HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-28; City Council; 7460-1; Batiquitos Lagoon Management PlanCIT OF CARLSBAD - AGEND BILL /'"-< >.
AR^ ?4t6~ &/
MTG. 8/28/84
DF=PT R/AG
RECOMMENDED
TITLE:
BATIQUITOS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTION:
DEPT. HP i^yy
CITY ATTYV/^S
niTY MGH."^^C
zo
o
uz=>oo
Indicate by minute motion that the plan is generally reflective of the
City Council position, and, based on the document, direct staff to pursue
appropriate:
a) General Plan amendments
b) Zone code revisions
c) Local Coastal Program amendments
d) Orientation discussions with potentially affected local governments
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In August 1983 the City Council approved a work program and directed staff
to begin efforts to prepare a management plan for Batiquitos Lagoon. The work
program was designed to create a plan which balanced the "needs and goals of
a rapidly developing region and community with the desire to preserve and
enhance significant lagoon qualities." The plan was intended to focus on land
use issues.
City staff worked closely with the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation in prepara-
tion of the plan. In addition to a commitment of partial funding for the effort,
the Foundation was invaluable in providing a liaison between staff and the public.
It was recognized by the foundation and City staff at the outset that there
were many existing restrictions and regulations affecting the lagoon. It was
also very clear that one of the most important factors for plan success was
clarification of the diverse "feelings" of the public regarding the lagoon.
After all, a successful plan is one which addresses the legitimate needs of a
broad based interest group.
Following considerable investigation, staff considers the draft plan a
potentially successful balance of concepts and controls for the lagoon area.
The document before Council is designed to provide a foundation for the
recommended actions. For example, there are components such as "Methodology,"
"Conclusions" and the graphic map which would be important in the concept level
General Plan amendment stage. "The Plan" section containing development standards
would obviously be used as a basis for zone code revisions.
It is intended that the plan in its current form be reviewed generally, and
that the process of implementing the specifics of the plan will provide precise
scrutiny and substantial additional public input. This is a similar approach to
that taken with the El Camino Real Corridor Study. The study was formulated and
then used as a basis for continuing public hearings and ultimately integration
into City policy.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff time for processing the necessary plan implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Environmental review will take place as a function of each implementing process.
EXHIBIT: 1. Batiquitos Lagoon Management Plan. (To be distributed later)
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL, SURVEY
]• \\W !-: yjltftz)*?^—-immiV//*V J\SSS\B ///•^(VlS.S^b
DRAFT
CITY OF CARLSBAD - R/A GROUP 8-28-84
\
BATIQUITOS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED BY:
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RESEARCH/ANALYSIS GROUP
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, MANAGER
TOM HAGEMAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
GARY WAYNE, ASSISTANT PLANNER
AUGUST 28, 1984
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 2
II. Work Program Developed 4
III. Initial Staff Work 5
IV. Methodology 10
V. Conclusions 12
VI. The Plan 16
VII. The Map - A User's Guide 23
Appendices:
Bibliography 27
Community Opinion Survey 30
Cultural History 32
Biology 34
Hydrology 36
Geology 39
Existing Laws, Policies & Guidelines 42
Model Erosion Control Ordinance 47
Property Ownership Map (1983) 53
Jurisdiction Map (1983) 54
Figure 1
AREA MAP
-1-
I. INTRODUCTION
The Batiquitos Lagoon Management Plan is the result of a cooperative
agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Batiquitos Lagoon
Foundation. The plan is an attempt to balance the needs and goals of a
rapidly developing region with the desire to preserve significant lagoon
resources (i.e. wildlife habitat and visual character). The plan focuses
on land use issues around the lagoon.
Several factors led to the preparation of this plan. Community interest
in the future of the lagoon has been growing over the last several years.
This interest is in response to increased development pressures which
could affect the lagoon's wildlife and visual resources. Community
interest was heightened when a local sewer agency drained the lagoon to
protect one of its pump stations from flooding. This event sparked
questions like "Who owns the lagoon?" "What is its future?" "What
regulations exist that will protect the lagoon?" "Are there land use
controls that protect the visual resources around the lagoon?" This plan
was prepared in part to clarify land use issues for landowners and the
public in general.
Most of the lagoon is within the unincorporated County of San Diego.
However, the entire lagoon is within the Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence
(Figure 2) so that the City could have ultimate land use authority when
the lagoon is annexed. In 1974, the City adopted its current general
plan which designated the lagoon as open space and determined compatible
land uses for north and east shores. The City recognizes that there are
many other governmental agencies which have various degrees of land use
control over development around the lagoon. The recent development
pressure, increased community interest and possible annexation of the
lagoon established a need for the City to examine how existing
regulations affect land use around the lagoon.
The planning process has three major components:
1. A Work Program which identifies basic staff
assumptions and establishes a methodology for the
planning process.
2. Conclusions which are based on analysis of physical
data (environmental constraints), community goals and
existing land use regulations.
3. The Plan, which includes a land use map, recommended
goals, policies, and development standards.
This document also contains a number of supporting technical appendices
including inventories of existing conditions.
-2-
Figure 2
OCEANSIDE
BUENA VISTA
LAGOON
HWY 78
\
6000'
SCALE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SQUIRES 0AM
Illlllllllllll
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
BAT1QUITOS
LAGOON
LA COSTA AVE
•PACIFIC OCEAN
Carlsbad's Sphere Of Influence
-3-
II. WORK PROGRAM DEVELOPED
This plan has been prepared based on a work program adopted by the
Carlsbad City Council in August, 1983. The Work Program is composed of
three major tasks:
1. Identification of the study area, which includes a
determination and mapping of factors that influence the
lagoon.
2. Compilation of a data base for analysis. This
includes a determination of the characteristics of the
study area, plus the identification of both community
goals and influences and constraints imposed by
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the
lagoon.
3. Preparation of the plan based on the analysis of data
collected in task 2. This includes a land use map
with specific designations throughout the study area
and accompanying development policies, guidelines and
standards.
The above approach was selected because the major focus of the plan is on
land use issues that could affect the lagoon. The work program defines
the study area. It also identifies environmental and regulatory
constraints to development. When the constraints are compared to
community goals and desires specific land use possibilities can be
identified. The land use mix that is most compatible and least damaging
to the lagoon resource forms the basis of the land use recommendations
contained in this plan.
The work program was developed based on several initial assumptions.
Staff knew from the outset that there has not been an official
determination of the lagoon's wetland boundaries. Therefore, it was
necessary to define the boundaries of the lagoon resource before
determining the extent of factors that affect the lagoon. A combination
of biological data, 100-year floodplain, and field surveys were used to
establish a "lagoon resource boundary." This boundary encompasses an
area generally greater than the probable wetland boundary.
Staff assumed that the major planning effort should concentrate on the
lagoon's viewshed (boundary of the visual resource). Activities in the
viewshed have the greatest potential of directly affecting the lagoon.
It was also assumed that activities in the lagoon's drainage basin above
San Marcos Dam would not have significant impact on the lagoon. Lake San
Marcos which was created by the dam, effectively reduces flooding and
sedimentation problems below the dam. Activities in the drainage basin
below the dam which could adversely affect the lagoon could probably be
mitigated before impacting the lagoon resource or the viewshed.
-4-
III. INITIAL STAFF WORK
One of the major pitfalls in preparing a "plan" for an area is the
distinct possibility that the plan will, for one reason or another, not
be used. Plans are intended to be employed as tools to provide stategy
over long periods. They are not intended to be "reports" which are read
as information by those interested and placed on a shelf for possible
future reference.
The basic intent in the Batiquitos Management Plan is to provide a plan
for land use regulation around the lagoon. Because the immediate lagoon
area is relatively undeveloped, the major impacts on the area in the
future will be generated from new development. This land use activity
should take place in a way which balances economic and environmental
priorities to the satisfaction of current and future residents. If
agreed to, the plan should provide a basis for various groups to
understand what the City of Carlsbad intends for the lagoon area. The
plan is not designed to be a technical or historical document. The
importance of the document should focus on its effectiveness from a
user's standpoint. There were a number of questions at a staff level
which required consideration prior to beginning work.
1. What form should the document take?
It has been stated that the decision was made to
create a plan and not a report.'
2. Who should the plan be for?
Emphasis should be placed on the user or interested
party to convey the intent of the City regarding land
use regulation in the area affecting the lagoon.
3. How detailed should the plan be?
A plan presented as a "self-contained" package must
have enough justification to explain at least the
general reasons for the established policies, goals
and standards. How much is enough? It is hard to
say, but a logical progression of reasonable ideas
must be established.
One of the most effective ways to help convey a logical sequence of ideas
resulting in recommendations is a simple, understandable plan format.
This is difficult to do when dealing with a complex subject such as
Batiquitos Lagoon. It is important to establish a "framework" around
which information and ideas can be ordered as early in the planning
process as possible. This provides continuity through the planning
process and the plan. The framework aids those participating in the
planning process to understand and sort varied issues and conclusions
into a format that is most usable.
-5-
Staff recognized at the outset that there were a good number of existing
reports and plans for the lagoon area.
These documents range from technical papers on water quality to broad
plans such as the Local Coastal Programs. It was also recognized that
there was a range of authority over activities around the lagoon. In
effect staff concluded there was too much information and regulation
regarding the lagoon for most people to put in manageable perspective. /
major objective was to create a plan which could translate and
consolidate the basics of the existing information and regulations.
To aid in the accumulation, interpretation and presentation of
information and conclusions, specific areas of concentration in the plan
were identified. They are:
1. The Management Plan Area: On the surface, this would
seem an obvious straight forward task. Certainly, a
plan cannot be prepared without knowing the affected
area. But what area should a plan for the lagoon
encompass? What factors contribute to the lagoon
environment? Without going into details, it was
determined that there were various levels at which the
lagoon was affected. The broadest reasonable level of
investigation and regulation was the lagoon drainage
basin (from the downstream point of San Marcos Dam,
Figure 3). Granted, the lagoon drainage basin is a
large area, geographically larger than the City's land
use regulatory powers.
However, the further away from the lagoon new or
changed activities take place, the less intense
the impacts. Therefore, general guidelines with a
specific purpose should be adequate in the management
plan area.
2. The Critical Planning Area: From the category title
it is' clear that this is the most important area in
the opinion of staff. From a land use planning
standpoint the lagoon environment has an identifiable
focal point. It is the viewshed of the lagoon. That
is the area of land around the lagoon that one can see
from the periphery of the shoreline.
Most people do not think of Batiquitos Lagoon as the
terminus of San Marcos Creek or a small segment of the
Pacific Flyway for migrant birds. They think of the
lagoon as a geographic place including a water body
and surrounding land area. The part of the geographic
place which is generally the water body (the Lagoon
Resource) will be described in the next section.
