f: c e veu f’~...f’~ f: c e veu memorandum .2 101j90ct22 ~j 3:()t~ l~tr secretary cityof dallas...

F’~ F: C E V EUMemorandum .2

101J90CT22 ~j 3:()t~

L~Tr SECRETARY CITYOF DALLASDATE October23, 2009 DALLAS~ 1tXAS

TO Transportation and Environment Committee Members: Linda L. Koop (Chair), SheffieKadane (Vice Chair), Jerry Allen, Tennell Atkins, Carolyn R. Davis, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso,Pauline Medrano, Ron Natinsky, Vonciel Jones Hill

SUBJECT Transportation and Environment Committee Meeting Agenda

Monday, October 26, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. — 4:00 p.m.City Hall, 1500 ManIla, Room 6ESDallas, TX 75201

1. Approval of Minutes for October 12, 2009(Action I 5 Minutes)

2. Drainage Design PracticesPart 1: Overview of Current Drainage and Erosion Control PracticesPart 2: Alternative Technique — Integrated Storm Water Management (1SWM)Jill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City Manager.(Briefing / 50 Minutes)

3. Urban Forestry Inventory using Concurrent Airborne L1DAR and HyperspectralRemote SensingDr. Fang Qiu, Associate Professor, UTD(Briefing I 30 Minutes)

4. Museum of Nature and Science Landscape PlanCoy Talley, ASLA, Principal, Talley Associates(Briefing / 20 Minutes)

5. Crime Prevention SignsRick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works and Transportation(Briefing I 20 Minutes)

6. TxDOT Transportation Enhancement Call for ProjectsJohn Brunk, Senior Program Manager, Sustainable Development and ConstructionPM Summer, Senior Transportation Planner, Sustainable Development andConstruction(Briefing Memo)

7. Upcoming Agenda Item(Information I 5 Minutes)

Council Agenda Item #60 on November 9, 2009 I Sustainable Development andConstructionAn ordinance amending Chapter 53, Dallas Building Code, and Chapter 57, DallasOne-and Two-Family Dwelling Code, expanding the water conservation requirementsfor one and two-family dwellings, and the cool roof requirements for commercialbuildings less than 50,000 square feet of floor area to include the installation ofvegetated roofs in roofs with slopes of 2:12 or less — Financing: No costconsideration to the City.

Linda L. Koop, ChairTransportation and Environment Committee

The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerThomas P. Perkins, Jr., City AttorneyDeborah Watkins, City SecretaryCraig Kinton, City AuditorJudge C. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeRyan S. Evans, First Assistant City ManagerJill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City ManagerA.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City ManagerForest Turner, Assistant City ManagerDavid Cook, Chief Financial OfficerJeanne Chipperfield, Director, Budget and Management ServicesEdward Scott, Director, Controller’s OfficeRick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works and TransportationTheresa O’Donnell, Director, Sustainable Development and ConstructionHelena Stevens-Thompson, Assistant to the City Manager — Council Office

A closed executive session may be held if the discussion of any of the above agenda items concernsone of the following:

1. Contemplated or pending litigation, or matters where legal advice is requested of the CityAttorney. Section 551.071 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

2. The purchase, exchange lease or value of real property, if the deliberation in an open meetingwould have a detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third person.Section 551.072 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

3. A contract for a prospective gift or donation to the City, if the deliberation is an open meetingwould have a detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third person.Section 551.073 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

4. Personnel matters involving the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties,discipline or dismissal of a public officer or employee orto hear a complaint against an officer oremployee. Section 551.074 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

5. The deployment, or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices.Section 551.076 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

6. Deliberations regarding economic development negotiations. Section 551 .087 of the TexasOpen Meetings Act.

“Dallas is the City that works: Diverse, Vibrant and Progressive.”

TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT ~COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD 2~ll9 OCT 22 PM 3: O~.i

The Transportation and Environment Committee (TEC) meetings are reco~c~d1 i~ej~p~ !J~ymaterials and audiotapes may be reviewed/copied by contacting the Pubi~~d~fEX~JS

Transportation TEC Staff Coordinator at 214.670.4545.

Meeting Date: October 12, 2009 Start Time~ 2:04 p.m. AdjOurnment: 4:01 p.m.

Committee Members Present:Linda L. Koop (Chair), Sheffie Kadane (Vice Chair), Jerry Allen, Te.,P4!J Atkins, Carolyn R. Davis,Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Pauline Medrano, Ron Natinsky and o?icieI~o es Hill

Committee Members Absent:None /

.“ ‘FOther Council Members Present:David Neumann

City Executive Staff Present:Jill A. Jordan, Assistant City Manager ‘-~‘~ /

A.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City Manager

TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT 0 MIT E GENDA

1. Minutesfor Sentember

September 29, 2009 meeting subject tosuggested and the minutes were approved as

~- conded by: Jasso Passed unanimously

2. Presentation . ØStreetcar Business Plan Development”

Presenters: Gary p~’mas, Dallas Area Raid TransitJay Kline, Director f~r Program Planning, Dallas Area Rapid TransitKeith Manoy, Program Manager, Sustainable Development and ConstructionTrip Brizell, Senior Professional Associate, HDR

The briefing provided a status report on the development of a Streetcar Business Planwhich included the preliminary alignment for an initial streetcar line, funding options beingstudied, and potential institutional structures. A final recommendation is expected fromthe Streetcar Steering Committee in November 2009.

Made by: ~aøane

TEC Meeting RecordOctober 12, 2009Page 2

Action Taken!Committee Recommendation:

Ms. Koop indicated that the DART consultant is continuing to review funding options. It isanticipated that we will be applying for funding from every available source similar to whatDART does for its light rail system. She explained that the reason this particulardowntown alignment was chosen is because it connects with the Woodall Rodgers DeckPark, the Arts District, future UNT Law School, Main Street Garden, and then back to thewest to Union Station. It is located to maximize the amount of economic development thatcan be captured. Ms. Koop indicated that she wanted to form~xecutive Committees tolook at each of the corridor extensions that would serve surrou dii~g neighborhoods.

Ms. Jasso stated that she liked the idea of corrid9AØ~Iies for the neighborhoodextensions. She indicated that the Oak Cliff Transpo~~tion~t~iority (OCTA) would beinvolved on any Oak Cliff line

Ms. Hunt said that there is not a more c~itical component for t~development ofdowntown than the streetcar system. The Pro~$ed plaq~ives a good S$JT to a systemthat will be very robust and connect a lot of are~~it~ outside ofAowntown. Shementioned that Seattle’s $50 million streetcar invq~ment generated a billion dollars indevelopment around the line. Hunt indicated,~piat several departments wererepresented in the planning meeti~g~ including Pl~njng and Zoning, EconomicDevelopment and Transportation to be placed, how it will befunded, and what it will mean for d~

jasso, h7was eager to get involved andwill cross the Trinity River and serveemployer. He also suggested that~rdependent -- you have to think of one

dependently.

Ms. Medrano menti~p~d the Denver streetcar system, which operates on one street ascompared to the p?oposed Dallas streetcar plan. She also thanked Ms. Koop for herleadership on the streetcar planning.

Mr. Natinsky stated that the hybrid alignment was a good change of direction for thestreetcar system, which gives a good jumping off point for future lines, but serves thedowntown area equally well. He added that once people start riding the downtownstreetcars they will want one in their neighborhood.

Mr. Neumann statedparticipate in theMethodist Hosp~transportation andin terms of the other b

Mr. Npro~corisuiBoardDallasnot agree th~

up with the composition of four-three-three for theBoard of Directors. Mr. Kline stated that the

the composition for the proposed structure of thestated that he thought it should consist of more City of

Id be financed and owned by the City. He stated that he didhave three voting members.


Mr. Natinsky asked how the DART System Plan integrates into the streetcar plan and willDART be picking up part of the cost. Mr. Kline answered that DART wants to make surethat the local circulator system is well integrated into the more regional light rail and bussystems. In regard to the funding issue, he indicated that all of the funding scenariosbeing looked at have been extremely conservative and do not include any funding fromDART.

Mr. Thomas stated the Mr. Kline was dedicated to streetcar planning full-time. Heindicated that from a staff perspective there could be some fund~,,available to the streetcarsystem. As an example, he mentioned that a bus route was ~Sltc~d when the McKinneyAvenue Trolley started to provide more regular service, anc~jat the funds that were spenton that particular bus route were now dedicated to the McI~mni~~y Avenue Trolley.

Mr. Natinsky stated that he supports DART partici~ätjor~and it w ~jj~iportant to integratethe streetcars with both the light rail and bus syst~rn~~-He agreed With~Mr. Neumann thatDART appointments to the Streetcar Board of~Directors should be fé~ër~. than three andshould be limited to City of Dallas DART BQa~ppointe~.

i~r~retur~tô the Committee with a final

Kline (~~ci that they hoped to have theOctober 31, and then,

asked if we would beided that we would.

on the structure of the Board. Heis a vision for a system similar to what we

traveled from Martin Luther King Blvd. to downtown.areas other than downtown — such as Lower

Ms. Davis asked if4he system would use tracks or rubber tires. Mr. Kline answered thatthe streetcar system would use tracks. She suggested that DART had extensiveexperience in designing and building rail systems and was, therefore, an important partneron this project.

