HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-09; Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project Update (District 1); Barberio, GaryTo the members of the:
CITY COUNCIJ..
DateJ-/q/~ CA_V cc~ CM ✓~ ✓ocM (3 _
February 9, 2023
Council Memorandum
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of the City Council
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager @. Via:
{city of
Carlsbad
Memo ID# 2023017
Re: Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project Update (District 1)
This memorandum provides an update to a previous Council Memorandum, dated
September 15, 2022, on the City of Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device
Project.
Background
January 11, 2022 -The City Council received a staff report on the City of Oceanside's planned
Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project and adopted a resolution approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand into Carlsbad. Pursuant to direction in Item No. 3 of that resolution, staff
subsequently sent a copy of the resolution to the Oceanside City Manager, the San Diego
Association of Government's Shoreline Preservation Working Group, and the California Coastal
Commission. Shortly after Carlsbad expressed its statement of opposition to constructing
devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand, other coastal cities to the south
of Carlsbad likewise expressed opposition to the construction of such devices ..
September. 15, 2022 -The City Council received a Council Memorandum providing an update on
the City of Oceanside's planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project
(Attachment A). The memorandum stated staff would take responsive action to any request
from the City of Oceanside for the item to be presented to the Carlsbad Beach Preservation
Commission and the Carlsbad City Council. Staff was also to stay in communication with the City
of Oceanside to track any significant developments on this project.
Discussion
September 29, 2022 -The Oceanside Coastal Zone Administrator (Coastal Administrator) emailed
the Parks & Recreation Director with a request "to attend the next Beach Preservation
Commission Meeting to give a summary on the latest coastal management efforts in Oceanside."
Community Services Branch
Parks & Recreation Department
799 Pine Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2826 t
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project (District 1)
February 9, 2023
Page 2
October 4, 2022 -The Coastal Administrator presented that summary via a staff report to the
Beach Preservation Commission (Attachment B). The Coastal Administrator also provided the
following outline of the presentation:
New Management and Methodologies for Oceanside
1. Newly appointed Coastal Zone Administrator
First of its kind in Oceanside
Created out of the recognition that shoreline maintenance is a priority to preserve
and adapt to increasing coastal stressors from climate change and sea level rise.
Oceanside's Current Coastal Management Efforts
1. Oceanside's first effort
Renewed participation in the Army Corps of Engineers program
Grateful for the Army Corps arid Congressman Levin's efforts
Timeline for Study's results is 32 months
• Hopeful the Study will generate a preferred project by its due date of 2026
2. Oceanside's second effort
Renew the City's SCOUP Program
150,000 cubic yards of opportunistic sand
3. Oceanside's third effort
Sand Retention and Sand Nourishment Pilot Project
• First task of our Pilot Project is to locate a local sand source or decipher a
method of consistent sand delivery from around Camp Pendleton Boat Basin
• Mitigate any downdrift impacts with new sand into the littoral cell
• Innovative or nature-based approach
• Eager to test a novel, multi-benefit solution that our public beaches
will benefit from and that the region and State can learn from
• Seeking supportive action from the region and beyond
• Invite innovation and collaboration into the design process
4. Oceanside's fourth effort
RBSP Ill feasibility study
January 10, 2023 -The Coastal Administrator emailed staff with a request to meet with the City
Manager and the Parks & Recreation Director "about Oceanside's Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and
Retention Project." Please note the project name had changed. The Administrator indicated the
meeting was to be "an informational discussion and an opportunity for Carlsbad staff to ask
questions" before taking the project back to the Oceanside City Council on January 25, 2023.
January 19, 2023 -The Coastal Administrator emailed the Parks & Recreation Director with a link
to the published agenda packet for the January 25, 2023, Oceanside City Council Meeting, which
included the project (Attachment C). The Coastal Administrator provided this summary:
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project (District 1)
February 9, 2023
Page 3
"Staff is recommending that Oceanside move forward with the Phase 2 contract which wi/11)
determine an improved sand source for beach nourishment, likely to be found off our shore within
tidelands trusted to the City by State Lands Commission in 1963; and 2) design a pilot retention
structure that will mimic natural sand retention, inviting innovation into the design by way of a
design competition. The design competition is structured so that our prime engineering
consultant, GHD, Inc., will devise strict design criteria and objectives, but allow firms to meet
those objectives in a myriad of engineering and architectural ways ... / am expecting that some
kind of artificial reef or headland could be one of the three design options. These options will be
reviewed through an extensive public and regional outreach program, as well as by a
Jury/Steering Committee. We anticipate the Jury/Steering Committee to be comprised of
representatives from different silos, interests and expertise in the community and region."
January 20, 2023 -The Parks & Recreation Director emailed the Coastal Administrator, advising
that the Carlsbad City Council's statement -of opposition to constructing devices that could
interfere with the natural flow sand into Carlsbad -remained unchanged.
January 23, 2023 -The Oceanside City Manager and the Coastal Administrator met with the
. Carlsbad City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Community Services, and the Parks &
Recreation Director. The Coastal Administrator verbally informed staff of the above and
committed to continuously involving the Carlsbad community and staff throughout the public
and regional outreach program for the project.
January 25, 2023 -The Oceanside City Council approved (4-1, with Mayor Sanchez dissenting) a
professional services agreement with GHD, Inc., in the amount of $2,591,681, for consultant
services in support of Phase 2 of the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. The Coastal
Administrator also emailed the Parks & Recreation Director, sharing correspondence received
from Mayor Martinez of the City of Del Mar, in support of Phase 2 of this project (Attachment D).
Next Steps
Staff will continue tci stay in communication with the Oceanside Coastal Zone Administrator for
any significant developments on this project.
Attachment: A. Carlsbad City Council Memorandum, dated September 15, 2022
B. Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission Staff Report, dated October 4, 2022
(Due to the size of Attachment B, a hardcopy is on file in the Office of the City
Council, as reference)
C. Oceanside City Council Staff Report, dated January 25, 2023
(Due to the size of Attachment C, a hardcopy is on file in the Office of the City
Council, as reference) ·
D. Del Mar Letter of Support for Oceanside's Project, dated January 24, 2023
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project (District 1)
February 9, 2023
Page 4
cc: Beach Preservation Commissioners
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
James Wood, Environmental Sustainability Director
Jeff Murphy, Community Services Director
Kristina Ray, Communications & Engagement Director
Allegra Frost, Deputy City Attorney
To the members of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date 4J.s /:ACA _L_ cc ~
CM \/ ACM ,,/ DCM (3)..Ji!..
September 15, 2022
Council Memorandu,n
To: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council
From: Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Via: Geoff Patnoe; Assistant City Manager @
Attachment A
{city of
Carlsbad
Memo ID #2022103
Re: City of Oceanside's Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Oevice Project
Update (District 1)
This memorandum provides an update to a previous staff report, dated January 11, 2022, on the
City of Oceanside's Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project.
Background
On January 11, 2022, the City Council received a staff report on the City of Oceanside's Planned
Beach Sand Replenishment and Retl:!ntion Device Project and adopted a resolution approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand into Carlsbad (Attachment A). Pursuant to direction in Item No. 3 of that resolution,
staff subsequently sent a copy of the resolution to the Oceanside City Manager, the San Diego
Association of Government's Shoreline Preservation Working Group, and the California Coastal
Commission (Attachment 8). Shortly after Carlsbad expressed its statement of opposition to
constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand, other coastal cities
to the south of Carlsbad likewise expressed opposition to the construction of such devices.
Discussion
On August 29, 20221 staff from the City of Oceanside (their Coastal Administrator) advised
Carlsbad staff of their intent to seek their City Council's approval to initiate Phase II -Exploring
Design Alternatives -of the Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project,
but to do so in a manner that is considerate of Carlsbad's and other southerly coastal cities'
expressed opposition to the construction of devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand. She ihdic;:ited they would be further exploring each of the sand replenishment and
retention device alternatives identified in the previous feasibility study on the project, with a
focus on achieving Oceanside's goals, while also being respectful to the regional needs for beach
sand replenishment and any potential impacts on southerly coastal cities .
. On September 1, 2022, the Oceanside Deputy Mayor .and a city staff member provided public
comments during the San Diego Association of Government's Shoreline Preservation Working
Group's regularly scheduled meeting. The comments included an overview of their recently
created Coastal Administrator position, including its focus areas and key objectives. Their Coastal
Community Services Branch
· Parks & Recreation Department
799 Pine Avenue, Suite 200 I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2826 t
Attachment A
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project (District 1)
September 15, 2022
Page 2
Administrator also provided the above-described update of staff's intent to seek the Oceanside
City Council's approval to initiate Phase II of the project.
On September 6, 2022, the Oceanside City Manager and their Coastal Administrator met with the
Carlsbad City Manager, the Deputy City Manager for Community Services, and the Parks &
Recreation Director to provide a more detailed presentation of the above-described update. The
slides from that presentation are attached for your review (Attachment .C). The Oceanside City
Manager affirmed the focus on achieving Oceanside's goals, while also being respectful to the
regional needs for beach sand replenishment and any potential impacts on southerly coastal
cities. Staff appreciated the proactive efforts to provide these updates but recommended the
scheduling of like presentations to the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission, the Carlsbad
City Council, and the City Councils of other southerly coastal cities, prior to seeking the
Oceanside City Council's approval to initiate Phase II -Exploring D'esign Alternatives -of the
Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project.
Next Steps
Staff will take responsive action to any request from the City of Oceanside for the item to be
presented to the Carlsbad Beach Pr,eservation Commission and the Carlsbad City Council. Staff
will also stay in communication with the Coastal Administrator for any significant developments
on this project going forward.
Attachment: A. City Council Staff Report, Meeting Date of January 11, 2022
cc:·
B. City Council Resolution Transmittal Letters, Dated January 11, 2022
C. City of Oceanside Slides from Presentation on September 6, 2022
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
James Wood, Environmental Sustainability Director
Tom Frank, Transportation Director
Jeff Murphy, Community Services Director
Kristina Ray, Communications & Engagement Director
Allegra Frost, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Strong, Community Services Assistant Director
Eric Lardy, City Planner
Todd Reese, Parks Services Manager
Katie Hentrich, Senior Program Manager
Sarah Lemons, Senior Program Manager
Nikki Matosian, Community Relations Manager
Michael Tully, Parks Planner
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COlJNCIL
Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
District:
Jan. 11, 2022
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
kyle.lancaster@carlsbadca.gov, 760-434-2941
Update on the City of Oceanside's Planned Beach Sand Replenishment
and Retention Device Project and a Proposed Statement of Opposition to
Constructing Devices that could Interfere with the Natural Flow of Beach
Sand into Carlsbad
All
Recommended Action
1. Receive an update on the City of Oceanside's planned Beach Sand Replenishment and
Retention Device Project
2. Adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad
Executive Summary
The City Council received a memorandum from staff on Aug. 26, 2021, on the status ohhe City
of Oceanside's Beai::h Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project (Exhibit 2). That
memorandum noted that staff would provide periodic updat.es on the project to the Beach
Preservalion Commission and to the City Council.
On Jan. 4, 2022, staff gave a report and presentation on this project to the Beach Preservation
Commission, which then voted to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving a .
statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand into Carlsbad.
This staff report provides the City Council with an update on Oceanside's project, which has the
potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad.
Staff is also seeking the City Council's direction on a proposed statement of opposition to
constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
Discussion
In 2019 the Oceanside City Council directed city staff to initiate a process to identify feasible
solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion by either utilizing re nourishment
projects _of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices to reduce the loss of sand or
a combination of both. The goal was to fdentify strategies that were environ!llentally sensitive,
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 1 of 10
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
financially feasible and that had a reasonable chance of being approved through the regulatory
permitting process.
In April 20201 the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services agreement with
engineering consultant GHD, which then worked on a study evaluating alternatives to stabilize
and enhance the beach widths within the City of Oceanside. On Aug. 11, 2021, the Oceanside
City Council received a presentation on the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention
Device Project Feasibility Analysis, at a workshop, as well as an accompanying staff report. The
study area spanned the coastline, from the southern end of Camp Pendleton south to the
southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon;
Section 2., Coastal Setting, of the analysis document, states in part:
The wave climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells
generated by distant storms in the North Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern
swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest through the spring and summer
months and transports sand to the north (Figure 2-1). Larger North Pacific swell[s]
approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months
transports sand to the south (Figure 2-2). Locally generated short-period wind
waves can occur any time during the year and typically come from the west.
Waves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches.
The net longshore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be
southern, although seasonal variations are common and depend on the swell
direction. There are numerous estimates of the longshore sediment transport for
Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell, as shown in Table 2.1. These
estimates are based on historic studies and have not been updated or field
ve rified recently. However, amongst these studies there is general agreement that
Oceanside experiences a net sediment transport to the south of 100,000 to
200,000 cubic yards (cy) per vear.
GHD estimated the cost and the approach offuture phases of the project, and engaged the
Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to
develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan. GHD also performed numerical
modeling to predict how the alternatives could impact local and regional sand movement.
Additionally, the city held several meetings with resource agencies and stakeholders to
understand any concerns and receive feedback on the alternatives being considered. However,
neither City of Oceanside staff nor GHD consulted the City of Carlsbad as a stakeholder during
the input-gathering process. Carlsbad staff were also not informed of any public meetings held
to review and comment on the analysis. Oceanside staff later indicated these omissions were
inadvertent and committed to including Carlsbad staff in the next phase of the project.
Four alternatives for sand retention were outlined at the August 2021 Oceanside City Council
workshop. Additionally, three sand bypass options were reviewed for their applicability and
utility in addressing the erosion issues within the city. A bypass system would transport
pumped sand to city beaches via a network of underground pipelines. Of the four retention
alternatives studied, groins, structures built perpendicular to the shore to restrict the
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 2 of 10
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
movement of sediment, were ranked the highest based on the multi-criteria analysis of
technical petformance, financial analysis and environmental consideration.
The analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins and a sand bypass
system. According to the analysis document, this alternative would entail construction of four,
600-foot long, mounds of rubble spaced 1,000 feet apart along the pilot area, which spans the
coastline from the Oceanside Pier south to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon.
The proposed groins are to be perpendicular to the shore and extend seaward from the existing
rock revetment.1 An estimated 300,000 cubic yards of sand would initially be deposited in the
proposed groins field, with about half that much sand to be deposited in subsequent
replenishments.
The Oceanside City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed staff to begin the
associated design, permitting and environmental worl<. Mayor Sanchez, casting the lone
dissenting vote, expressed doubt that the California Coastal Commission would approve the
permits that would be necessary for the pilot project to move forward. The Mayor, who
previously served as a Coastal Commissioner, did not support the expenditure of funds on
pursuing the design, permitting and environmental review of this alternative, considering it was
unlikely to receive Coastal Commission approval because it interferes with the natural flow of
sand down the coast. Mayor Sanchez instead favored the beach nourishment alternative.
City of Carlsbad staff share the concern that the groins alternative has the potenti<1I to interft'!re
with the natural flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad. The National Park
Service's article Coastal Engineering -Hard Structures: Groins and Jetties notes, "By design,
these structures are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore current;. this depletes
the sand supply to the beach area immediately down-drift of the structure."
The City of Oceanside1s stated intent with the groins alternative was that it would be
"adaptable and reversable" based on the results of scientific monitoring programs. If sand
retention success i.s achieved with the initial four groins, more groins may be added to other
sections of the Oceanside coastline in the future.
On Oct. 20, 2021, the City of Oceanside publicly advertised a "Request for Proposals (RFP) for
the Design, CEQA/NEPA Documentation & Permitting Phase for the Oceanside Sand Retention
Project." The request description reads in part:
The City of Oceanside's Public Works Department is seek1ng Proposals from
qualified firms specializing in coastal engineering ("Consultant;') with experience
in the design and permit processing of coastal engineering projects in the
Southern California's coastal zone, including extensive experience with
community/stakeholder engagement efforts for lu rgc-scalc, complex projects,
preparation of CEQA/NEPA documents, and securing appropriate permits from
all responsible agencies.
The due date for firms to submit proposals was Dec. 7, 2021. The Oceanside City Council has
not yet entered into an agreement with a qualified firm. Once a firm is selected and an
agreement is executed, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four
1 Revetments are sloping structures designed to absorb the energy of incoming water,
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 3 of 10
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
years. City of Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional public outreach in
this next phase of the project before the final groin locations are determined.
The California Coastal Commission, the Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton, Surfrider Foundation
and other stakeholders are expectecl to be invited to engage in the public outreach process.
There will also be opportunities for City of Carlsbad staff and other municipalities to provide
comments on the potential impacts from the project.
City of Oceanside staff held a virtual meeting with City of Carlsbad staff regarding the project on
Dec. 29, 2021. City of Oceanside staff affirmed the background and status described above and
reiterated that the groin alternative was intended to be "adaptable and reversable.'1 Oceanside
staff also indicated that the project was still in an early planning phase and expressed a strong
interest in continuing to communicate with City of Carlsbad staff and community members to
address any potential impacts to Carlsbad,
On Jan . 4, 2022, staff gave a report and presentation on this project to the Carlsbad Beach
Preservation Commission, which then voted to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution
approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the
natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad. Staff concur with this recommendation.
Options
T~e following options are provided for the City Council, with option one recommended by staff:
1. Adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
2. Do not adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices
that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
3. Other action the City Council deems appropriate in relation to constructing devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action, although it may
contribute to long-term financial sustainability.
Next Steps
If so directed, staff will send a letter to the Oceanside City Manager (Exhibit 3), transmitting the
Carlsbad City Council resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices
that could Interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad. Staff will also continue
to monitor the design, permitting and environmental review process of Oceanside's project and
provide comments on the project as opportunities become available,
Environmental Evaluation
This action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause
either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment and therefore does not require environmental review.
Jan.11, 2022 Item #12 Page 4 of 10
Public Notification
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the state's Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution
2. City Council memorandum, Status of City of Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and
Retention Device Project, dated Aug. 26, 2021
3. Draft letter to the Oceanside City Manager, dated Jan. 12, 2022
'
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 5 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-011
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
EXHIBIT 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY COUNCILlS STATEM ENT OF OPPOSITION
TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL
FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, on Oct. 9, 2'019, the Oceanside City Council directed staff to initiate a process to
identify feasible solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion .by either utilizing re-
nourishment projects of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices to reduce the loss of
sand, or .i combitmtioh of both; and
WHEREAS, in April 2020, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services
agreement with engineering consultant GHD, which then worked on a study evaluating alternatives to
stabilize and enhance the beach widths within t!,e City of Oceanside; and
WHEREAS, on Aug. 11, 2021, the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device
Project Feasibility Analysis a11d a staff repo1t were presented to the Oceanside City Council; and
WHEREAS{ the study area spanned the coastline from the sout hern end of Camp Pendleton
. south to the southern jetty of the Agua Hedionqa Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, Section 2., Coastal Setting, of the analysis document, states in part: The wave
climate within the City is characterized by se<JsonaJ long-period swells generated by distant storms in
the Notth Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest through
the spring dnd summer months an(} transports sand to the north ... Larger North Pacific swell[s]
approaching from the northwest ancJ west during the Jc,!J and winter months transports sand to the
south. .. Wdves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches. The net
longs/Jore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be southern, although seasonal
variations are common and depend on the swell direction. There are numerous estimates of the
longshore sediment transport for Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell ... These estimates are
based on historic studies and have not been updated or field verified recently. HoweverJ amongst these
studies there is ge11eral agreement that Oceanside experiences a net sediment tronsport to the south
of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards (cy) per year; ahd
WHEREAS, GHD estimated the cost and the approach of future phases of the project, and
engaged the Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography to develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan; and
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 6 of 10
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, GHD also performed numerlcal modeling to predict how the alternatives could
impact local and regional sand movement; ahd
WHEREAS, of the four retention alteri,atives studied, groi11s were ranked the highest -based on
the multi-criteria analysis of technical performance, financial analysis; and environmental
consider.~tipni and
WHEREAS, the analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins and a
sand bypass system, with a project area that area spatmed the coastline from the Oceanside Pier south_
to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, the Oceanside City Council voted to i11itic1te the pilot project and directed slaff Lo
begin the associated design, permitting and environmental Work; and
WHEREAS, Carlsbad staff e}cpressed concern that the groins alternative has the· potential to
interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the National P~rk Service1s state11ient on .groins notes, "By design, fhese structures
are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore current; this depletes the sand supply to the
beach area Immediately down-drift,of the structur-ei" and
WHEREAS, the City of Oceanside's stated intent with the groins alternative was that it would be
''adaptable and reversable" based on the tesults of scientific monitoring programs; and
WHEREAS, if sand retention suc<tess is achieved with the initial four groin!;, more groins may be
added to other sections of the Oceanside coastline in the future; and
WHrnEAS, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four years and Crty of
Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional public outreach before the filial groin
locations are determined; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, the· Ma·rine Corps' Camp Pendleton, Surftider
Foundation a.nd other stakeholders are expected to be invited to engage in the outreach p1·ocess; and
WHlEREAS, there will also be opportunities for City of Carlsbad staff and other municipalities to
provide comments on the potcntiEil impricts from the project; and
WHEREAS, on Jan. 4, 2022, staff gave a report and presentation on this project to the Carlsbad
Beach Preservation Commission, which then voted to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution
app(oving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could inte1fere with the natural flow
of beach sand into Carlsbad. Staff con ems With this r-ecomtnend:ation; and
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 · Page 7 of 10
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with this statement of oppositio111 but it
may co·ntribute to long-term financial sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has considered the pote11tial etwironmental effects of this action
and has been detertninecl it to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} review.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project"
within the meaning of the California E11vironmental Quality Act in that it has no pot~ntial to cause either
a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad; California, as
follows :
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City of Carlsbad City Council opposes the construction of devices that could
interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
3. That staff will send a copy of this resolution to the Oceanside City Manager, the San
biego Association of Governments Shoreline Preservation Working Group, and the
California Coastal Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOl?TED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 11:ili day of January 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat.,.Patel, Acosta, Norby.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
F. f\VIOU~/M.EDINA, City d~rk Si>rvices Manager l I ) -~-/ ._ -
(SEAL)
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 8 of 10
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
Exhibit 2
City Council memorandum, Status of City of Oceanside's
Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project,
dated Aug. 26, 2021
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 9 of 10
Jan. 12, 2022
Ms. Deanna Lorson
City Manager
City of Oceanside
Civic Center
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
(_ City of
Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 3
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Ms. Lorson:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-___ of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to cohtact me at
760-434-2·958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director l<yle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manage'
Celia Brewer, City Attomey
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
l<yle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Office of the City ·Manager
City Hall noo Carlsbc1u Villc1ge Drive I Carlsb~d, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
Jan . 11, 2022 Item #12 Page lOof 10
Jan. 12, 2022
Ms. Deanna Lorson
City Manager
City of Oceanside
Civic Center
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
, Attachment A
ATTACHMENT B
(city of
Carlsbad
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Ms. Lorson:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad,
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434-2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lan·caster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
1fb(J~
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Cetia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City ManagP.r
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
l<yle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Office of the City Manage1· .
