HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-2015 STUDY SESSION AGENDA PACKETAlityrB
URN
WASHINGTON
City Council Study Session
March 30, 2015 - 5:30 PM
Council Chambers
AGENDA
Watch the meeting LIVE!
Watch the meeting video
M eeti ng videos are not avai I abl e unti 172
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Use of Force Review and Commendations, Inquiries and Allegations of
Misconduct (30 Minutes Presentation)* (Stocker)
111. AGENDA ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION
A. Low Impact Development Initial Briefing (15 Minutes Presentation 15
Minute Discussion)* (Carlaw)
IV. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
V. ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City
website (http: / /www.auburnwa.gov), and via e -mail. Complete agenda packets are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 51
AN.3
AuBuRN ITY CAF �
\VASHENG`Or,
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Use of Force Review and Commendations, Inquiries and March 25, 2015
Allegations of Misconduct (30 Minutes Presentation)
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
2014 Use of Force
2014 CIA Analysis update
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:
Meeting Date: March 30, 2015
Budget Impact:
$0
Staff: Stocker
Item Number: AN.3
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 2 of 51
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
AUBURI�T
WASHINGTON
DATE: March 30, 2015
TO: Mayor and Auburn City Council Members
FROM: Auburn Police Department
SUBJECT: 2014 Annual Response to Resistance Summary
The purpose of this annual report is to document and summarize all response to resistance as
submitted in the reports furnished by police officers in the Auburn Police Department during the
2014 calendar year. This report illustrates comparable statistics from 2013 and previous years,
which will add context and possibly identify trends. The report will compare response to
resistance forms vs. use of force allegations; types of injuries sustained by both suspect and
officer; and force used when presented with different scenarios (i.e. officer about to be assaulted,
property about to be damaged, etc.).
In 2014, Auburn Police Officers responded to 89,350 CAD incidents (71,512 in 2013) and
completed 18,174 case reports (16,321 in 2013.) Officers made 5,189 arrests (4,414 in 2013)
with 2,940 of those arrestees being booked into jail (2,293 in 2013), and issued 9,495
infractions /citations (7,718 in 2013).
There were 96 Use of Force Incidents in 2014 compared to 98 in 2013. Of these 96 occasions to
use force, 85 suspects were involved. Of the 85 suspects, 35 reported injuries. All injuries were
minor scrapes, bruises, small lacerations from going to the ground, K -9 bites, and one broken
bone.
Auburn Police Officers were compelled to use force once in every 931 CAD incidents, once in
every 189 case reports completed, once in every 54 physical arrests, and once in every 31
physical bookings. See below table for ratio comparison from 2013.
Only .11% of contacts resulted in a use of force.
CAD
Cases
Arrests
Bookings
2013
2013 Ratio
(98)
2014 2014 Ratio Force Frequency
(96) Change
71,512 1/729 89,350 1/931 -28%
16,321 1/166 18,174 1/189 -14%
4,414 1/45 5,189 1/54 -20%
2,293 1/23 2,940 1/31 -35%
AN.3 Page 3 of 51
Th
Of the 96 reported use of force incidents, there were zero allegations of inappropriate and /or
excessive applications of force.
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE COMPARISON
There were 96 Response to Resistance Incidents documented in 2014, which is a decrease from
2013.
The Auburn Police Department reports uses of force using a Response to Resistance form. The
following chart is a snapshot comparison of total excessive force allegations for each year
compared to the amount of force incidents.
Force Report Comparison 2007 -2014
Year
Use of
force
Incidents
Excessive
Force
Allegations
Sustained
Allegations
2009
132
15
0
2010
107
9
1
2011
113
3
0
2012
94
2
0
2013
98
3
1
2014
96
0
0
12.0% -
10.0% -
8.0% -
6.0% -
4.0% -
2.0% -
0.0% r
%Total force Resulting in Complaints
2007 -2014
,11.0%
8.4%
3% 3%
2009 2010 2011
2012
2013
2014
2
AN.3 Page 4 of 51
Types of Force Used
The use of force types listed below are techniques that the officers are trained to use depending
on the type of resistance they are receiving, among other factors as well. Take Down is by far the
most used type of force our officers use which is also the least forceful type of force. LVNR is
Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint, is not considered a "choke hold" and is widely used across the
country. PIT is Pursuit Immobilization Technique, is used during pursuits in an attempt to end the
pursuit as quickly as possible in order to reduce potential injury and take the suspect into custody.