Ms. Koop agreed with Ms. Davis that DART was an important partner. She indicated thatone of the reasons to avoid federal funds on the initial line was because the federalprocesses would takes a lot longer and delay the project.

Mr. Natinsky asked when DART wouldrecommendation on a business p~pi~. Mr.business plan complete and back tVh~~teeringback to the TEC and City Council inin the streetcar business by the end of

Ms. Koop statedgroup to take atheir financial

Mr. Atkins stated thatindicatedhadHeCI

nzale~ànd the Economic Development~Mr. Brizell indicated that the consultants and

Ms. DavisStreetcar Boaiare not availabi

important to have DART Board members serving on thebecause they may be able to locate and access funds that

TEC Meeting Record.October 12, 2009Page 4

Ms. Hill stated that she supports the Dallas Streetcar Plan and would like to see itcomplete in four years. She also indicated that she wants to see the system extendedinto other neighborhoods. Ms. Hill stated that she would like to see the VA Hospitalcorridor as part of future planning with connections to the new UNT campus and PaulQuinn College.

Ms. Hill said that a new federal initiative, called the Sustainable Communities Initiative,has been put forward that may provide funding more quickly. The Secretary ofTransportation has brought together Transportation, HUD, an~,the EPA in this initiative.She indicated that the program rules are not yet in place, and:~fhat Dallas may be ablesuggest how the regulations should work and how the mon~~hould be dispensed.

/120o..Mr. Kadane stated that he was excited about the St~etcar1~~ and that it will makeDowntown more viable place to live and work. Mr4~Ka~dane asWd~when referring to thePID as a way of financing the streetcar would ..w~ maintain the san~(è. PID that we havenow. Mr. Brizell answered that the current~Downtown lmprovemënt~District has toldDART that they could commit a half-cent that~’wo:uld gen&ate about $4OO~OO~O annually forfuture operations. He indicated that there may~~p op~t~nity at some~oint to overlayanother district that would be specifically for the strè~ system.

Ms. Koop asked if the LGC and Boa4~..Qirectors for ti~t~Dallas Streetcar System would~be one and the same. A.C. GonzaIe~t~(d~that staff woui~9~6d to look at whether that

6. ~‘/,~is the appropriate structure to have regardin~’the7issuance~.of bonds. He indicated thatthe structure would need to insulate the~City O~tI~f~issuance of the bonds, as well asprovide an operating ej~L~t~~t would man.9ge operati9ns under contract with DART.

.4Ms. Jasso asked.-ab~ut the di~f~rent corridd’~, groups and if we wanted to include somelanguage about them iri~.t~e n~xt steps so that~wording correlates to what the intention isMs. Koop indicated that t~’th~ t~Steering. Committee meeting they would formulate the

.4~ :~~‘~‘.A’approacr~fut9prridoi~:p~nning. Mr4Fhomas stated that he would like to come backwith a Eecómmend~d)framewoêon how the Corridor Committees are going to work.

le,.. ‘%2~’Ms~ Kó~~also stated th~’t~.it wou1~V’~e a shame if the Continental Bridge deck were re

~ .poured wit1~~’out streetcar ~rails. Ms. Jordan stated that staff is looking at the ContinentalBridge. It~ possiL~ to provide one track across the bridge with a passing track,instead of pro~l,J~g two t~’cks. She suggested that it will be a challenge to do everythingthat we want to d~3n )~‘ Continental Bridge.

No action was takeri on this item.

3. Sidewalk Improvement Programs

Presenter: Jill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City ManagerRick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works and Transportation


Ms. Jordan provided an overview of the City’s sidewalk improvement programs, andidentified potential changes to the City’s policies regarding sidewalk construction,replacement and assessments.

Action TakenlCommittee Recommendation:

Mr. Kadane asked who pays for the sidewalk when a builder is building a home. Ms.Jordan answered that if it’s a new subdivision, the construction would be done as part ofthe development and the cost would be included in the co~st of the home, with noassessments. Mr. Kadane asked who would pay for the side~,ái~1fJt were a single home.Ms. Jordan answered that if there is a sidewalk, then vacar).t~lot with no sidewalk, and thena sidewalk on the other side, then Building lnspectio~~~i~.require you to install thesidewalk. If it’s a single home and there is no sidewall n thë~%eet, then you would notbe required to install a sidewalk. Mr. Kadane asked~if ~il~.new hof~i>ës reqUired sidewalks.Ms. Jordan confirmed that sidewalks are requi~ptl, b~it that there~.:i≤)a waiver provisionavailable. The waiver is why there are so ma~jthoroughfares that do ~dav~ sidewalks.

~7

Mr. Galceran stated that some areas have bar ditc~es ~ueh1hat the aesthetics don t allowfor installation of a sidewalk, making it awkward t6~$uire a property owner to build asidewalk. %~_. lb

Mr. Kadane asked if there were funas avaiiabJe if a prope~~owner wanted to repair asidewalk. Ms. Jordan answered that t[~. Cii i~~i~inently o1)i~f funds. Mr. Kadane asked

-if the homeowner would get their money~pack~if th~y ade the repairs. Ms. Jordan saidthat the homeowner w6Ci1d~:not be reimLthrs~d. Mr. adane asked what would be the

.,j~ ~‘f/~.

policy if the sidewallVwas ‘dth~aerous. M~. Jordan answered that the Street ServicesDepartment wouid~(fa~,e repai~using asphi

Mr. Natinsky asked staff~t~Wrovid.e~I,o •t • s using the “Fast Fix” program.-

—Ms. J~so indica ed~,at she~j~,not want to maintain the status quo; she wanted to seesidey~~s improved at~’d/to spe’~4~cally address areas where the disabled need to beac~àmri~odated so that f’M. are nàf~sing the streets.

Mr. Atkinslb~d that if a neighborhood in his district with hills, large ditches and nosidewalks woul~te requ,i ed to install a sidewalk if they were to build a new home. Ms.Jordan said thafi~y ~p Id not have to build a sidewalk in that situation. However, sheadded that what th~Øeally need is a street petition to improve the street and sidewalks.Ms. Jordan also st~ted that there is a new program called the “Target NeighborhoodProgram” that helps in areas that have mostly rental properties.

Mr. Atkins asked for a map of the locations for sidewalks that are part of the Safe Routesto School Program.

Mr. Allen asked for an overview of the criteria for the Safe Routes to School Program.Ms. Beth Ramirez, the City Traffic Engineer, stated that staff looks at where the childrenlive in relation to the school, and then identify the best routes for them to walk. The


infrastructure is then targeted for improvement along those routes. Ms. Davis asked for acopy of the criteria.

Ms. Koop suggested that it would be foolish to change the rules regarding sidewalkfunding in the middle of the current bond program. She asked how much money was leftin the 50/50 program. Mr. Galceran indicated that the bond funds have been used, butthat there will be some funds to come back through the assessments that can be put backinto the program.

Mr. Neumann agreed that we should not change the rule~4t41l~ middle of the bondprogram. He asked that the Director be very diligent when~t~e waiver process is used onstreets where it’s appropriate to have sidewalks and in~ jhat it is not appropriate toissue waivers where there should be sidewalks. Ms. d\~dan ste~ that the DevelopmentServices Department issues the waiver. 4~,. 44

Ms. Koop asked if there was a charge for a Waiver. Ms. Jordan answ’~ that there is nocharge for a waiver.

lb /~%. FNo action was taken on this item.

4. Complete Streets Initiative

1WPresenter: John Brunk, Program Manager, ‘S~t~inable Development and Construction4Keith Manoy, Program Manager, Sustain~ble~eveI ~ej~t~ and Construction

Mr. Brunk presente~~~f~itup the Sej~mber 29~2009 briefing by RTKL on “GreatStreets”, which in~fried an erview of tl~e “Complete Streets” movement, potentialfederal leg islatior~I, an~itJ~e rol&~f the forward1~aIt~s! Comprehensive Plan.

~~Action Take i~o~nmittee~ecommenda%n:

Ms. j~ft stated thai feeW~rpngIy that we need the “Complete Street” concept inDall~~i~e are going ~~ecom~~ urban city. She indicated that she was concernedwith the~t~lti-use area~i~j4-15vfoot lane widths) identified in the street cross-sectionexamples~ mixed ~i~e and transit streets. She acknowledged that Mr. Brunk’spresentation ~ated tI3~ the forwardDallas! Recommendations were a “jumping off’point and that the*pda~.~ Bicycle Plan needs to be incorporated into the City’s CompleteStreet program.

Ms. Hunt stated that she would like to see us move forward with demonstration areas indifferent parts of Dallas as soon as possible so that we can show the public a “CompleteStreet” and build momentum. Ms. Hunt suggested that we need to change our mind setand start thinking about the movement of people and not just traffic flow.

Ms. Hunt suggested that the Committee view a film entitled, “Contested Streets - 2006”,an overview regarding bicycle use in New York City, Paris, London, and Copenhagen.Ms. Koop indicated that it would be scheduled for the Committee.