-6-
Figure 3
, \
3sT-i~jf _ "5*- ;'-— .-"' - -—isJ^toT/ ~-i^,=-'r^ = i~~" *»"* - i"^*. » : , '~^r^.- ?*
j- ^i '">*" —' JT ^^i---" '--•»S~T5"'T^ "*'/&^'^^-.-*^3e*...i 3>::-:::;:w::^s*g;*S&&ff&?.
^^-l.
WVn v^^M -1-*1'-. V/\ T, -A vx o. -^ '•' \ .-- ~.x^.-A^ ;&- -" b'-.-lVi-.— \ ?* .-• - gj^. g---.^s- • •-
5^
r-,:^ fisv.,/•/; ^®??»S^m - S'-*-;** ->i>^'V7-;i^-><i::'''i£rl^'Y^3L^^.:.X"-!
-- -o" -/--A. //*: -;C<%tj^^-!>S--. •=. •" -v"i^>"-^/ V*'- ^^^ Wi^ •.-> \>—^* ^^- -^T'-'-" ^?^I;?yv%>4i^-'^~^/m ^^^^i^^^^^a^iS^^-^^^g^i:
^^^•^?M"^\ X-W:W^-
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
MANAGEMENT PLAN BOUNDARY
-7-
The area from the near shoreline of the lagoon to the
surrounding ridge lines is designated the Critical
Planning Area by the plan (Figure 4). Activities
which take place within this area will have a distinct
visual and environmental effect on the character of
the place which most people consider "the lagoon." It
is this area which the plan will provide the most
detail in regard to land use activities.
3. Lagoon Resource: The identification of the lagoon
resource was not as simple as it might appear on the
surface. Initially, staff considered the lagoon water
body to be an area which was, from a regulatory
standpoint, fraught with questions and controversy.
For example, there is a question of "public trust"
over the lagoon. In other words, is the lagoon owned
by the State of California? The State Lands
Commission is the agency responsible for deciding this
question. Obviously, the determination will have
substantial land use regulatory implications. There
is no indication the State Lands Commission will
decide the issue in the near future. Should land use
planning wait? Staff did not consider it necessary,
or appropriate, to postpone the plan.
The observation was made that almost everyone
interested or involved with the lagoon agreed on one
general concept. The wet part of the lagoon and the
immediate shoreline constitute a very significant
resource which should be treated with care. Without
it, the focus of the management plan effort would be
unimportant.
Given the circumstances, it was decided that emphasis
should be placed on identifying the "lagoon resource,"
that is, the area in which vital wetland functions
take place. The area within the lagoon resource
boundary was off-limits to development potential in
this planning effort. Staff did not consider a
resolution of the myriad of jurisdictional,
philosophical, technical and political conflicts within
the scope of this plan.
City staff worked closely with the State Department of
Fish and Game to establish a boundary which would
adequately reflect the minimum area needed for the
lagoon to function as a wetland environment (Figure
4). It should be noted that there are a number of
jurisdictional definitions of the term "wetland."
City staff conceded that settling the apparent
differences of opinion over the various nuances of the
-8-
Certificate of Authenticity
(Roll and Unitized Microforms)
This is to certify that microphotographic images appearing on
this film file are accurate and complete reproductions of the
records identified below as delivered to Mini-Graphic Systems,
Inc. for microfilming .
Customer: City of Carlsbad
Department: City Clerk
Project Title: 70 BATIQUITOS LAGOON 1984
Roll Number:
Reduction Ratio: i6x-24x-3ox
Date Filmed: AUGUST 21. 1991
Technician: MR. KEY QUINTO
It is further certified that the microphotographic processes
used to create this film file were accomplished in a manner
and on film that meets with the requirements of the National
Bureau of Standards and the American National Standards
Institute for permanent microphotographic film copy.
Mini-Graphic Systems, Inc.
Imaging Services Department
components of wetlands would be a considerable task in
itself. Therefore, the "lagoon resource" as
identified in this plan includes a number of habitat
areas. It is staff's opinion that the "lagoon
resource" is an extremely complex environmental system
that warrants thorough analysis prior to any land use
decisions being made within it. As a result, this plan
identifies the resource and, in effect, calls for it
to be left alone until satisfactory investigation can
be accomplished to indicate alternative action.
IV. METHODOLOGY
Staff work during the plan preparation stages followed the approved work
program as closely as possible. The work program established a fairly
simple set of steps in progressing toward a plan:
1. Identification of Study Area (see previous section on
initial staff work for discussion of planning areas.)
2. Compilation of Data
background
community needs, goals and values
existing regulations from various jurisdictions
3. Preparation of the Land Use Planning Regulations
map and text
An important component of the plan preparation involved interaction with
the public. This was accomplished on a number of fronts. City staff
worked closely with the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation in plan development
and community participation. Two major sources of public interaction
were a widely distributed questionnaire/survey and public meetings
designed to gather input and provide plan progress updates.
Public meetings were held at the beginning of the planning process and at
the completion of each major "task" as identified in the work program.
They were designed as forums for two-way communication. Staff presented
work and conclusions up to date and solicited suggestions and comments.
As an introduction to dissemination of the survey a "packaged" slide
presentation and narrative regarding the lagoon and the City's planning
effort was prepared. The slide presentation was made available to groups
on request.
The survey was published in the local newspapers, made available at
formal meetings on the lagoon plan and at service club functions. The
specific number made available is not known. However, 893 were returned
and tabulated for City use. A copy of the questionnaire form and
tabulation of the raw data is attached to the plan in the appendix. The
following is a summary of the major conclusions drawn from survey
responses:
-10-
1. Public access to the lagoon should be limited.
2. The lagoon should be kept in its "natural" state.
3. The lagoon resources should be "managed."
4. Recreational activities should not be allowed on the water.
5. Passive recreation should be allowed next to the lagoon.
6. There is a mixed feeling about maintaining water in the lagoon year-
round.
7. Viewing points are necessary around the lagoon.
8. Future development should be designed to preserve the visual quality
of the lagoon area.
The primary emphasis of the public's responses indicates to staff the
following broad conclusions:
1. The "visual resource" quality of the lagoon area is of vital
importance.
2. Preservation and management of the wildlife resource is also of
vital importance.
The conclusions drawn do not seem in conflict with any of the regulatory
attempts in existence. The key is to orchestrate regulations into an
acceptable, workable strategy.
Accumulation of information about the lagoon took place at all stages of
plan preparation. It was known at the outset that a diverse and
substantial data base existed regarding the lagoon specifically and the
surrounding area. None of the individual sources of information provided
an area-wide perspective of the lagoon as this plan required. It was,
therefore, necessary to "translate" the various sources into the
appropriate form to allow plan preparation.
As stated previously, it was not the intent for this plan to provide
technical and/or historical narrative. The primary goal of the planning
process was identified in the work program as "a land use map" and an
"accompanying text including development guidelines and performance
criteria." This plan contains a list of references and an appendix which
provide additional background information used in its formulation.
Once the plan format was established (three planning areas), data
research took place. This included gathering historical/technical
information, community goals/values and an additional vital component -
governmental regulations. Initially, staff suspected that there would
possibly be conflicts between the many overlapping jurisdictions.
However, other than the well recognized differences between the Local
Coastal Programs and City regulations, glaring conflicts did not
materialize.
In analyzing the accumulated data, the recommendations made in this plan
were not as difficult to reach as first thought by staff. The historic
and environmental information revealed nothing startling in terms of what
the lagoon has been, or is now. As a matter of fact, there is good
evidence that many more people "impacted" the lagoon area in the past
than currently. Archaeological evidence shows in excess of 1,000 people
-11-
living around the lagoon at a time when "ecological concerns" were not
paramount. The result is extensive physical remains of cultural cast-
offs, such as shell middens (refuse disposal areas).
Ultimately a decision will have to be made regarding the state at which
the lagoon itself will be stabilized. The system of which the lagoon is
a part dictates a transition for the area as time passes. The
perception of those observing the system in "snap-shot" fashion is that
it is the same over time. Since this is not the case, a choice must be
made to stabilize the process, or "restore" and stabilize at a chosen
point. This plan does not profess to make this choice and calls for
further analysis to continue the investigation.
In addition to calling for continued work to resolve the ultimate
condition of the water body, staff considered it of primary importance
for this plan to recommend the best way to protect the resource until
that time. Hopefully, the land use standards called for here provide a
synthesis of existing and new concepts to provide the needed short and
long-term decision-making structure for the lagoon area.
V. CONCLUSIONS
As staff gathered and evaluated data, conclusions were drawn for each of
the previously identified plan areas. Major findings are presented here
for the area from San Marcos Dam to the lagoon viewshed, the viewshed
itself and the lagoon wetland area.
1. San Marcos Dam to the lagoon viewshed
The vast majority of this area is out of sight of
the lagoon.
Impacts on the immediate lagoon area will be other
than visual. There can be indirect visual impacts
from upstream erosion, that is, siltation of the
wetland.
The wildlife corridors along the streambed and
tributaries do not form a continuous system to the
lagoon. This is not to say that individual
segments are not important.
The streambed forms the major physical contributor
to downstream impacts. Sediments upstream in the
basin ultimately end up downstream.
The major impact on the immediate lagoon area is
sedimentation from grading upstream.
The two main sources of sediment are development
and agricultural activity.
-12-
There is a minor possibility of a San Marcos dam
breach during extreme weather conditions which
could have distinct negative impact downstream and
on the lagoon in particular.
The City has direct regulatory power over only a
portion of this area.
Lagoon viewshed
This area potentially contributes the major
visual/environmental impact on the lagoon water
body and immediate upland areas.
People think of "the lagoon" as a combination of
water body, wetland and upland which is a "place,"
and not usually separated into smaller segments.
The "place" which is Batiquitos Lagoon is
generally not developed with evident urbanization
although basic "infrastructure" such as sewer and
water has been in the area for some time.
People perceive the lagoon as a pristine area.
There are currently sediment sources which impact
the lagoon, they are natural runoff, agricultural
activities and some urban runoff from roadways and
residential development. ,
As the property around the lagoon develops, there
will be the impression on the part of some people
that it is being "degraded" simply because the
visual environment is changing.
Because the current visual character of the lagoon
is considered important, it is necessary to
control development in the viewshed to protect it.
This can be done without precluding development.
Runoff into the lagoon is not at a desirable
level/composition currently. Negative impacts
from runoff will potentially increase as
urbanization increases.
As a prominent physical and ecological feature,
the lagoon environment should be accessible at a
number of levels to the public.
Major changes to the immediate shoreline of the
water body should be minimized or disallowed
altogether.
-13-
Ultimately the majority of the lagoon viewshed
will be within the jurisdiction of the City. The
area south of La Costa Avenue will probably remain
within other jurisdictions.
3. Lagoon wetland
There is question as to the legal ownership of the
water body of the lagoon. The State of California
may, at some time, claim title in the name of the
people of the State.
