Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2009-11-17 PM2009 City Council Jack Hoffman, Mayor Donna Jordan, Council President Roger Hennagin Kristin Johnson Mary Olson Sally Moncrieff Bill Tierney CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers City Hall 380 A Avenue Also published on-line: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder E -Mail: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-675-3984 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Page # 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award presented to Captain Michael Hammons 3.2 2009 Lake Oswego Photo Contest winner recognition and photo display 3.3 Update on Foothills Dock 4. CONSENT AGENDA ♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. ♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda. ♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda. 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Resignation of Phil Burgess from the Historic Resources Advisory Board Action: Accept Resignation City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1 November 17, 2009 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 09-63, initiating a Partition Plat Vacation Request for 775, 787, and 799 Country Club Road Action: Adopt Resolution 09-63 4.3 MINUTES 4.3.1 September 8, 2009, special meeting 4.3.2 September 14, 2009, special meeting 4.3.3 September 15, 2009, regular meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of five minutes per citizen shall apply. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Appeal of a Development Review Commission decision to deny a one - parcel partition for the purpose of lot legalization, lot line adjustment, variance, and tree removal [AP 09-04/LU 09-0009]. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and the adjacent vacant parcel to the east. Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney Staff Report by Debra Andreades, Senior Planner Testimony will be taken in the following order: those in support, those in opposition, and neutral testimony. • 15 minutes for the applicant's presentation; • 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization. • 5 minutes each for other persons. • 5 minutes for the applicant's rebuttal. Questions of Staff Discussion City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2 November 17, 2009 7.2 Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney Staff Report by Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Dir. Testimony will be taken in the following order: those in support, those in opposition, and neutral testimony. • 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization; • 5 minutes for other persons. Questions of Staff Discussion Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 09-68 8. REPORTS 8.1 Personal Services Contract to Provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting Services Relating to the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year 2009-10 Motion: Move to award a personal services contract to Brown and Caldwell in the amount of $4,419,060 to provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting services through FYE 2009-10 8.2 Allied Waste Rate Increase Request 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes. 9.1 Councilor Information 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 10.2 City Attorney City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3 November 17, 2009 11. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: the Regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Wednesday 7:30 p.m. Thursday 7:00 a.m. Friday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 12:00 p.m. Sunday 4:00 p.m. Monday 11:00 P.M. Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at mms-://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 4 November 17, 2009 CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Items known as of 11/12/09 DATE MEETING Wednesday, Seminar, 5-7 p.m. Council Chambers November 18 . City Design - Gordon Price, Simon Fraser University Monday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. WEB/Santiam Room November 23 . Sustainability Leadership Training Monday, Study Session, 5 p.m. WEB/Santiam Room November 30 . Lake Grove Village Center Plan Case Study (Gordon Price follow-up) • Closed Session: Labor Negotiations Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 1 . LOIS Update • Unsung Hero Awards • Clackamas County Commissioner Bob Austin • Allied Rate Request (Res. 09-64) • Ardis Stevenson's book Facing Age Finding Answers • Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant project list • Sole Source contract award to Qwest Communications Company for public safety communication services • Appointments to the 50+ Advisory Board (Res. 09-66) • Appointments to the Budget Committee (Res. 09-67) Public Hearing • Lot Coverage of Institutional Uses (LU 09-0004) Study Session • Annexation Approach • Master Fees and Charges Update Monday, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. WEB/Santiam Room December 7 . Planning Commission • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • 50 + Advisory Board • Natural Resources Advisory Board Tuesday, Study Session, 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 8 . Goal Setting Preparation • Charter Officer Evaluations Monday, Seminar, 6:30 p.m. WEB/Santiam Room December 14 . Real Estate Seminar Bruce Wood & Will Denecke Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 15 . Sustainability Update - Green Power Community Recognition • Golf and Tennis Study • Public Art Master Plan • Acquisition and planning history of Iron Mountain Park Public Hearin Tuesday, Cancelled December 22 Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers January 5 Public Hearing • Partition Plat Vacation Request for 775, 787, & 799 Country Club Road (Ord. 2545) BOLD ITEMS - New issues added to schedule CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Items known as of 11/12/09 DATE MEETING Monday, Study Session, 6 p.m., WEB - tentative January 11 . Joint meeting with the Tigard City Council Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers January 12 • Mayor's Institute on Design Tuesday, No Meeting - Centennial Kick -Off January 19 Friday, Goal Setting, time and location TBD January 22 Saturday, Goal Setting, time and location TBD January 23 Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers January 26 . Bryant Road and Foothills Pump Stations Bid Award Public Hearin To Be Scheduled • Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and DRC - Visioning • Joint meeting with the Lake Corporation Board • Refer Congregate Care Housing Ord. to Planning Commission • Union contracts • Review Draft Economic Development Strategy • First and B Project • Joint meeting with the School Board • Emergency response Plan (before the end of the year) • Report on Intergovernmental Relations Program • Implementation of Matrix report (Spring 2010) • Foothills Redevelopment Agreement • Municipal Finance • IGA with the Bureau of Environmental Services for Tryon Creek (removed from 10/6) • LOIS Bond Sale • Joint meeting with the City of Tigard on the water project • Tour of Willamette River to see Foothills Dock and Water Treatment Plant intake • Lake Down Phase of LOIS Project Bid Award BOLD ITEMS - New issues added to schedule LILKL pswr'O CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 17, 2009 pKLGOM Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on November 17, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Councilor Jordan was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Police Captain Mike Hammons; Bonnie Hirshberger, Citizen Information Coordinator; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Gary Evans, Asst Parks & Recreation Director; David Donaldson, Asst City Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Director; David Gilbey, Water Quality Program Coordinator Youth Council Present: Youth Councilor Chandrana 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award presented to Captain Michael Hammons Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Captain Michael Hammons in appreciation for his 25 years of service. He reviewed Captain Hammons' history with the Lake Oswego Police Department, beginning in 1985. He thanked him for his service to the citizens of Lake Oswego. Captain Hammons observed that part of the Athenian Oath challenged the citizens to constantly question and challenge their leaders in order to build a better society. He commented that nowhere has he seen this part of the oath followed so completely as by the citizens of Lake Oswego. 3.2 2009 Lake Oswego Photo Contest winner recognition and photo display Mayor Hoffman presented awards to the first place winners of the 2009 Lake Oswego Photo Contest, and reviewed a brief history of each winner. These included Jhon Williams (Life in Lake Oswego, "Christmas on the Lake"), Kevin Brown (Lake Oswego Places, "Archway at George Rogers Park"), Michael Berger (Lake Oswego's Events and Activities, "Nightlife Downtown"), Chris Thompson (People of Lake Oswego "Battling the Elements"), Greg Seitz (Potpourri, "Train"), and Jim Hokinson (Historic Photos, "Lake Oswego Police Cars"). Mayor Hoffman also named the Runners Up and the Honorable Mentions. Ms. Hirshberger thanked all who entered the 170 photos and the 2,300 people who voted. 3.3 Update on Foothills Dock Ms. Gilmer commented that, while this project has been on going for some time, the end was in sight. She reviewed the project's history, beginning with a grant award in 2005 for $529,000 to design and construct the dock. She mentioned that it took a year and a half to move through the public process and achieve a design that satisfied all interests. She explained that, after awarding the construction bid to Axis Crane, the City began construction in May 2008 within the in -water work period for the Willamette River (July 1 through October 31). City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 26 November 17, 2009 However, when the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a letter of intent to sue the US Army Corps of Engineers over their permit process and fish concerns, the Corps suspended the City's work permit, which halted the project. She indicated that the City stored the gangway, dock, and pilings for installation in 2009 following the Corps' re-evaluation of the City's permit. But then the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a letter of complaint against the Corps for another issue related to the dock, which went to District Court. Although the judge ruled in favor of the Corps and allowed Lake Oswego to have a valid permit, the Council decided to wait on installation until after the 60 -day appeal period expired in September 2009. She said that the City got 90% of the dock installed before the in -water work period expired on October 31. She explained that, while installing the dock pilings, six of the ten piles hit bedrock before the contractor could sink them to the 30 foot depth needed for sufficient stabilization. She recalled that staff had known that that was a possibility but opted not to do the geotechnical analysis because the analysis would cost as much as driving the piles; if they hit bedrock, then they would simply proceed with the work needed to drive the piles in. She indicated that the Army Corps denied the City's request for an extension of the in -water work period. Therefore, they needed to suspend the work until next summer. She recalled that staff had explained to Council in an Executive Session before construction began that waiting until next summer to install the dock would cost over $65,000 in storage fees and a delay of work claim, plus require re -negotiating the construction contract for increased labor costs. She reviewed the costs of the two options for storing the materials: just under $40,000 for storage at Foothills Park, and over $116,000 for offsite storage. She described the process that the contractor would use to remove the pilings and store them onsite, which saved on re -mobilization costs and storage fees next year. She indicated that these costs left the City with approximately $30,000 remaining in the grant. She recalled that the City has only spent around $20,000 of its own money for design work several years ago. She recalled staff speculation in 2006 that the City might have to spend $100,000 to $129,000 of its own money to install the piles if they hit bedrock. That was now the case, and staff estimated a cost of $106,000 to complete the project. She mentioned that the Marine Board was willing to talk about splitting the cost with the City. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Evans indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractors had to remove all the pilings, even the two securely installed, because of safety concerns. Ms. Gilmer clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the City would have had to spend $65,000 in storage fees and contractor costs if it had decided not to build the dock this fall. The City obtained some savings by storing the materials on site. Mr. Evans mentioned additional savings of not having to re -negotiate the contract because the City did not stop the work. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractor had the necessary equipment to do the work, but the in -water work permit did not allow work beyond October 31. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that there would be no increased labor costs because the City was still operating under the original contract. She clarified to the Councilor that, in March 2007, the Council approved a budget of $129,000. However, staff did not re -budget the project the next year because the actual bid cost came in considerably under the grant money. Mr. McIntyre explained that it was a timing issue within the budget process. He indicated that this item would be in next year's budget because they could not do any in -water work until July 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 November 17, 2009 He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the hotel/motel tax revenues were a possible funding source, except that the City has dedicated all the hotel/motel tax revenues for the next four years to the restoration of the furnace. Ms. Gilmer reiterated that staff would make a formal request of the Marine Board with the hope that it might split the cost with the City. • Introduction of New Finance Director Mr. Donaldson introduced Ursula Euler as the City's new Finance Director. He reviewed her education and her background in finance in both the public and private sectors. Mayor Hoffman welcomed Ms. Euler to the City. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Johnson moved the consent agenda. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [6-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Resignation of Phil Burgess from the Historic Resources Advisory Board Action: Accept Resignation 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 09-63, initiating a Partition Plat Vacation Request for 775, 787, and 799 Country Club Road Action: Adopt Resolution 09-63 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 September 8, 2009, special meeting 4.3.2 September 14, 2009, special meeting 4.3.3 September 15, 2009, regular meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT • Scot Schoen, 13521 Snowberry Court He noted that, since his last visit, Ms. Gilmer has provided the Council with several options and costs for a Westside off leash dog area. He indicated that the 40 families for whom he has become the defacto spokesperson were still looking for a dog park on this side of town. He asked where they went from here. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff was waiting to get the three options on the Council agenda for feedback on which option to pursue. He noted that the matter also required a budget allocation. Mr. Schoen acknowledged that Council action might take several months, but pointed out that, in the meantime, dog owners had no place to take their dogs. He indicated that staff has informed him that going back to Westlake Park was not an option, even though several dog owners have lobbied for it. He clarified that there were actually more than 40 families who wanted to see this move forward in the City's process. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 November 17, 2009 Mayor Hoffman said that he would work with staff to get the dog park on a study session agenda. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Appeal of a Development Review Commission decision to deny a one -parcel partition for the purpose of lot legalization, lot line adjustment, variance, and tree removal [AP 09-04/LU 09-0009]. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and the adjacent vacant parcel to the east. Mr. Powell reviewed the standard quasi-judicial land use hearing procedure and criteria and the public testimony time limits. He asked if any Council member wished to declare any conflicts of interest, bias, or ex parte contacts. Councilors Olson and Tierney each declared a site visit. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Ms. Andreades gave a PowerPoint presentation presenting the basic facts of the case. She began with the vicinity zoning map and identified the locations of the two lots in question Tax Lot 1902 (seeking lot legalization) and Tax Lot 1900 (seeking a lot line adjustment). She explained that because the 33 -foot functional width of Tax Lot 1902 did not meet the minimum 65 foot lot width requirement for the R-10 zone, the applicant had to look to LOC 50.01.030(3) to legalize the lot. This provision allowed an exemption from the lot width and depth requirements if the potential development would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood through noise, scale, traffic, parking, privacy buffers, and obstructions of views. She noted the location of Tax Lot 2600, whose owners contended that the potential development on Tax Lot 1902 would obstruct their view in violation of the cited code section. She referenced the DRC findings in noting that both staff and the Commission agreed that a potential development would impact the Yearsleys' property (Tax Lot 2600). However, the question was whether that impact was a significant negative impact. She explained that an assessment of whether the proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood pattern was the tool to use in answering that question. She indicated that the staff found the evidence submitted to the DRC with respect to the neighborhood pattern sufficient to recommend approval. She showed the topographic map on which staff relied in determining the neighborhood development pattern and concluding that the proposed development would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern compared to what could be built on the lot if it met the width requirement. She said that the DRC denied the application and found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate what kind of structure was proposed or to demonstrate what the neighborhood pattern was for comparison. She indicated that the questions for the Council were whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the pattern of development in the neighborhood, and whether the proposed development would be consistent with that pattern. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Ms. Andreades explained to Mayor Hoffman that because this lot did not sit on a public street, technically its width was zero, as the Code measured lot width from a public street. However, functionally its width was 33 feet. She confirmed that there was an easement to get from the road to the tax lot. She clarified to Councilor Hennagin that Mr. Sundeleaf, the original owner of several lots on Phantom Bluff Court, deeded off the lots and created them by `mets and bounds' (a description of the lot). She indicated that the Glasses now owned 16715 Phantom Bluff Court, which had been Mr. Sundeleaf's property. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 November 17, 2009 She indicated that the Yearsleys owned a thin strip of land for lake access, which was part of the Sundeleaf deeded properties. She said that the lot line adjustment, which would be subsequent to the lot legalization, was between 16715 Phantom Bluff Court and the Puterbaugh property (Tax Lot 1902). She confirmed Mayor Hoffman's observation that it was a fireplace lot line adjustment. She explained that Mr. Puterbaugh and Mr. Camerman (the owner of 16715 Phantom Bluff Court before the Glasses) had a private agreement as part of a condition of approval for his lot legalization in 2003 to make sure that there was three feet of separation between his historic fireplace and his lot line. She said that the plat was recorded without meeting that condition; this lot line adjustment would meet that condition. Councilor Tierney asked if the City had any precedents on lot legalizations under these circumstances. Ms. Andreades said that the Glass property should have dealt with the issue of zero lot width due to no public street at the time of its lot legalization in 2003, but that did not happen because the functional lot width and depth met the zone lot width and depth requirements. Mayor Hoffman commented that the City has legalized lots before, including in First Addition. Ms. Andreades said that all the Phantom Bluff Court lots came in for legalization in 1991, but the plats for the legalized lots were never recorded, and eventually became void. She indicated that the 1991 lot legalization was not done with the exception for a private street. Councilor Tierney asked why staff recommended its conditions of approval. Ms. Andreades explained that the original conditions of approval listed on p.50 were the standard conditions of approval for a development application. She indicated that the conditions listed on pp. 112-113 were the additional conditions of approval that staff recommended to the DRC in response to the Commission's concern about obstruction of view. Ms. Andreades explained that, at the continued hearing, staff recommended requiring the applicant's proposed shed roof (sloping from 35 feet to 24 feet) as a condition of approval in order to minimize the obstruction of view to the Yearsleys (Exhibit F-13). She indicated to Councilor Tierney that she thought that this was the first time that this issue has come up in a lot legalization request. She noted that everyone agreed that the point of reference in defining the obstruction of view would be from one particular property. She reiterated that in determining whether that impact was significant or not, staff looked at the total neighborhood pattern. Mr. Powell noted the additional condition of approval that the City not allow the applicant to use the height exception allowable under the Code (p. 5, November 5, 2009 report). Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that frequently the City found that an access driveway was deficient in its turning radius for fire apparatus. The Fire Department's standard condition was to require a residential fire sprinkler system. Councilor Hennagin asked, given that the lot legalization and the building permit were two separate and distinct issues, whether, in order to legalize a lot, the Code permitted the Council to put restrictions on the building over and above what the zone would allow for a building permit. Ms. Andreades clarified that the issue was the lot's inability to meet the zone's standards for the minimum lot width and depth required for a building permit. She explained that LOC 50.01.030(3) allowed an exemption for a property not meeting its zone's dimensional standards if an applicant could show that the lot, if legalized and developed, would not have a significant negative impact. Councilor Hennagin commented that it seemed contradictory to have an ordinance that prohibited a property owner from cutting down trees in order to protect a view, and an ordinance that restricted development in order to protect someone's view. He observed that the DRC appeared to have made a subjective decision in concluding that the drawings depicting the shape and height of the proposed residence demonstrated that the house would obstruct the view too much. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 November 17, 2009 Ms. Andreades pointed out that the question was what a significant negative impact was. She indicated that the DRC did not find sufficient evidence to establish what the neighborhood pattern was for use in determining whether the acknowledged impact would be a significant negative impact or not. She reiterated that staff found sufficient evidence to conceptualize what that would be but the DRC did not find the evidence sufficient. Mr. Powell clarified that this Code section allowed the Council to impose conditions on a lot legalization in order to achieve consistency with the existing development pattern in the vicinity, if it determined that the proposed development's impacts on views went beyond the development pattern of the neighborhood. He indicated that those conditions could be more stringent than what the Code would otherwise apply to the lot. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Code did allow the DRC to continue the hearing for additional evidence, and the Council to remand the application to the DRC for additional evidence within the 120-day clock. Ms. Andreades indicated that the DRC did continue the hearing and made a site visit in the interim; the applicant could have submitted additional evidence at that time. Mayor Hoffman asked how staff and/or the DRC construed the term `neighborhood.' Ms. Andreades said that this Code section did not define `neighborhood.' She indicated that she would define the neighborhood in this case as Phantom Bluff Court. Councilor Tierney indicated that he read the DRC minutes and findings as defining `neighborhood' as one home, and applied obstruction of view to one lot. Ms. Andreades indicated that they could measure obstruction of view from one home, but the question of whether the obstruction created a significant negative impact required looking at the neighborhood pattern. Mayor Hoffman asked what staff's interpretation was of the existing development pattern in the vicinity. Ms. Andreades described the existing development pattern as large lots with large homes spread horizontally across the lot and oriented to the lake. She indicated that staff looked at what obstruction of view would occur if the lot were developed in that pattern. Ms. Andreades confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the two lots to the northeast were developable, and that the City could anticipate a replication of the house at 16661 on those two lots. Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Tierney that the width of the lot at the point where the Puterbaughs proposed siting the house was wide enough to constitute a legal lot if Phantom Bluff Court were a public street. Councilor Olson asked if the owners of 16661 owned the two lots to the northeast. Ms. Andreades said that, while she did not know, she thought it likely. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the lot adjacent to 16661 was illegal because it lacked access to a public road. Ms. Andreades noted that none of the lots on Phantom Bluff Court had access to a public road. Councilor Olson asked how staff's recommendation reconciled with staff's interpretation of a consistent neighborhood pattern of development characterized by large lots with large homes oriented horizontally to the lake. Ms. Andreades acknowledged that the combination of setbacks and lot configuration forced the applicant to orient his house in a northwest-southeast direction, rather than horizontally across the lot. She explained that the question staff considered was whether orienting the proposed development horizontally would create more of a view obstruction than the proposed orientation, which staff concluded was a possibility. Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that staff considered consistency with the neighborhood pattern only as it related to the view from the Yearsleys' property because that was the issue that came up. Everyone agreed that the development would not have a significant negative impact on the other factors referenced in the Code section. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. APPLICANT City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 November 17, 2009 • Gary Shepherd, attorney representing the applicant/appellant, 3115 SE Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon He mentioned that the Puterbaughs have paid real property taxes at developable values on Tax Lot 1902 since they purchased the property in 1972. In addition, the Puterbaughs have contributed annually to the Lake Corporation and contributed substantially to the construction of sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements along Phantom Bluff Court. He pointed out that this property, which had been part of the larger Sundeleaf estate (Tax Lots 1900, 1902, 1800, and 1905), was created prior to the City adopting partition regulations using the customary sale and recording process. He concurred that the lot did not meet the present day lot dimension requirements, but neither did the Glass property (Tax Lots 1900 and1905), which was legalized in 2003 through a similar lot legalization process. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Glass property was illegal for the same reasons as the Puterbaugh property was illegal. When Mr. Sundeleaf sold off Tax Lots 1902 and 1800, the remainder of his property became illegal because the City deemed it a partition. He explained that, due to circumstances beyond Mr. Puterbaugh's control, the lot legalization approval he received from the City Council in 1991 was not finally recorded, which necessitated the current application. He commented that the legislative history clearly indicated that the lot legalization standards found in LOC 50.01.030 were created and amended specifically to address situations in which a property owner was caught in the middle, such as having a lot on a private street that did not meet the City's lot dimension requirements. He referenced the legislative history in noting that the City's intent was that subsection 3 would apply to substantially substandard lots, and that such a lot would require additional review with respect to negative impacts. He indicated that he did not think that this 13,000 square foot lot in an R-10 zone was substantially substandard. He noted that it substantially exceeded the lot length requirements. Even with its narrowness, there was ample room on the lot to site a dwelling and meet all setback requirements. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the lot was 50 feet wide at the point where Mr. Puterbaugh proposed siting the house (p.305). The property width increased to over 70 feet down by the lake. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the minimum lot width in an R-10 zone was 65 feet, which meant that the lot width at the site of the house should also be 65 feet, yet it was only 50 feet wide at that point. Mr. Shepherd indicated to Councilor Olson that they would stay away from the 70 -foot wide area because it was on a cliff. He discussed the direction provided in the legislative history regarding the application of the standard, namely that the legalization of the lot not have a significant negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that it be consistent with the development pattern on adjacent properties. He argued that the standard allowed the review body to impose additional conditions in order to meet the standard. He contended that the staff correctly interpreted the legislative history and the plain language of the standard in finding that the application met the standard when correctly applied. He stated that, based on his review of the DRC minutes and findings, he did not think that the DRC correctly applied the standard. He argued that the Commission's focus on determining whether the design significantly impacted the Yearsleys' view, as Chair Heredia directed it to do, was the incorrect focus. He indicated that the exhibits in the room were the evidence regarding the neighborhood development pattern that the applicant provided to the DRC at the evidentiary hearing, per the DRC's request at the initial hearing for additional evidence. He stated that, at the evidentiary hearing, the DRC denied his request to explain the applicant's evidence orally, and made its decision without that explanation. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that his written description of the evidence was in the record. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 November 17, 2009 He noted that the essential criterion to consider was the pattern of development, as shown in the exhibits and on p.323. He pointed out the pattern of building homes up the hillside with the lower homes partially or fully obstructing the lake views of the homes higher up the hill. He argued that this tiered pattern of development occurred not only on Phantom Bluff Court but also in the Palisades neighborhood and across the lake as well. He reviewed the photos in the record showing the views from homes along Phantom Bluff Court to the lake (pp.313 - 315). He noted that the views were of trees, houses, and vegetation with no one having an unobstructed view of the lake. He reiterated that clearly the pattern of development was obstructed views and tiered housing development. He pointed out that many of the properties in this R-10 district could be subdivided, which meant more development in the area. He presented the depictions requested by the DRC of what the proposed house might look like on the property. He indicated the computer renditions showed the home built into the hillside. He mentioned the two depictions on p. 283 and p. 284 of an actual picture taken from the Yearsleys' residence looking out towards the lake, which showed the view through the trees and what unobstructed view of the lake remained for the Yearsleys. He noted that the Yearsleys also had to look through the trees on their own property to see the lake. He presented views to the west of the Puterbaughs. He mentioned the 80 -foot view from the Glass property that remained, even with the proposed development (p.284), and the 35 -foot corridor view between the Puterbaugh proposed home and the Smith home. Ms. Andreades clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the picture on p.284 showed the concept of the structure that would result with the second set of conditions, which required the shed roof to slope from 35 feet down to 24 feet (p.113). She indicated that the structure would not be taller, wider, or closer to the street than shown on p.284. She explained that the setbacks prevented the house from sitting closer to the street. Mr. Shepherd presented representations of the views that would remain of the lake from the Yearsleys' residence. He commented that the Puterbaughs' proposal represented only a small sliver of those views. He noted that only a small portion of the proposed house would be visible through the trees. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the home shown on p.284 was conceptual based upon the conditions that the applicant voluntarily recommended be imposed on his application. He confirmed that the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. He described the process his team used in conceptualizing the home. He discussed the elevation drawings. He pointed out the building of the home into the hill and low down on the property. He indicated their belief that, although they conceptualized the home at an elevation of 211 feet, they could go down to 209 feet. He emphasized that they were trying to do what they could to make the views over the house as good as possible. He mentioned that he had also thought that the lot legalization and the building permit were two separate processes. He noted the work they did in response to the DRC's request for additional information about the neighborhood views, the development pattern, and the proposed development. He said that the DRC did not allow him to review that information either. He argued that the standards specifically allowed for the Council and any legal authority to impose conditions to mitigate any development impacts. He mentioned that staff suggested two conditions, to which the applicant added several others in order to lessen the impact as much as possible to the Yearsleys. He described the proposed development as a two-story house with a basement and smaller than the house size typically found in the neighborhood. He said that the applicant recommended to the DRC that he waive all right to a height exception, which would keep the home at a 35 -foot City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 November 17, 2009 maximum height with the front at 12 feet high. He indicated that they would lower the proposed 18- foot high garage to 12 feet. He reiterated that they were building the house low down on the property, just far enough back from the cliff to allow safe passage, and into the hill as much as possible. He pointed out that, while they could build a long narrow house higher up on the property and still meet the setbacks, doing so would block the views extremely. He stated that he did not think that the DRC's findings were correct. He argued that it was not an evidentiary issue, but rather it was an issue of the DRC not being able to agree on the conditions to apply to this application, and focusing on the narrow view of the Yearsleys' property while ignoring the panoramic view that remained. He showed the views over the Puterbaugh property, the Smith house and the Glass house, none of which would be impacted by this development. He contended that there was plenty of evidence provided regarding the neighborhood development patterns. He referenced Councilor Tierney's question about precedents. He cited a 2004 lot legalization in First Addition, in which the home also fit within the lot setbacks without any variances. He commented that he thought that the DRC also had trouble establishing a point at which to measure height. He suggested setting an elevation cap of 209 feet above sea level instead. He noted on a map that the top of a shed on the Glass property was at 214 feet in elevation. He indicated that the pictures showed an elevation height of 211 feet, which they believed they could drop down to 209 feet, depending on where they struck bedrock. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Shepherd clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the garage roof as shown on p. 283 was 13 feet high. He explained that the garage appeared taller because it was closest to the street frontage. He mentioned that the home would be set a few feet lower than the garage because they could build it into the hillside. He reiterated that setting an elevation above sea level cap resolved the issue of where to measure from. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he worked on construction crews in rock in Lake Oswego years ago. He commented that the applicant might find rock that would explode the construction costs. Mr. Shepherd noted that their proposed condition was to go down as far as practicable under the conditions. Mr. Shepherd indicated to Councilor Olson that drawing showed the peak elevation of the shed on the Glass property at 214.7 feet, and the proposed garage on the Puterbaugh property at 211 to 211.5 feet. He explained that the garage looked taller than the shed because of the way the picture was represented but the drawing elevations indicated otherwise. He reiterated their hope to lower the elevation of the home by a couple more feet, which would be five feet lower than the shed. He noted that the street, Phantom Bluff Court, had an elevation of rising 216 feet to 222 feet. He explained that it was the elevation numbers that really mattered, as a 35 -foot home sitting high up on the lot had a higher elevation than a 35 -foot home sitting lower down on the lot. He noted on a drawing that the ridge on the Smith property was at 201 feet, while an existing garage elsewhere was at 228 feet. Ms. Andreades clarified that, because of a cross slope on the Glass property, the picture showing the shed placement was not showing the same elevation. Mr. Powell addressed the issue of Mr. Shepherd's assertion that he was not allowed to speak before the DRC. He explained that the DRC continued the hearing for written evidence only. He read from the DRC minutes (p.25), which stated that the DRC was reluctant to re -open the hearing to allow Mr. Shepherd to answer questions because that it had to re -open the hearing to everyone else as well. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 November 17, 2009 Mayor Hoffman described how the aerial photo of the neighborhood (Slide 3) provided a more accurate representation of the development pattern in the whole neighborhood than the schematic did. Ms. Andreades explained that, because the Code section did not define the neighborhood and vicinity, she looked only at the homes on Phantom Bluff Court in considering the development pattern. Councilor Hennagin indicated that he interpreted the language of LOC 30.01.030(3) as meaning that if the proposed development was inconsistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity, the City could only prohibit the development if the inconsistency created a significant negative impact. THOSE IN SUPPPORT Art DeRosia, 16789 Phantom Bluff Court He indicated that he has resided at this address for 25 of the 43 years he has lived in Lake Oswego. He reviewed the history of Mr. Sundeleaf's property from when Mr. Sundeleaf broke off lots for his daughters and sold off other lots. He observed that the lots did not meet City standards at the time that Mr. Sundeleaf divided up his property. He noted that when the Yearsleys' lot was made a legal lot, even though the lake access strip of land violated all the ordinances and the Lake Corporation rules for frontage on the lake, Mr. Puterbaugh did not oppose its legalization. He mentioned that the Yearsleys now objected to the legalization of Mr. Puterbaugh's lot on the grounds that it would obstruct their view. He referenced a depiction of the Yearsleys' house and the proposed Puterbaugh house. He acknowledged that an agreement between Mr. Glass and Mr. Puterbaugh to make the lot wider would also make the house wider, which could obstruct the view more. He argued that the picture showed that the house was quite narrow and would not obstruct the view very much. He pointed out that there were 11 lots on Phantom Bluff Court that did not meet the 25 feet on a public way requirement for a legal lot, but they did have a 30 -foot easement off Phantom Bluff Court on to South Shore Blvd. He argued that the neighborhood was the Palisades neighborhood, while Phantom Bluff Court was only the vicinity, and not a neighborhood. He confirmed that Mr. Puterbaugh has owned the property for almost 40 years. During that time, Mr. Puterbaugh has paid property taxes, Lake Corporation dues, and contributed substantially to the development of sewer on Phantom Bluff Court. He argued that Mr. Puterbaugh should be allowed to build his house. THOSE IN OPPOSITION Andrea Yearsley, 16586 Phantom Bluff Court She indicated that she owned Tax Lot 1800 and the property at 16470. She stated that the plat map incorrectly showed the property lines for Tax Lot 1800, which was adjacent to the Puterbaugh property. She described the lines as jogging in and out, which would affect the setbacks on Mr. Puterbaugh's property. Ms. Andreades indicated that the map in the Council packet correctly showed the jogs in the property line for Tax Lot 1800. Ms. Yearsley commented that she found it interesting that the people saying that this proposed development would not impact their view have never been on their property. She stated that their house was designed and constructed to take advantage of the view, with seven rooms looking directly into the view. She mentioned that none of the property owners surrounding Mr. Puterbaugh's property ever thought that there would be an issue because it was an illegal lot, which they were told was not a buildable parcel. She said that they were told originally that the house would be a single level home with a walkout basement underneath. However, the proposal was now for a two-story home with a walkout basement. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 November 17, 2009 She argued that the shed on the Glass property was significantly lower than the proposed new house. She expressed her appreciation for the DRC doing a site visit, as it was difficult to see what the effect would be from the depictions and the plat map. She stated that much of Mr. Puterbaugh's site was very steep down to the lake. She contended that his building pad was much smaller than it looked on the rendition. She recalled that originally they had discussed with Mr. Puterbaugh the possibility of doing a lot line adjustment to straighten out one of the jogs and selling him a portion of their property to make it feasible for him to build a single level home, but it never went anywhere. She argued that the proposed development was clearly not similar to the rest of the Phantom Bluff Court neighborhood. She acknowledged that their street was in the general area of the Palisades neighborhood but contended that it was a unique neighborhood on a private road. She indicated that the two parcels to the northeast belonged to the owner of the last parcel on the end. She stated that the owner would probably not subdivide or build on those parcels in her lifetime. She stated that their biggest point was that the proposed development would severely affect their view and significantly decrease the value of their home by 20%. She reiterated that the proposed home was very different from the rest of the neighborhood. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Yearsley indicated to Mayor Hoffman that, while the view shown in the picture on p.127 appeared to look directly at the Glass house, that was not the actual case. She said that, while the Glass property was part of their view, the Puterbaugh property affected much of their direct view. She described the view shed to the Mayor, using the aerial photo. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that only eight of the properties participated in the sewer LID. She said that their house was on sewer and the house they owned next door was on septic. She confirmed that they would have to join the LID if they built a new house on the property next door. She said that she had known that Mr. Puterbaugh had participated in the LID, and therefore, were aware that Mr. Puterbaugh wanted to build on his lot. Ms. Yearsley indicated to Councilor Tierney that she thought the definition of the neighborhood was Phantom Bluff Court. She indicated to Councilor Olson that the people from whom they bought their lot, as well as the adjacent property owners at the time, Mr. Camerman and Mr. Richardson, all told them that Tax Lot 1902 was an illegal lot and could never be built on. She noted that Tax Lot 1800 was basically a pathway to get to the lake. She said that they did not follow up with the City until three years ago, at which time the City said that the lot would have to meet the lot criteria. She mentioned that at that time the lot was not buildable, as it lacked road access and sewer. In addition, there were questions about the lot being large enough to build on and meet the setback requirements. Councilor Tierney asked whether the proposed house on Tax Lot 1902 would obstruct or limit other neighbors' views. Ms. Yearsley indicated that it would not significantly affect the view of the house next door. She mentioned it possibly affecting the view of the home behind their home that fronted on South Shore. She stated that it would definitely have an adverse affect on the views of Mr. Smith and the Glasses, but neither one wanted to talk about it right now. REBUTTAL Mr. Shepherd pointed out that in applying criteria that used the word 'neighborhood,' one had to define what 'neighborhood' meant. He stated that he asked the DRC specifically what constituted the neighborhood, whether it was the Palisades neighborhood or the larger vicinity around Phantom Bluff Court. He explained that, in response to the DRC, he analyzed the views of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 November 17, 2009 properties along Phantom Bluff Court towards the lake, which were all obstructed views looking through or over trees, homes, garages, shrubbery, etc. He argued that the view that the Yearsleys currently enjoyed probably resulted from Mr. Puterbaugh clearing the groundcover off his property. He observed that an eight foot tall shrub at the top of the ridgeline would come close to blocking the view. He cited a transcript of the DRC minutes in contending that, at the hearing, the DRC never focused on the neighborhood development pattern, regardless of what the findings said. He stated that they also did not focus on the consistency of the single-family development on the Puterbaugh property with the tiered single-family development pattern of the neighborhood and all along the lakeside. He pointed out that they were not saying that they were not going to impact the Yearsleys' view. Any residential development on the Puterbaugh property would slightly impact their view. He emphasized that that was why the applicant proposed an extensive list of mitigating conditions that would otherwise not apply to the application. He stated that the question under the standard that the Council needed to answer was whether the impact to the Yearsleys' view was consistent with the impacts to the views experienced by others in the neighborhood. He argued that the answer was clearly `yes.' He said that there was no evidence to the contrary. He noted the two letters in support of the Puterbaughs from other Phantom Bluff Court residents included in the packet, and the two other neighbors who testified orally at the DRC saying that this proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. He contended that this was an issue of equity and fairness, because if the Council denied this application, then his client would not have a legal lot that he could sell under Oregon law; effectively, he would have nothing. He questioned whether Mr. Puterbaugh could even cut down a tree because in order to do so, one had to be subject to the City Code. However, only legal lots were regulated under the City Code. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh was caught in the middle, a situation that this application process was designed to address. He pointed out that the installation of the sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements through the LID allowed his client to build on his property. He mentioned that his client would have built in 1972 but right after he bought the property, the City imposed a moratorium on septic systems in this area, and he could not do so. In 1991, Mr. Puterbaugh tried to legalize the lot, but for some reason out of his control, his plat was not finally recorded. He noted that Mr. Glass legalized his lot three years ago and now could do whatever he wanted to on his property, subject to the Lake Oswego Code. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh just wanted the same rights as all the Phantom Bluff Court residents enjoyed, including the Yearsleys. He indicated that Mr. Puterbaugh wanted to build a home there in which to live out his life. This application represented his opportunity to do so. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Olson asked for more information on the failure to file the plat. Mr. Shepherd said that he searched the City records but could find no records or staff reports from the time documenting the application, other than the City knew that the application process was filed and approved. He explained that the 1991 application involved Tax Lots 1900, 1905 and 1902. The other property owners led the application and Mr. Puterbaugh had just gone along for the ride. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh did not know why the property owner representatives filed none of the plats. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 9:05 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 November 17, 2009 COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Moncrieff referenced Ms. Yearsley's statement that the neighborhood consisted of Phantom Bluff Court. She noted that four of the neighbors supported Mr. Puterbaugh's proposal. She commented that she has seen no evidence of a significant negative impact on the neighborhood for any of the factors listed in the Code section, including views. She indicated that she believed that the single-family development on a residential lot was consistent with the existing neighborhood. She stated that she would vote to reverse the DRC decision. Councilor Hennagin commented that he found these kinds of neighbor versus neighbor issues the most difficult issues faced by the Council because, no matter what the Council decided, it would have an adverse impact on one of the residents. He pointed out that, in this quasi-judicial role, the Council had to apply the ordinance as written, and not decide based upon who would be the most adversely impacted. He pointed out that the ordinance required the Council to allow the legal creation of a lot unless it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of the factors listed. He commented that there was no evidence that the lot legalization would have a negative impact on scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy or buffers (although the language was not clear on what 'buffers' meant). He mentioned the contention that it would obstruct views, which brought into play the requirement to consider the consistency of the development with the existing development pattern along Phantom Bluff Court. He commented that, in order to conclude that the development was out of place, he would have to find that the home would be substantially larger than the other homes in the area. He stated that he could not find that the obstruction of view created by the development represented a significant negative impact. Therefore, he would vote in favor of the appeal. Councilor Tierney concurred with reversing the DRC decision but with the imposition of conditions to mitigate the acknowledged negative impact. He spoke to imposing the two conditions recommended by staff (pp. 112-113) and the voluntary conditions proposed by the applicant and listed on p. 4 of Mr. Shepherd's November 13, 2009, letter (Exhibit F-15). Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Hennagin that it was a matter of following the Code, and not a matter of how long the Puterbaughs have paid taxes or how much they have invested. She agreed that there was a negative impact on the Yearsleys, yet the question came down to the Council's interpretation of significant negative impact. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that the Council should impose conditions to mitigate the impact. She suggested revising the language of the fourth bullet on p.4 of Mr. Shepherd's letter to read "building a home as low as possible on the property." She referenced the similar language found in the next bullet of "as much as practicable." She spoke to finding the happy medium between building as low as possible on the property but not too close to the cliff so as to cause erosion and slide problems. Councilor Olson agreed to Mayor Hoffman's suggestion of "building as low as practicable." Councilor Johnson concurred with the other Councilors' comments. She said that she was satisfied that the lot met the Code requirements for becoming legal. She supported including the conditions. Mayor Hoffman said that he also agreed with the previous comments in terms of the Code criteria, the evidence before the Council, and the difficult position of the Council as a quasi-judicial hearings body. Ms. Andreades reviewed her understanding of the conditions of approval desired by the Council. The future structure would fit within the building envelope framed by a shed roof with a maximum height of 35 feet and sloping consistently to approximately 24 feet. The future garage would not exceed the maximum height of approximately 13 feet. The applicant would not be allowed to use City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 November 17, 2009 the height exception allowed by the Code. The house will be built as low as practicable on the property. Councilor Tierney noted that Mr. Shepherd used 12 feet for the garage height. Mr. Powell asked clarifying questions regarding the four bullets on p.4 of Mr. Shepherd's letter. He asked, with respect to the first bullet, whether the Council meant to suggest limiting the house to two stories with a basement. He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the maximum height should do the same thing, but he wanted to clarify whether the number of stories was an issue for the Council. If not, then the first bullet was unnecessary because the Council addressed the issue elsewhere with the height limitation. He indicated that he heard consensus that the first bullet was unnecessary. He noted that limiting the maximum height and allowing no height exception were clear in the next bullet. The Council indicated that the conclusion that the result would be half a story above visual grade was not a requirement. Mr. Powell concurred with Councilor Tierney that the 12 foot height limit for the garage trumped the height recommended by staff. The Council agreed that the height limitations addressed the statement about the garage structure being slightly taller than the home. Mr. Powell noted the condition to build the home as low as practicable on the property and into the hillside as much as practicable. Mr. Powell asked whether building the home with a flat sloping roof with a low side to the east was part of the condition. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that using the staff recommendation, with the addition of the roof sloping to the east, eliminated any reason for the last bullet. Ms. Andreades noted that all the other conditions were part of the staff report. Councilor Johnson moved to reverse the DRC's decision and approve the application with the conditions as outlined by the applicant on page 4 and staff on pages 12 and 13, as modified in the Council deliberations. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [6-0] Mr. Powell announced that this was a tentative decision by the Council, which would be made final upon adoption of findings, conclusions, and order at the December 15, 2009, hearing. He noted for the record that the applicant agreed to an extension of the 120 -day rule to December 15 for adoption of the final findings. Mayor Hoffman announced that the Council would continue the Allied Waste rate increase request to another date in the interests of time. 7.2 Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits. STAFF REPORT Ms. Papadopoulos noted that Tim Kraft from OTAK was present. She discussed the realities behind surface water management, starting with the 123 million gallons of rain that fell in Lake Oswego in a year, which, if converted to fuel, would be sufficient to fuel a fleet of 175,000 cars for one year. She said that most of the water either soaked into the ground or evaporated or ran off into the nearest creek, lake, or river without causing any issues, which was the natural way that it should work. She mentioned that the first efforts of storm water management focused around flooding and protecting the structures built by humans that interfered with this natural process. She noted that recently communities have come to understand that the water picked up pollutants when it hit the ground and carried those pollutants into the water system through storm water runoff. She stated City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 November 17, 2009 that humans have severely impaired streams through the detrimental pollutants carried into them by storm water. She discussed the two main aspects faced by the City: water quality and storm water management. She indicated that the City could have a plan ranging from a 'Cadillac' program to something moderate to something minimal. She commented that the City would never have enough money to do the whole job. Whatever the plan, there would always be more to do. She mentioned that the City's surface water fees covered the program costs. She explained that staff went through a three-year master planning process to determine the priorities and program level desired by the community, as well as researching technological advances, current science, and environmental and regulatory issues. She described the plan before the Council tonight as a moderate plan. She pointed out that, since the community's fees supported the plan, it was important that the plan reflect what people were interested in. She mentioned hearing two voices during their public outreach effort: a minority voice of passionate and educated people who want the City to do a lot, and a majority voice of people interested in the localized flooding issues occurring in their neighborhoods. She indicated that staff developed a moderate plan in response to both voices. She mentioned that staff has become aware in the last few months that there might be the beginnings of community support to do more. She speculated that, within the next five years, the City might have sufficient public support to supplement this plan with a watershed plan. Mayor Hoffman summarized Ms. Papadopoulos's comment, as a watershed plan might be the next logical step for the City to take. He speculated that it might be possible to determine the scope and cost of such a plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Ms. Papadopoulos clarified that it would be a logical step if there were community support. She indicated that she could not say whether it would make the most sense to do it within the Comprehensive Plan, although it certainly tied into the Plan. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Mr. Kraft indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the difference between a watershed plan and the Clean Streams Plan was that the Clean Streams Plan was broader, in that it took into account regulatory programs, design standards for development, etc. He explained that a watershed plan had a tighter focus, in that it looked at the factors in a particular watershed that caused deterioration and sought to address those factors through specific projects in that watershed. Mr. Kraft indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a watershed delineation would probably take into account the entire area drained by Lost Dog Creek or by Springbrook Creek. Councilor Hennagin referenced Audrey Mattison's letter reporting her observation of increased erosion in the ravine next to her property on Glen Eagles Road, which might possibly be due to development. He asked what affect climate change had on increasing rainfall. He mentioned his own observations of seeing heavier downpours today than he saw a decade ago. Mr. Kraft said that he could not speak to the weather and increased rainfall amounts, but he did know that increased rainfall velocities and the amount of water getting into the creeks contributed to erosion. Ms. Papadopoulos mentioned that the City hired a hydrologist as part of the Clean Streams Plan work in order to answer that very question. She reported that the hydrologist did not find a significant difference in rainfall amounts over long periods of time. Councilor Tierney asked if the plan recommended using pervious surfaces, removing gutters from residential units, or opening up culverts (as suggested in the Lake Corporation report). Mr. Kraft said that the plan had a recommendation to disconnect downspouts where applicable in the city, but not a recommendation to open up culverts. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the capital projects section, in addressing culvert replacements, spoke of determining whether it would be feasible to open up the culvert rather than simply replacing it. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 November 17, 2009 Mr. Kraft confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that Section 6, Best Management Practices, discussed these kinds of issues. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to the Mayor that staff would look at low impact development approaches and best management practices whenever one of the listed capital improvement projects rose to the top for financing. She commented that with the ever- changing technology in surface water management, whatever solution they thought of today would likely change three years from now. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. THOSE IN SUPPORT Andrew Harris, 2270 Arbor Drive, West Linn He distributed copies of his comments. He recalled that, as an employee of the City for 27 years (1977 to 2005), he worked on preparing the original Comprehensive Plan and its policies, as well as developing the development standards for wetlands, streams, and drainage. He mentioned his work as project manager for 29 stream restoration projects in the City. He referenced his report, Healthy Streams and Watershed Plan, which went into greater detail than his comments. He expressed his appreciation for the work and effort that went into creating the Clean Stream Plan. He indicated that, while he supported what the Plan was trying to do in addressing water quality issues and using LIDA measures, the Plan was only a significant piece of the puzzle, and not the whole puzzle. He presented five paradigms that he identified in the Plan and gave suggestions for new paradigms that would lead the City in the direction of a watershed plan. He indicated that the first paradigm in the Plan was that the science did not support doing stream restoration. He stated that there was an approved scientific method called the geomorphic approach to natural channel design that has been applied throughout the country for a decade with success. He suggested a new paradigm that acknowledged that there were ways to create effective stream restoration projects. He indicated that the second paradigm in the plan was that slowing run off and flow rates would eventually lead to fixing stream erosion problems. He acknowledged that that was partially true. He described how stream erosion destroyed the natural flood storage and flood plain protection functions of a stream. He cited a study by Ben Johnson, PSU graduate student, on Lost Dog Creek, in which Mr. Johnson quantified and verified that the dominant source of sediment and phosphorous pollution in the city came from stream channel erosion, as opposed to coming from the entire watershed. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mayor Hoffman asked if the Plan included stream restoration projects on the capital project list, or if that type of project lay outside the purview of the plan. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the Plan did not include those projects at this time, as staff had felt it more important to concentrate the City's limited resources on stream inputs and eroding forces stabilization before looking into restoration projects Mayor Hoffman acknowledged that the City had a history of doing stream restoration projects in the past, such as in Springbrook Park by the Hunt Club and on Lost Dog Creek. Mr. Harris noted another paradigm in the Plan of not working on private property. He argued that the City needed to work on private property. He indicated that there were many examples of private property owners willing to cooperate with the City once they understood what was going on. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 November 17, 2009 He referenced the Plan paradigm that stream restoration was too expensive. He mentioned the studies cited in his comments that found stream restoration as the most cost effective way of removing sediment and phosphorous of all possible measures the City could take. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that nowhere in the Plan did staff say that stream restoration cost too much. Mayor Hoffman noted that the Plan did encourage stream restoration on private property through the grant program. Councilor Olson thanked Mr. Harris for the report he prepared for the Lake Corporation, which she had found very helpful. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He indicated that, given the City's focus on sustainability and the Lake Corporation concerns, he could see the Plan as the foundation for moving to the next step. Mr. Harris stated that his testimony supported the Plan and suggested a future direction. Mr. Harris concurred with Councilor Tierney that the City had a history of trying to do stream restoration in a way that incorporated both the actual stream restoration and some secondary measures. He argued that they could not wait to take the Plan's sequential approach and do everything in the Plan before doing the other leg of the stool, which was the in channel measures. They needed to do the measures simultaneously. Mayor Hoffman recalled the Springbrook Creek restoration projects next to the Hunt Club and at Ruth Pennington Park. He summarized Councilor Tierney and Mr. Harris' comments as, while the Clean Streams Plan was necessary, the City could not sit back with its adoption and say, "We're done," Councilor Tierney expressed his concern that the Plan did not take a more comprehensive look at the situation and did not attack a common problem in an integrated way. Ms. Papadopoulos reiterated that what staff heard from the public did not secure sufficient financial support to do a high-end plan. She indicated that, in being thoughtful about where to employ the funds, staff decided that the most appropriate starting point was to work on the erosion inputs and wait until the community was ready to support the next step. She described the next step as expensive and having a significant impact on things. Councilor Tierney commented that, while he appreciated that there was not a clear demarcation between policy and administration, he thought that community support could be expressed to the elected members of the community, who would make those decisions. He acknowledged the staff public outreach effort and the need to establish community support, but noted that he has been expressing the other information and opinions for some time. • Jeff Ward, 26001 NW Hwy 47, Buxton, OR, General Manager, Lake Oswego Corporation He thanked the Council and staff for their vigilance in addressing natural resources in Lake Oswego. He discussed the Lake Corporation's interest in the watershed. He noted the Corporation's long history in dealing with the sedimentation and phosphorus deposited in the lake from the watershed. He mentioned dealing with sedimentation through dredging and the algae blooms caused by the phosphorus through algaecide. He indicated that more recently the Corporation has looked at the watershed to see where the phosphorous came from. He referenced Ben Johnson's master thesis, which found that the major source of phosphorus entering Lost Dog Creek came from stream bank erosion because the ground levels of phosphorus in this area were so high. He applauded the Plan and all its proposed capital projects. He concurred with Councilor Tierney about doing a comprehensive plan. He indicated that Corporation supported the proposed inclusion of low impact development standards in the Code, as well as taking measures to slow down and decrease the flow into the conveyance systems. He referenced the description in the Plan introduction of the MS4 permit as a management plan and the Clean Streams Plan as a master plan. He argued that what they were trying to do was to City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 November 17, 2009 accomplish what a watershed naturally accomplished, and therefore, they needed a comprehensive view. He mentioned the Corporation's desire to see an overall vision and step-by- step goals to accomplish that vision, which did not worry about the MS4 regulatory requirements because the City was moving forward in accomplishing all of those requirements. He spoke of the Corporation's support of a strong and effective public outreach program (including some way to motivate people to disconnect downspouts), a phosphorus ban, and low impact development as the first option in all projects, new development, and redevelopment. THOSE IN OPPOSITION • Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road She indicated that her observations and comments were more an advocacy for a subject not addressed in the Plan than in opposition to the total Plan. She said that she supported the comments by Jonathan Snell and the paper Healthy Streams and Watersheds by Andrew Harris (Harris Stream Services) and Martha Mitchell (Clear Water West), which provided specific strategies and actions She referenced her background as a volunteer partnering with the City in developing a management plan and supporting a friends group for Springbrook Park, as well as serving on the Clean Streams sounding board. She argued that her example of erosion was likely representative of what was occurring unchecked in most ravines, swales, and low-lying areas throughout Lake Oswego. She said that the ravine bordering her property indicated that infiltration had worked in the past, in that it had remained unchanged for 40 years. She cited the second wave of urbanization impacts as resulting in a two -foot deep incised channel eroding at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 inches annually. She described the change from seasonally soggy ground to a rapid flowing muddy water stream that transported material as big as her fist down hill to Springbrook Creek, which was the most prominent of the natural channels in Lake Oswego conveying water to the lakes and rivers (per the City's MS4 permit). She contended that the interdependence of this small 26 -acre watershed was relevant to the degradation of stream function. She described it as an active demonstration of existing surface water conditions resulting in impaired streams through stream bank erosion and phosphorous transmission. She asked when the City intended to address impaired stream conditions, as the 10 - year Clean Streams Plan did not address them. She spoke in support of the community -wide programs and practices proposed by the Sustainability and Natural Resources Advisory Boards. She expressed her hope that the City would extend the accompanying grants to include stream restoration, similar to the City -approved resource enhancement project underway through the efforts of the Uplands neighbors. She stated that the Plan acknowledged but did not address impervious surfaces as the source of increased surface water flows and flow rates. She contended that it was the City's responsibility to regulate the flows and the citizens' responsibility to implement the regulations. She argued that to do otherwise implied that the protection of natural resources and the improvement of water quality were not the perceived quality of life values long ascribed to Lake Oswego residents. Jonathan Snell, 3250 Upper Drive, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Chair He expressed his amazement that he opposed the surface water master plan that took three years to produce at an early cost estimate of $400,000, given that he was an advocate for surface water management, riparian corridors, water quality, and aquatic life. He mentioned that, as a former member of the NRAB, he has been involved with this process since before the Plan process began. He stated that the City needed to do better. He contended that the limited funds available made it imperative that they take a comprehensive, watershed approach, as opposed to doing a surface City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 November 17, 2009 water management plan. In arguing for using a comprehensive approach to deal with channel erosion (resulting from hydraulic alteration), which was the primary source of pollutant loading, he used an analogy of the folly of upgrading windows to more panes if one did not have insulation in the ceiling. He noted that Mr. Harris' report discussed this issue but the Plan did not attempt to quantify the process. He commented that, while he was an advocate for riparian resource management, he was also an advocate for good fiduciary management of the surface water management fee paid by Lake Oswego residents. He contended that, in order to manage the fee effectively, the City needed to look at the whole picture and identify the locations of the biggest problems. He indicated that he would like to see a `can do' attitude for ways to redo hydraulic connectivity, slow water down, manage the riparian corridors, increase channel roughness, and restore healthy stream functions. He held that the best evidence that the City could do that in the future was that it has done so in the past. He described the Plan as anti-stream restoration. He acknowledged that the Plan's different approach had merit, in that the City needed to take action in the upper part of the watershed as well, but he emphasized the importance of taking action in the entire watershed. He commented that the statement in the Executive Summary stating that the community did not support a watershed-based approach at this time sounded like a policy statement to him. He expressed his doubt that the Council made that decision. He asked whether the Council was willing to look at the real problem and do a searching inventory of the system. He indicated that he perceived the Plan as shutting the door on some cost-effective measures that the City could take. He mentioned informing the City earlier that the soil permeabilities in the Boones Ferry and First Addition areas, where the two biggest capital improvement projects were scheduled, were fairly good. He suggested modifying Figure 1 in the Plan to represent soil permeability as much as the 1992 plan did. He commented that the City doing a plan in 1968 and updating it in 1992 and 2008 told him that it would be twenty years before this opportunity came around again. He contrasted a map from the 1992 plan that indicated the soil permeabilities with the equivalent map from the Clean Streams Plan, which provided no such information. He presented his specific recommendations. He asked the Council to commit to considering hydraulic connectivity in the CIP projects and to the evaluation of alternatives that reduced hydraulic connectivity. He contended that many of the CIP projects have increased hydraulic connectivity, which made the water run off faster. He asked the Council to commit to outreach and education programs, including the concept that how fast the water left the property was a problem. He contended that people understood that it was not a good idea to dump poison in the water, but they did not understand that using downspouts to channel water through pipes to the edge of their property was destructive of the resource. He asked that staff modify Figure 4.1 to represent the soil infiltration capacities as mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. He asked the Council to commit to the evaluation of potential continued use of UICs (underground interjection controls, or drains, sumps) prior to abandoning the idea of their continued or expanded use. He acknowledged the existence of regulations but argued for a systematic evaluation to inform the decision to comply with regulations, rather than being totally controlled by regulations. He asked the Council to commit to consideration of the role of stream channel erosion in TMDL pollutant loading. He mentioned his meeting with staff to ask staff to use the City's existing information to determine the current phosphorous loading levels. He said that staff told him that they lacked sufficient information, which did not make sense to him because the City has been doing water sampling for 17 years. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 November 17, 2009 He pointed out that people only protected those resources that they valued, but they only valued what they were aware of. He argued that if the people were not aware of the adverse impacts that they created on the resource, then the resource was negatively impacted. He contended that people were not aware that what they thought was okay to do was destructive to the resource. He stated his belief that the values of this community would support a watershed -based approach. He held that this community had the willingness to look at its part in contributing to the problems (the pollutant loading and the degradation of the resource) and to modify its actions to some degree to help address the problem. He commented that it was the role of elected officials to make decisions regarding the community values. He encouraged the Council to consider his specific recommendations and to decide which, if any, staff should incorporate into the plan. He asked the Council not to approve the plan in its current form. THOSE NEUTRAL • Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way She asked for a clear and objective reason why Oswego Lake was excluded from the area of jurisdiction of the surface water utility (p. 19). She asked whether the people in the lake basin and lakefront property owners contributed to the utility fee for surface water management. She asked that it be clearly stated for the record whether stream restoration projects on private property would be voluntary or mandatory on the part of the owner. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the statements on p. 19 simply summarized LOC 38.24. She did not know why the Code section excluded the lake. She stated that, as far as she knew, everyone in Lake Oswego paid a surface water fee. She clarified that any projects in the Plan were voluntary. • Mark Rosenkrantz, 6329 SE 43rd Avenue, Portland, Water Resources Specialist, Lake Oswego Corporation He mentioned that he saw no way in the Plan to measure its success, nor any specific guidance for staff to follow in implementing any of the Plan programs. He gave an example of the suggestion to disconnect downspouts, which lacked a timeline for implementation. He noted another example of no steps in the plan for how to achieve a phosphorous free fertilizer ban. He observed that these were examples of actions to stop the water at the source, per the plan's statement that it was more cost effective to stop pollutants at the source than to try to mitigate them after they were in the system. He commented that infiltrating water close to its source where possible meant better success in restoring the streams. In addition, removing phosphorous inputs from the watershed might mean more success in removing phosphorous from the lake. He said that he would like to see guidance in the Plan for how the community would carry out the projects (including a timeline), as well as guidance on how to measure the Plan's success. He questioned how they could make changes to this living document over time if they did not know whether the programs were successful or not. Mr. Rosenkrantz indicated to Councilor Olson that, several years ago before phosphorous -free fertilizer became widely available, the Corporation formulated its own fertilizer and made it available to lake property owners. He mentioned the Corporation's encouragement to the residents to use phosphorous -free fertilizer and not to sweep lawn clippings into the lake. Councilor Olson asked if the Lake Corporation shareholders could vote to mandate themselves not to use phosphorous fertilizer. Mr. Ward indicated that that would be a Board decision. • Diane Cassidy, 18280 Indian Creek Drive City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 November 17, 2009 She asked for a more complete answer to Ms. Jones' question regarding the exclusion of the lake. Mr. Powell stated his understanding of the question as why did the Executive Summary mention the exclusion of Oswego Lake from some of the Plan provisions. He explained that the Code section summarized in the Executive Summary described the surface water utility facilities owned by the City, as opposed to describing the surface water management system, which included all natural and manmade facilities utilized by the surface water utility to regulate the quantity and quality of surface water. He speculated that the Code specifica:ly excluded the lake in its list of City -owned facilities in order to clarify that the City, even though it owned some lakefront property, was not claiming ownership of the lake as an interest in a water body for surface water utility purposes. Ms. Cassidy suggested that the Council considering clarifying that item before it approved the plan. She indicated that she wanted to make sure that all of the water in Lake Oswego, including the lake, was covered by the Plan. She expressed her concern that the plan might suggest disconnecting downspouts as a one size fits all solution. She pointed out that doing so on hillside properties might cause erosion problems. She mentioned that her lot, as the low lot in the neighborhood, would flood if her higher elevation neighbors disconnected their downspouts that took the water out to the street, which was the only other place for the water to go. She spoke to the importance of applying these conditions site -by -site and neighborhood -by - neighborhood. She mentioned that she lived in Bryant Woods behind the Waluga and Bryant schools. She indicated that the school fields had an underlying gushy gray clay soil and a water table that would be at the surface in a couple of weeks if this current rain continued. She stated that the ground could not take any more water. She said that she applauded using onsite water infiltration where practical. However, not all properties, such as hers, were suited to that method. She spoke of properly respecting everyone's property. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Olson asked for a better explanation and some examples of the City maintaining storm water facilities on private property (p. ES -5, p. 109). Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the City required many properties to provide storm water facilities for surface water management as a condition of development. She mentioned that many property owners, even though they knew of the need to maintain the facilities, did not do so. She explained that staff was looking at developing a stronger enforcement mechanism. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Councilor Olson that this section referred primarily to multiple lot facilities, such as those managed by HOAs, but it could refer to a facility on an individual lot. Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Olson that an individual property typically had a catch basin in a low-lying driveway to detain sediment before discharging it to a canal or a stream. He said that if the City began implementing more low impact development, staff would likely require rain gardens. He described how rain gardens deteriorated over time if left alone. He mentioned a need for a regulation to insure the proper maintenance and operation of rain gardens. He said that typically the majority of storm water treatment facilities were large swales or vegetation retention areas owned by an HOA. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated Councilor Tierney that, if he voted for the Plan, he would be committing the City to pursuing the Plan recommendations and implementing them where and if feasible, and if supported by the Council. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 November 17, 2009 She clarified to the Councilor that the reference to three FTEs spoke of the need for additional staff resources to carry out the volume of work in the plan. She explained that adopting the plan adopted the overall program and approved a change in fees to support the resources needed to accomplish the plan, in whatever form those resources took. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that, while he had spoken to the Councilor about generic staff resources last night, it did come back to FTEs. He gave an example of increasing street sweeping. If the City did more street sweeping, then he needed to hire a body to come in and do that work. Councilor Tierney stated that the FTEs were illustrative of one of the challenges that he found with the whole plan, namely that it lacked specific guidance, as Mr. Rosenkrantz and Mr. Snell pointed out. He indicated that he was confused about exactly this plan did in terms of implementing on the ground the various recommendations it contained. He agreed that it also lacked measurable outcomes, which he also found troubling. Ms. Papadopoulos explained that part of the dilemma was that there were many recommendations in that Plan that staff could not implement in isolation. Many of them also required Council decisions. She gave an example of impervious surfaces. The reduction of impervious surfaces would have a significant impact on the development codes, which the city might or might not be ready to do. She described the plan as more about the way that staff thought the City should go. As staff began laying out each of the tracks in the process, the Council would be heavily involved in deciding whether the recommendation was something that the City should do politically, financially, or otherwise. She explained that this was common in master plans, in that they set a course, but once they got into it, there might be different choices made. She commented that that was a depth that staff could not reach at this point. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney's comments. She indicated that she found the Plan a frustrating document because she would like it to be stronger with more teeth, yet she understood the difficulty. She mentioned asking a developer friend of hers, who had asked that the Council make the Plan as strong as possible, whether he wanted the Code to mandate the use of pervious surfaces. He could not answer the question, indicating the difficulty involved with these issues. She said that, if it were practicable, she would like staff to integrate Mr. Harris' paradigms and Mr. Snell's recommendations into the document. She spoke to the importance of moving forward and seriously considering issues, such as pervious surfaces. She recalled that the Palisades Neighborhood Association had recommended in its neighborhood plan that all new streets and sidewalks use pervious surfaces, but the last Council rejected the recommendation because it was too expensive to implement. She observed that this was a balancing act. Councilor Hennagin indicated that, to some degree, he concurred with Councilor Tierney and Moncrieff's comments. He expressed his concern that this expensive study might end up sitting on a shelf, given that the Maintenance Director said that staff did not know what it could do or how far it could go with the document. He questioned whether the City had sufficient money at this time to do anything with it anyway. He asked, if the objective was to take incremental steps to achieve the Plan over a long period of time, why staff did not include everything that people said was missing. He asked why not go as far as they could and lay out the entire objective, knowing that they would only achieve it incrementally. He stated his concern that the plan did not take into account all the things that the City wanted to achieve with clean streams. He commented that he was uncertain as to whether he should vote for a partial document or whether the Council should table it for later re -consideration. Councilor Johnson observed that the recommendations in the report kept coming back to the issue of policy questions that needed to be answered. She suggested that the Council approve the plan tonight as a first step and set a timeline for incorporating some of the watershed techniques. She argued that if they wanted to help the streams in the watershed, then they needed some place City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 November 17, 2009 from which to work. She spoke of the Plan helping the City obtain grant monies in the future. She commented that, since this was a dynamic document anyway, the Council could look at changing it later. Councilor Olson thanked all the staff and the advisory and work committees that worked on the plan. She said that the Plan helped her tremendously, and she appreciated the hours of staff and volunteer effort that went into it. She called out several suggestions in Mr. Harris' report for low cost actions that the City could take now, such as installing rain gardens in the West End Building parking lot. She concurred with Mr. Harris that private property owners could be effective stewards of streams on their properties. She spoke of bringing private property owners into the discussion. She commented that she had mixed feelings regarding the plan because, while she wanted to do much of the Plan, she was greatly concerned about the three FTEs and raising fees once again. She mentioned several of the fees that the Council has raised since she took office. She acknowledged that this was the most modest rate increase the Council has seen, but she was tired of raising fees. She asked for clarification on the street sweeping reduction in Option 3 of the funding plan, due to the loss of a part-time retired staff person. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that there was money in the budget to hire a replacement, but it was very difficult to find someone skilled in driving these expensive and finicky machines. She explained that she would not be surprised if the retired street sweeper who has been working during the fall and winter seasons stopped coming in in the next couple of years. Ms. Papadopoulos explained to Councilor Olson that the two program managers listed in Option 5 referred to needing two bodies' worth of work, one body to manage the capital programs, and another body to manage a more substantial education and outreach program and to administer the two proposed grant programs. She indicated that they did not have sufficient staff to do these tasks effectively, given the staff workload. Mayor Hoffman commented that he heard loud and clear tonight that this Plan did not go far enough. It did not address the stream restoration and watershed issues raised by the Lake Corporation, Mr. Snell, and others. He acknowledged that that all took money, but he shared Councilor Olson's concern about constantly raising fees. Still, if they agreed that it was a problem that needed fixing, then they would have to spend time and money to do it. He speculated that 90% of the community's streams were on private lands, which necessitated the outreach and education program spoken of by many tonight. He mentioned also hearing loud and clear that the Council wanted a date specific for staff to come back and talk about the concerns raised by Mr. Snell and Ms. Mattison regarding streams. He commented that he did not think that a public hearing was an appropriate venue to wordsmith a $500,000 document. He agreed with having a discussion during goal setting about developing a process to create a supplement to the Plan, a process that involved in-depth discussions with experts and interested citizens about how to move forward from the foundation of the Plan. Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan, and then discussing it at goal setting. Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that the Council had sufficiently discussed the adoption of the fees. Councilor Tierney mentioned that he also appreciated all the work that went into the Plan. He noted that he expressed his concerns with the document, which started fundamentally with the question of what was a master plan. He commented that part of the equation was how they were spending their money, and what was the best way to be spending their money. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 November 17, 2009 He described this master plan as a compendium of a lot of interesting things, as opposed to a document providing policy questions and direction. He questioned whether the Plan accomplished what he thought the Council needed to have in order to make decisions, which might be indicative of why there was no second for the motion. Councilor Hennagin asked if staff had a specific plan for educating the public about the issues and advantages of appropriate actions, such as not directing downspouts into the streets. He asked if staff would be able to move ahead if Council adopted the plan. Ms. Papadopoulos directed the Councilor to Section 7, p. 53, where staff outlined the components of the expanded education and outreach program. She confirmed to the Councilor that, unless they obtained another FTE or cut back on other work to free up other staff, they could not move forward with the expanded program. She mentioned that the push back they got from staff when they first tried expanding the program because staff was overwhelmed with its existing workload. Mr. McIntyre indicated that, in the end, the public outreach and education component would be run out of Public Affairs, which was in his office. He said that the City needed either an in-house technical expert who could do the educating, similar to Kevin McCaleb's work with water conservation, or it needed to hire an outside group with the credibility, background and ability to explain these issues in layman's terms to come in and do the work. Councilor Hennagin commented that he was not willing to spend this much taxpayer money on the document and not at least adopt it. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the resolution called for Option 5 and a 50 - cent fee increase per month for the first year (Section 12, p. 75). She clarified that the fee increase each year for the next three years was 7% a year. Mayor Hoffman asked what the consequence was of not adopting the Clean Streams Plan. Mr. McIntyre said that the consequence was that the Plan did not pass, which left the choice of staff bringing the Plan back for future Council discussion of the issues of concern, or staff chilling the document. He pointed out that the more time the Council and staff spent on the document, the more expensive it became. He commented that, while that was not a reason to make a decision one-way or the other, the fact was that staff completed this plan a year ago. He stated his strong opinion that if the Council did not want to do it, then it should not do it, and let staff move on to something else. He observed that three years was a long time to discuss clean streams, even though it was an important topic and one in which the City has invested time and money. He acknowledged the concerns regarding its lack of specificity. He indicated that, to the extent that staff could create specificity as they moved forward, they would do so. He commented that at some point, the Council needed to let staff focus on other topics because the Council had a full agenda. A roll call vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Johnson voting `aye.' Councilors Olson and Tierney voted `no.' [4-2] 8. REPORTS 8.1 Personal Services Contract to Provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting Services Relating to the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year 2009-10 Mr. Komarek referenced his lengthy Council report regarding this staff request to award this contract to Brown & Caldwell in the amount of $4,419,060. He mentioned the history of the water supply relationship between Lake Oswego and Tigard, beginning in the mid-1990s with negotiations on a long-term water sales agreement that fell through and picking back up again in City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 November 17, 2009 2005 with discussions that led to the August 2008 Joint Water Supply IGA between the two cities to expand Lake Oswego's water supply system. He indicated that this was another step in the implementation plan worked on by the staff Technical Committee and the elected official Oversight Committee. He explained that Lake Oswego had insufficient engineering staff resources to undertake a plan of this complexity, magnitude, and duration. Therefore, the Technical Committee brought a recommendation to the Oversight Committee to deliver the project using a program manager -type of delivery method. He described the competitive bid and qualifications process that staff undertook upon the Oversight Committee agreeing with the staff recommendation. He indicated that Brown & Caldwell ranked number one at the end of the process. Staff then asked for fee estimates from the two top ranked firms. He explained that the apparent significant difference in fee estimates from the two companies was only an appearance, when analyzed upon an equivalent range of services. He indicated that staff negotiated the final scope and fee with Brown & Caldwell, as represented in tonight's report. He reiterated that it was for services through the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 2010. He reviewed the checks and balances included in the contract, as discussed in the report, including annual reviews. He recommended that the Council award the contract to Brown & Caldwell. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Tigard would pay 57% of the total fee (around $2.5 million) with Lake Oswego's share coming in at a little over $1.8 million. Councilor Tierney mentioned that part of the allocation included Tigard paying Lake Oswego as the program manager for the project. Mr. Komarek confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that these allocation percentages would continue throughout the process. Mr. Komarek mentioned that staff would return to Council in January with a supplemental budget request recognizing this additional expense, the additional revenue from Tigard, and the additional overall cost for the adopted budget for this work. Councilor Tierney mentioned that the Oversight Committee voted affirmatively on the proposal. Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Technical Committee was obligated to bring this recommendation to the Oversight Committee for its review and concurrence before bringing it to the two City Councils. Mayor Hoffman noted that Councilors Tierney and Johnson were Lake Oswego's representatives on the Oversight Committee. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Tigard participated in the bid assessments with two representatives on the committee. Councilor Tierney moved to award a personal services contract to Brown & Caldwell in the amount of $4, 419,060.00 to provide program management, construction management, and permitting services through FY 200912010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." [6-0] 8.2 Allied Waste Rate Increase Request This item was continued to another meeting. 9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 November 17, 2009 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 10.2 City Attorney 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i. Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON -March 23� 2.010. _ Jack 13: Hoffman, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 November 17, 2009 Christie, Robyn From: Duncan, Dan Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:25 AM To: Christie, Robyn Subject: Captain Mike Hammons Service Award Captain Mike Hammons; 1975 Graduate of Southern Oregon State College with a Bachelor of science in Criminology. His career in Law Enforcement started with the Oregon State Police where he worked for 4 years in the metro area. In 1985 Mike was hired with the City of Lake Oswego. During his time here he worked in the following divisions. Patrol, as a police officer. Special Investigations Unit [SIU], working narcotic cases in the metro area. Detective Division, working criminal cases. Patrol Corporal, supervised police officers in the patrol division. Patrol Sergeant, supervised police officers in the patrol division. Training Sergeant, was in charge of relevant training for all police officers. Traffic Lieutenant, supervised traffic officers and community service officers. Captain, was in charge of all the Administrative side of the police department. This included the Record Division, LOCOM, Traffic Division and the Evidence Room. Mike was instrumental in helping form current policies for the department and worked diligently so that our department was eligible to be awarded the "Accreditation" title. Daniel K. Duncan Chief of Police Lake Oswego Police Department PO Box 369 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR. 97034 503-635-0247 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 0 3.2- • This summer, the City held its first Lake Oswego Photo Contest. As evident from the photos you are about to see, it was a huge success. 0 • Yhon Williams J'hon Williams' postcard perfect photo, "Christmas on the Lake," takes 1st Place in Category 1 (Life in Lake Oswego). In addition, J'hon's "Sculpture" photo earns Honorable Mention in Category 5 (Potpourri). Having grown up in Boston, Shon is no stranger to blizzard conditions, not unlike the Oregon storm of last. So, while visiting Lake Oswego for the holiday season, the snow white splendor out the window would become the now award-winning "Christmas" shot. Shon has developed his craft by studying at Emerson, UCLA and The Photography Institute. But it's with his experience in front of the camera and computer that's given him greater insight. While building his photography portfolio, he's spent years in LA as an aspiring actor/screenwriter, attaining Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) status in hits like, "CSI," "Swordfish" and "Windtalkers" while also providing time & talent in reading to kids through a program known as Bookpals. Thon relocated from LA to LO in July for a more natural environment, where he hopes his work in photography and screenwriting will continue to evolve thru his love of our visual world and a continued dream of seeing his scripts come to life on TV or the big screen. By trade, Shon has worked at the world renowned Beverly Hills Hotel in engineering, and currently at the historic Benson in downtown Portland. Presently, you'll find Shon reading to residents of The Stafford "The Whistling Season," which is the 2010 LO Library selection for their annual reading program. 0 • 0 Kevin Brown Kevin Brown won 1st Place in Category 2 (Places in Lake Oswego) with his striking black and white photo "Archway at George Rogers Park." He was also runner-up in Category 1 (Life in Lake Oswego) and Category 3 (Lake Oswego's Events and Activities) with his photos "Street Eat" and "Wooden Boat Festival." For as long as he can remember, Kevin has always had family in the Lake Oswego area. He spent the majority of his life seeing Lake Oswego grow and change. He attended school Westside Christian High school and Lake Oswego High school. Kevin enjoys the safety, beauty and history of Lake Oswego. He loves the artwork lining the street, the historical theaters, the parks and lake which add so much beauty and uniqueness to the city, and the many restaurants and quaint mom and pop stores. Kevin started really taking pictures about four years ago in his backyard. His passion is for others to experience the splendor that is in the world around them - things that give beauty and joy just by looking at them. He tries to show the subtle details of things that people may walk by or see everyday. His inspiration comes from natural shapes; colors, textures and lighting that come from nature. The archway at George Rogers Park immediately caught his eye with the great contrast between the artistic nature of the city and the nature surrounding it. Kevin Brown "Archway at George Rogers Park" Runner-up Category 1 - Life in Lake Oswego Kevin Brown "Wooden Boat Festival" Runner-up Category 3 - Lake Oswego's Events and Activities • • Michael Berger Michael Berger's photo, "Nightlife Downtown," takes 1st Place in Category 3 (Lake Oswego's Events and Activities). Michael, a long-time Oregon resident, brings his engineering background intc photography. His photographs emphasize the structural beauty and patterns found in both natural and man-made environments. Michael has been a West Linn resident for thirty years and has driven through LO everyday on the way to and from work in Portland. He retired from the Bonneville Power Administration in 2007 but went back to work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2008. He has always had an interest in photography and during his short retirement he actively started pursuing it. To date, his total income from photography is $3, so winning this contest is a big deal for Michael. 0 • • Chris Thompson Chris Thompson's whimsical photo, "Battling the Elements," won 1st Place in Category 4 (People of Lake Oswego). Chris's photos "Fairy Song" and "Young Angler" also won Honorable Mention in Category 1 (Life in Lake Oswego) and Category 4 (People of Lake Oswego). Chris, his wife and three children, have lived in Lake Oswego for nearly five years. He works from home for a software company. His family loves the schools and the easy access to beautiful outdoor settings, rivers, and the lake. Chris and his children enjoy going fishing here, playing golf, and skiing on Mt. Hood. Chris has loved photography since high school. The "Battling the Elements" photo was taken in his front yard this past May. The weather was unseasonably warm so his kids put on bathing suits and ran through the sprinklers, each with a different colored umbrella. This image was his favorite because of the composition, the contrast of the pink umbrella with the greenery, and the way that his daughter, Ruby, seemed to be pushing back against some powerful force. Besides photography, Chris is also a musician, filmmaker, and improvisational - theater actor. Chris Thompson 'Fairy Song" Honorable Mention, Category 1 - Life in Lake Oswego Chris Thompson "Young Angler" Honorable Mention Category 4 - People of Lake Oswego • Greg Seitz Greg Seitz takes 1st place in Category 5 (Potpourri) with his unique photo "Train." Greg has lived in Lake Oswego for the past 9 years after moving up from San Jose where he worked as a software engineer for Apple and eBay. Having moved to Lake Oswego to get away from the crowding and stress of the Bay Area, Greg immediately fell in love with this area and Oregon in general. Since moving to Oregon Greg's interest in photography has grown into a passion because of the amazing amount of beauty here. He nearly always has a camera with him and is constantly looking to make new photographs. With the train photo, Greg happened to be stopped at a rail crossing in Lake Grove when the Lake Oswego train came through the intersection. With wonderful afternoon lighting, Greg pulled out the camera and made the image. One of the reasons Greg and his family settled in Lake Oswego was the quality of the schools. His daughter is a senior at Lake Oswego High and son is in the 8th grade at Lake Oswego Junior High. His wife, Linda, noticed the photo • contest and persuaded him to enter. • • Jim Hokinson Jim Hokinson's historic photo, "Squad Cars," received 1st Place in the Vintage/Historic Category. Jim took the photograph on his way to work one day. Jim started with the Lake Oswego Police Department in January, 1966, and retired February, 1998. The photo shows the second set of new police cars bought after he started with the Police Department. The photo was taken in the parking lot in front of the old Police Station on First Street. Jim, who's married and has three daughters, still lives in the Lake Grove area. Currently, he is the lead security officer for the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth District, Oregon District, at the Pioneer Courthouse in Portland. 0 • • Runner -Up Category 2 (Places in Lake Oswego) Runner -Up: Barn at Luscher Farm by Anna Guensch 0 • • Runner -Up Category 4 (People of Lake Oswego) Runner -Up: Ice Cream by Anna Guensch n U John Turchi "Half Moon Bay" Runner -Up, Category 5 - Potpourri WAY Paul Lyon "Cloud Reflections at Foothills" Honorable Mention, Category 2 - Places in Lake Oswego • Honorable Mention Category 3 (Lake Oswego's Events and Activities) Honorable Mention: Beautiful Lake Oswego by Wilson Chen • • The photos you've seen, and many of the other 170 photos submitted, will be used in our brochures, newsletter, and other media to promote our wonderful community. I would like to thank everyone for participating in this contest, and hope that they will again next year. 0 iN CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder SUBJECT: Resignation of Phil Burgess from the Historic Resources Advisory Board DATE: November 9, 2009 ACTION Approve the resignation of Phil Burgess from the Historic Resources Advisory Board. Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Rev' by: Alex tyre City Manager Page 1 of 1 McGarvin, Jane From: McGarvin, Jane Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 8:11 AM To: McGarvin, Jane Subject: FW: Resignation of Phil Burgess from HRAB ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Phil Burgess <phlbrgss(a amail.com> Date: Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM Subject: Resignation of Phil Burgess from HRAB To: jmcgarvin2ci.oswego.or.us.com Dear Mayor Hoffman and City Council; Please accept my resignation from the Historic Resources Advisory Board.An ongoing conflict of work schedules has made it difficult to attend meetings.My brief tenure on the board allowed me to witness the extreme effort,talent and energy of the members of this board.I wish them all well and appreciate the important volunteer work they perform. I will return the large white HRAB binder I received to Jane McGarvin so that she may get it to Paul. Sincerely, Phil Burgess 15250 Boones Way Lake Oswego,OR 9703.5 Cell 503-516-381 1 11/09/2009 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Resolution 09-63, initiating the partition plat vacation for Plat No. 2007-172 DATE: November 9, 2009 ACTION The City Council is requested to enact Resolution 09-63 in response to a citizen -initiated partition plat vacation petition, and set a date for a public hearing for January 5, 2010. BACKGROUND In 2007, the Planning Director approved a 3 -parcel minor partition at 771 Country Club Road (case file LU 06-0078). The property contained an existing single-family dwelling and an accessory structure that the applicants stated would both be removed as a part of the application (See Exhibit F-1, page 6). After the approval was issued on May 21, 2007, the applicants proceeded to finalize the partition by recording a partition plat, several easements, and a notice of development restriction with Clackamas County. Unfortunately, the applicants failed to remove any of the structures prior to recording the final plat and they now straddle the newly platted lot lines (See Exhibits E-1 and E-2). As recorded, the structures are in violation of the City's R-7.5 zoning regulations. Additionally, the existing single-family dwelling has an access and utility easement recorded through the middle of it (Exhibits E-1 and E-2). Earlier this year, the property (now addressed as 775, 787, and 799 Country Club Road) went into foreclosure. During the new property owner's (Golf Savings Bank) due diligence process, the violation was discovered and brought to the City's attention. Staff informed the new owner that it had three options to address the violation: remove the existing structures, modify the approval so that the lot lines and existing structures meet the R-7.5 zoning regulations; or vacate the partition plat (See Exhibits F-2 and F-3). The properties were subsequently sold to Mr. Ayman EI-Dakhakhni. He would like to retain the structures and thus initiated the partition plat vacation proceedings (See Exhibit F-4). Council Report 11/09/2009 Page 2 DISCUSSION The vacation of a partition plat must comply with Oregon Regulatory Statutes (ORS) 271.080. At the public hearing, the City Council will determine whether the petition meets the following criteria: 1) If the consent of owners of the requisite area has been obtained; As the partition does not include any public right-of-way, only the property owner(s) must provide consent to the vacation. All properties created by Partition Plat No. 2007-172 are under single ownership, and the new owner (Mr. EI-Dakhakhni) has requested the vacation (See Exhibit F-5). The owner filed a petition with the City Recorder with sufficient information to process the request (See Exhibit F-4). A vicinity map is attached (See Exhibit E-3). 2) Whether notice has been duly given; and, The City Recorder will comply with all regulations governing notices as required per ORS 271.110. 3) Whether the public interest will be prejudiced by the vacation of such plat. As the partition plat vacation request encompasses private property, there is no public interest affected by the request. The petitioner wishes to retain the existing structures; there will be no substantial modifications to the property if the petition for the plat vacation is granted. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impacts resulting from this action. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council enact Resolution 09-63, declaring intent to vacate Partition Plat No. 2007-172 (affecting properties 775, 787, and 799 Country Club Road), and setting a date for a public hearing for January 5, 2010. ATTACHMENTS E-1 Existing Conditions Site Plan E-2 Final Partition Plat E-3 Tax Map F-1 Applicants' Narrative for LU 06-0078, page 6 F-2 Partition Plat Violation Letter, dated August 4, 2009 F-3 Partition Plat Violation Deadline Extension, dated August 12, 2009 F-4 Partition Plat Vacation Request, dated October 19, 2009 F-5 Proof of Ownership Council Report 11/09/2009 Page 3 F-5 Proof of Ownership Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation Reviewed by: RESOLUTION 09-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO VACATE PARTITION PLAT NO. 2007-172. WHEREAS, there exists within the City of Lake Oswego a platted partition, Plat No. 2007- 172, said plat having been administratively approved by the City Of Lake Oswego's Department of Community Development as case file LU 06-0078; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has received a valid petition as defined by state statute requesting the City to vacate the Partition Plat No. 2007-172, said partition plat being comprised of three lots addressed as 775, 787, and 799 Country Club Road, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of ORS 271.080, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego does hereby declare its intent to vacate Partition Plat No. 2007-172. Section 2. A public hearing shall be held upon this proposed vacation on the 5th day of January, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, located at 380 A Avenue in the City of Lake Oswego. Section 3. The City Recorder shall give notice of the proposed vacation and public hearing required by ORS 271.110 by publishing a notice in the official City newspaper once each week for two (2) consecutive weeks. Section 4. The City Recorder, within five days after the first day of publication of the notice, shall cause to be posted at the properties proposed to be vacated, a copy of the notice which shall be headed "NOTICE OF PLAT VACATION" and said notice shall be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the proposed vacation area. The posting and the first day of publication of such notice shall not be less than 14 days before the hearing. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the day of 20_ AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Resolution 09-63 Page 1 of 2 Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO, R David D. Powell, City Attorney Resolution 09-63 Page 2 of 2 N.E.I/4 S.E.I/4 SEC.4 CLACKAMAS i"= i o0 SEE MAP 2 IE 4A0 TAX MAP T. 2 S. R. I E. W.M. COUNTY D. L.C. JOSIAH FRANKLIN NO. 43 0 0 Ln CITY LIMIT. EI/4Cor. 0 1105 /1 17/ COUNTi 'a, _CLUB ( MKT R0F.. ---N0.3l) (°C"AVENUE BLVr EXHIBIT E-1 Narrative for Proposed Minor Partition of 771 SW Country Club Road — Mitchell & Mitchell Custom Builde O . O W q IN L p iqt � amnm a Z J J C/) W W c p LC UUU� o d 7 O z Q �" g f •' I ,If It 1 r � $ } � 4 �. I I' 1 'i �'• s FQ ..J i5 py� _ '.Y � I Y= u z ods ��ES�; F�g�tys, I U BE s JillW �'wz <oaEE a� a sp 5 r Y'%g•cy ggbaaaaa. a cr Z zR CL x m� wuu 0-!4 oo pe o• ■o•2tI I I I I s w u "'Zo— I I I I I s z dE EXHIBIT E-2 Z:I 'Wd Z0;65:Z LOOZIZZ/Z'5.P'1V1IIW6l153H LOZI I Quo NP m U tl Z 0 U q IN L p iqt � amnm a �" g f •' I ,If It 1 r � $ } � 4 �. I I' 1 'i �'• s FQ ..J i5 py� _ '.Y i �. v _ — 9F .: t 5 i g f, % 15t •1� S•6 1 ! 64654 \ g Jt I ! i I o. e •I 4 .b dry` €n' ° . ?° pp: ..9g je_ :"3� bca he II �r S�4 YpY (q g.� �p4: 5151 j ., yy; i -a 4.6g r e F €b x60'3 1g6 1 aSlgb �g5Y 6 :dh »az gc€ €� 5e6� cps aq� sa ea € n� lie. € ilia i; 51 EXHIBIT E-2 Z:I 'Wd Z0;65:Z LOOZIZZ/Z'5.P'1V1IIW6l153H LOZI I Quo NP m U tl Z 0 U 6-6 7, 1 s o' F 41� d J cc t WWGC 2 ==OW O C)U�� zed Hit U GGUCo 6 c c O � � a >p 1h Q g c a 2 Q !d I 40 Q \ p C $ � ri rvwawlr, 644 $ C, iry 1 1 I LL LL Jj Jl IO J1 d1 J1 d1 7R fR JqQI Jpl N Ifpl ,- I 1 � O OqpO,g Om h rc ryin > O�mN 0 p� OORnmry q� I 1 8 g O R nm N N O 0 0$ - n �� q O O _Os n E NN ri rcimN i y -�rvr ui rvry Q �u z F F Q °= i 99 ogo z Z �i a Q Q)� Q J a^N W LLI W to Q Z J -. ii w NN d pQ ri, ry ¢ K y�mq x O I 1- w dl W Y LL �Z N and I Jia QJ g fi J )( � m J K i Zn 0- < O V Y ' o 1 Q a a J a" a9�LLO,II Q 1 J J J U w .h Z Ko J n w z N Ul N V dl oqo R Q1 lhw O wnlww Q a w"1O LLLLQI1 ul ? � � J J � W < OQ ¢ a i N O ao m z z s al O W Q a, Q. R' R Q 11.1 0 IU � QQ J Q Q Q� � t I d' � a N yLL� 1h Q K J 1[ - IS !d I 40 Q \ p C $ � ri rvwawlr, 644 $ C, iry 1 1 I LL LL I JO I mO'� h X� O d8 ! S© IL 1 $% ------ ----------------- ------------------------ ________________ ---- ---------------- _-_ m__LL __-_----- `-------- I l I i I � I 'n I ryO� I til^` IL IL 1 el-------------------------------a n t (] u�I1 W [ gR (Ell N I �LLLLIJ� >> 1 a N yLL� 1h Q K J 1[ - IS \ xO a8 iwa�l� OUiY �iul � ri rvwawlr, I I iry 1 1 I LL LL I I EXHIBIT E-3 Z:I 'Wd OO:OOT LOOZLZZ2 '6-P'N1LWGnS3d LOZ l 1 Q� APPLICATION NARRATIVE Introduction: The site is located on SW Country Club Road, west of the intersection of SW Country Club Road and Iron Mountain Blvd. The site consists of 42,000 square feet and is generally rectangular in shape, measuring 140 feet x 300 feet. The existing single-family residence (771 SW Country Club Road) will be removed and a total of three new lots will be created on the property. The three lots created would be for the construction of new single-family homes to be built at a future time. This narrative explains the existing conditions, the development proposal, and responds to the applicable criteria contained in the City of Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Devel- opment Code. Existing Conditions: The site consists of approximately 42,000 square feet (0.97 acres), is generally rectangular in shape and measures 140 feet wide and 300 feet deep. The site is identified as tax lot 1400 according to the Clackamas County Assessor's records (map 2 1 E 4DA, tax lots 1400). Jeff & Judy Mitchell currently own the property. Mitchell & Mitchell Custom Builders will be the Home Builder/Developer of the property. Tax lot 1400 is located in Clackamas County and was annexed into the City of Lake Oswego on De- cember 12,2006 The previous owner had requested that the parcel be annexed into the City and zoned R-7.5 consistent with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. (Annexation is required prior to the City's review of the partition or any other land use action). The property was previously desig- nated by Clackamas County as Residential R-8.5 zoning. The City of Lake Oswego has rezoned it upon annexation as Residential R-7.5 per the City's Comprehensive Plan. Andy Paris and Associates, Inc. prepared a topographic survey and tree survey for the site, dated November 5, 2006. A copy of their survey is enclosed, identified as the "existing conditions plan". A copy of the signed and stamped survey has been included with the application. This survey indicates the features of the site including trees, major vegetation, existing structures and driveways, etc. in addition to topographic and utility information. This survey is the basis of the plans prepared to de- scribe the proposed partition and redevelopment of the property. There are two structures currently on the property. These include the primary residence and a de- tached carport with studio above. Both the existing home and the carport/ studio structure will need o be removed due to redevelopment plans and will be demolished or recycled, as appropriate. The existing house faces towards SW Country Club Road. The property has 140 feet of frontage onto SW Country Club Road. There is a curb and asphalt sidewalk along the street frontage. The ex- isting house is served by a loop driveway taking access from SW Country Club Road adjacent to the east and west property lines. The driveway extends down the west side of the house to the detached carport and studio located adjacent to the west property line. The existing asphalt paving will be re- moved as part of site development and a new driveway will be installed to serve the newly created lots. The survey indicates that the elevations on the site range from 307 feet at the curb at the southeast comer, rising to 315 in the middle of the property and sloping down again to 301 feet at the north- west corner. The front portion of the site rises abruptly (about 3 to 5 feet) from the back of the side- walk at SW Country Club Road and then generally slopes up to the front of the existing house. The front yard is relatively level. From the back of the existing house, the site slopes down fairly uni- formly towards the rear property line. The property backs onto the City owned Iron Mountain Natural Area. Staff indicated at the Pre - Application Conference that the tree grove located in the natural area does not extend onto this property. The staff concluded that "a resource overlay will not be applied during annexation and the applicant will not need to address LOC 50.16". Narrative for Proposed Minor Partition of 771 SW Country Club Road — Mitchell & Mitchell Custom Builders 12/18/200610:44 AM page 6 of 33 EXHIBIT F-1 August 4, 2009 Golf Savings Bank COMMUNITY Attn: Britney Zazweta DEVELOPMENT 6505 218 Street SW, Suite 14 DEPARTMENT Mt. Lake Terrace, WA 98043 CITY OF RE: Illegal Dwelling at 771 Country Club Road LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue Dear Ms. Zazweta, P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego As we have communicated to the real estate listing agent for this property, Tricia Oregon 97034 Cook, a potential buyer brought a code violation at the above listed address to the City's attention. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the 3 -parcel partition (503) 635-02 plat for 771 Country Club Road (approved per LU 06-0078) was improperly recorded Fax (503) 635-026699 because the existing structures were not demolished prior to recording the plat with www.ci.oswego.or.us Clackamas County. As recorded, the plat results in several illegalities, including an existing primary structure that straddles the common lot line between Parcels 1 and 3, in violation to required yard setbacks. There are three possible options to rectify this situation: Remove the existing illegal structures and proceed with the sale of the individual parcels as vacant buildable lots. A demolition permit may be obtained through the Building Services Division. Please contact Julie Hollister at 503-697-7418 for more information and fees. There are a number of site development conditions of approval that would need to be met prior to the issuance of any building permits. Please see the attached staff report. If this option is pursued, staff recommends scheduling a meeting to discuss the outstanding conditions of approval. 2. Modify the approved permit (LU 06-0078) to ensure that the existing structures conform to the current development standards. The first step to modify the existing approved permit is a pre -application conference. At this conference, staff will provide a list of applicable regulations and required documents to satisfy this option. If you choose to pursue this option, please contact me for further information. The fee for a pre -application conference is $312 plus a $70 Fire Marshal review fee. The fee for a modification of an approved permit is $1,449. Please see the attached pre -application form for basic details on submittal *1 requirements. UNOW _® �'��' EXHIBIT F-2 3. Vacate the approved partition plat. Per Oregon State statutes ORS 271.080, vacation of property inside an incorporated city requires that the applicant file a petition with the City Recorder in order to schedule a public hearing before the City Council. Please review the enclosed ORS vacation regulations for details on the process. The fee for a plat vacation (which is also a minor modification of an approved permit) is S 1,449. Clackamas County may require other documentation and/or fees to finalize approval of the vacation. Thus far, the City has not issued any formal citations for the Development Code violations that have been observed on this property. We would hope to obtain voluntary compliance with the property owner before being forced to take legal action. Please note that formal steps must be taken towards rectifying this situation within 30 days of the date of this letter. If the City has not received documentation that one of the above options is being pursued by September 4, 2009, a formal citation, with court appearances, will be issued. Please contact me with any questions. Your cooperation in resolving this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ohanna Hastay Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego jhastay0,ci.osweao.or.us 503-534-5740 Encl: Staff Report for LU 06-0078; pre -application form; ORS 270.080 Vacation Regulations. Cc: Tricia Cook, Principal Broker, Residential Realtors and REO LLC, 9400 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, Suite 138, Beaverton, OR 97005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 (503)635-0290 Fax (503) 635-0269 www.ci.oswego.or.us ulaw maw ti August 12, 2009 Golf Savings Bank Attn: Britney Zazweta 6505 218 Street SW, Suite 14 Mt. Lake Terrace, WA 98043 RE: Illegal Dwelling at 771 Country Club Road (LU 06-0078) Dear Ms. Zazweta, Thank you for working with the City to correct the partition plat error at the above mentioned address. As noted in the August 4, 2009 letter, there are three options available to rectify the error. While the City would like to have this situation resolved as quickly as possible, we understand that Golf Savings Bank (current property owner) would like to sell the property as is and have the new property owner take responsibility for the correction. The purpose of this letter is to extend the deadline for compliance to allow the bank time to sell the property. Thus far, the City has not issued any formal citations for the Development Code violations that have been observed on this property. We would hope to obtain voluntary compliance with the property owner before being forced to take legal action. Please note that formal steps must be taken towards rectifying this situation within 90 days of the date of this letter. If the City has not received documentation that one of the above options is being pursued by November 10, 2009, a formal citation, with court appearances, will be issued. The City recommends full disclosure of this situation, with appropriate documentation, to any and all potential purchasers of this property. Please contact the City and request Land Use Application File No. LU 06-0078. Please contact me with any questions. Your cooperation in resolving this matter is greatly appreciated. Si rely, Johanna Hastay Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego Lhastay(6-6ci.oswe17o.or.us 503-534-5740 Cc: Tricia Cook, Principal Broker, Residential Realtors and REO LLC, 9400 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, Suite 138, Beaverton, OR 97005 EXHIBIT F-3 Ayman El-Dakhakhni 234 Beachwalk Honolulu, HI 96815 Tel: 808-728-5000 Fax: 808-922-8830 aymand5000(a)gmail.com RECEIVED OCT 19 2009 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. RE: Parcels 1, 2, and 3, PARTITION PLAT NO. 2007-172, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas, in the State of Oregon, a.k.a. 799, 787 and 775 SW Country Club Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 a.k.a 771 Country Club Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 City of Lake Oswego Recording Office 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Or 97034 CC: City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department — Planning Division Dear City Recorder, Please consider this request as my formal "Petition to Vacate" the 3 -parcel Partition Plat NO 2007-172 for property located at 771 Country Club Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035. The Plat No 2007-172 was improperly recorded following the Land Use Application LU - 06 -0078, while that approval was still conditioned by the removal of the existing dwelling; the dwelling removal has never happened. As the new owner of the property, I would like to use and keep the property with the existing dwellings in place, and as a single taxable lot/parcel, the way it was recorded prior to the LU -06-0078 application. The herein requested plat vacation will allow me to keep the property as a legal - conforming use without the modifications required by the LU -06-0078, and without being in violation of City Development Codes, as imposed through the LU -06-0078. Coincidental to the Partition Plat No. 2007-1172, there were also recorded: (a) Consent of Waiver of Rights and Remedies- recording No. 2007-001528, (b) Private Reciprocal Access and Utility Easement, and (c) Easement Maintenance Agreement -recording no. 2007-107529, which I hereby request to be simultaneously removed as they become obsolete if the plat vacation is granted. EXHIBIT F-4 You will find attached a copy of the plat map to identify the subject property, along with my personal check for the fee required to proceed on the present petition. Any additional information, documents, and assistance necessary to solve this petition, will be gladly made available as necessary. Please direct you communication with me at the following contact address and numbers, or you can contact my local representative Ovy Iancu (see Contacts below). Thank you and look forward for your favorable cooperation. Respectfully, Ayman El-Dakhakhni As Owner of 771 Country Club Road in Lake Oswego Please Use for Contact: Ayman El-Dakhakhni 234 Beachwalk Honolulu, HI 96815 Tel: 808-728-5000 Fax: 808-922-8830 aymand5000ggmail.com Or my local representative Ovy Iancu 1835 Palisades Terrace Dr. Lake Oswego, Or 97034 Tel: 503-329-7896 Fax: 971-223-4703 ovyi ancu(a,comcast. net tltl! Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon N W E Map # 21E04DA01400 S j The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting dimcnsions, in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations, if any, in area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 00204745, 05020311-12 799, 787, 775 Country Club Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE �O SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED — STATUTORY FORM j" (INDIVIDUAL or CORPORATION) Golf Savings Bank 1 Grantor, conveys and specially warrants to Mohamed Ayman EI-Dakhakhni Grantee, the following described real property free and clear of encumbrances created or suffered by the grantor except as speclflcally set forth below: Parcels 1, 2 and 3, PARTITION PLAT NO. 2007-172, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon. ENCUMBRANCES: See attached Exhibit "One" BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. The true consideration for this conveyance isX5001000.00 Dated September 15, 2009; if a corporate gra tor, it has ca ed its name to be signed by order of its board of directors. Golf Savings Bank Manager EXHIBIT F-5 g 1i vj ` Clackamas County Official Records 2009-05934 Sherry Hall, County Clerk I RECORDING REQUESTED BY: $41.00 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Fidelity National Title Companyof Oregon n 01343475200900659340030036 09/1712009 02:27:13 PM 0 � D -D Cnt=1 Stn=10 LESLIE $15.00 $10.00 $16.00 GRANTOR'S NAME: d Golf Savings Bank GRANTEE'S NAME: Mohamed Ayman El-Dakhakhni C SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO: 0 Mohamed Ayman El-Dakhakhni z 234 Beachwalk Honolulu, HI 96815 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Mohamed Ayman EI-Dakhakhni LL. 234 Beachwalk Honolulu, HI 96815 Escrow No: 20090019581-FTPOROB 00204745, 05020311-12 799, 787, 775 Country Club Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE �O SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED — STATUTORY FORM j" (INDIVIDUAL or CORPORATION) Golf Savings Bank 1 Grantor, conveys and specially warrants to Mohamed Ayman EI-Dakhakhni Grantee, the following described real property free and clear of encumbrances created or suffered by the grantor except as speclflcally set forth below: Parcels 1, 2 and 3, PARTITION PLAT NO. 2007-172, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon. ENCUMBRANCES: See attached Exhibit "One" BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. The true consideration for this conveyance isX5001000.00 Dated September 15, 2009; if a corporate gra tor, it has ca ed its name to be signed by order of its board of directors. Golf Savings Bank Manager EXHIBIT F-5 State of Washin ton COUNTY of This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20� by John Barry, as Portfolio Manager of Golf Savings Bank. . "� Notary Public -State of Washington My commi sion expires:, `f O 14 Q SSION Po NOT,gRy cn�\ PUBLIC � \ -2003 q M EXHIBIT "ONE" 2009-2010 taxes, a lien In an amount to be determined, but not yet payable, including assessments collectible with such taxes. Consent of Waiver of Rights and Remedies, including the terms and provisions thereof, Exacuted by: The City of Lake Oswego and Jeffrey K. Mitchell and Judy L. Mitchell Recording Date: January 8, 2007 Recording No: 2007-001528 Restrictions, but omitting restrictions, If any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set for -.h in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said restriction is permitted by applicable law, as shown on that certain plat Name of Plat: Partition Plat No. 2007-172 Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights Incidental thereto as delineated or as offered for dedication, on the map of said tract/plat, Pu -pose: Private Reciprocal Access and Utility Easement A scts: Parcels 1, 2 and 3. See Plat for details. Conditions and restrictions as established by the City of Lake Oswego: Purpose: - Development Restrictions Ordinance No/File No: LU -06-0076 Recording Date: December 28, 2007 Recording No: 2007-107528 Easement Maintenance Agreement Executed by: Jeffrey K. Mitchell and Judy L. Mitchell Recording Date: December 28, 2007 Recording No.: 2007-107529 FDOR0213.rdw C� 4-5 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes DATE: November 9, 2009 ACTION Approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS • September 8, 2009, special meeting • September 14, 2009, special meeting • September 15, 2009, regular meeting Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. by: Mft. Mcl�Iyre City anaefer O, LAKE OSkf O CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES September 8, 2009 OREWH Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. on September 8, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Carol Bryck, Asst Finance Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director 3. STUDY SESSION • Mayor's Report on Clackamas County Public Hearing Mayor Hoffman reported that 200 to 300 people attended this meeting tonight. He mentioned that he had had only three minutes to speak, during which he emphasized that he was there because this was an important issue to Lake Oswego, even though Lake Oswego elected officials have not been able to participate in these meetings because the City Council met on the same night. He said that the County Chief Planner called out Lake Oswego's August 28 letter as an important exhibit to which the Commission should pay attention. He suggested that the Council meet again to discuss issues that have come up since the Council's August meeting. He described the next steps in the urban/rural reserves process, which would take several months. He indicated that the process would end up with intergovernmental agreements between Metro and the Counties designating areas for urban and rural reserves. 3.1 Budget Process Debrief The citizen members of the Citizens' Budget Committee joined the Council at the table: Ron Smith, Chair, Kelly Calabria, Dan Williams, Katherine Shallenberger, and Jeff Gudman. Mayor Hoffman commented that he thought that the article from the International City/County Management Association regarding good budget skills and good financing, which Mr. McIntyre had put in the Council Digest, was very good. Mr. McIntyre indicated that for years, staff has incorporated many of the concepts discussed in the article in its financial process. Mr. McIntyre referenced the survey that staff sent out to the Committee members regarding the budget process and how to improve it. He indicated that he received eight responses, which he has kept confidential. He emphasized the themes of transparency, public engagement, and a understandable process for the Committee members and the general public. He mentioned the seven questions on the memo that he had sent out (p. 3) regarding expectations and improving the process in 2010. Ms. Calabria suggested that one way to shorten the meetings, which some would agree ran long, was to shorten the staff presentations. Councilor Johnson disagreed with shortening the staff presentations, although she agreed that shortening the meetings would be good. She argued that going through what each department did was an important and educational part of the budget process. She observed that the complexity of the City operations contributed to the length of the presentations. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 September 8, 2009 Councilor Jordan expressed her appreciation for the volunteer effort of all of the Budget Committee members. She spoke to making the most effective use of the Committee and staff time. She agreed with Councilor Johnson that this was the first year in a new process of department heads being responsible for their own budgets on an annual basis. She mentioned the change from individual funds within the general fund to one large general fund. She observed that the process would always be difficult following an election year and new people coming on board. She speculated that this next year might go smoother because everyone would be more familiar with the process and with each other. She spoke of building in something to help the public focus its comments on those items that the Committee would be looking at, and to see whether the Committee was working in the right direction from the citizen point of view. She spoke to the Committee focusing more broadly on whether the City was expending funds in the right areas at the right total amounts. Chair Smith commented that he saw education, information, and timeliness as integral elements in building a better process. He agreed that the Committee had had a steep learning curve this year. He spoke of holding quarterly meetings to review how well the City was doing in the context of the decisions made by the Committee. He spoke of continuing the Committee's education in order to increase its knowledge of budgetary terms and processes, and to study the issues critical to creating a capability within the Committee. He asked to receive the budget information a minimum of three weeks before the first meeting in order to give the Committee members sufficient time to review the information. Mr. Williams concurred with Chair Smith regarding receiving the material further in advance of the meetings. He commented that he found the department presentations beneficial in explaining how all the avenues of the City came together. He asked if the department heads had enjoyed giving the presentations. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he thought that the department heads enjoyed sharing stories about what their departments did. He spoke of improving the information provided by using meaningful metrics, with each department finding performance measures to track and evaluate their individual tasks. He mentioned that the department heads also went through tremendous changes this year and a steep learning curve. He said that staff would do better next year in fine-tuning the presentations and stories to the budget document itself. He indicated to Mr. Williams that he felt that the presentations accomplished the purpose of getting buy in from the staff. Councilor Johnson agreed with Mr. Williams that staff buy -in was important. She commented that staff might find it frustrating to give a presentation, leave, and then not be there to defend their budget during the Committee's discussion. Councilor Johnson raised the question of how they could use the Budget Committee rules to create a more efficient and effective process. She suggested discussing what issues the Committee would talk about and what assumptions it would make about the department budgets. Councilor Hennagin questioned whether the Committee needed to meet so often for such long meetings. He argued that efficiency should lead to less hours spent in meetings. He suggested that the department heads provide the Committee with a memo that went through their budget line by line with a short explanation of why an item increased or decreased. Councilor Moncrieff expressed her appreciation for the department heads' presentations. She asked to see more explanation for the Committee as a whole on how the Council goals connected to the budget, given that the purpose of the City budget was to provide services to the citizens. She suggested starting the budget process with goal setting. She spoke to clarifying what the Committee's role was in determining where cuts came from, or did the Committee just direct Mr. McIntyre to cut x amount of dollars from the budget. Mr. Gudman commented that he thought that the process had gone reasonably well. In response to Councilor Hennagin's points about efficiency, he recalled that the suggestion that the Committee City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 September 8, 2009 simply identify those items that it wanted to change and accept the rest as submitted went nowhere. He noted that that might change next time. He held that including all Committee members in the quarterly review meetings would enhance the spring budget meetings substantially by reversing the learning curve from two-thirds education, one-third substance to one-third education, two-thirds substance. He argued for spending the majority of the Committee's time on those areas where the City spent the majority of its money: personnel services and capital expenditures. He acknowledged that people found it easier to understand and discuss a "$1.95 can of oil" than the larger amounts, yet both the Committee's education and decision-making should focus on the City's major expenditures. He concurred with Councilor Moncrieff about the need to understand how the Council goals and the City budget related to each other. He commented that the Committee had gotten into a circular loop during the budget process in that the Council's admirable goals established in January had no budgetary items associated with them at that time. Then, whenever a goal -related item came up in the discussion, the answer was usually that the City had to do it because it was a Council goal. He suggested correcting this loop by having staff identify the dollar amounts associated with the adopted Council goals and providing a priority list to the Council before the budget process began. The Council could then decide how many of its goals it could afford to do at this time. He agreed with the request to receive the materials in advance. He thanked Mr. McIntyre for providing the materials for tonight's meeting in advance. He commented that the fund -by -fund information that staff provided during the Committee meetings was often at the second and third level. He explained that he would find it helpful also to have first level information, such as the totals across the City's personnel services fund for five years, which staff could then break down department by department. He spoke of starting with the totals of the major revenue sources citywide, regardless of whether they were from governmental or business activities. He argued that if they were concerned with the total fiscal health of the city, then they needed to start with the totals and see where the trends were. That would help them make good decisions and avoid drilling down to the $1.95 issues. He commented that he did not know why a given item was or was not included in the capital budget this year because the selection criteria had been so broad that anything could have been included. Ms. Shallenberger indicated that she also appreciated the department heads' presentations. She agreed that getting the information earlier would help make the Committee more efficient. She commented that a rolling forecast would be one way to provide preliminary information about the next year. She commented that often City Council goals were around certain types of activities, while the budget was structured around departments. She recalled wondering during Committee meetings how much it cost to do a given activity, such as arrest someone or write a ticket. She pointed out that this was part of Mr. McIntyre's metrics in seeing how the City spent its resources on activities. She concurred with Mr. Gudman about prioritizing the City goals using estimated cost information. On the issue of budget cuts, she suggested identifying the City's existing activities and processes that were inefficient and a waste of time, or services not used. Councilor Olson commented that Ms. Shallenberger was describing zero -based budgeting (starting a budget from scratch) as opposed to the City's current practice of starting from where the City was now and changing it. She concurred with Councilor Hennagin's suggestion of a preliminary memo from staff that explained the materially significant changes, up or down. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 September 8, 2009 She agreed with getting the material ahead of time. She recalled that some of the misunderstandings and disagreements came about because, in her page -by -page review of the budget, she sometimes did not find an item until late in the process. She agreed that the new process and new people this year had served to lengthen and increase the number of meetings. She speculated that there would be shorter meetings just by virtue of this being the second year in a row with the same people. She concurred with Councilor Jordan about starting the budget process during Council goal setting. She spoke to the Council having some sort of agreement regarding issues, such as the use of reserves, before going into the budget process. She agreed with Mr. Gudman that a big picture/actual results financial statement (income balance sheet) would be useful at the quarterly meetings. Councilor Tierney commented that the Committee members shared the common goal of delivering to the citizens the best services within the financial capacity of the community. He observed that there were many different types of budgeting, including the standard type of incremental budgeting used by the City. He argued that the City could take on a more challenging process, as suggested by Ms. Shallenberger, such as zero -based budgeting. The Committee could look fundamentally at what the City did, establish that that was what the City wanted to do and how much it was going to cost, and evaluate whether it had services that it wanted to eliminate. He pointed out that City Policy No. 3 stated that the City should be evaluating its services on a continuing basis and identifying where greater efficiencies could be derived. He commented that he saw many of the challenges faced by the Committee this year centering around a philosophical disagreement on how much the City should spend. He reiterated his philosophy that current expenditures should not exceed current revenues. He remarked that the dollar amount changes in the budget were inconsistently explained across the departments. He suggested setting a standard that, if a department was doing something different, more or less, then that should be articulated in an agreed upon way. He mentioned that he had thought that they needed more meetings (Chair Smith agreed) because this was the most serious undertaking of the Council. He contended that one could not understand the top level without first understanding the details underpinning the top level, and that took time. He noted that all Committee members were committed to the goal of having the best budget possible. Therefore, they needed to invest the time to reach that goal. He commented that the use of standard financial reports could have made the process easier. He spoke of looking first at the revenues, which they never looked at this year. He mentioned finding in the audit report the kinds of financial statements that provided the revenue and expenditure information they needed. He agreed with Chair Smith that information, education, and a good starting point would improve the process. He commented that the philosophy of what they wanted to do as a community and how much money they thought they had to spend preceded the Council goals. He suggested finding a municipal budget expert to educate the Committee with respect to where Lake Oswego was going as a community, where communities in general went (specifically communities in Oregon). He pointed out that, without growth in the community, the City was limited to a 3% increase in its expenditures. He referenced an article in the recent Oregon League of Cities magazine discussing the underfunding of PERS due to the market situation, and the projected 50% increase in the next fiscal year. He noted that this was a magnitude of 5-6% of salary, which made up 80% of the budget. On paper, that meant that there was no reason to talk about any new things because the City did not have the resources to do anything new. He spoke to the Council looking ahead to where it was going to be, and to both long-term and short-term items, in order to set what the City could do to provide services to the community. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 September 8, 2009 Mayor Hoffman noted the various discussions scheduled over the next few months regarding finances, the economy, and Council goals. He commented that he thought that the Committee could go through the budget process in less than 20 hours. He noted that the City Manager was required to provide the Committee with a budget. He speculated that, using Councilor Hennagin's idea of a written narrative from the department heads, the Committee could move through the process quickly. Councilor Johnson recalled that an efficiency issue that came up was the citizen members of the Committee asking the Council for a better definition of what the Budget Committee was supposed to do and talk about. However, because the Council did not have a good understanding of some issues, such as the relationship between the goals and the budget, the Committee as a whole did not have a good understanding of some issues, which contributed to extra time. She agreed with Councilor Olson's suggestion to talk about budget items earlier during goal setting. She held that it was important in the goal -setting discussion to frame what questions the Council wanted to bring to the Budget Committee. With respect to Ms. Shallenberger's comment about cutting programs or improving their efficiency, Councilor Johnson remarked that she thought it would be interesting to ask the department heads ahead of time what were 'the losers' in their departments, as possible items for cutting, and where they could find additional efficiencies. She pointed out that some of a public agency's services would be `losers' by definition because they did not generate sufficient revenue for someone else to take them on, yet they were services important to the City. Councilor Jordan concurred with Councilor Johnson's comments about department heads explaining ahead of time efficiencies that they have found in their systems, since that was part of the City policy referenced by Councilor Tierney and part of transparency. She observed that citizens did not feel that the government was actually working all the time to try to provide services more efficiently and cost effectively. She spoke to providing reports to the public regarding the efficiencies undertaken by City departments in making the best use of the taxpayer dollar. Mr. Williams mentioned that his company had employee recognition and financial incentives for finding efficiencies. He wondered whether the City could do something similar. He agreed that the public in general was jaded about political processes, and did not see that anything would change with public involvement. He expressed his appreciation for the volunteer time and service of the Council. He commented that he had not known what the Council goals were. He suggested that the staff communicate those goals and their estimated costs to the appointed Committee members and to the general public. Chair Smith agreed that fewer or shorter meetings were a byproduct of effectiveness and efficiency, yet he did not share the goal of fewer meetings. He held that the Committee had needed one more meeting to discuss the options that it had asked Mr. McIntyre to come back with. He speculated that they would have had a different result if they had not truncated the process due to fatigue. He remarked that they had not needed to take citizens through the angst some experienced, especially with respect to the skate park. Councilor Moncrieff asked for a discussion about reserves, their purpose, and where the City had to be legally on its reserves. She asked about the relationship of the reserves to the capital improvements program projects, and when it was appropriate to dip into reserves to pay for cost savings in capital equipment. Mayor Hoffman clarified to Mr. Gudman that the bond evaluators in San Francisco did not explicitly say that the City should not dip into reserves for operating costs. Mr. Gudman agreed that questions about the reserves needed to be asked going into the budget process, especially in light of known upcoming items, such as the 18% to 24% PERS increase in 2010/2011 (c. $1.5 million). City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 September 8, 2009 Mr. Gudman suggested that next year staff not present any items listed as `TBD' (to be determined), since any dollar amount would impact the Committee's decision-making for all other items. He agreed with Chair Smith that the process regarding the $250,000 cuts was neither the Committee's nor the Council's finest hour, even though the Council arrived at a decent outcome. He volunteered his services to staff to help develop management reports, as he had a lot of experience in that area. Ms. Calabria agreed with Councilor Tierney that looking at trends of city growth and where the community was going in the big picture was important. She spoke to planning for unanticipated future challenges in the budget, so that when they occurred, the City could adjust as needed to address the situation. Mayor Hoffman said that he anticipated that Mr. McIntyre and his financial team would start the process of looking several years out in light of PERS and other issues, and the slow economy and possible reduced income. Mr. McIntyre stated that what he heard in the discussion was that the issue was not so much the number of meetings but rather the efficiency of the meetings, the information, and the output. He noted that tying the goals to dollars was easier said than done. He pointed out that none of the Council goals referenced the police department, yet his operating assumption with respect to public safety had been business as usual (no cuts) because the Council had not said to increase or decrease that fund. He spoke of being more explicit in stating his assumptions and getting buy in from the Council. He indicated that staff would present quarterly reports to the Council, including the citizen Budget Committee members. He explained that the intent of the reports was to present meaningful and understandable information that people could evaluate in terms of whether the City was headed in a good direction or not, and what to do about it. He discussed the concept of service tradeoffs. He pointed out that the City government was a service industry providing public services. He observed that no one ever believed that there was a complete `loser' service because there was always a stakeholder out there who used it. He commented that the hardest part was developing a policy process for doing those tradeoffs, for identifying who made the decision and what constituted a tradeoff. He asked to hear feedback from the Committee on how the members wrestled with that from a policy point of view. He mentioned that government was the number one growing industry in the United States; cutting services was anathema to the provision of services purpose of government. He indicated that he would lay out as explicitly as possible some financial foundations for moving forward with the Council goals. He indicated that he could do some loose revenue forecasting in November, per Councilor Tierney's request. He recalled that he had told the Council in February that it could do whatever it wanted to do; it just had to have the budget reflect those goals. To the extent that the Council wanted to do a given project badly enough, it had the prerogative of dipping into the reserves. He commented that that nuance got lost in the discussion. He said that he could paint a financial picture for the Council during its goal setting process, which it could keep in mind as it moved forward. However, if the Council decided that something was a priority, no matter what, then it had three options: cut services somewhere else, find additional revenue, or use the reserves. He mentioned that the City did have an Employee Excellence program that he started last year with the intent of encouraging employees to think about how to be even better employees on the City's behalf. He pointed out that a department head's job was to be more efficient, and to look at their operations and services with an eye to efficiency. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 September 8, 2009 He expressed his hope that there was a widespread belief that staff did work hard to spend the taxpayers' money wisely and appropriately. He held that these processes existed to help staff do so in an even wiser manner. He referenced Chair Smith's comments about education, information, and timeliness. He said that staff would try hard to get the information to the Committee earlier. He mentioned that he still did not have a Finance Director, as it was a tough market for finance people right now, so staff was operating at a deficiency. He spoke of the culture of an organization. He commented that the staff constantly chasing issues and rarely getting ahead of an issue frustrated him as a manager. However, long-term department heads told him that that was how it has always been in Lake Oswego. He described his problem as having a number of good managers chasing day by day because of the high performance expectations placed on City employees by the residents. He indicated that nothing would make him prouder than staff getting ahead of some of these issues and leading them. However, it was all tied to resource allocation and distribution and how best to do it. 3.2 Financial Review — Year End Biennium Ms. Bryck gave a PowerPoint presentation on the preliminary FY2007-2009 biennial budget results (FY ending June 30) and the current year activity. She indicated that staff was recording all post -close activity and preparing work papers for the auditors and the comprehensive annual financial report. She clarified to Councilor Hennagin that State law required the City to record in the previous fiscal year the payments received in July and August for work done in June or before. She presented a chart showing the consolidated general fund information. She noted that revenue collection was down from the estimates due to reduced gas tax money, reduced franchise fees, and reduced building permit fees. She pointed out that expenditures were also down in response to the reduced revenues. She indicated to Councilor Tierney the revenue amount of the consolidated general fund budget, which was a two-year number. Councilor Tierney suggested that staff treat the bond as a loan, similar to how the audit repot treated it, as he found it confusing to include the bond sale as revenue. She indicated to Councilor Olson that she would provide the Council with a copy of her presentation. She reviewed the errors in the report, as noted by Mr. Gudman. She explained that she took the reporting from the City's financial system and reformatted it into a more readable form. She confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the budget gained $750,000 between the beginning fund and ending fund balances. She speculated that the departments were very conservative in their spending towards the end of the year. She explained to Councilor Tierney that, while staff budgeted going into reserves during the 2007-2009 biennium, the actuals showed that the City spent less ($83.8 million) than its revenues ($85.7 million). She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that that was a variance. She noted that, because the City did not receive revenues in an even stream throughout the year, the first quarter reports might not look very good, but the second quarter reports would look better. She explained that the City received a large property tax electronic deposit from the County at the end of November/early December, and then smaller deposits in February and May. Councilor Jordan asked for a report comparing property tax collections from November 2007 through November 2009. She spoke of seeing whether the same number of people were paying the full amount in 2009 as paid the full amount in the prior years. Ms. Bryck mentioned that the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 September 8, 2009 November 2008 property tax collection had not been off by much, and their total collections for the year met their expectations. Councilor Tierney suggested that staff develop a quarterly presentation that showed the estimated revenues per month for the entire year, based on the City's revenue history, and the actual revenues received per month for that quarter. Ms. Bryck indicated that that would require manual processing, but staff could do that for the large areas. Ms. Bryck discussed the financial reporting that staff would provide moving forward with an annual budget process. She mentioned a comprehensive annual financial report posted online, monthly financial updates in the Council Digest, and a quarterly Council report. She reported that staff has loaded the new budget into the system. She reviewed which expenses have and have not been posted through August 31. She noted when they expected their revenues to come in over the year. Councilor Jordan suggested including in a report instances where the City spent more to purchase items locally (as part of their sustainability philosophy), versus buying in bulk. Ms. Bryck indicated that staff was working on a developing a mechanism to flag those items as a way to measure how well the City was doing on sustainability issues. Councilor Olson noted some errors in the report. Ms. Bryck explained to Councilor Olson that the $2.3 million in combined actual revenue under the Community Center Development Fund was a transfer from the general fund to cover the costs of the debt and operations of the West End Building. Councilor Olson observed that it was not real revenue then, but simply transferred revenue. Ms. Bryck confirmed to the Councilor that the $500,000 difference in the beginning balance of the Community Development fund was the maintenance transfer. Councilor Olson noted that, in the Parks fund, the revenues were down from forecasts for the year. She asked for a report on why either the expenses were not down more or what was down in the revenue versus what was not down in expenses. She recalled that the Committee had discussed extensively increasing personnel and materials costs in the Parks programs as a way of generating more revenue from more classes. Ms. Bryck indicated to the Councilor that staff had expected the increase shown in the water fund due to sales to wholesale water customers and increased consumption. She explained that the surface water requirements were significantly under budget because of delayed capital projects related to the Clean Streams Program. Councilor Olson commented that she liked the report format, as she found it helpful to have the information summarized. Councilor Tierney complimented staff on ending the biennium in a positive way. He commented that the City had good managers of the City's daily activities who recognized the need to keep expenses lower than the revenues. He indicated that he did not like the report format because it did not present a simple picture of the financial health of the City. He referenced the report on p. 143 as providing him with a better indication of what the community was doing on a financial basis. He asked to receive the monthly and quarterly information in the more standard financial statement formats. Councilor Olson commented that she would like to see the standard reports as well, mentioning in particular the consolidated financial statement piece that was still missing from the reporting. Ms. Shallenberger concurred with Councilor Tierney regarding the report format. She spoke to separating out the transfers, as they were their own separate entity and not under the control of the department heads. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 September 8, 2009 Mr. Gudman concurred with using a reporting format similar to the standard financial report formats described by Councilors Tierney and Olson. He commented that if the City's current financial system could not provide the standard financial reports with a few keystrokes, then the City should seriously consider upgrading the financial reporting system. He pointed out that if the Council did not receive good basic financial information, then it could not make good decisions. He suggested dropping the pennies for the million dollar figures. Ms. Bryck explained that the City's system was not able to handle a two-year budget, and thus staff developed these kinds of reports. She indicated that the system reports for an annual budget would be much more user-friendly. Mr. Gudman suggested that staff provide a consolidated total and a memo explaining what the major fund variances were as part of making the process more efficient. He mentioned that he had noticed a favorable variance but it took him a while to identify where it came from. Ms. Bryck explained to Councilor Hennagin that the money comprising the ending fund balance of one fiscal year became the beginning fund balance of the next fiscal year. She indicated that if a fund required a contingency as well as an ending fund balance, then the ending fund balance number included both those elements. Councilor Hennagin asked if they should be concerned when the ending fund balance plus the contingency was substantially less than the beginning fund balance for that year. Ms. Bryck clarified that they closed out the Parks fund, and the surface water ending fund balance was actually higher because of some capital projects not done. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 8:54 p.m. 3.3 Capital Improvement Plan Process (no written report) Mr. Graham gave a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the strategic asset management (SAM) concept that he had presented to Council in January: "managing infrastructure capital assets to minimize the total cost of owning and operating them, while delivering the service levels that customers desired." He argued that SAM was the best business model for utilities and the public sector for managing assets. He explained that SAM enabled organizations to make infrastructure investment decisions based on risk and a better knowledge of the condition, the life expectations, and the consequences of failure of the City's assets. He noted that the goal was to achieve the lowest sustainable life cycle costs for services. He presented a chart of information on the City's street and traffic lights infrastructure. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that SAM was not a computer program per se, but it did include a computerized maintenance management system as one of its elements. He reviewed the basics of a capital improvements program. He defined the program as a short- range plan that identified the capital projects, provided a brief description of the project, its funding sources, and its anticipated schedule. He mentioned staff's hope to include large equipment purchases in the plan next year. He described the CIP as providing a roadmap of where the City would invest its resources in capital improvements over the next five years. He pointed out that, while 95% or better of the first year projects would be delivered, the projects in years 2 through 5 were more speculative. He discussed CIP financing. He noted that utility and transportation funding sources were dedicated, while the general fund sources were discretionary. Police, fire, library, parks and recreation, services, and capital projects all competed for the discretionary funds. He noted that the City always looked for opportunities to leverage general fund dollars by using dedicated fund dollars to do the portions of a project falling under the dedicated fund. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 September 8, 2009 He presented a comparison of the City's last CIP document (FY 2004/05) and the current CIP adopted by the Council in June. He anticipated that this document would improve over time and add more value to all the stakeholders. He presented three slides listing the projects identified for the current year. He noted that the 43 projects represented a total capital investment of just under $47 million from a variety of funds. He showed a pie chart illustrating the distribution of that $47 million among the projects. He commented that the City would likely complete the $263 million worth of projects identified in the five year plan (and future projects) over the next 20 years. He reviewed the general steps of the CIP process, including the capital needs assessment, the compilation of a project list, and a meeting with the Finance Department. Staff then developed the preliminary CIP and project roster based on prioritization, followed by a stakeholder involvement process and a final document recommended to the City Council by the City Manager for adoption. He reviewed the schedule of the process for this year's plan, including a significant public involvement process to learn what projects the neighborhoods wanted to see done, a presentation of the City Manager -recommended CIP to the Planning Commission in February, a City Council public hearing in March, and Council adoption of the CIP budget in June. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the CIP was a citywide effort engaging all departments and coordinated by Public Works. He said that Public Works, as the department with the staff and technical knowledge to deliver the projects, hoped to provide support to the individual departments and LORA in terms of delivering their capital projects. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that, in the past, Mr. Knippel has served as the Special Projects Director and overseen the actual construction of projects for which Parks & Recreation did the planning, public outreach, and bidding. Mr. McIntyre explained that his goal was to have the individual departments do the planning and then hand over the blueprints to Public Works to deliver the project. Mr. Graham explained that ideally staff would like to create an algorithm based on objective criteria to develop a priority list of the projects. Since that did not exist, staff tried to quantify subjective criteria, mix it with objective criteria, and develop a prioritized list. He mentioned developing formalized project evaluation guidelines to turn the subjective evaluation aspects of projects into objective criteria as much as possible. He indicated that the goal was to develop a practical method to prioritize projects that made sense and was defensible. He pointed out that developing a list for the dedicated fund projects was easier than developing one for the projects of the departments competing for general fund monies because dedicated fund projects competed only amongst themselves. He indicated that the first priority for projects was those projects that would help maintain the existing levels of service, as opposed to projects that would enhance or expand services. Projects that impacted a greater number of community members, such as arterials, usually ranked higher than projects with a smaller impact, such as local roads. He noted that staff would develop a program that met the Council's goals regarding capital projects. He discussed evaluating projects based on risk, for which staff could use strategic asset management to help the Council make decisions. He observed that their business was to minimize the impacts to citizens both personally and financially. He discussed the challenges facing the program, including limited staff to deliver projects, lack of funding, competing priorities between stakeholder groups, and departmental silos. He noted that the Lake Oswego community had high levels of expectation, which staff had to temper with what was reasonable and achievable as part of managing expectations. He indicated that the key was keeping and maintaining clear lines of communication, which facilitated transparency, managed expectations better, and helped break down silos. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 September 8, 2009 He discussed the next steps. He mentioned including in the next CIP the LORA projects and large equipment assets. He said that they would continue to refine the process and criteria as part of enhancing transparency. He spoke of his goal of implementing industry best practices in the capital program. He asked the Council to endorse the proposed process, and to provide feedback. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that in the past the Planning Commission did review the CIP for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he did not know if LOIS went through the Planning Commission, as the last CIP the City did was in 2004. He would find that out for the Councilor. Councilor Olson asked if there was a process step to get input from the Advisory Boards, noting that the Transportation Advisory Board would be very interested in doing so. Mr. Graham indicated that staff would look into how to facilitate that dialog. Councilor Tierney suggested utilizing the staff liaisons to the Advisory Boards. He commented that the Boards, as groups appointed by the Council, should have a higher status in the process than the neighborhoods. Mr. Graham indicated to Chair Smith that the maintenance study of the life of an asset was a foundational question, and, as such, not a part of the process. He explained that how a strategic asset management plan would help. The root of a SAM plan was first identifying what assets the City had and what condition they were in. From that, staff could then estimate the remaining life span and plan ahead for replacement. He spoke of setting aside money each year in order to have sufficient funds available to pay for infrastructure replacement at the end of an asset's lifespan. He acknowledged that investing in existing infrastructure was not as exciting as investing in something new, but SAM would help with managing the existing infrastructure to reach its maximum lifespan. He described SAM as the foundation on which they built the capital program. Councilor Jordan spoke of building funds into the budget specifically to set money aside for infrastructure maintenance. Mr. McIntyre indicated that such funds might be more generic than assigned to a particular infrastructure asset. He mentioned possibly increasing the amount of reserves in the wastewater fund to pay for system improvements over time. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that it was difficult to tell taxpayers that the City needed funds to build a new library, to pay for its operation and maintenance, and to start a sinking fund to pay for the next library. He described it as a hard decision because the Council would be setting aside funds that could otherwise have gone towards other needs. Councilor Jordan commented that this might change the limit for required reserves in order to build in a cushion for use in the future. Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the City could use dedicated utility funds for the maintenance facility. Mr. Graham confirmed that the Council could have directed staff not to spend money on street or surface water projects this year, and instead put that money towards the engineering study for the maintenance facility. Councilor Jordan asked if the plan would identify those tradeoffs and the associated risks. Mr. McIntyre referenced the analogy spoken of by Ms. Shallenberger and Councilor Olson on the service side of the equation, in terms of trading off services as opposed to adding a new service and increasing incrementally. He held that the analogy held true on the capital side as well. Mr. McIntyre referenced Councilor Moncrieff's question asking whether there was a computer model to make this happen. The answer was no, which was why people like Mr. Graham existed to apply their expertise to help ascertain what the next best way to spend City revenues was. He pointed out that SAM was in its infancy at the City. He explained that that was important to remember, given the time needed to acquire the data, as illustrated in how long it took to gather the condition data for City Hall. He observed that he had only one person to work this complex City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 September 8, 2009 system applied across $1 billion worth of infrastructure, and that person was also managing another $20 million in services. He speculated that this would be a 10 -year effort to get it right. He pointed out that LOIS was a sophisticated and robust plan that provided a clear understanding of where it was going. However, it took seven years to achieve that plan, and five fulltime staff members to implement it. Dealing with the City's other infrastructure assets would require that same level of effort and resources. He commented that the tradeoff was that the City could do it right going into it or just keep chasing, which was a Council decision to make. Councilor Hennagin asked what the taxpayers would say if the City did start to set aside perhaps $10,000 a year for future projects. He observed that the people who were not going to live 100 years might not be happy about being taxed to replace a building that would not be replaced in their lifetime. Mr. Graham indicated that the Council needed to tell that story. He mentioned his impression of Lake Oswego as a community that really supported the concept of sustainability. He argued that if they did not change their ways, the future generations would have to pay more. He said that his personal approach was that he wanted the facilities that he was responsible to manage to be in as good or better condition than the way he inherited them. He agreed that it was a tough decision and one that many people did not want to discuss. Ms. Calabria commented that she liked Mr. Graham's direction of maintaining the assets and being proactive. She recalled from her time on the Natural Resources Advisory Board the City acquiring open space but without a maintenance plan. Mr. Gudman concurred. He commented that he thought it would be beneficial to the Council in its decision making process to know on a quarterly basis where the City was with respect to the $47 million capital budget. He held that knowing when the City anticipated spending chunks of the money impacted other decisions across all departments and funds. The Council indicated its support of the proposed capital improvement program process with the addition of including the Advisory Boards. • September 21 meeting process Councilor Olson reported receiving a phone call today from someone who was very upset and concerned about the proposed process for the September 21 meeting. Mayor Hoffman reviewed his conversations with staff regarding the process, including possibly moving the meeting date. He stated that Lauren Hughes would have her chance to make her PowerPoint presentation to the Council before October 15. Councilor Jordan suggested considering whether the Council needed two meetings on this matter or whether it should stay with the one meeting discussed earlier by the Council. Mayor Hoffman stated that he and staff were working on it. Councilor Tierney stated for the record that he wanted to hear from this interested group sooner rather than later. He indicated that he was not sensing from the group that they perceived in a positive way the Council's efforts to hear their presentation. He emphasized that the staff work on this meeting needed to have an emphasis on engaging everyone involved. He held that the Council was not well served by moving the meeting date and giving the impression that it was not interested in hearing from the group. He mentioned that the Council had voted in support of hearing from this organized group and others. He noted that this was part of the Council's public engagement. Mayor Hoffman stated that he specifically told Ms. Hughes that she would have an opportunity to present their position to the Council and to talk with and engage the Council. He commented that he could not do anything about her hearing a different message than what he directly told her. Councilor Olson commented that the Mayor has changed the complete format and content of the September 21 meeting from what most Council members and the citizens had thought it would be. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 September 8, 2009 Councilor Johnson spoke to setting up a good and beneficial process in moving forward with a discussion on this unprecedented situation. She indicated that she would be happy to get involved in this process but she trusted the Mayor and the City Manager to make sure that the meeting was efficient, and that it had good dialog and information that would help the Council make a good decision. She commented that achieving that had a lot to do with how they set up the conversation, which was why she thought they needed a discussion about the process. Mayor Hoffman confirmed that any Council member could call him to talk about this City Council and Mayor public forum. He said that it would not be a forum created and driven by any specific interest group but rather it would be a community -wide effort. Councilor Moncrieff recalled that she had understood from the July discussion that this meeting would be a community -wide effort, driven by the Mayor who had the responsibility to set the agendas for the Council meetings. Councilor Johnson agreed. Councilor Olson argued that the Council had agreed to let this group make a separate presentation to the Council. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that there were more people interested in this topic than just this group. He indicated that he was still discussing with staff whether to hold one meeting for everyone or separate meetings. Councilor Tierney stated that he thought that this Council has been very interested in public engagement, wanting to hear diverse points of view in a structured way that made sense. He commented that that message needed to be communicated to members of the community. He noted that there was a vocal group that has brought forth many issues, which have influenced how the Council viewed the sensitive lands issue. He expressed his concern that this group could set the attitude of the community about this Council, citing the negative letters to the editor about the Council and the Mayor. He commented that, in hindsight, working with this group in allowing them to vet earlier than the Council has might have diminished that negativity. He said that he wanted the community to perceive this Council as open to hearing what people had to say, and then making decisions. He indicated that he was looking forward to hearing from this group sooner rather than later. He also wanted to hear the group say that it understood that it would have an opportunity to present, as opposed to Council members getting phone calls that said the opposite. Mayor Hoffman reiterated that he told Ms. Hughes that the Council would hear the group's presentation sooner rather than later. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.- ON OUNCIL:ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 September 8, 2009 x.3.2 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES September 14, 2009 On �� Council President Jordan called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. on September 14, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Council President Jordan, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Johnson were excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Oregon Sustainability Center/Living Building Challenge Bruce Brown, Sustainability Advisory Board and a principal with GBD Architects, introduced Kyle Alexander, a partner in GBD Architects. He explained that Mr. Alexander was one of the designers involved in the initial development of the Oregon Sustainability Center, which would be the world's first major urban building with net -zero energy and net -zero water. He discussed the Sustainability Advisory Board's discussion of how the City was not aiming high enough with its goals of achieving LEED Silver or Gold certifications with remodeled and new buildings. He spoke of the City working toward meeting the standards of the Living Building Challenge to build buildings that were net -zero energy and net -zero water buildings. He explained that this presentation would describe the performance level achievable with technology already available today. Mr. Alexander gave a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that they won what amounted to an international competition to do a feasibility study for the City of Portland for a building that would meet the Cascadia Region Green Building Council's Living Building Challenge. He mentioned the major players involved with the building, including the City of Portland, the Oregon Livability Initiative, the Oregon University System, the Portland Development Commission, and the Portland Plus Oregon Sustainability Institute, all of whom would be building tenants. He noted that the Oregon University System was helping fund the project through a bond measure. He indicated that the Feasibility Study team members were all Oregon -based. He spoke of their partnership with SERA Architects. He discussed their goal of creating a Living Building with net - zero energy on site. He explained that that goal drove the size of the building and the program space. He mentioned the Living Building Challenge's ethic of creating designs that could be replicated throughout the region. He discussed the tenant programming of the building, which included office space, classroom space, and common conference/meeting room space along with some retail (but not restaurant) space. He discussed the background of the Living Building Challenge, a program developed by Cascadia and intended to go beyond the LEED process in creating regenerative buildings that generated more energy than they consumed and treated more waste than they produced. He explained that either one met the Living Building Challenge or one did not. He reviewed the Challenge's prerequisites and elements to consider in meeting them. These prerequisites included building on a brownfield site, using materials found close to the building site, and not using materials on the Materials Red List. He mentioned generating all City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 September 14, 2009 energy for the building on site (renewable energy only), indoor air and light access, meeting all potable water needs with water falling on the site, and treating all wastewater on site. He described a Living Challenge Building as a triple net -zero building: zero energy, zero water, and zero waste. He discussed the last prerequisite of beauty and inspiration, or do not build an ugly, sustainable building but rather one that others will want to replicate. He discussed the metaphor that Cascadia liked to use of comparing a building to a flower. A flower existed where it popped out of the ground, utilized only the resources at that site, and was something beautiful. He described the location of the building near Portland State University, between Fourth and Fifth Streets and Montgomery and Harrison Streets. He presented graphics of the building design. He noted that the streetcar would pass directly through the building site. He pointed out how Montgomery Street, a festival green street, connected with the Park Blocks and the Halprin Sequence. He described the eco-charette that they held before designing the building, which turned out to be five days long instead of the usual half day. He discussed the Guiding Principles that came out of the eco-charette's work. He spoke of designing appropriately scaled systems for optimal performance and designing for resource equity, as well as the principle of 'make less, do more.' He mentioned integrating natural systems that benefited all species and recognizing that people were the life of a Living Building. He noted the principles of biophilic design, complex order, and a sense of freeness. He described how the living machine inside the building would treat the building's wastewater, turning it from blackwater to graywater for reuse in the building. He discussed how they designed the ground floor to contrast with PSU's Urban Study Center Plaza across the way: a classical, urban hardscape across from a lush, 'forest floor' softscape. He discussed the energy technologies, including bifacial photovalic (PV) arrays and a superhigh- performing building envelope to seal the building from heat escape. He described the various internal and external elements, including stairs, outdoor terraces, green rooms, and green walls. He indicated that the basement level was the mechanical floor of the building. He noted that the building had no parking except for bicycles. He presented the roof plan showing the PV array. He presented earlier diagrams of the building in discussing how they oriented the building in order to maximize solar exposure. He explained how to calculate Energy Use Intensity (EUI), which he compared to miles per gallon for a car. He indicated that the national average for an office building was a 95 EUI; their target was an 18 EUI. He discussed the strategies they proposed for achieving that EUI. These included the high performance building envelope, high performance active systems, maximum use of passive systems, using daylighting, engaging the occupants, and optimizing the renewable energy on site. He discussed the importance of tenant engagement in achieving a EUI of 18: the tenants would have to change the way they did business or the building designers would have to put in more PV cells, for which there was no room. He spoke of early morning janitorial service, adjusting temperature expectations, using the stairs instead of elevators, minimizing domestic hot water, consolidating printers and copiers on one floor, relocating tenant servers to the basement, and moving to laptop computers from desktop computers. He explained that all those actions would achieve 75% energy savings. He presented graphics illustrating the amount of energy generated by the various elements, the collection and storage of water, ecoroofs and gardens, wastewater treatment, and light and ventilation access elements. He illustrated the contextual location of the building to the PSU buildings. He discussed the projected costs. He noted that they could not go lower than the cost of a mixed use LEED Platinum building. He mentioned the example of a 50,000 square foot building costing $7.8 million (LEED Platinum) versus $12.8 million (Living Building). He commented that the $199,000 per year saved in the maintenance costs of a Living Building through not paying utilities City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 September 14, 2009 meant that it would take 25 years to get a return on the extra $5 million invested. He pointed out how the comparative savings would increase as electricity costs rose over the years. He acknowledged the point made by Mr. Brown that the overall maintenance costs of a Living Building would be higher than a Platinum LEED building because of needing fulltime positions to maintain the interior landscaping and the living machine. He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the tenants would be putting the same number of employees into the smaller space allotted to tenants in the Living Building as they had at their current facilities. The smaller tenant spaces came out of needing more space for the Living Building functions. He indicated to Council President Jordan that the City of Portland required hooking up the building to the conventional municipal sewer and water, which would become the backup systems in the event of Living Building system problems. He confirmed to an audience member that they captured the body heat of the building tenants and the blatant heat of computers and other office machines. He described how the heating/cooling worked in a Living Building. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not think that they have identified all the City of Portland building code provisions that would need adjustment in order to build a Living Building. He indicated that if they worked with a jurisdiction to make such adjustments and the jurisdiction refused to budge, then Cascadia usually allowed an exception. Mr. Brown commented that most cities were open to working with these new ideas because of new modeling techniques for fire and smoke movements. He noted that cities put public safety first, which made this a big issue. Mr. Alexander indicated that, while the requirements of the Living Building Challenge did not allow them to share water or mechanical energy with a neighboring building, they were working with the neighboring building on sharing the social aspects and opening that neighboring historic building up to the plaza. The design was in the proposal stage. He explained that they were working on getting the rents down and developing tenant layouts so that the tenants could have the information that they needed in order to sign leases. Once tenants signed leases, the Oregon University System would go to its Board for bond approval. Mr. Brown observed that non -profits could also raise money to help with building equity and buy down their rents. Mr. Alexander explained the governing system of the building, which was similar to a Homeowners Association. He mentioned the sophisticated monitoring systems that would allow tracking use of water and energy by tenant, and the automatic control systems that turned lights and computers on and off based on the occupancy sensor in the flood strip. Mr. Alexander indicated that the City of Portland had maximum parking requirements but no minimum requirements. Therefore, having no parking met the Code. He noted that there was a plethora of transit in the area and offsite parking available. He mentioned hearing that 75% of the tenants would be riding their bikes and that 400 bicycle lockers were not enough. He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that they could not have a restaurant in this building because of a restaurant's energy consumption. Mr. Alexander confirmed to Council President Jordan that they have designed the building with the flexibility to change over to later technologies as they came along over the 50 to 100 year life span of a building. Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Brown how realistic was a net -zero energy building as a City goal. Mr. Brown pointed out that a building in Lake Oswego would be significantly smaller than this 220,000 square foot Living Building in Portland. He held that the shrinking loads combined with having the same amount of space in which to collect rainwater and sunlight that this larger building City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 September 14, 2009 did made a three to four story net -zero energy building a real possibility in downtown Lake Oswego. Mr. Alexander commented that a smaller building might not need the aggressive tenant measures required in this building. Mr. Brown observed that a City building housed a relatively uniform work force under one employer that would stay in the building for years, instead of the multitude of diverse groups that would turnover in a private office building as the years passed by. He held that municipalities were actually better suited to a building like this than a speculative office building would be. Mr. Brown commented that, based the integration of green elements and technologies by the building industry in the years since his company designed the Brewery Blocks as the first speculative green commercial buildings, it would be interesting to see what happened as the Living Building concept proved that it worked. In response to an audience member's request, Mr. Brown listed the LEED Platinum buildings in the Portland metro area. He remarked that, while buildings his firm has done in the past often performed equally or better than the theoretical in terms of energy use, the same was not true with water use, particularly in residential projects. He explained that residents often decided to switch out a low flow showerhead for a new one. He mentioned the importance of monitoring energy and water use in seeing how well a building was performing. Council President Jordan mentioned that the Tigard Mayor told them that the City built its new library to the LEED Silver standard but decided to spend the $100,000 cost of obtaining certification instead on re -instating some elements in the building that they had taken out. The City had not felt the certification was worth spending the public's money on. Mr. Brown commented that, on the commercial side, the certification fee was worth it because Betsy (BETC) credits in Oregon were tied to LEED certification. He thought a possible tradeoff for municipalities or non -profits was selling those tax credits. He observed that it was difficult to keep the integrated process on track without the prize of certification at the end. Mr. Alexander indicated to Council President Jordan that there was a monitoring process every five years for buildings remodeled to the LEED standard but none for new buildings built to the LEED standard. 3.2 Sustainability Update Ms. Millhauser explained that staff would give quarterly updates to Council on the City's sustainability program. She recalled that the Council adopted the City Sustainability Plan in November 2007. Staff focused on four action areas for the first two years: energy and transportation, water conservation, procurement, and waste reduction and recycling. She indicated that Mr. McCaleb was working hard on the water conservation piece, while other staff members have focused on the energy and transportation piece. She reviewed the goals and targets for the energy and transportation piece. She mentioned the 20 -year goals of having no net increase of greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and having all the City's energy coming from renewable sources. She indicated that staff would update the five-year target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below the 2000 levels in light of the State of Oregon's more recent target of 80% reduction by 2050. She observed that if the City had more money, it could reach its goal of using 100% renewable energy today. She spoke of having 50% of the City's fleet using renewable or alternative technologies and increasing the miles per gallon. She mentioned new construction reaching the LEED Gold standard and major remodels the LEED Silver standard. She noted the goal of increasing the number of employees commuting by alternative modes to driving alone. