Loading...
2002-7592 G s ' ! city Of ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 13, 2006 Attn: Washington Mutual Bank 105 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Jones, Dennis and Karen Fortuna Ranch Road APN 264-451-03 Grading Permit 7592-G Final release of security Permit 7592-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the final grading. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposited is merited. Assignment of Account 0179-0001691781-2, in the original amount of$17,530.00, (reduced by 75% to $4,382.50), is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, �)y art Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Jones,Dennis and Karen Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 l FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper i '� NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city of Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ,Tune 7, 2004 Attn: Washington Mutual Bank 105 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Jones, Dennis and Karen Fortuna Ranch Road APN 264-451-03 Grading Permit 7592-G Partial release of security Permit 7592-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposited is merited. Assignment of Account 0179-0001691781-2, in the amount of$17,530.00, may be reduced by 75% to $4,382.50. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher Ja Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Jones,Dennis and Karen Debra Geishart File TEL. 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper * ~ ' CZt o NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT y .� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 13, 2006 Attn: INSCO Insurance Services, Inc 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: Jones, Dennis and Karen Fortuna Ranch Road APN 264-451-03 Grading Permit 7592-G Final release of security Permit 7592-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the final grading. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 826374, in the original amount of$70,022.00, (reduced by 75% to $17,505.50), is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sinc rely, c ;' Debra Geishart J L bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Jones,Dennis and Karen Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper NGINEERING SER VICES DEPAR TMENT Cityo� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering J une 7, 2004 Attn: fNSCO Insurance Services, Inc 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: Jones, Dennis and Karen Fortuna Ranch Road APN 264-451-03 Grading Permit 7592-G Partial release of security Permit 7592-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 826374, in the amount of$70,022.00, may be reduced by 75% to $17,505.50. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher J Lem ac . Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services Cc Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Jones,Dennis and Karen Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 1 FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 'I'DD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC REPORT PARCEL 3 OF PM 3278 ENCINITAS, CA PREPARED FOR: GREG WILLIAMS DATE: 08-12-2002 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGIl4EERING, INC. 535 NORTH HWY. 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 ; �FV► E WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS......................................................... 1-3 BRIDGE HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS................................................... 4-5 DITCH CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ..............................................................6 RAINFALL INTENSITY WORKSHEETS...................................................... 7-9 HYDROLOGY NODE MAP ..............................................................APPENDIX of �' *********************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ********************* Site Hydrology *********************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1034.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12: 5 8/13/2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED % OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 120.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 390.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 385.7*0 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4.30 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 8.376 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.289 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .40 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .40 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 6 ----------------------------------------------.------------------------ »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< - --------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.289 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .29 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .69 TC(MIN) _ '8.38 ***##*****#**#*#*##**##**#**#**##**###*****###*******##**###*******##** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 180.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 390.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 388.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 15.156 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.608 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .47 ***#****#*###**#***##****##**###***##************#****####*****#***##*# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 388.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 378.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 150.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0667 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR- 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .75 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = .47 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.19 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .27 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .78 TC(MIN. ) = 15.94 2 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.10 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------7------------------------ »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.492 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .08 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .55 TC(MIN) = 15.94 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .55 Tc(MIN. ) = 15.94 TOTAL AREMACRES) _ .34 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 3 =- 11 <� i -ti �ti ti' � a"'ut i �,?�`�y � 3' .� t. t � .; •"S't"` -., $ t s Y' �e a K• :;� as tea^ � -��• za �.��, � yY 4 w t { s r.Awr 7 r l t 4 S` T� `" •vim F 40 Y!.# { '�+t,-tee` K� �v 'C"s' � .:r.�e" '`-.-.. ~•�,(�.;±�, «.� �, -z`� t. .r. t f s � � ;� M•{'t' ".rS_ }yam k - � Vlji:} '�� - ' ataaSSS�"'j � *********************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD .CONTROL DISTRICT 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ********************* Hydrology for Bridge Design Point *********************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1034BRDG.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:35 8/13/2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED % OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------7----------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED = 14.36(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1200.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 502.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 375.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE 127.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.736 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.00 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.00 Tc(MIN. ) = 14.36 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.25 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS C i Cleansing Channel Capacity Calc. Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1034.fm2 Worksheet Cleansing Channel Capacity Calcs. Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.040 Channel Slope 0.080000 ft1ft Depth 0.31 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 0.552 crf's ve-c1 I oct 0.31 ft 1 VD H 1 NTS 08/13/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 01:19:59 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 V 9 i of 1 9 / i 1 a0 / 1 C0 1/ ' wit `♦ . 1 1 9 J ` ♦ 111 \`♦ N♦-i O �1 7 '\ ♦` NI O♦ Ir d g .N �- .♦,, 11 r kill" '�•. rlSa`=1t�N _ - �� � +-171\ ; \11 � ` �♦♦ � \♦� ♦♦♦ Y - _ '1,5'1 `♦/ \ t \ 1 \�k ` It i'141&••1 1 it -a ` 1 I i , tr 1 J 3 ♦ 1 1 / °f r ``♦` Q♦1 ` `.� ••11'\ Imo.♦ I u^s 11 ♦♦ '`, i I i S'r0 1 A oil ♦ 1 1 `I,`♦W/ � 4j Ilp � 1\♦ 11♦ -- � ' �`*i►-�\ ;_-_-- 1 1♦_-�' Q ,' I I/~ N � � 1~ \l� ♦ w � i 1 t -yS3 ��w,♦C ♦ �r� I�b 51 N � 5' / w 1 0 1 1 I NI I It ------ 1/1 of O♦ 1 \.e � Af r r Y i if C7 III ```\ 1 11 1 ,�,�%' ,"- '`I♦\ � ♦`-/' . N Ln it In _ IN) �`W�,r• N �+ 1 1 t 1 1 ---`w V N � V / 1 ♦ W O t71 N 1 - ' I O- 1 / 1 \ J /C3uno a_adwt I 1 9 r ♦`, -43 S N r! N IN H n ti W A N y v v YL 1 , ,• .. ,..,,,` -= -�- »l ,,.; - r -� � NCI`♦ / ��. 1 � ! ,,♦1...N'fI/. .1 -r A , � � � \ `` �- � 1 ,�'�_1 �.'� i //, I - 1 j" ``I __ ``, d , 11 IP, CR Ft Ln rt j�GCn�i'Z,�! `�_i= _'-•� Ir i 1 �� i ,r � � ,, 0 N D �-- , - _ of r`��_-)"`�` �(!1. .Fw � `�,i_ IIi t _ -.�� O'♦ � ; -° ; i �`¢'4 1,-t_SR i _ '/ 7 1 t`�0,�♦ •�, `., II`\ I J.� f�4 - _ S <a, �,.�` - i�' ; ,'-^ �i II - 4�,'i,,'-,' � IDi � O it 1 1 ♦ - ' / I 111 / °, I , , c , I\ 1 K.- 11 61 N / -I-`` `l, Y"� �'♦ % / / ',', ` '" T ,`1 ♦ 111 ri, 1,1 \ 1 %``,",Y� l`` 11 ^�C--1- 'O_w'/ \\�� 1�'. - ♦ `1t,,(/�1 '/I} ` `IT J•',, ,, ♦ -+_-r� ~` `tk'I, � tai d 1 '�I rl�' 01 .O 1�I ` `p 1 �� O•`_-. i,. ♦ , , -ice--� ... f , PPP ♦ / / ,_ ly `, I'E I _ 'G i ` ' / , / d.•p`1 ♦ ` ,•O 1�' - - ♦ ____`-' ' ' i ' - �' io 1 r `♦ ` �r . I 1� -,--' ,- -Ip to�.� ,'O , P• I 1 tij I 1 + _ v'y��, 1 ._ J i ''' ' I OD.''" 1 \ %Ct,W1 `�`1 � ``` ,,�,%� i- �,< ' ��-y-•1 i 1 1 i, I O` 1 11�`.I 1, -- --''- 01 - I i Tai ` ` `, O i � ',♦ -, - - ; \ / ' 1 � ,'♦ ',�,i- _ -_-- ``, /" I, ,\ ` \, ` '\ ' �' I' -� ,^\♦�1 ` % I � ! I ,tom,-- ^�` ! pl %\ C .-' ' • .' , III I 1, `l. ; ; ; ; ; � : -'�� •_-_ "' '" /)` '� � n � 1�'N ; it � ; � ; ; ;': / '"•' ' % L 1 IC3uno adw � - 1 Znt/1 —pp� O 09 d z CCD C N o (CD _ Z r O m -n � 0 (/, , O N -11 1 osl N1a ci r^_ V1 � f Q11 N I V r� IN VA HHOS& mum man mm ME min, in 8 FAr A" ff Ap No ui IV I m am. s�m® r:ssaaas:s�s■aaaaass� 11 fill CID CL EBEEBE ..����_.t.�tr�.t_w.N.t�.r��.�.N.wi.:::::.i::°�� s•s•�s•�s•I//II/��I-IS•�II�1=1WA - ��������!/�r�• •s•���M���/������ iriiiii�iiii�l�� HE .NNI.t�..tt1 NIN/—S—JY.WN W—Nr- Y_NIW_�_N/t.►—..�—�S�.�W...�.tl—_YY_tN�_�_�_�_.tN..._._. ----- ss.s•ss.�. s_.s_s..s_s•s.sss•s•�s•��s•sms_�s.s•s•�in�i�i:����v ss•s•sn/i.s.���ems.�s.�s_�s_mn�s•s•s•s_s•us•s•mmsmn■ ss•s•ss•iFA►iAsis. ►�n�ssms_rms•s•ms•s•s_�s•s•unnns�■■■msvw s•sus..WM M►t A s.�s!m■I�m�sns.�s•s•ms•s•s•uss•s•suss111m ■■■saa® s•s•s.AI .4s �s•s.�s•s•pus_ss.��s•s•m■s•�srs•�s,uussus■■■■■sa� s•%/I///I/-��s•IS•�s•�s•s•s•��s•s• N PAP/%IPAr ///E1111K/!• mm���!•It1iNiO��■■w® rim►iWAMFAE i�r�■�.��■������■�■wn:u�■■mn® W. AWA VAPANWAINKUWA iPAri■■rA■Sri■■■■■■��■■■i■�■■■■■■�■wliI�lii■■■m■® ..mm III WwwmwAlM III MIN NIXIIII11UNKIII WAS►FAW ■■■i■�■i■■�In 11111■nm® . //I//I/. 0 ,_, CiTV ur 44 2000 �idCllJli1":. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Site Fortuna Ranch Road, Olivenhain, California (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 3278) April 1, 2002 Prepared For: MR. GREG WILLIAMS 7028 Whitewater Street Carlsbad, California 92009 Prepared By: VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 Escondido, California 92029 Job #02-141-P VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102 Job #02-141-P Escondido,California 92029-1229 Phone (760) 743-1214 April 1, 2002 Fax(760) 739-0343 Mr. Greg Williams 7028 Whitewater Street Carlsbad, California 92009 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE, FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA (PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3278) Pursuant to your request, Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc. has completed the following Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for the above-referenced project site. The following report summarizes the results of our field investigation, including laboratory analyses and conclusions, and provides recommendations for the proposed development as understood. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed residential development and the associated improvements provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this study are consistent with the site geotechnical conditions and are intended to aid in preparation of final development plans and allow more accurate estimates of development costs. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #02-141-P will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. e� Dennis Middleton �g CEG #980 € DM/jt TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 11. SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 IV. SITE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Earth Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Surface and Subsurface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Faults / Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 �. E. Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 F. Laboratory Testing 1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 V1. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Grading and Earthworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. Foundations and Slab-on-Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C. Exterior Concrete Slabs / Flatworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. Soil Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 E. Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 F. General Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 VIII. LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 TABLE NO. FaultZone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Site Seismic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SoilType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Moisture-Density Tests (Undisturbed Chunk Samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Expansion Index Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Direct Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Removals and Over-excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PLATE NO. Regional Index Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SitePlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Test Trench Logs (with key) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 - Fault - Epicenter Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Isolation and Re-entrant Corner Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Retaining Wall Drain Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION _ PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA (PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3278) I. INTRODUCTION The property investigated in this work includes 2.10 acres of undeveloped terrain described as Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 3278, located north of Fortuna Ranch Road near the eastern limits of City of Encinitas in the community of Olivenhain. The general site location is depicted on a Regional Index Map enclosed with this report as Plate 1. We understand that the site is planned for the support of a single-family residence with detached garage, kennel, and associated entrance roadway improvements. Consequently, this study was conducted to determine geotechnical conditions at the construction areas of the project site and their influence upon the planned structures and improvements. Site geologic mapping, test trench digging, soil sampling and testing were among the activities conducted in conjunction with this investigation which has resulted in the grading and foundation -` recommendations presented herein. II. SITE DESCRIPTION Existing topographic conditions are depicted on a Site Plan, Plate 2, reproduced from preliminary grading plans prepared by San Dieguito Engineering. The project property is nearly a rectangular-shape parcel with natural terrain sloping gently to moderately towards a local flowline which traverses the site and drains in a general northeast to southwest direction. The planned construction areas are located in the upper northern half of the property as shown on Plate 2. Access to the study site is via an existing dirt road off Fortuna Ranch Road, along the easterly property line which will be improved to a future entrance roadway. Fortuna Ranch Road is located south of the project site, and a recently graded fill slope ascending to a graded building pad above borders the northern site margins. An apparent sewer line is located under the existing road as indicated by two sewer manholes along the alignment. The site presently supports a moderate growth of native grasses and brush. Site drainage sheetflows over the slopes toward the central natural flowline. Scouring or excessive erosion resulting from concentrated run-off is not in evidence. I11. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The study area is planned to support a single-family residence, detached garage and a kennel with the associated structures and improvements approximately as shown on Plate VINJE€X MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 2 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 2. A new entrance roadway along the eastern property line will provide access to the site from Fortuna Ranch Road. Cut/fill grading techniques will be used to achieve final design elevations and construct level building surfaces. Cut grading will be completed to the north and the generated fills will be placed beneath the southern portion of the graded pad. Graded cut slopes are planned for 1'/:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients and will be on the order of 10 feet in maximum vertical heights. Fill slopes are programmed for 2:1 gradients with maximum vertical heights of nearly 10 feet. A drainage culvert will be constructed in the site natural flowline where crossing the proposed entrance roadway. Details of the planned drainage culvert/improvements are not known. -- Details of the future dwelling, garage, and kennel structures were not available for our review. We understand the level pad is proposed to support conventional wood-frame buildings with exterior stucco supported on shallow stiff continuous strip and spread pad concrete footings with slab-on-grade floor foundations. IV. SITE INVESTIGATION Site geotechnical conditions were determined from geologic mapping of existing exposures. Specific subsurface conditions were exposed in the excavation of 5 test trenches dug with a tractor-mounted backhoe. Test trench locations were governed by site constraints, which includes rocky terrain and heavy plant growth. All excavations were logged by our project geologist, and representative soil/bedrock samples were retained and transported to our laboratory for testing. Exploratory trench locations are shown on Plate 2. Logs of the excavations are included with this report as Plates 3 through 5. -` V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The subject property is characterized by natural sloping terrain underlain by hard bedrock materials that are mantled by a thin cover of topsoils. A. Earth Materials Hillside terrain at the study site are underlain by metavolcanic rocks which outcrop _ in nearby areas. The rocks consist chiefly of light colored fine grained units which occur in a blocky and fractured condition. Test trench exposures indicate site bedrock units range from very hard to more weathered soft and fractured. Generally, site bedrock are competent units which will perform well in graded conditions and provide good support for project fills and planned construction/ "— VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 3 _ FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 _ improvements. Some highly weathered bedrock in forms of clay degradation are also locally present within the upper exposures which require remedial grading stabilization. Natural topsoils mantle bedrock units at the project site. The topsoil consists chiefly of silty to clayey sand with locally rocky deposits. Site topsoils occur in a _ loose condition and are not suitable for the support of structures and improvements in their present condition. Project topsoils and clay weathering of site upper bedrock are very low to low expansive. Details of earth materials underlying the project site are given on the enclosed Test Trench Logs, Plates 3-5. Laboratory test results are summarized — in a following section. B. Surface and Subsurface Water Subsurface water was not encountered at the project site to the depths explored. The natural site flowline was dry at the time of our investigation, but can be expected to be seasonally active. Local graded sites can be impacted by subsurface water which can migrate _ through rock fractures from up-slope properties. Subsurface toe drains for the northern cut slope may be considered as a means of protecting nearby improvements from up-slope seepage. As with all hillside properties, the proper control of site surface drainage and irrigation waters is a critical component to overall project stability. Surface water should not pond upon graded surfaces, and irrigation water should not be excessive. Project retaining walls should be provided with adequate backdrain systems. C. Slope Stability _ Bedrock units underlying the property are predominantly very hard, metavolcanic rocks which typically perform well in graded and natural slope conditions. However, project bedrock units are modestly impacted by fracture/joint surfaces. These are typically steeply dipping and discontinuous. When adversely oriented, these surfaces can promote small block failures in graded cut slopes. Geologic inspections of cut slopes during construction are recommended in order to determine actual fracture/joint patterns and their influence upon the graded embankments. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029-1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 4 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 Existing landslides or other forms of slope instability are not indicated at the study site. D. Faults / Seismicity Faults or significant shear zones are not indicated on or near proximity to the - project site. As with most areas of California, the San Diego region lies within a seismically active zone; however, coastal areas of the county are characterized by low levels of seismic activity relative to inland areas to the east. During a 40-year period (1934-1974), 37 earthquakes were recorded in San Diego coastal areas by the California Institute of Technology. None of the recorded events exceeded a Richter magnitude of 3.7, nor did any of the earthquakes generate more than modest ground shaking or significant damages. Most of the recorded events occurred along various offshore faults which characteristically generate modest earthquakes. - Historically, the most significant earthquake events which affect local areas originate along well known, distant fault zones to the east and the Coronado Bank Fault to the west. Based upon available seismic data, compiled from California -� Earthquake Catalogs, the most significant historical event in the area of the study site occurred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 8 miles from the project area. This event, which is thought to have occurred along an off-shore fault, reached an estimated magnitude of 6.5 with estimated bedrock acceleration values of 0.117g at the project site. The following list represents the most significant faults which commonly impact the region. Estimated ground acceleration data compiled from Digitized California Faults (Computer Program EQFAULT VERSION 3.00 UPDATE) typically associated with the fault is also tabulated. TABLE 1 1111aximunl Probable PaUIt, n �D t rwce,From-�Ite : Accelera io ,,>f H �. Newport-Inglewood fault 15.2 miles 0.138 g Coronado Band fault 23.0 miles 0.132 g Elsinore fault 23.5 miles 0.111 g Rose Canyon fault 8.3 miles 0.138 VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760) 743-1214 Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 5 -- FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to the study site are depicted on a Fault - Epicenter Map enclosed with this report as Plate 6. More recently, the number of seismic events which affect the region appears to have heightened somewhat. Nearly 40 earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or higher have been recorded in coastal regions between January, 1984 and August, 1986. Most of the earthquakes are thought to have been generated along offshore faults. For the most part, the recorded events remain moderate shocks which typically resulted in low levels of ground shaking to local areas. A notable exception to this pattern was recorded on July 13, 1986. An earthquake of magnitude 5.3 shook County coastal areas with moderate to locally heavy ground shaking resulting in $700,000 in damages, one death, and injuries to 30 people. The quake occurred along an offshore fault located nearly 30 miles southwest of Oceanside. A series of notable events shook County areas with a (maximum) magnitude 7.4 shock in the early morning of June 28, 1992. These quakes originated along related segments of the San Andreas Fault approximately 90 miles to the north. Locally high levels of ground shaking over an extended period of time resulted; however, significant damages to local structures were not reported. The increase in earthquake frequency in the region remains a subject of speculation among geologists; however, based upon empirical information and the recorded seismic history of County areas, the 1986 and 1992 events are thought to represent the highest levels of ground shaking which can be expected at the study site as a result of seismic activity. In recent years, the Rose Canyon Fault has received added attention from geologists. The fault is a significant structural feature in metropolitan San Diego _ which includes a series of parallel breaks trending southward from La Jolla Cove through San Diego Bay toward the Mexican border. Recent trenching along the fault in Rose Canyon indicated that at that location the fault was last active 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. Thus, the fault is classified as "active" by the State of California which defines faults that evidence displacement in the previous 11,000 years as active. More active faults (listed on the preceding page) are considered most likely to impact the region during the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically active and capable of generating moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking at the site. Ground separation as a result of seismic activity is not expected at the _ property. �~ VINJE&MIDDLETON ENCjINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 6 _. FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 For design purposes, site specific seismic parameters were determined as part of this investigation in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. The following parameters are consistent with the indicated project seismic environment and may be utilized for project design work: TABLE 2 si# c�ii , Seisr�ip Se�smic Se�slnn�c Respvnse`GQefd�ets a. P"ri�#1ie � Seismic one �5�ui�rc�e' � , SB 4 0.4 B 1.0 1.0 0.40 0.40 0.400 0.080 According to Chapter 16, Division IV of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. E. Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards are not presently indicated at the project site. Natural slopes are underlain by stable bedrock units, and slope instability is not expected in planned cut slopes. The most significant geologic hazards at the property will be those associated with ground shaking in the event of a major seismic event. Liquefaction or related ground rupture failures are not anticipated. F. Laboratory Testing / Results Earth deposits encountered in our exploratory test excavations were closely examined and sampled for laboratory testing. Based upon our test trench data and field exposures, site soils have been grouped into the following soil types: TABLE 3 ;S tT e, Opt id"6": 1 brown clayey to silty sand with rock fragments (topsoil) 2 yellowish red-brown to rust colored metavolcanic rock bedrock The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation: 1. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents of Soil Type 1 was determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The test result is presented in Table 4. r VINJE&MIDDLETON ENCJINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 7 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 TABLE 4 3St�l iiaximurnD�y Qp#�murtt�llalsture .' . .cft � o T-1 @ 1' 1 115.6 15.3 2. Moisture-Density Tests (Undisturbed Chunk Samples: In-place dry density and moisture content of representative soil deposits beneath the site were determined from relatively undisturbed chunk samples using the water displacement test method. The test results are presented in Table 5 and tabulated on the enclosed Test Trench Logs. TABLE 5 Field rRatia Uf 10 Place l�ry slViarsture fieid'Dry Nta�cDry Deneity To, ill2ix.Gry Sample Soil Cots#ent Density 3Densify De�tetty L. ctz� ", . T-2 @ 2' 2 19.9 156.9 - - T-3 @ 2' 2 7.3 - - sample disturbed " Designated as relative compaction for structural fills. F Required relative compaction for structural fill is 90% or greater. 3. Expansion Index Test: Two expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of Soil Types 1, 2, and clay weathered site bedrock in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 18-2. The test results are presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 Sample SoEI >Remalded Saturation" Saturated ExPansiat I=xpansron, L: C iopi T e w °lg °lo wt.% I cex .E1 Pot�t�tial. T-1 @ 1' 1 13.9 50.4 24.1 10 very low T-2 @ 4' 2 17.9 50.9 29.3 48 low w = moisture content in percent. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 Phone(760) 743-1214 • Fax(760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 8 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 4. Direct Shear Test: One direct shear test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1. The prepared specimen was soaked overnight, loaded with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The test result is presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 Wet tAngFeq�r€ A}parent Sarra�le 5611 �S��tpl4 ,_ D�ns�ty 1ntFric t�aili,��s�igin __ fr�aca wan ,�, .e=, h-� +�ti��t��t►. �Y , �d. ���e � g IL—T-1 1' 1 90% 119.7 31 227 VI. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing investigation, development of the subject property for residential purposes is feasible from a geotechnical point of view. The following geotechnical factors are unique to the project site and will influence grading procedures and development costs: The property is underlain by stable metavolcanic rock units which are mantled by a thin section of loose surficial soils. Slope instability is not presently indicated at the site. Test trench exposures encountered bedrock units which occur in a weathered soft condition within the upper exposures becoming hard and less fractured with depth. Deeper cuts will be difficult to excavate and likely generate marginal quality rocky fill materials. Preliminary plans indicate cut excavations on the order of 10 feet deep maximum. Very heavy ripping utilizing larger dozers (Caterpillar D-9 or equivalent) will likely be necessary. Limited pre-blasting or"popping", and/or utilizing breakers may also be considered as a means of fracturing the rock for isolated exposures in the deeper cuts. Pre-blasting will allow for higher production levels in site excavations and will improve the quality of generated fill. Weathered bedrock units can be successfully excavated with moderate ripping methods throughout most site cut areas. Project graded cut slopes exposing competent bedrock are expected to be geologically stable at planned 1Y2:1 gradients to expected heights of 10 vertical feet. However, cut slope constructed at steeper 1'/:1 gradients will require geologic field inspection and approval during the construction as recommended in the following section. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760) 743-1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 9 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 Excavated bedrock at the project site is expected to include an abundance of rock debris generating marginal quality fill. Larger rocks should be excluded from the site fills and wall backfills. The use of imported sandy soils may be considered to improve the quality and workability of the generated fills. Additional efforts and moisture conditioning will be necessary when processing rocky silty/clayey fills and mixing with import sandy soils in order to manufacture a uniform mixture. * Existing surficial topsoil deposits, and locally upper weathered soft bedrock units are loose to soft deposits that are not suitable in their present condition for the -- support of new structures, improvements or graded fills. The surficial soils and weathered soft bedrock should be removed to underlying competent bedrock units in areas planned to receive fills, improvements and structures. Removed soil can - be reconditioned and then reused in compacted fills. * Cut/fill transition should not be allowed under the planned structures and improvements. Transition pads require special geotechnical engineering mitigation measures as recommended in the following sections. * Based upon the project subsurface soil profile, final bearing soils supporting the new building and improvements are anticipated to primarily consist of clayey to silty sandy gravel to gravelly silt-clay mixture (GM/ML)with "low"expansion potential (El less than 51) according to the Uniform Building Code classification. Actual classification and expansion characteristic of the finished grade soil mix can only be provided in the final as-graded compaction report based on proper testing of foundation bearing soils when rough finish grades are achieved. Potentially expansive bearing soils will require special geotechnical engineering mitigation design which typically includes pre-saturation of subgrade soils as well as deeper foundations and thicker slab-on-grade floors. Foundation bearing soils at the final pad grades should be additionally tested at the completion of rough grading to confirm expansion characteristics of the foundation bearing soils which will govern final foundations and slab design. * The overall stability of cut/fill building surfaces developed over hillsides is most dependent upon adequate keying and benching of fill into competent bedrock during the grading operations. At the project site, added care should be given to proper construction of keyways and benching operations. * In general, natural groundwater is not expected to impact project grading. However, local and upslope irrigation may result in subsurface water which can VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 10 _ FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 migrate through rock fractures. Toe drains along proposed cut slopes can protect improvements from water seepage. Hard bedrock surfaces at, or near finish grade levels, may also transmit irrigation or meteoric water creating excessive moisture conditions. The need for a potential subdrainage system should be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer during the grading operations. Fill slopes constructed within the site local flowline should be protected from seasonal flood conditions. -� Liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not be factors in the development of the project property. Post construction settlements will not to be a factor in the development of the project site, provided our remedial grading and foundation recommendations are implemented during the construction phase of the project. Soil collapse will not be a factor in development of the study site, provided our recommendations for site development are followed. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are consistent with the indicated geotechnical conditions at the project site and should be reflected in final plans and implemented during the construction phase. Added or modified recommendations may also be appropriate and can be provided at the final plan review phase: A. Grading and Earthworks The planned construction areas are directly underlain by shallow topsoils over metavolcanic bedrock. The topsoil deposits and the locally upper exposure of the highly weathered bedrock units occur in a loose to soft condition overall. Treatment of these deposits will be required as specified below which should be completed in connection with the project earthwork operations. All grading and project construction should be completed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, City of Encinitas Grading Ordinances, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and the requirements of the following sections wherever applicable: 1. Clearing and Grubbing - Surface vegetation, deleterious materials and debris should be removed from areas to receive fills, structures, and improvements r VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING!SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS i PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 11 _ FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 _ plus 10 feet. Brushing and grubbing should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical engineer or his designated field representative prior to grading. 2. Removals and Over-excavations - Site existing upper loose to soft soils and weathered bedrock should be removed to the underlying competent bedrock units in all areas to receive fills, structures and improvements plus 10 feet, as approved in the field by the project geotechnical engineer, and recompacted. Removal depths will vary throughout the site. Approximate removal depths in the vicinity of individual test trench sites are shown in Table 8. Locally deeper removals may be necessary based on the actual field exposures and should be anticipated. TABLE 8 Estmatet!_ s#msted "rtal Cie tt�af pepth4 �epth�of er Gran -- J"rehch �`renbh lxcavatian hoc Bari . tt Pk. Garnt>tens T-1 2' 1% We cut slope, backhoe refusal @ 2' T-2 5' 2' n/e building pad areas, depth of undercut may govern. T-3 4' 1' We garage pad areas,depth of undercut may govern, backhoe refusal @ 4' T-4 2'/' 1' n/e cut slope, depth of cut may govern, backhoe refusal @ 2%' T-5 3' 2%' We drainage culvert @ entrance roadway, backhoe refusal @ 3' Notes - 1. All depths are measured from the existing ground levels. 2. Actual depths may vary at the time of construction based on seasonal conditions and actual _ subsurface exposures. 3. Bottom of all removals should be prepared, ripped and recompacted as directed in the field. 4. In the parking, driveway and roadway areas, removals will consist of depths to competent bedrock or 1-foot below the deepest utility trenches or 3 feet but not less than 1-foot minimum as directed in the field. 5. Exploratory trenches excavated in connection with our study at the indicated locations were backfilled with loose and uncompacted deposits. The loose/uncompacted backfill soils within these trenches shall also be re-excavated and placed back as properly compacted fills as a part of the project grading operations. 