Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I am writing you today on behalf of the residents of Port Norfolk, Lake Shores and a myriad of other concerned Portsmouth citizens.
For several months, members of our ad hoc committee have come before you at Council meetings outlining our stance opposing the development of the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site.
We were assured by Vice Mayor Whitehurst in a public meeting that no development would be approved without the support of the community.
Because issues related to this development impact all Portsmouth residents and not just our two neighborhoods, we began a campaign to educate and inform our neighbors across the City, starting with all sixty-five Civic Leagues. We received enthusiastic support and many of our supporters from other neighborhoods were present at the vote Nov. 23rd.
We also went door to door obtaining over 600 signatures indicating opposition to the Hull’s Creek plan. Petitions were signed by residents across the city: Olde Towne and Olde Towne South, Glen Sheallah, West Park View, Park View, Ebony Heights, Hatton Point, Wise Beach, Fairview Heights, just to name a few. One notable fact: all of the merchants in Port Norfolk opposed this development.
We prepared a four part presentation consisting of facts, most of which came from our City’s very own Policies, Plans and Guidelines. By presenting the well-researched facts in a clear way, we assumed city leadership would make the right decision. Unfortunately, on Tuesday night we found out that this assumption was wrong.
Despite the standing room only crowd of people who showed up in opposition, City Council voted 5-2 in favor to transfer the land. To say that we are disappointed is an understatement. At the very least, we expected a deferred vote. There are too many unanswered questions (such as the results of the remaining environmental tests), incomplete and/or incorrect project information, and the fact that just about every facet of this project contradicts recently adopted guiding principles shown in the City’s own documentation.
We really believed that what Vice Mayor Whitehurst said was true, there would be no development without community support. The community made itself very clear – they did not and do not want these houses built on an unregulated former landfill that is a repetitive loss flood plain.
As elected officials representing the people of Portsmouth, you have a very great responsibility. You are custodians of our past, present and future, responsible for making this a better place for current residents while building a thriving environment for our children. You had a great opportunity to positively harness the power of the people yet you chose to take a different path and, as a result, disappointed many voters.
We would like to sincerely thank Councilmen Cherry and Edmonds for following their convictions rather than the herd. They really embodied the principle of “for the people, by the people” on Tuesday night.
Thank you.
Sharon Rich, on behalf of the Lake Shores and Port Norfolk Civic Leagues
322 Douglas Ave.
Portsmouth, VA
23707
I am writing you today on behalf of the residents of Port Norfolk, Lake Shores and a myriad of other concerned Portsmouth citizens.
For several months, members of our ad hoc committee have come before you at Council meetings outlining our stance opposing the development of the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site.
We were assured by Vice Mayor Whitehurst in a public meeting that no development would be approved without the support of the community.
Because issues related to this development impact all Portsmouth residents and not just our two neighborhoods, we began a campaign to educate and inform our neighbors across the City, starting with all sixty-five Civic Leagues. We received enthusiastic support and many of our supporters from other neighborhoods were present at the vote Nov. 23rd.
We also went door to door obtaining over 600 signatures indicating opposition to the Hull’s Creek plan. Petitions were signed by residents across the city: Olde Towne and Olde Towne South, Glen Sheallah, West Park View, Park View, Ebony Heights, Hatton Point, Wise Beach, Fairview Heights, just to name a few. One notable fact: all of the merchants in Port Norfolk opposed this development.
We prepared a four part presentation consisting of facts, most of which came from our City’s very own Policies, Plans and Guidelines. By presenting the well-researched facts in a clear way, we assumed city leadership would make the right decision. Unfortunately, on Tuesday night we found out that this assumption was wrong.
Despite the standing room only crowd of people who showed up in opposition, City Council voted 5-2 in favor to transfer the land. To say that we are disappointed is an understatement. At the very least, we expected a deferred vote. There are too many unanswered questions (such as the results of the remaining environmental tests), incomplete and/or incorrect project information, and the fact that just about every facet of this project contradicts recently adopted guiding principles shown in the City’s own documentation.
We really believed that what Vice Mayor Whitehurst said was true, there would be no development without community support. The community made itself very clear – they did not and do not want these houses built on an unregulated former landfill that is a repetitive loss flood plain.
As elected officials representing the people of Portsmouth, you have a very great responsibility. You are custodians of our past, present and future, responsible for making this a better place for current residents while building a thriving environment for our children. You had a great opportunity to positively harness the power of the people yet you chose to take a different path and, as a result, disappointed many voters.