City Hall 12.00 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
1
Jan. 12, 2022
Karl Schwing
District Director, San Diego Coast and South Coast, Orange County
California Coastal Commission
7575 Metropolitan Drive #103
San Diego, CA 92108
Attachment A
ATTACHMl:NT B
r City of
Carlsbad
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Mr. Schwing:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving~
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434w2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely, r~
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosme
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
l<yle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Diana Lilly, California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District Manager
Office of the City Manager
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
I I
Jan. 12, 2022
Members of the Shoreline Preservation Working Group
c/o Anna Van, Associate Planner
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT B
f City of
Carlsbad
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Members ofthe Shoreline Preservation Working Group:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434-2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
fl ti_ !_L 11 .
-1 ~"'-t~-
(, b Jason Ha er
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Con1munity Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Office of the City Manager
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
u I-z LU ~ :I: u ~ <( .--.. CL ::) I 0
+,J u
C
V) ....__,
QJ E
E ro
.f..J
~
u
QJ
01
(1J ----,
0 0
O"l
~
~
CL CL
ro (1J
.f..J
C
Vl
0
::) ·-
ro u
0..
~ > .f..J
C
Vl
0
-a ·-
::> C
.f..J
-.f..J ::> .f..J C
ro V) .f..J
u (1J
~ (1J .f..J
+,J
Vl 0 ·---, QJ
~ 0.. 01 0 Q:'.
ln (1J 0.. C ~
ro QJ ·-CL -a
C 0 01 C
0 ·--a -a
01 >-C ro
u C .f..J (1J ro .f..J
·-~
LU ·-0 V) C
QJ
4-..Q ...c QJ
~ E
>-0 .f..J 0 u
-0 Vl ro ..Q ro ...c
■-
~ 0.. CL ~ QJ Vl
l/') ro ~ E ro co ~
0 I ::>
C E u 0 u ro 0
ro > ro C z
E E -0 ::> 0
QJ
C C -0
~ ro C 01 C
u :::)
<( V) <(
QJ ro
0
Q:'. V)
V) • • • • •
u 1-2 w :;;; I u g
>--0
::>
-f-J
LI)
U1 ,._
OJ
OJ
C
■-
CJ)
C
LU
'+-0
U1
Cl.. ,._
0 u
>-E ,._
<(
..j-rl ..j-
C: 0 ·,.:; u Q)
lfl
0~
0 0 r-1
<(
0
IX
$
.!:
-0 OJ N ·;::
0 ..c +-' ::i
<(
r--0 QJ 0 QJ ..... ..... OJ r-1 OJ
a. <( a..
E E 0 0 IX 0 u u
0 $ 0 ..... ....
V\ C "' .c "'O .c .... Q.J .....
C "O -0 C OJ 0 C N 0
E ::> ·;:: E 4-
\D C 0 ,.,'j-
I""\ ::> ,.,'j-..c .... ::::, re OJ fr'.
QJ
:§
QJ E ·.;::.
.c ..... C 0 E
..;j-..;j-
"'O QJ s
>-QJ
"O C
::::, QJ ,.._
t; .c .c .... .... '§ C
0 C
E 0 ·.;::.
,.,'j-ro --t-C ,.._ O')
0 r< 'iii L.r1 4-
rl 1./'l '° r< QJ
rl 0 "O 0 rl 0 r< r-1 0 r< t'. r< C ro C: C .µ .!:: "'O l/1
C "O .c OJ s O') ..... re (lJ ro
0'1 ..... ::::, l"i 'i: (lJ
ro 0 l"i z OJ ·~
,.._ 0 a.
.D ..c l"i 0 "' ..... ,.._ QJ
>-0 >-a. :>
'1J 0. J! a. 'il) "O '1J
(lJ ::i a. ::::, ro u
"O +-' ro O') +-' (!J (!J
C
,.._ ,.._
C lfl "' lfl V\ >-.j= >-"O "O >-"O "O C C C C :t: ~ ::>
::> ::> ::> ::> .µ
LL LL LL l/1 .D .D
Vl Vl
(tl (tl
(lJ OJ LL LL
tA
u I-z w 2; :r: u <( ~ <( Ul +-' u (]J . ~
0
L.
Cl..
C
0
>--1-'
C
--0 QJ
+-' QJ
::) L.
-I-' QJ ""'O
lf) l./") > C
u +-' ro
>-E u u,
QJ --0 u,
-I-' re C ro
C ro CL Ul
■-QJ QJ ->-C a_ >-> ·-""O l/) ...0 +-' ...a -1-' Ul co ""'O L. t: a:::: ro
·-0 C C
0 ...
V) Cl.. VI ro L.
OJ QJ
l./") u u,
ro C QJ -j-J !!... +-'
re u 0 ro
(lJ +-' ro
L. C !... 4-+-'
LL +-' QJ
a.. u
-0 O') ro QJ
C E C 4--' ·---,
I re ..c. O') C 0
--0 QJ L.
l./") Ul OJ Cl..
rl L. I... +-'
""O :::> --0 0 -0
QJ I... CL
(lJ N 0 0 QJ
>-C ...0 u, 4-
I... u,
V) re +-' ro QJ +-'
l./") I C
ro C ro u, QJ
<(
l./")
...c a.. • <( -0
(L • • • •
u 1-z w 2 :i::: u s
C
CJ)
■-l/l
QJ
0
(lJ
~
0 -0... >< LU
I
r\J
(lJ
l/l ro ...c a...
C
0
+-' C
Q)
+-' Q)
i.....
""O
C ro
+-' C
Q)
E ..c
V'I ·-C
Q)
0...
Q)
i.....
""O
C ro
V'I
..c
+-'
0
lf) ..0
(IJ QJ > > 0 > ■-C
-1-' ro V'I
Q) > C +-' ro ~ C
i..... (IJ Q)
+-' -1-' -<(
<( •
l...
0
..0
l... ro
I
4-.
0
..c. t
0 +-' C C QJ
vi E +-' C ro ..c.
QJ l/l QJ
~ ·c E
+-' ::::> ..c.
C E o -~ QJ 0 C i...
E '-i= --o 6
..C Vl C C v, ro V'I ro v, ""CJ
0..-C i..... ::> >-ro re 0...QCl.l'l o-z ""CJ·-('Cl C 0) U
""O ro aJ o
C l/) 0::: .....J
ro ■ ■ •
l.fl
•
tA
l/l E C
0 ro
+-' i.....
0) ""CJ
C 0
0) 0 i.....
C u 0..
+-' i..... C ..c
C 0 QJ u
4--1-' l... ro 0 QJ l... Q)
QJ C ::::>
-1-' 0 u i.....
C l... +-' ~~ QJ ro ::>
+-' VI ·u ""CJ -0 QJ C ·-·c QJ ..0 0::::: ·-4-C 0 ·-..0 ro ro
""O l... t >-.:.= +-' +-' l/l
ct..9<(I ~ w V'I ro ro • • • ro • 0
l/) co u
• • •
u I-z UJ 2 I u e l/l ro u C 0 -0 0 C ro
■-l/l +■J l,....
0 C +-'
QJ C l/l
-1-' 0 >
+■J I....
0 en I...
(1J 0.. QJ 0
l/l !,.... '-1-
a::: C QJ QJ
ro ..c u
l,.... ro
+-' rn +-' 0..
-0 +--' C
l,..
0 l/l >-
C I-'-1-en
C
QJ 0 ro 0
E +-' QJ C
C > 0 0
ro -0 0 IJ'l +-' +--' u
E u QJ
QJ -0 ~ ro
+■J
l/l u l,.... QJ ..s:::.
~ ro 4-l,.... u
C ro N QJ u ro
u +-' ro QJ
0 C ..s:::. l/1 l-QJ
(1J
a; ...0
Vl u QJ +--' QJ
-0 ro QJ Q)
E -C V, +-' ..c > ro C l,....
C +-' '-1-0 ro ro 0 en 0 --+-' E +-' !,....
0 IJ'l ""O +-' +-' l/l 0..
...c !,.... a; u re 0 E
QJ IJl E QJ l-u
Vl l9 -0 ro +-' CT'I I
C ..0 'U 0 0 s "'O
■-::::> +-' C !,.... l,.... 0 C
C ro 0.. 0.. ro
C l-......., QJ
a; >-QJ C +-'
E C
u +-' +-' I.... ro
(1J +-' a; QJ ::::> 0 ro +-'
(1J
QJ en '-1-+-' +-' +-' ...0 -..0 ro ro u C C
C IJ'l ::::> QJ ro
0.. -~ "'O l-ro ..s:::.
C ro u +-' +-' E
(1J 0 E l/l QJ ..c
ro ...0 !,....
a; ro -0 u
a::: ~ QJ ::::> !,.... re ro
> '-1-C
+-' 0. C (].) QJ
ro +-' ro a.. CT'I Q. QJ l/1 ..0
ro > QJ re QJ Q)
-0 +-' ""O 0 -0 u l/l !,....
+-' l/l <( l,.... $ ro 0
QJ > QJ
C 0 > 0.. 0 0 I... +-'
E
l/l
C • I.... ..c u QJ
Cl.. l/1 C a::: ro -■-
lf) a.. • • • • • •
u I-z UJ 2 I u ~ V"l u E cu ro u C >-C
ro ""O 0
!a....
0 -1-' !a....
·-
-1-' 0
-1-'
-1-'
C
·-0... C
en cu
cu V"l 0 -1-'
C
C ·-cu C
+-' !a.... C ..c ro
-1-' !a....
ro
C -1-' C ""O ro
·-·-C -
..c ""O ""O ro 0...
-1-' C !a....
·-ro 0
V"l C
s V"l 0 cu 0 ·-
-1-' '-1-u ..0 -1-'
Q) 0 ""O ·-ro
en
V"l +-'
Vt ""O
..c C C a..
u ro 0 ro
+-' :::> !a....
■-
..0 ro Q) 0... ""O
4-
Q) ::::) V"l ro
""O V"l 0)
Q)
(lJ C cu 0
!a.... E
ro !a....
!a.... !a....
C V"l u ro '"2 Q)
·-·-+-'
(lJ ro '-1-""O -1-'
I
·-
01
+-' +-'
C
ca 0 C ro Q) C
-1-' Q) C ""O 0
·-0
-cu u
Q) !a....
ro ..c V"l en u '"2
-1-' !a.... Q)
Q)
'"2
!a....
C
+-'
!a.... a.. Q)
C Q) E
0
QJ Q) -1--' ..c
E ""O ro l/l ·--I-'
■-
·-+-' ·-
CJ)
0) > ·-..0 ""O
:::> 0 ·-!a....
u ro
(lJ <(
!a.... ro -1-' ~
a_ V"l
LL llJ
4-<(
~ • • • • •
1' Atta~hment A \ \
u f-z w 2 J: u s
■
■
■
V\
CL
OJ
-f-J
l/)
-f-J >< OJ z
u,
QJ >
+-' ro
C I....
QJ +-'
<(
C c:::n
V'l
QJ
0
QJ I....
0
Cl.
X w
I
r-J
QJ
Vl ro ..c
0..
4-
0
ro > 0 I....
0..
0.. ro
u
C :::,
0 u
•
l/'I
0)
C
+-' QJ
QJ E
ro
C
0
0)
QJ I.... .µ ...c:: C QJ O"t E :::, +-' QJ C 0 Ol QJ
I.... ro E ..c Ol
C (LI
+-' (LI Ol
+-' ,.__ re
C (LI Ol
7:l C
QJ 0 (LI
E ..c >-u (LI C QJ .:,t_ ro (LI
O"t +-' Ol
ro l/1 <(
O"t
C w
•
V'l
C
0
+-' -a
C
0 u
QJ
C
QJ u, ro
..c:::i
-a
C ro
QJ
0) -a
QJ >-:s "'Cl ::::i
0 .µ
V1 C >-~ .-!=
+-' ..0 I....
0 l/1 re
Cl. QJ
LL u, l/1 C 0.. ro ,.__
0 I.... u +-' C
+-' >-0 E C ... +-' QJ <( ro
E "'Cl > C 0 re -a C
QJ I.'.) C <( Vl 0
O"t z
C <( V'l l/1 QJ 0.. ..c > .µ 0 -~ +-' ro QJ C O"t > 0 C
QJ ·.;; I.... C
QJ -a ~ ~ -a
VI 0 C QJ 0.. ..0 <( :::, :::, l/1 0.. re ·;:: C 4--C 0 u 0 +-' +-' Vl l/1 u 0) C C Vl ro 0 QJ I.... u 0 l9
• • •
Meeting Date: Oct. 4, 2022
To: Beach Preservation Commission
From: Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Staff Contact: Michael Tully, Parks Planner
Subject: Summary of the Coastal Management Efforts in the City of Oceanside
Recommended Action
Receive an informational report from Oceanside Coastal Zone Administrator Jayme Timberlake on a
summary of the latest coastal management efforts in the City of Oceanside.
Background
On Sept. 15, 2022, staff sent the City Council a Council Memorandum regarding the City of
Oceanside’s Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project Update (Exhibit
1). On Sept. 19, 2022, staff sent the Beach Preservation Commission the same memorandum.
In the Discussion section of the memorandum, staff concludes the last paragraph with:
The Oceanside City Manager affirmed the focus on achieving Oceanside’s goals, while also being
respectful to the regional needs for beach sand replenishment and any potential impacts on
southerly coastal cities. Staff appreciated the proactive efforts to provide these updates but
recommended the scheduling of like presentations to the Carlsbad Beach Preservation
Commission, the Carlsbad City Council, and the City Councils of other southerly coastal cities,
prior to seeking the Oceanside City Council’s approval to initiate Phase II – Exploring Design
Alternatives - of the Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project.
In the Next Steps section of the memorandum, following the Discussion section, staff indicates:
Staff will take responsive action to any request from the City of Oceanside for the item to be
presented to the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission and the Carlsbad City Council. Staff
will also stay in communication with the Coastal Administrator for any significant developments
on this project going forward.
Discussion
On Sept. 29, 2022, staff received a request from Oceanside Coastal Zone Administrator Jayme
Timberlake to attend the next Beach Preservation Commission Meeting and provide a summary
of the latest coastal management efforts in the City of Oceanside. Staff indicated the item
9/30/2022 Item 4 1 of 44
Attachment B
BEACH PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Staff Report
could be accommodated on the agenda for the Oct. 4, 2022 Beach Preservation Commission
Meeting, if the material for the summary were submitted within the subsequent several hours.
On Sept. 29, 2022, staff received the attached information sheet (Exhibit 2) and presentation
slides (Exhibit 3) from Ms. Timberlake for the Oct. 4, 2022 Beach Preservation Commission
Meeting.
Exhibits
1. Sept. 15, 2022 City of Carlsbad Council Memorandum regarding the City of Oceanside’s
Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project Update
2. Oct. 4, 2022 Beach Preservation Commission Meeting information sheet, City of Oceanside
Zone Administrator Jayme Timberlake
3. Oct. 4, 2022 Beach Preservation Commission Meeting presentation slides, City of Oceanside
9/30/2022 Item 4 2 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 3 of 44
Attachment BTo the members of the;
CITY COUNCIL
Date ~As/;p.CA ...:L cc ~
CM V ACM ./ DCM (3)-"-
September 15, 2022
Council Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council
From: Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Via: Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager @
{city of
Carlsbad
Memo ID #2022103
Re: City of Oceanside's Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project
Update (District 1)
This memorandum provides an update to a previous staff report, dated January 11, 2022, on the
City of Oceanside's Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project.
Background
On January 11, 2022, the City Council received a staff report on the City of Oceanside's Planned
Beach Sand Rep lenishment and Retention Device Project and adopted a resolution approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand into Carlsbad (Attachment A). Pursuant to direction in Item No. 3 of that resolution,
staff subsequently sent a copy of the resolution to the Oceanside City Manc1ger, the San Diego
Association of Government's Shoreline Preservation Working Group, and the California Coastal
Commission (Attachment B). Shortly after Carlsbad expressed its statement of opposition to
constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand, other coastal cities
to the south of Carlsbad likewise expressed opposition to the construction of such devices.
Discussion
On August 29, 2022, staff from the City of Oceanside (their Coastal Administrator) advised
Carlsbad staff of their intent to seek their City Council's approval to initiate Phase II -Exploring
Design Alternatives -of the Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project,
but to do so in a manner that is considerate of Carlsbad's and other southerly coastal cities'
expressed opposition to the construction of devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand. She indicated they would be further exploring each of the sand replenishment and
retention device alternatives identified in the previous feasibility study on the project, with a
focus on achieving Oceanside's goals, while also being respectful to the regional needs for beach
sand replenishment and any potential impacts on southerly coastal cities.
On September 1, 2022, the Oceanside Deputy Mayor and a city staff member provided public
comments during the San Diego Association of Government's Shoreline Preservation Working
Group's regularly scheduled meeting. The comments included an overview of their recently
created Coastal Administrator position, including its focus areas and key objectives. Their Coastal
Community Services Branch
Parks & Recreation Department
799 Pine Avenue, Suite 200 I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2826 t
9/30/2022 Item 4 4 of 44
Attachment B
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Proj ect (District 1)
September 15, 2022
Page 2
Administrator also provided the above-described update of staff's intent to seek the Oceanside
City Council's approval to initiate Phase II of the project.
On September 6, 2022, the Oceanside City Manager and their Coastal Administrator met with the
Carlsbad City Manager, the Deputy City Manager for Community Services, and the Parks &
Recreation Director to provide a more detailed presentation of the above-described update. The
slides from that presentation are attached for your review (Attachment C). The Oceanside City
Manager affirmed the focus on achieving Oceanside's goals, while also being respectful to the
regional needs for beach sand replenishment and any potential impacts on southerly coastal
cities. Staff appreciated the proactive efforts to provide t hese updates but recommended the
scheduling of like presentations to the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission, t he Carlsbad
City Council, and the City Councils of other southerly coastal cities, prior to seeking the
Oceanside City Council's approval to initiate Phase II -Exploring Design Alternatives -of the
Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project.
Next Steps
Staff will take responsive action to any request from the City of Oceanside for the item to be
presented to the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission and the Carlsbad City Council. Staff
will also stay in communication w ith the Coastal Administrator for any significant developments
on this project going forward.
Attachment: A. City Council Staff Report, Meeting Date of January 11, 2022
B. City Council Resolution Transmittal Letters, Dated January 11, 2022
C. City of Oceanside Slides from Presentation on September 6, 2022
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Cindie McMahon1 City Attorney
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
James Wood, Environmental Sustainability Director
Tom Frank, Transportation Director
Jeff Murphy, Community Services Director
Kristina Ray, Communications & Engagement Director
Allegra Frost, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Strong, Community Services Assistant Director
Eric Lardy, City Planner
Todd Reese, Parks Services Manager
Katie Hent rich, Senior Program Manager
Sarah Lemons, Senior Program Manager
Nikki Matosian, Community Relations Manager
Michael Tully, Parks Planner
9/30/2022 Item 4 5 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
t lfV COUNCIL
Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
District:
Jan. 11, 2022
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
kyle.lancaster@carlsbadca.gov, 760-434-2941
Update on the City of Oceanside's Planned Beach Sand Replenishment
and Retention Device Project and a Proposed Statement of Opposition to
Constructing Devices that could Interfere with the Natural Flow of Beach
Sand into Carlsbad
All
Recommended Action
1. Receive an update on the City of Oceanside's planned Beach Sand Replenishment and
Retention Device Project
2. Adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad
Executive Summary
The City Council received a memorandum from staff on Aug. 26, 2021, on the status of the City
of Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project (Exhibit 2). That
memorandum noted that staff would provide periodic updates on the project to the Beach
Preservation Commission and to the City Council,
On Jan. 4, 2022, staff gave a report and presentation on this project to the Beach Preservation
Commission, which then voted to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of
beach sand into Carlsbad.
This staff report provides the City Council with an update on Oceanside's project, which has the
potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand dowh the coast, particularly into Carlsbad.
Staff is also seeking the City Council's direction on a proposed statement of opposition to
constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
Discussion
In 2019 the Oceanside City Council directed city staff to initiate a process to identify feasible
solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion by either utilizing renourishment
projects of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices to reduce the loss of sand or
a combination of both. The goal was to identify strategies that were environmentally sensitive,
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 1 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 6 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
financially feasible and that had a reasonable chance of being approved through the regulatory
permitting process.
In April 2020, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services agreement with
engineering consultant GHD, which then worked on a study evaluating alternatives to stabilize
and enhance the beach widths within the City of Oceanside. On Aug. 11, 2021, the Oceanside
City Council received a presentation on the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention
Device Project Feasibility Analysis, at a workshop, as well as an accompanying staff report. The
study area spanned the coastline, from the southern end of Camp Pendleton south to the
southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Section 2., Coastal Setting, of the analysis document, states in part:
The wave climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells
generated by distant storms in the North Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern
swell arr1ves at Oceanside from the southwest through t he spring and summer
months and transports sand to the north (Figure 2-1). Larger North Pacific swell[s]
approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months
transports sand to the south (Figure 2-2). Locally generated short-period wind
waves can occur any time during the year and typically come from the west.
