The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUAC Agenda Packet 08/09/2016 Utility Advisory Committee Jack Pittis Conference Room Port Angeles, WA 98362 August 09, 2016 3:00 p.m. AGENDA L Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Minutes for June 14, 2016 IV. Late Items V. Discussion Items: A. Medic 1 Transportation Fees B. Stormwater Utility Rate Structure C. NPDES Stormwater Permit-Required Municipal Code Standards VI. Information Only Items: VII. Next Meeting Date: September 13,2016 VIII. Adjournment N:AUAC\MEETINGS\UAC2016\UAC080916\080916 Agenda.docx Utility Advisory Committee Jack Pittis Conference Rooms Port Angeles, WA 98362 June 14, 2016 3:00 p.m. L Call To Order Vice Chair Lee Whetham called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. II. Roll Call UAC Assigned Councilmembers Present: Cherie Kidd and Vice Chair Lee Whetham Other Councilmembers Absent: Sissi Bruch, Brad Collins, Mayor Patrick Downie, Dan Gase, and Michael Merideth UAC Members Present: Rob Feller and Betsy Wharton UAC Members Absent: Chair Lynn Bedford Staff Present: Craig Fulton, Gregg King, Kathryn Neal, Michael Szatlocky, Kathyellen Haney, and Michelle Hale Others Present: One Citizen III. Approval Of Minutes Vice Chair Lee Whetham requested a motion for approval of the May 10, 2016 minutes. Betsy Wharton moved to approve the minutes and Cherie Kidd seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Late Items: One item to be discussed by Gregg King in VI Information Only Item C. V. Discussion Items: A. Professional Services Agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, for WWTP Biosolids Dewatering, Project WW0205 Kathryn Neal, P. E, Engineering Manager revisited the Professional Services Agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for design services and construction support for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Dewatering project. Michael Szatlocky, P.E., compiled a detailed cost analysis for the biosolids dewatering project in response to questions raised at the May 2016 Utility Advisory Committee meeting. Kathryn summarized the detailed cost analysis that was distributed to committee members. Discussion followed. Cherie Kidd moved to recommend to City Council to authorize the City Manager to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for a maximum amount not-to-exceed$268,040. Betsy Wharton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. VI. Information Only Items: A. Verbal Update on Discount Customers (verbal report) Kathyellen Haney, Customer Services Manager,provided a summary of the electric discount program for City customers. Committee members were given a handout of 2015 and 2016 discounts. Kathyellen explained there are less people using the discounts,possibly due to less cold weather and more conservation methods used. This decrease will allow the surplus monies to go further into the year. Discussion followed. B. UAC Site Visits (verbal report) Gregg King has tentatively set three different dates for the UAC site visits. He will send the dates via email. He is looking at July 22nd, July 29th, and August 5d',which are all Fridays. The first visit will be to the landfill bluff project and the water treatment plant. Gregg will send out the notices and see what the committee member's response is. C. LED Lightbulb Distribution (verbal report) Gregg King stated he first reported on the upcoming LED lightbulb distribution program at the April UAC Committee meeting. Last year's response to the distribution of the 4pack LED lightbulb was positive and from the City's perspective,it has a good energy component to it. Gregg reported proposals are due the last week of June. Initial estimates are for $176,000 to $210,000 with the RFP for 2016 and 2017 to encourage bidders to give the best price. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) costs will cover around $18.00 per each 4pack of lightbulbs,which leaves the City a cost of $3-$7 per 4pack. Conservation funds will be used to cover the City's share of the costs of$26,000 to $60,000 with an average of$35,000. On July 5d'°Gregg will bring the successful RFP to Council. VIL Next Meeting Date: July 12, 2016 VIIL Adjournment: 3:29 p.m. Chair Lynn Bedford Michelle Hale, Administrative Specialist 11 T14%'ORT NGELES �Ii� W A S H I N G T 0 N, U. S. A. ........... AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIII" Utility Advisory Committee Memo Date: August 9, 2016 To: Utility Advisory Committee From: Ken Dubuc, Fire Chief Subject: Medic I Transportation Fees Summary: Based upon a review of our current ambulance transport rates —comparing our rates against prevailing transport rates in the area—the Fire Department proposes to adjust its Medic I transport charges. The proposed rate adjustments will not affect City residents or employees of a business within the City, since they are not billed beyond their private insurance coverage. Recommendation: Staff requests that the Utility Advisory Committee provide a favorable recommendation to City Council to set a public hearing to receive a presentation and comments on -proposed ambulance transport rate adjustments. Background/Analysis: As part of the 2017 budget process, the Fire Department contacted our medical billing company, Systems Design Northwest, LLC, for information and a recommendation related to current ambulance transport rates. Specifically, the Fire Department wanted to know how our current ambulance transport rates compared against prevailing transport rates in the area and whether they should be adjusted or not. Based upon the information received, the Fire Department is recommending that the City increase its BLS ambulance transport rate from $500 to $600, its ALS-1 transport rate from $650 to $750, its ALS-2 transport rate from $725 to $825, its paramedic service charge from $650 to $700, its ALS no transport charge from $650 to $700, and its mileage rate from $14 to $15.25. With the exception of the mileage rate, all of the proposed rates will still be well below average current rates in the area. In addition to providing the comparable transport rates for the area and suggesting an increase, Systems Design recommended that the Fire Department discontinue the $33 disposable equipment charge that is added to transports. The charge is typically not included in the Medicare or Medicaid allowables and the administrative cost of