HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-02; Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retention Project Update (District 1); Barberio, GaryTo the memb~rs of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date 'l l2..\ 2l.{ CAL CC -.L_ /
CM ✓ACM _0)CM (3) ...L
February 2, 2024
Council Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor Blackburn 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# 2024008
Re: Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retention Project Update (District 1)
This memorandum provides an update to a previous City Council Memorandum, dated
September 7, 2023, on the City of Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retention Project.
Background
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 ... "
August 23, 2023 -Oceanside staff sent Carlsbad staff an invitation to attend the first public
workshop for the RE:BEACH design competition on 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 first public workshop for the RE:BEACH design
competition. Carlsbad staff attended the workshop. Three design teams were 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 presentation that 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 similar strategies, and results anticipated in Oceanside. All firms presented varying
strategies that could be implemented at multiple Oceanside beach locations as pilot projects to
be monitored for results, which cou ld lead to a more comprehensive approach.
August 31, 2023 -The Carlsbad City Council received an email from the Carlsbad 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.
Community Services Branch
Parks & Recreation Department
799 Pine Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2826 t
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retention Project Update (District 1)
February 2, 2024
Page 2
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.
Discussion
October 3, 2023 -The Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission received a presentation from
Oceanside staff on Phase II of the City of Oceanside's Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot
Project, including its RE:BEACH Oceanside Coastal Resilience Design Competition (Attachment A).
October 17, 2023 -Oceanside staff held the second public workshop for the RE:BEACH design
competition. Carlsbad staff attended the workshop. The same three design teams were invited
to host open house style booths to describe the refinements to their design concepts and
respond to questions from participants.
November 2, 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.
December 13, 2023 -Oceanside staff held the third public workshop for the RE:BEACH design
competition. Carlsbad staff attended the workshop. The same three design teams were invited
to make presentations on their final design concepts, explain why their firm should be selected
for the pilot project, and respond to questions from participants.
December 14, 2023 -Carlsbad staff called Oceanside staff to further discuss the presentations at
the public workshop and confirm remaining actions in the evaluation process.
January 4, 2024 -The City of Oceanside posted a news release on its website, titled RE:BEACH
Jury Recommends Winning Design Team. The news release read in part:
The Jury/Advisory Panel had an opportunity to meet one-on-one with each Design Team to
further discuss the technical, societal, environmental, and financial components of each proposal.
Following these discussions, the RE:BEACH Jury expressed their unanimous support of a preferred
alternative, International Coastal Management's "Living Speed Bumps" concept. The "Living
Speed Bumps" concept includes the construction of two small headlands that will aim to stabilize
sand on the back beach, with an offshore artificial reef aimed at slowing down nearshore erosive
forces. ICM, based in Australia's Gold Coast, has decades of experience implementing "speed
bumps" on their own coastline, bringing forward a new concept for Oceanside's coast, but with a
proven track record of success on the East Coast of Australia.
The Jury's selection of this option was based on the proposal's ability to meet the RE:BEACH
project goals and design criteria. According to the Jury, ICM's concept clearly demonstrates
potential positive impact in retaining sand, while leveraging existing infrastructure to further
extend the effectiveness of sand placement.
Based on the Jury/ Advisory Panel deliberations and public feedback, two key modifications to the
design will be promoted: {1} refinement of the top of the headland space to use more
Counci l Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retent ion Project Update (District 1)
February 2, 2024
Page 3
environmentally or aesthetically pleasing elements that blend with Oceanside's character, and (2)
utilization of rock instead of geotextile bags for construction of the artificial nearshore reef.
While the Jury/ Advisory Panel deliberations offered important feedback and a clear
recommended winning concept, the Oceanside City Council will ultimately provide the final
approval and guidance on a recommended design.
Through the RE:BEACH process, teams collected hundreds of comments, in person and online,
from the numerous residents and community groups who showed up by the hundreds to the
Public Workshop series. Working with local community organizations like Save Oceanside Sand,
Surf rider Foundation, the Oceanside Chamber of Commerce, and others, the Design Teams each
engaged in robust community conversations on the long-standing issue of beach erosion in
Oceanside.
January 23, 2024 -Oceanside staff held a hybrid (in-person/virtual) meeting with representatives
of San Diego County coastal cities on the RE:BEACH Oceanside design competition. Carlsbad staff
attended the meeting, along with Oceanside Mayor Esther Sanchez, Solana Beach Mayor Leesa
Heebner, Encinitas Mayor Tony Kranz, Encinitas Council Member Joy Lyndes and Del Mar Council
Member Dwight Worden. The presentation included an overview and timeline of the
competition, the design concepts considered, the criterion weighed, and the design concept
preferred by the jury/advisory panel (Attachment B). Oceanside's staff and Mayor expressed the
intent of its Sand Nou rishment and Retention Pilot Project providing benefit to not the City of
Oceanside, but also to other coastal cities within the region. Oceanside's staff and Mayor invited
questions from attendees and offered responses.
January 31, 2024-Oceanside's City Council held a RE:BEACH Winning Design Workshop. A
detailed City Council Staff Report was posted to the City of Oceanside's website in advance of the
workshop. Oceanside's City Council approved staff's recommendation, which read:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions for the RE:BEACH Oceanside
Coastal Resilience Competition:
1. Receive the conceptual alternatives and concur with the following staff recommended options:
a. Approve the staff and jury recommended selection of International Coastal Management as
the winning design team, with its Living Speed Bumps concept
b. Approve the staff and jury recommended modifications to the selected design concept
2. Authorize staff to proceed with final design, engineering and environmental compliance tasks
of the Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retention Project Update (District 1)
February 2, 2024
Page 4
Sand replenishment projects that could benefit beaches within Carlsbad
The city has received 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 respond 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 SANDAG 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.
For additional reference, Carlsbad staff have also compiled an ownership map of the
beaches/shorelines within Carlsbad (Attachment D), and an updated synopsis of each of the
above noted sand replenishment projects (Attachment E), 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 Beach Preservation Commission Staff Report, dated October 3, 2023
(Due to the size of Attachment A, a hardcopy is on file in the Office of the City
Council, as reference)
B. Oceanside Meeting of San Diego Co . coastal cities slides, dated January 23, 2024
C. Oceanside City Council Workshop Staff Report, dated January 31, 2024
(Due to the size of Attachment C, a hardcopy is on file in the Office of the City
Council, as reference)
D. Map of the ownership of the beaches/shorelines within Carlsbad
E. 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
Council Memo -Oceanside's Beach Sand Nourishment and Retention Project Update (District 1)
February 2, 2024
Page 5
Allegra Frost, Deputy City Attorney
Todd Reese, Parks Services Manager
Nick Stupin, Pa rks Planning Manager
Beach Preservation Commissioners
Meeting Date: Oct. 3, 2023
To: Beach Preservation Commission
From: Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director
Staff Contact: Michael Tully, Parks Planner
michael.tully@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-5724
Subject: City of Oceanside Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
Recommended Action
Receive an informational report from a representative of the City of Oceanside on phase two of
its Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project, including the RE:BEACH Oceanside Coastal
Resilience Design Competition (Exhibit 1).
Discussion
Through phase two of its Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project, the City of Oceanside
seeks to develop a program that will determine an offshore source of high-quality 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 led by
GHD Inc. and its subconsultant Resilient Cities Catalyst.
In the spring of 2023, the City of Oceanside launched the RE:BEACH design competition. The
RE:BEACH project team is composed of City of Oceanside’s Coastal Zone Administrator Jayme
Timberlake, GHD Senior Coastal Scientists Brian Leslie and Nick Sadrpour, Resilient Cities
Catalyst Co-Founder, Sam Carter and Associate Director, Alex Klein. An advisory panel/jury was
assembled by the project team to assist the City of Oceanside in selecting a design firm finalist.
The following three design firms were advanced as finalists for the RE:BEACH competition:
•SCAPE Landscape Architecture with ESA and the Dredge Research Collaborative
•Deltares with Deltares USA, and MVRDV•International Coastal Management
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
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 1 of 24
Attachment A
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.
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 (Exhibit 1, Attachment A).
Public Workshops:
•The first public workshop was held at the Oceanside Council Chamber on Tuesday, Aug.
29, 2023. The workshop was an initial open house style, followed by formal
presentations from the three design teams. Carlsbad staff attended the workshop.
•The second public workshop is scheduled to be held on Oct. 17, 2023
•The third public workshop is scheduled to be held on Dec. 13, 2023
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 into final engineering and
environmental compliance review.
Next Steps
Staff will stay in communication with the City of Oceanside staff regarding significant
developments on phase two of the Oceanside Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Project
and convey them as needed.
Exhibits
1.Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project, Oceanside Coastal Zone
Management.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 2 of 24
Attachmnent A
Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
Oceanside Coastal Zone Management
Carlsbad, Beach Preservation Commission meeting – Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023
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.
-Deltares with Deltares 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 SeaWorld, 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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 3 of 24
Attachmnent A
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 (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 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, please 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. Our first public workshop was held on August 29th, with over 200 people from the
community and region participating in person, by sharing their thoughts and comments on the
preliminary design concepts presented by the design teams. Our next public workshop is the second one
of three workshops, taking place on October 17th from 4-7p at Oceanside Museum of Art.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 4 of 24
Attachmnent A
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Sand
Nourishment &
Retention
Pilot Project
A Coastal Resilience Design Competition
April 26, 2023
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 5 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 2
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 ineffective at 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, at a 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 opportunities. Stipends of $25,000 USD will be provided to each of the three selected
teams. The City is actively fundraising to increase stipends for Design Teams, aiming to raise up to
$100,000 USD 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 USD 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 invitation 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/or identify additional firms outside of this list
to complement their qualifications.
Note: GHD 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 expertise with a majority of the team focusing on innovative, multi-faceted design
solutions.
Overview
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 6 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 3
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
AECOM
Arcadis
ARUP
Balmori
BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group
Biohabitats
Deltares
DHI
Gensler
Guy Nordenson & Assoc.
International Coastal Management
Field Operations
Local Office
Michael Maltzan Architecture
Mithun
OLIN
ONE Architecture + Urbanism
(ONE)
Oru
Rana Creek
RIOS
Safdie Rabines Architects
Sasaki
SCAPE Landscape Architecture
Schmidt Design Group
Sherwood Design Engineers
Stoss
Studio for Urban Projects
SWA Group
TetraTech
TLS Landscape Architecture
Woods Bagot
WXY
Proposal materials for consideration should be emailed to Resilient Cities Catalyst (oceanside@
rcc.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
(3-5 pgs).
• 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.
Invited
Teams &
Details
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 7 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 4
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 8 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 5
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Design
Brief
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 Team 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), GHD 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 Team, 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 USD for their work
and engagement in the process. The City is actively fundraising to increase stipends for
Design Teams to $100,000 USD. Once selected, the teams will move through three rounds
of design and feedback, including technical and resilience reviews, public 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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 9 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 6
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Table of Contents
1. Project Background
2. Problem Statement
3. Design Criteria
4. Competition
Structure
5. Anticipated
Deliverables
6. Design Timeline
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 10 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 7
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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, the 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 (SANDAG) Shoreline
Preservation Working Group. Additionally, a dormant USACE 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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 11 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 8
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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 10’ 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%.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 12 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 9
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 13 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 10
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 14 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 11
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Problem Statement
The history of Oceanside’s severe coastal erosion is 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 USACE
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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 15 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 12
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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?
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 16 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 13
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 17 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 14
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 18 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 15
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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 maintenance 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 $50M.
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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 19 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 16
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Project Assumptions:
• 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 time 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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 20 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 17
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 21 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 18
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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 Team will be available to respond to clarifying 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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 22 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 19
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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 composition 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.
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 23 of 24
Attachmnent A
page. 20
Design Brief & Team Solicitation Package
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 Boardriders 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 SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group
7. Coastal City Representative— Councilmember Joy Lyndes, 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 III, 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, Surfrider Foundation San Diego
Chapter
5. NGO—Curt Busk, President, Buena Vista Audubon Society
Oct. 3, 2023 Item #3 24 of 24
Attachmnent A
OCEANSIDE
Jayme Timberlake
Coastal Zone Administrator City of Oceanside
Attachmnent A
RE:BEACH DESIGN TEAM COMPETITIORS
1. Deltares USA (Dutch Team)
- With MVRDV
2. SCAPE (NYC Team)
- With Dredge Research Collective and ESA
3. ICM (Aussie Team)
REBEACH.ORG
Attachmnent A
REBEACH.ORG
PUBLIC WORKHOP ONE
Attachmnent A
Deltares + MVRDV
Attachmnent A
SCAPE
Attachmnent A
ICM
Attachmnent A
REBEACH.ORG
PUBLIC WORKSHOP TWO
•OCTOBER 17, 4-7p Oceanside Museum of Art –PLEASE ATTEND
•Major Design Proposed
•Design Criteria
•How design concept(s) meet design criteria
•Downdrift impacts addressed through adaptability
•Public Outreach
•How Public Workshop feedback influencing design
Attachmnent A
August 29
October 17
December 13
Attachmnent A
Design Teams want your
feedback to help design
the right solution for
Oceanside and the region!