6. n/e= not encountered. _ VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 - Phone(760) 743-1214 - Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 12 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 -- 3. Hard Rock Excavations - Upper weathered soft rocks will likely excavate with easy to moderate efforts. Very hard rock conditions and difficult excavations may be expected for deeper cuts. Locally harder rocks may also be - encountered during excavations and trenching which will require specialized and concentrated excavation efforts. Limited pre-blasting or "popping" below depths of 10 feet may be considered in order to complete the deeper excavations and improve the quality of generated fill soil which would otherwise include a high percentage of rock debris. The use of large bulldozers (D-9 or equivalent) should also be considered to facilitate cut grading and increase fill production. Blasting, if performed at the site, should be completed by a qualified contractor and conducted in such manner as not to impact the nearby structures and improvements. Monitoring of nearby buildings may be required. 4. Cut/Fill Transition -Building foundations and footings for site structures should be uniformly supported on compacted fills or uniformly founded on competent undisturbed cut ground. Ground transition from excavated cut to placed fill should not be permitted underneath the proposed structures and improvements. Transition areas will require special treatment. The cut portion of the cut/fill pads plus 10 feet should be undercut to a sufficient depth to provide for a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill mat below rough finish grades. There should be at least 12 inches of compacted fill beneath the deepest footing. In the roadways, driveway and parking improvement transition areas there should be a minimum of 1-foot of compacted soils below rough finish subgrade. Undercutting the cut portion of the building pad will also accommodate excavation of the foundation trenches and underground utilities in an otherwise harder bedrock. In the case of deeper utility trenches, undercutting to a minimum of 6 inches below the proposed inverts may be considered. 5. Fill Materials and Compaction - Soils generated from the removals of the on- site topsoils will be silty to clayey sandy deposits, and the project bedrock excavations will predominantly generate excessive rock debris. Generated soils and rocky materials may be processed for reuse within on-site compacted fills. Project fills shall be clean deposits consisting of minus 6-inch materials and include at least 40% smaller than #4 sieve materials by weight. Rocks up to 12 inches in maximum diameter may be allowed in compacted fills provided they are individually placed, surrounded with compacted fill and buried to a VINJE fY MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 13 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 minimum of 5 feet below the rough finish pad grades. The upper 5 feet in the building pad grades, and 10 feet in the areas of public right-of-way and easements, should consist of minus 6-inch materials. Rocks larger than 12 inches in maximum diameter should not be allowed in shallow fills (less than 10 feet) and should be properly disposed from the site. Import soils may be considered for mixing with the generated rocky materials in order to improve the quality and workability of new fills. The import soils, if used, should be non-expansive sandy granular soils (expansion index less than 21), inspected, tested as necessary and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to delivery to the site. - On-site fill deposits will predominantly consist of silt-clay/rock mixture. Silt- clay/rock soil mixtures typically require additional processing and moisture conditioning efforts in order to manufacture a uniform mixture suitable for reuse as compacted fills. The silt-clay/rock deposits should also be moisture conditioned to (3% to 5%) above optimum levels and compacted as specified. -- Uniform bearing soil conditions should be constructed at the site by the grading operations. Site soils should be adequately processed, thoroughly mixed, moisture conditioned to near or above optimum moisture levels as directed in the field, placed in thin uniform horizontal lifts and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557, unless otherwise specified. 6. Permanent Graded Slopes - Project graded fill slopes should be programmed for 2:1 gradients maximum. Graded cut slopes exposing competent bedrock � units may be constructed at 11/ :1 or flatter gradients. Graded slopes constructed at the proposed heights and gradients will be grossly stable with respect to deep seated and surficial failures for the indicated design maximum vertical heights. All fill slopes shall be provided with a lower keyway. The keyway should maintain a minimum depth of 2 feet into the competent bedrock with a minimum width of 12 feet as approved by the project geotechnical engineer or his designated representative. The keyway should expose competent bedrock throughout, with the bottom heeled back a minimum of 2% into the natural hillside and inspected and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. Additional level benches should be constructed into the natural hillside as the fill slope construction progresses. Fill slopes should also be compacted to 90% � VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,11102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 - Phone(760) 743.1214 - Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 14 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 (minimum) of the laboratory standard out to the slope face. Overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted core, or backrolling at a minimum of 3-foot vertical increments and "track-walking" at the completion of grading is recommended for site fill slope construction. Geotechnical engineering inspections and testing will be necessary to confirm adequate compaction levels within the fill slope face. Fill slopes constructed within the site flowline should be protected from potential erosions and scouring with appropriate facing and rock rip-rap as detailed on the project civil drawings. Cut slopes should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant during the grading to confirm stability. Additional recommendations will be provided at that time in the event adverse geologic conditions such as unfavorable fracturing or jointing features are noted. 7. Shrinkage and Bulking - Based upon our analyses, site existing topsoil deposits may be expected to shrink approximately 5% to 10%, and the soils °- generated from the excavations of the on-site bedrock may be anticipated to bulk nearly 10% to 15% on a volume basis when compacted to at least 90% of the corresponding maximum density. 8. Slope Toe Drainage Systems - A subsurface toe drainage system may also be considered at the base of the project cut slopes. The subsurface/toe drain - should consist of a minimum 1 Y2 feet wide by 2 feet deep trench with a 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 (SDR 35) perforated pipe surrounded in 3/-inch crushed rocks and wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric. Appropriate recommendations should be given by the project geotechnical engineer in the field at the time of construction based on actual subsurface exposures and exposed slope face conditions. 9. Drainage and Erosion Control -A critical element to the continued stability of the building pads and slopes is an adequate surface drainage system and protection of the slope face. This can most effectively be achieved by appropriate vegetation cover and the installation of the following systems: * A drainage culvert is planned beneath the entrance roadway at crossing over the site flowline. The drainage culvert should be designed by the project civil engineer and installed as detailed on the approved drawings. A drainage inlet and outlet should also be provided with appropriate rip-rap energy VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743-1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 15 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 dissipater, concrete head and end walls, per the civil engineer design. Slope erosion and scouring of the fill embankments as a result of storm water run- off shall not be allowed. • Drainage swales should be provided at the top and toe of the graded slopes per the project civil engineer design. • Building pad surface run-off should be collected and directed away from the planned buildings and improvements to a selected location in a controlled - manner. Area drains should be installed. • The finished slope should be planted soon after completion of grading. Unprotected slope faces will be subject to severe erosion and should not be allowed. Over-watering of the slope faces should also not be allowed. Only the amount of water to sustain vegetation should be provided. 10. Engineering Inspections - All grading operations including removals, suitability of earth deposits used as compacted fill, and compaction procedures -- should be continuously inspected and tested by the project geotechnical consultant and presented in the final as-graded compaction report. The nature of finished grade soils should also be confirmed in the final compaction report -- at the completion of grading. Geotechnical engineering inspections shall include, but not limited to the following: * Initial Inspection - After the grading/brushing limits have been staked, but - before grading/brushing starts. * Keyway/bottom of over-excavation inspection - After the natural ground or bedrock is exposed and prepared to receive fill, but before fill is placed. * Cut slope/excavation inspection -After the excavation is started, but before the vertical depth of excavation is more than 5 feet. Local and CAL-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. * Fill/wall backfill inspection -After the fill/wall backfill placement is started, but before the vertical height of fill/backfill exceeds 2 feet. A minimum of one test shall be required for each 100 lineal feet maximum with the exception of wall backfills where a minimum of one test shall be required for each 25 VINJE MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 - Phone(760) 743-1214 - Fax(760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 16 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 lineal feet maximum. Wall backfills shall be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels, unless otherwise specified. Finish rough and final pad grade tests shall be required regardless of fill thickness. * Foundation trench inspection -After the foundation trench excavations, but before steel placement. * Foundation bearing/slab subgrade soils inspection - Within 72 hours prior to the placement of concrete for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. * Geotechnical foundation/slab steel inspection -After the steel placement is -- completed, but 24 hours before the scheduled concrete pour. * Subdrain/wall backdrain inspection -After the trench excavations, but during -- the actual placement. All material shall conform to the project material specifications and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. - * Underground/utility trench inspection - After the trench excavations, but before installation of the underground facilities. Local and CAL-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. Inspection at the bottom of the trench and pipe bedding may also be required by the project geotechnical engineer. * Underground/utility trench backfill inspection -After the backfill placement is started above the pipe zone, but before the vertical height of backfill exceeds 2 feet. Testing of the backfill within the pipe zone may also be required by the governing agencies. Pipe bedding and backfill materials shall conform to the governing agencies requirements and project soils report if applicable. All trench backfills shall be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels, unless otherwise specified. Utility trenches over 12 inches deep maximum under the interior floor slabs should also be mechanically compacted and tested for a minimum of 90% compaction -� levels. Flooding or jetting techniques as a means of compaction method shall not be allowed. * Pavement/improvements subgrade and basegrade inspections - Within 72 hours prior to the placement of concrete or asphalt for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029-1229 - Phone(760)743-1214 - Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 17 _ FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 B. Foundations and Slab-on-Grades The following preliminary recommendations are consistent with low expansive (El _ less than 51) clayey to silty sandy gravel to gravelly silt-clay mixture (GM/ML) foundation bearing soil and site specific geotechnical conditions. Additional recommendations may also be required and should be given at the plan review phase. All design recommendations should also be further confirmed and/or revised at the completion of rough grading based on the expansion characteristics of the foundation bearing soils and as-graded site geotechnical conditions, and presented in the final as-graded compaction report: 1. Continuous wall foundations should be sized at least 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep for single-story and two-story structures. Isolated pad footings should be at least 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. Footing depths are measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface, not including the sand/gravel layer beneath floor slabs. Exterior continuous footings should enclose the entire building perimeter. -- 2. Continuous interior and exterior foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of 444 reinforcing bars. Place 244 bars 3 inches above the bottom of the footing and 244 bars 3 inches below the top of the footing. `- Reinforcement details for isolated pad footings should be provided by the project architect/structural engineer. 3. All interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars spaced 16 inches on center each way, placed mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater)which is provided with a 6-mil plastic moisture barrier placed mid-height in the sand. 4. Provide"soft-cut"contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on center maximum each way. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location, or 150 psi to 800 psi. The softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch in depth but not to exceed 1'/4- inches. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipment across cuts for at least 24 hours. 5. Provide re-entrant corner reinforcement for all interior slabs. Re-entrant corners will depend on slab geometry and/or interior column locations. The enclosed Plate 7 may be used as a general guideline. VINJE fa MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743-1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 18 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 6. Foundation bearing and slab subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry below the as-graded moisture contents prior to pouring the concrete or additional ground preparations and moisture conditioning will be required as directed in the field. 7. Foundation trenches and slab subgrade soils should be inspected and tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant within 72 hours prior to the placement of concrete. C. Exterior Concrete Slabs / Flatworks ._ 1. All exterior slabs (walkways, and patios) should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, reinforced with 6x6/10x10 welded wire mesh carefully placed mid- height in the slab. 2. Provide"soft-cut'contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 12 feet maximum) each way. Cut as soon as the slab -- will support the weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch in depth but -- not to exceed 1 Y4-inches. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. 3. Exterior slabs supported on potentially expansive soils may be subject to movements especially in the event as-graded moisture contents are not uniformly maintained during the post construction periods. In order to enhance performance of exterior flatworks supported on expansive soils, it is our practice to recommend a minimum of 8 inches wide by 12 inches deep thickened slab -- edges reinforced with minimum 144 bar near the bottom along the slab free ends. All exterior slab designs should be confirmed in the final as-graded compaction report. 4. Subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant within 72 hours prior to the placement of concrete. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029-1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING! ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 19 _ FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 _ D. Soil Design Parameters The following soil design parameters are based upon tested representative _ samples of on-site earth deposits. All parameters should be re-evaluated when the characteristics of the final as-graded soils have been specifically determined: _ * Design wet density of soil = 119.7 pcf. * Design angle of internal friction of soil = 31 degrees. * Design active soil pressure for retaining structures = 38 pcf(EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walls. * Design active soil pressure for retaining structures = 59 pcf (EFP), 2:1 sloping backfill surface, cantilever, unrestrained walls. _ * Design at-rest soil pressure for retaining structures = 58 pcf (EFP), non- yielding, restrained walls. * Design passive soil pressure for retaining structures = 374 pcf (EFP), level — surface at the toe. * Design coefficient of friction for concrete on soils = 0.38. * Net allowable foundation pressure for 90% compacted fill (minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings) = 1750 psf. * Net allowable foundation pressure for undisturbed competent bedrock (minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings) = 2500 psf. * Allowable lateral bearing pressure (all structures except retaining walls) for certified on-site soils = 150 psf/ft . Notes - * Use a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall over turning and sliding stability. _ However, because large movements must take place before maximum passive resistance can be developed, a minimum safety factor of 2 may be considered for sliding stability particularly where sensitive structures and improvements are planned near or on top of retaining walls. * When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. * The indicated net allowable foundation pressures provided herein were _ determined based on a minimum of 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings, and may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 10% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of 4000 psf. The allowable foundation pressures provided herein also apply to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 20 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 _. The lateral bearing earth pressures may be increased by the amount of designated value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot. E. Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design Specific pavement section design can best be provided at the completion of rough grading based on R-value tests of the actual finish subgrade soils and design TI. The minimum structural section required by the city officials may govern the design. The following structural sections may be considered for cost estimating purposes only (not for construction): 1. A minimum section of 4 inches asphalt on 6 inches Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base may be considered for the on-site asphalt paving surfaces. Base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Subgrade soils beneath the asphalt paving surfaces should also be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 12 inches. 2. Residential PCC driveways and parking supported on low expansive (El less than 51) subgrade soils should be a minimum of 5 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center each way, placed 2 inches below the top of slab. Subgrade soils beneath the PCC driveways and parking should also be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density in the upper 6 inches. Provide"soft-cut'contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 15 feet maximum) each way. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch in depth but not to exceed 1%-inches. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. A minimum 6 inches thick plain PCC paving may also be used provided the following conditions are met: VINJE&MIDDLETON ENCj1NEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743-1214 - Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 21 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 - Soft cut joint spacing shall not exceed 10 feet on centers maximum each way. - The softcuts joints are 1 Y2 inches in depth (for 6 inches thick section). _ - Mix maximum slump does not exceed 4 inches. Super plasticizers may be used to enhance concrete workability. - One-inch combined aggregates are used for the concrete mix with a _ minimum 3250 psi, 28 days compressive strength. - Subgrade soils are compacted to a minimum of 95% within the upper 6 inches. _ - Adequate quality control and assurance is provided during the concrete placement. 3. Subgrade and basegrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and the specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant within 72 hours prior to the placement of the base or asphalt/PCC finish surface. 4. Base section and subgrade preparations per structural section design, will be -- required for all surfaces subject to traffic including roadways, travelways, drive lanes, driveway approaches and ribbon (cross) gutters. Driveway approaches within the public right-of-way should have 12 inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95% compaction levels and provided with a 95% compacted Class 2 base section per the structural section design. In the case of potentially expansive subgrade (EI greater than 20), provide 6 inches of Class 2 base under curb and gutters and 4 inches of Class 2 base (or 6 inches of Class III) under sidewalks. Base layer under curb and gutters should be compacted to a minimum of 95% while subgrade soils under curb and gutters, and base and subgrade under sidewalks should be compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels. Appropriate recommendations should -- be given in the final as-graded compaction report. F. General Recommendations 1. The minimum foundation design and steel reinforcement provided herein is based upon soil characteristics only and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. All recommendations should be evaluated and confirmed by the project architect/structural engineer. VINJE F3 MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,11102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743-1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 22 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 2. Adequate staking and grading control is a critical factor in properly completing the recommended remedial and site grading operations. Grading control and staking should be provided by the project grading contractor or surveyor/civil _. engineer, and is beyond the geotechnical engineering services. Inadequate staking and/or lack of grading control may result in unnecessary additional grading which will increase construction costs. 3. Footings located on, or adjacent to the top of slopes should be extended to a sufficient depth to provide a minimum horizontal distance of 7 feet or one-third of the slope height, whichever is greater (need not exceed 40 feet maximum) between the bottom edge of the footing and face of slope. This requirement applies to all improvements and structures including fences, posts, pools, spas, etc. Concrete and AC improvements should be provided with a thickened edge to satisfy this requirement. -- 4. Expansive clayey soils should not be used for backfilling of any retaining structure. All retaining walls should be provided with a 1:1 wedge of granular, compacted backfill measured from the base of the wall footing to the finish - surface. Retaining walls should be provided with a back drainage in general accordance with the enclosed Plate 8. - 5. All underground utility trenches should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density of the soil unless otherwise specified. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the -- compaction of the soil. Non-expansive, granular backfill soils should be used. 6. Continued wetting and drying of the project potentially expansive bearing and - subgrade soils will increase activities within these deposits and should not be permitted. Maintaining a uniform post construction bearing/subgrade soil moisture is essential in the future performance of the on-site structures and improvements. In no case should water be allowed to pond or accumulate adjacent to the improvements and structures. Site drainage over the finish pad surface should flow away from structures onto the street in a positive manner. Care should be taken during the construction, improvements, and fine grading phases not to disrupt the designed drainage -� patterns. Rooflines of the buildings should be provided with roof gutters. Roof water should be collected and directed away from the buildings and structures to a suitable location. Consideration should be given to adequately damp- proof/waterproof the basement walls/foundations, and provide the planter areas adjacent to the foundations with an impermeable liner and a subdrainage system. VINJE fa MIDDLETON ENGINEERINC3,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743.1214 • Fax(760) 739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 23 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 7. Final plans should reflect preliminary recommendations given in this report. Final foundations and grading plans may also be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant for conformance with the requirements of the geotechnical investigation report outlined herein. More specific recommendations may be necessary and should be given when final grading and architectural/structural drawings are available. 8. All foundation trenches should be inspected to ensure adequate footing embedment and confirm competent bearing soils. Foundation and slab .- reinforcements should also be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. -- 9. The amount of shrinkage and related cracks that occurs in the concrete slab- on-grades, flatworks and driveways depend on many factors, the most important of which is the amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpose of -- the slab reinforcement is to keep normal concrete shrinkage cracks closed tightly. The amount of concrete shrinkage can be minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum, the following -- should be considered: * Use the stiffest mix that can be handled and consolidated satisfactorily. * Use the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practical. For example, concrete made with 3/s-inch maximum size aggregate usually requires about -- 40 Ibs more (nearly 5 gal.) water per cubic yard than concrete with 1-inch aggregate. * Cure the concrete as long as practical. The amount of slab reinforcement provided for conventional slab-on-grade construction considers that good quality concrete materials, proportioning, craftsmanship, and control tests where appropriate and applicable, are provided. 10. A preconstruction meeting between representatives of this office, the property owner or planner, city inspector and the grading contractor/builder is recommended in order to discuss grading/construction details associated with site development. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029-1229 • Phone(760) 743-1214 • Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 24 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 VIII. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been based on all available data obtained from site observations, research and review of pertinent geotechnical reports and plans, subsurface exploratory excavations, as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in the general area. The materials encountered on the -- project site and utilized in laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. Of necessity we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is necessary, therefore, that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified during the grading operation. In the event discrepancies are noted, we should be contacted immediately so that an inspection can be made and additional recommendations issued if required. The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to ensure that these recommendations are carried out in the field. It is almost impossible to predict with certainty the future performance of a property. The future behavior of the site is also dependent on numerous unpredictable variables, such as earthquakes, rainfall, and on-site drainage patterns. The firm of VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC., shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such as addition of fill soils, added cut slopes, or changing drainage patterns which occur without our inspection or control. The property owner(s) should be aware of the development of cracks in all concrete surfaces such as floor slabs and exterior stucco associated with normal concrete shrinkage during the curing process. These features depend chiefly upon the condition of concrete and weather conditions at the time of construction and do not reflect detrimental ground movement. Hairline stucco cracks will often develop at window/door corners, and floor surface cracks up to 1/s-inch wide in 20 feet may develop as a result of normal concrete __. shrinkage (according to the American Concrete Institute). This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to your tentative development plan, especially with respect to the height and location of cut and fill slopes, _- this report must be presented to us for review and possible revision. VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 • Phone(760)743-1214 • Fax(760)739.0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 25 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1, 2002 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., warrants that this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #02-141-P will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. -- We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. GE 7r i CE ennis Middleton `' " ' ` "s�'+`"� _ CEG #980xy:°'' W r� S ehdi S. Shariat L µo.,6174 °S'+ R #46174 UP.12-31-02 � ryrc-rvi. r � Steven J. Melzer RG #6953 JAY < B, h DM/SMSS/SJM/jt No. 6953 4 c Exp.6-/.t/o3,)'7�1 Distribution: Addressee (5) c:\jt\prelims.02\02-141-P VINJE&MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,INC.2450 Vineyard Avenue,#102,Escondido,California 92029.1229 Phone(760)743.1214 Fax(760)739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING! ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS TOM map printed on 02/27/02 from"Sandiego.tpo"and"UntidedApg" 117.20000° W 117.183331 W WGS84 117.166670 W PLATE 1 �` f z Af w ') .. M j m »cam �--� / REGIONAL INDEX AP , h� m s. st V-NlE JOB #02-141-P _ 'lJ '1 4. / JN r f /'3 - 'p-�Q , ..:� J �� l '.t\.i�' '4''�l-^•,`�'"�}y dr . sue! c Z cy �� .1 i i• r 1 7 1� '" ��s� Y a ✓,�J ;� �lif Z {-Jr �—,. i� ( �""�s� �-;� "' te O r..�,��.�.. s l ti • a PR O IATE SITE LOCATION M o �^-�W ..�_- Jcvc-� s1 t5-y.- Y �='� _- r-= .`�'._..`X '•i"� o J; U) Lo0 O It si:� 4!� .�.- aIA .Y O fEfi' �r I ARAZ t f 44 a?6 WT ,r fry �j ` i G i X85 L �J i r J _ v } f� &n. egutto 16 _.,'? 117.20000° W 117.163330 W WGS84117,166670 W •NtIMN MLE ,moo im FEET 0 500. 1000. Pa rated$omTOPO!®1999WIIdHOWOTProdwti.=(WW t W.COm) CL �d U) �� T a z O o = j z cn o , o .�y z0 �12bs X V w J 4- Cl$ E x 0 L CL o Q Ott II T W J Cl OU HONVU VNnlu J N W Q m J 3 -r- 0.. Cd cri o ° cis m N U c W CL 0 uj CL o U D �- N H U 3dOlS lllj l:� � ~ O U N d J w� m p W F Ujj LL (`1 ui N a It D F- T dd no'-zrt L J H m 10 u' m m � r C � PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL Q GRAVELS CLEAN GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. J w o° GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN I_ N OF COARSE GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines. p Q 5% FINES) U) 2 O FRACTION IS GRAVEL GM silt a LL Z LLJ y gravels, gravel-sand silt mixtures, non plastic fines. w 0 Z N LARGER THAN WITH z J= U) NO. 4 SIEVE FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. fr Q 1 j SANDS CLEAN 0 = CC w SANDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. W Z � � MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN CrH Cc OF COARSE 5% FINES) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. O W _j FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. U ¢ rn SMALLER THAN WITH NO. 4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. LL N ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine U) O W a) SILTS AND CLAYS sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. O0 Q > LIQUID LIMIT IS CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy 2 w clays, silty clays, lean clays. W 1: U) a) LESS THAN 50% z Z W 00 OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. < ¢ N MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty 0 w Fr O SILTS AND CLAYS soils, elastic silts. Z 0 0 ¢ Z LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. F- � = GREATER THAN 50% I— OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organlc soils. GRAIN'SIZES U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY ANDS, GRAVELS AND BLOWS/FOOT CLAYS AND STRENGTH BLOWS/FOOT NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 VERY SOFT 0- '/4 0 - 2 LOOSE 4- 10 SOFT /4 /2 2 - 4 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 FIRM 1/2 1 4- 8 DENSE 30 - 50 STIFF 1 2 8- 16 VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2 -4 16 -32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 -- 1. Blow count, 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler (ASTM D-1586) 2. Unconfined compressive strength per SOILTEST pocket penetrometer CL-700 A = undisturbed chunk sample 246 = Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM D-1586) with blow counts per 6 inches ❑ = disturbed sample I I 246 = California Sampler with blow counts per 6 inches =sand cone test VINJE & MIDDLETON KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS ENGINEERING, INC. Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487) 2450 Vineyard Ave., #102. Escondido, CA 92029-1229 PROJECT NO. KEY Date: 2-28-02 Logged by: SJM T-1 FIELD USCS FIELD DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (ft) DESCRIPTION ("/o) (Pcf) ("/o) TOPSOIL: - 1 - ■ Clayey to silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Loose. 20% SM/SC - rock fragments to 6". — 2 ST-1 3 - BEDROCK: W - - Meta-volcanic rock. Fine grained. Yellowish to red-brown CL/GM - 4 - color. Hard. Fractured. Attitude of dominant fractures. N22 °W/630 NE; N43 1E, 64 1SW. ST-2 - 5 - - 6 - End Test Trench at 2'. Refusal. (No caving. No groundwater.) - 7 - - 8 - Date: 3-13-02 Logged by: SJM T-2 FIELD USCS FIELD DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (ft) DESCRIPTION (^/o) (Pcf) ("/o) TOPSOIL: - 1 - Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Loose. 10% rock SM fragments to 6". ST-1 2 ❑ - - BEDROCK: 19.9 156.9 - - 3 - Meta-volcanic rock. Fine grained. Clayey. Yellowish CL/GM - - red-brown color. Highly weathered. Becomes stiff with - 4 - depth. Locally hard. Locally fractured: N25°E/vert. _ - - ST-2 - 5 - End Test Trench at 5'. - 6 - (No caving. No Groundwater.) - 7 - VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC TS1`TRIC LpS 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 Escondido, California 92029-1229 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 02-141-P PLATE 3 V Sand Cone Test ■ Bulk Sample ❑ Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rings Date: 2-28-02 Logged by: SJM T-3 FIELD USCS FIELD DRY RELATIVE (ft) DESCRIPTION DEPTH SAMPLE SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (°/u) (PCf) N TOPSOIL: — 1 Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Loose. 20% rock SM -fragments to 6"diameter. ST-1 - 2 - ❑ 7.3 - - BEDROCK: - 3 - Meta-volcanic rock. Fine grained. Yellowish brown to red- - - brown color. Locally gray color. Highly fractured. Hard. CL/GM 4 - - Dominant fractures: N53°W/70 0SW/N66°SE. ST-2 - End Test Trench at 4'. Refusal. - 6 - (No caving. No groundwater.) - 7 - - 8 - Date: 2-28-02 Logged by: SJM T-4 FIELD USCS FIELD DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (ft) DESCRIPTION (^/o) (W) M) TOPSOIL: - 1 - Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Loose. 25% rock SM fragments to 6"diameter. ST-1 - 2 - BEDROCK: - 3 - Meta-volcanic rock. Aphanitic texture. Yellowish to red- CL/GM - brown color. Fractured. Very hard. - 4 - Fractures: N85 0W/83 1SW. - ST-2 - 5 - End Test Trench at 2%'. Refusal. - 6 - (No caving. No Groundwater.) - 7 - VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC TcTRNN 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD Escondido, California 92029-1229 Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 02-141-P PLATE 4 V Sand Cone Test ■ Bulk Sample ❑ Chunk Sample O Driven Rin s Date: 2-28-02 Logged by: SJM T-5 FIELD DEPTH SAMPLE USCS FIELD DRY RELATIVE (ft) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (%) (PCf) (%) TOPSOIL: - 1 - Rocks in clayey to silty sand matrix. Brown color. Moist. SM Loose. 70% rock to 18" in diameter. ST-1 - 2 - BEDROCK: 3 Metavolcanic rock. Aphanitic texture. Red-brown to gray color. Fractured. Hard. ST-2 CUGM - 4 - - 5 - End Test Trench at 3'. Refusal. (No caving. No groundwater.) - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - Date: Logged by: FIELD USCS FIELD DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE DESCRIPTION SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (ft) (%) (Pcf) N) - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC TESTNC -ILOG 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD Escondido, California 92029-1229 AD Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 02-141-P PLATE 5 V Sand Cone Test ■ Bulk Sample ❑ Chunk Sample O Driven Rings -Z- N N" 4 t ......... X\ 1 77 .4 7 .................. 1 CD N d, C� y ZW ep .......... SITE =.40 Centres.. M". :!Z:` _0, N�,�, a 30 20 10 0 30 MILES FAULT EPICENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION INDICATED EARTHQUAKE EVENTS THROUGH 75 YEAR PERIOD (1900-1974) Map data is compiled from various sources including California Division of Mines and Geology, California Institude of Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Map is reproduced from California Division of Mines and Geology, "Earthquake Epicenter Map of California; Map Sheet 39." Earthquake Magnitude . ............. 4.0 TO 4.9 (D ............ 5.0 TO 5.9 PROJECT: — Job #02-141-P ............ 6.0 TO 6.9 O .......... 7.0 TO 7.9 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN Fault, PLATE: 6 ISOLATION JOINTS AND RE-ENTRANT CORNER REINFORCEMENT Typical - no scale _ (a) (b) ISOLATION JOINTS CONTRACTION JOINTS (C) RE-ENTRANT CORNER CRACK RE-ENTRANT CORNER-y. REINFORCEMENT 3 NO. 4 BARS PLACED 1.5" BELOW TOP OF SLAB x NOTES: w 1. Isolation joints around the columns should be either circular as shown in (a)or diamond shaped as shown in (b). If no isolation joints are used around columns, or if the corners of the isolation joints do not meet the contraction joints, radial cracking as shown in (c)may occur(reference ACI). - 2. In order to control cracking at the re-entrant corners (±2700 corners), provide reinforcement as shown in (c). 3. Re-entrant corner reinforcement shown herein is provided as a general guideline only and is subject to verification and changes by the project architect and/or structural engineer based upon slab geometry, location, and other engineering and construction factors. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. PLATE 7 RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Typical - no scale draina e �- - v. Granular, non-expansive backfill. Compacted. : ' _ Waterproofing t�. Filter Material. Crushed rock (wrapped in filter fabric) or Class 2 Permeable Material Perforated drain pipe 1�2 (see specifications below) -. :.., . i Cf SP OATIONS GAi.Tt 4iVS # RM�E MA7tCi�RL �i :VXS STA41DARf} Competent, approved sly sf�E °Io PASSIN - soils or bedrock t fd0: 114.. . 9Ftw1 QQ 3!8 ... :> 4.10Et ado 4... J 254(3 Sand Equivalent� 75 <: �. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Provide granular,non-expansive backfill soil in 1:1 gradient wedge behind wall. Compact backfill to minimum 90%of laboratory standard. 2. Provide back drainage for wall to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressures. Use drainage openings along base of wall or back drain system as outlined below. 3. Backdrain should consist of 4"diameter PVC pipe(Schedule 40 or equivalent)with perforations down. Drain to suitable outlet at minimum 1%. Provide%"- 1'/2"crushed,gravel filter wrapped in fi lter fabric(Miraf 140N or equivalent). Delete filter fabric wrap if Caltrans Class 2 permeable material is used. Compact Class 2 material to minimum 90%of laboratory standard. 4. Seal back of wall with waterproofing in accordance with architect's specifications. 5. Provide positive drainage to disallow ponding of water above wall. Lined drainage ditch to minimum 2%flow away from wall is recommended. *Use 1'/cubic foot per foot with granular backfill soil and 4 cubic foot per foot if expansive backfill soil is used. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. PLATE 8 THE ORIGINAL -01F THIE-; WAS RECORDED ON NOH , �4. DOCUMENT NUMBER 29003-1406105 Recording requested by: GREGORY J. SMITH• COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE City of Encinitas TIME: 12:05 PM When recorded mail to: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY) ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY GRANT OF OPEN SPACE/HABITAT PRESERVATION EASEMENT Assessors Parcel No. 264-451-03 Project No.: 03-065 WO 0. 7592-G Dennis Franklin Jones and Karen Michelle Jones as community property with rights of survivorship, hereinafter called GRANTORS) do (es) hereby grant, convey and dedicate to the CITY OF ENCINITAS, State of California, hereinafter called GRANTEE, (A) A perpetual easement for OPEN SPACE purposes over, upon, across and under the Subject Land, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and no building, structure or other thing whatsoever shall be constructed, erected, placed or maintained on the Subject Land except all necessary public utility lines and activities allowed under Streambed Alteration Agreement# RS-2003-0008. (8) The perpetual right, but not the obligation to enter upon the Subject Land and remove any buildings, structures or other things whatsoever constructed, erected, placed or maintained on the Subject Land contrary to any term, covenant or condition of this easement and to do any work necessary to eliminate the effects of any excavation or placement of sand, soil, rock or gravel or any other material done or placed on the Subject Land contrary to any term, covenant or conditions of this easement. GRANTOR covenants and agrees for himself and his successors and assigns as follows: (A) That it shall not erect, construct, place or maintain, or permit the erection, construction, placement or maintenance of any building or structure or other thing whatsoever on the Subject Land other than all necessary public utility lines and activities allowed under Streambed Alteration Agreement# RS-2003-0008. (B) That it shall not use the Subject Land for any purpose except as OPEN SPACE purposes. (C) That it shall not excavate or grade or permit any excavating or grading to be done, or place or allow to be placed any sand, soil, rock, gravel or other material whatsoever on 7449 the Subject Land without the written permission of the City or its successors or assigns: provided, however, that Grantor may excavate, grade or place sand, soil, rock gravel, native vegetation, or other material on the Subject Land as may be permitted by special use permit issued pursuant to the zoning ordinance of the City of Encinitas and all necessary utility lines. (D) That this Open Space Easement shall preclude vegetation removal or additions with the following exceptions: brush clearing for fire protection purposes shall be permitted upon written order by the appropriate fire fighting or fire protection agencies, and the removal of hazardous substances or conditions or diseased plants or trees. (E) That the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein may be specifically enforced or enjoined by proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California. (F) That no invasive landscaping shall be planted in areas adjacent to the Open Space Easement. (G) That no outdoor lighting shall be directed upon the Open Space Easement. The grant of this easement and its acceptance by the City of Encinitas shall not authorize the public or any members thereof to use or enter upon all or any portion of the Subject Land, it being understood that the purpose of this easement is solely to restrict the uses to which the Subject Land may be put. This easement shall bind the Grantor and his successors and assigns. Dated this o20 4., day of Akve mb-e� , 200-3 11 /,A 0 A Da a rantor rt a o 0 3 ---- D e Grantor Date Grantor Signature of Grantor's to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgements. 7449 This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant to the City of Encinitas, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned agent on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas adopted on November 9, 1994 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: By: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas Notarization not required 7449 CALlron m ALL-PUGPOSE AMNOIr:LEDGMEt.T State of 1 County of On i )3 before me, OL- Pe sonally appeared N N e/r- .v ��I�wtlat ersonally known to(ne-OR-D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) . . whose name(s)• ar ubscribed to the within instrument . c and acknQQedged to me that helsh�executed the same In ri � " ei uthorized capauty(ies),and that by OFFICIAL SEAL hrs/hee signatures)art the instrument the person(s). �. ARTHUR P L SEAL LA or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, �I NOTARY PUBLIC•CALIFORNIA� executed the instrument. 1 COMM.NO.1334102 \�UTY SAN MY COMM.P.JAON.7,2006 j f YJITNE y hand and oNic , u tgn.wl,a rrwq,� \ r zA - OPTIONAL 1 Though the intormation below is not required by fan:it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent Haudulent removal and readattvaeat of this form to another document. Description of Attached cumentt' Tale or Type of Document: ( Document Date: Number of Pages: t Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: O Individual ❑ Individual O Corporate Officer O Corporate Officer Title(s): Titte(s): ❑ Partner —D Limited ❑General /l Partner—O Limited O General i O Attorney-in-Fact O Attorney-in-Fact D Trustee ❑ Trustee oil D Guardian or Conservator ' :'�1 ❑ Guardian or Conservator ZF =-t D Other: lop of rn,,(„n belt ❑•Other: top or irwft We Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: t t, -tiw w.^�•.1���.w �w� mow.....v.. �...� w��r-✓'i/1 �� w�. � ^�ti=w ww. - t tt--1.. 1. . •,A. ......�.E.':i -( .I.•. ��1,1}:Ip: ly,. �}" 1 ,I\ rrt:. {.1'T1Y:A.1 ( •1•. :1�:•rF'L•� r /.: k.+•t•" L,'1N h- EXHIBIT "'A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION AN EASEMENT FOR OPENSPACE PURPOSES OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3278 IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1974 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS . COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF NORTH 88 044' 11" WEST (RECORD SOUTH 88 009' 48" WEST) A DISTANCE OF 20 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 88 044' 11" WEST 40 . 52 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 13 052 ' 37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 58 . 59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 047 ' 06" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 52 . 93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28 015 ' 24" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 72 . 19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61 018 ' 20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 70 . 76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79 030 ' 56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 66. 53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51 047 ' 01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 21 . 75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 019 ' 20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13 . 58 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 02 002 ' 45" WEST (RECORD SOUTH 1 003' 16" EAST) , A DISTANCE OF 63 . 43 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 74 027 ' 32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 41 . 17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78 038 ' 14" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 38 . 59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 63 040 ' 24" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 72 . 98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58 000 ' 10" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 65 . 65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 26 042 ' 12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 121 . 70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17 059 ' 39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 43 . 19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02 013 ' 18" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 53 . 24 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OND Q� C. �"� No. 211 'i OPEN SPACE EASEMENT PARCEL 2 P. 0. B. P. 0. C. N88 '44'11"W 279. 98' 40.52' 20. 00 m_ o mN S13 '52'37"W� PARCEL 3 58.59' I z un U LU PARCEL MAP 3278 W S22 '47'06"W 52.93' � Q 3 `ti z _ z v n,co S28 '15'24"W j / Lo J Q,u, 72. 19' . m S61 '18'20"W =� w ° 70- 76' /�;' "' C6 m S51 '47'01"W � ,�o °o "' 3 21. 75' `- ��o C'U un in v v - N N79 '30'56"W ti 0 66.53' ° co o ( z NO2 '02'45"E / 63.43' S58 '00'10"W 65.65' S63 '40'24"W 72.96' N78 '38'14"E S74 '27'32"E 38.59' 42. 17' �30.00' PRIVATE POAD EASEMENT S88 '58'37"E 280.00 ' FORM RANCH ROAD �NAND INDICATES EASEMENT AREA LS 5211 06/30/07 PASCO ENGINEERING G (858) 259-8212 OF CALZF�� 535 N. HWY i01, STE. A PE 1034 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, those parties concerned, desire to have the Deed of Trust recorded �gi IIA2O02 as File/Page No. 2002-M9)u-N subordinated to Grant of Open Space/Habitat Preservation Easement ("DOCUMENT" hereinafter) required as condition of approval of DATED BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE Title: DATED BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE By: Title: Signature of BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgements. I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas consents to the making of the foregoing Subordination Agreement, and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. nj Date: By: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas 7449 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF San Diego On November 20, 2003 before me, Darlene F. Tighe a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Foster K. Brown personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. DARLENE COMM rn NOTARY PUBLIGCAL1FORNIA N San Diego County My Comm.ExPirea Mach 1 i,2004 Signature SL(y,'CkPU-) This area for official notarial seal ESCROW NO.: 000001-SS TITLE ORDER NO.:ACCOMODATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature This area for official notarial seal ESCROW NO.: 000001-SS TITLE ORDER NO.:ACCOMODATION BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION AND COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS Fortuna Ranch Road Project City of Encinitas, California APN 264-451-03 July 22,2002 Prepared for: Quality Solutions Consulting Group Contact:Mr. Greg Williams 7028 Whitewater Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: (760) 500-1255 IE Prepared by: Merkel & Associates,Inc. Contact:Ms. Diana M. Jensen �� '' �' 2002 5434 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 k �. •fir ri ,�,. r r Phone: (858) 560-5465 �� rw � _''uCiNi '''_-._.__- . --.• Fax: (858) 560-7779 E-mail: djensen @merkelinc.com Diana M. Jensen, Lead Biolo t/Projec Manager —z::) Gr�G� Brian D. Parker, Biologist/Assistant Project Manager Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARYOF FINDINGS...................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................2 PROJECTSITE LOCATION........................................................................................................................... 2 PHYSICALCHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................................... 2 PROPOSEDPROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 2 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................5 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................6 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 6 BotanicalResources-Flora................................................................................................................... 6 NativeUpland Communities............................................................................................................. 6 DieganCoastal Sage Scrub.....................................:...................................................................... 6 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed........................................ 6 MuleFat Scrub............................................................................................................................... 6 EmergentWetland ......................................................................................................................... 8 Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed/Disturbed Habitat................................................... 8 WetlandsFunctions and Values..................................................................................................... 8 Non-native Vegetation....................................................................................................................... 8 DisturbedHabitat........................................................................................................................... 8 EucalyptusWoodland.................................................................................................................... 8 ZoologicalResources-Fauna................................................................................................................ 9 WildlifeHabitats ...............................................................................................................................9 SageScrub..................................................................................................................................... 9 Wetlands........................................................................................................................................ 9 Non-native Vegetation with Reduced Biological Value................................................................ 9 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................... 10 SensitiveHabitats................................................................................................................................ 10 WildlifeCorridor Value...................................................................................................................... 10 Rare, Threatened, Endangered, Endemic and/or Sensitive Species or MRCP Covered Species....... 10 Focused Surveys for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher............................................................ 10 PROJECTIMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 11 VEGETATION COMMUNITY DIRECT IMPACTS......................................................................................... 11 SENSITIVESPECIES IMPACTS.................................................................................................................. 12 INDIRECTIMPACTS.................................................................................................................................. 12 CUMULATIVEIMPACTS ..............................................................................:............................................ 12 RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID,MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS .. 12 AVOIDANCEMEASURES.......................................................................................................................... 12 MITIGATIONREQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................. 12 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 14 Merkel&Associates, Inc.-08-094-02 i Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff............................................................ 5 Table 2. Quantitative Summary of Impacts to On-site Vegetation Communities. ................................... I 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Location Map............................................................................................................... 3 Figure2. Vicinity Map. .............................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Biological Resources Map. ......................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. FLORA SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITE. ...........................................................A-1-1 APPENDIX 2. FAUNA SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED ON-SITE...............................A-2-1 APPENDIX 3. WETLAND DATA FORMS....................................................................................A-3-1 APPENDIX 4. WETLAND PHOTO POINTS.................................................................................A-4-1 Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 ii Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Juh•22, 2002 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT FORTUNA RANCH ROAD PROJECT CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 11erkel&Associates, Inc. July 22, 2002 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Merkel & Associates, Inc. conducted a general biological assessment, jurisdictional wetland delineation and focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher at the Fortuna Ranch Road project site, at the request of Quality Solutions Consulting Group. The 2.18-acre project site consists of sage scrub habitat at the northwestern portion of the site, and disturbed non-native vegetation at the southeastern portion of the site. A minor ephemeral drainage, consisting primarily of disturbed vegetation and a few small areas of wetland habitats, runs through the center of the site, from the northeastern corner to the western boundary of the property. The project site is delineated within a MRCP Biological Core and Linkage, Focused Planning Area; however, the site has a low potential for functioning as a local wildlife corridor linking patches of habitat to larger preserve areas, due to the narrow widths (typically <50 feet) of unobstructed habitat between the surrounding urban development, consisting of open, ranch-style housing. No sensitive species were detected or are expected to occur on the project site. The proposed project is expected to directly impact portions of the on-site sage scrub and disturbed habitats; no impacts are expected to occur to the on-site wetland habitats and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed. With implementation of the subsequent avoidance and mitigation measures, all biological impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to a level below significant under CEQA and ensure compliance with the MHCP. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 1 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 INTRODUCTION Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) conducted a general. biological resources assessment, jurisdictional wetland delineation and focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (CAGN) surveys on the Fortuna Ranch Road project site, at the request of Mr. Greg Williams (Quality Solutions Consulting Group). The purpose of these investigations was to determine the extent of the biological resources present within the study area, identify potential biological resource impacts resulting from the proposed project, and recommend measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate these project impacts consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Encinitas Public Review Draft Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MRCP) Subarea Plan dated June 2001. PROJECT SITE LOCATION The 2.18-acre project site, Assessor's Parcel Number 264-451-03, is regionally situated in the City of Encinitas, adjacent to the north side of Fortuna Ranch Road, near Akita Lane and approximately one mile east of Lone Jack Road (Figure 1). An unnamed dirt road runs along the eastern boundary of the site and an undeveloped lot is located to the west of the site. The biological study area is located in Section 4, Township 13 South, Range 3 West of the United States Geological Survey Rancho Santa Fe, California Quadrangle at approximate Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates 481,400 E; 6,358,350 N(Figure 2). PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The study area consists entirely of undeveloped land. At the northwestern portion of the property, a small south-facing slope, consisting of native sage scrub habitat, is located at an approximate high elevation of 400 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). A minor ephemeral drainage, consisting primarily of disturbed vegetation and a few small areas of wetland habitats, runs through the center of the site, from the northeastern corner to the western boundary of the property, and is located at a low elevation of approximately 370 feet above MSL. Relatively flat terrain, consisting of disturbed vegetation, is located at the southeastern portion of the property. Underlying surficial geology is mapped as Jura-Trias metavolcanic rocks (Rogers 1965) and on-site soils are mapped as Auld Clay (Bowman 1973). Urban development, consisting of open, ranch-style housing surrounds the project site. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the construction of a single-family residence on the northwestern portion of the property and a bridge, spanning the width of the drainage, at the northeastern corner of the property to provide access to the residence. A 50' wetland buffer (25' on each side of the streambed/wetlands centerline) is proposed to be dedicated as biological open space to comply with MHCP requirements. The disturbed vegetation south of the wetland buffer is proposed to be cleared. Fire clearing requirements include a 75' landscaped and irrigated zone from the western and eastern property boundaries, a 50' zone from the proposed 25' half width of the wetland buffer, and a 30' landscaped and irrigated zone in conjunction with a 6'foot masonry wall along the northern property boundary. Access to the construction area from Fortuna Ranch Road will be provided via a temporary crossing placed over an existing access road where the drainage occurs at the northeastern corner of the site, that will allow transport vehicles and construction equipment to pass without altering the streambed. Although not designated on the project plans, construction staging areas will remain outside of the proposed wetland buffer. A specific project schedule is not currently available. Merkel&Associates, Inc. 998-094-02 2 / . _ LAI 0 cn IL 0 A . \ � L :01 C4 ti IA 0 , Q CL LIN Ll 0 1A / . , � � ell L 4-P 62) —Ar M IA L L Ll ILO MA#98-094-02 July 22, 2002 t e Project Site f Ila r � _ I } r i t ' i i N v` CAA11 w AQp 1 .285 �' S5 Sa?z Dieyui.tt> S Revrcrn r Vicinity Map Figure Fortuna Ranch Road Project 2 111 2,0001 Source: Rancho Santa Fe,CA Quadrangle(USGS 1975) Merkel& Associates, Inc. Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS Existing biological literature pertaining to the project site vicinity was reviewed prior to the initiation of field investigations. This literature review included examination of the M&A Biological Constraints Report previously prepared for this site, dated August 24, 1998, and recent California Natural Diversity Database records for the Encinitas area. Applicable information was used to assess the presence or potential for presence of sensitive habitats and species on or near the project site. M&A biologists Kyle L. Ince ("Certified" Wetland Delineator) and Brian D. Parker conducted general botanical/zoological investigations and a jurisdictional wetland delineation on March 11. 2002 (Table 1). All on-site vegetation communities and slope exposures were surveyed on-foot. Plant identifications were either resolved in the field or later determined through verification of voucher specimens, and wildlife species were noted through direct observation (aided with the use of binoculars), identification of avian songs or call notes, or by observation of indirect sign (burrows, tracks, scat, etc.). The jurisdictional wetland delineation was performed according to the routine on- site determination methods noted in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual; in addition, the delineation was expanded to identify non-wetland waters and streambeds under federal and state jurisdiction, respectively. Evidence supporting jurisdictional determinations was recorded on wetland field data forms and depicted in photographs of the data points. Vegetation communities, wetland habitats and jurisdictional waterways present within the study area were plotted on a topographical map of the project site. M&A permitted biologists, Kyle L. Ince, Craig H. Reiser and Geoffrey L. Rogers, and assistant biologist Brian D. Parker, conducted three on-site focused CAGN surveys (Table 1), as authorized under federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit #797999 and California Endangered Species Act Memorandum of Understanding. These surveys were conducted according to the recommended guidelines noted in the U.S.,Fish and Wildlife Service CAGN Survey Protocol dated July 28, 1997. Biologists slowly walked survey routes in appropriate CAGN sage scrub habitat. Taped recordings of CAGN vocalizations, as well as "pishing," were used to elicit vocal responses, and an approximate five to ten minute time interval was allowed for a response, particularly from advantageous viewpoints. CAGN survey routes were plotted on a topographical map of the project site and photographs were taken to visually depict the native habitats present within the study area. Table 1. Summary of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff. Conditions iological Survey >_ Date` Time:,. _ M&A Biologists (start-end). CAGN Survey#1 1000-1200 Weather: 0-0%(cc) Kyle L. Ince General Biology March 11,2002 1200-1430 Wind: 0-2(BS) Brian D. Parker Wetland Delineation 1430-1600 Temperature:66°-72°F Weather: 0-0%(cc) CAGN Survey#2 March 19,2002 0930-1100 Wind: 0-5 (BS) Craig H. Reiser Temperature:60°-63°F Brian D.Parker Weather: 0-0%(cc) CAGN Survey#3 March 26,2002 0945-1130 Wind: 0-0(BS) Geoffery L. Rogers Temperature: 58°-62°F Brian D. Parker cc=cloud cover;BS=Beaufort Scale Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 5 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 The aforementioned field investigations were conducted to adequately assess the biological resources present and/or potentially present within the study area. Since surveys were conducted within a single season and only during daylight hours, some species of annual plants, migratory birds, and mammals may not have been detected due to seasonal and temporal species variability. However, based on the literature research conducted and knowledge of species-specific habitat requirements, no biological survey limitations are expected for the proposed project. RESULTS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Botanical Resources-Flora A total of five vegetation communities/categories, defined according to the current Holland Code classification system (Holland 1986) and San Diego County terrestrial vegetation community descriptions (Oberbauer 1996), were identified on the project site. Native vegetation communities include Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Mule Fat Scrub and Emergent Wetland. Non-native vegetation categories include Disturbed Habitat and Eucalyptus Woodland. In addition, jurisdictional Non- wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed consisting of Disturbed Habitat were delineated on the project site. The following text discusses these vegetation communities/categories and the associated floral resources (Hickman 1993) (Figure 3; Appendices I through 4). Native Upland Communities Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (Holland Code 3251Q) occupies a total of approximately 1.02 acres of land within the northwestern portion of the project site. The sage scrub is dominated by California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica), with additional flora species including Flat-top Buckwheat (Erigonum fasciculatum var. polifolium), Laurel Sumac (Malosma laurina), Deerweed (Lotus scoparius), Goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii) and Mesa Bush Mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus). An area adjacent to the north of the drainage, approximately 0.38 acre, consists of disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub with pioneering sage scrub plants and a higher proportion of non-native flora species, such as Tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) and Short-pod Mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). The overall quality of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub on-site is considered to be moderate to low, given the disturbed nature of the vegetation and fragmentation of sage scrub habitat surrounding the project site; however, the on-site sage scrub does provide some measure of habitat connectivity with the undeveloped property to the west and narrow corridor of native and non-native vegetation between houses to the north. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed Mule Fat Scrub One area of Mule Fat Scrub (Holland Code 63310) comprises approximately 0.04 acre of wetland habitat located in the drainage near the southwestern corner of the project site. This area is dominated by Mule Fat (Baccharis salicifolia), a facultative wetland plant (FACW) (USFWS 1991), and has evidence of disturbance with several inclusions of Short-pod Mustard. Wetland hydrology and hydric soils are exhibited by the presence of drainage patterns and low-chroma color/mottling of the soils, respectively. The overall quality of the Mule Fat Scrub on-site is considered to be poor, Merkel&Associates, Inc. 998-094-02 6 M&A#98-094-02 July 22 2002 " k •I \ I •� k DIS :y EWE DP i DP#3 k i 9'�Y.) EW DP#2 EU Y X DIST 1r � x x DCSS x x - x k k Fortuna Ranch Road LEGEND Project Site Boundary •Wetland Data Points(DP#) Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed *%.* Proposed Wetland Buffer(25'from centerline) .Vegetation Communities (Holland Code=HC/Oberbauer Code--OC) " Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub(DCSS) /A Mule Fat Scrub(MFS) 0 Disturbed Habitat(DIST) " (HC 32500) '(HC 63310) (OC 11300) Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub(DIST DCSS) Emergent Wetland(EW) T T Eucalyptus Woodland (EUC) (HC 32500) "' (OC 52440) (OC 11100) N Biological Resources Map Fortuna Ranch Road Figure 3 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Feet APN 264-451-03 Merkel&Associates, Inc. Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 given the disturbed nature of the vegetation and limited amount of wetland habitat on-site; however, this area does provide habitat connectivity with the undeveloped property to the west. Emergent Wetland Two small areas of Emergent Wetland (Oberbauer Code 52440) totaling approximately 0.01 acres of wetland habitat are located along the drainage near the center and western portions of the project site. These areas have evidence of disturbance and are dominated by non-native, herbaceous facultative (FAC) and FACW plants including Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) (FAC), Bristly Ox-tongue (Picris echioides) (FAC) and Curly Dock (Rumex crispus) (FACW) and Mariposa Rush (Juncos dubius) (FACW) (USFWS 1991). Wetland hydrology and hydric soils are exhibited by the presence of drainage patterns and low-chroma color/mottling of the soils, respectively. The overall quality of the Emergent Wetland on-site is considered to be poor, given the disturbed nature of the vegetation and limited amount of wetland habitat on-site; however, these areas do provide habitat connectivity along the drainage and with the undeveloped property to the west. Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed/Disturbed Habitat The majority of the on-site drainage consists of Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed, totaling approximately 0.01 acre. These portions of the drainage exhibit evidence of wetland hydrology, but lack hydrophytic vegetation. The streambed ranges from approximately 2 to 3 feet in width, and consists of Disturbed Habitat with a dominance of upland weedy species, such as Short-pod Mustard and Red Brome (Bromits madritensis ssp. rubens). The overall quality of the Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed on-site is considered to be poor given the disturbed nature of the drainage. Wetlands Functions and Values The on-site streambed and associated wetland habitats have decreased physical, chemical and biological values. Physical functions, such as groundwater recharge and sediment retention are considered to be low based on the narrow width, of the drainage; and chemical functions, such as toxicant retention and nutrient transformation are also considered to be low based on the lack of hydrophytic vegetation. The on-site wetland habitats and streambed are of poor quality, thereby decreasing their biological value; however, their adjacency to the native sage scrub habitat on-site and their continuity with the undeveloped property to the west does provide moderate quality habitat value for wildlife. Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Disturbed Habitat (Oberbauer Code 11300) occupies approximately 1.10 acres of land within the southeastern portion of the project site. Fennel (Foeniculutn vulgare) comprises the majority of this area, and the understory contains less than 10 percent vegetative cover of non-native weedy species, such as Common Sow Thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), Short-pod Mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and Tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). The habitat is classified as "disturbed" based on the high predominance of non-native, weedy species indicating surface disturbance and the presence of debris (Ogden 2000: Appendix F). The disturbed areas on-site do not contain native vegetation and have little biological value. Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus Woodland (Oberbauer Code 1 1100) occupies approximately 0.01 acre of land along the dirt road near the southeastern corner of the project site. This area consists of a few mature, exotic Merkel& Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 8 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Julv 22, 2002 plantings of Australian Eucalyptus (Eucalyptts sp.) trees. These trees do not form %voodland habitat and are expected to provide little biological value. Zoological Resources-Fauna Wildlife Habitats The value of an area to wildlife is primarily dependent on both physical and biological factors. Additional important elements include the location of habitat relative to other land uses, the quality of habitat within and adjacent to an area, and the uniqueness of a habitat within a regional context. The following section summarizes the characteristics of the wildlife habitats present within the study area and the associated faunal resources (butterflies, Opler 1999 and Glassberg 1995; amphibians and reptiles, Crother 2000; birds, American Ornithologists' Union 1998; and mammals, Wilson and Cole 2000 and Jones et al. 1997). Sage Scrub Locally common species of butterflies, birds and small mammals were noted to occupy the approximate 1.02 acres of sage scrub habitat present within the study area. Butterfly species, including the Sara Orangetip (Anthocharis sara Sara), Cabbage White (Artogeia rapae), Southern Blue (Glaucopsyche lygdamus australis) and Acmon Blue (Icaricia acmon), were found nectaring on various sage scrub plants. Numerous species of birds were found foraging in the sage scrub, including such species as the Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatits), California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis) and White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leztcophrys). One Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagzts audubonii) was also noted. The majority of the sage scrub habitat on-site exhibits a high level of disturbance with limited floral species diversity and lack of rocky outcrop features; therefore, wildlife species diversity is expected to be low. , Wetlands Several of the same locally common species of butterflies and birds were noted in the approximate 0.05-acre of wetland habitats present within the study area. Such species included the Cabbage White, Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), Western Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica) and Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Although wetland ecosystems typically harbor greater wildlife diversity and abundance than upland habitats, the wetlands on-site exhibit a high level of disturbance with limited physical, chemical and biological functions; therefore, wildlife species diversity is expected to be low. Non-native Vegetation with Reduced Biological Value The on-site areas consisting of non-native vegetation, which total approximately 1.11 acres, tend to provide decreased value for wildlife. Locally common species of butterflies and birds, such as the California Ringlet (Coenonympha californica), West Coast Lady (Vanessa anabella) and House Finch (Carpodacits mexicanus), were noted in the disturbed areas. The Eucalyptus trees may provide perching sites for raptors; however, these trees do not form a well-developed woodland and are located adjacent to limited sage scrub foraging habitat. These areas tend to have reduced biological value because they contain limited native vegetation and do not provide essential habitat connectivity. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 9 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sensitive Habitats Sensitive habitats include vegetation communities that support rare and endangered species, and/or are naturally limited in distribution within a certain region or have been substantially depleted by development. Several sensitive wildlife species are dependent on sage scrub habitat, N'v hich has been substantially reduced in southern California largely due to urban and agricultural development. Wetland habitats have extremely high wildlife values, but are naturally limited in distribution, and have also been substantially depleted in southern California by urban development. although the sage scrub and wetlands present within the study area are considered to be sensitive habitat types, they tend to have decreased wildlife value and are not expected to be occupied by sensitive species. Wildlife Corridor Value Wildlife corridors play an important role in maintaining population viability and preserving biological diversity. Fragmented habitats support significantly lower numbers of species and increase the likelihood of extinction for species restricted to small areas (Belovsky et al. 1994). The project site is located within the Northeast Corner Parcels of the Encinitas "Eastern" Subarea (Ogden 2001: 2-4) and is delineated as a "softline" Focused Planning Area (FPA) (Ogden 2001: 4-31). These parcels collectively comprise a large block of undeveloped habitat supporting sensitive biological resources and provide continuity with additional biological resources located to the east inside the City's Sphere of Influence. Although the project site is considered to be a part of the MHCP Biological Core and Linkage Area, the site has a low potential for functioning as a local wildlife corridor linking patches of habitat to larger preserve areas, due to the narrow widths (typically <50 feet) of unobstructed habitat between the surrounding houses. Rare, Threatened, Endangered, Endemic and/or Sensitive Species or MHCP Covered Species Regulatory authority is issued over sensitive species designated as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or California Endangered Species Act, while other sensitivity listings by the state, local jurisdictions and private groups are generally advisory in nature (CDFG 2002a-d). No sensitive flora or fauna species were identified on the project site during the biological investigations. Further, given the disturbed and isolated nature of the habitats present within the study area, no additional narrow endemic/sensitive flora or fauna species are expected to occur on the project site. Focused Survevs for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher No coastal California gnatcatchers were detected within the project study area during the focused surveys. The quality of the on-site sage scrub habitat is considered to be of moderate to low value for gnatcatchers, given the disturbed nature of the vegetation and fragmentation of sage scrub habitat surrounding the project site. Coastal California gnatcatchers occupied habitat within the vicinity of the site vicinity in the past (Merkel 1998); however, since no gnatcatchers were detected during the focused surveys, and given the isolation of the on-site habitat among urban development, the coastal California gnatcatcher is not known or expected to now occur on the project site. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 10 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS CEQA defines a "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment' (California Resources Agency 2001a). Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects or impacts can produce a temporary or permanent biologically significant, "physical change" in the environment. CEQA guidelines define a direct impact or primary effect as '`effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place" (California Resources Agency 2001b). An indirect impact or secondary effect is defined as "effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." "Cumulative impacts refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (California Resources Agency 2001c). The cumulative impact from several projects is the...incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time." The following text provides a qualitative and, where possible, quantitative analysis of all expected biological resource impacts resulting from the proposed project and a determination of biological significance for each expected impact according to CEQA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY DIRECT IMPACTS The proposed project and required fuel modification zone is expected to directly impact portions of the on-site Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Disturbed Habitat (Table 2). The grading and soil excavation for the construction of the residential development will remain northwest of the proposed wetland buffer; and the construction of the bridge will completely span the width of the drainage to avoid direct impacts to the on-site wetland habitats and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed. Given the low biological value of the on-site Disturbed Habitat, direct impacts to this vegetation category would not be biologically significant under CEQA; however, since Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is a sensitive habitat type, impacts to this vegetation community would be biologically significant under CEQA and would require that mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level below significant. Table 2. Quantitative Summary of Impacts to On-site Vegetation Communities. Acres % Acres Acres(%) Biological Impacted Vegetation Community ( �< Remaining : Si ni gficance On-sitet ' i -site;. O Determination On-site. .E' Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 1.02 (47%) 0.67 (66%) 0.35 (34%) Significant Mule Fat Scrub 0.04 (2%) 0.00 (0%) 0.04 (2%) Not Applicable Emergent Wetland 0.01 (<1%) 0.00 (0%) 0.01 (<1%) Not Applicable Disturbed Habitat 1.10 (50%) 1.06 (96%) 0.04 (4%) Not Significant Eucalyptus Woodland 0.01 (<1%) 0.00 (0%) 0.01 (<1%) Not Significant Total: 2.18 (100%) 1.73 (79%) 0.45 (21%) Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 I Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 SENSITIVE SPECIES IMPACTS ' Raptor use of the study area is expected to be infrequent and intermittent, based on the disturbed and isolated nature of the site. The project site is not expected to support an abundant or diverse prey base, thus impacts to sensitive species of raptors, including raptor foraging, are not expected to be biologically significant. INDIRECT IMPACTS Project construction would produce minor indirect adverse effects on wildlife, most notably from the effects of noise and fugitive dust, and the disturbance/clearing of native vegetation could result in conditions suitable for non-native, weedy species intrusion. However, the temporary nature of these surficial impacts is not expected to be biologically significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The MHCP is being designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the region; therefore, projects that conform with the MRCP and implementing ordinances would not result in a significant cumulative impact for those biological resources adequately covered by the MRCP. The aforementioned direct and indirect impacts resulting from the proposed project would not be considered cumulatively considerable under CEQA if the avoidance and mitigation measures, as outlined in the subsequent section of this document, were implemented to ensure conformance with the MRCP. RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID,MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS AVOIDANCE MEASURES The following recommendations are provided to aid in eliminating incidental impacts to sensitive habitats within the study area. , 1. Prior to construction, orange construction fencing shall be installed along the southern perimeter of the proposed wetland buffer and grading shall not occur south of this fencing. Construction crews shall be made fully aware of this boundary. 2. Soils from construction grading shall be stockpiled at the northwestern corner of the site, to minimize erosion into the proposed wetland buffer area. 3. Staging/storage areas for construction equipment and materials shall be located at the northwestern corner of the site and no equipment maintenance shall be performed near the proposed wetland buffer where pollutants from the equipment may enter the preserve area. 4. No materials that could be deleterious to aquatic life shall be placed near the proposed wetland buffer. 5. Spoils, trash, or any debris shall be removed off-site to an approved disposal facility. 6. Project landscaping shall not include the use of invasive exotic species, which are able to proliferate and aggressively alter or displace indigenous biological communities. Specifically, the introduction of following invasive species shall be prohibited: Iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.), Fountain Grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana), Peruvian Pepper Tree(Schinus molle), and Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.). MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City has an interim "take" allowance for sage scrub habitat pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA. Impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub would therefore require a Habitat Loss Permit, and mitigation of sage scrub habitat at a 2:1 ratio (Ogden 2001: 4-23). Sage scrub mitigation will be achieved by Merkel& Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 12 - Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 purchasing an off-site portion of in-kind or out-of-kind habitat, preferably located within an FPA, or located outside an FPA if the habitat were determined to be a viable addition to the regional preserve system (Ogden 2001:4-22). The mitigation site will be located within the City of Encinitas or the City's Sphere of Influence; or within an unincorporated region of adjacent jurisdictions or gnatcatcher core areas. The City's MHCP Subarea Plan states that wetlands and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed located adjacent to proposed development shall be placed into biological open space and that a 50- foot wide buffer should be established adjacent to the preserved habitat (Ogden 2001: 4-13). However, given the limited amount of building area on the project site due to the location of the drainage and fuel modification zone requirements, as well as the disturbed nature of the on-site wetlands and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed, a 25-foot wide wetland buffer is proposed. Within the wetland buffer, no new development or other uses considered incompatible with adjacent preserve goals shall occur, and the buffer area shall be managed for natural biological values as part of the preserve system. With implementation of the aforementioned avoidance and mitigation measures, all biological impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to a level below significant under CEQA and ensure compliance with the MHCP. Merkel& Associates, Inc. 998-094-02 13 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(4PN264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Juh 22, 2002 REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, seventh ed. American tp Ornithologists' Union. Washington, D.C. Belovsky, G. E., J. A. Bissonette, R. D. Dueser, T. C. Edwards Jr., C. M. Lueke, M. E Ritchie, J. B. Slade, and F. H. Wagner. 1994. Management of Small Populations: Concepts Affecting The Recovery of Endangered Species. Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California, Part I and Pan II. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps. the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the County of San Diego Planning Department. Issued December, 1973. Part I, 104 pp., Part 11, 118 pp. +appendices— maps. California Resources Agency. 2001a January 1. CEQA Statute, Chapter 2.5, Section 20168. Cooperative effort among the California Resources Agency, its programs CERES and LUPIN, and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. <Iittp•//ceres.ca.aov/cega/stat/cliap2 5.html>. Accessed July 2002. . 2001b February 1. CEQA Guidelines,Article 20, Section 15358. Cooperative effort among the California Resources Agency, its programs CERES and LUPIN, and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. <http•//ceres ca aov/topic/env law/cega/guidelines/art20.litml>. Accessed July 2002. 2001c February 1. CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, Section 15355. Cooperative effort among the California Resources Agency, its programs CERES and LUPIN, and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. <Iittp•//ceres ca aoy/topic/env law/cega/guidelines/art2O.htmt>. Accessed July 2002. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database. 2002a July. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Biannual publication, Mimeo. 11 pp. <http•//wwv-,,v.dfg.ca.izov/whdab/TEAniMa!, dfl. Accessed July 2002. 2002b July. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biannual publication, Mimeo. 141 pp. <http•//www.dfL,.ca.gov/whdab/spplant.pdt>. Accessed July 2002. 2002c April. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Quarterly publication, Mimeo. 16 pp. <Iittp://www.dfg.ca.Qov/whdab,'TEPlants.pdf>. Accessed July 2002. 2002d January. Special Animals. . Quarterly publication, Mimeo. 51 pp. <http•//wvv\,v.dfa.ca.Qov/whdab/spanimals.pdt>. Accessed July 2002. 2001. California Natural Diversity Database, version 2.1.2C. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Data date July 9, 2001. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 14 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Juh,22, 2002 California Resources Agency. 200.1 February 1. CEQA, The California Environmental Quality Act. Cooperative effort among the California Resources Agency, its programs CERES and LUPIN, and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. <http•//ceres.ca.aov/cega/index.htinl>. Accessed July 2002. Crother, B. 2000. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, With Comments Regarding Confidence In Our Understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 29. Glassberg, J. 1995. Common Names of North American Butterflies Occuring North of Mexico. North American Butterfly Association. Morristown,New Jersey. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 1400pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 157 pp. Jones, C., R. Hoffmann, D. Rice, R. Baker, M. Engstrom, R. Bradley, D. Schmidly, C. Jones. 1997. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occas. Papers Mus. Texas Tech Univ. 173 pp. Merkel and Associates, Inc. 1998 August 24. Biological Constraints Report for the Fortuna Ranch Road Project Site, City of Encinitas. Prepared for Ms. Donna Monaghan. 3 pp. Munsell Color. 1974. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Macbeth, a Division of Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland. Oberbauer, T. 1996. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland's Descriptions. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, California. 6 pp. Opler, Paul A. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies, 2 I Edition (Peterson Field Guide series). Illustrated by Amy Bartlett Wright. Sponsored by the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Roger Tory Peterson Institute. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Co., Inc., Conservation Biology Institute. 2001 June. Public Review Draft Encinitas Subarea Plan. Prepared for the City of Encinitas. 8 Sections. <http•//www sandae ora/whats new/publications/environmental/mhcp encinitas toc.pdt>. Accessed July 2002. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. and Conservation Biology Institute. 2000 November. Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, Public Review Draft MHCP Plan. Volumes I and II. Rogers, Thomas H. 1966. Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. Sixth printing, 1992. Merkel& Associates, Inc. 498-094-02 15 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(A PN264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997 February 28. Presence/Absence Survey Protocol for the Coastal -California Gnatcathcer (Polioptila californica californica). United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Wetland Delineation Manual, Appendix C, Section 1: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Region 0—California. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1967. Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, California 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). Denver, Colorado or Reston, Virginia. Photo revised 1975. Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 2001. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Glenwood,NM. WTI 01-2. 143 pp. Wilson, D. and R. Cole. 2000. Common Names of Mammals of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Merkel&Associates, Inc. 998-094-02 16 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 APPENDICES livlerkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 Appendices Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 APPENDIX 1. FLORA SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITE. Vegetation Communities/Categories: S = Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub M = Mule Fat Scrub E = Emergent Wetland D = Disturbed Habitat U = Eucalyptus Woodland * = Denotes non-native flora species. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-1-] Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 Scientific Name CommonName Habitat DICOTYLEDONS Anacardiaceae - Sumac Family Afalosma laurina Laurel Sumac S Apiaceae- Carrot Family * Foeniculum vulgare Fennel D Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Artemisia californica California Sagebrush S Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush S Baccharis salicifolia Mule Fat M • Centaurea melitensis Tocalote D • Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle D Eriophyllum confertiorum var. confertiflorum Golden-yarrow S Filago californica California Filago S Gnaphalium californicum California Everlasting S Hemizonia fasciculata Fascicled Tarplant y S Hesperevax sparsiora Erect Evax S Isocoma menziesii var. menziesii Goldenbush S • Picris echioides Bristly Ox-tongue E • Sonchus oleraceits Common Sow Thistle D •Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur E Boraginaceae-Borage Family Cryptantha intermedia Nievitas Cryptantha S Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira S Plagiobothrys collinus var.gracilis Small California Popcornflower S Brassicaceae-Mustard Family * Brassica nigra Black Mustard D * Hirschfeldia incana Short-pod Mustard D Caprifoliaceae- Honeysuckle Family Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry S Cistaceae- Rock-Rose Family * Cistus incanus Purple Rock-rose D Convolvulaceae - Morning-Glory Family Calystegia macrostegia ssp. intermedia Morning-glory S Cucurbitaceae- Gourd Family Marah macrocarpzts var. macrocarpus Manroot, Wild-Cucumber S Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed S Merkel&Associates, Inc. 498-094-02 A-1-2 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 Common Scientific Name i Fabaceae - Pea Family Lotus scoparius ssp. brevialatus Deerweed S Geraniaceae - Geranium Family * Erodium cicutarium Red-stem Filaree D Hydrophyllaceae - Waterleaf Family Phacelia californica California Coast Phacelia S Lamiaceae -Mint Family Salvia mellifera Black Sage S Malvaceae - Mallow Family Malacothamnus fasciculatus Mesa Bush Mallow S Myrtaceae - Myrtle Family * Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus U Polygonaceae-Buckwheat Family Eriogonum fasciculatum var.fasciculatum Flat-top Buckwheat S * Rumex crispus Curly Dock E Primulaceae-Primrose Family * Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel S Scrophulariaceae-Figwort Family Mimulus aurantiacus forma "punicetts" San Diego Red Monkeyflower S Scrophularia californica ssp.floribunda California Figwort S Solanaceae- Nightshade Family Atropa belladonna Deadly Nightshade S Nicotiana attenuata Coyote Tobacco S Solanum parishii Parish's Nightshade S MONOCOTYLEDONS Cyperaceae- Sedge Family Eleocharis macrostachya Pale Spike-sedge E Iridaceae-Iris Family Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-eyed-grass S Juncaceae - Rush Family Juncus dubius Engelm. Mariposa Rush E Liliaceae -Lily Family Chlorogalum parviorum Small-flower Soap-plant S Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-1-3 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum Wild Hyacinth E Poaceae - Grass Family * Avena barbata Slender Wild Oat D * Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red Brome D Nassella lepida Foothill Needlegrass D Nassella pulchra Purple Needlegrass D * Polypogon monspeliensis Annual Beard Grass D Merkel&Associates, Inc. 998-094-02 A-1-4 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Julv 22, 2002 APPENDIX 2. FAUNA SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED ON-SITE. Habitat Types: S = Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub W = Wetlands N = Non-native Vegetation Abitndance Codes: A= Abundant: Almost always encountered in moderate to large numbers in suitable habitat and the indicated season. C = Common: Usually encountered in proper habitat at the given season. U= Uncommon: Infrequently detected in suitable habitat. May occur in small numbers or only locally in the given season. R= Rare: Applies to species that are found in very low numbers. 