Committee Members: Dave Humber Curt Vanderzanden. Linda Bauer. Others: Commissioner Saltzman s office

Transcription

1 Stormwater Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Portland Building 1120 SW 5 th Ave., Lodgepole Room, 10 th Floor 3:00 6:00 p.m. Committee Members: Kathi Futornick, Co-Chair Chuck Harrison Laura Porter Dave Humber Curt Vanderzanden Skai Dancey Linda Bauer Others: Brendan Finn Dorothy Sperry Kathy Balogh Sue Safford Kim Peoples Jean Senechal Biggs Patrice Mango Amber Marra Steve Fancher Dawn Hottenroth Quentin Pitts Susan Barthel Rhetta Drennan Nancy Jerrick Recorder Environmental Consulting Associates The Halton Company Brown & Caldwell MGH Associates, Inc. KPFF Engineering Oregon Health Sciences University Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association/ East Portland Neighborhood Coalition Commissioner Saltzman s office Port of Portland Port of Portland Port of Portland Multnomah County PDOT Counterpoint Consulting INTRODUCTIONS Those in attendance introduced themselves. MINUTES The September 8, 2004, meeting minutes were approved with the following changes: Page 3, second paragraph: Change Portland to Portland and the Port of Portland Page 3, seventh paragraph, second sentence: Change to: Dawn replied that all (12) Portland landfills are closed and have DEQ permits. SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 1

2 CULLY BLVD. GREEN STREET PROJECT (Jean Senechal Biggs, PDOT) Jean described this Green Street project in northeast Portland, between NE Prescott and Killingsworth Streets (see handout). This is the first big Green Street project where the entire street will be rebuilt. PDOT has worked with Steve Fancher from on the general scope. There are currently no sidewalks or bike lanes; the need for them was how the project was generated. The complete project is estimated to cost $4.4 million. Some federal funds have been allocated for planning and preliminary engineering. PDOT recently applied to Metro for an addition $2.4 to finish preliminary engineering, acquire right-of-way, and build. PDOT will contribute $1.1 million for match and overmatch. Work on the project will start in Dorothy asked if the project is only in City right-of-way and if any partnerships have been forged with businesses on Cully (e.g., for them to do site improvements). Jean responded that no partnerships are planned. Staff have not yet been out in the community for that level of discussion about potential aspects of the project. Laura asked what the negative aspects of the project are. Jean responded that it has been difficult to get the necessary funding. Rebuilding this street has been in PDOT s capital improvements plan (CIP) for awhile, but no funding has been available. The good side of the delay is that there is now the technology and the Green Streets approach to make a better project. Jean said that the right-of-way is very wide, although it looks like it is people s front yards. This will be an issue that will have to be discussed with residents. In response to a question from Chuck, Jean said the street is classified as a neighborhood collector. Two lanes are sufficient; the street has about 5,200 cars per day and operates at a sufficient level of service. It connects up to Columbia Boulevard, so there is some cut-through traffic, but two lanes are still sufficient. In response to a question from Curt, Jean said the project will be a complete reconstruct. PDOT will be discussing on-street parking with the residents; there may or may not be a median (or maybe a little of both). In response to a question from Skai, Jean said PDOT has so far talked to the neighbors only in terms of the need for pedestrian safety. Skai asked if, for the most part, the neighbors see this as a positive project. Jean responded that it is hard to describe a Green Street when people don t know what it s like. In general, however, people in Portland are responsive to green approaches. The project will include an education piece. In response to a question from Kathi, Jean said that working with the neighbors and neighborhood association will definitely be part of the project; the project hasn t yet gotten to that level of detail. The overall planning process has not yet been laid out. Quentin asked if the project will be working with the Willamette Sustainable Stormwater group. Steve responded that the project hasn t gotten that far because the planning hasn t yet started. SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 2

