MEJAC provided the following verbal and written Public Comments to the Mobile Planning Commission during its Unified Development Code version 4 (UDCv4) Public Hearing on February 25, 2021.

MEJAC’s UDCv4 Verbal Public Comment:

“Good afternoon, I’m Ramsey Sprague. I reside at [. . .].

I speak as President of the Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition. MEJAC as it is called was founded by Africatown residents in 2013 in partnership with regional advocates to address environmental racism throughout Mobile.

I am also speaking today for the Mobile Alabama NAACP President Robert Clopton, its Executive Committee, and its Environmental and Climate Justice Committee, for which I also serve as Chair.

Environmental racism is an everyday occurrence in Mobile. The pursuit of Environmental Justice requires the meaningful and informed participation of residents, decision makers, as well as subject matter experts to find just solutions to challenges caused by the zoning sins of the past that must not be repeated in the future.

Our agencies were initially excited to help inform an update to the zoning code, but we have serious reservations with elements of its public participation process as well as its timidity.

Now, the UDC’s Neighborhood Meeting standards are thoroughly reasonable. We are encouraged by the creation of the UDC’s Low-Impact Development and Riparian Buffer standards, as well as the fact of the creation of the Africatown Overlay itself.

Unfortunately, the Africatown Overlay and other elements fall short of our expectations and in some cases offend the sensibilities of our organizations and partners. For instance, the City declined to respond in writing about any concerns raised about the Africatown Overlay, but not so with other Overlay districts.

Over the last 2 years at every public participation opportunity regarding the Africatown Overlay and Industrial zoning standards, we have generally been saying that:

1) We see glaring missed opportunities in the Africatown Overlay. Like the Village of Spring Hill Overlay, which is more than 10x longer than Africatown’s, the Africatown Overlay ought to address a Purpose and Intent, which must include the abatement of Industrial blight and promotion of Residential cohesion through harmony with its future non-Residential zoned neighbors. Future non-Residential development must reinforce Africatown’s residential heritage and its integrity.

2) The Africatown Overlay, which is surrounded by water on three sides, doesn’t include any provision for waterfront conservation despite the City ostensibly supporting two water-based heritage tourism efforts in Africatown. The proposed “water dependent maritime use” exemption to all Riparian Buffer standards is too broad. If unchanged, effectively all of Africatown’s waterfront will be exempt from potential waterfront conservation standards in future development along Three Mile Creek, the Mobile River, Chickasaw Creek, and Hog Bayou. And that would be a crime against Africatown’s future.

3) The Africatown Overlay must prohibit new, non-replacement Above Ground Oil and Hazardous Substance Storage Tank creation in Africatown. If we all agree that we should be past the petrochemical tank farm expansion episode, then, please, let’s be past it.

4) Due to its controversial nature, the Coal Handling Operations ordinance should’ve been developed through a separate ordinance adoption process altogether and not as part of the Map for Mobile UDC process. Unlike protection for Africatown, the Map for Mobile saw nobody clamoring to expand dirty coal export in City zoning jurisdiction.

5) Protection Buffers are defined in code as being intended to “physically separate unlike uses and minimize light, debris and visual intrusion onto adjacent lots”. But with sometimes truly horrifying results, these goals are not accomplished by current “Protection Buffer” standards which are more or less being carried over intact into the UDC. The harrowing lessons afforded by Chin Street residents in Africatown’s Magazine Point neighborhood must be respected. The halting of private outdoor residential activity due to debris intrusion could be and should be functionally minimized by Protection Buffers designed to do what they are already defined in law to be able to do. The UDC’s Protection Buffer standards for Industrial and Maritime zones that border Residential zones are simply too weak for vulnerable neighborhoods in Mobile like Africatown among others.

And finally 6) In 2017, in its current Assessment of Fair Housing report to HUD, the City declared its intent to “accommodate and encourage access to innovative affordable housing” via then-anticipated zoning code revisions, but today’s proposed UDC standards are very often divergent from too many of the AFH report’s Metrics. Assertions to HUD about federal dollars designated for affordable housing efforts in such reports are generally considered binding, and transparency around the lack of alignment between the UDC and AFH is warranted in the least.

In conclusion, the pandemic may have complicated every aspect of life, but the urgency of Environmental Justice in Mobile has not diminished. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of our agencies’ spoken and written comments for today’s hearing.”

MEJAC’s UDCv4 Written Public Comment*:

* Each comment was provided as part of fifteen total submissions due to character limits in the written Public Comment submission portal on the Map for Mobile website.

Written Comment 1/15:
“Today, I write on behalf of the Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition as its President, as well as the Mobile Alabama NAACP’s President Robert Clopton, its Executive Committee, as well as the Environmental and Climate Justice Committee, for which I serve as chair. All of my written comments, submitted separately for accuracy about specific sections of the UDC, carry this authority.

We are excited to see our city revise Mobile’s antiquated zoning code. We see promise in the proposed UDC Neighborhood Meeting and Riparian Buffer standards, among other positive contributions. We wholeheartedly endorse Low-Impact Development standards and the creation of the Africatown Overlay.

However, there are a number of outstanding concerns that we share with many of our neighbors about the Africatown Overlay and other elements of the UDC that fall short of our expectations and in some cases offend our sensibilities. They will be submitted separately.”

