HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-07 Agenda Item 6a Mitigated Negative Declaration Report
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the proposed
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Prepared for:
The Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, California 91978
Prepared by:
9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92123
August 2007
August 2007 Page i
Table of Contents
Contents
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration .................................................................................................................1
Environmental Checklist Form............................................................................................................................3
Checklist Explanations.......................................................................................................................................21
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program......................................................................................................45
Response to Comments...............................................................................................................................RTC-1
Appendix A – Biological Resources
Appendix B – Cultural Resources
Appendix C – Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D – Noise and Vibration Technical Study
Appendix E – Traffic Study
Figures
1 Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................................................5
2 Location Map..........................................................................................................................................6
Table of Contents Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page ii August 2007
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 2007 Page 1
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
SUBJECT: Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project: The proposed project is located in the
County of San Diego within the community of Jamul. The proposed project is intended to improve the
transmission of potable water in the 1485 pressure zone and to convey flow to the new 1485-2 Reservoir.
The project includes the demolition and replacement of the 1485-1 pump station. The proposed station
would be constructed on the southern portion of the existing 1485-1 pump station property owned by the
Otay Water District. The replacement project would include three electrical driven pumps in parallel
rated at 500 gpm each; a diesel emergency generator; a perimeter fence, and landscaping. The proposed
station would be enclosed to protect the pumps and electrical equipment from the environment. The
current pump station would remain in service for as long as possible while the new station is being
constructed. The project would also include grading the site to improve the site drainage and the
extension of an existing 12-inch culvert stormwater drain under the property.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
See attached Initial Study.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The proposed project would be located in the community of Jamul, within the County of San Diego.
South of the project site is the community of Spring Valley; while to the northwest is the community of
Jamacha and Cottonwood. To the east of the project is the Cleveland National Forest.
III. DETERMINATION:
Otay Water District has conducted an Initial Study for the Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project,
which determined that the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect in the following
areas: air quality, cultural resources and transportation/traffic. The proposed project has been revised to
add specific measures to fully mitigate for these potentially significant impacts. These added measures
are part of the proposed project and are described in the Initial Study Analysis. The project as revised
now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
IV. DOCUMENTATION:
The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Determination.
V. MITIGATION:
See attached Initial Study and Mitigation Measures.
Mitigated Negative Declaration Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 2 August 2007
VI. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
The following individuals, organizations, and agencies received a copy or notice of the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration and were invited to comment on its adequacy and sufficiency:
Federal Agencies
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
State of California
California Department of Fish and Game
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
Other
County of San Diego
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
VII. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW:
( ) No comments were received during the public input period.
( ) Comments were received but did not address the Draft Negative Declaration finding or the
accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached.
(X) Comments addressing the findings of the Draft Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or
completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public input period.
Copies of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and any Initial Study material are available for review upon request at: Otay Water District, 2554
Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096. To ensure availability or to make an
appointment, please call Daniel Kay at (619) 670-2247.
June 19, 2007
Otay Water District Date of Draft Report
August 3, 2007
Date of Final Report
August 2007 Page 3
Final Environmental Checklist Form
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Project Title:
1485-1 Pump Station Replacement
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Daniel Kay, Associate Civil Engineer OWD, 619-670-2247
4. Project Location:
Community of Jamul, San Diego County
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Low density to medium low density residential
8. Description of Project:
Background: In August of 2002, the Otay Water District (District) updated its Master Plan to
include new population projections, development plans, water and land use data, and District
planning criteria to identify those distribution facilities needed to serve existing and future
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 4 August 2007
potable and recycled water demands within the District. The Master Plan also proposed a capital
improvement program that is anticipated to be implemented in three phases.
Within the District’s Regulatory Service Area, The Master Plan prescribed a new reservoir in the
1485 Pressure Zone to meet existing and future potable water storage demands and too provide
adequate fire protection. The Master Plan recommended the construction of a new 1485-2, 1.6
million gallon (MG) reservoir as part of the phase I improvements. The 1485-2 Reservoir is
completed and operational.
