The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-09-07; Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project Update (District 1); Barberio, GaryTo the members of the: Cl CO~NCI ✓ Date .., 2~ CA cc _ CM /l':M_DCM (3)2' September 7, 2023 Council Memorandum To: From: Via: Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of the City Council Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Dire~ Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager ~ {city of Carlsbad Memo ID# 2023095 Re: Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project Update (District 1) This memorandum provides an update to a previous City Council Staff Report, dated April 11, 2023, 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. February 9, 2023 -The City Council received a Council Memorandum providing an update on the City of Oceanside's planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project. The memorandum noted the Oceanside Coastal Zone's Administrator's presentation at the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission Meeting on October 4, 2022, in which the City of Oceanside's new coastal management and methodologies were outlined. The memorandum also detailed subsequent communications between Oceanside staff and Carlsbad staff from 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) September 7, 2023 Page 2 January 10 to 23, 2023, regarding Oceanside staffs recommendation to move forward with Phase II of the subject project, which would "1) 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." On January 25, 2023, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services agreement with GHD, Inc., in the amount of $2,591,681, for consultant services in support of Phase 2 of a Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. April 11, 2023 -The City Council received a staff report to consider a request for a Carlsbad City Council Member and a city staff member to participate as voting jurors or as non-voting advisory panelists in the City of Oceanside's Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Design Competition review (Attachment A). The City Council voted to decline the City of Oceanside's request for a Carlsbad City Council Member or a city staff member to participate in the pilot project's design competition review. The City Council also provided direction to request that Oceanside allow a Carlsbad staff member to participate as an "observer" to jury meetings. On April 13, 2023, the Carlsbad City Manager submitted that request to the Oceanside City Manager. Discussion May 1, 2023 -The Oceanside City Manager responded to the Carlsbad City Manager, i•ndicating " ... While we remain committed to continually engaging the City of Carlsbad as we proceed with our pilot project, allowing an observer presents some significant challenges. Namely, in the interest of fairness, opening the jury process to one observer would put us in the difficult position of having to honor similar requests from other interested parties. For this reason, we are not receptive to the observer request. However, we remain committed to keeping the City of Carlsbad engaged as we move forward and believe there are other opportunities to keep your staff informed every step of the way. For example, we would be happy to schedule standing meetings with you and your staff immediately following each jury meeting so that we can provide you with a timely recap. In addition, we would welcome Carlsbad staff's attendance in key internal project team meetings if you are open to sending a representative. Finally, there will be a series of public workshops that are expected to commence this summer and we'd encourage representation at those meetings, as well. We appreciate your interest in keeping the lines of communication open and are certainly open to other ideas for collaboration ... " July 26, 2023 -Oceanside staff sent Carlsbad staff a brief " ... summary of the current happenings with the Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project" and advised that "Our design competition, which supports the Phase 2 Project, is now called RE:BEACH Oceanside, and it is underway, but only recently launched. Attached to the summary is our Design Competition Solicitation Package, which complements the summary" (Attachment B). August 23, 2023 -Oceanside staff sent Carlsbad staff an invitation to attend the first public workshop for the RE:BEACH design competition at the Oceanside Council Chambers on Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project (District 1) September 7, 2023 Page 3 August 29, 2023, and indicated there would be a total of three public workshops held prior to a City Council decision in January 2024. August 29, 2023 -Oceanside staff held the refenced public workshop for the RE:BEACH design competition. Carlsbad staff attended the workshop, along with approximately 150 other members of the public. Oceanside staff, through GHD, had identified thirty-six (36) qualified firms of interest and invited them to subm it proposals. Many of those firms joined together to create teams, resulting in six proposals being submitted. Those six proposals were evaluated and narrowed to the three teams invited to present at the workshop: Dutch based firm Delatarus, New York and San Francisco based firm SCAPE and Australia based firm ICM. Each team gave a 20-minute presentation than included an overview of Oceanside's beach conditions, challenges retaining sand south of the pier, past replenishment efforts and results, proposed design strategies, design concepts, results achieved elsewhere using sim ilar strategies, and results anticipated in Oceanside. All firms presented varying strategies that could be implemented at multiple different Oceanside beach locations as pilot projects to be monitored for results, which could then lead to a more comprehensive approach. August 31, 2023 -The City Council received an email from the City Manager that included a link to a video of the workshop, and a link to Oceanside's RE:BEACH webpage. He also indicated the concepts shared by each team represented high level proposals that will continue to be refined in the months ahead based on feedback from the public and in collaboration with the jury. September 6, 2023 -Carlsbad staff held a meeting with Oceanside staff to further discuss the presentations at the public workshop and confirm remaining actions in the evaluation process. Sand replenishment projects that could benefit beaches within Carlsbad The city has recently been receiving a number of public inquiries about sand replenishment in Carlsbad, particularly in the southern Ponto-area reaches of the coastline. When the city receives inquiries about sand replenishment and projects that could benefit Carlsbad, staff will be responding to residents as follows: The majority of the beaches within Carlsbad are owned and controlled by the State of California. The City of Carlsbad controls only the northern most mile of beach (from Oak Avenue to the Oceanside Border via a lateral public access easement). The city does, however, support several sand replenishment projects that benefit beaches within Carlsbad, including the Oceanside Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Maintenance Dredging Project, the Batiquitos Lagoon Maintenance Dredging Project, and the SAN DAG Regional Beach Sand Project Ill. Each of these projects involve other entities, with whom Carlsbad staff have developed points of contact. For more information on these projects and their respective cycles, contact Parks Planning Manager Nick Stupin at nick.stupin@carlsbadca.gov, or 442-339-2527. Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project (District 1) September 7, 2023 Page 4 For additional reference, Carlsbad staff have also compiled an ownership map of the beaches/shorelines within Carlsbad (Attachment C), and an updated synopsis of each of the above noted sand replenishment projects (Attachment D), and their next anticipated cycles. Next Steps Staff will continue to stay in communication with Oceanside staff regarding significant developments on Phase II of Oceanside's Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project, as well as the other entities' points of contact regarding significant developments on their respective projects. Attachment: A. Carlsbad City Council Staff Report, dated April 11, 2023 (Due to the size of Attachment A, a hard copy is on file in the Office of the City Council, as reference) B. Oceanside Summary of Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project C. Map of the ownership of the beaches/shorelines within Carlsbad D. Synopsis of sand replenishment projects that benefit beaches within Carlsbad cc: 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, Assistant City Attorney Todd Reese, Parks Services Manager Nick Stupin, Parks Planning Manager Beach Preservation Commissioners CA Review __AF__ Meeting Date: April 11, 2023 To: Mayor and City Council From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager Staff Contact: Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director kyle.lancaster@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2941 Subject: Request for a Carlsbad City Council Member and a City Staff Member to Participate in the City of Oceanside’s Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Design Competition Review District: All Recommended Action Consider a request for a Carlsbad City Council Member and a city staff member to participate as voting jurors or as non-voting advisory panelists in the City of Oceanside’s Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Design Competition review, and act to either: 1.Decline the City of Oceanside’s request for a Carlsbad City Council Member or a city staff member to participate in the pilot project’s design competition review, or 2.Direct staff to return with an item to rescind or amend Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2022-011, and appoint a City Council Member to participate as a juror or advisory panelist for the pilot project’s design competition review, and/or 3.Direct staff to return with an agenda item to rescind or amend Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2022-011, which would allow the City Manager the discretion to appoint a city staff member to participate as a juror or as an advisory panelist for the pilot project’s design competition review, or 4.Provide other direction to staff as appropriate Executive Summary The City of Oceanside’s Coastal Zone Administrator has requested that a Carlsbad City Council member and city staff member participate as a voting juror or a non-voting advisory panelist in the design competition for Phase 2 of Oceanside’s Sand Replenishment and Retention Project. The Carlsbad City Council has stated its opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow sand into Carlsbad, as this project has the potential to do. Carlsbad staff are providing further information on the City of Oceanside’s Sand Replenishment and Retention Project and the corresponding request for the City of Carlsbad’s participation. Attachment A Explanation & Analysis Timeline Jan. 19, 2023 - Oceanside’s Coastal Administrator emailed Carlsbad staff with a link to the published agenda packet for the Oceanside City Council meeting on Jan. 25, 2023. The Coastal Administrator provided this summary of the Oceanside City Council meeting agenda item on this project: Staff is recommending that Oceanside move forward with the Phase 2 contract which will 1) 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… I 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. Jan. 20, 2023 - Carlsbad staff sent an email to the Oceanside Coastal Administrator stating that the Carlsbad City Council’s statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow sand into Carlsbad remained unchanged (City Council Resolution No. 2022-011, included as a part of Exhibit 1). Jan. 23, 2023 - The Oceanside City Manager and the Oceanside Coastal Administrator met with the Carlsbad City Manager, the Carlsbad Deputy City Manager for Community Services and staff. The Oceanside Coastal Administrator committed to continuously involving the Carlsbad community and staff throughout the public and regional outreach program for this project. Jan. 