Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-23 Public Comment - E. Trygstad - Canyon GateFrom:Ellen Trygstad To:Agenda Subject:Canyon Gate development and Bridger Fault info Date:Friday, May 5, 2023 8:33:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > Hello, In the staff report regarding Canyon Gate, I didn’t find any attention to the Bridger Fault implications for the high density of the proposed Canyon Gate development or other earthquake reference. The City of Bozeman’s Emergency Preparedness report from some years ago had significant concerns for density building in Bozeman, and considering the proximity of the Canyon Gate development to the Bridgers, I would think steps to address earthquake concerns should be in the staff report. Indeed, this is a very important topic for the consideration of whether this is an appropriate location for this development. > > The following is just an older news report from the Chronicle, not what I’d hoped to send, but it does indicate that, for the density of Bozeman at that time, 12,500 buildings in Bozeman would be at risk from an earthquake of 6.0 (6.5?). The Canyon Gate development is fairly close to the Fault region, so that’s a lot of density to experience an earthquake. I think an Earthquake study should be required of that location, and appropriate emergency measures clearly outlined for public and staff review (Type of building structures needed, egress, etc.) if they want dense residential (460) and commercial development. Seems that would be an essential decision factor for the appropriateness of this project in this location, as well as a Public Safety necessity if the project is approved, and important information also for the people who might move there. Alternatively, the density of the project could be significantly reduced, or the project relocated, retaining the density, but in a location of potentially less impact. > > https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/earthquakes-flooding-threaten-gallatin-county- residents/article_c147c004-d716-5eaf-8486-6f85d38d2f6f.html Sincerely, Ellen Trygstad PS: The first edition, and the latest edition, of Roadside Geology of Montana has a section on this fault which has been studied by highly qualified geologists. From:Ellen Trygstad To:Agenda Subject:Additional cost Impacts of Canyon Gate not included? Date:Friday, May 5, 2023 8:54:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > Hello - > > 1) In the recent Staff Report for the proposed Canyon Gate development I noted that in the first link listed in your email regarding the preliminary plat, the item of impacts at the end mentioned fiscal items such as increased tax revenue, but failed to site impacts on schools - Whittier and Hawthorne being the closest, but also CJ and the HS. What is the expected number of school age children that will come with this density project? Will that number have been included in the County allocations or will that be after the fact, such that the schools will have influx of students but without the budget allocations per child? > > What exactly will be the itemized additional taxpayer burden for anything related to this development project: schools, but also roads and other infrastructure, flooding impacts due to loss of absorbing acreage and replacement with constructed structures, fire, police and ambulance and other safety requirements (has there been any report from the fire department, for example, for cost of hydrants or other needs?)? > > What additional school impacts will there be, such as on classroom space, # of students per aides required by law, etc.and what do those the School District itemize as the potential additional cost to the District, and Taxpayer? > > 2) If the Floodplain maps to come in the future (next year?) are such that the Developer will not build basements or crawlspaces, and recommends residents to apply for flood insurance at that time, will residents even be ABLE to get flood insurance, since it looks like the Developer is anticipating flooding? > > 3) If there are no basements and crawl spaces, will the resulting structures be up to the highest earthquake standards? What alternatives for earthquake safety will the Developer be using? Earthquake concerns are based on contemporary geological assessments and should not be ignored. Will people be able to get earthquake insurance if buildings have no basements and crawl spaces? > > IF there is any question of being able to get AFFORDABLE insurance for flooding or earthquakes for this location, given its proximity to the Bridger Fault, and its Hydrology, then this project is not something the City should support at this location. > > If the City thinks this is a well thought through project, it should be relocated to a site where property owners can have more certainty on ability to get flood and earthquake insurance. As it stands, some of the project has to receive some approvals after the new flood plan maps are completed. > > Regarding costs, the public has no numbers. The City should itemize the total anticipated costs based on itemized research from schools, fire department, road department (state and city) etc., so the public knows the price tag it has to pick up for this development at this location. Also, I read somewhere there have been no variances requested. However, it is my understanding that generally approvals are received first, and then developers ask for variances. If this is accurate, then the