Public Workshop Two
October 17, 4-7p at OMA
RSVP and learn
more at
participate atREBEACH.ORG
Attachmnent A
I~ 1:: I~ l:t\C: I~
OCEANSIDE
Jayme Timberlake
Coastal Zone Administrator
City of Oceanside
Attachment B
COASTAL PROCESSES IN OCEANSIDE
Photo source: UCSB Aerial Library Photo source: UCSB Aerial Library
Attachment B
SAND MANAGEMENT IN OCEANSIDE
Year Activity Sand Nourishment
{Cubic Yards-CV)
1942-1944 Camp Pendleton Harbor-Initial Construction 1,500,000
1958 Camp Pendleton Harbor -Improvements 800,000
1963 Small Craft Harbor-Initial Construction 3,400,000
1966 Harbor Mouth Dredging and Sand Disposal 684,000
1981 Harbor Mouth Dredging and Sand Disposal 863,000
1982 Harbor Mouth Dredging and Sand Disposal 922,000
1982 San Luis Rey River Dredging 1,300,000
1989-1992 Sand Bypass System 124,300
2001 Regional' Beach Sand Project I 421,000
2012 Regional Beach Sand Project II 293,000
RE:BEACH OCEANSIDE OBJECTIVES
• Main Objectives
• Buffer the coastline with sand
• Extend sand nourishment efforts
• Design Competition -WHY?
• Encourage innovative sand
retention
• Early regulatory involvement
• Promotes public outreach
• Transparency in decision making
• Stimulates interest
• Promotes international and
nationwide coverage
• Showcase solutions for others
Attachment B
RE:BEACH COMPONENTS
• RE:BEACH Players
• Jury/Advisory Panel
• Project Team
• City Team
• Design Teams
• Design Criteria
• Established criteria and
performance standards
• Physical
Environmental
Financial
• Social
Regional
• Rubric for evaluating designs
Attachment B
s111::1::1> HIIMl1 • TC>l1 01= m::1\c:11 • 111::J\l)IJ\NI> & 111:llM
1WO HEADLANDS AND LOW COBBLE BERMS {ADJUSTABLE)
OesignCrlteria1
Physical
i-Perf~rmance ~Is.
o to 3 \18afS. MJnimo!!mpact on beach !oilowlng const,udion and nourlshmen\ (wide beach).
3 to 15 years. Stablllsa!lon ol upper beach to ! allow r01 dune dt111elopmen1
i Positioning. ! LOC!llions iocused on p,oviding maximum benefit to beach with grealesl public accass
andusaga.
'Oegign.
30,yeardC$ignllfebilscdonmaterlals.crest Might&oxperlence.
'Repllcatesnaturalh8adtandfea1ures
lhrougho:.11 the Southern Californian coll:Slline. RockstwllcaninCOfpo1are!ocalcobblain10
rocl.:bag.s.
Design Criteria 2
Fimmclal
DeslgnCriteria3
Environmental
! =•!~':,r::1.o~ ( =f~edr::::Dat!
, ! , h:lbltatsandlmp10ve
• ~:::::./';;Headland(-5% f ! beachecMyStems. anr,ualaUowanm)
l..Dwmalrrtenem:e
requllememslfpiO!)'.lr~/ deslglll!dandc:cmtl\/Cled, lnclucllngannu~llnspec'Jon andramovaloldllbtl~ v11getation011ubbl.h.
HelpslOJBSIOIBflalUlil\
• beachsandto0t'1anslde.
Rocl.shellprovides 1 substrnteand!iltl.lCIU!El . formai!nehabl:!ai.
DesJgn Criteria 4
Social
Prcr.il0011ml)fove\:lbeacl'l I stabili1y1ndwtderbMcha1 ruoooolgtc8lllllpublkl us1geandaCOl!na1 Oceam.ioo.
Provldesu3nsformaUYe
i opportun1Hesloraddltl011al
'publicamenltles(parks,, hosp~alhy,.ser.Ac:eseicl
PrQ\l!d6\oppcrwmtftsf01
,11'1Cfe!j~ll(.'a!S!l10the
Adjusiable befmwo1k5 ~•
1equi,l!ddUtlngp:!lotS1ag,e
i Potent!alloron•lllnd '003Chlo,pub!lc. • d6sJwna!edgreenareas ,
j Roek&1moo,may1equlte1e-st~ck.ingoctoppingupofroc:k
, 11,'iU~A 1O102Oyaa,soraft111 SEM!r~ stormcl.Jl>dition5.
l_ ----··-
::=~~=tttoralor! 1 ~~;:;~~,:o!
!public.
Design Crtteria 6
Regional
E&lllyrepllcsbleCOl'!cep\ wllhmu1trple translo,n,allvo oppor1unitlesrorpubllc bel'Hlfit
Headland&p,:1011c:anbe
u~1gned1op,ovide
specmctie~ni.1.t0local area fie.surf museum <.ftsp\uye\Oct!tlnlidel.
Lowlmpact,tolongshore transportandlmptoY!ld ,
bype:mr>garwr>drounded
heac:llar.d.
Attachment B
RE:BEACH COMPETITORS
1. Deltares A+ MVRDV (Dutch Team)
1. SCA.ff dge Research Collaborative
(
RE:BEACH PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Public Workshop 1 -August 2023
Public Workshop 2 -October 2023
r---~i;:;;~~--,.,~=· ~ V
Attendance
more than 220
attendees 0 Duration
4-7pmPT,
3baurs
20%•0thor --/ ln·920S4
n •92084 '@ Demographics
3"·92008 . AmowitofResponses:
187 + zip codes llll-92058 -
t.n:-92056 --l.Sll-92057
Attachment B
0 OCEANSIDE
Deltares t uMYsRDV
odiA NSIDE
SCAPE +ESA + Dredge
Collaborative
1. Submerged
patches
2. Headland for top
of beach sand
trapping and
public amenity
3. Reef/ nearshore
sand trap
4. Bypassing pump
outlet from
Headland
--
··-e·· • • I • .. . .. • . .
Bypasseill!t under "Seal" ~ • Adds boundary from beach to road . _ ,...
• Allows for beach level to raise & SLR '-, ..... 'I.id
• Access to pipe maintenance h ~ iiif?..
ttp~ .. -
Booster ellmR under "Stepsn
• Hides pump stations
, Seating for public use/ watching surf comp .
Scan for bVJ.!:a~s Info
~
Attachment B
RE:BEACH WINNING DESIGN ✓ Headland Scale
PILOT AREA
Proven at site to stabilize top of
beach and allow sand transport
, ................................................................................ . • . . . • . . . . • . • . •
:;
.................................................................................
✓ Nearshore Nourishment
Proven in similar conditions
✓ Eco-engineered Reef
Proven in similar conditions
OCEANSID E
RE:BEACH WINNING DESIGN -HEADLANDS
BEACH USABILITY
SC HE MATIC CONCEPT LAYOUT
Attachment B
Q
OCEANSIDE
Attachment B
RE:BEACH WINNING DESIGN -ARTIFICIAL REEF
' "LIVING SPEED BUMPS" & COASTAL RESILIENCE
Slow down natural processes to retain sand longer. Not 'trap' sand.
C\ OCEANSIDE
Attachment B
RE:BEACH TIMELINE
Contracting & Onboarding Design Round 2 City Council Vote & Public Event
Week 1: Notice Sent Week 4: Internal Review Weekl: JuryVote
Week 2: On boarding Begins Week 6: Charrette Week 3: Consistency Review
Week 3-4: On boarding Sessions
Week 5: Contracts Finalized
Week 8: Public Workshop
October 17
-----tllll► Week 6: City Council Vote
MAY :n-,JLJN 26 ,JUL :i-AlJG 21 i\lJG 28-0CT 16
Design Round 1
Week 4: Internal Review
Week 6: Cha rrette
Week 8: Public Workshop
August 29
OCT 2:HJl:C 11 Dl:C 18-,JAN 29
Design Round 3
Week 4: Internal Review
Week 5: Charrette
Week 8: Public Workshop
December 13 0 OCEANSIDE
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE DESIGN COMPETITION?
Final Engineering and Design:
• ~1.s to 2 years
• Shovel-ready Project in early 2026
• Siting analysis
• Utilize modeled design concepts in different locations
Seagaze to Wisconsin
• Wisconsin to Buccaneer Beach
• a selected location between Buccaneer Beach and Buena Vista Lagoon
Environmental compliance and permitting
• Programmatic Environmental Document
Resource agency permits (CCC, USACE, RWQCB)
• Adaptive management program
• Define triggers & management actions
• Closely coordinated with region.
Public Outreach and Regional Engagement
• SAN DAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group
• Sediment Management Technical Task Force
• C7 Coastal Cities Meetings
• San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative
• Beach Ecology Coalition
• Staff to staff discussio ns
• Other engagement opportunities
Attachment B
Attachment B
OCEANSIDE COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Current Coastal Resiliency Efforts
• IRE:BEACH Oceanside
• Army Corps of Engineers Oceanside
Mitigation Study
• Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement
Project
• Loma Alta Creek Enhancement
Project
• SCOUP Projects
• Solana Highlands
• Seagaze
• San Luis Rey Estuary Restoration
Project
• Coastal Dunes Restoration Project
Collaborations
• C7 Meeting
• SAN DAG Oceanside Littoral Cell
Technical Taskforce
• Shoreline Preservation Working
Group taskforce
• Problem Solvers Caucus
• Buena Vista Lagoon Joint Powers
Authority
• San Diego Regional Climate
Collaborative
• Coastal Resil ience Road Map
• Coastal Dunes Network
Attachment B
Thank you for your time!
Council Workshop
January 31, 2024
5:30p
Learn more at
REBEACH.ORG
odfANSIDE
STAFF REPORT CITY OF OCEANSIDE
DATE: January 31, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT: RE:BEACH OCEANSIDE WINNING DESIGN WORKSHOP
SYNOPSIS
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions for the RE:BEACH
Oceanside Coastal Resilience Competition:
1.Receive the conceptual alternatives and concur with the following staff
recommended options:
a.Approve the staff and jury recommended selection of International Coastal
Management as the winning design team, with its Living Speed Bumps
concept
b.Approve the staff and jury recommended modifications to the selected
design concept
2.Authorize staff to proceed with final design, engineering and environmental
compliance tasks of the Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
BACKGROUND
Project History
Since construction of the Camp Pendleton Boat Basin and City’s Small Craft Harbor
(Harbor Complex), over 21 million cubic yards (cy) of sand have been artificially placed
on City beaches from either dredging activity to build the two harbors, the removal of
sediment from the San Luis Rey River, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers annual
navigation dredging program or one-off, local or regional beach nourishment events.
Despite all 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, should be
Attachment C
2
identified to provide more efficient and 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
most of Oceanside’s beaches.
At an August 2021 public workshop, the City Council provided 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 Phase 2 pilot project that
would provide both beach nourishment and sand retention options. At that time,
consideration was given to a pilot project that incorporated a series of groins. However,
Council’s direction also provided for flexibility when it came to determining the final
design to be pursued.
In May 2022, the City hired its first full-time Coastal Zone Administrator who brought an
enhanced level of technical expertise in support of the City’s efforts while also providing
an opportunity to further explore best practices in the area of coastal management.
On January 25, 2023, the City Council approved a contract with GHD Inc. (GHD) for the
Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. The main tasks outlined in the
Phase 2 scope included:
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement
• Baseline Monitoring Development
• Engineering, Analysis and Design
o Preliminary Design through a Design Competition (RE:BEACH)
o Final Design and Engineering
o Plans and Specifications
• Environmental Compliance and Permitting
Since approval of the Phase 2 contract, development of a preliminary design for a sand
retention concept has been underway through the execution of a public design
competition, called RE:BEACH Oceanside Coastal Resilience Competition. The
RE:BEACH competition process was developed by the Project Team, comprised of the
City’s Coastal Zone Administrator, GHD and Resilient Cities Catalyst, with ongoing
support from a City Team comprised of City staff representatives from the Development
Services, Public Works, Lifeguard and City Manager departments.
Design Criteria and Jury Selection
To guide the competing design teams through the competition and aid in the selection
of a winning sand retention concept, a jury (Jury) was created early in the RE:BEACH
process by the Project Team and City Team and announced in May 2023. To determine
the suitability of concepts and to judge and inform the development of a sand retention
design competition, community members and regional experts from distinct categories
of coastal management were asked to submit an application to be part of the Jury. The
composition of the Jury was intended to appropriately reflect the various interests in
implementation of a project of this type and advise the City staff on a final
Attachment C
3
recommended pilot project. Jurors were also expected to be receptive to the concept of
artificial sand retention as the City Council’s prior direction was to pursue a sand
replenishment and retention program. The distinct jury categories to be represented
included the following: coastal management, Oceanside community representation,
environmental compliance/permitting viability, surf resource preservation, nearshore
marine resources, regional/coastal city representation, project funding, and state and
federal regulatory agency representation. The Jury applicants were then reviewed and
ranked by the Project and City Teams, and a list of voting and non-voting members was
subsequently generated and confirmed. The Jury included Dr. Lesley Ewing, former
Coastal Engineer for the California Coastal Commission, Bob Ashton, President/CEO of
Save Oceanside Sand, Chris Abad, President of the Oceanside Boardrider’s Club,
officials from down coast cities, and Mitch Silverstein, San Diego Policy Coordinator for
Surfrider Foundation. A comprehensive list of the Jury is available in Attachment 1 and
3.
Throughout the three design rounds of the RE:BEACH competition, jurors were invited
to participate in the Public Workshops, were regularly briefed by the Project Team on
the designs as they evolved with public input, and provided opportunities to discuss and
review public input, including input received during the final public workshop on
December 13, 2023.