Presently there are a number of private ownerships
of the shoreline and waterbody.
There are many overlapping jurisdictions and
regulations which affect the lagoon.
There are many opinions, professional and
otherwise, regarding the "way the lagoon should
be."
There are numerous possibilities for preservation,
enhancement, protection and the like for the
lagoon, none of which is considered "the best" at
this time.
A detailed answer to the precise form the lagoon
ecology should take is not essential to creating a
plan which protects the existing environment.
Identification of the "lagoon resource" is
necessary in order to focus future planning
efforts and provide a consistent regulatory
boundary.
No activity which could disrupt the existing
ecological setting of the identified resource
should be allowed until further study is
accomplished for that area.
Ultimately, the lagoon wetland will be completely
within the jurisdiction of the City.
In reviewing the summarized conclusions from the public opinion survey it
becomes clear that they have been represented well in the previous staff
conclusions. This is evidence of a positive direction toward addressing
the future of the lagoon environment created by the planning process.
The public's opinions regarding the lagoon generally parallel the
conclusions drawn by staff after reviewing substantial technical
literature.
-14-
There does not appear to be extensive divergence of opinion at a general
level as to the emphasis that should be placed on treatment of the lagoon
area. If there is disagreement it will surface at the recommended
regulation level of review. However, fundamental agreement about the
general way the lagoon area should be administered from a land use stand-
point is a major step in the right direction.
-15-
VI. THE PLAN
The goals, policies, and standards recommended in this plan are intended
to aid decision makers and property owners in making consistent,
predictable decisions about land use activities which may affect the
lagoon. The plan will provide a model for public expectations now and
for the future. This is no more or less than any functional land use
plan. Hopefully, this plan will provide an agreeable perspective of the
balance of land uses for the place that people have come to identify as
Batiquitos Lagoon.
It should be recognized that direct or indirect impacts on the lagoon do
not break along jurisdictional boundaries. This plan encompasses an area
which is reflective of territory in which human activities affect the
lagoon. There are a number of land use regulatory agencies within that
area. The plan is not intended to dictate land use policy to those
agencies but may provide assistance to them in their respective decision
making processes. After all, in conducting this planning effort staff
has concluded that generally the majority's expectations and wants for
the lagoon are compatible.
RECOMMENDED GOALS, POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY
PLANNING "
A. Management Plan Boundary
Goals:
101.00 Activities in the drainage basin should not increase sedimentation
rate of the lagoon.
102.00 Activities in the drainage basin should not degrade the lagoon's water
quality.
Policies:
101.01 The City should revise its current grading ordinance to provide more
stringent erosion control measures.
101.02 The revised ordinance should be designed to reduce erosion on newly
developed land to a level equal to, or less than, erosion from the
natural terrain.
101.03 The City should seek an agreement with other jurisdictions issuing
development permits within the drainage basin, to require erosion
control measures similar to those specified in the revised City
grading ordinance.
101.04 Prior to the adoption of a revised grading ordinance the City should
adopt interim administrative policy regarding erosion control that
minimizes the impact of new development on the lagoon.
-16-
102.01 The City should use existing methods (e.g. CEQA process, EPA
regulations, etc.) to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts
on the lagoon's water quality.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
101.011 Prior to the adoption of revised grading ordinances identified in
section 101.01-02, all development within the Management Plan Boundary
shall submit an erosion control plan (see lOl.Olla for contents of
erosion plan) acceptable to the local jurisdiction prior to the
issuance of a development permit. Implementation of the acceptable
erosion control plan shall be a condition of the issuance of building
permits.
lOl.Olla The erosion control plan shall be prepared using the Model Erosion
Control Ordinance contained in the "Master Drainage Plan for the City
of Carlsbad, California" as a guideline (copy included in appendix).
It is recognized that efforts are currently underway in the Buena
Vista Creek drainage basin to establish a "Tri-City" erosion control
ordinance. The "Tri-City ordinance, if adopted, should be considered
for establising similar erosion control measures for the Management
Plan Area.
101.012 In the event the approved erosion control plan is not adhered to or is
ineffective, the local jurisdiction shall issue a stop order (halt of
development) until adequate measures are in place.
101.012a If the erosion control plan is ineffective or erosion occurs because
the plan or portions thereof were not properly implemented, the local
jurisdiction shall clean up the sediment, restore the site, and assess
the property owner(s) for the work. The assessment must be paid
before the issuance of any further development permits.
101.012b All graded slopes must be permanently landscaped and maintained. The
mechanism to insure this shall be a condition of the issuance of
building permits.
101.013 Agricultural activities within the Management Plan Boundary must
attempt to utilize techniques to reduce soil loss to an amount at or
below that determined by the universal soil loss equation established
by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Should farming activities
yield an amount of sediment 3 times or more greater than that allowed
by the soil loss equation, the local jurisdiction shall levy a fine on
the agricultural operator equal to the cost of removing the sediment
from affected settling basin(s) (if in existence) or from the lagoon
(if the basin does not exist).
Fines collected shall be deposited into a trust to be used for the
restoration and/or enhancement of Batiquitos Lagoon.
102.011 All activities within the Management Plan Boundary shall comply with
the regulations and controls established by the Clean Water Act of
1977 and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
-17-
CRITICAL PLANNING BOUNDARY (CPB)
Goals;
201.00 Minimize impacts on wildlife habitats that are functionally related
to the lagoon resource.
202.00 Minimize the impact of development on the visual character of the
area.
203.00 Provide limited public access to the periphery of the lagoon
resource.
204.00 Provide a coordinated mix of land uses that are compatible with the
preservation of significant lagoon resources.
205.00 Provide passive recreational opportunities around the lagoon.
CPB POLICIES
201.01 Wildlife corridors between the lagoon resource line and important
upland and upstream riparian habitats should be maintained and
enhanced where feasible. Wildlife corridors have not been, identified
in this plan. The development process should determine whether a
proposed development would impact a corridor. Mitigation should be
aimed reducing potential impact to an acceptable level.
201.02 Human activity should be designed/controlled so that it will not
substantially adversely affect wildlife habitats that are functionally
related to the lagoon.
202.01 Development should be designed to protect the visual landscape. The
present visual appearance of the viewshed (i.e., a predominance of
non-urban topography and vegetation) should be maintained through land
use control.
202.02 Development should be dispersed east of 1-5 so as to provide a maximum
of visual open space.
202.03 Natural ridge lines should be preserved.
202.04 Development should be setback from surrounding bluff edges.
202.05 Off-site signage should not be allowed and a program of abatement
should be initiated.
202.06 On-site signage should be of a design and scale so as to not impact
the visual resource.
202.07 Emphasis should be placed on retaining the natural topography.
Minimal cut or fill should be permitted only to allow adequate
structural lr>cation and jiqt to create more prominent development.
-18-
202.08 Contour grading should be employed to retain the natural rolling
hillside qualities.
203.01 Special public viewing points should be provided around the lagoon.
203.02 Public visual access to the lagoon shoreline from existing streets and
designated public vista points should not be obstructed by future
development.
203.03 There should be limited public access to the wetland shoreline.
Access should only be at locations where there could be minimal
impacts on the lagoon ecosystem.
204.01 Human uses of the critical planning area should be compatible with the
primary use of the wetland as a natural wildlife environment.
204.02 Low intensity uses (residential and small scale commercial) that
minimize possible impacts on the wetland should be designated for the
critical planning area.
204.03 Visitor-serving (tourist oriented) and recreation should be the only
commercial uses.
204.04 Commercial uses should be located at the most accessible points, i.e.
major roadway intersections. The level of commercial use should be
keyed to anticipate traffic volumes and shall not create excessive
additional activity.
204.05 The Encinitas Creek riparian corridor should be protected as a
wildlife habitat.
204.06 East of 1-5 residential density should be based on existing
environmental constraints (e.g., slope, habitat sensitivity and
proximity to the lagoon). As the magnitude of these constraints
increase, allowable density should be decreased.
204.07 The most effective way to preserve the existing non-urban visual
appearance of the area is by allowing development which is low enough
density so as to "blend" into the environment. Large lot subdivisions
(minimum one acre parcels) blend into the landscape and can be
utilized as ranch or agricultural estates.
204.08 Future enlargement or initial construction of transportation corridors
should be accomplished without significant adverse impact on the
wetland.
205.01 There should be a bicycle trail or lane around the lagoon. On the
south, a bicycle lane should be provided on La Costa Avenue. On-the
north, a bicycle trail adjacent to the lagoon may not be possible. It
is the policy of this plan to have a bicycle trail extending from El
Camino Real to Carlsbad Boulevard and as near to the north shore of
the lagoon as possible. The limited access points mentioned in policy
203.03 above should be accessible by bicycle, auto and foot, and
should be properly signed.
-19-
The desirability of providing physical public access and the
protection of wildlife and habitat are recognized, but not always
compatible. In areas of desirable habitat (as determined by the
Department of Fish and Game) public access should be limited and
controlled. The north shore is relatively undisturbed and contains
areas of high quality wildlife habitat. The south shore already
contains a major transportation corridor which can facilitate physical
public access. Therefore, public access should be maximized on the
south shore and controlled on the north shore.
205.02 Public picnic areas with visual access to the lagoon should be
provided.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
201.011 The 100-year floodplain of Encinitas Creek shall be preserved as a
natural riparian wildlife corridor.
201.012 Future roadway construction around the lagoon, east of 1-5, shall be
designed in consultation with the California Department of Fish & Game
(DFG) so as to provide wildlife corridors between the lagoon and
identified significant upland habitats.
201.021 All structures shall setback a minimum of 50-ft. from the Lagoon
Resource Line (LRL).
201.022 Grading (cutting or filling) shall not occur within 50-ft. of the
LRL.
202.011 Grading for development shall be confined to natural slopes lower than
3:1 (33%). This does not preclude development which can be
accommodated by grading of 200 cu. yds. or less.
202.012 The maximum height of structures within the "residential low density"
designation shall be a single story (15 ft.) on graded sites and two
stories (25 ft.) on undisturbed sites. A parcel in which grading is
less than 200 cu. yds. shall be considered "undisturbed".
202.020 Planned unit development, density transfer, or clustering shall be
prohibited east of 1-5 within the RL-1 to RL-3 land use designation.
202.030 No structure shall block the view of a ridgeline as seen from the
nearest point along the lagoon's shoreline.
202.031 The maximum height of structures on slopes shall not exceed the
elevation of the ridgeline of the slope adjacent to the structure.
202.040 All strucutres shall set back from bluff edges and ridgelines a
minimum of 45 feet. No portion of any structure within 100 feet of a
bluff edge shall exceed one story (15 feet) maximum height from the
elevation of the bluff edge.
