Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-20 Public Comment - S. Custer - Urban Renewal District item on the Agenda for 27 October 2020From:Steve Custer To:Agenda Subject:Urban Renewal District item on the Agenda for 27 October 2020 Date:Saturday, October 24, 2020 2:45:31 PM Attachments:EHS_IdahoPole_LTR_Oct2020.pdf Attached please find a letter from the Environmental Health Subcommittee of the Board ofHealth which comments on the proposed Urban Renewal District. Thank you for the opportunity to Comment, Steve Custer Chair Environmental Health Subcommittee Gallatin City County Board of Health Date: 22 October 2020 To: Bozeman City Commission From: Gallatin City-County Board of Health Environmental Health Subcommittee Stephan G. Custer, Chair Subject: The proposed Urban Renewal District Commissioners: The Environmental Health Subcommittee of the Gallatin City-County Board of Health met at a publicly noticed meeting on Oct. 20, 2020 and unanimously agreed to authorize the subcommittee chair to send this letter expressing the Board’s continuing concerns about potential human health risks associated with development at the Idaho Pole site in northeast Bozeman. The Board subcommittee also agreed to ask the City Commission to delay any efforts to create an Urban Renewal District (URD) for the property until the City determines uses for the property and development requirements that would be protective of human health and the environment. For these reasons, we recommend that the Commission not move ahead with creation of an Urban Renewal District at this time. Members of the Board of Health subcommittee are not opposed to development of the Idaho Pole site for uses that are protective of human health. But at this time, numerous questions remain about the status of contaminants on the site and the process for assessing the safety of possible uses of the site and construction/development on the site. In making these recommendations, we note that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality initiated the process to remove this site from the Superfund list in July, 2019 without input from local partners prior to the notice of intent to de-list. We also note that once that de-listing process began the agencies referred to institutional controls as important factors that would ensure that human health is protected at the site and that those controls placed restrictions on residential use. However, after a review of those institutional controls, it appears that land use restrictions on the property were amended (also without notice or consultation with local partners) in 2017, prior to the de- listing, in a manner that would allow residential use on large portions of the property. This has caused confusion and uncertainty about the process and how the site might be safely developed. Before moving forward with development of the property, we recommend that the City fully understand and accept the rationale and potential liability associated with these decisions. We are concerned that moving ahead with the URD may place the City, Gallatin County, or the Board of Health in a position of being forced to make decisions on specific development proposals within a constrained time period without clear understanding of the potential health risks. Our recommendation is to slow down this process until the City can determine with more certainty what types of uses would be protective of human health. The following are examples of our concerns . 1. The zoning designation M1 and M2 sound safe from a public health perspective but have in them permitted uses that in our opinion are not protective of human health in the Urban Renewal District at the Idaho Pole site. We recommend that you consider a Special Zone for the Urban Renewal District (SZURD). This zone might include specific example uses which are carefully vetted to not pose a public health risk. Some examples permitted uses we consider problematic from a public health perspective in Bozeman’s current M1 and M2 Zones include: a. Day care and family group businesses b. Health and Exercise facilities c. Hotels and Motels d. Public buildings and land, parks, etc. e. Community Centers f. Medical and dental offices, clinics and centers g. Apartments h. Transitional emergency housing i. Personal and Convenience Services j. Business, Technical, or Trade schools k. Community Centers l. Home-based businesses (Residential?) m. Public Buildings, Land, and Parks (Schools) n. Most uses part of a planned unit development (open ended and not vetted?) We note that EPA states no residential is allowed, but some of the uses above appear to be residential. This creates a conflicting set of statements between the City and EPA regarding what uses are allowed which should be cleared up. 2. As we understand it, the City will be responsible for installation of sewer and water. As we learned during public hearings on Idaho Pole, these installations require excavations to eight feet in depth and such installations often are conduits for groundwater. In this case the ground water may be contaminated. Since the infrastructure would likely be oriented north-south at least in part, there is significant risk of contaminating the East Gallatin River and might impact residential wells down gradient. We understand that EPA has released land for development down to the top of the saturated and intermittently saturated zone. Unfortunately, we are unaware of any EPA map that shows the depth to the top of the intermittently saturated zone. This depth should be clearly mapped and be part of the zoning district (it’s bottom). We believe that there is evidence that the top of the intermittently saturated zone is much less than the eight feet typically needed for infrastructure installation such as sewer and water. We are concerned about groundwater disposal during infrastructure installation. We further understand that there are engineering techniques available to seal underground utilities so they do not transmit ground water, but these are not specified in the zoning and are not part of any EPA protocols we are aware of. 3. We are also concerned about liability. If there were unintended contact with dangerous chemicals in the water or soils by workers, children, adults, or visitors, what is the city liability? 4. We would also like to point out that deed restriction 2369872 09-13-2019d states, “Groundwater within the boundaries described by the Controlled Ground Water Area shall not be used or developed for any purpose except as provided in the Remedial Action or as otherwise authorized by EPA and DEQ.” As we understand it, the Controlled Groundwater Area was instituted under the authority of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Nowhere is that agency identified as the controlling agency for the Idaho Pole Controlled Groundwater Area. Which agency has supremacy with regard to regulation of groundwater use in the controlled groundwater area? 5. We are also concerned that a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Bozeman and EPA regarding the Idaho Pole Site which both EPA and City representatives thought was a good idea at a public meeting during the de-listing process has not been executed or addressed that we are aware of. 6. In its formal response to concerns raised by the Board of Health, the EPA confirmed that petroleum hydrocarbons spilled on the site still pose a risk to human health. In moving ahead with its de-listing of the site, the agency pointed to existing institutional controls that prohibit residential use as important safeguards against contaminant exposure that would imperil human health. As noted above, the modification of these land-use restrictions to allow residential use on large sections of the site has created confusion and concern that should be addressed prior to moving ahead with a URD. 7. It is also worth noting that groundwater samples gathered in 2017 from a monitoring well on the Idaho Pole site showed pentachlorophenol (PCP) levels above the cleanup levels for the site. The monitoring well that produced these samples (well 26A) appears to be located directly adjacent to a tract of the property where land-use restrictions were changed in 2017 in a manner that appears to allow residential use. We note that groundwater levels on the site are highly variable and in some cases shallow enough to raise concerns about risk to human health. We are concerned that depth to groundwater should be thoroughly mapped and understood in order to prevent any possible exposure that would imperil human health. We would like to reiterate that we are not opposed to an Urban Renewal District that carefully identifies and controls uses that are consistent with the protection of human health at the Idaho Pole site. However, we believe the currently configured zoning does put human health at risk. We are concerned that there is a liability that the City should consider carefully and deliberately. We are further concerned that there is no memorandum of understanding between the City and EPA and DEQ for this site. A special zoning district should be created, and appropriate permitted uses should be carefully vetted by the Zoning Board and the City, and a memorandum of understanding between the City and EPA should be executed.