The development of the Jury early on in the competition was intentional, as they were
an integral part of creating the Design Criteria (Attachment 1) by which the design
concepts would be guided and ultimately judged against. To guide the criteria
development, RE:BEACH established 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, with all designs required 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
The Design Criteria were meant to fulfill two core objectives: (1) provide a boundary of
the scope of design for the proposed solutions and (2) generate a set of objectives that
Design Teams, and their solutions could be measured against.
With both the mission and objectives in mind, the Design Criteria addressed parameters
involving physical performance, financial confines, environmental considerations, social
implications and regional benefits and established the backbone of the initial design
proposal solicitation.
Attachment C
4
Solicitation of Design Competitors
The Project Team invited a select number of firms to respond to the RE:BEACH
proposal solicitation, based on a firms’ past project experience and expertise. Due to
the multi-faceted aspects of the Design Competition, firms were encouraged to form
collaborative teams comprised of multiple firms that encompassed experienced
professionals in a range of disciplines. Approximately 36 targeted firms were sent the
solicitation, with 6 teams forming and ultimately proposing to be part of the competition.
Using broad, consistent evaluation criteria, the submitted applications were narrowed
down to three competing teams, based on experience, proposed approach and track
record of delivering innovative solutions. The three selected Design Teams were:
• SCAPE Landscape Architecture with Environmental Science Associates (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. ESA is an
environmental consulting firm, specializing in design, permitting and
implementation across the West Coast, bringing regional environmental science
and engineering expertise to SCAPE’s concept. Dredge Research Collaborative
is an independent non-profit that provides leadership on sediment use and
transport across the United States, and an in-depth understanding of sediment
transport.
• Deltares with Deltares USA with 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 along coastlines.
Deltares’ mission revolves around working passionately to find answers to some
of life’s biggest environmental questions. MVRDV is a global architecture and
urban design firm that focuses on contemporary issues, especially resilience, in
regions across the world.
• International Coastal Management (ICM): ICM is an Australia-based firm that
was founded in 1989. ICM’s mission is to provide the best sustainable and
innovative solutions in coastal engineering, while protecting and enhancing
marine environments worldwide. 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 SeaWorld, the Gold
Coast Waterways Authority, the Nature Conservancy, and more.
Design Round Charettes and Public Workshops
Three Design Rounds or Charettes were planned between June to December 2023 to
support the Design Teams in the development of their final sand retention concept.
Design Teams participated in a Charette in the sixth week of each of the three Design
Rounds where the Project Team, City Team and/or Jury provided feedback and
comments on the progress made on pilot project concepts. Each Design Round
Attachment C
5
culminated with a presentation to the public at an in-person Public Workshop that was
recorded with digital versions of the presentations available for subsequent viewing.
Charrette One was focused on an introduction to conceptual ideas and getting input
from the City Team and Project Team on coastal processes and high-level visioning for
Oceanside and the regions’ coastal areas. At Charette Two, Design Teams were asked
to share preliminary concepts and approaches, with ample opportunity for Design
Teams to ask questions of the Project Team and gain insight on how to improve
designs. At Charette Two, Design Teams also focused on how their concepts were
successfully achieving the established Design Criteria. At Charrette Three, Design
Teams were asked to enhance approaches and concepts, focusing on financial
evaluations and technical refinement with input from the Project Team, City Team and
Jury.
Each Public Workshop supported a similar program, with the Design Teams presenting
their latest concepts and the public being given the opportunity at each workshop to
provide direct comment and/or input via questionnaire to assist in refining the
approaches. The Design Teams were required to develop figures, graphics, maps, and
visual resources for use during each of the Public Workshops.
Public Workshop One aimed to gather broad community input on the Design Teams’
initial design approaches, giving each team an opportunity to further gain perspective on
community stakeholder goals and desires for the coast, and collect directional feedback
to inform the designs going forward. Public Workshop Two depicted refined designs,
with the technical aspects of sand retention more developed and elements visualized
with opportunities for additional feedback. Public Workshop Three featured the final
designs. The Design Teams were able to clearly show how stakeholder input shaped
their designs, and why they arrived at their final solutions.
All Public Workshops were open to the public and were available virtually via a
recording of the presentations with accompanying digital versions of materials. Each
Public Workshop was heavily noticed via press releases, on the City’s webpage, and on
social media platforms, as well as via pop-up events. The workshops were very well-
attended with approximately 150-220 persons participating at each workshop.
Aggregated comments from all three Public Workshops are provided in the Community
Input Summary (Attachment 2).
Given the regional interest and potential effect of the implemented project at various
scales, the Project Team shared updates with regional stakeholders at each of the
downcoast cities within the Oceanside Littoral Cell. Upon each jurisdictions’ request,
informational presentations summarizing the RE:BEACH competition, followed by a
question and answer period, were made from October to December 2023 at the
following cities:
• October 2023, Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission
• November 2023, Del Mar City Council
• November 2023, Solana Beach City Council
Attachment C
6
• December 2023, Encinitas City Council
Additional local and regional outreach of the project occurred during the design
competition:
• March 2023, Oceanside Coastal Neighborhood Association
• March 2023, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
• May 2023, Smart Coast Cities Summit
• September 2023, SANDAG Sediment Management Technical Task Force
• October 2023, C7 Coastal Cities Meeting
• November 2023, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
• November 2023, San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative
• November 2023, Headwaters to Ocean Conference
• December 2023, Oceanside High School
Prior to the initiation of RE:BEACH, leading up to the City Council decision to approve
the Phase 2 contract, the following public outreach efforts were made:
• May 2022, Encinitas Environmental Commission
• June 2022, SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group
• October 2022, Carlsbad Beach Preservation Commission
• October 2022, Save Oceanside Sand (SOS) Member Meeting
• November 2022, SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group
Jury Deliberation
The Jury, comprised of voting and non-voting members, designated a winning design
concept during the final Jury Deliberation held on December 14, 2023. The Jury utilized
the distinct parameters outlined in the Design Criteria to evaluate the designs
throughout the competition, leading to critical analysis of the designs at the final Jury
Deliberation. This recommended winning design aligns with the City staffs’
recommendation for a sand retention conceptual design that, upon City Council
direction, can be moved into the final engineering and environmental compliance tasks
under the approved Phase 2 Project contract. The Jury’s collective comments and
feedback assisted City staff in the development of recommendations to support the
winning design. The winning design and associated Jury and City staff
recommendations are described in detail in the Analysis section below. A detailed
summary of the Jury Deliberation, including the Jury roster and their specific
recommendations, is found in Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS
Staff and the jury recommend that the City Council approve the preferred alternative:
International Coastal Management’s “Living Speed Bumps” concept. The Living Speed
Bumps concept proposes to construct one multi-purpose offshore artificial reef and two
headlands, supported by nearshore and on beach nourishment, (Figure 1; Attachment
4), in a location that shall be determined in the next phase of the Project.
Attachment C
7
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of Living Speed Bumps design (final location TBD)
The conceptual reef design that ICM developed included two options for reef materials
(i.e., quarry rock or geotextile bags) and included two different reef shapes and sizes.
These design elements were based on ICM’s prior project experience on the Gold
Coast of Australia. As proposed, the reef shall be placed at a depth of approximately
40’, which is estimated to be 900’ offshore. Two artificial headlands would be positioned
on the shore both north and south of the reef. Conceptually, ICM suggested the
headlands extend roughly 150’ seaward and be 150’ long. The headlands would consist
of rock outcrops that would assist with beach stabilization, creating more opportunities
for intertidal habitat, and mimicking natural and artificial headland formations in southern
California.
The offshore reef’s design intent would be to dissipate wave energy through wave
breaking, which would in turn stabilize the beach in its lee (i.e., shoreward of the reef).
The crest of the reef (i.e., how shallow the reef is) can be optimized to maintain
longshore sediment transport around the reef. The reef would be designed to primarily
stabilize the beach but improvements to surfing would also be a goal.
The diffraction of breaking waves by the reef utilizes wave energy to contribute to
slowing the rate of longshore transport along the beach, and the formation of a salient to
build beach volume, mimicking natural offshore reef structures local to the Californian
coast. Similar natural reef structures that provide salient formed beaches include Crystal
Cove, Aliso Creek and Salt Creek beaches in Orange County. The headland features
would complement this salient formation and increase the performance of beach
development.
It is important to note that the specific shape and size of both the reef and headlands
will be determined in the next phase of engineering design where numerical modeling,
leveraged from Phase 1, will be used to optimize the design to achieve the various
project objectives. Other important design elements, such as a strategy for on beach
and nearshore nourishment placement, will also be further developed in this phase.
Back beach dunes will also be considered in the phasing plan for the project and can be
deployed once the beach is stabilized.
Re/ference headland - beach stability Beach siahility similar to reference headland "\
Slowing of'said transport by zo 3o°.. /
_J_J
South Sand Transport
Attachment C
8
Through the design competition, rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates
were developed using standard material and labor rates to provide a consistent means
to compare costs across Design Teams. These cost estimates are preliminary and will
be refined in the next phase of design. A rough order of magnitude construction cost
estimate of the Living Speed Bumps design is $31-$41M, depending on the specific
shape and size of the features as well as the selection of the reef materials (i.e. sand
filled geotextile bags or quarry rock). Annual maintenance costs of the beach sand and
headlands were roughly estimated at $500k.
Design Criteria Considerations
Overall, the winning ICM concept exceeds Design Criteria in many facets. The artificial
reef, headlands and nearshore nourishment components allow for the continuation of
natural coastal processes in Oceanside and beyond, as much as possible, while
delivering on the retention of sandy beaches. Coupled with beach and nearshore
nourishment, stabilization of the back beach is expected to begin within 3 years
following completion of construction of the structural components. The need for ongoing
maintenance is expected to be minimal once properly designed and constructed.
Environmental conditions are expected to improve with construction, as beach habitat is
expected to be restored and attract local and migratory shorebirds that once
concentrated along the coastline. Socially, the concept adds safe access paths to the
ocean through the headlands and increases park space and ocean viewing
opportunities. Surf resources were a prioritized element in the design and will continue
to be a focus as the design is refined. Regionally, the design supports the continuation
of on-going longshore transport and natural coastal processes, maintaining natural
function of the littoral cell and minimizing the potential for negative downdrift impacts.
Public Feedback
The ICM Living Speed Bumps concept overwhelmingly received positive input from the
public for its professed ability to retain sand on the beach and provide other recreational
benefits. ICM received an abundance of written comments from the public, stating their
concept was their “favorite” or “best” option. Scalability potential was high with the ICM
design according to public feedback, with application in additional areas of Oceanside’s
coastline seemingly most feasible with this design. Similar to Jury feedback,
recommendations from the public included a need to consider influences of the artificial
reefs on sand bars to improve and/or maintain surf resources. Recommendations from
the public also suggested that the design team conduct careful analysis of the
structures placed and how they may impact the safety of surfers and swimmers. The
public expressed a desire to see more natural elements in the design of the headland. A
summary of public feedback provided throughout RE:BEACH is included in Attachment
2.
Attachment C
9
Suggested Modifications
The Jury provided valuable feedback and recommended modifications in its evaluation
of the preferred design concept (Attachment 3). Notably, the Jury agreed that the ICM
proposal seemed to be the most effective at beach stabilization, while taking into
consideration local needs, such as adding naturalized park spaces in the headlands and
preserving ecological and surf resources through their design. Additionally, the Jury
recognized that the design had already been tested by ICM along similar coastlines in
Australia, and therefore maintained confidence in the ability of ICM to deliver a
successful pilot project with the greatest opportunity to be scaled up and applied in
other areas of the Oceanside coastline once the success of the pilot project was proven
to work locally.
The Jury and City staff recommend several key modifications to the design: (1)
refinement of the headlands to use a more environmentally and/or aesthetically pleasing
composition that blends better with natural coastal formations, (2) utilization of rock
instead of geotextile bags for construction of the artificial nearshore reef, and (3)
development a robust monitoring program that captures both ecosystem benefits and
surf resource improvements/changes that the artificial reef may afford, which would be
applicable to environmental permitting discussions with the resource/regulatory
agencies.
• Refinement of the design of the artificial headlands and a thoughtful proposal for
programming on top of the headlands. Several jurors requested the use of more
natural materials and a headland design that better fits Oceanside’s character.
The finalization of the headland designs needs to consider the opportunity for
creating multiple-benefits.
• Strong consideration of the use of natural materials (i.e. rock instead of geotextile
bags) for the artificial reef. Most jurors raised concerns or objections to the
geotextile materials proposed by ICM for three reasons: increased maintenance
cost to replace or repair geotextile bags, the introduction of non-natural and/or
plastics into the water, and related public perception and permitting issues. ICM
responded to jury questions about the geotextile bag option, stating that the use
of the geotextile bags versus rock allows the City to pilot the viability of an
artificial reef to influence beach sand retention at a cheaper cost. Past projects in
California that have relied on geotextile bags have experienced issues due to
structural degradation with UV exposure and complications during removal that
resulted in debris issues and logistical challenges. While material technologies
have improved, and costs for using rock are much higher than geotextile bags,
the Jury and Project team recommend going forward with a design that utilizes
rock while still learning from ICM’s experience with other materials.
• As the reef advances in design, the City should go further in exploring potential
ecosystem and surf benefits that the reef could provide. The City should also be
prepared to provide mitigation for habitat conversions (i.e. conversion from sandy
subtidal habitat to rocky subtidal) that may be required by the Coastal
Commission.
Attachment C
10
Design Competition – Non-preferred Alternative Concepts
Below is a description of the two non-preferred alternatives considered by the Jury for
the RE:BEACH Oceanside Competition. A summary of all three design concepts is also
available in the table below.