Waves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches.
The net longshore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be
southern, although seasonal variations are common and depend on the swell
direction. There are numerous estimates of the longshore sediment transport for
Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell, as shown in Table 2.1. These
estimates are based on historic studies and have not been updated or field
verified recently. However, amongst these studies there is general agreement that
Oceanside experiences a net sediment transport to the south of 100,000 to
200,000 cubic yards (cy) per year.
GHD estimated the cost and the approach of future phases of the project, and engaged the
Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to
develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan. GHD also performed numerical
modeling to predict how the alternatives could impact local and regional sand movement.
Additionally, the city held several meetings with resource agencies ahd stakeholders to
understand any concerns and receive feedback on the alternatives being considered. However,
neither City of Oceanside staff nor GHD consulted the City of Carlsbad as a stakeholder during
the input-gathering process. Carlsbad staff were also not informed of any public meetings held
to review and comment on the analysis. Oceanside staff later indicated these omissions were
inadvertent and committed to including Carlsbad staff in the next phase of the project.
Four alternatives for sand retention were outlined at the August 2021 Oceanside City Council
workshop. Additionally, three sand bypass options were reviewed for their applicability and
utility in addressing the erosion issues within the city. A bypass system would transport
pumped sand to city beaches via a network of underground pipelines. Of the four retention
alternatives studied, groins, structures built perpendicular to the shore to restrict the
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 2 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 7 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
movement of sediment, were ranked the highest based on the multi-criteria analysis of
technical performance, financial analysis and environmental consideration.
The analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins and a sand bypass
system. According to the analysis document, this alternative would entail construction of four,
600-foot long, mounds of rubble spaced 1,000 feet apart along the pilot area, which spans the
coastline from the Oceanside Pier south to the Ol.ltlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon.
The proposed groins are to be perpendicular to the shore and extend seaward from the existing
rock revetment.1 An estimated 300,000 cubic yards of sand would initially be deposited in the
proposed groins field, with about half that much sand to be deposited in subsequent
replenishments.
The Oceanside City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed staff to begin the
associated design, permitting and environmental work. Mayor Sanchez, casting the lone
dissenting vote, expressed doubt that the California Coastal Commission would approve the
permits that would be necessary for the pilot project to move forward. The Mayor, who
previously served as a Coastal Commissioner, did not support the expenditure of funds on
pursuing the design, permitting and environmental review of this alternative, considering it was
unlikely to receive Coastal Commission approval because it interferes with the natural flow of
sand down the coast. Mayor Sanchez instead favored the beach nourishment alternative.
City of Carlsbad staff share the concern that the groins alternative has the potential to interfere
with the natural flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad. The National Park
Service's article Coastal Engineering -Hard Structures: Groins and Jetties notes, "By design,
these structures are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore Cl.lrrent; this depletes
the sand supply to the beach area immediately down-drift of the structure."
The City of Oceanside's stated intent with the groins alternative was that it would be
"adaptable and reversable" based on the results of scientific monitoring programs. If sand
retention success is achieved with the initial four groins, more groins may be added to other
sections of the Oceanside coastline in the future.
On Oct. 20, 2021, the City of Oceanside publicly advertised a "Request for Proposals (RFP) for
the Design, CEQA/NEPA Documentation & Permitting Phase for the Oceanside Sand Retention
Project.'' The request description reads in part:
The City of Oceanside's Public Works Department is seeking Proposals from
qualified firms specializing in coastal engineering ("Consultant") with experience
in the design and permit processing of coastal engineering projects in the
Southern California's coastal zone, including extensive experience with
community/stakeholder engagement efforts for large-scale, complex projects,
preparation of CEQA/NEPA documents, and securing appropriate permits from
all responsible agencies.
The due date for firms to submit proposals was Dec. 7, 2021. The Oceanside City Council has
not yet entered into an agreement with a qualified firm. Once a firm is selected and an
agreement is executed, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four
1 Revetments arasloping structures designed to absorb the energy of incoming water,
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 3 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 8 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
years. City of Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional public outreach in
this next phase of the project before the final groin locations are determined.
The California Coastal Commission, the Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton} Surfrider Foundation
ahd other stal<eholders are expected to be invited to engage in the public outreach process.
There will also be opportunities for City of Carlsbad staff and other municipalities to provide
comments on the potential impacts from the project.
City of Oceanside staff held a virtual meeting with City of Carlsbad staff regarding the project on
Dec. 29, 2021. City of Oceanside staff affirmed the background and status described above and
reiterated that the groin alternative was intended to be "adaptable and reversable.'' Oceanside
staff also indicated that the project was still in an early planning phase and expressed a strong
interest in continuing to communicate with City of Carlsbad staff and community members to
address any potential impacts to Carlsbad.
On Jan. 4, 2022, staff gave a report and presentation on this project to the Carlsbad Beach
Preservation Commission, which then voted to recommend the City Council, adopt a resolution
approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the
natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad. Staff concur with this recommendation.
Options
The following options are provided for the City Council, with option one recommended by staff:
1. Adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
2. Do not adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructihg devices
that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
3. Other action the City Council deems appropriate in relation to constructing devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad,
Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action, although it may
contribute to long-term financial sustainability.
Next Steps
If so directed, staff will send a letter to the Oceanside City Manager (Exhibit 3), transmitting the
Carlsbad City Council resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices
that could Interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad. Staff will also continue
to monitor the design, permitting and environmental review process of Oceanside's project and
provide comments on the project as opportunities become available,
Environmental Evaluation
This action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause
either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment and therefore does not require environmental review.
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 4 of 10
ATTACHMENT A
Public Notification
Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the state's Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1.City Council resolution
2.City Council memorandum, Status of City of Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and
Retention Device Project, dated Aug. 26, 2021
3.Draft letter to the Oceanside City Manager, dated Jan. 12, 2022
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 5 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 9 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 10 of 44
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-011
ATTACHMENT A
EXHIBIT 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY COUNCIL1·S STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION
TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL
FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, on Oct. 9, 2019, the Oceanside City Council directed staff to initiate a process to
identify feasible solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion by either utilizing re-
nourishment projects of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices to reduce the loss of
sand, or a combination of both; and
WHEREAS, in April 2020, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services
agre·ement with engineering consultant GHD, which then worked on a study evaluating alternatives to
stabilize and enhance the beach widths w ithin the City of Oceanside; and
WHEREAS, on Aug. 11, 2021, the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device
Project Feasibility Analysis and a staff report were presented to the Oceanside City Council; and
WHEREAS, the study area spanned the coastline from the southern end of Camp Pendleton
south to the southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, Section 2., Coastal Setting, of the analysis document, states in part: The wave
climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells generated by distant storms in
the North Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest through
the spiing and summer months and transports sand to the north ... Larger Narth Pacific swe/l[s]
approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months transports sand to the
south ... Waves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches. The net
longshore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be southern, although seasonal
variati?Jns are common and depend on the swell direction. There are numerous estimates of the
longshore sediment transport for Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell ... These estimates ore
based on historic studies and have not been updated or field verified recently. However, amongst these
studies there is general agreement that Oceanside expedences a net sediment transport to the south
of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards {cy) per year; and
WHEREAS, GHD estimated the cost and the approach of future phases of the project, and
engaged the Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography to develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan; and
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 6 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 11 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, GHD also performed numerical modeling to predict how the alternatives could
impact local and regional-sand movement; and
WHEREAS, of the four retention alternatives studied, groi11s were ranked the highest-based on
the multi-criteria analysis of technical performance, financial analysis, and environmental
consideratipn; and
WHEREAS, the analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins and a
sand bypass system, with a project area that area spanned the coastline from t he Oceanside Pier south
to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, the Oceanside City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed slarf to
begin the associated design, permitting and environmental work; and
WHEREAS, Carlsbad staff expressed concern that the groins alternative has the potential to
interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service1.s statement on groins notes, "By design, these structures
are meant to capture sand t ransported by the longshore current; this depletes the sand supply to the
beach area Immediately tlown-driftiaf the structure;" and
WHEREAS, the City of Oceanside's stated intent with the groins alternative was that it would be
1'adaptable ahd reversable" based on the results of scientific monitoring programs; and
WHEREAS, if sand retention suc<::ess is achieved with the initial four groins, more groins may be
added to other sections ofthe Oceanside coastline in the future; and
WHEREAS, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four year-sand City of
Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional publi!.'.: outreach before the final groin
locations are determined; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, the Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton, Surfrider
Foundation a_nd other stakeholders are expected to be invited to engage in the outreach process; and
WHEREAS, there will also be opportunities for City of Carlsbad staff and other municipalities to
provide comments on the potential impacts from the project; and
WHEREAS, on Jan. 4, 2022, staff gave a report and presentation on this project to the Carlsbad
Beach Preservation Commission, which then voted to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution
approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could ·interfere with the natural flow
of beach sand into Carlsl;Jad. Staff concurs with this recommendation; and
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 7 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 12 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, there is no direct fiscal impact associated wit h this statement of opposition, but it
may co·ntribute to long-term financial sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has considered the potehtial etwironmental effects of this action
and has been determined it to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
Pursuant to California Public Resournes Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a ''project"
within the meaning of the California Envirenmental Quality Act in that it has no potential to cause either
.a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment.
NOWJ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of th~ City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City of Carlsbad City Council opposes the construction of devices that could
interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad.
3. That staff will send a copy of this resolution to the Oceanside City Manager, the San
biego Association of Governments Shoreline Preservation Working Group, and the
California Coastal Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regula1· Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 11!h day of January 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acostc1, Norby.
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Jan. 11, 2022
None.
None.
MATT HALL, Mayot
l_;/
·+-~
FfVIOLf ~EDINA, City d~!~rvices Manager I ·-~
(SEAL)
Item #12 Page 8 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 13 of 44
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
Exhibit 2
City Council memorandum, Status of City of Oceanside1 s
Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project,
dated Aug. 26, 2021
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 9 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 14 of 44
Attachment B
Jan. 12,2022
Ms. Deanna Lorson
City Manager
City of Oceanside
Civic Center
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
ATTACHMENT A
{cityof
Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 3
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Ms. Lorson:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-___ of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434-2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Office of the City-Manager
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 10 of 10
9/30/2022 Item 4 15 of 44
Attachment B
Jan. 12, 2022
Ms. Deanna Lorson
City Manager
City of Oceanside
Civic Center
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
ATTACHMENT B
(cityof
Carlsbad
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Ms. Lorson:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the ncitural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434-2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
~~
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Office of the City Manager
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
9/30/2022 Item 4 16 of 44
Attachment B
Jan. 12, 2022
Karl Schwing
District Director, San Diego Coast and South Coast, Orange County
California Coastal Commission
7575 Metropolitan Drive #103
San Diego, CA 92108
ATTACHMENT B
(cityof
Carlsbad
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Mr. Schwing:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434-2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
l<yle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Diana Lilly, California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District Manager
Office of the City Manager
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
9/30/2022 Item 4 17 of 44
Attachment B
Jan. 12, 2022
Members of the Shoreline Preservation Working Group
c/o Anna Van, Associate Planner
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
ATTACHMENT B
(cityof
Carlsbad
RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SANO INTO CARLSBAD
Dear Members of the Shoreline Preservation Working Group:
Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of Carlsbad City Council, approving a
statement of opposition to constructing devices that would interfere with the natural flow of beach
sand into Carlsbad.
Should you or your stc1ff have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at
760-434-2958 and jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, or Parks & Recreation Director Kyle Lancaster at
760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov.
Sincerely,
~
(
Jason Haber
Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Enclosure
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager1 Community Services
Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Office of the City Manager
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t
9/30/2022 Item 4 18 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 19 of 44
Attachment Bu I-z UJ ~ I u <{ I= <{ ............ a.. ::, I 0 +-,J u
C l/) ...._.,
QJ E
E re
+-'
!,,_
u
QJ
en
cu . .......,
0 0
O"l
!,,_
!,,_
a.. a..
ro cu +-'
C
V'I
0
:::J ·-
ro u
a..
·-C
~ >-+-' V'I
0
-0 ·-
:::> C
+-'
-+-' :::> +-' C
ro l/) +-' u cu
!,,_ cu +-'
+-,J
V'I 0 ·--, cu
!,,_ 0... en 0
U'\ cu
a:::
0... C !,,_
ro cu a.. -0
0 ·-
C en C
0 ·--0 -0
en >-C re
u C +-' cu re +-'
!,,_
w 0 l/) C
QJ
4-
£} ..c cu
!,,_ E
>-0 +-' 0 u
--0 V'I re £} re ..c
■-
~ 0... 0... !,,_ cu V'I
U'\ ro !,,_ E re ca !,,_
0 I :::>
C E u 0 u re 0
ro >-re C z
E E -0 :::> 0
QJ
C C ·--0
!,,_ re C en C
u ::::, <( l/) <(
cu re
0
a::: l/)
l/) • • • • •
9/30/2022 Item 4 20 of 44
Attachment Bu 1-z UJ ~ :i: u s
>---0
::::>
-1...J
lf)
l/'l
~
QJ
QJ
C
■-en
C
UJ
4-
0
l/'l
0...
~
0 u
>-E
~
<{
-j-
rt -j-
C
0 ·.;:; u Q)
l/)
o'
0
0 N
<(
0
0::
$
.!=
-0 Q)
N ·;::
0 ..s::: ...... ~ <(
.
r---
<I) .., 0
~
0 <I)
a.
N ... ~
E <( a.
0 0 E
u
0
0:: 0
.., $ u
"'
0
..c. "'O C ...
.., <I) "'
C "'O -0
..c
0
...
C Q) C
E -2 N 0
'° C
·;:: E
M :::> 0 ..;t ..s::: ..;t ......
~ ro
Q)
0::
>-"'O ::, ... "' .c ... C
0 E
..;t
..;t ....
L/"l ,E
rt 1./)
0 ...
N 0 M .!= .!:
C "'O ro <I)
Ol ...
Q) -~ .D a.
"'O <I)
"'O C
>-0
-0 a. ~ ...... a.
l/) Ill
"' ::, 4-C :::>
>-"'O
:!= C ::,
:Q LL
l/l ro
Q)
LL
'° ... 0 M
.!:
..c. en ::, N e N
..c. 0 ... N
>--2! 7:J
en ~
.!: ...... l/)
"'O C >-
::, :t:
LL :0
l/l ro Q)
LL
M M 0 N
.!:
"'O <I) ..... Ill ·;:: a. e a. a. Ill ~
"' "'O C ::,
LL
<I)
~ <I)
E ·;:;
..c ..,
C 0 E
..;t ..;t
"'O
<I) 5 <I)
C <I) .... ..c. .. ~ 5
C 0 ·;:;
Ill
C g,
V,
<I)
"'O t
.19 V1
5 <I) z
V,
<I)
.2:
<I) u ~
>-"'O ::, ..,
V1
9/30/2022 Item 4 21 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 22 of 44
Attachment Bu I-z w 2 :i: u ~ <t l/l +-' u OJ . """"""" 0 !.... a..
C
0
>-+-' C
-0 OJ
+-'
::) OJ !....
+-' OJ -a
l/1 l/l > C
u +-' ro
>-E u l/l
OJ ""O l/l
+-' ro C ro
C ro a.. l/l
■-OJ OJ ->-C a... >-> ·--a (./) ..0
...0 +-' l/l O'.) ""O +-'
!.... +-' a::: ro
0 !.... C C ·-0 ...
V't a.. u, ro !....
OJ l/l OJ
l/l u ro C OJ +-' !.... +-'
u '"8 ro
QJ ro +-' ro
!.... C I,... +-'
LL +-' OJ 0.. u
-a CT\ ro OJ
C E C +-' ·--, ·-0
I ro ..c CT\ C
""O !....
l/l l/l OJ OJ a..
rl !.... I,... +-'
-a ""O 0 ""O
OJ ::, I,... a.. OJ
QJ N 0 0
>-C ..0 l/l 4-
I,... l/l
V't ro +-' ro OJ +-'
l/l :::r: C ro C l/l ro l/l OJ
...c <( CL • <( -0
a.. • • • •
9/30/2022 Item 4 23 of 44
Attachment Bu 1-z UJ 2 I u ~
C
en
■-
V)
(]J
0
(]J
!a....
0 -CL >< LJJ
I
r\J
(]J
V)
ro ...c:
a_
C
0
+-' C
Cl)
+-' Cl)
!....
-0
C ro
+-' C
Cl)
E _c,
u, ·-C
Cl)
0..
Cl)
!....
-0
C ro u,
...c
+-' 0
V) ..D.
QJ Cl) >
> 0 > ■-C ~ ro u,
Cl)
> C +-' ro !a.... C
!.... QJ Cl)
+-' ~ -<{
<( •
!a...
0
..D !a... ro
I
4-. 0
..c
1:
0 +--' C C QJ
111 E +--' C ro ..c
QJ 111 QJ
~ ·c E
+-' E => ..c C 0 _111
(]JQC!a.... E ~ -o 5
...C 111 C c
u,~~""O
0.-C !.... :::> >-ro ro
o...oc:111 o-Z -o ·-ro C 0'1 U ro QJ o -0 l/) 0:::: _J C ro • • • l/)
•
111 E C
0 ro
+--' !....
CJ) ""O
C 0
CJ) 0 !....
C u a..
+--' !.... C _c,
C 0 QJ u
4-+-' ~ ro 0 QJ !a... Cl)
QJ C :::,
+-' 0 u !....
C !a... +-' ~~ :::> (]J ro
+-' 111 ·u -o -0 ClJ C ·-·c Cl) ..D 0:::: ·-4-C o ·-..n ro ro t >-·-+--' +-' -0 !a... -111 u, C'9<(I ~UJ ro ro • • • ro • 0
l/) co u
• • •
9/30/2022 Item 4 24 of 44
Attachment B
Sand Replenishment and Retention Pilot Project Goals • Investigate and better understand local sediment transport • Adaptive management based on scientific monitoring • Improve public safety and mitigate hazards • Provide infrastructure protection • Showcase a retention program that is effective for the region ATTACHMENT C • Increase and maintain low-cost/free recreational space for visitors and locals • Restore beach habitat and improve beach ecology
9/30/2022 Item 4 25 of 44
Attachment Bu I-z UJ 2 :I: u ~ <( V'I u ·-E QJ ro u C >-C
ro ""O 0
~
0 -1-,J
~
·-
-1-,J 0
-1-,J
-1-,J
C
·-0... C
01
QJ
QJ V'I 0 -1-,J
C
C
·-
·-QJ C
-1-,J ~ C ..c
-1-,J ro ro
~
C -1-,J C ""O ro
·-·-C -
..c ""O ""O ro 0...
-1-,J C ~ V'I
·-ro 0
C
$ V'I 0 QJ 0 -·-
-1-,J 4-u ..c -1-,J
QJ 0 ""O ·-ro
01
V'I -1-,J
V, ""O
..c C C 0...
u ro 0 ro
+-'
:::) ~ 0... ""O
■-
..c ro QJ
4-
OJ :::) V'I ro
""O V'I 01 OJ
CIJ C OJ 0
~ E
ro ~
~ ~
C V'I u ro ~ OJ
·-·--1-,J
CIJ ro '-1-""O -1-,J
I
·-01
-1-,J -1-,J
C
co 0 C ro OJ C
-1-,J OJ C ""O 0
·-0
-QJ u ·-OJ ~
ro ..c V'I 01 u ~
-1-,J ~ OJ
OJ
~
~
C
-1-,J
~ 0... OJ
C OJ E
0
OJ OJ -1-,J ..c
E ""O ro V'I ·--1-,J
■-
·--1-,J ·-
CJ)
01 > ·-..c ""O
:::) 0 ·-~
u ro
CIJ <(
~ ro -1-,J 0
a.. V'I
LL UJ <(
0::: • • • • •
9/30/2022 Item 4 26 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 27 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 28 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 29 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 30 of 44
Attachment Bu 1-z w ~ I u ~ <I:
■
■
■
V't a.
OJ
+-' l/)
-1-' >< OJ z
V,
QJ >
+-' ro
C I...
QJ
+-'
<(
C
0)
V,
QJ
0
QJ I...
0
0.
X
UJ
I
C"J
QJ
V, ro ..c
CL
4-
0
ro > 0 I...
0.
0. ro
u
C ::::,
0 u
•
V,
0)
C
+-' QJ
QJ
E
ro
C
0
0)
QJ
I... ..... ..c C
QJ 0) E ::::, ..... QJ C 0 O'l (I}
I... rtl E ..c O'l C (I}
+-' (I} en
+-' .... rtl
C QJ en
-0 C
QJ (I} 0 E ..s::::. >-u QJ C QJ .:,,(_ (I}
0) IO en .....
ro IJ1 <(
0)
C
UJ
•
V,
C
0
+-'
""'O
C
0 u
QJ
C
QJ
V, ro ..0
""'O C ro
QJ
0)
""'O
QJ >-
~ -0 :J
0 ..... V,
C >-~ :!=
+-' L)
I...
0 "' IO
0. (I}
LL V, "' C 0.. ro .... 0 I... u +-' C
+-' >-0 E C .... +-' QJ <( ro
E -0 > C 0 IO ""'O C
QJ \.9 C <( V, 0
0) z
C <( V,
Vl QJ
0. ..s::::. > ..... 0 -~ +-' ro QJ C 0) > 0 C
QJ ·.;:::; lo.... C
QJ --""'O IO ""'O .... +-'
QJ "' 0 C 0.. LJ <( ::::, 0.. ::::, Vl IO ·;:: C 4-C 0 u 0 +-' +-' Vl IJ1 u 0) C C V, ro 0 QJ lo.... u 0 '-9
• • •
Beach Preservation Commission Meeting – October 4, 2022
New Management and Methodologies for Oceanside
1. Newly appointed Coastal Zone Administrator
- First of its kind in Oceanside
- Created out of the recognition that shoreline maintenance is a priority to preserve and
adapt to increasing coastal stressors from climate change and sea level rise.
