Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-03; City Council; 11465; DRAFT SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONa u (d a, a al al u .u -2 0 V g 0 L4 2 F9 al al 2 Eo &I .rl v1 W (d k 1cI al u u a r-l s 0, 4JG an 2% Ern 4 00 wu Od urn rn arl a, ala L4m Mhl (d &I l-lal TI P 0s 00 !z vz rl rn \ m \ hl rl 2 0 r= 0 4 2 0 z 3 0 0 GI I P GAHLSLIAU - Aut ABt-5- TITLE DEPT. t MTG. 12/3/91 DRAFT SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY CITY A1 DEPT. CM FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION CITY M RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation from SANDAG staff on the draft Shoreline Preservatior Strategy. ~ ITEM EXPLANATION: The draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy prepared by SANDAG is an action p1a1 for solving the critical erosion problems being experienced by many of thc region's beaches and seacliffs. The Strategy proposes a beach building an( maintenance program to respond to these problems and the adversc environmental, recreational and economic impacts from the continued loss of thc shoreline. The Strategy was prepared with guidance from the SANDAG Shoreline Erosioi Board of Directors in September. Committee, and accepted for distribution and public review by the SANDA( EXHIBITS: 1. 2. Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Regor Letter from the Beach Erosion Committee. September, 1991. rn 0 0 I November 25, 1991 Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS PROM CARLSBAD BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE OP DRAFT SANDAG SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Shoreline Erosion Committee, ha published a draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region, datec September, 1991. The proposed Shoreline Preservation Strategy articulates an action plai for solving the region’s coastal erosion problems. The Strategy proposes a series of beacl building and maintenance programs to deal with the region’s coastal erosion problems anr the considerable adverse economic, recreational, and environmental impacts from thi ongoing loss of our region’s shoreline. In no other area of San Diego County is the problem of shoreline erosion more critical tha the current condition of Carlsbad’s beaches. Accordingly, the Carlsbad Beach Erosio Committee has reviewed the SWAG report in depth and has prepared the followin general comments for the City Council’s consideration of the proposed Shorelin Preservation Strategy. e The Beach Erosion Committee is in general support of the SANDAG Report as broad-brush approach to dealing with coastal erosion. The Committee views th draft report as an essential first step in developing regional solutions to a clear1 regional problem of significant economic, recreational, cultural, and environment; importance. The general timetable for implementation is unduly and unrealistically optimistic fc both completion of the SANDAG conceptual plans and implementation of the overa strategy. 0 e a. 1 November 25, 1991 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM CARLSBAD BEACH EROSION COMMI'ITEE ON DRAFI' SANDAG SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY Page 2 The Strategy implies a firm, written commitment to specific implementation schemes Rather, the Strategy is very generalized and broad in concept with little realistic opportunity for quick action, particularly with respect to additional coasta engineering data gathering and financing. The Strategy is keyed to the availability of sand at an average price of $5.00 per cubic yard for the life of the program. The initial regional estimated volume of sanc required for the three (3) major problem areas identified in the Strategy is 30 milliot cubic yards at an estimated cost of $150,000,000. The primary potential source of thc sand is identified in the Strategy as "off-shore deposits". There has been nc confirmation to substantiate suitability of sand type, estimated quantities, estimate( dredging costs, possible placement scenarios, equipment requirements, and a numbe of other practical, yet very real impacts upon the cost estimate. 0 The Strategy references sand placement to protect both property and recreationa values throughout the region. These represent two (2) entirely different land us objectives, coastal engineering solutions, and economic values to the coast. Thc Strategy should address much clearer definition of both local and regional goals tc be attained from the substantial sand placement scenario that is recommended. The Strategy should address in considerable detail the tax burden to be borne b: local coastal communities in relation to inland communities. Local agencies shoulc analyze economic impacts to its residents and any affects upon land values. Therc must be both the perception and the reality of economic equity for the entire regior The Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee recommends that these and other issues of concer; be communicated to the SANDAG staff working with the SANDAG Shoreline Erosio Committee at its next meeting regarding the proposed SANDAG Shoreline Preservatio Strate have the opportunity to provide input into any proposed cost mechanisms anr JN&k& DONJAC ON Chairman, Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee DJ : J JC:jkb C; Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee Members City Manager Municipal Projects Manager 'esayy el 'tpeag lelJadwl 'op!puoos-j 's8a!upus 'uo!e=) 13 *Jew iaa 'oPeuoJo3 'eas!A elnw 'PeqslJe3 lo salal3 :S33N3DV 838Y 'slso;, IIO mp J3rl)JnJ JOJ 3%ed q3BQ q *amp aqaxoqs Jpqa 10; spq anqyum oa paqse aq pp~ mpppq .ap auna~or~s ~d OS€$ &wq-xo~dh q sm *UO@~J aq JOJ naL id m'~$ an- aq ppom 'puq bm&yum 3uyoayrour moas -1sod e dn ppq oa ma4 e ooobs$ 3qnpq 'dad sg JO sasm aqa iqa ~EJIEUX~ si 11 *suopppn[~acgo Lq pasn dams psp pue qqdaoaoqd ~OJ ssq at pue 6suopxppn[ amos a~ wqwapun Lpuauna shms aqamqs pqsLqd q luamqddns ~qasn e appd P~OM epp sm -uoyxm pue uo~ara JO txue JO sdm ~AIJ~UX~ apy0.d p sqoqd apt JO qsLpe %upa@~ *ampoqs s,uo@a aq JO saoqd @~.rae pnumq 40 ssp= dad %pquoux aqaoqs papuauxuo3a~ au *suogqqm[ ~rn apt Lq pmdde s! a! J! WoJd apt auauqduq Qluap! pue b=h q= pm a@gJ q= JOJ 'aql- aJllua 3WJOJ aq J%O qp* p=q IW 9vaNvs :aIqFssod S? urfmud mw 3Am 8 J! aulurratap w aaUPUO3 am '=u* em m=PF ahep -!FPV.f atTl =Q '9VWS 1c9 PasfnIurpe u! uo?$aIpsFnF m- v= aeyr 3wn- s! =mPQ UOPW =?taJoqs DVaNVS au m%o~d %uyayrom auTlaJoqs ~A~S~OCXI E a! %updpgmi rappm uo@a apt -w mo1Poty aw=oqs :=S ms DVaNVS :HIOW WWd pEJIwJ*UI :0bL 2661 '22 XPf No\~3y 3~1 o4 e SOCS-S6S(619) xed OO€S-S6S(619) LOCZG eiuiolile3 'o6a!a ues iaaw 8 LOP 41.. @ eteld alElSJa)Ul ISJlj '008 a)!flS . ' U3.TQJX%\W \$ -QILw3ossv % o%ra uvs % jo sa 0 0 'SVPP appad o) pue suop awwa- awq JO SS~WA~JJ~ aq ;uaum3op cq awoq arl) .rotporn a kessau q 11 'saq3ea~ ~0 (v=@zI i=unpqda qq pm sup8 'saga[ '*%a) sqpywe mq pue (sap9 pue srmols '*%a) amam JO slqa ag MO~ os@ T[I~ %upqxow *suopqos %mp~ap rq pue 'Lrp!du isom Supnmo s! uo~w amp pq pm aqaJoys aql y spw pm s%q uuq 8UOI uo UoIJmOJuI IuqIoduq aprAoJd OS@ lllrn ZIplpO~ -SWfaJa tnanra%enmn arm) any pUe &dm1 a'lcressa3aU E$+ ag !nam pgp ayl %map rq tuw%iq q aotfJl J3Ao =%rrer[:, auIlaJorIs aq3 Aboq %IIpquo~ Gm=tIs atlt J01!UOU *tIM , *sapua%e @IapaJ Aq pa%enmn pae paurn0 11 JO auos '=q~ 1qmd neurs r~lw sp-q h= s! aana~orls s,oWa as JO =P ZI inoqv (9) ==-k =t=d 3-s =w P- LEN -s-n aq Aq p%euem Pue pauo ? =WOW s$~aro;) Jo mp S.8 lnqv (e) ( (1ctm~ o%a!a ms) SZI '9 OS€ S'LI UatalpDd dm OOP'I ? OS€ OP aPF- SLZ'Z OS€ s'9 Pww3 SLZ'Z OS€ E'9 =FFm SZS OS€ SI Pm mos OSO'I OS€ O€ Jetv raa OOt'L OS€ 0'22 ,&ha ms SL9'6 OS€ E'OI OO~Q SZZ'IS OS€$ E'€ Pm w=w uoq3rpsuq mT VR Tm- .. . WOL PSQ aaIlaropS (qmx~oJdde a.xz sadg is03 prne a%sp am INW9OXd 9NIXOUNO5U E"OHS CESOdO2Id 2IOd SZIWULL~ LS03 0 San Diego ASSOCLATIOS ( GOlTERS31EST: 401 B Street San Diego. California 92101 (619)595-5300 Fax (619)595 0 Suite 800. First interstate Pia October 5, 1992 TO: Shoreline Erosion Committee FROM: SNAG Staff SUBJECT: Status of Shoreline Monitoring Program The Committee requested that each coastal jurisdiction in the region consider participating in a Cooperative aerial photo shoreline monitoring program. A memo summatizing the request is attached. A second attachment presents the results, as of October 20,1992, ol coastal jurisdictions' responses to SANDAG's request for consideration. The results to date indicate that there is not sufficient local funding available to cany ou a cooperative regionwide, or even subregional, program. Additional information on tht responses of Oceanside and the U.S. Navy will be presented at the meeting, if available If the Committee approves, staff will continue to pursue funding of the program fron other sources, and will explore several ideas for decreasing costs and increasing the utilit: of the program. Specifically, the monitoring of cliff retreat and the use of satellite phot1 technology will be researched. Attachment MEMBER AGENCIES: Cltles of Carlsbad. ChUla Vista, Coronado. Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach. L hnon Grove. National City. Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista and County of San I ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Defense and Tljuana/Baja C: 0 e RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN SHORELINE MONITORING PROGRAM (Total Annual Program Cost is Estimated at $20,000 - $25,000) Anticipated Jurisdiction Interest Contribution Imperial Beach ' Yes $481 Coronado Yes 3,675 San Diego No -- Del Mar 2 Yes 1,050 Solana Beach Yes 525 Enchitas Yes 2,275 Carlsbad No -- Oceanside Not yet ? determined -- State Parks & Recreation No U.S. Navy Not yet determined ? TOTAL / $8,006 1 The Unified Port District would contribute the funds. 2 The NCTD will consider contributing funds for the portion of the shoreline adjacent the railroad R.O.W. a e DRAFT SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION SEPTEMBER 1991 San Diego Ea ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 401 B Street 0 Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 595-5300 This report was financed by Federal funds from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State funds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways, and local funds from SANDAG member jurisdictions. m a Board of Directors SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. Voting members include the Incorporated Cities of Carisbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon Enunitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members indude CALTRANS, U.S. Department of Defense, and Tjuana/Baja California. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Jack Doyle VICE CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Gloria E. McClellan SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tern CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Leonard Moor., Councilmember (A) Hon. Tim Nader, Mayor CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Michel Napolitano. Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Susan Keith, Coundlmember CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Gay Hugo-Martinez, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. J. Rod Franklin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jacqueline Winterer, Mayor ClTY OF EL CAJON Hon. Harriet Stockwell. Councilmember (A) Hon. Beverly Miller, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Councilmember CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Maura Wiegand, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Gail Hano, Mayor CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Jerry Harmon, Mayor (A) Hon. Kris Murphy, Councilmember CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Mike Bixler, Mayor (A) Hon. Marti Goethe. Councilmember CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Bany Jantz. Councilmember (A) Hon. Jay LaSmr, Councilmember CITY OF LEMON GROVE Won. James V. barman. Mayar (A) Hon. Brian Cochran, Counciimemkr CITY OF NATlONAL CITY Hon. Jess E. Van Deventer, Councilmember (A) Hon. Michael Dalla, Councilmember CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Nancy York, Councilmember (A) Hon. Melba Bishop, Deputy Mayor CITY OF POWAY Hon. Jan Goldsmith, Mayor (A) Hon. Kathy Mclntyre, Councilmember CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Judy McCarty, Councilmember (A) Hon. Tom Behr, Councilmember CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Lee Thibadeau, Mayor (A) Hon. Mike Preston, Councilmember CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Doyle, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Coundlmember CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Richard Hendlin, Mayor (A) Hon. Margaret Schlesinger, Councilmember (A) Hon. Celine Olson, Deputy Mayor CITY OF VISTA Hon. Gloria E. McClellan, Mayor (A) Hon. Bernie Rappaport, Mayor Pro Tem COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Brian Bilbray, Supervisor (A) Hon. Susan Gdding, Supervisor (A) Hon. John MacDonald, Supewisor STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) James W. van Loben Selr, Director (A) Jesus Garcia, District Eleven Diredor U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Liaison Member) Capt Tom Crane, USN, CEC Commanding Officer Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command ThJUANA/BAJA CALIFORNIA (Advisory Member) Hon. Cartos Montejo Favela Presidente Municipal de Tijuana September 16,1991 ii 0 0 San Diego ASSOCIATION ( GOVERNMENT: Suite 800, First interstate Plai 401 6 Street (619)595-5300 Fax (619)595- San Diego, California 92101 @J October 7, 1991 TO: The Citizens of the San Diego Region The Draft Shoreline Presemation Strategy was accepted for distribution and public review by the SANDAG Board of Directors on September 27,1991. We encourage your review of and comment on this important document. The Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy is a proposed action plan for solving the critical erosion problems being experienced by many of the region’s beaches and seacliffs. Our region is projected to continue losing its sandy beaches, and major storms will pose an even greater threat to coastal property in the future, unless we take action. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy proposes a beach building and maintenance program, based on sound coastal engineering principles, to respond to the region’s erosion problems and the adverse environmental, recreational and economic impacts from the continued loss of our shoreline. Please respond to SANDAG with your comments by Friday, December 6, 1991. They should be sent to Steve Sachs, project manager, at the SNAG offices, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101. If you have questions on the Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy or are a member of a group that would like to receive a slide presentation on the Draft Strategy, call Mr. Sachs at (619) 595-5346. A Final Strategy will be prepared based on the comments received during the public review period and presented to local governments and the SANDAG Board for approval in early 1992. Implementation of the Strategy would be initiated at that point. Thank you for your help in the development of this Strategy to preserve and enhance one of this region’s prime environmental and economic assets - its shoreline. Sincerely, eF Chairman, Board of Directors JDISSlah * MEMBER AGENCIES. Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista. Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, Ls Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista and County of $an D ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS. California Department of Transportation, U S. Department of Defense and Tijuana/Ba,a Cal 0 0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy was prepared with guidance from the SANDAG Shoreline Erosion Committee. SHORELINE EROSION COMMIlTEE September 1991 Mayor Larry Bagley, Chairman City of Oceanside Mayor Pro Tern AM Kulchin city of carlsbad Mayor Mary Herron City of Coronado Councilmember Rod Franklin City of Del Mar Councilmember Anne Omsted City of Encinitas U.S. Navy Mayar Mike Bbder City of Imperial Beach Councilmember Abbe Wolfsheimer City of San Diego Deputy Mayor Celine Olson City of Solana Beach Commissioner Me1 Portwood San Diego Unified Port Commission Lieutenant Commander Mike hd The important contributions of the former committee members are also acknowledged: Lou Temll, City of Del Mar Mayor Jan McMillan, City of Del Mar Lois Ewen, City of Coronado Bob Odiorne, City of Coronado John Mahoney, City of Imperial Beach EX-OFFICIO TECHNICAL ADVISORY MEMBERS California Coastal commission StattLanQCommission California Department of Boating and Waterways State Department of Parks and Recreation U.S. Army Corps of EnginaerS (LA. District) V 0 The following staff of SANDAG participated in the development of the report: Stuart Shaffer, Deputy Executive Director Steve Sachs, Senior Planner, Project Manager Marney Cox, Special Services Director In addition, Craig Everts, Moffat & Nichol Engineers, provided consultant services for the project. vi e 0 ABSTRACT z TITLE: Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy AUTHOR SUBJECT: San Diego Association of Governments Recommended policies and actions to preserve and enhance the San Diego region's shoreline. DATE: September 1991 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY: San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 NUMBEIROFPAGES: 100 ABSTRACT: The Shoreline Erosion Committee, SANDAG staff, and its consultant have prepared the Draft approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors for distribution and public review on September 27,1991. The Strategy proposes an extensive beach building and maintenance program for the critical shoreline erosion problem areas in the region, as well as a number of actions to support this program, such as guidelines for shoreline land use and protective structures. The Strategy contains a comprehensive set of recommendations on the beach building program, and on financing and implementation. Shoreline Preservation Strategy. It was Vii 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ExecutiveSummary ................................ 3 II. ID. IV. V. VI. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoreline Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Shoreline Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policies and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 23 33 41 45 Appendix: Data, Assumptions and Evaluation Methods Data, Assumptions and Evaluation Methods Overview e a a e e I a e e a e I Current San Diego Region Recreation Beach Use Estimates . . . . . . . . . Assumptions Used in Projecting Recreational Beach Use . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions Used in Estimating Recreational Beach Needs . . . . . . . . . 1 4 5 6 7 9 Assumptions on the Economic Value of Recreational Beach Use . . . . . . 11 Economic Value of Shorefront property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Estimated San Diego Region Shorefront Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Maps of Beach Widening Needs in 1990, 2010 and 2040 . . . . . . . . . . 17 Map of Estimated Annual Mean Beach Width in the Northern Half of the Oceanside Littoral Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Map of Sand Sources in the Northern Half of the Oceanside Littoralcell .................................. 30 Estimated Volumes, Costs and Benefits of Beach Building andMainte ..................................... 33 Estimated San Diego Region Beach Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Diego Region Beach Recreation Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix e e LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Critical Shoreline Erosion Problem Areas ............... 4 Figure 2 Potential Shoreline Management Methods ............... 17 Figure 3 San Diego Regional Shoreline Preservation Strategy ......... 20 Figure 4 Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths, Silver Strand Littoral Cell ........................ 24 Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths, / Figure 5 MissionBayLittoralCeU ......................... 25 Figure 6 Estimated Annual Mean Beach Widths, Oceanside Littoral Cell (southern Half) ................ 26 Widths Compared to Needs ........................ Figure 7 San Diego Region Estimated Annual Mean Beach 28 Figure 8 Potential Sand Sources for Beach Building and Maintenance, Silver Strand Littoral Cell ................ Potential Sand Sources for Beach Building and 47 Figure 9 Maintenance, Mission Bay Littoral Cell ................ 50 Maintenance, Oceanside Littoral Cell (southern Half) ........ Figure 10 Potential Sand Sources for Beach Building and 52 xi I 0 0 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 0 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Reeion’s Shoreline - A Valuable Resource in Trouble The shoreline is a valuable asset to the environment & economy of the San Diego region and the State. It is also considered a resource of national significance. The beaches and seacliffs help define this area’s quality of life; when we think of the region’s positive image, we most often think of the climate and the shoreline. Long time residents are aware that many of the area’s beaches and seacliffs have been steadily eroding for the past decade. The Coast of California Study, a six-year, $6 million scientific evaluation of the San Diego region shoreline conducted by the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers, documented the observations of local people about shoreline erosion and has projected trends of increasing beach loss and property damage in the future. Figure 1 shows the critical shoreline problem areas in the region, including all or portions of each of the region’s coastal cities: Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Enchitas, Carlsbad and Oceanside. The problem areas also include stretches of shoreline owned and managed by sfate and feded agencies. The Role of the Shoreline Presemation Stratepy The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the San Diego region’s response to the concerns about erosion voiced by citizens and communities up and down the coast, and by the thousands of residents of inland San Diego County who use and enjoy the shoreline. 3 0 e Figure 1 CRITICAL SHORELINE EROSION PROBLEM AREAS ach 4 e 0 The unprecedented amount of knowledge gained from the Coast of Califomia Study allows us, for the first time, to be able to measure the extent of the regim’s current and future shoreline erosion and to i&ntifj potential solutions to slow or reverse erosion problems. The menu of solutions includes: beach building by placing large amounts of sand on eroded beaches; structures to help hold sand in place, such as groin fields; structures to protect property, such as seawalls and sand berms; and policies and regulations regardrng the use of the shoreline and its development, such as bluff top building setbacks. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy consists of a coordinated list of solutions for each of the region’s shoreline problem areas, and an action plan for WTying out and paying for the solutions. Who’s Involved? The Strategy is being put together by the SANDAG Shoreline Erosion Committee, which is made up primarily of mayors and councilmembers from the region’s coastal cities. They will rely on the advice and opinions of the technical advisory members of the Committee representing state and federal agencies involved in managing the shoreline, and of the many individuals and interest groups who will review and comment on prelimhay strategy options - the entire region will be involved in developing and deciding on the Strategy. In order for the Strategy to be effective, everyone in the region will also have to work together to carry it out. Themes The most important idea guiding the Strategy is mrd ination. Coastal science tells us that events in one part of the shoreline will also affect beaches and seacliffs up coast and down coast, because sand moves laterally along the shoreline. We now have the knowledge to COoTdinate shoreline management actions Occurring at different places and times, and to make sure positive impacts on beaches and seacWs are reinforced, and negative ones minimized. 5 0 e Another very important point about the Shoreline Reservation Strategy is that our role in preserving and enhancing the region’s shoreline will have to be an ongoing, long-range, undertaking. This stewardshi0 of the shoreline wiU involve a number of coordinated actions taking place on a continuing schedule over the years. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the action plan for this stewardship. The Strategy looks ahead 20 and 50 years in the future, to ensure that it can respond to the needs of shoreline structures and public improvements being implemented today. Finally, the Strategy proposes an action plan that requires a major monetary commitment from people in our region, as well as from the state and federal governments. Ob-iectives The Shoreline Preservation Strategy has four main objectives: 1. Manage the region’s shoreline to provide environmental quality, recreation and property protection. 2. Develop and carry out a cost-effective shoreline management strategy that will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. 3. Develop a program to pay for the shoreline management strategy which equitably allocates costs among local, state and federal sources, and among beach users and property owners. 4. Obtain commitments to implement and frnance the Shorehe Management Strategy. Recommendations The Shoreline Preservation Strategy recommendations are based on the scientific information from the Coast of California Study and on Engineering and Economic analysis 6 0 0 Of the poteotial impact of shorehe erosion on coastal property, and beach recreation demand and revenues. The recommendations include proposals for each problem area, regionwide recommendations which apply to all of the problem areas, and implementation, fmancing and institutional recommendations for carrying out the Strategy. BeachBuilding - A beach building and maintenance program was found to be the most cost-effective shoreline management tactic, and is recommended for each of the three problem areas. These problem areas, from south to north, are the shoreline segments for: 1) Silver Strand State Beach in the southern part of Coronado, all of Imperial Beach, and extending about 2% miles south into Mexico; 2) Ocean Beach in San Diego; and 3) The entire shoreline from Oceanside Harbor South to Torrey Pines and Scripps beaches in San Diego. These beach building and maintenance programs emphasize the nourishment of narrow beaches with sand to make them wide enough to provide needed property protection and recreational capacity. Potential major sources of sand to support these beach building activities have been identified at offshore sand bars and water storage reservoirs. There are a number of smaller sources of sand for beach building such as harbor dredging projects. The development of the beach building programs for each problem area will require a detailed engineering, economic and environmental design study. In addition to nourishment, the study design for each area should consider a full range of shoreline management methods that can support beach widening and make it more cost effective. The initial beach building program would require the placing of about 30 million cubic yards of sand on beaches in the three problem areas. The capital cost is estimated in the 7 0 0 range of $150 million. The annualized long-term cost of the beach building and maintenance prom for the region is estimated in the range of $5.5 miuion per year. The mud value to the region’s economy of this expenditure in 2010 is estimated to be $8 million in pmperty protection and $45 million in recreation revenues and benefits. By 2040, the annual values & estimated to be $35 million and $190 million, respectively. Financing - Traditional State and Federal funding sources should continue to be pursued, but can be counted on to cover only a portion of the total financing needed to carry out the Strategy. Therefore, a financing program is recommended that emphasizes local funding sources, coordinated on a region-wide basis to ensure equity and build support. The local funding program should include: shoreline property owners who will receive major benefits, both directly due to protection from storm damage and indixectly in terms of property value; visitors to the region who use and enjoy the benefits of the shoreline; and all of the region’s residents and businesses who benefit substantially through their use of shorehe beaches and parks, their property values and economic activity. Institutional - The cooperative and interjurisdictional nature of the recommended beach building and maintenance program, and the sisnificant amount of funds to be raised and expanded to carry them out, will require additional cooperative intergovernmental arrangements among the region’s local jurisdictions. The purpose of these additional arrangements should be to formalize joint decision making about the implementation of the Shoreline Preservation Sttategy for each problem area, and to provide a mechanism for financing. The format of additional arrangements in each problem area could range from the designation of a lead agency and the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement, to the formation of a joint powers agency or shoreline authority to carry out implementation. There may also need to be additional arrangements set up to coordinate fmancing and implementation on a regionwide basis. The most appropriate types of intergovernmental arrangements will 8 0 0 depend to some extent on the fmcing mechanisms chosen. The institutional arrangements for implementation of the Strategy should therefore be developed concurrently with the financing program. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG should continue to coordinate shoreline preservation activities for the region, including the development of the beach building and maintenance programs, the redonwide financing program, and the cooperative arrangements needed to implement the Strategy. Implementation - A three-phase implementation schedule is recommended: Phase I, between now and July 1992, will include: securing approval of the Strategy; completion of several early action program items, for example, guidelines to help local jurisdictions make decisions about shoreline land use and storm protection structures; obtaining the approXimately $2 million needed to complete the beach building and maintenance design studies in Phase II; and, development of the fmancing program and cooperative intergovernmental arrangements necessary to carry out the Strategy. Phase II, from July 1992 through December 1992, will include wmpletion of the design studies and agreement and implementation of the fmchg program and cooperative intergovernmental arrangements. Phase III, starting January 1993, will initiate the beach building and maintenance programs* 9 0 0 II INTRODUCTION 0 0 II INTRODUCTION The Region's Shoreline - A Valuable Resource The shoreline is a valuable asset to the environment a economy of the San Diego region and the State. It is also considered a resource of national significance. The beaches and seacliffs help define this area's quality of life; when we think of the region's positive image, we most often think of the climate and the shoreline. The Problem Long time residents are aware that many of the area's beaches and seacliffs have been steadily eroding for the past decade. The Coast of California Study, a six-year, $6 million scientific evaluation of the San Diego region shoreline conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, documented the observations of local people about shoreline erosion and has projected trends of increasing beach loss and property damage in the future. How We Got Where We Are Today Over the past half century, man's actions have been the major influence affecting our shoreline. Through urban development and water reservoir and dam building, we have cut off the naturaI source of sand for our beaches - sediment carried from inland areas by rivers and streams. This sand is also the primary buffer protecting seacliffs and coastal development from erosion and storm damage. At the same time, our activities have made up, and some places even exceeded, the ~tud sand sources no longer reaching the shoreline, through the building of "man made" beaches. Most of the sand for this purpose 13 0 0 has come from massive and expensive harbor dredging projects in San Diego Bay and at Oceanside Harbor. while sources of sand as large as these dredging projects will probably never be available in the future, we have no choice but to continue our stewardship of the shoreline, or see the gradual thinning and disappearance of our beaches and increasing destruction of coastal property and development. How the Shoreline Preservation Stratepv Will Help The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the San Diego region's response to the concerns about erosion voiced by citizen and communities up and down the coast, and by the thousands of residents of inland San Diego County who use and enjoy the shoreline. i The unprecedented amount of knowledge gained from the Coast of California Study allows us, for the fvst time, to be able to measure the extent of the region's current and future shoreline erosion and to identify potential solutions to slow or reverse erosion problems.' The menu of solutions includes: beach building by placing large amounts of sand on eroded beaches; structures to help hold sand in place, such as gmh fields; structures to protect property, such as seawalls and sand berms; and policies and regulations Iegarding the use of the shoreline and its development, such as bluff top building setbacks. The Shorehe Preservation Strategy consists of a coordinated list of solutions for each of the region's shoreline problem areas, and an action plan for carrying out and paying for the solutions. Who's Involved in the Shoreline Strategy? The Strategy is being put together by the SNAG Shoreline Erosion Committee, which is made up primarily of mayors and councilmembers from the region's coastal cities. 7he rocky headlands and seacliffs, and the small "pocket" beaches of La Jolla and Point Lorna were not covered in the Coast of California study. The infonation and recommendations of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy do not pertain directly to these areas. 14 0 e They will rely on the advice and opinions of the technical advisory members of the Committee representing state and federal agencies 'involved in managing the shoreline, and of the many individuals and interest groups who will review and comment on preliminary strategy options - the entire region will be involved in developing and deciding on the Strategy. In order for the Strategy to be effective, everyone in the region will also have to work together to cany it out. . Immrtant Themes The most important idea guiding the preparation of the Strategy is coordination. Coastal science tells us that events in one part of the shoreline will also affect beaches and seacliffs up coast and down coast, because sand moves laterally along the shoreline. We now have the knowledge to coordinate shoreline management actions occurring at different places and times to make sure positive impacts on beaches and ~eacliff~ tilt reinforced, and negative ones minimized. Another very important point about the Shoreline Preservation Strategy is that our role in preserving and enhancing the region's shoreline will have to be an ongoing, long-range, undertaking. This stewardshin of the shoreline will involve a number of coordinated actions taking place on a continuing schedule over the years. The Shoreline Preservation Strategy is the action plan for this stewardship. The Strategy looks ahead 20 and 50 years in the future, to ensure that it can respond to the needs of shoreline structures and public improvements being implemented today. Finally, the Strategy proposes an action plan that requires a major monetary co mmitment from people in our region, as well as fmm the state and feded governments. The toughest decisions about the Shoreline Preservation Strategy will be: k a Are we willing to pay the cost of preserving our beaches and protecting coastal property and development? 15 e a 0 If so, how can the costs be fairly distributed among those who live along the coast, those who use the beach (both residents and tourists), local govexmnents,and the state and federal governments? Shoreline Management Methods Figure 2 shows the shoreline management methods considered in developing the San Diego Region's Shoreline Preservation Strategy. The methods are puped into six categories. They all have the potential to contribute to meeting the two basic goals of the strategy: 1. Preserve and enhance the region's beaches 2. Protect property and development from stom wave damage and coastal flooding. Detailed descriptions of all of these shoreline management methods and the related data from the Coast of California Study that can be used to evaluate their application to particular reaches (lengths) of shoreline in the region will be found in Chapters 3 and 5 of the Coast of California Planner's Handbook. Final drafts of these chapters are now being prepared by the US. Army Corps of Engineers. The frrst four groups of shoreline management methods on the chart - a and b) beach building and maintenance, c) reducing sand losses, and d) redistributing sand along the coast - are primarily rezional scale actr 'on$ aimed directly at increasing the amount of sand on the region's beaches. They will usually affect all or a significant portion of one of the region's three littoral cells. (A littoral cell is a self contained shoreline unit in which actions taken in one reach of the cell will eventually affect the other reaches.) These four pups of management methods have been used by SNAG and its coastal engineering consultant to design an action plan to address the shoreline problem areas in each littoral cell. 16 0 0 zAc;a 083 3.g 8 3s.: 5--8 2.- 52% E.4&E e $%;=.5 8 2 5 g- Y 0 ag E B-- 2 -0g-0.- a assEgg u a 5 809.5 P,-Q sc G" = ib m ""-2gg - a L %03 **= g 0 a e333 p as,,+Q,g: g WE P,CSOQb wzh=2s .-pa 8'E:'Z 5! avo 2% a & %f&.Eil%, cA E%* -3 S ah- b -- 0 0 600 QW ." a 3 a- 0 28% -*aka082 Y) 0 asSS bg oS~ZWO 0. 0. cn m q n .C( Y 8 9x 's a E b mg 2 5 a I 25 m E 4 52 as 3% V oQ73 a 0. 3 8i 2 E E E *wp E SI g na;lm 2 g .sg 6 8 Y m .d E: 0 0 .d Y z ut: Y 2 ." 24 8 33s 3 88 a 'Z 3 s Q3 'E s 23 83s 2 E.- b t.fEB 0.. !h z w ul 28-0 g ;ji e'o Q-s 0- srnu b b MO 0.. ..e. a& 8 IL( aom cd 17 u 0 0 The last two &ups of shoreline management methods on the chart - e) regulation of shoreline land use and development, and f) protection of property from storm waves and flooding - are primarily local scale methods of dealing with shoreline problems. While these methods can do little to add sand to the shoreline, they can make the sand management techniques in the first three pups on the chart more effective. The objective of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for these two groups of management methods is to have a regionally consistent and scientifically sound set of policies for applying them, and an effective regulatory mechanism for evaluating and implementing them. Reaching Aereement on the Shoreline Strateev Step 1 ; SAM)AG and the Shoreline Erosion Committee have put together information needed to make decisions about the Shoreline Preservation Strategy in this draft, including: Shoreline problem areas, current and future Policies, objectives and recommended actions to preserve beaches, seacliffs and property in each problem area, and their costs The costs of not taking action A discussion of the options for paying for the Strategy and new cooperative relationships (if needed) to carry it out. 0 stm 2: With concurrence by the SNAG Board of tors, the draft Strategy will be presented to the region -- interested citizens, community and interest groups, local governments, and to state and federal government agencies 18 e 0 involved in shoreline management. The purpose will be to collect the opinions and recommendations of everyone on questions such as: Are the shoreline management actions described effective and do-able? What level of shoreline presemation and enhancement is necessary, and what level are people willing to pay for? Is there a way to collect and spend the money needed to carry out the Strategy that is considered fair and can be supported? Step 3: The Shoreline Erosion Committee will take the lead in putting together the results of the region’s discussion of shoreline problems and solutions. Their challenge will be to develop a Shoreline Preservation Strategy which represents a consensus about what can and should be done. The Strategy, including a very specifc listing of actions and responsibilities, and an implementation timetable, will be presented to the SANDAG Board and the region’s local governments for approval. Concurrence by involved state and federal agencies, such as the Coastal Commission and the U,S, Navy, will also be sought. Step 4: It is expected that fmal agreement on the Strategy and its approval could be completed by early 1992. The Shoreline Erosion Committee will then coordinate, monitor and assist implementation of the action program. The Committee will ensure widespread public communication of progress and problems encountered, and will continue to provide a way for everyone who is interested to provide feedback and propose adjustments as the Strategy is carried out. Figure 3 shows the various parts of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy, and illustrates how they will be combined. 19 I I I I BuildlMaintain Beaches Reduce Sand Redistribute protect Regulate Losses - Sand property Developmc I I I I Funding Plan 1 t Action Plan and Organizational Relationships 1 Draft Strategy Regionw ide Public Review e 0 ill SHORELINE PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 0 0 m SHORELINE PROBLEMS AND NEEDS Present and Future Beach Widths - The Effects of Erosion One of the most important tasks in developing the Shoreline Preservation Strategy involves estimating the present and future widths of the region’s beaches and comparing them to the beach widths estimated to be needed for property protection and recreation. These estimates were made possible by the extensive data on the region’s shoreline collected by the Coast of California Study. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the estimated annual mean beach widths for the region’s three littoral cells for the years 1990, 2010 and 2040. The estimated beach widths needed for property protection and recreation are also shown on those maps. Each of the three IittoraI cells shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6 has been divided into segments, or reaches, designated by dashed horizontal lines. The segments roughly correspond to city boundaries, and state and federal ownership in some cases. These three littoral cells are: the Silver Strpd cell which extends from south of the international border to the Zuniga jetty at San Diego Bay and includes the Shorelines of the Cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado; the Mission Bay Cell which extends from Point Loma to Point La Jolla in the City of San Diego, and; the southem half of the Oceanside Cell including shorelines of the Cities of San Diego, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Enchitas, Carlsbad and Oceanside. The northern half of the Oceanside cell extends north from Oceanside Harbor to Dana Point in Orange County. Data for this area is included in the appendix. The significant decrease in annual mean beach width estimated for future years in the Oceanside and Silver Strand littoral cells illustrates the effects of shoreline erosion on the region. The figures show that the most critical areas are located at Imperial Beach and South Oceanside and that extensive erosion will also take place in the rest of the Oceanside Cell, in the southern half of the Silver Strand Cell and at Ocean Beach in the Mission Bay Cell. 23 0 0 ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS 1390 - FIGURE 4 SILVER STRAND 2010 - Ull’ORAL CELL #)40 1111111111111111l111 a @-+r 1 Estimated annual mean beach width : and meet recreation demand needed ta prated praperty _I -----__---__-____--- _----- -------- ______--_____ ___--___________ ___----_----- ___--__________---_-------- -____-____-- ____________________--__----- .________________--__-------- .