adding the charge negates any revenue it generates. The Fire Department concurs with that recommendation. Ambulance Transport Rates —Comparable Chart Agency BLS ALS-1 ALS-2 Mileage Clallam 2 (surrounds PA) $675 $945 $945 $18 Clallam 3 - Sequim $683 $945 $945 $22.20 Clallam 4 - Joyce $500 $945 $1022 $15 Port Angeles (current) $500 $650 $725 $14 Port Angeles (proposed) $600 $750 $825 $15.25 Systems Design client Average $622 $912 $1017 $15.23 Because the majority of the ambulance transport bills are paid based upon a fee schedule, raising our rates will not necessarily provide a corresponding increase in revenue. Medicare—our primary payer—will pay based upon their allowables, regardless of our rates. The recommended rate adjustments will not affect City residents or employees of a business within the City because they are not billed beyond their governmental or private insurance coverage. In addition,protection against financial hardship for non-residents is provided. Non-resident charges may be waived or reduced in accordance with an income-based discount chart that is based upon federal poverty guidelines for Washington State. Staff requests that the Utility Advisory Committee provide a favorable recommendation to City Council to set a public hearing to receive a presentation and comments on proposed ambulance transport rate adjustments. P'ORT ELES A,- ii"' W A S H I N G T 0 N, U. S. A. .......... ............ Utility Advisory Committee Memo DATE: August 9, 2016 To: Utility Advisory Committee FROM: JONATHAN BOEHME,STORMWATER ENGINEER SUBJECT: Stormwater Utility Rate Structure Summary: Per City Council direction, the Stormwater Utility rate structure was assessed to determine if there was an imbalance between residential and commercial rate structures. It is recommended that the size of the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)be reduced, and the practice of capping commercial parcels at 10 ERU be eliminated. Several options are presented for phasing in the changes, and for providing credits for customers that have individual NPDES Industrial Stormwater permits or who build and maintain water quality treatment/flow control facilities on their property. The revisions will provide better balance between the residential and commercial rate classes, and will eliminate the need for rate increases under the current rate structure in 2017 and 2018. Funding: The rate alternative options proposed will continue to provide adequate revenue to cover the future anticipated cost of service for the Stormwater Utility. As the City is one of the larger stormwater commercial rate payer, there will be impacts to City General Fund stormwater costs. Recommendation: It is requested that the Utility Advisory Committee identify preferred options, and forward a recommendation to the City Council to either maintain the current stormwater rate structure, or to revise the rate structure based on the proposed options. Background/Analysis: The City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Phase 11 Permit requires that the city implement stormwater program and Municipal Code changes to make Low Impact Development (LID) the preferred and commonly- used approach to site development by the end of 2016. In April 2015, the City retained Herrera Environmental Consultants to review City code to assist in the Code revisions. As part of the contract, in response to a request from City Council, Herrera was also tasked with assessing the Stormwater Utility rate structure. The goal of this additional task was to compare the current N:\UAC\MEETINGS\UAC2016\UAC080916\Stormwater Rate Structure.docx Port Angeles Stormwater Utility rate structure to similar jurisdictions that are NPDES Municipal Stormwater Phase 11 Permit holders, and to make recommendations, if warranted. The Stormwater Utility is responsible for repairs and maintenance of the City's stormwater infrastructure, which includes 65 miles of separate stormwater utility pipe, 2,800 catch basins, and 80 outfalls. It also provides services to ensure compliance with the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Phase 11 permit. In addition, it funds design and construction of stormwater Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Many of the water quality related CIPs take advantage of grant funding through the Department of Ecology. CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE The Port Angeles stormwater rate structure is based on the residential parcel. Each residence pays one Equivalent Service Unit (ESU). The current rate is $14 per month for 2016, and $16 per month for 2017. A cost of service study was done in 2012, and indicates the need to increase the rate to $18 per month per ESU in 2018, depending on the costs of needed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). The City's commercial stormwater utility rate is based on the amount of impervious area on a parcel, and the assumption that a typical residential lot (ESU)is about 4000 square feet of impervious area. The commercial rate for a property is capped at the cost of 10 ERUs (the maximum commercial stormwater utility fee is $14 x 10 ESU= $140 per month). In this way, large parcels receive a significant stormwater utility rate reduction (i.e., a 60,000 square foot commercial site(15 ESU)pays a total monthly fee of$140 with the cap, compared to a monthly fee of$210 without the cap). COMPARISONS For single-family residential properties,Port Angeles is currently in the middle of the range of stormwater fees among the seven similar jurisdictions compared. For commercial properties, the City currently has the second lowest monthly utility rate among the jurisdictions compared. The primary underlying reason is that City's equivalent impervious area unit used to calculate commercial rates is higher than the comparison jurisdictions. The average equivalent impervious area unit among the comparison jurisdictions is 2,929 square feet; Port Angeles' is 4000 square feet. A high equivalent impervious area unit results in a lower commercial stormwater utility rate when compared to a lower equivalent impervious area unit applied to the same base rate. Port Angeles is the only city among the seven comparable cities that employs a cap on the impervious area charge. COMMERCIAL FEE REDUCTIONS Currently sites with their own NPDES industrial stormwater permit which do not discharge to the municipal