• SCAPE Landscape Architecture with ESA and the Dredge Research
Collaborative
o Dunepark/Hybrid Beach
As proposed, this team’s design could extend the existing 5-30 feet of
usable beach area to 40-100 feet by elevating and retreating the Strand
eastward and transforming an existing playground and lawn at Tyson St.
Park into a dune area, called Dunepark. These on-land components would
be supported by cobble crests in the intertidal zone and nearshore reefs in
the subtidal zone, which proposed to encourage modest accretion of sand
on the foreshore called the Hybrid Beach. A walking path through the
dune area as well as dedicated sandy walking paths to the shore through
the cobble crests was also proposed.
o Jury Feedback
▪ The Hybrid Beach concept was perceived to provide the least
amount of sand retention and accretion, which brought into
question the structural integrity and user experience of cobble-
based design elements.
▪ While the Hybrid Beach design was innovative and interesting, it
was untested and had the potential to require more frequent and
costly maintenance.
▪ Dunepark was lauded as an exceptional concept that could be
explored at a later date beyond RE:BEACH by the City of
Oceanside, as an improvement to the existing shoreline park at
Tyson St.
o Public Feedback
▪ Dunepark proposed to create a more usable and appropriate Tyson
Street Park, but retreat of the Strand seems arduous.
▪ Overall, the public expressed a general concern around the Hybrid
Beach concept feasibility and ability to perform, as it had not been
tested or tried in any other location.
▪ Cobble is challenging and difficult to walk on, making the usable
beach space potentially less accessible and the design less lauded
by the public.
• Deltares with Deltares USA with MVRDV
o Green Dream Peninsula
This Green Dream Peninsula would mimic a natural peninsula structure,
constructed out from publicly-owned beach front spaces, utilizing existing
rock and imported quarry rock. The designed peninsula would jut out
approximately 360 feet in length from the back beach, and 500 feet in
Attachment C
11
descending width. The concept was proposed to occur westward from any
publicly owned beach access area, but grounded at Buccaneer Beach
where the design would extend Loma Alta Creek to facilitate creek flows
out to the ocean. The Peninsula space would allow for increased
recreation opportunities, improved beach access and environmental
enhancement.
o Jury Feedback
▪ While the nature-based design elements of this concept were highly
regarded, including the proposed naturally shaped headland, there
were several concerns identified by Jurors, which included
uncertainty of sand accretion on north and south sides of the
headland, concern over water quality if located at Loma Alta Creek,
and potential flanking impacts north and south of the structure into
private revetments.
▪ While innovative, the design was perceived to exaggerate the
overall public benefit coming from only one proposed headland.
o Public Feedback
▪ The public expressed concerns over the placement of the feature at
Buccaneer Beach and the potential impacts to surf resources.
▪ The public had difficulty understanding the potential scalability of
this concept, as headlands may need to take on different shapes at
different location to retain sand and the overall size seems marginal
for the desired objective of maintaining a sandy beach.
▪ The public articulated some concerns over safety of beach goers in
the accessing ocean-facing salt water pools and sustaining water
quality with an urban creek flowing out adjacent to the pool.
Attachment C
SCAPE Deltares + MVRDV ICM (WINNING DESIGN)
Overview of
Concept
Dunepark shifts the Strand inland, and
reconfigures existing space into dunes which
connect to the Hybrid Beach, a perched sandy
beach atop a cobble berm comprised of existing
and imported cobble stabilized by 3 small cobble
crests (50ft x100ft), 4 large cobble crests (65ft x
130 ft) and 4 nearshore reefs (70ft x 90ft).
One peninsula/headland (500ft x 360 ft)
comprised of rock allows for sand
nourishment activities to be stabilized and
help restore usable beach area on both
the north and south side of the peninsula
One submerged offshore reef (made of either rock
330ft x 610ft or geotextile bags 490ft x 900ft) and
two ‘living headlands’ (150ft x 150ft) made of rock,
cobble, and sand that are designed to mimic natural
processes can improve sand retention and beach
resilience.
Reasonable
expectations
for the
concept to
restore
sandy
beaches
Initially creates 30-100ft wide sandy, stabilized
perched beach with a cobble berm. Most of the
new beach area comes from the construction of
the Hybrid Beach with partial sandy beach from
Dunepark.
Initially creates 50-100 ft wide sandy
beach directly north of the peninsula. The
effective beach width decreases to about
40 feet in the first 0.5 mile north of the
peninsula. Sand nourishment and
accretion would also be anticipated south
of the peninsula.
Initially creates 100ft wide sandy beach, with a
nominal 1:25 slope to seaward. Our ‘speed bump’
approach is targeting a slowing of longshore
transport by about 20% to 30% of existing
conditions.
Concept
integration
with
sediment
managemen
t activities
The concept may require replenishing sand atop
portions of the perched beach and/or atop and
between the cobble crests after storms. The
concept could be completely covered with a
larger beach nourishment along the shore.
The design can make regular beach
nourishment activities more effective by
slowing down transport. Specific sediment
management placement patterns north
and south of the structure would be
developed once final design and modeling
is completed.
The design can assist regular nourishment activities
by slowing longshore transport to retain and
stabilize a sandy beach, and support a strategy of
more cost-effective nearshore nourishment protocol.
Options for
concept to
be adapted
and modified
should
undesirable
effects be
observed
The cobble berm will use some similar sized
rounded rock to existing material so much of it
could be left in place. If the larger rocks placed
on the crests and reefs are displaced or deemed
problematic, they may be re-distributed, removed
or repurposed into the backshore cobble berm.
The sand retention effect can be adapted
by seaward extension of underwater
portion of the tip of the peninsula.
Depending on desired
bypassing/connectivity this can be altered
even after construction. Removal of parts
of the peninsula is not likely required,
although it can be done from the land.
The reef, whether comprised of sand-filled
geotextile containers or boulder rock, can easily be
adapted to improve performance outcomes, or
removed if necessary. The porosity and crest height
of the low-crested berm can be easily adapted to
increase/decrease sand bypassing by
removing/adding re-usable rock-bags or returning
cobble fill to the beach.
Largest risk
or
uncertainty
around
concept
There is a high degree of certainty around the
stability of the upland Dunepark portion of the
proposal. The Hybrid Beach applies novel
concepts that hold uncertainty around the level of
sand accretion and level of structural integrity.
The performance of the concept will
depend on the quality and volume of sand
nourishment activities over time will be
determined by the state of the beaches.
Some uncertainty of rip current formation
but not different than for other coastal
interventions.
Confidence that concept will result in a significant
degree of slowing of longshore transport.
Uncertainty around the exact degree to which sand
is slowed and retained at the beach. The
expectation of a ‘surfing reef’ should be properly
managed as the reef’s primary objective is sand
retention and storm protection.
Rough
Order of
Magnitude
cost
estimates
Project Construction Total: $19. 8M
(Hybrid Beach: $6.2 M and Dunepark: $13.6 M)
Annual Operation and Maintenance: Typical
winter - $100k
Large storm (i.e. 20+ year event) - $780k
Removal Costs: $2.9M
Project Construction Total: $11.1M
Annual Operation and Maintenance:
$1.8M
Removal Costs: $3.9M
Project Construction Total: $31.4M (geotextile reef),
$40.6M (rock reef)
Annual Operation and Maintenance: $500k
Removal Costs: $4.7M
Attachment C
Next Steps
The RE:BEACH Oceanside Coastal Resilience Design Competition is the conceptual
design component under the Engineering, Analysis and Design task of the Phase 2
Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project. To reiterate, the main tasks outlined in
the Phase 2 scope include:
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement
• Baseline Monitoring Program
• Engineering, Analysis and Design
• Environmental Compliance and Permitting
GHD will continue to serve as the prime consultant and will contract with ICM, the
approved winning design team, to prepare final engineering plans, siting for the
proposed concept and construction specifications. As the prime consultant, GHD is
responsible for preparing major deliverables, coordinating the work of subconsultants,
managing the project schedule and budget, providing project status updates, and
working with City staff to ensure that all components of the project are consistent with
and complementary to one another.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement occurred throughout RE:BEACH and shall
continue to occur throughout Phase 2. 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, providing a robust dataset for the
engineering analysis, siting and design tasks. Baseline assessments incorporate current
surveys conducted by Scripps Institution of Oceanography and citizen science-led
efforts by Save Oceanside Sand into a coastal database. Once a design concept is
selected, further details on additional monitoring components can be compiled that
reflect specific metrics to focus on.
The Engineering, Analysis and Design task incorporates the findings from the
RE:BEACH process, including input from community and stakeholder engagements and
the ongoing baseline monitoring program. This phase is also complemented by the
investigation into a reliable sand nourishment source and development of a sampling
and analysis plan and report. Additionally, siting of the proposed project will occur
through this task.
Public and stakeholder comments submitted throughout the design competition
highlighted the need for solutions for all of Oceanside’s coastline, in particular South
Oceanside. A siting analysis will be performed that objectively evaluates potential
locations for the pilot project to aide in the City decision making process. This analysis
will evaluate three (3) potential locations for the pilot project south of the Oceanside
Pier, where erosion impacts are the greatest. Sites to be evaluated are anticipated to
Attachment C
14
include: 1) the South Strand (Seagaze to Wisconsin), 2) Wisconsin to Buccaneer
Beach, and 3) a selected location between Buccaneer Beach and Buena Vista Lagoon.
The siting analysis will focus on factors related to the successful implementation and
performance of the pilot project at achieving its established goals and objectives. The
study will incorporate various factors related to successful implementation, which
include 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 lifeguard staff.
• 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 around 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, likely occurring in summer 2024.
While the conceptual level design that ICM provided will be further developed to specify
the shape and size of both the reef and headlands through numerical modeling,
physical modeling the reef and headland components could provide insight on shape,
size, and orientation design elements related to physical wave processes, such as wave
breaking and rip current formation. Physically modeling a reef may also provide greater
confidence in the design, as physical modeling could assist will calibrating and support
numerical modeling efforts.
Deliverables from this Engineering, Analysis, and Design task include final plans and
specifications that will be utilized in the final task of Phase 2, the Environmental
Compliance and Permitting task.
The Environmental Compliance and Permitting tasks will entail 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:
Attachment C
15
• California Coastal Commission
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• California State Lands Commission
Ongoing Coastal Monitoring and Management
While it is recognized that RE:BEACH is a pilot project for a specific geographic
location, the intent of the pilot is to determine the viability of the proposed novel sand
retention concept for use in additional areas throughout Oceanside’s coastline. A robust
monitoring program, to be established under the Phase 2 Project contract, will inform
our knowledge about the performance and scalability of the winning RE:BEACH design.
As monitoring commences, continual attention to coastal erosion will be undertaken
through the City’s broader Coastal Management Program. Ongoing coastal
management efforts that extend beyond RE:BEACH include, but are not limited to:
• Utilization of SCOUP permits and placement of opportunistic sand as suitable
beach sand becomes available
• Development of dunes on the back beach in coastal areas where dry sand
currently persists and that are subject to either sand management needs or
intermittent flooding
• Participation in regional sand nourishment efforts through SANDAG
• Pursuit of funding and environmental compliance for execution of the Buena
Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project has already
been allocated and is covered by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Sand
Replenishment Account. Of the $2.59M authorized for the Phase 2 Project, $1.93M are
left to accomplish the remaining tasks. The Sand Replenishment account
837134221271 currently has an available balance of $706,300.
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The City’s standard insurance requirements will be met.
COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE REPORT
Does not apply.
CITY ATTORNEY’S ANALYSIS
City Attorney analysis does not apply at this stage. Any future contracts and
discretionary entitlements will require review by the City Attorney.
Attachment C
Attachment C
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions for the RE:BEACH
Oceanside Coastal Resilience Competition:
1. Receive the conceptual alternatives and concur with the following staff
recommended options:
a. Approve the staff and jury recommended selection of International Coastal
Management as the winning design team, with its Living Speed Bumps
concept
b. Approve the staff and jury recommended modifications to the selected
design concept
2. Authorize staff to proceed with final design, engineering and environmental
compliance tasks of the Phase 2 Sand Nourishment and Retention Pilot Project
PREPARED BY:
~~ ~e-r"""'1a=-k-e~.,...._...._. ___ _
Coastal Zone Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Hamid Bahadori, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Design Criteria
2. Community Input Summary
3. Jury Deliberation Summary
4. Living Speedbumps Project Narrative
16
SUBMITTED BY:
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
11
Attachment C
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 maintenance 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 $50M.
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.
12
Attachment C
Project Assumptions:
•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 time 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.
13
Attachment C
RE:BEACH
Community input summary
Attachment C
. \,E-\~EA.t:\" :.;r !, ,r.... 'l I: : 1.1: ~ ll
= ~--• 1\:: \){)PlJi-J.\ I •
------: : 1.()\11:
~: (i ll()\1\1
, I ': £ : ::;; l)ISC<>Vl:ll
51,\NI)
2
RE:BEACH
Community input summary
OVERVIEW
RE:BEACH is Oceanside’s coastal resilience competition that brought together three de-
sign teams from all over the world: International Coastal Management (ICM) from Australia,
Deltares and MVRDV based in the Netherlands, and SCAPE Landscape Architecture who
have offices in New York and San Francisco alongside their California based partners, ESA
and Dredge Research Collaborative. The teams herein will be referred to as ICM, Deltares
and MVRDV, and SCAPE. The entire design competition lasted eight months and included
three public workshops, on August 29, October 17 and December 13, 2023.