TEC Meeting RecordOctober 12, 2009Pag~ 7

Ms. ~v1edrano mentioned that the prior week several Council members rode bikes to CityHall. She received comments from the public that they would ride more often if they feltsafe on the streets.

No action was taken on this item.

5. ~pcbmjng Agenda Items

Moti~n was made to approve Council Agenda Items #29 andtherr~ on for consideration by the full Council on October 14,

Mad? by: Atkins Seconded by: Kadane

Ms. ~~Jasso asked that an item be added to adriver” and their impact on safety. Ms. Koop inthe agenda forecast.

L~o ~Linda L. Koop, ChairTransportation and Environment

as presented and send

added to

Memorandum

CITY OF DALLASDATE October 22, 2009

TO Members of the Transportation and Environment CommitteeLinda Koop (Chair), Sheffie Kadane (Vice Chair), Jerry Allen, Tennell Atkins,Carolyn R. Davis, Vonciel Jones Hill, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Pauline Medrano,Ron Natinsky,

SUBJECT Drainage Design Practices BriefingPart 1. Overview of Current Drainage and Erosion Control PracticesPart 2. Alternative Technique — Integrated Storm Water Management (iSWM)

Attached is the “Drainage Design Practices” briefing that will be presented to you onOctober 26, 2009.

Please let me know if you require additional information.

Jill A. Jordan, P.E.Assistant City Manager

C: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerThomas P. Perkins Jr., City AttorneyDeborah Watkins, City SecretaryCraig Kinton, City AuditorJudge C. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeRyan S. Evans, First Assistant City ManagerA.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City ManagerForest Turner, Assistant City ManagerDavid K. Cook, Chief Financial OfficerJeanne Chipperfield, Director, Office of Financial ServicesEdward Scott, City ControllerHelena Stevens-Thompson, Assistant to the City ManagerKelly High, Director, Trinity Watershed ManagementTheresa O’Donnell, Director, Sustainable Development and Construction Department

“Dallas, The City That Works: Diverse, Vibrant And Progressive.”

Drainage Design PracticesPart 1. Overview of Current Drainage and

Erosion Control Practices

Transportation and Environment Committee

October 26, 2009

2

Purpose

Provide an overview of current drainage design criteria

Review the City’s erosion control program Discuss how erosion control projects are

identified and implemented

3

Current Drainage Design Criteria

Since the early 1980’s Dallas has led the region in drainage design

Current drainage system design for development or redevelopment requires: Design standard of 100-year frequency storm

events Detention in certain cases (i.e, a change in

zoning results in substantially more runoff or outfall capacity inadequate to carry 100 yr frequency event)

4

Current Drainage Design Criteria (Cont’d)

Current drainage system design (cont’d) : Drainage analysis based on a fully developed

drainage area and existing zoning Assessment of runoff from the site to minimize

flood risk to people and property (system capacity)

Evaluation of discharge from the site to minimize downstream bank and channel erosion (checking erosive velocity)

5

Current Drainage Design Criteria (Cont’d)

Despite existing drainage design criteria, erosion problems continue to occur and further efforts can be made by: Adopting minor technical changes to the city’s

drainage design manual Considering adoption of the integrated Storm

Water Management (iSWM) process on a voluntary basis, which if implemented could help to further reduce erosion

6

What is Erosion?

The gradual wearing away of soil by water – a natural process through which streams and rivers are formed over a long period of time

Erosion occurs in both developed and undeveloped areas – increased development can accelerate erosion until the stream stabilizes

7

What Causes Erosion? Frequent, brief heavy rains resulting in fast flows

in creeks generate erosive forces that attack the bottom of the creek bank Big floods are not the primary cause of erosion

because they are infrequent Engineering studies have shown that the 1-year storm

event has the most destructive erosion impact Type of soil

Sandy and silty soils are easily eroded Clay soils are more resistant but will form vertical

banks Most vulnerable areas are creek bends

8

Why an Erosion Control Program?

To protect principal structures from creek bank erosion Principal structures include homes, garages,

streets, alleys and bridges

Erosion projects are often too costly for residential property owners to implement

9

City Policy Regarding Erosion Projects

City will fully fund erosion control projects when there is a clear and visible threat to a principal structure

City will consider participation with the adjacent property owner in a project in which structures are not threatened To date, City has never undertaken a cost-

sharing project

10

How are Erosion Control Projects Identified?

Citizens, council or staff identify a potential erosion control project site

Staff performs an investigation which includes: Site inspection, measurements and engineering

calculations

Site is rated, prioritized and added to the needs inventory to be considered for funding in a future bond program Current needs inventory includes 93 projects

estimated at $19M (see Appendix A)

11

Erosion Rating Criteria

Distance from principal structure to edge of creek, and depth of creek

Rate of creek bank loss Cost of project and number of structures

to be protected Type of threat (house threatened as

opposed to yard erosion, for example) See Appendix B for detailed rating points

12

Erosion Diagram

13

Types of Threats

Type I: Threat to principal structures such as homes, garages, streets, alleys and bridges

Type II: Threat to storage buildings, pools, other structures

Type III: Threat to fences, yards and privately owned retaining walls

14

Type I Erosion

Sandy soil, near vertical bank (10 ft. from house)

15

Type I Erosion

Creek erosion near top of bank and near home

16

Type I Erosion

Near vertical bank

17

Type I Erosion

Slope failure near top of bank

18

Type III Erosion

Vertical bank with undercutting present

19

Typical Erosion Solution

Gabion Retaining Wall Wire baskets laced together, filled with

stones

2006 Bond Program Project

20

Typical Erosion Solution

2006 Bond Program Project

21

Erosion Control Solution (cont’d)

Gabion Wall Advantages More cost-effective than concrete retaining

wall Flexible & conforms to creek bank A typical project 100 feet long by 15 feet

high costs approximately $80,000

22

Further actions to lessen erosion

Consider making minor technical changes to the city’s drainage design manual Review erosive velocities of the 1-year storm, as well as the 100-

year storm Since 1-year storms might be more erosive, this needs to be

considered in drainage design If detention basins are required, use a multi-stage outlet to restrict

discharge

23

Further actions to lessen erosion (cont’d)

Consider including these minor technical changes in the integrated Storm Water Management (iSWM) process, which if implemented could help to further reduce erosion

24

Appendices

Appendix A – Needs InventoryBy Council DistrictBy Rank Order

Appendix B – Criteria for Rating Each ProjectAppendix C – Bond Program Funding HistoryAppendix D – What Other Cities Do

25

Appendix A – Needs Inventory By Council District

CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate1 Clarendon 3435 Type I 67.39 22 $97,000

T ota l CD 1 $97,000

3 Deep HIll Circle 2671, 2675, 2679, 2683 Type I 71.06 15 $484,000

3 Kiesthill Drive 3431 Type I 68.02 18 $195,000

3 Blue Ridge 3721 Type I 67.78 20 $108,000

3 Ohio W. 412, 416 Type I 67.47 21 $81,000

3 Holliday 3445 & 3449 Type I 67.22 24 $162,000

3 Pyka 3918 Type I 62.97 28 $164,000

3 Cripple Creek 3744-3750-3758 Type I 53.2 50 $240,000

3 Stevens Wood Court 914 Type I 50.7 54 $72,000



3 Boulder Drive 4120 Type II 44.4 73 $37,000

3 Boulder 4207 Type III 44.1 77 $60,000

3Deep Hill Circle 2625, 2641, 2663, 2667, 2687, 2691 Type III 30.38 91 $773,000

T ota l CD 3 $2,516,000

26

Appendix A – Needs Inventory By Council District (cont’d)

CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate4 Five Mile Pkwy W. 922 Type I 67.8 19 $195,000

4 Danube 1715 Type I 51.8 53 $48,000

T ota l CD 4 $243,000

5 Poplar Springs Lane Type I 49.82 57 $236,000

5 Rosemont 7433 Type III 42.8 81 $148,000

5 Putting Green 6637 Type III 36.03 87 $169,000

5 Spring Glen Branch - Redbird Lane to Reynoldsto Type III 27.09 93 $4,325,000

T ota l CD 5 $4,878,000

27


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate7 Corinth (S) 218, 11th St. (E) 1611-1615 Type I 70.03 16 $197,000

7 Lakeland 2224 Type I 68.1 17 $180,000

7 El Cerrito 2460 Type I 67.2 25 $52,000

7 Leeshire 2921 Type I 62.87 29 $130,000

7 Hunnicut 8171 Type I 58.32 35 $87,000

7 El Cerrito 2522 Type I 58.2 36 $100,000

7 Wildoak 2488 Type I 58.1 40 $108,000

7 El Cerrito 2420 Type I 58.02 41 $61,000

7 Parkdale Bridge @ White Rock Creek Trib Type I 55.17 43 $76,000

7 Lakeland Dr. @ Ash Creek Type I 49.04 62 $85,000

7 Claremont 8023 Type I 48.3 68 $49,000

7 Ripplewood 2828 Type II 34.28 89 $117,000

7 Hollis 6740 Type III 27.3 92 $54,000

T ota l CD 7 $1,296,000

28


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate8 Cliffwood 6707 and Blackstone 2617 Type I 71.94 13 $193,000

