Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-22; City Council; 12269; SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGIONa d z 3 0 0 The Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee has reviewed the Shoreline Preservation and their comments have been incorporated into the final version. I e 0 - Page Two of Agenda Bill No. 12 ab? FISCAL IMPACT: The Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region also includes financing strategies. No one strategy is recommended; however, several financinc sources are offered including transient occupancy taxes, sales and property taxes regional impact fees, assessment districts, and State and Federal contributions The document recommends that financing should be developed on a regiona basis to ensure equity, and selected by the region's elected officials based or is not known. design studies and public participation, At this time the fiscal impact to the Cit! EXHIBITS: 1. Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region - June 1993. 2. bZesoCk-tLo.J\ no. ~ q3- /w c 0 x SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION June 1993 San Diego j @.I ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS First Interstate Plaza 401 B Street Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 This report was financed by Federal funds from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State funds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways, and local funds from SANDAG member jurisdictions. 0 0 Board of Directors . SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. Voting members include the incorporated Cities of Carisbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members include CALTRANS, US. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, and Tijuana/Baja California. CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Gloria McClellan VICE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Mike Bixler SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Julianne Nygaard, Councilmember CITY OF CHUM VISTA Hon. Leonard Moore, Councilmember (A) Hon. Tim Nader, Mayor CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Mary Herron, Mayor (A) Hon. Thomas Smisek, Councilmember CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Elliot Parks, Mayor (A) Hon. Henry Abarbanel, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ed Colbert, Councilmember CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Harriet Stockwell, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Councilmember (A) Hon. Richard Ramos, Councilmember CITY OF ENClNlTAS Hon. Maura Wiegand, Councilmember (A) Hon. Gail Hano, Deputy Mayor CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Jerry Harmon, Mayor (AI Hon. Lori Holt Pf eiler, Councilmember CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Mike Bixler, Mayor (A) Hon. Marti Goethe, Councilmember CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Barry Jantz, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Jay LaSuer, Councilmember CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Brian Cochran, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerome Legerton, Councilmember CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Rosalie Zarate, Councilmember (A) Hon. Michael Dalla, Vice Mayor CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Dick Lyon, Mayor (A) Hon. Nancy York, Councilmember CITY OF POWAY Hon. Don Higginson, Mayor (A) Hon. Bob Emery, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Councilmember CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Judy McCarty, Councilmember (A) Hon. Tom Behr, Deputy Mayor CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Lee Thibadeau, Mayor (A) Hon. Mark Loscher, Councilmember CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Dale, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Marion Dodson, Councilmember (A) Hon. Paul Tompkins, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Joe Killejian, Councilmember CITY OF VISTA Hon. Gloria E. McClellan, Mayor (A) Hon. Scott Packard, Councilmember COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Brian Bilbray, Chairman (A) Hon. Pam Slater, Vice Chair (A) Hon. John MacDonald, Supervisor STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) James van Loben Sels, Director (A) Jesus Garcia, District 11 Director US. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Liaison Member) CAPT. Tom Crane, CEC, USN Commanding Officer Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner TUUANAlBAJA CALIFORNIA (Advisory Member) Hon. Hector G. Osuna Jaime Presidente Municipal de Tijuana Revised April 26,1993 ii 0 a \. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVESUMMARY.. .......................... 1 II. BACKGRO ~..~...Oo..e..o..,,,,,,,,,,,,.,~.,, 9 m. SHORELINE PROBLEMS AND NEEDS .................. 13 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 21 APPENDICES" I. TECHNICAL INFORMATION USED IN DEVELOPING THE REVISED DRAFT SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY A. IMPLEMENTATIONFLOWCHART ................. 3 B. OVERVIEW EVALUATION OF SHORELINE MANAGE- ......... MENT ALTERNATIVE COSTS AND BENEFITS 7 C. MAPS OF BEACH WIDENING NEEDS IN 1990,2010, AND2040 ................................. 15 MAP OF SOU" PORTION OF SILVER STRAND LXTI'ORALCETL ............................ 23 MAPS OF THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE OCEANSIDE UlTORALCELL ............................ 27 ESTIMATED VOLUMES, COSTS AND BENITITS OF BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE ............ 35 G. DATA, ASSUMPTIONS, AND EVALUATION METHODS . . 39 D. E. F. *The Appendices are available from SNAG. Please call (619) 595-5347 to obtain a COPY. iii e . H. PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT: BEACH WIDTHS AT SHORES CONDOMINIUMS IN CORONADO ........ 69 I. PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT: EVALUATION OF COASTAL EROSION PROBLEMS IN THE MISSION BAY IJTTORAL CELL. ........................ 73 II. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY AND DRAFT RESPONSES III. TECHNICAL REPORTS A. PLANNERSHANDBOOK ........................ 1 B. BEACH COMPOSITION AND PLACEMENT GUIDELINES . 85 C. SEACLIFFS, SETBACKS AND SEAWALLS ........... 97 iv 0 e LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Critical Shoreline Erosion Problem Areas ............... 2 Figure 2 Potential Shoreline Management Tactics ............... 1 1 Figure 3 Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths, Silver Strand Littoral Cell ........................ Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths, Mission Bay Littoral Cell ........................ 15 Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths, 14 Figure 4 Figure 5 Oceanside Littoral Cell (Southern Half) ................ 16 Figure 6 San Diego Region Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths Compared to Needs ....................... Potential Sand Sources for Beach Building and Maintenance, Silver Strand Littoral Cell ............... 23 Potential Sand Sources for Beach Building and 18 Figure 7 Figure 8 Maintenance, Mission Bay Littoral Cell ............... 25 Figure 9 Potential Sand Sources for Beach Building and Maintenance, Oceanside Littoral Cell (Southern Half) ....... 27 V a 0 4/5/93 Revision SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Region's Shoreline A Valuable Resource in Trouble The shoreline is a valuable asset to the environment and economy of the San Diego region and the State. It is also considered a resource of national significance. The beaches and seacliffs help defrne this area's quality of life; when we think of the region's positive image, we most often think of the climate and the shoreline. Long the residents are aware that many of the area's beaches and seacliffs have been steadily eroding for the past decade. The Coast of California Study, a six-year, $6 million scientific evaluation of the San Diego region shoreline conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, documented the observations of local people about shoreline erosion and has projected trends of increasing beach loss and property damage in the future. Figure 1 shows the critical shoreline problem areas in the region, including all or portions of each of the region's coastal cities: Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Oceanside. The problem areas also include stretches of shoreline owned and managed by state and federal agencies. The Role of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the San Diego region's response to the concerns about erosion voiced by citizens and communities up and down the coast, and by the thousands of residents of inland San Diego County who use and enjoy the shoreline. The unprecedented amount of knowledge gained from the Coast of California Study allows us, for the first time, to be able to measure the extent of the region's current and future shoreline erosion problems and to identlfy potential solutions to manage these problems.' The menu of solutions, or tactics, includes: beach building by placing large amounts of sand on eroded beaches; structures to help hold sand in place, such as groin fields; structures to protect property, such as seawalls and sand berms; and policies and ' The rocky headlands and seacliffs, and the small "pocket" beaches of La Jolla and Point Lorna w not covered in the Coast of California Study. The information and recommendations of the Shore1 Preservation Strategy do not pertain directly to these areas. 