Oceanside’s Current Coastal Management Efforts
1. Oceanside’s first effort
o Renewed participation in the Army Corps of Engineers program
o Grateful for the Army Corps and Congressman Levin’s efforts
o Timeline for Study’s results is 32-months
▪ Hopeful that the Study will generate a preferred project by its due date of
2026
2. Oceanside’s second effort
o Renew the City’s SCOUP Program
o 150,000 cubic yards of opportunistic sand
3. Oceanside’s third effort
o Sand Retention and Sand Nourishment Pilot Project
▪ First task of our Pilot Project is to locate a local sand source or decipher a
method of consistent sand delivery from around the Camp Pendleton Boat
Basin.
▪ Mitigate any downdrift impacts with new sand into the littoral cell
▪ Innovative or nature-based approach
• Eager to test a novel, multi-benefit solution that our public beaches
will benefit from and that the region and State can learn from.
▪ We’re seeking supportive action from the region and beyond
• Invite innovation and collaboration into the design process
4. Oceanside’s fourth effort
o RBSP III feasibility study
9/30/2022 Item 4 31 of 44
Attachment B
Santa Margarita River Mouth
Boat Basin Finger Jetty
South Jetty
9/30/2022 Item 4 32 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 33 of 44
Attachment B
Oceanside Coastal Management -
Summary
• Army Corps of Engineers Study
• Sand Compatibility Opportunistic Use Program (SCOUP)
• Annual Harbor Dredging
• Regional Beach Sand Project Ill
• Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
9/30/2022 Item 4 34 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 35 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 36 of 44
Attachment B
Phase 1 -Feasibility Study
• Analyzed sand transport dynamics
• Past nourishment efforts ineffective
• Harbor dredging practices, RBSP I and II
• Assess potential for sand bypass and retention projects
• Identified project alternatives
9/30/2022 Item 4 37 of 44
Attachment BPhase 2 -Explore Design
Alternatives
• Alternatives involve both sand replenishment and retention
• Sand Nourishment
• Sand bypass from areas north of Harbor
• Regional sand nourishment
• Local sand nourishment
• Sand Retention
• Groins
• Artificial reef
• Hybrid
• Baseline Monitoring
• Establish current conditions
• Coastal Outreach Program
9/30/2022 Item 4 38 of 44
Attachment B
Sand Replenishment and Retention
Pilot Project Goals
• Investigate and better understand local sediment transport
• Adaptive management based on scientific monitoring
• Improve public safety and mitigate hazards
• Provide infrastructure protection
• Showcase a retention program that is effective for the region
• Increase and maintain low-cost/free recreational space for visitors and locals
• Restore beach habitat and improve beach ecology
9/30/2022 Item 4 39 of 44
Attachment B
Regional Benefits
• Augment the total sand budget within the littoral cell
• Provide for scientific research of sand transport dynamics
• Facilitate regional dialogue and coordination
• Establish precedent for responsible sand retention
• Afford time for long-term adaptation planning
9/30/2022 Item 4 40 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 41 of 44
Attachment B
9/30/2022 Item 4 42 of 44
Attachment B
Current Conditions on the Beachfront
9/30/2022 Item 4 43 of 44
Attachment B
...
9/30/2022 Item 4 44 of 44
Attachment B
Next Steps ...
• Council approval of Phase 2 -Explore Design Alternatives
• Engagement through regional meetings
•
•
Stakeholder engagement
Agency eng;,gemerrt
• Continue developing sediment transport knowledge and baseline conditions
•
•
•
•
sos
Scripps
Collaboratian with SANDAG and Army Corps FNsibility5-bJdy
Design Alternatives-Innovation
• Grant funding
Attachment CAttachment C
STAFF REPORT CITY OF OCEANSIDE
DATE: January 25, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 OF THE
SAND NOURISHMENT AND RETENTION PILOT PROJECT
SYNOPSIS
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Professional Services Agreement
with GHD Inc., in the amount of $2,591,681, for consultant services in support of Phase
2 of the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project; and authorize the City Manager
to execute the agreement upon receipt of all supporting documents.
BACKGROUND
Oceanside has an 80-year history of beach erosion resulting in large part from
construction of the Camp Pendleton Boat Basin (Boat Basin) in 1942 and the Small
Craft Harbor in 1963, collectively referred to as the Harbor Complex. The Harbor
Complex traps sand north of these facilities, which limits sand inputs into the Oceanside
Littoral Cell that extends from the Oceanside Harbor to approximately Black's Beach to
the south. Since construction of the Harbor Complex, over 20 million cubic yards (cy) of
sand have been artificially placed on City beaches from either dredging to build the two
harbors (SM cy), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers annual harbor dredging program
(13M cy) or one-off, local or regional nourishment events (SM cy). Despite all of these
efforts, coastal areas south of Harbor Beach (i.e. south of South Jetty) have been
largely unable to sustain a dry sand beach for recreational, ecological and coastal storm
damage protection purposes.
In 2020, the City conducted a year-long preliminary engineering evaluation and
Feasibility Study to identify deficiencies in current coastal management actions.as well
as to determine a suite of solutions to lessen long-term beach erosion and mitigate the
effects of the Harbor Complex. The Feasibility Study (Phase 1) concluded that 1) a
high-quality source of sand, coupled with a beach nourishment program, needed to be
identified to provide more consistent beach nourishment opportunities, and 2) retention
structure(s) are desirable as a means of retaining placed sand, since historical surveys
and anecdotal data have shown that placed sand does not persist on many of
Oceanside's beaches.
Attachment CAttachment C
At an August 2021 public workshop, the City Council gave staff direction to pursue the
recommendations given in Phase 1. Specifically, staff was directed to move forward
with the environmental analysis, design, and permitting of a Pilot Project that would
provide both beach nourishment and sand retention options. Project types offered in
Phase 1 of the Feasibility Study included the design and re-initiation of a sand bypass
system that would move sand from around the Harbor Complex to the south and back
into the Oceanside littoral cell, as well as the design a groin or system of groins that
would be deployed to retain placed sand.
In fall 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for coastal engineering and
consultanrservices in support of Phase 2 of the Sand Noi.frishri,-eiit and· Retention Pilot
Project. The City received a bid from one team led by GHD Inc.
While several local stakeholders expressed support of the City Council's direction, some
stakeholder groups, residents, and coastal cities to the south expressed concern about
the potential for a sand retention device to cause erosion problems downcoast. Some of
the feedback received also urged the City to pursue more innovative and/or nature-
based solutions to the City's sand retention problem. Staff asserts that the actions
proposed through the Phase 2 contract recognize these concerns and provide an
opportunity to refine the program in a manner that will allow the consideration of
additional retention and nourishment options, addressing concerns that were raised
following Phase 1 of the Project.
Adjustments to the scope of Phase 2 of the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot
Project and negotiations with the consultant team have been ongoing since early spring
2022. Additional public outreach has also occurred throughout the refinement of Phase
2 of the Pilot Project, including staff level meetings with downcoast cities and key
stakeholders, such as the Surfrider Foundation. The City has also developed a Coastal
Zone Management webpage to inform residents and interested individuals about
ongoing coastal management efforts. Additionally, informative presentations have been
provided by city staff at the following public meetings:
• May 2022 -Encinitas Environmental Commission Meeting
• June 2022 -SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group Meeting
• October 2022 -Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission Meeting
• October 2022 -Save Oceanside Sand (!SOS!) Member Meeting
• November 2022 -SAN DAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group Meeting
ANALYSIS
Through Phase 2 of Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project (Project), GHD
would serve as the prime consultant responsible for preparing major deliverables,
coordinating the work of sub-consultants, managing the project schedule and budget,
providing project status updates, and working with staff to ensure that all components of
the project are consistent with and complementary to one another. In addition to GHD,
the consultant team includes the following sub-consultants/contractors:
2
Attachment CAttachment C
• Resilient Cities Catalyst (Public Outreach and Design Competition)
• Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
(Baseline Assessments and Citizen Science Program)
• Moffatt and Nichol (Coastal Engineering)
The main tasks outlined in the Phase 2 scope include:
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement
• Baseline Monitoring Program
• Engineering, Analysis and Design
• Environmental Compliance and. l?ermitting.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement will occur throughout Phase 2 of the Project,
with the majority occurring early in the process to capture any additional inputs, ideas,
concerns, and recommendations provided by key stakeholders and the public.
Community engagement will take the form of formal and informal public meetings, social
media posts and surveys, and informational pop-ups.
The Baseline Monitoring Program has been ongoing since the kickoff of Phase 1.
Baseline assessments will continue in Phase 2, with the goal of providing a robust
dataset for the engineering analysis and design tasks. Baseline assessments will
incorporate current surveys conducted by Scripps Institution of Oceanography and
citizen science-led efforts into a coastal database. Additionally, the Baseline Monitoring
Program will involve offshore surveys to seek out a high-quality, attainable sand source.
The majority of Phase 2 will include the Engineering, Analysis, and Design task. This
task will incorporate findings from the Community and Stakeholder Engagements and
the Baseline Monitoring Program into the design of a sand retention structure that is
complemented by a reliable sand nourishment source. This task commences with a
Design Competition to be completed by the end of 2023 and would engage up to three
external design firms to bring innovative ideas to the sand retention and nourishment
pilot project. The firms engaging in this competition will be provided with specific
parameters and close oversight to ensure that their work is specific to Oceanside's
unique shoreline conditions and that the designs being promoted are feasible from both
a financial and permitting standpoint.
The Design Competition process is a proven method for incorporating regional and local
stakeholder input, with an emphasis on developing a permittable project that has multi-
benefits for Oceanside, our downcoast neighbors, and natural ecosystems. A jury will
be selected that represents a cross-section of regional and statewide interests to help
review and make a recommendation on a preferred pilot design. The public will also be
engaged during the design process and will have an opportunity to provide input on the
designs. The Design Competition will be guided by the GHD Team, and based on
information gathered in Phase 1 of the Study. Once a preferred and viable design is
selected, staff will return to the City Council for approval, followed by final engineering of
that option to facilitate the environmental compliance and permitting process.
3
Attachment CAttachment C
Deliverables from this task include final plans and specifications utilized in the final task
of Phase 2, Environmental Compliance and Permitting.
Environmental Compliance and Permitting tasks will include the development of a
combined Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA),
addressing both CEQA and NEPA requirements as needed, as well as the development
of permit application materials and permit acquisition from the following state and
federal regulatory/resource agencies:
• California Coastal Commission (CCC)
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RVVQCl3)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
The consultant team's proposal, along with a summary schedule identifying key project
deliverables, are appended to this staff report (Attachment 1 and 2). These materials
provide extensive detail on the project scope of work, schedule, and budget.
FISCAL IMPACT
Description Amount Account Available Balance
Consultina Services $2,449,330 Sand Replenishment $4,253,964
Continoencv $142,351 837134221271.5305
Total $2,591,681
Funding source is the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Sand Replenishment
Account.
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The City's standard insurance requirements will be met.
COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE REPORT
Does not apply.
CITY ATTORNEY'S ANALYSIS
The referenced documents have been reviewed by the City Attorney and approved as
to form.
4
Attachment CAttachment C
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Professional Services Agreement
with GHD Inc., in the amount of $2,591,681, for consultant services in support of Phase
2 of the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project; and authorize the City Manager
to execute the agreement upon receipt of all supporting documents.
PREPARED BY:
e Timberlake
oastal Zone Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Michael Gossman, Assistant City Manager
Hamid Bahadori, Public Works Director
Jill Moya, Financial Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Professional Services Agreement
SUBMITTED BY:
2. Consultant Team Proposal (Electronic) Oceanside Sand Nourishment and
Retention Project, Phase 2 Scope of Work
3. Request for Proposals
5
Attachment CAttachment C
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
PROJECT: Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
THIS AGREEMENT, dated January 25, 2023, for identification purposes, is made
and entered into by and between the CITY OF OCEANSIDE, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter designated as "CITY", and GHD Inc., hereinafter designated as
"CONSULTANT."
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. The project is more particularly described as follows:
The Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project is Phase 2 of the Oceanside
Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Study (Phase 1), which concluded
in August 2021. Phase 2 of this Project seeks to design a sand nourishment and
retention pilot project, providing an innovative and/or nature-based approach to the
CITY's sand retention problem. In fall 2021, the CITY issued a Request for
Proposals from qualified firms to perform preliminary engineering design for a
beach sand retention device, associated sand nourishment program development, and
processing of all environmental compliance permit needs. In Phase 2, the
CONSULTANT will leverage technical data and knowledge gained through Phase
1. CONSULTANT tasks associated with Phase 2 include 1) Community and
Stakeholder Engagement; 2) Development of a Baseline Monitoring Program; 3)
Engineering, Analysis and Design; and 4) Environmental Compliance and
Permitting. For more details on the scope of work, see Exhibit 1.
2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT'S relationship to the CITY
shall be that of an independent contractor. CONSULT ANT shall have no authority,
express or implied, to act on behalf of the CITY as an agent, or to bind the CITY to
any obligation whatsoever, unless specifically authorized in writing by the City
Engineer. The CONSULTANT shall not be authorized to communicate directly
with, nor in any way direct the actions of, any bidder or the construction contractor
for this project without the prior written authorization by the City Engineer.
CONSULT ANT shall be solely responsible for the performance of its employees,
agents, and subcontractors under this Agreement, including the training of each
employee regarding the rights and responsibilities of an employer and employee for
any potential discrimination or harassment claim under state or federal law.
CONSULTANT shall report to the CITY any and all employees, agents, and
consultants performing work in connection with this project, and all shall be subject
to the approval of the CITY.
Attachment CAttachment C
Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
3. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1861, the
CONSULT ANT hereby certifies that the CONSUL TANT is aware of the provisions
of Section 3 700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured
against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in
accordance with the provisions of that Code, and the CONSULT ANT will comply
with such provisions, and provide certification of such compliance as a part of this
Agreement.
4. LIABILITY INSURANCE.
4.1. CONSULTANT shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement maintain
comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance, or commercial
general liability insurance, covering all operations of CONSULTANT, its agents and
employees, performed in connection with this Agreement including but not limited
to premises and automobile.
4.2 CONSULTANT shall maintain liability insurance in the following minimum limits:
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance
(bodily injury and property damage)
Combined Single Limit Per Occurrence
General Aggregate
Commercial General Liability Insurance
(bodily injury and property damage)
General limit per occurrence
General limit project specific aggregate
Automobile Liability Insurance
. $ 2,000,000
$ 4,000,000*
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
*General aggregate per year, or part thereof, with respect to losses or other acts or
omissions of CONSULTANT under this Agreement.
4.3 If coverage is provided through a Commercial General Liability Insurance policy, a
minimum of 50% of each of the aggregate limits shall remain available at all times.
If over 50% of any aggregate limit has been paid or reserved, the CITY may require
additional coverage to be purchased by the CONSULT ANT to restore the required
limits. The CONSULT ANT shall also notify the CITY'S Project Manager promptly
of all losses or claims over $25,000 resulting from work performed under this
contract, or any loss or claim against the CONSULT ANT resulting from any of the
2
(Revised 02-2021)
Attachment CAttachment C
Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
CONSULTANT'S work.
4.4 All insurance companies affording coverage to the CONSULT ANT for the purposes
of this Section shall add the City of Oceanside as "additional insured" under the
designated insurance policy for all work performed under this agreement. Insurance
coverage provided to the City as additional insured shall be primary insurance and
other insurance maintained by the City of Oceanside, its officers, agents, and
employees shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided
pursuant to this Section.
4.5 All insurance companies affording coverage to the CONSULTANT pursuant to this
agreement shall be insurance organizations admitted by the Insurance Commissioner
of the State of California to transact business of insurance in the state or be rated as
A-X or higher by A.M. Best.
4.6 CONSULTANT shall provide thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY should
any policy required by this Agreement be cancelled before the expiration date.
For the purposes of this notice requirement, any material change in the policy prior
to the expiration shall be considered a cancellation.
4. 7 CONSUL TANT shall provide evidence of compliance with the insurance
requirements listed above by providing, at minimum, a Certificate oflnsurance and
applicable endorsements, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, concurrently
with the submittal of this Agreement.
4.8 CONSUL TANT shall provide a substitute Certificate of Insurance no later than
thirty (30) days prior to the policy expiration date. Failure by the CONSULTANT
to provide such a substitution and extend the policy expiration date shall be
considered a default by CONSULT ANT and may subject the CONSUL TANT to a
suspension or termination of work under the Agreement.
4.9 Maintenance of insurance by the CONSULT ANT as specified in this Agreement
shall in no way be interpreted as relieving the CONSUL TANT of any
responsibility whatsoever and the CONSULTANT may carry, at its own expense,
such additional insurance as it deems necessary.
5. PROFESSIONAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE. Throughout the
duration of this Agreement and four (4) years thereafter, the CONSULTANT shall
maintain professional errors and omissions insurance for work performed in
connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000.00).
CONSULT ANT shall provide evidence of compliance with these insurance
3
(Revised 02-2021)
Attachment CAttachment C
Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
requirements by providing a Certificate of Insurance.
6. CONSULTANT'S INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY. To the greatest extent
allowed by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code section 2782.8),
CONSULT ANT shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, agents
and employees against all claims for damages to persons or property arising out of
CONSULTANT'S work, including the negligent acts, errors or omissions or
wrongful acts or conduct of the CONSUL TANT, or its employees, agents,
subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by
this Agreement, except for those claims arising from the willful misconduct, sole
negligence or active negligence of the CITY, its officers, agents, or employees.
CONSULTANT'S indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees, expert fees and liability assessed against or incurred by the CITY, its
officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims or lawsuits, whether
the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, CONSULTANT at its own expense
shall, upon written request by the CITY, defend any such suit or action brought
against the CITY, its officers, agents, or employees founded upon, resulting or
arising from the conduct, tortious acts or omissions of the CONSULTANT.
7.
8.
CONSULT ANT'S indemnification of CITY shall not be limited by any prior or
subsequent declaration by the CONSULTANT.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All plans and specifications, including
details, computations and other documents, prepared or provided by the
CONSULT ANT under this Agreement shall be the property of the CITY.
CONSULT ANT shall provide all such documents in electronic, editable format
upon request by the CITY. The CITY agrees to hold the CONSULTANT free and
harmless from any claim arising from any use, other than the purpose intended, of
the plans and specifications and all preliminary sketches, schematics, preliminary
plans, architectural perspective renderings, working drawings, including details,
computation and other documents, prepared or provided by the CONSULTANT.
CONSULTANT may retain a copy of all material produced under this Agreement
for the purpose of documenting CONSULTANT's participation in this project.
COMPENSATION. CONSULT ANT'S compensation for all work performed in
accordance with this Agreement, shall not exceed the total contract price of
$2,591,681.
No work shall be performed by CONSULTANT in excess of the total contract price
without prior written approval of the City Engineer. CONSULTANT shall obtain
approval by the City Engineer prior to performing any work that results in incidental
expenses to CITY.
4
(Revised 02-2021)
Attachment CAttachment C
Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
9. TIMING REQUIREMENTS. Time is of the essence in the performance of work
under this Agreement and the timing requirements shall be strictly adhered to unless
otherwise modified in writing. All work shall be completed in every detail to the
satisfaction of the Coastal Zone Administrator within 4 years.
10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement comprises the entire integrated under-
standing between CITY and CONSULT ANT concerning the work to be performed
for this project and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements.
11. INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT. The interpretation, validity and
enforcement of the Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of
the State of California. The Agreement does not limit any other rights or remedies
available to CITY.
The CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for complying with all local, state, and
federal laws whether or not said laws are expressly stated or referred to herein.
Should any provision herein be found or deemed to be invalid, the Agreement shall
be construed as not containing such provision, and all other provisions, which are
otherwise lawful, shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions
of this Agreement are severable.
12. AGREEMENT MODIFICATION. This Agreement may not be modified orally
or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto.
13. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Either party may terminate this Agreement
by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. If any portion of the
work is terminated or abandoned by the CITY, then the CITY shall pay
CONSULTANT for any work completed up to and including the date of termination
or abandonment of this Agreement. The CITY shall be required to compensate
CONSULT ANT only for work performed in accordance with the Agreement up to
and including the date of termination.
14. SIGNATURES. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant
that they have the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and to
execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of the
CONSULTANT and the CITY.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the
covenants herein contained and have caused this Professional Services Agreement to be
executed by setting hereunto their signatures on the dates set forth below.
5
(Revised 02-2021)
Attachment CAttachment C
Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
Date: ------------
Date: ------------
Employer ID No.
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF CONSULTANT MUST BE ATTACHED.
!:\City Attomey\Professional Services Agreement Short Form (Design Professionals).doc
6
(Revised 02-2021)
Attachment CAttachment C
State of Arizona
County of Maricopa
On this 9th day of January, 2023, before me, Joy D. Rockwood, Notary Public in and for the State of
Arizona, County of Maricopa, personally appeared Charles W. Janson, who acknowledged himself as an
officer of GHD, and that in such capacity, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument
for the purposes therein contained as his voluntary act and deed.
In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
qir4 JOY D. ROCKWOOD
1, ~ Notary Public • Arizona f Maricopa County
Commission 1157◄259 ~ My Comm. Expires Dec 26, 2023
Attachment CAttachment C
State of Arizona
) 55
County of Maricopa )
On this 23rd day of December, 2022, before me, :Je,fm 7 l-/11.t,l~,, ') , Notary Public in and for
the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, personally appeared J. Duncan Findlay, who acknowledged
himself to be the Secretary of GHD Inc., a California corporation, and that in such capacity, being
authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained as his
voluntary act and deed.