Written Comment 2/15:

“1/10) Residential/Industrial District “Protection Buffer” standards in the proposed UDC fail residents across Mobile in vulnerable communities. Residents are suffering because the existing code is a travesty to common sense and decency and must not remain unchanged in the UDC, as is currently proposed.

UDCv4 § Article 3, Development Standards, Sec. 64-3-8 Buffers must amend “Wall or Fence” height requirements to 10 Feet where Industrial or Maritime Districts border Residential Districts. Additionally, “Protection Buffer” standards must require a Conditional Use permit for chain link Fencing in Protection Buffers where Industrial or Maritime Heavy Districts border Residential Districts.”

Written Comment 3/15:
“2/10) The Africatown Overlay still allows for the potential of Above-Ground Oil Storage Tank expansion in the neighborhood, against citywide concern and support for Africatown’s permanent exemption from potential Above Ground Oil Storage Tank expansion.

During the Map for Mobile development process, the well-being of the Africatown community was cited as being of high concern by independent Mobile residents from across the city. UDCv4 § Article 11, Africatown Overlay, Sec. 64-11 must be amended to remove “Oil & Gas Storage*” and “Hazardous Substance Storage*” from Conditional Uses in the Africatown Overlay for all sites not currently permitted as conforming or Conditional Uses by the UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-8 Above-Ground Oil Storage Tanks (p. 119) & UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-9 Hazardous Substance Storage Tanks (p. 124).”

Written Comment 4/15:
“3/10) The Africatown Overlay doesn’t do enough to address lingering residential concerns with Industrial Blight.

Like the Village of Spring Hill Overlay, UDCv4 § Article 11, Africatown Overlay, Sec. 64-11 must be amended to clearly address the Intent and Purpose of the overlay, which also must include decreasing nuisance Industrial encroachment upon residential Africatown that too often robs residents of the full enjoyment of their property and community, simply to make it cheaper for non-residential developers to move into Africatown. Africatown deserves an Overlay that provides clear control of future non-residential development with respect to historic cohesion, its residential character, and its interest in heritage and eco-tourism destination. That control must include clarity on the many Residentially-zoned properties in the Africatown Overlay that are currently used for Industrial activity, in clear non-compliance with both the existing and proposed City of Mobile zoning code.”

Written Comment 5/15:
“4/10) The Africatown Overlay’s CPTED requirements curiously only apply in Africatown.

We have some doubt about Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) efficacy and its ability to be measured over time for usefulness. However, if the City of Mobile believes CPTED is an effective crime-prevention strategy and not just a non-binding engineering design exercise for future non-residential developers and thus little more than fluff left over from the Africatown Neighborhood Plan consultants’ suggestions to the community, then CPTED should be applied consistently across the City of Mobile and not just in Africatown.”

Written Comment 6/15:
“5/10) The Africatown Overlay’s landscaping requirements are too weak.

Given the unsightliness of large, sparsely landscaped parking lots in the Africatown Overlay district, some of which are as large as some of the community’s historic neighborhood enclaves, UDC § Article 11, Africatown Overlay, Sec. 64-11 must be amended to not exempt Maritime and Industrial Districts from Parking Lot Tree Requirements for future developments, as is currently proposed as a continuation of policy from the existing zoning code.”

Written Comment 7/15:
“6/10) Exemptions from Riparian Buffer standards are overly permissive.

UDCv4 § Article 3, Development Standards, Section 64-3-10 Natural Resource Protection, C Riparian Buffers, 5 Standards for Riparian Buffer Application, (d) Water Dependent Maritime Uses (p.84) must be amended to require that any “Water Dependent Maritime Use” exemption be tailored as necessary on an applicant-by-applicant basis in order to apply as much of the Riparian Buffer standards as is possible to parts of shoreline that have no “Water Dependent Maritime Uses” on them but are part of a larger facility footprint. It is unacceptable that entire neighborhoods like Africatown could effectively have zero Riparian Buffering along its developed waterfronts due to this overly permissive exemption.”

Written Comment 8/15:
“7/10) The Africatown Overlay omits waterfront conservation consideration entirely.

UDC § Article 11, Africatown Overlay, Sec. 64-11 must be amended to include Riparian Buffer application to all Zoning Districts in the Africatown Overlay, including “Water Dependent Maritime Uses”, where exemption must be tailored as necessary on an applicant-by-applicant basis to apply as much of the Riparian Buffer standards to otherwise impacted but unutilized shoreline as possible. It is unacceptable that entire neighborhoods like Africatown could effectively have zero Riparian Buffering along its developed waterfronts due to this overly permissive exemption. The proposed Africatown Overlay must not ignore the opportunities afforded by potential heritage and eco tourism of its storied waterfronts when the City of Mobile is on record as otherwise supporting such efforts.”

Written Comment 9/15:
“8/10) The proposed Coal Handling Operations Code is too consequential to include in the proposed UDC and must be handled in a separate ordinance adoption process.

If it cannot be amended per the our related recommended changes (8.1-8.4), the proposed UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations (p.116) should be removed from the proposed UDC in its entirety and a separate public hearing on the proposed new ordinance should be held instead as was the case during the Above Ground Oil Storage Tank ordinance adoption process.”