8 Bonnie View over Five Mile Creek Type I 62.87 30 $541,000

8 Wixom Lane 835 Type I 58.44 34 $43,000

8 Richwood 6814 Type I 58.2 37 $120,000

8 Richwood 6906 Type I 58.2 38 $140,000

8 Paul Quinn College 3837 Simpson Stuart Rd Type I 53.93 45 $130,000

8 Glencairn 460 Type I 53.88 46 $69,000

8 Brooklawn 6718 Type I 53.2 48 $140,000

8 Richwood 7014 Type I 53.2 49 $120,000

8 Wixom Lane 861 Type I 49.33 59 $43,000

8 Blackstone 2709 Type I 48.7 63 $80,000

8 Richwood 6806 Type I 48.7 64 $140,000



8 Matland Dr 2552 Type I 48.16 69 $68,000

8 Blackstone 2625 Type III 44 78 $138,000

8 Richwood 6822 Type III 44 80 $100,000

8 Bainbridge 2733 Type III 38.4 84 $193,000

8 Old Mill 286 Type III 36.45 86 $39,000

8 Morningview 3810 and 3816 Type III 34.78 88 $108,000

T ota l CD 8 $2,565,000

29


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate9 Tamarack 1745 Type I 81.1 3 $90,000

9 Twin Creek 9726 Type I 63.71 26 $108,000

9 Sperry St. 3220 Type I 63.2 27 $74,000

9 Kiltartan 1511 Type I 53.98 44 $156,000

9 Springhill 2304, 2310, 2314 Type I 50.13 56 $162,000

9 Peavy Culvert @ Vinemont Channel Type I 48.14 70 $27,000

9 Peavy Place 2344 Type I 48 72 $65,000

9 Greentree 7111 & 7045 Type III 44.3 75 $195,000

9 Patrick Dr 6722 Type III 40.83 82 $65,000

9 Peavy Road 2015 Type III 40.46 83 $49,000

T ota l CD 9 $991,000

30


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate10 Fair Oaks Crossing 8849 Type I 85.23 1 $104,000

10 Jackson Branch Trib. @ Fair Oaks Crossing Type I 81.26 2 $189,000

10 Skillman 8109 Type I 80.7 4 $143,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank downstream of Royal B Type I 76.69 5 $227,000

10 Audelia Branch - W. Bank dwnstrm of Whitehurst B Type I 76.67 6 $389,000

10 Langdale 8668 Type I 76.6 7 $130,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank upstream of Whitehurs Type I 72.27 9 $303,000

10 Audelia Branch - E. Bank dwnstrm of Audelia Brid Type I 72.17 10 $541,000

10 Greenville Avenue 9226 Type I 72 12 $91,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank downstream of Skillma Type I 71.37 14 $454,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank upstream of Skillman B Type I 67.37 23 $389,000

10 Greenville Avenue 9320/Vista View 8915 Type I 62.46 32 $173,000

10 Rocky Branch @ Middle Downs Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 Type I 60.2 33 $583,000

10 Coppertowne 8439 Type I 53.12 52 $59,000

10 Whitehurst Branch Phase 2 Type I 50.58 55 $234,000

10 Summer Glen 9042 Type I 49.5 58 $48,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank below Church Rd. Type III 30.44 90 $242,000

T ota l CD 10 $4,299,000

31


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate11 Spring Valley 8444 Type I 76.2 8 $234,000

11 Spring Grove 13316 Type I 72.17 11 $65,000

11 Kalani 6323 Type I 62.61 31 $69,000

11 Pagewood 10553 Type I 53.6 47 $26,000

11 Northcreek 6700 blk Type I 48.7 65 $195,000

11 Hill Forest 7200 block Type II 44.38 74 $60,000

11 Stonehill Drive 6312 Type III 44 79 $60,000

11 Stone Forest 6900 block Type III 36.7 85 $60,000

T ota l CD 11 $769,000

12 Squaw Valley 17628 Type I 58.2 39 $80,000

12 Nedra Way 15821 and 15827 Type I 53.18 51 $119,000

12 Brushy Creek Trail 5719 Type III 44.11 76 $117,000

T ota l CD 12 $316,000

13 Joes Creek - East Fork to Royal, Phase 2 Type I 55.18 42 $1,222,000

13 Betty Jane 10225 Type I 49.2 60 $65,000

T ota l CD 13 $1,287,000

32

Appendix A – Needs Inventory By Rank Order

CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate10 Fair Oaks Crossing 8849 Type I 85.23 1 $104,000

10 Jackson Branch Trib. @ Fair Oaks Crossing Type I 81.26 2 $189,000

9 Tamarack 1745 Type I 81.1 3 $90,000

10 Skillman 8109 Type I 80.7 4 $143,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank downstream of Royal Brge Type I 76.69 5 $227,000

10 Audelia Branch - W. Bank dwnstrm of Whitehurst Brd Type I 76.67 6 $389,000

10 Langdale 8668 Type I 76.6 7 $130,000

11 Spring Valley 8444 Type I 76.2 8 $234,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank upstream of Whitehurst Br Type I 72.27 9 $303,000

10 Audelia Branch - E. Bank dwnstrm of Audelia Bridge Type I 72.17 10 $541,000

11 Spring Grove 13316 Type I 72.17 11 $65,000

10 Greenville Avenue 9226 Type I 72 12 $91,000

8 Cliffwood 6707 and Blackstone 2617 Type I 71.94 13 $193,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank downstream of Skillman Br Type I 71.37 14 $454,000

3 Deep HIll Circle 2671, 2675, 2679, 2683 Type I 71.06 15 $484,000

7 Corinth (S) 218, 11th St. (E) 1611-1615 Type I 70.03 16 $197,000

7 Lakeland 2224 Type I 68.1 17 $180,000

3 Kiesthill Drive 3431 Type I 68.02 18 $195,000

4 Five Mile Pkwy W. 922 Type I 67.8 19 $195,000

33

Appendix A – Needs Inventory By Rank Order (cont’d)

CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate3 Blue Ridge 3721 Type I 67.78 20 $108,000

3 Ohio W. 412, 416 Type I 67.47 21 $81,000

1 Clarendon 3435 Type I 67.39 22 $97,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank upstream of Skillman Brge Type I 67.37 23 $389,000

3 Holliday 3445 & 3449 Type I 67.22 24 $162,000

7 El Cerrito 2460 Type I 67.2 25 $52,000

9 Twin Creek 9726 Type I 63.71 26 $108,000

9 Sperry St. 3220 Type I 63.2 27 $74,000

3 Pyka 3918 Type I 62.97 28 $164,000

7 Leeshire 2921 Type I 62.87 29 $130,000

8 Bonnie View over Five Mile Creek Type I 62.87 30 $541,000

11 Kalani 6323 Type I 62.61 31 $69,000

10 Greenville Avenue 9320/Vista View 8915 Type I 62.46 32 $173,000

10 Rocky Branch @ Middle Downs Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 Type I 60.2 33 $583,000

8 Wixom Lane 835 Type I 58.44 34 $43,000

7 Hunnicut 8171 Type I 58.32 35 $87,000

7 El Cerrito 2522 Type I 58.2 36 $100,000

8 Richwood 6814 Type I 58.2 37 $120,000

8 Richwood 6906 Type I 58.2 38 $140,000

34


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate12 Squaw Valley 17628 Type I 58.2 39 $80,000

7 Wildoak 2488 Type I 58.1 40 $108,000

7 El Cerrito 2420 Type I 58.02 41 $61,000

13 Joes Creek - East Fork to Royal, Phase 2 Type I 55.18 42 $1,222,000

7 Parkdale Bridge @ White Rock Creek Trib Type I 55.17 43 $76,000

9 Kiltartan 1511 Type I 53.98 44 $156,000

8 Paul Quinn College 3837 Simpson Stuart Rd Type I 53.93 45 $130,000

8 Glencairn 460 Type I 53.88 46 $69,000

11 Pagewood 10553 Type I 53.6 47 $26,000

8 Brooklawn 6718 Type I 53.2 48 $140,000

8 Richwood 7014 Type I 53.2 49 $120,000

3 Cripple Creek 3744-3750-3758 Type I 53.2 50 $240,000

12 Nedra Way 15821 and 15827 Type I 53.18 51 $119,000

10 Coppertowne 8439 Type I 53.12 52 $59,000

4 Danube 1715 Type I 51.8 53 $48,000


10 Whitehurst Branch Phase 2 Type I 50.58 55 $234,000

9 Springhill 2304, 2310, 2314 Type I 50.13 56 $162,000

5 Poplar Springs Lane Type I 49.82 57 $236,000

35


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate10 Summer Glen 9042 Type I 49.5 58 $48,000