In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
JEREMY L MCLEAN
NOTARY PUBLIC -ARIZONA
Mancopa, County ·
Commission# e1a147 My Commission Expires
December 21, 2025
Attachment CAttachment C
Oceanside Sand
Retention Project
Phase 2 Scope of Work
City of Oceanside
16 December 2022
➔ The Power of Commitment
Attachment CAttachment C
Contents
Introduction 2
1. Project Management 3
2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement / Project Advocacy 3
2.1 Local & Community Engagement 3
2.2 Regional Engagement 4
2.3 Communications & Media Outreach 5
3. Baseline Monitoring Program 5
3.1 Beach Surveys 6
3.2 Littoral Sub Cell Study 6
3.3 Citizen Science Program 6
4. Engineering Analysis & Design 7
4.1 Design Competition 7
4.1.1 Prepare Design Brief and Design Firm Solicitation Package 7
4.1.2 Procure Design Teams 8
4.1.3 Collaborative Design Development 8
4.1.4 Select a Design Competition Jury 8
4.1.5 Select Preferred Design 9
4.2 Preliminary Engineering Analysis and Design 10
4.2.1 Evaluate Pilot Location & Future Phasing 10
4.2.2 Evaluate Pilot Sand Retention System 10
4.2.3 Develop Beach Nourishment Program 11
4.3 Adaptive Management Plan 13
4.4 Final Engineering and Basis of Design Report 14
4.5 Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) 14
4.5.1 30% Plans, Outline of technical Specifications & Estimate 15
4.5.2 60% Plans, Technical Specifications & Estimate 15
4.5.3 90% Plans, Specifications & Estimate 17
4.5.4 Final Plans, Specifications & Estimate 17
5. Environmental Compliance & Permitting 17
5.1 CEQA Document 18
5.1.1 Project Description and Notice of Preparation 18
5.1.2 Draft EIR 18
5.1.3 Public Review Draft EIR 21
5.1.4 Final EIR 21
5.2 NEPA Document 22
5.3 Permitting 22
6. Project Budget & Schedule 23
6.1 Project Budget 23
6.2 Project Schedule 24
6.3 General Assumptions 24
GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project
Attachment CAttachment C
Introduction
Following the completion of Phase 1 of the Oceanside Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention
Device Project, stakeholders, residents and several cities to the south of the City of Oceanside (City)
have expressed concern about the potential for a sand retention device to cause erosional impacts
along downcoast beaches. Additionally, we heard a desire from the region, stakeholders and the public
to explore more innovative and/or nature-based solutions to the City's sand retention problem.
Our approach to Phase 2 is to leverage technical data and knowledge gained through Phase 1, while
addressing these regional concerns and needs. Our Project delivery approach is summarized as
follows:
-Community and Stakeholder Engagement. Phase 2 of the Project will include regular
community and stakeholder engagement throughout the entire project lifecycle, with the majority
occurring early in the process to capture inputs, ideas, concerns, and recommendations
provided by key stakeholders and the public. Community engagement will lake the form of
formal and informal public meetings, social media posts and surveys, and informational pop-ups.
Develop a Baseline Monitoring Program. Phase 2 will build on the prior phase's work to
develop a physical baseline of the City's shoreline. The baseline assessment will include surveys
being collected by the Citizen Science Program and augmented with seasonal beach profile
data.
Engineering, Analysis & Design. This task commences with a Design Competition, which will
engage up to 3 external design firms to bring innovative ideas to the sand retention and
nourishment pilot project. A jury will be selected that represents a cross-section of regional and
statewide interests to help review and make a recommendation on a preferred pilot design. The
public will also be engaged during the design process and will be asked to provide input on the
designs. The Design Competition will be guided by the GHD Team such that knowledge gained
through Phase 1 is relayed to the design firms and that solutions are technically viable,
regionally grounded and environmentally acceptable. Once a preferred design is selected and
shared with the City council for concurrence, preliminary engineering of that option will then
commence to facilitate the environmental compliance and permitting process. Final engineering
design will advance in parallel with the permitting process to incorporate regulatory feedback.
Environmental Compliance and Permitting. This task includes the development of an EIR and
an EA, as well as the carrying out the permitting phase of the project, which entails working
towards permit from the California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coordination with the resource agencies will begin
immediately and occur frequently throughout this project phase. However, preparation of CEQA,
NEPA and permit applications will commence concurrent with the start of the final engineering
phase of the project.
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 2
Attachment CAttachment C
1. Project Management
Brian Leslie served as the Project Manager (PM) through Phase 1 of the Project and will continue to
serve as our team's PM. Brian will be supported by his discipline leads for community & stakeholder
engagement, baseline monitoring program, engineering analysis & design, and environmental
compliance & permitting. Brian will be the main point of contact, responsible for overall coordination and
management of the team, directing resources and keeping the City informed of progress, planned
activities, and upcoming milestones.
At the commencement of this project, a Work Plan and Project baseline schedule will be developed to
detail the approach, task timelines and dependencies, milestones and budgets. The Work Plan will be
utilized as a project management tool to provide transparency across the Project team, and for the City
to review, monitor and comment on the approach and method to delivering this phase of the Project.
The Work Plan will be considered a 'live' document and updated as the project progresses and
potentially evolves. A detailed project schedule will accompany the Work Plan, which will serve the
purposes of project tracking, forecasting and organization of resources. In addition, a Quality Assurance
and Quality Control (QAQC) Plan will be drafted by our Quality Managers Craig Dengate and Michael
Barnett, as a guideline and implementation plan for our commitment to project quality in all aspects of
the project delivery, not just engineering.
Our PM will organize and attend monthly Project team meetings with the City to provide updates on
status and to ensure key milestones are being met. Various members of the Project team will attend
these meetings; contingent on the Project phase and discussion topics.
Deliverables:
• Project Work Plan detailing approach, schedule, budget, and QA/QC protocols
• Meeting agendas and minutes to document key decisions made
• Invoices and progress reports
• QAQC program
2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement I
Project Advocacy
Alongside the City's leadership, we recognize that frequent and meaningful engagement with the
community, regional and stakeholder groups is critically important to the success of this project. This
section outlines our approach to engaging community, regional and stakeholder groups throughout the
project lifecycle. Our approach will be to first detail our engagement strategy/plan at the onset of this
task. This plan will be part of or appended to the Project Management Work Plan, discussed previously.
Similar to the Work Plan, we will closely coordinate with the City Team to align on the engagement
strategy and this document will be revised within Phase 2, as needed. A process diagram presenting
our proposed approach to community and stakeholder engagement is provided in Section 6.
2.1 Local & Community Engagement
Based on the GHD Team's experience managing multi-stakeholder processes to develop projects, we
see value and importance of consistent, clear, and open engagement throughout these next project
phases. The purpose of engagement activities is to ensure that community members and stakeholders
GHD I City of Oceanside J 12560488 I Oceanside Sand R8tention Pr0j8ct 3
Attachment CAttachment C
understand the process, the City's goals and objectives and have an opportunity to inform the design,
which can build a base of trust and support for the project.
Our proposed approach to local and community engagement is focused on conducting community
engagement activities that punctuate the process with in-person public opportunities for learning more
about the process and providing feedback to inform the design. These activities will be led by a team
that has executed complex engagement activities around the world, bringing best-in-class experience
and engagement design to this process. The GHD Team will design the engagements through a lens of
co-development, which means the form of engagement may vary depending on stakeholders and
ultimately meets the community where they are. In delivering these two key activities, The GHD Team
will build and maintain a comprehensive stakeholder database that will be used throughout the project
lifecycle, from design through to implementation.
During this phase of work, the GHD Team will work with the City's PM to establish an internal "City
Team" of cross-discipline staff, whose role will be to provide additional insight into the overall Project
development through the next phases of work. The goal of this City Team will be to streamline City input
and decision making.
The GHD Team will conduct a number of local and community meetings to support the engineering
Design Competition and overall Project outreach and engagement. The majority of engagement occurs
in the first 12-months of the project to capture community input, develop consistent communication with
public and regional partners, and inform on project updates. During the engineering and permitting
phases of the project, community engagement will continue to keep community and stakeholders
informed on the project process, next steps and key milestones. The GHD Team envisions the following
meetings to occur over the course of Phase 2:
• Design Phase Public Workshops Meetings, up to 5
• Permitting Phase Public Meetings, up to 3
• 'City Team' Meetings, up to 4
Deliverables:
• Community Engagement Strategy
• Organize, facilitate and present at 8 public meetings. Prepare agendas, attendee lists, and
minutes from meetings.
2.2 Regional Engagement
A major challenge to permitting and implementation of the Project is regional opposition, should the
project be perceived to be harmful to downdrift coastal communities, or contrary to visions for the
region's coastline. In order to help ensure long term regional understanding of-and ideally buy-in and
support for-the pilot from downdrift jurisdictions and key regional agencies and organizations, the
GHD Team proposes regional engagement activities across Phase 2 of the project.
Key stakeholders include municipalities within the Oceanside Littoral Cell (e.g. Carlsbad, Encinitas,
Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Diego), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), resource
agencies, nonprofits and advocacy groups (e.g. Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Regional Climate
Collaborative), Stale Parks, USAGE, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and state and federal
elected officials who represent the region.
The GHD Team will conduct a number of regional meetings during the course of this next phase of
work. The following meetings are included in this scope of work:
GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 4
Attachment CAttachment C
• Initial regional meeting (month 2) with opportunity to review and provide feedback of
engagement strategy -including details around the Design Competition.
• Participation of regional stakeholders in special feedback sessions to Design teams during
competition (through month 10)
• Special briefing of regional stakeholders post selection (but pre announcement) to explain the
selected project and regional impact and learnings, and relevant risk mitigation to regional
impacts (through month 12)
• Regional Key Stakeholder Meetings, up to 4
• Regional Briefings, up to 2
Deliverables:
• Regional engagement strategy, including stakeholder mapping
• Agendas and outputs of regional stakeholders meetings
2.3 Communications & Media Outreach
To broaden the reach of the local, community, and regional engagement, the GHD Team includes a
local media consultant who will work closely between the project development team and City
communications staff to help establish connections with local news and online outlets to amplify the
work, highlight the process, and respond to misinformation or concerns that arise through the process.
The work is twofold: (1) maintain and publicize a single website (either 3rd party or on the City's website)
that provides a comprehensive and evolving source of information on the Project's purpose, process as
well as the status of the proposed design and (2) to broaden the reach of the local, community, and
regional engagement.
Deliverables:
• Create a project website
• Create and maintain appropriate social media accounts.
• Social Media toolkits created for use by City and the GHD Team
• Design competition press releases envisioned at the following phases: initial announcement,
selection of teams, and winning team.
• Briefing materials for City staff and officials, jury, as well as GHD Team members, for all press
engagements
3. Baseline Monitoring Program
Dr. Adam Young from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) will lead the scientific Baseline
Monitoring Program for Phase 2. Dr. Young led this work within Phase 1 and will continue to help build a
robust coastal database for the City. This data will be invaluable during the permitting phase of this
project in order to answer key questions and to build confidence around the objective, scientifically
grounded nature of the pilot project. This task consists of collection of beach surveys and leading the
citizen science program. GHD's PM will coordinate activities within this task to ensure surveys are
collected at appropriate times and that the Citizen Science Program is being supported.
GHD I City of Oceanside 1125604881 Oceanside Sand Retention Project 5
Attachment CAttachment C
3.1 Beach Surveys
Twice annual, beach profile surveys will be collected from the Project area during Phase 2 to help build
a baseline database of the physical condition of the shoreline. Two beach surveys would be conducted
at historical transect OS-0947 (Crosswaithe St.) and at a new transect at Wisconsin Avenue to augment
the regional SANDAG beach monitoring program. Methods of data collection at these two transects
would be identical to the regional program, which capture the beach profiles twice a year (Spring and
Fall} from the back beach to the offshore depth of closure at other transect locations. These two profiles
would be collected twice a year over a two-year period (a total of four times) during this phase of work.
This data would supplement the Citizen Science Program's database, which is focused on capturing the
condition and changes to the subaerial beach (i.e. dry sand beach as captured during low tides).
Additionally, this data will be supplement data collected through the Regional Shoreline Monitoring
Program.
Deliverables:
• Beach profile data collection from 2 transects (Crosswaithe St. and Wisconsin Ave.) twice
annually (Spring and Fall) during a two-year period (total of 4 monitoring events).
3.2 Littoral Sub Cell Study
Based on regional dialogue during Phase 1 efforts, it was identified that the understanding of sediment
transport (i.e. direction and rates of sediment movement) within the heavily altered, modern-day
Oceanside Littoral Cell may be poorly understood. A lack of understanding of this system has the
potential to unnecessarily expand the bounds of Project impacts and mitigation required for this pilot
project. Therefore, the GHD Team has identified that a study to further our understanding of the littoral
sub cell is critically important to pilot project development.
This task will commission an independent study from a respected academic entity or consultant to
describe sediment transport volumes and pathways within the Oceanside Littoral Cell within the Project
area (i.e. between the Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon) over a recent timescale
(assumed last 20 years). The study will utilize existing coastal data such as: prior beach profile data,
SIO offshore bathymetric data, aerial imagery and historical studies to help describe modern conditions
of the cell. Data gaps to further our understanding of transport pathways and volumes will be identified
as part of this study to focus future monitoring and research efforts.
Deliverables:
• Littoral Sub Cell Study (Draft and Final}
3.3 Citizen Science Program
The grassroots Citizen Science Program (CSP) that formed between members of the community and
SIO during Phase 1 of this Project is providing a unique and valuable service to the City and the Project.
The CSP has collected almost a year's worth of survey-grade monthly beach width data at transects
throughout the City. The frequency of this data collection allows for an understanding of event-scale
changes of the beaches. This data is a critical element of the baseline establishment, which will play an
important element in the testing of the pilot, informing the Littoral Sub Cell Study, and in establishing
metrics for management actions within the Adaptive Management Plan.
This task includes labor hours for SIO to assist the CSP with the setup of this equipment, QNQC of the
data being collected and general coordination. GHD will provide oversight and general coordination of
activities being carried out as part of the CSP.
Deliverables:
GHD I City of Oceanside 1125604881 Oceanside Sand Retention Project 6
Attachment CAttachment C
• GHD Team coordination and oversight of the CSP.
• RTK survey data from Citizen Science Program (by others)
4. Engineering Analysis & Design
Building on Phase 1, it is evident to the Project Team that the Sand Retention Pilot would benefit from
innovative solutions and inclusion of nature-based design or living elements -to the extent practical.
Though the GHD Team is comprised of technical experts in nature-based design, we see value in
gathering ideas from creative firms working on coastal resiliency projects from around the world through
a design competition format. This type of approach has been used successfully in San Francisco Bay
(Resilient by Design), Vancouver (Sea2City) and New York (Rebuild by Design) to name a few. These
types of competitions bring creative ideas and can support City leadership in achieving a vision for the
coast and build community and stakeholder engagement and ownership in the Project.
Our approach would be to begin the Engineering & Design phase of this project with this Design
Competition, with GHD and RCC as co-leads, to ensure that that ideas or concepts put forth are
meeting the City's Project goals and objectives while also being technically and environmentally viable
to implement. The Design Competition process is estimated to take one year to complete, at which time
the final engineering and environmental phases will commence.
4.1 Design Competition
The following sub-tasks are envisioned for the Design Competition over the course of a one-year period.
4.1.1 Prepare Design Brief and Design Firm Solicitation Package
An important first step will be to set the parameters of the Design Competition to relay technical
knowledge gained within the first phase of the Project and regional knowledge for outside firms to
understand the physical, social, regulatory and political context. The GHD Team will establish a clear
set of design criteria to set boundaries and constraints around the project within a Design Brief. The
creation of design criteria enables the GHD Team to capture all relevant project parameters, technical
details, creative and geographic boundaries and project goals into a concise document.
Within the brief will be a clear definition around the Design Competition timeline, geographic boundaries
of the design (assumed from the pier to the Buena Vista Lagoon mouth), financial considerations (with a
maximum allotment for overall project implementation), and technical basis for the sand retention
strategy ( envisioned to be a synthesis of findings from the Phase 1 study).
Deliverables:
-Design Brief providing a synthesis of technical and regional contextual information and
establishing the geographic bounds of the competition.
Timeline:
-8-weeks (2-months)
Up to 1 round of feedback, input, from stakeholder and city partners
GHD I City of Oceanside] 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 7
Attachment CAttachment C
4.1.2 Procure Design Teams
We propose inviting up to 10-firms to respond to the Design Brief and selecting up to 3-firms to work
through the Design Competition process. The firms' submissions will be measured against the pre-
established design criteria to guide the delineation from 10-firms down to 3-firms, whose project
understanding and ability to respond to the design brief are best suited to meet the project goals. Each
selected firm would be provided a stipend to work as a subcontract to the GHD Team and will be
provided technical advisory services and guidance from the GHD Team and City Project Delivery Team.
Deliverables:
-Selection of design teams to compete within the Design Competition
Timeline:
• 12-weeks (3-months)
• 2 meetings with stakeholder partners, including the city, for final selection of 3-design teams
4.1.3 Collaborative Design Development
The Design Teams will work closely with the GHD Team during design development such that technical
and regional knowledge can be shared. It is envisioned that up to 3 Design Charrettes will occur where
the Design Teams can work collaboratively with the GHD Team and the City on their designs. These
charrettes would ensure that the designs stay within acceptable boundaries to the City and have
technical and environmental validity. GHD and the City will meet up to three times with each Design
Team.
Deliverables:
• 3 design charettes co-hosted with City partners and GHD team to support the design generation
and iteration by all 3-firms.
Timeline:
• 24-weeks (6-months)
• 3 collaborative meetings between Design Team and GHD Team with City partners
• Up to 2 rounds of design revisions for review and feedback by City Partners
4.1.4 Select a Design Competition Jury
The GHD and City Project Delivery Team will develop a Design Competition Jury (Jury), which will
consist of 8 to 10 people from Federal, State and local organizations, non-profits and agencies, to select
the preferred design from the Design Competition firms. The composition of the Jury is intended to
appropriately reflect the various interests in implementation of a project of this type. For example, we
might consider representatives from permitting agencies like the Coastal Commission, potential funding
agencies like Ocean Protection Council, coastal geomorphology experts, leaders of key stakeholder
groups like local surf clubs (e.g. Oceanside Boardriders Club, Oceanside Longboard Surfing Club, etc.),
as well as regional stakeholders. Below is an example of the types of roles and distribution of expertise
the GHD Team anticipates for the Jury.
1 Federal Agency (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers)
2 State Agency (e.g. California Coastal Commission)
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 [ Oceanside Sand Retention Project 8
Attachment CAttachment C
3 State Funder (e.g. California Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council)
i Policy Representative (e.g. Ocean Science Trust)
5 Coastal Science Representative (e.g. BEACON, Coast Keeper, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography)
6 Social Science Representative (e.g. anthropology, sociology and climate science intersection)
7 Regional Representative (e.g. Climate Science Alliance, San Diego Regional Climate
Collaborative or SANDAG chair)
8 Community Representative (e.g. surf community group, youth organization or local non-profit)
9 Youth Representative (e.g. youth non-profit organization or advocacy group)
10 Surf Industry Representative (e.g. Oceanside Boardriders Club, Oceanside Longboard Surfing
Club, USA Surfing).
Deliverables:
-Selection of Design Competition Jury
Timeline:
4.1.5
2-weeks-Selection of Jury occurs at the beginning of the process, to solicit input and feedback
from the team on design brief and firm selection processes, as well as final design
10-months-full term of Jury engagement
Select Preferred Design
In close alignment with the City's goals and objectives for a sand retention solution in Oceanside, design
teams will deliver a final proposed approach, with architectural drawings and conceptual renderings, for
sand nourishment and retention within 6 months. These final deliverables would be reviewed initially by
the Project Team, and then packaged and delivered to the Jury. The Design Teams will present their
designs to the Jury, which would be a publicly advertised and attended event. The Jury would
subsequently review the various proposals from Design Teams and score them against a set of criteria
established by the Project Team. The public would also be able to opine on their preferred design. The
GHD Team would then be responsible for ensuring that the Jury selected design is feasible, meets all
established Design Criteria and is acceptable to the City who will ultimately have to approve and
implement the project. The City Project Delivery Team would also review the selected design and
provide the final recommendation to City Council.
Regarding the "prize" that a competition winner receives, we envision guaranteeing the winning firm a
role in the engineering design or environmental tasks within the Project. A budgetary placeholder is held
for their involvement in this phase as a subconsultant to the GHD Team.
Deliverables:
• Three sand retention and nourishment designs from the Design Competition firms.
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 9
Attachment CAttachment C
• One Design Competition presentation to Jury and public.
• A selected Design Competition winner.
• A presentation to City Council on the selected and recommended Design.
Timeline:
• 2-weeks from completion of 1 O month Jury engagement and Task 4.1.4
4.2 Preliminary Engineering Analysis and Design
The preliminary engineering design and analysis will provide the basis for the environmental analysis, permit
applications, and preliminary design drawings that illustrate the location and configuration of the preferred sand
retention pilot project -an output of the Design Competition. Our approach to preliminary engineering design of
each project element is described below.
4.2.1 Evaluate Pilot Location & Future Phasing
This task will evaluate the viability of the siting of the proposed pilot, as specified as an output from the
Design Competition. The evaluation of the pilot location will account for the following factors:
• Public amenities -benefits afforded by the project should maximize public benefits.
• Coastal access -proximity of the project to public beach access locations and parking.
• Land ownership -opportunities or constraints posed by land ownership boundaries at each
location.
• Lifeguard operations -opportunities or constraints to lifeguard services at each location based
on feedback from City lifeguards.
• Biological resources -influence of project location on biological resources at Loma Alta Creek
and Buena Vista Lagoon.
• Downcoast impacts -influence of project location on downcoast sediment supply.
• Sand management logistics -influence of project location on ability to manage sediment supply
within and downcoast of the retention system.
A technical memorandum will be produced summarizing the findings of this siting analysis. The memo
will also address how the pilot project could be scaled up or phased in the future to provide a broader
benefit to the City's shoreline. It is assumed the findings from this analysis will be presented at one
community or stakeholder meeting.
Deliverables:
• Draft technical memorandum summarizing project pilot siting analysis and future phasing.
