Conservancy Groups Split on Grove Flood Control

Photo by John Anderson

After more than a year of back-and-forth with city staff and navigating a labyrinth of boards and commissions, the Grove at Shoal Creek PUD proposal finally heads to the full City Council on Thu., Sept. 22. All interested parties have buckled down in anticipation of a final decision, and sent Council a flurry of last-minute warnings.

Last week, the Pease Park Conservancy sent a letter to Mayor Steve Adler and Coun­cil to "express our deep concern" about the possibility of the Grove at Shoal Creek developers paying a fee in lieu of on-site storm control measures. The Conservancy, which hasn't been a player in the Grove issue prior to this, said it is concerned about the development adding more water to the creek when "Pease Park has suffered greatly from flooding on Shoal Creek in the last several years.

"So, we have a clear interest in what happens upstream from the park," the letter continued. "It is simply not acceptable to say that the impact from storm run-off at the Grove would be 'de minimus' vis-à-vis the size of the entire Shoal Creek watershed."

The Shoal Creek Conservancy continued a trend by giving a measured response to the fee-in-lieu option, its Executive Director Joanna Wolaver telling the Chronicle that, because she and her colleagues are not experts or professional engineers, the Con­servancy cannot rule out a fee in lieu for the Grove, and that the most important thing is for there to be no additional stormwater added to the watershed. The group supports any way the city decides to go about achieving that goal.

In the message it sent Council last week, the SCC raised its own concerns about the location of the proposed pedestrian bridge over Shoal Creek, and the Parks Board not awarding the PUD a superior rating. Like everything else to do with this project, there's a conflict over whether that bridge should be built on the north or south end of the property. SCC said taking trail easement is necessary to make the bridge usable.

The city said it is still considering whether on-site detention or a fee in lieu (in this case benefiting the Regional Stormwater Man­agement Program) is the best fit for the project. In fact, it may end up being a combination of the two. Any fees taken in from the developer will go toward flood hazard mitigation projects elsewhere in the Shoal Creek Watershed.

Why is fee in lieu even an option for flood mitigation? According to city staff, they generally prefer to install on-site detention measures further upstream "because you want the runoff to leave the site before the arrival of peak floodwaters." Still, there are other factors at play (including downstream drainage conditions), and a final decision has yet to be made.

Editor's note: In an earlier version of this story, we implied that the Shoal Creek Conservancy was against taking trail easement for the proposed pedestrian bridge over Shoal Creek, when in fact they believe taking easement is necessary to make the bridge usable. We regret the error.