Memo

To: City of Oak Harbor Planning Commission

From: Ethan Spoo, Senior Planner
Date: 11/24/2009
Re: Overview of the LID Project and Framework for Policy Discussions

This memorandum is an overview for the Low Impact Development (LID) Code Update Project and
lays out a framework for future discussions with the Planning Commission on policy issues.
Planning staff have reviewed a proposed draft of the code given to us by the Puget Sound Partnership
(PSP) and have identified major policy issues which we need direction on from the Commission. Before
those issues can be addressed, this memorandum sets the stage by giving the Commission a
background on LID generally, this project specifically, and describes a tool the Commission can use to
aid them in considering policy issues. The memorandum is organized into these sections:
• Background. This section gives a brief history on the steps in the project leading up to now
and the federal, state and local policy context that frames the project.
• What is LID? This section describes what LID is, types of LID, and its advantages and
disadvantages compared with conventional stormwater technologies.
• Decision tool. The last section of the memorandum presents a decision tool for looking at the
likely impacts of LID as compared with conventional stormwater techniques.

Background

Project History
Late in 2007, the City applied to receive technical assistance from the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP)
to help integrate LID standards into our Code. After being selected as one of 13 Puget Sound
jurisdictions to receive assistance, Oak Harbor met with PSP’s consultant, AHBL, several times during
2008. AHBL helped the City identify areas where LID standards could be integrated into the Code and
drafted proposed LID code language. The sections of the Code reviewed by AHBL were: (1) Chapter
11.17 – Street Design Standards (2) Title 12 – Stormwater (3) Title 19 – Zoning (4) Title 21 –
Subdivisions and, (5) Engineering Standard Details.
As mentioned in last months Planning Commission packet, staff have reviewed the proposed code
language from the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) and are now ready to discuss policy issues with the
Commission which are part of the code. These issues must be discussed before a draft code can be
released for public review.
Federal, State and Local Policy Context
It is important to understand the regulatory context surrounding stormwater regulation so the City
knows what is required of it to meet state and federal requirements and what those requirements are
likely to mean in the future.

z Page 1
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is responsible for implementing and enforcing
compliance at the state level with the federal Clean Water Act. Beginning in 1999, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) required states to issue NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permits for municipal stormwater systems in small cities such as Oak Harbor. This permit
regulates the discharge of stormwater into “waters of the state,” such as Puget Sound, and is also
called the “Phase II Permit.” Oak Harbor is part of the “Western Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit.” The Phase II Permit requires Oak Harbor to allow for:
“Source reduction approaches such as Low Impact Development, measures to minimize the
creation of impervious surfaces and measures to minimize the disturbance of native soils and
vegetation. Provisions for LID should take into account site conditions, access and long-term
maintenance.1 ”
According to the current Phase II Permit which expires in early 2012, the City of Oak Harbor has a legal
requirement to “allow” for LID practices. Staff believe that the City already meets this requirement now
without making any changes to the code. In early 2009, the State of Washington (through the Pollution
Control Hearings Board) found that DOE must require jurisdictions that fall under the Phase II Permit to
implement LID “whenever feasible.” This is stronger than the “allow” language currently in the NPDES
permit. The timeline for enforcing the “whenever feasible” language is now being discussed by the
State. It’s possible that the next Phase II permit (starting in 2012)will require Oak Harbor to implement
LID whenever feasible.
Both the Comprehensive Plan and Title 12 (Stormwater) of the Municipal code encourage the use of
LID standards. The Comprehensive Plan in Policy 2(h) says that:
“The City should provide incentives to utilize Low Impact Development techniques for new
development and redevelopment projects that will further promote resource protection and
stewardship. Such incentives may include density credits, street width and/or parking requirement
reductions, stormwater fee credits, landscape/park requirement credits, and/or expedited permit
review processing. The City should also provide educational materials through pamphlets or web
links to the public to educate the public on Low Impact Development.”
Additionally, some additional references to LID have recently been added to the new subdivision code
and are pending Council approval. Although the code contains some references to LID, it does not
have standards and a process for approving LID projects. Through this project and the assistance we
received from PSP, those LID standards will become a part of the code and the City will further comply
with NPDES permit obligations which require us to “allow” for LID.

What is LID?