An Intentional Vehicle Strike is authorized by policy in certain situations which entails the officer
striking a suspect vehicle with his /her patrol car at slow speed in order to pin the vehicle so that it
cannot continue to flee.
Force Types Used in 2014
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
44
37
20
18
12
10
8
7
4 4 3
4 3 3
2
C� °yzb. C°� C \��� Jar ��P9
,c• �� �
a� yyJ a�
<Pe
3
AN.3 Page 5 of 51
Effective vs Not Effective
Not every type of force is always effective and at times multiple types of force are used on one
person during the same incident.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
\(`‘' .4)*('
o �
��` o D4 �t to J ` `�` Q ` �
a�aC°J� \�o� \��a`or��P�� •����e`' �a�� Q�e,c' � �e
OC
\t•
• Effective
• Not Effective
Force Used Resulting in Injuries
In 2014, injuries were reported for the suspect in 36% of force incidents and this is down from
previous years. Officers received minor injuries in 6% of the incidents, and this too is lower than
historical records.
Total % of total of
Force Suspect Officer suspect
Incidents Injuries Injuries injuries
2009 132 63 5 48%
2010 107 47 13
2011 113 51 10
2012 94 38 9
2013 98 39 8
2014 96 35 6
44%
45%
40%
40%
36%
4
AN.3 Page 6 of 51
Suspect Injury By Type 2009 -2014
▪ 50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
fl-
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
• Taser Probe • Pain Complaint • K -9 • Cut /Bruise /Scrape /Bone
Time of Day
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014 Incidents By Time of Day
/ \\ -all
( \A
( v ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tD N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M tD N N M O ▪ N M N CO CO N CO CO
0 00 O r-I r-I r-I r-I r-▪ I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I N N N N N 0 0 0 00
5
AN.3 Page 7 of 51
Subject
Trying
to Flee
Refusing
Commands
Other
Force Incidents by Time of Day
2009 -2014
The above charts depicts the Auburn Police Department use of force incidents by time of day. As
in all previous years documented, the majority of the occasions that officers are compelled to use
force occur between the hours of 1800 and 0200.
Reason for Use of Force
Officer
About to be
Assau Ited
Fighting
Stance
Other
About to be
Assaulted
Subject
With
Weapon
Muscular
Tension /Pulled
Away
2009 22
2010 14
2011
2012
2013
2014
25
14 10
22 3
0
15 13
15 19
10 7
3
5
3
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
123 44
99 41
77
52 23
96 29
103 30
109
94
88
53
77
67
35
42
17
7
22
20
The above chart shows the reasons that an officer(s) used force on a subject. Most of the time
there are multiple reasons for use of force on one subject. In 2014, there were 238 documented
reasons why an officer(s) used force.
6
AN.3 Page 8 of 51
Summary
It is clear from the report, that Auburn Officers contact many subjects throughout the year and
make many arrests. The most compelling stats in this report are that the calls for service, arrests,
and bookings are up considerably and, by percentage, the use of force is down. This is due to the
training the officers receive and the quality of personnel we have working for the Auburn Police
Department. We, as a department, work hard to train our officers in de- escalation techniques and
the officers do a great job influencing behavior. Officers have recently received 40 hours of Crisis
Intervention Training and train every year in defensive tactics.
7
AN.3 Page 9 of 51
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
AUBU
WASHINGTON
DATE: March 30, 2015
TO: Mayor and Auburn City Council Members
FROM: Auburn Police Department
SUBJECT: 2014 Annual Commendations, Inquiries and Allegations of
Misconduct Analysis (CIA)
This annual analysis of the CIA investigations provides the administration of the
agency and the public we serve a review of agency personnel conduct from an
analytical perspective and possibly through the eyes of our community. Our Vision
Statement calls for us to be a premier agency that is trusted, supported, and
respected. Our Mission Statement requires that our department will "provide
professional Law Enforcement services to our community." To meet these demands,
we must be a disciplined and a well - regulated organization. One method by which to
determine our success is to evaluate our CIA process. This report illustrates how well
the Auburn Police Department is perceived to be following our Vision and Mission
statements, as well as our Manual of Standards.