separate stormwater system (MS4) are exempt from utility fees. However,parcels with a NPDES permit that do discharge to the City stormwater system and parcels with impervious surface that infiltrate 100% of the stormwater runoff onsite are required to pay a stormwater utility fee. Since a portion of the stormwater utility fees are used to cover services that benefit all City residents and businesses, it is recommended that the City charge a minimum rate of 1 ERU for all commercial parcels, regardless of impervious area or if a site has a separate NPDES permit. Then, as an acknowledgement of owners who are making significant effort to manage stormwater on site, a fee reduction incentive of fifty percent could be applied for commercial parcels with a separate NPDES Industrial Stormwater permit and which actively maintain stormwater treatment or flow control systems on site. A separate 25% fee reduction is suggested for commercial sites that do not have a separate NPDES permit, but that maintain stormwater treatment or flow control facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Stormwater Utility rate structure be modified to reduce the size of the Equivalent Service Unit(ESU), remove the commercial rate cap of the equivalent cost of ten residential units, and implement rate incentives for commercial sites with an NPDES stormwater permit, or that actively maintain stormwater treatment/flow control facilities on site. If the City decreased their ESU to 3,200 square feet, the commercial stormwater utility rate for 5,000 square feet of impervious area would be $21.88,just below the average commercial rate of jurisdictions compared. Due to impacts to large commercial properties, these changes to the commercial rate structure could be phased in over a period of time to lessen the rate impacts on large commercial customers most effected. Two options are presented for discussion. Funding Overview: The rate alternative options proposed will continue to provide adequate revenue to cover the future anticipated cost of service for the Stormwater Utility. As the City is a stormwater commercial rate payer, there will be impacts to City General Fund stormwater costs. N:AUAC\MEETINGS\UAC2016\UAC080916\Stormwater Rate Structure.docx 8/5/2016 CITY OF PORT ANGELES UTI LITY ADVI SORYCOMMITTEE* r,.a off, „iir Outline Background / Introduction Stormwater Utility Overview Utility Rate StructureI rni s 1 8/5/2016 Background The City of Port Angeles was issued a Phase II Municipal Stormwater NPDES General Permit in 2007 The Phase II Permit was reissued in 2013 and included additional permit requirements. City Council authorized the City Manager to contract with Herrera Environmental to assist reviewing stormwater rate structure in May 2015. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Introduction Project Timeline January 2016 May 2015 Rate March August 2016 Structure 2016 Utility ProjectReview Develop Kickoff Technical Rate AdVI5OYy Meeting Memo Scenarios Committee July 2016 October Internal 2016 Management City Meeting Council 2 8/5/2016 Port Angeles Stormwater Utility Services provided: Phase II Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit Compliance: Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) 1. Public Education&Outreach 1. Public Involvement and Participation Illicit Discharge Detection&Elimination Development Runoff Control Municipal Operations&Maintenance r Operations and Maintenance 1 Ditches,storm lines,catch basins,culverts, vegetation management,vaults,street sweeping Municipal Separate Stormwater Utility ) `�� NXr - 65 miles of pipe -rn - 2,800 catch basins - 60 outfalls to creeks - 20 outfalls to harbor/strait 1, l �''`r ar, "Nov--------- ....... 3 8/5/2016 New Stormwater Permit it IIIIII��`Ir,��I��Y��111��1Y��IIIId��I��IIII��W��1��llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIII��»�� i��1��>i��1��1»��I��MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Public education and outreach New audiences and subject areas -Measure understanding Public involvement and Ongoing participation Illicit discharge program Updated ordinance Field screening(40%of system by Dec.2017, 12%per year starting in 2018) New development and -Regulations apply to smaller sites(by Dec. redevelopment 2016) -Incorporate and require LID principles and LID BMPs by Dec.2016(2-year process) Municipal O&M -Inspect all catch basins by Aug.2017 and every 2 years thereafter or clean complete system once during the permit term Monitoring -Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program ($13k per year starting in 2014),Permit Fee$7k Stormwater Capital Ecology Grant Assistance Completed Projects �� 4th 4 Street Project- Rain Gardens (2014) , r Peabody WQ Pro ect- Filterra Units (2015) ' Current Projects Green LID Alley Project (2016) a IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII ��hlllu�� ' 4 8/5/2016 Stormwater Capital Capacity Projects v H Street Outfall 2017 $500,000 Francis Street Outfall Repair 2017 $35,000 Peabody Culvert Repair(Grant 2018 $500,000 Match) Canyon Edge&Ahlvers Stormwater 2020 $1,000,000 Laurel&US101 Stormwater 2021 $575,000 Liberty Street Stormwater TBD $2,035,000 Valley Creek Culvert/Outfall TBD $600,000 Stormwater Expense vs. Revenue $3,500 a5,4:14:J4:J a2,f.J4:J4:J M,7 "mmnm' ....., d d d d MINIMta2r� N(IIM19BIN��kON OOIO��Vti�OIP ... r $54747 r 207.5 207.4. 2.07.5 2016 2.07.7 207.8 2.079 2020 % Acsa�al Operating Expenditures n °Riidgeted Operating Expenditures IIgymsmAcicl'it'ional Development Support .;;;";Capital I.xpencl'itrres ., »Current Rate Revenue — —Projected Rate Revenue,Current Rate`t.ructrre ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Rev'ised Rate Scenarios:No Rase Rate Ir'icrease ■IIIIIIIII Note:DOE Grants are not shown. o 5 8/5/2016 Current Stormwater Rates (Ch. 13.63) g W., ,1.r Pmkkbo 11:aaciu I "D A Haflxw Park. Drch�rd Pcn 1:Aryg e err, 311g. Harbw Edrwlcmld�, "hurellige .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Figure 1. Monthly Single Faimily Residential Stoirmwater Utility Rate Coniparis,on. Current Stormwater Rates (Ch. 13.63) ,40 -310 S ,..,aaq—h I,jr bor F,xd..h,, DaI-Imbor Edin-rivis Porl Ange)— Shore�in*? FfgUIFe 2., Monithily Cornmercial Stormwater Uldflity Rate Coniparilson(5,0,00 Sf impervious). ............................................................... '12 6 8/5/2016 Current Stormwater Rates (Ch. 13.63) Table 3,., Monthly-Coninnercial Stornniwateir Utihity IRate Connupadson. Cily Commerckal Land Use ERW IESUd ISWEIBU Part Arigeies (Total impeirviCILIM aire,a x$14)-4,0DO sf 41 000 sf ...........................................