Stormwater Management Plan for the Village of Arts and Humanities
Prepared by: Temple University School of Environmental Design Community & Regional Planning Department Spring 2010 Studio
Prepared for: The Village of Arts and Humanities and the Philadelphia Water Department May 10, 2010
i
Temple University School of Environmental Design Community and Regional Planning Stormwater Spring 2010 Studio Community Development Team Management Plan Elizabeth Allen Jeanette Blize Garrett Byma for the Technical Design Team Frances Getty Village of Arts and Gavin Hontz Harry Wilson Humanities Financial Analysis Team Kyle Guie Melissa Kim Mark Spiers
GIS Analysis Team Donna Fabry Richard Murphy Sequoia Rock
Project Advisor Professor M. Richard Nalbandian
List of Terms
Context Area – study area bounded by Allegheny Street (north), Diamond Street (south), Broad Street (east), and 5th Street (west) CSO – combined sewage wverflow PWD – Philadelphia Water Department NET CDC – Neighborhood Enrichment and Treatment Community Development Corporation SMP – Stormwater Management Practice SWMS – Stormwater Management Service Village – The Village of Arts and Humanities nonprofit organization Village Heart – core neighborhood and site of detailed analysis, bounded by Huntingdon Street (north), Cumberland Street (south), 10th Street and Germantown Avenue (east), and 11th Street (west) This page intentionally left blank. ii Table of Contents Chapter Description 1 Understanding the Community Project Overview ...... 1 History of the Village Study Area...... 2 Population ...... 2 Background on Philadelphia’s Stormwater Problem ...... 5 Suitabilities and Constraints ...... 6 Suitable SMP Sites within the Village Heart Neighborhood ...... 7 Suitable SMP Sites within the Context Area ...... 8
2 Improving Stormwater Management Existing Site Conditions...... 11 Site Drainage...... 11 Inlet Capacity ...... 12 Recommended Stormwater Management Practices ...... 12 SMP Recommendations for the Village Heart Neighborhood ...... 15 Selected Parcel Analysis for the Context Area ...... 16 General SMP Recommendations for All Context Area Parcels ...... 19 Cost Estimates for Rain Garden Installation ...... 20 Funding Sources...... 22
3 Assessing the Financial Impacts Water Billing...... 23 Parcel-Based Billing ...... 23 How Stormwater Management Service Charges are Calculated...... 24 PWD Stormwater Credit Program...... 24 Applying for Stormwater Credits...... 24 Impact Analysis of Stormwater Charge on Village-Owned Properties ...... 25 Impact Analysis of Stormwater Charge on Context Area ...... 25 Costs and Benefits: Affordability and Incentives for Private Investment ...... 26 Triple Bottom Line: Quantifiable Benefits and Costs...... 27
4 Conclusion/Key Recommendations
Appendices Appendix A: Current Green Efforts in the Shared Prosperity Community Appendix B: Concerns for Urban Agriculture Appendix C: Rain Garden Plant Selection List Appendix D: Rain Garden Maintenance Considerations Appendix E: Context Area Properties, Impact of Stormwater Billing Charge on Monthly Water Bill Appendix F: Context Area Properties, Top 30 Payers by Increase Under New Stormwater Billing Charge Appendix G: Context Area Properties, Top 30 Payers by Total Bill Under New Stormwater Billing Charge Appendix H: Village Properties – Change in Water Bill by Lot Under New Stormwater Billing Charge Appendix I: Portland’s Clean River Rewards Program This page intentionally left blank. Chapter 1 Understanding the Community
Project Overview The purpose of this report is to present a general physical to Philadelphia’s overburdened stormwater system. stormwater management plan for the Village of Arts Further, adopting the use of SMPs will benefit the Village and Humanities in North Philadelphia, in cooperation financially, by offseting a new PWD rate increase that will with the Philadelphia Water Department’s (PWD) Office affect all property owners within the City. The increase, set of Watersheds. The plan serves as a guide for future to take effect in the Summer of 2010, will be based on the implementation of PWD’s Green City, Clean Waters report existing amount of impervious surface area. applied to the study area, or Context Area, bounded by We pay particular attention to the Village Heart Broad Street, 5th Street, Allegheny Avenue and Diamond neighborhood within the Context Area, where the Street (see map on next page). Our recommendations majority of the Village’s properties are located. The Village are guided by the Community Development Plan created Heart is bounded by 10th and 11th Streets, Germantown by the Shared Prosperity Planning Initiative in 2005, a Avenue, and Cumberland and Huntingdon Streets (see coalition of more than two dozen neighborhood and Map 1, page 3). In addition to stormwater management civic organizations including our client, The Village of Arts and open space issues, we also focus on opportunities and Humanities (Village). However, the primary focus of to establish or expand on urban agriculture in the area our recommendations is based on an effort to meet PWD whenever possible. Our study and recommendations guidelines to capture one inch of stormwater runoff from include: land owned by the Village. 1. Specific site recommendations for SMPs on properties The Village owns 56 properties within the Context within the Village Heart neighborhood with estimates on Area, including 48 located within the Village “Heart” how much stormwater runoff can be captured at each site. neighborhood. It also manages 76 other properties, 70 of which are owned by the Philadelphia Housing 2. General site recommendations for SMPs for selected Authority. Having a significant presence as both land larger properties in the Context Area. owner and property manager within the study area, 3. Cost estimates for SMP recommendations. the Village is poised to implement as many stormwater management practices (SMPs) on its properties as possible. 4. Financial impacts of PWD’s impending stormwater fee. By incorporating SMPs on its properties, the Village 5. Financing opportunities. will reduce the amount of runoff being contributed 2 History of the Village Study Area The study area has a rich history dating to before the anti-slavery movement. Robert Purvis, the Father of the Underground Railroad, is buried at the Fairhill Burial Grounds, as is Lucretia Mott, champion of the anti- slavery and women’s suffrage movement. This section of North Philadelphia was instrumental in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s. Germantown Avenue was a thriving commercial corridor in the 1960s and the study area was known to be a vibrant, safe, and prosperous community. The area is also rich in artistic and cultural tradition, as the birthplace of music legend Teddy Pendergrass and his band, Harold Melvin and the Bluenotes, and it is also home to the African-American arts, dance and music center known as the Ile Ife Black Humanitarian Center. Ile Ife closed in 1989 and was re-opened by Lily Yeh and two partners as The Village of Arts and Humanities. With the knowledge that the arts transcend race, culture, religion, education, socioeconomic background, gender, sexual orientation, age, or ableism, the Village fosters a new multiculturalism that embraces the gifts and the challenges expressed by all cultures and people. Today, decades of population decline and disinvestment have taken a toll on the area, but the Village and other community-based organizations continue to work together to improve the neighborhood, with many impressive success stories.
Population Approximately 19,000 residents live in the Context Area, which has experienced continued population decline since 1950. Thirty percent of the population is made up of children 18 and younger. While 28% of households are married couples, 64% are female-headed with no husband present. Geographically, 90% of the population west of Germantown Avenue is African American, while close to 60% of the population east of Germantown Avenue is Hispanic. The 2000 Census reported a 25% unemployment rate for this area and the median household income is $14,500. Housing vacancies rose from 18% in 1990 to 22% in 2000. There is a near even split between owner-occupied and renter-occupied units. 3
Context Area
Allegheny Avenue
Germantown Avenue City of Philadelphia *Not to Scale SEPTA Rail West Clearfield Street
West Indiana Avenue
Cambria Street
Somerset Street
8th Street 8th 6th Street 6th
Lehigh Avenue
7th Street 7th Broad Street Broad West Huntingdon Street
SEPTA Rail
9th Street 9th
5th Street 5th 11th Street 11th
Germantown Avenue
West Cumberland Avenue
13th Street 13th 10th Street 10th
West York Street
Dauphin Street 12th Street 12th
West Susquehanna Avenue
Diamond Street ¯ CRP Studio Temple University2010 Village Heart 0 500 1,000 Community and Regional Planning Department Parcel Data: Philadelphia Water Department Feet
Map 1. Context area map featuring streets, property lines, and location of the Village Heart neighborhood. 57928 508803 368555245823 199824 131110 227350 709 451441 358063 9430 113241 317691 337593 10th Street 110826
11258 532868 308209 333520 496587 190180 2010 CRP Studio CRP Germantown Avenue
179767
527479
392898
161238
297074 423371 123192 100513 459515 18683
79019
160768
265217 522773 400375 265891 541805 282775 142426 325004
163869
233148
28080 231539 99921
430796 75810
511059 321600 455224 195218 396665 326679 89289 312105 Village Heart Village 184165 291808 449059 126342 73242 195959 223229 Alder Street 162957 229960 536773 201455 50055 495080
359938 329533
67215 University Temple Department Planning Regional and Community 47548
88710 72303
295198 159156 43123 299552 525088 244556 3724 352136 292810 66885 454124 19804 239083 68410 6151 327263 311763
166623 530504 491793 467664 505649 319611 177787 Parcel Parcel ID 438010 502264 169020 37821 34644 104629
431287 444990 443206 411607 54019
206264 73068 61199 12938 310596 000000 291590 191285 175533 82544 43622
202300 91800 64077 395560
418690 204993 54242 303848 Huntingdon Street Warnock Street 287390 117110 187151 480606 60285 Cumberland Street 235674 124047 287672 ¯
348449 132988 73500
436881 104268 499533 51653 17810 149897 15301
178134 11470
408921 329622
541950 200 150418 530311 92239 505579 50496 446779
277565
439150 55195
494772 465431 193205
455208 10301
63579
473117 184448 6
387155
418881 498353
228815 80651
196788 80509
120797
The Village Heart Neighborhood Parcels Heart Neighborhood The Village 521796 170953 450690 112639 40805
285404 72158
523122 115970 47543
118444
136093 70870 11th Street 100 Feet
71204
306489 294328 154926 491002
47234
386813 485680 508581 501594 226675 235240 32414
336222 408639 497443 231158 123512 39393 526874 46171 260978 323564 185354 231324 48216
89809
25909 239174 207813 42904 19382 529613 22746 18208
153351 402095 35731 236056 0 228472 0ARCEL $ATA 0HILADELPHIA 7ATER $EPARTMENT 205332 92969 /RTHOPHOTO #ITY OF 0HILADELPHIA
460971 169339 344453 476295 282360
4 332495 443928 393225
490875 Map 2. Village Heart neighborhood parcel numbers and streets. 304316 289446 35924 331620 493375 382476 398631 157925 456494 302676 497577 445980 377708 528714 67366 381046 5 Background on Philadelphia’s Stormwater Problem Sixty percent of Philadelphia’s sewer system is a combined sewer system and nearly all of Philadelphia between the Delaware and the Schuylkill Rivers is served by combined sewers. This means that the stormwater collected in storm drains and the wastewater from homes, businesses and industry all flow through a single pipe system to a Water Pollution Control Plant. Combined sewers can adequately transport this mixture of wastewater, and stormwater to the water treatment plants when the city is not experiencing heavy rains. However, when there is heavy rainfall in Philadelphia, the flow in combined sewers may exceed the capacity of the sewers and treatment facilities and some or all of the mixture may be diverted directly to a nearby stream or river to prevent the flooding of homes and streets. This is what is known as Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO).
