked like a red barn and the hidden parking area. She reiterated her support of the PRAB recommendation to site the facility on the Rassekh property, and moving forward in order not to lose the opportunity of favorable financing. Councilor Tierney noted that he has already given his opinion and stated his arguments. He observed that no one has spoken to the need to revisit the financing as Step 1 in order to make sure that this would still work, a point that he wished to emphasize. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Jordan that City Code did not set a required number of parking spaces for recreational facility parking. She described staff's method of determining a minimum of 70 spaces. She noted Mr. Jackson's adding some parking spaces up front on the Rassekh site in anticipation of extra courts in the future. She said that there was no affordable way to put two courts over the existing parking at the Armory. Mr. Jackson indicated that structured parking quickly changed the costs from $3,000 a stall to $30,000 a stall. Councilor Jordan mentioned her appreciation of the Mayor's comments about this property as an active park. She acknowledged the patience of the tennis community in waiting for a new facility. She agreed that she did not want to lose the funding opportunities. She commented that, while she was not positive that the Rassekh property was the right place, she would change her opinion, as she did not know that she could be convinced in the next month that there was another site available for this facility. Councilor Hennagin commented that he thought aesthetics were a concern. He agreed that keeping costs down meant taking advantage of the current economic situation. He remarked that there did not seem to be another reasonable option available at the current time. He described moving ahead with the Rassekh property as fiscally responsible behavior on the Council's part. Councilor Olson supported Councilor Tierney's request to run the numbers again. She commented that she found it disingenuous to bring this to Council when waiting one week would have provided more information regarding the availability of the Armory property. She argued that two baseball fields and their small number of parking spaces was a lot different than a big metal tennis center with 80 parking spaces. She reiterated that she did not think active recreation was ever the intent for this property. She questioned moving ahead now in order to keep the momentum going, given that it would take six to eight months to get through the UGB modification process, and Metro might turn the City down in the end. She referenced the Mayor's comment that no neighborhood would accept this facility on a current school site. She reiterated that she still has not heard any discussion about the neighborhood that would have to live with the traffic and visual impacts of siting this facility on the Rassekh property. She stated that she wanted an answer to her question of whether staff has talked to the neighborhood or the CPO. Councilor Vizzini commented that the decision tonight was about a siting preference, and not about building the facility. He speculated that the final decision to build might have the costs shared with the tennis community. He spoke of that community's willingness to raise private funds to offset some costs over and above the fees in an attempt to hold the fees increases down. He City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 19 September 14, 2010 spoke to working with the tennis community to the greatest extent possible, both to shape the project and to help that community co-own the facility. He framed the question as whether the Council moved forward with something more than tentative planning on one of these three options, knowing that there were still issues to deal with. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He noted that staff and PRAB were recommending approval of the Rassekh property as the site of the future tennis facility and starting to move forward. He indicated that implicit in that was the financial analysis requested by Councilors Tierney and Olson. He asked for a nod of heads to direct staff to move forward with the Rassekh site. Councilor Olson recalled that the study indicated that the County owned and maintained Stafford Road in front of the Rassekh property, but if the City developed the property for a public use, it would annex that portion of Stafford Road and maintain it. She asked if annexing the road required a vote. Mr. Powell indicated that the City already annexed that right-of-way, and what was left was the formal transfer of jurisdiction process, which would occur eventually anyway. He explained that this transfer of jurisdiction was supposed to happen with the annexation but in practice, it tended to wait until there was a logical connection made supporting the transfer. Mayor Hoffman indicated that the sense of the Council was to move forward with the Rassekh property. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. 5.3 New MS4 Permit Report to Council Mr. McIntyre introduced Erica Rooney, City Assistant Engineer/Engineering Services Manager. He observed that Councilor Vizzini understood this complex issue of the MS4 permit/Storm Water Management System Program. Ms. Rooney indicated that federal regulations mandated the City to manage and implement the MS4 permit requirements. Since this permit involved storm water runoff, this mandate fell on the Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department, which managed storm water runoff. She mentioned that the MS4 permit was intertwined and interconnected with the Clean Streams Plan and the Sensitive Lands Resource management effort. Ms. Rooney introduced David Gilbey, Water Quality Program Coordinator. She mentioned that the Surface Water Management Plan was affectionately know as the SWAMP. Mr. Gilbey introduced Krista Reinaga, Brown & Caldwell, the consultant group hired to help the City move through the MS4 permit maze over the last three years. He explained that DEQ required permit applicants to present a surface water management plan (SWMP) based on their existing permits first. It would then issue a new permit and the permittees would have to rewrite their SWMP to