With the construction of the 1485-2 Reservoir, the District proposed rehabilitating the existing
1458-1 Pump Station, which would feed the 1485 zone Reservoirs. After conducting a
preliminary study in February 2005, it was found that the existing pump station equipment has
reached the end of its useful life. Therefore, the District has chosen to replace the aging station
with a new station.
The District proposes the demolition of the existing 1485-1 Pump Station and the construction of
a new station. With the construction of the facility, the District would have the capacity to
provide higher flow to the 1485 and higher pressure zones.
Proposed Project: The proposed project is located in the County of San Diego within the
community of Jamul (Figure 1). The proposed project is intended to improve the transmission of
potable water in the 1485 pressure zone and to convey flow to the new 1485-2 Reservoir. The
project includes the demolition and replacement of the 1485-1 pump station. The proposed
station would be constructed on the southern portion of the existing 1485-1 pump station property
owned by the Otay Water District. The replacement project would include three electrical driven
pumps in parallel rated at 500 gpm each; a diesel emergency generator; a perimeter fence, and
landscaping. The proposed station would be enclosed to protect the pumps and electrical
equipment from the environment. The current pump station would remain in service for as long
as possible while the new station is being constructed. The project would also include grading
the site to improve the site drainage and the extension of an existing 12-inch culvert stormwater
drain under the property.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings):
The 1485-1 Pump Station is located on the south side of Lyons Valley Road, west of Peg Leg
Mine Road, a private road (Figure 2). The station is located on a parcel in the community of
Jamul. The pump station is located on a 0.14 acre parcel that is surrounded by residential
properties. The District owns this property in fee title.
0 300
5
15
8
5
5
Project Vicinity
SR905/OtayMesaRoad
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1
SOURCE:PBS&J,2007
NoScale
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 6 August 2007
LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2
NoScale
ProjectLocation
Pe
g
L
e
g
M
i
n
e
R
d
.
Lyons ValleyRoad
R
a
v
e
n
H
i
l
l
Rd.
Pe
g
L
e
g
M
i
n
e
R
d
.
SOURCE:Otay Water District,2006
Ri
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 8 August 2007
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Environmental Checklist Form
August 2007 Page 9
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
III. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to be the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to the applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
August 3, 2007
Otay Water District Date
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 10 August 2007
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off site as well as on site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially
Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063
(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Environmental Checklist Form
August 2007 Page 11
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
V. ISSUES CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Page 12 August 2007
3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Environmental Checklist Form
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
August 2007 Page 13
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area of based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Page 14 August 2007
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Environmental Checklist Form
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
August 2007 Page 15
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Environmental Checklist Form Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Page 16 August 2007
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
10. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
11. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
August 2007 Page 21
Checklist Explanations
1. AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Project Impact – No Impact
Based on the San Diego County General Plan, Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan (2004) no designated
scenic vistas or designated view corridors occur in the project area. The proposed project would include
the replacement of three pumps within the pump station facility. Mature Oleanders that stand over six
feet tall surround the north, south, and west sides of the station. The landscaping visually hides the
station from the surrounding residential properties and vehicles traveling along Lyons Valley Road. As a
result, there would be no visual impact to scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic building within a state scenic highway?
Project Impact – No Impact
Based on the San Diego County General Plan, Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan (2004) no state scenic
highways occur within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, Lyons Valley Road is a
priority to be made a scenic highway. The proposed project is the implementation of a pump station and
with the current landscape design would not be visible from Lyons Valley Road. As a result, the
proposed project would not result in damage to scenic resources within the viewshed of a scenic highway
or proposed scenic highway.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The visual character of the area is defined by low-density residential homes (semi-rural residential
characterized by 1 d.u./1,2,4 ac). The implementation of the proposed project would include upgrading
of the district’s existing pump station. The project would include the installation of three pumps and the
removal of three old pumps. Furthermore, the proposed project would include enclosing the pumping
hardware. As a result, the project would not degrade the existing visual character of the area. Therefore,
impacts are less than significant.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 22 August 2007
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed pump station would be completely automated and would not require interior lighting for
operation. Artificial outdoor lighting used to illuminate the premises would be strictly for security. The
lights would be shielded so that light does not cause glare or light pollution to the residences nearby.