Written Comment 10/15:
“8.1/10) The proposed Coal Handling Operations code retroactively changes Use Permit terms for and rewards one (very bad) Industrial developer.

The only facility this section could apply to behaved in a manner reasonable people could describe as deceptive and corrupt. That facility has already been issued a Conditional Use permit, and changing the terms of that permit through the proposed UDC legislative process may appear to reasonable people as an improper service to a single entity. And because retroactively benefiting one industrial developer isn’t what the Map For Mobile UDC process should be about, UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations code must be amended to delete Sec. 64-4-6, A, 2, (a) (p. 116) entirely.”

Written Comment 11/15:
“8.2/10) The proposed Coal Handling Operations code’s perpetual permit to expand applies to and rewards one (very bad) Industrial developer and is capriciously permissive.

Again, the only facility this section could apply to behaved in a manner reasonable people could describe as deceptive and corrupt. That facility has already been issued a Conditional Use permit, and changing the terms of that permit through the proposed UDC legislative process may appear to reasonable people as an improper service to a single entity. And because retroactive perpetual use permits for singular entities is an extraordinary governmental power and must not reward bad behavior, UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations, A, 2, (b) & (c) (p.116) must be deleted in its entirety.”

Written Comment 12/15:
“8.3/10) The proposed Coal Handling Operations code appears to permit development of Coal Handling Operations on legacy parcels without Council oversight.

The UDCv4 and Map for Mobile processes must not be used to permit Coal Handling Operations to propagate across the city without Conditional Use permitting processes for each and every facility, as might be interpreted as the intent of UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations, B, 1 (p.117), so that section must be deleted in its entirety or amended to clarify its intent to not grant use permission without Council and Planning oversight.”

Written Comment 13/15:
“8.4/10) The proposed Coal Handling Operations Code does too little to protect neighboring properties from trespass and nuisance.

All new and existing Coal Handling Operations must store their coal indoors and move coal piles on site using only conveyor systems to prevent nuisance dust and debris from being blown or washed off-site, so UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations (p.116) must be amended to require that both new and existing Coal Handling Operations store their coal piles indoors and that Coal Handling Operations be forbidden to move coal piles in bulk by any mechanism other than a conveyor system.”

Written Comment 14/15:
“9/10) Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks don’t need to release noxious vapors into neighborhoods, yet the proposed code’s Design Standards for Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks don’t include nuisance vapor capture on new and re-developed tanks.

Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks release vapors from the activity of emptying and refilling tanks with oil product. These vapors, some of them heavier then air and all of them very disgusting in odor, migrate into the neighborhoods and homes of nearby residents, which causes in some cases severe loss of enjoyment of property in addition to public health impacts. Both newly developed and re-developed Above-Ground Oil Storage Tanks must be equipped with nuisance vapor capture systems to mitigate exposure onto neighboring properties, so UDCv4 § Article 4, Use Regulations, Sec. 64-4-8 C. Siting and Design Requirements (p. 122) must be amended to require these design standards for new and re-developed tanks.”

Written Comment 15/15:
“10/10) UDCv4 fails to meet many of the City of Mobile’s zoning code revision Metrics for its Fair Housing Goals and Priorities, as declared to the US HUD in the City’s current Assessment of Fair Housing 2018-2023 (AFH) Report.

The AFH filed with US HUD in 2017 by the City of Mobile commits the city to specific zoning code changes so the city may “accommodate and encourage access to innovative affordable housing”, the stated purpose for the rCity of Mobile’s AFH Metrics in the report. By not following through, an opportunity to ensure our most vulnerable neighbors do not face extreme hardship in finding emergency shelter and affordable housing in our city during an economic crisis and global pandemic may be missed. As a federal grant recipient, the City must amend all Residential zone dimensional standards and the Use Table in UDCv4 § Article 2, Zoning Districts to meet the City’s Metrics for its Fair Housing Goals and Priorities as declared to HUD in the City’s current AFH report.”

###

MEJAC provided the following commentary to the City of Mobile during its considerations of the Unified Development Code version 3 (UDCv3).

Each heading refers to a section of the UDCv3 document. The comments were submitted via online text portals that have since closed.

• Sec. 64-3-8 Buffers (Article III Development Standards, p. 57):
  This proposed UDCv3 buffer standard is being carried over more or less intact from the existing code. MEJAC believes for the most part that the requirements are well-intended but flawed in some specific situations that are currently affecting some residents, particularly in the Africatown community and likely elsewhere in Mobile, as well.

  In some cases commonly permitted land uses for Business and Industrial zoned districts are noisy, unsightly, or release burdensome amounts of fugitive dust and other debris from their properties. Buffer standards are designed to mitigate these types of impacts by providing some degree of protection to Residential districts that border commercial districts.

  The Buffer Standard Does Not Appear to Apply to Maritime and Commercial Warehouse Districts
  These sorts of impacts can sometimes be expected to occur through “permitted by right” uses proposed for the newly created Maritime and Commercial-Warehouse districts, as well, but Sec. 64-3-8 does not offer any explicit guidance on buffers between those districts and Residential districts where they share property boundaries. While the phrase “or a commercially utilized building site”, Maritime and Commercial-Warehouse districts should be explicitly named as subject to the Sec. 64-3-8 development standard.

