HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Program; Watershed Enhancement Program Options; 1982-11-18C
BUENA VISTA LAGOON
WATERSHED ENHANCEMEaT PROGRAM OPTIONS
Final Report
November 18, 1982
.
_ . . . ;--- -A.-l- w> ui .
L _.: - .- -~ ?. mb;i-- ~:-~
i- ..-. .v_
1
_. .. .- _r_ L. ..w- -- ._. &-+T~~~~.‘ --
.I .- _ ‘w’:
1
.‘Y-_ . .._” . -
.._ -_‘.
Sharon L. Gordon'
'prepared under contract to
the City of Carlsbad
and the State Coastal Conservancy
'4.. ' Contract No. 81-091
--_I
..tic 7 pfl+lu-u
i
; :
i T
i
1’ l
*
- I/
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
Page
l.O*EXECUTIVE %&MARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I
1.1 Methodology... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 t
i
2.0' CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES IN THE WATERSHED......... 6 I i :
I 3.0 POSSIBLE'FUNDING'SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..t.................... 11 !
3.1 Funding Sources Within The Cities....;.................. 11
3.2 Funding Sources Outside The Cities....................... 17
I 4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ; I . 4.1 Alternative No. 1: Special District......;.............. 23 I t
4.2 Alternative No. 2: Tri-Cities Joint Agreement........... 25
5.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 26
APPENDIX A - DEVELOPMENT OF THE OPTIONS...............;.......... 31
A.1 Possible Elements of a Watershed Enhancement Program.... 31 : A.2 Elements Analysis 40 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..F.......... i
I APPENDFX B - FUNDING SOURCES, CONTACTS 45 t . . . . . . . . . ..*..........*... t
f
APPENDIX C - DRAFT OF PROPOSED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT........... 47
. I 1.
E
i
t
I
I - i .
IL
.I, 0 EXECUTT VE SUMMARY
c
The Buena Vista Lagoon, a State of California Ecological Reserve,
is a shallow, coastal, fresh-water lagoon. The 22 square mile
watershed is located within the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and
Vista in San Diego County. There is a long history of community
concern for the Lagoon, and the current efforts to restore and
preserve the Lagoon Came to a head after the heavy winter storms
of 1979-80, which brought a large amount of sedimentation into the .
Lagbon.
The City Councils of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista expressed their
willingness to work together on efforts to protect the Lagoon, and
requested help from the State Coastal Conservancy..’ In a
multi-pronged effort to understand the source of the
sedimentation, and to design appropriate solutions to the problem,
the Conservancy has funded several tasks: (1) engineering studies
by consultants Browne & Vogt and Leeds, Hill & Jewett, to look at
the sources of sedimentation and to analyze possible engineering
solutions; (2) an evaluation by Grattan/Gersick/Karp of the three
cities’ grading ordinances with recommended changes that would
strengthen them in the area of erosion and sedimentation control;
,and this study which represents the final task of developing a
coherent approach to the problem of management of the watershed,, a
unified resource, within several jurisdictions. This report
presents options available to the cities for the implementation of
the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Program.
The Buena Vista- Lagoon and its watershed are one unif.ied
resource. We ,can see this by looking at the natural forces at
- work within the watershed. Sedimentation involves three basic
processes: erosion, transportation, and deposition. These are
natural geological phenomenon, which would be operating even
without human influence; however, human impact on the land has
accelerated the process, causing increased erosion, and increased
sedimentation.
-l-
I
Management practices- -., one portion of the waters..td will affect I
. other downstream areas, as well as the Lagoon itself. How one
ldndowner manages his land affects the amount of water and
sediment his neighbors downstream must deal with.. Therefore, each
of the three cities must have an interest in.what happens
elsewhere in the watershed. Thus, as in any interjurisdictional
situation, the cities must find a simple, cost-effective way to’
cooperate, while respecting each other’s powers and prerogatives.
An ‘ideal comprehensive program for resource management in a
watershed should include drainage and flood control, erosion
control and sediment reduction, water storage where feasibile,
recreation and fish and wildlife development. Soil and water
management should ideally combine with dams or other structural
measu,res for a complete and effective program. Such a program t i
might be a relatively simple matter if the Buena Vista Lagoon
Watershed were all contained within a single jurisdiction.
However, the political realities of dealing with three separate
. jurisdictions has somewhat narrowed the possibilities and has
called for some peculiar solutions to address the problem.
The goal of this study is to formulate a program structure that _
can actually be implemented by the three cities, with their
individual approaches, ordinances, staffs and fiscal limitations.
Further, that program must respond to concerns about the Lagoon;
not a wishful scheme, but a realistic, workable program. f
After looking at the current authorities and responsibilities of
the cities, developing possible elements of a program, and
gathering comments from numerous meetings with city staffs and
other interested people, several key factors emerged. These
were: (1) A major concern of developing regularized channels by
which the three cities can communicate and coordinate their
actions concerning the watershed ; (2) The debate about the most
appropriate engineering solutions to the sedimentation problem
involving all three cities i’s not yet settled; and (3) the forum
- . I -
for further study, debate and implementation of any engineering
v measures, must be established as soon as possible, because outside
funding sources for further engineering work will require evidence
of formal cooperatjon between the cities. For these reasons, a
joint powers agreement is recommended as a means to establish the
forma.1 cooperative intent of the jurisdictions, and to allow fo.r a
framewqrk of cooperative development of solutions to the vari.ous
problems affecting the Lagoon.
The’elGments of the joint powers agreement were selected based on
the following conceptualization of the watershed, and the actions
which would address each part. The watershed, can be broken down
conceptually into three areas: already developed areas,
developing or yet to be developed areas, and open ‘areas unlikely
to ever be developed. Already developed areas, presumably do not
contribute great amounts of sediment, -but in any case they are
subject to erosion control ordinances. Developing areas are
subject to grading and erosion control ordinances, as well as .
being liable for fees under each city’s Master Drainage Plans,
wh’ich .are collected, to build the needed drainage improvements.
Open areas, most notably the Buena Vista Creek channel itself, may
be susceptible to engineering solutions, the funding for which -
will most likely have to come from outside sources.
Based on analysis of the above, the recommended elemenes of the
joint powers agreement include: (1) revision of the Master
Drainage Plans, (2) strengthening of the grading and erosion
control ordinances, (3) vigorous enforcement of the ordinances and
possibl’e sharing of enforcement expertise, (4) coordination of
planning and permit granting activities, (5) participation in a
public education and training program, (6) joining a Resource
Conservation District , and (7) initiating a grantsperson function
to pursue outside funding sources. The draft of the proposed
joint powers agreement is attached as Appendix C for consideration
by the City Councils, and their staffs.
.
-3-
I
In order to .facilitate the enactment of the joint powers
agr eemen t , the agreement itself only speaks to the formation of a
Buena Vista Lagoon ‘Watershed Coordinating Committee. The
Committee would be an advisory body, with the authority to
discuss, study and recommend courses of action to the three
cities. The recommended elements above are.included as issues for
the consideration of the Committee, and specific agreements as to
those issues can be developed wit.hin that forum: Therefore, the
majpr achievement of the joint powers agreement is the
establishment of a proper forum where the representatives of the .
cities can sit face to face and air the issues and reach agreement
on actions to be taken.
Adoption of a joint powers agreement as outlined will not only
allow the coherent management of the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed .
as a unified resource, but it will set up a cooperative structure
for the cities to receive outside funding without restricting the.
current powers of the cities. .Not only will the I&goon benefit
from such a Program, but so also will the citizens who value the
Lagoon and its resources.
I
i
i
I -
1.1 METHODOLOGY .
. In the first phase of the study, the current authorities and
relationsh.ips between the cities was examined. This analysis
illuminated the environment in which *any Watershed Enhancement
Program would operate. Next, possible elements of the program
were developed, and distributed for the comments of city staff and
other interested government agencies and citizens. Consideration
of the comments and other input lead to the development of
alternative options in three areas: Program structure, funding
sou&eS within the cities, and funding outside of the cities.
