McAuley Votes "No" on Airport Hotel?

A response to a question posed on the Bellingham Herald.   

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/04/02/2948706/port-of-bellingham-moves-ahead.html

...........................................................................

Because there were two sites, the other just up the street from the winning location, and both sites had the same appraised value giving the public (the port) the same potential rate of return at buildout, I weighed the project pros and cons differently than the commission overall.

Airport growth is a mixed blessing, but needless to say, it is becoming a problem for residents.  More, expensive traffic mitigations are being planned.  There is increased noise, of course. And we seem to have a hard time capturing the airport visitor here locally for more than a few hours which means they come here for the airport but don't really spend much money.  So I believe we at the Port need to start looking more carefully at balancing demands on the airport which didn't really need to be done when it was a sleepier little place.

We know the typical Bellingham International Airport (BLI) customer is value conscious, which was confirmed again by the people from IHG, the owners of Holiday Inn brands, who told us why a Holiday Inn flagged hotel makes the most sense at BLI.   That means airport visitors come to Whatcom County but they aren't really being captured by our local economy. 

A hotel at the airport won't do much to enhance visitor capture for the broader business base, either, because they will find long term parking, a room and a restaurant just a short walk from the terminal (the nearness to the terminal is a plus), which is itself just a mile from the nearest fueling stations adjacent to an I-5 on/off ramp.

Granted, and to be fair, any conferences held here should spill over into the broader economy but conferences are booked online not by a random drive by and the local amenities are the attraction for the conferees not freeway visibility. 

So, in light of the fact that there were two sites available, the outcome for the lease would be the same and the outcome for the service - rooms, conference space and a restaurant at the airport - would be the same I looked at the project in a broader context.   

The freeway site is forested, sloping, wet and offers a buffer along an already overcrowded freeway frontage.  The other is flat, mostly unforested, dry and sits on a corner at Bakerview and Airport Way, the only street into the terminal complex.  

The only advantage to the freeway site is the visibility of the structure to passing traffic, essentially an advertising opportunity and I don't fault the proponents for desiring that opportunity, I would probably do the same thing.  Yet a traveler now is not driving by and picking the first hotel they see when they get sleepy, but if they did, in this case that sleepy traveler will come across the Hampton Inn at the exit first, anyway. No,this hotel is aimed at the air traveler and small conferences where people will want better air travel access.  

So in that broader context of the project I didn't think it appropriate to assume the sites have equal value.  The freeway site has a difficult to price "locational" value based on it's visibility but there was no premium placed on the property by the appraiser for that visibility and, therefore, no improved value to the property owners, the citizens of Whatcom County.  

Also, the parking area for the hotel is designed to abut hard up against the highway right of way offering no opportunity to replace even a small portion of the lost landscape buffer.  Which means the experience you will have driving by this site on  I-5 will be same old, "me too" urban drive-by offering nothing at all new, local or interesting to the visitors the airport is attracting. 

Don't get me wrong, the structure will look nice for sure, but if the airport is bringing in 600,000 fliers and probably over a million total visitors we should be looking at offering a somewhat different, more unique experience for that visitor that they won't see by just driving another 35 minutes south, or in Everett, or Seattle, or Chehalis (where I grew up) or Vancouver, WA.  I believe that by offering a more unique experience we can capture that visitor for more than a night at a hotel 300 feet from the terminal they are flying out of and back to before they jump in a car and head straight to the freeway. 

It's difficult to be unique in a global marketplace, for sure, so to me part of the uniqueness in this case is the simple fact that our airport freeway frontage is *not* all urban buildout that looks like every other urban buildout on the I-5 corridor. It's not much, I know, but it's here already and it's free.   

Long story short, the airport can now support a nice hotel so, sure let's put one in and get that small, yet measurable economic development boost. But having two, equally valuable sites available, both with nearly equal access to the airport terminal, a provable demand factor for the product driven by the airport not our region and, in the end, an equal rate of return for both the property owners and the proponent I couldn't just ignore the downsides of the development. 

With an equal upside for both sites, excepting the visibility, the freeway frontage site has a greater impact and, therefore, I couldn't support the project at that location.     