-20-
202.041 The maximum height limit for all new or remodeled structures within
the critical planning area shall be two stories (25 feet) except for
especially view sensitive areas (previously mentioned) where the
maximum height has been specified as one story (15 feet).
202.051 ALL off-site signage shall be prohibited within the Critical Planning
Area. Existing illegal signs shall be removed immediately. Existing
legal off-site signs shall be removed within one year. (Exception are
wildlife protection signs).
202.061 A single on-site monument sign not to exceed 60 square feet in area (6
feet maximum height) shall be permitted for each of the seven
commercial areas identified on the Land Use Map.
202.071 Cut or fill shall not exceed 10 feet from the natural or original
grade.
202.081 Grading, where permitted, shall be contour grading as defined on Page
10 of the Carlsbad Design Guidelines.
203.011 All visitor serving development shall provide on-site public viewing
areas (with clearly marked access) of the lagoon.
203.012 Public viewing points designated on the Land Use Map shall be
established where feasible.
203.021 Public viewing points and a trail system (bicycle and hiking) shall be
established around the lagoon within the Critical Planning Area.
California Department of Fish and Game shall be allowed to restrict
public access to sensitive habitat areas.
203.031 A continuous east-west road shall be prohibited in RL-2 land use area
(see land use map) east of 1-5 on the north shore. Public access to
the lagoon shall be provided laterally at areas designed on the Land
Use Map contained in this plan.
204.011 The mixed use area (Open Space/Residential Medium (RM)/Recreation
Commercial) located on the north shore shall contain no more than 10
acres of commercial and 35 acres of residental. The rest of the area
(a minimum of 10 acres) shall be Open Space. Note: Recommended zone
designation for the commercial should be CT with the additional height
restrictions outlined in this plan.
204.041 The visitor serving commerical (two sites) located adjacent to La
Costa Avenue between 1-5 and Saxony Road shall not be developed until
La Costa Avenue has been widened to at least 4 lanes between 1-5 and
Saxony Road.
204.051 The Encinitas Creek riparian corridor except for possible bridging at
Levante Avenue shall not be disturbed.
-21-
204.061 The property located on the lagoon's north shore between the railroad
tracks and 1-5 shall be designated for residential medium density (4-
10 du/acre) with the condition that the density can be clustered (max.
15 du/acre) on a portion of the site with the remainder left in Open
Space. The open space may be converted to residential uses as per the
conditions set forth in the San Oieguito LCP. However, the maximum
density shall be 10 du/acre.
204.071 Future "low density residential" development shall be large lot
subdivisions without the option of clustering (e.g. PUD).
204.011 A continuous east-west road shall be prohibited in RL-2 land use area
(see land use map) east of 1-5 on the north shore. Public access to
the lagoon shall be provided laterally at areas designed on the Land
Use Map contained in this plan.
205.011 Large scale active recreational facilities that require fencing or
structures or that attract large concentrations of people shall be
setback a minimum of 300 feet from the Lagoon Resource Line (LRL).
205.021 Small scale active recreational facilities (e.g. family tennis courts
and swimming pools) shall be set back a minimum of 150 feet from the
LRL.
205.022 All active recreational facilities shall be screened by landscaping.
205.031 Passive recreational facilities shall not require a setback from the
landward edge of the LRL. (Fencing may be necessary to restrict
access to sensitive habitat areas.)
LAGOON RESOURCE
Goal;
301.00 Protect, preserve, and if possible, restore the biological
productivity of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Policies
301.01 Encourage the development of a long-range management plan of the
lagoon's natural resources.
301.02 Cooperate with other agencies to gather the information necessary for
the preparation of a lagoon restoration program.
301.03 Development should not take place within the lagoon resource line
until satisfactory investigation can be accomplished to identify
mitigation that reduces impacts to an insignificant level.
301.04 Active recreation should not be allowed on the lagoon.
-22-
301.05 Passive recreation on the lagoon should only be allowed if there is no
substantial adverse impact to wildlife. (In other words, habitat
protection has priority over recreation).
301.06 Future expansion of existing transportation corridors should not
diminish the area of the lagoon unless no other feasible alternative
exists.
VII. THE MAP - A USER'S GUIDE
The land use map contained in this plan reflects an attempt to provide a mix of
urban uses that will accomodate important lagoon qualities (i.e., wildlife
habitat and visual resource). The land use designations are based upon a
comparison of constraints (environmental and regulatory) with community goals
(as determined from the opinion survey). The existing plans (Carlsbad General
Plan and relevant Local Coastal Programs) served as a general guideline for the
recommended land uses. In some instances, the existing plans conflict with one
another. The recommended land uses in this plan are meant to resolve some of
the conflict and at the same time protect "the lagoon".
The land use categories and guidelines (except where modified) are the same as
those in the Carlsbad General Plan.
PRIORITIES
Ini all questions involving interpretation of permitted uses, this plan
establi shes the foilowing priorities:
1. Habitat preservation over visual resource.
2. Visual resource over development.
This plan recognizes that development in the region will affect traffic
circulation around the lagoon.
Transportation corridors will have to be provided, maintained and/or enlarged -
all with the potential of impacting the lagoon. To minimize possible impact,
the following guidelines should pertain:
1. Habitat preservation has priority over alignment and construction of
local serving roads.
2. Regional transportation corridors could be expanded with a minimum of
habitat disruption and visual impact only if traffic (including rail)
volumes warrant such expansion and only if no other feasible
alternative exists.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Resource Protection Area(RPA)
All land within the Lagoon Resource Line is designated RPA and no development is
to take place until adequate technical study has concluded that there will be no
significant adverse impact resulting from the proposed development.
-23-
Open Space (OS)
This designation is intended to provide areas for:
1. Recreation use (e.g., the ocean beach)
2. Habitat protection (e.g., steep slopes immediately adjacent to the
lagoon).
3. Vista points on public land.
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (RL-1 to RL-3)
Intent:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Density:
Spread out single-family housing while maintaining the open space
"feel" and appearance by not having a predominance of structures.
Provide grading and site disturbance standards that leave the majority
of the site undisturbed and in open space. (See previous section for
applicable standards.)
Reduce visual impact by not allowing the "traditional urban tract"
which could result from clustering the residential development (i.e.,
no clustering allowed).
Control the density of development to reduce impacts. In other words,
as land becomes more constrained either by slope, or sensitive habitat
or by proximity to the lagoon resource, the allowable density
decreases.
Provide a minimum parcel size that maximizes open space. The one acre
parcel is the break-point between rural/urban appearance.
RL-1 One dwelling unit per gross acre.
RL-2 One dwelling unit per two (2) gross acres.
RL-3 One dwelling unit per three (3) gross acres.
Low Medium Density (RLM)
Intent:
Areas within the Critical Planning Boundary that are less
environmentally or visually significant may accommodate more
traditional single-family residential patterns than the areas
designated for low density residential.
Clustering of development ("Planned Unit Development" - PUD) may be
employed to reduce environmental impacts.
Height, setback, and grading restrictions imposed by this plan further
reduce possible visual impacts.
Grading restrictions of this plan may reduce attainable density.
Density:
0-4 dwelling units per gross acre. (Actual density should be based on the
physical constraints on the parcel.)
-24-
Medium Density (RM)
Intent:
Allow increased density through small lot single-family housing, PUDs,
and low density multi-family housing in highly accessible areas where
development has minimal chance of impacting the lagoon resource.
Density:
4-10 Dwelling units per gross acre. (Actual density should be based on the
physical constraints on the parcel.)
Medium-High Density (RMH)
Intent:
The parcel at the northwest corner of the lagoon has already received
development approvals from the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal
Commission at a net density of 19.6 dwelling units/acre.
The RMH designation for the parcel was chosen for consistency
purposes.
Density:
10-20 Dwelling units per gross acre.
Note: There remain important visual factors which must be maintained
in these "higher" density areas (RM and RMH). These are reflected by
the standards for height and shore/bluff setback found in the standards
section of this plan.
COMMERCIAL
Travel Service Commercial (TS)
Intent:
Allow the development of visitor services such as lodging, restaurants
and highway-oriented commercial activities.
Maximize public use and/or visual access by providing visitor
commercial services that are highly accessible and have good views of
the lagoon resources.
Locate in close proximity to recreational areas and along
transportation corridors used by interregional traffic.
Recreat ion Commerci al (RC)
Intent:
Allow commercial "active recreational" opportunities which can take
advantage of lagoon views but that will not substantially impact the
visual resource.
-25-
The recreational activities should be part of a planned community so
that the commercial activities will be compatible in scale and
architecture with the surrounding uses.
The commercial activities should be generally low intensity and should
not occupy more than 10 acres of the site (including landscaping and
required parking).
Grading and height restrictions in this plan will limit the visual
impacts.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Corridors (T)
Intent:
Identify existing transportation corridors within the Critical Planning
Boundary.
This plan does not establish the alignment of future roads but the
following guide!ines should be considered in future roadway
development.
1. Grading and setback requirements outlined in the standards section
may preclude some alignment alternatives.
2. La Costa Avenue on the south shore already is a major east-west
corridor. Public access can be maximized from this corridor.
3. Poinsettia Lane, outside the Critical Planning Boundary, will be
the major east-west corridor north of the lagoon.
4. This plan designates low intensity uses for the north shore east
of 1-5. Future roadways on the north shore should be local
serving and their alignment should not encourage increased traffic
volumes through "short-cutting".
MOTE:
This plan recognizes that one of the major property owners is currently
formulating plans for a resort and golf course on the north shore. The intent
of this plan is to preserve the lagoon and surrounding viewshed as "a place" or
"snap shot" while accommodating development. This requires as little
disturbance of the area as possible. Should a golf course be developed, it
should not be "mass graded". Instead, the development should incorporate the
existing natural terrain and vegetation to the greatest extent feasible.
-26-
BATIQUITOS
MANAGEMENT
LAGOON
PLAN
APPENDICES
BATIQUITOS MANAGEMENT PLAN
- Bibliography
1. Areas of Special Biological Significance, California
State Water Resources Control Board, 1976.
2. Ballona Wetlands Study, UCLA 1979.
3. Batiquitos, A Land Use Plan for Rancho La Costa
Partnership, Rick Engineering Co., 1977.
4. Batiquitos Lagoon, As a Small Craft Marina, Noble
Harbor Engineering, 1963 (History).
5. Batiquitos Lagoon Regional Park, Technical Master
Plan Report, County of San Diego.
6. Batiquitos Pointe, EIR #82-4, Westec, 1982 (City
of Carlsbad).
7. Batiquitos Waste Water Reclamation Project, City
of Carlsbad, California, Lowry and Associates, 1980.
8. California Department of Fish and Game, Ecological
Reserves Guidelines Title 14, Chapter 11, Fish &
Game Commission.
9. California's Coastal Wetlands. California Sea Grant
College Program. University of California, La Jolla,
1979.