Therefore, the project would not significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and/or its surroundings.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the existing pump station in the community of Jamul. The
improvements would occur within a residential area of the community identified as semi-rural residential
which is characterized by 1 d.u./1,2,4 ac. No conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
of statewide importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency are located in the vicinity of the proposed
project site. Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Project Impact – No Impact
Please see 2. a) above. The proposed project site is located in an area of the Jamul community that is
zoned as semi-rural residential (1 d.u./1,2,4 ac). As a result, the proposed project site does not have a
Williamson Act contract associated with it; therefore, there would be no impact to the Williamson Act
contract.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project site is located in an area of the Jamul community that is zoned as semi-rural
residential (1 d.u./1,2,4 ac) and would include the upgrade of OWD’s existing pump station. There are no
existing agricultural lands or uses, either on site or in the immediate vicinity. The project would not
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 23
involve any other changes that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use; therefore,
there would be no impact.
3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The adopted long-range plan for the project area is the San Diego County General Plan. This long-range
plan has been used by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) to prepare the Air Quality
Management Plan. The implementation of the proposed project does not include land use changes that
would conflict with the long-range air quality projections; rather, the site is entirely consistent with the
adopted General Plan and, therefore, the AQMP. In addition, the proposed project would not emit
substantial point emissions from on-site operations as the primary source of energy for the pumps station
is electricity. The pump station would be fully automated and would require maintenance visits one to
three times a week. Additional unexpected vehicle trips would be required for emergency situations such
as mechanical or electrical failure and/or vandalism. However, the vehicle trips associated with the
proposed project would be minimal and would not conflict with any air quality plans. Therefore, air
quality impacts would be less than significant.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 3. a) above.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Please see 3. a) above. Project implementation would not result in significant air quality impacts. The
project would not contribute significantly to the air pollutant burden, either locally or in the San Diego
Air Basin, because the proposed project is the upgrade of an existing pump station. However, project
construction would necessitate excavation and grading operations to prepare the site for the installation
of the pumps. The grading operation would be no more than 3,000 square feet of grading to prepare the
pad for upgraded pump station. During the demolition and grading it is not anticipated that there would
be any removal of earth material off site. However, if any material needs to be removed from the site,
then the earth material would be disposed off site, and would necessitate transportation to a remote
location. The excavation, grading, and transportation of dirt have the potential of contributing to a short-
term potentially significant impact associated with airborne particulates to the air basin.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 24 August 2007
However, implementation of mitigation measures to minimize airborne particulates associated with these
activities would lessen this impact below a level of significance. These measures include but are not
limited to covering the haul trucks and compliance with SDAPCD Rules 403, 431.1 and 431.2. As a
result, the project would have a less than a significant impact to air quality.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Project Impact – No Impact
Please see 3. a) above. The proposed project is not located near a school, hospital, park, or convalescent
center but would entail construction grading activities. However, the extent and duration of the proposed
construction would be limited and below a significance threshold established by AQMD. Additionally,
the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize airborne particles associated with construction
activities would lessen this impact to below a level of significance. The pumps will be electric driven
thus any long-term impacts would be caused by emissions from stationary sources at the point electricity
is generated and should not exceed the amount previously used for the existing pump station. The
backup generator set would be permitted by AQMD and would only be used should back-up power be
required for emergency. Additionally, the nearest receptors in the vicinity are located more than 100 feet
away from the pump station. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to sensitive receptors.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the Otay Water District’s (OWD) existing pump station. During
the construction activity a temporary short-term odor impact may occur as result of diesel emissions.
However, due to the short-term nature of construction and the small size of the project, odor impacts
associated with construction would less than significant.
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
MM-1 Haul trucks shall be covered and two feet of freeboard shall be left between the top of the load
and the top of the truck bed.
MM-2 Construction operation on any unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when winds exceed 25
miles per hour.
MM-3 Non-potable water shall be used for construction activities when feasible.