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 Project. Feb. 9, 2023 – Carlsbad city staff distributed a City Council memorandum with a detailed update on the City of Oceanside’s planned sand replenishment project. (Exhibit 1). March 6, 2023 - The Oceanside Coastal Administrator requested, via email, that a Carlsbad City Council Member and city staff member participate as voting jurors or as non-voting advisory panelists in the pilot project’s design competition review. In those emails, the Oceanside Coastal Administrator stated: Our Phase 2 Project will involve a Design Competition to determine the most appropriate, efficient and beneficial retention structure for the region and Oceanside’s coastline. Your participation is requested in this process due to your expertise in the subject matter and interest in the resiliency of Oceanside’s coastline. Attached to the emails was a form, titled City of Oceanside Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Design Competition – Jury Solicitation (Exhibit 2). That form states in part: Background - The Design Competition Jury will consist of 6-7 voting members from various sectors and interest groups and is intended to reflect the community, regional and stakeholder interests in the implementation of a pilot, sand retention project. Additionally, 3-5 non-voting, advisory members will also be invited to participate. Three design teams will be selected to compete in this process with hopes of sparking innovative ideas to solve a decades long problem of coastal erosion and regional disagreement on the best path forward. The purpose of the Design Competition Jury is primarily to represent your industry or stakeholder group’s interest and provide formal input on the work submitted by design teams. Juror Requirements & Compensation - Design Competition Voting Jurors are expected to be free of conflicts of interest and to be able to provide an unbiased review of materials produced during the design competition. Participation on the Design Competition Jury is anticipated to require commitment to the following events: • Participate in Jury orientation (1.5 hours) – April 2023 • Review of Design Team Materials (Design Brief, RFP for Professional Design Services, etc.) (2 hours) - April 2023 • Participate in one of three Public Workshops – May 2023–October 2023 • Participate in…Competition presentation from 3 Firms (2 hours) – November 2023 o Debrief and Discussions following Presentation (2 hours) - November 2023 • Provide evaluation of submitted Design Team Pilot-Project Concept Designs & Vote on Preferred Design (3 hours)–December 2023 o Non-voting jurors will also be invited to join the Design Competition Jury to be inclusive of a variety of perspectives related envisioning Oceanside’s coastal future. Non-voting jurors will be chosen for their knowledge of a specific area that may contribute the overall selection process. Juror Application - The Project Team is sending out targeted invites to individuals who fit the designation juror categories. March 15, 2023 - Completed applications were due to the City of Oceanside, with a caveat that applications would be accepted and reviewed on a rolling basis. March 24, 2027 - Carlsbad staff emailed the Oceanside Coastal Administrator, advising: Carlsbad staff will not be participating in this process, either as a voting juror or as a non-voting advisor. We will, however, still monitor the public information available on the progress of the project. Please also continue to provide us with periodic updates and any significant changes to the project. March 27, 2023 - The Oceanside Coastal Administrator again requested that a Carlsbad City Council Member participate in the pilot project’s design competition review. The email from the Coastal Administrator states in part: It would be great to have your representation as a voting or non-voting member of our Jury for our Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. Participating in our Jury will give you a chance to directly weigh in on the designs for our Pilot Project with any regional concerns. This is true collaboration, and it would be really great to work with you on this. Factors to consider Oceanside staff have explained that they do not intend for the project’s design competition review jury or panel to be a body subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. However, formal action by the City Council to appoint persons to the panel or jury could inadvertently contribute to the creation of a legislative body that must comply with requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. For either a Carlsbad City Council Member or city staff member to meet Oceanside’s eligibility criteria to participate as a juror or as an advisory panelist in the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Design Competition review, rescinding or amending Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2022-011 may be necessary to minimize real or perceived bias or conflict of interest. As noted above, that resolution expresses a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow sand into Carlsbad. However, the jury would be tasked with reviewing the various proposals for sand nourishment and retention and scoring them against a set of criteria established by Oceanside’s project team. The City of Oceanside Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Design Competition – Jury Solicitation form states in part: Juror Requirements & Compensation - Design Competition Voting Jurors are expected to be free of conflicts of interest and to be able to provide an unbiased review of materials produced during the design competition. Without rescinding or modifying the resolution, a Carlsbad City Council Member or city staff member on the jury could be faced with the task of voting on an Oceanside sand nourishment and retention project that conflicted with Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2022-011, thus presenting a source of bias or conflict of interest. Fiscal Analysis There is no direct fiscal impact associated with staff’s recommended action, although two of the options require investment of the appointed City Council member’s or staff member’s time. Options Staff have identified the following options for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Decline the City of Oceanside’s request for a Carlsbad City Council Member or a city staff member to participate in the pilot project’s design competition review. 2. Direct staff to return with an item to rescind or amend Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2022-011, and appoint a City Council Member to participate as a juror or advisory panelist for the pilot project’s design competition review. 3. Direct staff to return with an item to rescind or amend Carlsbad City Resolution No. 2022-011, which would allow the City Manager the discretion to appoint a city staff member to participate as a juror or as an advisory panelist for the pilot project’s design competition review. 4. Provide other direction to staff as appropriate. Next Steps Staff will carry out the direction provided by the City Council. Environmental Evaluation This action does not require environmental review because it does not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act under California Public Resources Code Section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Exhibits 1. Carlsbad City Council memorandum, dated Feb. 9, 2023 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) 2. Oceanside Sand Nourishment & Retention Project, Design Competition – Jury Solicitation Exhibit 1 Council Memorandum February 9, 2023 To: Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of t he City Council From: Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director (cityof Carlsbad Memo ID# 2023017 Via: Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager @ 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 Rep lenishment 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. 11 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 to 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 hard copy 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 qAsJn.cA....:t_cc~ CM .Jl ACM ,,/ DCM (3) ..ii!.. September 15, 2022 Council Memorandu1n 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 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 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 (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 Governh1ent'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 comh1ents 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 Rep lenishment 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 Carlsba.d 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 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. 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 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 l ardy, City Planner Todd Reese, Parks Services lvlanager Katie Hentrich, Senior Program Manager Sarah Lemons, Senior Program Manager Nikki Matosian, Community Relations Manager Michael Tully, Parks Planner Attachment A ATTACHMENT A CI TV 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 rhat could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad Executive Summary The City Council recelved a memorandum from staff on Aug. 26, 2021, on the status of the City of Oceanside's Beach S-and Replenishment and Retention Device Project (Exhibit 2). That memorandum noted that staff would provide periodic updates 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 renourishrnent 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 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 Sc.md 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). l arger North Pacific swell[s) approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months transports sand to the south (Figure 2-2). l ocally 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 Instit ute 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 pe1formance, 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 Sanch~z, 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, permittihg and environmental review of this alternative, considering it was unlikeiy 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;il to interf(:!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 rneant 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 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 largc-s1,alc, complex projects, preparation of CEQA/NEPA documents, and securing appropriate permits from a II 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 ls executed, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four 1 Revetme11ts 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 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 Th_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 naturql 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 the·refore does not require ehvironmental 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 COUNCIL,.