The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-27-20 Public Comment - C. Dayton - Comments for Idaho Pole UrdFrom:Chandler Dayton To:Agenda Cc:reno walsh; Amy Kelley; Cathy Costakis; Jack and Jane Jelinski; Dani Hess; Karen; Suzanne Held Subject:Comments for Idaho Pole Urd Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:28:38 AM Attachments:Action Item 4 Oct 27.pdf Dear Commission, Please accept the letter attached for comment on the Agenda Action for the Idaho Pole URDscheduled for Oct. 27. Thankyou, Chandler Dayton 716 E Peach St, Bozeman, MT 59715 From: Chandler Dayton, 716 E Peach St, Bozeman To: City Commission Re: Action Item 4 on agenda for October 27, 2020, to provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 2055 Dear Commissioners, Before you decide to approve this Action item, I would like you to reflect on the following issues, in spite of the Ordinance language that frames the action tonight so narrowly, and provide answers to the questions raised: Staff Memo Infrastructure Deficiencies 1.The Engineering document contained in the staff memo, along with the URD Plan, outlines street projects which “must” be developed should the URD receive approval.(Idaho Pole Yard Area Statement of Infrastructure Deficiency, pp 96-97) There is no reference to the 2017 Transportation Plan with the selection of street improvements. a.Front St. is named as a must develop deficiency, yet the 2017 TP does not show a street for this short section of ROW between Birch and L St. Rather it is shown as a shared use path which was recently approved for construction. What is the rationale for including Front St as a priority for improvements in the proposed URD? b.Pear St is also mentioned as a priority for improvement, yet Pear St plays no role in the TP either, and doesn’t appear to add any value as a fully developed street. Improving Pear St is shortsighted. With an unimproved Right of Way there is an opportunity to trade land opposite Cedar St to benefit the construction of a collector street forming a wide arc that could connect with Oak/Birch via a RR overpass. c.The URD Plan mentions the lack of a grade-separated RR crossing as an example of a safety hazard at the site, but the engineering document does not include a grade separated crossing in its list of transportation deficiencies. I also failed to find any mention of the need for a grade separation project in the 2017 Transportation Plan, yet the Montana Dept of Transportation published a document in 2016 that recommends a grade separation project for Griffin Drive and/or for Rouse Ave, complete with the engineering studies. This is a safety hazard that MUST be addressed somewhere along the RR because it cuts off access to emergency services for everyone north of the tracks. The lack of grade separation for the RR will only become more dangerous with intensive development on this site. Why has this not been named a transportation deficiency for this URD? Health and Safety 2.The staff memo includes summaries of comments from the various groups that were given a presentation about the Pole yard URD, but no summary of comments from the City-County Board of Health were included. The BOH is the local agency tasked with protecting human health. It’s likely that concerns about redevelopment have been voiced. It would be useful to include the comments from the BOH meeting that was cited in the memo. 3.The staff memo does not include the fifth 5 Year Review recently published on the EPA site dated Sept 30, 2020. At minimum, the Commission should have time to review this document in consultation with the Board of Health before making a decision about going forward with a URD at this time. Some issues to note: a.This document identifies issues and recommendations on p 37-38 that include an increase in PCP in 3 monitoring wells and “residual soil and groundwater contamination in the source area (that) continues to feed a plume that is migrating downgradient.” b.In “Other Findings” on p. 39, the report references the NXNE concept plan that instigated this URD process. Although staff only mentioned it in a previous meeting memo, the March NXNE plan became a public document when it was given to the EPA/DEQ in June of this year. It is mentioned in this 5 Year Review in regard to the mixed use aspect that includes residential use on the second story. The report notes that a mixed-use scenario was never considered in the published risk assessment, and that EPA would “work with any prospective purchaser to clarify whether residential use is an appropriate future land use for portions of the Site south of I-90 including, but not limited to, collecting additional surface and subsurface soil samples, conducting a more comprehensive risk evaluation, and updating the Soils Management Plan.” However, let it be noted that in a written response on January 29,2020 to questions from GCC Board of Health, the EPA stressed that Institutional Controls will be enforced as part of the remedy, including “No residential development or residential use of the property is allowed, unless approved by EPA and MDEQ”, and “It is Idaho Pole Company's intent that this limitation be construed as broadly as possible to prohibit any type of residential use whatsoever.” (Attachments for 5 Year Review, p. 129) c.Also on p. 39 of the 5 Year Review, it was noted that “New groundwater standards have been issued by the State of Montana for dioxins, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene that are more stringent than the ROD groundwater standards. EPA is currently reassessing all groundwater standards as part of the Focused Feasibility Study and is using the more stringent maximum contaminant level or DEQ-7 human health standards as preliminary remediation goals to compare the various alternatives against. Any revisions to the groundwater cleanup standard changes will be discussed in the Focused Feasibility Study as well as the Proposed Plan that identifies the preferred alternative for a revised groundwater remedy.” 4.During meetings with the Board of Health in 2019, concern was expressed about the partial delisting action which separates saturated soils that are not delisted, from unsaturated soils that are delisted. Since groundwater is high and variable in this area, it becomes unclear at what point the delisting is safe. The response from EPA was to cite the enforcement of Institutional Controls, outlined on pages 129-130 of the attachments document, including no excavation of the Controlled Groundwater Area, which is the bulk of the property, without an approved soils management plan. EPA repeatedly stated that excavation needs to be done “properly” according to the management plan in order to maintain safety. Who is going to monitor how proper the development and infrastructure excavations will be in the future? Brian Leland brought up the gravity fed sewer system that will create a conduit for the migration of saturated soil contaminants off site. Again EPA responded that “proper” excavation methods would prevent off site migration of toxins. Again, who will be overseeing the ‘safe’ methods and ensuring they are protective of health? (Jan 29,2020 letter from EPA to answer the BOH questions. P.35> https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/08/100008843) URD Plan for Administration 5.The URD Plan will establish a Board to administer the district, but has chosen to use City staff rather than citizens, as is the case with the NE Urban Renewal Board. Please think carefully about this recommendation by staff. Should this district be administered by staff rather than by citizens? What is the rationale for this recommendation? Conclusion I have noted a wide range of concerns, some which refer to additional information that would be useful to review and some which suggest caution for going forward at this time with this URD. What is the rush? Time is needed to sift through the safety concerns with the Board of Health. A fuller understanding of the complexities of the contamination and it’s deed restrictions will better inform any decisions about future development. Time will allow the community to envision alternative strategies for this area that are protective of health and safety. I urge you to put this decision aside until EPA concludes it’s new recommendations in September of 2021, giving you more time to work through the safety issues. Thank you for considering my comments. Chandler Dayton chandler.dayton@gmail.com