We would like to sincerely thank Councilmen Cherry and Edmonds for following their convictions rather than the herd. They really embodied the principle of “for the people, by the people” on Tuesday night.
Thank you.
Sharon Rich, on behalf of the Lake Shores and Port Norfolk Civic Leagues
322 Douglas Ave.
Portsmouth, VA
23707
November 10, 2010
Ken Chandler, City Manager
Portsmouth City Hall
801 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Dear Mr. Chandler:
Thank you for arranging a meeting with Port Norfolk and Lake Shores, city staff, and Hulls Creek Properties. What follows is a timeline of events that also outlines Port Norfolk and Lake Shores’ concerns regarding the development of the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site. Attachments are listed at the end of this letter.
In October 2006, after the school was demolished, the city presented to Port Norfolk and Lake Shores the options of having a dog or skate park at the site. Citizens were told by the then-Director of Parks & Recreation that the best use of the site would be park space because the site could never be built on due to flooding issues and the fact that it was a landfill. The Director of Parks & Recreation said he’d been advised as such by Traffic & Engineering.
Richard Hartman, when asked in September 2010 what study he thought Traffic & Engineering based those conclusions on, said there were no studies. Mr. Hartman indicated it was always just understood that the land couldn’t be built on because it was a landfill.
It was decided in 2007 that the site would be left as is so dog owners, children, families, and joggers continued to do what they had always done: enjoy the green space to walk dogs, play start-up soccer, football and baseball games, meet neighbors, and enjoy the birds and beautiful sunsets.
Since being told that the site couldn’t be built on in 2006, neighbors have watched stormwater pool in spots whenever there is even a moderate rain. One area has standing mosquito infested water for most months of the year. Practically the entire site was under water with the November 2009 Nor’easter.
In mid-June 2010, a neighbor saw surveyors staking the site. James Windley went to the site and spoke with CJ Bodnar, the project engineer for what would come to be the legal entity of Hulls Creek Properties, LLC. Mr. Bodnar described the project plan to Mr. Windley and said the Port Norfolk and Lake Shores Civic Leagues had given approval.
Neither the Port Norfolk Civic League nor the Lake Shores Civic League had been contacted, let alone approved of the project. The Lake Shores Civic League was apprised of the plan at 1:30pm on June 22. The vote on the Memorandum of Intent came before City Council at the 7:00pm that same day. At the June 22 meeting, Councilman Moody said “we need to make sure the citizens’ concerns are addressed and the concerns I heard tonight need answers.”
Starting with the June 22, 2010, City Council meeting, when the MOI was approved, there have been at least two speakers opposing the project from Port Norfolk and Lake Shores at each Council meeting citing the drainage, environmental, real estate, and green space issues involved with this proposal. We have called for the development of the site to be restricted to multi-purpose recreational space if deemed suitable by additional thorough environmental studies conducted by an independent third party environmental consultant. We have noted that multi-purpose recreational space—not residential housing—would best follow your Vision Principle: Thriving Neighborhoods and a Sense of Community.
After the adoption of the MOI, residents of both communities and both civic leagues tried to find out information regarding the project. We tried to have our concerns addressed, as Mr. Moody said they would be. We had a lot of questions for the City, including:
§ why is the City considering an offer to build on a site our communities were told couldn’t be built on?
§ how could a representative of the developer say that the civic leagues were aware and approved of this activity when the civic leagues had not been contacted?
§ why is the City thinking of allowing building when there are so many homes already for sale in these neighborhoods?
§ what is the process regarding the sale of this land and will there be a public hearing before the land is sold?
Fred Brusso, Patrick Small, and other staff did not return phone calls. Mr. Oksman’s office did not provide the requested unsolicited proposal law under which the city is conducting this business with Hulls Creek Properties, LLC.
Due to the volume of calls the city staff was receiving regarding this project, the Hulls Creek Properties Proposed Development web page was set up on the Economic Development website. The Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for one of the three parcels of land and the preliminary methane assessment were posted as were FAQs. These FAQs did not answer all questions sent in.
At the August 10,2010, City Council meeting, Councilwoman Randall requested that you provide reports to the citizens regarding this project because of our expressed concerns. We received no communication from the City Manager’s office in response to Councilwoman Randall’s request.