Map 3. Hydrology of Philadelphia, including underground pipes.
To comply with the federal Clean Water Act, which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PWD requires that property owners manage the first inch of runoff from all Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIA) – impervious areas that connect to a storm sewer system – to recharge the groundwater table and reduce pollution in runoff and the occurrence of CSOs. Stormwater management strategies are detention with slow release of runoff, and infiltration, which enables captured runoff to seep into the ground over time. PWD requires the slow release of the 1- year, 24-hour storm event detained from DCIA as a means to protect the quality of stream channels and reduce the quantity, frequency and duration of CSOs. The mutual goal of the PWD and this project is to recommend SMPs that divert and harness rainfall for the Village’s properties, in order to lessen the strain on the City’s sewers.
Figure 1. Illustration of combined sewer overflow impacts. 6 Suitabilities and Constraints This plan identifies target areas within the Village of Arts (NET) Community Development Corporation to discuss and Humanities for capturing stormwater runoff. To target locations. Ms. Grimaldi, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bridges determine the parcels best suited for incorporating SMPs, provided feedback about current conditions that would and to identify areas that are unsuitable for hosting SMPs influence the selection of parcels to use as potential sites due to existing constraints, such as existing gardens or art, for SMPs. Maps of both the larger Context Area (Map 5, the Studio’s Community Development Team met with page 9) and the Village Heart (Map 4, below) indicate Elizabeth Grimaldi, Executive Director of The Village of these results; buildable parcels are shaded green, parcels Arts and Humanities; Brian Kelly, Economic Development that are unsuitable for SMP placement are shaded red, Manager for the Village; and Diane Bridges, Executive and parcels that are conditionally eligible for use are Director of Neighborhood Enrichment and Treatment shaded yellow.
The Village Heart Neighborhood Buildable Areas
Huntingdon Street
" "
Germantown Avenue
Warnock Street Warnock "A 11th Street 11th "
" " "B
" Alder Street Alder !
! "B " "
" Street 10th
! " " "A " ! !
Cumberland Street
Orthophoto: 2008 City of Philadelphia
Not Buildable Village Heart
0 100 200 Possible Buildable Parcel CRP Studio 2010 ¯ Buildable Map 4. Suitability of Village Feet Temple University Community and Regional Planning Department Heart parcels for SMP installation. 7 Suitable SMP Sites in the Village Heart Neighborhood Map 4 shows the suitability results for the Village Heart The Village owns or manages several properties in the neighborhood. Currently the Village manages and Village Heart neighborhood. Areas B1, B3, B4, B6, B8, maintains properties B9 and B5a as vegetable gardens B12a, B12b, and B14 (see photo below) are all used (see photo below). SMPs could potentially be constructed for Village activities and are lots where projects could in these locations, but the project design would have to be be built. The Village community building is located on incorporated into the garden designs of the Village. Area sites B12a and B12b; SMPs installed here should be B13 is also garden space that potentially could be a project designed to beautify the property and make it a point of site for SMPs designed to complement the existing use. interest along the Germantown Corridor. Between the areas listed above are parcels (B5b) with B10 is another parcel that can be utilized that lies just buildings that were recently demolished that are available outside the Village Heart, however it is recommended to the Village (see photo below). This strip of combined that SMPs installed outside of the Village Heart area parcels in the center of the Village Heart will provide require less maintenance than those directly within the the Village with a sizable area capable of capturing Village Heart neighborhood. stormwater runoff. Although these properties may be Properties A1, A4 and A5 are private property, and are contaminated with hazardous materials such as lead, therefore unavailable to build on. Properties A2 and A3 asbestos, or petroleum products, they could potentially are owned by the Village, but are used for purposes be used for SMPs or additional gardens if they were that will not allow for SMPs. planted on raised beds. Appendix B, Concerns for Urban Agriculture, provides more information on this subject.
Site B14 - Potential site for rain barrel placement Site B9 - Village orchard
Site B5b - Raised beds for gardening Sites B12a and B12b - Community stage area 8 Suitable SMP Sites in the Context Area The Context Area also has many areas that can potentially development on the property, resulting in considerable accommodate SMPs (see Map 5 on next page). Schools future savings on the property’s water bills. The lots located in the 3000 block of North 6th Street (Potter- between the 1000 and 1100 block of West Lehigh Thomas Elementary, in photo below), the 2800 block of Avenue and the Germantown Avenue corridor are North 12th Street (George Clymer Elementary), the 2400 also commercial areas that should look to add SMPs to block of North 8th Street and the 2200 block of North reduce the impervious surface area of those properties. 13th Street (Philadelphia Military Academy at Elverson) There are two developments occurring around Fairhill can provide large areas to capture runoff and should be Cemetery that cannot be built upon. Developers of considered strong candidates for SMPs. Two recreational the properties to the north of the cemetery bordered areas – Pennrose Playground, located at 1100 West by West Clearfield Street and West Indiana Avenue Susquehanna Avenue, and the ballfield and playground at and North 10th Street and North 9th Street, and to the North 11th and Cambria Streets (shown below) – are also southwest of the cemetery bordered by Germantown significant sites where SMPs should be considered. Avenue, North 11th Street, West Cambria Street and Fairhill Cemetery is a primary location for capturing West Somerset Street will be responsible for adding SMPs. large amounts of stormwater runoff in the Context The Village should conduct outreach to commercial and Area. Water infiltration projects designed by Cairone & residential developers about incorporating SMPs in any Kaupp are currently being constructed by Land Tech on design plans to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff, the cemetery grounds. thereby reducing potential increases in water bills. The Village maintains parks for the City on lot parcels Another prime opportunity for capturing runoff is bounded by the SEPTA railroad track, North 11th through streetscaping. This can be done by adding and 12th Streets and Cumberland Street. The Village trees and infiltration trenches and pits along the streets. should consult with the City about the possibility of The Shared Prosperity Planning Initiative identified the incorporating SMPs in all parks within the Context Area. transportation corridors and the Germantown corridor as a target area for beautification. Working in conjunction Considering the anticipated increases in water bills, the with PWD to plant trees along these corridors will not owner of the commercial property bounded by the only add in the beautification of the neighborhood, SEPTA railroad tracks, West Lehigh Avenue, and North but will also increase the amount of stormwater that is 13th Street has the potential to install several SMPs. captured and infiltrated into the ground. Such projects could be incorporated into any future
Potter-Thomas Elementary School
Playground yard at North 12th and Cambria Streets 9
Context Buildable Areas
Germantown Avenue Allegheny Avenue
SEPTA Rail West Clearfield Street 3100 Block
West Indiana Avenue 3000 Block
Cambria Street 2900 Block
Somerset Street
8th Street 8th 2800 Block 6th Street 6th
Lehigh Avenue 2700 Block 7th Street 7th
Broad Street Broad West Huntingdon Street
SEPTA Rail
9th Street 9th 2600 Block
5th Street 5th 11th Street 11th
Germantown Avenue West Cumberland Avenue 2500 Block 13th Street 13th
2400 Block West York Street
Dauphin Street Street 10th
2300 Block 12th Street 12th
West Susquehanna Avenue 2200 Block
Diamond Street 2100 Block
Parcel Data: Philadelphia Water Department
Not Buildable Village Heart
0 500 1,000 Possible Buildable Parcel CRP Studio Feet 2010 ¯ Buildable Temple University Community and Regional Planning Department
Map 5. Suitability of Context Area parcels for SMP installation. 10
This page intentionally left blank. Chapter 2 Improving Stormwater Management
Existing Site Conditions This narrative proposes an updated stormwater facilities should be conducted. Use of such reports, as management plan for the Village Heart neighborhood prepared by a qualified soil scientist, hydrogeologist, within the Context Area in accordance with the or geotechnical engineer, can be used to determine stormwater guidelines as stated in PWD’s Green City, the quality and appropriateness of subsurface soils, Clean Waters report. The Village Heart neighborhood particularly in areas where silt or clay soils, construction consists of terraced single-family residential structures debris, or seasonal water tables may be an issue, as is (row homes), open lots, and green areas. Impervious often the case within the Context Area. areas include sidewalks, roofs, streets and alleys. The site does not contain existing wetlands, hydric soils Site Drainage or known steep slopes. Using the PNDI (Pennsylvania Volume storage calculations were performed only Natural Diversity Inventory) review, the site does not to determine adequacy of the potential drainage show the presence of any threatened or endangered area relative to the potential capacity of proposed species. All stormwater from the target drainage area Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs). A more currently flows into the combined municipal sewer exhaustive analysis of peak discharges, channel flows system that is carried to municipal water treatment and inlet capture capacities will be required prior to facilities and, ultimately, the Delaware River, a construction of SMPs. designated warm water fishery (WWF) and migratory The design parameters for this project were to identify fish (MF) water of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, potential stormwater management areas that can according to Title 25, Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania accommodate one inch of runoff from contributing Code. The site is located within Zone ‘X’ (areas areas. It should be noted that no differentiation was determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance made between pervious and impervious coverage. or 500-year flood plain) as shown on the Federal Areas with significant impervious coverage will often Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood fill prior to the period when runoff from pervious areas Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Philadelphia County. equals one inch. On-site soils in the area of interest have a uniform soil Lastly, PWD has identified Green Street Eligibility Criteria, classification of Ub (Urban Land) per the USDA Web as noted in the draft version of the Green City, Clean Soil Survey of Philadelphia County, issued 02/08/2010. Waters, Model Neighborhoods packet dated November Drainage calculations performed in the pervious areas 2009. Due to the availability of land within the Village, of the Ub (Urban Land) areas should assume Class our recommendations rely greatly upon this report’s B soils, consistent with the Philadelphia Stormwater Parcel criteria. Other criteria, such as roadway slope Management Guidance Manual. Based on site and drainage area were also considered, particularly observations and information provided by stakeholders, within the Village Heart neighborhood, and only subsurface soils throughout the Context Area are generally within the larger Context Area. The location assumed to have been disturbed by human activity, with of subsurface utilities was not considered. Pennsylvania a fair to good probability of containing demolition debris state law requires subsurface utility locations to be and possessing a shallow seasonal high water table. identified at the time of detailed project design and Prior to any detailed design, subsurface soils analyses again prior to the start of construction. This information for all areas proposed as locations for SMP infiltration can be obtained via PA One Call (Dial 811). 12 Inlet Capacity SMPs designed to infiltrate captured runoff require a high level of maintenance. As a means of better managing this need, some level of filtration is recommended at the point of entry of stormwater runoff into the SMP system. Advanced filtration systems are available, but can be costly and require frequent service trips.