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 September 14, 2009 She presented charts illustrating the results of the City's greenhouse gas inventory. She explained that this inventory provided a baseline for tracking the City's improvement. She noted that electricity, gasoline, and natural gas were the highest in emissions. She reviewed actions taken by staff to help reduce the City's energy use and emissions. She mentioned replacing all the bulbs in traffic signals with LEDs, which saved $30,000 a year in electricity costs. She spoke of working towards a higher percentage use of biodiesel fuel. She noted that the City purchased half of the wastewater treatment plant's annual electricity for operations through PGE's Green Power option of 100% renewable energy. She reported that the City, as a city of over 35,000 population, received a direct allocation of $157,900 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. She explained that the main goals of the program were to reduce fossil fuel emissions, to reduce total energy use, to improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other sectors, and to spur economic growth and job retention and creation. She reported that Clackamas County received $2 million from this same program. The County was working with Lake Oswego and the other cities to figure out how to help all the cities, as well as the County residents and businesses. She indicated that staff had three months to develop an energy efficiency and conservation strategy to spend the funds and submit it to the Department of Energy for approval. She reviewed the list of projects under consideration, such as outdoor lighting retrofits at public facilities to meet the dark skies ordinance, setting up an energy management system to monitor the City's performance, and additional energy audits of City facilities. She mentioned looking at how to use some of these funds to help with education and outreach in working with the Clackamas County Main Street program. She indicated that staff has allocated funds from this grant for the cash match for another AmeriCorps Volunteer. She described the duties of this Sustainability Outreach Specialist (who would start on Thursday) in working with the Sustainability Advisory Board, LORA, and the new Economic Development Director. She reviewed staff's next steps in the Sustainability Program. They would return to Council with a detailed strategy in November before forwarding it on to the Department of Energy. Staff would work with Clackamas County as much as possible in order to leverage the City's grant with the County's grant, especially by not duplicating services. She mentioned implementing the Business Recycling Ordinance in November in conjunction with City business license renewals. She spoke of sustainability training for the Council and staff as the City headed into the Comprehensive Plan update. She indicated staff's intent to work on the Sustainability Plan goal of considering a high performance green building policy. She reported that their grant request for federal funding for electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging structures, made in conjunction with Portland, the State, and other entities in the region, was not funded. However, all entities were still interested in cooperating somehow. She indicated to Council President Jordan that the AmeriCorps volunteer position took about $11,000 of the block grant money. Council President Jordan observed that $145,000 was really not that much money, especially in light of the long list of potential projects. She indicated that she would like staff to bring back an answer to the question of whether it was better to split the $145,000 up between several little projects or concentrate it in one effort when the project came forward. Ms. Millhauser mentioned that staff was thinking of doing a concrete and visible project with an instant return on the investment, like the outdoor lighting, and helping implement some of the Sustainability Advisory Board work plan items that did not get funded this year. She pointed out that receiving its own grant put Lake Oswego at the bottom of the list for any competitive State grants. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 September 14, 2009 Councilor Olson spoke in support of working with Clackamas County to leverage the Lake Oswego money, especially to help small businesses. Council President Jordan commented that coordinating with the County, if it was doing something for the County as a whole, would probably work, but Lake Oswego should not expect more money directly from the County, as it received its own allocation. Ms. Millhauser indicated that the Clackamas County Main Street program was a possible leveraging opportunity. Councilor Tierney concurred that the grant was not much money for the large number of possible projects. He spoke of spending the money on practical applications of reducing the City's carbon footprint, as opposed to spending it on education and training. Ms. Millhauser indicated to Councilor Tierney that the industry has developed LEDs for dark sky lighting. • Green Power Challenge Council President Jordan reported that the Green Power Challenge did not expect to meet its target goals due to holding the Challenge during a time of the year when many people were out of town, and to difficulties with scheduling at the Farmer's Market. She suggested that tomorrow night the Council discuss extending the Challenge another month. Ms. Millhauser indicated to Councilor Tierney that, at the meeting tomorrow night, staff would provide the number of signups already gathered. Councilor Moncrieff suggested re -introducing the program, as opposed to simply extending it 4. ADJOURNMENT Council President Jordan adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 September 14, 2009 4.3.3 C CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 15, 2009 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on September 15, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson (6:30). Staff Present: Brant Williams, Acting City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Manager; Diana Smith-Bouwer, Citizen Information Project Specialist; Ann Adrian, ACC Manager; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Rec Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Kevin McCaleb, Water Conservation Specialist; Denise Frisbee, Planning & Building Director; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner Youth Council Present: Youth Councilors Kosloff, Cooper, Rathje, and Chandrans. Youth Councilor Silbert was excused. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hoffman convened an Executive Session at 6:05 p.m. 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. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hoffman returned the meeting to open session at 6:33 p.m. 5. PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Oath of Office for Youth Council City Recorder Christie administered the Oath of Office to the Youth Council. The Youth Councilors present introduced themselves. • Staff Introduction Mayor Hoffman introduced and welcomed Jane Blackstone, the City's new Economic Development Manager, who came from Colorado. Ms. Blackstone commented that she was presently meeting with members of the business community as part of getting oriented to her job, which would include working with Mr. Williams on capital projects with an economic development focus. Councilor Johnson commented that the Youth Council would meet with Ms. Blackstone, as two Youth Councilors were beginning a project of developing ideas for youth -friendly businesses. 5.2 Neighbors Helping Neighbors Richard Reemer indicated that he was the spokesperson for the project. He mentioned that Dawn D'Haeze was the organizer and Diana Smith-Bouwer was the City's representative. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14 September 15, 2009 He informed the Council that they already had more volunteers than projects for the upcoming October 17 event, beginning at 8:30 a.m. in Lower George Rogers Park. He thanked the Council members who worked at the last fall event. He mentioned the project's website with information for volunteering and asking for assistance. He noted that interested parties could also contact the Adult Community Center or Ms. Smith-Bouwers. He indicated that the deadline for volunteers and assistance requests was October 10. Mayor Hoffman encouraged those watching to let Ms. D'Haeze, Ms. Smith-Bouwer, or the Adult Community Center know if they had neighbors who needed assistance. Mr. Reemer clarified that the criteria of 70+ years old was flexible and included 60+ seniors with limited mobility. Councilor Tierney also encouraged citizens to participate in this event. He pointed out that the volunteer received much more from the activity than he/she gave. 5.3 Local Meals on Wheels/New Seasons Fundraiser Kick -Off Ms. Adrian introduced Gail Keck and Andy Harris, the co-chairs of the Lake Oswego Meal Network Advisory Board. Ms. Keck noted that their organization provided the only Meals on Wheels and Senior Dining program offered to the residents of Lake Oswego. She indicated that the City operated the program out of the Adult Community Center (ACC). However, the program operated at a deficit, and the Board's mission including fundraising to cover the deficit. She presented the 2008 Meal program statistics. She noted that 29.4% (over 4,000) of the 12,655 home -delivered meals were provided free of charge, while another 6,992 meals were served in the ACC dining room. She indicated that the 2008 program operating costs were $116,664 with revenues of $82,024. The Board raised $24,949 to cover part of the $34,640 deficit and replace general fund money. She mentioned that the Board also donated over $30,000 in the past two years to replace and update equipment at the ACC that dated from the 1970s. She announced that Mountain Park New Seasons Market has agreed to partner with the Board for their Fall Fundraiser. During October, customers will be able to donate to the Meal program while buying groceries. She encouraged the Council members to shop at New Seasons and to share the event with their constituents and the community. She reiterated that this meal program was the only Meals on Wheels and Senior Dining program available for seniors in Lake Oswego. Ms. Adrian indicated to Councilor Jordan that they delivered meals to close to 100 residents. She said that usually between 30 to 50 people came to the congregate sitting in the dining room. Councilor Jordan noted that these seniors lived all over the city, and not in pockets somewhere. Mayor Hoffman suggested contacting the Mountain Park HOA Executive Director to publish the information in their newsletter. He mentioned putting it in LO Down also. Councilor Tierney asked the co-chairs to thank New Seasons on the Council's behalf for their community involvement. He noted that New Seasons also sponsored the Farmers Market. 5.4 Blue Star Memorial Marker Program Pat Wagner, Palisades Garden Club President, invited the Council to the dedication program of a Blue Star Memorial `byway marker' at the Jean Road Fire Station this Thursday at 2 p.m. She explained that the Blue Star Memorial Marker program began after World War II as a way to honor the men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. She mentioned the Blue Star service flag used initially to honor those who won World War II, and the highway and byway markers that came in use later. She noted that the program has expanded over the years to honor the civilian forces serving the country, such as police and fire. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 September 15, 2009 She said that Oregon's first marker (dedicated in 1949) stood nine miles north of Eugene. She mentioned other locations of some of the 67 markers dedicated in Oregon, such as the Baldock Rest Area just south of Wilsonville (north and south sides of 1-5), and Willamette Falls. She explained that a garden club had to sponsor the purchase, as the National Garden Club ran the program. She mentioned that one reason she selected the Jean Road Fire Station as the dedication site was that the firefighters apparently liked to garden, as the station had nice grounds Since a garden club was supposed to keep the dedication grounds landscaped, and the average age of the members of the Palisades Garden Club was 75, she thought that the firefighters could take over that duty. Mayor Hoffman noted that this was also a reminder of the 2,000 National Guard soldiers still in Iraq for another 10 months. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Johnson moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [7-0] 6.1 REPORTS 6.1.1 Resignation of Meagan Lawler from the 50+ Advisory Board Action: Accept Resignation 6.2 RESOLUTIONS 6.2.1 Resolution 09-57, authorizing contract with Arts Council Action: Adopt Resolution 09-57 6.3.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.3.1 July 14, 2009, special meeting 6.3.2 July 20, 2009, special meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 8. CITIZEN COMMENT • Natalia Teplitsky, Epoch Times Reporter She spoke on the human rights issue of the Communist Chinese government's alleged persecution and en masse imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners for use in organ harvesting. She cited the investigative work by David Matas and David Kilgour of Canada in documenting the `transplant tourism' industry in China. She recalled the international community's cries of "if only we had known" and `never again," following the Allied troops opening the gates of the German concentration camps. She argued that history would not allow this current generation the same excuse with respect to the horrific crime against humanity occurring in China. She advocated for countries banning `transplant tourism,' noting that Israel was the only country so far to outlaw its citizens seeking transplants in China. She encouraged U.S. leaders to express outrage at the inhuman practices of the Beijing regime. She quoted Martin Niemoller's famous poem ending with "Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me." City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 September 15, 2009 She urged the community not to forget the lessons of history and to pledge themselves to greater efforts to stop this genocide and crime against humanity. • Patricia Day, East End Commons Condominium Association Treasurer, 5th Avenue She stated that she was speaking on behalf of all the unit owners and the Association. She expressed their concern about the use of the commercial space located at 430 5th Street, formerly Chuck's Coffee Shop, and its impact on the property owners and general neighborhood. She indicated that their Association agreed with the goals of the FAN Plan for the downtown commercial district, and with the City's East End Community Business District regulations in the Community Development Code (Appendix 50.11.b(1)(a)). She pointed out that the Code restricted new commercial uses on the west side of 5th Street and the south side of C Street to non -retail commercial. It also provided a means to buffer the residential properties from the noise, glare, and visual appearance of commercial activity. She stated that the Association agreed that a new coffee shop would not be a new commercial use of the space. However, they did believe that the restaurant and pub that has moved in to the space was a new commercial use and in violation of the City's Code. She argued that selling beer and wine, having multiple sidewalk tables, a sidewalk grill, and live amplified music several days of the week constituted a different use of the space in comparison to a small coffee shop serving coffee and cookies. She asked why the City allowed this change in the commercial use of the space to take place without notifying the Association, comprised of the adjacent property owners, especially since the action violated the City Code. She asked why the Association, as a business with common element property directly adjoining this space and residences directly adjoining the property, was not made aware of the changes before they took place. She reported that the Association, over the past few months since the restaurant and pub opened, have made their numerous concerns known to the restaurant owners, the police, and the City regarding noise -related incidents, cafe sidewalk -related Code violations, and health and safety issues. She indicated that they hoped to resolve the immediate issues, yet their basic question remained how did a little coffee shop get to be a restaurant and bar without notifying the neighbors. She said that they respected the right of the owner to open and operate a business. However, as the business was currently operating, the neighbors felt that this business was not appropriate for the size and location of the space. She asked the City to look into this matter. She also asked that the City take measures to insure that the Association and its property owners were informed and included in any local development plans and pending decisions. • Chris McKinney, East End Commons Condominium Association President, Wh Avenue She stated that her unit shared a firewall with the restaurant. She indicated that she had been surprised by the amplified live music that blared three days a week from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., or even 11:30 p.m. She noted that quiet time, according to the police, began at 10 p.m. She said that she could not sit in her living room and watch TV or go to sleep at night because of the music. • Dave Morrow, East End Commons Condominium Association resident, 5th Avenue He mentioned that he was a restaurant owner for 20 years and understood the difficulties faced by this restaurant, although he never owned a restaurant that shared a common wall with residential. He observed that the restaurant owners were nice people, which made the situation more difficult, because what they were doing was not nice. He described his experience dining three times at the restaurant, stating that each time, the restaurant had been a little more aggressive. He mentioned that the restaurant had only one male/female restroom. He described the gradual efforts the owners took to increase their volume of business: serving three meals a day, serving beer and liquor, and bringing in karaoke. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 September 15, 2009 He described what he has seen while walking his dog at 11 p.m. every night. He mentioned people throwing up on the curbs and urinating against the Safeway wall and benches in front of the units. He argued that these actions were not consistent with the classy image of Lake Oswego. He held that the bar over -served their clients, and that having only one restroom forced patrons to go outside. He spoke of resolving this problem of a bar in Lake Oswego not being run appropriately. • Virginia Fodel, East End Commons Condominium Association resident, 5th Avenue She stated that her son, who lived with her, was a brain -injured adult. She described how the restaurant moving the City bench and putting in too many sidewalk tables made it impossible for her son to walk down the street to the 7-11. She indicated that if they wanted to go to the park by Safeway, they needed to cross in the middle of the street. She discussed the other problem of the restaurant cooking on a gas grill sitting up against a wooden fence, which she thought was not a safe situation. She mentioned that, for the first time in three years, she had to clean up vomit in the alley behind their units. She spoke of seeing a disregard for personal property ownership. Mayor Hoffman asked Ms. Day to give the unit owners' names and addresses and e-mail addresses to Ms. Christie. He stated that someone from the City would contact the Association within a week. Councilor Olson asked to hear a report back to Council on this issue, as it sounded like there were possible Code violations. • Farzi Tarvakoli, East End Commons Condominium Association resident, 5th Avenue She commented that she also saw Lake Oswego as a beautiful and classy place. She expressed her disappointment at seeing the sale of T-shirts and CDs and music playing after the street was blocked off for the Saturday Market. She asked how a restaurant could operate without a kitchen. She commented that not even in her country would such a thing be allowed. Councilor Jordan asked that the Fire Chief investigate the restaurant with respect to the Fire Code and occupancy requirements. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 7:30 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:36 p.m. 9. REPORTS 9.1 The Intertwine Alliance, Metro Council President David Bragdon President Bragdon informed the Council that, from September 29 to October 2, Metro would be hosting a European group through the German Marshall Fund of the US to look at community biking and recreation in the Metro area. He explained that this was the second part of an exchange in which local officials traveled to Amsterdam and Copenhagen last year for the same purpose. He indicated that the group from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, would spend half a day in Lake Oswego and attend a luncheon hosted by Mayor Hoffman, the Chamber, and other citizen groups. He discussed a new Metro initiative called Intertwine. He explained that Metro has been purchasing natural areas around the Metro region using the 2006 bond measure funds, including properties in the Stafford Basin. He noted that Lake Oswego would get a portion of the $44 million of bond money allocated for local governments. He described the various natural features and recreational amenities available in this area that other parts of the country did not enjoy. He presented pictures of various properties purchased by Metro and operated in partnership with local jurisdictions, employers, or businesses, such as the Tualatin Hills & Parks Recreation District, the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District, Kaiser City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 September 15, 2009 Permanente, and outdoor recreation businesses, such as Keane Footwear and Columbia Sportswear. He explained that they needed a way for all these different organizations to work together more effectively in developing natural and recreational areas that transcended jurisdictional and public/private boundaries. He referenced the challenge that Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago made to Metro in contending that Chicago, which lacked Oregon's natural assets, had a better means of getting things done through the Chicago Wilderness organization. He described `The Intertwine" as an alliance of different agencies and organizations working together, and as a way of describing themselves to the outside world and the taxpayers. He noted that the name came out of a work effort involving Ms. Gilmer and other cities' staff members, the travel industry, and the marketing industry. He pointed out that people enjoyed nature without regard to boundaries but they had no one place to go to for information about recreational and natural areas that crossed the boundaries. The Intertwine, as a virtual organization, would have a website that gave all that information in one place. He described how someone would be able to search the site for birding opportunities in his/her zip code, regardless of whether the site was federal, state, or local. He indicated that the website would be interactive and allow people to post stories about their experiences. He discussed a second goal of The Intertwine: standardizing the signage to direct people along the trails, pathways, and greenways as they crossed local jurisdictional boundaries. He gave an example of the Fanno Creek Greenway, which would eventually connect through southwest Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville. He indicated that all the partners were supportive of common signage. He discussed a third goal of The Intertwine: presenting a united front to the federal and state delegations in order to take advantage of available programs, such as the US Forest Service's Urban Forestry Partnership program. He discussed how other areas in the country were doing a similar sort of virtual organization that promoted regional benefit while maintaining local autonomy, such as the St. Louis area's Great Rivers Greenway District. He reviewed The Intertwine partners, which included governments throughout the region, non- profit organizations, the health care industry, and the travel industry. He expressed their appreciation for Lake Oswego's involvement at the staff level. He announced that Metro was holding a National Parking Day celebration on Friday, September 18, at the Monaco Hotel in downtown Portland. This celebration originated in San Francisco in which they turned parking spaces into parks for one day. Councilor Hennagin asked about bike paths. President Bragdon indicated that trails were the initial impetus behind creating The Intertwine, as trails were multi -jurisdictional by nature and often connected natural areas. He mentioned that the Metro Council recently allocated a sizeable sum from the federal government to trails, as well as applying for stimulus money for bike purposes. Councilor Hennagin asked if The Intertwine would include urban parks. President Bragdon explained that their definition of terms was very loose and flexible. He speculated that a jurisdiction could include whatever it wanted to include, including urban parks. However, in general, they created The Intertwine to focus on regionally significant areas with distinctive characteristics and the trails that connected them, as opposed to neighborhood parks intrinsic to a neighborhood. • Parks & Recreation Department Ms. Gilmer recalled that Metro formed the Greenspace Policy Advisory Committee five years ago, comprised of representatives from local jurisdictions, non -profits, and the business community. She indicated that the committee spent two years creating a vision for parks and greenspaces in City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 September 15, 2009 the region. Based on that vision, the committee determined that an interconnected system, well - marketed and well-positioned in the area, would make a large statement nationally and internally that this region wanted to have the best possible trails systems, interconnected natural areas, and parks & recreation system. She explained that the initial step of this lofty goal was The Intertwine, a branding effort around the region that would hopefully help the region acquire funding and recognition. She observed that it has taken parks and recreation jurisdictions around the area some time to get comfortable with the idea of interconnected trails and natural areas. However, in creating the extensive ecosystem desired by the committee, jurisdictions needed to look at the bigger picture of how they related to each other. She reviewed the properties in the area purchased by Metro and the City of Lake Oswego using Metro bond money. These included the South Shore Overlook, the Schram property on Iron Mountain Blvd, a 25 -acre parcel along Stafford Road and Childs Road, and 60 -acre parcel along Wilson Creek. She noted that, in the long-term vision, the multi -acre parcel purchases would eventually create linkages with City of Lake Oswego property to the north. She indicated that Lake Oswego would participate in the Parking Day event by creating a mini -park in a parking space on the corner of 1St Street and A Avenue. She asked for a Council representative to cut the ribbon at the ceremony at 10 a.m. Councilor Jordan volunteered. Mayor Hoffman asked Ms. Gilmer to address the interconnectedness of Lake Oswego pathways. Ms. Gilmer indicated that, in the regional trail plan adopted by Metro five years ago, Metro identified four regional trails running through Lake Oswego, three of which coalesced near Terwilliger Blvd and Macadam. She indicated that the City has almost completed its portion of the Willamette River Greenway Trail, running north -south along the river. She mentioned another regional trail moving north to Portland, possibly in conjunction with a future streetcar alignment. She spoke of the regional trail heading east across the river to Milwaukie, for which feasibility studies for a pedestrian crossing across the existing railroad bridge or an alternate bridge were underway using federal funding. She noted the existing trail along Terwilliger Blvd through Tryon Creek State park and on in to Portland. She mentioned the City's hope to interconnect the trails underneath Macadam one day. She mentioned a long-term vision regional trail called the Surf to Turf Trail, which would follow the railroad alignment along North Shore from Lake Oswego out to Sherwood. She indicated that the final regional trail in Lake Oswego was from George Rogers Park connecting the Willamette River Greenway south through Stafford and down to the Tualatin River. She said that there were only a few remaining easements across parcels to acquire to make this one a reality in the future. • Urban Greenspaces Institute Mike Houck, Urban Greenspaces Institute, pointed out that there was a significant number of citizens and NGOs working on this effort, such as the Trust for Public Land, the Urban Greenspaces Institute, and the Three Rivers Land Conservancy. He mentioned that President Bragdon threw the ultimate challenge of the region creating the world's greatest park trail and natural area system within the Portland Vancouver Metro region. He recalled that the Chicago Wilderness program began when an Illinois Senator saw the successful efforts of Senator Hatfield and Representative AuCoin in the late 1980s to obtain $3 million for kicking off the greenspaces effort at Metro. The Illinois Senator said that he would support the request if Illinois got half the money, which they used to start Chicago Wilderness. He concurred that The Intertwine was about increasing the acquisition of natural areas even more. He pointed out that there was increasing national competition for a small pot of money for the management and acquisition of natural areas. Right now Oregon representatives were working in D.C. to increase the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service money from $25 million to $50 million. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 September 15, 2009 He recalled the region's elected officials' tour of Clackamas County this year, during which they stopped for lunch at Foothills Park and looked at the successes and challenges of trails. He mentioned that, while he worked primarily on natural areas, he was also interested in local parks and took the broadest view of the system as including everything from neighborhood parks up to the larger regional facilities. Mayor Hoffman asked what the next steps were. President Bragdon mentioned that Metro recently submitted another funding package for trails. He indicated that the next steps were developing The Intertwine website and signage to start presenting a unified story to the citizens of the region. He confirmed their intent to make the website interactive where people could tell their own stories. Ms. Gilmer gave each Councilor a copy of "Conservation: Investment That Pays," the Trust for Public Land's recent annual report discussing the economic benefits of parks and open spaces. 9.2 Report on Water Audits by Councilors Hennagin and Moncrieff with follow-up by Kevin McCaleb, Water Conservation Specialist and Guy Graham, Public Works Director Mr. Graham introduced Kevin McCaleb, the City's Water Conservation Specialist. He applauded Councilors Hennagin and Moncrieff for participating in the water audits. The Council viewed a short video presentation available on the City's website. Mr. McCaleb gave a PowerPoint presentation updating the Council on the current status of the City's water conservation program. He discussed the reasons why water conservation was necessary, including competing interests, a rapidly growing population, aging infrastructure, climate change, non -point source pollutant mitigation, and State requirements. He observed that, while the population in the region has grown significantly over the past 150 years, the region still has the same amount of resources available as when Oregon became a state. He noted that one of Lake Oswego's biggest issues regarding water conservation was its aging water treatment plant that was beginning to have difficulty meeting its demands every year. Another big issue was non -point source pollution in the lake and feeder streams. He noted that Lake Oswego complied with the State requirements, as the State approved Lake Oswego's water conservation plan. He indicated that the Lake Oswego -Tigard water partnership would include water rights perfections. He described the key elements in the water conservation program. These included the water audits (interior, exterior, residential, and commercial), educational programs and classes for citizens and schools, videos, and publications. He mentioned the elementary school programs of Mad Science and Where's Rosy? He noted the City's involvement with regional and national organizations, such as the Regional Water Providers Consortium, the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association, American Water Works Association, and the Irrigation Association. He discussed the incentives offered by the City as part of the program, including low -flow and high efficiency toilet rebates (a popular item), rain sensors, and other conservation equipment. He noted the increased emphasis on customer service and consulting with citizens regarding their water needs issues. He presented a chart showing the results of water audits that the City has done on commercial and residential properties, the sales of water conservation equipment, and rebates. He indicated that the early data found a 20% to 30% reduction in water use one year post -audit among those customers who had a water audit. He mentioned that staff has received many questions and comments regarding the tiered water rates. He discussed the water conservation projects undertaken by the City. He indicated that the parks and facilities restroom replacement project completed last year was showing a savings of 200,000 gallons so far. He mentioned the weather station project underway that would give real time City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 September 15, 2009 weather data, and the hope to grid the City eventually with these weather stations for neighborhood use. He indicated that they were working with Parks & Rec to find a location for a community education demonstration garden. He mentioned their continued efforts to develop educational brochures and handouts to help citizens better manage their water. He mentioned the new data retrieval system that would work with the City's Incode system to extract data on those who had water audits and purchased rain sensors. He indicated that this new system would help staff better manage the water conservation program. He presented the two water audit case studies of Councilors Hennagin and Moncrieff. He noted that they both saved significant amounts of water following their water audits, and the corresponding reduced water bills. He presented a graph showing that, even though this year had varying precipitation amounts, both Councilors managed to conserve water. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he had put soaker hoses in his flowerbeds thinking that that was more efficient than sprinklers. He reported that his water audit showed that he was using twice as much water as he needed, even with the soaker hoses. Mr. McCaleb indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the communications that staff was receiving from citizens regarding the tiered water rates showed that the majority of people appeared to understand why the City changed to this rate structure and that now it was up to them to conserve water in order to reduce their bill. He mentioned seeing more stressed lawns this year, which he interpreted as evidence that people were taking the message to heart. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she and her husband learned a great deal about irrigation and watering, and found that they had been overwatering. She noted that her household could still do more internally to conserve water by getting the right equipment and fixtures. She described the audit as a great service that was free. Councilor Hennagin gave his permission for staff to use his water audit data in their publications. Councilor Tierney asked what the City's goals were for its own water consumption, and for other populations in the city. Mr. McCaleb indicated that the City departments were coming on board, although it was a slower process. He cited the evidence of the lawn at the West End Building as demonstrating that the Parks staff has clearly reduced watering the lawn out there. He commented that he could not have done the City facilities restroom project without the cooperation of the department managers. Mr. McCaleb mentioned that, on the commercial side, the Kruse Way building owners have been implementing water conservation measures on a broader scale for more of their facilities. He expressed his hope that other office buildings would follow the standard that they were setting. He indicated that, on the residential side, education and a willingness to try a new way that would save the resident money were key. He stated that his goal for the program was to work with the City, the Council, the residents, and the commercial entities to become a community that far outreached any other community in the area and that set the standard for other communities. Councilor Tierney suggested developing a comparative chart showing the gallons of water used by the City and quantified the cost savings gained through the water conservation program. He suggested publicizing the City's water consumption in Hello LO to document how successful the City was in taking care of its own facilities. Mr. McCaleb noted that the Water Treatment Plant Manager published an annual water report showing comparisons on water production. He agreed that it was an excellent idea. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 September 15, 2009 10. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 10.1 Councilor Information Councilor Jordan discussed the request to extend the PGE Green Power Challenge another month, as they had not reached as many Lake Oswegans as they had hoped. No one on the Council objected to doing so. 10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 10.2.1 JPACT Councilor Jordan reported that the State Transportation Funding draft was out regarding how the State intended to spend the money coming in from its new tax and the existing gas taxes and registration fees. She mentioned an effort to move Highway 43 from ODOT control to local control. She indicated that the State has agreed to put a placeholder in the State Transportation Funding for monies to accompany any transfer of ownership, as no one knew the actual condition of the road or what needed to be done to make it the kind of arterial that it should be. She noted that there would be stakeholder discussions regarding the dollar amount. She reported that JPACT discussed how all jurisdictions who received stimulus funds to do projects needed to use up all the stimulus money. If a project bid came in lower than anticipated, leaving funds still available, then the jurisdiction needed to find another project to use the remaining stimulus funds. 10.2.2 84M Annual League of Oregon Cities Conference Mayor Hoffman volunteered to serve as the Lake Oswego voting delegate to the Annual Conference. Councilor Jordan agreed to serve as the alternate. 10.2.3 Urban/Rural Reserves Mayor Hoffman briefed the Council on the latest happenings in the region with respect to urban/rural reserves. He explained that Metro would use an Urban Growth Report to answer the questions of population growth and the region's capacity to accommodate growth in making its decision on urban/rural reserves within the next 90 days. He reviewed the decision-making schedule through December 2010, which would culminate in moving the UGB, if it needed to be moved at all. He reported that the Metro Chief Operating Officer, Michael Jordan, gave his report to the Metro Council in which Metro staff recommended holding firm to the 2040 compact urban form as the growth concept for the region, and locating employment and residential areas within the UGB, as opposed to expanding the UGB. Metro staff was recommending focusing public investment monies inside the UGB in town centers, main streets, or corridors, and moving the UGB as little as possible over the next 50 years. He explained that, in light of its difficulties the last time it tried to designate urban reserves, Metro wanted to come up with a defensible decision. He described how Metro staff evaluated the population, employment, and residential needs in terms of capacity available and needed. He mentioned another question of how the public was investing its resources to get the maximum use out of its capacity. He noted that Metro would not move the UGB unless the area to be brought inside was already concept -planned. He mentioned the issues of governance, infrastructure, concept planning, and which entity would provide urban services. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 September 15, 2009 He mentioned that Metro would start looking at region -wide, agreed upon, performance measures to measure how the region was doing in terms of meeting the Metro short-term and long-term targets for intensity and compactness. He reported that Metro staff was recommending 15,000 acres for urban reserves and 6,000 acres for employment over the next 50 years in the entire region as a means of maintaining the compact urban form. However, local jurisdictions have already requested 40,000 plus acres of urban reserves. He noted that the Metro staff recommendation still had to go through the process, and that the ultimate decision belonged to the Metro Council and the County Commissions. He stated that Metro staff was recommending that Washington County not be allocated as many urban reserve acres as it has requested. He mentioned that Metro staff did not think that the high tech manufacturing industry in Washington County would not be where the jobs would be, but rather that the jobs would come from small businesses. He directed the Council's attention to the map on the last page that showed the recommended rural reserves (agricultural lands off limits for 50 years), the urban reserves (first land choice for development in the next 50 years), and the undesignated areas (second land choice for development). He pointed out that Metro staff has recommended designating all of the Stafford Basin as urban reserves, except for the Wilson Creek area. He mentioned Metro staff's thought that a town center should develop at 1-205 and Borland, tied to some sort of high capacity transit line in the south corridor. He noted that the town center idea was consistent with Mr. Egner's recommendation. He explained that the January 2007 agricultural report drove this analysis. The report evaluated all the agricultural areas around the region in terms of foundational, important, and conflicted. He indicated that Metro staff was not inclined to go into Washington County because of its foundational agricultural lands, which were off limits. In contrast, Stafford contained important and conflicted agricultural lands. Mr. Egner read the one page recommendation from the Metro report, which described the areas in the Stafford Basin suitable and unsuitable for urbanization. He noted the importance of employment and transportation access as criteria for designating urban reserves, the focus on the 1-205/Stafford Road interchange area as a potential town center, the possible designation of areas south and southwest of 1-205 to create support for the interchange area, and the protection of the Tualatin River and Wilson Creek riparian areas. Mayor Hoffman stated that COO Jordan's presentation made it clear that Metro staff was recommending designation of more of the Stafford basin than Clackamas County was recommending. He suggested that the entire basin was on the table for regional discussion. That being the case, the Council needed to discuss what position it wanted to take at the regional tables. He spoke of discussing how Stafford fit into Lake Oswego's vision as a city. He anticipated that, if any part of Stafford became urban reserve, then the region would look to Lake Oswego elected officials and staff for leadership in guiding whatever development occurred in the Stafford basin. The Council needed to discuss what would be an appropriate leadership role. He pointed out that, while Lake Oswego's backyard was on the table, it could still take 50 years for the area to develop; it was not necessarily an immediate possibility. He agreed that Metro was likely to tie the Stafford basin development to transit and managed development. He anticipated receiving pressure to designate Borland as urban reserve with possible inclusion inside the UGB in 2015, but the rest of the basin would take a longer term. He suggested that the City dust off its reports analyzing the provisions of services to the Stafford basin, and begin answering questions in terms of costs and capability. He reiterated the multiple issues: governance, infrastructure, and vision. He asked what did Lake Oswego want the community to look like, which was its vision. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 September 15, 2009 Councilor Tierney pointed out that the map showed that Tualatin, Lake Oswego, and West Linn were the three communities bordering the Stafford basin, with the Borland area closest to Tualatin. Mayor Hoffman indicated that the jurisdictions have already been talking about the issues involved. He recalled that Lake Oswego told Metro in its letter that it wanted to be at the table and engaged with the other jurisdictions/stakeholders in the Stafford basin. Councilor Tierney asked for more recent information from a practical standpoint about the impacts of the urbanization of this area on Lake Oswego. He suggested clearing up exactly what the Metro staff recommendation was before moving too far ahead. Mr. Egner clarified that the Metro staff recommendation did not specifically mention transit but, because this was part of a bigger package that included the Regional Transportation Plan and the High Capacity Transit Plan, he thought that transit would be associated with it. He stressed the need to make the development contingent on the provision of transit, as Lake Oswego stated in its aspirations statement. He held that, without transit, the region was looking at a lot of traffic problems and a sprawling development pattern. Mayor Hoffman concurred. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Tierney that they needed to get Metro staff's intent clarified as soon as possible in order to avoid spending time and energy on something that might not be a reality. She emphasized Councilor Tierney's comments about talking with other jurisdictions and expanded that to include the school districts. Councilor Jordan mentioned her understanding that Tualatin has once again backed away from any interest in developing Borland because they could not take on the costs of the infrastructure necessary for developing the area at this time. She commented that Tualatin, as the most logical jurisdiction for managing the development, backing away from it did not speak well to her that Borland would be on of the first areas for UGB expansion. Mr. Egner indicated that Tualatin had other concerns as well. He clarified that Tualatin had evaluated a small sliver of Borland west of Stafford Road and north of 1-205 in terms of a residential neighborhood with a small commercial area, and not as a town center, and found that it would not pay for the needed infrastructure. He did not think that Tualatin has evaluated a large enough area that would pay for itself. Councilor Jordan observed that the aspirations of the different jurisdictions were in conflict with the Metro staff recommendations, which meant that things were going to get interesting. She commented that they have not identified the impact of development in that area without high capacity transit, other than to know that it would be extremely serious for Lake Oswego. She spoke to not panicking and getting ahead of the game, as there was still a long way to go. She pointed out that Lake Oswego was not listed on the Making the Greatest Places schematics as having a corridor for Boones Ferry Road. She suggested calling Metro's attention to that fact. Mr. Egner explained that the chart was a descriptive tool describing what jurisdictions were doing and what their aspirations were. He agreed that they could fill it out more thoroughly in terms of identifying Boones Ferry as both a town center and a corridor. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Johnson that Lake Oswego staff had not filled out the information on what the City was doing to enhance the corridors, and therefore, that information was not included on the matrix. He agreed that they probably should have done so. Councilor Tierney commented that he saw two issues going on: the urban/rural reserves/non- designated areas and the focus on developing inside the UGB. He asked to see a framework presented at the next Council discussion that presented to the Council the necessary elements and big picture look it needed to help it make decisions. He suggested considering the question of whether a more densely populated area and the compact urban form were consistent with Lake Oswego's vision for itself as a community. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that this Council's position in the past has been that the Stafford basin remain rural in nature. He commented that they would not want to be tied to putting City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 September 15, 2009 infrastructure in the area because they wanted to keep it rural. He asked whether the City needed to do anything other than follow the Metro process, unless or until the CORE 4 recommended Stafford changing to an urban nature. Mayor Hoffman commented that Metro would talk with each jurisdiction about the designation of areas as urban reserves. He emphasized the importance of the Council being on the same page. He noted that they could take the position that, while they thought that Stafford should be rural, if Metro designated it as urban reserves, then they preferred this situation to the other. He spoke of having a Plan B as the region began discussing these matters. He agreed that the Comprehensive Plan said that the Stafford basin should remain rural. He spoke to the Council being comfortable with a regional discussion on what to designate the Stafford basin, such as half urban, half rural, or all undesignated. He mentioned that the four key factors in the framework mentioned by Councilor Tierney were infrastructure, governance, public investment, and urban services. He mentioned that he had been hoping that Metro staff would recommend keeping Stafford as undesignated lands, which position the Council could accept. He expressed his concern that the region was looking at saving great farmland versus conflicted farmland, and Stafford contained conflicted farmland. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Tierney that Clackamas County published a map at 5:15 p.m. today, which was close to what their final recommendation would be. He noted that they linked the Borland area all the way to West Linn south of the river as urban reserve. Mayor Hoffman commented that the region was saying to every city that, while they might have local aspirations, the region had aspirations also, and local aspirations did not trump regional aspirations. The region as a whole would stay compact and urban in moving forward with the 2040 growth concept. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11.1 City Manager 11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule The Council reviewed its schedule. It agreed to staff's request to reschedule the October 15 Luscher Farm and Stafford area tour to October 22, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Councilor Tierney indicated that he would prefer reading a written update in the Council Digest on the FAN clean up, as opposed to hearing an oral report at a meeting. Councilor Jordan concurred. The Council agreed to Councilor Olson's suggestion to move the November 24 meeting to November 23 to accommodate Thanksgiving travel plans. The Council agreed to cancel the December 24 meeting. Mayor Hoffman reviewed the upcoming agenda items needing scheduling. He noted that the Lake Grove Forum would not be a forum but rather DKS talking about their traffic study. Councilor Moncrieff asked to schedule the emergency response plan in early December before the bad weather hit. Mayor Hoffman explained to Councilor Olson that Bruce Wood, the developer of Bridgeport Village and an adjunct professor at PSU, would give the Council the Real Estate Overview Seminar as part of a Redevelopment 101 class. He commented that it was important for the Council to understand the basics of redevelopment from the developer's perspective as the City moved forward with the Foothills redevelopment. Councilor Jordan asked about the joint budget committee meeting working with Mr. Hertzberg. Councilor Tierney asked for a presentation on municipal finance from the long-term view. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 September 15, 2009 Councilor Hennagin mentioned a joint meeting with the West Linn, Tigard, and Tualatin City Councils. Mayor Hoffman noted that Lake Oswego kept in touch with Tigard regarding the water project. 11.2 City Attorney 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 24�� Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 September 15, 2009 OF LAKE OS Q'fi wfCO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT OREGON TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Debra Andreades, AICP; Senior Planner SUBJECT: AP 09-04 Appeal of a Development Review Commission (DRC) Decision to deny a one -parcel partition for the purpose of lot legalization, lot line adjustment, variance, and tree removal [LU 09-00091. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and the adjacent vacant parcel to the east; Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 of Tax Map 21 E9 CC. DATE: November 5, 2009 ACTION The Applicants, George Puterbaugh, Trustee, and George and Mary Glass appealed the DRC denial of their application for the following: • A one -parcel Minor Partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902. • A Class 1 variance to the Access Standard [LOC 50.57.015] for Tax Lot 1902 as part of the partition request. • A lot line adjustment of Tax Lots 1900 and 1902, following legalization of Tax Lot 1902. • Class 2 variances to the lot width and depth standards for Tax Lot 1902, as part of the lot line adjustment. • Removal of seven trees to accommodate construction of private utilities and driveway to Tax Lot 1902. The applicants stated the reasons for appeal in Exhibit A. Following the public hearing, after hearing argument from the applicants/appellants and other interested parties, and upon review of the record, the Council must decide whether the application meets the criteria for lot legalization as provided for under LOC Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 2 50.01.030(3), and if so, then whether the application also meets the criteria for lot line adjustment, variances, and tree removal. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Both tax lots (along with Tax Lots 1800 and 1905) were originally part of the Richard Sundeleaf estate. These lots were created by deed between 1965 and 1988 (Tax Lot 1902 in 1972, Exhibit F-7). Each was divided from the parent parcel in violation of the zoning and partition requirements in effect at the time of creation. In 1991, the property owners applied to remedy the improper creation of the four tax lots. The request included variances to lot width as well as to the access standard because all of the parcels were located on Phantom Bluff Ct., a private street, and could therefore not meet the requirement for 25 feet of frontage on a public street. The approved partition plat, which included Tax Lot 1902, was never recorded. Therefore, the approval expired and is void. In 2003, Tax Lots 1900 and 1905 requested and obtained approval of a 2 -parcel partition (LU 03-0053) under LOC 50.01.030 to legalize these two lots. That plat was subsequently recorded. The present request seeks to legalize Tax Lot 1902 with a subsequent lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902, variance for lot width and depth, and removal of seven trees. DISCUSSION Scope of Council Review Council review is limited to the evidence in the record before the DRC. No person may testify before the Council unless that person appeared either orally or in writing before the DRC at the hearing. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the DRC at the hearing with sufficient specificity to enable the DRC and the parties to respond. Appellants' Statement of Reasons for Appeal The balance of this report will set forth the specific reasons for appeal, the DRC finding, and the prior Staff Reports' findings. The full list of exhibits follows the discussion. A. The Commission's application of LOC 50.01.030(3) violates the express language of the standard. LOC 50.01.030(3) allows an illegally created lot to be exempted from compliance with the lot dimensional requirements if "development that would Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 3 be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties". Tax Lot 1902 does not meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the zone because those are measured from the "front lot line", which requires a lot line separating the parcel from a public street; since Phantom Bluff Ct. is a private access easement, the lot does not front on a public street and thus technically has no lot width or depth. Therefore, to legalize the lot, the criteria of this standard must be applied. As set forth in the standard, "in determining the degree of impact the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity'. "Obstruction of views" is one of several factors that must be considered. The appellants argue that in applying this standard to "obstruction of views", the Commission disregarded the Code requirement to look at the general neighborhood pattern to determine whether there was a significant negative impact in terms of the obstruction of views, and instead focused on whether there was a significant negative impact on one property (the Yearsley property across Phantom Bluff Ct.). a. Staff Recommendation to DRC As outlined in Exhibit D-3, pages 3-4, the pattern of development in a neighborhood is principally determined by the shape and size of the lots, as that determines the permitted building envelopes, which in turn results in a particular pattern of view obstruction. Staff found that the applicants submitted sufficient evidence in Exhibit F-14 to indicate that the pattern of development in the neighborhood as well as the neighborhood pattern of "obstruction of views", result in compromised views of the lake for all residents on the south side of Phantom Bluff Ct. Staff recommended approval because it was found that the effect of the proposed development on the Yearsley's view is no greater than the obstruction of view that could be expected from development that conforms to the pattern of development in the neighborhood. Therefore, the potential development, although creating an obstruction; would be consistent with what could be built on a complying lot in the neighborhood and under the standard, would not have a "significant negative impact" to the neighbor's obstruction of view. In other words, staff concluded that if Tax Lot 1902 were configured in a manner that complied with the lot/width depth dimensions, the effect of obstruction of view from potential development would be the same or greater than that proposed on existing Tax Lot 1902. Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 4 b. DRC Finding The DRC found that "obstruction of view" is measured based upon the impact to specific neighbors (Exhibit B) for the reasons set forth in the Exhibit D-3, pages 1-3. The point of reference for measuring whether an obstruction of view occurs — from a specific neighbor's site — is separate from the measurement of whether the potential obstruction of view from that specific neighbor's site is significant. That is measured against the expected obstruction of view that would result if development occurred consistent with the "existing development pattern in the vicinity". The DRC found that there would be an obstruction of view from the neighboring property to the south (Yearsley's property) and did consider the pattern of development in the neighborhood, but did not find the evidence sufficient to determine whether the proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Therefore, the DRC was unable to determine if the obstruction of view was or was not significant. In other words, absent demonstration of the impact that development consistent with the development pattern in the vicinity would have on the Yearsleys' view, the Commission cannot determine whether the proposed development on the site would have more, or less impact on views, and thus whether the proposed development's obstruction of view would be "significant" as compared to the obstruction of view that would result if development was consistent with the neighborhood pattern. The DRC found that the evidence did not offer sufficient detail of a future dwelling on the site, including the garage portion of the future dwelling — which would likely result in a significant obstruction of the Yearsley's view of the lake because the garage is placed at the highest point of the site — to determine the degree of significance of the obstruction of view. In addition, the DRC found that it was unclear to what degree the proposed dwelling's roofline would be visible to the side of the garage and above its roofline. B. The Commission's denial violates the intent of LOC 50.01.030(3), which was evident in the legislative history of its adoption, to provide a process to approve lots for development. The appellant contends that the record shows that potential development on Tax Lot 1902 would be consistent with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood as specified by the standard. In not considering this factor, the DRC's denial contradicts the evidence in the legislative history (Exhibit D-2) of the adoption of LOC 50.01.030(3), which was intended to provide a process to approve lots for development. Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 5 a. Staff Recommendation to DRC In reviewing the legislative history, staff found, as discussed in Exhibit D-3, that the Council intended that illegally created lots have a means to be legalized so that development could occur. The resulting code section was intended to ensure that their impact to the neighborhood should not result in a greater burden to the surrounding neighbors than if the lot had been legally created. Based on the evidence, staff found that no greater burden to the surrounding neighbors would occur as a result of the proposed development, and thus there was no "significant negative impact" by lot legalization. b. DRC Finding The DRC concurred with staff" that the legislative history (Exhibit D-2) confirms that the intent was to set forth a process to legalize illegal lots, subject to meeting certain criteria as found in the subsequent code section, LOC 50.01.030. However, the DRC found that it could not conclude from the evidence submitted that the appellant had met the criteria for legalization, as applied to Tax Lot 1902. C. Although staff found that all applicable criteria were met, the Commission declined to impose suggested conditions of approval that would reduce the height and specify the roof form to further mitigate any development impact, ensuring compliance with the standard. The appellants argue that in declining to impose conditions of approval, the DRC ignored a provision in the standard to allow development on the lot. a. Staff Recommendation to DRC As stated above, staff found sufficient evidence showing that the proposed development on Tax Lot 1902 would be consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. Additionally, based on the appellant's testimony, staff recommended conditions of approval that would, in staff's opinion, help the proposed development better meet the "no significant negative impact" requirement of LOC 50.01.030(3). These conditions were consistent with the applicants' depictions; that the roof would fit within an envelope framed by a shed roof, with a maximum height of 35' and sloping to approximately 24' in height, as shown in Exhibit F-13 and outlined in the Staff Memo (Exhibit D-3), with no ability to use the height exceptions allowed by the Code. Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 6 b. DRC Finding The DRC found that something could be built on the site that would comply with the standards of approval, and considered whether the standards could be met if conditions of approval were imposed to reduce the maximum allowed height of the future dwelling and garage (as the garage would be located on the highest point of the site). However, the DRC found that it could not impose any conditions of approval, because it could not find that there was sufficient evidence to show the full scope of the expected obstruction of view that would result from the future development on the site, consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL ACTIONS: The Council may adopt Findings, Conclusions, and Order to.- Affirm o: Affirm the DRC's decision and deny LU 09-0009, if the Council finds that conditions of approval cannot be imposed that will result in the proposed development complying with all criteria. M Reverse the DRC's decision and approve LU 09-0009 with the original conditions of approval in the Staff Report (Exhibit D-1), and if needed, additional conditions of approval as described in Exhibit D-3, that will result in the proposed development complying with all criteria. ATTACHMENTS A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL A Letter of intent to appeal the DRC decision by Gary P. Shepherd, (Attorney for the appellants), dated September 28, 2009. B. FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER B LU 09-0009, dated September 21, 2009 C. MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION HEARINGS C-1 Minutes of August 3, 2009, DRC hearing C-2 Minutes of September 9, 2009, DRC hearing C-3 Minutes of September 21, 2009, DRC hearing Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 7 D. STAFF REPORTS AND MEMORANDA on LU 09-0009 D-1 Staff Report, dated July 24, 2009 D-2 Staff Memorandum, dated August 3, 2009 D-3 Staff Memorandum, dated September 4, 2009 E. GRAPHIC/PLANS E-1 Tax Map E-2 Vicinity/Zoning Map E-3 Site Survey -Tax Lot 1900; Existing Conditions/Tree Removal Tax Lot 1902 (2 pages) E-4 Preliminary Plan: Existing Lot Line and Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Plan E-5 Proposed Site Plan: one -Parcel Partition E-6 Proposed Plan with Potential Future House Footprint E-7 Sewer and Sewer Pump Station Plan and Profile (5 pages) E-8 Slope Analysis Map E-9 Property cross-section with location of future development F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F-1 Applicant's Narrative -Partition F-2 Applicant's Narrative -Lot Line Adjustment F-3 Applicant's Addendum Narrative F-4 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Carlson Geotechnical, dated August March 12, 2009 F-5 Arborist's Report and Tree Inventory, prepared by Gary Drendel, Certified Arborist dated March 20, 2009 F-6 Legal Document: Clackamas County Vacation of Phantom Bluff Court, dated 7/3/59 F-7 Deed to Property, including access easement, 1972 F-8 Warranty Deed Outlining Access Easement to Phantom Bluff Ct., 2002 F-9 Letter from Lake Oswego Corporation, dated March 25, 2009 F-10 Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting held November 22, 2008 F-11 Applicant's Response to Exhibit G-200, dated August 3, 2009 F-12 Copy of a Prior Land Use Case for Lot Legalization (LU 04-0001), submitted by Applicants F-13 Letter from applicant, Building Elevation, Photos and Cross Section of Potential Development, dated August 25, 2009 F-14 Letter from Gary P. Shepherd, Oregon Land Law, dated September 1, 2009 Council Report November 5, 2009 Page 8 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against: (G1-99) None Support: (G100-199) G-100 Letter from Stuart Bingham, dated August 3, 2009 G-101 Letter from Robert Hoberg, dated August 1, 2000 Opposition: (G-200-202) G-200 Letter from Paul Norr, Attorney, dated July 30, 2009 G-201 Photos of View from Neighbor's House, submitted by Andrea Yearsley G-202 Letter from Andrea and William Yearsley, dated August 31, 2009 Reviewed by.- Sustainability y: Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Departmen irector ME LEGAL SERVICES SEP 2 S 2009 & CONSULTATION CITY OF LAKE pSWEG 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 (503) 233-1985 (503) 914-0474 gary@oregonlandlaw.com TEL FAX EMAIL September 28, 2009 DATE RECD_„_.q-g` TIME AZA,,, -- ;— Robyn Christie, City Recorder Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall lake 4swe o City Recorder PO Box 369 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File No. LU 09-0009 One Parcel Lot Legalization Application, Lot Line Adjustment, Tree Removal Applicants: Puterbaugh and Glass NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL to Lake Oswego City Council Dear Ms. Christie: This letter constitutes applicants' - George Puterbaugh, Trustee and George and Mary Glass - Notice of Intent to Appeal to the Lake Oswego City Council. Applicants appeal the City of Lake Oswego's Development Review Commissions' decision to deny the applications. z (Iot legalization, lot line adjustment, variances, and tree removal) in case file No. LU 09-0009: dated 9/21/09. Applicants have standing to appeal and appeared orally and in writing in this proceeding. This appeal is timely. Submitted with this appeal is the required filing fee of 53,914.00. Listed and discussed below are the issues that applicants are appealing. The issues appealed were discussed in applicants' narrative and supplemental narrative statements; by City Staff; and by the Development Review Commission (DRC). Applicants appeal the DRC's decision to deny the single lot legalization application, associated variance application, and tree removal request. Applicants also appeal the commission's decision to deny the lot line adjustment application and associated variance application. The variance requests relate to the fact that the property does not front on a public street, but rather a private street, thus variances to the code's public street frontage requirement are needed. The lot line adjustment and variance requests could not be approved without first legalizing the subject lot. As such, denial of the lot legalization request resulted in a denial of the other applications before you. Despite the adopted findings, the oral hearing record is clear that the DRC incorrectly applied the standard. DRC's denial decision was made without regard to the community development pattern and the established fact that potential single family EXHIBIT A AP 09-04 (.LU 09-0009) development on the Puterbaugh property would be consistent with that pattern. Instead, the DRC's denial was based on the potential impacts to the views through the Puterbaugh property of one property owner — the Yearsleys — that would be caused by a home on the Puterbaugh property. As stated in the initial and supplemental City Staff Report, which are hereby incorporated by reference, applicants have demonstrated compliance with all applicable criteria, by substantial evidence. In denying the lot legalization request in a non -unanimous vote, the DRC interpreted and applied the applicable lot legalization standard in a manner that was contrary to and violates the plain wording and legislative history of the code standard. In addition the development review commission made a decision that was contrary to the legal analysis and factual findings made by Senior Planner, Debra Andreades in conjunction with the Development Director and City Attorney's office. Furthermore, the denial decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The lot legalization standard found in LOC § 50.01.030(3) provides in relevant part: "... an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." Emphasis added. The standard requires the analysis to focus on impacts from "potential development" on the "neighborhood." If the potential development — one single fancily residence — is consistent with the existing community development pattern then the degree of impact cannot be deemed significant and the application should be approved. The legislative history dictates that the standard was intended as a vehicle to approve lots for development, not to deny them. Applicants requested approval to legalize their lot that was created by sale and recordation in 1972, as was customary and prior to the time when the City of Lake Oswego had a partition ordinance. Applicants have owned the property since 1972, paid annual real property taxes at developmental values, paid Lake Corp Fees, and recently contributed in a significant financial manner towards an LID formed to construct area sewer improvements which benefit the community and now make residential use possible on the property. As required by the lot legalization standard, applicants presented a substantial amount of evidence of the potential development — single family residential development; community and neighborhood development patterns; view obstructions typical of the neighborhood, conceptual residential development designs on the subject property; and views of the lake that would remain after development. There is no evidence in the record that demonstrates that a home on the Puterbaugh property would be inconsistent with the existing community development pattern. To the contrary, the evidence in the record demonstrates that neighborhood properties all have view obstructions to the lake, some of which are blocked completely by residential development and E trees. No area property owner enjoys an unobstructed view through the property of another, which is the result of this application denial. The evidence in the record further demonstrates that a home on the Puterbaugh property, in a design and location similar to the one presented to the City, will preserve substantial view corridors to the lake for the Yearsleys to the east of the home, west of the home, and over the home. Based on the evidence before it, City Planning Staff found the lot legalization met all applicable criteria without the need to impose any mitigating conditions. If mitigation was deemed necessary, City Staff proposed two conditions to further mitigate any development impacts; a smaller house (than is customary in the neighborhood) and a house placed along front/rear axis, rather than across the width. To further lessen any impacts, applicants voluntarily proposed additional mitigating conditions of approval such as: building a smaller home than is customary in the neighborhood; limiting the maximum height to 35 -with no height exception to be taken — thereby forgoing a right provided by the code; limiting the height of the garage to 12 to 13 feet to promote view corridors; building a home low on the property —just above the cliff — and into the hillside as much as practicable, thereby reducing the height of the home that could be seen and to promote views to the lake over the home; and building a home with a flat sloping roof, with the low side to the east to promote the Yearlsey's view corridor to the lake through the property. The Development Review Commission rejected the analysis and factual findings of staff, and the analysis and evidence of applicants. In its place, the DRC found the view impacts to one neighbor from one modest sized single family residential development on the Puterbaugh property warranted denial. In doing so, the DRC made a decision not supported by substantial evidence and misapplied and misinterpreted the lot legalization standard. Respectfully, applicants request the decision of the DRC be reversed and the applications be approved as recommended by Staff. Applicants also request the conditions proposed by both Staff and applicants be made conditions of development approval to mitigate any view impacts and ensure compliance with the lot legalization standard. Sincerely, Gary P. Shepherd Oregon Land Law 3115 SE Salmon St. Portland, OR 97214 CC: clients 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Ph pip, nor E[91 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ONE PARCEL PARTITION TO LEGALIZE TAX LOT 1902 AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TAX LOTS 1900 AND 1902 NATURE OF APPLICATION } LU 09-0009-1710 } GEORGE PUTERBAUGH, TRUSTEE, AND GEORGE AND MARY GLASS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER The applicants are requesting approval of the following: Legalization of Tax Lot 1902 • A one -parcel Minor Partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 • A Class 1 variance to the Access Standard [LOC 50.57.0151 for Tax Lot 1902 as part of the partition request. Lot Line Adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 following Legalization of Tax Lot 1902 • A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 • Class 2 variances to the lot width and depth standards for Tax Lot 1902, as part of the lot line adjustment. Tree Removal • Removal of seven trees to accommodate construction of private utilities and driveway to Tax Lot 1902. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and the adjacent vacant parcel to the east (Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 of Tax Map 2 1 E 9CC). HEARINGS The Development Review Commission held public hearings and considered this application at its meetings of August 3, 2009 and September 9, 2009. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A, Citi of Lake Oswego Community Development Code FLOC Chapter 501: LOC 50.01.030(3) LOC 50.08.005 - 50.08.055 LOC 50.21.005 LOC 50.22.030 LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.030 LOC 50.42.005-50.42.030 LOC 50.43.005-50.43.035 LOC 50.47.005-50.47.030 LOC 50.55.005 - 50.55.025 LOC 50.57.005-50.57.035 LOC 50.58.005 - 50.58.035 LOC 50.63.005-50.63.010 LOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.035 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot R-10 Zone Description Vision Clearance Oswego Lake Special Setback Drainage Standard for Minor Development Weak Foundation Soils Hillside Protection Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Parking Standards Access On -Site Circulation, Driveways and Fire Access Roads Lighting Standard Utilities I.0 09-0009-1710 Paee I of 5 EXHIBIT B AP 09-04 (LU 09-0009) 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 LOC 50,68.010-50.68.017 LOC 50.77.005 LOC 50.77.007 LOC 50.79.025 LOC 50.79.040 LOC 50.81.005 - 50.81.020 LOC 50.84.005 LOC 50.87.005 - 50.87.025 Variances Application for Development Burden of Proof Review Criteria for Minor Development Conditions of Approval Review of Minor Development Applications Appeal of Minor Development Decision Compliance with Approved Permit, Modifications B. City of Lake Oswego Tree Chapter (LOC Chapter 55): LOC 55.02.035(1) and (2) Tree Removal in Conjunction with Major or Minor Development Permit LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Type II Permits LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Required LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required C. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Chapter (LOC Chapter 57): LOC 57.06.065 Maximum Shade Point Height Standard D. Historic Preservation Ordinance (LOC Chapter 58) Loc 58.02.145(2) Previous Actions: Minor Development LU 03-0053; SD 9-91/SC 10-91/SDI 1-91/VAR 11-91 (a-c)/HR 4 -91(a -c), AP 91-5-926 AP 91-6-927; AP 91-11-923 CONCLUSION The Development Review Commission concludes that LU 09-0009 does not comply with all applicable criteria. FINDINGS AND REASONS The Development Review Commission incorporates: • The July 24, 2009, Staff Report (with all exhibits attached thereto), with the exception of "Development Restricted on Illegal Lot [LOC 50.01.0301" findings, on pages 5-7; and, • The September 4, 2009, Staff Memorandum, with the exception of "Staff Analysis of the Proposed Development upon the Phantom Bluff Court Development Pattern and Tax Lot 1902- Puterbaugh Parcel" findings on pages 4-5, as support for its decision supplemented by the further findings and conclusion set forth herein. The Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter. Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: At the August 3rd hearing, the Commission heard testimony from Mrs. Yearsley, who owns Tax Lots 2600 and 1800, across the street from Tax Lots 1900 and 1902. She stated her opposition LU 09-0009-1710 Page 2 of 5 to the legalization of Tax Lot 1902 because her view of Oswego Lake would be obstructed and therefore, she contended that the applicants would not meet their burden of showing that the criteria of LOC 50,01.030(3) could be met, The Commission continued the hearing at the request of the applicants so that they could submit additional information such as a cross- section of the hillside and design of potential development, using some method to depict the potential impact of future development on the Yearsley's site, 8 2. Several members of the Commission visited the site and the Yearsley's property with staff, to 9 observe the lake view from various portions of the Yearsley's house, with the proposed 3- 10 dimensional building envelope of the proposed house on Tax Lot 1902 shown by use of 11 balloons. 12 13 3. As indicated in the July 24"' Staff Report, the lot fails to meet the lot dimensional standards 14 because (a) it does not front on a public street; and (b) even if the lot extended to Phantom 15 Bluff, the width of the lot at what would be the building line was not 65' ft wide. (Note: 16 Increasing the width by 16 feet, as noted incorrectly on page 4 of the September 4`h Staff 17 Memo, would not create compliance. As indicated by staff at the September 9`h hearing, 18 increasing the width by 32 feet would create compliance). The Commission•finds, for the 19 reasons stated, below, that the applicants have failed to meet the burden of showing that the 20 Tax Lot 1902 can be legalized under the criteria of LOC 50.01.030(3) — specifically 21 "development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant 22 negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of..., obstruction of views, ... from existing 23 properties..." 24 25 a. The applicants argue that the impact of obstruction of views is to be measured based on the 26 degree of obstruction of view relative to the general neighborhood pattern, Exhibit F-11, 27 page 2-3; Exhibit F-13, page 2-3. The Commission rejects that argument, finding that 28 "obstruction of view" is measured based upon the impact to specific neighbors, for the 29 reasons set forth in the Staff Memo, dated Sept. 4, 2009, pages 1-3. 30 31 b. The Commission finds that although Exhibit F-13 (sub Exhibit 4) was a fairly accurate 32 depiction of the hillside and potential development in general, the evidence submitted by the 33 applicants contained conflicting measurements and did not offer sufficient detail of all four 34 building elevations of a future dwelling on the site. 35 36 c. From what the Commission could determine based on the evidence submitted by the 37 applicants, the Commission finds that the garage portion of the future dwelling could likely 38 result in a significant obstruction of the Yearsley's view of the lake because the garage is 39 placed at the highest point of the site. 40 41 d. From what the Commission could determine based on the evidence submitted by the 42 applicants, the balance of the proposed dwelling would be further back from the front of the 43 lot, and down the slope of the terrain, but it was unclear to what degree the proposed 44 dwelling's roofline would be visible to the side of the garage and above its roofline. From 45 the evidence submitted, the Commission could not find that the applicants have 46 demonstrated that the obstruction of view caused by the proposed dwelling and garage, 47 would not have a "significant negative impact" on the neighboring properties. 48 49 e. The Commission concurs with the analysis contained in the Staff Memo dated Sept, 4, 50 2009, pages 3-4, that although obstruction of view is measured based on the impact to 51 individual neighbors, the measurement of whether the potential obstruction of view is 52 significant, is measured against the expected obstruction of view that would result if LU 09-0009-1710 Page 3 of 5 7 I development occurred consistent with the "existing development pattern in the vicinity." 2 However, the Commission finds that the applicants have not adequately demonstrated the 3 obstruction of view that would likely occur to the Yearsleys if development on the site 4 occurred consistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. Absent 5 demonstration of the impact that development consistent with the development pattern in 6 the vicinity would have on the Yearsleys' view, the Commission cannot determine whether 7 the proposed development on the site would have more, or less impact on views. 8 9 f. The Commission finds that something could be built on the site that would comply with the 10 standards of approval. The Commission discussed whether the standards could be met if a 1.1 condition of approval was imposed to reduce the height of the future dwelling and garage 12 (as the garage would be located on the highest point of the site) from that which is allowed 13 in the zone, and require a shed roof form to lessen the visual impact. Ultimately, however, 14 the applicants' failure to adequately demonstrate the neighborhood pattern of development, 15 the future development's consistency with that pattern, and the impact that would have on 16 the Yearsley's property, precludes the ability of the Commission to specify the parameters 17 of what particular development would meet the approval criteria. The Commission finds 18 that it cannot impose conditions of approval that would assure that the development would 19 conform to the approval criteria because the applicants have not sufficiently shown the 20 expected obstruction of view that would occur if development occurred consistent with the 21 "existing development pattern in the vicinity". 22 23 4. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the applicants have not met the burden of 24 demonstrating that the criteria of LOC 50.01.03 0(3) have been met, as required by LOC 25 50.77.007. 26 27 5. The Commission finds that if the proposed development on the lot met the criteria for 28 legalization, then, as set forth in the July 24`h Staff Report, the lot line adjustment with 29 variance to the access standard, and tree removal would be met. One of the criteria for 30 variance to the access standard is that the variance would not be "materially injurious to 31 properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property." The Commission finds that if the 32 applicants met the criteria for legalization under LOC 50.01.030(3), the lot line adjustment 33 with variance to the access standard would not itself be materially injurious to surrounding 34 property as the measurement of the incremental impact from a legalized lot to a lot line - 35 adjusted lot is similar to the measurement required to show compliance with LOC 36 50.01.030(3). 37 33 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 LU 09-0009-1710 Page 4 of 5 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ORDER IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: LU 09-0009 is denied, DATED this 21st day of September, 2009. Alby Vice- Deve opment Review Commission Janiceeative ds Admin Support III ATTEST: ORAL DECISION — September 9. 2009 AYES: Heredia, Richards, Rossi, Scott NOES: Creighton ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Stadnik and Needham WRITTEN FI_NDINGS —September 21.2009 AYES: Heredia, Richards, Scott and Creighton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Stadnik, Rossi and Needham LU 09-0009-1710 Page 5 of 5 E CALL TO ORDER ?b' � ��r'tt"�.�.�—.cepi , .F� �P/ t City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 Chair Krystyna Stadnik called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of August 3, 2009, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m_ in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chair Krystyna Stadnik; Gregg B, Creighton, Frank Rossi and Peter Scott. Vice Chair Alby Heredia, Bob Needham and Don Richards were not present. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. lll. MINUTES Mr. Creighton moved to approve the Minutes of May 18, 2009. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 2:0. Stadnik and Rossi abstained. Mr. Creighton moved to approve the Minutes of June 15, 2009. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Rossi abstained. Mr. Rossi moved to approve the Minutes of July 6, 2009. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Creighton abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARING LU 09-0017, a request by Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Project for approval of the following: • A conditional Use Permit to construct a sewer pump station in an R-7.5 residential zone. • Delineation of the Resource Conservation and Resource Protection district boundaries. • Establishment of a Resource Conservation Protection Area • A Development Review permit to construct a building to house an electrical generator associated with the sewer pump station • Removal of 20 trees to accommodate the project Location of property: Common Property of Woodside Community Association, adjacent to Bryant Road and Oswego Canal (Tax Lot 2232 of Tax Map 21E 17CB). City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 9 Minutes of August 3, 2009 EXHIBIT C-1 AP 09-04 (LU 09-0009) 11 Chair Stadnik opened the hearing and explained the applicable procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare any bias, ex parte contact or present or potential conflicts of interest. None were declared. The Commissioners stated their employment: Scott (engineering design); Rossi (planning/site coordination); Creighton (architect) and Stadnik (civil engineer). When invited by the chair, no one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the matter. Staff Report Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, presented the staff report (dated July 24, 2009). She advised the site was in the R-7.5 residential zone and within the RC and RP districts. The Sensitive Lands code required an applicant to delineate and protect the most significant half of the RC district on the site in a Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) and protect the canal bank in RC district. But sewer infrastructure was exempted from those requirements. Ms. Andreades reported the proposed structure met site development standards such as setback from the road, lot coverage and height. Because the project was in a residential zone a Conditional Use Permit was necessary and staff found it met the applicable criteria for a permit. She reported the structure conformed to floodplain standards. She said the structure had been designed to appear to be part of the landscape; noise -generating equipment would be buffered; and it would be accessed a few times a week by one maintenance truck. She pointed out the applicant had provided samples of the colors and materials they proposed to use. She recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval and recommended in the staff report. Applicant Joel Komarek, Project Director Lake Osweqo Interceptor Sewer (LOIS) project Tim Brooks, Winterbrook Planning 310 SW 4th Avenue Ste 1100 Portland Oregon 97204, Bobbie Fabian Brown & Caldwell; and Mike Cupp; explained the reasons the City needed to construct a bypass and pump station. They advised that the proposed plan was the most environmentally beneficial option. The applicant had incorporated many of the neighbors' suggestions. Sound from the generator and fan would be buffered, so when they were both operating the noise would not be any louder than today's traffic on Bryant Road. A maintenance truck would visit the site two or three times a week and access it from the side of the site that was farthest away from the nearest residences. The structure would be positioned in the middle of an existing clearing and some of the equipment would be buried so it would not obstruct waters flowing through the floodway part of the site. Most of the trees proposed to be removed were relatively small size and many of them were in poor condition. During the questioning period, the applicant's representatives described the level and direction of illumination, the eco roof; the size and footing of the structure; the colors and materials, and what equipment would be buried under the driveway. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 12 Page 2 of 9 They clarified the Woodside Community Association owned the land, which served as part of their common area, but the City had a utility easement over it. They clarified the structure was about 600 square feet in area. They explained the equipment inside the building would be painted black so it was not very visible through the grills. The fan would be visible through grills when it was installed, but it would not be installed until some future date, They clarified that the building would be about 92 feet from the closest townhouse. Proponents Juanita Parnaky Woodside Community Association, landscape committee chair, testified that the Association supported the proposal, because the applicant had incorporated their suggestions into the project. They had reduced the impacts, saved more trees, and would replace invasive species with native plants and stabilize the bank. Neither for nor against Ingrid Stevens 4248 Woodside Circle, Lake Oswego, wanted assurance that the City would not install any more buildings in the Associations' common area in the future. Rebuttal Komarek explained that he could not predict whether the City might need to place another utility in the utility easement in the future. Boone advised that it was beyond the scope of DRC authority to limit what might be built there in the future. Deliberations No one asked the DRC to hold the record open for additional evidence or testimony. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. The Commissioners observed the project met all the requirements and the applicant had done an outstanding job of ensuring it was what the neighbors wanted and was cleverly camouflaged. Mr. Creighton moved to approve LU 09-0017. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Stadnik announced the final vote would be conducted on August 17, 2009. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 Page 3 of 9 13 LU 09-0009, a request by George Puterbaugh, Trustee; and George and Mary Glass for approval of the following: • A one -parcel partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 • A Class 2 variance to the Access Standard [50.57.015] for Tax Lot 1902 as a part of the partition request. This standard requires every lot to provide a 25 - foot frontage on a public street. Tax Lot 1902 does not have any frontage on a public street and will take access via a private access easement. • A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 • Class 2 variances to the lot width and depth standards for Tax Lot 1902 • Removal of seven trees to construct the necessary infrastructures. Location of property: 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and adjacent vacant lot (Tax Lot 1900 and 1902 of Tax Map 21 E 09CC). Chair Stadnik opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare any bias, ex parte contact, and present or potential future conflicts of interest. None were declared. The Commissioners stated their employment: Scott (engineering design); Rossi (planning/site coordination); Creighton (architect) and Stadnik (civil engineer). When invited by the chair, no one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the matter. Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, presented the staff report (dated July 24, 2009). She referred to the maps and pointed out where Tax Lot 1902 would be accessed via an easement over the Glass property (Tax Lot 1900). She advised that the variance to the requirement to access from a public street could be granted if the proposed access did not create significant impacts on nearby property or the neighborhood. The applicant asked the City to legalize Tax Lot 1902 and then allow a lot line adjustment between theirs and the Glass property. That adjustment would benefit the Glass property because it would bring their historic fireplace structure into compliance with a requirement that it be located at least three feet from the property line. Ms. Andreades advised that both lots could meet R-10 zone requirements. She listed the variance criteria: it would prevent an unnecessary hardship; there would be no injury to the neighborhood; and it was the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship. Staff had found that even if the proposed lot width and depth did not meet the zone requirements, the lot would function the same way as any other lot in the neighborhood. Ms. Andreades related that the Fire Department wanted the existing driveway widened and that could be accomplished. She recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval and recommended in the staff report, which included limiting tree removal to one Black Locust tree to accommodate access. During the questioning period, Ms. Andreades clarified Mr. Puterbaugh owned Tax Lot 1902 and Mr. Glass owned Tax Lot 1900. The proposed lot line was the result of agreement between the two property owners. She did not know if they had formalized an agreement to maintain the private street, but they had completed a formal agreement to maintain a sewer pump station. Mr. Boone advised that property owners who were parties to the mutual access easement City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 14 Page 4 of 9 had a responsibility to maintain it. Ms. Andreades confirmed that staff did not recommend approval of removal of all the trees the applicant asked to remove, because a 24 -inch maple tree near the north property line might not even actually be located on the applicant's property, and they wanted several Douglas fir trees preserved. The Commissioners observed that long, narrow, Tax Lot 1800 had likely been created by predecessor owner Sundeleaf to serve as access from Tax Lot 2600 to the Lake. Applicant Gary Shepherd 3115 SE Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97214, clarified that he represented Puterbaugh in the matter of the lot legalization request and Puterbaugh and Glass in the matter of their lot line adjustment request. He advised that the proposed lot could not comply with access standards and lot width and depth standards because the property did not front on a public street, so staff recommended granting a variance to each standard to address the "hardship" that Phantom Bluff was not a public street. He explained the roadway had been converted from a public street to a private street in 1959, before predecessor owner Sundeleaf had created multiple lots from Lot 42 in the 1960s. Puterbaugh had purchased his property in 1972; Glass had bought lots 1900 and 1905 in 2004 (after a lot legalization request was approved); and the property currently owned by Yearsley (Lot 1800) had been deeded to a Sundeleaf daughter. Mr. Shepherd advised that Puterbaugh Lot 1902 was not a legal lot of record so no use or development was allowed on it. His family had purchased it from Sundeleaf in 1972 using a land sales contract, which had been recorded in 1974. They had believed they owned a legal lot, but the Sundeleafs had overlooked a state requirement that a lot had to take access from the public street. A 1971 request to legalize the Puterbaugh and Glass lots had been approved, but it expired because it had not been recorded. Since the Puterbaughs bought it they had paid property taxes, Lake Corporation dues, and participated with other owners to make street, stormwater and waterline improvements along the roadway. A prior owner of the Glass property had legalized their lots in 2003. Puterbaugh wanted the same approval now so they could finally construct a residence on it. Mr. Shepherd said legislative history showed that LOC 50.01.030(3) was intended to help owners who had believed they bought a legal lot after the state changed the access rules. He advised that a lot could be legalized if doing so would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. He suggested if the Commissioners looked at the existing development pattern in the vicinity they would find that allowing the applicant to build a single family dwelling on their property would have no significant impact. They would just have the same single-family residence as the other houses in that neighborhood. He noted that Yearsley's attorney had written to say it would impact them, but his letter had not discussed the impact on the neighborhood as a whole. Shepherd took the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 Page 5 of 9 15 position that was not a correct application of the standard. He asked the DRC to agree with the staff finding that the impact of potential single-family development on the subject site would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. He said the code did not define "significant" or "neighborhood," but those terms were commonly interpreted to mean "major" or "serious" and "vicinity." He advised the Commissioners to look at whether single-family development fit the existing development pattern in the vicinity. He submitted letters in support of the application. Bonnie Herald, designer, addressed the Yearsley's concern that development on the subject site would impact their property. She said the applicants had not yet fashioned a design, but if their house was at a certain elevation and built to maximum allowable height it would be below the elevation of Phantom Bluff Road and the Yearsley's house. The garage might be at the roadway grade and it could be 18 feet high. The house on the subject site would likely be built into the steep hillside in a similar manner as the Yearsley's house was. Mr. Shepherd explained the proposed lot line adjustment was a mutual exchange of benefits between owners. It would correct a predecessor owner's violation of conditions of approval intended to protect an historic fireplace on the Glass property. It would resolve ambiguous easement agreement language. He noted an opponent had raised two issues: that Puterbaugh and Glass had created a self-imposed "hardship," and what the impact was on the neighborhood. He said the hardship had been created by predecessor owners before Puterbaugh and Glass purchased their properties. He said the property line adjustment was not necessary in order for Puterbaugh to construct a home — it was simply a mutual exchange of benefits between two property owners to resolve access. He pointed out variance standards allowed balancing of interests. Proponents Art Derosia, 16789 Phantom Bluff, testified that only three of the 13 lots on Phantom Bluff had the required street frontage. He recalled Puterbaugh had paid taxes, dues and made a substantial investment in the sewer project along Phantom Bluff. He said Puterbaugh and Glass had actually created the view in contention when they removed all the brush on their properties. He said the lot line adjustment would not affect other owners and would preserve the historic fireplace, which Puterbaugh had once before paid to move. He addressed the trees to be removed. The maple trees were "a dime a dozen." The Black Locust tree was continually dropping branches with long, sharp thorns. He said the impact of a house on the subject site could not be known until it had been designed and he anticipated Puterbaugh and the neighbors could work together to achieve a satisfactory solution. He explained the reason the adjacent property owners had petitioned to have Phantom Bluff vacated as a public street. That was the only way they could stop people from parking there and trespassing across their lots to get to the lake. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 16 Page 6 of 9 Steve Kaer,17110 Cedar Rd., agreed with legalizing the lot and the line adjustment. Opponents Arde Yearsley, 16586 Phantom Bluff (Tax Lot 2600) said she also owned 16570 Phantom Bluff and Tax Lot 1800. She testified she did not object to the lot line adjustment. However, she objected to removing trees and allowing a house to be built on the subject site because that would obstruct her views. She offered photographs marked up to show her "best guess" as to where the new house would be built and how it would impact the lake view from her properties. She clarified it was the "lake" view (not the "sky" view) she was concerned about, because the value of her property depended on the lake view. Without it, the value of her property would decline 25%. When asked, she confirmed that there was a pathway over Lot 1800 that went down to a boathouse on the lake. She announced that a Norway maple tree near the northeast corner that had been proposed for removal was already gone, so it was not an issue any more. It had actually been on her property and been taken down due to disease. She clarified that her property had a "downward view" and whatever design was built on the subject site would impact it: She would see at least the garage and one level of a two-level house. Commissioner Stadnik observed the photographs showed another neighbor's house had a design like that. Mrs. Yearsley explained that neighbor had replaced an existing house, but the applicant would construct a completely new house, directly in front of her property, which would affect her and other neighbors' views. There was no other public testimony. Rebuttal Mr. Shepherd advised the Commissioners the code asked them to look at whether there were impacts to the neighborhood in general. He recalled Yearsley's testimony had focused on impacts to her property. He said the code allowed development that was consistent with neighborhood development. The applicants wanted to enjoy the same rights as all the other owners along Phantom Bluff, including the Glasses, whose property had been legalized years ago. He said the applicant would agree with staff recommendation to only remove of one tree. During the Building Permitting process they would specifically identify what other trees were to be removed or saved. Most of the trees they had proposed to rernove were "scrub" trees, and they intended to save most Douglas fir trees. He said Yearsley's photographs were not much help, but the applicant's designer had depicted the "worst case scenario" of what the house on the subject site might look like: a 35 -foot high home built into the hillside and below street grade with a garage at the maximum allowable height of 18 feet. He said the Yearsleys house was well above street grade. He said if there were any, the applicant would mitigate impacts to the hillside. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 Page 7of9 17 Deliberations Mrs. Yearsley requested that the record be held open to provide additional evidence or testimony. The Commissioners wanted to know if the DRC could approve the application subject to conditions of approval related to the design of the development. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to decide the application based on the evidence. If they determined there was insufficient evidence to show that the application met the burden of proof they could deny it or continue it to give the applicant more time to provide evidence. If they decided to fashion conditions of approval related to the design they should offer specific, clear and objective guidelines, so the applicant would know what kind of a design would meet them and staff would know how to review them. Staff said the Commissioners could apply conditions of approval intended to mitigate development impact on the neighborhood. For example, they could limit the height of the ridgeline; require it to be oriented a certain direction, and prohibit the applicant from using the height exceptions in the code. Staff and the Commissioners considered ways to demonstrate what the development would look like - specifically how high it would be. Some suggestions were to attach balloons that floated at the elevation of the roof; paint the trees at that elevation, - and superimpose the building on photographs. Mr. Boone advised it was up to the applicant to determine the method to use. The Commissioners talked about visiting the site to assess views and heights. Mr. Boone advised that was ex parte contact that would have to be declared and described at the subsequent hearing. He suggested the applicant determine some appropriate times with the Yearsleys and let staff know, so they could coordinate the Commissioners' visits. Mr. Shepherd said the applicant had already provided a cross section to show height of the house would be below the street grade. He observed that the Commissioners were not focusing on the impact on a neighborhood as the code required — they were focusing on the impact on an individual property. But if the Commissioners wanted additional evidence for the record he would arrange for it. He asked if there was to be another public hearing. Ms. Stadnik observed the Commissioners were leaning toward continuing to another hearing. Mr. Shepherd asked for a few minutes to talk with his design consultant. When he returned he said the applicant would do his best to represent that the potential development on the site would not significantly adversely impact the neighborhood. He agreed to have it ready by August 26th. Ms. Stadnik asked when the Commissioners could go out to see the site. When asked, Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners not to go as a group. Mr. Shepherd asked how such site visits were controlled. Mr. Boone suggested he work out possible viewing times with the Yearsleys because the view issue was the view from their house. Then staff would let the Commissioners know and they could each come out for an hour. Staff said ideally, there should be no conversation with the neighbors and the Commissioners should just look and leave. But if they had questions they should ensure both the applicant and the Yearsleys heard what was asked as well as the answer. At the next hearing they should declare it as an ex parte contact. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 18 Page 8 of 9 The public hearing was continued to September 9, 2009, for written evidence only. New material was to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. August 26, 2009, and rebuttal was to be submitted by September 1, 2009, 5:00 p.m. V. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Materials change request The DRC had approved a permit for two commercial buildings at Boones Ferry Road and Madrona Street in 2006 (LU 06-0019). Condition C(8)(b) called for use of real stone unless the applicant successfully demonstrated to the DRC that cultured stone would be acceptable. The applicant had asked to show the DRC a sample of cultured stone they wanted to use. Mr. Creighton declared for the record that the applicant was using a structure he had designed as an example. The applicant reported he had found using real stone would make the building too expensive to lease in the current market. He showed pictures of and asked to be allowed to use EI Dorado cultured stone. He said it would be grouted so it had an old fashioned, Tuscan look to it. He anticipated he would come back again to ask to be allowed to use a different roofing material too. He indicated that the examples of how the stone was applied showed how it could be appropriately applied around windows. Ms. Stadnik recalled the architect on the DRC at the time of the original approval had been against using cultured stone, and that the Commission wanted to see real examples of the proposed stone, not just pictures. The applicant said since then there had been dramatic improvement in the quality of cultured stone. Mr. Pishvaie recalled the DRC wanted to see quality buildings on the site because it served as the entry to the West Lake Grove Design District. He advised that cost was not a factor the DRC could consider in making the decision. The Commissioners wanted to see an example of how real stone would look so they could compare it to the cultured stone the applicant proposed. The applicant agreed to come back again with that, but he clarified that he could not afford to use real stone. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Stadnik adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds Administrative Support L\dre\minutes\August 3. 2009.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 3, 2009 Page 9 of 9 19 CALL TO ORDER l l ' {S b < k < tri �i.Fs ��,���f} fkk� Ff •i City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 Vice Chair Alby Heredia called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of September 9, 2009 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chair Alby Heredia, Gregg B. Creighton, Don Richards, Peter Scott and Frank Rossi. Chair Krystyna Stadnik and Bob Needham were not present. Staff present: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES (None) IV. PUBLIC HEARING LU 09-0009, a request by George Puterbaugh, Trustee, and George and Mary Glass for approval of the following: • A one -parcel partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 • A Class 2 variance to the Access Standard [50.57.016] for Tax Lot 1902 as a part of the partition request. This standard requires every lot to provide a 25 - foot frontage on a public street. Tax Lot 1902 does not have any frontage on a public street and will take access via a private access easement • A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 • Class 2 variances to the lot width and depth standards for Tax Lot 1902 • Removal of seven trees to construct the necessary infrastructures Location of property: 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and adjacent vacant lot (Tax Lot 1900 and 1902 of Tax Map 21 E 09CC). Continued from August 3, 2009. Vice Chair Heredia opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact, bias or conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Heredia, Creighton, Scott and Richards each reported they had made a site visit and visited the Yearsley's property. Heredia and Richards each reported they had listened to the audio recording of the previous hearing. Each of the Commissioners present declared his business or occupation as follows: Creighton (architect); Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); Rossi (architectural drafter and designer); and Scott (engineering/design). When invited by the Vice Chair no one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. EXHIBIT C-2 AP 09-04 (LU 09-G009) 1 Debra Andreades, Senior Planner presented the staff report (dated July 24, 2009 and Staff Memorandum dated September 4, 2009). She recalled the issue still to be resolved was that neighbors objected to legalizing Tax Lot 1902 — which did not meet the legal lot width requirement - because development on it would obstruct their view. The code allowed such a lot to be legalized if that would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. The opponents argued obstruction of their view was a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the Commissioners look at the existing development pattern in the vicinity and the view from specific properties to determine the degree of impact. Staff had arranged the site visits and visits to the Yearsley's property so the Commissioners could get an idea of how much of neighbors' views would be obstructed by potential development on the site. Staff memorandum reported that the existing, general pattern of development along Phantom Bluff Court was large houses on large lots, with houses spread across the lot width. Staff also found there were many trees in the neighborhood that generally compromised the view of the lake of residents on the soutK side of Phantom Bluff Court. The next issue was whether the proposed development on the site would obstruct views more than what would be expected if the site was conforming to the zone requirement. (Maps A and B). Staff found that if the subject lot was of similar width and size as other lots in the neighborhood and developed in a similar way, development on the site would create a greater obstruction of the Yearsley's view. They also found that if the lot were reconfigured so it fanned out in front and the lot frontage met the code requirement, but the rest of the lot was not changed and the proposed development on it was not changed, there would be no review to build on it. Staff concluded that the current lot configuration and proposed site plan - with the deficient lot width — created a lesser degree of view obstruction than if the lot were similar to the other lots in the neighborhood and development was spread across the lot width. They recommended approval of the application. During the questioning period, staff corrected the Staff Memorandum to read that the site lot would have to be widened about 32 feet at the front building line in order to meet the zone requirement of 65 feet. They clarified that if the entire lot were widened to conform to the neighborhood pattern, they would expect the future house to be spread across the width. But they advised that it would only be necessary to fan out the current lot shape toward the street so the lot width met the code to be able to build the same development form the applicants anticipated without the need for a review. They clarified they were talking about "virtual" lot width, because Phantom Bluff Court was not a public street. Gary Shepherd stated that the applicants waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2009 22 Page 2 of 7 Deliberations Staff advised the maximum height allowed was 35 feet and the code allowed certain exceptions to height that could be up to six feet higher. When asked, they confirmed that the DRC could apply conditions of approval that reduced allowable height and eliminated the ability to use the exceptions if they found that was necessary to make the future house consistent with the neighborhood pattern of development. Mr. Heredia observed those conditions could mitigate the impact on the neighborhood The Commissioners noted that although Mr. Shepherd's September 1, 2009, letter talked about potentially building the house into the hillside if subsurface conditions permitted, no evidence had been submitted to show that was possible. Staff advised the Commissioners that they did not necessarily have to have the geotechnical information. They could impose conditions that controlled the height of or placement of the structures if they thought that would have less impact on the neighborhood (result in less obstruction of views) than the proposed plan. That would leave it to the applicant to find out when they started grading if they could meet those conditions. Ms. Andreades advised the code related side yard setbacks to allowable height. For example, if the garage were over 18 feet high it would have to be farther from the side lines than if it were less than 18 feet high. The Commissioners observed Mr. Shepherd's September 1, 2009, letter said they proposed to build a 10 to 12 foot tali garage and use a sloping roof that would increase the Yearsley's view corridor. The letter said they estimated the basement of the house could rest on basalt rock that they expected to be about seven feet from the ground surface. But the Commissioners were not sure the renderings the applicant offered were accurate enough to assess the impact. When asked, Ms. Andreades recalled there had been some balloons placed to show where the proposed garage would be, but she could not confirm they had been set at 18 feet. Mr. Heredia observed the August 31, 2009 letter from the Yearsleys indicated they would be satisfied if the house was limited to a single -level with a basement and did not exceed 15-18 feet height. Mr. Creighton observed that Shepherd's letter related that the applicants were willing to agree to remove the possibility of using height exceptions and they would agree to garage height of 10 — 12 feet. He advised that 12 -foot height would be more "workable" than 10 feet, so he recommended a 12 -foot limit. He confirmed that the roof could be shaped in a manner that created a view corridor from the Yearsley's lot. The Commissioners then considered the relationship of the house and garage. Mr. Creighton advised that even if the garage were limited to 12 feet, the house would stick up farther than the garage and become the primary view -blocking element. The Commissioners examined Exhibit E-9, Existing Ground Profile. They asked staff how they might craft a condition that set the maximum height at the front of the lot at 12 feet (that was the maximum height of the garage) and limited the height of the house behind and downslope to the garage's highest City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 7 23 elevation. Staff advised a surveyor could find what that elevation was and it could be used as the maximum elevation for the house and garage; or, the Commissioners could adjust and specify maximum allowable height at different points down the slope. The Commissioners tried to interpret and compare the graphic exhibits showing the structures on the slope that the applicant had provided. They wondered if there was any reason the house could not be positioned further downslope, towards the lake. Staff observed the slope got even steeper closer to the lake. Mr. Heredia commented that the applicant could have provided clearer evidence that would have made the decision easier. He suggested the Commissioners stop trying to look for alternatives that might solve the building placement issue for the applicant and focus on the primary objective to determine if the design that had been presented significantly impacted the neighbors' view. Mr. Heredia said he believed the design that had been presented would be a significant impact to the neighbors' view. Mr. Creighton disagreed. He recalled neighbor's overall view was much larger scope than just the view down Tax Lot 1902. He said because of the topography of the site, any structure on it would impede neighbor's view and they would not be able to see the shoreline. He believed the structure the applicant depicted together with conditions of approval that eliminated use of height exceptions and limited the height of the garage would help. The neighbors would have a view over their access easement to the lake. Mr. Rossi agreed the conditions of approval should allow no height exceptions; limit the house height to 35 feet; and limit garage height to 12 feet. He said the DRC should not approve removal of any trees on the site because there had been no evidence provided that showed any had to be removed. Mr. Richards related that he had visited the site that day. As he stood close to the Yearsley's house he had estimated that a 12 -foot high garage would likely be too high for them to see over. That was "significant impact." Based on the renderings he had seen, it would change some views for the entire neighborhood, but it was especially significant impact on the Yearsleys' main view. He believed that some other development design could be built on the site that would not obstruct their view as much. He said he had hoped the applicant would offer better evidence than the crude renderings and survey they had provided, but what they had provided still gave him a rough idea of the view. He noted they had provided submittals with conflicting information. When Mr. Heredia asked, Mr. Creighton said if the topography shown in the exhibits was correct, there was potential to build the house farther into the hillside and put the entry to the house a full story below the garage elevation. When the Commissioners asked, Ms. Andreades explained that the code specified that height in a cut area was measured from the cut grade and height in a filled area was measured from the original grade. Mr. Creighton said his opinion was the renderings showing the potential views from the Yearsley's home that were attached to Gary Shepherd's August 25th letter as Exhibit 2, were fairly accurate representations of the impact on their views that he envisioned as he stood in the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2009 24 Page 4 of 7 Yearsley's upper patio. There was still a view of part of the lake. Mr. Richards recalled he found the view from inside the Yearsley's house would be impacted even more. Mr. Heredia recalled the farther south one walked in the house the worse the impact would be. Mr. Heredia then recessed the public hearing for a few minutes to allow Mr. Shepherd to consult with his clients. He and the other Commissioners continued with the General Planning part of the agenda (see below) before reconvening the hearing. Mr. Shepherd then came forward and offered to answer questions if the Commissioners were confused about what the Exhibits showed. The Commissioners were reluctant to reopen the hearing for that because it would require them to reopen it to anyone else who wanted to respond. Shepherd then stated that the applicant wanted the DRC to make their decision that evening. The Commissioners re-examined the slope profile exhibits. Mr. Heredia pointed out the applicants had already proposed where the building envelope was to be so the Commissioners should determine if that significantly impacted the view instead of looking for alternative locations. Mr. Boone agreed they should look at the site design the applicant had submitted. If they found it significantly impacted the view then they could consider whether there could be conditions of approval that could lessen the impact. Mr. Heredia observed that eliminating the second floor of the house would substantially improve the view if the garage were not in the way. He related that he was leaning toward denial. Mr. Creighton indicated he felt there might be a design solution that would reduce impacts, but the inconsistency of evidence was a problem. Mr. Rossi indicated he could approve the application subject to conditions of approval that removed the exceptions to height and limited the house to 35 feet and the garage to 12 feet. Mr. Creighton saw an aesthetics - related issue that when someone looked down from Phantom Bluff Court he/she saw the mass of the garage and the house roof behind it. He suggested eliminating the height exceptions and reducing the allowable height of the house to 32 feet. He said that would address impacts better than any adjustment to the garage. He said he agreed that the angular garage roof improved the view corridor. Mr. Heredia said removing the second floor would result in a big improvement in view. Mr. Richards said he was uncomfortable applying an arbitrary height limit and assuming that would lessen the significance of the view obstruction. He was more inclined to deny the application. When asked, Mr. Boone advised the DRC could not legalize a lot unless they found the proposed development on it would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Mr. Creighton wanted to ask the applicant to present the Commissioners with a more accurate depiction of what the development would look like. But Mr. Boone recalled the applicant wanted the DRC to make a decision based on the evidence they had already submitted. If the DRC denied the application they could file a new one, or appeal the DRC decision to the City Council. Mr. Heredia observed that he and Richards were uncomfortable City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2009 Page 5 of 7 25 second-guessing and figuring out alternatives. He said he had no idea whether any height restrictions the DRC imposed would accomplish the goal of minimizing the impact on the view. Mr. Creighton moved to approve LU 09-0009 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by the staff and conditions of approval that the applicant had indicated they could agree including the removal of height exceptions and limited garage height. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it failed 2:3. Richards, Scott and Heredia voted against. Mr. Richards moved to deny LU 09-0009. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 4:1. Mr. Creighton voted against. Mr. Heredia announced the final vote would be held on September 21, 2009. LU 09-0007, an appeal by Michael and Lori Gilroy of Planning Director's approval of a request by Don and Kelly McMahon for six Class 1 variances to construct a new single family dwelling: • A 5 -foot reduction of required 25 -foot front yard setback to 20 feet; • A variable 3 -foot reduction to the required 30 -foot rear yard setback to 27 feet for a portion of a covered rear porch; • A 3 -toot reduction to the required 15 -foot combined total side yard setbacks (for portions of the structure < 18' in height) to a combined total of 12 feet for both sides with a minimum of 5 feet on the east side, • Two 2 -foot reductions to the required 10 -foot side yard setbacks (for portions of the structure >18' in height); and, • A 15% increase (or 222.5 sq. ft.) to the maximum allowed lot coverage for a total of 1,895 sq. ft. Location of property: 4423 West Bay Road (Tax Lot 1500 of Tax Map 21 E 171313). Staff reported that both the applicant and appellants had asked the DRC to continue this hearing for two weeks to Monday, September 21 2009. V. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS LU 06-0019, request to change approved materials Ralph Tahran, architect, and Steve Kaer, property owner, returned to the DRC to offer a sample of the manufactured stone they wanted to use. Ms. Andreades recalled that the DRC had conditioned approval of this commercial development on use of real stone, but the conditions of approval offered the applicant the possibility of using cultured stone instead if the DRC agreed to the quality and the manner in which the material met the windows, The applicant explained the project budget precluded using real stone. The cultured EI Dorado stone they wanted to use had been used on a number of Lake Oswego buildings and it was City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2009 Page 6 of 7 hard to tell the difference between that and real stone. They submitted a small sample of EI Dorado, Veneto Field Ledge, stones and showed a picture of what it looked like on a full grout panel. Staff advised that the original conditions of approval established the approved colors and staff was to ensure the color of the stone material was compatible. Mr. Creighton advised that he used cultured stone because it looked natural, but did not have the flaws that stood out when natural stones were put together. He also advised that the terms, "Cultured," and "EI Dorado," described specific manufacturers. Tahran confirmed EI Dorado, Field Ledge stone came in other hues besides Veneto Field Ledge. Mr. Creighton moved to approve the use of EI Dorado stone in the Field Ledge style in a color that was consistent with the original conditions of approval. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous 5:0. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Vice Chair Heredia adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .�10-nice Reynolds Administrative Support L\DRC\minutes\September 9, 2009.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2009 Page 7 of 7 27 I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 21, 2009 Vice -Chair Heredia called the Development Review Commission meeting of September 21, 2009, to order at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Work Room of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chair Alby Heredia, Commissioners Don Richards, Gregg B. Creighton and Peter Scott. Commissioners Chair Krystyna Stadnik, Frank Rossi, and Bob Needham werc not present. Staff present: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, and Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney. III. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 09-0009, Commissioner Creighton moved to approve the findings. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. IV. ADJOURNMENT Therc being no further business Vice -Chair Heredia adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, `Janice Reynolds 1J Administrative Support Citv of Lake Oswep Development Review Commission Minutes of Scpteinber'_2, 2009 Pave I of 1 EXHIBIT C-3 AP 09-04 (LU 09-00029 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANTS: George Puterbaugh, Trustee, and George and Mary Glass TAX LOT REFERENCE Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 of Tax Map 21 E9 CC LOCATION: 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and adjacent vacant parcel to the east COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: ZONING DESIGNATION: I. APPLICANTS' REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of the following: FILE NO: LU 09-0009 STAFF: Debra Andreades DATE OF REPORT: July 24, 2009 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Palisades 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: October 28, 2009 Legalization of Tax Lot 1902 • A one -parcel Minor Partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 • A Class 1 variance to the Access Standard [LOC 50.57.0151 for Tax Lot 1902 as part of the partition request. Lot Line Adjustment of Tax Lots 1900 and 1902, following Legalization of Tax Lot 1902 • A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 • Class 2 variances to the lot width and depth standards for Tax Lot 1902, as part of the lot line adj ustment. Tree Removal • Removal of seven trees to accommodate construction of private utilities and driveway to Tax Lot 1902, II. RECOMMENDATION Approval, with conditions; only Tree No. 18 is recommended to be approved for removal. The complete listing of conditions is provided on Pages 20 through 23 of this renort. LU 09-0009 EXHIBIT D-1 Page I of 24 AP 09-04 (LU 09-0009) 31 III IV. 32 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code [LOC Chapter 501: I'? C IC E LOC 50.01.030(3) LOC 50.08.005 - 50.08.055 LOC 50.21.005 LOC 50.22.030 LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.030 LOC 50.42.005-50.42.030 LOC 50.43.005-50.43.035 LOC 50.47.005-50.47.030 LOC 50.55.005 - 50.55.025 LOC 50.57.005-50.57.035 LOC 50.58.005 - 50.58.035 LOC 50.63.005-50.63.010 LOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.035 LOC 50.68.010-50.68.017 LOC 50.77.005 LOC 50.77.007 LOC 50.79.025 LOC 50.79.040 LOC 50.81.005 - 50.81.020 LOC 50.84.005 LOC 50.87.005 - 50.87.025 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot R-10 Zone Description Vision Clearance Oswego Lake Special Setback Drainage Standard for Minor Development Weak Foundation Soils Hillside Protection Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Parking Standards Access On -Site Circulation, Driveways and Fire Access Roads Lighting Standard Utilities Variances Application for Development Burden of Proof Review Criteria for Minor Development Conditions of Approval Review of Minor Development Applications Appeal of Minor Development Decision Compliance with Approved Pen -nit, Modifications City of Lake Oswego Tree Chapter (LOC Chapter 55): LOC 55.02.035(1) and (2) Tree Removal in Conjunction with Major or Minor Development Permit LOC 55,02.080 Criteria for Type II Permits LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Required LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Chapter (LOC Chapter 57): LOC 57.06.065 Maximum Shade Point Height Standard Historic Preservation Ordinance (LOC Chapter 58) LOC 58.02.145(2) Previous Actions: Minor Development LU 03-0053; SD 9-911SC 10-91ISD11-91 NAR 11-91 (a-c)/HR4-91(a-c), AP 91-5-926 AP 91-6-927; AP 91-11-923; BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS Although the subject application involves only Tax Lots 1900 and 1902, a summary of the history of Tax Lots 1800 and 2600 (Mills), 1900 (Guenther), 1902 (Puterbaugh) and 1905 (Wright/Kamerman) is necessary because four of them were created illegally from the parent parcel, Lot 42 of the unrecorded Plat of Palisades. LU 09-0009 Page 2 of 24 • All of the tax lots were originally part of the Richard Sundeleaf estate. Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902, and 1905 were created by deed between 1965 and 1988 (Tax Lot 1902 in 1972, Exhibit F-7). Each was divided from the parent parcel in violation of the zoning requirements in effect at the time of creation and/or without the required City approval. Tax Lot 2600, which is located across Phantom Bluff Court to the southeast of the other tax lots, was created lawfully prior to 1965. • Tax Lot 1900 contains the Richard Sundeleaf house, which is listed on the City's Landmark Designation List. • In 1991, the property owners applied to remedy the improper creation of the four tax lots. This included a lot line adjustment (SD 9-91), and subsequent minor partition of Tract 2 (Tax Lots 1900, 1902, and 1905) created by SD 9-91 to legalize these three lots. [SD 10-91/VAR 1 1 -91(a -c) and HR 4-91(b)]. The request included variances to the access standard and to lot width. • The property line adjustment and variance applications (SD 9-91) were approved by the Development Review Commission, but the proposed partition (SD 10-91) was not approved. The decision was appealed to City Council, which approved both applications. • The property line adjustment and partition plat were never recorded. Therefore, the approvals of SD 9-91 and SD 10-91- expired and are void. • In 2003, Tax Lots 1900 and 1905 (Kamerman) requested and obtained approval of a 2 - parcel partition (LU 03-0053) under LOC 50.01.030 to legalize these two lots. That plat was subsequently recorded. Both tax lots that are the subject of this request abut Oswego Lake to the north, and are located along Phantom Bluff Court, a private local street (Exhibit E-22). The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners lawfully vacated Phantom Bluff Court in 1959 (Exhibit F-5). Phantom Bluff Court subsequently became a "mutual easement" for road purposes upon the recording of a document to that effect in Book 558, page 784. Clackamas County deed records. Both properties contain very steep slopes along Oswego Lake (Exhibit E-3), and large cedar, Douglas '6r, maple and ash trees cover the site. The site is zoned R-10, as are all of the properties surrounding the site (Exhibit E-2), all of which are developed with single family homes. V. PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICANT'S BURDEN OF PROOF A. Burden of Proof: Per LOC 50.77.007, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicants have provided evidence to enable staff to perform a thorough evaluation to determine compliance with applicable criteria, listed on page 2 of this report. These documents are listed as exhibits that accompany this report. B. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicants have complied with neighborhood notification and meeting requirements pursuant to LOC 50.81.010. A neighborhood meeting was held with affected neighborhood associations and property owners/residents, and the minutes are attached as Exhibit F-10. C. Public Notice to Surroundine Area The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on this LU 09-0009 Page 3 of 24 33 34 application as required by LOC 50.82.020. No comments were received during the comment period. VT. LOC 50.79.020 - Minor Development A. Classification of Application The first part of this application involves the partition legalization of Tax Lot 1902. LOC 50.79.020(2) (h) and (p) defines partitions as minor developments. Per LOC 50.01.030(3), the application for legalization of a lot that has a dimension which is less than 65% of the requirement at the time of application (as is the case for Tax Lot 1902 which technically has a lot width of 0 feet because it is not located on a public street) is referred to the Development Review Commision for public hearing, A Class l access variance to the 25 -foot lot frontage requirement also is classified as a minor development. The second part of this application involves the lot line adjustment of Tax Lot 1902 (once legalized) and Tax Lot 1900. LOC 50.79.010(2) (d) defines a lot line adjustment as ministerial; however, the lot line adjustment requires two Class 2 variances (to the lot width and lot depth standards) because the resulting Tax Lot 1902 would not meet the zone requirements for lot width and lot depth because, again, it does not front on a public street. Class 2 variances are classified as minor development, LOC 50.79.020(2)(p). B. Criteria for Review of Application According to LOC 50.79.025, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: PARTITION Note: references to "applicant" in this Partition section refer to applicant Puterbaugh (Tax Lot 1902) only. 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; R-10 Zone Description (LOC 50.08.010-50.08.0401 The minimum lot area in the R-10 zone (low density residential) is 10,000 square feet. As indicated on Exhibit E-4,Tax Lot 1902 has approximately 13,461 square feet, complying with the minimum lot size. The minimum lot depth for the zone is 100 feet. "Lot depth" is defined as horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line. "Lot Line, Front" is the lot line separating the lot from the street. "Street" is the entirc width between the right-of- way lines of a public wary capable of providing the principal means of access to abutting property. LOC 50.02.005. Since Tax Lot 1902 does not front on a public street, it technically has no "lot depth". However, the distance between the lot line closest to Phantom Bluff Court and the lot line farthest from Phantom Bluff Court, its "functional lot depth," is approximately 245 feet. The minimum lot width in the R-10 zone is 65 feet. "Lot Width" is the width of the lot as measured at the front setback 1 ine. The "front setback line" is the boundary of the front yard. A front yard is a yard, the front of which is the front lot line measuring at right angles toward the building the required distance. As noted above, a front lot line is the lot line separating the lot from a public way/street, LOC 50.02.005. Since Tax Lot 1902 does not front on a public street, it technically has no "lot width." However, the distance between the two lot lines perpendicular LU 09-0009 Page 4 of 24 to Phantom Bluff Court, at 25 feet back from the lot line nearest Phantom Bluff Court, its "functional lot width," is 33 feet. Development Restricted on Illegal Lot [LOC 50.01.0301 An illegally created lot may be exempted from compliance with the lot width and lot depth dimensional requirements pursuant to LOC 50.01.030. (Although the owner of Tax Lot 1902 was part of a partition application to legalize the lot in 1991, the approved plat was never recorded. Therefore, Tax Lot 1902 remained an illegal lot.) This application for approval of the partition of one lot from a four lot illegal (serial) partition is filed pursuant to LOC 50.01.030 and ORS 92.177. By act of the Legislature, resulting primarily from cases arising out of West Linn] and Lake Oswego2, a "single lot partition" application and review is permitted, in that the owner of one or more of the lots involved in an illegal partition may seek "legalization" of illegally created lot(s), without the other lots in the illegal partition being made a part of the partition application. In a request to legalize a lot by a single lot partition, the lot may be exempt from compliance with lot dimensional requirements if, per LOC 50.01.030(3), the applicant can demonstrate that creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise, scale, traffic, parking and loss of -privacy, obstruction of views or buffers from existing properties. The applicant states that although the lot exceeds the minimum lot size, the configuration of the lot and compliance with the required setbacks (imposed as conditions of approval to mimic Phantom Bluff Court as a "street" for purposes of determining setback requirements) will result in a future house that is modest in size in relation to other homes in the neighborhood (Exhibit E-6) and will therefore not have a negative impact in terms of scale. The lot could not be further divided and would not support more than one single family residence; therefore, noise, traffic and parking impacts will be no more than what is expected from any single family residence in the neighborhood. However, a new dwelling on the site will add additional traffic to the site. To ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, the driveway should comply with the Vision Clearance standard which is typically applicable to partitions but is not applicable in this case because Phantom Bluff Court is a private street (discussed, below). As a condition of approval, where the driveway meets Phantom Bluff Court shall comply with the Vision Clearance standard as if it were a driveway entering a public street. With regard to obstruction of views, the location of the future building footprint will not obstruct views to the lake as the property is located at a significantly lower elevation than those across Phantom Bluff Court. The future stnicture will also have a sufficient buffer from adjacent properties. The existing home on Tax Lot 1900 to the west is 65 feet from the future structure (Exhibit E-3). To the east of Tax Lot 1902, is Tax Lot 1800 which is not a buildable lot but provides a pathway and access to the lake for Tax Lot 2600 located across Phantom Bluff Court on the hillside above (Exhibit E-1). Therefore, Tax Lot 1800 provides a buffer in addition to the required setbacks, from Tax Lot 1700. Staff finds that the potential development that could occur as a result of the legalization of Tax Lot 1902 is consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood and therefore Tax Lot 1902 may be exempt from compliance with the minimum lot width for the zone, provided the zone setback requirements are imposed as conditions of ! In Kilian v. City of West Linn, 88 Or.App. 242, 744 Ptd 1314 (1987), the court held that under the existing statutes one remnant parcel holder could hold hostage another remnant parcel holder, who did not wish the first parcel to be developed, by declining to participate in a partition application, because the partition application had to involve all of the lots within the illegal partition. 2 Ward v. Cite of Lake Oswego, 20 Or LUBA 470 (1991)(illegally created lot does not become "buildable" due to passage of time). LU 09-0009 Page 5 of 24 35 approval on the lot's "functional" front, rear, and side yards and the distance between the side lot lines is not reduced below 33 feet at the point shown in the map, below. 0=0 A MT OF PAA A PORMN OF I07 M7MX 31 CW The R-10 zone setbacks in effect at the time of building permit review shall be measured as follows: i. The front yard distance shall be measured from the lot line that abuts Phantom Bluff Court, which shall be considered the front lot line. ii. The rear yard distance shall be measured from the lot line that abuts Oswego Lake, which shall be considered the rear lot line. iii. All other lot lines shall be considered side lot lines. The height, lot coverage, FAR and design standards of the R-10 zone in effect at the time of building permit review will apply to Tax Lot 1902, as well. Staff notes that Tax Lot 1902, appears to be a flag lot because it is a lot located behind another lot, does not have frontage on a public street and takes its access from an access easement. However, it does not meet the technical definition of flag lot because its parent parcel did not have street frontage either: Flap, Lot. A lot located behind another lot that has normal street frontage, and where access is provided to the rear lot via a narrow "flag pole" (i.e. driveway), or where access is provided via an easement. There are two distinct parts of a flag lot; the flag which comprises the actual building site located behind another lot, and the pole which provides access from the street to the flag. A flag lot results from the division of a large lot with the required area and depth for more than one lot, but which has insufficient width to locate all lots on the street frontage. Nevertheless, in considering whether a lot shall be legalized under LOC 50.01.030, the reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval to assure that the lot is compatible to the surrounding area. Again, one would consider imposing the flag lot standards as conditions of approval to the lot because of the functional equivalency of the lot to flag lots. However, the nature of the site presents a unique situation which does not require the imposition of flag lot standards to assure compatibility to the neighborhood. There are 15 lots that take access off of the same access easement -Phantom Bluff Court, and only two of which have frontage on South Shore Blvd. (a public street). Because Phantom Bluff Court functions like a street rather than an easement despite its substandard dimensions, the lots that take access from it function like LU 09-0009, Page 6 of 24 36 regular lots rather than flag lots. The functional size, width, depth, and topography of the lot relative to the surrounding neighborhood obviate the necessity of imposing the flag lot standards as conditions of approval to assure compatibility with the neighborhood. Vision Clearance [LOC 50.21.0051 This standard requires that a "vision clearance triangle" — formed where a driveway joins a street—not be obstructed by a sign, fence, hedge, shrubbery, natural growth or other obstruction higher than 30 inches above the level of the centerline of the adjacent pavement. As illustrated on Exhibit E-3, Tax Lot 1902 has access to Phantom Bluff Court, a private street (Exhibits F-6 through F-8) and therefore there is no required vision clearance triangle standard applicable to the point of the driveway intersecting with Phantom Bluff Court, LOC 50.21.005(2)(b). This standard is not applicable. However, this standard will be applied functionally as discussed above under LOC 50.01.030. Oswego Lake Special Setback [LOC 50.22.0301 Except for a boathouse and certain other structures, a building shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of parcels that abut Oswego Lake, its bays and canals. Exhibit E-6 indicates that a future dwelling can be located that more than exceeds the required setback. Compliance with this standard will be assured during the building permit review process. This standard can be met. 2. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; Drainage Standard for Minor Development - [50.40.005-.030] This standard requires drainage improvements to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely impact surrounding properties. The determination of whether the drainage management measures comply with the requirements of this standard is under the authority of the City Engineer. To meet the requirements of this standard, all drainage management measures should be prepared by a registered engineer to meet City standards and specification, and these "plans must be approved by the City Engineer", (LOC 50.40.015). Acceptable drainage management measures include: french drains, porous pavement, precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, grass lined channels, dry wells, seepage ditches, and detention areas. The applicant states that all surface water on properties in the vicinity drain towards the lake. The applicant's geotechnical report (Exhibit F-4), states that no site drainage should be discharged onto the on-site slopes, therefore, a pipeline down to the lake is the only option. The applicant has also submitted a letter from the Lake Corporation that indicates satisfaction that stormwater run-off of any future development can be accommodated (Exhibit F-9). Although no development is proposed as part of this request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the applicant's request and agrees with the approach. Compliance will be assured during building permit review. Weak Foundation Soils [LOC 50.42.005-50.42.0301 City maps indicated that the site is in a slide area although there are no weak soils. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (Exhibit F-4), which states that the site can support residential development. This standard is met. Hillside Protection [LOC 50.43.005-50.43.0351 This standard applies to all development on hillsides or areas with erosion potential and requires that development on hillsides be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, LU 09-0009 Page 7 of 24 37 vegetation, and soils. The rear portion of the site is well over 20% slope (Exhibit E-3) and the site is located in a potential slide area due to a combination of soil conditions and slope. Therefore, this standard applies. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report, Exhibit F-4. The investigation involved considerable field work and lab testing. Hand and machine augered holes were advanced to depths of up to 18.5. Bedrock outcroppings were noted on the near vertical cliff face and bedrock was encountered at various depths in the location of the proposed building pad. The investigation includes a number of construction related recommendations, the most notable being that building foundations should be placed at least 23 feet away from the edge of the cliff. This will be made a condition of approval. The proposed building envelope as indicated on Exhibit E-6 is farther than 23 feet away from the cliff. Per LOC 50.43.015(7) and 50.43.020(3)(c), land over 50% slope may be developed only if density transfer is not feasible, and no more than 65% of land with undisturbed slopes between 20%-50% shall be graded or stripped of vegetation. The applicant states (Exhibit F-3) and the slope analysis plan (Exhibit E-8) and future development plan (Exhibit E-6) illustrate that approximately 33% of the land area between 20%-50% slope are within the potential building envelope and driveway, complying with this standard. A small fraction of the land area over 50% slope (.037%) is located in the in the center of the proposed building envelope and would be disturbed. This land disturbance may be permitted because density transfer is not feasible (the front portion of the site is too narrow to accommodate a dwelling and still meet setbacks; and the rear portion of the site is too steep); and more than 70% of the land area over 50% slope will remain free of structures and impervious surfaces. With a condition to provide an accurate percentage of the amount of 50%,+ sloped land disturbed at the time of building permit review, this standard can be met. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering- [50.47.005-50.47.030] All development that abuts streets must provide street trees. The lot takes access from a private access (Exhibit F-6), therefore, this portion of the standard is not applicable. LOC 50.47.015(6) requires screening and buffering to mitigate noise and Iighting from abutting streets, and as a separation between adjacent buildings and adjacent streets. The site is located a considerable distance from the nearest street, South Shore Blvd., and from neighboring properties. No additional screening and buffering is required to meet this standard. This portion of the standard is met. Off -Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access - [50.55.005-.020[ This standard requires that a single-family dwelling provide a minimum of one off-street parking space, which may include a garage. Exhibit E-5 illustrates that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate the required off-street parking space. Satisfaction of this standard will be ensured during the building permit review process. Access - [50.57.005-50.57.035] This standard requires that every lot abut a public street for a width of at least 25 feet, except for flag lots, and that the proposed point of access be adequate for the site based on the topography, traffic volume generated by the development, and classification of the public street from which the access is taken. As discussed above, the lot does not have frontage on a public street because Phantom Bluff Court is a private mutual access easement (Exhibit F-6). The applicant is requesting a variance to this standard. See discussion, below. LU 09-0009 Page 8 of 24 38 Variance Criteria and Analysis [LOC 50.68.005 - 50.68.0171 LOC 50,68.015(1) describes a variance to the Access standard (street frontage) as a Class variance. Per LOC 50,68.010(1)(a), Class I variances may be granted if it is established that: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 fee,' of the property. Phantom Bluff Ct. has remained a private street since 1959 when Clackamas County vacated the public right-of-way. The road extends farther east of the subject lot, providing access to additional properties that contain single family dwellings. The applicant contends (Exhibit F-1) that although Tax Lot 1902 is not considered a flag lot, access from a private access easement such as Phantom Bluff Ct. is similar in character to the access provided to flag lots elsewhere in the City. The applicant states that access from a private street poses no more public health or safety concerns than access from a private access easement. The Public Works and Fire Departments have reviewed the applicant's proposal and expressed no safety concerns. The Building Division will ensure compliance with applicable building codes at the time of building permit review and inspection. The applicant states that approval of the variance would allow the lot to be legalized so that the property owner could construct one single family dwelling on the lot. Due to the site's physical characteristics, the future building footprint would be of modest size for a lot in the R-10 zone. As discussed earlier in this report, there would be sufficient separation between the future dwelling and those on abutting properties, so that the privacy of abutting property owners would not be compromised. Staff finds that the proposed Class 1 variance would not be detrimental to public health or safety or be materially injurious to properties within 300 feet of the subject property. This criterion is met. 2. The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, designated sensitive lands, historic resources, or parks, and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy devices anv more than would occur if the development were located as specified by the requirements of the zone. There are no designated sensitive lands or historic resources on the site. The property abuts Oswego Lake (Exhibit E-1). The single family dwelling allowed after legalization of the lot, as a result of variance approval, will not negatively impact the historic drainage patterns. As discussed, above, the Engineering Division reviewed the applicant's proposal for compliance with the drainage standard and expressed no concerns. The Lake Corporation is satisfied that stormwater run-off from any future development can be accommodated (Exhibit F-9). Approval of the Class I variance will not cause additional traffic beyond what a typical single family residence would generate, as the density permitted on the site (one single family dwelling) is not increased by the variance request. The Engineering Division states that although Phantom Bluff Court is a private access easement, it is functionally equivalent in terms of access to many similar, low volume local streets throughout the City. There are numerous trees on the site and on adjacent properties that will be preserved. Applicants for a building permit are required to meet the maximum shade point height standard (LOC 57,06.065) to ensure that development does not create excessive shade on properties to the north. Staff finds that there would be no adverse impacts to existing physical and natural LU 09-0009 Page 9 of 24 39 systems by approval of the variance. This criterion is met. Conclusion: Staff finds that the requested Class I variance meets both criteria of LOC 50.68.010(1)(a) and can be approved. On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Road - [50.58.005-50.58.035) This standard applies to the geometric design of proposed driveways, fire lanes, and parking lot aisles that serve as emergency access routes. The maximum slope permitted on a driveway serving a single family dwelling is 20% (15% on fire department access roads.) Per the Fire Code, fire fighting equipment must be able to be stationed within 150 feet of the most remote building corner on a lot. The Fire Marshal states that access for emergency vehicles is adequate when the driveway to the house is 12 feet of driveable surface with a 1.5 foot clearance on either side. As indicated on Exhibit E-5, the driveway is currently deficient in the required width. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of a building permit, the driveway must be widened to comply with the Fire Marshal's requirement. The Fire Marshal also states that where the driveway meets the street is deficient for fire engine turning radius. The Fire Marshal allows residential fire sprinklers as an alternate method of addressing this deficiency. The Building Official may address any deficiency by allowing residential fire suppression systems (fire sprinklers) at the time a building permit application is submitted if the Fire Marshal, in accordance with the adopted Fire Code (a) approved the alternate to the fire access standard during the land use approval process; and, (b) the approved alternate has been recorded on the property deed as a requirement for future construction. ORS 455.610; OAR 918-450-120. As stated above, the Fire Marshal has approved automatic fire suppression systems (fire sprinklers) as an alternate. This restriction must be recorded as part of a development restriction for issuance of a building permit. Compliance with this standard will be assured during the building permit review process. This standard can be met. Lighting Standard - [50.63.005-.0101 This standard establishes appropriate illumination levels on public and private streets. The lighting standard does not require illumination of local streets except at intersections. South Shore Blvd. is adequately illuminated. Therefore, this standard is met. Utilities - [50.64.005-50.64.030) The Engineering staff has reviewed the application and has the following findings: Sanitary Sewer: This site can be served by a sewer in Phantom Bluff Court that was recently constructed after the local residents formed a limited liability corporation to finance the construction of the sewer. A future dwelling will need a private grinder pump. Water and Hydrants: This site will obtain service from a recently constructed 8 -inch water line in Phantom Bluff Court. The Fire Marshal states that the location of the recently installed hydrants is adequate. Fire flows will be confirmed at the time of building permit review to ensure sufficient flow for the size of the proposed home. Residential fire sprinklers required for the fire access deficiency, discussed above, will ensure that water flow is sufficient. Other utilities: It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain the availability of electric, gas, telecommunications and cable TV. All new utilities shall be installed underground. LU 09-0009 Page 10 of 24 40 C. Any additional statutory, or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; Citv of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) This ordinance requires that 80 percent of the parcels resulting from a partition approval must comply with the solar design standard [LOC 57.04.020]. The parcel must; therefore, comply with one of three alternatives: (a) the Basic Requirement; (b) the Protected Solar Building Line Option; or (c) the Performance Option. Per LOC 57.04.025 (1), a development is exempt from these requirements if the site is sloped 20% or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south. As illustrated on the survey and slope analysis plans (Exhibits E-6 and E-8) the lot is approximately 29% slope in a direction more than 45 degrees east or west of true south, and is therefore, exempt. CONCLUSION — PARTITION / CLASS 1 ACCESS VARIANCE: Applicant Puterbaugh has demonstrated that Tax Lot 1902 can be legalized with the imposition of conditions of approval as discussed, above. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Note: "Applicants" in this section refer to both Puterbaugh (Tax Lot 1902) and Glass (Tax Lot 1900). 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; Upon legalization of Tax Lot 1902, the applicants propose a lot line adjustment with Tax Lot 1900 to the west, in order to remedy a violation of a condition of approval of LU 03-0053 on Tax Lot 1900 with regard to setback from a historic resource on that property (discussed, below), and to provide a mutually agreeable acess easement between the two properties. R-10 Zone Description (LOC 50.08.010-50.08.0401 Both lots are zoned R-1 O.Tax Lot 1900 is currently 63,172 square feet in size and Tax Lot 1902 is currently 13,461 square feet. Tax Lot 1900 is proposed to be reduced by 2,474 square feet which will be added to Tax Lot 1902, and Tax Lot 1902 will be reduced in two other locations by a total of 799 square feet which will be added to Tax Lot 1900. [Part of that reduction includes 28 square feet around an existing fire place structure]. The net result is a reduction of 1,675 square feet for Tax Lot 1900 and an increase for Tax Lot 1902 (Exhibit E-4). The following table illustrates compliance with the current setback, height, lot coverage, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements in the R-10 zone as a result of the lot line adjustment: LU 09-0009 Page 11 of 24 41 42 LOC 50.08.005 — 50.08.055 R-10 Site Limitations Standards Minimum Requirements Tax Lot 1900 Tax Lot 1902 After Adjustment After Adjustment (Actual) Lot Area 10,000 s.f. 61,497 s.f. 15,136 s.f. Lot Depth 100 feet -340 ft.** 0 ft. (functional -345 feet*) Lot Width 65 feet —215 ft.** 0 ft. (functional --29 feet* Requirements for Structure:5 18 Structure > 18 PrimaryStructure feet high feet hi h Front Yard Setbacks 25' 25' 54.8 ft. Undevelo ed Side Yard Structure < 18 ft Structure >18 ft 29 ft. (west) Undeveloped in height in height 64.6 ft. (east) 10 feet 15 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 30 feet 117 ft. Undeveloped Height -measured to 30' (flat lot) 35' 2 -story; informa- Undeveloped ride (sloped lot) tion not provided Lot Coverage 35% max. for a primary structure:S 22 3,124 s.f. or 5%. Undeveloped feet in height or 25% for a primary structure > 22 feet in height. FAR 0.35:1 for lots —> 15,000<16,000 Information not Undeveloped 0.3:1 for lots >_ 20,001 provided ariance requested. — as uiscussea in the Partition / Gone Kequirements portion of this report above, Tax Lot 1902 technically has no lot width or lot depth. ** The same lot width / lot depth issue applies for Tax Lot 1900 as for Tax Lot 1902. However, during its legalization, the lack of frontage on a public street and its effect on a lot width / lot depth were not raised or addressed. Staff construes the declaration of the functional lot width and lot depth as an acceptance to treat Phantom Bluff Court as if it were a "public street" for purposes of lot width, lot depth, and setbacks. Applicant Puterbaugh may ask why he cannot receive the same "assumption." Staff need not, and should not, repeat prior errors. As the table above illustrates, the proposed parcels, when viewed functionally, exceed the size and dimensional requirements of the R-10 zone. Tax Lot 1902 was exempted from complying with the lot width and lot depth zone requirements by virtue of LOC 50.01.030. Iii any event, its functional lot width as created is less than the zone's 65 -foot requirement. When a lot goes through a lot line adjustment, the resulting lot mast meet the zone standards. Therefore, applicant Puterbaugh is requesting a Class 2 variance to lot width and lot depth, discussed below. The existing structure on Tax Lot 1900 will continue to comply with all setback, lot coverage, and height limitations. Variance Criteria and Analysis [LOC 50 68 005 - 50 68 0171 Class 2 variances are significant changes from the Code requirements that are likely to create impacts on adjacent properties or users. LOC 50.68.015(2) describes a variance from minimum lot width or depth of more than 5 feet as a Class 2 variance. Applicant Puterbaugh's request is to approve the zero lot width and zero lot depth to which the lot was exempted from complying with the zone's lot dimensional requirements when the lot was reviewed for partition legalization purposes, above. In terms of functional lot width and lot depth, applicant Puterbaugh is increasing the functional lot depth to approximately 345 ft, and to reduce the 65 - foot lot width requirement technically to 0 feet, but with a functional lot width of 29 feet. This request falls within the parameters of a Class 2 variance. LU 09-0009 Page 12 of 24 Per LOC 50.68.010(I)(b), a Class 2 variance may be granted if it is established that: 1. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship. A Class 2 variance permits the applicant to vary from the Code requirements in order to avoid a hardship that would otherwise result to the use of the property if the Code requirements were followed. The applicant states (Exhibit F-1), and as discussed in the Partition section above, technically lot width and lot depth could never be met because the lot is located on a private street and lot width and lot depth are measured, by definition, from the front building line which is measured from a public street. The applicant is applying for a variance to the lot width and lot depth requirements to facilitate the lot line adjustment. In determining whether the criterion of "preventing unnecessary hardship" exists, one must determine whether a hardship exists. The Code lists several factors that may be considered. This is not an exclusive listing of factors, and not all factors must be found to exist on the property in order to meet the "preventing unnecessary hardship" criterion. One must first determine whether there is a hardship resulting on the property, before then determining that the hardship is unnecessary. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start the analysis of this criterion with this factor first, before then looking at whether there are physical circumstances about the property that constrain its development. Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the property without the variance Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the property without the variance is a factor to be considered in determining whether a hardship exists [LOC 50.68.010(1)(b)(ii)(1)(13)]. Applicant Puterbaugh previously received approval to legalize the lot although the partition plat was never recorded. As discussed in the Partition section above, staff has recommended approval of the one -parcel partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902, even though it does not front on a public street. The lot, as legalized, has a functional lot width and lot depth that is sufficient to assure that any single-family development on the site will be compatible with the neighborhood. The necessity for a variance to lot width and lot depth, in order to approve a lot line adjustment, can be considered to be the result of a technicality arising from the lot legalization process. When a lot that does not meet the zoning requirements is legalized, it is because the lot, when legalized, is exempted from compliance of the lot dimensional standards at the time of lot legalization; that does not bestow upon the lot a variance of lot width and lot depth for purposes of compliance with the zone's lot dimensional standards for future development applications. Applicant Puterbaugh now seeks a lot line adjustment and therefore the lack of a lot width and lot depth must be addressed anew, and in terms of obtaining a reasonable use similar to like properties, applicant Puterbaugh seeks merely to formalize by variance that which was exempted when found to be compatible during the partition legalization analysis, above. In terns of functional effect, the applicant seeks to reduce the functional lot width to 29 feet, as part of an agreement with the co -applicant Glass to permit utilities to be placed in the existing access easement. The hardship, in this instance, arises from the lot's present lack of ability to obtain utilities through the existing access easement. When Richard Sundeleaf created this parcel, he granted an access easement for Tax Lot 1902 to access Phantom Bluff Court. However, there is reasonable argument, pro and con, whether the access easement included the right of utilities to be located within the access easement (akin to street dedications), or whether a separate utility easement is necessary. Certainly it can be assumed that Mr. Sundeleaf did not LU 09-0009 Page 13 of 24 43 44 parse the distinction between access easement and utilities; he may have intended to create a parcel with both access and utilities easements but may not have done so successfully (the same as intending to create a legal lot). It is a hardship for a residential lot, particularly of this size, not to have access to utilities. Physical circumstances Related to the Piece of Property Involved. Whether the hardship suffered is an unnecessary hardship includes a consideration of whether the hardship results from a physical circumstance of the property. Per LOC 50.68.01.0(b)(ii)(1)(A), physical circumstances related to the property may be considered in analyzing an "unnecessary hardship." Tax Lot 1902 is located on a private street and has been since the time it was purchased by the applicant. Staff has recommended approval of the one -lot partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 because the criteria for an exemption for lot width and lot depth have been met. The area of Tax Lot 1902 where the functional lot width would not be met if applied to the zone requirement as a result of the lot line adjustment is a portion of Tax Lot 1900 which was exchanged for another portion of the subject lot to remedy a violation of a condition of approval. Although the lot width and lot depth is not met, Tax Lot 1902 far exceeds the minimum lot size and its functional lot depth is much greater than would be required under the zone, if Phantom Bluff Court were a public street, making the development of a single family residence on the lot no different than lots that comply with the minimum lot width. To be unable to build a residence on a lot that functions no differently from those that comply with the lot width of the zone, would be an unnecessary hardship. Whether the Hardship Was Created by the Person Requesting the Variance. Whether the circumstance giving rise to the necessity of a variance is self-imposed is a factor in determining if a hardship exists. LOC 50.68.010(1)(b)(ii)(C). The fact that the lot was not considered legal stems from its lack of frontage on a public street. Phantom Bluff Court has been a private access easement since well before the applicant purchased the property in 1972; the County created the lack of any lot width / lot depth when it approved the request to vacate Phantom Bluff Court right-of-way, and the Lake Oswego Community Development Code defines lot width and lot depth as dependent on frontage of public streets, rather than also private streets. If the City, by definition, recognized Phantom Bluff Court as being the equivalent of a "street" for purposes of establishing a lot width and lot depth: • The approval of a variance to 0 feet for lot depth would not be necessary. • The approval of a variance to 0 feet for lot width would not be necessary, but the lot would not meet the zone's lot width requirement of 65 feet in any event. The functional lot width of 33 feet upon legalization was created by the predecessor owner, Richard Sundeleaf. As noted, prior efforts to legalize the lot was approved by the. City, but the plat was not recorded within the requisite time period. The deficient lot width that is the subject of this variance request is the result of an exchange of land that was arrived at cooperatively with Tax Lot 1900 to remedy a violation on that property.. Although the lot line adjustment increases the deficiency in the functional lot width (the technical lot width remains at 0), it does not change the fact that the functional lot width is less than the zone requirement. The functional lot width hardship was caused by Mr. Sundeleaf's lack of specificity in the creation of the access easement for Tax Lot 1902, as to whether it included utilities as well as access, or not. LU 09-0009 Page 14 of 24 Economic Impact on the Applicant if the Variance Request Is Denied. The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is denied is a factor in determining if a hardship exists, LOC 50.68.010(1)(b)(ii)(D). Obviously there is a difference in value of Tax Lot 1902 if it has, or doesn't have, utilities. Property owners acquire the benefits and disadvantages of property when they acquire it. In this instance, the lack of the ability to negotiate resolution of utility access with his neighbor, by exchanging a materially insignificant portion of land to mutually resolve the issue of utilities for the property, when it would not affect the compatibility of the lot to the neighborhood, would have a substantial economic impact upon the property owner. Staff concludes the absence of a technical lot width and lot depth is a hardship. This criterion is met. 2. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property) is located or to property established to be affected by the request. Injury to the Neighborhood If the effect of variance approval is perceived to be similar to the development pattern in the neighborhood, approval of the variance cannot be said to be injurious to the neighborhood. As discussed above, despite the deficient technical lot width and lot depth, construction of a single family residence on Tax Lot 1902 will be similar to the development pattern in the neighborhood. The lot could not be further divided and would not support more than one single family residence; therefore, noise and traffic impacts will be no more than what is expected from any single family residence in the neighborhood. Therefore, approval of the variances cannot be said to be injurious to the neighborhood. Injury to the Neighbors If sufficient privacy and separation are provided with regard to the visual and physical impacts of a new dwelling on Tax Lot 1902, approval of the variance cannot be said to be injurious to the neighbors . As discussed above, due to the site's physical characteristics, the future dwelling would be of modest size for a lot in the R-10 zone. The location of the future building footprint will not obstruct views to the lake as the property is located at a lower elevation than those across Phantom Bluff Court. The future structure will also have a sufficient buffer from adjacent properties. The existing home on Tax Lot 1900 to the west is over 65 feet from the future structure (Exhibit E-3). To the east of Tax Lot 1902, is Tax Lot 1800 which is not a buildable lot but provides a pathway and access to the lake for Tax Lot 2600 across Phantom Bluff Court (Exhibit E-1). Therefore, Tax Lot 1800 provides a buffer in addition to the required setbacks, from Tax Lot 1700. Staff finds that the potential development that could occur despite a deficient lot width is consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. Staff finds that the effect of visual impacts upon the surrounding neighbors and the similarity of potential development to surrounding structures will ensure that approval of the variances will not be injurious to the to the neighbors. This criterion is met. 3. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Regardless of the fact that Tax Lot 1902 technically has no lot width or lot depth, and functionally has less than the required lot width, the applicant states (Exhibit F-3) the lot line adjustment will create a lot that is functionally better because the area that is being added that contains the deficient functional lot width will provide better access to Tax Lot 1902. This LU 09-0009 Page 15 of 24 45 portion of land at the front of Tax Lot 1900 is being conveyed to Tax Lot 1902 in exchange for land at a different location on the lot. That land is being conveyed by Tax Lot 1902 to Tax Lot 1900 to ensure that Tax Lot 1900 can remedy the violation of the required 3 -foot setback from the historic resource (barbeque). The applicants contend that the amount of land being exchanged is mutually agreeable and is the minimum amount necessary (and therefore the minimum variance necessary in tenns of lot width) for Tax Lot 1902 to build a driveway to a future home. Every property owner has the right to seek lot line adjustments when to do so would benefit the development of the lot, except when to do so would result in the lot being incompatible with the neighborhood. (Usually the incompatibility is judged based on the zoning standards, but in this case; the incompatibility is to the neighborhood as it exists, as found in legalizing the lot under LOC 50.01.030. Thus, in approving the variance to zero for the lot width, a condition of approval that the lot lines be adjusted as shown, to 29 feet at the point indicated, below; the applicant should not be able to later reduce the functional lot width merely because the lot has a technical zero lot width variance. This criterion is met. 4. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Community Development Code has been adopted with procedures and regulations that implement the City's Comprehensive Plan, providing the opportunity for citizen participation in all phases of the planning process through the notice requirements and opportunity for public comment. Because the Plan is acknowledgedby the state Land Conservation and Development Commission, such procedures enable application of a variance from Code requirements, the applicant's ability to request a variance is not found to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. Conclusion: The applicant has met the criteria for the requested Class 2 variance and may therefore be approved. 2. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; Drainage Standard for Minor Development - 150.40.005-.0301 As discussed above, all surface water on properties in the vicinity drain towards the lake and future development on Tax Lot 1902 will manage stormwater run-off in the same manner. The LU 09-0009 Page 16 of 24 46 Engineering Division agrees with this approach. Compliance will be assured during building permit review. Access - [50.57.005-50.57.0351 This standard requires that every lot abut a public street for a width of at least 25 feet, except for flag lots, and that the proposed point of access be adequate for the site based on the topography, traffic volume generated by the development, and classification of the public street from which the access is taken. Tax Lot 1900 was approved for a variance to this standard at the time the lot was legalized (LU 03-0053). As discussed above, as part of the legalization (one -lot partition) of Tax Lot 1902, the applicant applied for a variance to this standard and staff recommends approval of that variance. On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Road - [50.58.005-50.58.0351 This standard applies to the geometric design of proposed driveways, fire lanes, and parking lot aisles that serve as emergency access routes. The maximum slope permitted on a driveway to a single family residence is 20% (15% on fire department access roads.) Tax Lot 1902 shares a driveway with Tax Lot 1900. As a result of the lot line adjustment a portion of the driveway will be on each lot and the portion of Tax Lot 1900 that currently contains an access easement for Tax Lot 1902 will become part of Tax Lot 1902. Therefore, a modification of the existing reciprocal access easement between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 will be required in order to correct the legal descriptions of the benefited parcels and must be either referenced on the plat or by recorded instrument. This standard also regulates aspects of design related to emergency vehicle access. A new driveway extension is proposed to reach the future residence on Tax Lot 1902. The Engineering Division states that the topography of this portion of the site ensures that the future onsite driveway will comply with residential driveway slope standards. Regarding emergency vehicle access requirements, Phantom Bluff Court has been serving as the emergency access since the 1950s. It has recently been repaved and can support heavy vehicles. However, as discussed above, its narrow pavement width (10 to 12 feet wide) and lack of shoulders, pull-out areas at fire hydrants or turnaround, makes Phantom Bluff Court non-compliant with regard to the current Fire Code. In such cases, the Fire Marshal imposes conditions to mitigate for deficient access. A condition that the future horne on Tax Lot 1902 install a residential fire sprinkler system is recommended as part of the one -lot partition request, discussed above. This standard can be met. C. Any additional statutory, or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; Citv of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551 This Code requires approval of a pen -nit for removal of any tree five inches or greater in diameter subject to Type II criteria as listed in LOC 55.02.080(1-4), and prescribes protection measures for trees to remain during construction. The tree removal plans (Exhibits E-3 and F-5) indicate seven trees proposed for removal. Any trees proposed for removal will be granted tree removal permits [LOC 55.02.035; 55.02.080], if they: • Must be removed for development or landscaping purposes; • Will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; LU 09-0009 Page 17 of 24 47 • Will not have a significant negative impact on the character. aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood, except when alternatives to tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to used as permitted in the zone; and, • The sole purpose is not for the purpose of providing or enhancing views. Trees #3 and 4: Staff finds that the 24 -inch Norway maple (Tree #3) appears to be off-site or on the property line with Tax Lot 1800 and is not in area that would be impacted by future construction, nor is Tree #4, a 17 -inch Valley oak. Therefore, removal is not necessary for development and these two trees are not approved for removal. Trees #6, 7, 9, and 10: These trees are located in the potential building footprint. Because no specific house plans have been submitted with this application, these may not be approved at this time. Tree removal for house construction will be determined at the time of building pen -nit application. Tree #18, Staff finds that: • Tree #18, an I 1 -inch black Locust is in an area indicated for a driveway to the future residence, as indicated on Exhibit E-6. • Removal is necessary for development because the tree is in close proximity to the location of the access driveway, under which utility construction will occur; both of which are necessary to provide access and utilities to a future home. Therefore, removal of tree #18 is for development purposes. • Removal of tree # 18 will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, because it is located on a relatively flat portion of the site and therefore does not provide erosion control or soil stability. In addition, it does not provide windbreak on the site as there is a stand of large firs to the north of it which provide that function (Exhibit E-6). • Removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood, because as indicated in Exhibits F-5, the tree is not one of the largest trees and is not critical to the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, it is not significant. • Tree #18 is not being removed for view enhancement, because its removal will not improve any view, and as stated above, it is being removed for an approved development. The applicant should apply for a verification tree removal permit for one tree (tree # 18) prior to approval of any construction plans. Mitigation. Any tree approved for removal should be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Mitigation trees are required to be a minimum 2 -inch caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum 6 -8 -feet height (excluding leader) for evergreen trees. The applicant has not submitted a mitigation plan and will be required to submit a final mitigation plan with species and size specifications with the verification tree permit application, prior to approval of any construction plans. All burlap and wire cages shall be removed before trees are planted. These requirements will be made conditions of approval. Tree Protection The Code requires, "except as otherwise determined by the City Manager," tree protection measures. LOC 55.08.030(1). The protective fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the trees. LU 09-0009 Page 18 of 24 48 The applicant shall propose the tree protection zone for each tree, for review and approval by City staff, on site. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. Staff notes that the future driveway indicated on Exhibit E-6 could impact two 41 -inch and 26 - inch Douglas firs. If the driveway were to be shifted slightly south to reduce the impact to these trees, it would create greater impact to tree #18 which has already been approved for removal, as discussed above. As a condition of approval the applicant's construction plans must indicate a driveway location that provides sufficient protection to Trees # 12 and 13 indicated on the tree removal plan as part of Exhibit F-5 and shall include a report from a certified arborist who should review the construction plans and provide recommendations for proper protection for these trees. A note should be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.030]. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during constriction. As required by LOC 55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan and application shall be submitted for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any grading or building pen -nits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart. Historic Preservation (LOC Chanter 58 Tax Lot 1900 contains the Sundeleaf House, which along with the grounds, including the landscaping features, is on the City's list of historic landmarks. LOC 58.02.145(2) requires compliance with three standards in order to approve a lot line adjustment on a landmark property: (a) The minor partition or lot line adjustment does not allow a significant feature of the landmark to be located on a separate site from the landmark; and, (b) The minor partition or lot line adjustment allows adequate setbacks from landmark improvements to provide for buffering and mitigation of impacts associated with development of new parcels; and, (c) Yard and landscaped areas including large trees and shrubs associated with the landmark shall be retained with the structure whenever possible." During the 1991 appeal of the minor partition/lot line adjustment requests to legalize Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902, and 1905 [AP 91-5-926 and AP 91-6-927], it was found that the existing stone wall and barbeque/fireplace on Tax Lot 1900 did not meet the 3 -foot setback requirement for accessory structures. Because the wall and fireplace are a significant part of the landmark designation, the City Council found that they needed to be kept with the historic property (Tax Lot 1900) and must comply with the setback requirements for accessory structures. The approval, though now void, required that the common property line between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 be adjusted to the extent that a 3 -foot setback from the property line would be maintained (or a variance applied for). As no variance had been applied for, the setback became a condition of approval of the subsequent action that legalized Tax Lot 1900 (LU 03-0053), as follows: LU 09-0009 Page 19 of 24 49 A. Prior to Approval of the Final Partition Plat the Applicant/Owner Shall.- Submit hall: Submit a revised final plat to provide a minimum three-foot setback from the stone fireplace and its associated tinderboxes, or move the fireplace and tinderboxes pursuant to the Historic Preservation Chapter {LOC Chapter 58], or obtain a setback variance pursuant to LOC Chapter 50. (The imposition of this condition should not be construed as endorsing or approving a variance.) it appears that the plat for Tax Lot 1900 was recorded without complying with this condition. Therefore, a portion of the lot line adjustment request is intended to provide compliance with this condition (Exhibit E-4). d. Any conditions of approval imposed as part of an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. Except for the condition described above, there are no additional outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject properties. VIII. CONCLUSION Based upon the information provided by the applicants and the findings presented within this report, staff concludes that LU 09-0009 complies with all of the applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions, with the exception of the tree removal request. Only one tree (Tree # 1.8) may be approved for removal. IX. RECOMMENDATION Approval of LU 09-0009, including removal of Tree #18 only, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Approval of the Final Partition Plat and Final Lot Line Adiustment Plan the Applicants/Owners Shall: Submit a final plan and legal descriptions (metes and bounds), to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer for recording with Clackamas County Clerk's Office to City for staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Both documents shall be prepared as depicted in Exhibits E-4, and shall reference this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department, File No. LU 09-0009. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one-year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development that may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development 2. Illustrate the following information on the final partition plat or by recorded instrument: a. A reciprocal private access easement over the shared access driveway for the benefit of Tax Lots 1900 and 1902. LU 09-0009 Pabe 20 of 24 60 3. Submit a preliminary title report verifying that the lot line adjustment plan will be signed by the record owners and that the properties are free and clear of liens and encumbrances, or identifies any liens or encumbrances against Tax Lots 1900 and 1902. 4. All plats submitted to the City of Lake Oswego shall have accompanying vector based electronic drawings or maps consistent with the prevailing technologies in the Civil Engineering and/or Surveying fields (e.g. current or near current versions of AutoCAD). The electronic drawings shall confonn to the mapping requirements for plats adopted in O.R.S. Chapter 92. 5. Submit an Access Maintenance Agreement for the shared driveway for review and approval of staff. The agreements shall be recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's office. 6. Submit a "Notice of Development Restriction" containing the following restrictions, which shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Tai: Lot 1902, as applicable. This document shall be recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's office. Submit a site plan which shall be attached to the Notice of Development Restriction as Exhibit A, showing the restrictions required below under Condition A(6)(b). The site plan shall be an S'/Z" x 11" reduction and cannot contain any lettering smaller than 10 point font. a. The City of Lake Oswego has determined that the access driveway to Tax Lot 1902 is deficient in its turning radius for fire apparatus. The Building Official may allow an alternate to the minimum requirements of the One -and Two -Family Dwelling Specialty Code as authorized by ORS 455.610, which may include, but is not limited to, installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system or a monitored fire alarm system. The owner or owner's representative shall offer an approved alternate method for fire suppression for a future dwelling on Tax Lot 1902, such as an NFPA 13-D residential fire sprinkler system, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. b. Boundaries of the site shall not be reduced from what is shown on the approved site plan, (Exhibit A), and the distance between the side lot lines shall be no less than 29 feet at the point shown. The zone setback requirements on the lot's yards are as follows: i. The front yard distance required by the zone in effect at the time of building permit review shall be measured from the lot line that abuts Phantom Bluff Court, which shall be considered the front lot line. ii. The rear yard distance required by the zone in effect at the time of building permit review shall be measured from the lot line that abuts Oswego Lake, which shall be considered the rear lot line. iii. All other lot lines shall be considered side lot lines. c. Where the shared driveway meets Phantom Bluff Court it shall comply with the Vision Clearance standard as if it were a driveway entering a public street. B. Within 30 Days of the Recordation of the Final Partition Plat and Final Lot Line Adjustment Plan, the Applicant/Owner Shall: Submit a final title report, or lot book report from a title company showing that: The access easement and access maintenance agreement, as required by Conditions A(2) and (5), above, will be valid and subsisting, and is either free and clear or that the holders of any liens or encumbrances have consented to the Maintenance Agreement; and, LU 09-0009 Page 21 of 24 51 b. The legal description of any existing liens or encumbrances on Tax Lot 1900 and 1902 are amended to reflect the lot description approved in the final lot line adjustment plan, as required by Condition A(1), above. C. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit on Tax Lot 1902 the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Demonstrate compliance with Conditions A(1)-(6), and B (1), above. 2. Submit final construction and building permit plans illustrating the following: a. The shared access driveway serving Tax Lot 1902 shall be 15 feet in width (12 feet of pavement with 1.5 feet of gravel on either side) and the driveway location shall provide sufficient protection to Trees 9 12 and 13 indicated on the tree removal plan as part of Exhibit F-5, to the satisfaction of staff. These plans shall be accompanied by a report from a certified arborist who shall review the construction plans and provide recommendations for proper protection for these trees. b. The building footprint shall be located in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E-6, and an accurate percentage of the amount of 50% + sloped land disturbed shall be provided. The overall disturbance shall not exceed 30% of slopes over 50%. The future building foundation shall be placed at least 23 feet away from the edge of the Cliff. 3. Submit a verification tree removal permit for one tree (Tree 418) accompanied by a mitigation plan as required by LOC 55.02.084. The mitigation plan shall include a note that states that all burlap and wire cages shall be removed before trees are planted. 4. Submit a tree protection plan, for the review and approval of staff, as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030. This plan shall be attached to the construction documents or printed on the construction site plans, and shall include: a. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. b. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 - foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts, shall be around trees where their dripline is within the construction zone. The protective fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the tree. The applicant shall propose the tree protection zone for each tree, for review and approval by City staff, on site. The City's Arborist may waive the requirement for tree fencing based on site conditions. If waived, the contractor shall work with the City's Arborist to ensure compliance with the protection measures imposed by the City Arborist. c. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the root zones of any of the trees. d. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. LU 09-0009 Page 22 of 24 52 Notes: e. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing, which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. 5. Apply for and obtain approval of tree removal permits for tree removal necessary for house construction, and submit a mitigation plan as required by LOC 55.02.080. E. Prior to any Construction Activity on the Site, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Install the tree protection fencing as required by Condition C(4), above. 2. Apply for an Erosion Control Permit and install erosion control measures. F. Prior to Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of a Dwelling on Tax Lot 1902. the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Install all mitigation trees as required by Conditions C(3) and (5), above. The land use approval of this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and other applicable codes and regulations. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. LU 09-0009 Page 23 of 24 53 EXHIBITS: A. '.Notice of Appeal: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) C. Minutes: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) D. Staff Report: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) E. Graphics/Plans: E -I Tax Map E-2 Vicinity/Zoning Map E-3 Site Survey -Tax Lot 1900; Existing Conditions/Tree Removal Tax Lot 1902 (2 pages) E-4 Preliminary Plan: Existing Lot Line and Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Plan E-5 Proposed Site Plan: one -Parcel Partition E-6 Proposed Plan with Potential Future House Footprint E-7 Sewer and Sewer Pump Station Plan and Profile (5 pages) E-8 Slope Analysis Map F. Written Materials: F-1 Applicant's Narrative -Partition F-2 Applicant's Narrative -Lot Line Adjustment F-3 Applicant's Addendum Narrative F-4 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Carlson Geotechnical, dated August March 12, 2009 F-5 Arborist's Report and Tree Inventory, prepared by Gary Drendel, Certified Arborist, dated March 20, 2009 F-6 Legal Document: Clackamas County Vacation of Phantom Bluff Court, dated 7/3/59 F-7 Deed to Property, including access easement, 1972 F-8 Warranty Deed Outlining Access Easement to Phantom Bluff Ct., 2002 F-9 Letter from Lake Oswego Corporation, dated March 25, 2009 F-10 Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting held November 22, 2008 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against: G 1-99 None Support; G100-199 None Opposition: G -200 - Date of Application Submittal: April 13, 2009 Date Application Determined to be Complete: June 30, 2009 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: October 28, 2009 54 LU 09-0009 Page 24 of 24 TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner DATE: August 3, 2009 SUBJECT: LU 09-0009 Following receipt of Exhibit G-200, (a letter in opposition) and Exhibit F-11, (applicant's response to Exhibit G-200), a question of :interpretation of LOC 50.01.030(3) may be required in deciding this case. . Staff is submitting the attached legislative history of the Planning Commission's and City Council's consideration of Ord. 2052, adopted August 18, 1992, which enacted the current text of LOC 50.01.030 (then LOC 48.515), Development Restricted on Illegal Lot. EXHIBIT a-2 LU 09-0009 AP 09-04 (LU 09-0009) Page 1 55 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT m I'Vb171i;11.4' 2.5, 199 f Workshop i. t%A1A,11) ()RIMCN. Che Pimilling ('olli ilissi(ln Alec-+.inf, of F(:I nmry 25, 1991 ',w called to order 11, (Imitman OItili'un at 7:0.1, il.iii. ih. HOIT (41.1, ('(,rinilission �:nrncrs pi -est -lit in(lu( eil r�fc, I.rc;ix, h1:.. Fimiitlan, ,her. Oldh;iin, RoIll'Gr and NIS. (:'olcluitt. `,-'on) 1.11 (r,ier:" i)c;t.