MM-4 Compliance with Rule 403, which requires that “every reasonable precaution (is taken) to
minimize fugitive dust emissions . . .” from grading operations to control particulate emissions.
MM-5 Adherence to SDAPCD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which requires the use of low sulfur fuel for
stationary construction equipment.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 25
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
A biological reconnaissance of the project area was conducted by Rocks Biological Consulting on
February 20, 2007. The results of the reconnaissance are documented in the General Biological Survey
Letter Report, May, 2007 (Appendix A). The study concluded that no existing sensitive plant or animal
species, or wildlife migration corridors, occur within the proposed project area. Therefore, the project
would have a less than a significant impact to any habitat modification.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Project Impact – No Impact
See 4 a), above. The proposed project is the upgrade of the existing pump station in the community of
Jamul. The biological study area, which includes 100 feet beyond all limits of impacts from the
designated project site, predominately included existing residential development and disturbed lands.
Additionally from the field reconnaissance, the biologist determined that there is no riparian habitat on
site. No sensitive floral and faunal species were detected during the biological survey and none are
expected to occur within the study area.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The project is the upgrade of OWD’s existing pump station. No portion of the project site contains
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by the
biologist. Specifically, no marshes, vernal pools or other wetlands as defined by either the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the
project site. As a result, no significant impacts to wetlands would occur as a result of project
implementation.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The project is the upgrade of OWD’s existing pump station. The project would be constructed on
previously disturbed sites and would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 26 August 2007
fish or wildlife species or interfere with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result
of project implementation.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The project is the upgrade of OWD’s existing pump station. As a result, the proposed project would not
be in conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, potential
impacts to biological resource protection policies and ordinances would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
See 4 a), above.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
Project Impact – No Impact
A project site reconnaissance was conducted by ASM Affiliates on December 11, 2006 and the results of
the reconnaissance are documented in the Cultural Resource Study for the Otay Pump Station 1485-1,
San Diego County, California, January 2007 (Appendix B). The field reconnaissance and record search
identified no historic structures within the proposed property. As a result, no significant impacts to
historic resources are anticipated.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
See 5. a) above. The record search identified 21 cultural resources sites within one mile of the project
site. The nearest recorded archaeological site is 50 meters southwest of the project area. However, the
excavation activity of the project has the potential of unearthing cultural resources that are buried under
the proposed pump station site. As a result, the project has the potential to have a significant impact to
unknown cultural resources. However, the implementation of a mitigation measures that would halt
work if any cultural resource were unearthed until a qualified archeologist can determine the significance
would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 27
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
See 5. b), above. The existing pump station was constructed on fill material. The project site has been
altered from its natural conditions by the construction of the existing pump station. However, the
excavation activity of the project has the potential of unearthing paleontological resources that are buried
under the fill material layer of the existing pump station. As a result, the project has the potential to have
a significant impact to paleontological resources. However, the implementation of a mitigation measures
that would halt work if any paleontological resource were unearthed until a qualified paleontologist can
determine the significance would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. As a result, the
proposed project would have a less than a significant impact on paleontological resources with mitigation
incorporated.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
All areas of the project have been previously developed, and the cultural resource surveys and record
search revealed no features of ethnic cultural value within the property of the proposed project site. In
particular, no human remains are known to exist within the project site, which has been altered as a result
of past site activities and no human remains are known to have been discovered during prior site
disturbance. However, if at any time any human remains are discovered the State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission. Therefore, compliance with the State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 the proposed project would have a less than a significant impact.
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
MM-6 During the grading operation if cultural resources are identified, work shall be halted or
redirected until a qualified archeologist can evaluate the significance of the discovery. If the
project archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural
resource, additional investigation may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project
implementation.
MM-7 During the grading operation if paleontological resources are identified, work shall be halted or
redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the discovery. If the
project paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant
paleontological resource, additional investigation may be required to mitigate adverse impacts
from project implementation.