Recommended Stormwater Management Practices Of the SMPs reviewed, the following descriptions provide general and technical information that should be considered for determining the practices most suitable for reducing stormwater runoff from Context Area and Village Heart properties. Surface SMPs Bio-Retention/Infiltration Basins (Rain Gardens) - Rain Gardens are recognized by the City of Philadelphia’s Stormwater Guidance Manual (Chapter 7.5) and the Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual (BMP 6.4.5). Detailed recommendations are also to be found in the draft version of the Green City, Clean Waters, Model Neighborhoods packet dated November 2009. As demonstrated in Figure 2 below, rain garden design can be both simple and elegant. Essentially, the rain garden is a micro-ecology that not only consumes organic pollutants such as nitrates and phosphates, but also promotes the maintenance of essential macropores within the soil via deep root propagation and insect burrows. Done correctly, rain gardens offer value not only for water quality, but also for their appeal both aesthetically and to migratory animals as temporary shelters and food sources. Rain gardens are one of the simplest and cheapest methods of rain water harvesting. Because rain gardens are dug typically four to eight inches deep, and in some cases, one to two feet deep, they hold larger quantities of runoff, making their overall construction more cost efficient then other green alternatives. Rain gardens also need less technical experience to install and can be installed without permits, and sometimes without heavy equipment. For additional information about rain gardens, see Appendix C, Rain Garden Plant Selection List, and Appendix D, Rain Garden Maintenance Considerations. FIgure 2. Diagram of Rain Garden. Source: Philadelphia Stormwater Guidance Manual.
Pervious Pavement Systems - The use of pervious asphalt and concrete systems is growing in popularity; the City of Philadelphia’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (Chapter 4.2.6) recognizes the value of this SMP. We encourage installing pervious pavements where low levels of traffic and accessibility for routine sweeping make this practice feasible. For example, paved school playgrounds, tennis and basketball courts are good candidates for installation of pervious pavements, especially if they can be combined with infiltration SMPs beneath. However, these pavements are unsuitable in areas with high water tables. 13 Rooftop Systems Green Roofs – The City of Philadelphia Stormwater also detractors, however, so limiting rooftop options Management Guidance Manual (Chapter 4.2.5) also to green roofs alone is not recommended. In addition, recognizes the value of this SMP. Green roofs are quite green roofs may not be structurally suitable for existing popular with planners and regulators alike. Additionally, buildings and must compete for space with solar panels green roof suppliers have reacted to this growing and mechanical equipment (e.g. HVAC). market by creating a diverse range of products that vary Rainwater Capture and Reuse – Rainwater capture is according to ease of installation. worth consideration by new developers and owners The concept of a green roof is simple: vegetation of existing buildings alike, provided the captured planted on the roof captures rain falling on the roof. water can be used within 72 hours, as prescribed by The plants absorb the rain, thereby preventing the the Philadelphia Stormwater Management Guidance building’s roof runoff from being contributed to the Manual. It should be noted that the chapter of the storm sewer system. However, plants take time to Stormwater Manual on stormwater capture and reuse develop and must be watered during dry periods. To a was under review at the time of this writing. We limited degree, rainwater capture and reuse techniques recommend where rainwater capture and reuse is may also be employed for irrigating vegetable gardens considered, that ‘white’ roofs are required in order to and landscape plants. During extended periods of dry address the heat island effect within the City. weather, additional water will be required. Weeding PWD has promoted rain barrels as a preferred means is also an issue and must be vigorously performed of rainwater capture and re-use. While it will not solve in order to avoid structural issues associated with the problem alone, a single 55-gallon rain barrel could root penetration of roofing materials and structural capture 10-13% of the 1-inch runoff storm for a typical members. row home measuring 15’ x 45’. We would therefore The popularity of green roofs continues to grow, recommned expansion of this program to the greatest especially in areas of new development. There are extent practicable.
FIgure 3. Diagram of Runoff Capture and Reuse System. Source: Philadelphia Stormwater Guidance Manual. 14 Subsurface SMPs Non-Structural SMPs Underground Detention Systems – Detention systems Protect/ Utilize Natural Flow Pathways – Our analysis provide temporary storage area for excess stormwater, did not reveal the presence of existing vegetated swales and work as an integral part of the storm sewer system. or similar conveyances. We therefore recommend Runoff is stored and discharged over time whenever consideration be given to implementation of these runoff inflow exceeds the allowable discharge rate, as SMPs where feasible. defined in existing stormwater regulations. These systems are typically installed beneath parking lots, parks, and Reduction of Impervious Cover – We recommend sports fields to maximize property usage and lower that vacant parcels resulting from demolition, which development costs. are then sold to adjoining neighbors, be deed- restricted to limit development. We believe further Subsurface Infiltration Trenches/Chambers – recommendations, such as reduction in roadway and Underground infiltration trenches are commonly used sidewalk width, and incorporating pervious pavement or in sites where space limitations exist. The general layout of these trenches range from simple stone-filled pits to paver systems, are already being considered by PWD. complex manifold pipe or modular systems. In the most Trees – Preservation of existing trees has been common version, the stone-filled pit, more than half of considered of paramount importance as part of the the trench volume is stone, which provides at least 40 design process both for site aesthetics and as a valuable percent void space for storing runoff. Collecting runoff non-structural SMP. PWD gives credit for existing trees from multiple downspouts and inlet structures in an when new development projects are proposed. It may underground infiltration trench and using the stored be worth consideration to quantify the value of existing runoff for watering plants or other non-potable uses is and new trees for credit towards the one-inch runoff limited only by cost and available subsurface space. goals. Costs related to construction and maintenance of Disconnect from Storm Sewers – While underground SMPs are typically higher than surface systems due to accessibility issues. There exists a likelihood implementation of this plan will ultimately disconnect of eventual replacement if excessive volumes of fine the drainage area from the municipal system, soil particles accumulate within the outer pores of the promoting discharge of runoff onto yard areas should system, forming an impermeable filter cake. Furthermore, be promoted where possible. Offering small discounts it is recommended the use and design criteria of these to the stormwater portion of the water bill may be a SMPs be reviewed against recent research with respect method of prompting residents into compliance, even if to longevity and composition. For example, it is felt the benefits are marginal. Some manner of quantifying strongly by some in the design community that arches, this should be considered. such as those manufactured by Cultec or ABS/Stormtech, offer superior performance and ease of maintenance Street Sweeping and SMP Maintenance when compared to perforated round pipe systems. In addition to the inlet protections and SMPs proposed above, a regular and frequent program of street sweeping must be carried out in areas with stormwater infiltration systems. Use of street sweeping as a means to reduce the overall total suspended solids (TSS), nitrate and phosphate loads is recognized by the state in the Pennsylvania Storm Water BMP Manual.
FIgure 4. Manufactured underground stormwater infiltration system. Image source: CULTEC. 15 SMP Recommendations for the Village Heart Neighborhood Within the Village Heart neighborhood, rain gardens basins proposed for placement in the Village Heart have been chosen as the primary SMP due to the neighborhood could potentially accommodate 585 shallowness of the systems, avoidance of City rights-of- percent of the first inch of runoff for the total parcel area way and buried utilities, and avoidance of costly road owned by the Village. repairs or extensive excavations. Table 1 on the next page calculates the volumes The Village owns 36,866 square feet of property generated by the first inch of runoff for each watershed within the Village Heart neighborhood. Village-owned in the Village Heart neighborhood, and compares these parcels will generate 3,072 cubic feet of water from a amounts to the SMP storage capacity available within one-inch depth of runoff. The proposed rain garden that watershed. The results of this analysis indicate that basins, highlighted in Map 6 below, built to 100% across the entire Village Heart neighborhood, there is capacity as indicated on our plan, will provide a total just under enough storage to capture at least the first stormwater storage capacity of 17,994 cubic feet. The inch of runoff.
The Village Heart Neighborhood Green Infrastructure
Huntingdon Street
7
7
7 " "
Germantown Avenue 7 7
7 7
Warnock Street Warnock "A 11th Street 11th 7
" "B
" Alder Street Alder 7
7 "B " " 7
" Street 10th
" 7 " "A "
Cumberland Street
Orthophoto: 2008 City of Philadelphia
Temple University Village Heart Community and Regional Planning Department 0 100 200 Water Basin CRP Studio 2010 Map 6. Village Heart ¯ Watershed Feet watersheds and proposed basin sites. 16 The following basins have excess storage capacity To illustrate, the basin storage potential for Village- as indicated in Map 6 below, and can be reduced owned parcels within the Village Heart neighborhood is in size: B1, B4, B5a, B5b, B7, B8, B9, and B11. An approximately 17,994 cubic feet. Village-owned parcels alternative would be to retain the proposed basin sizes will generate 3,072 cubic feet of water from a one-inch to accommodate flows from adjacent properties and depth of runoff. This could allow the Village to accept watersheds within the Village Heart that do not have nearly 15,000 cubic feet of runoff from neighboring adequate basin storage. Those basins without adequate properties, city streets and sidewalks, or other city-owned capacity include: B2, B3, B7, and B10. The watersheds properties. If such an incentive system could be devised, for these basins will require the use of other SMPs to the Village could receive billing credits from the PWD for accommodate overflows. handling this additional runoff,
Table 1. Basin storage calculations comparison with one-inch runoff contributions from all properties in the Village Heart neighborhood.
Selected Parcel Analysis for the Context Area
The Context Buildable Areas map located on the opposite is provided in Table 2 on page 18. The analysis ranks page identifies 20 Context Area properties that should be each property’s suitability for SMP placement, as well targeted for SMP placement. Village-owned properties and as an evalution of whether the site can accommodate public property were given the highest priority for SMP runoff volumes that exceed the first inch. More specific installation, recognizing that public entities have the most information for each property is listed in the Context Area opportunity to act in the public interest. Further analysis Property Notes section at the the bottom of page 18. 17
Context Buildable Areas
Allegheny Avenue
Germantown Avenue
SEPTA Rail 3100 Block
West Clearfield Street
7th Street 7th 5th Street 5th A 3000 Block West Indiana Avenue
G B Street 6th
2800 Block Cambria Street 2900 Block
H 8th Street 8th
PARCEL NAME/LOCATION PROPERTY OWNER Somerset Street 2700 Block A Potter Thomas Public School Phila. School District B Fairhill Cemetery Ephesians Baptist Church 8th St. Row Homes (B/T Phila. & Private I C Huntingdon & Lehigh) Individuals Lehigh Avenue Vacant Lot PHA/City of Phila./ S D
9th Street 9th (8th & Huntingdon) Private Individuals
Broad Street Broad K J E St. Edwards School Phila. School District West Huntingdon Street C St. Edwards School SEPTA Rail F Phila. School District Recreation Center D Playground & Vacant Land G City of Phila. (11th & W. Cambria) H Clymer School Phila. School District West Cumberland AvenueO Germantown Avenue Vacant Parcels Phila. Suburban & 11th Street 11th I (1000 Block W. Lehigh) Private Individuals P Bank Near Oakdale & F J Phila. Suburban E Germantown Ave.