• Final technical memorandum incorporating review comments from City staff.
• Presentation of findings for community & stakeholder outreach purposes.
4.2.2 Evaluate Pilot Sand Retention System
Our approach within this task will be to validate and further engineer the proposed sand retention
system -an output of the Design Competition task. Though the GHD Team will be involved throughout
the competition, as a technical resource for the teams to draw upon, this task would analyze the
GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488] Oceanside Sand Retention Project 10
Attachment CAttachment C
geomorphic response of shorelines in the immediate vicinity of the sand retention system and
downdrift beaches. This analysis will be supplemented by numerical modeling of the sand retention
system and beach nourishment program to evaluate its effect on local shorelines.
Additional preliminary engineering design considerations will include evaluation of the type of
materials used and detailing the typical design cross section and profiles. Material types to be
considered may include natural materials, baycrete units, concrete, quarry stone, sheet piles,
geotextiles or alternative materials. The adaptability and reversibility of the sand retention system will
likely be a key factor to consider in the selection of material type.
Based on the sand retention system type, geometry and material type selection, the GHD Team will
perform engineering calculations to determine the size and composition of each structure following
guidance that may include the Shore Protection Manual (USAGE, 1984), Coastal Engineering Manual
(USAGE, 2004), The Rock Manual (CIRIA, 2007), CIRIA Beach Management Manual (second edition,
C685B) and other relevant literature.
4.2.3 Develop Beach Nourishment Program
Beach nourishment will be an essential element of project performance -both to introduce a consistent
supply of coarse sand to the sand retention system but also to downcoast beaches. The GHD team will
develop preliminary coastal engineering requirements for the beach nourishment program to estimate
initial placement location, volume and frequency along the project reach. GHD will utilize the Littoral Sub
Cell Study to generate a first-cut estimate of the initial nourishment volume and also the anticipated re-
nourishment volume and frequency needed to maintain a beach in the pilot area and to mitigate
potential downcoast impacts.
GHD will then test these sand volume estimates using the numerical model built within the feasibility
study phase. The model will yield estimates of the longevity of the initial beach fill with the pilot area and
the fills fate down the coastline. Note, that numerical modeling of shoreline morphology is inherently
imprecise because of the difficultly in mathematically describing the complicated dynamics of coastal
processes and inability to forecast future metocean conditions and their effect on nearshore. littoral
processes. Despite these limitations, numerical modeling remains one of a few desktop tools that can
be applied to evaluate various design parameters associated with the proposed sand retention system.
The numerical model provides a tool for evaluating the sensitivity of retention system performance to the
following parameters:
• Retention system configurations -length, spacing and location of sand retention
structures/features
• Different combinations of beach nourishment volume and placement location
• Wave climate variations -typical wave climate vs. extreme wave climate associated with a strong
El Nino event
The preliminary engineering report will describe the objectives, design criteria, design calculations,
numerical modeling and other analyses performed for the Phase 1 sand retention system and Beach
Nourishment program.
Deliverables:
• Draft Preliminary Engineering Report
• Final Preliminary Engineering Report
• Presentation of findings for community & stakeholder outreach purposes
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 11
Attachment CAttachment C
4.2.3.1 Offshore Sand Source Investigation
This task will investigate sand sources offshore of the City of Oceanside, from approximately Oceanside
Harbor to Buena Vista Lagoon, with the intent of finding a close proximity, high-quality sand borrow area
that a cutter-head suction dredge could utilize for future beach nourishment projects. Cutter-head
suction dredges, like the HR Morris that is used to dredge the Oceanside Harbor annually, moves a lot
of sand quickly from the dredge site to the fill site but have the limitation of water depth and being able
to sail to and from a borrow area. Understanding these limitations (but also key advantages) the GHD
Team will evaluate sand sources within the geographic reach of interest and in water depths shallower
than 50 feet (the current depth limitation of these dredges).
The offshore investigation will leverage prior offshore investigations in the area, including RBSP I & 11,
USGS and USACE to scope the areas for the field investigation. Our team consists of the people that
conducted these prior offshore investigations so that knowledge and data will be used to target the
areas of highest likelihood of success within the field campaign. Once investigation targets have been
set, a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) will be prepared by the GHD Team to be submitted to the
USACE, EPA and RWQCB for approval.
Once the SAP has been approved, an offshore vibracore subconsultant will implement the offshore field
campaign under the direction of the GHD Team. The offshore sampling will include conducting vibratory
coring to collect subsurface sediment samples at 25 to 30 locations within the offshore study area. This
assumes up to five (5) days of offshore sampling with two (2) weather standby days. Sampling may be
clustered in three or four broad potential borrow areas to be investigated. Some "exploratory" vibracores
may be relatively widely spaced over the study area.
Final sample locations shall be corrected for tide and reported as depth in feet below MLLW and
locations given according to appropriate horizontal coordinate system with units (i.e. Northings and
Eastings). Final locations of the cores may have to be adjusted in the field based on sampling success
and other conditions encountered. Bottom elevations at sample locations may range from -30 to -60 feet
MLLW. A differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) will be used to locate and record actual sample
locations.
Sediment samples will be collected using a vibratory corer made of steel barrel/casing that can
penetrate and obtain samples to below the seafloor into a depth of 20 feet that is reasonable for site
conditions. An offshore "Alpine type" vibracore will be used or a device similar. The average rate of
penetration of the vibratory corer will be measured and recorded. At sites where the depth of refusal is
reached prior to the sample depth, up to two (2) additional attempts shall be made to reach the sample
depth if there is a reasonable chance of obtaining better results.
A detailed geotechnical log will be prepared for all sampling locations using glNT. At a minimum, these
logs will include all depth measurements recorded in feet below MLLW and position of the vibracore
locations. The description of the sediment will include at a minimum: grain size, color, maximum particle
size, estimation of density (sand) or consistency (silts and clays), odor (if present), and description of
amount and types of organics and other material present.
Geotechnical gradation testing will be performed to evaluate beach replenishment suitability.
Geotechnical testing will include grain size laboratory analyses following ASTM procedures. Sediment
samples will be field classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D
2487). Up to fifty (50) samples may be selected for analysis over varying intervals of the core, based on
geotechnical assessment of the core samples. The vibracore samples will be stored at a location
provided by the City.
Bulk Sediment Chemistry Testing will be performed on up to 4 sediment composite samples, envisioned
to a representative sample from each investigation "cluster area". Analyses will be conducted using
US EPA approved methodologies that are suitable for marine sediments and which yield the required
GHD] City of Oceanside I 12560488] Oceanside Sand Retention Project 12
Attachment CAttachment C
reporting limits for beach replenishment suitability. The analysis type and sampling density will be
outlined in the SAP, to be approved by the USACE and EPA.
The results of the field investigation and laboratory test results will be summarized in an Offshore
Geotechnical Data Report. The report will include logs of the vibracores, descriptions of field operations,
laboratory data and other evaluations as needed to support preliminary assessment of borrow suitability.
The report will dually serve as the SAP Results report, which could be used for approval of use of these
offshore borrow areas.
Deliverables:
• Sampling and Analysis Plan (Draft & Final)
• Offshore Geotechnical Data Report / SAP Results Report
4.2.3.2 Sand Bypass • Project Advocacy
GHD will provide as-needed Project advocacy at the federal level. We understand that the City has an
existing relationship with The Ferguson Group who advocates to the USACE for the City to develop a
solution for the shoreline impacts resultant of the construction of the harbor complex. Given that existing
relationship, GHD will support the City on issues related to sand bypassing around Oceanside Harbor,
and collaborating with the USACE Study team in developing effective mitigation solutions for Oceanside
and the region. A budgetary placeholder of $10,000 has been included in our proposal for potential
advocacy tasks that will be used as-needed based on coordination with the City.
Success of the Phase 1 sand retention system will be contingent on a frequent supply of coarse
gradation sediment. The feasibility study evaluated several local onshore sources and concluded the
fillet upcoast of Oceanside Harbor is the most logical and economical source of coarse gradation
sediment for downcoast beaches. Political and jurisdictional challenges remain the most significant
barriers to this sand source. GHD will support the City in discussions and coordination with USACE and
MCBCP on a bypass system to restore and maintain the supply of coarse sand to beaches downcoast
of harbor.
Deliverables:
• Memorandum summarizing discussions with City staff, USACE and MCBCP.
• Presentation of sand bypassing concepts for use in meetings with USACE and MCBCP.
4.3 Adaptive Management Plan
GHD will work closely with the project team and City staff to develop an Adaptive Management Plan
(AMP) that outlines the range of management strategies that could be used improve the performance of
the sand retention pilot project. The AMP will include specific strategies and actions, tied to a monitoring
program, in response to potentially adverse impacts associated with the project. The AMP will describe
the methods for monitoring waves, water levels, shoreline change, sand movement, and surfing
resources. The AMP will include triggers for adaptive management activities such as redistribution of
sand in the vicinity of the pilot retention system, system modification, alternative sand placement
locations and volumes for follow-up nourishments. GHD will develop estimated costs associated with
these adaptive management efforts such that funding can be secured and available for use in
implementing the AMP.
Development of the final AMP will be a collaborative effort among project team members, City staff,
local and regional stakeholders and regulators to clearly illustrate how the project performance will be
monitored, measured and adapted to avoid adverse impacts to coastal resources. GHD will be the lead
author of the AMP and will update the document at each stage of the design process to reflect feedback
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 13
Attachment CAttachment C
obtained from the variety of project stakeholders, regulators and design team.
Deliverables:
• Draft Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan based on Preliminary Design Information.
• Revisions to the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan incorporating feedback from City
staff, community/stakeholder outreach, and the environmental and regulatory process. Assume
three revisions of plan as project progresses toward final design (i.e. 60%, 90% and Final).
4.4 Final Engineering and Basis of Design Report
Tasks 4.1 through 4.4 reflect the anticipated design work required to develop a preliminary engineering
report and design drawings with sufficient detail to begin the environmental and permitting phases of the
Project. Based on prior project experience, detailed analysis of the proposed project and feedback from
regulators during this process often results in changes to the project to avoid or minimize potential
adverse impacts. The advancement of engineering analysis and design tasks will be paced by the
feedback obtained throughout the environmental and regulatory review process. It is important not to lei
final engineering and analysis get too far ahead of the permitting process to minimize the risk of "re-
work".
The GHD Team will perform detailed and final engineering analysis and design of the sand retention
pilot and beach nourishment program on an as-needed basis to reflect changes to the Project and
additional details requested as part of the environmental and permitting process. This task may include
additional coastal engineering analysis, calculations and/or modeling required at the request of the
regulators. This is difficult to estimate in advance of consultation. We have included a placeholder
budget for this task with specific scope tasks to be developed based on specific needs of the
environmental review and permitting process and coordination with the City. The updated design
information will be summarized in a Basis of Design Report to accompany the 60%, 90% and Final plan
submittals.
Deliverables:
• Draft Basis of Design Report to accompany 60% and 90% plan submittals.
• Final Basis of Design Report to accompany final PS&E submittal.
4.5 Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
The final design of the sand retention pilot and beach nourishment program will be influenced by the
input of government agencies, regulatory approvals and other local and regional stakeholders. GHD and
our subconsultants have prepared this scope in good faith, based on our experience on similar projects,
but cannot predict in what ways, or to what extent this input will influence the final design and PS&E
tasks. However, GHD will work closely with the City to discuss any potential changes to scope, budget
or schedule at the earliest indication, based on input from external stakeholders. We are committed to
cost control and will ensure that no work is completed ahead of the authorized budget.
Our experience delivering projects with similar regulatory constraints has confirmed that ii is
advantageous to pace the design work in response to the environmental and permitting efforts to limit
the risk of rework. When the project enters the PS&E phase GHD will update the Work Plan specific to
confirmed key milestones for design work and agency/stakeholder submittals.
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 14
Attachment CAttachment C
4.5.1 30% Plans, Outline of technical Specifications & Estimate
GHD will prepare 30% plans for use in developing the CEQA Project Description and scoping the
environmental document. Drawing details will be sufficient to illustrate the location and dimensions of
the major project features (i.e., sand retention system, beach nourishment, revetment repairs, etc.)
based on the outcome of the preliminary engineering analysis and design tasks (Tasks 4.1 -4.4).
Plans will consist of scaled drawings prepared in AutoCAD and include (at a minimum) plan view, cross-
sections and elevations of the sand retention system, initial beach nourishment and potential sand
management strategies. We assume the 30% plan set will consist of sheets including the following:
• Title Sheet
• General notes, datums, abbreviations & symbols
• Overall Site Plan
• Sand retention system plan & elevation (4 sheets)
• Sand retention system typical section (1 sheets)
• Beach nourishment source plan & typical sections (2 sheets)
• Beach nourishment placement plan & typical sections (4 sheets)
• Preliminary sand management plans
GHD will review the 30% design with consideration of constructability and cost. Real value can be
realized by identifying potential construction issues and value engineering alternatives early in the
Project design. GHD's construction professionals will coordinate with construction industry partners to
discuss the design, considering alternative construction means and methods, access, available
resources and other pertinent aspects of the project construction.
Based on the findings from this constructability review GHD will develop an opinion of probable
construction costs (OPCC) for the Project. Constructability review and cost estimating outputs will
include forecasts of labor, equipment, materials, and schedule that will be a deliverable provided to the
environmental team for use in scoping and performing CEQA analyses to quantify potential
environmental impacts. This task will also identify the specification format to be used on the project and
develop an outline of technical specifications.
Deliverables:
• Draft 30% design drawings, cost estimate and outline of technical specifications in PDF format for review
by City staff.
• Revised 30% design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), cost estimate and outline of technical
specifications that incorporate City review comments.
4.5.2 60% Plans, Technical Specifications & Estimate
GHD will prepare 60% plans based on the detailed engineering analysis and design performed in
support of the environmental review and permitting process (Task 4.5). Design drawings will reflect any
revisions or updates to the project based on mitigation measures identified in the environmental
document and feedback received from permit agencies and community outreach.
60% plans will be prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D and provide location, dimensions, and details
associated with the major project elements. The 60% submittal is assumed to consist of sheets
including the following:
• Title Sheet
GHD I City of Oceanside 1125604881 Oceanside Sand Retention Project 15
Attachment CAttachment C
• General notes, datums, abbreviations & symbols
• Site plan sheets
• Survey control sheets
• Demolition sheets
• Staging, storage and site access sheets
• Sand retention system plan & elevations
• Sand retention system typical sections
• Beach nourishment source plan & typical sections
• Beach nourishment placement plan & typical sections
• Civil design of coastal access improvements
• Civil design details
• Sand management plans & details
Technical Specifications:
The specifications will outline the material properties and required performance needed to complete the
work, construction tolerances and other technical (and environmental protection) considerations. Issues
associated with site access or potential conflicts with existing public uses will also be detailed in the
specifications. The 60% submittal will include an outline of specifications for major project elements
including materials proposed for the sand retention system and beach nourishment. GHD intends to use
the CSI Specifications format, however this can be discussed with the City if a different format would be
preferred.
Constructability Review and Cost Estimate:
As the design progresses, GHD and the project team, will continue to review the design with
consideration of constructability and cost. Further consultation and coordinate with construction industry
partners will be used to qualify assumptions on construction means and methods, access, available
resources, and other pertinent aspects of the Project construction. Constructability review and cost
estimating outputs will include forecasts of labor, equipment, materials, and schedule that will
accompany each PS&E submittal milestone. GHD will utilize in-house professional cost estimators and
gather input from specialist marine construction general contractors with a focus on the following items:
• Prepare constructability review of design plans & specifications
• Evaluate the potential means and methods of construction for purposes of estimating
construction costs
• Prepare opinion of probable construction cost
Deliverables:
• Draft 60% design drawings, cost estimate and technical specifications in PDF format for review
by City staff.
• Revised 60% design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), cost estimate and technical
specifications that incorporate City review comments.
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 16
Attachment CAttachment C
4.5.3 90% Plans, Specifications & Estimate
GHD will prepare 90%. (Pre-final) design drawings illustrating the location, dimensions and details of all
project elements incorporating agency review comments on the 60% submittal and any conditions of
approval agreed upon as a result of the permitting process. The 90% drawings will be prepared once
significant progress has been made in permitting efforts with CCC, USAGE and RWQCB such that the
major project features, methods of construction, and measures for preventing or mitigating adverse
impacts have been agreed upon.
GHD will prepare a complete set of specifications to accompany the 90% plans, assuming front end
specifications are provided by the City. Special provisions will be drafted for work items not contained in
standard specifications. Measurement and Payment terms will be identified for each item of work within
the technical specifications. 90% specifications will incorporate conditions of approval associated with
the Coastal Development Permit and other permits/approvals.
GHD will provide an updated constructability review and opinion of probable construction cost based on
the design modifications made in the development of 90% plans & specifications. A draft bid sheet will
also be prepared identifying the bid items and measurement/pricing for each item.
Deliverables:
• 90% design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), complete specifications, bid sheet, and updated cost
estimate.
4.5.4 Final Plans, Specifications & Estimate
GHD will prepare final design drawings, specifications and the engineer's estimate of probable
construction cost. The final design package will incorporate review comments from the City on the 90%
submittal. II is assumed the revisions will largely include minor edits to notes, callouts and details for
consistency & clarification among the bid documents. Our estimated budget for this task doesn't allow
for significant changes to the size, configuration and location of project elements. The final plan set will
be signed and sealed for use by the City to acquire bids from qualified contractors.
Deliverables:
• Final design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), complete specifications, and cost estimate.
5. Environmental Compliance & Permitting
The approach to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance for this project assumes preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
addressing the project for CEQA compliance and an Environmental Assessment (EA) for NEPA
compliance; based on our experience on similar projects. The City will be the lead agency for the EIR,
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) will be the lead agency for the EA.
Subconsultant, RECON will lead the preparation of these documents with support from GHD, M&A and
M&N.
For CEQA compliance, an El R will be prepared that addresses construction of the pilot sand retention
system and beach nourishment program (initial nourishment and renourishment). This approach will
allow for future phases to tier from the program EIR to facilitate environmental streamlining. The project-
level component of the EIR will evaluate the first phase of project, which would consist of the
construction of a sand retention system and the assumed placement of 300,000 cubic yards of sand
imported from an offshore sand source. The programmatic portion of the EIR would evaluate future
Phases of the project, which would likely include renourishment and potential adaptive management
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 [ Oceanside Sand Retention Project 17
Attachment CAttachment C
actions.
One of the key topics that will be addressed in the El R are impacts to downdrift beaches associated with
implementation of the pilot project. The EIR will rely on the detailed technical studies prepared by the
project team to evaluate how sand retention may impact the normal erosional forces and deposition of
sand along beaches to the south. The potential loss of sand at beaches to the south and changes in
beach sand depositional patterns would additionally be evaluated in the context of recreational impacts
from loss of beach width and potential impacts to surfing resources from changing currents and surf
zone sandbar formations. All sections of the EIR will be evaluated in the context of Coastal Act policies
and compliance to facilitate Coastal Commission permitting.
The specific scopes of work for the CEQA and NEPA documents are detailed below.
CEQA Document 5.1
5.1.1 Project Description and Notice of Preparation
RECON and GHD will prepare a draft EIR project description early in the draft EIR preparation process
that will be refined as the project alternatives are selected and technical analysis is completed. The
project description will include detailed descriptions of the project-specific and programmatic
components. Figures will be provided to accurately represent the scope of the project and its location.
As part of this task, RECON will work closely with project team members to develop concise and
accurate project objectives and to ensure that the project description comprises the "whole of the
project," as defined in CEQA Section 21159.27. RECON will also prepare a draft of the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for staff review and distribution. RECON will prepare all documents and notices
required for City filing.
Deliverables.:
• Submit the draft NOP and Scoping Letter to the City for their review and distribution.
5.1.2 Draft EIR
The GHD team will provide the necessary technical analysis to support EIR preparation, including
analysis for Biological Resources (M&A) and Hydrology (M&N). Our approach to these technical studies
is described as follows:
Biological Resources Studies (M&A)
Nearshore Habitat Mapping: Nearshore low-relief reefs exist along the Oceanside shoreline;
predominately along the southern region of the City. Any impacts to reefs or other persistent hard
bottom areas from the project would need to be mitigated, and therefore, these features need to be
identified and quantified during the environmental planning and review process. This information is also
useful during the project design phase and can assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts. Historical
mapping efforts led by SANDAG are dated, and the more recent USAGE data not at the level to provide
a detailed assessment of potential impacts. M&A would use interferometric sidescan sonar to conduct
fine scale mapping within the subtidal environment, and to quantify habitat types such as sand, rocky
reef, or artificial structures. To assess acoustic mapping accuracy, ground-truthing would be performed
by remotely operated vehicle (ROV) at random points to determine true habitat resources.
Biological Technical Report/ Essential Fish Habitat: M&A, using existing information would prepare a
marine biological technical report to support the CEQA analyses. The technical report will address all
marine biological aspects of the project. The analysis will include consideration of short-term and long-
term impacts of habitats and associated marine resources, including sensitive species such as federal
and state threatened and endangered species protected under ESA and CESA, as well as protected
GHD I City of Oceanside] 12560488 [ Oceanside Sand Retention Project 18
Attachment CAttachment C
species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Assessment would be prepared for the project activity. The EFH will be provided in accordance with the
1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, which require
the delineation of EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry
out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH and respond in writing to the
NMFS's recommendations.
Hydrology (M&N)
Independent Coastal Engineering Technical Review: M&N would provide an independent review of the
technical basis of design of the Pilot project and buildout program to support preparation of the EIR
Hydrology section. The study will review materials from the Feasibility Study and the Draft Basis of
Design (prepared by GHD). The study may be front-loaded within the schedule in order to provide this
independent check during the pilot siting task and before other design phases commence. The study will
answer CEQA Initial Study significance criteria to be provided by RECON.
