SUBJECT: City of Virginia Beach Public Works VMRC #2024-2851 The application for permit, referenced above, will be heard by the Marine Resources Commission at their public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 25, 2025, beginning at 9:30 a.m., at 380 Fenwick Road, Building 96, Fort Monroe, Virginia.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, #24-2851 requests authorization to mechanically dredge a 20-foot wide by 63-foot long subtidal area to a maximum depth of minus two (-2) feet mean low water within Pleasure House Creek to create a shallow water channel necessary to provide the hydrological connection to the proposed municipal Pleasure House Point Mitigation Bank in Virginia Beach. This project is protested by nearby property owners.
We apologize for the delay sharing these. We were offered them weeks ago and finally received them, from a FOIA request we chose to make, this afternoon.
They are also available on paper in Brock Environmental Center 3663 Marlin Bay Drive.
We believe the “purpose & need” of this fast moving project could be violating the spirit of “avoid, minimize, mitigate” in general. Therefore, we humbly request a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment are completed before approving the Nationwide 27 Permit.
“Please provide the list of projects that have required the city to buy wetland mitigation credits since the bond referendum passed November 2, 2021 and how many wetland mitigation credits are required now for future projects.” From 11/21/2021 to To 12/23/2024. Your request was forwarded to Public Works. I have been advised that they do not have a list in response to your request. Source: FOIA Request response January 13 2025
Three(3) samples of material was presented at City Council public hearing which was acknowledged by the Public Works Director – a piece of pavement, concrete with gravel & an unknown petrochemical material all presumably dumped on the spoils site – Pleasure House Point in the area Wetlands Mitigation Bank is proposed – in the 1970s. Was material being tested before dumped? After it was dumped? Video of City Council public hearing January 7th 2025 is provided here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D_T1v0rI3A
As you know, the Brock Environmental Center and Macon & Joan Brock Classroom campus is literally feet away from this project. Pre-schoolers thru senior citizens routinely spend time there. Meetings with visitors from national & international governments & NGOs also are held routinely. However, this project rolls out. It’ll certainly garner national news. Over 140,000 people have visited the campus since it opened.
In property acquisitions, it is customary for due diligence investigation(s) to be completed before a fee simple property transfer is finalized. It seems reasonable that such an investigation would have reported the obvious; materials of generally unknown origin were dumped on the PHP property as far back as the 1970’s.
These findings would have been followed up with Phase II soil and/or groundwater sampling and testing to screen for regulated substances (hazardous and petroleum constituents). If the investigations were completed, they should be made available to evaluate the potential effects on the proposed PHPWMB project.
Of principal concern is the transport of these dredge materials to the City’s Oceana disposal site, especially if they remain untested. Once removed from PHP, the material becomes a waste, and is subject to VDEQ regulations for transport and disposal. Secondly, possible exposures to regulated substances may result when construction workers are exposed to any contaminated soil, dust, and groundwater. Especially with workers involved in the planting process where hand work is proposed, and the incidence of physical contact with regulated materials may result.
Additionally, considerations for the sampling, testing and handling of regulated materials should be included in the project plans and specifications for the PHPWMB project. This information should be made available for public review and comment.
Therefore, we humbly request a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment are completed before approving the Nationwide 27 Permit.
What will be the “reasonably foreseeable effect” if the environmental site assessments haven’t successfully been completed for a spoils site used in the 1970s?
Thursday, January 16, 2025 3:30 P.M. Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Squad Building 3769 E. Stratford Road. Enter door opposite Shore Drive.
The mission of the Bayfront Advisory Commission is to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding public and private projects and issues associated with the Bayfront area.
ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM An Ordinance to Transfer Funds Within the Capital Improvement Program for the Pleasure House Point Mitigation Bank, to Provide Limitations upon the Use of Mitigation Credits Created by the Pleasure House Point Mitigation Project, and to Provide for Efforts to Reduce Tree Loss MEETING DATE: January 7, 2025 Background: Capital Project 100304, ” Pleasure House Point Mitigation Bank”
Please note: at the time of this post, currently proposed wetland mitigation bank details of the “90% design”, water budget and other info are still not available on official website.
Things learned last night: tidal wetland bank credits are available to purchase, 60,000 cubic yards (about 6,000 dump trucks) of fill will be removed, over 5,200 trees including live oaks over dozens & dozens of years old will be destroyed (number of dump trucks to move destroyed trees unknown).
Email your questions or concerns to: phpwetlands@vbgov.com
Note: this project does not include the controversial kayak launch which will potentially be located on western border of this project when built. It’s visible in graphics above.
Previously, several related links on this website here, here and here.
