What began as an expected step by the Port of Vancouver toward helping rejuvenate Vancouver’s waterfront swerved Tuesday into a skirmish between port commissioners and project developer Barry Cain over Cain’s opposition to building a rail-to-marine oil transfer terminal at the port.
Commissioners Nancy Baker, Jerry Oliver and Brian Wolfe voted unanimously to approve selling small pieces of land to Columbia Waterfront LLC, which plans to conduct a larger $1.3 billion residential/commercial redevelopment of the 32-acre waterfront site.
The approval will allow the company, which has leased property from the port at Terminal 1 since 2007, to proceed with full-block construction on two future blocks near the new Esther Street alignment.
Before the approval, however, commissioners lashed out against Cain, president of Tualatin, Ore.-based Gramor Development — a member, along with local investors, of Columbia Waterfront — who attended the commission’s public meeting Tuesday.
Directing a question to the port’s CEO, Todd Coleman, Wolfe asked why the port keeps “doing business with a group that’s antagonistic towards us?” It was a reference to Cain’s public opposition to the plan by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. to build a transfer facility capable of handling an average 360,000 barrels of crude per day at the port.
It would be the largest such terminal in the U.S. It would be built less than 2 miles west of the 32-acre waterfront site, which is next to port and BNSF Railway tracks.
In criticizing Cain, Wolfe latched onto an earlier remark by Oliver that Cain’s project “seems like a failed enterprise” because it hasn’t met construction deadlines. “I almost share Mr. Oliver’s premonition that this is a failed project,” Wolfe said. “Because all we hear from (the) developer is how bad oil trains are” to his venture. If the waterfront project isn’t going to happen, Wolfe said, “might as well saw it off now.”
At one point, the president of the local dockworkers union, which also opposes the oil terminal, blasted Wolfe’s remarks as an attempt to “bully” people who disagree with the port.
For his part, Cain told commissioners Columbia Waterfront opposes the oil terminal “because of the obvious risks” of derailments and fires. “There’s no way to make that go away,” Cain said. “Even you guys have to be a little worried about it.”
In approving the land deal Tuesday, the port acted under an agreement the two parties made in 2012. That agreement called for the port and Columbia Waterfront to enter into a purchase and sale accord governing the sale of “remnant” parcels: the 8,497-square-foot Block 3 and the 2,897-square-foot Block 4. Those parcels will be created after the port deeds the right-of-way for Esther and Columbia streets to the city of Vancouver on blocks 3 and 4.
In December, commissioners approved a change to the port’s land-use plan declaring the parcels surplus and no longer needed for port purposes. The final sale price of the parcels will be set after the deal closes, which depends on the parties meeting all of the conditions of the purchase and sale agreement.
‘You’re on the spot’
Commissioners unanimously approved a lease with Tesoro and Savage in 2013. The proposed oil terminal now undergoes an environmental impact examination by the Washington state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The evaluation council is expected to issue a draft impact analysis in May. The public would then have an opportunity to comment on it.
Eventually, the council will make a recommendation to Washington’s governor, who may approve or deny the project, or send it back to the council for more work. Opponents may appeal the outcome to the state Supreme Court.
Cain told commissioners he hopes the oil terminal fails to win a construction permit. Cain said the port had a great year financially “without the oil terminal.” That remark was in response to the port’s announcement that it posted a record $37.5 million in operating revenue in 2014.
Cain said he hoped he and the port could still move forward together on things they agree on.
Baker said that even if the oil terminal isn’t built at the port, oil trains will still come. “That’s not true,” Cain replied. Noting the scale of the terminal proposed for Vancouver and recent explosive oil-train derailments in other parts of the U.S., Cain said “we should (be) trying to stop trains going through, not figuring out how to get more. It’s not a foregone conclusion that more are going through.”
Coleman, the port CEO, said commissioners have “been good at staying above the fray.” Whether or not Cain’s development achieves its planned density, Coleman said, it “is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” for the city of Vancouver to bring its city center vision to fruition.
“We have to move forward regardless of our disagreement,” he said.
Referring to earlier statements that Columbia Waterfront hasn’t met certain deadlines, Coleman said “all of the parties have some culpability” in not meeting deadlines. The delay in waterfront construction is “not without good reason,” Coleman added, because the project got hit by the economic recession.
At one point, Cager Clabaugh, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 4 in Vancouver, chastised Wolfe for his remarks. “What I heard from Wolfe (was) ‘Oppose me, and I’ll punish you,’ ” he said. “That’s not a good way to do business. I oppose a lot of what you do. I’m not going to let you bully me. I would hope you wouldn’t bully other people.”
Although he believes the port should lease, rather than sell, land to a private developer, Clabaugh said, Columbia Waterfront has the right to “speak out against (the) oil terminal before it kills people and destroys the environment. That’s their right and mine.”
Addressing Cain, Oliver said he would vote for the land sale that benefits the waterfront project in the “spirit of harmony.” However, he said, “as far as I’m concerned, you’re on the spot. We’ve upheld our part of the bargain; uphold yours.” In a spirit of cooperation, Oliver said, Cain should communicate with port staff. “We don’t always like to read outrageous opinions in the newspaper,” he said. “You’ve blindsided us more than once in the past few years.”
