Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-04; City Council; 3546-1; Bristol Cove Siltation ProblemCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. 3546. Sup. No. / Initial: ., ^r Dept.Hd. /s/ RDATF- MaY 4' 1976 • -±—!—DATE- ± ! C. Atty. /s/ VFB DEPARTMENT: Public Works Administrator C. Mgr. /s/ B Subj ect: BRISTOL COVE SILTATION PROBLEM Statement of the Matter At its December 16, 1975 meeting, the City Council acted to assist the Bristol Cove Property Owners Association in determining a solu- tion to a siltation problem they have had for a number of years. Staff was directed to prepare a report addressing the issue. That report is attached. Exhibit 1. Staff report. Recommendation The City Council should instruct the Staff to initiate petitions for an improvement assessment district. This will help determine property owner interest in the matter. It is further recommended that the Staff be authorized to budget, in the coming fiscal year, for outside assessment district engineer- ing aid to facilitate the process. The amount of that aid would probably be around $5,000, up to the point that a determination can be made that the property owners are willing to proceed. Any additional City contributions to'the district, if any, should be determined only after preliminary assessment work is completed. The City Council is reminded that this project has not been in- cluded i-n any City capital improvement plans. Council action 5-4-76 Staff recommendation was accepted and Staff instructed to initiate petitions for an improvement assessment district, and authorized to budget, in the coming fiscal year, for outside assessment district engineering aid to facilitate the process. MEMORANDUM April 12, 1976 TO: City Manager FROM: Public Works Administrator SUBJECT: Bristol Cove drainage problem Background History Siltation in Bristol Cove is a problem of long-standing and one which can be assumed to occur at the mouth of any drainage basin (see Exhibit "A"). In the late 1960's when the Janss Corporation assumed control of the Bristol Cove development, they attempted to deal with the siltation problem by the construction of a 60" bypass drain to divert water around the Cove into the main body of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Because the diversion drain was incapable of carrying the peak storm flows, significant flow continued into the Bristol Cove Channel. The diversion drain, as well as the channel, silted up. The Janss Corporation, working through the office of the City, commissioned a report in June of 1973 to address the problem of siltation control. This report was prepared by the same firm that prepared the draft City storm drain master plan in April of 1971. The report recommended construction of desilting basins along the open channel areas of the drainage course. No construction activity resulted from these recommendations. With regards to the draft drainage master plan, the recommendation for the sub-area in- volved has been, to a significant extent, completed by the con- struction of drains in James Drive, the Tamarack East development, and the construction of a paved open channel which receives drainage from the general area of the proposed Pannonia development, Only the main portion of the storm drain remains to be completed. The main source of siltation is in that unconstructed area where the drainage runs through a natural channel, the areas of greatest silt contribution being westerly of Park Drive between Hillside and Adams. City Manager April 12, 1976 Page Two Because of debris collected in the open channel portion of the drain, there have been problems in the past in making that portion of the diversion drain constructed in the Bristol Cove area work properly, the result being that the 60" bypass has silted up, making it necessary to route all storm waters through the pipe at the upper end of the Cove. Discussion The proper solution to the problem appears to be the construction of approximately 2700 feet of 48" diameter pipe. The estimated construction cost, exclusive of right of way, is $200,000. Construction of a permanent drain cannot guarantee removal of the entire siltation problem because other smaller drains still empty into the Bristol Cove channel. There will also be the silt deposits carried by storm waters which exceed the capacity of the bypass drain and therefore flow into the Bristol Cove channel. In addition, the tidal action of the lagoon itself and its resulting siltation may have some affect on the Bristol Cove channel. Construction of the drain would have several benefits. It would: 1. Prevent accumulation of excessive debris, particularly from stands of bamboo growing in the channel and boards left by children who play there; 2. Prevent further erosion of the water course and the resulting siltation of Bristol Cove; 3. Provide for the storm water to flow with higher velocity which could