Form revised February 6, 2008

Form revised May 5, 2009

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:		Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
SPU	Robert Chandler (Project Mgr)/ 386-4576			John McCoy / 615-0768
DPD	Dave Cordaro/684-7933
SDOT	Maureen Meehan/684-8750
PARKS	Cheryl Eastberg/386-4381
FFD	John Sheldon/684-5494
SCL	Mary Yoder-Williams/233-7192

Legislation Title: Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code (SMC 22.800-22.808)

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage Control Code; repealing, re-enacting, and amending Chapters 22.800, 22.801, 22.802 and 22.808 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding Chapters 22.803, 22.805 and 22.807.

· Summary of the Legislation:

The purpose of the City of Seattle’s Stormwater Code (SMC 22.800-22.808) is to protect life, property, public health and the environment from the adverse impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Adverse impacts can include flooding, pollution, landslides, and erosion. Last revised in 2000, the Stormwater Code and its associated joint SPU/DPD Directors’ Rules are being revised in order to comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit (“Permit”) issued on January 17, 2007, by the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) under the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the federal Clean Water Act and the State of Washington Water Pollution Control Law. The Permit requires that the City’s Stormwater Code and associated technical manual (contained in the Directors’ Rules) be equivalent to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005). Among the significant modifications being proposed in the Stormwater Code:

1. Prohibited and Permissible Discharges. Changes have been made to this section based on the requirements of the City’s Municipal Stormwater Discharge NPDES Permit.

2. Minimum Requirements for All Projects. Changes are made clarifying requirements related to construction site stormwater pollution prevention. Also, a new minimum requirement has been added requiring all new, replaced, and disturbed topsoil to be amended prior to completion of the project.

3. Minimum Requirements for All Projects. Changes have been made for all development projects based on a combination of Ecology’s minimum requirements and Seattle’s unique development patterns. The performance standards for flow control for discharges into creek basins will be based on a flow-duration standard rather than the current peak-discharge requirement. Continuous modeling will become a requirement. Thresholds triggering minimum requirements for flow control and treatment, which are based on the area of land disturbing activity and the total new plus replaced impervious surfaces, have been modified. In summary, Minimum Requirement thresholds and performance standards will be a function of:

a. Project type: The project types are Single-family residential project, Trail/Sidewalk project, Parcel-based project, Roadway project, Joint project.

b. Drainage basin: The table below summarizes how minimum requirements for treatment and flow control can vary, depending on the drainage basin into which the discharge flows.

Receiving water/system	Flow Control?	Treatment?
(1) Wetland	√	√
(2) Creek Basin	√	√
(3) Public combined sewer	√
(4) Small Lake Basin	√	√
(5) Designated receiving water		√

c. Total new plus replace impervious surface and total new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface. There are no significant changes in the terms, but the thresholds now differ depending on the type of project and drainage basin.

4. Use of “Green Stormwater Infrastructure”. The term green stormwater infrastructure represents the types of flow control and treatment best management practices (BMPs) that use infiltration, evapotranspiration, or stormwater reuse. They include such BMPs as permeable pavement, bioretention facilities, and green roofs. The new Stormwater Code will require all projects triggering minimum requirements for flow control and treatment to implement green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, all single-family residential projects will be required to implement green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible.

5. Grading. The section in the current Stormwater Code on grading will be relocated to Chapter 22.170. See separate Fiscal Note for changes to the Grading Code.

6. Enforcement. The revised Stormwater Code will provide for a matrix-based approach for assessing penalties for violations. Additionally, the revised code will add a provision for an administrative appeal of a Notice of Violation to the Director of SPU or Director of DPD, depending on the nature of the violation.

· Background: (Include brief description of the purpose and context of legislation and include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):

The Stormwater Code and its associated joint SPU/DPD Directors’ Rules are being revised in order to comply the City’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit, which requires that the Stormwater Code and Directors’ Rules be equivalent to Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The project to revise the Stormwater Code is led by SPU and conducted in close collaboration with DPD, other City departments, and many external stakeholders. This Fiscal Note characterizes many of the associated costs with the revised Stormwater Code for the departments most likely to be affected by the changes, which include SPU, DPD, SDOT, PARKS, FFD, and SCL. Additional information regarding this proposed legislation can be found in the attachments:

· Please check one of the following:

____ This legislation does not have any financial implications. (Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)

_ X _ This legislation has financial implications. (Please complete all relevant sections that follow.)

Appropriations: This table should reflect appropriations that are a direct result of this legislation. In the event that the project/programs associated with this ordinance had, or will have, appropriations in other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below.

Fund Name and Number

Department

Budget Control Level*

2009

Appropriation

2010 Anticipated Appropriation

TOTAL

*See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.

Notes:

General. This legislation does not appropriate funds; however, the revised Stormwater Code will impact costs and work requirements in several departments. The following department-specific notes are provided for illustrative purposes. Any budget or staffing adjustments will be addressed through the budget process.

Note 1. (SPU):
Non-capital cost implications for SPU include increases in funding required to conduct training and increases in O&M requirements for drainage control structures constructed in the right-of-way.

1. Training ($50,000 one time in 2009)

SPU has four categories of personnel that need to have a working knowledge of the new code and rules. These are Engineering Designers, Engineering Plan Reviewers, Inspectors, and Operations and Maintenance Staff. Below is a summary of time estimated to train these individuals to an adequate level prior to adoption of the code:

a. SPU Plan Reviewers - $1K/person – 8 people - $8,000

b. SPU Designers / Plan Reviewers - $600/person – 12 people – $7,200

c. SPU Inspectors - $1K/person – 8 people - $8,000

The remainder of SPU Engineering staff can be briefed on changes in the code during regular staff meetings. It is assumed that this high level of information can be provided to other branches (e.g., USM) at appropriate staff meetings.

The development of training documents and presentation materials may be contracted out to a consultant or conducted by in-house staff. The anticipated cost to prepare the curriculum and conduct the training is $25K.

2. Operation and Maintenance. ($1.99M)

SPU typically takes ownership and assumes all operation and maintenance responsibilities for drainage structures installed in the public right-of-way (ROW), including flow control and water quality facilities. As such, any increase in the number of facilities installed or changes in the types of facilities installed associated with the revised Stormwater Code will have cost implications for SPU. It is anticipated that SPU will be responsible for maintaining all green stormwater infrastructure installed in the ROW by SDOT, SPU, other departments, or as a result of private development. The estimates provided below include labor as well as costs associated with equipment, repair, replacement, disposal, and other life-cycle costs related to maintaining these facilities.

It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of water quality facilities installed in the ROW because of two major revisions: (1) The current Stormwater Code exempts all utility-related projects from requirements to install flow control and treatment facilities (e.g., maintaining, repairing, or installing underground or overhead utility facilities.), even if the total amount of new plus replaced impervious surface exceeds established minimum requirement thresholds. As a policy decision, the proposed Stormwater Code will remove this exception for all SPU-conducted projects; and (2) In the current Stormwater Code, the threshold triggering requirements to install treatment facilities is one acre or more of new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS). The proposed Stormwater Code lowers this threshold to 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS. Additionally, the number of facilities that will take the form of vegetated above-ground structures (a type of green stormwater infrastructure) is anticipated to increase due to the nature of the new code encouraging green infrastructure.

a. O&M Cost Increases to SPU for Utility Cut-related Projects ($150,000 per year).

The method for calculating the costs associated with the removal of the utility cut exception for SPU projects was generally based on the cost of flow control and water quality based facilities and the total project capital costs. This method does not provide specific cost basis for sizing facilities because neither length of pipe nor estimated new plus replaced impervious surface is available. The number of facilities installed was approximated based on the estimated total cost per year of water quality facilities and the cost per average facility that had been determined earlier as part of an analysis for SPU’s Asset Management Committee. O&M costs were estimated based on the calculated number of facilities. This analysis was done using water quality numbers only, as the sizes and resultant costs of detention facilities used for the SDOT analysis varied greatly and did not lend itself to this application. The resultant analysis estimated that there would be approximately 23 water quality facilities constructed over the next six years with a total O&M cost of $150K.

b. O&M Cost Increases to SPU for SDOT-related Projects ($1.84M)

The majority of facilities installed in the ROW are installed by SDOT. SDOT has two types of projects that result in potential code compliance requirements: roadway projects and sidewalk-only projects. SDOT provided SPU with a list of roadway and sidewalk projects planned for upcoming years. In some cases, planning extends the entire six-year CIP planning period; in others; on other cases, only 1 year was available and estimates had to be extrapolated.