13th Street 13th PHA/City of Phila./ K Row Homes (11th & Oakdale) West York Street Private Individuals Q Vacant Land L Africa Relief Program, Inc. (2200 Block N. 9th St.)
10th Street 10th Vacant Land M Friendz, Inc. Dauphin Street (10th & W. Colona) Auto Repair/Industrial Warehouse N Private Individuals (Diamond & N. Delhi) M Vacant Land L O PHA/Private Individuals R (2500 Block N. 11th St.)
12th Street 12th West Susquehanna Avenue P Fotterall Square City of Phila. T Vacant Lot Near Q Sage Folding Box Co. Fotterall Square City Pool/Park & Vacant R City of Phila./Private Individuals N Land (11th & Susquehanna) Diamond Street S Industrial/Commercial Parcels SEPTA/Phia. Suburban
T Elverson School Phila. School District
Parcel Data: Philadelphia Water Department
Not Buildable Village Heart
0 500 1,000 Possible Buildable Parcel CRP Studio 2010 Feet ¯ Buildable Temple University Community and Regional Planning Department
Map 7. Context Area properties identified for SMP placement. 18 Parcel ID Parcel Parcel Name/Location PropertyOwner (Acres) Area (SF) Area Runoff 1" (CF) Runoff 6" (CF) Potentialfor surplusstorage Mulitple SMPs Required? Rainwatercapture andreuse GreenRoofs Bioretention systems Pervious pavements Underground infiltrationpractices A Potter Thomas Public School Philadelphia School District 3.75 163,350 13,613 81,675 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B Fairhill Cemetary Ephesians Baptist Church 4.78 208,217 17,351 104,108 High No No No Yes Yes Yes 8th St Row Homes (B/T Huntingdon & C Lehigh) Philadelphia & Private Individuals 0.95 41,382 3,449 20,691 Low Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes D Vacant Lot (8th & Huntingdon) PHA/Philadelphia (VERIFY) 0.13 5,663 472 2,831 High No No No Yes No Yes E St Edwards School Philadelphia School District 2.2 95,832 7,986 47,916 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes F St Edwards School Recreation Center Philadelphia School District 1.93 84,071 7,006 42,035 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Playground and Vacant Land (11th & W G Cambria) Philadelphia 2.07 90,169 7,514 45,085 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes H Clymer School Philadelphia School District 1.14 49,658 4,138 24,829 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Philadelphia Suburban & Private I Vacant Parcels (1000 Block W Lehigh) Individuals 0.24 10,454 871 5,227 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bank near Oakdale and Germantown J Ave Philadelphia Suburban 0.28 12,197 1,016 6,098 Low Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
K Row Homes 11th and Oakdale PHA/Philadelphia/Private Individuals 0.2 8,712 726 4,356 Low No No No Yes Yes Yes L Vacant Land (2200 Block N 9th Street) Africa Relief Program, Inc. 1.27 55,321 4,610 27,661 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes M Vacant Land (10th & W Colona) Friendz, Inc. 0.98 42,689 3,557 21,344 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Auto Repair/Industrial Warehouse N (Diamond & N Delhi) Private Individuals 0.85 37,026 3,086 18,513 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
O Vacant Land (2500 Block N 11th Street) PHA/Private Individuals 0.25 10,890 908 5,445 High No No No Yes Yes Yes P Fotterall Square Philadelphia 4.64 202,118 16,843 101,059 High No No No Yes Yes Yes Q Vacant lot near Fotterall Square Sage Folding Box Co. 1.98 86,249 7,187 43,124 High No No No Yes Yes Yes City Pool/Park and Vacant land (11th & R Susquehanna) Philadelphia/Private Individuals 1.67 72,745 6,062 36,373 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S Industrial/Commercial Parcels SEPTA/ Philadelphia Suburban 5.94 258,746 21,562 129,373 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes T Elverson School Philadelphia School District 2.47 107,593 8,966 53,797 High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Criteria Notes: Potential for surplus storage: Able to accommodate offsite runoff (variable volume)-further analysis is warranted. Multiple SMPs Required? Some sites may be best suited with 1+ of the same type of SMP, others by a variety. Rainwater capture and reuse: Preferred over green roofs where possible. Green Roofs: Will require structural analysis of existing structures. Bioretention systems: Preferred. Includes rain gardens, retention ponds, artifical wetlands, and etc. Pervious pavements: Includes sidewalk pavers. Underground infiltration practices: Use where bioretention systems cannot be used. Table 2. Results of parcel analysis for selected Context Area properties. Context Area Property Notes
Site ID Notes A Ample green space; can be considered for surface collection K Parcel may suffice to accommodate runoff from adjacent lots. from pavement. L Removal of all site impervious surfaces recommended; B Owner of cemetery is installing stormwater measures outside optimum location for SMPs. the focus of this study. M Ample green space; can be considered for surface correction C No available green space was noted. from pavement. Optimum location for SMPs; topography may be limiting factor. D Parcel may suffice to accommodate runoff from adjacent lots. N Do not recommend for extensive SMP development. E Ample green space; can be considered for surface correction from pavement. O Parcel may suffice to accommodate runoff from adjacent lots. F Greening of paved areas is recommended; site could benefit P Two to three foot cement walls surrounding parcel; elevation from addition of landscaping to hardscaping features. makes surface SMPs problematic. G Valuable educational area – multiple SMPs and kiosks/signs Q Parcel is downgrade from parcel “P” – favorable location for recommended. Restore sidewalk planter boxes with trees; High large surface SMP. potential for large surface and/or subsurface SMPs to capture R Valuable educational area; multiple SMP’s and kiosks/signs street runoff. recommended. H Greening of paved areas is recommended. S Greening of paved areas is recommended; Industrial/ I Parcel may suffice to accommodate runoff from adjacent lots. commercial site environmental concerns. J Green measures installed will have a high profile in this location. T Greening of paved areas is recommended. 19 General SMP Recommendations for All Context Area Parcels Schools Green roofs: Feasible where permitted by structural inspections. Potential for surplus storage: Feasible by use of extensive use of underground infiltration or extended Bioretention systems: Install where topography allows, detention systems, as determined by soil suitability and particularly in alleys, large side yards, mow strips and future site plans. edge of pavement areas. Pervious pavement: Where practical, particularly in parking areas. Rainwater capture and reuse: Feasible during school year due to large student populations. Off-season water Underground infiltration practices: Feasible where needed to manage remaining volumes, as needed. usage must be addressed. Areas of Concern: Property owners will require Green roofs: Feasible where permitted by structural thorough education on SMP maintenance. Children inspections. may need to be restrained from surface SMPs for both Bioretention systems: As topography allows, safety and maintenance purposes. particularly in parking islands and edges of pavement areas. Dedication of downgrade portions of existing field Parks and Vacant Lots should be considered for shallow bioretention systems Potential for surplus storage: Feasible by use of where recreational uses will not be negatively impacted. extensive use of underground infiltration, extended Pervious pavement: Install where practical, particularly detention or bioretention systems, as determined by soil suitability and future site plans. in paved play and parking areas. Rainwater capture and reuse: Not feasible, unless Underground infiltration practices: Feasible where demand related to fountain supply, irrigation or other needed to manage large stormwater runoff volumes when non-potable uses will support it. placed under parking areas, play areas, or athletic fields. Green roofs: Not feasible, except on frequently used Areas of Concern: Landscapers will require thorough buildings. education on SMP maintenance. Children may need Bioretention systems: Feasible. This is the preferred to be restrained from surface SMPs for both safety and system if determined adequate by soil suitability and maintenance purposes. future site plans. Row Homes and Residential Structures with Pervious pavement: As and where practical, Large Impervious Areas particularly in parking areas of parks. Potential for surplus storage: Feasible by use of Underground infiltration practices: Feasible where extensive use of underground infiltration or extended needed to manage remaining volumes, as needed. detention systems, most likely within the City rights-of-way Areas of Concern: Landscapers will require thorough and as determined by soil suitability and future site plans. education on SMP maintenance. In the case of parks Rainwater capture and reuse: Feasible, though like Fotterall, collection of adjacent site runoff may prove education of residents will be required. challenging due to the higher elevation of the park relative to the surrounding sidewalk elevations. 20
Large Commercial and Industrial Lots laboratory tested for contaminants, particularly in bus Potential for surplus storage: Feasible via use of depots (SEPTA), diesel truck yards, and old railroad extensive use of underground infiltration or extended coal storage lots. SMPs near fueling or other chemical detention systems, as determined by soil suitability and handling uses should be equipped with spill kits and future site plans. responsible personnel identified and trained in their use. Rainwater capture and reuse: Feasible where water Redevelopment Considerations demands are sufficient. Beyond interior gray water uses; exterior power washing, truck/trailer washing, Water Quality Requirement: Consider changing and landscape irrigation may be considered, provided requirement to one inch of runoff from “All Directly runoff from these activities can also be managed in Connected Impervious Areas (DCIA)” – impervious accordance with current laws. areas that connected to a storm sewer system – to “All Green Roofs: Feasible where permitted by structural Impervious Areas,” prior to adjustment for non-structural inspections. SMP credits (such as trees). Bioretention systems: Install where topography allows, Channel Protection Requirements: Consider particularly in parking islands and at edges of pavement identifying publicly accessible zones where additional areas. Dedication of downgrade portions of existing channel protection, based on sewer outfalls, is required. yards/vacant parcels should be considered for shallow Developers’ Agreements: Consider entering bioretention systems where routine operations will not into development agreements where developers be negatively impacted. overdevelop storm water facilities and, in return, receive Pervious pavement: Where practical, particularly in credits from adjacent property owners (paid through parking areas. PWD as a credit). Underground infiltration practices: Feasible where Credit for Existing Impervious Cover: Consider needed to manage remaining volumes, as needed. removing the credit for 80% of existing impervious Areas of Concern: Landscapers will require thorough cover for redevelopment projects. education on SMP maintenance. Soils should be
Cost Estimates for Rain Garden Installation The stormwater runoff analysis for the Village Heart of a typical rain garden can be slightly higher than neighborhood and the surrounding Context Area conventional stormwater management, mostly concluded that rain gardens are the most efficient and due to the amount of vegetated material needed cost effective SMPs to use for this study. The cost of initially. However, the long term investment in rain a rain garden can vary depending on who does the garden facilities has the potential to go beyond its installation and where the plant material comes from. use for stormwater control; the rain garden provides One way to cut costs associated with rain garden attractive landscaping and a natural habitat for birds installation is to grow your own plants. Another way and butterflies, while encouraging environmental to cut costs is to install the rain garden yourself. If the stewardship and community pride. installation is done by the property owner, materials In some instances, rain gardens have actually been will cost an average of $3 to $5 per square foot. If a cheaper to install than conventional stormwater professional contractor is hired to do the installation controls. For example, a medical office building in the cost of materials will be on average $10 to $12 per Maryland was able to reduce the amount of storm square foot. Commercial, industrial, and institutional site drain pipe that was needed from 800 to 230 feet costs can range between $10 to $40 per square foot, because of rain garden installations. This produced based on the need for control structures, curbing, storm project cost savings of $24,000. In another case, a new drains and underdrains (see Table 3, page 21). residential development spent a total of approximately In any rain garden design, the cost of plants varies $100,000 by installing rain gardens instead of the substantially and can account for a significant portion traditional stormwater ponds designed for the site, of the facility’s expenditures. The initial capital cost which were estimated to cost $400,000. 21
Rain Garden Cost Estimates Average Project Cost Materials Cost per unit Other Costs Residential Single Lot Planning $200 Mulch $26/cu. yd. PWD Application Fee $150 Design $875 Sand $16/cu. yd. Compost $32/cu. yd. Commercial New Topsoil $26/cu. yd. Planning $845 Design $3,600 Native Plants $2-15/ plant Commercial Retrofit Planning $350 Design $2,410 Table 3. Rain Garden cost estimates. Local organizations, environmental groups, and landscape architecture firms may be able to provide assistance with grant opportunities, equipment, and volunteers needed to help build the rain garden. A list identifying potential funding sources is included on page 22. One additional consideration with regard to the installation of rain gardens is the need to maintain them over time to insure that they continue to provide stormwater control, as rain gardens require long-term maintenance in terms of weeding and mulching. Community members can be engaged to help with the burden of ongoing maintenance of rain gardens on public property.