The developer contacted both civic leagues to set up meetings at which he could present plans for Hulls Creek Properties. The Lake Shores Civic League requested that the environmental documents be sent to their civic league before such a meeting was scheduled; they never received those documents from the developer. The Port Norfolk Civic League did not set up a meeting with the developer.
The developer contacted both civic leagues to set up meetings at which he could present plans for Hulls Creek Properties. The Lake Shores Civic League requested that the environmental documents be sent to their civic league before such a meeting was scheduled; they never received those documents from the developer. The Port Norfolk Civic League did not set up a meeting with the developer.
The development team held public meetings on August 16 and August 26 at Portsmouth Christian Church. Members of both communities and City Council attended. The development team presented a plan for 44 homes to the Lake Shores and Port Norfolk communities on those dates as well as at a public meeting held at the Port Norfolk Recreation Center on September 2. Speakers from the communities registered their concern and opposition to developing homes at the site, citing the following reasons: drainage issues, school capacity, historic preservation, rezoning and diminished aesthetics resulting from smaller lot sizes and high-density housing, environmental concerns, and quality of life and the need to keep green space in a city that has a substandard amount of green space per capita.
In a letter dated September 24, the Port Norfolk Civic League thanked council members and staff for their participation and attendance at the September 2 meeting, and stated “in light of our unresolved concerns about the availability of green and recreation space, drainage and engineering issues, the real estate market, and 7,000 yards of contaminated soil identified in the Phase II Environmental Assessment, the Port Norfolk Civic League remains opposed to the development of the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site.” It was requested that the city keep the site a green space with a multi-purpose park in mind, and that the city have “meaningful conversations now, before that property is transferred from the city to Economic Development.”
At the September 27, public work session, CJ Bodnar presented a revised plan for 23 homes and a 3.12 acre wetlands conservation area at the. Former Mayor Griffin asked when the plan was presented to the communities and was told this was the first time it was being made public.
At the September 28 City Council meeting, I spoke on behalf of the Lake Shores and Port Norfolk Civic Leagues, stating our continued opposition to development regardless of the revised plan. I also presented a letter from Green Environments, an independent third party environmental consulting firm hired by our communities to review the Phase I and II ESA and preliminary methane assessment. Concerns were raised about the methodology used in the preliminary methane assessment, discrepancies in acreages referred to in documents, Stokes Environmental’s lack of third party status, and the lack of clear and specific recommendations based on the findings in the report. (See attached.)
On October 11, at least eight holes were dug with a backhoe on the site despite very high lead and arsenic levels. The communities were not notified that there would be digging. The earth dug up was put back in the holes with no covering material. Kids were playing in that dirt that afternoon and continue to do so.
When I called the Citizen Concern line about the soil disruption and lack of signage, I got an e-mail response from Patrick Small that said “I reiterate that both a Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were done for this area of the property and there is no evidence of contaminants whatsoever and, therefore, no need to fence these denuded areas which will rapidly fill in with grass again.” The only action the city took was to add the following statement to the FAQ list: “It is important to note that areas of the site that have been disturbed by the City and the developer are not designated play areas or playgrounds and these areas are not authorized to be used as such.”
We are concerned that no one is advising the City about the contents of the Phase I and II ESA. Completion of the Phase I and II ESA does not make the site construction-ready. Soil samples taken as part of the Phase I and II ESA have contaminant levels exceeding EPA residential soil risk thresholds. As of the middle of October, not all of the parcels had been tested.
In a conversation with a member of Lake Shores, Patrick Small indicated that the City of Portsmouth had contracted Stokes Environmental to complete the Phase I and II ESAs for the remaining two parcels of land. Mr. Small also indicated that he intended for the transfer of land to be on the November 9 City Council agenda even though the results of the second and third ESAs may not be complete by then.
Once the near-surface soils were unearthed by the Columbus Day digging, the DEQ and EPA were contacted, and Port Norfolk and Lake Shores hired Green Environments to collect near-surface soil samples. Near-surface soil samples were not tested for in the Phase I and II ESA on the one parcel of land. Results of those lab tests showing elevated levels of arsenic and cadmium were presented at the October 26 City Council meeting. (See attached.)
At the end of October, you contacted me to set up a meeting. In our latest conversation, you indicated that the hope would be to put the transfer of land on the November 23 City Council agenda. I said then that our questions would be directed more toward the City than the developer. Realizing it would be good to make you better aware of where we are coming from prompted this letter.