(1) Road Projects ($44,000)

For roadway projects, the number of water quality facilities installed in the ROW will increase because the threshold triggering water quality fall from one acre to 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS. The number of detention structures installed in the ROW in turn, should decrease due to the increase in the threshold for triggering flow control from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface. Although the proposed Stormwater Code encourages the use of green stormwater infrastructure, there are many technical factors that will limit the use of green stormwater infrastructure for treatment of roadway runoff and the number of green stormwater infrastructures is not anticipated to increase.

In 2007, SPU conducted an analysis of the effects of differing thresholds for flow control and water quality on SDOT’s arterial asphalt concrete program for the years 2008-2015. Comparing the current 2,000 SF threshold to the proposed 2009 10,000 SF threshold resulted in no net change in the number of detention facilities installed by SDOT and no resulting net change for SPU O&M. For water quality, however, the number of facilities installed (for the analysis assumed to be four-cartridge Stormfilter® catch basins) increases by approximately 1 unit per year. The net increase in cost to SPU over 6 years is approximately $44K (100-year NPV of $550K.)

(2) Sidewalk-only Projects ($1.04M)

For sidewalk-only projects, the threshold for triggering flow control has remained the same (2,000 SF new plus replaced impervious surface). However, the new code has changed the requirements for meeting flow control from installation of vaults that meet performance standards to installing green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) to the maximum extend feasible (MEF). This GSI/MEF standard will result in eliminating vault installation for sidewalks and increasing the number off installed vegetated facilities. It is assumed that the maintenance of green infrastructure will be less costly over the life cycle of the facility than maintenance of traditional underground vaults. However, there are higher O&M costs for the first several years of green projects to ensure good plant establishment. Because this analysis is only over the next six years, the cost of maintaining green stormwater infrastructure is higher than that of maintaining traditional vaults during the initial period immediately following installation.

SDOT has three types of sidewalk projects: Neighborhood Street Fund (NSF) large projects, NSF Crew Projects, and Other Sidewalk Projects. Sidewalk projects by definition are not pollution-generating impervious surfaces and, therefore, do not require water quality structures to be installed. Flow Control, however, is required. For this analysis, flow control facilities were assumed to be five feet wide and installed in the planting strip, with soil amendments and plants (not grass) at the surface. The assumed size of projects was generally 660 feet for long blocks and 330 feet for short blocks. O&M costs assumed a Level of Service B, which constitutes 12 visits per year. Based on SDOT’s information, the following costs were estimated for the increase in operation and maintenance of installed green stormwater infrastructure over traditional vaults for the six-year period beginning in 2009. Numbers are not provided as Net Present Value.

· Large NSF Projects: 6 projects/yr, 6 trigger flow control, $259K

· NSF Crew Projects: 40 projects/yr, 10 trigger flow control, $336K

· Sidewalk Projects: 17 projects/yr, 9 trigger flow control, $441K

Note 2. (DPD):

1. Drainage Review ($62,000)

The proposed Stormwater Code requires that drainage plans be reviewed in greater detail for conformance with additional stormwater controls. It is anticipated that review of “small” projects (defined as having less than 5,000 SF of new plus replaced impervious surface) will increase from 0.5hr/project at $155/hr to approximately 1.5hr/project at $155/hr. It is anticipated that the review time associated with “large” projects (defined as having 5,000 SF or more new plus replaced impervious surface) will not change.

The threshold of “small” and “large” projects is contained within the existing Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code. The percentage distribution of projects in either criteria will not change based upon the proposed legislation.

Estimating the number of development projects requiring drainage review is problematic owing to variations in the market and regional economy. Analysis of permitted projects between 1996 and 2000 showed that on average each year there were approximately 150 projects having under 2,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface, 330 projects with between 2,000 and 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface, and 115 project with over 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface. Generally, it has been estimated that these rates of development have held steady through 2007, but began to decline in late 2008 and continued to decline in early 2009, with an estimated drop in permit applications that ranges between 10% and 30%.

For illustration purposes, the potential increase cost for drainage review provided below is based on 400 small projects per year and an additional $155 (i.e., one additional hour) per project for plan review.

2. Site Inspection ($140,000)

The proposed Stormwater Code increases the number of inspections required for projects installing green stormwater infrastructure systems. It is anticipated that projects installing these systems will require an average of three additional inspections of approximately 0.75 hours/each, or 2.25 hours of inspections charged at $155/hour amounting to an increase in revenue of $348.75 per project. It remains problematic to estimate the number of projects implementing green stormwater infrastructure to the degree that will require the additional inspection time. Analysis of permitted projects between 1996 and 2000 showed that on average each year there were approximately 600 projects. As noted above, it has been generally estimated that these rates of development have held steady through 2007, but began to decline in late 2008 and continued to decline in early 2009, with an estimated drop in permit applications that ranges between 10% and 30%.

For illustration purposes, the potential increase cost for site provided below is based on 400 projects per year and an additional $350 (rounded value) for three additional inspections.

Note 3. (SDOT):

Non-capital costs implications for SDOT include increases in funding required to conduct training and increases in O&M requirements for permeable sidewalks.

1. Training ($56,000 one time in 2009)

SDOT has several categories of personnel that need to have a working knowledge of the new code and rules, including Designers, Plan Reviewers, Inspectors, Project Managers and Operations and Maintenance Staff. Below is a summary of the estimated cost to train these individuals to an adequate level prior to adoption of the code:

a. SDOT Plan Reviewers – $1K/person – 12 people - $12,000

b. SDOT Inspectors - $1K/person – 24 people - $24,000

c. SDOT Design staff, Construction Management staff, Street Maintenance staff, Project managers, Traffic Management staff, – $1K/person - 20 people - $20,000

The Operations and Maintenance staff are not represented in these numbers. There is inadequate information at this time to estimate the number of staff that will be involved in constructing green infrastructure, training needs for this work or the number of projects that can be built in house.

2. Implementation: ($8,000 one time in 2009)

Cost to modify permits to included conditions and language to comply with the new storm water code $8K for computer program upgrades.

3. O&M Cost Increases to Maintain Sidewalks ($24,030 for biennium)

SDOT is assuming that SPU will be responsible for the maintenance of all green stormwater infrastructure placed in the right-of-way, not including permeable pavement in the ROW.

SDOT will be responsible for inspection and maintenance of the permeable pavement and the under-drain system associated with it. Additionally, SDOT will be responsible for maintaining the pavement structure and repair of the permeable pavement. Maintenance of the pavement structure will incur additional costs for SDOT, which cannot be fully calculated due to lack of historical cost data. To date, there has been limited discussion of permeable roadways; therefore, the assumption used is that only permeable sidewalks (and not permeable roadways) will be built by the City. Should this assumption prove incorrect, costs will be reevaluated.

Initial costs for an SDOT crew to vacuum-sweep and maintain a clear permeable walkway free of run-on debris, including the running traffic setup required for this type of work is based on estimates from other City’s at $267/block. The cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: (1) 13 blocks of sidewalk were built by the Bridging the Gap Program in 2007; (2) in the future, 25% of each year’s projects will be permeable pavement; (3) all permeable pavement should be vacuum-cleaned three times a year for the first three years until a maintenance/monitoring program is properly established. There will be an initial cost of $10,413 per year, which will increase by $3,204 each year that permeable pavement programs are installed.

Note 4. (PARKS)

Non-capital costs implications for Parks include increased focus to conduct training and address O&M requirements for drainage control structures constructed on park land.

Training ($24,000 one time in 2009)

Parks has five categories of personnel that need to have training including Planners, Engineers, Designers, Inspectors and Project Managers. Below is a summary of time estimated to train these individuals to an adequate level prior with the adoption of the code:

a. Parks Planners - $1K/person – 5 people - $5,000

b. Parks Engineers - $1K/person – 1 people – $1,000

c. Parks Designers - $1K/person – 6 people - $6,000

d. Parks Inspectors - $1K/person – 3 people - $3,000

e. Parks Project Managers - $1K/person – 9 people - $9,000

The remainder of Parks staff can be briefed on changes in the code during regular staff meetings. Parks plans to partner with other departments to conduct trainings where possible.

Parks Operations and Maintenance:

New maintenance work will be required as a result of increased use of green infrastructure; permeable paving (cleaning), infiltration structures (planted areas to be established and maintained), cisterns and other non-traditional structures (cleaning), all of which will used more frequently to meet the new performance standard for flow control to flow-critical receiving waters. Also additional flow control and treatment structures will be required to be installed due to lowering of thresholds. If large projects are not able to use green infrastructure to meet the code, it’s possible that Stormfilter catch basins would be installed where they currently do not exist. Parks will reallocate existing staff to conduct this work.