Summary of 2014
In 2014, Auburn Police Officers responded to 89,350 (71,512 in 2013) CAD incidents
and completed 18,174 (16,321 in 2013) case reports. Officers made 5,189 (4,414 in
2013) arrests, with 2,940 (2,293 in 2013) of those arrestees being booked into the
SCORE Jail. Officers also issued 9,495 (7,718 in 2013) infractions /citations. All of this
activity accounts for only a portion of the personal contacts with our community
members that are made by our police officers throughout the year.
As outlined in the Auburn Police Department Manual of Standards (MOS), the CIA
system provides a standardized means of reporting, investigating, and documenting
Commendations, Inquiries, Internal Investigations and Collision Reviews.
AN.3 Page 10 of 51
Medal of Valor
Commendations
A Commendation is used to recognize actions or performance by members of the
police department who act or perform in a manner that is outstanding or beyond what
is normally expected. The Commendation process recognizes employees for
Professionalism, Exemplary Job, Exemplary Actions, Life Saving and Heroism.
Total
Commendations
Involved
Employees
Letter of
Commendation
Medal of
Distinction
2
209 0
;IM 1111=
32 48 0
58 0
52 126
Year
External Source
Internal Source
2010
2011 ■ 34 13
2012 24 8
2013 29 12
2014 42 10
The majority of our commendations come from citizens who took the time to recognize
one or more officers due to their exemplary and professional work. These
commendations range from officers doing speeches at the schools, to helping
someone change a tire, to going above and beyond to investigate someone's case.
2
AN.3 Page 11 of 51
Violations with
Misconduct
Employee Investigations
There are two ways a complaint can be categorized and investigated: Supervisory
Inquiry and Internal Investigation.
A Supervisory Inquiry involves a complaint made regarding the quality of service
delivery. These complaints vary in degree from complaints regarding an employee's
demeanor, tardiness, complaints related to customer service, or the nature of a
department practice. The employee's immediate supervisor typically handles this type
of complaint, but a commander might also take charge of it.
An Internal Investigation involves a complaint of a possible violation of department
standards, written directives, City policies or applicable Civil Service Rules. These
allegations include, but are not limited to, complaints of bias based policing, excessive
force, alleged corruption, insubordination, breach of civil rights, false arrest, and other
types of allegations of serious misconduct. In the event that an allegation of criminal
misconduct is reported and appears to have merit, a simultaneous criminal
investigation will be initiated.
Internal Investigations
Year
CAD
Incidents
Internal
Investigations
Inv. Wit
Misconduct
oa
Employees
mp. With
Misconduct
Violations
Reported
• 27
1
2010 73,329
21
1
5
27
1
5
36
1
6
N. IIII 2011 62,488 22
2012 65,750 13 11 24 19 26 22
1 T T
2013 71,512 11 8 15 8 19 12
2014 89,350 5 3 5 3 12 9
Total allegations generated by internal and external sources
ternal Sources
Internal Sources
•tal Combined
Total Allegations M
Sustained Misconduct
5
7
12
3
6
9
The above table shows that 60% of the allegations received from external sources
resulted in a finding of misconduct. 86% of the allegations that were initiated from
internal sources resulted in findings of misconduct.
3
AN.3
Page 12 of 51
Employees with
Unacceptable
Performance
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
21
27
25
21
11
25
Supervisory Inquiries
Inquiries with
Unacceptable
Performance
7
6
9
9
7
5
Violations
Initially
Re . orted
25
34
32
32
14
45
Involved
Em . to ees
33
32
32
20
13
34
9
6
9
9
7
4
Even though inquiries are up this year compared to last, the amount with
"unacceptable performance" is considerably down by percentage.
Allegations
The following table depicts the total combined allegations for all the Supervisory
Inquiries and Internal Investigations for 2014. It should be noted that Supervisory
Inquiries can result in findings of Acceptable Performance or Unacceptable
Performance, and Internal Investigations can result in findings of Misconduct or No
Misconduct, among others. For the purpose of this combined report, all findings will be
labeled as Misconduct or No Misconduct.