~ STATEMEN1' 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 comb1niltion of both; and WliEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, on Aug. 11, 20211 the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project Feasibility Analysis and a staff report were presented to the Oceanside City Council; and WHEREAS1 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 wove climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells generated by distant storms In the North Paclfic and Southern Oceans. Southern swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest through the spring dnd summer months and transports sand to the north ... Larger North Pacific swel/[s] approaching from the northwest and west during the foll and winter months transports sand to the south ... Wctves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches. The net fongshare sediment transport patterns /qr Oceanside are accepted to be southern, although seasonal variations are common and depend on the swell direction. There are numerous estimates of the fongshore sediment transport for Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell ... These estimates are based on historic studfes and have not been updated or field verified recently. Howevei amongst these studies there is general agreement that Oceansfde experiences a net sediment transpo1t to the south of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards (cy} per year; and WHEREAS, GI-ID 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 coast~I 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; and WHEREAS, of the four retention alternatives studied, groins were rahked the highest-based on the multi-criteria analysis of technical performance, financial analysis, and environmental co11siderath;:in; and WHEREAS, the analysls document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins-and a sa11d bypass system, with a project area that area spa11ned the coastline from the Oceanside Pier south_ to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon; and WHEREAS, the Oceanside City Council voted to initl<1te the pilot project and directed slaff lo begin the associated design, permi tting and environmental work; and WHEREAS, Carlsbad staff expressed concern that t he groins alternative has the potential to interfere with the naturaj flow of sand down the coast, particularly into Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, the National Park Service's statement on grojns notes, "By design, these structures are meant to capture sand ttansported by the longshore current; this depletes the sand supply to the beach area Immediately down-drlft,ofthe structure;" and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, if sand retention suceess 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 tal<e 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 WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, the Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton, S~1rfrider Foundation and other stakeholders are expected t o be invited to engage in the outreach process; and WHEREAS, there wi ll also be oppo1iunities for City of Carlsbad staff and other municipalities to provide comments on the potential in'lpncts 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 t he City Council adopt a resolution app(oving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could i11te1iere with the natural flow of beach sand into Carlsbad. Staff concurs with this recommendation; 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 contribute to long-term financia l sustainability; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has considered the potential etwironmental effects of this action and has been determined it to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 210651 this action does not constitute a "project'' within the meaning of the California Environmental 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 envlrohment. 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 Pres~rvatlon Working Group, and the California Coastal Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 11111 day of January 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ~.f\VIOLr ~EDINA, City de!~rvices Manager I ·-.. (SEAL) -·, Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 8 of 10 Attachment A ATTACHMENT A Exhibit 2 City Council memorandum, Status of City of Oceans ide'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: SlATEMENT 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 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 Attorney 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 1200 Carlsbad Villc1ge Drivel Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2821 t Jan. 11, 2022 Item #12 Page 10 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 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 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, Assist;:mt City M;:in;:igP.r Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services l<yle 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. 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 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 Enclosu re cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager Celia Brewer, City Attorney Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager Ga1·y 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 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 {cityof Carlsbad RE: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO CONSTR.UCTING DEVICES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND INTO CARLSBAD Dear Members of the Shoreline Preservation Working Group: Enclosed please find Resolution No. 2022-011 of the City of CarJsbad City Council1 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 l<yle Lancaster at 760-434-2941 and kyle.lancaster@carlsbdca.gov. Sincerely, ow~. I Jason Haber Intergovernmental Affairs Director Enclosu re 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 u I-z UJ ~ :I: u <{ ..---.. I= <{ 0.. ::) 0 u .._, V) -C ....., E u QJ OJ ro ·--, !.... 0 E O'l !.... 0 0... !.... ....., OJ 0.. 0 en QJ ·-u, 0.. ro ::) C C u 0 ·-....., ....., ro >-u, C ·- +-' QJ ~ '""O C u ....., :::> :::> QJ QJ ....., t: ·--, Ck:: V) 0 - 0 O'l !.... '""O ro u, a... C 0... !.... C .._, QJ a... ·- ro O'l '""O u-i QJ 0 '""O C +-' ro C >-QJ ro C ·-O'l ....., !.... V) QJ 0 C ·-0 E ..c u w Ll !.... u ...c. ·-0 ro 4-....., u, 0 ro Ll QJ ·-!.... OJ ~ 0.. !.... co :::> u, ro --0 a... E I 0 ~ !.... ro z ■-ro 0 0 C ln u u ro 0 ""O E :::> ·-C C >-'""O C O'l E C C QJ ro ro E !.... ro <( Ck:: V) OJ <( V) • • u ::::> • • • 0 l/') u 1-z UJ 2 I ~ <{ >-7:J ::::::> +-' l/) Vl L OJ OJ C ·-01 C LU 4- 0 Vl 0... L 0 u >-E L <( ..j- rl ..j- C 0 ·.;:; u OJ V1 0~ cu 0 +-' 0 ~ rl 0. <( E 0 0 u a:: 0 5 +-' VI .!: ..c +-' C -0 0 OJ E N ·.:::: u:, I""\ 0 ..c .µ ::> <( " 0 0 cu rl ..... ~ <( 0. 0 E a:: 0 5 u 0 -0 C ..... cu VI -0 -0 ..c -0 ..... <lJ C OJ C -0 .z N 0 C C ·.:::: E .z :::> 0 -:t-..c C -:t-:::> .µ ::i ro <l/ fr'. ~ ~ .!: C ro 01 (lJ .D >--0 ::> .µ V1 £ ,e Vl ro (I) u. >--0 :, .... Vl ..c .... C 0 E -:t--:t- L.. J? Lr) .... 0 N .S -0 <lJ ..... Ill .:: 0. e 0. 0. Ill VI -0 C :, LL I.!) rl 0 N .S .c 01 :, 0 L.. .c ..... ~ Ol C 'i:i C :, LL rl rl 0 rl >--0 :, .µ V1 .£ :0 Vl It! <II u. N N 0 N .S -0 <lJ .... -~ 0. 0 a. a. Ill ~ VI -0 C ~ cu .S <lJ E ·;:. ..c ..... C 0 E -:t--:t- -0 <lJ 3 <lJ C ~ ..c .t:! 3 C 0 ·.p Ill C Ol 'vi <lJ -0 t: Ill .... l/1 3 <lJ z VI cu -~ Cl) u ~ >--0 :, ti, tA u ..... z w ~ :r u ~ >---0 :J -1--' l/1 >--1--' ■--■-....0 ■-V\ ro QJ LL I rl QJ V\ re ...c a_ l/l u E ro C >--0 .+-J !..... 0 0... l/l C ro ~ .+-J -0 C ro l/l -0 Q) N >- ro C <( • Q) > ·-.+-J u Q) Q) C ·- l/l t: 0 Q) .+-J C Q) E ...c. l/l ~ ::> 0 C .+-J l/l ro a_ • "'O C ro Q_ l/) ca a::: U"I .. <lJ .~ -1-1 u ro ,._ Q_ O') C ·-0') "'O QJ ,._ "'O ,._ 0 ..0 ,._ ro I • l/l .+-J u OJ . ----. 0 ~ 0... C 0 .+-J C Q) +-' cu ~ -0 C ro l/l V'I ro 0... >-...0 -0 C ro V'I ~ 2 ro +-' C cu +-' 0 0... V'I V'I cu V'I V'I <( • l/l Q) > ·-.+-J ro C !..... Q) .+-J ro -1-' u Q) . ---, 0 !..... 0... -0 cu q:: -1-' C OJ -0 • u f-z UJ 2 I u ~ C 0) ■- Vl Q) 0 Q) !.... 0 -a.. >< LU I r\J Q) Vl ro ..c a... C 0 +-' C cu +-' cu !,..... -0 C ro +-' C cu E ..c V, ·-C cu 0.. cu !,..... ""CJ C m V, ..c +-' 0 V\ _Q OJ cu > > 0 > ■-C -I-' V, ro cu > C +-' ~ m C !,..... OJ cu +-' +-' -<( <( • ~ 0 ...0 ~ ro I 4-. 0 ..c t 0 +-' C C (lJ lll E +-' C (0 ..c (lJ (lJ lll ~ ·c E +-' ::, ..c C E o .~ CU O C ~ E ~ -o 6 _clllCc lll (0 V, (0 lll -0 0..-C !.... :::, >-ro ro 0..0CV'I o-Z -o ·-ro C CJ) U ""CJ ro a., o C l/) O:'.'. _J ro • • • l/1 • lll E C 0 ro +-' !.... -0 en C 0 en o !.... C u a.. +-' !,..... C ..c C 0 QJ u 4-+-' ~ ro 0 (lJ ~ cu C ::, +-' (].) 0 u !,..... C ~ +-' ~~ :::, OJ ro +-' lll ·u -0 -0 CU C ·-·i:: CU ...0 Ck'.'.·-4-C ('O 0 ·-..0 ro ""CJ ~ t >-.:.= +-' +-' lll C~<(I ~ UJ V, ro ro • • • ro • 0 l/1 C() u • • • u f--z lJ.J ~ J: u <{ ' Vl <{ ro u C 0 0 --0 C ro ■--I-' Vl l... C 0 +-' a; C Vl +-' 0 > -I-' l- 0 O') !.... cu 0.. QJ 0 Vl l... 4- Ck:: C QJ QJ ro ..c. u l-+-' ro +-' 01 0.. l... --0 +-' C 0 Vl >- C ~ 4-O') C QJ 0 QJ ro 0 E :t: C C > 0 0 ro --0 0 Vl +-' +-' u QJ E --0 u ro QJ -I-' 1/) u l... ~ QJ ..c: (i= ro 4-l-u C ro N Cl.) u ro u +-' ro QJ QJ 0 C ..c: V\ I.... (]J Q) ...0 Vl u QJ +-' QJ --0 Vl +-' ro QJ QJ E -C ro C ..c I.... > C '::!::. 0 ro ro 0 O') 0 +-' +-' E +-' I.... Vl -0 +-' +-' Vl 0.. .J:: 0 I.... Q) u ro 0 E QJ Vl E QJ l... u Vl l9 --0 ro +-' O') I C _Q -0 0 0 s -0 C I.... ·-:::, +-' I.... 0 C C ro 0.. 0.. ro C l... +-' QJ Q) >-QJ C +-' E C u +-' +-' I.... ro (]J +-' Q) QJ ::J 0 ro +-' QJ 01 4-+-' +-' +-' ...0 -(]J ...0 ro ro u C C C Vl ::J Cl.) ro o_ -~ -0 I.... ro L C ro u +-' +-' E (]J 0 E Vl Cl.) ..c. ro ...0 ro I.... u QJ Q) ::J I.... ro -0 ro Ck:: ~ +-' > 4-C re +-' c.. C <1.) ro QJ 0... O') 0.. QJ V, ..D ro > QJ ro QJ QJ --0 +-' -0 0 --0 u Vl I.... +-' Vl <( 5 ro 0 QJ I... > QJ C 0 > 0.. 0 0 l... +-' E u Vl C • l... ..c QJ a.. lf1 C 0::: ro -■- V) 0... • • • • • • u I-z UJ 2 :r u ~ <( U') u ·-E QJ ro u C >-C ro -0 0 L 0 µ )... ·- µ 0 µ µ C ·-0.... C 01 QJ Q) U') 0 µ C C ·- ..c ·-Q) C µ µ ro ro )... C )... C: µ C -0 ro ·-C - ..c -0 -0 ro 0.... µ C: )... U') ·-ro 0 C $ U') 0 Q) 0 - µ '+-u ...0 µ Q) 0 -0 U') ro 0) µ Vl -0 ..c C C 0.... u ro 0 ro -1,-J :::) )... 0.... -0 ■- ...0 ro (]J 4- (]J ::::, U') ro -0 U') 01 (]J E QJ C (]J ~ 0 ro ~ ~ L C U') u ro 2 Q) ·-·-µ QJ ro '+--0 µ I ·- CJ) µ µ C: ca 0 C ro (]J C: µ Q) C: -0 0 QJ ·-0 (]J -u ·- )... ro ..c U') 0) u ~ µ )... Q) QJ ~ C µ ~ )... 0... (]J C (]J E 0 (lJ (]J µ ..c E -0 ro U') ·-µ ■- ·-µ ·- 0) 0) > ·-...0 -0 ::::, 0 u ro )... QJ <( ~ ro µ 0 (L U') LL UJ <( Ck:: • • • • • u f-2 w 2 :c u t <( • • • vi CL (lJ -i-J lfl -i-J X OJ z i.n QJ > .µ ro C ,_ QJ .µ <( C 0) i.n QJ 0 QJ ,_ 0 0. X w I ("J QJ i.n ro ..c CL 4-0 ro > 0 ,_ 0... 0... ro u C ::> 0 u • i.n 0) C .µ QJ QJ E ro C 0 0) QJ ,_ ..., ..c C QJ c::n E ::> ..., QJ C 0 Q) (I) ,_ ro E ..c Q) C (I) .µ QJ Q) .µ 1-. ro QJ Q) C ""O C (I) QJ 0 E ..c >-u QJ C QJ .:,,t. Ill (I) c::n ..., Q) ro l/) <( c::n C w • i.n C 0 .µ ""O C 0 u QJ C QJ i.n ro ..0 ""O C ro QJ 0) ""O QJ >- 5 ""O ::i 0 ..., i.n C >-..:::t:. :!= .µ .D ,_ 0 Vl m 0. QJ u. i.n Vl C 0.. ro ,._ 0 ,_ u .µ C >-0 .µ E C ,._ .µ QJ <( ro E ""O > C 0 m ""O C I...? QJ <( C i.n 0 c::n z C <( i.n l/) QJ 0... ..c > ..., 0 "§ .µ QJ ro C c::n > 0 C ,_ C QJ ·.;; QJ ""O Ill I.. .±: ""O Vl 0 C QJ 0.. Ll <( 0.. ::> ::> l/) ro ·.:: C 4-C 0 u 0 .µ .µ l/) l/) u 0) C C i.n ro 0 QJ ,_ u 0 \.9 • • • I 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 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 B u 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 B u 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 B u 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 B u 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 Sa n d Re p l e n i s h m e n t an d Re t e n t i o n Pi l o t Pr o j e c t Go a l s • In v e s t i g a t e an d be t t e r un d e r s t a n d lo c a l se d i m e n t tr a n s p o r t • Ad a p t i v e ma n a g e m e n t ba s e d on sc i e n t i f i c mo n i t o r i n g • Im p r o v e pu b l i c sa f e t y an d mi t i g a t e ha z a r d s • Pr o v i d e in f r a s t r u c t u r e pr o t e c t i o n • Sh o w c a s e a re t e n t i o n pr o g r a m th a t is ef f e c t i v e fo r th e re g i o n ATT A C H ME N T C • In c r e a s e an d ma i n t a i n lo w - c o s t / f r e e re c r e a t i o n a l sp a c e fo r vi s i t o r s an d lo c a l s • Re s t o r e be a c h ha b i t a t an d im p r o v e be a c h ec o l o g y 9/30/2022 Item 4 25 of 44 Attachment B u 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 B u 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 CII'Y 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 Noifrishm-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. F?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 (RWQCB) • 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 Continaencv $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 CONSULT ANT 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. CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT hereby certifies that the CONSULTANT 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 CONSULT ANT 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 CONSULT ANT shall provide evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements listed above by providing, at minimum, a Certificate of Insurance 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 CONSULT ANT to a suspension or termination of work under the Agreement. 