eventually result in the effective use of the 60" bypass to route all but higher flows around the Bristol Cove channel; 4. Allow the existing unpaved channel to be filled in, removing for the property owners a potential safety hazard to neighbor- hood children who may be playing there; and City Manager April 12, 1976 Page Three 5. Allow for widening of Park Drive as traffic needs warrant. The attached map (Exhibit B) shows the proposed location of the drain. Phase I (estimated cost, $75,000) would be constructed in a location where Park Drive will eventually be widened, would carry the runoff from most of the tributary areas and would result in elimination of the main source of silt. The problem of debris and silt from the upstream open channel area would still exist. Phase II (estimated cost, $125,000) would complete the main line drain for this drainage sub-area and would give maximum benefit in the elimination of silt and debris problem. Exhibit B also shows those properties that would directly benefit by the removal of an existing water course over their properties and the restoration of full surface access and en- joyment of use. Exhibit C lists those property owners (with map reference to Exhibit B) who would so benefit. Exhibit D shows the Bristol Cove properties that would benefit from the project by the elimination of a continued maintenance problem which is their legal responsibility (reference, Exhibit E,, 1-9-76 a letter from Janss Corporation). Exhibit F is an excerpt from a drainage report prepared for the City in 1971. It lists and discusses the various methods generally used to finance storm drain construction. The two most probable sources of financing in this instance are developers and 1911-1913 Assessment Districts. Relying on developers would probably result in the construction of Phase I only and then only after the future resolution of the effect of the California Coastal Act on the property. This would take many years, would be piecemeal and would only resolve part of the problem. The best solution would appear to be an assessment district. Voluntary assessment district would have an economic and time advantage over a formal assessment district. A formal proceed- ing results in additional project costs of anywhere from 30% to 40% and requires a number of public hearings and other time- City Manager April 12, 1976 Page Four consuming processes. The informal district, on the other hand, requires full agreement and participation by all who benefit if it is to succeed. It should be pointed out that, while the City has no legal obligation in this matter, it may participate in the project to the degree that the Council determines the general public may benefit by the project. This participation may be in the form of financial assistance, the furnishing of project engineering, or both. The extent, if any at all, of the City involvement is a matter of Council policy. If the Council decides that the City should participate financially, it should instruct the staff to include the project and the amount of City participation in the CIP. The Council may also advise as to the extent of project benefit; that is to say, who would participate in such assessment district proceedings. It may be the adjacent property owners, the Bristol Cove Property Owners Association, the City of any combination or % thereof. Recommendation If the Council determines that the project has merit and should proceed, either as a formal or voluntary proceeding, they should so instruct the staff as to their preferred method and as to the amount, if any, of City participation. Ronald A. Beckman Public Works Administrator RAB/wv Attachment s mm X3 ICD * I | I I ' I ' I I I I I m gg s H ro ro CD ,"--'/'> "'•» '••:> *:'?/•,•';.\^;,v/:^>^;/Ns:^rt>^.A,'^ 206-160 -13 Aagre, Curt E, c/o Walter Perry, 4269 Hillside, CarXsbad 206-191 -02 Rombotis, Robert L; Rombotis, Jerry L; Kalicka, Kay, PO Box 1155, Carlsbad -03 Salsen, Steen W & Emma R; Lassen, Adolf F, 4500 Park Dr., Carlsbad -10 Glissman, A H & Edna M; Perkett, C R & M Jean, 6500 Ocean View, Carlsbad -11 Harwood, Everett N Inc., 6500 Ocean View, Carlsbad 206-192 -01 Kalicka, Beverly; Rombotis, Jerry L; Rombotis, Robert L, PO Box 1155 Carlsbad -02 Law, Opal V, PO Box 306, Carlsbad -03 Borin, David A & Rosalyn, 865 Comstock Ave., Los Angeles 90024 207-022 -03 Pfennig, William; Pfennig, Earl, 4117 Park Dr., Carlsbad -04 Ingold, Ralph E & Mabel L, 4135 Park Dr., Carlsbad .