Lambert's Point Plan

Is the Mayor, the City Manager, and/or City Council opposed to turning this space into a park?

• The City is open to considering many options for the land.

Besides interest in a park, are there other ideas being suggested for the land? 

• The City has had informal discussion with Old Dominion University about incorporating some form of golf use in the future on the City’s land. Many other ideas have been suggested – please see the survey results for more information.

Can you provide examples of other opportunities for the space aside from it potentially becoming a park?

• The City has had informal discussion with Old Dominion University about incorporating some form of golf use in the future on the City’s land. Many other ideas have been suggested – please see the survey results for more information.

What would a “do nothing” option with the land look like (i.e., no park or golf course, just green space)?

• This option could be a passive park that operates in accordance with the rules and regulations of other City parks and maintained to a minimum maintenance standard appropriate for the land’s use.

Is the city considering selling the land? And is ODU interested in buying it? 

• The City has not made a final decision on the future of the land and is not actively considering selling. The City has had informal conversations with ODU about a future golf use. 

Can the clubhouse be leased out to a brewery to create a beer garden?

• The City could explore many options for use of the clubhouse and is open to suggestions.

Is it possible to make the remaining City land a small public golf facility? 

• A golf use is a possible option.

Would you consider extending the Elizabeth River Trail along the water?

• Yes. The legal documents covering the sale of the 40+ acres to HRSD specifically includes language about extending the ERT using the recreation assessment retained by the City through HRSD’s property.

Will the Elizabeth River Trail connect to the space when it is opened and would additional funding be needed to do that? 

• The legal documents covering the sale of the 40+ acres to HRSD specifically includes language about extending the ERT using the recreation assessment retained by the City through HRSD’s property. Additional funding will be required to realize this goal.

What are the construction limitations of the site?

• To be determined, if and when analysis is done on the current site.

What is the difference between “park” and “green space?”

• The survey form did not include the terms “park” or “green space”, but many of the hundreds of respondents filled in either or both terms. We can infer some different interpretations, but it is only conjecture:
• Those that said “park or green space” may use the terms interchangeably, with no change in meaning.
• Those that used only “park” sometimes specified a desire for more developed amenities such as tracks, pavilions, restrooms, sports courts and playgrounds – things one might find in a traditional city park.
• Many people mentioned dog parks, which is another specific type of park.
• “Green space” often connotes open spaces that are not highly developed. These may or may not include trails. They may or may not be highly maintained (mowed and pruned) or might utilize limited vegetation management such as meadows that are only mowed once a year, or areas left to naturally revegetate to forested conditions. A nature preserve could be a type of “green space.”
• If there is future public involvement, it will include exercises to fully understand and define the different possibilities and terminology used.

Does the City have other sites that could add biodiversity and habitat in Norfolk? 

• In addition to the existing City parks, the City recently created features in the Ohio Creek Project Area, and are working on a blue/greenway project in the St. Paul’s quadrant of the City. 

How much would putting an ecologically-appropriate wilderness park (i.e., wetlands or swamp forest) help with the city's resilience efforts, and how would the cost compare to other options (i.e. golf course)? 

• Keeping the area more “wild” would benefit the City’s resilience goals, however, costs of different development options have not been compared at this time.

Who will be controlling the space? 

• The City is responsible for the 15+ acres it owns, and HRSD is responsible for the 40+ acres it owns. Each entity is responsible for safety and security for its respective parcels and coordinates closely on these efforts.

What forms of community governance are on or off the table for this site? Would a community land trust or a conservation district be options for structuring ongoing community involvement?

• No form of governance is off the table.

What land improvement or construction is planned for the coastline at Lambert’s Point (i.e., will it be a berm, a wall, storm retention feature, etc.)? 

• The only planned construction is a storm surge barrier with floodwalls that tie into the northwest corner of the site.

How would the city propose securing the park 24-7 especially in darkness?

• The City will explore the requirements for providing additional security to the site.

Who will pay for improvements?

• Improvements could be funded by the City and/or a combination of funding from the City and partners.

Does the 125-foot easement include or exclude the riprap bulkhead? 

• The riprap bulkhead is included in the easement.

How was the new riprap funded?

• Assuming this is referring to the riprap used to repair the landfill after Hurricane Irene, the project was funded with FY13 CIP funds.

When was planning for the golf course started? 

• Construction documents for the golf course are dated 2003 and 2004. It is unclear when planning was started.

What long-term plans are necessary for maintenance of the land, given that it is a landfill?

• A long-term maintenance plan will need to be developed for the property based upon further analysis and evaluation of the current conditions. Typically, a landfill manager will monitor for areas and rates of settlement, soil cover and erosion, exposure of landfill materials, and in some landfills – release of methane. Since the landfill has been capped since 1980, some of the larger settlement and related changes can be expected to have already occurred, but the City will need to develop a long-term maintenance plan.

Will there have to be a fence between the easement set aside for Elizabeth River Trail and the HRSD property? 