10. Captain Nemo's Secret Harbor, file w/various documents,
including correspondence and feasibility study by
Stanford Research Institute, 1971.
11. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of
the U.S., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1979.
12. Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region, Vol. 3
Coastline, Comprehensive Planning Organization 1974.
13. Concept Plan for Waterfowl Wintering Habitat Preser-
vation, Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (Bird and Habitat data) 1977.
14. Draft Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve Management
Plan, California Department of Fish & Game (recommenda-
tions on their property).
-27-
15. Flood Plain Information San Marcos Creek, U.S.
Army, Corps of Engineers 1971.
16. Guidelines for the Protection of the Natural Resour-
ces of California Coastal Wetlands: Christopher P.
Onuf, US Santa Barbara 1979, (Guidelines for LUP).
17. Hunt Properties Annexation EIR #83-2, Westec, 1983
(City of Carlsbad).
18. Index to Hydrographic and Topographic of the California
Coast, State Lands Commission 1979.
19. "In Search of Wetlands," Rudolf Bye in Water
Spectrum. 1980.
20. Inventory of Ungranted Tidelands, State Lands Commission
1981.
21. Land Trust and Non-Profit Organization Assistance
Program, Coastal Conservancy 1982.
22. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetland Map for Encinitas,
CA Quadrangle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1982.
23. Natural Resource Inventory of San Diego County Coastal
Environment, County of San Diego.
24. Natural Resource Inventory of San Diego County, Coastal
Zone Ornithology, County of San Diego 1972.
25. Newport Bay Watershed, Sedimentation Control Plan,
Boyle Engineering Corp. 1981.
26. Physical Management of Coastal Floodplains: Guidelines
for Hazards and Ecosystems Management, by the Conserva-
tion Foundation, 1977.
27. Recommendations on Coastal Properties for Public
Acquisition, California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commissions 1976 ("19 Identified Wetlands" list).
28. San Diego Lagoons - Title and Boundary Information,
State Lands Commission, 1978.
29. San Dieguito Lagoon Management Alternatives Coastal
Design Group, Cal Poly Pomona (graphic examples and
techniques).
-28-
30. San Dieguito Lagoon Resource Enhancement Program,
Coastal Conservancy - City of Del Mar, 1979.
(Graphics examples and standards.)
31. San Dieguito LCP, Water and Marine Resources
Policies Group 40.
32. Seabluff Property Annexation EIR #81-8, Westec,
1982 (City of Carlsbad).
33. Supplemental Environmental Information for the
Batiquitos Wastewater Reclamation Project, Recon,
1980.
34. The Coastal Lagoons of San Diego County, Cal Poly
Pomona, 1971.
35. The Coastal Plain of San Diego County, Cal Poly
Pomona, 1972.
36. The Natural Resources of San Dieguito and Batiqui-
tos Lagoon, State Department of Fish & Game, 1976.
37. Tidal Aspects of Batiquitos Lagoon 1850 to Present,
Environmental Studies Lab USD, (history, boundaries)
1978.
38. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California,
M. Josselyn, ed., Proceedings of a Workshop, 2/82
at Cal State Hayward.
39. City of Carlsbad, Land Use Element, 1974 (as amended)
40. City of Carlsbad, Local Coastal Program, 1981.
41. San Dieguito and South Bay Islands Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan Segments, 1982.
-29-
BATIQUITOS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City's Research/Analysis Group is preparing the Batiquitos Lagoon Manage-
ment Plan and we need your help. Specifically, we would like to know your
thoughts about the lagoon and adjacent land uses. Please- help us by completing
the survey below:
BATIQUITQS LAGOON OPINION SURVEY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1. Should there be public access to the lagoon? 74.0 22J> 3.4
If so, should access and use be limited? 81.9 1CL.8 7.3
Note: Most of the lagoon and the land around it is
privately owned. Acquisition of public access
may, or may not, involve the expenditure of
public funds.
2. a. Should the lagoon be kept natural (i.e. in its
present state)? 71.6 2QA 8.1
b. Should the lagoon's natural resources be
protected? 85.2 £^9 5.9*
c. Should the lagoon's natural resources be managed
(e.g. maintenance dredging, creation of bird
breeding islands, etc.)? ' 73.8 1^.5 10.7
3. Should passive recreation such as non-motorized
boating and fishing be permitted on the lagoon? 45.0 49 .8 5.3
4. Should active recreation such as motorized boating,
water skiing, swimming, etc. be permitted on the
lagoon? (Keeping the lagoon natural may preclude 7.0 91 .4 1 .7
active recreational options.)
5. Should the following type of recreational activities
be permitted adjacent to the lagoon if they don't
adversely effect the lagoon resources:
a. Active recreation, such as tennis or field sports? 34.2 5JL6 7.2
b. Passive, such as bird watching, bike and walking
trails and picnic areas? 88.3 9.5 2.3
6. Should special measures be taken to keep water in
the lagoon: 54^. 33±1 12.1*
a. If public funds are required? 5.5^2 2JL3
b. If no public funds are required? 61 .5 17.2 21 .3*
Note: Portions of the lagoon periodically dry up
during the summer but this does not effect
the lagoon as a wildlife habitat.
*not on all surveys
-30-
PERCENT
Yes No Don't Know
7. Should special viewing points be provided
around the lagoon?73.1 17.7 9.2
8. Should future development be designed to
preserve the visual landscape of the lagoon?
9. Other comments:
90.6 3.5 5.9
10. Please check, or fill in the items that apply to you:
Carlsbad 26.0; La Costa 19.9; Leucadia 21.5; Encinitas 19.1
a. Place of residence OceansidP 2.4: Other 11.?- AH CarUhad 45.9
b. Approximate distance, in miles, between your house and the lagoon:
0-%15.8 i h-1 19.7 ; 1-333.4 ; 3-517.9 ; 5-10 9.6 ; greater than 10 3.5
c. How often do you see or travel by the lagoon? see below
Yes No
*d. Do you currently use the lagoon, or adjacent land, for recreation? 19.8 80.2
lOc. Daily 60.1; 4-5/wk. 10.1; 2-3/wk. 17.6; weekly 7.2; monthly 4.1; less often 1.0.
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
*not on all surveys
-31-
BATIQUITOS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN
Cultural History:
I. Prehistoric - Various California Paleo-Indian cultures, dating to 9,500
Before Present (B.P.).
A. San Dieguito Complex (9,500 B.P). Paleo-Indian complex living near
the lagoon and primarily living on collected shellfish from the
lagoon's waters.
B. La Jolla Complex (7,500 B.P). An early milling complex that supple-
mented collecting shellfish with the crude milling of flour. The
La Jolla Complex form the most numerous archaeological sites near
the lagoon. Most sites are within 1,000 feet of the lagoon and
are concentrated on the flatter north shore. Some sites indicate
a history of habitation. One site shows a history of habitation
from 7,500 B.P. to 1,270 B.P. (approx.).
C. Late Prehistoric Cultures (950 B.P). Characterized by advanced mil-
ling techniques and a reduced dependency on marine foods.
II. Hispanic Era - Early exploration of the area. Includes the Mission Era
and Rancho Era 1760s to 1848.
A. Exploration/Mission Era (1769-1833) - Porto!a-Crespi Expedition
explored north San Diego County around 1769. Their route is bel-
ieved to follow the approximate alignment of El Camino Real.
San Luis Rey Mission was established in 1798. Mission livestock
probably grazed the land adjacent to the lagoon and the local
Indians continued to exploit the lagoon resources.
B. Mexican Rancho Era (1830s-1848). In 1842 Marron was granted Agua
Hedionda Rancho (southern limit approximately PAR) and Ybarra was
granted Las Encinitas Rancho (located south of the lagoon). Live-
stock from these ranches probably grazed the lagoon area.
III. Americanization Era (1849-1900). The American takeover in 1848 of Mexi-
can Ranches opened the area for homesteading in the 1870s.
A. 1875 - a cabin and sheep corral located at the eastern end of the
north shore.
B. Circa 1880 - 1. The Johnson homestead (located along San Marcos
Creek in present-day La Costa).
2. The Stewarts' homestead.
3. A major roadway extended south from the lagoon
through Green Valley (ECR a' gnment).
C. 1881 - California Southern Railroad built across the lagoon's mouth.
Shipping points were established at La Costa (present Ponto) and
Merle (present Leucadia).
-32-
Cultural History/2...
D. 1880-1900 - Homesteading began in Green Valley. Batiquitos Gun Club
established. La Costa (Ponto) filed for incorporation.
IV. Modern Period (1901-present).
A. 1901-1910 - California Salt Company operated 25 acres of evaporative
ponds in the lagoon's eastern basin.
B. 1912 - Pacific Coast Highway constructed.
C. 1917 - The avocado was introduced and irrigated orchards became a
prevelant land use around the lagoon.
D. 1920 - Green Valley was the most extensively farmed section of the
entire north coastal area.
E. 1927 - Pacific Coast Highway was reconstructed across Batiquitos
Lagoon after storms destroyed it.
F. 1934 - Santa Fe Railroad constructed across the lagoon.
G. 1952 - San Marcos Dam constructed, decreasing the volume and scou-
ring potential of floods.
H. 1963 - Plans for a small craft marina in the west end of the lagoon
were prepared.
I. 1965 - Interstate 5 was constructed across the lagoon.
J. 1971-74 - Plans prepared for Nemo's Secret Harbor (an amusement park
located in and around the lagoon).
K. 1975 - World Cultural Center (including a Hilton Hotel) proposed by
Excel Foundation to occupy same north shore site as Nemo's Secret
Harbor.
L. 1976 - San Diego County prepared master plan for Batiquitos Lagoon
Regional Park.
M. 1977 - Batiquitos Lagoon included in Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence
by LAFCO.
N. 1983 - Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation formed.
0. 1983 - Carlsbad City Council approved work program for the Batiquitos
Lagoon Management Plan.
-33-
BATIQUITOS LA600K NAHA6EMEIIT PL All
Biology:
Vegetation - as noted in the culture history section, the area surrounding
the lagoon has had a long history of use - especially agriculture, which
has introduced new species.
A. Non-Native habitats -
1. Cultivated or disturbed - the habitat is composed of cultivated
crops primarily tomatoes, squash and flowers; it also includes cleared
fields that are fallow or occupied by mostly non-native weed species.
2. Eucalyptus groves - disjunct patches scattered over the north
shore east of 1-5.
B. Native Habitats -
1. Coastal salt marsh - composed of salt tolerant species including
saltgrass (Distich!is spicata) and pickleweed (Salicornia virgim'ca).
It is primarily located at the west and east ends of the lagoon and
along the north shore.