�1c�� and Garicra wcre CXCLISr(I.. Also ;�rc::cnt ware Kcll,crt (i:Ilailte, Ac ink Planning Llirector; i'ctc. 1Uvey, (Ty Nl:(wgui; (lily Niillips, I)c11.uty ('ity Attoi-iicy; and K;ithy Sclrior secrca:u-y. UL Fi'i'Iti( VAI, OF "OIC*lll'f E's I ia(:• m.•1-ond rc;ldirll; of Ow NOvonlit:T- 14, .1990 iNliit tics %vas 11(r,1))c,nc d hcr;ru%V not ,I quollill �rrCscllt of ('r lmillstil(>ncl-S eligihIc. to V()t('. ('ol ll.ni:..tiio ncl Finllit;:.ttl irrcrved for- --ippi-oval ofthe.hinuat-} i•I, 4;)`-1j. 1limjfva. (:mm)is.tiicirler- Beche sec•omf(•cl the motion and it 11:ISs(,d witia ( ()mIII i %ioners iicelte, Finnigan, (Add n:, iZrrhrcr and ('ol(luitt .,oiing yrs. IV. I'ETI''I'tONS :1ND (,01NI N1z;i`,It:i1.'I'I()NS None. µ,•,::�sx.� 11 T i'I. AL--=r-mmmz :moi, ('1.1MI111:1f1 (11(111;1111 reversed OIC oRler of Ow items ,,(k,Queral i'lannini:. Iran F(Ttif c.trti.ein KkA split at .i2.32 (:orn(,II ,``street ('h;lillai;lt� Oldham asked fclr an cxlllanati(ln of the Ill;ulning item fnona fete I Iarvvy Mr. ifai-vvy explained that the isslic was hefore the ('orlinlission 1w(-.IlI.x of corrc:,ixlncic-nc'c helm lean (;m%Ts to hath Boh Wkint{• am! hinisrll. i lc c>.1)I.rilwd II1;I1 tic: (ii1c'mm;I was Uwl a flew ICa[ wvs created Omt ncnr wnt Ihmtq'j 1 1larcrl ligan Ilvwx!;s. I is I'mill •r e.%plained that ;al one tinge, ., huiidlil,.. )tri rail V—P, i OML-cl to I -wild a benne 0111 ;iir nc•wl)' CIV.aIW IN, I IV nu~IIII It'd tli;it Ow (1'1ctn+ll,t v'!;1:; that then• w 1, flet lncclltitlism in ('ilv code to d(,al with that ("pe of ., t1;11i(1n. 2,12-1V1)1 57 P, MM E X H I B I T D A 58 59 - ii I 59 -1EM-0 RAN -Q IM 1'o: Lake Oswego Planning Commission Tom Coffee, Planning Director From: Jeffrey G. Condii, City Attorn "y Date: April 2, 1992 Subject; Proposed Amendments to Alleviate Illegal Lot Hardships INTRQQl1CT1QN Attached please find a draft ordinance which. is designed to alleviate the hardship created by the current code on owners of parcels that were not lawfully created, B A.0K_GRflUND LCC 49.105 currently prohibits the City from issuing any development permit on a lot ii'W was not lawfully created unless the lot is legalized by obtaining a partition pursuant '�i the current Code. A hardship is created where the illegal lot is smaller than the current minimum lot size allowed in the zoite, because the Zoning Code does not permit density variances, Because me current Code contains no process by which an undersized ill(. -.,gal lot can be legalized, the owner is therefore essentially stuck forever with an unbuiidable lot. Because ORS 92.016 prohibits the sale of a parcel in a partition unt! a partition is approved, such lots also become unsaleable. The City contains a number of illegal lots because of two events in the history of Lake Oswego zoning and partitioning regulation. First, the City did not regulate minor partitions (creation of less than four lots) prior to 1975, but the Zoning Code has contained lot size and dimensional requirements since 1959. As was decidedbyLU6A in WardAaLrd v, Ci yL�k�Q�Aggg, LURA No. 97-053, the Zoning Code -independently applied to the creation of such lots. Because lots could be recorded without City approval, a number of lots were created prior to 1975 without the benefit of compliance with the Zoning Code in effect at the time, Second, the 1982 Zoning Code placed new, largor, minimum lot sizes on a number of Neighborhoods which were developed at greater densities. In several cases, these new minimum lot sires have prevented the City from legalizing lots that are virtually identical in size to the majority of developed lots in the neighborhood, and which otherwise would be able to develop pursuant to the grandfather clause contained in LOC 48.515, DISQUS,SION The purpose of tho proposed ordinance is not to automatically allow building on illegal lots. Indeed, thio City does not have such authority: ORS Chapter 92 requires tfle approval of a subdivision or partition in order to legalize an illegal lot. Bather, the Purpose of the ordinance is to tallow certain limited exceptions .to the_ lot area and r;irnrrnsion requirernents:of the zone so that can owner of Lin illegal subsirindard lot cAn ;art lenst apply for a partition to IGgali�.e the tot. 61 Memo: Planning Commission & Torn Coffee, Planning Director ,April 2, 1992 Pago 2 As noted abovo, LOC 48.51.5 currently permits undersized but legal lots to be occupied by as Permitted use in the. zone. Sections 1 and,2 of the proposed ordinance clarify that this grandfather clause applies only to undersized lots that were, created in compliance with all requirements at the time of creation, consistent with the planning Commission and Council conclusions in the VaLd case: (Mr. Ward,unsuccessfullyargued that LOC 48.515 grandfathers both Tragal and illegal lots because it does nM expressly draw a distinction between the two). It further clarifies that any development on .a substandard lot must comply with current setbacks, height limits, and lot coverage requirements. The proposed amendment also brings LOC 48.515 into compliance with an amendment made to 01`iS 'Chapter 92 (the Subdivision and Partition Law) in 1985. That amendment, codified as ORS 92.017, states that a lawfully created parcel remains a discrete let or parcel unless -the lot lines are changed or vacated or the parcel is further divided or partitioned. This amendment was specifically designed to prohibit the common local practice of treating contiguous legal lots as one parcel if they are in one ownership. ORS 92.017 requires the City to recognize such lots as independent lots and prohibits the City from requiring a new partition if the owner decides to sell .one or nioie of such contiguous legal lots. LOC 48.515 was adopted in 1982, prior to this legislative change, and currently requires=Jhe City to consider contiguous lots in one ownership as one parcel in violation of the state law. Note: This provision does not requir6 the City to legalize contiguous illegal lots in one ownership. Finally, the arnendrnent will allow the adjustment of lot lines of legal but undersized lots as long as the adjustment does not increase the degree of noncompliance. This will solve a problem in Hallinan on two legally created 5,000 square foot lots that contain two homes dating from the twenties -forties;. The two lots Have always been in the same ownership, with the second house used as a rental or mother-in-law home. The owner now wants to sell the homes separately. Unfortunately, the two homes were constructed facing the wrong direction: The lot Fine between the two legal lots bisects the two homes. A lot line adjustment would solve the problem without changing a thing on the ground. The current code; however, does not allow lot line 'adjustments unless the adjusted lots comply with the minimum lot size, which is 7,5.0.0 square feet in this neighborhood. Until this amendment is, made, the property owner is _stuck with two homes on two legal parcels that cannot be sold separately (unless, the owner physically moves the homes so that their location is consistent with the lot lines). This amencirm,,mt would solve another problem, also in Hallinan, where a property owner wants to combine an illeclal lot with a legal but substandard lot by a lot line adjustment. The resulting single loi v�rould be approximately 7;200 square fret, larger than most of the lots in the noighbornood as developed, but less :than the minimum lot size and thus currently prohibited. Sections 3 and 4 of the proposed ordinance clarify and amend LOC 49.105 to provide a legalization process for illegal undersized lots. Propc)sr�d t.00 49.105(1) is a continuation of the current provision that prohibits clOV01r PMOnt on illegal lot!; onless the lot is legalized pursuant to current regulations. 62 Mumo.- Planning Cornnl SSion & Torg Coffeo, Planning Director April 2, 1992 Prier, 3 Proposed LOG 49.105(2) contains the first of two exceptions to this rule: If the illegal lot cannot be legalized pursuant to 49,105(1) because it dogs not comply with current lot area or dimension requirements, it may be exempted from such lot area or dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the lot would have complied with the lot area .or dimension rules in effect at the time of creation. Example: A 6,000 square foot lot is created in First Addition when the area had a different minimum lot size, but the person creating the lot wiled to obtain the necessary City approval and thus the lot is illegal. Because the zoning is now R-7.5, the lot cannot be made legal under the current code. The proposed amendment would allow the property owner to demonstrate that the lot would have complied the minimum lot size at the time of creation, and thus exempt the partition from having to comply with current minimum lot sizes. This exception is essentially a logical extension of the grandfather clause contained in LOC 48.515, above. [proposed LOC ,19.103(3) contains a second, but more difficult, exception to current minirnurn lot area and dimensional requirenr-nts for dots such as the Wards' lot which did not comply with lot area or dimensional standards in effect at the time of creation. Such lots can be significantly substandard and therefore legalization and development of such lots can .have a negative impact on the neighborhood. For this reason, qualification for this exception requires a demonstration that legalization would not have a substantial negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale noise, traffic, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties, The provision provides that the City may impose conditions of development to mitigate such negative impacts. Note that an applicant cannot utilize the exceptions in subsections 2 or 3 if the illegal lot can be legalized pursuant to subsection 1, and cannot utilize the exception in subsection 3 if the lot can be legalized pursuant to subsection 2. In other words, an applicant to legalize an illegal parcel must comply with the current minimum lot area and dimensions if possible. Note also that these amendments do not exempt development on legalized parcels from any of thb height, setback or lot coverege regulations once the parcels are legalized. This offers, additional protection to the neighborhoods, because development on a lot that is substandard to any great degree will almost certainly require a variance, resulting in an additional review for compatibility. CONCLU$104 Undr:r the current Code, there is no process 'to legalize an illegal lot which is less than the current minimurn lot size. Owners of such lots cannot develop the lots, and the resulting cloud on the title makes such lots difficult to sell. Further, given that many of these lots were illegally created in the forties, fifties and sixties, the status of the lot may riot have been easily determinable at the time of purchase and the lot owner may not have effective recourse against the seller, The proposed amendment will provide a process to allow owners of illegal lots to seek legalization via a partition or subdivision as long a) certain criteria are met, s 4 MOrno: r lianning CoRlrT IS.13lUn & Tom Coffee, ('fanning Director April 2, 1992 Pag.f3 4 Al TERN.&DIKE S: H The Planning Commission could abolish that portion of LOC 48:650(3) which prohibits density variances. Illegal lots could then be legalized by processing a variance to th9 miniMum lot size in conjunction with the partition or tot line adjUStrrrent necc,,ssEiry to legalize the 'lot. Staff diose nut to take this approach for three reasons: First, it would require a IC;Ivel of review and staff work unnecessary in most cases (as currently defined, such a variance would be a "Class 2. variance'), Second a variance could not be approved df the illogal lot was created by the applicant. As noted above, it was very y for aperson to unknowingly create an Nle�al lot prior to 197!5, before the City began regulating minor partitions. Finally, abolition of the prohibition against density variances would create a broader exception than necessary to solve the problem, creating different problems. JC:bp c: Cynthia L. Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Draft Ordinance No. 2052 dated 4/2/92 CA05.Mornn 64 DRArT 41 02Y 9-2 ORDINANCE NO. � 05: A G'WEi=AL ORDIWNCE OF TH C:CTY COUI�, ` t, OF ^.';Ic;. CI'.*,Y O I,AKE OSWEGO M-1EN.DING LOC CHAPTER.: -,R (ZONING CODE) AND 4U (UEVE- 1,0P E1gT CODE) TO ALL,EVIATF. + HAR'* SHIPS The Ci'r_y of 1,ake 0.:,wog , rdaiils as folJ01J;S: S3_ZL_:�.gia�.. I,Oc; Fi . U 1 :sha 11 1x' �m��ncie;.l t��. au'. i r;g t.hr: following pz'Uv i. � i.on 30.1 I,9_t = A unit: of land created in compliance with all legal requirements in effect and applicable aL the time of creation. ,$estin 2. LOC �l�'.. 15 shall :)e atnende.�d `b. -- delet.ing t --he language shown by sGrikr'h and addinq the lrungu��ge .�hc�wn in Loki 3 f o 11. ow.,; 48.515 General E ceptions 1. Generj_, exception to lot- area and dimension re-quirC-'ment s . .f�,;,:c.ri � L3z�,•? � -i2 :�-t�t.: `-�{:*�T=--�:: }ltd-'--rt���r t' ra-t-£ {.�.£_-rfTr!•t.:ktJL-' �t�� }.:,-�t•�;._i.�tti•3{-�—i-i1—c"!—�.ri-I''tCF�-�--•t34Jf1:'�L=S)3-1.jr�_--}`2c"�•�-•-r�-r1 ���--t3•r--tai-iit�_'c1�r�n-rr#3•��)}•-•`�ese3-i��t--•t��<�et--�=1�t•-itti-!t:i r�le:tnr�.-ot a-��•�--L�e:r-tc��.;-��.�r-`-�.-o-l:- �:�rt�tr3 r.-t:ni<?t �.(:-:3-e3•C -� 3YF, ..•.,.�:�tz-e--i n w�i-i•n�'�--t-}-r�--p-r-opc�r-���_rc��:�a-t-e�; l.lae�:Qt cyz--•�{t�f-z-e•g��E-e ��-•l:t�--�-:fie--m,��p�-k.��--(.rrt�:i-�d--l3y�-�--t�e�e--i.»-�i►ti-•t-t:-eta-c�tt l_-3��-!; �3•t-�-r� •t-•3•�e•--s�•fine-�n}-�.�rLrT.:T-��cy-ot�Y�r---r-�t7�:ri r-��ne3i t--�-c�-€-t: )�s�--Q•<3i3-e ,�r-tli--+�-1��-•��—Co�:1c-.� �;�L��3-c1tt� ; - a -C �:13�-��=e--`-��---•,.� ��---�-r-e� Elf: -€-f-� �-i: f_ rtt; y-,--r.-F'r,-r=.=)�tT�t�x�-1---v��---:�} �:1�--}_1 e -1-i Ir�•f-l: � e3 --t e -r -a 3-i:-R�)-1-+V—��n1,-1j�—<:�Wr�i_ } t1L'�•r A lot w:..ch doers not comply with the minimum lot area or dime.isional requirements required by the Code at time of application for development may be occupied by a permitted use in the zone in which the lot is located. Any proposed use of th(t lot must comply with all other applicable code provisions, including but not limitec' Lo vetbacke, height limits, and lot coverage rertuiremente . The lot lines of a lot which does not comply with the minimuttt lot urea or dimensional requirementrt of the Code, at the time of apy ,ication may bre adjusted as lona as the ndjuat.mont does not increase the degree of: rionr_ompliance . 65 u6 .r brt.W>.��. i1J � �--'�3V 11�tr �{�� .lA � C!'1 1.�{.r I. L.��Y l..l•(?. .......L i:'•.., .� 1. 4A �.. i. " .. �. i l` ��--ow:��e-�-fr��-��r,-��; if�•'cf3 by�-•---a-- -decd-i .a i; -ed --e t: •�-e et --car--a l ?y�- -c7 r—; t rr t } •sx E)SI'1r:3lrii_►; --ec P ---mss— «t-3erw'-se '3�c-€-cs�allzt price<>i, 4rty ©wcZt•��•�•r-��--��e-1-1---},e-������-e�-rfrt� �:cT�- A unit of land created in ^_omplia:rc,: with all legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. 26.1 L-ot. illegal: A unit of lanc_ crF.at:c:d in v.:.-'_.ucion of one or more legal regli ii;,.:dents iL, eftect and applicable dt the time .cf-:.',-atinn. LOC 49.105 s1 -,ll 13e amended }.y ''Meting the language shown by strike through and add.l.I1C..'j I-he1,'iucjrje shown In b!:dd as fol 1.ovi's : 49 .1.05 D(-vt!I(.)(,nent Re.',t`.1CtOLJ Or, IlTI}Y�:fa�Yt !:}Y' `�. 1•ar3Xs:�S �.1.lega 1 Lot . No development permit shall bu i.c:;ued I.or- ,he development or use of an illegal lot--r���t-ifs Ln-- legal et' I-- lf:.r' a ��p �-i��r-k�-E1-a•� l-}�e-�r�lle-t�-4:--t:-}t e-- .l-ot •w���-�: r-�� t:-c�ci to n i e r s the lot �ompl-les--vai-t}�-a3-1-1e�cl--regttr irfei�ll�._•_-if__.¢�C� t at--t-k�e-t-3.-me-o€-Tzp'rt�v��--e;E t-�c= sL�,�1-SFr.=telt in made legal pursuant to the applicable requirementFj for creation of a lot in effect at the time of application. t�}lE.'`--}:''ItIP•E}�I1 �}'3t��-�-}3(?-r}C-3---t:.}}�'--{:)L�'Zf.7Crr--i=£t�t�t".7t-3-!?ef-t:-}1t?`-��i:==1Y3-r The applicant shall h demonstrate conformance with applicable legal _requirements arid -t-. This restriction applies regardless of whether t}3at ptz:sata--real-lei—t11 �ri�la cstt the applicant was responsible for creation of the illegal lot. 2. if an illegal lot cannot be made legal pursuant to subsection I of this section because it does not comply with lot area or dimenvional requirements in effect at the time of application, an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance from such lot area or dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the lot would have complied with lot area and dimensional requirements applicable at the tLme of creation. 66 , , n 0 llFUAFT 4/02./92 I 3. If ttn illegal lot cannot be made legal purscant to subvectionG (1) or (2) of this vection becauve it t'.oes not comply with arplicable lot area or dimensional requirements at the time of application and Aid not comply with applica'r:le lot, area or dimensional requirements at the tir:11 of creation, an application for the creation of th-, lot ch.sll b•) exempted from compliance with such '.ot a: -Eta and dimensional requiremen'-:s if the n)plcanL cl-amonotrates that development that wc-uid bre allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in '.erms of sc.iale,noire, traffic, lose of privacy, obst ruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. in determining the degree of impact, the City nhall consider the consistency of potential development on a iof with the exicting devel.opmont pattern in the vicinity. The City may impose conditions on devc'—,pnient of the lot in order to ensure that legalization of the lut does not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Rend for the first Lime by Litie only at the regu.lor, mecring of Lhc? City (�)l nril of t} -le City of Dake Oswego held on the day. of --- T 7.992. ;FYI; ; . DES. I3:STI�III: EXCUSED: Ree,.d for Ll -ie se.-cond Lime by ;.iLle only and enacted at the regular meeting o.f_ the City Council. of the Ci Ly of Lake Oswego held on the .day of: , 1992. AYES : NOES, : E,XCTJ2,ED : 67 02/92 a DATE SIGNED:. ATTEST: APPRO,VED AS TO FORM: ,eLl-.Ley G. Condit, City Attorney Alice L. Schlenker, 'Mayor Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder 9F' p O ASAP A.',1 REPORT' U "IT" F LAKFC, 0SNVEGO YO L It ------------------------ PLANNING DI�»��+�J AMILWANT: 1I_Is N`). City of Lake Oswego) DA 2-92 PROPERTY OWNER: Not Applicable ],F(iAI, I HSC'Rli'1_DN: Nat Applicable LOCATION: Not Appl.ic� hie STA r -r: Jeff' Condit City Attorney Ron Bunch, Scninr Planner 1)ATE 017 ltf:_l OR`1': May 1, 1992 1.1.'A R I N G.: c,iay 11, I992 -C'OMIl. PLAN I)i S1.CiNATION: NFIGI MOR1100.1) ASSOCIATION: N.ot Applicahle -- Applies City Wide All Neighborhood Associations 'l;{?NiNG DESIGNATiON: Not Applicahle -- Applies City-Wicic 1. :11'1 IX7A'NT'S RF.C,Zl, IL,� ' The applicant is requesting approval or anlendrl,r.nts it) the Lake Oswego Zoning Code to alleviate the harr;;,hil) ctlt're1111y illll)OSed 1)1)01) OW11 r•;; of parcels that 4vere not lawfully c:rcatecl clue to uncoordimltet.l ttpplic;ltion of i..nkc Oswego Inning and partitioning :tppiic.,11foils. "These 'Imendments to LOC Chapter +r; :7. •)ning C(xic) and LOC Chapter 49 (i)cvci0j)111cnt ("(,dc) 1)rcwide. i*or a process All undersized illegal ion can be Ichalized. DA 2-o)" 69 P 7, r'�A. M�a'A'''F.,i,�°.�F 4 Specific Ame:nd.mvits are proposed to the following: I. LOC 48.1.15 Definitions, 2. LOC 418.515 General 6xcepticns, and; I LOC 49.105 Development Restricted on Improperly Craned Lot. The above. aniendincrits am: -bown in Exhibit 1, Ord.nitnc:c -4o. 2052. 11, APPt! iC AI3U R.I GULA7`IC)N.S A. C;ty ctf Lake. Osweect !,7ompr:.henxive Flan Policies; Resic!r;itial Land Use Policy L-Acrtient: R.esai.dential Density Policies Residential Site .Design I'olicie:; Housrng Choict: Policies Economic Resources Po'icy Element: Implement Meth.;cJs to RC(IuCC 13u1111C Cctsts 13. City cif Lake 0swcuo Zoning Ordinance: - LOC-th.750 l tninf; Code: Aniendrt,sits to the 'Text. LOC'48.1-1'35 Zoning Code: !xgis;ativc Ilc•rrr:n.: 1'rcicedures - Amendment:; to thu Zoni'lig Code. LOC •19.6.5 Uevelopmu-m Code: Legi.slativu I Ieariril.; Procedures - Amendments to the Development Code. C: Statewide Planning_(3oals: Goal I - Citizen Involvement Goal 2 - 1 -and Use Planning Goal 10 - housing Goal 14 - Or1--mization Ill. l"IN )INGS. A. Bac vround 110C 49.105 currently prohibits the Cit), from; issuing ffny developme.rif pennit on a IN 01,,11 was 1101 lawfully Created unless the lot is legalized by going through fhc pal titloilirig ltrocccltlre Iiur•saattt to the CurMlIt Code, 1'"3ecnuse the Zoning Code dcte s riot pc-rrrllt tlerlsity variances, a hardship is .created w'her'e the illegal lot is titr,.111ti 111;11 the CONTIlt miminturrt lot si".e allowed i.1 the -'wile. Furthennom, since OW, c1.1r� TI)t Cctdc COI)Mins 110 Iarocess h) whic'It n'', undc�rsir��tl illegal lot Can be Ic-1;;ilir,cd, an owner is essentially stuck forever wiih ,in unhuildable lot. Because 70 DA ').()2 47 V 01:5 Q1.010 plollihits tilt: sale of n parcel in a unt,l .► partition is approved, such lots also bcconie ulls;dcable. The City co rains a number of illegal Ills because (f two e-vetas in the history of Lake Oswego zoning and partitioninf; YC9111;1601 s, 1--irst, thr. City c'Id not regulate minor pavilions (:,ration of Fess than four lets) prior to 1975, but Ill- "Lonitl-, Code has contatineti lot sire and dimensional requircine nts since 1959. ns was decided 'b: LU1 A in Ward v. City of Lake ()swego, LUIS `t No. 91-053, tile. 7.oning Code indelandently applied to the creation of such lots. Because oms could be recorded without City approval, a noinber (--I' lots w%1e cre-Med prior to 1975 withrntt the benefit of compliance with the: 7.onit,,= C(xle in effect at the. 61110.. - Second, the 19112 Zoning, ,lode placed nc%% 1 wgt! , inininiurn lot :sizes on a number of ncigh!)orhood.; which "';:re deN,eloped at `;mater densities. In several caws, attest; new, larger, inn imunl i'.)t sizes have 'prevented the City from 1:--1: ung IMS out are virtuTly ccfendcal in size to the nla,jorhy of dc�'!-'o er! lots ill `l e neighborhood, ancf whi,:fi ()tlicrwisc would be :ihle 1t• rlmcloll pursuant to the gran (father claiuxe cclntcri.nc(I in LOC -15.51 S The pill -pose of the proposed rrdrnnnce. is not tO autonr:t lh� ' 'li'Ma ')wilding un illegal ups. Indeed, the Citi teles not "trove stick a lilloLi.ty. e •f S Chanter 92 rryl.ires t'lc ilpproval of a suhMsion or partition h- ord- tv . ,caliz.. an illegai lot.. lather, the I)LIMI OSe of :he ol-ijitlance i� to allow cern n ninhad e ucpdons to the lot ur •a and dirllew.ion requirements of thc- zk)tic SO that ;in owner of an illegal sulastlutdard lot calt,tlt least apply for a partition to legalize the 100 Tlic propr<sed aniendnlent also brings LOC 411.515 into compliance with -11 ttltl.endnicn! made MRS Lh:lptei- 92 (the Subdivision and hartition Law) in 1985. 'l•hat anlenchtlew, codified as ORS 92.017, states that a lawfully crt;atcd parcel remains a discrete. lot or parcel unless the 101 lines a:c chang"! or vacmed or the parcel is further divided or partitioned. 'Paris amendivicni c,, -as .spccili,�ally designed to nrohibit the collinloll local practice of treating c;01169110uS lcf;al lots aS one parcel if thry are in one owner -:hip. OILS 92.017 requires the City to recognize such lots as independent lots and prohibits the City frotli iequiring a new partition if the Owner decides to sell one Or marc of such contit;irouS legal lots. LOC 4;1.515 was adopted in 1982, pl•ior tet this legislative. change, and curr>rntly reyuiies tate (1y to consider conligu0us IMS in One Ownership as one parcel in violation Of the current :;tate. law. Note: `l'hiS provision docs not require the City to Irga,br c antiguou's )ors in One (.)`i'11Crtillll7. 1111 ,ley, the anwndliwill will allow the adjuStnicnt of lot lines of legal 1"ll ►,rt 1r;t . t,c�d lots :is long as the "Idjustiilcnt flocs not increase the cicl;rce of ncmCrn :;-1Acc, 'Phis will SOlvc n ltrc>hlem in 1 Fltilinan Orl two lugally created 5 (Nni %c.lullre foot lots that ctrntailt two homes dating; from tllc t�scrtics forties. t'ii, two h,, ha,c always been in the Sante Ownership, MY tilt secolm! hcnlsc uscd DA 2-92 ]lake 3 of 5 71 trs ;ti rCrttal or motllcyr-ill lacy liciilici '( h owner tIt)W ulrnrt:4 to sell clic Iaorncts> tiCp;tr1,telyi Urafo:rtuna Cly, the Iw:o horries were,, _constructed facing; the wronk, direction. 'The lot line betwcc.�ra dte two legal. lots bisects the two homes. A lot lin(: adjustialcnt would solve the problem witholl't .0 slanging a thing on the ground. The current Cole, however, not allow lut litrc adjustrnentr unless tilt adjusicd lf)ts ccnnply Willi the tninirtltrnl .101 sire, Which is 7,5{.Y0 square t•ect in tl:is ncighborhood. Until this acrlcradnic.nl is made, the property towner is titll,cic with two'homCs oil two Itgal. parcels that cannot be. sold separately (unless the owner i)hysic-a11y moves the hollies. :so that their location. is comistctli with (he, lot lines). This anlencbnacnt would solve Zilnollicr problem, also in I fallinan, where a property owner wants to combine ail illegal to.( with a legal bill substandard lot by a lot line adjuttnu:nl. The resulting single lot Would be appro:eirnaicly 7,200 square feet, larger than most o1• file lots ill the ncit ilhorrhood as dCVCJopcd, but less than the r11111itlllttll lot SizC 111d thus 0111 -1 -Cady 1)rf)}1lblted. Sections a and.4 of the: proposed ordinance :claril•y arld amend LOC 49.105 to provide a legalization process for illegal uncicrsizcd lots. Proposal LOC 11).1050 ) .is c0111HILilic>n of the cur•rcnt plovi"ion that prohibits dcvc:l()P1llc•rit on illeg;tt lots trnlC,s the lot IS IC);ali::Cd pursuant to CurTc'r1t regulations. i'ropmCd LOC 40 .105(2) contains the 1,11-st of two cx::Cpcirins to this r111C. If' the illegal lot Cannot be legalized pill':uarlt to •19.I05(1) I)CC;ur;c; it docs not Comply with Current lot arca or dinlcnsioli rcduirc•rllcnts, it may bc. exempted from such lot arca or dimensional requiicnlcnts it' the appiiC;tnt dcrl,onstrates that the. lot would [)rive Complied with' tile. 101 arca or dial)CntiiOrl ru.1Cs in effect at the tulle of crcation. l;xanrl)le: A 6„000 stict;trC font lot is'creaied in First Addition when ills arca had a 11'11fcrefic Tllirlinlulll lot size, but the person creating the lot failed to obtain thc. necessary City approval and thus the lot is illegal. Because the zorlilil is now R-7.5, the lot cannot be made legal under the current code. The proposed ,11110 ldlncnt would allow the property owner to demonstrate that the lot would have; Complied with the illinimmil lot size at the time of creation, Strld (Ilt1S eXCrlll;t the: l ai•tition 1•rom having to comply with current rllinirnunl lot sizes. This C.XCcptioll is essentially a lotical ex_ansion ot':t-ilc; grandfather clause contained ill LOC 4.8:515, above Prop c)kd 1..0C 49.11Il50) ctlntr itts a se.Conci,. -silk: ire cltCfiC;ttlt, exception ro (;urrt fl_t tlliltifilttnl lot ami and dimensional requimmentti Cor fots such ss flit Wards, lo.[ wllich did not conlpty wi`t) lot area or dimensiowal :Standard); ill effect at the tir.11-C Of crcation. such Id'e's can be sif;laificantly sti.i_sian:dard ;.end :therefore. Ir t,.fliZ tion Ind devclop`luill of such lots call have a tlegad-vc; impact oil 'tile fleii-illborhoocl. Tor tt:iti, rcason, cluafif c,at.ion for tins cXcepair)t:) >rclu. -C a defno;nsfeat:ioil I11;11 1c..'ali ;ttriolf wc)tild not littvc a suhsta ilial neg:►tive impact on hc: neildikorhoOd ill Ic'rm, of"Scale, no's( , traffic; loss of priavxy, obstruction of 72 1)A 'C views, or btlffeil from existing pr�l�crties, The provision provides that the City play impose conditions of development to mitigate such.negative impacts. Ildwc.tcr an tt�liilicnttt ttnn(}t lltl{I'll the eXCL'1)11(1llti in tittbscctions 2 or 3 if the illdl;al lest Carl be lcgalizCll I)lU'St1;u11 tosutlscction 1, and cannot util%re the e:(ce moll in subsection 3 if the lot can be legalized pursuant to subsection 2. In other words, an applicant, tel Icpj1:ire an illegal parcel rtrust comply will, the current nliniinun, lot area and dimensions if possible. Also -these.mmendments do not exempt development 011 1cg11li-red parcels from any of the height, setback or lot covcrage regulations once the parcels are legalized. 'Phis offers .additional protection to the lieghborhoo(ts, because development oil it lot that is substandard to any gr (1cl;rcc will almost `CC,-tain)v rccluii a v. ince, resulting ill an tt(l(litiolmi rcvic%v for con)hatibil t}'. IV. CON CLUS1ON: Under the current Cole, there is no process to legalize an illegal lot which is les` tharl tht: current Tlllnli`.lUrll 101 sirr_. Owncis of su(:h lots Cann(it tfeVelop the lots, and the resulting clout{ on tllc title rtlakes such lots difficult to sell. further, given that nulny of diose lots wrrc illct;ally create(1 in the Conies, {fifties and sixties, the smius of the lot nm} not have buil c,tsily dctcrminat)lc at the tinlc al llurchase..,lid the lot owner may not h;ave effective recourse against 11,C seller. 'I'llc pt-q)Ose(I 11,ic t(imcm will provide a process to allow owners of illt.gal lots to seek leg,di7atio)n vitt ,l l;;lrtitioll or- subdivisioil as long, as ccrt.iin critcrift :11'e nlct. V. IZI:C'C��11la NI)AT10N: Staff rccomrllelid�, th;'t the Planning Commissiol) recotmrlend approval of ISA 2-92 to ,uncnd L()C Ch%pter -18 ('Zoning Code) and LOC Chapter •19 (Development Codc) to provide for 1)MCUdurc,s %vhcrchy certain undersized illeal lots can he legalized. FXIIIBITS: Or(linanLe No, 2052: A Gencral Or'ClinjIllce ol, the City Council of the City of bake Oswcgo Amctidi"19 LOC' Chapters 1.18 (ironing Code) and l_O(_7 49 (Developlimll (*ndo) to Alleviate llleV:ll Lot 11a1'tl:S1)ips 2. IMC1110 from JCif Condit, (7ity Attorney to the Laky Oswci:o l'lanrltrlg Con1111'ssu)n an(l 'i'(lhl Coffe(`, Planning Director I. 1'l,tnninJ, C'onlrllission Minutes, dated 1chru,u'y 25, 1991 h:pc-.if(ta2.')? DA ?. 02. 73 74 PLANNING C:O NINUSSION N11NUTE7S Nlr:y t1, I192 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission tneetint of Vav 11, 1992 was called to order by Chairman Coldham at 7:()5 p.m. r . Conimi:s:sioriers present included Mr. Beebe, Ms. Finnigan, Mr. Oldham, Mr. Rohrer and Ms. Colquitt. Commissioner Del.alcy arrived at 7:08 p.m. Comtilissioner'Garten was excused. Also present were Torn Coffee, Pianning Director; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner; Jane Heisler, Associate Planner: Jeff Condit, City Attorney; and Kathy Avery, Senior Secretary. Ill. NPI'I OVAL Of, MINUTES The Aaril..'.M-1992 mi.nules were nest available for Planning Commission review. IN'. P.E TITIONS AND C;( NINIUNIC.;A`I'IONS Chairman Oldham clarified that the "Letter to the Editor" in the Lake Oswego Review in support of the serial levies was from every member of the Manning Commission, riot just from himself as indicated in the ltevi��w. '�'hr. Review's explanation for the omission was that they traditionally listed only one person her letter. I t . PUBLIC; ; IF,ARING a_ rockiest by the City of Lake ()swego to amend LOC Chapters 48 ("loninl; ("ode) :arid 49 (D1,'Vcl0prne1lt. (,,ode) to allevintc 01og,11 lilt hardships. Chairmalt 01{Iht-1111 eKlila led the legislhtive hearing procedures, He rodue-sted an abbreviated report from st:lff. Jeff Condit, City Attorney, explained that the proposed ordinance was designed to remecly hog,; tilt; City treated illegally created .parcels that were not large enbu.gh under the current 1T1.11ilililni lot tiires to atlk;w them to be, processed and partitioned legally. I IC discuS;Seel the proposal three step review process which wmild alltnv<legalta:at orl 111 CIC,'Irly dcrninittltxrs situa dorls and wtmuld mquire, additional r6 4o"w tN:itl regttrds:tt nq tivc impacts :on cont rnun-ity chatracter, ot! tots. Ile explained than it was very important that a proctitis be provided for the review of the; Illegal lists. I le Stated that the app;iLation would rmtkc`the current grand.f;ither clause to file Zoning Crile clearer and more clursislerlt Witli the (:itv Cotitici'f's t.eci:sion. It would also allow illegal lots to he legalized through a throe step process in order loallow tsuiid.inl; pernii.ts tr.) tu' I'micd fri.r,01C lrns. FIC {flout diticussed rhr proposed throe stop review 11fUc'C'.ti .11 ilC'kall. 5/11/92 PC Minutes Page 1 of is Commissioner Bec.he inquired whether it would be up to the hearing body to deterrnitrc whether there was a ncrative impact on cnnimunity character. Mr. Condit explained that an atwmpt had been made to define :substantial negative impacts, Typical considerations were the scale of the structure, the consistency of the structure with the neighborhood, ensuring that setbacks were consistent with the neighborhood, noise, traffic, loss of privacy and o'.struction of views or buffers from existing;properiics. Chaimian Oldham remarked that staff was proposing vett' suhjcctivc criteria and he noted that under the present Code, decisions on the legality of lots appeared to be pretty clear cut. Mr. Condit agreed, however, he noted that neighborhoods -like I lallinan and first Addition were developed with 5,(XX) — 6,()()() square foot lots, and the, zoning in those ncig hborhoods was now R--7.5. lie explained that the undeveloped lots in those neighborh6ods were substandard according to the R--7.5 zoning requirements, but were consistent with the development in their areas and should be legalized, Commissioner Rohrer inquired which hearing; body would decide whether a lot was legal when additional review was .needed under the third step of the review process. Mr. Condit responded that all the decisions would be administrative decisions. The administrative decisiot, process required that notices be mailed to adjacent property owners and the neighborhood association chair with any party having the right to appeal staff's decision to the Development Review Board. 75 Commissioner DcLacv noted that the majority of tile: illegal Ints appeared to be locad within areas of lower price(], older homes_. By leg;tilizing; the ere;, he suggested that the City Nvould be comlalying with the METRO Housing; Goal, Chairman Oldham ioLluircd if the text amendments would solve Isle substandard JUI size problems within the First Addition Neighborhomx9. Mr, Condit responded that the ang;hborhood':s concerns but would aerldments were riot designed to solvc all that nei a:e;Cad resolve Borne of them. Mr. Condit distributed Exhibit 4 whichwas a drawing submitted by ta(mna Koepke depicting a lot which she owned that was determined by City staff to be illegal. Ile Mentioned that she would be testifying before the Commission. 'S,�iR�ltttril� 1?UPi1� 9s'plts.1 x A-t::►i - st`_ S;U- -� 3`� stated that she and her husband purchased a 6,075 sq. ft, lot on Lund Street in 1951. They subsequently bought a S,(XX) sq. ft. lot in the same neighborhood and built their residence there. She noted that there were many other homes built on 5,(XX) sq, ft, lots following their Ourch'Ise of the Lund Street Parcel She t xpl'tined that when they were remly to ell their lot in 1190 they were told for the first time that their lot was illegal. Staff had suggested that they try to acquire property from a(ljacent property owners in order to incrrtise thcir lot size to the required 7,5(X) x ' sq, ft. anti the two neighbors. which had enough land to sell both declined, They were now forced to wait for the City to nrttke exc:ePtions to the Citv's code. Site sirg;gt:stcd 01111 1110 illegal lots nticdn't be cortsideird problem lots, itistead thcv Should lie c(msidcred cre.,itive challenges I'or inn(Valive design. 5/1 1/�t2 l'C Mint les 75 ���,,,b a ilttu,is t"ncils �.1t3U�1 _ctci,xc: L�ttsa ail t s tit»ct 74. stated.that she was a real estate broker and one of herr clients was Mr. Ward, thc; owner of an illegal lot on tilt lake. She noted that secondary uses for illegal lots were denied to the,, property owners; because the lots had no prirmiry use, She pointrd out that a possible secondary use for tite Ward lot wcould be a boat house with access to the lake., She felt that property Owners were ,sonietimes led to believe that their lots were buildable when the City charged a sewer assessment, and especially when the City installed sewer to a site. She felt that the proposal would provide relief for some property owners and was an excellent idea. With no further public icst:irnony to corse before the Planning Commission, Chairman Olcihant Closed tloe public hearing for Planning Comt7rission deliberation. Dlcli esti:#ion Commissioner Finnigan inquir�:d if Mr. Condit had giv;n consideration to parking under review criteria 113. Mr. Condit agreed that the inclusion of parking was a gcxxf idea. Commissioner Colquitt requested to know how marry illegal icots were located in the City, Mr. Condit responded that approximately 8-10 illegal lots half corse to his attention recently, but preparing an inventory would be very time consuming and an almost imposdble task, Ile concluded that it was not an isolated problem. The Commission expressed concern with allowing all illegal lot rectifications to be administrative decisions. Discussion ensued and it was agreed that all decisions should be: made administratively, except for those applications which would allow lots to be less than or equal to fry°/n of theminimum lot size allowed by the zone; those appiicatio►ts would be rc(luind to be reviewed by tim Developn►cnt Review Board. Commissioner )eLaCV TTIOVed to adopt the starf recommendations for,A1 w-92 tto aTner►d LOC 48 and 4i) to provide procedures 1, 2 and 3. Proc•a,-lure 3 shall be Subject to a l evelopmrttt Review hearing whenever the parcel Sirs is less th.tn the ;fry% area allowed by forte. Parking Shall aiso be considered in procedure ?. Comrrtissioricr Rohrertt:(Iuestcd:,m assurance from staff that the notices mailed tout to adjacent property owners would include; a mttp showing the ptotctmal buildin footprint. He stated that the adjacent :property owners had the right to know what the property owner, intended to do with the illegal lot. Commissioner Del.,.-cy added the requirement that the public tmticeS of .tet application to leg"llize a lot pursuant to lor<ocedUre 3 shall cowain to nlap of the property Phistrating rile Imildittg crtvclopc. C'01tttttissittr►cr Colquitt seconded they motion and it carried with Cortmw;sioncrs Bcc:hc;, ):irmiga-rt, Del.,ac),, Oldham; R ohrcrr ural Colquitt vtotmg yes, V. G 1,INFRAL PLANNING 1) Natural Resources Commission 'free Poli:cv Strl)-Ci�rft Tittee Cltt-cirge Statement Mr. Runcal► chscusscd the charW statr.n►cnt and exiol;rined that it wigs forwarded to the Commission for dicir review and approval. There wits general consensus by the Commi.�sfmt that the clmrge statemem w:►s ti;Uisfactcttti, 5111/92- 2- PC Nlittutes 76 P:I)le .t tot' ti n d C o -u ns o r int L i 1w Vv, 'I ',.-I Y! C) I "S I. I C t 1 a! Chrdinamms QW, No. DA V� 92, I yc-,j( of May If I V,h1J--; YOU WI oi' 'not t1hr; to LOC Would !em-ilizu th(2 Wald prQf��rc:rty of] m bi,,ud on you., discussion with I-, ? that the ordinance wcUPJ ,xi h-phim Uy Wird U, buyour review of amal Mat report indicMes to you lh,':t i rq 4q, ,)rcjvjdii method .'.approving L, legal 1--`t On lhu) properity. If I �,IOLI. LCK; 49.105(3) 'vA;GLJICf not awomaticnlly legalize Ihf.- -11v. It pr(-)Vici(-,. ji process by which tlie Warcis coitid seek r i11 a1 int. if ordinari(.e I!-,, Mr. Vvlrird could apply fora mtn(;f 1i1;" 101 pffovided that in/, complied with all p, iliti a oning reqt!iremeriV. A ;mm"NA SO wn wwwwoq aullmrilyonnWdedMat the creallion of 'the (ol, as a leg' ll !qtvu n on t1he !-,,,urroundinq n( ighlborhooc,' j)atterni cm It wol.fld all(.' Oi-11t)Owcr I"': 'm th�-, to pmtoct1he c'iCiirtt. 'i'i ^'TrAPPI "on 11 -Ai, Vvard an ol,miunly 4) legaVe A; illegal NY, ,,ull fam n wintumA suta:, anthi husdWs IUM, and probably m Shcull, 10 I tiot for a mwior 1"1i:vtition from Mr. Ward all of ,he ;tri A 1111! Ot :V''>'I it ''I If'I'll "• i1 N -it 111,'Uh) U[-) 11-10 1 KPVbUS IQ& PWW Neu) on tht, Ih(., O!,�tptemlOn of ORS ChalAer 02 A the case 3f 'A ('19LIV), P.8 Ot App 242 (1087). As I iorali it ic. r 11i111,,'o , wn lhc) �.)Ilwl pollit)n of f"11. ward's ilkUdo ,gal lot, I r N -fore N111. WnId C�I,n �.Ipply "0 !I11;1, we"131d I'. t':/1 it �,f o I() 111(? 1w, !qj Pt rf: !�,Ivo tyl[III r '-I, I'll 10 jpgp; 1,11 1\1() 4,'; rJw!,! !.,I", How. Ihe , Z -K 77 : +...a.�..*.s5e.3...e^»..kik .d+si.;,wy ''�.. :�. s ",.. _aie. �� �i'.:>_re: � :�� ��Ca„ ' �-� +fry �-,y.3 �� 4 ,�t`''��a ma.�' Mr. PC -till k",()I; tf-.1,; hurdle, he CUL11d o4-j!y itj�,;jifv crc.,., joorj 0, 1, as a logal 10� a t if INIt the, construction allovv�;d by-� ould not hav,, a substantial adve-rs(-, oil p, rtood. Givc�n thei objections Of th,(-) r1,c)icjhborhO()cj i"I the prior kN-' ilPIghbonl RVO docision, this. would be diffiMll to d'0. Further, Ulc) rovic,,vving'nuthority COUld irnPcso a condition that would Iiiji.if or ie—Ari ct dElvelopment-on 1,)t- Or)O P:,'Slbifity that was discussed at the F'I,,-Inninq Corn miI i ss r,,! ---ueting was prohibiting COI*),'3ttt 'jction of ca dwo.1iing but allowing Use. of the fDr a boathouse . it [Act -11c ,J�olter. Or It yo,j have read the SUIN report, YOU know that the. City o,' Lake, Osv-�C-q problem . o has a Parcels bor;�IUSE-3 Of thEl ay the City was developed and Of tho, zoning w , G'Y Of some of:the neighborhoods. Thp i ordi?i,i,,,co is tc providle' a cr)()tl--iod -0 ntent of this fOT [)00ple'to 1(�gaj` thoqf O'lo ms, ;)ariicularly in, th�lt have ams -ori �,vhcr,0 lkgal 10t IS u'SlJt�sturiiic fly 11-10. neighborhood. The or(,JM-,atic'f 2 :,, wordpf-i to require a strict lg�ltiv.e impacts, hovievet, wnor� the Ioi proposed for !ecali�zal:on is J, SU -1-1 jA,; in the VV, mv, -1 do not hosiUite to (�411 I) -,f 2 5. "J e Condit 'i'v Attorney r'lo- U inch, �Scnior PIWI(If2r, Plalirm-,j Dopt. rV �(1 BEFORE 'mE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 71413. CITY OF LAKE OS'W'EGO A REQUEST TO AMEND LOC CHAPTER ) DA 2-92-951 48 (ZONING CODE) AND' LOC CHAPTER ) (City of Lake Oswego) 49 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) To ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER ALLEVIA'T'E 'HARDSHIPS IMPOSED UPON OWNERS OF PARCELS THAT WERE NOT ) LEGALLY CREATED BY PROVIDING FOR A PROCESS WHEREI3Y UNDERSIZED } Cnsc Dile LEGAL LOTS MAY BE -LEGALIZED � NATURE OF APPLICATION A City initiated request to amend LOC Chapter 48 (Zoning Code:) and LOC Chap►r-r 49 (Development cm1e) to alleviate the hardship currently imposed upon owners of parcels thrtt were not lawfullycreateddue to uncoordinated application of Lake Oswego 7,oning and Partmoning regulations. The amendments to LOC 48.()15 (D.e initions); LOC 48.51.5 (General 7~xceptions), and; LOC 49.105 (I)evelopment Restricted on lmproperly Created Lot), provide for a process whcrcby an undersirect illegal lot may be legalized. HEARINGS The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the ordinance or, Maty 11, 1992 at its regultir rriccung. CRITF,RIA AND STANDARDS A, City of L,akc Oswego Comprehensive P1nn Policia; Residential Land Use Policy Element: Residential Density Policic", General Policy 1, Spo,•111c Policies 1, 4. Gencral Policy ill,. Specific Policv i, Residential Site Design Policies General Policy 11, Specific Policy 1. General Policy V, Spccil is Policy 1. I" :l I 17,1 2-92-95 1 79 .4, t M i Y 5 6 7 Is t0 11 l 14 15 16 17 1 !V 20 21 2 i 24 25 �6 9 ;l i .s ;r .;-lousing Choice Policies General Policy I Economic Resources Policy Element General Policy III 13. City of 1,akc Oswr,E;o 7onini! .7rdinaricrr LOC 48.750 Amendments to the Text LOC: 48.805 Notice Provisions LOC 48.835 Legislative Hearing Procedures LOC 4.9.635 Legislative 1-learing Procedures CONCLUSION "T'he, Planning Commission concludeS that DA 1-92 complies with all applicable criteria. FINDINGS AND RHASONS The Planning Commission incorporates the Staff report dated,May 1, I992,and the accompanying memorandum From the City Attorney dated April 2, 1992 as support for its decision, supplemented by .thc following: 1. Ge,tcral Policy I of the R.e;idential Land Use Policy £;lenient States: The City will assure that residential development is appropriately gelated to site conditiortis, surrounding land uses, and csmacity.cl. public facilities (especially streets, and overall Growth Management policies rin oert_Mty). Density will be limited in areas identified as Poten sally hazardous in accordance with :the actual degree Of 11a7,ird. Specific :Policy I for Genetal Policy 1. states: The City will: Assure permitted density of residential developinent is related to; a) Pnysical site Conditions, incltu.ling slope, ha,zards., preservation of natural features, minimizing disturbance of ground ,:uvers and soils; b) The capgcity of adjacent strezts; c) The capacity of public facilities and services; d) The site'S pt tentit:l to handle adequately the proposed density; e) PrMirnity to l.)ublic transportation. P. -%GF '2 DA 2.1)2-1)51 80 t DA 2-92 is in cowtfomiance with these pvl ci,es because if provides for procedures whereby development which would occur on lots which`have been legalized. would be reviewed in 3 accordant V, with the above criteria. In particular DA 2-92 would require s. demonstration for -1 those lots which are significantly sub -standard that i.^galization would not have a nega►i._- impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, vaffic, loss of privacy, obstruction of b views, or buffers frorn existing properties. This provision provides that the City may im.posc 7 condixions of development to mitigate such negative impacts. 8 9 2. General Policy III of the R'esidennal l:an'd Use Policy Element States; Substantially 10 developed single family residential nt'ighborliNxis will 'be maintain`ed at existing density 11 designations. l� 1 ; DA 2„92 is in conformance with this; policy iii thilt it does not propose to ding, the land use 1-i designation of the `nei-hborhoods inhere these: lot:, arc located. lather., DA 2-92 rc.cogn.ires l.� extsling' developrticnt patterns andseeks to allow lots tht were' illegally created which are; 1r, iii 'rtiany insai'nccs, virtually identic:l to the• i aaa}uri'ty Of developed Lotti--tr1` tke nneigt bonc(xx]. 17 This Is partly bec.iuFe the 1982 Zoning Code placed new, larger minimurn lot sizes on -a.. i S numbcr of' ncighbmhmids 'which were dnclopcd at gMatcr densities. J't 'i. General Policy I1 of” the residential SitC DtAll,n Policy Element States: Establish a 21 well-defined tnethod Of evaluating site and building design which specifics standards, criteria 2"-1 and review proct­ss: Specific Policy 1 for Gcneral Policy 11 states: The City will prepare a checklist cif design criteria and policies to guide the site and building designer, so that the 2-1 City's expectations and the review process are clearly explained. As in 1. above, DA 2-92 is in conformance with these policies because it cstablishes specific criteria for the 26 legalization of illegal lots and provides for a specific review procedure for lot.N that arc 27, sitbsttintially substandard. 211.1 29 11, (;cncrnl Policy V .nf the Rrsidt:n1h1l S)IC llcsit;n policy Element States: l'ro%Ide for ?t) innervation in sitr anti building design. Specific Policy 1 for General Policy II states: The PA61 3 DA 2-92-951 81 r 1, City will-n.couragc and ;;4titiist the cars ,gn and rlevclopntent of innovative .residential dwellinl;s, rel;itecl facilities and site; p.lanning ire ;tees 6:eveic),prncn.t. DA 2-92 conforms to this policy singe by providing a. process whet.cby 'llegal lots ciin be Igalized, they can be. subsequently built upon, This, will result in opportunities for infill in �ilr"ndy clew lofK:d .neighboi-hoods. The review proc:c,dgr;s in LSA 2-92.:encourages innovation, slit sits;::anl• buildir g dcs'igrt;. S. General Policy 1 of the Housing Choice Policies States: The City will encourage the provision of a range. of housing types it) nicct the reeds of various lifestyles and family types. DA 2-92 conforrrrs to thit; 11)oiicy sin. -e it Provides the .opportunity for infill to occur in mostly alrr.adY developed neigh.borh: ods. Many of the lots which are to he legalized are smaller than what is allowc d by the applicably: zoning designations. Consetluently, DA 2-92 makes it ,possible for It heater v;.riety of housing to be developed within. areas which. already have public facilities ,tnd services. The combination of infill on smaller lots, and existing public irt'rastrueture will make these hoaxes more affordable than in brand-new subdivisions. f�. General Policy 1.11 of .tilt:. Economic. Resources Element Statcc.: The City will implement methods to redo .t llj forms of public costs and to w.ilize public facilities and resources more efrrciently. As stated above, the PrrXCSS of legalizing illegal IMS as provided for in DA 2-92 will maize it possible to provide for additional housing; in areas which alrea.ly have public facilitic and servic:cs, 'this will provide for an expanded housing base without. sut�:;:+ntial incre;ts.es in ,public cast~ to Provide services. 7. This proposal ii in conf(')rntancc with .pplicable Swte�vicle Pkinning'Goals. In particular, the fr,Ilowing Statewide Planning,Goa(s tt:pply to this t-e(.Iuest: A) goad I - (Citizen Involvement) 'i w.sc new. procedures provide an opportunity for citizens to be involved in the review process for Icgalinttiorl of illegal lets; I3) Girt! 2: (Land Use I'lannin,g) `I'itese new prm-cdures provide for is planning.deci.sion making process in.conforntalice with the Statewide '; L a DA 2-()2-() a 82 E Land UNe Planning (Oils, Statutrt and Administrative Rules as basis for all decisions ttrid nc:titans Trialt'd Io use of and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions relate(] to the lef,ttlizalion of illegal lots in Lake Oswego, C) Goal 10: (mousing) DA 2_112 furthers the I lousing 0-oal by providing buildable land for the housing needs of Lake Osv,cgr7 re.tiidc:nts; D) (;Cid 1 L (PLP lie Facilities and Services) This goal is addressed by providing for housing which can tak, c advantage of the community's existing investment in public infrrstr•ucturV, and; G) Goal 14: (UrbaniLntion) By providing for :additionai housing oppor'tullities on parcels which werc•hreviously un -buildable, F'..,A 2-92 increases the efficiency or urban Irma use. l{) The Pltiriiling Contnt'istiioll rurther concludes that psrking. should b(-, I -rt of the review critct l under tht. arnendml LOC =19.1(1{ (2), and - n) The ii;irtilio tiri_f 'hrnccd trc necessary to legalizc an illegal lot- sh: it be taken to tic Development Review Board for ;t public hea-ing and decision when tiie parcel proposed to he '1'cgalized is 6.5170 or less in :size than that allowed by the applicable zoning distract. h) Ttic public notice that is provided in the above circumstance when the iSSUC COMe1 before the 1Develol.)irient 1',ViCW Board shall illustrate the buildable portion of the site ,ts "a u)nsccluencc of applying the rt;tluired sethttcks. ( )K A:k IT IN OKDI:IZI i) 13Y 'i'111: PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 1. The Planning Comrnis;:ion recommends that DA 2-92 be approved by the City Counc•ii with the following additions shown in bold. 49.105 (3): If' tin illegal lot cannot I— made legal pursuant to subsections (l) or (2) r this section because it does not coni -ply with the ahj; i"tl,lc lot area or dimensional i I )A 2 ()'- 1)5 1 83 4 5 fi 7 4 4 requirements at the tinTc of application and did not comply with applicable: lot area or dimensional requiremcnts at the time of creation, an application. for the creation of the lot shall be e:re r pled from compliance, with such lot area surd dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates. that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terrirs of settle, noise, traffic_, ,parking, lois of privacy, obstntction of views, or buffers from existing properties. Its determining the degree of impact, tlae City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. The City may impose ctmditions on development of the lot in order to ensure that legalization of the lot does not have it significant impact cm the neighborhood. Public notice of an application io legalize a lot pursuant to this subsection shalt eotrtailz a n►:tp of the property illustrating; the building; envelope. If tite lot proposed Io. be made legal pursuant to this Subsection has a lot area or dimension will h is less than 65 pereent of the sire or length required by fire zone at the tirT►e of application, the application to create tl►e legal parcel shall be referred to ttrc� Development Review Board for public 3'rea,ring. i \C71: (i DA 2.92-051 84 A 1 1 CERTIFY THAT`" THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Comrnission of thCity of Lake Oswego. a SDATED this 27th clay or_ `V 1992, 6 7 U 10 i1 12 13 1 •i I 1h i Charles OIcham, Chair Planning Commission Secretary S'UbStIMIM decision ;approving this ;ipplic:ition at the met. -ting of May 11, 1992 AYrS: Beebe, Finnigan, DeLncy, Oldhurn., Rohrer, Coldui;tt NOES: None 2.4 ABSTAIN: None -N r, ABSENT: Gauen �6 �7 Vote at the meeting of May 27, 1992 ;approving these Findings as accurately reflecting the decision .h of the Planning Co mission, t' -%(IF 7 1)A 2.92-9 Finnij,,nn; DoUacy, Oldh,ant, 130111:er Nana CnLelttf.Lt:, 130.el)o 85 5�1 ;1YI:S: I NOES: ' A13STA IN: A13S11,NT: t' -%(IF 7 1)A 2.92-9 Finnij,,nn; DoUacy, Oldh,ant, 130111:er Nana CnLelttf.Lt:, 130.el)o 85 CITY OF LAKE 0SWEG0 July 21, 1992 CITY COUNCIL M.IWIT" , The Council }field an Agenda Brit-firig from 5:30 p.m. to 0:316 p.m. in the Municipal Courtroom. Pi.( -_,sent were Councilors Holstein, Marcotte, Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Chrissman, Dan Anderson, Punkas and Mike Anderson. Mayor Schlenker called the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, July 21, 1992 to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Present were Councilors Holstein, Marcotte, Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Chr.isman, Dan Anderson, Punkas and Mike Anderson. Mayor Schl enk- - reviewed the Council agenda for the cable audience and noted that they would be returning to LORA at the end of t:hv meeting. Ill. CONSENT AGENDA A. WRITTEN COMMUN I CAT TONS .App,j:ati.os; for. liquor license for Parson Farm Country Caf+; , 15964 SW B.00nes. Ferry Road. AC"I'lON: Approve application. r; DrL'r r,�tc:,NT REPORTS Status report. on Boones Ferry Phase II Project. AC'I'1O'N F?eceive Report. C. ORDINANCES Second - Reading. and .Enactrnent Ordinance 2062, a general ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego amending LOC Chapter 12 to create a Lake Oswego Arts Commission. ACTION: Adopt ordinance for sec.ond reading and r-nact.ment, D. RESOLUTIONS 91-37, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego supporting :the Boundary Commission Approval of Creation of a Clacl:amaz Coun-ty Law Enforcement District City Council Minutes July 21,1992 Page 1 of 19 87 F. something c:ffe:rent; Therwas no evid,r-nco (back t:o 1,942) that the city council had 'ever deleciated this authority to the city manager , dt•spi to the tact th�a.t at least tbr� 1 sat two (and probaL,l y last three) city tr,:inagers have leen snaking the. -ecomm.enclatinns; • This resolution incorporated (by di::ect quotation) they criteria for approvil oi: liquor licenses from the Oregon Liquor, Control Administrative Ru -le (which were a review of licenses ariil a police check to determine whether the applicant for the location lead .. history of alcohol :elated disturbances); • This resolution also raised the application ff:e to tlae <nmollnt_s ialiowe'd 1:>y statute (Lake Oswego has had the :3ame application fees for 12 years) !aayor Schlenker opened -thc hearing to publ ir: testimony. Thr..re was no one prc•:oent who wished to 11-e ti fy. Mayor Sch I ( elver c losed ". 1he publ i s teM t imony . Councilor Dan Anderson moved to adopt Rci;olution 9:2-29. ';ounciIor E i I Ho1.st-,:•in seconded the motion. A roll call wile take.: a:7:: the mot i on passed S71 t1J (`UUil�."i l (');rr Holstein. Marcotte. Mayor Schlunker, Councilor:: Cliriswi�ai:, D an 1lndet—son, Pu.--Ra-s, allcl Ptikr. Ancic•rson ~�(AA; y in fave:a 1. . nA ^. :2 a _it ii:-ti.ate_d reequ(2st to amend thy- Zoning an,evtc.l. -•I opment, _-^des to provide for a process, wh i I,l, er`ci ed ;11eaal let..; 'cc31a 1>e legalized to alleviate tain hard o hips. condi t. Fr es��nt �_d the zif f rel:,ort. as out. 1 1.nF,c1 in t 1,,. : ritten report dated June 17, 1992 and mads: the following n t s : • Clung he code prohibited the c ty f rom issuing d :-Vol opmeint perm:ts on 1 oto th:3t w{ re not legally -•reated unless the lot was legalized, by obLaini.ng a partition pursuant to the current code; • liuwe.ver , : f the l ut was smaller than the currant minimum lot size, staff could not take_ an application for variance 11ecause the code did not allow a Glen:;i t.y variance, • NardohiI4 r:rcat.od for the lot owner imcludc•r_i not. b-C-inq :able to caet. a building permit and. cl oudirig of the title, making it difficult to sell the lot; Numerous i l l egcll lots existed in the city because of the history of zoning, partition .regulations; in Lake Oswego : t Though l -o' si."E dimension rFquirement.s have existed 195:1, the city had no approval process for partitions or lot' creations before ;1925; Someone could record a new lot prior to 1975 withcult the: city checking to see that it complied with the code with the result that. many people unknowingly created illegal lots; Prior: to the adoption of the 1982 code, older -- y u:ci 1 Minutes Jul y 21 , L :,92 Page 6 of 19 neighborhondo ;like PiLst: Addition and Hallanan) had Sweu minimum lot sizes than they did now: Therefore, current illegal lots (created up to 30 years ago) could be either the same size or evon larger than the aveiage lot site in FA*t Addition or Dial lanan: - These could nc! be legalized because most lots (in Fi1:5t AdVAlun, for example) wate platied at 6000 squacc feet, nut the area was now now"cl f-7,5; Cave two examples of how this has resulted in ridiculous situations in Hallanan: Staff could not grant the owner of two lots (5000 squaie feet a pieQe, with two houses on them built act OSZ the lot lines) a lot lin-r-- adj"stment because the vesulting Into would not be the min4mup 3 A size (7500 sqws i e feet) ; 1 7200 square foot lot could not be legalized Lecause it was in an R-7.5 zone (even though the majolity of lots were 5000 square feet); This resolution provided a three -tiered process whereby the owners of the substandard lots could legali;n their lots by waiving the minimum lot si2e and lot dimension requirements in specific cases: If the lot could be I egal izod under the current cod,r-, it mitint be legalized under thO current Code: Ar. owner could not get less than the current minimum lot size if the lot was large enough to Inalify for the cutrent :one; 2) if tl..Ie lot could have complied wiLO Lice code in oxintQnce at the timu at which the lot was created,. the ritinimuri lot size and pauc& width woula be waived in order to legaline the lot; 3) if y -he lot could not be legally created under the current sodc and it did not comply with the code in existence at the time of its creation, the owner could apply for legalization but mutt go through a process to insure that the lot would be compatible wLth Lhe neighbOQUOCI in which A was located: Tht-, pra-M-sr, would provide for notice and (if the lot were substantially substandaid) an automatic hearing; Thu Planning commission recommended the pvopozod oillinance With a few additions); This uLdinance did not exempt applicants from having to comply with all other partitioning requirements (an thoze requKements wera mandated by the state): This ordinance did not exempt applicants from any other requirements regarding siting of uses on the lot, (i,e,, they would have to comply with setback and lot coverage requirements (thus avoiding large houses an omall lots) Council or Daev Dan Andonn asked if otaf I would seek out illegal lots created years ago or if this ordinance was simply to provide a process for the older lots. Mui City Council Kinutt.'n July 21,1992 Page 7 of 19 LAN Corlc'i.t clarified that, this ordiliance dic--i not automatically locj.,Iize; any lots, it merely Provided a. p'z'ocls'r' wllic'la be used when :an owner ?:arae in. He nratr�d that Many 1:"ol,pjr w,'r". unawt.lrr_' thElt t hr.y had an i'I I cgal lot: unti 1 t hr>y came ;n f.ri: samcf:l,.i r,c� and ,taf f chocked the rcecovdn . Councilor P_an h.nderson etsked if this pr.,or'�_. �; would enable s t a f f to ctetermirle 1, , - cumeo.ne had deIibei z,t ..1 y creat�•d an illegal lot and was ia;)w trying to get j . ii, ",rough t;he "back door." Mi:. Condit stated that it: did not provide a process to review good fai tli. in the creat:ioil r,f the illegal lots because, though, the applicant may have c1.0ated the 'hard=ship, he may have done :�'_ c' thi_ cit}' had no r 'vi •�Wlot ��1 JCc .,^ pr1.C,r t.0 19%J t0 i",r'l] e'A lit ;plias. He noted I,.at. t1,ey �il:.,c, did --,wi::}, to get intra motives that migi-,t. be 20 or 30 years old. Cotrnc it nr D an Andet,sc)n .n: ? ,^ l if the i; i. t;+ w_c,tal;l be r1,1 idated .to 1ogaIi an 11wcjal hat thZt ir,:; Illegal at thC't a.m= it, ta'.a.; c:i sated. H1v rc,rldlt said n(.., what: t;hir clr'i rj j: l`U3.ewp'roYce s-whJ.CYI woUl d tea J'T^ to ?trmon'<' irtta tiriit lr'n,.ili,,at:iorl of 'that: lis' the owT1r, i. ,arruld havc' i s.:` .tar7ti�.t1 ltr,l:;act air the iae hboil;: ,' the g not li;tr c'. Compatibility ,.l:a tr.l i,i: :. 1 .; i aL}J.11y... la f: r}ic t:, Pu v�a4y, of �tI.u,tion of v1r,W,: llrA r;' 1: tc� ��isti11g .P1::c,l)c rt} . Ifr_ not.ecl andt lot that t;,, could not be legalized under this, could only be legalized t=hrough sale or i.Ticr,rporation proccsr, :. lto a legal lot. �t 11'Ci' Schl enker ol:?en!-d thrc, li 11 inq t pl111:)1stirnony GllzZ lieadl+'c', 1.300 llc';Icl.1ttStlfied ;ln'1 made thc- f of . owing poi.nts . • Commended the City Coalnc:il foi considering C:L"C11:1'lcince a's ca m"ail-c o - 11 l eviatin t11't: ) owne ; of und�_r.�Lz ccl lots ' 9 1', r:;,hip o1", ontendF:d that a41aw in the ordinance w,:; `:hat it dict not address theinterpretation of ORS C11;jr;, _•r 92 which required that the City not accept an app .,tion for a Minor partition unless al l the owl-jel.J of properties that made ul? alae previous legal rot were on the app 1 i. cat 1 ; ol', Asked if the Czveati.on of an illegal lot w•azt doubt oil the lega.lit:y of the. adjo).ning lots that ware part of the �rigi nal p= jrcel ; Suggested that the city establish a hearing body or modiator to meet with the applicant and concerned property owiners to determine what could be allowed or, the— repe.rty in ordc r to mach a mutual ly a�Ceptabl e midJe ground. Cond .t (in response to M.,,; Headlee's quest -n ou the legality of adjoining lots) stated -that he th'Gu^; t doubt wrap 1.cl be-castan all those lots. He explaine�1 y that all C'i. t Co1.11 M; nut.en July 21 1,99j" 90 pagre 8 of 1:-9 t1.,F 1:c,t.s which were part. of the original lega'1 lot. became illegal at the time, any one illegal lot wan created. He c:itrYd ",he example of an entire subdivision block (six lot"') that were cl ated illegally by the developer; one of the ownt,-r;; wanted to build n deck but could not, get a c rlrni t because his lot was illegal; accordingt, o estate la:w, all the owlle :a of this lots that w -..re part. rrL the original legal p.ztcel hail t.:o be on the appl i.cat.iun, and one of those nes.c✓`hhuLa eidn't want to get involved in it. He further explained that this 'situation would not change. under thi.i of dinanc:e because it was state law it:i interpLeted by the Court of Appeals and the city was ),o=u.nd by that interptetation. He agreed t.h;tt a mediation hrocess was a pos ,i'bi l .ty to reach a compr(mii.:a+�, between -,F• nwner. s and that, in fact, such a proc nn has }.leen used by the staff in the past. when the applicant. couldn't get his ri#Aghbors to agree. He instructed council that they could adopt a formal mediation process it they so les it e Ii: li•; ucl l ee as )zed i. f the developers meeting with the not ghborhood a.ssoci.at ons w€i's a formal procesz . Mr. oald that it was. Councilor Puskas asked to what degree did the _lt.aff use. - the se -the mediation Mr. Condit stat,�-d that it. depended ren the situation. He e.xplaine:d that they first sant the app lic:j'It out to tZll, to his n(:ighbors and only stcta,pr.rl in if they applicant asked staff to ta.l)t to them he was He not -ed that clealing with ti r, illegal parcel:, too); a lot o-.' staff time, and that. it wa.o dntl ° an a ca.^e by ca. (--� ).,nnis as nec:t-,<; ;ary. Couy,c•:lor Dan Anderson asked if, in cat.rgory- 3 it was app:r-opri:atc_ toconsider- the potential u -se of the property az a. criteria roti legalization, Mr. Condit stated that crit,,er.ia.was. in th,:r stanclard now in the requirement that the development could not -have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. 110 explainc�d that. tlIj sac,ulcl alloy. the <_'ity t.c impose additional res'trict.ion, tf.) �t ✓� r,t the negative impact-. Jear troves, 1.318-- Pine _ctrtet , testif ir.d and made the fol'1 owing points : • R�✓i r.;;.rcd the specifics of t -he two houses in Hallanan :tracadll.n'7 lot lineal as an exaInple of how (?wns wt'i:�! ,nc3},t i r; a ):,i ild on this illegal 1 ot. issue.: No lender would loan on the lot because of the cloud created by the illegality; Even if the owner sold for cash, the problem still ex sLed for the ncx.L owner. Walter Ward, .1,05.1.5 SW Highland, Tigard, testified and made the following E-11jint:_: • fie was the owner of lot 538 on SW Greenbrier Road in Lake Gslwc_cIo ; _ity Council Minkltez July 21,1992 Page , 9 of 19 91 0 'R. 92 • The Planning aommivoioy had given Kim 1�e m:7 zzion to build zq his lot but the Council had denied this permission., • His lot. was 07 fof;t an the late with Z5 feat of access, on the, roadway with the f antpga on the lake; • Thy '. ct waf buildable; • Has been ci .ni ed ye:miss i on to build on the lot to sell t:h;e 1 ct 0; Qu rout ;a boathouse: on i t . Mayor Schlenker as}cea Mr. Ward if he understood that thio would simply pstablish a process through.which he could go to try to legalize his lot. Mr Ward naid he underotcol hat, and that Mfg. eadlee's point about having to get permission from the neighborn ahould bc cons i del: od before passing the ordinance. Paul: Ncrr, .1010 SW.. Taylcr .11.530, Portland, V-st.ified and mado the following points: • He was the attorney repro:sett. inn Larry and Jolene Ta Gide , neigbbors to MrWard's vacant 1.o .t ; • Spoke in o-.�posit:i Un .to ;_ho third, section whi.c.h would allow: the creation of a_ pt,ocens for lots which have novel qualified under th" ,ot�ing. ctocic; " N6 not wi:;t t see the K t y eotab11.sh it new process frr .... duration of these iota which wort. always 1 ' 1, .,a. . • State:: that he understood fl:om =tiff that. Mr. Ward's lot ;:a^ the only lot. (of which they were aware) which wou12 f 1 t the third category, and he diel not think it propr i for the council to legislate a Lpecial process; fol one property O nci ; • R,_ ti _r;•,.r'iei the ordinance: as explained by Mi. Condit Had no .ljj(`Cti= to t�ho f..._t two ._ ct..i.ons aIld co n4 idered them sensible; t.:.,ated objections 4o the third section for the r '_ o:;ing reasons: - :t rewarded owners of illegally cleated lots; t created a process by Iv} ich development could be imposed on neighboring property c: caner.. who had develoyC'd their lot: o ally; The Counci wan giving d_ve�opmernL rights worth 05C,000 to 0200,000 to owners who never had `.icze eights in the Iii.,.`t. glace; Saw this as creation of a process by which Mr, S,aid w uld mako application even though the Planning Commission, City Council and LUBA had all agreed that the lot .as illegal and could nu be built upon ; • Asked the Council to delete tho third.section; Contended that all other problem lots mentioned in th.s hearing would he aolved through the first two c t.io ns. Mayo. Schlenker asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Ward' s lot was the only lot in Lake !Oswegq of which staf f was aware that would fit the third category. Mr. Condit. City Council Min.ut:'eo July 21,1992 Page 1.0 of 19 said that clan correct, of Qnse that had come up. He oNplain%d that one poLuntia'l problem thq staff was trying to deewith through the third category was a situation in wtirh an illegal lot. (that had always been illegal; but '..'lr.; ch was only a Fvw Copt `hor-t of the minimum At site or dimen;: oI1s to qua lf'' Sa situation staff thouP�t could easily Occon , though it in fact had noL Pacu:'I"r. ) . He noted that tl-o owner & any substantially substandarO lot, thoggh he too r_culd use the process hac.l:.l;rr.',ss chance of receiving approva . mayor Schlenker clarified that stiff was nnL creatinq this section solely f.or one property owner. Mr. Condit stated that they were not creating thin specifically for Aar. Ward, but were trying to provide a reviow'proces_ whereby an illegal lot could become legal if it were compatible with adjacent properties. Councilor Councilor Chrisman Qxpressed coneern that the phrase "significant negative impactrr left a lot of room open for the owI'Iers of these lots. She also noted Lhat fi % was a low number if staff was concerned about a lot breing only a couple of hundred Oet below standard. Mr. Condit explained that they picked 651 because that. was the greatest percentage differencn b"tween the current zoning in the Hallanan Neighborhood (R7.5) and the size of most of Lhe lots (50?0 square f.net) . Hc- noted enoted that this ordinance was crafted fol.- the older ntiglborhocJs where all the examples of illegal lots they knew o_`xist _d. Councilor : irman L ra'EratCcthat 7 n saying "significant I'iegative impact on the i oighborhoodrthe city was allowing for a lot of negaLive impact. Mr. Onndit concurred that it was a subjective judgment. He explained that "significant negative impact" 4cCst.l ": i l .".. review criteria in land use lata and Lhat they had triol to define it by Lcqui Ang it be reviewed in Krms of coil5lstency with tits' nei6hborho`od pattern of du`JelopTTent . Councilor marcotte asked for :.`laT:ificatioI'1 on whether zoning applind or not. Mr. Condit explained that an owner could-ontinue to do elop a subsL.andaT:d, legal lot, because a code provision existud which allowed that, He stated that this ordinance would extend that same provision to lots of the same sire that weren't legally _'Le'ated. councilor an Anderson noted that Council was striving for fairness and equity for lot owners who either unknowingly,created an illegal lot: or bought one. Mr. Noir pointed out that Kinness and equity in this issue rr had Lwo sides, He mentioned Ke "buyer bewarerr argument and stated that buyers had the responsibility to check out a property thoroughly before they purchased it. He city Council Minutes Page 11 of 19 July 21,190 93 ^t rt��d t.l.at. those' wi.c had cleve.loped lot:; In_gallyovr_r t. hi tc�.its in Lake Oswego had to make S a c Y i f n order: t0 carl:r.r �, the regulations. He said that the- situations which exist(,d in the older.neighborhood. were covered undor the ii 1st t,a0 sectio,Ls a zd the tl,i rel s� r_tion shotllcl be dropped, 1-1e suggested 's—ting a rea:;ir:ahle limit ill 'ots :acre 1titl:ir. 8Q% or )0or the legal lot size. C -0x1.1,_:-.1 Or DkI11 Al 10. L S0fl ;aSked f r OMr . Norr ', rasponse t0 the illegality of the lots adjacent to the illegal lot issue that had been tZlised. Mr. Norr made the following point,:;: He has discussed this with Mr:. Condit .and neither of them wanted to give advice to either,party; • He thought . that Mr. h'•a.r.d and the adjacent property owners would need to sit down and work something out, though what they- worlced o;rt could still be dcniecl 1)•1 the city; , I f ,rha t: tbeY wo-rked out di d meet the a of ,si r.e ,uirement then the lot would come under section 2 and section 3 still would not be needed. t•tr. Condit responded to a quest ion from the audience �oac�rn'_ng the legal lot lize in 1950. IIc ,:t..ated that. in the case' of tlir: Wardw:' it was 10,000 ::luarc feet; hC,wrvcr , t.hv pr .cbl ern wit!) U. -Io Wands was 1 c,t. wi,.tt i, at t.}':r, b.uildzng Iz.r:c.,not lot Siwe:, Mayor Sohl�.rrr}:ci c.los&d the public- hearin�� and opened the f1oar to counci'A deliberations. ::o ir.ci 1 or 4 Holstein moved to approve ISA 2-92. Councilor Pan Anderson se:condt--d the motion, Councilor Chi:i.sman suggcstecl increasing tl;,. 5% if httcurne; Nn: t' :,fated, it did not apply to Fir: --,t Addition; or HaIIana*r,: Mr. .COTIClit•: r�:p'iec. that Mr t•1.orr's point wa, `hat, the situation in Hal lanan could be taken care of under: section 2, not section 3. lie poi.nt:fd outthat the 65% Loquirument triggerod an automatic heating" eati.ng it did not. ,-ut off creation of lots (any lot below the 65% of lot: size would autoffiatjcajly go to the Development Review Board nor a hearing) . %�,t;r,.c; :or Mnrcot:tc asked 1 -,ow the Ordinance- :10dressed Mr, Nor, ' S point about a developer taking advantage of the rule- } r ^,ueezi.ng out an extra l of even if he had to go througlh a public hearing. Mr. Condit stated that this or (!j.nanC'? not, it Variance to current standards, and that if= a property was longs enough to be partitioned trncler 4�: nrr.1-1t stan;13ards. it had to be, He explained 1. hat this wax, only for pre-existing subdivision; in which the 11 1ec,al lots wrer:e already sold off, not for new ::Ubdivision , trying to be created from substandard lots. Cit y cc)unci 1 Mi.putps my 21,19:92 94 page 12 of 1.9 ounc:ilcMi: Condit if he oaw as c eatial iriiny hea1111gs. Dtr Co'.ndit stated that t.}li z wa ; 1 ; yl ; an't- prabl eln hilt not a huge one, no:.. ; ncr t.}iat. -i t (> 1; `ci,n•� t.lp about 10 tinier :ince he had kc E+1� wit.k, t I-, L' C' .� t 1 }'} S_' L" �? 1 t'. l' I' 9 t'. t'. i1 t :- r` ' s " r• c } �' i �. a a t; z �.1= 1 � c; ; r eac";i section Could only be it t1,r- p1.e✓ic,,) i :i7 t' i11 d ncit a1)p 1 ; . �.c)III) c lo tihia til'a.il v1 .iilied t1]c]t. the (rf> Wdti, 3'(.'] at t•f.} tU the Current zoning requireme,1t, not the actutil yl :f? of 1-lIe lot. Mr Condi t stated that she was cQrv(c-t- and clave the example of a 5000 square, foot lot in an R.7-11 zone triggering a healing because- :5000 was 65% of 7x;00.: Ceunci l oi. Dan ill dc;,L son ''stated that he would be opposF•d to trying to formali e mandatory mediation. }}..- reviewed t.h- gite.stions. and objec-tians th it had been rained but, did nut think them cause to delete cate;yory ,3 He a.:;kod Mr. Condit if (since the i sue of the Ward case! 'had been building line, not lot si.ze;3 this ordinance wrauld affect that case. ML Condit- said that it would boQauze the w.i:d t.! -i of the btii lding line was one of the thr;{•c cri t eri a which must he met its order to create a lot Ic-gally, and i. }1e i:alC.} 1.ot w; -I:; A I, .4ai tl'IICI_1 `t..aat cI.'1t.(.'1'].il Ii i.1'il tlfiic- of 4A s t ..£'3Lion. ay01: 5c•', i I11:e r : t a L e Lhat ::1-iowo.uId suppot ; !.11r.: motion becattse she Was in fav'o,i; 'o en. tal.i'llsl- a:ng a pi -o(•`(' .� w1":1Ctii wgu141.: give a1] citizen equal _opportunity (in t ho? : ong term), an.d corl-sidevecl, this to be bett.el; than what r. 11t���nt c -.i<:t:c�c1. Couriciioi. Hc)lal r; L;ta.t: i,J t-hzit h(- would su1)post tier• mcition and dated that a pub Ii.c he,as ing could sti11, b. - cal ed by any nE a1-bui: or CduIi i1ot: 'Milo:, Ande.rson stated that lie would support TIlOt C'0TT,n!t2T'1tE'(1 t1jat he did not think it. was X11 p,Ds_sib e fol; the "buy-er to beware", and that this provi.dCd a .t.il. to explore 'hat 1SSLie. Cau'zcilor Macc.ott,e_;stated -:that lie would not support t „- rc;11.on. He agreed th.zt th:e fii:st two sections would take care of prob' ems , and lig' did no<t.. li- e the subjo_.ctivf_ nature; o 1(.' t:hII:A rc�ti.41aj He said he did riot underw'tand why the city h'ad an :obligation to legalize a 10": that r.e'v :r1: liad b( -.-'ell 1 e ga Councilof: Py-s1Ca.s stated that she would suPpolt the motion, noting tha.. she pxef:erred .allowing more proce--s for citizens in cases that might be questronabl.e. A roll -c.all vote was taken .and the motion passed with Ccunc.i l oi`, Holstein, Mayou Schlenker, Councilors Can Antiersoii, Pusltas and Mike Anderson voting in favor of the motion. COt1nCi1O1"5 Marcotte and Chri,sman voted :"i ty Gaulle i 1 l.i nutc c; Page 13 of 1 July 31, 1992 95 ;Ic,l_:t.eir. ct LIL;+: 1 at '?:03 r .in. commtyN.1C.A1,1OALS "L` 4 • : Olii M 1: S t a I,-)- IX. :I: IX. REPORTS. OF CITY COMMT S: , c)ti OR COM=MTTTEES SLr°a.ce water Policy C'ommittpe., S'Urf;:ace Water Managem%•nt Mastr.r Flan. tdat i, Sc h�ning�iranm��nt_al Engineer , present ��<1 thy: c: c'port. :.o .oLu;ci.1, as out.li'nec3 i.rl the WrittEIn report: dated July lo, 1:"1?2, and made the following point:,: Fo ommeli1ded that Council acc-opt the Surface water 1`anaaoment Master Plan; fi0 v iewed the 11i tol:y of tl10 rit_•vel.opment of thi plan to adLal both water qual z t;. and water quantity Issues in L!c:,}.e. ..)::iw�.CCJG , a.rld ...:, a�I~:1.1: c.�.:; I')i��.1lClater,, .Of the E:lvi ronment..�a l (�'Llcallty rQ171111ission regai'dinriT'hC)';'j?}7C�I't3Ll, cMIC }.i7t? TL1llilt.i:, 1Saf.ir;; Revl t}of thrcommit 'r wll.i �a9yd dci e staff wor}{ and th1�-' consul tante (OTAK) Je'. C r .v the pub,' 1ann:llu and }1.101 L 1C ]nL'O.1a '.' :I1<:'ittaspects.aspects.aspects.�7f t.e p} tl:,t r plan both calci tal inq rovement3 , C1:'' t o LIn.g requirements aI1t1 the ut l 1 i t y neres; ,jr2' 'o fund mistr,r plan would br. .' 3U,111lit.ted to DEQ tp Illet>t ort.. Of ;L _ 1 C l ;�iatr:f Ydguirement:" • :1:;1ste plan would be used a t 0t.:•hI1� cal tdoc:ument.at.i Ut1 got with DEQ for Lal:e OsweClter 0,s to} ma::imurrt i t ca do ant•..i 1 Mead a I l:oc'at i Ona f 0r pho.Sph0rus ; "''.e mastec plan wou.1cl guide Lake Oswego's surface water or -many yecir$ t rn111t =";., e -)'Un. c i expressed their- <appr.tl'uiation and suppC1` ' to Mr. C :ll,rl wf7�f'f ff..)J: t}`Ili"l.I. t'::r.,:, l 1 erre. wor. It . Dan Ander on a�I{ed i f the means of l:aayng for t},i .,cl ' �_,.? j a month C11A arge and1 nottod that it would u�t! i.:''3o,1c: ;,.I ?._ Mr:. 5ch.oeninci stated that the bonding was f(-), —00C c'aPi. to l improvements wl-ll l e the operating .program useel he monthly charge ($4-61. COO annually). He said that a • 1 i..:, r1 would br c:hai -;. r1 if thr'-re wort, no bonding, hit hat `:} r ; would have to wait to bui l.d unt.. l the money had accrued-OunciIo;r Anderson c:Ial;i.fied that if they delayedler_ C1` I—J,l Pl:oj'cts they would I:L'ducc the Cit -Y's ability to y AlldeYSol, exI,l..linr�c3 ,:.hat this had been an is -sup_ committee, that they , had to do .,omt:'t}lialg un gun" to meet federal and state mandated deadlines en though it was a good thing to c}o) , He noted that the, f 1'r)t.1II a i ; i rtut..c Page 14, of 1 ,1p ... 96 OTILiNANC E' NO. 205""' A GE14E.:R„L ORI)INANCE OF THE CITY C01MCII., OI” THE C1:'PY OF LAKE, OSWEGO AMENDING LOC CHAPTERS 411 (7.,Cr!'ING r ODE) AND 49 ( DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO ALI.,EVIATE ILLEGAL LOT HARD.SHI.PS The City of Lae Oswego ordains as follows: LOC: 48.015 shall be amonded by adding tine following 1)rovis, ion : 30.1 DQI: A unit of band created in compliance with all legal requirements in effect and 'applicable at the time of creat- ion. LOC 48.515 shall. be ,.,:.�r��..�d lay deleting the languageshown by strike ' hr.ough u� d adding thi 1 nl���uagc� shown in bold a: follows: Fxcept ions 1. �,cnrr�rl exception un .lot :xi -,,tom area and dimension rcrrlu i r(271(�11US, . t�rrtf)er:-={-r ;--1 j?$i? - r:--1<- --t }-1.-ee t -e !.�#----- efm-rt-i+Jtr+sF.r:i—1;Jt-•:�—)I :I+:I- -in—zr-:z i rl } a—vwrteL iri jy�- }lr:�r�—ae: rlti•*pct---fir:=--L}-211i�r-4`3.1-(-)I'1—Yt�-3�-�'}1--�...}C�L",3—li(lt�—iliE'E't--i=}3 C-'—Iil7-if�i llttiili---�-Cit= r-12: �'u--j)� r:----t:l f3 i-k::•--{>i"•-=-�•C3 t,---:3 �: ".iv�} E'tjt11-:':'Ii1C'i�{--:i—�-�—}_: � lf'•--Y.+�I3E�—'-13 rt}sir'}1 t}},�_Irri�r�r�.i:.t_i� 1oc�E:ee3 t }3�-1t Tga=eclat-e { i c,-}. �,} i-rlc7�I- rn�,��.}:>e-ot:�r�u j}i: ori-b��-ti :� cam-fit=--3�lti•-t=t-e�-o E:t t. i-.i-ci #�-t-i-►� I:}+t:�--f:c�r3��--•r��tlr�-f��t--k:-e}-•the--�cr'l-ht�1<=-r't�e4t.t:i-t:-etiier3-l-s-a-(:-k-kr�-f*tjrie ,; } +y f-i-c�-i-e I l e y;--r:-e s-i-il e r r l�-i.-a-1--•-�r 3 �--:-� t� i�--17e-1-i lt� :i -t: e e3 -- t-t�-.� ,.l is r t cr..} .+:._.,.f �a trr:i-•7: y---tiwc� A lot which does not comply with the minimum lot area or dimensional requirements required by the Code at time of application for development may be occupied by a perm{rted use in the zone in which the lot is located. Any proposed uce of the lot must comply with all. other applicable code provisions, including but not limited to setbacks, height limits, and lot coverage r requirements. The lot liner of n lot wltich does not comply with the minimum lot: area or dimensional requirements of the Code at the time of application may be nd junted as Long as the adjustment does not increase the degree of noncompliance, �f 17; I.,OC!19.''01.5 shall be amended by deleting the languagrr- shown by strike through and adding thee, lanclllage ;hocrn in bold anfollows: 2G e�wrt{. ei---{. � :} i c ]-c:}—•3-n--•cane--•�•s�� C--� s���C--oW rte -a =f� }"r3-Ia •- i� r � d rv-i-c3�e} }>Y-- cis c} -i -e xt-epi---s et t.---= -14.y. I�r�j�t-�cio�}.-Ai�y--�3}at�t.-+_-3�i�c.I---�.-C31 -••tier-}ot�e--a.n._...t:_}��._� ilei > a}3a1} }se--��t,j•3-e3er-F • •.>>.�>- t Same taw►��.,.�..• ..., . A unit of Land created i...with all legal requirements in effect alll applicable at the time of creation. 26.1 �.9G �—x���.c3.a� : A unit of land created in violation of one or more legal requirements in effect :and Applicable at the time of creation. . 9-91 pn 4.. LOC 49.1()5 shall. be amended by del.et:ino t. je- language a11OW11 tartiuoi_,r�lr rr'd ridding t1le 1FInguade shrlwr� in bold a�; `o1.1 ow fi 9 105 I. %C-. \;'c'.1 l",I�?ITIC`I'7 t'. I.( -S t r i C t. ec1 DTI illegal 1 • No clovc:�.l.opment permit S)-7ea.1:1 be is s7.iecl for the cic`V o,loPrnent or 110e of an illegal l(A4:41a-t--7—lea-5- I e— t :41a-t---leas.Ie—t xfne---o1—t-he--1 fat: w.rnless the lot t:i.t-��-�}lt--t=3-rr�f`--o•f-•��r:�F�r.=t�tra�--o=-t-�-3�--•z��c�tzestod--�e�r►2-i 1: is made legal pursuant to the app.1..7.cable requirements for creation of a lot in effect at the time of application. {Yn—t-1-��if'x3E+i3 +z t-inc-the-periE The aPT, IiCant shall tit -1-543 demonstrate conformance Wit.}, applicable legal r-equ:ircments r -n,4 --t. r estr. ac t i,or7, applies rr.ga,rdless of wheth:cr t-} xt 13ethe APPlic_ant was rcapoiln�.ble for creation of the illegal lat. 2 If an illegal lot cannot be made legal pursuant to. subsection 1 of this Section because it dodo not, comP.:l.Y with lot area or dimensional requirements in effect at the time of a:pDlication, an OPPlication for the creation o:f the lot shall be exomptn from coirvliance from nuc?,. lot area or dimensional reauiremento if the applicant demonstratev that the lot would have complleid witil lot area and c.l:imenniorial re Quiraments applicable at the time of cr.eatiol, . M 3. If an il.lopt..l lot cannot he made lega'_ Pur.fru,Ar,,t to vubsoctions (1) or (2) of this section becalavo it floes not comply with applicable lot area or di.mansionn]. requirements at the tine of application and -.lid riot comply with applicable lot area or dimensional requirements at the time of creation, an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative .impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, los73 of privacy, obstruction of views, or bufferre from existing propertica. in determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. The city m,zly impose conditions on development of the lot in order to ensure that lagalization of the lot does not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Public notice of an application to legalize a lot pursuant to this subsection shrill contain a map of the proparty {lluatrating the building ervel.opo. If the lot propor3ed to be made legal pursuant to this subsection has a lot area or dimension which is lesrj than 65 percent of the size or length requ.ireA by the zone at .the time of application, the application to create the legal parcel shall be referred to the Development Review Board for public hearing. Ro—rid for t: io farst-. Li -)e by LiLl.:e orily at t.ho regulai illC?tt.jjjg •Qf the C_'.i ty C ournc.i.l C,L til. City of. Lake Oswogo held on t.hc. 1 t_h day f _..__ _ hii :J u ; t. --- __ —_ , 19 9 2 yr.-' f; : ;(-IiL,I FJi:J:!! , CiJ1'.:I :;h1r.I: , Cl . ;,N[)l:RS0J1 , ['USIKAS , M. ANDERSON, HOLST [N '"'OF S: JJL)iJi; NNW Read for the second time by title only and . enacted at the regular. meeting Of Lhe City -he Ci t. the .1 tj t h f Council of Of Lake Oswec;o held or) -LI-111-liv-11- 19 9 2 , AYES: `"CIILENKER, CHRTSMAN, D.. ANDERSON, PUSKAS, NOES -, NONF 1�13STAIN: NONE, EXCUSED: M. ANDERSON DATE' SIGNED: TO 'Tr;efT r e y G i t City Attorney 100 Alice L. Schlenker, Mi-�iycr. ? cbcock, City Recorder 5 6 7 8 Eli BEFORE THE, CITY COUNCIL FOR THE C11"Y Of LAKE A REQUEST TO KMEI.TD LOC CHAPTER 48 (ZONINY,' A14P LOC CHAPTER 19 ('DIN"LOPMENT COD]-*) 'ly,) ALLEVIATE HARDS10 I -IS IMPOSED UPON OUNFRS 017 PARCELS THAT ,vi ,RE RE NOT LEo',ALLY CP\EA'rFD BY PROVIDING FOR A PP,(-'.,'-"n;ss I-,TIMRFBY UNDERSIZrD IU,EGAL LOTS MAY BE LL-.GAL!7,E"D M D1, 2-92-968 (City of Lake FlYMINGS, CONCLUSIONS Cc ORDER Q NAT117RE PkQQKE Q 10 is 1..)roceeding is a City initiated request to amend Chia]) t r 48 "Zolli.iig Code) and LOC Chapter 49 (Dev-1 pme t Cclde) to 12 alJvviate the hardship currently imposed upon owrz(,,rs, or parce.1,11 13 were not lawfully r-zeatcd due to uncoordiiiatpd,,,,.,4.pp.licaLi-on 1-1 of lake Oswego Zoning eind Partitio-ning regulations. The 15 amendments to LOC 48.015 (E)efinitions) LOC 48.515 (General 16 (Development Restricted on Improperly Exceptions); and 1,OC 49.105 (DL 17 Creat,ed Lot) providr, [or a process whc rehy an undersizod illegal. IS lot may be legalized. 19 H M MI -Q 2 20 The, Planning --mmission held a public hearing on the 21 proposed ordinance on may llt 1992, at its regular meeting. The 22 City Council held a pub] is I -iearina on the application at its 23 meeting of July 21, 1992. A. C; Ly Rf-!nig ential. Land Use Poliry Element: 101 DQTI,,;itV 1,, i,1 -1 i'�', i Og Genort.l. y Specjfj.c pOjjrj.(-C. 1 1 RosidentiaL S)iLO i)e6ign Policies Gpnera., Pc),Iic�- 11, Spn-,jfjc policy I General. Policy' %,, Specitic pc-*IiI A. Mous 4ng Chou �icv I,)(.),Ij ' c i c- Gen,?ral Policy I 3 Pol.ir:y r-jr,jnejj,. 7 1.1 LOC AA 8 150 N;.endw,!.,n�". LO t: }:t TC,`:L LDC 41. 8 . tQ 1) 5 V LOC 48.015 T-egislati/liOCIL11,g Procedures LOC 49.63!i Lf -a i s I a t L ve -Iie --%r-- Tl'( Pr(,ctedures Z ';Ie C i. ty Counc-1.1. concludes thcit DA 2-92 c ()mp I -i e w-;.th a 1.1. applicable criteria. 3 KINIT)INIO SLAHL-R7.U-M The (-.--ty Council incorporates the staff report dated 1 -lay I., 5 1992, 6 and the accompanying memorandum froir, Attorney dati:!d April 2, 1992, as support for its deci,.:i,-)i!, s-Upplemented by 17 the following: is 1. General Policy I of thi) Residenuiul Land use Policy 19 Element States: The City wi 1. 1 assur,.2 that residential d . OV-01opmen't is appropriately related to site conditions:, turrounding I a n d uses, and capacity of public faciliti.es, ,especially streets, and overall Growth Management policies on density). Density will be limited in areas identified as Potentially hazardous in accordance wi.th the actilal degree of -.a r d Speclfi- Pollcy I for General Policy 1. states: The (-*it.-,y will. Acourn rlcrmitted density of residential development is 102 re t,,t e.d to. a iCal site t o71 C14 C loZl^n inC:l.L"da.ng 3.lol,e, .l.J'-"o:;e v,-,uiin neiLura I (.at.ures., mi n'imi'zJLrirI di.�ta;�;�•:artc�: 2 of ground sQi 1s; b) Tho, .c-apac:ity of. adjacen:t s*re;At5, r°} The cczr,c'acit.y o wie '_acil;tler, and services d' The itE'.z a hc,t:?nl.i Il t.c) 11�1.1'll' ddoqu i4_o.;,y !. hc, pro (J sed densi.i:y; L) Prnxi-ml ty 5 L;) puhl.ic I,:•raiis1:)ort.•.�ti{�r: (i IDA 2-92 is in confo,rpia.I1C(:,wit;}l it, providi .s for procedui," s wnereby d;evelopme.,)L which would orcur en lot_, which have been legalized wou.td be reviewed in accordul-ic,tz. 9 w'i.th the abGvc, ''ri.teria. l:n p.rarti.:culax D:� 2- ;>, would require -.a 10 derrons(.rat. on for chose Lots whit:",, are significantly substandarrl 1.1 th,I'L le�laliration would not ave a nega``ive impact on the 12 ric:ighhorhoodin tennis of scale,- nois,e, t af.ris:, ).o -,,s of privacy, 13 obstruction of view&j or buffers f.rorn, eXisting pror>e.rr,.c.e.b.. Th.a.n [ rovi;;ion provides that ti -le City rip.JoC corldiGir�n:s !-.f, 15 development to mit Lgat.e such ncgat_i;ve impacts. 16 7.. Genera.1>olicy II: :L of ;:he Rcsi.dential Land Use Pol� cy r i? i 17 L•'lc,rrinr,f stcat.ccs: Substanti.al.ly developed single family iR residential neighborhoods will be maintained at existing derislty I9 des i gnationr., . 20 DA 2-92 i ; in conformance with this policy in that it 21 does rrnt; propose t.o change the land use designation of the 22 n,,i,. ,rbarhoods whero . these lots r:are located. Rather, DA 2-92 21 recognizes existing development patterns, and ,,'eek 7 to allo'.tr lots Zai that were i11egaIly cretated which are, i•1 many ins_ances, 25 vi r. t.ural.ly identical to the majority of developed 3.0ts in th, 26 nc�.i Oiborhood. '1'hi:3 is 1�art.ly heca1�se the 1982 Zoning Code T;laced 103 1=' ::caw, ].?°1r1Me1 mini*nutn lot Si cam, on e� nurnber of n(,i ghbr-rrhoo&3 W11j.c:+ 1 -c,'rO d0v('1aPeJ -IL .,':, . tc. oensitie>. 4. Geno"a1 Policy V of the Resident.i,r1 3. General Poa .. y- 11 of tl,o .?.7 i. dent i e resign Policy Z '-; emErr+:. .S:c1t.C'S: rstablish a ,Tnl.i=de 3.ned ino hod of (:,4,nll,ating siF v + y:id bu,i l>.uing design wh4 ch specif les standards, and st-atcs: The Cit, i`rocoss :;rwcitIc Pc,"Li^y 1 for Cenera.l Polic 1 ut nL-,es: lfl,e City 6 will prepare a checklist of design poli; i.%,s to guido 7 the i".e and building designer, 7,o uhe!t thr:. :tv'r, expectations S and tho review process are clearly expl,�i;ced. As in I., above, PA U .2-92 .s in confunnrance with those n,-)licies because it establis`:es specific c•riI-oria for the legalization of ].]-gal lots and i 1 provides for a specific review `procedure f=or lot.,. that .are 1=' subst.ant.ially substandard. 1.3 4. Geno"a1 Policy V of the Resident.i,r1 Site neaign Policy ;leinont Stat=es: � a ovi.dr for innovation in site and building 1; L-�,es3t7r'lk, Sp(4c4fic Policy 1 for Gnne:ral F,Aicy II st-atcs: The Cit, lE ;,lilt cncourace and assist tt_,t, design and development o: innovative 17 dwelling's, related facilit-'Le , ;end s -to planning in nF:., 18 dcvE,.1C9)7T71('nC 19 DA 2-92 conf:arms to this pc)14L_'y Since by providing a ?.0 t,rnce ,s whereby lots c:G;n be 2egalized, t.h,-y ,gin be 21 ^ub ec;ueatl:5• built t.11 ter, . T1%.i:, will rcrui.t in Opporc unit e to-�- •' x,,.fill in alrear-ly devol r+per! neighborhoods. The Lt.': iew p•:o,:*-Jure;: .' in T)A 2-92 ence.ur'age.s innovation in cite and. ��;.i1lCjlnt� de", 'i il. w • 5. Gen(;, u* Policy I of t ho li.;us,3 11g Choice Pol' cle. States: ThO City will erac ournge the taruvision (DE wide of hous.ng typen, io ! iuct t:}I+_' Ticedr, of varicu s li CC -style:; atld E'-wAi l.y t.ypc-s j'ahC 104 4 of r, - 1:0IDTNO' , ('-'0NC1,USTON'S b OPDrk DA 2-91 co.n[(- )1:111S t.c ttli p6licy s`nce it provides th(j I {?I 1) 0 r t: k"I 1.1 i t), ;f or in[i I I UO C) c c it r in rno_;tly al.reridy' d ev e I o p c, (I 2 neic hborhood,,-. �I Many ol the lot..,,; which are to be legalized are 3 ;sinal 0 V tJlan wheat;: i S allowed by t h e, applicable zoning - I d e ss (.7 n a t. J. ons, Co n E, e q u e n t. 1. y DA. 2-92 makes it porbsible for a 5 9`E�atLrVari(-!tY of housing to be developed within areas which 6 aJready YiEjvr_, puj)..j.iC facilities and services. The Combination. of 7 infill on smaller lots, and existing public infrastructure will make these homes more affordable, than in brand-new subdivisions. 9 G. General Policy ill of the Economic Rosources Element 0 states: 'I"he City will -Lmplt-,.mient methods to reduce all forms of I public crj-;ts and to utilize public facilities and resources more 2 of f i cj. ently. As -Itated above, the process of leg-ali.-ing illegal. 3 os provi.ded for in DA 2-92 will make it possible to provide 4 for .-i-ddif-ional housi.n(I in area; Which already Ivive pub]. i c 5 fc1clIjUie-I and -;(_,rvi.c(-s. TIAS will provide for an exp-anded 6 hout--_;irig base without subntantial increases in publAc cas(:S to 7 'Provide 9 Thi^ proposal is in conformance with applicable 9 S'Lat_ewide Planning Goals. In particular, the following Statewide 0 Planning (oaj- �,Ippj.y t*,.(N 1,0_quest: A) Goal.. I (Citizen I Invol, Theae new Proced,,ires provide an opporul.11jiLy Col. - '2 tO be involved in the review process for legalization of 13 U.) Goal. 2 - Mand Use Planning) These new procedures !4 pro,.ricR.. for a IA,jnning c1ccision making process in conformance with ,41 Land (Mu Planning Goals, St,It.utes and Adniinist.raLive for e,11 docin-ioris and actions, relat(2?d to use of. 105 e.,ind to assure an. adequate factual belsie for de.ci-s3.ons4 and a c.. t. i () n r, re I at (-,,(I to L110 10(Dali%tillegalion of lots in Lakr- 0"'wego. C) GWII 10: (-lou:.ing) VA 2-92 furth-ers the Housing Goal .1 by providing buildable land for the housing needs -()f Lake Cswegc 4 r e S i d c.'-, 11 L :',, ; Q) Coal I 1. : ( Publ i c Fa C i I i t i e s acid Services) Th i s goal 5 1.,,; addrersaed by prcviding for 'housing which can take advantage of the. coinmunitY's existing investment in public in1frantructure, and; G) Goal 14: (Urbanizatio"n) By providing for. addit-ional * housing opportunities on parc,els Which were previously un -buildable, DA 2- Q Q2 increases the efficiency of urban land use. 10 _Q-]Rl?zy j 11 IT IS ORDERED by the City C,.)uxlci.l of the City of Lake Oswego 12 thelt DA 2-92 is hereb), APPROVED. LOC Chapter 48. (Zoning Code) and LOC C-'h(.iptc-..,r 49 (Develo P inclit Code) s -hall be amended as outlined in 14 Exhibit A (Proposed Ordinance No. 2052) attached and incorporated 15 as part of DA 2-92-968. 116 This Order was presented to and adopted by the City Council 17 of the City 01 Lake O:--,wego. UATE,'E) t -his 5t. -J, day Of Aunurt 1992. 19 20 7' L, e- �1 Al -ice L. Schlenker, Mayor s. AT T EST: '2 3 AY E'S C1 I I 3 I (.;,I -i A N AJQ 11 106 , 21 tclicock, City Recorder K r- 1). ANDER�50Nr PUSKAS, N. ANDEASON, HOLSTEIN CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO August 4, 1992 CITY COURCIT, MINUTES The Council held an Agenda Briefiag fjoM 000 P.m, U 4:44 p.m. in the Council Workroam. Present weve Mayon' Schlenker, .Coun-111015 Chrizman, Dan Anderson. Pulkas, Mike Anderson and Holstein. Councilax Marcotte was excused; mayor Schlenker called the reqular City Council meotigg of August 4. 1992 to order at 7:02 p.m. Present were Mayor S-hlenk6r, Counzilnus Chiiaman. DAn Anhotsoi, Puskas, Mike AnOrtson and Holstein. councilor marcotte was excused. 111. CONSENT AGENDA A. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Norm Locati, 1437 Anpon Streit i resigning from the wommiWo foi CiLinan involvement. ACTION: Accept resionat;on. B. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1. Pi opoond awaid of banking; weivices cantra-Y for Qv nqxt Mee years. WTI= Awaid the a0 Wking survices conLrart to Banj,, of America for the next thtee yearn.. S. Award contiact tOL auditing seivices. ACTTON: Award contract for auditing serv3uen to Coopni:-, LyWand. 3, Acknowledav rpceipi of proposed grants policy. ACTIOR: Receiv- and acknowledge the grants policy. 4. Authorization of Council to widen,Washjngtcn Court between Tracy Avenue and Denny Court. ACTION: ApPLOVC widening And initiate the public notice process required by the City Charter. C, k8SOLI)TIONS IV 92 -3B, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing city membership in the City/County insutance Services Trust Liability Risk Sharing. City Couric-il Mjriut(.�s August 4, 1992 Page I of V 107 and Ho.int cin noting In love, of the motion. Councilor Chrisman abstained. P:. DA 2. 02 9C8 , PP, u 1 6r a reques" to amvnd LOC Whip tern 19 and 9 t n a 11 MAL 1 1 1 Y"al 1 %L MAW ps, Councilor Holstein moved for adoption, of DA 2-92-960. Councilor Dan Anderton senurded the motiou. & roll call vote was taken and thu moLiap passed with Chair Schlenhai. Councilors Dan Anderson, Pushan, Mike Anderson and HAstein voting in favor of the motion. Councilor Chris,an voted againft the motion. IX. ORDTNANCE.S .First Reading by Title A. Ordinance 2063, a general ordinance of the nity council of the City of Lake Oswego amending LOC Mpler 48 (Zon:n4 Code) to include guidelines for review of planned developments QW. -nun7i1oy HolztKA moved for adoption of Ordinance 2063. ?iun7iloy Dan Anderson ancondad thQ motion, A roll call vot- was taken and the motion passed with WK. Schlenkey. Councilors Chrizman. Dan Anderson. Puskas, NO Anderson and Holstein voting in favor "f the motion. Mayn: rnhlon&L read Otdinwn-p 2063 for fits! reading by title. B" 2252. i - sm:V 7: dinanve of the City of Lake Cowago Amending = Qapters 48 rZaning Code! and 40 'Dv v-1cpnnW 00c) tO Alluviate Illegal Lot Haidshipz. Counuilsi CAn Anderson moved for adoption of ordinanc(- 2052 . Kuncilw Holstein zycanded the motion. A a a! call vVI was taken and the motion pasned with Chair. Schlenker. Councilor; Chin zman. Dan Anderson, Puzkas, Mite Ande=n and HAKein voting in favor of the motion. mayog Schlenker read Oldinn"We 2052 for Riot reading by X. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS DoyUJqhmiL;,, qj ty Iqvane; , reported that. they had recel vod lonf irmaLjor from Oregon Hart ne F2 cats that the costs reported to the Council last week were indeed the final coats for the project. He indicated that the company war, filling out their application with the State Marine Board, which was not an approvnl, mproly a notification to the state, and thery-fore, thetv should be no further. delayo, XT , APPROVAL OF MINUTES -it/ Council Minutes Angurt 4, 1"12 Page Id of 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Debra Andreades, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: September 4, 2009 SUBJECT: LU 09-0009 August 4 1 Hearing — Additional Exhibits The following exhibits were submitted at the August 4`" hearing: Exhibit E-9 Property cross-section with location of future development Exhibit F-12 Copy of a Prior Land Use Case for Lot Legalization (LU 04-0001) submitted by Applicants Exhibit G-100 Letter from Stuart Bingham Exhibit G-101 Letter from Robert Hoberg Exhibit G-201 Photos of View from Neighbor's House, submitted by Andrea Yearsley Continuation of Public Hearin to o September 9`h / Written Evidence Only After discussion and questions by the members of the Commission, an opponent and the applicants requested that the hearing be continued, in order to submit additional information in support of the application. The Commission approved the request for continuance to September 9, 2009, holding the written record open until August 26, 2009, with rebuttal written evidence until September 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm. The applicants also indicated that they would attempt to depict the location of proposed development on the site through the use of balloons or other methods to depict height. Some of the Commissioners indicated that they intended to make an additional site visit to see such depiction. Staff arranged a time for the site visit with the Yearsleys. [Note: each Commissioner that made a site visit will need to declare an additional ex parte contact (site visit) at the September 9`'' hearing.] The applicants submitted the following new information by the August 26`h deadline: Exhibit F-13 Letter, Building Elevation, Photos and Cross Section of Potential Development The opponent submitted the following information by the September I` deadline: Exhibit G-202 Letter from Andrea and William Yearsley The applicants submitted the following information by the September I" deadline: Exhibit F-14 Letter from Gary P. Shepherd, Oregon Land Law Legislative Pur2ose of the "Significant Negative Impact" Standard Staff has reviewed the information submitted in Exhibit F-13. In considering the criteria of LOC 50.01.030(3), the portion of the standard that is relevant to the issue raised is: "...the lot shall be exempted from compliance with [such] lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that.... the lot will not have a significant negative iinpact on the neighborhood in U 09-0009 EXHIBIT D-3 Pa10,9AP 09-04 (LU 09-0009) 110 terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy , obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. " [bold added] Specifically, the Yearsleys raised the issue of obstruction of views from their property. The legislative history does not specifically address the "neighborhood" negative impact/obstruction of view issue. The applicants argue that the negative impact must be determined based on a neighborhood perspective (Exhibit F-13), page2), or as stated in the applicants' rebuttal, "substantial negative impact on the community character as a whole in terms of view impacts." (Exhibit F-14, page 1). Staff does not concur with the applicants' interpretation that an obstruction of view cannot be shown by a significant negative impact to one neighbor. Under the applicants' interpretation, an applicant could strategically elect to severely impact the view of one neighbor in order to avoid harming all neighbors equally, so that the applicant could argue that the neighborhood generally was not significantly impacted. Staff interprets the place of measurement for the "obstruction of view" criterion as one that is measured from neighbor's properties; not from the neighborhood generally. A neighborhood doesn't have a view that can be obstructed; only specific properties have views. A neighborhood is composed of neighbors. Therefore when considering whether a "significant negative impact on the neighborhood" exists to the "obstruction of views" factor, the "obstruction of views" must be viewed on a parcel -by -parcel basis. However, as noted in LOC 50.01.030(3), the degree of impact for determining whether a "significant negative impact" exists is made after considering "the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." The criteria thus requires that the existing development pattern in the neighborhood be determined, to find whether the potential development on the lot would have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood, and, when considering "obstruction of view," the impact on neighbors. Whether or not the impact of an obstruction of view is a "significant negative impact to the neighborhood" is determined by whether the proposed development's obstruction of view is consistent or inconsistent with its general occurrence within the neighborhood. In examining the legislative purposes underlying the adoption of LOC 50.01.030, it is apparent that the Council intended that illegally created lots have a means to be legalized — that is, development on an illegally created parcel would not be precluded -- but that their impact to the neighborhood should not result in a greater burden to the surrounding neighbors than if the lot were legally created. See, for example, the following from the City Council Findings, Conclusions and Order, page 3, submitted with the Staff Memo on August 3, 2009: "DA 2-92 is in conformance with these policies [General Policy I of the Residential Land Use Policy Element] because it provides for procedures whereby development which would occur on lots which have been legalized would be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. In particular DA 2-92 would require a demonstration for those lots which are significantly substandard that legalization would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers fi•om existing properties. This provision provides that the City may impose conditions of development to mitigate such negative impacts." And also on page 3: "DA 2-92 is in conformance with this policy [General Policy III of the Residential Land Use Policy Element] in that it does not propose to change the land use designation of the neighborhoods where these lots are located. Rather, DA 2-92 recognizes existing development patterns and seeks to allow lots that were illegally created which are, in many instances, virtually identical to the majority of developed lots in the neighborhood...." The legislative history submitted by staff on August 3, 2009 indicates that the City created a process whereby lots that were not created legally could be made legal so that those who held them had a development right, if they either did not create any significant impact on the neighborhood, or if they did, that such impacts were mitigated LU 09-0009 Page 2 to the extent that the impacts created were not greater than would exist for development consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Staff interprets the adopted standard as requiring that any potential development be consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood and that the "significance" of negative impact in terms of an obstruction view (or scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, or buffers from existing properties) would be measured against the development pattern that could be expected in the neighborhood. In summary, staff finds that the legislative purposes of LOC 50.01.030 was to permit development on illegal lots, provided that in doing so, it would not create a greater burden on the surrounding neighbors than would development that would be consistent with the neighborhood patterns. A lot that was illegally created, because it was not approved for a partition but which met all of the zoning requirements and was consistent with the neighborhood development pattern, would not impose any significant impact to the neighbors because of the procedural illegality. A substandard -sized lot, smaller than the neighborhood pattern, would have to show that it did not impose any greater burden on the surrounding neighborhood than would result from development on a legally -created lot that was consistent with the neighborhood pattern. [Note: LOC 50.01.030(3) uses "neighborhood pattern" to measure the impact of development, whereas subsections (1) or (2) merely require compliance with the zoning standards, without regard to neighborhood development pattern. Thus, substandard sized lots have the additional burden of mitigating their impacts to be consistent with development pattern in the neighborhood.] Staff Analysis of the Proposed Development upon the Phantom Bluff Court Development Pattern Phantom Bluff Court Development Pattern To determine whether the proposed development has a "significant negative impact on the neighborhood," the pattern of development in the neighborhood must be ascertained. The pattern of development in a neighborhood is principally determined by the shape and size of the lots, as that determines the pennitted building envelope. In other words, one would expect a particular pattern of view obstruction based on a pattern of lot size and shape. The applicants, in rebuttal, show the "neighborhood pattern of obstruction of views" (Exhibit F-14, page 2). This does get to the issue of whether the obstruction of view that would result from the proposed development would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern of development that results in obstructions of views. On Phantom Bluff Court in the vicinity of the site, the lots on the west side of the street (Tax Lots 1 500 — 20000, abutting the lake average .61 acres, are deep (running from Phantom Bluff Court to the Lake), and have an average width at Phantom Bluff Court of 87 feet and a mid -lot width of 93feet, Exhibit E-1. (As discussed in the staff report, the lots do not technically have a "lot width" because they do not front on a public street. As used here, "width" means the width between the side lots lines, as measured at and midway back from Phantom Bluff Cnnrt) Tax Lot Lot Area Lot Street Width -- Lot Mid -Width 1500 .46a 72' 90 1600 .50a 74' 90 1700 .62a 83' 100 1902 (subject site) .33a 49 (extended to PB Court) 63 1900 (double lot)- 1.45a 206' 190 2000 .63a ** (25', but not used in . calculation due to different frontagepattern) 90 Average .61 a 87 93' (excluding subject site and counting Tax Lot 1900 as a double lot) ' Tax Lot 1800 is a lake -access "easement" parcel and is not suitable for development. The abutting Glass parcel, Tax Lot 1900, is, in terms of the neighborhood pattern, a lot that could be further partitioned consistent with the development pattern of the vicinity. Tax Lot 1905 is a parcel that is totally subject to an open space easement. Tax Lots 1800 and 1905 have not been included in the development pattern calculations, and Tax Lot 1900 has been counted as a double lot. 2 Tax Lot 1900 has been counted as a double lot. LU 09-0009 Page 3 111 112 As indicated on Map A attached to this memo (contour map from the City's website), the pattern of development is characterized by large houses on large lots, and the placement of dwellings is to spread the house out along the lot width, rather than running the house along the front/back axis. L7 addition, there are numerous mature trees along both sides of the street, as indicated in Exhibit F-13 (sub - exhibit 8). As noted by the applicants, the pattern of neighborhood development results in compromised views of the lake for all residents on the south side of Phantom Bluff Court (Exhibit F-14, page 2). The question is whether the effect of the proposed development on the Yearsley's view is greater than the obstruction of view that could be expected from development that conformed to the pattern of neighborhood development. If it does have a greater effect, then it would have a "significant negative impact" to the neighborhood. 2. Tax Lot 1902-Puterbaugh Parcel Although the applicant's .33 -acre lot exceeds the minimum 10,000 lot size of the R-10 zone at approximately 13,461 square feet, it is still smaller than the other lots in the vicinity of the lake -side of Phantom Bluff Court: .33 acres vs. .61 acres. It also has a smaller frontage width than the neighborhood pattern: 49 feet, vs. 87 feet, and a smaller mid -lot width: 63 feet vs. 93 feet. The test is not, however, whether the subject site is smaller than the neighborhood pattern — that is true for all cases reviewed under LOC 50.01.030(3). The test is whether the proposed development on the substandard sized lot creates a greater burden on the neighbors than would a lot that conformed to the neighborhood development pattern, and if so, whether the effects have been mitigated. Thus, the question is whether the potential development on the lot as proposed creates a greater impact than a house that is developed on a lot that is similar to lots in the neighborhood. If the Puterbaugh parcel acquired additional land from the adjacent Glass parcel (Tax Lot 1900) to result in a parcel that conformed to the neighborhood pattern, we could anticipate that the obstruction of view experienced by the Yearsleys would be of a house placed across the width of an approximately 87 -foot wide lot, similar to that on Tax Lot 1700, a 90 -foot wide lot to the northeast as indicated approximately on Map B attached to this memo. The question to be decided is whether the proposed Puterbaugh development presents an equal or lesser obstruction of view than would a dwelling that could be constructed if the lot were consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. The applicants state that the proposed development will preserve view corridors, and will have minimal effect on the YearsIey's view due to the presence of numerous tree trunks that are in the view to the lake (Exhibit F-14, page 2). The same development, with the same obstruction of view, could occur if the lot frontage width of the Puterbaugh parcel were increased by 16 feet, but without a change in the mid -lot width. With that small change in lot configuration, the same proposed dwelling could be built under LOC 50.10.030(1) and there would be no consideration of neighborhood impacts. In other words, a reconfiguration of the lot frontage would eliminate the "obstruction of view"/significant negative impact test without a change to the dwelling placement on the lot. Staff therefore finds that the lot shape and size itself, which necessitate: • A smaller house on smaller lot, and • The house placed along front/rear axis, rather than across the width, and that a smaller house will result in less removal of trees, with views through the trunks of the trees, will result in a proposed development that would not create a significant negative impact to the neighborhood development pattern and no additional conditions of approval are required. During the on-site visit, and in Exhibit F-13 (sub -exhibit 2), the applicants depicted a dwelling with a shed roof, the highest point being 35' and sloping easterly to approximately 24', as a means of minimizing the obstruction of view to the Yearsleys. If the Commission finds, however, that additional conditions of approval are necessary for LU 09-0009 Page 4 the proposed development to be consistent with the neighborhood development pattern, then Staff recommends a condition of approval, consistent with the applicants' depictions, that the roof fit within an envelope framed by a shed roof, with a maximum height of 35' and sloping consistently to approximately 24', as shown in Exhibit F-13. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission approve LU 09-0009, with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. LU 09-0009 Page 5 113 LLL V dv O O co Lu N CL Q w U cn 0 3/ 4� 1500 ,,O.46AC. { �o'�c 1600 02 0.5 C. 11, 01 lid 1700 1800 19 4()\ ?0.3JAC_ \ Zero^ G 4t4/'i 1900 1.45 C. a 41 I ah 16115 ue,•s,'ss � q�� x / r0. n 5 ,�x \ PAINTITI ON 3 t ' V• \ �Priv°te I? '� Acress' 3 L L,.t S E°semcor N 31 �'` Z 93 16x� 2000 +2 ® a 4- 0 33 0.63 Ac. 2600 b 2100 PARCEL I 7 ' 9I AO' 1905 /A 2103A�� �qel�, 0.37 Ac. / x PARCEL 2 1 1903 ` /Z 7' f o.a�+ay� 2200 1670 0 `� 0.38Ac. l — —" W 1 °T•' ti/ �1j N 2 271 to• pg � nti � �� S'E9'26 SSE •3✓.22 gyp' � pCLZ z 1901 ' ° N SEIfCa 2007 $ 0.19Ao. r.2.447 - 0.35 Ac. $1 I°, 16150 qg,4z �44 1 42l BOULE +s ur t i sour �1 EXHIBIT E-1 LU 09-0009 SEE M4, P Arv; Ort " z; r/C-4TEC 119 120 BITE•2 9-0009 koy7 N C " 3 <g8 luswdojenap T Buluusjd ao Idsp Co-'Rmiso 3xv,1-40 Allo LOOW d3 A I -31 3 j o Fid a a�EL a �` �� enc t F34 a no, u X E� g 4 a a ykr. u, F far, EES ♦ y EXHIBIT E-3 LU 09-0009 121 eoz- C$ E �@ do s§ d 5 Sa �o n - F o \\ \ O%�! O E NLlRIN �— 122 o� a 0 N O 6 Z x S v zW p o q ci i p FVJ U y Ci p t�7 m O pW �yFFJ 0. 00 0 0 �ob a� e O a W m eoz- C$ E �@ do s§ d 5 Sa �o n - F o \\ \ O%�! O E NLlRIN �— 122 M.2.n \ .Wy ceaPe '' Imp 5 6 b Ilb' Ii -CSi� yll � HUOY 5 zrmM, J� z �is t W o� d 16 Ch � � ,y�• Mfr k � tl � \ w� Yid �b2,dC S o 2 11149 oW'$ �y ail G$ • xI v�i<'�a 5yy�� q r 14 124 l 1 6 .wh b n A y0~ \. M � Q I 5 0 z �m °� a a U •� M .C2��y.QO S I as W •z�c �� �� 1 E ] •cz.M.pp M v 4 ^,C m \\ 4/ i W z l nN �W- a mSzU.1 c¢0 �i4moo OZ- 2 god � a C7 o p a NQ�J6 � / M .rz.ro.eo \ .00'B 1 s yo�' � p GL4 � N � a ( ♦.29'pS M .czn.•o s /J \ x„ rc� I \ -T!�` �?gyp\\\ s �fl pp% tp a_H z�h I m'f 51 •ab bj ` It N WWh 8 OZ- 2 god � a C7 o p EXHIBIT E•6 LU 09-000125 � / M .rz.ro.eo \ .00'B 1 s 7.fZ.ffep ,009 M x„ rc� I pp% a_H z�h I m'f 51 •ab bj ` It ��W W EXHIBIT E•6 LU 09-000125 �a =�_ -__------ (--170 ------ GBNx<s�GE i --- 200--------r— _ - ----- —_-- —220 i l � , rem• . `�.i � �� � � `' `gypp ' __l�� / a r- /•� �`` e�� `,�''i, I �\\^` I `` �1 \�� O Q gesso � `��R`� I 250-,1 \\ l 7y_ / �`__ _— r _ , — _ `•,� � � 704 �_ / IWJ� ` -.1 ``�' M / - `% , �� \\ \.i\\\�\`v rw_Mml lYlrt '•1 � iT /F �_y \WSdYAEC l� "!` I _ -• i �' _P`,``_1\ \ `% x`` •`\`\ \\` � e I � 1pil�I' � I <' do EECENd 2' F-1 WVN fOWO Sl11M1tY YOM1YExr MMeem e' wnRn ©f]PECim ro BE dsnmecn Err°7. Sm xOR IS/U. O mOwsm Bi ie to ` ux n F.. SUR+Fr YdNYEN! — NI -1 B09E HOSE OGnpry 06iGN..nBN Li TO °E UNd5NN6m. � fYINEYwuONUYFNIS aT NFLYeO 1 o ac wsluxnm. TETRA TECHON,: r I ruYr srnnNfOrrox, FortcE rxYechum W NAm a stv.Eq PROJECT SITE PUN AND SHEET 1140EX EXHIBIT E-7 LU 09-0009 127 128 � LY 128 oral., mm k I A-mm LY ou Velm —5 END 129 OPAPXIC S 1 X10' '� FASFIIEM , / PUMP STATION SIZE P_ 0110 GI Nn ®:. �X sJw.ls I' [ 5065.tt \�SE AT PBYP STS \ '� FASFIIEM alsnNc TR¢ 3]31J9 O Ac 1n9uWrt. C P 116' TMplm AC 04N0 AS o'nECID BT b+GINLOI w�T ro oclwl ro MIXM IXRE Ac uNlns slcwN orXonnsc ®:. �X sJw.ls I' [ 5065.tt J' i. t -1f• BQ10. W G ;/, CBIOFT 1YYa Ai MTO{t➢fE AN0 RwT]LLPIC AT Sla I�>C. ' � \\ SE< W."t ® GSfw'OI . \ `� / S W 5[NXGE M/ CIFll10UI. SEF OETAIE S/106. _ � � — rl Oa' BWw Ori. SM MR 2/C107, t I 5 AC [tN10 AIYNC mG[ OF ;UWp to BE inkAlMD q BEOONS1nOClm. t ......... .. _.__. .. Avrt..... .+ gls7tlMl glOUNo Arsawnl•wtmn Iflfr .�.. _.; i /•'r 9 :. ....: 5e0,0� WATER _ 1� - ....._._ .. _........ � � IOM'J1100 A latgy 7T y,E= :. ... ., r i_ :. ........ 195 1 170 I . R'Ass a 9AGSRLL _. .. .. .. .. _ ... ........ . _. 1651 3+90 1+50 1100 01s0 0100 , ®,FI'IU, TECH Jam= r� 4NANIOM Bl51Fi COURT PUM4 SiATIpI, FORCE MAW 6 9EWFR FORCE MAIN, GRAVITY SEWER AND WATER LINE 131 011/.PNK 1 X16 sw Rw / e6waR y"s916"!. E c�:•� axauua:�w TETRA, TECH P +• oN6N,oraewrr cam, nuMns,Anou. ronce nwus6ew6n E' tPLAN I PROFILE FORCE MAIN, GRAVITY SEWER AND WATER LINE .KIM w A Emwu6n Rxnu � �- axx6cnon � E7<ISM6 ' ' •x e1�1n K aauY IO txlom ,6 tDCf a EYISnxt •G 11xlISS SHUM mllaxlx n,orwc R•xe' vsao .c mwo .s owrclm m ow�w. 6aw.> r.// • / * i• aiw�>anrt �� O r re REM4A 66,mc[ «/ elzwouc. s¢ Deno a/,oe. r6i r�i / \ ra.sniar \ Oj WMax r cuux waxo rK. u mAvurLr / 011/.PNK 1 X16 sw Rw / e6waR y"s916"!. E c�:•� axauua:�w TETRA, TECH P +• oN6N,oraewrr cam, nuMns,Anou. ronce nwus6ew6n E' tPLAN I PROFILE FORCE MAIN, GRAVITY SEWER AND WATER LINE § \ 2 § 133 a § ,■ B � § /■§§ �| � � § �■( e ) 00 §/s §§|I �q -E B § \ 2 § 133 EXHIBIT E-9 Lu 09-0009 134 LEGAL SERVICES C.. i & CONSGJI.TATION i! (503) 233-1985 TEL (503) 914-0474 FAX gary@oregonlandlaw.com EMAIL FT' .M r, City of Lake Oswego Application for Minor Single Lot Partition Lot Legalization), Variance and Tree Cutting Permit Applicant/Owner: George H. Puterbaugh, Trustee Puterbaugh Revocable Living Trust Applicant's Representative: Gary Shepherd, Attorney Oregon Land Law 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 Property Address: Phantom Bluff Court (no address assigned) Tax Map/Lot: Tax lot 1902, Map 21E09CC EXHIBIT F•1 LU 09-0009 135 j City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department Planning Division 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Applicant/Owner: George H. Puterbaugh, Trustee Puterbaugh Revocable Living Trust Current Mailing Address: 17570 SW Chippewa Trail Tualatin, Oregon 97062 Applicant's Representative: Gary Shepherd, Attorney Oregon Land Law 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 Property Address: Phantom Bluff Court (no address assigned) Tax Map/Lot: Tax lot 1902, Map 21E09CC Location: South of Oswego Lake, North of South Shore Boulevard along Phantom Bluff Court (private road) Zoning Designation: R-10 Comprehensive Plan Designation: R-10 Low Density Residential Request: Application for Single Lot Minor Partition and Variance to the Access Standards Tree Cutting Permit I. INTRODUCTION This submission will address the applicable standards and review criteria of the City of Lake Oswego's Code (LOC) and Comprehensive Plan. The application is a minor development request. Applicant requests land use approval for a single lot partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 (the property) pursuant to ORS 92.177 and City of Lake Oswego Code. In association with the partition application and because the property is not adjacent to a public street, applicant also requests a variance from the public access standards. Applicant also requests permission to . remove trees in the area of the intended building and access footprint. Applicant also submitted a property line adjustment application involving the Glass property (tax lot 1900) that is to be processed in conjunction with the single lot partition application. Exhibit 19. Page l: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition and Variance Application 137 The property is located in the Palisades neighborhood of the City of Lake Oswego. The property is currently over 13,000 square feet and zoned and planned for a single family residence. After the proposed property line adjustment submitted in conjunction with this application request, the property will be over 15,000 square feet. Exhibits 1 and 19; oversized preliminary plan. The property is located on the north side of Phantom Bluff Court, a private street, on and adjacent to the south shore of Oswego Lake. Exhibits 6 and 7. Phantom Bluff Court is accessed from South Shore Boulevard. The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners vacated the rights of the public in Phantom Bluff Court in 1959. Phantom Bluff Court subsequently became a "mutual easement" for road purposes upon the recording of the document in Book 558, Page 784 of the Clackamas County deed records. Exhibit 11. Phantom Bluff Court has remained a private road since then, serving numerous properties and residents. The road extends east of the subject property, serving additional properties and residences. Exhibits 6 and 7. The property constitutes a portion of the originally platted Lot 42. The applicant and the property participated — along with other tax lots and owners — in a legalization process in 1991. However, the preliminary plat approval was never finalized. The property was purchase by applicant from Richard and Mildred Sundeleaf in February 1972. Attached as Exhibit 5 is the 1972 purchase document; recorded as document no. 74- 10511. At that time, Richard Sundeleaf had a significant holding along the lake. He sold a portion of the holding to the Puterbaughs. Unfortunately for the Puterbaughs, in 1972 septic tanks were forbidden in the area. .At the time, pumping from Phantom Bluff Court to South Shore Drive was not allowed, and there was no alternative means to provide sewer service to the site. Efforts to form an LID were defeated. As such, no home was constructed. In 1975, pursuant to the 1973 State legislative mandate in SB 487, the City of Lake Oswego adopted partition standards. Prior to that date, legal lots of record could be created by a recorded sale and/or deed conveying a portion of a parent parcel. City staff is of the opinion that although the Puterbaugh property was created by a lawful means, the property did not satisfy all applicable development criteria at the time, and therefore under today's code, is not a legal lot of record upon which applicant may construct a residence. Since 1972, the Puterbaughs have paid taxes to both Clackamas County and the Lake Corporation as through the property was a legal lot of record. The property is assessed at development values. Exhibit 10. This single lot partition application is intended to legalize the Puterbaugh property for planning and development purposes. Since the property is served by a private road — Phantom Bluff Court — applicant must also request a variance to the public road access standards. Currently, the City's code requires land uses to be accessed by and have frontage along a public road. The private road status of Phantom Bluff Court is a preexisting condition that binds applicant. Page 2: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 138 t The character of the subject site and surrounding area is urban residential. Surrounding property is highly parcelized and developed with residences and accessory structures. The subject lot is one of the last remaining undeveloped lots in the area. Property to the west is now owned by the Glass family (previously part of the Sundeleaf estate). The property received single lot partition approval in 2004, City Case File No. LU 03-0053 (Partition Plat 2004-033). Exhibit 6. The application was necessary to legalize the Glass property for planning and development purposes. The staff report approving the application to legalize tax lots 1900 and 1905 is attached as Exhibit 12. The Glass property single lot partition/legalization action, like the subject application, was necessary to correct 1970's land division efforts of the Sundeleafs that did not comply with applicable land development standards. II. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Zoning Ordinance i. Minor Development: LOC 50.79.020 ii. R-10 Zone: LOC 50.08.010-50.08.040 Vision Clearance: LOC 50.21.005 iv. Oswego Lake Special Setback: LOC 50.22.030 V. Drainage: LOC 50.40 vi. Soils/ Geotechnical Report/Hazard Study: LOC 50.42 vii. Hillside Protection: LOC 50.43 viii. Landscaping: LOC 50.47 ix. Parking: LOC 50.55 X. Access: LOC 50.57 xi. On-site circulation: LOC 50.58 xii. Street Lights: LOC 50.63 xiii. Utilities: LOC Chapter 38 & LOC 50.64 xiv. Tree Protection: LOC Chapter 55 xv. Solar access: LOC Chapter 57 xvi. Historic Preservation: LOC Chapter 58 xvii. Variance: LOC 50.68 xviii. Development Restricted on Illegal Lot: LOC 50.01.030 xix. Neighborhood Meeting: LOC 50.77 III. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA COMMENT: The applicable approval standards are in bold italic print. Applicant's responses to each follow the standards as a COMMENT. A. ZONING ORDINANCE i. LOC 50.79.020: Minor Development Page 3: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 139 COMMENT: LOC 50.79.020(2) defines partitions, including partitions that require one or more Class 1 variances, as minor development. The proposed development is a single lot partition request including one or more class 1 variances. The application is intended to legalize the property for planning and development purposes. LOC 50.01.030(1) describes development restrictions on illegal lots. It provides: "No development permit shall be issued for the development or use of an illegal lot unless the lot is made legal pursuant to the applicable requirements for creation of a lot in effect at the time of application. The applicant shall demonstrate conformance with applicable legal requirements." This application narrative, together with all of applicant's exhibits and submissions, address the process for legalizing the property and demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. Compliance with LOC 50.01.030(1) is demonstrated below. H. LOC 50.08.010-50.08.040: R-10 Zone Standards LOC 50.08.010: Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the R-7. S, R-10 and R-15 zones are as follows: 1. One single,family dwelling per lot COMMENT: Applicant seeks single lot partition approval to legalize the property so that it can support one single family dwelling on a legal lot of record, a permitted use. This standard is satisfied. LOC 50.08.015: Conditional Uses. COMMENT: Applicant does not propose a conditional use; therefore LOC 50.08.015 is not applicable. LOC 50.08.020: Maximum Density, Density Bonus. COMMENT: Applicant seeks to legalize a single lot, capable of supporting future development of a single family residence. The property is currently over 13;000 square feet and zoned and planned for a single family residence. After the proposed properly line adjustment submitted in conjunction with this application request, the property will be over 15,000 square feet. Exhibits 1 and 18; oversized preliminary plan. This standard is not applicable, or is otherwise satisfied. LOC 50.08.025: Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit and minimum lot dimensions for each zone are as.follows: Page 4: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 140 COMMENT: The property will comply with the dimensional limitations of the R-10 zone after the single lot partition and lot line adjustment. Lot Area: Lots in the R-10 district must be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The property is currently over 13,000 square feet and zoned and planned for a single family residence. After the proposed properly line adjustment submitted in conjunction with this application request, the property will be over 15,000 square feet. Exhibits 1 and 19; oversized preliminary plan. The property satisfies the R-10 zone lot area requirement. Lot Depth: Lots in the R-10 district must have a lot depth of 100 feet. As measured from Oswego Lake to Phantom Bluff Court, the property is over 100 feet long. Exhibits 1 and 19; oversized preliminary plan. The property is not adjacent to a public street. As such, there is technically no front or rear lot line from which to measure "lot depth," as that term is defined by LOC 50.02.005. Measurements of lot depth are dependent upon the definition of "front lot line" and "rear lot line." The definitions of "front lot line" and "rear lot line" are defined in relation to a "street." The only "street" from which measures are made are public streets, as the definition of"street" is limited to public ways. Because the property is preexisting and adjacent to a private street, applicant cannot technically satisfy the lot depth standard. However, City code regulating the ' LOC 50.02.005 defines: "Lot Depth" as "[t]he horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line ...." "Lot Line, Front" as "[ijIn the case of an interior lot, the lot line separating the lot from the street. In the case of a corner lot, the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.050 (7), 50.08.030 (4), 50.09.025 (6) or .50.13.035 (4)." "Lot Line, Rear" as "[a] lot line which is opposite the front lot line. A triangular lot and a through lot have no rear lot line: the frontage on each street of a through lot is a front lot line. For other irregularly shaped lots, the rear lot line is all lot lines that are most nearly opposite the front lot line. (See Appendix 50.02-B)." "Street" as "[t]he entire width between the right-of-way lines of a public way capable of providing the principal means of access to abutting property." Page 5: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 141 'Lot.width idth at budding hire Z ............................................................................... Lot Area Lt�t depth R-7.5 7,500 sq. ft. . .......... ...:................................................ 50 ft. 100 ft. R-10 ..................................... .10,000 sq. ft. :........................:... ................. .:.... 65 ft. ............... 100 ft. 15,000 sq. ft. ...................:....:. .....:........ .................. 80 ft. .................................... - :............. 100 ft. COMMENT: The property will comply with the dimensional limitations of the R-10 zone after the single lot partition and lot line adjustment. Lot Area: Lots in the R-10 district must be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The property is currently over 13,000 square feet and zoned and planned for a single family residence. After the proposed properly line adjustment submitted in conjunction with this application request, the property will be over 15,000 square feet. Exhibits 1 and 19; oversized preliminary plan. The property satisfies the R-10 zone lot area requirement. Lot Depth: Lots in the R-10 district must have a lot depth of 100 feet. As measured from Oswego Lake to Phantom Bluff Court, the property is over 100 feet long. Exhibits 1 and 19; oversized preliminary plan. The property is not adjacent to a public street. As such, there is technically no front or rear lot line from which to measure "lot depth," as that term is defined by LOC 50.02.005. Measurements of lot depth are dependent upon the definition of "front lot line" and "rear lot line." The definitions of "front lot line" and "rear lot line" are defined in relation to a "street." The only "street" from which measures are made are public streets, as the definition of"street" is limited to public ways. Because the property is preexisting and adjacent to a private street, applicant cannot technically satisfy the lot depth standard. However, City code regulating the ' LOC 50.02.005 defines: "Lot Depth" as "[t]he horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line ...." "Lot Line, Front" as "[ijIn the case of an interior lot, the lot line separating the lot from the street. In the case of a corner lot, the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.050 (7), 50.08.030 (4), 50.09.025 (6) or .50.13.035 (4)." "Lot Line, Rear" as "[a] lot line which is opposite the front lot line. A triangular lot and a through lot have no rear lot line: the frontage on each street of a through lot is a front lot line. For other irregularly shaped lots, the rear lot line is all lot lines that are most nearly opposite the front lot line. (See Appendix 50.02-B)." "Street" as "[t]he entire width between the right-of-way lines of a public way capable of providing the principal means of access to abutting property." Page 5: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 141 legalization of "illegal lots" exempts an applicant from demonstrating compliance with current lot area and dimensional requirements. See LOC § 50.01.030 (2) & (3). Applicant demonstrates compliance with the standards of § 50.01.030 below. Applicant has also requested a variance to correctly develop the property given its preexisting conditions. Lot Width at Building Line: Lots in the R-10 district must have a "lot width at building line" of 65 feet. The property is uniquely shaped. The property is over 70 feet wide adjacent to Oswego Lake, and varies in width and shape, by narrowing as it extends towards Phantom Bluff Court. Exhibits 1 and 19; oversized preliminary plan. The property is not adjacent to a public street; therefore technically "lot width" cannot be measured. "Lot width" is defined as "[t]he width of the lot as measured at the front setback line." "Building line" is not defined. "Front setback line" is also not specifically defined. Given the fact that the property is not adjacent to a public street, there is no "front lot line" and hence no "building line" from which "lot width" can be determined." Because the property is preexisting and adjacent to a private street, applicant cannot technically satisfy the current lot width standard. However, City code regulating the legalization of "illegal lots" exempts an applicant from demonstrating compliance with lot area and dimensional requirements. See LOC § 50.01.030 (2) & (3). Applicant demonstrates compliance with the standards of § 50.01.030 below. Applicant has also requested a variance to correctly develop the property given its preexisting conditions. Of note, area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building lines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. A review of maps depicting the areas around the lake show that the Puterbaugh property is not the only property created with its building frontage along Oswego Lake being larger and wider than the rear yard along streets, both public and private. LOC 50.05 027: Minimum Density. COMMENT: Applicant is not proposing a subdivision. As such, LOC 50.08.027 is not applicable. LOC 50.08.030: Yard Setbacks. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, LOC 50.16.040, 50.22.010, 50.22.025, 50.22.030, or 50.22.035, the following yard setbacks are required for in each zone: Page 6: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 142 COMMENT: Setback regulations govern the proximity of primary and accessory structures to adjacent properties and streets. Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with this application, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable set back regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. Exhibit 3; oversized feasibility plan. LOC 50.08.035: Height of,4tructures. 1. Primary structures shall not exceed the following maximum heights; in the R-10 ,,one, the maximum height is 30 feet for a.flat lot and 35 feet for a sloped lot COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Compliance with height standards for all future development can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review. LOC 50.08.040: Lot Coverage and Floor Ratio Area (FAR). 1. Except as set forth in LOC Article 50.30, lot coverage shall not exceed 35% for a 4 primary structure < 22 feet in height or 25% for a primary structure > 22 feet in height. ige 7: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 143 Prianai7- awl tSi�:ce..s:s 31 5:trtgcl��x s .s Primary Stsuclures Fa aut. Side Y2.1 f Reay Zone Yard �.clj.ar.e�at:. ii•hey Sid � R -114F 3c`ard SiAv surd Rear � ,as da: to it Portiona k f Porrims: of sttx allre smlc'eurr I S11'13Cmr ..' i1ri11S a 18 fait :Y i.�: fe.et i ri fever " 1 'J_Z ieet in lYeigj4t h+el._.Ilt in 1<v'4llt. 2. sir pert on :, i s A _ :fejt min. 1 i'.�t. ti �i :£gee. 5 fi.et, Side 10 'tet. astir. wxerial an ,• til id—, t., t� 1(1 feet, rear 1.5 fret, rr.'.,:sr C�i�eL''il'd'. rt;PiTS1;t2LZ.t1 ] 0 feet oil locali u`W'th 15 feet 'tre v, K - l u' K-10- 2`5 ftSt 2 Iee,•t on I 0 lett 15 flat <.�. 1t feet 10 � ^ � i .Sid: _ 1:.> te'et artell"11 31'iC1 I I 15 twet. rear calk mc)r. III 15 feet on 1+:sr_.t11 i %t. -'I _ 215 feet o year 01.1 1 1 f"T feet. sidt 15 fez xrrtrial and � 1 ?feet, rEzr Collector, 15. feet on local street:_ COMMENT: Setback regulations govern the proximity of primary and accessory structures to adjacent properties and streets. Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with this application, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable set back regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. Exhibit 3; oversized feasibility plan. LOC 50.08.035: Height of,4tructures. 1. Primary structures shall not exceed the following maximum heights; in the R-10 ,,one, the maximum height is 30 feet for a.flat lot and 35 feet for a sloped lot COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Compliance with height standards for all future development can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review. LOC 50.08.040: Lot Coverage and Floor Ratio Area (FAR). 1. Except as set forth in LOC Article 50.30, lot coverage shall not exceed 35% for a 4 primary structure < 22 feet in height or 25% for a primary structure > 22 feet in height. ige 7: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 143 COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Compliance with lot coverage ratios for all future development can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review. Pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with this application, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable lot coverage regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. Exhibits 1 and 3; oversized plans. Prior to the lot line adjustment, the property is 13,461 square feet. After the adjustment the property is 15,136 square feet. The building footprint represented on the feasibility drawing is approximately 1,675 square feet. Exhibit 3; oversized plan. Assuming, for a feasibility demonstration, that the building footprint was taller than 22 feet, the building would occupy 12.4 percent of the site area before the property line adjustment and 11 percent after, well below the maximum lot coverage permitted. Given the site area; for a dwelling less than 22 feet high, applicant's permitted lot coverage is 4,711 square feet before the adjustment, and 5,298 square feet after. For a dwelling more than 22 feet high, applicant's permitted lot coverage is 3,365 square feet before the adjustment, and 3,784 square feet after. 2. Floor ratio areas shall not exceed the standards as shown. in Table 50.08.040 below: T_A-BL.E 50.€18.040 f L� i I t�iitattl' �+3 t e3 1:%.6 . « �r R- R-10 R-1, 6 00"D ♦♦ 1V. (Y -A! Lv�i ):rt •'S_i•!I`l�) .`tom .4 £� 8. €)0111 9,000 4 9.00.0 10,11>: _55l 4 t 2 000 J '} iC 31 0 , 4 19 - �i010 <� -2F 130"10 Jim .1� -,9 , COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Compliance with floor area ratios for all future development can be made a condition of Page 8: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 144 approval and applied at the time of building permit review. Pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with this application, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable floor area ratio regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. Exhibits 1 and 3; oversized plans. Prior to the lot line adjustment, the property is 13,461 square feet. After the adjustment the property is 15,136 square feet. The building footprint represented on the feasibility drawing is approximately 1,675 square feet. Exhibit 3; oversized plan. Given the site area; applicant's permitted floor area is 4,981 square feet before the adjustment, and 5,298 square feet after. For discussion sake, lets assume the dwelling will be two stories along the entire footprint, thus resulting in 3,350 square feet of living space; well below the maximum floor area ratio permitted. iii. LOC 50.21.005: Vision Clearance. COMMENT: Pursuant to the site plans submitted with this application, applicant demonstrated there is adequate and safe access onto Phantom Bluff Court. Applicant is requesting access onto a private street without a posted public street limit. Area properties have recently developed and obtained City land use approvals. In association with those development approvals, the City found Phantom Bluff provides adequate and safe access. The access approved through the partition approval of the Glass property (Exhibit 12), is in the same location at which access to the Puterbaugh property is located. Previously, the access point was a shared access driveway for both the Puterbaugh and Glass property. Continued compliance with the site distance standard can be made a condition of partition approval. Phantom Bluff Court, a private street, was recently improved and widened in conjunction with LID improvements. Applicant participated in and financially contributed to the road improvements. Phantom Bluff Court has supported the use and development of numerous residences. The road extends east of the subject property, serving additional properties and es. Exhibits 6 and 7. The private street provides safe and efficient access to and from the OC 50.22.030: Oswego Lake Special Setback xcept for: a boathouse, retaining walls (seawalls) permitted pursuant to LOC 45.15, within the Flood Management Area defined by LOC 50.44.005(2), water dependent 'es and lake -related infrastructure permitted as development pursuant to LOC '.44.030(1) (e) and (g), and any structure located below finished grade, -tructure shall be setback a minimum. of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels ich constitute Oswego Lake, its bays and canals in all zones except in the "zone, shown on Appendix 50.22-A. The exception in LOC 50.14.005(5) for siting !essory structures within setbacks shall not apply to this Oswego Lake setback tterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 145 COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Compliance with Oswego Lake setbacks for all future development can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review. Pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with this application, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable Oswego Lake setback regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. Exhibit 3; oversized plans. V. LOC 50.40.005 — 50.40.030: Drainage for Minor Development LOC 50.40.010: Standards for Approval. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runoffl do not adversely affect other property. COMMENT: This standard requires that new development shall not alter drainage patterns in a manner that adversely affects other property. The site is presently undeveloped, sloping gently towards Oswego Lake, and thereafter steeply over the bank towards the lake's edge. Exhibit 2. Applicant will focus use and site disturbance away from the site's steeper slopes. Exhibit 3. There are no streams, ponds, wet areas, or any similar water feature on site. All surface water drains naturally through the soil and towards the lake. Surface water not absorbed into the ground runs over the bank on into the lake. Area properties similarly drain towards and into the lake. It is customary for residential uses to both incorporate natural drainage and to direct surface water towards the lake. The hazard and soil survey prepared by Carlson Geotechnical demonstrates surface water can be accommodated and that the site is suitable for development. Exhibit 8. Applicant also corresponded with the Lake Oswego Corporation, Jeff Ward, Development Services, concerning storm and surface water runoff. A letter from Mr. Ward is attached. Exhibit 13. The Lake Corp. is satisfied that storm and surface water runoff can be accommodated. No alterations in the drainage pattern will result from this partition. Except for future common residential improvements, the site will remain largely in its natural state, allowing natural peculation into the soil. Any surface drainage that occurs from one lot to the other is the natural drainage pattern whose preservation is protected by Oregon drainage law. Applicant does not propose any construction at this time. Compliance with specific construction standards in LOC 50.40.015 and .025 and maintenance standards in LOC 50.40.020 and .030 can be made a condition of approval. This standard is satisfied. Vi. LOC 50.42: Weak Foundation Soils COMMENT: This Article applies to all development which will involve proposed structures located in areas identified as "Potential Weak Foundation Soils." LOC 50.42.005. The presence of weak foundation soil is not a cause for denying development, but may cause density to be Page 10: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 146 reduced, structural modifications to be required, or structures to be relocated. LOC 50.42.010. Applicant retained the services of Carlson Geotechnical to perform a geotechnical, soil, and hazard assessment on the property. The report is attached as Exhibit 8. The report details site conditions and demonstrates that the site can support residential development. Vii. LOC 50.43.005 — 50.43.035: Hillside Protection. COMMENT: According to the City's maps, the site is located in a potential slide area due to a combination of soil conditions and slope. Steep slopes are present on the property immediately adjacent to Oswego Lake. A bank is present where the property drops off down to the lake. Exhibit 2. Applicant retained the services of Carlson Geotechnical to perform a geotechnical, soil, and hazard assessment on the property. The report is attached as Exhibit 8. The report details site conditions and demonstrates that the site can support residential development. Applicant does not seek permission to cut, excavate, or fill the site through this application request. Although not a part of this application, applicant proposes that development activity will occur above the bank on an area characterized by gentle slopes. Exhibit 3; oversized feasibility plan. Any development will be designed to minimize the disturbance of the natural topography, vegetation and soils; and to minimize cuts and fills. There is no evidence of landslides occurring on the property. Compliance with this standard, including construction standards in LOC 50.43.020, can be assured through conditions of approval and revisited at the time of building permit application for any future development. viii. LOC 50.47 - Landscaping, Screening and Buffering LOC 50.47.005: Applicability. This Article is applicable to all major development. COMMENT: The subject application is for a minor development. As such, the standards of Article 50.47 (LOC 50.47.005-50.47.030) are not applicable. In the City's preapplication conference notes, staff indicated that the standard requiring street trees may apply, but would be satisfied by the existing tree canopy. Submitted with this application is a survey of existing trees. Exhibit 9. ix. LOC 50.55: Parking Standards COMMENT: This standard requires that a single family dwelling provide a minimum of one off-street parking space. The subject application is to legalize the property for planning and development purposes so that a single family residence may be constructed on site. No construction activity is proposed at this time. The site is of sufficient size to support the minimum number of parking spaces for resident vehicles (1) in compliance with Appendix 50.55-A. All parking shall be off-street within and adjacent to a garage, outside of any setback Page 11: Puterbaugh —Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 147 area, as is customary. Exhibit 3. Parking standards can be made a condition of development approval to ensure all future development complies. X. LOC 50.57.005 — 50.57.035: Access COMMENT: This standard is applicable to all partitions of land and requires each lot to have a minimum of 25 feet of street frontage on a public street. The property is served by Phantom Bluff Court, a private street. The Clackamas County Board of Commissions vacated the rights or the public in Phantom Bluff Court in 1959. Phantom Bluff Court subsequently became a "mutual easement" for road purposes upon the recording of the document in Book 558, Page 784 of the Clackamas County deed records. Exhibit 11. Phantom Bluff Court has remained a private road since then, serving numerous properties and residents. Exhibits 6 and 7. The road extends east of the subject property, serving additional properties and residences. The private street provides safe and efficient access to and from the property. Currently, applicant has access to Phantom Bluff Court through an access easement (Document No. 74-10511). Subject to the lot being legalized, applicant submitted a property line adjustment application to reconfigure applicant's property in relation to the Glass property to the west (tax lot 1900). The lot line adjustment extends the current configuration of applicant's property to Phantom Bluff Court. The property does not front on a public street. As such, applicant requests a variance from the public street frontage standard. There are no traffic engineering issues related to this variance request. The demonstration of compliance with variance criteria is below. xi. LDC 50.58.005 — 50.58.035 — On Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Road COMMENT: This standard regulates driveway slopes and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. This standard also requires driveways serving a single family dwelling to not exceed 20 percent grade or 5 percent cross slope. Applicant presented a feasibility design drawing depicting the location of the driveway, on gentle slopes, not exceeding 20 percent grade or 5 percent cross slope. Exhibit 3; oversized plan. Phantom Bluff Court, a private street, was recently improved and widened in conjunction with LID improvements. Applicant participated in and financially contributed to the road improvements. Phantom Bluff Court has supported the use and development of numerous residences. The road extends east of the subject property, serving additional properties and residences. Exhibits 6 and 7. The private street provides safe and efficient access to and from the property. If the Fire Department, after review of current road conditions, deems additional protections, such as a residential sprinkler system, should be imposed, said requirement can be made a condition of approval to be satisfied when building permits are sought. Page 12: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 148 No cAstruction is proposed at this time. The impact of future residential development of a single family residence will be minimal. Driveway standards, including the construction standards in LOC 50.58.015 and .020, can be made a condition of development approval to ensure all.future development complies. xii. LOC 50-63-005— 50.63.010: Street lights COMMENT: As stated in the City's 9/10/08 Engineering Report given in response to applicant's pre -application conference, this standard establishes illumination standards for public streets. Exhibit 17. Since Phantom Bluff Court is a private street, this standard does not apply. xiii. LOC 50.64.005 — 50.64.030 and Chapter 38: Utilities COMMENT: The property has access to all utilities and services needed to support single family residential use. Sanitary Sewer: Pursuant to the LID, in which applicant participated and financially contributed, the property now has sewer service. The sewer service was stubbed to the property and was, developed to have existing capacity to serve the site. Exhibits 1 and 19. Water Service: Pursuant to the LID, in which applicant participated and financially contributed, there is now an 8 inch line in and fire hydrants along Phantom Bluff Court. The water service was stubbed to the property and was developed to have existing capacity to serve the site. Fire hydrants were also installed and are depicted on the construction plans. Exhibits 1 and 19. The location of facilities is depicted on the construction plans attached as Exhibits 1 and 19; oversize partition plan. Other utilities: Underground electric, gas, and telecommunication lines currently are stubbed to and serve the property and area residences. Exhibit 1; oversized partition plan. xiv. Chapter 55: Trees COMMENT: A tree removal permit can be requested and given in association with a Minor Development Application pursuant to LOC 55,02.035. Applicant requests permission to cut 7 trees. Applicant retained Gary E. Drendel, Certified Arborist, to conduct a tree survey and assessment on the above referenced property. The results of his assessment are attached as Exhibit 9, which also includes a list of the trees. Mr. Drendel located, measured and identified all trees on the property 6 inches or more in caliper size - measuring 4 and 1/2 feet from ground level. His findings are incorporated into the topographic survey plans done by Andy Paris and Associates. Exhibit 9. The plans identify Page 13: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 149 each tree by species, size, and location. There are 26 trees on or adjacent to the property. Except for Trees #'s 2, 18, and 26, the trees exhibit moderate health. Tree 92 is a 20 inch Valley Oak with a 3 foot cavity in its stump. Tree #18 is an 11 inch Black Locust exhibiting root decay in its stump. Tree 926 is a 36 inch Douglas fir showing signs of poor health. The tree survey identifies 7 trees intended for removal. Tree removal is necessary in order to construct a residence and related improvements. The trees, 43, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 18, are all marked with yellow ribbon. The trees will be removed in an area characterized by gentle slopes and will not have any negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreak. Tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics','or property values of the neighborhood. The general area is characterized by mature trees. Tree removal is not for the purpose of providing or enhancing views. No additional tree removal or site disturbing activities are intended with the current application. As stated by Mr. Drendel, future residential development will involve site disturbing activities. In his professional opinion, required mitigation, including mitigation plans, tree protections, and tree plantings should be imposed as a condition of approval on the subject partition. Mr. Drendel stated that certified trees which require protection for construction purposes can be determined when applicant has developed detailed construction plans and identified specific areas of impact. After construction, tree mitigation plantings required by the Code can be implemented. For trees remaining on site, arborist recommended tree protection measures will be implemented and should be made a condition of partition approval. Mr. Drendel generally recommends one foot of protection for every one inch in diameter. For example: if a tree is 20 inches in diameter, a 20 foot buffer is to be installed to protect the tree from development impacts. The buffer is to be maintained through a fence, in which no grades are to be changed, no material or equipment is to be stored, and the fence is to remain until construction is complete. Tree nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, and 25 are near the access driveway. Applicant desires very much to retain these trees. Given their proximity to the access driveway, applicant desires to work with the arborist to promote their protection. Given the their location and the area of access available, some encroachment into the construction protection zone may be necessary. As stated, since no construction is proposed through this application, applicant requests the above protection measures and mandates be made a condition of approval. Mr. Dredenel's recommendations and oversight will ensure the required tree protection and mitigation and promote survival of newly planted and retained trees during and after construction. Applicant intends to mitigate the removal as required by City code § 55.02.084, The precise location of mitigation planting will not be known until after the home and improvements are constructed. Compliance with the standards of Chapter 55, including mitigation and tree Page 14: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 150 protection standards, can be made a condition of development approval to ensure compliance. Applicant requests such a condition be imposed. XV. Chapter 57 — Solar Access COMMENT: The purpose of this standard is to ensure that land, if divided, can be oriented to maximize solar access and minimize shading on adjoining properties. As demonstrated by the slope map, the lot is sloped more than 20 percent in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, and therefore is exempt from the standard pursuant to LOC 57.04.025. Exhibit 2; oversized topo plan. As well, this is a single lot partition application, utilizing code procedures to legalize a preexisting lot for planning and development purposes. xvi. Chapter 58 — Historic Preservation LOC 58.02.140(2) — Minor Development COMMENT: The property is adjacent to an existing house on tax lot 1900 listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The home is 65 feet at its closest point to the western boundary of the subject property, providing an ample buffer between the properties. Exhibit 1; oversize preliminary plan. The subject application does not result in the historic Sundeleaf property to be split into separate lots. The application does not impact any historic resource, nor does it remove or impact yard or landscaped areas on tax lot 1900. The lot line adjustment application submitted in conjunction with this single lot partition application corrects an existing condition of approval violation occurring on tax lot 1900. The lot line adjustment application ensures 3 feet between the historic wall and fireplace structure and the Puterbaughs western property line. This ensures adequate setbacks from the landmark and its improvements are maintained to provide buffering and mitigation of any impacts associated with development on the Puterbaugh property. Creating an adequate buffer which currently does not exist between the fireplace and Puterbaugh property line enhances the historical character and protects the significance of the landmark. The owner of the historical landmark (Glass) consents to and submitted the property line adjustment application in part to correct the existing conditions of approval violation of the Glass property. Denial of the partition application would prevent the property line adjustment application from being approved, as legal lots for planning and development purposes are needed for the city to approve a land use application. Approving both applications is a proper means to adequately protect the historic resource on Tax Lot 1900 and give it the required 3 feet of setback. xvii. Variance: LOC 50.68.010: Variance Standards. 1. The reviewing authority may grant a variance from the requirements of this Code, except as expressly prohibited, if it is established that: a. Class 1 (Minor) Variance Standards. Page 15: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 161 COMMENT: Applicant requests a Class I (minor) variance to the public access and road frontage standard and related public street standards. Class I variances are small changes from the Code requirements that have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. LOC 50.68.015(1) describes a variance to a street frontage and public street standards as a Class 1 variance. i. The granting of the variance will n.ot be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property. ii. The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, designated sensitive lands, historic resources, or parks, and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy de},ices any more than would occur if the development were located as, specified by the requirements of the zone COMMENT: Applicant requests a variance to the public street frontage standard which requires each lot to have a minimum of 25 feet of street frontage on a public street. The property is served by Phantom Bluff Court, a private street. The Clackamas County Board of Commissions vacated the rights or the public in Phantom Bluff Court in 1959. Phantom Bluff Court subsequently became a "mutual easement" for road purposes upon the recording of the document in Book 558, Page 784 of the Clackamas County deed records. Exhibit 11. Phantom Bluff Court has remained a private road since then, serving numerous properties and residents. Exhibits 6 and 7. The road extends east of the subject property, serving additional properties and residences. The private street provides safe and efficient access to and from the property. Applicant's variance request reflects the need for flexibility and responding to unique site characteristics and hardship situations. Given the unique circumstances in this case, a variance is the only means available for relief for applicant. As was the case for the legalization/single lot partition application approved on the Glass property in 2003-04 (Exhibit 12), the physical characteristics of Phantom Bluff Court and applicant's property, its boundary configurations, as well as facts pertaining to the right of way and applicant's access, represent unique site characteristics that make strict application of the standards unnecessary and unreasonable. Grating this variance will not result in adverse effects on other properties. The variance request will allow the property to be legalized, and in the future, development consistent with the existing neighborhood character. While the City Code generally requires properties to front a public street, development on private streets is not prohibited. Of note, other area properties recently obtained land use and building permit approvals to construct residences served by Phantom Bluff Court, presumably through the same variance procedure. Applicant also understands that City Code, § 50.20.020, permits flag lots to have access to either a public or private street as an exception to the public street frontage standard. Accessing a homesite through a flag lot or shared driveway represents flexibility in the code and recognizes the certain properties have unique characteristics that other properties in the City do not share. In this case, Page 16: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 152 I the private street is consistent with the character of a flag lot or shared driveway. The private street provides legal and direct access to South Shore Drive, a public road. As such, this request (seeking relief from public street standards) allows uses contemplated and approved elsewhere in the City's land use structure. Applicant does not seek a variance to permit a use otherwise prohibited by the Code. If the variance request is denied applicant's single lot partition/legalization request will also be denied. Denial would unjustly prevent development of the property, result in a substantial economic hardship on applicant, and deny applicant equal treatment under the laws. Denial would also prevent the property line adjustment application from being approved, as legal lots for planning and development purposes are needed for the city to approve a land use application. Approving both applications is a proper means to adequately protect the historic resource on Tax Lot 1900 and give it the required 3 feet of setback. Property to the east; tax lot 1800, is too small, and specifically too narrow to be developable. Exhibit 1; oversize plans. The property provides access to a boat house located in front of the lot on the lake. Further to the east, a new single family residence and accessory structures were recently permitted and developed. Approval of the variance will not impact neighboring properties relative to increased noise or traffic, nor will it prevent solar accessibility. Approving the variance allows the City to procedurally and substantially approve the lot legalization request. It is anticipated that the property will be developed with a single family residence in the future. A single family residence is consistent with area uses. The impact of a single family residence, such as noise from homes, yards, and automobiles is customary and acceptable. Approval of the variance to create one legal lot for planning purposes will have no measurable impact on the public street system. As demonstrated by the report by Carlson Geotechnical, single family residential use will not negatively impact historic drainage patterns. Exhibit 8. The site can be developed consistent with soils and hillside protections. The Lake Corp also supports applicant's efforts to develop the property. Exhibit 13. Applicant has addressed tree criteria above. To avoid repetition, applicant response to Chapter 55 Tree standards is incorporated by reference. Mitigation planting required for any trees removed in association with development can and should be ensured through conditions of development approval. For the reasons set forth above, applicant respectfully requests the variance request be approved. xviii. Section 50.01.030 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot I. No development perntit shall be issued for the development or use of an illegal lot unless the lot is made legal pursuant to the applicable requirements for creation of a lot in effect at the time of application. The applicant shall demonstrate conformance with applicable Page 17: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 153 legal requirements. This restriction applies regardless of whether the applicant was responsible for creation of the illegal lot COMMENT: Applicant requests approval to legalize the property. Through this narrative and all attachments and exhibits, applicant demonstrates compliance with all applicable standards. Z. If an illegal lot cannot be made legal pursuant to subsection (1) of this section because it does not comply with lot area or dimensional requirements in effect at the time of application, an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance from such lot area or dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the lot would have complied with lot area and dimensional requirements applicable at the time of creation. COMMENT: As set forth above in applicant's comments to current dimensional standards, because existing "lot width" and "lot length" dimensional standards in the R-10 district are based on measurements from a public street, the property, which is not adjacent to a public street, cannot technically satisfy current dimensional standards. Pursuant to LOC § 50.01.030(2), applicant is exempt from current dimensional requirements. When created in 1972, the lot would have complied with lot area requirements. In 1972, the subject property was zoned R-7.5 and subject to the R-7.5 district dimensional standards. Section 51.440 (LOC 1968 edition), then in effect, stated that in the R- 7.5 zone the lot size shall be a minimum of 7,500 sq. ft., the minimum lot width at the "front building line" shall be sixty feet, and the minimum "lot depth" shall be 100 feet. The subject lot met all of those standards when created. From one end of the property, the lot depth is over 250 feet. The lot fronts Oswego Lake, along which is the front building line. Along the subject front building line the property is 70 feet wide. Of note, area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building lines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. A review of maps depicting the areas around the lake show that the Puterbaugh property is not the only property created with its building frontage along Oswego Lake being larger and wider than the rear yard along streets, both public and private. The 1968 code did not relate the R-7,5 dimensional width standard to the "front lot line," but rather to the "front building line." "Front building line" was not defined by the 1968 code, but is certainly distinct and different from a "front lot line," which was defined by the 1968 code and is associated with a public street. Not relating the R-7.5 dimensional lot width standard to a "front lot line" expresses a clear intent that the dimensional width requirement did not need to be met along the street frontage or "front lot line," but could be met in another manner. Evidence of this intent is also found in the 1968 definition of "lot width," which allows for more than one way to measure lot Page 18; Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 154 width. "Lot width" was defined in the 1968 code as "the horizontal distance between the side lot lines, ordinarily measured parallel to the front lot line. If the front lot line was the only means to measure lot width, the term "ordinarily" would not have been used. "Ordinarily" is commonly understood to mean usually, but not always. To give effect to each word used in the code, as we are commanded by state law and judicial precedence to do, the code plainly acknowledges "lot width" can be measured in locations other than the "front lot line," and as specifically stated by the code for R-7.5 width dimensional requirements, can be along the "front building line," which for the subject lot, is along the lake. In short, when created, the subject lot satisfied all applicable R-7.5 standards. 3. If an illegal lot cannot be made legal pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of this .rection because it does not comply with applicable lot area or dimensional requirements at the time of application and did not comply with applicable lot area or dimensional requirements at the time of creation, an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. The City may impose conditions on development of the lot in order to ensure that legalization of the lot does not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood Public notice of an application to legalize a lot pursuant to this subsection shall contain a map of the property illustrating the building envelope If the lot proposed to be made legal pursuant to this subsection has a lot area or dimension which is less than 65 percent of the size or length required by the zone at the time of application, the application to create the legal parcel shall be referred to the Development Review Commission for public hearing. COMMENT: Alternatively, if staff is of the opinion that the property did not satisfy 1972 dimensional requirements when the property was created, pursuant to LOC § 50.01.030(3) applicant is exempt from demonstrating compliance with current dimensional standards. Pursuant to LOC 50.01.030(3), if a lot does not comply with the dimensional standards, the lot maybe exempt from compliance with lot dimensional requires if the applicant can demonstrate that creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise, scale, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing property. Applicant makes the required showing. Applicant has owned the subject property since 1972. Applicant requests permission to legalize their property so that they may have the same planning and development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area and throughout the City of Lake Oswego. Permission will promote the efficient use of residential land served by all necessary services. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If legalized, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their primary residence. At the time applicant purchased the property, the lack of sewer service and the City's newly passed Page 19: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 165 prohibition on septic tanks prevented its use for residential purposes. Otherwise, a home would have been constructed decades ago. Thereafter, applicant has paid taxes to both the County and Lake Corp at rates consistent with the property being developable. Applicant also participated both financially and physically in the creation and adoption of the Local Improvement District which has resulted in new sewer and water service for the area. All area and neighboring properties and their residences are also benefiting from the LID. The LID, with applicant's assistance, also created substantial benefits to the health of the lake. With the infrastructure improvements, applicant now desires to build a home. In the future, applicant will apply for permission to construct a single family residence, a common and customary use of R-10 residentially zoned property in the area and throughout the City. Although the subject property does not meet the current 65 foot "lot width" dimensional requirement, existing conditions mitigate any impact of developing on a narrower lot. The lot is several thousand feet over the minimum lot size and 150 feet longer than the minimum length requirement. Other factors which minimize any development impacts are the substantial distances existing homes are from the property, site topography, and applicant's development plans. As well, the lot immediately to the east, tax lot 1800, is vacant and not developable. It serves as a path to a boat house. The residence's scale will be very modest in size, at about 2,500 square feet, which represents a much smaller footprint than most., if not all, area homes. The size of the home will be substantially smaller than the maximum lot coverage and floor area ratios permitted in the R-10 zone. The home will not exceed height limitations. The smaller home size is consistent with applicant's intent to minimally impact the property and minimize the home's impact on surrounding residents. The home will be situated in the center of the property, taking advantage of the gentle slope towards the lake. Locating the building in the center of the property provides maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on adjacent lots. Being built into the slope will also result in the dwelling appearing shorter than it would appear if constructed on a flat property. The dwelling will not block an adjacent property owner's view to the lake. There is only one home, located across Phantom Bluff Court on tax lot 2600; that will see a newly constructed residence when looking towards the lake. However, the impact from the proposed modest residence is minimal compared to view impacts created by other area homes. The owner of tax lot 2600 also owns tax lot 1800, located adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1800 provides unobstructed view to the lake for tax lot 2600. When comparing the home recently approved and constructed on tax lot 1700 and the view obstruction that home created for tax lot 2600 to applicant's intended use, any impact created by applicant's intended use is minimized. Furthermore, the narrow shape of applicant's property dictates that the home will be narrow and longer, thereby impacting fewer views than the traditionally shaped homes in the area that are wider than longer. It should be noted that the subject property is not burdened by any view rights favoring a neighboring property, The home will be located over 75 feet from the existing residence on tax lot 1900, and further from the newly constructed home on tax lot 1700. This distance is a substantial buffer between the residential uses. Landscaping, rock walls; fences, and trees are present on tax lot 1900 Page 20: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 156 between the residence on tax lot 1900 and the subject property, thereby enhancing the buffer and privacy between the properties. Where practicable and where not disturbed by a building footprint or driveway, applicant intends to maintain mature trees and vegetation. Any trees removed will be mitigated for as required by the City's code. Applicant, in conjunction with residential construction, intends to additionally landscape the property. The mature and newly planted vegetation will serve both screening and buffering purposes — for both noise and visual impacts — thereby mitigating adverse impacts, if any, on neighboring properties. As stated above, tax lot 1800 does not and cannot, due to its configuration, support a residence. Tax lot 1800 is used as a pathway to provide access to a dock and house boat located in front of tax lot 1800. The use of the property will create noise and traffic similar to other single family residential users. One additional home in the area will not result in a significant negative noise impact. The traffic from one additional home will also not result in a significant negative traffic impact. Area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building lines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. Applicant intends to develop the property consistent with this development pattern. In sum, future use of the property for residential purposes is consistent with the existing character of the area. Approving the lot legalization request will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise, scale, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing property. xix. LOC 50.77 - Neighborhood Meeting COMMENT: Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on 11/22/08. The property was posted with notice of the meeting on October 16, 2008. Exhibit 15. The meeting minutes are attached as Exhibit 16. Notice of the meeting by letter dated October 16, 2008 was provided to the Palisades Neighborhood Association; the abutting neighborhood associations of Mc -Vey South Shore, Blue Heron, and Westridge; and at least 50 property owners within 300 plus feet of the property's boundaries. A copy of the mailed meeting notice, with the addresses of all to whom the notice was sent, as well as an affidavit of mailing, and affidavit of posting of the meeting are attached as Exhibit 14. As proof of mailing, a copy of the certified mail and return receipts are included as Exhibit 14. IV. CONCLUSION Respectfully, applicant requests single lot partition and associated variance approval. Applicant has addressed and demonstrated compliance with all applicable approval criteria. Page 21: Puterbaugh — Single Lot Partition, Variance and Tree Cutting Application 157 EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Preliminary Plan Map (8 '/2 x 11) Exhibit 2 Topographic Map (8 '/Z x 11) Exhibit 3 Feasibility Design Plan (8 '/i x 11) Exhibit 4 Puterbaugh Trust Deed Exhibit 5 Puterbaugh 1972 Purchase Contract Exhibit 6 Tax Map Exhibit 7 Area Map Exhibit 8 Carlson Geotechnical Hazards/Soils Report Exhibit 9 Tree Plan/Survey Exhibit 10 Puterbaugh Metro Data Sheet Exhibit 11 Clackamas County Vacation Order — Phantom Bluff Exhibit 12 Glass Property (TL 1900) partition/legalization approval staff report Exhibit l3 Lake Corporation Letter Exhibit 14 Affidavit of Mailing/Neighborhood Meeting Letter/Notice List/Certified Receipts Exhibit 15 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 16 Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting Exhibit 17 Preapplication Conference Notes Exhibit 18 Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Plan Exhibit 19 Utility/LID Engineering Plans OVERSIZED: Preliminary Plan Map Topographic Map Feasibility Design Plan LEGAL SERVICES & CONSULTATION (503) 233-1985 TEL (503) 914-0474 FAX gary@oregonlandlaw.com ENTAIL City of Lake Oswego � Application for Property Line Adjustment Applicant/Owners: George H. Puterbaugh, Trustee Puterbaugh Revocable Living Trust George and Mary Glass 16715 Phantom Bluff Court Lake, Oswego Applicant's Representative: Gary Shepherd, Attorney Oregon Land Law 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 Property Tax Map/Lots: Tax lot 1900, Map 21E09CC & Tax lot 1902, Map 21E09CC EXHIBIT F-2 LU 09-0009 169 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department Planning Division 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Applicants/Owners: George H. Puterbaugh, Trustee Puterbaugh Revocable Living Trust George and Mary Glass 16715 Phantom Bluff Court Lake Oswego, Oregon Applicant's Representative: Gary Shepherd, Attorney Oregon Land Law 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 Tax Map/Lot: Tax lot 1900, Map 21E09CC & Tax lot 1902, Map 21E09CC Location: South of Oswego Lake, North of South Shore Boulevard along Phantom Bluff Court (private road) Zoning Designation: R-10 Comprehensive Plan Designation: R-10 Low Density Residential Request: Lot Line Adjustment I. INTRODUCTION This submission will address the applicable standards and review criteria of the City of Lake Oswego's Code (LOC) and Comprehensive Plan. The lot line adjustment application is a ministerial development request. Applicant requests land use approval for a lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 1900, Map 21E09CC (the Glass property) & Tax Lot 1902, Map 21E09CC (the Puterbaugh property). Applicant requests approval of the proposed property line adjustment to relocate an existing common property line between two abutting properties. The application is submitted in conjunction with the Puterbaugh application to legalize Tax Lot 1902 (single lot partition request). This application also corrects an existing conditions of approval violation occurring on Tax Lot 1900. The violation relates to the fireplace structure i Page 1: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 1 I, 160 on Tax Lot 1900, which is a historical resource. As a condition of approval to legalize Tax Lot 1900 for planning and development purposes, the City required the fireplace structure to be 3 feet from the property line between the Glass and Puterbaugh property. (City File No. LU -03- 0053 (Partition No. 2004-033). Today, the existing property line is not the required 3 feet from the fireplace structure. This property line adjustment request corrects that error and ensures that the original condition for legalizing Lot 1900 is met. No additional lots or building sites are being created. The number of lots after the adjustment will be equal to the number of lots prior to the adjustment. Both properties are located in the Palisades neighborhood of the City of Lake Oswego. They are zoned and planned for a single family residence. They are located on the north side of Phantom Bluff Court, a private street, on and adjacent to the south shore of Oswego Lake. Phantom Bluff Court connects to South Shore Boulevard. The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners vacated the rights of the public in Phantom Bluff Court in 1959. Phantom Bluff Court subsequently became a "mutual easement" for road purposes upon the recording of the document in.Book 558, Page 784 of the Clackamas County deed records. Exhibit 7. Phantom Bluff Court has remained a private road since then, serving numerous properties and residents. The road extends east of the subject properties, serving additional properties and residences. Exhibit 8. The properties are zoned R-10. Both properties also constitute a portion of the originally platted Lot 42 (previously the Sundeleaf estate). The Glass property was legalized through a legalization/partition process in 2003/04. The final plat was recorded in 2004. Tax maps identify tax lot 1900 as being 1.45 acres. Exhibit 2. The Glass property is developed with a house, accessory structures, and access driveway. The existing and approved structure locations are identified on the enclosed property line adjustment plan. Exhibit 1. Tax maps identify tax lot 1902 as 0.33 acres. Exhibit 2. The Puterbaugh property is not currently developed, although all required public facilities and services are stubbed to the property to support residential development. The character of the subject site and surrounding area is urban residential. Surrounding property is highly parcelized and developed with residences and accessory structures. R. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Zoning Ordinance i. Ministerial Development; LOC 50.79.010 ii. R-10 Zone: LOC 50.08.010-50.08.040 - iii. Oswego Lake Special Setback: LOC 50.22.030 iv. Drainage: LOC 50.40 Page 2: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 161 V. On-site circulation — driveways and fire access roads: LOC 50.58 vi. Utilities: LOC Chapter 38 vii. Historic Preservation: LOC Chapter 58 III. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA COMMENT: The applicable approval standards are in bold italic print. Applicant's responses to each follow the standards as a COMMENT. A. ZONING ORDINANCE i. LOC 50.79.010: Ministerial Development COMMENT: LOC 50.79.010(2)(d) defines lot line adjustments which do not increase the allowable density on a site as a ministerial development. The subject application is for a lot line adjustment that does not increase allowable density on a site. The application represents a cooperative approach to resolving boundary and access easement issues between the two property owners and also represents a correction to an existing conditions of approval violation on tax lot 1900. This application narrative, together with all exhibits and submissions, demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. ii. LOC 50.01. 010-50.08.040: R-10 Zone Standards LOC 50.08.010: Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 Zones are as follows: 1. One single family dwelling per lot. COMMENT: Applicant seeks lot line adjustment approval to 1) correct an existing conditions of approval violation on tax lot 1900, 2) to ensure required setbacks to protect a historical resource, and 3) to relocate an existing common properly line between two abutting properties to cooperatively resolve boundary and access easement issues between the two property owners. The Glass property is developed with a single family residence. It is intended that the Puterbaugh property will, in the future, support a single family residence. This standard is satisfied. LOC 50.08.015: Conditional Uses. COMMENT: Applicant does not propose a conditional use; therefore LOC 50.08.015 is not applicable. H Page 3: Puterbaugh/Glass - Property Line Adjustment Application 162 LOC 50.08.020: Maximum Density, Density Bonus. COMMENT: This standard is not applicable to an application for a lot line adjustment. No additional lots or building sites are being created. The number of lots after the adjustment will be equal to the number of lots prior to the adjustment. LOC S0.08.025: Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer. COMMENT: Lot Area: Lots in the R-10 district must be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Both lots currently exceed minimum lot size standards and will continue to exceed minimum lot size standards after the adjustment. Tax lot 1900 is currently 63,172 square feet. Tax lot 1902 is currently over 13,000 square feet. The adjustment exchanges 771 feet towards the lake (from Puterbaugh to Glass); 28 square feet around the fire place structure (from Puterbaugh to Glass); and 2,474 square feet adjacent to Phantom Bluff Court (from Glass to Puterbaugh). After the adjustment, tax lot 1900 will be 61,497 square feet and tax lot 1902 will be 15,136 square feet. Exhibit 1; see also oversized exhibit. Lot Depth: bots in the R-10 district must have a lot depth of 100 feet. As measured from Oswego Lake to Phantom Bluff Court, both properties are over 250 feet long. Exhibit 1; see also oversized exhibit. Lot Width at Building Line: Lots in the R-10 district must have a "lot width at building line" of 65 feet. The properties are uniquely shaped. The Glass property at is narrowest point by the lake is over 100 feet. The Puterbaugh property is over 70 feet wide adjacent to Oswego Lake, and varies in width and shape, by narrowing as it extends towards Phantom Bluff Court. Exhibit l; see also oversized exhibit. Of note, area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building Iines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. LOC S0.08 027: Minimum Density. COMMENT: Applicant is not proposing a subdivision. As such, LOC 50.08.027 is not applicable. LDC 50.08.030: Yard Setbacks. COMMENT: Setback regulations govern the proximity of primary and accessory structures to adjacent properties and streets. Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. The Glass residence and structures currently meet all setback standards, except for a conditional setback Page 4: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 163 standard imposed through the partition/lot legalization process in 2004. This application corrects the conditional approval violation and ensures required setbacks surrounding the historical structure. Concerning the Puterbaugh property, pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with the Puterbaugh's single lot partition application, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable set back regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. LOC 50.08.035: Height of Structures. 1. Primary structures shall not exceed the following maximum heights; in the R-10 zone, the maximum height is 30 feet for a f lat lot and 35 feet for a sloped lot. COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. A preexisting residence exists on the Glass property. Compliance with height standards for all future development can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review for the Puterbaugh property. LOC 50.08.040: Lot Coverage and Floor Ratio Area (FAR). COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. The Glass property is already developed with a residence and accessory structures. Exhibit 1. Compliance with lot coverage and floor area ratios for all future development on the Puterbaugh property can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review. Pursuant to the preliminary development drawings submitted with the Puterbaugh's single lot partition application and as set forth in the partition application narrrative, applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to meet all applicable lot coverage and floor area ratio regulations and that the property can support development as proposed. W. LOC 50.22.030: Oswego Lake Special Setback. Except,for: 1. a boathouse, 2. retaining walls (seawalls) permitted pursuant to LOC 45.15, 3. within the Flood Management Area defined by LOC 50.44.005(2), water dependent uses and lake -related infrastructure permitted as development pursuant to LOC 50.44.030(1)(e) and (g), and 4. any structure located below finished grade, a structure shall be setback a mininuim of 25 feet froyn the property line of the parcels which constitute Oswego Lake, its bays and canals in all zones except in the 1i'R zone, Page 5: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 164 as shown on Appendix 50.22-A. The exception in LOC 50.14.003(5) for siting accessory structures within setbacks shall not apply to this Oswego Lake setback. COMMENT: As demonstrated by the property line adjustment plan, the Glass residence and accessory structures are over one hundred feet from the Oswego Lake. Applicant Puterbaugh is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. Compliance with Oswego Lake setbacks for all future development on the Puterbaugh property can be made a condition of approval and applied at the time of building permit review. iv. LOC 50.40.005 — 50.40.030: Drainage for Ministerial Development LOC _50.40.010: Standards for Approval. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runofj) do not adversely affect other property. COMMENT: Applicant is not requesting or seeking approval to construct a residence at this time. The Glass property is already developed with a residence and accessory structures. This standard requires that new development shall not alter drainage patterns in a manner that adversely affects other property. No new development is proposed on the Glass property. The Glass property slopes gently towards Oswego Lake, and thereafter steeply over the undeveloped bank. Exhibit 3. The Puterbaugh property is presently undeveloped. It too slopes gently towards Oswego Lake, and thereafter steeply over the bank towards the lake's edge. Exhibit 4, As demonstrated by Puterbaugh's single lot partition application, the Puterbaughs intend to focus use and site disturbance away from the site's steeper slopes. There are no streams, ponds, wet areas, or any similar water feature on site. All surface water drains naturally through the soil and towards the lake. Surface water not absorbed into the ground runs over the bank and into the lake. Area properties similarly drain towards and into the lake. It is customary for residential uses to both incorporate natural drainage and to direct surface water towards the lake. The hazard and soil survey submitted with the Puterbaugh single lot partition application, and hereby incorporated by reference, demonstrates surface water can be accommodated and that the site is suitable for development. Also submitted with the Puterbaugh single lot partition application is a letter from the Lake Corp demonstrating feasibility to accommodate any storm water generated from residential development. No alterations in the drainage pattern will result from this lot line adjustment. Compliance with specific construction standards can be made a condition of approval. This standard is satisfied. Page 6: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 165 V. LOC 50.58.005 — 50.58.035 — On Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Road COMMENT: This Article is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. This lot line adjustment application does not propose a new use or increase in use on a site, and as such is not applicable. If deemed applicable, this standard is satisfied by existing access and driveways serving the properties. This standard regulates driveway slopes and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. This standard also requires driveways serving a single family dwelling to not exceed 20 percent grade or 5 percent cross slope. Phantom Bluff Court, a private street, was recently improved, widened and paved in conjunction with LID improvements. Phantom Bluff Court has supported the use and development of numerous residences. The road extends east of the subject property, serving additional properties and residences. The private street provides safe and efficient access to and from the property. . The one existing driveway serving the Glass property is described as being gently sloped to flat. The driveway and parking area provides ample room for fire and emergency vehicles. The driveway approach is located and designed so that the driver entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit. A driveway providing access to the Puterbaugh property will be developed in conjunction with site development. There is ample room to construct a driveway approach so that the driver entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit. If the Fire Department, after review of current road conditions, deems additional protections, such as a residential sprinkler system, should be imposed on future construction of the Puterbaugh property, said requirement can be made a condition of approval to be satisfied when building permits are sought. Vi. Chapter 38: Utilities: COMMENT: The property has access to all utilities and services needed to support single family residential use. Attached as Exhibit I I is the approved construction plans pursuant to which recent LID improvements were constructed. Sanitary Sewer: Pursuant to the LID, in which applicants participated and financially contributed, both the Puterbaugh property and Glass property have new sewer service. The Glass property is currently served by and using the sewer line. The Puterbaugh property is stubbed to the line for future use. The sewer line was constructed with adequate capacity to serve the Puterbaugh property. Exhibit 11. Page 7: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 166 Water Service: Pursuant to the LID, in which applicants participated and financially contributed, there is now an 8 inch line in and fire hydrants along Phantom Bluff Court. The Glass property is currently served by and using the water line. The Puterbaugh property is stubbed to the line for future use. The water line was constructed with adequate capacity to serve the Puterbaugh property. Fire hydrants were also installed and are depicted on the construction plans. Exhibit 11. Other utilities: Electric, gas, and telecommunication lines currently serve the Glass property and are readily available along Phantom Bluff Court to serve the Puterbaugh property. vii. Chapter 58 — Historic Preservation COMMENT: Although not applicable to a ministerial application (58.02.145(2), the subject application seeks to correct an existing conditions of approval violation on tax lot 1900 and ensure required setbacks to protect a historical resource. The house on tax lot 1900 is listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The home is 65 feet at its closest point to the western boundary of the Puterbaugh property, providing an ample buffer between the properties. The application does not negatively impact any historic resource, nor does it remove or impact yard or landscaped areas on tax lot 1900. The lot line adjustment application corrects an existing condition of approval violation occurring on tax lot 1900. The lot line adjustment application ensures 3 feet between the historic wall and fireplace structure and the Puterbaugh's western property line. This ensures adequate setbacks from the landmark and its improvements are maintained to provide buffering and mitigation of impacts associated with development on the Puterbaughs property. Creating an adequate buffer which currently does not exist between the fireplace and Puterbaugh property line enhances the historical character and protects the significance of the landmark. IV. CONCLUSION Applicant has addressed and demonstrated compliance with all applicable approval criteria. Applicant respectfully requests the lot line adjustment application be approved. Page 8: Puterbaugh/Glass — Property Line Adjustment Application 167 EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Property Line Adjustment Plan (8'/z x 11) Exhibit 2 Tax Map Exhibit 3 Glass Property Topography Map Exhibit.4 Puterbaugh Property Topography Map Exhibit 5 Glass Metro Data Sheet Exhibit 6 Puterbaugh Metro Data Sheet Exhibit 7 Clackamas County Vacation Order — Phantom Bluff Exhibit 8 Area Map Exhibit 9 Puterbaugh Deed Exhibit 10 Glass Deed Exhibit 11 LID Construction Plans OVERSIZED: Property Line Adjustment Map RECEIVE (503) 233-19II5 SEL LEGAL SERVICES (503) 914-0474 FAX & CONSULTATION(503) 2 , 2909 gary@oregonlandlaw.com EMAIL 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 June 18, 2009 Debra Andreades, Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego PO Box 360 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. RE: Completeness Response — Puterbaugh Lot Legalization Request File No. LU 09-0009 SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE STATEMENT Dear Ms. Andreades: This letter and attachments constitutes applicant's Supplemental Narrative Statement and response to the City's completeness. letter dated April 30, 2009. The additional material is intended to satisfy the City's request for additional information and ensure the application is complete for review. Applicant responds to the item numbers in order as they appear on the City's April 30, 2009 letter. Lot Area and Lot Width Standards Variance: COMMENT: Staff's incompleteness letter states that staff measures the lot width (25 feet back from the front lot line) at approximately 33 feet for the legalization request and 29 feet after the property line adjustment. The letter concluded the applications violate the 65 foot lot width standard. Applicant believes this conclusion is technically not correct. Given the plain language of the code and the fact that the property has access from a private street, both the lot width and lot depth standards, like the public frontage standard, cannot be measured and therefore satisfied. In other words, no specific distance finding can be made. For example: although the subject lot far exceeds 100 feet in length, because lot depth is measured from the boundary with a public street, applicant cannot satisfy the standard. Applicant understands the City attorney's office concurs with this finding. As such, applicant requests a variance to the lot width and depth standards. Applicant already requested a variance to the public frontage standard. Applicant finds itself burdened by pzeexisting conditions that cannot be avoided. The property was created by applicant's EXHIBIT F-3 LU 09-0009 169 predecessor and purchased by applicant in 1972. The street was vacated by the public in 1959. Neither the unique shape of the property, nor its access by a private street can be changed or corrected by applicant. Applicant is attempting to correct the creation of the property for planning purposes through these applications. LOC 50.68. 010(1) (b) - Class 2 Variance Criteria: COMMENT: The Class II Variance standard is substantially similar to the standard by which applicant's lot legalization requires is being reviewed. The evidence and findings of compliance required for each are comparable. The lot legalization standard, LOC 50.01.030(3), states that if a lot does not comply with the dimensional standards, the lot maybe exempt from compliance with lot dimensional requires if the applicant can demonstrate that creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise, scale, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing property and potential development of the lot is consistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. This is consistent with the Class II Variance standard. 1. The reviewing authority may grant a variance from the requirements of this Code, except as expressly prohibited, if it is established that. b. Class 2 Variance. i. Class 2 Variance Standards. (1) The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and, COMMENT: When the property was created by sale and recordation in 1972, because it was located on a private street, the City has determined it was not legally created. As such, applicant is requesting lot legalization approval. However, given the plain language of the code and the fact that the property has access from a private street, both the lot width and lot depth standards, like the public frontage standard, cannot be measured and therefore satisfied. In other words, no specific distance finding can be made. For example: although the subject lot far exceeds 100 feet in length, because lot depth is measured from the boundary with a public street, applicant cannot satisfy the standard. As such, applicant requests a variance to the lot width and depth standards. Applicant finds itself burdened by preexisting conditions that cannot be avoided. The property was created by applicant's predecessor and purchased by applicant in 1972. The street was vacated by the public in 1959. Neither the unique shape of the property, nor its access by a private street can be changed or corrected by applicant. Applicant is attempting to correct the creation of the property for planning purposes through these applications. Denying the variance request will prevent applicant from legalizing the lot for planning and development purposes, resulting in a substantial and unnecessary hardship on applicant. Applicant has owned the subject property since 1972. The property was purchased from Richard Sundeleaf and is among a group of properties the City has recently determined were not created properly, and therefore are not "legal lots" for planning and development purposes. Applicant requests variance approval so that applicant may have the same planning and development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area and throughout the City of Lake Oswego. The 2 170 subject lot is one of the last remaining undeveloped lots in the area. Property to the west is now owned by the Glass family (previously part of the Sundeleaf estate). The property received single lot partition approval in 2004, City Case File No. LU 03-0053 (Partition Plat 2004-033). The application was necessary to legalize the Glass property for planning and development purposes. The Glass property single lot partition/legalization action, like the subject application, was necessary to correct 1970's land division efforts of the Sundeleafs that did not comply with applicable land development standards. Approval will promote the efficient use of residential land served by all necessary services. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If the application is approved, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their primary residence. When applicant purchased the property in 1972 the lack of sewer service and the City's newly passed prohibition on septic tanks prevented its use for residential purposes. Otherwise, a home would have been constructed. The question of lot legalization did not surface until decades thereafter. Following the 1972 purchase, applicant has paid taxes to both the County and Lake Corp at rates consistent with the property being developable. Applicant also participated both financially and physically in the creation and adoption of the Local Improvement District which has resulted in new sewer and water service for the area. All area and neighboring properties and their residences are also benefiting from the LID. The LID, with applicant's assistance, also created substantial benefits to the health of the lake. With the infrastructure improvements, applicant now desires to build a home. This standard is satisfied. (2) Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request, and, COMMENT: Approval will promote the efficient use of residential land served by all necessary services. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If the application is approved, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their home. When applicant purchased the property in 1972 the lack of sewer service and the City's newly passed prohibition on septic tails prevented its use for residential purposes. Otherwise, a home would have been constructed. The question of lot legalization did not surface until decades thereafter. Following the 1972 purchase, applicant has paid taxes to both the County and Lake Corp at rates consistent with the property being developable. Applicant also participated both financially and physically in the creation and adoption of the Local Improvement District which has resulted in new sewer and water service for the area. All area and neighboring properties and their residences are also benefiting from the LID. The LID, with applicant's assistance, also created substantial benefits to the health of the lake. With the infrastructure improvements, applicantnow desires to build a home. In the future, applicant will apply for permission to construct a single family residence; a common and customary use of R-10 residentially zoned property in the area and throughout the City. Although the subject property does not meet the current 65 foot "lot width" dimensional requirement, existing conditions mitigate any impact of developing on a narrower lot. The lot is several thousand feet over the minimum lot size and 150 feet longer than the minimum length 171 requirement. Although the property is over 150 longer than the minimum length requirement, because the property is not adjacent to a public street, applicant requests a variance to the "lot depth" standard that applicant would otherwise meet if the property fronted on a public street. Other factors which minimize any development impacts are the substantial distances existing homes are from the property, site topography, and applicant's development plans. As well, the lot immediately to the east, tax lot 1800, is vacant and not developable. It serves as a path to a boat house. The residence's scale will be very modest in size, at about 2,500 square feet, which represents a much smaller footprint than most, if not all, area homes. The size of the home will be substantially smaller than the maximum lot coverage and floor area ratios permitted in the R- 10 zone. The home will not exceed height limitations. The smaller home size is consistent with applicant's intent to minimally impact the property and minimize the home's impact on surrounding residents. The home will be situated in the center of the property, taking advantage of the gentle slope towards the lake. Locating the building in the center of the property provides maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on adjacent lots. Being built into the slope will also result in the dwelling appearing shorter than it would appear if constructed on a flat property. The dwelling will not block an adjacent property owner's view to the lake. There is only one home, located across Phantom Bluff Court on tax lot 2600, that will see a newly constructed residence when looking towards the lake. However, the impact from the proposed modest residence is minimal compared to view impacts created by other area homes. The owner of tax lot 2600 also owns tax lot 1800, located adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1800 provides an unobstructed view to the lake for tax lot 2600. When comparing the home recently approved and constructed on tax lot 1700 and the view obstruction that home created for tax lot 2600 to applicant's intended use, any impact created by applicant's intended use is minimized. Furthermore, the narrow shape of applicant's property dictates that the home will be narrow and longer (rather than wider), thereby impacting fewer views than the traditionally shaped homes in the area that are wider than longer. It should be noted that the subject property is not burdened by any view rights favoring a neighboring property. The home will be located over 75 feet from the existing residence on tax lot 1900, and further from the newly constructed home on tax lot 1700. This distance is a substantial buffer between the residential uses. Landscaping, rock walls, fences, and trees are present on tax lot 1900 between the residence on tax lot 1900 and the subject property, thereby enhancing the buffer and privacy between the properties. Where practicable and where not disturbed by a building footprint or driveway, applicant intends to maintain mature trees and vegetation. Any trees removed will be mitigated for as required by the City's code. Applicant, in conjunction with residential construction, intends to additionally landscape the property. The mature and newly planted vegetation will serve both screening and buffering purposes — for both noise and visual impacts — thereby mitigating adverse impacts, if any, on neighboring properties. As stated above, tax lot 1800 does not and cannot, due to its configuration, support a residence. Tax lot 1800 is used as a pathway to provide access to a dock and house boat located in front of tax lot 1800. Also, tax lot 1800 is not a legal lot for planning and development purposes, as it was created in the same manner as applicant's property. 172 4 The use of the applicant's property will create noise and traffic similar to other single family residential users. One additional home in the area will not result in a significant negative noise impact. The traffic from one additional home will also not result in a significant negative traffic impact. Area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building lines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. Applicant intends to develop the property consistent with this development pattern. In sum, future use of the property for residential purposes is consistent with the existing character of the area. Approving the lot legalization request will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise, scale, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing property. This standard is satisfied. (3) The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; and, COMMENT: Applicant has owned the subject property since 1972. Applicant requests a variance to the lot depth and lot width standards because the property does not front on a public street, thereby making a demonstration of compliance with the standards whose measurements are taken from a public street technically impossible. The width and depth applicant seeks to approve are the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The conditions are preexisting and over which applicant has no control. Denying the variance request will prevent applicant from legalizing the lot for planning and development purposes, resulting in a substantial and unnecessary financial and emotional hardship on applicant. The property was purchased from Richard Sundeleaf and is among a groin of properties the City has recently determined were not created properly, and therefore are not "legal lots" for planning and development purposes. Applicant requests variance approval so that they may have the same planning and development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area and throughout the City of Lake Oswego. The subject lot is one of the last remaining undeveloped lots in the area. Property to the west is now owned by the Glass family (previously part of the Sundeleaf estate). The property received single lot partition approval in 2004, City Case File No. LU 03- 0053 (Partition Plat 2004-033). The application was necessary to legalize the Glass property for planning and development purposes. The Glass property single lot partition/legalization action, like the subject application, was necessary to correct 1970's land division efforts of the Sundeleafs that did not comply with applicable land development standards. Approval will promote the efficient use of residential land served by all necessary services. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If the application is approved, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their primary residence, a reasonable use of the land. This standard is satisfied. 173 (4) The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. COMMENT: The variance request is not in conflict. with the comprehensive plan. The plan classifies the property as R-10 low density residential. The R-10 zoning was adopted to implement the comprehensive plan. In the future, applicant will apply for permission to construct a single family residence; a common and customary use of R-10 residentially zoned property in the area and throughout the City. ii. Class 2 Variance Factors and Considerations. In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority shall consider the following, together with any other relevant facts or circumstances: (I) Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a hardship exists include: (A) Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved. COMMENT: Applicant has owned the subject property since 1972. The propertywas purchased from Richard Sundeleaf and is among a group of properties the City has recently determined were not created properly, and therefore are not "legal lot" for planning and development purposes. Applicant requests variance approval so that they may have the same planning and development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area and throughout the City of Lake Oswego. The subject lot is one of the last remaining undeveloped lots in the area. Property to the west is now owned by the Glass family (previously part of the Sundeleaf estate). The property received single lot partition approval in 2004, City Case File No. LU 03- 0053 (Partition Plat 2004-033). The application was necessary to legalize the Glass property for planning and development purposes. The Glass property single lot partition/legalization action, like the subject application, was necessary to correct 1970's land division efforts of the Sundeleafs that did not comply with applicable land development standards. Approval will promote the efficient use of residential land served by all necessary services. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If the application is approved, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their home. When applicant purchased the property in 1972 the lack of sewer service and the City's newly passed prohibition on septic tanks prevented its use for residential purposes. Otherwise, a home would have been constructed. The question of lot legalization did not surface until decades thereafter. Following the 1972 purchase, applicant has paid taxes to both the County and Lake Corp at rates consistent with the property being developable. Applicant also participated both financially and physically in the creation and adoption of the Local Improvement District which has resulted in new sewer and water service for the area. All area and neighboring properties and their residences are also benefiting from the LID. The LID, with applicant's assistance, also created substantial benefits to the health of the lake. With the infrastructure improvements, applicant now desires to build a home. In the future, applicant will apply for permission to construct a single family residence; a common and customary use of R-10 residentially zoned property in the area and throughout the ON 174 City. Although the subject property does not meet the current 65 foot "lot width" dimensional requirement, existing conditions mitigate any impact of developing on a narrower lot. The lot is several thousand feet over the minimum lot size and 150 feet longer than the minimum length requirement. Although the property is over 150 longer than the minimum length requirement, because the property is not adjacent to a public street, applicant requests a variance to the "lot depth" standard that applicant would otherwise meet if the property fronted on a public street. Other factors which minimize any development impacts are the substantial distances existing homes are from the property, site topography, and applicant's development plans. As well, the lot immediately to the east, tax lot 1800, is vacant and not developable. It serves as a path to a boat house. The residence's scale will be very modest in size, at about 2,500 square feet, which represents a much smaller footprint than most, if not all, area homes. The size of the home will be substantially smaller than the maximum lot coverage and floor area ratios permitted in the R- 10 zone. The home will not exceed height limitations. The smaller home size is consistent with applicant's intent to minimally impact the property and minimize the home's impact on surrounding residents. The home will be situated in the center of the property, taking advantage of the gentle slope towards the lake. Locating the building in the center of the property provides maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on adjacent lots. Being built into the slope will also result in the dwelling appearing shorter than it would appear if constructed on a flat property. The dwelling will not block an adjacent property owner's view to the lake. There is only one home, located across Phantom Bluff Court on tax lot 2600, that will see a newly constructed residence when looking towards the lake. However, the impact from the proposed modest residence is minimal compared to view impacts created by other area homes. The owner of tax lot 2600 also owns tax lot 1800, located adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1800 provides an unobstructed view to the lake for tax lot 2600. When comparing the home recently approved and constructed on tax lot 1700 and the view obstruction that home created for tax lot 2600 to applicant's intended use, any impact created by applicant's intended use is minimized. Furthermore, the narrow shape of applicant's property dictates that the home will be narrow and longer (rather than wider), thereby impacting fewer views than the traditionally shaped homes in the area that are wider than longer. It should be noted that the subject property is not burdened by any view rights favoring a neighboring property. The home will be located over 75 feet from the existing residence on tax lot 1900, and further from the newly constructed home on tax lot 1700. This distance is a substantial buffer between the residential uses. Landscaping, rock walls, fences, and trees are present on tax lot 1900 between the residence on tax lot 1900 and the subject property, thereby enhancing the buffer and privacy between the properties. Where practicable and where not disturbed by a building footprint or driveway, applicant intends to maintain mature trees and vegetation. Any trees removed will be mitigated for as required by the City's code. Applicant, in conjunction with residential construction, intends to additionally landscape the property. The mature and newly planted vegetation will serve both screening and buffering purposes — for both noise and visual impacts — thereby mitigating adverse impacts, if any, on neighboring properties. 7 175 As stated above, tax lot 1800 does not and cannot, due to its configuration, support a residence. Tax lot 1800 is used as a pathway to provide access to a dock and house boat located in front of tax lot 1800. Also, tax lot 1800 is not a legal lot for planning and development purposes, as it was created in the same manner as applicant's property. , The use of the applicant's property will create noise and traffic similar to other single family residential users. One additional home in the area will not result in a significant negative noise impact. The traffic from one additional home will also not result in a significant negative traffic impact. Area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building lines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. Applicant intends to develop the property consistent with this development pattern. This standard is satisfied. (B) Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the property without the variance. COMMENT: When the property was created by sale and recordation in 1972, because it was located on a private street, the City has determined it was not legally created. As such, applicant is requesting lot legalization approval. However, given the plain language of the code and the fact -that the property has access from a private street, both the lot width and lot depth standards, like the public frontage standard, cannot be measured and therefore satisfied. In other words, no specific distance finding can be made. For example: although the subject lot far exceeds 100 feet in length, because lot depth is measured from the boundary with a public street, applicant cannot satisfy the standard. As such, applicant requests a variance to the lot depth and lot width standards because the property does not front on a public street, thereby making a demonstration of compliance with the standards whose measurements are taken from a public street technically impossible. The width and depth applicant seeks to approve are the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The conditions are preexisting and over which applicant has no control. Denying the variance request will prevent applicant from legalizing the lot for planning and development purposes, resulting in a substantial and unnecessary hardship on application. The property was purchased from Richard Sundeleaf and is among a group of properties the City has recently determined were not created properly, and therefore are not "legal lots" for planning and development purposes. Applicant requests variance approval so that they may have the same planning and development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area and throughout the City of Lake Oswego. The subject lot is one of the last remaining undeveloped lots in the area. Property to the west is now owned by the Glass family (previously part of the Sundeleaf estate). The property received single lot partition approval in 2004, City Case File No. LU 03- 0053 (Partition Plat 2004-033). The application was necessary to legalize the Glass property for planning and development purposes. The Glass property single lot partition/legalization action, like the subject application, was necessary to correct 1970's land division efforts of the 176 Sundeleafs that did not comply with applicable land development standards. This standard is satisfied. (C) Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. COMMENT: The hardship is preexisting and not created by applicant. Applicant has owned the subject property since 1972. When the property was created by sale and recordation in 1972, because it was located on a private street, the City has determined it was not legally created. As such, applicant is requesting lot legalization approval. However, given the plain language of the code and the fact that the property has access from a private street, both the lot width and lot depth standards, like the public frontage standard, cannot be measured and therefore satisfied. In other words, no specific distance finding can be made. For example: although the subject lot far exceeds 100 feet in length, because lot depth is measured from the boundary with a public street, applicant cannot satisfy the standard. As such, applicant requests a variance to the lot width and depth standards. Applicant finds itself burdened by preexisting conditions that cannot be avoided. The property was created by applicant's predecessor and purchased by applicant in 1972. The street was vacated by the public in 1959. Neither the unique shape of the property, nor its access by a private street can be changed or corrected by applicant. Applicant is attempting to correct the creation of the property for planning purposes through these applications. The property was purchased from Richard Sundeleaf and is among a group of properties the City has recently determined were not created properly, and therefore are not "legal lots" for planning and development purposes. Applicant requests variance approval so that they may have the same planning and development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area and throughout the City of Lake Oswego. The subject lot is one of the last remaining undeveloped lots in the area. Property to the west is now owned by the Glass family (previously part of the Sundeleaf estate). The property received single lot partition approval in 2004, City Case File No. LU 03-0053 (Partition Plat 2004-033). The application was necessary to legalize the Glass property for planning and development purposes. The Glass property single lot partition/legalization action, like the subject application, was necessary to correct 1970's land division efforts of the Sundeleafs that did not comply with applicable land development standards. This standard is satisfied. (D) The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is denied. COMMENT: Denying the variance request will prevent applicant from legalizing the lot for planning and development purposes, resulting in a substantial and unnecessary financial and emotional hardship on applicant. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If the application is approved, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their primary residence. At the time applicant purchased the property, the lack of sewer service and the City's newly passed prohibition on septic tanks prevented its use for residential purposes. Otherwise, a home would have been constructed 177 decades ago. Thereafter, applicant has paid taxes to both the County and Lake Corp at rates consistent with the property being developable. Applicant also participated both financially and physically in the creation and adoption of the Local Improvement District which has resulted in new sewer and water service for the area. All area and neighboring properties and their residences are also benefiting from the LID. The LID, with applicant's assistance, also created substantial benefits to the health of the lake. With the infrastructure improvements, applicant now desires to build a home. (2) Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the request is injurious include: (A) An analysis of the physical impacts such development will have, such as visual, noise, traffic and the increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. (B) The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. COMMENT: Approval will promote the efficient use of residential land served by all necessary services. Applicant's property is one of very few undeveloped properties in the area. If the application is approved, applicant intends on submitting a future application for a building permit to construct their primary residence. At the time applicant purchased the property, the lack of sewer service and the City's newly passed prohibition on septic tanks prevented its use for residential purposes. Otherwise, a home would have been constructed decades ago. Thereafter, applicant has paid taxes to both the County and Lake Corp at rates consistent with the property being developable. Applicant also participated both financially and physically in the creation and adoption of the Local Improvement District which has resulted in new sewer and water service for the area. All area and neighboring properties and their residences are also benefiting from the LID. The LID, with applicant's assistance, also created substantial benefits to the health of the lake. With the infrastructure improvements, applicant now desires to build a home. In the future, applicant will apply for permission to construct a single family residence; a common and customary use of R-10 residentially zoned property in the area and throughout the City. Although the subject property does not meet the current 65 foot "lot width" dimensional requirement, existing conditions mitigate any impact of developing on a narrower lot. The lot is several thousand feet over the minimum lot size and 150 feet longer than the minimum length requirement. Although the property is over 150 longer than the minimum length requirement, because the property is not adjacent to a public street, applicant requests a variance to the "lot depth" standard that applicant would otherwise meet if the property fronted on a public street. Other factors which minimize any development impacts are the substantial distances existing homes are from the property, site topography, and applicant's development plans. As well, the lot immediately to the east, tax lot 1800, is vacant and not developable. It serves as a path to a boat house. The residence's scale will be very modest in size, at about 2,500 square feet, which represents a much smaller footprint than most, if not all, area homes. The size of the home will 10 178 be substantially smaller than the maximum lot coverage and floor area ratios permitted in the R- 10 zone. The home will not exceed height limitations. The smaller home size is consistent with applicant's intent to minimally impact the property and minimize the home's impact on surrounding residents. The home will be situated in the center of the property, taking advantage of the gentle slope towards the lake. Locating the building in the center of the property provides maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on adjacent lots. Being built into the slope will also result in the dwelling appearing shorter than it would appear if constructed on a flat property. The dwelling will not block an adjacent property owner's view to the lake. There is only one home, located across Phantom Bluff Court on tax lot 2600, that will see a newly constructed residence when looking towards the lake. However, the impact from the proposed modest residence is minimal compared to view impacts created by other area homes. The owner of tax lot 2600 also owns tax lot 1800, located adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1800 provides an unobstructed view to the lake for tax lot 2600. When comparing the home recently approved and constructed on tax lot 1700 and the view obstruction that home created for tax lot 2600 to applicant's intended use, any impact created by applicant's intended use is minimized. Furthermore, the narrow shape of applicant's property dictates that the home will be narrow and longer, thereby impacting fewer views than the traditionally shaped homes in the area that are wider than longer. It should be noted that the subject property is not burdened by any view rights favoring a neighboring property. The home will be located over 75 feet from the existing residence on tax lot 1900, and further from the newly constructed home on tax lot 1700. This distance is a substantial buffer between the residential uses. Landscaping, rock walls, fences, and trees are present on tax lot 1900 between the residence on tax lot 1900 and the subject property, thereby enhancing the buffer and privacy between the properties. Where practicable and where not disturbed by a building footprint or driveway, applicant intends to maintain mature trees and vegetation. Any trees removed will be mitigated for as required by the City's code. Applicant, in conjunction with residential construction, intends to additionally landscape the property. The mature and newly planted vegetation will serve both screening and buffering purposes — for both noise and visual impacts — thereby mitigating adverse impacts, if any, on neighboring properties. As stated above, tax lot 1800 does not and cannot, due to its configuration, support a residence. Tax lot 1800 is used as a pathway to provide access to a dock and house boat located in front of tax lot 1800. The use of the property will create noise and traffic similar to other single family residential users. One additional home in the area will not result in a significant negative noise impact. The traffic from one additional home will also not result in a significant negative traffic impact. Area properties adjacent to Oswego Lake have building lines and historical development patterns that are different from normally platted property fronting on public streets. Lake front properties are developed with garages, access, and driveways in the rear of the property, adjacent to the street, with the homes and their front building lines directed towards the lake. Applicant intends to develop the property consistent with this development pattern. 11 179 In sum, future use of the property for residential purposes is consistent with the existing character of the area. Approving the lot legalization request will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise; scale, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing property. This standard is satisfied. 2. A determination of whether the standards setforth in subsection 1(b)(i) are satisfied necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interests. The considerations listed in subsection 1(b)(ii) (1) and (2) are not standards and are not intended to be an exclusive list of considerations. The considerations are to be used as a guide in the granting authority's deliberations. COMMENT: Applicant's variance request reflects the need for flexibility and responding to unique site characteristics and hardship situations. Given the unique circumstances in this case, a variance is the only means available for relief for applicant. As was the case for the legalization/single lot partition application approved on the Glass property in 2003-04 (Exhibit 12), the physical characteristics of Phantom Bluff Court and applicant's property, its boundary configurations, as well as facts pertaining to the right of way and applicant's access, represent unique site characteristics that make strict application of the standards unnecessary and unreasonable. Grating this variance will not result in adverse effects on other properties. The variance request will allow the property to be legalized, and in the future, development consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Applicant does not seek a variance to permit a use otherwise prohibited by the Code. If the variance request is denied applicant's single lot partition/legalization request will also be denied. Denial would unjustly prevent development of the property, result in a substantial economic and emotional hardship on applicant, and deny applicant equal treatment under the laws. Denial would also prevent the property line adjustment application from being approved, as legal lots for planning and development purposes are needed for the city to approve a land use application. Approving both applications is a proper means to adequately protect the historic resource on Tax Lot 1900 and give it the required 3 feet of setback. Approving the variance allows the City to procedurally and substantially approve the lot legalization request. The Puterbaugh family has a long history in the City of Lake Oswego. Dating to 1962, Mr. Puterbaugh owned and operated a veterinary clinic in Lake Oswego. Soon thereafter he became actively involved in schools and city business. He was a member of the Rotary Club and president of the PTA at Lake Grove Elementary school. He donated his time to give lectures at grade and middle schools and Lake Oswego High on veterinary medicine. He also joined the City Chamber of Commerce and became president in the late 70's. In early stages of land use planning, Mr. Puterbaugh was active in formulating the City's Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons set forth above, applicant respectfully requests the variance request be approved. Fee Reduction Request: 180 12 Given the preexisting conditions and unique circumstances, together with applicant having pending a similar variance request, applicant requested a fee reduction for the two additional variances. The fee reduction request is also supported by the fact that the class 2 variance standard and the lot legalization standard/single lot partition are virtually the same, thus only one review and application of the facts is required. The fee reduction request is further supported by applicant having paid $2,825 for the initial variance review. A letter in support of applicant's fee reduction request was previously submitted. Applicant respectfully requests it be assessed an additional fee of $836.00 (2 variances x $418). This is consistent with the fee schedule that assesses $418 for each subsequent class 2 variance. Upon approval of the fee request, applicant will promptly submit the additional fee. 2. Slope Calculations: COMMENT: Attached and submitted with this supplemental narrative statement is a Slope Analysis map prepared by Andy Paris & Associates. The map details slopes between 0%-20%, 20%-50%, and over 50%, with square footage and percentage of lot calculations for each slope classification. According to the City's maps, the site is located in a potential slide area due to a combination of soil conditions and slope. Steep slopes are present on the property immediately adjacent to Oswego Lake. A bank is present where the property drops off down to the lake. Exhibit 2. This area will not be disturbed. Applicant retained the services of Carlson Geotechnical to perform a geotechnical, soil, and hazard assessment on the property. The report is attached as Exhibit 8 to the initial submission. The report details site conditions and demonstrates that the site can support residential development. The maps, together with other exhibits submitted, demonstrate that the property can meet Hillside Protections standards. LDC 50.43.015 —Approval Standards S. Cuts and Fills. On land with undisturbed slopes in excess of 12%, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapters 45 and 52, and as follows: a. Toes of cuts and fills shall be set back from boundaries of separate private ownerships at least 3 feet, plus 1/5 of the vertical height of the cut or fill: Where a variance is required from that requirement, slope easements shall be provided b. Cuts shall not remove the toe of any slope where a severe potential landslide or erosion hazard exists (as defined in this standard). c. Any structural fill shall be designed by a registered engineer, in accordance with standards engineering practice, the engineer shall certify that the fill has been constructed as designed and in accordance with the provisions of LDC Chapter 45. d Retaining walls shall be constructed in accordance with the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code, as enacted on January 1, 2002, or as thereafter amended by the Oregon Building Codes Division. COMMENT: Development of the property will involve cuts and fills. Applicant incorporates the soils and hazards report prepared by Carlson Geotechnical. The report states that the property can be safely and properly developed provided the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the design and development. No development is proposed in the 13 181 northern portion of the site, below the 165 foot elevation mark, where the steepest slopes exist over a long length. A homesite is proposed in the hard basalt bedrock which characterizes the remaining site above the 165 foot elevation mark to protect against soil erosion and movement. The building pad presented for this feasibility analysis consists of two gently sloping terraces separated by a seven foot high, 2H:1 V slope. This area is depicted on the attached map in the middle of the property as the area with slopes slightly above 50% and will be disturbed during home construction. The site continues to gently slope to the north of the building pad at gradients up to 7H:1 V to the bank above the lake. Applicant requests the recommendations contained in the Carlson Geotechnical report be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure they are incorporated into the design and development of the property to ensure compliance with the LOC 50.43.015. Applicant further requests a condition of approval that toes of cuts and fills be set back from boundaries of adjacent property at least 3 feet, plus 1/5 of the vertical height of the cut or fill. As demonstrated by the Carlson report, no severe potential landslide or erosion hazard exists where applicant proposes development. Applicant also requests a condition of approval that cuts shall not remove the toe of any slope where a severe potential landslide or erosion hazard exists to ensure compliance. Applicant also requests a condition of approval that any structural fill shall be designed by a registered engineer, in accordance with standards engineering practice; the engineer shall certify that the fill has been constructed as designed and in accordance with the provisions of LOC Chapter 45. Applicant also requests a condition that retaining walls, if any, shall be constructed in accordance with the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code, as enacted on January 1, 2002, or as thereafter amended by the Oregon Building Codes Division. The above conditions will ensure compliance with LOC 50.43.015. 7. Landover 50% undisturbed slope shall be developed only where density transfer is not feasible. The development will provide that.- a. hat.a. At least 70% of the site will remain free of structures or impervious surfaces. b. Emergency access can be provided. c. Design and construction of the project will not cause erosion or land slippage. d. Grading, stripping of vegetation, and changes in terrain are the minimum necessary to construct the development. COMMENT: Applicant proposes to develop on land with over a 50% undisturbed slope. The building pad presented for this feasibility analysis consists of two gently sloping terraces separated by a seven foot high, 2H:1 V slope. This area is depicted on the attached map in the middle of the property as the area with slopes slightly above 50% and will be disturbed during home construction. The Carlson report also includes color photographs of this area. The over 50% slope occurs over a very small length, ranging from 15 feet to less than 5 feet in length. To establish compliance with this standard, applicant's designer overlaid the build pad and driveway plan map submitted with the initial submission onto the topographical map prepared for this response and did square foot calculations. The calculations revealed that the home, garage and driveway would create approximately 3,890 square feet of impervious surface. Prior to the lot line adjustment, 28.9% of the land area would be occupied by impervious surfaces (3,890/13,461). After the lot line adjustment, 25.7% of the land area would be occupied by 14 I". A impervious surfaces (3,890/15,136). Both before and after the lot line adjustment, at least 70% of the site will remain free of impervious surfaces. Emergency access is reviewed by the fire department. Access on Phatom Bluff has recently been greatly improved as a result of LID street and utility improvements. Prior homes were approved and constructed along Phantom Bluff prior to the improvements. In those processes, emergency access was deemed sufficient. The maps and plans demonstrate that the driveway to the house will be at least 12 feet wide, with 1.5 feet of clearance on each side. Applicant incorporates the soils and hazards report prepared by Carlson Geotechnical. The report states that the property can be safely and properly developed provided the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the design and development. No development is proposed in the northern portion of the site, below the 165 foot elevation mark, where the steepest slopes exist over a long length. A homesite is proposed in the hard basalt bedrock which characterizes the remaining site above the 165 foot elevation mark to protect against soil erosion and movement. The building pad presented for this feasibility analysis consists of two gently sloping terraces separated by a seven foot high, 211:1 V slope. This area is depicted on the attached map in the middle of the property as the area with slopes slightly above 50% and will be disturbed during home construction. The site continues to gently slope to the north of the building pad at gradients up to 7H:1 V to the bank above the lake. Applicant requests the recommendations contained in the Carlson Geotechnical report be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure they are incorporated into the design and development of the property to ensure compliance with the LOC 50.43.015. Applicant has demonstrated that it is feasible to construct a home on the site. Applicant proposes a home and access improvements with a majority of them located on slopes that are 0- 20%, and then on slopes over 20%. Only a small portion of the site with slopes over 50% will be disturbed in the middle of the site. The over 50% slope occurs over a very small length, ranging from 15 feet to less than 5 feet in length. The proposed location will take advantage of the site's gentle slopes. Applicant proposes a very modest home in size and stature compared to area homes. Applicant's home will have substantially less impact and disturb less ground than customary homes along the lake. Applicant proposes to remove a minimal number of trees. Applicant requests compliance"with this standard be made a condition of approval to ensure compliance in the future. LOC 50.43.020 — Construction Standards 3. Slope stabilization and re -vegetation measures:... C. No more than 65% of area in undisturbed slopes of 20% - 50% shall be graded or stripped of vegetation. COMMENT: To establish compliance with this standard, applicant's designer overlaid the build pad and driveway plan map submitted with the initial submission onto the topographical map prepared for this response and did square foot calculations. The site has 4,407 square feet with slopes ranging from 20-50% slope. In this slope category, the proposed home, garage, and 15 183 driveway will occupy 1,455 square feet. This represents 33 percent and not more than 65 percent within the slope category. In addition , applicant proposes to preserve and not disturb the land area below 165 feet in elevation, leaving the northern portion of the site adjacent to the lake in a natural state and further stabilizing slopes. Applicant requests compliance with this standard be made a condition of approval to ensure compliance in the future. If any additional information is requested, please let me know. This office respectfully requests the application be deemed complete and its review continue. I thank you for your assistance in processing this application. CC: client 184 Sincerely, Gary P. Shepherd Oregon Land Law 16 Carlson Geotechnical Main Office Salem Office Bend Office P.O. Box 23814 4060 Hudson Ave., NE P.O. Box 7918 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting Construction Inspection and Related Tests Tigard, Oregon 97261 Phone (503) 684-3460 FAX (503) 670-9147 Salem, OR 97301 Phone (503) 589-1252 FAX (503) 589-1309 Bend, OR 97708 Phone (541) 330-9155 FAX (541) 330-9163 r Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Geologic Hazard Assessment Puterbaugh Residence Tax Lot 1902, Phantom Bluff Court Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 Prepared for Mr. George Puterbaugh 17570 Chippewa Trail Tualatin, Oregon 97062 March 12, 2009 EXHIBIT F-4 LU 09-0009 185 Carlson Geotechnical A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting Construction Inspection and Related Tests March 12, 2009 Mr. George Puterbaugh 17570 Chippewa Trail Tualatin, Oregon 97062 Main Office P.O. Box 23814 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone (503) 684-3460 FAX (503) 670-9147 Salem Office 4060 Hudson Ave., NE Salem, OR 97301 Phone (503) 589-1252 FAX (503) 589-1309 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Geologic Hazard Assessment Puterbaugh Residence Tax Lot 1902, Phantom Bluff Court Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 Dear Mr. Puterbaugh: Bend Office P.O. Box 7918 Bend, OR 97708 Phone (541) 330-9155 FAX (541) 330-9163 Carlson Geotechnical (CGT) is pleased to submit our Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Geologic Hazard Assessment for the proposed Puterbaugh Residence located on Tax Lot 1902, Phantom Bluff Court, in Lake Oswego, Oregon. We performed our work in general accordance with CGT Proposal GP4989, dated January 28, 2009. Written authorization for our services was provided on February 9, 2009. This report is considered preliminary, as the final residence location and floor elevations have not been determined. An addendum indicating that this report is final, and including supplemental recommendations if any, can be issued after we have reviewed final grading plans, finished floor elevations, and detailed structural information for the development. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us at 503.601.8250 if you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, CARLSON GEOTECHNICAL ""'Ryan T. Houser, CEG Senior Engineering Geologist rhouser(Dcarlsontestinq.com Attachments: Figures 1 through 15 186 ZO,A�,� William M. Weyrauch, Principal Geotechnical Engineer bweyrauch o)carlsontesting. com TABLE OF CONTENTS ) 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4 | 2V PROJECT INFORMATION & SITE DESCR|PnDN-_'------.-_-_---''--_---.--.o ' 2.1 Project Information .................................................................................................................................... a �2 Site Surface � ----------_-.------.-.-.-----_'--'-_-.~ 6 �G 2.3 Site Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................................................... ` | 2.3.1 Field Exploration --------------------------------------------O 2.3.2 Subsurface Materials .......................................... .................................................................................. o -'� 2.3.3 Groundwater ............................................................... .......................................................................... 9 ' 3.0 GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT -----------------------------------------1V 3.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................................................... 1O -� 12 G�oGoo�gy--'-_------.-------'---'-'-------'-'--------- 11 / 3.3 Geologic Hazard Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 11 | � 3/4 Earthquake Sources ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.5 Tnpograp�cMaps ------------------------'--------.--'---- 17 ' 3.6 Geologic Hazard Maps ............................................................................................................................. 1V / ! 3.7 Geologic Hazard Assessment Findings ................................................................................................. 1O / 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 19 . 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 2O SitePreparation ....................................................................................................................................... 30 | i 5.1.1 Stripping /Over-Excays8ion -------------------------------------'2O 5.1.2 OubgedePreparation ............................................................................................. ............................ 1 ` 51.3 Erosion Control .................................................................................................. ................................. 21 | 5.2 Yve�vYe�he,Considera�ons-----------.--.-------------.-'--------' � 21 � } 5.2.1 General Cono�e�Uons---------------------------------------. 21 5.22 Equipment Haul Roads & Staging Areas ............................................................................................. 21 -, 5.2.3 Footing Gubgrade Protection -------------------------------------22 ! � 5.3 Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................................ 2% i| 5.3.1 On -Site Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 22 5.32 Imported Granular Structural FW -----------------------------------23 | � 5.3.3 Placement of Fill on Slopes .................................................................................................................. 23 | � 5.4 Permanent Slopes .................................................................................................................................... 2J � 5.5 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................................... 24 5.51 Acceptable 3ubgrade Soils --------------------------------------24 �5.52 Minimum Footing Width. Embedment & Nearby Excavation ................................................................ 2u i 5 5 3 Bearing Pressure and Ge�omen�----------------------------------'25 |.�� - 5.5.4 Lateral Capacity ................................................................................................................................... 25 5.5.5 Drainage -----------------------------------------------25 r ' 5 5� Horizontal Setback From Slope Face ---------------------------------2O � � | �G BasementRetaining VVaUx-------_---''_----_--_.---'----.----26 � ' 5,61 Footings & Drainage ................................ ........................................................................................... 2G 5.62 Backfill .................................................................................................................................................. 2O . 5.6.3 Design Parameters Q Limitations ......................................................................................................... zO |�J Floor Slabs -------------_---'-_.--'_---.-'~-_..-_-'-'--._ 27 ' 5.7.1 Acceptable Gubgnade Soils --------------------------------------27 5.7.2 General ................................................................................................................................................ 28 � 57.3 Subgrade Moisture Considerations ...................................................................................................... 28 �.O Asphalt Pavements (]rvewoy)----_-''_'------.-_--'-------._'----28 ' 5.81 Acceptable Subgrado Soils .................................................................................................................. 2Q 5.9 Utility Trenches ........................................................................................................................................ 29 �� ---------------------------------------� 5g1 Utility 23 ! 5.92 Trench Backfill Material ---... -......... ...... -.......... .... ..... -............... ............................. --.... uu ' 510 Additional Drainage Considerations ...................................................................................................... 3O 5.11 Seismic Design ........................................................................................................................................ 31 ` � | 5111 IBC Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ ................. 31 . 5112 Uquo��ion---------------------------------_____________ 31 511.3 8bpo Instability ........................... ........................................................................................................ 32 5. 11� Sur -face Rup�m-------------------------------------------'32 i 511.5 Seiohe Inundation ............................................................................................................................ ... 32 ! � 511.6 Lateral Spread --------------------------------------------.32 6.0 OBSERVATION OF CONGTRUCT|DN-------.----.-----------------------. 33 . . 7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. o4 |/ 187 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 92, 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION Carlson Geotechnical (CGT) is pleased to submit our Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Geologic Hazard Assessment for the proposed Puterbaugh Residence located on Tax Lot 1902, Phantom Bluff Court, in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The location of the site is shown on the attached Site Location, Figure 1. The purpose of our work was to explore subsurface conditions at the site in order to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the development. The purpose of our geologic hazard assessment was to identify geologic hazards that may affect the proposed development, and to evaluate impacts the development of the project may have on adjacent properties. Our scope of work included the following: • Review available literature on geologic hazards for the area. • Review available topographic, geologic, and geologic hazard maps for the area. • Perform a surface visual reconnaissance of the proposed project site and surrounding area to identify surface indications of geologic hazards in the area. • Complete one field -developed cross section through the proposed project site and adjacent slopes. • Explore subsurface conditions at the site by advancing two, 3 -inch -diameter, hand auger borings to depths of approximately 21/2 to 4'/z feet below ground surface (bgs), using equipment provided and operated by CGT. The hand auger borings were loosely backfilled with excavated materials upon completion. • Complete two Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (WDCP) tests in conjunction with our hand auger boring explorations to depths of approximately 6 to 10 feet bgs. The WDCP tests were performed in order to evaluate the in-situ consistency (fine-grained soils) or relative density (granular soils) of the soils encountered within the depths explored. The WDCP tests were performed using equipment provided and operated by CGT. • Explore subsurface soil conditions at the site by advancing one mud -rotary auger boring to depth of approximately 181/2 feet bgs using a track -mounted mud -rotary auger drill rig provided and operated by our subcontractor, Subsurface Technologies. The drilling included coring approximately 11 feet into basalt bedrock. The boring was backfilled with granular bentonite prior to our departure from the site. • Perform Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) within the borings at 21/2 -foot intervals for the upper 71/2 feet in the boring. The SPTs were performed in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586. • Classify the materials encountered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D2486 (Visual -Manual Procedure). A qualified member of CGT's staff observed and maintained a detailed log of each exploration. Carlson Geotechnical 188 Page 4 of 35 r - i Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 • Collect representative, disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the soils and bedrock encountered within the explorations in order to perform laboratory testing and to confirm our field classifications. • Laboratory testing of soil samples taken from within our explorations included: o Three moisture content determinations (ASTM D2216). o Two Atterberg limits (plasticity) tests (ASTM D4318). o One percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve test (ASTM C117). • Provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, grading and drainage, stripping depths, fill type for imported materials, compaction criteria, cut and fill slope criteria, utility trench excavation and backfill, use of on-site soils, and wet/dry weather earthwork. • Provide preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of shallow spread foundations, including an allowable design bearing pressure, and minimum footing depth and width requirements. • Provide preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of basement retaining walls, including an allowable design bearing pressure, subgrade soil parameters, lateral loads, seismic lateral loads, and general construction recommendations. • Provide preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of concrete floor slabs, including an anticipated value for modulus of subgrade reaction, and recommendations for a capillary break and vapor retarder. • Estimate settlement of footings and floor slabs for the assumed design loadings. • Provide recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation. • Provide preliminary recommendations for subsurface drainage of foundations. • Provide recommendations for the International Building Code (IBC) Site Class, mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations, site seismic coefficients, and Seismic Design Category. • Provide a qualitative discussion of seismic hazards at the site, including liquefaction potential, slope instability, and surface rupture. The qualitative evaluations were based on the available geologic mapping, the soils encountered within the depths explored, and our observations of the existing site surface conditions. • Provide qualitative conclusions regarding the possible effect that identified geologic hazards may have on the development, the possible affect of the proposed development on identified geologic hazards, and the geologic impacts the development may have on adjacent properties. • Provide a written report summarizing the results of our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Geologic Hazard Assessment. Carlson Geotechnical Page 5 of 35 189 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION & SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Information Development at the site will consist of the construction of a new, two- to three-story, wood - framed residence with appurtenant pavements and utilities. We assume that the residence will be supported on shallow spread footings and will be constructed with either post -and -beam construction (crawlspaces) or with a slab -on -grade floor. No detailed structural information has been provided; however, we have assumed that building loads will be typical of this type of structure, with continuous perimeter footing loads of less than 2 kips per lineal foot (klf), interior column loads of less than 20 kips, and uniform floor slab loads of less than 100 pounds per square foot (psf). We understand that basement retaining walls up to 6 feet high may be incorporated into the development. In addition, we understand that the lot lines will be adjusted slightly to provide room for a driveway. We understand that the City of Lake Oswego is requiring that a geologic hazard assessment be performed for the site prior to issuing a permit. 2.2 Site Surface Conditions The site consisted of an approximately 16,000 -square -foot residential lot on the south side of Oswego Lake (Figure 2). The site was bordered to the northwest by the lake, to the northeast and southwest by existing residential development, and to the southeast by Phantom Bluff Court. Vegetation on the site consisted of mature conifer trees up to approximately 24 inches in diameter (Figure 4, Photographs 1 and 2). According to the site topographic map provided by the client, the site descended to the north below Phantom Bluff Court approximately 15 feet at gradients up to 4H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) to the building pad. The building pad consisted of two gently sloping terraces separated by a 7 -foot high, 2H:1 V slope (Figure 4, Photographs 3 and 4). The site continued to slope to the north of the building pad at gradients up to approximately 7H:1V to the slope break. North of the slope break, the site descended approximately 60 feet at gradients up to approximately '/2H:1 V (near vertical) to the lake (Figure 4, Photographs 3 and 4). Site topography is shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2) and Cross Section (Figure 3). Basalt bedrock was exposed on the steepest portion of the northwestern portion of the site. A talus slope had developed between the base of the basalt cliff and the lake. 2.3 Site Subsurface Conditions 2.3.1 Field Exploration Our field exploration consisted of the following: Carlson Geotechnical 190 Page 6 of 35 r-, I: Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 2.3.1.1 Hand Auger Borings CGT advanced two hand auger borings (HA -1 and HA -2) at the site on March 2, 2009, to depths of 2'/2 to 4'/2 feet bgs using equipment and personnel provided by CGT. The hand auger borings were loosely backfilled with the excavated materials upon completion. 2,3.1.2 Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests In conjunction with the hand auger borings, we performed two dynamic cone penetrometer tests (WDCP-1 and WDCP-2) to depths of about 6 to 10 feet bgs using a Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (WDCP). The WDCP tests were performed using equipment provided and operated by personnel from CGT. The WDCP test consists of driving 1.1 -inch -diameter, steel rods with a 1.4 -inch -diameter, cone tip into the ground using a 35 -pound drop hammer with a 15 -inch, free -fall height. The number of blows required to drive the steel rods is recorded for each 10 cm (3.94 inches) of penetration. The number of blows are then converted to corresponding Standard Penetration Test (SPT) "N" values, which are used to estimate the soil relative consistency for cohesive soils, or relative density for non -cohesive soils. 2.3.1.3 Hollow -Stem Auger Borings On February 25, 2009, one boring (B-1) was advanced at the site to a depth of 18'/2 feet bgs using a mud -rotary auger drill rig provided and operated by our drilling subcontractor, Subsurface Technologies of Banks, Oregon. The boring was backfilled with granular bentonite prior to our departure from the site. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were conducted within the boring at 2'/2 -foot intervals to depths of 7'/z feet bgs. The SPT is performed by driving a 2 -inch, outside -diameter, split -spoon sampler into the undisturbed formation located at the bottom of the advanced boring with repeated blows of a 140 -pound, automatic hammer falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of blows, N -Value, required to drive the sampler one foot, the last 12 inches of an 18 - inch sample interval, is used to measure the soil consistency (cohesive soil), or relative density (non -cohesive soils). It should be noted that automatic hammers generally produce lower SPT values than those obtained using a traditional safety hammer. Studies have generally indicated that penetration Carlson Geotechnical Page 7 of 35 191 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 resistances may vary by a factor of 0.8 to 1.3 between the two methods'. We have considered this in our description of soil consistency, and in our evaluation of soil strength and compressibility. The boring included 11 feet of coring into the basalt bedrock. The quality of the cored rock was determined by using the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) methodology. RQD is based on measuring core recovery percentage which incorporates only pieces that are greater than 100 mm (4 inches) in length. RQD equals the sum of length of core sticks longer than 10 cm divided by the total length of core run, expressed as a percentage. These percentages are then interpreted to determine the Rock Mass Quality using the following table. Table 1: RQD vs. Rock mass quality RQD.. Rock mass, quality <25% Very poor 25-50% Poor 50-75% Fair 75-90% Good 90-100% Excellent 2.3.1.4 General A member of CGT's staff logged the soils observed within the explorations in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), and collected representative samples of the materials encountered. Rock observed within the explorations was logged in general accordance with the ODOT Soil and Rock Classification Manual 2. CGT has provided an explanation of the USCS on the attached Soil Classification Criteria and Terminology, Figure 9, and an explanation of the rock classification criteria on the attached ODOT Rock Classification Criteria and Terminology, Figure 10. Our staff visually examined all samples returned to our laboratory in order to refine the field classifications. The logs of the explorations are presented on the attached Boring Logs, Figures 11 through 13. The explorations were located in the field using approximate measurements from existing site features shown on the Site Plan. Elevations indicated on the Boring Logs were extrapolated from the topographic map provided by the client. Elevations should be considered approximate. Results of the referenced laboratory tests are shown on the logs. Youd, et al. 2002. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering. z Oregon Department of Transportation, 1987. Soil and Rock Classification Manual. Carlson Geotechnical 192 Page 8 of 35 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 2.3.2 Subsurface Materials We encountered the following subsurface materials within our explorations: Clay Topsoil (OL): Organic clay topsoil (OL) was encountered at the surface of each of the explorations, and was observed covering the building site. The organic clay topsoil was typically soft, dark brown, moist, contained roots and rootlets, and was generally encountered to a depth of 1/2 -foot bgs. Lean Clay (CL): Underlying the clay topsoil (OL) was native, lean clay (CL). The native lean clay was typically medium stiff, brown, moist, and contained trace small roots. The lean clay was encountered to 5 feet bgs within B-1. Clayey Sand (SC): Underlying the lean clay (CL) in boring B-1 was clayey sand (SC). The clayey sand was typically medium dense, brown, moist, and contained fragments of weathered basalt. Weathered Basalt (RX): Weathered basalt bedrock was observed on the cliff face on the northwestern portion of the site, and was encountered within the explorations at depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet bgs. Depth to bedrock within the hand auger borings was estimated from results of the Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests. The basalt bedrock was typically medium hard (R3) to hard (R4) with depth, gray, and moist. Cores taken within the basalt in boring B-1 showed a rock mass quality of "very poor" within the upper 4'/z feet of the basalt, improving to "excellent" below 131/2 feet bgs. Excavation in the basalt bedrock may be difficult, and use of hydraulic hammers or other hard rock excavation methods should be anticipated. The subsurface materials are described in more detail on the attached Boring Logs, Figures 11 through 13. 2.3.3 Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed near the base of the basalt bedrock slope on the northwest portion of the site. We did not encounter groundwater within the depths explored at the site. To determine approximate regional groundwater levels in the area, we researched well Carlson Geotechnical Page 9 of 35 193 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 logs available at the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD)3 website for wells located within Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 East. Our review indicated that groundwater levels in the area varied with surface elevations and were generally in excess of 70 feet bgs (close to the level of the lake). It should be noted that groundwater levels vary with local topography. In addition, the groundwater levels reported on the logs often reflect the purpose of the well, so water well logs may only report deeper, confined groundwater, while geotechnical or environmental borings will often report any groundwater encountered, including shallow, unconfined groundwater. Therefore, the levels reported on the OWRD well logs referenced above are considered generally indicative of local water levels and may not reflect actual groundwater levels at the site. We anticipate that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal and annual variations in precipitation, changes in site utilization, or other factors. Additionally, the on-site, lean clay (CL), clayey sand (SC), and basalt bedrock (RX) are conducive to formation of perched groundwater. 3.0 GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT We reviewed the readily available geologic hazard literature, and topographic, geologic, and geologic hazard maps of the area. We also performed a field reconnaissance of the site, which consisted of observing site surface and shallow subsurface conditions. Information gathered from the geologic hazard literature, and topographic, geologic, and geologic hazard maps is presented in this report. Our field reconnaissance is described in the "Site Surface Conditions" section of this report. 3.1 Regional Geology The site is located south of Oswego Lake, in the eastern portion of the Tualatin Valley in Clackamas County, Oregon, The Tualatin Valley is a northwest -southeast trending valley bordered by the Portland Hills to the north, the Tualatin Mountains to the east, the Chehalem Mountains to the south, and the Oregon Coast Range to the west. The Tualatin Valley is an extension of the Willamette Valley, which was formed when the volcanic rocks of the Oregon Coast Range, originally formed as submarine islands, were added onto the North American Continent4. The addition of the volcanic rocks caused inland down -warping, forming a depression in which various types of marine sedimentary rocks accumulated. Approximately 15 million years ago, these marine sediments were, in turn, covered by Columbia River Basalts that flowed down the Columbia River Gorge and Willamette Valley, as far south as Salem, 3 Oregon Water Resources Department, 2009. Water well logs obtained from OWRD website hftp://www.wrd.state.or.us/ 4 Schlicker, H.G., amd Newhouse, C.J., 1967. Engineering Geology of Tualatin Valley Region. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; Bulletin 60. Carlson Geotechnical Page 10 of 35 '. 194 I' i t Puterbaugh Residence I. ? Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 Oregon. Later, uplift and tilting of these Columbia River Basalts, the Oregon Coast Range, and the western Cascade Range formed the trough-like character of the Willamette and Tualatin Valleys that we observe today. The Tualatin Valley was subsequently filled with non -marine clay, silt, sand, and a few gravel units5 derived from weathering of the adjacent hills. Local volcanic activity produced the Boring Lavas through several localized vents, including Mt. Sylvania and also Mt. Scott and Mt. Tabor. Catastrophic floods later washed into the Willamette and Tualatin Valleys approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago and deposited fine-grained sedimentary assemblages (Pleistocene Flood Deposits) mapped throughout the area67 e 3.2 Site Geology According to the geologic map of the area9, the site is underlain by the Sentinel Bluffs Unit of the Grande Ronde member of the Tertiary Columbia River Basalt. The Columbia River Basalt consists of numerous fine-grained lava flows that primarily erupted from fissures in eastern Washington and Oregon and western Idaho during the Miocene Epoch (23.8 to 5.3 million years ago). Many individual flows are interbedded with thin paleosols formed during periods of volcanic inactivity. A thick residual soil often forms on the Columbia River Basalt, and is the result of in-place weathering of the basalt. A portion of the geologic map is included as Figure 5. The geologic map shows numerous faults within the area of the site, in particular the Lake Oswego Fault (inactive) and Bolton Fault (discussed below). 3.3 Geologic Hazard Literature Review We reviewed available literature concerning geologic hazards in the area. We focused our review on hazards associated with earthquakes, including amplification of seismic waves, liquefaction, human induced slope instability, and storm induced landsliding. 5 Wilson, 1998. Post -middle Miocene geologic evolution of the Tualatin basin, Oregon. Doyle C. Wilson. Oregon Geology Volume 60, Number 5, pp. 99, published by Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, September/October 1998. 6 Bela, James L., 1981, Geology of the Rickreall, Salem West, Monmouth, and Sidney 7'/z' Quadrangles, Marion, Polk, and Linn Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Map GMS -18, 2 plates. 7 Orr, Elizabeth L., Orr, William N., and Baldwin, Ewart M., 1992, Geology of Oregon, Fourth Edition: Kendall/Hunt Publishing, pp. 203-222. 8 O'Connor, Jim E., et al., 2001, Origin, extent, and thickness of quaternary geologic units in the Willamette Valley, Oregon: US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1620,52p, 1plate. 9 Beeson, M.H., and others, 1989. Geologic Map of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. GMS -59. Carlson Geotechnical Page 11 of 35 195 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 Thick sequences of unconsolidated, soft sediments typically amplify the shaking of long period ground motions such as those associated with major earthquakes10. Areas underlain by shallow soil profiles are not likely to amplify seismic waves. The amount of amplification is quantified by calculating the expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the seismic waves through the soft soil sequence. PCAs are expressed as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity, meaning that a vertical PGA greater than 1.0 g would throw objects into the air. Structures built on a site with anticipated high PCAs are substantially more likely to be damaged during a major earthquake than structures built in areas with low PCAs. A wide variety of slope and ground failures can occur in response to intense seismic shaking during large magnitude earthquakes. These failures are often related to the phenomenon of liquefaction, the process by which water -saturated sediment changes from a solid to a liquid state. Since liquefied sediment may not support the overlying ground, or any structure built thereon, a variety of failures may occur including lateral spreading, landslides, ground settlement and cracking, sand boils, oscillation lurching, etc. The conditions necessary for liquefaction to occur are: (1) the presence of poorly consolidated, cohesionless sediment; (2) saturation of the sediment by groundwater; and (3) an earthquake that produces intense seismic shaking (generally a Richter Magnitude greater than M5.0). In general, older, more consolidated sediment, and sediment above the water table will not liquefy". Field performance data and laboratory tests indicate that liquefaction occurs predominantly in well -sorted, loose to medium dense sand or silty sand, but can also occur in lean clays and silts12. Ground shaking during seismic events can induce landsliding by creating unusual groundwater conditions that raise pore water pressures in slopes, thus reducing the over all strength of the slopes. Landsliding is a common hazard in the Pacific Northwest that can be initiated on marginally stable slopes by human disturbances such as grading, and natural processes including, earthquake shaking, volcanism, deforestation, heavy rainfalls and rapid snow melt. Recent studies indicate that the most common causes for slope failures are intense rainfall and human alteration including the placement of building loads on slopes, excavating slopes, and the infiltration or diversion of storm water run off13. For example, excavation into the base of marginally stable slopes may reduce forces resisting failure on those slopes thus causing movement. Adding fill and/or a structure to the top or mid portion of a slope increases the 10 Hofmeister, R., Madin, I., Wang, Y., and Hasenberg, C. 2003, Earthquake and Landslide Hazards Maps and Future Earthquake Damage Estimates, Clackamas County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open File Report OFR 0-03-10. 11 Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N. 1978. Historic ground failures in Northern California triggered by earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 993, p.117 12 Seed, R.B., et al. 2003. Recent Advances In Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified And Consistent Framework. Earthquake Engineering Research Center College Of Engineering University Of California, Berkeley. 13 Hofmeister, R., Madin, I., Wang, Y., and Hasenberg, C. 2003, Ibid. Carlson Geotechnical Page 12 of 35 196 I ' Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 driving forces on a slope and may contribute to failure. Redirecting water into slopes may exploit existing planes of weakness within those slopes, causing failure. 3.4 Earthquake Sources The site is located in a tectonically active area that may be affected by large subduction zone earthquakes, intra -slab earthquakes, or crustal earthquakes. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680 -mile -long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan De Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of approximately four cm/year14. The inferred seismogenic (earthquake producing) portion of the plate interface is roughly coincident with the Oregon coastline. Intra -slab earthquakes occur within the subducting Juan De Fuca Plate where curvature of the plate due to subduction beneath the North American continent causes normal faulting within the plate, thus producing earthquakes. This seismogenic zone is located roughly 30 miles below the Oregon and southwest Washington Coast Range. Several nearby faults capable of producing damaging earthquakes in this region include the Bolton fault, Canby-Molalla fault, Oatfield fault, Portland Hills fault, Beaverton fault zone, Damascus -Tickle Creek fault, East Bank fault, Helvetia fault, Newberg fault, Gales Creek fault zone, and Lacamas Lake fault. The site is located within 1 kilometer of the Lake Oswego fault, which is considered inactive. Distances from the site to known active or potentially active faults are summarized in Table 1. Table 2: Known Active or Potentially Active Faults in the Vicinity of the Site USGS FaultDistance No. Fault NameAc66i and 0ire>rtion from Site jt y Level 874 Bolton fault 2 km E Potentially Active 716 Canby-Molalla fault 3 km SW Active 875 Oatfield fault 4 km NE Active 877 Portland Hills fault 7 km ENE Active 715 Beaverton fault zone 11 km NW Active 879 Damascus -Tickle Creek fault 11 km E Active 876 East Bank fault 12 km NE Active 714 Helvetia fault 22 km NW Active 717 Newberg fault 25 km SW Active 718 Gales Creek fault zone 32 km W Active 880 Lacamas Lake fault 32 km NE Active Intra Slab 35 km W (epicentral distance) Active 784 Cascadia Subduction Zone 145 km W (epicentral distance) Active 14 DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F., Stein, S., 1990 j International, v. 101, p. 425-478. Carlson Geotechnical Current plate motions: Geophysical Journal Page 13 of 35 197 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 3.4.1.1 Helvetia fault (USGS 714) The Helvetia fault is a north-northwest trending structure located on the northeastern margin of the Tualatin Basin15. There is no evidence for displacement of late Quaternary deposits along the fault; however, the most recent age of displacement is poorly constrained16. Therefore, the fault is considered active, but with a long recurrence interval. 3.4.1.2 Beaverton fault zone (USGS 715) The Beaverton fault zone 17 consists of an east -west striking normal fault that forms the southern margin of the Tualatin basin. This fault offsets Miocene Columbia River Basalt, but is covered by thick sequences of Pliocene to Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits. As a result, no fault scarp is present at the surface, and the Beaverton fault zone is not present on most geologic maps of the area. Yeats and others 18 indicate that the Beaverton Faults displace post -Columbia River Basalt sediments; however, the age and nature of deformation is not known. The Beaverton fault is considered active, but with a long recurrence interval. 3.4.1.3 Canby-Molalla fault (USGS 716) The Canby-Molalla fault is a right -lateral strike -slip fault located within the Willamette Valley19. The Canby-Molalla fault appears to offset Missoula flood deposits, and seismic reflection surveys suggest Holocene deformation of sediments. The fault has little geomorphologic expression, but is considered active, with a slip rate of less than 0.2 mm per year. 3.4.1.4 Newberg fault (USGS 717) The Newberg fault is a 5 -kilometer -long portion of the Gales Creek -Mount Angel structural zone, which consists of a 73 -kilometer -long zone of right -lateral strike -slip faults located within the Willamette Valley20: The fault zone offsets Miocene Columbia River basalts, but no unequivocal evidence for Quaternary displacement has been identified. The Newberg fault is recognized in 15 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 714, Helvetia fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes,usgs.gov/regional/gfaults, 18 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Ibid. 17 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 715, Beaverton fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs,gov/regional/gfaults. 18 Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996. Ibid. 19 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 716, Canby-Molalla fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. 20 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 717, Newberg fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. Carlson Geotechnical Page 14 of 35 198 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon i. CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 the subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt, and offset seismic reflectors in overlying basin sediments21z2, with no definitive geomorphic evidence of faulting. The majority of the fault trace is covered with Holocene alluvium, which may have buried recent deformation. Due to the uncertainty in activity level, the fault has been classified as active. 3.4.1.5 Gales Creek fault zone (USGS 718) The Gales Creek fault zone is a 73 -kilometer -long zone of northwest -trending right -lateral strike - slip faults located on the western margin of the Willamette Valley23. The fault zone offsets Miocene Columbia River basalts, but no unequivocal evidence for Quaternary displacement has I been identified. However, the majority of the faults are covered with very recent alluvium, which may have buried evidence of recent deformation. Estimates for the latest movements along the Gales Creek fault zone typically predate the late Pleistocene; in other words, the fault has not had activity within the last approximately 30,000 years. The recurrence interval for the Gales Creek fault zone is likely greater than 50,000 years, based on the information available. 3.4.1.6 Bolton fault (USGS 874) The Bolton fault is a northwest -trending reverse fault, with a length of about 9 kilometers in the subsurface24. There is no evidence that the Bolton fault has been active since the late Pleistocene; however, the fault is classified as potentially active because of the limited exposures and uncertainties in the relationships between local scarps and late Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits25. On this basis, a long recurrence interval is assigned to the Bolton Fault. 3.4.1.7 Oatfield fault (USGS 875) The Oatfield fault consists of a 29 -kilometer -long steeply dipping reverse fault that forms escarpments in Miocene Columbia River Basalt in the Tualatin Mountain s2s. No fault scarps or 2' Werner, K.S., Nabelek, J., Yeats, R.S., Malone, S., 1992. The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic - reflection data and the Woodburn, Oregon, earthquake sequence of August, 1990: Oregon Geology, v. 54, p. 112-117. 22 Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C,, and Popowski, T., 1996. Ibid. is Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 718, Gales Creek fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. 24 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 874, Bolton fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. zs Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Ibid. 26 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 875, Oatfield fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes,usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. Carlson Geotechnical Page 15 of 35 199 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 displacement of surficial deposits have been described, but exposures within tunnels show offset of Boring Lava, indicating Quaternary activity. 3.4.1.8 East Bank fault (USGS 876) The East Bank fault27 consists of a 29 -kilometer -long steeply dipping reverse fault that parallels the Portland Hills fault. No Quaternary surficial fault scarps have been identified, and the fault is largely buried by thick sequences of Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits. Recent shallow seismic reflection data suggest subsurface displacement of the older Missoula flood deposits. 3.4.1.9 Portland Hills fault (USGS 877) The Portland Hills fault zone 28 is a series of northwest -trending faults forming the northeastern margin of the Tualatin Mountains. The faults associated with this structural zone vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt Group by 1,130 feet, and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene sediment29. Geomorphic lineaments suggestive of Pleistocene deformation have been identified within the fault zone, but none of the fault segments has been shown to cut Holocene deposits3o,3, The fact that the faults do not cut Holocene sediments is most likely a result of the faulting being related to a time of intense uplift of the Oregon Coast Range during the Miocene, and little to no movement along the faults during the Holocene. Recent studies of this fault32 concluded that the Portland Hills fault is active, based on contemporary seismicity in the vicinity of the fault, and seismic reflection data suggesting that the fault cuts late Pleistocene layered strata. Additionally, in May of 2000, while taking magnetic readings to map the fault, an Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) geologist observed folded sediment in a retaining wall cut in North Clackamas Park south of Portland. The folded sediments consisted of sand and silt deposited by Pleistocene floods derived from glacial Lake Missoula approximately 12,800 to 15,000 years ago, An investigation of the folded strata by DOGAMI geologists, and engineering consultants showed that the entire 27 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 876, East Bank fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. 28 Personius, S.F,, compiler, 2002. Fault number 877, Portland Hills fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. 29 Mabey, M.A., Madin, I.P., Youd, T.L., Jones, C.F., 1993, Earthquake hazard maps of the Portland quadrangle, Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Geological Map Series GMS -79, Plate 2, 1:24,000. 30 Conforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992. Seismic hazard evaluation, Bull Run dam sites near Sandy, Oregon: unpublished report to City of Portland Bureau of Water Works. 31 Balsillie, J.J. and Benson, G.T., 1971. Evidence for the Portland Hills fault: The Ore Bin, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, v. 33, p. 109-118. 32 Wong et at, 2001. The Portland Hills Fault: An Earthquake Generator or Just Another Old Fault? Published by Oregon Geology, V63, number 2, Spring 2001. Carlson Geotechnical 200 Page 16 of 35 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 sequence of sediment layers is folded and they concluded that this folding is evidence for an active fault beneath the site, and the fault is either the Portland Hills fault, or a closely related structure33 3.4.1.10 Damascus -Tickle Creek fault zone (USGS 879) The Damascus -Tickle Creek fault zone consists of numerous relatively short northeast and northwest trending forming a broad fault zone along the southern edge of the Portland basin 31 The location of several eruptive vents of the Boring Lava suggest a direct relationship with the Damascus -Tickle Creek fault zone. The majority of the faults within the zone are buried by Pliocene to Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits, however, at least one fault strand may offset the flood deposits. 3.4.1.11 Lacamas Lake fault (USGS 880). The Lacamas Lake fault35 is a northwest -trending structure located in the vicinity of Lacamas Lake, near Camas, Washington, at the northeastern margin of the Portland basin. This fault was originally identified by well -expressed lineaments defined by the relatively steep linear valley margins along both sides of Lacamas Lake36. Although recent activity on the Lacamas Lake fault is uncertain, the fault is considered active based on possible displacement of Troutdale sediments, prominent topographic lineaments associated with the fault, and possible associated seismicity. The fault is buried by Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits, suggesting a long recurrence interval 3.5 Topographic Maps Site topography is shown on the Lake Oswego, Oregon, 7'/z minute quadrangle37, attached as Figure 1. The site was located a northwest -facing slope on a northeast -trending ridge (Phantom Bluff) projecting into Oswego Lake in the Tualatin Mountains. General gradients within the immediate vicinity of the site indicated by the topographic map are up to 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). Observed slopes on-site are described in greater detail in the Site Surface Conditions section below. The topographic map does not show areas of hummocky topography or steep arcuate -shaped slopes typical of ancient landslides in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the topographic map shows steep slopes along the south shore of Oswego Lake. 33 Madin and Hemphill -Haley, 2001: The Portland Hills Fault at Rowe Middle School. Oregon Geology V63 p47. 34 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 879, Damascus -Tickle Creek fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological' Survey website, http://earthquakes,usgs.gov/regional/gfauIts. j 35 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002. Fault number 880, Lacamas Lake fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. 36 Madin and Hemphill -Haley, 2001: The Portland Hills Fault at Rowe Middle School. Oregon Geology V63 p47. 3' United States Geologic Survey, 1984. Topographic map of the Lake Oswego, Oregon, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. Carlson Geotechnical Page 17 of 35 201 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 3.6 Geologic Hazard Maps Review of the City of Lake Oswego Flood Hazard Map38 indicates that the site is located within a Flood Management Area. The City of Lake Oswego Flood Hazard Map was compiled from floodplain maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The map indicates that the northwestern portion of the site lies within the designated 100 -year floodplain of Oswego Lake. The proposed building pad location is located approximately 70 feet higher than the designated 100 -year floodplain. A portion of the Lake Oswego Flood Hazard map is included as Figure 6. Review of the Earthquake Hazard Map available from the City of Lake Oswego39 indicates that the site is located in an area with moderate potential (Zone B) for earthquake induced slope instability/seismic amplification. A portion of the Earthquake Hazard Map showing the site location is presented as Figure 7. Review of the City of Lake Oswego Slope/Landslide Hazard Ma p40 indicates that the site is located within a slope hazard and potential landslide area, with slopes in excess of 35 percent. A portion of the slope/landslide hazard map is included as Figure 8. On-site slopes observed during our reconnaissance of the site are described in detail in the Site Surface Conditions section above. 3.7 Geologic Hazard Assessment Findings Based on our research, review of available maps, and our field investigation, the northern portion of the site was located in a potential landslide hazard area and steep slope hazard area. We did not observe obvious signs of deep slope instability or recognizable ancient or recent landslide features at the site. The steep slope on the northern portion of the site consists of basalt bedrock. Loose talus was present at the base of the slope. CGT recommends that the proposed residence be founded in the hard basalt bedrock to reduce the susceptibility to damage to the residence from surficial (soil) erosion and/or movement. The northwestern portion of the site lies within the floodplain for Oswego Lake. The proposed residence will be located approximately 70 feet above the 100 -year floodplain level, well above the regulatory floodplain. 3e City of Lake Oswego, 2004. Lake Oswego Flood Hazards Map obtained from City of Lake Oswego Website, http://www.ci.aswego.or.us/ 39 City of Lake Oswego, 2004. Lake Oswego Earthquake Hazard Map obtained from City of Lake Oswego Website, http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/ 40 City of Lake Oswego, 2004. Lake Oswego Landslide Hazards Map obtained from City of Lake Oswego Website, http:l/www.ci.oswego.or.us/ Carlson Geotechnical Page 18 of 35 202 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 It is our opinion that the site is geologically suitable for the proposed development and we anticipate that with the use of generally accepted construction techniques and by strictly following the recommendations within this report, the project will have a minimum geologic impact on adjacent properties. Any construction within hillside areas inherently bears greater risk of potential slope instability problems. The existing site slopes may be susceptible to slope instability resulting from a major earthquake, high rainfall, or human activities such as steep i slope cuts, improperly constructed fill slopes, or redirection of water drainage, which could occur beyond the site boundaries. The owners must recognize and accept the risk of potential slope instability from causes beyond their control or as yet unrecognized. CGT recommends that stormwater drainage from the residence roof, foundation drains, and driveway areas be conducted to a suitable discharge point, and not discharged onto the site slopes. We understand from your designer that stormwater will be conducted to the lake. We recommend that the water be tight -lined from the collection points to an approved discharge point at the lake level. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our field explorations and analyses, the site may be developed as described in the Project Information Section of this report, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design and development. The southeastern residence footings / retaining wall footing will encounter basalt bedrock (see Figure 3). In order to limit differential settlement, CGT recommends that all residential foundations derive support directly from the weathered basalt bedrock. Excavation in the basalt bedrock may be difficult, and use of hydraulic hammers or other hard rock excavation methods should be anticipated. Shallow foundations, with the assumed loads (where applicable), should be founded on the native, weathered basalt bedrock (RX). Floor slabs and pavements may be founded on the native, medium stiff, lean clay (CL), medium dense clayey sand (SC), basalt bedrock (RX), or on properly placed and compacted structural fill that extends to these materials. The following paragraphs present geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development. Carlson Geotechnical Page 19 of 35 203 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are based on the information provided to us, results of the field investigation, laboratory data, and professional judgment. CGT has observed only a small portion of the pertinent soil conditions. The recommendations are based on the assumptions that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those found during the field investigation. If the design or location of the proposed development changes, or if variations or undesirable geotechnical conditions are encountered during site development, CGT should be consulted for further recommendations. This report is considered preliminary, as we have not reviewed final grading plans, finished floor elevations, and/or detailed structural information for the development. An addendum indicating that this report is final, and including supplemental recommendations if any, can be issued after we have reviewed these items. 5.1 Site Preparation 5.1.1 Stripping / Over -Excavation Vegetation and clay topsoil (OL) should be removed from proposed building pad areas and pavement locations, and for a 5 -foot -margin around such locations. Based on the results of our field explorations, the depth of surface vegetation and clay topsoil (OL) at the site will be on the order of approximately '/2 -foot bgs. A geotechnical representative from CGT should provide recommendations for actual stripping depths based on observations during site stripping. Stripped surface vegetation and organic clay topsoil (OL) should be transported off-site for disposal, or stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas. Existing fill, debris, or other deleterious material, if encountered during site preparation, should be completely removed and disposed of off site, Grubbing of trees should include the removal of the root mass, and roots greater than '/z -inch in diameter. Grubbed material should be transported off-site for disposal. Root masses from larger trees may extend greater than 3 feet bgs. Where root masses are removed within the structural footprint, the resulting excavation should be properly backfilled with structural fill as needed to achieve finished subgrade elevations. Excavated materials should not be broadcast or randomly deposted on existing site slopes See Section 5.3.3 for additional discussion of fill on slopes. Carlson Geotechnical Page 20 of 35 204 i' Puterbau h Residence _ 9 Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 5.1.2 Subgrade Preparation After site preparation as recommended above, and prior to excavation for footings, a geotechnical representative from CGT should probe and/or observe a proof -roll of the exposed subgrade soils in order to identify areas of excessive yielding. If areas of soft soil or excessive yielding are identified, the affected material should be stabilized as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 5.1.3 Erosion Control Silt fences, buffer zones of natural growth, sedimentation ponds, and granular haul roads should be used as required to reduce sediment transport during construction to acceptable levels. Measures to reduce erosion should be implemented in general accordance with State, City, and County regulations regarding erosion control, where applicable. 5.2 Wet Weather Considerations 5.2.1 General Considerations The on-site, lean clay (CL), and clayey sand (SC) are susceptible to disturbance during wet weather. Trafficability of these soils may be difficult, and significant damage to subgrade soils could occur, if earthwork is undertaken without proper precautions at times when the exposed soils are more than a few percentage points above optimum moisture content. For construction that occurs during the wet season, site preparation activities may need to be accomplished using track -mounted equipment, loading removed material onto trucks supported on granular haul roads, or other methods to limit soil disturbance. A geotechnical representative from CGT should evaluate the subgrade during excavation by probing rather than proof rolling. Soils that have been disturbed during site preparation activities, or soft or loose areas identified during probing, should be over -excavated to firm, stable subgrade, and replaced with imported granular structural fill. 5.2.2 Equipment Haul Roads & Staging Areas We recommend that a geotextile separation / filter fabric be placed as a barrier between the subgrade and imported fill in areas of repeated or heavy construction traffic. The geotextile fabric should have a minimum Mullen burst strength of 250 pounds per square inch for puncture resistance, and an apparent opening size (AOS) between the U.S. Standard No. 70 and No. 100 Sieves. Haul roads subjected to repeated heavy construction traffic will require a minimum of 18 inches of imported granular material. For light staging areas, 12 inches of imported granular material Carlson Geotechnical Page 21 of 35 205 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 92, 2009 should be sufficient. Additional granular material, geo-grid reinforcement, or cement amendment may be recommended based on site conditions and/or loading at the time of construction. The imported granular material should consist of crushed rock, with characteristics consistent with Section 5.3.2 of this report. The maximum particle size should be limited to 4 inches or 1'/2 inches within 1 foot of pavement subgrade elevation if the material is to be left in-place. The prepared subgrade should be covered with geotextile fabric prior to placement of the imported granular material. The imported granular material should be placed in a single lift and compacted using a smooth -drum, non -vibratory roller. 5.2.3 Footing Subgrade Protection A minimum of 3 inches of imported granular material is recommended to protect footing subgrades from foot traffic during inclement weather. The imported granular material should consist of imported granular structural fill, as detailed in Section 5.3.2 of this report. The imported granular material should be placed in one lift over the prepared, undisturbed subgrade, and compacted using non -vibratory equipment until well keyed. 5.3 Structural Fill 5.3.1 On -Site Soils The on-site, clay topsoil (OL) should not be reused as structural fill due to the high organic content. Use of the on-site, lean clay (CL) or clayey sand (SC) as structural fill may be difficult because these soils are sensitive to small changes in moisture content and are difficult, if not impossible, to adequately compact during wet weather. We anticipate that the moisture content of these soils will be higher than the optimum moisture content for satisfactory compaction. Therefore, moisture conditioning (drying) should be expected in order to achieve adequate compaction. If used as structural fill, these soils should be free of organic matter, debris, and particles larger than 1'/2 inches. When used as structural fill, these soils should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of about 8 inches, and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the material's maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Use of the basalt bedrock as structural fill is feasible, provided it is processed to meet the recommendations for imported granular structural fill below. If the on-site soils cannot be properly moisture -conditioned and/or processed, we recommend using imported granular material for structural fill. Carlson Geotechnical Page 22 of 35 206 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 5.3.2 Imported Granular Structural Fill Imported granular structural fill should consist of angular pit or quarry run rock, crushed rock, or { crushed gravel that is fairly well graded between coarse and fine particle sizes. The granular fill should contain no organic matter, debris, or particles larger than 4 inches, and have less than 5 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. The percentage of fines can be increased to 12 percent of the material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve if placed during dry weather, and provided the fill material is moisture -conditioned, as necessary, for proper compaction. Granular fill material should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of about 12 inches, and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Proper moisture conditioning and the use of vibratory equipment will facilitate compaction of these materials. For fine grading purposes, and within 12 inches of footings and pavement surfaces, the maximum particle size should be limited to 1'/2 inches. Compaction of granular fill materials with high percentages of particle sizes in excess of 1'/2 -inches should be evaluated by periodic proof - roll observation or continuous observation by the CGT geotechnical representative during fill placement, since it cannot be tested conventionally using a nuclear densometer. Granular fills with high percentages of particle sizes in excess of 1'/z -inches should be capped with a minimum of 12 inches of 1'/2 -inch -minus, or smaller, granular fill under all structural elements (footings, concrete slabs, pavements, etc.). 5.3.3 Placement of Fill on Slopes We do not have final grading information and therefore do not know if structural fill will be required on existing sloping surfaces. If such fill is contemplated in the final grading plan, it should be placed and compacted against horizontal surfaces. Where slopes exceed 5H11 V (horizontal:vertical), the slopes should be keyed and benched prior to structural fill placement in general accordance with the attached Fill Slope Detail, Figure 14. If subdrains are needed on benches, subject to the review of the CGT geotechnical representative, they should be placed as shown on the attached Fill Slope Detail. In order to achieve well compacted slope faces, slopes should be overbuilt by a few feet and then trimmed back to proposed final grades. A representative from CGT should observe the benches, keyways, and associated subdrains, if needed, prior to placement of structural fill. 5.4 Permanent Slopes Permanent cut slopes constructed at the site should be graded at 2HA V or flatter. The surface of all slopes should be protected from erosion by seeding, sodding, or other acceptable means. i_ l Carlson Geotechnical Page 23 of 35 207 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 Adjacent on-site and off-site structures should be located at least 5 feet from the top of graded slopes. Additional setbacks are required from the existing cliff, as discussed in Section 5.5.6. 5.5 Shallow Foundations 5.5.1 Acceptable Subgrade Soils The southeastern residence footings / retaining wall footing will encounter basalt bedrock (RX). In order to limit differential settlement, CGT recommends that all residential foundations derive support directly from the weathered basalt bedrock encountered at the site. Based on our understanding of the proposed development and the available geologic data, this will necessitate deepening the northwestern residence footings through the soils, which may require excavations up to 10 feet bgs. Satisfactory subgrade support for shallow foundations can be obtained from the weathered basalt bedrock (RX). The weathered basalt bedrock was encountered at depths of about 6 to 10 feet bgs within our explorations. Deeper excavations may encounter unweathered basalt bedrock, making excavation difficult. The use of hydraulic hammers or other hard rock excavation methods should be anticipated if deeper excavations are proposed in the final grading plan. CGT recommends that a minimum of 2 inches of imported granular structural fill consisting of 3/ - inch -minus crushed rock be placed in footing excavations in the weathered basalt as a leveling course. This leveling course will facilitate forming and concrete placement, and will help reduce lateral restraint (shrinkage) cracking in the concrete as it cures. 5.5.2 Minimum Footinq Width, Embedment & Nearby Excavation In general, individual spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches, and the base of the footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches for structures up to two stories in height, and 18 inches for structures up to three stories in height. Continuous wall footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Excavations near footings should not extend within a 1 H:1 V plane projected out and down from the outside, bottom edge of the footings. Footings constructed on slopes should have a minimum of 5 feet between the face of the slope and the bottom, outside edge of the footing. Carlson Geotechnical Page 24 of 35 208 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 72, 2009 5.5.3 Bearing Pressure and Settlement The minimum footing dimensions described above will likely govern footing sizes. Nonetheless, footings founded as recommended above should be proportioned for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This bearing pressure is a net bearing pressure, and applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads, and may be increased by one-third when considering seismic or wind loads. For the recommended design bearing pressure, total settlement of footings constructed on or within the weathered basalt is anticipated to be less than 3/4 -inch. Differential settlements between adjacent columns and/or bearing walls should not exceed %-inch. 5.5.4 Lateral Capacity We recommend using a maximum passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for design for footings confined by the basalt bedrock (RX). The recommended earth pressure was computed using a factor of safety of 1'/2, which is appropriate due to the amount of movement required to develop full passive resistance. In order to develop the above capacity, the following should be understood: (1) concrete must be poured neat in excavations or the foundations must be backfilled with imported granular structural fill, (2) the adjacent grade must be level, and (3) the static ground water level must remain below the base of the footings throughout the year. Adjacent floor slabs, pavements, or the upper 12 -inch -depth of adjacent, unpaved areas should not be considered when calculating passive resistance. An ultimate coefficient of friction equal to 0.45 may be used when calculating resistance to sliding for footings founded on the weathered basalt bedrock (RX) as described above. 5.5.5 Drainage We recommend placing foundation drains at the base elevations of the footings on the outside of the footings. Foundation drains should consist of a minimum 4 -inch -diameter, perforated, rigid, HDPE (High Density Poly -Ethylene) drainpipe wrapped with a non -woven geotextile filter fabric. The drains should be backfilled with a minimum of 2 cubic feet of open graded drain rock per lineal foot of pipe. The drain rock should be encased in a geotextile fabric in order to provide separation from the surrounding soils. Roof drains should not be tied into foundation drains. Foundation drains should be positively sloped and should outlet to a suitable discharge point. A representative from CGT should be contacted to observe the drains prior to backfilling. Carlson Geotechnical Page 25 of 35 209 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 We understand that stormwater will be conducted to the lake, and discharged in a manner to be determined by the City of Lake Oswego. It is imperative that site drainage is not discharged onto the on-site slopes. 5.5.6 Horizontal Setback From Slope Face Section 1805.3.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (2006 IBC) and the 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (2007 OSSC) require that foundations be a sufficient depth to provide horizontal setback from a descending slope. The required setback is '/ the height of the slope or a maximum of 40 feet measured horizontally from the base of the foundation to the slope face. On the subject property, the slope descends below the proposed building area approximately 70 feet, therefore the code required setback is 23 feet from the cliff face. 5.6 Basement Retaining Walls 5.6.1 Footings & Drainage Basement retaining wall footings should be designed and constructed in general accordance with the recommendations contained in the Section 5.5 of this report. Retaining walls should incorporate drains in general accordance with Section 5.5.5 of this report. 5.6.2 Backfill Basement retaining walls should be backfilled with imported granular structural fill meeting the requirements presented previously and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of material's maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). When placing fill behind walls, care must be taken to minimize undue lateral loads on the walls. Heavy compaction equipment should be kept at least "H" feet from the back of the walls, where "H" is the height of the wall. Light mechanical or hand tamping equipment should be used for compaction of backfill materials within "H" feet of the back of the walls. 5.6.3 Desiqn Parameters & Limitations For basement retaining walls founded, backfilled, and drained as recommended above, the following design parameters are recommended for design of the planned retaining walls at the site: A graphical representation of the lateral pressures acting on the retaining wall is provided on the attached Figure 15 - Active Lateral Pressure Distribution. Carlson Geotechnical Page 26 of 35 210 F" Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 Table 3: Retaining Wall Design Parameters i The above design recommendations are based on the assumptions that: (1) the walls consist of conventional cantilevered retaining walls 0 and 8 = 30 degrees). (2) the walls are 6 feet in height or less. (3) the backfill within 2 feet of the wall is drained and consists of imported granular structural fill 38 degrees). (4) no surcharges are imposed behind the walls. (5) the grade behind the wall is level, or sloping down and away from the wall, for a distance of 10 feet or more. (6) the grade in front of the walls is level or sloping up for a distance of at least 5 feet. Re-evaluation of our recommendations will be required if the retaining wall design criteria for the project vary from these assumptions. 5.7 Floor Slabs 5.7.1 Acceptable Subgrade Soils Satisfactory subgrade support for floor slabs constructed on grade, supporting up to 100 psf area loading, can be obtained from the native, lean clay (CL), clayey sand (SC), or on properly placed and compacted structural fill that extends to these materials. If a slab -on -grade floor is selected for the basement, the southeastern portion may be founded on basalt bedrock (RX), with the remainder founded on native soils or structural fill. CGT recommends that basalt bedrock encountered during excavation for the basement slab be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches and replaced with granular structural fill. The granular structural fill above the bedrock provides a more uniform subgrade response to loading. This will help to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for differential settlement experienced across the basement slab if both soil and basalt bedrock subgrades are encountered. Carlson Geotechnical Page 27 of 35 211 Backfill Static Total (Static + Retaining Wall Condition Condition Equivalent Fluid Seismic) Equivalent Pressure (SA) Fluid Pressure (Sae) Not Restrained from Rotation Level (i = 0) 33 pcf 44 pcf Restrained from Rotation Level (i = 0) 55 pcf 59 pcf Note 1. Refer to the attached Figure 14 for a graphical representation of static and seismic loading conditions. Note 2. Seismic / dynamic lateral loads were computed using the Mononobe-Okabe Equation as presented in the 1997 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design manual. i The above design recommendations are based on the assumptions that: (1) the walls consist of conventional cantilevered retaining walls 0 and 8 = 30 degrees). (2) the walls are 6 feet in height or less. (3) the backfill within 2 feet of the wall is drained and consists of imported granular structural fill 38 degrees). (4) no surcharges are imposed behind the walls. (5) the grade behind the wall is level, or sloping down and away from the wall, for a distance of 10 feet or more. (6) the grade in front of the walls is level or sloping up for a distance of at least 5 feet. Re-evaluation of our recommendations will be required if the retaining wall design criteria for the project vary from these assumptions. 5.7 Floor Slabs 5.7.1 Acceptable Subgrade Soils Satisfactory subgrade support for floor slabs constructed on grade, supporting up to 100 psf area loading, can be obtained from the native, lean clay (CL), clayey sand (SC), or on properly placed and compacted structural fill that extends to these materials. If a slab -on -grade floor is selected for the basement, the southeastern portion may be founded on basalt bedrock (RX), with the remainder founded on native soils or structural fill. CGT recommends that basalt bedrock encountered during excavation for the basement slab be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches and replaced with granular structural fill. The granular structural fill above the bedrock provides a more uniform subgrade response to loading. This will help to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for differential settlement experienced across the basement slab if both soil and basalt bedrock subgrades are encountered. Carlson Geotechnical Page 27 of 35 211 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 The lean clay (CL) was encountered at depths of about '/z -foot feet bgs within our explorations. The clayey sand (SC) was encountered at depths of approximately 5 feet bgs within our explorations. The basalt bedrock (RX) was encountered at depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet bgs within our explorations. If soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over -excavated as recommended by the CGT geotechnical representative at the time of construction. The resulting over -excavation should be brought back to grade with imported granular structural fill. 5.7.2 General A minimum 6 -inch -thick layer of crushed rock base, compacted to not less than 95 percent of the materials maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor), should be placed over the prepared subgrade to provide a uniform surface for placing concrete, and supporting the slab. Base rock material placed directly below the slab should have a maximum particle size of'/ -inch or less. The surface of the base rock should be choked with sand just prior to concrete placement. Choking means the voids between the largest aggregate particles are filled with sand, but does not provide a layer of sand above the base rock. Choking the base rock surface reduces the lateral restraint on the bottom of the concrete during curing. For floor slabs constructed as recommended, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) is recommended for the design of the floor slab. Floor slabs constructed as recommended will likely settle less than '/z -inch. For general floor slab construction, slabs should be jointed around columns and walls to permit slabs and foundations to settle differentially. 5.7.3 Subgrade Moisture Considerations Liquid moisture and moisture vapor should be expected at the subgrade surface. A capillary break, consisting of at least 6 inches of crushed rock base having less than 5 percent of the material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve, typically provides protection against liquid moisture. Where moisture vapor emission through the slab must be minimized, e.g. impervious floor coverings, storage of moisture sensitive materials directly on the slab surface, etc., a vapor retarding membrane or vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. Factors such as cost, special considerations for construction, floor coverings, and end use suggest that the decision regarding a vapor retarding membrane or vapor barrier be made by the architect and owner. Carlson Geotechnical Page 28 of 35 212 i Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon I CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 If a vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed below the slab, its location should be based on current American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines, ACI 302 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction. In some cases, this indicates placement of concrete directly on the vapor retarder or barrier. Please note that the placement of concrete directly on impervious membranes increases the risk of plastic shrinkage cracking and slab curling in the concrete. Construction practices to reduce or eliminate such risk, as described in ACI 302, should be employed during concrete placement. 5.8 Asphalt Pavements (Driveway) 5.8.1 Acceptable Subgrade Soils Satisfactory subgrade support for asphalt pavements constructed on grade can be obtained from the native lean clay (CL), clayey sand (SC), basalt bedrock (RX), or on properly placed and compacted structural fill that extends to these materials. The lean clay (CL) was encountered at depths of about'/2-foot feet bgs within our explorations. The clayey sand (SC) was encountered at depths of approximately 5 feet bgs within our explorations. The basalt bedrock (RX) was encountered at depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet bgs within our explorations. All pavement subgrades should be proof -rolled utilizing a fully -loaded water truck or dump truck prior to placement of roadway materials. Areas that exhibit excessive deflection or soft areas under the proof -roll should be removed and replaced with granular structural fill as detailed previously. If soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be overexcavated as recommended by the geotechnical engineer or their representative at the time of construction. The resulting overexcavation should be brought back to grade with imported granular structural fill. Pavement subgrade surfaces should be crowned (or sloped) for proper drainage in accordance with specifications provided by the project civil engineer. 5.9 Utility Trenches 5.9.1 Utility Trench Excavation Temporary trench cuts should stand near vertical to depths of approximately 4 feet in the native lean clay (CL) or clayey sand (SC) encountered near the surface. Some instability may occur if seepage occurs. If seepage is encountered that undermines the stability of the trench, or caving of the sidewalls is observed during excavation, the sidewalls should be flattened or shored. Carlson Geotechnical Page 29 of 35 213 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 Deeper trench excavations may encounter hard basalt bedrock, making excavation difficult. The use of hydraulic hammers or, other hard rock excavation methods should be anticipated if deep trench excavations are proposed in the final grading plan. Depending on the time of year trench excavations occur, trench dewatering may be required in order to maintain dry working conditions, particularly if the invert elevations of the proposed utilities are below the groundwater level. Pumping from sumps located within the trench will likely be effective in removing water resulting from seepage. If groundwater is present at the base of utility excavations, we recommend placing trench stabilization material at the base of the excavations. Trench stabilization material should consist of 1 -foot of well -graded gravel, crushed gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 4 inches, and less than 5 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material, placed in one lift, and compacted until well -keyed. While we have described certain approaches to the trench excavation, dewatering, and base stabilization, it is the contractor's responsibility to select the excavation and dewatering methods, to monitor the trench excavations for safety, and to provide any shoring required to protect personnel and adjacent improvements. All trench excavations should be in accordance with applicable OSHA and State regulations. 5.9.2 Trench Backfill Material Trench backfill for the utility pipe base and pipe zone should consist of well -graded granular material containing no organic matter or debris, have a maximum particle size of 3/ -inch, and have less than 8 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. Backfill for the pipe base and within the pipe zone should be placed in maximum 10 -inch -thick loose lifts, and compacted to not less than 90 percent of the material's maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557, or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. Backfill above the pipe zone should be placed in maximum 10 -inch -thick loose lifts, and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the material's maximum dry density in general accordance with ASTM D1557. Trench backfill within 3 feet of finished subgrade elevation should be placed in maximum 10 -inch -thick loose lifts and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557. 5.10 Additional Drainage Considerations We recommend that subsurface drains be connected to the nearest storm drain or other suitable discharge point. We also recommend that paved surfaces, and ground near or adjacent to structures be sloped to drain away from the structures. Surface water from Carlson Geotechnical Page 30 of 35 214 I I I Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 pavement surfaces and open spaces should be collected and routed to a suitable discharge point. Surface water should not be directed onto slopes or into foundation drains. 5.11 Seismic Design 5.11.1 IBC Desiqn Criteria Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and analyses, we have assumed a Site Class B (basalt bedrock) for the subsurface conditions encountered. The following parameters were determined using the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) design criteria and the United States Geological Survey Seismic Design Values for Buildings - Ground Motion Parameter Calculator": Table ;: IBC Design Parameters IBC Classification Value Site Class B Occupancy 11 Category* 0.337 Seismic Design D Category 0.948 *If this is not correct, please inform us so that changes to our recommendations can be made, if warranted. 5.11.2 Liquefaction IBC Parameter Value Ss 0.948 Fa 1.000 S1 0.337 F, 1.000 Sms 0.948 SMi 0.337 SDs 0.632 SD1 0.225 In general, liquefaction occurs when deposits of loose, saturated soils, generally sands, sand - silt mixtures, and soft to medium stiff, non -plastic silts, are subjected to strong earthquake shaking. If these deposits cannot drain rapidly, there will be an increase in the pore water pressure. With increasing oscillation, the pore water pressure can increase to the value of the overburden pressure. The shear strength of a cohesionless soil is directly proportional to the effective stress, which is equal to the difference between the overburden pressure and the pore 41 United States Geological Survey, 2009. 2006 IBC Design Parameters determined using:, "Seismic Design Values for Buildings - Ground Motion Parameter Calculator - Version 5.0.9," from the USGS website http://earthauake, usgs,c_ov. Carlson Geotechnical Page 31 of 35 215 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 water pressure. When the pore water pressure increases to the value of the overburden pressure, the shear strength of the soil reduces to zero, and the soil deposit turns into a liquefied state. The following parameters are generally used to designate non -liquefiable, fine-grained soils: • Liquid limit greater than 35 percent • Plasticity index greater than 12 percent. • Water content less than 80 percent of the liquid limit. The susceptibility of sands, gravels, and sand -gravel mixtures to liquefaction is typically assessed based on relative density. Based on the shallow depth to hard basalt bedrock encountered within the explorations, the materials encountered within the explorations are considered non -liquefiable within the depths explored. 5.11.3 Slope Instability Based on the shallow depth to hard basalt bedrock, the risk of large-scale slope instability at the site is considered to be low. The soils near the top of the cliff and shallow materials on the steepest portions of the site are susceptible to instability, particularly if disturbed. If the property owner wishes to further define the risk of slope instability at the site, a quantitative slope stability analysis could be performed. Such an analysis would require additional borings using powered drilling equipment, and is outside the scope of this assignment. 5.11.4 Surface Rupture Although the site is situated in a region of the country known for seismic activity, no known active faults exist on or immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, the risk of surface rupture at the site due to faulting or lateral spread is considered low. 5.11.5 Seiche Inundation Given the proposed elevation of the building pad above Oswego Lake, the risk of inundation of the building pad from a seismically -induced seiche is considered negligible. 5.11.6 Lateral Spread Another form of surface rupture termed lateral spread can occur on sites adjacent to open bodies of water. During lateral spread the ground immediately adjacent to open water loses Carlson Geotechnical Page 32 of 35 216 I. Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 strength due to liquefaction as described earlier in this report. This ground, unrestrained by surrounding land, is then subject to lateral movement toward and/or into the open body of water. Historically, sites more than 500 feet from shore have been considered "safe" from lateral spread. However, recent seismic events have shown that the mechanism of lateral spread can occur over greater distances. Given the negligible risk of liquefaction at the site, the risk of lateral spread at the site is considered low. 6.0 OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION Satisfactory earthwork, foundation, and pavement performance depends to a large degree on the quality of construction. Sufficient observation of the contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications. Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during subsurface explorations, and recognition of changed conditions often requires experience. We recommend that qualified personnel visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions change significantly from those observed to date and anticipated in this report. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer or their representative attend a pre -construction meeting coordinated by the contractor and/or developer. The project geotechnical engineer or their representative should provide observations and/or testing of at least the following earthwork elements during construction: • Stripping and Grubbing. • Subgrade Preparation for Structural Fills, Shallow Foundations, Floor Slabs, and Pavements. • Compaction of Structural Fill. • Compaction of Utility Trench Backfill. • Placement of Foundation, Retaining Wall, and Other Drains. • Placement and Compaction of Retaining Wall Backfill. • Compaction of Base Rock for Floor Slabs and Pavements. It is imperative that the owner and/or contractor request earthwork observations and testing at a frequency sufficient to allow the geotechnical engineer to provide a final letter of compliance for the earthwork activities. Carlson Geotechnical Page 33 of 35 217 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 92, 2009 7.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by the owner/developer and other members of the design and construction team for the proposed development. Our recommendations are not intended to indicate that all geologic hazards can be mitigated by proper engineering. They are provided in order to assist the project engineer in evaluating site conditions based on geologic research and preliminary, site specific, surface and shallow subsurface exploration. The opinions and recommendations contained within this report are not intended to be, nor shouldthey be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions, but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. We have made observations based on our explorations that indicate the soil conditions at only those specific locations and only to the depths penetrated. These observations do not necessarily reflect soil types, strata thickness, or water level variations that may exist between or away from our explorations. If subsurface conditions vary from those encountered in our site explorations, CGT should be alerted to the change in conditions so that we may provide additional geotechnical recommendations, if necessary. Observation by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. The owner/developer is responsible for insuring that the project designers and contractors implement our recommendations. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the design drawings and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. If design changes are made, we request that we be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written modification or verification. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by a degree of uncertainty. Professional judgments presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed construction, familiarity with similar projects in the area, and on general experience. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared; no warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Carlson Geotechnical FSU 7 Page 34 of 35 Puterbaugh Residence Lake Oswego, Oregon CGT Project Number G0903349 March 12, 2009 We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, CARLSON GEOTECHNICAL � NE 1 4,� '15,764 �9 6— Ryan_.--. Ryan T. Houser, CEG William M. Weyrauch, P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer rhouser(a'Dcarlsontesting.com bweyrauch(D-carlsontesting.com Attachments: Site Location, Figure 1 Site Plan, Figure 2 Site Photographs, Figure 3 Soil Classification Criteria and Terminology, Figure 9 ODOT Rock Classification Criteria and Terminology, Figure 10 Boring Log, Figure 11 Hand Auger Boring Logs, Figures 12 and 13 Fill Slope Detail, Figure 14 Wall Backfill Detail, Figure 15 Doc ID: G:IGEOTECH\PROJECTS\2009 Projects\Puterbaugh - Phantom Bluff\Puterbaugh Residence Geotech.doc Carlson Geotechnical Page 35 of 35 219 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON SITE LOCATION 3. w //'> to ox,�..a„ 1 1orl.;�i' F'.1lt+rrr•�-yam ":✓' �+� Club + t LAKE" DROVE ANF ,k ! arA .il.. %r .. .. s 'T ra Headm , «• Dia more ' f 1 � I c, Twirl Points 1, =�' `' � `" �—•�_,..•_� •.jam---�.r., �f � r'�t 34 411G�o NZ'2' t 7 SITE LOCATION° _ 1�1 r A ��. ..Kr '�'�' - , •r,.r�" rr - r�� PA11"11sIP•%'�� �„� /�/ ^ }}}JJJYYY��_r . t �'✓t * � � , jf � # c �; �"' ,•".� -�--� SurrCd hl .aFP i .�.. � �•! r .s �s,{ Y1 � _ � .T •/ �jr" a$ .�• 'i- � •� �� _.,I i36RG7S _ %}.1-*=� it /� r �'` ►d;'` r FJ"' w f s':% �,rL7L�f{S6 �k.3 t'i@��-` _ �.� i.r'._ /.. lt:l ` ..ems. �h �)�. � it t f 1 QSVYDCA Y ~� --.� i �.�•� � ,� it �I .� � ? t. F I /� t. I ', � -'4 !,• � I,'. Map created with TOPO!TA4, © 2006 National Geographic Holdings Scale 1 Inch - 2,000 feet USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Lake Oswego, Oregon Quadrangle. Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Section 9 Willamette Meridian 0 2000 4000 Carlson Geotechnical G6� P.O. Box 23814 CGT Job No. G0903349 FIGURE 1 5U3•G01.6250 Tigard, Oregon 97281 221 PUTERBA UGH RESIDENCE -LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON SITE PLAN SS& PACO M m2u""'" o® soar—� / Approximate Scale 1 inch = 50 feet 0 50 100 Cross Section A -A' shown on Figure 3. NOTES: LEGEND Drawing based on Topographic Map CGT Job No. provided by client and observations made B•1 & Approximate location of hollow stem auger G0903349 while on site. and NX core boring. /\2 Number, location, and direction of site photographs shown on Figure 4. Carlson Geotechnical HA -1 P.O. Box 23814 W©-1 Approximate location of hand auger boring and FIGURE 2 503-601 szso Tigard, Oregon 97181 Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. 222 PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON CROSS SECTION A -A' A A, 220 Proposed Residence (approximate location) Existing Grade 200 180 T \n/ _ / x n 100 /y\/y\/\Y �� \ / r phi ,Y/\Y 140 P L\/\ /0 / \/ j\/\'\ 120 Q, / \Av / 100 /k� t ��/\ \�� \� �y\/y \ i�, , No Vertical Exaggeration Approximate Scale 1 inch = 50 feet 0 50 100 NOTES: LEGEND Cross section based on topographic map provided by Client (Figure 2), and on r17 Soil (Lean Clay &Clayey Sand) CGT Job No. G0903349 observations made while on site. 0 Talus Grande Ronde Basalt Bedrock C'PC�G Ti7�' Carlson Geotechnical P.O. Box 23814 FIGURE 3 503-601 .8250 Tigard, Oregon 97281 223 PUTERBAUGf � RESIDENCE e LACE OSWEGO, OREGON SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1: Area of proposed residence Photograph 2: Area of proposed residence facing southeast, facing southwest. Photograph 3: Northwestern portion of site Photograph 4: Northwestern portion of site facing southwest. facing south. Gp,R O� Car/son Geotechnical P.O. Box 23894 c503.601.8250 Tigard, Oregon 97289 224 See Figure 2 for approximate photograph locations and directions. CGT Job No. G0903349 FIGURE 4 PU ERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON GEOLOGIC MAP Tertiary Columbia River Basalt (Middle Miocene) Pleistocene Catastrophic Flood Deposits I czvav Grande Ronde Basalt - Winter Water Unit O1° Coarse -Grained Facies Qal� Recent Alluvium 74'r, Grande Ronde Basalt - R2 Unit L.. Fine -Grained Facies Ql s Undifferentiated Sediments Ana, Channel Facies Pliocene to Holocene Ttsh ` Grande Ronde Basalt - Sand Hollow Unit Tic Grande Ronde Basalt - Ginkgo Unit To5U Grande Ronde Basalt - Sentinel Bluffs Unit Tic Grande Ronde Basalt - Ortley Flows Unit Map adapted from Beeson et. al., 1989, Geologic Map of the Scale 1 Inch - 2,000 feet Lake Oswego Quadrangle Township 2 South, Flange 1 East, Section 9 Willamette Meridian 0 2000 4000 � � Carlson Geotechnical G6� P.O. Box 23814 CGT Jab No. G0903345 FIGURE ss3•s Tigard, Oregon 97281 225 PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON FLOOD HAZARDS Lake Oswego Area Flood Hazards hiU •i '=L:19 �7 d 4� rY f. 1 GREEN E �j Lots Affected by Floodplain Lots Possibly Affected by Floodplain Lake Oswego Flood Management Area Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary Water Feature Maps adapted from the City of Lake Oswego Hazard Maps, July 2004 (Figure 4-1). Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Section 9 Willamette Meridian Q� Carlson Geotechnical ��' P.O. Box 23894 CGT Job No. G0903349 503.684.3460 Tigard, Oregon 97281 I� �!i .`A-6,A,'?ES t! cltt_/fyl/Q�sikY Scale 1 Inch = 1000 feet 0 1000 2000 FIGURE 6 PUT ERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS Lake Oswego Area Earthquake Hazards ) j �� ss 4t' SITE LOCATION 5 i i V. Hazard Zones: �a Zone A (greatest hazard) I Zone S Zane C Zone D (least hazard) Fault i Water Feature tAaps adapted from the City of Lake Oswego Hazard Maps, July 2004 (Figure 4-5). Scale 1 Inch = 1000 feet Townshin 2 South; Rand 1 East, Section 9 Willamette Meridian 0 1000 2000 UDR, Carlson Geotechnical P.O. Box 23814 GGT .lob No. G0903349 FIGURE 7 sn� ssa-6o Tigard, Oregon 97281 227 PUTERBA UGH RESIDENCE -LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON SLOPE/LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Lake Oswego Area Slope/Landslide Hazards Percent Slope., - 011/0 r Landslides 10%-14.9% Debris Flows Potential Landslides 2'0%-34.9% > 35% Water Feature Maps adapted from the City of Lake Oswego Hazard Maps, July 2004 (Figure 4-2). Scale 1 Inch = 1000 feet r� Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Section 9- Willamette Meridian 0 1000 2000 Carlson Geotechnical P.O. Box 23894 CGT Job No. G0903349 FIGURE 8 503.68a 3aso3aso Tigard, Oregon 97289 PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON SOIL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA AND TERMINOLOGY Classification of Terms and Content USCS Grain Size NAME: MINOR Constituents (12-50%); MAJOR Constituents (>50%); Slightly (5-12%) Relative Density or Consistency Color Moisture Content Plasticity Trace Constituents (0-5%) Other. Grain Shape, Approximate gradation, Organics, Cement, Structure, Odor.... Geologic Name or Formation: (Fill, Willamette Silt, Till, Alluvium,...) Fines <#200 (.075 mm) Sand Fine #200 -#40 (.425 mm) Medium #40 - #10 (2 mm) Coarse #10 -#4 (4.75) Gravel Fine #4 - 0.75 inch Coarse 0.75 inch - 3 inches Cobbles 3 to 12 inches; scattered <15% est., numerous >15% est. Boulders > 12 inches Relative Density or Consistency Granular Material Fine -Grained cohesive Materials SPT SPT Torvane tsf Pocket Pen tsf Manual Penetration Test N -Value Density N -Value Shear Strength Unconfined Consistency <2 <0.13 >0.25 Very Soft Easy several inches by fist 0 - 4 VeryLoose 2 - 4 0.13-0.25 0.25-0.50 Soft Easy several inches by thumb 4-10 Loose 4 - 8 0.25-0.50 0,50-1.00 Medium Stiff Moderate several inches by thumb 10-30 Medium Dense 8-15 0.50-1.00 1.00 -2.00 Stiff Readily indented by thumb 30-50 Dense 15-30 1.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail >50 Very Dense >30 >2.00 >4.00 Hard Difficult by thumbnail Moisture Content Dry: Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp: Some moisture but leaves no moisture on hand Moist: Leaves moisture on hand Wet: Visible free water, likely from below water table Structure Stratified: Alternating layers of material or color >6 mm thick Laminated: Alternating layers < 6 mm thick Fissured: Breaks along definate fracture planes Slickensided: Striated, polished, or glossy fracture planes Blocky: Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown Lenses: Has small pockets of different soils, note thickness Homogeneous: Same color and appearance throughout Plasticity Dry Strength Dilatancy ML Non to Low Non to Low Slow to Rapid CL Low to Med. Medium to High None to Slow MH Med to High Low to Medium None to Slow CH Med to High High to V. High None Toughness Low, can't roll Medium Low to Medium Hiah Unified Soil Classification Chart Visual -Manual Procedure Similar to ASTM Designation D-2488 Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels: 50% or more retained on the No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels GW Well graded gravels and ravel -sand mixtures little or no fines GP Poorly -graded gravels and ravel -sand mixtures little or no fines Gravels with Fines GM Silty gravels, ravel -sand -silt mixtures GC Clavey gravels, gravel-sand-claymixtures Sands: more than 501/o passing the No. 4 Sieve Clean Sands SW Well -graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly -graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Sands with Fines SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures Fine -Grained Soils: 50% or more Passes No. 200 Sieve Silt and Clays Low Plasticity Fines ML Inorganic silts rock flour, cla ey silts CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays OL Organic sift and organic silty clays of low plasticity Silt and Clays High Plasticity Fines MH Inorganic silts, clayey silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, muck. and other highly organic soils GPRG ray Carlson Geotechnical CGT Job No. G0903349 Figure 9 �'�f- P.O. Box 23814 503.6® Tigard, Oregon 97281 229 PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON ODOT ROCK CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA AND TERMINOLOGY �'-GTjt�ay Carlson Geotechnical t 7185 SW Sandburg #110 CGT Job No. G0903349 Figure 10 503-601.8250 Tigard, Oregon 97223 230 R O Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE 11 Street, Suite 110 GP f 7185 SW Sandburg CC'�LGy Tigard, OR 97223 BORING B-1 L Telephone: (503) 601-8250 503-601.8250 Fax: (503) 601-6254 PAGE 1 OF CLIENT George Puterbaugh PROJECT NAME Puterbau h Residence PROJECT NUMBER G0903349 PROJECT LOCATION Tax Lot 1902 - Phantom Bluff Court - Lake we o DATE STARTED 02/25/09 ELEVATION DATUM Taken from site plan supplied by client. DRILLING CONTRACTOR Subsurface Technologies GROUND ELEVATION 196.0 ft DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger & NX Rock Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY M. David Irish CHECKED BY Ryan Houser AT TIME OF DRILLING --- NOTES Mobile D-50 track mounted drill rig. AFTER DRILLING – ATTERBERG �– z a z W o LIMITS w U U _O ~^ cr > of W w W �z aLU �c ~� W =) H z a c9 p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Wm g > m o Y V a W O ¢a 0 a Oz O �O �� g 0Z ter. w ¢z U � � o � Z W p a U - —= OL Soft, dark brown, organic, CLAY TOPSOIL, rootlets 4 2(6) and roots, moist. 195 �S 33 Medium stiff, brown, LEAN CLAY, with trace small roots (less than 1/4 -inch diameter), moist. CL With sand below about 2 1/2 feet bgs. 2(5)3 2S 33 25 34 23 11 5 Medium dense, brown, CLAYEY SAND, moist. 3(85 190 3S 44 27 37 SC Contains fragments of weathered basalt below about 6.5 feet bgs. Medium hard (R3), gray, BASALT, ROD = very poor. SS 100 5011" 4 :;ORE 51 5 10 185 :�ORE 67 6 RX Hard (R4) and RQD = Excellent below about 13.5 feet bgs. 15 180 ORE 100 7 Boring terminated at about 18.5 feet bgs. No caving or groundwater observed within the borehole. Borehole backfilled with bentonite pellets by Subsurface Technologies. 231 232 R Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE 13 02 GP 7165 SW Sandburg Street, Suite 110 Tigard, OR 97223 BORING HA -2 Telephone: (503) 601-8250 soa-soy-else Fax: (503) 601-6254 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Georoe Puterbaugh PROJECT NAME Puterbaugh Residence PROJECT NUMBER G0903349 PROJECT LOCATION Tax Lot 1902 -Phantom Bluff Court -Lake Osweoo, DATE STARTED 03/O2JO9 ELEVATION DATUM Taken from site plan supplied by client. DRILLING CONTRACTOR CGT GROUND ELEVATION 188 ft DRiLLING METHOD Hand Auger GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY M. David Irish CHECKED BY Ryan Houser AT TIME OF DRILLING _— NUTES AFTER DRILLING — ATTERBERG F zO �� r w LU z W o LIMITS z U x d U x vi U �^ w W °� of t ��x o z J n F- �� z z p -� r 0-0 J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q aZ Ov moZ z uj co N �o ov C7 j �V �" �g oz g� z w V w D 2O �� w ZK IL 0 U IL a 0 l L OL Soft, dark brown, organic, CLAY TOPSOIL, rootlets 2 and roots, moist. 3 Medium stiff, brown, LEAN CLAY, with trace small 5 CL roots (less than 1/4 -inch diameter}, moist. 186 5 6 Hand auger refusal at 2.5 feet bgs on rock fragment. 5 3 Groundwater not encountered. 2 5 5 5 25 233 PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON FILL SLOPE DETAIL 2 1 Benching, graded at 112 to 2 percent down, into slope Native Soil 3 -foot Horizontal Overbuild Final Fill Slope Face (21-1:1V max) Original Ground H Surface 4' minimum bench width, H/10 or 2' minimum bench height Fill Key Subdrain, subject to Soil H/2 or Engineer's review, installed 10' Minimum at back of keyway and every 10 vertical feet of benching. NOTE: Surfaces to receive fill with slopes steeper than 5H:1V (horizontal:vertical) should be benched and keyed as shown. H/10 or 2' Minimum Embedment 234 VPR.l, Carlson Geotechnical 0--1,00- 1 P.O. Box 23814 CGT Job No. G0903349 FIGURE 14 503.6® Tigard, Oregon 97281 234 PUTERBAUGH RESIDENCE - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON ACTIVE LATERAL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION STATIC LOADING CONDITIONS ------------------------, I LEGEND: SA = STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (LB/FT3)* / PA = STATIC ACTIVE THRUST FORCE ACTING AT A 11, Tigard, Oregon 97281 �503-601-8250 I TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTION ON WALL (LB/FT)* _ _ ANGLE FROM NORMAL OF BACK OF WALL I (DEGREES). BASED ON FRICTION DEVELOPING �. = ('/:)(SA)(HZ) PA BETWEEN WALL AND BACKFILL.** INTERNAL ANGLE OF FRICTION FOR BACKFILL I H I (DEGREES),** SLOPE OF BACKFILL (DEGREES).** I p = SLOPE OF BACK OF THE WALL (DEGREES).** 9bA — (SA)(H) H!3 QbA = ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (STATIC) AT THE BOTTOM ___O_F_TH_E_W_— __________________—{ `REFER TO REPORT TEXT FOR CALCULATED VALUES **REFER TO REPORT TEXT FOR MODELED / ASSUMED VALUES. I ------------------------------ SEISMIC LOADING CONDITIONS i i PA = ('/�XSMHZ) H___---- H/3 �bA= (SA)(H) 9IE= ('/s)(SAE" SA)(H) PE = ('/xXSAE - SA)(H2) 0.6H QbE = ('/x)(SAE" SA)(H) -------------------------------------------------------------- :LEGEND: : SA = STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (LB/FT3)* SAE = TOTAL (STATIC +DYNAMIC) EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (LBIFT3)* PA = STATIC COMPONENT OF ACTIVE THRUST FORCE ACTING AT A TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTION ON WALL (LBIFT) I PE = DYNAMIC COMPONENT OF ACTIVE THRUST FORCE ACTING AT A UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION ON WALL (LB/FT) i S = ANGLE FROM NORMAL OF BACK OF WALL (DEGREES)** j � = INTERNAL ANGLE OF FRICTION FOR BACKFILL, REFER TO REPORT TEXT FOR VALUE (DEGREES)** I i = SLOPE OF BACKFILL (DEGREES)** I P = SLOPE OF BACK OF WALL (DEGREES)** I QbA = ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (STATIC) AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL. i QbE = ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (DYNAMIC) AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL. 19tE=ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (DYNAMIC) AT THE TOP OF THE WALL. L------------------------------------------------------- -I IREFER TO REPORT TEXT FOR CALCULATED VALUES. I "'REFER TO REPORT TEXT FOR MODELED I ASSUMED VALUES. Note: 1. Uniform pressure distribution of seismic loading is based on emperical evaluations [Sherif et al, 1982 and Whitman, 1990j. 2. Placement of seismic resultant force at 0.6H is based on wall behavior and model test results [Whitman, 1990]. 235 ALCW:mloiZvTV� Carlson Geotechnical P.O. Box 23814CGT Job No. G0903349 FIGURE 15 11, Tigard, Oregon 97281 �503-601-8250 235 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department Planning Division 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE.' Puterbaugh property — Phantom Bluff Court, Lake Oswego, Oregon Tree Survey Dear Planning Staff: I, Gary E. Drendel, Certified Arborist, was retained by George Puterbaugh to conduct a tree survey and assessment on the above referenced property. On March 5, 2009, I located, measured and identified all trees on the property 6 inches or more in caliper size — measuring 4 and 1/2 feet from ground level. My findings are incorporated into the topographic survey plans done by Andy Paris and Associates for Mr. Puterbaugh's single lot partition application. The plans identify each tree by species, size, and location. There are 26 trees on or adjacent to the property. Attached is a list of the trees. Except for Trees #'s 2, 18, and 26, the trees exhibit moderate health. Tree 42 is a 20 inch Valley Oak with a 3 foot cavity in its stump. Tree 918 is a I 1 inch Black Locust exhibiting root decay in its stump. Tree 926 is a 36 inch Douglas fir showing signs of poor health. The tree survey identifies 7 trees intended for removal. The trees, 43, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 18, are all marked with yellow ribbon. Applicant informs me that no additional tree removal or site disturbing activities are intended with the current application. However, applicant did inform me that residential development is intended in the future. Future residential development will involve site disturbing activities. As such, in my professional opinion, required mitigation, including mitigation plans, tree protections, and tree plantings should be imposed as a condition of approval on the subject application. Certified trees which require protection for construction purposes can be determined when applicant has developed detailed construction plans and identified specific areas of impact. Protection measures will be in place during construction. Tree plantings required by the Code should be done after construction. In short, it is recommended that tree protection and mitigation requirements be made a condition of development approval. This will ensure the required tree protection and mitigation and promote survival of newly planted and retained trees during and after construction. I, Gar/E.rendel Cerrborist 4 PN360 Dat— 2( EXHIBIT F•5 LU 09-0009 237 Tree Inventory performed by Gary Drendel, Certified Arborist Date of Inventory: 3/5/09 Location, size and species size of trees are identified on topographic survey map. Tree 9: 1- 28 inch D. fir 2- 20 inch Valley Oak — 3 foot cavity in stump 3- 24 inch Norway Maple 4- 17 inch Valley Oak 5- 24 inch D. fir 6- 8 inch Norway Maple 7- 10 inch Norway Maple 8- 22 inch Ponderosa Pine 9- 12 inch Black Locust 10- 10 inch Black Locust fl- 10 inch Black Locust 12- 26 inch D. fir 13 41 inch D. fir 14- 29 inch D. fir 15- 37 inch D. fir 16- 42 inch D. fir 17- 30 inch D. fir 18- 11 inch Black Locust — root decay in stump 19- 16 inch Valley Oak 20- 24 inch D. fir 21- 39 inch D. fir 22- 8 inch White Birch 23- 12 inch Oregon Ash 24- 50 inch Western Red Cedar 25- 36 inch D. fir 26- 36 inch D. fir - tree showing signs of poor health Except for Trees #26, 18, and 2 — trees exhibiting moderate health 239 O ¢n \ [r x Amo Ao V E 0 . \ ..o�• / � a a x W n r- 200 ----\— — y Pe ,Zae — 1a1 q' o e l�} � N S N [ (1T a � m A � vt � � �" c �� �J• P z w � o eAi �� � �? \ a �' • g' O roi Pl y \ .( • S Mu. M l e R`L r Ai< N A A ON �Ag C1 b Imom so.<z•. i iny�g` Qg�N c ;Q�. to s 'b ca �n SQZ'z .7J 0 m vr— I i77n2g `�g i� cw p f7'9 .Cd .,D tq JE uvOim� ozyN ai m CO i agm$n al _b a o� so AN 2 k DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 20 21 `.'Q 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 .30 31 32 now, therefor4i', IT is HERE . BY ORDERED ANL? AD caption of UDGED that the cipt, to read "In` the'MAtt.i-m-31 the Court order Number 7123 hea . ltered Vacation of Southwest Phantom B lu f f RoAd" -and. th evacatiori - of, said road as set forth in the lay. Gf said' Order, N.V ber '712* s hereby confirmed,.- DATED- this day .oi-J'61y' coi5qt-y- Ju.dge Page COURT ORDER Nupb-m 1 �7 EXHIBIT F-6 LU 09-0009 241 i �.r `�rY'ai1,��, .._['�'``i'Itl-'�cr�.�11..... ,}'. '/ 1i •Ti .�..C.� 1�, s?�'�F`.?t� Ise .......day Of_...........Februar� TNJS CONTRACT, A/adr !!vt ._., , ., ... N a._R1CH�3<D_81Tl�msas_. sad , MZl Dlltffi.:B .-«BUImEI.PJIF. t . husband.. sad, .xi fe...__._.. _._._ �� _ ._ ....:•_..... :_ _ _ ___.._:__ h leis! ate► adyKih �I rOlOiaR_S.;PiTl688Ai1GH_•^ A-�Y_Ba_PUrBRfI►UCH.,. of an ._a s..r.., . . hervinatta called the er,. w1rNBSSBTNt That in owWlerarlon of the mutual coreaante and atrsemente lrretrt contained, the.: arnv yrss►.to sell unto the buyer and the'buyer 4 ee to purdwo Iron rhe seller all of the loflowln/ de•, sodbid lends and womiase situated 1st_._..,C1ackfW8_ _CatntY, Staled...., _':w:..:._ .:........_ .. Descriptions= Attached -SM11BIT : SMLIZC! to' ctn►ditione on =11371 11D" tittachad hereto ' IE'Ais understood And.'agrsed by and between SeLlers and Purchasers _ .,,that Purehasere shall not pa or '-than-29% of"the urehaae-prico _ ___ during - the -.calendar year -1972„and not -store • than -36� of the- purchnse-price during the-calendar•yoar'1973s and the remaining 75% of -the purchase prioo during the calendar year 1974 without the rior'mrittan consent of the Sellers.. _ r , ” �i 25;000:aD l« th. wn Dollar. (lutelrultei ulfad the unclose prim), on aarount d whkh P.iva«•Tho6uiand,. and.,t►o/„l0d w �. - .....Dollars fl„ 31000, 0 /r paid on the arers/tlon hereof (I hs rwip f of which jkJ/eeab ab�nwisd/fld by III seller); IM fluyst areas to pay the remainder of sold, purcha” rfae (lo-wltf i• d the u!!er in rrwnehly paymerid d not tele flun.,,�tl.f#1?Fid=4d E.�Bbtj! Si]C, ,M to, Ddlarr (1., 356, DD__-..) each, ......... ........... ........... W___.._ _ _._.. _._..,.._.............._.. __ sayable on chi.._J t_ day of each month heredter e mon belinnind with thth d.....:_« % end lvrtlirwnl'until veld pumhe" prlra lr fully pold.'All of said purchase"prko"may'ie-paid it "ills ail deterred be... of ofd purchase Arlo rtlall b%er interest at the rate o _Si%_. par cen/ per anlwm lrom.,.._.- t._: dict-=..�-�• •.••.-�: •.•.:;.� �': unlf{ paid, lnlsraif to bePaid. °•::. -' the minfmum'monfhly"payments"aWire'npuired: Taros od said prOili:lfir ihi corrin/ I- year.alsell be -tiro rated between the parties hersto as of the data of this oontrad. '`_, -•.M }Y,w rrrM1 t1'M/ NINWI rNA'IM rile 1A•1 IM IW M.Irlr'a.rr1A11 M'IW�rrrW'L� "�'-�_ —'= --• ""' '- »w far�YLu1aNY V LYY•J'F=•• = /IwtiY. Lrl-f .++M�Ilr.l r,.�•r .._._,.. _ __ t►J�.wN�ww• r•..,.'+..•.r�rrr.•�wr..w.w.vel.r.r�7��ww+�!r!f.7rrnlnnrt+�f�+a ;.... �,• T Ww tAia M wNNf N /.uw•dw it ru /•wf. rn -- Pebrud•�,rt 1. 111 L:...r .r.r ird,r .I.A rN•«Nrr .. wv n'.., : _- ' rN N IIW N. /rlaWl w•Irt fIu Irww N /Yw wwlW7M MryM •NNt Nrl •I N!"l4w J•�.W fwI tM iW/tY• errtrr rY rrwiw. Irr M }NMllr ' ` ,NNr�, M /rW rrYrlrw •rrd rrr• Mf will — w.N r Mfw.rr rI r,Nr r N tANrI/ IAI, M rYl }wF rY N••w•rr IrN Ir•M wNINrYI }It1 Ml MAN /••. •N rr1 IN «/Nr IM•Yrrr I�•wrhrw tNt rN+Nrr wIIN Ir Ifl I•,tr .r•1.IIrIrI�, Irw NYYIM LY ANn M IINMNY •I.YW -••vF Intal IW Ar .YI ,rY Mr NrN ANUIIN IrrM •I•MY rY M•r1I, r .rY r NI r•rh rw.. WMk t1wfN •.,/ rwYnwMN I•rn+ rAYA F«r- f S Mn r ,N« I..IIN ,.yl M NwI Yr• Ntl f•••d••w NI MrwW11 M�r IM uuw r r.r ►• I /hrrf 1r1•Ir.r MY W7IAN N M.IMa rI1Yw. M wN! Itr•YI •1.1 r Mwn/ Nl "ISM IIN 1 ri/, MNNFM IJNIW Nr r Jt1Me1 aY MI fYNa IIIINI( 1•rN}M/ NI M MwYN �"' .•.I Irr /N• 1 a:ascitauo� -• .. A" • 1.M}/ • r ,.w.rN.t r1Al,ttall N IM «fM1 Nh h IrNfrir aM 1. dh rN Irl Ilw• �• /Y Lwr r . _ _ f�. rNIIN1Yr M«W, Mlr. •IMr al N/ M11/r, Y Mnrwr le lv ,Nlnrrl N IM Wfw N r•M r tr•••d.!! NIM Www K.11 1.4 N Ivr vers—_ � �_ , /hM. •IYA •N.r NNA INK r /ArIN r 1. Nrrwr IM Mf M •vrA Inrwlrrt, IM rl / d• r.IW •rN Mlwww/ wM YWI 4+J,IN.-..... -- Ihr prpiw , Iwl Yr Mr Iral MfW11 ►r INI tvrlr, Ml ,Nn LrY hlrNl •I IM III, • W, .YArR wWw. ►••..et. N •y NIA/ rt•W N - IM wlNf M NII n'1 Mlwrr Y Iwltr/• 7M WIN •�r«r IArr M �. I.Irrr •M NAM • 30 • d n IrNn IM i.N AtrNlr M •YI IwrJIF Yr• Fum • /NIr in.w . plY�rM• - wYW IM •w .-.ver yutl N N Iwt}ser Irwl 1 N�AIr .Nlrh .rl N H Mhrwr, M tM NI1N •n r NrF r N IM 41r N IM N ♦/ M rtnM ,A• awwN IrMN rtnM«wt Irt1 tM MWJrn1 M rhh �I IIYrMw rr rrwMt Iw trswil •nl• LOW ,rfl N. 11, f .Mw ,Ili NNArr Icer N /Wlr NY IM - r.NrN M b+WrMr YM IM }YI.I, H Yfwlr wrlrnYrl • r,W/mrNhlMMrMrlr M rY/ /rNm • ,rJ f wlfrNN IM IMZlw« YM N N to Orr Aw«d •M hN NW .M•r N N! rrY.wtWrr.eN 4 dr1 ,•rrrrd• IrrM1/N r •INAI II• IAINrIA r YMN 11 w. rtNMMf, A•.rrr, IFr t•Af NaNwrr •r.Y MlrNln•rt •M IM rn. .,..IaelAal /rM. r•M rr•rt IM rJlr .IwIN r •r••aN !J IN }ul rl •wd IWIMI Ia//NMI III Wm •N Ita..wr•rn t«•ht }r IM WIN Y AN •twM. ♦M, N M YM«Nwd •r.d �Ir YFN. rrl IWi.1.~irr� ,'rrAi di � /Ar~Iw I rrllrM IAw•tMr�tNtr N�» r•t! fAf iVYN rANI f,:l N HA. M _- ._ _ � .,.r ,,. M•I •u I AItY fr(NwNM Mrlr1 r.M,IW, I�,rq •«^STM herr ANIArr •Inver ,Mr 1•INnr AI Nr r/1f- r •• INn. N r. �rrM Mrr Fr IA• INYN N ••r NtNN•• Mrr•Y M•Il In w.:^ •ei _ J' I Ai rNhl hn.u•dr! M rAMrr IAr unr, w• Ma71 NI ,hrr fN •r,J w11N I Y Ilrwh,w•1 .M M•rANn ANIr M MY h M r •Nrrr wl I MMMT MINA N •w/ wwh p•rNb•, w « • r.Nrr N IAr ,«•rNrn NMlI, 25 000.00 Ar I_ IM rl.Y .rNl/rdbw MW Ir IW In Wll, aW-e W I,!- N IYNn N 1 ,t..._......__.. N -. ra'r!(jyfitr''nrT RIM f1,IQf• .y1 trrM1lr•UIUT�MP1NAwwR1Rr ARtrytrV MI111►r1l►.Y 1f eIQ•AIO rANh "? r.rWlNlw fMfltrr rf•YAl.m ^ <L wdl r IM 1. MNU•/N N /r N!'.r IAM r 1 r h • Irrr •V •I IJ!r Ir•r,•Nw. ANNE, IM A,rlw IN«I IMM// A tY,N •a IAr �1' f dANN �wwAl. • Ilrwry', Iver Fr Ihrrd M•Wlfl M r4 r II r 1rn IM 1! « IIr-rl w I•Itw Itrw I IW{ I r YNrr _. ' .rrrl I, IFI •IlNlrlr twit ,Intl M/wIr INNrIM •. IINMIfI � Nlrrwr i Nn tin Nwh f� � .:��irltla.l,�a�Ndt.�^i�rc�tb Ix�b�ix IMrwI11 I• r.NNrww1 IMt rrrrl. Ir N uNrtrrwN/�.IM I•r tMrr r IM I it«IrNwiw ,N /��w•w nr IIIi•1%fist rNII Ii i�i� rtlrN t4^MYIA•If I •� ,�t ,�. It. rwriM wa r tNrw �wNin rN ,hh M�rMrrWMNwI :•rNVIW r rr hr r.••dt. I•.wnrd •r.f A„M N ww tr INI rrlh M WIrNbM .N 1. NNlrtlrl/. '" IN WITNESS WflbREOF, old pantlm have ax Kuted lhts lndrumanl In dupllrnte; 11 elfher of !!lo Un- ocal affixed hereto by lie dllmn duly aufha i d thereunto by ord of its bonrd of d!► t s, a �' •.��+�j k� O _ � , �C/1 C� ., �� • r�ty ...,w'" -`err. ^< /{�' !�1/•�j" .d '-:rC.o �c l� �Lr,/ rprbN, INu M,uMor NnN ••d wit h•m ` IAr I INI N Nr•M N. II � %� Ili 1N .• At //. tNwdt IT• If ;T�!'�::��j.��:7pN••/��°� _ •n u,INAii. Ndd w dA rhr.« /.. ,: N •L .ryfLYb Nr. M,w M..Iea 4 veer NIr N W imhw wpr •And pNMN. to.- NAIe Nrn . Mwl• y'i�' t N iM�•h•� •dot 4,1 •w1 .ilNNlr• 1 Oat eu t Ii1Y veal Aa Owl It IMwr Mt Iwtlwhr ._. .N/+- IIINr jr.:; ��{,•�i.:t • ^ t N « rwtNt _ N . trNI1M M rRNA 1•«I 111 INrM.•INtt X•. IlW N NNIr, _ „ _. - _ - _ —17d4 105k EXHIBIT F-7 LU 09-0009 243 a..�. ,. saaAt..•-„'-�r�.i.�a .ti �l..:'•;L�CWY/'�:'i�� :: '; t F,. L ` 3 : Y�r: :'s- ✓'�. _y.,y, i' !3:i.teir:, r...7: ..:?;r eta I i7. 0-. A tract of land situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 9, , ,T. 26. R. IE., of the, W.K., being mora particularly described r SECINNINC ata 3/4'1 iron pipe - in the.-wasterly•rtFht of. way.. line• -•- , of Phantom Bluff. Court vbieh_is,the most southerly -comer of that -Certain tract of land conveyed to John Runakel; at rue,-.�s'•: described.la Book .591,.page 744, Aced Records ;.:Clackamas. Cotutry; . ...'?....c'':' ..... _ -Oregon; a. . --- •_ - --. _ ” From•said place of bsgicuLng ; thence Borth 50.39 hest along the southwesterly line. of said R(nakel.tract 59.97 feet to an ran _ ipe;F=thence-laving-said southwaatarly-Una- South ee0.00aeet:ti:h:5/S;iron:rod�aedaba'begin, -of ::n the .: .;- t to a tra'et-Co'be'describe'd. aid 11 iron rod; thonce thence North West.. Wes.25 fact t 4Qeiron' iron rod;.-thence encs Northline.. f - - . •.South.84'S3!'.WeaC'�5.25„.feat_.to a :5 /8” iron rods ..thence .Horth.. =58'031'Wi�e 1.39.64, trot to a� /�" p p , -•Lake Oswego;''thanaa'North'37 31 'East (Record •North"37 43. :East) feet.to:a'S/6"'lraa rod ;^ thence: North 53'16!.:tout:!(Record:.:.:..+ :. North 53.281_' East) 20.80 -feet -to a 518'.' iron. rod, •;whieh; iron .rod ; A bears', southwesterly. 23.20 fast;, more cr less, -from the -:most `i =` - =' weataily-comar:of.saidaJohn•Rnnckal,.•ot=ux-'.tract•-thenco'aoaving ;; " said'ahore 'Line .of. Lake _Ooveggo ' South .57'23 East 42.32 fact to 5/81!. iron rod; thence•South 4'511 Esat 68',20 feet to a 5/8" iron rodl -thence continuing South 54'51' East 41,40 feat to a.5/8" iron rod; chance South 42'204.43" East 82.75 feett thonca South 39002' --- :West 30.00_feat:,to..the :.true ,place. of beginning;...._..;- _ �TOGE)HER,-with_ a,nori-excluaLve essomentrfor ingress ~and O8rees„•_ t�_'_over.': sad � serosa )the:roadway.=..es tablished �.on •-Cho:-fol lowing _ do--•'•�:; _.-_4�_ �- ---:::_scribed•seal proarty--and-extending=•£rom•Phantom:Bluff .: :the: above: desert ad .real -*property!. . •..... -.-: •:, :::.., _ ..... - . ..: -.:.:, 10. trcat_of=land-sitvatod=ln=Cho=Soutliuca-quarter of-SacCinn_9- -- _ _ _ _„•,,...F„; •.:.__T.;2S. ;R. IE. -';:-of the W.H•.,..bning more particularly:descritied;, as £ol�ows;• to -wits :;:. - - - SEGINNIHG ata 3%4 iron pipe,in t wcaterly right o -way lima - oF.Pkinntom Bluff Court',ahichh-ia-the•moat:aouther y:icaraer-o£ :='^ ...:that 'certain ..tract of. land conveyed .to.John Runckol,' of ux,. as.. J+ - _. _.._..described-i'n •Book=541,-p-g 744` D"ocd Reeorda`Ciackamas :Cove a o: ,.. ty,::-. - Oregon, being more particularly deacribod as £ollowa; to -Kitt From said place of beginning; thence North 50'58' Wast along the Huthwastarly•line of said Runckel tract 59.97.9eet to -an -iron ps• thence leavingsaid southwesterly Tina South 39'02' Waist .06 fact to -'a 5/8iron rod; thence South 50')0'30" East. 88,80 feet to a•5/8” iron rod in the weatorlX right of way line of said Phantom Bluff Court; thence Norch 9'48 East along said westerly right of way line, .56.76 feet to the place of beginning; ALSO TOGETHER with a right of way casement in coon with others over that known no -Vacated Phantom Bluff Court. 244 EXEII5IT {{An .P 8�L`'rr 1E1� i t� J��'� I�) �"i{-N ti:Ml�[�e ��,4-.+.L'-5at•,,.,�''.r �::: �.i.... .. _ � f { rat _ . _ _ Y.'• `• �^�y};I• 244 F! I I 1. Purchasers shall not sell, transfer orassign. this contract end rights thereunder or in the ' pro . party -covered thereby without prior written consent of Sellers. 2. Purchasers agree to pay a late chArj;6'n*t- to exceed sn'kmount equal..to,4% of. any- total monthly POY=nt-- uErpaid:_wtthin - 13 days of the - due date thereof to cover extra expense involved in handling said delinquent payment. 3-- Incase of suit . to foracloot;the-court upon _• .. vo'tion'_of_tha: laintiff - and- VithqUt- Par Aqppainc-a-Recetva . r — to take —poiff"BessLon and coniraL of said described premises while foreclosure proceedings are pending to collect the rents - and..prof its-, theraf roag,-,znd. after - do - I expenses appl —.'dt�eCitig.-;hi.Raceivers.;iroper charges am y tha-samaao the -unpaid, balance of this, co..,r ...or. otiferwise s,. ,tkw.. courtnay: dirge t. A ..Conditions and restrictions, but maittLng:re-�.. . . iaiian or -grrictiona'; 'if any;'based on tees, color r national -origin, imposed by in.trument 61clud ng the -terms -thereof,.re6orded May 140 1941 in OeoA Book 280, page 485 and smanded'-Vebruary 11, 1957, in Dead Book 521, page 703 Dead Records of Clackamas County, Oregon. '-'b mra- ittLng: ... and'r6strictions, ut a 61trictions,: if.anyi.based on race, color . ,raliion - or ­­.. 8trume !'6t�HudI g -the h raof '-recordid-May-27---94 i..Daad,'407-pa a-20'and - amended- February 111,-195 in Dced Book 52;j'pap! 703, Doed Retards -of ClackoTas.:Ccunty,::_ -7-7 -:r. rap, --- 6, Pure aEars -agree ay..to:sollcrs one -half. -of - So lirB V cost in developing a drive turn -around foi 4u tomb ilee-on.­ way and rn '-the:above-described.-r".I.properLy-ovcr-Whica the Purchasers have a non-exclusive easement- The -total 7. estimated :cost for tba-development.of said, drivovay'and-'. a . turn-arou;11d—is,$1,000 and Purcbaserszagree---to-pay-.their - ---- - j- 7_..on share -thereof to Sellers on demand, 7. Located on the property which the Sellers are herein selling to Purchasers is a stone wall and fireplace, which Sellers reserve the right ..to remove from said premises and locate on other adjoining property which they own. Purchasers agree to pay to Sellers the cost of removing and ra lac ing said stone wall and fireplace from the promises and plocating it on the SellersI adjoining property. The catiT=tcd cost of, this work is n,000 and Purchasers agree to pay to Sellers the cost of said work, but not to exceed the um of �Z'000J Payment to be made on demand. . it being understood by Sellers and Purchasers that the removal and replacing of the stone wall and fireplace will be done before construction of any residence by Purchasers upon the property which they are option to do said vmrk purchasing herein Sellers have the --any time and P�rchonera agree to make payment as stated. at on desaand, herein to Sellers -i WIBIT "B" SEAL DOCUMENT 9�-ICSIJ rccr.�n^r) AN' r, 974 P., pf1ppr1j, r."!n1V Ott 245 After recording return to: Katherine O. VanZanten Sussman Shank LLP Suite 1400 1000 S.W. Broadway Portland, OR 97205-3089 Until a change is requested, all tax statements shall be sent to: George H. Puterbaugh 6950 SW 105th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97008 RECORDED IN CLACKAMAS COUNTY - ����� JOHN KAUFFMAN, COUNTY CLERK ((� 2V02 2 1111111111 1 1111V $36.00 00307846200200549320030036 D -D Cnt=1 Stn=6 AMIEE 06/11/2002 11:52:49 Alf $15.00 $11.00 $10.00 WARRANTY DEED George H. Puterbaugh, Grantor, conveys and warrants to George H. Puterbaugh, Trustee, the Puterbaugh Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 9, 1992, as amended, Grantee, the real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, which is situated in Clackamas County, State of Oregon. The liability and obligations of the Grantor to Grantee and Grantee's heirs and assigns under the warranties and covenants contained herein or provided by law shall be limited to the amount, nature, and terms of any right or indemnification available to Grantor under ,any title insurance policy, and Grantor shall have no liability or obligation except to the extent that reimbursement for such liability or obligation is available to Grantor under any such title insurance policy. The said property is free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: Encumbrances of record, if any. The true and actual consideration for this transfer is estate planning. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOVv USE OF THE PROPER i Y DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. PAGE 1 - WARRANTY DEED EXHIBIT F-8 LU 09-0009 247 DATED this 17 day of YA a 2002.. GRANTOR: George . Puterbaugh STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Multnomah ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on % 2002 by George H. Puterbaugh. o 0 OFF)CIAL SEAL Nota Public for Oregon SUSAN E BUCHANAN Notary 9 NOTARY PUBLIC-bREGON My commission expires: COMMISSION NO. 325649 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUL 28, 2003 F:ICLIENTS10555410051WARRANTY DEED.DOC C .I PAGE 2 - WARRANTY DEED 248 A tract of land situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 9, T. 28., R. 1 E., of the W.M., being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: BEGINNING at a '/" iron pipe in the westerly right of way line of Phantom Bluff Court l which is the most southerly corner of that certain tract of land conveyed to John Runckel, et ux, as described in Book 591, page 744, Deed Records, Clackamas County, Oregon; From said place of beginning; thence North 50°58' West along the southwesterly line of said Runckel tract, 59.97 feet to an iron pipe; thence leaving said southwesterly line, South 39°02' West 50.00 feet to a 5/8" iron rod and the true place of beginning of the tract to be described. From said true place of beginning; thence .North 50°58' West 93.00 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence South 84053' West 35.25 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence North 58°03' West 139.66 feet to a 3/" iron pipe in the shore line of Lake Oswego; thence North 37031' East (Record North 3743' East) 49.65 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence North 53016' East (Record North 53°28' East) 20.80 feet to a 5/8" iron rod, which iron rod bears southwesterly 23.20 feet, more or less, from the most westerly corner of said John Runckel, et ux, tract; thence leaving said shore line of Lake Oswego, South 5723' East 62.32 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence South 54°51' East 68.20 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence continuing South 54°51' East 41.40 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence South 42°20'43" East 82.75 feet; thence South 39°02' West 30.00 feet to'the true place of beginning; TOGETHER with a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across the roadway established on the following described real property and extending from Phantom Bluff Ct. to the above described real property. A tract of land situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 9, T. 2S., R. 1 E.., of the W.M., being more particularly described as follows, to -wit; BEGINNING at a 3/" iron pipe in the westerly right of way line of Phantom Bluff Court which is the most southerly corner of that certain tract of land conveyed to John Runckel, et ux, as described in Book 591, page 744, Deed Records, Clackamas County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: From said place of beginning; thence North 50°58' West along the southwesterly line of. said Runckel tract, 59.97 feet to an iron pipe; thence leaving said southwesterly line, South 39°02' West 50.00 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence South 50010'30" East 88.80 feet to a 5/8" iron rod in the westerly right of way line of said Phantom Bluff Court; thence North 9°40' East along said westerly right of way line, 58.78 feet to the place of beginning; ALSO TOGETHER with a right of way easement in common with others over that known as Vacated Phantom Bluff Court. Exhibit A i F:ICLIENTSI05554\0051D-LEGAL DESCRIPTION.DOC 249 16 i� Joel B. Kamcrman, Grantor, conveys and warrants to George E. Glass and Mary F. Glass, husband and wife, Grantee, the Title Order No. 04256842 t Escrow No. 04256842 Parcels 1 and 2, PARTITION PLAT NO. 2004-033, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of i AP.er.According Return To: George E. Glass and Mary F. Glass I ng G91R rn C+ i �- � assessment Information. I Until ..hang, is requested all tax statements shall be sent to . 'C' the following address: George E. Glass and Mary F. Glass canals. Any adverse claim or defect In the title based upon the assertion that some portion of said land has been J removed from or brought within the boundaries of the premises by an avulsive movement of Lake Oswego or has been formed by a process of accretion or reliction or has been created by artificial means or has accreted Clackamas County Official Records 2004-098380 Sherry Hall, County Clerk lf!{illi(![ill[{IIIIINIIIlIIlli{lll[illllllll[Il $66.00 00751643200400983800MOD30 IOJ2612004 02:22:25 PM i I Cnt=1 Stn -7 AMIEE D -D I tla.oa stt.ao sto.00 s�o.00 ..' STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 4f-�-tilf r7r- t0,1 j 0 F 3 i 260 Joel B. Kamcrman, Grantor, conveys and warrants to George E. Glass and Mary F. Glass, husband and wife, Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances, except as specifically set forth bercin situated in Clackamas County, t Oregon, to wit: Parcels 1 and 2, PARTITION PLAT NO. 2004-033, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of i Oregon. This property is free from encumbrances, EXCEPT: Regulations and annual Assessments of the Lake Oswego Corporation. Please call (503) 636-1422 for i assessment Information. I Rights of Lake Corporation, governmental bodies and of the public in connection with flood control and rights of fishing and recreation in and to the water, bed and shoreline of Lake Oswego and Lake Oswego feeder canals. Any adverse claim or defect In the title based upon the assertion that some portion of said land has been removed from or brought within the boundaries of the premises by an avulsive movement of Lake Oswego or has been formed by a process of accretion or reliction or has been created by artificial means or has accreted to such portion so created. Covenants, Conditions and . Restrictions, including the terms and provisions thereof, but omitting any restrictions based on race, color, religion or national origin appearing of record in Declaration: Recorded November 25, 1925 Book 182 Page 190 Imposed by instrument: Recorded February 19, 1931 Book 210 I Page 191 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, including the terms and provisions thereof, but omitting any restrictions based on race, color, religion or national origin appearing of record in Declaration; Recorded August 6, 1926 Book 185 Page 200 Imposed by instrument: Recorded May 14, 1941 Book 280 Page 485 Terms, provisions and conditions, including but not limited to maintenance provisions contained In Easement: Dated May 1, 1942 Recorded May 16, 1942 Book 293 Page 530 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, including the terms and provisions thereof, but omitting any restrictions based on race, color, religion or national origin appearing of record in Declaration: Recorded May 27, 1948 Book 407 Page 20 4f-�-tilf r7r- t0,1 j 0 F 3 i 260 PACIFIC NORTHWEST Tr1E 7157 OF OREOON, INC. July 7, 1959 As amended by Instrument: 557 Recorded February 11, 1957 Book 521 Page 703 As amended by instrument: Page Recorded December 13, 1968 I Fee No. 68-25159 Easement for utilities over and across the premises formerly included within the boundaries of street area, now vacated, as reserved in: Ordinance No. 7123 Entered June 17, 1959 As amended by: Ordinance No. 7157 Recorded July 7, 1959 Book 557 Page 818 II Mutual Easement Agreement, including the terms and provisions thereof: Recorded July29, 1959 Book 558 Page 784 Easement, including the terms and provisions thereof: For Ingress and egress Granted to Adjacent property owners Recorded April 25, 1974 Fee No. 74-10511 Affects The Easterly portion. Also shown on plat. Easement, including the terms and provisions thereof: For Right of way Granted to Adjacent property owners Recorded May 26, 1988 Fee No. 88-20855 Affects The Northwesterly portion. Also shown on plat. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Including the terms and provisions thereof, as shown on the recorded plat of PARTITION PLAT NO. 2004-033. Notice of Development Restrictions, Including the terms and provisions thereof: Between Joel B. Kamerman And City of Lake Oswego Recorded April 29, 2004 Fee No. 2004-037398 THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRMONT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is $2,225,000.00. (Here comply vAth the requirements of ORS 93.030) Dated this 2 day of October, 2004. oel . Kamerman 0 ORSTWD 261 PACT-IC �,WOR'IHWEST TI'CC.E OF OREGON, INC. STATES OF OREGON ss County of Clackamas On this 26 �'day of October, 2004, before me, the undersigned personally appeared the within named Joel H. ICamerman known tome to be the identical individual who executed the within instrument and z ledged to me that he executed the same freely and voluntarily. / otary,Public for the State of Oregon OL F IALSEALSCHREI omrnission expires: 5-I6-07 CAROLFSCHREINER T NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION 140.367761 MY COMMISSION D(PIRES MAY 16, 2007 ORSTWD i 252 •s.•s. • March 25, 2009 700 McVey Avenue P.O. Box 203 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 636-1422 (503) 636-3226 Fax To whom it may concern, We are aware of potential development on Tax lot 1902 on Phantom Bluff court in Lake Oswego. We have been in contact with Bonnie Harold of BWH design and are satisfied that we can work with her in the design of a conveyance system for storm water run off to the lake. Regards, Jeff Ward Lake Manager =EXHIBIT 253 MINUTES NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW MEETING - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATE: Saturday, November 22, 2008 9:00 am RE: Clackamas County Tax Lot 1902, Tax Map 21E9CC, located along Phantom Bluff Court MEETING LOCATION: On-site PROPERTY OWNER: George and Sharon Puterbaugh OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Gary P. Shepherd r 1n attendance: Property owners, owner's representative, individuals identified on attached sign in 1 sheet. Meeting was presided over and led by Gary Shepherd. Attendees were asked to provide names and contact information on Sign in Sheet form. Mr. Shepherd generally explained the application to legalize the lot through a single lot partition process. Mr. Shepherd explained the Puterbaughs' ownership interest dating to February 1972 and history behind their efforts to build on the property. Mr. Shepherd explained that after the lot is legalized, the Puterbaughs would like to build their home on the property. Questions and issues raised by attendees: - The Yearlseys stated they may have a title conflict with the Puterbaughs -setbacks required in the building process -whether geotechnical reports would be required at this time or when a. building permit is sought -how large a home and where on the property the Puterbaughs intended to build -how tail would the home be -where the garage would be located -where the access on to Phantom Bluff would be -when they would like to start construction -sewer connection Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Puterbaugh answered and/or provided explanations for each question. Meeting adjourned. EXHIBIT F-10 LU 09-0009 255 SIGN IN SHEET NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW MEETING - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATE: Saturday, November 22, 2008 9:00 am RE: Clackamas County Tax Lot 1902, Tax Map 21E9CC, located along Phantom Bluff Court MEETING LOCATION: On-site PROPERTY OWNER: Georgie and Sharon Puterbaugh OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Gary P. Shepherd Print Name: Address: Print Name Address: Print Name: Address: Print Name.- Address: ame:Address: Print Name: Address: 65 ��� �.� r, ?G `R(z• f Print Name:�— Address: hq f o• .. kl� Print Name: Address: Print Name: Address: Print Name: Address: 256 iCa7val 1�1-k Nt'0 M ,Luff Lo r) L. L '70 7 y �U 11 U D 6ttr Print Name: Address: 65 ��� �.� r, ?G `R(z• f Print Name:�— Address: hq f o• .. kl� Print Name: Address: Print Name: Address: Print Name: Address: 256 LEGAL SERVICES & CONSULTATION August 3, 2009 Development Review Commission Community Development Department Lake Oswego City ;~fall 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 P.E: File No. LU 09-0009 Applicants: Puterbaugh and Glass Dear Development Review Commission: 31.15 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 (503) 233-1985 TEL (503) 914-"74 FAX gary@oregoalandlaw.com EMIL You have before you two land use applications. The first application is a single lot partition application to legalize tax lot 1.902 owned by the Puterbaughs. The legalization request also involves a Class 1 Variance to the access standard. The access standard requires property to have frontage on a public street. The variance is necessary because the property fronts on a private street, thus .making it impossible to satisfy the public street frontage standard. The second application is a lot line adjustment application between the Puterbaugh and Glass properties. The lot line adjustment request involves a variance to the lot width and depth standards. 'Phis Class 2 variance is necessary because the property technically does not have lot depth or lot width, which are measured distances from a public street. Since the property does not front on a public street the lot width and depth are technically zero and the variances are necessary. In fact, the reason applicants are now before the Development Review Commission is because the property is served by a private street, making width and depth measurements technically impossible, or a zero value. LOC § 50.01..030(3) provides: "If the lot proposed to be made .legal pursuant to this subsection has a :lot area or dimension which is less than 65 percent of the size or length required by the zone at the time of application, the application to create the legal parcel shall be referred to the Development Review Commission .for public hearing." Respectfully, applicants request that the Development Review Commission follow the reasoned analysis of staff and approve the application requests. As found and determined by Lake Oswego Senior Planner, Debra.Andreades, applicants have demonstrated and the City has found compliance with all applicable standards. EXHIBIT F•11 LU 09-0009 257 This letter specifically addresses the comments of Mr. Paul Norr, representing Bill and Andrea Yearsley. Single Lot Partition/Legalization Application: The Puterbaughs have before you a request to legalize their tax lot 1.902 for planning purposes. The property is currently over 13,000 square feet. The Puterbaughs have owned the property since 1972. Since that date they have paid property taxes at developable values, Lake Corp. Fees, and financially participated in the LTD which resulted in new sewer, water, and transportation facilities that benefit all owners along Phantom Bluff Court. The property was purchased by applicant Puterbaugh from Richard and Mildred Sundeleaf: The tax Iot was createdby the Swideleafs through the sale and recordation method. Prior to 1975, legal lots of record could be created by a recorded sale and/or deed conveying a portion of a parent parcel, as done in this case. City staff is of the opinion that although the Puterbaugh property was created by a lawful means, the property did not satisfy all applicable development criteria at the time, narriely no public street frontage; thus it is not a legal lot for planning and development purposes and snaking this application necessary. When the property was purchased in 1972, the Sundeleafs had a significant holding along the lake. They sold a portion of the holding to the Puterbaughs. They also sold a portion which is'now owned by the Glass family, lots 1900 and 1905, and a strip of land which is now owned by the Yearlseys, lot 1800. Unfortunately for the Puterbaughs, in 1972 septic tanks were forbidden in the area and pumping from Phantom Bluff Court to South Shore Drive was not allowed. Early efforts to form an LID were defeated. As such, no home was constructed. The Puterbaugh property was also the subject of a partition/lot legalization request in 1991 in association with what is now the Glass property. Although receiving City Council. approval, the partition plat was not finally recorded and the approval has lapsed. Subsequently, in 2003 the Glass property received approval to legalize lots 1900 and 1905. The Puterbaughs are seeking the same approval. Mr. Noir concludes applicant has not demonstrated compliance with is LOC § 50.01.030(3). Respectfully, Mr. Norr is incorrect. The standard provides in relevant part: "... an application for the creation of the lot shall. be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistenCKof potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." Emphasis added. Applicant- directs the commission to the underlined portions of the above standard. Respectfully'.they are the relevant provisions to interpret and apply in this case. There area three points applicant would like to make. First, the standard requires the commission to focus their analysis on impacts fiom `potential development" on the "neighborhood." Potential 268 development allowed by lot legalization would be those uses and associated uses permitted outright by code section 50.08..010; namely site development to support a single family residence. Whale "neighborhood" is not defined by the code, we all know its common meaning; a defined area or region. For example: this property is within the Palisades neighborhood. Mr. Norr focuses on the alleged visual impacts to one property, the Yearsley property, and not the neighborhood as a whole as required by the Code. Mr. Non's application of the standard is inconsistent with the Code requirement. Mr. Norr places the alleged property rights of his client above and paramount to others. The City's code does not regulate as such. Respectfully, applicant requests that the commission reject Mr. Norr's interpretation and application of rhe standard in favor of staffs reasonable interpretation and application. Second, the standard requires approval unless itis demonstrated that. Potential development will impact the neighborhood in a "significant' manner. While significant is not defined by the City's code, it too has a commonly understood meaning. As used, it means having a major effect. In other words, the impact of potential development must have a major effect on the neighborhood to justify denial. In this case, the City correctly found the impact of potential development, namely single family residential development, would not significantly impact the neighborhood. Please note that pursuant to the legalization standard, the City is given discretion to determine what is and what is not a significant impact. However, this discretion is guided by the code standard as detailed in the third point below. Third, what is "significant" versus not significant is guided by whether or not potential development is consistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. The standard provides: "In determining the degree of impact; the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." In this case, the City correctly found potential development in the forth of a single family residence is consistent with the area's existing development pattern, which is residential development. Lot Line Adjustment: Applicants Puterbaugh and Glass also have before you a lot line adjustment request. The lot line adjustment seeks to correct an existing conditions of approval violation involving a historical structure setback on the Glass property and to provide the Puterbaugh property with direct access onto Phantom Bluff Court. Currently, the only access for the Puterbaugh properly to the private street is via an easement, the terms of which are .ambiguous: To resolve these issues, the parties have mutually agreed on an exchange of property. To approve a lot line adjustment, both properties must be in compliance with the City code. Because the properties do not front on a public street, and therefore technically lot width and depth cannot be measured (those measurements are trade from a public street by definition), a Class 2 variance is procedurally required to approve the lot line adjustment. A Class 2 variance request is reviewed pursuant to the standards in LOC 50.68.010(l)(b)(i). As found by City staff,, the request complies with all applicable standards. /; F*7 Variance is necessary to prevent an unnecessary hardship and is not self imposed: Mr. Norr objects to the lot line adjustment, and specifically alleges that variance criteria are not satisfied. First, Mr. Non states that the hardship is self imposed and therefore the variance is not necessary to prevent an unnecessary hardship to the applicants. Applicants and City staff do not agree with Mr. Norr's conclusions. Applicants concur with staff's analysis. The hardship which requires the variance is the location on a private street and existing conditions. In this case, applicants had nothing to do with the hardship. Both properties were created by the Sundeleafs in the late 1960's and early 1970's by sale contract, a proper means to divide property prior to state law passed in 1975. Applicant Glass purchased their property from the Kamermans in 2004 after the lot was legalized by City approval in 2003. The actions of the Karnermans in recording the final plat created the condition of approval violation. Applicant Puterbau.gh purchased their property from the Sundeleafs in 1972. . The street was vacated by the public, Clackamas County, in 1959. Subsequently, the property was annexed into the City of Lake Oswego, thereby creating a situation of non-compliance with the City's public street standards for every property owner along .Phantom. Bluff Court. In short, since 1959 the property has been located on a private street, thereby making it technically impossible to measure lot depth and Lot width. 'Llrus applicants must obtain a variance. The location on a private street cannot be changed or corrected by applicants. They are preexisting conditions inherited by them and not self-imposed.. Impact on Neighborhood: Mr. Norr argues that the variance for the property line adjustment would be injurious to the neighborhood, specifically the Yearsley property, and therefore must be denied. In determining injury, one must first examine the purpose of the application; namely, what will the property line adjustment resuit in. The only properties affected by the lot line adjustment request are the Glass property and the Puterbaugh property. The lot line adjustment will result in correcting an existing conditions of approval violation on the Glass property and result in a mutually agreeable exchange of property. Mr. Norr focuses on the assumption that the property dine adjustment is necessary for and will result in a home being constructed on the Puterbaugh property, and thereby injure his client. Mr. Norr's analysis is incorrect. The property line adjustment is not necessary for the Puterbaughs to construct a .home. It represents a cooperative approach between two neighbors to exchange property to correct exiting an condition of approval violation and resolve access uncertainty. Additionally, the variance standards allow for a balancing of interests. LOC 50:68.01.0(2) provides: "A determination of whether the standards set forth in subsection. I(b)(i) are satisfied. necessarily involves the balancing of competing; and conflicting interests. The considerations listed in subsection I (b)(ii) (1) and (2) are .not. standards and are not intended to be an exclusive list of considerations. The considerations are to be used as a, guide in the granting authority's 4 260 deliberations" Emphasis added. Mr. Norr applies LOC 50.68.010 in a manner that elevates the factors and considerations in LOC 50.68.010(1)(b)(ii) to standards, which is inconsistent with the directive in LOC 50.68.010(2). Staff has correctly balanced all the interests involved and concluded that the variance and property line adjustment should be approved. Respectfully, applicants requests that the commission reject .Mr. Norr's interpretation and application of the variance standard in favor of staff's reasonable interpretation and application. Tree Removal: Staff has correctly determined that since no home is proposed through these applications, that only tree no. 18, an 11- inch Black Locust, may he removed at this time. Mr. Norr argues that removal of tree no. 18 will have "a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood." Respectfully, applicant requests that the commission reject Mr. Norr's unsubstantiated conclusion and adopt staff's opinion. The tree is small in size and a non-native species. Removal will allow driveway access to avoid large, mature, and native Douglas fir trees, thereby preserving the very characteristics encouraged by the tree removal standards. Mitigation will be required as ensured by the conditions of approval. Conclusion. Respectfully, applicants request that the Design Review Commission approve the applications as recommended by staff. Approving the requests will ensure applicant Puterbaugh's property is subject to the City's code for planning and development purposes and prevent an unnecessary and substantial financial and emotional hardship. Applicants request approval to enjoy the same rights and privileges as other citizens or Lake Oswego, inewaing those who own property along Phantom Bluff Court that have historically and recently enjoyed development ri ghts pursuant to the City's code. Sincerely, Gary P. Shepherd CC: Paul Norr 261 STAFF REPORT Iff.m. lc"IIL PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Monogram Custom Ilomes FILE NO:. LU 04-0001 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: STAFF: Tax Lot 14300 of Tax. Map 2 1 E 3DB Jessica Sarver LOCATTON: DATE. OF REPORT: 675 Seventh Street April 29, 2004 COW. PLAN.DESCRIPMON: 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: R-6 Jul: I3; 2004 ZONING DESIGNATION: NFIG14BOR1400D ASSOCIATION: R-6 First Addition 1. APPLICANT rS REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a one parcel partition to legalize Tax Lot 14300 pursuant to O.RS 92.177 and the City's minor partition requirements. U. DECISION Approval with conditions. The complete listing of conditions isprovided on pages 8-9 of this report. 1I1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Co&fLOC Chapter 501: LOC 50.01.030 Development Restricted on illegal Lot LOC 50,07.005-50.07.070 R=6 Zone Descriptions LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.030 Drainage Standard for Minor Development LOC 50.42.005 - 50.42.030 Weak :Foundation Soils LOC 50.55,005 - 50.55.025 Parking Standard LOC 50.57.005 - 50.5.7.035 Access .LOC 50.58.005 - 50.58.035 On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads LOC 50.63.005 - 50.63.010 Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights LOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.035 Utilities LOC 50.77.005 Application for Development LOC:50.77.007 Burden of Proof LOC 50.79.025 Review Criteria for Minor Developments EXHIBIT F-12 LU 09-0009 263 LOC 50.79-040 Conditions of Approval LOC 50.81.005 - 50:81.020. Review of Minor Development Applications LOC 50.84.005 Appeal of Minor Development. Decision LOC 50.86.005 50.86.030 Effect of/Modification of Approved Permit LOC 50.87.005 -X0.87.025 Compliance with :Approved Permit, Modifications A. City of Lake Oswego •tree Code (LOC Chaprter 55) LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required C. Cite of bake Oswego Solar Access Ch4ptg .LOC Chapter 571 LOC 57,04.010 — 57.04.040 Solar Access for New Development .1'i'. ]" INDrNGS A. i3ackgrround(Existintt Conditions: In 1996, the owner of Tax Lot 14300 created Tax Lot 14301 through a deed (Exhibit Ell. Ownership of Tax Lot 14301 was transferred to the owner of Tax Lot 14400 and Tax Lot 14300 was later sold to the applicant. No application was made to the City to authorize the division of the site. Tax Lot 14300 contains the m.inimurn lot area for the zone (6,000 square feet); however, it does not meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet. Tax Lot 14301 does not meet any of the R-6 zone lot dimensional requirements. The subject site is zoned R-6 and is developed with a single-family dwelling. The surrounding lots are also zoned R-6 and are developed with single-family dwellings (with the exception of Tax Lot 14301). The site is approximately 75' wide by 80' long with frcmtage on Seventh Street. As indicated by Exhibit:E7 there is one 15 fir in the front of the site. B. Compliance with Criteria for ApMoval. Scope of Review fora "Single -Lot Nrtition" I Application and Effect of Approval on Other Illegally Partitioned Lots Within the Original Lot. This application for approval of the partition of one lot from a two -parcel illegal partition is filed pursuant to ORS 92.177. It is importantfor the applicant, and particularly the owner of the remaining illegal lnt (Tax Lbt 14301) within the original lot to understand the effect of this statute, in considering the scope of the review of the application, and the effect that this statute and partition legalization for Tax Lot 14 300 would'have on the remaining parcel. By act of the Legislature, resulting primarily from cases arising out of Nest Linn2 and Lake 0swego3, a "single -lot partition" application and review is permitted,rill that the owner of one i The term "single -lot partition'' has been used to reflect the point ghat under ORS 92.177, one parcel of a two -parcel illegal partition. can apply for legalization. In this case, the applicant owns one lot created from a two -parcel illegal partition. The term "single -lot partition" refers to.a partition application where less:than all of the illegal parcels created from the original legal lot seek partition legalization. LU.04-0001 Page 2of10 264 or. more of the.parcels involved in an illegal partition may seek "legalization" of illegally created parcel(s), (without the other parcels in the illegal partition being made a part of the partition application. ORS 92:177 Creation of lot or parcel.following improper formation. Where application is made to time governing body of a city or county for approval of the creation of lots or parcels which were improperly formed without the approval of the goveming body, the governing body of a city or county or its designate shall consider and may approve an application for the creation of lots or parcels notwithstanding that less than all of the oomers of the existing legal lot or parcel have applied for the approval.4 in reviewing a'"single-lot partition:", the focus is whether the parcel seeking legalization complies with the standards. for parcel creation, without considering the impact that approving the parcel will have on the other parcels that are not part of the partition: application. It may well be that if one of parcels in an illegal lot partition meets the requirements for parcels under the Community Development Code, that the otherVarcel may fail to do so because of size, lot dimensions, access, or a number of other reasons: The effect of ORS 92. L77.is to permit those parcels that can be legalized to be legalized: _.But the corollary is also true — the legaliration.of those parcels does not mean that the otherparccls within the illegal partition are "created", "approved", or otherwise determined to be developable or ultimately approvable: In the common partition, the applicant is the owner of two or more parcels, and the standards are applied to make sure that each of the parcels within the partition complies with the parcel creation requirements. In reviewing this application, however, the question is whether this parcel meets the lot criteria without: considering the impact that approving this parcel will have on the other illegal. parcel. The owner of the applying parcels is not required to assure that the other parcel can be legalized. if a parcel. is created illegally that does not meet the parcel creation requirements, itis not developable. That is the risk a buyer of an illegal parcel takes. bfi/ard.v. City of Leake Oswego. Another aspect d considering a "single -lot partition" is whether or not certain common exactions (street improvements; sidewallcs, etc.) imposed on a partition can be imposed through the legalization of the single -lot partition. In :the commori'partition, the exactions are imposed by a: finding that the effect of the partition will result in additional development; to offset the impacts of the additional development, the developer must make certain off-site improvements. This is true even where there is an existing house on a parcel that is being divided, because there is a vacant parcel being created by the partition that could become developable. There is a legally existing house on Tax Lot 14300. Legalizing the parcel where the legal residence exists does not create the opportunity for additional development. Where there is an existing legal house on an illegal parcel, when that parcel is legalized, there still remains the legal house on the parcel. Any off-site impacts, and necessary exactions; resulting from 2 In Kilian v. 0tv of West Linn, 88 Or.App. 242, 744 F2d 1314 (1987), the court held that under the existing statutes one remnant parcel holder could hold hostage another remnant parcel holder., who did not wish the first parcel to be developed, by declining to participate in a partition application, because the partition application bad to involve all of the lots within the. illegal partition. 311'ard v. City of Lake Oswego, 20 Or LUBA 470 (1991)(iIlegaIiy created lot does not become"buildable" due to. passage oftime). a The statute originally provided that the "governing body ... may consider and approve" a single4ot partition. 1993 Or. Laws Ch. 436, Sec. 2. The statute was amended. in 1995 to provide that the "governing body .., shall consider and may approve" a single -lot partition. 1995 Or. Laws Ch. 595, Sec. 14. LU 04-0001 Page 3 of 10 266 additional development must be assigned.to the vacant parcels within .the illegal partition. This does .not mean that the City cannot exact, from the whole of the illegal partition, the same amount of off-site improvements that it would have exacted if the partition had been legally applied for. This does mean that any required off-site improvements resulting from the opportunity of future development must be placed exclusively upon the undeveloped parcel. For example; where a two -parcel partition .with an existing residence would support. a full street improvement -because of the creation of an additional parcel, when reviewing a "single - lot partition", none of the obligation for the: full street improvement rests on the parcel where the legally existing residence is located and all of the obligation, (and hence cost), for the full street improvement is placed on the vacant parcel. Analysis of )Parcels For Compliance with Criteria Per LOC 50.77.007, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with. applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided evidence to enable staff to perform a thorough evaluation to determine compliance with applicable criteria, listed on pages 1-2 of this report. These documents are listed as exhibits that accompany this report. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 3, 2003, to satisfy the requirements of LOC. 50.77.025. The minutes of the meeting are included in this report as Exhibit F3. The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity for citizen comment on this application as required by LOC 50.81.01.0. First Addition Neighbors Association, the abutting neighborhood associations of Country Club -North Shore, Evergreen, Forest Highlands, Birdshill and Foothills, and 50 property owners within 340 plus feet of the subject property's boundaries were notified of the subject application. No written cotntnents were received during the comment period. LOC 50.79.020 - Minor lievelopment LOC 50.79.020(2)(h) defines partitions as minor developments. Per LOC 50.79.025. for.any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that it can. comply with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; a. R-6 Zone Description ILOC 50 07 005 - 50 07 0701 The matrix below illustrates current zoning setback, Iot coverage and height requirements in the R-6 zone. Standards Minimum Re uirements Tax Lot 14300 Lot Area i 6,000 s.f. 6,000 s.f. Lot De th ; 00' 80, Lot. Width 50, 75' Requirements for Primary Structure Structure 18 feet high Structure > 18 feet hi h Front Yard Setbacks 2'0' 20' 27' Side Yzrd 5' S'.min, t5' cwnuiati ve 10' (td); 10' (S) Rear Yard 20' 20' 37> Height - measured to ride 28'-- flat lot 35' — slo ed lot information not. rovided 266 LU 04-0001 Page 4 of 10 Lot C:ovcrage 44% max. for a primary structure 960 sT or 16% < 22 feet in height or 34% for a primary structure >:22 feet high. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ( .48, far lots between 6,000 and .15 17,000 square feet in -area. As illustrated in the matrix above, Tax Lot 14300 does not meet the minimum 100 -foot lot depth. requirement of the R-6 zone. All other standards of the, zone are met. Development Restricted on 7llegaMot [LOC 50.01.0301 In order for Tax Lot 14300 to be legalized, the applicant must demonstrate that the parcel can comply with subsections 1, 2, or 3 of LOC 50.01,030, which describes the circumstances under which an illegal parcel can be made legal. Since the 100 -foot depth requirement has been in effect since before the parcel was created in 1996, the parcel cannot be legalized pursuant to either. subsections Lor 2 of LOC 50.01.030; however, subsection 3 allows for an illegal parcel to be made legal if the applicant can demonstrate that development that would be allowed by. Iegal creation of the parcel will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, ,parking, loss of privacy; obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. Additionally, ifaparcel is, proposed to be trade legal pursuant to subsection 3, and has a dimension that is less�fhan 65% of the length required by the zone, then the-applicationshall be referred to the Development Review Commission for public hearing. The applicant proposes to.legalize the parcel. pursuant to LOC 50.01.030(3); however, a hearing is not required for this application because the lot depth is more than 65% of the Iength.required by the zone. As discussed in Exhibit F2, there is an existing house on the site that currently meets all of the site development limitations prescribed by the zone, despite the fact that the lot depth is 20 feet less than the zone requirement. The applicant `plans to demolish this structure and replace it with a new single-family residence that will also comply with all of the requirements of the zone. New developmenton the site :will have the front yard oriented towards Seventh Street, the rear yard will be -provided opposite the front on the east side of the lot, and the side -yards will be provided on -the north and south sides of the lo* - This is consistent with the orientation and yards of the neighboring lots. The only effect of approving a parcel with a depth of 80 feet, rather than. 100 feet will be to .reduce the potential depth of any new structures proposed on the lot. Instead of having a house with a potential depth of up to 60 feet, the house will be limited to a maximum of 40 feet in depth. While this is more restrictive, a 40 -foot depth for a house is adequate (for instance, the existing house has a depth of 16 feet), especially consideringthat: the loss of depth can be made up in the width of the house, since the lot width is 25 feet over the minimum prescribed by the zone. No future variances should be granted on this site that are premised on substandard lot depth. The potential redevelopment on the site will be oriented in the same .maturer as development on adjacents lots, and will provide the same setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc. as required on adjacent lots, or any other lot in the R-6 zone. Staff finds that -because thelegalization of the subject parcel will not result in a substandard building envelope or reduction in expected buffers (setbacks), and that the development will maintain the same orientation and_pattern as other lots in the zone, the legalisation of the parcel will trot have a significant negative impact on the scale, privacy, views, or buffers in the neighborhood. No new traffic, or need for additional parking will be caused by approval of this application. There is one existing single-family home on the site, and since the density of the site.will not change,. no new traffic will be generated. At least one off-street parking space must be LU 04-0001 Page 5of10 267 provided to satisfy'the parking requirements. There is adequate area for one off-street parking space for the existing dwelling either in the driveway, or in the.attached carport. if the site is redeveloped, the applicant will need to either provide a parking space in the form of a driveway, garage or carport. Since the.pareel is an 'Interior lot", if the applicant plans to construct a garage, .he will be required to minimize the appearance of the garage by setting it back at least 15 feet behind the front building line of the house, excluding the porch [LOC 50.07.045(2)(b)]. For the reasons outlined above, staff finds that Tax Lot 14300 can be made legal pursuant to LOC 50.01.030(3), because the development that would be allowed on the site will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. 2. The Development Standards applicableto miner developments; The following discussion analya..es the applicable development standards. Drainage Standard for Minor Development - [LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.0301 This Standard requires that new development should not adversely affect adjacent properties. The determination of whether the drainage management measures comply with the requirements of this standard is under the authority of theCityEngineer. No alterations in the drainage pattern will result from this .partition. if the lot is redeveloped, compliance with the drainage standard will be assured at the time of building permit application. Weal: Foundation Soils — [LOC 50.42.005— 50.42.0301 According to the City's SIide and Weak Soil Areas Map, the site is located in an area prone to weak foundation soils. No development is proposed as part of this application; however, if the applicant does rebuild on the site, a soils report may be required. Compliance with this standard will be assured at the time of building permit application for any future development on the site. Off -Street ]Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access - [LOC 50.55.005 - 5055.0251 'Phis standard.requires that a single-family dwelling provide a minimum of one off-street parking space. Exhibit E2 illustrates that that there is a 10' x 27' driveway and a carport oti the site that can accommodate at least one off-street parking.space. This standard is met. Access - [LOC 50.57.005 - 50.57.0351 This standard requires that every lot have a minimum of 25 feet of frontage on a public street. The subject lot has 75 feet of frontage on Seventh Street (Exhibit El). This standard is met. On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Road - [50.58.005 - 50.58,0351 This standard regulates driveway slopes and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. This standard also requires that driveways serving single-family dwellings not exceed 20 percent grade or Eve percent cross slope. LU 04-0001 Page 6 of I0 268 This standard is only applicable to cases where there will be "...a newuse on a site or when the .development will result in the construction of or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles" No new uses are proposed on the site. Staff notes that the Eire Marshall comments that access for emergency vehicles is adequate (Exhibit 1,4). 'Ibis standard is met. Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights - [LOC 50:63.005 - 50.63.0101 This.standard requires the illumination of all public and -private streets: There will be no increased use resulting from this proposal for which lighting could be considered as mitigation for development impacts. This standard is met. Utilities - JLOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.0351 This standard is applicable to "...All development requiring connection to utilities," and requires the actual provision of utilities to the development. The site is served by existing public utilities, including sanitary sewer and water. This standard is met. 3. Any additional. statutory, or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake OsNveno Streets arid. Sidewalks .Ordinance.: (I.00 Chapter 421 This Chapter authorizes the City Engineer to make specific street and sidewalk improvement recommendations after taking a variety of pcilicy and site specific factors into consideration. No street or sidewalk improvements will be required since there is no intensification of the use on this site; therefore, this standard is not applicable for the subject proposal. City of Lake Oswego Tree Ordinance (LOC Chapter .55) This ordinance is intended to preserve trees. Only those trees which must be removed in order to site proposed improvements will be granted tree cutting. permits [LOC 55:080(2)]. Exhibit E2 illustrates the location of one 15" tree in the front of the lot. The tree is Iisted as a pine; however, it appears to be a fir. No trees are proposed .to be removed as part of this application. The applicant noted in Exhibit Fl that the cxisting house will be demolisbcd in the future, and a new single-family residence will be constructed on the site. As required by LOC 55.0802 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan is required, and tree protection fencing must be installed around all trees that are within 15 feet of a construction area, including the area where materials or dirt are to be stockpiled. A tree protection application and plan should be submitted for staff mriew and approval prior to issuance of any building permit, including a demolition permit. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart. In addition, a note should be placed on theconstruction documents that informs the .site - contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjace-at trees [LOC 55.08.030]. The contractor.shailbe subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. LU 04-0001 Page 7 of 10 269 Ciiy of Lake Oswego :Solar Access C:hapter.t7 OC Chapfer 57) LOC 57.04.020 requires that 80 percent of the parcels:resul.ting from a partition approval miist comply with the solar design standard [LOC 57.04.0-20]. The.proposed parcel must, therefore, comply with one of three alternatives; (a) the Basic Requirement; (b) the Protected Solar Building.Line Option; oi• (c) the Perfortnanee:Opt., on .unless an exception is granted. i Staff finds that.the proposed parcel can be exempted from the requirements of LOC 57.04.020 pursuant to LOC 57.04.025(2)(a), due to shading from an existing off-site dwelling that will remain after development of the site: There is an existing two-story dwelling to the south of the subject site that is within five feet of the property line. The dwelling exceeds the maximum shade point height standard by approximately four feet, which shades the.majority of the potential building envelope on the site when tF�e sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranting from 22.7-. and west of true south; therefore, an exemption to the requirements of LOC 57.04.020 can be granted. Preparation and Submittal of Final Plat [1,0 50 87 0101. The final plat for the minor partition submitted for staff review and approval should reference this land use application — City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department, File No. LU 04-0001. The finalplat shall be submitted within one year of the date of the decision, per LOC 50.87.410. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year period, the City. Manager could grant a one-year timeextension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing, and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and -compatibility with development that may have occurred in the surrounding arca. The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. V. C"ONC"LUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, sta.ff concludes that LU 44-0001 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions.. N'g. ACTION Staff approves LU 04-0001, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Aonroval of the Filial Partition Plat the AnnticatatlOwner Shall: •✓ 1- Submit a, final plat (referencing this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department,. File No, LLT 04=-0001) to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application,.. prior to expiration of the one-year period, .the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one-year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development that may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current .law and compatibility with surrounding development. LU o4-0001 Page 8 ONO O 270' All plats submitted to the City of lake Oswego shall have accompanying vector based electronic drawings or maps consistent with the prevailing technologies in the Civil Engineering and/or -Surveying fields (e.g. current or near current versions of AutoCAD). The electronic drawings shall conform to the mapping requirements for plats adopted in O.RZS. Chapter 92. N`,,S. Provide a preliminary title report, lot book report, or other report from a title. �.' company showing the ownership of all subject parcels. B. Within30 Days of the Recordation of the Final Partition Plat, the Apalicant/Owner Shall: I . Submit a final title report, lot book- report, or other report from a title company showing that the partition plat is validly recordedagainst the property. C. Fumre Variances or Adiustments 1. No future variances or, adjustments shall be grantedon the basis of a substandard lot due to lot depth. Notes: Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. They are advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws am regulations that could. relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such advice or comment is not a .determination or interpretation of federal or state lain or regulation. Prepared by: f e 7essiodd Sarver Associate Planner Reviewed by Evan Boone Deputy lCity Attorney Date Date LU 04-0001 Page 9 of 10 271 Approved by: i M -re Review Manager Date EXHIBITS A. [No current ethibits; reserved for hearing use] B. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] ]E..:RAPH] CSIPLANS El. Tax Map E2. Site Plan F. `%RTTTEN XTATERLALS F1. Applicant's Narrative F2. App,icant's Narrative Addendum F3. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes; dated December 3, 2003, and List of Attendees .F4. Fire Marshal's Comments, dated February 2, 2004 G. LETTERS Neither For Nor Against None Support: None Opposition: None Date of Applicatior. Submittal: January 15. 2004 Date. Application Determined to be Completed: March 15, 2004 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule July 13, 2004 272 LU 04-0001 Page 10 of 10 LEGAL SERVICES & CONSULTATION August 25, 2009 Development Review Commission c/o Debra Andreades, Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego PO Box 360 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Single Lot Legalization — Puterbaugh property File No. LU 09-0009 Open Record Submission Dear Development Review Commissioners: 3115 5E Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 (503) 233-1985 TEL (503) 914-0474 FAX gary@oregonlandlaw.com EMAIL R�FCEFIVZD Iii %00!1 coC'ty Of Lake Gs m nu7,ty flQvela eg, pment Dept Following the initial hearing and in response to concerns expressed by the Yearsleys, applicants and their professional team further examined design concepts for residential development on the Puterbaugh property. This memorandum and attached exhibits are intended to further demonstrate compliance with the lot legalization standard found in LOC § 50.01.030(3). The standard provides in relevant part: "... an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistencv of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." Emphasis added. The standard requires the commission to focus their analysis on impacts from "potential development" on the "neighborhood." 1) Potential Development: Potential development in this case is one single family residence, which is an encouraged and permitted use in the R10 residential zoning district. 2) Impact: At the initial hearing, the one impact identified as resulting from a home on the Puterbaugh property is the impact to the Yearsley's view. Attached as exhibits 1 and 3 are conceptual EXHIBIT F-13! 1-u 09-000 273 representations of what a single family home would look like on the property. Following the initial hearing, with the appreciated cooperation of the Yearsleys, applicants took photographs from the Yearsley residence, Photos were taken from the main floor and their outdoor seating area. Exhibits were prepared using those photographs and additional elevation points that were surveyed after the initial hearing. See Exhibit 1 for existing conditions depicted in the panoramic photographs and Exhibit 2 for home representations in those same view lines. Exhibit 3 further represents the potential development and its surroundings. Exhibit 4 is the additional topographic surveys, including the elevations of the Yearsley property and other area points used in this analysis. Exhibit 4 also depicts the house designed into the down sloping hillside and in a location to minimize visual impacts. 3) Is the impact of a single family residence a significant negative impact on the neighborhood? We ]earn from the legislative history provided by Mr. Boone that a significant negative impact on the neighborhood is an impact that has a substantial adverse effect on the community character. The legislative history also tells us that the scale of a structure(s) and the consistency of a structure(s) with the neighborhood are important factors in this analysis. In making this judgment, the standard tells us to look at the impacts, such as view impacts, on existing properties in the neighborhood. The neighborhood could be characterized as the Palisades neighborhood, in which the property is located, or further classified as the Phantom Bluff Court neighborhood. Several Phantom Bluff and community residents testified orally and in writing that a future residence on the Puterbaugh property is consistent with the neighborhood character and would have no significant adverse impact on the community. Although the standard does not allow us to focus on impacts to one specific property when reviewing a legalization request, but rather the community, in response to the Yearsley's concerns, applicants examined potential view impacts to the Yearsley property. The Yearsley property has a panoramic view of the lake. Exhibit 1. This view extends to the north, west and east of the Puterbaugh property. As is common in the community (exhibits 8 and 10), the Yearlsey's view to the lake is obstructed. The view to the lake is currently obstructed by residential and accessory development on the Glass property to the west, a large home and accessory structures recently built on tax lot 1700 to the east, and vegetation throughout, some of which is deciduous in nature. Exhibit 1. Of note, the Yearsley property fronts to and is directed at angles across the yard of the Glass property, not the Puterbaugh property. Even after a home is constructed on the Puterbaugh property, the Yearsley property will still enjoy a panoramic view, nearly consistent with the view they currently enjoy. A home on the Puterbaugh property represents but a small portion of the entire view from the Yearsley property. Exhibits 2 and 5. As well, after development of the Puterbaugh property, substantial view corridors between the Puterbaugh home and the Glass home to the west and the Puterbaugh home and the home on tax lot 1700 to the east will remain. Exhibits 2 and 5. The view corridor to the east of the Puterbaugh home also includes the Yearlsey's tax lot 1800 which is located between the Puterbaugh property and tax lot 1700. Exhibit 5 at l and 3. Applicants have demonstrated that one single family home on the Puterbaugh property will not have a substantial adverse effect on the community. The view impact of one modest single 274 2 family residence is minimal. In addition, much of the Yearsley's view through the Puterbaugh property is currently impacted by existing trees on and adjacent to the Puterbaugh property. When accounting for these existing trees, the addition of a residence on the Puterbaugh property represents but a small additional impact to the Yearsley's current view of the lake. Exhibit 5 at 1 and 2. Exhibit 5 at 1 demonstrates that the trees block the view from the Yearsley property and that the Puterbaugh home will hide behind these mature trees to a large extent, thereby iessening any new impacts. Additionally, applicants intend to take design measures that will minimize the home's visual impact. a. Factors and other steps applicants can take to minimize impacts to the neighborhood.' The Puterbaugh property is not substantially substandard. The minimum lot size in the R10 district is 10,000 square feet, lot depth 100 feet, and lot width 65 feet. The Puterbaugh property is over 13,000 square feet prior to the proposed lot line adjustment and will be 15,136 square feet after the adjustment. The lot is approximately 250 feet long and will be about 300 feet long after the adjustment. The lot is over 70 feet wide adjacent to Oswego Lake, and varies in width and shape, by narrowing as it extends towards Phantom Bluff Court. Applicants demonstrated and City staff determined the lot dimensions can adequately support residential development. Applicants also proposes to minimize view impacts on the Yearsley property by locating the home in an area on the property where it can be built into the existing slope, thereby reducing the height of the home that is seen above ground. Exhibits 2, 4 and 6. The home will be built below the elevation of the street, which is at 216 feet. The home will be built into the downhill slope. The home starts at the lowest elevation of the property that is suitable for building. Minimizing impacts is also accomplished by proposing a modest home on a very narrow footprint and positioning the home in a manner that is elongated from the road to the lake, rather than horizontal to the lake as is common. Impacts are further mitigated by developing a roofline design that slopes down, to the east, to enhance the Yearsley's view corridor. The Puterbaughs are also intending to construct a small and short garage, which also slopes down to the east, to further minimize visual impacts. The mitigation efforts are confirmed by comparing the potential development of the Puterbaugh property to the existing homes to the east and west. The home to the east on tax lot 1700 is over 70 feet wide. The home to the west on the Glass property is over 80 feet wide. Both are developed horizontally with the lake. Exhibit 4. The Puterbaugh home will also comply with the 35 foot high height limitation; which can be made a condition of approval to ensure impacts to the Yearsley's view over the Puterbaugh home are minimized. Degree of impact — consistency of potential development. The standard also specifically guides us on how to judge whether an impact is significantly negative or not. It tells us: "In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." Thus, if potential development is consistent with the existing area development pattern, the degree of impact cannot be deemed significant. Applicants have demonstrated through its exhibits that one single family home is consistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. The area is characterized by single family homes, many with accessory garages and units. The lake front property in the vicinity of the Puterbaugh property is currently developed. No area property owner enjoys an unobstructed view 3 275 EXHIBIT 1 277 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT m 6 O or -+i 03 -- LU y > Q LU s u Y` LLJ - > T O 'j E I 279 EXHIBIT 2 281 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ALT, N 283 r 14l 8 EXHIBIT 3 286 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT �tl►P- Q 4 Xr .y Isjo#S r . A r,. _..N i=••� J �y , w. � R ::� wv� : «y> \� \d v. \^� .. �� .:�. :��,� ���� � , d�:§ � � \: : r/| (\&� \. \ & / � � w \. �2 � � ���� \ y w� r� 3 \� /{ .r2 x <� `� � \ � / \°/\\ { :��,� ���� � , d�:§ � � \: : r/| (\&� \. \ & / � � w \. �2 � � ���� \ y w� r� f AWN, or., ggel e.. r�- Kim, 1 .y aj7y. 11a •^ •'w .�kill- Fj. .�. �Y - s -i NEW 1.4• � i �. •4i �'7 11 � � a � r* > � � •.� • . ra e �, t _. I ': 1 � .:° •111•• + •1.1.1 t �� . ° Y: .t•P�wr i• ..'i � ze ry _ _ lilt „•yi r .. , r a at ;y& `�.�.a#''.i e:�' ,� . ../�� 9 � 'y t, •.,`• '' _ �.°. •ars i . ap $'?� ° 1 v I •1 •t2 �P' ,fir �. ° � t h .�+• ttl tyt i � ' i''1 •'r t'r Aral. EXHIBIT 4 293 295 i I i I I' i 0 a i 295 EXHIBIT 5 297 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT �. �. �, �� � i ^,���`; �;< 'i� Via. "nr _r �. x.`.. �"� k r a �� a a ��. � .� EXHIBIT 6 303 x 12 $h gilt, �• s- o: a .rmj g lit N 3 a S � of go� � g x 5 I a �a m Qb I It 4A i— K � I I F y�y t iyyy�y, a � e me ±.qtly• � s�44 - oiz age Qb I It 4A i— K � I I F y�y t iyyy�y, J305 ±.qtly• � - oiz age J305 ±.qtly• � J305 EXHIBIT 7 307 '1�afi wwnw±unsc At�Wwwop � � r OfAmso qw , la 40 061 £ t ^;; r: w �3Ai3��li tu 21 r I ' r I j i i f I i i i I � 1 i - f 309 EXHIBIT 8 311 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 313 \� rl or\ 2 313 314 I I I m 315 EXHIBIT 9 317 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT �11,p#q 319 a f 4t IF 319 EXHIBIT 10 321 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DECEIVED CSV; e90 http: //web 5.co.clackamas.or.us/trap/4a958158_8f6_O--if Page I of I T NI 8/26/2009 323 3115 SE Salmon Sireet Portland, Oregon 97214 (503) 23.3-1985 TEL LEGiI`L SERVICES (503) 914-0474 FAX do CCD1VS61Lr.5�ZIUN gary(uoregordandlowxom E?a'IAIL September 1, 2000 Development Review Commission c/o Debra Andreades, Senior Planner City ol"Lake Oswego PO Box 60 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Single Lot Legalization — Ptrterbaugh property File No. LU 09-0009 Rebuttal Submission Dear Development Review Commissioners. RECEIVED ..'F - 4�,Ar7 City of Lake 10'swego ( r"Ommunity Daveloprnent Dept. This letter is submitted in response to the letter submission of the Yearslevs: The lot legalization standard requires us to look at impacts to the community and the crmsi.slency of potential development in that community. .If residential development is consist.ent with existing; community development patterns, the lot legalization request should be approved. The standard does not allow us to focus on impacts to one specific property when reviewing a legalization request, but rather the comnurniry as a whole. The. statement that the Puterba.ugh property is similar to the Yearsley's tax lot 1 800 and was not intended for residential development, but only for lake access, is not true and not supported by any evidence. The record demonstrates the Puterbaughs purchased the property for residential development and since 1972 have intended to build a bionic, but for sanitary sewer limitations that have since been corrected with their financial participation in the LID. The Puterba.ughs' purchase contract, which. was of record as of 1974 and attached as Exhibit 5 to the application suhnlission. specifically references the intent and acknowledgment of the parties that the Puterbaughs would construct a driveway and a home_ See Exhibit B (item 5 & 7) to Exhibit 5 of application packet. There is no evidence in the record that. demonstrates a modest, narrow home on the Puterbaugh property will result in a substantial negative impact on the community character as a. whole in terms of view impacts, Besides the Yearsleys, no member of the community has objected to the application. To the contrary, members of the community have testified in support (both orally and in writing) and confirmed that a home will not :have a significant negative impact on the community. In addition, the Yearsley's view as depicted by them is directly and narrowly focused on the Puterbaugh property without considering the partoratnic view to the fake that will remain to the west, east, and over the home after homesite development. The record also demonstrates that the Yearsley home was constructed to face and its views directed through the Glass property, not EXHIBIT F-14 LU 09-0009 325 the Puterbaugh property. Importantly, the Yearlsey home was constructed in 1989, long after the Puterbaugh lake front property, was created, purchased and assigned a tax identification number. The legalization standard states: "In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." There is no evidence in the record that demonstrates that a home on the Puterbaugh property is inconsistent with the existing community development pattern. To the contrary, the evidence in the record demonstrates that neighborhood properties al:] have view obstructions to the lake. Exhibit 8 of applicants' evidentiary submission depicts the lake view currently had by area residents. Exhibit S. page 1 of 3 is the view fiont.the homes located above the Glass property (west of the Yearsley property) on the :south side of Phantom Bluff. The two pictures on the left side of exhibit 8, page 2 of 3 and all those on page 3 of 3 depict the views to the lake (north, northwest, and northeast) from property owners at the east end and south side of Phantom Bluff Court. The two pictures on the right side of exhibit 8, page 2 of depict the views to the lake from properties at the top of Phantom Blufr Court, north of the South Shore Drive intersection. Exhibit 10 further depicts the uphill tiered nature of development along the lake in the neighborhood and beyond. In short, the evidence demonstrates that the area is characterized by large, wide, multiple story .homes. No area property owner enjoys an unobstructed view through the property of another. Residents on the south side of Phantom Bluff court commonly have views obstructed by trees, shrubs, and residential development on the lake front. This type ofdevelopment pattern is found throughout the lake, as hones are tiered up the hillside. The evidence in the record further demonstrates that a home on the Puterbaugh property, in a design and location similar to the one presented to the Commission, will preserve substantial vie�� corridors to the lake for the Yearsleys to the east of the home, west of the home, and over the home. What also cannot be lost in this discussion is that the current view from the Yearsley property to the lake through the Puterbaugh property (and even through the Yearsiey's own property) is obstructed by numerous mature, tall, evergreen trees that will remain after development. These trees represent obstructions that f:ar exceed the height of any home. The evidence :demonstrates the home will hide behind these trees toa large extent, with. only small slivers of the home representing a new view obstruction. Furthermore, as stated in testimony before the Commission, the Paterbaugh. property currently.provides views. for the Yearsley property because of the work done by the Puterba,W)hs ir► clea.riti- fhe property of its bntsh and under story. HistoTica.l ly and prior to this removal, the view to the lake was obstructed by blackberries and other plants/shrubs. Applicants appreciate the Yearsley's condition suggestion; however, restricting the Puterbaughs to a height limitation of 1.8 feet is unnecessary and would prevent reasonable use of the property. A condition of approval is only appropriate if without the condition the application could not be approved. In this case, the record demonstrates with substantial evidence that a home on the Puterbaugh property would not result in a significant negative impact to the community and that the legalization standard is satisfied.. Limiting the home to 18 feet in height would also result in a. very small one story home with a basement. No such home exists in the area; nor is such a home and height restriction reasonable for the .subject property. Criven the narrow and small building footprint available (about 20 feet wide), a one story_hom.e would only allow for living and. kitchen/dinning rooms on the one story. Space far adequate bedrooms would not exist. The bedrooms are intended for and need to be located on the second story. A blank 18 foot building,11mitation also does not account for the shape and topographical conditions of the property. Imposing an 18 foot height limitation would not reflect that the home is being built into the hillside to mitigate and limit. the 326 height. of the home that is above ground. level. What applicants have focused on is the overall elevation point of the structure, For instance: A 35 foot high home built on a flat surface. would impact views above ground substantially more than a 3.5 foot high home built into a hillside. Applicants can build a home that is below the elevation of the road, even with its highest point below 35 feet as depicted. Applicants also are proposing a garage that is between 12 and 10 feet in height. (rather than the 18 feet initially designed), with a sloping roof to the east to increase the Yearsley- s view corridor through the Puterbaugh property. The Puterbaughs have presented numerous design elements to limit the impact to the Yearsleys, including flat sloping roof lines. To further reduce the impact, the Puterbaughs are acceptable to a condition of approval which requires the Puterbaughs to build the home into the hillside as much as practicable.and as the sub -surface will permit. The preliminary designs are based on boring assessments clone by Carlson Geotechnical. For engineering purposes, the basement .level of tine home crust anchor to the basalt rock. The designs were done on estimates of the rock as being around 7 or so feet from the surface. This resulted in a basement level that was slightly raised. and supported at the lake side of the ;home. if sub -surface conditions permit, which will only be know when the property is excavated and prepared for development, the Puterbaughs intend on pushing the basement/foundation'level into .the hillside surface as much as practicable, based on topography, construction'techniques, and costs. This will result in a reduction in the overall height of the home as seen from ground level (and as depicted in applicants' exhibits), and further mitigate the rninimal impact to the Yearsley's.panoramic view. Such i.s requested to be made a condition of approval. Applicants also request - condition of approval. Limiting- the structure heiaht to 3 5 feet (as measured by the code), so that no height exception may be taken now or by a lLJture land owner. I thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Gary P. Shepherd Oregon Land Law CC: clients Paul Norr 327 328 I, STu Qw(; vt� h am an owner of property located at /,v f r Com' ,Lake Oswego, Oregon. I am a neighbor of the Puterbaughs. I understand the Puterbaughs have pending a land use application to legalize their lot. I also understand that a Class I variance is necessary because Phantom Bluff Court is a private street. If approved, the Puterbaughs will be able to construct their residence on their property. I am in support of their applications. A future single family residential use built in compliance with the City's code, including height limitations, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which is characterized by single family residential uses. The future use will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing pro e I thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. t n 2009 EXHIBIT G-100 LU 09-0009 329 I, L''" an owner of property located at `—+.,-S -1 Lake Oswego, Oregon. I am a neighbor of the Puterbaughs. I understand the Puterbaughs have pending a land use application to legalize their lot. I also understand that a Class I variance is necessary because Phantom Bluff Court is a private street. If approved, the Puterbaughs will be able to construct their residence on their property. I am in support of their applications. A future single family residential use built in compliance with the City's code, including height limitations, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which is characterized by single family residential uses. The future use will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing property. I thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. Date: e / i , 12009 330 EXHIBIT G-101 LU 09-0009 PAUL NORR ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW JUL. ' 0 7.009 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. yiCa 4-0^csat OF COUNSEL TO REEVES, KAHN & HENNESSY 5550 S.W. MACADAM AVENUE, SurrE 330 PORTLAND. OREGON 97239 PHONE: 503- 22&3862 FAX: '503 2255-1028 E-MAIL PAULNORR@IPNS.COM WEB: WWW.PAULNORRLAW.COM July 30, 2009 Development Review Commission Lake Oswego Community Development Department Lake Oswego City Hall 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Objections to Approval in File No. LU 09-0009 (Application of Puterbaugh and Glass) Hearing Scheduled for Monday August 3, 2009 Dear Development Review Commission: I represent Bill and Andrea Yearsley, owners and residents of the home at 16586 Phantom Bluff Court, which is uphill and across the street from the currently illegal Puterbaugh Tax Lot 1802. The Yearsleys also own Tax Lot 1800, which is Northeast of and adjacent to the Puterbaugh lot. Tax Lot 1800 serves as the Yearsleys' access to Oswego Lake. The Yearsleys object to the application known as LU 09-0009 because the applicants have not demonstrated compliance with all of the applicable City Code approval criteria. If any one criteria is not met, the application should be denied. This letter focuses on the following specific objections: EXHIBIT G-200 LU 09-0009 331 Lake Oswego Development Review Commission (Re: LU 09-0009) July 30, 2009 page 2 A. LEGALIZATION OF TAX LOT 1902 The application fails to comply with LOC 50,-01.030 for a One -Lot Partition. The application cannot comply with either Section (1) or (2) of LOC 50.01.030, so the application for a one -lot partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 can only be approved if the applicant demonstrates compliance with Section (3). The applicant has not done so. Under Section (3), this application can only be approved if the applicant proves that the development (building a new house) on such a narrow lot WILL NOT have a "significant negative impact on the neighborhood" in terms of "obstruction of views". In other words, the Lake Oswego City Code specifically says that if the neighbors' views are obstructed by a new house, the Puterbaugh lot cannot be made a legal building site. The applicant has not proposed a specific house and has not provided any architectural or construction plans. Thus, there is no basis for the Development Review Commission to know that house to be proposed at some time in the future would not obstruct the Yearsleys' views. The applicant has not provided the information necessary to allow the Development Review Commission to make this determination. The "hypothetical" house portrayed on Exhibit E-6, built to the maximum height of 35 feet, similar to the newly constructed home on a legally sufficient lot to the Northeast of TL 1902, will obstruct the view of Oswego Lake from the Yearsleys' home. This would violate the City Code approval standard. The Staff Report makes the unsupported conclusion that because the new Puterbaugh home will be downhill from the Yearsleys' home, the Yearsleys' view will not be obstructed. Staff ignores the key fact that the prime views from the Yearsleys' home are downhill to the Lake. Lake Oswego Development Review Commission (Re: LU 09-0009) July 30, 2009 page 3 Please pay attention to the fact that the main character of the Yearsleys' home is its dominant views of the Lake from seven different rooms and the outdoor patio. Building a new home on Tax Lot 1902, even downhill from the Yearsleys home, will obstruct these views of the Lake and alter the character of the Yearsleys' home. From the Yearsley home, the view over a newly constructed house on TL 1902 would no longer be a view of the Lake, but would instead only be a view of the homes and trees across the Lake. Because the request one -lot partition to legalize the narrow Tax Lot 1902 would allow an "obstruction of views" for the neighbors, the application for a one -lot partition should be denied. B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT The application fails to comply with LOC 50.68.010(1)(b) for a Class 2 Variance. 1. This is a Self -Imposed Hardship. LOC 50.68.010(1)(b)(i)(1) says that the requested variance cannot be approved unless the applicant proves that the variance "is necessary to prevent an unnecessary hardship". The Staff Report correctly notes that under LOC 50. 68. 010(1)(b)(ii)(1)(C), whether the alleged hardship is self-imposed is a relevant factor in determining whether a hardship actually exists. In other words, the applicant should not get relief from the Code standards if the applicant participated in creating the Code deficiency. Here, the Puterbaughs directly participated in creating the Code deficiency. In 1974, George and Sally Puterbaugh entered into a land sale contract with Richard and Mildred Sunde leaf, thereby creating for the first time the long, thin property that is now _ ..._ _ ... _ ...... 333 Lake Oswego Development Review Commission (Re: LU 09-0009) July 30, 2009 page 4 Tax Lot 1902 (Recorded as Clackamas County Document No. 74-10511 on April 25, 1974). It was this sale to the Puterbaughs that first created the illegal Tax Lot 1902. Staff seems to believe that because the larger Sundeleaf parcel didn't have frontage on a public street prior to 1974, the Puterbaughs didn't participate in creating an illegal lot in 1974 when they purchased from the Sundeleafs. While it may be true that the Sundeleafs'larger parcel itself was not legal because it didn't have street frontage, the fact remains that in 1974 the Puterbaughs themselves participated in creating another illegal lot (their own Tax Lot 1902) by not following proper City and State requirements for a land division, and by creating a lot that did not meet the City's lot dimension requirements. The applicants claim that a hardship because they cannot build on their illegally created lot. Since they directly participated in the creation of the illegal lot, the hardship is self-imposed, and the requested variance should be denied. 2. The Variance would Create Injury to the Neighborhood. LOC 50.66.010(1)(b)(i)(2) says that the requested variance cannot be approved unless the applicant proves that the variance "will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located". Under LOC 50.68.010(1)(b)(ii)(2), relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the variance would be "injurious" include physical impacts "such as visual", and also the "perceptions of residents and owners of property in the affected neighborhood". A new house built on the Puterbaugh property will be injurious to the neighbors because it will have a negative visual impact. As discussed above, a new house will obstruct views of the Lake. Also, six mature trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate construction of a new house (Trees No. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 18 as shown on Exhibit F-5). Removal of all these trees will negatively alter the visual character of this small residential neighborhood. 334 Lake Oswego Development Review Commission July 30, 2009 page 5 (Re: LU 09-0009) Since approval of the variance would create negative visual impacts on the neighborhood and be injurious to this neighborhood, the Class 2 variance should be denied. C. TREE REMOVAL The application fails to comply with LOC 55.02.080. In order to build a new house, the applicant proposes to remove seven tall, mature trees, one of which is located on the Yearsleys property. The applicant's six trees designated for removal are Trees No. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 18 as shown on the map attached to Exhibit F-5. Staff recommends that only Tree No.18 be approved for removal at this time. In order for a Type II tree cutting permit to be approved the applicant must prove that all of the criteria listed in LOC 55.02.080 are satisfied. The applicant has not done this. Each individual tree must be considered. Before approval is given to remove a tree, the applicant must prove that "removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood. The applicant has not proven any of these criteria for any tree. Since six trees are proposed to be removed, the cumulative impact of removing all six trees must be considered. The applicant argues in part that they have not yet proposed a specific development plan for the specific location of the new house, which is why Staff recommends removal of only Tree No. 18 at this time. Removal of Tree No. 18 should not be approved because the criteria of LOC 55.02.080 have not been met. Removal of the proposed seven trees will have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, on the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and on the property values of the neighborhood. Therefore, the request for tree removal should be denied. 335 Lake Oswego Development Review Commission July 30, 2009 (Re: LU 09-0009) page 6 D. SUMMARY Since the applicable approval criteria have not been, the application for legalization of. Tax lot 1902, for a lot line adjustment, and for tree removal should all be denied. Respectfully, Paul Norr PN/2 C: Debra Andreades, City Senior Planner via E-mail Bill and Andrea Yearsley 336 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT s s' rtft Nir i ae P€ �•�m Idbi � o 71 iR I I aaat+ & [ fw r fe p T 11 IF z �� �1 rrt lip: Fit — iik' SNI Imo. .. �I IM` It He; rl � 4 %• s a iIr4 III III I� I ` § � } I n a a ' b 4 >t I - �I� _+i � 'Its`'- i i -Y .— "-" ��' -• � I..-__ ' t� c R,�iwi k� ., ....{'.�.i: 4 II Ihl IM ... �! 1 F .IIII I• �r G �`. I� F .. �b.'I' �Jf:IT � i� II II 4 0 _ I i TSI I 11 • 4 I _ 7i : ' _I�Ndtt s I I � �� � � II I I � �I�ITII IF .I -•- �� I " - • s I I �.. II i. k Ifr4.'tis ^ � �!I � 11111111 I, 1 I' I I I I I I I I9lf IIII 111111 �.� I I IIII IU r .. ' u ' � •I; IIII � I II I III h IIII � I � � I II til i 1 �'^ t' i. � I�i{•L ��' � �6IIII II lh��.l—If,i'IF. �,, �-I���������' In I I.!*r rx T '4�Y1•I.F.c_ ": I:. II II I I _ ,II� _ IrII� III- II IIII IIII I� ___ III �1 III ' PN P:I 111 ~ I I lyl L • ,::: I iir- Ar Y.- , Le i ,}n ME 11 ED 7 r IIT 'ffT r si 5 rW r� 9 n, .` ku , n q,� ��. �•� • i _- � a c w,. F4 s� � ter III `I t l _��•-� �t � � c o, w ii r n� �� Rw IIW .� T'nllll p- i a' .. �J ,•m xh ,, 1 II J '9 1 William &Andrea Yearslev 16586 Phantom Bluff Court RECEIVED Lance Oswego, Oregon 97034 Phone: 503-697-0577 AUG ' 200.9 Fax: 503-699-4095 Email: City of Lake Oswego Andreayearsley a,comcast.net Community Development Dept. August 31; 2009 Development Review Commission Lake Oswego Community Development Department 380"A" Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: Objections to Approval in File No. LU 09-0009 Legalization of Lot for George Puterbaugh Ilearing scheduled for September, 9, 2009 Dear Development Review Commission, Thank you for your diligence in reviewing and considering our objection to The legalization of the Puterbaugh lot, Tax Lot 1802. As stated in the meeting of August 3, 2009, we have serious concerns regarding the legalization of this lot, and The ensuing construction of a single family residence. As previously discussed. we own Tax Lot 1800, and the residence directly across the street, at 16586 Phantom Bluff Court, Tax Lot 2600. Our home was constructed in 1989, and was architecturally designed to take full advantage of the lake view, with 7 of the main rooms and patio facing that view. The construction of a home on the Puterbaugh property, which for this past 35+ years, has been an illegal, non buildable lot, will greatly limit our view, diminish our home value and the enjoyment of our property. On August 26, Mr. Puterbaugh and his team delivered to the commission, the exhibits depicting placement of his home on the site and the resulting obstruction to our view. These pictures appear to be very accurate in demonstrating our objections. It is likely that Tax Lot 1802 was never designed to support a residence and was created only to allow lake access, as was our site Tax Lot 1800. However, we are not unsympathetic to Mr. Puterbaugh's desire to construct a EXHIBIT G-202 LU 09-0009 341 home on that property. When he and his attorney, Gary Shepherd initially met with the neighbors to present their proposal to legalize the property, we were infonned that the home would be a "modest, single level, flat roofed home" with minimal impact to the site and its surroundings. But, these renditions presented in Exhibit 2 demonstrate an upper, 2nd level or perhaps, a greatly raised first level ceiling height, to reach the maximum allowable height of 35'. It is in our best interests that this application be denied, however, in an effort to comprise and to reach an equitable solution to both parties, we would like to suggest to the Commission that the height of the home be limited, to that of a single level home with a basement, overall height of the single level not to exceed I5-18 feet. This would satisfy Mr.Puterbaugh's intentions to legalize the site and construct a home, and slightly mitigate the damage to our view. We sincerely thank the commission for your consideration. LC Andrea & Wil�/Yearsley 342 o 0 \CRL SEV04 LEGAL SERVICES & CONSULTATION November 13, 2009 City Council Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File No. LU 09-0009 Hearing Memorandum Dear City Council: -7,1 3115 SE Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97214 (503) 233-1985 TEL (503) 914-0474 FAX gary@oregonlandlaw.com EMAIL RELIVED NOV 1 6 2009 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Before you are two applications: 1) a request to legalize the Puterbaugh property for planning and development purposes, and 2) a property line adjustment application that is dependent on the lot first being legalized. The applications have the support of City Staff, as represented in their initial and supplemental staff reports and hearing testimony. The Puterbaughs purchased their property in 1972. The property was part of the Sundeleaf estate, which included the Glass property to the west (lots 1900 and 1905) and the Yearsley property to the east (lot 1800). The property was created prior to City partition regulations through a sale and recording process, as was customary during that time. Unfortunately, pursuant to today's standards, City staff is of the opinion that the lot cannot qualify as a lot of record. Thus, a legalization application is required. Of note, the Glass property was legalized in 2003 through a similar lot legalization application process. Applicants have been contributing members of the Lake Oswego community for decades. In the 1970's, applicant George Puterbaugh served as a member and president of the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce. Since 1972, applicants have paid real property taxes at developable values and yearly assessments to the Lake Corp. They also recently contributed in a substantial financial manner to the formation of an LID and construction of street, sewer, and water improvements that benefit everyone along Phantom Bluff Court, as well as the community in general by improving water quality. In 1991, applicant applied for and received approval to legalize his lot; the same application that is now before you. Unfortunately, for reasons out of applicant's control, and what was likely professional malpractice, the partition plat was not finally recorded and the approval expired. Of note, the City Council approved the legalization by reversing a Design Review Commission denial. EXHIBIT N Cq 6L tC As City staff stated, if the decision of the Development Review Commission is affirmed and the lot legalization application before you is denied, the Puterbaughs will have no property rights. They will have no right to build, they will have no right to use their property for lawful purposes, and they will have no right to sell their property. Simply, they will have no rights to enjoy there property as their neighbors do. City legislation will have effectively taken their property from them. As confirmed by the legislative history packet provided by Mr. Boone, the lot legalization ordinance was specifically designed to alleviate these hardships, while also promoting infill development in already developed neighborhoods consistent with regional planning goals. In denying the lot legalization request in a non -unanimous vote, the DRC majority interpreted and applied the applicable lot legalization standard in a manner that is contrary to and violates the plain wording and legislative history of the code standard. The commission also made a decision that is contrary to the legal analysis and factual findings made by Senior Planner, Debra Andreades in conjunction with the Development Director and City Attorney's office. Your professional staff offers the only neutral opinion of the issues and facts and an excellent and correct legal analysis of the interpretation question before you. I plead that you follow their recommendation of approval. Another unique aspect of this property is that it is located on a private street. The street existed before the area was annexed to the City. Since the property is located on a private street, staff is of the opinion that the lot width and depth measurements are zero — as lot width and depth are measured from public street. As such, rather that using the criteria in LOC § 50.01.030(1) or (2) which do not include standards which require an examination of impacts and generally mandate approval of a legalization request, applicant is required to address and apply LOC § 50.01.030(3). The lot legalization standard found in LOC § 50.01.030(3) provides in relevant part: "... an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity." Emphasis added. The standard requires the analysis to focus on impacts from "potential development" on the "neighborhood." As interpreted by your staff, if the potential development — one single family residence — is consistent with the existing community development pattern then the degree of impact is not significant and the application should be approved. The legislative history dictates that the standard was intended as a vehicle to approve lots for development, not to deny them. As required by the lot legalization standard, applicants presented a substantial amount of evidence of the potential single family development; community and neighborhood development patterns; view obstructions typical of the neighborhood, conceptual residential development designs on the subject property; and views of the lake that would remain after development. There is no evidence in the record that demonstrates that a home on the Puterbaugh property would be inconsistent with the existing community development pattern. To the contrary, the evidence in the 2 record demonstrates that neighborhood properties all have view obstructions to the lake, some of which are blocked completely by residential development and trees. No area property owner enjoys an unobstructed view through the property of another, which is the result of this application denial. The views currently enjoyed by the Yearsleys are the result of the Puterbaughs clearing the underbrush and invasive plants from the property. The evidence further demonstrates that a narrow home on the Puterbaugh property, in a design and location similar to the one presented to the City, will preserve substantial view corridors to the lake for the Yearsleys. View corridors that will remain are as follows: * West of the Puterbaugh home - an 80+ foot wide corridor between the Puterbaugh home and Glass home on lot 1900; * East of the Puterbaugh home - an approx. 35 to 50 foot wide corridor between the Puterbaugh home and the Smith home on lot 1700; including unobstructed views over property owned by the Yearsleys; * Views over the Puterbaugh home and garage; and * Additional views over the Glass home on lot 1900 and over the Smith home on lot 1700. To a large extent, the Puterbaugh home will hide behind and in the native tree cover, consisting of mature Douglas fir and deciduous trees that will remain on site. During the public hearing, two individuals personally testified in support of the applications; and two others provided written testimony in support. Three of those testifying live on Phantom Bluff Court, the subject street. They all confirmed that a single family home is consistent with neighborhood development and will not constitute a significant negative impact on views. At the deliberation hearing, the Development Review Commission struggled with appropriate conditions to approve the application, essentially punting the issue to the City Council to determine those conditions. As well, the focus of the majority of the Commission was on the impacts to the Yearsleys; not the impacts to the community and neighborhood; and not the consistency of the proposed single family development with neighborhood uses. To the contrary and based on the evidence before it, City Planning Staff found the lot legalization met all applicable criteria without the need to impose any mitigating conditions. If mitigation was deemed necessary, City Staff proposed two conditions to further mitigate any development impacts; * a smaller house; and * a house placed along front/rear axis, rather than across the width. // // 3 To further lessen any impacts to the Yearsleys, applicants voluntarily proposed additional mitigating conditions of approval such as: * building a small two story with basement home, a smaller home than is customary in the neighborhood; * limiting the maximum height to 35 feet — with no height exception to be taken — resulting in about one-half a story above visual grade; * limiting the height of the garage to 12 feet to promote view corridors — with respect to above sea level elevations, the garage structure will be slightly taller than the home; * building a home low on the property — just above the cliff; * building a home and garage into the hillside as much as practicable, thereby reducing the height that can be seen and to promote views to the lake over the structure; and * building a home and garage with a flat sloping roof, with the low side to the east to promote the Yearsley's view corridor to the lake through the property. Respectfully, applicants request the decision of the DRC be reversed and the applications be approved as recommended by Staff. Applicants also request the conditions proposed by both Staff and applicants be made conditions of development approval to mitigate any view impacts and ensure compliance with the lot legalization standard. Sincerely, Gary P. Shepherd Oregon Land Law CC: clients Debra Andreades 4 Gary Shepherd, Attorney Oregon Land Law George Puterbaugh George and Mary Glass A�LPP 15 SE Salmon St. 17570 SW Chippewa Tr. 16715 Phantom Bluff Court W"land, OR 97214 Tualatin, OR 97062 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Heidi Littler Palisades Neighborhood Assoc 2647 Park Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Stuart Bingham 16350 Phantom Bluff Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Steve Kaer 17110Cedar Rd. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • 1] Paul Noor, Attorney 5550 SW Macadam Ave., Ste Portland, OR 97239 Robert Hoberg 16777 Phantom Bluff Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Bill & Andrea Yearsley 330 16586 Phantom Bluff Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Y- Art D' Rosia 16789 Phantom Bluff Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT City of Lake Oswego Staff Presentation to City Council November 17, 2009 Appeal of DRC Decision to deny a One -Parcel Partition to Legalize Tax Lot 1902 of Map 21E9 CC AP 09-04 (LU 09-0009) Vicinity Map and Zoning Phantom Bluff Court is a private access easement 11/16/2009 2 Key Issues of the Appeal Appellant argument: DRC focused on impact to one property; rather than impact to neighborhood DRC disregarded pattern of development in the neighborhood i determining degree of impact In declining to impose conditions c approval, DRC ignored provision in t-vuG that would ensure lot legalization would have no negative impact. Staff Recommendation DRC Findings Obstruction of view is measured by impact to specific properties Necessary to consider pattern of development in neighborhood in determining degree of impact There was insufficient evidence to determine if proposed development was consistent with neighborhood pattern DRC could not impose conditions of approval if evidence insufficient to show development is consistent with neighborhood pattern. Alternative Council Actions Affirm the DRC's decision and deny if conditions cannot be imposed that would result in proposed development complying with the criteria OR Reverse the DRC's decision and approve with the original conditions and if needed, additional conditions. 7.2 OE LAKE OS wfC O CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT OREGON TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Director Guy Graham, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan DATE: November 9, 2009 ACTION Council is requested to adopt Resolution 09-68, that: • Adopts the Clean Streams Plan, and • Makes revisions to the Surface Water Rates. INTRODUCTION In 2006, the City embarked upon an updating process for Lake Oswego's Surface Water Management Plan. The update, called the Clean Streams Plan, is being submitted to Council for adoption. BACKGROUND The previous surface water master plan was developed in 1992. Since then, many of the proposed projects in that plan have been built and the science, technologies and regulations have evolved. The existing plan no longer provides effective guidance for staff at a time when the community has a heightened awareness and understanding of the importance of water quality and surface water management. As with any other utility, the City must decide how to manage and operate the surface water utility over the next 10 + years. Development of the Clean Streams Plan was based on these objectives: • Meeting objectives and goals of community members and of staff. • Identifying current practices for reducing stormwater runoff and enhancing water quality (Sustainability is included in this objective), • Meeting State and Federal stormwater permitting requirements, and • Providing a staff resource document to guide surface water management over the next decade or more. Council Report 11/09/09 Page 2 OTAK, Inc. was hired to shepherd the Plan through public involvement phases and oversee technical evaluation and document preparation. Over the past three years, City staff and the consulting team held a variety of outreach events to engage the community in the updating process. A series of meetings and interviews were held with City staff to solicit input and provide feedback on the Plan components. Finally, a significant amount of technical analysis was carried out, including topics such as rainfall analysis, issues with current regulations, development of potential programs and capital projects, and funding mechanisms. The Clean Streams Plan presents the result of these technical, staff and community outreach efforts. DISCUSSION Our existing stormwater system is largely a result of the topography, development patterns and technical knowledge at the time of construction. The most basic efforts regarding surface water were focused on protecting property and/or creating more 'usable' land. Water was captured and diverted in the most convenient manner; often through piping or ditches to the nearby stream or waterbody. This effort was generally informal and rarely considered downstream or water quality impacts. While the science on water quality and surface water management has advanced, a comprehensive review of our system has shown that topographic constraints and development patterns will continue to effect opportunities for improvement. Generally, drainage from rainstorms (stormwater) will be managed close to the source, and localized flooding issues will be handled on a case-by-case basis. In the water quality arena, finding ways to encourage water quality -friendly choices by the public, and treating or cleaning water before it enters the public storm drainage system are the best options we have today. Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) are discussed as a preferred option for Lake Oswego. As our knowledge continues to evolve, it's clear that more should be done in order to address the impacts of both flooding and water quality. Our limitations are: that newer technologies and methods can be expensive; must be matched carefully to the specific condition to be treated; and for the most part have not demonstrated reliable effectiveness. In managing surface water, flexibility to identify and apply problem - specific options will be key. Through community outreach efforts, we heard a variety of concerns and ideas for improving water quality and reducing flooding. Many participants were interested in broader aspects of water quality and flooding, while quite a few were interested only in location -specific problems. Though discussions ranged over a variety of topics, there was no clear consensus on regulation, innovation, new programs or incentives. City staff was involved in all aspects of the Plan as this document will serve to guide their work. Through this process, various issues and programs were evaluated. Council Report 11/09/09 Page 3 The Plan knits this information together in proposing a moderate but forward-looking course. Highlights include: • Two grant -funded programs for Lake Oswego residents and businesses. One program would provide incentive funding to install water quality -friendly designs that reduce the amount of runoff leaving their property, and the second program would provide funding for properties with streams to remove non-native vegetation and restore and protect the riparian/flood zones. • Programs to evaluate existing public surface water facilities and drywells for compliance with new regulatory requirements • Development of new design and maintenance manuals • Approximately 30 capital construction projects involving system retrofits for water quality, culvert replacement, upgrades of existing surface water facilities, and installation of new conveyance and water quality facilities. • Information and recommendations for the use of "green" approaches to surface water management • A public outreach plan that includes articles for Hello -LO, naturescaping workshops, and partnerships with schools for stream stewardship • Funding for the implementation of the capital program, administer the grant programs, and assist in the public outreach program. • Funding to maintain the street -sweeping program • Recommendations for revisions to the City's surface water ordinance • Recommendations for new ordinance to require maintenance of private surface water facilities • Sustainability criteria to guide the selection of "Best Management Practices" installed in the City • A review of maintenance and operations practices and recommendations for revisions, including standardized criteria for private and public facilities • State and Federal Regulatory Review section • Financing plan In the future, this Plan will be incorporated into the City's public facilities plan, which is being updated. A modification to the Comprehensive Plan to include the updated public facilities plan will occur as part of the City's periodic review process, scheduled for completion in 2012. Adoption of the plan as recommended (Option 5 as described in Section 12 of the Clean Streams Plan) will increase the City's surface water rates. The plan developed three options and established recommended rates for each option based on the cost of providing the programs and projects described for that option. New rates, to be effective in 2010, will be published in the City's Master Fees and Charges Schedule. Note that rate information contained in Section 12 is based on 2008 implementation; using the new current (2009) base fee of $8.38, Option 5 would result in a 2010 monthly charge of $8.96 per month. A modified Table 12-4 based on the current surface water fee is attached. Specific projects and ongoing programs will be selected on an annual basis through the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process. This is part of the City budget approval Council Report 11/09/09 Page 4 process and will result in work beginning in the 2010/2011 fiscal year. Also proposed is authorization for proposed staffing increase effective January 1, 2010 in order to have staff in place for the 2010/11 work program. In 2009 Council Goal setting, staff was asked to work with the Sustainability and Natural Resource advisory boards. Both Boards are in support of the Plan and emphasized a desire for implementation of a strong outreach and education program which would be provided through full implementation of the Plan. Also, over the summer and fall, staff included briefing papers in the Council Digest (Exhibit E). A Council study session was held on October 27, 2009. Based on Council comments the following revisions were incorporated into the Clean Streams Plan: • A revised and simplified executive summary emphasizing Plan recommendations • Added section introductions • Further clarification in capital project descriptions regarding preferred BMPs ALTERNATIVES The Plan considered three funding levels for implementation alternatives (See Options 3, 4 and 5 in Section 12 of the Plan). Alternatives vary the amount of work that can be carried out; lower funding options reduce the scope of work. Council might choose to implement any of these three, or propose and implement a new funding option. CONCLUSION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 09-68, adopting the full Clean Streams Plan (Option 5), with fee and staffing implementation as follows: • Annual fees established at $8.96 per month per ESU (effective 2010), and an annual rate adjustment of 7.01 % thereafter • Authorization for three new full time employees in the Surface Water Utility, effective January, 2010. The following exhibits are attached.- ttached:Resolution Resolution09-68 Exhibit A - Clean Streams Document — distributed separately Exhibit B — Modified Clean Streams Plan Table 12-4 Exhibit C — Lake Corporation 10/22/09 letter and staff response Exhibit D — Andy Harris Healthy Streams Report and staff response Exhibit E — Staff briefing papers Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Re*elKgg by: Alx`E). Mcl Ci Mana(+ RESOLUTION 09-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CLEAN STREAMS PLAN WHEREAS, the City adopted a surface water master plan in 1992 to guide management of the City's surface water utility; and WHEREAS, the City has found it necessary to provide updates to the master plan, now called the Clean Streams Plan; and WHEREAS, implementation of the complete Clean Streams Plan requires funding as described in Option 5 in the Plan section 12.2.6 requires an annual surface water fee increase of 7.01%. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon that: Section 1. The Clean Streams Plan, shown in Exhibit A and funded as described in option 5, Section 7 of the Plan, is hereby adopted. Section 2. The revisions to the surface water rates shall be incorporated into the City's 2010 Master Fees and Charges Schedule. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 17th day of November 2009. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Jack Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVE O FO M, David Powell, City Attorney DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Clean Streams Plan November 2009 City of lake Oswego _ ' I F- a.m. r: T W •v swo S City of lake Oswego F- W City of lake Oswego Abbreviations and Acronyms Continued ESC Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Flood Control Facility A detention, retention or other storage facility that reduces the flow rate of stormwater runoff and retains and releases storage volumes Flood Plain The land bordering a stream subject to inundation when the stream is at flood stage. FTE Full-time Equivalent Personnel Ground water The water under the surface of the earth that is found within the pore spaces and cracks between the particles of soil, sand, gravel and bedrock. Hydraulic Connectivity Similar to EIA, where runoff from impervious surfaces are directly connected to a collection system. Reducing Hydraulic connectivity refers to discharging stormwater to pervious areas rather than a collection system. Hydro -modification BMP that reduces peak runoff rates or volumes IDDE Illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination Program Illicit Discharges Any discharge to a storm sewer that is not composed entirely of stormwater and is not allowed per the NPDES permit. Injection Well Means a "well" into which "fluids" are being injected. LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. LIDA Low Impact Development Approaches LOC Lake Oswego City Code MRCI Municipal, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System: The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System is an EPA -mandated program that requires municipalities to initiate activities to reduce its quantity and improve its quality of stormwater. NFIP National Flood Insurance Program Vi City of Lake Oswego otak Abbreviations and Acronyms 303(d) List An EPA -mandated listing of streams that do not meet water quality standards. It includes the contaminant type and source, stream segment length, and other information. SES City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services BMP Best Management Practice: A Best Management Practice is an activity, device, or structure that serves as a means of reducing or eliminating the generation of pollution or the movement of i pollution towards stream, rivers, and lakes. CIP i Capital Improvement Project or Capital Improvement Plan CWA Clean Water Act CWP Center for Watershed Protection CWS C1eanWater Services Contaminant A substance, whether soil particles, chemicals, metals, organism not normally found in a stream or groundwater, or not normally found in the quantities measured. DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality DMA Designated Management Agencies Detention To hold runoff in a basin (pond) for a short period of time, thereby delaying the introduction of its volume (quantity) of stormwater to the neighboring stream. EIA Effective Impervious Area. Refers to impervious area that is directly connected to a collection system, as opposed to running across grass or some other type of pervious system before entering the collection system. EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act Clean Streams Plan v otak Table of Contents Continued Figure 8-1: Peters Road Tributary...................................................................................................... 79 Figure 8-2. Existing Facility at Southwood Park................................................................................... 80 Figure 8-3: Damaged Culvert on Springbrook Creek.............................................................................. 97 Figure 12-1: Comparison of 2008 Monthly Stormwater Fees in Other Jurisdictions .............................. 131 Figure 12-2- Comparison of Typical Utility Fees in Lake Oswego........................................................ 132 Table of Tables Table2-1: NPDES Co-Permittees........................................................................................................ 11 Table 2-2: City of Lake Oswego Existing Stormwater Regulations......................................................... 19 Table 5-1: Lake Oswego Sustainahility Principles.................................................................................. 35 Table 8-1: CIP Priority Evaluations...................................................................................................... 69 Table 11-1: City Maintenance Activities (Required by 2005 MS4 NPDES Permit) .......................... 118 Table 12-1: FY2009 Budget 0 &M Costs.......................................................................................... 124 Table 12-2: Option 4 New FTE Costs............................................................................................... 126 I Table 12-3: Option 5 New FTE Costs............................................................................................... 126 Table 124: Clean Streams Plan Funding Options............................................................................... 127 _I Table 12-5: Clean Streams Plan Funding Options............................................................................... 129 Table12-6. SDC Fee.......................................................................................................................... 130 Table12-7: SDC Projections ............................................................................................................... 130 Clean Streams Plan otak Development of the Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan was a team effort between the City of Lake Oswego, citizens of Lake Oswego and consultant services. The individuals listed below contributed their time, expertise, and support to make the project a success. City Project Manager Technical Sounding Board Elizabeth Papadopoulos Dennis Ades, Oregon Department of City of Lake Oswego Environmental Quality 380 A Avenue Rob Amsberry, City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Jim Bateman, City of Lake Oswego William Gaar, Lake Oswego Natural Resources Advisory Board Lake Oswego City Council David Gilbey, City of Lake Oswego Jack D Hoffman, Mayor Mark Rosenkranz, Lake Oswego 1 Roger Hennagin Corporation Kristin Johnson Kendra Smith, Clean Water Services Donna Jordan Dawn Uchiyama, City of Portland ' Sally Moncrieff Mary Olson Consultant Team Bill Tierney Otak Tim Kraft Scott Ferre City Staff Michelle Wittenbrink Alex McIntyre — City Manager Maureen Knutson Guy Graham — Public Works Scott Cimino Director/City Engineer Jeannine Johnson Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer Jeanne Lawson and Associates - Rob Amsberry — Surface Water Vaughn Brown Management Kristen Kibler David Gilbey — Water Quality _. MGS Engineers Incorporated Bruce Barker Red Oak Consulting Paul Matthews Joe Healy Special thanks to the Community Members, the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the -- Sustainability Advisory Board who reviewed this document. Their comments and direction provided valuable input and direction to the completion of this plan. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan l L = C �f clean streams... clear choices Submitted To: City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Prepared by: Otak, Inc 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Otak Project No. 13747 November 2009 Abbreviations and Acronyms Continued NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Contaminant Discharge Elimination System: A permit required from EPA for the discharge of stormwater into rivers, streams, and lakes. It is the permit that governs the activities under the MS4 program. NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service Non -Point Source Water pollution that does not come from a specific pipe, but is derived from stormwater runoff and flows to streams, rivers, and lakes directly from adjacent properties. Non—Structural BMP A BMP that does not include the use of a structural device, such as public education. O & M Operations and Maintenance ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Point Source Water pollution that is released from a specific pipe into a stream, river, or lake. SDC System Development Charges SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas Storm Sewer A system of below -ground pipes that convey stormwater to its discharge point. Stormwater Stormwater is rainwater that accumulates on land as a result of storms, and runoff from urban areas such as roads and roofs. Structural BMP A BMP that involves the use of a structure, such as a vegetated filter strip or catch basin with sump. Surface Water Surface water includes stormwater, and water in a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean. SWMP Stormwater Master Plan Clean Streams Plan vii otak Abbreviations and Acronyms Continued TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load: Total maximum daily load is a measurement of the maximum concentration of a specific contaminant possible in stream water without causing harm to the stream. TSS Total Suspended Solids UIC Underground Injection Control: means the Underground Injection Control program under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates injection wells. UOP Unit Operations and Processes WES Clackamas County's Water Environment Services WLA Wasteload Allocation WQ Water Quality `J i clean streams... la a vm otak City of Lake Oswego Executive Summary Overview The City of Lake Oswego has developed a new surface water management plan, the Clean Streams. Plan based on a governing principle and goals developed by community members and city staff to create a program that addresses public education, water quality, flooding, maintenance, and other issues related to storm and surface water management. This plan reflects the latest science and trends in surface water management and will be used by the City to provide direction over the next decade or more. Clean Streams Governing Principle To manage flooding and improve stormwater quality in a manner that recognities the value and function of the natural surface mater systems. Clean Streams Program Goals To cost-ffectively implement and maintain a sustainable drainage system to: • Promote public safety and minimi, -le proper y damage. • Protect and enhance the quality of surface water. • Preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitats. This plan uses public education and outreach, low impact development approaches (LIDA), and capital improvement projects, improved regulation and maintenance practices to meet these goals. It is well known that improving the quality of runoff is best done at its source. Therefore, a strong emphasis is placed on public'education and outreach since much of the runoff that reaches streams, lakes and rivers comes from private property. This plan seeks to provide a framework for educating Lake Oswego community members on how they can improve quality of water in streams, rivers, and the lake through activities on their own properties. Plan Components This surface water management plan includes the following elements: • A public outreach and education plan; • A Capital Improvement Plan; • A review of local stormwater codes along with recommendations for updates; • A review of city programs for compliance with federal and state regulations related to surface water; Clean Streams Plan ES -1 otak Executive Summary Continued • A review of city stormwater maintenance activities in regards to the latest practices related to stornnwater public outreach and education; and • A financing plan. Traditionally, surface water plans have focused on capital projects — improvements that prevent flooding, increase conveyance capacity to handle more stormwater, and possibly improve water quality. This plan includes those components; however, it also includes: • An educational program to help educate Lake Oswego citizens on how they can do their part to improve water quality. A guide to the use of sustainable Best Management Practices (BMPs). A guide to the use of LIDA, which are measures that seek to reduce hydraulic connectivity and mimic natural hydrologic processes for managing stormwater. The Clean Streams Plan is called a surface water management plan to distinguish it from the City's Stormwater Management Plan, which is part of National Contaminant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (1\4S4) permitting requirements. It is also different from a basin or watershed plan, which focuses on the practices and programs to protect and restore a watershed. Instead, the.Clean Streams Plan focuses on policies, standards, practices, and projects city-wide, and seeks to protect streams, lakes, and rivers, and properties throughout the city. The Clean Streams Plan reflects new trends in surface water management; that reducing contaminants commonly found in stormwater — nnetals, nutrients, sediment, and bacteria - is now a major focus of surface water management throughout the country and in Lake Oswego. This was identified as significant concern in a community survey conducted in 2006. In addition, the City's MS4 permit requires the implementation of certain measures to improve stormwater quality. The Clean Streams Plan provides steps toward improving the water quality of the City's creeks, lakes, and rivers, and protecting citizens and businesses from stormwater flooding. It emphasizes the latest science related to improving water quality and encourages public involvement, along with the use of Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) and retrofitting techniques, to reduce stormwater volumes. Recommendations The Clean Streams Plan will guide surface water practices in the City of Lake Oswego over the coming decade or more. It incorporates the latest policies, science and standards in surface water management and makes recommendations for changes to incorporate these new ideals. These recommendations are the heart of the plan and establish implementing otak City of Lake Oswego tak Executive Summary Continued directions for management of our stormwater system. Recommendations can be found in Sections 5 through 11 as follows: Sustainability (Section 5) The Clean Streams Plan includes the development of criteria to evaluate stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the City's sustainability principles. Section 5 describes the development of the sustainability criteria and a matrix with categories of BMPs evaluated using the sustainability criteria can be found in Appendix G. Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies (Section 6) Stormwater management is undergoing a paradigm shift. Traditional methods of discharging stormwater to water bodies through pipes is being replaced with approaches that use vegetated facilities to reduce stormwater volumes and flow rates by slowing the water down and infiltrating the water. They also improve water quality by percolating through an amended soil mix designed to remove pollutants from the water. Section 6 discusses methodologies and strategies for managing stormwater quantity (runoff volumes and flow rates), and water quality for public and private projects in the City using these approaches. It provides information on LIDA and other on-site flow control BMPs, it i discusses BMP effectiveness and tools for selecting BMPs, and it includes information on how to implement BMPs within a fully -developed city such as Lake Oswego through the use of Urban Stormwater Retrofits. The methods described in Section 6 (or similar methods) should be included in the development of a new stormwater design manual, and they should be employed for designs of new capital projects. Public Outreach (Section 7) Although most stormwater that falls in the city travels through the city -owned stormwater system, most of it originates on private property. Many residents in Lake Oswego have expressed an interested in finding out what they can do to improve the quality of the stormwater on their property and we cannot attain full water quality without their partnership.The Clean Streams Plan includes a program for outreach activities that involves and educates citizens on actions they can take to improve the quality of stormwater. Section 7 outlines activities, both active outreach programs such as stormwater audits, educational flyers and articles to reach the broader city population. This section provides the framework for a yearly education and outreach program that is refreshed and updated as new ideas are developed. Clean Streams Plan ES -3 otak Executive Summary Continued Capital Improvement and Operating Program (Section 8) . Section 8 includes capital programs and activities to address flooding problems and water quality concerns. It also includes the development of programs to meet state and federal regulations, such as NPDES and Underground Injection Control (UIC). Highlights include: 1. Two programs providing grants for Lake Oswego community members. One would provide funding to support the installation of private BMPs that reduce the volume of runoff leaving their property, and the second program would provide funding for property owners with streams on their property to remove non-native vegetation, and restore and protect the riparian zones. 2. On-going programs with yearly funding, include: a. Replacing catch basins with newer styles that trap sediments and oils within the catch basins where they can be removed by maintenance staff. b. Reviewing the City's drywells and infiltration facilities (UICs), and either modify them to meet Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations, or decommission them. 3. Approximately 30 capital projects including the preparation of a new stormwater design manual, preparation of a new stormwater maintenance manual, culvert replacement projects, and installation of new conveyance and water quality facilities. A matrix (Table 8-1 in Section 8) has been developed to assist in prioritizing the implementation of these projects. Costs have been developed for each on-going and individual capital improvement project. These costs were used in development of the proposed surface water fee changes used to fund the Clean Streams Plan (See Section 12). Federal and State Regulatory Review (Section 9) Section 2 discusses the state and federal regulations that influence stortnwater management in the city. They.include the City's NPDES permit, local Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans, Underground Injection Control regulations, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. Section 9 recommends changes to City Code for improved compliance with these regulations, including: 1. Implement ordinances that require the reduction of contaminants from stormwater discharges from redevelopment; 2. Require construction site operators to be certified in erosion and.sediment control. 3. Develop and adopt policy or code requirements stipulating that documentation of permit approvals for all newly installed UICs be provided for private developments prior to the City issuing final development approvals. ES -4 City of Lake Oswego otak Executive Summary Continued Local Codes (Section 10) This section reviews the City's stormwater ordinance. Interviews and meetings were held with city staff to determine what works well with the existing code and where the code could use improvements. The evaluation also included the need for changes to the City's ordinance to implement LIDA and revise regulations to implement state and federal regulations, such as NPDES and TMDLs. The following conclusions and recommendations resulted from this study: 1. Adopt an updated stormwater ordinance with sections covering legal authority, development standards, plan submittal, illicit discharge, and maintenance requirements. The new ordinance would replace and/or expand stormwater related requirements in Code Sections 38, 42 and 50. 2. Consolidate stornawater regulations that are now contained in various sections of City Code or create a comprehensive listing of all stormwater related requirements to provide a single reference document for staff and citizens to use. This document should be available online. 3. Gather existing written policies, document unwritten policies, and ensure that all policies appropriately reference the supporting City Code. Store policies in a central location that is accessible to staff. 4. Develop a maintenance ordinance to address maintaining stormwater facilities on private property. This ordinance should list private facility maintenance requirements, require compliance with an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) manual, require proof of long-term maintenance agreements, grant the City the authority to access and inspect private facilities and enforce (through penalties and fines) maintenance standards. 5. Adopt an updated stormwater design manual by either developing one specific to the City, or modifying an existing manual from another local jurisdiction. The manual should include: • Thresholds for triggering stormwater management measures; • Design standards for flow control (or water quantity) facilities; • Design standards for water quality treatment facilities; • Erosion and sediment control measures; and • Plan and design report submittal requirements. • LIDA • Outfall designs that include proper energy dissipation Clean Streams Plan ES -5 otak Executive Summary Continued • An updated manual could also include discussions of source control measures and maintenance standards. 6. Review the classifications for minor and major development and update as necessary to ensure that developments with significant stormwater impact (5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface) receive full review for stormwater impacts. 7. Incorporate LIDA practices into the stormwater design manual and review the development code to identify modifications needed to encourage LIDA practices. Encouraging LIDA standards may require modifications to the zoning code to allow decreased setbacks and creation of new overlay areas to encourage cluster development. (Note: Policy change of this type has implications far beyond surface water management and warrants a more detailed review.) 8. As ordinances are created or updated, review the enforcement mechanisms to ensure the City has the explicit authority to conduct needed activities or to require compliance with desired guidelines. Maintenance Program (Section 1 1) The City's stormwater maintenance program was reviewed for improvements to better address stormwater issues and respond to current NPDES permit requirements. Interviews and meetings were held with city staff to determine types and levels of maintenance currently being performed, and whether current staffing levels are adequate to meet current and future maintenance needs. The following conclusions and recommendations resulted from this study: 1. Develop a stormwater facility maintenance manual, or adopt a manual from another jurisdiction and tailor it to the City's needs. This manual would provide detailed procedures for maintaining catch basins, ponds, ditches, and other elements of stormwater infrastructure to keep them in good working order. The manual would improve consistency of maintenance practices and provide improved infrastructure maintenance procedures. 2. Consult other jurisdictions to see if an anti -icing program would help the City provide greater water quality benefits than current sanding practices. 3. To ease workload demands and make the best use of existing staff resources, the City may consider contracting out catch basin cleaning to another jurisdiction. The City can check with neighboring jurisdictions to see if this service is available and whether this alternative is more cost effective than providing the service in-house. 4. The City currently utilizes a retired street sweeper for part-time street sweeping. The City will need to replace this position with a Full -Time Equivalent Personnel (FTE). ES -6 City of Lake Oswego otak Executive Summary Continued The City's existing stormwater management program is small in scope reflecting current funding and especially, staffing limits. The plan calls for significantly more work, which would be supported by the addition of FTEs. Proposed surface water fee increase options are summarized in Section 12 and reflect choices for partial or full adoption of this plan Implementation of the full Clean Streams Plan will bring Lake Oswego in line with the most current practices for addressing stormwater while staying within a modest footprint. The plan is moderate in scope to reflect a community that is interested in improving stormwater management but not yet ready to take on additional programs such as watershed planning. The plan addresses basic and necessary issues but it's likely that with effective outreach and other community -initiated activities, we will see an increased base of support to fund more programs in the near future. Additional programs will only enhance our stormwater management efforts build upon the Clean Streams Plan efforts. Clean Streams Plan ES -7 otak Section I—Introduction Like most communities, Lake Oswego is faced with many challenges in managing stormwater. Regulatory requirements (UIC, NPDES, and TMDL), flooding, watershed health and water quality concerns are among the many elements to be considered. In response to increased public outreach by communities throughout the Portland metro area, citizens are more knowledgeable and interested in improving the quality of stormwater runoff. Public agencies have also come to realize that to achieve improvements in stormwater quality they need the assistance of citizens and businesses in their communities. Contaminants commonly found in stormwater runoff, such as oils and metals from roadways, sediment from construction sites, and phosphorus from fertilizers, come from public roadways, private businesses, and homes. Reducing the levels of these contaminants begins by eliminating their introduction at the source. Studies have shown that reducing contaminant levels at the source is more effective and less costly than removing them after they have been entrained in the stormwater (Ecology, 2005, Baker, 2008). The Clean Streams Plan provides direction for managing surface water in the city. It provides recommendations for upgrades to maintenance and design standards; evaluates and recommends upgrades to the City's conveyance system; provides a program for public outreach and education to educate the community on how they can help improve water quality in the community; and it describes the latest techniques for surface water management through the use of targeted "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for contaminant reduction, and through the use of "Green Street", or Low Impact Development (LID) approaches to managing stormwater. These techniques should be for the design of public improvement projects and incorporated into the design standards for private development. 1.1 The Community's Plan The Clean Streams Plan is a partnership between the City and the Citizens of Lake Oswego. This plan has been tailored to reflect the values, goals, and interests of Lake Oswego's citizens as they relate to surface water and is intended to be a partnership in improving the surface water quality in the community. While the City is responsible for surface water management, the actions and choices of community members most affect surface water quality and quantity. In July and August of 2006, the City conducted a survey which asked a number of questions about the concerns local citizens have in regard to surface water. Seventy-four people responded to the survey, and 77 percent of those respondents believed that pollution in creeks, lakes, and rivers is the most serious problem. Loss of fish habitat, wetlands, native wildlife and vegetation were identified as the next concerns. Clean Streams Plan 1 otak Section I—Introduction Continued The Importance of Stormwater Management The Water Cycle The earth's water continuously circulates between the atmo- sphere to the land in the forms of evapotranspiration (from earth to atmosphere) and rainfall where it becomes surface water and infiltrates into the soil to become groundwater. This is called the water cycle, or hydrologic cycle, and is key to understanding stormwater impacts. The natural water cycle • ,� Erapunnspntion `�• �...�"v� In natural (undeveloped) condi- tions, rainfall infiltrates slowly into the ground. Natural biologic processes cleanse the water as it moves through vegetation and soil and into groundwater. Because most rainstorms are not large enough to fully saturate the soil, only a small percentage of rainwater flows over the surface as runoff. What does become runoff usually travels in a slow, meandering pace. Particles and sediments settle out along the way, ridding the water of impurities before it flows into rivers and streams. The Effects of Development Development drastically alters part of the natural water cycle. Impervious surfaces such as build- ings and roads prevent rain from soaking into the ground. There is also less vegetation to soak up, store, and evaporate water. In addition, the natural soil structure is lost as a result of grading and compaction during construction. As a result, stormwater runoff greatly increases, flowing over land surfaces or through conveyance systems (such as pipes and ditches) into rivers and streams. This alteration of the water cycle can have significant negative effects on surface, water and groundwater, causing horm to fish and wildlife, drinking water supplies, property, recreation, and other beneficial uses. • Increased runoff volume and speed may cause flooding and erosion and impairment of natural habitat in rivers and streams. • Bemuse less water infiltrates into the ground, less groundwater recharge may occur. This con reduce drinking water and irrigation supplies and may also reduce base flows in streams, which can be detrimental to fish and aquatic organisms. • Developed surfaces retain heat, which increases runoff temperature during warm weather. This in turn may raise the temperature of the receiving waters, with potential negative impacts on aquatic fife. • Stormwater runoff picks up oil, fertilizers, pesticides, metals, chemicals, sediments, bacteria, debris, and other pollutants and may carry them into rivers and streams. 2 otak In July of 2006, a Community Sounding Board was formed by contacting citizens known to be interested in surface water in the community and asking them for their involvement in the development of the Clean Streams Plan. A meeting was held with this group to gauge interests and goals related to surface water. Most residents present at this meeting felt the City should concentrate on fixing flooding problems local to their neighborhood. Four community meetings held in the spring of 2007 solicited a variety of responses from citizens. Some felt that educating citizens on how they can help improve water quality was important, while others felt that maintenance of stormwater facilities near their homes (whether public or private) should be the Clean Streams Plan's top priority. Although a number of outreach activities were conducted so citizens could have many opportunities to provide input, it is important to note that input received was from a small segment of the population and does not represent a statistically valid sample of Lake Oswego residents. The outreach activities conducted in 2006 and 2007 demonstrates that the community (the portion that responded to our surveys or attended meetings) has different ideas on the top priorities and strategies for stormwater management. Therefore, the Clean Streams Plan has been developed with the intent of providing a moderate approach that meets the interests expressed by all citizens. City of Luke Oswego 1.2 Governing Principles and Goals The 1992 Plan identified governing principles and program goals behind city policies related to surface water management. These principles were reviewed and updated with the Clean Streams Plan. The citizens of Lake Oswego were invited to provide feedback on these governing principles and help craft a new message that reflects the current thoughts, ideals, and values of the community members. Clean Streams Governing Principle To manage flooding and improve stormwater quali y in a manner that recognif es the valise and function of the natural surface water systems. Clean Streams Program Goals To cost- ffectively implement and maintain a sustainable drainage ystem to: • Promote public safety and minimitie property damage. • Protect and enhance the qualiy of surface water. Presence and enhance fish and wildlife habitats. 1.3 Characteristics of Surface Water Systems in Lake Oswego The City's unique topography- and development characteristics influence methods for treating and disposing of stormwater. Improving surface water quality in the city starts with an understanding of the characteristics of the city-, and of how stormwater is currently- managed in different neighborhoods throughout the city. Clean Streams Plan Section I—Introduction Continued Mitigation through Stormwater Management Stormwater management goals are intended to mitigate stormwater impacts created by typical development practices so new development and redevelopment maintain a better balance with the natural water cycle. This is achieved through the following approaches. • Source can trol best management practices (BMPs) prevent starmwarer from coming into contact with pollutants in the first place. Examplesinclude sweeping instead of using water to dean an outdoor area and minimizing the use of chemicals for yard care. Source control BMPs are a cost-effective means of reducing pollutants in starmwater and should be a first consideration in all projects_ • Treatment BMPs reduce pollutant loads and concentrations in stormwater runoff through physical, biological, and chemical removal mechanisms. Examples in - dude biofiltration, dispersion, constructed wetlands, and proprietary filter systems. These BMPs may accomplish significant levels of pollutant load reductions if properly designed and maintained. • Flow control BMPs detain, retain, or infiltrate stormwater runoff to control the flow rate, frequency, duration, and volume of runoff leaving the site. Examples include detention ponds, infiltration systems, and constructed wetlands. • Low impact development approaches emphasize capturing, treating, and infiltrat- ing stormwater at the source. Techniques are used that mimic natural processes by allowing stormwater to slowly soak into the ground or filter through vegeta- tion—far example, porous pavement, rain gardens, infiltration planters, and areen roofs. Design and construction methods that preserve and take advantage of the site's natural features, such as open spaces, native vegetation, natural depressions, and wetlands are also considered LIDA. This approach provides multiple emrironmental, aesthetic, and cost benefits in addition to starmwater management. 3 otak Section I—Introduction Continued The city does not typically see many large, new developments. Most of the city is already developed, and many areas of the city are redeveloping, with smaller, older homes being replaced by larger homes. This redevelopment results in the removal of vegetation and trees, and increases in pavement, sidewalks, driveways, and buildings. The increase in impervious surface results in less area for stormwater to soak into the ground and more stormwater running off the property. This water ends up in the local streams, and the larger volumes and increased velocities of this runoff cause the streams to erode, carrying sediment to the larger rivers and lakes. The resulting erosion has caused the streams to incise, which leads to further degradation of the streams and disconnection of the streams from the adjacent floodplain. There is a call for the City to restore these streams. However, many of these streams are on private property, and are privately owned and managed by the property owner in ways that may not facilitate community access and/or maintenance, and may not meet local or state regulations. As development and the associated increases in stormwater volumes increase, erosion of these streams will continue unless methods are employed to reduce the increases in stormwater runoff. The City should continue their existing stream restoration activities; however, the City must work on addressing the causes of stream erosion by reducing stormwater volumes and flow rates in the upper portions of the watershed. If this is not done, then investments in stream restoration will not be effective. Section 6 provides techniques for these purposes, and Section 8 contains capital improvement projects that also seek to reduce stormwater volumes and peak flow rates reaching the streams. 1.4 Staffing and Implementing the Clean Streams Plan The Clean Streams Plan has many new programs and projects. Implementation of the plan elements will require staff and funding resources. A discussion of how these programs and projects can be implemented is included below. 1. Public Education and Outreach. The Clean Streams Plan introduces many new programs for public outreach and education (See Section 7). These programs include workshops and home audit programs, as well as newsletters and articles for inclusion in local newspapers and distribution lists. The Clean Streams Plan anticipates staff participation from Public Affairs, Planning, and Engineering for implementation of these activities. This would occur through participation in workshops, the creation of education materials, and participation in the task force that develops the yearly program. The plan includes the hiring of one FTE to coordinate and implement surface water 4 City of Lake Oswego otak Section I—Introduction Continued outreach and education activities. The program anticipates the hiring of this FTE in 2010, and they could reside in Public Affairs. 2. Capital Improvement Projects. Section 8 lists projects to improve water quality and localized flooding in specific areas of the city. These projects will be reviewed and prioritized on a yearly basis, along with other projects not currently identified, through the annual Capital Improvement Plan process. The plan assumes that most projects will be developed with the assistance of outside consultants. This includes the development of design standards and manuals. However, the City must still provide project management and current staffing resources are not sufficient to provide this service. Therefore, the Clean Streams Plan includes funding for the hiring of an FTE in the Engineering Department to assist with surface water management activities. Although a full position description was not developed as part of this plan, it should include managing surface water capital projects, including the development of proposal requests, oversight of code revisions, and the management of consultant and construction contracts. 3. Local Code Revisions. This is also a significant piece of this plan, describing detailed and comprehensive revisions to local codes to allow the use of the latest in _ stormwater management technologies relating to water reuse and LIDA, to create new design standards and manuals, and to revise code to require water quality standards to be met by all developments. This work can be performed by in-house planning and engineering staff if resources are available, or an outside consultant can be hired to assist. However, even with the use of an outside consultant, significant assistance will be needed from city planning and engineering staff for input on anticipated revisions. A capital project is included in Section 8 for funding this work. 1. 5 Compliance with OAR 660-1 1-010 The Clean Streams Plan is intended to serve as the storm drainage element of the City's Public Facilities Plan as required pursuant to OAR 660-11-010. The City's latest Public Facilities Plan was prepared in 1997, and was being updated at the time of the development of the Clean Streams Plan. Therefore, the Clean Streams Plan was coordinated to meet the requirements of OAR 660. The Clean Streams Plan is an update to the 1992 Surface Water Management Plan. It contains updated goals and objectives, an updated capital project list and financing plan, an updated public outreach plan, and a review of local codes and maintenance policies. City Comprehensive Plan policies under Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, Section 2 — Stormwater Management, related to stormwater include: Clean Streams Plan 5 otak Section I—Introduction Continued Minimize future storm drainage problems within and adjacent to the Urban Services Boundary. 2. Implement measures to protect existing drainage systems and easements. 3. Prohibit the encroachment of structures and other permanent improvements over public storm drainage lines and within public storm drainage easements and drainageways. 4. Discourage modifications to existing open drainageways and only allow modification when such action is in conformance with city standards. 5. Require new storm drainage facilities to have the capacity to accommodate projected upstream flows within the respective drainage basin, in addition to runoff generated by the development served by these facilities. 6. Require developers to construct required storm drainage facilities and to pay an appropriate system development charge (SDC). 7. Develop equitable funding mechanisms a. For storm drainage facilities maintenance; b. To resolve the deficiencies of the existing system within developed areas, and provide adequate storm drainage services to developing areas; and, c. To implement a capital improvement program (CIP) for the storm drainage system. 8. Utilize natural systems and non-structural methods to control stormwater runoff at the source as a preference to structural systems to the extent allowed by site characteristics. 9. Require all storm drainage improvements on private property, and those required as a condition of new development to: a. Accommodate storm drainage flows of development at full build -out; and, b. Be compatible with the City's Storm Drainage Public Facility and Capital Improvement Plans and Surface Water Management Program. The Clean Streams Plan addresses Policies 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 through recommendations for code and policy changes, and through the development and funding of a Capital Improvement Program. To meet the requirements of a Public Facilities Plan, the following elements must be addressed: An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant public facility systems that support the land uses designated in the acknowledged 6 City of Lake Oswego otak Section I—Introduction Continued comprehensive plan. The City has an inventory of public storm system assets and maintains them in a database. Portions of the system are assessed as problems are reported and system elements are repaired. 2. A list of the significant public facility projects that are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Public facility project descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary. Proposed capital projects are included in Section 8. 3. Rough cost estimates of each public facility project. Cost estimates are provided for each capital project proposed. A summary estimate is provided with the project write-up in Section 8, and a detailed cost breakdown is included in Appendix B. 4. A map or written description of each public facility project's general location or service area. A written description of each proposed capital project is included in Section 8, and maps showing the -. project locations are included in Appendix F. 5. (e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreements identifying the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated. The City of Lake Oswego provides storm drainage services within its urban services boundary. The policy statement is provided in the Public Facilities Plan. 6. An estimate of when each facility project will be needed. The facilities identified in the Clean Streams Plan are not time -critical and are implementedd as time and funding allows Stormwater facilities for new developments are constructed with the development. 7. A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project or system. Section 12 discusses the mechanism for funding each of the proposed Clean Streams Plan projects. All projects will be funded through surface water fees. 1.6 Consequences of Inaction -- The City's current surface water management plan was written in 1992. Since then, management strategies, permit requirements, and technologies for improving surface water quality have changed significantly. Most sections of the 1992 plan are now out-of-date and of limited usefulness for managing stormwater. Clean Streamr Plan 7 otak Section I—Introduction Continued When the 1992 plan was developed stormwater management strategies focused on the installation of centralized facilities for controlling flooding. Although water quality was a concern at the time, it was not nearly as large a concern as it is today. Management strategies, permit conditions, and BMPs used for improving stormwater quality have changed remarkably since the development of the 1992 plan. In addition, the latest research shows that centralized detention facilities are not effective in protecting streams from erosion. The use of decentralized facilities or facilities sized to match flow durations (the amount of time a facility releases stormwater at a particular flow rate) rather than matching peak flow rates is more effective at protecting streams. DEQ recognized this when they included the requirement to develop a new surface water plan in Lake Oswego's 2004 NPDES permit. Other permit conditions and new requirements for protecting Underground Injection Control (UICs) require the City to implement new programs and develop new measures to protect streams and drinking water (through water quality measures on stormwater entering UICs). Monitoring of streams, public education plans, and the implementation of new stormwater management practices are mandated in the City's NPDES permit. These require staffing, funding, and the development of programs and projects. Without this new plan, many of these programs will go unfunded, and the City will not be in compliance with their current permit requirements. Currently public outreach and education programs relating to surface water are conducted in different departments, as staffing and resources are available. The Clean Streams Plan includes the development of a structured and coordinated annual plan, with participation from different departments. The plan recommends the addition of a new staff person to coordinate this program. Without this FTE, public education and outreach will continue on an ad hoc basis as staff resources and funding are available. The City's stormwater code allows many developments to avoid having to treat stormwater runoff. The City's design manual was never adopted by the City Council and contains out- dated requirements. Recommendations in the Clean Streams Plan include revisions to codes and manuals, and a review of City Code for impediments to allowing sustainable and low impact development approaches. Without this plan, the City will continue to allow new developments to avoid meeting stormwater treatment requirements, and the requirements developers do follow will be out of date and ineffective. The Clean Streams Plan includes many new programs, including those required to meet permit requirements and new public outreach and education programs. It also includes new capital projects. Existing staffing levels are insufficient to carry out existing stormwater program needs. Therefore, without the staffing assistance outlined in this plan, it is likely that the majority of the recommendations in this plan will not be implemented. ° City of Lake Oswego otak Clean Streams Plan eduction Continued thout this otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes The City is responsible for complying with many federal and state stormwater regulations. The majority of the City's staff and financial resources for stormwater are dedicated to developing and managing programs to meet these regulatory requirements. This section discusses these regulations, and describes how these regulations impact the City's stormwater management program. A review of current City programs for compliance with these regulations is included in Section 9. 2.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) The NPDES was created in 1977 as part of the Clean Water Act. The NPDES program "prohibits discharges of pollutants from any point source into the nation's waters except as allowed under an NPDES permit" (EPA 2007). It was revised to include stormwater (considered a "nonpoint source") in 1987 when Congress passed the Water Quality Act. The federal NPDES program is administered in Oregon by DEQ, and the City of Lake Oswego is required to obtain an NPDES permit from DEQ every five years. The Phase One NPDES program covers medium and large Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) operators, which is for municipalities that serve a population of 100,000 or more. Phase II permits cover smaller local government's MS4s, serving populations of 1,000 people or more per square mile in an urban area, up to 100,000 people. Although Lake Oswego has a population of less than 100,000 people, they are a co -permittee of Clackamas County, which is a Phase I permittee (along with 12 other jurisdictions). Therefore, Lake Oswego is considered to be a Phase I co -permittee. The co -permittees in this Phase One permit are listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: NPDES Co -Permittees Clackamas County Clackamas County Service District No 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 Clean Streams Plan 11 otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued Table 2-1: NPDES Co -Permittees City of West Linn City of Wilsonville Oak Lodge Sanitary District The NPDES permit requires the City to implement BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater before discharging to the City's lakes, rivers, and streams. The permit also requires that performance indicators be developed for each BMP, and a monitoring plan be established to determine the effectiveness of the program. A Stormwater Management Plan is submitted to DEQ describing the City's program for meeting NPDES permit requirements. Yearly reports are submitted to DEQ describing progress in meeting those requirements. The Clean Streams Plan includes a capital project to implement a stormwater monitoring program required in the City's NPDES permit, and it includes other projects to improve stormwater quality in the city. Meeting the requirements of the City's NPDES permit strains city resources as each new permit adds more requirements. This is expected to continue, as monitoring and other requirements increase with each perniit cycle. Funding and staffing to meet these requirements will continue to be a challenge for the City. 2.2 Underground Injection Control (UIC) A UIC system is used for discharging stormwater into the ground. UICs can also be used for septic effluent and other fluids, but stormwater is the most common use. Drywells, which are bottomless manholes with holes in the sides, are commonly used as UICs. Their use is encouraged by many jurisdictions because they help replenish the groundwater table, and they protect streams from erosion due to increased stormwater flow rates and volumes that occur with new developments. However, if the stormwater is not treated properly, or if the groundwater table is close to the surface, then there is potential to contaminate the groundwater with pollutants in the stormwater. The Underground Injection Control Program is a federal program that is a part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The program's goal is to protect groundwater aquifers from contamination due to underground injection systems. DEQ operates Oregon's UIC Program for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DEQ now has a program in place that requires the City to review all their existing UICs and register those UICs with the state, if they are not already registered. DEQ allows UICs to 12 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued remain in use if they meet certain requirements and can be "rule authorized", and if they can't be rule authorized, they must be permitted or decommissioned. The City of Lake Oswego currently has 32 UICs all of which have been registered with DEQ. None of the UICs are currently Rule Authorized or permitted. The City needs to evaluate each of their UICs to determine if they can be Rule Authorized, and if they cannot, then they will need to be either permitted through DEQ or abandoned. Section 8 includes a project for evaluating the City's UICs. UIC permits will have requirements for managing, monitoring, and reporting on the condition of these UICs. In addition, the number of UICs owned by the City has an impact on the permit requirements. Municipalities with over 50 UICs will have stricter requirements for managing and monitoring. Therefore, the City is attempting to maintain a total UIC count less than 50 in order to minimize both the staff time and the financial resources that will need to be dedicated to this program. However, it is anticipated that developing a program and implementing it on a yearly basis will require a greater level of both staff time and financial resources than is currently available. Additional information on registration, rule authorization, permitting and decommission is included below. UIC Registration Existing UICs must be registered with DEQ. The registration information will help DEQ track the UICs, and it will determine if the UIC can qualify as "Rule Authorized". The data required for registration by municipalities such as Lake Oswego varies, depending upon the number of UICs. Municipalities with less than 50 UICs must certify that the stormwater is not exposed to hazardous substances, and submit a written stormwater _ management plan for DEQ approval. The stormwater management plan must include a stormwater systems assessment, systems controls (pre-treatment, BMPS, and source controls), an injection spill prevention plan, a maintenance plan, employee and public education, annual monitoring and record keeping. Municipal owners with 50 or more injection systems are required to provide additional data due to the volume being discharged and the risk to groundwater quality and public health. Municipalities must submit registration inventory data to DEQ 90 days prior to construction. The additional data is to include: • An evaluation of the potential impacts to groundwater quality. • Certification that the systems are not exposed to toxics. Clean Streams Plan 13 otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued Rule Authorized UICs For a UIC to qualify as "rule authorized", they must be registered, reviewed, and found to have no impact on water quality and they must meet the following requirements: • No other waste or discharge is mixed with the stormwater. • Stormwater runoff is minimized and no other disposal option is appropriate. If city hook-ups are not available, LIDS or green options should be reviewed. • No water supply wells are present within 500 feet (domestic, irrigation or industrial). • No public drinking water supply wells are present within 500 feet or within the delineated 2 -year time -of -travel, whichever is more protective. • No soil or groundwater contamination is present. • The injection system is not deeper than 100 feet, does not discharge into groundwater or below highest seasonal groundwater level. • A confinement barrier or filtration medium must be present, or pre-treatment must be used to prevent or treat stormwater contamination. • The design and operation of the injection system is to prevent accidental or illicit disposal, and temporary blocking of the injection system is available. UICs that are rule authorized do not need to obtain an individual permit or be included in an area -wide permit. Permitting Individual permits can be obtained for UICs that cannot meet Rule Authorization requirements. These are appropriate for private businesses, or jurisdictions with very few UICs. DEQ will be developing an area -wide permit for municipalities with numerous UICs. Requirements for area -wide permits will likely include: • Regular monitoring; • Annual reporting; and • Implementation of a stormwater plan. Area -wide permit elements will likely include: • Quarterly inventory reporting of new injection systems. • Monitoring and maintenance plans. • Screening for hazardous areas. • Spill plans. 14 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued • Closure and remediation requirements. • Inspection and enforcement options. Municipal owners with 50 or more injection systems will likely be required to provide additional data due to the volume being discharged and the risk to groundwater quality and public health. Decommissioning DEQ is to be notified at least 30 -days before removing a UIC. A "Pre -closure" notification form is to be filled out and submitted to DEQ with the appropriate fees. Soil and groundwater sampling will be required for most UICs. Documentation to be provided to DEQ includes how the UIC will be decommissioned (excavate out or leave in place and seal), and results of the soil/groundwater sampling. If sampling finds hazardous materials at high enough levels, it will be added to DEQ's hazardous site database, and cleanup will be required. 2.3 Total Maximum Daily Load and 303D listings This is a federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that is administered by DEQ. The CWA requires the State of Oregon to develop a list of impaired or threatened waters within the state. To meet this mandate, DEQ establishes water quality standards and prepares a list of impaired waters known as the 303(d) List. Waters are added to the 303(d) list if they do not meet the water quality standards set by DEQ. To address water quality issues in these 303(d) listed waters, Total Maximum Daily Loads (I'MDL) must be established by DEQ for identified contaminants. A TMDL is the total amount of a contaminant a water body can accept without violating the water quality standard. Implementation plans are prepared to meet the TMDL goals and are implemented by Designated Management Agencies (DMAs). Lake Oswego is a DMA for the Tualatin River, Springbrook Creek, Tryon Creek, Oswego Lake, and the Willamette River. The TMDLs associated with each of these water bodies is listed in the following sections. Strategies for meeting TMDL requirements are included in the stormwater management plan developed for the City's NPDES permit. These strategies will continue to be implemented through the City's NPDES permit program, and aside for a new project to increase constituent monitoring in streams, are not addressed in this plan. 2.3.1 Tualatin River Stormwater from Lake Oswego enters the Tualatin River through outfalls to Ball Creek and Carter Creek (both discharge to Fanno Creek, a tributary of the Tualatin River), and through Clean Streams Plan 15 otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued smallstreams and stormwater outfalls that carry stormwater from the south side of the city to the river. Water quality constituents of concern for the Tualatin River and tributaries of the Tualatin River have been listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEA. TMDLs for some of the constituents have been approved by the U.S. Environmental, Protection Agency (EPA). TMDLs have been approved for the following constituents in the Tualatin River and its tributaries: • pH • Chlorophyll a (Total Phosphorus) • Temperature • Bacteria • Dissolved Oxygen Constituents of concern that do not yet have approved TMDLs are listed on a 303(d) list provided by DEQ and submitted to the USEPA. The current 303(d) listed constituents for the Tualatin River and its tributaries include: • Iron • Manganese The TMDLs and 303(d) listings for the Tualatin River apply to all tributaries and land uses in the Tualatin River basin. The Tualatin River tributaries, which the City of Lake Oswego currently utilizes for stormwater outfalls, includes the Tualatin River, Ball.Creek, Carter Creek, Wilson Creek, and Pecan Creek. There are also direct stormwater outfalls from the city to the Tualatin River. 2.3.2 Willamette River The City has a few storm outfalls that discharge directly to the Willamette River, but most discharge to smaller streams that then flow to the Willamette River. Oswego Creek carries flows from Oswego Lake to the Willamette River. TMDLs have been approved for the following constituents in the Lower Willamette River: • Bacteria • Mercury • Temperature The TMDL for the Willamette River applies to Oswego Lake, and all its tributaries and 16 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued outfalls. The following tributary stream has its own TMDL, along with having to adhere to the TMDL plan for the Willamette River. 2.3.3 Tryon Creek Tryon Creek passes through the northeastern portion of the City of Lake Oswego on its way to the Willamette River. Most of the watershed is in the City of Portland; however, a section of the city west of downtown drains to a tributary of Tryon Creek. Requirements DEQ has listed the City of Lake Oswego as one of the DMAs responsible for the Tryon Creek TMDLs. (ODEA, 2006). TMDLs have been approved for the following constituents in Tryon Creek: • Temperature 2.3.4 Oswego Lake Oswego Lake is located in the center of Lake Oswego and is surrounded by private residences. The lake is approximately 410 -acres and is privately owned and operated. The tributary area draining to the lake consists of multiple land uses. The lake is the receiving water body for most drainageways and stormwater outfalls within the city and receives the majority of runoff generated in Lake Oswego. The lake experiences high levels of phosphorus and nuisance algal blooms. Oswego Lake is formed by a dam which holds the lake water in a former Tualatin River channel. The dam spillway directs flows from the lake to Oswego Creek which discharges to the Willamette River. The lake is connected to the Tualatin River by a gate and canal (Oswego Canal) that can be used to divert flows from the Tualatin River to the lake. Requirements TMDLs have been approved for the following constituents in Oswego Lake: • Phosphorus The TMDL for Oswego Lake applies to the lake, and all its tributaries and outfalls. The following tributary streams have their own separate TMDLs, along with having to adhere to the TMDL Plan for Oswego Lake. 2.3.5 Springbrook Creek The Springbrook Creek Watershed drains an area from west of Oswego Country Club, northwest as far as Mountain Park and eventually flows into Oswego Lake at the lake's northern shore. The City of Lake Oswego is the dominant jurisdiction in the watershed, followed by the City of Portland, Clackamas County, and Multnomah County. Clean Streams Plan 17 otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued Requirements DEQ has listed the City of Lake Oswego as one of the DMAs responsible for the Springbrook Creek TMDLs. (ODEA, 2006) As a DMA; the City is responsible to implement the TMDL Plan for Springbrook Creek, which includes the following constituents: • Bacteria 2.3.6 Lost Dog Creek Lost Dog Creek is located south of Oswego Lake and consists of two legs, Lost Dog Creek West and Lost Dog Creek East, which converge prior to discharging to Oswego Lake. This creek system drains steep, primarily residential areas. Much of Lost Dog Creek flows through the back yards of private residences and other private properties. Significant amounts of sediment are conveyed by the creek to Oswego Lake due to erosion; however, managing this erosion is challenging due to much of the creek being located on private property. Requirements Lost Dog Creek does not have listed contaminants; however, the Oswego Lake T1VIDL is applicable to Lost Dog Creek, as well as all tributaries and outfalls to the lake. TMDLs have been approved for the following constituents in Oswego Lake, and therefore Lost Dog Creek: • Oswego Lake's Phosphorus TMDL 2.4 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species of Salmon and Steelhead in the Pacific Northwest have been listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Under federal ESA legislation, this listing requires that endangered or threatened fish and their habitat be protected. City programs have the option to apply for protection from liability for harming fish and fish habitat if the programs meet certain criteria and are approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS currently lists 13 approved "limits", or exceptions, to the take prohibition. These limits are either approved programs or categories of activities NMFS may evaluate for approval in the future. An example of a category NMFS may evaluate in the future is Municipal, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial (MIZCI) development and redevelopment activities. If jurisdictions submit programs for management of these activities to NMFS, they will evaluate the programs for an exception to the take prohibition. 2.5 METRO Code 3.07 The City of Lake Oswego is also within the metro urban growth area and subject to METRO's codes and policies. METRO Code 3.07 is the Urban Growth Management 18 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued Functional Plan. Title 3 of the plan contains requirements and performance standards for water quality, flood management and fish and wildlife conservation. Metro area cities (including Lake Oswego) are required to amend their comprehensive plans and codes to adopt Title 3 code language that complies with the performance standards and intent of Title 3. 2.6 Existing City Stormwater Regulations The City of Lake Oswego addresses surface and stormwater management in different sections of the City Code. Table 2-2 summarizes the existing regulations. The list includes adopted City Codes, guidance documents (i.e., the Stormwater Design Workbook), and unwritten, though generally accepted policies used by city staff. Table 2-2: City of Lake Oswego Existing Stormwater Regulations Code Number Title Summary of Contents 38.06 Utility Fee Purpose of Surface Water Utility and basis for setting utility fee. Responsibilities of the Surface Water Utility; areas 38.24 Surface Water Utility of jurisdiction (excludes Oswego Lake); requires a Surface Water Master Plan; maintenance levels for public and private systems. Violation of Utility Identifies penalties for tampering with or damaging 38.26 Code utility infrastructure; prohibits surface water and sewer connections. 39 System Development Allows SDCs at rates set by the City Council. Charges 40 Improvement Setting up local improvement districts for water, Procedure sewer, or surface water infrastructure construction. Drainage must be handled on lots whenever 42 Streets and Sidewalks Possible; include drainage needs when calculating right -of -wap widths; design infrastructure for the 10 -year storm. 50.16 Sensitive Lands Identifies sensitive areas; guidelines for delineating Overlay District stream corridors. Drainage Standard for Lots must be developed to maximize percolated 50.40 Ministerial and Minor runoff, when possible; cannot adversely affect Development downstream properties. Clean Streams Plan 19 otak Section 2—Federal, State, and Local Codes Continued Table 2-2: City of Lake Oswego Existing Stormwater Regulations Code Number Title Summary of Contents Drainage Standard for Requires treatment, detention, and emergency 50.41 Major Development overflows; identifies some design standards; outlines maintenance standards. 50.44 Flood Management Identifies restrictions and additional standards for Areas development within the 100 -year flood boundary. Types of Development and Defines development categories. Most applications 50.79 Review Criteria for fall into the minor category unless a conditional Each Type of use permit is required. Development Erosion control plan required for developments 52 Erosion Control that disturb more than 500 square feet or less than 500 square feet near a surface water body. Guidelines for designing stormwater facilities. N/A Stormwater Design Facility options are fairly limited and some Workbook calculation methods are outdated. The workbook has not been officially adopted in ordinance. Urban Growth Development restricted in flood boundaries and Management near stream corridors and major wetlands; City METRO Functional Plan; Title must adopt consistent standards to protect natural 3.07.310-370 3: Water Quality, resources. Flood Management, and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Review staff has a general policy of directing people to utilize the Stormwater Design Workbook Unwritten for guidance. There are a number of other unwritten policies that staff acknowledges exist and need to be documented. Section 10 provides a summary of the review of these codes, and provides recommendations for revisions to comply with state and federal regulations, to incorporate new stormwater management technologies such as LIDA, and to make the City's program more efficient and effective. 20 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 3—City Environmental Programs The City conducts many activities and programs not included in this document that affect stormwater management, and some that are not directly related to stormwater, but support the governing principle and goals, and the enhancement of surface and stormwater quality. This section discusses both types of programs and how they connect to stormwater management and meet the Clean Streams Plan Goals and Principles. 3.1 Existing Surface Water Programs The City's Surface Water Management program consists of four components, a Capital Improvement Program, a Floodplain Management Program, a Water Quality Program, and a Maintenance Program. Each of these is described below. Capital Improvement Program This involves the administration and management of the design and construction of new projects. The types of projects include: - a. Installation of new stormwater facilities. b. Construction of new water quality facilities. c. On-going programs such as the replacement of catch basins with new ones containing sumps and oil/water separators. - d. Repair and replacement of aging facilities. These projects include those identified through planning processes (such as the Clean Streams Plan or the City's Capital Improvement Plan), and projects identified through citizen complaints or other avenues. Smaller projects are designed in-house. Large projects are designed either by in-house staff or through the use of consultants. Projects are bid out to local contractors using the public bid process, or some smaller projects are performed by city maintenance staff. Projects are included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan for ranking and funding. This plan is updated annually and presents a five-year schedule of capital projects for: • City government facilities. • Parks, recreation facilities, open space, and beautification programs. • Transportation, including intersections, pathways, roads, bridges, and the trolley. • Utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, and surface/stormwater. The Capital Improvement Plan is used as a planning tool for public works, maintenance, and parks staff, and as a budgeting and financial planning tool to develop long-range financial Clean Streams Plan 21 otak Section 3—City Environmental Programs Continued plans for capital facilities. The Clean Streams Plan includes a list of capital improvement projects to be included in updates to the Capital Improvement Plan. Both capital projects (See Section 8) and public education programs (See Section 7) that require funding will be added to plan updates. Floodplain Management The City of Lake Oswego is a -participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against flood related property damage. Participation in the NFIP is an agreement between cities and the Federal Government that makes flood insurance available to communities that adopt and enforce floodplain management standards in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). The SFHA is defined as an area of land that would be inundated by a flood having a one percent chance of occurring in any given year (also referred to as the base flood or 100 -year flood). The City of Lake Oswego, in partnership with Clean Water Services and several communities along the Tualatin River, participated in an expanded study of the Tualatin River drainage basin in 2007 and 2008. The results of these efforts produced a revised flood insurance study (FIS) and associated floodplain maps, which established new base flood elevations and floodway widths for the City. Properties within the floodplain are required to purchase flood insurance for their property. The City administers the NFIP program. This includes the administration of the City's floodplain ordinance, which ensures that development of any property in the floodway shall not cause a rise in water surface elevations during the base flood event. In addition, the ordinance requires all buildings in the floodplain to comply with development standards. Water Quality Program The City is a holder of a federal permit, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES). This permit allows the City to discharge stormwater flows into the local streams and rivers. The permit has conditions for monitoring and improving water quality. Components of the City's water quality program includes: a. Illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination Program (IDDE). This program tracks and removes non-stormwater discharges to the storm system. b. Administration of a Program to Reduce Contaminants in Stormwater Discharges from construction sites. This includes inspection of sites and implementation of the City's erosion control code. c. Ambient Monitoring and Data Analysis. 22 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 3—City Environmental Programs Continued d. Wet Weather Monitoring and Data Analysis. e. TMDL Implementation for the following water bodies: Willamette River, Tualatin River, Oswego Lake, Tryon Creek, and Springbrook Creek. f. Public Education and Outreach Programs, including storm drain marking and a pet waste program. The NPDES permit is renewed every five years through a program administered by the ODEA. City staff also monitors local creeks for constituents of concern, including temperature, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Maintenance Program Approximately two FTEs of staff resources are devoted to annual stormwater maintenance activities, exclusive of street sweeping. These are used for the following activities: • Cleaning of the conveyance system. • Cleaning of catch basin sumps. Maintaining structural facilities, such as detention ponds, filter systems, and water quality swales. See Section 11 for more information on the City's maintenance program. 3.2 Other programs related to Clean Streams Sensitive Lands Program The City's Sensitive Lands Ordinance seeks to protect environmentally sensitive areas, such as stream buffers, wetlands, and tree groves. Protecting these areas enhances wildlife habitat, protects important ecological resources, and helps enhance surface water quality. Stream buffers reduce runoff velocities and provide a filtering mechanism to clean stormwater before it enters the stream. Trees provide a means for intercepting and transpiring stormwater, reducing the amount of stormwater runoff getting to creeks, lakes, and rivers. The Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts were created and adopted in 1997, bringing the City into compliance with METRO'S Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Lake Oswego Development Code Article 50.16 created the Resource Protection (RP) and Resource Conservation (RC) districts. The RP district applies to stream corridors and wetlands, the RC district applies to significant tree groves, and a third district, the Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA), is the portion of an RC district that has been selected for preservation. The City has developed a sensitive lands atlas that shows the limits of delineated RP and RC districts. New developments that are subject to an environmental review must delineate RC Clean Streams Plan 23 otak Section 3—City Environmental Programs Continued or RP resource boundaries and have that delineation reviewed by the City. Development is limited within the RC or RP districts, and RP districts have buffers from the boundary where limited activities can occur. Infill Residential development infill occurs in established Lake Oswego neighborhoods on vacant lots, on larger lots that have been partitioned into parcels, or on lots where an existing house has been removed (tear -downs) in order to construct a new house. The City's Infill Code has been developed through assistance from an Infill Task Force's recommendations. Highlights include: • Use overlay plans as a way to implement neighborhood plans and protect neighborhood character. • Create a design review process to ensure new or remodeled residential development fits into the community. • Planned Developments/ Open Space Dedications restricts the use of the Planned Development process and eliminates the requirement for common open space tracts and Planned Developments on parcels smaller than 75,000 square feet. This requires lots in these small developments to meet the minimum lot size of the zone. • Variances. Allows variances for: o Tree preservation. o Minor remodeling projects. o Continuation of nonconforming building walls as long as the house does not grow larger than allowed in the zone. o Allows Class 1 variances where survey errors have resulted in a non- conforming house. o Allows Class 2 variances for reductions in side yard setbacks that are less than five feet. Many areas of the city are redeveloping, replacing smaller, older homes with larger homes. This increase in impervious area results in increased stormwater volumes. This can have an impact on city stormwater infrastructure, and on the city's streams and lakes. Recommendations included in the Clean Streams Plan are for increased controls of stormwater for. smaller redevelopment projects to improve water quality. 24 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 3—City Environmental Programs Continued Lake Oswego Urban and Community Forestry Plan The City of Lake Oswego has been a leader in protecting urban trees since the 1970s and recognizes the need to manage the community forest as an infrastructure, much like roadways, water systems, etc. To protect urban trees, the City passed the Tree Code, which is intended to "preserve the wooded character of the City of Lake Oswego and protect trees as a natural resource of the City." (LOC 55.02.010). The Tree Code is the City's primary tool for tree protection and preservation. The Lake Oswego Planning Division published the Urban and Community Forestry Plan (City of Lake Oswego, OR 2007) in December 2007. The Plan provides direction for the development of an urban and community forestry program and is considered a planning and policy tool to be used to bring together policies and practices that supports tree stewardship on public and private property. The Plan is not intended to replace the Tree Code. Several other City documents also focus on tree protection and preservation. The City of Lake Oswego Quality of Life Task Force Report (1999), the Lake Oswego Open Space Plan (2001), and the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan (2002) all recognize that the City values and protects its trees through planning and management strategies. In program years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the City received grants to fund an Americorps Community Forestry Coordinator, furthering the program by focusing on public education and outreach. These efforts include brochures and flyers on tree care and proper removal, tree planting and maintenance guidelines, free Community Forestry Workshops, a webpage dedicated to the Urban and Community Forestry Program and a list of useful resources. Heritage Tree Program The Heritage Tree Program promotes the contribution trees add to the City's history and heritage by recognizing and designating individual trees or groves of trees as landmarks based on their importance in the historical, cultural, environmental, and physical landscape. The Program educates residents about the value and history of these trees and protects them as part of the City's heritage. To be considered for the Program, a tree must have historic importance, be associated with the life of a person or group, or have made a contribution to the City's history. The tree's size, age, and species all contribute to its status and it should be a readily distinguishable entity within the community. NeighborWoods Established in 2008, NeighborWoods is a partnership between residents and the City of Lake Oswego. The Program is intended to promote the health, diversity, preservation, stewardship, and tree care in residential neighborhoods. The program provides free Clean Streams Plan 25 otak Section 3—City Environmental Programs Continued workshops, tree care and planting guidelines, and collaborates with neighborhoods on restoration efforts. Trees consume stormwater through interception from tree branches and transpiration through the roots. Conserving trees helps reduce stormwater runoff, which in tum protects streams and lakes from the damage caused by increased runoff volumes and poor water quality. These programs protect and conserve trees, and provide education to citizens on the value trees provide to the environment. These programs enhance Clean Streams efforts through these practices. Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) The WMCP was developed to educate Lake Oswego residents about potable water management techniques and to help residents use water more efficiently. The City of Lake Oswego's Water Management and Conservation Plan was completed June 7, 2007 (CH2M Hill, 2007) and adopted as Resolution 08-27 by the Council on May 6, 2008. The Plan fulfills the requirements of the Oregon Administrative Rules adopted by the Water Resources Commission in November, 2002 (OAR Chapter 690, Division 86). The WMCP presents water conservation programs that are a combination of existing programs and new programs the City plans to initiate. The City has implemented a number of conservation measures. These include: • Public Education. • Tiered rate structure that encourages conservation. • Municipal Outdoor Conservation. • Annual Water Audits. • System -wide Meter Testing and Auditing. • Annual Water Use Reporting for Wholesale Customers. These and other potable water conservation programs that the City conducts help Clean Streams by teaching efficient and minimal use of irrigation, in turn reducing the amount of runoff from lawns. This runoff can be rich in nutrients, exacerbating algae problems in receiving waters. The City conducts home audits for water conservation and the Clean Streams Plan includes a plan for stormwater audits. These programs could be conducted simultaneously, along with the naturescaping audit program begun in 2009, to provide a fill service audit program for homes and businesses. 26 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 4—Study Area Characteristics This section discusses the physical characteristics of the City that influences how stormwater is managed, such as land use, development patterns and existing stormwater infrastructure. It also discusses characteristics (such as topography, climate, and soil characteristics) that affect how much rainfall is actually converted to stormwater runoff that is then discharged to the City's streams, lakes, and rivers. This provides the base information necessary for evaluating project needs, determining the best type of project, and for sizing stormwater management facilities. 4.1 Service Area Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary covers 11.2 square miles and includes three major drainage basins: Oswego Lake, the Tualatin River, and the Willamette River. All surface water and piped runoff flows to one of these water bodies through a network of interconnected creeks and storm drainage systems. 4.2 Stormwater Facilities The City owns and maintains a storm system that drains approximately 7,960 acres. This storm system includes 150 miles of pipe and open channels, and 2,900 stormwater inlets and catch basins. All storm systems are separate from the City's sanitary sewer system. Currently, the City maintains 27 detention/sedimentation basins and 40 detention tanks. There are many other private facilities that are not maintained by the City. The City's storm drainage facilities have been inventoried and recorded in an asset management database. This database is used to record maintenance activities and to generate work orders for maintenance and repair needs based on programmed frequencies and citizen -initiated complaints. 4.3 Climate and Precipitation Patterns Lake Oswego is located in the middle of the Willamette Valley with sufficient distances from both the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges that rainfall characteristics are not affected by either mountain range (MGS Engineering Consultants, 2007). The mean annual precipitation for the city is about 45 to 50 inches. The climate is considered a "modified" marine climate that is typical of the Pacific Northwest (Otak, 1992). Summers are warm and dry, while winters are wet with long periods of cloudiness. 4.4 Topography The City of Lake Oswego is located southwest of Portland, Oregon and is bound to the east by the Willamette River and to the south by the Tualatin River. Much of the city's residential areas are located on the hillsides and lakefront around Oswego Lake. Oswego Lake is a Clean Streams Plan 27 otak Section 4—Study Area Characteristics Continued private reservoir formed by a dam, which backs flows up into a historic Tualatin River channel. The dam discharges flows to the Willamette River and the upstream end of the lake is connected to the Tualatin River by a gate -controlled canal. The lake, dam and canal are controlled and operated by the Oswego Lake Corporation. The city has diverse topography. Elevations range from 10 feet above mean sea level along the Willamette River, to 98 feet above mean sea level at Oswego Lake, and up to 970 feet above mean sea level on Mount Sylvania north of the lake. Many small, steep creeks flow down the hills through residential areas to Oswego Lake and the Willamette River. There are some creeks in northwest Lake Oswego that flow to Fanno Creek, a tributary to the Tualatin River, and some creeks in south Lake Oswego that flow to the Tualatin River directly. 4.5 Geology and Soils The higher elevations in the city are located on the southern end of the same formation that created the Portland Hills; which is a narrow range that parallels the Willamette River and divides it from the Tualatin Valley. Columbia River basalt forms the bedrock of this range. This formation is overlain with Boring Lava that originated from vents occurring throughout the city. Cooks Butte, Waluga Park and Mount Sylvania are all capped by Boring Lava. Above 300 feet, the basalt is covered with wind-blown silt. Along the lake margins, where bedrock is at depth and not exposed, sand and gravel deposits occur (Otak, 1992). The NRCS soils reports for Clackamas and Multnomah Counties were referenced for soil characteristics within the city. The NRCS has developed four Hydrologic Soil Groupings (A, B, C, and D) to classify the soils' ability to infiltrate runoff. The drainage characteristics of A, B, C, and D soils are classified as excellent, good, fair, and poor, respectively. Most soils within the study area are classified as belonging to group "C" (48 percent). The remaining soils fall within groups "D" (30 percent) and `B" (22 percent). The distribution of these soils is shown in Figure 4-1. 4.6 Land Use Land use in Lake Oswego primarily consists of residential development, with some moderate commercial and a few industrial developments. Commercial and industrial developments are typically located along or near major transportation corridors such as I-5. The two significant commercial areas are located in downtown Lake Oswego and in the Lake Grove area. The west side of Kruse Way and the north side of Booties Ferry Road in the Lake Grove area have experienced moderate commercial development in the last decade, with some commercial/office building construction still occurring in these areas. Smaller commercial areas are located in Mountain Park, the Palisades area and the Jean Road area. There are some small industrial developments in the Jean Road area and along the Willamette River on 28 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 4 —Study Area Characteristics Continued the east side of the city. Current trends are for redevelopment of residential areas, where smaller, older homes are being replaced with larger homes. This trend results in a reduction of pervious area and contributes to increasing amounts of runoff from residential areas. Other than infill, the city has little available land for new development. In addition, larger lots in the urban area are subdividing to create smaller lots with multiple homes and driveways. Figure 4-2 shows the city's current Urban Growth Boundary and land use zones. Clean Streams Plan 29 otak DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Section 4—Study Area Characteristics Continued Figure 4-1: City of Lake Oswego Soils 30 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 4 —Study Area Characteristics Continued E c o Q U N n U J m O oU �I �I U U U �Z= I U UI I �I N N M u� m ry O I I r O U U U U U U U LL QIr C U -'.) y 1.J U U 0 W W 0 0 S a 000000c000Doo�000aaM 2 z O O O O a = Ir Ir = M ¢ K M � � Jr���ooao�0000a Figure 4-2: City of Lake Oswego Zoning Clean Streams Plan 31 otak Section 4—Study Area Characteristics Continued 4.7 Watersheds and Subbasins The three major basins in the city (Tualatin River, Oswego Lake, and Willamette River) have been subdivided into smaller subbasins. Table 4-1 lists the subbasins in each major basin. Table 4-1: Major Basins and Subbasins in Lake Oswego • Tualatin River Basin Oswego Lake Basin • Ball Creek (BL) Blue Heron Canal (BC) • Carter Creek (CT) Blue Heron Creek (BH) • Pecan Creek (PC) Boones Ferry (BF) • Riven Dell Creek (RD) • Country Club (CC) • River Grove (RG) o Eena Road (ER) • River Run Creek (RR) Fernwood Creek (FC) • Stafford Creek (SC) Jean Road QR) • Tualatin River Margin (TR) Lakewood Bay (LB) • Wilson Creek (WC) Lost Dog Creek (LD) • Willamette River Basin • Lake Forest (LF) • Arbor Creek (AC) Lilly Pond (LP) • Dunthorpe (DU) Mulligan Creek (ML) • Evergreen (EG) Oswego Lake Margin (OL) • Glenmorrie Creek (GM) Oak Terrace (OT) • Holy Names (HI) Oswego Canal (OS) • Hallinan Creek (HN) Palisades Heights (PH) • Marylhurst Creek (MU) • Pearcy Maple (PM) • Oswego Creek (OC) Parelius Creek (PR) • Oswego Pointe (OP) Pine Valley (PV) • Stonebridge Creek (ST) Reese Road (RR) • Tryon Creek Basin (TC) Springbrook Creek (SB) • Willamette River Margin (WR) West Bay (WB) A map showing the three major watersheds and subbasins can be found in Figure 4-3. 32 City of Lake Oswego omk DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Section 4 —Study Area Characteristics Continued s gwlFi�r� t��t 11■e�� �j =mum 0 Figure 4-3: City of Lake Oswego Major Wlatersheds and Subbasins Clean Streams Plan 33 otak Section 5—Sustainability and Stormwater BMPs The City of Lake Oswego actively promotes sustainability both within the city and throughout the community. The City has a sustainability steering committee, which includes staff from various departments, and a Sustainability Advisory Board, which is a citizen board appointed by City Council. The steering committee is responsible for coordinating the City's approach to more sustainable policies and practices. They developed the City's Sustainability Plan, which was adopted by council in November 2007. The Sustainability Advisory Board provides guidance to City Council, assists in the development of city plans and policies, and educates and supports Lake Oswego organizations and citizens on adopting more sustainable practices. The City's Sustainable City Vision and Guiding Principles, which were adopted by the City Council in November of 2007, provides the framework for addressing sustainability within the city and is as follows: _ A sustainable Lake Oswego is a community that meets the vital human needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet future needs. This requires consideration of both Ion g -term and short-term effects on ecological, economic, and community systems. Operating sarstainably means that we are leaving a legacy for the community of Lake Oswego and the planet. The City's four Sustainability Framework Objectives guides the City's sustainability work and are included in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Lake Oswego Sustainability Principles PRINCIPLE 1: Reduce dependence on fossil fuels. PRINCIPLE 2: Reduce dependence on chemicals and other manufactured substances that can accumulate in Nature. PRINCIPLE 3: Reduce dependence on activities that harm life-sustaining ecosystems. PRINCIPLE 4: Meet the hierarchy of present and future human needs fairly and efficiently. Sustainable stormwater practices are normally considered synonymous with LIDA. LIDA - seeks to mimic natural hydrologic responses in a built environment through the use of de- centralized practices. Rain gardens planters, infiltration strips, and pervious pavement all seek to dispose of runoff at the source in a way that reduces environmental impacts. This is - contrasted with traditional stormwater approaches where runoff is collected in,catch basins and pipes, and conveyed either directly to the receiving water, or to a detention or water Clean Streams Plan 35 Otak Section 5—Sustainability and Stormwater BMPs Continued quality facility. Stormwater sustainability can go beyond LIDA practices. Other measures can include: 1. Capture and Reuse of Stormwater Rainwater harvesting and reuse, such as for toilet flushing or irrigation, reduces the amount of potable water used for such purposes, and it reduces a site's impact on the environment by capturing runoff that would otherwise be conveyed to receiving waters. The City has seen some use of this practice with businesses and homes. Because most rainfall occurs in the winter, and the largest potential use of water (irrigation) occurs mostly in the summer, this use can be challenging because of storage needs. However, businesses and some homes have found ways to collect and store enough rainwater to make this use feasible. 2. Maintenance and Monitoring Practices that Reduce Carbon Footprint An example of a practice the City is using today includes the cleaning of catch basins. Catch basin cleaning practices developed with the City's latest NPDES permit requirements and discussed in this planning document, tracks the amount of sediment removed from catch basins. This data will be collected and analyzed so that the city is not cleaning some catch basins more than they should be, and not cleaning others frequently enough. 3. Environmental Site Design LIDA can be used individually as an effective means to treat and dispose of stormwater. However, a true LID uses reduced road widths, separated sidewalks, clustering of homes, and other measures to significantly reduce or eliminate stormwater leaving the site. These measures, along with other sustainable building practices, can produce a sustainable community or building. This is the goal behind the LEED© program. 4. Evaluating BMPS for Sustainability With the Clean Streams Plan, an evaluation matrix was developed to review BMPs commonly used for treating water quality for sustainability. Ranking criteria include: • Their impact on the ecosystem. • Maintenance needs. • Use of sustainable materials. • Short term and long term energy needs. • Waste production. • Cost efficiency. 36 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies 6.1 Introduction This section discusses methodologies and strategies for managing stormwater quantity (runoff volumes and flow rates), and water quality for public and private projects in the City. It provides information on LIDA and other on-site flow control BMPs, it discusses BMP effectiveness and tools for selecting BMPs, and it includes information on how to implement BMPs within a fully -developed city such as Lake Oswego through the use of Urban Stormwater Retrofits. Rainfall patterns were reviewed in the city and new design storms were developed. These storms are used for sizing stormwater management facilities, such as detention facilities, conveyance piping, and LIDA facilities like rain gardens. This work is described in this section and in Appendix E, which also includes a discussion on how climate change affects the use of this information. The emphasis of the City's stormwater management practices should be on the use of on- site flow control measures (such as infiltration, LIDA techniques, reducing or eliminating hydraulic connectivity, or dispersing runoff across the ground) over traditional end -of -pipe flow control techniques such as detention ponds. These newer methods are widely seen as the most effective tools in protecting water quality and reducing erosive flows that scour local streams and creeks (PSAT 2003). However, all practices are beneficial and have a place in the City's stormwater management "toolbox". Where onsite techniques cannot be used (when conditions such as low infiltration rates or high groundwater prohibit their use), then tradition conveyance/treatment/detention methods must be employed. 6.2 Best Management Practices Stormwater BMPs are the physical, structural, and managerial practices that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the detrimental impacts of stormwater, such as the pollution of water, degradation of channels, damage to structures, and flooding. These BMPs can be further characterized as performing three functions: • Source Control: Prevents or reduces the introduction of contaminants to stormwater; • Flow Control: Offsets and attenuates the increased rate of discharge caused by impervious surfaces; and • Water Quality or Runoff Treatment: Intercepts and reduces the physical, chemical, and biological contaminant loads commonly found in stormwater. LIDA meets all three of these functions and are also discussed in this section. Clean Streams Plan 39 Otak Section 5 —Sustainability and Stormwater BMPs Continued • Promotion of Sustainable businesses. This criteria was used to rank different classifications of BMPs including basins, swales, filters, and infiltration measures. A matrix was developed for ranking each of these BMPs for these criteria and is included in Appendix G. This appendix also includes a more detailed discussion of the ranking criteria. This is a living document, as the field of sustainability is new and rapidly changing. Some information was difficult to obtain, and the ranking of BMPs are somewhat subjective. New BMPs are being developed, and new and better information will become available for evaluating BMPs. Therefore, this matrix can be improved and updated by city staff over the life of this plan. Stormwater infrastructure shares with other utilities the opportunity to provide more sustainable construction practices, and the life of the structure can be extended through asset management. It is recommended the City develop sustainability guidelines/practices for capital project delivery and develop and implement a formal asset management program. As discussed within the code section reviews, it is also recommended that the City review their policies and codes for impediments to implementing sustainability measures such as for storage and reuse of stormwater, and for implementing development and redevelopment projects that utilize sustainable and low impact development measures for managing Stormwater. The BMP Matrix included in Appendix G should continue to be updated and revised as new information becomes available. Ranking criteria will change as the concepts behind sustainability grow and evolve, and this matrix should be updated to reflect the continuing development of this important concept. New BMP measures should be evaluated for their sustainability and this matrix can be an educational tool for city staff and for the community. Clean Streams Plan 37 otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued 6.2.1 Source Control BMPs Source Control BMPs are mandated through the City's NPDES MS4 permit and have been implemented in the city for many years. Source Control BMPs include such measures as the pet waste program, public education, and street sweeping. Although it is not easy to measure the effects of such programs in improving water quality, they can be "more effective and cheaper" than structural BMPs (Baker, 2007) and should continue to play a part in the City's stormwater management program. 6.2.2 Flow Control - Infiltration Prior to development most sites contained vegetation, a duff layer, and soil conditions conducive for absorbing and infiltrating rainwater. Most rain storms are not large enough to exceed the soil permeability under these conditions so only a small percentage of water would run off the site. Urbanization results in the loss of native soil conditions because of soil compaction, removal of the vegetation and the duff layer, and creation of impervious surfaces. Impacts include increased stormwater flow rates and volumes, as well as decreased groundwater recharge and, consequently, low base flows into streams. Sites being considered for infiltration need to be reviewed for high groundwater and suitable soil conditions. The potential effects on adjacent properties should also be evaluated. Many areas of the city are on steep slopes, have high'groundwater, or have soils that are not suitable for infiltration. However, many other areas of the city can take advantage of this methodology and it should be implemented where feasible. Subsurface infiltration facilities such as drywells and soakage trenches, are commonly used to infiltrate stormwater, However, these facilities are considered UICs, require registration with DEQ, and must either meet "Authorization by Rule" requirements or obtain a Water Pollution Facility Control permit (See Section 2 for more information). UIC regulations should be reviewed and considered with the installation of any new UICs. Most jurisdictions favor shallow, vegetated infiltration facilities (LIDA techniques) that use amended soils to provide water quality treatment, such as the biorentention facilities discussed in Section 6.2.3. (Portland, 2008; Salem, 2008, Ecology, 2005). These should be designed as small facilities, integrated into the landscape and accepting stormwater from small tributary areas, rather than centralized facilities accepting stormwater from large areas. Since these facilities do not contain subsurface infiltration systems, they do not fall under DEQ's UIC regulations. 6.2.3 Flow Control — Detention Facilities Flow control BMPs address the volume, release rate, and timing of stormwater flows and 40 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 6 —Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued have been a standard practice for protecting streams from increased flow rates and volumes, and to reduce the need to for new conveyance infrastructure. Construction of a detention pond is the most common means of meeting flow control requirements. Detention ponds collect runoff from a developed area and release it at a slower rate meant to replicate pre -developed conditions. The reduced release rate requires temporary storage of the excess amounts in a pond with release occurring over a few hours or days. Most jurisdictions require the control of peak flow rates for recurrence intervals of concern — the 2, 10, and 100 -year rates. Some jurisdictions have used other methods of control, such as retaining the 50 -year developed condition peak flow rate to the 5 -pear pre -developed peak flow rate. The latest research has shown that controlling peak runoff rates does not adequately protect streams from erosion because releasing runoff at pre -developed peak flow rates does not address the increased duration at which those high flows occur. Because of the increased volume of water from the developed condition compared to the pre -developed conditions, the duration of time at which peak flow rates are released is higher after development (Ecology, 2005). To adequately protect stream channels from increased erosion, it is necessary to reduce the durations over which a stream channel experiences flow rates that are capable of moving sediments (i.e., geomorphically significant flows). This will reduce the energy imparted to the stream channel so that it is not significantly different than experienced before development. Geomorphically significant flows vary significantly, but 50 percent of a 24- hour peak flow rate has been found to be a good estimate of the low end (King County, _- 2005). Therefore, detention standards that do not detain down to this level can still affect the erosional characteristics of the receiving water body. Another major weakness of the detention standard is that the storm event modeled is usually a 24-hour storm event, which is much shorter than the longer-term storms that normally occur during a northwest winter. The use of a longer-term (e.g., three or seven day storm) is perhaps better suited for this area (Ecology, 2005). Different methods throughout the northwest are now being employed to address the shortfalls associated with single -event, 24-hour detention pond sizing. Most agencies, including the City of Portland, the City of Salem, C1eanWater Services, and the Washington Department of Ecology, are emphasizing infiltration and the use of LIDA approaches. However, detention is still a part of many jurisdictions' methods for managing stormwater (i.e., Ecology, City of Salem). A duration standard is now being used in western Washington, Clean Streams Plan 41 otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued and has been studied by agencies in Oregon, including ODOT, Clackamas County, and C1eanWater Services. However, aside from the Department of Ecology in Washington, no jurisdiction has adopted a duration modeling standard. Because of the complexity of the modeling (it requires the use of a long-term simulation model such as HSPF to generate the duration statistics), this method requires either the development of a model with a simplified user interface (such as WWHM developed for western Washington), or expertise in long- term hydrologic modeling techniques. For these reasons, duration -standard modeling has not yet been widely implemented in Oregon. As discussed previously, a 24-hour storm event is not typical for the northwest; a three to seven day event is a more typical winter storm. The length of the design storm affects facility sizing in two ways. First, detention facilities sized using a 24-hour storm assumes the detention facility is empty before the storm begins. Second, routing a longer storm through a detention facility will provide a more accurate estimate of the required detention volume. Long -duration design storms are primarily used in the design of stormwater detention facilities and other projects where runoff volume is a primary consideration. The use of two long -duration synthetic design storms developed for C1eanWater Services were reviewed for use in Lake Oswego. This was performed as part of a larger study conducted by MGS Engineering Consultants to determine if rainfall in the Lake Oswego area is similar to rainfall in the Portland metro area. This study is included in Appendix E. The two design storms can be found in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. Design Storm 1 contains greater precipitation intensities for short periods during the storm (see Figure 6-1). This storm should be used for projects where peak discharge is the primary concern and runoff volume is a secondary concern (such as flow -rate based water quality facilities). Design Storm 2 is a "back-loaded" storm with lesser precipitation intensities but with a greater total precipitation volume. This storm should be used for projects where runoff volume is the primary concern, such as detention ponds or volume -based water quality facilities. Graphs of both design storms are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. 42 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 6 —Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued 1.20-- 1.101 1.00 _ Z '' 0.90 C 0.80 a r 0.70 a N 0.60 -f- U Z 0.50 U' H 0.40 a Z 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Scaled Long -Duration Design Storm #1 ce Oswego, Oregon-_ I 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 TIME (Hours) Figure 6-1: Long Duration Design Storm #1 1.20 1.10 1.00 T Z 0.90 c 0.80 1 a 0.70 a N 0.60 f U Z 0.50 Q H 0.40 a Z 0.30 { 0.20' li 0 10 0.00 Scaled Long -Duration Design Storm #2 i i 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 1 TIME (Hours) Figure 6-2: Long Duration Design Storm #2 Each storm is scaled by the 24-hour rainfall depth for the storm event return frequency desired. For a complete discussion of the development and use of these design storms, see the report prepared by MGS Engineering Consultants included in Appendix E. Clean Streams Plan 43 otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued A third design storm, with a short duration and high intensity, was also reviewed for use in Lake Oswego. This study recommends the use of the design storm shown in Figure 6-3 for conveyance and other facilities that rely on peak runoff for sizing. Scaled Short -Duration Design Storm 4.40 T- - - -- ----- - - - --- -- -- ----- - - -i Lake Oswego, Oregon __- 4.00 +- - - -- - - - - --- - -- -- 3.60 J--- -- - - - --- - -- - - Z O 3.20 �----- - - -- - ----- -- - --- - - - -- - - ---- H x 2.80 --- . — ---------- H >- 2.40-- a to 2.00 --- - V Z ww 1.60 -- - -- - -- — ---- ------ - -- = F- 0. Z 1.20- 0.80 -- -- - --- 0.40 - _. 0.00 i 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 TIME (min) Figure 6-3: Short Duration Design Storm #1 6.2.4 Water Quality BMPs The typical contaminants found in stormwater include total suspended solids (TSS) and sediments; nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), dissolved metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, zinc, and lead); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); oil and grease; road salts and deicing agents; and temperature (Minton, 2005). Some water bodies in the city have Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which identify constituents of concern for those water bodies. TMDL plans require Lake Oswego to work toward reduction in concentration of contaminants of concern, so BMPs that discharge to those water bodies should be directed toward the reduction of the TMDL contaminants. There are numerous BMPs available but communities struggle with a lack of reliable information regarding their effectiveness. Although numerous studies have been performed and are underway, their results have not provided definitive information on the ability of a particular BMP to change contaminant levels by a certain amount or useful range. Difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of BMPs include: 44 City of Lake Ormego otak Section 6 —Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued • The wide variability in the amount of stormwater runoff and of the level of the contaminant reaching the BMPs. These make it difficult to obtain samples (or to obtain very many samples). • The difficulty identifying and controlling all environmental and technical variables when gathering data. This typically requires a large amount of carefully controlled data and may not provide helpful information for real world (field) situations. • The lack of adequate data on the concentrations of contaminants in stormwater runoff. The expected range of a constituent level is needed in order to create BMP designs that can handle contaminant removal/reduction effectively. • Different forms of the contaminants (i.e., particulate versus dissolved), which require different types of treatment to be effective. One of the largest studies underway to record the effectiveness of BMPs is the International - Stormwater BMP database bmpdatabase.orW. This study began in 1994 with the goals to standardize BMP study protocols, provide consistency in reporting data on BMP effectiveness, and to provide a central location for reporting BMP effectiveness studies (Strecker et al, 2004). Recent reports from the study has provided results indicating statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of different BMPs for treating different contaminants (NCHRP, 2006) and for the various forms the constituent (i.e., dissolved versus particulate) (Minton, 2005, Strecker et a12004, ODOT BMP, 2008, NCHRP, 2006). The Oregon Department of Transportation, along with the Federal Highway Administration, has developed an approach to selecting BMPs based upon a unit operations and processes (UOP) approach that a particular BMP employs to determine the suitability for removing contaminants of concern (ODOT BMP, 2008). Unit operations refer to the physical forces that dominate constituent removal. Physical treatment operations include sedimentation (or settling), flotation, flocculation, or filtration. Unit processes refer to the chemical or biological processes that dominate contaminate removal. Chemical processes include sorption, precipitation, or destabilization; and biological operations include uptake by vegetation, or transformation by bacteria (Minton, 2005; NCHRP, 2006). These UOPs are referred to as the primary treatment mechanisms, and ODOT has selected BMPs where the primary treatment mechanism has proven to treat a particular contaminant, and the form that contaminant is in (i.e., dissolved versus particulate) (Landers, 2006). This approach also uses the concept of treatment trains (a series of BMPs where the runoff flows from one to the next) to treat different contaminants, to treat different forms of the contaminant, and to "dampen out the variability" that can occur with any given BMP in any given storm event. (Landers, 2006, NCRHP, 2006, Minton, Clean Streams Plan 45 otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued 2006). This concept was developed from a study performed by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (see NCHRP 2006), and from information obtained from the International Stormwater BMP database, and it has the backing of the regulatory agencies (ODOT BMP, 2008). The City of Lake Oswego should consider the use of these concepts when selecting BMPs for public projects, and for incorporation into the new design manual. These concepts are being accepted by regulatory agencies in the State of Oregon (ODOT BMP, 2008), and advance the selection of BMPs over the current criterion of "65 percent reduction in phosphorus", which cannot be correctly or accurately determined. In addition, the state of the science is moving away from percent removal as a method for determining the accuracy of BMPs (NCRHP, 2006, Jones et al, 2008). ODOT is in the process of updating their hydraulics manual to list the "preferred" water quality BMPs that address contaminants of concern. They are also developing a BMP selection tool to assist in BMP selection (ODOT Summary Reports, 2008). The City can use this information, along with the International Stormwater BMP database, to determine the optimum BMPs to address the constituents of concern in the city. The contaminants will be based primarily upon TMDLs, which are in place for most receiving waters in the city. 6.2.5 Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) Natural processes such as evaporation, transpiration and infiltration are nature's way of reducing, treating and consuming stormwater runoff. LIDA measures aim to preserve a site's natural ability to process stormwater and to employ multiple, widespread, small scale BMPs that attempt to mimic these natural processes (PSAT 2003). LIDA measures can be both flow control and water quality BMPs. BMPs that meet this definition have many names, including Green Streets, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, and Low Impact Development. The Clean Streams Plan uses the term Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) to reflect the fact that the use of these approaches does not constitute a "low impact development". The City has also selected to use LIDA in the Clean Streams Plan to avoid confusion with other uses of the acronym LID at use in the city. LIDA has also been referred to as integrated management practices (PSAT, 2003; NCHRP, 2006), to refer to the individual, site-specific BMPs used in a Low Impact Development. Low impact development approaches are becoming popular across the country and are in widespread use throughout Oregon and Washington. LIDA was developed in the northeast United States by counties responsible for stormwater runoff draining to the Chesapeake Bay. 46 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 6 —Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued With respect to stormwater issues, Washington State's Puget Sound area is similar to the Chesapeake Bay area and has begun to rely on LIDA to help reduce stormwater runoff impacts to Puget Sound (PSAT, 2003). There are many different types of LIDA BMPs that are suitable for different land uses and site configurations that target runoff reduction, runoff treatment, or both. Common LIDA BMPs include bioretention areas, porous pavement, green roofs, and hydraulic disconnection practices such as reverse sloped sidewalks, rainwater harvesting, soil amending, and roof downspout disconnection. Some LIDA practices limit the amount of impervious surface that is constructed on a property, require building up instead of out, and preserve open space areas of native vegetation and trees. LIDA measures do not rely on traditional end -of -pipe solutions, but instead integrates stormwater controls throughout the urban landscape (Prince George, 1999). New developments can use these practices to create a true "Low Impact Development". LID approaches can reduce runoff by integrating stormwater controls throughout the site in many small, discrete units. LIDAs are distributed throughout the development site, virtually eliminating the need for a centralized best management practice (BMP) facility such as a _i stormwater management pond. They should be installed near the source, and designed to take runoff from small areas. By this process, a developed site can maintain predevelopment hydrologic functions. This section discusses a few of the more common LIDA measures in use today. For more information or for information on true Low Impact Development see PSAT (2003) or Prince George (1999). Bioretention (Rain Gardens, Curb Extensions, Stormwater Planters) Some of the most common types of LIDA BMPs include bioretention facilities such as rain gardens, stormwater planters and curb extensions. Biorentention facilities consist of planter areas layered with well drained soil mixtures and planted with native vegetation. Stormwater is directed to these BMPs via pipe or overland flow. The vegetation consumes stormwater through plant uptake and evapotranspiration, and acts as a physical filter for debris. In addition, the well drained soil allows stormwater to infiltrate back into the groundwater system. Infiltration provides excellent filtration by straining, and through chemical and biological processes that occur within the soil pore spaces. These processes help remove, convert, and even consume contaminants including sediment, heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons, solvents, phosphorus, and nitrogen. LIDA BMPs can easily be integrated into new development, redevelopment, and in existing development by retrofitting stormwater facilities and open spaces. Clean Streams Plan 47 otak DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued P figure 6-4: Rain Garden (Source: Puget Sound Action Team) Bioretention can be used to address stormwater when improving existing roadways, and bioretention facilities have been included in several projects within Lake Oswego. These projects include 10`h Street, Leonard Street, Middlecrest Road, Ladd Street, and West Bay Road/Virginia Way. Bioretention facilities can be installed as curb extensions, which are constructed as small planters extending into the street to receive street runoff through curb cuts, as rain gardens integrated into landscaped areas, or as planters installed in the middle of paved areas, such as large sidewalks, courtyards, street medians, or the centers of round -a- bouts and cul-de-sacs. Bioretention areas can also be constructed along urban streams as part of channel rehabilitation projects and incorporated into detention pond retrofit projects. 48 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 6 —Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued Figure 6-5: Curb Extension (Source: City of Portland) Porous Pavements and Pavers Another popular LIDA BMP is porous pavements. Three types of porous pavements include open -graded asphalt, open -graded concrete, and pavers. Porous pavements allow runoff to readily flow through the surface into open graded base rock. The open graded base rock provides temporary storage for the runoff until it can be infiltrated into the subgrade. Porous pavements result in greatly reduced road spray and work to prevent runoff from reaching conveyance systems, thus minimizing outfall flows and velocities. Typically porous pavements are used for low volume residential streets and alleys, residential driveways, sidewalks, paved trails, and parking areas of businesses that neither store nor generate excessive sediment or contaminants. Clean Streams Plan 49 otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued Figure 6-6: Porous Pavement A combination of traditional pavement with porous pavement shoulders can be effective at mitigating street runoff. In addition, if the streets are curbless, the remaining strip of right- of-way area along the porous pavement shoulder can be planted as a narrow bioretention area. The traditional pavement roadway surface supports regular traffic loads while runoff sheet flows onto the porous pavement shoulder which captures and infiltrates the runoff. During larger events that overwhelm the porous pavement shoulder, runoff sheet flows off the shoulder into the bioretention area. This technique has been used with success in a new residential development in Salem, Oregon. Pavers are typically interlocking stones or bricks which are installed in a manner to allow runoff to infiltrate between the pavers into the underlying gravel or soil. Some paver systems are installed in gravel and others simply create cells of soil in which grass can be planted. Pavers are acceptable for use in paths and low volume parking areas such as neighborhood parks. 6.3 Urban Stormwater Retrofitting Stormwater retrofits seek to improve watershed health by "retrofitting" a watershed with measures to improve both flood control and water quality. Retrofits can include the following: 1. Upgrade existing stormwater facilities using newer design practices to maximize the facilities' detention, retention, and/or water quality treatment capabilities. 2. Retrofit existing detention facilities to add water quality treatment where not 50 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 6 Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued currently in place. 3. Install LIDAs within the watershed to reduce runoff volumes and improve water quality. 4. Implement measures to reduce "effective" impervious area, that is, the hard surfaces that are directly piped to streams or creeks. Impervious areas, or hard surfaces, that are allowed to travel over grasses or other "pervious" surfaces reduce the amount of runoff, and the speed at which that runoff travels to creeks and streams. These measures include: a. Disconnect Downspouts. City -run downspout disconnect programs can provide incentives for homeowners to disconnect downspouts that are directly connected to the City's storm drainage system. Educational programs can also be used to teach the benefits of disconnecting downspouts. Disconnecting downspouts is not recommended for hilly areas and small lots in densely urbanized areas. b. Day -lighting storm pipelines before they discharge to streams. This is particularly effective when combined with the installation of water quality facilities, such as biofiltration swales to treat the runoff and reduce the volume and velocity of the runoff before it enters the creek. Proper energy dissipation will be required at outfall locations. c. New sidewalks and pathways can be dispersed over grassy areas rather than sloping towards roadways and storm systems. Dispersing sidewalks to landscaped areas with amended soils is very effective for reducing stormwater runoff (Ecology, 2005). 5. Regional detention facilities that can store and release runoff gradually, preventing flooding problems and reducing erosive flow rates and velocities in streams. The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) has produced a manual that describes a _ methodology for performing urban retrofits (CWP, 2007). This manual identifies six places to review for additional storage of runoff. These sites include: a. Existing Ponds: These can be increased in size using newer sizing criteria, or by simply reducing the runoff rate; b. Roadway Culverts: Storage can be provided above roadway culverts using the roadway embankment; c. Storm Drain Outfalls: Storage can be provided below storm drain outfalls where room is available; d. Conveyance Systems: Storage can be provided within conveyance systems by Clean Streams Plan 51 otak Section 6—Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Continued installing control structures; e. Road Rights -of -Way: Storage can be provided in road rights-of—way where room is available. These places also can be used for LIDA measures; and f. Large Parking Lots: Storage can be provided by reducing the size of these lots, or around the periphery. 6. Replacement of old catch basins with new ones containing sumps and oil traps to contain sediment and oils where they can be collected and disposed of properly. The CWP lists different methods for implementing retrofit projects. A few of these methods include (CWP, 2007): 1. Require treatment on redevelopment projects. 2. Install retrofits with other municipal projects, such as street repairs or widening. 3. Encourage on-site retrofits through neighborhood education. These could include installation of LIDA's and downspout disconnects. Common locations for siting retrofit facilities include parks, golf courses, and institutional properties such as public schools, colleges, hospitals, and armories. These sites commonly have large expanses of impervious area which can benefit from water quality and quantity facilities. They also commonly have parcels of land potentially available for siting of such facilities. There are many locations throughout the city that could benefit from retrofitting existing facilities. Example locations include: 1. Upstream ends of culverts that could be retrofitted to capture sediment. 2. Parks, golf courses, and school properties. 3. Roadway rights-of-way where runoff could shed into biofiltration swales or bioretention facilities. 4. Private properties where interested citizens could install LIDA to reduce runoff from their property. Retrofit projects, such as those described above; are included as CIP projects (See Section 8). In addition, the City can use the tools and methods presented by the CWP to evaluate other sites for retrofit opportunities. 52 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education This Public Outreach and Education plan is based on the understanding that the City needs property owners and managers to be equal partners with the City in stormwater management. The plan is aimed at strengthening citizen participation in protecting and enhancing the city's water quality, and in supporting citizen participation through audit and grant programs. The plan identifies public outreach and education activities that promote a productive City/citizen partnership focused on achieving the Clean Streams Plan vision and goals. It empowers community members to assist in resolving non -point source water quality issues through personal responsibility for managing private property and neighborhood public areas in support of the City's maintenance of the public stormwater system. - This section includes a framework for implementing outreach and education programs on a yearly basis, and a discussion of outreach and education programs to be considered when developing the annual program. The implementation framework is used to renew the program each year and provides flexibility to ensure activities are effective, timely and - coordinated with other city outreach activities. It is recommended that the plan be reviewed every four years as new methods of outreach are developed, the most effective strategies are identified, and more resources become available. 7.1 Implementation Framework The Director of Public Affairs will coordinate and chair an ad hoc task force charged with formulating and managing the public outreach and Education program. Overall program responsibility falls under Engineering and Public Affairs, with various department staff making up the membership. This group will meet twice annually. • Meeting 1: Refresh Clean Streams public outreach goals, coordinate inter -department activities and determine the upcoming year's work plan. • Meeting 2: Monitor annual public outreach plan progress and adjust the work plan as needed. Meeting 1 will be scheduled in advance of yearly budget decisions so that any funding needs can be included in budget packages submitted for approval. Meeting 2 will be scheduled within the first quarter of the calendar year. It is recommended that the Public Outreach Plan Task Force identify at least one activity from the Public Outreach and Education section and one from each of the following Public Education categories as a baseline annual program. • Informational material — print and web pieces, interpretative signage and press releases. Clean Streams Plan 53 otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education Continued • Education and citizen contact— seminars, brown bags, workshops, tours, presentations, booths and events tabling and call tracking. • Volunteer campaign — watershed enhancement, stewardship, clean-up, planting, inventory and monitoring activities. • Recognition and incentive — awards, certifications, fee and tax reductions and grants. The intent is to provide a plan that can be implemented with existing staff resources. Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 list activities for the task force to consider. A sample work plan is included in Appendix C. Allocating Resources for Implementing the Programs in this Section Possibilities for annual work plan actions are limited only by the Task Force's collective imagination, funding, and staff resources available for implementation. One full FTE is included in Clean Streams Funding for implementing program elements. The following inventory is suggestive of the array of participation tools that can be used to encourage the community to adopt storm and surface water friendly actions. Each year's program should be developed to take advantage of existing City Council priorities and programs. 7.2 Public Outreach and Education Activities Home Audits In an effort to engage and educate Lake Oswego residents in responsible landscaping practices, city staff is working with the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park and the Tryon Creek Watershed Council to conduct workshops and a Home Audit Program. The program is intended to educate residents in the use of eco -friendly landscaping, including the use of native and drought resistant plants. The goal of the program is to reduce the amount of: • Water used in irrigation, • Invasive weeds, and • Fertilizer and pesticide runoff to creeks, rivers and lakes. The City would like to continue this program and expand it to include on-site stormwater management opportunities to reduce the amount of stormwater leaving home sites. Current Program Elements The 2009 Home Audit Program included two elements: Landscaping for Conservation Workshops and Home Consultations. 