Village Heart Neighborhood Rain Garden Cost Estimates Total Costs Site # Parcel ID Rain Garden With Labor* Without Labor** Size (sq. ft.) 1 423371; 297074; 2,909 $ 31,999 $ 11,636 161238 2 123192 1,810 19,910 7,240 3 3724 483 5,313 1,932 4 522773 1,001 11,011 4,004 5 541805 756 8,316 3,024 6 177787;505649 711 7,821 2,844 7 287390;303848;202993; 4,466 49,126 17,864 418690; 91800 8 169020; 37821; 34644 1,116 12,276 4,464 9 63579; 473117; 184448 2,655 29,205 10,620 10 196788; 80509; 120797; 3,651 40,161 14,604 521796; 170953 11 11470; 202300; 541950; 5,849 64,339 23,396 150148;530311;446779 12 465431; 505579; 49897 2,056 22,616 8,224 13 48216; 207813; 42904 3,891 42,801 15,564 14 115970; 523122; 47543; 4,632 50,952 18,528 118444; 136093 TOTAL $395,846 $143,944
* Calculated at $11/sq.ft. ** Calculated at $4/sq.ft. Table 4. Rain Garden cost estimates for Village Heart neighborhood. 22
Funding Sources
The following table lists sources of potential funding support for the Village’s green infrastructure project and community-based programs.
Table 5. Green infrastructure funding sources. Chapter 3 Assessing the Financial Impacts
Water Billing HIstorically, PWD has recovered the costs for the operation For those customers that will see noticeable increases in and maintenance of its stormwater system components their stormwater fees, PWD will identify opportunities for through a service charge related to the customer’s water owners to reduce the amount of impervious area on their meter size. However, as the City’s stormwater management property and thus decrease their stormwater fees. costs have increased, it became necessary to find a new PWD has also evaluated properties that do not presently billing system that reflects the true cost of stormwater have a water/sewer account. These parcels also generate management and to distribute those costs fairly among stormwater runoff that is managed by the City and PWD’s customers. Previously, technological limitations therefore should be reasonably charged for such service. prevented PWD from implementing a fairer and more These current non-customers include parking lots, utility accurate billing system. Today, Geographic Information rights-of-way and vacant land. PWD applied the same System (GIS) technology, which includes detailed aerial 80/20 impervious/gross area formula to these properties photography and database coordinates, has allowed PWD to identify appropriate charges. Stormwater costs can now to modernize its method of stormwater billing. The new be spread out and shared over a larger customer base, parcel-based water bill comprises a service-related charge resulting in a decrease for all current customers. and a parcel-based charge. Customers who have the ability to decrease the Parcel-Based Billing amount of Directly Connected Impervious Area (hard surfaces that direct runoff to the City’s sewer system) on PWD has developed a Stormwater Management Service their property may do so using any number of SMPs, (SWMS) charge based on the gross size of a customer’s including those featured in Chapter 2. Once a property property and the property’s impervious surface area, as these has been retrofitted with any of these features, PWD two factors are most important in determining a property’s would reevaluate the SWMS fees based on the 80/20 stormwater runoff contribution. Because the impervious impervious/gross area formula. factor is the most dominant factor in calculating stormwater runoff, 80% of the stormwater costs will be charged and A property-based SWMS charge will result in a fair “cost recovered based on a property’s impervious area and 20% of of service” that provides incentives for non-residential and the stormwater costs will be based on its gross area. stormwater-only customers to incorporate green building practices, where practicable, into their sites. Additionally, all Since a detailed analysis of each of the 450,000 residential customers will be more aware of the impact they have and properties in the City is impractical for the scope of this report, the importance of urban stormwater management practices. all residential properties will be treated as a single parcel, with the total costs divided among the whole, based on total gross area and impervious area factors. Year Existing Meter-based New Parcel-based PWD staff analyzed the approximately 40,000 Charge Charge non-residential accounts to determine, on an 7/1/10 to 6/30/11 75% 25% individual customer basis, the stormwater runoff 7/1/11 to 6/30/12 50% 50% contribution of each large customer parcel. The 7/1/12 to 6/30/13 25% 75% new rates will be gradually phased in over the 7/1/13 0% 100% next four years starting July 1, 2010 (Table 6, right). Table 6. Schedule for change to parcel-based charges. 24 How Stormwater Management Service Charges Are Calculated
PWD will relate a property’s burden on the sewer system directly to its SWMS charge by using the property’s individual characteristics as the basis for this fee. PWD will use high-tech mapping software to measure a property’s gross area and impervious area. Impervious area is classified as any surface that prevents water from soaking into the ground. Once PWD knows a property’s gross and impervious area, they apply the following formula to calculate the SWMS charge:
SWMS Charge = (Gross Area Rate (.20) * Total Area of Property) + (Impervious Area Rate (.80) * Impervious Area of Property)
PWD Stormwater Credit Program PWD has established a stormwater credit program for non-residential and condominium properties. Through the stormwater credit program, property owners may be able to reduce their monthly SWMS charge by implementing SMPs to effectively reduce the amount of runoff flowing from their property, and in doing so, reduce the amount of runoff contributed towards the City’s overburdened sewer system. There are three classes of credits: the Impervious Area Stormwater Credit (IA Credit), the Gross Area Stormwater Credit (GA Credit), and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Industrial Permit Stormwater Credit (NPDES Credit). Credits are a percent reduction applied to the IA Charge, GA Charge, and/or to the entire SWMS charge. Depending on the types of SMPs installed, a property may be eligible for all three types of credits. Under the current regulations, the total amount of stormwater credits received may not exceed 100% of the monthly SWMS charge.
Applying for Stormwater Credits In order to receive SWMS credits, it is necessary to employ the services of a professional consultant. A licensed engineer, surveyor, or other registered professional is required to verify site plans and SMP design calculations. One of these professionals would need to be retained to examine each property, decide on appropriate SMPs, and calculate the cost of implementation. These costs would determine the practicality of implementation and whether it was in the property owner’s best interest to proceed. PWD’s suggested procedure of applying for stormwater credits is: 1. Select a consultant to design an SMP for your property. 2. Submit the design plans to PWD Plan Review as a stormwater retrofit project. 3. After creating the final design, obtain any other necessary city/state permits and produce construction documents. 4. Select a contractor and construct the SMP. 5. Once the SMP is built, contact your design consultant to help you complete and submit Form B: Stormwater Credits Application. 25 Impact Analysis of the Stormwater Charge on Village-Owned Properties
The SWMS charge for the Village’s water bills total will increase July 1, 2013 to $554 a month, Year Existing Meter- New Parcel- Total an increase of $477 (Table 7, right). The Village’s based Charge based Charge monthly water bill had averaged $250 per Before 7/1/10 $77 $0 $77 month, so adding the $477 SWMS charge will 7/1/10 to 6/30/11 $58 $139 $197 almost triple its monthly water bills. 7/1/11 to 6/30/12 $39 $277 $316 Within the Village Heart neighborhood, the 7/1/12 to 6/30/13 $19 $416 $435 Village owns 48 parcels, 42 of which are After 7/1/2013 $0 $554 $554 undeveloped lots. The six parcels with housing Table 7. Impact analysis of monthly SWMS rates on Village-owned units are classified by PWD as Residential. properties. Residential lots have a set rate applied to them by the City and are currently ineligible for any credit programs. While all 42 vacant lots are eligible for credit, 41 of these have gross and impervious area charges of only seven dollars, well below the minimum SWMS charge of $11.06 per parcel assessed by PWD. Therefore, the Village will not be able to reduce its SWMS charges given PWD’s current credit system. However, if a second credit system can be implemented – one that may be more appropriate for owners of small parcels and possibly also for residential property owners – there would be an incentive for the Village and other similar parcel owners to be involved in stormwater reduction and in implementing SMPs.