Note 5. (FFD): No costs to implement this legislation have been identified.

Note 6. (SCL): No costs to implement this legislation have been identified.

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Resulting From This Legislation: This table should reflect revenues/reimbursements that are a direct result of this legislation. In the event that the issues/projects associated with this ordinance/resolution have revenues or reimbursements that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Revenue Source	2009 Revenue	2010 Revenue
N/A	SPU	Enforcement Action	(See Note 1)	(See Note 1)
N/A	DPD	Permit Fee-based	(See Note 2)	(See Note 2)
TOTAL			$0	Variable

Notes:

Note 1. (SPU)

Penalties collected as a result of enforcement actions will generate some General Fund revenue. Per Chapter 22.808 of the proposed Stormwater Code, penalty actions could range from $250 to $5,000 per violation, depending of the points accumulated through the penalty matrix. It is unknown at this time how many violations will generate penalties, as penalties have not been previously collected under the Stormwater Code.

Note 2. (DPD)

The Stormwater Code is the regulatory document that enables DPD to review construction permit applications for drainage engineering and water quality. As such, permit fees are charged for services performed in the permitting review and inspection process. DPD positions necessary for implementation, increases in plan review efforts, and increases in site inspection efforts to comply with the Stormwater Code change, are all permit fee-supported. The legislation increases time required for both drainage review and site inspections. See the discussion under Note 2 (DPD) in the previous section for additional information regarding estimated costs associated with drainage review and site inspections.

Total Regular Positions Created, Modified, Or Abrogated Through This Legislation, Including FTE Impact: This table should only reflect the actual number of positions affected by this legislation. In the event that positions have been, or will be, created as a result of other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

Position Title and Department

Position # for Existing Positions

Fund Name & #

PT/FT

2009

Positions

2009

FTE

2010

Positions*

2010 FTE*

TOTAL

* 2010 positions and FTE are total 2010 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes. Therefore, under 2010, please be sure to include any continuing positions from 2009.

Notes:

General. This legislation does not create, modify, or eliminate regular positions. However, several departments may require additional staffing to implement the revised Stormwater Code. Any such staffing request would be considered in the context of the 2010 Proposed Budget and may involve re-assignment of existing staff or adds.

Note 1. (SPU)

1. Increase in Plan Review Time for Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Plan reviewers at SPU are responsible for reviewing all drainage structures to be installed in the right-of-way associated with improvements by both private developers and public entities (primarily SDOT). The new code has changed two important thresholds that trigger installation of water quality and flow control devices in the right of way, which is anticipated to result in more water quality treatment devices being installed. In addition, the new standards require that all sidewalk and trail projects install green stormwater infrastructure for flow control where triggers are met; the new Code will not require installation of a traditional vaults under any circumstance. This will result in a decrease in the number of underground stormwater storage facilities, and an increase in the number of above-ground green stormwater infrastructure BMPS installed. Green stormwater infrastructure is relatively new to the City and review of these designs is assumed, at least initially, to take as much as twice the time that traditional BMPs take. As such, SPU is anticipating the need for a short term increase of 1 FTE for a period of two years following code adoption for a SPU plan reviewer position (1 Associate Civil Engineer).

2. Increase in O&M Staff Levels
See also cost estimates for maintenance provided in the earlier section of this Fiscal Note under “Appropriations” includes all life-cycle O&M costs, including labor.

3. No Cost Change for Source Control Monitoring
In terms of the Source Control Monitoring Group at SPU, the fiscal impact will be virtually neutral. It is anticipated that there will be less Inspector time spent performing multiple re-inspections to bring businesses into compliance (cases will progress to enforcement, rather than have multiple re-inspections), yet there will be more Management and Law time spent reviewing cases that will be appealed to the internal Review Board.

Note 2. (DPD)

DPD anticipates that several full time positions will need to be assigned to stormwater code issues. These include site inspectors, drainage reviewers, and positions for Stormwater Code implementation. Detailed discussion of this follows below.

1. Site Inspectors:

It is estimated that up to three site inspectors will be needed because of the anticipated increase in the number of inspections required for projects installing green stormwater infrastructure. These positions will be funded through permit fees collected by DPD.

2. Drainage Reviewers:

It is estimated that up to two site inspectors will be needed because the proposed legislation requires drainage plans be reviewed in greater detail for conformance with additional stormwater controls. See discussion Notes for DPD above.

Note 3. (PARKS): No staffing needs related to this legislation have been identified. Costs for additional or new project review by Parks designers and inspectors has been included in the anticipated additional cost to new CIP projects (5% - 15%). Maintenance and operations will not add staff, but instead will re-allocate the existing work force and equipment to better meet the code.

· Do positions sunset in the future? (If yes, identify sunset date):

Spending/Cash Flow: This table should be completed only in those cases where part or all of the funds authorized by this legislation will be spent in a different year than when they were appropriated (e.g., as in the case of certain grants and capital projects). Details surrounding spending that will occur in future years should be provided in the Notes section below the table.

Fund Name & #

Department

Budget Control Level*

2009

Expenditures

2010 Anticipated Expenditures

None

TOTAL

None

* See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.

Notes:

· What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? (Estimate the costs to the City of not implementing the legislation, including estimated costs to maintain or expand an existing facility or the cost avoidance due to replacement of an existing facility, potential conflicts with regulatory requirements, or other potential costs if the legislation is not implemented.)

The possible cost implications if this legislation is not implemented include the following:

Non-compliance with federal law. If this legislation is not adopted, the City will not be in compliance with its NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit, which would be a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Penalties for violating the Clean Water Act are contained in 40 CFR 122.41. Any person who negligently violates the Clean Water Act is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. These penalties increase with second and subsequent violations of the Clean Water Act. A person who knowingly violates the Clean Water Act is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than three years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent knowing violation, the person is subject to criminal penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than six years, or both. Additionally, violating the City’s Permit also presents a risk of a third-party lawsuit, the cost implications of which depend on the specifics of the litigation and resulting judgment or settlement.

· Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? • If so, please list the affected department(s), the nature of the impact (financial, operational, etc)., and indicate which staff members in the other department(s) are aware of this Bill.

Yes. This legislation applies city-wide and revises minimum requirements related to source control, construction site stormwater pollution prevention, and development projects. The affect of this legislation on other departments will vary to the degree that each department engages in ongoing activities to which source control measures apply, or to the degree that each department is involved in capital projects. In developing this legislation, Seattle Public Utilities has been working in close collaboration with the five departments most likely to be affected: Department of Planning and Development; Seattle Department of Transportation; Seattle City Light; Fleets and Facilities Department, and Seattle Parks and Recreation. Each of the five departments has provided input to this Fiscal Note and reviewed its contents.

· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, such as reducing fee-supported activities, identifying outside funding sources for fee-supported activities, etc.)

There are no other possible alternatives to the legislation that will achieve the same or similar objectives.

· Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements: (If yes, what public hearings have been held to date, and/or what plans are in place to hold a public hearing(s) in the future.)

Yes, this legislation is subject to a public hearing requirement. The intent is for formal hearings to be conducted in conjunction with the legislative process when the matter comes before the Environment, Emergency Management, and Utilities subcommittee.

As part of the project to prepare this legislation, there have been an ongoing series of public meetings and presentations made to specific stakeholders. A summary listing is provided in the table below.

Public Presentations on Proposed Legislation

Date	Group
March 26, 2009	Seattle Community Council Federation
March 19, 2009	General Public Meeting – Stormwater Code Revision Project
March 17, 2009	Issues Committee of Seattle Great City Initiative
February 25, 2009	Associated General Contractors (AGC)
February 24, 2009	Seattle City Council Briefing: Environment, Emergency, Emergency Management & Utilities Committee
February 11, 2009	SPU Citizens Advisory Committee
February 11, 2009	Master Builders Association (MBA)
February 3, 2009	General Public Meeting - Stormwater Code Revision Project
January 28, 2009	Thornton Creek Watershed Oversight Council
August 14, 2008	Side Sewer Contractors
April 9, 2008	King County
March 12, 2008	Master Builders Association (MBA)
January 9, 2008	General Public Meeting - Stormwater Code Revision Project
December 12, 2007	General Public Meeting - Stormwater Code Revision Project
October 1, 2007	Creek Watershed Councils (Thornton, Longfellow, Pipers, Fauntleroy)
September 28, 2007	Puget Soundkeeper Alliance
April 17, 2007	General Public Meeting - Stormwater Code Revision Project
February 15, 2007	American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Water Resources Subcommittee
February 14, 2007	BINMIC Action Committee (Ballard Interbay North end Manufacturing & Industrial Center)
February 7, 2007	American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
January 16, 2007	Associated General Contractors (AGC)
January 10, 2007	Master Builders Association (MBA)
September 27, 2006	Restore Our Waters (ROW) – External Stakeholders

· Other Issues (including long-term implications of the legislation): See Attachments

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:

Attachment 1: Summary of Major Changes to Seattle’s 2000 Stormwater Code

Attachment 2: Discussion of Potential Impacts to Public and Private Capital Projects

Attachment 3: Discussion of Potential Impacts to City Capital Projects

Also see See Directors’ Report and Recommendation Revisions to Stormwater Code (SMC 22.200-22.808) and Proposed new Grading Code (SMC 22.170) in Clerk File 310134.