-05 White, Richard V J & Sharon L, 4157 Park Dr., Carlsbad -06 Patterson, John E, Lawrence C H & Jacqueline, 702 Fourth Ave., Oceanside -08 Giusto, James & Betty, 17291 Irvine Blvd Suite 160, Tustin 92680 -10 Racciatti, Thomas J & Marie S, 435 Colton St., Newport Beach 92660 -11 Smith, Spencer & Laura, 837 Manley Dr., San Gabriel 91776 —12 " " " • EXHIBIT "C" JANSS INVESTMENT CORPORATION January 9, 1976 The Bristol Cove Property Owner's Association 4585 Cove Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Bart Lefferdink Re: Dredging of the Channel Dear Bart: This is to confirm our recent discussion regarding the channel. As we discussed, Janss Investment Corporation ("Janss") has voluntarily paid the cost of maintaining and dredging the channel for many years. The most recent dredging of the channel was performed during 1975 at a cost to Janss of $12,674.20. We are in receipt of an additional invoice in the amount of $1,016.01 which we intend to pay upon the submission of appropriate information substantiating the amount. This means that over the past three years Janss will have spent more than $34,800 in dredging and maintaining the channel and the amounts seem to be increasing at an alarming rate. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our recent discussions to the effect that Janss has decided that it cannot and no longer will continue to be responsible for the maintenance and dredging of the channel. We made this decision reluctantly because we have enjoyed our relationship with the Association. On the other hand, we have been advised by counsel that Janss is not responsible for maintaining the channel and we cannot continue to voluntarily expend corporate funds for this purpose. We think the time has come for the Association and the City of Carlsbad to work together to find a solution to the problem. The Association has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of the channel. The channel is shown as Lot 74 on the Tract Map and Janss deeded the channel to the Association by a Grant Deed recorded May 25, 1967. The Articles of Incorporation of the Association provide that the purpose for which it was organized is to: "[Ejngage in the business of maintaining, repairing, managing, operating and controlling all common areas and easement areas within said planned development and all agreements concerning said planned development, and to enforce or assist members in assessing covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to their real property. The corpor- ation shall have the power to own real property." IOO THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD. THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA 9I36O • TELEPHONE (2(3) B89-O4OO (8O5,1 '.35-213; EXHIBIT E The Bristol Cove Property Owner's Association January 9, 1976 Page Two Further, the By-Laws provide that the Association has the power to: "Contract and pay for maintenance, gardening, utilities, materials and supplies and services relating to the common property and/or facility, and to employ personnel reasonably necessary for the operation of the planned development, including lawyers and accountants where appropriate." The Association also has the power to: "Assess against members annual dues which are determined from time to time by the Board of Directors to be necessary to meet necessary expenditures and to provide for adequate reserves as determined by all of the obligations and circumstances of the corporation. Such assessments shall be enforceable by action or by the sale or foreclosure of membership." This language indicates that the Association has the power to pay for the maintenance of the common areas and further to assess members whatever amounts may be necessary to defray the cost of maintenance of the common areas, including the cost of dredging the channel. It may very well be that the activities of the City of Carlsbad in approving major tract developments upstream have caused the present problem and that the City should therefore share in the responsibility of maintaining the channel and in finding a permanent solution to the problem. We suggest that the Association meet with officials of the City of Carlsbad to work out a mutually satisfactory solution. We are willing to cooperate with you to the extent possible but we cannot continue to pay the cost of dredging the channel. We trust you will understand our position. Very truly yours, Hugd-to. Roche Vice President HDR:mc EXHIBIT E EXCERPT FROM "DRAFT MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN", April 1971; IX. FINANCING In order to implement the master plan, a means must be found to finance the major drainage facilities. Some of the methods by which all or a portion of the construction of the major drainage facilities could be financed are as follows: A. Developers. B. General Obligation Bonds. C. Drainage Districts. D. 1911-1913 Assessment Districts. E. County Flood Control District. F. Federal Grants. 