Public
Questions about the Possible Port Acquisition of the Georgia Pacific Site
November 18, 2004
On November 16, the Port of Bellingham hosted a public meeting to provide information about the Port’s due
diligence study of whether the Port should acquire the Georgia Pacific
property. The Port presentation was followed by public testimony. Some of that
testimony included questions, which we have answered below.
If you have additional questions
or comments, please email the Port at
Question: Is the RG Haley site
in the deal? Is the cogen plant in the deal?
Answer: Neither the “RG Hawley” or the “EnCo-gen” sites are owned
by Georgia Pacific and thus are not being considered for acquisition by the
Port. If the current property owners are interested in selling these properties
in the future, the Port would certainly be interested to learn the particulars
to see if makes economic sense and be in the community’s best interest to incorporate
those properties into an overall plan. The Port has
been in discussions with Puget Power to better understand their long-term
plans.
Question: What is the
role of the City and how do they pay?
Answer: If the Port goes forward with the Georgia Pacific
acquisition, the expenditures for environmental cleanup appear to outweigh the
expected future value of the property. Therefore, the Port recognized early on
that if the community’s vision for reuse of this property were to be achieved;
partnerships would be necessary.
Because the scope of
this
undertaking will require such a significant investment of time and
resources, the
Port has been working a number of potential partners, including the
City of Bellingham, the Department of Ecology, the Department of
Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
These agency partners have committed to support the project in a
variety of
important ways, including significant financial assistance from the
Department
of Ecology for funding the environmental cleanup requirements.
We have asked the City to develop
the public park and walkway systems and install necessary public streets and
utilities. The Port would however donate to the City at no cost the land
necessary for public streets, parks and walkways. The value of this land has
been estimated at $14.7 million.
The Port has not calculated the
costs to develop the streets and parks. However, we believe that the GP site development,
through payment of property and other city taxes, will be sufficient to cover
the cost of construction. The infrastructure is not anticipated to be installed
at one time. Rather it would be installed in phases commensurate with the rate
of development. There will also be the opportunity to secure federal or state
urban development grants to the City.
Question: Is there only 12%
public space?
Answer: As has been emphasized, there are no detailed park plans at
this time. We do know however, that our economic models indicate that the Port
can afford to gift only so much property to the City at no cost and have the
project remain financially feasible. Percentages are misleading because they
include the existing 36+ acres of GP ownership that are underwater. For
example, 30 acres comprise the GP Water Treatment Lagoon, 6.5 acres is aquatic
habitat, and 15 acres consists of the current G.P. warehouse and surrounding
asphalt area, which provide truck maneuvering and a cap of the former city
sanitary landfill area.
Out of the remaining 80 acres, we
have estimated that over 15 acres would be public parks. That is approximately
20%, or 1 out of 5 acres. The acreage figure does not include
connection trails and sidewalks. There will be a balance between the amount of
land set aside for development and what will become park area. Both the City
and Port will require land to be sold and developed so that the costs
associated with environmental clean up and installation of infrastructure can
be repaid.
Having additional public space may
be a valid community goal for this area. The question is; “If it is desirable,
can and how would the Community pay and maintain the additional property?
Question: Should the Port sell
or lease property, what are the pros and cons?
Answer: Early on, it was felt that selling - rather than leasing -
the land would be an important redevelopment factor. While Port tenants pay an
equivalent State leasehold tax, (similar to property tax); leasing does have
redevelopment implications. Traditional financing is usually easier with land
ownership. Redevelopment generally occurs at a quicker pace with land
ownership. Additional public taxes - such as Property excise taxes – would be
generated with the reselling of land. Finally, monies generated by land sales
would repay the environmental costs at a much quicker pace than rents generated
over time with leasing of properties
Question: What was sampled on
site? What else did you find? Were groundwater samples taken?
