12/9/2004; Page 19 1 

# Page 19 L.L.C.
(Previously the United Salad Co. Garage)
939 SE Alder St.

Project Summary

Overview of the Stormwater System The existing 10,000 sq. ft. asphalt parking lot was replaced with a smaller, re-graded asphalt parking lot, a gravel courtyard, a landscape infiltrati on basin, and perimeter landscape areas.

• Runoff from the asphalt parking lot (7,000 sq. ft.) drains in to the infiltration basin.

• The gravel courtyard (1,825 sq. ft.) captures and infiltrates rainfall. If it reaches capacity, it will overflow into the landscape infiltration basin.

• The infiltration basin fills to a depth of about 6 in. (deepest point) befo re it overflows into a standpipe. The standpipe is located at the lowest point in the basin; it drains to the combined sewer.

1 Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services implemente d the Willamette Stormwater Control Program in 2001. The Program offered financial grants and technical support for a seri es of projects to retrofit ex isting commercial properties with stormwater controls incorporating green technologies. The Program recruited these demonstration projects in order to research the feasibility, cost and performance of co mmercial stormwater retrofits in the ar ea served by the combined sewer. The Program provided grant funds for a to tal of eleven projects. The project s were completed by July 1, 2003

Project Type: Light industrial retrofit (parking lot) - demonstration project
Technologies: Landscape infiltration basin an d porous gravel courtyard

Major Benefits: • Runoff from the modified parking lot, including the gravel courtyard, drains to a landscape infiltration basin. The basin reduces stormwater and pollutants draining to the combined sewer.

• Over 1,000 sq. ft. of native and sustainable landscaping was added, improving the urban

environment and the aesthetic appeal of the property.

Cost: $37,080 (unit cost of $3.80/ sq. ft. of impervious area managed). BES provided a $30,000 grant 1 for the project.

Constructed: Summer 2002

Aerial view of the Page 19 property before the project – the parking lot where the project was implemented is outlined in red;
2002.12/9/2004; Page 19 2 

### Stormwater Capacity and System Components

Stormwater Management Goal The overall stormwater management goal was to meet the sizing and design standards of the “Simpl ified Approach” of the City’s Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM). These standards do not typically provide for comple te stormwater disposal; actual performance is dependent on soil infiltration rates. All design standards used for reference in this report were current in the year
2002.

Geotechnical Evaluation / Infiltration Test The property owners contracted with a geotechnical firm in 1998 to perform a field investigation of the property. A soil probe encountered 4 to 7 ft. of fill mate rial on top of a base of silt and clay-silt.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for Multnomah County classifies the soils as 50C-Urban Land: highly developed lands atop stratified soils and sometimes fill. Because the soils are variable a nd not typically native, NRCS does not provide a typica l infiltration rate.

System Components

Landscape Infiltration Basin (See Site Plan for details; Figure 1, pg.10) Catchment Area : 7,000 sq. ft. of asphalt (parking lot) Facility footprint 2 : 400 sq. ft. (within the c onfines of the basin) Internal Volume : 105 cu. ft. (volume in the basi n to the level of overflow) Overflow : The overflow standpipe connects to the city sewer system. Capacity : Within the basin itself, there is substantially less storage capacity than would be provided by a standard soakage trench – a catchment of 7,000 sq. ft. would require a soakage trench 3 with a footprint of 420 sq. ft. and a volum e of 441 cu. ft. However, there is substantial additional storage volume in the asphalt parking lot; prior to over flowing into the standp ipe, the area of ponding expands beyond the basin into the adjacent areas of the parking lot. The volume of this additional capacity is unknown.

2 For the purpose of comparing the capacity of the facility with th e standard eastside soakage trench, the footprint has been cal culated as the wetted (ponded) surface area when the facility reaches ma ximum capacity.

3 The standard eastside soakage trench meets the City’s standard fo r complete stormwater disposal in soils which infiltrate at le ast 2 in. per hour. The City requires 24 ft. of trench per 1000 sq. ft. of imperv ious area (drainage catchment) . The trench is 3 ft. deep, 2. 5 ft. wide, and filled with drainage rock. Flow enters the trench through a perv ious pipe that travels the length of the top of the trench. As suming a porosity of 35%, the trench provides an internal volume of a pproximately 63 cu. ft. per 1000 sq. ft. of catchment. Overview of the retrofitted parking

lot

L-shaped infiltration basin with emergency overflow ( see arrow) and gravel courtyard12/9/2004; Page 19 3 Additional Information :

• The L-shaped infiltration basin has a total length of 60 ft.. It is 11 ft. wide and it has 2:1 side sl opes. Although it is 6 in. deep (ponding depth) at the standpipe, th e average depth is just 3 in. – the basin is very shallow at its ends.

• Evenly-spaced curbstones border the basin along the edge of the parking lot. In addition to serv ing as attractive tire stops, the spaces between the stones allow runoff to enter the basin.

• During large storm events runo ff ponds on adjacent asphalt areas prior to overflowing via the standpipe.