Impact Analysis of the Stormwater Charge on the Context Area There are 9,387 parcels in the larger Context Area. Of owners should be encouraged to mitigate stormwater these, 5,712 are classified by PWD as Residential, and are runoff, there is not a strong economic incentive for small-lot ineligible to receive SWMS credit. owners to install SMPs. Generally, those private property owners with SWMS charges over $10 per month, or The owners of the remaining 3,675 vacant lots, buildings, $120 annually, will have a compelling economic reason parking lots, garages, etc., are eligible to receive credit for to implement SMPs. A map of this analysis is featured in reducing the amount of impervious cover by incorporating Appendix E, Context Area Properties, Impact of Stormwater SMPs on their property. Of these 3,675 lots, 2,928 will Billing Charge on Monthly Water Bill. have SWMS charges under $10.00. Although all property
Land Use Total Non-Residential New Charge New Charge New Charge New Charge Classification Properties < $10 $10 to $100 $101 to $500 > $501 Building 1,041 506 450 72 13 Cemetery 1 0 0 1 0 Garage 27 21 5 1 0 Vacant Lot 2,490 2,342 138 9 1 Park 1 0 1 0 0 Parking 103 67 31 5 0 Playground 4 0 3 1 0 Powerstation 2 0 1 0 1 Scrapyard 2 2 0 0 0 Totals 3,671 2,938 629 89 15
Table 8. Impact analysis of SWMS rates on property by land use classification. 26 Costs and Benefits: Affordability and Incentives for Private Investment The new SWMS charge provides residential ratepayers cost $6,300 in filing fees. We suggest this issue could little direct economic incentive to implement SMPs on be resolved by creating additional categories allowable their properties, as the new charges will have virtually under PWD’s Stormwater Credits Application. As an no impact on most residential water bills. Currently, the owner of multiple properties, the Village would be average residential water bill is $10.99. With the new allowed to combine their properties to be considered as SWMS charge, the same water bill will be $11.06 per a single unit for minimum charges and for application month. fees. This would reduce the filing cost for the Village Non-residential ratepayers who will have an SWMS by $6,150 and its minimum charge by $454. Another charge greater than ten dollars per month have a option would be to create a category that offered a greater economic incentive to implement SMPs. These discounted SWMS charge to nonprofit organizations. property owners are identified in Appendix F, Context Our third suggestion is the most ambitious. We Area Properties, Top 30 Payers by Increase Under New recommend that private lots that store additional runoff Stormwater Billing Charge and Appendix G, Context volumes – essentially collected from neighboring Area Properties, Top 30 Payers by Total Bill Under New properties, both public and private – receive a credit Stormwater Billing Charge. acknowledging the additional volume collected. The Village, whose average water bill will increase 106 Returning to the previous example, after capturing its percent, from $264 per month to $514 per month under own contribution of 3,072 cubic feet of runoff, Village- the new SWMS billing structure, has significant incentive owned properties in the Village Heart can store nearly to implement SMPs on their properties. See Appendix H, an additional 15,000 cubic feet of runoff. This additional Village Properties – Change in Water Bill by Lot Under capacity could be used to store excess runoff from New Stormwater Billing Charge. surrounding areas, including City-owned streets and sidewalks. The Village should be compensated for As previously mentioned, PWD rules stipulate that only reducing additional runoff and thereby contributing to non-residential and condominium property owners the community. The calculation below recommends are currently eligible to obtain SWMS credits. PWD that the Village receive a $1,215 credit against its overall is devising additional incentives, such as expedited water bill charge. The remaining balance should be permitting for using green technologies to manage applied as a credit against its property taxes. This model stormwater. should also be applied to commercial properties to We offer three suggestions for expanding the incentivize increased runoff capturing. current credit program. The first is to allow for wider Calculations participation; we recommend that PWD adopt a credit Within the Village Heart neighborhood, Village-owned system for residential properties modeled after Portland, parcels can capture 14,922 cubic feet more than the Oregon’s innovative stormwater credit system that required amount set forth by the new PWD regulations. applies to both residential and nonresidential properties. Therefore, 485.7 percent (14,922/3,072= 4.857) See Appendix I, Portland’s Clean River Rewards Program. more runoff can be captured than required by PWD. We believe that even a minor incentive for Hypothetically 100% = $250/month stormwater bill, so it homeowners to reduce their stormwater runoff would is recommended that The Village receive a $1,215 credit increase public awareness of and participation in (4.857 x $250) against their overall water bill charge. stormwater management issues. This suggestion would need much more study, but we Second, the current system works fine for large, single believe that it has the highest potential for significantly parcel owners, but serves as an economic disincentive reducing stormwater runoff, for lessening the burden for smaller, multiple-property owners like the Village. on the Combined Sewer System, and in effect, saving Currently, parcel owners must pay a minimum charge PWD the most money over the long term. for each parcel of $11.06 (not including billing fees), regardless of any SMPs they install on their properties. Using the Village as an example, charges for the 42 undeveloped lots owned by the Village amount to a bill of $465 per month that it has no way of reducing. Even if there were no minimum, the Village would still have to pay a $150 application fee per parcel, which would 27 Triple Bottom Line: Quantifiable Benefits and Costs Regardless of the direct economic impact of the new SWMS charges, a Triple Bottom Line approach suggests that implementing a green stormwater infrastructure is an overall favorable method for managing stormwater runoff as compared to traditional grey technologies. Such an approach reflects the fact that society and its enterprises typically are engaged in activities intended to provide the greatest total value to the communities they serve and that these values extend beyond the traditional financial bottom line that portrays only cash flows. A Triple Bottom Line approach captures the financial, social and economic benefits and costs. From this perspective, the benefits of a green stormwater system include:
• Water quality and ecosystem improvement • Recreation benefits • Reduction in heat stress mortality • Air quality improvement from trees and plants • Green infrastructure jobs to reduce the social costs of poverty • Energy savings, and • Improved property values from proximity to parks and greenery. 28
This page intentionally left blank. Chapter 4 Conclusion & Key Recommendations
1. Recommended Stormwater Management 3. Financial Recommendations Practices in the Village Heart Neighborhood From the Triple Bottom Line perspective, the Village Installing rain gardens is the most suitable method Heart Neighborhood stands to benefit significantly for reducing stormwater runoff from the village from implementing SMPs. Nonetheless, the current area. Our conclusion considers the shallowness stormwater credit system in effect creates disincentive of the systems, avoidance of City rights-of way for the Village to incur the initial outlay of the and buried utilities, and avoidance of costly road SMPs and participation in the credit program. We repairs or extensive excavations. The proposed recommend that PWD revise its credit program by: SMPs (shown in Map 5), if built to 100% capacity • Creating categories that allow for more as indicated in our plan could accommodate participation by larger groups of parcel owners. 585% of the first inch of runoff for the total parcel area owned by the Village. Additionally, we have • Devising a program, such as ‘Portland’s identified basins that have excess storage capacity, Clean River Rewards,’ to allow residential which could remain at the proposed sizes to property owners to participate in stormwater accommodate flows from adjacent properties and management practices by offering minor watersheds within the Village Heart that do not reductions to their water bills. Providing even have adequate basin storage. The watersheds for a small incentive for homeowners to install these basins will require the use of other SMPs to SMPs would increase the public’s awareness accommodate overflows. and increase their participation in stormwater management issues. 2. Recommended Stormwater Management • Crediting residential and commercial property Practices in the Context Area owners who store runoff from surrounding Schools, parks and vacant lots, residential properties areas. The credit could be applied against an and commercial/industrial lots have varying degrees owner’s overall water bill and possibly even of potential for surplus storage and rainwater against their property taxes. This suggestion capture and reuse. Where storage, capture and/ needs more study, but we believe that it has or reuse are feasible, owners should install green the highest potential for seriously reducing roofs, biorentention systems, pervious pavements, stormwater runoff in Philadelphia at considerable underground infiltration systems, bearing in mind savings to PWD. the specific areas of concern for each site. This page intentionally left blank. Appendices This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A. Current Green Efforts in the Shared Prosperity Community
Aramark to show individuals and business owners how to Aramark is a leader in professional services, providing install their own systems as well as partner with local award-winning food services, facilities management, organizations to do job training while installing their and uniform and career apparel to health care institu- stormwater management demonstration systems. tions, universities and school districts, stadiums and arenas, and businesses around the world. Aramark’s Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS): 250,000 employees worldwide enrich lives through Philadelphia Green business and community activities. Their focus is on For more than 30 years the Pennsylvania Horticultural initiatives that support a diverse workforce, enhance Society’s Philadelphia Green program has used and protect the environment, strengthen communities, horticulture to build community and improve the and advance consumer health and wellness. Aramark quality of life in Philadelphia’s neighborhoods and is partnering with the Village this spring to help further downtown public spaces. Philadelphia Green revitalize the Village’s gardens. promotes a comprehensive approach to revitalizing and maintaining the city’s green infrastructure as a key Fairhill Burial Ground element in urban renewal. It puts this approach into A key contributor to stormwater management in the action by partnering with local residents, community area is the Fairhill Burial Ground. The city water depart- groups, government, and businesses to revitalize ment has approved their plans to install a water infiltra- parks and public spaces, reclaim abandoned land, tion system that will catch storm water before it reaches build community capacity and develop and preserve the storm drains. Fairhill Burial ground received certifica- community green space. Philadelphia Green plans to tion for their efforts from Audubon International. plant two trees in the Fairhill section of the study area. They have also created three community gardens just blocks outside of the study area: Glenwood Green Federation of Neighborhood Centers (FNC) & Teens Acres, Las Parcelas and Marshall Street Garden. 4 Good The Federation of Neighborhood Centers is a Philadelphia Orchard Project (POP) membership organization that supports member organizations through policy development, advocacy The mission of the Philadelphia Orchard Project and capacity building activities. Teens 4 Good is a is to plant orchards in the city of Philadelphia that Federation of Neighborhood Centers program that provide healthy food, green spaces and community builds long-term, working relationships with promising food security. There are four orchards in the shared students attending Philadelphia’s public high schools, prosperity region; Fairhill Orchard, planted in beginning in the ninth grade. The Teens 4 Good collaboration with Historic Fairhill Burial Ground, WCRP program provides high school students with the skills, Orchard, planted in collaboration with the Women’s confidence and support needed to enter and complete Community Revitalization Project, and Hartranft college, attain and sustain challenging jobs, perform Elementary Orchard and Norris Square Orchard, effectively in the workplace, and make choices that both planted by Philadelphia Orchard Project. POP lead to successful and meaningful lives. Teens 4 Good also planted a tree, and developed two community partnered with The Village and conducted soil tests gardens and an urban farm in the surrounding area. on the village gardens to ensure that environmentally Friends of Fair Hill Burial Ground added an orchard to sound and edible crops can be grown in The Village the community garden on the edge of their landmark gardens. cemetery, where famous abolitionists rest. Youth involved in Fair Hill’s environmental education programs share the harvest with their families and neighbors. Green Village Philadelphia’s Urban Studio (US) Urban Studio is a program of Green Village Temple Community Gardens Philadelphia. The mission of Urban Studio is to collaborate with Philadelphia communities to develop Temple University Community Gardens joined Penrose new processes for creating solutions for sustainable Recreation Center and Dunbar Elementary School urban living. US met with Lansie Sylvia and Elizabeth to create two new community gardens located on Grimaldi of The Village of Arts and Humanities in 2211 North 12th Street and 1750 North 12th Street March of 2010 to discuss doing several rain collection for the purpose of bringing the students and children installations and hope to develop a plan and designs of the community together while educating them to engage people in the community during the design, on sustainable changes that improve the physical installation, and use. US will also hold workshops environment of the community. This page intentionally left blank. Appendix B. Concerns for Urban Agriculture
Executive Summary: Concerns for Urban Agriculture The increasing popularity of gardening, particularly in an urban context, has sparked a renewed awareness of the potential health hazards associated with exposure to contaminated soils. Soils found in urban environments can be exposed to numerous types of contamination as a result of the site’s previous activities or from the activities of ad- jacent properties. The two most common contaminents found in urban soils are lead and arsenic. Although both chemical elements can be found naturally in the environment, their concentration and distribution has increased as a result of human activities e.g.- leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, arsenic pesticides, treated wood. Plants absorb soil and lead through their roots. The relationship between soil and plant lead absorption varies greatly and it can be difficult to determine how much lead a plant will take up when grown on lead contaminated soils. Plant arsenic levels, however, generally tend to increase with increased soil concentrations, eventually stabiliz- ing at some maximum value. Root portions of plants typically contain the highest concentrations of contaminants. Contamination levels decrease as the elements are absorbed up through the shoots, leaves, and fruit. Additionally, contaminants can be ingested directly via the soil particles that adhere to the leaves, fruits, and roots of the crop. It is important to remove the outer leaves of leafy greens, peel vegetables when applicable, and thoroughly wash all harvested plants before consumption. Urban gardeners should consider using raised beds or containers for gardening on soils suspected of contamination, especially when growing root vegetables, leafy greens and herbs, which are particularly susceptible to lead accumulation in their edible tissue. Knowledge of current and past land use offers valuable insight about the presence of possible contaminants. Lead and arsenic contaminants are likely to be present under the following conditions:
§ Gardens within 20 feet of older buildings or structures once painted with lead-based paints. § Gardens within 100 feet of roadways and parking areas, particularly near high-traffic routes. § Gardens within 1 mile of existing or former smelters, fossil fuel-fired electrical power plants, or cement manufacturing facilities are at risk for both lead and arsenic contamination. § Gardens planted on or near tailings from current or former metal ore mines are at risk for both lead and arsenic contamination.