RE:BEACH is supported by a Jury, comprised of regional and local experts and regulatory
agency members. The voting members of the Jury, with support from several non-voting
members on the Advisory Panel, will ultimately select a winning design concept. Public
input gathered through the RE:BEACH process has directly informed the design and the
programming of the concept, bringing the project into alignment with the community of
Oceanside’s goals and desired uses of space.
THE SUMMARY
The Community Input Summary is an overview of the feedback provided by the public
throughout the RE:BEACH process. Input was collected through three online surveys, cor-
responding with each public workshop. Every survey was open to the public for 30-days and
results were provided to the Design Teams live, from the moment the online forms became
available to the public through their closure. This enabled the Design Teams to stay up to
date with public input and directly utilize it in their concept refinement. The survey ques-
tions were designed to help advance the Design Teams work and varied from one workshop
to another.
The third and final workshop, on December 13, also included an audience question and an-
swer session. The questions from the public are included in this summary, as supplemental
to the online survey responses.
Learn more about RE:BEACH Visit www.REBEACH.org
watch design team
presentations
review
design team slides and
concept designs
provide feedback,
by filling out online
feedback form (> I EA EO OD
Attachment C
3
PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The three design teams are each tasked with present-
ing a sand retention pilot project that is feasible and
permittable in Oceanside. Teams were guided by a set
of four problem statements and a robust list of design
criteria, that together define the projects goals and
objectives.
The overarching goal of the
RE:BEACH competition is to de-
sign and construct an innovative,
multi-benefit, sand retention
pilot project in the City that
provides both local and regional
benefits. More design competi-
tion guidance was provided to the
teams and can be found in the
Design Brief.
Problem Statements:
1. 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 it
removable if necessary?
2. How might a sand retention pilot project open
pathways for Oceanside to explore longer term
coastal adaptation?
3. How might we successfully build and monitor a
pilot sand retention project that informs future
regional coastal adaptation approaches?
4. How might a pilot sand retention project be
scaled to benefit a greater reach of the City
shoreline?
Public Workshop Goals. The goal of each public workshop is to:
raise awareness about
RE:BEACH
share design concepts
with the community
throughout the process
gain input, feedback and
direction from the public
Read here:
Design Brief
Do
Do
D
OD
Attachment C
4
DESIGN CRITERIA:
PHYSICAL
-Designs should be in the coastal zone south of Oceans-
ide 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 accommo-
date 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 suc-
ceeds in its intention.
-Reference known design parameters from sand reten-
tion 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 anticipat-
ed time- scale during which the project would be able to
perform as designed.
-Designs should include natural and nature-based fea-
tures, where feasible, which may include onsite or im-
ported materials, and/ or innovative materials designed
for ocean compatibility.
FINANCIAL
-Construction estimates for the designs should be pre-
sented for initial construction costs, annual operation
and maintenance 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 encour-
aged that fully value the proposed project’s range of
benefits (social, regional, economic, ecological). Espe-
cially if construction costs for designs exceed $50M.
ENVIRONMENTAL
-Designs should encourage the rehabilitation of sandy
beach habitat.
-Designs should minimize impacts to sandy beach eco-
systems and nearshore marine ecology.
-Designs should be sensitive to where and which habitats
may be converted as part of the design, what enhance-
ments 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 classifi-
cations, quality, change over time, and uncertainties
clearly explained.
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 surf-
ing resources and minimizing impacts to existing surf
resources.
-Designs should seek to increase or maintain the exist-
ing aesthetic of the beach.
-Designs prioritize public safety and low-cost recreation-
al user experiences.
-Designs should maximize public benefit.
REGIONAL
-Designs should provide a regional and statewide oppor-
tunity 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 ben-
eficial to how to best design and implement retention
strategies).
-Designs should be particularly sensitive to the poten-
tial 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.
Attachment C
5
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
• Pilot project designs will represent reasonable
proof-of-concept sand retention strategies that
can be piloted, scaled up, and/or repeated if appro-
priate.
• The objective is to create more time 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 initial-
ly 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.
PILOT PROJECT LOCATION
• The Design Teams may have indicated a concep-
tual location to help ground their concepts in
Oceanside. However, these locations are not indic-
ative of where the pilot will ultimately occur.
• The next phase of the project includes additional
analysis, such as numerical modeling, to help
determine the location that provides the most
benefits to the broader coastline. This step also
includes assessing the specifics of permitting,
funding potential, and scalability of the selected
concept.
RECOMMENDED PILOT PROJECT DESIGN
• The three public workshops built upon one anoth-
er, each further developing and refining the Design
Teams’ concepts, incorporating the City Staff,
Project Team, Jury, and public input. On December
14, 2023, the RE:BEACH Jury convened to deliber-
ate, review and select a winning design team and
concept. Public comments to-date were included
in the Jury’s deliberation. The RE:BEACH Jury
unanimously recommended International Coastal
Management (ICM), the team from Australia, to
move forward into the next phase of work (final
engineering, design and permitting).
• On January 31, 2024, Oceanside Staff will bring the
recommended design and pre-identified modifica-
tions, to City Council in a workshop. The purpose of
the workshop is to provide more space and time for
the City Council to engage with and advise staff on
the work.
• The comments gathered from the third workshop
are being included in the final design recommen-
dation, being presented at the City Council Work-
shop on January 31st, and are included herein.
Attachment C
6
Across the three public workshops conducted to-date, the following key themes emerged:
A Dry Sandy Beach: Overwhelmingly, respondents
reported the desire to recreate on a wide,
dry-sandy beach. Not only did we hear
vivid memories and sentimentality for
Oceanside’s beaches and surf breaks of the
past, but also the desire to create coastal resilience for
the future. There is a desire to offer future generations
the opportunity to share similar experiences and
create new memories—walk along the beach, watch
the sunset, surf, play with their pets and dogs, and
gather with friends and family. The ability to simply be
at a beach, with sand, is a core theme heard across the
competition.
Accessibility & Safety: Across all engagement, in-per-
son comments and online feedback forms,
respondents used the words ‘access’ and
‘safety’ as important components to any
pilot solution. The term ‘access’ was used
to refer to ease of enjoyment by elderly, children and
the disabled, parking, and the ability to walk along the
beach. Similarly, the term ‘safety’ was used to refer to
mitigating risks, like rip currents, confidence of access
the ocean, and feeling safe along and on any feature
implemented through RE:BEACH. Amenities like clean
bathrooms, ample parking, showers, educational and
historical signage, playgrounds and recognition of
native history were each mentioned as ways to improve
accessibility and safety in a sand retention pilot project.
Healthy Coastal Ecosystems & Natural Elements:
Through the design competition process,
the public has been exposed to various
amenities and programming that can be
incorporated into a sand retention pilot
project. In the juxtaposition between
more nature-based elements and those that are more
built, respondents asked for the inclusion of natural
elements. Whether as a core component of the design
feature or highlighting the ability to provide habitat
opportunities, Oceanside residents and regional
attendees leaned towards more natural landscapes
and spaces for recreating and enjoying a wider beach.
Surf Resources: Many respondents and attendees
of both public workshops identified surf
resources as core to Oceanside’s identity.
While it is impossible to choose one form
of recreating along the coast as core to
Oceanside, there is little doubt, based on
responses collected, that surfing and surf resourc-
es are critically important to the local and regional
community. In each instance, feedback focused on
the need to design strategies with surfing in mind,
limit any negative impacts to surf resources, and seek
alternatives that have the potential to enhance surfing
amenities.
Space for Various Activities: Feedback indicated the de-
sire for enough beach to provide space for a
myriad of interests such as various sports,
activities, hobbies, and a dog park.
Each of the RE:BEACH public workshops provides
multiple ways for the community to engage.
In-Person
AUG 29, 2023 | OCT 17, 2023 | DEC 13, 2023
View playback online
Workshop 1 & Workshop 2 videos are available
to view on the City of Oceanside’s YouTube chan-
nel and the RE:BEACH website (rebeach.org).
Submit digital feedback form
Workshop 1
August 29 to
September
30, 2023
Workshop 2
October 17to
November 30,
2023
Workshop 3
December 13
to January 13,
2024
Key themes
~o
OOO OOO
l>: I
I I O
I I
Attachment C
7
Public Workshop One
Summary
The first public workshop was held on Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at the City of
Oceanside, Council Chambers. Attendees had the opportunity to meet, speak
with, and view posters from each of the three design teams in an open house
format. Following the open house, the RE:BEACH project team presented the
design competition process followed by three short presentations, by the
design teams, about their initial ideas and concepts. The workshop was open
to the public from 4—7pm PT. Video recordings of the presentations and slides
are available on the City of Oceanside’s YouTube channel and the RE:BEACH
website (rebeach.org). An online public feedback form was made available at
the start of the workshop and remained open for 30-days. Design teams were
given immediate access to results, so as to quickly and iteratively integrate
input directly into their designs for the second public workshop.
The first public workshop was a moment to learn about, (1) the RE:BEACH
process, (2) the design teams and (3) the early concepts each team was
bringing forward for consideration.
Feedback questions from the first public workshop were focused on
determining conceptual preferences and strengthening the design teams’
understanding of the community and people of Oceanside. Given the origins
of the design teams, feedback from the first public workshop provided insight
into the major characteristics of the City and broader community.
This summary is representative of all survey questions and responses from
workshop one. All public feedback and input was reviewed and incorporated
into the next round of design. Answers to long-form questions and open
comment fields were condensed in this summary into broader themes that
emerged. While not every question or answer is included, this summary
represents the key themes across all feedback received.
52% - 92054
11% - 92056
11% - 92057
6% - 92058
2% - 92083
18% - Other
Attendance
more than 200
attendees
Duration
4-7pm PT,
3 hours
Demographics
Amount of Responses:
336 + zip codes
Review:
Team Slides
/-
\
r O r I
I l
o I
O
r I I
Attachment C
8
Deltares + MVRDV
SCAPE
SURVEY QUESTIONS
What are the strongest elements you wish to have
incorporated into the final design?
• Sandy Beach
• Tidal Pools
• Backshore Vegetation
Which one of these descriptions represents Oceanside
stability best for you?
75% - Oceanside beach as a place for human
leisure, maximum space for activities, surfing,
lifeguards, swimming and restaurants.
14% - Oceanside coast becomes a productive
landscape, with areas that focus on food and
energy production, restoring circular systems
and re-imagining relationship to the coast.
11% - Oceanside beach as a restoration zone,
maximum slopes for intertidal wetlands and
pools, limited access for humans, submerged
reefs and floating habitats.
SURVEY QUESTIONS
In this initial phase, SCAPE gathered reactions to each
of their designs. Their concepts included the redesign
of a waterfront park with increased accessibility, called
Dunepark. The SCAPE team also presented compo-
nents of their concept using stabilized cobble features,
called Cobble Crests, along existing beach materi-
als, called a Cobble Spine. All three of their concepts
scored similarly.
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ The focus should be on multiple benefits - habitat
restoration, human activity, tourism, water sports,
education and address the evolving nature of the
shoreline - seasonally and over the years. This option
focuses too much on programmed elements - which
could come later. But the top priority is stabilization,
seasonal variation and long term stability. I want to
know what the option determines the impacts are to
the communities down shore and their sand reten-
tion.”
“ Love how creative these ideas are. All concepts appeal
to both humans and nature.”
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ I enjoyed the way team acknowledged that it is a
changing coastline and the design would be flexible,
have potential funding sources, and focused on sand
retention. I would remind the team to keep Oceans-
ide’s surfing identity when refining their design.”
Deltares & MVRDV presented three distinct approaches: an artificial headland/peninsula feature, a recreation fo-
cused offshore breakwater, and a multi-purpose archipelago system. The community was presented with a spec-
trum of options for programming these concepts that could be refined based on the desired use and aesthetic.
SCAPE focused on leveraging natural materials such as cobble in different forms, dunes, and nearshore reefs.
They framed each element as a part of a toolkit that can be integrated to fit the desires of Oceanside.
_ _
Attachment C
9
General Survey Questions
Is there anything in particular you would like to see at
upcoming Public Workshops that would help you con-
tribute to the RE:BEACH competition process?
• Examples of where these types of ideas and
concepts have been done on the West Coast.
• Timeline & cost analysis
• Potential siting and locations of pilot projects
• Understanding of how feasible the ideas presented
are in construction, cost and timing
• Consideration for impacts to neighboring
communities and coastal cities
Are there elements missing from the designs or
concepts presented that you would like the teams to
consider?
• Habitat restoration and impacts to natural
ecosystems
• Impacts to neighboring cities
• Amenities that include space for pets and dogs
• Protect existing and potential to enhance surf
resources
• Include an understanding of sand bypass systems
and persistent beach nourishment
What three words best describe Oceanside’s coast to
you?
ICM
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Do you prefer a larger/emergent structure (visible off-
shore at lower tides) in the sea or a series of non-visible
(below the surface) offshore structures?
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“... I liked the approach of starting small and seeing
how it works”
smaller,
non-visible
larger,
visible 65%
35%
visible/
emergent
non-visible/
submerged
ICM used their experience on Australia’s Gold Coast in their three-pronged approach of sediment supply, near-
shore retention, and top of beach improvements. They presented two paths: a more natural looking concept
with artificial headlands and an offshore reef, and a novel structure (such as a tombolo) being a more prominent
feature added to the coast.
ho
p
e
f
u
l
l
y
_ . need inaccessible coastline rocky
natural • community O( Sta
< A¢1.D.d
6 OOWI'* no 4' ® """ééc§ vacation . lr) low \o*` s rr.g
undns Dlet .<<3~ "`" »»<=I¢ barren,,§> people
Uno gnguuw E
F2i'§.;,"J§,'¥ainabIe~"';~»
_ . 4. ..~».,
'°a°~ #Ba
; p *.
p mow
.