Types of LID

Before we can begin to address the LID policy issues, we first need to better understand what LID is
and some of its aspects. LID has potential advantages and disadvantages over other stormwater
treatment techniques that are critical to any discussion about LID.
LID is an environmentally-friendly way to treat stormwater runoff. As opposed to conventional
stormwater treatment systems which use pipes to channel runoff into local or regional detention and
treatment ponds, LID tries to mimic or approximate a site’s natural hydrology. Thus, stormwater
percolates into and is treated by the soil and landscaping, rather than using the “pond and pipe”
system. In so doing, LID stormwater facilities treat pollutants in stormwater runoff before they enter
streams, rivers, lakes or the Puget Sound, helping to preserve aquatic habitat which has been shown to
be in a steady state of decline or is badly damaged in the Puget Sound. LID also helps maintain
groundwater supplies which can be critical to humans. LID techniques focus on reducing impervious

1
Western Washington Phase II Stormwater Permit section S5C4.

z Page 2
surfaces (roads, parking areas) and impacts to the land from development, because it is these hard
surfaces that collect pollution and channel it into the Puget Sound.
The following table is based on the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget
Sound (“LID Manual”). It lists broad categories of LID and gives examples of each. LID falls into four
broad categories:
LID Category Example Techniques

Site Planning and Layout Narrow roads, alleys, and driveways; curvilinear
streets; cluster development; small turnarounds;
reduced front setbacks; minimize stream
crossings; shared driveways; maximum parking
ratios; compact parking; street trees.

Vegetation Protection, Reforestation and Protect native vegetation areas; replant with
Maintenance native plants after clearing; careful maintenance of
vegetated areas.

Clearing and Grading Erosion control during construction; retain natural

topography; minimize cut and fill; limit wet weather
construction; phased grading, construction
fencing, reuse soil, routine construction
inspections,

Integrated Management Practices Raingardens (bioretention), amended soils;

permeable paving, vegetated roofs, minimal
foundation excavation, rainwater collection
systems.

Source: Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.

Some of the more common LID techniques used are, raingardens, narrow roads, pervious pavements,
street trees, native vegetation areas, and compact parking because they tend to be inexpensive to
construct.
Since we can not talk about all aspects of LID, more information is available on the internet. A good
launching point to the world of LID to is the EPA website located at www.epa.gov/nps/lid.

Advantages and Disadvantages of LID

Although LID has been used extensively on the east coast and Europe, it is still a relatively new
concept and is still being tested. It has distinct environmental benefits over conventional stormwater
systems, such as better treatment of pollutants, less erosion of streams and water bodies, less
destruction of animal and plant habitats, and better groundwater recharge. But, as the LID Manual
says: “Important questions remain regarding relative cost, design, maintenance and long-term
performance.” This section offers some of the key advantages and disadvantages of LID in general as
compared with conventional stormwater systems. It is important to keep in mind that specific pros and
cons of LID depend on the technique used.

• Advantages of LID.2

2
Benefits as researched by ECONorthwest in The Economics of Low Impact Development: A Literature Review, November 2007.

z Page 3
 o Environmental benefits. LID has clear environmental benefits already discussed such
as better pollutant filtering capabilities, preservation of natural vegetation, groundwater
recharge, and fewer negative impacts on plants and animals.
o Flood prevention. LID facilities have been shown to better detain floodwaters with
possible benefits to life and property.
o Property values. Because LID facilities often use vegetation for treatment and are
designed to be integrated into the site, they can be more attractive, increasing the
value of properties near to them.
o Construction costs. LID facilities have been shown to have comparable construction
costs with conventional facilities. In some cases, they have been shown to be cheaper
because they can reduce or eliminate the need for large detention ponds. This land
can then be developed or given back to the community as open space.
o Reduced public expenditures on stormwater infrastructure. LID systems treat and
detain stormwater onsite, rather than in public storm systems. This has the potential to
reduce the need and public expenditures for stormwater infrastructure in the long run.
o Reduced energy use. Vegetated roofs and vegetation provided in LID can help
reduce temperatures in urban areas.
o Improved air quality. Trees help sequester pollution. One tree has the ability to
remove 0.44 pounds of air pollution per year.3

• Disadvantages of LID.
o LID is not appropriate for every site. Since LID depends primarily upon the ability of
water to percolate into the soil, sites with poor soil quality (i.e. clay) are not ideal for
LID. Additionally, LID should not be used on sites with steep slopes, because it can
cause slope instability.
o Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Very little information exists about the O&M
costs of LID compared to conventional methods, probably because there are so many
different LID techniques and variability in how these get maintained. This lack of
information can make it difficult to make fully-informed policy decisions about LID. The
City should rightfully be concerned about maintenance costs, because developers
may install LID facilities only giving thought to the construction costs and not the long-
term maintenance costs to property owners or the City.
o LID is new and unfamiliar. Property owners and HOAs are not accustomed to seeing
LID facilities. Until they are educated about them and know how they work, they are
not as likely to maintain them properly, which means the City has to be the
“maintenance agency of last resort.”
o Blurring private and public responsibilities. Conventional stormwater systems (gutters,
inlets, ponds) have an advantage over LID in that property owners and HOAs know
who maintains them; the City usually maintains everything in public right-of-way
(gutters and inlets) and the HOA or property owners usually maintain everything else
(the storm pond). This relationship changes with LID in residential development.
Often, raingardens are located in the public right of way, but are required to be
maintained by private property owners (as is the case with the SEA street project in
Seattle), which can lead to confusion.