8 Wixom Lane 861 Type I 49.33 59 $43,000

13 Betty Jane 10225 Type I 49.2 60 $65,000


7 Lakeland Dr. @ Ash Creek Type I 49.04 62 $85,000


8 Richwood 6806 Type I 48.7 64 $140,000

11 Northcreek 6700 blk Type I 48.7 65 $195,000



7 Claremont 8023 Type I 48.3 68 $49,000

8 Matland Dr 2552 Type I 48.16 69 $68,000

9 Peavy Culvert @ Vinemont Channel Type I 48.14 70 $27,000


9 Peavy Place 2344 Type I 48 72 $65,000

3 Boulder Drive 4120 Type II 44.4 73 $37,000

11 Hill Forest 7200 block Type II 44.38 74 $60,000

9 Greentree 7111 & 7045 Type III 44.3 75 $195,000

12 Brushy Creek Trail 5719 Type III 44.11 76 $117,000

36


CD Project Name Description - By types of Threat Score Ranking Cost Estimate3 Boulder 4207 Type III 44.1 77 $60,000

8 Blackstone 2625 Type III 44 78 $138,000

11 Stonehill Drive 6312 Type III 44 79 $60,000

8 Richwood 6822 Type III 44 80 $100,000

5 Rosemont 7433 Type III 42.8 81 $148,000

9 Patrick Dr 6722 Type III 40.83 82 $65,000

9 Peavy Road 2015 Type III 40.46 83 $49,000

8 Bainbridge 2733 Type III 38.4 84 $193,000

11 Stone Forest 6900 block Type III 36.7 85 $60,000

8 Old Mill 286 Type III 36.45 86 $39,000

5 Putting Green 6637 Type III 36.03 87 $169,000

8 Morningview 3810 and 3816 Type III 34.78 88 $108,000

7 Ripplewood 2828 Type III 34.28 89 $117,000

10 Jackson Branch - E. Bank below Church Rd. Type III 30.44 90 $242,000

3 Deep Hill Circle 2625, 2641, 2663, 2667, 2687, 2691 Type III 30.38 91 $773,000

7 Hollis 6740 Type III 27.3 92 $54,000

5 Spring Glen Branch - Redbird Lane to Reynoldston Type III 27.09 93 $4,325,000

TOTAL $19,257,000

37

Appendix B – Needs Inventory Criteria for rating each project

Ratio of distance to depth (0 to 40 points) Rate of creek bank loss (5 to 40 points) Ratio of cost divided by structures

protected (5 to 20 points) Type of threat (0 to 15 points)

38

Appendix CBond Program Funding History

1995 Bond Program – $6.7M/67 structures




39

Appendix D - What Other Cities Do

We surveyed eleven local cities with populations over 100,000

Fort Worth, Arlington, Irving, Denton, Carrollton, Frisco, and Mesquite currently do not fund private property erosion control

Four cities have programs that address erosion on private property

40

Appendix D - What Other Cities Do (cont’d)

Richardson – Cost-sharing program – Owner pays 50% of total cost

Plano – Fully funded with Stormwater utility fee

McKinney – Project performed only if deemed cost effective – Funded through Surface Drainage Utility Fee

Garland – Cost-sharing program – Owner pays 50% total cost

41

Drainage Design Practices

Part 2

Alternative Technique-Integrated Storm Water Management

(iSWM)

42

iSWM (INTEGRATED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT) MANUAL

PURPOSE

• Explain what is iSWM • Outline recommendations to adopt the iSWM

manual so that it can be used to design drainage facilities as part of public and private sector development projects

43

BACKGROUND• Traditionally, in development projects and street

designs, engineers have focused only on the quantity of storm water (i.e., flooding) and not water quality.

• The EPA, through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, is now looking at both the quantity and quality of storm water runoff.

• Consequently, NCTCOG and over sixty area cities began meeting to add storm water quality considerations in the design of drainage facilities for development projects.

44

BACKGROUND • Through these meetings, NCTCOG developed the iSWM

manual to help area cities implement more environmentally friendly approaches for storm water management.

• The iSWM goal is to manage storm water runoff as close to the development site as possible to reduce:– the volume of the development runoff and – the pollutants leaving the development site.

• NCTCOG completed the iSWM manual in January 2006 with the aim that each area city would adopt iSWM and add their own local criteria to supplement the iSWM manual’s regional approach.

45

BACKGROUND

• In 2007, as part of the City’s green building initiatives, a Subdivision/iSWM Task Force was formed. The task force included citizens, professional groups, developers, and staff members.

• The task force concentrated their efforts on storm water management and suggested that the City adopt the iSWM Manual.

• In February 2008, city council authorized a contract with Freese and Nichols to develop our local criteria and to update the City’s drainage design criteria to include the iSWM manual.

46

BACKGROUND

• The task force worked with Freese and Nichols to draft the City’s local criteria for development.

• The task force held six public meetings (two in October 2008, one in December 2008, one in January 2009, one in September 2009 and one in October 2009) to receive input from the development and professional community on adopting the iSWM manual, the draft local criteria, and proposed incentives.

• All of this information was put on a website link to the City of Dallas green website.

47

Key iSWM PrinciplesFor any development or redevelopment project, • Assess and mitigate downstream impacts (City already requires). • Assess discharge from the site to minimize downstream bank

and channel erosion (City already requires; however these policies can be enhanced).

• Control conveyance of runoff within and from the site to minimize flood risk to people and property (City already requires)

• NEW: If the impervious area is increased more than five percent over existing conditions, developer must either: – Treat the storm water runoff on-site at developer’s cost;

or – Use a certain number of integrated site design practices

in lieu of treatment (i.e., preservation of open space/natural features, natural pathways for drainage, or pervious surfaces).

48

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICESThe iSWM manual encourages such practices as:• Preserve creeks, wetlands, and forest areas: • Use natural drainage ways instead of drainage pipes and

channels • Fit design to the terrain• Reduce the extent of clearing and grading• Use vegetated swales and bioswales• Direct runoff towards buffers and undisturbed areas• Incorporate creative designs, such as:

– Eco-rooftops/roof gardensAppendix A provides a more complete list of

techniques

49Runoff from parking lot is directed to an infiltration area

50Example of a bioswale

51Example of a Rain Garden

52

Examples of Porous Paver Surfaces (Sources: Invisible Structures, Inc.; EP Henry Corp.)

53Bioswale Example

54RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION #2 - CONVENTIONAL DESIGN

Comparison of a Traditional Residential Subdivision Design withan Innovative Site Plan Developed Using integrated Site Design Practices.

55

i

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION #2 – integrated SITE DESIGN

56

iSWM PROCEDURES

• While iSWM techniques can be applied to smaller areas, iSWM is most applicable to developments larger than three acres.

• The iSWM site plan must show:– existing site conditions, – proposed development, and – integrated site design practices that the developer will

use.• If the impervious area is increased more than five percent

over existing conditions, developer must either: – Treat the storm water runoff on-site at developer’s cost; or – Use a certain number of integrated site design practices in

lieu of treatment.

57

iSWM PROCEDURES

• Each integrated site design practice has an assigned number of points.

• If the development earns the minimum points required using integrated site design practices, no on-site treatment is required.

• If the development exceeds the minimum points required using additional integrated site design practices, incentives/or tradeoffs may be available to developers to help offset the cost of building the site practices.

58

PROPOSED INCENTIVES• The following incentives may be offered to developers who

exceed the minimum points required using integrated site design practices in their development: – Reduced ROW requirements in residential

subdivisions. – Narrower pavement widths for minor streets. – Bar ditches in lieu of curb and underground storm

sewer pipes / culverts for subdivisions with lots that are 7,500 square feet or more.

– Reduced parking requirements for warehouse / industrial / retail (not including restaurants).

– Increase density in a community unit development.– Reduced tree mitigation requirements.

59

BENEFITS OF ADOPTING iSWM MANUAL

• Reduces the volume of storm water runoff leaving the site • Higher quality of storm water runoff leaving the site• Promotes green space/natural drainage pathways and

preserves natural creeks• Facilitates the use of green drainage techniques in green

building projects• The City’s current drainage design manual does not allow

or promote the use of many of the iSWM techniques. Developers wishing to use these techniques might have to go to the Board of Adjustment.

60

IMPLEMENTION OF THE iSWM MANUAL:

• Based upon citizen input, implementation of the iSWM manual is recommended to happen in the following three phases:– Phase I- Voluntary use only– Phase II- Voluntary use plus adoption of local

criteria and incentives– Phase III- Adjustment of use based upon

experience of use

61

STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PHASE I

RECOMMENDATION • Voluntary use of iSWM criteria manual for those

developers choosing to use these techniques• Voluntary use of iSWM Plan questionnaire. • Form a “Technical Committee” and a “Policy Committee”

representing developers, professional engineers/architects, interested citizens, the environmental community, and city staff to develop and implement incentives and look at regional approaches to addressing stormwater quality issues and erosion control

ACTION REQUIRED• City council resolution adopting voluntary use of iSWM

criteria manual as part of the drainage design criteria.

62

STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PHASE IIRECOMMENDATION • Continue voluntary use of iSWM criteria manual. • Committees assess effectiveness of development projects using

iSWM criteria.• Committees recommend voluntary local iSWM criteria, which

supplements the regional iSWM Manual and includes incentives.• Consider adoption of minor technical changes to the City’s Drainage

Design manual to incorporate certain iSWM design provisions

ACTIONS REQUIRED• Codify development incentives (i.e., Amend Article IV, Zoning;

Article VIII, Platting; etc.)• City council resolution adopting voluntary local iSWM criteria that

includes incentives.

