HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalifornia, State Of; 1982-11-18; Coastall .
,
BUENA VISTA LAGOON
WATERSHED ENHANCEMEHT PROGRAM OPTIONS
Final Report
November. 18, 1982 .
.
. *:: ..-- *-L-we .&. I;_’ --- “. “‘C . ..ir.’ .;.. ..- ..- L .Y-. -- b-d. ‘-. s-
-,.,... ..“--- . ..i _ ;-I --., --I-r.m
1. “:” .: . . _
r-2
.-r- _ .-.-m; -.
1
c..- - . - . _ -+ -:T
. Sharon L. Gordon' .
'prepared under contract to
the City of Carlsbad
and the State Coastal Conservancy
‘1. ’ Contract, No. 81-091
b 4’ !
. :
I
i
\ l
i i TABLE OF CONTENTS I
. : Page
!
l.O*EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I 1.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/ . 2.o'CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES IN THE WATERSHED......... . 6
. 3.0 POSSIBLE 'FUNDING‘SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..?.................... 11'
3.1 Funding Sources Within The Cities....;............;..... 11
3.2 Funding Sources Outside The Cities..........,............ 17 ::
l
4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23’ -
* 4.1 Alternative No. 1: Special District......;.............. 23
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r...........*.......... 40 t L l
1 APPENDPX B - FUNDING SOURCES, CONTACTS . 45 c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f
- f APPENDIX C - D*T OF PROPOSED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT........... 47
- I .
-
i -:
.
.
_. _- _ a
_. .O EXECUTIVE SLMXARY .
I
The Buena Vista Lagoon, a State of California Ecological Reserve, I
is a shallow, coastal, fresh-water lagoon. The 22 square mile i
watershed is located within the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and
Vista in San Diego County. There is a long history of community j
concern for the Lagoon, and the current efforts to restore and I
preserve the Lagoon came to a head after the heavy winter storms !
of 1979-80, which brought a large amount of sedimentation into the . I Lagbom. .
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 & Hewett, 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 unified
resource. We ,can see this by looking at the natural forces at
work within the watershed. Sedimentation involves three basic
processes: eroaian, transportation, and deposition. These are
natural geological phenomedon, which would be operating even
without human influence; however, human impact on the land has
acceler’ated the process, causing increased erosion, and increased
sedimentation.
-10 .
. .
I . -
Management practices -- one portion of the waters.. .! will affect
other downstream areas, as well as the Lagoon itself. How one
landowner 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 arrd 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
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 formul’ate a program structure that _
can actually be imp’lemented 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.
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 msj6r 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 is not yet settled; and (3) the forum
-20
for further study, debace and implementation of any engineering
measures, must be established as soon as possible, because outside
funding sources for further engineering work will require evidence i . i
of formal cooperat$on between the cities. For these reasons, a I I joint powers agreement is recommended as a means to establish the
formal cooperative intent of the jurisdictions, and to allow for a
frameyqrk of cooperative development of solutions to the various
problems affecting the Lagoon.
The’elsments 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 ‘&reap 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 ateas are
subject to grading and erosion control ordinances, as well as -
being liable for fees under each city’s Master Drainage Plans;
which 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 elements 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 pemit granting activities, (5) participation in a
public education attd 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* .
s
-
.In order to .facilitate the enactment of the joint powers
agreement , 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 hgoon benefit
from such a Program, but so also will the citizens who value the
Lagoon and its resources. .
I !
i i
r , 1
i i ?
i I !
I
* -
-4-
.
.
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.
.
l
.
.
I- -. .
2.0 CURRENT JURL:,ICTIONAL AUTHORITIES IN TI., WATERSHED
In implementing any watershed enhancement program, the powers.of . I the cities are, of primary importance. Car lsbad ,: 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 rel’evance in thei
formulation of the program include: diainage, flood control,
resource conservation (soil conservation), and-open space/parks,
. All th.ree 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 which analyzed the ordinances, suggests .
a several improvements which would strengthen’ sections on erosion’
control and sediment reduction. .
The cities also have certain polici’es already in place for the
protection of the Buena Vista Lagoon. Oceanside, in its. Local
Coastalz 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 ljtotection 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.
5 t
i
: i !
1
i
i
i
I !
. ---
i4
All three cities also udsignat,e a large portion of: the area around
th,,e Buena Vista Lagoon and the Buena Vista Creek as open space or
recreational area. -kccordingly , 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 agencies
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 iti 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 w
Enhancement Program were to include park or open space
recreational areas as an element of the program, these city .
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 Qceanside., 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 th.e City Engineers over
drainage.
I f I I
I I ,
I 1 t i
} . I r.
t i I
I
i i
I I I i
I t I
.
-7-
.
.
- _:.
8 - .
~11 three cities have enacted Master Drainage Plans and exact fees
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. (Cov.ernment Code Section
684as>. This authority is administered by the City Engineers. A
more detailed discussion of this law’follows in Secti’on 3.1.3 of
this report. The accompanying chart shows tie 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 iss‘essed against the developers to cover .at least a portion of
the cons true tion needed. The fees are also periodically adjusted
i I
1
I
i
- i i
; L
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 cons tru.ction. , .