Pervious Courtyard Catchment Area : 1,825 sq. ft. of gravel Internal Volume : 365 cu. ft. (total void space in the gravel and rock). Overflow : The courtyard slopes gen tly toward the landscape infiltration basin; any overflow will drain into the basin. Capacity : The gravel courtyard provides substantially more internal capacity than the standard soakage trench 3 that would be required for the same catchment – a 1,825 sq. ft. catchment would require a soakage trench w ith a footprint of 153 sq. ft. and a volume of 161 cu. ft.. Additional Information :

• There is 3 in. of quarter-inch minus gravel above 3 in. of crushed rock (the sub base).

• The courtyard is bordered on the south and west sides by the infiltration basin; perimeter la ndscaping borders its east and north sides.

• The courtyard is sometimes used by building tenants for overflow parking.

Emergency Overflow The overflow inlet (standpipe) is approximately 6 in. above the basin floor. The standpipe is locate d at the elbow of the L-shaped landscape basin. The standpipe is a modification to the old parking lot catch basin, which was removed and re-plumbed to the location of the standpipe.

Landscaping The vegetation within the basin is predominantly native pl ants such as Gaultheria Shallon (salal), Fragaria Chiloensis (Coastal Strawberry), and Juncus Effusu s (Common Rush). These species are adaptable to both moist and dry soil conditions. New subsurface irrigation pipe for hose bib, looking north. Removal of parking lot asphalt

during project construction,

summer 2002

L-shaped basin under construction,

200212/9/2004; Page 19 4 Perimeter landscaping includes a vari ety of native and sustainable (edible or harvestable) plants such as Evergreen Huckleberry, which produces an edible berry (and also fulfills city code requirements for a parking lot hedge). The Clumping Bamboo can be harvested for a multitude of uses, and the Serviceberry provides food and habitat for wildlife.

All of the soils in the landscape areas were amended with a mix of topsoil and compost (total av erage thickness of 5 in.).

Pavement Replacement The new 7,000 sq. ft. parking lo t slopes toward the landscapeinfiltration basin. The job required much more than simply regrading the surface with additional layers of asphalt; the asphalt contractor recommended complete removal of the old asphalt surface, including the gravel sub-grade, in order to ensure the integrity of the new asphalt surf ace. About two-thirds of the surface was excavated to an averag e depth of one foot; in some areas excavation was as deep as 3 ft. below grade.

The new asphalt layer is 3 in. thick, on average, to accommodate commercial trucks.

Irrigation Four temporary soaker hoses were installed to irrigate the new plantings during the 2-year establishment period. A new hose bib at the north end of the landscape infi ltration basin supplies the hoses. Water service for the bib required a new water line from the building. The pipe work include d the installation of a backflow prevention device. Repaved asphalt parking lot, graded to drain into infiltration basin; 2002

Flow paths draining to the location of the landscape infiltration basin (yet to be built; 2002

Landscape infiltration basin in a rain event; 200312/9/2004; Page 19 5 

### Budget

Page 19 L.L.C. submitted a final project budget of $37,080, including management, design, and construction. BES contributed $30,000 in grant funding to the project. The final budget is shown below in Table 1.

Item Item Cost Total Cost Design $2,000 $2,000 Project and Construction Management $2,000 $2,000 Demolition, grading, site prep $5,971 Mobilization $250 Asphalt (10,000 sq. ft.) - removal, disposal $3,100 Excavate swale and planting areas $1,631 Excavate water line (irrigation) $840
Sawcut concrete slab $150 Construction $18,906 Piping Work Move existing drain and install new drain $950 piping $1,101
Install new overflow $100 Paving - earthwork Mobilization of grading crew $400 Mobilization of paving crew $600 Backfill 6in. sub-grade (gravel) $4,039 Paving - construction Install asphalt (7,036 sq. ft; 3 in. thick) $7,036 Install curbstones and concrete pavers $3,955 Striping $200 Install 3 in. gravel (1/4 in. minus). Includes courtyard. $525 Landscaping (1,147 sq.ft ) $6,913 Install topsoil/compost (1350 sq ft, 4 in.deep) $2,241 Install river rock (to 2 in. depth in swale) $150 Plants & trees (installed) $3,525 Three street trees (installed) $600 Irrigation System (soaker hoses) $400 Miscellaneous $1,290 Permit fees $1,165 Core drilling $125 TOTAL $37,080 Page 19 Parking Lot Retrofit Project Budget Summary12/9/2004; Page 19 6 *These costs are subsets from the total budget and reflect only those costs pertaining to the area of asphalt that was replaced.

I. Budget Components

Non-construction Activities The total estimated cost for management, design, and permitting was $5,290, co mprising approximately 14% of the total budget.

• Management (Project and Construction Management) The total for project and constr uction management was $2,000, compri sing approximately 5% of the total budget. The owners managed all phases of th e project; they hired contractors and oversaw construction.

• Design The landscape architect (one of the property owners) designed th e project at a cost of $2,000, comprising approximately 5% of the total budget.