______________-_--_--------- __________________-_-__----- City Boundary 700’ 600’ 500’ 400’ 300’ 200’ 100’ 0’ / 11-1 24 0 a ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS 1990 - MISSION BAY LITTORAL CELL -- --_--------------_------ 2040 111111111111111111l1 Estimated annual mean beach width needed to protect property and meet recreation demand PACIFIC/MISSION ---------- -__--------- OCEAN BEACH ________----------------------------------------------------- 25 0 e There are several points to take into consideration regarding the estimated beach widths: beach width is defmed as the distance between mean sea level and a pint delineating the back of the beach, such as a road, structure or the base of a seacm, the beach widths shown are annual averages that take into account si@icant seasonal fluctuations which usually result in narrower beaches during the winter and wider beaches in the summer; future beach width estimates do not assume any future beach replenishment projects but do include the effects of ongoing sand bypassing projects at Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon; 0 the widths in the Oceanside Cell assume that currently unprotected seacliffs will continue to retreat at their natural rate, adding sand to the beaches; 0 the estimates account for increases in the rate of sea level rise and caused by the "greenhouse effect. " Shoreline Erosion Problems and Needs Figure 7 compares in chart form the data presented in Figures 4,5 and 6: the estimated annual mean beach widths, averaged for each reach, to the estimated beach width needed for property protection and to accommodate recreation demand. The assumptions, data and methods used in deriving these estimates are described in the appendix, along with maps showing the comparison of needs and beach widths. Reaches where erosion is expected to cause losses of shorehnt property and of beach nxreation capacity are highlighted. 27 w Figure7 SAN DIEGO REGION ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS COMPARED TO NEEDS m Estimated Ned Estited Nee Estimated For Design Accommodate 1( Shoreline Semnent (Reach1 - YUU - Actual Pro~ertv Praktion Recreation De1 Silver Strand Cell 1990 150 250 2010 100 250 2040 40 250 1 1990 150 238 11 2010 110 238 14 2040 60 238 15 1990 2 10 236 2010 190 236 2040 90 236 1990 220 210 4 2010 210 210 4 2040 175 2 10 1 Navy -Amphibious 1990 270 209 20 10 265 209 2640 260 209 Coronado 1990 560 232 4 2010 570 232 E 2040 560 232 11 Navy-North Island 1990 640 216 2010 680 216 2040 690 216 Iht design width is estimated to protect shorefront property from storms up to and including the tstimatcd 100 year bAssumhg 100 square feet of beach per person at peak use. 28 e e Figure 7 SAN DIEGO REGION ESTIMATED ANNUAL MEAN BEACH WIDTHS COMPARED TO NEEDS (FEET) (Continued) Mission Bav Cell 1990 215 260 75 2010 200 260 91 2040 185 260 115 1990 270 232 41 2010 270 232 50 2040 270 232 63 Oceanside Cell 1990 155 228 13 2010 130 228 17 2040 100 228 25 1990 105 232 s 2010 75 232 13 2040 30 232 12 1990 80 232 1C 2010 70 232 2; 2040 35 232 3: 1990 125 240 ! 2010 115 2443 1: 2040 90 240 I! 1990 105 216 1( 2010 90 2 16 11 2040 40 216 24 1990 55 232 20 10 40 232 1 2040 20 232 1( Camp Pendleton 1990 270 240 2010 290 240 2040 295 240 san onofre 1990 205 222 2010 230 222 2040 250 222 1990 180 224 20 10 140 224 2040 100 224 1 29 0 0 IV EVALUATION OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 0 0 Iv EVALUATION OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES There are three basic shoreline management alternatives available: DoNothing 0 Armor the coast to protect prop*, using seawalls and revetments Beachfiig to protect property and provide recreation There are costs and benefits associated with all three alternatives. The following evaluation provides planning estimates of these costs and benefits, based on the information in the "Estimated Volumes, Costs and Benefits of Beachfilling" table, and the "Data, Assumptions and Evaluation Methods" information contained in the appendix. Do Nothing Alternative This alternative would "let nature take its course" and result in sign3cant costs to the region in lost property and recreational benefits due to shoreline retreat. No benefits are available from this strategy. 33 0 0 Do Nothing Alternative Estimated Annual Costs (hGllions of 1990 $) Lost Lost Recreation property Net Littoral C ell year Benefits Value Total Silver Strand 1990 -0 -.2 -.2 2010 -0 -1.3 -1.3 2040 -0 -8.2 -8.2 Mission Bay 1990 -13.6 -.01 -13.6 2010 -24.4 -.04 -24.4 2040 -35.0 -. 1 -35.5 Oceanside (San Diego 1990 -0 -2.3 -2.3 2040 -156.8 -26.6 -183.4 San Diego Region 1990 - -13.6 -2.5 -16.1 Totals 2010 -45.0 -7.8 -52.8 2040 -191.8 -34.9 -226.7 County Beaches) 2010 -20.6 -6.5 -27.1 Armoring the Coast Alternative Armoring the coast with seawalls and revetments would provide benefits by protecting property from stom damage. Shoreline erosion would not be affected, so that recreational benefits would continue to be lost in an amount equal to that for the do nothing alternative. The aanualized cost of protective structures is assumed to be $40 per linear foot, and they are estimated to have a 20-25 year We. It is also estimated that about 20% of the Oceanside ceJl already has shorefront protective structures. Only shoreiine reaches with beaches estimated to be narrower than the design property pmtection width are assumed to need protective devices. 34 e 0 Annoring the Coast Alternative Estimated Annual Costs and Benefits (Millions of 1990 $) cost of Lost Protective Recreation Property Net Littoral Cell - Year Structures Benefits Protection Total Silver Strand 1990 -1.1 0 + .2 -.9 2010 -1.1 0 +1.3 + .2 2040 -1.5 0 +8.2 +6.7 Mission Bay 1990 -.2 -13.6 + .01 -13.8 2010 -.2 -24.4 +.04 -24.6 2040 -.2 -35.0 +.l -35.1 Oceanside (San Diego 1990 -4.2 -0 +2.3 -1.9 County Beaches) 2010 -4.8 -20.6 +6.5 -18.9 2040 -5.3 -156.8 +26.6 -135.5 San Diego Region 1990 -5.5 -13.6 +2.5 -16.6 Totals 2010 -6.1 -45.0 +7.8 -43.3 2040 -7.0 -191.8 +34.9 -163.9 Beachfllin~ Alternative Beachfilling to meet estimated design protection and accommodate 100% of estimated recreation demand would provide full property protection and recreation benefits. There would be signifkant costs of providing the beachfii projects. These costs and benefits are detailed in the "Estimated Volumes, Costs and Benefits of BeacMig" table, and summatized here. 35 W 0 Beachfiig Alternative Estimated Annual Costs and Benefits (Millions of 1990 $) Cost of Recreation Property Net Littoral Cell - Year BeachFa Benefit Protection Total Silver Strand 1990 -.8 +O + .2 -.6 2010 -.8 +O +1.3 + .5 2040 -.8 +O +8.2 +7.4 Mission Bay 1990 -.6 +13.6 +.01 + 13 2010 -.6 +24.4 +.04 +23.8 2040 -.6 +35.0 +.l +34.5 Oceanside (San Diego 1990 -4.2 +O +2.3 -1.9 County Beaches) 2010 -4.2 +20.6 +6.5 +22.9 2040 -4.2 + 156.8 +26.6 +179.2 San Diego Region 1990 -5.6 +13.6 +2.5 + 10.5 Totals 2010 -5.6 +45.0 +7.8 +47.2 2040 -5.6 +191.8 +34.9 +221.1 Conclusion Beachfilling is by far the most cost effective shoreline management alternative for the San Diego region. The do nothing alternative is very expensive for the region, ranging up to an estimated annual cost of over $200 million in the year 2040. Annoring the coast also costs the region a substantial amount of money. In addition the evaluation indicates that beachfiig is a more cost-effective way to protect property than armoring. For example, the avzrage annual cost of armoring the coast to protect property is $1.1 million dollars for the Silver Strand littoral cell. The average annual cost of a comparable amount of property protection derived from beachfilling is $.8 million. Nonetheless, there may be specific pmperties where annoring will be necessary for property protection because the specific physical situation makes it more cost effective, or because the availability of beachfill is uncertain, or because a more technically certain protective strategy is desired. 36 0 0 In some instances a combination of beachfiill and protective structures might be considered to prwide recreational benefits and praperty protection, Silver Strand Cell property protection is the most important factor in determining the need for shoreline management in this cell. the problem areas in this ceIl are primarily in the southern half of the cell. beachfidhg is the most cost effective shoreline management method overall. Mission Bay Cell providing recreational capacity is the most important factor in determining the need for shoreline management in this cell. the analysis indicates that the beach recreation use data and assumptions need to be reviewed as they apply to this cell. It appears that these beaches have reached, and exceeded, their estimated peak capacity. beach access, as it as affected by traffic and parking, will limit maximum beach width needed. the physical capacity of the shoreline to hold beaches of the widths estimated to be needed is questionable without retaining structures. while it is clear that these beaches need additional width, and that beachfiig is the most cost effective management method, further review of beach access and beach use is necessary before effective beach widths are determined in this cell. 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Cell 0 property protection is the most important factor in determining the need for shoreline management in this cell. problem areas occur along the entire southern half of this cell, from Oceanside Harbor to La Jolla Shores beach in San Diego. 0 37 0 beachfilling is the most cost effective management method overall. a beachfilling program to meet property protection needs in this cell will also result in significant recmtion benefits. Entire Regional Shoreline it appears that beach access, as it as affected by traffic and parking, will be a si@icant issue in the future, and probably is today for many beaches. a beachfig program can be justified for either property protection or recreational purposes, and the benefit to cost ratio for beachfilling indicates that it is an economically attractive activity. the high benefit to cost ratios illustrate that even if the assumptions and data used in the evaluation are extremely opti&stic from the standpoint of beachfilling (even by a factor of two or more) beachfilling is still a beneficial economic investment. It should be noted that the assumptions and data were developed to be conservative in terns of the economic benefit to be derived from shoreline management actions. 38 0 0 v POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES 0 0 V POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES mves 1. Manage the region’s shoreline to provide environmental quality, recreation and proprty protection. Develop and carry out a cost-effective shoreline management strategy that will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. 2. 3. Develop a program to pay for the shoreline management strategy which equitably allocates costs among local, state and feded sources, and among beach users, businesses and property owners. 4. Obtain commitments to implement and finance the Shoreline Management Strategy. Policies A. The Strategy should provide a Cooperative, coordinated, and long range presewation pmgram for the region’s three littoral cells. B. The Strategy should consider the full range of shoreline management tactics, with emphasis on beachfilling to preserve and enhance the environmental quality, recreational capacity and property protection benefits of the region’s shoreline. 41 W 0 C. The Strategy should provide planning estimates of the amount, placement, timing, cost and sources of beachfill. D. Policies and actions to promote the availability of offshore, coastal and upland sources of sand for beachfilling and natural beach replenishment should be developed. E. The Strategy should provide guidelines for coordinated and consistent approaches to local level management methods, including regulation of shoreline land use and development, and property protection measures such as artificial dunes, seawalls and revetments. F. Structural and mechanical management tactics to reduce sand losses and redistribute sand along the shoreline should be evaluated as complements to the regional beachfilling program and implemented where they have a positive impact on cost- effectiveness. G. The Strategy should evaluate local, state and federal policies and regulations and recommend changes to support the other policies and objectives. H. The Strategy should be based on the best available scientific data and analysis and on sound engineering principles. 42 e 0 VI RECOMMENDATIONS 0 0 VI RECOMMENDATIONS The Shoreline Preservation Strategy recommendations are based on the information, evaluation and policies and objectives presented in the previous sections of the Strategy. The recommendations include proposals for each littoral cell, regionwide recommendations which apply to all of the littoral cells, and implementation, financing and institutional recommendations for wrying out the Strategy. A beach building and maintenance program is recommended for each of the three littoral cells. These programs emphasize the nourishment of namw beaches with sand to make them wide enough to provide needed property protection and recreational capacity. In addition to nourishment, the design of each beach building and maintenance program should consider a full range of shoreline management methods that can support beach widening and make it more cost effective. Silver Strand Littoral Cell 1. Design and carry out a costeffective beach building and maintenance program for the southern half of the cell, from Silver Strand State Beach south to the Inter- national Border, focusing on the Imperial Beach Shoreline. a. The initial volume of sand needed for beach building (increasing the width of the beach) in this area could be as much as 3 million cubic yards and cost in the range of $15 million. Maintaining the increased beach width could require as much as 90,OOO cubic yards of sand per year at an annual cost in the range of $500,000. It is estimated that the economic benefits from property 45 a W protection and recreation will exceed the costs of the beach building and maintenance program within 10 years. Over the long tern (20 to 50 years), economic benefits will substantially exceed costs. . b. The major sources of sand for the beach building and maintenance program include offshore borrow sites near Imperial Beach (estimated 32 million cubic yards of sand) and near Silver Strand State Beach (estimated 348 miuion cubic yards of sand). Other potential sand sources include onshore borrow sites in the Sweetwater and Tijuana Rivers and San Diego Bay dredging. Figure 8 idenMies the potential sand sources for this cell. c. The design of the beach building and maintenance program should include consideration of: the two pi& role of the Tijuana River delta in protecting the Imperial Beach shoreline from erosion (as a source of sand that replenishes the beach at Imperial Beach and the rest of the cell, and as a buffer from wave energy that reduces alongshore transport of sand away from Imperial Beach); the relationship of beach width to shoreline retreat and amount of beachfill needed; the relationship of alongshore to offshore sand transport rates and amount of beachfill needed; variations in annual mean beach width, and in seasonal changes in beach width within the littoral cell; the need for groins or offshore breakwaters in particular areas to regulate the movement of sand up and down coast; the level of property protection, recreation demand accommodation and beach width desired, the role of development regulation and shoreline protective devices in reducing the need for beach building and maintenance in particular areas; safety, water use and liability issues related to shoreline management structures; the matching of sand at borrow sites with the needs of nearby beaches; locations for beachfii placement; effects on surfrng conditions; environmental impacts on water quality, plant and animal species and their habitats; and the start date for the progmn. Finally, the program design should be flexible to respond to changing shoreline conditions and new information. 