63

STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PHASE III

Actions Required:• Brief city council two years after adoption of the

local criteria in Phase II• Make recommendations on whether the iSWM

policies or local criteria should be amended.

64

Appendix A

Drainage techniques allowed and promoted by iSWM

65

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICESThe iSWM manual encourages such practices as: • Create/preserve undisturbed natural areas:

– Creeks– Wetlands – Forests

• Use natural drainage ways instead of drainage pipes and channels – Direct runoff to creeks and swales, ensuring

that peak flows and velocities will not cause erosion.

66

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICES• Preserve buffer zones along steams:

– Conserving natural areas along stream, wetlands or shorelines.

• Use open space development:– Conservation areas. – Open space. – Clustering development.

• Incorporate creative designs, such as:– Eco-rooftops/roof gardens.

• Avoid steep slopes: – Build on flat areas of development. – Preserve natural state of Geologically Similar Areas

(GSA) next to escarpment.

67

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICES• Minimize siting on porous or eroding soils:

– Locate buildings on portions of a site with least permeable soils.

– Avoid siting on highly erodible soils.– Conserve areas with highly permeable soils such as

sand. • Drain rooftop runoff to pervious areas:

– Drain rooftops to permeable areas on site. – Use vegetated areas to filter rooftop storm runoff. – Use vegetated infiltration basins/rain gardens to

capture rooftop runoff.

68

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICES• Fit design to terrain:

– Preserve natural drainage ways – Provide vegetated swales – Leave undisturbed vegetation on slopes

• Reduce the limit of clearing and grading: – Preserve more undisturbed natural areas on a

development site – Protect natural conservation areas and other site

features • Locate development in less sensitive areas:

– Use natural site features to prevent/mitigate storm water impact

– Lay out site to minimize the hydrologic impact of structures and impervious surfaces

69

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICES

• Use buffers and undisturbed areas:– Direct runoff towards buffers and undisturbed areas. – Use natural depressions for runoff storages.

• Use vegetated swale design: – Open vegetated channels along roadway. – Grass channels and enhanced dry swales in

developments.– Storm water rain gardens. – Storm water curb extensions.

• Create parking lot storm water islands: – Integrate porous areas such as landscape islands,

swales, filter strips and bio-retention areas in parking lot design.

70

INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN PRACTICES

• Reduce parking footprint: – Consider using parking structures and shared

parking. – Use alternative porous surface areas.

• Use fewer or alternative cul-de-sacs (hammerhead turnaround).

71

i

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION #2 integrated SITE DESIGN

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION #2 - CONVENTIONAL DESIGN

72

Appendix B

• Examples of how other cities are using these integrated approaches to drainage

73

Other Storm Water Treatment Programs

City of Austin• Allows developers to pay an impact fee in lieu of

design/construction and maintenance of treatment facilities. – Impact fee is based on the

• type of development and • Area of imperviousness

– For a five acre development that is 70% impervious, fee is approximately $100,000.

74


City of Austin- Continued• Requires the developer to treat the storm

water runoff for any new development or redevelopment.

• Maintains treatment facilities for residential developments, developer maintains treatment facilities for nonresidential development.

75


Nationwide• Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon;

and Maryland, North Carolina have policies similar to Austin for treatment of storm water runoff.

emorand m


TO Members of the Transportation and Environment Committee:Linda Koop (Chair), Sheffie Kadane (Vice Chair), Jerry R. Allen, Tennell Atkins,Carolyn R. Davis, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Pauline Medrano, Ron Natinsky,Vonciel Jones Hill

SUBJECT Urban Forestry Inventory using Concurrent Airborne LiDAR and Hyperspectral RemoteSensing Briefing

Attached is the “Urban Forestry Inventory using Concurrent Airborne LiDAR andHyperspectral Remote Sensing” briefing that will be presented to you on October 26,2009. The briefing will be presented by Dr. Fang Qiu, Associate Professor of GIS andRemote Sensing, Geospatial Information Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas.

Please contact me if you need additional information.

J A. Jordan, P.E.Assistant City Manager

C: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerThomas P. Perkins Jr., City AttorneyDeborah Watkins, City SecretaryCraig Kinton, City AuditorJudge C. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeRyan S. Evans, First Assistant City ManagerAC. Gonzalez, Assistant City ManagerForest Turner, Assistant City ManagerDavid K. Cook, Chief Financial OfficerJeanne Chipperfield, Director, Official of Financial ServicesEdward Scott, City ControllerHelena Stevens-Thompson, Assistant to the City ManagerRick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works and TransportationTheresa O’Donnell, Director, Sustainable Development and Construction Department

‘Dallas, The City that Works: Diverse, Vibrant and Progressive.’

Urban Forest Inventory Using LiDAR & Hyperspectral Images

• Larger existing trees provide 60-70 times the benefit of newly planted trees

• Highest priority in managing any urban forest is a complete tree inventory

• Traditional method of inventory involves volunteers surveying only public trees

• These methods were very labor intensive, time consuming and often inaccurate

• Since public trees comprise only 15-20% of the entire urban forest, the traditional method only provides a small part of the picture

Project History

• Since a traditional survey was not ideal, extensive researched was completed which included hyperspectralimages (a new type of image)

• Dr. Fang Qiu was asked by the chair if the new images could be used for a complete tree inventory.

• “It may be possible…but it has never been done”• Chair works diligently to convince others of the value by

personally funding the field work portion of the project ($13K) and contributing almost a year of time

• Chair raises over $100K to complete the project• Chair authorized the project to move forward lacking

$30K of the required budget

Dallas on the “Cutting Edge”

• First complete tree inventory ever based on laser scanning and hyperspectral images using highly advanced computer algorithms

• New technology developed by Dr. Qiu and the chair which allows all tree inventory data to be easily accessed and utilized in makingcritical urban forest management decisions

• This is a first in the history of urban forestry in that someone can now effectively manage ALL trees (public & private) by simply sitting at their computer

• Hyperspectral images can also be used to manage water quality & quantity, street markings or light fixtures and many others relating to existing land cover management (grey & green infrastructure)

Cost and Next Steps

• The projected cost to complete all of the city is 1.25 million for collection and 1.25 million for processing

• When other city departments understand the potential use of the images in infrastructure management, the cost can be shared and become very economical

• As the use of hyperspectral images increases in the future, the cost will decrease

• Brief other departments on the potential uses• Brief NCTCOG, EPA, Texas Forest Service and others

to gain backing & financial support in completing a city & regional tree inventory & infrastructure mapping project

Urban Forestry Inventory using Urban Forestry Inventory using Concurrent Airborne Concurrent Airborne LiDARLiDAR and and HyperspectralHyperspectral Remote SensingRemote Sensing

Fang Fang QiuQiu

University of Texas as DallasUniversity of Texas as Dallas

Sponsored by Sponsored by

Dallas Urban Forest Advisory CommitteeDallas Urban Forest Advisory Committee

OutlineOutline

Study areaStudy area

Remote Sensing Data CollectionRemote Sensing Data Collection LiDARLiDAR, , HyperspectralHyperspectral

Field Data Collection and AnalysisField Data Collection and Analysis In situ In situ spectroradiometerspectroradiometer data collection and analysisdata collection and analysis

Field tree specie, GPS location collectionField tree specie, GPS location collection

LiDARLiDAR Data Filtering Data Filtering Segmentation and DTM generationSegmentation and DTM generation

Ground/nonGround/non--ground separationground separation

LiDARLiDAR Tree Mass Point Extraction Tree Mass Point Extraction HyperspectralHyperspectral NDVI NDVI

0-22

OutlineOutline

Urban Tree Top (UTT) IdentificationUrban Tree Top (UTT) Identification Tree Top ClimbingTree Top Climbing

Tree heightTree height

Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) DelineationUrban Tree Canopy (UTC) Delineation Donut Expanding and Sliding Donut Expanding and Sliding –– Canopy DiameterCanopy Diameter

Base height, crown depth Base height, crown depth

Urban Tree Species (UTS) IdentificationUrban Tree Species (UTS) Identification NeuroNeuro--fuzzy classificationfuzzy classification

Digital 3D Tree Canopy Model ConstructionDigital 3D Tree Canopy Model Construction Individual Tree Modeling Individual Tree Modeling

0-3

3

Study AreaStudy Area City of DallasCity of Dallas

Two pilot study sites, with a Two pilot study sites, with a total area of 20 square milestotal area of 20 square miles

0-4

4

Remote Sensing Data CollectionRemote Sensing Data Collection Terra Remote Sensing, Inc (TRSI)Terra Remote Sensing, Inc (TRSI)

Sydney, British Columbia, CanadaSydney, British Columbia, Canada

Mission partner at University of VictoriaMission partner at University of Victoria

Date: September, 23Date: September, 23--24, 200824, 2008

Aircraft Type: Piper NavajoAircraft Type: Piper Navajo Altitude: 960 m and 1260 mAltitude: 960 m and 1260 m

Flying air speed: 235km/hrFlying air speed: 235km/hr

Total Data VolumeTotal Data Volume HyperHyper--Spectral Imaging Data: 181 GBSpectral Imaging Data: 181 GB Radiance (60.6 GB) +Reflectance (121 GB)Radiance (60.6 GB) +Reflectance (121 GB)