Soil testing will confirm the presence and concentrations of any type of potential contaminant.
General Considerations: Gardening on lead and arsenic contaminated soil is unlikely to cause exposure levels high enough to result in sudden illness. The rare cases of acute toxic responses to soil lead and arsenic involve a combination of atypical conditions: highly susceptible individuals, exceptionally high-contact exposure, or the presence of highly soluble forms of the contaminant in the soil. Chronic exposure to soil lead and arsenic over prolonged periods is the principal concern. Chronic exposure can elevate levels of these elements within the body and increase the risk of developing adverse health effects. (Gardening on Lead and Arsenic Contaminated Soils) Lead and arsenic enter the body primarily through ingestion of contaminated materials. Young children and women of childbearing age are particularly vulnerable to lead and arsenic exposure because they metabolize and expel the elements at slower rates, increasing the likelihood of build-up within their systems.
Recommendations for Urban Gardeners Source: Lead Levels of Edibles Grown in Contaminated Residential Soils: A Field Survey § Survey the property to determine the potential lead hazards, extent of the contamination and location of high-risk areas. § Plan to locate fruit and vegetable gardens away from buildings, especially if peeling paint is evident and sites where composted sludge with heavy metals was applied. § Analyze lead concentration in soil samples from areas where vegetable gardens exist or are planned. § Do not grow food crops in a soil that is contaminated to levels greater than 400 ppm. Recommendations for Urban Gardeners (cont.)
§ Instead, use either containers or construct raised beds, with a semi-permeable barrier between the clean and contaminated soil. § Where container or raised bed gardening is not possible, fruiting crops should be grown. § Root vegetables, leafy greens and herbs should not be planted in contaminated soils. § Test new topsoil before using it and annually retest the garden soil to monitor for recontamination. § Do not use plants grown in contaminated soils for compost. § Use mulch or a weed tarp in garden beds to reduce the potential for aerial soil dust deposition or soil splash up on crops.
Recommended Edibles for Cultivation in Soils Containing 400 ppm or Less: § Corn § Cucumbers § Fruit Trees § Peppers § Squash - Acorn and/or Butternut § Tomato § Watermelon § Zucchini
Recommended Edibles for Cultivation in Raised Beds or Container Gardens: § Leafy greens and herbs - basil, cilantro, collard greens, swiss chard, etc. § Legumes - such as beans and peas § Root vegetables - potatoes, carrots, onion, etc
References: Finster, Mary E., Kimberly A. Gray, and Helen J. Binns. “Lead levels of edibles grown in contaminated residential soils: a field survey.” Science of the Total Environment 320.2/3 (2004): 245. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 5 May 2010. Peryea, Frank J. “Gardening on Lead- and Arsenic-Contaminated Soils.” WSU Cooperative Extension Bulletin (1999). Washington State University. Appendix C. Rain Garden Plant Selection List
Native Plants for Sunny Rain Gardens Native Shrubs/Trees for Rain Gardens ·• Andropogon gerardii - Big Bluestem ·• Celtis occidentalis - Hackberry ·• Asclepias incarnata - Pink or Swamp Milkweed • Cornus amomum - Silky Dogwood ·• Aster novae-angliae - New England Aster ·• Hydrangea arborescens - Wild Hydrangea ·• Aster puniceus - Purple-stemmed Aster ·• Lindera benzoin - Spicebush ·• Aster shortii - Short’s Aster ·• Nyssa sylvatica - Tupelo ·• Aster umbellatus - Flat-topped Aster ·• Rhododendron maximum - Rosebay ·• Caltha palustris - Marsh Marigold ·• Sambucus canadensis - Common Elderberry ·• Coreopsis tripteris - Tall Tickseed ·• Spiraea alba - Meadowsweet ·• Elymus hystrix - Bottlebrush Grass ·• Viburnum dentatum - Arrowwood ·• Elymus virginicus - Wild Rye ·• Eupatorium fistulosum - Joe-Pye Weed ·• Eupatorium perfoliatum - Boneset ·• Gentiana clausa - Bottle Gentian ·• Helenium autumnale - Common Sneezeweed ·• Helianthus giganteus - Tall Sunflower ·• Heliopsis helianthoides - Oxeye ·• Hibiscus moscheutos - Swamp Rose Mallow • Liatris spicata - Blazing Star ·• Lobelia cardinalis - Cardinal Flower ·• Obelia siphilitica - Great Blue Lobelia ·• Monarda didyma - Bee-balm ·• Monarda media - Purple Bergamot ·• Panicum virgatum - Switchgrass ·• Penstemon digitalis - White Beardtongue ·• Rudbeckia laciniata - Green-headed Coneflower ·• Rudbeckia triloba - Three-lobed Coneflower ·• Verbena hastata - Blue Vervain ·• Veronicastrum virginicum - Culver’s Root
Native Plants for Shady Rain Gardens ·• Caltha palustris - Marsh Marigold ·• Chelone glabra - White Turtlehead ·• Dryopteris marginalis - Marginal Wood Fern ·• Geranium maculatum - Wild Geranium ·• Helianthus decapetalus - Thin-leaved Sunflower ·• Helianthus divaricatus - Woodland Sunflower ·• Iris versicolor - Northern Blue Flag ·• Mertensia virginica - Virginia Bluebells ·• Mimulus ringens - Monkey Flower ·• Monarda clinopodia - Basil Balm ·• Onoclea sensibilis - Sensitive Fern ·• Phlox maculata - Meadow Phlox ·• Phlox paniculata - Summer Phlox ·• Polemonium reptans - Spreading Jacob’s Ladder ·• Senecio aureus - Golden Ragwort ·• Sisyrinchium angustifolium - Blue-eyed Grass ·• Spiraea alba - Meadowsweet ·• Thalictrum pubescens - Tall Meadow Rue ·• Tradescantia virginiana - Spiderwort ·• Viola striata - Creamy Violet This page intentionally left blank. Appendix D. Rain Garden Maintenance Considerations
• Immediately after the completion of cell construction, water plant material for 14 consecutive days unless there is sufficient natural rainfall. • Visually inspect and repair erosion monthly. Use small stones to stabilize erosion along drainage paths. • Re-mulch any void areas by hand as needed. • Weed regularly, if needed. • After rainstorms, inspect the cell and make sure that drainage paths are clear and that ponding water dissipates over 4-6 hours. (Water may pond for longer times during the winter and early spring.) • Once a month (more frequently in the summer), visually inspect vegetation for disease or pest problems. • If chemical treatment is warranted, use the least toxic approach. • Every 6 months, in the spring and fall, add a fresh mulch layer. • Twice a year, from March 15th to April 30th and October 1st to November 30th, remove and replace all dead and diseased vegetation considered beyond treatment. • Check the pH once or twice a year. Apply an alkaline product, such as limestone, if needed. • Prune excess growth annually or more often, if desired. Trimmed materials may be recycled back in with replenished mulch or land filled if there is a concern of heavy metals accumulation. • Once every 2 to 3 years, in the spring, remove old mulch layer before applying new one. • During times of extended drought, look for physical features of stress (wilting, yellow, spotted or brown leaves, loss of leaves, etc.). Water in the early morning as needed. This page intentionally left blank. Appendix E. Context Area Properties, Impact of Stormwater Billing Charge on Monthly Water Bill
New Monthly Water Bill Charges Starting 2014 for Context Area Charge in Dollars
Less than $50.00
$50.00 - $199.99 Allegheny Avenue $200.00- $499.99
$500.00- $999.99 Germantown Avenue
$1,000.00- $1,681.00 SEPTA Rail West Clearfield Street
West Indiana Avenue
Cambria Street
Somerset Street
8th Street 8th 6th Street 6th
Lehigh Avenue
7th Street 7th Broad Street Broad West Huntingdon Street
SEPTA Rail
9th Street 9th
5th Street 5th 11th Street 11th
Germantown Avenue
West Cumberland Avenue
13th Street 13th 10th Street 10th
West York Street
Dauphin Street 12th Street 12th
West Susquehanna Avenue
Diamond Street ¯ CRP Studio 0 500 1,000 Temple University2010 Community and Regional Planning Department Feet Parcel Data: Philadelphia Water Department This page intentionally left blank. Appendix F. Context Area Properties, Top 30 Payers by Increase Under New Stormwater Billing Charge
Context Area Properties, New Stormwater Billing Top 30 Payers by Increase New SWMS Parcel Building Land Use Old Meter Charge-2014 Increase/ ID Description Type Charge ($) ($) Decrease ($) 340380 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 21.98 1127.28 1105.30 OFF/BLD N/COMM W-PKG 115007 MASO Building 117.18 957.19 840.01
49688 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 984.23 1681.58 697.35 AMUS REC COMPLEX 504179 MASONRY Building 0.00 659.33 659.33
391760 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 10.99 564.97 553.98
344453 VAC LAND RES < ACRE Lot 0.00 521.76 521.76
98098 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Lot 0.00 432.65 432.65
543766 PUB.UTIL. 3 STY MASONRY PowerStation 234.35 636.74 402.39
598495 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Lot 10.99 373.70 362.71
49018 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 10.99 355.41 344.42
90044 PARKING LOT COMMERCIAL Parking 0.00 338.71 338.71
378221 VAC LAND COMM. < ACRE Lot 0.00 306.64 306.64
213924 IND. LT.MFG.MAS+OTHER Building 10.99 282.93 271.94
448243 STORE 1 STY MASONRY Building 117.18 385.85 268.67
591628 VAC LAND COMM. < ACRE Parking 0.00 258.34 258.34 OFF/BLD N/COMM W-PKG 80329 MASO Building 0.00 244.77 244.77
265638 PARKING LOT COMMERCIAL Parking 0.00 239.60 239.60
242922 CEMETERY Cemetery 117.18 351.95 234.77 OFF/BLD N/COMM W-PKG 363161 MASO Building 10.99 225.51 214.52
57928 IND. FACTORY MASONRY Building 10.99 224.51 213.52
488168 VAC LAND RES < ACRE Lot 0.00 203.03 203.03
64560 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Building 0.00 201.97 201.97
235813 IND. FACTORY MASONRY Building 0.00 200.44 200.44
301239 IND.SHOP MASONRY Building 10.99 209.31 198.32
76783 SCHOOL 2STY MASONRY Building 1171.71 1369.16 197.45
150455 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Playground 0.00 196.80 196.80
43899 PARKING LOT PRIVATE Parking 0.00 193.11 193.11
325248 PRIV.GAR 1STY MAS.+OTHER Garage 0.00 187.88 187.88
501041 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Lot 0.00 177.82 177.82 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix G. Context Area Properties, Top 30 Payers by Total Bill Under New Stormwater Billing Charge
Context Area Properties, New Stormwater Billing Top 30 Payers by Total Bill Parcel Building Land Use Old Meter New SWMS Meter Increase/ ID Description Type Charge ($) Charge - 2014 ($) Decrease ($)
49688 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 984.23 1,681.58 697.35
76783 SCHOOL 2STY MASONRY Building 1,171.71 1,369.16 197.45 APTS 100 + UNITS 187151 MASONRY Building 3,526.12 1,260.68 -2,265.44
309196 SCHOOL 4STY MASONRY Building 1,171.71 1,137.17 -34.54
340380 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 21.98 1,127.28 1,105.30 SCHOOL 2STY 535934 MAS.+OTHER Building 1,171.71 1,088.70 -83.01
OFF/BLD N/COMM W-PKG 115007 MASO Building 117.18 957.19 840.01
510658 SCHOOL 2STY MASONRY Building 1,171.71 896.18 -275.53
102794 MISC.LIBRARY MASONRY Building 1,874.75 757.45 -1,117.30
AMUS REC COMPLEX 504179 MASONRY Building 0.00 659.33 659.33 APTS 51-100UNTS 205677 MASONRY Building 2,624.58 656.33 -1,968.25
511584 SCHOOL 3STY MASONRY Building 1,874.73 652.41 -1,222.32
543766 PUB.UTIL. 3 STY MASONRY PowerStation 234.35 636.74 402.39
391760 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 10.99 564.97 553.98
344453 VAC LAND RES < ACRE Lot 0.00 521.76 521.76 AMUSE STAD ETC 237152 MASONRY Parking 1,171.71 435.78 -735.93 APTS 5-50 UNTS 98439 MASONRY Building 749.88 434.24 -315.64
98098 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Lot 0.00 432.65 432.65 AMUSE SW.POOL 401143 MASONRY Building 1,288.89 426.12 -862.77 RES.CONDO.3 STY 37168 MASONRY Building 703.02 400.83 -302.19