""""*"'°*OCe3I'lSld9*~*"
¢,_
u\'N\'\v\\L~§
lame o' .v-dyn8mi€ Qoclqqn dwindling 99/ inclusive
00 ~S`
locals
1
wan
5 P u
b h . ea <t§sntlal
, 2 /®:.°~
0
lIU¢l\\Q
u:of\Ȣ
nod r, q n al
go aww-.»~»\ less reCr€0llOI1*"'*"¢ dogs
other • 1 c 5.u11 3" De , protect . . . . . . . .
o Z 8 .2 . aus
men- harbor
lacking meme:
-¢;=» "~-~er7ioy""""""Q\€ f ii " "°"" aC095 `"""bélauty
chews urrentlycars
M lack ,v #vi
6*
W
it if
c
Us
.,..
|, ..
We !oo
*o»3 ll. l®`a<\\
U M
i Z
w
g
of ,.... é
nf
-
~ d S grey
~eau lfulsq funS , g h . Q, ~o "a n Y.2?$$e/ m f@;x;Llw neglect diverse Q disappearing
an
relaxing"""'
dog-friendly
I
Attachment C
10
Public Workshop Two
Summary
The second public workshop, held on Tuesday, October 17, 2023, convened more
than 220 members of the public at the Oceanside Museum of Art (OMA) for a
round-robin format workshop. Each participant had the opportunity to rotate
through all three-design teams’ proposed pilot projects and hear from the project
team on the monitoring and adaptive management components that would
complement implementing a design as well as an overview of the latest science
on sediment transport in the region. The workshop was open to the public from
4pm—7pm PT and culminated in a brief report out from representatives of
each design team discussing what they heard from their interactions with the
public that day. Following the workshop, pre-recorded presentations and slides
by each design team, and the project team were made available on the City of
Oceanside’s YouTube Channel and on the RE:BEACH website. A public feedback
form was accessible during the workshop through November 30, 2023, to collect
input directly from participants and the broader community. The feedback form
was focused around user experience and perceptions of each pilot project.
Each of the three-designs teams’ concepts were considered for their
amenities, design, and use. The purpose of these more tailored questions
was to encourage the public to provide input on the user experience of each
design, how it might impact their time spent on a beach and Oceanside’s coast
and provide tangible programming feedback to the Design Teams, City of
Oceanside and Jury around perceived community benefits.
Similar to the first public workshop, this summary is a synopsis of all feedback
of public responses received from Workshop 2 as of November 17, 2023. While
not every question or answer is included, the major themes and topics are
representative of the feedback.
35% - 92054
15% - 9205713% - 92056
3% - 92008
11% - 92058
3% - 92084
20% - Other
Attendance
more than 220
attendees
Duration
4-7pm PT,
3 hours
Demographics
Amount of Responses:
187 + zip codes
Review:
Team Slides
O
of f"\ FE
/_
\
w
Attachment C
11
Deltares + MVRDV
SURVEY QUESTIONS
What elements in the Deltares & MVRDV designs do
you want to see emphasized in a refined concept?
• Natural habitat restoration, including input from
local biologists and experts, natural features like
plants for shade along walkways, and inter-tidal
habitat benefits
• Increased beach width, including sandy beach area
• Space for both people and dogs to access the
ocean
• Safety and access, including safe swimming areas
for elderly and children, and parking
• Emphasis on surf resources
• Sand, including a clearer understanding of how
much sand will be retained, how wide of a beach will
be achieved if successful and how the beach will
interact with other natural features of the artificial
headland
What elements are missing from the Deltares &
MVRDV designs that you want to see added in a refined
concept?
• More open space, including a greater emphasis on
the beach
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ Please make this space intentionally beneficial for
the environment. Plant butterfly habitats and native
plants. Have educational signs that explain what is
planted and why. Have the native people represented
and honored.”
• Surf opportunities
• Visuals and descriptions of what the artificial head-
land will look like from the water’s edge
• Adaptability and maintenance of the concept,
including long-term solutions to sand nourishment
and bypass
• Scalability of the concept over time
• Understanding of potential impacts to adjacent
beaches
• Demonstrate how the concept and its program-
ming will increase accessibility, including parking
• The use of natural elements for play and education
signs, native plant species to help educate the
community about the coastal ecosystems in San
Diego
• Adequate space for multiple uses including bikes,
walking paths, dog use areas, and various sports
Community feedback helped focus Deltares & MVRDV’s approach on an artificial headland/peninsula. Using this
one main feature, two concepts were presented that illustrated the opportunities to have more natural elements
on the peninsula or to provide more visitor serving amenities programmed onto the structures.
A coastal vision for Oceanside
Attachment C
12
SCAPE
SURVEY QUESTIONS
What elements of the SCAPE design do you want to see
emphasized in a refined concept?
• Consideration for impacts to ecology and surf
resources
• Expectations around cobble crests sand retention
and expansion of beach area
• Reference projects and sites demonstrating suc-
cess of concept
• Better understanding of how the cobble will hold
up against large surf and El Niño conditions
• Incorporating greater accessibility and safety for
all beach goers, including elderly, children, bikers
and pets
• More space for desired activities such as volley-
ball, jogging, dog park, etc
What elements are missing in the SCAPE design that
you want to see added in a refined concept?
• Resilient and adaptivity to sea level rise
• Scalability to other parts of Oceanside, particularly
more eroded areas in South Oceanside
• Understanding of how cobbles might move and
shift over time
• Potential impacts to surf resources
• Anticipated sand rentention and beach width
• Explanation of the experience users will have
getting in and out of the water across and over a
cobble spine
• Explanation of other potential amenities, including
increased accessibility, parking, showers for surf-
ers, and benches for sunset
• Overall cost and timeline for this concept
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ The design seems to have a decent balance between
the natural and built environment. Often designers
try to push as many amenities or “trophies” into a
design as possible, but a beach should just be so: a
beach. I appreciate the attempt to keep it as such.
Please work with regional biologists to consult on the
project.”
SCAPE continued to pursue a layered approach that leveraged existing cobble resources and provided better de-
tails on ways the design could provide stabilization to the cobble crests and cusps. Additionally, SCAPE highlight-
ed the opportunity to realign aspects of existing park and strand space to provide a more connected dunepark
feature.
Attachment C
13
ICM
SURVEY QUESTIONS
What elements in the ICM design do you want to see
emphasized in a refined concept?
• Potential impacts to surf resources
• Better description of access improvements includ-
ing parking
• Amount of beach width improvements and avail-
able space for recreational activities
• Reference projects and sites highlighting where
this concept has been successful
• Explanation of how the pilot could be scaled
throughout Oceanside
• Cost estimates of design and construction of pilot
project
• Ecological benefits and amenities associated with
this pilot concept
• Details on proposed materials and how they may
create potential habitat
• Design strategies to mitigate any potential nega-
tive impacts
What elements are missing in the ICM design that you
want to see addressed in a refined concept?
• Sand retention expectations with and without
regular nourishment
• Impact of structures on beachgoers and surfers,
including the potential for rip currents, swimming
hazards, diving, fishing and surfing impacts
• Details on the shape of the artificial reef and how
that intersects with sand retention and surf re-
sources
• Articulation of recreational and ecological benefits
of this design, including room to walk, space for
dogs, and a park
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ Thank you for sharing proven solutions to Oceanside
and to helping the community understand that there
are concepts out in the world that are already working
to retain sand on our shore for beach goers to use and
enjoy for generations to come.”
ICM incorporated the feedback from the first round of design by refining their concept towards a more natural
looking submerged artificial reef with two headlands. This approach provides a ‘speed bump’ for sand allowing it
to accumulate between the features and assist in restoring sandy beach area.
ayl>nss PIERHAHEHT
PIPE 'num TFMP DUTLET
il-
REEI
NE»0.HSH\I:ll1E
Nl:HJRI5l'IMENT
ISAHIJ HARP
I-IEEI l:1LAi»a EI wm4
.\1DJl1STJJIBI-IE CDEELE BFRH
|____ u I ULT I VI
DLINE '\.'Elf ETATDH mmv UF lal=nI:H1
l_
...
H a E QUO
la
an
d
Attachment C
14
General Survey Questions
Respondents were asked to select up to 3 beach
amenities from a list of options that could be provided
by the proposed design. The top 3 amenities desired
by the public were the same across all teams, demon-
strating a consistent desire from the Oceanside com-
munity. In no particular order, the top 3 responses are
provided below.
• Beach Day
• Surfing
• Walking
Respondents were asked if there is anything in particu-
lar you would like to see at upcoming Public Workshops
that would help you contribute to the RE:BEACH com-
petition process?
• Financing, including cost comparison
• Overall project timeline
• Impacts, including on marine ecosystems
• Inclusivity, including diversity of representation
and ease of hearing presentations / design teams
• Public Q+A with the Project Team
• Proof of concept
• Consistent replenishment of our beaches through-
out the region, not just in Oceanside
• Hear from the Jury, including their deliberation
around each concept and a chosen ‘winner’
• Scalability of each concept
Respondents were asked what do you most look for
with access to a wider, dry-sand, beach?
• Nature and ecosystems, including native plant spe-
cies, clear paths for walking, and healthy habitats
• A wide beach, including space to spread out and
lessen crowds, room to walk, and dry-sand
• Surf resources
• Safe spaces and access, including bathrooms with
showers, parking, room to walk and recreate
• Recreation, including walking, sunbathing, playing
in sand, and other beach activities
• Resilience and protection, including from impacts of
sea level rise
• History, educational signage and interactive
learning, including acknowledgment of native
peoples
GENERAL QUOTES
“ I mostly look for a place to lay down my beach gear
for the day, that also has decent waves in front so
I can enjoy a sandy spot to play with my kids and
somewhere that I can paddle out and catch a few
waves with my husband.”
“ Beach access (sand) at existing beach access
points. More sand means that I can walk to more
waves or take a long beach walk. More sand on the
beach likely means better sand bars for surfing.”
“ An old fashioned day at the beach walking, swim-
ming, surfing with access by car not too far away
and free.”
“ Sufficient trash bins, native plant species and edu-
cational signage, and native people being honored.”
“ The ability to lay out on the beach and have a nice
beach day. Also emphasis on some area where dogs
can play off leash.”
Attachment C
15
Public Workshop Three
Summary
The third public workshop was held on Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at the
Junior Seau Beach Community Center. Attendees saw presentations from each
of the three Design Teams, detailing their final pilot project concepts. Following
team presentations, the public was able to ask questions to teams in the form
of a live question and answer panel. The workshop was open to the public from
4—7pm PT. A video recording of the presentations and slides are available on the
City of Oceanside’s YouTube channel and the RE:BEACH website (rebeach.org).
An online public feedback form was made available at the start of the workshop
and remained open for 30-days.
The final public workshop was an opportunity to (1) learn about each Design
Teams’ proposed pilot project concepts, (2) ask questions directly to the
Teams and (3) gain insight into the RE:BEACH process; including how Teams
incorporated previous public comments into their designs.
The online feedback form for the final workshop was focused on what the public
wanted to see in expanded on for each design in the next phase of the project.
Additionally, the feedback form included questions on the RE:BEACH process
overall, asking respondents to comment on ways they were or were not engaged
with Oceanside’s Coastal Resilience Competition. The responses were made
available to City Staff, who worked alongside RE:BEACH Jury to bring forward a
single recommended pilot project, to City Council on January 31, 2023.
The summary below includes information from the in-person question and
answer panel, as well as, the online feedback form.
Review:
Team Slides
35% - 92054
15% - 9205713% - 92056
3% - 92008
11% - 92058
3% - 92084
20% - Other
Attendance
more than 150
attendees
Duration
4-7pm PT,
3 hours 10.5% - 92056
7.9% - 92057
18.4% -Other
63.2% - 92054
Demographics
Amount of Responses:
10 zip codesO
of f"\ FE
Attachment C
16
DELTARES + MVRDV
The Dutch team’s “Green Dream Peninsula” design would pilot the use of a natural peninsula structure, construct-
ed perpendicular from the existing coastline. A combination of existing materials and new boulders, this peninsu-
la would extend out approximately 360 feet in length and 500 feet in descending width without obstructing ocean
views. The boulders and other rocks would create a bulge in the shoreline to support sand retention while still
allowing the flow of the creek. The space would create new space for increased recreation and opportunities for
environmental enhancement.
SURVEY QUESTION
If Deltares & MVRDV’s design moves forward, what as-
pects would you like to see refined in the final engineer-
ing design and environmental review phase?
From all responses, the following themes emerged:
• The public articulated some concerns over safety
of beach goers in the accessing ocean-facing,
saltwater pools and sustaining water quality with
an urban creek flowing out adjacent to the pool.
• The public had difficulty understanding the po-
tential scalability of this concept, as headlands
may need to take on different shapes at different
locations to retain sand and the overall size seems
marginal for the desired objective of maintaining a
sandy beach.
• The public expressed concerns over the placement
of the feature at Buccaneer Beach and the poten-
tial impacts to surf resources.
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ Love the headland design, but very large and too many
design complexities that could be added after perfor-
mance is verified. Simplify it! Why only one headland?
Limits scope of beach restored.”
“ Further consideration of water quality at the outlet.
Love the integration of the natural and built environ-
ment here.”