(92i in,um= !Dq�i u ....................."I........ .... $1'4V7i1.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... G,9k Fiaftror $14 22 per ERUI 3,300 sf I'll"�i,�TR!i��'ll""I'll""'ll""I'll'll""I'll""I"I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'l'll""I'll""I"ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I"ll""I'll""I'llilil,?Z m ff§Y. "I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll,'ll""I"ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",ll,'ll""I"ll""I'll""I'll",",112AE2,1112! """"",'ll""I'll,'ll""I'll,"'I Port Orchard $14.00 per IIISJLJ:...................... 3XIO 8f Rqr IIISJLr 3,000 Bf Gig Ha,bor $13 110 per EBILIE 202UO sf ........... ............................... ........ Sho,relline, $29.M to$195 19 Per acre Mare applicable Liglht -20%impervious]tc'Very Heavy[>85%imperviou8j)........... Port Angeles has a cap of 10 ESU per parcel. IIIIIIIII Typical Residential Site Coverage FEll' -3 J LA -c,U�vrr LOCZYFPWiFR 2Aa,,IM��WDYD 7 8/5/2016 Proposed Revisions to Stormwater — Utility and Regulations (Ch. 13.63) Revise commercial properties stormwater utility fee to be based on an equivalent service unit (ESU) of 3,200 square feet impervious Remove maximum monthly fee cap for commercial/multiple property Modify exemption for sites with their own NPDES permits from a total to a partial (50%) exemption Add 25% stormwater utility fee reduction for commercial sites that maintain their treatment and/or flow control facilities IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII `' Proposed Fee Revision Rate Impacts Customers Most Impacted — No Phasing RICHARD CAND LYNN[:K KOI f S PI RII'r P[1162015-11..I.0 CRI I N(:.R1 I K VIIOOD PRO DUC:1,,IA(:. P[:NI NrULA 601..1-AND COON I RY CI.LI PI.AIINUVI(:.LID PISHP Hi�i�i� SAI-[: w VIIAY SPORES IN(:. LSI INDLISIRIES HfHi RI..PORE ANG[:I..['r GIAI..I.A VI IRANSII SYSI[VI for iw�iw�iw PININ LLA RII-1..[AND PIS 101.(:.IAJ c1.vVIPIc ED 111 RVICI AS[[ill Included all VIAeNA[oac:.[:uv(:. Airport Industrial 1-K(:.CO I:I D DI NC 1..0 WAS11 cONN[C:IION,SN(:. Park fees in POPA DAIRY[R[SII FARVIS listing R AND R DEV[:LOPVI[:N I NW A(:. LCrA D[:PI CI-IN11 NOR BRA ....... iiii� rIAIE:OI VunshlwCION APIOF IR P[:NINSULA ISO LI',,NCA 1 0 Y HUi P1IIBJII(ISO SPIIAL.DISIRICI 2 iol..iw.iw.iw.iw. PORI ANCII[SP[Azn nrr(1(IAIE'r ................ PORI ANGE:L.E'r ISARDNIOODL.L(:. iiiiiiiiiu ( AI-ANI(OLINIY -.............. Vun P[:N I NrLII.A C01..1..[6[: iiw�iw�iw�iw�iw�iw�iw�i�.rn�,�iwii..�iw�iw SCIS001 IRS RK1121 d . ��. PCRrcIPUR1AN6[L[, ........ . .. . ..............................................� �.........� �...... GI IY OF PUR I AN6e1..[(r .116w..........10""&&&&w ........................w .......w .......w ....i.i.iw 20,000 ;40.000 ;',60,000 ;',w'()00 ; 8/5/2016 Rate Phasing Options Baseline, all rates increase from $14 to $16 per ESU in 2017 (Rate increase approved by CC in 2015). Option 1 Rate remains at $14 per ESU Remove cap and grouping All parcels charged minimum rate of 1 ESU Phase in commercial calculation from 4000 to 3200 over 3 years Option 2 Same as option 1, except the cap removal is phased in Year 1 cap=20,Year 2 cap=40,Year 3 cap=60,Year 4= no cap IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII �r Historical Stormwater Rate Revenue A Lr O � A x7..,200,000 V �/ A / a7.,t7r.7r.7,t7Q.7r.r 663 N � i I A A / -rr / O l lir lir / N Qt Qt 63 lV0 Qt / $600,000 6l A -^ � Residential' o P N o CD' w w w VIII . ... $200,000 ;---®---'--� w Commercial w /e A 0 ue"$0.00 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q W �`• In ql ^•1 cXi t.p Cj t-� N W .G• In tll IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 9 Q/5/2Ol6 Rate Phasing Options Revenue It Commercial 1\Je.v,\t Steps - Recommendation 10 8/5/2016 11 P'ORT ELES ii"' W A S H I N G T 0 N, U. S. A. OFF"":.......... ............ Utility Advisory Committee Memo DATE: August 9, 2016 To: Utility Advisory Committee FROM: JONATHAN BOEHME,STORMWATER ENGINEER SUBJECT: NPDES Stormwater Permit-Required Municipal Code and Standards Update Summary: The Department of Ecology 2013-2018 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Phase 11 Permit requires the City to make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development. A comprehensive review of the pertinent chapters of Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) and of the Urban Services Standards and Guidelines has been completed. Based on this review, a wide range of revisions to PAMC and the Urban Services Standards and Guidelines are proposed. Funding: According to the 2012 cost of service study, the addition of one FTE will be required to implement these new permit requirements and manage the increased stormwater and erosion control review and inspections. The LID Rebate program for small development rain gardens, pervious pavement and soil quality will be included in the 2017 Stormwater Utility Budget. Recommendation: Forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the utility-related proposed revisions to PAMC Title 3, PAMC Title 13.63, and the Urban Services Standards and Guidelines. Background/Analysis: The City is covered by the Department of Ecology 2013-2018 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Phase 11 Permit. This permit requires the City to make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development. LID is a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre-disturbance hydrologic processes by emphasizing conservation, use of on- site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design. N:\UAC\MEETINGS\UAC2016\UAC080916\UAC Stormwater Code Update.docx The City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit(Permit) requires the City to perform a comprehensive update of all pertinent City codes, ordinances, development standards,public works standards, etc., related to Permit requirements to eliminate barriers and implement LID as the commonly-used approach to site development. The Permit also requires the City to adopt the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) which includes reduced thresholds for triggering stormwater considerations on projects. It is required that the updated codes and standards undergo a formal