  “Fence” as Defined is Too Permissive for Residential/Non-Residential District Boundaries
  MEJAC is concerned with the definition of “fence”, as well. “Fence” is defined Article 8 on page 181 as “A barrier, independent of a building, made of wood picket, wood slat, wood lattice, iron or steel, or aluminum that appears to be iron. In the DDD, a fence may be of chain link only in limited conditions alongside and rear yards and never in frontages.”

  MEJAC feels strongly that a six foot chain link fence is an unacceptable boundary between Residential and non-Residential districts. Chain link fencing should be specifically prohibited in Sec. 64-3-8 and perhaps its exclusion as a permitted use for buffers between Residential and non-Residential districts noted in the definition of “fence” offered in Article 8 on page 181 along with their conditionally permitted use in the DDD.

  6 Feet “Wall or Fence” Height Requirements are Too Short
  In each of the aforementioned types of impact. A six foot “wall or fence”, would still provide an inadequate level of protection from commercial and industrial trespass into residential districts, as often happens under the current code.

  On the question of size of the fence, MEJAC has been made repeatedly aware of concerns in the Africatown community about this precise sort of trespass that prevents the conventional use and enjoyment of property due to industrial trespass. Specifically, grandparents cannot enjoy their grandchildren at their homes due to the high levels of asthma-triggering dust in their yards. Outdoor barbecues and birthday celebrations are also almost always out of the question. To prevent damage to paint jobs, vehicles must be washed very frequently due to the build up of dust.

  These kinds of impacts would not likely be passively tolerated anywhere else in the City of Mobile and should not be permitted where residents live along the fence lines of industrial and commercial districts.

  Although zoning code can only do so much, MEJAC feels that a 10 foot height would be appropriate for an aesthetically appropriate boundary between Residential and non-Residential zoned districts.

• Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations (Article IV, p.88) Applicability:
  Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations in UDCv3 tracks almost identically to UDCv2’s Section 64-75. As such, almost all of MEJAC’s concerns remain.

  “Coal Handling Operations” is a brand new regulatory framework in the Mobile Code. No reference to it as an either permitted or conditional use in Industrial-2 or other Mobile zoning codes has existed before.

  There exists only one facility in the City of Mobile currently handling coal that falls outside of the Alabama State Port Authority’s jurisdiction. The parcel of land on which that facility sits is owned by Cooper Marine & Timberlands Corporation (CMT), according to online tax records.

  Coal is considered hazardous when handled in bulk, because it is capable of hazardous conditions such as creating flammable atmospheres, heating spontaneously, depleting oxygen concentration in its surroundings, and corroding metal structures with which it comes into contact.

  The operators of that facility admitted to having handled coal without any permit for the activity by any government entity at any level for more than five years at its waterfront property. The common assumption among those familiar with its property was that CMT had been handling a different black mineral, rutile, which is marketed as a significant source of crystalline titanium dioxide.

  This prolonged deception was carried out during a period when other coal handling facilities were proposed elsewhere in the downtown area resulting in controversy and project abandonment.

  Retroactive Use Permits Should Not Reward Bad Behavior
  Sec. 64-4-6, A, 2’s proposed language confirms “existing coal handling facilities” as “conforming permitted uses”. This legislative language appears to have been developed exclusively with the only existing coal handling facility under the City of Mobile’s direct zoning jurisdiction in mind. The City of Mobile should reconsider this kind of reward for bad behavior.

  Perpetual Use Permits Shouldn’t Reward Bad Behavior
  The proposed language then elaborates further benefits by permitting that the CMT facility “be repaired, replaced, or reconstructed on the same site without compliance with this subsection and without the need for an additional setback”. This appears to give perpetual permit by right to undertake any coal handling expansions under any circumstances for the CMT facility.

  The provisions for retroactive conforming use allowance and perpetual, indefinite permission to make any adjustment to CMT’s PUD should be eliminated entirely. They appear to be designed as a clear benefit to a single operator that has a less than forthright record when it comes to public health and community engagement considerations.

  Capriciously Permitting Coal Handling Facility Construction on Legacy Parcels is Inappropriate
  Sec. 64-4-6, B, 1’s proposed language appears to permit a coal handling operation on any sort of zoned property in the City of Mobile regardless of its designation as long as that property has a building permit issued at a time before planning approval was ever required. The exceedingly permissive language of this section needs to be clarified for its intent, as it appears to contradict Sec. 64-2-24’s Use Table, which describes “Coal Handling Operation*” use as Conditional only in Maritime Heavy and Industrial-2 districts. This permissive language is likewise capricious, inappropriate, and should also be eliminated entirely.

  To reiterate, the entirety of Sec. 64-4-6, A, 2 Existing Coal Handling Facilities, including subsections (a) through (c) (Article 4 Use Regulations, p. 89), ought to be eliminated entirely, because the City of Mobile should not reward industrial developers that have very poor public health and community engagement track records with language that specifically affords them perpetual permission to alter their PUD in ways that could dramatically increase hazardous material capacity without any public comment  or Council oversight opportunity whatsoever.

• Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations (Article IV, p. 88) Regulations:
  Sec. 64-4-6 Coal Handling Operations in UDCv3 tracks almost identically to UDCv2’s Section 64-75. As such, almost all of MEJAC’s concerns remain.

  The proposed setback is a positive move in the right direction to protect residents and residential-related activities from potential exposure to fugitive coal dust, but if that is the goal, this section hardly regulates enough.

  Coal Should Be Stored Indoors Under a Shelter to Prevent Wind and Water Pollution
  Our shorelines are very windy places, while a setback is appropriate, new and existing Coal Handling Operations should be required to store their coal piles indoors to prevent distribution of fugitive coal dust by wind and rain and water events.

  Coal Should Be Moved On Site Using Conveyor Systems
  How Coal Handling Operations are permitted to moved coal on site is also a major concern, because the more that coal is jostled, crushed, or otherwise rubbed against itself, the greater the likelihood that large amounts of dust would be generated.

  Using archaic means to moving coal to and from barges using clamshell bucket cranes to dump coal into open piles results in the release of large amounts of fugitive coal dust. Sec. 64-4-6 should be amended to include requirements that Coal Handling Operations be forbidden to move coal piles in bulk by any mechanism other than a conveyor system.

• Sec. 64-4-8 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks, subsections A, 3, (b), 2. (Article IV, p. 91) & E (Article IV, p. 93) Applicability:
  The proposed UDC sections related to “Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks” and “Hazardous Substance Storage Tanks” have been deliberately decoupled into Sec. 64-4-8 and Sec. 64-4-9, respectively, whereas language combining the two were utilized in UDCv2. MEJAC thinks this is a wise decision, because the regulatory language utilized for these types of uses is quite complex, and all effort to be as specific as possible should be taken.

  However, in response to UDCv2, MEJAC raised concerns about the applicability of the proposed regulatory language in response to the original spirit of am almost universal concern raised by the unscrupulous actions of an above ground petrochemical storage tank farm operator applicant before the Planning Commission and City Council nearly five years ago. These technical regulatory concerns persist despite the aforementioned changes. MEJAC’s concerns are identical for Sec. 64-4-8 and Sec. 64-4-9.

  Almost five years ago, Arc Terminals (now a subsidiary of Zenith Energy Management LLC) admitted to the Mobile City Council that it had refurbished an above ground petrochemical storage tank in one of its Mobile River properties to hold sulfuric acid instead of crude oil. Arc Terminals was seeking planning approval for this activity even though the refurbishment had already occurred. It didn’t disclose the reality of their activity until many months into the planning approval process during an appeal of Planning Commission approval to the City Council in a shocking admission under direct questioning that rightly outraged every reasonable person in the city who had been following the application.

  Arc Terminals had deliberately hidden their action, and were rightly characterized as “bad apples” of the above ground petrochemical storage tank farm operators in the Mobile area. Council approved the appeal, and the application for permit to store sulfuric acid in a refurbished petrochemical storage tank was denied. Council did not think it was prudent to make such dramatic changes, and the sheer volume of proposed sulfuric acid storage on the Mobile River was alarming to many.

  Regulatory Language of Existing Tanks Appears Attempted But Doesn’t Correspond to the Nature of Concern with Above Ground Storage Tank Product Changes
  “Sec. 64-4-8, A, 4. Limited Application of this Section: (a)” states, “No tank subject to this Section may be converted to use for the storage of a substance other than oil without first obtaining the approvals otherwise required under the Mobile City Code for the storage of those other substances.”

  “Sec. 64-4-8, A, 4, (b), (2)” (p. 94) states, “An above-ground storage tank existing on a site on the effective date of this Chapter may be repaired, replaced, or reconstructed on the same site without compliance with this subsection and without the need for any further conditional use permit approval, or compliance with the requirements of Article 10”.

  “Sec. 64-4-8, A, 4, (b), (2)” (p. 94) appears to completely contradict the intentions and the will of City Council, as it would deny Council’s ability to have overturned its decision in the Arc Terminals application altogether. Why should the UDC effectively permit product changes in perpetuity for all existing “above ground oil storage tanks”?

  MEJAC cannot accept the self-imposed limitations of this section of the proposed UDC, which undermine the popular will of the people of Mobile as expressed by the Mobile City Council. Greater regulation of existing “above ground oil storage tanks” is necessary.

  NFPA 30 Does Not Classify Sulfuric Acid and NFPA 30 Should Not By Itself Be Used to Regulate Sulfuric Acid or Similar Substances
  In terms of new tanks, “Sec. 64-4-8, E. Change in oil product classification” (p. 93) states, “Applicant may only store an oil product with a different NFPA 30 classification than the NFPA classification listed in the application for Conditional Use Permit for the tank after providing written notice to the city’s planning department of the change and engineering verification that the tank complies with the NFPA 30 requirements for the new product classification.”

  MEJAC’s concern is that because non-flammable chemicals like sulfuric acid are not covered by this regulatory language that, in fact, the language would not require even “written notice” and “engineering verification” requirements of “Sec. 64-4-9, E. Change in product classification” in the case of new “above ground oil storage tanks”.

  Sulfuric Acid is classified by NFPA standard 400, because it is not considered flammable or combustible like the substances described and classified in NFPA standard 30 classification.