4.9 Maintenance of insurance by the CONSULTANT as specified in this Agreement shall in no way be interpreted as relieving the CONSULT ANT 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 CONSULTANT, 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. CONSULTANT shall provide all such documents in electronic, editable format upon request by the CITY. The CITY agrees to hold the CONSULT ANT 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. CONSUL TANT 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 CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT 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: 0 I -O°t ... Z..0 23 f Date: ------------ Date: ------------ Employer ID No. NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF CONSULTANT MUST BE ATTACHED. !:\City Attomey\Professional Services Agreement Short Fonn (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 "~ Notary Public • A.rlzona I Maricopa County Commissloo # 57◄259 (i} My Comm. E,pires 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 I-/11t,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 Oceansid~ 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 take 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 / 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 Pr0jBct 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), State 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 offour 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, ii 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 lime 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 Cily 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 USAGE 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 USAGE, 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 USAGE 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 USAGE 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 USAGE 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 USAGE 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, USAGE and MCBCP. • Presentation of sand bypassing concepts for use in meetings with USAGE 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 let 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 it 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 1125604881 Oceanside Sand Retention Project 14 Attachment CAttachment C 4.5.1 30%1 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°/4 (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 formal), 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. It 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 El R, 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 EIR 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 EIR 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 SAN DAG 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, RE CON 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 EIR 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 [ 1256048B I 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. RE CON 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 Slate 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 EIR. Deliverables: • Electronic submittal (Yvord 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 lo 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 USAGE 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 USAGE. 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 USAGE 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 USAGE 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 USACE 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 (RFls). 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 USACE 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. GADD 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 Milch 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 • lnput1 Square• GHD le.am Actions Trl•n1le • Publlc / City htll;2,1leull, C.-,-\Hlt1y ll'J ... ffll!lt -fHlt4.110tii&fl■rMf •114s.t.ck.ee'-i , ...... J.,.... ... ·--- h ........... o,,,. .. ,.,).41 o.s.r11, ... , l•l•Ct,..lfll c,c..-wA~tf.:I ---~--,.,_"(_ §]---§ 3-months f'fflr..-tol<h•,- 0.,.Vlfit' (~•- ..... t-1. ........... " li.,.-,,1.-c,Jt...,..•• ''"'"'"' GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project MAR2023 I (11, Tr.t~ •r.,~tun •ui:-1r.e. 2-months MAY 2023 I Attachment CAttachment C Task 2 + Task 4 Process Diagram Preliminary MAY 2023-APR 2024 MAY2023 I •• 5-months OCT 2023 - ~ GHD I City of Oceanside 112560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project DEC 2023 I I I •• I =~""' ==--h ---1 :.-.::-:11 .:::- I := -:- I c::J 0 I @ APR 2024 • Attachment CAttachment C Task 2 + Task 4 Process Diagram Preliminary APR 2024-JUL 2025 APR2024 Plans, Outlines, Technical Specifications & Estimate (60'6) Plans, Specifications & Outline (90%) AUG 2024 I I Final Plans, Specifications & Outline CEQA& NEPA rubi!C D1.1fu JAN 2025 I Permitting GHD I City of Oceanside I 12560488 I Oceanside Sand Retention Project 2 JUL 2025 Attachment CAttachment C r. -Schedule: Oceanside Sand Retention Project Phase 2 2023 2024 2025 Tuk Ducr1ptlon 1d "' "'"' 5 ~ i!i"' "'0: >-i!i "'"' ~ ffi w w w w >-0: .. 0: w w t; .... t; I~ !q ~ ~ t; ,. w !q ~ ~ :z: ~ .. ,. ,. :z: :c ~ .. 1; ~ 1= ~ >-::, ,~I~ ~ ~ ]1! I~ I~ 1; ~ >-::, l: ~ ::, "' I~ = I~ ~ >-::, I~ 1; .J .. .J .. ~ u ~lffl I~ .J .. I~~ l~I* I~ ,2 I~ 13 12 1!:! ,::, I~ 13 I~ I~ 12 1~ ,::, .~13 T••k 1 • Prolect M•n•-m•nt Taak 2 • Cofflmunltv & Stak•holtler En·--m■nt I Prol■ct Advocacv Sub-tuk 2.1 -Local & CommUl'llty Engagement Sub-tuk 2.2-Communications & Media Outreach Sub.oluk 2.3 • ReglOl'\ill Engagement Taak 3 -a ... nn■ Monltortn■ Pro■ram Sub-tuk 3.1 -Beach Survoys Sub-Uak 3.2 -Littoral Call Study Sub-task 3,3 -Cltiun Science Program Taak 4 -EnalnNrln■ Analv91a & D■■l■n Sub.talk 4.1 -Design Competition 4.1.1 -Prepare Design Brief and Oosfgn Firm SollcltaUon Pack.age 4.1.2 -ProcLKe Design Teams 4.1.3 -Collaborative Design Oevek>pment 4.1.4 -Select ■ Competition Jury 4. 1 .5 -Sel&et Preferrod Ooalgn Sub-tuk 4.2 -Prollmlnary Engineering Ana1y1ls and Design 4.2.1 -EYIIIJlllo Phase 1 (PIiot) Locations & Future Phasing 4,2.2 • Phase 1 Sar,ci Retention System 4.2.3 • Beach Nourishment Program Sub-taak 4.3 • Adaptive Management Plan &ub-ta.k 4.4 • Final Engineering and Basis of Design Report Sub•tll•k 4.5 • Plan.s, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) 4.5.1 -30% Plan.s, Outline of lochnlcal Spedl'ications & Esllmalc, 4.5.2 -60% Plans, Outline of tachnical Specifications & Estimate 4.5.3 -90% Plans, SpocificaUons & Estimate 4,5.4 -Fln•I Plans, Specifications & Estimate Tuk 5 <E.nvlranmantal Cam.,llanc• & l'ermlttln• Sub-task 5.1 -CEQA Sub-task 5.2 -NEPA Sub-task 5,3 . Permitting Attachment CAttachment C . u u u u M ---.......... -...,,,,.-,~.:--::----.,,..,,r:,~l!.e!·=,:,m!": '!';,:::~;::~·--.wr-----,.-~'!'!'l!••-----■,-,_-r-, __ -:-"-.:!':~.::!'!"""!~!?-~-~==::::::! Uf .,. = tM !:!:: ..... , • :::: = ,::;:: :!.~ --------Ii/Mil lilMM I 1--=c!IIJCI,· ---I MM 11111·-=r•n•-=n■wa::111--•1:-•11:1 :1111eaw111c,t1JtlliilMl&IMlll2JIIClllila■mllMa:ll:ll 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 performance, 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?Blob1D=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 perfonn 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 permitting 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 perfonn 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 CEOA/NEPA public notices and associated filing fonns • Meeting agendas & minutes 6.2 Permitting Prepare & Submit Permit Applications The Consultant shall prepare the necessary environmental pennits applications required to construct the Project. The following resource agency pennits are anticipated: United States Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and 10 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 J 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.org SUBJECT: Support for Phase 2 San Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am writing on behc:Jlf 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 Council 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, .__,f I /l(lt'q, I/ /§.l/tr!-4' ,; /l 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; and 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 Rete.ntion 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 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 Oceahography 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 Oceansfde City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed staff to begin the associated design, permitting and envimnmental work; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has ~xpressed 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 potential 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: {) 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 M~nt A 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: A YES: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, Council Members Druker and Gaasterland NOES: Council Member Quirk ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None r Sand Nourishment & Retention Pilot Project Design Competition – Jury Solicitation Background The City of Oceanside in partnership with GHD and Resilient Cities Catalyst is soliciting applications to participate on the Design Competition Jury for the Oceanside Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. The Design Competition Jury will consist of 6-7 voting members from various sectors and interest groups and is intended to reflect the community, regional and stakeholder interests in the implementation of a pilot, sand retention project. Additionally, 3-5 non-voting, advisory members will also be invited to participate. Three design teams will be selected to compete in this process with hopes of sparking innovative ideas to solve a decades long problem of coastal erosion and regional disagreement on the best path forward. The purpose of the Design Competition Jury is primarily to represent your industry or stakeholder group’s interest and provide formal input on the work submitted by design teams. Juror Requirements & Compensation Design Competition Voting Jurors are expected to be free of conflicts of interest and to be able to provide an unbiased review of materials produced during the design competition. Participation on the Design Competition Jury is anticipated to require commitment to the following events: •Participate in Jury orientation (1.5 hours) – April 2023 •Review of Design Team Materials (Design Brief, RFP for Professional Design Services, etc.) (2 hours) - April 2023 •Participate in one of three Public Workshops – May 2023 – October 2023 •Participate in Design Competition presentation from 3 Firms (2 hours) – November 2023 o Debrief and Discussions following Presentation (2 hours) - November 2023 •Provide evaluation of submitted Design Team Pilot-Project Concept Designs & Vote on Preferred Design (3 hours) – December 2023 Non-voting jurors will also be invited to join the Design Competition Jury to be inclusive of a variety of perspectives related envisioning Oceanside’s coastal future. Non-voting jurors will be chosen for their knowledge of a specific area that may contribute the overall selection process. Jury Categories, Voting & Non-Voting: The following categories are being considered to represent the voting and non-voting members of the juror. Exhibit 2 Voting Category Description Coastal Management Expert As Design Teams consider innovative interventions, they will confront in- water and nearshore structures that will have, for the benefits of sand retention, impacts on the geomorphology of the coast. The “Coastal Management Expert” is an academic and/or a practitioner with an advanced degree, body of work, and research on coastal sediment processes, including a comprehensive understanding of geomorphology. This person is expected to bring expertise to the proposed designs that takes into consideration the impacts to the nearshore coastal dynamics. Permitting Viability Expert The permitting processes in California are strenuous and