Attachment C
17
SCAPE
The SCAPE Team’s “Dunepark/Hybrid Beach” design proposed the construction of perched sandy beach fronted
by a system of cobble features and boulders. The cobble berm would undulate with horns or crests that would
extend seaward from the primary cobble berm. The design consists of 3 small cobble crests and 4 large cobble
crests. The design also consists of 4 nearshore reefs placed seaward of the crest in the inter-tidal zone with the
reefs being approximately 90ft long and 70ft wide. The shoreline concept could be combined with the repurposing
of upland areas. DunePark is a concept that repurposes Tyson Street Park into a beach and dune area with various
recreational amenities (restrooms, dog park, playground). This concept involves the landward realignment of the
South Strand roadway.
SURVEY QUESTION
If SCAPE’s design moves forward, what aspects would
you like to see refined in the final engineering design
and environmental review phase?
From all responses, the following themes emerged:
• Dunepark proposed to create a more usable and
appropriate Tyson Street Park, but retreat of the
Strand seems arduous.
• Overall, the public expressed a general concern
around the Hybrid Beach concept feasibility and its
ability to perform, as it had not been tested or tried
in any other location.
• Cobble is challenging and difficult to walk on,
making the usable beach space potentially less
accessible.
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ My second favorite option. No examples of working in
other areas, but theoretically makes sense. Looks like
would be more limited in full scope for all of Oceanside
beaches.”
“ Not interested in more cobble to combat beach loss.
Seems like we will have continuous equipment redis-
tributing cobble after every large tide or storm. Not
proven. Like dune park, but that could be implement-
ed by parks and recreation”
Attachment C
18
ICM
Taking their success on Australia’s Gold Coast, ICM’s “Living Speedbumps” approach proposes to construct
one multi-purpose offshore reef (either of rock or geotextile bags) and two artificial headlands. The submerged,
offshore reef could vary in size based on material selected and would be placed roughly 900’ offshore at a depth of
approximately 40’. The artificial headlands would extend seaward 150’ and would be 150’ long across 1,700 linear
feet of shoreline. The headlands and reefs would slow down wave dynamics allowing sand to gather between the
features.
SURVEY QUESTION
If ICM’s design moves forward, what aspects would you
like to see refined in the final engineering design and
environmental review phase?
From all responses, the following themes emerged:
• The ICM Living Speed Bumps concept overwhelm-
ingly received positive input for its professed
ability to retain sand and provide other recreation-
al benefits.
• ICM received an abundance of written comments
from the public, stating their concept was their
“favorite” or “best” option.
• The public viewed the potential to scale the ICM
high, with a whole shoreline solution seemingly
most feasible with this design.
• Recommendations included a need to consider
influences of the reef and headlands on sand bar
formation and function, and its influence on surf
resources.
• There was suggestion that as the design progress-
es there should emphasis and consideration of
how the structures they may impact the safety of
surfers and swimmers.
• The public expressed a desire to see more natural
design elements in the design of the headlands.
COMMUNITY QUOTES
“ Consider modifying the viewing platform design for
a more natural look. I appreciate the close attention
to surf potential and wide sandy beaches created for
recreation under this design.”
“ I think that their experience on the Gold Coast shows
they have refined the approach that has been proven
to work. I wish the sand bypass was still a part of. May-
be a future consideration.”
Attachment C
19
RE:BEACH Process & General Survey Questions
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Which public workshop did you attend?
(select up to three)
Did you follow RE:BEACH virtually on www.rebeach.org?
How did you get the majority of information about the
RE:BEACH Oceanside effort?
• The majority of respondents gained information
online, through the RE:BEACH website, social me-
dia and generally online.
• However, there were many different types of
responses that included ‘advocacy groups’, ‘Save
Oceanside Sand’, and the ‘City of Oceanside’s
Coastal Management Website’.
RE:BEACH was a 8-month long process, from selecting
3 Design Teams to determining one winning concept.
While it was designed on purpose to be expedited
based on the current condition of the Oceanside shore-
line, we are seeking feedback on the length of this
design competition. On a scale of 1 (too slow) to 5 (too
fast) how would you rate Oceanside’s Coastal Resil-
ience Competition?
Through the RE:BEACH process, do you feel you know
more (5), the same (3) or less (1) about Oceanside’s
coastal history and dynamics?
• 22% of respondents marked a ‘3’, for moderate
learning through the RE:BEACH process
• No respondents marked a ‘1’ or ‘2’ to designate
they did not learn something through the process
53%60%65%
10%
attended workshop one attended workshop two attended workshop three viewed workshops online 73%
16%10%
thought the process
scored a ‘3’, a moderate pace of activities and progress
thought the process
scored a ‘4’ or ‘5’, slightly too fast a pace of activities and progress
thought the process
scored a ‘1’ or ‘2’, slow pace of activities and progres
marked a ‘4’ or ‘5’, stating
that they now know more
about Oceanside’s coastal
history and dynamics
through the RE:BEACH
process
78%
11% did not follow along on the RE:BEACH website
89%
of respondents followed
RE:BEACH on the project
website
32% Other
(advocacy groups,
word of mouth, other)34%
18%16%
32%
socialonline
RE:BEACH
website45
Attachment C
20
RE:BEACH aimed to prepare the City of Oceanside for
adaptive coastal management of a pilot project for
near-term resilience, while considering longer-term
coastal management needs to ensure access to
Oceanside’s beloved beaches well into the future.
Keeping this in-mind, do you feel the pilot projects
address near-term solutions while considering lon-
ger-term management needs.
• 6% of respondents marked ‘no’
If you feel one design in particular stands out as
upholding this criteria, rate that proposed design.
• 3% marked SCAPE’s design as best meeting the
criteria
• 3% marked Deltares + MVRDV’s design as best
meeting the criteria
Through the RE:BEACH process, do you feel you know
more (5), the same (3) or less (1) about Oceanside’s
sediment transport dynamics within the region?
The Design Teams demonstrate how each pilot might
scale throughout Oceanside, how clearly do you under-
stand the potential scalability of the pilot project?
• This is the response we would anticipate given the
status of each of the Teams’ designs and the work
in the next phase to clearly define a site for the
pilot and scalability.
When considering the three Design Team concepts,
has RE:BEACH resulted in novel and innovative sand
retention pilot projects for Oceanside?
• Of the submitted responses, there was not a
single respondent who marked ‘no’, rather several
respondents marked with additional comments on
the importance of innovation, novelty, and which
team they preferred.
69% of respondents marked
‘yes’
marked a ‘4’ or ‘5’
to designate ‘more’
knowledge was gained about Oceanside’s sediment transport through the RE:BEACH process.
marked ‘3’
for ‘the same’
amount of knowledge about Oceanside’s sediment transport.
56%44%
marked ICM’s design as
best meeting the criteria15%
marked a ‘4’
or ‘5’
designating that they somewhat clearly or clearly understand the scalability of the
pilot.
marked a ‘2’
or ‘3’
designating that they have some knowledge but need more to understand
the scalability of the
pilots.
47%43%
of respondents indicated that
RE:BEACH resulted in novel
and innovative solutions for
Oceanside’s coast85%
Attachment C
21
Each team was provided with opportunities to interact
face-to-face with the public at workshops, all submit-
ted public feedback, and had reviews with the City and
Project Teams. How well did you feel teams incorporat-
ed public feedback into the updated designs?
• No participant marked a ‘1’or ‘did not’ capture
public feedback.
We want your feedback to determine how you’ll use the
restored beach area. From the list of amenities below,
which are most important to you? (select up to 3)
Across all 3-surveys, we asked respondents to rank
beach amenities most important to them. The results
from the final survey are below and reflect what we
have heard throughout the RE:BEACH Process.
Do you have any feedback for the City of Oceanside on
the experience and overall process of RE:BEACH?
“ Well done. Only issue not addressed was the source
of funding and federal government commitment to
resolve liability for harbor construction.”
“ Great job working through this entire process! I know
it was a lot and it moved fast. We are very excited for
the next steps.”
“ The City did an excellent job! I’m not sure how it could
be done better. I hope that we can get the winning
proposal permitted, funded and built!”
“ Amazing process! Keep the communication open and
flowing! Use the selected design to address our most
devastated sections of beach…SOUTH!!!! Let’s go with
the pilot and a plan for the entire Oceanside coast-
line!!”
“ Great concept to have multiple teams submit their de-
signs. ICM has the best proven concept. It will actually
allow a sandy beach with a natural look.”
“ Many thanks to Jayme! Also thanks to City Council
members for helping to advance this crucial project
and to keep the public engaged.”
62%
38%
marked a ‘4’ or ‘5’
to designate that they believe RE:BEACH did a somewhat good or
good job capturing public feedback throughout the process.
marked a ‘2’ or ‘3’
for somewhat or moderate capturing of public feedback into the RE:BEACH
designs.
76%
57%
51%
41%
32%
32%
30%
24%
19%
8%
Walking
Beach Day
Surfing
Swimming
Walking Dog / Pets
Watching the Sunset
Playing in the Sand
Sunbathing
Tidepooling
Fishing
Attachment C
*indicates jurors whose role is advisory and non-voting, their ideas, input and role is purely their own expertise and does not represent
the opinion of the various organizations they represent professionally.
Jury Deliberation Summary Report
12/14/2023, Mission Pacific Hotel, 8am - 5pm
Participants
Jurors:
• Chris Abad—Surf Resource Preservation—Director, Oceanside Boardriders Club.
• Bob Ashton—Community Representative & Coastal Advocate—President/CEO, Save
Oceanside Sand (SOS).
• Scott Ashton—Community Representative—Chief Executive Officer, Oceanside Chamber of
Commerce.
• Dr. Curt Busk—Community Representative & Coastal Advocate—President, Buena Vista
Audubon.*
• Megan Cooper—Coastal Grant Funding Expert—Deputy Regional Manager, California State
Coastal Conservancy.*
• Dr. Lesley Ewing PE—Coastal Management Expert—Former Sr. Coastal Engineer, California
Coastal Commission.
• Karen Green—Nearshore Marine Expert—Division Manager, Marine and Aquatic Ecosystem
Resources, Tierra Data, Inc.
• Councilmember Joy Lyndes—Coastal City Representative—Encinitas City Council.
• Dr. Dan Pondella—Nearshore Marine Expert —Professor, Biology; Director, Vantuna Research
Group, Occidental College.
• Ernie Prieto III—Community Representative—Local Business Owner (Ocean Sea Charter),
Boat Captain and sitting member of City of Oceanside’s Harbor and Beaches Committee.
• Mitch Silverstein—Coastal Advocate—Surfrider Foundation San Diego Chapter.*
• Councilmember Dwight Worden—Coastal City Representative—Del Mar City Council, Chair of
SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group.
Absent jurors:
Note: Charles Lester and Jeremy Smith, while they were unable to fully participate, provided written
comments in advance as an input into the deliberation process.
• Dr. Arye Janoff—Coastal Management Expert—Coastal Geomorphologist, Planner & Manager
with a U.S. Federal Agency.*
• Dr. Charles Lester—Permitting Viability Expert—Director, Ocean and Coastal Policy Center,
Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara.
• Jeremy Smith PE —Coastal Management Expert—Coastal Engineer, California Coastal
Commission.*
Project Team members in attendance: Jayme Timberlake (City of Oceanside), Brian Leslie (GHD),
Nick Sadrpour (GHD), Sam Carter (RCC), Alex Klein (RCC), and Maranda Ngue (RCC)
Design Teams (present only during their time slot):
Deltares/MVRDV: Fokke Moerel, Maria Stamati, and Kees Nederhoff
SCAPE and ESA: Gena Morgis, Pippa Brashear, and James Jackson
ICM: Aaron Salyer and Sam King
_ _ _ _ B _ Attachment C
2
Description of process
The Jury for the RE:BEACH Oceanside Coastal Resilience Competition was selected by the City of
Oceanside and announced in May, 2023. The Jury represents a range of expertise, from local and
community leaders, downcoast regional neighbors, Non-Governmental Organizations, regulatory
and funding agencies, and scientific experts. Throughout the three design rounds of the RE:BEACH
competition, jurors were invited to participate in the Public Workshops, were regularly briefed by the
Project Team on the designs as they evolved with public input, and provided review of public input—
including input received during the final public workshop on December 13, 2023.
On December 13, 2023, Design Teams made their final presentations during the third Public
Workshop at Junior Seau Beach Community Center in Oceanside. The following day, the Jury met to
hear directly from the teams and deliberate about their proposed concepts to the City. At this
meeting, the morning was dedicated to one-hour interviews with each of the three Design Teams. In
these sessions, Teams were able to present conceptual and technical information about their
designs, and respond directly to Jury members’ questions. The afternoon was dedicated to
discussion between the Jurors, with assistance from the Project Team, about each design. Teams
were available to remotely answer questions that emerged from the discussions. Every Juror was
asked to comment on each design, and to make any recommendations on how the designs might
be adapted or improved. Following over two hours of discussion as a full jury, the voting members
of the jury held their first vote. Jurors could cast one of three voting options for each team:
“Support,” “Support with reservations,” or “Do Not Support.” Jurors could also provide comments on
their ballot. This voting mechanism allowed jurors to support more than one project, and it captured
the nuance of their different perspectives. Following the first vote, jurors then continued to
deliberate and ultimately arrived on a final recommendation with unanimous support.
