SWM Meeting with City:
January 23, 2006
.


Meeting: 3:00 p.m., January 23 at City Hall
These notes were produced by the College Gardens Civic Association and have not been reviewed by other organizations.
Attending:


The agenda items included:


After Marylou Berg opened the meeting, Lise Soukup and Paul O'Brien presented maps and some of the alternate proposals for SWM were looked at from the point of view of the areas that would be impacted.


The first speaker at meeting was Jerry Leighton, who noted that the Parks Department had stated that trees in the preserve were to be left alone and that only peripheral trees which may be dangerous to residents could be cut. Therefore, there has to be an exception made if some of the proposed plans were to be used. Jerry noted that one community group is opposed to cutting any trees.


Mark: We (CGCA) have put summations of the meetings held thus far on the CGCA website www.collegegardens.org. Mark stated that he had had several e-mail contacts with residents. One resident objected to any project that would touch the forest. There are three basics stances in the neighborhood on the SWM proposal: 1) Take care of Storm Water Management, no matter what, 2) Keep the park as is (or minimal change), 3) Leave the forest preserve alone. He noted that these three stances conflict. Two residents have separately asked for a CGCA meeting to discuss the overall process followed by the CGCA executive.


Ensuing was group discussion of what type of meeting to hold and Marylou noted that the city would need to hold a public meeting to meet with residents not only of College Gardens but also with other areas that may be affected by the plan. CGCA would have its own meeting with its membership and city personnel would be invited to those meetings just as CGCA would attend the wider city information session.


Mark stated that there are approximately 30 questions that could arise from within College Gardens that the city will need to answer. There was discussion as to the role of CGCA and the city in these meetings and what needs to be accomplished.
There was more discussion as to the timing of meetings and what information would be available in what time period. The city needs to deal with its consultants and CGCA needs to notify the membership of a meeting.
Craig and Lise both need to work with consultants and Lise stated that it would take a month to get the appropriate consultant(s) and another month to crunch the data that will be needed as the decision process comes down to the final proposal(s). Lise also explained that, in looking at possible sites for SWM on the available maps, it must be kept in mind that there are elevations, constraints and safety issues to work through before any design can become final.


Burt asked that the City's role in the meetings with residents be defined. He spoke about the methods used in creating the Potomac Woods Park solution for the Cabin John watershed. He said our situation is very similar to that one in terms of neighborhoods affected and residents' concerns. Burt listed three possible options in summarizing the meeting discussion thus far, noting that these were not all the options available.

He stated that what the neighborhood needs to focus on is that there is a need for consent to one of the plans that will be presented. Acceptance is a different item, and some people will never accept the need for change.


Mark questioned at what point the three or four options determined to be viable can be presented with their environmental factors and cost. Craig asked for clarification of the meetings to be held. Would city and CGCA meet jointly or would they be separate presentations.
In answering Craig, Mark stated that we need representatives from the city to attend our meetings and that we will be represented at the wider city-held meeting. We need to have an association meeting to clarify our status as related to past actions of the association, and we need to let the neighborhood speak and vote without outside attendees who have do not have the same concerns. Our first meeting would be on the process followed by the CGCA executive, followed by a survey and then a second meeting when alternatives can be discussed. Despite our efforts to create a timeline (item 5 on the agenda) there will have to be flexibility to allow information to be disseminated. Mark says that clearly we can present proposed changes at the second CGCA meeting, but everyone has to realize that changes may have to be made to any plan.


Jerry suggested using the website and email to disseminate information. Jerry also questioned why the Executive Committee's authority needs to be reaffirmed and Mark replied that this was based on past history and events in the CGCA and the neighborhood with respect to the park and the forest preserve.
Mark explained that the CGCA meeting would be to let people know what we are doing, what we hope to accomplish and to gain backing for the representatives to the city for the process we are going through. A second meeting would be to show the researched possibilities but we need meetings, not just website use as the email list reaches only 50% of our membership.


Discussion then turned to the planned survey.
Burt: We need to survey the communities of Plymouth Woods and CGCA. The survey should involve questions on:
Most important existing facilities in the park
Discover what residents would like to see added to those facilities
Determine what residents are willing to sacrifice – e.g. softball field, volleyball court
Burt and Mark will work together on this project


Discussion of survey procedure brought comments from Lise that the positive aspects of the park being refurbished and upgraded need to be stressed. Lise also believes that it will take 8 to 10 weeks after the survey to have information on the specific project possibilities because of the need to schedule and work with consultants.


Marylou pushed for a discussion of when to announce that we are considering an edge of the forest preserve as a possible alternate site. Burt and Craig both weighed in on the need to do this before final plans are drawn.


Lise led a discussion of how much of the preserve would be involved with comments from Paul O'Brien.


It was decided that the city and the association had to move in parallel steps with the association informing its constituents of what the community is facing in terms of change and choices. At the same time, the city will fulfill its role by getting information out in the city newspaper and in the gazette to a wider audience.