54 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 7 —Public Outreach and Education Continued Landscaping for Conservation Workshops The City has teamed with the Friends of Tyron Creek State Park to present workshops to educate homeowners on watersheds and their function, on how current landscaping practices impact water quality, on the use of native and drought resistant plant species, on the use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, and on landscaping techniques that promote conservative water use. Specific workshop topics include an assessment of characteristics for sustainable yards (i.e., wind, sun, moisture, and shade), a discussion on composting, a discussion on irrigation requirements, and a discussion on invasive plant identification and the use of native plants. Invitations are extended for individual home consultations. Home Consultation Individual on-site mentoring sessions are available to participants who have attended a conservation workshop. The on-site consultations are conducted by a Tyron Creek jWatershed Coordinator or a member of the Mentoring Team. Four hours is allotted for each on-site consultation: two hours for the initial consultation, and two hours of follow-up time. During the initial consultation, the mentor will: • Review and photograph existing landscaping and irrigation system. • Identify invasive species. • Identify potential drainage and erosion problems. • Conduct a simple soil analysis. • Identify how the homeowner wants their garden to look and function. After the initial on-site visit, the mentor will prepare written recommendations and present these to the homeowner. These recommendations will include the following: • Suggestions for garden improvements, including a landscape plan identifying tree/plant locations, and a list of appropriate native plants. • A list of invasive plants to be removed. • A resource list which includes: o Web resources to help with plant selection. o Consultants to assist with drainage and/or erosion problems, and water assessment and irrigation planning. o Native plant nurseries. o Local contractors who support native plant landscaping. The mentor will conduct follow-up communication with the homeowner to check on the Clean Streams Plan 55 otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education Continued progress of the plan. They will also conduct another site visit to recognize the progress and take photographs that may be used on the City's web site or printed in the LO Review. The homeowner must agree to implement the landscape renovation plan in at least one area of the property within one year'of the audit. Stormwater Management City staff has met with the Audubon Society to explore opportunities for expanding the Landscaping for Conservation program to include on-site stormwater management. Although Lake Oswego citizens are interested in ways to manage stormwater on their property, education is needed to ensure that on-site stormwater management measures, such as downspout disconnects, dispersion techniques or rain gardens, do not adversely affect neighboring properties. Based upon the anticipated level of interest in the community, the need for citizen education on proper application of these measures, and the interest by the Audubon Society in assisting in program expansion, the City is proposing to expand the program in 2010 to include a workshop and home consultation component for on-site stormwater management. However, this will need additional staffing and funding to add this element. Opportunities to provide assistance through the Clean Streams Plan are discussed below. The Clean Streams Plan includes the development of a program that provides small grants to homeowners to construct on-site stormwater management BMPs. This program could be combined with these workshops such that citizens and business owners be required -to attend the workshops and receive a home consultation before being able to apply for a grant. This would help ensure that the money is used wisely and on projects that can truly assist in reducing runoff without affecting neighboring properties. Staffing The City anticipates the need for one-quarter of an FTE to manage the Home Audit Program. In 2009 the Program was outsourced as in-house staffing was not available. The Clean Streams Plan recommends the hiring of three FTEs — one to assist in the implementation of CIP projects, one to implement the public education programs included in the Clean Streams Plan, and a street sweeper position. The staff time for this program is recommended to be part of the public education FTE. Funding With funding from the City's stormwater utility, staff can expand this program to include education and consultation in the use of on-site stormwater management techniques. This program is anticipated to need $15,000 per year to manage the program, conduct the workshops and perform home audits (in coordination with the Friends of Tryon Creek and 56 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 7 —Public Outreach and Education Continued the Audubon Society staff). In addition, this program could be combined with the City's Water Conservation Audit program for efficiencies, and to provide broader services to the community. An ongoing project has been included in Section 8 for funding this program. Informational Materials ❑ Hello LO Residents of Lake Oswego that participated in Clean Streams Plan meetings and surveys cited the Hello LO as their primary source for local information. Hello LO should be used to relay Clean Streams information and invite the public to participate in on-going implementation of Clean Streams Plan elements. Ideas for article topics are included in Appendix D. ❑ LO Doom Use the weekly electronic LO Down newsletter to inform neighbors about current issues, upcoming meetings and new projects. ❑ Existing Printed and Web Materials Several agencies and local governments, including the Regional Coalition for Clean Streams and Rivers, METRO, Clean Water Services, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District, and other agencies produce public information materials related to residential and commercial practices for stormwater and surface water management. These materials can be adapted for use by the City for public education. When community -specific information is needed, simple fact sheets can be developed and archived for future use. Individual materials or a combination of materials can be used during public meetings, at community events, inserted into utility bills, displayed at City Hall, or mailed directly to citizens. ❑ New Public Information Materials As new materials are developed they should be kept on file to inform staff, neighbors, businesses, developers, community groups and other stakeholders. Sample fact sheet ideas include: o Bilingual landscaping information. o Informational handouts on how particular regulations (land use especially) are tailored to address clean streams concerns. o Project information sheets for capital projects, programs, and demonstration projects. Clean Streams Plan 57 otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education Continued o Background sheets on city policies — explain why a certain policy exists related to surface or stormwater. o Brochures for residents, such as `Be Responsible when Hiring a Commercial Lawn Service". o Case studies and/or summaries (including photos) on best practices within the community. These can highlight how the project was able to happen, and could focus on innovative applications of City Code. o Case studies and/or summaries on how a surface water and/or stormwater issue was addressed in a particular area. o Best practices for erosion control and other development related interests. o Case studies and/or summaries on applicable certifications (i.e., Salmon Safe, etc.) . o Summaries on applicable local awards. ❑ Media Releases Coordinate with the media to announce new projects or activities within the city. Meet with editorial writers or reporters, as appropriate. Write and distribute media releases related to plan implementation that may generate community interest, such as community events, school -related activities, or other youth involvement. Prepare op-ed articles, as appropriate. Individual project or program managers should consider writing articles for businesses and other organizations' newsletters. ❑ Annual Report or Printed Newsletter Prepare and distribute an annual report on the year's accomplishments related to surface and stormwater management, or all city environmental endeavors. Information from the City's annual MS4 water quality report could be included. Other information could cover specific projects that were implemented pursuant to the Clean Streams Plan, as well as summaries on any educational activities. The report could also be used to highlight specific topics. For example, many people do not understand how their stormwater fees are used. The report could be distributed in water/sewer bills, either as part of another report or on its own. If a more general environmental report or newsletter is used, the document could be used to announce various environmental benchmarks or sustainable activities (i.e., an environmental report card or an environmental progress report). ❑ Other options as they become available 58 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 7 —Public Outreach and Education Continued Education and Citizen Contact ❑ Public Exhibits Prepare two or three simple posters highlighting a Clean Streams project or approach in the city. The posters could be located in City Hall or the library. The poster could present a best practice or a new innovation being used in the city. Posters could be developed annually and rotated around various locations. ❑ Developer and Contractor Traimings As new development policies or new innovations in building design warrant information sharing, city staff can provide informal brown bag sessions for developers, builders, and residents on low -impact development, how to build and remodel structures, or undertake large landscaping projects while using best practices for stormwater management. ❑ Calls/Complaints Create a one-stop shopping point -of -contact for water concerns. Work with all first contact staff to identify the kinds of questions they field and provide direct callers guidance to the appropriate staff. ❑ Co -S ponsorActivities Welcome opportunities to partner with other jurisdictions, agencies, and community organizations where public information and outreach related to surface water and stormwater management is a focus or could be highlighted. Co-sponsor opportunities might include: o Events or presentations with the Lake Oswego Corporation o Chamber of Commerce o Youth groups and after-school programs o Events with Tryon Creek Watershed Council (could be sponsorship only, little staff time) o Host Naturescaping Workshops o METRO residential gardening and minimizing household impact o METRO workshops for low impact development o Host booths or displays at various community events o Various Earth Day celebrations Clean Streams Plan 59 otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education Continued o Natural area service projects o Parks and recreation activities ❑ Social Marketing — Direct Contact with Property Owners Follow a social marketing model focusing on individual neighborhoods to promote behavioral changes that private citizens and businesses can undertake to benefit the public good. Use a combination of door-to-door, individualized outreach, public information, and sample products to encourage behavioral change. "Stormwater Audits" of properties could be conducted and individualized recommendations could be given to the property owners. ❑ Direct Contact with Stakeholders Related to Building Permits/City Code Consider every action with community members an opportunity to share information. Create an internal forum for discussion of new information related to policy, incentives, and regulations so that staff has enough information to effectively share this knowledge any time an opportunity arises. Information sharing opportunities may include building permit and land use applications, general inquiries from the public, complaints received, etc. ❑ Coordination During Development ofNeighborhood Plans Ask neighbors to consider surface and stormwater issues when developing neighborhood plans. During neighborhood planning, present information to neighbors about storm and surface water issues, and show some best practices for neighborhoods to consider during their planning effort. This is both informative for private property and for new considerations regarding public rights-of-way. ❑ Other Options As They Become Available Volunteer Campaign ❑ Partner with Schools Over the years, city staff has participated with local schools on science programs and projects, often related to water quality. When requested, staff should provide expertise to classrooms, such as judging science fairs, assisting with stream bank or playground restoration projects, and teaching about surface water management. ❑ Project Design and Implementation Input As capital projects move into implementation, neighbors and other stakeholders should be invited to participate and give feedback on design and construction issues. Each capital project should have a general public information and/or public 60 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 7 —Public Outreach and Education Continued involvement plan and summary upon completion. This could include meetings with Neighborhood Associations, open houses, development of fact sheets, mailings, web pages, etc. These activities are specific to the implementation of a capital project or related program, but should always give context to the Clean Streams Plan and the purpose of the project or program. ❑ Internal Storm waterinformation/Review Forum City staff and members of the public have stated that it is important to ensure that the various city departments coordinate their efforts, especially related to storm and surface water management. Opportunities for cross -departmental and internal training should be highlighted and encouraged within the city. These opportunities for training and open dialogue could include brown bags hosted by various departments, internal meetings, specific policy trainings, retreats, and sharing various case summaries collected that relate to storm and surface water. In addition, a method is needed to ensure new regulations or policies (especially those not directly related to stormwater) are evaluated for storm and surface water implications. There is currently a group of staff working on environmental projects and programs that meets monthly. This group may be an option for establishing a formal information sharing resource. ❑ Other Options As They Become Availahle Recognition and Incentives ❑ Native or Stormwater Friendly Plant Give Aways Purchase native plants for give-aways at presentations, events, Farmer's Market and other venues. Use in combination with collateral materials to recruit participation in educational programs. ❑ Awards Programs Present city awards for youth groups, schools, civic groups, developers, builders, homeowners, businesses and others who undertake Clean Streams, protection actions. ❑ Fee Reductions - Implement a sliding scale of permit fees for new or re -developed properties based on the level of low -impact development or water quality protection landscaping provided. Clean Streams Plan 61 otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education Continued ❑ Certi6cation Certify sustainable development practices, LEED buildings, irrigation improvement, and non -phosphate fertilizer use for large scale properties — apartments, shopping centers, golf courses, and office buildings. ❑ Other Options As They Become Available Outreach Activities ❑ Water/Environment Related List -Serve Compile a list -serve to inform residents of environmental issues, consortiums, surface water and stormwater projects and programs. This would be a new activity within the city and may take some time to implement. There may be multiple programs or departments that could access the list -serve to share information. ❑ Clean Streams Stewards Training Program Host a series of workshops that citizens can take to become Clean Streams Stewards and become more aware of watershed health. The program could be modeled after Master Gardener or Master Recycler programs. Graduates become Clean Streams Stewards and are obligated to provide additional service to the community. The graduates can lead small community projects for the city, such as one -day or weekend stream restorations, parks maintenance, open space improvements, or alterations in the public rights-of-way (to be approved by the City), etc. These neighbors could be responsible for hosting additional workshops within their community at neighborhood associations, businesses, churches, schools, or other community organizations. ❑ Manhole Covers, Catch Basins, and Other Signage Use the Clean Streams logo to create signs and graphics to highlight stormwater retention features or pipe networks. Interpretive signage should be used for permanent features and demonstration projects. Develop interpretive maps to orient neighbors to the specific drainage basins or watersheds in Lake Oswego. Decorative plaques can be used to identify stormwater manholes, catch basins, drainage basins, or demonstration projects. Additional signage can help promote behaviors that improve surface and stormwater quality. Examples of signs that might be placed in parks could relate to the disposal of pet waste and not feeding the ducks. Signage, stenciling, or other emblems could be incorporated into streets at catch basins. 62 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 7 —Public Outreach and Education Continued ❑ Landscaper and Homeowner Workshops or Garden Tours Conduct instructional seminars on topics such as environmentally -friendly sustainable practices, low -impact development, xeriscaping, stream bank stabilization, or rain gardens. ❑ Bilingual Informational Materials Bilingual materials may be needed to reach important audiences, including citizen and business groups. METRO and Clean Rivers and Streams have some pre - developed workshops that may be considered, and Web information can be easily translated. ❑ City Learning Series Create interactive educational opportunities where Lake Oswego citizens can learn more about surface and stormwater issues and water quality. For example, prepare a Stormwater 101 presentation related to where stormwater goes, water quality data, urban issues and how they relate to our environment; and how to reduce our stormwater impact. 6.3 Web Links The following websites could be accessible links from the City's "Other Useful Links" page or be used in e-mail updates or articles: METRO, click on Sustainable Living for a wealth of information from compost recipes to grass -cycling and more. http://www.metro-region.org Clean Water Services: http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/ Clackamas County Water Environment Services: http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/Wes/info.htm Regional Water Providers Consortium: http://www.conserveh2o.org/mdex.html Regional Coalition for Rivers and Streams Easy -to -apply tips based on area soil and water conditions. Free natural lawn care kits available. www.cleanriversandstreams.org Clean Streams Plan 63 otak Section 7—Public Outreach and Education Continued Healthy Lawns, Presented by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Fun, interactive explanation on how yards influence Clean Streams. Sign the natural lawns pledge on-line and get a lawn sign. www.healthylawns.org Clackamas County Master Gardeners Ask the Master Gardeners your lawn and garden care questions. www.clackamascountymastergardeners.org ECO -BIZ Program Provides information on landscape contractors who meet environmental regulations and have taken extra steps toward environmentally friendly and sustainable activities. http://www.ecobiz.org/ Clackamas County Soil & Water Conservation District: http://www.cc-swcd.org/ U.S. Environmental Projection Agency -- Surf Your Watershed Look up information about your watershed. http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm Specific Watershed and Related Organizations: Willamette Riverkeeper: http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/ Tualatin Riverkeepers: http://www.tualadnriverkeepers.org/ Tryon Creek Watershed Council: http://tcwc.tryonfriends.org/ Friends of Springbrook: http://www.springbrookpark.org/ `J clean streams... -�, _ , 64 City of Luke Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program 8.1 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Development Four approaches were used to identify locations where capital improvements should be considered. These approaches include: • Meetings with city staff. • Meetings with citizens. • Field visits. • Evaluation of subbasin characteristics. Meetings were held with city engineering and maintenance staff to gather data on the location of storm systems that require excessive maintenance, are failing, or have frequent problems. Field visits were conducted with city staff to the locations of known problems, for locations with potential for retrofits, and for locations with potential to install new water quality or quantity facilities. Three public meetings were held in the spring and summer of 2007 to gather public input on locations the public recognized as having flooding, erosion or water quality problems. A map of the City's storm system vias provided at the meetings for the public to point out locations of concern and field visits were conducted to further evaluate these areas. Many concerns raised by citizens at the public meetings involve private systems the City does not maintain.. These systems were not evaluated. A list of potential CIPs was assembled based on the meetings and field visits and screened at a high level to determine if they should be included in the Clean Streams Plan. The characteristics evaluated include constructability, access for maintenance, the basin area the CIP would serve, property ownership, and the Clean Streams Plan goals each project could meet. 8.2 Clean Streams Plan CIPs 8.2.1 Project Descriptions Project types include on-going projects and individual CIPs. On-going projects will be implemented on a continuous basis and include projects the City is already undertaking such as catch basin retrofits, and new projects such as UIC retrofits. A yearly budget was set for each on-going project. Individual CIPs are one-time capital projects. These projects address specific issues, such as sediment reduction, flooding, or water quality. Conceptual design recommendations and preliminary cost estimates were developed for each individual CIP. The CIP list is organized Clean Streams Plan 65 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued by major watershed and subbasin. The individual CIPs are described in Section 8.3. CIP development is normally constructed in a three -phased approach. Phase 1 establishes an initial list of potential projects. These projects are identified using a process such 'as the one described in Section 8.1. Each project is screened at a high level, and a planning -level cost estimate is developed. Phase 2 is the preliminary design phase, where more detailed screenings are conducted to further establish the feasibility of the project, to provide more detail and definition to the project, and to provide a more defined cost estimate. Projects determined not feasible through this more detailed screening process are dropped from the list. The third phase is the development of construction documents that enable the projects to be built. The projects developed in the Clean Streams Plan are developed to the first phase, a planning level. These projects will need further screening during a preliminary design phase to confirm the feasibility of the project. Some projects require easements or purchases from private property owners that may make them too expensive, or not possible due to property owner reluctance. With more detailed review, other projects may prove to not be able to be implemented as described. It is not the intention that each and every project identified in this section be built. Some projects will drop from the list during the second phase of project development, and other projects will be identified over the useful life of this document that will bump projects from the list developed with this plan. This list serves to identify projects that can meet Clean Streams Plan goals and to help develop funding levels for plan implementation. 8.2.2 Project Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates have been prepared for each project. These initial estimates of project construction and engineering are used for budgeting CIP projects for the future and as the basis for the rate funding analysis conducted with this study (see Section 12). The detailed breakdown for each cost estimate is included in Appendix B. Since these are planning level estimates, they include a 30 percent contingency for factors unknown at the time of project development. The costs included with each project description in Section 8.3 are in 2008 dollars, although the funding analysis in Section 12 does factor inflation into the overall costs of the project over the life of the plan. The project costs do not include easements or property acquisitions. 66 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued 8.2.3 Staffing The Clean Streams Plan includes three new FTE's, of which two are for implementing the plan. These FTE's have been identified for the following services: 1. To develop an expanded public outreach program. Section 7 includes a public outreach program that can be implemented with existing staff resources. It also contains an expanded outreach,program that can be conducted if additional resources are available. 2. To develop and administer the two grant programs identified in this section. 3. To assist with implementation of capital projects. 4. To assist with implementing the City's water quality program. Section 12 provides different funding options for the City to select. Options 4 and 5 provide for additional staffing, with Option 4 adding one staff person for project and program implementation and one for street sweeping, and Option 5 adding two FTEs for program implementation and a third FTE for street sweeping. If only two FTEs are funded, then the public outreach program in Section 7 would not be implemented. 8.2.4 Project Prioritization The capital improvement projects included in this section have not been ranked or prioritized. This is because in the past the City has found that rankings have not been followed, project lists are revised yearly, and the projects implemented each year are based more upon factors such as opportunities to partner with other City,departments on projects. There are priorities that do affect what project should be implemented. Projects that implement state or federal permit requirements should take precedence. For example, DEQ is developing a permit program for regulating UIC facilities. Therefore, the City will need to begin the assessment and retrofit programs for their UICs. Conveyance system upgrades for the FAN neighborhood have been planned for many years, and the study that developed recommendations for the FAN (Otak 2007) has been completed for over a year. These projects should be considered early in, the life of this plan. Conversely, the project to extend conveyance systems into the Lake Grove neighborhood should not be implemented until annexation occurs and other work is performed in that neighborhood. Projects include revisions to the City's stormwater ordinance, the development of a new design manual, and the development of a stormwater maintenance procedure manual. These projects will benefit the city and should be implemented early in this new program. Other projects listed in this plan, or otherwise developed within the life of this plan, should Clean Streams Plan 67 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued be reviewed yearly in concert with other CIP activities proposed by the City. Coordination with other departments will provide multiple benefits and savings, and should prioritize stormwater work conducted in the city. Table 8-1 includes a set of criteria for each project proposed in this section. These criteria center around the Clean Streams Plan goals, and demonstrate how each project meets those goals. The Clean Streams plan goals are: To cost-ffectively implement and maintain a sustainable drainage system to: • Promote public safety and minimie property damage. • Protect and enhance the quality of surface water. • Preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitats The following is a description on how each of the criteria in Table 8-1 meets the Clean Streams Plan goals: 1. Protect Public Infrastructure: This criterion meets Goal 1 by promoting public safety through the protection of the public's stormwater infrastructure used to safely convey stormwater. 2. Protect Private Property from City Runoff. This criterion also meets Goal 1 by promoting public safety and minimizing property damage. 3. Reduces Flooding: This criterion meets Goal 1 of promoting public safety and minimizing property damage. 4. City compliance with State/Federal Regulations: The goal of the state and federal regulations is to improve water quality and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, this criterion meets Goals 2 and 3. 5. Improves Natural Resource Value: This criterion meets Goal 3, which is to "preserve and.enhance fish and wildlife habitats". 6. Preventive Maintenance: This criterion meets all three goals. Without maintenance, facilities will no longer meet their design intent. 7. Repairs existing Infrastructure• This criterion also meets all three goals. Stormwater facilities are used to promote public safety, to improve water quality, and to preserve natural environments. Facilities that are in need of repair are no longer effective and do not function as intended. 8. Water Quality Improvements• This criterion meets Goal 2, which is the protection and enhancement of water quality. G8 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued 9uawaA wa A!jrnb.jae a n ,n j 1e.} |' ix]s mda-g IX, ■x■zIxIz xiRlzlz a,ueua UIEW a prj ua a d| | x|X x k■R■x■xI anm x x x x a:)j no aH @an ■N s no dw| su013gn2a)j' a]9zr x x R a x Z ƒ 441m a,u !|dwoD Ai!:) § / su pom]Sa npaM x x x « jjoun ,A!Dw wo �adoda�@d9,aod z U \ 9jn,nqs1!.J| / :)imnd S43930 -1d � � . : a - � 2 - 7 CL CL U �§ � L a 0 \ \ ` \ ( \ \ / \ ` \ Zd / ) \ w 2 & d ` E § ! - / - 2 2 2 g \ \ j11 \ \ O 1\1-;)A S I = 1J Clean Stream! tzar 69 . o k Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued anlPA aaanosaa lEan;EN sanoadwj " suopuln2aa •pad/aaE:ts 0 q4!m aauuijdwo> A4i> "o .L es 2uipoojd saanpall W }joun.a ,.A:ji>,, woal A4.iadoad a4Eniad sl3aWad U aan4Sna4sEajul ailgnd s33a;oad 'r ?0 otak N®M®®MME® ✓' 1 ✓' ®®M®W WMMMMM EMMMMMMM®®®®ME ®®MMMM®MMM®MME sWawanoadwl U 9.in4:)w3su.Ajuj J U C: C U _ W cC m O V, rn 0 U p v y a 4 a N U c M U o 'et U •4SIX3 smudaa c x V r U U a:)uEua4uiEW anljEjuanaad x i anlPA aaanosaa lEan;EN sanoadwj " suopuln2aa •pad/aaE:ts 0 q4!m aauuijdwo> A4i> "o .L es 2uipoojd saanpall W }joun.a ,.A:ji>,, woal A4.iadoad a4Eniad sl3aWad U aan4Sna4sEajul ailgnd s33a;oad 'r ?0 otak N®M®®MME® ✓' 1 ✓' ®®M®W WMMMMM EMMMMMMM®®®®ME ®®MMMM®MMM®MME City of Lake Osujego U J U C: C U _ W cC m O V, rn 0 U p v y a 4 a N U c M U o 'et U N :J c x V r U U City of Lake Osujego Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Clean Streams Plan 71 otak s3uawano.idwj A4Dena .+a;EM / X :/ / a.l np n.ase.11u •:tsix3 saiedaa a:)ueua3u1eW awl;e;uaAaJd anlep a:).inosaa Ie.inTeN saAwdwj suopelngaa •pad/axe4S 44!M 93ueijdwo:) A:ti:) a 0 Suipoo13 sa�npaa ✓ r; X � r r ✓ x �c W }joun.i „moi'„ iuoaj c Aliado id a;eAud s4�940ad ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ r U a.injan.ils-ea}u 06 :)ilgnd 543930ad "r Gl Y .O CL r iz x ct G fd O K r cYs =? r n s S S. Cn G' C r C) ✓f In U .1 V IL U v Y 01-4 x U c cz C - U c >_= J U s U v :J s x 7 x Clean Streams Plan 71 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued 8.3 CIP Project Sheets 8.3.1 On-going Programs On-going programs will be implemented continuously, either because of the large size of the project and the time it will take to complete the work (such as catch basin retrofits), or the project needs to be continually updated over time (such as outfall assessments and restoration). Two new on-going programs introduced in the Clean Streams Plan are targeted towards private properties in the city. The two programs would provide grants to local property owners to either implement measures that reduce runoff from private property, or to undertake projects that restore and protect streams and riparian areas. The on-going projects are described below. Catch Basin Retrofits New catch basins typically contain sumps and debris traps that hold sediments and oils where they can easily be removed from the system. Many of the older catch basins throughout the city do not have sumps or debris traps. The City replaces a portion of these catch basins every year, either in conjunction with road or other utility projects, or as a stand alone retrofit project. Annual Program Cost: $50,000 Outfall Assessment and Retrofits The City has a program in place to review and assess the condition of stormwater outfalls, and to restore the outfalls where necessary. Funding is provided on a yearly basis to continue this program. Annual Program Cost: $50,000 UIC Retrofits/ UIC On-going Program/ CW I UIC Evaluation The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has developed a program that will require UICs to be permitted (and meet permit requirements). The City has approximately 32 UICs, some of which are not operating effectively, and all of which need to be evaluated to determine if they can meet DEQ's Rule Authorization requirements. The Clean Streams Plan proposes a two-phase UIC evaluation program. The first phase consists of: • Completing an inventory of publicly owned UICs. • Gathering as-builts and available information on UICs. 72 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued • Updating UIC registration. • Evaluating each UIC to determine whether they can be retrofitted to meet DEQ's Rule Authorization requirements, whether they can be decommissioned, or whether they will need to be permitted. • Developing a UIC Stormwater Management Plan. The results of Phase One will be used for Phase Two of the program. Phase Two consists of: • Designing alternative stormwater management strategies for runoff currently managed by UICs that cannot meet DEQ Rule Authorization requirements, and cannot be decommissioned. • Decommissioning UICs where necessary and constructing new systems to replace the UICs. • Designing retrofits for UICs that will be left in service to meet DEQ permit requirements. • Constructing the necessary UIC retrofits. Phase Two will take many years to complete. A yearly cost has been assigned so that a portion of the work can be completed each year. During Phase Two, as UICs become retrofitted and decommissioned, an on-going UIC program will be needed to comply with DEQ regulations. A second program to fund the cost of the on-going UIC program is also provided as an annual cost. Phase I Cost: $125,000 Annual Phase 2 Program Cost: $75,000 On-going UIC Program: $10,000 Stormwater Monitoring for MS4 Compliance As part of the NPDES MS4 permit, the City of Lake Oswego is required to develop and implement a stormwater monitoring program. The environmental monitoring component includes collection and analysis of water samples from creeks and streams in Lake Oswego. Lake Oswego's current Stormwater Monitoring Plan includes the following elements: • A list of monitoring sites, • A list of parameters to be analyzed, • The media sampled, • Sample collection frequencies, Clean Streamr Plan 73 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued • Targeted conditions (e.g., weather conditions), and • Protocols for quality assurance/quality control. 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 effectiveness 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. Annual Program Cost: $50,000 Miscellaneous Drainage Projects Staff typically identifies locations throughout the community that are in need of repairs, most typically to eliminate flooding problems. These projects are commonly generated from citizen complaints. The methods provided in Section G should be used to develop solutions to these problems, considering LIDA approaches first. . Annual Program Cost: $250,000 Small Drainage Projects Maintenance staff typically performs small -works drainage projects throughout the community on a routine basis. These fixes include installation of new catch basins, repairs to existing systems, installation of small sections of storm pipes and other activities. Where possible LIDA approaches should be considered first for these fixes. Annual Project Cost: $50,000 Reservoir Disconnect Projects Drains from the City's water reservoirs are currently connected to the storm systems. The City's NPDES permit does not allow chlorinated water to be discharged to the MS4 storm system. This project involves disconnecting the drains from the storm system and connecting them to the sanitary sewer systems. Annual Project Cost: $50,000 74 C=ry of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued On-site Runoff Mitigation Grants This program is intended for private property owners, particularly single family home owners and small business owners. The program provides a one time monetary grant to property owners who design and construct stormwater management BMPs that reduces the amount of runoff leaving their property. Note that this program is for existing homes and businesses, and is not intended to assist new or redeveloping properties with stormwater requirements. This program will require city staff time to develop the program, and to receive, review and approve the grant submittals. Once approved, staff will issue the grant to the property owner. In addition, staff may need to perform the following duties: • Inspect and/or monitor the project during construction. • Inspect constructed facilities to ensure they operate as intended. • Enforce operation and maintenance. It is estimated that an additional 0.5 FTEs will be required to manage this program. An additional FTE has been included in the Clean Streams Plan to assist in this project and other activities. The annual cost estimate for this program is based on five $5,000 grants issued per year. Annual Program Cost: $25,000 Stream Rehabilitation Grants and Resources Many of the streams in the city flow through private property. Rehabilitation projects along these streams can provide improved water quality and reduce erosion. This program provides grants, materials, and guidance to private property owners to help them complete successful stream rehabilitation projects on their property. The City commonly receives requests from Citizens interested in restoring streams on their properties. They have the interest, but need assistance in knowing the correct things to do. Interested members of the public can submit an application consisting of the location and a description of the project. Staff time will be required to develop the program, review the applications for approval, award the funds, materials, or both, and to help coordinate projects. Staff may even compile a prioritized list of stream reaches where projects would be most beneficial. Monetary grants or materials will be awarded for up to $2,500 per project. The annual cost of this program assumes ten $2,500 grants, or $25,000 worth of materials to be awarded per year. An FTE has been included in the Clean Streams Plan to assist in this project and other activities. Annual Program Cost: $25,000 Clean Streams Plan 75 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Surface Water Home Audit Program In an effort to engage the City of Lake Oswego residents in responsible landscaping practices, city staff has created a Home Audit Program. The program is intended to educate residents in the use of eco -friendly landscaping, including the use of native and drought resistant plants. The goal of the program is to reduce the amount of: • Water used in irrigation, • Stormwater runoff, • Invasive weeds, and • Fertilizer and pesticide runoff to creeks, rivers and lakes. The program was first conducted in 2009, with assistance from the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park and the Tryon Creek Watershed Council. With funding from the Clean Streams Plan, staff will expand the program to include more education on surface water and LID approaches. This program can be tied to the On-site Runoff Mitigation Grant program. Eligibility for grants can be tied to participation in this program. This will ensure that citizens and businesses have received proper education on the best way to implement LIDA on their property before receiving the grants. More information on this program may be found in Section 7. Annual Program Cost: $15,000 76 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Project ID: CW3 Project Name: Stormwater Maintenance Manual Description: This project consists of the development of a maintenance manual for stormwater facilities. This manual would outline the maintenance requirements for maintaining catch basins, ponds, ditches and other elements of stormwater infrastructure to keep them functioning in good working order. The manual would improve consistency of maintenance practices and provide improved infrastructure maintenance procedures. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $50,000 78 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued 8.3.2 Individual CIPs The following lists individual capital projects. Maps showing project locations are included in Appendix F. City -Wide Projects The projects in this category address elements that are city-wide, such the UIC Evaluation project. This particular project is also included in the on-going projects and is described in that section. Two additional projects included in the "city-wide" category are discussed below. Project ID: CWl Project Name: Local Code Revisions Description: Section 10 contains recommendations for revisions to local codes. These revisions will bring the City's stornawater codes into compliance with new state and federal regulations, will include a review and revisions to allow LIDA and water reuse practices, and will ensure all new developments and redevelopments comply with all city stormwater quantity and quality control requirements. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $75,000 Project ID: CW2 Project Name: Stormwater Design Manual Description: The City's Stormwater Design Workbook does not include many water quality and quantity designs that are increasingly popular in the metro area, nor does it provide direction for new approaches in stormwater management, such as LIDA. In addition, because the workbook has not been officially adopted by Council, it does not give the Development Community clear standards, nor city plan reviewers a mechanism to directly enforce the design standards for new development. This project is to revise and update the City's design standards and the guidance manual to reflect changes in methodologies and philosophies for stormwater management. Other local communities streamline establishment of standards by adopting a stormwater design manual developed by another jurisdiction and making modifications to reflect local needs. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $50,000 Clean Streams Plan 77 otak DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Tualatin River Watershed Ball Creek Subbasin (BL) Project ID: BL1 Location: Melrose Street east of Westlake Description: Peters Road Tributary (BL03R01) is a tributary to Ball Creek that flows west for approximately 1,000 feet along the south side of Melrose Street to the intersection of Westlake Drive and Melrose Street. The tributary flows into a large grated inlet and a drop structure at this intersection. This reach of the tributary has experienced noticeable bank erosion and incision, and flows occasionally overtop into the street at the drop structure. Recommendations: The recommended project Figure 8.1: Peters Road Tributary for this location provides opportunities to stabilize this reach of the tributary and provide treatment of localized runoff. This project reconstructs a stabilized channel with adequate grade control and benched, vegetated overbanks. The overbanks will provide retention and temporary storage of excess flows. The project also includes installing a vegetated retention/water quality facility at the downstream end of the channel to provide some additional retention and to treat local street runoff. The existing drop structure will be modified or replaced so that the inlet is set at an elevation that promotes shallow ponding at the downstream end of the reconstructed channel. In addition, an overflow weir will be provided to collect and direct excessive flows to the existing pipe system in Melrose Street to prevent flooding of the street and adjacent properties. Proposed Improvements: • Channel rehabilitation with benched, vegetated overbanks. • Vegetated treatment area. • Existing inlet retrofitting or replacement. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $126,360 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $44,230 Total Cost: $170,600 Clean Streams Plan 79 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Ball Creek Subbasin (BL) Project ID: BL2 Location: Southwood Park Description: Ball Creek flows through Southwood Park, which is downstream of several large residential developments. There is potential to provide storage and retention along Ball Creek without affecting usage of the park. There are existing inlet structures and an overflow weir located in the creek at this park, and some storage is currently provided upstream of these structures. Recommendations: This project Figure 8.2: Existing Facility at Southwood Park consists of increasing the flood storage and retention in Ball Creek at Southwood Park by excavating for a larger pond, installing a new inlet structure, installing a constructed wetland, and restoring the creek upstream of the existing inlet structures and weirs. This would provide storage for larger flows, promote infiltration and plant uptake and water quality treatment. The visibility of this project would aide in public education to the community about sustainable stormwater management. The project also includes the replacement or retrofit of the weir and inlet structures to minimize potential maintenance issues, to provide storage for larger flows and to maintain wetland conditions. This project is located on city property within Southwood Park. Proposed Improvements: • Excavation to increase storage. • New inlet structure. • Constructed wetland grading and vegetation. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $64,590 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $22,610 Total Cost: $87,200 80 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Willamette River Watershed Oswego Creek Subbasin (OC) Project ID: OC1 Location: Freepons Tributary crossing Ash Street Description: The 15 -inch corrugated metal pipe culvert crossing Ash Street (outfalls between 725 and 737 Ash Street) is corroded, which has resulted in holes along the culvert bottom. This culvert is approximately 25 feet below the street grade, and was constructed through fill placed to construct Ash Street over a small ravine. Flows leaking from the holes in the bottom of the culvert could affect the stability of the fill supporting Ash Street. Recommendations: This project consists of replacing the corroded culvert. This may require temporarily closing Ash Street to through traffic, and will require in -stream work in Freepons Tributary. Proposed Improvements: • Culvert replacement Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $55,440 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $27,720 Total Cost: $83,160 Clean Streams Plan 81 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TC1 Location: Country Club Road near Dolph Court Description: The residential areas around Knaus and Goodall Roads drain down a steep hillside in a series of open channels toward a 30 -inch pipe. The 30 -inch pipe conveys flows to a manhole (MH 061) on the north side of Country Club Road just west of Goodall Road. A 30 -inch culvert conveys flows from the manhole to the south side of Country Club Road and outfalls (Outlet 066) into a pond in the Dolph Court neighborhood. There is also an open channel that flows west to east along the south side of Country Club Road to Dolph Court. Flows drain from this channel into a large inlet structure that conveys flows via a culvert under Dolph Court to the same pond. This pond discharges to a tributary of Tryon Creek. The Goodall and Knaus Roads' basin area upstream of the culvert crossing Country Club Road is not fully developed and the City sees a strong potential for infill and redevelopment. The upstream end of this culvert is also a good location to connect a future conveyance system serving this area. The open channel along the south side of Country Club Road is badly eroded. Bank undercutting and streambed erosion along the entire channel has reached the inlet structure draining the channel and may affect its integrity. Eroded material from the channel and sediments carried from the Goodall and Knaus Road basin has settled in and mostly filled the pond in the Dolph Court neighborhood. Recommendations: This project consists of three major components to improve and upgrade this system: a. Rehabilitate and stabilize the open channel along the south side of Country Club Road flowing toward Dolph Court with inlet protection, vegetation, and grade control. b. Evaluate/retrofit the channel's inlet structure for future build -out flows. c. Restore and retrofit the pond to maximize available retention, detention, treatment, and provide access for maintenance. These improvements will ensure adequate capacity in this system through full build -out conditions. Rehabilitating and stabilizing the channel will prevent continued erosion, protect the outlet structure, and reduce sediment loads reaching the pond. 82 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Proposed Improvements: • Channel rehabilitation. • Channel inlet replacement. • Pond restoration/retrofit. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $208,000 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $52,000 Total Cost: $260,000 Clean Streams Plan 83 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TC2 Location: Bayberry Road Description: The roadside ditches along Bayberry Road are very flat and contain standing water during storm events. The runoff in these ditches comes from properties adjacent to Bayberry Road, from the street itself, and down Rye Road from Andrews Road. Recommendations: This project requires further evaluation to determine the best course of action. LIDA opportunities should be evaluated. Extending a pipe from the existing system in 10`h Street west in E Avenue/Andrews Road to collect stormwater at the intersection of Rye Road and Andrews Road will reduce the amount of runoff reaching Bayberry Road from the north. Extending the existing conveyance system at the east end of Bayberry Road west could collect stormwater from the ditches; however, the storm pipe is shallow and the street grade is very flat, so this may not be possible. Proposed Improvements: To provide a budget for this project, both storm system extensions and green street options are included in the cost estimate. a. Rain gardens b. Inlets c. Manholes d. Piping Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $288,850 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $101,100 Total Cost: $390,000 84 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TO Location: A Avenue Storm System Upgrades at the intersection with Highway 43 Description: The storm system in the intersection of A Avenue and Highway 43 is undersized and needs to be upgraded to eliminate occasional flooding in the intersection. Recommendations: In a separate study conducted to evaluate solutions to flooding problems throughout the FAN neighborhood, the A Avenue stormwater system was recommended for upsizing at the intersection with Highway 43. It was also recommended that a portion of the stormwater in the A Avenue system be diverted to the Evergreen stormwater system. Proposed Improvements: Replace three 24 -inch pipes in the intersection of A Avenue and Highway 43 with 30 -inch pipes. Open up an existing diversion pipe in A Avenue and 3`' Street to allow flows to head south in the 3`d Street storm system to the Evergreen Storm System. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $75,000 See Otak (2007) for more information on the development of this project. Clean Streams Plan 85 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TC4 Location: B Avenue storm system upgrades from Hwy 43 to 7`' Street Description: The B Avenue storm system from Highway 43 to 7`s Avenue is undersized for current and future conditions. In a separate study conducted to evaluate solutions to flooding problems throughout the FAN neighborhood, the B Avenue system was recommended to be upgraded. Recommendations: Replace the stormwater pipes in B Avenue with larger pipes as recommended in the FAN Stormwater Study (Otak 2007) Proposed Improvements: Replace the 12 -inch diameter pipes in B Avenue with 18 -inch and 24 -inch diameter pipes from Highway 43 to 7`h Street. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $641,418 See Otak (2007) for more information on the development of this project. 86 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TC5 Location: D Avenue Storm System Upgrades, from 7`h Street to '10th Street Description: The D Avenue storm system is undersized for current and future conditions. In a separate study conducted to evaluate solutions to flooding problems throughout the FAN neighborhood, the D Avenue system was recommended to be upgraded. Recommendations: Replace the stormwater pipes in D Avenue with larger pipes as recommended in the FAN Stormwater Study (Otak 2007). Proposed Improvements: Replace the existing 10 -inch storm pipeline system in D Avenue from 7`h Street to 10`h Street with a 15 -inch diameter pipeline. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $299,563 See Otak (2007) for more information on the development of this project. Clean Streams Plan 87 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continilf-d Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TC6 Location: E Avenue Outfall Description: The storm system in E Avenue currently outfalls into Tryon Creek. This outfall is incised and is in need of repair. Recommendations: The FAN study recommends abandoning this outfall and constructing a new pipeline in 1" Street to connect the E Avenue Storm System to the D Avenue system. See Otak (2007) for further information. Proposed Improvements: Construct new 12 -inch storm drain line in 1st Street between E Avenue and D Avenue. Plug the existing outfall pipe and abandon the outfall. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $56,000 See Otak (2007) for more information on the development of this project. Tryon Creek Subbasin (TC) Project ID: TC7 Location: FAN Catch Basin Retrofits The First Addition Neighborhood is an older neighborhood where many of the catch basins do not have sumps and are located in areas where they no longer collect stormwater. As identified in the FAN study (Otak 2007), these catch basins are recommended for replacement. Recommendations: Replace the non-sumped catch basins in the FAN neighborhood. Proposed Improvements: Replacement of existing catch basins with new catch basins with sumps and debris separators. Cost Estimate Total Cost: $70,000 See Otak (2007) for more information on the development of this project. 88 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Oswego Lake Watershed Boones Ferry Subbasin (BF) Project ID: BF1 Location: Boones Ferry Road in Lake Grove area Description: The existing Boones Ferry Road system in the Lake Grove area conveys runoff from Lower Boones Ferry Road to an outfall into West Bay on Oswego Lake. Much of the residential area tributary to this system is located south of Waluga Park and northwest of Boones Ferry Road and is not currently served by a piped conveyance system. Some of these areas have high groundwater and are relatively flat. There are also UICs in this area that are not functioning properly. This area will continue to re -develop with infill resulting in increased runoff. In addition, there are portions of this area that are currently unincorporated and have potential to be annexed into the city. As this area redevelops and' annexation of the unincorporated areas occurs, increased runoff will require greater management such as a piped conveyance system, and will likely overburden the existing Boones Ferry Road storm system. Recommendations: The existing Boones Ferry system has been modeled to determine if it can accommodate additional flows resulting from redevelopment and future annexations, and assumes the UICs in this area are decommissioned. (City-wide UICs are further discussed in the on-going programs section of the Clean Streams Plan.) This study has shown that a number of pipes will need to be upsized to accommodate the additional flows. A detailed description of the modeling and results, as well as pipe upsizing recommendations, can be found in the Boones Ferry Road Basin study in Appendix A. A preliminary conveyance system layout has been provided for a portion of the residential area north of Boones Ferry Road, and can also be found in Appendix A. The cost estimate for this project does not include future UIC projects in this area. Proposed Improvements: • Upsizing 22 pipes. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: Total Cost: Clean Streams Plan $1,689,000 $ 591,200 $2,280,200 89 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program cnntim1Prl Blue Heron Canal Subbasin (BC) Project ID: BC1a, BClb, BC1c, BC1d, and BC1e Location: Various locations in the Blue Heron Canal is connected to Oswego Lake and is experiencing excessive sedimentation from contributing residential outfalls. A delta forms in the canal at a large outfall near a private boathouse. The delta has prevented the use of the boathouse in the past. The basin contributing flows to Blue Heron Canal is located on steep hillsides along the southwest side of Oswego Lake. Parts of the basin along the canal and lake shore are relatively flat. The entire basin consists of built -out residential development with very limited access to canal tributaries. There are few, if any locations available for the construction of larger stormwater facilities, tributary channel rehabilitation or stabilization projects. For these reasons, the projects recommended for this basin consist of multiple small scale facilities that will capture sediment in the downstream reaches of the canal's tributaries. This CIP includes five of these facilities. The City should initially construct one or two of these retrofits to determine their success. If the initial retrofits are successful, then the remaining should also be constructed. The cost estimate listed includes all five projects. BC I a: Sedimentation Basin on Royce Way Just east of Bryant Road on the south side of Royce Way is a creek that flows down a steep hillside and into a grated weir inlet structure. There is a small basin that has been scoured out upstream of the grated inlet. The inlet drains to a conveyance system that discharges to Blue Heron Canal. This project involves retrofitting the existing inlet structure and scoured basin to capture sediment upstream of the inlet so that it can be regularly removed prior to reaching the canal. Retrofitting the inlet requires plugging the low flow orifices that sediment currently escapes through and adjusting the crest elevation of the grated inlet to maximize the available storage in the scoured basin. This project also includes improvements to the basin to provide as much storage as safely possible and armored to prevent further scour. This project would take place on private property within a public drainage easement and within public rights-of-way. BC I b: Sedimentation Basin on Blue Heron Way There is a small pond on the south side of the intersection of Blue Heron Way and Blue Heron Court that is fed by Blue Heron Creek (BH01R01). The pond drains out through a grate inlet to a piped system, which outfalls into Blue Heron Canal. This project involves retrofitting the existing inlet to capture sediment in the existing pond so that it can be regularly removed prior to reaching the canal. Retrofitting the inlet requires plugging the low flow orifices and adjusting the crest elevation of the grate inlet to maximize the available storage in the pond. This project would take place on private property within a 90 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued public drainage easement and within the public right-of-way. BC I c: Sedimentation Basin on Blue Heron Road (# 1) At the intersection of Blue Heron Road and South Shore Boulevard near the South Shore Boulevard Bridge crossing Blue Heron Canal, there are utility vaults located on the edge of an incised channel. The channel velocities are high through this reach, and these velocities work to incise the stream and carry sediment to Blue Heron Canal. This project includes retrofitting the inlet to capture sediment for regular removal before it reaches the canaL This project would take place on private property, within a public drainage easement and within the public rights-of-way. BC I d: Sedimentation Basin on Blue Heron Road (#2) Going up the hill toward the south on Blue Heron Road, Alber Spring Creek (BC03) drains into a grated inlet on the upstream end of the culvert. There is a small basin that has been scoured out upstream of the grated inlet Flows entering the inlet drain to a system that discharges to Blue Heron Canal. This project involves retrofitting the existing inlet structure and scoured basin to capture sediment upstream of the inlet so that it can be regularly removed prior to reaching the canal. Retrofitting the inlet requires plugging the low flow orifices that sediment currently escapes through and adjusting the crest elevation of the grated inlet to maximize the available storage in the scoured basin. This project also includes improvements to the basin to provide as much storage as safely possible and armored to prevent further scour. This project would take place on private property and require an easement. BC I e: Sedimentation Basin on Blue Heron Road (#3) Further up the hill past BC1d on Blue Heron Road, Canyon Court Creek (BC04R01) drains into a grated inlet on the upstream end of the culvert. See Blue Heron Canal CIP 1. This project would take place on private property within a public drainage easement. Cost Estimate (per location) Construction Cost: $136,600 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $47,850 Total Cost: $184,450 Clean Streams Plan 91 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program i,(,nt1 -1}1Pll Lost Dog Creek Subbasin (LD) Project ID: LD1 Location: Regional Stormwater Facility: Property southeast of Stafford Road and north of Bergis Road. Description: As possible annexation and future development of the agriculture property southeast of Stafford Road and north of Bergis Road occurs, increased flows will contribute to erosion and sediment loads in east Lost Dog Creek. In the past large amounts of sediment from current agricultural practices in this area have been observed in runoff flowing toward east Lost Dog Creek. Recommendations: A regional flow control and water quality facility could be considered for construction on this agricultural property in conjunction with future annexation and development. This project consists of constructing a new regional retention/ detention facility that could be funded partially or in full by future developers. The City should evaluate this site to determine how large of a facility could be constructed, the area the facility could serve, and potential locations for the facility, including potential discharge locations. Proposed Improvements: • Construct regional retention/detention facility. lost Estimate Construction Cost: $244,300 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $85,510 Total Cost: $330,000 92 City of Lake Oswego utak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Lost Dog Creek Subbasin (LD) Project ID: LD2 Location: Municipal Golf Course Description: The City's municipal golf course is a public location that could accommodate a detention/water quality facility. Lost Dog Creek flows through the golf course toward an existing detention facility located just south of Cherry Crest Avenue. The basin area contributing to Lost Dog Creek upstream of the golf course is approximately 50 acres and includes Lake Ridge High School and portions of Cloverleaf Road, Marjorie Avenue, Banyan Lane, and Overlook Drive. These areas drain directly to Lost Dog Creek through an outfall located in the golf course west of Banyan Road. Much of the golf course drains to this reach of Lost Dog Creek as well. Although there is an existing detention tank serving Lake Ridge High School, there are no other detention or water quality facilities located upstream of the golf course. Excessive runoff from this basin has contributed to downstream erosion in Lost Dog Creek. Recommendations: This project consists of constructing a detention/water quality facility on golf course property. The facility could promote infiltration through a bio- retention/retention facility, as well as provide detention to attenuate flows. Providing storage and treatment at this location will help reduce erosive flows that scour sediment from Lost Dog Creek and transport it to Oswego Lake. This location would not require property acquisition and has potential for good maintenance access. Proposed Improvements: • Construct detention/water quality facility. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $236,000 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $59,000 Total Cost: $295,000 Clean Streams Plan 93 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program C�nntimiQ� Springbrook Creek Subbasin (SB) Project ID: SB1 Location: Preakness Court hammerhead in Mountain Park Description: There are open spaces located on both sides of the hammerhead just before the terminus of Preakness Court in Mountain Park. These open spaces border Springbrook Creek and there is a storm pipe that outfalls into Springbrook Creek at this location. The hammerhead provides access to this area. The reach of Springbrook Creek downstream of this area (SB01R15) has significant erosion and undercutting. CIPS SB2 and SB4 are located a short distance downstream from this location and are intended to work with this CIP to help prevent further erosion in Springbrook Creek. The open spaces at this location are owned by the Mountain Park Homeowners Association. Recommendations: This project consists of the construction of a water quality/detention facility in-line with the existing storm pipe at this location. Attenuating flows at this location will help alleviate erosion problems in the downstream reach of the creek and help stabilize the area described below in CIP SB4. It should be noted that constructing a project at this location would require an easement from the Mountain Park Homeowners Association. Proposed Improvements: • Construct a water quality/detention facility Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $67,400 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $23,590 Total Cost: $90,990 94 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Springbrook Creek Subbasin (SB) Project ID: SB2 Location: Tanglewood Drive Open Space in Mountain Park Description: There is an outfall that discharges into Independence Tributary (SB10R01) that flows through a grass covered open space between Monticello Drive and Tanglewood Drive. Independence Tributary flows to Springbrook Creek and the downstream end of the tributary is badly eroded. Field visits indicate the tributary is continuing to erode and the eroded sediments are being transported into Springbrook Creek. The erosion is also damaging and beginning to divide the open space which is bordered by many residential properties and a walking path. Recommendations: This project consists of retrofitting the outfall with a LIDA, or a traditional water quality facility, and a water quality/detention facility at the north end of the open space in the tributary prior to it entering the forested area. This project will reduce and treat urban runoff, and help reduce erosion in Springbrook Creek. It should be noted that constructing a project at this location would require an easement from the Mountain Park Homeowners Association. Proposed Improvements: • Construct water quality facility at outfall. Construct water quality/detention facility at downstream end of open space. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $68,100 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $23,840 Total Cost: $91,940 Clean Streams Plan 95 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Springbrook Creek Subbasin (SB) Project ID: SB3 Location: Churchill Downs Description: Churchill Downs is a steep residential street in the Mountain Park neighborhood that drains to Springbrook Creek (SB01R14). The steep street results in high stormwater velocities in the curb and gutters. These high velocities prevent the existing catch basins from capturing all of the stormwater. The Churchill Downs storm collection and conveyance system was modeled to determine how to increase inlet capacity. A detailed description of the model and results for this system can be found in the Touchstone Drive/Churchill Downs study in Appendix A. Recommendations: This project consists of replacing inlets along Churchill Downs that are not efficiently capturing stormwater runoff. Proposed Improvements: • Replace three inlets. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: Total Cost: 96 otak $22,470 $ 7,870 $30,340 City of Lake Oawego DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Springbrook Creek Subbasin (SB) Project ID: SB4 Location: South of Churchill Downs along Elizabeth M. Gress Park (Mountain Park HOA Park) Description: A 12 -inch pipe conveys flows from Churchill Downs to a five-foot long open channel that drains to a culvert discharging into Springbrook Creek (SB01R14). The open channel is beginning to erode and enlarge into a small basin. The upstream end of the culvert is crushed so that it now has an elliptical opening. This reach of Springbrook Creek also receives flows from three other culverts. Of these culverts, the one located the furthest upstream conveys Springbrook Creek itself (SB01 R15) under a Mountain Park Path. The other two culverts discharge untreated flows collected from upstream residential areas. This outfall area has enlarged to a marshy, sediment filled basin which contains large woody debris and other deleterious materials causing sluggish, restricted flows. This basin is located adjacent to a small neighborhood park maintained by the Mountain Park Homeowners Association. Immediately downstream of this area, Springbrook Creek (SB01R14) is sluggish, overgrown with invasive and non-native species and is filled with sediment. Springbrook Creek upstream of Elizabeth M. Gress Park (SB01R15) is significantly eroded and receives flows from eroded tributaries. The amount of erosion observed in Springbrook Creek and its tributaries through the Mountain Park neighborhood results in significant amounts of sediment being transported downstream toward Oswego Lake. Recommendations: Figure 8.3: Damaged Culvert on Springbrook Creek. Multiple projects are recommended for improving the problems described at this location and to improve the water quality of Springbrook Creek. Recommended projects include: a. Retrofit the five-foot long open channel that outfalls into Springbrook Creek as a bioretention area with a splash block or other energy dissipater. The damaged Clean Streams Plan 97 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued upstream end of the culvert draining this short channel should be retrofitted to retain as much runoff as possible in the recommended bioretention area. b. Excavate and remove the excess debris from the outfall area in Springbrook Creek and install an inline storage and treatment facility. Access to the facility should be provided from McNary Parkway for regular sediment removal. c. Rehabilitate and stabilize the reach of Springbrook Creek immediately downstream from the outfall area with grade control structures. These projects will provide an aesthetic, stable treatment facility that will allow for the effective removal of sediment and rehabilitate a reach of Springbrook Creek that is currently overgrown with invasive, non-native plant species and overloaded with sediment. This location is adjacent to a neighborhood park and next to a busy Mountain Park Path, and provides a good location for a demonstration project of stormwater facility retrofitting. It should be noted that constructing a project at this location would require an easement from the Mountain Park Homeowners Association. Proposed Improvements: • Bioretention area upstream of outfall. • Outfall area restoration. • Retrofit outfall area as a storage/treatment facility. • Construct access from McNary Parkway to facility. • Rehabilitate downstream reach of Springbrook Creek. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $117,520 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $41,140 Total Cost: $158,660 98 ofak wCity of Lake Oswego ot Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Springbrook Creek Subbasin (SB) Project ID: SB5 Location: Touchstone Drive Description: Touchstone Drive is a steep residential street in the Mountain Park neighborhood that drains directly to Springbrook Creek. The steep street results in high stormwater velocities in the curb and gutters. These high velocities prevent the existing catch basins from capturing all of the stormwater. The Touchstone Drive storm collection and conveyance system was modeled to determine how to increase inlet capacity. A detailed description of the model and results for this system can be found in the Touchstone Drive/Churchill Downs study in Appendix A. Recommendations: This project consists of replacing five inlets along Touchstone Drive that are not efficiently capturing stormwater runoff. Proposed Improvements: • Replace five inlets. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $39,320 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $13,770 Total Cost: $53,090 Clean Streams Plan 99 otak Section 8—Capital Improvement Program Continued Springbrook Creek Subbasin (SB) Project ID: SB6 Location: Lower Springbrook Creek Description: Many improvements have been made to Lower Springbrook Creek, including five culvert replacements and several stream restoration projects. These projects may have changed the elevation of the stream during flood events. A new floodplain study may show that base flood elevations now differ from what is shown on current FEMA maps. If this is the result, a letter of map revision (LOMR) should be submitted to FEMA. Changed base flood elevations may affect flood insurance costs for residents along Springbrook Creek. Streambed aggradation has occurred along parts of the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek, depositing material in culverts, which reduces their flow capacity. Removing the material will provide a short term fix by increasing the capacity; however, unless the cause is addressed the culverts will fill up again. Recommendations: This project consists of modeling Springbrook Creek in accordance with FEMA floodplain modeling requirements from Country Club Road to Oswego Lake. It also includes evaluating the culverts for capacity during larger storm events, and stabilizing the stream reaches upstream of these culverts to prevent them from continued clogging. Proposed Improvements: • Perform FEIVIA Modeling. • Submit LOMR if necessary. • Evaluate culvert capacities • Remove embedded sediment from culverts • Channel grade control and stabilization for all culverts. Cost Estimate Construction Cost: $178,180 Eng., Admin., and Legal Cost: $ 44,550 Total Cost: $222,730 100 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 9 —Federal/State Regulatory Review 9.1 Existing Program Evaluation Detailed stormwater program evaluations have been completed for compliance with NPDES, METRO Code 3.07, UIC, and ESA requirements. TMDL requirements are met through the City's NPDES permit. More detailed descriptions of these programs and their implications of stormwater management in the city is included in Section 2. The primary findings and conclusions of the regulatory stormwater program evaluation include: • Consolidation of Stormwater Regulations and Documents; and • Updates to Legal Authorities. In terms of policies and codes, evaluations have identified the need to consolidate stormwater regulations and update legal authorities to put the City's environmental policies and practices into ordinances consistent with the MS4 NDPES permit and METRO's Code. Objectives The objectives of this regulatory evaluation include: • Identifying changes to City Code or policy required to be in compliance with federal, state and local regulatory requirements. The City of Lake Oswego is subject to federal and state regulations governing surface water discharges to streams and rivers, infiltration of stormwatex into the ground, and protection of ESA -listed fish and fish habitat. 9.2 Findings and Conclusions NPDES A review of the City's MS4 SWMP identified two areas where adoption of new ordinances is required to meet NPDES permit conditions. 1. Address the reduction of contaminants from significant redevelopment. This would require the passing of an ordinance requiring water quality treatment for all "significant" redeveloping properties. 2. Require erosion prevention and sediment control educational and training measures for construction site operators. This would require contractors to have been trained in erosion and sediment control techniques. Classes are available in the Portland metro area where certifications can be received. Clean Streams Plan 101 otak Section 9—Federal/State Regulatory Review Continued UICs The City is required to register all UICs, and to review UICs for compliance with rule authorization requirements. UICs that do not meet rule authorization requirements must obtain a permit. DEQ required the City to disclose all UICs to the State by December 31, 2008, and to submit Authorization by Rule or WPCF permit applications for each UIC. The City currently owns and maintains 32 UICs. UIC permit requirements change depending on the number of UICS, with more stringent permit conditions applied for permittees with over 50 UICs. The City should limit the installation of new UICs that will be publicly owned to avoid going over this limit. This will prevent the City from taking additional permit responsibilities. The City should require any privately owned UICs to be properly registered with DEQ. The City should not allow privately installed UICs in the public rights-of-way to avoid potential responsibility or liability. ESA Limit 12, Municipal, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development and Redevelopment, applies to the City of Lake Oswego's Stormwater Management Program. This limit provides an exception to the take prohibitions on MRCI that NMFS has found to adequately protect listed fish. NMFS must approve in writing MRCI development ordinances and standards for this limit to apply. NMFS uses 12 evaluation criteria to decide whether MRCI development ordinances or plans adequately protect listed fish. While not required, the criteria NMFS uses to evaluate MRCI development programs focuses on protection of sensitive lands such as wetlands and stream banks, when developing adjacent properties and provides good guidance. The City's sensitive lands and flood management areas (Sections 50.16 and 50.44 respectively, of the City Code) address. most of the evaluation criteria with the exception of the following NOAA Fisheries recommendations: Evaluation Criteria No. 3 - Retain riparian vegetation up to one site potential tree height, which is defined as the expected height of coniferous trees upon maturity (200 years) Evaluation Criteria No. 4 - Require bridges and culverts to meet ODFW's Oregon Road/Stream Crossing Restoration Guidelines, Spring 1999, to minimize impacts when stream crossings cannot be avoided. Evaluation Criteria No. 5 - Require protection of stream meander patterns and channel migration zones and the use of bioengineering methods, where possible, for protection of stream banks from erosion. 102 otak City of Lake Oswego Section 9—Federal/State Regulatory Review Continued • Evaluation Criteria No. 7 - Require preservation of intermittent streams ability to pass peak flows. • Evaluation Criteria No. 8 - Encourage landscaping with native vegetation, reducing lawn areas and lowering water use. Evaluation Criteria No. 2 relates directly to stormwater discharges and calls for a plan that adequately prevents impacts on water quality and quantity, and stream flow impacts in the watershed. Development activities must "preserve or enhance stream flow patterns so they are as close as possible to the historic peak flows, base flows, durations, volumes, and velocities." NOAA Fisheries recommends controlling the duration of discharge of developed surface runoff to predeveloped discharge rates. The City's current stormwater ordinance (Sections 50.40 and 50.41 of the City Code) does not require the matching of the duration standard. _ From discussions with other jurisdictions and a review of the evaluation criteria, obtaining an exception from the take provision under Limit 12 requires the review of many ordinances and programs. This lengthy and complex process could require many changes to City Codes, - standards and programs. Not going through this process does not mean that the City would be found as "taking"; however, obtaining an exception under this limit would provide the City immunity. METRO Code 3.07 City Code does not address METRO Code 3.07 requirements for water resource protection areas. To come into compliance with this code, the City will need to make the following changes: • Create wider buffers for steep slopes adjacent to wetlands. • Create protections for springs. • Prohibit hazardous materials storage in sensitive areas. • Establish a timeline for map updates when new information is received. • Evaluate the water quality functions of a site when designating new protection areas. • Update maps to conform to METRO's resource maps or document discrepancies. City planning staff is currently working on updates to City Code and completing the activities needed to implement and comply with METRO Code 3.07 requirements. Clean Streams Plan 103 otak Section 9—Federal/State Regulatory Review Continued 9.3 Proposed Recommendations • Adopt ordinances that require installation of water quality measures from significant redevelopments and require construction site operators to obtain training in erosion and sediment control practices. • Adopt new city code that restrict the use of products containing phosphorous and ammonia that could likely come into contact with storm and surface water pathways. • Adopt new city code requiring documentation of State permit approval for UICs on private developments prior to the City issuing final development approvals. • Adopt new code or policies stipulating that the City will not take ownership of any UICs installed with developments, and that privately installed UICs not be allowed in the public rights-of-way. • Do not pursue coverage under the 4(d) rule for the City's stormwater program. clean streams... J _ 104 ok otaCity of Lake Oswego Section 10—Local Code Review Included as part of the Clean Streams planning process is a review of the City's storm and surface water regulations. The need for this evaluation is driven by a number of factors. First, the City would like to incorporate innovative concepts, such as LIDA and sustainability practices, into the City Code. Second, existing city stormwater policies, practices, and ordinances may not correlate well to one another and may need to be changed. And third, city staff recognizes that to meet regulations such as the City's 2005 Phase I NPDES permit, applicable TMDLs, ESA, and UIC rules may require changes to existing ordinances or the adoption of new ordinances. These ordinances are needed for the City to comply with regulatory obligations and ensure that City Code has provisions requiring the public to comply with the same requirements. This regulatory review examines opportunities to revise, update, or add to City Code in order to establish a more cohesive set of city surface water management regulations. The result of this evaluation is a list of recommended changes. to codes and policies, or identification of those that should be reviewed and updated. 10.1 Objectives The objectives of this regulatory evaluation include: • Identifying existing City stormwater policies, standards, and ordinances that are currently not compatible or effective and should be changed; and • Recommending modifications to existing codes, creation of new ordinances or policies, or further review of existing codes or policies where needed. 10.2 Approach This review of existing city surface and stormwater regulations includes the following tasks: • Documenting the City's existing surface and stormwater regulations; • Staff evaluation of City Code and policies; • Research into SWM policies and trends in other communities; and • Develop recommended code changes or other follow-up activities to address problem areas. The City Code was reviewed to identify formal regulations, and discussions were held with city staff to understand the informal or unwritten policies that are used when formal regulations do not provide the needed guidance. An internal evaluation meeting was held with city staff to identify areas of conflict or challenge among City Code and policies. Staff also brainstormed new ideas they would like to see incorporated into city policies. Policies in City of Lake Oswego 105 otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued other local jurisdictions were also researched to understand trends and common practices related to surface water management that the City might consider as it pursues updates to its surface and stormwater regulations. From this process, a series of findings and conclusions have been noted. Recommendations include modifications to the existing code, addition of new ordinances, and identification of policy issues that deserve further consideration, but not necessarily a code revision. 10.3 Internal Evaluation An initial meeting was held with city staff on December 18, 2006 to review City Codes and policies. The meeting had two objectives: 1) identify existing codes and policies that are confusing or unclear, or are in conflict with other codes; and 2) brainstorm new policies or concepts that staff would like incorporated into the City Code. While many topics were discussed, those that received the greatest interest, or have the most potential to impact stormwater policies are discussed below. • One major challenge staff identified is that stormwater regulations are contained within the development code, stormwater utility ordinance, building code, and unwritten policies. Without a central authority for stormwater guidance, staff often has difficulty providing consistent answers or guidance to the public. • Staff would like to see clearly established maintenance standards for both public and private facilities. • The City's Stormwater Design Workbook was last updated in 2003, but never officially adopted by Council. The design guidelines are fairly limited and do not address emerging trends or the wide range of facilities being installed in other communities. Without official adoption, the City does not have a clear set of guidelines to use when reviewing stormwater management facilities for development proposals. • Staff also noted that the existing definitions of "minor" and "major" development allows larger developments to phase their projects so each phase is classified as a "minor" development, for which stormwater requirements are not as stringent. In terms of new concepts that staff would like incorporated into the City Code, the primary focus is on environmentally sensitive design. Staff would like to promote LIDA in stormwater facility design, limit impervious area, and create a better connection between surface water management and responsible irrigation practices. Staff also mentioned a desire to modify the code to allow gray water re -use and/or rainwater harvesting for non -potable uses (toilet flushing, irrigation, washers, etc). Another significant topic was the development of programs to encourage streamside stewardship by recognizing neighborhood projects, increasing public education, providing grants for volunteer projects or creating a stormwater management overlay zone. 106 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued A second city staff meeting was held on March 5, 2007 as a follow-up and to obtain direction on several issues: • Written and unwritten policies and their relationship to the City Code; • To develop a consensus on the best way to revise or track stormwater related ordinances; and • Portions of the City Code that may deter the use of LIDA. Results of the meeting are presented in this section as part of the findings and conclusions. 10.4 Findings and Conclusions The findings and conclusions provided here are based on the full evaluation of the City's existing storm and surface water policies and codes, and research on policies and trends in other communities. Examining policies and trends in other communities can provide insight into new, better, or innovative ways of managing storm and surface water. Learning how others in similar situations have dealt with the same challenges can help orient the City's efforts in a particular direction, increase efficiency and effectiveness, save money, and better protect against liability. Research on other jurisdictions included the cities of Gresham and Portland; Clark, Clackamas and King Counties; and Clean Water Services. Findings and conclusions are provided in the areas of: • Stormwater Ordinance • Maintenance • Stormwater Management Design Standards • Development Review Standards • Policy Documentation • Sustainability • Low Impact Development • Phosphorous Removal Standard • Legal Authority • Other Policy Considerations Clean Streams Plan 107 otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued Stormwater Ordinance At the internal evaluation meeting, city staff expressed a desire to consolidate stormwater information in the existing code and expand the information to cover a wider range of issues. Many communities have adopted, or are in the process of developing, comprehensive stormwater management ordinances. In some cases, this is the result of NPDES permit requirements. In other cases, it is in response to increasing development and the need for clear design and maintenance standards. For example, the City of Gresham has an extensive grading and drainage ordinance within their larger development code. The ordinance includes requirements for plan and report submittal, erosion control measures and stormwater quality design. A separate section of the public utilities ordinance also covers stormwater infrastructure design, including the physical requirements (material, locations, capacity, slopes, cover, etc) for manholes, pipes, culverts, bridges and outfalls. Similarly, the City of Portland addresses stormwater in two major areas of their ordinance. Title 10 covers Erosion and Sediment Control and Title 17 covers Public Improvements including drainage and water quality standards for new development and stormwater discharges related to the NPDES permit. Private improvements are generally covered through Building Code and the Land Use Code At the second internal meeting on March 5, 2007, staff discussed whether it made more sense to consolidate the stormwater related ordinances or to create a reference guide that lists the ordinances and where to find them. Staff agreed that consolidating ordinances in a separate section of the LOC seems consistent with existing city direction, would make application of the code more helpful from a user standpoint and would simplify administration. Consolidation would also reveal conflicts in the code. The code sections that would be consolidated are included in Chapters 38, 42 and 50. Drainage requirements in the Building Code would not be included, as local amendments to State codes are not favored by the Building Department. Each code section should be reviewed individually to determine whether it should be moved to a consolidated location. For example, 50.16 Sensitive Lands Overlay would not be moved as its scope is beyond stormwater issues. When codes cannot be moved it would be helpful to provide cross-references or a master list. Maintenance The City Code has limited information concerning maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. The Utility Code (Section 38.24.520) specifies that the level of maintenance of surface water facilities shall be "established by the current adopted Surface Water Management Plan (1992), monitored for effectiveness, and adjusted as necessary". According to the City, the current level of facility maintenance is at levels prescribed by the City's current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Stormwater Management Plan (MS4 108 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued SWMP). The Utility Code also requires privately owned catch basins and pollution control manholes to be maintained at the same frequency as publicly owned facilities. The City's Drainage Standards (Section 50.41.030) specifies that all retention/detention areas be maintained in such a way that they do not become a nuisance. Section 50.41.030 provides a short list of nuisance conditions. The standards do not identify criteria that should be met to ensure that the facilities are maintained in good working order. The Utility ordinance does not give the City specific authority to inspect private facilities or enforce maintenance standards. The cities of Portland and Gresham, along with Clackamas County, specifically address private stormwater facility maintenance requirements, inspection of facilities and enforcement in their stormwater management ordinances and administrative rules. In the case of Portland and Gresham, additional guidance on the development of maintenance plans is provided in associated manuals. These cities also require Operations and Maintenance (O & M ) plans for both public and private facilities, although Gresham's policy is that most facilities will remain private and in that case, a maintenance agreement recorded with Multnomah County will be required between the City and the facility owner. Clackamas County and the City of Portland do not require maintenance agreements, although Portland does require that a "Form O&M" be recorded with the County identifying owner and site information, financial method used to cover future operation and maintenance and parties responsible for inspecting and maintaining the facility. For all three agencies, documentation of private facility maintenance activities is required by either code or manual. Stormwater Management Design Standards The City's 2003 Stormwater Design Workbook includes a limited list of BMPs and does not include many facility designs that are increasingly popular in the metro area. In addition, . because the workbook has not been officially adopted by Council, it does not give the Development Community clear standards, nor city plan reviewers a mechanism to directly enforce the design standards for new development. Other local communities streamline establishment of standards by adopting a stormwater design manual developed by another jurisdiction and making minor modifications to reflect local needs. This method has proven effective in many areas of Western Washington. For example, Clark County and many communities in Washington adopted the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with individual changes and modifications identified in the adoption ordinance. In Oregon, Portland's BES has a stormwater management manual which outlines design standards for water quality, conveyance and flow control facilities. Like many other communities, Gresham's grading and drainage ordinance references a separate manual with Clean Streams Plan 109 otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued detailed stormwater facility design requirements. Clean Water Services (CWS) has a set of design standards that are widely used and referenced by communities throughout the metro area. These standards include a limited list of BMPs and rely on a six-month storm for facility sizing. CWS is in the process of updating their design and construction standards. Clackamas County's Water Environment Services (WES) recently completed their Surface Water Management Program Master Plan and is in the process of developing a set of guiding principles related to surface water management. The WES rules and regulations were last updated in 2002 and reference the CWS design standards for stormwater facility design. In terms of application, manuals that are more prescriptive, such as the City of Portland's, provides more detail and are considered more user-friendly because they are easier to use. Manuals that are less prescriptive leave designers and reviewers with more discretion and room for flexibility, but do not provide a consistent approach to BMP selection and design, and can be perceived as more difficult to use. Development Review Standards The adoption of a stormwater design manual would ease some of the challenges associated with the review of development proposals and help plan reviewers apply requirements consistently between projects. The design manual should include language that allows flexibility when needed to allow innovative or new techniques. In addition, significant stormwater impacts from new development may not be receiving a detailed review. According to current definitions of major and minor development, many proposed developments can be phased so they fall into the minor development category. Only major developments receive full stormwater review. Many stormwater design manuals identify the addition of 5,000 square feet of impervious area as the threshold where stormwater impacts may be significant. Consistent with the City's stormwater discharge policy, standards could also be established for placement of stormwater outfalls so that stream banks are protected from erosion by stormwater discharges. Policy Documentation Based on the meeting of March 5, 2007, the City suggested that the best approach to written and unwritten surface water policies is to compile the written ones, document the unwritten ones, and make sure that all include the supporting code references. Sustainability Sustainability is an area that staff is interested in exploring to further reduce environmental degradation from stormwater runoff. The idea behind sustainable development is to take a systems approach to reconciling development projects with the regenerative capacity of the natural environment. In terms of surface water management, the City has expressed interest in a number of actions that align with this approach such as applying low impact development principles to new and redevelopment, encouraging environmentally friendly 110 City of Lake Oswego otok Section 10—Local Code Review Continued businesses through recognition incentives, encouraging and promoting streamside stewardship, and allowing gray water re -use and/or rainwater harvesting. These four topics are covered in more detail in subsequent headings within this findings and conclusions section. Low Impact Development Approach LIDA is a relatively new methodology to developing land and managing stormwater runoff. The goal is to mimic predevelopment hydrology by using design practices and techniques that capture, filter, store, evaporate and infiltrate runoff close to its source. In doing so, LIDA reduces reliance on pipes, ponds and dry -wells. LIDA practices can be applied to areas of residential, commercial, industrial and municipal development, though the specific techniques used will vary based on individual site conditions. At the internal evaluation meeting, city staff expressed great interest in incorporating LIDA standards into the City Code. Encouraging LIDA practices at the city-wide level may require revisions to sections of the development code. Street design standards, lot coverage and setbacks are all areas where LIDA principles can be applied. LIDA guidelines can be incorporated into the surface water policies by adding LIDA techniques and standards into a new or updated stormwater design manual. Given the development/redevelopment patterns in the city, it is likely that some LIDA techniques will fit better than others and it may be possible to tailor some LIDA measures to work well in retrofit situations. See Section 6 for more information. Phosphorus Removal Standard Phosphorous control is a TMDL requirement for the Tualatin River and Oswego Lake and is a primary stormwater management interest for the City. The City's Stormwater Design Workbook requires stormwater quality facilities to be "... designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus from 100 percent of the newly constructed impervious surface". The City requires the engineer to certify that the stormwater facilities have been designed to meet the removal standard. However, of the four stormwater treatment facilities detailed in the City's design workbook, only one treatment option (StortnFilter®) is listed with a phosphorus removal rate that meets the standard. As written, the standard is challenging to measure and enforce. While other communities also use the 65 percent removal threshold, many identify a list of approved treatment BMPs that have been shown to maximize phosphorus removal. C1eanWater Services' update to its design manual includes an expanded discussion on phosphorous removal. The new manual lists specific BMPs for phosphorus control including vegetated swales; extended dry basins and constructed wetlands. This approach provides clearer direction to developers and if used by the City, would give it a way to ensure the intent of the phosphorus removal standard is being met (See Section 6 for more information on a BMP selection process). Clean Streams Plan 111 otak Section IO—Local Code Review Continued Legal Authority The earlier regulatory stormwater program evaluation included a recommendation to review and update legal authorities to put the City's environmental policies and practices into ordinances consistent with the MS4 permit, T1VIDLs, UICs, ESA and METRO Codes. Findings and conclusions under each of these topics discuss identified deficiencies where found. LOC Chapters 38 (Utility Code), 50 (Community Development Code), and 52 (Erosion Control) all appear to provide levels of legal authority sufficient to implement programs outlined in the City's MS4 SWMP, but warrants a more detailed examination of the need for more specific authority. Chapter 38 Utility Code, Article 38.04 — City Authority, specifies exclusive control of public utility systems and services by the City and requires City authorization for installations, connections, discharges into the system, provision of services, tampering or other interferences with any part of the system. Article 38.24 - Surface Water Utility, stipulates the powers and duties of the Utility as planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, administering and operating all city surface water conveyances and facilities, the regulations for its control, as well as establishing public and private facility design and construction standards and specifies the City Manager as the administrator of the program. This article also requires privately owned catch basins and pollution control manholes that drain to the public system to be maintained and cleaned on a certain frequency by responsible parties. Article 38.26 — Violations, specifies six sections that address waste, damage, tampering, prohibited connections, disposal and conduct. In this case, enforcement of private facility maintenance suggests inspections would be required on private property to verify compliance, yet the code does not give the City explicit authority to require these inspections, require access easements from property owners needed for such inspections or cite lack of maintenance as a specific violation. That said, exclusive control is a term that is somewhat vague but could be construed as covering these issues depending on its interpretation. Chapter 50 Development Code applies to the development of real property within the City. Article 50.01 — Title, Purpose and Authority, stipulates the City Manager as having authority, to interpret, implement and enforce the requirements of the chapter subject to review by higher authority of the hearing body or City Council pursuant to chapter requirements. It further specifies the City Manager may adopt administrative rules to aid in implementing the chapter. Article 50.04 — Rules of Interpretation, allows the City Manager to develop regulations and procedures to aid in implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the chapter and delegation of authority. Article 50.90 — Enforcement of Permits and Penalties specifies that a violation of any provision of the chapter is a civil violation and shall be enforced pursuant to City Code. Articles 50.40 and 50.41 — Drainage Standards, require all detention and retention areas be properly maintained by their owners, such that they do 112 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued not become nuisances. While this Chapter establishes broad authority, it is not explicit in its scope. Similar to the Utility Code, the Development Code sets maintenance standards yet does not give the City explicit authority to require inspections to enforce those standards for private facilities, or require access easements from property owners needed for such inspections. On the other hand, the Development Code is clear that lack of required maintenance is a violation. Chapter 52 Erosion Control does not include a specific article on authority; however, throughout the chapter's articles the City Manager is given authority to make determinations and issue directions and approvals. Article 52.04 — Erosion Control Plan speaks to compliance with approved erosion control plans and correction of ineffective methods as determined by site inspection. Article 52.06 — Violations, specifies penalties including violation of any provision of the chapter to be a civil violation and clear consequences such as stop work orders, denials of occupancy and others. In this case, it appears that the chapter sufficiently addresses the necessary authority to implement and enforce it. Broad legal authority has the benefit of being open to interpretation and can provide _ flexibility in meeting code requirements that allows creative and innovative approaches. On the other hand, flexibility can allow inequitable application and can result in challenges if an -- applicant feels they have been held to a different standard than others. In contrast, more explicitly defined or specific authority provides clearer expectations for regulators and the regulated community, more consistent application of code, and can be viewed as reflecting a higher level of commitment to protecting and promoting the community's interests. A key part of any city ordinance is enforcement, and without an identified penalty or consequence, the regulated community may choose to ignore written ordinances when the standards are perceived as difficult or inconvenient to implement. With clear penalties, there is more incentive to find creative solutions that meet the intent of the City Code. The City's enforcement of surface water policies seems consistent with other code enforcement measures. As new ordinances are created or existing ordinances are updated, it is important that the consequences associated with non-compliance are reviewed and updated as necessary. Other Policy Considerations Several other elements of the City's stormwater policies were identified for further review during the evaluation. The areas listed below are those in which the City may want to do additional research or where comprehensive guidelines (as opposed to solely surface water policies) may be needed. In some cases, the ideas may be better implemented through new city programs or modifications to department activities, but they do not require an update or addition to the City Code. Clean Streams Plan 113 otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued Environmentally Friendly Businesses — Encouraging environmentally sensitive businesses should be an area of focus for the City's sustainability manager or a volunteer group rather than a modification to City Code. Other Cities have developed programs to identify environmentally considerate businesses with logo stickers in business windows similar to the "Energy Star" program for appliances. Streamside Stewardship — Encouraging and promoting stewardship of streamside properties through removal of invasive vegetation and planting of riparian species should be a public education or volunteer group focus rather than a city ordinance. Ideas include providing grants for volunteer planting projects, giving awards to recognize stewardship efforts, or implementing a volunteer "habitat watch" program where residents count fish and wildlife species present in and around their local stream (See Section 7 for a proposed program to promote stream stewardship). Grey Water Re -Use and/or Rainwater Harvesting — This is an area of increasing interest among the green building community. However, few communities have developed ordinances allowing re -use or modified plumbing codes to allow rainwater harvesting for non -potable uses. Additional research and discussion is needed before making changes to City Code. If this is an area of strong interest in Lake Oswego, city staff should visit rainwater re -use sites in the Portland area and attend educational seminars to learn more about this emerging technology. 10.6 Proposed Recommendations This evaluation of the City of Lake Oswego's storm and surface water regulations was based on earlier work that focused on federal and state regulatory requirements, current work that included an internal review by city staff members, a review of common policy and practices in other local jurisdictions and a review of METRO regulations. The evaluation revealed opportunities for the City to update or create policy or code in order to meet regulatory requirements or integrate desired changes. The following are proposed recommendations to update the City's policies or code. Stormwater Ordinance The City of Lake Oswego should adopt an updated stormwater ordinance with sections covering legal authority, development standards, plan submittal, illicit discharge and maintenance requirements. The new ordinance would replace and/or expand stormwater related requirements in Code Sections 38, 42 and 50. Sample ordinances are available from a number of sources, such as the Center for Watershed Protection. Ordinances from other local jurisdictions could also be modified to meet the City's needs. If there are sections that can not or should not be pulled from existing code, then a comprehensive listing of all stormwater related requirements should be developed to provide a single reference document for the regulated community and staff. 114 City of Lake Oswego omk Section IO—Local Code Review Continued Maintenance Manual and Ordinance Consistent with both NPDES permit requirements and the findings from the internal review, the City should develop a stormwater facility maintenance manual along with a maintenance ordinance for private facilities. The maintenance manual should outline maintenance requirements for maintaining catch basins, ponds, ditches and other elements of stormwater infrastructure to keep them functioning in good working order. The manual would improve consistency of maintenance practices and provide improved infrastructure maintenance procedures. If not included in an updated comprehensive stormwater ordinance, an updated maintenance ordinance is needed to outline private facility maintenance requirements, require compliance with an Operations and Maintenance Plan developed with guidance from the maintenance manual, require proof of long-term maintenance agreements, and grant the City the authority to access and inspect private facilities and enforce (through penalties and fines) maintenance standards. Stormwater Design Manual • Adopt an updated stormwater design manual by modifying an existing manual from another local jurisdiction to best meet the City's goals and objectives for new development and redevelopment and compliance with the City's NPDES permit requirements. The City should replace its workbook with an updated design manual including sections that cover: o Thresholds triggering stormwater management measures; o Design standards for flow control (or water quantity) facilities; o Design standards for water quality treatment facilities; o Erosion and sediment control measures; and design report and desi ort submittal requirements. o p q o LIDA An updated manual could also include discussions of source control measures and maintenance standards and should emphasize the use of onsite stormwater management tools such as LIDA. Section 6 contains additional recommendations for design standards. Major and Minor Development Classifications • Review the classifications for minor and major development and update as necessary to ensure that developments with significant stormwater impact (5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface) receive full development review. Clean Streams Plan 115 otak Section 10—Local Code Review Continued Policy Documentation • Gather existing written policies, document unwritten policies and ensure that all policies appropriately reference the supporting City Code. Store policies in a central location that is accessible to staff. An example of one policy is the requirement that all new or redevelopment building sites retain all stormwater on-site. • Establish policies for treatment of public stormwater. These should include: o A requirement for all public projects to treat stormwater; o A requirement to add water quality treatment to all existing facilities when repairing; and o The design of public and private facilities should consistently share design standards. Low Impact Development Approaches • Incorporate LIDA practices into the stormwater facility design manual and review development code to identify modifications needed to encourage LIDA practices. Encouraging LIDA standards may require modifications to the zoning code to allow decreased setbacks and the creation of new overlay areas to encourage cluster development. (Note: Policy change of this type has implications far beyond surface water management and warrants a more detailed review.) Phosphorous Removal Standard • Update the phosphorus removal standard to include a list of water quality treatment BMPs that are presumed to meet the 65 percent removal threshold. Legal Authority • As ordinances are created or updated, review the enforcement mechanisms to ensure the City has the explicit authority to conduct needed activities or to require compliance with desired guidelines. 0"! C. - clean streams... clear choices 116 ok otaCity of Lake Oswego Section I I—Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program System maintenance is an important component of a successful surface water management program. Surface water and stormwater facilities require regular inspection, cleaning and repair to ensure they function as intended. Roads also contribute runoff to the City's stormwater system and require cleaning to reduce the impacts of contaminated runoff and particulates to stormwater facilities and receiving waters. The City's 2005 MS4 NPDES permit requires the City to reduce contaminant discharges from its MS4 by implementing maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls, practices, and procedures for operating and maintaining public streets. 1 1.1 Existing Program Resources The City uses a shared pool of equipment and eight maintenance staff to manage street and stormwater system maintenance. On average, two full time equivalents of staff resources are devoted to annual stormwater maintenance activities exclusive of street sweeping. These resources are supplemented as needed by temporary seasonal help to meet workload demands. The City anticipates the need to hire a full-time staff person for street sweeping operations to replace a temporary employee. Maintenance Standards The City currently has no formalized Operations and Maintenance Manual and the City Code has limited regulations on maintenance standards for stormwater infrastructure. Section 50.41.030 of the code specifies that all retention/detention areas be maintained such that they do not become a nuisance. This section also provides a short list of nuisance conditions. The code does not identify criteria that should be met in order to ensure that the facilities are maintained in good working order. Recommendations from a regulatory review conducted in early 2007 include the development of a stormwater facility maintenance manual that outlines requirements for maintaining catch basins, ponds, ditches, and other elements of stormwater infrastructure to keep them functioning in good working order, improve consistency of maintenance practices and provide improved infrastructure maintenance procedures. Current Maintenance Activity Levels The City is currently revising the frequency of stormwater facility maintenance to meet levels prescribed in the Interim Evaluation Report submitted to the ODEQ in May 2006. This document was prepared as a requirement of the City's 2006 MS4 permit. Maintenance activities for structural and source components, including inspection, cleaning, and repair, Clean Streams Plan 117 otak Section I I—Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program Continued are summarized in Table 11-1. The frequencies shown are targeted for full implementation by 2009. Table 11-1: City Maintenance Activities (Required by the 2005 MS4 NDPES Permit) Component Maintenance Frequency Performance Indicator Conveyance System (storm drainage lines, culverts, ditches, swales, inlet Inspection, cleaning, and repair performed as necessary to maintain Components are free of silt and structures including catch basins without sumps, and trash racks) the form and function of the BNIP. sediment. Cleaning when sediment volume in Catch Basins with Sumps the sump is equal to or greater than Volume of sedimen�in hesump. 60 percent of the total sump volume. Curbed arterials 17 times per year; Street Sweeping curbed residential streets four times No practical indicators have been per year. identified at this time. Detention ponds, tanks and basins: sediment depth, intact and properly Structural Water Quality Control working control structures, and outfalls Facilities (pollution control manholes, Inspected at least annually, and must be free from channelization and detention ponds, sedimentation cleaned on an as -needed basis. erosion. Sedimentation and pollution ponds, and detention tanks) control manholes: No sign of resuspension of sediments and volume of sediment in sump. The City's NPDES permit is renewed approximately every five years. Changes to performance indicators are likely with the implementation of new permits. Monitoring of Maintenance Activities The proposed frequency levels shown in Table 11-1 will be monitored and adjusted as needed. Over the course of the MS4 NPDES permit term, the City will be gathering and reviewing data from these activities to determine if the maintenance program continues to meet the permit requirements for contaminant reduction. The level of implementation of activities will be revised using adaptive management procedures defined in the permit to more effectively meet requirements and better utilize city resources. The Interim Evaluation Report proposed the following activities to be performed over the permit term for each maintenance activity listed in Table 11-1: 118 City of Lake Oswego otak Section I I—Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program Continued • Identify Data Needs: Establish data to be collected for implementation of adaptive management when performing maintenance/inspection activities. Data to be collected includes verification of ownership for facilities currently identified as public. • Database Development: Create or modify a database for storing and allowing effective evaluation of the needed data. • Data Collection: Perform maintenance activities at the level indicated above. Data identified through data needs analysis, review and evaluation will be recorded and stored in the database. • Data Review and Evaluation: Review the data collected and compare it to the most recent peer-reviewed literature. Use this information to revise the data collection needs and/or level of implementation of the current activity. 11.2 Current Maintenance Concerns The City's Director of Maintenance and the Street and Surface Water Superintendent have identified several maintenance issues of concern that are outlined below. Solids Disposal The City uses a dewatering facility at the City's maintenance shops for material from the street sweepers and catch basins. This facility decants the liquid portion to the sanitary sewer, and solids must dry prior to disposal at an off-site low-risk waste facility. With increased sweeping, the City is realizing they have limited space for processing their current solids volume. The City would prefer to use a regional dewatering and disposal facility; however, the only existing option is a regional facility at the north end of the metro -area. This facility is not convenient or cost effective as it is too far away and requires a three-hour roundtrip. The City will need to continue to review options for solids disposal to ensure capacity is available to maintain street sweeping operations. Alternatives for Ice Removal A common practice for snow and ice removal is to sand streets. Removal of sand is through sweeping, which does not pick up all that is applied and is a task that generates high volumes of solids needing disposal. The City would like to explore other options that reduce or eliminate sanding and provide a high water quality benefit such as anti -icing applications and equipment. Clean Streams Plan 119 otak Section I I—Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program Continued Accessibility of Stormwater Facilities The City owns stormwater detention ponds that cannot be cleaned due to lack of access or improper design. Asset Management The City has never had a comprehensive plan for evaluating stormwater systems to determine the condition of the systems. The program for repairing systems has been reactive to citizen complaints. Therefore, the City does not know the condition of its systems and cannot proactively maintain its assets. Contracting Efficiencies may be gained through contracting elements of routine maintenance such as catch basin cleaning. Contracting with another municipality is easier for the City because it can be handled through an inter -governmental agreement rather than negotiating a contract with a private service. By contracting routine catch basin cleaning, management anticipates that existing staff and seasonal help would be adequate to meet stormwater system maintenance obligations. 11.3 Recommendations Recommendations for improvements to the City's Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program to help it meet NPDES compliance requirements, address current staff concerns and program needs are outlined below and include: • Maintenance Manual • Ice Removal Alternatives • Access to Facilities • Contracting Services • Staffing Maintenance Manual Consistent with an earlier recommendation from an evaluation of the City's storm and surface water regulations, the City should develop a stormwater facility manual. Rather than creating its own, the City may want to consider consulting Gresham's recently completed Stormwater Operations Maintenance Manual or researching other manuals to see if one could be tailored to meet the City's needs. 120 Ci otok ty of Lake Oswego ta Section I I—Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program Continued Ice Removal Alternatives Several jurisdictions have opted to shift to chemical anti -icing as a way to reduce sanding due to the difficulty in retrieval, particulate impacts to the stormwater system and receiving waters, and the associated costs for sweeping. Gresham has contracted with Multnomah County for application of CMA to certain streets and reports indicate toxicity is lower than NaCl for certain fish and plants. The City of Salem also has information on anti -icing equipment. The City should consult these programs to see if chemical anti -icing would help the City provide greater water quality benefits than current practices. Access to Facilities These facilities should be identified and a plan developed to provide access. Asset Management The City should establish a system for tracking and evaluating existing infrastructure for needed repairs or replacement. This program would be part of a capital improvement program and would be used to identify and rank projects needed to maintain the City's stormwater infrastructure assets. Contracting Gresham, Milwaukie, and Wilsonville have all found it cost-effective to use contractors for street sweeping or ditch maintenance. To ease workload demands and make the best use of existing staff resources, the City may consider contracting out catch basin cleaning to another jurisdiction. Staffing The City anticipates the need to hire a full-time staff person for street sweeping operations to replace a temporary employee. Clean Streams Plan 121 otak Section 12 —Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives 12.1 Introduction Fees for management of the City's surface water system are generated from two sources: • A monthly fee ($8.14 per month per residence or Equivalent Service Unit in 2008) • System Development Charges (SDCs) ($124 per single family residence, and $124 per 3,030 SF of new impervious area for all others). Raising monthly fees and SDCs were reviewed as options to fund the Clean Streams Plan. It was decided not to pursue an SDC increase because the City receives little income (approximately $12,000 per year) from SDCs, and the use of SDC funds are limited to projects that install quantity control facilities to manage increased runoff from new developments (See Section 12.3 for more information on the evaluation of SDCs). Five alternative financial planning options were evaluated for the Clean Streams Program. These were developed to provide options to the City for implementing its surface water programs. The options all include rate increases and the issuance of revenue bonds, and do not include changes to the SDCs. The options include: 1. Option 1: Existing Program.. This option continues to fund the City's program at current service levels. This option would include a reduction in street sweeping due to retirement of part-time staff, minimal public outreach, and a capital construction program that is not guided by the Clean Streams Plan. Rate adjustments would be 5.08 percent annually. 2. Option 2: Minimum Compliance Program. Option 2 is the same as Option 1 with the addition of programs to meet the City's current NPDES permit requirements. Rate adjustments would be 5.94 percent annually. 3. Option 3: Limited Clean Streams Program. This option includes implementation of a limited Clean Streams Plan, street sweeping reduction due to retirement of part- time staff, and minimal public outreach. This option also adds programs to comply with current permit requirements. Rate adjustments would be 3.00 percent annually. 4. Option 4: Partial Clean Streams Program. This option includes implementation of a partial Clean Streams Plan, restores street sweeping capacity, and provides for minimal public outreach. This option adds programs to comply with current permit requirements and adds two FTEs - one street sweeper and one program manager. Rate adjustments would be 5.30 percent annually. 5. Option 5: Full Clean Streams Program. This option fully implements the Clean Streams Program, restores street sweeping capacity, and provides for a complete public outreach program. This option adds programs to comply with current permit requirements and adds three FTEs - one street sweeper and two program managers. Rate adjustments would be 7.01 percent annually. Clean Streams Plan 123 otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued Each of these options is more fully described below. 12.2 Financial Options 12.2.1 Option I: Existing Program Description The City's current program includes limited funding for capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) programs. This program does not include all the elements required to meet the City's NPDES permit. Historically the City has spent approximately $500,000 annually on capital improvements. This option uses historic spending to estimate future capital expenditures, with an increase in expenditures for six years of the program to account for $5M in revenue bonds that have been previously authorized by City Council. Option 1 increases capital expenditures by $333,333 annually (to $833,333 annually) for FY2010 through FY2015 to account for the bonds, and has capital expenditures of $500,000 per year otherwise. Under this option, the City projects $7 million in capital improvements through FY2018. This figure grows to $8.6 million after adjusting for inflation. Expenditures on O&M account for most of the day-to-day expenditures of the current program. Option 1 continues these expenditures and adjusts them for inflation annually. The O&M expenditures include items such as salaries and benefits, materials and services, insurance, utilities, etc. The projected annual O&M expenditures for the current program are summarized in Table 12-1 below. Table 12-1: FY2009 Budget O&M Costs Description FY2009 Costs Personal Services $261,000 Materials & Services 358,000 Transfers to other funds 522,000 Capital Outlay — general 75,000 Total O&M Costs $1,216,000 As with the other options, Option 1 escalates O&M costs by 4.0 percent annually. Rate Impacts Option 1 includes its first rate increase of 5.08 percent in July 2009 (i.e., FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.41 per month in FY2010. By FY2018, the average residential customer's monthly surface water bill 124 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued is expected to be $12.72 per month. 12.2.2 Option 2: Minimal Compliance Program Description Option 2 includes additional funding to implement NPDES programs. This is the minimum program that meets the City's current NPDES permit. In addition to the existing capital programs from Option 1, additional costs for NPDES permit compliance programs are used in the rate projections for this option. Total capital improvement costs for Option 2 are projected to be $9 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $11.16 million after adjusting for inflation. Like Option 1, the City anticipates financing some of the improvements by issuing $5 million of additional revenue bonds through FY2013. O&M expenditures in Option 2 are the same as those in Option 1. Rate Impacts Option 2 includes a 5.94 percent increase in surface water rates effective July 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.48 per month in FY2010. By FY2018, the average residential customer's monthly surface water bill is expected to be $13.68 per month. 12.2.3 Option 3: Limited Clean Streams Program Description Option 3 implements a limited Clean Streams Program. Total capital expenditures for Option 3 are projected to be approximately $6.95 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $8.80 million after adjustment for inflation. Under this option, the financial analysis assumes that the City would finance these improvements by issuing $4.31 million of additional bonds through FY2016. O&M expenditures under Option 3 are the same as the existing program. Rate Impacts Option 3 is estimated to require annual rate increases of three percent beginning July 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.24 per month in FY2010. By FY2018, the average residential customer's monthly surface water bill is expected to be $10.62 per month. Clean Streams Plan 125 otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued 12.2.4 Option 4: Partial Clean Streams Program Description Option 4 partially funds the Clean Streams Program and adds two FTEs to address street sweeping and project implementation. The additional annual O&M expenditures are assumed to begin in FY2010. (See Table 12-2.) The new FTE costs for FY2010 are in addition to the O&M expenditures described in each of the preceding options. Table 12-2: Option 4 New FTE Costs Description FY2010 New Program FTE $106,000 Street Sweeper - 1 FTE 70,000 Additional O&M Costs $176,000 Option 4 adds additional capital project expenditures from those in Option 3. In addition, changes in O&M expenditures alter the optimal mix of debt funding. Under this option, the financial analysis assumes the City would finance its capital improvements by issuing $5.39 million of additional bonds through FY2016. Rate Impacts Option 4 includes proposed annual rate increases of 5.30 percent beginning July 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.43 per month in FY2010. By FY2018, the average residential customer's monthly surface water bill is expected to be $12.96 per month. 12.2.5 Option 5: Full Clean Streams Program Description Option 5 fully funds the Clean Streams Program as presented. This option includes the addition of one FTE above those added in Option 4 for project management. Like Option 4, the new FTE is projected to start in FY2010. The combined annual costs of the additional annual FTEs are summarized in Table 12-3 below. Table 12-3: Option 5 New FTE Costs Description FY2010 New Program — 2 FTEs $212,000 Street Sweeper —1 FTE 70,000 Additional O&M Costs $282,000 126 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued Total capital expenditures are projected to be approximately $7.85 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $9.95 million after adjustments for inflation. Under this option, the financial analysis assumes that the City would finance these improvements by issuing $5.43 million of additional bonds through FY2016. Rate Impacts Option 5 includes proposed annual rate increases of 7.01 percent beginning July 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.57 per month in FY2010. By FY2018, the average residential customer's monthly surface water bill is expected to be $14.98 per month. 12.2.6 Financial Options Summary Table 12-4 and Table 12-5 summaries the findings, including the size and timing of projected new bond issues. Table 12-4: Clean Streams Plan Funding Options Typical Typical Program Monthly Bill Monthly Bill Option Descriptions in 2009111 in 2018 4Option ''l'."F'` )*-a`,k%IN€'x'i.;' �„a ':.i"5�`b'� F`�"�'ft'Sdrf3�.k'4°",C,? .3w'a c; ,,, 1 &' 2 do not implement the Clean Streams Plan .Options $�° 4 a.`.+."z�...r-u'`... 'fir",; .r ...`�*A .,.,:w '?,T*, dk"��', .s=sx S"�. '�.e�fmrr �, Af ,-siir+wwa r.:•=s.:; Existing Program Extrapolates forward based on current spending and existing programs: • Street sweeping reduction (due to loss of part-time retired staff) 1 Minimal public outreach $8.55/month $12.72/month • Continued capital construction not specified by a surface water management plan • Continues 5.08% annual effective rate adjustment Minimal Compliance Program • Street sweeping reduction (due to loss of part-time retired staff) • Minimal public outreach 2 Continued capital construction not specified by a surface $8.62/month $13.68/month water management plan) • Adds programs to comply with current permit requirements • Assumes 5.94% annual rate adjustment (0.86% increase from today) Clean Streams Plan 127 otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued Table 12-4: Clean Streams Plan Funding Options Typical Typical Program Monthly Bill Monthly Bill Option Option Descriptions in 2009111 in 2018 Options 3, 4 & 5 implement the Clean Streams PIan Limited Clean Streams Program • Implements limited Clean Streams Capital Program • Street sweeping reduction (due to loss of part-time retired staff) 3 Minimal public outreach $8.38/month $10.62/month Adds programs to comply with current permit requirements • No additional FTEs • Assumes 3.00% annual rate adjustment (2.08% decrease from today) Partial Clean Streams Program • Implements majority of Clean Streams Capital Program • Restores street sweeping capacity -F Minimal public outreach $8.57/month $12.96/month • Adds 2 FTEs: one additional street sweeper and 1 program manager • Assumes 5.30% annual rate adjustment (0.22% increase from today) Full Clean Streams Program • Implements full Clean Streams Capital Program • Restores street sweeping capacity 5 Provides complete Public Outreach program $8.71/month $14.98/month • Adds 3 FTEs: 1 additional street sweeper and 2 program managers • Assumes 7.01% annual rate adjustment (1.93% increase from today) [1J 2UU8 monthly bill is W14 per residence or per h6u 128 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued Table 12-5: Clean Streams Plan Funding Options New Bond Proceeds (millions) Capital O & Mi�1 Program Projects Option (Over 10 (Over 10 years years) FY2010 FY2013 FY2016 Total 1 $1.22m $6.96m $2.50 $2.50 $0.00 $5.00 2 $1.22m $9.00m $2.50 $2.50 $0.00 $5.00 Options 3 4 & 5 TmpTement the Clean Streams Plan h WN",n,r .rr .:. r', .. ... w,,.. w a. �3,nv'W. ,.--'. �±'�'�'•'d''"`e�'''7"''. 1""� �'' 3 $1.—??M $6.95m $0.00 $0.48 $2.99 $4.31 4 $1.39m $7.35m $0.97 $2.72 $1.70 $5.39 5 $1.50m $7.85m $1.43 $2.81 $1.19 $5.43 [1] O & Ti — Operations and Maintenance. Includes statring, ongoing non -capital programs and maintenance functions. 12.3 SDC Evaluation Surface Water System Development Charges are applied to quantity control projects in the surface water management capital improvement program. They can be applied to projects _ that address the increase in quantities of stormwater leaving a development, where that development has not already paid for or installed facilities to compensate for those increased runoff quantities (which all developments are required to do under the current ordinance). Table 12-6 lists the current SDCs. Clean Streams Plan 129 orak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued Table 12-6: SDC Fee 1. Single Family Residential $124 2. 1Vluld-family, One equivalent service unit (ESU) for surface water is commercial/industrial, equal to 3,030 square feet of impervious area. The institutional, and other land uses SDC is found by multiplying the improvement fee ($124) by the total of the new impervious area divided by the ESU (3,030 SF) Table 12-7 lists the projected fee collected from SDCs based on the current surface water SDC fee and a growth estimate of 3.5 percent per year). Table 12-7: SDC Projections 2009 EEH$11,713 2010 2011 2012 $11,315 $12,125 $12,551 As Table 12-5 shows, the amount of revenue generated by SDCs is minimal compared with a total revenue projection of $1.9 million for fiscal year ending 2009. The reason for the small fee is that the number of projects the City can use to calculate SDCs is small. Most developments install their own quantity control systems when the site is developed, as is required by code. This is typical for most communities. Going forward, it will remain true for the city as well. The majority of the projects in the Clean Streams Plan are not planned to expand capacity or improve service for new development. The projects are planned to replace or improve deficiencies from days when developments were not required to manage their own stormwater, and to meet new regulatory requirements. Therefore, those project costs cannot be paid for with the City's surface water SDC. 12.4 A Review of Fees in Other Communities The City routinely compares their fees with fees from other jurisdictions in the Portland metropolitan area. Figure 12-1 provides a comparison of 2008 monthly stormwater fees for these jurisdictions. 130 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued $14 -- - - - -- — I � I 1$12'- ----------- Monthly Surface Water Fe $10 -- - -- - - - - - -— - --- - - $a1s 1 $8.14 $8.11 $8 L $6.00 $6 �. $3,75- $4.00 $4.12 $4.00 $4.00 $3 Z2 I - i I $2 T- $0 T- --- -,- -T - - - - — o o, �cor �c � ca v •:`' '� a '�� io ° Oy �+�' 'gym o,� v,`° Figure 12-1: Comparison of 2008 Monthly Stormwater Fees in Other Jurisdictions 12.5 Comparison of Stormwater Fees to other City Utility fees Figure 12-2 compares the current surface water fee to other city fees. The Surface Water fee -. is second -lowest fee paid by customers. Note that the fees assumed for cell phone, cable TV, and internet reflects a price obtained with a bundled package from one provider that is commonly sold at the time this document was prepared. Fees are potentially higher than this — if the package was not obtained. Clean Streams Plan 131 otak Section 12—Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Continued $35 i --- ---- --- _. $30 IMonthly city utility bills ---- $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Figure 12-2: Comparison of typical utility service fees in Lake Oswego `J clean streams... deoy-noic;s 132 City of Lake Os:vego otak Section 13—References Baker, Lawrence A. 2008. Stormwater Pollution. Getting at the Source. Stormwater, November/December 2007, pg 16-42. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2007. Urban Stormwater Restoration Manual, Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Manual 3, Version 1.0. Mcot City, MD. August 2007. City of Lake Oswego, 2002. Infill DevelopmentAd Hoc Task Force Report. 2002. City of Lake Oswego, 2006. Infill Task Force Draft Recommendations. 2006 City of Lake Oswego. 2007. Lake Oswego Urban and Community Forest Plan. December 2007. City of Lake Oswego. 2007.What are... Sensitive Lands? January 2007. City of Lake Oswego. 2007. Sustainable City Vision and Guiding Principles. November 21, 2007. City of Lake Oswego. 2008. Exhibit F-1: Summary of Sensitive Lands Code Amendments (Article 50.16). August 2008. City of Lake Oswego. 2008. Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer — Background and Update. August 2008. City of Lake Oswego. 2009. Amended: Article 50.16 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. April 2009. City of Portland (Portland) 2008. Portland StormwaterManagement Manual. City of Portland. August, 2008. City of Lake Oswego (LO Sustainability). 2009. Sustainability and the City of Lake Oswego. Retrieved September 3rd, 2009 from http:/ /www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Sustainability/Sustainability_hotnepage.httn. City of Salem (Salem) 2008. Stormwater Management Manual, Draft. City of Salem. November 2008. CH2M Hill. 2007. City of Lake Oswego Water Management and Conservation Plan. June 2007. Clean Streams Plan 133 otak Section 13—References Continued Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. A Brief Summary of the History of 1VPDES. Retrieved August 15, 2009 from http://www.epa.gov/NE/npdes/history.html. May 25, 2007. Jones, Jonathan; Clary, Jane; Strecker, Eric; Quigley, Marcus. 2008. 15 reasonsyou should think twice before using percent removal to assess BMP performance. Stormwater, January/February 2008, pg 10-14. King County 2005. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Washington. January, 2005. Landers, Jay. 2006. Selecting Stormwater BNIPs What should specifiers lookfor? Stormwater, May/June 2006, pg 83-94. Minton, Gary, PhD, PE. 2007. Treatment BMP Terminology: A Tower of Babel?° Stormwater, March/April, 2007, pg 48-61. Minton, Gary R. 2005. Stormwater Treatment Biological, Chemical, and Engineering Principles. Sheridan Books Inc. 2005. Minton, Gary, PhD, PE. 2007. Treatment Trains Don'tget run over. Stormwater, July/August, 2007, pg 24-40. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc (MGS). 2007. Storm AnalysesforLake Oswego, Oregon. November, 2007. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 2006. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff" Control. 2006. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Willamette Basin TMDL. 2006. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT BMP). 2008. Stormwater Treatment Program — BMP Selection Tooll, October 2008. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT Summary Reports). 2008. Stormwater Treatment Best Management Practices (BMP) Summary Reports. October 2008. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT- WQ). 2008. WlaterQuahi i Design Storm Evaluation and Guidance. October 2008. Otak (1992). Lake Oswego Surface Water Management. Volume I — Recommended Plan. July 1992. Otak (2005). Regulatory Stormwater Program Evaluation. October 2005. 134 City of Lake Oswego otak Section 13—References Continued Otak (2006). Interim Evaluation Report. May 2006. Otak (2007). FirstAddition Neighborhood Storm Drainage Report, Draft. June 2007. Prince George County Department of Environmental Resources (Prince George). 1999. Lore Impact Development Design Strategies An Integrated Design Approach. Prince George County, Maryland. June 1999. Puget Sound Action Team and the Washington State University Pierce County Extension (PSAT). 2005. Lore Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Washington State University. January 2003. Strecker, Eric; Quigley, Marcus, Urbonas, Ben, Jones, Jonathan. Stormwater Management, State-of-the-art in comprehensive approaches to Stormwater. The Water Report. August 2004. United States. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Clackamas CounoArea, Oregon. Soil Conservation Service, 1985. URS and City of Lake Oswego (URS). 2008. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Server System Discharge Permit Renewal. September 2, 2008. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 2005. Stormwater Management Manual far Western Washington. February 2005. Clean Streams Plan 135 otak A p p e n d ix A — Basin Studies J 1t 9� 0 clean streams... clear choices Appendix A — Basin Studies Detailed computer modeling studies were performed in areas identified by the City as having current or potential stormwater management problems. Results of these studies were used to evaluate and make recommendations for capital improvement projects and programs. The following areas were studied: • Boones Ferry Basin: The area between Lake Grove and I-5, north and west of Boones Ferry Road, is anticipated to be incorporated into the City. The area has some drywells, most of which are failing due to high groundwater, but most of this area does not have a stormwater system. When this area is incorporated the City will be looking for a method to treat and convey stormwater. The Boones Ferry system, which conveys stormwater to West Bay, was modeled to determine the upsizing required to convey stormwater from this area. • Jean Road Basin: Jean Road has historically disposed of stormwater through drywells, but due to high groundwater, many of these systems have failed. The City has upgraded a conveyance system in this basin to carry flows; however, many drywells are still in operation. The existing conveyance system was modeled to determine if capacity is available to convey the entire tributary area, thus allowing the remaining drywells to be decommissioned • Churchill Downs/Touchstone Drive: These are two steep streets in the Mountain Park area that have catch basins and a conveyance system; however, most of the flow bypasses the catch basins. A study was performed to investigate methods for collecting more of the runoff as it runs down each of these streets • First Addition Neighborhood: This neighborhood is located north and west of downtown and lacks a conveyance system in most of its streets. Additionally, the stormwater conveyance systems in B Avenue and A Avenue have failed during significant storm events and stormwater has overtopped manholes in some locations. A study was performed to determine the best way to increase capacity in the existing system and to determine the most efficient collection system for the neighborhood. The existing and proposed conveyance systems were modeled and a report was prepared describing the process used and the results. (See FirstAddition Neighborhood Storm Drainage Report, June 8, 2007.) Hydrologic Modeling The SCS Unit Hydrograph Method was used for all studies. Four design storm distributions were evaluated to determine which produced the most conservative results (i.e., which storm caused the systems modeled to flood most frequently). The four distributions include the following: • A 72 -hour rainfall distribution prepared for Clean Water Services that represents a lower intensity, higher volume event. City of Lake Osn,ego Clean Streams Plan 1 otak \\Otaktrec\OTAK\VAIN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_xPSWMM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued • A 72 -hour rainfall distribution prepared for Clean Water Services that represents a higher intensity, lower volume storm. • The SCS Type 1A rainfall distribution. • Rainfall data from a summer storm that occurred in August 2004. Graphs of the four rainfall distributions are shown below. Storm 1 Distribution Higher Intensity, Lower Volume NN N1b 1b lip, Hours City of Lake 0smego Clean Streams Plan 2 \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final ouk report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWINIM Studies.doc 0.08 0.07 L c o 0.06 `c 0.05 - -. 0.04 N o 0.03 0.02 m 0.01 — - 0 O 1b 1b Storm 1 Distribution Higher Intensity, Lower Volume NN N1b 1b lip, Hours City of Lake 0smego Clean Streams Plan 2 \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final ouk report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWINIM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Storm 2 Distribution Lower Intensity, Higher Volume i 0.07 c 0.06 ------ - - ----- — 0.05 c - _.- — 0.04 -- - --- � v m N 0.03 --- - -- — - c o c ° 0.02 — co 0.01 --- - -- ------ — -- "I D� 1 Hours SCS Type 1A City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 3 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN WAN AE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports \Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWMM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued August 21 - 22, 2004 Storm 0.7 0.s 0.5 - .. - - -- - - -- r 0.4 - -- -- — -- - - - - -- - c 0.3 c 0.2 - 0.1 0 oi .11.4, ... . .. CV n 0 r N N N N M M M M C)N 0 [,- Time (hours) Of these four design storms, the 72 -hour higher intensity, lower volume rainfall distribution produced the most conservative scenario. This rainfall distribution was used in preparing the 25 -year return period runoff hydrographs for input into the conveyance system models. Boones Ferry Basin — Storm System Capacity Modeling and Conceptual Conveyance System Introduction The area between Lake Grove and I-5, north and west of Boones Ferry Road is not served by a piped stormwater system and frequently experiences nuisance flooding. There are some drywells in this neighborhood, but most are failing due to high groundwater. This area is not currently incorporated into the City, but is anticipated to be in the future. The City is looking for options for managing stormwater in this area once it is incorporated. The Boones Ferry Basin is located west of Oswego Lake and drains to West Bay near the east end of Lamont Way (See Figure Al). The basin is approximately 380 acres and consists of relatively flat, low lying land. Primary land uses in this basin include residential, industrial, and commercial. Currently, the basin is mostly developed. However, there are some areas remaining in the industrial, commercial, and residential zones that are developable. In addition to new development, redevelopment and infill are expected to occur in the residential areas of the City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 4 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams PlanVinal report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_YPSWIVIM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued basin. Increased development and redevelopment will result in greater impervious areas which will produce higher stormwater peak flows. This study evaluates the Boones Ferry Basin stormwater pipeline system to determine the upgrades necessary to provide capacity for future basin flows, and for stormwater from the unincorporated area west of Lake Grove. It also provides a layout for a future conveyance system serving the unincorporated area that connects to the Boones Ferry system. Existing Storm System Description Figure Al shows the existing conveyance system in the Boones Ferry basin. Two systems of pipes and open channels serve the western portion of the basin. They both connect to a pipe system that conveys flows along Pilkington Road, then through the Rosewood Pond and to an outfall into West Bay. Another system of pipes flows along Boones Ferry Road from Madrona Street to Pilkington Road where it outfalls into the north side of Rosewood Pond. Rosewood Pond Rosewood Pond is currently heavily vegetated with trees and brush. As -built drawings, which refer to it as a retention pond, show a low flow channel constructed along the bottom of the pond. The term retention, rather than detention, implies the pond was designed to hold stormwater and not release it. The presence of mature vegetation in the pond promotes retention processes through plant uptake, evapotranspiration, and improved infiltration along root pathways. In addition, these processes also provide water quality treatment. Modeling results indicate the pond has adequate storage for future flows with the recommended pipe system improvements. The pond may benefit from some invasive species removal, but there are no recommendations for the pond at this time. Storm System Modeling XP-SWMM Version 10 was utilized to model the Boones Ferry storm system. Two models were developed, one to evaluate existing conditions and the other to evaluate future conditions. Hydraulic System Modeling The following sections of the Boones Ferry storm system were modeled (described upstream to downstream). See Figure A2. • Boones Ferry Road from just west of the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Madrona Street to where the system turns south near the apparent intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Lower Drive, then to Rosewood Pond. • Pilkington Road from the intersection of Pilkington Road and Willow Lane to the point where the system turns east, then to the outfall into Rosewood Pond. This part of the City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 5 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_KPSWtiLN[ Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued model also includes the pipe run between Willow Lane and Boones Ferry Road that flows toward the east from Boones Ferry Road to Pilkington Road through commercial building parking lots. • The system of pipes and open channels, including Rosewood Pond, from the outlet of Rosewood Pond to the open channel system north of Warren Court, and the pipes from the outlet of the open channel system to Lamont Springs, and the pipe run that follows Bryant Street through the outfall into West Bay. Nodes in the model represent manholes in the physical system, except for the nodes used to model Rosewood Pond. Nodes representing Rosewood pond are not physical structures, but represent the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the pond. The downstream boundary condition of the model is located at the outfall into West Bay. The water surface elevation set in the model at this point is the water surface elevation of Oswego Lake, which is 96.6 -feet NGVD. Figure A2 shows the XP-SWI\LM base map with the modeled pipes and nodes, and corresponding labels. Storm system data used in the XP-S%Y'MM models were obtained from City -provided as - built drawings, AutoCAD drawings, and maps from the City's Surface Water Atlas, photo journals, and field visits. Field visits were made to obtain current channel geometry and roughness, and to estimate a stage/area relationship for Rosewood Pond. Referenced as-builts drawings provided by the City include: SW. Jean RD. -SW. Madrona ST. (Lake Oswego) SEC. FAU 9473 (Lower Boones Ferry RD.) o ODOT, 1984 • Harvey Way - Madrona ST.(Lake Oswego) SEC.FAS 681 o ODOT 1968 Hydrologic Modeling Drainage basin boundaries were obtained from the City and GIS Shape files were used to determine the percentage of impervious area in each drainage basin. Soil types were determined from the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (MRCS) Clackamas County Soil Survey. Soils in the Boones Ferry basin primarily consist of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C. Time of concentration calculations were performed using the TR -55 method. Runoff curve numbers were selected based on land use, soil types, and the percentage of effective impervious areas and non -effective impervious areas. Land use zoning was used to estimate the full build out percentage of impervious area for each basin. Existing Conditions Model Table 1 lists the model nodes and the parameters that were used for the existing condition City of Lake Osnego Clean Streams Plan otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VAN AE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_YPS%VTvliIvl Studies.doc Appendix A - Basin Studies Continued input hydrographs. These nodes are referred to as runoff nodes and are the locations in the model where flows enter the system. Some runoff nodes have more than one input hydrograph and are listed more than once in the table. This is because flows enter the system from two different locations and were defined using two different catchments. Table 1: Existing Condition Hydrologic Parameters Node ID Area (acres) EIA (%) Pervious Curve Number Time of Concentration (min) N034 79.71 7.8 74 5 N034 19.47 0.0 74 5 N117 57.82 0.1 74 8 N117 9.13 3.6 74 5 N172 8.46 59.5 74 5 N169 37.11 54.0 74 5 N038 25.48 21.1 74 6 N65 22.03 10.0 74 5 N68 22.03 10.0 74 5 N332 22.03 10.0 74 5 N005 80.33 17.9 74 5 Table 2 lists the existing condition peak flows generated at each runoff node as calculated by the model. The peak flow calculated at the West Bay outfall is listed at the bottom of the table. Table 2: Existing Condition 25 -year event Peak Flows Node ID Peak Flow (cfs) N034 38.0 N117 24.4 N172 4.4 N169 18.7 N038 10.7 N65 8.6 N68 8.6 N332 8.6 N005 33.5 West Bay Outfall 76.0 Existing Conditions Model Results City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 7 otak \\0taktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAF01-PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appcndie A\App A_YPSWNL'vI Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Existing conditions model results indicate minor flooding at some of the modeled nodes. Table 3 below lists the flooded nodes and their corresponding location in the physical system. Table 3: Existing Condition Flooded Nodes 25 -year Storm Event Node ID Physical Location Node 65 Upstream end of modeled Boones Ferry Road Line Node 66 Upstream end of modeled Boones Ferry Road Line N117 Intersection of Boones Ferry RD and Willow Lane N143 Commercial area N. of Willow Lane N147 Commercial area N. of Willow Lane N169 Commercial area tie into Pilkington RD N171 Pilkington RD N of Commercial area tie Flooding of the upstream end of the Boones Ferry Road line is attributed to insufficient capacity in the pipes. Model profiles show insufficient capacity from the most upstream 18 - inch pipe through the second pipe downstream of West Sunset Drive. Flooding of the commercial area north of Willow Lane and in Pilkington Road is attributed to the relatively flat topography from this area to Rosewood Pond. The average slope along the storm system from the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Willow Lane to the Rosewood Pond is 0.005ft/ft (0.5%). Modeling shows that the pipes from Rosewood Pond upstream to the commercial area are undersized. Some of the inlets in this area are located in the bottom of depressions constructed into the parking lot pavement. The model was programmed to allow ponding over the nodes in this area to account for inlets constructed this way. It is likely runoff fills these depressions during larger storm events and slowly drains into the system. Existing Conditions Recommendations The minor flooding indicated by the existing conditions model is likely returned to the system either from ponding over depressed inlets, or if in a street, by flowing down the street to the next available inlet. Other than the residential areas north of Boones Ferry Road, there is a lack of significant public complaints of flooding in this basin. There are no recommendations for immediate improvements for this system as modeled. Future Conditions Model The future conditions model evaluated the existing conveyance system assuming flows from City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan g \\0taktree\OTAK\VAN \VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final otak report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_SPSkV1MM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued full build -out of the existing basin and an area north of Boones Ferry Road that is not currently served by a conveyance system. Figure A2 shows this area. ' Table 4 lists the model nodes and the parameters that were programmed for the future condition input hydrographs. Some runoff nodes have more than one input hydrograph to represent different land uses and therefore, are listed more than once in the table. Table 4: Future Conditions Hydrologic Parameters , Node ID Area (acres) Land Use Zone EIA (%) Pervious Curve Number Time of Concentration (min) N034 37.50 Impervious 100 98 5 N034 19.47 Industrial 72 74 5 N034 42.20 Open Space 0 74 25 N172 2.21 Industrial 72 74 5 N172 6.25 Pervious 0 74 10 N117 49.15 Impervious 100 98 5 N117 2.03 Commercial 85 74 5 N117 7.10 Industrial 72 74 5 N117 8.70 Open Space 0 74 25 N169 7.35 Commercial 85 74 5 N169 29.76 Industrial 72 74 5 N038 16.98 R5 62 74 6 N038 8.50 Industrial 72 74 5 Node 76 14.10 R75 65 70 15 N65 21.06 R75 47 74 5 N65 0.96 Commercial 85 74 5 N65 7.20 R75 65 74 15 N73 24.60 R75 65 70 15 N332 21.06 R75 47 74 5 N332 0.96 Commercial 85 74 5 N68 21.06 R75 47 74 5 N68 0.96 Commercial 85 74 5 N005 46.86 Impervious 100 98 5 N005 4.74 R75 1 47 74 5 N005 28.70 Open Space 0 74 25 Table 5 lists the future peak flows contributed by each input runoff node and the peak flow that occurs at the outfall as calculated by the model. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 9 otak \\0taktree\OTAK\VAIN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\AppendLc A\App A_XPSwb'D/[ Srudies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Table 5: Future Condition 25 -year event Peak Flows Node ID Peak Flow (cfs) N034 45.0 N117 36.0 N172 3.4 N169 20.0 N038 13.2 Node 76 7.3 N65 14.5 N68 10.6 N332 10.6 N005 38 N73 11.6 Peak Flow at Outfall 116.0 Future Condition Model Results A large increase in runoff results from the full build -out flows from new development, redevelopment, and the area not currently served by a conveyance system. Future conditions model results show flooding at several nodes. Table 6 below lists the flooded nodes and their corresponding locations in the physical system. Table 6: Future Condition Flooded Nodes 25 -year Storm Event Node ID Physical Location N76 Upstream end of modeled Boones Ferry Road Line Node 65 Upstream end of modeled Boones Ferry Road Line Node 66 Upstream end of modeled Boones Ferry Road Line N73 Intersection of Boones Ferry Road and West Sunset N117 Intersection of Boones Ferry RD and Willow Lane N143 Commercial area N. of Willow Lane N145 Commercial area N. of Willow Lane N147 Commercial area N. of Willow Lane N169 Commercial area tie into Pilkington RD N171 Pilkington RD N of Commercial area tie City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 10 \ \0taktree\OTAK\ VAN \VAN A E01 _PROJ \ PROJ ECT\ 13700\ 13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final otak report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_KPSWMM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Table 6: Future Condition Flooded Nodes 25 -year Storm Event Node ID Physical Location N038 Between Pilkington and Tualatin St, N. of Rosewood N005 West Bay Apartments N366 Inlet to pipe crossing Bryant near intersection with Lakeview. Future Conditions Recommendations Thirty-two pipes will need to be upsized to accommodate runoff from future development within the Boones Ferry Basin, and from the area north of Boones Ferry Road. Table 7 lists the pipes labeled with the link ID used in the model, the existing diameter, and the recommended upsized diameter. Figure A3 shows the pipes recommended for upsizing. Table 7: Recommended Future Conditions Pipe Upsizing Pipe Run (Model Links) Existing Diameter (inches) Recommended Diameter (inches) Links 6 through 8 36 48 Links 21 and 22 42 48 Links 32 through 37 24 36 Links 38 and 39 27 42 Links 44 through 47 18 30 Links 66 through 69 18 24 Links 70 through 73 24 30 Links 77 and 79 18 30 Link 78 24 30 Links 61 and 82 30 36 Link 85 21 30 Outfall 42 48 Table 8 lists the total length of pipe needed for each diameter to meet the pipe upsizing recommendations. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 11 omk \\Otaktrec\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_SPSV.M1V1 Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Table 8: Total Lengths of Pipe Needed to Meet Upsizing Requirements Pipe Diameter (inches) I Needed Length (ft) 48 1135 42 636 36 1394 30 1575 24 742 Three future conveyance system layouts are also recommended to serve 46 acres of the area north of Boones Ferry Road. Figure A4 shows the proposed mainlines and drainage areas of each system. The pipe system layouts were determined based on topography and locations for connecting to the existing Boones Ferry Road pipe system. The layouts are shown connecting into the Boones Ferry Road system at three locations: where Boones Ferry Road intersects with Washington Court, West Sunset Drive and Madrona Street. The proposed pipe systems serve the following drainage areas: • System connecting at Washington Court: 24.6 acres • System connecting at West Sunset Drive: 7.2 acres • System connecting at Madrona Street: 14.1 acres Summary of Modeling and Recommendations Model results and recommendations provide two conclusions: • Model results for existing land use show minimal flooding. At the time of this study there were no known public complaints or significant storm issues in the Boones Ferry Basin. For these reasons, there are no immediate improvements recommended for this system. The future conditions model represents full build -out of the Boones Ferry basin, assumes all dry wells in the modeled basin are decommissioned, and includes flows from an area north of Boones Ferry Road not currently served by a conveyance system. The results of this model show that the existing system does not have capacity for the resulting flows. Thirty-two pipes are recommended for upsizing to provide capacity for future conditions. Three new conveyance systems are recommended to serve an area north of Boones Ferry Road. These systems will serve a cumulative area of 46 acres and tie into the pipe system in Boones Ferry Road. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 12 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWIN[iVI Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Jean Road Basin — Storm System Capacity Modeling Introduction The Jean Road basin includes the area spanned by the western extents of Jean Road and Lakeview Boulevard, extending as far south as Kenny Street. The area is primarily residential, with some light commercial and industrial use (See Figure A5). Although the basin is primarily built out, redevelopment may occur in some residential areas. In addition, the City would like to decommission existing drywells in the Jean Road Basin. Redevelopment and the closing of dry wells will result in the existing storm `system receiving increased flows. A stormwater model was developed to evaluate the existing storm system's capacity to handle these increased flows. Existing System The limits of the drainage system modeled for this basin include the pipes along Jean Road and to the northeast through the Oswego Bay Apartments, then east along Deemar Way, then north along Mardee Avenue, then east across Schaht Way. The model then follows Lamont Way to the outfall into the West Bay of Oswego Lake. Figure A5 shows a basin base map of the modeled system. There is a 42 -inch diameter detention pipe located within the Oswego Bay Apartment complex that is included in the model. A small drywell is located at the Oswego Bay - Apartment Complex and there is a dry well at the end of Schalit Way. These drywells were not modeled. To evaluate for capacity, flows that currently drain to the drywells was routed through the existing storm system. Modeling Hydraulics The system was modeled with XP-SWMM from the intersection of Jean Road and Pilkington Road to the outfall near the intersection of Lamont Way and Bryant Road. Nodes in the model represent actual manholes, or inlet type manholes located in the physical system. The downstream boundary condition of the model is the outfall into West Bay and was set at the water surface elevation of Oswego Lake, which is 96.6 -feet NGVD. Figure A5 also shows the modeled pipes and nodes, and corresponding labels, as well as subdivided drainage basins used for modeling purposes. Storm system data used to program the model was obtained from City provided as -built drawings, AutoCAD drawings, maps from the City's Surface Water Atlas and field visits. As- builts referenced include: • Jean Road Street Improvements City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 13 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VAiNAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_\PS\Wt'\L'N'1 Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued o City of Lake Oswego Engineering Dept., 1998 • Oswego Bay Apartments Storm Sewer Improvements o Kampe Associates, Inc., 1993 • Jean Road/Pilkington Road Roadway Improvements o Group Mackenzie, 1998 • Halseth Addition Street Improvement and Storm Drainage o Zarosinski — Tatone Engineers, Inc., 1990 • Lakeview Blvd. and Schalit Way Storm Drainage Improvements o Lake Oswego Department of Public Works, Engineering Division., 1988 • Schalit Way Street, Storm Drain, Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements o Lake Oswego Department of Public Works, Engineering Division., 1984 • Lamont Way Storm Drain Improvements o Lake Oswego Department of Public Works, Engineering Division., 1988 Hydrology Drainage basin boundaries and shape files to determine the percentage of total impervious area in each drainage basin were provided by the City. Soil types were determined from the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (MRCS) Clackamas County Soil Survey. The soils in the Jean Road basin primarily consist of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C. Time of concentration was assumed to be five minutes to model the well developed basin and collection system. Runoff curve numbers were selected based on land use, soil types, the percentage of effective impervious areas (EIA), and non -effective impervious areas. Table 1 lists the nodes that were programmed to calculate hydrographs and the parameters used by the model to calculate the hydrographs. The listed nodes are flow input locations in the models. Table I: Hydrologic Parameters Model Input Node Total Area (ac.) Effective Impervious Area (%) Pervious Area Curve Number Time of Concentration (min.) N074 88.31 32.9 69 5 N134 52.85 16.3 69 5 N079 17.75 32.6 69 5 N088 7.33 17.4 69 5 City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 14 ' otak \\0taktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROf\PROJECT'\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_YPSW'NIM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Model Results The existing conditions model resulted in minor flooding at some of the modeled nodes. Table 2 lists the flooded nodes and their corresponding location in the physical system. Model results show that minor flooding at these locations can be attributed to undersized pipes located from Node N187 downstream to Node N080. Flooding may also be attributed to flows modeled in the storm system that currently drain to dry wells not included in the model. The flooding likely results, in areas of standing water in roads or the parking lot of the - Oswego Bay Apartment complex. The model was programmed to allow ponding at these locations until water is able to drain through the system. Recommendations The model indicates minor flooding under existing conditions for the 25 -year storm event; however, there are no significant complaints of flooding in this basin. Model results also show that the system functions with additional flows from drywells that may be decommissioned in the future. For these reasons there are no immediate upgrades recommended for this system Churchill Downs/Touchstone Drive - Inlet Study and Capacity Modeling Introduction The City of Lake Oswego has identified Churchill Downs and Touchstone Drive as two city roads with failing stormwater catchments. During storm events, existing grate inlets do not fully collect stormwater conveyed in the gutter system, resulting in flows continuing down the roadways and water flowing over intersections. These overflows result from the steep grades on both streets, resulting in high runoff velocities and gutter flow widths greater than the grates can capture. This study includes a review of the existing system, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the catch basin and pipeline system, and design alternatives to better capture the stormwater runoff. Existing Conditions Both Churchill Downs and Touchstone Drive are local collectors with combination rolled curb and gutters and standard crowned street profiles. Each street is bordered by residential City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 15 otak \\Otaktrec\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A—XPSWMM Studies.doc Table 2: Flooded Nodes and Locations Node Location N277 Jean Road, west of Tamara Avenue N282 Jean Road at Tamara Avenue N285 Jean Road, west of Tualata Avenue N203 Oswego Bay Apartment Complex N187 Oswego Bay Apartment Complex N134 Northeast of Schalit Way cul-de-sac Model results show that minor flooding at these locations can be attributed to undersized pipes located from Node N187 downstream to Node N080. Flooding may also be attributed to flows modeled in the storm system that currently drain to dry wells not included in the model. The flooding likely results, in areas of standing water in roads or the parking lot of the - Oswego Bay Apartment complex. The model was programmed to allow ponding at these locations until water is able to drain through the system. Recommendations The model indicates minor flooding under existing conditions for the 25 -year storm event; however, there are no significant complaints of flooding in this basin. Model results also show that the system functions with additional flows from drywells that may be decommissioned in the future. For these reasons there are no immediate upgrades recommended for this system Churchill Downs/Touchstone Drive - Inlet Study and Capacity Modeling Introduction The City of Lake Oswego has identified Churchill Downs and Touchstone Drive as two city roads with failing stormwater catchments. During storm events, existing grate inlets do not fully collect stormwater conveyed in the gutter system, resulting in flows continuing down the roadways and water flowing over intersections. These overflows result from the steep grades on both streets, resulting in high runoff velocities and gutter flow widths greater than the grates can capture. This study includes a review of the existing system, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the catch basin and pipeline system, and design alternatives to better capture the stormwater runoff. Existing Conditions Both Churchill Downs and Touchstone Drive are local collectors with combination rolled curb and gutters and standard crowned street profiles. Each street is bordered by residential City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 15 otak \\Otaktrec\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A—XPSWMM Studies.doc DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued yards and driveways. Neither street has sidewalks. Churchill Downs Churchill Downs is a 0.3 mile long loop connected to McNary Parkway and providing access to Preakness Court and Pimlico Terrace. The initial downgrade at the northern end of Churchill Downs approaches 14 percent, and continues at this slope until leveling off at the southern end. A total of nine inlets serve the street and are connected to two separate stormwater pipe systems. The upper inlets on Churchill Downs drain to a storm line that begins under Eagle Crest Drive, crosses Churchill Downs, and continues under Preakness Court to an outfall to Springbrook Creek. The second line begins at Pimlico Terrace and continues south under Churchill Downs to an outfall further downstream into Springbrook Creek. Five of the catch basins are type G (Photo 1) and one is a Type G with a vaned grate, all of which are located on grade in the concrete gutters. Three catch basins are combination curb - gutter inlets (Photo 2) in the sag curve at the southern end of the street. Photo I: Type CG Grate in gutter Photo 2: Combination Curb -Gutter Inlets, with Type CG -2 Grates A type G grate is 1.125 by 2.67 feet in size with parallel bars running the length and cross bars to prevent bicycle tires from dropping into the grate. The inlets are widely spaced, with an average of 300 feet between grates and over 500 feet between inlets in the middle section of Churchill Downs. Scattered debris was observed around the outside of three of the inlets near Pimlico Terrace. This debris appears to have been carried around the inlets in by-passing flows. Pavement settlement on the southern corner of Churchill Downs and Pimilco has resulted in flows being able to by-pass the inlet at this location as shown in Photo 3. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 16 \\Otaktrec\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Pinal otak report\Appendices\Appen&x A\App A_YPSWMM Studies.doc Touchstone Drive Touchstone Drive is 0.75 miles in length, and extends between Kerr Parkway and Carman Drive. The street services several cul-de-sacs and Botticel i Street. A continuous storm system runs down the length of Touchstone, before exiting 200 feet south of Falstaff to an outfall into Springbrook Creek on the eastern side of Boones Ferry Road. Like Churchill Downs, the existing stormwater system on Touchstone features _ Type G catch basins, with the exception of one Type G-2 at the corner of Yorick (Photo 4), all located at grade, in the rolled concrete gutters. Touchstone also has inlet spacing of over 500 feet in some locations. Photo 5 depicts a typical grate found on Touchstone. Hydrologic Analysis of Existing Conditions Methodology Basin boundary areas and flow paths for the inlets on Churchill Downs and Touchstone Drive were delineated using topography in AutoCAD. Hydraflow Hydrograph Software was used to calculate peak runoff rates for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas X for Oregon was referenced to determine the 10 -year, 24-hour storm precipitation depth of 3.3 inches. Flow paths were used to calculate basin times of concentration using the TR -55 Method. As dictated by the Lake Oswego Stornlwater Design Manual, a Mannings "n" of 0.24 was used for sheet flow in dense grass and 0.016 for rough pavement. A minimum of five minutes was used for times of concentration. Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Photo 3 Settlement at Pimlico Photo 4: Square Grate at Yorick with Curb Decay Photo 5: Typical Type G Grate on Touchstone City of Lake 0s;vego Clean Streams Plan 17 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPS\xfi4M Studies.doc Appendix A - Basin Studies Continued Soils Soil in the area was determined to be Cascade Silt Loam, which is listed by the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (MRCS) as hydrologic soil group B. Runoff curve numbers were determined using the 1992 King County, Washington, Surface WaterDesign Manual (KCSWDM). Dense grass was assumed for pervious areas, resulting in a curve number of 61, while a curve number of 98 was used for impervious areas. Inlet Capacities An Inlet Capacity spreadsheet was developed using the gutter flow calculations defined in the 2005 ODOT Hydraulics Manual to determine flow depth, spread, and gutter velocities at each inlet. This spreadsheet also calculated interception efficiency to determine the volume bypassing each grate. Examining the inlet efficiencies (E) indicates that approximately half the flow on Churchill Downs continues past each inlet. Similar bypass flows were found to exist on Touchstone Street. Tables 1 and 2 show flows captured and flows bypassing the existing inlets. The inlet IDs are in reference to the City's ,Surface Water- Atlas. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 18 \\0taktree\OTAK\VAN WAN AE01_PROJ\PROJECT\'13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final otak report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWMM Studies.doc Table I - Churchill Downs Flows Captured and Flows Bypassing Existing Inlets (cfs) Inlet ID Flow Captured Flow Bypassed 220 0.23 0.08 119 0.19 0.05 041 0.37 0.24 118 0.28 0.11 039 0.36 0.21 042 0.20 0.08 City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 18 \\0taktree\OTAK\VAN WAN AE01_PROJ\PROJECT\'13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final otak report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWMM Studies.doc Table 2- Touchstone Drive Flows Captured and Flows Bypassing Existing Inlets (cfs) Inlet ID Flow Captured Flow Bypassed 247 0.04 0.00 249 0.01 0.00 251 0.33 0.20 001 0.37 0.22 482 0.27 0.12 448 0.31 0.17 180 0.24 0.10 245 0.10 0.02 253 0.07 0.01 314 0.11 0.02 City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 18 \\0taktree\OTAK\VAN WAN AE01_PROJ\PROJECT\'13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final otak report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_XPSWMM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Table 2- Touchstone Drive Flows Captured and Flows Bypassing Existing Inlets (cfs) Inlet ID Flow Captured Flow Bypassed 480 0.16 0.04 481 0.08 0.01 477 0.07 0.01 204 0.06 0.00 Design Recommendations Examination of the existing systems indicates that the steep grades, long distances between catch basins, and relatively small grate sizes on Touchstone and Churchill Downs contribute to flow bypassing inlets in the area. Inlet capacity and efficiency are functions of flow velocity and grate size; therefore, increasing the grate width results in a wider inlet capable of capturing a larger percentage of frontal flows. Longer grates have improved side interception rates, also resulting in reduced bypass flows. There are several possible design solutions for the current bypass flows on Churchill Downs and Touchstone Streets. The following is a list of possible solutions in order of increasing effectiveness and cost: 1. Asphalt Diversion Berms -- Install asphalt berms, slightly smaller than traditional speed bumps extending three feet, set at 45 degrees from the edge of gutter, slightly ahead of each grate inlet to direct spread flow to the grate, increasing the volume of runoff passing over the grate, consequently increasing grate efficiency and reducing bypass flow. Diversion berms can also be installed in combination with vane grates. 2. Install and Recess Type CG -2 Inlets and Grates • Wider type G-2 grates would better capture frontal flow, reducing bypass flow. Type G-2 grates are twice the width of existing type G grates, measuring 2.25 feet in width by 2.67 feet in length. G-2 grates are increasingly standard on current roadway projects. The installation of CG -2 grates would require installing new concrete aprons to accommodate the larger grate size. The grates should be recessed two inches in the gutter and roadway edge to further increase the volume of captured flow. Install additional grate inlets • The infrequent spacing of inlets on Touchstone and Churchill Downs results in higher flows than can be accommodated by the existing system. Additional grates would reduce the gutter flow and increase system efficiency, resulting in reduced bypass rates. Churchill Downs is served by two storm systems, one City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 19 otak \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendie A\App A_XPS\Y vDvl Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued perpendicular to the street. Additional inlets would require installing new pipe. Touchstone inlets are currently served by a storm pipe system running the length of the street and would more readily accommodate new inlets. Conveyance Capacity Improving inlet collection efficiency would increase flows into the existing storm systems. Hydraulic modeling with XP-SWMM was used to ensure the existing storm systems have capacity to convey additional flows. Using City as-builts and GIS data, models of the Touchstone Drive and Churchill Downs pipe systems were developed. Runoff rates were modeled with XP-SWNIM using the SCS Method utilizing rainfall data from a 72 -hour 10 -year design storm. The rainfall data was obtained from a report titled Development of Design Storms for the Portland Oregon Area by MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc. (See Appendix E) Drainage basins for the conveyance systems were delineated using AutoCAD with City data and aerial topography. The areas draining to the conveyance systems are larger than the areas used to evaluate the catch basin collection efficiencies as there are upstream systems that tie into the Touchstone and Churchill conveyance systems. Touchstone Drive Touchstone Drive has an average slope of eight percent and receives water from approximately 30 acres of residential development. The piped conveyance system was modeled from Jefferson Parkway to the outfall into Springbrook Creek. Figure A6 shows the model layout. The outfall was modeled as a free outfall with no fixed backwater depth and assumed normal flow in the outfall pipe. Churchill Downs Churchill Downs receives water from approximately 30 acres of mixed land use including open space and residential development. Two separate piped conveyance systems were modeled for the Churchill Downs pipe system. One system begins at the intersection of Preakness Court and Churchill Downs and ends at the outfall into Springbrook Creek. The other system begins in Churchill Downs just northwest of the intersection with Pimlico Terrace and follows Churchill Downs to the outfall into the channel that joins Springbrook Creek. Figure A7 shows the model layout. Both system outfalls were modeled as free outfalls with no fixed backwater depths and with normal flow in the outfall pipes. Table 3 shows the modeled 72 -hour, 10 -year peak flows at the outfalls for Churchill Downs and Touchstone Drive assuming all runoff -is collected and delivered to the conveyance systems. Tables 4 and 5 show the maximum manhole rim elevations and hydraulic grade line elevations modeled at each manhole for the 72 -hour, 10 -year storm event. Manhole IDs reference the City's labeling system. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 20 \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAN\VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\137{7\Reports\Clean Screams Plan\Final otak report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_YPSWIMM Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Table 3 Outfall Peak Flows Assuming 100% of Runoff is Collected (cfs) Outfall RIM Flow Preakness Court Churchill 120 8.0 Churchill Downs 567 5.2 Touchstone Drive 573.06 12.6 Table 4 — Preakness Court/Churchill Downs Maximum Manhole Rim Elevations and Water Surface Elevations (WSE) (ft) Manhole ID RIM 10 -yr WSE 10 -yr WSE Churchill 120 575 248 567 Preakness 051 570 573.06 564 Preakness 054 561 560 555 Preakness 057 (outfall) 551 109 552 Churchill 038 540 425.84 538 Churchill 040 533 365 527 Churchill 043 521 517 Churchill 044 517 511 Churchill 046 (outfall) 515 503 Table 5 — Touchstone Drive Maximum Manhole Rim Elevations and Water Surface Elevations (WSE) (ft) Manhole ID RIM 10 -yr WSE 246 590.61 586 248 579.04 571 252 573.06 566 002 568.02 560 004 512.55 503 109 465.12 463 116 425.84 418 126 369.12 365 131 (Boones Ferry- RD) 303.19 299 City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 21 otak \ \ 0 taktree\ OTAKWAN \VANAE01_PROJ \ PROJECT\ 1 3700\ 1 3747\Reports\ Clean Streams Plan\Final report\Appendices\Appendix A\App A_1PSW-,WN1 Studies.doc Appendix A — Basin Studies Continued Results Model results show that the Touchstone Drive and the Churchill Downs pipe systems have capacity to convey flows that would be captured if the collection system is upgraded so that it can effectively capture all the runoff up to the 10 -year design storm. Recommendations and Conclusion Results have shown that the best solution is to replace the inlets that currently result in significant bypassed flows. The conveyance system in each street has capacity to convey increased flows as a result of replacing these inlets. The inlets recommended for replacement are listed in Table 6. Table 6 - Inlets Recommended for Replacement Churchill Downs Inlet ID Touchstone Drive Inlet ID 041 251 118 001 039 482 N/A 448 N/A 180 City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan 22 \\Otaktree\OTAK\VAIN \VANAE01_PROJ\PROJECT\13700\13747\Reports\Clean Streams Plan\Final otak report\Appendiccs\Appendix A\App A—XPSWh1]N1 Studies.doc !_77 : _AM!tt_ 1 r 0 3m3AV�j LU N8 0 -wncki zalucio J -BN Kd N V ca T --7- - ------ 7- z 10 zzz_- 0 3m3AV�j LU N8 0 -wncki zalucio J -BN Kd N V <1 0 0 Of -0 0 LL < U) C)CJ) Cy) C) (I- U— m X H =I rA im - ------ 7- OVOU INVMS Ju! -Z r6% ra o'er l j- ....... ............. <1 0 0 Of -0 0 LL < U) C)CJ) Cy) C) (I- U— m X H =I rA im \ f �,'��,// \ /�l/`: n 0N-1NVAa8—_. LU on --1 —OVOM LNV kbe s - , co °l � r f i V'I✓ -.. la • � 1 ' �. FEC_.. ��s`ti `. 21 ST ` tiyilCF 9 3f1N3ntJ 31af1a3nNl IN ly IN wnod tu IN I'll rVoi IN 3 2l3MSSHrJ�N.f ~N,\ co O -W w N CL N I O O O N CD N N CL d d 0 X x d- a c o Z J O 0 0 0- M m O (D O ~~ O W Cts rl LL - ME W O O n r - L J O O V M OIL —7r ---aAW YE)fllvft-1 X, bu ix SnN3AV 3UIVNOB ... ...... UVOU illinbBA14- TF--' ------------ `3nNSAV-N -------------- OT-aw N Xx/ HW IMAM/ �vn vdv),— E CD U C E R5 U) a) E CD 4-1 E U) rn CL rn C: co 0 R 0 LU oi k .3 caBfIN2IAVN'd3dCLtW co CIVOU INVAHS ------------------------- - 7 LU ----------- rJAV kvm IIIH W) I I ! . ............ C4 . i I I ------------ --- &vm u WH6S amaAv asawn c I L i 3: U) IL , X _0 LO m < 0 co cm Pa BnNBAVV ow. I L i 3: U) IL , X _0 LO m < 0 co cm Pa 03 7j LU ------ 441,, 0 0 Q/Vo-o uj L -- I E C) x (D CW La Li Ar -- I E C) x (D CW La Li U) UY -- I E C) x (D - � � ✓ � �.__--- --- -- - � j f� icy r ���`� __ �� 0 40 3Nt�l 1OOd S1100 ♦ , rte, > % r` � ,. ,.'t f Luj % Oi; f / /3AINO 1S3dW31 % U 3 i ��, j , `' !' \._ o.LSH n \ i 1S_NDH1d3HM- IN LU J L_ \ T'``om- \ `�M/ .r. \, .......-,..-'..'{ fi / ',�/l%. %/!}•_\ v� \',. , / ' __ '� \\ .,:_ •-- aril\ r� __ I ,. ,1 z NN po o�Mal ' PARKWAY _. cu N --� Co Q C o N � U 0) O L1. i- X o ILL LL z U), a f' — 3Nt�l 1OOd S1100 ♦ , rte, > % r` � ,. ,.'t f Luj % Oi; f / /3AINO 1S3dW31 % U 3 i ��, j , `' !' \._ o.LSH n \ i 1S_NDH1d3HM- IN LU J L_ \ T'``om- \ `�M/ .r. \, .......-,..-'..'{ fi / ',�/l%. %/!}•_\ v� \',. , / ' __ '� \\ .,:_ •-- aril\ r� __ I ,. ,1 z NN po o�Mal ' PARKWAY _. cu N --� Co Q C o N � U 0) O L1. i- X A p p e n d i x B— Capital Improvement Program Cost Estimates J Ali L r - clean streams... clew- choices 1.J W s L 0 E 4-1N LU N 0 CL z ca L u E L- 0 O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0� o 00 0 O co co 0 I— M U O CD O O O N fl- Lt 7 Q) 0 OU 00 0 0 0 � O Lo O C ) Cn m — CA m O 64 LO 64 �. � E� 64 b N 64 � r t+H C coOLo N O O O O0 N 0 O 1-- 64 6 6 9 N 0 00 0 Op 0 O r- 69 69 69 6 69 4 b64,; 69 O C O O Ef3 G 7 O O O O O U 00 O N O N U)� O — 69 O O 64 C cu O OT O O In O U7 O OC ccs L.0 O C) 0 c6 C a) L O a) CL CL T cl) cr) 0 cl) LL < CJ J J d Z) J } w U cz U U U U U) c crc Y T R •U a T T 7 -U O O d o 3 d L m � T LO 00 0 N 76 O a) O p OU cz D- L O cn LO N L L O Co to C caC p "O U O +L E J N > 0> C (C D Cp 3 C O O Q C 3 C � Co (6 U cn c_ �U� cn @M c U) L) c O O cn O � C o or�a�3 a a) L cc o o c f y CO o a L O O ,n :3Q 0 Qd L Uo 000 LP w oc 0 Q N ` .. _ Na? O O 0 p cO a) c a) N OC(im > UmDa to 0 •C U O N a) r � CO E ca C C U m C 0 0V C6 CU a) m cn FO -W 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 OU 0 0 0 00 N O Cl) Cl) (D 00 LO O O LO lc '11 — "I t0 ch " N O C) N O N N Lo 1-- 64 6 6 9 N 69 CD ti 69 69 69 69 69 4 b64,; 69 tR C O O 7 O O O O O 00 O N O N U)� — 69 69 O 64 O OC O O O C) 0 c6 C L O a) CL < LL J } w U U U U) crc Y R a O O o 3 m LO 00 0 N 76 O a) p C O O a) cn C O Co to CD p y f6 +L E c N > o 3 3 U � Co U cn c_ cn c O c O . Y yo or�a�3 (6 X Ln �o y CO L w a C a) N :3Q (� o pm J U N a, .. Na? Fa- aci CM p O > to 0 •C U C N a) CO U � CO C m C L7l o .+ m��wC� 0 C6 CU Hw N 0 V = .N aM 3 m m � L m � 0U cd O = O in EO 2 L d 0 V) J m La N s L 0 m E LU 0 CL m L N 4-1E L- 0 0 Lr V) C .y f6 m O Ol 6 - LL LL 0d d 0 J m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 !p 000O00o000O 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 Co LO T o co co Ln O U M O (o ~ O t— T CO Ln M 0 O O c N C N O �O Efl in C M M CO M V CO 1- M CD T r� 60 N M CV 0 N LO In O M to cc i Efl ER N tq T E13 N d9 N (f> T ER 601 ff3 - 69 -F} E CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 OOOOLO0Oo O H O Ln N N N 0 NCl) CO T LOU-) COD O 69 EI9 Efl b4 Efl 69 V EA O U EA 4fl Ln M O) to 1.- N S N O C) @ co M t-- N —' a) a _ = Z U�cIJ�F�F—F—UD Q = J LL LL LL LL LL Q ~ W W 7 d O C9 CD m J C 0 a71 111 Y LL U U U U U U) O C OU a a a d Oo ON op E E E E 3 3 3 3 _E @ aa) 'y @L U L U L U .c U .c U �- J IB U C C C C C @ C Q ` O ._ ._ ._ ._ O 3 @ D �LCO C N M O N 0 cz fn ui o 8 O U N .E c OFA o o _0 0 0 0 U- o o O@ @ C6 -Fp f6 -a C6 7p (9 @ Q) L Lb T .O U O Q d °o C = LU 0 C 0 C w C 0 Si 0 C U @ —� U 6 ;.; O 0 .O 0. @ a� ai a� ai a� cA 0 0 Q F- C a) C 0 .L 0 N o m N V a 0 C C C C C L O C U C_ E O N 0 a) C m 0) - LL o o o c o" cot [E — da- dd d2i cn 0 F -W yJ W C) N L O Q� (d E H W O o p 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 COD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 U Co 0 0 0 0 ea N EF) EFS 4f3 0660 ER EA E9 EFT co d' N In O m N O co M 60 Efl Efl 61T — O O co O C O C7 O U) N O ER C e (D O Q' O Q. 2 >, — J co 7 Q 0 N 03 0 a) J O OC N O is CZ m U o 7) m c U 'c Y O o C ' d o O W Lo ND U oQ c co C w .- o° �F— a� C o U o _N Q m c C o m :° ti�HHF�HH�F�-Fm �U O FEW 4.J s N v L 0 v Ct C N W V) 0 U CL z [D L C) u cd C L- 0 0 I.J N 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0� o opo00000oo 0 0 0 0 - o0o 00 m U O p 0 ������� 0 0 0 Lo Cc M fq N d9 Ci Efl Ci 64 M ER : C O O m o CD � o � O N EA U i — N CL — C J m 0 LO N m a> J � C N O O 99 °o o E O °cc LO N U W O C t0 O i Q C C.°'�, N O C cn U O O F— F— F— F— U) U F— W O o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 P O O o 0 0 0 00 O O o o o o N 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 ti 0 O ER 6qN LO O O LO LO c7 O M Efl E9 � Ef3 � tri Efl � UB- 69 Efi T 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 o O jCD cq O N o Cl O N, L6 blA 0 CD LC N � OU LL 6'> 69 EA EFT C) CD �I H+1cd,:Dl—1O�IN LL coo U U Cn CT m t U co cc O N � 0 4s s i � = C N y O `' C13 CDft y LI) d cc d C 0 _E �_ UO cu N N y W fp O a O N i + •, H � Q U C J O U `o ° cuCD _ a_ O - C O co Q U a N 1 cm U � :3C cc m ZD o f L w O O O oCLo° '° cEa Co o°° c o U a a� v6J 01 yr O w O Q N Q c° m C J o U O O� C. O O C O 0 N O O Q> (6 C CO U C/) Q m C O O E E C) M O U C m C .0) :9 t9 O (n C i O (D O JJ �U��HF-WU �Q cnU F -W C) o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z'S O CO o O o 0 0 0 o COO O o O m ° I'_oo�0000 0 0 0 CD O LO �I .- ono Lo O T M N 4- O m2 6Fi OLr 69 ti OC) m m o qr m E9 b9 69 69 69 69 69 b9 69 N E.9 N C CD 0 o 0 E9 0 0 0 69 E9 69 _T 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 N 00 cN L7 N b4 0 06 0 c U 0 N 0 Ln 69 ER O 0 69 O 6t33 L{j Ef3 U N O O o O O O O O O Q Lo O LO C 0 Q) D 0 Q H a } } LL 0 0LL H 0 U U U cn 0 cr c U U c ff m Nl cz O V ttO C9 Q .0 C O a4 O O O cn a) y Q) @ CD o W OU m N a] Q a) 72a) � � J cn O to O .Y .2 r to @ � 0 C Ul - M U U C (4 C UC M ` c 0 E cm o 0 0 0 c o E p 0 oma° 0 m E c' c a c 0- ` N L) Q N LL C` LU cn C Co U U O O Ln N b Q O= c O 0 W m cn E CB a) m Q JQ7 Q� o C .0 .. m J O E' m ca CM p o U H m p .0 c CD O • N O a0'> O M = CQ U `n O c () a) c m �� 0 2E E W 0 E 0 m 0 m o o II' Co ❑ d � 0 o :2 aa) aa) x ux -o C� E < L) m cn U o 1- LI O O 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 C:) 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' 0 (D 0 o S o to P U C, 0 0 0 CD O N .- O T �' N N In 6Fi bq 69 N 69 d9 69 b9 bq 69 EA efi C CD 0 o 0 CD 0 0 0 0 mO O O o 0 0 0 00 6 Lo to 0 N 00 cN L7 N b4 ti bs, O Cl) N br9 O 69.69 69 N O O O Q Q) CL D 0 Q H } } LL 0 U U U cn 0 cr c O m a C cz m d O to o O O O N a) y Q) (9 W OU Lo N W a) J C O` � _ O `1 fl C (4 .L C M ` LO m 0 U . E U a� n E E o a 0 c 'E ❑ W _`o O m CD cc Q Ln N V Q ++ c O 0 W E CB a) a Q JQ7 Q� C .. m J U m ca 0 c U O m U .0 c CD O CN d_.� W d N � 0 aa��c�N 0 U U '�c-- m c U F c ' m ❑ 0 2E E W 0 E 0 0 0 S o o °' O J fn HI H F- CD of � w u I- Lu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O M O O O O O O O U) co o CO In M U co O co O Oto O ti C) CO C) N N c` N IZt N Lf) C) ti O co co It N N r Efl ELT Efl ELT Efl N Ef3 0)EA U7 `- t- 69) EL} Efl Efl Efl 69 O O O CD 0 O O cz O O 0 p 0 0 0 0 07 j O ,:I- CD D NO -- Lo � N U) N EfT C\ Ln brT ELT EfT Efl O Ef3 E9 ffT c CD CD 7I I�IrI�I�ICDIOITIM nnn� -J -j ti UUUco J C7 O O W (n (n C .� co C O fl O O j i6 O O in U) .. o m c co W o U) O O a p o W O O LO C U O i N C 5 � LO C13 Q O znO U N a J V1 co N c0 Co O Y -0 G m m O a a) c in co L U U 5 � is M o U o5 -0 a)cn co cu o c 0 c O Q)� M� O N OQ *' O- W a� coo' J U O) U) .o o Z Z a Q C •` J N U N O O O U O O U M O Q a@ Y H C D O O O X O5 O p W C7 11co U W iJ N i N V L O N fd Z V) W I.J H O U C _ CO m v o M Q 3 3L) E O o L � O Ln -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M6 o o� U ct 0 O 0 0 N_ 0 O 0 0 O 0N O 0 -CDN 0 - co N LO N �o S N N r l!7 O N- N co 0 r b9 tf? ffl H3 fR ff3 (A EA (Al 61) V) 69�1 E113 64 O O O 0 O 0 O C 0 0 0 0 0 00 CDOCD 0 cr 0 p 0 0 O O O O O O �j 69 r N 69 O N Efl 603� EA E9 6F) T � .- O 0 O �0 N a) a H w _z, J T J J LL J J Cj C O Cl) 7 O- d 3 V J+ f4 7 V) C O � � o o LL OU c W LO N O (D m f6 m -° @ — = Y O a) J w U _ U N � C .Q d 3 y m O i en c _ C', v, O CO a. C U O �= y c U Tapia N O U _ d C -n in p 0 C o O �, zm r -C O O LU _W C O N O Q d d E '2 ° m U d O V c0 N U cn N O co O C O O N t9 U O 0 U 0 a) 0 ca a-� = a,aaa)a E E ? co c m c - c c U a� ° i ca Z) U) O O �w C O 0 0 00 0 o 0 O p 0 O p 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n O O�Ooo0oO0 6 0 0 p o o 0 cc SCC 0 o 0 o0 0 U pp O O O O p O Lf) O C 00 N O EA It cn m O o N 0 C- V �t CO r 69 N 69 69 C{} 64 64 �} L7 .N- 64 69 65 69 Eii r p p O O O O O p 0 0 CO CO @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 69 0 0 0 O O LO Lf� j LO CD N N cn 64 r r EFT 69O6�T O O O 69 EFT 0 U')O CD O LO O 0 O O O O C m o p r O p N rENO=� 64 L C 64 r N O Ln O 64 64 N LO T «+ (04 r• r' O O O r r o wow }}ALL J J J J d cz U U U) Q co T d LL 6.t J J❑❑ J J J a� cr`a U U (n m 2 co 3 O U co y d a Y O R m a) - a N U aT � M o o _ o Ln Vl U � = N R Cri O co Q o O aa) � � J cn U d ccO` O � O a U in co U N U T O cn Y m co O� o N o asp O C U C aOC o W o o N O0 CT co C -� U Q C cm .. C N CL m U co O O O co O o .0 C) �, 0 N .- U O O > C U H C U C p] O Y 0 y U (3) 0] CB - Ri (n�1=�HwU O O CD �� > C �U �w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 o O w o o 0 0 0 co Ln �CD 00 C) CD o CD 5 Lo — It cn m C'7 N r 0 C- V O Lr N N Co L f) C r 69 69 64 69 69 64 69 V7 r CO CO fA 64 64 69 0 0 0 0 0 CD C) O O O O O O c 0 U')O CD O LO 0 0 O O O N c N rENO=� 64 L O 64 O 64 64 EA LO T «+ (04 r• r' O O O r r o N � O- � a) Q T LL J J❑❑ J J J cr`a U U (n m co a co a O m - U L M � = o O U O � � co � 6 � o o i a) LO N O co Q O O O J Y 0 y (3) O O CD cm O Q > C U76 C U T U �o o cn X Cm cn U c oo0mccoo oo_° o o� i o QCOa) O L C C O- C Q N a U Q W (n C: 0 0 Ql C J o .. a coo coo 0 0 0 m a) o o U) N C O O L Q> C= i c- t0 , to Cn U O �, CT, C U m o E E x m w ai u c U co 0 N F— H W C� c c Q (n U 0 0 0 F— W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c o co 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 00 O O O N m CD 0 O 0 r ER EA r� 0 <fl NN Ef3 0 0 0 d EA 69 N ffi 6pd- C O � O 0 O O in r CD Kt r m C 69 O 0 O 0 O Cfl Efi V EA EF3 Cf) Efl � 1� EN LO O En 69� LOO O O O O O U cu O O C cu r r (7 Z) C CS O 0 0 0 Q) Q O0 O O CO 2 r 69 O co cl U J J Q C C4 r r ca r 0 W zS N O d O d Q c W C 3 Cn } Cn W O J J ❑ J O C ❑ C/)ca U 6.s O 7 ZT s d V N n� o y o U U') N f0 u O CC O a Y a) J N — t�6 C a) t: co O p Cj D vi C (j oin Co` O CM N O C N oOc E -p i0 0 CO p 0 - Co Ln N Q CD .�.. W m U c`o cl,U H O a> p 0 Cl) m N o o CL E m U - a) a)- CO2 c c�U � W O CD 0 0 0 0 CO) 0 0 0 .-00 0 000 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U 0 0 0 d CO N O M 0 O � O N in r CD Kt r 69 ffl fA Cfl Efi V EA EF3 Cf) Efl r EA 1� EN C O O O O O cu O O OO Z) O O 0 0 0 O0 O O CO � r 69 O O U C C4 r r lC) r 0 N CS O Q Cn Cn } Cn W J J ❑ J O C ❑ C/)ca O ZT d R Y t�6 IL 0 :g c 0 ncz � o N a) W ` c m o N � � � N � .6 U1 41 U) OT J fl Y CD p C O C N Cd C O C U O U a m = O C0 0 Y O OO C _� o U O C O` C,6 N Ln E s= 00 N 7 Q Q o as Q c w C/) co cLo f— O o o .c c o Y N_ 0 aa— 0 0 c U a) cz � m c @ m co n cmc32��C� c u U �w O O o 0 C) O 0 0 0 O O o0 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 O O p 0 0 C:)00 N 0 0 ID O 0 0 O _ u7 Cn 0 0 0 0 0C) Ef3 69 EFT 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 co co N 0 U O p p O p O pLo ti r CO I� CO r cfi o M Lfi N Cn V O I- 00 } EfT co 64 Ei3 EA LO r � r Op O Op 0O O E� ER Ln co 69 EFT ER 6 EA CT 4) Q O O OOo O O O O O co O O o 0 CD, 0 Cl J J a co cr O O p �j U U CO O O O N c r LO te, EfT 0 0 EfT 6s Efl N N O o 0 O m r —ICD O Lf) p r r O C O Z) r m p r G N p _ o O N W LO t E 4) m E o Q m LO N U) c6 = J LL Z J J}} J J ca U U U � u0i CO ° U c_n m c o ca L .p o f o m o a c 'C O E U oo\° m �, O E Q C E W N >+ U is w C g Q� c m U) m CcE U O 'N 3 Q a E E O .0 U C N0�FmH(D O DU FO-LLJJ 0 L M 0- U) 47 cn C w O a) co c O W N m 0 U) m Ln III .m N O m � (n 40 J Y d oCo � a o i U Cca= O Q C m v Y U > o u1 U O o O w, O E _ 7 0— O U o c C' CO W ` n� O cQ6 Q � N = Q a t•° L �' U 3 a o a Jm Q �.� w Cl) a) C6 cLo cLa 0 C) u) U H a) O N ° = a a> .- (n cn c U m W Q1 C C m 0.�+ m o m 4) �w(D X co �Q V C° O ° cnU F° -w O O o 0 C) O 0 0 0 o p U o o p 0 0 0 0 in O 0 0 � 0 O O O O LO O CD o O p CD U� O o o r-- Lo N O � � Cn CO LO Ef3 69 EFT C (fT m v O O O O O O C) p O O j CO O O N ti N N Lr) EA� O U Ella T O Op 0O O Ln co CT 4) Q > C/) U) >- >- LL J J a m U U CO a Y L CL N N 0 C O m N p _ o O N W LO t E m E o N O c6 :+ m LO N U) c6 = J Y = U � u0i ° U c_n c o ca L .p o f o m o a c 'C O E U oo\° m �, O E Q C E W N >+ U CL C g Q� c m U) m CcE U O 'N 3 Q a E E O .0 U C N0�FmH(D m DU FO-LLJJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 G in o 0 O 0 in 0 0 0 0 06CD 0 0 0 C) N O CD O O O rt N Ln O C'21 r Ut N N D N LI)N C) P. CO O)rl- M lf) Efi 69 EA Efl CO Ln c- m 69CD ct ER 69 E9 CD CD EF3 4fl EFi EFi o oO N @ O O O fA 6S fH C CT O Ci O O O O O O O O U O O N Ef? Lo Cf3 _ C0 @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 O 0 O C co f 0 0 (:D C 0 0 0 0 0 In UO b9 V) r Ef3 .- E9 O O Nr, ' O 6q 6Fi 4f3 O 2 U J Q Q C c3 CC) W W U') L7 LLO l!") Ln c (C6 C C7 O .r d (1) Q c 2:1 d cl �' Q Q' Cn Cn } C/) Cn O C O U N t U m Q O H V) a) o 0 W U-) N U) O f0 cu � C � Y O J U O O O O U .E O O c Ot/) C o O .0°ro 'oE ° o N E Y Lo ¢ C w - O U J p ` O.. •L CL .� m @ CO U CO n Q H C m p .� m o (n N = O a U 0 C U a) c a cD o E m e ca �, as 0)) 2 C Cl U6 W 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 G in 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 coKt Ln 0 m CD � N� O O Ln O O CD - L _ CO O M lf) LoU.) O LO N IZ3- Ln 0 1l- N N 69 E9 EA EF3 4fl EFi EFi r (4 N Ef3 fA 6S fH O O O O O O O O _ C0 @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 O 0 O 0 0 (:D 0 0 0 0 0 0- co In UO b9 V) r Ef3 .- E9 O O Nr, ' 6q 6Fi 4f3 O U CC) O N � U') L7 LLO l!") Ln (C6 C a- (1) a 2:1 cl �' Q Q' Cn Cn } C/) Cn @ U Q W LL Y O U p Y O O C � a) a � � o i Q. O n � O a) Q 0 U � LU a� o > 0 u7 V) O C a> O U @ N m -0 > LO_N -6 3 a) C V 7 U C O a) cn W @ v-= N J Y Q (n > U O 4) d C C Q p @ C16 U 20c_nUm 75 0 w.