  Clearly, the popular will of the residents of Mobile as expressed through the Mobile City Council would be to restrict changes in tank contents of this nature.

  For that reason, MEJAC cannot accept certainty that this proposed language upholds the original spirit and intent of this section of zoning code.

  Because sulfuric acid and similar chemicals are not described elsewhere in the UDC, this segment of zoning code ought to be stated more clearly to avoid confusion with its meaning and application.

  No above ground oil storage tanks ought to be permitted to hold substances for which they were not originally designed and which aren’t described in their original planning approval documents.

  No above ground oil storage tanks operators ought to be perpetually permitted to redesign any tank to hold materials different from their original intended use as described in their planning approval documents without at the very least notification to the planning department with engineering verification that the tank complies not only with NFPA 30 requirements for the new product classification but also for all other relevant NFPA product classification and design standards.

  The language of this section appears to undermine those straightforward goals.

• Sec. 64-4-9 Hazardous Substance Storage Tanks, subsections A, 3, (b), 2. (Article IV, p. 94) & E (Article IV, p. 96) Applicability:
  The proposed UDC sections related to “Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks” and “Hazardous Substance Storage Tanks” have been deliberately decoupled into Sec. 64-4-8 and Sec. 64-4-9, respectively, whereas language combining the two were utilized in UDCv2. MEJAC thinks this is a wise decision, because the regulatory language utilized for these types of uses is quite complex, and all effort to be as specific as possible should be taken.

  However, in response to UDCv2, MEJAC raised concerns about the applicability of the proposed regulatory language in response to the original spirit of am almost universal concern raised by the unscrupulous actions of an above ground petrochemical storage tank farm operator applicant before the Planning Commission and City Council nearly five years ago. These technical regulatory concerns persist despite the aforementioned changes. MEJAC’s concerns are identical for Sec. 64-4-8 and Sec. 64-4-9.

  Almost five years ago, Arc Terminals (now a subsidiary of Zenith Energy Management LLC) admitted to the Mobile City Council that it had refurbished an above ground petrochemical storage tank in one of its Mobile River properties to hold sulfuric acid instead of crude oil. Arc Terminals was seeking planning approval for this activity even though the refurbishment had already occurred. It didn’t disclose the reality of their activity until many months into the planning approval process during an appeal of Planning Commission approval to the City Council in a shocking admission under direct questioning that rightly outraged every reasonable person in the city who had been following the application.

  Arc Terminals had deliberately hidden their action, and were rightly characterized as “bad apples” of the above ground petrochemical storage tank farm operators in the Mobile area. Council approved the appeal, and the application for permit to store sulfuric acid in a refurbished petrochemical storage tank was denied. Council did not think it was prudent to make such dramatic changes, and the sheer volume of proposed sulfuric acid storage on the Mobile River was alarming to many.

  Regulatory Language of Existing Tanks Appears Attempted But Doesn’t Correspond to the Nature of Concern with Above Ground Storage Tank Product Changes
  “Sec. 64-4-9, A, 4. Limited Application of this Section: (a)” states, “No tank subject to this Section may be converted to use for the storage of a substance other than oil without first obtaining the approvals otherwise required under the Mobile City Code for the storage of those other substances.”

  “Sec. 64-4-9, A, 3, (b), (2)” (p. 94) states, “An above-ground storage tank existing on a site on the effective date of this Chapter may be repaired, replaced, or reconstructed on the same site without compliance with this subsection and without the need for any further conditional use permit approval”.

  “Sec. 64-4-9, A, 3, (b), (2)” (p. 94) appears to completely contradict the intentions and the will of City Council, as it would deny Council’s ability to have overturned its decision in the Arc Terminals application altogether. Why should the UDC effectively permit product changes in perpetuity for all existing “hazardous substance storage tanks”?

  MEJAC cannot accept the self-imposed limitations of this section of the proposed UDC, which undermine the popular will of the people of Mobile as expressed by the Mobile City Council. Greater regulation of existing “hazardous substance storage tanks” is necessary.

  NFPA 30 Does Not Classify Sulfuric Acid and NFPA 30 Should Not By Itself Be Used to Regulate Sulfuric Acid or Similar Substances
  In terms of new tanks, “Sec. 64-4-9, E. Change in product classification” (p. 96) states, “Applicant may only store a substance with a different NFPA 30 classification than the NFPA classification listed in the application for Conditional Use Permit for the tank after providing written notice to the city’s planning department of the change and engineering verification that the tank complies with the NFPA 30 requirements for the new product classification.”

  MEJAC’s concern is that because non-flammable chemicals like sulfuric acid are not covered by this regulatory language that, in fact, the language would not require even “written notice” and “engineering verification” requirements of “Sec. 64-4-9, E. Change in product classification” in the case of new “hazardous substance storage tanks”.

  Sulfuric Acid is classified by NFPA standard 400, because it is not considered flammable or combustible like the substances described in NFPA standard 30 classification.

  Clearly, the will of the City Council would be to restrict changes in tank contents of this nature.

  MEJAC cannot accept certainty that this proposed language upholds the original spirit and intent of this section of zoning code.

  Because sulfuric acid and similar chemicals are not described elsewhere in the UDC, this segment of zoning code ought to be stated more clearly to avoid confusion with its meaning and application.