Attachment 1 to Fiscal Note for SMC 22.800-22.808

Summary of Major Changes to Seattle’s 2000 Stormwater Code

Chapter 22.800 - Title, Scope and Authority

1. New title name (22.800.010): The subtitle will be known as the “Stormwater Code.”

Remarks: It has been common practice to call this ordinance the “Stormwater Code” and the proposed new title name reflects this. Formerly, the official name was the “Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage Control Code.”

2. Additional purpose statements (22.800.020): Two purpose statements have been added:

To protect the functions and values of environmentally critical areas as required under the state’s Growth Management Act;

To protect the public drainage system from loss, injury and damage by pollution, erosion, flooding, landslides, strong ground motion, soil liquefaction, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence, and other potential hazards, whether from natural causes or from human activity;

Remarks: The first statement acknowledges that the Stormwater Code has a role supporting the State’s Growth Management Act and Seattle’s Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance (SMC 25.09). The second statement explicitly notes that the Stormwater Code serves to protect the public drainage infrastructure from harm.

3. Relocated exemptions and exceptions (22.800.040): The exemptions and exceptions verbiage that was located at various subsections in the 2000 Stormwater Code is now contained in a single section.

Remarks: Compiling these features into a single section, which appears early in the document, is intended to enhance clarity and increase usability of the Stormwater Code.

4. Revised exemptions for utility projects (22.800.040.A.2): Exemptions regarding maintenance, repair, or installation of underground utility facilities have been revised so that publicly bid capital improvement projects in the public right-of-way funded by Seattle Public Utilities are no longer exempt from minimum requirements for flow control and treatment.

Remarks: This change is reflective of a policy decision by the leadership of SPU and is expected to result in increased levels of treatment and flow control for stormwater, albeit at an added costs for affected capital projects.

5. Revised exemptions for WSDOT projects (22.800.040.A.6): The exemption for development undertaken by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in state highway rights-of-way has been rewritten.

Remarks: The rewritten exemption for state highway right-of-way projects under WSDOT control is intended to align with the provisions of Chapter 47.01.260 RCW, WAC 173-270-030, WSDOT’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit, and WSDOT’s Stormwater Management Manual.

6. New requirements for adjustments (22.800.040.C): The subsection regarding Adjustments is new.

Remarks: The final wording is based on Appendix 1 of Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. Ecology has reviewed and approved the proposed language.

7. Revised requirements for exceptions (22.800.040.C): The subsection regarding exceptions has been significantly modified, with revised criteria and clarified application requirements.

Remarks: The final wording is based on Appendix 1 of Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. Ecology has reviewed and approved the proposed language.

8. Revised authority to delegate (22.800.080.B): The Director of SPU has been granted authority in to delegate certain responsibilities to the Director of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) for projects conducted in the public right-of-way.

Remarks: This authority clarifies an existing arrangement with the Director of SDOT, who currently reviews of street improvement plans, issues Street Use Permits, and conducts inspections for projects in the public right-of-way.

9. Clarified authority to approve alternative compliance: The Director of SPU has been granted authority to approve three means of alternative compliance with the prescriptive provisions of the Stormwater Code.

22.800.080.E. The Director of SPU is authorized, to the extent allowed by law, to develop, review, or approve an Integrated Drainage Plan as an equivalent means of complying with the requirements of this subtitle, in which the developer of a project voluntarily enters into an agreement with the Director of SPU to implement an Integrated Drainage Plan that is specific to one or more sites where best management practices are employed such that the cumulative effect on the discharge from the site(s) to the same receiving water is the same or better than that which would be achieved by a less integrated, site-by-site implementation of best management practices.

22.800.080.F. The Director of SPU is authorized, to the extent allowed by law, to enter into an agreement with the developer of a project for the developer to voluntarily contribute funds toward the construction of one or more drainage control facilities that mitigate the impacts to the same receiving water that have been identified as a consequence of the proposed development.

22.800.080.G. The Director of SPU is authorized, to the extent allowed by law, to enter into an agreement with the developer of a project for the developer to voluntarily construct one or more drainage control facilities at an alternative location, determined by the Director, to mitigate the impacts to the same receiving water that have been identified as a consequence of the proposed development.

Remarks: These authorities clarify and confirm existing authority contained in the 2000 Stormwater Code and the associated Directors’ Rules.

10. Revised authority to require additional measures (22.800.080.H): The Director of SPU has been granted authority to require a responsible party to undertake more stringent or additional best management practices under certain conditions.

Remarks: This authority is broadly based on the authority granted in the 2000 Stormwater Code (see 22.802.013.C), but it has been revised and strengthened based, in part, on the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit.

11. Added requirements for extending the public drainage system (22.800.080.I): Verbiage has been incorporated into the 2009 Stormwater Code clarifying the requirements and responsibilities for extending the public drainage system.

Unless an adjustment per subsection 22.800.040 B or an exception per subsection 22.800.040 C is approved by the Director, an owner or occupant who is required, or who wishes, to connect to a public drainage system shall be required to extend the public drainage system if a public drainage system is not accessible within an abutting public area across the full frontage of the property.

Remarks: This provision is intended to clarify the requirements and responsibilities for projects that may be required to extend the public drainage system. If the criteria are met, the burden is on the owner/occupant to either extend the system or request an adjustment or exception.

Chapter 22.801 - Definitions

12. Added and revised terms: Approximately 41 new terms are defined and the definitions for 21 other terms have been significantly revised in the 2009 Stormwater Code. Definitions for terms no longer used in the code have been deleted. Terms used in the 2009 Stormwater Code that are defined in another chapter of the Seattle Municipal Code are now referenced. Table 1 lists the terms have been significantly modified (indicated by italicized text) and added (indicated as underlined text).

Remarks: These changes are necessary to clarify certain code provisions, to implement revised minimum requirements, and to meet the provisions of the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit.

Table 1: Key New or Significantly Revised Definitions

Best management practice (BMP)

Capacity-constrained system

Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL)

Construction Stormwater Control Plan

Creek

Designated receiving water

Director of DPD

Director of SDOT

DPD

Drainage control

Drainage control facility

Drainage water

Effective impervious surface

Enhanced treatment facility

Erosion

Exception

Flow control

Flow control facility

Flow-critical receiving water

Flow duration

Grading

Green stormwater infrastructure

High-use sites

Impervious surface

Infiltration

Integrated Drainage Plan

Interflow

Joint project

Land disturbing activity

Maximum extent feasible

Nutrient-critical receiving water

Oil control treatment facility

Parcel-based project

Pervious surface

Phosphorus treatment facility

Plan

Pollution-generating activity

Pollution-generating impervious surface

Pollution-generating pervious surface

Pre-developed condition

Public sanitary sewer

Receiving water

Repeat violation

Roadway project

Runoff

Sanitary sewer

SDOT

Sidewalk project

Single-family residential project

Site

SMC

Source controls

Storm drain

Stormwater

Stream

Trail

Trail project

Treatment facility

Uncontaminated

Water Quality Standard

Watershed

Wetland function

Wetland value

Note: New definitions are underlined. Revised definitions are in italics.

Chapter 22.802 – Prohibited and Permissible Discharges

13. New Chapter on Prohibited and Permissible Discharges: This chapter has been renamed from its original title “Stormwater, Drainage, and Erosion Control” and its contents revised. It retains the prohibited and permissible discharge sections of the original chapter, but the section containing requirements for all discharges has been relocated to new Chapter 22.803 (Minimum Requirements for All Discharges and All Real Property). The sections containing requirements for land disturbing activities and addition/replacement of impervious surface have been relocated to new Chapter 22.805 (Minimum Requirements for All Projects).

Remarks: Prohibited and permissible discharges represent a key set of provisions in Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. Placing these requirements into a single, specifically titled chapter is intended to enhance clarity and increase usability of the Stormwater Code.

