City waterfront board advances harbor plan as costs of flood prevention wall draw scrutiny

Posted

FERNANDINA BEACH - The Waterfront Advisory Board voted unanimously Monday to send a draft Harbor Master Plan to the City Commission, but left unresolved how to extend a flood wall across privately owned land north of the marina and who would pay for it.

The draft document shows a possible wall extending north along the waterfront, in places offshore with fill behind it. Resident Eric Bartelt questioned whether taxpayers could end up paying to create usable land beside private properties.
 
“If you can do it and you build a flood wall and you create all that new land for 101 North Front Street, Goodsell and Kavanaugh (properties), who pays for that?” Bartelt asked. “As a taxpayer, I would be absolutely opposed to that.”
 

City project manager Jacob Platt said an offshore wall and backfill would face substantial permitting, mitigation and cost challenges. The route shown in the draft could change as engineers study the options, he said. Whether a wall would be built on private property, and how its cost would be divided, would require public discussion in the next phase.

“There certainly would have to be public dialogue on what that structure looked like as far as constructing on private property, funding on private property.”
 

He then added: “That’s a valid point that you and others have made about the optics of that.”

The first phase examines nine waterfront parcels north of the city marina toward the port. The city owns one, at 101 N. Front St., and the Ocean Highway and Port Authority owns another. The draft was prepared by Moffatt & Nichol after discussions with some waterfront property owners. Broader public outreach was reserved for Phase 2.
 

Ron Flick, an agent for the Simmons development Amelia Wharf immediately north of the marina, said its owner intends to pay for a section of wall incorporated into the project. It would connect to the city’s planned flood protection and leave a connection for a future wall farther north, he said.

Flick urged the city to set a common standard so other owners could build connecting sections as they develop their properties.
 

Board member Greg Roland asked what would happen if some owners built their sections and others refused. “How does the city put in either a statute or ordinance or something that once one, two and three do it, everybody else has got to do it?” he asked.

Platt said the city has no seawall ordinance but could explore one covering construction standards. Board members also raised maintenance requirements. They expressed support for examining those ideas but did not take a separate vote on them.
 

The wall’s route could determine where people can walk along the river. Board chair Jenny Schaffer said she wanted “a more continuous promenade, not a lot of jaunts.” If the city pays for a wall, she suggested seeking waterfront rights in return.

Platt said a promenade easement through the Simmons property has not yet been settled.
 
Jacob Platt
Jacob Platt
 
 
Flood protection and pedestrian access are two of the draft’s six guiding themes. The others call for a transition between the public waterfront and working marine businesses; using the marina to support boating and related commercial activity; weighing more parks and open space against the cost of maintaining them; and preserving the city’s maritime history.
 

Those themes shape two preliminary concepts. Concept A extends marina docks farther north and places a public fishing facility on the port authority parcel. Concept B shows a fishing pier at the city’s Alachua Street parcel and a different dock arrangement. The board approved the draft for further consideration without choosing either concept.

The plan recommends returning to property owners for feedback and continuing flood wall discussions with the Goodsell, Kavanaugh and Liebman owners. It calls for closer coordination between the Simmons project and the city’s marina plans so new slips, public access and flood protection can connect with future improvements.
 

Other recommended work includes early design for the city-owned 101 N. Front Street parcel, further study of whether the Liebman waterfront building can be preserved and reused, and consideration of the narrow Exact Investments parcel as a possible city acquisition.

The consultants also recommend revisiting the Amelia River Waterfront Community Redevelopment Area plan and developing a schedule that identifies likely funding sources, permits and public or private responsibilities for individual projects. They call for retaining space for fishing, marine services and other working-waterfront uses as redevelopment proceeds.
 

Platt said he plans to present the draft at an Oct. 20 City Commission workshop, when commissioners will meet as the community redevelopment agency board. He will seek support for Phase 2, which would expand public outreach, examine engineering and funding, and extend the study south of Centre Street.

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Mark Tomes

    Two thoughts on the waterfront properties: although invoking eminent domain is a last resort and rather like using a hammer, sometimes it is the only way to solve an intractable problem. Also, a living shoreline is always better than a hard wall, if at all possible. Living shorelines are more resilient, less costly, more attractive, better at flood control and preventing erosion, attract a diversity of wildlife, and loved by people, the exact opposite of a hard wall. Walls are necessary in some instances, but if a living shoreline is at all possible, that's the way to go.

    Yesterday at 7:02 AM Report this