I’ve attached the 1997 ULI Study and the text from Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. Below are links to the following:
Comprehensive Plan (Section 1.3 – Suburban Area; Page 1-69 – Suburban Focus Area 1:
I believe this covers the current applicable documents with guidance on the Shore Drive Corridor, but if there are other documents that I may have missed in regards to the Shore Drive/Bayfront area, please let me know and I will be happy to pass them along as well.
Sincerely hope this never happens again in the entire city!!
Depending on a miracle that no pedestrians or cyclists would get killed by blocking their only safe access is completely unacceptable & unconscionable.
How is it possible, again, safety for residents & users of Bayfront infrastructure for pedestrian & cycling safety is ignored by the City?!
It’s a MIRACLE no pedestrians or cyclists have been killed here yet.
Hopefully there’ll be an update soon as to:
1. How this could possibly happen?!
1. How will this never happen again?
1. What time is this getting fixed yesterday to improve the safety for pedestrians and cyclists?
This completely unacceptable pedestrian & cyclist “infrastructure” has been blocked for months. Many many human beings depend on a safe area right here every day.
Councilmember Dr. Ross-Hammond and Councilmember Schulman will host a joint District 4 and District 9 community meeting to update residents on current City projects and issues. Topics of discussion include homelessness, recycling, and neighborhood preservation and zoning enforcement. Attendees will also have an opportunity to have their questions addressed.
My name is Lisa Leidig and I am the president of the Lynnshore Condominium HOA. I am travelling on business and will unfortunately not able to attend the vote on Tuesday. I am speaking on behalf of my community that we oppose the closing of the public beach access at the end of Starfish Road for many reasons:
First: a public right-of-way should only be closed when there is no other alternative. Westminster has admitted that they do have a plan that would not involve closing the access. Since this is the case, this should be an easy decision to make – deny the request. You should not have to decide who is more important – the public or residents of Westminster and who is going to be inconvenienced. The only reason that Westminster wants to close the public beach access is that a handful of people expressed concern about walking through a parking garage. I am sure that Westminster has a contingency plan to protect the residents and prevent public access to their buildings. So is it better to inconvenience the thousands of people that use the Starfish beach access to accommodate a few people by making them walk through a garage? Why is it constantly ok to impact the public and residents but not Westminster?
Second: With the pier remaining, there is a problem when we have persistent northeast winds or a storm off our coast – the winds push the waves up to the point that during the periods around high tide (2 hours before and after) the beach west of the pier is inaccessible due to the water rising and being pushed up past the fencing under the pier. This has happened 5 times this year since September (once this past week) and even resulted in significant dune loss in front of Casa de Playa.
Third: Perception. Closing this access provides the perception that the beach in front of Westminster’s property is now private. I have had conversations with residents of Westminster and they stated that they “couldn’t wait until the beach is private and THOSE people (pointing to fisherman/crabbers) won’t be able to come down here anymore”. WC is also leaving the stairs from the bulkhead to the beach, further cementing the perception that the beach is now private. Surf Rider foundation advocates that public beach access remain public – https://www.surfrider.org/pages/policy-on-beach-access – excerpts such as “Development must not be allowed to interfere with public access”, “The public should be afforded full and fair access to beaches which are public trust resources by minimizing the possibility of impediment including development”, “Should not be burdensome for the potential beachgoer to utilize”.
Fourth: Ben Unkle has said that this new beach access is more convenient to “everyone”. That is simply not true. Anyone that lives on Starfish road – the access is more inconvenient. For anyone riding HRT route 35 which drops off in front of Westminster, this is not more convenient. For anyone wanting to access the beach and are crossing Shore Drive at a crosswalk (there are two – one at Starfish, the other at Great Neck) – this is not convenient. For anyone wanting to sit west of the fishing pier, this is not convenient. Ben Unkle has also said that the beach access bisects Westminster property – while that is now a correct statement, the access was in existance long before they bought the properties. Westminster took a chance by buying these properties with full knowledge of the public access. Do not punish the public for a risky venture made by Westminster.
Fifth: The sidewalk on the south side of Ocean Shore and Starfish Road is almost impassible. It has not been maintained for years and the sidewalk is blocked by shrubs and growth. The City had also just spent public dollars to repair the beach access at Starfish road so those improvements are wasted money if you allow the access to close and be torn up.
In closing – this should be an easy decision to make as Westminster has a plan to work around the public beach access. Deny the request and keep our beach access public and open.
Sincerely,
Lisa Leidig President, Lynnshore Condominiums xxxx Starfish Road 757-xxx-xxxx
[T]he City is set to realize about $20MM in proceeds from the sale of easements to Dominion Energy for their Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project, and Staff is recommending that nearly half of those proceeds be appropriated to Shore Drive Phase IV ($6.98MM) and to Pleasure House Road Phase II ($1.36MM) & Shore Drive Phase III ($ 2.24MM).
Please email Mayor & City Council to support this vital funding: citycouncil@vbgov.com
#WeLoveShoreDrive 