  No hazardous substance storage tanks ought to be permitted to hold substances for which they were not originally designed and which aren’t described in their original planning approval documents.

  No hazardous substance storage tanks operators ought to be perpetually permitted to redesign any tank to hold materials different from their original intended use as described in their planning approval documents without at the very least notification to the planning department with engineering verification that the tank complies not only with NFPA 30 requirements for the new product classification but also for all other relevant NFPA product classification and design standards.

  The language of this section appears to undermine those straightforward goals.

• Sec. 64-4-8, C. Siting and Design Requirements (Article IV, p. 92) & D, 2 (Article, IV, p.93) Design Standards:
  The Above-Ground Storage Tanks standards should be updated to include a design requirement that both newly developed and re-developed tanks be outfitted with vapor recovery systems.

  It is heartening to see the UDC proposed to include “Sec. 64-4-8, D, 2. Description of Any Applicable Vapor, Emission, or Odor Regulations”, which states, “If the proposed tank is subject to federal or state best management practices regulations with respect to vapor, emissions, and/or odor control, the application for Conditional Use Permit shall include a statement as to the relevant regulatory authority or authorities and a summary of any equipment and technology being implemented to comply with such regulatory requirements.”

  However, because vapor capture technology is still voluntary, except where dramatic air quality intervention has seen federal and state environmental agencies mandate such approaches to air quality management, this section is unfortunately unlikely to garner much response.

  Part of the many concerns with above ground petrochemical storage tanks is that they are designed to off-gas their noxious vapors into the atmosphere. Imagine a bottle of soda. When it’s full of liquid there’s little to no gas inside. When it’s empty it’s filled with gas. When it’s filled back up, the gas that was inside is pushed out. Many tanks on the Mobile River do this exact action. They are called “fixed roof tanks”. This mechanic is why modern regulations and industry norms have shifted to requiring “floating roof tanks”, which lower but do not eliminate the amount of vapors released into the atmosphere.

  Petrochemical vapors are a board class of highly hazardous chemicals. Many are heavier than air, which result in clouds of toxic, volatile vapors drifting into nearby areas. This heavier-than-air sinking action caused a major disaster on the Mobile River in 2013 when vapors from fuel tanks were recklessly released and had accumulated on top of the Mobile River where they were eventually ignited by a passing tug boat injuring three.

  Many individual constituents of crude oil vapors are so toxic that they have no known safe exposure levels.

  In the effort to get a good Above Ground Petrochemical Storage Tank ordinance passed, a group of concerned Mobile residents circulated a 66-page white paper on petrochemical vapor exposure dangers and impacts featuring letters from many downtown business owners and affected residents. It also included expert testimony from geneticists on the impacts to unborn children and mothers from exposure to crude oil vapors.

  The amount of vapors that Mobile area tanks farms release is publicly available data from the EPA.

  The most effective way to prevent exposure to these dangerous vapors is to require vapor capture on the tanks so the gases released aren’t released into the atmosphere, into neighborhoods and into our downtown community.

  Vapor capture is an economical approach, as well, because companies who capture their vapors are often able to sell them as valuable chemical product for other industrial uses. EPA has many documents touting the economic benefits of vapor recovery systems readily available on their websites and in print.

  To reiterate, Mobile should take proactive steps to protect its residents from routine exposure to hazardous industrial chemicals with no known safe exposure levels, and the Above-Ground Storage Tanks standards should be updated to include a design requirement that newly developed and re-developed tanks be outfitted with appropriate vapor recovery systems.

• Sec. 64-5-4 Neighborhood Meetings (Article V, p. 138):
  MEJAC supports the changes that address our concerns with limited applicability to the previously proposed language in UDCv2. UDCv3 resolves our concern, and we applaud the transparency and community engagement standards this section could represent for communities across Mobile.
• Article 2: Zoning Districts (Article II) Fair Housing Goals:
  MEJAC is concerned that many of the various elements of zoning district definitions included in the UDCv3 fail to meet Fair Housing Goal Metrics identified by the City of Mobile in its 2017 Comprehensive Housing Plan.

1. Metric “1: Include provision in Low Density Residential (LDR) category to accommodate affordable housing development by removal of current Lot Area minimum requirement of 7,200 sf” was not met in a comprehensive fashion.

   In the proposed Unified Development Code Version 3 (UDCv3), “Low Density Residential (LDR)” is referred to in three categories, Residential Agriculture (R-A), Single-Family Residential (R-1), and Two Family Residential (R-2).

   The R-1 zoning district has three sub districts, each with different “Lot Area (minimum)” criteria, given a value in a “Dimensional Standard” table in each Article 2 Zoning District Subsection. The three sub districts for R-1 are “R-1 Urban”, “R-1 Suburban”, and “R-1 Conservation”.

   The R-2 zoning district has two sub districts, each with different “Lot Area (minimum)” criteria, given a value in a “Dimensional Standard” table in each Article 2 Zoning District Subsection. The two sub districts for R-2 are “R-2 Urban” and “R-2 Suburban”.

   This provides a total of six zoning districts that could fall within the definitions of “Low Density Residential (LDR)” given by this Goal’s Metric.