Answer: Extensive
environmental sampling of soils, soil vapor, fill materials,
groundwater,
surface water, marine sediments, and additional biological assessments
have
been performed at various locations on Georgia-Pacific owned property
and
adjacent areas in Bellingham Bay. The Port reviewed the results of
roughly 100
technical studies that were conducted by expert consultants for the
Port,
Georgia-Pacific, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Ecology
and
others, as part of the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot. Since 1996,
a multi-agency
work group under the Demonstration Pilot has led a cooperative effort
among
public and private parties to perform these investigations, including
approximately 1,000 environmental samples, at a cumulative cost of over
$5
million. The reports include environmental investigations, engineering
evaluations, feasibility studies, human health risk assessments,
eco-toxicology
assessments, environmental impact statements, and cost estimates for
alternative cleanup proposals. In addition, 92 samples were taken
during the
due diligence period. Findings were consistent with what the Port
anticipated
for a heavy industrial site and they included areas with mercury,
petroleum
byproducts and other contaminants. Detailed information about the
studies is
available for inspection in a document room the Port has opened at 1801
Roeder Avenue. For an appointment to use this room and review study
documents, please
call Mary Matyas, Port Executive Secretary at 676-2500.
Question: What are the health
risks from the mercury in Bellingham Bay?
The
potential health impacts of mercury in the Bay have been extensively studied by
the Department of Ecology and the Department of Health, in coordination with
the local Whatcom County Health and Human Services. The Department of Ecology
is responsible for performing the investigations and studies to determine the
extent of mercury contamination in the Bay from historical releases from the
Georgia-Pacific mill site, particularly in the late 1960’s. Those studies
include human health risk assessments. They will also establish cleanup
standards to protect human health and the environment.
Specific protection of public
health in Whatcom County is the shared responsibility between the Washington
State Department of Health and Whatcom County Health and Human Services. These
agencies use strict standards to determine potential risks to human health
associated with eating contaminated fish and shellfish from contaminated
areas. The mercury contamination problems in Bellingham Bay are at very low
concentrations in localized areas around Whatcom Waterway. Based on this
information, and environmental data from fish and shellfish, these agencies
have determined that fish advisories related to mercury are not warranted in Bellingham Bay.
Question: How much habitat is
there?
Answer: The Georgia-Pacific property and
adjacent areas in Bellingham Bay include many different types of habitat, much
of which has been degraded during a long history of industrial use. Important
habitat includes riparian zones, estuarine areas, shorelines, shallow subtidal
areas, and the marine environment. Some areas have recovered through natural
processes, others have been restored under the Bellingham Bay Demonstration
Pilot. For example, a contaminated shoreline area of approximately 5 acres on
the Whatcom Waterway, known as the Georgia-pacific Log Pond, was recently
remediated and restored to highly functioning habitat. The project was
performed by Georgia-Pacific under federal and state agency oversight and is
now populated by various sea life and birds.
As part
of the Port’s proposed cleanup of the waterfront, additional areas will be
restored to support state-wide salmon recovery efforts. New nearshore habitat
benches are proposed at a number of locations within the Whatcom Waterway and
adjacent areas. These habitat benches provide essential salmon and herring
habitat.
The proposed removal of approximately 350,000 cubic yards
of contaminated sludges from the GP treatment lagoon or Aeration Stabilization
Basin (ASB) will result in the restoration of 28 acres of restored aquatic
habitat on the Bellingham waterfront.
Question: What happens if there
is an earthquake?
Answer: Since the site is fill, stability is
a concern as it is with many waterfront communities. New and retrofitted
buildings will be designed by structural engineers in accordance with local
building codes, which will address seismic conditions and requirements. The
Port has a long history of constructing facilities on fill areas where best engineering
practices are used, and it will continue to use the most up-to-date practices.
Much of the waterfront, including
the land owned by GP, consists of fill material placed over tideland areas. If
a heavy structure is improperly constructed on filled land it would inevitably
settle over time. In the event of an earthquake, liquefaction may occur. In
those instances, improperly constructed buildings may crack or even collapse.
Because much of the waterfront is
on fill, the Port is very experienced with construction upon this type of
material. Heavy buildings may require attaching structural components to
bedrock. These could be pile-supported structures at a depth to as much as 70+
feet.
At Bellwether a new construction
technique was utilized whereby tons of stone and gravel were installed and
compacted in columns under the building pads. This construction method;
developed by the Germans and perfected by the Japanese, has been found to be
superior to the traditional pile method. However it can be used in only certain
soil conditions.