As you requested, I am providing some idea of our concerns:
Drainage
The site is a floodplain and the neighborhood has serious drainage issues recognized by the City. In October, Council adopted the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan which lists the former Port Norfolk Elementary School as a repetitive loss site and states that it should not be built on. Furthermore, the City is already addressing drainage problems in several neighborhoods and developments. The City already has to find money to deal with drainage problems caused by unstable development projects. In answer to our FAQ “If the homes are built and the site floods, what are the City’s responsibilities to the residents?” the answer is “None.” It is very disturbing to read that the City will take no responsibility for drainage problems that might occur if a limited liability corporation is not able to meet actual drainage needs.
Real Estate and Property Values
During our petition drives in the neighborhoods, we found that the major reason people oppose the building of new homes on this site is the fact that so many homes in our neighborhoods are already sitting vacant due to foreclosure or sale properties that aren’t selling. There are currently 157 properties for sale or foreclosed within a one-mile radius of the center of Port Norfolk. Some of these empty homes are boarded up, resulting in a spreading blight that increases crime and lowers our property values. In the 23707 zip code, there are currently 1,036 properties listed in as active in the MLS database. The situation with these homes needs to be addressed, before adding additional empty homes to that number.
Green Space
How does the City intend to make up for the taking away of the athletic fields at Craddock and the old Wilson High School? The City’s Parks & Recreation website states “Our vision for the City is that it is the healthiest place to live in Hampton Roads. We will achieve this vision by providing parks and open spaces that foster community pride and enjoyment; well-balanced recreation opportunities that encourage an active lifestyle; and community-focused programs that contribute to the positive development of youth, adults and families through involvement, partnership and collaboration with citizens and community organizations.”
Furthermore, pages 72 and 73 of Portsmouth’s Destination 2025 Comprehensive Plan states: “Past analyses of city parks and recreational facilities have revealed deficiencies in the following areas: . . .The total amount of city-owned parkland (approximately 350 acres) is below the standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents that is widely used as a target for municipal parks and recreational systems.” In the next paragraph the document acknowledges that the “largely developed nature of the City makes it difficult to acquire additional lands for park and open space purposes.”
We understand that the Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan and other such documents are guidelines required by the Commonwealth, and not rules the City must follow exactly. But how many guidelines can the City dismiss in one project?
Environmental Concerns
The Phase I and II ESA on the first parcel identified areas of concern but no follow-up action was recommended to deal with the concerns. The results of the soil sampling of the near-surface soils need to be addressed by the city. We ask that the City hire an independent third party environmental consulting firm to take soil samples on all three parcels and evaluate them using grab samples sampled at appropriate depths and horizontal locations, instead of using composite samples. We also ask that the city have an independent third party environmental consulting firm assess the soil sampling results as well as conduct a methane study employing proper testing methodology.
Process
We have had grave concerns about the process from the start. Why did CJ Bodnar think that the civic leagues had been told about the development? Why did it take so long for the development team to contact us? Why has it been so hard for us to get answers to questions? How can a plan for 23 homes be considered a minor subdivision? Why did Mr. Small say “there is no evidence of contaminants whatsoever” in the soil when there are contaminants in there as identified in the first Phase I and II ESA?
It has been very difficult to get answers to our questions, in part because we did not know who to contact and in part because our calls were not returned. Occasionally, someone helpful and knowledgeable about the process or question we were asking about talked to us which we greatly appreciated, but most of the staff we spoke with transferred us to different departments. Messages left went unanswered.
The Hulls Creek Properties Proposed Development webpage relies on citizens knowing the processes and what specific questions to ask based on those processes and who to ask about those processes. We’re still trying to find out the process; we can’t know what specific questions to ask.
Appraisal
The appraisal on the Economic Development website prepared by Commercial First Appraisers on July 1, 2010, signed July 21, 2010, is “based on 44 proposed lots, assuming bulk sale to a single purchaser” but the plan is for 23 homes. When will a new appraisal be conducted?
If the appraisal based on 44 proposed lots is the appraisal the city and developer are using, then the land on the site is appraised at $4.75/sq foot. The lot my husband and I own at 459 Douglas Avenue, which is 40x140 or 5,600 square feet, is assessed at $48,440 or $8.65/square foot. What accounts for that land being worth almost half as much as my land per square foot? We know that the former school site is assessed on an as-is basis, but that can’t justify the gross difference in assessment.