� O C J C p E CO � o U c O 'C o a) >, O •� o C4 0 U p 8-0- Lo�Cc C O a O UJ W 65E 'O C6 2 N @ _ •` CO C C> @ L, L, "O C J Q U C C .. N En CL N '� 'E W m ti .� H- C)@ O 41 Q Z CD- r C W 0= ~ O -0 o O 0 a 00 E E c CID m m o 0' C '�° O Um) LL LL IE U H F� N U U FO- W N W V) v L O C) a.+ cd E Ln W 4--+ N O l�J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C:) O CDO 0 OO o P- 0 o o CD o o 0 0 o col)"q�- 0 0 0 0 O O O U t Lr) O OC') CO D C o OLo 0 O O 0 O r O N 0) 0) f- 69 N 6-, N 64 T 69 In O N NN I --C) m 69 Ef? b9NE 64 � 64 69 .-- r 6fk C 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` C O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O, 0 6 0 0 0 0 Lr) 0 I � 0 T O O N O ti N O 6Gq G, U N Lo 64 � 66q 69 O U y} CO r T T 0 r C CII C T r 0 I� N In r O M V 7 6 r II' Q) Q () Q mom >-}}LL C J= J J Ll J J J 0 M ca UUUU) n C7 C O U U t . Q O O cl ❑ 'O O C m co L -Q O !0 O O m � CO N O O cu _7 U o O 3 C: a) O UO O 3 � 0 co LO N LO O U U a` )) N m o U C5 o co cn a) J fC C O C J m U C _ .QN 7 +' � C O Q M (o C co 0 Om v� O o U C Q cc O +r c0 �t E C o @ ate . o o 0 fB L c �c vi cC, U >, � o Co o U •�_ C O o U L o � fB C cEp \ N o 0 c CO o 0 0 O W E N N 7 •0 0 U)m Z L a) a)'Q 0 J Q U J> O .. F- co Ui .0 0 a7 .Q C .lu N _c a. a .0 .N L U a) O O V- U Q' U a) c6 V 3 F-U2F p L�HF�U� m E @ > O m HH! ani -U O.O. O U) L) H W O U) LO) Fo-Ltl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 � 0 OO 0 0 O O 0 to O M O O N O O co O UO O O M r l() Lr)� CD r rNN lri 17 �� N� co 69 696G, (Al69 69 Ef? b9NE A CV C 0 0 0 0 0 0 cu O O o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 Lr) 0 I O O O N ti N U N N to 64 69 O U y} ._ O C CII r T r 0 I� N In r O M 7 r II' () Q mom >-}}LL .0 J J J 0 ca UUUU) O U . O cl 'O O C m co L -Q O O m � CO N O O cu cn o O 3 C: a) O UO co LO N a` )) a c o U co cn a) J fC C O C C .QN 7 +' co I C O Q M (o C co 0 to v� O o U � Q cc o o c0 �t E U) aOj > i 0 • � Co o o C O o U L o � fB C ' N U •= c CO o LL o E •0 0 U)m Z L a) a)'Q J Q C .L O .0 a7 .Q C .lu N U a. a .0 CL L ' U 0 .0 cm U C U s O 70 E c6 U C m C @ tT !-L) HH! ani -U _� �OfJ U) L) H W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �n0000000000 0 0 66 0 0 O 6 CC DI U 00 O 00 O 0 O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L7 co ti L7 n N U d O Co O O O O O O N NL' It64ea cc V M C C r r N Cn -,:� N C) O CO CD r I-- d N 64 64 64 64 64 69 69 —ER CD p -:I-T Lr)— ~ O p O 0 0 4fl 69 Zs 69 EFT 69 ffl a 0 0 0 0 0 O 3- C Cn O p O O p p O 0 O 0 O 6s 613, ca ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to N O O N co O N 64 O O N O O O O N ° 6A N 64 LO 69 Ef3 b9 m r CD r O O r 0 O C N N a. c 2: 2 CD 2 w cnUHUz CL J= J W U- w 0 � � H c c J= J J J J (j Le 0 o U � c U d Q) a) C O o O — if N m U a) o O o) E J o c0 C ` U `O C U O 3 0 U E N Q U .`. �L C: O � v C •— O 0 L CD a) o ° N u, @ C Cn a) o o = E "d C-Faa) o > O o cz N L)Q N cz C)C C ° T -C E a) a) m cu U) t9 ` m- (0 U N O O O O O p J o V o w O C U U N C7 E a) c m m C -m H�HLLH o m �Q C co o w ` few � E O cz O O @ a c0 o U N c m CO E -� o Ooa) o c C C (0 U) CL LO Q 07 O U vi O m c m N U= L .Q Q C N CO U m m C m O c0 n7 O O .� p) C �tS N D 0 o o m c a U p U ai E E 30 -cc m 75 O r°w 0o m mUw � c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 O O 0 0 in 6 0 0 6 0 0 66 0 0 O 6 CC DI U co O 00 O O O O c) °'L' `— O CCD N Lf') 00 L7 N cl r Cn O rl oo N co O N N elk 69ffl64 el) It64ea 64ffl r r CD c CD 0 CD p O p O 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 3- O Cn O U-) O O 6s 613, e ., 64 a m r N O O N C Q' O a. 2: 2 2 w cnUHUz J= J W U- w 0 c c Le 0 o U � U Q) a) C O o O — if N m U a) O o) E J c0 C ` O C U O 3 0 U E N m U .`. �L C: O C v C •— O L CD a) o ° N u, @ C Cn a) o LO o = E "d Uco o °-m L1.I o N L)Q co C)C C C T -C Cc U O U ` m- (0 U N O O O O O p 0 c_ o w O U C) N C7 E a) c m m C -m H�HLLH o m �Q a co ° w few A p p e n d i x C— Public Outreach Plan Work Plan Checklist 'J i r J� S clean streams... _:� �l� Table C-1: Public Outreach Plan Work Plan Checklist ACTION — Description and Resources LEAD BUDGET DONE Needed NOTES Informational materials Engineering Use existing staff Enhance web access to water -quality or Planning? resources information. Link web sites (see tools appendix) to the City web site. Update Clean Streams site. Advertise new links through City email list -serves. Requires public affairs and IT staff coordination Informational materials Engineering Use existing staff Develop a quarterly water quality protection — water resources tips article to be included in the Water quality Conservation quarterly (Hello LO). Tips will describe seasonally appropriate personal actions. Requires coordination among water conservation, water quality and public affairs staff. Education and citizen contact Engineering Inter -departmental Plan, advertise and conduct 4 Naturescaping — water funding of $2,000 workshops. quality for workshops and Requires funding for workshops and $1,000 for advertising. Staff time to provide scheduling advertising and work shop logistical planning Volunteer campaign NRAB $18,000 for Identify youth or neighborhood group — i.e., AmeriCorp school, scouting, church, neighborhood volunteer association — to conduct catch basin stenciling program. Requires Natural Resources Board adoption and oversight of the program and an AmeriCorp volunteer for day-to-day management. Table C-1: Public Outreach Plan Work Plan Checklist ACTION — Description and Resources Needed LEAD BUDGET NOTES DONE Recognition and incentives Planning Use AmeriCorp volunteer Conduct an NRAB-sponsored above and existing staff watershed enhancement awards resources program with residential and business categories. Use nominations process and present awards certificates at a City Council meeting. Requires NRAB approvals and AmeriCorp volunteer for daily implementation. A p p e n d i x D— Outreach Optional Activities by Outreach Category L AGi1Y s� �: Informational Material ❑ Websites The following websites provide a wealth of facts and many prepared articles that can be useful in developing low-cost, effective information materials for many of the activities listed below. Some of these sites may be linked to the City's "Other Useful Links" page or be used in e-mail updates or articles. EPA NPDES Public Education and Involvement BMPs http://epa.gov/npdes/ Metro, click on Sustainable Living - compost recipes to grasscycling and more http://www.metro-region.org Clean Water Services http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/ Clackamas County Water Environment Services http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/wes/info.htm Regional Water Providers Consortium http://www.conserveh2o.org/index.html Regional Coalition for Rivers and Streams — local soil and water conditions, free stuff www.cleanriversandstreams.org Healthy Lawns, Presented by the Oregon DEQ — yard maintenance focus www.healthylawns.org Clackamas County Master Gardeners www.clackamascountymastergardeners.org Clackamas County Soil & Water Conservation District http://www.cc-swcd.org/ U.S. Environmental Projection Agency — surf your watershed http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm Specific Watershed and Related Organizations: Willamette Riverkeeper: http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/ Tualatin Riverkeepers: http://u-ww.tualatinriverk-eepers.org/ Tryon Creek Watershed Council: http://tcwc.tryonfriends.org/ Friends of Springbrook: http://www.springbrool,-park.org/ ❑ Hello LO Residents of Lake Oswego that participated in Clean Streams Plan meetings and surveys cited the Hello LO as their primary source for local information. Hello LO articles can describe ways that citizens can contribute to contamination reduction. Seasonally appropriate articles are suggested below. Most of these articles are available in ready -to -use form on the websites listed above. Short articles for the following topics can also be collected from past publications or written for publication during the designated months. Timeframe Topic On-going - Share project information — as capital project are implemented from the Clean Streams Plan, explain how they are part of the larger surface water management program. Describe what they accomplish for the City and tie back to the Plan. (stormwater pipes, green street pilot projects, stream bank restorationprojects) On-going - Share best practices / new and innovative projects/processes – Write articles about new and innovative practices that the City is undertaking that address Clean Streams issues. Write articles about actions or new technologies that private citizens, businesses, or developers are undertaking that tie to Clean Streams On-going - Highlight, when possible, awards or certifications that are given to the City or to an individual or business within the City that may relate to surface or storm water. Many awards are already announced in the Hello LO, but call out any obvious ties to being a watershed steward. Some possibilities include: Erosion Prevention Awards, Salmon Safe Parks, Unsung Heroes Awards, Sustainable Business Award eco -businesses, preferred or sustainable contractors, etc. Submit short paragraphs or bullets with graphics related to Clean Streams. Coordinate with other departments that may also be writing about similar topics. Summer - Lawn watering, car washing, power washing, roof cleaning, fertilizer usage, composting, stream bank health on private properties, commercial car washing, etc. Fall - Raking and disposing of leaves, preparing lawns and gardens for winter, proper erosion for construction sites, ways to address standing water on private property, keeping catch basins clear of leaves, etc. Winter - Vehicle maintenance, stormwater facts (how much rain, impervious surfaces, etc), treatment plant trivia, outfall info, local stream highlights, low impact development, how you benefit from stormwater fees, etc. Spring - Rain gardens, siting swales on your private property to capture stormwater, organic gardening, limiting garden chemical usage, catch basins for stormwater only no oil, paint), etc. Annually - A graphically designed insert (information -packed to be kept as a brochure) highlighting a variety of Clean Streams -related best practices for private property owners Monthly - Sustainability Corner – bulleted list of things residents can do to protect our environment – This can be a regular feature of the Hello LO, but would need to be tracked and written by the Hello LO coordinator. ❑ LO Down Use the weekly electronic LO Doavn newsletter to inform neighbors about current issues, upcoming meetings and new projects. ❑ New Public Information Materials As new materials are developed they should be kept on file to inform staff, neighbors, businesses, developers, community groups and other stakeholders. Sample fact sheet ideas include: o Bilingual landscaping information. o Informational handouts on how particular regulations (land use especially) are tailored to address clean streams concerns. c Project information sheets for capital projects, programs, and demonstration projects. o Background sheets on City policies — explain why a certain policy exists related to surface or storm water. o Brochures for residents, such as "Be Responsible when Hiring a Commercial Lawn Service". o Case studies and/or summaries (including photos) on best practices within the community. These can highlight how the project was able to happen, and could focus on innovative applications of City- code. o Case studies and/or summaries on how a surface water and/or storrnwater issue was addressed in a particular area. o Best practices for erosion control and other development related interests. o Case studies and/or summaries on applicable certifications (i.e., Salmon Safe, etc.). o Summaries on applicable local awards. ❑ Media Releases Coordinate with media to announce new projects or activities within the City. Meet with editorial writers or reporters, as appropriate. Write and distribute media releases related to plan implementation that may generate community interest, such as community events, school -related activities, or other youth involvement. Prepare op- ed articles, as appropriate. Individual project or program managers should consider writing articles for businesses and other organizations' newsletters. ❑ Annual Report or Printed Newsletter Prepare and distribute an annual report on the year's accomplishments related to surface and stormwater management, or all City environmental endeavors. Information from the City's annual MS4 water quality report could be included. Other information could cover specific projects that were implemented pursuant to the Clean Streams Plan, as well as summaries on any educational activities. The report could also be used to highlight specific topics. For example, many people do not understand how their stormwater fees are used. The report could be distributed in water/sewer bills, either as part of another report or on its own. If a more general environmental report or newsletter is used, the document could be used to announce various environmental benchmarks or sustainable activities such as an environmental report card or progress report. Education and Citizen Contact ❑ Naturescaping Sponsor existing Naturescaping work shops customized to the Lake Oswego area. ❑ Public Exhibits Prepare simple posters or display boards highlighting a Clean Streams project or approach in the City. The posters could be located in City Hall or the library. The poster could present a best practice or a new innovation being used in the City. Posters could be developed annually- and rotated around various locations. ❑ Developer and Contractor Trainings As new development policies or new innovations in building design warrant information sharing, City staff can provide informal brown bag sessions for developers, builders, and residents on low -impact development, how to build and remodel structures, or undertake large landscaping projects while using best practices for stormwater management. ❑ Calls/Complaints Create a one-stop shopping point -of -contact for water concerns. Work with all first contact staff to identify the kinds of questions they field and provide direct callers guidance to the appropriate staff. ❑ Co -Sponsor Activities Invite opportunities to partner with other jurisdictions, agencies, and community organizations where public information and outreach related to surface water and stormwater management is a focus or could be highlighted. Co-sponsor opportunities might include: o Events or presentations with the Lake Oswego Corporation o Chamber of Commerce o Youth groups and after-school programs o Events with Tryon Creek Watershed Council (could be sponsorship only, little staff time) o Host Naturescaping Workshops o Metro residential gardening and minimizing household impact o Metro workshops for low impact development o Host booths or displays at various community events o Various Earth Day celebrations o Natural area service projects o Parks and recreation activities ❑ Direct Contact with Stakeholders Related to Building Petmrts/City Code Consider every action with community members an opportunity to share information. Create an internal forum for discussion of new information related to policy, incentives, and regulations, so that staff has enough information to effectively share this knowledge any time an opportunity arises. Information sharing opportunities may happen during building permit and land use applications, general inquiries from the public, complaints received, etc. ❑ Coordination During Development ofNeighbothood Plans Ask neighbors to consider surface and stormwater issues when developing neighborhood plans. During neighborhood planning, present information to neighbors about storm and surface water issues, and show best practices for neighborhoods to consider during their planning effort. This is informative for private property and for new considerations regarding public rights-of-way. Recognition and Incentives ❑ Native or Stormwater Friendly Plant Give Aways Purchase native plants for give-aways at presentations, events, Farmer's Markets and other venues. Use in combination with collateral materials to recruit participation in educational programs. ❑ Awards Programs Present City awards for youth groups, schools, civic groups, developers, builders, homeowners, businesses and others who undertake Clean Streams protection actions. ❑ Fee Reductions Implement a sliding scale of permit fees for new or re -developed properties based on the level of low impact development or water quality protection landscaping provided. ❑ Ceramcation Certify sustainable development practices, LEED buildings, irrigation improvement, and non -phosphate fertilizer use for large scale properties — apartments, shopping centers, golf courses, and office buildings. Volunteer Campaign and Other Outreach Activities Requiring Additional Staff and Resources ❑ Partner with Schools Over the years, City staff has participated with local schools on science programs and projects, often related to water quality. When requested, staff should provide expertise to classrooms, such as judging science fairs, assisting with stream bank or playground restoration projects, and teaching about surface water management. ❑ Project Design and Implementation Input As capital projects move into implementation, neighbors and other stakeholders should be invited to participate and give feedback on design and construction issues. Each capital project should have a general public information plan and/or public involvement plan and summary upon completion. This could include meetings with Neighborhood Associations, open houses, development of fact sheets, mailings, web pages, etc. These activities are specific to the implementation of a capital project or related program, but should always give context to the Clean Streams Plan and the purpose of the project or program. ❑ Internal Storm waterinformation/ReviewForum City staff and members of the public have stated that it is important to ensure that the various City departments coordinate their efforts, especially related to storm and surface water management. Opportunities for cross -departmental and internal training should be highlighted and encouraged within the City. These opportunities for training and open dialogue could include brown bags hosted by various departments, internal meetings, specific policy trainings, retreats, and sharing various case summaries collected that relate to storm and surface water. In addition, a method is needed to ensure new regulations or policies (especially those not directly related to stormwater) are evaluated for storm and surface water implications. There is currently a group of staff working on environmental projects and programs that meets monthly. This group may be an option for establishing a formal information sharing resource. ❑ Individualized Social Marketing — Direct Contact with Property Owners Follow a social marketing model focusing on individual neighborhoods to promote behavioral changes that private citizens and businesses can undertake to benefit the public good. Use a combination of door-to-door, individualized outreach, public information, and sample products to encourage behavioral change. "Stormwater Audits" of properties could be conducted and individualized recommendations could be given to the property owners. ❑ Water/Environment Related List -Serve Compile a list -serve to inform residents of environmental issues, consortiums, surface water and stormwater projects and programs. This would be a new activity within the City and may take some time to implement. There may be multiple programs or departments that could access the list -serve to share information. ❑ Clean Streams Stewards Training Program Host a series of workshops that citizens can take to become Clean Streams Stewards and become more aware of watershed health. The program could be modeled after Master Gardener or Master Recycler programs. Graduates become Clean Streams Stewards and are obligated to provide additional service to the community. The graduates can lead small community projects for the City, such as one -day or weekend stream restorations, parks maintenance, open space improvements, or alterations in the public rights-of-way (to be approved by the City), etc. These neighbors could be responsible for hosting additional workshops within their community at neighborhood associations, businesses, churches, schools, or other community organizations. ❑ Catch Basins, and Other Signage Use the Clean Streams logo to create signs and graphics to highlight stormwater retention features or pipe networks. Interpretive signage should be used for permanent features and demonstration projects. Develop interpretive maps to orient neighbors to the specific drainage basins or watersheds in Lake Oswego. Decorative plaques can be used to identify catch basins, drainage basins, or demonstration projects. Additional signage can help promote behaviors that improve surface and stormwater quality. Examples of signs that might be placed in parks could relate to the disposal of pet waste and not feeding the ducks. Signage, stenciling, or other emblems could be incorporated into streets at catch basins. ❑ Landscaper and Homeowner Workshops or Garden Tours Conduct instructional seminars on topics such as environmentally -friendly sustainable practices, low -impact development, xeriscaping, stream bank stabilization, or rain gardens. ❑ Bilingual Informational Materials Bilingual materials may be needed to reach important audiences, including citizen and business groups. Metro and Clean Rivers and Streams have some pre -developed workshops that may be considered, and Web information can easily be translated. ❑ City Learning Series Create interactive educational opportunities where Lake Oswego citizens can learn more about surface and stormwater issues and water quality. For example, prepare a Stormwater 101 presentation related to where stormwater goes, water quality data, urban issues and how they relate to our environment; and how to reduce our stormwater impact. A p p e n d i x E— Storm Analysis for Lake Oswego, Oregon: Response to Questions Raised in November 8, 2007 Correspondence Regarding Draft Report of Storm Analyses for Lake Oswego, Oregon `J L 1� (1-9 0* io — �a clean streams... dfear f.--hoices 7326 Boston Harbor Road NE Engineering Consultants,Inc.Olympia, WA 98506 I � (360)570-3450 www.mgsengr.com STORM ANALYSES FOR LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON Melvin G. Schaefer, P.E. November 2007 OVERVIEW This technical memorandum provides a summary of the findings of the analysis of storm characteristics for the Lake Oswego area. This study was prompted by the need for design storms for use in rainfall -runoff event modeling in the Lake Oswego area. Limited precipitation data has been collected for the Lake Oswego area and questions have been raised if data from historical storms recorded in surrounding areas could be transposed for use at Lake Oswego. In addition, there were questions if the findings from storm studies previously conducted for the Portland Metropolitan area could be applied to Lake Oswego. These questions and related topics were addressed by drawing upon findings of previous precipitation -frequency and storm studies conducted for the States of Oregon and Washington and for the Cities of Portland Oregon and Seattle Washington (Schaefer et a16,7,a,9,1o,11,12,13,14) Additional analyses were conducted to supplement these findings and provide the information needed for application of synthetic design storms and historical storms for use in rainfall -runoff modeling for stormwater projects. LONG -DURATION AND SHORT -DURATION STORMS Both long -duration and short -duration storms were the subject of this study. Long -duration storms in western Oregon are characterized by prolonged low to moderate precipitation intensities where continuous or intermittent precipitation occurs over a period from roughly 24 -hours to 72 -hours. Synoptic -scale cyclonic weather systems and associated fronts originating over the Pacific Ocean generally provide the mechanisms for producing large precipitation amounts over very broad geographic areas at the 24-hour and longer durations. These storms are important for design of new stormwater facilities and assessment of existing stormwater facilities where both peak discharge and runoff volume are important considerations. Short duration storms generally occur over a limited time period of several hours with the majority of the precipitation occurring over 10 -minutes to 30 -minutes. These storms occur more frequently in the warm seasons, are isolated in terms of areal coverage, and are characterized by moderate to high precipitation intensities for short periods of time. The high rates of precipitation are produced by convective cells that may be isolated or embedded in organized weather systems. These storms are capable of producing high runoff rates and are used in the design and assessment of conveyance systems such as pipes and culverts. CRITERIA FOR COMPARING STORM CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN SITES A primary question posed for this study was whether storm characteristics at Lake Oswego were materially different from storm characteristics for surrounding areas? In particular, were the storm characteristics at Lake Oswego different from the storm characteristics observed in the Portland Metropolitan area? This question was answered by considering several criteria for identifying similarities/differences in storm characteristics. For storm characteristics at separate sites to be considered similar, there must be similarities in the following features/characteristics for the sites. • Similarity of topographic and climatological characteristics • Similarity of seasonality of storm occurrences • Similarity in the precipitation -frequency relationships • Similarity in the depth -duration characteristics of noteworthy historical storms The first three criteria are the same as that used for delineating homogenous regions in conducting regional precipitation -frequency analyses. In particular, lowland areas in north- western Oregon and western Washington below an elevation of 1,000 feet were identified as residing within the same climatic region in precipitation magnitude -frequency studies conducted in Oregon and Washington'8'10,11 The fourth criterion for similarity of depth -duration characteristics was previously examined in two separate studies. Depth -duration analyses have been conducted for long -duration storms in the lowlands of northwestern Oregon in a study conducted by Schaefer and Barker for the Portland Metropolitan area. Depth -duration analyses have also been conducted for both long - duration and short -duration storms in the lowlands of western Washington that included storms in southwestern Washington (Schaefer). The findings of these studies indicate that sites in the lowlands of northwestern Oregon and lowland sites near Vancouver Washington would be expected to have similar depth -duration characteristics. Based on the findings of these studies, it can be concluded that there is similarity in the storm characteristics in lowland areas below an elevation of 1,000 feet in the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound Lowlands, and lowlands near Vancouver Washington. This similarity of storm characteristics allows grouping of storms for analyses, and transposition and scaling of historical storms for rainfall -runoff modeling. Each of the four criterion for similarity listed above are discussed in the following paragraphs to provide background information on storm characteristics applicable to the Lake Oswego area. TOPOGRAPHIC AND CLIMATOLOGICAL SETTING OF LAKE OSWEGO Lake Oswego is situated in the Willamette Valley downwind of the Coastal Mountains and upwind of the Cascade Mountains with regard to prevailing storm tracks for long -duration storms in the fall and winter seasons. It is located sufficiently far from the Coastal Mountains that there is limited rain -shadow effect. It is also located sufficiently distant from the Cascade Mountains that there is limited enhancement from orographic precipitation. This is a common topographic setting in the Portland Metropolitan area and along the central portion of the Willamette Valley. Lake Oswego can be seen to be near a minimum value of mean annual precipitation (Dalyl, OCS5) along the valley bottom between the two mountain ranges (Figure 1 a). These areas experience a minimal magnitude of precipitation depletion or enhancement due to the presence of the mountains (orographic precipitation). Therefore, sites in the Portland Metropolitan area and along the central portion of the Willamette Valley can be considered to be similar with regard to topographic setting and minimal orographic contribution to precipitation. This similarity diminishes for sites that are located further westward or eastward towards the two mountain ranges where mean annual precipitation is seen to increase markedly (Figures 1 a,b). MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Figure 1 a — Map of Mean Annual Precipitation for Oregon State a i ti � �� Mean Annual Plecipstation It 35-40 4045 45-50 55-60 60-7 70.80 80.100 100-150 . � JM 200-250 M 250 - 123`30W 12TOW _2'301V 0 5 10 20 30 b Min 1:750,000 Figure lb — Map of Mean Annual Precipitation for Lake Oswego Oregon and Surrounding Areas MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 3 SEASONALITY OF LONG -DURATION STORMS The seasonality of noteworthy storms can be analyzed by examining the dates of occurrence of storms that have exceeded a given magnitude or frequency threshold. Figure 2a depicts the seasonality of storms that exceeded a 20 -year recurrence interval at the 24-hour duration at precipitation gages located in the Willamette Valley and adjacent lowland areas in the period from 1893 through 2006 (Schaefer et a110). As discussed previously, these are large scale storms originating over the Pacific Ocean that produce low to moderate intensities over very large geographic areas. Review of Figure 2a shows that long -duration storms in northwestern Oregon occur predominately in the fall and winter seasons. 0.36 0.32 0.28 V 0.24 W 0.20 .i � I W 0.16 LL 0.12 0.08 0.04 Seasonality - Willamette Valley 78 Storms 0.00 1- SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG MONTH Figure 2a — Seasonality of Storm Occurrence for Storms Exceeding 20 -Year Recurrence Interval at 24 -Hour Duration for Willamette Valley and Western Oregon Lowlands The seasonality of short -duration storms was examined by Schaefer etal8 as part of the precipitation -frequency study for Washington State that included gages in northwestern Oregon and the Willamette Valley. Figure 2b depicts the seasonality of storms that exceeded a 20 -year recurrence interval at the 2 -hour duration at precipitation gages located in the lowlands of western Washington and Oregon in the period from 1940 through 2006. Short -duration storms in western Oregon occur throughout the year with a majority occurring in the warmer seasons (Figure 2b). Seasonality - Willamette Valley 0.36 0.32 0.28 V 0.24 W 0.20 Q 0.16 W IX 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG MONTH Figure 2b — Seasonality of Storm Occurrence for Storms Exceeding 20 -Year Recurrence Interval at 2 -Hour Duration for Lowland Areas in Northwestern Oregon and Western Washington MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 4 As discussed previously, these are generally localized storms that have high to very -high precipitation intensities for short 10 -minute to 30 -minute periods during the storm. In particular, storms that occur in the warmer seasons have a greater potential for very high intensities. Thunderstorms in the warm season have produced some of the largest short duration precipitation amounts recorded in western Oregon and western Washington since automated precipitation gages were installed in 1940. Application of Seasonality Information for Rainfall -Runoff Modeling Information on the seasonality of storms is useful in rainfall -runoff modeling in the determination of the likely antecedent soil moisture conditions that may be present prior to the occurrence of a storm. Review of Figure 2a indicates that the majority of long -duration storms occur in the fall and winter seasons when prior precipitation events will likely result in wet antecedent conditions. Conversely, short -durations storms occur throughout the year with the majority of events occurring in the warmer seasons. Antecedent soil moisture conditions will be dependent upon both the time of year that a storm occurs as well as the precipitation that has occurred in the time prior to the occurrence of the storm. PRECIPITATION -FREQUENCE' RELATIONSHIPS Precipitation frequency relationships were developed as part of the regional precipitation -frequency analyses conducted for the States of Oregon and Washington (Schaefer et a18, 10,11). Sites in the lowlands of northwestern Oregon and western Washington were found to have precipitation - frequency relationships that were quite similar. Specifically, the precipitation -frequency relationships had similar magnitudes for the measures of variance and skewness as indicated by the slope and concavity of the precipitation -frequency curves, respectively (Figures 3 and 4). Precipitation -Frequency for 24 -Hour Duration (Applicable to Long -Duration Storms) The precipitation -frequency relationship for the City of Lake Oswego for the 24-hour duration (Figure 3) was developed based on the findings of the precipitation -frequency study conducted for Oregon State. There is a very minor increase in precipitation magnitudes for the 24-hour duration in progressing from the northwest to the southeast across the city, representing about a 0.10 -inch difference for common events and about 0.20 -inch at the 100 -year recurrence interval. The spatial variation in precipitation magnitudes in the Portland Oregon and Vancouver Washington areas can be seen in Figure 5 which depicts the spatial variation of the mean annual maxima for 24-hour precipitation. The mean annual maxima corresponds to a precipitation magnitude with about a 2.3 -year recurrence interval. The precipitation -frequency curve depicted in Figure 3 (Table 1) represents areal average values for the City of Lake Oswego. Precipitation -frequency values for other locations are listed in Table 2 to provide a perspective on the spatial variation of 24-hour precipitation maxima for nearby areas within the Willamette Valley. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc Figure 3 - Precipitation -Frequency Curve for 24 -1 -lour Duration Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego 2.0 1.8 z 1.6 1.4 1- 1.2 a 1.0 L) 0.8 a 0.6 = 0.4 N 0.2 0.0 1 Extreme Value Type 1 Plotting Paper ga- - ---- I I I I n1 , 44 , n= 0 iu 25 50 100 200 500 1000 RECURRENCE INTERVAL (Years) Figure 4 - Precipitation -Frequency Curve for 2 -Hour Duration Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego Table 1 a - Precipitation -Frequency Estimates for 24 -Hour Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego Oregon LOCATION 6.0 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION (inches) Recurrence Interval (Years) 6 -mo 2 -Yr 10 -Yr I 25 -Yr 50 -Yr 100 -Yr v5.5 5.0 OR 1.75 2.38 3.203.73 4.13 p 4- 1— 4.0 3.5 LL 3.0 Lu aa. 2.5 2.0 1.5 = 1.0 0.5 0.0 1-Ul 1.11 1.25 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 RECURRENCE INTERVAL (Years) Figure 3 - Precipitation -Frequency Curve for 24 -1 -lour Duration Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego 2.0 1.8 z 1.6 1.4 1- 1.2 a 1.0 L) 0.8 a 0.6 = 0.4 N 0.2 0.0 1 Extreme Value Type 1 Plotting Paper ga- - ---- I I I I n1 , 44 , n= 0 iu 25 50 100 200 500 1000 RECURRENCE INTERVAL (Years) Figure 4 - Precipitation -Frequency Curve for 2 -Hour Duration Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego Table 1 a - Precipitation -Frequency Estimates for 24 -Hour Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego Oregon LOCATION STATE 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION (inches) Recurrence Interval (Years) 6 -mo 2 -Yr 10 -Yr I 25 -Yr 50 -Yr 100 -Yr 500 -Yr LAKE OSWEGO OR 1.75 2.38 3.203.73 4.13 4.54 5.55 MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Table 1 b - Precipitation -Frequency Estimates for 24 -Hour Precipitation for Locations of NOAA Precipitation Gages in Northwestern Oregon NOAA STATION NAME (Location) STATE [::1..t0 6-o 2 -Yr 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION (inches) Recurrence Interval (Years) 1D -Yr 25 -Yr 50 -Yr 100 -Yr 500 -Yr BEAVERTON 2 SSW OR 2.19 2.96 3.45 3.83 4.22 5.17 DILLEY 1 S OR 1.75 2.39 3.21 3.73 4.14 4.55 5.54 FOREST GROVE OR 1.83 2.50 3.36 1 3.91 4.34 4.77 5.82 HILLSBORO OR 1.57 2.15 2.90 3.39 3.76 4.15 5.08 OREGON CITY OR 1.80 2.46 3.31 3.85 4.26 4.69 5.71 PORTLAND INTL AIRPORT OR 1.50 2.05 2.77 3.23 3.59 3.96 4.86 PORTLAND KGW-TV OR 1.63 2.22 2.99 3.48 3.86 4.24 5.18 PORTLAND WB CITY OR 1.68 2.29 3.09 3.59 3.98 4.38 5.34 REX 1 S OR 1.73 2.36 3.17 3.69 4.09 4.49 5.48 SAUVIES ISLAND OR 1.66 2.26 3.05 3.55 3.94 4.34 5.30 STAFFORD OR 1.89 2.58 3.48 4.05 4.49 4.95 6.04 TROUTDALE OR 1.62 2.20 2.96 3.45 3.82 4.20 5.12 VANCOUVER 4 NNE WA 1 1.54 2.14 2.88 3.34 3.69 4.05 4.91 VANCOUVER INTRSTATE WA 1.43 2.04 2.75 3.20 3.53 3.87 4.68 WEST LINN OR 1.75 1 2.39 3.21 3.73 4.13 4.54 5.52 123-30N1 123'0'W 122130'W 122.0W - {t:. 24 -Hour Mean cuw Preclpnation (inches) 2-63.0 � 4F .. 3.5 3.7N ---�- _ ___,% uUli Ar]1.•nr ' 4-04.5 4.55.0 S.o-s.s lave OsweOo 5.56.0 7-0.8.0 clacwwas - 9.09.0 123'30W 123`0'W 12: KV'' 1 --ow 5 10 20 X -0 1.750.000 Figure 5 - Color -Shaded Map of Mean Annual Maxima Precipitation for 24 -Hour Duration Portland Oregon, Vancouver Washington, Northern Willamette Valley and Surrounding Areas MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 7 Precipitation -Frequency for 2 -Hour Duration (Applicable to Short -Duration Storms) The precipitation -frequency relationship for the City of Lake Oswego for the 2 -hour duration was developed based on the findings of the precipitation -frequency study conducted for Washington State that included precipitation gages in northwestern Oregon (Schaefer etal). The precipitation - frequency curve depicted in Figure 4 and Table 2a represents areal average values for the City of Lake Oswego. In particular, there is little site -to -site variability in the 2 -hour precipitation - frequency relationship across the City of Lake Oswego. Precipitation -frequency values for other locations are listed in Table 2b to provide a perspective on spatial variation of 2 -hour precipitation maxima within the Willamette Valley and surrounding areas. Table 2a - Precipitation -Frequency Estimates for 2 -Hour Precipitation for the City of Lake Oswego Oregon LOCATION STATE 2 -HOUR PRECIPITATION (inches) Recurrence Interval (Years) 6 -mo 2 -Yr 10 -Yr I 25 -Yr 50 -Yr 100 -Yr 500 -Yr LAKE OSWEGO OR 0.47 0.64 0.85 1.00 1.12 1.26 1.61 Table 2b - Precipitation -Frequency Estimates for 2 -Hour Precipitation for Locations of NOAH Precipitation Gages in Northwestern Oregon NOAA STATION NAME (Location) STATE 2 -HOUR PRECIPITATION (inches) Recurrence Interval Years (Years) 25-Yr 50 -Yr 100 -Yr 6 -mo 2-YrEO8 500 -Yr GOBLE 3 SW OR 0.44 0.59 0.91 1.01 1.12 1.40 GRESHAM OR 0.50 0.68 1.06 1.19 1.32 1.67 LONGVIEW OR 0.47 0.64 1.00 1.12 1.26 1.61 PORTLAND INTL AIRPOR OR 0.43 0.59 0 1 0.95 1.07 1.21 1.58 PORTLAND KGW-TV OR 0.47 0.62 0.83 0.97 1.09 1.21 1.55 REX 1 S OR 0.45 0.59 0.78 0.91 1.01 1.13 1.43 SAUVIES ISLAND OR 0.47 0.62 0.82 0.96 1.08 1.20 1.54 Application of Precipitation -Frequency Information for Design Storms Performance levels are commonly used in the design of new stormwater facilities and in the assessment of existing facilities. Performance levels are usually expressed in terms of the stormwater facility being able to accommodate a runoff event of a magnitude corresponding to a desired recurrence interval, such as a 25 -year or 100 -year recurrence interval. In conducting event rainfall -runoff modeling, the recurrence interval of the runoff event is usually taken to be equal to the recurrence interval of the storm event that was used to generate the runoff. For example, a storm magnitude with a recurrence interval of 25 -years is assumed to generate a runoff event with a recurrence interval of 25 -years, when suitable antecedent conditions are used in the computations. The precipitation -frequency information provided in Tables la and 2a are intended for scaling synthetic design storms and historical storms for long -duration and short - duration storms, respectively. Procedures for scaling of design storms and historical storms will be presented in a later section. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc DEPTH -DURATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR NOTEWORTHY HISTORICAL STORMS Depth -duration ratios are often computed for storms as a means for comparing maximum - precipitation amounts for selected durations within storms. A depth -duration ratio is computed as the ratio of the maximum precipitation amount for a selected duration divided by the precipitation amount for an indexing duration. The 24-hour duration is commonly selected as the indexing duration for long -duration storms and the 2 -hour duration is commonly selected as the indexing duration for short -duration storms. The primary application of depth -duration ratios is in development of synthetic design storms. Long -Duration Depth -Duration Statistics Depth -duration analyses were conducted in 2001 for the Portland Metropolitan area and surrounding lowland areas as part of a storm study for developing long -duration synthetic design storms (Schaefer and Barker). Seventeen storms were included in that study (Table 3) and a summary of the depth -duration statistics from that study are listed in Table 4. Several storms have occurred since data collection ended for that study (highlighted storms in Table 3). Depth duration ratios were computed for those storms and added to the database of depth -duration ratios. Computation of summary statistics for the revised dataset did not result in any significant changes to the depth -duration ratio statistics originally reported in 2001 (Table 4). Therefore, there is no need to revise the synthetic long -duration design storms that were developed as part of the 2001 study. The long -duration synthetic design storms developed for Portland are recommended for use at Lake Oswego. Synthetic design storms will be discussed in detail in a later section. Table 3 — Storm Dates and Precipitation Gages Used in Computing Depth -Duration -Statistics for the Lowland Areas in Northwestern Oregon NOAA STATION ID STATION NAME STORM DATE 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION (inches) 35-6749 Portland River Forecast Center 12/26-28/1942 2.78 35-6751 Portland International Airport 11/17-18/1946 2.55 35-7127 Rex 1 S 02/09-10/1949 3.34 35-5213 Marcola 11/21-23/1953 4.86 35-2709 Eugene Mahlon Sweet Airfield 12/18-21/1955 4.82 35-2867 Fern Ridge Dam 11/23-24/1960 4.00 35-5213 Marcola 02/09-10/1961 5.21 35-2374 Dorena Dam 11/21-24/1961 5.75 45-4769 Longview 11/19-20/1962 5.41 35-0673 Belffountain 01/12-16/1974 4.94 35-1222 Buxton 12/12-15/1977 4.40 35-8884 Vemonia 2 10/05-06/1981 4.00 35-2709 Eugene Mahlon Sweet Airfield 12/05-06/1981 5.15 35-5213 Marcola 02/11-13/1984 4.71 45-4769 Longview 02/21-23/1986 4.70 35-4238 Jefferson 12/01-03/1987 3.40 35-1643 Clatskanie 01/06-09/1990 4.30 35-6751 Portland International Airport 10/26-27/1994 4.44 35-6751 Portland International Airport 11/18-19/1996 3.98 35-8884 Vemonia 2 11/24-25/1998 3.50 35-7823 Silverton 11/24-25/1999 3.40 35-2384 Dixie Mountain 11/14-15/2001 4.00 35-6751 Portland International Airport 11/05-06/2006 2.59 MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc Table 4 - Depth -Duration Statistics for Long -Duration Storms That Have Occurred in the Lowlands of Northwestern Oregon MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED DURATIONS EXPRESSED AS RATIO OF 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION 1 -hr 2 -hr I 3 -hr 6 -hr 9 -hr 12 -hr 18 -hr I 30 -hr I 36 -hr I 42 -hr I 48 -hr 54 -hr 60 -hr && L. 72 -hr Mean 0.132 0.196 0.253 0.404 0.515 0.631 0.848 1.096 1.162 il.210 1.245 1.253 1.303 1.342 1.392 Std Dev 0.045 0.056 0.063 0.067 0.066 0.069 0.057 0.059 0.108 .139 0.147 0.146 0.160 0.198 0.243 Short -Duration Depth -Duration Statistics There are very limited precipitation data available in an automated format on a 5 -minute or 15 -minute time -step that could be used to compute depth -duration statistics for northwestern Oregon. The only precipitation data available on a short time -step exist as hard -copy images recorded by weighing bucket precipitation gages in the period from 1940 to about 1970. While it would be possible to process the hard -copy data and conduct a study of short -duration storm characteristics specifically for northwestern Oregon, it would be labor intensive and costly. Alternatively, storm studies have previously been conducted for short -duration storms in areas that are similar to the lowlands of northwestern Oregon. The approach taken here is to draw upon the findings of those studies to provide depth -duration statistics and a synthetic short -duration design storm for Lake Oswego. There are three sources of information on depth -duration ratio statistics for short duration storms that are applicable to the lowlands of northwestern Oregon. Depth -duration ratio statistics were computed for a range of storm magnitudes for the lowlands of western Washington and western Oregon as part of a study of storm characteristics conducted by the National Weather Service in 1984 (Frederick et al) . Depth -duration ratio statistics were also computed for noteworthy storms that occurred in the lowlands of western Washington as part of a 1989 study of extreme storms (Schaefer). More recently, depth -duration statistics and a synthetic short -duration design storm were developed using storms that had occurred in the Seattle Metropolitan area (Schaefer). The findings from the study in Seattle are presented here (Table 5) as being most representative of short -duration storm characteristics for lowland areas in northwestern Oregon and the Lake Oswego area. Table 5 - Depth -Duration Statistics for Short -Duration Storms That Have Occurred in the Lowlands of Puget Sound Washington MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED DURATIONS EXPRESSED AS RATIO OF 2 -HOUR PRECIPITATION 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min 20 -min 30 -min 45 -min 60 -min 90 -min 120 -min 180 -min Mean 0.189 0.299 0.410 0.457 0.582 0.705 0.815 0.931 1.000 1.055 Std Dev 0.083 0.115 0.147 0.165 0.168 0.155 0.127 0.075 0.068 MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 10 DESIGN STORMS FOR LAKE OSWEGO AREA It has been common practice in the engineering community to use a single synthetic design storm for design of new stormwater facilities and assessment of existing facilities. The design storm was typically assembled using storm characteristics observed within the region. This practice originated many decades ago before desktop computers and engineering software became standard tools. There was always recognition that a single storm may not be appropriate for all projects given the high variability of storm characteristics and the diversity of project elements and project needs. Given the computational power of desktop computers and the ease of making multiple computer simulations, the approach recommended here is to have both synthetic design storms and scalable historical storms available for design and analysis of stormwater facilities. A synthetic design storm may be used both as a screening and planning tool for complex projects and as the design storm for more routine projects. Use of scalable historical storms will allow examination of the effects of a diverse group of storm characteristics on a proposed or existing project. This will provide greater assurance that the proposed project will function as intended. The scalable historical storms could be used for large capital projects or projects where the complexity of the watershed and/or where multiple stormwater management components already exist and there are questions as to the storm characteristics that will be critical for design of the project. The following sections provide information on synthetic design storms and scalable historical storms for long -duration and short -duration storms. As discussed previously, long -duration storms have primary application where both peak discharge and runoff volume are of interest, such as the sizing of stormwater detention ponds. Short -duration stones have application where peak discharge is of primary interest for sizing of conveyance structures such as pipes and culverts and for sizing of some water -quality treatment elements. Long -Duration Synthetic Design Storms Two long -duration synthetic design storms were developed for the Clean Water Services (formerly United Sewage Agency) (Schaefer and Barker) and are recommended for use in the Lake Oswego area. Both synthetic design storms are two -pulse storm events. Synthetic Design Storm 1 contains greater precipitation intensities for short periods during the storm (Figure 6a). Synthetic Design Storm 1 would be expected to be the controlling storm for projects where peak discharge is the primary concern and runoff volume is a secondary concern. Figure 6b depicts Synthetic Design Storm 1 using a scale of Intensity Index, where multiplication of the ordinates by the desired 24-hour precipitation yields precipitation intensities for each of the 15 -minute time increments. Long -duration design storms are primarily used in design of stormwater detention facilities and other projects where runoff volume is a primary consideration. Excel spreadsheets are included as electronic attachments to this report that contain the ordinates of the two long -duration synthetic design storms. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 11 0.06 Z 0.05 D O Q 0.04 ir D O 0.03 x a N O 0.02 O Q 0.01 0.00 Long -Duration Design Storm 1 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 TIME (Hours) Figure 6a — Long -Duration Synthetic Design Storm #1 (Front -Loaded) for Lake Oswego Area Precipitation Ordinates Expressed as Ratio to 24 -Hour Precipitation 0.2 0.2, 0.21 X 0.1 LU 0.11 0.1, 0.1: z 0.1( F 0.0E Z 0.0E 0.04 Long -Duration Design Storm 1 15 -minute increments 0.02 -- — ----_ 0.00 - - - ----- - i 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 721 TIME (Hours) Figure 6b — Long -Duration Synthetic Design Storm #1 for Lake Oswego Area Scaling of Intensity Ordinates by Desired 24 -How Precipitation Yields Precipitation Intensities Synthetic Design Storm 2 is a back-loaded storm with lesser precipitation intensities but a greater total precipitation for the 72 -hour period (Figure 7a,b). Synthetic Design Storm 2 would be expected to be the controlling storm for projects where runoff volume is the primary concern. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc .12 0.06 z 0.05 O Q 0.04 D = 0.03 le N 0 0.02 0 Q 0.01 0.00 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 TIME (Hours) Figure 7a — Long -Duration Synthetic Design Storm #2 (Back -Loaded) for Lake Oswego Area Ordinates Expressed as Ratio to 24 -Hour Precipitation Long -Duration Design Storm 2 0.24 - 0.22 15 -minute increments 0.20- X 0.18 --- --- - - - - - - -- -- -- — -- p 0.16 --- — 0.14 0.12 — --- - Z 0.10 — 0.08 - 0.06 — 0.04------ 0.02 .04 ----0.02 0.00 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 -_ TIME (Hours) Figure 7b — Long -Duration Synthetic Design Storm #2 for Lake Oswego Area Scaling of Intensity Ordinates by Desired 24 -Hour Precipitation Yields Precipitation Intensities Long -Duration Design Storm 2 MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 13 Scalable Long -Duration Historical Storms Historical storms can be used for rainfall -runoff modeling by linear scaling of the observed precipitation increments. This scaling approach preserves the temporal storm pattern while increasing/decreasing the incremental precipitation amounts to obtain the desired 24-hour precipitation amount. The resultant hyetograph can then be used for rainfall -runoff event modeling. Excel spreadsheets have been prepared for scaling of eight historical storms and are provided as electronic attachments to this report. Figures 8a,b,c depict graphical examples of historical storms that are provided as part of this report and summary data are listed in Table 6. 0.70 Portland Intl Airport 1.47 inches 6 -Hours Nov 19, 1996 0.60 --- --- - - - — C 3.98 inches 24 -Hours _. 0.50 — - - 0 4.56 inches 72 -Hours 1= 0.40-- Q a0.30 - -- ----- -- --- -- — -- — — V Hourly Increments Lu 0.20 — ------ IL 0.10 --._ .—_ -- --- - -- - M 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 1 TIME (Hours) Figure 8a - Long -Duration Storm of November 15-19, 1996 at Portland International Airport Longview INA A 7A Figure 8b - Long -Duration Storm of November 17-21, 1962 at Longview Washington MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 14 Bellfountain OR 0.70 2.21 inches 6 -Hour Jan 14, 1974 �. 0.60 — c 4.94 inches 24 -Hour 0 0.50 8.49 inches 72 -Hour Q 0.40 a 0.30 — -- V Hourly Increments WW 0.20 CL 0.10 0.00 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 TIME (Hours) Figure 8c — Long -Duration Storm of January 11-16, 1974 at Bellfountain Oregon Table 6 — Scalable Large Historical Long -Duration Storms For Use in Rainfall -Runoff Modeling NOAH STATION ID STATION NAME STORM DATE PRECIPITATION (inches) 24 -Hour 72 -Hour 45-4769 Longview 11/17-21/1962 5.41 6.06 35-7127 Rex 1 S 12/21-26/1964 2.70 5.81 35-0673 Bellfountain 01/11-16/1974 4.94 8.49 35-7127 Rex 1 S 12/09-13/1977 3.00 5.12 35-2709 Eugene Mahlon Sweet Airfield 12/01-06/1981 5.15 6.34 35-6751 Portland International Airport 02/05-09/1996 2.35 5.72 35-6751 Portland International Airport 11/15-19/1996 3.98 4.56 35-6751 Portland International Airport 11/02-07/2006 2.59 5.13 Precipitation for the eight historical storms listed in Table 6 was recorded on hourly intervals. Greater resolution of the temporal pattern of precipitation is often needed for stormwater _ modeling of small urban watersheds. This was accomplished by disaggregating the hourly precipitation amounts into 15 -minute intervals using statistical information on 15 -minute precipitation. This information was obtained from studies conducted by Schaefer et a112,13.14 for western Washington. Therefore, the hourly precipitation increments within the eight historical storms are preserved and the temporal pattern of 15 -minute precipitation that comprises the hourly amounts have the characteristics observed in long -duration storms. This collection of eight historical storms and the long -duration design storms should provide a robust test of the performance of stormwater facilities. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 15 Short -Duration Synthetic Design Storms The short -duration synthetic design storm was obtained from the findings of a study of short - duration storm characteristics for the City of Seattle Washington (Schaefer). Seattle has operated a precipitation gaging network of 17 stations since 1965 with gages recording on a 1 -minute time - step. Figures 9a,b depict the Seattle synthetic short -duration design storm that is recommended for use at Lake Oswego. Short -duration design storms are used for design situations where peak discharge is of primary interest. Common applications include design of storm drains, ditches, and culverts, and other hydraulic structures for conveyance, and sizing of some water quality treatment facilities. Excel spreadsheets are included as electronic attachments to this report that contain the ordinates of the short -duration synthetic design storm. Short -Duration Design Storm U 30 60 90 120 150 180f TIME (Minutes) Figure 9a — Short -Duration Synthetic Design Storm for Lake Oswego Oregon Precipitation Ordinates Expressed as Ratio to 2 -Hour Precipitation 2.40 2.00 X W G 1.60 Z H 1.20 Z H 0.80 Z 0.40 \, e s Short -Duration Design Storm 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 TIME (Minutes) Figure 9b — Short -Duration Synthetic Design Storm for Lake Oswego Oregon Scaling of Intensity Ordinates by Desired 2 -Hour Precipitation Yields Precipitation Intensities MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 16 0.20 - 0.18 - 0.16 --- X p 0.14 N Q 0.12 � a 0.10 ----- 00 0.08r -- a 0.06 '-- 0.04 - --- - - 0.02-- 0.00 U 30 60 90 120 150 180f TIME (Minutes) Figure 9a — Short -Duration Synthetic Design Storm for Lake Oswego Oregon Precipitation Ordinates Expressed as Ratio to 2 -Hour Precipitation 2.40 2.00 X W G 1.60 Z H 1.20 Z H 0.80 Z 0.40 \, e s Short -Duration Design Storm 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 TIME (Minutes) Figure 9b — Short -Duration Synthetic Design Storm for Lake Oswego Oregon Scaling of Intensity Ordinates by Desired 2 -Hour Precipitation Yields Precipitation Intensities MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 16 Scalable Short -Duration Historical Storms Excel spreadsheets have been prepared for scaling of three short -duration historical storms that are transposable to the Lake Oswego area. Figures 10a,b,c depict the three short -duration historical storms, which includes storms in both the warm and cool seasons. Table 3 lists precipitation intensities observed in these storms. Seattle EMSU 4.40 4.00 1 Aug 25, 1977 3.60 -- -- O F 3.20- 2.80 .20 2.80 – H 2.40– - -- – - a rn 2.00 W W 1.60 — — IL z 1.20 - --- -- 0.80 0.40-. - 0.00 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 TIME (min) Figure l0a — Short -Duration Storm of August 25, 1977 Recorded at NOAA Precipitation Gage at Seattle EMSU 4.40 4.00 – – 3.60 0=3.20 – — - i= --S2.80- 2.40 2.802.40 -- – ----- – - – -- a m 2.00 Ww1.60 -- - 0: a. - - - 0.80 0.40- 0.00 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 TIME (min) SPU Rain Gage 20 Figure lob — Short -Duration Storm of August 22, 2004 Recorded at Seattle, WA SPU Rain Gage 20 - MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 17 SPU Rain Gage 20 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 TIME (Min) Figure l Oc - Short -Duration Storm of December 14, 2006 Recorded at Seattle, WA SPU Rain Gage 20 Table 7 - Precipitation Magnitudes Observed in Short -Duration Historical Storms in Seattle WA Transposable to Lake Oswego Area 4.40 4.00 -Dec 14. 2006 SEATTLE GAGE NAME 3.60 z p ` c 3.20 -- - -- f -.c. 2.80 3.26 in/hr 2.76 in/hr 2.64 in/hr 1.00 -in 2.40 ------ - --- IL N 2.00 - - - ---- Vz 4.25 in/hr 3.42 in/hr 2.80 in/hr H 1.60 -- -- - - -- a z 1.20 - I Dec 14, 2006 1 0.80 0.74 -in 0.40 -- 1.10 -in 0.00 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 TIME (Min) Figure l Oc - Short -Duration Storm of December 14, 2006 Recorded at Seattle, WA SPU Rain Gage 20 Table 7 - Precipitation Magnitudes Observed in Short -Duration Historical Storms in Seattle WA Transposable to Lake Oswego Area MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 18 MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED DURATIONS SEATTLE GAGE NAME STORM DATE PRECIPITATION INTENSITY (in/hr) 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min PRECIPITATION DEPTH (inches) 30 -min 60 -min 120 -min Seattle EMSU Aug 25, 1977 3.26 in/hr 2.76 in/hr 2.64 in/hr 1.00 -in 1.51 in 1.94 -in Gage 20 - TT Minor School Aug 22, 2004 4.25 in/hr 3.42 in/hr 2.80 in/hr 1.00 -in 1.49 -in 2.32 -in Gage 20 - TT Minor School I Dec 14, 2006 1 2.52 in/hr 1.98 in/hr 1.68 in/hr 0.74 -in 0.92 -in 1.10 -in MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 18 REFERENCES AND RELATED ARTICLES 1. Daly C, PRISM, Parameter -Elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model, Oregon State University, Oregon Climate Service, 1994. 2. Frederick RH, Miller JF, Richards FP and Schwerdt RW., Interdurational Precipitation Relationships for Storms — Western United States, Technical Report NWS 27, NOAA, Washington DC, 1981. 3. Helsel DR and Hirsch RM, Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Elsevier Studies in Environmental Science 49, NY, 1992. 4. Hosking JRM, and Wallis JR, Regional Frequency Analysis - An Approach Based on L -Moments, Cambridge Press, 1997. 5. Oregon Climate Service, Mean Annual Precipitation Maps for United States, prepared with PRISM Model for NRCS, Corvallis Oregon, 2005. 6. Schaefer MG, Characteristics of Extreme Precipitation Events in Washington State, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Report 89-51, October 1989. 7. Schaefer MG and Barker BL, Development of Design Storms for the Portland Oregon Area, prepared for United Sewage Agency, July 2001. 8. Schaefer MG, Barker BL, Taylor GH and Wallis JR, Regional Precipitation -Frequency Analysis and Spatial Mapping of Precipitation for 24 -Hour and 2 -Hour Durations in Western Washington, prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Report WA -RD 544. 1, MGS Engineering Consultants, March 2002. 9. Schaefer MG, Analyses of Precipitation -Frequency and Storm Characteristics for the City of - Seattle, prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, December 2003. 10. Schaefer MG, Barker BL, Taylor GH and Wallis JR, Regional Precipitation -Frequency Analysis and Spatial Mapping of Precipitation for 24 -Hour and 2 -Hour Durations in Eastern Washington, prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, MGS Engineering Consultants, January 2006. 11. Schaefer MG, Barker BL, Taylor GH and Wallis JR, Regional Precipitation -Frequency Analysis and Spatial Mapping of 24 -Hour Precipitation for Oregon, prepared for Oregon State Department of Transportation and contributing Agencies, MGS Engineering Consultants, August 2006. 12. Schaefer MG, Barker BL, Nelson R, and Wallis JR, Creation of Extended Precipitation Time - Series for Continuous Hydrological Modeling in Pierce County Washington, MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc. and Entranco Inc., prepared for Pierce County Public Works Dept., February 2001. 13. Schaefer MG and Barker BL, Extended Precipitation Time -Series for Continuous Hydrological Modeling in Western Washington, MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc., prepared for Washington Department of Transportation, April 2002. 14. Schaefer MG, Development of 5 -Minute Extended Precipitation Time -Series for the City of Seattle, Technical Memorandum prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, MGS Engineering Consultants, January 2007. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 19 15. Stedinger JR, Vogel RM, and Foufoula-Georgiou E, Frequency Analysis of Extreme Events Chapter 18, Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw Hill, 1992. MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc 20 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Nmy Engineering Consultants, Inc. MEMORANDUM November 27, 2007 TO: Tim Kraft, OTAK, Inc. FROM: Mel Schaefer, MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc. Subject: Response to Questions Raised in November 8, 2007 Correspondence Regarding Draft Report of Storm Analyses for Lake Oswego Oregon In reviewing our draft report of findings, there were two comments/questions raised by the City of Lake Oswego regarding precipitation characteristics in the Lake Oswego area. The first comment was: 1. The study uses rainfall data from outside of Lake Oswego in the determination that Lake Oswego does not have different rainfall characteristics than other Portland metro areas. Precipitation -frequency studies have been conducted by the meteorological and engineering communities over the past 60 -years throughout the US. Experience gained from those studies shows that small terrain features, such as those at Lake Oswego, have minimal influence on precipitation during noteworthy storms. In this regard, Lake Oswego is similar in topographic setting to much of the lowlands of the Willamette Valley. The conclusion is that the precipitation characteristics at Lake Oswego should be similar to other lowland areas in the Willamette Valley that have relatively small terrain features. This conclusion is supported by the results of the PRISM model for spatial mapping of mean annual precipitation (Figures 1 a,b) which generally shows minor variation of mean annual precipitation throughout the Willamette Valley. The PRISM model specifically considers terrain by using a digital terrain model. PRISM also includes a moisture inflow model to map precipitation along with measurements at long-term precipitation gages. Variations in mean annual precipitation that do exist across the Willamette Valley are generally seen to be broad east -west and/or north -south trends reflecting the orographic effects of the nearby Coastal and Cascade Mountains. Analysis of records from 71 precipitation gages throughout the Willamette Valley show a high degree of similarity with regard to precipitation -frequency characteristics such as seen in Figures 3 and 4 of the report. Likewise, studies of the temporal patterns of historical storms in the lowlands of northwestern Oregon and western Washington show a high degree of similarity. After considering all of the available data, it is reasonable to conclude that the precipitation -frequency and storm characteristics at Lake Oswego are similar to other sites in the Willamette Valley and lowland areas in southwestern Washington. It should be noted that the terrain features at Lake Oswego can have influence on some weather phenomenon. The formation of fog and settling of cold air into localized depressions are examples where small terrain features can have a ciunificant Inca] nffprt Figure 1 a — PRISM Map of Mean Annual Precipitation for Oregon State YMg11 - 45`0'N — I 123'30W 12310w 0 5 10 20 30 40 1 1111111 M1ileS 1:750.000 Man Annual heelphation i (Inches) s 3540 411 I. 4&W 50-55 � ss.so 60-70 ... i a0-1oo 100-150 200Q50 -250 - _b --- • •••yam•• --y ­i�,uia c-iiu,uai 1 icwpitauun 1Vr -LaKe vswego uregon and Surrounding Areas 2 Mean Annual Precipitation, Oregon 1251W 124'W 123-W 122W 121'W 120'W 179'W 176-W 11TW Precipitation WN3� .. (Inches) 5� 6'N Vife A .. M4. W 44'N 4-N 151 %1 43'N� _ 42'N in12007 2'N 124'W 123'W 122'W 121 W 120'VJ 119w 119'W ii"W - Figure 1 a — PRISM Map of Mean Annual Precipitation for Oregon State YMg11 - 45`0'N — I 123'30W 12310w 0 5 10 20 30 40 1 1111111 M1ileS 1:750.000 Man Annual heelphation i (Inches) s 3540 411 I. 4&W 50-55 � ss.so 60-70 ... i a0-1oo 100-150 200Q50 -250 - _b --- • •••yam•• --y ­i�,uia c-iiu,uai 1 icwpitauun 1Vr -LaKe vswego uregon and Surrounding Areas 2 2 Has climate change been reflected in the precipitation intensities used in this analysis? The precipitation characteristics summarized in this report reflect climate change to the extent that climate change has been ongoing over the time period that data were collected (generally 1930- 2006). There already is very high variability in the magnitude and frequency of noteworthy storms that affect northwestern Oregon. It would not be expected that the next 10 -years or so would be extraordinarily different from what has been observed over the past 50 to 60 -years. In that context, the recent past provides a reasonable expectation for the near future. The applicability of these findings for use on future projects depends upon the time horizon over which the findings are to be applied. In considering climate change, it may be prudent to incorporate additional design features for large capital projects that have a long design life. Some ' city officials in western Washington are considering either an increased factor of safety in design or incorporating project elements that would readily allow upgrading/upsizing of water -related facilities. These are policy decisions for city officials as they grapple with accommodating uncertainties for future operation of facilities. 3 A p p e n d ix F — CIP Location Maps :s i" l. * 0 C Clean streams... Clear chollc--es CO) O mj UA Ul LZ3 w W U) Cc 44 C9 cc w w L6 0 M 011: >z I i Co Zta 0 16 be LU 'A co) W - LU , P: 0 uj a z w Ul a - 2 123 0' Z Q 4c 12 AL m z z LU w 0 0 0 z U) w lu U) U) LL. > 0 z 20 In z J 44 0 Wix LU oWn. (9 ow V V oC� m � •�J � �° coattO 13 /77 eZ FLArE > h&30NM OVOW 3LVDBMW jIj 3&1X0 IWIM AVG IL C2 I -Gvm m000m 0 0 4 vagis IA 14 2 C3. 0 Z U) .j CO) ul z Im LU 0 U) W 02 V Z P zul uj P ul 0 z vs Z U, LU z ul t co e U—) UA 0 z OC 19 LL, LU z -b IL Z 4cm w z 0 MA I— A LU IL IL IL w 100 z oh zz U) 001 Uj U, O:WI160002 LL. > U) LU ox 0 z ggLu x cm Inujwz.clltz LU oozV Z LU 0 0 I.Jollulcol n. 0 UA In co L.Uj I J3 o"ommWoo3 co ul lu V�l -AY- No"3"'. t.% NOON �0J w 1 --L K)W" f/ AMINW—.- O inn 3MOIN W6 to ---- AtAA— LL A6 0 U)� W CO) y Ouln14� be F LL CO) OZa VV s, 0 V 0 l ',W .OMd 1 r c a IL m I Q � W IL : OC Q W H = W Z z co o v z o W G W_z N C N a z I m U)co Z WWWJW{y H � WYVdC �a Z N m ace o I vJ W G 09 0,1 z 0 O §OOOdo. J • I ��.. 90$$0 I _ F k e SRN13B S t J alm— W Z QOim Q V cel IL Z a W Q W CO ce W v00. CD W �O cc W o n. U W Q O l ',W .OMd 1 r c a IL m I Q � W IL : OC Q W H = W Z z co o v z o W G W_z N C N a z I m U)co Z WWWJW{y H � WYVdC �a Z N m ace o I vJ W G 09 0,1 z 0 O §OOOdo. J • I ��.. 90$$0 I _ F k e SRN13B S t CO) z Lu .01 I.- —U) 12 0 0 Q F 129 LU W MMI)Yi z 0: IL 0 9 LU W Ul Im �LL_, zUzi U) IOU E z LU ul tuz Z Lu 0 40 Q ; I Q w 9L ro i Z UA 0 0 z L a 0 W 0 -C L IL z log LU ce U) o > N C) z UA 0 ag Z LO I °G d V0 IL FC (3 j W IL co LL, 4c A olp wx AT 41 2a-` U) X Q1 N I. �a (� o L.J 14 *4 1 vio mo )7 P4 COcm -44 vj A.. Fool J �b Oz J� J `� LY F" W W Wx z v , Co U)QO H W W Oul,� �� a �= W 0 m o v c N W Z H H 2 D W W = a Q Z ',.., z W W a CO)IgED LL. WW OG m H zjmFY� W V V Wii 0 log OZ 2 z J •N MI.LliO O W o I3 IL dW (% o J C9 2I kill z '7,. v L� • �t -r--1 a� A A p p e n d i x G— Sustainability Matrix *"!, (- 9- 0 clean streams... dear choices Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix As part of the Clean Streams effort, a sustainability ranking system was developed. This ranking system provides a method for the City to evaluate BMPs, either used today or in the future based on their "level of sustainability". The ranking system developed for the Clean Streams Plan incorporates the established principles of sustainability based on the City's current policy. Each BMP can be ranked according to these principles to see how it falls within the City's sustainability goals. The ranking system is summarized in a BMP Sustainability matrix (see Figure Appendix H-1), which creates an easy summary of how a system may or may not meet sustainability criteria. This matrix can be used to evaluate the "sustainability" of a particular BMP, which can be used as part of a selection process for determining the most effective BMP for a particular situation or project. This system is not definitive, but is intended as a guide to assist staff in making BMP decisions. This matrix is flexible and should be revised as more information on the benefits of sustainability becomes available. Sustainability Ranking System The development of the ranking system involved an evaluation of the City Stormwater Principles, and a definition of the goals for stormwater BMPs. The City's sustainability initiatives make an effort to balance economic, environmental, and societal factors for the long-term benefit of the community, region and planet. The City developed five guiding principles to provide the basis for effective -decisions. These are shown in Table Appendix G-1. Table Appendix G-1: Sustainability Principles PRINCIPLE 1: Conservation of ecosystems PRINCIPLE 2: Reduction of the use and emission of toxic minerals, heavy metals, fossil fuels, and synthetic materials PRINCIPLE 3: Prevention and reduction of waste PRINCIPLE 4: Efficient use of resources PRINCIPLE 5: Support for sustainable businesses These five guiding principles were used in developing the goals for Sustainable Stormwater BMPs. By incorporating at a minimum one principle per goal, a list of eight goals was developed. The goals include the following: Minimize Ecosystem Impacts: To be considered a sustainable stormwater BMP, the facility will need to minimize its ecological footprint. This can include both the physical space the BMP consumes, if the BMP provides an ecological benefit (e.g., constructed wetlands), and City of Lake Oswego 1 otak Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued the actual `ecological footprint' consumed by the production of the facility (e.g., resources utilized, land farmed or logged, etc.). This goal meets Principle 1. Ensure BMP Quality: The reliability and longevity of a BMP is a component of the "cradle to grave cycle" and speaks about its level of sustainability. This goal meets Principle 3 and Principle 4. Maintain BMPs Effectively: The sustainable maintenance of a BMP defines its level of maintenance, the frequency of maintenance and the materials needed to maintain it. This goal meets Principle 4. Use Sustainable, Inert, and Non-toxic Materials: The material type for the BMP is a direct criterion for sustainability. Sustainable materials include those that are recycled (percent of recycling can be defined), renewable (products that are easily renewable such as bamboo, hay, etc.), or produced locally (decreases the amount of transportation energy required for the product). There are various certification processes which attempt to define a sustainable product or material that may be appropriate and meet the values of the City of Lake Oswego. This goal meets Principle 2. Minimize Energy Usage: The production, installation and long-term use of the BMP should minimize energy consumption. This goal meets Principle 3 and Principle 4. Reduce Waste: The production of waste is an important consideration in utilizing sustainable practices. For a stormwater BMP to be considered sustainable, it should be produced, constructed and disposed of with minimal waste. This goal meets Principle 3. Maintain Cost Efficiency: The dollar value of the BMP is an indicator of its usefulness when compared to effectiveness, measured as contaminant level reduction. This goal meets Principle 4. Select Sustainable Businesses: Selection of stormwater BMPs manufactured or constructed by businesses which are engaged themselves in sustainability encourages the growth of sustainability in the community. This goal meets Principle 5. A ranking system was developed using the goals as the criteria and a system between one to three raindrops (6's, with 1 being poor and 3 being good) has been developed. The ranking criteria developed for each goal is shown in Table Appendix G-2. Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix -.! Continued 3 otak I E' Lo Q C'�• o U cd i C . X E L I j � U� c o c U E � I ( � i cB -2 • O C2 u E --- -- ---- --� �-- -� -1- --- C Citj of Lake Oswego � La C ' N O N! i ID C I z 1 N m . c U C L > C _ cu � 0 +N O a) -Q 1 co ?. C O co � >. p O C O A O a) O U j c I CD c o •L O C O 30 C J C i C I m O .L d l E C U) j •O `n U U cu _ 2. - N � U � 0 a- •�/ c a) EL CLS N m ca I U N ?� N I NE a) o �I C [1 cnco �O . N CL 8) •� m p � m C7 �I CL N mIo a t o W o'o o o � > O m IL U a) [1 tC C O i uS N u C I ^C^l a) N N= n cn- .7 a) LO N € a) d 72 /W I..i t n v O 6 Q `� O U O C I C _ d c � c� 3 otak I Q C'�• o U cd i o I j U� N E I ( i O C2 u I --- -- ---- --� �-- -� -1- --- Citj of Lake Oswego Q N! I ID C I . (6 > U L > C _ cu � 0 +N @ 7+ a) -Q 1 co ?. C O co � >. p O C O ✓� = C 0 U C , I -=3 Oas O O C J C ,-O C I O O o d l E C U) j U `n 0 0 i n O C _ c y O O ca I U 1 1 UO > 2U U U ''� U O U 'D CL 8) CL mIo t o W •y Ea> -I rn •U3 � > O y W a) [1 tC C O i uS N •0 C C I O CB C� E a) N N= n cn- .7 a) LO N € a) d 72 i+ C O C [B Y E O 6 " O O U O C C _ d c � c� ca —._ --. 1— t-- -II j C) � 1 I 3 otak Q C'�• ; dh U cd i O N E I ( ! �- C2 l - --- -- ---- --� �-- -� -1- --- Citj of Lake Oswego 3 otak N 1r U 1 X al Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued • • • • • City of Lake Oswego 4 Onk cc (D (D ECC; -2 -P (3) L) O 0 LI) (15 C17U-- .0 ] -zz cc) Al Ln .2, co CL U -0 5 Co Z: Z o C cl. U— City of Lake Oswego 4 Onk � J, � li 2 Cite of Lake Oswego Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued cn a� U C CD 0— E E a) 0 0 a� U O Q m C) a� -o c o � U � O O C W(9 m or � U mO O m co C 0) :i6 9; X a) a> d U L x 1— au I t2 cz I a O I i I I I LL-mcu i O I CD m O U N � E I ui E vi O C in O E�—> a> 1 T "c — o I 1 3 c CU C cc cm on cm E m 1 C CD C C C m C O Co '0 C O [O E :F "CO E j C [ E fII Em m O m U c fD CI I 2i N CO O O QO c/) 0 I C I N N W >T > .N > (O m O c N O D O [D CL Q C C { f9 3 E o m cr m" E -0 W -o .� °? OcO C c I j (D oM o I y c o .cu O ` O = m c E � ��� �� N > I > x `II m L AICD a LO a o > m 0 C :2N :EO m am, -a� m 11 O Q U m E V m U m N ` C _ O m 0_1 _ N O m 2 ti O ..0-. y o aci o m m O cB Ecz =o `o m m E 'io o @ o o 0 U N Q m O m p 0 O O (n N C M aI CL C CP _0 a, Q, N C rn N U O cn to -E � � g U E cn d O�Oca20 � , L ca _ c m E m v, m m o CD @ _E --- Cim C'i in M'im�� Z C. I ( I I (J , I IZIc- i i �+ of w� X W Cite of Lake Oswego Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued cn a� U C CD 0— E E a) 0 0 a� U O Q m C) a� -o c o � U � O O C W(9 m or � U mO O m co C 0) :i6 9; X a) a> d U L x 1— au I t2 cz I a 5 otak O I i I I i O I � E I ail I a> m v O C cc C CD C O E "CO E Z. (6 CI I N � I >T O c N 3 E o OcO C c O c I y c o m c E I m > 3 I j m L AICD I > m O U Q Qi (0 in I E ` U o N co `ID C I o c o a; Ecz =o I c cn 0 j aI CL o _0 a, Q, rn cn to 12 _d En O d I i Q C , L ca 0 Q _E Cim C'i in M'im�� Z C. I ( I I , I IZIc- i 5 otak Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix City of Lake Oswego I m I� c i N I a N I o c V - `° i O c, E0 U N � I c I � m D) C M C co E C d � I N d t_ ca eo j o m X I o `) cn L �+ C I Q7 C E (D E W d Ej a E i C i I O ami W U m O C cD C cD cc O a� f o CN U f ar roO f ate` co - E : O O o c OI (� rn y U U o cn a� O O = •CL, N cn C 0 O C _Q) O O U O •iJ 0 c C N CC N T N > O m m m E E C c4 I O I O I E2, E ! cc - I O 3.JU O >` U C Q. L m .':. IMOD C I -O O O m n O W I (D y +_C c OU G N L7 I r Q .L U-;� ca O O �, ! a.., C O eo o � � �E o 0 c >4._ m Cull �.Q a) — rm c6 co N : @ a Ca Q ! N Qj . cc�COco U—I'=' J2' O ON Z CIm a.�L C7 j X C uI v • • • • w • I N r C ZQ C� • - Q � • I C m� W City of Lake Oswego I m i N a N I c 0 c `° i I c � m C co E d t_ ca eo j c o `) Y L c c C O Q7 C E (D E W d U C I O C cu W U O C cD C cD cc O C f m i CN U E co - E : O O o o c L) rn y U U o cn a� O C O N cn C 0 O C _Q) O O U O O 0 c L L 0- m m m Continued 6 otak C O V X L M Ld H Ln CL m N L L L b-0 C C X =o Q) d a 3 C' „c_ O m z C,m �;� o ��! c---- ---I— ---.' _ I C_._ 7 Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued a Imo' Iy ' I I m ch f CD � as I+ I �s E I E i M o I .o (D U .X m a) c6 aci a) C U [O Q N C N U j R 0 cr Is CD in C L L a3 I cc C 1 m � o � ! c I ccjca m M ca Q N CO C U ' N I C N U I Q) Cp U a) U M CD a) 2 I E c' m U a`) c W a) U M L C9 Io cu C ?� O C C U "-• C U E N N a) c O m N ' m a> O N c9 ! O O C E c9 "cc L) : N N cn ! L Q, t O m `9 E U) a) N U O N t Cl) O — _[n C .N U 0 o a> cc U O ca cII E M m 2 .� a) C O C O O IL CL M cc U a)Q C [n >, p a) O C O N U C N "m Vi OO E C N UC,4 C's N `p > : C C v O = c O c - m E n' - m m o 2 a cn C U c l .CS' .L O = a1 O > N O E > U i 7 O N (D I y X a) CD L ca V 1 G)`� C O X li E = UO m o .� o a) o m i a i C N d a Q dcl) c � C' „c_ O m z C,m �;� o ��! c---- ---I— ---.' _ I C_._ 7 Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued a 0 n 7 V) Cite of Lake Osivego 7 otac m ch f CD � as I+ 1=a, E i CD M o I .o U .X m a) c6 O a) C U [O Q N C N U j R 0 CD in C L L a3 m � � m o ccjca m M a) d N CO C C N U C N Cp U N M CD a) m cn in m U C O E M CD L c6 > W a) U M L C9 O cu C ?� en C U "-• C U N N N a) c m m m a> O E E ! O O C E c9 "cc U : N N cn Q, m `9 E U) E O to C OU -. O Cl) O — _[n C .N U 0 o a> cc ca c @ E cc m 2 E .S2 C, O IL CL M C CAH' a)Q ci mom; 0 n 7 V) Cite of Lake Osivego 7 otac 2 m j z U - o ¢ v z N W, Cily of Lake Oswego Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix v E n m I m � m m i6 I I m m a� E `° E o v O �_, O U U j I j w 1-�. I L m f Io ::3 y O O I i C - j L m !n 7 7 r U �2 i, p n O C 1 m Y_ VJ E E o 0 E 0 0 C E o a) m Q) O E m c O c m _ O -0 to m m d -01 C6 C m Cily of Lake Oswego Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix v E n m I m � m m i6 I I m m a� E `° E `° E v O �_, O U U j I j w 1-�. I L }' �+ y O O I i C - a) m !n 7 7 C] m U �2 n of o U) o' 0 i6 m o c� m E E o 0 E 0 0 C E o a) U a - fn U E c O c tii �= _ O -0 to m m d -01 C6 C m E E tq m E UO C O 6! U a m c c0 m- a) l C (Uo O c-. O _Od�jj OCC m O Ca OQ U C O rn [n .O N O o a _ n c m E m :5E mm o m � I a a I � a_ ? I c; l m m f. C i N co 1 fn C I � "O a I o Lj j m aT m a) � O r• j I j� .� m dl L- L � y C m C m O j C C C I rn y C j Q) X O X .._O "C m m'0 _N E E x a s Cily of Lake Oswego Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued m E a) cu m a c` cm Q) a 0 c 0 c -o a) m L O Q) N L o 1 I p I I j j I � � E m i L) i j � I a I � I ? c; l m m f. w y i N co 1 fn C I � "O a I o _ j m aT m a) � O � O I € j� .� m dl L- L ji C m C m O j C C C I rn y C j Q) X O X .._O "C m m'0 E x a s o o � I i c6 =� c 0 c 0 cm�a c0 ami @ C U U � ' ! a) u U C (O Um m @` O I - ice.. m O (B u, m C U C6 m i c N E o� O -U� C Mh E E 'O I to- 0 a o y 2 1 1 U _ O a) L Cvj U a� oc O ` j a)cn ! N m I " ) _ 1 0 U ._ U d m .0 c O c UO -_ in Q .O E m C .0 rn O W n u, caa .m m m ¢_ 6E` 0� a Q , o Z C _ 2 m L E m fn O 2 1 Z M I I1 cl• j II � QO -L-J! ,2 m Continued m E a) cu m a c` cm Q) a 0 c 0 c -o a) m L O Q) N L <m � 1 D j 0 � h C Oc X 4-j Ol U m Q � C _ : O U � C M2 c c n ) �m L S 7 U m a) L o � T �L L p U C aQ f U � ! m � L F N X a 40 Q L Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued cu bk cz La LU cuN O O I m C I c 'm O ,0 ( 4 a E � � I E m 1 i o � � 0 UC -o p m m i m O m FO O U C cb O-'' m cm N a t Q. C m j I � U C Q) E m O 1 U t�/1 _ C i C E o 1 m m 01 v dO >> ami s a) N V E L O O O m _a > y Ln C'=... U) O m :. L !n C C m cmO I ai .p � m a> > 7 o -o (1) aa) i Cc O) m a 04 > cc m C U d O O C Q1 y c 0 N c p O c L LU{ — m n cn o �o a 0- a V m m m m a m O T a O O O N m O C -N O C O C O co c O m m m E am E ami m o > aci > aC— i > 6! .2 L O, L s D OU - I I z I c- 1 _...J cu bk cz La LU cuN 6 CO U CL CL0 Z C13 I to m a �O CO U Cc U 0 m C C � Cll c a> m E � Q C m C T � C U m ` d E c o O > U Q1 c o c •U a) .� O OL E a) O Q) v p UU T m m � O U c c � � a) E— O O) cOn m O O a) C Y a) O a �:E C O co O) U m c o O a = E .� d 1 City of Lake Oswego 9 otak O fC0 I � C m C c 'm C E E y I o � � m i m FO 7 O-'' m cm N _T j c O T m C m oc O O 1 U U p C OO E C i C E o c O Q ni U v dO >> ami s a) N V E L _a > y Ln C'=... a) O m :. L !n ,G N co m E mi a (1) aa) i 04 1 LU{ 6 CO U CL CL0 Z C13 I to m a �O CO U Cc U 0 m C C � Cll c a> m E � Q C m C T � C U m ` d E c o O > U Q1 c o c •U a) .� O OL E a) O Q) v p UU T m m � O U c c � � a) E— O O) cOn m O O a) C Y a) O a �:E C O co O) U m c o O a = E .� d 1 City of Lake Oswego 9 otak Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued City of Lake Oswego 10 otak ca ► I i I �m I� v (D O C I I m m S 08L m m l I I I 1 ! L L y Iia j L O' Y ° 't I C °�' I Ia .1c la �� I y E co} p ±� o Q m m C ` CL I m ~cc CE) VO X m m I m �'mmc E m a ; I c' N i r i Y `�i� m! ed v ! ! o c O N� CCO I c m' Ti N O ! E3 E I j o al o a l o c l nl m m c <a Cd CD cd c m I o; o i ml N' E! `o V) °� y> ; m 3 m 3 m j 3 L'•i� ai i Vi O C m d O O + N C m E CL c6 a m i m ,ca m � � �! io m N m `ol ca CD j m oc Ti O U W V W C U Cm i CC� : O 5 a> LO) U c O a- O NQ Oi UONm M Z O 0oT L I O m m O2 m mONp cai I!� OQ G O C to L gO O n CD cm 8dc , cO i: O N)ON a) i m E CaUC a� NO N ao U E m m YNm NNNi; m � d IIjl d) O C N WI COUo � E Cr cc Om O0 N O � co Uo ,CNC cc O m m m 3 o• OI N Im E Eo 0` cIc co n aE G) aD o m S m W p O! —C,cr W!it ai Z � T r X I I � _ I f { u ; 1 O I L ! al l y I I O U ! Q1 J WWv --J City of Lake Oswego 10 otak Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued O f N I m 1 � SII � I N m o c'.f.l• to O o , E O H U ul -0co CL c CL o o o 0 0 T c CDO cn = L; o 0 3I s cli �I 1 o O O O O O O I 0 0 r . O V V 1 X cn iUS i L a) c o c 0 c c 0 0 l 0 C E cl) U -C cr) C O iIcc v y C c O O I, cr ♦J N ` : a) ma o o;s y a) W 0- Cc o 1 ail C13 y E T. N y �, a) d O O U CD '2 I -0 O a> CL ca C a) cn CO m �D C O O -0 O O Cr a`i i to cc L U C O C — y 0- N y cn m (S3 j 0. d d c ) -� 4-J a) m � acc ctsI ra cc E U a m `m > m mCD C m bAI d CD a Ql E E E 2, E E N cn d c . c a of Ir O X o l m ` U E E a O I XI c 0 N cn ?, T `- c o E o E C n n d al i I U N w m cn Q S .cn CI- m 1 Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued • O iZ �` •I •i1 1 Q. �IN LU o0 I N u � CL > o c'.f.l• to O La ? E O H U ul CL c 72 o o o 0 0 T c CDO cn = L; o 0 3I s cli �I 1 U O O O O O O O O O O O O ca3cc 0 r U V j O V V 1 c.U—._ in O iUS !72 U a) CL c o c 0 c c 0 0 l ► �;o cl) U -C cr) C O iIcc v y C c O O I, o co a ma o o;s 0- 1 ail C13 aI U TIU U T. U d O O U CD I -0 �D ((�co O U d U m 0 m a) ' : L CD ) -� a) C c n O C m C m m m U U U QJ c E E N cn cn O O O r m E m ` U E E a O 2 O C C c 0 N cn ?, T `- c o E o E C n n d m U N w m cn Q S .cn CI- m a a CL m m co z • O iZ �` •I •i1 1 Q. �IN LU v o0 I u � > o c'.f.l• ? E O H U ul c > m o o o 0 0 T c CDO cn = L; o 0 3I s cli �I 1 U O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Ln 0 U V j O V V 1 c.U—._ in O N O N in O O U a) CL c o c 0 c c 0 0 l cl) U -C cr) C O Ln C O v y C c O O I, o co a ma o o;s v u � `L' c'.f.l• O H U ul c i c �. cz En � o N _ c U W L al '. CL cl- ,j oI U City of Lake Oswego 11 otak � ; I c I O } U C cd I 1 i Ln m y L N I >i cii� i — a`) Cc L Ui aril o a'' I E L0 : L Q O. E1OI J V I - ----� -- -�--.I �I i Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued 1 CD, _ C, ca m c. O = N N cc y (O ca 2 O O O U � U U -60' O O O i a m ca m a� E E ro y N N If — N O O co I O CD T; 0 cu �I;cm c c m U ; •M to � � O Q c N c (D cu � t0 .n U O U5 O N U � U = ` ` U Q) y Q a) C C7 Ln N = O O c N O A U O I Cd C = ( E _ O I ca - 'Q ...E__m _I ._.. m. _..1.._.m_._.j.03 N, m ( � � I .' c- . . H N N O 0. City of Lake Osmego 12 Oak Appendix G—Sustainability BMP Matrix Continued Stormwater BMPs A matrix has been developed ranking categories of BMPs using the sustainability criteria developed above. This matrix has been is shown in Figure Appendix H-1. The categories of BMPs used in the matrix were taken from a suggested framework for categorizing BMPs as proposed by Minton( 2007). The BMP categories include the following. • Basins • Swales • Filters • Infiltrators • Other Basins include BMPs in which water is detained. Stormwater is discharged via a weir or orifice to a downstream conveyance system. A portion of the stormwater may infiltrate through the bottom of the basin, but the aggregate volume infiltrated over time is less than what is discharged to surface waters. Included in the basin group are manufactured vaults such as those from Stormceptor, BaySaver, Crystal Stream and oil/water separators. Swales generally include a BMP which has a distinctive slope to facilitate the transit of stormwater from entrance to exit at shallow water depths. The majority of treated stormwater is discharged to a surface water body (including a storm pipe) rather than groundwater. There are two sub -families of swales including swales and strips. With swales the stormwater transverses the length, whereas with strips the stormwater transverses its width. - Filter facilities contain underdrains and engineered filter media. The majority of the treated stormwater discharges to a surface water body versus being infiltrated to the groundwater. These types of facilities are divided into fine -media filters, coarse -media filters and catch basin inserts. Fine and coarse -media filters can be distinguished by the rate of filtration per unit area. The throughput of fine -media filters is about 0.02 gallons per minute per square foot and two gallons per minute per square foot or greater for the coarse -media filters. Fine media generally refers to sand filters, for which fine concrete aggregate is commonly specified. Course -media filters are commonly manufactured, although manufactured units can be either Fine- or Course -media. Infiltrators include all BMPs in which the design water volume is infiltrated into the soil, with the ultimate receptor being the groundwater aquifer. These facilities include infiltration basins, trenches, swales, vaults, and drywells. Infiltration cells include bioretention facilities and rain gardens. Other items include porous pavements, including Asphaltic Concrete, Portland Cement Concrete, PercoCrete, and Porous Pavers. The following page contains a sustainability matrix completed for the various categories of BMPs. 13 Clean Stream Plan Otak , 1 :� CM clean streams... clear choices 14 Clean ,Streams Plan Otak EN sassaulsng algeulelsns salowoJd ssoulsng algeulelsns 1palas of;ea ssauangpau3 jad lsoO aAgelaa - 4 �- I lso� angelaa ( - i - �- --------�---j — ( 6oualol{J31sOO ulelulCW lesodsmiasn pu3 • ¢ a ¢ • 'z � z z 'z z • zz zz z `z— �-z- -• (--z- l,sodslp alseM/elpayN • • • • • • • • _. alseM uollon4su03 azlwlulW • ♦ • • • • 4 ♦ • • • . • alseM oonpaa lual3l143 66Jau3 � ,_ i • , aualuley� pue uogonpo'd Jo} 06esA �(6Jau3 azlwlulyy ( v a u ( �• I o I h ( o• pue obese;uawdmb3 azlwlulW ' ♦ • i ^• . • i • ( • I a a l 06easn ABJau3 azlwlulW lueialol-796nojp 10 angeN ¢ , • ♦ Q i Q j • Q _Q I • Q z •• • • • z I z • z Z(♦ z algepojbapolg ¢._ Q z z z z z spunodwo3 r • • • • • �'- • • • lue;slsjad pue plxol Jo asn azlwlulW ♦ • • • ♦ h • • • h h - slel�aleyy ♦ • • • • • _.. • ♦ • ♦ i i 0904WAS pue slap j pssoj to ash ozlwlu!w • • • • • • • • • — (Pa!J!>Jao io'lepo� Q Q �,,, a 'algemauaa'palp.(paa) slepa;eW algewelsns ! z I z� Z Z z z Z h - 1 ''.��'''" ^z - slelaaleyy ?lxoluoN 'lraul 'al9eulelsns as[] uleluleW o; sle3lwaq0 JoJ pa3N aoueua;uleyy to Aouanbaij I • . • • + T-- aoueualulew to ase3• Ajanll3aM3 sdWS uleluleyy .., ._._,_.._ iiiern .._1.1.9 0 �,�..47-.:♦ ,:,::_...__ _.♦ -: .....:.._ .... _r.;:i..:..:.:�..-: W., ♦ • _ ' .. iii eia • . . � � • Alllenf9 dWg amsu3 aoueglnls!a walsAso33 6ullslx3 T I aouEcpnls!Q apueualuleW ainlnj J .0♦ .0• • ♦ • ♦' i i i I � i i � •� i � - aouegjnlsla uollpnilsuoo wnwlu!W -� • ♦ • • I - s;oedwl walsAsoo3 azlwlulW sluelnliod palsll laWlJo uollonpaa ♦ • : ♦ �._`' _ . uollonpaa eajy snolnjadwl anl130113 10Jlu03 pool] ♦ I • I • J • • • ssauango8JJ3 luawleail A1!lenp jaleM : , : + . . _ . :.- ♦ : l -0 ♦ • ( • t sleoE)veld JalemwJo;g O h 'S h III V r C (a3 m m 3 l m O' coI' y �l f�� tlJ d h cOi coe Z OCO , co';. Cc,o CI O h C --D 3 o m wCIO d m i Q) S .0 '3 Q7 U O • CC) � � m � D a O N 1 L C (� E O h 'S h a Q° V r C (a3 m m 3 l m O' coI' y NI O Co c � UI lL cn z d h cOi coe Z OCO , co';. Cc,o CI O h C --D 3 o m wCIO Q) 0 A p p e n d i x H— Clean Streams Plan Financial Planning Scenarios `J clean streams... cle�s choices • RELY CONSULTING MEMORANDUM A DIVISION OF MALCOLM FlAkIC To: Tim Kraft From: Joe Healy CC: Paul Matthews Date: October 3, 2008 Re: Appendix F: Clean Streams Financial Planning Scenarios Introduction This appendix to the City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan presents evaluations of alternative financial planning scenarios for the Clean Streams Program. Because government-owned utilities like the City's are required to maintain a municipal -like budget, revenues and expenses must balance within any given year. Therefore, the total revenues collected from all customers must equal budgeted revenues. The costs for the surface water utility consist of the following three cost components: • Capital Improvements • Debt Service Costs • O&M Costs An overview of each of these costs is described below. Following the overview of costs are more detailed results for each of the scenarios analyzed. Red Oak Consulting, a division of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (Red Oak) developed an electronic spreadsheet model to analyze and develop the alternative financial planning scenarios. Each scenario is documented in a series of tables which are provided in attachments to this memorandum. The discussion within this memorandum refers to the tables in the attachments. Overview of Cost Components Capital Improvements -- Capital improvements consist of those large and costly additions to utility facilities that occur infrequently and at irregular intervals. Capital improvement projects are designed to fulfill a range of needs including: • Compliance with new state and federal regulations; • Enhancement of the level and reliability of the service provided; • Meet ongoing demands of system growth and economic development. • 12670 NW Barnes Road • Suite 104 • Portland, OR 97229 • T 503-352-0900 • F 503-644-2414 • www.redoakconsuItinq.com Page 2 The specific costs used in each scenario are identified in greater detail below. Debt Service Costs Utilities frequently finance major capital improvements by issuing debt for two reasons. First, the resources required for these types of projects typically exceed the utility's available resources from the normal operation of its system. Second, spreading the costs of the project over the repayment period of the debt issue effectively spreads the financial burden of making large improvements to the system over existing and future users of the system. Operation and Maintenance Costs O&M costs account for most of the day-to-day expenditures for operating a surface water utility, including, for example, salaries, insurance, and utilities. The projected annual O&M expenditures for FY2009 are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: FY2009 Budget O&M Costs Description- I FY2009 Costs Personal Services$261,000 Materials & Services 358,000 Transfers to other funds 522,000 Capital Outlay - general 75,000 Total O&M Costs $1,216,000 The O&M expenditures for FY2009 were based on the City's budget projections. Included in the projections are general capital outlays from the operating fund. These are recurring capital expenditures that are part of general utility operations. All costs listed above were escalated at 4.0% per year for future year projections. Consistent with industry standards, these expenditures exclude depreciation expenses. Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario I Capital Improvements Proposed Projects The uninflated costs (i.e., real costs which exclude the impacts of inflation) of capital improvements through FY2018 are summarized in Table A-1.1 The inflation-adjusted costs (i.e., nominal costs including the impacts of inflation) are summarized in Table A-2. Under this scenario, Red Oak lists only one line -item capital expenditure. The City's existing capital program includes average annual expenditures of $500,000, with an increase to $833,333 in years FY2010-15. Under its existing program, the City projects 1 The financial plan tables for Scenario 1 are included in Attachment A to this memorandum. Page 3 $7 million in capital improvements through FY2018. This figure grows to $8.6 million after projected inflation. Also included in these projections is an adjustment in FY2009 for unfunded CIP. This figure represents the amount of CIP costs that the City will be unable to fund under this scenario with the projected rate revenues for FY2009. In Scenario 1, this figure is only $36,022 for FY2009. After a projected rate adjustment and bond issue in FY2010, the City is projected to have adequate funding for all projected capital in this scenario. Funding Sources The City anticipates financing these improvements by issuing $5 million of additional revenue bonds through FY2013. The assumed size and timing of the projected bond issues is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Scenario 1 New Bond Proceeds (millions) Year FY2010 FY2013 Total Project Bond Issue (millions) $2.5 $2.5 $5.0 Debt Service Requirement Previous Revenue Bond Issues - As indicated, it is common utility practice to finance a portion of the costs of major capital improvements through the sale of revenue bonds. The City currently has Series 2005 Surface Water Revenue Bonds debt on the books. Annual debt service on this debt -- is between $230-235 thousand through FY2024. Proposed Issues - As mentioned in Funding Sources above, the City anticipates issuing debt to fund its capital program. Debt service on proposed bonds was estimated assuming a 20 -year term at 5.5 percent interest. The projected debt service on the surface water utility's existing and proposed debt issues is shown in Table A-6. Operation and Maintenance Costs The O&M costs used in Scenario 1 are described in Overview of Cost Components above. Table 1 provides the City's FY2009 O&M budget projections. Summary of Revenues and Revenue Requirements Projected Revenue Requirements Annual revenue requirements equal the sum of the utility's expenditures for each year. These are summarized in Table A-26. Adjusting the revenue requirements by non -rate revenues yields the utility's revenue requirements from rates which are shown at the bottom of Table A-26. Page 4 In Scenario 1, the majority of the City's surface water revenue requirement is related to O&M. The projected annual debt service associated with the proposed bonds present an increasing percentage of the revenue requirements. The debt service is shown in Table A-26 as a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Bond Reserve Account. Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates Table A-16 presents the projected surface water revenues in FY2009 under the existing rates. Proposed Increase in Rate Revenues The first proposed annual rate increase of 5.08% is expected to be effective July of 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.41 per month in FY2010. Red Oak projects the annual rate adjustments to occur at the same time in each of the projected years. Impact on Fund Balances Typical financial management strategies include the maintenance of a minimum cash balance in the operating fund large enough to provide adequate working capital and meet future contingencies. The projections in all five scenarios maintain a minimum of 90 days of O&M in the operating fund balance. By incorporating this fund balance requirement into the financial plan, the impacts of inflation are mitigated. A summary of the City's surface water operating funds is shown in Table A-17. The surface water utility's fund balance requirements should be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 2 Capital Improvements Proposed Projects The uninflated costs of capital improvements through FY2018 are summarized in Table B-1.2 The inflation-adjusted costs are summarized in Table B-2. Under this scenario, the City's existing capital program is the basis for the proposed capital improvements. As in Scenario 1, the existing capital program includes average annual expenditures of $500,000, with an increase to $833,333 in years FY2010-15. In addition to the existing capital program, Red Oak used additional program costs identified by OTAK and the City in its projections for this scenario. Costs related to underground injection control (UIC) and water quality (WQ) retrofits were included as capital improvements in this scenario. Total capital improvement costs for Scenario 2 are projected to be $9.25 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $11.42 million after projected inflation. 2 The financial plan tables for Scenario 2 are included in Attachment B to this memorandum. Page 5 Also included in these projections is an adjustment in FY2009 for unfunded CIP. This figure represents the amount of CIP costs that the City will not have funding for under this scenario with the projected rate revenues for FY2009. In Scenario 2, this figure is approximately $246 thousand for FY2009. After a projected rate adjustment and bond issue in FY2010, the City is estimated to have adequate funding for all projected capital in this scenario. Funding Sources As in Scenario 1, the City anticipates financing these improvements by issuing $5 million of additional bonds through FY2013. The size and timing of the projected bond issues is identical to that in Scenario 1, and is shown in Table 3 below. Table 3: Scenario 2 New Bond Proceeds (millions) Year FY2010 FY2013 Total Project Bond Issue (millions) $2.5 $2.5 $5.0 Debt Service Requirement Previous Bond Issues Previous bond issues were described in Previous Bond Issues for Scenario 1. The annual debt service on these previous bond issues is the same in each of the five scenarios. The annual debt service on the Series 2005 Surface Water Revenue Bonds is between $230- 235 thousand through FY2024. Proposed Issues As mentioned in Funding Sources above, the City anticipates issuing debt to fund its capital program. Debt service on proposed bonds was estimated assuming a 20 -year term at 5.5 percent interest. The projected debt service on the surface water utility's existing and proposed debt issues is shown in Table B-6. Operation and Maintenance Costs The O&M costs used in Scenario 2 are described in Overview of Cost Components above. -- Table 1 provides the City's FY2009 O&M budget projections. Summary of Revenues and Revenue Requirements Projected Revenue Requirements Annual revenue requirements equal the sum of the utility's expenditures for each year. These are summarized in Table B-26. Adjusting the revenue requirements by non -rate revenues yields the utility's revenue requirements from rates which are shown at the bottom of Table B-26. Page 6 In Scenario 2, the majority of the City's surface water revenue requirement is related to O&M. The projected annual debt service associated with the proposed bonds present an increasing percentage of the revenue requirements. The debt service is shown in Table B-26 as a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Bond Reserve Account. Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates Table B-16 presents the projected surface water revenues in FY2009 under the existing rates. Proposed Increase in Rate Revenues The first proposed annual rate increase of 5.94% is expected to be effective July of 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.48 per month in FY2010. Red Oak projects the annual rate adjustments to occur at the same time in each of the projected years. Impact on Fund Balances Typical financial management strategies include the maintenance of a minimum cash balance in the operating fund large enough to provide adequate working capital and meet future contingencies. The projections in all five scenarios maintain a minimum of 90 days of O&M in the operating fund balance. By incorporating this fund balance requirement into the financial plan, the impacts of inflation are mitigated. A summary of the City's surface water operating funds is shown in Table B-17. The surface water utility's fund balance requirements should be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 3 Capital Improvements Proposed Projects The uninflated costs of capital improvements through FY2018 are summarized in Table C-1.3 The inflation-adjusted costs are summarized in Table C-2. Under this scenario, the City's existing capital program would be replaced with the proposed capital improvements identified in Section 6 of this report. Total costs for Scenario 3 are projected to be approximately $7.35 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $9.32 million after projected inflation. A summary of the on-going program costs and individual CIP project costs by year is provided in Table 4 below. 3 The financial plan tables for Scenario 3 are included in Attachment C to this memorandum. Page 7 Funding Sources Under this scenario, Red Oak's analysis assumes that the City would finance these -- improvements by issuing $4.82 million of additional bonds through FY2016. The size and timing of the projected bond issues is shown in Table 5 below. Table 5: Scenario 3 New Bond Proceeds (millions) Year FY2010 FY2013 FY2016 Total Project Bond Issue (millions) $0.48 $2.48 $1.86 $4.82 Debt Service Requirement Previous Bond Issues Previous bond issues were described in Previous Bond Issues for Scenario 1. The annual debt service on these previous bond issues is the same in any scenario. The annual debt service on the Series 2005 Surface Water Revenue Bonds is between $230-235 thousand through FY2024. Proposed Issues As mentioned in Funding Sources above, the City anticipates issuing debt to fund its capital program. Debt service on proposed bonds was estimated assuming a 20 -year term at 5.5 percent interest. The projected debt service on the surface water utility's existing and proposed debt issues is shown in Table C-6. Table 4: Scenario 3 Annual CIP Summary On -Going Capital Year Programs Improvements Totals FY2009 $385,000 $0 $385,000 FY2010 385,000 187,500 572,500 FY2011 385,000 288,438 673,438 FY2012 385,000 225,938 610,938 FY2013 385,000 225,938 610,938 FY2014 385,000 369,938 754,938 FY2015 385,000 1,233,938 1,618,938 FY2016 385,000 513,938 898,938 FY2017 385,000 225,938 610,938 FY2018 385,000 225,938 610,938 Totals $3,850,000 $3,497,500 $7,347,500 Funding Sources Under this scenario, Red Oak's analysis assumes that the City would finance these -- improvements by issuing $4.82 million of additional bonds through FY2016. The size and timing of the projected bond issues is shown in Table 5 below. Table 5: Scenario 3 New Bond Proceeds (millions) Year FY2010 FY2013 FY2016 Total Project Bond Issue (millions) $0.48 $2.48 $1.86 $4.82 Debt Service Requirement Previous Bond Issues Previous bond issues were described in Previous Bond Issues for Scenario 1. The annual debt service on these previous bond issues is the same in any scenario. The annual debt service on the Series 2005 Surface Water Revenue Bonds is between $230-235 thousand through FY2024. Proposed Issues As mentioned in Funding Sources above, the City anticipates issuing debt to fund its capital program. Debt service on proposed bonds was estimated assuming a 20 -year term at 5.5 percent interest. The projected debt service on the surface water utility's existing and proposed debt issues is shown in Table C-6. Page 8 Operation and Maintenance Costs The O&M costs used in Scenario 3 are described in Overview of Cost Components above. Table 1 provides the City's FY2009 O&M budget projections. Summary of Revenues and Revenue Requirements Projected Revenue Requirements Annual revenue requirements equal the sum of the utility's expenditures for each year. These are summarized in Table C-26. Adjusting the revenue requirements by non -rate revenues yields the utility's revenue requirements from rates which are shown at the bottom of Table C-26. As in Scenarios 1 and 2, the majority of the City's surface water revenue requirement in Scenario 3 is related to O&M. However, rate revenues used for capital improvements and the projected annual debt service associated with the proposed bonds present an increasing percentage of the revenue requirements. The rate revenue used for capital is shown in Table C-26 and a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund. The debt service is shown in Table C-26 as a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Bond Reserve Account. Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates Table C-16 presents the projected surface water revenues in FY2009 under the existing rates. Proposed Increase in Rate Revenues The first proposed annual rate increase of 3.68% is expected to be effective July of 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.30 per month in FY2010. Red Oak projects the annual rate adjustments to occur at the same time in each of the projected years. Impact on Fund Balances Typical financial management strategies include the maintenance of a minimum cash balance in the operating fund large enough to provide adequate working capital and meet future contingencies. The projections in all five scenarios maintain a minimum of 90 days of O&M in the operating fund balance. By incorporating this fund balance requirement into the financial plan, the impacts of inflation are mitigated. A summary of the City's surface water operating funds is shown in Table C-17. The surface water utility's fund balance requirements should be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. Page 9 Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 4 Capital Improvements Proposed Projects The uninflated costs of capital improvements through FY2018 are summarized in Table D-1.4 The inflation-adjusted costs are summarized in Table D-2. The proposed projects in this scenario are identical to those in Scenario 3. Total costs are projected to be approximately $7.35 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $9.32 million after projected inflation. A summary of the on-going program costs and individual CIP project costs by year is provided in Table 4 under Proposed Projects for Scenario 3. Funding Sources Under this scenario, Red Oak's analysis assumed that the City would finance these improvements by issuing $5.39 million of additional bonds through FY2016. This figure is larger than the Scenario 3 projection due to the addition of two full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in FY2010. The new FTEs and their associated costs are described in Operation and Maintenance Costs below. The size and timing of the projected bond issues in Scenario 4 are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Scenario 4 New Bond Proceeds (millions) Year FY2010 FY2013 FY2016 Total Project Bond Issue (millions) $0.97 $2.72 $1.70 $5.39 Debt Service Requirement Previous Bond Issues The annual debt service on the City's previous bond issues was initially described in Previous Bond Issues for Scenario 1. The annual debt service on the Series 2005 Surface Water Revenue Bonds is between $230-235 thousand through FY2024. Proposed Issues As mentioned in Funding Sources above, the City anticipates issuing debt to fund its capital program. Debt service on proposed bonds was estimated assuming a 20 -year term at 5.5 percent interest. The projected debt service on the surface water utility's existing and proposed debt issues is shown in Table C-6. Operation and Maintenance Costs As mentioned above in Funding Sources, two new FTEs were added to Red Oak's - analysis for this scenario. The FTEs and their associated costs are projected to start in FY2010. One FTE would be for new programs described in Section 6 of this report. The 4 The financial plan tables for Scenario 4 are included in Attachment D to this memorandum Page 10 other FTE represents the addition of a full-time street sweeper to the City's surface water budget. The additional annual O&M costs beginning in FY2010 are summarized in Table 7 below. Table 7: Scenario 4 New FTE Costs Description FY2010 New Program FTE $106,000 Street Sweeper - 1 FTE 70,000 Additional O&M Costs $17 The new FTE costs for FY2010 are in addition to the O&M expenditures described in Overview of Cost Components. The costs listed in Table 7 were based on the City's estimates. New FTE costs were escalated at 6.0% per year for future year projections to reflect estimated cost increases in salaries and benefits. Summary of Revenues and Revenue Requirements Projected Revenue Requirements As in the other scenarios, the majority of the City's surface water revenue requirement in Scenario 4 is related to O&M. However, rate revenues used for capital improvements and the projected annual debt service associated with the proposed bonds present an increasing percentage of the revenue requirements. The rate revenue used for capital is shown in Table D-26 and a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund. The debt service is shown in Table D-26 as a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Bond Reserve Account. Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates Table D-16 presents the projected surface water revenues in FY2009 under the existing rates. Proposed Increase in Rate Revenues The first proposed annual rate increase of 5.30% is expected to be effective July of 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.43 per month in FY2010. Red Oak projects the annual rate adjustments to occur at the same time in each of the projected years. Impact on Fund Balances Typical financial management strategies include the maintenance of a minimum cash balance in the operating fund large enough to provide adequate working capital and meet future contingencies. The projections in all five scenarios maintain a minimum of 90 days of O&M in the operating fund balance. By incorporating this fund balance requirement into the financial plan, the impacts of inflation are mitigated. A summary of the City's surface water operating funds is shown in Table D-17. Page 11 The surface water utility's fund balance requirements should be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 5 Capital Improvements Proposed Projects The uninflated costs of capital improvements through FY2018 are summarized in Table E-1.5 The inflation-adjusted costs are summarized in Table E-2. The proposed projects in this scenario are similar to those in Scenarios 3 and 4, with the addition of two on- going public outreach programs. Total costs are projected to be approximately $7.85 million through FY2018. This figure grows to $9.95 million after projected inflation. A summary of the on-going program costs and individual CIP project costs by year is provided in Table 8 below. Funding Sources _ Under this scenario, Red Oak's analysis assumed that the City would finance these improvements by issuing $5.43 million of additional bonds through FY2016. The size and timing of the projected bond issues in Scenario 5 is shown in Table 9 below. 5 The financial plan tables for Scenario 5 are included in Attachment E to this memorandum. Table 8: Scenario 5 Annual CIP Summary On -Going Capital Year Programs Improvements Totals FY2009 $435,000 $0 $435,000 FY2010 435,000 187,500 622,500 FY2011 435,000 288,438 723,438 FY2012 435,000 225,938 660,938 FY2013 435,000 225,938 660,938 FY2014 435,000 369,938 804,938 FY2015 435,000 1,233,938 1,668,938 FY2016 435,000 513,938 948,938 FY2017 435,000 225,938 660,938 FY2018 435,000 225,938 660,938 Totals $4,350,000 $3,497,500 $7,847,500 Funding Sources _ Under this scenario, Red Oak's analysis assumed that the City would finance these improvements by issuing $5.43 million of additional bonds through FY2016. The size and timing of the projected bond issues in Scenario 5 is shown in Table 9 below. 5 The financial plan tables for Scenario 5 are included in Attachment E to this memorandum. Page 12 Table 9: Scenario 5 New Bond Proceeds (millions) Year FY2010 FY2013 FY2016 Total Project Bond Issue (millions) $1.43 $2.81 $1.19 $5.43 Debt Service Requirement Previous Bond Issues The annual debt service on the City's previous bond issues was initially described in Previous Bond Issues for Scenario 1. The annual debt service on the Series 2005 Surface Water Revenue Bonds is between $230-235 thousand through FY2024. Proposed Issues As mentioned in Funding Sources above, the City anticipates issuing debt to fund its capital program. Debt service on proposed bonds was estimated assuming a 20 -year term at 5.5 percent interest. The projected debt service on the surface water utility's existing and proposed debt issues is shown in Table E-6. Operation and Maintenance Costs In Scenario 5, one more FTE was added to the analysis. As with the two FTEs identified for Scenario 4, the FTEs and their associated costs are projected to start in FY2010. Under this scenario, one additional FTE for new programs would be added in FY2010. The additional annual FTE costs beginning in FY2010 are summarized in Table 10. Table 10: Scenario 5 New FTE Costs Description FY2010 New Program — 2 FTEs $212,000 Street Sweeper — 1 FTE 70,000 Additional O&M Costs $282,000 The new FTE costs for FY2010 are in addition to the O&M expenditures described in Overview of Cost Components. The costs listed in Table 10 were based on the City's estimates. New FTE costs were escalated at 6.0% per year for future year projections to reflect estimated cost increases in salaries and benefits. Summary of Revenues and Revenue Requirements Projected Revenue Requirements As in the other scenarios, the majority of the City's surface water revenue requirement in Scenario 5 is related to O&M. However, rate revenues used for capital improvements and the projected annual debt service associated with the proposed bonds present an increasing percentage of the revenue requirements. The rate revenue used for capital is Page 13 shown in Table E-26 and a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund. The debt service is shown in Table E-26 as a transfer from the Operating Fund to the Bond Reserve Account. Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates Table E-16 presents the projected surface water revenues in FY2009 under the existing rates. Proposed Increase in Rate Revenues The first proposed annual rate increase of 7.01 % is expected to be effective July of 2009 (FY2010). Based on this increase, the average residential customer's surface water bill will increase by $0.57 per month in FY2010. Red Oak projects the annual rate adjustments to occur at the same time in each of the projected years. Impact on Fund Balances Typical financial management strategies include the maintenance of a minimum cash -' balance in the operating fund large enough to provide adequate working capital and meet future contingencies. The projections in all five scenarios maintain a minimum of 90 days of O&M in the operating fund balance. By incorporating this fund balance requirement into the financial plan, the impacts of inflation are mitigated. A summary of the City's surface water operating funds is shown in Table E-17. The surface water utility's fund balance requirements should be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The City identified five financial planning scenarios as part of this analysis. These scenarios include alternative O&M and capital funding strategies. Table 11 summaries the findings. Page 14 Table 11: Cleans Streams Financing Summary of Findings Typical Total New Monthly Capital Annual Bill in Projects New Bond Proceeds (millions) I Rate FY20'18 (millions) Scenarios Description Adjustment rd r2lFY2010 FY2013 FY2016 Total Scenario 1 Existing Program, No additional FTEs [3] 5.08% $12.72 $6.96 $2.50 $2.50 $0.00 $5.00 Existing Program, plus Scenario 2 Annual UIC Programs and WQ Retrofits, No 5.94% $13.68 $9.00 $2.50 $2.50 $0.00 $5.00 additional FTEs [41 Clean Streams On - Scenario 3 Going Programs and CIP, No additional 3.68% $11.26 $7.35 $0.48 $2.48 $1.86 $4.82 FTEs Clean Streams On - Scenario 4 Going Programs and CIP, and 2 additional 5.30% $12.96 $7.35 $0.97 $2.72 $1.70 $5.39 FTEs Clean Streams On - Scenario 5 Going Programs and CIP, and 3 additional 7.01% $14.98 $7.85 $1.43 $2.81 $1.19 $5.43 FTEs [!I The current "lypical Monthly Bill is $8.14 [2] Total new capital project costs presented above are not inflated. Inflation is accounted for in the calculation of rate adjustments and new bond proceeds. [31 Existing Program unfunded by $36K in FY2009. [41 Existing Program, UIC Programs, and WQ Retrofits unfunded by $246K in FY2009. Recommendations The financial planning scenarios presented in this section are based on many assumptions that will inevitably vary over time. Red Oak recommends the City closely monitor its revenues and expenses and make necessary adjustments to its surface water rates in the future. City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan ATTACHMENT 0 Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 1 UBDAK • • • • CONSULTING • • A DIVISION OF MALCOLM PIRNIE 5941001 / POR Cn CD o' rM h � r 00 t� er N Vl U Q m H H H O O O e 0 m N G O 0 O 0 O m 4 a V r1i r m D o N - 0 0 0 o v r v VI V'1 H H m w T H r H pH U O O u•9 rc U 5 u U 'S a C— 1O 9 •K `2 E°- W F F F v� H vi H H m H H r H o o c C O C O ,d: n a %D CT v opo N y H H 6r9 6TA b�9 m H m H H vi w o ris esu n r'1 n n o �i d: N a N m T H w H H H r1 rt � N 1 `O CT a0 m m H vt O H w H H H T O M o O w1 r N C in n m �n m r m H m H H o v H a H v� m H m H H O C H CT H w T O T u N O T r T C H w w w w O N m e o o r a r 0 O`�'rcpt H H w H H 4 U a_ u U a � � U E m Ut 3 u•9 rc U 5 u U 'S a C— 1O 9 •K `2 E°- W F F F W � c0 C M C) N O 00 00 N � � 64 69 W n O a rn l— 10 10 N O fA 69 W V1 O v) O` 00 a r O N z al N 0 000 O1 Or 06 NO 10 r - w 1.4 65 0 o ON rn 0 o a" N O as k'�69 �iH DO O N O O n 00 } oq O O w � n O o n O M O M DO O� CD n 1- 69 69 w r o o n M O M a vl O O N vi n N 00 n h "s0 o e o O O o 69 0 o c9 N O cops m 00 n %D a N O vj Im rC W � 0 ,O O O c.9 N O 669 h p N O v N LL a 'r1 69 O O 69 O O bp9 p N O v� N w 0 V. 0 0 69 O O Go% C N O vi N w O o e O O o oo ID O bp9 b N O n %D O\ p V'1 n N >. vi w CN 0 ,O O O c.9 N O 669 h p N O v N LL a 'r1 69 O O 69 O O bp9 p N O v� N w 0 V. 0 0 69 O O Go% C N O vi N w O o e O O o oo ID O bp9 b N O n %D M O O p V'1 n N >. vi LT. CN O k1 C b N w6' H U 6N9 69 O o a CD O' oc s9 N p 609 o p N O U N vl 7 p N O kf) M N v3iV. N w O" 0 0 O O e 69 O O 69 N O bp9 b Na b M O O C N O V'1 M N >. N LT. CN O o a O O e O O CN Na b M O O C 7 � ; O N O yj M \O CN O k1 C b N H U 604� CD O' CD p s9 N p 69 o p N O U N vi N w O 'C N 0 O U C b H U l7 O' d o U c N U N Q' E °' A v3iV. m Y.� O" N d E o 0 U N "tv A o .� o v u in " u d i.. cn r O C V] b y y N F N 3 C O L Ua v 7 O y u cC „Ea'S HU A yw A NN N M M M N G9 K 69 V V: _N W) V1 Vn O N N N N I 64 G9 G9 O O O n n N N N NN N N IQ% 6% 49 O O O �4 C14 00 00 ONO N N N N 69 G9 G9 N N N � � n M M M O 6N9 (.4 604 O N N N M Vj Vj Vj N N N N 69 69O 6O9 IN N N N N G9 G9 01 01 m 00 00 00 l/} V1 V1 O 00 00 00 N 6s 6N4 E14 O O O 7 'T R O n N N O M M N GN9 Go9 GN9 vi O O C h b0 7 D\ T M N M M N ON 0" rn c� ON 0" aM, w664 669 Goq o o m p N N O N N rn N 7 64 64 60) O O V V1 CN h 01: r-4 n M M N w664 664 6r�9 fA O O w cq C14 M 7 V N vi Ul O v N M M N Vl LLL 664 669 6m4 6�9 000 000 � N_ Wn In 'ct O k tf m N M rq r4 w 64 69 614 O O 00 m N N 7 b C N M Vl M rn 00 CL 664 66H 664 6f9 'O O rq "t O OC4 n N C 7 N M C M D O 7 664 664 64 6m9 Cl 01 O Q h O 00 00 00 c+s I 00 C14O M fA m rq m N 69 L4 7 VJ y _ O O Q O C caCIO C U C M Z v o a d � •V y CZ, y � w 7 � 4 U •� O y f/7 y ) O N O cC7 ❑C V d •N A O F U U Q V] q U q CnM O c 0o C, v v O M N � N K 10 6N9 Goq 6�5 kn te) O O r` R en en R v �O N N N N rf �O �O w 69 69 69 O v) �n v) N M Vn kn �D t` ~O N O a Nen 6N9 66% 609 4A W O en Wn �n v ool rn n n c r; �D 0 0 N NIT � .7" 69 64 69 69 w O vi 'n Wn a N rn tf) O M N N w EA Iq GA 6Gv N O N N rn It N �O �O � vi O vi v1 N M N Wn Wn w � � 6&s � 0 0 N_ I V1 O V M C 7 N •� 66s G cis fin N 00 00 00 �O 00 00 N lq Ic 14! Vn y 00 00 N to ro rt O O rq O_ � N N O M O V V N rn 4N 9 � 4 69 114 6 w rn o a+ rn 00 fin 00 00 O 00 00 00 O M M M N 69 69 6'1 N 0D v O U N o0 ro r u o CC n U o C 7 rn � y > y O U cn u 7 v $ 0 O U N X v U _ u -IOU O W fA J5 vz O � E' :: U y •O 7 u0 ar. E=UU W A °veva 0 0 0 0 0 00000 o v o n o �.v cs 00 O O !M�• r Q N 69 Ni h iH G b- O O m V) W C, 10 — � V r 000 a O o0 R �O iri 69 7 r C, O O lo 0n 00 . m Cl h � C Ch�D 69 69 'tea' O O O n v O N 7 N M R b ° r T � 7 V3 6r4 I O b n 0 0 I V n M a0 \O r Yl r v o0 O r N Oro (A ? K 69 rn O n �O O a o ao 00 U9 M 69 N N y�j s:! O O N N N 000 aro 1 N69 M V7 t+� fy9 4A 00 N 000 O O O O 00 R M a0O G rtqvara O 69 Vi 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p pO C O O O O C 0 0 0 0 O O O o0 N h b w1 ° v N r r et 60 M v N 69 69 69 o e e e a o 0 0 0 0 0 C R 7 7 C 10 00 n b O O O W c p N k. O O C OO. Y O N � O L' O O O W O O C OO. � y N V tccV � y a w m m U a �"' r- W. O U til Cl cyQ1 j C O y; O v V O C v niC) �y C 'F N N „ vOGi aLO.. 3 F-UU w UZvn O COD � U 0 U — 0 kr) N 00 0 N 00 y N U y 0 03 �3 w o acd a N cn EnE-+UUz Q F 2 O cd N U Q CC a O U 3 � a �w O w w -- cC U C N F+UU Wd M cn cl U a� 0 cn O U b c� U _N C/] U On W 4-i O N rl O H FSI O C 00 00 00 00 Obi 0 o O 0 CD O 00 O O Q n Wi OO� O O C G. eRi R ¢ I W M M h a 0 o � C, a1 � ON T O O O� C� .rR+ 3 n h O 00 00 M: O O rq '. IW C7, D, D\ m O O �O DO m of h v1 C DD 00 O O N w V1 In 7 0 0 O O CN m O O Vl 00 00 V'l n G o0 00 O O N " w o. rn o 0 � o0 0o O O N 'r w 00 00 M M o e cr, C, O O M G ~O 00 00 O O N LT.. W kn Vl M 'n 0 0 N N(21, Ch O O N V'^ W V1 V1 C 00 m O O w M M N eqe M1 M C, C, O O llzt V h n o0 0o O O W N N N N o e � o0 0o O O N W O O o T vi n O O O m 00 O O N '^ W O C R oU Q eCc w G. eRi R ¢ I to � C7 H " .rR+ 3 0 E-UUw M: O o N O o ,^ Goq N U w e o o In ``' CD N M t*1 64 69 N y W d 0 0 D O O 69 O M en C N w 00 O n o o O rri rn 609 N w 0 0 c r•i 60c) N w O O tN O _ O O Goq O N W 0 0 00 69 O M M 69 N w v o � N 69 O Q Q 69 z w 0 0 o ,^ Goq N U W a O O V1 O _N O M M 69 N y d w O O tN O _ O O Goq O N W 0 0 00 69 O M M 69 N w v o � N 69 O Q Q 69 z w 0 L U C y d � is C C � y O E cn x F-UU O rn rn 0 0 M D\ N v1 Q� N m ff3 o us � O Qq N 69 69 69 4) 6A 69 w w C U > C N �- fA 69 �.n 69 6A 6R w N FA 4A 6A 0 0 ti c cs� vi o r -I - CN sv K sv O v1 Qwv� y 5 cd w 69 O O C rn rn 0 0 M D\ N v1 Q� N m ff3 69 N Ow O ss 60% N ff3 4) 6A 69 w w C U > C fA 69 N FA 4A 6A 69 69 ti c 69 w - w Vl K O O v1 rn rn � 0 M D\ D\ s9 � o 65 N_ U ss 60% N f/9 6A 69 w O V1 0 0 Ln N U1 An Vl s9 69 V'1 W) O 65 N_ U N f/9 6A 69 w O V1 V1 O O un _ N N SA 65 N_ U N f/9 6A 69 C4 � w C U > C fA 69 N FA 4A 6A V ti c w Vl K O O v1 Qwv� y 5 cd fA 69 O O C p O N 64 69 69 w O C N U C C4 � C U > C 3 w U V ti c Qwv� y 5 cd 7 F U O C o C p O O c U O N O ; CG L00y d r �i y y L Of y ° S O W C O S ai SOY > oobC7 `m '5 3 d W e e 0. u y 6' � � hU W O¢LG�wcn cl�� O � O O O O M t1 of O O O O h N C O O N N m e Cc n O LL 604 66A o h o e 00 O h N � O O O vpi a00 M � r m N W 600 Gn 69 h 00 0 0 W r � N N Vl = v o c a s h h vn O O M N 10 1p 6q h N 600660 604 e h e e M N h �p h O O O y4 N ^ ul C O N ri ri pj eq h GA VMi LL, 69 604 y6g o h e e O O h O O 00 h OMO n � ol0 M h O O b h N b � T p N O h N — O\ M 609 O M wN601 6604 o h e o N O O O^ b b NO h O ^ N (H N i N N N" S. V) CA E01) o h e e W O O O� �O N 1O t/� Ol �p �p y'Oj O c `0 D V o Q v 6\9 vi > N N ry L 604 69 604 — M h O O M 00 — O M CT ? M O 6g M O rv. Z 6604 Gn O h 0 0 p 0 C O O n O O h V �f ao 00 N O pp 0 N N j 4 0 ? O 6�A N T 604 fA 6q O N O ; CG L00y d r �i y y L Of y ° S O W C O S ai SOY > oobC7 `m '5 3 d W e e 0. u y 6' � � hU W O¢LG�wcn cl�� O o �- C W bL o 0 M O M m cl r: r a m14 m z Z � Cfie L — L N. tCd OO U N10 C .�. V] A �. C m o is v W w a p Uma c o M10 O U O h M O O O N 0=0 O I� O r1 rN [Y b m w �•+ N CD m r h 0 \o N F M D\ N u o FUUrn M u•t 10 b z 6 y Z 0 O 669 fA a m N O rmi r N N 01 00 r V7 00 O O\ a U O N D U c m 10 m N bH 69 6 a b M O N a D\ O V"i O m r M C C 6 O O v b b n N } M b N O m — V' 10 M C y 69 A b O O b h h r V'1 r b O N N V r U5 01 C r b r V N O In O N } M VN1 N 0q, - c W fA Vi 6 e R IO O O O, O N O h O O rIm N V7 m m N r O m M m h m N c r b r C IJD r M1 Vl O M CK M M m O N } m M N r N <C V7 M C (,L W49 69 V O b O O O M l 1% N V r.- V M N O N C N N <r Irl %Crli ri Q N a r K O N N m O S N m 6q e6+t W c9 69 b o D\ u1 O— O O m O N U• O m M M O N r N O m V N } M K N N N ^ M tN�1 d r W 69 69 N v O O M r OO N ^ N N v O lO O T b N (` tt N W [� O N 17,R O T M Ar't W h N N } N O N _. W 6N9 69 v e O O O 'D'D O O O O CI h 0 — V m m M O O 0 C �n 00 M Or O, Vl m N C N N W 69 69 V C W bL O CL U O C •fib W C U Q C z Z � L — L N. tCd OO U 'C C C .�. V] A �. C m o is v W w a p Uma c 0 0 0 c N 0=0 ai c. y u to94 0 a F O. d d •C p F 0 0 0 W F u o FUUrn u= QS o m O Z F 5 rn y Z 0 O 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 va � v v N b 6009 b b f9 Vf , C. 0 0 O O O CD c I N N N N O b �D ry 6b9 69 Go) 0 O 69 vh' O I vii v'�i 0 b b b 01 T D\ b b � 6A 69 fA O 609 vv'i 0 0 y h O Jh N O O O ry b b b Y 61� O CO)0- O O Vel a' O b b b N O 1O b O 1O b b10 } L9 60q O 69 N 0 0 N ry O N h h h N G } W C C) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O N U O,14 O O Y O 69 w O O W W O b N 00 00 W N 600 O 609 b co I `OD SOD O �(o O O N N N ry !V 69 fA 6�9 (cn. O 00 w O\ O O I O O� O 69 v1 V•1 V�1 oc 0000 N N M h 69 y O w C U 7 euO� O C U C U •� �] � V � c�Ctl aci Q O 7 � a d m � ey�i y O C U y0i O Q b m O v y of L O O U O N ci C 7 N U O �' b C ai O 7 6: u•' W COOj � .Q O U h L4 H W O O C O 0 O W y Uj 00 c� �.�t� h aoi Cq a Qw� m cT. FUUco q5 W O w C U e N — 7 'O w � O � y N O � oo � V^ oo .•• �D 00 7 .�. e+�'i OHO VO• � 0�0 N 601) 0 r U U c� o N O O O o0 00 �O N o0 0 _r oMo U U w O C u¢ H m w c O b r E> o ri UO 5� o •E � o E m cc E U ❑ Q, O c 0z� y b `9 w 0 p E u E U C7 cn� u o F,,, 69 5 y 69 5 fH 7 69 e h 0 0 -+ ? b vl N b O b W <{ O N ooc O N O O M O ado O N oo vi 10 69 h eq 69 0 0 0 0— N 'T O_ C• O h ar ol :2 00 �O o0 O N n at ... 000 O m m N N w fA 69 LR GH e r O O ol O O C, r N O N DD T h V1 M M R V] O a0 M M tY �y 6N9 W4 h N 6M9 e h �oO O N O� v1 r h v1 O m O P n OCi oro O chi e�1 N p V M O N O O O v'i O O O T O O �+ Vi N N Rri1 w 6GA � e N 0 O .... N [' r � oo0 � N N to Nws o O+ O O O V1 v1 O� r N m O M oo V1 M V1 ,�, N O Yl N V1 N1 r b KI Nr4 �•— O M ? Q\ 669 bN9 T O O -^ N C3, N O 60A O r rMi � M r N o -'r" a rn o a N } Qom N N f9 N N LL N� bs O O I00 O � N w w L 00 O e Ol mo b C 7 'O w � �•o ow � V O C m 0 r U U c� ami m m O CC43 W M U w O C u¢ H m w c N O C E 7 c 9 u E> o ri UO 5� o •E � o E m cc E U ❑ Vo. u Z 5 c 0z� y b `9 w 0 p E u E U C7 cn� u o F,,, o c o c. F 5 °'UFw 5 w 7 O e Ol mo � o o r b loo o o Ic 6 O O O O I O O O 1 O U9 'A I N 69 O O I C)O O I O 91 C60A O O 609 O O v � O N O y U o N } LL � m � m w O Z7 �_ O O fV N } w � a o COHi O O � O O O u ' W iYi O N cUcn O O O O I O O O 1 O U9 'A I N 69 O O I C)O O I O 91 c U C C U w tcu �U O y U o � m � m w O Z7 m � a o E C 9 Q y C y u ' W iYi O cUcn mOW F 5 � j c U e O !2 O = O n O O 69 — GA O r` r` [� C O_ O — 69 b N r w e w1 w1 0 - o O vi oo b9 m a 69 b9 b w o O N O N O N O c Q\ � N V7 69 V7 V1 to fJ Vl V }NN t+f O N — in O 69 .•. �••+ r V9 N V w a 7 N O m O b9 O ~ 6 O r d' N t+i w ri v1 O r"i N e O !2 O = O n O O 69 — GA O r` r` [� C O_ O — 69 b N r w e w1 w1 0 - o O vi oo b9 m a 69 b9 b w - O Q\ O V'1 a 69 V7 O� C to fJ :2 N t+f O N — e O !2 O = O n O O 69 — GA O r` r` [� C O_ O — 69 b N r w e w1 w1 0 - o O vi oo b9 m a 69 b9 b w - O Q\ O V'1 a 69 V7 O� C to fJ :2 M t+f O N — in b U r w w o O m O O\ O m O O O d' N t+i O O v1 ri v1 O r"i N w o r N N N N f w N — e O N O N O N O r O O , O F' T O N N N N C FUUcn D5 C12 j e O !2 O = O n O O 69 — GA O r` r` [� C O_ O — 69 b N r w e w1 w1 0 - o O vi oo b9 m a 69 b9 b w - _G O V'1 v U 69 V7 v1 V V, V C N G O U U r m w m O a � O O v1 _ O v1 O v1 O V o'goa w o N N N N f N — y W ° a O 'c >- m w w CO w , 1.0 M. u F' 5 m !! En c F e O !2 O = O n O O 69 — GA O r` r` [� C O_ O — 69 b N r w e w1 w1 0 - o O vi oo b9 m a 69 b9 b w O C v U w C G O U u o'goa w o � O y W ° a O 'c >- m w w CO 1.0 M. u F' 5 m !! En c F v o u?: oC�.�FS 61UF W FUUcn D5 C12 j o w C C C •� on Ra U W u � ' N 0 O N N Q 4 m N F U U y c o6n o 0 0 f9 � fV O y O N 55 _N N � U W a 609 O O O y O n N V C O 0 O N 0 c k' C •� 6" N N W O N e O O V3 O O O 604 N v e a W O N omF=05 F- e w O O O O O O I C vi ss cc f9 O O O IO O O Iff 69 FY 6R e O 0 0 O O y 55 _N N � U O a W N yN V C O 0 0 0 0 c k' C •� 6" N N w •C C O N v e a W o e m omF=05 F- e O O O O O y 6A O_ fY O N w c on o o o I s5 .0 O FH f9 w� IV) O O fA owa o c � U a W N yN V C O 'O � S k' C •� •p " N N w •C C y v e a o o e m omF=05 F- vHaW 5 y ] � O C o C4 0 aa m 0 0 0 0 0\ O O O I f� O 'O n o r r � afi O C cCJ j C 0 y Lt w¢ °' V. E N' m O u g m p v' Q v° c ry 69 E w w caE oS o v u a� v o y .o c eoa vi oo n n r u'a D UU u y 0 o z v'ae c cUU a h o -❑ - a m o p p m m ,CO,OUmmUfnmc6 c a ,e °° o O p A rOUmmUmfnG ° N n t v m F p v o ' (y Ery E 00 0 0 0 R O 0 0 N_ n 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 W N v n �D O b O vl W GM — f w 69 6 g000—000 al �O r Vl f0000coo0 f 00 N rV1 V1 V O n V n v7 C fT C b oD r O C N n n �. 69 N r N n of 60� -- f h O O O r f0 O O N "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C r O oo r u1 f � O N n 5. � N n G03 N f U- f9 6 a000r000 v,000r000 c N oo �- r o 0 r a o d c O N } Eri• K N [L 69 6 NO O O O N 000 O O O O O O N n — C G O N m r- 10 n r N � � O N O O C 0 0 0 NO 0 0 0 0 0 CD n N 0 n — _ ON O n n } V! N N 6s — (y bs u n n N r C d7 d] DD n C N N Ic N EA b9 n O A N V 0 0 0 0 0 0 u1 O w1 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r fO n N a] CD h = O N FR EN9 fA Lx. O .0 O C N U V3 'O 'C C C w C b O E? h cCJ j C 0 y Lt w¢ °' ai C C v �' w ebo n m 3 m O u g m p v' Q v° c w O 7 ci a, u Z o a o u a m w d v c> N v o w w caE oS o v u a� v o y .o c eoa u'a D UU u y 0 o z v'ae c cUU a h -❑ - a m o p p m m ,CO,OUmmUfnmc6 c a ,e °° o O p A rOUmmUmfnG ° FUUri v m F p W F O O c U V1 II'� O M V1 O V1 N 00 00, OO, Ch Cai " M 000 69 N O M 00 ^ b M M C 4 N N - •-• - a0i cq b I",N b w O � >, 413 c9 c9 69 69 69 �rno�o — O O, �_ h 64 N 0 ,D 00 a [� r N N .--� .-. c w ay O� � ayiaCi h b w 6109- 69 6r9 6.9 K 6R W' 0 yA b o C�4 CD O O rto aJ O C 7 •C V y E� C .� d .0„ N V N ttl v N O z 0 ,p .... !h .4 �„� N V •-+ Ea O n 69 N czd ren FUUU� L] WOza' N - O rq U O ol O O 00 00 T m Cz. N N •--� •-• - 69 i.9 6A 69 69 69 ,D Ofld v1 7 a 0100 O O' n N 00l� Ot ^ �N. .M. b b 'V 7 N N ,D w 6109 69 U9 69 69 103 - ' 7 n M O r-4 O rq h h r- n 609 N Cb n 00 00 D\ r.4 .M. IT 00 00 h h b >N. M w N N Go9 69 K 69 69 69 M 1!1 00 Cl, M 7 O OO 00 ,D N ,D N N - •-• - yN , In In r- w � 6109 69 69 69 69 C `D O O O O 7 0 M v1 O v1 N vl C C N n 69 N N N 00 00 00 >. N N O O 7 109 109 6 6 c9 6A 69 69 Off, �D 0 10 0 O n n O 0o O 000 n 609 N ... - b [�1 N M N N O\ N 00 0, w N N - 69 69 69 69 69 69 M N O O N N O M 'n O N- r l vl n 69 N R N N ry C o00 W ,ND ,ND d' �. 00 00 M wcq _ — 6 9 c9 696109 9 69 69 0 0 0 Ln 0 v1 O O V1 W) Q\ h Vl O V1 C a0 Ii O O VNl h M 69 N M Cr — C vi > 10 0, ^ .�.. -- a N N • , 69 69 O c U N 00 000 iy •� d �' o a0i •� O � >, YO O o c w ay � ayiaCi d ° yU4't >In y c v �° W' 0 yA b o r rto aJ O C 7 •C V y E� C .� d .0„ N V N ttl v N O z 7 N y V .4 �„� N V •-+ Ea az czd ren FUUU� L] WOza' O U W H di O c U •-� O e N� M CT C, h Vl O M O O h N c N O �oo bNN�N �V F O �y b N E b V V n b o U 6R 69 69 69 69 fiA a, O r- lo n r- M M O O 'n t� 'r R M M O O M h FH N O 00 M � B E U a, b d O rrn a0i m> C O O O C Gz. y v, C r- -Nd -Nd m c ,'o a C7 2 t2 E d W w a N O O N 00 00 ,1. h M O O Vn >� u> m cC b U mW) O h 69 N O 00 00 CT N v m a� x -azcC E c.z c Ln oz Q F U U U o w V O O z U �' F 69 6s 65 64CN fA 69 W) �v 0 m o on oO �N C o0 r- D\ M M lC l0 O .�'�' N N IC lc t C-�c WN N -- -+ 69 fA fif 69 69 69 N %O O al I �O V) V t�+1 N ON 00 00 C 0 N N V' 00 00 �c .�. L . N N .•-. 64 69 69 69 6A Vi IO O O N OI Cn M O O N 'Ir O O Vn M Vl 00 C7� V 000 O00 LD � O\ y G9 N N �c N N e} I�t n h N M M O h C' cMn O N N 69 64 64 H) 6A 69 l� O M OO O M O O h N VO•f �O VI1 b g r -d• V O - O O N N In r 69 N O vi iD y 7 r+ -i In - D\ N b 00 00 00 O O C• N N N N O O cs cN5 6Ns 69 fA vi l0 ,D v1 try 00 n O O h Cn a, N4 _ �O 00 O O_ t� n oo O v1 69 N C W- �c C'4 M V' C, O, 00 N 'V' 2 N N T ON, N N 69 604 GA 6A In y Cl m N O O N N O M O O fn b � V N V1 N v1 - fR N O COn � W N _ � CN M O M� 00 Ltn N N 69 69 6,q 69 0 0 0 W) km O O to fn C, to O O ff1 Cl O R DD M VNl O O r.4 h- e+l M .n -i fA N _ a 00 T �' 69 69 69 69 O N c 00 �V F O �y E N o U cn C C •- v u ` oo °: 0 0 C14w B E U d O a0i m> C O O O C Gz. y v, C r- -Nd -Nd m c ,'o a C7 2 t2 E d W w a O c0 a>1 >� u> m cC b U o Z E �° v m a� x -azcC E c.z c m oz Q F U U U o w V O O z U w F O 0 0 — •-, `� t� M DD n rn M O 00 M H C' oo C, n oro_v O m O ll�b O n b e b 64 rq 601) O O N M O ^"D h w W m N Fn � C' K — n rz 10 0) N r M O O O M M n YMf^ b W V� r N N O y+ 00 •� U. 00 � p � h 7 FA M N u � � E E b b Di "cc ,uF° N FL >1 u fi O.0 O oo— N 6� r rn v h _r oc 00 O N O D� vOi h N C D. v m�E-C) U W y9 C Y E2 U U U N f9 C, T O VY O N h YI N l� O\ 00 M Y C\ a r Yt O T O C b cy, w es K (T — Y1 O — n N N n lcp O (T M M b h W 14 69 n O O oho N T � N M 00 O h •-+ � w NGA O vl S O O N M N r [f O M O Yt n N O T N — O W W n 7 .N. CA 10 O O w O M �O O V: h _ O "Zr r R N r6 N 07 M R V1 w 61) O O D O O M O, O C �D O O C, b C1 sF N a w M o m oo a n N _ O r w � w O O 'C aT O 'D O O O v 00 b 00 w 00 N r M N = C4 i _• 0 0 — •-, `� t� M DD n rn M O 00 M H C' p (T ri fs O O CT 7 0 O m O r W � sRl n O O n O O O N r OO e b 64 N 601) O O N M co R 7 DO � V 6A � M b W m N Fn � C' n" — n rz 10 0) N 9 'b ao 00 b 00 00 10 Eoi o p � N D\ M 10 00 D rq rx a) Q •-• e b 64 oO h b N co — Y M b W m t+t � fA � C' 6A _ FA rp N M 0 O cc O N O y+ 00 •� U. 00 � p � 7 FA M N 9 'b a) Q •-• C y p rWNy °� Z •N W m ba C7 '� y fy. O •SC❑y bra as •� U. O a6„ 00 m❑ o aFi �' 0 o e U b b v u c •E oti ° � E E a � a ww W "cc ,uF° N FL >1 u fi O.0 O N 6� 'C O� � L'�/• u y� LY. � y �. N� F 6 O. 6. � °� F N $ v C D. v m�E-C) U z C Y E2 U U U Q W F a U DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT JSQ O j j 0 N O O olnolno�,ov,o -0 O O o N C> O 9 i N � � O � � �o O � O O N O N M h O C] � N O O 4 O raw 2 'p y� N O O ^I N I O N N N N O N WD � U G A Ni ifj Ji SA 69 69 69� y r VJ O m O ' CD N rr C U � i g O r O vl O 0 V'J O N 1` �o O v M 6q :f3 Vi 69 f5 f/3 69 EA 64 fA 69 69 fA (A 69 N3 i19 'A suolipw (suo!ll!-) SQ junuud I O j j O O O O O i N � O � O O M O C] N O � O raw O ^I I WD U Ni ifj Ji SA 69 69 69� City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Pian ATTACHMENT nil Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 2 REMAK CONSULTING • . ' A DIVISION Of MALCOLM PIRNIE 5941001 / POR 0 CD 1 0 L m Q 8 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0� ado 0 000 pro K v � e e o o e o e o o e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h h V1 V'1 N Vt Y'1 h V1 V1 O O O O O O O O O N m C S S C O O O a C O .0-. O r r N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O e p O m N n M O vs vi va s 9 � vs vi O O O ^ O p ^ 6A f5 69 y � vs in p C o o o p m of r oc m O O O O O M m �C M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O p o M V; en m m e{ a\ tM�t S O VM' a 10 m n m Civ FA 69 Vf n o C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 r+1 O O O ri O O O o Vi Vd fA n o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o n a M opo m ��i r 'CM 117'o � O K ht t0 ry C9 fA FA 6A rl C O S M _ M D: N 11 vi Cil G9 69 M O o o o 0 0 o 0 0 M e O S S rM•1 S � O � � m � m GO'+ O � 6A �q V9 V1 fA M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M e hl O O+ Vt D, o m O O V't V1 v1 r N N Cot N 49 ff! 69 O O O O O O O O O N m e O C O O N n O VO' S M b n p O Ct N v1 O 0 0 0 � M .-• vi r � N O O O 'S t0 n h 7 m b9 L9 iFl 'V N W N _ L v G c t U 9 .u. a o J FU --O cd aci E cc c Ee F N 6D 00 o n. 1c •5 cj � Ccl € U o •� c � U U d U m o m .yu- m u U .0 eo .5 v e m can 3••03 3 u •° O, o a a s .5UC0 ••No 5 U F F FF ciOj �m �UUU=5 O' v cn m 94 N M Q M °li C OM+ b9 e e e e e o o e e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h h h h h h h h h h O Z9M 00 - ;^ 9m h �D m �O CM. a W [� b N N N m 00 N o - ^ N O N" V- 0= 00 0 O m p of h p M M M 0 0 0 0 0 ^ h r C 69 _ m 0 'o t- 0 0 0 0 0 Q It m O O� 01 - 00000 CO - ^ 69 to M � N N — — N p— — O g C\ g 0 0 0 0 0 N 2 O M Q N Q O O N N V1 O p O O O O O O O M O ? GO W O � O Vhf f n O 0o cr, n r c 0 o r ry O O u w� o M h � c ry O O u' iR 6 00 O o, C ,D ,D O F ac c ON r, Q\ r Q c 4A 6 N Cl m 0 w 4l °, fb O C N C N r,m 19 M < O } M LT. 6A 6 n M N r O N N M C N C4 0000 c � N r fT N W c } N r LL" 6A 6 O � O p O 06 0 N r` O O n M O � oryo n v h m C) e O 09 o 00 69 O O 69 N O 69 p N O vi N w o e o o e o n 0 0 fA N O 69 p N O Vi N W o e e O O e 69 69 N O 6% M 0 0 h T p N O n rO N y. --� N w N O vl e e ,n o 69 0 C 69 cq N O 6'09 p N C vi N W O o e O O o 69 O N O 69 7 0 0 O N O vi N O N O w V N CD o O O o 00 O O N M O O O N O W� V N OO N O --� vi M O N O vl d 0 " U S2 N M u' 6N9 6Ni9 6N/i R a u OO o e O o p 00 CD 64 N O 69 10 0 0 C H � _ p N O vi M N w fV tu m o o 0 00 CD 64 O O 69 N O 69 10 O 'C O O O O N O v ri N N W O \ e o CN O O 'C O O O O v01 m v7 d 0 " U C b y U R a u y U X 69 o vi 0 0 0 C vOj p N O vi U N w N O 'C m v7 d 0 " U C b y U R a u y U U Ln to 7 v E U tu m Y q m w C O N� O rCi, Eyi .•y. :+ Q d CN O c u u O O O O 6Nq f 9 ENq N O I O O C14 n r � M M M N 60N 6N9 � O O o N N N 00 DO 00 O M M M N 6Nq 609, FNA N N N O N N N N I q 69 6q N N N M vi vA tel N N N N 6/i f5 64 M M M 00 00 00 V1 h h N h h M M M N6K � N A 0 0 0' M N N v Vj C r4 rq M M M N GA 61) 609 r4 rq 1.N N N h 7 h O M M M N K K fN9 01 Q. 0, 00 00 DO h Iq r O 00 m 00 NN N fMV fA 6q 69 r,4 cq R I C V 1` n 1` N N N N 69 Gq 6.q N y b � C aGi ai O c G7 N > �Q W 6) C N N -E- C 7 > O F U U U u n w N O a N M (en N N fi0A fio9 6l9 v° v° rn CDCN ell n .i N N w69 69 69 0 o v, O N en fn N wf 609 6�9 N N chi v�j v7 00 00 rn C M M D J wiNA GA 669 (A fioq 6-� 669 O O N N CN r,4ON � 6r4 en In 69 69 69 69 M M 00 N 00 00 Im O v1 h M N CN C14 M M O O o0 N N �o O en en M N rq M rq 6NA 6N9 69 eO V O O H vNi n N � GNA 6N9 G.9 6M9 O� 00 0\ O O O\ I co WL f.9 v C 00 QD O 5.en cliN 6H r V h LJ. N V1 V1 b h 0 VJ b a c O � C � � � C U [ N = 3 NNrn o c O yy H C O o U ,O A W w Vi a3 y y E�000 'n 'n O C 00 Ci V O N NV �D w64 bs by n 'n O c ON rn I a h D N N N M N �c IC 664 K fog 6i.. O In Vl 1n N �o C, O, N fA El -i 6s GA O h h vl N M v V1 M �o O O N M N D O 6A 64 69 69 O kn 'n v1 N M In v1 N w(0% Iq G-� fio� N O N N vj O vi kn N M N In to w � � 6 00 � o O N In Q O O O M N 5NA Go.) 6o9 669 O 00 00 00 N �o 00 00 — N llzt \IR O 1n :200 00 N 69 K 6i9 669 �c V. O O N M 10 .0 O In I" N N O M O_en R rn N M O a rn 00 ER 00 00 o vi vi Cr'4 en rn °° 00 m K6N9 6N'1 10 N O d U Cl) o U a, 0 N j 0�1 U N O > c c $ o rn > U a 3 _ ! cc N U 3 g 001 m C •C It F U U W� 0 0 n Q N O d U Cl) eee9O O O O O p 000000 O st \O O. oo p O 1� 00 rn 10 r�a m � � O O O N 69 �j -'d y L 69 c G9 n oo M F z =a nb r y y f9 V3 OO `7 �O iry O O M V1 00 7 7 T � T D V IO00r— O Op 00 cul My Q 10 K O 69 y 0 0 R OHO 01 N ol N O N O 7 00 7 M m V b M 0\ U9 �O N M O, Q D T C O N Q O r vi v -i — rn o0 10 V 69 M ,q y f9 y M T IO T 0 0 00 T rn M O i0 M l ^ W Vl 00 O r- r4 r 7 MC 7 �O ,I* [,meq eM�1 f/% fn f9 O C, C, O b N 10 R I� eF ON a o ao 00 w V El) _M f9 y 00 h p O O �O O �O C T N N N h .-- N ry N O N w 00 �p 00 eq M V r1 00 6A Haj N 49 V! 0 C. 0 0 0 0 p O p M 00 O Zk O n V � 00 t� M N f9 m 49 69 0 0 0 0 0 p g O O O O O O O Nm YNI N 'o, H Vi y e e o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 LV m � � O O 3 �j -'d y a 3 c u '� �FUZrn F z 00 0 N W O 6A n O N w N O N O N w O N W O O 601 O N } W ' O � O F/Y fA O e e u N O O b b CA io U N W L U � q O N � O N v �I N m W = C ': 0 cs N O N O N w O N W O O O O n v4 O N w e e Q O O b b io U N W �9 N O O 2. (20 m y N v a E N m W = C ': 14 4 W W rL 75 O p W O to u co o aci W .L O' U N r Itcn t o E n c cn a O 2 y 065 c 3 s m 0 It cl FUU� OR Ll 0 a".:FUzvn oa c Cd U F 0 0 U O N 06 b N N O_ N c� ca N � U � C/) z cs � .fl R3 N O U O to U _ w VD o �e cd C13 O N ti 4.r N CA Cd E- UUzd oa c a s A N O cC A N U C. G.r Cd as O w w w r -i C.Y N Qa 4r cd cC A 0 kf) N 0 kr) N 0 06 � O H ~ ~ U a� N O O �n � U � U N a3 as UU t O cn W W .� ct c p N N W 4-i OEd N cz cz E-�UUz �Q H o0o0 0o V'1 , o e 00 00 O 00 O CN a O O Vi D O O O N 00 C 0 C O 0 0 N w M e+l to Vl e o N C7, Ch all O Cl Cw Oi O+ O vl vl O 00 N 00 --� E UUw° O O O �'• w w C3., v e e o O, a a o 0 �O o0 00 n o Oo 00 0 0 N LT. w I v la o Ie c� n O a o O N w 00 0o M M o a R c CN a O o Cl DD O O o 00 00 C 0 C O 0 0 N LL w 3 E v la o Ie c� n O a o O N w 00 0o M M o a R CN a O O M DD O O O DD 00 C 0 C O O O N LL Cx. 3 E v1 V1 M M o 0 R ON T O O O 00 DD O O O o0 00 C 0 C O O O N LL CL 3 E M M N N o 0 R ON T O O O 00 DD O O N '^ C 0 C O a � w N N N N o 0 R ON T O O UQ C 0 C O a � LL" LL. 3 E O O y Y ❑ o a vl vl a O+ O O p 00 00 E UUw° O O N �'• w N O 'C m C U UQ C 0 C O a � y w j 3 E °' U y Y ❑ y G N E UUw° QwF zF p� N O » j } \ Ja / f/ \ $ / � CD / 2 IR == Cl / a { � � \ � Ja }. 2 f § § _ 2 w \\ $e ƒ 3§§ - Z t§ 2 2 \ w 3�la Ja / f/ \ $ / � CD / 2 IR \ w¥ - � � Ja / f/ \ $ / � kk / / � � Ja / f/ \ $ / � IT 6o:l / \ � Ja / f/ \ $ / � _ § i \ {{ � _ � $ \ \ / � _ _ § i \ {{ � _ � ! ) � }. } 2 \\ ƒ 3§§ Z t§ 2 2 /- 3�la QGS/ 0< I 2 N O 00 C C U F, 4L y N 69 69 69 %" :J w 3 w U O y Q w G U E � ✓' � N Q ry ,�. a .�.. �+ 69 69 F FUUw° 64 w C p 0 0 � 69 N 69 69 69 LT. 0 0 N N 69 F13 N O 6 N 69 69 49 w O\ [� 69 409 d' 0 M r N 69 69 69 L14 M ONi O\ ONi O\ 6O4 609 ONi T O cq N N 69 64 69i w O O N V1 V h Vl 603 69 V O N 69 49 69 w h O O N � 69 69 N O N N ry N 69 69 69 w r') M O O M 69 69 N 69 69 64 w 69 69 69 69 E.9 w N O C C U U 4L y = A N :J 3 w U O y Q w G U E � ✓' � N Q a A-1 O EF F FUUw° C p N O C U U N e n o o O N N O h N o0 O_ C aD y CIL Q t+n1 � A O O p Oi y H N T 0o ^ opo a 669 M LL K f.M9 'O iup VM? o n az "= U ' _z L 0 .E u `� O O T CD O n :,-:J) > n T O n h o o e� n vi O o0 O 0o ri o n Vi o0 }N} �.L. 669 f9 tq o r o e 7 00 N O O of O O vi N r n O 00 47' a+ Y N N jr� 69 Ni 5N9 h O0 7 '6V Oprn an o vi o o r r o0 N � si o a0 N N LL 69 69 I� n e o d In O p R O n 06 p oM0 � M 69 M Ley 69 69 frA, e n e o 7 ^ v O O 00 ^ O n v N OI *c 00 N M 7 El) r- 69 60) 69 V1 r a e � opo ao a rr oo v �o �o - N p o a M o r o 0 v o 0 o n ^ h C O 00 N O O O^ h N 00 69 00 6F) LL. 669 469 o r e e 0 0 o h Vl O O o r M V r r" b m M O M 69 C w6n 669 orovp, opo g o 0 0 Q V Oo 00 N O C p O N N ? N 01 K N O\ LrL 65 `si (� N O N N U � C W y � A O y H c" w Elu a O > 'O iup Lmon az "= U ' _z L 0 .E u `� O O T O CO w O n :,-:J) > HUULu LOJ!C o v p n N m V rn- p b i O_ O w rT d1 r M VO -� r O1 N 10 c CD N v n W V C n b a NV [ � 69 fR 6 eM r O 0, T r M M O O' C O vCD ii O r- IL n C n f r N w O C d r,4 CD O p Obi r meq n 7 O Q ANO [ N 4M'9 10 7 o wN O O T w h r p M r n nV b O b vii N Z Oc. r cl fn F W j r ONO b O D\ V•i O` l N } o� o VO T O N Vc C, O, v-� O w V O lN+ OHO y - N r M� O VSO O n Off+ VOO n r N } M 00 N - - M vl 105 W 60i � Os 6 O 10 m o V ON u10 i V O Q V1 T O �O rp• C r ON N MVi O� - 7 b c tit W 69 fit d o V'1 0 0 01 a R N O h O O O r M N N OO W I- M O M h N a M N r •., VJ vi Q r b h O v M r - M 00 00 vl h N M R N 00 M ty h M a (}y 4N9 rfi V o_ o a O 7 ore o ^ M - v7 o n N N 7 O N rN't N 7 -T M �C L69 65 V 0 01 r O oo O N W O N a O O N� 00 b M M - - - � f"i r• 0 p N } 6'5 N N - n O\ C 0 OMO r - O N OO Nr 0 O N oo r N O N M N - CT M M r". N O C o O r 0 00 O O v'i o0 M a N p o0 N O vQi m O W a, vi 6a Got W 7 O fi N b0 W V C y•G m � a � C b O •c c um O C d .Q C G� C O W .C. •� O O O fy c meq o �U 4; b 0 0 0 F p Z Oc. FUUrn v DS fn F W j N O 7 � U C U c V y � A 4 � C m G CD O � � 00 Y r aiwvi y FUUv� N la O _ O O O } W 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 Fsf e+i ? � v 69 d9 F9 O O O O O O 609 � V b K 69 EA b �O l0 Q\ OF 01 b F9 Qe 69 b Vi (D vi O � h H O O V9 fA f.9 FSA � 10 b b b b b b 6'9 69 fA N O O I N N O h � h Vl Vi Vl O Ci O O O O O O v O p R � V) O 00 0 O 100 00 p b b 7 7 er 609 b O O CD CD O I= N ry ry coq N 6�9 � r1 6N9 FNA K o u0 O O O N N M m F N ^ N O N GM a r O O f ¢1 � U o o d m Cc � c 0 w ° o ti c ti ° c m O C C U L4 = Fn CL C)r C 0 C^ Fn m N r' C 7 e+i u. O h O N LU r N � OHO O O C � p ;9 c EA EA E o a r 0 0 O C O C a b n N M un V a r' C O 10 N r N Ir V) 6 O O O M1 N M � a M1 M O l7 a M1 O C N O M uD uD N u M10 N 'r 0 ' Fy fR (A EIi 6 e Fn Fn O O a 0 10, O O C O O m N C' V' M O h u0 C O N O � n M N u w N f9 Vi E.9 E o M � O O N O O uI1 Fn G O O a tp Fn O a N V O a V'1 �D M1 m N N O N N N O N 7 N N M — f N n LS. 69 EA V o M M1 cc to u0 N M uL O m a FrF^i a N li b r N r N -- O O a G ON N U) R N d � 69 69 V o N O O Fn Fn M MC O O h N N O a = N <{ O N 10 O N — N 2 — N E( C7, � V9 iNn- fA V o O-- O O M M1 a o E`� a o c_� m c « O N ^ C O N F�CD '1 O .� R n b a N M1 C N N — r y 6m V9 V 0 0 10 007 o M1 M1 o r o T °vi° vMi vMi v N N h O V N m m X N M 7 6A V 6A V V. C O L w c c fl c �- c. U t�tl O C U ¢1 � U o o d m Cc � c 0 w ° o ti c ti ° c m O C C U L4 = Fn CL C 0 C^ p LE,y W G 9 0 d v L> C ` O O U c^ E E o v cp u LU U U L a h c m y Q❑ u EA cc F p ;9 c omFUm m jU'r W 5 En 0 0 0 to 0 o Ic � O O I OfA O O I C b a O O Of/i O p 6 � O N O N W C Off] O O O � O O C b O � N O N W 69 � V N O N } W O6p4 O O coq O O 609 O :2 N O N } , W C O O O Lf O O O N N O N } W O CD O O 0 0 0col O O N O N } Lx. C Ova O O OO O O O_ N O Q.) b9 N W Cf.O9 O O O O O O � N O GOI O N } W 9 as U y, N u•' CO u C y d LL. U C C12 _ d y/ m Lq o u W 1 LL Y tC t u 5 ° W tN O C u O C run W u W wv m w eu F U U rn° O 5 c° 04 :� a O N O N O N O N U U fT a � lV V1 V1 h V1 N ^ f/3 r Ff) } W C 0 ofs r o r ofn r o r O 7 Vim"' GA) N e+1 M r+1 M O N — H9 — 69 } d am W> W r O N O O ID O v R Q co� _� T ry O N 4% W e O O O e U U fT a C O fy ^ f/3 r Ff) } W C E O w O O 7 Vim"' GA) N e+1 M r+1 M N } d am W> W r O N O N O N a be Obi T O N 4% d! N C IC L1 O — O O — O 6I3 h V'f 6i9 v1 `-' crs O � N N N_ fV N fit fA o O M O M GIs e1 p O 69 O r r r N � � fA 169 1 cH e U U W C 7a N W m u u O 'C C E w U e o 0 u u 0 d am W> �Ucz: d FS a U F W FQUUcn DS �nm j ? / °§ \ 60% a ) {§)) } f ]/� a §w / ) _ ° e�1a / a ° a / eIA , ] °§ k2 ) {§)) } f ]/� a §w w 0 0 a fT 0 0 0 \D O O O O 0 0 n O N m N l f O Eft \O \D O [ O N GL LL V C C C C v N fi�A 604 K 6 O O O O 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 f N F[1 h N H'1 o0 c h (� N O N 14 m h rCh '1 N } 6A i1. \NO K W) fi w 0 0 a fT 0 0 0 \D O O O O 0 0 n O 7 m N l f C C ^ Ol N \O y C 9 7 C Ii O N GL LL V C C C C v � fA 69 E \D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \D fL 0 a 0 a, 0 h n O C C ^ Ol N \O y C 9 7 C Ii O N GL LL V C C C C v N N h 0 L Q C y N 0 U > 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'o 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 h N O h h O N m [t O OP5 O LU } fio� N fV fir, N x 0 0 0 O O O N O M N O O O f_7 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID h 0 0 0 0 0 0 f N D b U - r N h T \O O N w CD rq } 69 N (JA EA N f [[, E 0 0 0 0 0 Fn O - 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m O Ch O N Y1 49 K L2. N O O O O O rn 0 0 0 F/'f 0 0 0 0 0 0 V C C ^ Ol N \O y C 9 7 C Ii N GL LL V C C C C v mm -Ir M 0 L Q C y N 0 U > N _ f��l vi Y m�7m foi �n y - a n o 0 o p p m a m o 0 o g q �oUmmUwv,a 0UmmUtomC4 O LU FUU[n q x 0 0 0 O O O N O M N O O O f_7 O O O O ID h Ff1 f+l 00 o a N m } N C:. 69 F ti0 f>D fO h i fT OT F5 W) 69 r LS. F 0 0 0 0 0 Fn O - 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m O Ch O N Y1 49 K L2. N O C N U V C C C_ C C tL y C 9 7 C Ii Jr - \7 L LY U C y GL LL V C C C C v mm mm 0 L Q C y ts. 7 LLS o m�7m "cu'ceccUUu h m �n y - a n o 0 o p p L E a m o 0 o g q �oUmmUwv,a 0UmmUtomC4 O LU FUU[n q d V N O — ON O M O1 D\ 00 Q M 'R N 0�1 OOl l N N m b � V09 N o N r ami _ ° E m U n ° Lt. 141 a 7 a°i 6A 69 69 6R v ° a, O O d' M " b "0 O n v1 O V1 — O O� O VI h VMl 't[� y i 69 N p vi 00 N � " Ar 3 c o 00 a -- G — gyp" N b Vl M iD M �o �D �C V d � 0 u O CG W b U U � > r.0% 6M9 cs� cs cq a>i aci q 11 ti N m 00 00 etwl �O N n Y d• F �wOzcC U N oz 609 N O N� et �n --• N N T N — Uz¢ O O Vi O O tq � 69 69 69 69 K 69 01 N N 00 00 tnO O n 69 N r 06 N •--• N O "r N 7 7 0 0 b >- 00 00 LL N 6A 69 69 69 69 N ON In ^In Com' �D N N Q\ n 609 N O ^ N ^ 00 00 M " — _ N b 00 M 00 N (ry GFi 69 69 6A 69 69 U1 O O N M N 0�0 O O T a N O r 69 N 00 00 N N 'C N — N,.t In M l Vl W) wl V1 h LL N fiA 69 69 69 69 7 V1 Oy O O Vl vl O V1 V1 O V1 7 0�0 0�0 Mr- 69 N T \O— O N ry r 00 00 vl v) I N N O O C LG rq N — — 69 69 bA 69 69 l� O In 0 r -n O 00 00 V'1 V1 N rl �C O V1 Vl r 609 N 0600 �O N — M N In N � ON lam° O, Li. N N — — 69 69 +9 69 e9 GA y 0 y 0 O O N r O 00 V1 O v1 604 N N — 7 — � W n r- O O 22 00 IT 00 k. N N414 Q% M 69 EA 69 69 O O O V1 O to O O vi h 01 00 M VNjr--: O O vNl' N 00 N1 [ 64 N Op N 7 ^ M �' 00 M — ^ Qui }� Lt. Go� N 69 69 69 69 d V N CN o r ami _ ° E U ° a 7 a°i d R p v ° a, O N y i O Ci q Gii k. N Ar 3 c o Be V d � 0 > O CG W b U U � > O: N 0 00 o tis W aEi ti ° > a>i aci q 11 ti o m c 0 U a F �wOzcC Eu: oz �n o UUUCC. Uz¢ d V N 00 N cc O b OH O M Q N lc N 0000 0000 MM - - •� - 61 al.) 69 fiH 69 I m o t- M (- l- b �c O n O O n O M�1' 7 1I'1 69 N O. O VMj try yMj N - -- 00 00_ G N M M \O V1 Vl U" 69 6l 0% 6R 69 69 N O O -_ N 00 00 00 N U1 69 N Dli lD O h h u' 66s Os i9 G9 6H 69 O+ N O -+ N m M M v1 O, O O v1 4 NN N 00 00 h O V1 cs N to O� I l� r- � n [� N .. C ^' y N M M 00 00 O N W M b ONO l�+'1 N N - --� -� K 69 fA 64 6.9 69 v1 �O O O, O O b N N 7 CN' b o 00 M •M•� V'1 OBD 00 lMO 1p N �O N N - - - - 69 69 6f1 V9 69 69 N O O N t� 01 O� DD oo N W O O of M oo D\ O O O m O1 N O In 60% N M N 00 Q\ - 00 00 N N llO N - O1D In Vc 14 i9 W fA 64 K 69 00 �O O O O v1 O v1 O O to N �O V�1 M 7 7 OHO 0�0 O M N V1 - 64 N - O M M wO U N M M N N O W) O 7 L�f.. N N- 69 6A 6Y 69 69 69 M \D 'D 00 00 00 V1 O O V1 [� �D N M - 10 lc O O vl V ^- V) 00 - to K N �O N M b T IIn N N M m 7 60, (OS i 6N 9 Vi 69 m O M O O n n O 00 O O to cl Oli N _. O O - ooGo M N N - 600 6A 604 ir9 6.9 vi O O 00 V'I 49 r4 Ca0 M VNi^ O O vNi yNj^ 11; O C, N N- N O+ OMi 69 GA 69 69 69 d b0 cy r4 m C LJ. > E r o O U t3 [nA•_ •N m b N 00 uN � 47 v` y y 7 O y LL. UCIO h Lii > y O o a ° v C M. 7-- a > E �� Q1 0 ami 0 en R 22 E U W g W ' U v Q U d U N J O ..O L io 7> v d O 'O G cJ ¢1 � m � � � � E °c•' •a O 'n ej ? _ ami ca F- U U V A W C7 0 0 z U _i F Q a' O d• m 0o a n - aM• a n M M � N O� r 10 m r •0 5� r p C O Q` b M 6.9 opo M W yj C fiMA M GA) r M M O o M 10 T O O 01 r O M n O O p O N O V b oMp oc C 'fl 7 7 7 V 0'�o r h W b to 00 r10 69 f+ W CI) FAN O V1 l� O O N "tO O W m r O b - O O O O N v o I r N b �U �D r 0 o lc V V o r N _ NO T r ry V) r / -. V•f - r OI OL O O V3 w T W y� K N V vl 10 10 10 iH M QD Ir O Ffi o0 N o.�n a a O ON a a =r o r - N 10 p o CO) oo V O �0 OL 0� w y r0 O O d• m � N N O O C lc0 M 00 Vl Vl N O 06 W O� a0 b 7 n r •0 5� r p C U N •- w v m ai w C EA) N CM a` V N O- vi o O O O v1 O M v N O w u ry O M 00 DD h — r oc C 'fl 7 7 7 V 0'�o to 00 r10 W CI) FAN O V1 l� O O N "tO O W 7 o v xU N p 00 M W O\ o C D\ ri r N b �U �D N V V M M w b9 ry V) O O '- r r O V vl 10 10 10 O M QD Ir Ffi o0 W � N p o oo V O �0 OL 0� w y r0 O OL a0 cl .•-. r • �t M p p w eq N FA 010 O O O O O O O 0\ O O O V1 00 10 T vl �D N 00 7 O o. Go c m W N B u¢ u •0 5� C U N •- w v m ai C b c c �' W u 3 m o 0 o g c• C y o E 00 C N I C 'fl 7 7 7 V to 00 r10 It a `8 ° c �' b cai ' o °�' e m c :3�.v 0oOF 'C z F O o v xU F U U U M W F �U DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT °-` iSQ N O vi O h O h O v� O " R M M N N -� •-� O O 11 r O N � L� N G " p O N N O � 7 ,o N C aG N M J F N p N N N � y O ^ N O O = O N N a4 O N r� rA a O r U � O N O v1 O v� O N r v1 M N —+ 11 N O O O O O O O O C A 6Y 69 69 69 609 69 69 69 bn Hi 65 69 6'-) SUOIlj!w (suo!p!m) SQ tenuud ' F 00 O I O j I N I O Nrq � of O O -Ir M O _ Cq N T L_ 1 N u ^� � C> O ,r C O N U N to 69 City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan ATTACHMENT Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 3 REMAK •, • •', CONSULTING • • A DIVISION OF MALCOLM PIRMIC 5941001 / POR W 3 g w o S o S S S S S S o 0 0 0 00 S g o S0 S o$ o d voi_o S o s o oN vo, o S o voi„ r o U o 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 _ 1� V1 N M V O N O P V A ^ H F � �•$ v o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,�.. C � O O � O O O O O h h h � h vOi � � vOi h vOi vOi � vOi NOi N � vOi h vOi h vOi � vOi h vOi vOi vOi vOi vOi vOt vOi vOi vOi vOi 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 88 O Coo O V ? C 0 O p 0p 0 0 0 O S O S p O O O O O O S O O O c O O c a n c h R P O 0 p 0 C ON S c h h h N O n O P V� O- �• m N - n M1 N V- d• M1 V N P m < Q N 1� h N b C M O O f� M1 N N N H O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 8 p0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O m N 0 m e O N O C } H H M H G. O O O O p O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O N O O N N O N m O m e N O V N C H O O Og S C g lN+• r h n vOi h 1� oM10 n N n Q� oM10 O N N r N V ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O S e N O ppm V C 1 N O O N h N H b O V r H H H H 00 OH O 00 O O O O O S O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O P O O S O C '❑ m O N O O h N H V' N V O u - Z V c .❑v c � C7 N dJ V O •� L Vl O � N u❑ Y c rn � u `° c y y o b• �� H q x m G U N �` m c m x v c' ❑ i m a a d ❑ '�' .o W m y x c E V 79 N Edi u a a A �, c 3 m Y ❑ "u' �DU•o c0 a`U 'c� C a� ca�N u SCO m ?? °o o�v� m? •° n o A 3 r ❑'' 3�5 ua3'vY �YvtpaaU oCi c•ad �� n v s O r y c❑•y�1.m�0'� ��t�j U ti€_�or�ax x� ` o mU i 0 - ,5 o U c< m m ❑ .. c❑ n .e Q v u p U o m °. °o m ti rn s .N c c .. u ❑' 0 0 o f U �n 3 .0 •�° •a m- C O 3 o G 0 0 ,❑0 3 rn G V i v°i m 4• a U m u ?? S g 0 3 3 p vi v� ;U V o v E v; ;c �'3333=3� u z'u 8�. U o00 oc cmmmmmm G F- F=UUU O[il00075viZ v�C n.a 5 V UUUUmmmOOFF- Fmmmm..t 1,'ti S O m O O O O O O O M1 h- M1 V m �• N IL V U- - N O N 0-011, O H b W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O O O O O h N 0 0 N O N m n 0 m e N M1 P M1 M1 � O O z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N NV H O S 0 0 On O N L p PN M1^O oo ^ OOOOO N O r n V pp N N O- O N N V H iP5 H H o � cri u CC N o m N o m e P a m e V O 0 0 0 0 0 O .a b P N 0 p O .-. •� M N N O O h �' N H � N H Q�j O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O n N m N O m e= P O V C I► S � O W N N W C S O .000.. O = O O M1 M1 � O M1 V m h n V P m P � n m N � O I Ih O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m P b CI d• P m �G N O_ O n M1 N N N O O O�� m � N V r0'1 N p to W P b 1= O^ Oh ON h Cm L 'I n - N rl O O H N � C `J 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O O N N N m O � e M1 P m P P C .Yd S fOA O O O O O O S O 0 t� vOi h 1: �O aM10 n N eM1n b T m P d0'. y In+ O b N O n O O O O O O G n m n } � H H H H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 8 p0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O m N 0 m e O N O C } H H M H G. O O O O p O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O N O O N N O N m O m e N O V N C H O O Og S C g lN+• r h n vOi h 1� oM10 n N n Q� oM10 O N N r N V ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O S e N O ppm V C 1 N O O N h N H b O V r H H H H 00 OH O 00 O O O O O S O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O P O O S O C '❑ m O N O O h N H V' N V O u - Z V c .❑v c � C7 N dJ V O •� L Vl O � N u❑ Y c rn � u `° c y y o b• �� H q x m G U N �` m c m x v c' ❑ i m a a d ❑ '�' .o W m y x c E V 79 N Edi u a a A �, c 3 m Y ❑ "u' �DU•o c0 a`U 'c� C a� ca�N u SCO m ?? °o o�v� m? •° n o A 3 r ❑'' 3�5 ua3'vY �YvtpaaU oCi c•ad �� n v s O r y c❑•y�1.m�0'� ��t�j U ti€_�or�ax x� ` o mU i 0 - ,5 o U c< m m ❑ .. c❑ n .e Q v u p U o m °. °o m ti rn s .N c c .. u ❑' 0 0 o f U �n 3 .0 •�° •a m- C O 3 o G 0 0 ,❑0 3 rn G V i v°i m 4• a U m u ?? S g 0 3 3 p vi v� ;U V o v E v; ;c �'3333=3� u z'u 8�. U o00 oc cmmmmmm G F- F=UUU O[il00075viZ v�C n.a 5 V UUUUmmmOOFF- Fmmmm..t m 0 0� O N a O rt Q M Q\ °. r�1 rn .. Vt `O 'R N < V1 �0 � 0: P - 7 P1 h• Q O C C- h r O e e e e e e e e e e ee a o a e e e e e e o e e a e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 0 0 o O o O O o 0 0 "o• o 0 o b o 0 o O o$ o O o p o O o o 0 0 0 o b o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 0 6 o 0 0 0 o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 V1 V1 h V1 ifl Y1 V1 Y1 V1 N h h ------ --- 11 ----- - h h Vl h h N h H h O O 01 O1n P 1/1 m m m O O O O^ O CT 10 O— O Q N O M O 'O O gO O " O P M m h Q^ �O m �O Al r•'L M a 0� �O �O M O M m et m O N Or m °. N D: O V1 0, Q� P N N N m m Vl V1 T O �G M Q O O m m N O O M m 10 m If1 M N O O M �0 m O M m h CT m m �O � O O o°o O O O O h P IO ? h m^ m Q P Q h Q T m 0 M P Q h h h N^ Q N 01 Q 10 Vf O to m m M M �O �O 10 m C• h wt O h h m h T^ m O C V1 r vt N M- �O 00 N N 00 N P vt Q v1 m O Q "O vt N � N - �• �tl M 0� 1O O "i N � Mi �D 7 � R Vl W Oi M Q P h h h CI Q N - .-• •� - •-• N M N m %O m VP P �O n m P H1 �l m Q V v1 W OV - Q 'G - 10 my? P W m M M - M 10 10 10 N Q ^ Q\ - �• Y1 ^ �• N M ^ M O O m O M 01 M n h h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O Q O m m 0 4` 0 0 0 0 wl O O 01 Q m M M N O m v1 .•• V'� t h r m V1 h v1 P m r1 vl N 0 0 1 e'1 Q m 1O N Nf n v1 v1 ? CI 00 CI W �D N W M 7 Nt Nt P M r b ^ M 10 h 1O vt N N CI I M CI m N n S� � M m T N M 1/1 N M N ^ .N. 10 � 10 N �. Q ^ m - P �• ^ N M � �^ �O m 00 m m m 0: ^ W Q C? O� M Q- 'V• N T 00.Oo1Oa.onMMoOo000000-1OoQoOQ000.Oo00.ov1hv-mOI1OoO N N O Q LT Q Q - O 1n Q O- CT m a O� �O T AL1 N vl v1 V1 M M �. = O - Q �• •• N M O N O 1D 01 � M M M 0 0 0 0^- O- h O N O m 01 O O O O N 01 O N m Q. Q Q P o 01 �O 'O O, � - - m �O O l 01 m M U N h v1 Cl N O O O O C Clr'? Vt tb 01 h et m h r1 Vt t: m 10 n? S O O CLli r W O m 7 R C N O O 1/1 vl Vl �O 10 Q Q C C 5 c °::: m � •u o � n. Q e eo c°i °' a o g'a L m o v 3 0 O s m ° t u ".! ° m pub N w U W `� � U .J. •° a°i .c °i •� a°i 1010m•° m ° 0U .a €O @EU ,° di qa.`d g mm a `° •S n'4 3 m='LLl >yF o u m 3 U c e 0 3 Z. .S `� a a a a ° 'c a°' U •5 m m p; O .c .o - c o c O e 0 a U m- e u a u a e O m a �+ O o o C m..., o; s v4 e 3 m c o lev Fl a �mU m °� �m.8 off e c o �u °Sm gY ¢ '46 r h Id L o d x .5 O y � U � � � U m A m Ltl .., c O .o U g .� g U y ,u, > >. LL 0 2° e0 V m° c A N c 3 04 5 °mOaO 3 00 �OOuv37vlOMU�ry m�- rUm mm2 0 iv 0° e+� .FU W 93�py 0 M G•• U U 3 3 LLl It N n o ry 12000]OaiZUUUUU mmco00FFtUDmmmm 3 j-1 .5 vmvivmiaimnL�i�OCc 00 O m v �n a, v 00 O V i M C O 00 00 �y M O N � N M o �n v oo n N OM T N W N N 69 64 M O 7 W -I*, N N V 609 O w mo m 00 a, M M M N r O ON 00 M 69 6q o_ovi N_ r M O W N w" O O 00 'D Orq _ N O N O 'o r a,00 r G�9 c09 w M O .0 ca y C r dr. U U y C � 0. � G U y C u Gz U D. FU U w LaUrnO o e e o 69 O O 69 O O N O O o e O 69 O O 69 O O N O O o o p 69 O O 69 O O N O 0 N O 609 b h � O a v) N O M h aD tl� 00 kel 69 O o O N O 69 M h � � N O o p N O �09 M O � N O 00 00 h � n N � 69 ON � 609 7 vy O� h o O o e OO N 4 69 O O O O 59 rq O 4 69 N O U N wl C� C I.,V 1] e b O N b C, N O T In O C H 00 Q_ 69 O\\ O O\ 69 O O O O 69 N p O O 69 N O h y � M O 4 O C O U N y dd G I.,V 1] b O N b c c U qiN 2 d° Q_ N 3 v F Q M O O O o 00 N N N O 66q i6A 669 N I7 I V 7 O N N N N 6q bq Gq O O O � r n D N N N M M M O 6A 6A BA (r O � 00 00 00 M t7 M M M M 14 O N6q l G64 NfA O O O h [� [4 M M M O669 669 669 en W 000 OMO N V V V1 M M M O N611 GA) 669 rn O O O O N N N k" V V1 ^ M M M O N6A N69 f6n- N N N Vl Vl V� M M M N 669 K 669 m 0000 m n 00 V1 O n n In O N N N N bq 69 69 O M M M ON N N N 69 69 6g H C: M � O � m N eyi C N V � � N � v d "r.A 3 V 00 W C C to r N N � 7 ,f) U F- U U U C] y ON o h h 60.) W � M V t� et rr v c c Mrq M v v N w 69 en N 69 69 O n cNs � v � _V O 7 N n 0 0 a 00 K N O O N o M o N M M M � 7 00 GA) LLL 69 69 bM9 Crry9 69 69 W � M V rq M M Mrq M 00 N w 69 N 69 N 69 69 O n O n M �o n _V O 7 N n N N b9 W In N 69 N 69 00 K O O N Fo0 00 M N N N 7 00 LLL 69 69 bM9 cc 00 h n 1C(Vj Or h N rN V In cq O b 6�9 N 5A w OCD v v� N N 69 N o �o n C O VN ke) v_ rni o rr ry M M o lzr N U1 Goq W Goo 61% N ioq U OHO 00 OHO C Q 6A 00 O O 0 M cc 00 y N 6N9 M 6N5 M N CA N VJ b N M O O C0 U C N k O A U U u Q R U O. O � O N u R � F N � Vn C N p L O C 0 0 Ln FUUQ F- AUS A Wn n N O � � N M � } 669 6.9 wq w 'n [— N O � � N M d 669 6046o9 w O cy, 0% N N N M Men �D >. 669 r.% (I C 0 N M v1 M N D NIn 00 N N 69 GA 69 w 0 N N N R 64 69 69 w r -A 0000 O M V N N O M V 00 N wGA 69 Gro W It N 14 O M O� 6N9 6A 669 w CD 'nI W)N a �o O M � �" !A fos 6A w 01 N n O\ O n 7 a 'IT CD Ivr N N 669 N 69 GA w M O a o rn 0o c5 00 N N N w a) to n L GJ 7 O � It O y M U i O p O y to u C O N y O N y u m > _ o a a V] v p ctl G U y En y N U U N > m C) V .O G� O N O rn _ G Q C [� 00 ce L a F- U U W Z Ll 0 D M O M O e a \ e 0 0 0 0 0 C C 00 O O c�oamoo n m Q, iQVQi"rnn � � a nmQ°n° v oo M rl Goq « V9 69 O p (q n O r, N M N '•` bn9 Q EA _ a M �o � vni fA y� M O a Q DC, yi O V4 p Y m Q n a 0 0 m C-4 O N O m Q M[� M Q b Gn h fig 7 6'9 Vq 'V N n V m H9 h CC O n N r` om Q C � 41) O a,- O O h h ^ m M IA rn o m m o m � � N r� F rine'- m m o m 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 e'Q7?fib V2 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, C Q N m O O nmQ°n° v oo M rl Goq « V9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL O p p p C n O r, N M N N bn9 Q EA _ 69 yq 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 e'Q7?fib w O N LL n O N W b O N W O � � W L4' I 0 � N N O N W IO 64 � I m Gi y G V L rL 0 d sv 10- -O o G to G v y T ._ O 'C > En �e v > rna �O ❑ ocn � 023 ° o �° a°'i 3 O a— U In m uz� 0 Go -4 M 0 N W _L 0 N c�1 O O N W IO 64 O N W O O I O[A O 0 N _L W 0 0 c�1 O C O O _L c�1 O O C w w C H N m Gi y E V L rL 0 d 10- -O C) G to G v y T ._ O 'C > En �e v > rna �O ❑ ocn � 023 ° o �° a°'i 3 O a— U In m uz� 7 ME cn un cC CA U 0 CA U 0 03 U N C/o U V -0 GJ C3 0 c., Qi 2 O O ke) tr) N N w 0 F-+ M O 0 0 y fy') O Gr' N U C: ai a 0 � o O rA a cn H U U W d y Le rm j M 0 ai U M V1 M V1 'n e o Q 00 00 00 m D ON O O 00 O O C7 C N CD O - C � O O N w � L .0 o e N N w N O O M M V � 00 00 o a M � ctl O M M V1 V1 U v m _ O�CN O w V1 V1 O o0 0o Z O O 01 N N h V 00 00 00 O C w w e a of as a a, v c, 0 0 �O o0 00 CD o0 00 0 0 N w o ~O 00 00 O O N w a a o e o 0 c 22 0o .�. c o N w e a °.° O0 a a o 0 M �D �O V1 V1 O o0 0o Ci Ci M V1 M M 0 0 VI N N Q Q O C O y c U v V'1 V', 0 00 2.0 C7 C N C � w M N o e McM •, N Q+ O. O C O y c U v W� v' 0 00 00 o c N C � w � L .0 o e N N N Q, N O O M M V � 00 00 O C M � ctl O 00 H cy',f U v m w HUUw° C]w Z e e 01 N N h V 00 00 00 O C N w M O O y c U v Q C � W m � L .0 T !A W U M � ctl O 00 H cy',f U v m HUUw° C]w Z U Q _ zz C-41 / \ \ $ \ \ ¢ __ & \ ®® ¢ a# \ ®®GIs » � \ .fJ _ ( Q w J2 § f § CD 6s- ƒ w ZJ 3± ; e CDoq o QEOZ a! g 2 E ®@ - Q _ zz C-41 / \ \ $ \ \ ¢ __ & \ ®® ¢ a# \ ®®GIs » � % \ ( � } \ )� ƒ 2�E\ 3± ; e 0 \ QEOZ 04 g 2 % N N O CD CD CN 0 N 69 69 D\ o 6q ONi rq G 69 , w � C w (fJ 0 C�1 a a o o N 69 69 U w o, a C� w o V C m C N --� 69 •--� 69 64 H csi w U F. F -U U w w 0 0 WI w N N O 0 0 �!1 N N 69 69 D\ N y� 6q ONi rq G w w � C w (fJ 0 C�1 a a o o N 69 69 U w 69 7" C� w o V C m C O is o C-4 64 64 H 6s It U F. F -U U w w N N O O N vl �!1 64 64 h M C, 01 D\ N y� 6q rq G w w M O O vl �!1 64 64 h N h � N N y� 6q 64 G w w M N N_ N r's 604 O N N N N y� 6q 64 G w M O 64 4fi C G U N y� 6q 64 G w � C 64 (fJ 0 C�1 0 e, w N 69 69 U w 69 7" C� w V C M O C G U U G � C COO ��U C�1 w e, w u3, U O y C] U w c C� c C R O V C m C O is o m o c U H E F- c E O It U F. F -U U w q- rn 0 CCi o h h — -• 00 O Nh O h+ 06 nO M O p o0 e .0 6q ?I w 6N9 609 h N K e h o e 0o O O o0 O n a T00 n b O In Q: n QMi "d- T M p O O — 00 m IT N h O� n In b :A h �D 6�L e K N :A a h eCD C N Imo+ Q C 10 M OC G O r h N GOS \lD fi9 h N w 6N9 69 N 6oq n b o e v In 00 � opo o 00CN ? ? w 61) 6N9 N 69 T 7 b O In M r = In N f'4 M C O p O 00 N h r• Oi N m O b Y M ^. w 6NA N N Qq h e o 00 O O O W QD O O n M 10 M T opo � W �O DD o0 ri O C 0000 N r N w 6609 N GOD N CIO e h e a � o n n N O T n n � o _ 6f3 00 � w yNj NN 60 E.) In O O O -� epi 7 O O O � N w wl Gn N 69 e h a e n Q` •V � n M N O w v) 6.1 �N e h e S o C O O O O C O O V 00 DD N V MVS CI N L 69 � fA M O m nC c c O u je s c C a y ¢� u a u N � O v U L O Uu.y aC e E `10 o F U U m q¢ a F 0 5 F 2 N � � N UM9 fA 6 O-n clO - v1 O T r�"i V N r+'1 V0 CL m vt - M 10 C C w� N 6M9 69 6 0 00 O O M oo v1 00 O M 0 oor v o hc. rn10r c v l° a h v, O N o V] V (o N N O c, w f - N c1 - vi w 0 O - V M rl00 T V' M Q' 00 to clOl eq f CIC N N fie N! 6 0, N — O %0 c O b VJ h 00 O Q T V't D\ o N O N 00 — 00 h d' C O V'1 w O\ 00 DO V0 N M M h M M V' .M r � N b9 H9 6 c+ o0 O h V O 10 O N o\ 00 00 r- \0 N h M N n V7 10 V O r` h N O t�+t N N � LOI) N 6N9 fH b a N N O b O O u'1 M h O C O O N h O N h O r'1 h b %C llz r+1 O Iq V NN 'R V'i V 10 M� Vi r` V CD N h O DD o0 N h M C N M1 — V1 N Vt N M V } "' _ y N 'A H b e P b O- "0 " O R v1 O N V O N r:1 M M O b b O n N - 00 b %D O M C 7 N 7 N rCD N�t N_ N E A b e 10 O 00 O O � O w'1 T 00 � N 6N9 69 b O - v oo M o o a, vi o0 O � Vi 69 b LL. C O LL M 00 L' U C vi ti m O m L uor, O m o of 7 72o y r-0 'G � O m to to ai e Y u c o c m a? to rn 948 u o c u u 'en u c m o o y c a o. c;o '< a�000 c F FUUrn Q5 rn j \ J / / 00 00 61 in CD 7 )) 61) FA } �( k } ) ) ell \ CD 10 10 In 10 loo k)\)k) $A Coll U9 CD CD 00 00 61 in CD 7 )) FA } �( |� ) \ �k ell N CD 00 0 0 cl loo k)\)k) $A Coll U9 C) CD I � 0 J� rq fin 60) Goq CD EOD )) } �( |� ) \ �k ell N CD GOS cl zA2M \ k)\)k) / CD rN r4 )) } �( |� ) \ �k zA2M \ k)\)k) / o O 01 O O N O O r M C IL CIL It lc� W N N . LL LL UU O 0, 'C O + U O � w" O e 2 U g u c ` e N NoorM v v1 0 � O DD V c y y w u L 2 = 0 y u o �? d° y 'o a c E° a Y U C � 69 Vl b9 UODD V 0 m 0�1 Q IC O N olC b N M Ic r — O vOi a 10 •.• MM O N Vl M of _ M N _ — r 69 69 V o 10 vl O O — M 'O C V O — N r 00 N N 7 r w r N 00 C M r 0� O 00 O N � 69 fA b9 V e N O O 0, O O T 7 O N � N N 00 = 01 M tI'1 OO r O � DD M DD h N d 6'9 6R — [+. bN9 6 e d' M•1 00 O N M Q` 0 N V O l0 0�+ Vri vOi N r�1 N N Y1 r N 00 IT R O N N cl NFi1 r ws C N V Lx. a 10 O N O vt O 00 r o N N O Vl N N C�_R V1 C r` r N L 69 613 r Vi V o M R cc O r N N 00 N N O N 00 N 10 N0 r O ^ } ii. b�9 b9 69 6 a bM C O 0+ VY Y1 r N 01 N C N � C 69 6 r r cli 10 f N O O vet N OMO O W O N Lx. M In 6013 6 6 L C 7 'c7 Iz. C . LL LL UU O .0N 'C O + U O � c O e 2 U g u c U C m = C; U c w S o V c y y w u L 2 = 0 y u o �? d° y 'o a c E° a Y U C e O _m F1 y4 E f37 Vl 7 U - UODD FUUvI D5 vl O M O c U U 0 N 0 O N Ofn O O I OHi O O I O b C G9 6g y O O O O O O V3 y� OV3 O O O O O O OHi O O C O O O 69 � CD V9 O O O O p O C) O O O 0 0 O 69 � O� O O O O O (.Oq' O O O O O O c E ❑ O O O O O O G9 � b C O �U N A = 0 0 a U m b � m � w o � U � � u o: w c E ❑ L4 v y O v C y o= •u A F m � U c 5 U3 :o °'F 1 0 F fpma'F5 a O N O N O N O f O O Vi N N 69 N �. N Iri O N h V1 4 N — ff1 1 } fn o � u ors, W m U p e o r o r o r o f o ca — r c_ va r rq Q E t O O qr o v� v S E v" ON } } W W °' m aF F .5 U F W O O — n v't a0 In fA o0 I vt N N G9 } 69 j w O q N } w 0 CD C, o o. O aO c o 0 fin � -- v N r :2 n N fA 6 } W e O N O N O N O f O 69 O. 01 609 O+ C M N N N N f N } w O O G9 Il1 In ur1 ✓3 Ir) u Irl u N :Z e O Ir) O Irl O Irl O `I O O Vi N N 69 N N N O N N N I O N — ff1 1 } fn o � u ors, W m U p e O n O n O n 0 O r r c_ r 1 Q E t O O o v� v S E N v O aU } W °' m aF F .5 U F W O O — n v't a0 In fA o0 I vt N G9 69 j a C u C W C � q O N tCC N C C m U fn o � u ors, m U p o 0 c_ Q E t O O o v� v S E ❑ v O aU °' m aF F .5 U F W a ° ° la e°l2 GOD Go, a°la § }, ( = = a la e°l2 GOD Go, a°la § }, 00 0 ) A \ ) $ - Gn 2 605 `�k / 42 e°l2 GOD Go, a°la § }, /} ) A \ ) $ - 2 - $ `�k / 42 « _ 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o o 0 0 0 0 0 M M Y 00 o r v < 01 00 C V I M n fn O ry M f � r W If'I O O O V O 0 W N (T n V 0 0 0 NO O O O i 2 °' E--' 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o h h (b M M VN'1 q 6NA . co—o 0 op❑ m �OUmmUcnm� 0OVi O 0 0 0'T 0 0 0 0 N — V f N M W M O � 7 i N fR DD O O O V O 0 0 N M O O O N O 0 0 m — M 00 O N 10 O Vl W L' w � M ypp-I FA Yf fA •-- 1 W 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O V O 0 0 � VI M M 00 f -e 00 M 01 00 C V I M n fn O ry M f � r W If'I O O O V O 0 U N (T n V W i 2 °' E--' O O N h r c N } cf/ N g; q 6NA . co—o 0 op❑ m �OUmmUcnm� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'T 0 0 0 0 N — V f N M OIq M O 7 i N fR GMA 6R N � � 1� N 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o o o C m 00 co V I r469 O N T M U Y W i 2 °' E--' u'. 'E i z 2, C c A m y O c c g; q a.c o 0 oOpcUU °u°OUmmUmmrL c . co—o 0 op❑ m �OUmmUcnm� y NO 000 m 0 0 0 c E=UUfn ❑ o L' 1� 0 0 0 0 0 0 v'I O m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O pp T O� a0 W M O u u N O+ O O O M O 0 0 I m OIL CD m Ch V I r469 69 69 I W 0 0 0 0 0 0 v'I O m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O pp T O� a0 W M O u u U m � m n ti M Y eEa o cbG•� i 2 °' E--' u'. 'E i z 2, C c A m Cut c c g; a.c o 0 oOpcUU °u°OUmmUmmrL c . co—o 0 op❑ m �OUmmUcnm� y E=UUfn ❑ C u U O 7 O N O W aN eY N M 00 O M O\ O N b ol� 00 n 60 9 N C : 00 N 00 ... N O M CN M M m1 \O 00 00 !t LN bs s9 cv 69 n OMi C yl h10 n 609 N 00 y rq b 1� M M � I' N w 69 69 6 69 69 'r 9 64 M �O n 7 7 �O n 609 N N b "" 00 p h kn V. r VI V7 C 00 l0 C h w rq e9 69 69 V O N O 00 _ O� N n � h v1 •� a 1� N v'� n r n 609 N ON b n M 00 M 00 00 \Dm N •'.' eeM�� 00 N LL. 6A K 69 69 c9 s9 7 n O NO N M r 609 N ON b 00 00 00 V 7 !z N ... 0\ 00 aIn sIlzr wGS va -.7 K 669 Gos 69 70 O O N O �n M Cl 0000 00 G O N n 'V' 609 N O N � 'cr et N nj N N >. N N "i rMi h o0 `" w N65 69 6I9 N �O O— O r oo O O o0 N b o0 � �' C' N O n 69 N O b N � o0— N N O — L' N 69 69 69 M M p N o O rq O n 69 N N 00 N v d' N N M N 00 N N w N69 co 00 r4 69 69 6&9 s9 h•n•. 0 .M. 0 O O— 00� �O O\ N N O N n 609 N O p ... '� b h h le- M ... C oo00 C 000 N i>. w K 000 69 Gos N 6N9 6H 69 0 0 0 0 (,q O O N C oo M VNj O O C q 00 M b09 N NO r _ M �_ 00 00 oc 00 M M r T 01 0\ N � G9 c�9 6 Vi 69 N M O W � w > C o � U 'Q h U IUi C7 O U b LL 6: � � v •d Q .ate � 00p N y •b C O LL V C i ) Q. y w V] dj u = L a C VI v ID y 7 w C C v cd v G CC W C ? C O N> N ra t+ •� C .b t Ri O O i y G N U m [� U G: O c 'C •d a' a °' U 4 ca y c m V •° H UUU.r z Z ZQ Uw O U w F Q� O O N M C� m -ti- V, N M O O v O t+�1 oN0 17 C o N o0 T 00 69 C 000 n r O o0 N 0 N 0 00 00 V 0 m u c U 64 6N9 - 6A 69 4Y ff1 � � r- 0 0 N In O v'1 O V 64 C T O U V) V1 M M cl .- -- 00 r 0 Q\ 0 00 V9 V) M M 7 — 0 tin c bA U N N 0. h u N O U N 2 U 64 64 64 64 69 fig �c O O — '0 00 00 00 00 ON N O O V O N 7 M C4 r- N L O vl Y m C `A b (21 wl 69 b 000 O O OOO 000 �c U J a v U V) V) VI V1 O O VI o c N N � c � >ozQ n 64 64 69 64 69 K 0 z U N O— 00 Qc T Ir r- n`N 64 r n r — r` M N M M 00 00 0 .-- •ct 00 et I V Q M O 00 M 00 O R N N 64 64 69 69 69 69 C7., b O a �O Vl I M r- E; OO N r, N— r- V of O O V1 O v 64 C O -,•� 0 N N M N r- M N 00 00 'Ir 7 r` �o 00 00 00 U ON 00 N N 64 69 64 69 —O O N 00 00 O\ V' V) D\ O C, O V1 -Ir V'1 00 O Cl d' O V) O v 69 r W cl 00 OO OO O O N N —, , 00 N 0V- � N N N to — N 00 N M M M M V1 O VI 00 C M N N 69 iH 69 64 6/i 64 N �D O— 00 O O ao 00 N O O O V tn 00 Ni^ M 64 r Vi cl: a v r = Vl 0 N1 M 00 r` L 00 N 00 N — O+ — C+ N sis 64 s4 64 �c -- O V1 N 0 10 V1 00 0 00 O M M N r` N 0 r` r - O N --• N N N 000 604 N 69 69 64 64 �D O In r, b O O IT O C 10 �o �o a\ �c O\ 00 N O V O v 6.4 r O — t N N V1 kn �t O O N O 00 00 M 00 00 V1 DD N 64 69 64 64 0 0 0 vl O O V1 V'1 O+ vl O O V M 69 r 00 M V7 O O V1 V1 I M M cl N 01 rn 00 00 00 r- _ _ _ fA 64 69 6A 69 69 M O N rn N d � _ M C v m u c U � � U tin c bA U a y O U = 0. h u N O U N 2 U W D 0 N C iL U O ti W N y Q'i > y O N N C C VJ y G— y D V O N 7 M N > to N L O vl Y m C `A C o Ci t�^0 m E co N w °� wtu 7 (j y Q U j U J a v U c o c ;'yOzc E � c � >ozQ n FUUU� G1w C7 .z O 0 z U ca F Qc M O N rn a o0 o,Noeoo — o� n w NA W5 JvM o a o m oho o` o o a n O\p Q M O a N O v- r iH w rq 4e 6n ol O O b n 0O O O O 1p 10 1p Q1 r qr W N O a 01 n r 6i9 1100 w NFA O` � V1 S O N 10 N O O N V• y+ I= w C. 7 V�'l ifl Q T O o n r l4 01 N m p w r4 N O •-� b O O b 01 N N M M p ry o O o n N O W Q\ 00 00 V- Q1 I� FA OM v1 0 p 10 O O O O 70 Y M ao 1� b N V = OOp m O O m GO V�'1 O M M N 6A N w N V1 N b O N O r O 10 O O b N N '1,:M O V1 O - � b N O CD V1 10 N N 10 10 vi N N vrvi N O E5 I - w Nig tA h M D a0 N M 00 Q\ w 604 O 11006 O vii 0C1 O Ot O ^ ^ O 0 c O O 00 r --n C 10 b S — R N p C i't" ryq 6N9 N ifl O O 10 T O 10 1 O O O OCD CD 00 O O O O O 01 V1 10 N 00 pp V O N tt 0 ry L' K 6A 69 CC b .0 � 7 O w U N h N" y n m Ccn CL O m a a o m 0 0 5 v v� c •E 7 E c°,uc > � U b•o�� � o m ° � � � au >>� iri a c vw O u = O d O O LS w O C C C C K• H - - 1p Uwv E y aa,AOFE-000` H zo SFo o Z v v E= U U U 0 w z U F U DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT M O cz a u U V) x ESQ O z � O xs ti y � h r C O O N N Q] � 2 O O � N � N N ri N �6t p m O Iq N � Q O U a a N o Vt O v1 0 �/1 O fY r- 10 1) V In IN O - 69 65 &4 69 K 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6A 69 SIIO[[[I�j (Suogllm) SQ lenuud OC O O O O - ? 00 = I Orl 4 O 10 I = A O T -- I M — I N I I L rl F �L++ ■ Gi N N O W O C N OIn rq C11 6A 69 69 6A 69 fA 69 M O cz a u U V) City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan ATTACHMENT Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 4 REBDAK • • • • CONSULTING • • A DIVISION OF MALCOLM PIRNIE 5941001 ! POR Wi m H0000$o$$$0000 oo$000Soogo$voio$000voi_voi_o $voi.gSg$..or'�o r vpj h h N N N N N r N e1 h N Q v Q v— F N� 1� M1 � irb9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h h h h h h V1 h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h v1 h vl �1 0 0 0$ S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 OO Op O O o O O C O C O O C O O O 0 0 0$$$ C C C$$ O S T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S O O O O O O O O O O O O O h 0 O $ p 0 0 0 O 'Poo 0 m N O e1 O P h O O O O r I N b xN1 n O Q P K H H H OH O 00 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O h O O O O O h h O O h O h h m h O m o O h m r 0 0 0 0 0 0 h O � N N N N h N O m m b O O O O O O O M1 n h � H H H H H H H H H H OH 0 0 0 S S$$ $ S O O O O O O O O O O N X 0 0 0 O N O 00 0 h O N n 0 0 n N N r N� t� O r%1 O b Ohi h N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 r F G C- O r m h - N nICLP m Q n P ry H _ H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O h n 0 0 O h h m h O m e b P O b - H O 0 0 O OO 0 0 O O O O N O C O G O O e0 P b � of P o0 � N� 0 0 n F h n m — •af h N O •--• O h h h — — O --- .� N N N H O O O$ h O O N $ h N r O W N v1 r N n M1 n O b Q H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O h O O O O O h h 0 0 h h O h ut m O m e M1 P m P P � - - ibH H w H h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O h h 0 0 O h m h O m o H H N H H c ai 0 O- C O N fh•1 v01 v05 O CO N b N Q _ N O O h h VI H N H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O e O O O p p p O O O O O O I GN Q O O O O O O S N O O h h h O H VI c s ] m u O N A uy0i b u@ .w. C Y a N j A m u L G V O' 60 3. ° '� u C o .� .` ° m `� a m °' •c ° c m O U •� o a H C 3 �zm b ym CCg OpzO =¢ .o ° a o E o U p U •° m C ?� •O O 9 VJ q v U ° Vl VJ C° j N O m m Li. U m m� -. L F U iu z$�O ❑ ._._ ,3 - �;,� aU .. .. c .. .. c .. �' A°33°n m .. m TUU ZUU om U 000 o°Ommmmmm� F OUO»yZrn arca �UUUUUm mmOOF-FF mm m. ., U..lU.ahmwm urm� m m c y0 O Oh+ O m N22 0 0 0 �O �O O O O O m 0 VI O h �• O h Cho "I D 171` � R d d o d o d d d d o ej o d o 0 0 0 0 0 o d d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d d o o d o d o d d o 0 vl vl V1 vt Vl V1 V1 V1 V1 u•1 VI Vl V1 V1 V1 V1 !n V1 h h h h Vt .n .n Vf V1 vl Vt Vt V•1 vt v1 of vt Vt V1 v1 vt v1 h v1 v1 O d\ O 1/1 � H m m m 0 0 0 0--- -. O O+ �O O— 0 7 N O M 0 �D O �O O O N� M O. — O� •-• h O •� �O m �O M M M a O� �O �O M O M m et m O M N T 0o a N Q: b h O� N ao V oD 7 et � .: .•. < R 7 — h �D �O N — °. N ui r 7 `D et N - m O O m 0 C C C b V' h v1 h m Ot T O h N O� O� O������ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h h O N O m O O O h O •D V1 O m 0— a V O— h O v1 M N M-- h h m v1 U— m O m vt h m h V1 Vl eF of m 0 0 'O R vt 00 D\ O O et O h �O h m m m O O O O O O O O O�� O� p m� O Q O ya• O� �O O— h h m a .... b� O `� N m� m v? V �° M m C .'1 �• est opo v V� oho o �o �l N v M �O m o o Ch 1N'1 M M M O N N mvl� a0 N IF •� m M- M O �O O u1 h vt M M M O O O O O O O O O N N O m o -- O O O N O "t } O N O � q T—� of " OM—hoN— m o—r`i-�000 Ni = � ar' c� rie.i_niv—hM r0 O H O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n 8 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O V, h Vt — m rn �O O O O+ V' a T �pD O vi O MCi li 0�0 Q• �O OP. �O N ymj vmi h r•1 h n - O N h O N a O N h O, O D\ b O rA N m 7 m R V tY D\ a\ O CL O� vl m C1 O OC � M of m T h R op h of y.= r o0 0 N1 D` 0 0 R 0 0 0 �2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `O -• g C b b O m O O O m m of vl n DO O o0 V� eF 0 0 0 0 om o 0 000 00 00 00 g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ oveo�00S N O� O h h vNi 5 C 0 U ti ° a U 0 x u � 0 p yui ° u y26 CY ° @U ec ca3 >e c5i°" m e3 °m y m 3�.5 0 .5 p� 3 e �v� >�� u o U •c c = o .4 .5 m ° cti .e 'Q .5 0 ° .5 ca •° r ' > o U a 0 O n` U_ 3 m v m u a c rn °' ° x C7 m° o o❑ 3 v D c off' Ed.m�ub amu° � oC3ti� �.oN cY F �U�y ��m� � am g� q $❑� e >e� w a 5 y 'oc 'o K .5 ❑ b b U m € ,0 5 m o r °o. v e t .00 e3i L u g yl g m .5 1O is °e cc U y U> >. c4 0 0 o U U o' g A oo m' U 5 °m�auO 3 0❑ 000 d Orn❑� �ri o°nt U ° ° °� 00� oy n L mx c 3 0 C-� U — ._ > 3'• N M 7 V .. <1 .. C U C mc C m `L W N❑ F U to F .9 V U s e3i u 7= �' 3 3 3 3 a ..] 3 U Z` U V °0 1% ? U o❑❑ m m m m m ¢ 0000�mzv�r�aa UUUUUm m m OOFFFmmmm-j S 9 �v nrnrnv y0 00 O a0 rn v m N O t O M O1 f r- O 00rn t 00 rn n C N O O r 6o9 C w ; to O r•1 c GA G w 00 O OM [ N r O � C to 7 00 c O O R 4 N C7, c w N 6A G M O V C O N � ON � w a, O o, a O, r rn N l- � c C N 00 n WfA V o_ov+ o i N_ [, r'1 C O 7 00 1, wG' G O o" 1" N ` G9 G O O O C O14 r w 7 O .0 m w C .. O C U d � ^ y T m m > � ` O c y w y U y py� 5 w 70N o p w r�1 R C/] 0 d to rronU c m E E=U Uw �UQO o e a O o 0 U on 69 O O 69 N O 609 O O O o0 h M l% N O M Vj h 00 e � a 'ct 00 609 O O 609 NN O O 69 O O O y� N O 69 yj 069 N O Irj M. 69 O O 609 N O 609 N O rj vj M O U on b O O 0 N O M 00 O O O o0 h M l% 0N O M h h 00 � � 'ct 00 5.4 69 64 o o e O 69 O O 69 O 069 O O 609 In 5.9 Oai N O Irj M. 69 O O 609 N O 609 N O rj vj M O o oO 64 O O 609 cli N O 69 O O � N O �ry 00 O\ 0�0 O O N O C, 4 n o0 O N O O 000 7 69 69 69 O e oO 69 O O 604 N O O 5A O O v1 N O try "ClG O U on Qi O O ONi N O 00 n v O O O 5r1 N O Q\ N O h Vj N ON N N ry 64 69 69 - O e o U y p 7 5.90 O O 609 N O 5.9 Oai O O V 00 N O yj rq O o oO 64 O O 609 cli N O 69 O O � N O �ry 00 O\ 0�0 O O N O C, 4 n o0 O N O O 000 7 69 69 69 O e oO 69 O O 604 N O O 5A O O v1 N O try "ClG U on v, cr101 (n q be G a, N 6. Gn C> N U y p 7 IN N n N r O N O M M N fiNA K O N olc cl� M M O N N 69 G9 O O N N r rl�. ON N N W) 69 o to N N O N N N 69 40% m .D � O O m C y 7 U H V1 d > C � N �Q Ei _ O 3 U O C y w . t7 t y N F 7 , O n J 0 0 o M ry d C N y y h .0 � FUUU C]�n 'n v, o a a v M � OIL kn ON NIn m y 00 w 64 6. ) M H 6) N9 " to O v C w- te) O en M O w 69 6A 69 N 00 N N l� N M M 00 w 6A 6) M GA O O �O �c h � OIL 00 00 ON M M y 00 en [VGA M M H 6) N9 GA fio� � 6A y N b N O O �2 �c 7 n � O Ol ct y O\ N M M r,4 M "I - In 6A 6A 69 bpi ON (V7 O N M It O V T M NO M M 0 C U U CUJ 60S 69 GA G04 O y M M 0p O 00 N V, h 0000 � M M ONO rq 69 6N9 G9 6M9 w O N O 00 00 T 00 N 00 00 00 C 'n N M V!i w h M GA N 00 00 GA rq O ,r, hrq 7 O � M w c9 64 6 7 O 01 00 T 00 O 64 T 00 O O 00 00 00 00 en cq oq en [VGA N H 6) y N b N V1 0 VJ � O O it O di c U N cn C � y n 0 C U U CUJ 6) O y � E y v, C y U o adiA oAN C c u m a�i A F U V A U A 7 O � o � N 6N9 6WH 69 O0i O vn O v1 N In N eo C, w" w 69 N 00 O ° r n Wn C N r O N M 00 N rq en Go, 69 6�5 w C, �° �° �° N M M !1 00 � Cl C M y 00 00 M .0Y It 69 69 69 69 O �O �O N M N w69 69 69 CD r r c, M 7 o NV � c vi a v �t N N 7 ww 69 GA 64 0 0 0� 00 000 N Vn 00 'r ': C W.N 00 00 N M 00 �+ 6N9 (A 6M9 EZ O 00 00 00 N Cn N 00 C Vn N 00 00 N M 00 �^ N9 f.M9 K L w O -1 O' o N N K N Ni 69 0T O a2, 00 -L 69 00 a C v 00 W v 00 m O en N N N N 6s 69 69 O 00 (u O y U � 0 rt > Oji U •C 01, � O U v U cn N U U 4) O y y O O C $ 7 y a R Q Uj O G U 3 •5 � v � a `n •� C Us 0 ti .� Qj N rn t^3 'o 0 e a e e O O C O O O 69 (a9 NOOO ooc^ lO Ouo N 00 ol Q 7 a r a 6m n A r- Vb1^ O N ONO o w7 .... p M��rnnoo — cr� cv rM�1 O "D1" 1" 00 N�'f •f t` b r��1 V: vl 00 O n b M N n 7 00 M W fA) O � O h 00 N h f` aoo^oo�oQ'� a oPo 0o c N IT EA cn fH 0I1 -n+ N N N hO+ b— M NO ao 00 �0 00 � O Nfi3 n h — � v01 Q fA fA N opo O O O � O pV n O h Vp• w b b19 fit X 0 0 0 O O O — d4 :9 e a e e o O O O O O V 0 d U m O o cn 0° E a i 3 U O -- t-; t -;O o�3 U ,d O o•�w �a _ a3 �' UZ o F H as d F 0 Z V 0 00 O N w I GA cis I(0 vi O O O O N w CD u i w y . a' U fd O O < O •= N U � � I U N W c � N `9 0 U Y O N � o N fA w I GA cis I(0 vi O O O O e o O O O b � U N W `9 aO O � 'C w fA a) r N N Ci •u d Lu W ` W � . v_ Fw- y w •� aaiO LLI a, Z °' �°� r 'o O cn o a a � EC O > E aei p b ttl � C 4n FUU C]a� E—UZin LA CA cn 03 U U 0 U b a� L. SCJ y it N u 3 O EA - 0 0 t1r) kf) N N 0 06 0 H co 0 V IRT O cC A O U V] .-r a 0 �- �w Y H U U W Q ON 9 cm co Cd U 0 U Ld cd U N_ C/1 W 4 O U ..fl E4 0 0 If, kn N N 00 O F U U Vo 00 00 v7 V9 a 00 00 01 ON O C 00 O O ul v ^O CT Q O c N U" U. M M V1 V7 0 0 0 O+ O, CT D\ O c � O' Q\ V1 V O 00 00 O c N r r a Ly I A c w R co) F W Y a3i F F ° FO c a GT W Z o , Q\ m CT O c r0 00 00 C c w 0 o O, O` o c u1 o0 0o v, v G o0 0o O N w �t la o ON o` o c c .6 o0 o c N w 00 00 M M e N N O cT O c N v1 v1 v1 4 00 00 O c N L CJ .,OH w v1 v7 M M e o c N N (21 a\ O < N v1 v1 v1 4 F3 00 0o O c N L CJ .,OH w N N N N e M M O CT O O M M C 00 00 O c N L CJ .,OH w N N N N o c O 'G CT c O O M M c 00 00 0 < Gtl VI L CJ .,OH w O O o V1 V1 CT O+ O C ON N N n 00 00 O C N O a Ly I A c w R co) F W Y a3i F F ° FO c O 'G fC N �U U Gtl VI L CJ .,OH r � � L 3 w C) N v W C COen W r cC � O O a Ly I A c R R co) F W Y a3i F F ° FO c [TUU ri D W Z V N w O N LL. 0 0 O O eoq N w o a N_ O O 64 N w e a N O _ O O os O O N w N w v o a fioS CD CD eq z w 0 o 0 W O O N p O bq qo O O _ N w � �a 0 U4 W w U4 a y a o O O M S F ° H F O M M r N w O N LL. 0 0 O O eoq N w o a N_ O O 64 N w e a N O _ O O os O O N w N w v o a fioS CD CD eq z w 0 W U a � �a ❑ q O E cn W w a y O .D S F ° H F r V N I- N llzr O 6A O 69 N 0 I FS t2 U N yj 69 69 C4 ai O W R C O U O n i y Q Goq 6's e O N v 6A W R •� — O O O 6A 6A N 69 69 6/3 w 0 0 N N 696s N V'1 Ow T dr O .M. N fR 6A 64 �^ LL. 69 609 V O rn N 69 69 69 w ON C,� as ON M O, T Q N 6A 6R 69 w O O 64 69 U1 N h vi tri N 69 69 64 w N N 69 69 N O N. N fA 6R 619 LT' W M O M S2O 69 69 N 6A 69 6A W V'1 v'1 O O h EA EA O 69 EI3 69 W V O R G O U C R C4 ai O R C O U 3 rs. U i y Q e v iA O R •� — O O C � U L U = U � u y v �? or ° u o E .v ymce �° a v -:z t-UU W D Qa wZ H e �e e O O �I N 10 00 � n N DD O 00 — O! r CD W O N N i�9 K M fA e t� e e C h eP 0 = = N O N 00 ^ p O e n a a p o 0 0 e e O Vl OC O 00 00 00 R V�j 00 4, 0p CNq N LAS. 6rry9 FA e l� o o ry M 7 O O OOi b N O O Cl n � Iq Iq N 69 r N V o ry M O vpib V � V'i O O O N N rq 00 w O N V Vl y� � N Lri Vi O O O v-, M O h a, Q M 000 o0 N C h O O T f`I N n r Cl en N 9 R Ul f UsN o r o o ,"I O M M �O �O m O V ^ 1z n O f.9 allo F N 0 r o o T M V 0 V b V O N N M C O 0 n NO O 69 �O a9 O � — vi �O — •.• O 00 O er Q h V�1 O h O C M N O N 60) O T O Np'1 V tt 00 00 N 'p O 00 O M V .11: Y Y ON,^ � N i fA 69 rrj O C � U L U = U � u y v �? or ° u o E .v ymce �° a v -:z t-UU W D Qa wZ H O � S O N O O Dpi W IL GT •" O K uMO � N � n0 m C r p ono O O Dpi 01 uD N C N � M b CT V V y Gam.. 6A F9 6 e M V O r V'i uo M N h O CT u m o 2 C = N � r ov7c an O h N u� CT N O CT CT r ; N C O 69 M V oo � M uD d' Y b � F9 fi e M T O uDr 00 V'1 GT M O M t 00 ' O m O IIL� C O o N b N n O m a z F 5 Z. N FUUfn vo'i O � CT G N � N f LL GA fiii 6 O 0 o0 CT � uo r Nl V 00 Cl a, N 00 r1 M Ch CT V � C v'1 N fT — 00 Di CT C' [T 00 t� G N C r — uD M V1 R LN 6M9 fig 6 o N h O o T n CT d' uD O C C O V T N uD M N V -i OMO vii u N N N DO r+i O N GT T f O N h N In N ol+ b _. G e V'1 a O CT h CT h O N c O O M DD O M 00 DO O M N M R ( uD N Vl ' N n N N n c m O ono rn'1 n O N M oc M V 7 c � 69 69 f o M10 O O M h M h M O O un t •0j rO�t vnl 1 V N 10 M 7 O N N /A N � 614 9 fH 6 e 1.0 0o O M v O O N u0 N O N h b N uo — M O M— M u CI un 'Ir h \D O O N M^ 69 h ? M M M 4 6 wN fin 69 e 0 h O— M O O N V} O uD O O M b W? V'1 h o0 7 0 uo o O cT N G O N CT Vl b N w O uf1 CT MR uo h n n VI N N O M M N N M f 6 64 iii e O O O O O O O b [T O b < O o r 0 ^ Q oo DD M 0 0 o 0 h m M G a vi o0 N O W N O 'cf• n M o C M N N G 6rN9 fir9 Lc O u- � n0 tz. V C � L 6i itl � y Gam.. O m m 4' v m rd• m o 2 C ov7c an m ai u� o i ti OHO y o Dyw'pmCCn Y b ci�md5� H m _ cn aGO m a z F 5 FUUfn D5 rn ] j \ / ° ° )k \ ƒ OIL \ g§ / ƒ( ® - 60� 4A k \j �ls o6 COO V) �)) - - " ± (Ei 0 \ s \ - © % 12 Q \\\\ \ a — §»§; ik ecea A2 ° _ / \/}) � j/ -Ir - \ � \ \ ( -T . f _ _ . ID / a R § ° CD °\ \ \ \ / Q Q 2 ; )k g§ / ƒ( 60� 4A k \j �ls o6 COO V) )k g§ / ƒ( c§ k \j �)) 2ca} ) \ (Ei 0 \ s \ - © % 12 Q \\\\ \ — §»§; ik ecea A2 ° _ / \/}) � e 7 N N co 60 O N M r %0 r O '9 (i C •p O G. C . N O M eM+t ONO C r'Dry � •� c b M }N w big � 69 V. e vi a o o r r oo h M « O P r O N O �0 [t C N a V M V' N M C ^ N m 00 O°iO M O M OI K O aN0O O b p y y .° O •° 00 E p � r � N V9 N Ch M o O 10 r 010 ^ _ o. ._ O cl O R Cn N CIL a n N O C '? 00 lCi CD K ^ O C h m n r'! 00 - N Vj M I� vi e w^ r WS OC ONO o a h 0 0N 10 -• ^ O -• O O M lD h 10 N 0, 00 ^ <r r a T w CD N � 69 V9 b9 V e 00 O O O, v rOro N lc V N N M O OO Vl M OI O IL N O n N �., N N 69 � Vi 49 V 0 0 N 'O C- CD �°in O7i v6Oi C7 N 1 C N M rN c O Vi N Ooi O V' r VNt M c N40) M r N mGn N 6[ b O O- O n h= Vl r oro V M V } tr. _ 6r9 Fre O N co 60 O N M r %0 r O '9 (i C •p O G. C . ON r M C r M O � •� c b u e r r O N O �0 [t C O a OO oo t' O V' N N N C R OI N O aN0O O b p y y .° O •° 00 E p � r � N V9 N Ch M _ o. ._ v . U�C, R, o�mF 5 e O 'o O DS p C h m n a N C O r � OC ONO e�11 69 6A 6 CL b C O '9 (i C •p O G. C . G .fl � •� c b u c 7� C y fa. m O b p y y .° O •° 00 E p � O 7 o. ._ v . U�C, R, o�mF 5 HU Fca FUrA U DS v O GO-) o o0 oA 0o OC N u U C 0 0 O O N O O N } O O N O w r N K o O O O O r 0 fV OEA O fA I 1609 v O O O O O O O C �O N u U C 0 0 O O N O O N } O O N O w r N w U •° �3 x, OEA O O O O O O O � !V y •n � � O 0 O 0 0 "' 0 N } 0 0 0 O w •� U c c u LL � u �•• c o N � � y �•ca o EU vi O v O •O C co�0 u U C 0 0 00 oA O N O O O O O O N O r N w U •° �3 x, l O ry a y •n = u 0 O 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 v O •O C u U C �y C td O O O O O O O O 5A N w U •° �3 U l O ry a y •n = u 0 VOJ O O O O O O •� U c c u LL � u �•• c o N � � y �•ca o EU 0 O OtA O O O O O O !V v O •O C u U C �y C td O u v � e m u w U •° �3 U y O ry a y •n = u cG w O u E •� U c c u LL � u �•• c o �Q �r•E � � y �•ca o EU v O AW e O N O N O N O N p filq C V R filq R et V _ H9 69 } Ix. C N R p m N � } � } u R, v W e o rn o a o 0 o ON O "' v 7 `A N M r N 'a' O N -I V 4 6) fig _ GA AW C 7 O 69 N O O1 �O N V 69 V R et O N _ H9 69 } Ix. C N R p m AW C 7 O 69 N O O1 N rq O' 69 N N O� O� m N n M M n C N R p m } u R, v e o rn o a o 0 o ON O "' v 7 `A N M O N — fA 6) u v om EF5 °JUF m c FUUv� „ D5 a ON O N O N O N O 69 of T OL V3 01 a cl M N N N ON _ fi1 69 I tz, C V1 O 69IL �/1 69 vl vl 7 — N c N 69 V3 U Y It C) N O 69 N N 69 N N O N fA fA Lz N O N _ 69 _ H9 } CL O p — f�1 � W Vl 69 00 00 Y1 v1 r fA tfi 69 AW C 7 U ° m N u C R p m u v E Oas u v om EF5 °JUF m c FUUv� „ D5 h ] AW / CD Q\ ) - - / / \C4 \ \ \ \\ § - . / _=Ia Qoq Q\ ) - - / \C4 \ \ \ \\ § - . ) /7 cn )2 /]ƒ}% } )ƒo a 0CL ^*§K )///�) /gea A] �F�u \ c J / a a° a / $ a °° a a° a / / °° a a° a C!a _=Ia §■ Q\ ) - - \C4 \ \ \ \\ § - . /7 cn )2 /]ƒ}% } )ƒo a 0CL ^*§K )///�) ® /gea A] �F�u \ c J §■ a v o o n o 0 o m m n o o m o 0 0 O c v a Q N 69 69 69 w CIL Qi VV ° N bq 69 69 7 R- O O rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -� O O �- M w R V T �O tP - � °� N n Vl 1� f•1 O v1 m R m V r+1 M V N V3 - r N w w HY M n 0 0 0 0 Fa 'O O O 0 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0 C V W N m 19 in.9 fii1 Y C' Vt i0 p�c'n O CD V' m O N r 69 N 6A - FUUcn w (N9 CIL Qi VV ° N bq 69 69 7 R- O O rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -� O O �- M w R V T N v � � °� N n Vl 1� f•1 O N m -- � N r N ID O O w HY y w O O 0 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0 oq O N Q 'L lc h n %C in.9 fii1 Y N — N 10 O\ N n p�c'n O CD V' m O N r 69 N 6A - FUUcn w (N9 10 O O O N N m O O m 0 0 0 -. a O N ONO^ �• Vim'' CD r Iq N O O R 0 0 0 ~ Mr O r4 m 00. M w V) 60� N CIL Qi VV ° N bq 69 69 7 n O O 0 0 0 N -� O O C N v � O N 7 9 O N m -- � "' ID O O n y w V} oq f�A in.9 fii1 Y w p�c'n cUU a� o 0 0❑❑ m re 9 c. m o o° g p �OUmmUrnrnw c cOUmmUv�v�a� m O u m F Lr] FUUcn ❑ a a Iq N O O R 0 0 0 M M 7 0 0- 0 0 0 m N - N V n O NO _ QA 669 w GM 0 0 0 0 0 0 N^ 0 0 0 0 0 N N m D m N- N D h N C w ONO l� O FfJ 6n9 6A CIL Qi VV ° N bq 69 69 7 O 'C C N v � 7 9 "' ID O O mo >>wQ c y E o m.a °wQ� h = L 'C El w Nyy N y w is m m ro ' c u'p,c '� a uc,c c cUU:; p�c'n cUU a� o 0 0❑❑ m re 9 c. m o o° g p �OUmmUrnrnw c cOUmmUv�v�a� u m F Lr] FUUcn ❑ N N rn r C h O V M_ M 00 . N et oo csi P 7 O N n N M C' 00 � !t � 00 00 N _ In 00 00 In �• ? 'ch 00 00 m L6 6N9 N — 6A 69 6A ;; 69 M O — O M M _ N v1 Vl N N 000 h C` N9 N O O N N Q; .-. .-. oo N ... N N O\ 0o 00 ,�• N lll� ll*� CO 00 w N69 69 69 69 en W)kn W 'O v1 O N 0 M 00 00 t` VY O C "" C N .r b b n n , M � 604 N NO .�. n f V N N N VNl N 00 N 7 w bN� N 69 69 69 6A 69 n ... p y p o o n C O N � O O U O n 604 N N n w N 619 69Goq N 611 69 69 C O 7 00M VNi O O vNj h cc M n 604 N rq r4 CON 00 00 00 CD M V 'cl' a, a, M M O� N 69 611 6'1 64 v b u ca w > C O U d •� y U G c 'c r_4(5 ° y S Jog y N O. N 6. 4� O y.�.d O .O Nm O C cn m a a w Q' O O a O p' aoo a1 c a •� 6, � E a u a � ` w' a w o FUUU� c]w]zr� Erx C7 u O z ozQ u "' y O z cr U W F= Q a n O N 0 M �O h O n 7 •�- y� b b - o � , 69 N V1 N N N00 � 69 69 69 69 69 n Mn n ON fig N ON N C M M y� C O N 00 N 00 N N Cl 60% 4 / ifi 69 6q 0 0 O In O vhf 0'0', M 0 M O N vl O v1 7 of — M M 00 C` 69 N rq In 00 4n M Y 00 M b w N _ _ 69 69 69 6A G9 O O vl ol h In N n N N a pNj ? 609 O 00 C) et D\ T V? et 00 — r1l n r b O h w (N O 69 69 69 _ 6R 4A 69 N cc 609 ON 00 yNj M O O 7 O\ — Obi T h w 69 604No" 619 60.)ss1 N N rn r C h O V M_ M 00 . N et oo csi P 7 O N n N M C' 00 � !t � 00 00 N _ In 00 00 In �• ? 'ch 00 00 m L6 6N9 N — 6A 69 6A ;; 69 M O — O M M _ N v1 Vl N N 000 h C` N9 N O O N N Q; .-. .-. oo N ... N N O\ 0o 00 ,�• N lll� ll*� CO 00 w N69 69 69 69 en W)kn W 'O v1 O N 0 M 00 00 t` VY O C "" C N .r b b n n , M � 604 N NO .�. n f V N N N VNl N 00 N 7 w bN� N 69 69 69 6A 69 n ... p y p o o n C O N � O O U O n 604 N N n w N 619 69Goq N 611 69 69 C O 7 00M VNi O O vNj h cc M n 604 N rq r4 CON 00 00 00 CD M V 'cl' a, a, M M O� N 69 611 6'1 64 v b u ca w > C O U d •� y U G c 'c r_4(5 ° y S Jog y N O. N 6. 4� O y.�.d O .O Nm O C cn m a a w Q' O O a O p' aoo a1 c a •� 6, � E a u a � ` w' a w o FUUU� c]w]zr� Erx C7 u O z ozQ u "' y O z cr U W F= Q a O N b N N C K 00 d bA � C OOi 0 f 00 � N N V) N O N N N O Ow O O'^ N M N ON f1 b �" 64 69 Gr9 fig 69 64 R C` O N O+ b b M M V7 iD O O V CI CIL � .(�-. V1 � V7 r- � C` V1 r 69 f O ED N N rq O V, O r4 W N 00 N N o, N b 7 y y°i v u" 6M9 69 fi.9 f�4 64 fA ami o m O. 10 0 -- W) 00 00 00 00 M N O O 4 O M h M M m — O oo h 64C �D O? V Ic N— U M M ul y — T 00 <1' C-4 o tu ❑N x S N ul 00 V1 In MM N V1 Y cE .d. E 00 00 W 7 U y O U j Q; C u" cq eq 69 69 69 Vi 69 v o E o cG ami y lc � b Nm 01 N M O+ T C2,h .-. 69 c .� 00 y C z T O\ 'd' I -r 00 O� C7 N lN+ b V O O V1 Qo 699 699 69 69 6.9 69 r` O O ON �c W) O O v 'Q' N cl N \c O� M T M N M N ol f" V1 •� 69 C N 00 'd' O_ O_ d' -oO` CN I b b k" 64 (Al9 694 c.9 O+ ut O N r` r` 00 W r` v1 O O V M 1 oc O0+_ N 7 ":oMo 69 Ol '9V O N ^ C O N [- _ M 00 00 In on V V of u1 V'100 Go9 �' 69 699 69 b4 V- M M N In N v1 v'f V'i CO �c N N N N 'Ic Q � oc R R V7 cq v1 — 64 C O�C` D\ — 00 00 ocr4 r- .9-i N 00 00 M N !F 679 u' 694 699 64 64 M 'n O V1 %c V'1 N M v �o �D �c �c 00 n 00 00 C` — C` M O V'1 O V 69 f — O N — C lc n r` -- h n N m — N � N In Vn LT" 694 664 64 G4 n—O O Od' O O O wt O O O V Ic y O C " ^ V'� t � M r--�O 7 lD T O C cl O O� V•1 V'I fA C rl C14O — N O M t+i 699 69 Yi 0 0 0 O u1 N O O o Cl V1 N vl O� N o0 V't M O V1 O V 64 c Q� et 00 M h O O V•^ II Vl 1, — C7, 00 00 Vi N �" 6H Ni 69 69 d bA � C 00 � 01 ED d 7 y y°i v ami o m c ❑ CW 3 m pe o cG ai y m = m ani c Ic N— U H Qi i N tu y y N N o tu ❑N x S x - — o o v 7 V1 Y cE .d. E W � W 7 U y O U j Q; C U N 7 j �O v o E o cG ami y �/ z W O d .z d Oi C z FUU U� O� C7 O O z U w F Qo C e U b v � a •� O Z � � cOi C v $ NQ ;, m O W rn'g 5 e a o - g v w 60) Uacir -00 �� m O u. m cC m> n M n V O n N O O r Q y Iry. c K w m w00 wao OQ a C a O O yv>. W S A .0 L •_ Y W O C �' O�� a! •.. � ���� W m N M O p 000 G LL GM m •� o u x z U F U U U q W 00 M a, O F d U y O b O OM+ O C p ^ 'Col O 00 00 Op M b W w vi `Nq N fA t� O\ Q .D O ch v1 O O O O Q aC of N 00 N C6 00 N h O n C 00 - 00 O } b M Ln l+ I 69 O w N60) t4 En Cl M N 1I'1 OO N Q O r N 00 N N70 V-�p -4 a0 N C N h 1/1 Vl w � NfA o r Q v� o o vi a� y Q n N RQ N O OOO N C4 Q V 00 M eQf C M Q Q Q Cc 60) N �D W p rq M m C Ci N N 09 7 C U n moi Q oo v MSC N p O `O ^ q Q� n � � vi V" oq N O O O O O 0 Or n h 14 �p C Q W) Vj N N p O Cx V ri CD a O O a H ry O (� v. W 00 Q Q ,c M '. M M N — O' 65 a w "' c 9 vi C e U b v � a •� O Z � � cOi C v $ NQ ;, m O W rn'g 5 e a o - g v O Uacir -00 �� m O u. m cC m> Iry. c K w m w00 wao OQ a m N O a O' yv>. W S A .0 L •_ Y W O C �' O�� a! •.. � ���� W :: `rn yy N 000 m •� o u x z U F U U U q W F d U C e U DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT M r O O M M � fA * W N N V1 69 M o ,-Trm--7-m� 777777777 e o 0 O . '-.s a' = O O O O O JSQ eo N RT M M N N •-- — 0 0 a 0 I I N a N � ry • c O O L E• - 3 i ' 1 I O �p Q Cl _ !Ay o 2 � C O O O M �"• Doo ONO 0 I- ON C N N I N O p O o rA u < A '- M M •--� Q O = � � I N •un CN a c O 5 O oN V1 -'Ir CD I O rA rl oo r- Li' ,n R M 0 6�q 60q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 61 64 q WS EA � -- v SIIOWN (suo!11!-) SQ junuud o_ v^ � M r O O M M � fA * W N N V1 69 M o e o 0 O = = O O O O a 0 I I N O �p Q _ !Ay o O O M O CO CN N G O V1 -'Ir O o � O U I N N O 0O 6A 'D tY 69 fA N Vi O 69 (R FA FA City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan ATTACHMENT Clean Streams Financial Plan Scenario 5 •. ; REGDA K • • •' CONSULTING • . A DIVISION OF MALCOLM PIRNIE 5941001 / POR M ;I CD s N m O I 0 So S S S S S S S o 0 o N S S 0 o 0 0 o S o S S o 0 0 00 0 o o S S o S S o 0 0 0 0 00000000 00 00 0 oh S o_ SI li N 0 0 0 0 0 0 h N h D\ b O b O T 'R O O n 0 VI e e e e e e e e e e e e e 9 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e g e e O RR O O O O O o O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O 0 o O O O O . O O N vpi vpi voi voi vpi voi voi vpi h vpi h h h h r h h h h h r N ---------- cc hh-----h- cO O O S O S O O O O O S O O O O S O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O S O S O S O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O OIL O O O O O C C O C h h� O � a'O N O n O ap O� C ^� r• F e1 F N O h N N N< N N _ � r o � H •� •� N H p' f�R iQA w c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coco o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ o o h o m o m e o o c H O 0 0 0 0 N N r N h n N M1 est O N VN N N 1 J m N O L k t .6 °; .S,6 = o s e m .E6 v 3 § m v ma .' 3 b °' •• c u p °' > U o `a u. � N _ U � '� o v°2 u -'� � 0 o U � o C P+y+ .o d ar, d c '� O Z, F y m .° L `° "� 9 u t N. 'U U °�°C' H H N F N N yVoo O -• O O O h � N O N D n m u2om. .°�° =u 3.� Eaf ao � -uNo�' �00g3'�N�pUni uj m °°Um o m " 33°wt�t aF•U <�o i��2 o F• vXd cvOUO»yZai��a°SUUUUUmm mOOFFFmmalm .°.10�.°a O.��rmi�rmn� m h vmi� ^ H nl H H N H N M1 O N r N en M1 O b of h h H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O h O O N O � O O h CI N m O. �O M V � P Oo � N_ O G �+f r• h N � - O� O O m N O voi vpi H H N F O N N NI O^ r b OO V09 � h N h H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t� r F �° m - N n �° m 1 O� N m O ^ 0 0 0 h o 0 H O O O O O S O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 00 O O N O O O O N n O ^ N IL r N rmn h 0 rn O n O O= O O O O O O O O O M1 M1 h G^ F m " ut ^ N nI° - �p H m n1 F O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O coo. 0 O O h O h h m O e O a V O• C H O C O O O O O O hh h O N h N r N n N h N r e1 O N N �O O S O O O O O O O n t; F r -- r H m v m N S � S vpi voi voi vbi v`Oi n n ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o S S S= S 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O O o •V H N � H w H H Z. J m N O L k t L U = o s e m .E6 v 3 § m v ma .' 3 b °' •• c u p °' > U o `a u. � N _ U � '� o v°2 u -'� � 0 o U � o C P+y+ .o d ar, d c '� O Z, F y m .° L `° "� 9 u t N. 'U U °�°C' mUN��E�a��5 3u o E U•cc" •t>= c3�?m par�._oE a' a .V9a •ou-°' yVoo Oc> oy oUgaE. c.O5m actu' y 2 cE N6U aro° •'c , ° mE a uu.u° � UVw u2om. .°�° =u 3.� Eaf ao -4 cv•mv" ¢NH ' °v e -uNo�' �00g3'�N�pUni uj m °°Um o m " 33°wt�t aF•U <�o i��2 o F• vXd cvOUO»yZai��a°SUUUUUmm mOOFFFmmalm .°.10�.°a O.��rmi�rmn� m h vmi� 2 0. 0 0 O. O m N m T O� O� O� 0 0 �O `O O O O O m 0 �'I O C• ^ O r` O m O m 0 0 �D O N — a\ O O� O r _ M_ h Y1 N r n V' !` N m N O O N Q\ O Vl V1 r °� M f• N O ,p � � N Q N_ � N �D �O O O C• [� Iti O ri � r'1 ^ O V N m N rn t� — O 01 F � c•5 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o F� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 o o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o c o o c o o c o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n vi vi vi v� 'n vl vi 'n 'n 'n a V d Q- - N o0 � 00 V V ? N N — — V V Q• -- !� � b N O\ N Vi � � � '�t CI � W O O �O O Q N Q N N N �O �O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 N O N O m m 0 0 0 N 0 ['� Q O— m C• M �O a Q+ N O m O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 [� 7 �D — D: Q !` '/1 h m D: — °� O C• N — N M � ^ t' C- C• M M N^ Q N — — v1 r N Q } - N Q h m Lc. --- � } u'1 m 'n - 'n 1 . 1 CI — h vt Vt CI N Q N W N m �O CI W M Q M M Q 14 !` b O O M O N M N O 10 10 M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V'f n O h O M-0 I= O! O- T O— M nO O—OMC•— O — r C• — } L3. b9 �O �O �O M M M �• — — �O O Q m �O U �O Q — t` O Q CI — M O, Li v (H Q m Q` w m O\ V V Q Q Q M O O N n 'I C N N O� O `D � Q Q N N D: Q IO O Q O O� "? m9L } O O CI O �O D• M M M N N O O-- — O— C- O N O m O� coo C- O N O\ O N 'n O` O b V O, O 69 N m Q m Q Q Q N N °� °� �O �O T �O — '/1 m �O O r — °. m M D• N r` vt m r M h [1 m Ip n � 00 CI '•• � SOV �l] m a0 - Q � - O C- �O vi O D\ CI N � � M ^ �C — N Y' o n oc000vQanr` 0c; 8 N O O h h h 'e N i U � m t4 a _U rn q y y s 0 4 _° m o U 3 a U ti a c p Y p m m m rn U U `J y�i WC9 ona F� D U e m .5 -5 v e o m p a U yE ° a d >3 a y :: �: d v 'y Z' F m ,e m 3 v U t� '� �: u o m 0 Cie U -� U a �i ° m. U •� e H d y y c .n o �?, rn °� m U a U 3 U G m •� 3 g E mm o m�o�a3 >ci� ��m °oY c0U a�ml+ Amm a 6mm O " °� 5 r °a o m 0. UY_ u C 'C' C c co U U 5 Y m U 3 U m L' m ;� fil m .5 >> V o d m° o U g o a, tz o 0 o m •�.5vz�OuOJ935cn9i ,2r°n m� uUfL .1�x m0 ••�'ipNryi'C6 u"i e K = A g d ' ��� 3333— 3 ° ..0 °o .. 0 ..33..udfu ••� a o� _ VU Z e_d v�UUo+?U mOoDOmmmmmm a aUODUy z rn co n. �UUUUUmmm00 FF Fmmmm3-3.4"' J.2 y 0 U)wcn0 "oOw 10 v r N It r OT Q a C C7, O w P 11, V c 00 c O O a w 00 o a r o rn c C W N � o c � v vi N r 5" p w � u —la, O O k0 �c a r` a I000 Ia O N O a O O O C !4 V W O .0 C � M r^ o O 0000 c N C U y GoO °s c w 0 a N N n 3 NG o (� 604 6 —la, O O k0 �c a r` a I000 Ia O N O a O O O C !4 V W O .0 C � N C U y Cn O a 3 U y w y O A C C � L d c M. o p n F FUUw v O CD o O O o 6s O O 69 N O 609 Vdi N C vi c.j R o 69 O O 609 N O 609 N O V1 a, e oO O e O ' O O �O NO O 00 N C h 00 O W) N O m vi ai N C> N � N O U N u N � Goq i9 69 Z 69 0 69 0 N 69 O O 609 rq O 609 �o O O 69 In O N O In N" O e o0 69 G Q G09 0 � O � 69 N O vi 00 O e O ' C. W �O N O M 00 (- 00 0 0 v1 ul N W) N O m vi ai N C> 7 M 7 N O U N u N � N N N nj Z 69 64 69 o 69 O O O O o 069 O 69 O O 69 N O 69 (� N O yj N O h N N O o oO O, 69 O O 69 N O O O k'1 N O In nj N O e O ' O O O N U h E IO 7 N N O In (.j ,.., 7 7 � � N O U N u N � 69 69 69 Z O o < o 69 O O 609 N O 069 O O O h N O yj O ' N U h E ti /4) b N O U N u N � U iC Z > lu y CD N N N N N O N N N N 16S 6A 6A ONO ONO ONO M M M M M M O6NA � 69 O O N r � r M M M N 6NA 669 664 CD 0 CD M M M N Goq 469 [VCA W 000 y� In Vl . S I N 669 669 c 0 'D U o 0 e O N N � en vi � U M M N 669 6N'i 3U C C 3 c N m N V1 N V•1 C* n X O N N 4Y N 64 T 0, O, 00 00 00 V^ V•1 e/1 00 00 00 N 6604. NK 664 I0 CD CD V 7 R 00 O M M e N N e4 N K 6A 601) 'D h O O O U � U O U :3 7 G7 N U > � U U �A � 3U C C 3 c N m C* n X o O F FUUU Avg n O O O O � n C4 O l� N M M M !Y 69 609 66s ff q y1 _ O 000 O 000 r� r. C « O 0C O M N60% en M N 6A (14 1p p, M 69 GA 6A I o p C14 n 00 �c 00 OC14 U. M N cr3 M N 69 p M 69 T vl 69 M O V O M M N D rq M 69 Mrq c-4 69 (009 [� 6.) M M ON N 00 0000 r p H N N N N 69 69 69 ON O 7 � } V1 N to N N N n n Li. 69 69 69 K O Lrq n h 7 CD 7 7 — In 5. Lc, r4W4 �N 69 N 64 ON 00 O T U O O krl o0 00 69 00 00 vi 00 N M 69 M i.9 try N 69 y _h � 0 Q Q •ri W U � � Q a. W ca V N C � U 41.d C v N U �p a P O O U N F�nUUQ AUS Q V. N N eh �O 6R 69 69 w 'n "r a, N N 69 69 64 w C) O o N M N � •v1 w o c0 00 v oNo O � C M N vi N M rO O\ 6N9 69 6A w O l- l - N �O 00 O M O O N In K G04 6W)9 w O M M M � N O rn . n N K 6N9 6O9 EZ cc r- 10 N N_ O M N N �" b9 69 firM9 w 6N7 69 Go -9 N � ID O_ vi N l% O cq Mr'l D O1 69 69 w 00 6l9 00 O\ V'1 V1 O O 00 00 M M N eq rq w t on U m o � �n U > O p � y to U C O V] y > J U V � V p D � U N O U W ❑ �� Lu N E N C%7 A —to c culu❑ p ' o tj o R (= U U W 7 a� ❑ o` O ❑ v0000 0 0 0 0 0 C C 00 C C fA fA c�oae�n �o M N ooc O Q � H9 n fA {� " o0W O eO no n R M ar n O oVN'1 OMO V�j an0 O mM �O N f 6q n b h^ M N M ri n v 00 00 O� O 40 00 M n W o'Ir 0 p fit 6f3 T N N O N N N N F V1 cc ono b W N n 00 M hrq M h N b 409 f/9 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O p tN^i 00o O O O O Nm n ry On 00 fA 69 6fj O S 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ,D h N n n 7 M h N A f� V) e o e o 0 O O O O O y w C v F T U O 0 zp m n d 0 m u 0 csf C. N w O � 69 O N w o coq 0 N w ' � O 69 O u u w h G _ U y w 0 I O I� 0 ou c o N U O Lm v O N Go' rn � o w 0 0 N LT.. - w O O O t- N 6N9 w e o e o 0 w U V1 W 0 'C w � H y d U� ca y [t] E d F a w rL w w G U c W 4f .t EX, o m fi n u b m c) ?� v L O � F O FUU� Oc.FUZv� T. O E- I M M CO U � 0 U o o N 0 ^o O N N U � N O bA � O � N U U W ox W 4.4 CZCc �, E+UU2Q T. O E- I C) 0 1'1 O c� U U C/] a ° U tin wvj O Li W U --`...4cn U N N ar L. �' a� ct E-qUU Er Wd m I 0 0 N N 0 0 j W M N cn � U gins �a 0 m 0 CO a� U cn 00 loo vn Ivn a I 00 a C In 0 0 H O M M tn V7 a o cd y c U Ow cl V1 vl O o0 oo V 4 O O N U 0 c W O,T T T O� T O O O o0 o0 • G a� a o h h m c� "' 00 0o v� O O N z C7 W O O O� 01 O O n o0 00 n vi o0 0o O O N W 'd• C, 0 0 _ _ 01 C, O O o0 oo O O N 'r w oo 00 M M o e M �O �O Q D O In O V•1 O 00 00 O O N w to 'n M M o e N N D1 O+ O O N n w in La oo O O N W M M N N e o �M ON Cl O O C DD 00 O O N w N N N N o e O 7 M V M (71 cs O In O v1 00 oo O O N w O O o 0 m In N �n N T D O v1 O V1 00 0o oo r O O N L W H O O cd y c U v A V 4 U 0 c yw� u c W rn nr C7 cc E W �� • G a� a o rA W �a io L m m c� "' v� FUUw z C7 H O b o e o o 60) 1 m o o si 0 en m N LL. w w 0 0 60� CD N M M w �o 0 0 Irl � o M r'^ as 0 N w 0 0 0 0 0 0 N w a o rn O N_ O O M 69 N w :l o e O O M 6A _ O O O M M 69 N w a o 0 0 0 0 o CD e^ ^ m o o si 0 en m N LL. w 0 N w 0 0 0 0 0 0 N w a o rn O N_ O O M 69 N w :l o e O O M 6A _ O O O M M 69 N w a o 0 0 0 0 o cq CD e^ ^ 604 N 0 LL. �t O O Q ¢ 69 O z w 0 'G U C CI _C 4 � is C 'ej C C U � c T O\ o vi 0 6R 00 N 69 6A o 01 M 6F� vs G � 6A W N 6R 69 n n o 0 n — ds us o, o, y w U O y Q o v v N N -- c E ^� y >. 