MM-8 If at any time any human remains are discovered, abiding by the State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If
the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 28 August 2007
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area of based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
A project site reconnaissance was conducted by Allied Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. on January 17, 2007
and the results of the reconnaissance are documented in the Geotechnical Desktop Study for the
Proposed Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Facility, February 19, 2007 (Appendix C). The
community of Jamul Village is located in a seismically active area. The closest known fault is the Rose
Canyon Fault which is approximately 17.6 miles west of the site. There are no known active faults
underlying the site or projecting toward the site. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone. Surface rupture due to faulting beneath the site is considered low. Additionally, by designing
pump station to comply with current seismic guidelines the impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see comment 6. a) i. on seismic shaking, above.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 6. a) ii. above. Prior to the construction of the project facilities, the project sites would be
graded and the soils would be compacted. Furthermore, the water distribution facilities would be
designed in accordance with Title 24 standards of the Uniform Building Code to minimize seismic
ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake. Additionally, given the anticipated dense
nature of the fill soils when compacted as recommended in this report and the absence of shallow
groundwater above granitc materials, the potential for liquefaction to occur is negligible. Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact to seismic-related ground failure.
iv. Landslides?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The pump station is located in an area that requires grading prior to construction. Once the site is graded
flat the soils would be compacted. The pump station would be constructed on the existing site, which is
a relatively flat upland area. According to the geotechnical investigation, evidence of ancient landslides
or slope instability was not observed at the side during our investigation. The site has been previously
compacted from the construction of the existing pump station; therefore, impacts for landslides would be
less than significant.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 29
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Site grading and excavation activities would disturb soil that would potentially be exposed to wind and
water erosion. OWD would comply with the provisions of the appropriate National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region. Therefore, by complying with the NPDES construction permit the proposed project would result
in a less than significant impact associated with erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Project Impact - Less Than Significant Impact
Please see Sections 6. a) ii. and iv., above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Site sub-grade soils exhibit a very low soil expansion potential as defined in Table No. 18-1-B
“Classification of Expansive Soils” in the Uniform Building Code (1997 Edition). In addition, the
project would be located on a site that has been previously developed. The soils within the project site
have been previously compacted; therefore, the improvements to the pump station would not create
substantial risk to life or property, due to its location on expansive soils. As a result, impacts would be
less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the replacement and upgrade of OWD’s existing pump station. The project would not
include the operation of a septic tank. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 30 August 2007
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is to upgrade the OWD’s pump station. The project would not require the routine
transportation and use of hazardous materials. During normal operation the pumps will primarily operate
off electricity. During a power failure the pumps will then operate from electricity provided by a backup
generator located on site. The backup generator will have a reserve of diesel fuel. As a result, the
proposed project has the potential of having a significant impact associated with hazardous materials.
However, the operations at the pump station would be required to comply with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and permits pertaining to the handling, storage, disposal, and use of such materials.
In addition, the proposed pump station would meet all required Uniform Fire Codes. Therefore, the impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 7. a), above.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Project Impact – No Impact
Please see 7. a) above. In addition, no schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (Envirostor Database: DTSC). Therefore, there would be no impact.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 31
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project would be completely automated and is not located within two miles of a public airport.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is not located with the vicinity of a private airport; therefore, there would be no impact.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to OWD’s existing pump station. The project would not interfere with an
emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan because access along Lyon’s Valley Road and
Peg Leg Mine Road would be retained during construction. No impact would occur.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is located in the San Diego County, in the Community of Jamul. The entire
Community of Jamul is in an area designated as having a high potential for wildfire. The proposed
project is the improvement to the existing pump station and would not include habitable structures. In
addition, all above-ground structures would be constructed of masonry or fire-resistant materials.
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires. Impacts can be considered less than significant.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station. The project would include the
demolition of an existing station, and the construction of a new pump station within the same lot. The
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 32 August 2007
operation of the new station would comply with OWD’s policies and permits previously obtained for the
operation of the pump station. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any anticipated impacts.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station. The project does not require
the use of groundwater; therefore, no impact would occur to the ground water supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The project would include the removal of a three pump station and the construction of a new three pump
station. The project components would be constructed on an already previously graded site. However,
site grading is planned and fill material is expected to be used to better improve the drainage
characteristics of the site. The site grading is not expected to substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. Therefore, the project would have a
less than significant impact.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off site?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 8. c). The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the
surrounding area, and the impact pertaining to drainage patterns contributing to flooding on or off site
would be less than significant.