Other methods are also available to accomplish {he 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. Carlsbad, 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 Drainagq Plans and associated d’rainage fees could be
useful in the i&lementation of the Watershed Enhancement
Program. any faiilities identified by the consultant engineers,
Browne .& 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 cduld then be included in the regular . ’ 0. I .
-a-
_- ,
.
.
i PLANNED DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND DRAINAGE FEES * .
.
IDraInage ;Coat Of IEstablished 1 X of Area ITotal Fees ICollected 1 Area I Planned I Drainage IUndeveloped IExpected Ito date
Ifacilities !Fees Per Acre !(estimate) I (estFmate) I , . . I I I i I icarlsbad: i i ,.
;: . I 1,&24,642 236,065 I 5,808 -o- 30 70,820 1 1 -o- -o-
ii I I 469,028 521,558 55,200 I 1 2,654 1,686 200 I I . 100 25 50 I I yy; 55:200 ) I : 10”’ -0:. .
I I I I , 1 * ;
IO;eansido:;
I I I
I- i 3,500,000 f 5,753 I 66,101
i
* i
I I
. ~2-3.000.000 .I
’ *I
! I I I I I
I . I i i / / I I I I
IVYa: 1 I 476 I I I 6 1 I 1,460 I
K
1,117 I I
!-” / 1 1,117 i I 2,153 . 1 -’ I
28,400,OOO /
‘*
iall areas 1 35 I I / 800,000
I I
i
Expected I
I / Shortfall (estimate) i
i
t f
i92,245(a)i -0. (b) -0- (b) I -o- (c)i I b I
I -o-(If rooxl developed);1 1-2 millionl (if 50% un- I
deve1opcd) I
- ;
I
-----i i
Notes :
!a> no ilans to make up deficit.
.
_ I (b) (cl the developer is to build at least a portion of the facilities. no development yet in area. i
(All information provided by City Engineer's staff of Carlsbad, Oceanside and'Vista.1
-
I
revisions of the drainage fees by the City Councils. Of course,
collection 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 i I attract funding from other sources to supplement the cities’ I
funds 1 In any case, the watershed-wide planning for drainage, t ,
which will accompany implementation of the recommended Program,
wili -bS a benefit resulting in coordinated planning for the
watershed as a unified resource.
i I
.
.*
.
.
.
. -?
- 3 .L 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
cqmbinations 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 I
and special assessments. Outside funding sources include Federal
and State programs,’ as well as .private sector charitable sources.
3.1 FUNDING SOURCES WITHIN THE CITIES 1
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 ia
based on the value of property, then it is an ad valorum property
tax and cannot exceed 1% of the market value of the property , t
(Proposition 13, Cal. Const. Art. 13A, Section 1). A special
assessment is not limited to thi$ 1X, 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 des.ignated. in th.e 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
“impact fees ‘*, which base the fees on. the cost of- the impact of
!
f t
. :
, -
-110 . .
. .
* -.
the subdivision or development under revi.ew’, are p& “special
taxes I” 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 settled. 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/S voter
approval. Such a change, if passed, would leave only impact fees
and service charges available to cities for additional revdnue
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 Progiam, a new “s pet i al 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-
___-____ __
- .
special tax would be- usable for the purposes authorlzed in the
election. A special tax for public facilities, did not receive a
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 approach 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 Drop- owners to finance a public 1 imdrovewt which will benefit the assessed w. 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. -maintenance
d_istrict can be f d at the same time as the assessqgnt
district. --_ Bond sales are-allowed as a means of funding, to be
repaid by the assessment revenue, after a majority 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 improvF*ts’and maintenance for parks or’playgrounds. -
Condemnation can be used to acquire land for the park and land
out.side the city .l imits can improved if i t is a “c ity-owned
park”.
,
-13-
As noted, both of thesie assessment districts woulu allow the
‘collection and expenditure of funds for maintenance oi 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 planned drainage or
sewer facilities. The fees must be apportioned within the area
beriefttted 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 negot’iated at the
time of the granting of a permit or other discretionary atiproval .
of the development project.
These impact fees may be the most easily availiblh 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 -
,amount of money that can be raised. These fees will not be
available for the maintenance of the drainage facilities; once l
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. .Setv’ice charges may be imposed by City Council.
ordinance or resolution after public hearings.
.
-UP .
i
t
. .
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
confusion and resistance could result.
Servic’e’ch’arges could also be levied for the costs of reviewing
eras.ion control plans as a part of the grading ordinance
revisiks. This fee would simply reimburse the cities for the
extra expenses of reviewing the plans and inspecting the sites for
compliance with the erosion 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-goveinment, it i I
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 1966. Its boundaries were -
defined as the unincorporated areas of San Diego County, excludi.ng’
much of t,he 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 Lagoo’n Watershed Enhancement Program,
include: -
County .Drainage Districts (Water Code Sections 56000-56130) ’
(for construction and maintenance) . .