Question: What happens if the
Port doesn't proceed?
Answer: Georgia Pacific will likely pursue a clean up of the
upland property to industrial standards and seek private purchasers who would
consider acquiring it as industrially zoned property. The Port would
still have to consider whether or not it would move forward with its pending
condemnation action on the treatment lagoon to convert it to a marina.
Question: I heard that City Hall
is sinking. Is this site sinking?
Answer: Most of the heavy brick
buildings on the GP site have been around for the better part of seventy years,
and they show no signs of unusual settlement as evidenced by little or no
cracking in floors or walls. The buildings at the GP site are built on fill
material and may need foundations that are built on pilings driven deep into
the ground for support. New construction will use best engineering practices
to protect against any long-term settlement.
Question: As a moorage
customer at the Squalicum Harbor, I would like to know more about how the new
proposed marina will be funded. Will my moorage fees go up as a result of
either the cleanup or the development of the marina? If so, what percentage
above what I already pay can I expect? If not, what is the payment plan to
fund the marina?
Answer: The Port has developed cost estimates for the cleanout
of the ASB Lagoon, the construction of the new marina and the operation of the
new marina along with maintaining and operating Squalicum and Blaine marinas.
These cost estimates are based on completing the cleanout and construction of
the first phase of the new marina by 2011 and the second phase by 2015 to meet
expected market demand. There are two different rates that are calculated – one
with receiving assistance from the Washington State Department of Ecology Toxic
Waste Cleanup fund and one without.
The Port has a moorage rate
charged to all customers of the Port’s marinas, the same in Blaine and in
Squalicum. All customers pay for all costs associated with these two marinas,
operation, maintenance and capital costs for expansion and replacement.
The Port has calculated moorage
rates that would reflect these costs for the new marina using this same
approach. The percentage difference shown is the difference between what the
moorage customers would pay in 2020 without adding any new marina and adding
the new marina with and without cleanup assistance.
The resulting, estimated,
moorage rates are as follows:
2011
2020
No
new marina – maintain
Squalicum and Blaine
$6.25 $9.07
Construct new marina – receive
cleanout grants $6.25 $9.65
Construct new marina – receive
no cleanout grants
$6.48 $11.58
Question: I was interested in
the "parking structures" referred to in the presentation. Where
will they be located? I am particularly interested in the plan for a
trolley up Pine Street from the waterfront to Western. Do you anticipate
that the public will park their cars at WWU and take the trolley down to
walk about the waterfront, or the other way around? In other
words, do the plans include a parking structure to support WWU, or a
parking structure at the Viking Union to support the waterfront project?
Or both? If there are details on these parking structures, I would be
interested in hearing them (# of spaces, projected cost, etc.).
Answer: At this time, the Port is in the due diligence phase to
consider potential land acquisition. As such there has been no detailed
transportation planning. That is expected to occur - should the transaction be
completed - in 2005.
The Port
hopes that parking lots can be provided in area-wide facilities rather than
requiring the location of parking lots on the same lot as the development. We
believe area-wide parking is much more efficient and we would hate to see large
areas of the waterfront become parking lots, as is usually required by standard
zoning requirements.
There
would be sufficient parking within the area however to take care of the parking
needs. In other words, we have not envisioned any parking facilities to be
located off site and people transported to this location. We would hope that
some parking garages could be located off of Chestnut Street so that both the
existing downtown and newly developed areas could benefit from them.
The
Waterfront
Futures Group suggested the idea of a possible “skyway” or trolley up
to Western Washington University. However, while a WWU presence on the
GP site for some of its
functions might be mutually beneficial, there has been nothing
definitive.
Therefore, the possible trolley is only an idea at this time. There has
been
little or no discussion of if such an idea is physically feasible, how
it would
affect the neighborhood or how it would be financed. That idea has to
be more fully
discussed - along with any transportation solution in 2005. It is our
opinion,
however, that a heavy emphasis in transportation routes will remain
Chestnut/Roeder and Cornwall Avenue.
If you have additional questions
or comments, please email the Port at
