HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-15; City Council; 11996; APPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION AND FUNDING FOR SANDAG SHORELINE MONITORING PROGRAMZ66 1 '9 JaWl3O PUe 266 1 'ZZ Alnf PWP 9VaNVS WOJ~ a3UapUOdSaJJO=) 'Z
# - .b *ON uo!lnlosau '1
S1101HX3
6ujie~ado 6u!~aau!6u3 Ienuuy ayi u! papnpu! aq ppoM s&'z$ 10 spun! '&!IE~J B sauoaaq ~lt?i60ld ayi 41 *iaSpng bu!p?~ado luawwdaa 6u!~aau!6u3 ay~ ~1014 SL$ ~euo!yppe UB yip
'Ma!AaJ PInOM I!3UnO3 y3jyM la6png
WEJ60Jd r(aAJnS PUeS aU!JeUIyal pala6pnq OOO'Og$ a41 WOJ~ paZ!l!ln aq PlnOM 9LZ'Z$40 SpUnd
13VdMII lV3SI=!
'&!l!qel!EAe 6u!punj IEJ!lapaJ PUB apls 104 YO01 01 anu!luo3
OSle ll!M E)VaNVS 'payS!lqelSa S! S!SSq uo!ba~ B UO aU!laJOyS ayl ~~EU~UI 01 WEJ60Jd GU~U~U!J E
I!lun JO sa!p 6ugedp!~.led ayl 6uowe $uawaa~6e s! a~ayl se 6uol se anuguoa plnoM we~6o~d ayl
-1a6pnq 6u!p~ado Ienuue ayl u! papnpu! aq ppoM SJE~ luanbasqns
io4 6u!pun~ 9&'Z$ aql 'p6pna 6u!$e~ado tuawyedaa 6u!~aau!6~3 ayl WOJ~ OL$ q$!M UleJ6OJd
oloyd Ie!JaV Wl 01 pa!ldde aq pin03 SOZ'Z$ 40 a3uWq ayl '96L'LZ$ 40 IS03 1? le IPuno3 Aq
PaAOJdde AllU33aJ SBM ApnlS aU!JelUyal€6-Z66 1 ayl 'AaAJnS PUeS aU!JEWyal ayl JOJ pala6pnq
OOO'OB$ aut 40 uo!uod e az!i!in peqsliag iaq! 6u!pualu~ua!3a~ s! aal.l!luluo!') UO!SOJ~ 43Wg all1
*uo!gedp!ued
40 lUaW~WWO3 1? JOJ GU!YS~ S! E)VaNvS 'aW!l S!yl lv spun^ aSWlaJ IOU PlnOM peqSlJe3 'alq!SWJ SaWOWq WEJ6OJd al# (ssalun) I!lUn 'pay3JWSaJ aq ll!M A6olouy3al oloyd al!llaleS 40
aSn ayl PUe JWJlaJ fi!l34O 6U!JOl!uOw ayl 'Ap9!aads 'WeJ6OJd ayl 40 &yln ayl6U!SEaJ3U! pUe
ansind 01 enU!lUO3 ll!M #QS E)vaNvS 'WeJ60Jd 1euo!6a~qns UaAa JO 'ap!M-U0!6aJ aA!leJadOO3 le
$no AJJW 01 alqel!me 6u!pun4 lea01 luapyps IOU s! a~aql ley1 pau!w~alaap sey E)t/aNt/S 'qep 01
'r((1enuue 9LZ'Z$ aq p(n0M uo!yod s,peqs(Je3 'a(!ul au!la~oys Jad os:$ Alalew!xoJdde
S! S!yl .uo!Ba~ ayl IO4 JeaA lad ooo's~$ lnoqe aq ppoM 'pun) A3ua6u!luoa 6u!~oyuow WJO~ -$Sod B dn Pl!nq 01 JEaA B OOO'S$ 6u!pnpu! 'WBJ6OJd ayl40 S~SO~ ayl io4 alew!lsa s,E>VaNVS
.UO!laJWe PUe
UO!SOJa 40 SWJe &Uap! PUO aU!llSeO3 aJ!lUa ayl JOJ aW!l JaAO l#p!M y3eaq 40 SdSu aA!lEJedWO3
ap!AoJd ll!M soloyd aq140 s!sApuv -au!la~oys s,uo!6a~ ayl 40 soloyd p!~ae Ienuuaq 40 sls!suo3
wa~6a~d au i~k?~60~d 6u!~or!uow au!ia~ous ah!ui?iadoo9 I? uI Gu!IB~~!uB~ Jap!SU03 uo!6ai