nuanced, the “Permitting Viability Expert” is an academic and/or practitioner who has direct experience navigating various coastal project permitting processes and viability studies in the State of California. Through the lens of permitting, this person is expected to provide feedback on the potential barriers to implementation, as well as considerations in the design for ease in permitting. Surf Resource Preservation Surfing is an extremely popular recreational activity along Oceanside’s four-mile shoreline due to the consistency of surf and variety of surf breaks. The preservation of surfing as a recreational resource in the community of Oceanside is vitally important to its identity and local economy. Thus, consideration for how the designs may impact or improve surfing conditions in the City is critically important. This juror is envisioned to be an experienced, Oceanside surfer, preferably well-traveled, such that they can apply years of knowledge surfing in various coastal environments to infer how the designs may work in the City of Oceanside. Nearshore Marine Resources Expert Sand retention strategies and interventions, including nature-based- solutions, will be developed with the intent to benefit the natural environment and should demonstrate impactful and effective benefits to non-human ecosystems. The “Nearshore Marine Resources Expert” is an academic and/or practitioner with an advanced degree, body of work, and research on beach ecosystems, nearshore reefs, marine ecosystems and ecology. This juror is envisioned to apply their knowledge base to the designs to assist in balancing the projects integration with the nearshore marine environment. Coastal City Representative Coastal management actions in Oceanside will require the consideration of coastal communities to the south due to the linked nature of coastal resources and management within the littoral cell. A “Coastal City Representative” is a local elected or appointed official from a nearby coastal community who has demonstrated knowledge and leadership in coastal resource management in the San Diego region. Community Representative Oceanside has a strong cultural history in North County, San Diego and the community’s relationship to the beach is fundamental to the experience of living in Oceanside. The “Community Representative” is an Oceanside resident who may or may not be represented by a broader community- based organization and can adequately represent the broad interests of the community. This person may be a youth leader or advocate. Non-Voting Category Potential Examples Federal Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, NOAA, Navy State Agency Coastal Commission, RWQCB, CDFW, State Lands Commission Grant Funders Ocean Protection Council, State Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, Division of Boating & Waterways, CDFW, San Diego Foundation NGOs Surfrider Foundation, Wildcoast, Save the Waves, Audubon, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation Juror Application The Project Team is sending out targeted invites to individuals who fit the designation juror categories. Prospective jurors are requested to submit a short resume/bio (max 1 page) and complete the below questionnaire. Juror applications are due by 5pm PT March 15; however, will be accepted and reviewed on a rolling basis. Juror Questionnaire: Name: _____________________________ Email: _____________________________ Expected Juror Category (i.e. Surf Resource Preservation): _____________________________ What is your relationship with the Oceanside coast? _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ In one sentence, what is your vision for the Oceanside coast? _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Please provide 1-2 sentences that describe your qualifications to participate as a juror. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Please provide 1-2 sentences that describe why you want to participate as a juror. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ What, if any, concerns do you have about potentially participating as a juror on this project and reviewing concepts submitted by Design Teams? _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ From your perspective how much weight should be given to the following pilot-project design criteria (select one percentage per criteria): • Technical Performance (stabilizing beach widths): 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% • Project Cost / Financial (initial construction cost and maintenance costs): 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% • Environmental Impacts or Benefits: 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% • Innovative Design Techniques: 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% • Social Benefits (improved safety and recreational space): 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% Commitment to remaining fair and honest. I understand that concepts presented within the Design Competition may diverge from my own beliefs and opinions. Regardless of this, I am committed to providing a fair and objective evaluation of the designs and will participate in the competitive process in a professional and constructive way. I commit to disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the Design Teams, design concepts, and overall project. I declare that the information above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I understand that I may be removed from the juror at any point by the Project Team. _________________________ _____ _______________ Signature Date Phase-2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project Oceanside Coastal Zone Management Carlsbad, Beach Preservation Commission meeting-Tuesday, August ist, 2023 Attachment B On January 25, 2023, the Oceanside City Council reviewed and approved a Professional Services Agreement with GHD Inc for Phase 2 of the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. Through this Project, Oceanside seeks to develop a program that will determine an offshore source of high-quality (i.e. larger grain size) sand for nourishment projects along Oceanside's beaches, while simultaneously designing and permitting a sand retention mechanism or structure that will help retain placed sand. The design of the retention structure is being developed through a global design competition that is being led by GHD Inc. and their subconsultant Resilient Cities Catalyst (RCC). A global call to action was released in February 2023, inviting engineering firms from across the world to apply to participate in RE:BEACH Oceanside, a Coastal Resilience Design Competition. A Jury and Advisory Panel comprised of local, state, and national experts weighed in on reviewing initial proposals from the global teams, with the City and Project Team making the ultimate decision on the finalists, based on experience, proposed approach and track record of delivering innovative solutions. The following three teams were selected to participate in RE:BEACH: SCAPE Landscape Architecture with ESA and the Dredge Research Collaborative SCAPE is a New York City based landscape architecture and urban design firm with offices in New Orleans and San Francisco. The team works to create well-designed, ecologically restorative and socially engaged landscapes through diverse forms of design. Scape Studio aims to use this project to bolster the transformative potential of natural spaces. Delta res with Delta res USA, and MVRDV Deltares is a nonprofit, solution-driven Dutch firm which boasts a robust knowledge of major societal issues and realizes the urgency behind finding equitable, sustainable solutions. Deltares' mission revolves around working passionately to find answers to some of life's biggest environmental questions. International Coastal Management An Australia-based firm that aims to meet the objectives of the project, while also acknowledging the unique opportunities and challenges of Oceanside's coastal environment. From the Gold Coast in Australia to Europe and the Caribbean, the team of coastal engineers has experience with various technical coastal designs, having completed projects for Sea World, the Gold Coast Waterways Authority, the Nature Conservancy, etc. Through this process, the Project Team expects the three Design Teams to explore a variety of design options, including but not limited to dunes, cobble berms, artificial headlands and reefs as examples of nature-based or nature-inspired coastal features that can work together to create a resilient and sustainable sandy shoreline. All designs will be guided by the Design Criteria, which sustains a focused mission to construct an innovative, multi benefit sand retention project on the City of Oceanside's beaches that serves both local and regional benefits. Design Criteria were scrutinized by the Project Team, City Team, Jury and Advisory Panel prior to initiating connections with the global design firms. Attachment B The Design Criteria guidelines were provided for the physical, environmental, financial, social and regional components of the Project and are included in the Oceanside Design Competition Solicitation Package, provided as Attachment 1. The design teams participating in RE:BEACH Oceanside will benefit from the robust information available through Phase 1 Feasibility Study, which included a historic background and data inventory, development and evaluation of alternatives, multi-criteria analysis, and a project monitoring framework. RE:BEACH Oceanside will take place over the next 6-months, and will culminate with a recommended winning design, as designated by the Jury/Advisory Panel and Project Team. The winning design will be presented to the Oceanside City Council for approval in January 2024. Upon a passing vote, the winning design will move directly into final engineering and environmental compliance with the GHD Inc team. What sets this process apart from other, more traditional design competition processes, is its direct link to the engineering design and permitting phases for construction. The ultimate outcome of this process will be a shovel ready sand retention pilot project, supported by offshore investigations and sampling of available sand. To learn more and participate in RE:BEACH, the first Public Workshop will take place at Council Chambers in Oceanside, 300 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 on Tuesday, August 29th. The Workshop will be open house style from 4-Sp, with formal presentations from the competing Design Jeams beginning at 5:00p until 7:00p. We encourage all interested parties to visit rebeach.org and subscribe to the mailing list to stay engaged with the competition, learn about upcoming events, and provide input and feedback on the design concepts. Sand Nourishment & Retention Pilot Project A Coastal Resilience Design Competition April 26, 2023 Design Brief &Team Solicitation Package For the last five decades, the City of Oceanside (City) has been studying and discussing alternatives to effectively maintain a sandy shoreline. The beneficial reuse of dredged Harbor sand is used to annually supplement the beach. This effort, however, has proven to be ineffediveat combating coastal erosion due to the characteristics of the dredged material, quantity available, and timing of placement, resulting in only northern portions of the City's coastline benefiting from persistent sandy beaches. The long term efficacy and sustainability of these efforts are further called into question by projected impacts by climate change, including sea level rise and storm pattern shifts. Today, there is no dry sand during much of the year in front of much of the City's shoreline, posing increased risk of flooding and damage to businesses and infrastructure, as well as residential communities, which threatens the City's economic lifeblood: the City's visitor and tourism sectors attracted by a sandy beach. Through a design competition process, Phase Two of the Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project invites innovation into the design of a pilot sand retention mechanism that will support a resilient shoreline in the City. The design shall be one that can be scaled up to benefit larger portions of the City's coastal