Reasons to use the site for multi-purpose recreational space
In addition to the City’s studies that show the need to preserve what little green space is available in Portsmouth, Port Norfolk is a great place to have green space. Port Norfolk, with the help of KaBoom, built the playground area in Fountain Park. Port Norfolk created, fundraised, designed, and built Reflection Walk along the waterfront.
Together with Lake Shores, Port Norfolk can make the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site into a space that makes Port Norfolk and Lake Shores even more desirable locations to live while truly enhancing our neighborhoods and our sense of community.
Port Norfolk was chosen as the neighborhood to model Portsmouth Walks, a project funded by the Virginia Foundation for Healthy Youth grant. Brannon Godfrey is a part of this project. Having a route from Portsmouth Walks connect to a walking trail at the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site would help create a thriving neighborhood and a sense of community. (See attached.)
Furthermore, Governor McDonnell has a goal to conserve 400,000 acres of Virginia’s land. The Department of Conservation and Recreation’s office of Land Conservation partner LandScope Virginia notes that “[d]irect loss and fragmentation of habitat, largely due to conversion of open space for residential and commercial development, is the greatest threat to land conservation in the Commonwealth.” (landscope.org/virginia) Wetlands mitigation is a possible positive use for the site.
In Conclusion:
Thank you again for the opportunity to give you background about this issue and to have a meeting at which we will more fully discuss our concerns.
Until all our concerns are addressed through meaningful conversation, we call for a deferral of the vote to transfer the land to Economic Development. More specifically, we request no vote until:
§ We have conclusions from the current DEQ and EPA investigations. If they recommend further tests be conducted, please do so using an independent third party environmental consultant.
§ Our questions regarding soil sampling and the initial Phase I and II ESA on the first parcel are addressed. Further, an independent third party needs to review the ESAs on the second and third parcels of land.
§ An oversight official from an office other than Economic Development is assigned.
§ A new appraisal is conducted.
Please know that we stand ready to help the city with any and all efforts to make the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site a multi-purpose recreational space, as deemed appropriate by proper environmental studies.
Thank you again for the opportunity to give you background about this issue and to have a meeting at which we can more fully outline our concerns.
Sincerely,
Sarah Barrash Wilson
Ad hoc committee regarding the PNES representing Port Norfolk and Lake Shores
Port Norfolk Civic League Board of Directors
459 Douglas Avenue
Portsmouth, VA 23707
CC: Mayor Wright, City Council, Luke McCoy
Attachments:
Green Environments letter regarding review of first Phase I and II ESAs
Green Environments letter regarding soil samples
soil sample results in parts per million
Portsmouth Walks, Pilot article
Dear Mayor Wright and Honorable Members of Portsmouth City Council,
The Civic Leagues of Port Norfolk and Lake Shores were characterized yesterday by Luke McCoy as being opposed to Economic Development for the city of Portsmouth. That is simply not accurate.
While we remain opposed to the Hulls Creek project for many reasons, we wholeheartedly support the efforts of the EDA and the Economic Development staff to bring new business and residents to Portsmouth. In these difficult times, that is a daunting challenge to say the least and we appreciate the hard work of both groups. Sustainable growth is in the best interest of all our citizens.
To be clear, we love Portsmouth. That is why we care so deeply about preserving the fiber of our neighborhoods. We work hard, pay taxes, support our families, utilize local businesses, libraries, museums, and dedicate our time to support our less fortunate neighbors via volunteer efforts and community outreach.
We have spent much of the past five months talking to other residents about this issue and have received overwhelming support from civic leagues across the city, as you will see from our petition signatures. A representative from Ebony Heights said their main concern is fixing existing properties and recovering from the blows dealt by foreclosure and blight. Other communities voiced concerns about the loss of playing fields.
When we met with Kenneth Chandler and members of city staff on November 15, we re-stated our opposition to the development of Detroit Park (the old Port Norfolk Elementary site) and asked for a deferment of the vote on the transfer of land. We were told the Hulls Creek item will appear on the agenda November 23, 2010.
We respectfully ask that you each vote “No” to this project. Barring that, please defer the vote. We will present a very compelling case on Tuesday night detailing our stance with regards to flooding/drainage, real estate, green space, environmental and appraisal issues.
We welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the city to realize its dreams of a brighter future and “A New Beginning for This Historic City”.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Amy O’Donnell, on behalf of the Port Norfolk and Lake Shores Civic Leagues