. .
-159 * . .
i .
.
..____-
?
‘
County Service Areas (Government Code Sections
25210.1-25211.33) (for extended services, including
construction and maintenance)
i 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 bercentage
of landowners or voters ‘in the proposed district area. The Board
of Sup>rvisors 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 may be formed under
different procedures. These require only a resolution 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
Sections 4600-4650) (for construction); and
Storm Drain Maintenance Districts (West’s Annotated Water -
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’ Formatiqn 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.
. .
‘\. l
, -
-160
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 FUNDING 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 merit 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 . , watershed. . e
,
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
agent ies , 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 Protectfon 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
In summary, the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conser,vation
Service may provide the most hope for direct Federal funding for
the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Progf’am. -Some
follow-up may be warranted in spite of the long lead times
required, and in spite of the curfent -administration’s “New
Federalism” policies making less money avai1abl.e for’these types
of programs. In any case, at the Fdderal 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
administered by the
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 pos.sible funding by March
1983. The local entities receiving funding wi.11 be required to - provide 25% of the total project cost in matching funds.
W’- . .
-18- .
.-,. Ic_- -.- - _... -3
. Th’e purpose of the g! --- I^-
, is for water quality pi -ng not
normally done under Section 208 funding. Identification of the
mos.t cost effective and locally acceptable measures to meet and .
maintain w’ater quality standards; and. development. of an i implementation plan for those measures including possible
construction, are acceptable purposes for the grants. The Buena
Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement Program seem appropriate
as a recipient for some funding from this b Vista Lagoon Program would compete with
but *he proposed evaluation criteria
could receive 4
.
3.2.2 State Programs
The State of California has no regular programs for *funding: i
there are a few state funds to:which watershed projects; however,
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
the Legislature, for projects which help to preserve and/or I protect the environment. i
E
The projects must have one or more of the following purposes:
.
The control and abatement of air pollution, including all .
phases of research into the sources, dynamics, and effects of
environmental pollutants.
.
. The a-, preservation, r,estorati, or any cs
thereof, of aat’ural areas or ecological reserved.
.
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. . ‘L . . e
.-1g-
- 1 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
g
potential impact’of development projects and land use changes
l 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. w
The outlo& for receiving future funds from this source is limited’
by the State’? 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 pwtion, preservation, restoration, and enhancement
projects . . . in accordance with provisions governing th’e State
Coastal Conservancy (Public Resources Code Sections 31000, et
seq.).
-2o-
4 -- --.
Water reclamatio atershed management, wat .onservation,
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’ojec.ts.
I - .Acguisition, restoration, and*preservation of habitat for rare i
and endangered species. I
1
.Programs for the prevention of soil loss and soil degradation.
Application to this fund woul’d be made through the State Agency
most appropriate. The State Water Resources Control Board:has a
project in .Newport Bay, with funding f>om 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 extend 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 p’1anning’effort.s 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 committment to the
progr-, 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 conductea LO 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, or for ’ ,
performing any needed maintenance at minimum costs’. ’
3.2.3 Private Sector Funding
Many 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 possibi’le role for the
Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation as an applicant and recipient of
: II
/
f , i 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
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, I
non 501(c) (3) organizations or captial funds. Nevertheless,
J
pursuit of these funding sources may be worthwhile. However, this
would take a good deal of time, and may even necessitate a staff f person whose major responsibility is grantsmanship. Another
option would be for the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation to t’ak& on
this responsibility. . ’
‘b - I -
-220 .
.
___-__
a.
-- -- .
4. w ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS i
Based on the questionnaire/matrix and the comments received (see
Appendix A), two options were developed for consideration in the.
implementation of the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Enhancement
Program. One involves formation of a special district to
administer the Program. While this was not a popular option
according to the comments, the abi.lity of a special district to
give logical and comprehensive guidance to the. Program requires
its Analysis. .
. The second, preferred option involves a number of actions to be
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 Fiood 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 with.in the District to assure its
completion. That, along with the resistance to “another layer of-
government ” outside the cities, led to the rejection of such an
option. ,
4.1 Alternative No. 1: Special District
The mo‘st accessible type 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 eutborizes 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
-230
‘
. - .
interest requires the improvements, describing me 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 filed’with the initiating city. The City Council of the
initiating city becomes the governing body of the district with
the*potJers 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’taxes. 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
guidanc; will come from one source, the governing body bf 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 jur.isdiction. Beyond that , even if a district were
successfully formed, tbe likelihood of a bond electioa garnering,
the necessary 2/3 majority is slim, given the resistance of the
, .
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 Agreement
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 l
outlined here, and described further in the following section as
the ‘rezommended 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 -
arrangement with the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation).
This joint powers agreement need not set up another power
s true 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. - .
‘1, l .
-25-
. - -4
5. u RECOMMENDED ALTERNATI VE
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 L
Appendix A). The goal of a realistic, workable Program for the i 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 1 I . LaioorF with or without building physical structures in the I .
watershed. As was mentioned earlier, soil and water management i I
practices, grading practices and other planning polici,es all have
their effect on the amount of sedimentation occurring in the
watershed. .* .