2. Freshwater/Brackish Marsh - the freshwater marsh is characterized
by cat-tails (Typha 1 atifolia) and rushes (Scirpus californi cus). As
the salinity increases (becomes more brackish) the cat-tails and rushes
are replaced by succulent daisy (Jaumea carnosa) and pickleweed. These
habitats are located in the east basin adjacent to freshwater sources
(San Marcos and Encinitas creeks and 1-5 and La Costa Ave.).
3. Riparian Woodland - this habitat is primarily composed of willows
(Salix, sp.) and is located in the Encinitas Creek floodplain.
4. Oak Woodland - this habitat, composed of stands of live oak
(Quercus aqri f ol i a), occurs in scattered places in the drainage course
at the north east corner of the lagoon.
5. Coastal Sage Scrub - occurs on exposed slopes surrounding the
lagoon. It is a low lying (3-4 ft.) habitat containing sagebrush
(Artemisia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). It is a
dense habitat found on drier exposed slopes close to the ridges.
6. Chamis Chaparral - the habitat is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma
fasciculatum). It is a dense habitat found on drier exposed slopes
close to the ridges.
7. Mixed Chaparral - occurs on the more protected and wetter slopes
and is composed of chamise plus broadleaf evergreen shrubs, including
toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor) and
poison oak (Toxfcodendron diversilobum).
8. Sublittoral - includes submerged areas and mudflats. These areas
periodically support marine algae. When it decays it gives off an
unpleasant odor (Hydrogen sulfide gas.)
-34-
II. Wildlife (fauna)
A. Aquatic - the tremendous changes in salinity present a very harsh
environment for aquatic species.
1. Fish* - six species present. These enter lagoon when the mouth is
open (list to be supplied by DFG).
2. Invertebrates - (DFG has recorded 14 species while Hunt EIR notes
87 species.) The invertebrate population is an important food source
for the bird population.
3. No Federal or State listed endangered species .
B. Reptiles and Amphibians - the western pond turtle and 2 snake species
have been observed by DFG as were the coast horned lizard (threatened)
and orange-throated whiptail (threatened). Also possible are 2
threatened species, the two-striped garter snake and the silvery
legless lizard. (No Federal or State listed endangered species).
C. Mammals - No accurate quantitative data on populations. DFG has
identified 21 species that utilize the lagoon and adjacent areas.
These include deer, rabbits, coyote, foxes, oppossum, rats, mice and
the ever decreasing bobcat. No Federal or State endangered species are
expected to use the area.
D. Birds - The lagoon is a major winter stop over on the "Pacific Flyway"
for migrating birds. The lagoon and surrounding area is also the home
of a large resident population, some of which are endangered.
1. Federal and State endangered species found at Batiquitos Lagoon:
a. California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidental is
californicus)
!: California least tern - (Sterna albifons brownii) breeds on
lagoon,
c. Light-footed clapper rail (Railus longirostris levipes)
lagoon's marsh is a potential habitat for this species.
2. State endangered species:
a. Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus Sandwhichensis beldingi)
resident species associated with picklewood.
b. Least Bells' Vireo (Vireo belli pusill us) observed in the
riparian habitat.
c. California black rail (Lateral 1 us jamaicensis coturniculus)
potential resident of dense cat-tail stands - not observed.
3. State protected birds - the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) rests
and forages in the upland habitats.
4. Species considered sensitive - Over 30 species using the lagoon and
surrounding areas are considered sensitive.
* One important species is a mosquito larvae eating fish.
-35-
BATIQUITOS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN
Hydrology:
I. Drainage Area -
A. Size - the lagoon's drainage basin stretches from the coast eastward
past Highway 395. The entire drainage area is 52 square miles,
including the east branch of San Marcos Creek. Note: the Manage-
ment Plan will address only the basin below San Marcos Dam (a drai-
nage area of approximately 25 sq.mi.).
B. Relief - elevation ranges from sea level at the mouth of the lagoon
to slightly over 1700 ft. in the Merriam Mountain range northeast
of San Marcos.
C. Gradient - ranges from 6 ft. per mile at the lagoon, 206 ft. per mile
from ECR to San Marcos Dam, to about 600 ft. per mile near the head-
waters.
II. Precipitation - Mean seasonal rainfall ranges from about 10 inches at the
coast to about 16 inches in the higher inland elevations and ave-
rages approximately 13.5 inches over the entire basin. The rainy
season is from October through June, with 90% of the precipitation
falling between November and April.
A. Evaporation - mean annual approximately 54 inches (1921.5 acre-feet)
cal. for San Dieguito Dam.
III. Streamflow -
A. Average flow - no record; however, Los Penesquitos Ck. near Poway with
a 42 sq.mi. basin had an average discharge of 5.63 cu.ft./sec and
4,080 acre ft./yr. (1964-1978).
B. 100-year flood - has probability of occurring once in 100 yrs., although
it may occur in any year and may occur more than once in any year.
1. Aerial extent (see map)
a. ECR to 1-5 - inundate to 6 ft. above mean sea level
b. 1-5 to AT&SF - inundate to 5.5 ft. above mean sea level
c. AT&SF to PCH - inundate to 4.5 ft. above mean sea level
2. Flow - at the mouth, 15,000 cu.ft. per sec. (6.5-million
gallons per minute).
IV. Groundwater - major basin exists several feet below the floor of the lagoon.
V. Tidal Aspects of the Lagoon - based on archaeolgical, geological and bio-
logical studies probably continuously tidal from its creation 20,000 B.P.
to 1800s.
-36-
Hydrology/2...
- Ca. 1850 became intermittently tidal
- Since 1920 tidal flooding has been infrequent
- Current - tidal only after runoff raises lagoon
water level high enough to cut channel across
barrier beach berm. Tidal action last several
weeks until wave action rebuilds barrier beach.
VI. Water Quality - is based on the seasonal input of fresh water.
A. Winter - precipitation and runoff lower salinities
B. Summer - lack of rain, plus increased evaporation raises
salinities.
C. Miscellaneous - 1. Agricultural run-off carries residual
fertilizers and pesticides.
2. When the lagoon's water level is low
seawater seeps through the barrier berm.
3. Oxygen depletion and high temperature
variation are dependent upon seasonal
rains and whether or not the mouth is
open to flushing.
-37-
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
FLOODPLAIN MAP .x.
100-Year Floodplain
1'i^L.*\!ui: ^.^y&Z.
••>. VxV"s?TvKi • • x ;2am=f-'••:-«' 4 v\w,- -*., " •
•'-'•y\ *\WS>~:«£^>; ,i\ •- :- -
Seasine '~,.3raT^ ' irStyoKTi«v \\ -^ .""i ' .-^j \\ E;xa '. L,-38-
BATIQUITQS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN
Geology:
I. Formation - the lagoon began forming about 25,000 years ago, when sea
level rose at the end of the gacial period and flooded the lower val-
ley of San Marcos Creek. The resulting ocean embayment has almost
completely filled in with river and marine sediments.
II. Regional Formation - most of the lands surrounding the lagoon are ancient
marine terraces which have been dissected by streams. The remnant ter-
races form the mesas, ridges, and rolling hills. The valleys are the
stream channels.
III. Geologic Materials - sedimentary bedrock and surficial deposits.
A. Sedimentary Bedrock -
1. Del Mar Formation - mid-eocene, 46-49 million years B.P., green
to brown claystones and siltstones characteristic of a lagoon depo-
sitional environment.
2. Torrey Sandstone Formation - mid-eocene, 46-49 million years,
B.P., buff to grey, fine to coarse sandstone thought to be a bar-
rier beach deposit that migrated eastward, overstepping and being
deposited on the Del Mar formation.
3. Santiago Formation, Member B - mid-eocene, 46-49 mil B.P., grey
to green, fine to medium grain sandstone with silty claystone inter-
beds (strata). Santiago Formation is equivalent in age to torrey
sandstone and is probably the offshore depositional counterpart to
the torrey sandstone.
The mudstone and siltstone interbeds are very expansive when
wet and have been associated with slope failure (landslides).
B. Surface Deposits -
1. Linda Vista Formation - wave-cut platforms were cut across the
Eocene bedrock during the Pleistocene (ice age, 2 million years B.P.)
forming a series of stepped marine terraces at different elevations.
(The various elevations are indicative of past elevations of sea
level and uplift of the land.) The sedimentary deposits on these
terraces is known as the Linda Vista Formation. It consists of
partially cemented clayey sandstone and conglomerate which acts as
a resistant cap rock for the more erodible Eocene bedrock.
2. Lagoon Sediments - composed of both marine and river sediments.
The west basin is composed of fine sand and silt at the surface with
coarse sand below. The central and eastern basins have a layer of
soft clay over the sand deposits. The soft clay deposits grade from
-39-
Geology/2...
a thickness of about one foot at 1-5 to approximately 6% feet
at the east end of the lagoon. The depth of lagoon sediments
probably ranges from 50 feet on the east, to over 100 feet on
the west.
3. Colluvium and Alluvium - Colluvium, or slope wash, and
alluvium, or stream deposits, are composed of primarily sandy
sediments because their origin is from the weathering of the
local Eocene sandstones. They make up the material of the
valley bottoms.
IV. Seismicity - the area has been virtually inactive since the original
Eocene rocks were uplifted almost 50-million years ago. Several minor
faults occur around the lagoon (2 at the lagoon's center opposite
Saxony Road and one extending up Green Valley).
The only historically active fault in the region is the Elsinore Fault
Zone located 23 miles northeast. The Elsinore fault is theoretically
capable of producing a 7.3 (Richter magnitude) earthquake. It is pos-
sible that the northward extension of the Rose Canyon fault is located
4-5 miles west of the lagoon. If true, the fault has the potential of
producing a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. Based upon the history of seis-
mic activity in San Diego County, the probability of significant
groundshaking, or other seismic hazards, is very low around the lagoon.
V. Slopes - the area surrounding the lagoon is characterized by gently
sloping mesas separated by valleys. Many of the valleys are broad and
relatively flat, but the valley sides are generally steep. Steep
slopes are often a constraint to development. The relevant Local Coas-
tal Programs (LCPs), generally limit development to slopes of less than
25%.
-40-
} I'''-''/']» /' »: I \
* r' ;/ •>
1 (i—a TBL53 * "y •""*£: ' ^N^ *\r-^ raflSX'Si-^S^iit • \ «»rf""*J* jit^1'" i I11 !•»• t—2— '«
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
GEOLOGY MAP
E - Eocene sedimentary rock
1. Del Mar Formation
2. Torrey Sandstone Formation
3. Santiago Formation, Member B
Surface Deposits
T- 1. Terrace Deposits- Linda Vista Formation
A- 2. Alluvium(stream depositsls Colluvium(slope wash)
L - 3. Lagoon Sediments
-41-
BA^QUITOS LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN: -
EXISTING LAWS, POLICIES, * GUIDELINES
AGENCY BIOLOGY HYDROLOGY OTHER
I. FEDERAL
a. Army Corps
of Engineers
(COE)
b. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
Service
(FWS)
Environ-
mental
Protection
Agency (EPA)
Federal Endangered Species Act,
Sec. 7 requires consultation with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) if a project could impact
an endangered species.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act requires FWS, Department of
Fish & Game, and National Marine
Fisheries Service to comment on
Section 10 anf 404 permit
applications with respect to
impacts on wildlife.