14. New general provisions (22.802.010): Two new paragraphs have been added as general provisions in this chapter. These same two general requirements also appear at the beginning of Chapter 22.803 (Minimum Requirements for All Discharges and All Real Property), Chapter 22.805 (Minimum Requirements for All Projects), and Chapter 22.807 (Drainage Control Review and Application Requirements):

No discharge from a site, real property, or drainage facility, directly or indirectly to a public drainage system, private drainage system, or a receiving water within or contiguous to Seattle city limits, may cause or contribute to a prohibited discharge or a known or likely violation of water quality standards in the receiving water or a known or likely violation of the City's municipal stormwater NPDES permit.

Every permit issued to implement this subtitle shall contain a performance standard requiring that no discharge from a site, real property, or drainage facility, directly or indirectly to a public drainage system, private drainage system, or a receiving water within or contiguous to Seattle city limits, cause or contribute to a prohibited discharge or a known or likely violation of water quality standards in the receiving water or a known or likely violation of the City's municipal stormwater NPDES permit.

Remarks: These two paragraphs support the Seattle’s compliance with its Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit.

15. Changes to permissible discharges (22.802.030): The list of permissible discharges has been significantly modified and conditioned. See Table 2 below for details of the changes.

Remarks: The changes are primarily based on the provisions of the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit.

Table 2: Substantive Changes to Permissible Discharges

1. Discharges from potable water sources, including flushing of potable water lines, hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water. Planned discharges shall be de-chlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments in the drainage system;

2. Discharges from washing or rinsing of potable water storage reservoirs, dechlorinated as above;

3. Discharges from ~~natural uncontaminated~~ surface waters, including diverted stream flows;

4. Discharges of ~~natural~~ uncontaminated groundwater, including uncontaminated groundwater infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(2)), uncontaminated pumped groundwater, and rising ground waters;

5. Discharges of air conditioning condensation;

6. Discharges from ~~natural~~ springs;

7. Discharges of uncontaminated water from crawl space pumps;

8. Discharges ~~runoff~~ from lawn watering;

9. Discharges from irrigation runoff, including irrigation water from agricultural sources that is commingled with stormwater;

10. Discharges ~~flows~~ from riparian habitats and wetlands;

11. Discharges from approved footing drains and other subsurface drains or, where approval is not required, installed in compliance with this subtitle and rules promulgated pursuant to this subtitle;

12. Discharges from foundation drains;

13. Discharges from swimming pools, hot tubs, fountains, or similar aquatic recreation facilities and constructed water features, provided the discharges have been de-chlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted and reoxygenated if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments in the drainage controls system;

14. Discharges of street and sidewalk wash-water that does not use detergents or chemical additives;

15. Discharges of water used to control dust;

16. Discharges of water from routine external building washdown that does not use detergents or chemical additives;

17. Discharges that are in compliance with a separate individual or general NPDES permit; ~~discharges in accordance with an NPDES permit;~~

18. Discharges that are from emergency fire fighting activities; and

19. Other non-stormwater discharges, provided these discharges are in compliance with the requirements of an approved stormwater pollution prevention plan that addresses such discharges.

~~Runoff from residential car washing by individuals~~

~~heat~~

Note:

Underlined text indicates additions and strikethrough text indicate deletions of text based on the 2000 Stormwater Code.

Chapter 22.803 – Minimum Requirements for All Discharges and All Real Property

16. New chapter with minimum requirements: This new chapter contains provisions carried over Section 22.802.013 (Requirements for All Discharges and All Land Uses) from the 2000 Stormwater Code, as well as a number of additions based on the requirements of the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit and the needs of Seattle’s stormwater program.

The new general provisions contained in Section 22.803.010 are the same as in Section 22.802.010 (see discussion above under Chapter 22.802). Chapter 22.803 then divides minimum requirements into three sections:

Minimum Requirements for All Discharges and Real Property (Section 22.803.020) specifies five requirements, all of which are carried over (with minor revisions) from the 2000 Stormwater Code, but are now more specifically applied to all discharges and all real property.

Minimum Requirements for Source Controls for All Real Property (Section 22.803.030) contains six minimum requirements: (1) Eliminate Illicit Connections to Storm Drains; (2) Perform Routine Maintenance for Stormwater Drainage System); (3) Dispose of Fluids and Wastes Properly; (4) Proper Storage of Solid Wastes; (5) Spill Prevention and Clean up; and (6) Provide Oversight and Training for Staff.

Minimum Requirements for Source Controls for All Businesses and Public Entities (Section 22.803.040) contains minimum requirements that include developing and implementing plans and procedures for spill prevention.

Remarks: The focus of this chapter is on minimum requirements specific to source controls and its contents directly align with the proposed 2009 SPU/DPD Directors’ Rule titled, “Source Control Technical Requirements Manual.”

Chapter 22.804 – Grading

17. Removal of grading from Stormwater Code: This entire chapter has been deleted and a new Grading Code has been created in another section of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 22.170).

Remarks: Relocating grading requirements into a new chapter was done to accommodate its implementation by the City’s Department of Planning and Development, which has the lead role in managing this portion of the municipal code.

Chapter 22.805 – Minimum Requirements for All Projects

18. New chapter with minimum requirements: Chapter 22.805 is an entirely new chapter. Its provisions include revisions to the requirements in the 2000 Stormwater Code contained in Section 22.802.013 (Requirements for All Discharges and All Land Uses), Section 22.802.015 (Drainage, Erosion Control, and Source Control Requirements for All Land Disturbing Activities or Addition or Replacement of Impervious Surface), and Section 22.802.016 (Additional Requirements for Large Projects).

Remarks: Compiling minimum requirements for all projects into a single, specifically titled chapter is intended to enhance clarity and increase usability of the Stormwater Code.

19. Significant revisions to minimum requirements for all projects (Section 22.805.020): A listing of the minimum requirements for all projects is provided below in Table 3. Among the more significant revisions contained in this section of the 2009 Stormwater Code:

Minimum Requirements for Construction Site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Control (Section 22.805.020.D) contains 18 elements, some of which are carried over from the existing Code, but the majority of which are new or represent significant revisions of earlier requirements. The new and revised requirements are based primarily on the City’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit.

Minimum Requirement to Amend Soils (Section 22.805.020.E) requires all new, replaced, and disturbed soils to be amended with organic matter prior to completion of the project.

Implement Green Stormwater Infrastructure (Section 22.805.020.F) requires all single-family residential projects and all other projects with 2,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced impervious surface or 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity to implement green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible.

Ensure Sufficient Capacity (Section 22.805.020.I) contains more specific requirements regarding capacity, including a provision that requires groundwater flows to be considered when evaluating whether sufficient capacity exists.

Remarks: The majority of the new and modified requirements are based on compliance with the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. Erosion and sediment control requirements for construction are strengthened per the permit. Minimum requirements to amend soils and implement green stormwater infrastructure, for example, represent the City’s compliance with the Minimum Requirement #5 (On-site Stormwater Management) contained in Appendix 1 of the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. The requirements associated with ensuring sufficient capacity are based on the City’s requirements to protect the public drainage system and reduce risks of flooding, among others.

Table 3: List of Minimum Requirements for All Projects (SMC 22.805.020)

A. Minimum Requirements for Maintaining Natural Drainage Patterns

B. Minimum Requirements for Discharge Point

C. Minimum Requirements for Flood-prone Areas

D. Minimum Requirements for Construction Site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Control

1 Mark Clearing Limits and Sensitive Areas

2 Retain Native Top Layer

3 Establish Construction Access

4 Protect Downstream Properties and Waterway

5 Prevent Erosion and Sediment Transport from the Site by Runoff

6 Prevent Erosion and Sediment Transport from the Site by Vehicles

7 Stabilize Soils

8 Protect Slopes

9 Protect Storm Drains

10 Stabilize Channels and Outlets

11 Control Pollutants

D. Minimum Requirements for Construction Site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Control (continued)

12 Control Dewatering

13 Maintain BMPs

14 Inspect BMPs

15 Execute Construction Site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

16 Minimize Open Trenches

17 Phase the Project

18 Install Permanent Flow Control and Water Quality Facilities

E. Minimum Requirement to Amend Soils

F. Implement Green Stormwater Infrastructure

G. Protect Wetlands

H. Protect Streams and Creeks

I. Ensure Sufficient Capacity

J. Install Structural Source Control BMPs

K. Do not obstruct watercourses

L. Comply with Side Sewer Code

20. Significant revisions to minimum requirements for flow control and treatment: Minimum requirements containing thresholds and performance standards for flow control and water quality treatment have been completely revised for projects involving new or replaced impervious surface, land disturbing activities, and land conversions. The more significant revisions, which are contained in Sections 22.805.030 through 22.805.090 of the 2009 Stormwater Code, are summarized below:

21. Minimum requirements based on project type. There are five specific project types, each with specific thresholds triggering minimum requirements:

Single-family residential projects. These projects are required to implement green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible.