3 Dawn asked how many City blocks are involved. Jean said because the project is on a diagonal, she doesn t know, but can find out the lineal feet. [Following the meeting, Jean identified the total project length as 2,500 feet.] Dave asked how monitoring will be done to establish baseline conditions before the design is built. Steve said that monitoring results from other projects will probably be used e.g., the N.E. Siskiyou and HOPE VI sites. Once the project is built, a performance-monitoring plan will assess the effects of the improvements on water quality, water quantity, and aspects of green street design practices. Jean said there will be a hearing at Metro on October 25 about funding. She asked if anyone from the SAC would be interested in working with her on a letter of support or to testify in favor of the project. Laura said she would feel more certain about advocating for the project if she knew the neighborhood was behind it. Jean responded that the neighborhood association is behind the project; Laura said she would then be willing to participate. Kathi noted that there will probably be some dissenters when people learn that what they consider to be their front yard is in fact right-of-way. Jean noted that the Sustainable Development Commission is going to provide a letter of support for the project. The comment period ends in December. Laura said she would like her involvement limited until she is comfortable with the project. Patrice will coordinate with Jean and Laura. Jean will send Patrice the link to Metro s website for Transportation Priorities , which includes descriptions of all the projects. [The website is There are no other Green Street projects this time around. Cully Blvd. is on the 150 percent cut list, meaning that it is in a group of projects that total 150 percent of the funding available and that will continue to move forward in the selection process. In January, the Metro Council will make a final decision about which projects will be on the final 100 percent list. In response to a question from Curt, Jean said that the City has submitted more projects than it thinks will get funding. She hasn t heard that the City has set priorities for the submitted projects. STORMWATER PERMIT CO-PERMITTEES Dorothy Sperry (Port of Portland) and Kim Peoples (Multnomah County) gave an overview of their agencies involvement in the NPDES stormwater permit and how the SAC might be able to help them as they revise their Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) to meet the requirements of the new permit issued in March For example, it would be useful to discuss how the City, County, and Port overlap in regard to benchmarks and performance measures. Port of Portland (see handouts) The Port has three operating areas: marine terminals, aviation, and property and development services. SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 3

4 The Terminal 6 facility is covered under the NPDES MS4 permit and two industrial permits (because there are two points of discharge). One stormwater pollution control plan covers both industrial stormwater permits. PDX is the only airport covered under the MS4 permit because it is within the City s urban services boundary. It also has a 1200-COLS permit because it discharges to the Columbia Slough. Tenants are co-permittees on the Port s 1200-COLS permit, rather than having separate permits themselves. The Air National Guard has its own 1200-COLS permit and does its own stormwater management, but discharges into the Port s system. PDX is also covered under several other NPDES permits (e.g., deicing and dewatering). The Port also has a permit for agency-wide construction (1200-CA), which is enforced by incorporating the permit requirements right into the construction project specifications. The Port is different from the City because it is essentially a landowner; the industrial activities it does are generally covered by other permits. The Port co-mingles with the City s storm system in some areas. Tenants are on Port property and within the urban services boundary, so they are already complying with City regulations. For example, the Port does not have a BMP for new development standards because the City s standards apply. Many of the Port s BMPs for tenants are voluntary. For example, the Port has a voluntary catch basin insert program. Tenants in the industrial parks are approached and offered catch basin inserts for their parking lots. The Port covers the cost and maintenance for the first year. After that, the tenant takes over the responsibility but can continue to use the Port s contractor service. Compliance with voluntary BMPs depends on the tenant and on what is incorporated into the lease agreements. Laura asked if all Port property is within Portland s city limits. Dorothy said not all of it is; however, that which is, is covered by Portland s MS4 permit. Portland is the only municipal permit the Port has. Kathi asked what kind of oversight and enforcement there is for tenants that discharge to the Port s system. Dorothy responded that tenants are under lease agreements with the Port, so if they want to implement a new stormwater program, they have to go back and renegotiate the lease, which can be difficult. For enforcement, the Port has inspection rights and can enforce what is in the leases. In response to a question from Chuck, Dorothy said PDX tenants are listed as co-permittees on the 1200-COLS permit. When there is a turnover in tenants, the Port has worked it out with DEQ so it is not a permit reopening; it is a modification to the stormwater pollution control plan. Dorothy reviewed the Port s BMPs (see handout). The Port has a detection and removal program for illicit discharges, and may want to work with the SAC to see if there is a better way to approach this. Kathi asked how jurisdiction is determined when City and Port tenants discharge to the same pipes. Dorothy said the Port is working on a GIS system to try to track this (who owns which SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 4