1 v m m Figure 1 CRlTlCAL SHORELINE EROSION PROBLEM AREAS c 2 e 0 . regulations regardhg the use of the shoreline and its development, such as bluff top building setbacks. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy sets out regional objectives, policies, and recommendation for implementing a coordinated list of solutions for each of the region’s shoreline problem areas. Who’s Involved? The Strategy is being put together by the SANDAG Shoreline Erosion Committee, which is made up primarily of elected of‘ficials from the region’s coastal jurisdictions, They will rely on the advice and opinions of the technical advisory members of the Committee representing state and federal agencies involved in managing the shoreline, and of the many individuals and interest groups who will review and comment on preliminary strategy options -- the entire region will be involved in developing and deciding on the Strategy. In order for the Strategy to be effective, everyone in the region will also have to work together to carry it out. Themes The most important idea guiding the Strategy is coordination. Coastal science tells us that events in one part of the shoreline will affect beaches and seacliffs up coast and down coast, because sand moves laterally along the shoreline. We now have much of the knowledge needed to coordinate shoreline management actions occurring at different places and times, and to make sure positive impacts on beaches and seacLjffs are reinforced, and negative ones minimized. Another very important point abut the Shoreline Preservation Strategy is that our role in preserving and enhancing the region’s shoreline WU have to be an ongoing, long-range, undertaking. This stewardship of the shoreline will involve a number of coordinated actions taking place on a continuing schedule over the years. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the action plan for this stewardship. The Strategy looks ahead 20 and 50 years in the future, to ensure that we can respond to the needs of shoreline structures and public improvements being implemented today, and to the future recreational needs of residents and visitors. Finally, the Strategy proposes an action plan that will require a major financial commitment from people in our region, as well as funding help from the state and federal governments. Objectives The Shoreline Preservation Strategy has four main objectives: 1. Manage the region’s shoreline to provide environmental quality, recreation and property protection. 3 0 0 * 2. Develop and carry out a cost-effective combination of shoreline management tactics that will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. Develop a program to pay for the shoreline management strategy which equitably allocates costs throughout the region, and among local, state and federal sources. Obtain commitments to implement and finance the Shoreline Management Strategy. 3. 4. Policies The following policies set an overall regional direction for meeting the objectives of the Strategy. A. The Strategy should provide a cooperative, coordinated, and long-range preservation program for the region’s shoreline. The Strategy should consider the full range of shorehe management tactics, with emphasis on beachfilling to preserve and enhance the environmental quality, recreational capacity, and property protection benefits of the region’s shoreline. Structural and mechanical management tactics to stabilize beaches, reduce sand losses and redistribute sand along the shoreline should be evaluated as complements to the regional beachfilling program and implemented where they have a positive impact on cost-effectiveness. Tactics which mimic natural processes should be preferred when they are equal in cost-effectiveness to other approaches. The Strategy should provide planning estimates of the amount, placement, timing, cost and sources of beachfill, and describe the process for implementation decisions. Policies and actions to promote the availability of offshore, coastal and upland sources of sand for beachfiig and natural beach replenishment should be developed. The Strategy should provide technical information to assist coordinated and consistent approaches to local level management tactics, including regulation of shoreline land use and development, and property protection measures such as a~Gcia3 dunes, seawalls and revetments. The Strategy should evaluate local, state and federal policies and regulations and recommend changes to support the other policies and objectives. The Strategy should be based on the best available scientific data and analysis, and on sound engineering principles. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 4 0 0 L Recommendations The Shoreline Preservation Strategy recommendations are based on the scientific information from the Coast of California Study and on Engineering and Economic analysis of the potential impact of shoreline erosion on coastal property, beach recreation demand and revenues from tourism. The recommendations include proposals for each problem implementation, financing and institutional recommendations for carrying out the Strategy. BEACH BUILDING A beach building and maintenance program is recommended as the primary shoreline management tactic for each of the problem areas. These problem areas, from south to north, are the shoreline segments for: area, regionwide recommendations which apply to all of the problem areas, and Silver Strand State Beach in the southern part of Coronado, all of Imperial Reach, and extending about 2% miles south into Mexico; The entire shoreline from Oceanside Harbor south to and including La Jolla Shores beach in San Diego. These beach building and maintenance programs emphasize the nourishment of narrow beaches with sand to make them wide enough to provide increased property protection and recreational capacity, and the periodic resupply of sand to these beaches to maintain them. Potential major sources of sand to support these beach building activities have been identified at offshore sand bars. In addition, there are a number of "opportunistic" sources of sand for beach building such as harbor dredging, lagoon habitat enhancement projects, and water storage reservoirs. The development of the beach building programs will require detailed engineering, economic and environmental design studies. In addition to nourishment, the study design for each area should consider a full range of shoreline management tactics that can support beach widening and improve cost effectiveness. ment regulations. Planning level analysis done in support of the Shorehe Preservation Strategy illustrates the general magnitude of activities and costs necessary to implement the most ambitious beach building and maintenance programs. The initial beach building program would require the placing of up to 30 million cubic yards of sand on beaches in the problem areas. The capital cost is estimated in the range of uD to $150 million. The annualized long-term cost of the total beach building and maintenance program for the region is estimated in the range of up to $5.5 million per year. This annual cost would increase to a $12 million per year if it were financed using long-term government bonds. If the region can take advantage of opportunistic sand sources, these costs could be si@icantly reduced. The annual value to the region's economy of the full-scale beach building program expenditures in 2010 is estimated to be in the range of $8 million in property protection and $45 million in recreation revenues and benefits. By 2040, the annual values These tactics include shoreline stabilization, shoreline protection and shorehe develop- 5 0 0 are estimated to be in the range of $35 million and $190 million, respectively. These cost estimates include shoreline property protection, recreation and tourist revenue, and local tax benefits. There are a number of other benefits that are not included, such as protection of public improvements and private structures. In addition, some costs are not included, such as impacts on streets from heavy trucks transporting sand from inland sites to beaches. These planning estimates illustrate the cost-effectiveness of a beach building program for the region. The Strategy would be a sound investment for the future of our economy and environment. The beach building program described above, and the associated costs and benefits, are for a program that builds and maintains all of the region’s problem beaches to provide for recreational needs and to protect coastal property from damage caused by breaking waves extensive programs with significantly lower costs and benefits for two reasons. First, a full-scale beach building and maintenance program may not be technically or economically feasible in all shoreline areas, due to rates of sand movement offshore or downcoast. Second, in some areas full-scale beach building may not be acceptable due to concerns about stabilization structures that could be needed, concern about public funding, or the desire of coastal property owners to build seawalls and revetments to protect their land and buildings. Finally, a phased, or incremental, program could be recommended to reduce initial costs. The scope and costs of the beach building programs that are implemented will be decided by the region’s elected officials based on the results of the engineering, economic, and environmental design studies and public participation and comments. FINANCING and marine flooding. The design studies, when completed, could well recommend less Traditional state and federal funding sources should continue to be pursued, but C~II be