   Of the six districts only two successfully lower but do not remove the previous Lot Area minimum requirement of 7,200 sf to 4,000 sf, and two raise it with one raising it from 7,200 sf to 43,560 sf (1 acre).

   R-A:                              INCREASE from 7,200 sf to 43,560 sf (1 acre)
   R-1 Urban:                    DECREASE from 7,200 sf to 4,000 sf
   R-1 Suburban:              SAME
   R-1 Conservation:        “Not Applicable”
   R-2 Urban:                    DECREASE from 7,200 sf to 4,000 sf
   R-2 Suburban:              INCREASE from 7,200 sf to 8,000 sf

   Unfortunately only the R-1 Conservation district actually appears to have met Metric 1 in the Comprehensive Plan’s identified zoning code changes it had declared to seek.

2. Metric “2: Include provision in Low Density Residential (LDR) category to increase Density maximum to 6 dwelling units per acre” appears to have been met by rendering many “Density (maximum)” requirements “Not Applicable”.
3. Metric “3: Include provision in Low Density Residential (LDR) category to decrease front, side, and rear yard minimums to 5 feet” appears to be partially met.

   In the proposed Unified Development Code Version 3 (UDCv3), the “Front Yard”, “Side Yard”, and “Rear Yard” minimum size requirements are given a value in a “Dimensional Standard” table in each Article 2 Zoning District Subsection.

   R-A Front:        25 feet
   R-A Side:        10 feet
   R-A Rear:        10 feet

   R-1 Urban Front:    5 feet
   R-1 Urban Side:    5 feet
   R-1 Urban Rear:    5 feet

   R-1 Suburban Front:    25 feet
   R-1 Suburban Side:    5 feet
   R-1 Suburban Rear:    8 feet

   R-1 Conservation Front:        5 feet
   R-1 Conservation Side:        5 feet
   R-1 Conservation Rear:        5 feet

   R-2 Urban Front:    5 feet
   R-2 Urban Side:    5 feet
   R-2 Urban Rear:    5 feet

   R-2 Suburban Front:    25 feet
   R-2 Suburban Side:    5 feet
   R-2 Suburban Rear:    8 feet

   R-A, R-1 Suburban, and R-2 Suburban districts fail to meet this Metric’s Goal.

   R-1 Urban, R-1 Conservation, and R-2 Urban districts successfully meet this Metric’s Goal.

4. Metric “4: Include provision for Mixed Density Residential (MxDR) category to include 2 categories of Residential Mixed (RM) districts: RMT for a combination of single- and two-family uses, and RMF for a mix of all residential types including apartments” appears to have been met. In the proposed Unified Development Code Version 3 (UDCv3), the R-3 zoning district is permissive of single-, two-, and multi-family dwellings. That appears to meet this Metric’s Goal.
5. Metric “5: Include the following “permitted by right” uses within the RL and/or RM zoning districts: single-family detached dwelling, accessory dwelling, cottage court, duplex dwelling, multi-family dwelling, live/work dwelling, manufactured home, apartment house, town/row house, zero lot line home, room and boarding, community residential facility, retirement/elderly housing, and residential care facilities” is much more mixed bag.

   In the proposed Unified Development Code Version 3 (UDCv3), the Use Table in Section 64-2-24 describes each of these uses. RL districts are defined as R-1. RM districts are defined as R-2. Other Residential districts are included for reference.

   Two community residential facility designations are used. One is defined as “Family*” and the other as “Transitional*”. The asterisks used in the UDCv3 are not defined and appear to have no intended meaning or significance.

   For the purposes of permitting these land uses, no differences are provided for any proposed “urban” or “suburban” sub-district designations.

   Examining the 5 Residential zoning districts for each of the 15 identified use types (with consideration given to the two community residential facility uses) provides 75 opportunities for a “permitted by right” designation. Of those 75 opportunities, 42 use types are still not “permitted by right”, meaning that approximately 58% of this Metric’s Goals have not been met.

   The following documents corresponding values in the UDCv3 Use Chart with each Residential district. The green check mark symbol (✅) is given where a use is “permitted by right”. The red cross out symbol (?) is given where a use is not “permitted by right”. A stop sign symbol (?) is additionally given where a use is permitted by “special exception” only.

   • Single family detached dwelling
   R-A:    ✅
   R-1:    ✅
   R-2:    ✅
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Accessory dwelling
   R-A:    ✅
   R-1:    ✅
   R-2:    ✅
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Cottage court
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Duplex Dwelling
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ✅
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Multi-family dwelling
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Live/work dwelling
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-B:    ✅

   • Manufactured home
   R-A:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-1:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-2:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-3:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-B:    ?

   • Apartment house
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Town/row house
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Zero lot line home
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-2:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Room and boarding
   Room and boarding is only permitted in B-3, B-4 with special exception in B-2.
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ?
   R-B:    ?

   • Community residential facility “Family*”
   R-A:    ✅
   R-1:    ✅
   R-2:    ✅
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Community residential facility “Transitional*
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Retirement/elderly housing
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ✅
   R-B:    ✅

   • Residential care facilities (as “Life care or continuing care services”)
   R-A:    ?
   R-1:    ?
   R-2:    ?
   R-3:    ? (? special exception only)
   R-B:    ? (? special exception only)

###