areas and/or other municipalities in the state or region facing similar challenges. The development of designs will be supported by the Project Team over three Design Rounds, which will include initial reviews by the Project Team, Charrettes with the Project Team and additional experts, Regional Briefings, and Public Workshops (see below for more detail). A final review will be made by a Jury, and their recommendation will be provided to the City Council, who will vote on the winning design, Through this process, the Project Team wants to see teams explore and consider a variety of design options, including but not limited to dunes, cobble berms, artificial headlands and reefs as examples of nature-based or nature-inspired coastal features that can work together to create a resilient and sustainable sandy shoreline. All designs should be guided and respond, ata minimum, to the Design Criteria in the attached Design Brief. The Design Brief provides background surrounding the issues in the City, current coastal management activities, past investigations into project alternatives (including Phase One) and provides details on the Design Criteria for the competition. Three Design Teams will be selected to participate in a 8-month design competition from June 2023 to January 2024. The design competition process is enhanced by numerous public outreach events and opportunttles. Stipends of $25,000 USO will be provided to each of the three selected teams. The City is actively fund raising to increase stipends for Design Teams, aiming to raise up to $100,000 USO per team, Once a winning design is selected, GHD will perform a coastal engineering consistency review to ensure that the approach is viable from a technical and environmental standpoint. A final recommended design will be brought to the City Council in January 2024. The selected design will then move into final engineering and environmental compliance phases, which includes seeking required permits for the project. The winning team will be offered a contract of at least $100,000 USO from GHD, Inc. to continue to participate and work with the team through the next phase of the project. Resilient Cities Catalyst are inviting a limited number of teams to respond to this invttation based on their past project experience and expertise. Due to the multi-faceted aspects of the Design Competition, Design Teams are encouraged to form collaborative teams with potentially multiple firms that encompass experienced professionals that represent expertise in a range of disciplines, All invited teams are free to partner with each other, and/or1dentify additional firms outside of this list to complement their qualifications. Note: GH D will serve as the project manager for the selected pilot project concept and be able to provide extensive local coastal processes knowledge and coastal engineering support to the successful Design Team. Therefore, Design Teams are encouraged to include some coastal engineering expertlse wtth a majority of the team focusing on Innovative, multi-faceted design solutions. Attachment B Overview Oesig·o Brief &Team Solicitation Pack age p age.2 AECOM Field Operations Arcadis Local Office ARUP Michael Maltzan Architecture Balmori Mithun BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group OLIN Biohabitats ONE Architecture+ Urbanism Deltares (ONE) OHi Oru Gensler Rana Creek Guy Nordenson & Assoc. RIOS Sasaki Attachment B Invited Teams& Details SCAPE Landscape Architecture Schmidt Design Group Sherwood Design Engineers Stoss Studio for Urban Projects SWAGroup Tetra Tech TLS Landscape Architecture WoodsBagot International Coastal Management Safdie Rabines Architects WXY Proposal materials for consideration should be emailed to Resilient Cities Catalyst (oceanside@ rec.city) by 5PM Wednesday, May 17, 2023: We understand portfolios and materials can take on multiple formats, we ask that teams include, at a minimum, the following materials bundled as a single PDF document. The Project Team will evaluate submissions based on the following categories and corresponding weighting (percentages) indicated below: • Project Understanding & Expression of Interest, 15%-(1-2 pgs). Project Approach, 30%-with direct consideration and alignment with the Design Criteria (3-5pgs). • Team Qualifications, 25%-team composition, bios and roles, including key team members from multiple partners, when applicable. Portfolio of Relevant Work, 30%-provide 3-5 examples of relevant work. Proposal Timeline: Wednesday, April 26, 2023: Notification of Opportunity Tuesday, May 9, 2023 and Wednesday May 10, 2023: Optional Virtual Webinars for Potential Respondents (at 12pm ET/9am PT and 3pm ET/12pm PT each day), invitations with video conference links forthcoming. Wednesday, May 17, 2023: Responses Due by 5PM Wednesday, May 31, 2023: Finalist Teams Notified The Project Team anticipates fielding questions from potential participants between April 26 and May 17. Participants should anticipate that the Project Team may reach out for interviews and/or questions during May 17 to May 31, ·while proposals are in review. Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package page.3 Attachment B Design Brief &Team Solicitation Package page.4 Oceanside Sand Retention Design Competition The City of Oceanside (City) invites Design Teams to develop a sand retention pilot- project that builds coastal resilience along one of the most beloved and eroded coasts in California. On January 25, 2023, the City decided to move forward with a design competition process to generate innovative, multi-benefit solutions that solve a decades long problem of shoreline erosion. Each Design Tea·m will work closely with a 'City Team' composed of representatives from key City planning and engineering divisions, as well as the 'Project Team,' led by GHD with Resilient Cities Catalyst, that will provide technical and resilience expertise and feedback through the process. A formal :Jury'-composed of voting and non-voting members from the local, state, and federal agencies-and the local and regional community leaders and experts will also be part of the Design Competition process. Together, these groups provide expertise, guidance, and stewardship meant to validate, inform, and elevate the designs generated. In responding to this Design Brief, teams are encouraged to partner with practitioners and firms, as needed, to approach the challenge of designing a sand retention pilot project in Oceanside that addresses coastal erosion. The most successful designs will also consider multiple benefits including habitat improvements, recreational and public use amenities, and coastal flood mitigation. When teaming, please consider that a great deal of coastal engineering has been done in Oceanside by multiple parties, and as part of Phase One of this Project. The Phase One feasibility study is included as supplemental material to this Design Brief), and the author of that study and project manager for Phase Two (this Project), G HD Inc., is available as a technical resource to all three finalist teams; to aid in the development of innovative solutions. The Design Competition will take place over 8-months, planned for June 2023- January 2024, culminating in the selection of a winning design by the Project Team and recommended by the Jury. The winning design will be presented to Oceanside's City Council for approval. Upon a passing vote, the winning design will move directly into final engineering and environmental compliance phases, with the GHD team. What sets this process apart from other, more traditional design competition processes, is its direct link to the engineering design and permitting phases for construction. The ultimate outcome of this process will be a shovel ready sand retention pilot project. We are inviting a select list of design firms to respond by submitting a proposal which includes team Qualifications and Conceptual Approach (see below). The City T earn, with input from the Project Team and Jury, will select 3-finalist teams to go through the Design Competition. Each finalist team will be provided with a stipend of $25,000 USO for their work and engagement in the process. The City is actively fundraising to increase stipends for Design Teams to $100,000 USO. Once selected, the teams will move through three rounds of design and feedback, including technical and resilience reviews, publfc workshops, design charrettes, and regional stakeholder briefings. The final designs submitted by selected teams will be evaluated based on their technical feasibility, financial viability, and environmental and social impacts (see criteria below). The winning team will be offered a contract (minimum $100,000) with GHD to participate with and support the final engineering analysis, design, and permitting of the pilot project. Attachment B Design Brief Desig n Brief & Team Solicitation Package page.5 Attachment B Table of Contents 1. Project Background 2. Problem Statement 3. Design Criteria 4. Competition Structure 5. Anticipated Deliverables 6. Design Timeline Design Brief &Team Solicitation Package pag·e.6 Attachment B Project Background The City of Oceanside (City) has a long and storied history of coastal erosion. Eighty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), constructed a Harbor complex that has directly and negatively impacted beaches in the City. The effect was described as an "erosional wave" whose effects were said to move down the Oceanside Littoral Cell, which spans from the Oceanside Harbor to La Jolla submarine canyon to the south. Over the past 80 years (from the construction of the Harbor to present day), over 21M cubic yards (cy) of sand has been placed on City beaches to offset erosional impacts. Beach nourishment sand came from both the USACE's annual harbor dredging program (13.5M cy) and one-off, local, or regional nourishment events (7.5M cy). This also includes a limited volume of sand from the USACE's Experimental Sand Bypass System that was constructed in the 1980s in efforts to restore the natural transport pathway that was broken when the harbor was constructed. This project was unsuccessful due to a myriad of reasons and was decommissioned within a 5-year period. The most recent, larger scale projects to take place in the City were two Regional Beach Sand Projects (RBSP) carried out in 2001 and 2012. These projects added over 300k cy each of a coarse gradation sand to the City's sediment starved coastline. Though some short-term benefits were realized, t11e sand quickly migrated down coast after placement, as there are no rocky reefs or headlands that may encourage natural sand retention within the straight Oceanside coastline. Similarly, in the 2.5 miles south of the pier, there are no artificial mechanisms in place to retain sand. All these previous efforts have fallen short of providing the City with a sustained, dry sand beach for recreational enjoyment. ecological function, and coastal storm damage protection purposes. The current condition of many City beaches is dismal for beach recreation, with many areas having little to no dry beach during the majority of the tidal cycle. Furthermore, coastal infrastructure Is at risk with wave events impacting the shoreline with greater frequency and severity. This has resulted in the need for frequent maintenance and improvements to coastal infrastructure and shoreline protection systems. Projected sea level rise threatens to make these conditions worse. A third Regional Beach Sand Project is now being considered and pursued regionally by the San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) Shoreline Preservation Working Group. Additionally, a dormant USAGE mitigation study to investigate solutions to Harbor impacts has recently been reinitiated after receiving federal funding and support to move forward. The City is simultaneously updating its General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. to aid in providing solutions to coastal erosion from the Harbor construction. Despite these other ongoing efforts to study and mitigate the City's shoreline problems and regional coastal erosion concerns, the City decided to pursue an independent study in 2021 to understand what opportunities might exist to