counted on to cover only a portion of the total financing needed to cany out the Strategy. Therefore, a financing program is recommended that emphasizes regional and local funding sources, coordinated on a regionwide basis to ensure equity and build support. The local funding program could include: shoreline property owners who will receive major benefits, both directly due to protection from storm damage and indirectly in terms of property value; visitors to the region who use and enjoy the benefits of the shoreline; and all of the region’s residents and businesses who benefit substantially through their use of shoreline beaches and parks, their property values, and economic activity resulting from beach related tourism. INSTITUTIONAL The cooperative and interjurisdictional nature of the recommended beach building and maintenance programs, and the significant amount of funds to be raised and expended to carry them out, will require additional cooperative intergovernmental arrangements among the region’s local jurisdictions. These arrangements should provide for the involvement of appropriate state and federal agencies as well as Mexican officials. The purpose of 6 0 0 these additional arrangements should be to formalize joint decision-making about the implementation of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for each problem area, and to provide a mechanism for financing. The format of additional arrangements in each problem area could range from the designation of a lead agency and the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement, to the formation of a joint powers agency or shoreline authority to carry out implementation. An example of an existing cooperative arrangement is the BEACH JPA in the Oceanside littoral cell. There may also need to be additional arrangements set up to coordinate financing and implementation on a regionwide basis. The most appropriate types of intergovernmental arrangements will depend to some extent on the financing mechanisms chosen. The institutional arrangements for implementation of the Strategy should therefore be developed concurrently with the fmancing program. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG should continue to coordinate shoreline preservation activities for the region, including the development of the beach building and maintenance programs design studies, the regionwide financing program, and the cooperative arrangements needed to implement the Strategy. Currently, financing and institutional issues related to the Strategy and other regional needs are also being considered by SANDAG’s Regional Revenues and Open Space Committees. These Committees are evaluating Shoreline Preservation needs in combination with other regional open space and sensitive lands needs in a coordinated program to provide institutional and financial support. IMPLEMENTATION The Shoreline Preservation Strategy identifies the region’s shoreline problems and provides the policy direction and a process for coordinated decision-making to solve them. There are several key decisions the region will need to make, and several major work tasks required to provide the information to support those decisions, in order to implement the Strategy once it is approved. The approval of the Strategy will signal the commitment of the region to pursue coordinated solutions to our shoreline erosion problems, and will set an overall direction in implementing the solutions. The Strategy necessarily provides for flexibility and latitude in implementation and financing for a number of good reasons: Designing the most cost-effective solutions will entail additional field work and engineering and economic analysis. A good example is defining in more detail the quality and extent of offshore sand resources for beach building. Detailed environmental studies will be required for any sign;ficant modifications to the shoreline. The impacts to be mitigated range from air pollution and noise from offshore dredging vessels and onshore sand moving equipment, to the effects of turbidity on nearshore plant and animal species. 7 0 Community involvement will need to be a major aspect of implementation. Each coastal jurisdiction will need to evaluate the technical options for beach building, review environmental and economic impacts, and balance local interests and viewpoints so projects can be supported. Of prime importance for many communi- ties will be developing consensus on the appropriate balance between beach structures to protect property such as seawalls, and shoreline development regulations. Private sector initiatives and participation in implementing the strategy should be encouraged. Finally, the implementation of the Strategy will need to be flexible to respond to funding and beach building opportunities as they arise. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ studies of erosion and storm damage problems in various communities will provide a significant amount of information for some of the implementation steps listed below, and will therefore reduce the estimated costs and increase the quality of information available for making decisions. In addition, opportunistic sources of sand such as dredged material scheduled to become available from San Diego Harbor, Batiquitos Lagoon, San Dieguito Lagoon, the Tijuana Slough and other sources may significantly reduce the costs of beach building programs and the amount of sand needed from offshore sources. nourishment and replenishment, shoreline stabwtion structures such as groins, The following implementation steps illustrate the major decisions and work tasks involved in implementing the Shoreline Preservation Strategy. Estimated costs and timing are provided. However, no funding commitments have been secured and specific funding sources have not been identified. The schedule and costs could change significantly based on the considerations discussed above. Estimated Estimated Timing Cost Decision: ApprovaVSupport of Strategy July-Oct. - (Local Ju~-isdictions/State & 1993 Federal Agencies) Beach Building Design Studies * Design Studies (Local Jurisdictions, 1994 State & Federal Agencies) Work Tasks: Scope of Work and Costs for FY93-94 $lOO,OOO Decision: Agreement to Fund and Carry Out Calendar - Work Tasks: Complete Engineering, Economic Calendar $Z,ooO,ooO Decision: Agreement to Fund and Carry Out Calendar - and Environmental Design Studies * 1995 Shoreline Management Program 1996 (Local jurisdictions, State & Federal Agencies) Work Tasks: Fund and Implement Projects * 1996 m $5 miuiodyr. ($12 milliodyr. if financed) * These work tqks will most likely consist of several work efforts carried out by different local, state or federal entitie: but coordinated by SANDAG and the Shoreline Erosion Committee. For exampIe, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineei erosion and storm damage studies, and possible future projects will contribute to all three of the work tasks. 8 0 0 II. BACKGROUND The Region's Shoreline A Valuable Resource The shoreline is a valuable asset to the environment and economy of the San Diego region and the State. It is also considered a resource of national significance. The beaches and seacliffs help define this area's quality of life; when we think of the region's positive image, we most often think of the climate and the shoreline. The Problem Long time residents are aware that many of the area's beaches and seacliffs have been steadily eroding for the past decade. The Coast of California Study, a six-year, $6 million scientific evaluation of the San Diego region shoreline conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, documented the observations of local people about shoreline erosion and has projected trends of increasing beach loss and property damage in the future. How We Got Where We Are Todav Over the past half century, man's actions have been the major influence affecting our shoreline. Through urban development, including water reservoir and dam building, flood control systems and sand mining, we have cut off the primary natural source of sand for our beaches -- sediment carried from inland areas by rivers and streams. This sand is also the primary buffer protecting seacLiffs and coastal development from erosion and storm damage. At the same time, our activities have made up, and some places even exceeded, the natural sand sources no longer reaching the shoreline, through the building of "man made" beaches. Most of the sand for this purpose has come from massive and expensive harbor dredging projects in San Diego Bay and at Oceanside Harbor. While sources of sand as large as these dredging projects will probably never be available in the future, we have no choice but to continue our stewardship of the shoreline, or see the gradual thinning and disappearance of our beaches and increasing destruction of coastal property and development. How the Shoreline Preservation Strategv Will He@ The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the San Diego region's response to the concerns about erosion voiced by citizen and communities up and down the coast, and by the thousands of residents of inland San Diego County who use and enjoy the shoreline. 9 0 0 The unprecedented amount of knowledge gained from the Coast of California Study allows us, for the first time, to be able to measure the extent of the region’s current and future shoreline erosion and to identlfy potential solutions to slow or reverse erosion problems. The menu of solutions, or tactics, includes: beach building by placing large amounts of sand on eroded beaches; structures to help hold sand in place, such as groin fields; structures to protect property, such as seawalls and sand berms; and policies and regulations regarding the use of the shorehe and its development, such as bluff top building setbacks. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy will consist of a coordinated list of tactics for each of the region’s shoreline problem areas. S horehe Management Tactics Figure 2 shows the shoreline management tactics considered in developing the San Diego Region’s Shoreline Preservation Strategy. The tactics are grouped into six categories. They all have the potential to contribute to meeting the two basic goals of the strategy: 1. Preserve and enhance the region’s beaches as an environmental and recreational resource. Protect property and development from storm wave damage and coastal flooding. 2. Descriptions of all of these tactics and methods that can be used to evaluate their application to particular reaches (lengths) of shoreline in the region can be found in the Planner’s Handbook in the Appendix. The fist four groups of shoreline management tactics on the chart -- a) and b) beach budding and maintenance, c) reducing sand losses, and d) redistributing sand along the coast -- are primarily regional scale actions aimed directly at increasing the amount of sand on the region’s beaches. They will usually affect all or a sisnifcant portion of one of the region’s three littoral cells. (A littoral cell is a self contained shoreline unit in which actions taken in one reach of the cell will eventually affect the other reaches.) The last two groups of shoreline management methods on the chart -- e) regulation of shoreline land use and development, and f) protection of property from storm waves and flooding -- are primarily local scale methods of dealing with shoreline problems. while these methods can do little to add sand to the shoreline, they can make the sand management techniques in the first three groups on the chart more effective. 10 > Q) .. a' .3 3 2 ++ 3 v1 u s 3 3 VJ 3 3 2 LI Y M 3 =EO% 5 sj 3Qgoc,z 33.p 2 Q) 0 8% 4 - aq -3 2.a" 2 E B.3 1 ++ *" 5 2% *,a$ 0s a2ErfJ cd*'oogg *'Z$ 4cc 00 am 0) 50 .-5-o sa VlP M.2 za% e E-, M .- Eqpg ed*'-=- ...- g5 M.s 0 E Bcq,3scd.;; am2 .3 m v020,zg w ++ 83 3 a ..o hza * 3*-2&c%+s aa a&+- h3 cd 8% e gw3a 2 0 M8a.sWu Q$Qccd : zE+g# %*a- 2 8 3 $ MZ.~$~Q,a%:,m 099 ++ 0 MLI 0 cd a24c ea Wee 8 $8 2 a; .5 g u v1 j w B -4 b2 Lu d 4 48 2s 9 s !! 3 5 F1 u .. g -a raga4 su a 4g x 3' A clg 36 M 32 cd a b4 4 0 1 1 M 9 8s 0 E bi $53 % g SM ." Q) -5s @ E Y MO a > !! ="o 18% p?l ea m8 2 E E 2 3 5% z 2 2; 5 5 ";J: cl 3 3g% M ." 6" urn20 ." 3 do v1 *aM&3% u 3 *gx 2s 2 3 3 2 ." 4 2 .2' E 2 3s Q) $8 0 e e e 5 u' 3 2 .s 2 qE E23 s g - g 5 .; 8= 3 :g w) g3 "B ml% a as, 31 M 3 G E ++3 bll ." cd 3 * 0 Y MQ) Y $3 c) g 2.22 $:$ 0.. &p Ca"o &a -* $z EZ ~4m eee z5g; 02 Gsq.9 % 2 z .% El.\ ?!;g.s uu 8 3 C I2 ." '"M 3 g Z*@ ." 2 E8 w' ri 4 8 M au 3s g 5s 3s oacd a4) saa sb ai% Sb a "-0- hB 524 21% -%e 0 a UE? 33 S% 044) r=rc $3%3 us 82 26- 4 QZ %a 2 we zw zv1 3oa %v1 so 2g2 -10 M>ES a$ co~ m3 FZMO rn4 .cu A0 so am eee plm oeee 0 0 m. SHORELINE PROBLEMS AND NEEDS Resent and Future Beach Widths - The Effects of Erosion One of the most important tasks in developing the Shoreline Reservation Strategy involves estimating the present and future widths of the region’s beaches and comparing them to the beach widths estimated to be needed for property protection and recreation. These estimates were made possible by the extensive data on the region’s shoreline collected by the Coast of California Study. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the estimated annual mean beach widths for the region’s three littoral cells for the years 1990,2010 and 2040. Littoral cells are stretches of shoreline which are physically interconnected. Occurrences in one part of a littoral cell will ultimately have an impact on other parts. The estimated beach widths needed for property protection and recreation are also shown on those maps. Each of the three littoral cells shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5 has been divided into segments, or reaches, designated by dashed horizontal lines. The segments roughly correspond to city boundaries, and state and federal ownership in some cases. These three littoral cells are: the Silver Strand cell which extends from south of the international border to the Zuniga jetty at San Diego Bay and includes the Shorelines of the Cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado; the Mission Bay Cell which includes Ocean, Mission, and Pacific beaches in the City of San Diego; and the southern half of the Oceanside Cell including shorelines of the Cities of San Diego, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad and Oceanside. The northern half of the Oceanside cell extends north in the appendix. The signifkant decrease in annual mean beach width estimated for future years in the Oceanside and Silver Strand littoral cells illustrates the effects of shoreline erosion on the region. The figures show that the most critical areas are located at Imperial Beach and South Oceanside and that extensive erosion will also take place in the rest of the Oceanside Cell, in the southern half of the Silver Strand Cell. The Mission Bay Cell has relatively stable beaches compared to the other littoral cells. There are several points to take into consideration regarding the estimated beach widths: beach width is defined as the distance between mean sea level and a point delineating the back of the beach, such as a road, structure or the base of a seacliff, from Oceanside Harbor to Dana Point in Orange County. Data for this area is included 13 1990 - 201 0 2040 I I I I I I 11 111 I I I I II I I I Estimated annual mean beach width s FIGURE 3 SILVER STRAND LITTORAL CELL @*T a 0 - ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS FIGURE 4 MISSION BAY LITTORAL CELL 1990 - 201 0 2040 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I Estimated annual mean beach width needed to protect property .............................. __ ........................... ______________ PACIFIC/MISSION - ,,+e $,\I" / ______-____-____---_____________________-------------- ______--___- _______--____________ OCEAN BEACH ______--_________-_______________ I C' 'J I! !' !I '1 I? L/ u u u I I I 8 I 500' 400' 300' 200' 100' NOTE: The appendix contains a supplemental evaluation of coastal erosion in the Mission Bay Cell which provides more detail. Areas in which estimated annual mean beach width is less than the estimated width needed for protection do have partial protection from wave damage and flooding from seawalls. The one exception is the short segment at the northern end of Pacific Beach. ________________________________________--------------------- 15 0 OCEANSIDE LITTORAL CELL ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS I000 - 2040 i I I I I i i III ii I i -------- ----__--------- _______-____---_____________________ City Boun DIM 16 e 0 the beach widths shown are annual averages that take into account significant seasonal fluctuations which usually result in narrower beaches during the winter and wider beaches in the summer; future beach width estimates do not assume any future beach replenishment projects but do include the effects of ongoing sand bypassing projects at Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and of periodic dredging of Mission Bay and beach replenishment at Ocean and Mission beaches; the widths in the Oceanside Cell assume that currently unprotected seacliffs will continue to retreat at their natural rate, adding sand to the beaches, beach widths will decrease at an accelerated rate if additional seawalls and revetments are built; Shoreline Erosion Problems and Needs Figure 6 compares in chart form the data presented in Figures 3, 4, and 5: the estimated annual mean beach widths, averaged for each reach, to the estimated beach width needed for property protection and to accommodate recreation demand. Reaches where erosion is expected to cause losses of shorefront property and of beach recreation capacity are highlighted. The assumptions, data and methods used in deriving these estimates are described in the appendix, along with maps showing the comparison of needs and beach widths. It is important to note that the beach width estimates in Figure 6 are averages for the entire reach. There are variations in beach width with each reach and sometimes they are sigmfkant. In addition, recent observations of beach widths in many areas indicate that the maps and data in Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 are optimistic regarding 1990 beach widths. 