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station. The project components would
be located in an area that is not served by a stormwater system. The proposed project will not create a net
increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. Additionally, the project site would be contour graded to
minimize runoff off site. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to
water drainage systems.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 33
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station. The pumps will be housed
within a structure which will prevent any oils or other solvents required for maintenance to be exposed
during rain events. As a result, the project would not degrade water quality; therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project does not include residential development, and the project would be located outside
the 100-year and 500-year flood zone; therefore, there would be no impact.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station located on the eastern margin of
the Peninsular Ranges. The project is not located in a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area. Therefore,
the project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station. In an emergency situation, if a
pipeline ruptured or a pump failed in a manner that would discharge water, the telemetry equipment
immediately notifies OWD that there is a decline in pressure, thus requiring immediate attention. As a
result, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding. Therefore, the project would not anticipate any impacts.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Project Impact – No Impact
Tsunamis are long seismic waves (long compared to the ocean depth) generated by sudden movements of
the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. The Pacific Ocean rim
is highly tectonically active, with most of the world’s tsunamis found in the Pacific. The Aleutian
Trench and the Peru-Chile Trench are the two source regions that are primarily responsible for tsunamis
that are potentially damaging to California. Given the fact that the proposed project is located
approximately 18 miles to the east to the coast, in combination with the elevation of the existing pump
station land, 1,120’ above mean sea level, it is unlikely that a seismically induced wave would ever reach
the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 34 August 2007
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is an upgrade to the existing OWD 1485-1 pump station. The project would include
the demolition of the old pump station and the upgrade of a new, three pump station. The total
dimensions of the proposed pump station are approximately 50 feet by thirty feet. The proposed project
would not physically divide an established community; therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is consistent with the adopted Otay Water District’s Water Resources Master Plan (2002).
The applicable land use planning document is the San Diego County General Plan. The project consists
of upgrading the OWD existing pump station to better serve the 1485 pressure zone reservoirs. Utility
infrastructure is compatible with all land uses in the General Plan. As a result, the project would not
conflict any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would be located within a residential area on OWD property that has previously
been developed. As a result, the project would not conflict with any conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The California Geological Survey classifies land in western San Diego County according to the presence
or absence of construction aggregate resources. However, the project area itself does not offer a suitable
combination of soils and minerals types to warrant extraction of aggregates. There are no known mapped
mines within the area or visual evidence of any mining activity. The field survey did not indicate past or
present mines or quarries. The proposed grading and landform alteration associated with the proposed
project will not adversely affect known or recorded mineral resources. Alteration in the land use will not
result in a loss of economically viable aggregate rock or diminish the extraction of important ores or
minerals. Because there are no known or mapped mineral resources within the project area, development
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 35
and use of the land will not be affected by such resources. There are no abandoned mines, shafts or
tailing that would affect development. Therefore impacts associated with mineral resources would be less
than significant.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 10. a), above.
11. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
A noise and vibration technical study was prepared for the proposed project by PBS&J dated February
16, 2007. The results of the technical study are documented in the Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump
Station Noise and Vibration Technical Study February, 2007 (Appendix D). The study concluded that
the only component of the proposed project that would create noise of permanent nature would be the
operation of the electric pumps. However, the new pumps would be located within concrete structures
fitted with acoustic louvers, designed to assure that noise emitted from the structure would comply with
the San Diego County’s Exterior Noise Standards. As a result, the operational impact of the project
would not have a significant noise impact.