5 pipes, etc.) for example, at Portland Harbor. It is difficult because of factors such as ownership changes. ODOT also has some jurisdiction. Dorothy noted that the City currently does all of the Port s monitoring through an intergovernmental agreement. Under the new permit, the Port might consider doing some additional monitoring. Dorothy noted that she might want to come back to the SAC to talk about some particulars of the Port s program. The Port will also be conducting a broad public review of its new SWMP, but is not yet sure how it will approach this. Sue handed out the Port s annual environmental report, as well as fast facts (which are in the process of being updated). Multnomah County Multnomah County is the only jurisdiction in the state with two MS4 permits: Portland and Gresham/Fairview. In the Portland permit, the County s participation has decreased significantly. This is because the County has transferred planning authority to the City in the unincorporated pockets within Portland s urban services boundary. Operations and maintenance of County roads has also been transferred to the City. The County implements 40 stormwater management BMPs throughout all parts of the county, whether there is an MS4 permit or not (see green handout). Only a few of these BMPs apply within Portland e.g., the planning BMPs and road maintenance and operations BMPs do not. The BMPs that do apply are for operations and maintenance of County bridge structures (see blue handout). The City maintains the road surface where there is a deck. Sellwood Bridge presently has scuppers. Hawthorne Bridge has open grating/conveyance. Morrison Bridge has open grating/conveyance. Burnside Bridge has pavement (maintained by City) and catch basins (maintained by County). Stormwater is filtered and then discharged to Front Street, to the Willamette, or into Portland s CSO system. Broadway Bridge is being retrofitted with stormwater treatment facilities to treat stormwater before it is discharged. (The Steel Bridge is owned by Union Pacific.) County policy is to implement water quality facilities whenever a bridge is retrofitted. ODOT has protocols and BMPs, which the county meets or surpasses.. The County is preparing to submit an ESA 4(d) limit for routine bridge maintenance and standards under ODOT standards. Within the unincorporated areas where planning and road O&M have been transferred to the City, the City has to impose the same standards as for the rest of Portland. However, there are some exceptions. For example, if someone in Dunthorpe wants to add more impervious area and cannot manage stormwater onsite, they have to get a permit to discharge excess stormwater into SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 5

6 the County s right-of-way (which the county no longer operates or maintains) because there is no storm sewer system. This kind of situation only happens once or twice a year. Dawn asked if unincorporated areas in southeast Portland will be incorporated into Portland or Gresham. Kim didn t know, but can find out. Linda noted that the County is currently updating its Transportation System Plan for roads there. [Per information subsequently provided by Kim, there is no effort underway to annex the southeast unincorporated Portland pockets. Typically, one driving force is the need for sewerage in the particular area. Since the southeast pockets are already serviced by sanitary sewer, this particular incentive does not exist.] Kim noted that the County still operates and maintains roads in Gresham, but Gresham would like to assume that jurisdiction. The County owns and maintains catch basins, but Gresham is responsible for storm pipe and outfalls. The County works with Gresham to identify illicit discharges. Chuck asked what kind of participation Kim has with watershed councils. Kim said that he participates as best as he can with the five watershed councils, drainage district, and soil and water conservation districts. Because he has no staff, he is able to go to meetings with these groups only on a need-to-know basis. Ninety percent of the County is forest or agricultural land, but the County has no jurisdiction over these areas, so Kim tries to coordinate with the soil and water conservation districts and the state. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) REVISIONS Industrial/Commercial Controls (IND) Dawn reviewed the draft BMPs for industrial/commercial controls. Chuck asked why the Pollutants Addressed are limited to those that are identified. Dawn responded that the intention is to list the most common pollutants addressed by the BMPs. The wording will be changed to reflect this. In response to SAC comments at the September meeting, Dawn said the NPDES annual compliance reports (based on the new Stormwater Management Plan, beginning in 2005) will include some kind of general evaluation of how the BMPs are doing. In response to a question from Laura, Dawn said the performance measures will definitely be tracked. A lot of these items have already been tracked in previous annual reports, but the new performance measures will often have a greater level of detail e.g., watershed location. Benchmarks are also currently being developed, and will be brought to the SAC next year for review and discussion. Nancy suggested that in reviewing the BMPs, the SAC consider overall questions such as: Are these the right actions? Are they enough? Dawn noted that the SAC will be able to address those kinds of questions better after they have seen this year s annual report and have a better idea of the scope of what is done. The SAC suggested several format changes to IND-1, which will be incorporated. SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 6