FWS has an advisory role on all
Section 10 and 404 COE permits.
FWS can influence the allocation
of federal funds for projects
Impacting recognized endangered
species.
FWS has a published mitigation
policy which sets goals according
to designated resource categories,
FWS has indicated that Batiquitos
would probably be designated
category 1 or 2 regarding
migratory birds.
Mitigation goals:
Category 1 - no loss of existing
habitat value.
Category 2 - no net loss of
"in kind" habital values.
Rivers and Harbors Act, Sec. 10,
Clean Waters Act, Sec. 404, and
Public Law 92-532 require permits
authorizing:
structures and work in or affecting
navigable waters (includes the
lagoon);
The discarge of dredged or fill
materials into U.S. waters;
The dredging of materials;
And the transportation and dumping
of such into ocean waters.
I
ICOE must comply with the
I National Environmental
(Protection Act (NEPA). Impact
I assessment must be conducted
I by the responsible agency
I before the project can begin or
Ifederal funds can be released.
IFWS must comply with the
I requirements of NEPA.
Clean Water Act, Sec. 402 requires
a permit for discharge of
materials into waterways. EPA has
delegated the State and Regional
Water Quality Control Boards to
administer the permit with EPA
review.
I EPA must comply with the
I requirements of NEPA.
-42-
AGENCY
ISTINC LAWS, POLICIES, t CUIDD 'CSs BATIQUITOS
J3IOLOGY LAND USE ; | OTHER
II. STATE
a. All
Coastal
Commission
(Authorized
by the
Coastal Act)
c.State Lands
Commission
(SLC)
(Public Resources Code, Dlv. 20,
I Chapters 1 through 10.
I Article 4, Sees. 30230-31 and
(30236 Article 5, Sec. 302*0 are
I the main sections of the Act
[governing the protection of
I wildlife resources and habitats.
I
lArtlcle H, Sec. 30233 Identifies
iBatiquitos Lagoon as one of 19
(special wetlands slated for
(public acquisition and limits
(activities to Incidental public
(facilities, restorative measures
land nature study.
I
I Sec. 30240 deals with
I "environmentally sensitive
(habitats." This section is
(usually implemented in LCPs by
(establishing "buffer" areas and
(protection of natural slopes and
I vegetation.
(Article 3, Sees. 20220-3022*
(regulates and sets priorities for
(recreational activities.
I
(Article 5 deals with coastal
(agriculture and sets this use as
(the highest priority.
I
(Article 7 regulates Industrial
(development and gives a high
(priority to coastal dependent
I Industries.
I
(Article 6 regulates all other
(development.
Any use of public land requires
a lease or permit.
(All agencies must comply with
(the requirements of the
(California Environmental
(Quality Act (CEQA) regarding
I impact as ses sment.
I
I
(Article 4, Sees. 30233 and
(30236 are the main sections
(dealing with permitted
(development which would affect
(the lagoon's hydrology and
(other natural resources.
I
(Article 6, Sec. 30251 deals
(with restrictions designed to
(protect views along scenic
I coastal areas.
I
(Article 2 attempts to maximize
(public access to coastal
(resources.
I
(The Commlsson reviews and
(certifies Local Coastal
(Programs (LCPs).
I
(The Commission has final
(permit authority until LCP
(Implementing ordinances are
(adopted.
I
I
I SLC determines state-owned
(tideland. The Doctrine of
(Public Trust provides an
(easement over waterways and
(wetlands to HHH water mark.
I
(Government Code Sec. 3500?
(requires SLC approval for
(annexation of any State owned
I tideland.
-43-
.AGENCY
r YTINC LAWS, POLICIES, * CUIDELT
BIOLOGY LAND USE
~Ss BATIQUITOS
OTHER
II. STATE
d. Dept. of
Fish and
Game (DFG)
e. Water
Quality
Control
Board
f. Dept. of
Transpor-
tation
(CALTRANS)
Dept. of
Parks and
Recreation
h.Dept. of
Boating and
Waterways
I
I
I Chap. 6, Sees. 1600-1603 of the
IFish and Game Code require a
I stream alteration agreement with
I DFG for development below the
I high water mark.
I
I Title 14 of the State Admin. Code
land the Fish and Game Code protect
(endangered, threatened and rare
(species.
I
I DFG has police powers regarding
(wildlife.
I
I DFG regulates public entry and use
lof Ecological Reserves. (135
[acres of the lagoon are owned by
IDFG and have been designated an
(Ecological Reserve.)
(Coastal Act requires the Dept.
I to work with DFG on lagoon
(restoration plans when boating
(facilities are involved.
I
I
(Any activity in the 1-5 Fwy. right-
I of-way requires an encroachment
(permit.
I
I
I
I Has an adopted General Plan for
(South-Carlsbad State Beach Park
((including land at the mouth of
(the lagoon.
I
(Sec. 5653 Fish & Game Code
(regulates suction dredging.
(Regulates any water and/or waste
(discharge into the lagoon.
I
(Regulates the placing of
(dredge materials anywhere in
(the state.
(Regulates activities on State
(Park lands.
-44-
AGENCY
F TSTIMC LAWS, POLICIES, * GUIDO.1—«IS« BATIQUITOS
BIOLOGY LAND USE OTHER
III. CITY and
COUNTY
a. City of
Carlsbad
b.San Diego
County
(S.D. Co.)
I Local police power is the basis for
I land use regulations. The City's
(General Plan and Muncipal Code
(regulate land use.
I
I
(Land Use Element of the San
(Dlegulto LCP is the basis for land
use regulations.
d.
S.D. Co.
Health Dept.
S.D. Co.
Dept. of
Agriculture
(Reviews and comments on vector
[control (pest) through CEOA
(process.
I
I
{Regulates use and misuse of
(pesticides.
(Regulates nurseries and bee
(keeping.
e. Local Agency
Formation
Commission
(LAFCO)
f. All
(Coastal Commission (CO has
(final permit authority in
I the area covered by the
(Carlsbad LCP.
I
I
|CC will retain final permit
(authority until ordinances
I implement ing the LCP have been
(adopted (expected by end of
I
I
(Vector control can enter
(public and private land at
(will to control pests.
I
I
I
I
(Authority over changes in local
[governmental organization.
I
(Establishes Spheres of
I Influence.
I
(Authority over annotations and
(detachments.
I
I
(All local governments must
(comply with the requirements
(of CEQA.
-45-
"• ISTIMC LAWS, POLICIES, * GUIOD. TSs BATIQUITOS
AGENCY BIOLOGY LAND USE OTHER
IV. OTHER
a. San Diego
Gas &
Electric
(SDG&E)
b.Property
Owners
I
I
I An agreement or license is needed
I to use a 150-ft. SDG&E right-of-way
I that crosses the north-east portion
I of the lagoon. Permitted
(activities are open space uses. No
(habitable structures are allowed
land use can't obstruct SDG&E access.
I
(Use of the right-of-way is
(regulated by the Public Utilities
(Commission.
I
I
(Right to restrict use of their
(property and to prohibit trespass.
-46-
A-6
MODEL EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE
ARTICLE I
TITLE, PURPOSE, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
101.00 Title. This ordinance shall be known as
the "(City/County) Erosion Control Ordi-
nance."
101.01 Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is
to control erosion and production of sedi-
ment, and related environmental damage by
establishing minimum standards and pro-
viding regulations for the construction and
maintenance of land fills, excavations, cut
and clearing of vegetation, revegetation of
cleared areas, drainage control, as well as
for the protection of exposed soil surfaces in
order to promote the safety, public health,
convenience, and general welfare of the
community.
101.02 Rules Applying to Text For the purpose
of this ordinance, certain rules of word us-
age apply to the text as follows:
1. Words used in the present tense include
the future tense, and the singular in-
cludes the plural unless the context
dearly indicates the contrary.
2. The term "shall" is always mandatory
and not discretionary; the word "may"
is permissive.
3. The word or term not interpreted or
defined by this article shall be used
•References used: [10][22][44][47][57] Bibliography of Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook. :
with a meaning of common or standard
utilization.
101.03 Definitions. The definitions as stated in
the "GLOSSARY" of the EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK
maintained by the permit-issuing authority
shall apply to the interpretation and en-
forcement of this ordinance.
101.04 Appeals. Appeals from decisions under
this ordinance may be made to the permit-
issuing authority in writing within ten days
from the date of such decision. The appel-
lant shall be entitled to a hearing before the
permit-issuing authority within thirty days
from the date of appeal.
101.05 Validity and Severability. If any part of
this ordinance is found not valid, the re-
mainder of this ordinance shall remain in
effect.
101.06 Fees. A schedule of reasonable fees shall
be established that will reimburse the per-
mit-issuing authority for costs incurred in
the review and approval of the application.
101.07 Review and Approval. Applications for
grading permits shall be reviewed by the
permit-issuing authority and approved
when in conformance with this ordinance.
-47-
A-7
ARTICLE II
PROCEDURE
102.01 Grading Permit. Except as indicated be-
low, no person shall commence or perform
any grading or filling or clearing of vegeta-
tion without having first obtained a grad-
ing permit from the permit-issuing
authority.
102.011 Exceptions. A permit* shall not be re-
quired if the work meets any of the follow-
ing conditions:
1. The excavation does not exceed four
(4) feet in vertical depth at its deepest
point, measured from the original sur-
face, and does not exceed 200 square
feet in area.
2. The fill does not exceed three feet in
vertical height at its highest point,
measured from the natural ground
surface, and does not cover more than
200 square feet.
3. Exploratory excavations do not ex-
ceed an aggregate area of 200 square
feet.
4. An excavation below finished grade
for basements and footings of a build-
ing if authorized by a valid building
permit. This exception does not affect
the requirement of a grading permit
for any fill made with the material
from such excavation.
5. Gearing of vegetation does not exceed
1,000 square feet in area.
6. Use of land is for gardening primarily
for home consumption.
7. Agricultural use of land that is oper-
ated in accordance with a farm con-
servation plan approved by the
Resource Conservation District or
when it is determined by the Resource
Conservation District that such use.
will not cause excessive erosion of'
sediment losses. ;' •, i
! I
102.02 Application for a Grading Permit. The ap-
plication for a grading permit shall in-
clude
1. a site map.
2. a grading plan.
3. an assessment of the site.
4. an erosion and sediment control plan
except where an assessment of the site
shows that a plan is not necessary.
102.021 Site Map.
following:
The site map shall include the
1. The exterior boundaries of the prop-
erty on which the grading is to be per-
formed.