6R 6R W 0 0 y N V1 V1 O sY 6A 6A O t U 6A 69 W T O\ O O N N 69 6A v1 O1 01 M O M� 4'3 G CIA 6A 6A w N 6R 69 w U U T O\ O O O O 69 6A O 6A 69 M 6R 4'3 G O w N 6R 69 M y N N O O 0 01 6A 69 M Ow 01 G O w N 6R 69 m � C U U vj sv w M y w U O y Q w N � ss c E ^� y CJ w 0 0 y N V1 V1 O O N U s s ls Q b Q N N � 66 _ ... O N eq 6A .N. 69 w M y o 0 o C 61 N yq 69 G w m � C U U vj sv 01 M O M y w U O y Q 0 N � ss s9 E ^� y CJ w In 0 �L C 61 U G m � C U U y w U O y Q W C N itl O O_ E ^� y CJ v� O e U h e n e o O •� o N 0 vOi a � � vii vryi_ � y m4) C�i V N t1% G M y 69 n L4 69 69 3 c 5 � u m E � � oq 60q •° ` e n o e u E n' o = " m 00 vp o o o o COO N N O O N ry N N � 69 F U U La nu ¢ z LL" 60/i 609 C O O� � t` O 0 - a � O G O O 6a,9 � M Gn (0-3 e n a o •7 O O h M O m O10 N O N a m Tv'i p N O 00 G1 I w t` 01 V) 00 O� N6A r -4 N 69 a n ea 7 M N N 00 O O In n m m n C o 10- t- 00 00 n 'D p O 00 00 �O W) ry e n e o O M r O O !\ O 6.9 W L N N N LI. 69 fA CA 00 C o n o 0 O- W CD 10 m N O O Opo :2 � t� O O Vi 10 N w 00 O UC o N o - v N a M W) o er fi f/] V1 to b d O O h ^ t` O O o0 h [h t+ n N N O ^ N N 47 M N LL G9 CD CD 10 00 ry ry CDIL h 00 00 M O n O C M Vn 00 b �o 6A V•1 !� O � L�c. 6H 6rN9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O h '7 V oo a0 N N Or ? T LL 69 fil 6if h O •� N y m4) C�i W G y 3 c 5 � u m E � � oq � •° ` u E n' F U U La nu ¢ z e o� o�n voo Naor c C? C Vn'1 VNi g o v r vii C 2-0 N r , 0cs O O N O N �r f � f•� N V O ^ N DD 10 � w 69 619 6 o CT m O 00 M vl a O O 0 O O 00 CI ID n N M fV O v1 N r•i G C CT C — C 00 O cs C CT ^ N � ? CT CT \° \D V•� < WM 669 69 G o O CT O \p h r h 0 0 CT 4 O OrA b r O O r CT [ CD n o 00 orn v C °, N N Vi M lc M Y ^ h \O C \ t L EA 69 6 oOD O O O CT CT v1 r O C OCD N N C7, eOe�r a oo0 C [ r4 c C V't r M N c\ V'1 CT69 r N C CT N It 00 C h C �y 669 ffl 6 e N r O N O CT CT C r 0� O h V9 00 CT N N ^� r ul C \p N C O b N �4 h t N_ C oll N � f6/3 H9 G e M r O O O v'i CT M O N C O O O r% C N V C \p n M \p r n [T 00 \ C V^ V1 � •-- r CT 00 r o0 N r M C N N f 6L 69 69 6 CCT O O C M V1 V1 00 N O M O O O %C O �O M — O 00 N \c M M C 10 O C \D O C C N N m N w 00 O of O w vi c O M N �. rC�1 Lq N N \00 ^ i+Ci cy 6A H3 b o M O O C r \O O M cT o CT r O M n n m O O b O a _ — N n 6 IT r- w O 00 N M 00 C N �. M N 6n N \p N Vt ^ N M M V f ci, G9 E9 G e �D Vt O ci M O p C \D O M O O M 00 00 " m M N C S \O O �O �D \O C n M f ON —O a, 00 10 V'1 DD OCi - Vl CT IO r \O n �n CT 00 iy N O M C N M O O r 0 C ao m M O O O O h ao M o CT h 00 N C O r O 7 N C OQ. CV. i 69 69 6 w o w' v+ eo w v e 0 5 a, < .° cC N •N U u v= v [n (i ° O m o m a v m c c ep m •gam °m c0 O 0 b LL a °° U m a c r 7 T G C C O L L7 `6 O O O L c m q j _� O ci -0C a '9 CD Ci r N C7 OD aJ C C C 2 K Ew w' O O ° O rvn 14 5 ;,o E a W [i p m m an d e N E .c Gl L 00 t0 O a u o v u u vn o C� F o 0 n 0 0 0 F omOZF 5 °'ZOF W E- UUrn m j h O m 7 C U Y O 6) 10 a =1N N O D O O 10, 01 O 7 7 K 6�9 V�9 61cs O O I Vim' Vim• O b b b Vi H9 V3 O O O O I O O O 0 M M M n r r � e � w 60% fio� o r o o Ir r o 6A o0 00 op w o0 00 � fA 6 0 vi o) r- 00 o r rn a a a wE v' r r r O O j p 00 00 00 OO � V7 h v1 V) O O I Qui O � b b � r � h � � M M M 6N9 6N9 6N01) VNf G O a C o U 6) � U N a N v ttl � e � RI 6/ G O U m " � � •� 0 w ° e� .o CG � •� 'Eb C) A c V O O r C b � rMl N V�'f Om0 0 yr V> m n m M l m N M O_ Vi N N m C C 69 6 U Ir 10 —vi r a r r r o O vl O O r M 'o O c v O 'o r R 0� OMO^ C-4 n C) V O 10 0 0— 7 w LE O 69 CI u'1 M m Q Q d 7 r N N O r Vl N m b9 h b9 M b b GM K N Cr P '� C i 69 O F 6 mF — jUFw i5 o r O V O N O N 69 h N � r L}t. b9 b9 b e M O O 10 N O N M 01 v'i N b O N — r 'cr V N N M M r` h vD C CD N — — — C _ 69 6A b O er O N N V7 M — O 00 N c O N eNi — r O r C � b3 b9 b9 V N M N 0, M N N eq 0 N Ml V'i C 69 N O — N y O r C• N } n oc�rq N n m %oq n N r' r N } w 'cr 69 e�^1 r vi fA C• d O O r C b � rMl N V�'f Om0 0 L" C C 9 C w C . C C 69 6 U Ir 10 —vi r a r r r V v m v u 54;Oc 'o r �a m b9 6 O 10 0 0— 7 w LE O 69 CI u'1 M m Q Q d 7 r N N O r Vl N m b9 h b9 M b b a C 7 C L" C C 9 C w C . C C U U C U V v m v u 54;Oc 'o r �a m o e u c w LE � �Ei u E o E � � w v m5 a"' o •v n. � c o a0 c u m r. c Lay Em cn e :7 y v C P '� C i •C tda O Q Q E 00 ©U¢1mv�? u O F O O m m F mF — jUFw i5 �° a a° =I= °° a° 91a °° a° 0 1 °°Ic / \ / ac = 2 == s ) / / V) = a =° a ) (EA° c= ) $ a° ° a °° a ) ( 20 c 2 0o a / ] z ] )] = 22 /) « §\ ){ §j/7/\ \ �gua os o O N O N O N O [ O C 7 ? N 6n of � GO-) 1 6 e o r o r o r o r N } w 0 0 -. o o O h9 W3 N al " Vi (A N f 0 C N fit O N N N_ M1 � s w Fi)6 N U O 0 0 -. o o — o O O W3 N al " N Gn (A N f 0 C N fit [ 'Y N N_ M1 O N — N [ Fi)6 N U O 6 U 17 w o O C, O CAO CT O C O .... �r 69 N m aEi c H � d N CD a O N O N O N O r O O 69 CT CT w Cn Cli 69 a, G Cry C N N N N N f N r N CLO L'I Lcn VJ O C y L 7 _� O 69 h O 6f) rA 6f1 u N N N_ O y � N N [ O N U O 6 U 17 w 0 h O a E m aEi c H � d CD on O &') O m 3: ami w w U i to o v > E N N N N f v O a N CLO L'I Lcn VJ O C y v w c.'� om EF5 c F ^'UF $ FUUco u ❑5 ti O H't O M2 O — N ry r w CD vl ao 6H o0 0 w 6A 69 V L 7 U U w 9 C q O y � U O 17 a E m aEi c H � d on m 3: ami w w U i to o v > E v O a CLO L'I Lcn VJ O C y v u c.'� om EF5 c F ^'UF $ FUUco u ❑5 ti cst C = O O O I O 69 69 c O 0 0 Q O O O � N E09 R N r O O O O O N } IQ fV v CO Lx. C Eol O O I 0 0 c O O O O O � � � N V � r O O O O IQ fV v CO O sf O O I fH N o o O 6 1� I O O.A O v V � v CO a y A .� � 'a` a •o c �• o c yt°. '° m o cz. a •�"- c W W w en , w N Uj O •� v o� � �FUUwo � e ��o � F gab F p,$ OO 0O'D0 o r000v0 So c O O m M `••' f O of a m n M < M ri o_o r v o M Fn c n N n fA EA 6A f x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O+ 0 0 0 0 'O 0 0 0 a R M O O c R D Cli Q c r M T N M G R Q, Fr1 N [ } fA FA fA E W O o o o m O O o O+ O+ C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 v e{ 7 OIL a v d• 7 Oli v It N N V k[. rq � oq 6 O — N O r � — N Fb O (b Fri Fn < } 609 fig W) F W M O O O R O o o o r C' O O O O m 0 0 0 m D n N 7 Oli v It N N V N C - M m r- 14 N � 1 [.,� FA 1 wEA � N 0 0 0 O\ O O O n O O O M O 0 0 F/l r vt N t C M r O Fn M t N O M m � r • [y b9 c{ Fn F/l 1 M FrF Fn O e•i yG09tV O — N O r � — N Fb O (b Fri Fn < } 609 fig W) F W M O O O R O o o o r m M m 0 0 0 z O O O o e 0. < v Fo Ib c c O � M r NV rmi N 6A c 6A 6 W � �0000—o 0o n M000v000 c } FA �y FR fA r 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fn O O O— 0 0 0 i N m � b O, O eq O N N M td. fA fA Vi i h O 'C m C N U C C C m m N 9 C 0 y L LL N C� O y W LL OLZ fi w W u d .o -O o_ t W u Z •o •O o M 7 m o c •r CL a Fa o o Opp m to o o Opp n `u °v°OUm0]U[n m O OUmCOU InC F UciA p c U U n ry O N O b b o�0 N 00 V7 u1 � CN• V7 et 'ct O �� O Ct cin � 609 c ON O W) �y .-. - 0 O n H a O O b b >r u' y0 O .G On CG N O� COS 6q 6N9 6N9 64 69 y N N •[� 00 10� - VY 'n O U� � j G y y 0: w O m O h et a: l� 64 c p N O- N � > oc 00 00 O1 ero m a E :o U 00 •� co °' U LL. M M ❑ m N a>i aCi A y > O Vf 64 c9 69 69 69 a O � z 0 mor o � U . U V z a c �� M.z O �D O th O O u w O r` 604 r ON U w F O N O O N N V w M M .. - 69 6A 69 Erg 6A 69 00 O O- O O a a - 00 V7 7 N T V1 O O n n 00 U 7 r: E4 f` O �c O, m a 00 00 W '~ N (C:4 � ool m .�. h w 6N4 64 E9 69 6A U 00 00 r- 7 10 u1 0o 00 N N h N n r � 64N r- 00 ' cliO 00 w 619 6N9 69 64 69 69 r-0 0 O� O rn v1 v�In In M N V O\ n O O b n 69 N M 00 N Iztr Oh C- - N N n O b O Ol It w N N 64 EA 64 69 69 69 v1 " ON N b- v'�''i M M N r` 664 N NF, r�i O O O N — _ N. N oo N rn M M d• O O b W m 00 00 M 6146N4 69 69 O 'Ir O V'f O 00 - � O O b N O� �R D\ E4 N In >. fH N r4 M LL. NI Nj - - 69 69 69 64 64 64 u1 N_ O M O O O O O O \0 D\ u7 O v7 O 110 0o c_ — t n 7 t� O 69 N p 00 [� 00 00 00 00 Vj N — — 7 �O O �O N w N C4 .-. .-. 6A S' E4 64 64 69 00 O O u1 O N O D\ v1 v1 O v In O O O H 00 M 64 N 00 co L6 69 69 64 K 69 64 N N Cep b � � U � ❑ >r y0 O .G On CG N O� .� y N N •[� O O U� � j G y y 0: w n• C V a: S e o E c > ero m a E :o GU •� co °' U CNt _o ❑ m N a>i aCi A y > O io o v •❑ W U - ro c E � � ° 'a O a O � z 0 mor o � U . U V z a c �� M.z O o z¢ [ E�- U u w U w F vy O �O v1 O N N '-I- R d• 00 O 00 eO�N [- f O O of 00 nV vli � O eh N OC -4 00 n O•-� N r v1 t c , O O C-4 6s fife i fig Vi 00 - O r �c kn r O 00 - r C, 00 O O r WO in WO V .fir 7 �y 69 N - C N O r vi W 60f4 fife GA 6r9 69 6e ON �D O -_ iD vi of O vi O O rn r V C O O 7 V M O V e N C VY�• - M M V1 N N M OOi tN+1 u" Vi be 6e 6e 6R fi) 00 O O - O T m -- r c0 O O In v1 O Y1 N •c{ N T 00 V'1 2a r r oo W O+ V1 - ie N - O 06 0 U N •.- D\ N N r O\ Cli 00 W - v1 �" I' 6NA 6Ne 69 bR ire 64 r N O O,O O 00 00 r V O O v1 d• O �O 1.m 'n cc 00 N N V1 O+ o0 V1 r r vl - ie N 00In 000 W) a, �D - 0 �}' V R r% r r r o o v) r O O N T �n 1n M m Q� O O 'n ire N M N� cl � b b O O b C M 00 r4 � O O 7 7 r fin w � � O O- w1 'n 'n O O N r O O 'n �O �nN In N N N 10 N rn N beC'4 C N 06 N M O O m m oG 'In ems006e M fs se bee iR O H O rn 00 �O b N N O+ O, O O �n In r% N O O � � Oi = 64 N y r N M M - r N N M Vf1rer rise L' GAI 60, b9 69 vi N O M O O O O O b O� O O in - O � 10 �co 7 C, - oro 'ct O O 7 O N � C-4 fA 64 0 0 0 vl rn O O v1 rn , " O O V1 C O- oo M N= �n O O O N vi N 00 vi en vl - K N vi O N M 00 00 rq - �_• C• a, ON en 604 bre N �" 69 6A fA 69 d N Oq y kA > [i y m N C U C E O N c tCtl W 6: 0> C Lt. aNi ca U 0 w G 4.. C.r y C N w y NiO mGi U O N d N N C y y O N p a 0 W y C " X m L p ami > C� al r0.e ai C7 ,n ae m e c c v E u W W ❑ U U > ^' j L17 VJ t-7 E 0: •D O •.7 awl cy�J = 7 itl U O O "' M y • C U C ,^„ E H o uE E2 .7 z E C..� O. N z Q y T7 F-UU U O W 0 O 0 z O U W C E- a] Qa vy O p M b Cal N O O N N h O D N O r O 00 �0 t` fA t- rqMFsi 60% 00 _h °lam° c o0 O W O ? N VNi O N Cn ...• o o a In �c o o o o. a In vi M �n e+1 vl in h p O R r N 6�9 O 0 Y 0 N N ss a, rn lnhoa a o 00 0 00� 0 0 0 0o n ICL CI N v o O V'1 00 C: 00 00 N Q N v1 OND a, CL EA rq N T st h 0 a 00 N O O N h 7 N N O 10 W 100 0 0 o0 DD h N 7 0\ N a N US 1 h M V r h O h h M h �h V1 D\ Qi �0 O M D 10 h V �D O O h r- n o0 00 00 M N h a0 (N h —. 00 Eol) h O M N C[ Vi N FA cq N V 10 .h. O 00 W N O et M O O p O C M - d' l� N h h e7• N uMi W Q v1 M V) N w � NfH N 6A % O 00 C, N O O Vl 0 7 O 110 r0 N 00 Q O o0 O R tl V1 r% DD 00 h p a0 00 — N 10 h �l N CL E� b O w � N F9 O CD O vii 0000 O O O O O O c) O CD O O O O\ V1 lc N DO a0 V l/'1 V 00 W w C O4 T O LL w ° m Om � �' .� o 0 o c � e •- � E c o ° E v ° 'E� au 3wwri a u > E Ow° yW�mOcc°e°� x a�sm•C r In a u rycd 0005 F Z 5F�0 aoi F U U U n W U a av U DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT JSQ o wl o 1) In o M M N N-- 0 Cl t`J 00[� Vl M O Jn O V1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 6N9 6N4 69 69 609 611) 69 64 69 69. 64 6A 64 LA :fl SUOljjiw (suo!11!-) SQ lenuud O t` O O O O 'fl N � O � ti 3 N v1 81 C O N N m 7 7 � � O N tL 6 O Ij N 1� O N � N N i V O N � � Q O N C N 'T Ln L 7] �I N � O N O � V N ca t`J 00[� Vl M O Jn O V1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 6N9 6N4 69 69 609 611) 69 64 69 69. 64 6A 64 LA :fl SUOljjiw (suo!11!-) SQ lenuud T cz a� U O O O O - J O � C N � Q Ij N 1� N V O CC N 'T L N C V1 O � V N ca N _ I � O � r O v J O 69 N ER 69 69 �- T cz a� U Exhibit B Table 12-4: Clean Streams Plan Funding Options Typical Typical Program Monthly Bill Monthly Bill Option Option Descriptions in 2010111 in 2018 Options 3, 4 & 5 implement the Clean Streams Plan Limited Clean Streams Program • Implements limited Clean Streams Capital Program • Street sweeping reduction (due to loss of part-time retired stafo 3 Minimal public outreach $8.63/month $10.93/month • Adds programs to comply with current permit requirements • No additional FTEs • Assumes 3.00% annual rate adjustment (2.08% decrease from today) Partial Clean Streams Program • Implements majority of Clean Streams Capital Program • Restores street sweeping capacity 4 Minimal public outreach $8.82/month $13.34/month • Adds 2 FTEs: one additional street sweeper and 1 program manager • Assumes 5.30% annual rate adjustment (0.22% increase from today) Full Clean Streams Program • Implements full Clean Streams Capital Program • Restores street sweeping capacity 5 Provides complete Public Outreach program $8'97/month $15.42/month • Adds 3 FTEs: 1 additional street sweeper and 2 program managers • Assumes 7.01% annual rate adjustment (1.93% increase from today) 'Assumes 2009 rate of $8.38 Liake Oswego CORPORATION October 22, 2009 Elizabeth Papadopoulos City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego OR 97034 Re: September 2009 Clean Streams Plan 700 McVey Avenue P.O. Box 203 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 636-1422 (503) 636-3226 Fax Our comments on the Clean Streams Plan focus on the need for a vision of watershed restoration as an integral part of sustainably managing storm water. There is language in the city's plan that promotes watershed restoration, but when it comes to the practical aspect of dealing with storm water, the policies suggested reflect the mindset that piping water is the best way to manage it. While this is understandable if you are reacting to complaints about flooding, it is not sustainable from the standpoint of watershed health or regulatory compliance with pollutant removal standards. We know that increased stream flow results in excessive sediment and pollutant loads. Therefore the thinking should not be how to move water; it should be how to facilitate the natural absorption processes that historically took place in the watershed. That means infiltrating water where it lands, not transporting it. Just like it is more efficient to produce electricity at the point of use, it is more effective and environmentally sustainable to infiltrate water where it lands. Without infiltration, heavy peak flows will continue to degrade streams and add sediment and phosphorous to Oswego Lake. Based on the soil map from the 1992 Surface Water Management Plan, most of the city falls into soil type B and C. These types of soil should be able to infiltrate rainfall from a typical rainy day in Lake Oswego. Unincorporated land between Oswego Lake and 15 is of soil type B, classified as good infiltration. New areas to be annexed west of the city should be required to infiltrate all water and not have it 211 piped away. There is no reason rainwater that falls on the majority of the city cannot be infiltrated. The vision of storm water management should be "don't move it, infiltrate it". This will reduce the amount of piping and promote creative re -use of rainwater. Rainwater should be considered an asset to be used and not a resource to be discarded. As it currently stands, this document is not a "clean streams" plan, rather a storm water management plan. If implemented as written this plan will lead to continued degradation of the watershed. A more progressive vision should come from a city that actively promotes sustainability. Mark Rosenkranz and Jeff Ward Lake Oswego Corporation CC: Mayor Jack Hoffman & Council Tim Kraft, OTAK Response to October 22, 2009 Lake Corporation letter regarding the September 2009 Clean Streams Plan: While there are some projects where we believe piping may need to be part of the solution, it is not the Plan's intent to establish piping as a preferred method for capturing or moving stormwater (though road crossings are a common exception). Section 6 (Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies) discusses the various BMPs that should be the City's preferred tools, but we identify that other practices can be appropriate. The State of Washington is one of the leaders in stormwater management and like the Clean Streams Plan, recommends LIDA techniques. Seven Washington communities will have MS4 permit conditions in the near future which will require use of LIDA "where feasible, " both in recognition of Federal Clean Water Act language limitations and because LIDA is not always feasible. Generally speaking where we have projects which propose piping, we are seeing significant limitations that are unlikely to support LIDA; the Boones Ferry area project is one example. This area was proposed for special study as part of the Clean Streams Plan because City staff saw periodic evidence of a very high water table, sometimes to the point that existing sumps (designed to infiltrate water into the ground) were serving as conduits for water to `leave' the ground: water was coming out of the sumps instead of going in. Regardless of soil types, this is not a condition which allows LIDA (discussed further below) to be effective and some other method must be provided to address what becomes `excess' stormwater. The project proposes using an existing regional detention facility (Rosewood Pond) that has the desired characteristics for water quality BMPs (see 6.2.4) and flow control (see 6.2.5). Staff has noted that as redevelopment occurs in the area, the first priority for individual properties will be to use LIDA and other infiltration techniques where each site study demonstrates they will work. However, in order to address both street runoff and the many properties where infiltration will not work, our best option is to convey the stormwater to Rosewood Pond to address redevelopment needs and provide water quality and flow control. This conveyance system does not discharge to local streams. We reviewed the Plan for references to the use of piping to assess whether traditional end -of - pipe conveyance was encouraged inappropriately given our intent to recommend and support LIDA techniques especially. We found that outside of Section 8, references regarding preferred BMPS are supporting other techniques, especially LIDA, over traditional piping (the direct conveyance of water via pipes to streams): o Section 5- ... Sustainable stormwater practices are normally considered synonymous with LIDA. LIDA seeks to mimic natural hydrologic responses in a built environment through the use of de- centralized practices. Rain gardens planters, infiltration strips, and pervious pavement all seek to dispose of runoff at the source in a way that reduces environmental impacts. This is contrasted with traditional stormwater approaches where runoff is collected in catch basins and pipes, and conveyed either directly to the receiving water, or to a detention or water qualityfacility. P44 o Section 6.1- ... The emphasis of the City's stormwater management practices should be on the use of on-site flow control measures (such as infiltration, LIDA techniques, reducing or eliminating hydraulic connectivity, or dispersing runoff across the ground) over traditional end -of -pipe flow control techniques such as detention ponds. These newer methods are widely seen as the most effective tools in protecting water quality and reducing erosive flows that scour local streams and creeks (PSAT 2003). However, all practices are beneficial and have a place in the City's stormwater management "toolbox ". Where onsite techniques cannot be used (when conditions such as low infiltration rates or high groundwater prohibit their use), then tradition conveyance/treatment/detention methods must be employed. P48 o Section 6.2.5- ... There are many different types of LIDA BMPs that are suitable for different land uses and site configurations that target runoff reduction, runoff treatment, or both. Common LIDA BMPs include bioretention areas, porous pavement, green roofs, and hydraulic disconnection practices such as reverse sloped sidewalks, rainwater harvesting, soil amending, and roof downspout disconnection. Some LIDA practices limit the amount of impervious surface that is constructed on a property, require building up instead of out, and preserve open space areas of native vegetation and trees. LIDA measures do not rely on traditional end -of -pipe solutions, but instead integrates stormwater controls throughout the urban landscape (Prince George, 1999). P57 o Section 6.3- ... Stormwater retrofits seek to improve watershed health by "retrofitting" a watershed with measures to improve both flood control and water quality. Retrofits can include the following: Upgrade existing stormwater facilities using newer design practices to maximize the facilities' detention, retention, and/or water quality treatment capabilities. 2. Retrofit existing detention facilities to add water quality treatment where not currently in place. 3. Install LIDAs within the watershed to reduce runoff volumes and improve water quality. 4. Implement measures to reduce "effective " impervious area, that is, the hard surfaces that are directly piped to streams or creeks. Impervious areas, or hard surfaces, that are allowed to travel over grasses or other "pervious " surfaces reduce the amount of runoff, and the speed at which that runoff travels to creeks and streams. These measures include: a. Disconnect Downspouts. City -run downspout disconnect programs can provide incentives for homeowners to disconnect downspouts that are directly connected to the City's storm drainage system. Educational programs can also be used to teach the benefits of disconnecting downspouts. Disconnecting downspouts is not recommended for hilly areas and small lots in densely urbanized areas. b. Day lighting storm pipelines before they discharge to streams. This is particularly effective when combined with the installation of water qualityfacilities, such as biofiltration swales to treat the runoff and reduce the volume and velocity of the runoff before it enters the creek. Proper energy dissipation will be required at outfall locations. P66 In Section 8 (Capital Improvement Program) in projects appropriately identify piping for conveyance, clarification was added where needed to ensure that water quality and flow control is appropriately addressed in a manner consistent with references listed above. In addition, some project descriptions were modified to note that where piping for conveyance can be feasibly avoided via preferred BMPs, it should. Soils class maps were developed for agricultural uses, and although they are generally accurate, they do not represent specific ground conditions on any given site. Developers often have trouble finding effective infiltration spots, and soil conditions often vary quite a bit within a single lot. Many other factors come in to play however. As mentioned with Boones Ferry the high water table is a problem because the cleansing layer of soil needed before reaching groundwater is unavailable. For reference, Oregon DEQ requires any sumps with less than 30 feet of vertical separation to the high water table to include pre-treatment systems. Another common issue is that LIDA facilites can require significant space. A typical roadway in Lake Oswego with an existing buried storm pipe could require more space for replacement with a vegetated open swale and/or series of rain gardens. The 10`h Street Green Street Demonstration project was chosen because the location has exceptionally wide rights-of-way. Very few streets have extra width available and where they do there is often vegetation, especially mature trees that provide significant stormwater value in their own right. Removing trees in order to replace a piped conveyance system is not necessarily the best choice, especially if it is feasible to add water quality and flow control BMPs to the piped conveyance. On private property, the spot with suitable soils for LIDA may be in the `wrong' location — uphill from the rest of the site or within the footprint of the proposed building. All of these issues and others must be considered by staff as they determined how to best manage stormwater. DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT October 26, 2009 Exhibit D 700 McVey Avenue P.O. Box 203 Lake Oswego. Oregon 97034 (503)636-1422 (503)636-3226 Fax Since its promotion as an escape for Portland residents, Oswego Lake has attracted many to live within the watershed and enjoy the lifestyle the lake provides. Accommodating all those people has led to dramatic changes in the watershed. As more people moved to the area the watershed was modified to accommodate new construction. Streams were channelized, riparian areas removed, wetlands filled, and impervious surfaces were created. Early storm water management plans focused on moving water off impervious surfaces as quickly as possible. Storm water quality was not even considered during pre 1980 development. The result was development within riparian areas, draining and filling wetlands, and piping water to local streams and rivers to carry storm water away as quickly as possible. The consequence of this development method is very flashy stream flow. When rain falls onto the watershed it is not absorbed into the ground and released slowly, but runs off quickly to the streams. This causes erosion, stream bank degradation, and impaired aquatic habitat. Recent surface water management plans are written in response to TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) requirements for nutrient reduction. The city's plan for managing storm water is outlined in their Clean Streams Plan. This plan describes how the city is going to reduce phosphorus and sediment discharge into local water bodies. But the plan needs to go beyond constructing projects that are intended to remove phosphorus and sediment at the end of pipes and focus more on flow reduction, without which stream degradation, sedimentation and excess nutrient loading will continue. Real stream restoration will only be realized when flows are returned to a more natural state and the watershed is allowed to function as a filter for nutrients. The Healthy Streams & Watersheds document was commissioned to encourage people to think of better ways to restore stream health in the watershed and control storm water in a sustainable manner. Our watershed and stream restoration efforts need to start at the point where runoff strikes an impervious surface. Steps should be taken to infiltrate and slow down water at the source, before it reaches the stream. The most effective way to restore impaired streams is to first return the stream flow to a more natural state. This means returning flow patterns as close as possible to historic peak flows, base flows, durations, volumes and velocities. Most of the phosphorus contributed to local water bodies is a result of stream bank erosion. Slowing the flow is the first step in addressing phosphorus transport. Once a stable stream flow has been established, stream restoration efforts will yield better and lasting results. The consequences of doing nothing will be continued impairment to streams as the city continues to develop. This will lead to decreased property values, regulatory enforcement, increased taxes for regulatory compliance, and reduced quality of life for residents. As the Healthy Streams and Watersheds paper shows us, the benefit of restoring watershed function and reducing stream flow will be healthier streams and less sedimentation of the lake. In addition, we will have created an effective and environmentally sustainable method of controlling storm water, which has much lower long-term maintenance costs. Jeff Ward Lake Manager HEALTHY STREAMS & WATERSHEDS How to Get There from Here Strategies and Partners for Success PREPARED FOR LAKE OSWEGO CORPORATION LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON PREPARED BY HARRIS STREAM SERVICES, LLC WEST LINN, OREGON 0 HEALTHY STREAMS & WATERSHEDS How to Get There from Here Strategies and Partners for Success Prepared for Lake Oswego Corporation 698 McVey Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-636-1422 Prepared by Andrew Harris, CPESC, CESCL, CPWQ River Restoration Practitioner Harris Stream Services, LCC Restoring Stream Health & Natural Functions 2270 Arbor Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068 503-866-0901 and Martha Mitchell, CPESC, CESCL Clear Water West, Inc. Consulting in Erosion and Water Resource Protection PO Box 16314 Portland, OR 97215 503-957-6137 FINAL DRAFT September, 30 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................ Acknowledgemcnts......................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2 1. An Historical Perspective of Impaired Conditions..................................................................... 4 2. Consequences of Impaired Conditions....................................................................................... 9 3. A Vision of Healthy Streams and Watersheds.......................................................................... 12 4. Benefits of Ilcalthy Streams and Watersheds........................................................................... 15 5. A Primer on Stream and Watershed Functions......................................................................... 16 6. Strategies................................................................................................................................... 23 7. Monitor for Success.................................................................................................................. 30 8. Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 31 References..................................................................................................................................... 32 AppendixA — Glosssary ............................................................................................................... 34 Appendix B — Stream and Watershed Functions List................................................................... 37 Appendix C — Lake Oswego Stream Restoration Examples........................................................ 39 Appendix C — Eight Channel Controlling Factors........................................................................ 43 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Ilow to Get There, from Ilere _ Executive Summary This report was commissioned to examine strategies and actions that will restore stream health in the City of Lake Oswego. City streams and Oswego Lake are in a state of physical, chemical, and biological impairment that has persisted for decades. Impaired conditions were first reported in the 1968 "Lake Oswego Sturface Water Management Master Plan.- The goal is to restore the health of City streams and Oswego Lake. The result will be compliance with state and federal water quality standards, viable and productive habitat for native fish and macro invertebrates, a stable stream network that sustains physical, chemical, and biological integrity, increased property value, and improved quality of life. Research draws attention to the following facts pertaining to the City of Lake Oswego: soils are naturally very high in phosphorous, groundwater discharge of phosphorous to streams is naturally high, and stream hank erosion is the dominant sourer of phosphorous and sediment pollution in the Cit ' v (?f'Lake Oswego. Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excessive phosphorous inputs from stream bank erosion have are known to be a significant cause of impaired water quality in lake ecosystems. Further investigations reveal that impaired stream and watershed conditions arc indicators that natural stream and watershed functions arc also impaired. Healthy watershed functions significantly reduce overland runoff and reduce runoff temperature. Healthy stream functions stabilize stream banks, reduce flow rates and volume, filter pollution, and provide riparian hydrology. Watershed and stream functions must work together to achieve healthy stream objectives. • Several findings direct attention to the fact that low -impact development measures, also known as "green infrastructure," mimic healthy natural watershed function including rainfall interception, evapo-transpiration, and water retention by soil and plants, and rainfall infiltration. Applied together, these measures arc the most effective method for restoring these natural watershed functions. A recent study concludes that restorntg stahle equilibrium channel mofpholog), is the most cost gkclive method to reduce the amount of phosphorous in our streams and lakes. in addition to reducing phosphorous and sediment, successful stream restoration also provides flood storage, flow attenuation, riparian hydrology, groundwater exchange, pollution filtration, nutrient cycling, pollution retention, riparian tree production, thermoregulation (shading), and a self -maintaining stable stream channel. The report recommends the following strategies to restore stream health: o implement low impact development measures to restore watershed functions o Restore natural stable stream morphology to restore stream functions o Daylight storm drains with natural channel designs o Retrofit existing drainage systems with low impact development measures o Create partnerships including a Lake Oswego Watershed Council Barris Stream Services, LLC Page 1 I lealthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here Goal: Create a document that is instrumental in facilitating Oswego Lake watershed management practices that result in significant improvements in the quality ofwater that flows into Oswego Lake, and the Willamette and Tualatin River. Objectives: Create an increased awareness of important processes and concepts that need to be recognized to cost-effectively utilize surface water management resources. Acknowledgements This study was funded by the Lake Oswego Corporation. We thank Jeff Ward. Lake Manager of the Lake Oswego Corporation for his planning, management, and support for this study. Tom Weber, Doug Rciter, and Doug Oliphant of the Lake Oswego Corporation Water Quality Committee arc gratefully acknowledged for their contributions, insight, and support. We also thank Mark Rosenkranz, Water Resource Specialist of the Lake Oswego Corporation for his contributions. Jonathan SnclL Professional Geologist and Russ Lawrence, Fluvial Gcomorphologist and Professional F.,ngineer are also gratefully acknowledged for their professional insight. Special appreciation to Barry Sutherland. National Fluvial Geomorphologist with the Natural Resource Conservation Service for his review and support in the preparation of this report. Andrew Harris of Harris Stream Services, LLC is the principal author. Martha Mitchell of Clear Water West, inc. is the contributing editor. Introduction in the following pages the story of healthy streams is documented in scientific terms. At the beginning of each section there is a summary of keys point for that section. The sections discuss existing conditions, the consequences of existing conditions, a vision of healthy streams, the benef its of healthy streams, strategies for success and corrective actions. Definitions of technical terms are provided in Appendix A. This paper is for city counselors, policy makers, managers, staff, property owners, residents, citizen groups and others who are inclined to support and take action to realize the vision of healthy streams and watersheds in the City of Lake Oswego. This paper proposes strategies that recognize existing efforts and support additional actions to maintain the natural systems that enhance Lake Oswego's quality of life and examines conventional wisdom that challenges efforts to restore stream health. A watershed map of Lake Oswego, Oregon is provided in See Figure 1 below. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 2 Hcalthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Healthy Streams and Watersheds Hou- to Gel There from Here ;r;.. t-gsro Stat r. n Wankert� Afpp— COme+r y #Apr D IWI Figure 1 — Watershed Map, Lake Oswego, Oregon Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 3 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here 1. An Historical Perspective of Impaired Conditions Key Points • Urhani:ation often pr•odttees impaired c-onditions in .streams and watersheds. • hnpaired eondilions are so c•onnnonplaee and endltrnZg thev are often perceived as `normal' Impaired conditions Impaired conditions of streams and watersheds in the City of Lake Oswego have existed for decades. They are caused by land use changes in watersheds and physical alternations to streams that are so commonplace and enduring they are perceived by many as normal. Several decades of studies, plans, data and reports indicate that these problems are long-standing in the City. The following studies document these impaired conditions. • The "Storm Sewer and Drainage Study of the Lake Oswego Area" was prepared by Cl 12M in 1968. This study identifies algae, phosphorous, nitrogen, and sediment as pollution problem in Oswego bake (Lasswell, 1968). The "Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Master Plan" was prepared by OTAK Inc. in 1992. This study identifies impervious areas as a cause of excess runoff and flooding of drainage facilities as a concern. Pollutants of concern include sediment, phosphorous, nitrogen, oxygen demanding organic material, bacteria, oil, heavy metals and other toxic materials. "Human behavior is acknowledged as dramatically affecting surface water quality." Examples of human behavior include the way people wash their cars, fertilize their lawns, dispose of liquid wastes and apply pesticides and herbicides. All these actions significantly affect water quality in streams and lakes. The "Cin_ , of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan, September 2009." was prepared by OTAK Inc. It is in draft form and has not been adopted by the City of Lake Oswego. This study states: "the increases in impervious surfaces results in less stormwater to soak into the ground and more running qff the property." It goes on to state: "Larger volumes and increased velocity of this runoff cause .streams to erode, carrying sediment to the larger rivers and lakes_ The resulting erosion has caused the streams to incise, which causes. fitrther degradation to the streams and disconnection of the streams from the adjacent floodplain." (Kraft, 2009, p 17). larris Stream Services, LLC Page 4 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get Therefrom Here The following impaired conditions noted in the above studies still exist today: 177 watersheds.- 1. atersheds: 1. upland soil erosion 2. impervious snnfcices 3. tree and shrub cover absent 4. direct connections from .Norm drains to streams or water bodies In streams and w•aterhodies: 1. , flashv stream flow (attributable to impervious si►rfaces) 2. flooding contained within the stream hanks (a result of incision) 3. severe stream bank erasion (a result of flash_v.ilows & incision together with loss of riparian vegetation) 4. muddv stream. flow (associated with erosion) S, severe sediment deposition (associated with excessive erosion) 6. do soil onstream hanks (riparian hydrology innj)aired) 7. streamside vegetation absent or dominated by upland invasive plants (riparian hvdrologv impaired) 8. polluted stream.flow (result of human activities and excessive erosion) 9. algae (common in Oswego Lake and other water bodies) (nutrient loading resulting from human activities and erosion of high phosphorous soils) 10. warm stream temperatures (result of reduced shade from tree removal and reduced ground water associated with impervious areas) 11. bacteria in stream, flow 12. lotir dissolved oxygen (low shallow .summer flows) 13.flooding flooding of streets and structures (impervious .su►, faces biggest contributor) 14. landslides adjacent to streams (a result stream hank erosion cit toe of slopes) 15. absence of native. fish species Pollutants include sediment, phosphorous, nitrogen, oxygen -demanding materials, bacteria, oil, grease, heavy metals, debris and other toxic materials. The presence of algae, sediment deposits, pollutants, stream bank erosion, overwhelmed drainage systems, flooding of structures, loss of streamside vegetation and poor Fish and wildlife habitats all indicate a need to find multiple solutions to better manage storm water runoff. ilarris Stream Services, LLC Page 5 1 Iealthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There fi-oin Here Examples of Impaired Conditions Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 6 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds flow, to Get There firon1 Ilere More Examples of impaired Conditions Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 7 healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Ilow to Get Thera. i-otn Here Examples of impaired Conditions Photo 7. Algae West Bay, Oswego Lake Hams Stream Services, LLC Page 8 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from dere 2. Consequences of Impaired Conditions Key Points The c-onsequenee (ll 1mpaii-ecl (-on(Iltlons are dilnllllshed quality of I fe, loss Of property v(lluc', pi-ope7•ty clunlclge, public- sc fety hazcwds, clegr cycled aesthetics, 1l7Creasecl 07111.0171nel7tal r•C'g111(d ions, increased Cost (# slo1711 valet• Inanugement crud lass of habilwfi l•.fish and i-vilcllife. Sources (?fphosphorous pollittion confirmed. Macrinl7vertebrate c-oinnninitles are heavilt• Impar -ed Consequences of impaired conditions The consequences of these lora-standing impaired conditions include: • increased need for property repairs due to stream bank erosion, flooding and loss of stream - side vegetation • diminished property value resulting from the above impaired conditions • sediment deposits and slope failures adjacent to stream banks • muddy stream flows, algae blooms, loss of in -stream and streamside habitats for fish and wildlife • imposition of additional environmental regulations to comply with state and federal water quality standards • increased costs to tax- and rate -payers to fix and maintain public infrastructure and to comply with additional regulations Sources of phosphorus pollution confirmed Phosphorous is an essential clement for plant growth. However, in excess, phosphorous becomes a pollutant that, in streams and lakes, contributes to the problematic growth of algae. Three studies confirm the sources of excess phosphorous. • A landmark study by the Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI) in 1995 is titled "Soil Processes and Chemical Transport. " This study concludes the following: "Tualatin River Basin (TRB) (and Lake Oswego) soils were very high in nutive phosphorus levels. Thus TRB soils have a potential to he sozirces on non point phosphorous pollution to surface and grounchvater in the basin." (Adams, 1995). Harris Strcam Services, LLC Page 9 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here Another 001 study in 1999 is titled: "Natural Ground -Water Discharge of Orthophosphate in the Tualatin Basin, .Northwest Oregon." This study finds that groundwater discharge of phosphate is naturally high in the Tualatin Basin and Lake Oswego area. "The high levels of phosphate firom the regional ground -water flow .cvsterri entering the Tualatin River drainage explain why algal growth in the lower slow moving reaches of *the Tualatin River still occurs even though effluent levels from sewerage treatment plants have been lowered below current ODEQ'S TMDL."' (Wilson, 1999). Benjamin Johnson of Portland State University completed his master's thesis, "Longitudinal Transport Dynamics of Phosphorous and Sediment in a Small Urban Stream" in 2009. This study found: 1. "A strong relationship between sediment and phosphorous exists throughout the Lost Dog Creek watershed." 2. "Sediments are the largest Conti-ibittor Of phosphorotis in the watershed" 3. "Runoff from impervious surfaces does not contain elevated concentrations of phosphorous when compared to in -stream concentrations." (Johnson, 2009) The findings of the all the studies discussed above show that as a result of increased storm water runoff rates and high background phosphorus levels in stream bank soils, stream bank erosion is the dominant source of photiphorous and .sediment pollution in the City of Lake OSwego. ,Nacroinvertebrate communities are heavily impaired The City commissioned ABR, Inc. to prepare two macroinvertebrate studies: The "City of lake Oswego 2004 Macroinvertehrate Assessment, and "City of Lake Oswego 2007 Macroinverte brace Assessment," The studies made the following findings: "Streams in lake Oswego currently support heavily impaired macroinvertebrate communities, indicating that the communities have been modified by degraded physical habitat and/or altered water chemi.str (Cole, 2002) and (Cole, 2007). Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 10 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here Examples of the Consequences of Impaired Conditions Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 11 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from llere 3. A Vision of Healthy Streams and Watersheds Key Points • The goal of *surface water management is healthy streams and watersheds. • A good mental image is essential to achieving this goul. Goals and Objectives Regulatory Context for Healthy Streams and Watersheds Federal and state regulatory agencies strive to achieve healthy streams and watersheds. The federal ('lean Water Act o1'1973 states: "The objective ... is to restore and maintain the chemical, phmical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The mission of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's water quality program is similar: to "protect and improve ... water yualiti, ... by protecting rivers, lakes, streams and groundwater quality (to) keep these waters sale for a multitude of beneficial uses such cis drinking water, fish habitat, recreation and irrigation." The City of Lake Oswego is required by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality to protect and enhance water quality and its beneficial uses for fish, wildlife, recreation, water supply, groundwater recharge and other uses. In addition, the Fisheries Section of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requires that habitats for threatened and endangered cold -water fish be protected. A concerted regional effort is under way to conserve, enhance and restore these habitats and the streams, lakes, and the wetland systems that support them. The goal is to have healthy streams and watersheds. The objectives for achieving this goal include: • Water quality that is clean and complies with federal and state water quality standards • Steams that are in dynamic equilibrium with conditions in the watershed • Streams that periodically flood over their banks onto natural vegetated flood prone areas • Streams that support viable and productive populations of native fish and macroinvertebrates • Watersheds that provide clean runoff to streams • Watersheds that provide natural hydrologic functions Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 12 Ilcalthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds flow to Get There from Here A Good Mental Image Arnold Jacobs, legendary tuba player and brass teacher of the Chicago Symphony, taught the concept of "mentalizing" -- the idea that you must have a mental image of the end result before you can achieve it. It follows that having a good mental image of healthy streams to use as a physical reference is essential to achieving the goal of healthy streams. "Well vegetated restored Iloodplains with stable native stream bank vegetation are both your best buffers for nutrients and your most exquisite long term choice for lake health" Barry Southerland. According to current science, the indicators of healthy watersheds are: I. Presence of tree canopy 2. Soils with high infiltration capacitti and are rich in organic material and microorganisms 3. Upland wetlands 4. Headwater vegetated swales S. A network of.stable streams The indicators of a healthy stream are: 1. stream morphology in dynamic equilibrium with watershed conditions ?. riffles. pools and a mix ofgravel and cobble bed materials .3. good water quality 4. flooding on natural flood plains that avoids property damage 5. wet soil adjacent to stable stream banks 6. wetlands on flood plains udjacent to stable stream hanks 7. cool water temperature in stream.floK' N. native trees and shncbs to provide shade 9. native riparian vegetation that stabilize banks and, filler strecnn flow 10. habitat 1E,atures fhr fish, macroinvertebrates, and wlldllfe 11. healthv population of native fish, macroinvertehrate, and wildlife species 12. natural wood in the streams Sec Photos 12 and 13 below. IIarris Stream Services, LLC Page 13 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get Therefrom Here Examples of Healthy Stream Conditions I larris Stream Services, LLC Page 14 healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Strearns and Watersheds Ilox� to Get There from Here 4. Benefits of Healthy Streams and Watersheds Key- Points • Healthy streams cruel watersheds enhance quality of life. improve water quality and Increase propertv value. Quality of Life Quality of life tops the list of reasons people choose to live in Lake Oswego. In the context of healthy steams, quality of life comes from our sense of place, the natural environment, clean water, and fresh air, collectively defined as natural resources. We depend upon natural resources for our drinking water and use them for recreational pleasures such as fishing and swimming. They are also important as a home for wildlife and aquatic organisms. Protecting our rivers and streams thus improves our own lives and the health of our environment. Water Quality Healthy streams Provide flows that are clean and cold. High quality stream flow is essential for the biological integrity of a stream. Biological integrity means that the fish, macroinvertehrates, vegetation, and wildlife that by nature would be associated with a healthy stream are, in fact, present and thriving. Property Value Data in a study by the National Park Service in 1995 titled "Economic Impacts gl'Protecting Rivers. Trails, and Greenwati, Corridors ". (National Park Service, 1995) indicate a marked increase in value, ranging from 15 percent to 32 percent, for residential properties that border greenways. One may logically extend this data to infer that properties adjacent to greenways with healthy streams would have even more enhanced values. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 15 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Hera 5. A Primer on Stream and Watershed Functions Key Points • Natural fitnctions do the wok of restoring and maintaining stream and watershed health. • Impaired conditions indicate that natural fitnctions are also impaired • Healthy watershedv with good tree canopy, soils rich in organic matter, and permeable .soil generally produce little or no overland ninoff • Healthy streams have a tendency to heal themselves. Natural Functions The term "natural function" describes the "work" done by natural areas such as dense forests and undisturbed streamside areas, to filter stormwater, cool streams and protect stream banks from erosion. Healthy streams and watersheds work together to intercept rainfall, allowing it to soak slowly into the ground instead of running off. As storm water runoff passes through layers of plant debris on the forest floor, pollutants arc filtered out. Cool spring water, released slowly, feeds streams and keeps them cool in the dry part of the year. The roots of trees and shrubs hold stream banks, helping them to resist erosion. Streamside forests shade streams, keeping them cool, and provide woody debris, which helps create habitats for fish and wildlife. Vegetation in the stream -side area helps to slow water down during flood events, and in doing so, allows sediments to settle out. Streamside plants also take up pollutants from overland and overbank flows. When undisturbed in natural settings, stream systems achieve a dynamic equilibrium with conditions in the watershed. Understanding this equilibrium is critical to understanding how to approach many of the long-standing and costly surface water problems enumerated in the previous pages. This section touches briefly on many of the factors that contribute to healthy streams and watersheds. Impaired Conditions are Mdicators Impaired conditions such as elevated stream temperature or increased surface water runoff arc indicators and warning signs that a natural function is impaired. Tables I and 2 on page 21, show impaired conditions and their corresponding impaired functions. The most significant impairment of watershed function is the direct connection of impervious areas to streams and water bodies. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 16 healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Ilere Healthy Watersheds A watershed, in simplest terms, is all the land area, from ridge -top to ridge -top, from which water drains to a common stream. In more complex terms, a watershed is a dynamic system in which water and earth materials are moving to a common point. The forest canopy intercepts rainfall, minimizing the amount of storm water that actually makes it to the ground. Moisture clings to needles and leaves, some evaporates, some flows down stems, some gets caught in bark, and when rainfall moisture finally reaches the forest floor it is absorbed by decaying plant debris. "The City-wide Canopy Cover for Lake Oswego is 44.4 "o " ' (Papaefthimiou, 2009). However, there are significant areas of treeless pavement. in a recent study in Portland by a graduate student, annual rainfall intercepted by Douglas -fir trees in Portland's Hoyt Arboretum was measured "interception values for closed -canopy trees averaged 26 percent while values for open -grown trees averaged 37 percent*' (Bixby, 2008). In humid temperate forested areas like the City of Lake Oswego, soil infiltration capacities are historically high because vegetation protects the soil from raindrop impact and erosion and because organic material and microorganisms create an open soil structure. This is due to rainfall interception, water retention, evapo-transpi ration and thermoregulation (shading) by trees and infiltration, water retention and groundwater recharge by soils. "Under such conclitions rainfall intensities gener"al1v do not exceed infiltration capacities and ... overland %loot' clues not occur on large areas of the landscape." The lower portions of slopes adjacent to wetlands or streams slowly become saturated in winter and slowly release water in summer, contributing base flows to streams (Dunne, 1978, p. 262). Wetlands also make a significant contribution to watershed healthy by acting like huge sponges in watersheds, soaking up rainfall, providing places for flood flows to spread out, filtering sediments and pollutants from runoff and releasing base flows to streams in the dry part of the year. Wetlands also provide habitats for many kinds of wildlife, and serve to connect different kinds of habitats. Because they are highly absorbent, wetlands reduce flashy stream flows that occur due to drainage of impervious surfaces. 1 Based on analysis of 2007 aerial photos. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 17 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Healthy Streams and Watersheds Mow to Get There from here Healthy Streams The job of streams is to carry runoff and transport sediment. l Icalthy streams have a remarkable ability to filter pollutants, recycle nutrients, hold pollution in plant tissue, cool stream flow, prevent channel erosion, transport runoff and sediment, provide flood storage, reduce flow velocity, provide soil moisture for riparian vegetation, exchange cool clean groundwater, create habitat for fish and wildlife, and most significantly, maintain dynamically stable stream morphology. In fact, natural river systems have a tendency to move to a state of dynamic equilibrium with conditions in the watershed. Dynamic equilibrium is synonymous with the term "graded" (Mackin, 1948). The concept of a graded river is a fundamental principle. in the study of river morphology. When conditions change in the watershed (e.g. due to urbanization), the result is a change in the flow and sediment load from the watershed. This in turn causes the natural river system to undergo a succession of physical changes in channel width, depth, slope, and pattern through a process of erosion and incision until the stream re-establishes a state of dynamic equilibrium with changed conditions in the watershed. This process can take many years. sediment size coarse stream slope Lt+1, �r_�,�,. i Q,, • D5n CX nw • S From Rosgen (1996), from Lane. Proceedings, 1955. Published with the permission of American Society of Civil Engineers. Figure 2 — Lane's Dynamic Equilibrium Graphic Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 19 1 Icalthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds flow to Get There from Here The 2008 draft of the City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan states: "As cle velopinent and the associated increases in stormwater volumes increase, erosion of these streams will continue unless methods are entploved to reduce the increases in stormwater upstream." (Kraft, 2009, p. 17). This implies that stream bank erosion will cease by reducing the increases in stormwater upstream. Stanley Schumm, the internationally recognized geomorphologist states: "Once incision has commenced, it is unlikely that erosion will cease naturally until the channel has pi-ogressed through the several stages of the incised channel evolution model. Incised channels, afie r initial incision, follow an evoluttionai-v sequence that results in relative stabilih, after a number of years. " (Schumm, 2005, p.22). Figure 23— Schumm's Channel Evolution Model Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 19 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds [low to Get There, from I fere Reducing increases in stormwater runoff from the watershed is needed to establish healthy watershed conditions. I iow•evcr, stream bank erosion will continue to deepen then widen channels until channel morphology is established that is in equilibrium with watershed conditions. In the mean time, stream bank erosion will continue to produce phosphorous -laden sediment and consume streamside property. Scientists have found that stream channel adjustments following the Schumm channel evolution model is predictable and quantifiable. Stream restoration using a geomorphic approach is an effective design tool to predict what the stable stream channel will look like and to restore the state of dynamic equilibrium between a stream and its watershed conditions. This approach enables stream stewards to stabilize stream banks from erosion, reduce water pollution, and restore proper stream functions in a way that is sustainable and self -maintaining. The following list of watershed and stream natural functions itemizes the natural processes that work together to produce healthy streams. Properly functioning watersheds provide: ■ Rainfall interception ■ Water retention by plants ■ Evapo-transpiration ■ Thermoregulation (shading) • Rainfall infiltration by soil • Rainfall relenlion by plants • Groundwater recharge ■ Pollalant.filt•alian 61'pla►71s • Soil stabilCaton by plants ■ llunian stewaraship Properlv.f nictioning streams provide: ■ Self -maintaining- stable stream morpholo,;v ■ Runoffc•onvevance • Sediment transport • Flood storage • Flow attenuation • Maintenance of riparian hvdrologv ■ Streambank stabilization by plants ■ Gr-oinnchvater- exchange ■ Pollutant filtration by plants • Nutrient cvcling by plank ■ Pollution retention by plants • Riparian plant production ■ Thermoregulation (shading) ■ Hamm stewardvhip Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 20 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Horn to Get There ftom !Here The relationships between impaired conditions and corresponding watershed functions are shown in Table 1. Find the impaired condition. The X identifies the watershed function that is impaired as a result of the impaired condition. d Watershed Functions I able I . Im atrca L onattnon Inatcators ana t-orrciponuing tm auc y % — n v T t1. 3 3, 0 Impaired Watershed Conditions Upland soil erosion X Impervious surfaces X X X X X X X X X "Tree and shrub cover abscm X X X X X Direct connections to streams X X X Impaired Stream Conditions Flashing stream flow X X XIX XIX X Flooding contained in stream banks Severe stream bank erosion Muddy stream flow —T X X Severe sediment deposition -4- X X1 Dry soil on stream banks Streamside vegetation absent Polluted stream flow X X X X Algae X X X Warm stream temperature X Bacteria in stream flow X Low dissolved oxygen Flooding of streets and structures X Landslides adjacent to streams X Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 21 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Nerd The relationships between impaired conditions and corresponding stream functions are shown in Table 2. Find the impaired condition. The X identifies the stream function that is impaired as a result of the impaired condition. Table 2. Imnaired Condition Indicators and CorresDondints ImDaired Stream Functions Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 22 Healthy Streams and Watersheds y v. 0 o t C y.. v •r. .. C � � O v O - .C. C aL+ Cn C ro = c O O O Co c - o Y = o _ C 3 c= C x z z Stream Conditions Flashing stream now X X X X X Flooding contained in stream banks X X X Severe stream bank erosion x X X Muddy stream flow x X X Severe sediment deposition X X Dry soil on stream banks X X X X X Streamside vegetation absent X X X X X X Polluted stream flow X X X X Algae X X X X Warm stream temperature X X X Bacteria in stream flow X Low dissolved oxygen X X Flooding of streets and structures x X X Landslides adjacent to streams X Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 22 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 6. Strategies Healthy Streams and Watersheds Hon, to Get There from Here Key Points • Implement low inlpwc•t development 111easures. • Restore stable strecrnl [slot -pholo;t - w cost effective pollution Control measure. • Dc[t•light storm drains with natural channel designs. • Retrofit existing clra[11age .vvtelns with loin [mpaet development neasl[rev. • Create Pal•tnelshipv that suppof't restoration of strewn and rvatervhed health. • Use ex[st [71g in f ln-inat ion. • Pi -edict Annual Streamballk Erosion Rates. • Adopt vein/win solutions. • Create self-sustain[[lg systems that )nt[n[C natural processes. • Focus efforts on the Sp[-ingbrook Creek watershed Implement Low Impact Development Measures Low impact development (LID), also known as "green infrastructure," is a group of practices that mimic natural watershed functions to reduce stormwater runoff. LID practices include: pervious materials, green streets, green roofs, storm water plantings, tree planting, swales, rain gardens, green walls, rain water harvesting (cisterns) and soil amendments. LID measures as a group are the most affective method for restoring impaired watershed functions. In the state of Washington, LID development standards arc mandatory because they are known to be effective Best Management Practices (BMPs). Recommended Actions • Revise City code to require low -impact development (LID) measures, as has been done in Washington State. I Iarris Stream Services, LLC: Page 23 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Ilere Low impact development measures constructed in the City of Lake Oswego's recent I 01 Street and West Bay Road improvement projects are good local examples of these BMPs. See photos below. Examples of LID Strategies Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 24 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Hoiv to Get There fi-oin Ilere Restore Stahle Stream ?tvforphology - a Cost Effective Pollution Control Practice A study titled "The Value of'Protecting Ozark Streams: An Economic Evaluation ol'Stream Bank Stabilitv_for Phosphorous Reduction " (Dove, 2009) documents the effectiveness of stream restoration in removing phosphorous pollution. Effective phosphorous removal methods include storm water BMPs, stream restoration, and establishment of stream buffers. This study found that even minor amounts of stream bank erosion have a large potential to increase phosphorous into streams and ultimately to sensitive water bodies. The cost of phosphorous removal from a stream stabilization project was determined by measuring the volume of sediment from stream bank erosion per year, converting the volume of sediment to pounds of phosphorous, and then dividing pounds of phosphorous removed by the cost of the stream stabilization project. The project produced a stable stream reach with negligible stream bank erosion. This study recommends that "stream bank stabilization projects should he an integral portion of a sin, face water management plan and TMD1, implementation strategy." The study further reports that "the data indicate that performing stream stabilization projects is the most cost- effective method to reduce the amount of P in our streams and lakes." (Dove, 2009). In addition to reducing phosphorous and sediment, successful stream restoration also provides flood storage, flow attenuation, riparian hydrology. groundwater exchange, pollution filtration, nutrient cycling, pollution retention, riparian tree production, and thermoregulation (shading), and a self -maintaining stable stream channel. The City completed a stream restoration project in 2001 and two fish passage restoration projects in 2002. The stream restoration project remains in stable condition and continues to provide all the function described above. The two fish passage projects are also stable and providing natural stream functions as designed. In fact, cutthroat trout were observed spawning in two locations the year following construction. Photos and a summary of these restoration projects are provided in Appendix D. Recommended Actions Move forward with the Springbrook Creek restoration project on the Hope Church property. Plan additional projects from the 2002 Springbrook Creek assessment report. Do a similar assessment on upstream reaches of Springbrook Creek. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 25 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Healthy Streams and Watersheds Ilow to Get There from Here Daylight Storm Drains with natural channel designs Remove storm drain lines where a natural stream channel or wetland would provide more benefit. This action is commonly referred to as "day -lighting" storm drains. In 1994. several hundred feet of storm drain line was removed and replaced with a natural stream channel along the east side of Freepons Park in the City of Lake Oswego. This restored stream is a sel f - maintaining stable channel that continues to provide flood storage and water quality filtration today. Recommended Actions • Investigate the potential for day -lighting the storm drain at the City's West End facility in the Springbrook Creek drainage basin. • Extend the daylight project in Freepons Park onto private property. See the daylight project photos below Photo 16. A daylighted storm drain (1994) Freepons Park, Lake Oswego Once a storm drain Now a natural stable stream Freepons Creek drains to Oswego Creek Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 26 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds flow to Get There from Here Retrofit Existing Drainage Systems with low impact development measures implement low impact development measure replace traditional storm drain catch basins in parking lots. Remove impervious areas from underused parking areas and install tree planters with native trees, shrubs and ground cover vegetation. This may require modification of parking standards provision for financial incentives. A good demonstration project would be the upper parking lots at the City west end facility. Recommended Actions • Install rain gardens and tree islands in the upper two parking lots at the City's West End facility. • Implement catch basin rain gardens on public and private parking lots. • Implement low -impact development street projects. • Provide incentives for commercial property owners to install LiD measures. • Provide incentives for private property owners to install roof drain disconnect systems. Create Partnerships that support restoration of stream and watershed health Achieving the goal of healthy streams will require concerted and coordinated efforts among a broad public-private partnership, which by means of diverse tools and strategies, can make progress in improving the chemical, physical and biological integrity of Lake Oswego's watersheds, wetlands, streams and lakes. Recommended Actions • Create a Lake Oswego Watershed Council to provide the opportunity for individuals and community conservation groups engage in stream and watershed stewardship. • Enter into an agreement with the Lake Oswego Corporation to co-sponsor and implement a demonstration stream restoration project. Use F__risting Information • The City of Lake Oswego GIS department maintains GIS maps of the drainage network, storm drain system, streams, wetlands, surface water management facilities, drainage area boundaries, trees canopy, and impervious areas. City staff is updating this atlas with data from new LIDAR topographic maps. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 27 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Now to Get There from !fere The "2002 Springbrook Creek Condition Assessment Report' prepared by StrcamFix (Lawrence, 2002) is a condition assessment study of 4,970 lineal feet (0.94 miles) on Springbrook Creek from Rainbow Drive to Oswego Lake. The study provides a topographic survey of the stream and riparian corridor and a longitudinal profile of the stream channel. The stream is characterized by Rosgen stream classifications and includes stream bed sediment sample data and analysis. Stream bank erosion locations arc mapped. Each erosion location is given a bank erosion hazard index based on measurement taken at the erosion location. The study also discusses the potential for restoration in each reach. The report was used to identify several restoration projects that were implemented on Springbrook Creek. The study provides design criteria and conceptual designs for potential restoration projects on the Hope Church and the Hunt Club properties. Recommended Actions • Enhance City GIS maps to show stream condition assessment data, stream bank erosion locations, impervious areas that need tree canopy, and drainage systems that arc a direct connection to streams and water bodies. • Perform stream condition assessments studies on other sections of Springbrook Creek and its tributaries to identify stream erosions locations. Use 2002 ,Springhrook Creek Condition Assessment as a model for these studies. Predict Annual Slreamhank Erosion Rates Scientific protocols are available to predict the annual stream bank erosion rates and to calculate the tons and cubic feet of bank material produced from a section of stream. The cubic feet of bank material is converted to pounds of phosphorous released into the stream and ultimately into Oswego Lake. This prediction process provides a way to document the effectiveness of phosphorous removal after stream stability is restored. Predicted erosion rates can be validated by measuring actual stream bank erosion at selected stream bank locations. Recommended Actions • Implement annual stream erosion rate prediction protocols on Springbrook Creek from Rainbow Drive to Oswego Lake. This data will provide a base line to compare stream sections that are impaired by channel incision with stream sections of Springbrook Creek that were restored in 2001. Adopt Win/Win Solutions The September 2009 draft of the City's Clean Streams Plan states, "Thera is a call, for the City to restore these streams. 11owever, many of these streams are on private property, are privatelv owned and managed by the property owners in ways that inav not facilitate community access and/or maintenance." (Kraft, 2009, p. 17). Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 28 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here This statement defines a commonly held belief that stream restoration is not possible on private property. Private property owners do value and can be effective stewards of streams on their property. Finding this common ground with communication, education and the application of community resources will lead to the restoration of impaired stream conditions. Arnold Jacobs also taught his students a valuable lesson that applies to stream restoration as well as playing a musical instrument. To remove a limiting belief, do not focus on trying to stop it. instead, adopt a new empowering belief and focus on that belief. Two examples of stream restoration projects on private property are provided in Appendix C. John Enyart, Patrick O'Keefe and the City of Lake Oswego Engineering Department worked together to remove or modify artificial structures in their streams and restore natural stream channels that provides fish passage for native cutthroat trout to over one mile of Springbrook Creek. Create 5elf,5ustairring Systems that mimic natural processes A sustainability approach embraces the concept of fixing causes rather than the symptoms. For example, where stream flow is polluted with phosphorous from eroding stream banks, restoring channel stability eliminates the pollutant at the source and restores the stream's ability to filter other pollutants as well. This is a self-sustaining solution that docs not require continuous maintenance. Focus Efforts on the Sprhigbrook Creek Watershed The Springbrook Creek watershed has the greatest potential for reaching the goal of achieving healthy stream and watershed conditions. it is the largest watershed in the City of Lake Oswego, it has good assessment data, has the greatest number of restoration projects in the city, and it has the greatest impact on Oswego Lake. Springbrook Creek also has a great deal of monitoring data from water quality sampling, macroinvertebrate studies and a stream gauge station. IIarris Stream Services, LLC Page 29 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Healthy Streams and Watersheds Now to Get There from Here 7. Monitor for Success Key Points • 11017il01'ivatei- quality. • Monitor ntctcroinvei-tehrate comniunitie.v. • Monitor 1-I117off flow in Springhrook Creek. • Monitor rainfall clatafi-om Mount Sylrunia. • Afoniloi- tvsloi-ation prUJects after Conti -notion. The ultimate measure of the success of a storm water management program is reflected in the physical, chemical and biological integrity of streams and water bodies. Water quality Continue the City's water quality sampling and monitoring program. Macroinvertehrates Continue periodic monitoring of macroinvertebrates in the City. Rungff flow Continue operation of and collection of data from the Springbrook Creek stream gauge station. Rainfall data linter into an agreement with the City of Portland to receive rainfall data from the Mt. Sylvania rain gauge. Monitor hydrologic integrity by collecting rainfall data from the Mt. Sylvania rain gauge and runoff data from the Springbrook Creek flow gauge. Compare the response in the stream runoff hydrograph to rainfall hydrograph. Look for changes in runoff rates, duration and volume events in response to efforts to restore watershed, stream and wetland functions. Restoration proiecr,c Monitor restoration projects with photo points, cross-sections, vegetation assessments and fish inventories. Barris Stream Services, LLC Page 30 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Hare 8. Conclusions This report presents the following findings. • Achieving the goal of healthy streams requires the restoration of both stream and watershed functions. • Stream bank erosion is the dominant source of phosphorous and sediment pollutions. • Reducing an increase in stormwater nmoff from the watershed is needed to establish healthy watershed conditions but will not cease stream bank erosion_ • Stream bank erosion will continue to deepen then widen stream channels until the stream has developed channel geometry that balances the energy available for sediment transport with the supply of sediment being delivered to the stream. In the mean time, stream bank erosion will continue to consume streamside property and be a source of sediment and phosphorous pollution to Lake Oswego streams and Oswego Lake. • Restoring stable equilibrium stream morphology is the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of phosphorous and sediment pollution in Lake Oswego streams and Oswego lake. • Private property owners desire healthy stream conditions and welcome the support of the community if their private property concerns are addressed. I larris Stream Services. LLC Page 31 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Ilow to Get There h"ofn here References Adams, M.M. and Jarrell. (1995). Soil Processes and Chemical Transport, Soil Phosphorous as a Potential Nonpoint Source for Elevated Stream Pho.vphorous Levelv. Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Oregon Graduate Institute, P.O. Box 9100, Portland, OR 97291-1000. Revised 30 June 1994. Bixby, M. and Ycaklcy, A. (2008). Rainfall Interception by Open -Grown Tree Canopy. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Cole, M.B. and Harris, A.P. (2004). City of Lake Oswego 2004 Macroinvertehrate .-4ssevsnient. ABR, Inc. Environmental Research & Services. Forest Grove, Oregon. Cole, M.B. and l larris, A.P. (2007). City if Lcrke Oswego 2007 Macroinvcrrtehrate Assessment. ABR, Inc. Environmental Research & Services. Forest Grove, Oregon. Dove, E. Johnson, K. and Keener, M. (2008). The Value oJ'Protecting Ozark Streams. An Economic Evaluation orStream Rank Slahilitv, for Phosphorous Reduction. Olsson Associates, Springfield, MO. Dunne, T. and Leopold, L.B. (1978). Water in Environmental Planning. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif. 818 p. Johnson, B.S. (2009). Longitudinal Transport Dynamics of Phosphorous and Secliment in Small Urhan Stream. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Kraft, T., Ferre, S., and Writtenbrink, M. (2008). Cily qJ Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan, September, 2009. OTAK, Inc. 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Oregon 97035. Lasswell, S.S. and Swanson, W.E. (1968). Storm Sewer and Drainage Stuc/v of the Lake Osk'ego Area. CI 12M Engineers and Planners, 1600 Western Avenue, Corvallis, Oregon 97330. Leopold, L. B. Wolman, M. G., and Miller, J. P. (1995). Fluvial Processes in Cieomoll)hologj Dover Publications, Inc. New York. Lawrence, R.A. (2002). 2002 Springhrook Creek Condition Assessment Report, Reaches I through 5 and Reach N. StrcamFix, 19478 Starview Lane, Oregon. 97045. Lawrence, R.A. (2003). 2003 Springhrook Creek Condition Assessment Report. StreamFix, 19478 Starview Lane, Oregon_ 97045. Mackin, J. H. (1948). Concept of the graded river. Geologic Society of America Bulletin. V. 59, pp. 463-512. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 32 1lealthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here Mcinzer, 0. E. (1923). Outline of Ground -Water Hydrology. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 494. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 71 pp. National Park Services. (1995). Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenwav Corridors. Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute (OEWRD). (2007). Pre -construction Report.for the Ward Branch Stream Restoration Project. Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute (OEWRD). (2008). Ward Branch Stream Restoration Project, Post -construction Assessment and Final Report. Papaefthimiou, J, Gilby, D., Strom, N., Odum, D., and Johnson, A. (2009). Lake Oswego 's State of the Urban Forest. Planning Department, City of Lake Oswego, P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 97034. Prichard, D., Barrett, 11., Cagney, J., Clark, R., Fogg, J., Gebhart, K., Hansen, P.L., Mitchell, B., Tippy, D. (1993). Riparian Area Management: Process fir Assessing Proper Functioning Condition TR 1737-9 (Revised 1998). Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST- 93/003+1737+REV95+REV98, Service Center, Colo.. 51 pp. Rosgen, D.L. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, 11210 County Rd 19, Fort Collins, Colo. Rosgen, D. L. (2006). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Wildland Hydrology, 11210 County Rd 19, Fort Collins, Colo. Schumm, S.A., (2005). River Variability and Complexity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, New York. Salsi-Caromile, K., Bates, P., Skidmore, J., Barenti, D. Pinco. (2004). "Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft ". Co -Published by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicc. Olympia Washington. Southerland, R.C. and Houle, J.M. (1992). Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Master Plan. OTAK Incorporated, 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035. Stewart M.D. (1987). The Legacy of a Master. The Instrumentalist Publishing Company. Northfield, 1L. Trimble, S.W. 1997. Contribution of Stream Channel Erosion to Sediment Yield from Urbanizing Watershedv. Wilson, D.C. and Burns, S.F. (1999). Natural Ground -Water Discharge of Orthophosphate in the Tualatin Basin. Northwest Oregon University of Colorado, Boulder, C 80309. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 33 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here Appendix A - Glossary Aquatic insect.v and stream habitat. River health can be measured by the kinds of insects and in - stream habitats that are present. Aquatic insects such as mayflies, caddis flies, and stoneflies depend on stable flows, good water quality and sufficient in -stream habitat for survival. These insects are particularly sensitive to factors that reduce oxygen or flow, increases in temperature or factors that raise metabolic rates in a stream. Bankfull stage: "The bankfull stage corresponds to the discharge at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of channels." Dunne and Leopold (1978). Channel Marimum Depth: Channel maximum depth is measured from the bankfull stage elevation to the deepest part of the channel or thalweg. Channel Width: Channel width is measured from the edge of the channel bank at the bankfull stage. Drainage Si vtem: Includes streams, water bodies, wetlands, flood prone areas, drainage facilities, culverts and storm drains. Dynamic Fquilibrium: A stream reach in dynamic equilibrium has developed a geometry that balances the energy available for sediment transport with the supply of sediment being delivered to the reach. (Saki-Caromile, 2004, Chapter 2, p. 34.). See Graded River, below. Graded River: Macklin defined a graded river as 'one which, over a period of years, slope is delicately adjusted to provide, with available discharge and with prevailing channel characteristics, just the velocity required for the transportation of the load supplied from the drainage basin. The graded stream is a system in equilibrium; its diagnostic characteristic is that any change of the controlling factors, will cause a displacement of the equilibrium in a direction that will tend to absorb the effect of the change." Mackin (1948). Natural Funcvion: The normal or characteristic action of anything; esp., any of the natural, specialized actions of a system. Riparian Areas: Riparian areas are transition areas between permanently saturated wetlands or stream banks and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the permanent influence of surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas are lands along, adjacent to or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. Ilarris Stream Services, LLC Page 34 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How, to Gel -There. -from Hera Riparian hvch•olov: The hydrology of a river system is a critical physical factor affecting aquatic life. In streams where groundwater is the principal water source, stable flow patterns occur, characterized by low seasonal and daily fluctuations in discharge. Stable flows promote stable habitat for aquatic life in the form of diverse bottom substrates, secure in -stream cover and moderate water velocities and temperatures. Unstable flows erode river bottoms and may cause excessive sedimentation, which in turn may cover up critical in -stream habitats. Stream: A body of water flowing in a natural channel. Streams are defined as follows (Mcinzer, 1923): Perennial - A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow. Intermittent or seasonal - A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous or upland areas. Ephemeral - A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation and whose channel is at all times above the water table. Stream Assessment: The analysis of sediment production, transport, and deposition, hydrology and hydraulics associated with a particular stream. Stream Integritl. Chemical integrity includes anything that influences the water quality of runoff including phosphorous, nutrients, bacteria, and temperature. Please see comment 18. Physical integrity is the healthy condition of stream morphology and dynamics including channel dimensions, pattern, profile, topography, bed materials, flow regime, now types and presence of a functioning floodplain, where appropriate. Biological integrity means that the fish, macro 1 nvertebratcs and wildlife that by nature would be associated with a healthy stream are, in fact, present and thriving. Stream MorpholoKv: Stream morphology describes stream form and structure in terms of channel dimensions (width, depth, and cross-sectional area), pattern (meanders), longitudinal profile (gradient), and bed materials. Primary components include channel width, active flood -prone areas, the presence of pools, riffles and diverse flow patterns, large woody debris, protective cover, well -sorted stream bed materials and robust riparian vegetation. Temperature: Temperature is another indicator of stream health. Typically, the cooler the stream the more likely it is to support a sport fishery. Most species of game fishes prefer cooler waters, although there are exceptions to this. Streams with healthy plant communities, including trees, along their banks will tend to have lower temperatures than streams that are open to sunlight. In Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 35 1lealthy Streams and Watersheds hlealthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get There from Here general, streams maintained by ground -water discharge will have lower temperatures than those maintained primarily by surface nmoff. Wetlevuls: Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions including marshes, swamps, lake shores, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, estuaries and riparian areas. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 36 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Ilow to Get There from Here Appendix B — Stream and Watershed Functions List _ Stream Functions Healthy Streams perform the following functions: CHEMICAL 1. Nutrient cycling. 2. Pollutant sequestration. Plants, soils and chemical processes associated with streams retain pollutants by means ofadherence, filtration, uptake and chemical processes. 3. Thermoregulation. Wetlands, hyporheic zones and streamside areas support riparian vegetation that shades streams and reduces water temperatures. PHYSICAL (GEOMORPHIC) 4. Channel stability. Streams develop dynamically stable channels in equilibrium with runoff and sediment materials provided by the watershed. 5. Runoff conveyance. Streams convey storm water nmoff. 6. Sediment transport. Streams transport sediment materials. 7. Flood storage and attenuation. The flood -prone flood areas along streams provide flood storage that reduces runoff velocity and volume. 8. Riparian hydrology. The stream system and its associated floodplain, wetlands and hyporheic zone provide a water table that supports riparian vegetation. 9. Groundwater exchange. A portion of surface water infiltrates into the ground and recharges stream (low. 10. Particle retention. Streamsidc vegetation filters and retains sediments. 11. Cultural uses. Streams, wetlands and riparian corridors along streams create a pleasing natural aesthetic. BIOLOGIC 12. Habitat. Streams and their associated vegetation provide shelter, food production and breeding and rearing sites for fish, macro -invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. 13. Passage (connectivity). Stream corridors provide passage for fish, macro -invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. 14. Vegetation productivity. Streamsidc vegetation uses sunlight to make organic matter that is essential for aquatic organisms and for development of diverse flow patterns and channel topography. Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 37 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds 11ow to Get Thera. from Here Watershed Functions List BIOLOGICAL 1. Vegetation Production (capacity of plant to sunlight to make organic matter) 2. Wildlife Habitat Support 3. Bird Habitat Support 4. Support of Characteristic Vegetation (capacity to support plants) 5. Nitrogen Removal (capacity of plants uptake and store nutrients) 6. Thermoregulation (capacity of plants to provide shade and reduce temperature of water and air) HYDROLOGIC 7. Rainfall Interception (capacity to reduce runoff impact) 8. Evapo-transpiration (capacity to absorb soil moisture and evaporate water) 9. Water Storage (capacity to store water in plant tissue) 10. Soil Water Retention (capacity of soils to retain water) 11. Groundwater Recharge (capacity to infiltrate runoff and recharge the ground water system) GEOMORPHIC 12. Soil Stabilization (ability of plants and organic mater to stabilize soils and prevent erosion) 13. Aesthetics (natural appearance and materials) Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 38 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds How to Get Therefrom Here Appendix C — Lake Oswego Stream Restoration Examples Hams Stream Services, LLC Page 39 Healthy Streams and Watersheds DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT f Healthy Streams and Watersheds florr to Get There i•om here Boones Way Restoration Project Springbrook Creek (Reach 6) Site Conditions Before ■ Severe stream bank erosion • Deep channel incision ("G" channel type) ■ No Flood plain connection ■ High shear stress and bank erosion ■ No riparian vegetation ■ Non-native invasive upland species dominate (Himalayan blackberries) Goals 1. Restore equilibrium morphology 2. Prevent local stream bank erosion 3. Restore flood storage capacity 4. Restore native riparian vegetation 5. Enhance fish habitat 6. Improve water quality Results ■ Restored stable "C" type stream morphology ■ Reconnected flood plain ■ Restored native riparian vegetation Specifications Client: City of Lake Oswego Public Works Department Site Address: Upper Twin Fir Road to Boones Way Stream Length: 2,316 lineal feet Total Cost: $317,878 (5138/lineal foot) Design Cost: 572,460 ($32/lineal foot) Construction Cost: 5245,418 ($106/lineal foot) Start / Ended: 2001 /2002 Bankfull Discharge: 72 cfs City Project Manager: Andrew Ilarris (503) 866-0901 Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 40 Healthy Streams and Watersheds llealthy Streams and Watersheds Ho"> to Get There,/i•oin Ilere Enyart Fish Passage Restoration Project Springbrook Creek (Reach 5) Site Conditions Before ■ A concrete lined pond in the stream (low line ■ A three foot high dam created a Fish passage barrier Goals 1. Restore fish passage 2. Restore natural stream channel morphology Results ■ Removed dam and concrete liner ■ Restored natural meandering channel with riffles and pools ■ Restored native riparian and upland vegetation • Native cutthroat trout were observed spawning upstream the year following construction Specifications Client: Site Address: Stream Length: Total Cost: Design Cost: Construction Cost: Start / Ended: Bankfull Discharge: City Project Manager: City of Lake Oswego Engineering Department 15499 Twin Fir Road 100 lineal feet 541,273 ($413/linear foot) $5,265 ($53/linear foot) 536,008 (5360/lineal foot) 2002/2003 120 cfs Andrew Harris (503) 866-0901 Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 41 1lcalthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Hoyt, to Get There from Ile re O'Keefe Fish Passage Restoration project Springbrook Creek (Reach 1) Site Conditions Before ■ A two -foot drop at railroad culvert outlet ■ A flat -bottom concrete railroad culvert, 6 feet wide, 270 feet long, 1 percent slope Goals 1. Restore fish passage to culvert 2. Provide fish passage through culvert 3. Restore natural step/pool stream morphology Results ■ Restored 100 lineal feet of step/pool channel morphology with 6 inch jumps up to culvert inlet ■ Built a baffle system through the culvert providing resting areas and adequate low depth for year round fish passage ■ Restored native riparian vegetation ■ Native cutthroat trout were observed spawning in the step pool system and upstream the year following construction Specifications Client: Site Address: Stream Length: Total Cost: Design Cost: Construction Cost: Start / Ended: Bankfull Discharge: City Project Manager: City of Lake Oswego Engineering Department 15761 Springbrook Court 370 lineal feet $44,730 ($121 /linear foot) $ 5,265 ($14/linear foot) $39,465 ($107/lineal foot) 2002/2003 125 cfs Andrew Harris (503) 866-0901 Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 42 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Healthy Streams and Watersheds Now to Get There from Here Appendix C — Eight Channel Controlling Factors These controlling factors are the "eight (8) interrelated variables involved in downstream changes to river slope and channel form". (Miller, pp 268) They arc all related to the bankfull channel. • The first three (3) are provided by upstream conditions. • The last five (5) arc channel adjustments made in response to upstream conditions. Discharge (Q) Sediment Size Sediment Load Width (w) Depth (d) Slope (s) {Hydraulic Roughness (n) Velocity (u) *Hydraulic roughness is flow resistance from plants, particle size, channel form (meanders), and bed form (riffles, pool, steps, and bars). (Miller (1992), page 247 & 25 1) Harris Stream Services, LLC Page 43 Healthy Streams and Watersheds Comments on the Lake Corporation Healthy Streams & Watersheds (Harris Stream Services) submitted 10/27/09: Increased stream flows and volumes from urbanized areas can cause marked increases in stream erosion. Once the erosion process is started, it cannot be completely stopped. However, reducing the flows and velocities entering the stream reduces the forces that cause erosion, thus slowing the down the process, and preventing deterioration of additional areas. Reducing flow rates and volumes also increases the survivability rate of stream restoration work conducted in the watershed. Many stream restoration projects simply wash away because the underlying causes of the erosion were never addressed. Lastly, reducing flow rates and volumes in the upper portions of a watershed benefits the entire stream, not just a particular reach that has been restored. Therefore, although we whole-heartedly agree in the value of stream restoration, the primary focus of the Clean Streams Plan is to address inputs to the stream, rather than restoration projects in the stream. The Healthy Streams and Watersheds Plan recommends the following strategies: • Implement low impact development measures to restore watershed functions The Clean Streams Plan also makes recommendations for the implementation of LIDA measures, where feasible. It also recommends the use of other water quality and flow control BMPs where LIDA is not feasible. • Restore natural stream morphology to restore stream functions To date the scientific and environmental communities have not been able to come up with an approach or technique that will take watersheds in an urban area back to a sustainable level. All the work we do is intended to move us in the correct direction, but all would agree there is more that could be done. The Clean Streams Plan is focused on stormwater management but with a strong eye to mitigating or minimizing the impacts (both water quantity and pollutants) on streams. This is base -level work that must occur whether or not the City also creates a watershed plan or chooses to do more stream restoration. Addressing the problems so they no longer enter streams must be a priority and set the stage for stream restorations that will serve many generations into the future. Also, in Lake Oswego most of the stream miles are located on private properties and existing development precludes restoration to a 'natural' configuration. Note that the Clean Streams Plan does include a grant funded program to assist private property owners seeking to restore streams on their property. • Daylight storm drains with natural channel designs Removing existing piped systems is a laudable concept but very difficult in practice. The Clean Streams plan does not currently fund a pipe removal program but does recommend consideration of LIDA when needing to replace existing (piped) facilities. • Retrofit existing drainage systems with low impact development measures The Clean Streams Plan also recommends this in Section 6.3, Urban Stormwater Retrofitting • Create partnerships including a Lake Oswego watershed council Various community members have expressed interest in this concept and appear to be laying the groundwork for a watershed council. If this occurs Lake Oswego could be a partner and participant in this council through the new public education and outreach program proposed in the Clean Streams Plan. MAINTENANCE SERVICES CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5705 Jean Road PO Box 369 Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 MEMORANDUM July 20, 2009 To: Alex McIntyre, City Manager From: Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Director Subject: Clean Streams Plan Background Paper Attached is the first of three papers serving as an introduction to surface water and the Clean Streams Plan. The second paper will follow in late August and the third in September; topics will include the state of stormwater science and an overview of the Plan contents. The Clean Streams Plan document is undergoing revisions and will be published in early September, followed by a public comment period. Final Plan revision (based on public comment) will occur in early October and will be presented to Council on October 70' with the public hearing to follow on November 17tH If Council members have any questions regarding this paper or on other topics related to surface water or the Clean Streams Plan, both I and our consultant are available to meet. STORMWATER 101 What is Surface Water? Surface water is water that sits or flows on the surface of the earth. This includes streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and the water running across backyards. Though they are not the same, surface water is often interchanged with stormwater, which is rainfall reaching the surface of the earth. Stormwater is typically captured and diverted around development in order to protect structures and other improvements. Stormwater is a subset to surface water but clearly has a substantial impact on surface water, especially in quality (through any pollutants it carries and through erosion caused by some storm flows). Surface water is a critical part of the natural ecosystem. It has a life sustaining functioning for most forms of life and we value it for its recreational uses and scenic beauty. Before bacteria and other sources of illness were understood, surface water was perceived to be a direct cause of illness and communities made concerted efforts to capture and carry away the water in order to protect the health of its residents. As our knowledge increased and the limited disease potential was better understood, the primary focus switched to protecting investments from flooding and/or standing water. Today, flooding and standing water are still the primary source of complaints about surface water even as we are learning that water quality has far-reaching impacts to our ecosystem and its resident creatures (including us). Stormwater, Gravity and Development; an Imperfect Picture Absent development, rainfall fell onto vegetation and the ground. Vegetation might take in some of the water, and depending on the soil type and condition some would soak into the ground. Another portion would flow downhill and some would evaporate in place. With our natural landforms (typically carved by stormwater), water flows downhill, gathering or concentrating into rivulets, creeks, rivers, lakes and finally, oceans. While stormwater flow naturally concentrates, development greatly increases both the flow and the concentration through reduction of pervious ground areas and vegetation, and construction of piped stormwater collection systems which release high amounts of flow in short periods of time through pipe outfalls into creeks, rivers, and the Lake. Because of hilly topography Lake Oswego has a large number of separate drainages, their low points or flow lines defined by intermittent or year-round creeks, or piped systems that replaced or diverted the natural drainages. The City has about 130 miles of storm drain pipes and ditches. Private properties and subdivisions have additional systems, some built under permit and others built informally. Both public and private systems divert and concentrate water. As in most communities, existing creeks, rivers and lakes are the receiving bodies for the stormwater delivered by these systems. The land upon which creeks, rivers, and the Lake are located are not owned by the City, nor does the City hold an easement merely by virtue of the flow of surface waters. More specifically, the City does not obtain ownership of the land or responsibility for management of a creek simply because a creek is carrying surface waters. (Surface water comes off of lands that are privately owned, publicly owned, or publicly controlled (public streets). Likewise, though it's understood that development can lead to increased stormwater flows, there is no Oregon statute or case law that imposes upon a city, merely because the storm water has fallen or the surface water has flowed into the boundaries of the city, a responsibility to mange stormwater flow. Similarly there is no statute which enacts a "drainage law" to codify landowner responsibility for management of surface water. Through Oregon court decisions, the responsibility for flow management of storm water falls upon those who alter the natural or historic surface water flow, either as it enters their property or as it exists their property. Case law recognizes that surface water that is redirected from its normal course can have negative consequences on downhill properties and makes each property owner responsible for not causing negative impacts to others. Creeks: the Conduit and the Dilemma Changes to flow characteristics (volume, velocity) are significant because they can change erosion. Erosion is of interest from an ecological and regulatory perspective because small particles (microscopic, especially) serve as pollutant carriers, less particulate could mean reduced pollutant delivery. The sediment from erosion is deposited where the stream energy is no longer able to carry the particles; this is a natural process. Increased sediment can change a water body from its current state. In a creek, changes may result in realignment of the water flow; near development this can threaten buildings and other improvements. Regardless, creeks are living bodies; it's their natural form to change, to deposit sediment in some areas, to scour others and to realign, even without the impact of development. So while we understand there is an impact due to development, it may be difficult in any given case to understand what changes are due to nature (the rainfall that year, natural creek movement, etc) and what can be assigned to development or other changes on a specific property or to its runoff. In this part of the State the form of a natural creek would be quite shallow and with a sizable flood plain that could handle large intermittent flows from heavy rains. The creek would be free to (and would) change its course over time within the floodplain area. Scientific research has shown that the flood plain area has many benefits not only for flood impacts but also for aquatic health and water quality. However, communities have developed structures well within these floodplains (and even lots that could not remain developed if the natural flood plains and creek movement were accommodated), and frequently strive to prevent changes to creek alignments because of potential impacts to existing development. Communities generally understand that the 'cost' of protecting greater areas around creeks is not supported (politically or financially) and choose partial or more limited protections on areas around creeks. Communities have not yet found a solution to the dilemma of fully protecting enough land to support healthy creeks while accommodating development. Healthier Creeks and Hydraulic Connectivity In the past The City has carried out a number of creek segment restorations. This is effective in areas where the creek can move naturally, but the vast majority of creek miles in Lake Oswego are constrained. Restorations may improve an area for a short while but the energy carried by upstream portions will work to 'wash away' the improvements (except those areas where the changes can happen without impact to property or structures). In order to effect serious improvements to our creeks, scientific research supports first reducing the inputs that caused the problem to begin with. This means working to lessen the concentration of stormwater before it gets to the creek. Lake Oswego's first tool in this approach is to require properties to address stormwater on their sites. However, in some cases there may not be acceptable onsite options. As an example some hillsides are slide prone; encouraging water to soak into the ground may exacerbate the slide risk; carrying the water away may be needed in order to protect property and people. The Clean Streams Plan recognizes the need for flexible response to stormwater issues by supporting the use of a variety of techniques where LIDA is not appropriate. When water must be pulled off the site, management practices should first look to techniques that mimic natural dispersal of the water close to the point where it falls and minimizes flow concentration as much as possible (while protecting development and people). Hydraulic connectivity (which is concentrating and directly connecting flow to streams, as opposed to dispersing it into grass, field and forests) is encouraged in the Clean Streams Plan via the use or low impact development approaches (LIDA), and the development of a new stormwater manual and standards reflecting current knowledge and techniques. In addition, proposed capital projects focus more on system changes prior to water reaching the creeks and less on stream restorations. Over time changes in stormwater management will lead to more stable creeks and the option to carry out more extensive and lasting creek restorations. The Clean Stream Plan does not propose any creek restoration work at this time. Instead it includes projects that will reduce the stormwater flow rates prior to entering streams. The Clean Streams Plan also includes a small grants program targeted to private property owners who would like to do stream restoration on their property, and it supports the continuation of projects to restore stormwater discharge points (outfalls) to streams, which are a major source of erosion. Can We Do Without Pipes? Yes, of course we can do without pipes. The question is: at what cost? Pipes are good at many things, carrying away unwanted water is one, another is maximizing developable or usable space by placing the utility underground in a tightly confined space (a ditch or swale takes up more room and cannot effectively remain a ditch as it is crossed by streets, driveways, or other improvements). In a right-of- way with a limited width surface facilities must compete for space with others needs such as sidewalks, roadway, parking, and planting/utility strips. When space is at a premium, stormwater conveyance facilities have the flexibility to be subsurface. Pervious pavement may be an option but with its attendant water storage bed it can be very costly and in each specific case may or may not be more effective than piping depending on where the piping carries the water and how it is handled at the end of the pipe. As an example, the Plan did a focused review of the Boones Ferry Basin. The area characteristics are of a low and wet area predating development, and it has a history of flooding problems and drywell failures due to high ground water. In some instances the ground water has been so high that water has flowed out of drywells. In this type of condition, attempting to put stormwater directly into the ground is generally counterproductive, and not a viable solution. Some individual properties may be able to use this strategy but most will not; a piped system will be needed to carry away some of the water. While this increases hydraulic connectivity the system (some of it already existing but undersized) ties directly into the Rosewood water detention facility. This pond provides both detention and water quality, so that water exiting the system is already treated for the impacts of concern (detention ponds are designed to hold large water flows and meter them out slowly over a long period of time). The Plan proposes a capital improvement project to resize part of the Boones Ferry system as the best available solution to flooding issues in the area. Streets Of City -owned facilities, the biggest contributor to stormwater runoff is streets. It is a good news/bad news story in that the majority of our streets are uncurbed so water runs off to the sides and is not concentrated as would happen with a standard curb and piped storm drain system (that's the good news). The bad news is that most of our streets have no facilities for capturing stormwater so where it is a problem (typically a localized flooding issue) it is difficult and potentially very expensive to resolve. In analyzing the extent of potential issues and sites property owners would like the City to address, there is no clear one -size -fits -all fix. Instead, the Plan proposes ongoing funding for specific problems as they are identified. This already happens whenever Engineering rebuilds a street; stormwater impacts are evaluated and the street design incorporates appropriate changes. In addition the Clean Streams Plan continues an annual catchbasin retrofit program. Old catchbasins were built as an entry point to a pipe system. New catchbasins are built to collect and hold the sediment and floating pollutants (and are periodically cleaned by Maintenance crews) so they will not enter the pipe system. The Plan also recommends an annual project for identifying and fixing small flood areas. How is Stormwater Regulated? At the Federal level stormwater is regulated through two major Acts: the Clean Water Act (first adopted in 1972) and the Safe Drinking Water (first adopted 1974). The Clean Water Act provides the bulk of stormwater regulations by establishing the concept of 'beneficial use' for waterways —the three types of possible beneficial uses are: drinking water supply; primary contact recreation (swimming); and aquatic life support. If a water body does not meet water quality standards needed for its identified beneficial uses, the water body is 'impaired' and pollutants of concern are regulated. The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for setting total maximum daily pollutant loads (TMDL's) for the regulated pollutants. The Act included a permit system for industrial uses, some agricultural uses, and various governments (including municipalities). The Clean water Act only regulates 'point sources' — in our case point sources are City -owned storm drain pipe outfalls to navigable waters (or sometimes 'waters of the United States.') The City must have a current permit (the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permit) issued through the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and it regulates the public system attached to each outfall. The regulating of municipal systems is unusual in that it recognizes (through use of the term Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) that cities do not have complete control of the what might enter their systems (unlike an industry which has complete control of everything that happens on its property) and may not have the financial resources desired for the most effective regulatory compliance. While MEP reflects the reality of local governments it can be viewed by some as impeding progress toward desired water quality. The Safe Water Drinking Act has a smaller but significant role in stormwater management. The Act provides the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, which seeks to maintain the cleanliness of aquifers (subsurface water bodies) due to their use for drinking water supply. Any facility (drywells are the most common) that injects stormwater into the ground is considered a UIC and is subject to strict regulations (the Safe Drinking Water Act does not have MEP or an equivalent). Oregon DEQ recently established regulatory requirements for UICs and the City will need to provide significant resources to bring existing City-owned UICs into compliance. (The Clean Streams Plan includes funding for development of a City UIC program.) The two Acts discussed are focused on water quality; as discussed earlier, common law and our own Code are the main source of regulations pertaining to the cause of localized flooding. The potential for and impact of large floods (which are not a direct topic of the Plan) are addressed via FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and related regulations. MAINTENANCE SERVICES CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5705 Jean Road PO Box 369 Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 MEMORANDUM September 10, 2009 To: Alex McIntyre, City Manager From: Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Director Subject: Second Clean Streams Plan Background Paper Attached is the second of three papers serving as an introduction to surface water and the Clean Streams Plan. Terms used in this paper are discussed in the first paper. The third paper in early October will provide an overview of Plan contents. The Clean Streams Plan document has been revised and is available to the public in pdf format (via the Clean Streams link on the front page of the City's website). Final Plan revision (based on public comment) will occur in October and is currently scheduled for presentation to City Council in a study session on October 27h. If you would like a paper copy prior to the Council study session, please let me know. If Council members have any questions regarding this paper or on other topics related to surface water or the Clean Streams Plan, both I and our consultant are available. STORMWATER 101: Current Practices The State of the Science Of the City's utilities (water, wastewater, streets, storm), the management of stormwater is perhaps the least understood from a scientific perspective. It is only in the last 20 or so years that scientists and communities around the country have taken environmental impacts of stormwater management, especially as regulated through the Clean Water Act into account. Although this may seem like a long period of time, supporting science continues to change rapidly as management approaches are adopted, implemented and evaluated for actual impacts. Much of the science is tied to regulatory requirements established through the Clean Water Act; the regulatory approach drives what types of information or measurements a permit holder must provide to demonstrate compliance. Today's common practices are based on the regulatory framework calling for permittee stormwater management plans* identifying specific best management practices that will be used by the permittee to control impacts to local waterbodies. While there is some variation, States typically identify pollutants of concern and provide total maximum daily loads and other requirements, and local communities identify BMPs they believe can be implemented and will best address the requirements as defined by the State. The implementation of stormwater management plans through BMPs would seem a reasonable approach, and current science has demonstrated some effectiveness with appropriate deployment of BMPs. However, this approach, at least in its current configuration, has disadvantages. Limitations include: • Wide variability in BMP effectiveness, and/or the lack of supporting data identifying effectiveness under specific conditions • No clear effect between stormwater management plans (and the BMPs they provide) and in - stream water quality • Current design and deployment of BMPs on a site -by -site basis doesn't always support (and in some cases can negatively impact) watershed health • Limited data/technical support allowing BMPs to be tailored to specific watersheds (or even to specific sites) • Rapidly changing design and effectiveness information makes keeping up with appropriate usage difficult • Nonstructural BMPs such as product substitution (for example, requiring the use of phosphorus —free fertilizers) and land use, considered (but not proven) the most effective long-term strategies, are typically associated with the greatest political impact and are often avoided, leading to reliance on less effective structural BMPs. *Stormwater management plans are a regulatory document that is prepared by an MS4 permitte and is part of the approved permit. They are not the same as a stormwater master plan (The Clean Streams Plan), which provides long term utility guidance and is not intended to be a regulatory or compliance -based document The positive aspects of current BMP usage associated with a stormwater management plan includes: • Enough data is available to show that BMPs are effective at lessening the impact of development on waterbodies • Complying with BMPs in an adopted stormwater management plan is generally accepted as evidence of MS4 permit compliance, avoiding enforcement measures under the Clean Water Act There are numerous issues with the current regulatory framework for water quality and some emerging thought that a different approach is needed in order to provide better linkages between needed actions and water quality. One concept supported by the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council is a watershed -based framework. Much has to be fleshed out (the concept is not the same as watershed planning efforts that many communities undertake) and would require a major shift at all levels (federal, state, local) to be implemented. For example, a true watershed approach would pull all 'inputs' together; wastewater, industry, private property, municipalities and others would all be contained in the same permit to allow more consistent and effective management. Whether watershed permitting or another approach is chosen, it's likely that the regulatory framework will go through a major shift in the future, and current practices and science studies will shift with it. It is also likely that BMPs will continue to have a role. Urban vs Natural environment Recent trends in stormwater management practices promote using techniques that mimic nature and natural processes as much as possible: by copying nature we will be minimizing impacts to the existing natural stream/river system and its ecosystem. In a natural environment without the pressures to accommodate residential and commercial development, where we are not protecting property or limited by land costs and availability, this could be an ideal approach. However, Lake Oswego is made up of urban watersheds. The creeks in our watersheds are not "natural" and trying to manage them or their inputs in a "natural" method may or may not be beneficial for surrounding development or for existing undeveloped lands. Example 1: The Palisades neighborhood appears to have a number of seeps and springs, which indicates lateral and downslope water movement. While infiltration is a natural process, increased on-site infiltration could lead to more water entering the underground water system, resulting in more water movement and increased concerns about slope stability and public safety. Example 2: On a large scale, land area given over to "natural" stormwater facilities can displacedevelopment and actually enlarge the amount of land that is urbanized, ultimately leading to more stream degradation. Example 3: Current science has not decided whether urban land development patterns can coexist with healthy 'natural' streams and waterbodies. It appears that some types of recently encouraged development patterns, i.e., mixed uses, may actually make it more difficult to attain water quality goals because the increased density of usage often results a larger portion of the site given over to impervious surfaces and less room is available for handling stormwater by 'natural' means onsite. The competing demands (and resulting tension) between development/urbanization and efforts to improve water quality will continue for the foreseeable future. Suburban -style development has the greatest potential for improving water quality by the choices available to address stormwater management. This is in large part because there is room on the site, and when development occurs on a large subdivision scale, it allows larger pieces of land to be developed with a unified stormwater BMP approach. The largest adverse impact to stormwater management occurs with redevelopment of sites to a greater density or intensity, especially industrial uses. Lake Oswego has limited availability for new development, so that development typically occurs at a very small scale. Redevelopment, often of individual residential lots, is a common theme in the City and provides only limited opportunity for improvements to stormwater management. What does this mean for Lake Oswego? As long as stormwater management is in an "emerging science" phase, we can anticipate that new information will continue to arrive. In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the requirement to continually evaluate BMPs and current practices, it is expected that the City's stormwater management practices and regulations will be modified to improve water quality. Over time, BMP usage will continue, although the specific BMPs and their deployment will change. Our environment has been urbanized to the extent that our waterbodies are no longer natural. Nevertheless, we should strive to use nonstructural BMPs to handle stormwater, mimicking natural processes, because that appears to be the most effective, over time. We should continue as a priority that development be required to address stormwater runoff at its "source", rather than pushing the obligation and cost for management "downstream" to the public. Recognizing that uncertainty exists, and will likely always exist, we must strive to manage stormwater as effectively as we can within scientific and financial limitations in order to retain the benefits we and future generations need for living, developing, and will have in our watershed, for living, working and recreation, and to reduce or reverse the effects of poor water quality on our local, regional, and global ecosystem. The Clean Streams Plan, which would reasonably have a life of 10 years or more, cannot foresee specifically where stormwater management will be in a decade but it discusses and implements the latest science, and provides a framework for implementing new technologies as they come along. What is well known today, and will not change in the future, is that the City needs assistance from the Community in implementing measures for improving water quality. Programs in the Clean Streams Plan, like the stormwater grants and home audits, along with the other outreach and education measures, will continue to assist and educate the Community on how they can do their part. Note: Some of above information is summarized from Urban Stormwater Management in the United States National Academies Press, 2009 MAINTENANCE SERVICES CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5705 Jean Road PO Box 369 Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 ILTJ 1aLTA to] :"011101LTJ I October 14, 2009 To: Alex McIntyre, City Manager From: Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Director Subject: Third Clean Streams Plan Background Paper Attached is the third of three papers serving as an introduction to surface water and the Clean Streams Plan. This paper provides a summary of Plan contents. The Clean Streams Plan document has been revised and is available to the public in pdf format (via the Clean Streams link on the front page of the City's website). Final Plan revision (based on public comment) will occur in October and is scheduled for presentation to City Council in a study session on October 27t". If you would like a paper copy prior to the Council study session, please let me know. If Council members have any questions regarding this paper or on other topics related to surface water or the Clean Streams Plan, both I and our consultant are available. STORMWATER 101: Clean Stream Plan contents Following is a summary of each section in the Clean Streams Plan (excluding the Executive Summary): • Section 1 (p. 15) Introduction Discusses community input, governing principle and goals, Plan staffing and implementation, and consequences of inaction. This section does not provide any evaluations or recommendations. • Section 2 (p. 23) Federal State and Local Codes Provides an overview of current regulations that impact stormwater management in Lake Oswego including, but not limited to: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES, also referred to as our MS4 permit), Underground Injection Control (UIC); Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and 303D Listings, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Metro Code 3.07, and various City regulations. This section provides a basis for the development of the Clean Streams Plan, but does not provide any evaluations or recommendations. • Section 3 (p. 35) City Environmental Programs Provides an overview of City programs that directly or indirectly support the Clean Streams Plan's governing principle and goals, and the enhancement of surface and stormwater quality. Included are: The Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Floodplain Management, Water Quality Program, Maintenance Programs, Sensitive Lands, Infill, Urban Forestry Plan, Heritage Tree Program, Neighborwoods, and the Water Management and Conservation Plan. This section does not provide evaluations or recommendations. • Section 4 (p. 41) Study Area Characteristics Discusses community characteristics that impact our choices regarding stormwater management. They include: service area, facilities, climate and precipitation, topography, geology, soils, land use and watersheds. This section does not provide any evaluations or recommendations. • Section 5 (p. 47) Sustainability and Stormwater BMPs Provides a linkage between the City's adopted sustainability principles and stormwater management. This section identifies Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) as a preferred tool for stormwater treatment and identifies additional opportunities for increasing sustainability in the City's stormwater program. It recommends a review of City stormwater codes and policies as they relate to sustainability, and also describes the Stormwater BMP Sustainability matrix developed with the Clean Streams Plan. This section provides recommendations regarding: o Sustainability guidelines/practices for City-wide capital project delivery o Review of City codes and policies for impediments to stormwater sustainability measures • Section 6 (p. 51) Recommended Applications of Stormwater Technologies Discusses the need to have a "toolbox" approach and identifies the most current Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater: source control, infiltration, LIDA, water quality, and detention. Design storms (the type of rainfall event that should be used for facility design) and urban retrofitting are also discussed. This section sets the basis for the development of capital projects in the Clean Streams Plan, and provides information to be considered when updating design standards and codes. Retrofitting projects are included in the proposed capital projects list (For example, CIP Section 8.3.1, Catch Basin Retrofits). • Section 7 (p. 67) Public Outreach and Education Provides a variety of activities designed to supplement existing staff efforts with a substantive program including home audits and stormwater management grants. In order to support this expanded effort, one FTE is proposed to implement public education programs and manage home audits. • Section 8 (p. 79) Capital Improvement Program Proposes a variety of projects drawn from three sources: staff identification of flooding, water quality or program issues; public input and Plan recommendations. Projects include typical capital construction projects plus programmatic projects that require expertise or resources beyond normal staff capacity. It also provides linkages to Plan governing principle and goals (Section 1.2). Along with descriptions of each proposed project, this section also discusses project cost estimating and prioritization. One FTE is recommended to manage stormwater CIP projects. • Section 9 (p. 115) Federal/State Regulatory Review Identifies areas where Federal and State regulations may require changes to current City codes or programs (in place during review in 2007). Recommendations address four regulatory programs: NPDES, TMDL, UIC and ESA and include items such as: o Establishing requirements for contractor erosion control training o Adopting measures to ensure the City minimizes the number of City -owned UICs o Requiring documentation of State approvals for private UICs. • Section 10 (p. 121) Local Code Review Evaluates a variety of City codes, regulations and policies, and makes extensive recommendations regarding: a stormwater ordinance, stormwater management design standards, maintenance, development review standards, policy documentation, sustainability, low impact development, phosphorus removal standard and legal authority. A number of recommendations result in CIP projects (for example CIP Section 8.3.2, project CW2: Stormwater design manual) and staffing to cover these efforts is part of the FTE discussed in Section 8.2.3 • Section 11 (p. 133) Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program Discusses the City's existing maintenance program and compliance with current regulatory permits. One additional FTE is proposed to keep the sweeping program at its current level. This section recommends: o Development of a maintenance manual (CIP Section 8.3.1 project CW3) o Consideration of ice removal alternatives o Improving detention pond access via reconstruction projects (CIP Section 8.3.2, BC1a, b, c and d) o Asset management focused on system repairs and replacement Section 12 (p. 139) Analyses of Financial Planning Alternatives Provides funding level options based on: o Continuing the existing program, or o Adding only items needed to meet current permit compliance, or o Choosing one of three implementation levels (limited, partial or full) of the Clean Streams Plan Each option lists typical monthly stormwater bills in 2009 and 2018. • Appendices: A. Basin Studies Modeling was used to evaluate selected basins with ongoing drainage issues and needing technical evaluation. This work resulted in specific project recommendations (for example CIP Section 8.3.2, project BF1: Boones Ferry Road) B. CIP Cost Estimates Cost development worksheets for each CIP project listed in Section 8 C. Public Outreach Plan Checklist A sample outreach work plan as discussed in Section 7.1 D. Article Ideas Suggested topics for articles to be provided as discussed in Section 7 E. Storm Analyses Discussion and evaluation of storm characteristics in the Lake Oswego area and recommendations for design storms referenced in Section 6.2.5 F. Financial planning scenarios Discussion and detailed worksheets resulting in cost information provided in Section 10 G. Sustainability Matrix A Staff tool for considering relative sustainability of BMPs discussed in Section 5 -?,Z November 17, 2009 To: The City of Lake Oswego City Council Mayo r Jack Hoffman Councilors Roger Hennigan, Kristin Johnson, Donna Jordan, Mary Olson, Sally Moncrieff, and Bill Tierney From: Andrew Harris RE: Testimony on Resolution 09-G . Adopting the Clean Streams Plan Background I served as the Surface Water Management Specialist for the City for 27 years from 1977 to 2005. As a staff member • Worked on the preparation of the City's original comprehensive plan policies • Staff coordinator in writing the stream corridors, wetland, drainage development standards. • Provided engineering development review for stream wetland, and drainage standards • Stream restoration project manager from 1980 to 20050 o Implemented 29 stream restoration projects o Total budget of $900,000 • Wrote the "Healthy Stream and Watershed" paper included in the council packet. I appreciate and commend the advances put forth by the Clean Streams Plan. I also recommend several paradigm shifts in the clean streams plan that are supported by current • The geomorphic approach is based on the fact that natural river systems have a tendency to move to a state of dynamic equilibrium with conditions in the watershed. This process is governed by laws of physics that also apply in urban areas. • This approach is successfully applied on three projects on Springbrook Creek in the City of Lake Oswego. There are other project examples on Hiteon Creek in Tigard, Arbor Creek in West Linn, and the North Santiam River in Stayton. • The geomorphic approach is also adopted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) and is included in Part 654 Stream Restoration Design in the NRCS National Engineering Handbook. New Paradigm No. 1 — The science The geomorphic approach for natural channel design is a scientific approach developed and applied to restore re stable channel morphology in equilibrium with existing conditions in the watershed. When this is done it dramatically reduces stream bank erosion and enables natural functions including flood plain storage, flow peak reduction, riparian hydrology, and pollutant filtration. Paradigm No. 2 — slowing runoff volume and flow rates will fix the streams • "As development and the associated increases in stormwater volumes increase, erosion of these streams will continue unless methods are employed to reduce the increases in stormwater upstream." (The Clean Streams Plan, page 4) "Reducing flows and velocities entering the stream reduces the forces that cause erosion, thus slowing down the process and preventing deterioration of additional areas. " (Comments to Healthy Streams and Watersheds, page 1) The facts • "Once incision has commenced, it is unlikely that erosion will cease naturally until the channel has progressed through the several stages of the incised channel evolution model. Incised channels, after initial incision, follow an evolutionary sequence that results in relative stability after a number of years. " (Healthy Streams and Watersheds, page 19) • Even with all the measures to control runoff volume, stream bank erosion will continue to deepen then widen channels until channel morphology is established that is in equilibrium with watershed conditions. In the mean time, stream bank erosion will continue to produce phosphorous -laden sediment and consume streamside property. Also, recent study finds that "stream bank erosion is the dominant source of phosphorous and sediment pollution in the City of Lake Oswego. (study by Ben Johnson on Lost Dog Creek) New Paradigm No. 2 • Achieving the goals of healthy (or clean) streams will take the combined effort of practices recommended in the Clean Streams Plan and efforts to restore stable healthy streams. Paradigm No. 3 — stream restoration project simply wash away "Many stream restoration projects simply wash away because the underlying causes of the erosion were never addressed. " (Comments to Healthy Streams and Watersheds, page 1) The facts • Stream restoration efforts in the city began in 1980. The early project focused of protecting utility infrastructure and applied standard engineering practices. One project on Lost Dog Creek used rock filled gabion baskets in the channel for grade control. In the 90's projects were implemented to control erosion using engineering practices with and bio -engineering. The Melrose Street project received a special award from METRO for the natural design approach. There was some experimentation with bio -engineering methods on Springbrook Creek in Mountain Park. Some of these experimental methods have washed away, some continue to function. They provided many lessons learned. • Three stream restoration projects on Springbrook Creek in 2001 and 2002 using the "geomorphic approach for natural channel design". They included one half mile above Red Cedar Way and two fish passage projects near the Hunt club. These stream restoration projects are in stable condition today and continue to function as designed. New Paradigm No. 3 • Stream restoration projects provide channel stability and proper healthy stream functions when designed with the geomorphic approach methods. Paradigm No. 4 — Stream restoration on private property should be avoided. • "There is a call for the City to restore these streams. However, many of these streams are on private property, are privately owned and managed by the property owners in ways that may not facilitate community access and/or maintenance." (The Clean Streams Plan states, page. 9). The facts • There are many examples of stream restoration projects implemented with the support and appreciation of private property owners. Gresham and Wilsonville are communities that reach out to property owners and work cooperatively with property owners. New paradigm No. 4 — Stream restoration on private property Find common ground with property owners through communication, education, addressing common concerns, and applying community resource can lead to the implementation of stream restoration on private property. Paradigm No. 5 — Stream restoration costs too much. • `We should continue as a priority that development be required to address stormwater runoff at the source, rather than pushing the obligation and cost for management "downstream " to the public. (Stormwater 101: Current Practices, page3) The facts • Studies show that stream bank erosion is the dominant source of sediment and phosphorous pollution. • Studies document the effectiveness of stream restoration in removing phosphorous pollution. (Refer to the study entitled "The Value of Protecting Ozark Streams: An Economic Evaluation of Stream Bank Stability for Phosphorous Reduction') • This study recommends that "stream bank stabilization projects should bean integral portion of a surface water management plan and TMDL implementation strategy." • The study further reports that "the data indicate that performing stream stabilization projects is the most cost-effective method to reduce the amount of P in our streams and lakes." New Paradigm No. 5 — Stream Restoration Stream channel restoration projects are shown to be a cost-effective method to reduce sediment and phosphorous pollution and be an integral part of future surface water management programs. Other Comments Regarding the Lower Boones Ferry Storm drain enlargement project The need for this project appears to be based on anecdotal information regarding the high water table in this area. The CIP project is generated to provide needed runoff capacity for areas that not yet provided with a drainage system. The soils in this area have a high infiltration rate and are therefore could be ideal for LIDA measures. This could eliminate the need for this extra capacity. However, there are perceived limitations due to the high water table. Unfortunately there is no data on the high water table problem. I recommend the conditions be studied and analysis before spending 1.6 million dollars upsizing a relatively new (1983-84) existing drainage system. Thank you for receiving my comments Respectfully submitted a "z' /�/� Andrew Harris 2270 Arbor drive, West Linn, Oregon 97068 (503)866-0901 harrisstreamservices a,comcast.net November 17, 2009 City of Lake Oswego City Council Mayor Jack Hoffman Councilors: Roger Hennigan, Kristin Johnson, Donna Jordan, Mary Olson, Sally Moncrieff, Bill Tierney Lake Oswego City Hall 440 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: CLEAN STREAMS DRAFT PLAN, October 11, 2009 — OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTS Thank you, Mayor and Councilors, for consideration of the following observations and comments. This letter is in support of the following submittals, which provide specific strategies and actions based on the concept that watersheds and stream functions are integral and essential to improving water quality. This subject is not addressed in the current version of the proposed Clean Streams Plan: • City of Lake Oswego Clean Streams Plan Comments, Jonathan Snell • Healthy Streams & Watersheds, Andrew Harris, Harris Stream Services & Martha Mitchell, Clear Water West A recent Stormwater Management Plan (2008) presentation by David Gilbey, significantly contributed to my understanding of existing storm and surface water systems. My perspective is as a volunteer, who has partnered with the City in developing a Management Plan and supporting Friends group for Springbrook Park and has served on the Clean Streams Sounding Board. The following may seem a small example, but it is likely representative of what is occurring unchecked in most ravines, swales and low -laying areas throughout Lake Oswego. The ravine that borders my property has remained unchanged for over 40 years, as has the neighborhood — infiltration worked. However, the recent "second wave" of urbanization impacts has resulted in a two -foot deep incised channel that is eroding at the rate of 1"-2" inches annually. The former seasonally soggy ground has been replaced by rapidly -flowing muddy water, transporting material as big as a fist, downhill to Springbrook Creek (noted in the City's MS4 permit renewal as the most prominent of natural channels that convey water to lakes and rivers.) My "take -away" is that the interdependence of our small 26 -acre watershed created by the nearby outfall is very relevant to the degradation of stream functions. It is an active demonstration that when existing surface water conditions are impaired, the results are stream bank erosion and phosphorous. Even the Sensitive Lands Ordinance recognizes "connectivity" as it parses its definition of a "stream". Since impaired stream conditions are not addressed in the proposed 10 -year Clean Streams Plan, my question is — "If not now, when?" I applaud NRAB and SAB -proposed community -wide programs and practices, particularly LIDA. It is my hope that accompanying grants will be extended to include stream restoration, similar to the City -approved Resource Enhancement Project initiated by Uplands neighbors, currently in process. The Clean Stream Plan acknowledges, but does not address, that impervious surfaces are the source of increased surface water volumes and flow rates. That single -most important consideration is the responsibility of the City to regulate and residents to implement. My sense is that to do otherwise, implies that protection of natural resources and improving water quality are not the perceived quality of life values that have been long -ascribed to Lake Oswego residents. Respectfully submitted, Audrey Mattison • 2929 Glen Eagles Rd • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • 503/636-5725 9 audmatt@comcast.net ``1{ OI LAKE pswfQ 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT aREGCK+ TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director - LOIsjS°" SUBJECT: Award of a Personal Services Contract to BrownandCaldwell to Provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting Services Relating to the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year 2009-10 In an Amount Not -To - Exceed $4,419,060. DATE: November 9, 2009 ACTION This Council Report provides information regarding the recently concluded qualifications -based, competitive selection process to select an engineering firm to assist the City with the planning, engineering, permitting and construction management for an expansion of its water supply system pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Agreement") with the City of Tigard. Staff seeks Council's approval of a personal services contract with the selected firm to provide such services through the end of FY 2009-10. INTRODUCTION Award of this contract by the Council is required by the City's Public Contracting and Purchasing Rules and State public contracting laws and regulations. BACKGROUND For historical information regarding the long standing water supply relationship between the cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard, and drivers that led to the conduct of an engineering analysis of the costs and benefits of a water supply partnership with Tigard, please see Exhibit 'A' attached herein. Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 2 The memorandum to former City Manager Doug Schmitz (Exhibit 'A'), concludes by recommending that a more detailed engineering and financial analysis of a possible partnership with Tigard be undertaken and as the Council is aware such a study was undertaken in early 2006. This effort concluded with the publishing of a report titled "City of Lake Oswego and the Tigard Water Service Area, Joint Water Supply System Analysis", Carollo Engineers, PC., July 2007. Over the course of the next 13 months, the councils of both cities, an appointed water supply working group comprised of council members and staff from each city and the citizens of each community engaged in significant discussion of the pros and cons of such a partnership_ On a parallel effort, independent legal counsel with input and assistance from legal counsel and staff of both cities developed the Agreement that, if approved by the two cities, would establish the terms and conditions under which the partnership would be created and operate. At a final public hearing in August 2008, the councils of the two communities signed the Agreement. Since that time, a Technical Committee (TC) comprised of two staff from each city and an Oversight Committee (OVC) comprised of two elected officials from each city have been meeting and undertaking work to implement the terms of the Agreement. According to the Agreement the City of Lake Oswego is to assume the role of Managing Agency. In this role the City assumes the obligation to hold all contracts, be the signatory on all permits and in general ensure the expansion of Lake Oswego's water system occurs according to the terms and schedule of the Agreement. Early on the City recognized it did not have the resources necessary to manage and deliver a program of this magnitude and complexity and began exploring program delivery alternatives. At a meeting held June 19, 2009 the TC presented the OVC with its analysis of program delivery alternatives. The OVC concurred with the TC's recommendation to solicit and contract with a firm or team of firms to provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting services. The effort to retain these services discussed below. DISCUSSION Program Manager Selection The process began with a solicitation for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ's) published in the Portland and Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, a well known newspaper for the engineering and construction industry. The solicitation document was prepared in accordance with the City's public contracting procedures and the Model Rules for Public Contracting as promulgated by the Attorney General's office for the State of Oregon. A Source Selection Committee (SSC) was formed and was comprised of three staff from Lake Oswego, two staff from the City of Tigard and one independent, technically qualified engineer from the City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works. The charge of this committee was to receive, evaluate and rank the SOQ's submitted by firms responding to the solicitation. Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 3 On August 14, six firms responded to the solicitation and submitted SOQ's. After thoroughly evaluating the SOQ's against criteria as published in the solicitation, the SSC determined three responding firms met or exceeded the minimum requirements for qualification e.g., technical competency, practical experience gained by providing similar services on similar projects for other public sector clients, professional reputation and client references. In making its evaluation, the SSC contacted prior project references as provided by the responding firms and conducted detailed telephone interviews with a representative sample of reference clients. In accordance with published procedures, these three firms were then invited to submit technical proposals in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) that was jointly developed by the SSC. Each of the three firms also received an opportunity to meet with staff from Lake Oswego/Tigard ("Program Sponsors") prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. The intent of this meeting was to provide as much opportunity for competing firms to understand the project scope and Sponsors' expectations in order to facilitate development of a high quality proposal. The RFP included a detailed discussion of the services desired by the Sponsors, a comprehensive discussion of the general functions the selected program management team would perform and a detailed description of the administrative process and criteria that would be used by the SSC to evaluate each of the submitted Proposals. The firms were allowed 30 -days to prepare proposals and on September 29 h, the three firms submitted their proposals. The responding firms were: Black and Veatch (BV); Brown and Caldwell (BC); and CH2M HILL (CH) Each of the above firms has provided engineering services to the City in the past and all are well regarded locally and nationally. In accordance with the evaluation procedures and based on the rating and ranking methodology published in the RFP, the SSC rated and ranked the three proposals and determined that BC and CH should be invited to oral interviews with the SSC. These two firms submitted the most responsive, well thought-out and articulate proposals of the three received. The SSC developed a list of questions to ask each firm being interviewed and also asked each firm to prepare and discuss an estimate of the fees each would charge over the duration of the program based upon the proposed scope of services, level of effort and service delivery approach as articulated in their proposal. On October 19" and 20tn the SSC interviewed BC and CH respectively. At the conclusion of the interview process, the SSC conducted its final rating/ranking and determined BC to be the most qualified to provide the services requested by the program sponsors. As requested, the two firms provided an estimate of their fees to provide these services over the duration of the program. Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 4 The fee estimates were as follows: Firm Estimated Fee CH2M HILL $21,800,000 Brown and Caldwell $28,934,000 Apparent Difference $7,134,000 Scope and Preliminary Fee Analysis Due to the apparent difference in estimated fees between the two firms, Sponsor staff undertook an analysis of the tasks, level of effort and assumptions underlying the two estimates in an attempt to clarify the reasons for the difference. This analysis determined the fees and scope of CH's proposed work effort did not include the following: ■ Escalation of labor costs over the duration of the program; ■ Sufficient construction manager/inspector resources to observe/manage construction at a level desired by the Program Sponsors; • Costs for regulatory permit compliance monitoring during construction; ■ Costs to conduct Construction Contractor prequalification for all projects comprising the program; ■ Geophysical investigations, value engineering, subsurface utility engineering services; ■ Water quality modeling and condition assessment of existing pipelines; ■ Water treatment plant process pilot testing and a "blue ribbon" panel to evaluate and advise on water treatment process selection; and ■ Corrosion engineering services. Using hourly billing rate schedules provided by CH and assuming the same level of effort as proposed by BC to provide these services, it was determined the cost for CH to provide these additional services would be about $6,300,000 resulting in a total estimated fee of $28,100,000. Concurrent with the effort to equilibrate the scope and fee of the two firms, BC's proposed scope and fee estimate was also scrutinized to identify where assumed tasks or estimated fees were considered unnecessary or inflated relative to CH and the needs of the Sponsors. From this effort it was determined that: ■ BC assumed escalation of labor costs for certain tasks over a longer period of time relative to CH; ■ BC's level of effort and fee for public involvement was inflated relative to CH and considered unnecessary by the City staff; Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 5 ■ BC did not include a rate reduction for project level construction manager services; ■ BC assumed it would provide certain specialty services e.g., right of way, legal and insurance services. These items were eliminated from BC's scope; and The level of effort assumed for a variety of task areas e.g., administration, accounting, scheduling and cost estimating was considered unwarranted and reduced accordingly. When the fees for these tasks were reduced or eliminated altogether, BC's fee was reduced by $1,600,000 resulting in a revised total fee of $27,342,000. It is important to note the objective of this exercise was to determine if the estimated fees for equivalent scopes of work would be a key differentiator between the two firms. This effort revealed that the fee proposals of each firm were not a key differentiator. Exhibit 'C' presents a summary of the scope of work, the estimated program fee for all services through program completion and the estimated program fees for services anticipated to be provided through Fiscal Year End (FYE). A more detailed breakdown of the scope and fees can be provided to the Council upon request. Program Administration Anticipating the magnitude of costs to provide an expansive level of professional services over an extended period and being mindful of the possibilities of changing political landscapes, community objectives, federal, state and local regulations, and many other factors not knowable at this point in a multi-year program, engineering staff and the City Attorney's office included terms in the professional services contract intended to provide adequate checks and balances and budget discretion for the City to ensure the monies of Lake Oswego and Tigard are appropriately and efficiently spent. Key contract provisions include: • The contract for Program Management services must be renewed annually and renewal will be subject to: o Approval by the TC of the annual work plan and budget as submitted by the Program Manager; o Approval by the Parties Councils' of the annual work plan and budget as recommended by the TC and OVQ and o Acceptable performance by the Program Manager as judged by the TC/OVC in providing the services as described in the approved work plan and budget. ■ Escalation rates for consultant and subconsultant labor costs will be reviewed annually and adjusted by a mutually agreed index; and ■ Total fees related to an approved work plan and budget cannot be exceeded without prior approval of the Parties Councils' to the extent the expense is not Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 6 related to an emergency condition, or is not contemplated in the approved work plan and budget or exceeds the contracting authority of the public contracting officer of the Managing Agency_ ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT To date the Council's of the Sponsors' and the Oversight Committee have received regular communication regarding the process leading to the decision to use the Program Manager method of project delivery and the process used to solicit, rate, rank and select the engineering firm considered most qualified to provide such services. At this juncture, Council is being asked to consider the following alternatives - 1 - lternatives: 1. Accept staff's recommendation to award a personal services contract for FY 2009-10 to Brown and Caldwell to provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting services relating to the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Supply Partnership. The estimated fee to provide agreed upon services through FYE is $4,419,060. 2. Reject staff's recommendation and direct staff to deliver the program by contracting with a variety of vendors who would provide all necessary professional services to complete the program. Under this alternative the City's water team would function in the role of program manager and assume all responsibility for managing scope, schedule, cost and overall program delivery,- or elivery;or 3. Reject staff's recommendation and direct that the City's Public Works Department provide all necessary program services including program management, design, project management, permitting, and construction management. Under this alternative, the City expands its role beyond program management to include providing design and construction services. Analysis of Alternatives Alternative #1 — This alternative represents the next step in a progression of actions and decisions begun with the signing of the Agreement by the two cities in August 2008. Under this alternative, the City would contract with Brown and Caldwell for services to be provided on a time and materials basis with a maximum fee not -to - exceed $4,419,060 through June 30, 2010. Pursuant to the Agreement, Tigard's share of this amount is $2,539,192 and the City's share is $1,879,868. Tigard will be billed monthly for their share of all project expenses. In order to fully fund the City's share of these costs, Council approval of a supplemental budget request will be required. This action will appropriate contingency dollars from the LO/Tigard Fund ($1,874,000) and reallocate them to this Funds capital expense budget line item. Staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to bring this request to the Council prior to the end of the calendar year. Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 7 Alternative #2 — In this alternative, the City's recently formed water team would undertake all program management tasks including contracting with vendors to provide all necessary planning, design, permitting, legal, financial, and construction management services for program delivery. City staff would competitively select, contract with and manage the work of these vendors. While this may appear feasible, implementing this alternative would entail a substantial and time consuming effort just to procure the necessary services. By example, the recently concluded effort to competitively recruit and select a provider of Program Management services consumed- five-months onsumedfive-months of time and countless hours of staff time. To undertake this effort would delay project initiation for at least this long if not longer and would jeopardize the City's ability to deliver this program according to the schedule established in the Agreement. Alternative #3 — This alternative is an expansion of the level of effort necessarily incurred by City staff in alternative 2, above. This alternative would require multiple actions on the part of the City Council to recruit and hire a significant number of new, full time, temporary employees possessing the necessary planning, engineering, financial, design, permitting and legal knowledge and experience to assume the responsibilities of professionals we typically contract with. This alternative incurs significant stranded costs including training, office space and equipment, and creates a variety of employment labor issues and the reality of layoffs and/or terminations once the program is completed. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis of alternatives, it is recommended that the Council approve staff's recommendation to accept Alternative #1 and award a personal services contract to Brown and Caldwell in the amount of $4,419,060 to provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting services through FYE 2009- 10. It should also be noted that at a meeting held November 9, 2009, the OVC unanimously agreed with the TC's recommendation to contract with Brown and Caldwell and requested that staff of the Managing Agency note this in its report to Council on November 17t', 2009. ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit `A' — Memorandum to Doug Schmitz, dated July 1, 2005 2. Exhibit `B' — Memorandum to Oversight Committee, dated June 19, 2009 3. Exhibit `C' — Scope and budget summary Reviewed by: Director �cfntyre ager `/`mot tna[ oswEc EXHIBIT 'A' Community Development Department Engineering Division Memorandum TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT: Surplus Water Sales to City of Tigard DATE: November 1, 2005 In response to your request, this memorandum provides: o A brief history of water supply to Tigard o A synopsis of engineering and economic analyses conducted to date regarding water service to Tigard o A summary of issues that are driving the current interests in exploring the benefits/costs of a long term water supply relationship with Tigard o A summary of findings contained in the report titled "Water Supply Feasibility Project" commissioned by Tigard and dated September 2005. o Suggestions for next steps. Water Supply History The City of Lake Oswego and the Tigard Water District (TWD) negotiated a water supply agreement in 1983. The initial term of the agreement was for a period of 10 years and is automatically renewed for subsequent 5 -year periods absent termination. Sometime around 1993, the City of Tigard withdrew from the TWD. The City of Lake Oswego agreed to continue to provide surplus water to Tigard under the terms of the original 1983 agreement. This agreement is still in effect today. Tigard and Lake Oswego have had a long and mutually beneficial water supply relationship. During FY 1994/95 surplus water sales to Tigard peaked at an annual average day rate of 4.5 million gallons per day (MGD) generating over $1.2 million for the City's water fund. The Council during that same period identified a long term water supply agreement with the City of Tigard as one of its goals. During 1995/96 I became involved in the negotiations between Tigard and Lake Oswego for such an agreement. Each City had it owns reason for pursuing such an arrangement. For 'Tigard it was a desire to secure a long-term water supply and become an equity owner in such a supply. For Lake Oswego it was a desire to utilize its unused supply/treatment capacity and spread the costs to operate and maintain the water utility over a larger customer base as a means to fund needed infrastructure improvements while minimizing rate impacts to its customers. Those negotiations didn't bear fruit and subsequently Tigard began looking elsewhere for a reliable, long term source of supply. By 2000/2001 surplus sales to "Tigard ceased altogether. Doug Schmitz Memorandum Page 2 of 5 In early spring of this year, Tigard officials approached bake Oswego asking if we would consider resuming the sale of surplus water to their City. After several meetings discussing the pros and cons of their request, staff provided information to the City Council in support of a recommendation that Lake Oswego resume the sale of surplus water to Tigard. On May 3`d of this year, Council authorized surplus water sales to Tigard and on June 3`d surplus water began (lowing to Tigard at the rate of 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The reasons for evaluating the costs/benefits of a water supply partnership with Tigard then, are the same today with a few new drivers that will be discussed later. Previous Studies Since 1983, a variety of studies have been commissioned by cities and special water supply districts that have evaluated the costs and benefits of partnerships between water providers using the Clackamas River and cities who purchase water under contract with other suppliers. Studies that have evaluated sub - regional partnerships include: o "Water System Study for the City of Lake Oswego', November 1974, CH2M HILL o "Tigard Water System Study", January 1992, James M. Montgomery o "Final Report for Evaluation of Water Service With and Without Tigard", July 1994, CH2M HILI, o "Water Supply Plan Update" for City of Tigard, August 1994, Murray, Smith & Assoc., Inc. o "Water Treatment Plant Facilities Plan for the City of Lake Oswego", March 1997, Carollo Engineers, PC o "Clackamas Basin Water Treatment and Supply Options Study", January 1998, Black & Veatch; CH2M HILL; McKeever/Morris, Inc. o "Concept Overview and Decision Guidance Document for Water Supply Options", February 2000, Murray, Smith & Assoc., Inc. o "Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy", July 2000, Montgomery Watson, Inc. o "Water Supply Master Plan Update for City of Lake Oswego', January 2001, Montgomery Watson Harza, Inc. o Intergovernmental Agreement for Joint Funding of a Water Supply System Plan for the South Fork Water Board, City of Tigard, City of Lake Oswego and North Clackamas County Water Commission, March 2001 o "Water Supply Feasibility Project for the City of Tigard", September 2005, C112M HILI. The point of identifying the above studies is to note the substantial body of work that has been commissioned and completed by Clackamas water providers and entities who are wholesale customers of other water purveyors. A consistent pursuit in these efforts has been to show that water supply partnerships are beneficial to consumers and the resource. Current Issues Tigard is interested in a water supply partnership with Lake Oswego for the following reasons: o A desire to become an owner in source of supply. According to Tigard staff, opportunities to become an equity owner in the Portland's Bull Run system are nonexistent. o Tigard and many other wholesale water customers of Portland are negotiating renewals of existing wholesale contracts. The 25 -year term on these contracts is unattractive to 'Tigard o Capital costs to become an owner in an expanded Trask River/Barney Reservoir system exceed $1 OOM. In addition, reliability of supply from this source is not 100% and the project timeline is at least a decade away Doug Schmitz Memorandum Page 3 of 5 o Despite the City of Wilsonville's success with their Willamette River treatment plant, Tigard and other cities still face considerable hurdles in overcoming the public's concern for the long term health effects of this drinking water supply o Capital costs for buy -in and expansion of the Lake Oswego system to supply "Tigard are less relative to other supply options that also have ownership potential. The reasons why Lake Oswego should consider a water supply partnership with the City of Tigard include: o Aging infrastructure - Our water supply, treatment and transmission infrastructure has been in service for almost 40 years and portions of the system are in need of rehabilitation and repair or are operating in excess of design conditions e.g., 1. The electrical equipment at the City's intake is antiquated and during peak pumping periods susceptible to circuit failure due to heat buildup. A recent power study of the facility indicates major repairs are needed if the existing equipment is to remain in service_ Estimated costs begin at $50,000 2. The raw and finished water transmission mains are operating at flow rates well in excess of design capacities thus increasing the wear and tear on linings and joints. Last summer a failed joint gasket caused the pipe to rupture causing substantial damage to a street in West Linn and interrupting supply during critical peak demand conditions 3. A cathodic protection system was installed on both mains several years ago to slow the effects of corrosion on the buried steel pipelines. however, this system only slows the rate of corrosion and it is anticipated that leaks will continue to occur on an unpredictable basis 4. The reinforced concrete floor of the City's intake structure is slowly disintegrating due to a previously unknown condition related to the chemical properties of the concrete placed in 1967. The recommended repair option may cost upwards of $500,000 and would likely result in reduced pumping capacity and interruption of supply during peak season demands o Water rights Simply stated, the City has permitted access to more water than we can use for the foreseeable future even with dense development in the Stafford basin. With recent passage of HB 3038, municipal water purveyors must demonstrate how they intend to fully develop water held under permits within the next 20 years. There is no defensible calculation that can be made showing how we will beneficially use our full rights in the next 20 years. Under the new permit extension rules and unless we supply "Tigard or some other entity with our surplus water, we face the real risk of losing those excess rights o Water management and conservation plan - Once we have completed our water management and conservation plan as a condition of receiving an extension on our water right pennits, we will need additional staff to manage our program to ensure its success. Tigard has 2 FTE devoted to managing their water conservation and water quality programs and according to senior Tigard staff, these positions are currently underutilized. Tigard has indicated a willingness to consider sharing these resources with us for the benefit of both cities o Utility Financial Constraints and Rate Impacts — As noted above, costs to repair and replace aging infrastructure and bring new capacity on-line will strain the financial capacity of our utility. With growth rates trending at less than 1%/year, existing rate payers will see their utility rates increase to fund O & M and needed capital improvements. Compounding, this problem is the competition between utility rates and property taxes for their share of residents' pocket books. Case in point is the fact that water rates have remained stagnant since 2000 while utility rates for sewer and surface water have been raised to fund needed capital improvements. Meanwhile, our water supply infrastructure continues its inexorable decline in condition and materials and construction costs increase at rates above inflation. A key strategy to minimize Doug Schmitz Memorandum Page 4 of 5 rate increases will be to spread the fixed and capital costs of the utility among a larger base of rate payers o Regional influence in water policy - A water supply entity comprising bake Oswego and Tigard would create the third largest water supply entity in the drinking water market behind Portland and the Joint Water Commission (J WC) greatly increasing our ability to influence decision making on federal regulations and water supply issues locally and at the State level o Regulations - The second phases of both the Interim Enhanced Surface Water "Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Disintectants/Disinfection By -Products Rule (D/DBPR) will impose new monitoring and reporting requirements on water utilities in an effort to better quantify the presence and levels of pathogens in untreated water and the by-products resulting from chlorination of drinking water. New contaminants will garner the attention of consumers and older populations of immunocompromised individuals may become politically engaged in the debate over regulation of emerging contaminants potentially accelerating utilities' change to new treatment technologies o Water Treatment Technology - Increasing consumer concerns for contaminants will require utilities to employ increasingly sophisticated water treatment technology. Attracting and retaining highly trained water treatment operators may prove easier for larger utilities relative to their smaller counterparts Water Supply Feasibility Report: Summary of Findings Tigard retained C112M HILL to conduct a feasibility level study of the opportunities and constraints associated with Lake Oswego supplying water to Tigard. This study provides a "gross level" analysis of supply options, needed infrastructure and capital costs relative to the allocation of water amongst the two cities. Findings of note are: o The forecasted peak day demands of Tigard and Lake Oswego at build -out (46 mgd) exceed Lake Oswego's Clackamas River permits and rights i.e., 32.3 mgd of "senior" water and 6 mgd of "junior" water. o The study assumes 6 mgd of Tigard's ultimate peak day demand of 20 mgd will be provided by Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) leaving 14 mgd to be provided from the Clackamas River. o The study assumes Lake Oswego would expand its transmission mains, treatment plant and pumping capacity to treat and pump all water permitted by the senior right (32.3 mgd). o For cost analysis purposes, the study assumes 6 mgd of Clackamas water would come from Lake Oswego and up to 8 mgd would come from the South Fork Water Board (SFWB) via the Lake Oswego/West Linn intertic facility. This would ensure lake Oswego is left with sufficient senior water and the infrastructure to supply 26 mgd to its ultimate customer base. (This assumption is based upon population and demand forecasts contained in the Lake Oswego WMP that includes dense development in Stafford and dissolution of all special water districts currently operating within LO's USB) o Estimated construction costs including an allowance of 30% on construction for needed capital improvements to serve Tigard at 6 mgd are $60M. Of this amount and based upon the portion of supply capacity allocable to each entity, LO's share would be just over $33M o The report recommends that Tigard seek ownership interests in Lake Oswego water rights, intake, WTP and raw and finished water pipelines pursuant to a negotiated IGA. Doug Schmitz Memorandum Page 5 of 5 Next Steps — Recommendations As noted above the product of the work commissioned by 'Tigard is a reconnaissance level evaluation of engineering or regulatory issues meant to expose fatal flaws. At this level of detail, it appears there are no issues that would tell us a water supply partnership with Tigard is out of the question. So where do we go from here? I lere are a couple of suggestions: o Schedule a study session with the Council to review the content of this memorandum and request approval to embark on a solicitation process to retain the services of an engineering firm to conduct a "phase 2" analysis of water supply to Tigard. This study would include a detailed analysis of: 1. West Linn development codes/standards that would come into play for a proposed expansion of our WTP to either 32 or 38 mgd 2. Environmental permitting requirements for an expanded source of supply e.g., ISA, CWA, Willamette Greenway, State Parks, Metro Goal 5, etc. 3. Regulatory issues associated with any proposed expansion e.g., water rights transfers, Safe Drinking Water Act regulations, NPDES permits, etc. 4. Benefits/costs associated with continued use of our existing intake relative to constructing a new intake 5. Routing alternatives for potential new raw and finished water pipe lines 6. Treatment technologies that could be used to maximize treatment capacity, meet current and proposed drinking water regulations and minimize building footprints to most efficiently use city owned lands in West Linn 7. Economic impacts for various supply/allocation options that would be used in a subsequent cost of service analysis to determine potential rate impacts for various supply/allocation alternatives 8. Governance options for a joint water supply entity 9. Financial strategies to fund new capital and operating costs while minimizing rate impacts to Lake Oswego citizens 10. Public information strategies to garner public confidence in and support for the decision making process as regards a joint water supply entity o Assuming Council gives the "green light" for a phase 2 study, then prepare a supplemental budget request to move approximately $100,000 from water fund contingency to water fund M&S. Tigard, with the approval of their Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB), has budgeted $50,000 towards the cost of this next effort. Also, at this time, it would be appropriate to initiate discussions with officials of the entities comprising the SFWB i.e., West Linn and Oregon City to gauge their interest in participating in this effort as the scope of the consultant work could be modified to include analysis of issues associated with SFWB supplementing our supply for Tigard's benefit o On a parallel track with the above bullcted item, begin the process to solicit proposals for engineering services with the goal of awarding a personal services contract to begin the study in January 2006 and concluding sometime in July or August I know this is a lot to digest, so if it would assist you, I am available to meet with you at your convenience. MEMORANDUM Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Supply Partnership TO: Oversight Committee FROM: Technical Committee DATE: June 19, 2009 SUBJECT: Project Delivery Alternatives for Initial Expansion The Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") executed between Lake Oswego and Tigard, ("the Parties"), on August 6, 2009 establishes that the initial expansion of Lake Oswego's existing water supply system be complete on or before July 1, 2016. The IGA also establishes Lake Oswego as the managing agency responsible to ensure the project is planned, scheduled and managed in a way that ensures the delivery date is met. Critical tasks that must be completed to define project success include: ■ Procurement of necessary professional services to include engineering, planning, legal, right of way and appraisal services, bond counsel and financial analysts; ■ Final Orders issued by the Water Resources Department ("WRD") regarding Lake Oswego's permit extensions on the Clackamas River; ■ Approved Water Management and Conservation Plan for bake Oswego and approval of the WRD to access "green light" water in the amount of an additional 16 million gallons per day (mgd); ■ Issuance of a Biological Opinion by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") Fisheries service with a finding of "no jeopardy" for incidental take of listed ESA fish species indigenous to the Clackamas River; ■ Development approvals as are required by the cities of Gladstone, West Linn and Lake Oswego for a planned new intake, expanded water treatment plant, pipelines and reservoirs; ■ Acquisition of necessary easements, leases and fee property for the planned facilities; and ■ Financing by the Parties for the capital construction phase of the project. Memorandum Oversight Committee Page 12 The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the various project delivery options in use today by public agencies to construct public works, define the criteria by which the various options were screened and conclude with a recommendation for selection of a preferred project delivery option. Project delivery options in use today by owners of water and wastewater utilities to meet their capital improvement objectives are generally comprised of the following: ■ Design -Bid -Build ("DBB") ■ Design -Build ("DB") ■ Design -Build -Operate ("DBO") ■ Engineering Procurement -Construction Management "at risk" (EPCM) ■ Construction Management at Risk ("CM(&R") also known as Construction Manager/General Contractor ("CM/GC") ■ Project Alliancing ("PA") ■ Program Management ("PM") Based upon our understanding of the project, project delivery methods, the various communities the capital infrastructure will occupy, project stakeholders, permitting, construction and operating constraints, and the needs of their respective elected governments and citizens, the Technical Committee agreed that the preferred project delivery option should satisfy as many of the following selection criteria as possible: ■ C.I - No early definition of function, quality and performance requirements in order to prepare Requests for Proposals ("RFP") for procurement of engineering or construction services; ■ C.2 - Not require the owner to agree that a third party entity would operate the improvements once constructed; ■ C.3 - Allow opportunity for the owner to participate in development of solicitation documents and selection criteria for procurement of engineering and construction services including subconsultants and lower tier trade subcontractors; ■ CA - Allow flexibility to procure construction services based on qualifications, price or a combination thereof i.e., "best value' procurement; ■ C.5 - Allow the owner to take an active role in determining performance requirements, quality and function of the constructed work; • C.6 - Allow the owner to integrate services provided by in-house staff and consultants with services provided through any delivery options identified above; ■ C.7 - Function as an extension of the owners staff providing seamless interface between owner staff, elected officials, project stakeholders and citizens; ■ C.8 - Not require special and complex contract forms for engineering or construction services; Memorandum Oversight Committee Page 13 • C.9 - Have a track record of success and be recognized by the State of Oregon as an approved method of delivery for public improvements; • C.10 - Maximize opportunities to procure needed services competitively; and ■ C.I 1 - Provide flexibility to design and construct the various elements comprising the initial expansion using any of the project delivery options noted above commensurate with risks unique to each element. Table 1 below summarizes how each project delivery option tared against selection criteria as identified by the 'technical Committee. a d a X X X X X a °�' U XXXXXX XXX U a X X X X X X A X X A AX X X X X X a j� U U U U U U U +-• v G L U U U U a O Memorandum Oversight Committee Page 15 Based on the above, Technical Committee staff conclude the Program Manager method of project delivery best meets the project success criteria and therefore intend to move forward with developing the necessary schedule and solicitation documents to procure the services of a Program Manager. Below is a preliminary schedule for procuring the services of a Program Manager. Task Description Advertise Request for Statements of Qualifications Receive SOQ's F?valuate and establish competitive range Solicit Proposals from qualified firms Receive proposals Interviews if needed Select PM Negotiate final contract scope and fee Award contract Notice to proceed Anticipated Start Date/Duration of Task July 15, 2009 August 14, 2009 August 28, 2009 September 4, 2009 September 30, 2009 Week of October 13 October 21, 2009 Oct. 21 to Oct. 23, 2009 November 3, 2009 November 17, 2009 The 'Technical Committee looks forward to reviewing the content of this memorandum with the Oversight Committee at our next meeting this coming Monday, June 22 at the West land Building. Y �t z F � c o cr Q a f S n T s N a E HIL C N r C "W .� wt C' O' i ? �j S.\ O v AR as � cC � � — 5wE ��v�•� € � .� n,� a F.dw S.Y-g�w _ CO dpB6c_ �ZNtS C W I CJ Cc O AY W O O2525Z�f �2525�oc O cA�� O $ $525 ~1p� Mc w�maoa� Vi M n Nc N rl S«� poae NN Ni K n H y M w N H 40 K k V1 m n L c � a M L Lam+ V m V � R T. '� � C •G C � C :�. b� C �„ L= C J C Fj .u. O eV A .� :V<=n'.� •�V�=��-7 � 'A .5b p � � SGV �,x:�� u 0 F 2 u 20 §k /kK 0 a§� Q �mo FF - 022 g a 2 UJ / § $ 2�f ( §� @ � 0 \` a � b \ a k ] ] , ■ } J § ` 'A� ! 0. 2e }(0 CD (L j(\ cc } } § ® . ,. _CIO 0 �� )e 7 }§ to 2 ,o , E U) / ■ !! 2 / ® \\. ]}§ |\{ ( j\{ ) f / |k o { Z. m ! 0tm ° / �) � o g,2 LAKE 0.$SEC O CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT OREGON TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: David Donaldson, Assistant City Manager Jordan Wheeler, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Allied Waste Rate Increase Request DATE: November 9, 2009 ACTION This report summarizes staff's analysis of the Allied Waste's request for a rate increase for City Council's Study Session discussion. INTRODUCTION Allied Waste is requesting an overall rate increase of 6.7% pursuant to the terms of their franchise agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. The actual increase to each customer is dependent on the size of their container. BACKGROUND Allied Waste provides solid waste disposal and recycling services within the City of Lake Oswego as well as the unincorporated areas of Lake Oswego under the terms of the ten year Solid Waste Franchise Agreement and Ordinance 2391 approved by the City Council in July 2004. Allied Waste was formerly known as Rossman Sanitary Services whose owners have served Lake Oswego since 1929. Under the Franchise Agreement, proposed rate adjustments are approved by City Council resolution as provided in LOC 20.10.720. Rate increases of 8.25% and 7.8% were previously approved by City Council in September 2008 and March 2007. Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 2 DISCUSSION In considering rate adjustments, the City Council is to evaluate the request using the following criteria - 1 . riteria: 1. The cost of performing the service provided by the Franchisee, including any additional costs (or savings) resulting from recycling; 2. Anticipated increases in the cost of providing the services; 3. The need for equipment replacement and the need for additional equipment to meet service needs, compliance with federal, state and local law, ordinances and regulations, or technological change; 4. The investment of the franchisee and the value of its business and the necessity that the franchisee have a reasonable rate of return or fair operating margin; 5. Rates in other cities in the metropolitan area; and 6. Other factors deemed relevant by the City. Attached to this report are the materials Allied Waste provided which address these criteria. In summary, the major justifications for this rate increase include the following: • Decrease in revenues due to a severe decline in the recycling commodities market; • Decrease in revenues from industrial customers; • Increases in Metro's tipping fees at their transfer stations in September 2008 (6%), August 2009 (6.7%)1- • 6.7%);• Increased costs for facility relocation; • Allied Waste's rate of return for 2008 was 7.6% and projected to be 5.1 % in 2009. The target margin in the metro area is 8-12%. The rate of return for the urban franchisees in the Clackamas County jurisdiction was 8.38%; • Allied Waste's residential rate would still remain around average in comparison to other jurisdictions in the Portland metro region. The following table shows a comparison of regional rates for the most common type of residential service, 32-35 gallon carts. The rate adjustment for this type of service equals an increase of 8% for Lake Oswego customers: Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 3 High)2009 Regional Residential Garbage Jurisdiction Rates (Low to Residential 32/35 gallon containers Beaverton $ 18.00 Washington County (Rural) $ 18.79 Tigard $ 20.60 Hillsboro $ 21.10 Washington County (Urban) $ 21.10 West Linn $ 21.61 Lake Oswego Current $ 22.15 Tualatin $ 23.05 Wilsonville $ 23.05 Lake Oswego Proposed Oregon City $ 24.75 Gresham $ 25.10 Sherwood $ 26.15 Damascus $ 26.25 Clackamas County $ 26.35 Milwaukie $ 26.35 Portland $ 26.75 Gresham $ 27.95 Portland (West Hills) $ 30.50 In addition to garbage and recycling collection in Lake Oswego, the Franchise Agreement also affords additional benefits for the City. The rate comparison does not account for these added benefits which include a 50% discount for the Lake Oswego School District, providing 15 drop boxes for City use, and assisting in special events such as Neighbors helping Neighbors. These cash and service benefits totaled $64,000 in 2008: Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 4 FINANCIAL IMPACTS City staff reviewed the financial information provided by Allied Waste. The following revenue and expense categories highlight the major financial impacts that Allied Waste projects for next year: Revenue Recycling Commodities -72% $178,672 Revenue Industrial Market -39.5% $159,053 Industrial Disposal -20.6% $130,524 Expenses Disposal Fees 3.2% $61,183 Facility Operating/ 36.6% $47,150 Relocation Expenses Bad Debt Expenses 114% $19,231 The 6.7% increase will result in revenue of $300,000 on their $6.5 million operating revenues and result in a 6.9% rate of return. Last year, the City received Franchise Fees of approximately $340,000 from Allied Waste. The rate adjustment would increase City Franchise Fee revenue in the General Fund by approximately $20,000. RECOMMENDATION Despite rate adjustments in the two previous years, conditions in the refuse and recycling business have significantly raised the cost of doing business. Given these conditions and the reasons explained in the memo and the attached materials, the rate adjustment appears justified. On December 1, 2009, Staff will bring back the enabling resolution authorizing the rate adjustment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Cover Letter from Allied Waste 2. Allied Waste 2008 Annual Results and 2009 Rate Proposal Council Report November 9, 2009 Page 5 Reviewed I� gw SustainaAili y b4s been considered as part of this recommendation. Alex D. 16�dM City Manager •info WASTE ffiVltff November 09, 2009 David Donaldson Assistant City Manager City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear David, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our request for a rate adjustment. Our request is made in accordance with Ordinance No. 2391, Section 12. Rates, E. That section states: Rates shall be approved by the City Council from time to time by resolution, as provided by LOC 20.10.720. In determining the appropriate rate to be charged by the Franchisee, the City Council shall consider: (1). The cost of performing the service provided by the Franchisee, including any additional costs (or savings) resulting from recycling. The City has been provided with Financial Statements for Allied Waste Services of Lake Oswego for 2008. These are actual figures that were reviewed and adjusted by Clackamas County in their 2009 rate review. We also provided year 2009 based on eight months actual data and four months projected. In addition, we have provided a 2010 projection assuming no rate increase and the impact after our rate request. Looking at our financials you will notice that we reported on our Detail Cost Reports to Clackamas County an annual rate of return of 7.6% in 2008 for the City of Lake Oswego. This adjustment is requested due to a severe decline in Industrial revenues and recycling commodity markets impacted by current economic conditions. Although we have seen a decline in fuel prices from prior year, we have also experienced significant increases in disposal costs, repair and maintenance, and an increase in lease costs driven by the unavoidable need to relocate our operations. To help offset this we have made significant strides with productivity improvements creating a minimal labor increase. We have also improved in the area of safety with fewer incidents and lower costs as well as decreased our overhead cost by four percent from the prior year. (2). Anticipated increases in the cost of providing the services. Even with these cost control measures we are projecting a 4.71•o rate of return in calendar year 2009. In order to help mitigate our current situation, we respectfully request an overall rate adjustment of 6.730,0. Our proposal includes a residential adjustment of 2.5010 on 20 gallon, 8% on 35 gallon, and 5% on 65 and 95 gallon carts. We are also requesting a 4% increase on commercial containers and a 9.1% increase on industrial drop boxes. We understand that the current economy has impacted everyone and that's why we have decided to request an adjustment that actually brings us below the targeted rate of return for the time being. Even after these proposed rate adjustments, we are projecting only a 6.91'o rate of return in 2010. (3). The need for equipment replacement and the need for additional equipment to meet service needs; compliance with federal, state and local law, ordinances and regulations; or technological change. The costs for 2009 include the acquisition of one new truck for Lake Oswego at the cost of $213,000. in 2010, we are acquiring four new trucks at the combined approximate cost of $1,052,000. The trucks will enable us to effectively service areas such as the First Addition Neighborhood and have the environmental technology that is planned for the rest of the fleet as they are replaced. 20765 SW Gerda Lane Sherwood, OR 97140 503.636.3011 / FAX 503.697.8553 www.disposal,com (4). The investment of the Franchisee and the value of its business and the necessity that the Franchisee have a reasonable rate of return or fair operating margin. The financial statements provided to the City indicate that the cost of solid waste services in the City of Lake Oswego resulted in a Net Before -Tax Operating Margin of 7.6% in 2008. The targeted margin used throughout the industry in Oregon is 10%. This is the targeted margin used by Clackamas County in setting solid waste collection rates. (5). Rates in other cities in this metropolitan area. Attached is a rate comparison summary of jurisdictions with topography that is similar to Lake Oswego,s topography. As indicated by that summary, if this requested rate adjustment is approved, the rates in Lake Oswego would remain favorable, compared to most other jurisdictions. We believe that with the level of service that Lake Oswego customers receive, this represents an excellent value. Some of the significant additional benefits that the City of Lake Oswego has also enjoyed are the half price discounts for schools, several drop boxes provided annually for neighborhood cleanups, as well as other services for special events totaling over $64,000 last year alone. We take great pride in the city where our employees and their families work, live and play and our long standing partnership with the City of Lake Oswego. We appreciate your consideration in this matter and remain dedicated to providing safe, exceptional customer focused service for this community just as we have for the past 79 years. Respectfully Submitted, T d Irvine Operations Manager Allied Waste Services of Lake Oswego 503-636-3011 Ext. 561 i I (1) It m J 4 0 W m if - c� 0 CL 0 L— n (1) c� ry 0 0 0 (N U) a) ry c� Q 00 0 0 N rl 0 W W IN � y �a � a3 � 0 � O � V � U U O 0 r- D o C: O cn C: N O Q4-0 L � O L N 0 0 > � Co O � j � a) L CO O 2.� cn U M }, o o a cn U o o 00 O O �p N 1 O O O N J U Z 13 D D D N hi ■ w V 0 i 0 a 0 CL w 000000 QQO O o QQQQQO QQO OCD (3) 4 I,-- CC) C7 r- (3) co CQ 41i N Cil T- o i- N N N f` O CN oo r N I` C11 r M ? o a)occo��V- m0M Lo 00 0 0(3)Nt(D CA 11 LDNra) It N H r (Y) (D N r U) � � a 0 0 0 U � v v a r o _ a v v 0 z o>(D E� Q � U � v Q C) � 0.0— U U U) >C) w a) o Q (6 Q m Q co v C) � � �- 0 U) v 0 0 Uf�U� a W IN 30 a3 i i cn O :-+ E O L U E o � •N OU .p C: O O O -0 4-0 o ° U _� U, O O C6 E OU Co U > - O O N fl�CU C:(5 cn � O N -0 N N .� N U 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 11 N O U d v a� 0 L a rn 0 0 CN N ■ E 0 U L L U O -j E 0 v v 0 J 0 i ■ 0) v N Lc) ' M N Cl)� j {f} (D w0 m a E oo-%% r W O0 O U) 0 L O L v (M) a. / � � l ' M .00 0 -.Moo 0 0 C')N � 3 00 J J F--- go7 L 61 w m1 m RA LO N (N CY) 4 N O U c 0 C� 0 LO M c / O O N Ln .O M co U) O � U � M E -0 co C U (o M� O U 0— .� 4-0 Cn O 0 0 0 0 0) 0 rl U A U N L N WF M Lo o M C� JlotM M Q3 oc� O O /OWAO A ♦ �� LO C� C: 6c)- 0 O c� L � L (� O � O LO _ 00 Lr) L N Np L� Up�� Uv) o �o O Im ov, . .4-0 OCN E -o c: ONO ._ c� � O c� c� O .111 jU) ■ 0 o a a o a o a o 0 lu 12 0 C N � � O CL M L O U a .rr v 2 0 o� U U � cu a� c cin o m (U � U O O> o c -.c: J c MM M�a) W O U•) N U-) O U) 00 M ���tCfll�t�Nl.f) M CII) NmmmmmM to N U7 UO N U7 O U-) w– CA O — ('7 M Lo CD CD N M CO CDS CDOCO N NNNNN("�NN cu M MmmEEmmmmm o 0-- :3 o a aQ aQQQ Y a cu a) a) a) Q) a) a) a) a) a) 4) G� a) N N 0) N N a) N C N � � O CL M L O U a .rr v 2 0 o� U U � cu a� c cin o m (U � U O O> o c -.c: J c MM M�a) ■ w N � O O . 00 M ti O Irm "t r--.. bl� CV 00 O CO p r' CO W O�{� � O o L ^ {�} O O L O aj 4-0 >, ^ � -+�' O V a. LO > +� 00 %Awwwo� (� O LO T- o o 0 U ,� U O Q a� %%ft—opoo *%—. -0 c� = cn •• = o ocmo U O O � •— Co J o J J CO U O a o 0 0 0 0 o a o a Nqrl zo i I 0 O M C EMI co M D LO N CD M N- 60 - RA O U) E L co Z) O U E m U C� O O N V- Wil 71 i❑ M 71 E ki I O Q. O L am a� J L N yN N N N N N N U U U U U U Uv cr- c c .0 c ._ _ .0 O O C _ LO LO T T i % O O co 00 co O O Q1 7v �n o0 00 00 00 0 o -C00 00 9 c 64!� 6r� �5 v�o >O 0 V O + C 13 � ' Q Q N Qf k O Q) m i� Q O 0 7 1 T O%i U m 1 C Q 0. 4 O I �+ U U v Lf) T n p N O CJ m l y o o w L o cD (9 C >; Q N( Q U U' D 4� Ov o 00 U M v 0 0 r�j1 O. N 7 M go r 700 M �t Vii O iia� 'II •� 0. •� � G% b4 b9 69 69 6R bR b9 b9 6q (r) 7 b9 69 T x O � U N O Tr o moo L. � •--i M M 10 M �D v1 � •--� M .r� L N "6 v�i 61 O % r N \0 N W�6 N1 M N O i U (, EA EA Gfi EA EA b4 69 fA U 69 72 41 U lC tom. -p N '0 — v o fl U 'a Y '2ME O � CL OLc Lo (A 0 0 'J 6 T O C O1 a N LO U U U U a U ro O � n. > a� r o G c _0 a o �U �- ro A U Cy U C7 U [�- ca CL C: P o u o . L ++ U! L N M o o M a a�� ��Rr N r ki I 0 i to r h r M h N v7 00 .+ .a 6n 00 .ar .r dCplp�pph ' M M0 c n b Q b ~v O .w hM NpR.tgbCNM 00 Ih M MOp tOOD nMN � •"�dOO\l; pMpd �Mp •D .di .Qi�NN�6 NM aNa �evrvry�7Y�7��p0 QHH�H�(M pOp N�e��te���QMpYp�MnMC'NNO �yS9 •^� M.Nw y ._•� "q N M� Q Y� �c y N N N N N N N N N N N x K�b9K Hb 6q Fj b9 �jq 6r9 M 69���y ¢ H yN�V! 047 ' � � �` �`, � � 6 � 0.. a 00. 0• . a U Y1ad; O� h h v6 O. 07 n N Q r M •+O.n d�lO.�h oo b CN b O 5p O M r .moi O bha�N h .� b c O n M v1 Q 6n�Nbm y ++ Y?o6i?ha6ivi.ialAe. oI e4 en It .N rn00 .+NNMRv7 �p pp d a(:N—m rir .�. 030NN�vv1 ppMpp .•i �nd�r OnhM7O�N ao `r�� ooeagN. �o�o �Me�aoi3Mrao c�{{ KHHHHHMl N6AHHH 6N9 +AHHHH� "" +^� ^� b9HHH•"� "'�•'� "" NriN NN H H H H H H H H H H H H H N L. w 0) y C Q CJ Op O h •� 00 M M O h + �y M CiMOdr •rMnOel 00 or M M W O Cn M M h F N M .moi V rH bdD+�.+h M M 07 O\ C1� � W A M 0 y6 vi..6nadva�e w r•.7 y rad .+d6ridar b O O O N NON .Op 6`hri'Brppv •O 00 O� b M �!� .r �p6� O O •� 'tn� b O O M O �O l� O Z �.+6 aO �Mp ¢ 69 H 69 69 H W K Vl end 6O� pOpD ¢ b9 W� 9 fA 6�9 b9 b9 (A �Op XI: Q 69 fA o W 6A H H H H N4 rO N ~... •V b ••+hNN MOt M d••+nv7dMM.n UMhh.+�6dNM.-�dPt r- dY'1Ok,T— •aOire pp y� Mr�OC�Q��$ ~C4� (nNNMd ; :� M pp �L h p h !` �D O� O �O Y nv7n A M Q m fV D� d t� �666 pOp �i1 r,4yv N6j,dhnODbOp.•iNM ..i Yl v1 ei Oi ppi,� +t yCy�7 O6 Ood pCpJ %d bnOM$OMdrODO.'O+ UJ o 0% Q� "� .+ N NN M c hv M n h h � HHHHHH69H Hf9 fAH 69bi�696A Vi 49HHHHH HH69HHHHHHHaH a' C Q rrC�� v `DNNOO ODO Rpp+M �OOOOhrOO�Yp�G1h0.y+ �OOO OON CSM y��Mry N�QNO O pN d H N b M b O n d r 0��p1 6Nr� 9 ip 00 M OD d 00 CD H H 6~A H K 0 6M4 0 H fA H a Y] b OD 00 b9 0 Q ¢ M N b V p N d l: 00 IL O y bN9 EA 69 60Vf H +A H H H R H 69 H vi in of H iR H it IL 0 Ci M d d m r` 6n N d 00 0 h w M 0-0 - O O N O N b Q .� .•i N h M m M �0 00 O lam �p N n .+ n .i O .a 00 .� r N Q� 0f f0N pp. NmMMa �� N OVopl ��Npp cdv obo env �M• Hv9 In nM`Dr alloN M 1(O� n Muf fA�d3 to iAoOYf uOSO 6d� Hi H60 H0 H6A 6f to N h b � N h h � 1 .Z+ "+ N� M� d h b y x N N N N N N N N N N N ���� N� M a� Y=7 1!7 b y x N N N N N N N N N N N y ._•� "q N M� Q Y� �c y N N N N N N N N N N N x y 'Q aaaa4�a�aaa y y 'paaaazaaaa�aa�a y �yzaaa�aaa�aaa 047 ' � � �` �`, � � 6 � 0.. a 00. 0• . a U M , G °oa p�L 0. G O. 0. U U U U to i I ti m v N oul �y" U V CL O y N O v c y CCL U G •� O "0 y � CQ Q U ld 4 C O Nen N ori o v o V u o Ni r= vi M � r M r` oC 6 M •� nL, 7 n ^ bjA ^ b9 609 bA 614 6R Hi GO) tfi U rn v o o � O 0000 u w, N M �_ A ' ` 000 �o �10 coin�pp 00 V y d9 59 N� 64 M bR D 64 M G9 r--09 es v A O Ql � L m O Q CC O 7 N CJ � 3 s-4)cn m V � Lam• u u � O O O O O rn C N G ti m w N Lw N C u u C U R u v O O tW S C y W C % O A L °c J U •i, N a a o = haw d o ri 9 !t N ���pp O\ N 69 to 69 H! fA m � O c0. 00 p N .Mr O O 00 mss, O O v� O p ) M y M a+ �O M O r� N O O O O O eJ• v 69� tA�6N9 Vl d4 ��6N9 M W y T C7 % O.C�Op A .•. 0 L" Ebg� r y r N 00 O o 0 N N co N N N N fR d! y U m a e`o t to u w w �• www Ha S b a a m � �t 4 CL N C Q 0b m H 0 C 0 C 0 U U W 'A F F Q w N N C C R O tW S C y W C O J U •i, N = 3 o = d o m � O O v� p ) M O �O M O r� N O O O O O eJ• v 69� tA�6N9 Vl d4 ��6N9 y O.C�Op 0 L" y r N 00 O o 0 N N co N N N N fR d! u4 69 0 Ni 69 fA V} 0 W v Ha S S V A N C Q ^ i••. 60 60 L y ,5 Ci O x H000 UM x a Cx�a a G4 a 3 QQ� \ L� 3 e O I �o 0 a� � r r rn i y yy C q A A u u c m o x ooQ 4-cm&qGq w . R R + C14 c) N Cl) m rl ��jCt Joe rt�ernQy National League of Cities Congress of Cities Nov 11 — 14, 2009 Summary, Take Away and Resources Obama administration continues to support cites through including us at the table in discussions and decisions; commitment to listen and to fund programs directly to cities. First day keynote was Michael Strutmenis, Chief of Staff to Valerie Jarrett in White House. A feel good message without specifics. Economic crisis and the impact on fiscal strength of cities were intertwined in some sessions I attended and keynote from William Freund Chief Economist, NY Stock Exchange. A concern was expressed that the cities needs for borrowing for infrastructure is at risk for a variety of reasons but one singled out the most loudly was gold plated benefits package. Dr. Freund preached increasing productivity is the solution which brings the question forward how is that done in LO. Excellent discussion on pensions which included a primer and an in depth discussion of some of the challenges in California presented by LA councilor. Resource for us is National Association of State Retirement Administrators. Corollary session titles "Weathering the Storm" brought out some good ideas. Arvada CO evaluated replacement schedule for vehicles, computer etc and saved money; used reserves to do more infrastructure work since bidding brought in low numbers and targeting wage increases to performance and private market. They did research comparing public jobs with private ones and could be something we need to do to provide support for some of our union adjustments. All speakers defined core services and priorities within core, e.g. police are core with patrol, prevention etc services to be prioritized, and then made decisions on others on a case by case basis. A resource for us is Center for State and Local Government Excellence at www.sige.org. I attended the First Tier Suburb workshop which was on downtown economic development. Most of the presentation covered things we currently do so it was more confirmation than a new idea. Primary focus was public engagement. The speakers said do it in no more than six months. Session on Health Care Reform provided an overview of policies and direction of new legislation. Simplified a rather complex topic. A concern is that the tax on high end plans will hit LO indirectly, but will be an added cost. NLC will post the slides on their web site soon and you might find this informative. Sustainability was featured the last day. The best take away is the Home Depot Foundation web site which has a sustainability link. It provides detailed information, white papers, ordinances, guidelines for a lot of things we are discussing including sensitive lands. It is substantive and not one that comes to mind when thinking of public policy. Ed Begley, the actor spoke on sustainability from a first hand perspective. His message was it can be done a t low cost with little personal life changes and be successful and have a positive impact. Final lunch speaker was Doris Kearns Goodwin. She is a historian and author. Her most recent best seller is Team of Rivals and she presented a synopsis of Lincoln and how and why he choose his chief rivals for the presidency to be in his cabinet. It was wonderful. I bought the book and when I am done 800 pages, I lend it to you. Finally, NLC has a City Futures program. Apparently there is some way to participate but my way was to crash the lunch. Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros introduced the speaker with a 30 minute discourse on the mega trends affecting our country. Changing demographics and environmental, economic and technical changes and their impact on cities. The keynote was Carol Coletta of CEO for Cities spoke on what makes a city a vital place. Talent, connection, innovation and distinction were discussed and showed how these can be used to make a great place. CEO for Cities is another resource but I do not have the web address. It will be helpful with our planning, sustainability and economic development efforts.