1. Developers Historically, low-lying lands have been legally required to accept surface storm drainage flows from upland lands within the tributary drainage basin provided the character of the natural flow has not been altered. Even if an upland area is developed, and through paving or other means the surface is made more impervious thus increasing the amount of runoff, the low-lying area is still required to accept the drainage flow if it is discharged onto the low-lying land at the same point and in the same manner. The owner of property traversed by a natural drainage channel can neither block, restrict, nor alter the natural channel in any way which would cause overflow or ponding on upstream properties, nor change the point of discharge onto down- stream properties. The value of property, therefore, can be substan- tially affected by the cost of satisfying the drainage requirements. An owner of property traversed by a major natural drainage channel must plan either to leave the entire flood plain affected by the natural channel undeveloped, or finance a drainage facility to make all or portions of the property buildable. 2. Bonds A General Obligation Bond issue could be used to finance all or portions of the master plan facilities. Since a major portion of the facilities are located within presently undeveloped property, bonds could be authorized but not issued until such time as funds are required. However, during inflationary periods the amount of the bond authoriza- tion must be increased to reflect the estimated inflation. If this is Exhibit F - 1 not done, sufficient funds may not be available and some future facilities might need to be deleted. 3. Drainage Districts General Law cities are permitted to form drainage districts for the purpose of financing master drainage facilities. Normally, a separate drainage district is formed for each major tributary drainage area. Enabling legislation is adopted describing the boundaries of the district, a master plan setting forth the facil- ities to be constructed is approved, and based on an estimated cost of the master plan facilities a uniform acreage fee is established to cover the cost of constructing the facilities and any administra- tive cost incurred by the City. The entire cost of all master plan facilities within the district may be financed by the acreage charge, or the City may make a contribution. If the City has funds available they may finance the cost of construction of the initial facilities and be reimbursed from future acreage fees or, if the City does not have funds available, the property owner or developer would be required to pay the entire cost and be reimbursed from future acreage fees collected by the City. Because the initial develop- ments normally occur in the lower portions of a drainage basin, the most expensive facilities are required in the beginning. Only a small percentage of reimbursements are ever made due to the high initial cost, increased cost due to inflation, and additional expen- ditures required for construction due to continuing development in the drainage basin. A developer who is required to finance the improvements usually attempts to pass these costs on to the buyers of his property. Thus reimbursements that are made become an additional profit to the developer. Drainage districts create an added administrative burden for the City. Even though some of the costs may be passed on to the district, additional City manpower is often required. Sometimes a General Obligation Bond can be combined with the formation of drainage districts. Proceeds from the bond issue are used to finance the initial improvements, and then the bond principal and interest obligations are satisfied with proceeds from the drainage assessment district acreage fees. Exhibit F - 2 4. Assessment Districts Drainage districts are not practical for areas already developed because the acreage fees collected from new developments only cover a small portion of the cost of the required drainage facilities. In developed areas, when it is determined that drainage improvements should be financed in all or part by the tributary property, then either a 1911 or 1913 assessment district is used. However, assess- ment districts are difficult to form to finance drainage improvements because only a relatively small number of properties are adversely affected by the lack of the improvements. The owners of these prop- erties will support the formation of a district; but, the owners of the remaining properties which are also assessed but not directly benefitted will generally oppose the formation of a district. 5. County Flood Control District Although the City is not presently within the Flood Control District, it may be advantageous to annex to the District sometime in the future. Either through an ad valorem tax or a general obliga- tion bond issue, the District could finance some of the major drainage facilities. 6. Federal Grants A search has not been made to determine if any of the required drainage facilities would be eligible for a federal grant. Most of the federal grant programs seem to be directed toward correcting existing deficiencies rather than opening new areas for development. Therefore, some of the required projects in the developed areas might be eligible now or in the future. Exhibit F - 3