restore sandy beaches in the City, This study was led by GHD and was called the Oceanside Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project (referred to as 'Phase One'). The study looked at a multitude of local, regional, and international project examples as the basis for developing five (short- list) alternatives to be analyzed to protect beaches from long-term shoreline erosion in an environmentally sensitive and financially feasible way for the city. DesignB1-ief &Team Solicitation Package page.7 Attachment B The five alternatives analyzed were: No Project: No Project assumes continuation of the status quo in ·which Harbor maintenance dredging is the only program adding sand to the city beaches on a regular basis. The city would continue to participate in regional nourishment efforts similar to the RBSP I and II on an ad-hoc basis. • Alternative 1-Beach Nourishment: Beach Nourishment assumes a more frequent beach nourishment program is carried out by the city to deliver 300,000 cy of sand once every five years, approximately doubling the frequency of prior RBSP efforts. • Alternative 2 -Groins: Groins assumes construction of four, 600-foot long, rubble mound groins spaced 1,000 feet apart along the Pilot Reach. The proposed groins are shore-perpendicular and would extend seaward from the existing rock revetment with a crest elevation of iO' MLLW. A 300,000-cy initial nourishment was included to pre-fill the groin field with subsequent nourishment volumes reduced by about 50%. • Alternative 3-San Luis Rey Groin Extension: San Luis Rey Groin Extension assumes construction of a 350-foot extension of the existing groin to capture sand moving northward toward the harbor. The sand trapped in this filet could possibly be used as a source for downcoast receiver beaches. This alternative includes a beach nourishment component identical to Alternative 2. • Alternative 4 -Multi-purpose Artificial Reef: Multi-purpose Artificial Reefs assumes construction of two 1,000-foot long, rubble mound reefs spaced 1,200 feet apart along the Pilot Reach. Each reef would have emergent and submergent crest sections along their lengths to dissipate wave energy and potentially create a surfable wave on each end of the reef. A 300,000-cy initial nourishment was included to pre-fill the reef salient with subsequent nourishment volumes reduced by about 50%. Design B1·ief &Te.un Solicitation Package page.8 Attachment B A multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was performed to compare alternatives based on a wide range of criteria that reflects the diversity of opinions and input received from the outreach activities. Each alternative was evaluated against 11 criteria, organized into three categories of Technical Performance, Financial, and Environmental. The results of the MCA indicated the highest ranked alternative was Groins, followed by Multi-purpose Reefs. These top two alternatives were separated by 8% from one another in total score, which was meaningful when considering the sensitivity of the scoring and weighting system. Beach Nourishment ranked third, about 17% lower than the Groins and 9% lower than Multi-purpose Artificial Reef. The No Project alternative ranked last with very low scores in the Technical Performance and Environmental categories. The result of a robust alternative feasibility exercise, numerical modeling, lifecycle economic evaluation, and multi-criteria analysis, suggested a pilot-scale Groin concept be advanced for further analysis, additional public/agency outreach and preliminary design to prepare for the environmental review and permitting process. It was recommended that additional analysis of the Groin alternative involve sensitivity analyses on groin length and spacing, the pre-fill volumes, and sand management systems required to mitigate potential impacts. Following the completion of Phase One, stakeholders, residents, and several cities to the south of Oceanside expressed concern about the potential for a Groin project to cause erosional impacts along down coast beaches. Additionally, there was 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. The approach of the Phase Two Design Competition is to leverage technical data and knowledge gained through Phase One, while addressing these local and regional concerns and needs. Design Bl'icf & Team Solicitation Package page. 9 Attachment B Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package pag-e.10 Attachment B Problem Statement The history of Oceanside's severe coastal erosion ls rooted in a local context of significant sediment reductions to its coast-Oceanside's beaches have been disappearing and along some parts of the coast a rock-revetment is all that remains. The City is not unique in this challenge, as urbanized watersheds, dam construction, coastal development/ armoring and harbor developments have created significant disruptions to the flow of sediment to coastlines around the world. These disruptions many times result in the need to actively manage coastal systems to restore broken sediment pathways with frequent beach nourishment and use of structures to slow the loss of sand-such as use of retention systems. The Design Competition process seeks to inspire solutions to add and retain sand where it is needed most in the City through innovative and creative concepts. The Design Competition process is meant to embrace and address the complexity of erosion in Oceanside, as well as the broader context across the region, with an eye to the broader global challenge of the 21st Century, where sea level rise meets critical infrastructure. Four Problem Statements have been developed to help establish context around the most pressing City needs and desired outcomes from this Design Competition. Within each problem statement. there is consideration for: Decades of historic coastal development that has directly reduced sediment supply thereby Increasing the effects of erosion in the City of Oceanside (for example, the Oceanside Harbor, watershed development. creek channelization, back beach stabilization). Existing coastal management strategies within the City and the County have yet to result in sufficient stabilization of the beach for both human recreation and sandy beach ecosystems (for example, Regional Beach Sand Project I & II and annual USAGE Maintenance Dredging of the Oceanside Harbor). Within the State of California, traditional sediment retention structures have been criticized for their potential negative impacts to downdrift and regional jurisdictions, resulting in an inability to test, build, permit. and finance novel pilot or demonstration projects as potential solutions. The environmental history of Oceanside and the San Diego region, combined with best available science on sea level rise and future storm impacts, provides high certainty that, without interventions, erosion and loss of beach width is all but inevitable. There is greater and greater need for regional (and statewide) demonstration and pilot project concepts for sediment retention to utilize innovative techniques that provide multiple benefits for coastal communities. Desig·n 81·ief &Team SoJicitatioo Package page.11 Attachment B The four Problem Statements are below. Design Teams are invited to address a set of broad problem statements, that when combined with more specific design criteria, enable innovative pilot design solutions. Problem Statement One: How might we design a sand retention pilot project that succeeds in the near (3 years) to short term {20-30 years) at retaining sand while simultaneously providing ecological and flood resilience benefits, limiting negative downdrift impacts and impacts to surfing resources, and is removable if necessary? Problem Statement Two: How might a sand retention pilot project open pathways for Oceanside to explore longer term coastal adaptation? Problem Statement Three: How might we successfully build and monitor a pilot sand retention project that informs future regional coastal adaptation approaches? Problem Statement Four: How might a pilot sand retention project be scaled to benefit a greater reach of the City shoreline? Design B1·ief &Team So]icitation Package page.12 Attachment B Design Brief &Team Solicitation Package page.13 Attachment B Design Criteria The design criteria are meant to fulfill two core objectives: (1) provide a boundary of the scope of design for the proposed solution and (2) generate a set of goals that Design Teams, and their solutions can be measured against. To guide the criteria development. the Project is focused on a mission: To construct an innovative, multi-benefit, sand retention project on the City of Oceanside's beaches that serves both local and regional benefits. Any proposed solution should fulfill this mission, requiring all designs to meet the bare minimum objectives: Align with the community character and history of place within the City of Oceanside. Leverage previous analysis and feasibility studies completed to-date. Maintain a forward-thinking design that incorporates adaptive capacity of solutions to future coastal conditions while addressing chronic erosion issues. Be technically feasible, financially viable, and environmentally and socially acceptable. With both the mission and objectives in mind, the design criteria are as follows: Design Criteria One: Physical Designs should be in the coastal zone south of Oceanside Pier, focusing on the City's most highly eroded beaches. Designs should accommodate or be adaptive to up to 2-3 ft of sea level rise (that assumes 20-to-30-year design life), with minimal maintenance. The ability to accommodate or have adaptive capacity to greater amounts of sea level rise would be scored favorably. Identify a clear pathway for scaling of the pilot if it succeeds in its intention. Reference known design parameters from sand retention alternatives studied through the Phase One report. Designs should be structured with the ability to perform sand retention and retain structural integrity under impacts from existing and projected future coastal conditions, including: 1. Extreme waves (100 yr, return interval-from northern and southern hemispheres), tides and winds (see companion documents, including Phase One report). 2. Extreme temperatures. 3. Public use, trampling & vandalism. 4. Performance goals of a particular design should be articulated. For example: (a) Retain a particular average annual beach width within a particular reach (b) Prevent overtopping beyond the beach at particular thresholds, such as 100-year total water level (TWL) and sea level rise scenario 5. For any performance goals, teams should define the anticipated time- scale during which the project would be able to perform as designed. Designs should include natural and nature-based features, where feasible, which may Design B1·ief &Team Solicitation Package pagc.14 Attachment B include onsite or imported materials, and/ or innovative materials designed for ocean compatibility. Design Criteria Two: Financial Construction estimates for the designs should be presented for initial construction costs, annual operation and mainter:iance costs, and removal costs. Creative use or reuse of materials is encouraged to lower costs. Designs should articulate the maintenance activities and cost for design to maintain key functions such as retaining sand, providing recreational benefits, and/or minimizing impacts to downdrift sand supply. Creative solutions to finance the project are encouraged that fully value the proposed project's range of benefits (social, regional, economic, ecological). Especially if construction costs for designs exceed $50 M. Design Criteria Three: Environmental Designs should encourage the rehabilitation of sandy beach habitat. Designs should minimize impacts to sandy beach ecosystems and nearshore marine ecology. Designs should be sensitive to where and which habitats may be converted as part of the design, what enhancements to ecology may occur, and where restoration of historic ecosystems may occur. All design references to ecological benefits should be qualified with detailed information on habitat classifications, quality, change over time, and uncertainties clearly explained. Design Criteria Four: Social A successful