These options were again aired for comments at a workshop, where a
concensus was sought for the recommended alternative. It is hoped
that this study, while it is peculiar to the three cities
involved, may provide a model for other interjurisdictional .
watershed planning projects.
,
. ‘1,
2.0 CURRENT JURi, JICTIONAL AUTHORITIES IN TI,, WATERSHED
.
In implementing any watershed enhancement program, the powers. of .
the cities are of primary importance. Carlsbad,, Oceanside, and
Vista are all general law cities and have the powers to build, own
and maintain public facilities as well as to regulate‘land use,
development and require environmental mitigation measures. . .
As general law cities, the three cities may adopt special
assessments and sell municipal. bonds in accordance with state laws
on. the subject. The cities may also engage in joint powers
agreements under state laws.
As the principle goal of the Watershed Enhancement’ Program is
erosion control and sedimentation reduction, the actual powers and
authorities of the cities which have most relevance in the .
formulation of the program include: drainage, flood control,
resource conservation (soil conservation), and ‘open space/parks..
All three cities have recently enacted, or revised their grading
ordinances. There is some feeling that the cities are already
doing as much as is possible in this area; however, the report by
Grattan/Gersick/Karp
- several improvements
control and sediment
which analyzed the ordinances, suggests . which would strengthen sections on erosion’
reduction. .
The cities a.lso have certain policies already in place for the
protection of the Buena Vista Lagoon. Oceanside, in its Local
Coastal’ Plan preparation .process, adopted policies regarding open
space and buffer zones around the Lagoon. Oceanside also has a
hillside ordinance in place which, covers requirements for
vegetation and protection of slopes from erosion. The General
Plans of all three cities contain policies regarding development
on sloping land, and measures to reduce runoff and protect against
erosion.
-6-
All three cities also uesignate a large portion of the area around
. th,e Buena Vista Lagoon and the Buena Vista Creek as open space or
recreational area. ..Accordingly , maintenance of such designation
by the Program would coincide with what the cities are already
doing.
The water agencies in the area are concerned with supply of water,
not the disposal or c.ontrol of excess water. The agent ies
responsible for sewage and sanitation are likewise limited in
their ‘concerns: the safe processing and disposal of waste waters. ,
Most of the City of Vista is within the Palomar Resource
Conservation District (RCD) . The RCD is therefore available to
give technical assistance and advice in erosion and sedimentation
control measures. The Mission RCD is currently discussing the
annexation of the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside into its area.
Oceanside has agreed-to join, while Carlsbad has not made a .
decision yet. After annexation, this RCD w’ould be’ available to
provide services in those cities.
Parks and open space are handled by the Parks and Recreation
Departments of the respective cities. If the Watershed
Enhancement Program were to include park or open space
recreational areas as an element of the program, these ci.ty ,
departments would administer those areas.
There-are no flood control districts within the watershed; the
statutory boundaries of the San Diego County Flood Control
District do not encompass any of the Buena Vista Lagoon
watershed. In Oceanside, the City Engineer does have specific
responsibility for flood control .programs within that city. The
other cities appear to have no clear programs for flood control
other than that authority exercised by the City Engineers over
drainage.
I
I I
I 1 . I ! I ! 1 I
i
j
i ; f .
i .k j
i c t
f I
i
- 8 -
All three cities have enacted Master Drainage Plans and exact fees
1 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. (Cov.ernment Code Section i
66483). This authority is administered by the City Engineers. A s 1
i f
j
1 L
- i i I I
more detailed discussion of this law’follows in Secti’on 3.1.3 of
this report. The accompanying chart shows the amounts of the
drainage fees, along with the costs of currently planned drainage
facilities, the fees expected to be collected to cover those costs
and any expected shortfalls. In some cases, the facilities are .
not needed unless development occurs, at which time the fees will
be issiessed against the developers to cover .at least a portion of
the cons true tion needed. The fees are also periodically adjusted
by the City Councils to reflect the increased costs of the I
facilities and inflation. In this manner, it is hoped that the
costs of drainage facilities for new development will not outstrip
the funds available for their construction.
Other methods are also available to accomplish the construction of
needed drainage facilities. One method used by the cities is
conditioning the development permit with a requirement that the
developer build the needed facilities in lieu of paying the
drainage fees. This method is not always appropriate in some
already developed areas. Car lsbad , as indicated on the chart, has
used permit conditions on the developer to overcome some
shortfalls in funding. Oceanside and Vista indicate that they
‘also use that alternative. However, all three cities also expect
shortfalls in funding for which there are yet no plans to remedy.
While the lands involved are undisturbed, construction of drainage -
facilities can be postponed, perhaps with little negative effect.
The Master Drainage Plans and associated d’rainage fees could be
useful in the implementation of the Watershed Enhancement
Program. Any facilities identified by the consultant engineers,
Browne 6 Vogt, in their study of’structures needed for erosion and
sedimentation control, could be included by. the respective City
Engineers in their updates on the drainage plans. The costs of
the additional facilities could then be included in the regular . ‘4,.
-8-
PLANNED DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND DRAINAGE FEES I . I
,orainage -Lost of lEstablished 1 X of Area ITotal Fees ICollected IExpected I
1 Area IPlanned IDrainage 1 Undeveloped 1 Expected jshortfall IFacilities iFees Per Acre !(estimate) I(est:mate) ito date !(estlmate) I r I [Carlsbad: I I I I
1: . 1 l,L24,6LZ f I 1 .. I I -o- /
i .;;
I
i
236,065 I
5,008 70,820 i
-o- ) 192 245CaII
/ ;
L69,028 1,686 I 254,514 1 : 1:: :O- (b) 523.538 1 2,654 I 2s 110,885 I -o- . I -0- (b) I
I !
55,200
/
.200 100 I 55,200 t -o- -o- (c)i
I . ; / I
IO;eanside:i I I I
I 5,300,000 3,753 I
.
:2-3,000,OOO ; 66,101 I I -a-(if IOOXI
I . I
I 1 i i . I
I I 1 developed);! I 1-2 milllonl . I(if 30% un- I
j . j I I 1 developed) !
i / i ; I 1 I I I IVIsta:
1: 1 1 478 1 I f I
i I
1,460
I I I 1,117 I - I
1% /
1,117
ja,l
/ . 2,153
I / . I
1 '. / * -I
I areas ( 26,LOO,OOO I
/
35 800, oco I
1 I / 1 /
Notes: .
(a) no plans to make up deficit.
i
fi . I (b) the developer is to build at least a portion of the facilities. (cl no development yet in area.
(All information provided by City Engineer's staff of Carlsbad, Oceanside and.Vista.)
-90
revisions of the drainage fees by the City Councils. Of course,
coj.lection of the money will depend on the extent of new
deve1opmen.t occurring in the area. Thus, funding could be uneven
and may not cover all of the proposed facilities. Nevertheless,
inclusion of the Program’s proposed facilities would evidence the
cities’ commitment to the Program’s goals, and may therefore
attract funding from other sources to supplement the cities’
funds : In any case, the watershed-wide planning for drainage, ,
which will accompany implementation of the recommended Program,
wili b5 a benefit resulting in coordinated planning for the
watershed as a unified resource.
. .
,
. ‘\.
-
I
. 3 .b POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES
Finding funding sources after Proposition 13, as most cities know,
can be difficult. With taxpayers resisting increases in
traditional sources of municipal financing, and with fiscal
shortages in other levels of government, the options for financing
local capital improvements must include creative alternatives, or
combinations of financing plans.
Pos‘sible funding sources from within the cities include: special .
taxes, special benefit assessments, impact fees; and service
charges. Special districts could provide funding from bond sales
and special assessments. Outside funding sources include Federal
and State programs; as well as .private sector char’itable sources.