'Numbers' indicate the number of individuals observed during the recent survey work. Statics Codes (Birds Only): M= Migrant: Uses the site for brief periods of time,primarily during the spring and fall months. R= Year-round resident: Probable breeder on-site or in the vicinity. S = Spring/summer resident: Probable breeder on-site or in the vicinity. T= Transient: Uses site regularly but unlikely to breed on-site. W= Winter visitor: Does not breed locally. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-2-1 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 Common i Abundance BUTTERFLIES Pieridae (White, Orange-tip, and Sulfur Butterflies) Sara Orangetip Anthocharis sara sara S C - Cabbage White Artogeia rapae S C - Lycaenidae (Hairstreak, Copper, and Blue Butterflies) Southern Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus australis S C - Acmon Blue karicia acmon S C - Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies) California Ringlet Coenonympha californica D C - West Coast Lady Vanessa anabella D C - BIRDS Accipitridae (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus S U R Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S U R Phasianidae (Quails, Pheasants,and Relatives) California Quail Callipepla californica S C R Trochilidae (Hummingbirds) Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna S C R Cassin's Kingbird Tyranntts vociferans S C iVI Corvidae (Jays,Magpies, and Crows) Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica S C R American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S C R Common Raven Corvus corax S C R Timalidae (Babblers) Wrentit Chamaea fasciata S C R Aegithalidae (Bushtit) Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus S C R Mimidae (Mockingbirds and Thrashers) Northern Mockingbird 111limus polyglottos S C R California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum S C R Emberizidae (Warblers, Sparrows, Blackbirds and Relatives) Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus S C R California Towhee Pipilo crissalis S C R Song Sparrow <Vlelospiza melodia S C R White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys S C R Iterkel& Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-2-2 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 � � Abundance Fringillidae (Finches) House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus S C R Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria S C R MAMMALS Leporidae (Rabbits and Hares) Desert Cottontail Sylvilagazts audubonii S C - Merkel&Associates, Inc. 498-094-02 A-2-3 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Julv 22, 2002 APPENDIX 3. WETLAND DATA FORMS. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-3-1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Fortuna Ranch Road Date: 3-11-02 Applicant/Owner: Greg Williams County: SD Investigator: KLI, BDP State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑No Community ID: EW Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? E Yes p No Transect ID: DP1 Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 1 (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Xanthium spinosum H FACW 9. 2. Picris echioides H FAC 10. 3. Polypogon monspeliensis H FACW 11. 4. Pumex crispus H FACW 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. g. 16. Percentage of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-). 1009. Remarks: Weedy herbaceous wetland vegetation. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Described in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ® Aerial Photographs Inundated Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches No Recorded Data Available E] Water Marks Drift Lines Field Observations: Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to free Water in Pit none (in.) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Saturated Soil: none (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves E] Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Disturbed drainage channel. SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Auld Clay Drainage Class: well-drained Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Typic Chromoxererts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes p No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast) Texture,Concretions, Structure,etc. 0-12 - 10YR 3/3 2.5YR 4/6 5% clay Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in surface layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Low chroma color matrix with 5% mottles. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Highly weedy drainage channel adjacent to Mule Fat Scrub vegetation. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Ji DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Fortuna Ranch Road Date: 3-11-02 Applicant/Owner: Greg Williams County: SD Investigator: KLI, BDP State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑No Community ID: DIST Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? ® Yes ❑ No Transect ID: DP2 Is the area a potential Problem Area? p Yes ® No Plot ID: 2 (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Hirschfeldia incanas H NI 9. 2. Picris echioides H FAC 10. 3. Bromus madritensis H NI 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percentage of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-). 3 3 Remarks: Disturbed upland vegetation. IL HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Described in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream,Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ® Aerial Photographs Inundated Other EJ Saturated in Upper 12 inches No Recorded Data Available E] Water Marks E] Drift Lines Field Observations: E] Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) EJ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to free Water in Pit none (in.) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Saturated Soil: none (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Adjacent to drainage. SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Auld Clay Drainage Class: well-drained Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Typic Chromoxererts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast) Texture. Concretions, Structure,etc. 0-12 - 10YR 3/3 2 .5YR 4/6 5o clay Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in surface layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Low chroma color matrix with Ss. mottles. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E] No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Disturbed lands dominated by weedy herbaceous plants adjacent to drainage. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1997 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Fortuna Ranch Road Date: 3-11-02 Applicant/Owner: Greg Williams County: SD Investigator: KLI, EDP State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑No Community ID: MFS Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? ®Yes ❑No Transect ID: DP3 Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑Yes ®No Plot ID: 3 (If needed,explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Baccharis salicifolia H FACW 9. 2. Hirschfeldia incanas H NI 10. 3. Polypogon monspeliensis H FACW 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percentage of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-). 67 Remarks: Mule Fat Scrub Vegetation. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Described in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated Other E] Saturated in Upper 12 inches No Recorded Data Available [—] Water Marks Drift Lines Field Observations: E] Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to free Water in Pit none (in.) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Saturated Soil: none (in.) E] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test E] Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Narrow def fined drainage. SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Auld Clay Drainage Class: Well-drained Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Typic Chromoxererts Confirm Mapped Type? ®Yes p No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast) Texture, Concretions, Structure,etc. 0-12 - 10YR 3/2 2 .5YR 3/6 So silty clay Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in surface layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Low chroma color matrix with 511 mottles. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Mule Fat Scrub vegetation along narrow drainage channel with hydric soils. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Fortuna Ranch Road Date: 3-11-02 Applicant/Owner: Greg Williams County: SD Investigator: KLI, BDP State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑No Community ID: DIST Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: DP4 Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 4 (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species j Stratum Indicator 1. Hirschfeldia incana H NI 9. 2. Bromus madrigensis rubens H NI 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percentage of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-). o9. Remarks: Disturbed land adjacent to Mule Fat Scrub and Coastal Sage Scrub. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Described in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream,Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ® Aerial Photographs Inundated Fj Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches No Recorded Data Available Water Marks Drift Lines Field Observations: Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to free Water in Pit none (in.) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Saturated Soil: none (in.) E] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches n Water-Stained Leaves E] Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Approximately 5' above defined drainage. SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Auld Clay Drainage Class: well-drained Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Typic Chromoxererts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast) Texture.Concretions, Structure,etc. 0-12 - - - - sandy soils Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in surface layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: No hydric soils characteristics. IL WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Disturbed lands above drainage. No hydric soil characteristics observed. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Fortuna Ranch Date: 3-11-02 Applicant/Owner: Greg Williams County: SD Investigator: KLI, BDP State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes p No Community ID: NW Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? p Yes ®No Transect ID: DP5 Is the area a potential Problem Area? p Yes ®No Plot ID: 5 (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Hirschfeldia incana H NI 9. 2. Picris echioides H FAC 10. 3. Bromus madritensis rubens H NI 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percentage of Dominant Species that are 613L, W L,FAC or FAC(excluding FAC-). 3 3 Remarks: Disturbed land. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Described in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Other E] Saturated in Upper 12 inches No Recorded Data Available Water Marks Drift Lines Field Observations: F-1 Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to free Water in Pit none (in.) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Saturated Soil: none (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Approximately 1' wide channel. SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Auld Clay Drainage Class: Well-drained Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Typic Chroinoxererts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast) Texture,Concretions. Structure, etc. 0-12 - 10YR 3/2 2.5YR 3/6 59. silty clay Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in surface layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Low chroma matrix with 5%S mottles. , WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Z No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Drainage within Non Wetland Waters of the U.S. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Fortuna Ranch Date: 3-11-02 Applicant/Owner: Greg Williams County: SD Investigator: KLI, EDP State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑No Community ID: EW Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ®No Transect ID: DP6 Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ®No Plot ID: 6 (If needed,explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Juncus dubius H FACW 9. 2. 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percentage of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-). 10059 Remarks: Riparian herb vegetation dominated by Juncus dubius. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Described in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated n Other ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches E] No Recorded Data Available EJ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines Field Observations: ❑ Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to free Water in Pit none (in.) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Saturated Soil: none (in.) n Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data E] FAC-Neutral Test Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Siols moist but not saturated. SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Auld Clay Drainage Class: well-drained Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Typic Chromoxererts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast) Texture, Concretions, Structure,etc. 0-12 - 10YR 3/2 2.5YR 3/6 silty clay Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in surface layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Low chroma matrix with 5°1 mottles. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Riparian herb vegetation within defined drainage with hydric soils. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Julv 22. 2002 APPENDIX 4. WETLAND PHOTO POINTS. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-4-1 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03) Biological Resources Report Julv 22, 2002 F f j Photo Point 1. Looking at Wetland Data Point 1 located in Emergent Wetland. Photo Point 2. Looking at Wetland Data Point 2 located in Disturbed Habitat. Merkel&Associates, Inc. #98-094-02 A-4-2 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03), Biological Resources Report Juhv 22, 2002 1. 4 As ,4. Photo Point 3. Looking at Wetland Data Point 3 located in Mule Fat Scrub. F iµ 8 k r Photo Point 4. Looking at Wetland Data Point 4 located in Disturbed Habitat, adjacent to Mule Fat Scrub and Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation. Merkel &Associates, Inc.#98-094-02 A-4-3 Fortuna Ranch Road Project(APN 264-451-03) Biological Resources Report July 22, 2002 Photo Point 5 Looking at Wetland Data Point 5 located in Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed. t f � . f � � T Photo Point 6. Looking at Wetland Data Point 6 located in Emergent Wetland. Merkel&Associates, Inc.#98-094-02 A-4-4 S LEGEND - I - � J S.D. R: S. D. - SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS *67EeT ION S88 °44 '11'E` 279.9E ® m ! LOT LINE PRO S ' """! ► EXIST. CONTOURS LOT NUMBER PARCa EXISTING EASEMENT - _ PROP. CONTOURS --`-{255--- EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT — Fg�3(30 .0 '' � ' �, CENTERLINE /� 4 _ A0 �U.Q 2:1 CUT SLOPE MAX. � - r °3 ��"„ �L20&) 2:1 FILL SLOPE MAX, Qti T v EXISTING 20' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT EXISTING SEWER MAIN PER DWG CS-121 - LNIMATE LIMITS - � PER DOC. REC. JUAE 3 1922 AS bING �'Q EXISTING WATER MAIN 800 • DOC N0. 1992-0343257 - TRE_BUFFER \ N� s\ r3APH:C �Gk( E a ° PROPOSED WATER SERVICE - -- f _ - G40UD REPRESENTS AREA C FOR PROPOSED BRIDGE AND -- ��� ABUTMENT BY MEW - , LIMITS OF GRADING W W i ___-. -- -- - APPROXIMATE LOCATION BY PROPOSED AC PAVED DRIVEWAY I � A �--- � OF ACCESS BRIDGE BY OTHERS - - DRAINAGE q} , 2 ,. PROPOSED D --,..J() p�po � `~ GS PROPOSED BROW DITCH - SEE DETAIL C RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATOR USE ' NO 3. BACIKING � � PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION NIFILTER FABRIC - _ __ .. �_�_ - - RIP RAP ENERGY - - --------X388 DSESIX1.3 BACKING-40 CUT/FILL LINE - - -- - -... WI FILTER FABRIC - � - �384 - ! �� % FIL=385.7' @ EDP FIRE WALL _ TNDICATES GRASS OR TURF LINED VEGETATION CLEANSING AREA. TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND NOT MODIFIED 4w �� q, " z + i� 1 _ WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF ENCINiTAS. NOTE.' CLEANSING AREA TO TREAT PAD RUNOFF. SEE SECTION Cx BELOW. / 0.2' DEPRESSED EDGE SWALE u ! FOR 10', PROVIDE 5 X10' NO, 3 t / u� BACKING WIFILTER FABRIC / �' k/r) / I ? of --- GRASS LINED CLEANSING CHANNEL p / -DASHED LINE REPRESENTS AT 0% SLOPE SEE SECTION C* � / o � '" EXISTING GROUND i' MIN. 2 CONTOURS TYPICAL \` .�O / / f FILL BERM- c? WE7CA . �ADI.M7S BUFFEq J' /, \ ' AEI. (; 6 A SECTION A 13E1 �i LIMITS OF GRADING 2 i ( t �0 2' DEPRESSED EDGE SWALE -f FOR 10'. .PROVIOE 5'x10' NO. 3 "EXISTING B"" PVC SEWER / BACKING WIFILTER FABRIC j PE N CS-121 C / /L D W P/L GRASS LINED CLEANSING CHANNEL--=" 20 AT 0% SLOPE SEE SECTION C EXI5 SSMH { VARIES ( –ADJUST RIM ELEVATION 2' SHOULC R: ---f6'.DRIVEWAY - 1 2' SHOULDER �. 16' T 1 i 0 MATCH FINISH GRADE 1-2� 2% 16 WIDE AC PAVED DRIVEWAY ?% SEE SECTION A-A 1 ( 2 1/2` A/C OVER 4" CLASS II BASE AREA TO BE CLEARED � C '---EXISTING 20' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT --TYPE A-SECTION A/C DIKE - PER DOC. REC. JUNE 3 1922 AS / DOC NO. 1992-0343257 EDGE OF EXISTING 30' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY - _ — —I –_ i — DIRTIGRAVEL ' DRIVEWAY 4 ' MIN. -_- "- - -- — 70 DLUT OF NO, 92TAS PER ( / FORTiAVA RANCH ROAD 12-09-1992 N0. 92-85 ON I - EXISTING SSW PER DOC REC. 1131164 ROCK-LINED OPTION -_.- ADJUST RIM ELEVATION AS FILE N0. 19804 OF EXISTING 1a" PUBLIC ,., – -- -- T, TO MATCH FINISH GRADE OFFICIAL RECORDS - �, OVER GEOTEXTILE — -- �- LINING EASEMENT ___-- EXISTING POWER POLE - - _. -.•_,x RECREATIONAL TRAIL -Pt�LE OPTION OVER RLANDLOK TURF REINFORCEMENT S88 *58 '40E 280.00 ' - H t. ANCHOR. _ - EXISTING EDGE OF FORTUNA RANCH ROAD - - - / - EXISTING 24" WIDE DRIVEWAY APPROACH �( o 9ch � G ALDING PLAN SCALE 1°=20 ' SECTION C BROW DITCH t l.� NOT TO SCALE *CLEANS C� CI NEL m GRASS LINED ONLY @ #)% m�++ N APPROVED AT R FE NOES DATE DESIGNED BY pAAWN Bt_ __ CHECKED BY e REVISIONS D E E RE E BENCHIVIARI� SCALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M S SRJ WAP ©V {F NC A5 ENG PJKG DEPARTMENT Dm C No. � m 6 COUNTY BENCH MARK #O. C. 0073-CHISEL PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED GRADING PLAN FOR ® EMI SO. IN TOP OF HEADWALL AT S. W. COR. REVIEWED BY: zz EL CAMINO DEL NORTE 6 RANCHO SANTA HORIZONAL 1 "=20 ' - FEE ROAD FROM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DATE: BY: BY: Parcel of PM 3278 Fortuna inch Road a T—h VERTICAL CONTROL; R. C . E. NO. 29577 _ VERTICAL. N/A - DATE: PATE: A.P.N. #264-451-03 DATE WAYNE PASCO - ELEV=919. 476 DATUM"- IJ. S . G. S . EXP° 3-31-03 WORK PROJECT NO, DATE: 6/15/02 SHEET, 2 OF -3 PE 1034