The Jury serves as a third-party reviewer for the City of Oceanside to guide its decision-making. The
Project Team (including GHD, Inc. and Resilient Cities Catalyst) prepared this summary report for
the City as a follow up to the jury deliberations to 1) document the spirit of jury discussion, 2) detail
the recommendations offered by the jury members on each of the designs, 3) portray the winning
design team and concept and the justification for that selection, and 4) showcase the
recommendations provided by the jury to the City on a path forward with the winning design
concept.
On January 31, 2024, City staff will present the winning design for the Oceanside City Council to
adopt, allowing 1 pilot project to move into engineering design and permitting. In addition to the
Jury’s recommendation, City staff will consider Project and City Team recommendations on how to
implement the proposed design recommendations, as well as, public feedback on the designs,
collected through mid-January.
RE:BEACH Jury Final Recommendation
The Jury unanimously supports with some modifications the International Coastal Management
(ICM) concept design, “The Living Speedbumps.” This proposal includes the construction of two
artificial headlands, as well as, the construction of an artificial reef, roughly 130,000-250,000
square feet, the exact size of the reef will be determined in the next phase of final engineering and
permitting offshore between the two newly constructed headlands (). The headlands were designed
to mirror the size of the existing headland functionality of the base of the Oceanside Pier. This new
coastal infrastructure would be supported by initial onshore and nearshore (i.e. placement on the
sandbar) nourishment and ongoing annual maintenance.
The core rationale for selecting the ICM proposal was the concept’s ability to meet the project goals
and design criteria set forth in the design brief. The overarching goal of RE:BEACH is to “construct
Attachment C
3
an innovative, multi-benefit, sand retention project on the City of Oceanside’s beaches that serves
both local and regional benefits.” The ICM concept demonstrates a potential for positive impact in
retaining sand. The ICM concept also demonstrates consideration for the five design criteria
categories: Physical, Financial, Environmental, Social and Regional. Most notably, a clear
consideration for potential neighboring-coast impacts (both North and South of Oceanside), the
relevance of the ICM team’s experience in the Gold Coast of Australia, the use of proven
technologies in the design, the opportunity to design and deploy a reef with the intent to provide
multiple benefits (e.g. ecological and recreational), and the leveraging of existing infrastructure to
extend its effectiveness.
The two key modifications to the winning design proposed by the Jury are:
• Refinement of the design of the artificial headlands and a thoughtful proposal for
programming on top of the headland. Several jurors requested the use of materials that
better complemented the natural space and a headland design that better fits Oceanside’s
character. The finalization of the headland design needs to consider the opportunity for
creating multiple-benefits. Walkability around the headlands at high tide may also be a
concern during certain seasons or following large erosion (i.e. high wave) events.
• Strong consideration of the use of natural materials (i.e. quarry rock or another alternative
to geotextile bags) for the artificial reef. Several jurors raised concerns and objections about
the use of geotextile materials proposed by ICM for three reasons: increased maintenance
cost to replace or repair geotextile bags, the introduction of non-natural and/or plastics into
the water, and related public perception and permitting issues.
o ICM responded to jury questions about the geotextile bag option, stating that the use
of the geotextile bags versus rock allows the City to pilot the viability of an artificial
reef to influence beach sand retention at a cheaper, up-front cost.
o As the reef advances in design, the City should go further in exploring potential
ecosystem and surf benefits that the reef could provide. The City should also be
prepared to provide mitigation for habitat conversions (i.e. conversion from sandy
subtidal habitat to artificial reef).
In addition, the Jury recommends that the City consider SCAPE’s Dune Park concept separate from
the RE:BEACH process. The Jury believed that a Dune Park could provide an improvement over the
current Tyson St. Park space.
Overview of Juror Voting
• In the first round of voting, 100% of jurors did not support the SCAPE proposal for a “Hybrid
Beach” (see comments below).
• However, there was consensus that the Dune Park concept should be considered as a project
for the City, separate from RE:BEACH.
• After voting and discussion, 100% of voters either “supported” or “supported with reservations”
both the ICM and Deltares/MVRDV proposals. However, a majority of jurors had significant
reservations about the Deltares/MVRDV proposal, and a majority of jurors supported ICM
without reservations.
• After further deliberation, jurors were asked to rank their preference for ICM and
Deltares/MVRDV. ICM was the first choice of 6 jurors, while Deltares/MVRDV was the first
choice of 3 jurors. The jury unanimously agreed that ICM was its recommended concept and
team and outlined clear modifications to explore in the next phase of work.
Attachment C
4
RE:BEACH Jury Feedback on Designs
The following is a summary of the deliberations and discussions of the jury members at the meeting
on December 14, 2023. While feedback is unattributed to specific jury members, all jurors had an
opportunity to review this report for accuracy before delivery to the City.
ICM
• Unanimous support for implementation, with some modifications and reservations
• Overall, strong preference for a proposal that maximizes retained sand, usable beach, and is
scaled appropriately for the current state of Oceanside’s coastline
• Appreciated linking the local reference of the ‘headland’ at base of pier
• Scalability of the design was easy to understand and apply across Oceanside
• Rework design of headlands to entail a more natural integration along the coast, explore more
nature-based strategies/materials, adjust the shape to mimic natural headlands found along
the California coast, and fine tune expectations and approaches to backshore dune connectivity
• Confidence in the experience of ICM team and in their capacity to execute their proposal, with
the success of the Gold Coast providing precedent. However, differences in wave climate
between the Gold Coast and Oceanside raised potential concerns with suggestion for additional
modeling to confirm design estimates relative to sand retention
• The creation of an artificial reef, focused on sand retention, provides an opportunity to pilot a
new solution for California, which could be applicable to many communities
• Expectations around increased surf opportunities with the artificial reef need to be managed
since improving surf resource is not a main objective of the artificial reef
• Project designed to slow, but not stop, sand movement through the littoral cell upcoast and
downcoast gives recognition to regional needs
• Integrated onshore and offshore combination of elements designed to work together to restore
natural conditions
• Post-construction modifications or adaptations to the reef will be difficult to implement so
design options should be carefully modeled with this in mind
Deltares/MVRDV
• Unanimous support for implementation, with significant reservations
• Appreciation for nature-based connection to Loma Alta watershed and creation of aesthetic
headland that mimics natural conditions. However, the design ultimately functions similar to
traditional shore perpendicular coastal engineering structures
• Jury overall felt the performance estimated by the team was likely exaggerated and actual
benefits of only one proposed peninsula would be too minor given the effort required to
implement. Team could have proposed two peninsulas, as a part of a pilot program, to assist
with meeting the scale of challenge that Oceanside currently faces, while still remaining within
budget
• Concern about inlet stability and water quality if located at Loma Alta creek and refinement on
hydrodynamics would be necessary to ensure proper flushing and connectivity
• Swimming tidal pool feature, while intriguing, was not supported by the Jury for cost/benefit
and public health and safety concerns
Attachment C
5
• Uncertainty on where sand will accrete (north or south) of feature, and to what extent it will be
able to retain sand, and a lack of confidence that sand retention will occur south of the feature
• Potential flanking impacts north or south of structure; there will be challenges with tying the
structure into private revetment at base of feature
SCAPE
• Significant desire to see Dune Park component implemented through separate process,
potentially led by City Parks and Recreation department
• Hybrid Beach concept was judged to be infeasible
• Uncertainty of sand accretion and structural integrity of system
• Likely would require more frequent and costly maintenance than anticipated by the team
• Was seen to provide the lowest potential for retention and accretion of sand
• Innovative and interesting design, and repurposing cobble could be beneficial for many
locations, but ultimately as an untested solution using cobble stabilized by boulders was seen
as too risky with too little potential positive impact, especially as a potential pilot at one of the
City’s most popular beaches
• Perception of adding cobble to shoreline can harm overall project objectives.
• Vertical access down cobble berm face and perched beach represents changed beach user
experience (users are elevated above foreshore)
• Cobble sourcing and beach matching challenges
• Concern that the combination of cobble fingers and reefs could set up local rip currents
Overall Next Steps
• The winning concept is a major milestone for the overall project
• This selection of a winning design is part of a larger process that will continue to require active
and transparent public participation amongst the local Oceanside community and greater San
Diego coastal region. All opportunities pursued under RE:BEACH should leverage and intersect
with ongoing efforts at the regional level, including potential inclusion as the pilot project
identified as part of RBSP III that is currently in the early stages of planning
• With a concept selected, additional analysis on the ICM design, size/shape of reef and
headlands, anticipated sediment transport mechanics, and integration of features with existing
management practices is planned. GHD in concert with ICM shall work towards developing a
robust monitoring and adaptive management program that identifies specific metrics and key
strategies to reduce and mitigate any potential impacts.
• Further consideration for the location and site of the pilot is required to generate the greatest
public benefit
• Mitigation will be required for any significant impacts to habitat and/or beach conditions.
• Transparency and public engagement, including neighboring cities, is important throughout the
next steps.
Attachment C
Attachment C
CONCEPT DESIGN I DECEMBER 2023
Attachment COCEANSIDE TODAY OCEANSIDE FUTURE
✓ Creat a Healthy Beach Profile ("Living Shoreline")
✓ • a Living Shoreline
(for an extended timeframe with living 'speed bumps')
SAND BAR
BURIED ROCK WALL
_w r
Attachment CPROPOSED 'SPEED BUMPS' (TOP & BOTTOM OF BEACH) SCHEMATIC CONCEPTS
• Living Headland & Low Permeable Berm
• Based on existing pier headland scale & permeable extension into surf zone (piles) •
Eco-Engineered Reef (Submerged)
• Based on proven Gold Coast examples (20 years+ in similar conditions)
• Stabilizes top of beach to allow dune development • Improves sandbar retention & reduces beach erosion
• Allows low tide beach walking around the headland -local cobble fill used • Ecological and surf benefits
-1L
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C"LIVING SPEED BUMPS" & COASTAL RESILIENCE
Slow down natural processes to retain sand longer. Not 'trap' sand.
OCEANSIDE 'REEF CITY'
Adaptability & Future Considerations
Top of beach -stabilize
• Headlands stabilize top of beach
• Allows dunes to develop
• Dunes retain sand for sea level rise
buffer
• Headlands and dunes provide
green corridors along beachfront
for ecological stimulation
Bottom of beach -stabilize
• Reef stabilizes bottom of beach
• Helps to retain sandbars
• Sand bars and reef provide buff er from
increasing sea level rise/climate
change storms
• Reef increases offshore biodiversity
(local and regional)
Keep building on decades of real-world,
coastal resilience development for a
greener, sandier Oceanside into the future
d Shoreline Ownershi /Control
J:\luq1$SISMIICll:ll'.l151P•u\RfTM0020966_21\Bsa,h Pl••""•tionConvnissia, Series 1'1lc17.rrutd
~ Atta v, Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control Map
J:\Aeqi>elUMarcl'l:il1S\Par1ts\RrTM0020966_211Bea::hPra•"'•tionComrrissi't'1Serie&11•17.rnxd
J;\ReQUHl$MaU:IIZl1S\Psks\RrTMOC20966_21\Bea:h PreHNlli:>n Comr,i"~<ia, Seri"' 11"17.ffllCd
Weldon, Charles & Lou Ann
0210-0020-0016
7/25/2014
'. 7/28/1993
:i..,.;_ .i Offer Accepted
~-,_ .:. City of Carlsbad
Brown, Robert & Lillia
0210-0031-0800 2/15/1989
11/6/1986
""-City of Carlsbad
Goetz, Dean
Carlsbad Blvd
0210-0120-0032,
0210-0120-0033,
0210-0120-0034
6/30/2000
Expiration: 6/30/2021
Atta Q Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control Map
J:IReq11nt1Marct,lJ151P•b!.RfTMIXl2096!1_211Be1ChPfme...,a!ClnComniJ,io,Series11•17.m.d
~ Atta ~ Carlsbad Shoreline Ownership/Control Map
J.\Requ.lhMarct,D1S'P•ks\RITM0020!166_21\Beacll P,ese .... ation Convriuia, Series 1b17.m1td
Attachment E
SAND R EPL E NISHMEN T PLANS -January 2024
OCEANSIDE HARBOR
• Owned/managed by City of Oceanside
► POC: Jayme Timberlake, Coastal Zone Administrator
o itimberlake@oceansideca.org, 760-435-3073
Anticipated dredging schedule is as follows:
□ Mid-April to Mid-May 2024 (annually}
❖ Previous project -April 2023
(city of
Carlsbad
Attachment E
SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -January 2024
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:
□ Fall 2024/Early Spring 2025 (based on field observations)
❖ Previous Project -Winter 2021
❖ 3-4 year cycle projection
{city of
Carlsbad
Attachment E
SAND REPLENISHMENT PLANS -Janua r y 2024
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
• Owned/managed by CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
► POC: Gabriel Penaflo~ 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
J
Attachment E
SAND REPL ENISHMENT PLANS -January 2024
STATE BEACHES IN CARLSBAD
• Owned/managed by CA Dept. of Parks & Recreation
► POC: Lisa Tomas, Acting Superintendentn
o lisa.tomas@parks.ca.qov, 760-720-7001
• Anticipated dredging permit issuance schedule is as follows:
□ Fall 2024 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 E
SAND REPL ENISHMENT PLANS -January 2 0 24
REGIONAL BEACH SAND PROJECT Ill
• Managed by SAN DAG; 5-7 cities typ. participate
► POC: Courtney Pesce, Associate Regional Planner
o courtney.pesce@sandaq.org, 619-699-6942
• Anticipated dredging schedule is as follows:
□ Funding -Fall 2023-25
□ Permitting -2025/2026
□ Mobiliz ing -2027
❖ Previous Project -2012
( City of
Carlsbad