3.1 FUNDING SOURCES WITHIN THE CITIES
Proposition 13 and its requirements, totally color the spectrum of
alternatives for municipal financing. Because of -Proposition 13’s
restrictions , the distinctions between ad valorum property taxes,
special benefit assessments, special taxes, impact fees and
service charges must be carefully drawn. The lines between them
all have not been clearly settled yet by the courts. If a tax is
based on the value of property, then it is an ad valorum property
tax and cannot exceed 1% of the market value of the prope.rty ,
(Proposition 13, Cal. Const. Art. 13A, Section 1). A special
assessment is not limited to this l%, but only when the purpose of
the assessment is a direct benefit to the property,.enhancing its
value. (Solvang Municipal Improvement District v. Board of
Supervisors of Santa Barbara County, (1980)112 Cal. App. 3d 545,
169 Cal. Rptr. 391). Special assessments must have the approval
- of the voters as designated. in the statutes authorizing the
special assessment. “special taxes” under
Proposition 13 necessarily requiring a 2/3 voter approval.
(Fresno County v. Malmstrom; (1979) 94 Cal. App. 3d 974, 156 Cal.
Rptr. 777) Exactions under the Subdivision Map Act or other
“impac t fees I’, which base the fees on. the cost of* the impact of
-11- .
the subdivision or development under revi.ew, are not “special
taxes”’ under Proposition 13, either. (Trent Meredith, Inc. v.
City of Oxnard, (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 317, 170 Cal. Rptr. 685) .
Service charges or. fees for regulatory activities are also not
“special taxes” as long as ‘the fee’s charges to particular
applicants do not exceed the reasonable cost of the regulatory
activities and are not levied for unrelated revenue purposes.
(Mills v.‘Trinity County, (1980) 108 Cal. App. 3d 656, 166 Cal.
Rptr. 674) The definition of .what a “special tax” is has not yet -
been s2lttled. It seems clear that if a tax, other than a property
tax, is approved by 2/3 of the voters, then it is legal. The
difficulty of obtaining that approval makes the definition so
important. A bill has been introduced in the State Legislature
(AB 3800 - Marguth) to require all assessments obtain .a 2/3 voter
approval. Such a change, if passed, would leave only impact fees
and service charges available to cities for additional revenue
without an election. Continuing changes in the field will have an
effect on the cities’ options.
The three cities in the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed, Carlsbad,
Oceanside and Vista are all general law cities. As such, they may
form special districts and levy special assessments and taxes in-
accordance with State law on the subject. .A discussion on the .
potential of all of the above revenue sources for the Program
follows. .
3.1.1 Special Taxes
Of the various taxes available to the cities as revenue sources
for capital improvements contemplated by the Buena Vista Lagoon
Watershed Enhancement Program, a new “special tax” may be the only
tax option available. The other ,taxes currently levied are, for
the most part, already programmed for other city expenses.
Proposition 13 (Article XIII-A, section 4 of the California
Constitution) and the Government Code (sections 50075 et seq.)
allow the imposition of special taxes after approval of’2/3 of the
voters in a city or special district. The funds from such a
-12-
I 1
special tax would be. usable for the purposes authorized in the
election. A special tax for public facilities, did not receive
the required 2/3 vote in Carlsbad, in 1980. Given the necessity
of an election and the difficulty in gaining 2/3 voter approval,
the “special tax” option is not a favorable a-pproach for funding
the Watershed Enhancement Program.
3.1.2 Special Assessments
Special assessments offer a more promising avenue of inquiry.
Thes‘e ire chases levied on props= owners to finance a public - imp’roveme-p-t which will benefit the assessed or- . The
assessment must be apportioned among all the parcels specially
benefitting from the improvement. Several special assessment laws
gi.ve the appropriate authority to general law cities, after
approval by the voters as specified in the law.. .
The following acts are most often used for financing capital
improvements , such as those contemplated by the Program:
The Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code
sections 5000 et seq.) allows assessments to fund improvements
needed to protect city-owned streets, etc., from flood waters
or to prevent erosion of public property. Amaintenance
district can be formed at the same time as the assess-
district. --.__ __ Bond sales are-allowed as a means of funding, to be
repaid by the assessment revenue, after a maiority of voters .
approve.
- ’ The Park and Playground Act of 1909 (Government Code sections
38000 et seq.) authorizes the use.of an assessment district to
fund improvements ‘and maintenance for parks or ‘playgrounds. -
Condemnation can be used to acquire land for the park and land
outside the city limi.ts can improved if it is a “city-owned
park”.
.
-13-
As noted, both of these assessment districts would allow the
collection and expenditure of funds for maintenance of the
improvements.
3.1.3 Im‘pact Fees
The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66483) authorizes
cities to require a subdivider to pa.y a fee for defraying the
actual or estimated costs of constructing plann’ed drainage or
sewer facilities. The fees must be apportioned within the area
be<efftted by the facilities in such a way that the subdivider
pays only the pro-rata amount attributable to his property.
Cities may also require the developer to build the facilities in
lieu of paying the fee. These. issues may be negotiated at the
time of the granting of a permit or other discretionary approval .
of the development project.
These impact fees may be the most easily available mechanism for.
raising some of the necessary funds; however, the amount of
developable undeveloped land which may be subject to the fees is a
limiting factor. Also the state of the economy and rate of new
development project proposals have their effects on the actual I
,amount of money that can be raised. These fees will not be
available far the maintenance of the drainage facilities, once * 1
built.
3.1.4 Service Charges
Cities may impose service charges to recover the cost of providing
those services. Fees above that amount may run afoul. of
Proposition 13 limitations. Services. for which fees could be
- charged include storm drain fees, and acreage drainage fees.
These charges might be collected on utility bills or water or
sewer bills. Service charges may be imposed by City Council.
ordinance or resolution after public hearings.
-140 .
If .,any’part of the Watershed Enhancement Program can be
characterized as a service, the imposition of service charges-may .
be an appropriate element of the financing plan. However, the ,
billing entity’should be involved in the Program, or considerable 4
confusion and resistance could result. i +’ :
Service ch’arges could also be levied for the costs of reviewing
eras.ion control plans as a part of the grading ordinance
revisi&s. This fee would simply reimburse the cities for the
extra expenses of reviewing the plans and inspecting the sites for
compliance with the erosioh control measures .in the plans.
3.1.5 Special Districts
While the creation of a special district to administer the
Watershed Enhancement Program may’not .be a popular option, as it
would be perceived as creating another layer of . government, it
would have the powers needed for funding and managing the Program.
Special districts may be formed by procedures specified under
various state laws. Special legislation formed the San Diego
County Flood Control District in 1566. Its boundaries were -
defined as the unincorporated areas of San Diego County, excludi.ng’
much of the northern part. of the county. A portion bf Carlsbad,
an area that was later annexed by the city, is still included in
the County Flood Control District, however, that area is not
within the Buena Vista Lagoon watershed.
Several’types of special districts may be formed under -the current
legislative scheme. The types of districts with the powers needed ,
to undertake the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Program,
include: _
.
County Drainage Districts (Water Code Sections 56000-56130)
(for construction and maintenance)
.
-15- .
,
County Service Areas (Government Code Sections
25210.1-25211.33) (for extended services, including
construction and maintenance)
Storm Water Districts (West’s Annotated Water Code, Appendix,
Chapter 13) (for construction and maintenance costs)
The procedures for formation of these districts generally involve
petitioning to the County Board of Supervisors, by some percentage
of landowners or voters ‘in the proposed district area. The Board
of Sup‘ervisors would then create the district by. order, after
suitable hearings. Given the involved nature of these procedures
requiring actions by so many other entities, these types of
dis’tricts will not be considered further.
.