Allegation
Violation of General Policy
Discourtesy
Neglect of Duty
CORE Values /Professionalism
Bias Policing
Collision — fail to report
Conduct Unbecoming
False Arrest
Unlawful Search and Seizure
RCW Violation
Totals
15
8
3
1
1
11
1
7
1
57
No Misconduct • duct
1 11
1
10
1
7
0
43
3 —
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
14
Criminal Investigations
There were no criminal investigations in 2014.
4
AN.3 Page 13 of 51
Collisions
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2008 -2014 Collisions
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
■ Collisions
■ Preventable
In 2014, there were 32 collisions involving APD employees. 22 of the 32 collisions
were determined to be preventable on the part of the officer. The average years of
service of the officers involved in collisions is 6.5 and the average age of the officer
was 37. 20 of the collisions that occurred were officers who have 4 years or less of
service with Auburn PD. The preventable collisions were attributed to officers with an
average of 5.2 years of service.
In reviewing the 22 collisions, which were determined through a Collision Review
Board to be preventable, "driver inattention" was apparent in most cases, by either
watching for suspects or looking at vehicle equipment inside the car. If the drivers had
been more attentive, they would not have collided with another vehicle, curb, tree, etc.
All 2014 collisions (preventable and non - preventable) are categorized as follows:
• 9 - Driver Inattention
• 1 - Fail to clear intersection
• 6 - Improper Backing
• 6 - Poor Tactics
• 10- Other driver at fault
5
AN.3 Page 14 of 51
32
26
22
22
22
17
15
14
16
15
—
—
11
—
—
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
■ Collisions
■ Preventable
In 2014, there were 32 collisions involving APD employees. 22 of the 32 collisions
were determined to be preventable on the part of the officer. The average years of
service of the officers involved in collisions is 6.5 and the average age of the officer
was 37. 20 of the collisions that occurred were officers who have 4 years or less of
service with Auburn PD. The preventable collisions were attributed to officers with an
average of 5.2 years of service.
In reviewing the 22 collisions, which were determined through a Collision Review
Board to be preventable, "driver inattention" was apparent in most cases, by either
watching for suspects or looking at vehicle equipment inside the car. If the drivers had
been more attentive, they would not have collided with another vehicle, curb, tree, etc.
All 2014 collisions (preventable and non - preventable) are categorized as follows:
• 9 - Driver Inattention
• 1 - Fail to clear intersection
• 6 - Improper Backing
• 6 - Poor Tactics
• 10- Other driver at fault
5
AN.3 Page 14 of 51
18 -
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
17
Corrective Action - 2014
10
2
Coaching
Written Non - Preventable Suspension
Reprimand
This chart depicts the corrective action dispensed to the employees in preventable
collisions. Some officers also received additional training where it was appropriate.
Actions Taken
The following chart depicts action taken for misconduct, whether from an Internal
Investigation, Supervisory Inquiry, or Preventable Collision.
Combined Discipline ( Internals /Inquiries /Collisions)
24
Counseling
2 3
1
Verbal Written Suspension Resigned (not in
Reprimand Reprimand lieu of
termination)
6
AN.3 Page 15 of 51
Outside Agency Investigations
To ensure that our investigations are unbiased, there are times when an outside
agency may be asked to investigate serious allegations of misconduct made against
agency staff, especially those that may be of a criminal nature. In the years 2007-
2010, there were no investigations assigned to an outside agency. Between 2011 and
2012, three criminal investigations were investigated by outside agencies. In 2013,
outside agencies investigated three officers under two incidents. Those agencies
presented the information to the respective prosecutors without influence from the
Auburn Police Department or the City of Auburn. The King County Prosecutor's Office
filed Assault charges on one incident and the employee resigned in lieu of termination.
In the second incident of alleged excessive use of force, the prosecutors determined
that no crime was committed. In 2014, there were no outside investigations. It is the
practice of the Auburn Police Department to err on the side of caution and allow
outside agencies to objectively investigate serious allegations of misconduct. In our
view, this provides Auburn citizens with confidence and allows for unbiased
transparency into actions, activities, and decisions made by the Auburn Police
Department.