public process in order to seek input from the community, developers, and industry as part of the approval process. The update is required to be fully implemented by December 31, 2016. City Council authorized a contract with Herrera Environmental to assist the City with reviewing, revising, and making effective local development-related codes, rules, standards, and enforceable documents to incorporate and require LID. Herrera has worked closely with the Departments of Community and Economic Development and Public Works and Utilities to bring forward a comprehensive and practical proposal the reflects the priorities of our community. In addition, since the initial project kickoff meeting in May 2015, two development community stakeholder meetings were held to obtain input on draft code updates. An internal management briefing was also held in July 2016 to present the proposed revisions. The following utility related documents were included in the review and revision process: • PAMC Title 3, Revenue and Finance • PAMC Title 13.63, Stormwater—Utility and Regulations • Urban Service Standards & Guidelines Based on this review a wide range of code and standard revision are proposed. The key utility related revisions include: • Revise Utility fees, new stormwater inspection fee, and general facility charge fee • Replace downspout incentive program with new LID rebate program • Increase 1-yr maintenance bond length to 2-yr for projects with flow control or treatment • New project thresholds, stormwater requirements are now required to be considered for projects with new or replaced hard surface as small as 2000 square feet, and 7000 square feet of disturbed land area • Update definitions to be consistent with Ecology 2014 SWMMWW • Update Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Narrative requirements for consistency with Ecology 2014 SWMMWW • New standard details for rain gardens,permeable pavement and street trees • Reduce impervious surfaces and require pervious pavement where feasible • Clarify plan submittal requirements for small and large stormwater project plans • Update requirements for when a Small or Large Project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is needed • New list of approved proprietary BMPs for use in right of way • Clarify requirements for downstream analysis • Update stormwater design guidelines In addition to the utility-related provisions listed above, the following planning-related documents were included in the review and revision process: • PANIC Title 11, Streets, Sidewalks, and Street Trees • PANIC Title 14, Buildings and Construction • PANIC Title 15, Environment • PANIC Title 16, Subdivisions • PANIC Title 17, Zoning • Citywide Comprehensive Plan 2010 The resulting Code revisions are being presented to the Planning Commission on August 10, 2016 for their consideration. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendations and public hearing, all of the Code revisions associated with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit- required update will be brought to City Council as an Ordinance for review,public hearing, and approval. A set of development implementation tools are proposed to aid the development community in implementing the LID code integration for future site development. The proposed tools include: • Small Project Factsheets • Infeasibility Criteria Factsheet • Revised Building Permit Application and Clearing and Grading Permit Application, with process questions to guide an applicant in determining pertinent stormwater requirements • Template to facilitate LID design on small projects • Template to facilitate erosion and sediment control on small projects • Small project LID Rebate program for rain gardens,pervious pavement, and soil amendment • Rewrite Urban Service Standards and Guidelines Chapter 5, add references to where to find design guidance in the Ecology 2014 SWMMWW. Funding Overview: According to the 2012 cost of service study, the addition of one FTE will be required to implement these new permit requirements and manage the increased stormwater and erosion control review and inspections. The LID Rebate program for small development rain gardens,pervious pavement and soil quality will be included in the 2017 Stormwater Utility Budget. N:AUAC\MEETINGS\UAC2016\UAC080916\UAC Stormwater Code Update.docx 8/8/2016 r � ill✓fie l �rr/ 0 ri,�/%rai!1��/�0//%/ J U s x :�.` ;;�,�., �. `�„, ''' �,; ,„, � �' ' r �pry �`�z�� ,�.✓:.. Outline Background / Introduction Key proposed revisions Port Angeles Municipal Code (PA C) Urban Services Standards & Guidelines ( SS ) Design Scenarios Proposed Implementation Tools Next Steps IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 1 8/8/2016 Background IIII The City was issued a Phase II Municipal Stormwater NPDES General Permit in 2007. The reissued Phase II permit (2013-2018) included a requirement to incorporate and require low impact development (LID) in code and enforceable documents by Dec. 31, 2016. City Council authorized the City Manager to contract with Herrera Environmental Consultants to assist in the code update process in May 2015. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Introduction Project Timeline May 2015 Project Kickoff Meeting- Form Project September 2015 July 2015 December2015 Team from Revised Draft Revisions multiple PreliminaryPreliminary Review Review Forms 40 SVIOVVnr1301,20 15 ;tiIL,h Ider Orientation VleetinJ; IIIIIIIII 2 8/8/2016 Introduction Project Timeline (cont.) July 2016 December 2016 March 2016 June 2016 Internal New Code Revised Draft Final Proposed Management Language Revisions Revisions Meeting Adopted 0 0 0 of 0 0 1 20 16 AUgUSL a 11r, January 2017 SMI'uhn1dul SvIoLvirrilopir 20 16 New Code kuVicw VuL'Ung lllkmnli)l; Language Cnimmis"i'm Effective (111flhll' I L''�i )t;)' I-Allil,Y Advi"ni Y Cnimmil,W,u)X"cil,Y cnim''ll IntroducUon Phase 11 Permit requirements Review, revise, and make effective local development-related codes, rules, standards, and enforceable documents to incorporate and require low impact development (LID) Intent of revisions to make LID the preferred and commonly- used approach. Minimize impervious surface, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff City goal to look for opportunities to provide incentives and reduce other requirements to offset new LID requirements. 