46 0 0 POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES FOR BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE Ednuted Volume muss IuwuaEh SS-1 (Offshore Imp.rkl Beach) 31.5 million SS-2 (Offshorn Sihm Slrand) 347.5 million SS3 (Cdkdkn of sand moving offshorn at Zuniga Jay) SS4 (Tijuana River) SS-5 (Tijuana Estuary Enhancement) SS-6 (Sweetwater River, east of mapped area SS-7 L (San Ohgo Hubor dredging) b. (Sur Dhgo Bay enhamoment) Band, Lovetand, Momna and Upper Otay) SS4 (In W fobwing water storage rewvoira! 13.6 million Not shown on thi8 map: water storage reservoirs, devrlrrpment grading and other upland sources. Notes: 0 Volume8 are rough estimates which should be refined in designing a beach building and maintenance program. Source of estimated vdumw is the U.S. Army Corx of Engineers Coast of California Study, Draft State of the Coast Repori, Odober 1,1990 (The estimates for offshore volumes are based on a 19$3 report prepared for the Caliiomia State Deparbnent of Boating and W3temays titled 'Potent~d Offshore Sand and Gravel Resources of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southem California.) and the scripps Institute Center for Coastal Studies (1991 estimates of volumes in listed water store reservoirs, unpublished). 0Volumes of sand needed for the recommended beach building and maintenance program in this cell: lnltial Fill: 3 million cubic yards, Annual Maintenance: 90,OOO cubic yards. City Boundary mmmmm 47 e 0 2. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand at the northern end of the cell near Zuniga jetty, and backpassing it to the southern portion of the cell where beaches are narrower. Design and carry out a backpassing project if it is a feasible and cost-effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program. Mission Bav Littoral Cell 1. Design and cafly out a cost-effective beach building and maintenance program for the Ocean Beach portion of the cell. Initially, this progmm should be designed to widen the beach to meet property protection needs (increases in recreational capacity would also occur). a. This would be a small scale program to extend the mean width of the beach up to 45 feet to primarily provide protection for property. Roughly 500,000 cubic yards of sand could be required for beach building at a cost in the range of $2.5 million. Beach width could be maintained with a small annual volume of sand at minor cost. It is estimated that the economic benefits from property protection and recreation would exceed costs of the program within 10 years. In the long tern, economic benefits will substantially exceed costs. 2. Evaluate the limiting effects on beach attendance from overcrowding on the beach, and from parking and access problems, for Ocean, Mission and Pacific Beaches and determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of beach building and maintenance programs to meet recreational needs. Design and carry out a cost-effdve beach building and maintenance program for these beaches if it is determined that recreational beach use will increase as a result, and that an acceptable parking and access program can be developed to accommodate additional beach users. a. The initial volume of sand needed for beach building to accommodate potential recreational demand in the Mission Bay littoral cell could be as much as 6.2 48 0 0 million cubic yards and cost in the range of $31 million. Beach maintenance could require about 5,000 cubic yards per year at an annual cost in the range of $25,000. The economic benefits of the increased recreational use of these beaches would exceed the costs of the beach building program in the first year and the long term economic benefits would exceed costs substantially if beach use increases as assumed. b, A potential major source of sand for the beach building and maintenance program is an offshore bomw site off Mission Beach (estimated 192,000,000 cubic feet of sand). Other potential sand sources include an onshore borrow site in the San Diego River, and Mission Bay dredging. Figure 9 idenwies the major sand sources for this cell. c. The design of the beach building and maintenance program should include consideration of: the relationship of beach width to shoreline retreat and amount of beachfii needed; the relationship of alongshore to offshore sand transport rates and amount of beachf2l needed; variations in annual mean beach width, and in seasonal changes in beach width within the littoral cell; the need for groins or offshore breakwaters in particular areas to regulate the movement of sand up and down coast; the level of property protection, recreation demand accommodation and beach width desired; the role of development regulation and shorehe protective devices in reducing the need for beach building and maintenance in particular areas; safety, water use liability issues related to shoreline management structures; the matching of sand at bomw sites with the needs of nearby beaches; locations for beachfill placement; effects on surfing conditions; environmental impacts on water quality, plant and animal species and their habitats; and the start date for the program. Finally, the program design should be flexible to respond to changing shoreline conditions and new information. 49 0 0 POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES FOR BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE Estimated Volume source - MISSION BAY UlTORAL CELL 192 million ME1 (Off- P&fk and Mi &6&08) MB-2 (Collection of sand moving oshhore at Mission Bay North Jetty) 11 ,m/yr. ME3 (Misaii Bay dredging) 2o,m/yr. MB-4 (SM Diego Riir, east of mapped area) 2.8 million ME-5 (In the folkwing water storage reservioirs Cuyamaca, Chet Harritt) 3.4 million Not shown on this map: water storage reservoirs, development grading and other upland sourcds. Note% Volumoa aro rough elmatea which should be refined in designing a beach building and maintenance program. Source of estimated volumes is the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers Coast of California Sludy, Draft State of the Coast Report, Odober 1,1990 (lh estimate8 for offshore volumes am based on a 1983 report prepared for the California State Department of Boatmg and Watemays Wed ‘Potential Offshore Sand and Gravel Resources of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southern California’) and the scripps Institute Center for Coastal Studies (1991 estimates of volumes in listed water storage reservoirs, unpublished). *Volumes of sand needed for the recommended beach building and maintenance program in this cell: Initial Fill: 5OO.OOO to 6.7 million cubic yards, Annual Mainten-: 5,000 cubic yards. 50 0 0 3. Deternine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand at the southern end of Mission Beach near the San Diego River jetty and backpassing it to the north where beaches are narrower. Design and carry out a backpassing project if it is a feasible and cost-effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program. Oceanside Littoral Cell 1. Design and cany out a cost-effective beach building and maintenance program for the southern half of the cell, from Oceanside Harbor south to La Jolla. a. The initial volume of sand needed for beach building in this area could be as much as 25 million cubic-yards and cost in the range of $126 million. Maintenance could require as much as 320,000 cubic yards of sand per year at an annual cost in the range of $1.6 million. It is estimated that the economic benefits from property protection and recreation will exceed the costs of the beach building and maintenance program within 2 years. Over the long term, economic benefits will substantially exceed costs. b. The major sources of sand for the beach building and maintenance program include eight offshore borrow sites located along the shoreline from Oceanside Harbor south to La Jolla (estimated 112 million cubic yards of sand). Other potential sand sources include onshore borrow sites in various rivers and coastal terraces, and dredge material from the Batiquitos Lagoon enhancement project. Figure 10 identifies the major sand sources for this celI. The design of the beach building and maintenance program should include consideration of: the sand bypassing projects already in effect at Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon; the relationship of beach width to shoreline retreat and amount of beachfii needed; the relationship of alongshore to offshore sand transport rates and amount of beachfii needed; variations in c. 51 w 0 POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES FOR BEACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE -22 FIGURE10 Estimated Volume 3Qutss h!awu& OCEANSIDE UlTORAL CELL SO-1 (Offahor0 La Jolla) 5 million (Southern Half) SO-2 (Cdkction d d ~IOVPIQ dorm SCripP and La Jdh submarine canyons) 3o.oooM. SO-3 (UfaluxeTonayPbwr 3.1 million SO4 (Onshoro Lm Penwitos Lagoon) 2.9 million SO4 (Olfshoro San Dieguib Lagoon) 10.3 million SO-7 (Wshore Bablquitos Lagoon) 16.5 million s68 (OffshoreSouthbcscmside) 27.1 million SO-9 (Off8hore North OCOMS~~O) 32.6 million SO-10 (Collection of send moving offshore at Norlh Oceanside Harbor Jelty) 146,000440,0001yr. CARLSBAD (6) SO-1 1 (Loa Ponasquitos and Soledad Creeks) 61 million 50-12 (Loa Ponasquitos Lagoon Enhawment) Unknown SO-13 (San Dquito Lagoon EnWmmt) Unknown 50-14 (San Diuito Terrace, east of mapped area) 34.8 million SO-15 (San Elip hgoon Enhancement) Unknown SO-16 (Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement) 2.7-3.7 million SO-1 7 (San Marcos Terrace, east of mapped area) 46.5 million SO-18 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown SO-1 9 (Euena Vista Lagoon Enhancement) Unknown SO-20 (San Luis Roy River, east of mapped area) 2.8 million SO-21 (Santa Margarita Marsh Enhancement) Unknown SO22 (Santa Margarita River, east of mapped area) 34.8 million S)-23 SO6 (Offshora Sur Elijo Lagoon) 12.4 millii (In the felbwina water hrnoe reservairs: Hodgea, Henshaw, Wohlford, San Dieguito, SUthdand) 27.5 million Not shown on this map: water storage reservoirs. development grading and other upland sources. Notes: 0 Volumes are rough estimates which should be refined in designing a beach building and maintenance program. Source of estimatod volumes is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineon Coast of California Study, Drdt State of the Coast R.porf October 1.1990 w estimates for off8horo volumes are based on a 1983 report prepared for the California State Depadment of Boating and Waternays wed 'Potential Onshore Sand and Gravel Resource$ of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southern Caliiomia.) and the Scripps Institute Center for Coastal Studma (1991 estimates of volumes In listod water storage reservoirs, unpubli- *Volumes of rand needod for the recommended beach building ' maintenancr prwram in hii cell! Initid Rib 25 milliin cubic yarh, Ar Maintonarm: 320,000 cubic yards. City Boundac 1111 52 a 0 annual mean beach width, and in seasonal changes in beach width within the littoral cell; the need for groins or offshore breakwaters in particular areas to regulate the movement of sand up and down coast; the level of property protection, recreation demand accommodation and beach width desired; the ' role of development xegulation and shoreline protective devices in reducing the need for beach building and maintenance in particular areas; safety, water use and liability issues related to shoreline management structures; the matching of sand at borrow sites with the needs of nearby beaches; locations for beachfill placement; effects on surfing conditions; environmental impacts on water quality, plant and animal species and their habitats; and the start date for the program. Finally, the program design should be flexible to respond to changing shoreline conditions and new infomation. 2. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand before it is lost down Scripps Submarine and La Jolla Canyons, and backpassing it to upcoast areas with narrow beaches. Design and carry out a backpassing project if it is a feasible and cost-effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance Pw-. 3. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of capturing sand before it moves offshore of Oceanside Harbor, and bypassing it to downwast areas with narrow beaches. Design and wry out a bypassing project if it is a feasible and cost- effective method of supplementing the beach building and maintenance program and the existing Oceanside Harbor bypassing project. REGIONWIDE 1. Develop guidelines for the acceptable composition of beachfill material from all sand sources considered in the Shoreline Preservation Strategy, for use by the appropriate state, federal, and local regulatory and planning agencies. The type, composition 53 W W and location of placement of dredge material should be carefblly determined to maximize the amount of sand that gets to beaches. 2. Develop regional guidelines for the regulation of shoreline land use and protective structures by local jurisdictions which encourage the use of setbacks from beaches and seacliffs and beach building over the use of seawalls and revetments to protect Property* a. The guidelines should provide for local flexibility in implementation based on local conditions and existing commitments. Given the wide range of local situations, each local jurisdiction should develop its own standards and guidelines consistent with the regional guidelines, There could be provisions for the use of visually unobtrusive protective structures in Combination with beach building where cost effective, and for the use of protective structures where the use of setbacks and beach building are infeasible and where buildings or major public improvements such as roads are in imminent danger. 3. Review harbor, bay and lagoon dredging proposals to ensure that beach compatible dredge material is incoprated in the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell. This action constitutes implementation of the Regional Dredging policy approved in May, 1991. 4. Review of water storage and tesewoir studies and projects to encourage consideration of using beach compatible sediment from these sources as beachfill. 5. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of requiring the placement of beach compatible material from land development grading at the region’s beaches. Develop regional guidelines for use by local jurisdictions in using this source of sand in the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell, if feasible and cost effective. 54 0 0 6. Develop guidelines for the use of temporary methods of protecting shoreline property from storm damage, such as improved storm warning programs, the use of sand bags, and the use of tempomy sand berms, for use by appropriate state, federal, and local agencies. 7. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of using beach compatible dredge material from lagoon and estuary enhancement projects in the region’s beach building and maintenance program, as enhancement projects are planned. Incorporate sand from lagoon and estuary enhancement projects in the beach building and maintenance programs recommended for each littoral cell, if feasible and cost effective. 8. Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of transporting sand from reservoirs, riverbeds (including commercial ‘sandpits) and debris catch basins to the region’s beaches. This evaluation should include The Tijuana River and Rodriguez Reservoir in Mexico. Design and carry out a program of projects which incorporate these sources of sand in the beach building and maintenance progmns recommended for each littoral cell, if feasible and cost effective. 9. Develop guidelines for land use planning, regulation and development which encourage the continued contribution of sand to the region’s beaches from natural sources such as seacliffs, coastal terraces and ravines, and upland sources. These guidelines should be coordiaated with other land use planning programs and policies in the region such as open space planning efforts, and should be used by appropriate state, federal, and local agencies. 10. Determine the capacity of local transportation and parking facilities to accommodafe increases in recreational beach use which will be provided for by the beach building and maintenance props recommended for each littoral cell. Local jurisdictions and state and fedeml agencies should use this infomation to identify parking and access problems and to develop solutions, emphasizing transit. 55 w e 11. Design and carry out a regional shoreline monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended actions. a. A minimum, low cost monitoring program would involve aerial photo measurements of beach width annually or semi-annually. Also, the existing wave measuring gauges off the region's coast should be retained by the state and federal agencies operating them. More detailed monitoring efforts may be included in the design of the beach building and maintenance progmns developed for each littoral cell, and for specfic projects. 12. An annual "State of the Region's Beaches" report should be prepared by SANDAG to describe progress made in implementing the Strategy and identify problem areas that need emphasis. IMPLEMENTATION 1. PHASE I: EARLY ACTION PROGRAM (July 1991 through June 1992, using existing funds and modest new funding sources) a. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG will secure approval of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy by local, state, and federal agencies. b. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG, working with local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies, will coordinate the securing of financing (see financing recommendations) for: - the design of the beach building and maintenance programs recom- mended for the three littoral cells; and 56 0 0 - the completion of the studies and guidelines in the regionwide mm- mendations. c. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG will coordinate the development of Cooperative arrangements among local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies necessary to finance and implement the beach building and maintenance progmns and regionwide recommendations (see institutional arrangements recommendations). d. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG, working with local, state, and federal agencies, will coordinate the Shoreline Preservation Strategy Financing Program contained in the financing recommendations. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG will complete the following regional recommendations, and local jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies will consider them for incorporation in their policies, regulations and action programs: e. (1) Guidelines for the composition of beachfii material from all sand sources considered in the Strategy. (2) Guidelines for the regional coordination of local regulation of shoreline land use and protective structures. Review of harbor, bay and lagoon dredging proposals to ensure use of compatible dredge material as beachfill (ongoing). (Including disposal sites). (3) (4) Review of water storage and reservoir studies and projects to encoumge consideration of using beach compatible sediment from these sources as beachfill. 57 W e (5) Feasibility and guidelines for the use of beach compatible material from land development grading as a source of beach sand. (6) Guidelines for the use of temporary property protection methods such as sand berms and sand bags. 2. PHASE 11: BFACH BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DESIGN (July 1992 through December 1992 using funds secured in Phase I) a. The appropriate implementing agencies (see institutional arrangements recommendations) will complete design of the recommended beach building and maintenance progmms for the three littoral cells, including detailed cost proposals. b. The Shoreline Erosion Committee, SANDAG and involved local, state, and federal agencies will complete as many of the remaining studies and guidelines in the regionwide recommendations (#'s 1 through 6) as funds allow. e. Appropriate implementing agencies, with the assistance of the Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG, will secure fmanchg for implementation of the beach building and maintenance programs and regionwide recommenda- tions. 3. PHASE III: CARRY OUT SHORELXNE PRESERVATION STRATEGY (starting January 1993, using funds secured in Phase n) a. The appropriate implementing agencies will initiate the beach building and maintenance programs. 58 0 0 b, Local, state and federal agencies will carry out the regionwide recommenda- tions in support of the beach building and maintenance programs. c. The Shoreline Erosion Committee, SANDAG and involved local, state, and , federal agencies will complete any of the regionwide recommendations not previously carried out and incorporate the results in the beach building and maintenance programs. d. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG will coordinate monitOring of the strategy and its periodic evaluation and revision. FINANCING (See institutional recommendations for a discussion of responsibilities.) The costs of Phase I of the implementation program can be met using existing funding and modest additional funds. The costs of Phase 11, the design of the recommended beach building and maintenance programs and completion of additional regionwide recommenda- tions, will cost in the range of $2 million. Several existing and proposed studies including the County Water Authority’s evaluation of water storage capacity options, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers re~o~ai~~an~e studies of potential solutions to shoreline erosion problems in the Silver Strand and Mission Bay littoral cells will assist the completion of some of the regionwide recommendations. The costs of Phase III, the carrying out of the beach building and maintenance programs for each littoral cell, could cost in the range of $150 million for initial beach building. The long-term annual costs for the full beach building and maintenance programs could be in the range of $5 million per year. This does not include the costs of beach maintenance which are the responsibility of the entity managing the beach. 1. Traditional state and federal funding sources such as the State Department of Boating and Waterways, the Coastal Conservancy and State Bond Act grants and loans, and 59 w m federal assistance through the U.S. Army Corps of Eumrs should Continue to be pursued by organizations implementing the Shoreline preservation Smtegy. Special sources of state and federal funds that may become available from time to time through agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Com- mission, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should also be pursued. It is anticipated that state and federal funds will cover only a portion of the total financing needs. 2. The financing program should be developed on a regional basis to ensure equity and to build understanding and support. 3. The financing program should be designed to provide for the high front end costs of beach building and should be flexible to allow for the settbg of priorities where program needs exceed funds available, and to inmporate new sources of fmancing as they become available. It should recognize that a major portion of the needed funds will have to come from local sources. Finally, the program should provide for long-term financing through the issuance of bonds or sirnilat instruments, to support the high front end costs of beach filling. 4. Shoreline property in the areas of the region whe? the beach building and maintenance programs are focused will receive major benefits from the program results, both directly from property protection and indimtly in terms of property value. A fmancing mechanism which targets shoreline property for an equitable share of the needed funds should be instituted. a. The most appropriate fmcing mechanism to obtain funds from shoreline property is an assessment district. The applicability of the various assessment districts authorized by state law should be reviewed and an assessment district(s) should be created for shoreline property. 60 0 b. State and federal agencies owning shoreline property should contribute funds for the beach building and maintenance pro- in proportion to other properties which are subject to assessment. 5. It is estimated that visitors to San Diego County account for about 20% of the region’s beach users. A fiaancing mechanism which collects an equitable share of the needed funds from visitors should be implemented. An hcmse in the region’s transient occupancy taxes should be instituted for tbis purpose. 6. San Diego County residents and businesses benefit substantially from living close to the region’s shoreline. They benefit directly from their use and enjoyment of beaches and parks, and indirectly in terms of property value and economic activity. A fmancing mechanism which targets residents for an equitable share of funds should be instituted. a. There are several potential financing mechanisms that can be used to collect funds from residents. They include aswsment district(s), a parcel tax, an increase in the local sales tax and an increase in the property tax. b. A regional impact fee on new development for its fair share of costs could be considered. c. Creation of a utility by local agencies which could charge fees for shore and beach services could be considered. This innovative financing method has been used by several local agencies in the U.S. A surcharge on water rata for the region’s households and businesses, implemented through the County Water Authority (CWA) and water providing agencies, might also be considered. This mechanism links financing the program with one of the main factors in the shortage of beach sand in many areas -- the water storage resemoirs that trap sand and regulate water flow that d, 61 0 e could move existing downstream sand to the beaches. This financing mechanism requires additional legal analysis and consultation with the CWA. Financing of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy should be coordinated with other Open Space and Natural Resource Financing needs and programs through the Regional Growth Management Strategy being developed by SANDAG. 7. INSTITlJTIONAL 1. The Shoreline Erosion Committee and SANDAG should continue to coordinate shoreline preservation activities for the region, including the development of the beach building and maintenance progmms for the region’s three littoral cells, the regionwide financing program, and the cooperative arrangements needed to implement the Strategy. 2. Local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies will be responsible for a number of implementation actions, as specified in the recommendations. 3. The interjurisdictional nature of the recommended beach building and maintenance programs for the region’s three littoral cells, and the si@icant amount of funds to be raised and expended to carry these programs out will quire additional cooperative intergovernmental arrangements for implementation. a. The purpose of additional arrangements would be to formalize joint decision making about the implementation of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for each littod cell, and to provide a mechanism for fiaancing. b. The format of additional arrangements in each littoral cell could range from the designation of a lead agency and the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement, to the formation of a joint powers agency or shoreline authority to carry out implementation in each cell. There may also need to be additional 62 q -..- 9 I) arrangements set up to coordinate fmcing and implementation on a regionwide basis. c. The most appropriate types of intergovernmental arrangements will depend to some extent on the frnancing mechanisms chosen. The institutional arrange- ments for implementation of the Strategy should therefore be developed concurrently with the financing program in Phase I of Implementation. 63 v h b NOTE: A COPY OF THE APPENDIX CAN BE OBTAINED BY CALLING 4 SANDAG: (61 9) 595-5347 sLpego Association of Governments. BOARD OF DIRECTORS June28, 1991 AGENDA REPORT No.: Ad-I ! FY'92 REVISED WEIGHTED VOTING FORMULA The San Diego Association of Governments Joint Powers Agreement, as amended by the member agencies further specifies that the population figures to be used in this recalculation shall consist of those determina for each member agency as certified by the State Department of Finance. The revised weighted vote has been prepared in compliance with the Joint Powers Agreement. The Stat1 Department of Finance certified population estimates for January 1, 1991 have been used as the basis fo this recomputation in conformance with the JPA's requirements. The following updated weighted vote will become effective on July 1, 1991: requires that the weighted vote be recomputed on July 1st of each year. The Joint Powers Agreemen WPA) (StePB) (StePC) (StePD) WPE) Boost FY'92 FY'91 Certified Percent Fractional Fractions Adjusted Current SANDAG Population of Shareof LessThan Weighted Weighted Vote Member Agency 01/01/91 Subtotal 60 Votes - "1" Vote - Vote Change County of San Diego 409,300 28.85% 17.3 1 17 17 18 -1 Oceanside 133,700 9.4296 5.65 5 5 5 Escondido 110,800 7.81% 4.69 4 5 ** 4 +1 El Cajon 89,300 6.29% 3.78 3 4 ** 4 Vista 74,200 5.23% 3.14 3 3 3 Carlsbad 64,300 4.53% 2.72 2 3 ** 3 Encinitas 56,000 3.95% 2.37 2 2 2 National City 55,700 3.93% 2.36 2 2 2 La Mesa 53,300 3.76% 2.25 2 2 2 Santee 53,200 3.75% 2.25 2 2 2 Poway 44.450 3.13% 1.88 1 2 ** 2 San Marcos 40,250 2.84% 1.70 1 2 ** 2 Imperial Beach 26,650 1.88% 1.13 1 1 1 Coronado 26,600 1.88% 1.13 1 1 1 Lemon Grove 24,300 1.71% 1.03 1 1 1 Solana Beach 13,000 0.92% 0.55 1* 1 1 1 Del Mar 4,880 0.34% Subtotal 1,418,630 100.00% - 60.00 I 54 60 60 40 San Diego 1,130,000 100 TOTAL REGION - 2,548,630 * Agencies gaining full vote by boosting fractions that are less than one. Chula Vista 138,700 9.78% 5.87 5 6 ** '6 - 1 - 1* - 0.21 - - 40 100 - - - ased upon highest fiaction. 