aL# U! UO!l3!pS!Jn! IQSoO3 y323 $el# Gu!$sanbai S! aaU!WluO3 UO!SOJS au!laJOyS OVaNVS ayl
'QVaNVS ACl palSanbaJ SB weJ6oJd 6u!~oyuoyy au!la~oys oloyd pylae aA!leJadoo3 e io4 6u!pun~
pue u! uo!ledp!ued aAoJdde Ipunoa 413 ley$ 6U!pUaWWO3aJ s! aaff!wwo3 UO!SOJ=J q3eaa ayl
NOllVNWldX3 VU311
'WEJ6OJd 6U!JOl!UOyY au!la~oys E)VaNVS e JOJ 6uipunj pue u! uo!led!qwd 6u!~o~dde -&'ON uoyyosau ldopv
:Noiiav a3a~3 w w om
WW9Otld E)NltlOUNOW 3Nll3tlOHS
OvaNvs Hod DNlaNnd aNV
N 0 llVdl3 IltlVd d 0 1VAOU d dV
(lb3S) 82
\ YJW h!3 ‘ZNWNN3lflW ‘1 VHUlV -1 LZ
92
9z
PZ
$33
ZZ
-cz
:1s3uv
aUoN :M3sgV
auoN WON
ETCTUU-F~ PUE PJEESXN ‘uryqnx cuoiu~as ‘SJM~? siaqmaH TTauno3 :s3~v
:I!M 01 ‘eIOA GU!MOllOJ aql Aq z66 1 ‘ 02 =qma=a 40 k?p=eI.# UO plaq
6‘1:
81
&t
91
97:
IPuno3 h!3 PBqSlJe3 eYl40 6u!laaw JelnbaJ e le a31dOaV ONV a3AOUddV ‘Q3SSVd
-ae6pna 6u!ae~edo [enuw luawyedaa bu!~aau!bus el(l40 ved se WBJ6OJd 6u!~ol!uoyy
eu!laJoyS eqi u! uo!tedp!ued speq pnuue ue uo M~!A~J ll!~ puno3 &a ley1 *p
/
’ WBJbOJd 6U!JO~UOyY aU!laJOqS ayl 01 UO!lnq!JlUO3
S,pBqslJe3 SE paZ!l!ln 0q 01 paZ!JOl#nB @Jay ale ia6pnq 6U!lBJadO 8636 JWA le3s!j vt
iuawuedea 6u!~eau!6u3 eqi u! e1qqww SB SLZ‘Z$ 40 iunowo aqi u! spun4 leu ’6 €1
87: ’ WBJ6OJd 6U!JOl!UOyY eU!lOJOqS 0A!lBJadOO3 e U! uo!ba~ ayJ U! SUo!p!pS!Jn! lBlseo3
Jew WM waNvS y6no~yi uo!lt?d!a!usd saAoiddo ACpJQU I!9UnO9 h!!) SYl1€?lJ1 ‘Z 11
‘Pall03 pUe anJl aJ8 SUO!JEl!3aJ aAOqt3 al# lt3ql ‘t OX
:SMOllOJ St2 ‘e!UJOJ!1e3 6
8
&
9
G
P
s
2
7:
‘PWslJe3 40 b Wl40 IPuno3 h!3 OYl h a3AlOS3tJ 11 39 ‘3ki033U3Hl ‘MON
‘put2 !lSaJaIU! qlqnd eql U! PUB alqt2J!Sap
‘hSS83BU S! WeJ6OJd 6U!JOl!UoyY eU!laJOyS oloqd Ie!JaB aA!lEJadOO3 lBlSBO3 1r?uo!6ai t? U!
uo!\ed!3!W lWl Peu!wJaleP SW PeqSlJe3 40 h!3 ey140 ipuno3 h!3 eYl ‘SaU3HM
YUWOOUd ONltJOllNOVU 3NI13tJOHS OVONVS tlOd
ONtaNflsl aNV NI NOllVdl3UUVd ONlAOtlddV aVBSltlV3 do All3 3Hl JO 113Nn03 Au3 3Hl A0 NOIlfllOS3tl V
09€-26 ‘ON NOllfllOS3bl
0
'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.
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
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 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 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 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.
######