2. Contour line which shall conform to
minimum intervals as follows:
a. 2-foot contours for slopes less
than 16%.
b. 5-foot contours for slopes over
16%.
c. 15-foot contours for topography
of adjacent areas.
3. Soil description including:
a. soil type
b. soil depth
c. credibility
d. capability for establishing vegeta-
tion.
e. coefficient of runoff. (Appendix
11C, Determining Rate of Rain-
fall runoff.)*
4. Evaluation of subsurface information
(as described in part 5 below) where
the stability will be lessened by
proposed grading or filling, or where
any of the following conditions are
discovered or proposed:
a. At locations where a fill slope is to
be placed above a cut slope.
• References are to permit-issuing authority's Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Handbook
-48-
A-8
b. At proposed cuts exceeding
twenty feet in height unless in
competent rock as determined by
an engineering geologist.
c. Locations of proposed fills ex-
ceeding twenty feet in height.
d. Where side hill fills are to be
placed on existing slopes steeper
—- - than 16%.
e. Wherever groundwater from ei-
ther the grading project or adjoin-
.- -:.- - — - ing properties is likely to reduce
the stability.
f. At zones of trapped water or high
water table.
g. Where the topography is indica-
tive of landslides, as determined
^.•^r. - -by engineering geologist.
5. Where any of the particular condi-
^. -.- •. . tions listed above or other weaknesses
are found, subsurface investigations
„ shall consist of drilling, excavations,
_- . • _ . .or observations of naturally exposed
soil and bedrock exposures at suffi-
cient intervals and depths to indicate
. •:-... . the type of material or condition to be
encountered at final grading. The per-
-:-.r.- son or firm making the investigation
_._ ... ._ _ snan submit a written report of their
findings and recommendations.
..102.022 Grading Plan. The grading plan shall in-
. elude the following information which
may be shown on the site map:
-.^?—"~ K- Elevations, dimensions, including
quantity, location, and extent of
._—. -T-T- - proposed grading.
— i -_z-__ 1~ 'A report showing extent and manner
of tree cutting and vegetation clearing,
--7- including.a plan for disposing of cut
trees and vegetation.
3. Provision for stockpiling topsoil and
using it to topdress exposed areas to be
revegetated or a statement that this
provision is not applicable.
-49-
102.023 Assessment of the Site. The assessment-
of the site shall determine the need for an
erosion and sediment control plan by con-
sidering the detrimental effects of con-
struction of the site as it pertains to:
1. erosion and loss of sediments
2. slope stability
3. water quality
4. plant communities
5. aquatic life
102.024 Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
1. The plan shall be prepared by a person
or firm qualified by training and expe-
rience to have expert knowledge of
erosion and sediment control meth-
ods.
2. The permit-issuing authority shall de-
termine the adequacy of the plan and
may require the submission of further
information when necessary to judge
the adequacy of the planned erosion
and sediment control measures.
3. Formulation of the implementation of
the proposed measures may be adopt-
ed from recommendations contained
in the permit-issuing authority's Ero-
sion and Sediment Control Hand-
book. The plan shall contain a
description of the following:
a. Vegetative measures
b. Drainage protection and control
measures
c. Erosion and sediment control
d Cut and fill construction
e. Disposal of spoil materials
f. Stockpiling of materials
g. Dust control measures
h. A construction schedule
ARTICLE ill
CONTENT OF EROSION
AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANS
A-9
103.01 Requirements. The erosion and sediment
control plan shall contain appropriate in-
formation according to this article. The
plan shall also conform to the requirements
in the sections on "Standards" and "Im-
plementation" of Articles IV and V, respec-
tively.
103.02 Protection of Native Vegetation. In order
to protect native vegetation from construc-
tion activities the following information
shall be provided;
1. Location of native vegetation whose
root zone will be affected by compac-
tion, fills, trenches, and changes in the
groundwater table.
2. Measures which will prevent condi-
tions damaging to vegetation shall be
specified. (Section 10 - Tree Protec-
tion)*.
103.03 Removal of Native Vegetation. When na-
tive vegetation is to be removed, the follow-
ing information shall be provided:
1. Descriptions of the native vegetation.
2. A list of the vegetation to be removed
and the criteria used to determine re-
moval. (Section 10).
3. The methods for removing and dispos-
ing of the vegetation. (Section 10).
103.04 Establishment of Vegetation. Where the
establishment of vegetation is required on
slopes of cut and fill, graded areas, and
watercourses, the following information
shall be provided on the:
1. Location and area to be vegetated.
2. An indication of whether vegetation is
temporary or permanent
* References are to permit-issuing authority's Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Handbook
3. Type and quantity of seeds or plants,
(Section 20 - Establishment of Protec-
tive Vegetation).
4. Ground conditions:
a. Surface condition of soil.
b. Soil pH.
c. Permeability.
d. Soil size distribution.
e. Slope angle, slope length, and as-
pect.
f. Nutrients in soil *
5. Type and quantity of mulch. (Section
30 - Surface Protection with Mulches
and Other Materials).
6. Type and quantity of fertilizer. (Sec-
tion 20).
7. Method and schedule of seeding,
mulching, planting, and fertilizing.
(Section 20).
8. Schedule of irrigation. (Section 20).
103.05 Drainageway Protection and Control
Measures. Where it is necessary to reduce
the increased rate and volume of rainfall
runoff due to the alteration of the runoff
pattern, the following data shall be pro-
vided:
1. The runoff to be expected during and
after the proposed development. (Ap-
pendix II - Climate, Runoff, Allowable
Velocities).
2. The location of natural and man-made
drainageways.
3. The size of drainage areas above cuts
and slopes.
-50-
i-
\
4. The methods to be used to reduce ero-
sion of drainageways. (Section 60 -
Channel Protection; Section 70 -
Grade Control and Realignment of
Channels).
5. The procedures used to trap sediment
in order to protect drainage control
measures. (Section 90 - Sediment
Traps and Detention Basins).
6. The methods to control the rate and
direction of runoff on roadways during
and after development. (Section 50 -
Roadway Protection).
7. The methods used to control runoff
across the slopes of cuts and fills and
graded areas during and after construc-
tion. (Section 40 - Protection of Slopes
and other Graded Areas from Runoff).
8. The construction schedule for drainage
protection and control measures. (Ar-
ticle HI, 103.12 Construction Sched-
ule).
9. The method and schedule of construc-
tion of waterway crossings. (Section 80
- Installation of Culverts, Paved Fords,
Bridges).
103.06 Sediment Detention Measures. Informa-
tion on the design criteria of sediment ba-
sins shall include the following:
1. The location and dimensions of the
sediment basins. (Section 90).
2. The hydrologic and sediment transport
data used to determine the proper
capacity of the needed basin. (Appen-
dix I, Estimating Erosion and Sediment
Losses; Appendix Q, Climate, Runoff,
Allowable Velocities).
3. The construction procedure and sched-
ule. (Section 90).
4. The source of borrow material.
5. The maintenance schedule.
6. The type and manner of vegetating the
credible slopes as described in item
103.04, Establishment of Vegetation.
A-10
103.07 Fill Slopes. Where fill slopes are to be
constructed, the following information shall
be included:
1. Location of fill area.
2. Slope and height of fill
3. Slope and condition of original
ground.
4. The number and dimensions of
benches.
5. Source of fill material.
6. Ability of fill to support vegetation.
7. Percent organic content of fill
3. Maximum size of rock in fill
9. Maximum thickness of layers of fin to
be compacted.
10. Percent Compaction.
11. Methods of protecting the slope sur-
face of the fill.
12. Number and width of drainage ter-
races to be installed.
103.08 Cut Slopes. Where slopes are to be formed
from cuts, the following information shall
be included:
1. Location of cuts.
2. Slope and height of cuts.
3. Identification of cuts to be vegetated or
not subject to erosion.
4. Number and width of drainage terraces
provided.
5. The ability of the ground to support
vegetation. (Section 20).
103.09 Disposal of Spoil Material. The informa-
tion concerning the disposal of spoil materi-
al shall include the following:
1. Type of spoil material.
2. Location of disposal area.
-51-
A-n
3. Method of processing and disposing of
spoil material.
4. Procedures to prevent soil loss to adja-
cent watercourses.
5. Burning procedure for flammable spoil
material and its schedule.
103.10 Stockpile. Stockpiled material shall be
identified according to:
1. Source of material.
2. Location, slope, and height of stock-
pile.
3. Duration that the material is to be
stockpiled.
4. Provisions to prevent erosion and sedi-
ment loss from rain and wind action.
103.11 Dust Control The following provisions
for dust control shall be included:
1. Measures to keep dust to a minimum
during equipment operation.
2. Measures to prevent wind erosion of
exposed soil. (Sections 20 and 30).
103.12 Construction Schedule. A. construction
schedule shall be provided by the contrac-
tor. No work shall be permitted on the site
until the schedule has been approved in
writing by the permit-issuing authority.
The permit-issuing authority shall check
the adequacy of the schedule with respect to
the factors that could contribute to both
short-term and long-term erosion on the
project site.
The construction schedule shall be checked
for prompt establishment of protective
vegetation with full recognition of climatic
and other factors that influence its estab-
lishment.
f ;
Note:
Applicants for development permits should contact the
City of Carlsbad Engineering Department for a copy of
the applicable standards (pages A-12 through A-33 of
the Model Erosion Control Ordinance).
l.j
-52-
I 1
r~—
\D
L
O H
O IO
J W2:sCO O
OEH >t
H ID IO W
H di
£°< I
CO I
r
-P
O
•HS-l
-P03
•r)
Q
H
Q-PrOS
>i
* -Pc c(0 3CQ O
U
>i4J (0
•H -H
C T33 fl
I u
E 38S
r- oo a\
(0
•H
CMO
LW
•H
r- 1
(0
U
UH
0
0)-p
(0
4J
(0
>irH
OCD
t£
-P
4J
(U
U
•H
Oj
k
M-l
M-l
10
CO
•H
4J
(0
•H0
O
CO
CO
Ml
Ml
3i— 1
Q
(0
0)
0)tr
(0>
(0
4Jc
3cn rt en en s
i-i CNJ m ^ m
-53-
\J
2OH
EH
UH
Q
CO
1-H
toOEH
H
DO
H
EH
9lllllllllllltllllHII"U(lli
•He•H
•a«o
X!u
(0u
u
-Pc<D(fl0)
I
i
-54-
0)
O
•H
>
i-l
CUto
)H
SI0)
(0 O
XI -HCO ^
rH JJ!H en
03 -H
U Q
O•H
in
•H
O
(1)4J
(0s
c
•H
(0
C
i-l
(U-P
(0s^
>i O
4J-H
C M
3 4->
O W
U-H
Q
(0
0) (U
U £3 0)
<U CO