There are two other types of districts that mGy be formed under
diefferent procedures. These require only a ;eso’lution of the
governing body of the area to be. included in the district, ie. the
City Councils. They are:
Community Facilities Districts (Health and Safety“Code
Set tions 4600-4650) (for cons true tion) ; and
Storm Drain Maintenance Districts (West’s Annotated Water U
Code, Appendix, Chapter 42) (for maintenance).
The City Councils would become the governing bodies of the
district. The district could issue general obligation bonds upon
approval of 2/3 of the voters within the district. It may also
levy ad valorum bond assessments on all taxable property within
the’district. The District Organization Law (Government Code
Sections 58000 et seq) and the Local Agency’ Formation Commission
Act (Government Code Sections 54773 et seq) also apply to the
formation of the district. These districts offer the benefit of
close local control, but still suffer from the requirement of 2/3
voter approval for actually raising funds.
.
-16-
____ _____-- --
The Community Facilities Act of 1982 (AB 3564 - Roos) is still
being considered by the State Legislature and it would allow the
formation of a community facilities district to finance
improvements including local park or parkway facilities, among
others.
3.2 FUNDIXG SOURCES OUTSIDE THE CITIES
Various programs, at both the State and Federal levels, exist to
provide funding for various kinds of projects.’ The following
discussion contains only those which, after some inquiry, look
most promising or seem to met i t further inquiry ;
3.2.1 Federal Programs
3.2.1.1 Direct Federal Programs
Direct Federal financial assistance for watershed programs is
limited. The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and the
Forest Service have, in the past, had programs which might have
been available; however, most have--either been discontinued, or
now have requirements which eliminate the Buena Vista Lagoon
water shed. 1 -
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, ,
still has a few programs which may be helpful. They provide
technical assistance, not financial, to various government
agencies, primarily Resource Conservation Districts, for planning
and applying soil and water conservation practices, as well as
information for soil surveys. The Soil Conservation Service also
administers the Small Watershed Program created under the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566).
This program provides technical and financial assistance for
planning and carrying out improvements to protect, develop and
utilize the land and water resources in small watersheds of less
. than 250,000 acres. A major drawback of this program is that the
-17-
project must compete for funding with other projects from across
the country and the process may take as long as 10 years from
proposal to completion. .
The U.S. Army ‘Corps of Engineers has a few programs available,
most notably the Small Flood Control Projects Program. However,
the Corps generally designs and constructs the projects, and the
process’ from proposal to construction tends, like the Soil
Conservation Service’s Small Watershed Program, to take a long
time. -
In summary, the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation
Service may provide the most hope for direct Federal funding for
the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Program. Some
follow-up may be warranted in spite of the long lead times
required, and in spite of the current -administration’s “New
Federalism” policies making less money available for’these types
of programs. In any case, at the Federal level’ this project would
have to compete..equally with much larger scale projects, for the
limited money available.
3.2.1.2 Federal Funding through State agencies
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be making *
’ - grants to states for water quality management planning under
Section 205(j) of the Federal Clean Water Act. California’s
portion, $3.6 mimr 7 yes I will be administered by the
State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), The WRCB is in the
process of finalizing the Program Implementation Plan, and the
projected time schedule indicates that preliminary. proposals will
be submitted in December 1982, for possible funding by March
1983. The local entities receiving funding will be required to
provide 25% of the total project cost in matching funds.
-18-
i
. .
Th’e purpose of the gra s is for water quality pl. .ling not
normally done under Section 208 funding. Identification of the
most cost effective and locally acceptable measures to meet and ’
maintain w’ater quality standards; and. development of an
implementation plan for those measures including possible
construction, are acceptable purposes for the grants. The Buena
Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Program would seem appropriate i
as a recipient for some funding from this program., The Buena 1, .Lk / I Vista Lagoon Program would compete with other projects statewide, ’ I I\ but the proposed evaluation criteria indicate that the Program
could receive a high enough priority to be fundable. /
3.2.2 State Programs .*
The State of California has no regular programs for *funding
watershed projects; however, there are a few sta.te funds to which
application can be made for such environmental programs.
._ .The Environmental License Plate Fund is authorized by Public
Resources Code Section 21190, to expend money, as authorized by 1
the Legislature, for projects which help to preserve and/or 1
protect the environment. [
The projects must have one or more of the following purposes: I.
The control and abatement of air pollution, including all .
phases of research into the sources, dynamics, and effects of
environmental pollutants.
.
The acquisitb, preservation, r,estorafiiOFf-, or ml
thereof, of nat’uraf areas or ecological reserves.
Purchase of real property for park purposes on an opportunity
basis or the acquisition of public accessways to coastal areas.
Environmental education, *including formal school programs and
public education. . 'h* . I -
-19-
.
- Enhancement of renewable and nonrenewable resources.
Protection of nongame species and rare and endangered plants
and animals.
Protection of wildlife habitat, including review of the
impact’of development projects and land use changes
-on,such habitat. .
\
The Environmental License Plate Funds are available for programs
proposed by any state agency, and city or county, as well as any .
private research organization. Application must be made to the
Fund through the Resource Agency by August 15, for’ funding to be
granted by the following July. The lead time is required for
screening by the Resources Agency’and inclusion in the normal
Legislative budget process. .
The funds administered by the Department of Fish and Game for the
dredging and restoration of the Buena Vista Lagoon ($500,000) came -.
from thjs fund in the 1982-1983 budget.
The outlo& for receiving future funds from this source is
by the State’s current fiscal constraints and the approval needed
by the legislature.
Another fund, the Energy and Resources Fund ‘may fund programs or
projects which are eligible under Public Resources Code Section
26403. The list includes, among others, the following:
Wetland pwction, preservation, restoration, and enhancement
projects . . . in accordance with provisions governing the State
Coastal Conservancy (Public Resources Code Sections 31000, et
seq.).
-2o-
>; .; 1 : ..I
-I
I
L Water reclamation. datershed management, watr conservation,
instream use, and drainage management programs approved by the
Director of Water Resources or’ the State Water Resources .
Control Board.
‘Watershed restoration, erosion control, fire hazard reduction,
land conservation, and fish and wildlife habitat improvement
pr’o’jects.
- .Acguisition, restoration, and*preservation of habitat for rare
and endangered species .
.Programs for the prevention of soil loss and soil degradation. .*
Application t6 this fund would be made through the State Agency
most appropriate. The State Water Resources Control Board has a
project in .Newport Bay, with funding from this Fund, #which
includes some sediment and erosion c’ontrol features. The State .
Coas ta1 Conservancy, by virture of the recent addition of Section
31251.2 to the Public Resources Code (A.B. 523), has the authority
to fund projects in coastal watersheds which extenh partially
outside of the coastal zone. The Coastal Conservancy would be a
most appropriate agency to receive program funding proposals, .
- especially since it has funded the initial Planning’efforts for ’
this program. .
Expenditures from the Energy and Resources Fund must be
appropriated by the Legislature in the budget. One consideration
in obtaining approval is the amount of local cornmittment to the
program, in the form of financial contributions and/or providing
services. A major limitation is, again, the State’s fiscal
restrictions.
The California Conservation Corps may be a source for labor,
though not dollars. A sponsoring agency, such as a city-
department, must propose a project to the local Corps center in
, .
.
-21-
* . .
Escondido. A field evaluation would be conducted co determine
what, if anything, the Conservation Corps .could provide. A
technical supervisor must be provided by the sponsor, and the
labor would be provided by the Corps -if an agreement on the work
is reached. This arrangement may be a suitable method for keeping
the costs of constructing project structures to a minimum, OK for
performing any needed maintenance at minimum costs.
3.2.3 Private Sector Funding
Man? foundations and corporations have grants progr’ams which give
money for various purposes including the environment. Of ten there
are limitations on who may receive funding, for instance, some
programs restrict the recipients to non-profit 501(c) (3)
organizations. This restriction suggests a possibie role for the
Bu’ena Vista Lagoon Foundation as an applicant and recipient of
such funds.