Making the Case for Building Reuse

The link here is to a pdf that's 94 pages long,  the paragraphs below are just the executive summary badly formatted to read here but you'll figure it out  :-)  

The Greenest Building

Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse

Executive Summary

Until now, little has been known about the climate change reductions that might be offered by reusing and retrofitting existing buildings rather than demolishing and replacing them with new construction. This groundbreaking study concludes that building reuse almost always offers environmental savings over demolition and new construction. Moreover, it can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts that were created during the construction process. However, care must be taken in the selection of construction materials in order to minimize environmental impacts; the benefits of reuse can be reduced or negated based on the type and quantity of materials selected for a reuse project. This research provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental impact reductions associated with building reuse. Each year, approximately 1 billion square feet of buildings are demolished and replaced with new construction. 

This research provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental impact reductions associated with building reuse. Utilizing a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology, the study compares the relative environmental impacts of building reuse and renovation versus new construction over the course of a 75-year life span. LCA is an internationally recognized approach to evaluating the potential environmental and human health impacts associated with products and services throughout their respective life cycles.This study examines indicators within four environmental impact categories, including climate change, human health, ecosystem quality, and resource depletion. It tests six different building typologies, including a single-family home, multifamily building, commercial office, urban village mixed-use building, elementary school, and warehouse conversion. The study evaluates these building types across four U.S. cities, each representing a different climate  zone, i.e., Portland, Phoenix, Chicago, and Atlanta. A summary of life cycle environmental impacts of building reuse, expressed as a percentage of new construction impacts, is shown in the following figure (Summary of Results).

Key Findings and Analysis

Building reuse almost always yields fewer environmental impacts than new construction when comparing buildings of similar size and function. The range of environmental savings from building reuse varies widely, based on building type, location, and assumed level of energy efficiency. Savings from reuse are between 4 and 46 percent over new construction when comparing buildings with the same energy performance level. The warehouse-to-multifamily conversion – one of the six typologies selected for study – is an exception: it generates a 1 to 6 percent greater environmental impact relative to new construction in the ecosystem quality and human health impact categories, respectively. This is due to a combination of factors, including the amount and type of materials used in this project.

Conclusions

For those concerned with climate change and other environmental impacts, reusing an existing building and upgrading it to maximum efficiency is almost always the best option regardless of building type and climate. Most climate scientists agree that action in the immediate time frame is crucial to stave off  the worst impacts of climate change. Reusing existing buildings can offer an important means of avoiding unnecessary carbon outlays and help communities achieve their carbon reduction goals in the near term. 

This report sets the stage for further research that could augment and refine the findings presented here. Study results are functions of the specific buildings chosen for each scenario and the particular type and quantity of materials used in construction and rehabilitation. Great care was taken to select scenarios that would be representative of typical building reuse or conversion projects. However, environmental impacts will differ for building conversions that use different types and amounts of materials. Others are encouraged to repeat this research using additional building case studies; replicating this analysis will enhance our collective understanding of the range of impact differences that can be expected between new construction and building reuse projects.

This study introduces important questions about how different assumptions related to energy efficiency affect key findings. In particular, further research is needed to clarify how impacts are altered if a new or existing building can be brought to a net-zero level using various technologies, including renewable energy.

Big Black Horizon Ship on Bellingham's Waterfront

Earlier this week Joe Teehan on KBAI's Joe Show asked about the Horizon Lines vessel, Horizon Fairbanks, down on Bellingham's waterfront to which I gave a a very short answer so here's the long version.

In order to protect US shipbuilders and US workers the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 stipulated that shipping goods from  US port to US port would require a US flagged vessel, built by US citizens in the United states, owned by US citizens and crewed by US citizens.

Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the Act here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920


The Horizon Fairbanks is maintanied by Fairhaven Shipyard personnel, she is 669 feet long and built in Mississippi in 1973.  

Her former names are the Sea-Land Marketer, Sea-Land Expedition and then Horizon Fairbanks.  

Horizon Lines pays just under $1000 per day to moor the Fairbanks in Bellingham.

The good news is she brings consistent business to Bellingham, the bad news is she's not working. So if she goes back to work I'm sure we'll miss the income but that means the economy on our coast is  much stronger.