The paramount reasons for recommending a joint powers agre&nent
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.
i
t
-260
. .
.
- . rC
l
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 would avoid
the pdssibility that one city would plan a particular facility up
to its .border , 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 require4 to be
built by the developers, if and when development takes p‘lace.
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 revisions are done so that- the
ordinance; 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 ano.ther 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 I a
. -27-
involves the sharing oL enforcement expertise. AL the situation
exists where one or more of the cities lack the appropriate
expertise on their staffs, and lack the funds to permanently hire
such peopl*e, 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 services. .
The .joint powers agreement should also contain a provision for the
coo’tdjmation of planning and permit granting activities. This .
might translate into similar provisions in the cities’ respective
General PSans, or other similar policies in the granting of
permits. This element simply assures that the oity staffs would
periodically talk to each other about permissible ‘kctivities 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 (SAiIDAG)’
which has been authorized to conduct a program in conjunction with
its efforts around the Batiquitos Lagoon. The details of SANDAG’s
program are being worked out at this time. Reaching the building
professions, government officials and,staff people will be a
primary goal pf: the ptogram, a1on.g with increasing’public I awareness.
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 drairiage structures in the watershed. The
-280
. I
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 plight be shared
as in the case of the enforcement expertise mentioned above.
.
l .
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 i
Resource Conservation District (RCD). -Vista is already a member -
of ‘the Palomar RCD. Oceanside has passed a resolution to become a \ ,’
part of the Mission RCD, but completion of that action awaits a ’ \
like resolution by Carlsbad. The costs involved in this action I are the. fees to go before the Local Agency Formation Commission, t
.about $2 - 3,000, to be shared by Oceanside and Carlsbad. There 1,
are no other ongoing expenses, and the cities would then have the
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. /
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 . .
-290
.
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
s terms; 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
involves 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.
* ’ .
In summary, the enactment of a joint powers agreement among the’
ci.ties 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.
i
-3o-
. ATPENDI >’ - DEVELOPMENT OF THE OPT1 - i
A .1: POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF A WATERSHED ENHANCE,LIENT PROGRAM
.
In formulating the possible options for the Buena Vista Lagoon
Watershed Enhancement Program, various elements were investigated
and analyzed against a number of criteria. The elements were not
meant to be nutually exclusive nor all-inclusive. They were
developed from the expansion of current city powers and from the .
utiI..iza*tion of powers available under current state ,law. The
elements were submitted to city staff and other’interested people
for ‘their c.omments 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. .
A.l.l The Criteria . l
.
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
t
L : . . I
, city staff? . i ; t: Ease of Obtaining Funding:
What is the roughly estimated level of funding 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. spbcial legislation or
authorizations needed?
‘.& l
, s
-310
. .
, 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
l . 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
*- : reduction? i , .:. . .‘.a i. . . . . :. 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. . .
J-0
2.
3.
Formation of special assessment districts separately within
each city’s watershed area, with an agreement among them to , .
coordinate planning and building of structures.
Increase drainage’ fees (impact fees) to subdividers and
developers to include facilities contemplated by the Progr’am.
(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 .
4. Institute user fees or service charges for drain . facilities, perhaps to be collected o-n water ard sewer
bills. . *
5. Pur,sue funding grants from other governmental ag, es, eg.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, State Coastal C>i vancy , etc.
6. Pursue funding grants from private sector sourcat uch as
cbrpkations or non-profit foundations.
- 7. Formation of a special district encompassing the le
watershed, eg. an erosion control district, wit;1 endan t
planning, enforcement, and assessment and bond ;a powe?s.
8. Annexation of the watershed area into the San D:e; Couniy
Flood Control District, to taie advantage of fuad: options . available’ through the District. .
9. .Join a Resource Conservation District to utilizt I lnical
advice and assistance in sedimentation and erosior. In trol
measures and planning. .
e
-10. Require bonds to guarantee the performance of aijpr .-iate . *
erosion control measures by developers, either nc’ a grading
. ordinance, or an erosion control ordinance, perhal. 4ith a
portion of the bond in cash.
11. Participate in a program of public education and t ning of
inspec tars, city staff and building contractors wi regard to
erosion control measures.
12. Coordinate-planning and permit granting activitias ; the
water shed, among the cities.
13. Passage of new erosion control ordinances, or revL n of the
current grading ordinances. * -
-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.
. .
-34.'
I I
I I
;3. ~ ii Fijf;‘ i L!ij
: Li! ,.&I
::r::i-: i-1.2: : if!{ .fil -.: ,< :‘j; %$i’
1 ;~.j;w~il $)i ;;I{
:a.:; -... ;,::: .