17 0 0 Figure 6 SAN DIEGO REGION ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS COMPARED TO NEEDS (FEET) Estimated Totalb Estimated Total Estimated" Need For Design Accommodate 1 Shoreline Segment (Reach) - Year Actual Propertv Protection Recreation De Silver Strand Cell 1990 150 250 26 2010 100 250 26 2040 40 250 26 1990 150 238 119 2010 110 238 149 2040 60 238 196 1990 210 236 2010 190 236 2040 90 236 1990 220 210 43 20 10 210 210 55 2040 175 2 10 73 Navy -Amphibious 1990 270 209 2010 265 209 2040 260 209 Coronado 1990 560 232 5s 20 10 570 232 8C 2040 560 232 111 Navy-North Island 1990 640 216 2010 680 216 2040 690 216 a. b. Widths are averaged over the length of each reach. The design width is estimated to protect shorefront property from storms up to and including the estimated 100 In some areas, it may not be technically or economically feasible to extend beach width to the extent needed. Assumes 100 square feet of beach per person at peak use. In many areas, there are factors in addition to beach w the potential to accommodate recreational demand, such as access to the beach, parking and traffic. The last twc this figure are not additive. For example, if the beach were widened from a mean width of 110 feet to 238 fee Beach in 2010, both property protection and recreation needs would be met. c. ia 0 0 Figure 6 SAN DIEGO REGION ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS COMPARED TO NEEDS WET) (Continued) Mission Bav Cell Ocean Beach 1990 215 220 753 2010 200 220 914 2040 185 220 1159 Mission & Pacific Beaches 1990 270 200 415 2010 270 200 503 2040 270 200 63 8 Oceanside Cell 1990 155 228 130 2010 130 228 179 2040 100 228 256 1990 105 232 94 20 10 75 232 130 2040 30 232 189 1990 80 232 167 20 10 70 232 228 2040 35 232 325 1990 125 240 97 2010 115 240 136 2040 90 240 195 1990 105 216 107 20 10 90 216 145 2040 40 216 207 1990 55 232 79 2010 40 232 111 2040 20 232 16 1 Camp Pendleton 1990 270 240 2010 290 240 2040 295 240 San Onofre 1990 205 222 29 2010 230 222 42 2040 250 222 63 1990 180 224 57 2010 140 224 8a 2040 100 224 120 19 0 0 Iv. RECOMMENDATIONS The Shoreline Preservation Strategy recommendations are based on the information, evaluation, and policies and objectives presented in the previous sections of the Strategy. The recornmendations include proposals for each littoral cell, regionwide recommendations which apply to all of the littoral cells, and implementation, financing and institutional recommendations for carrying out the Strategy. A beach building and maintenance program is recornmended for each of the region’s shoreline problem areas. These programs emphasize the nourishment of narrow beaches with sand to make them wide enough to provide property protection and recreational capacity. In addition to nourishment, the design of each beach building and maintenance program should consider a full range of shoreline management tactics that can support beach widening and make it more cost effective. These tactics include shoreline stabilization, shoreline protection, and shoreline development regulation. It should be noted that full property protection and recreation capacity can never be guaranteed by beach building, protective structures, or any other combination of tactics. However, proper design of a management program can provide a fairly high level of confidence that protection and recreation objectives can be met. The specific types and scope of projects for each problem area will be identified in the recommended engineering, economic, and environmental design studies. The studies will identify detailed costs, benefits and carryout environmental evaluation requirements. Silver Strand Littoral Cell 1. Design and carry out a cost-effective beach building and maintenance program for the southern half of the cell, from Silver Strand State Beach south past the International Border, focusing on the Imperial Beach Shoreline. a. The initial volume of sand needed for beach building (increasing the width of the beach) in this area could be as much as 3 million cubic yards and cost in the range of up to $15 million.* Maintaining the increased beach width could 2 The cost estimates in the Shoreline Preservation Strategy are based on an average cost of $5 cubic yard of sand. This cost includes design, construction, transportation and placement of S~ including management and contingency. 21 0 0 require as much as 90,000 cubic yards of sand per year at an annual cost in the range of up to $500,000. It is estimated that the economic benefits from property protection and recreation will exceed the costs of the beach building and maintenance program within 10 years. Over the long term (20 to 50 years), economic benefits will substantially exceed costs. The major sources of sand for the beach building and maintenance program include offshore borrow sites near Imperial Beach (estimated 32 million cubic yards of sand) and near Silver Strand State Beach (estimated 348 million cubic the Sweetwater and Tijuana Rivers, habitat enhancement projects in the Tijuana Estuary, San Diego Bay dredging, and water storage reservoirs. Figure 7 identifies the potential sand sources for this cell. An engineering, economic, and environmental design study for the beach building and maintenance program should be completed. It should include consideration of the two part role of the Tijuana River delta in protecting the Imperial Beach shoreline from erosion (as a source of sand that replenishes the beach at Imperial Beach and the rest of the cell, and as a buffer from wave energy that reduces alongshore transport of sand away from Imperial Beach); the relationship of beach width to shoreline retreat and amount of beachf" needed; the relationship of alongshore to offshore sand transport rates and amount of beachfii needed; variations in annual mean beach width, and in seasonal changes in beach width within the littoral cell; tactics for dealing with cobble beaches; the need for groins or offshore brealcwaters in particular areas to regulate the movement of sand up and down coast; the level of property protection, recreation demand accommodation and beach width desired; the role of development regulation and shoreline protective devices in reducing the need for beach building and maintenance in particular areas; recreation, safety, water use and liability issues related to shoreline management structures; the issue of compatibility of sand at borrow sites with the needs of nearby beaches; locations for beachfill placement; effects on surfing conditions; environmental impacts on water quality, plant and animal species and their habitats; and the start date for the program. Finally, the program design should be flexible, and could be incremental, to respond to changing shoreline conditions and new b. yards of sand). Other potential sand sources include onshore borrow sites in c. information. 2. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand at the northern end of the cell near Zuniga jetty, and backpassing it to the southern portion of the cell where beaches are narrower. Design and carry out a backpassing project if it is a feasible and cost-effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program. Provide information from the recommended design study to the Coronado Shores Property Owners Association to assist their evaluation of potential wave damage and . flooding at the shoreline in front of their property. 3. 22 .- 0 0 POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES FOR - BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE Estimated Volume SILVER STRAND SQUM Llll'ORAL CELL SS-1 (Offshore Imperial Beach) 3 1.5 million SS-2 (Offshore Silver Strand) 347.5 million SS-3 (Collection of sand moving SS4 (Tijuana River) 1.8 million offshore at Zuniga Jetty) 120.000/yr. SS5 (Tiiuana Estuaty Enhancement] Ss6 (Sweetwater River, east of mapped area SS7 a. (San Diego Harbor dredging) Oseveral 100,00O/yr b. (San Diego Bay enhancement) 558 (In the following water storage reservoirs: Barren, Loveland, Morena and Upper Otay) SS-9 Rodriguez Reservoir in Mexico 13.6 million Not shown on this map: development grading sources. Notes: *Volumes are rough estimates which should be refined through field sampling in designing a beach building and maintenance program. *Source of estimated volumes is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coast of California Study, Draft State of the Coast Report, October 1, 1990 (The estimates for offshore volumes are based on a 1983 report prepared for the California State Department of Boating and Waterways titled"Potential Offshore Sand and Gravel Resources of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southern California") and the Scripps Institute Center for Coastal Studies (1 99 1 estimatesofvolumesin listedwaterstoragereservoirs, unpublished). 4olumesof sand neededforafull beach building and maintenance program in this cell: Initial Fill: 3 million cubic yards, Annual Maintenance: 90.000 cubic yards. The design study proposed for this area could recommend a less extensive, less costly program. City Boundary mmmmm 23 0 a Mission Bay Littoral Cell 1. Evaluate the limiting effects on beach attendance from overcrowding on the beach, and from parking and access problems, for Ocean, Mission and Pacific Beaches and determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of beach buildmg and maintenance programs to meet recreational needs. Design and carry out a cost-effective beach building and maintenance program for these beaches if it is determined that recreational beach use will increase as a result, and that a parking and access program can be developed to accommodate additional beach users that is acceptable to local communities and the City of San Diego. a. The initial volume of sand needed for beach building to accommodate potential recreational demand in the Mission Bay littoral cell could be between 500,000 and 6.2 million cubic yards3 and cost in the range of up to $31 million. Beach maintenance could require up to 5,000 cubic yards per year at an annual cost in the range of up to $25,000. It is highly unlikely that a program of the larger magnitude would be technically and economically feasible, or that parking and access could be expanded to accommodate it. The economic benefits of the increased recreational use accommodated by maximum width beaches would exceed the costs of the beach building program in the first year and the long term economic benefits would