There were no grievances in 2014.
Grievances
Conclusion
A review of the frequency of incidents for 2014 regarding alleged misconduct by
employees of the Auburn Police Department does not appear to raise any specific
concerns. The data revealed in this analysis shows a decline in some areas and an
increase in others. The most notable positive mark is the percentage of misconduct
totals to the total allegations is very low. In addition to that, the number of allegations
and found misconduct when compared to the actual number of contacts Auburn Police
Officers encounter each year is extremely low. The data revealed for 2014 illustrates
that the Auburn Police Department is successful in striving to perform by the
standards of our CORE values and provide professional police services to the City of
Auburn.
7
AN.3 Page 16 of 51
DI.B
C=ITY or
AUBURN
WASH I NCTO
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Low Impact Development Initial Briefing (15 Minutes March 23, 2015
Presentation 15 Minute Discussion)
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Land mpact Development PowerPoint
Presentation
Administrative Recommendation:
Budget Impact:
$0
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
The City has been issued a municipal stormwater permit by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (modified permit effective January 16, 2014). A requirement of
that permit is to control runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction
sites. An element of controlling runoff from development sites will include making Low
Impact Development (LID) techniques the preferred and commonly -used approach for
stormwater management.
The staff briefing will cover the regulatory background bringing us to this point, how
Low Impact Development compares to traditional stormwater management methods,
our plan for assessing and amending City stormwater requirements (including City
Council and public involvement), and the proposed schedule for implementation.
This is an initial briefing, beginning a process that will culminate with Council adoption
of new policy, code, and standards, making Low Impact Development the preferred
stormwater management technique in Auburn.
Pursuant to the City Council request on March 16, 2015 for additional information
about the City of Auburn's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, the presentation will include an overview of the
NPDES permit requirements. The presentation will also include the new permit
requirements that went into effect following the Pollution Control Hearings Board
decision and settlement agreement with Ecology on the 2012 appeal by the Coalition
of Government Entities (13 municipalities including Auburn).
Reviewed by Council Committees:
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 17 of 51
DI.B
Councilmember:
Meeting Date: March 30, 2015
Staff: Carlaw
Item Number: DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 18 of 51
Low Impact
Development
City Council Study Session Presentation
March 30, 2015
Page 19 of 51
Presentation Overview
+Review of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Municipal Stormwater Permit
+What is Low Impact Development?
DI.B
• What are our regulatory
requirements?
• Plan for compliance
• Council and Public
Involvement Process
• Schedule
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
❖Authorized by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
❖Intended to protect and restore waters for "fishable,
swimmable" uses
❖Controls water pollution by regulating point sources
❖Authority to oversee the program in WA was delegated to the
Department of Ecology
❖Phase I Permits — municipalities with population > 100,000
❖Phase II Permits — municipalities < 100,000
Auburn has a Phase II Permit
DI.B
Page 21 of 51
The Federal Municipal NPDES Permit requires:
❖Public Education and Outreach
❖Public Participation / Involvement
❖Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
❖Construction Site Runoff Control
❖Post Construction Runoff Control
❖Pollution Prevention / Good Housekeeping
The Washington Permit adds:
❖Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance (another CWA
program)
❖Monitoring
Failure to comply with the Phase II requirements puts the City at
risk for fines and 3rd party lawsuits, and jeopardizes our ability to
secure grants and loans
DI.B Page 22 of 51
Appeal of New NPDES Requirements
+In 2012, 13 municipalities (including Auburn) and other
entities appealed new requirements proposed by the
Washington Department of Ecology for Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permits.