:Pz::::‘:x
j iii; j\&
-<I--... -..... C.. z:::.!?. ;.<;; ;.~‘.a’ ::.::::1: ., -..i $<gi.Z{!;: z!iij Zf”: -.m.-.L.. Li ii ; I* i g
-350
i
i I
I
I
i
I
’ jj, j of.:.!: :;;{I s . . I 2:7, . . . ..I ::ig j’j.Zj .i.,: .:z-# ‘iii;
4
_ .
i 1
I 1
=f
I
I I
.
.
--l-l-- t 4 ::i
‘I::. . : .
t.
.I ; l ; iis i . . .
. . . . 2. ,m..: 3-c .:: 3 3 . . .- I . . . :.. 8 j ‘- :
‘.Z ; i
$::
:j - d *: ;::: 22. e
.i : 7 i:r
‘8 .fj I
. 2’ ..; .I
i:?<
lfi< z-.
. . ..;
./
:: . .:‘..a
I: x”, ii; i’jf. f$
;a.: .:a:;
:;f;i “ij i::; ::ii :.a-.‘: i,!f iz l I 1;“.
it.;:. . . . --, -7-i 7 ‘..
:9: :.;:
:‘itr !f:?f XI
F&i ;.;j,j x;; ;;s~ ‘:h:t’
Z’jjS :Jii ,+ Z .Z
!I;!! Jii=, j::j If. j;;;{ ;{!;I 1’::. .
ii:.: El ;.;;
; i . .
: .= : : 2 1
- . --
.-
L .
-36- . .
.
r( , 4 . s-l
P
.
,
-370
.
.
m
(cl-2 0.5 2 Q, f&l
1
325 WOrS
0 8 s w 8
1 I 1 I 1
I f
I t I I i t I I
I
i
I I - i
-38-
>I ti kc
2 z 2 s c cn c 2
M .
\t .
A
i
. . m -4 t al u -A
&
2 d u
2
.
I I I ‘I I .I .I
, .
. .
c 3
I = 3 8 I I I G
u 8 P
-39-
o- 0 l=c 90 .3 c
. , - -
A; 2 ELEMENTS ANALYSIS
A.2.1 Funding Options for the Cities
Element No. 1 - Special assessments (and special taxes):
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 l
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
envisioned. .
Special assessments are more likely to be suce.ssfully 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
proper ty owners ; but this is unlikely here. The funding criteria
ratings highlighted that a high level of effort would be needed .;o
#get the relatively high level of potential funds from this
element, possibly cancelling out the positive aspects; The l
effectiveness of this element was not rated high as far as
administrative simplicity or probability of long term acceptance. .
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 ate- the time of permit approval. However, there is some
hesitancy to raise the fees so high as to result in developers
goin’g elsewhere to build, where the fees are not so high. The .
ratings reflected this, with the political feasibility rated from
low to medium. I -
-4o-
The, City Engineers periodically do studies. to amend the drainage
plans and ipclude new needed facilities, and recommend revised
fees to reflect. the current needs. The city councils then pass on
these recommendations.. The adequacy of fundikg 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 andalikely; 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 W
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 r.eceive funding. The cities would also
be likely to need a person on the staff whose duties include
searching for grants and pr.eparing the proposals. Even with these
provisos, this element is cer’tain to be a part of the program.
‘5.. ’ . -
l .
,
I
i
I !
i
i
1 i
I
I
;
I
i
i
f !
i
(
I
t t
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.2.3 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 ii should be
considered as a possibility. *.
Element *No. 8 - Annexation to Saq Diego County Flood Control
District: w
This element would require special state legislation to allow the . incorporated cities to 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, with
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
.
-42:.
--.
allows the cities and residents within the cities to receive
t’echnical assistarfce 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 mucn, 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 eleoaent. 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. Pe’rhaps
Policies in the General Plans and other guidance could be made
.
-430
. . -
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
enac t s trong 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 ordinanGes. The discussions
which have occurred as a part of this Program seem to bear out
this observation.
Element No. 14 - Enforcement agreement:
kn agreement among the cities to enf.orce their respective
ordinances received medium to high ratings for. political’
feasibility and effectiveness,- while the cost? would be low. This
element would probably be the skeleton’ of the program with other
element? included to fill it out. Fat 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.
.
-44-
. -*
APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES CONTACTS
. The following contacts are listed for further information and
inquiry:
Federal Programs:
UT 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 .
Lds Angeles District
, I . .
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 v 1212 Broadway, Room 514
Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 464-1015 I -
-45-
.
.
Section 205(j) Funds
‘Archie Matthews
State, Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100.
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916) 322-2867
Private Sector 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 .a (415) 397-0902
M’aterials are also located at:
San Diego Public Library
820 E Street *
San Diego, CA 92101 .
(714) 236-5816
.
-460 .
, .
i
/
b
i:
/: I ,
. i
t i ! i 1
“. - .?’
EXHIBIT “A”
. Dot. No. 83-05
1.
2.
APPENDIX C: -DRAFT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
,
Parties: The Parties to this agreement shall be the Cities
of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, all of which are within San
Diego County, California.
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 cdordination
among the Cities.
3.
. 4.
I Authoritcyl:. This agreement is executed under the authority
contained in Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.