Transportation & Traffic
No transportation analysis is anticipated as the only source of vehicle trips would be associated with
construction workers and potentially hauling of materials for the sand retention features. RECON will
work with the applicant team to identify the anticipated construction related trips and will provide a
qualitative analysis of potential VMT impacts in the body of the EIR. While analysis for all CEQA topics
will be addressed in the EIR, additional information about the scope of our analysis for aesthetics,
archaeology, air quality, GHG, noise, recreation and flooding are provided below. These issues will be
addressed in the body of the EIR and not as stand-alone technical report to provide streamlined
analysis and review.
Aesthetics
The aesthetics section of the El R will address the potential visual quality impacts of the project,
including the sand retention system and beach nourishment program. RECON would take photographs
of the project site and surrounding area and prepare visual representations of the proposed system and
anticipated post-project accumulated sand. These images would be utilized to evaluate the extent of
change related to project visibility from any key public vantage points and the degree of visual contrast
and compatibility between project its surroundings. The analysis will consider potential impacts to
important scenic views as identified in the City's General Plan, in addition to potential impacts to scenic
resources such as the Pacific Ocean. The extent that the project would affect public views toward the
ocean would be evaluated in the context of Coastal Act policy compliance.
Archaeology
Based on the location of the disturbance within disturbed beach sand and within the ocean, RECON
does not anticipate the need for an archaeological survey. However, to address archaeology,
particularly in the area of the sand distribution system, RECON will request a records search from the
South Coastal Information Center with a 0.25-mile search buffer and a sacred lands search from the
Native American Heritage Commission. Tribal letters will be sent from the list provided by the sacred
lands search. Based on this information, RECON will prepare the cultural and tribal cultural resources
section of the environmental document. This section will identify any impacts and, if necessary,
recommend mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
RECON's air quality and GHG emissions analysis will include a detailed description of all anticipated
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 19
Attachment CAttachment C
construction and maintenance activities including construction start date and duration, equipment list,
and sand /rock hauling details (e.g., type of vessel/trucks, distance to sand/rock source, hauling
capacity, etc.). RECON's technical specialist will calculate construction emissions using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), the California Air Resource's Board Emissions Factor Model
(EMFAC), or the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Harborcraft,
Dredge, and Barge Emission Factor Calculator, as appropriate. Construction emissions will be based on
the project schedule and equipment lists. Emissions will be calculated for Phase 1, and Phases 2 and 3
will be evaluated qualitatively. Depending on equipment and construction details for Phases 2 and 3,
results of Phase 1 analysis may be able to inform the qualitative analysis for Phases 2 and 3. Total
construction GHG emissions will be calculated and amortized over the lifetime of the project. The GHG
analysis will evaluate whether the project would be consistent with state and local plans to reduce GHG
emissions, including the 2017 Scoping Plan and the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP). A discussion of
the applicable GHG emission reduction measures from the CAP will be included. The air quality analysis
will address whether the project would obstruct or conflict with. implementation of the Regional Air
Quality Strategy (RAQS), would affect sensitive receptors to due construction activities and will assess
whether calculated emissions would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. The results of each
analysis will be used to address the CEQA Checklist thresholds for air quality and GHG emissions in the
Draft EIR. The results of the modeling will be attached to the Draft EIR as an appendix.
Noise
RECON will complete a noise analysis in the body of the EIR based on CAD mapping of the anticipated
project footprint, construction equipment types and locations. The analysis will assess the potential for
construction activities to increase noise levels at adjacent properties. Construction noise contour
mapping for Phase 1 will be developed using the SoundPLAN model. Phases 2 and 3 will be evaluated
qualitatively. Depending on equipment and construction details for Phases 2 and 3, results of Phase 1
analysis may be able to inform the qualitative analysis for Phases 2 and 3 construction noise levels
would be similar to Phase 1 noise levels. The results will be used to address the CEQA Checklist
thresholds for noise in the Draft EIR. The results of the modeling will be attached to the Draft EIR as an
appendix.
Recreation and Flooding (Hazards)
Our team understands that key issues of concern will be the potential for the project to result in
downdrift impacts to beaches (e.g., Carlsbad, Encinitas, etc.) in terms of both shoreline erosion and
recreation impacts. Due to the technical nature of these issues, RECON will work closely with the
project technical team to ensure our analysis is technically accurate and reflects the technical analysis
prepared. We will complete an internal team review of these key technical sections prior to distribution
to the City for review. Our goal will be to simplify the complex technical analysis to provide information
that is meaningful and understandable to the public and decision makers. We will ensure that all
comments received during the NOP process are reviewed carefully to ensure all issues raised are fully
addressed in the EIR.
EIR Screenchecks
RECON will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR consistent with Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines
for the project-level portion of the El R and consistent with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines for the
programmatic portion. The EIR will include all CEQA mandated sections and will incorporate the latest
updates to the CEQA Guidelines. The executive summary and project description will be prepared in
such a manner that they provide sufficient detail to evaluate and review the environmental impacts of
the project. A summary table will be included that identifies each subject area evaluated in the EIR, the
significance conclusion, and any recommended mitigation measures. This will allow the reader to easily
identify significance conclusions and proposed mitigation in one concise location.
GHD I City of Oceanside [ 125604881 Oceanside Sand Retention Project 20
Attachment CAttachment C
Each environmental category evaluated in the EIR will identify existing conditions, thresholds of
significance, impacts, level of significance prior to mitigation, mitigation, and level of significance after
mitigation. Project-level, programmatic, and cumulative impacts will be analyzed in each section of the
EIR. Appropriate tables and figures will be included within each section to summarize and graphically
represent the information being presented.
Deliverables:
• Electronic submittal (Word and PDF) of the Screencheck Draft EIR to the City.
• Up to two cycles of revisions of the Draft Screencheck EIR.
5.1.3 Public Review Draft EIR
RECON will finalize the Screencheck Draft EIR and prepare the Public Review Draft EIR. RECON will
submit a proof check Draft EIR to the City for final review before submitting the Public Review Draft EIR.
RECON will prepare all required forms and notices for public review distribution of the EIR to the State
Clearinghouse including the Notice of Completion (NOC), Summary Form, and Notice of Availability
(NOA). RECON will complete the required electronic submittal. The scope assumes the City will
complete distribution of the EIR to local stakeholders.
Deliverables:
• Electronic copy (Word and PDF) of the proof check Draft EIR.
• Electronic copy (Word and PDF) of the public review Draft EIR with all appendices included as PDF files
on a CD or flash drive affixed to the back cover of the Public Review Draft EIR.
• Preparation of all required CEQA notices and submittal to the State Clearinghouse.
• File the NOC and NOA with County Clerk.
5.1.4 Final EIR
Screencheck Final EIR
RECON will prepare an Screencheck Final EIR, which will include response to comments letters
received during public review of the Draft EIR. Response to comments will involve the following tasks:
(1) compile and review comment letters received on the Draft EIR and bracket comment letters as
appropriate and (2) submit a copy of the draft responses to comments to the City for preliminary review.
Comments and draft responses will be organized into tables for ease of review by City staff. RECON will
revise the draft responses to comments based on City review; prepare a list of persons, organizations,
and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; and finalize responses in side-by-side formatting for final
responses to comments. This scope of work assumes that up to 25 comment letters, or 100 unique
comments will be submitted on the Draft EIR during public review. RECON will also prepare a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.
Deliverables:
• Electronic submittal (Word and PDF) of the Screencheck Final EIR.
Final EIR
RECON will address City comments on the Screencheck Final EIR and prepare the Final EIR. RECON will submit
a proof check Final EIR before preparing the Final El R.
Deliverables:
• Electronic submittal (Word and PDF) of the proof check Final EIR.
• Electronic submittal (Word and PDF) of the Final EIR.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
RECON will prepare Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA
GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 21
Attachment CAttachment C
Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093. RECON will address one round of comments and submit a proof
check before finalizing the Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Deliverables:
• Electronic submittal (Word and PDF) of the screencheck Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
5.2 NEPA Document
RECON anticipates preparation of an Environmental Assessment to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). RECON will identify and evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives (at a minimum the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative) and the analysis
will evaluate impacts of each alternative. The EA will be prepared consistent with USACE NEPA
requirements, including preparation of an Administrative Record.
The EA will document compliance with applicable environmental laws, will assess potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts on the project area for each project alternative. Potential impacts shall
be determined by comparing the future with and future without project conditions. Mitigation, if
necessary, shall be formulated in close coordination with the USACE. Existing environmental conditions
and potential environmental impacts for alternatives will be evaluated in accordance with the following
factors: Physical Environment, Water Quality, Air Quality, Biological Environment, Cultural Resources,
Socioeconomic Environment, Recreation, Safety, Land Use, Noise, Vehicular Traffic, Utilities, and
Aesthetics.
RECON shall prepare a preliminary draft, draft, and a public review Draft EA. The work shall be
accomplished in accordance with applicable USACE regulations, and in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, ER 200-2-
2.
RECON will respond to comments received on the Public Review Draft and prepare up to two cycles of
revisions to the responses to comments based on review by USACE staff. A preliminary Final EA and
Final EA will be prepared.
Deliverables:
• Preliminary Draft EA, Draft EA, and Public Review Draft EA
• Detailed summary of USAGE coordination with resource agencies (Appendix to EA)
• Up to two cycles of responses to comments on the Public Review Draft EA
• Preliminary Final EA and Final EA
• Preparation of the Administrative Record
• Electronic submittal (Word and PDF) of deliverables to USAGE.
5.3 Permitting
The Project will require permits from state and federal resource agencies including the RWQCB, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and California Coastal Commission (CCC). GHD will lead the
permitting task, with support from M&N and M&A. Both M&N and M&A bring valuable insight through
this process through implementation of the two Regional Beach Sand Projects and will support the team
on developing strategy, technical reviews on the permit application packages, attendance at meetings
and response to requests for information.
GHD's approach is to prepare a detailed project description document that would accompany all the
permit applications. This document would differ from the CEQA project description in that it would detail
the specific items that each of these agencies need to consider an application complete. For example,
areas of direct and indirect impacts from the Project to jurisdictional waters will be provided for the
GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 22
Attachment CAttachment C
USAGE and RWQCB.
Permit applications will be prepared and submitted to align with the 30% engineering design, Draft EIR
and Draft EA stage, as is typical for projects of this type. Pre-application meetings (assume
teleconference) will be held with each of the agencies to alert them to the project and to discuss any
unique needs that the staffer may wish to see in the application.
Once the applications are submitted, the GHD team will be available to act as the City's agent to help
respond to simple question as well as respond to formal requests for additional information (RF ls).
Permitting Assumptions:
• Permit application fees not included. Application fees are anticipated from the RWQCB at a
minimum.
• The hours provided in GHD's budget are an estimate of that needed to gain approvals based on
our experience with similar projects and include attendance at meetings, responding to RFls,
etc. Permits are not guaranteed within the time allotted.
• Scope of work assumes application for a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit through the
CA Coastal Commission and that a local CDP is not required. City to prepare owner and
occupant notification lists, supporting graphics and mailers for the CDP application. City to post
and reasonably maintain Notice of Pending Permit application signs at public access locations
within Project reach.
• Scope assumes Individual Permit applications are required from the USAGE and RWQCB.
• Assume that the City's Lease of State Lands covers the proposed project activity and that a new
lease or amendment from the State Lands Commission is necessary.
Deliverables:
• Permit application packages for the USAGE, RWQCB and CCC.
• Minutes from resource agency coordination meetings
6. Project Budget & Schedule
6.1 Project Budget
An estimated budget for Phase 2 tasks was prepared using hourly rates for GHD staff and budget
provided by each sub-consultant for their respective tasks. GHD staff working on the project will be
billed at the hourly rate for their classification according to the rate sheet in Table 1. Table 2 describes
the hourly rates for GHD's project-specific personnel. The rates shown below are effective through June
30, 2024 for the Oceanside Sand Retention Project after which time they are subject to annual
escalation in line with industry standards.
Table 1 GHD Standard Rates
Project Role Hourly Rate
Principal-In-Charge $ 275/hr
Senior Project Manager/Sr. Quality Manager $ 255/hr
Project Manager $ 235/hr
Technical Director $ 215/hr
GHD ] City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 23
Attachment CAttachment C
Project Role Hourly Rate
Senior Engineer $ 195/hr
Scientist/Technologist/Planner/ Architect $ 170/hr
Project Engineer $ 155/hr
Staff Engineer $ 135/hr
Sr. CADD Designer $ 160/hr
Drafter $135/hr
Project Assistant $95/hr
Table 2 GHD Project Personnel-Specific Rates
Name Project Role Hourly Rate
Gillian Millar Principal-in-Charge $ 253/hr
Brian Leslie Project Manager $ 202/hr
Craig Dengate Quality Assurance $ 220/hr
Aaron Holloway Coastal Engineering Lead $ 223/hr
Mitch Duran PS&E Lead $ 195/hr
Expenses and other similar project related costs are billed out at cost. The reimbursable cost of mileage
will be billed at the IRS allowable rate. The services of sub-consultants will be charged at cost plus 10%.
6.2 Project Schedule
An anticipated overall schedule for the Project is provided below. A process diagram depicting our
proposed approach to Task 2 (Community and Stakeholder Engagement) and Task 4.1 (Design
Competition) is also provided.
6.3 General Assumptions
The following general assumptions have been considered in the development of the scope and fee for
this project; in addition to the specific assumptions made in the scope descriptions above.
1. The Project will be influenced by the input of government agencies and other stakeholders. GHD
and our subconsultants have prepared this scope in good faith, based on our experience of
similar projects. We anticipate the scope may change based on input from agencies and
stakeholders and subsequent direction from the City. Changes to the scope and fee presented in
this document will be by agreement between the City and GHD.
2. The anticipated duration of this work is approximately three years from notice to proceed.
Extensions to this project duration may result in budgetary revisions. Please refer to estimated
project schedule for the anticipated sequence and duration of tasks.
3. Development of this scope of work is based on the recommended concept presented within the
Feasibility Study and presented to City Council in the summer of 2021.
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 ] Oceanside Sand Retention Project 24
Attachment CAttachment C
Community & Stakeholder Engagement Strategy
Task 2 + Task 4 Process Diagram
Preliminary JAN 2023-MAY 2023
Circles •
Inputs
Square• GHD
T••m Actions
Tri•n1te
• Publk /
City
THk2.1len ll,
C.-IIIMIJ lfllaJll"''"t
-
, ........ _J ...... '"""' ·---
o,,..A,.,;1-(,II o..~ra, ... ,
t•JJll'"'t'
3-months
f~l,-to~h•'-
0.:-vl••tc'
Cc."'P"'•-
Wtt...i-.. ..,.,,~ ri..,.,1,f.-r•,-., ...
in·..:,
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project
MAR2023
I
(~,TU'Tl~f\ll-fc¥T>
h:~1r,&.
2-months
\ \
MAY2023
I
Attachment CAttachment C
Task 2 + Task 4 Process Diagram
Preliminary MAY 2023-APR 2024
MAY2023
••
5-months
OCT 2023
• ----~
GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project
OEC 2023
I
I I •••
I :-.::,:-:..~ ==--~ ---1 :-.:::-u
I _;;_
I c::J S
I @
Attachment CAttachment C
Task 2 + Task 4 Process Diagram
Preliminary APR 2024--JUL 2025
APR2024
Plans, Outlines, Technical
Specifications & Estimate
(~)
Plans, Specifications &
Outline (90%)
AUG 2024
Final Plans, Specifications
& Outline
CEQA& NEPA
JAN 2025
I
Permitting
GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 2
JUL 2025
Attachment CAttachment C
~ liiiill Schedule: Oceanside Sand Retention Project Phase 2
2023 202A 2025
Tuk DH crfptlon ~ s 0: 0: 0: ► ~ i!i 0: 0:"' ► m °' 0: 0: ~ ffi w w w w ► 0: w w t; ID ID ~ ~ t; ; ~ !q ~ ~ t; ,. w !q ~ ~ ,: ~ ~ ,. ,. ,: ,: ~ ID 1i ~ Ii ~ ► ::,
l~I~ ] 1! I~ I~ 1; ~ ►::, ~ e ::, 0: I ~ 1; ~ ►::, ,t; .J" 1~1~ .J" ~ u ~l:ll .J " I~~ l~I~ I~ ,a! I~ t3 ,::> I ~ 13 i!:I.:! I~ 12 1~ r'!. ,::> .~13
Task 1 -Prolect Mana .. ment
Task 2 • Communltv & 8takeholcler En---m■nt I Prol■ct Actvocacv
Sub-task 2.1 -Local & CommUl'llty Engagement
Sub-tuk 2.2-Communications & M&dla Outreach
Sub-task 2.3 -Regional Engagement
Task 3 • ■ ... lln■ Monttortna P'ro--m
Sub-tuk 3.1 -Beach SUNeys
Sub-tuk 3.2 -Littoral Cell Study
Sub-tuk 3.3 -CIUun Sdt~ Program
Task 4 -EnalnHrtn■ Analvala & Du lan
Sub.talk 4.1 -Design Competition
4.1.1 -Prepare Design Brief and Design Firm Solleitation Pack.age
4.1.2 • ProclKe Design Teams
4.1.3 -CollaboratMI Design Oavok,pment
4.1.4 -Select a Competition Jury
4.1.5 -S&loct Preforrod Design
Sub-tuk 4.2 -Prollmlnary Englnoet1ng Analysis and Design
4.2.1 -Evaluate Phase 1 (PIiot) Locations & Future Phasing
4.2.2 • Phase 1 Sand Retention System
4.2.3 • Beach Nourishment Program
Sub-talk 4.3 • Adaptive Management Plan
Sub-talk 4.4 • Anal Engineering and Basis of Design Report
Sub-tllak 4.5 • Plans, SpocUications & Estimate (PS&E)
4.5.1 -30% Plal'\S, Outline of technical Spodfications & Estimate
4.5.2 -60% Pl,ns, Outline of technical Specifications & Estlmsle
4.5.3 -90% Pl•ns. Specifications & Estimate
4.5.4 -Fln•I Plans, Specifications & Estimate
Taak 5 <E.nvlronmantal Co111Pll■nc• & l'■rmltthHI
Sub-task 5.1 • CEQA
Sub-t.sk 5.2 • NEPA
Sub-task 5.3 . Permitting
Attachment CAttachment C
.. .. ..
M
= .::
-------··---11,111 "~ Mt,-'
-----~· M•---=.:. .... ---. --. . --~§ ,,..-Ill ---u, .. , , .. -
-------.--.. ■------------,-----·------·~= Ill -.--.--.-----.-·-··-,._ .. -. ·-,._ .,._ _.,_.._. __ ,__111■"!"'■111""'_._.._ __ ~ _________ , ___ "'!"'""'::~~ll■~-~.m~~'S"•i
--MM ----•aw WW I 1-..:cllllall)· ... I WW lill--=r:l"'W!:CIIM--D-Elll:::-mw■1111111111111wmwm:11m:1m1111i'Wl'll1ll•mCll
Attachment CAttachment C
ghd.com ➔ The Power of Commitment
Attachment CAttachment C
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Public Works Department
October 20, 2021
Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design, CEQA/NEPA Documentation
& Permitting Phase for the Oceanside Sand Retention Project
The City of Oceanside's Public Works Department is seeking Proposals from qualified
firms specializing in coastal engineering ("Consultanr) with experience in the design and
permit processing of coastal engineering projects in the Southern California's coastal
zone, including extensive experience with community/stakeholder engagement efforts for
large-scale, complex projects, preparation of CEQA/NEPA documents, and securing
appropriate permits from all responsible agencies.
SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Work for this project generally consists of, but is not limited to, services by
the Consultant including performing preliminary engineering design for a beach sand
retention device and sand bypass system pilot project consistent with that which was
authorized by the Oceanside City Council on August 11, 2021; and processing of all
regulatory permits necessary for construction and completion of any requisite the CEQA
and NEPA documents. The Consultant's work shall also include any and all needed
public outreach and community consensus building efforts and active lobbying in support
of the project at the regional, state, and federal levels.
BACKGROUND
Since construction of the Del Mar Boat Basin at Camp Pendleton, more than 80 years
ago, the City of Oceanside and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have struggled
to offset the erosional impacts to downdrift beaches. The federal government, as early as
the 1950s, has acknowledged responsibility for the depletion of sand on Oceanside's
beaches resulting from the construction of the Boat Basin and associated jetty. Since
that time, the USACE and City have partnered on several beach sand replenishment
projects aimed at mitigating the negative effects attributed to the Del Mar Boat Basin.
However, all of these efforts have fallen short of providing the City with a sustained, dry
sand beach for recreational, ecological, and coastal storm damage protection purposes.
In October 2019, the City of Oceanside ("City") initiated a process to identify feasible
solutions to protect the beach from long-term erosion by either utilizing re-nourishment
projects of beach suitable sands or construction of retention devices to retain/reduce the
Page I l
Attachment CAttachment C
loss of sand, or a combination of both. A recently completed feasibility study evaluated
several alternatives for the City of Oceanside Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention
Device Project. Of the four alternatives developed and evaluated in the feasibility study,
groins with nourishment option scored the highest based on a multi-criteria analysis of
technical perfonnance, financial and environmental criteria. A sand distribution system
(buried pipeline) to restore a supply of sand to south Oceanside was also identified as a
Project component to be advanced to the next phase.
On August 11, 2021 , the Oceanside City Council authorized staff to proceed with the
design and permitting of a sand retention and replenishment pilot project to include the
development of a sand bypass system. A copy of the staff report for that meeting and
the associated technical study can be accessed through the following link:
https://www.ci.oceanside.ea.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BloblD=55836.
SYNOPSIS
The City is requesting proposals and statements of qualifications from firms specializing
in the design and approval of coastal engineering projects in the California coastal zone,
including experience community/stakeholder engagement.
The proposed services by the Consultant will include performing preliminary engineering
design for a beach sand retention device and sand bypass system project; processing of
all regulatory permits necessary for construction and completion of any requisite the
CEQA and NEPA documents. The Consultant services shall also include all the required
community/stakeholder engagement efforts associated with the design process, including
the selection of the final groin locations.