+In 2013, the Pollution Control Hearings Board decision
on the appeal, and a subsequent settlement agreement
between Ecology and the plaintiffs, resulted in the
following additional permit requirements for Auburn:
• Changes to the Watershed -scale stormwater planning condition
• New or revised definitions for Conveyance system, Discharge
point, Outfall, Receiving waterbody or receiving waters
Conclusion: the new regulations had little impact on
Auburn's stormwater management program because it had
already incorporated these requirements
Page 23 of 51
Low Impact
Development
(LID)
DI.B
Stormwater Management Methods
Traditional urban stormwater management practices
❖Construct centralized
storm facilities that collect
& remove runoff quickly
❖Clear & grade the site to
facilitate development, not
stormwater management
Low impact development practices
❖smaller scale storm facilities
❖Decentralized and distributed
❖Integrated within the landscape
Page 25 of 51
Low - Impact Development (LID)
"A stormwater and land use management
strategy that strives to mimic pre- disturbance
hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration,
storage, evaporation, and transpiration by
emphasizing conservation, use of on -site natural
features, site planning, and distributed
stormwater management practices that are
integrated into a project design."
Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound,
WSU Extension and the Puget Sound Partnership
Page 26 of 51
LID Stormwater Facilities
+Reduce volume thereby minimizing high flows
•:•Remove pollutants from stormwater
+Replenish streams and wetlands through shallow
groundwater
+Reduce the size of conventional stormwater
facilities
Increase open space
+Visua I ly attractive
+Can result in construction and maintenance cost
savings
+Can increase densities
DI.B
Bioretention
Required Best Management Practice (BMP), unless infeasible
Page 28 of 51
Permeable Pavement
DI
Required BMP (unless infeasible)
Rain Gardens (small projects only)
Page 30 of 51
Dispersion
Required BMP (unless infeasible)
DI.B
Page 31 of 51
Downspout Dispersion
Required BMP (unless infeasible)
Page 32 of 51
Sheet Flow
Required BMP
(unless infeasible)
Page 33 of 51
Vegetated Roofs
BMP - City may opt to allow or require
•I :I :M
DI.B
Page 34 of 51
Rainwater Harvesting
BMPs — City may opt to allow or require
DI.B
Page 35 of 51
Minimal Excavation
BMP - City may opt to allow or require
DI.B
Page 36 of 51
Western WA Phase 1 & Phase II
NPDES Permit Overview
+LID will be required, where feasible
+Review & amend local codes & standards
+Site & subdivision scale requirements
+Small, medium and large projects
Page 37 of 51
Development Code Review
& Amendment Goals
DI.B
+Reduce impervious surface
Protect native vegetation
+Reduce stormwater runoff
+Make LID the preferred and commonly used
approach
Code Amendments Related to
Site Design Principles
Key principles to be considered during code changes
+Reduced road width
+Changes in road layout and orientation
+Clustering
+Higher building & smaller footprints
Parking regulations
+Landscaping using bioretention
Page 39 of 51
Narrow Roads
Changes in Road Layout &
Orientation
DI.B
of 51
Clustering
Conventional Design
DI.B
Low - Impact Design
Page 42 of 51
Taller Buildings with Smaller
Footprints
One story building, built right up to setback
lines. Impervious surfacing 65% of the site.
DI.B
Three story building with vegetated roofs,
equalling less than 30% impervious surfacing,
Existing vegetation can be retained or
new vegetation can be installed to
provide usable open space and
stormwater treatment/infiltration
opportunities.
Page 43 of 51
Parking Regulations
Required Landscaping Used as
Bioretention
DI.B
Page 45 of 51
DI.B
Development Code
Review
& Amendment
Page 46 of 51
Steps
❖Assemble Team
❖Understand LID topics to Address
❖Review Existing Codes & Standards
❖Fill in the Gaps
❖Engage elected officials and
public to review and revise
proposed codes and
standards
❖City Council adopts new
codes and standards
❖Implement LID
DI.B
Page 47 of 51
Core Team
Community Development and Public Works
+Storm Drainage
•:•Development
•:•Permitting
+Planning
+Transportation
+Building
Schedule
2015
Review City code and documents
Internal stakeholder input
Propose updates
2016
Meetings with external stakeholders
Draft updates
Technical, legal, external review
Council and public input
Adopt revisions, prepare tools & guidance, train staff
2017
Implement updated requirements beginning 1/1/17
Page 49 of 51
Implementation
The change to LID will represent a paradigm shift that will affect
the way we do business
DI.B
+Education and Training
+Inspection
+Maintenance
+Cost (short & long term)
Page 50 of 51
Comments and/or Questions?
DI.B
Page 51 of 51