Recitals: --- The Cities, all of which are general law cities,
do not relinquish any of their sovereign powers as a result
of this agreement. Neither do they, by this agreement,
undertake to exercise any powers over the Buena. Vista Lagoon
itself, whi.ch is owned by the State of California, and
managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, as an
Ecological Reserve.
Creation of “The Ruena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating -
Committee --
5. Powers:
The Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee is
hereby created. The Committee shall be an advisory body with
the authority to discuss, study and recommend courses of
action to its member Cities. The Committee may consider
-47-
. .
issues raised by any of its members, as well as issues
referred to it by any member City. The issues eligible for
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 granting activities of the Cities, participation of
the Cities in a joint public education and training program,
the selection of appropriate physical structures (if any) to
be constructed within the watershed for the purpose of
controlling 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
concerning any of these issues about which agreement is
reached.
6. Membership: 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 Mayors 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 of
the Committee.
7. Meetings: Meetings 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-
8. Financing: The Committee shall have no powers to issue
bonds, levy taxes, or otherwise collect fees. The Committee
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 the grant and
carry out the project as approved.
9. Amendments: This agreement may be amended at any time, by
agreement among the parties.
10. Effective Date: This agreement shall be effective upon the
signature of the parties, and shall remain in effect until
the Committee v.otes to dissolve itself by a vote of 6 of its
9 members.
for Cityoof Carlsbad
'R. Michael Fzck, Mayor
..-
Date
7 1981
Date
36an Brook%/City Clerk
-43-
.
2
a
9
10
11.
li
13
14
3.5
16
17
la
. . 1.9
2c
21
2%
2;3
24
25
2% iv
* 2e
RESOLUTION NO. 7100 ---
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A BUENA VISTA
LAGOON JOINT PO\lERS AGREEMENT lJITH THE CITIES
OF VISTA AND OCEANSIDE;' --
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the legal/financial report dated
November 18, 1982 and prepared as part of the Wa-tershed Enhancement Study for
the cities of Vista, Oceanside and Carlsbad that a Joint Powers Agreement be
formed to establish a formal framework for the three cities to work
together;'and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad believes the
execution of a joint powers agreement could lead to an effective watershed.
mannyement program for the Buena Vista L,agoon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlshad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct,
2. That the City Council approves the execution of a Buen.a Vista
Lagoon Joi.nt Powers Agreement with the cities of Vista and Oceanside, as
outlined in Exhibit "A" attached, and authorizes the Mayor to sign the
agreement on behalf of the city.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Counci 1 of
the City of Carlsbad he1 d the 21st day of DSE&%Y , 1982, by the --
followi,ng vote, to wit:
AYES: Council &r~tirs Casler, Lewis, Eblxhin, Chick and Prescott
NOES: None
ABSENT: pJone- '
MARY H. C&'SLER, Mayor ---
C
\
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CAL.IFORNIA 92008
Office of tile City Clerk
TELEPHONE:
(714) 438-5535
December 28, 1982
Jean Brooks, City Clerk
City of Vista
P. 0. Box 1988
Vista, CA 92083
Re: Joint Powers Agreement for Buena Vista Lagoon
The Carlsbad City Council at its meeting of December 21, 1982,
adopted Resolution No. 7100, approving a Buena Vista Lagoon Joint
Powers Agreement with the Cities of Vista and Oceanside.
Enclosed is the original agreement, which'has been executed by Mayor Casler on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Also enclosed for your records is a copy of Resolution No. 7100.
As soon as the agreement has been executed by your Mayor, please
forward the original to the City of Oceanside for action.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter , please do not hesitate to call.
D&uty City Clerk
KRK/kdc
Enclosures
1200 ELF! r -:;i:E
CARLSBAD, Cbz .,.I ‘%!A 92008
Office I>’ t: L 1 :!i Clerk
TELEPHONE:
(714) 438-5535
Qitp of Gwls’bab
January 7, 1983
Jean Brooks, CMC City Clerk City of Vista P.O. Box 1988 Vista, CA 92083
Re: Appointments to Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of January 4, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 7112, appointing three members to the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee.
The appointments were as follows:
(1) Council Representatives: Richard Chick Robert Prescott City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008
(2) Citizen Representative: Pearl M. Tade (Petey) 5167 Los Robles Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone - 438-1058
Enclosed for your records and information is a copy of Resolution No. 7112.
LEE XXUTENKRANZ City Clerk
LR:kk
Enc.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of fhe City Clerk
TELEPHONE:
(714) 438-5535
Citp of QLartdmb
January 7, 1983
Barbara Bishop City Clerk City of Oceanside 704 Third St. Oceanside, CA 92054
Re: Appointments to Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of January 4, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 7112, appointing three members to the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee. ,,
The appointments were as follows:
(1) Council Representatives: Richard Chick Robert Prescott City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad 92008
(2) Citizen Representative: Pearl M. Tade (Petey) 5167 Los Robles Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone - 438-1058
Enclosed for your records and information is a copy of Resoltuion No. 7112.