reflect the new permit. He mentioned that Ms. Reinaga worked with the other Clackamas County co -permittees on the City's permit. Ms. Rooney distributed a bookmark with acronyms. Mr. Gilbey gave a PowerPoint presentation. He described the SWMP as the implementation plan for the permit. He informed the Council that currently the City was in the permittee review period to look at the draft permit. He indicated that the 45 -day public comment period for the pending permit renewal and associated documentation (SWMP and the monitoring plan) began on October 4. DEQ tentatively scheduled its permit renewal for the latter half of December. He explained that jurisdictions had to get MS4 permits in order to discharge storm waters into the waters of the State, something that they could not do legally without a permit (p.13). He noted that a set of conditions accompanied the permit. He informed the Council that DEQ has not singled out Lake Oswego in requiring this permit; Lake Oswego shared this permit with 12 co -permittees in Clackamas County (p.17). City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 19 September 14, 2010 He defined storm water runoff as the storm water not infiltrated into the ground due to impervious areas. Therefore, the water carried more pollutants into the storm system. He pointed out that the catch basins in the street did not go to a wastewater treatment plant but rather directly into a stream or lake. He noted that the lack of infiltration also increased the amount and flow of runoff (hydromodification). Ms. Reinaga discussed a slide showing a summary of the storm water plan elements and needs over the next five-year permit term. She explained that staff intended this visual to illustrate the fact that the new permit had a significant impact on City resources. Mr. Gilbey mentioned that staff allocated funds in this year's budget to start developing the scope of work for the storm water code and design manual revisions. He presented the permit elements new to the SWMP. He indicated that if the due dates from the August 31 permit draft (p.31) stuck, staff would use those to start planning the work. He discussed the new element of hydromodification (pp.76-77). He defined hydromodification as the changes to runoff caused by land use modifications. He reviewed the hydromodification assessment plan actions required by the permit (p.29). He mentioned a tool proposed by Clackamas County to address hydromodification, which Lake Oswego could modify for local conditions. Ms. Reinaga clarified to Councilor Hennagin that DEQ's intent was to increase ground infiltration using small facilities that infiltrated the rain, such as swales, rain gardens, and other vegetative facilities. Mr. Gilbey showed a City project at Boones Ferry and Country Club Roads that tried to address hydromodification by re-establishing the flood plain. Mr. Gilbey reviewed the new element of retrofit assessment strategy (pp.30-31) and the charge to identify the high priority retrofit areas. He indicated that this would allow the City to prioritize retrofits using low impact development, including a timeline and cost estimates. He reviewed the new element of post -construction site runoff control (pp.24-27), which required the City to revise the storm water code and surface water design manual to include low impact development and green infrastructure. He noted that this element included offsite mitigation, another element new to the City. He estimated the code and design manual revisions to take up to two years. He reviewed the structural storm water control operations and maintenance element (pp.28-29) to refine the mapping of public water quality facilities. He described the City's work on this as adding robust information to support its maps and implementing maintenance inspection programs for private water quality facilities. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that the City's Building Department had the records of private onsite storm water treatment facilities built in the last several years. He concurred that this element would work in concert with the Boones Ferry Road Phase 2 Refinement Study's consideration of green street improvements. He commented that staff believed in educating citizens before moving to enforcement. He mentioned that there were examples in town of excellent storm water treatment facilities maintained solely by the citizens, such as a storm water swale in the Marylhurst neighborhood. He discussed the TMDL (total maximum daily load) waste allocation attainment evaluation. He explained that this required the City to look at the costs associated with reducing pollutant loads and determining the feasibility of attaining those allocations based on environmental, technical, social, and economic factors. He reviewed the pollution prevention from municipal operations element (pp.27-28). He indicated that Lake Oswego met the first item (minimizing pollutants associated with yard debris) because Allied Waste had a robust yard debris program. He mentioned other new elements of reducing the impact of storm water runoff from City facilities and updating the City's pest management practices. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 19 September 14, 2010 He reviewed the industrial and commercial facilities element (p.23). He indicated that the permit requirements would develop into an industrial and commercial inspection program. He noted the staff suggestion in the SWMP to visit 10% to 15% of the commercial facilities, which he described as an outreach opportunity. He reviewed the education and outreach element (pp.24-25). He noted the many educational and outreach activities conducted by the City, including storm drain marking, science fairs, and providing watershed maps. He mentioned that the co -permittees would likely partner on conducting the survey to connect water quality pollutant reduction to education and outreach activities. He indicated that City staff already met quarterly to discuss storm water -related activities at the City at the Storm Water Summit. He reviewed the monitoring and reporting element (p.32) and Lake Oswego's current program (p.35). He mentioned that the Clackamas County co -permittees would collaborate on the pesticide monitoring program. He indicated that the monitoring plan that DEQ wanted was a more technical one than Lake Oswego's current monitoring plan (pp. 139-150). He commented DEQ's request that the City submit a description of its process for conducting adaptive management during the permit term. He reviewed the illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) element (pp.21-23). He reported that the City met all the elements except a written enforcement response procedure. He reviewed common enforcement problems he has encountered during his tenure at the City. These included concrete in the storm drain and paint washing down the storm drain. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City issued a citation and a fine to the contractor who washed his paint into the storm drain and turned the Blue Heron Canal white. He mentioned issuing a citation two weeks ago to a contractor washing his concrete down a storm drain. He presented the fact sheets developed by Ms. Reinaga and her team that summarized the narrative of the SWMP into a usable format with measurable goals. These included illicit discharge (pp.99-100), construction site runoff control (pp. 108-109), public involvement and participation (pp. 115-117), and post -construction site runoff control (p.123). He mentioned that the majority of the items directly or indirectly related to the goals and action items in the Clean Streams Plan. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the relationship between the 13 co -permittees was primarily a partnership with the pooling and sharing of resources. Ms. Reinaga explained to Councilor Tierney that each co -permittee fulfilling its commitments under the permit through its SWMP protected the co -permittee if another co -permittee did not do so. She clarified that one co -permittee not meeting its obligations would open up the permit to public review again, but they have not had to face that issue yet. Mr. Powell indicated that a lack of compliance was limited to the co -permittee not in compliance, although it did depend on the circumstances. Mr. Gilbey confirmed to Councilor Tierney that if the City did all the things in the permit, the City watershed would be better for it. He indicated that that was potentially quantifiable. He referenced the TMDL waste load allocation attainment evaluation and its intent to determine the cost benefit of reducing pollutant loads. He commented that, while the science was good, it was not yet complete. He described the 20 -year old SWMP as still in its infancy. Councilor Tierney indicated that he trusted that the City, by implementing the SWMP, would be able to quantify its water quality successes and champion them. Mr. Gilbey recalled that the monitoring data collected by the City two years ago as part of its permit renewal package showed a downward trend in pollutant concentrations. He observed that making the nexus with what caused those downward trends was difficult. Ms. Reinaga commented that it was difficult to quantify the effects of a public education program and an erosion control program on the quantified load reductions. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19 September 14, 2010 Ms. Reinaga indicated to Councilor Tierney that the resources budgeted for FY 2010/2011 would not accomplish all the components of the permit. She said that they only had resources to budget the design manual and storm water code rewrite this year. Councilor Tierney commented that the report indicated that a certain percentage fee increase would fund the plan, yet it did not seem to correlate in terms of additional resources coming from citizens to support the program. He suggested that the City apply the storm water money to the things that impacted the watershed. He asked to see a correlation of the resources transferred. Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Tierney that it would be fair to say that the permit was good guidance to use in terms of monitoring and supporting the City's activities vis a vis improving the watershed. Councilor Tierney requested a monthly report on the component pieces of this plan, as it might constitute the watershed plan that the Council asked for as part of the City's Sensitive Lands program. Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Jordan that unfunded mandates were a common theme at permittee meetings, as no money accompanied this DEQ/EPA request to increase the activities needed for a permit. He explained that staff was trying to be strategic in spending the City's money to meet the requirements, including partnering with other co -permittees as much as possible. Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Jordan that whether those property owners with onsite storm water facilities received a storm water fee reduction was a Council decision. Councilor Hennagin asked why there were 13 agencies on one permit. Ms. Reinaga explained that MS4 permits were supposed to go to municipalities of 100,000 or greater population. Collectively, the Clackamas County area met that criterion, and thus received a Phase 1 permit at the initiation of this permit program. She mentioned that some Clackamas County cities were not even big enough for a Phase 2 permit, but DEQ would not discuss giving Phase 2 permits because it was backsliding. Mr. Gilbey mentioned that DEQ was aware that the municipalities on this permit did not have the resources of a larger municipality, such as Portland, to implement this program. DEQ has tried to adjust the City's SWMP and best management practices requirement accordingly. Councilor Hennagin asked if there was any distinction between surface water management, storm water management, and clean streams. Mr. Gilbey commented that the 'bureaucratese' was as confusing to him as it was to the Councilor; he personally used an e-mail logo that said "Healthy Watersheds." He made a pledge that, over the five-year permit period, the staff would try to make the SWMP readable to someone on the street. Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Surface Water Master Plan was the umbrella document that included the Storm Water Master Plan, but not the sensitive lands riparian areas. He commented that combining everything would be a good topic for discussion at the monthly staff Natural Resource meetings. Councilor Vizzini clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the 'load' in 'load reduction' referred to the pollutants, and not to the amount of water. Ms. Rooney commented that the sheer water volume was another problem because that caused the erosion. Councilor Vizzini thanked staff for a great presentation on a complex subject. He indicated that staff was headed in the right direction, and encouraged them to include sensitive lands and watershed issues. He explained that there was a legal framework under watershed management reflecting the legal silos of congressional laws. He agreed that local planning and work needed to be at the watershed level. Mr. McIntyre mentioned talking with Mr. Gilbey and Ms. Rooney about where the science met policy. He discussed the concept of maximum extent practicable (MEP), which addressed the question of when did policy versus science dictate the solution. Mr. Gilbey commented that the lack of a standard definition of maximum extent practicable explained why the permits were City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 19 September 14, 2010 becoming more and more prescriptive. He argued that there needed to be a balance between what the agencies and municipalities defined as maximum extent practicable and what was needed to protect the watersheds. He concurred with Councilor Jordan that the balance would vary from community to community. Councilor Vizzini cautioned the Council that the changes coming in this round of the MS4 permit were a precursor to a higher level of MS4 activity expected in the next rounds. He indicated that financing, assessment management, prioritization, monitoring, and adaptive management would be critical elements. He observed that they were responding to 100 years of industrialization and it would be expensive work to get it done right. He mentioned that Portland was interested in continuing this conversation with the clean water and MS4 agencies about this particular permit cycle because what they did in this cycle set up the next two to three cycles. 5.4 Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) letter regarding High Speed Rail Councilor Jordan stated that she and Councilor Olson attended a Clackamas County meeting of all the cities and jurisdictions within the County potentially affected by ODOT's High Speed Rail plan. She reported that the meeting consensus was that ODOT was headed in the wrong direction and that the jurisdictions needed more information. She presented the letter drafted by the County, which all the mayors of the affected cities were to sign, to send to ODOT to try to elicit better dialog and a more practicable planning process through ODOT. She indicated that this letter was on the C4 retreat agenda for discussion. She asked for Council concerns that she could bring to the retreat. Mayor Hoffman described the letter as a good start in emphasizing to ODOT and the Transportation Commission that there were serious issues with both the process and ODOT's direction. He noted several items that he liked in the letter, including the strong statement on p. 154 that the State should not begin investing in existing rail lines in anticipation of using them for high-speed rail in the future. He cited the recommendation for a County representative on the decision making body and the reference to the experienced third party manager (p.155) as strong positions. He commented that the Clackamas Cities group questions on compact development were good. Councilor Olson concurred with Mayor Hoffman regarding the strength of the statements he cited. She commented that this strong letter was an improvement over the discussion. She expressed her confidence that Councilor Jordan would represent the City well at C4. She conjectured that ODOT was looking at capacity rather than speed and has not thought this through. She pointed out that this proposal was only slightly higher speed, and not high speed. She noted that both existing lines had issues in that they were windy routes of about the same length. She commented that the cost effectiveness was questionable. Councilor Tierney commented that, while he thought the letter read fine, he did not know what it was about, as the Council has never discussed high-speed rail. He said that he supported Councilor Jordan representing the City, but he thought that the Council should discuss the issue at some time. Mayor Hoffman suggested that Councilor Jordan report to the Council in a week or two on the discussion at the C4 meeting, along with a staff briefing. Councilor Olson indicated that she thought Councilor Tierney was asking for more basic information on the project. Councilor Jordan recalled that ODOT presented their plan to elected officials in this Council chamber a year ago and spoke of public and jurisdiction involvement but then went on to make presentations on high speed rail at other public forums. She agreed that this was not high-speed rail, but noted that ODOT was going after federal money slated for rail connection improvements across the country. She commented that there has been sufficient anger about ODOT's process that ODOT has now started to say that there were more options than the two options that they have been studying. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 19 September 14, 2010 She indicated that they needed to increase the involvement of the local affected communities from simply an advisory body to a seat at the decision making table. Councilor Olson commented that when she asked questions of staff, the Mayor, or the City Manager regarding presentations, they were not rhetorical questions and she expected an answer. She stated that she would like answers to her questions regarding why the tennis siting issue was not done as part of the Parks Master Plan or whether staff has contacted the neighborhood. She described the decision as too important to take a nod of heads vote instead of a voice or roll call vote. She questioned why they voted tonight at a study session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, tA� Robyn C ristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: D. Hoffman, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 19 September 14, 2010