Here's a couple interesting articles:


http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_841ec3e2-8286-5f04-b062-531ba33f91c7.html

 http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=852262

Port Scoping Comment on GPT

The following is a letter I will submit to the Commission on Tuesday, 22 January 2013.  Two weeks ago I asked that the Commission submit scoping comments on GPT, specifically related to economic impacts, but my argument was poorly formed and I had no documents prepared for review so the request fell flat.  Because this is the final opportunity to weigh in as a formal body I will once again ask for Commission support.  Should the commission refuse its full support by not signing the letter below, I have prepared essentially the same letter but coming from me personally and reworded to not use the port as a formal requester.  

I have a great deal of respect for the port's mission and feel that it has, at times, strayed into territory best left to other agencies, so if the letter isn't quite what some folks would desire please note that the port's mission, though seemingly broad, is actually narrowly defined by state law and the letter below attempts to stay within the bounds of what ports do.

Thanks for reading and feel free to comment!

Mike M
...................................................................................................

21 January 2013 

From:   Port of Bellingham Commission
             1801 Roeder Ave.
             Bellingham, WA 98225 

To:       GPT/Custer Spur EIS

c/o CH2MHill and Co-lead Agencies
1100 112^th Ave. NE, Suite 400

Bellevue, WA 98004

Re: Gateway Pacific Terminal Scoping Comments

Dear Sir or Madam, 

As the only government body with elected representation tasked by the people of Whatcom County to focus strictly on the fulfillment of certain, “essential transportation and economic development needs of this region while providing leadership in maintaining greater Whatcom County’s overall economic vitality” and, given that the Gateway Pacific Terminal project meets county and state thresholds of significant impact, it is, therefore, incumbent upon the Port of Bellingham, on behalf of the citizens of Whatcom County whose interests the port serves, to request that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project, as proposed, include a robust assessment of transportation and economic impacts, both positive and negative, created by the project.   

It should be noted that in 2010 the Port of Bellingham submitted a letter to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources in support of a potential terminal at Cherry Point.  While not specific in drawing distinctions regarding the commodities supported by a terminal, the Port of Bellingham has a long standing position generally in favor of a deep-water terminal at that location. 

Because an EIS is designed less as a tool to find what is ‘right’ about a project and more intent on finding those actions that will create significant environmental burdens or consequences, it is important for the port to be interested in issues pertaining to the purview of the port and within the bounds of law; specifically, the economic and transportation impacts of the project. 

Per Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-444, the EIS is required to consider the following:

2(c) Transportation

(i) Transportation systems

(ii) Vehicular traffic

(iii) Waterborne, rail, and air traffic

(iv) Parking

(v) Movement/circulation of people or goods

(vi) Traffic hazards  

The Washington State Department of Ecology and Whatcom County have determined GPT to be a project of significant impact, it is, therefore, wise to consider not only the immediate environmental impacts at the site but also the wider impacts upon the infrastructure required to support the terminal.  Most notably, that infrastructure will be a private rail line operated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the many public roadways the rail line intersects. 

 

While the burden and risk associated with the commodities carried on the rail are to be borne by private entities, the rail line itself does cross a significant number of public roadways and will create impacts at or near those crossings.  An example of an analogous situation is the addition of a multi-acre shopping center at a busy intersection; there is a local standard for Level of Service (LoS) that is acceptable at that intersection, with the addition of the shopping center that LoS will be reduced if not mitigated by improvements.  In regards to the GPT project there will be additional and easily measurable traffic at the intersections of public roadways with the BNSF line.  

On behalf of the citizens of Whatcom County, the Port of Bellingham has a direct interest in understanding and mitigating transportation impacts to public properties owned by the port, notably in the City of Bellingham’s Fairhaven and Waterfront Districts but also, in general, impacts that may accrue at various crossings throughout the county causing notable delays to commerce on county roadways.     

There are quantifiable costs for traffic delays that prevent business, commercial or commuter activities from ready access to truck routes, state highways and major county roadways historically utilized by Whatcom County businesses and residents.  As such, please include in the EIS a complete analysis and possible mitigations for traffic impacts that consider both the additional burdens from auto traffic and the effects of increased rail traffic throughout the county. 