The demolition and construction of the proposed project would generate noise due to the machinery that
is needed which is powered by diesel engines. Construction is short term impact and is temporary in
nature. The construction activities are anticipated not last more than approximately 120 days. As a result,
the demolition, grading and construction activity of the pump station would have the potential for a short
term noise impact to the surrounding residents. However, with the implementation of mitigation would
reduce the noise impacts to surrounding residents to below a level of significance. Therefore, potential
noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM-9.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The existing pump station has been in operation since 1963. All three existing motors for the pumps are
rated at 40 horsepower. The new pumps would be outfitted with a 40 horsepower motor fastened to a
concrete slab, just as the existing pumps are. Pumps of this size mounted to concrete slabs would not
produce groundbourne vibration detectable off site. Therefore, the potential groundbourne vibration
impacts would be less than significant.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 36 August 2007
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Project Impact – No Impact
Please see Section 11. a), above. The new pump station will be completely enclosed. The ambient noise
that will be generated from the proposed pump station is estimated to be lower than that of a pump
station that is not enclosed. Therefore, an increase in ambient noise levels is not anticipated.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Project Impact – No Impact
Please see Section 11. a), above.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Project Impact – No Impact
The proposed project is not located within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, there would be no
impact.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Project Impact – No Impact
Examination of an aerial photograph of the vicinity of the proposed project site did not reveal any private
airstrip; therefore, there would be no impact.
Noise Mitigation Measures
MM-9 The project contractor shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management
practices to the satisfaction of the District’s engineer:
• Construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays or federal holidays.
• All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all
equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled.
• All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as
possible to the north side of the site.
• Machinery and mobile equipment, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use.
• Sound blankets shall be used to the extent feasible.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 37
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is the upgrade of a pump station, as required by the Otay Water District’s Water
Resources Master Plan (2002). The project would increase the reliability and quality of service within
the 1485 pressure zone to adequately serve the existing users and fire demands and would not encourage
new development or growth within the Jamul Community. As a result, the project would not induce
substantial population growth within the Jamul Community. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 12. a) above. The proposed project is to upgrade the OWD’s existing pump station on a
graded lot that is owned by the OWD. Therefore, the project would not displace a substantial number of
homes, necessitating the construction or replacement of housing elsewhere. As a result, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact on housing.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 12. a), above.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project does not include any extraordinary uses or operations that would create additional demand
for public services. As a result, the project would not have significant impact to public services.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 38 August 2007
Police Protection?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project does not include any extraordinary uses or operations that would create additional demand
for public services. As a result, the project would not have significant impact to public services.
Schools?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project does not include any extraordinary uses or operations that would create additional demand
for public services. As a result, the project would not have significant impact to public services.
Parks?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project does not include any extraordinary uses or operations that would create additional demand
for public services. As a result, the project would not have significant impact to public services.
Other public facilities?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project does not include any extraordinary uses or operations that would create additional demand
for public services. As a result, the project would not have significant impact to public services.
14. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project would be constructed within OWD property that has previously been developed. No impact
would occur to recreational resources.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 39
Project Impact – No Impact
Please see 14. a), above.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The only vehicle trips required by the project are for maintenance purposes. However, during
construction the project would require the import of soil materials and grading activities will occur
during construction. As indicated in the traffic report prepared by LOS Engineering, Otay Pump
Replacement Traffic Impact Analysis, dated February 15, 2007 (Appendix E), temporary construction
would add an estimate of 22 Average Daily Trips to ten nearby roadway segments. This temporary
increase in ADT is estimated to last between six and nine months. As a result, the project would have
temporary traffic impacts associated with the transportation of equipment and materials. It is not
anticipated that any closure of any routes of circulation will occur. However, the build-out permanent
traffic is estimated to consist of 2 round trips per month (one round trip every other week). The
permanent traffic was evaluated at the same nearby ten intersections. Under existing conditions with the
addition of the permanent increase in traffic no direct impacts were determined because the project traffic
does not exceed the allowable traffic threshold. When the permanent traffic was evaluated with the
existing conditions with the addition of the project and cumulative increase in traffic three roadway
segments were found to operate with more than 200 ADT at a Level of Service (LOS) F. Upon build-out
(2030), with the addition of the project conditions the project was calculated to not have any impacts
because the project traffic would not exceed the allowable traffic threshold.