exceed costs substantially if beach use increases as assumed. A potential major source of sand for the beach building and maintenance program is an offshore borrow site off Mission Beach (estimated 192,000,000 cubic yards of sand). Other potential sand sources include an onshore borrow site in the San Diego River (excluding dog beach), Mission Bay dredging, and water storage reservoirs. Figure 8 identifies the major sand sources for this cell. If it is determined appropriate by local communities and the City of San Diego, an engineering, economic, and environmental design study for a beach building and maintenance program should be completed. It should include consideration of: the relationship of beach width to shoreline retreat and amount of beachfill needed; the relationship of alongshore to offshore sand transport rates and amount of beachfill needed; variations in annual mean beach width, and in seasonal changes in beach width within the littoral cell; strategies for dealing with cobble beaches; the need for groins or offshore breakwaters in particular areas to regulate the movement of sand up and down coast; the level of property protection, recreation demand accommodation and beach width desired; the role of development regulation and shoreline protective devices in reducing the need for beach building and maintenance in b. c. 3 500,000 cubic yards could extend the beach width about 45 yards at Ocean Beach. The 6.2 mill cubic yard program would extend the beach to accommodate estimated peak recreation demand at all beaches in the Mission Bay cell. 24 e a . POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES FOR BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE Estimated Volume sourcs ic Yards MB-1 (Offshore Pacific and Mission Beaches) 192 million MB-2 (Collection of sand moving offshore at Mission Bay North Jetty! 1 l,000/yr. MB-3 (Mission Bay dredging) 20.000/yr. MB-4 (Sen Diego River, east of mapped area) 2.8 million ME-5 (In the following water storage reservioirs: Cuyamaca, Chet Harrin) 3.4 million in Cub LllTORAL CELL Not shown on this map: development grading sources. Notes: *Volumes are rough estimates which should be refined through field sampling in designing a beach building and maintenance program. *Source of estimated volumes is the US. Army Corps of Engineers Coast of California Study, Draft State of the Coast Report, October 1, 1990 (The estimates for offshore volumes are based on a 1983 report prepared for the California State Department of Boating and Waterways titled "Potential Offshore Sand and Gravel Resources of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southern California") and the Scripps Institute Center for Coastal Studies (1 99 1 estimatesofvolumesinlistedwaterstorage reservoirs,unpublished). *Volumes of sand needed for a full beach buildins and maintenance prooram in this cell: Initial Fill: 500,000 to 6.7 million cubic yards, Annual Maintenance: up to 5,000 cubic yards. OCEAN BEACH (C) 25 0 particular areas; recreation, safety, water use, and liability issues related to conditions; environmental impacts on water quality, plant and animal species shoreline management structures; the matching of sand at borrow sites with the needs of nearby beaches; locations for beachfill placement; effects on surfing and their habitats; and the start date for the program. Finally, the program design should be flexible, and could be incremental, to respond to changing shoreline conditions and new information. 3. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand at the southern end of Mission Beach near the San Diego River jetty and backpassing it to the north and south where beaches are narrower. Design and carry out a backpassing project if it is a feasible and cost-effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program. Oceanside Littoral Cell 1. Design and carry out a cost-effective beach building and maintenance program for the southern half of the cell, from Oceanside Harbor south to La Jolla. a. The initial volume of sand needed for beach building in this area could be as much as 25 million cubic yards and cost in the range of $126 million. Maintenance could require as much as 320,000 cubic yards of sand per year at an annual cost in the range of $1.6 million. It is estimated that the economic benefits from property protection and recreation will exceed the costs of the beach building and maintenance program within 2 years. Over the long term, economic benefits will substantially exceed costs. The major sources of sand for the beach building and maintenance program include eight offshore borrow sites located along the shoreline from Oceanside Harbor south to La Jolla (estimated 112 million cubic yards of sand). Other potential sand sources include onshore borrow sites in various rivers and project, and water storage reservoirs. Figure 9 identifies the major sand sources for this cell. An engineering, economic, and environmental design study for beach building and maintenance program should be completed. It should include consider- ation of: the sand bypassing projects already in effect at Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon; the relationship of beach width to shoreline retreat and amount of beachfill needed; the relationship of alongshore to offshore sand transport rates and amount of beachfii needed; variations in annual mean beach width, and in seasonal changes in beach width within the littoral cell; strategies for dealing with cobble beaches; the need for groins or offshore breakwaters in particular areas to regulate the movement of sand up and down coast; the level of property protection, recreation demand accommo- dation and beach width desired; the role of development regulation and b. coastal terraces, dredge material from the Batiquitos Lagoon enhancement c. 26 e e . POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES FOR BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE FIGURE 9 OCEANSIDE so-22 Estimated Volume LITTORAL CELL sourcs SO-1 (Offshore La Jolla) SO-2 SO-3 (Offshore Torrey Pines 3.1 million 50-4 (Offshore Los Penasuitos Lagoon) 2.9 million SO-5 (Offshore San Dieguito Lagoon) 10.3 million So-6 (Offshore San Elijo Lagoon) 12.4 million SO-7 (Offshore Batiquitos Lagoon) 16.5 million SO-8 (Offshore South Oceanside) 27.1 million SO-9 (Offshore North Oceanside) 32.6 million (Collection of sand moving down Scripps and La Jolla submarine canyons) SO-10 (Collection of sand moving offshore 146,00W40.000/yr. SO-1 1 (Los Penasquitos and Soledad Creeks) 61 million SG12 (Los Penasquitos Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown SO13 (San Dieguito Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown SO-14 (San Dieguito Terrace, east of mapped area) 34.8 million SO-1 5 (San Elijo Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown .i SO-16 (Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement) - 2.7-3.7 million SO-17 (San Marcos Terrace. east of mapped area) 46.5 million SO-1 8 (Ague Hedionda Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown SO-19 (Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown SO20 2.8 million SO-2 1 (Santa Margarita Marsh Enhancement) Unknown SO-22 (Santa Margarita River, east of mapped area) 34.8 million Sb23 at North Oceanside Harbor Jetty) (San Luis Rey River, east of mapped area) (In the following water storage reservoirs: Hodges. Henshaw, Wohlford, San Dieguito, Sutherland) 27.5 million Not shown on this map: development grading sources. Noles: *Volumes are rough estimates which should be refined through field sampling in designing a beach building and maintenance program. *Source of estimated volumes is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coast of California Study, Draft State of the Coast Report, October 1. 1990 (The estimates for offshore volumes are based on a 1983 report prepared for the California State Department of Boating and Waterways titled "Potential Offshore Sand and Gravel Resources of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southern California") and the Scripps Institute Center for Coastal Studies (1 99 1 estimatesofvolumesinlistedwaterstoragereservoirs, unpublished). *Volumes of sand needed fora full beach building and maintenance program in this cell: Initial Fill: 25 million cubicyards.Annua1 Maintenance: 320,000 cubic yards. The design study proposed for this area could recommend a less extensive and less costly program. mmi 27 a w shoreline protective devices in reducing the need for beach building and maintenance in particular areas; recreation, safety, water use and liability issues related to shoreline management structures; the matching of sand at borrow sites with the needs of nearby beaches; locations for beachfill placement; effects on surfing conditions; environmental impacts on water quality, plant and animal species and their habitats; and the start date for the program. Finally, the program design should be flexible, and could be kcremental, to respond to changing shoreline conditions and new information. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand before it is lost down Scripps and La Jolla Submarine Canyons, and backpassing itto upcoast areas with narrow beaches. Design and carry out a backpassing project if it is a feasible and cost-effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand before it moves offshore of Oceanside Harbor, and bypassing it to downcoast areas with narrow beaches. Design and cany out a bypassing project if it is a feasible and cost- effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program and the existing Oceanside Harbor bypassing project. The active movement of sand offshore at Oceanside Harbor should be conclusively determined before this work is pursued in the design study. 