• Fencing will be required around HRSD’s treatment facilities. As with all water treatment facilities, security is critical to ensure the safety of our staff and the public. 
• It should be noted that the property line is close to existing wetlands, which will obstruct easy access to western portions of the easement.

It seems like a study is required to move forward in any direction. Does the city have a plan to complete the environmental/trash study to explore what potential uses are advisable?

• The City will work with HRSD to determine the requirements and costs for an environmental study of the land.

What testing of the landfill will HRSD do to make sure construction is safe?

• At a minimum, HRSD will conduct geotechnical borings to understand the characteristics of the landfill and layers of sediment below where we intend to construct. We expect that the foundations will be designed to support structures deep below the landfill. The geotechnical borings will identify where those deep supportive sediment layers are located. HRSD is in the process of hiring an engineering team. As part of the alternatives analysis and Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) development, we will develop a subsurface testing plan that will include geotechnical borings.

Can the phosphorus load from VIP be decreased without expanding onto the additional land purchased by HRSD?

• The nutrient load from this facility, specifically total phosphorus, cannot be reduced without expanding the treatment provided at VIP. These improvements will ensure HRSD will meet the 2032 deadline established in the Enhanced Nutrient Removal Certainty Program (ENRCP) legislation, which defines how Virginia will meet its commitment to Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Additionally, HRSD is planning to build SWIFT advanced water treatment facilities, as needed to address likely future regulations.  Multiple buildings, large treatment tanks, and associated infrastructure will be built as part of each expansion. HRSD is in the process of hiring an engineering team. As part of the alternatives analysis and Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) that will be developed by HRSD’s project specific engineering team, we will determine what facilities are needed and where they can be located. These facilities will include buildings and large tanks.  Until that effort is completed, HRSD cannot confirm where any treatment facilities will be located. 

What percentage of Norfolk’s wastewater does VIP treat, and can the nutrient load required for the Chesapeake agreement be decreased without this expansion?

• HRSD’s VIP facility treats approximately 65% of the wastewater generated in Norfolk.  The facility also serves areas of Portsmouth and a very small area of Chesapeake.  
• The nutrient load from this facility, specifically total phosphorus, cannot be reduced without expanding the treatment provided at VIP. These improvements will ensure HRSD will meet the 2032 deadline established in the Enhanced Nutrient Removal Certainty Program (ENRCP) legislation, which defines how Virginia will meet its commitment to Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Additionally, HRSD is planning to build SWIFT advanced water treatment facilities, as needed to address likely future regulations.   Multiple buildings, large treatment tanks, and associated infrastructure will be built as part of each expansion.

Are there any toxins that HRSD uses that would be harmful to the people or residents who would use the space?

• HRSD does not use or discharge any toxins in our treatment process. The wastewater is primarily from domestic sources, not industrial sources. HRSD’s advanced wastewater treatment plant uses state of art technology to meet all regulatory requirements before the highly treated water is released into the Elizabeth River.

With the unknown constituents in the landfill, is there monitoring of waste leaching from the landfill site right now?

• There is no known monitoring system in place at the current time.

Do we know if there is a risk of being exposed to toxic waste, industrial waste, etc. that might be in the landfill? 

• At the current time, an exhaustive search of available records has not been authorized or performed, and historic records may not provide that information. Additional geotechnical analysis will need to be performed as part of any plan for future use of the site.

Are there pollution prevention measures, such as pesticide or fertilizer controls the city could take that would reduce the nutrient load on this facility?

• The City applies pesticides and fertilizers only as needed and following appropriate regulation to prevent pollution.  If the site was converted to a large park with turf grass, a nutrient management plan would likely be required, providing staff with further guidance on appropriate fertilizer application levels.  If the site were developed as a park or some other option, further best management practices (BMP) would also be required to manage runoff and reduce nutrients.

Have any other landfill conversions been examined for comparison? As an example, the Montlake fill in Seattle functions as a public park, research facility, wetland and wildlife sanctuary.

• Examination of other precedent projects is valuable, and when the City has determined what the future use(s) will be, other examples should be studied.

Have you heard about HRSD’s joint venture with Virginia Beach to share Woodstock Park’s stormwater facility and skate park? Could a partnership like that work here? 

• HRSD partnered with the City of Virginia Beach to share costs and to build the skate park in lieu of buying the land from the City of Virginia Beach because that arrangement better facilitated the type of infrastructure project required at that location. HRSD’s project in Virginia Beach required construction of a tank that could be partially buried, did not provide treatment, and was not a staffed facility. This VIP project in Norfolk is part of a complex wastewater and advanced water treatment facility. As with all water treatment facilities, security is critical to ensure the safety of our staff and the public. Therefore, a shared land-use project is not possible where treatment facilities are located. HRSD worked with the City of Norfolk and paid over $30 million for this property to set aside the space required for future expansion of VIP, which will provide critical services to the surrounding communities.

Mt. Trashmore in Virginia Beach is also a park built on a landfill. How will this project improve on that design? Is anyone from that project involved in this one?