3 8/8/2016 Introducflon Additional stormwater revie Review revise stormwater codes and ordinances for equivalency with current Ecology 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Review revise stormwater codes and ordinances for gaps in site development requirements IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Introduction Documents reviewed PAMC Title 3: Revenue and Finance Chapter 13.63: Stormwater— Utility and Regulations Urban Services Standards & Guidelines IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 8/8/2016 Proposed Revisions to Revenue and Finance (Title 3) Add fee-in-lieu of planting for missing/ unplanted required street trees ($400) Add a stormwater facility inspection fee ($55/hr) Increase stormwater connection fee per catch basin ($110) Add one-time general facility charge based on equivalent service unit (ESU) ($1,500) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Proposed Revisions Utility i Eliminate 25% discount incentive program for downspout controls Replace with LID rebate program for permeable pavement, compost amended soils, and rain gardens IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII `° 5 8/8/2016 Proposed Revisions Utility i Increase 1-yr maintenance bond length to 2-yr for stormwater treatment/ flow control facilities Update definitions for consistency with the Ecology 2014 SWMMWW Add definitions (compost-amended soil, hard surface, permeable pavement, rain gardens, impaired capacity system, non-impaired capacity syste m) Add language to allow rainwater harvesting IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines Chapter 1: General Conditions Specify design standards for permeable pavement and porous asphalt Add 2-year stormwater facility maintenance bond Chapter 2: Wastewater Allow for deviation from WSDOT standards for compaction in infiltration facility areas IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII 6 8/8/2016 Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 3: Transportation Add permeable pavement standard detail for smaller projects (that add or replace less than 5,000 sf of hard surface) Revise Table A- Street Design Standards to allow for permeable pavement and curb cuts Revise Standard Drawings to allow for permeable pavement and bioretention in cul-de-sacs Require infiltration BMPs to manage intersection runoff where feasible IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '1' Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 3:Transportation (cont.) Revise intersection turn island, traffic circle, and chicane planting requirements to allow for vegetated LID BMPs Add permeable pavement as a preferred material for access improvements, driveways, and sidewalks Specify patching protocols for permeable pavement Allow variable tree spacing Allow sidewalk slope to deviate from standard to allow sidewalks to drain towards LID facilities IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "" 7 8/8/2016 Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 5: Stormwater Substantial revisions to streamline text and default to Ecology SWMMWW where requirements are identical Clarify when a stormwater discharge permit is needed Building Permit and Clearing and Grading Permit Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit Non-Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit Update threshold for projects that must apply new/ redevelopment minimum requirements Add pavement maintenance exemptions Limit the extent of square cut patching that is exempt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII `' Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 5: Stormwater Clarify Stormwater Site Plan submittal documentation required Small Project Stormwater Plan Large Project Stormwater Plan Clarify that a O&M manual is required for MR #6 and #7 facilities Consistency with Chapter 13.63 Updated definitions New definitions Updated stormwater rebate language IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Clarified inspection requirements 8 8/8/2016 Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 5: Stormwater List approved proprietary BIVIPs for use in R/W Clarify what is included in a down stream analysis and how to determine a capacity constrained system Add catch basin marking requirement Clarify that certain stormwater facilities are allowed in the public ROW Clarify that drainage easements in subdivisions must be associated with individual lots Add Infeasibility Criteria appendix (to be developed) Add new LID BMP design details (to be developed) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 6: Clearing, Grading, Filling, and Drainage Update land disturbance thresholds and terminology related to SWPPP requirements: Small Project SWPPP Large Project SWPPP Clarify when a CESCL is required Remove general language in the following sections: Siltation and Erosion Control General Requirements Add Element #13- Protect LID BIVIPs During Construction IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9 8/8/2016 Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 6: Clearing, Grading, Filling, and Drainage Remove requirements and references to Temporary Erasion/Sedimentation Control Plan Allow for deviation from compaction standards in infiltration facility areas Add standard nates Add Small Project Construction SWPPP Template appendix (to be developed) Delete Selected Standard Details appendix IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII `' Proposed Revisions to Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (cont.) Chapter 8: Electric Utility Allow variances for compaction in areas where infiltration facilities will be installed IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '° 10 8/8/2016 Design Scenarios Scenario #1 — Installation of a new parking lot (12,000 sf) Scenario #2 — New Single Family home (1,500 sf) and driveway/patio (1,500 sf) Scenario #3 — Small Commercial building addition (1,700 sf) and parking lot (2,500 sf) IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII2,1 Triggers Minimum Requirements,(MR)M#1,9,M„M„M, �glgt oar q i+9 • New development project • Adds a 12,000 square foot parking lot and 2,000s quare feet of lawn/landscape • Total project area is 14,000 square feet • Project dra ins to Peabody Creek ®®®® • Infiltration rate>0.3 inches/hour 11 8/8/2016 Tri rsMinimuM.Requirements(MR)M#1-9oMMMMaMMMMM I 1110 W21 l Mona= A ANew development projectAdds a 12,000 squarefoot parking lot and 2,000s quare feet of lawn/landscape • Total project area is 14,000 square feet ®®® • Project dra ins to Peabody Creek ®®®® • Infiltration rate>0.3 inches/hour ...