Trail and sidewalk projects. These projects are required to implement green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible if they have 2,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced impervious surface or 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity.

Parcel-based projects. Defined as any project that does not meet the definition of single-family residential project, trail/sidewalk project, or roadway project, these projects are required to meet minimum requirements for flow control and/or treatment if they exceed one or more of the specified thresholds. The thresholds depend on the project’s drainage basin (i.e., wetland, listed creek basin, non-listed creek basin, etc.).

Roadway project. Defined as projects located within the public right-of-way, these projects are required to meet minimum requirements for flow control and/or treatment if they exceed one or more of the specified thresholds. The thresholds depend on the project’s drainage basin (i.e., wetland, listed creek basin, non-listed creek basin, etc.).

Joint parcel-based and roadway projects. The parcel-based portion of a joint project complies with the minimum requirements for parcel-based projects; the roadway portion of a joint project complies with the minimum requirements for roadway projects.

22. Minimum requirements based on drainage basin. Minimum requirements for both treatment and flow control vary depending on where a project discharges. There are five types of discharges:

Discharges to wetlands;

Discharges to listed creek basins;

Discharges to non-listed creek basins;

Discharges to small lake basins; and

Discharges to the public combined sewer.

23. Four performance standards in minimum requirements for flow control (Section 22.805.080). There are four different performance standards contained in the minimum requirements for Flow Control:

Wetlands protection standard;

Pre-developed forested standard;

Pre-developed pasture standard; and

Peak flow control standards.

24. Four treatment requirements in minimum requirements for treatment (Section 22.805.090). There are four different types of stormwater treatment requirements contained in the minimum requirements for treatment:

Basic treatment;

Oil control treatment;

Phosphorus treatment; and

Enhanced treatment.

25. Green stormwater infrastructure required. All projects that trigger minimum requirements for flow control or treatment must use green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible to meet the minimum requirement.

26. Continuous modeling required. Determining post-development peak flow rates and flow durations will require use of continuous modeling. (The 2000 Stormwater Code allowed flow rate calculations to be performed using single-event modeling.)

27. New flow control standards for discharges to creeks. Among the changes in performance standards in the 2009 Stormwater Code:

Projects discharging into creek basins that meet the threshold for flow control must have post-development peak flow rates and flow durations that match either a pre-developed forested condition or pre-developed pasture condition, depending on the creek. (The performance standard in the 2000 Stormwater Code is based only on not exceeding a specified maximum peak flow rate only.)

28. New thresholds triggering flow control and treatment. Among the changes in thresholds in the 2009 Stormwater Code:

Parcel-based projects and roadway projects discharging into the public combined sewer must meet minimum requirements for flow control if the total new plus replaced impervious surface is 10,000 square feet or more. (The threshold in the 2000 Stormwater Code is 2,000 square feet).

Parcel-based projects and roadway projects discharging into wetlands, creek basins, or small lake basins must meet minimum requirements for treatment if the total new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more. (The threshold in the 2000 Stormwater Code is 5,000 square feet or more of new pollution-generating impervious surface or 1 acre or more of new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface.)

Remarks: Overall, the new definitions, thresholds, and performance standards that establish the Seattle’s new minimum requirements for flow control and treatment are based on many factors, including:

The needs of the city’s receiving waters;

Seattle’s unique, highly urbanized conditions;

Requirements of the Seattle’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit;

Review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology; and

Feedback from internal and external stakeholders, including City agencies, environmental advocacy groups, business interests, other public agencies, and more.

Chapter 22.807 – Drainage Control Review and Application Requirements

29. New chapter with minimum requirements: This is an entirely new chapter, the bulk of which is based on subsection 22.802.020 of the same name in the 2000 Stormwater Code. There are two substantive changes:

There are two additional thresholds for large project drainage review, both of which are based on conversion of native vegetation; and

Many of the provision in subsection 22.802.020 of the 2000 Stormwater Code have been relocated based on the revised organization of 2009 Stormwater Code.

Remarks: Placing requirements for drainage control review into a single, specifically titled chapter will aid clarity and ease of use of the Stormwater Code.

Chapter 22.808 – Stormwater Code Enforcement

30. Significant changes to enforcement: There have been significant changes to this chapter, which now focuses entirely on matters related to enforcement. The more significant revisions are summarized below:

31. Exceptions relocated. Provisions related to exceptions that had been in Chapter 22.808 have been relocated (and revised) to subsection 22.800.040 (Exemptions, Adjustments, and Exceptions) of the 2009 Stormwater Code.

32. Immediate enforcement allowed. Enforcement actions can be taken immediately where there is reason to believe there may be a failure to comply (existing code requires issuance of a Notice of Violation before enforcement actions can be taken).

33. Enforcement action must be appealed to Director. A Notice of Violation, Director’s order, or invoice shall be final and not subject to further appeal unless the aggrieved party requests a review by the Director within 10 days after service.

34. Director’s decision may be appealed to Municipal Court. The Director’s review decision shall become final and not subject to further appeal unless the aggrieved party appeals the decision to the Municipal Court within 10 days after the decision.

35. Maximum penalty increased. The schedule of penalties shall be based on an assessment matrix, with the maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation. The assessment matrix will use the following criteria:

Does the violation pose a public health risk;

Does the violation cause environmental damage or adversely impact infrastructure;

Was the responsible party willful or knowing of the violation;

Was the responsible party unresponsive in correcting the violation;

Was there improper operation or maintenance;

Was there a failure to obtain necessary permits or approval;

Does the violation provide economic benefit for non-compliance; and,

Was the violation a repeat violation.

Remarks: Overall, changes in Stormwater Code enforcement are based on feedback from SPU and DPD inspectors and are designed to make enforcement less problematic and more consistent to implement. The penalty assessment matrix is broadly based on the enforcement matrix used by Ecology.

Attachment 2 to Fiscal Note for SMC 22.800-22.808

Discussion of Potential Impacts to Public and Private Capital Projects

Overview.
The new Stormwater Code will potentially impact capital projects, independent of whether the project is being conducted by a City agency or other public or private interest, primarily because of changes to minimum requirements for flow control and treatment. The nature and degree of these potential impacts depend on the following factors:

The size of the project. The thresholds for projects to trigger a requirement to install a flow control or stormwater treatment facility are based on the total amount of new plus replaced impervious surface (for flow control) and new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface (for treatment).

The type of project. The thresholds and performance standards vary by the type of project, which are listed as: Single-family residential project, Parcel-based project, Roadway project, Joint project, and Trail/Sidewalk project.

The location of the project. The requirements to install a flow control and/or a treatment facility depends on the drainage basin into which the project is discharging. See the table below for a summary.

Receiving water/system	Flow Control?	Treatment?
(6) Wetland	√	√
(7) Creek Basin	√	√
(8) Public combined sewer	√
(9) Small Lake Basin	√	√
(10) Designated receiving water		√

In general terms, the potential impacts of the proposed revisions to the Stormwater Code are discussed in this attachment for changes to the following provisions in the Code:

1. Minimum Requirements for Single-family Residential Projects.

2. Minimum Requirements for Sidewalk- and Trail-only Projects.

3. Treatment Threshold in Flow-critical and Designated Receiving Water Basins.

4. Flow Control Threshold in Combined Sewer System Basins.

5. Flow Control Threshold in Creek Basins.

Estimations of potential cost impacts for City projects, for which more details are available than for non-City projects, are provided in Attachment 3.

1. Minimum Requirements for Single-family Residential Projects. Projects will not be required to install underground flow control facility if flow control performance standards cannot be met with green stormwater infrastructure.

Discussion:
For all single-family residential projects, the proposed Stormwater Code will require implementation of green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible, regardless of size or location. It will also eliminate the existing requirement that are applied in creek and combined sewer basins (triggered at 2,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface) to install an underground flow control facility.

Overall Impact:
The requirement to implement green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible is required under the conditions of the City’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Depending on the location and size of the project and the assumptions used regarding costs for facilities, the impacts of the proposed revisions for single-family residential (SFR) projects could result in increased costs, decreased costs, or be cost-neutral. For SFR projects located in designated receiving waters basins, the requirement to implement green stormwater infrastructure may result in increased costs, depending on whether the builder would have used green stormwater infrastructure independent of a code requirement. For the larger SFR projects that would have been required to build an underground facility under the current code, costs will decrease. However, defining maximum extent feasible for SFR projects and crafting the protocols to determine the degree of green stormwater infrastructure to be implemented remains a topic with many opinions . The intent is for feasibility to incorporate considerations of costs and benefits, thereby ensuring the implementing the new Stormwater Code does not result in unduly or overly burdensome costs to SFR projects.