• This question assumes that a park will be developed within the 125’ easement. That is not a decision the City has made. This project is a public engagement effort that has not involved anyone associated with the development of Mt Trashmore, which opened in 1974.

HRSD has applied and received a state DCR grant to build a trail on the James River Treatment Plant. Is HRSD open to a similar trail here if space allows during your upcoming design effort?

• As established by the purchase agreement, the City of Norfolk is responsible for all improvements within the 125-foot easement along the shoreline.

Within the easement, will the city be able to work in cooperation with HRSD? Are there ideas to work with the waterway: a possible pier, or other ideas for water access? 

• The City of Norfolk is responsible for all improvements within the 125-foot easement along the shoreline.

The bridge to the HRSD property is outside of the 125-foot easement. Will the HRSD land be developed into buildings, etc. that minimize the views of the water from the city parcel? Will the public have any access to that land? Will there be an opportunity to share some land for green space use?  Will HRSD be open to allowing that bridge to be used by the public? 

• As part of the alternatives analysis and Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) that will be developed by HRSD’s project specific engineering team, we will determine what facilities are needed and where they can be located. These facilities will include buildings and large tanks. Until that effort is completed, HRSD will not be able to consider modifications to our property boundaries. HRSD will work directly with the City of Norfolk to meet our mutual needs, as well as those of the surrounding community, including any discussion related to access to HRSD’s property. Fencing will be required, as is typical with all water treatment facilities. The City of Norfolk retains ownership of the open space parcel adjacent to the existing parking lot and a 125-foot wide easement along the shoreline. 

Is it possible the HRSD expansion can only expand on the south side of the creek/bridge? 

• HRSD is in the process of hiring an engineering team. As part of the alternatives analysis and Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) that will be developed by HRSD’s project specific engineering team, we will determine what facilities are needed and where they can be located.  These facilities will include buildings and large tanks. Until that effort is completed, HRSD cannot confirm where any treatment facilities will be located.  As good stewards of ratepayer funds, we are very concerned about the costs of construction on a former landfill and potential costs of the deep foundation required to support the treatment facilities.  As an example, in our most recent upgrade of the VIP plant in 2017, a significant number of deep piles were needed to support a large concrete tank due to the poor soil conditions. HRSD’s goal is to do a significant amount of subsurface investigation to ensure we can cost-effectively construct the proposed and future infrastructure. The outcome of these investigations will dictate where HRSD can most safely and cost-effectively construct the planned infrastructure within the purchased property.

Is HRSD committed to providing a natural barrier along the property line to blend into the environment? 

• HRSD will work directly with the City of Norfolk to meet our mutual needs, as well as those of the surrounding community, including fencing and potential natural barriers.

Is it at all possible that HRSD would consider selling back land to the city? 

• HRSD is in the process of hiring an engineering team. As part of the alternatives analysis and Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) that will be developed by HRSD’s project specific engineering team, we will determine what facilities are needed and where they can be located.  Until that effort is completed, HRSD will not be able to consider modifications to our property boundaries.  After considering the expansion requirements due to likely future regulations, if HRSD determines that there is additional property, HRSD would be happy to discuss selling a portion of the property back to the City of Norfolk.

Will the public be involved with HRSD’s plan? Will they take input on the project?

• HRSD will work directly with the City of Norfolk to meet our mutual needs, as well as those of the surrounding community, including hosting informational open house events and providing opportunities for public engagement.

What does this mean for our HRSD bill? Are increases for expansion costs in our future?

• HRSD’s rates reflect the cost to convey and treat wastewater to protect public health and area waterways, and are about $0.01 per gallon for the average residential customer.  The rate structure and projected future increases have already been planned out for the next 20 years. Projected future rate increases are published in HRSD’S Annual Budget and details about our current rate schedule can be found here: Rate Schedule Fiscal Year 2024. SWIFT projects have been developed to fit within the existing rate structure and the future rate projections.  
• The current rate structure and future rate projections are required for HRSD to meet its obligations under its federally mandated Consent Decree/Integrated Plan. When compared to the original costs of complying with the federal Consent Decree, HRSD, through this Integrated Plan, expects to save the region $5 billion. This One Water approach was a collaborative effort with key stakeholders to ensure thriving communities and healthy ecosystems. As a result of the projected reduction in nutrient discharges through SWIFT, HRSD established nutrient trading agreements with each locality. The City of Norfolk will save over $300 million by trading with HRSD for nutrient credits produced by SWIFT.    

Why isn’t there a deadline for the City to receive an offer? 

• The City wants to take time to conduct due diligence to better understand any environmental issues with the site, and explore all options before making a decision.

How long will it take to know what is required? 

• The City does not have a defined timeline but is committed to keeping the public apprised.

Who will make the final decision on the use of the land, and when will that decision be made?

• City Council will make the final decision on the land’s use. There is no date for this action.

Will the public have any input on the final vote?

• Any change in zoning or sale/lease of the land will require Council action by ordinance and will be advertised in accordance with legal requirements. The public has the right to comment on any Council docket item.