LEE RAUTENKRANZ City Clerk
LR:kk
Enc.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 7112
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING MEMBERS 3 TO THE BUENA VISTA LAGOON WATERSHED COORDINA- TING COMMITTEE. 4
WHEREAS, The Buena Vista Lagoon Joint Powers Agreement with 5
6
7
8
9
30
the Cities of Vista and Oceanside was approved by Council on
December 21, 1982; and
WHEREAS, Item No. 5 of this agreement establishes the Buena
Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the I
11 City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
12 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
13
34
2. That the committee shall be formed consisting of two
Council Members and one citizen from the City of Carlsbad.
15 3. That the City Council shall have the authority to appoint,
16 replace and remove members.
17 4. That the following members are hereby appointed to serve
. 18 on the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee:
19 Richard Chick, Council Member
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
// //
// //
// //
// //
// //
// //
// //
Bob Prescott. Council'Member
Pearl Tade, Citizen
.
.
. J
,-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad held the 4th day of
JanuarY I 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council-s Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Prescott
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUT
(SE-AL)
.
,
City of Vista
December 30, 1982
Mrs. Lee Rautenkranz, City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Re: Joint Powers Agreement - Buena Vista Lagoon.
Dear Lee:
The Vista City Council, at its regular meeting held on Monday, December 27, 1982, adopted Resolution No. 82-207 approving the Buena Vista Lagoon
Joint Powers Agreement with the Cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside, and
authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of
Vista. A certified copy of said resolution is enclosed for your records.
The City Council took further action and made the following appointments
to the Committee:
(1) Council Representatives: (2) Public Member: Cmn. Nancy Wade and Mr. Ronald Wootten Cmn. Lloyd C. von Haden P. 0. Box 520 City of Vista Vista, Ca. 92083
P. 0. Box 1988 Telephone - 727-3866 Vista, Ca. 92083
Following approval and execution of the Agreement by
volved, please forward a copy to this office for the of Vista.
JB:nny Encl.
cc: Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager
City of Carlsbad cc: Mrs. Barbara Bishop, City Clerk City of Oceanside
the three Cities in-
records of the City
600 EUCALVPTUS AVENUE l P.O. 80X 1988 l VISTA, CAl.IFORNlA 92083 l 714/726-1340
1
2
3;.
4 r
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 i
26
27:
28
29
80
31
82
RESOLUTION NO. 8X-207
A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A BUENA VISTA LAGOON JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF CARLSBAD AND XX'NSIDE -
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of .ihz legal/financial
report dated November 18, 1982 and prepared as part of the Water-
shed Enhancement Study for the cities of Ca.rlsbad, Oceanside and
Vista th=l.t a Joint Powers Agreer:ient be formed to establish a
formal framework for the three cities to work together: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of'the City of Vista believes the
execution of a joint powers agreement could lead to an effective
watershed management program for .Izhe Bucna Vista Lagoon.
NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Vista.as follows:
1. That the.above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approve,s the execution of a Buena
Vista Lagoon Joint Powers Agreement with the cities of Carlsbad
and Oceanside, as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached, and author-
izes the Mayor to sign the agreement on behalf of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Vista held the.27th day of December ,
1982, by the following vote,'to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: WADE, MCCLELLAN, VON HADEN AND FLICK
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NEAL
ATTEST: ,QQ
-
- ,
1, :
1.
2.
3,
. 4.
EXHIBIT “A”
APPENDIX C: .DRAFT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Parties: The Parties to this agreemeat shall be the Cities
of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, all of which are within San
Diego County, California.
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.
l’
Authority:- ihis agreement is executed under the authority
contained in Government.Code Sections 6500 et seq.
Recitals: The Cities, all of which are general law cities,
do not relinquish any of their sovereign powers 2s 2 result
of this agreement. Neither do they, by this agreement,
undertake to exercise any powers over the Buena. Vista Lagoon
itself, which is owned by the State of California, and
managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, 2s an
Ecological Reserve.
Creation of ‘The Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating
Committee
5. Powers :
The Bue,na Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee is
hereby created. The Committee shall be an advisory body with
the authority to discuss, study and recommend courses of
action to it’s member Cities. The Committee may consider
-47-
L
6.
7.
issues raised by any of its members, as well as issues
referred to it by any member City. The issues eligible for
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 Cities in a joint public education and training program,
the selection of appropria.te physical structures (if any) to
be constructed within the watershed for the purpose of
controlling 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
concerning any of these issues about which agreement is
reached.
Membership: 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 Mayors 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 of
the Committee.
Mee ting:s_: Meetings 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.
t .
.
._” --a .
a. - Financing : The Committee shall have no powers to issue
bonds, levy taxes, or otherwise collect fees. The Committee
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 the grant and
carry out the project as approved.