Due to the diverse qualifications, expertise and experiences needed in this project, teams
comprised of multiple firms with different expertise are encouraged to submit a single
proposal as the Consultant, clearly identifying the lead Consultant and each
subconsultant with their specific respective areas of expertise and responsibilities in the
Project.
The prospective consultant will be evaluated based on information submitted in response
to the criteria included in this Request for Proposal (RFP). Evaluation of the RFP may
include an oral/visual presentation and interview.
Once a selection is made, the City will enter into contract negotiations with the consultant
firm. Upon successful negotiations, the City and consultant will enter into a professional
services agreement with an anticipated project start date of early 2022.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Consultant shall demonstrate, through the submitted qualifications and proposal, the
experience and resources necessary to perform outreach, engineering design, and
regulatory permit/environmental permit processing for the beach sand replenishment and
retention device pilot project.
Page 12
Attachment CAttachment C
This RFP describes the scope of services anticipated to advance the project through
design, environmental review and permitting in order to develop a final design package
for bidding purposes. Proposals shall include the scope of services and any additional
scope items the consultant team considers necessary to complete the design,
environmental services, and obtain permits for the implementation of the project.
1. Project Management
Consultant shall designate a Project Manager as the main point of contact who will be
responsible for the management and coordination tasks for the duration of the Project.
Project management tasks include, but are not limited to the following: prepare and
implement a project schedule and work plan reflecting the sequence, timing, and budgets
associated with project tasks; schedule and attend progress meetings on a monthly basis
(frequency may change depending on tasks in progress); provide updates on the project
schedule and work plan; prepare monthly invoices along with progress reports; develop
a Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QAQC) program to be implemented throughout
the project.
Deliverables:
• Project schedule and work plan
• Meeting agendas and minutes to document key decisions made
• Invoices and progress reports
• QAQC program
2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement/Project Advocacy
Consultant shall develop and lead a public engagement program that allows Oceanside
community members and regional stakeholders to provide ideas and comments on the
project. The consultant is also expected to develop and lead an advocacy strategy that
seeks to build community and agency support of the project. The community engagement
and project advocacy program shall include a list of meetings, the target audience for
each meeting, objectives of the meeting and sequence of the meeting relative to the
overall project schedule. The consultant shall also prepare on line media resources, create
a project webpage, manage an interested parties list, and participate in meetings hosted
by other entities (SANDAG, Coastal Commission, Climate Collaborative, etc). The
community engagement process is estimated to include a minimum of five public
meetings, separate from any public agency meetings conducted as part of the CEQA
document preparation or agency advocacy efforts. Consultant shall be responsible for
scheduling, noticing, preparation of materials, facilitation of meetings, and a report
summarizing each meeting. Use of a separate sub-consultant who specializes in
community engagement and project advocacy is acceptable. If there will be a need for
more than 5 public outreach meetings, the Consultant shall be compensated on the basis
Page I 3
Attachment CAttachment C
of staff hourly rates involved in these meetings plus any direct material costs associated
with each meeting ..
Deliverables:
• Written public engagement and project advocacy strategy.
• Presentation materials and facilitation of five public meetings.
• Summary document for five public meetings.
3. Baseline Monitoring Program
Consultant shall:
-Conduct beach surveys of high spatial resolution to build baseline condition. Beach
surveys should span from Oceanside Harbor to Tamarack Beach, and shall also
include the Del Mar Beach in Camp Pendleton. Assume bi-annual survey for a
period of two years.
-Lead a Citizen Science Program in collaboration with stakeholder groups and the
community to monitor the subaerial beach in Oceanside and North Carlsbad.
4. Engineering Analysis & Design
4.1 Evaluate Phase 1 (Pilot) Locations & Future Phasing
Community feedback on the feasibility study indicated the location of the initial phase of
the groin system warranted some additional analysis and consideration of locations
throughout South Oceanside. The initial study recommendations suggest building the
pilot groin field north of Wisconsin Street; however, there is wide community support for
implementing the pilot program south of Wisconsin Street where beach widths are
particularly constrained. Consultant shall develop up to four conceptual locations and
layouts for Phase 1 of the Project and perform an analysis of the pros and cons of each
location accounting for variety of factors such as coastal access, land ownership,
community benefit, lifeguard operations, biological resources, downcoast impacts, and
sand management logistics. Findings will be summarized in a technical memorandum.
The Consultant will be expected to solicit feedback on Phase 1 groin locations via public
meetings and stakeholder outreach to review potential locations and key considerations.
The Phase 1 groin system will be selected based on feedback from outreach efforts and
technical considerations.
Deliverables:
• Draft technical memorandum summarizing analysis of potential Phase 1 locations.
• Final technical memorandum incorporating review comments from City staff.
Page 14
Attachment CAttachment C
• Presentation of findings for community & stakeholder outreach purposes.
4.2 Preliminary Engineering Analysis and Design
The preliminary engineering design and analysis will provide the basis for the
environmental analysis, permit applications, and preliminary design drawings (Task 4)
that illustrate the location, type and configuration of the major project elements which
include a groin system and beach nourishment program. The preliminary engineering
report shall describe the objectives, design criteria, design calculations, numerical
modeling and other analyses performed for the following project elements.
Phase 1 Groin System
Building on the services performed in Tasks 1 through 4, the consultant shall perform the
preliminary engineering analysis necessary to determine the location, length and spacing
of the Phase 1 groin system (assumed to consist of four (4) groins); the materials used to
build the groins; typical cross-section and profile of each groin. This task should also
include the development of a phasing program which describes how the system will be
scaled up to benefit the entire south Oceanside shoreline (Oceanside Pier to Buena Vista
Lagoon). The Phase 1 Groin System is a pilot project and, as such, shall be designed in
a manner that provides for its modification and/or removal should that need to occur.
Beach Nourishment Program
Consultant shall develop a beach nourishment program to place sand within and
downcoast of the groin system. The program shall establish pre-fill volumes and locations
within and around the groin system. Identify the probable sources of sand available for
initial (pre-fill) nourishment and follow-up nourishments. Perform shoreline evolution
modeling or analysis to estimate potential distribution of sand within and around the groin
system along with an estimate for re-nourishment volume and frequency.
Deliverables:
• Draft Preliminary Engineering Report
• Final Preliminary Engineering Report
• Presentation of findings for community & stakeholder outreach purposes.
4.3 Sand Bypassing System
Consultant shall support the City in discussions and coordination with USACE and
MCBCP on a bypass system to restore and maintain the supply of coarse sand to
beaches downcoast of harbor. Consultant shall perform preliminary design of a sand
distribution system (buried pipeline) along the Oceanside back beach. Design should
determine pipe size and alignment such that system has the ability to work with both
Corps annual harbor dredging and City sand bypassing activities. Consultant shall also
evaluate borrow location, volume and frequency of City sand bypassing activities.
Consultant should be aware and acknowledge in their Proposal that we cannot take for
granted that the City will have access to sand in Camp Pendleton. This is an open
question and requires considerable dialogue and coordination to reach an agreement.
Page I 5
Attachment CAttachment C
Deliverables:
• Draft technical memorandum summarizing analysis of sand bypassing system.
• Revised technical memorandum incorporating review comments from City staff,
USACE and MCBCP.
• Presentation of findings for use in meetings with USACE and MCBCP.
• Preliminary design of recommended sand bypass system.
4.4 Adaptive Management Plan
Consultant shall develop an adaptive management plan to measure performance of the
Phase 1 groin system, once constructed. The plan shall include methods for measuring
the effects on downcoast sediment supply and potential impacts to surfing resources. The
monitoring program shall include methods to measure waves, water levels, shoreline
change, sand movement, and surfing resources. Proposals shall describe potential
monitoring techniques and frequency to evaluate perfonnance & potential impacts within
and adjacent to the groin system. The plan should develop triggers for adaptive
management activities such as redistribution of sand in the vicinity of the groin system,
groin modification, alternative placement locations and volumes for follow-up
nourishments.
Deliverables:
• Draft Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
• Revisions to the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan incorporating
feedback from City staff, community/stakeholder outreach, and the environmental
and regulatory process.
• Assume three revisions of plan as project progresses toward final design.
4.5 Final Engineering and Basis of Design Report
Consultant shall perfonn detailed and final engineering analysis and design of the Phase
1 Groin System and Beach Nourishment Program. This task will include additional coastal
engineering analysis, calculations and/or modeling performed as the project progresses
through the environmental review, and management of the pennitting process. The
updated design infonnation shall be summarized in a Basis of Design Report to
accompany the 60%, 90% and Final plan submittals.
Deliverables:
• Draft Basis of Design Report to accompany 60% and 90% plan submittals.
• Final Basis of Design Report to accompany final PS&E submittal.
Page I 6
Attachment CAttachment C
5. Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
5.1 30% Plans, Outline of Technical Specifications & Estimate
Consultant shall prepare 30% plans based on the preliminary engineering analysis and
design for use in developing the environmental document Project Description and scoping
of the environmental document. Drawing details must be sufficient to illustrate the location
and dimensions of the major project features based on the preliminary engineering
analysis and design. Plans shall consist of scaled drawings prepared in AutoCAD and
include (at a minimum) plan view, cross-sections and elevations of the groin system and
initial beach nourishment. Consultant shall also prepare an opinion of probable
construction cost estimate and an outline of the technical specifications to accompany
30% design package.
Deliverables:
• Draft 30% design drawings, cost estimate and outline of technical specifications in
PDF format for review by City staff.
• Revised 30% design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), cost estimate and
outline of technical specifications that incorporate City review comments.
5.2 60% Plans, Technical Specifications & Estimate
Consultant shall prepare 60% plans based on the detailed engineering analysis and
design performed in support of the environmental review and permitting process (Task
4.5). Design drawings shall reflect any revisions or updates to the project based on
mitigation measures identified in the environmental document, feedback received from
permit agencies and community outreach. 60% design drawings shall provide location,
dimensions, and details associated with the major project elements. Consultant shall
prepare an updated opinion of probable construction cost and draft technical
specifications to accompany the 60% design drawings.
Deliverables:
• Draft 60% design drawings, cost estimate and technical specifications in PDF
format for review by City staff.
• Revised 60% design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), cost estimate and
technical specifications that incorporate City review comments.
5.3 90% Plans, Specifications & Estimate
Consultant shall prepare set of 90% design drawings illustrating the location, dimensions
and details of all project elements. Consultant shall prepare complete set of
specifications, assuming front end specifications are provided by the City. Consultant
shall provide an updated opinion of probable construction cost along with a list of bid
items.
Page I 7
Attachment CAttachment C
Deliverables:
• 90% design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), complete specifications, bid
sheet and cost estimate.
5.4 Final Plans, Specifications & Estimate
Consultant shall prepare final design drawings and specifications for bidding purposes.
The final design package shall also include the engineer's estimate of probable
construction cost.
Deliverables:
• Final design drawings (PDF and AutoCAD format), complete specifications, and
cost estimate.
6. Environmental Compliance & Permitting
6.1 Environmental Document
Consultant shall prepare an environmental document to obtain the necessary project
approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Consultant shall perform the necessary technical
assessments and special studies to support the environmental impact analysis of the
project.
Consultant shall schedule and facilitate an initial public meeting with each resource
agency to present the overall project and regulatory environmental compliance approach.
Follow-up meetings shall be scheduled as needed to comply with CEQA requirements.
The Consultant shall coordinate, organize, prepare any materials needed, and provide
meeting summaries for all meetings as part of the environmental process.
Deliverables:
• Environmental document preparation, submitted at following stages:
Administrative draft, Draft, and submitted Final)
• Technical assessments and special studies
• Required CEQA/NEPA public notices and associated filing forms
• Meeting agendas & minutes
6.2 Permitting
Prepare & Submit Permit Applications
The Consultant shall prepare the necessary environmental permits applications required
to construct the Project. The following resource agency permits are anticipated:
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and 1 O Individual Permit
Page I 8
Attachment CAttachment C
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Consolidated Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal
Commission (CCC).
The Consultant shall serve as the agent for the City for each permit and be responsible
for coordination with each agency including the scheduling and facilitation of meetings
and response to comments and requests for additional information. Proposals shall
include a list of assumptions regarding meetings, coordination and additional studies
required to support the permitting process.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
The RFP, at a minimum, shall include the following items:
1. The firm's name, address, and principal contact.
2. Organization and approach for completing the work and the proposer's overall
understanding of the services required.
3. Background of firm and experience of employees providing services in the
scope of work
4. Range of services offered by the firm.
5. Recent examples of successfully completing similar projects.
6. Provide a list of current and ongoing projects that show current and ongoing
obligations of key staff members that would be involved in this contract. Provide
a table showing existing workload and staff availability.
7. Provide one reference for each project of similar scope, including date of
project, client name, address, and telephone numbers, and relevance to this
project.
8. Provide a complete list of all individuals and their expertise who would provide
services under this contract.
9. Provide brief resumes of staff who would be involved in this project, including
any sub-consultants.
10. Provide a fee schedule that indicates hourly bill rates for each member of the
consultant's project team. The fee schedule shall be effective for the duration
of the contract.
11 . Provide detailed budget
12. Provide a master project schedule including start and finish dates for all of the
Scope of Work activities and tasks; identifying the critical dates for submitting
various permits to different agencies
All consultant personnel assigned to projects in response to this proposal request shall
remain contract employees and shall not be eligible for City benefits. Any claims made by
consultant personnel that they were "City Employees" for the duration of the assignment,
and are therefore entitled to city paid benefits, will be paid by the consultant. Consultant
staff will not direct the activities of City staff.
Page I 9
Attachment CAttachment C
Consultant will be required to review assigned projects from the consultant's home or
branch office and will not be provided office space at City Hall. The consultant shall
anticipate reporting to City Hall when necessary and per the request of City staff. The
consultant shall also anticipate possible attendance at City Council, Planning
Commission, various community and committee meetings during the course of the
project.
Mandatory Pre-proposal meeting
All Consultants who are interested in submitting a Proposal for this project shall have a
representative attending a mandatory pre-proposal meeting which will be held at the
following time, date and location:
Thursday November 18, 2021
12:30 pm -3:00 pm
City of Oceanside -City Council Chamber
Failure to attend this mandatory pre-proposal meeting will automatically disqualify a firm
from consideration. Proposals from firms not having attended the mandatory pre-
proposal meeting will NOT be reviewed by the City.
Proposal Submittals
1. Five (5) copies of the proposal shall be submitted for review and consideration.
2. Three (3) copies of the proposed budget shall be submitted in a separately sealed
envelope, with the Proposal. The budget shall be detailed showing number of
hours for staff classification and their hourly rates for each task as shown in the
Scope of Work. The budget shall also show all indirect costs associated with the
Project.
Please submit your proposal no late than 5:00 pm (PST) on Tuesday December 7,
2021 to:
Hamid Bahadori
Interim Public Works Director
City of Oceanside
Public Works Department
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, California 92054
Attached is a sample Professional Services Agreement. Please review the form and
ensure that your proposal includes the items required in the Agreement.
Page I 10
Attachment CAttachment C
Any questions pertaining to this RFP shall be submitted in writing to Hamid Bahadori at
hbahadori@oceansideca.org by no later than 12:00 noon (PST) on Tuesday
November 23, 2021. No questions will be accepted or answered after this deadline.
Responses to all questions will be provided in a single document, shared ONLY with the
consultants who have attended the pre-proposal meeting, by no later than 5:00 pm. On
Tuesday November 30, 2021.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving a proposal from your firm to
perform this work. If you have any questions, please contact me at 760-435-5114.
Sincerely,
amid Bahadori
Interim Public works Director
Attachments: Sample Professional Services Agreement
Page I 11
~
CITY OF DELMAR
January 24, 2023
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Oceanside
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054 ·
Attachment D
SENT VIA EMAIL
cityclerk@oceansideca. erg
SUBJECT: Support for Phase 2 San Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing on behqlf of the Del Mar City Council to convey the City's support for the process and
approach laid out by Oceanside staff for the City of Oceanside's Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and
Retention Pilot Project, which your City Coundl will consider on January 25, 2023. The City is
particularly supportive of staff's proposal to conduct robust public outreach and engage and solicit
input from your downcoast neighbors as part of the process.
As you are aware, the City of Del Mar adopted the attached Resolution 2022-16 of opposition to a
previous sand retention pilot project your city was pursuing that would have included four groins and
a sand bypass system. At the time, the City was concerned that the planned groins pilot project
would potentially interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast and impede the successful
implementation of our Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan and the hazard mitigation strategies set forth
in the Del Mar Community Plan.
Del Mar is pleased the City of Oceanside has reevaluated their approach to sand nourishment and
retention and will now pursue a pilot program that will focus on identifying the best possible design
alternatives and will include an emphasis on public engagement and solicitation of input from
downcoast cities in the process.
The Del Mar City Council and staff stand ready to participate in this process and we look forward to
working collaboratively to address this critically important and regional issue. If you have any
questions, you may direct those to our City Manager, Ashley Jones, at ajones@delmar.ca.us or
(858) 704-3640.
Sincerely,
;to/ 11 lau"'t
Tracy Martinez
Mayor
cc: Del Mar City Council
Ashley Jones, Del Mar City Manager
Jonathan Borrego, Oceanside City Manager
Attachments -City of Del Mar Resolution 2022-16
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 I 858.755.9313 I www.delmar.ca.us
Mt~nt A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR,
CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL FLOW OF
BEACH SAND INTO DEL MAR
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar's adopted Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan (Environmental
Science Associates 2018) identifies groins as an adaptation measure to be investigated and
considered as an option for sand retention in the future where it can be designed to act as a filter
that minimally reduces littoral sand drift rather than function as a barrier to the natural longshore
transport of sand; and
WHEREAS, Del Mar's Adaptation Plan explains that the use of groins as an adaptation
option would need to be studied carefully in the context of its benefits and risks to public beaches
· and explicitly identifies some potential negative impacts of groins include: the potential to alter the
character of the natural shoreline, the potential to diminish horizontal access along the beach, and
the potential for habitat impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar expresses concern about the construction of devices that
could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Del Mar, with particular concern that projects
north of Del Mar may significantly reduce the natural sediment transport southward and alter the
character of Del Mar's shoreline; and
WHEREAS, Del Mar's Adaptation Plan identifies beach nourishment and maintenance of a
wide sandy beach as priority adaptation strategies to minimize the risk of erosion and flooding due
to projected sea level rise; an~
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2019, the City of Oceanside City Council directed its staff to
initiate a process to identify feasible solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion by
either utilizing re-nourishment projects of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices
to reduce the loss of sand, or a combination of both; and
WHEREAS, in April 2020, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services
agreement with engineering consultant GHD, who then worked on a study evaluating alternatives
to stabilize and enhance the beach widths within the City of Oceanside; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2021, the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention
Device Project Feasibility Analysis and a staff report were presented to the Oceanside City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the study area spanned the coastline from the southern end of Camp Pendleton
south to the southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, Section 2., Coastal Setting, of the analysis document, states in part: The wave
climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells generated by distant storms
in the North Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest
through the spring and summer months and transports sand to the north. .. Larger North Pacific
swell[s] approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months transports sand
to the south ... Waves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches. The
Resolution No. 2022-16
Page 2 of 4
}1:(t~nt A
net longshore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be southern, although
seasonal variations are common and depend on the swell direction. There are numerous estimates
of the longshore sediment transport for Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell ... These
estimates are based on historic studies and have not been updated or field verified recently.
However, amongst these studies there is general agreement that Oceanside experiences a net
sediment transport to the south of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards (cy) per year; and
WHEREAS, GHD estimated the cost and the approach of future phases of the project, and
engaged the Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography to develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan; and
WHEREAS, GHD also performed numerical modeling to predict how the alternatives could
impact local and regional sand movement; and
WHEREAS, of the four retention alternatives studied, groins were ranked the highest -
based on the multi-criteria analysis of technical performance, financial analysis, and environmental
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins
and a sand bypass system, with a project area that spans the coastline from the Oceanside Pier
south to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, the Oceanside City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed staff
to begin the associated design, permitting and environmental work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has expressed concern and adopted a
resolution in opposition of the project on January 11, 2022, stating that the groins alternative has
the potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad;
and
WHEREAS, there is similar potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand to the City of
Del Mar as reflected in the City's adopted Sediment Management Plan (Environmental Science
Associates 2018) which studied the existing longshore sediment transport system and identifies
that sand within the Oceanside Littoral cell predominately migrates down the coast from Oceanside
to Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service's statement on groins notes, "By design, these
structures are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore current; this depletes the sand
supply to the beach area immediately down~drift of the structure;" and
WHEREAS, the City of Oceanside's stated intent with the groins alternative was that it would
be "adaptable and reversible" based on the results of scientific monitoring programs; and
WHEREAS, if sand retention success is achieved with the initial four groins, more groins
may be added to other sections of the Oceanside coastline in the future; and
WHEREAS, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four years and
City of Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional public outreach before the final
groin locations are determined; and
Resolution No. 2022-16
Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton, Surfrider
Foundation and other stakeholders are expected to be invited to engage in the outreach process;
and
WHEREAS, there will also be opportunities for City of Del Mar staff and other municipalities
to provide comments on the potenti'al impacts from the project; and
WHEREAS, the Oceanside groin project may impede successful implementation of Del
Mar's Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan and hazard mitigation strategies as set forth in the Del Mar
Community Plan (General Plan); and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar supports regional collaboration and regional solutions to
sediment management that benefit all beaches located within the Oceanside Littoral cell.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City of Del Mar City Council opposes the construction of devices that would
interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Del Mar, including the approved
groin pilot project planned by the City of Oceanside.
3. That staff will send a copy of this resolution to the North County Coastal City Councils
and City Managers, the San Diego Association of Governments Shoreline
Preservation Working Group, and California Coastal Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California,
at the Regular meeting held this 22nd day of Februa 2022.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Q
Dwight Wo en, Mayor
City of Del Mar
Resolution No. 2022-16
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Acting City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-16, adopted by the
City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of February
2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, Council Members Druker and
Gaasterland
Council Member Quirk
None
ABSTAIN: None