Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-20 Public Comment - A. Hoitsma - Tomorrow's vote on Resolution 5145From:Amy Kelley Hoitsma To:Agenda Cc:Chandler; Chris Nixon; reno walsh; Dillon Gruber; Vickie Backus; Jeanne & Paul Wesley-Wiese Subject:Tomorrow"s vote on Resolution 5145 Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:46:28 PM Attachments:Amy Hoitsma to City Commision RE Idaho Pole URD consideration.docx Dear Commissioners: Please accept my comments regarding the scheduled vote tomorrow on Resolution5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of Rehabilitationand Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area. My comments are attached and also copied in the message below. Thank you. Amy Kelley Hoitsma 406-581-1513aok@mcn.net aokworks.com TO: Bozeman City Commission FROM: Amy Kelley Hoitsma RE: Consideration of the creation of an Urban Renewal District (URD) at the Pole Yard area in northeast Bozeman DATE: 14 September 2020 Honorable Commissioners: I understand that at tomorrow night’s regular Commission meeting you will be considering Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area. This is the first step in the creation of an Urban Renewal District (URD) at the Pole Yard area in northeast Bozeman. For the reasons detailed below, I believe it is premature to create a URD for this site and therefore request that the Commission put a halt to the commencement of this process by rejecting the “Findings of Blight.” According to the City’s website with background information pertaining to the Idaho Pole site and considerations about its development: “The City is not interested in redevelopment here unless it is safe to do so. At minimum, a determination by MDEQ and EPA would be required after review of any proposed development. The City's responsibility would then be to ensure the proposed development complies with all local zoning and building codes. In addition, the City and potential developer need to coordinate with EPA and MDEQ to ensure compliance with the Superfund remedy including the ICs outlined above, and if needed, the developer will need to submit a soil management plan to EPA and MDEQ for approval. The developer will also need approval from other state and federal agencies, as needed, depending on the nature and location of development. Additionally, the UAO requires Idaho Pole Co. to provide a copy of this UAO to all prospective owners or successors before a controlling interest in assets, property rights, or stock is transferred to the prospective owner or successor. If a developer wants to change a component of the remedy, such as digging up and removing waste, EPA and MDEQ would need to be involved and a remedy change considered, and signed, possibly including public input.” The primary question I have for the City Commission is: Is it not putting the cart before the horse for the City to create a URD, which in the City’s own words “incentivizes private development,” when the greater implications and potential impacts (including financial) of such development have not yet been determined or thoroughly discussed? Because this discussion (with public notice and participation) has not yet taken place, I believe the answer is: No, the City should NOT approve the creation of a URD until the above-stated series of actions have been completed (i.e. a determination by MDEQ and EPA that redevelopment of this area is safe, and coordination with EPA and MDEQ to ensure compliance with the Superfund remedy). QUESTIONS ABOUT AREA INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND FUNDING In theory, a URD makes funds available to be reinvested in public infrastructure. However, in this area considerable expenses would need to be incurred before any development could commence. This raises all sorts of questions: What would be the connector route from Rouse to the E. Main interstate access and how would that be financed? How/where will the railroad crossing occur? At the exiting L Street crossing? At Rouse? It would seem unlikely that the railroad would allow an additional crossing to be created within such a small area, so that would necessitate an expensive over or underpass. Who would pay for this? Would there need to be a new on/off ramp to I-90? Where would that be located? How would that be paid for? One of the “recorded land use restrictions” listed in the FAQ for redevelopment of the Idaho Pole Superfund Site (posted on the City website) is “No use of groundwater within the Controlled Groundwater Area (CGA) for any purpose.” The CGA covers almost the entire “blight study area.” How would this area get water, and how would that be paid for? CONCERN ABOUT PCP CONTAMINATION The primary concern to the neighborhood is the existence of soils contaminated by pentachlorophenol (PCP) at this site. Currently they are “contained” by a covering of 12” of topsoil. Any development in this area has the potential of disturbing this “remediation” and exposing the neighborhood to the PCPs currently contained. According to the CDC website: § Pentachlorophenol (PCP) is a man-made chemical that is used as a pesticide and wood preservative. § Since 1984, PCP is no longer available to the general public, though it is still used as a wood preservative for railroad ties and telephone poles. § Some studies have found PCP may cause certain health problems. § PCP dust and fumes can be inhaled. It can also be absorbed though the skin and ingested, if hands are not washed well before eating. § If inhaled, it can cause coughing, dizziness, headache, difficulty breathing, and sore throat. If absorbed, it can cause redness, blisters, or chloracne (chloracne is a condition of acne-like bumps on the face, neck and arms that can occur with high exposure to chlorine compounds). If ingested, it can cause stomach cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, weakness, and unconsciousness. § CDC studies found a 77% higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) among workers exposed to PCP. § The EPA has listed PCP as a “probable” cancer-causing agent. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers it “possibly” cancer-causing. EPA 5-YEAR REVIEW According to the EPA’s FAQ for redevelopment of the Idaho Pole Superfund Site: “Regulatory agency roles and ICs (“institutional controls” aka land use restrictions) will remain the same for areas partially deleted. EPA will continue with five-year reviews. EPA has conducted four five-year reviews at the site to ensure that the remedies put in place protect public health and the environment. The fourth five-year review (PDF) was completed in September 2015 and the fifth five-year review is due in 2020.” When will that fifth 5-year review be completed? When is it scheduled to begin? Is it currently underway? IN CONCLUSION Development of the Idaho Pole site and surrounding area will be complicated and expensive due to the lack of infrastructure and the obstacles created by its location between the interstate and the railroad. The site still contains contaminated soil, which is of great concern to the neighborhood. The City reiterates that concern in all of the documents you’ve shared with the public. I think it is inappropriate to create a URD for this area at this time, because it starts the ball rolling toward development when critical questions have not yet been answered: how can development be done safely and how will needed infrastructure it be paid for? As I said in my first statement: I believe this vote it is putting the cart before the horse. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Commission deny Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area. Yours very sincerely, Amy Kelley Hoitsma TO: Bozeman City Commission FROM: Amy Kelley Hoitsma 706 E. Peach Street, Bozeman RE: Consideration of the creation of an Urban Renewal District (URD) at the Pole Yard area in northeast Bozeman DATE: 14 September 2020 Honorable Commissioners: I understand that at tomorrow night’s regular Commission meeting you will be considering Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area. This is the first step in the creation of an Urban Renewal District (URD) at the Pole Yard area in northeast Bozeman. For the reasons detailed below, I believe it is premature to create a URD for this site and therefore request that the Commission put a halt to the commencement of this process by rejecting the “Findings of Blight.” According to the City’s website with background information pertaining to the Idaho Pole site and considerations about its development: “The City is not interested in redevelopment here unless it is safe to do so. At minimum, a determination by MDEQ and EPA would be required after review of any proposed development. The City's responsibility would then be to ensure the proposed development complies with all local zoning and building codes. In addition, the City and potential developer need to coordinate with EPA and MDEQ to ensure compliance with the Superfund remedy including the ICs outlined above, and if needed, the developer will need to submit a soil management plan to EPA and MDEQ for approval. The developer will also need approval from other state and federal agencies, as needed, depending on the nature and location of development. Additionally, the UAO requires Idaho Pole Co. to provide a copy of this UAO to all prospective owners or successors before a controlling interest in assets, property rights, or stock is transferred to the prospective owner or successor. If a developer wants to change a component of the remedy, such as digging up and removing waste, EPA and MDEQ would need to be involved and a remedy change considered, and signed, possibly including public input.” The primary question I have for the City Commission is: Is it not putting the cart before the horse for the City to create a URD, which in the City’s own words “incentivizes private development,” when the greater implications and potential impacts (including financial) of such development have not yet been determined or thoroughly discussed? Because this discussion (with public notice and participation) has not yet taken place, I believe the answer is: No, the City should NOT approve the creation of a URD until the above-stated series of actions have been completed (i.e. a determination by MDEQ and EPA that redevelopment of this area is safe, and coordination with EPA and MDEQ to ensure compliance with the Superfund remedy). QUESTIONS ABOUT AREA INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND FUNDING In theory, a URD makes funds available to be reinvested in public infrastructure. However, in this area considerable expenses would need to be incurred before any development could commence. This raises all sorts of questions:  What would be the connector route from Rouse to the E. Main interstate access and how would that be financed?  How/where will the railroad crossing occur? At the exiting L street crossing? At Rouse? It would seem unlikely that the railroad would allow an additional crossing to be created within such a small area, so that would necessitate an expensive over or underpass. Who would pay for this?  Would there need to be a new on/off ramp to I-90? Where would that be located? How would that be paid for?  One of the “recorded land use restrictions” listed in the FAQ for redevelopment of the Idaho Pole Superfund Site (posted on the City website) is “No use of groundwater within the Controlled Groundwater Area (CGA) for any purpose.” The CGA covers almost the entire “blight study area.” How would this area get water, and how would that be paid for? CONCERN ABOUT PCP CONTAMINATION The primary concern to the neighborhood is the existence of soils contaminated by pentachlorophenol (PCP) at this site. Currently they are “contained” by a covering of 12” of topsoil. Any development in this area has the potential of disturbing this “remediation” and exposing the neighborhood to the PCPs currently contained. According to the CDC website:  Pentachlorophenol (PCP) is a man-made chemical that is used as a pesticide and wood preservative.  Since 1984, PCP is no longer available to the general public, though it is still used as a wood preservative for railroad ties and telephone poles.  Some studies have found PCP may cause certain health problems.  PCP dust and fumes can be inhaled. It can also be absorbed though the skin and ingested, if hands are not washed well before eating.  If inhaled, it can cause coughing, dizziness, headache, difficulty breathing, and sore throat. If absorbed, it can cause redness, blisters, or chloracne (chloracne is a condition of acne-like bumps on the face, neck and arms that can occur with high exposure to chlorine compounds). If ingested, it can cause stomach cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, weakness, and unconsciousness.  CDC studies found a 77% higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) among workers exposed to PCP.  The EPA has listed PCP as a “probable” cancer-causing agent. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers it “possibly” cancer-causing. EPA 5-YEAR REVIEW According to the EPA’s FAQ for redevelopment of the Idaho Pole Superfund Site: “Regulatory agency roles and ICs (“institutional controls” aka land use restrictions) will remain the same for areas partially deleted. EPA will continue with five-year reviews. EPA has conducted four five-year reviews at the site to ensure that the remedies put in place protect public health and the environment. The fourth five-year review (PDF) was completed in September 2015 and the fifth five-year review is due in 2020.” When will that fifth 5-year review be completed? When is it scheduled to begin? Is it currently underway? IN CONCLUSION Development of the Idaho Pole site and surrounding area will be complicated and expensive due to the lack of infrastructure and the obstacles created by its location between the interstate and the railroad. The site still contains contaminated soil, which is of great concern to the neighborhood. The City reiterates that concern in all of the documents you’ve shared with the public. I think it is inappropriate to create a URD for this area at this time, because it starts the ball rolling toward development when critical questions have not yet been answered: how can development be done safely and how will needed infrastructure it be paid for? As I said in my first statement: I believe this vote it is putting the cart before the horse. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Commission deny Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area. Yours very sincerely, Amy Kelley Hoitsma