2. 3. REGIONWIDE 1. Develop guidelines for the acceptable composition of beachfill material from all sand sources (including innovative sources) considered in the Shoreline Preservation Strategy, for use by the appropriate state, federal, and local regulatory and planning agencies. The type, composition and location of placement of dredge material should be carefully determined to maximize the amount of sand that gets to beaches. Develop technical information regarding the issues of shoreline land use and protective structures for use by local jurisdictions. The information should include discussion of the use of setbacks from beaches and seacliffs and beach building over the use of seawalls and revetments to protect property, and the adverse impacts of protective structures on beaches and ways to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that beach building and shore protective structures do not solve bluff failure problems caused by inland groundwater migration and poorly designed storm drains. a. The technical information should provide for local flexibility in implementation based on local conditions and existing commitments. Given the wide range of local situations, each local jurisdiction should develop its own standards and guidelines consistent with the regional guidelines. There could be provisions for the use of visually unobtrusive protective structures in combination with beach building where cost effective, and for the use of protecthe structures 2. 28 0 W where the use of setbacks and beach building are infeasible and where buildings or major public improvements such as roads are in imminent danger. Shoreline development issues (new development and protective structures) are not of equal importance in all jurisdictions, and local conditions and past actions make dealing with shoreline development a unique problem for each jurisdictions. In several communities, for example Coronado and Carlsbad, shoreline development does not appear to be a major concern because protective structures are already in place. Del Mar has a very detailed ordinance and strategy for dealing with shoreline development in place, as does Oceanside. Solana Beach and Encinitas are very concerned about shoreline development and are actively seeking solutions. The steep seacliffs and narrow beaches in this part of the coast make the problem urgent. There is a consensus that the best way of dealing with shoreline development issues is through citywide proactive planning, rather than through case-by-case decisions on permit applications. There are several potential advantages of the citywide, proactive approach. It allows the local government, shoreline property owners and the beach-using public to work out tradeoffs on the benefits and costs of a comprehensive solution. It may also offer some negotiating opportunities with the Coastal Commission regarding the interpretation of Coastal Act policies which strictly protect the beach and natural seacW environment at the expense of private property loss. The issue of balancing public use and enjoyment of the beach with property protection in addressing shoreline development was a volatile one in every workshop where it was discussed. Shoreline property owners are typically, and understandably, adamantly opposed to the strict implementation of the Coastal Act policies which would eventually result in their losing land to shoreline erosion. Other members of the public are generally in favor of protecting the beach and natural shoreline environment as a first priority. A similar dichotomy exists for the issue of requiring mitigation of the adverse appears that community level resolution will work the best. The development of regionwide consensus and policy does not look to be feasible or productive. Local jurisdictions should use the information in the technical report in their consideration of shoreline development issues. SANDAG should continue to assist local jurisdictions through the development of additional technical information where appropriate. b. c. d. beach impacts of shoreline protective structures. For both of these issues, it e. 3. Review harbor, bay and lagoon dredging proposals to ensure that appropriate dredge material is incorporated in the beach building and maintenance programs recorn- mended for each littoral cell. This action constitutes implementation of the Regional Dredging policy approved by SNAG in May, 1991. Evaluation of controls on sand mining operations should be completed to determine if there could be a positive 29 h 0 W impact on beaches. Recommendations should be developed as a result of this evaluation. Review of water storage and reservoir studies and projects to encourage consider- ation of using beach compatible sediment from these sources as beachfill. Consideration of water quality impacts on water supply reservoirs and impacts from transportation of sand to beaches should be taken into account. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of encouraging the placement of beach compatible material from land development grading at the region's beaches. in the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell, 4. 5. Develop regional guidelines for use by local jurisdictions in using this source of sand if feasible and cost effective. 6, Pursue the evolving legal interpretation of the "public trust doctrine" as it applies to beach sand for use in implementing recommendations 3, 4, and 5. This concept could play a significant part in implementing the Shoreline Preservation Strategy. Develop guidelines for the use of temporary methods of protecting shoreline property from storm damage, such as improved storm warning programs, the use of sand bags, and the use of temporary sand berms, for use by appropriate state, federal, and local agencies. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of using beach compatible dredge material from lagoon and estuary enhancement projects in the region's beach building and. maintenance program, as enhancement projects are planned. Incorporate sand from lagoon and estuary enhancement projects in the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell, if feasible and cost effective. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of transporting sand from reservoirs, riverbeds (including commercial sandpits) and debris catch basins to the region's beaches. This evaluation should include The Tijuana River and Rodriguez Reservoir in Mexico. It should include consideration of impacts of sand removal on public facilities in floodways (e.g., bridges, utilities) and the costs of transporting sand to beaches. The cooperation of the County Water Authority and its member agencies should be obtained. Design and carry out a program of projects which incorporate these sources of sand in the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell, if feasible and cost effective. Develop guidelines for land use planning, regulation and development which encourage the continued contribution of sand to the region's beaches from natural sources such as seacliffs in undeveloped areas, coastal terraces and ravines, and upland sources. These guidelines should be coordinated with other land use planning programs and policies in the region such as open space planning efforts, and should be used by appropriate state, federal, and local agencies. 7. 8. 9. 10. 30 I 0 W 11. Determjne the capacity of local transportation and parking facilities to accommodate increases in recreational beach use which will be provided for by the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell. Local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies should use this information to identify parking and access problems and to develop solutions, emphasizing transit. 12. Design and carry out a regional shoreline monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended actions. a. A minimum, low cost monitoring program would involve aerial photo measurements of beach width annually or semi-annually. Also, the existing wave measuring gauges off the region’s coast should be retained by the state and federal agencies operating them. A more effective monitoring program with more frequent beach width measurements and periodic measurements of littoral zone beach profiles should be pursued. Both innovative, high technology approaches such as satellite archieves; and simple, low technology methods such as tape measurement of beach widths by city staff or citizen volunteers should be considered in supplementing the basic monitoring program. More detailed monitoring efforts may be included in the design of the beach building and maintenance programs developed for each littoral cell, and for specific projects. b. c. 13. An annual “State of the Region’s Beaches” report should be prepared by SANDAG to describe progress made in implementing the Strategy and identify problem areas that need emphasis. FINANCING (See institutional recommendations for a discussion of responsibilities.) 