7 Illicit Discharges Controls (ILL) In response to a question, Dawn said that storm drainage system does not include the combined system. It will be defined in the introduction to the SWMP. Kathy Balogh asked if the City reviews its priority outfalls every year and if they are included in the SWMP. Dawn replied that the original permit application materials include all of the outfalls (360) that meet the criteria. Of those, the City has identified the top 100. Every annual report generally assesses these 100. Kathy asked if there is a strict schedule for monitoring. Dawn said that the schedule depends on the weather and staff availability; monitoring is generally conducted one to three times per summer. Dawn noted that the City is ahead of its cohorts in assessing non-stormwater discharges. The permit states that if problems are identified with non-stormwater discharges, the City has to come up with a process to minimize the impacts. In response to a question from Chuck, Dawn said that landscape irrigation and lawn watering are the most widespread, diverse, and biggest-quantity contributors of all the non-stormwater discharges. The City will need to determine how to address these discharges. In response to a question from Chuck, Dawn said the performance measures for outfalls apply to City-owned, not private, outfalls. This will be clarified. TREE AND LANDSCAPE CODE UPDATE (Tom Carter BDS) Tom Carter reported that the City is currently amending the tree and landscape code in the zoning code. One of chief problems is that the City hasn t effectively been inspecting trees and landscaping at residential sites. They are now looking for a way to improve compliance without adding a lot of inspectors or fees. A number of steps have been taken: The erosion control permanent measures inspection is now linked to finalizing the building permit. This includes removal of silt fencing. For sensitive sites (steep slopes, e-zones, etc.), the developer and excavator are required to attend a site visit with staff before permit issuance, to ensure that trees are protected, etc. Landscape certification has been instituted. There are two ways to demonstrate that landscaping has been done: self-certification on smaller sites, and designer of record on larger sites. This is tied to erosion control permanent measures. A landscape inspector position has been budgeted. Proposed zoning changes include removing the materials and methods of landscaping from the zoning code and moving them to a manual. It is felt that a manual, with the lead inspector in charge of overseeing it, will facilitate/encourage inspectors to enforce the code. The inspector (who is onsite) will have authority, rather than the planner (who is not onsite). It will still be SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 7

8 necessary to go through adjustment review (a kind of land use review) for changes that go beyond the standards. But for landscaping to the standard, the inspector will have the authority to approve changes in the field. Another change is how the amount of landscaping required in a parking lot is calculated. The current requirement has been difficult to administer. The new standard will be 45 square feet of landscaping for each parking stall. The requirements are one large tree for every seven parking stalls; one medium tree for every five stalls; and one small tree for every three stalls. On perimeters, the requirements are one small tree per 15 feet; one medium tree per 22 feet; and one large tree per 30 feet. There is a list of suggested plants. Dave Humber asked if there is any thought of having a site development manual that covers all of the various manuals (landscaping, stormwater, etc.). Tom said it has been discussed, but the problem is that it would be a very complex project because of the various authorities and policies of the different bureaus. It does make a lot of sense, though. Dave said it seems that the different requirements could just be combined, with identification of who has authority over which chapter. He noted that it is frustrating not to know where/what all of the various standards are, and it would be helpful to have them all in one place. Or there could be a website, linked to each agency; but with a common portal. The developer could look at the first page and see what the various standards are. Curt said he hopes the manual will be based on coordination between and landscaping staff. Dawn said there will be references in the landscaping manual to the stormwater standards for parking lots in the Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM). Tom said the stormwater requirements for landscaping in the SWMM are still separate from zoning code landscaping requirements. However, the bureaus have been working together to avoid conflicts. Dave asked where would any conflicts would be resolved. Dawn said she isn t aware of any conflicts. The SWMM requires more plants than the planning code, but the plant lists are being coordinated. The new zoning manual will have flexibility in terms of plant spacing. Tom said the proposed draft of the new zoning code and manual will be available on the Bureau of Development Services website on November 15, and will go to Council on February 22. [Note: This has since changed. Internal review will be in November/December, and the proposed draft will be issued in January for a Planning Commission date in February.] Dawn will send the SAC the website link. NEXT MEETING AGENDA Laura asked if anything should be done about the fact that so few people seem to be attending the SAC meetings. Patrice said she will send out a reminder about attendance. The next SAC meeting will be on Wednesday, November 10, from 3:00 to 6:00 pm, in the Portland Building, 10 th floor, Lodgepole Room. Agenda items will include: SAC Membership and Bylaws BMP Revisions: New Development (ND) and Public Involvement (PI) Stormwater Financing (Dan Vizzini) SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 8

9 Stormwater Management Manual (Steve Fancher) Annual Report Summary of SAC Presentation to Council Handouts at 10/13/04 meeting: Cully Boulevard Green Street Project Port of Portland Powerpoint handout Port of Portland MS4 Best Management Practice Multnomah County Stormwater Management Program Best Management Practices Multnomah County Transportation Bridge Section Best Management Practices City of Portland Illicit Discharges Controls (ILL) Best Management Practices City of Portland Industrial/Commercial Controls (IND) Best Management Practices SAC Meeting Minutes 10/13/04 9