° q�i i'�i Y'i•iii�i� � '��'��'a �. o HEM'��" ��"i' �/��/�� /��/� II I I I I�� Y' NONUNION�I� �. � MINIMUM ,- Lawn&Landscaped Areas Soil Quality&Depth was feasible NEIRoofs No roof areas on-site 1.Soil Quality&Depth ` Other Hard Surfaces 2.Permeable Pavement Full Dispersion was infeasible 3.Bioretention Permeable Pavement was the first 4.Sheet Flow Dispersion or feasible BMP Concentrated Flow Permeable pavementcan also be Dispersion designed to meet MR#6 and MR#7 • Triggers Minimum Requirements,(MR)M#1,9,M„M„M, • New development project mums= • Adds a 12,000 square foot parking lot and 2,000s quare feet of lawn landscape • Total project area is 14,000 square feet • Project dra ins to Peabody Creek ®®®® • Infiltration rate<0.3 inches/hour 12 8/8/2016 ............................... ........................ ... Triggers Minimu M.Requi rements(MR)#1-9 1110 111 11 W21VMMMMMMMMMM1 • New development project • Add,a 12,000 square IoQt parking lot and Muni= 2,000s are feetOF lawn/landscape • Total project area is 14,000 square feet • Project drains to Peabody Creek • Infiltration rate<0.3 inches/hour .............. HEM z NEILawn&Landscaped Areas Soil Quality&Depth was feasible Roofs No roof areas on-site 1.Soil Quality&Depth Other Hard Surfaces • Full Dispersion was infeasible • Permeable Pavement and Bioretention were infeasible due to infiltration rate Sheet/Concentrated Flow Dispersion were infeasible Design Scenarios Planning level cost estimate Scenario #1 — Infiltration is feasible Connection fee $55 Not applicable Rebates None -$1,000(permeable pavement) -$170(10 CY compost) Total estimated cost $105,962 $110,523 26 13 8/8/2016 Design Scenarios Planning level cost estimate Scenario #1 — Infiltration is infeasible Connection fee $55 $3,110 Rebates - Not eligible Total estimated cost $241,971 $245,229 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII z 11,111 tl tl" tl tl ................................................................................ Triggers No Minimum Requirements(MR) • New single family home(RS-7 zone) • Adds a 1,500 square foot roof,11,500 square feet of driveway,patio,and sidewalk,and 4,000 square feet of lawn/ }} landscaped areas • Total project area is 7,000 square feet • Project drains to Tumwater Creek • Infiltration rate>0.3 inches/hour 14 8/8/2016 III BOOM III lip !Ii�I .......... .......................... Triggers Minimum Requirements(MR)#1-5 m6um single family home(RS-7 zone) • Adds a 1,500 5Ogsqu'vre foot t roof,11,500 square feeToTdrieway,patio'and sidewalk,and 4,000 square feet of lawn/ Em landscaped areas • Tota I project area is 7,000 square feet • Project drains to Turnwater Creek • Infiltration rate>0.3 inches/hour .............. HEM Z NONUNION MINIMUM Lawn&Landscaped Areas Soil Quality&Depth was feasible Roofs Full Dispersion and Downspout Full Infiltration were infeasible 1.Soil Quality&Depth 1.Full Dispersion or Downspout 1.Full Dispersion Rain Garden was the first feasible Full Infiltration 2.Permeable Pavement or BMP 2.Rain Garden or Bioretention Rain Garden or Bioretention Other Hard Surfaces • Full Dispersion was infeasible Rain Garden was the first feasible ................................ BMP -J 1�1�111111 Will IU- 1 11111 11, ................................................................ Triggers No Minimum Requirements(MR) New single family home(RS-7 zone) Adds a 1,500 square foot roof,11,500 quare feet of driveway,patio,and sidewalk,and 4,000 square feet of lawn/ landscaped areas • Total project area is 7,000 square feet • Project drains to Turnwater Creek • Infiltration rate<0.3 inches/hour .............. 15 8/8/2016 � I'l li'li'llil III lip I ............... ................................. Triggers Minimum Requirements(MR)#1-5 W6 single family home(RS-7 zone) 1,500 square foot roof,11,500 quare feet of driveway,patio,and sidewalk,and 4,000 square feet of lawn/ Em landscaped areas • Tota I project area is 7,000 square feet • Project drains to Turnwater Creek • Infiltration rate<0.3 inches/hour .............. HEM Z Lawn&Landscaped Areas Soil Quality&Depth was feasible Roofs Dispersion BMPs were infeasible Infiltration BMPs were infeasible due to infiltration rate 1.Soil Quality&Depth 1.Full Dispersion or Downspout Perforated Stub-out Connections was Full Infi I tration the first feasible BMP 2.Rain Garden or Bioretention Other Hard Surfaces 3.Downspout Dispersion Full Dispersion was infeasible Systems 3.Sheet Flow Dispersion or Infiltration BMPs were infeasible due 4.Perforated Stub-out Concentrated Flow to infiltration rate Connections Dispersion Sheet Flow Dispersion persion was feasible ................................ _J Design Scenarios Planning level cost estimate Scenario #2 — Infiltration is feasible Connection fee Not applicable Not applicable Rebates -$750(rain garden) -$1,000(rain garden) -$170(10 CY compost) Total estimated cost $12,459 $12,661 32 16 8/8/2016 Design Scenarios Planning level cost estimate Scenario #2 — Infiltration is infeasible Connection fee None $750 Rebates Not applicable Not eligible Total estimated cost $3,226 $3,210 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII ss Triggers No Mdnim um Requirements(MR) • Commercial development retrofit • Adds a 1,700 square foot roof and a 2,500 square foot parking lot • Total project area is 4,200 square feet • Project drains to Tumwater Creek • Infiltration rate>0.3 inches/hour 17 8/8/2016 .........Triggers Minimum Requirements(MR)#1-5 M M ,•,•.,•.,•... ............... JPoow, r' ra it//iiiia' a.e y r r a • New commercial development • Adds a 1,700 square foot roof and a 2,500 square foot par king lot ,, III�I,I�I',I'i lilli • Total project area is 4,200 square feet • Project dra ins to Tumwater Creek • Infiltration rate>0.3 inches/hour M ..............i �i� i i'i•iwlui�i� � ',�,�,�,uu,'w'u,'a �. o; i N101RlE,�'��_�' NONUNION MINIMUM Lawn&Landscaped Areas No disturbed pervious areas Roofs Downspout Full BMI filtration was the first - 1.Full Dispersion or Downspout 1.Full Dispersion Full Infiltration 2.Permeable Pavement or Other Hard Surfaces Rain Garden or Full Dispersion was infeasible Bioretention Rain Garden was the first feasible BMP i, mom 1rm Triggers No Minimum Requirements iMR)MMMMMMMMM , 1111111 SIM • New