Loading...
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