SWNI Watershed Committee Meeting

SWNI Watershed Committee Meeting

April 20, 2017

Minutes

Attendees:

Brendan McGillicuddy
Jason Clark
Angela Clark
Jill Gaddis -- Chair
Laurie Cawthon – Secretary / Al Iverson
Jayne Cronlund
Murphy Terrell
Tera Waldon
John Gibbon

The Watershed Committee’s ninth meeting was held at the Multnomah Arts Center, 7688 SW Capitol Hwy, Portland, OR 97219, in Room 30.

Chair Jill Gaddis called the meeting to order. The minutes from the February meetingwere approved, and those from the March meeting were approved with one revision.

The Chair reviewed the role of the Watershed Committee, a special committee of SWNI, with open membership: The scope of committee activities may be limited because no staff is assigned to support us; the Watershed Resource Center cannot lobby on behalf of the committee nor direct its activities. The Committee can ask SWNI to support our efforts by taking an approved motion to the SWNI Board, who would then write a letter to the City on behalf of all the SWNI neighborhoods.

Numerous issues were discussed and a possible motion was drafted and redrafted. A vote on the motion was deferred to the next meeting.

The permit review group of BES is responsible for signing off on every BDS development application; their review is based on the Stormwater Manual. The Stormwater Manual is related to three permits from the EPA: MS4, UIC (underground injection), and CSO (Combined Sewer Overflow). BES’s priority has been CSO. The Manual describes a hierarchy for disposal of stormwater, based on the level of infiltration in the development area: (1) complete infiltration, (2) partial infiltration, (3) CSO, and (4) storm sewer. Because of typically low infiltration rates in SW (as low as 1/10” per hour), conveyance systems are needed in SW Portland.

Al Iverson summarized the latest update (as of 4/20/2017) on the Capitol Hwy Project, from Tim Kurtz: 30% of the design is to be completed by November 2017; BES has assigned project staff and is refreshing the models from the 2011 refinement Plan; PBOT and BES have established recurring project coordination meetings at the staff and management levels; PBOT is working on assigning the series of adaptive cross-sections along the corridor, and is scheduled to provide the latest to BES in 2 weeks; BES staff has been reviewing the potential alternatives for the downstream elements of the system; BES continues acquisition efforts on the Dolph Ct property; BES Bureau Leadership Team had an extensive briefing on the project.

Angela reported that she expected to have a response from Tim Kurtz to their memo very soon.

Al described the similarities between the current Dolph Ct/Spring Garden Ct issues and potential issues related to the proposed Hayhurst development. He has used the current Dolph Ct/Spring Garden Ct situation as an example in discussion about the proposed Hayhurst development.

It was noted that BES does not have a mandate to build infrastructure so it is challenging to get conveyance systems built (as opposed to lots of little projects taken on by BES and PBOT). The goal of conveyance systems would be to get stormwater from the impact area to nearby stream(s), typically less than 500’ away. (BES does not address unimproved (private—non-maintained) streets.)

Where are the budgeted funds to support such projects? A Capital Improvement Project (CIP) would be needed and BES has 0 funding for CIPs in the next 5 years.

One potential source of funding is a LID (Local Improvement District, see: ). The Capitol Hwy Subcommittee has a scheduled meeting on June 22 to explore LID projects to improve the streets. LIDs allow homeowners to partner with CoP to fund improvements: 50% + 1 of affected homeowners must approve the LID.

Long-term solutions include:

1)BES should request funding in CIP for infrastructure such as conveyance (CIP funding needed for design and build);

2)Residents should be involved in review process, with ongoing tracking of new development.

A preliminary motion to ask that the CoP fund such a CIP and track cumulative impacts of development was discussed.

What are the compelling arguments? This is a huge issue for the Fanno Creek Watershed in Washington County. Stormwater volume will exceed the capacity of Fanno Creek by ten-fold if growth continues on current pace. There is an inherent conflict related to increased density (related to infill) in the absence of infrastructure to manage stormwater. The MS4 permits natural drainage (streams) for stormwater management; standards are set at the discharge (exit) point; upstream collection is permitted. However, development standards don’t address the loss of natural systems (streams) and buffering systems (marshes and wetlands). New development is not allowed to increase volume of stormwater downstream or flow velocity. The 20% of existing houses with no approved discharge points for stormwater may be described as “freeloaders” on the stormwater system.

John Gibbon reported that the green structure on 26th Ave has had major problems this year, with 2-3 feet of water on 26th Ave, the street has been closed 3 times this year.

Jason and Angela will wordsmith the motion for review at the next meeting (May 18); we will aim to present to the SWNI Board at next month’s mtg.

Discussion of the Stormwater Summit was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.

1