public, which is generally clueless about the details of development project process, may not have the full picture of the impacts of this project prior to full project approval. Thank you, > Ellen Trygstad Bozeman, MT > PS - This project feels TOO RUSHED to me, especially given how big it is. That 60 days should be extended. And the Developer should be required to talk with the public, not urged. What public benefit is there to this choice? This project, when it first came before the City, did not receive unanimous support, indicating there were concernsof importance right from the beginning. Something of this size should have moved forward only with unanimousapproval. Many problems are inherent in this project. Most of these could be solved by relocating the project to adifferent location. I STRONGLY urge the City to consider this. The safety and traffic issues have not been givenenough weight. They are very serious, as are the hydrology and earthquake complications.. From:Ellen Trygstad To:Agenda Subject:22264-Bridger Fault, City Engineers/Seismic Design Category criteria Date:Friday, May 5, 2023 9:07:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Good Morning - > > Was reviewing earthquake preparedness by the City of Bozeman googling “City of Bozeman emergency preparedness plan/earthquakes”, and I found a reference which was in a search list “Design Criteria”. This contains a category for Seismic Design Category, in which item one specifies a [requirement ?] for a determination of “earthquake spectral response acceleration”, and items 4 and 5 seem to follow up with more specifications. I know zero about this subject, but I don’t recall any reference to any such seismic determination in the recent summary report of the planners regarding the proposed Canyon Gate development. > > Again, I know nothing about the steps the city has take, but it appears that building design may need to include this. Am I misreading the design criteria (see link below) or is indeed, this required information, and has it been documented, or is it missing information from the summary? The proposed development has very high density, as well as height, and no crawl space or basement apparently allowed. How are such buildings to be earthquake safe, and if they can be, it would be good for the public to know in full detail how this will be addressed. Thank you! > Ellen Trygstad Bozeman, MT. > >> >> https://www.bozeman.net/departments/community-development/building/bozeman-design-criteria > From:Ellen Trygstad To:Agenda Subject:Canyon Gate complication Date:Friday, May 5, 2023 9:48:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello - It is my understanding that one of the driving rationales for the proposed Canyon Gate Development is that it offers low-income housing. Yet, it has come to my attention that a recent study from MSU shows that the housing priced at 120% ami is no longer affordable for that income level. Hundreds of local residents have written letters, shown up at meetings, and met with planners to point out the many problems this high density project has at this location. For some reason, this project is being pushed past their concerns. A failure to truly provide LOW income housing is a serious flaw in this development, and adds a significant problem to the MANY serious problems of this project for this location. A failure to offer true low- income dwellings undercuts the very credibility of any approvals. The people of any city need to be able to count on land use proposal reviews as thorough and credible, and for the benefit of the community, larger and in the immediate locality. People familiar with this location have stepped forward with credible, serious concerns about safety, traffic, hydrology and earthquake issues, and now, we must express concern about how “low-income” actually factors in. Yet, this project continues to move through the approval process when it carries with it many problems. Why? The people of any city want approvals of projects that don’t bring problems for their neighborhoods, don’t significantly increase traffic, and in this particular location, increase safety issues due to the trains. Indeed, residents throughout NE Bozeman already are impacted by train traffic backing up and down Rouse Ave. AND the side streets. One time I drove through, traffic was backed up to 7th from Rouse due to a stopped train. Then, the city wants to add 4000 more daily trips from this development? Who benefits from this? No one. The people of a city want to trust that urban projects are wise decisions for the local area and the city at large. Canyon Gate provides no apparent benefits, and a host of problems and headaches and risks for the present chosen location. It seems timely for whomever at the City to take a new hard look at this project and exercise some new judicious review of its value for the City and the local community. The more we see of the project, the more it is a giant problem in this location, as well as undercutting the credibility of the city efforts on “low income” housing. While approval process momentum is apparently moving fast, prevention of problems is typically wiser than looking the other way and hope all is well. I hope the city has the wisdom to redirect this project to a more favorable location, and will reconsider the weight and credibility the Low-Income component does or does not carry. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Ellen Trygstad Bozeman, MT