LiDARLiDAR Data: 3.4 GBData: 3.4 GB 64 GB after uncompressed64 GB after uncompressed

0-5

5

LiDARLiDAR DataData Terrain Scanning Laser SystemTerrain Scanning Laser System

LiDARLiDAR Point Cloud Density Point Cloud Density (Average Spacing: 1/D(Average Spacing: 1/D1/21/2))

9/23/2008: 2 pts/m9/23/2008: 2 pts/m2 2 (0.7 m)(0.7 m) Due to overlap, 3.5 pts/mDue to overlap, 3.5 pts/m22 (0.53 m)(0.53 m)

9/24/2008: 1.25 pts/m9/24/2008: 1.25 pts/m22 (0.89 m)(0.89 m) Due to overlap, 2 pts/mDue to overlap, 2 pts/m22 (0.7 m)(0.7 m)

%Overlap: 80%Overlap: 80

Number of Returns: 2 Number of Returns: 2 First and Last ReturnsFirst and Last Returns

Bandwidth: 1064 nmBandwidth: 1064 nm

Beam divergence: 0.45 Beam divergence: 0.45 mradmrad

0-6

6

LiDARLiDAR DataData

3D visualization of elevation of LiDAR points over the Reverchon park study area 7

LiDARLiDAR DataData: Turtle Creek Corridor: Turtle Creek Corridor

3D visualization of elevation of LiDAR points over the Turtle Creek Corridor

8

HyperHyper--spectral Imaging (HSI) Dataspectral Imaging (HSI) Data AISA DUAL HSI Sensor AISA DUAL HSI Sensor Spectral Spectral

Imaging Ltd. FinlandImaging Ltd. Finland

Simultaneous acquisition of Simultaneous acquisition of VNIR and SWIR dataVNIR and SWIR data

AisaEAGLEAisaEAGLE (VNIR)(VNIR)

AisaHawkAisaHawk (SWIR)(SWIR)

492 Band (400492 Band (400--2500 nm)2500 nm) VNIR (400VNIR (400--970nm, 2.44 nm)970nm, 2.44 nm)

SWIR (970SWIR (970--2500nm, 6.28 nm)2500nm, 6.28 nm)

Spatial Resolution Spatial Resolution 9/23/2008: 1.2 m 9/23/2008: 1.2 m

9/24/2008: 1.6 m 9/24/2008: 1.6 m

SidelapSidelap: 22%: 22%

0-9

AisaEAGLE(400-970 nm)

AisaHAWK(970-2500 nm)

AisaDUAL sensor assembly, side view(AisaEAGLE on the right, AisaHAWKon the left)

AisaDUAL sensor assembly, back view9

Mosaic of HSIMosaic of HSI

0-10

Color Infrared Color Infrared Composite ImageComposite Image Red: 841.13 nmRed: 841.13 nm

Green: 677.11 nmGreen: 677.11 nm

Blue: 561.66 nmBlue: 561.66 nm

Typical ColorsTypical Colors Trees: RedTrees: Red

Buildings: CyanBuildings: Cyan

Water: Blue/blackWater: Blue/black

10

In Situ In Situ SpectroradiometerSpectroradiometer Data CollectionData Collection FieldSpecFieldSpec Pro ASD Pro ASD SpectroradiometerSpectroradiometer

Spectral Range from 350 Spectral Range from 350 –– 2500 nm2500 nm

Spectral Sampling of 1.4 nm in 350Spectral Sampling of 1.4 nm in 350--1050 nm and 2nm in 10501050 nm and 2nm in 1050--2050 nm 2050 nm range resulting in 2151 bandsrange resulting in 2151 bands

Scan time of less than 3 secondsScan time of less than 3 seconds

Spectroradiometer High Intensity Contact Probe11

In Situ In Situ SpectroradiometerSpectroradiometer Data CollectionData Collection

Sampling areasSampling areas ReverchonReverchon parkpark

Turtle Creek areaTurtle Creek area

12

Reflectance Spectral Signature for 50 speciesReflectance Spectral Signature for 50 species

Mean Spectral Profile for each species used as Reference Spectra13

Species Spectral Species Spectral SeperabilitySeperability analysisanalysis

Using GFLVQ approach (50 Testing Samples)Using GFLVQ approach (50 Testing Samples)

About 60About 60--72% of accuracy was achieved72% of accuracy was achieved

Double the % accuracy of the spectral angle mapping Double the % accuracy of the spectral angle mapping Trial Accuracy

1 64%

2 62%

3 62%

4 68%

5 64%

6 60%

7 70%

8 72%

9 68%

10 70%

Trial Accuracy

1 34%

2 30%

3 34%

4 42%

5 42%

6 36%

7 40%

8 42%

9 40%

10 42%

GFLVQ SAM14

Urban Tree Field Survey Data by Halff Association

Turtle Creek CorridorTurtle Creek Corridor Total 2602 trees surveyed.Total 2602 trees surveyed. Total 46 species foundTotal 46 species found 10 most frequently occurring 10 most frequently occurring

species identified. species identified.

15

LiDARLiDAR Data FilteringData Filtering

Segmentation using MNNSegmentation using MNN

Ground and nonGround and non--ground ground separationseparation

Digital Terrain Model Digital Terrain Model generationgeneration

16

LidarLidar FiltringFiltring

17

Ground pointsGround points

18

NonNon--ground pointsground points

19

LidarLidar filtering of ground and nonfiltering of ground and non--ground pointsground points

20

LiDARLiDAR Data FilteringData Filtering: Ground points: Ground points

21

LiDARLiDAR Data FilteringData Filtering: Non: Non--groundground

Ground Points

22

0-23

LiDARLiDAR Tree Mass Point ExtractionTree Mass Point Extraction Normalized Difference Vegetation Normalized Difference Vegetation

Index (NDVI) Index (NDVI)

Red: 660nm (band 113)Red: 660nm (band 113)

NearNear--infrared: 860nm (band 198)infrared: 860nm (band 198)

nir red

nir red

NDVI

23

0-24

Urban Tree Top Identification & Canopy DelineationUrban Tree Top Identification & Canopy Delineation

3.0

3.5

4.8

5.9

6.5

7.2

8.3 9.0

8.0 7.5

6.7

6.2

5.2

4.2

2.8

3.1

Crown Diameter

24

Urban Tree TopUrban Tree Top: Results: Results

25

Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Delineation Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Delineation : Results: Results

26

Urban Tree Species (UTS) IdentificationUrban Tree Species (UTS) Identification: Results: Results

27

Accuracy AssessmentAccuracy Assessment

0-28

Species Name Accuracy Species Name Accuracy

American Elm 39.39% Bois d'arc 91.67%

Hackberry 47.89% Sycamore 72.73%

Pecan 65.55% Black Locust 87.50%

E. Red Cedar 62.93% Redbud 100.00%

Shumard Red Oak 77.27% Persimmon 100.00%

Tree of Heaven 76.36% Slash pine 100.00%

Cedar Elm 83.54% Gingko 100.00%

Green Ash 87.23% Southern Magnolia 100.00%

Red Mulberry 84.62% Dogwood 100.00%

Chinaberry 78.79% White Ash 100.00%

Gum Bumelia 88.89% Pear 100.00%

Baldcypress 84.00% Chinese Pistache 100.00%

Cherry Laurel 95.00% Chinese Tallow 100.00%

Boxelder 90.00% Southern Catalpa 100.00%

Post Oak 100.00% Sweetgum 100.00%

Live Oak 89.47% Golden Raintree 100.00%

Bur Oak 94.12% Black Walnut 100.00%

94.12% Honey Locust 100.00%

Crepe Myrtle 100.00% Western Soapberry 100.00%

Black 93.75% Catalpa 66.67%

Kappa 64.4% Total Accuracy: 68.8%

40 Species which have field number >= 2

28

Digital 3D Tree Canopy Model ConstructionDigital 3D Tree Canopy Model Construction Tree top locations (xt,yt)

Tree heights (z)

Tree base heights(bh)

Tree crown depths (ch)

Tree crown radius (cr)

1:( ) ( )( ) 12 :

n nnt t

n n

n conical shapex x y yz bhn elliptical shapech cr

29

Tree model: Results

30

Individual Tree Extraction and Visualization

31

Individual Tree Structure Model Individual Tree Structure Model

0-3232

Memorandum

CITY OF DALLAS

DATE October 23, 2009

To Members of the Transportation and Environment Committee:Linda Koop (Chair), Sheffie Kadane (Vice Chair), Jerry R. Allen, Tennel! Atkins,Carolyn R. Davis, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Pauline Medrano, Ron Natinsky,Vonciel Jones Hill

SUBJECT Museum of Nature and Science Landscape Plan Briefing

Attached is the “Museum of Nature and Science Landscape Plan” briefing that will bepresented to you on October 26, 2009.