• Permitting The cost of the site development permit was $1,165, comprising 4% of the total budget.

Construction Activities Demolition, excavation, construction, and landscapi ng costs amounted to $31,790, comprising 86% of the total budget.

• Demolition, Excavation, and Grading The total for these activities was $5,971, comprising about 16% of the to tal project budget. The effort included demolition and removal of 10,000 sq. ft. of existing asphalt and subgrade (excavation depth of up to 3 ft.), import of topsoil, re-grading, and excavation. Summary of pavement removal and replacement costs (7,000 sq. ft.) *

P

aving - earthwork: Asphalt/fill demo, removal, and disposal $ 2,170.00 Mobilization of grading crew $ 400.00 Mobilization of paving crew $ 600.00 Backfill sub-grade (gravel) $ 4,039.00

P

aving - construction: Install asphaltic concrete (7000 sq. ft.; 3 in. thick) $ 7,036.00 Striping $ 200.00 Total $ 14,445.00 Cost per sq. ft. $ 2.0612/9/2004; Page 19 7 • Construction Construction activities, including installation of more than 7,000 sq. ft. of new asphalt surface and relocation of the drain, totaled $18,90 6. The total is approximately 51% of the total project budget.

• Landscaping The project included a total of 1,147 sq. ft. of la ndscaping (includes the in filtration basin and the landscape around the perimeter of the parking lot) . The cost was $6,913, comprising about 19% of the total project budget. The to tal unit cost was approxim ately $5.76 per sq. ft. of landscape. The unit cost for the imported topsoil/compost was $1.66 per sq. ft. Other elements included material and labor for planting, river rock, and irrigation.

II. Cost Elements

Asphalt work Asphalt removal and construction dominated the projec t budget, accounting for almost 45% of the total budget. Activities included removing the existing parki ng lot (including the sub-ba se) and installation of a new smaller asphalt lot. The contractor recommende d replacement of the asphalt and sub grade (rather than simple resurfacing) because of use by commercial trucks.

Landscaping The project incurred higher unit landscaping costs than is typical for stormwater projects. Almost a third of the landscaping costs were attributed to imported compost and topsoil necessary to improve growing conditions. Part of the increased co st is also explained by installati on of more expensive plant species such as Bamboo.

Plumbing The project required limited pipe work compared to other retrofit projects. Th e work included removing the existing catch basin, extending the existing stor m line 20 ft. to serve the stormwater basin, and installing a hose bib and new water connection to the building.

Gravel Courtyard The gravel courtyard was a cost-effective alternative to re-paving the entire parking lot. It required less paving and therefore reduced the si ze of the stormwater facility. In addition to providing an outdoor recreation area (picnicking, etc.), the courtyard is occasionally used as an overflow parking area.12/9/2004; Page 19 8 III. Cost Comparisons This retrofit project required replacement of much of the asphalt surface, making it an example of the mo st intensive type of parking lot retrofit. Many parking lot retr ofits do not require removal (and replacement) of the existing surface; re-grading can be achieved by applying new asphalt in local areas. There were other components of the project, such as the plants and th e curbstones that were also more expensive than typical for many stor mwater projects. While there may have been some savings in the pipe work, the costs for the project should probably be viewed as th e upper end of park ing lot retrofit costs, particularly because of the small size of the project – larger projects would realize economies of scale.



### Maintenance and Monitoring

The owner of the property is responsible for all ma intenance activities. BES will monitor the performance of the facilities at Page 19 L.L.C. for at least five years, and perhaps longer. Confirming the hydraulic performance of the facility will be a primary concern. BES will also regularly eval uate the level of effort required to maintain the facility, the success of th e planting regime, and comments from the owner.



### Successes and Lessons Learned

Design - The project is an important example of how a landscape infiltration area can be used as an attractive design element in the inte rior space of a parking lot (as opposed to shedding the runoff to the exterior or perimeter landscaping). The design was very successful in terms of preserving the existing parking spaces – it resulted in the loss of just two parking spaces.

Pavement Removal - The project demonstrates what is involved in retrofit projects that require asphalt replacement. Replacing asphalt can be more expens ive than other options, bu t it opens a number of options for managing runoff.

Spaced Curbstones – The curbstones are an attractive option for bringing runoff into the landscape infiltration basin: they provide an effective curb stop and spread flows during large storms.

Gravel Courtyard – The courtyard provides a number of benefits : it absorbs much of the stormwater that falls onto it, provides a recreational (picnic) area, and is periodically used for extra parking spaces.

Stormwater Capacity - The internal volume of the landscape inf iltration basin is smaller than typical for its size (footprint) – it has an average depth of just 3 inches. However, additional capacity is provided by the parking lot surface: r unoff fills the landscape infiltration ba sin and then temporarily ponds in the parking area before overflowing to the sewer system. Landscape infiltration basin after a storm, 2003. Note damp pavement where runoff recently ponded on asphalt surface.12/9/2004; Page 19 9 Site plan of parkin g lot with infiltration basins (hi g hli g hted in g reen) and gravel courtyard.