2. Minimum Requirements for Sidewalk- and Trail-only Projects. Sidewalk and trail projects will not be required to install underground flow control facilities if flow control performance standards cannot be met with green stormwater infrastructure.

Discussion:
For sidewalk- and trail-only projects located in creek basins or in combined sewer system basins, the proposed Stormwater Code will require implementation of green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible, but will eliminate the existing requirement to install an underground flow control facility if building green is not feasible.

Overall Impact:
The cost impacts of the proposed revisions for sidewalk- and trail-only projects are uncertain. In the past these projects either constructed small vaults or tanks in the ground, at a cost that was disproportionate to the cost of the overall project or, more often, these projects participated in an SPU-approved program in which larger flow control facilities were constructed to provide mitigation for several sidewalk projects. Although the proposed Stormwater Code provides a cost savings for trail/sidewalk projects by eliminating underground flow control facilities, the proposed code requirement to install green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extend feasible is not yet defined. Protocols to determine the degree of green stormwater infrastructure to be implemented remain a work in progress.

3. Treatment Threshold in Flow-critical and Designated Receiving Water Basins. Thresholds for installing treatment facilities for projects in basins that discharge to receiving surface waters will be lowered.

Discussion:
For projects not located in the public right-of-way, the threshold for installing treatment facilities will be lowered from one acre (43,500 square feet) to 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface. This new threshold is equivalent to Ecology’s minimum requirements and meets the conditions of the City’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. For projects in the right-of-way, the threshold will also be lowered from one acre (43,500 square feet) to 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface. This revised threshold is more stringent than the minimum requirements contained in the Permit because: (1) it was determined that Ecology’s threshold would not reduce the stormwater pollution impacts of roadway projects in Seattle; and (2) having the same threshold as non-right-of-way projects provided equitability between typically privately funded non-roadway projects and publicly funded roadway projects.

Overall Impact:
The cost for capital projects that before would not have triggered treatment requirements will increase. Based on analysis performed using SDOT roadway projects funded under the Bridging the Gap initiative, it is estimated that the revised threshold will result in total project costs increasing by approximately 5% to 10% in order to provide for additional treatment of stormwater runoff.

4. Flow Control Threshold in Combined Sewer System Basins. Thresholds for installing flow control facilities for projects in basins that discharge into combined sewer systems will be raised.

Discussion:
For projects located in combined sewer system basins, the threshold for installing flow control facilities will be raised from 2,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced impervious surface. This threshold is being raised based on an assessment that the costs to design, construct, and maintain the smaller facilities were less than commensurate with the likely benefits of flow reduction.

Overall Impact:
The cost for capital projects that would have had flow control requirements under the existing code will decrease, but the cost of implementing green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible on all projects will increase. Based on analysis performed using SDOT roadway projects it is estimated that the revised threshold will not change total project costs for flow control in combined sewer system basins

5. Flow Control Threshold in Creek Basins. Performance standards for flow control for projects discharging in creek basins will be based on a more protective requirement.

Discussion:
Current performance standards for designing flow control facilities for projects discharging into creek basins are based on reducing the peak flow rate. The revised requirements will be based on reducing both the peak flow rate and the duration at which high flows are being discharged from a site. Using a flow-duration standard is a Permit-mandated minimum requirement, but the specifics of Seattle’s proposed Stormwater Code differs from Ecology’s minimum requirements because it was determined that Ecology’s standards would not provide the desired level of benefits to the City’s creeks.

Overall Impact:
The cost for capital projects that trigger flow control in creek basins will increase, and this increase will depend on the creek basin in which the project is located. There are 16 creek basins[1], which make up by area approximately 15% of all creek basins city-wide, that must meet the pre-developed forest flow control standard. The remaining creek basins must meet a pre-developed pasture flow control standard. In comparison to the current, peak flow rate-limiting requirement, the size of flow control facilities is expected to increase by a factor of three to five times for projects required to meet a pre-developed pasture condition and up to ten times for projects required to meet a pre-developed forest condition.

Summary.
It is not possible to provide robust estimates of the cost impacts for all capital projects because of uncertainties in the rate of redevelopment, and variability in the type, location, and size of the projects citywide. Broadly speaking, the following general assessment can be made:

1. For single-family residential, sidewalk-only and trail-only projects, the costs may decrease, remain the same, or increase, depending on the feasibility of using green stormwater infrastructure and degree to which the builder originally intended to incorporate green stormwater infrastructure into the design and construction of the project independent of Stormwater Code requirements. For larger projects that otherwise would have been required to install an underground flow control facility, the costs will decrease. Because the term “maximum extent feasible” incorporates cost considerations in its execution, it is not intended for the cost impacts to these projects to be overly burdensome or restrictive.

2. For projects between 5,000 square feet and one acre of new plus replaced pollution-generating impervious surface, construction costs will increase in creek, wetlands, small lake, and designated receiving water basins because the lowered threshold will now require installation of a treatment facility. Cost estimates based on analysis of SDOT projects indicates that this increase will add approximately 5% to 10% to the cost of a project.

3. For projects between 2,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface, construction costs will remain the same in combined sewer system basins because the threshold requiring installation of a flow control facility will be raised, at the same time green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented to the maximum extent feasible.

For projects triggering requirements to install flow control, construction costs will increase in creek basins because the new performance standard will be based on a flow-duration standard.

Attachment 3 to Fiscal Note for SMC 22.800-22.808

Discussion of Potential Impacts to City Capital Projects

Overview.
The potential impacts to City capital projects of the proposed revisions to the Stormwater Code are discussed in this attachment.

6. Exception to Minimum Requirements for SPU Utility Cuts.

For projects conducted by SPU, the revised Stormwater Code removes the exception for utility cuts from requirements to install flow control or treatment facilities. For SPU projects involving sewer, drainage, and water line installation, repair or replacement in the right-of-way, additional costs will be incurred if requirements for flow control or treatment are triggered.

7. Flow Control in Creek Basins – Roadway Projects.

The revised Stormwater Code will require flow control facilities for projects located in creek basins to be substantially larger than flow control facilities designed under the current code in order to meet a more stringent discharge requirement.

8. Water Quality Treatment Requirements – Roadway Projects.

The revised Stormwater Code will lower the current threshold for projects required to construct a water quality treatment facility from one acre (43,560 square feet) to 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface. This will result in added costs to design and construct treatment facilities in the right-of-way.

9. Acquisition of Additional Right-of-way – Roadway Projects.

Because of the lowered threshold for treatment facilities, SDOT may have to purchase additional right-of-way for projects that now trigger water quality treatment requirements when the existing right-of-way does not have enough space to fit the facility.

10. Cost Impacts to SDOT Sidewalk Projects.

The revised Stormwater Code will require sidewalk projects to use green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) to the maximum extent feasible (MEF). The cost impacts of the proposed revisions for sidewalk- and trail-only projects are uncertain. In the past these projects either constructed small vaults or tanks in the ground, at a cost that was disproportionate to the cost of the overall project or, more often, these projects participated in an SPU-approved program in which larger flow control facilities were constructed to provide mitigation for several sidewalk projects. Although the proposed Stormwater Code provides a cost savings for trail/sidewalk projects by eliminating underground flow control facilities, the proposed code requirement to install green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extend feasible is not yet defined. Protocols to determine the degree of green stormwater infrastructure to be implemented remain a work in progress.

Under the existing code, these projects rely primarily on an option that allowed flow control deficits to be tracked and later addressed by over-sizing flow control facilities on larger projects in the same drainage basin (see also discussion under “Minimum Requirements for Sidewalk- and Trail-only Projects” in Attachment 2). Under the revised code, sidewalk projects will be required to address flow control using GSI to MEF on a project-by-project basis. By definition, MEF will be considered adequate flow control, therefore sidewalk project flow deficits will no longer be tracked and SDOT expects to see an initial increase in project costs, but cannot predict with certainty the cost impacts over time.

11. Potential Cost Impacts to Parks Projects.

Certain capital projects constructed by the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) will be impacted by the Stormwater Code revisions. Project types are primarily ball fields, tennis courts, trails/paths/paved pedestrian areas, and parking lot renovations. Additional treatment and flow control structures will be required.