Jeff A. Jordan, P.E.Assistant City Manager

C: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerThomas P. Perkins Jr., City AttorneyDeborah Watkins, City SecretaryCraig Kinton, City AuditorJudge C. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeRyan S. Evans, First Assistant City ManagerA.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City ManagerForest Turner, Assistant City ManagerDavid K. Cook, Chief Financial OfficerJeanne Chipperfield, Director, Official of Financial ServicesEdward Scott, City ControllerRick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works and TransportationTheresa O’Donnell, Director, Sustainable Development and Construction DepartmentHelena Stevens-Thompson, Assistant to the City Manager

~DaIIas, The City that Works: Diverse, Vibrant and Progressive.”

PLINTH ROOF7

TOPO WITH CURB OUTLINESBUILDING PLINTH UNDERLAYER8

PLANTING9

PLANTING10

ROCK CAP11

ROCK CAP13

CALICHE GRASSES14

GRASSES15

MOSS BOULDERS16

OPTION COPTION C- BLACKLAND PRAIRIE17

OPTION COPTION C- BLACKLAND PRAIRIE FOREST TRANSITION18

OPTION CCOURTYARD ENLARGEMENT19

PARKING20

1

Crime Prevention SignsCrime Prevention Signs

Presented to Transportation and Environment CommitteeOctober 26, 2009

Presenter: Elizabeth Ramirez, P.E.Assistant DirectorPublic Works &Transportation

2

Background

Chapter 28-27.1 of the City Code designates our policy on installation of crime prevention signs

Currently two types of signs allowed:1. Crime Watch2. V.I.P. - Volunteer in Patrol

No operating budget for crime-prevention signs Applicants pay cost of sign and installation labor

Message Content Shall not contain information about specific neighborhood,

neighborhood group, or other person or organization Locations must be approved by Police & Traffic Engineer Must be installed by city sign crews

3

Staff Recommendation

Revise Chapter 28 to include option to install a standard crime prevention signs indicating neighborhoods have a camera surveillance system

Unit costs to be paid by applicant– $50 per sign if placed on existing post– $85 per sign if placed on new post

Revise city code to allow residents to mount signs on privately-owned fences

Proposed sign standard

Memorandum

CITY OF DALLAS

DATE October 22, 2009

TO Members of the Transportation and Environment Committee:Linda Koop (Chair), Sheffie Kadane (Vice Chair), Jerry R. Allen, Tennell Atkins,Carolyn R. Davis, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Pauline Medrano, Ron Natinsky,Vonciel Jones Hill

SUBJECT TxDOT Transportation Enhancement Call for Projects Briefing Memo

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officially opened aTransportation Enhancements (TE) Program Call for Projects on Friday, October 9,2009, and will close the Call on Friday, December 11, 2009. There is $67.5 millionavailable statewide in this program.

The TE Program emphasizes the development of non-traditional transportationprojects. Transportation enhancements are federally funded through the SurfaceTransportation Program (STP) which is administered by the Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT) for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.Department of Transportation (USDOT). Projects will be reviewed by the RegionalTransportation Council (RTC); they will send TxDOT a letter of support for all projectapplications that meet the TE program requirements.

This program provides 80% reimbursement for construction costs only, with thelocal 20% share provided as cash -- not property or in-kind services. Thenominating entity is responsible for anything above the authorized federal funds and100% of all cost overruns must be paid for by the nominating entity. Costs incurredbefore TxDOT’s authorization to proceed are not reimbursable. Ineligible expensesinclude the cost of preparing a project nomination, routine operations, andmaintenance of a project.

The TE Program offers funding opportunities to help expand transportation choicesand enhance the transportation experience through non-traditional activities relatedto the surface transportation system. Project types preferred by the RTC include:

• bicycle and pedestrian projects, including landscaping and education;• restoration/operation of historic trolley or interurban rail lines and related

structures, including landscaping;• restoration and operation of historic transit stations as new transit stations,

including landscaping;• acquisition of historic railroad rights of way for future rail and/or bicycle trails;

and,• landscaping transportation facilities.

~DaIIas, The City that Works: Diverse, Vibrant and Progressive.

TxDOT Transportation Enhancement Call for Projects Briefing MemoOctober 22, 2009Page 2

Applications must be submitted to the TxDOT Dallas District Office by 5:00 p.m. onDecember 11, 2009. TxDOT is looking for projects that are designed and ready tobe built. In order to be selected, a project needs to satisfy the following TxDOTreadiness criteria:

• a set of plans is prepared and ready for letting; nominating entity is willing to letthe project;

• federal funds requested are for construction associated cost only;• all of the local match is available and in cash;• project property is owned by the nominator and supporting documentation is

provided; and,• coordination with the appropriate agencies has been established to provide

environmental clearance.

Staff is reviewing current City projects that meet the requirements of the TEProgram and TxDOT’s stated goals for quick project implementation. TheTransportation and Environment Committee will be briefed at its November 23,2009 meeting on the projects recommended for submission.


Ji(A. Jor~’an, P.E.Assistant City Manager

C: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerThomas P. Perkins Jr., City AttorneyDeborah Watkins, City SecretaryCraig Kinton, City AuditorJudge C. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeRyan S. Evans, First Assistant City ManagerA.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City ManagerForest Turner, Assistant City ManagerDavid K. Cook, Chief Financial OfficerJeanne Chipperfield, Director, Official of Financial ServicesEdward Scott, City ControllerHelena Stevens-Thompson, Assistant to the City ManagerRick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works and TransportationTheresa O’Donnell, Director, Sustainable Development and Construction Department

‘Dallas, The City That Works: Diverse, Vibrant and Progressive.’

Memorandum


TO Members of the Transportation and Environment Committee:Linda L. Koop (Chair), Sheffie Kadane, (Vice Chair), Jerry Allen, Tennell Atkins,Carolyn R. Davis, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Pauling Medrano, Ron Natinsky,Vonciel Jones Hill

SUBJECT Draft Agenda Item #60 for the November 9, 2009 City Council Briefing

SUBJECTAn ordinance amending Chapter 53, Dallas Building Code and Chapter 57, Dallas One-and Two-Family Dwelling Code; expanding the water conservation requirements for oneand two-family dwellings, and the cool roof requirements for commercial buildings lessthan 50,000 square feet of floor area to include the installation of vegetated roofs in roofswith slopes of 2:12 or less - Financing: No cost consideration to the City.

BACKGROUND

Commercial and residential buildings in the U.S. are the single largest contributor toglobal warming in the country; 48% of all energy consumption and greenhouse gasemissions (GHG) in the US annually are from buildings and 76% of all power plantgenerated electricity is used to operate buildings annually. It is projected that 1,300 to1,900 new power plants will be needed over the next 20 years to provide power to thesebuildings, amounting to approximately one per week.

A strategy to reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment is“green” building. Green building refers to design and construction practices that addressresource conservation, energy efficiency and increased building performance. Greenbuilding practices can significantly lower energy and water consumption in buildings,which result in reduced operating and maintenance costs; reduced demands on localinfrastructure; increased worker productivity and occupant comfort; improved indoorenvironmental air quality and reduced natural resources consumption.

As a regional leader, the City of Dallas is at the forefront of addressing environmentalissues. In January of 2003, the City adopted a green building program based on the U.S.Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) ratingsystem, which incorporated green (sustainable) building practices into its municipalbuilding projects beginning with the 2003 bond program. In 2008, the city adopted acitywide green building program with requirements for all new commercial and residentialconstruction within the Dallas city limits.

Currently, the City has 1 certified level, 4 gold, 5 silver city facilities that are certified bythe U.S. Green Building Council, and has 35 additional facilities registered that willbecome certified after completion. Since the effective date of the city’s green buildingordinance, on October 1st, the city has issued 21 building permits for 20 new homes andone commercial building.

The recommendations for the ordinance amendments proposed in this document werethe result of meetings with the home builders to expand the options for residential waterconservation strategies. The recommendation to add the vegetated roof option wasomitted in the original ordinance document.

PRIOR ACTION I REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS)

On October 17, 2007, the City Council was briefed on the new green building ordinance.

On October 24, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager to solicit input from awide variety of building industry representatives and building owners forming a task forceto develop a green building policy, program and standards for private development inDallas by Council Resolution No. 07-3199.

On March 5, 2008, the City Council was briefed on the recommendations from the taskforce concerning the new green building ordinance.

On April 9, 2008, the City Council authorized the adoption of the green building ordinanceby Council Resolution No. 08-1 070.

FISCAL INFORMATION

No cost consideration to the City.

Ji I A. Jordan, P.E.Assistant City Manager

C: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerDeborah Watkins, City SecretaryThomas P. Perkins, Jr., City AttorneyCraig Kinton, City AuditorJudge C. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeRyan S. Evans, First Assistant City ManagerA.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City ManagerForest E. Turner, Assistant City ManagerJill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City ManagerDavid Cook, Chief Financial OfficerJeanne Chipperfield, Director, Financial ServicesEdward Scott, Director, Controller’s OfficeRick Galceran, P.E. Director, Public Works and TransportationTheresa O’Donnell, Director, Sustainable Development & ConstructionHelena Stevens-Thompson, Assistant to the City Manager — Council Office

f: c e veu f’~...f’~ f: c e veu memorandum .2 101j90ct22 ~j 3:()t~ l~tr secretary cityof dallas...

Documents