The attending Gazette reporter asked for information, maps, public announcements, and all the information we can give her. Craig pointed out that CGCA needs to begin its process before the public campaign. Then the city can hold a meeting for the wider audience, per the timeline, followed by another CGCA meeting at which specific choices will be presented.


In summary, a timeline was developed in which CGCA will get information out to the neighborhood and hold a meeting about the process the CGCA executive is following and where we are looking for alternatives.


Mark and Burt will create a survey to determine what the majority of association members would like to see happen in the park. There will then be an evaluation of the areas being discussed for SWM and possible alternatives will be addressed.


After the survey is complete, there will then be an informational public meeting to which the associations of several neighborhoods will be invited.


At this point, as observed by Burt, projecting further action becomes fuzzy until the final plan is selected, which is the province of the Mayor and Council, as pointed out by Craig. They are the ones who will make the final decision. If the meetings with the city can produce a workable plan that is palatable to the community, the chances are that the Mayor and Council will be cooperative. If there are deep divisions, the Mayor and Council will choose the most expedient plan, and the community will lose its voice.


Other discussion centered on the possibilities of two ponds, one deep, one shallow, raised by Burt. Lise gave a demonstration of the difference between a deep pond and one that has shallow grading into the center of the pond. The city prefers ponds that have shallow edges as a safety measure.
Lise pointed out that no matter what site is chosen, the final impact will cover a greater area as there will be considerable disturbance to surrounding land, at least temporarily. Further impact is created by grading, safety features, making an attractive as well as utile facility, and the need to be certain that the dams created will not fail and flood homes. She added that the present pond is actually substandard and has been so for many years, but others pointed out that because it was not used to collect storm water in its present form, it does not present a danger of flooding.
A discussion of where a dam (stormwater facility) would be placed and its limitations ensued. Some suggestions were for two small dams, a larger one at the lower end or a new rendering of the present pond to be useful in SWM.
Burt reminded the group that the preservation of trees within the park is an important issue and that one of the major demands to come from the community in the past is that they not be removed, which would push any new facility to the northeast area of the park.
Mark asked for some clarification on Lise's comments as to the present pond dam’s stability and discovered that it is such that if NRSC and/or Army Corps of Engineers deemed it unsafe, it could be changed at any time without neighborhood input, including the possibility of purposely breaching the dam and emptying the pond. However remote the likelihood would be, it does exist. The city has not considered it a top priority and hopes no other agency does.


Lise also added that, in looking at flat maps, elevation is not obvious, and it is a constraint as well as the depth it could go to without becoming inefficient. Circular ponds are very efficient but do not support all the desired safety features. This was made very clear in Lise's visual demonstration. She did assure the group that every effort would be made to minimize the footprint, whatever method is chosen.
In response to a question about bore holes which Mark found requested in the Statement of Work (SOW) for College Gardens SWM LID effort, Craig said this could be done if really needed but asked how the resulting information would be used. Mark affirmed that his reading of the SOW was that the borings were not an option and that residents want to know the nature of the soil.


Lise said that there was too much variation and that the borings could not be made representative of the area as the composition of the area is too varied. Craig asked if the subject of boreholes belonged in SWM discussions or if it was part of the LID solution. He asked why such an item would be in the SOW, but CGCA representatives did not have a history available of how the SOW was created.


John Wright (Plymouth Woods) stated that there are erosion problems at Plymouth Woods and asked what could be done to help them out. Lise pointed out that the erosion took place well to the east of where a drainage pond could be placed and explained that the creek arm that drains the area is a different one from that which affects College Gardens. The concerns of the Plymouth Woods group would have to be addressed separately.


The meeting ended with a plan for the next meeting of the committee to be held in February 13.


Notes:
1. City provided several sets of maps to the CGCA as requested. One set of maps will have to be regenerated after the City gets clearer specifications from the CGCA.
2. At the end of the meeting, the group designated on a map the area of the forest preserve to be evaluated by a City consultant. In a post-meeting email to the City, Mark Pierzchala requested that there be a walk-through of that Forest Preserve area first by select CGCA representatives and City staff to better determine the area that should be evaluated. The City has agreed to this and we’re trying to arrange a date.
3. Mark Pierzchala noted to the city that there are trees on the existing dam that are leaning over the pond and suggested that a few of these should be removed. The logic is that if they fall into the pond, the dam could be damaged. The City will look at this.
4. It is the CGCA, not the City, that first broached the possibility of using space in the Forest Preserve for a stormwater management facility.
5. The CGCA executive is still discussing the most effective way for it to communicate with its membership about these issues, including whether to have 1 or 2 meetings. It is possible that there will be a notice about the process that the CGCA executive is following with the City followed later by a meeting when alternatives are available.


Return to SWM Index Page