commercial development • Adds a 1,700 square foot roof and a 2,500 square foot parking lot • Total project area is 4,200 square feet • Project drains to Tumwater Creek • Infiltration rate<0.3 inches/hour 18 8/8/2016 Triggers Minimum Requirements(MR)#1-5 ......... II ............... JPoow, r� ra it//iiiia' a.e y a uro • New commercial development • Adds a 1,700 square foot roof and a 2,500 square foot parking lot • Tota l project a rea is 4,200 squa re feet • Projectdrain s to Tumwater Creek ®®®® • Infiltration rate<0.3 inches/hour M�� i i��W i �iG� i I'i•iii�i� � '��'��'a �. o; i NO�REff��I�iW I�' '•i.. � ��I�'I��i�i 1 i"i �� Lawn&Landscaped Areas No disturbed pervious areas Roofs Dispersion BMPs were infeasible t Infiltration BMPs were infeasible due to infiltration rate - - 1.Full Dispersion or Downspout 1.Full Dispersion Perforated Stub-out Connection was F u 11 lnfi Itration 2.Permeable Pavement or the first feasible BMP 2.Rain Garden orBioretention Rain Garden or Other Hard Surfaces 3.Downspout Dispersion Bioreten tion Full Dispersion was infeasible Systems 3.Sheet Flow Dispersion or Infiltration BMPs were infeasible due 4.Perforated Stub-out Concentrated Flow to infiltration rate Connections Dispersion Sheet Flow Dis ersion was feasible Design Scenarios Planning level cost estimate Scenario #3 — Infiltration is feasible Connection fee Not applicable Not applicable Rebates Not applicable Not eligible Total estimated cost $12,602 $18,574 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII sW 19 8/8/2016 Design Scenarelos Planning level cost estimate Scenario #3 — Infiltration is infeasible Connection fee $55 $1,235 Rebates Not applicable Not eligible Total estimated cost $12,657 $14,102 IIIIIIIIII 111111 s:� Proposed Implementation Tools 1) New permit application worksheet with checklists to walk applicant through process of determining stormwater requirements. 2) Factsheet: LID requirements for Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties with standard design details Factsheet: LID requirements for small commercial properties with standard design details /I) Erosion and sediment control plan template for small sites 5) Factsheet: infeasibility criteria for LID BIVIPs and references to appropriate design standards/sections of the SWMMWW IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII `"° 20 8/8/2016 Proposed Implementation Tools Simplified Construction SWPPP Permit# III,ioe&N I1gA rvrt5"✓ wm 0A IRti•.O oir ta,IFIa Mm: V uoulwA IR?74 V MIf,k'L,CI-4.;161120 O'ItirlY 4ryl"vOti 34p� 1330 of ti3V, Icfr tri,..., y ,�/irtr rlt,of ,p }��FIl FtR, 0net'luctlona;-)hill u,a two oR1utl to+o a+I rcepIII hu,ol C✓I I tro(fiolI"Winnvuuv ntwo PIA lertiuw I'il,—IltIon MIImrl I"(nnuID eIIGonn hw1>NII")You 'h lulls iticlli,ua9r YTIAI t LIME l titI,,5'vvilIPP nil gvlem o.emvtr,n(4 I llhi yx;.l ,Mumbler.Arotpy,I the Cz'ar5to aLIitro/SW PPP wilvt I;*l"w Ied(xi thin too),tott,riUov,sir;no',ari¢Irm-15cilwIAe,m I^vn Gua tip�",Iov fru eawn,tl luu!tun uroci i Ik>p eIIollI Hue nl+nirvI at RIO Ioil lout. 4I la^rt"yep. err ,l"fo,w,w:y qu r ooIII VMeI sve.Il ally w"va r o 'yo,",Ih,pi 0 to,t ulwry I'a t tp;vl h,tr tsr,thI"ort I Irhtllvu9 C I't I ua tioII yWVTP Mtliaoatl niv l r+o tdi,,➢tiCFni. Element 4:Install Sediment Controls ,"i hondI,'J"Wf , Ir""t1,!Ia,,nwater rrm 11 A ide r"utunrnI,,va rrr11"tow 'l nl,r "l,iaentt"', ""'it O ,I,, "L1 Sediment w✓fill tine ccntroled cut-site by Ipllace¢mentt ofthe fdounwoinC,WAPs at the locations9Tnwwfn on,the siteplan 0 C233 5tlltt ten,-,.--C.235Straw Watfles,'—C231e IL#roi I,Bai oiIr,J 0:232 Goratvell Pilltea Beorn,=.-1 a_L3'q.N°pgetated Strip, Other r fVaotlu 41eq'+t'<dS0.15to;t;arP!4r+liv l4aoviPo'isnooIulgeain,gipovoc NIMP "Itply tel this Troop"t Vr—I u,x. Ahre? otw+Irmn Ah-dy Merl ul;talrulili"Id"Id it+vi➢r"Aarte'a4. �IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII / Proposed Implementation Tools STANDARD CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER CONTROL(CSC)AND mcKPu AND EXPOSE POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL MANAGEMENT(SOIL)PLAN SLOPE COVERING COMPOST SOCK tot AY Y 3 Y .� sF r'iiC":K r , 1 ue C rAiM1[ " „adyr� , 1� IF K ��0y �'bAYnwa Rm.. Aorm w i° r. "aKdw"ASdcv',rm"I rFTt.II n, , RON Ili 11'It ATd n "d KC U'r v u Yn L' J 11 Vblillo, a -"t '1b0 Lx,tOcv v w IFI�C4rC�➢r4 Itr I,41r n lIZ ._._ ._.._._. .. ) .......... ......... _ .. ... �rrnM t CITY OF SEATTLE .... ..... ....... ............ til - ....s«r.. :u DEPARTMENT OR CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS ■IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII ,� 21 8/8/2016 Proposed Implementation Tools Infeasibility Criteria LJ Siting and design criteria provided in BMP T5.13(SWMMWW,Volume V,Section 5.3)cannot m : be achieved. LJ Lawn and landscape area is on till slopes greater than 33 percent X'Q HHHHHHHHu Infeasibility Criteria LJ Site setbacks and design criteria provided in BMP T5.30(SWMMWW,Volume V,Section 5.3) cannot be achieved. LJ A 65 to 10 ratio of forested or native vegetation area to impervious area cannot be achieved. LJ A minimum forested or native vegetation flowpath length of 100 feet(25 feet for sheet flow from a non-native pervious surface)cannot be achieved. LJ Site setbacks and design criteria provided in BMP T5.10B(SWMMWW,Volume III,Section cannot be achieved. LJ For splash blocks,a vegetated flowpath at least 50 feet m length from the downspoutto the downstream property line,structure,stream,wetland,slope over 15 percent,or other impervious surface is not feasible. LJ For trenches,a vegetated flowpath of at least 25 feet in between the outlet of the trench and any property line,structure,stream,wetland,slope over 15 percent or impervious surface is not feasible. Next Steps IN Utility Advisory Committee................................ August 9, 2016 IN Planning Commission Meeting#1.......................August 10, 2016 ^' Work Session Planning Commission Meeting#2................... Sept. 14, 2016 Public Hearing IN City Council Meeting.......................................... October 5, 2016 IN Developer Tool Kit ............................................. October 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reassess how code updates are working......... August 2017 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII `"`" 22 8/8/2016 1 y,. r r� 0� r .rr//', 329 i� ;� • sf �� 3i� � w��,-,rtr..�t n / ` ✓r� Jr09v/rk an ny 23