Furthermore, per WAC 197-11-448 the EIS may consider “the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements…in making final decisions.”     

Private enterprise should not unduly burden the public by shifting responsibilities and costs onto that public when that enterprise has no broad public purpose.  This statement is reinforced by Whatcom County Code, Section 20.88.130(6): the proposed major development “Will not impose uncompensated requirements for public expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services, and will not impose uncompensated costs on other property owned.”   

Whereas the Port of Bellingham is chartered to directly serve the public within the bounds of Whatcom County and indirectly the public in our region, it is inherent in that charter that the port has “pledge[d]…to be a responsible trustee of our publicly owned assets”, in part, by appraising projects of significance, such as GPT, where the project has wide ranging economic impacts.   

To that end, it is in the best interest of the people of Whatcom County that the Port of Bellingham request that the EIS thoroughly consider the economic impacts, both positive and negative, of the GPT proposal on Whatcom County’s various cities, the county itself and the region serving or being served by Whatcom County.  

The Port of Bellingham was chartered by a vote of the people 92 years ago to serve public interests throughout Whatcom County and, by extension of those interests, the northwestern region of Washington State. The port owns, on behalf of the people of Whatcom County, substantial real estate holdings directly affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, as a key economic development agency for Whatcom County, the port has an interest in efforts that impact the county and regional economy.  It is in the spirit of fully understanding the effects of the project on this county that the Port of Bellingham requests the NEPA and SEPA processes engage a robust analysis of the transportation and economic impacts in developing the Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS.

 

 With most sincere regards,

____________________________________________

Jim Jorgenson, Commission President 

____________________________________________

Mike McAuley, Commission Vice-President 

____________________________________________

Scott Walker, Commission Secretary

Cornwall Beach Park

Some thoughts on the new Cornwall Beach Park.

First, let's create a new experience on the waterfront.  Marine Park, Boulevard Park and Zuanich Point create a very monochromatic experience in Bellingham.  So what sort of buildout might we see?  

The initial construction should be minimal as it fits into the cleanup, restoration and sequestering of the landfill.  Grading the site should provide a base to start from not a final product.  I say this because I believe that designers work very diligently to create the experience on paper then build it in reality, sort of a Disney-esque approach.   The problem with this approach is that unlike a theme park public spaces have to work all by themselves without artificial stimuli constantly injected from a guiding hand.  Leaving the park in a minimal state for some years will allow the public uses to identify themselves and then budgets can be altered to provide a permanent solution for those uses.

There is a cleanup at the RG Haley property, now City owned, that may take advantage of a need for some parking or hard spaces.  Through capping, sequestering and managing stormwater/groundwater we may see a lower cost cleanup there.  If the land is capped we can use it for parking areas, boat storage and day use boat launching.  The shoreline will be armored in areas but a groin built into the bay can provide protection for a softer beach and boat small boat launch.  

I suggest that a small boat launch could provide a replacement for the launch in Fairhaven when the old one silts in.  The Fairhaven launch is already compromised so we should get this going quickly.

Another idea is to add 7 sandy firepits.  The emotional joy we get from enjoying a shoreside fire is almost a primal one yet in urban waterfronts it's nearly impossible to do.  Cornwall Beach offers this opportunity. This type of activity also breaks up the monochrome Bellingham waterfront park experience.

My vision right now?    A boaters area with some parking for trailered boats that can be launched there, an organization like the Community Boating Center managing a small boat activity or selling bundles of firewood, basic infrastructure that is affordable and doable right now e.g. regrade, cap, hydroseed, add firepits and a few gravel trails.

Leaky sewers in the harbor?

A Bellingham Herald reader told me that there is and has been a leaky sewer somewhere in Squalicum Harbor so I spoke with port maintenance, harbor staff and real estate personnel to track this down.  No person had any idea what this could be referring to, even the longest employed had never even heard of a leak in years past.   So, for now no information is available to help this person.

There are several stormwater outfalls all across the entire waterfront so maybe that's what that person meant?

E.D. Speculation

There has been much speculation today on how the port commission got to a final decision on the new port director. I will present the facts here. I do this to provide the public with the background on how the commissioners arrived at our decision – whether you agree with the choice, or not, this post is intended to show I am striving to remain open and transparent.