sand retention project should increase usable beach space supporting coastal access and multiple opportunities for recreation. Designs should prioritize preserving or enhancing surfing resources and minimizing impacts to existing surf resources. Designs should seek to increase or maintain the existing aesthetic of the beach. Designs prioritize public safety and low-cost recreational user experiences. Designs should maximize public benefit. Design Criteria Five: Regional Designs should provide a regional and statewide opportunity to pilot. test, and evaluate novel sand retention solutions. Designs should strive to positively impact the region both directly (i.e., by increasing sediment in the littoral cell) and indirectly (i.e., by providing knowledge beneficial to how to best design and implement retention strategies). Designs should be particularly sensitive to the potential for sand retention strategies to impact the flow of sediment through littoral systems and be designed to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate potential negative impacts to downdrift sand supply. Desig·u B1·ief & Team Solicitation Package pag·e.15 Attachment B Project Assumpti,ons: Pilot project designs will represent reasonable proof-of-concept sand retention strategies that can be piloted, scaled up, and/or repeated if appropriate. The objective is to create more tfme and space for the City to develop a comprehensive adaptation strategy for coastal resources. Project designs will assume that 300,000 cy of beach nourishment sand will be available initially within the project area and then for every five years for ongoing sediment management within the project area. The design teams can utilize this sand within their designs and propose various sand placement types within their concepts. Project designs will communicate uncertainty of their design's success. As pilots, project designs should be able to be adapted or removed if the project does not provide its intended multiple benefits over time. Project designs should be implementable, and should reflect an understanding of an ultimate need to be permitted and reviewed based on their adherence to existing laws, including the California Coastal Act Throughout the competition. teams will be given guidance from experts to help ensure this outcome. Dcsig·n Brief &Team Solicitation Package page. 16 Attachment B DesignB1·ief &Team Solicitation Package page. 17 Attachment B Competition Structure Three selected Design Teams will participate in a Design Competition. Design Teams will develop innovative sand retention solutions using the Design Brief and Design Criteria as core guidance, The development of designs will be supported by the Project Team over three Design Rounds, which will Include Internal Reviews by the Project Team, Charrettes, Regional Briefings, and Public Workshops (see below for more detail). A final review after the third round will be made by a Jury, and their recommendation will be provided to the City of Oceanside's City Council, who will vote on the winning design. Design Rounds Each of three Design Rounds will take place over an eight week period. The first four weeks of each round will be largely driven by Design Teams working independently, although the Project T earn will be available to respond to clarrfying questions or requests for more information at any time. At the end of each four weeks, the Project Team will provide an Internal Review, which will be followed by Charrettes in week five or six, and Public Workshops and Regional Briefings in week 8. Internal Review To provide initial guidance and feedback to Design Teams, the Project Team will review submitted materials halfway through each Design Round, and will provide feedback through a video conference within five working days of receiving materials. Charrettes Design Teams will be required to participate in a Charette In the fifth or sixth week of each of the three Design Rounds where the Project Team, and other project advisors will provide feedback and comments on progress made on pilot project concepts. These will be hybrid events, although in-person participation is encouraged if possible in Oceanside. Charrette One Setting the stage, getting input from the City Team and the Project Team. Presentations from local groups on the Oceanside community, coastal resources, and coastal vision for Oceanside and the greater North County San Diego Region. Opportunities to tour the coast. The Project Team will provide general information for teams to take self-guided tours. Charrette Two Design Teams will share preliminary concepts and approaches. Project Team and advisors will provide feedback on preliminary design concepts. Opportunity for Design Teams to ask questions and gain insight on how to improve designs. Charrette Three Design Teams have developed refined approaches and concepts. Opportunity to gather insight on fine tuning designs. Design Brief &Team Solicitation Package page.18 Attachment B Public Workshops The Project Team will host a Public Workshop after each Charette to share the progress on developing the pilot-project design concepts. The public will have the opportunity at each workshop to see the evolution of the design process as details and provide comment and input to assist in refining the approaches. Each Design Team will be required to provide the Project Team with figures, graphics, maps, and resources as required that can be used during the Public Workshops. Material requirements will be specified well in advance of each workshop Public Workshop One -Exploration of Approach The first public workshop will aim to gather broad input on the teams' initial design approaches. Design Teams will work to gain perspective on community stakeholders' goals and desires for the coast, and collect directional feedback to inform the designs going forward. Public Workshop Two -Refining the Design The second public workshop will present more developed designs, with specific components and elements visualized with opportunities for feedback. Public Workshop Three-Final Designs and Feedback The third public workshop will feature final designs. Teams will clearly show how stakeholder input shaped their designs, and why they arrived at the final solutions. Public comment will be gathered and analyzed, and provided to the Jury and City Team as an input to decision making. Regional Briefings Given the regional interest and potential impact of the Project at various scales, at the end of each Design Round, the Project Team may organize a Regional Briefing to share updates with regional stakeholders. Representatives from Design Teams will be invited to participate, although no new materials would be expected to be developed. Jury The Design Competition Jury consists of 10-voting members from various sectors and interest groups, reflecting community, regional and stakeholder interests in the Implementa- tion of a pilot sand retention project. Additionally, 5-non-voting, advisory members will also be invited to advise, share their perspectives and participate. Juror's applied to participate in this role, and the jury's composttion was established to create a portfolio of expertise and perspective that is beneficial to the final pilot project outcome. Jurors will be invited to Public Workshops (though are not expected to attend all). After the 3rd design round, the Jury will review the final designs, and vote to select a preferred design, and will draft a recommenda- tion which the Project Team will submit to City Council for a final decision. Below is a complete list of jurors assembled for this project. Design Bl'ief &Team Solicitation Package page.19 Attachment B Voting Members: 1. Coastal Management Expert-Dr. Lesley Ewing PE, former Sr. Coastal Engineer, California Coastal Commission 2. Permitting Viability Expert-Dr. Charles Lester, Director, Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara 3. Surf Resource Preservation-Chris Abad, Director, Oceanside Board riders Club 4. Nearshore Marine Expert-Dr. Dan Pondella, Professor, Biology; Director, Vantuna Research Group, Occidental College 5. Nearshore Marine Expert-Karen Green, Division Manager, Marine and Aquatic Ecosystem Resources, Tierra Data, Inc. 6. Coastal City Representative-Councilmember Dwight Worden, Del Mar City Council, Chair of SAN DAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group 7. Coastal City Representative-Council member Joy Lynd es, Encinitas City Council 8. Community Representative-Bob Ashton, President/CEO. Save Oceanside Sand (SOS) 9. Community Representative-Scott Ashton, Chief Executive Officer, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce 10. Community Representative-Ernie Prieto Ill, Local Business Owner (Oceanside Sea Center), Boat Captain and sits on City of Oceanside Harbor and Beaches Committee Non-Voting Members: 1. Federal Agency-Dr. Arye Janoff, Coastal Geomorphologist, Planner, and Manager 2. State Agency-Jeremy Smith, Coastal Engineer, California Coastal Commission 3. Grant Funder-Megan Cooper. Deputy Regional Manager, California State Coastal Conservancy 4. NGO-Mitch Silverstien, Policy Coordinator, Surf rider Foundation San Diego Chapter 5. NGO-Curt Busk, President, Buena Vista Audubon Society .Design B1·ief &Team Solicitation Packag·e page.20 le Parks Lends Commission y of Carlsbad Controle ate Ownetstllp Attachment C Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control Map ~ Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control M;~ · ~ti~ ~ ~ ~ Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control :p Weldon, Charles & Lou Ann 0210-0020-0016 7/25/2014 : 7/28/1993 \ ....., --Offer Accepted ~'-· ' City of Corisbad Goetz, Dean Carlsbad Blvd 0210-0120-0032, 0210-0120-0033, 0210-0120-0034 6/30/2000 Expiration: 6/30/2021 ~ Atta \17 Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control Map ~ Atta ~ Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control Map Lands Commi$$iOn Cly of Carlsbad Conlrone Private Ownership • • 8eaeh Aeeess Attachment D SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -AUGUST 2023 OCEANSIDE HARBOR • Owned/managed by City of Oceanside ► POC: Jayme Timberlake, Coastal Zone Administrator o jtimberlake@oceansideca.org, 760-435-3073 Anticipated dredging schedule is as follows: □ Mid-April to Mid-May 2024 (annually) •!• Previous project -Apri l 2023 (City of Carlsbad Attachment D SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -AUGUST 2023 AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON ~ • Owned by NRG/Dredged by Poseidon Resources ► POC: Michele Peters, Technical and Compliance Manager o mpowelson@poseidonwater.com, 702-606-8742 • Anticipated dredging schedule is as follows: D Fall 2023/Early Spring 2024 (every 2-3 yrs.) •!• Previous Project-Winter 2021 (City of Carlsbad Attachment D SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -AUGUST 2023 BATIQUITOS LAGOON • Owned/managed by CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ► POC: Gabriel Penaflor, Environmental Scientist o qabriel.penaf/or@wildlife.ca.qov, 858-636-3160 • Anticipated dredging schedule is as follows: □ Fall 2024/Early Spring 2025 (every 4-5 yrs.) •!• Previous project -Winter 2020 (city of Carlsbad ,r i "<' ,--• v'. ~ ~~-~#fft~iffzt --~~,.":"".. ....... .-.• r . I ... ~c3$',--,,,·-.-<~'.-.,. ·:;,·"':!l-'.;~!=ss_ .. ~ -,~~~=£~~~~ Attachment D SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -AUGUST 2023 STATE BEACH ES IN CARLSBAD • Owned/managed by CA Dept. of Parks & Recreation ► POC: Alexis Pettigre~ Superintendent II I Captain o Alexis@parks.ca.gov, 760-720-7001 • Anticipated dredging permit issuance schedule is as follows: D Fall 2023 for Agua Hedionda Lagoon Project □ Fall 2024 for Batiquitos Lagoon Project □ Fall 2025 for Regional Beach Sand Project Ill •!• N/A for Oceanside Harbor Project (city of Carlsbad Attachment D SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -AUGUST 2023 REGIONAL BEACH SAND PROJECT Ill • Managed by SANDAG; 5-7 cities typ. participate ► POC: Courtney Pesce, Associate Regional Planner o courtney.pesce@sandag.org, 619-699-6942 • Anticipated dredging schedule is as follows: □ Funding -Fall 2023 □ Permitting -2024/2025 □ Mobilizing -2026 •:• Previous Project -2012 (city of Carlsbad