Discussion

1. Exception to Minimum Requirements for SPU Utility Cuts. For projects conducted by SPU, the exception utility cuts from requirements to install flow control or treatment facilities has been removed as a policy choice.

Discussion:
In the current Stormwater Code there was an exception to the requirement for installing flow control and water quality facilities associated with any utility cut project. The revised Stormwater Code removes this exception for all SPU projects when the utility cuts are made in the right-of-way and which exceed flow control and water quality thresholds. The following types of projects will now have to install flow control and water quality where applicable:

· Water main installation

· Public storm drain installation

· Public combined or separated sewer installation

These projects will trigger flow control at 10,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface; water quality treatment will be triggered at 5,000 square feet of new plus replace pollution-generating impervious surface. If slip lining or another in situ method is used for repair, the threshold is not expected to be exceeded. Other large capital projects involving utility cuts, such as CSO improvements, pump stations, outfalls, and reservoir covering, projects may also have pipe replacement/installation associated with them that may exceed the thresholds for water quality and flow control.

In 2007, SPU worked with SDOT to estimate average costs for installing water quality and flow control facilities in the roadway. The analysis showed that the cost for these facilities almost always fell within the range of 5% to 15% of the total construction cost of the roadway project. For simplicity, these same percentages were applied to estimated construction costs for SPU utility projects. For the 2008-2009 budget cycle, there are no funds programmatically allocated to SPU for installation of new or maintenance of existing public water mains, storm drains, or sewers. The SPU 2009-2014 CIP worksheets for the Drainage and Wastewater and Drinking Water lines of business were used as source documents to estimate potential capital expenditures for utility cut projects. Projects identified as having utility installation in the roadway were selected for analysis and adopted budget numbers from 2008 to 2013 were used. The following assumptions were made for these projects: (1) the construction cost is only 40% of the total budget; (2) the percentage of the construction cost that was related to the pipe was 50%; and (3) the range of cost for flow control and water quality was 5% to 15%. The resultant range of added costs over the six-year period between 2009 and2014 was $940K to $2.8M, or between 1% and 3%, out of a total endorsed budget of $93M for these projects.

TOTAL ADDED COST = $940K to $2.8M over six year period.

2. Flow Control in Creek Basins – Roadway Projects. The revised Stormwater Code will require flow control facilities for projects located in creek basins to be substantially larger than flow control facilities designed under the current code.

Discussion.

The revised code requires flows discharged from projects located in creek basins to meet a specified flow-duration performance standard based on a modeled “pre-developed condition,” which will be either “forest” or “pasture.” SPU-provided estimates indicate that these flow control facilities designed based on a pasture pre-developed condition will be roughly 2 to 5 times the size of facilities designed under the current code requirements. Facilities designed based on a forested pre-developed condition will be approximately 10 times the current size.

The capital cost to construct a flow control facility discharging to a Class A or Class B Riparian Corridor under the current code ranges from $16,000 for a 10,000 sq foot project to $45,000 for a 140,000 sq foot project. The capital cost to construct a flow control facility to match the pasture pre-developed condition (modeled using 50% impervious/50% lawn pre-developed condition) under the new code ranges from $40,000 for a 10,000 sq foot project to $570,000 for a 140,000 sq foot project. The capital cost to construct a flow control facility to match a forested pre-developed condition under the new code ranges from $195,000 for a 10,000 square foot project to $1,520,000 for a 140,000 square foot project. Additional right-of-way may have to be purchased to provide a location for the increased size of the flow control facilities. Impacts will be $0 when additional properties are not needed, but will range from $10.00 to $400.00 per square foot when additional property must be purchased.

Currently, SDOT does not have information on how many capital projects will be constructed in the next six years that will discharge in creek basins. Therefore, estimates of the full impact of the revised flow control requirement cannot be provided.

3. Water Quality Treatment Requirements – Roadway Projects. The revised Stormwater Code will lower the current threshold for projects required to construct a water quality treatment facility.

Discussion.

The threshold for determining whether a project requires water quality has decreased from 1 acre of replaced pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) to 5,000 square feet. The design requirements for sizing water quality facilities for the new code has not changed from the current code. The cost to provide water quality is roughly $50,000 for an 8,000 square foot project and $525,000 for a 140,000 square foot project. Cost estimates developed jointly with SPU and SDOT indicate that the cost to design and construct a water quality treatment facilities will add between 5% and 10% to the total cost of a project.

4. Acquisition of Additional Right-of-way – Roadway Projects. Additional right-of-way may have to be purchased to provide a location for the increased size of the flow control facilities. Impacts will be $0 when additional properties are not needed, but will range from $10.00 to $400.00 per square foot when additional property must be purchased.

5. SDOT Sidewalk Projects. The revised Stormwater Code will require sidewalk projects to use green stormwater infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible, but will not require installation of underground flow control facilities if the flow control performance standards cannot be met with green stormwater infrastructure.

Discussion:
The revised Stormwater Code will require sidewalk projects to use green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) to the maximum extent feasible (MEF). Under the existing code these projects rely primarily on a banking option that allows flow control deficits to be tracked and later addressed by over-sizing flow control facilities on larger projects in the same drainage basin. Under the revised code, sidewalk projects will be required to address flow control using GSI to MEF on a project-by-project basis. By definition MEF will be considered adequate flow control, therefore sidewalk project flow deficits will no longer be tracked through the banking system. Since banking will not be an option, and implementing GIS is a new practice, SDOT expects to see an initial increase in project costs, but cannot predict with certainty the cost impacts over time. The discussion below provides additional information regarding three different types of City sidewalk projects.

a. Small Neighborhood Street Fund Projects

Neighborhood Street Funds are used for pedestrian safety improvements and involve the community in the project prioritization and development process. Typical projects are traffic circles, curb bulbs, pedestrian signaling, crosswalks, and sidewalk and curbs. These small projects have budgets of $40,000 to $70,000 and are built by City crews. The 2008 Neighborhood Street Fund project list was used to develop cost estimates into the future. This assumes that the project numbers, size and costs will remain the same each year. Using these assumptions, 40 small projects are built each year. Of those projects, 8-10 will place 2,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface and thereby trigger the requirement for flow control.

b. Large Neighborhood Street Fund projects

The Neighborhood Street Fund identifies and builds approximately 17 large projects every three years. Based on an analysis of the 2008 projects, 15 would trigger flow control requirements within the 2,000 and 10,000 square foot threshold. One project drains to a designated water body and therefore does not require flow control. One project is over the 10,000 square foot threshold and is in a creek basin triggering additional flow control as described above.

c. Sidewalk projects being built under the Bridging the Gap Initiative.

The Bridging the Gap sidewalk program is building 15 block-equivalents of sidewalk this year. All projects are assumed to trigger flow control at the 2,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface. Future years are funded at half this year’s budget and unless additional funds are allocated, the sidewalk program will be reduced to seven block-equivalents in future years.

6. Potential Cost Impacts to Parks Projects. Some of the capital projects constructed by the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) will be impacted by the revisions to the Stormwater Code.

Discussion:
The Seattle Parks 6 year capital plan (2009 – 2014) and the Parks and Green Spaces Levy (2009 – 2014) includes several projects that will be affected by the code adoption. The project types are primarily athletic fields, tennis courts, trails/paths/paved pedestrian areas, parking lot renovations, new park development and skate parks. Additional treatment and flow control structures will need to be added as a result of the new code. Based on the assumption that that there would be a 1-3% increase in total project cost for the new code compliance/drainage structures and on a total capital project budget of approximately $82M, Parks would incur approximately $820,000-$2,459,000 in additional project capital costs. Projects would also require a new type of maintenance, and in many cases such as athletic fields, additional maintenance would be required as previously there was an exception for water quality treatment through development of a landscape manual and treatment was not required or constructed in those cases.

Capital savings in constructing a piped stormwater system could be achieved through low impact development solutions such as retaining rainwater from re-roofing projects on site. It is difficult to anticipate all project costs and savings, but if the water is not piped to the nearest water body, additional maintenance costs of the wet pond or rain garden would be incurred.

One large path-sidewalk project is in the 6-year plan and there could be some cost reduction as the new code allows for filter strips and other green technology to the maximum extent feasible.

[1] Blue Ridge Creek, Broadview Creek, Discovery Park Creek, Durham Creek, Frink Creek, Golden Gardens Creek, Kiwanis Ravine/Wolfe Creek, Licton Springs Creek, Madrona Park Creek, Mee-Kwa-Mooks Creek, Mount Baker Park Creek, Puget Creek, Riverview Creek, Schmitz Creek, Taylor Creek, or Washington Park Creek