There are several organizations which offer help in locating
‘foundation and corporate funding. The Grantsmanship Center in Los
Angeles has an extensive library of resources for the grant
hunter, as does the San Diego Public Library. The Community ‘I- Congress of San Diego has published the San Diego County
Foundation Directory, also a good resource listing. A cross
reference of the headings “Environment” and “San Diego”” in the
National Directory of Corporate Charity, California Edition,
yielded a list of 53 corporations with grant programs considering ,
environmental projects in the San Diego region. Most of these
programs had restrictions which may make the Buena Vista Lagoon
Watershed Enhancement Program ‘ineligible without certain changes.
Such restrictions included not considering’governmental entities, -
non 501(c) (3) organizations or captial funds. Never theless,
pursuit of these funding sources may be worthwhile. However, this
would take a good deal of time, and may even necessitate a staff
person whose major responsibility is grantsmanship. Another
option would be for the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation to t‘ak,e on
this responsibility. -. . ’ h. I -
-220
- .
4. U ALTERLUATIVE OPTIONS I
Based on the questionnaire/matrix and the comments received (see
Appendix A), two options were developed for consideration in the 1 I
implementation of the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement I I Program. One involves formation of a special district to
administer the Program. While this was not a popular option
according to the comments, the ability of a special district to I give logical and comprehensive guidance to the. Program requires
its analysis.
!
.
I
The second, preferred option involves a number of actions to be i i
taken by the cities separately, as well as a joint powers
agreement among the cities. . . *
Another option was considered briefly and then rejected:
annexation of the Buena Vista Lagoon watershed into the San Diego .
County Flood Control District. While the Flood Control District
would have the powers and the funding authority to carry out the
Program, there would be no guarantee that the Program would
receive a high enough priority within the District to assure its
completion. That, along with the res-istance to “another layer of-
government” outside the cities, led to the rejection of such an
option. .
4.1 Alternative No. 1: Special District
The most accessible ty-pe of special district for the* Buena Vista
Lagoon Watershed .Enhancement Program utilizes the Community
Facilities Law of 1911 (Health and Safety Code Sections 4600 -
4650). The law authorizes the formation of a district for the
purpose of the acquisition and construction of improvements for
storm and surface water drainage and flood control. The district
is formed by the action of an “initiating” city, which by 2/3.vote
of the City Council passes a resolution stating that the public
-23-
‘
.____- --.
- 1.
.
interest requires the rmprovements, describing the improvements,
and the estimated costs. The resolution must also describe the
boundaries of the district, designate a name for the district;
declare the district to be the area benefited by the proposed
improvements, and set a time and place for hearings. ,The other
two cities in the watershed, whose jurisdictions will be partially
within the district, must pass concurring resolutions, which are
then f’iled. with the initiating city. The City Council of the
initiating city becomes the governing body of the district with
the*po’%ers to conduct the affairs of the district.
The district may call an election to approve the issuance of
general obligation bonds, to be repaid from a levy of an
assessment on all taxable property within the district, ‘As this
would be a benefit assessment, it would not be subject to the 1%
limitation on ad valorum property’taxe.s. The election must
-produce a 2/3 voter approval for the bond sale to proceed. The
proceeds from the bond sale can be used for the construction of *
the proposed improvements.
A similar procedure can be used to.simultaneously form a Storm
Drain Maintenance District (see West’s Annotated Water Code, -
Appendix, Chapter 42). Such a district would allow.benefit . ’
assessments on property within the district, to fund the needed
maintenance activities. .
This alternative looks attractive from the viewpoint of a
comprehensive administration of the Program, i.e., Program
guidancg will come from one source, the governing body of the
district. However, that is precisely the point which is likely to
be its downfall. Each city is reluctant to relinquish its powers
within its jurisdiction. Beyond that , even if a district were
successfully formed, the likelihood of a bond election garnering.
the necessary 2/3 majority is slim, given the resistance of the
I
I
-24-
voters to accept new fiscal burdens. Overall, while this
_ alternative may be a logical one, its chances of success must be
rated low.. .
4.2 Alternative No. 2: Tri-Cities Joint &reement
This alternative involves most of the elements analyzed as
possibilities for the Program, which received medium to good
ratings in the comments (see Appendix A). This alternative is .
outlined here, and described further in the following section as . the rec‘ommended option for implementation. *
Alternative No. 2 involves. a joint powers agreement including the
following elements:
revision of the Master Drainage Plans; . . .
strengthening of the cities’ respective gr.ading’ordinances;
. vigorous enforcement of the ordinances, and*possible sharing
of enforcement expertise;
cbordination of planning and permit granting activities;
participation in a public education and training program;
joining a Resource Conservation District;
initiating a grantsperson function to pursue outisde funding
sources (either with shared funding by the cities, or by 1
arrangement with the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation).
This joint powers agreement need not set up another power
strut ture, separate from the cities. Instead , it should be a
coordinating body, for sharing information and assigning
responsibilities back to the cities as agree’d in that body, to
carry out specific tasks in the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed
Enhancement Program. _
-250
5.u RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The following recommended Program is based on the powers currently
available to the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, and on
the comments received in the course of the study (as noted in
Appendix A). The goal of a realistic, workable Program for the
reduction of erosion and sedimentation in the Buena Vista Lagoon,
watershed seems best,served by th.is recommendation. The series of
actions described here can be undertaken for the benefit of the
Lagoon‘ with or without building physical structures in the .
watershed. As was mentioned earlier, soil and water management
practices, grading practices and other planning policies all have
their effect on the amount of sedimentation occurring in the
watershed. .-
The paramount reasons for recommending a joint powers agreement
are the need for a regular channel of communicati’on among the
cities concerning activities within the watershed; and the need to
evidence formal cooperation among the cities in order to attract
further outside funding to continue the Program to an effective
solution.
,The joint powers agreement sets up a Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed
Coordinating Committee, as an ‘advisory body to discuss, study and’
recommend courses of action to the cities. This will provide a
forum for the continuing study of possible engineering solutions
to the erosion and sedimentation control problem, and for the
continuing debate and resolution of the most appropriate and
effective solutions. The Committee will also serve as a focus for
coordinating other actions of the cities which have an impact on
. the Buena Vista Lagoon watershed. Appropriate Memorandums of
Agreement can be developed by the Committee to address the various
issues recommended for their consideration.
t
1
t26-
’ . .
The first element of the recommendation involves revision of the
- cities’ respective Master Drainage .Plans. Vista is already .
undertaking such a revision. However, a cooperative process among
the three cities should be undertaken to decide which structures
should be incorporated in the plans. Such a process wbuld avoid
the possibility that one city would plan a particular facility up
to its .b.order , while the neighborin g city planned nothing at all
to receive ‘those waters. The drainage fees that each city charges
under the Subdivision Map Act can then be revised to reflect the . cost of-building those erosion control and drainage structures, A
substantial portion of the structures may then be required to be
built by the developers, if and when development takes place.
While full recovery of those costs is not expected from the fees,
this action by .the cities would be seen as a substantial
commitment on their part to the Program, and would help attract
some outside, funding. . .
The next element is the revision of the cities’ respective grading
ordinances to include the recommendations of the consultant who
studied .the ordinances, Grattan/Gersick/Karp. The cities should
be aiming toward ordinances similar enough so that contractors who _
build in all three cities will have to follow substantially the .
same requirements. Not only will the requirements be.more clear *
to the citizens, but enforcement among the cities can be . tightened, as will be seen later.
The cities should further agree to vigorously enforce their
respective ordinances. If the revis ions are done so that- the . ordinances are substantially similar, then a joint enforcement
agreement is relatively simple. Each city could delegate
enforcement authority to the inspectors of the other two cities.