Earlier this year the commission took an unfortunate position on Charlie Sheldon which put him in an awkward place so he resigned; I did not agree with the majority on the commission. After that action we put Rob Fix, the port's Chief Financial Officer (CFO), into the interim director's seat. That was a politically challenging but nonetheless rational move and here's why: the commission discusses many topics regarding the port, among them future needs for staffing to meet long term goals. We had discussed long term succession plans with Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Fix was one person we would have looked at to replace Charlie when he decided to retire. That doesn't mean Mr. Fix would have been promoted then or that he would even still be working at the port but we would certainly look internally to fill roles, most organizations do this and I agree with the practice. Thus, and I will grant you the questionable circumstances argument, the choice to make Rob the interim director makes sense.

We then went out to the marketplace using a respected search firm to find a new director. After a long, careful process we wound down to 9 candidates that each commissioner was able to interview one on one. Yes, Rob was in the pool of nine. As I stated above, I do believe that internal candidates should be interviewed. As a rule the names of people interviewed but not selected for the final unveiling are not discussed publicly so as to protect their employment status where they currently work – it is standard practice and appropriate. Since Rob was not selected in the final 3 we kept his name, as well as the other 5, confidential. This is the reason you did not know about his interview, just as you will not know the names of the other candidates since it is crucial to maintain that privacy.

We brought 3 candidates forward to vet through our local process and those were Jonathan, Bill and Les. Jon most closely fit the criteria the commission identified and we intended to extend an employment offer to him. However, later we learned that Jon felt he wasn't going to be a good fit here. And, no, it's not an east coast/west coast thing, I believe that Jon's work has led him to positions that seem similar to our port but differ in execution. We have a very hands on system of governance in this state that dates back to our inception, we may seem like busy bodies but we get involved in our government activities and take ownership in ways that are unfamiliar to folks from other places.

So, Jon came out here, we interviewed him, he interviewed us and he felt like he wouldn't be a good fit. I applaud him for being honest enough to the citizens here to take a good look and choose carefully, that is worthy of respect and I extend my thanks and respect to him for being professional enough to do that.

Given that we still had great candidates to choose from your commission went back into session to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those candidates. This means we discussed all the candidates in the pool of 9 we identified earlier so that each was carefully weighed once again. We then decided that the pool should be reduced to Bill and Les, who are both very capable and very qualified, as well as a third candidate from the pool, Mr. Fix.

Each candidate was discussed very candidly, very openly and no holds were barred. The commission did not flip a coin, nor sit around over beers joking our way to a conclusion. We had an extremely honest conversation amongst ourselves and individually came to the same point.

I am breaking no confidences sharing the following, it is my honest and best conclusion. I will say that Mr. Panos brings an unearthly set of skills in his toolbox but not quite what we are after. Mr. Reardanz is an exceptionally skilled lawyer and becoming a great asset at the Port of Everett but I felt he needs more port time in the trenches before taking a leadership role. Both men will continue to succeed and I wish them all my best.

Our decision to hire Mr. Fix rests on one and only one premise: who can best serve the needs we have identified. For me, economic development through the facilitation of job creation is paramount and one of the two goals in the port's mission statement. Good stewardship of the public's assets is another critical goal and all three finalists were certainly capable of giving us their best and succeeding. We have seen Mr. Fix's work over the past 4 years and in the last few months he has done well as our interim director.

Jim and Scott have their own points which you will have to ask them for, I won't speak for them here.

It was decided that further delay, more looking or a new process would still leave us in an uncertain position with just as many unknowns. You will criticize us for presenting a sham process but I assure you it was as I have described above. I hope that you will see I have been open and honest since the day I took office, that when wrongs at the port need exposing that I will expose them. I further hope that you will see my airing of this story is to ensure that you have the same facts I have had.

You may criticize us and given this past year we haven't made the best choice every time so we are deserving of your scrutiny. What I hope you will do now is continue to push us for our best, as well as push us to get the best from the port leadership and staff. The Port of Bellingham belongs to the people of Whatcom County and the commission is your conduit so thank you for staying engaged.

If you have any questions or need clarification ask me here rather than a phone call so I can make sure to share with as many people as possible