448243 STORE 1 STY MASONRY Building 117.18 385.85 268.67
598495 VAC LAND IND < ACRE Lot 10.99 373.70 362.71
49018 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 10.99 355.41 344.42
242922 CEMETERY Cemetery 117.18 351.95 234.77 PARKING LOT 90044 COMMERCIAL Parking 0.00 338.71 338.71
378221 VAC LAND COMM. < ACRE Lot 0.00 306.64 306.64
391218 SCHOOL 3STY MASONRY Building 703.02 300.61 -402.41
439763 IND.WHSE MASONRY Building 234.35 295.52 61.17
OFF/BLDG COMM NO GAR 184486 MASO Building 820.20 287.57 -532.63 APTS 5-50 UNTS 30598 MASONRY Building 385.93 286.68 -99.25 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix H. Village Properties – Change in Water Bill by Lot Under New Stormwater Billing Charge
The Village Properties – Change in Water Bill by Lot Under New Stormwater Billing Charge
NEW SWMS CHARGE 2013* ADDRESS LAND USE OLD METER CHARGE ($11.06 is PWD minimum charge) INCREASE DECREASE 2509 N 11TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2520 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2521 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2522 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2519 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2523 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2540 GERMANTOWN Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2505 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2524 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2525 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2544 GERMANTOWN Building $10.99 $33.41 $22.42 2551 N 11TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2528 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2518 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2525 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2533 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2528 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2518 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2545 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2536 N ALDER ST Building $10.99 $11.06 $0.07 2526 N ALDER ST Building $10.99 $11.06 $0.07 2534 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2506 N ALDER ST Building $10.99 $11.06 $0.07 2506-10 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 1001 W CUMBERLAND Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2549 N 11TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2520 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2524 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2523 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2552 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2515 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2509 N ALDER ST Building $10.99 $11.06 $0.07 2509 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2516 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2522 N 10TH ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2543 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 1014 W ARIZONA ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 1012 W ARIZONA ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2513 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2501 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2519 N ALDER ST Building $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2507 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2541 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 1008 W ARIZONA ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2549 N WARNOCK ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2530 N ALDER ST Lot $0.00 $11.06 $11.06 2501 N ALDER ST Building $10.99 $11.06 $0.07 2504 N ALDER ST Building $10.99 $11.06 $0.07 Totals $76.93 $553.23 $476.30 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix I. Portland’s Clean River Rewards Program Source: Portland, Oregon Clean River Rewards Stormwater Discount Program Interim Administrative Rules October 30, 2006.
Background and a credit for residential properties that have less Portland’s current stormwater discount program, the than 1,000 square feet of total impervious area (roofs, Clean River Rewards, is designed to reward ratepayers driveways and paved areas). who prevent stormwater management from leaving Property owners who currently manage stormwater on their property. The program’s goals are to: their property already qualify for Clean River Rewards. • Increase the equity, fairness and controllability of stormwater management charges Registration Verification ·• Advance City environmental policies and The city processes Clean River Rewards registrations commitments set forth in the Clean River Plan, City without conducting a site visit to verify the accuracy of Response to the Endangered Species Act, Sustainable ratepayer registrations. However, the City randomly visits Development Policies, Stormwater Management sites to verify private stormwater facilities. The city may Manual and Stormwater NPDES municipal permit impose civil penalties and recover stormwater discounts • Protect and enhance the long-term financial stability in cases where the ratepayer has filed a fraudulent appli- of the stormwater utility by promoting private cation or failed to keep their private stormwater facilities stormwater management. in good operating condition.
Registration Types Calculating Discount Awards Different types of property are uniquely billed for stormwater charges. Because of this, the discount Environmental Services shall calculate discount awards program is divided into two categories for registration based on the extent and effectiveness of private purposes: stormwater management efforts. Two distinct calculation • Residential, which includes single family and duplex methods are set forth, one for each class of ratepayer. properties. Environmental Services established the different methods • Commercial, which includes commercial, multi-family in order to balance the competing objectives of equity, residential (3 units or greater), industrial, and institu- environmental effectiveness, understandability, ease of tional properties. application, administrative efficiency, and consistency with existing stormwater policies. Program Requirements Single Family Residences. Environmental Services shall ·• You must register to receive a discount calculate discount awards based solely on the private ·• For residential properties, the discount is based on on-site management of stormwater discharged from managing stormwater runoff from roof areas only. roof areas and calculated as follows: • For commercial properties, the discount is based on managing stormwater runoff from both roof and • The City shall grant a full discount award when all roof paved areas. drainage is fully retained on property. The City shall value • How you manage stormwater cannot threaten or eco-roofs in the same manner as retention facilities. damage property or the environment • The City shall grant a partial discount valued at 67% • The maximum discount is 100% of the on-site of the full award when private on-site stormwater stormwater charge. management detains or partially retains stormwater • The discount remains in effect through June 2017. discharges from roof areas. To maintain the discount, the utility account must • The City shall grant a supplemental discount award remain active, stormwater facilities must be properly valued at 25% of the full award when the total maintained and operated, and the city must be developed area is less than 1,000 square feet. granted access to the property for limited inspections of stormwater facilities. • The City shall grant a supplemental discount award • The city will charge penalties and retract awarded valued at 8% of the full award when there are 4 or discounts if a ratepayer files a fraudulent registration. more trees on private property taller than 15 feet. This supplemental discount award does not include Ratepayers who are able to manage only a portion of street trees such as trees planted in an adjacent their stormwater runoff are encouraged to apply for public right-of-way. the discount. Partial credit is available on a sliding scale • The total value of full, partial and supplemental for properties that manage any portion of stormwater discount awards shall not exceed 100% of the on-site on their site, including partial credits for tree coverage component of the stormwater management charge. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional and Multi-Family Approved Source Controls 33 Properties Approved Rainwater Re-Use System 67 The following facilities qualify for all or a portion of the The city shall calculate discount awards based on the stormwater discount based on the extent to which they extent and effectiveness of private on-site systems to control the water quality (pollution prevention), speed control the pollution, flow rate and disposal of stormwater (flow rate) and volume (disposal) of stormwater runoff. runoff from all developed areas. Discount calculations Performance is based on the size of the facility in relation- shall take into consideration the effectiveness of these ship to the developed area served. The amount of the three components of stormwater management. Equal discount awarded is based on the extent to which the weight shall be given to each of these three components. facility meets the sizing standard. The effectiveness of each stormwater facility shall be based on separate sizing standards for pollution For example, if one of these stormwater facilities meets reduction, flow rate and disposal control as determined the sizing standard, then the developed area served re- by the Bureau. Ratepayers shall be required to provide the ceives a full discount of $2.45 per 1000 square feet based size or capacity of the on-site stormwater management on current rates. However, if the stormwater facility is 75% facilities and the amount of developed areas served by of the required size, the discount is limited to 75% of the each facility type. full discount, or $1.84 per 1000 square feet of developed area served based on current rates. Methodology for Calculating Stormwater Discounts for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional and Multi- The following table reports the sizing standards that must Family Residential Properties be achieved in order to earn the full discount for the developed area served: The following facilities qualify for all or a portion of the stormwater discount based on the extent to which they Stormwater Sizing Standard % control the water quality (pollution prevention), speed Facility of Area Served (flow rate) and volume (disposal) of stormwater runoff. The City assumes that the size or number of facilities used Downspout Disconnection is sufficient to earn the discount. No sizing information to Infiltrating Area 10 is required to register. The discount is based solely on Vegetated Swale or Infiltration Basin 9 the amount of developed area served. The discount Grassy Swale 12 amount is calculated by multiplying the developed area Vegetated Filter 20 served times the property or on-site component of the Infiltration or Flow-Through Planter 6 stormwater billing rate times the percentage of discount Sand Filter 7 award shown in the following table: Eastside Soakage Trench 6 Westside Soakage Trench 11 Stormwater % of Discount Facility Award Direct release to a river or slough 100 Permitted release to City sanitary sewer system 100 Ecoroof 100 Contained Planter 100 Pervious Pavement 100 Pond and Wetland 67 Detention Tank or Vault 33 Manufactured Pollution Reduction Facility 33 Oil-Water Separator 33 Drywell 67