In practice, this would mean that when one city’s inspector is
‘passing through another city, and he spots a violation, he could
issue a citation which would be carried through by the responsible
city. This is especially important where the city boundaries
zigzag, in a puzzle pattern. A further refinement of this idea *
, -27-
involves the sharing G& enforcement expertise. IL the situation
exists where one or more of the cities lack the appropriate
ex’pertise on their staffs, and lack the funds to permanently hire .
such people, one city may hire or mak-e available staff people to
the other cities on a reimbursible basis. Several issues must be
negotiated first, including the rates to be charged for this
person’s time, and the priorities for their servic’es.
The .joint powers agreement should also contain a provision for the
coo’rdlination of planning and permit granting activities. This
might translate into similar provisions in the cities’ respective
General Plans, or other similar policies in the granting of
permits. This element simply assures that the city staffs would
periodically talk to each other about permissible “activities going
on in the watershed. This coordination might also include the
cities keeping certain planning information in a similar format,
and available to the others, so. that planning on a. watershed-wide
basis can be done. Coordination by the City Engineers in updating
’ the Master Drainage Plans, would be included as well.
Another element of the joint powers agreement should involve
participation of the cities in public education and training _
programs for their inspectors, city staff, building contractors
and the interested public. Such a program could be undertaken by
the Resource Conservation Districts (if all the cities were
members), or by the San Diego Association of Governments (SAHDAG)’
which has been authorized to conduct a program in conjunction with
its efforts around the Batiquitos Lagoon. The details of SANDAG’s
pr’ogram are being worked out at this time. Reaching the building
professions, government officials and, staff people will be a
primary goal of the program, along with increasing’public
awareness.
i
f /
Grants and other funding from outside sources is likely to be of
great importance, if the cities decide to undertake the building
of erosion control and drainage structures in the watershed. The . ‘h. . *
-2a-
1. .
-required level of funding is unlikely to be available solely from
the cities.. However, there is a substantial level of effort
required to locate and apply for grants from foundation or
corporate charitable sources. The same applies to governmental
grant programs. Accordingly, the joint powers agreement should
also provide for the initiation of a “grantsperson” function for
the Program, within one of the cities. The costs might be shared
as in the case of the enforcement expertise mentioned above.
l 4
A variation on this element, which may turn out to be more
. feasible, is for the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation to take on the
responsibility for locating and applying for private sector
funding. Many of the charitable programs require a non-profit,
501(c)(3) organization to be the recipient, and specifically
prohibit giving to governmental entities. In this situation, the
participation of the Foundation may be the only way that the
Program can receive private sector funding. If the Foundation
were to take on this role, then the cities may not need the
grantsperson element in the joint powers agreement.
The final.element of the recommendation is annexation to a ‘\
Resource Conservation District (RCD). -Vista is already a member \-
of ‘the Palomar RCD. Oceanside has passed a resolution to become a \ i.
part of the Mission RCD, but completion of that action awaits a ’ \
like resolution by Carlsbad. The costs involved in this action
are the.fees to go before the Local Agency Formation Commission, 1:
\
.about $2 - 3,000, to be shared by Oceanside and Carlsbad. There i
are no other ongoing expenses, and the cities would then have the i
technical expertise of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
available to give advice on erosion and ‘sedimentation control
measures. The RCD may also be able to open additional doors to :
funding any structures needed in the watershed. I . /’
Until the debate on the engineering solutions to the erosion and
sedimentation control problem is concluded, it is difficult to
address the question of funding for maintenance expenses. The . _
-29-
physical structures chosen as most appropriate in the final
analysis may be such that no maintenance, in terms of cleaning
debris after every. storm, i,s actually required. Federal Disaster
funds may be available to clean under man-made structures such as
bridges , in the event of catastrophic or unusually intense
storms ; There are a few other possibilities for funding
maintenance expenses, if needed. One idea concerns ‘investment of
some 0-f the building funds into an interest bearing account, with
the interest earnings to be used towards maintenance. However,
restrictions on the grant money may prohibit this. Another idea
inv.olves ongoing fundraising activities, either ‘by the Buena Vista
Lagoon Foundation or some other citizen group. Perhaps a benefit’
assessment district could be formed for maintenance only; the
lower assessments may muster a 2/3 majority. . In any case, this
problem must be the subject of further.discussion among the cities. I * ’
In summary, the enactment of a joint powers agreement among the’
cities will provide for the coordination needed in managing a
unified resource within several jurisdictions, as well as showing
concrete evidence of the cities’ cooperation in order to attract
other outside funding necessary to carry out the Program. The \
_ Committee established .by the agreement will provide,the forum for .
effective resolution of the current debate on the most appropriate
solutions to the problem of controlling erosion and . .
sedimentation. The adoption of this recommendation, in whole or
in part, should make a significant contribution to the
effectiveness of the three cities’ efforts to control erosion and
sedimentation and protect the Buena Vista Lagoon and its watershed.
, -
-3o-
’ _ . a.
ATPENDI >’ ; DEVELOPMENT OF THE OPTI. _
.
A.1 POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF A WATERSHED ENHANCE‘MENT PROGRAM
In formulating the possible options for the Byena Vista Lagoon
Watershed Enhancement Program, various elements were investigated
and analyzed against a number of criteria. The elements were not
meant to be mutually exclusive nor all-inclusive. They were
developed from the expansion of current city powers and from the .
util.iza-tion of powers available under current state ,law. The
elements were submitted to city staff and other’interested people
for their cpmments and analysis with regard to the criteria
contained on a matrix/questionnaire. The responses and ratings of
the elements then led to the formulation of the .alternative
options for the implementation of the Program. i. \ I.
A.l.l The Criteria
The criteria for choosing among the elements included: political
feasibility, effectiveness in achieving the stated goals, ease of
obtaining funding, and adequacy of funding available.
The criteria used break down into the following questions:
Political Feasibility:
Is there sufficient public concern to motivate the
decision-makers to adopt this option?
What is the level of expected acceptance for this option
by: the public, the development community and the local
city staff?
Ease of Obtaining Funding:
What is the roughly estimated level of fund.ing required -
to implement this option? (High levels are assumed
harder to obtain.)
What is the level of effort needed to obtain the funding
under this option, ie. special legislation or
authorizations needed? ‘\. * a *
-31-
- -
- Adequacy’ of Funding:
Is the estimated funding available from this option-
adequate to fund the contemplated program?
Is the funding cycle adequate, ie. will the money be
available when needed?
- . Effectiveness:
How simple is this option to administer? (Simple is ’ 4 ’ usually more highly effective.)
How easy is this option to integrate with existing local ’
government s true ture?
What is the probability of long term acceptance?
Is this option likely .to result in any actual sediment
.-
t,
reduction? .
._.. . . .
A. 1.2 Elements Description *
The following list is contains the elements presented for
consideration as possible elements for the Buena Vista Lagoon
Watershed Enhancement Program. _
;*
2.
3.
Formation of special assessment districts separately within
each city’s watershed area, with an agreement among them to , .
coordinate planning and build.ing of structures.
Increase drainage’ fees (impact fees) to subdividers and
developers to include facilities contemplated by the Program.
(This can only legally cover that portion of the cost
attributable to that property when the costs are apportioned
on an acre by acre basis.)
Cities could agree to commit some portion of Building ’
Development Taxes or other general funds toward the Watershed
Program.
-320
I
4.
5.
6.
- 7.
a.
9.
Institute user fees or service charges for drajn
facilities, perhaps to be collected o-n water artd
bills.
Pur,sue funding grants from other governmental ;1:’
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, State Coastal C3i
Pursue funding grants from private sector source:.
cbrp%ra tions or non-profit foundations .
Formation of a special district encompassing the
watershed, eg. an erosion control district, wit:1
planning, enforcement, and assessment and bond ;a
Annexation of the watershed area into the San D:e.
Flood Control District, to take advantage of fufld
available’ through the District.
.Join a Resource Conservation District to utiliz, !
advice and assistance in sedimentation and erosior,
measures and planning.
