Public Process
We are troubled by the lack of meaningful public process regarding the cleanup of the Whatcom Waterway and the redevelopment of the Waterfront. Though there have been many presentations to the public, there has been no public hearing about our community's concerns regarding cleanup. Under the Port's Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Port and its employees can not advocate for any other cleanup plan other than the alternative they proposed in 2004. Through interlocal agreements with the Port, the City of Bellingham is also constrained to follow the Port's lead and only advocate for that 2004 cleanup plan. It's up to the citizens of Bellingham to create a meaningful dialogue about the best cleanup for us, and for future generations.

Some Concerns
The owner, developer, and environmental lead on the property is all the same entity, which leads to lack of oversight.

Specific marina language was slipped into a Port-City agreement on 7/24/2006. And it was slipped into the Council's "packet" for public access just hours before the Council voted on it. It was not mentioned in the Port’s weekly "article" in The Bellingham Herald. The public did not have a clue. (Cf. http://www.cob.org/council/packets.htm.) A few BBF members showed up on short notice to express their concerns. Council members where highly dismissive of their concerns. Mr. Watts indicated that there had been a lot of public discussion about the issues before them: a marina in the ASB, cleanup of the NWSDA, and making the Port its own SEPA lead. That’s patently inaccurate.

At a City Planning Commission (PC) meeting on 1/18/2007, Commissioners were shown new revisions to the Shoreline Master Plan. These revisions included meager 25' shoreline buffers (the Commissioners have been asking for 200' buffers for almost a year), extensive restrictions on the ASB that effectively precludes just about anything but a massive marina, and a prohibition on dry-stack storage of boats. The Chair of the PC described their reaction as being one of "shock." [The Commissioners pushed back and gained some, but not all, of the buffers they've long asked for.] The public was given access to these alarming changes about 1 day before the meeting. To make matters even worse, the Commissioners were told to hurry up and finish with the SMP. This is a recurring pattern at the City and the Port that started back in 2004 when the marina came up very late in the WFG process: Insert controversial policies and aggreements very late in the game and then force them through to a vote with fake urgency before the public even has a clue as to what's going on.

The Waterfront Advisory Group has been constrained by the City and Port planning staff, making few if any real decisons about the waterfront, and taking the Port and City's lead on not substantively discussing global warming, cleanup issues, seismic activity, and other concerns.

The Port is contractually obliged to follow their cleanup plan. According to Item 11 of the Purchase and Sale agreement, no one at the Port can consider or advocate for any other cleanup plan but theirs. The City joined in that decision through a series of Interlocal Agreements.

The City signed several Interlocal agreements which bind the community to a marina, to the Port's cleanup plan, to $200 million in infrastructure, to waiving developer fees, and so on—all without a single public hearing.

The Port has repeatedly stated that they only intend to clean up the G-P mill site to an industrial standard. They’ve said it in open court. There is not mistake about their true intentions, as has been definitively proven by People for a Healthy Bay. (The Port could apply for Superfund status, but they will not. That would give Mike Stoner, the Port's Director of Environmental Programs and SEPA lead for all cleanup sites within the NWSDA, a boss who is not Jim Darling.) Despite all these facts, the City and the Port repeatedly refer to cleaning up the NWSDA to "a level" that's "suitable" for "mixed-use" development. According to MTCA, there is no such thing as a "mixed-use" cleanup level. This is simply another recurring effort by the City and the Port to deceive the public.

The Draft Framework was approved by the City without a public hearing.

By joining forces with the Port in signing the LIFT, the City has made large financial commitments to the Master Plan without an ability to cover those costs. The shortfall is close to $100 million.

At a May 15th presentation, Malcolm Fleming and Mike Stoner told the City Council that a park in the ASB lagoon would cost $100 million; therefore, they should only consider a marina in the ASB lagoon. This is not only not appropriate public process, their information was wrong. No one on the City Council asked one question.

Conclusion
We believe the Port’s and City's goal at this point should be to reintroduce meaningful public process for the community. The City and the Port need to rebuild Bellingham's trust. Until that happens, the Bellingham Bay Foundation will continue to monitor all waterfront activities very closely.