1 smiego Assoaab - 'on of Governments w BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA REPORT No.: Ad-I ( June28, 1991 SANDAG EXECUTIVE COMhKITEE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMtSSION AND REGIONAL PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD FY'92 MEETING SCHEDULE Board of Directors, Regional Transportation Commission, and Regional Planning and Growth ManaPement Review Board Executive Committee - July 12, 1991 July 26, 1991 August 9, 1991 August 23, 1991 September 13, 1991 September 27, 1991 October 11, 1991 October 25, 1991 November 8, 1991 November 22, 1991 December 6, 1991 (1) December 20, 1991 (1) January 10, 1992 January 24, 1992 February 14, 1992 February 28, 1992 March 13, 1992 March 27, 1992 April 10, 1992 April24, 1992 May 8, 1992 May 22, 1992 June 12, 1992 June26, 1992 (1) The Executive Committee, the Board of Directors, the Regional Transportation Commission, and the Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board meetings are moved up to avoid the Christmas holiday conflict. MeetinP Sequence, Location and Time Executive Committee: Precedes Board of Directors' regular meeting by two weeks or as scheduled, beginning at 9:05 A.M., SWAG offices, Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza, 401 B Street, San Diego. Board of Directors, Regional Transportation Commission, and Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board: Fourth Friday of the month or as scheduled, beginning at 8:3C A.M., Silver Room, San Diego Convention and Performing Arts Center, 202 C Street, Sar 1 * 0 San Diego . ASSOCIATION C GOVERNMENTS Suite 800, First Interstate Plaz 401 BStreet San Diego, California 92101 (619)595-5300 Fax (619)595- @J SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS PRESENTATION JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This presentation reflects the Agreement and Amendments made between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CITY OF CORONADO, CITY OF DEL MAR, CITY OF EL CAJON, CITY OF E"ITAS, CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, CITY OF LA MESA, CITY OF LEMON GROVE, CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CITY OF POWAY , CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CITY OF SAN MARCOS, CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SOMA BEACH, CITY OF to as "Member Agencies." RECITALS VISTA, and the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO hereinafter collectively or individually referred A. Member Agencies lalizethe urgerrt need for areawide pMg and Coordjnation in order to provide advice to public entities regarding all phases of development within the region encompassed by the boundary of the County of San Diego. B. Member Agencies believe that the joint exercise of their powers will provide an organization capable of this areawide planning. C. Member Agencies wish to create a regional organization which will independently review and make comments to Member Agencies and grantors regarding projects which may receive federal or state grants. D. Member Agencies believe that a San Diego Association of Governments directed solely by elected officials from each Member Agency with a staff independent of any particular Member Agency is best suited for this areawide planning and review task. me official Agreement, Amendments and authorizkg documents are on file in the SANDAG office. MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La I Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista and County of San Die ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense and TijuandBaja Calif1 1 e 0 NOW, THEREFORE, ;n consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligations of the parties as herein expressed, Member Agencies agree as follows: 1. Definitions' The fouOwing terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them within this section unless the content of their use dictates otherwise: , a. of the County of San Diego. b. Management Review Board. c. "Region" shall mean that territory physically lying within the boundaries "Regional Board" shall mean the Regional Planning and Growth "Population" of any Member Agency shall mean that population last determined for each Member Agency as cert;f;ed by the State Department Of Finance aS of April 1, of each year, or if no ceztification has been made, the last Federal Decennial Census, except that the population of the County of San Diego shall be that population determined in the same manner for the uninmponted area of the County. The population of the region shall be that population determined by adding the population of each Member Agency. d. "Fiscal Year" shall mean that year beginning July 1, and ending June 30. 2. Establishment of SWAG There is hereby created an organization to be known and denominated as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which shall be a public entity separate and apart from any Member Agency. SANDAG shall be governed by the terms of this Joint Powers Agreement and any bylaws passed and adopted by its governing board. 3. Purpose of Organization The specific and primary purpose for which this organhation is created is to engage in regional cooperative comprehensve planning to assist the Member Agencies and to provide a regional reviewing organization for certain federal and state grant projects. Any recommendations, plans or programs promulgated by SANDAG shall be advisory only. 'Amended 2/90 2Amended 11/80 2 0 a Neither the San Diego AssoCiation,of Governments nor a majority of the members thereof shall have the authority to impose any plan, duty, obligation or other responsibility upon my Member Agency thereof without the consent of such Ageaey: Mer, 110 Agency shall be required to do anything it does not specifically agree to do. 4. Powers of SANDAC? As may be necessary for of the purposes of this agreement, SANDAG shall have the power, in its own name, to make and enter into contracts; to employ agents and employees under an adopted personnel system; to provide for employee n!.timnent, health and welfare benefits; to acquire, hold and dispose of property, real and personal; to sue and be sued in its own name; to hire legal counsel and to incur debts, liabilities or obligations. However, the debts, liabilities and ob'ligations of SNAG shall not constitute any debt, liability or obligation of any of the Member Agencies which are parties to this agreement. The Organization shall not be able to require additional permits. SNAG by resolution of the Board of Directors, shall designate an Auditor/ Comptroller from among its officers or employees-in accordaflce with Section 6505.6 of Code, The AudiOrlComptroller shall draw warratts or check-warrants against the funds of SANDAG in the Treasury when the demands are approved by the Board of Directors, or such other persons as may be specifidly designated for that purpose in the bylaws. Said AuditorKomptroller and Treasurer shall comply with all duties under Aaicle 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I, of the California Government Code commencing with Section 6500. At the end of each fiscal year there shall be an audit conducted by an independent, accredited certifkd public accountant. a. Establishment of Regional Planning and Growth Management Review In addition to the purposes and powers set forth henin, SANDAG is hereby designated and shall serve as the Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board. The Regional Board shall be governed by this Joint Powers Agreement. Board - The issues the Regional Board shall address shall include, but not be Wtd to: quality of Iife standards and objectives; holding capac&ies; growth rate policies; growth phasing; regional land use distribution; growth monitoring; open space preservation; signifiamt regional arterials; transportation system management; transportation demand management; siting and financjng regional facilities; fiscal abilities and responsibilities; consistency of regional and local plans; and mgional growth management shtegy. of the pertinent elements of b. Member agree to determine ("self'rtifj~") the consis+mcy plans with regional plans. Upon request by a 3Amended 11/80, 8/82, 2/90 3 0 0 member agency, the Regional Board will review these self-certifications, and make COMments and recommendations regarding consistency. Where determined by the Regional Board to be appropriate, the Regional Board shall use SANDAG’s Conflict Resolution Procedure for resolving disputes among Member Agencies. The Regional Board shall adopt rules to establish the self-certification process. 5. Accounts and Reports The Auditor/Comptroller of SANDAG shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice or bylaws passed and adopted by this Organization. The books and records of SANDAG in the hands of the Auditor/Comptroller shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by representatives of the Member Agencies. The Auditor/Comptroller of SANDAG, within 120 days after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to Member Agencies. 6. Funds4 The Treasurer of SNAG shall receive, have the custody of and disburse SANDAG funds upon the warrant or check-warrant of the Auditor/ComptroUer pursuant to the accounting procedures developed under Section 5 hereuf, and shall make the disbursements required by this agreement or to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of this agreement. The Treasurer of SANDAG may invest SNAG funds in accordance with general law. All interest collected on SNAG funds shall be accounfed for and posted to the account of such funds. 7. Governing: Board of SANDAG5 All powers of this Organization shall be exercised by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall be composed of one primary representative selected by the governing body of each Member Agency to serve until recalled by the governing body of said Member Agency. Each director must be a mayor, councilman, or supervisor of the governing body which selected him. Vacancies shall be faed in the same manner as originally selected. Each Member Agency shall also select h the same manner as the p”Y n?premtatiw one alternate to serve on the Board of Directors when the primary representative is not available. Such alternate shall be subject to the same restrictions and have the same powers, when serving on the Board of Directors, as the primary representative. 4Amended 8/82 5Amended 3/74, 11/80, 7/84, 2/90 4 W 0 At its discretion, each Member Agency may select a second alternate, in the same manner as the primary representative, to serve on the Board of Directors in the event that neither the primary representative nor the regular alternate is able to attend a meeting of the Board of DiFectors. Such alternate shall be subject to the same mgrictions and have the same powers, when serving on the Board of Directors, as the primary representative. Thepfimary and alternate representatives of the SANDAG Board of Ilktors shall also serve as members of the Board of Directors when exercising the powers and duties of the Regional Board. The Board of Directors may alEow for +e appointment of advisory representatives to sit with the Board of Directors but in no event shall said representatives be allowed a Vote. Ea&&iector~or,a designated alternate acting in a director's absence, may receive - fnnn SANDAG for out~f-pocht and -el expenses ium bymch diredoI: or alternate on approvedarganizational business. Except where prohibited by the charter; many ordhance,. de, regulation, or policy of a Member Agency, each director, or a. : designated alternate acting in a 's absence, shall aES0 -be $75 .OO for each Board I meeting or Bxecutive Committee attended. The chairman shall receive additional - q monthly compensationin anamoun ed from time to timeby theBoardof btectors. 8. Vote of Board of D&ctors6 a. TheBoardof shall vote on all items on the basis of one vote per signatory Member Agency, except that if representtives of three signatory Member Agencies request a weighted vote after voting on any particular item, then in that event a new weighted vote, which and binding, shall be taken. b. Whenthew vote is taken there shall be a total of one hundred votes, except additional votes shall be allowed pursuant to Section 19. Each representative shall have that number of votes determined by the following appoaiOnment fornula, provided that eachMember Agency shall have at least one Agency sm have more than 40 votes, and there shall be no fractional vote: (1) 'S population. If any Member Agency has 40 percent or more of the total population of the San Diego County region, allocate 40 votes to that Member Agency and follow step 2; if not, follow step 3. 6Section 8 amended 10/74, 11/80, 1/85 5 0 0 (2) Total the population of the remaining Member Agencies determined in step 1 and compute percentage of this total that each Member Agency has. (a) Multiply each percentage derived above by 60 to determine fractional shares. (b) Boost fractions that are less than one to one; add the whole numbers. (c) If the answer to step b. is 60, drop all fractions and the whole numbers are the votes for each Member Agency. (d) Iftheanswertostepb. islessthan6O,theremainingvote(s) is allocated one each to that Member Agency(@ having the highest fraction(s) excepting those whose vote was increased to one (1) in step b. above. (e) If the answer to step b. is more than 60, the excess vote(s) is taken one each from the Member Agency@) with the lowest fraction(s). In no case may a vote be reduced to less than one. (3) of this total that each Member Agency has. Total the population determined in step 1 and compute percentage (a) numbers. (b) BOO& fractions that are less than one to one; add the whole If the answer to step a. is 100, drop all fractions and the whole numbers are the votes for each Member Agency. (c) If the answer to step a. is less than 100, the Temaining vows) is allocated one each to that Member Agency(@ having the highest fraction(s) excepting those whose vote was increased to one (1) in step a. above. (d) If the answer to step a. is more than 100, the excess vote@) is taken one each from that Member Agency(s) with the lowest fraction(s). In no case may a vote be reduced to less than one. c. When the weighted vote is taken, the vote of not less than five (5) Member the signatory Member Agencies shall be required to supersede the original action. If the weighted vote fails, action determined by the original vote shall stand. Agencies, repmenfig not less than fifty-one percent (51 76) of the total weighted vote of 6 0 Except as hereinafter provided in Subsection d., the weighted vote shall be as follows:7 40 17 5 4 5 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 city of san Diego County of San Diego Chula Vista 6< Oceanside - Escondido Vista Carlsbad La Mesa Santee Poway Encinitas san Marms Imperial Beach Solana Beach Lemon Grove Coronado Del Mar - Total: 100 and shall be recomputed in the above manner on July 1 of 1974, and eveq year thereafter, Upon withdrawal of any Member Agency, the weighted vote shall not be recomputed but the total votes cast will be reduced by the weighted vote of the withdrawing Member Agency. Without affecting the weighted vote of other Member Agencies when a weighted vote is requested on any of the items .set forth in Article VII Section 1 of the Bylaws which are identified by number as listed in the Catalog of Fedeml Domestic Assistance published by the United States office of Management and Budget, it will require the vote of not less than five (5) Member Agencies, repmenting not less than sixty percent (60 %) of the total weighted vote to supersede the position taken by the County of San Diego on a unit vote. e. The voting pmcedure prescribed by Section 8(d) of the Joint Powers Agreement may be invoked with respect to other matters if, and only if, such other matters are, pursuant to State law, specificaly and exclusively the responsibility of the County of SanDiego withinitsbomdaries. ArticleVIISection2 oftheBylawsliststhoseothermatters d. subject to the voting procedu~ prescribed by Section 8(d). 