-10. Require bonds to guarantee the performance of a!)p:.-
erosion control measures by developers, either lnc’
ordinance, or an erosion control ordinance, perha;.
portion of the bond in cash.
11. Participate in a program of public education and t
inspec tor s , city staff and building contractors wi
erosion control measures.
12. Coordinate’planning and permit granting activitLas
watershed, among the cities.
13. Passage of new erosion control ordinances, or re;ri
current grading ordinances. e -
.
sewer
es, eg.
lrancy , etc.
uch as
le
andan t
powers .
.Zounty
options
lnical
In trol
:iate .
a grading
J i t’h a
ning of
regard to
: the
n of the
-33-
14. Agreement among the cities to enforce their respective
ordinances, before or after revisions to bring them into some
uniformity.
15. Incentives, rewards, or rebates could be granted to developers
with good erosion control measures in their plans.
I
-34-
i
:.:a. l -:
r . ;. ’ :.t :
3 ;z;::: ::‘;z.
.?
3
- 1;- -:
‘I;?i’
; Y : ‘; -: -’ .tei*
I.,:‘::
‘, .: J : i :
;:2:.; -.a*..- a-.---< -.,.2.
.:
. i ii ;s I.‘:
t:;i ::’ ..:.:: 6.*-i: ‘“JZ zz 2;J.e. :.2-.Pf e-L-.- 3’.‘Z< ..;r:; 1... i;.%i;t
;
-35-
:
.’
‘: : .
f, -1 -.*.I . _ ..- . . :I.‘rl.: ..-. : .2 : 5 : : : - -. ;.a.!’
cs2w”: J...‘. ;iz’:!’ a . . . . . .-cm-,
2:::::
;
;f ? ,.t:
1 i;,;Z::
:5 :i.i: . ;;7::;:: x; ..;5 21.
-.:t.:.: I.. .-. ,.. ..-. ..s- ‘.-.c.‘~’ :.::- I-1 2.‘: :-‘::z. Ai;;‘:; . . . ..a- I - . . .1 _ . . -.m.--..
i I i i t f I’ f i , I I
I _ ’ I f i
I t f
i f
I
- . i.; .; :: .:: l ” . . . . ”
::.:’
:. I::
8.::; -.‘a . ..-.: “l. “‘2
I. -.- : .-vu\
1.::’
..r: ;y
.: : ‘: ‘; :
4’Zf : ~
i
: ‘g $J I.- . ...: ““. . . :-;; :: ;:-- :: e I ..lc LO .,:y .‘2 t , ::wj . ..” 1,::: ;-5;i ii; 2,
;
.z . -3: :;- ., 2 C” I .- . I
:: m..; e&I. .:‘. ::: :,:< ., I , i ! :; ‘3 55’.
9
: . t. i 2: - .:
::: :‘;1;
.4., ..“” ::: “.”
: .; :- ;.: :,
::. -.-
:
2.5 ,:: . . . . -2’: “-:n f f :; 3-s: :.zi .;’ : :::: .; : 5; c --.: . ..SI I,..<. 2:: :i
z
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-36-
,
. . r3 -4 iii JJ *l-i t4 z Y-4 4 2 ,
.
.
-38-
t
I i
i
i 1 I i I 1 i - 1 i 1
,
‘I I I 1
.
I . . Ki -I
k U’ -d
&
? -Id u
!2!
E
.u u 4 L u u-l d a
rl fu V-l
E:
2
Q, kg
L&c >O 4 0 2:u
22
C H
.
.
. A; 2 ELEMENTS ANALYSIS
A.2.1 Funding Options for the Cities
Element No. 1 - Special assessments (and special taxes): F. B The major problems with special taxes and assessment districts
(and special districts as well) are similar: The difficulty in
getting sufficient voter approval. For instance, Carlsbad’s
Public Facilities special tax won a majority approval, but not the.
required 2/3 majority. The cities cannot fund a “yes” campaign,
so there must a be a strong grass roots base for such a campaign
* to win in an election. Voter acceptance is unlikely where the
fiscal burden is on themselves’ or “another layer of government” is i
envisioned. I i.
Special assessments are more likely to be sucessfully done in a
developing area rather than developed areas, unless there are
clear adverse consequences to not doing it. Such a situation would
occur in event of a massive flood with resultant damages to many
property owners; but this is unlikely here. The funding criteria
ratings highlighted that a high level of effort would be needed .to
<get the relatively high level of potenkial funds from this
element, possibly cancelling out the positive aspects. The I
effectiveness of this element was not rated high as far as
administrative simplicity or probability of long term acceptance.
1 i ;. t i r- L :,
Element No. 2 - Drainage fees (impact fees):
All three cities already have these fees in place, however, the
level varies. The feeling that the developers should cover the
cost of the impacts of their developments on the drainage
improvements, is pervasive. Often improvements are required by
the cities at the time of permit approval. However, there is some
hesitancy to raise the fees so high as to result in developers
going elsewhere to build, where the fees are not so high. The .
ratings reflected this, with tne political feasibility rated from
10~ to medium. _
-4o-
’ The, City Engineers periodically do studies.to amend the drainage
plans and include new needed facilities, and recommend revised
fees to reflect the current needs. The city councils then pass on
these recommendations. The adequacy of funding depends on how
often this amendment process is undertaken, and the rate of new
development . The effectiveness criteria were all rated in the
high range.
Element No. 3 - General funds:
As most cities in the country at this time, all’three cities are
experiencing fiscal shortages and cut-backs. Consequently, this
element was rated low all across the board. If .the Program were
to have to compete for funds from the cities: general funds, it .
would stand in line with all other city programs andslikely suffer
from a low priority in comparison’with many social and other
programs the cities must fund with the same money.
Element No. 4 - User fees:
The concept of this element is a difficult one, because the users”
of drainage facilities aren’t easily specifically identified, as .
are the users of sewers or water facilities.’ Probably for this
reason and for the fact that such fees would be extra charges for
the taxpayers, this element was rated low in all the criteria.
A.2.2 Funding Options from Outside the Cities
Element No. 5 - Other governmental agencies: .
This element was quite popular, probably because the burdens were
perceived to not fall directly on the local’ taxpayers. However,
most grant and other funding programs would require-either
matching money or some other significant committment to be shown
by the cities in order to receive funding. The cities would also
be likely to need a person on the staff whose duties include
searching for grants and preparing the proposals. Even with these
provisos, this element is cer’tain to be a part of the program.
‘5. * , _
i id L.
ii iI t: k; t! !I ii il
& I
t
. -41-
I
,
-
Element No. 6 - Private sector funding sources:
This element also was rated high, for similar reasons to those
mentioned above. The provisos above also apply here, but if a
staff person ‘was to perform grantmanship duties, the private
sector sources should ‘be considered a part of the job.
A.2.j’Program Structure .Options
Element No. 7 - Special district formation:
Although this element received medium to high effectiveness
ratings, it was definitely not favored. It .was seen as. creating
another layer of government, as well as requiring a special
election for additional assessments on the ‘taxpayers, which would
be unlikely ‘to succeed. This element also brought out the most
vehement negative reactions. However, a special district might be . seen as the most logical and comprehensive means to provide
overall coherent guidance to a program, and it should be
considered as a possibility. a.
Element ,No . 8 - Annexation to San Diego County Flood Control
District:
This element would require special state legislation to allow the
incorporated cities t.o annex to the District. But‘beyond that’
difficulty it was not a favored element, as it was seen as a
‘relinquishment of authority, plus higher assessments, witb
moderate or little return. While the District has fund-raising
powers that are attractive, the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed would
only stand in line with other projects for funding and
construction. Thus there would be no assurance the assessments
collected from the watershed area would indeed go towards
improvements in the area.