1. Traditional state and federal funding sources such as the State Department of Boating and Waterways, the Coastal Conservancy and State Bond Act grants and loans, and federal assistance through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should continue to be pursued by organizations implementing the Shorehe Preservation Strategy. Special sources of state and federal funds that may become available from time to time through agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Com- mission, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should also be pursued. In most instances, these funds will have to be legislatively initiated. It is anticipated that state and federal funds will cover only a portion of the total financing needs. The financing program should be developed on a regional basis to ensure equity and to build understanding and support. It should be selected by the region’s elected 31 2. L 0 W officials based on the design studies and public participation and comment. The cooperation and needs of involved state and federal agencies should be considered in financing decisions. It should take into account the cost incurred by cities to provide beach related functions such as; lifeguard services, maintenance, insurance, etc. The financing program should be designed to consider the high front end costs Q€ beach building and should be flexible to allow for the setting of priorities where program needs exceed funds available, and to incorporate new sources of financing as they become available. It should recognize that a major portion of the needed funds will have to come from local and regional sources. Shoreline property in the areas of the region where the beach building and maintenance programs are focused will receive major benefits from the program results, both directly from property protection and indirectly in terms of property value. A fmancing mechanism which includes shoreline property for an equitable share of the needed funds should be considered. a, 3. 4. One appropriate financing mechanism to obtain funds from shoreline property is an assessment district. State and federal agencies owning shoreline property should contribute funds for the beach building and maintenance program in proportion to their benefits. It is estimated that visitors to San Diego County account for about 20% of the region’s beach users. A financing mechanism which collects an equitable share of the needed funds from visitors should be considered. Transient occupancy taxes are one source for these funds. San Diego County residents and businesses benefit substantially from living close to the region’s shoreline. They benefit directly from their use and enjoyment of beaches and parks, and indirectly in terms of property value and economic activity. A financing mechanism which targets residents for an equitable share of funds should be considered. a. b. 5. 6. There are several potential financing mechanisms that can be used to collect funds from residents. They include assessment district(s), a parcel tax, an increase in the local sales tax and an increase in the property tax. A regional impact fee on new development for its fair share of costs could be considered. Creation of a utility by local agencies which could charge fees for shore and beach services could be considered. This innovative financing method has been used by several local agencies in the U.S. b. c. 32 I: 0 w * 7. Financing of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy should be coordinated with other Open Space and Natural Resource Financing needs and programs through the Regional Growth Management Strategy being developed by SANDAG. The SANDAG Regional Revenues Advisory Committee and Open Space Citizens Advisory Committee should include financing of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy in their work. The first priority for use of public funds should be for protection, preservation and enhancement of publicly owned resources. 8. INSTITUTIONAL 1. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG should continue to coordinate shoreline preservation activities for the region, including the design studies and implementation of the beach building and maintenance programs for the region’s shoreline problem areas. Financing and the cooperative institutional arrangements that may be needed to implement the Strategy should be developed through the cooperative work of the SANDAG Open Space Citizens Advisory Committee, Regional Revenues Advisory Committee, and the Shoreline Erosion Committee. Local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies will be responsible for a number of implementation actions, as specified in the recommendations. Some of these actions will need to be implemented locally through amendments to Local Coastal Plans (LCP’s), General Plans, and ordinances. Local corollaries to the first three regional objectives in the Strategy should be incorporated into LCP land use plans. The interjurisdictional nature of the recommended beach building and maintenance programs, and the signI.fhnt amount of funds to be raised and expended to carry these programs out, could require additional cooperative intergovernmental arrange- ments for implementation. a. 2. 3. 4. The purpose of additional arrangements would be to formalize joint decision making about the implementation of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy, and to provide a mechanism for financing. The arrangements should provide for the involvement of appropriate state and federal agencies as well as Mexican officials. The format of additional arrangements could range from the designation of a lead agency and the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement, to the formation of a joint powers agency or shoreline authority to carry out implementation. An example is the BEACH PA in the Oceanside littoral cell. There may alsc need to be additional arrangements set up to coordinate financing and implementation on a regionwide basis. b. c. 33 .. I 0 w I d. The most appropriate types of intergovernmental arrangements will depend to some extent on the financing mechanisms chosen. The institutional arrange- ments for implementation of the Strategy should therefore be developed concurrently with the financing program. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The implementation of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy should provide for flexibility and latitude to accommodate the following: a. b. Detailed environmental studies. c. Additional field work and engineering and economic analysis. Community involvement. Of prime importance for many communities will be developing consensus on the appropriate balance between beach nourishment and replenishment, shoreline stabilization structures such as groins, structures to protect property such as seawalls, shoreline development regulations, and impacts on upcoast and downcoast shorelines. Funding and beach building opportunities that may arise. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ studies of erosion and storm damage problems in various communities will provide a significant amount of information Opportunistic sources of sand that may become available could reduce program costs. d. applicable to implementation and may lead to federal fundmg opportunities. 2. The following implementation steps, and timing and cost estimates, illustrate the major decisions and work tasks involved in implementing the Shoreline Preservation Strategy: Imdementation SteD Timing Cost a. ApprovdSupport of Strategy July-Oct. -- (Local Jurisdictions/State & 1993 Federal Agencies) b. Scope of Work and Costs for FY93-94 $lOO,OOO c. Agreement to Fund and Carry Out Calendar -- Beach Building Design Studies * Design Studies (Local Jurisdictions, 1994 State & Federal Agencies) d. Complete Engineering, Economic Calendar $2,000,000 and Environmental Design Studies * 34 1995 - 1 e v e. Agreement to Fund and Carry Out Calendar -- S horehe Management Program 1996 (Local jurisdictions, State & Federal Agencies) f. Fund and Implement Projects * 1996 Up to $5 milliodyear ($12 milliodyear if financed) * These work tasks will most likely consist of several work efforts carried out by different local, state or federal entities, but coordinated by SNAG and the Shoreline Erosion Committee. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers erosion and storm damage studies, and possible future projects will contribute to all three of the work tasks. A flowchart, describing in more detail the tasks and decisions described above, and their relationship, is contained in the Appendix. 35 6 %\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w RESOLUTION NO. 9 3 - I7 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CrrY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING THE SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments in conjunction with the ! Erosion Committee has completed a comprehensive review and analysis of the S Region's coastline; and WHEREAS, the data which has been compiled over time has been used to ( report entitled "Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region"; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the information included within the Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region is in the best interest of the City; anc WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad supports the goals and included within the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of California that: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill 111 111 Ill 6 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 2. That the City Council supports the adoption of the Shoreline Preservation St1 the San Diego Region. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the carlsbad cil held on the 22nd day of JUNE , 1993 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nyga NOES: None ABSENT: None A'ITEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENK (SEAL) 2