7Recomputed 6/91 7 e 0 9. Meetings The Board of Directors shall conduct regular meetings at least once each calendar month during the year and such other times as the Board of Directors shall direct or the bylaws specify. 10. Bvlaws The Board of Directors of SANDAG may adopt from time to time bylaws, rules and regulations as may be required for the conduct of its meetings and the orderly operation of the Organization; and copies and amendments thereto shall be fded with each Member Agency. 11. The Executive Director The Board of Directors shall appoint an Executive Director who shall hold office until he resigns or is removed by the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall be the chief executive officer of SANDAG and shall have such duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall have charge of all projects and property of the Organization and shdl file with the Treasurer of SANDAG an official bond in the minimum amount of $loO,OOO or such larger amount as the Board of Directors specifies, guaranteeing faitffil performance of his duties. 12. Financial a. The Board of Directors shall approve aprelimhary budget no later than April 1 of each year. The Board of Directors shall adopt a final budget no later than June 1 of each year. A copy of the prelimhary budget when approved and a copy of the final budget when adopted shall be filed with each Member Agency. ’ b. Responsibility for supplying funds for that portion of the budget for SANDAG which is to be supplied by the Member Agencies, as adopted by the Board of Directors, shall be divided among the Member Agencies based on their population with each Member Agency including within its budget as funds to be supplied to SANDAG that sum of money determined by taking the ratio its population bears to the total population of the region and multiplying it by that portion of the approved budget to be supplied by the Member Agencies. Payment of this determined sum of money shall be made by each Member Agency by July 15 of each year. If payment by a Member Agency has not been made by September 1 of each year, that Member Agency shall cease to be a participating member of SANDAG, and its representative shall no longer participate or vote as a member of the Board of Directors. A delinquent Member Agency will be reinstated to Participating membership and its representative allowed to participate on the Board of Directors when full payment has been made, including interest computed from July 15 at the established legal rate. 8 m a c. Any Member Agency may make cash advances to SANDAG which must be repaid by SANDAG within the same fiscal year in which the advance was made. For operation for the first fiscal year, each Signatory Member Agency shallpay over tothe Treasurer of SANDAG, no later than fifteen (15) days after theadoption of the budget for the 1972-73 lbil year by the Board of Director, its share of that poaion of the approved budget to be paid by Member Agencies. The County of San Diego shall be given credit toward 1972-73 fiscal year payment for that amount expended by it on behalf of SANDAG from July 1, 1972 through September 30, 1972. d. 13. Rabh M. Brown Act All meetings of SNAG, including without limitation regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings of the Board of Directors, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commenchg with Section 54950 of the Cal;fornH Government Code). 14. Ouorum A majority of the voting members ofthe Board of Directors of SANDAG shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. In determining a quorum, the weighted vote shall not be used. 15. Procedures to be Followed Pursuant to California Government Code Section 6509, which nxpires that the powers of SANDAG be limited by the legal restrictions placed upon a named Member Agency, the powers of SANDAG delineated under Section 4 above shall be subject to those legal restrictions imposed upon the City of Escondido by the Constitution of the State of California and the laws governing general law cities. 16. DmtionofAgree ment . "his agreement shall continue in full force and effect until no less than 50% of Member Agencies withdraw from this -on by resolution. or assets in possession of the andchargesvali~yincurred in proportion to their as of the the of termination. 9 , 0 0 18. Effective Date of Agreement This agreement shall become effective for all purposes at 12:Ol a.m. P.D.T., September 10, 1972, if by that time such agreement has been executed by at least eight Member Agencies representhg at least 75 % of the regional population. As soon as possible after the appointment of a sufficient number of representatives to the Board of Directors to constitute a quorum, the Board of Directors shall meet for the limited purposes of permitting the Board of Dbtors to adopt a budget for fiscal year 1972-73 (the local share not to exceed that amount in the preliminary budget for independent operation approved bythe Policy CommitteeonApril21,1972, i.e., $547,015),tomakeandenterintocontracts, to employ agents and employees, to provide for employee retirement, health and welfare benefits, to adopt an administrative manual (including purchasing, personnel, and budgetary/accounting proc'edures), to acquire property, to adopt bylaws and regulations and to incur such debts, liabilities or obligations as may be necessary, such actions to become effective no earlier than October 1, 1972 so that the SANDAG provided for herein may become fully operative on October 1, 1972. 19. Later Partipahg Member Agencies6* In addition to the Agencies noted in the Preamble above, any other San Diego County incorporated city which may desire to PEUticipate in the activities of the San Bego Association of Governments may do so by executing this agreement without prior approval or ratification of the Member Agencies noted in the Preamble of this agreement and shall be bound by the terms of this agreement as of the date of execution. The Member Agencies encourage the membership of all new cities upon incoqoration. Such later participating Member Agencies must notify SWAG and the Member Agencies within ten (10) days after such execution. Any later participating Member Agency shall receive one (1) vote under the single vote procedure and one (1) vote under the weighted vote procedure specified above until the next recomputation of the weighted vote as specified in Section 8 above, at which time said participating Member Agency shall receive votes in amrdance with the formula specified in said Section 8. Until such recomputation, the total weighted vote may exceed 100. 20. Ameement Repositow A fully executed copy of this Joint Powers Agreement and any amendments thereto shall be filed with the Board of Directors and each signatory Member Agency. 'Amended 11/80 10 e a S WHEREOF, each of the following Member Agencies has caused this Joint ent to be executed by having affixed theIeto the signature of the agent of said Agency authorized therefor by the legislative body of that Agency. CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CORONADO CITYOFDELMAR CITY OF EL CAJON CITY OF ESCONDIDO CITYOFLAMESA CITY OF LEMON GROVE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY OF POWAY CMY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF SOMA BEACH ClTY OF CHULA VISTA CITY 0FE”ITAS CITY OF IMPm’BEACH CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF SANTEE CITY OF VISTA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO < 11 , e * San Diego Association of Governments SA NDA G 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 0 (619) 595-5300 0 ax (619) 595-5305 BOARD ACTIONS 43 May 24,1991 'I"SPORTATI0N CONTROL MEASURES (TCMs) FOR AIR QUALITY. The Board amended the Transportation Control Measures Plan for Air Quality adopted last month. The amendments include support for a State-initiated motor vehicle "emissions fee" and for a statewide study of the air quality impacts of freeway ramp metering. It also includes a policy for increased transit service in the 1-15 corridor and a demonstration project for congestion pricing on the 1-15 HOV facility. An "emissions fee" based on motor vehicle emissions and miles traveled is considered an equitable and effective way of reducing vehicle emissions. This market-based TCM would be designed to achieve emissions reductions by increasing the registration fees of autos which contribute the most to air pollution. The fee system would protect low income residents from excessive costs. The Board also recommended further consideration of a "pollution fuels" fee levied on fuel distributors to increase the cost of high emission motor vehicle fuel. MITIGATION FEE POLICY FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES: SANDAG Directors, serving as the Integrated Waste Management Task Force, recommended an off-site mitigation fee policy for regional solid waste facilities to the County Board of Supervisors. The policy would apply to existing, expanded and new facilities. The impacts eligible for reimbursement would have to extend beyond those addressed through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The fees, paid from the County Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, would be based upon documented adverse impacts due to regional solid waste management facilities and provide for reimbursement of incurred costs to mitigate these effects. Documented impacts can be identified by both the host jurisdiction and other jurisdictions which are affected. Possible impacts include those relating to transportation, noise abatement, or litter control. SANDAG would be responsible for reviewing reimbursement proposals and recommending the allocation of fees to local agencies. SHORELINE EROSION MA"ERS: SANDAG Directors approved a regional dredging policy whici supports the piacement of sand itom dredging projeeii oil the San Sego iegh's k uea des. The dredging policy emphasizes that dredge material be used for beach replenishment. The Shoreline Erosion Committee will provide guidelines regarding the kinds of dredge material suitable for beach replenishment and the areas of the region's shoreline where replenishment will be most beneficial. Directors also supported the inclusion of funds in State Bond Act Legislation for Shoreline Preservation Projects. SB 710 and AB 72 both propose $30 million for shoreline erosion control and boating projects as part of environmentally sensitive lands and parks and recreation bond issues be put to vote in either June or November of 1992. The Board was also given an update on the proposed contents of the Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy scheduled for distribution and review this summer. The purpose of the Strategy is to provide the region with a coordinated list of solutions for each of the region's shorelie problem areas, and an action plan for carrying out and paying for the solutions. (more-more-more-mor e) MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitar, Esdido, Imperial &a&. La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Omanside, Poway, SM Diego. San Marcoo, Santee, Sdana Beach, VIS& and County of Sen Dlego. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Depertment of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense, and TljuandBaja California. w SANDAG CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE: The Board approved revision to SANDAG’s existing Conflict Resolution Procedure, previously adopted in 1982, to provide the members with appropriate options for resolving intergovernmental disputes. The procedure provides that the conflict resolution process, which is voluntary, may be initiated by the Board, the Executive to resolve a dispute which may include, but not be limited to mediation and arbitration. Committee, or by one or more involved local agencies. If needed, a neutral third-party can be used 1991 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) PROGRESS REPORT Directors were given a progress report on the preparation of the required elements of the 1991 CMP. SANDAG is designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the San Diego region. The purpose of the CMP is to help insure that a balanced transportation system is developed that relates population growth, traffic growth, and lands use decisions to transportation system level-of- service performance standards and air quality improvement. HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING SANDAG Directors were given an update on habitat conservation planning efforts in the San Diego region. Current activities in conservation planning include: mapping coastal sage scrub/gnatcatcher locations; preparation of a habitat management plan for Carlsbad; preparation of a multiple species habitat conservation plan by the City of San Diego; staff has been requested to discuss with representatives of the affected and interested parties ways to coordinate regional conservation planning, ensure regionally consistent data bases, protect habitat, provide wildlife corridors, and ensure implementation of these plans. and a biological survey undertaken by Poway to be used in revising their general plan. SANDAG OTHER ACTIONS: Directors adopted both the SANDAG F‘Y’92 Final Program Budget which projects revenues to be over $8.1 million and the FY’92 Regional Transportation Commission Budget which is approximately $134.4 million, based on projected sales tax revenues and allocated to all local agencies and transit operators ... Serving as the Airport Land Use Commission, the Board adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Jacumba, Agua Caliente Springs, and Ocotillo Wells Airstrips.. .Acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, Directors were informed of groundbreaking ceremonies for State Route 52 on July 19th and State Route 56 on July 25th, both to be held at 10:3Q a.m. at the designated sites, For more information, contact SANDAG’s Public Information Specialist Eunice Tanjuaquio at 595-5300. ######