Element No. 9 - Resource Conservation District membership:
Vista is a member of the Palomar RCD; the other cities-are
considering membership in the Mission RCD. Membership in an RCD
-42i
.
-*- .
allows the cities and residents within the cities to receive
technical assistance and advice in erosion control measures and
planning. The RCD’s do not have funding available for
construction grants or the like, but they can help get other
funding by opening doors available to their projects. Thus
political feasibility and effectiveness were rated medium to high,
while the funding criteria receiv.ed low marks.
.
Element No. 10 - Performance bonds:
This element was rated generally good, except perhaps from the
viewpoint of the development community. The cities already have
authority (or will soon) to require performance bonds, with a
portion in cash at the discretion of the City Engineers. This .
authority has not been used much, up to this time, as the pace of
development has been slow since its enactment.
Element No. 11 - Public education and training program:
Training of city inspectors and other staff, as well as
construction personnel is a.. popular concept, in terms of political
feasibility and effectiveness. However, the structure of the -
program affects the amount of funding -required to implement it, so
the ratings were somewhat unclear. Such training could be .
coordinated by the-RCD (using the Santa Cruz program as ‘an
example), or by SANDAG or some other arrangement, taking the onus
off of the cities for providing a large amount of funding.
Element No. 12 - Coordination of planning and permit granting:
‘While public acceptance of this element rates high, it may not be
as acceptable to city staff. However, city staff is responsive to
city council direction; firm direction from the councils would
accomplish this element. Further, if the ordinances and
enforcement are similar, then this element would fall into place.
This element assures that the staffs talk to each other in the
hope that the communication will result in more uniform
requir-ements and enforcement in the watershed area. Perhaps
Policies in the General Plans and other guidance could be made
-43-
. .
similar. Costs would not be high, and the effectiveness was rated
as medium.
.
Element No. 13 - New ordinances: .
The political feasibility of this element was not rated high, with
a few commenters mentioning the recent amendments to the grading
ordinances as examples of the reticence of the city councils to
enact strong ordinances. However, the climate of concern may have
shifted, making it more likely that the councils will be willing
to enact stronger and more uniform ordinances. The discussions
which have occurred as a part of this Program seem to bear out
this observation.
Element No. 14 - Enforcement agreement: . An agreement among the cities to enf.orce their respective
ordinances received medium to high ratings for. political
feasibility and effectiveness,- while the costs would be low. This
element would probably be the skeleton of the program with other
elements included to fill it out. For example, the cities may
agree to share inspectors or enforcement officers on a
reimbursible basis to get expertise at a lower cost; resulting in
better uniform enforcement.
Element No. 15 - Incentives or rewards:
* Insofar as this element would require the expenditure of city
money, it was not favored. If the incentives were non-monetary,
they would be less effective. A possible alternative might be
granting exemption from the cash portion of a performance bond in
recognition of a developer’s past good performance.
I t
, , I I I
I
! I I t I
;
I
!
-44-
. . . . .
!
I
APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES CONTACTS
. The following contacts are listed for further information and
inquiry:
Federal Programs:
U,S. Soil Conservation Service - Small Watershed Program (P.L.
566)
Patrick J. Burke .
Soil Conservation Service
1523 E. Valley Parkway, Suite 201 '
Escondido, CA 92027
(714) 745-2061
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Small Flood Control Projects
Colonel Paul Taylor s
Lds Angeles District .
Office of the Chief of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Army
P.O. Box 27.11
Los Angeles, CA 90053 '
(213) 688-5300
State Programs:
Environmental License Plate Fund
Judy Niedzwiedz
The Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311'
l Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 323-1971
Energy and.Resources Fund
Scott McCreary
State Coastal Conservancy
1212 Broadway, Room 514
Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 464-1015 I -
-45-
,
Section 205(j) Funds
‘Archie tiatthews
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916) 322-2867
Private Set tor Programs :
.
Research materials and training in locating and’applying for
grants can be obtained from the following sources:
The Grantsmanship Center ’
1031 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 749-4721
The. Foundation Center
312 Sutter Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 397-0902
Materials are also located at:
San Diego Public Library
820 E Street -
San Diego, CA 92101
(714) 236-5816
-46-
.
\. ., ‘:
;
L
1.
2.
APPEND,,, C: .DRAFT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Purpose: The Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed is a unified
resource spanning the jurisdictions of the Cities of
Carlsbad] Oceanside and Vista. Because actions in one
portion of the watershed will have effects in other portions
of the watershed, the Cities find it in their interests to
coordinate their actions within the watershed. This
agreement will facilitate and formalize that coordination
among the Cities. .
. .? . . . 1
.i’.‘.-:Authority:. This egkeement is executed under the authority
contained in Government Code Secti’ons 6500 et seq.
Parties: The Parties to this agreement shall be the Cities
of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, all of which are within San
Diego County, California.
* 4. Recitals: The Cities, all of which are general law cities, * .
do not relinquish any of their sovereign powers as a result
of thi’s agreement. Neither do they, by this agreement,
undertake to exercise any powers over, the Buena- Vista Lagoon
itself, whjch is owned by the State of Cal.ifornia, and
managed by the California Departnent .of Fish and Game, as an
Ecologi-cal Reserve.
Creation of The i3uena Vista .Lagoon Watershed Coordinatinz -
Committee PP
5. Powers:
The Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Cckmittec is
hereby created. The, Committee’shall be an advisory body with
the authority to discuss, study and recommend courses of
acti.on to its member Cities. The Committee may consider
,
/
-47- .
.
_--v-1 jr . urar;U vS,I,,dt~y or 1 ts members, as w_e~- as issues
r ,f--- 4 ,' , re.ferred to i- ~ any member City.. The _ sues eligible for
- i consideration by the Committee mus’t relate to actions which
. could affect the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed, and shall
include, but not be limited. to: revisions to the Cities’
Master Drainage Plans, revisions to the Cities’ grading and
erosion control ordinances, methods of joint enforcement of
the Cities’ ordinances, methods of ,coordinating planning and
permit grant!.ng activities of the Cities, participation of
the C,ities in a joint public education and tr’aining program,
the selection of appropriate physical structures (if any) to
be .constructed within the watershed for the purpose of
controiling erosion and sedimentation, and methods for
locating funding for such construction from government and/or
’ private sector sources.. The Committee shall draft -
memorandums of agreement to be adopted by the Cities
“T concerning any of these issues about which- agreement is .
reached. . .
6. Ilembership: The Committee shall consist of nine members:
two City Council members from each of the Cities of Carlsbad,
Oceanside and Vista; and three public members, chosen,one -
each by the IMayors of the three Cities. The term ‘of
membership shall be two years. Each member shall have one .
vote. A Committee Chair shall be elected by a majority oE
the Cocmi ttec.
7. Meet incs : Heetings shall. be called by the Committee Chair,
as often as required to consider the business before the
Committee, but in no event, less often than once every two
months. Meetings may also be called by 5 of the 9 Committee
members. Notices shall be publicly posted at least one week
in advance to allow participation by interested public.
-48-
‘: Ez.
The Committee shall have no powers to issue
taxes, or otherwi’se collect fees. The Commi t tee
f:I;* 7- .z . ,L . .., :: :
‘; l
. 8.
9.
10.
Financing:
bonds, levy
may apply in its name for State or Federal funding for
projects recommended by the Committee and approved by the
member Cities. If such funding is received, the Committee
will then designate a member City. to administer .thc grant and
carry out the project as approved. .
Amendments : This agreement may be amended at’any time, by
agreement among’ the parties . .
Effective Date: This agreement shall be effective upon the
signature of the parties, and shall remain in effect until
the Committee v.otes fo dissolve itself by a v.ote of 6 of its:
9 members.
for Citydof Carlsbad
for City of Oceansibe
IR. Michael F*qck, Mayor
City of Vi&ta ; '3 .,
..-
Date
Date
-3.
Date
Attest:
Yean Brook>,"City Clerk
-43-