3
According to Trees New York and Trees New Jersey

z Page 4
Decision Tool

Planning Commission has a number of policy issues to address and give input on over the coming
months before the LID code is finalized. We need a way to document the pros and cons of each of
those policy issues. This section proposes a decision tool that the Planning Commission can use to
look at the pros and cons of each policy issue. To show how this tool works, we pose a theoretical (and
very silly) policy question “should the City provide free donuts to all Oak Harbor citizens on Friday
mornings?”

First, we offer some explanation. The table attached to this memorandum looks at four different
scenarios to answer the question about whether the City should provide free donuts on Fridays:
1. No donuts provided. This is the “no action” scenario we compare all the other scenarios to.
2. Voluntary. In this scenario, the City provides donuts, but only to those who want them.
3. Incentive. In this scenario, the City provides a cash payment of $5 for people to eat donuts.
4. Mandatory. The City force feeds donuts to people. They get them whether they want them or
not. This scenario assumes there is no financial incentive provided to eat the donuts.

Each scenario measures the likely impacts on the environment, city costs, private costs (costs to
citizens), and the economy. It is possible to measure other impacts. For instance, rather than measure
the impact on the economy, we could measure the impact on the City’s streets, property taxes, or the
use of open space. The fields are color-coded to indicate whether the impact is positive or negative as
compared with the “no action” scenario; green represents a positive impact, and red a negative impact.
While this is a facetious example, it makes several important points. The scenarios (voluntary, incentive
or mandatory) are the same decisions the City will face with LID policy issues. Also, in this example, the
choices are more or less clear; forcing people to eat donuts is probably not a good policy because it
has large negative impacts on the environment, city costs, and private costs. In this case, not providing
donuts is probably the best choice for the City to make. In other examples having to do with LID, the
difference between scenarios may not be so clear cut. The tool is flexible. It can be adapted to measure
factors which are important to the Planning Commission.
In closing, staff is requesting Planning Commission’s input on the factors they think are most important
in the LID discussion. Are the environment, city costs, private costs, and the economy the factors
Planning Commission thinks we should be looking at in the discussion about LID? Or are there other
factors we need to look at?

z Page 5
 SCENARIOS - LIKELY IMPACTS
Policy Issue / Measure Description No Donuts Provided Voluntary Incentive Mandatory

Free donuts on The City would provide free donuts to

Fridays? all citizens on Friday mornings.
Environmental impacts are primarily (1) No change. If people voluntarily eat If we provide incentives for There will be large negative
air pollution from donut delivery / pickup donuts, there will be some people to eat donuts, there will impacts on both the
and (2) impacts to human health - donuts negative effects to the air be negative effects to the air environment for delivery /
are bad for you. quality from donut delivery / quality from donut delivery / pickup and human health.
pickup and negative effects on pickup and negative effects on
peoples health. peoples health
Environment
City must provide donuts and staff to No change. The city's costs will go up to The city's costs will go up to Large cost increases from
distribute them. pay for the donuts and to pay for the donuts and to delivery, donut cost, and donut
deliver them. deliver them and provide the enforcement.
City costs incentive.
Citizens may need to drive to pick up No change. If people drive to pick up the No change for private costs Large negative impacts from
donuts and pay indirectly for them with donuts, there will be an added since citizens will be given a people picking up the donuts.
taxes. cost to them. Also, "free" financial incentive to eat Goes up in magnitude b/c it's
donuts probably means tax donuts. mandatory.
payer-funded donuts.
Private costs
Do we expect cash flow and job increase No change. If the City buys the donuts Positive impact to the local Large positive impact to the
for local economy? locally, there could be a boost economy. Donut houses are economy. Local donut retailers
to the economy. booming. are booming.

Economy

expect large postive impacts

expect negative impacts
expect somewhat negative impacts
expect neutral impacts
expect somewhat postive impacts
expect positive impacts
expect large positive impacts
* = assumes LID capital costs are comparable to conventional systems.

z Page 6