9. Amendments: This agreement may be amended at any time, by . agreement. among the parties.
-10. Effective Date: This agreement shall be effective upon the
signature of the parties, and shall remain in effect until
the Committee v.otes to dissolve itself by a vote of 6 of its
9 members.
for Citydof Carlsbad
..-
Date
for City of Oceanside Date
YR. Michael Fxk, Mayor Date
-49-
. G
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Is’
I, JEAN BROOKS., City Clerk of the City of Vista, County of San Diego, State of Cali-
fornia, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original .Resal&ion .
passed and adopted by said City Council, at ~.~~..x~egul.&r -.____._._ meeting thereof, at the time
and by the vote therein stated, which original .~~~$~Q~~~~Q~ ______.___.__ is now on file in my office:
that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and the seal of said City of Vista, this 2&h. day of Bxeuib1?x..l.9&2...
WEAL)
1, I WA -.
OF OCEANSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK
BARBARA K. BISHOP
Lee Rautenkranz City Clerk City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Re: Appointments to Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed
The Oceanside City Council, at its meeting of January 12, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 83-08 approving the Buena Vista Lagoon Joint Powers Agreement with the cities of Carlsbad and Vista.
The three appointments to the Committee were as follows:
(1) Council Representatives: Mayor Lawrence Bagley John MacDonald City of Oceanside 321 N. Nevada St. Oceanside, Calif. 92054
(2) Citizen Representative: Dr. Regg V. Antle 3230 Waring Ct. (business) Oceanside, Calif. 92054 Telephone - 726-6451
Enclosed for your records and informati'on is a copy of Resolution No. 83-08.
Si rely yours, L (Barbara Bishop City Clerk
BB:ap
Enc.
CIVIC CENTER 704 THIRD STREET OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 TEL EPHON E 7 14-439-7258
, . -.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
-
RESOLUTION NO. 83-.oa
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE
APFROVING THE BUENA VISTA LAGOON WATERSHED JOINT POWERS
AGREE?lENT WITH THE CITIES OF CARLSBAD AND VISTA
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the legal/financial report dated
Wovember 18, 1982, and prepared as part of the Watershed Enhancement Study for
the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad and Vista that a Joint Powers Agreement be
formed to establish a formal structure for the coordination of the efforts of
the three cities related to the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Oceanside believes the execution
of a -joiqt coLqersaqreement could lead to an effective watershed management :.
program for the Buena Vista Lagoon;
NOW, THEREPORF, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
3ceanside that the City Council approves the execution of a Buena Vista Lagoon
r?atershed Joint Powers Agreement with the cities of Carlsbad and Vista, as
outlined in Exhibit "A" attached, and authorises the Mayor and City Clerk to
sign the agreement on behalf of the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council 0 f the City of Oceanside, California
this 12th day of I;'ar,uzry , 1983.
AYES: BAGLEY, GILBERT, :??RIOKCZLLI, AliD f:CBC)1IALU;
NAYES: XONE ;
ABSENT: BISSO2;
ABSTAIN: .P?C)?Jy, 1 .
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FO?Jvl & LEGALITY:
Sity Attorney
Oceanside
_ , 4 I -<; 9 :’
“’ - ,‘ -;’
*
EXHIBIT “A” - * #Lb-L ko. as-as
APPENDIX C: .DRAFT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
1. Parties: The Parties to this agreement shall be the Cities
of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, all of which are within San
Diego County, California.
2. 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
l agreement will facilitate and formalize that coordination
among the Cities.
I . . . I’
. 3..: .- Authority:. This agreement is executed under the authority
contained in Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.
. 4. Recitals: The Cities, all of which are general law cities,
do not relinquish any of their sovereign powers 2s a result
of this agreement. Neither do they, by this agreement,
undertake to exercise any powers over the Buena. Vista Lagoon
itself, whi.ch is owned by the State of California, and
managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, as an
Ecological Reserve.
Creation of The Ruena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating
Commit t.ee
5. Powers:
The Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed Coordinating Committee is
hereby created. The Committee shall be an advisory body with
the authority to discuss, study and recommend courses of . action to its member Cities. The Committee may consider
/
-47-
. “I’.-i n’ : . -
issues raised b_ any of its members, as we. _ as issues
referred to it by any member City. The issues eligible for
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 Cities in a joint public education and training program,
the selection of appropriate physical structures (if any) to
be constructed within the watershed for the purpose of
controlling 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
. I concerning any of these issues about which agreement is
reached. ‘.
6. Membership: 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 Mayors 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 of
the Committee.
7. Meetingz: Meetings 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.
-4&
I .
b . J.-A. ‘., ’
. * t
.
8. Financ ing : The Committee shall have no powers to issue
bonds, levy taxes, or otherwise collect fees. The Commit tee
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 the grant and
carry out the project as approved.
9. Amendments : This agreement may be amended at any time, by
agreement. among the parties. .
10. Effective Date: This agreement shall be effective upon the
signature of the parties, and shall remain in effect until
the Committee v.otes to dissolve itself by a vote of 6 of its
9 members.
for Citydof Carlsbad
for City of Oceksibe
Michael-Fxck, Mayor City of Vista
..-
Date
Date
Date
Attest:
-49-
.
.