The project is calculated to have cumulative effects to traffic on three roadway segments. To mitigate the
impacts, the project will pay in the TIF program. With implementation of MM 10, and a traffic control
plan during construction, MM 11, would reduce traffic impacts to below a level of significance.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Please see 15. a), above.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Project Impact – No Impact
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 40 August 2007
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The implementation of the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project does not propose to vacate or construct any new roadways, nor does it propose the use of
dangerous equipment that would pose a hazard to the public. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Project Impact – No Impact
Adequate emergency access would be provided in accordance with County standards; therefore, there
would be no impact.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would provide parking for maintenance trucks within the pump station property
owned by OWD. Therefore potential parking impacts would be less than significant.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The implementation of the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
MM-10 Prior the issuance of the grading plan, the OWD shall contribute to a fair share contribution to
the San Diego County Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) for traffic impacts.
MM-11 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the applicant shall develop and implement a traffic
control plan to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. The traffic control plan shall include
the limitation on construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 41
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project would not increase the amount of water being distributed, but rather it would increase the
pressure and capacity for storage of the existing pump station. Given that the project would not serve
new users, the production of wastewater would not vary from the existing conditions. As a result, the
project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
As a result, the project would not require the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment
facility. No impacts are anticipated.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project would not require the construction of a new storm drain system; therefore, no impact would
occur.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station operated by the OWD. The project is consistent
with OWD master plan and would increase the storage capacity for the water district. As a result, the
project would have a less than significant impact to water supply.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Project Impact – No Impact
The project is the upgrade to the existing pump station within the OWD near the community of Jamul.
The project would not increase the amount of water being distributed, but rather it would increase the
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 42 August 2007
pressure and capacity for storage of the existing pump station. Given that the project would not serve
new users the production of wastewater would not vary from the existing conditions. As a result, the
project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. No impacts are anticipated
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The contractor hired by the OWD would be responsible for subcontracting with a certified commercial
waste hauler for the collection and disposal of project-related non-recyclable solid waste from
construction in accordance with federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
Please see 16 f), above.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare of endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
See the responses to Section 4. It has been identified that there are not special status habitat or special
status species in the immediate area of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would
not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
because no such resources exist on site. In addition, ASM Affiliates conducted a cultural resource
investigation for the proposed project and it was determined that the project would not eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the project would
result in a less than a significant impact to these resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Checklist Explanation
August 2007 Page 43
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project is the upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station. There are no nearby past,
present or probable projects in the project vicinity that would contribute to a cumulative impact.
Potential construction-related impacts to traffic would be short-term in nature. However, the two trips per
month will add to a cumulative significant effect on three roadway segments. The impacts will be
mitigated by the contribution towards the County’s TIF. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impacts towards cumulative impacts with mitigation.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Project Impact – Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not generate or store hazardous materials on site. The project would be an
upgrade of the OWD’s existing pump station to increase the pressure and capacity for storage. The
proposed project would not have the potential to generate significant environmental effects which could
cause adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g. ozone, traffic and circulation, etc.) or indirectly
(e.g., contribute to deficiencies in public services and/or facilities). Therefore, impacts to humans would
be less than significant.
Checklist Explanation Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Page 44 August 2007
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 2007 Page 45
PUMP STATION 1485-1 REPLACEMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
AIR QUALITY
MM-1 Haul trucks shall be covered and two feet of freeboard shall be left
between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-2 Construction operation on any unpaved surfaces shall be suspended
when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-3 Non-potable water shall be used for construction activities when
feasible.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-4 Compliance with Rule 403, which requires that “every reasonable
precaution (is taken) to minimize fugitive dust emissions . . .” from
grading operations to control particulate emissions.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-5 Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which requires the
use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM-6 During the grading operation if cultural resources are identified,
work shall be halted or redirected until a qualified archeologist can
evaluate the significance of the discovery. If the project archaeologist
determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant
cultural resource, additional investigation may be required to mitigate
adverse impacts from project implementation.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-7 During the grading operation if paleontological resources are
identified, work shall be halted or redirected until a qualified
paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the discovery. If the
project paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a
potentially significant paleontological resource, additional
investigation may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from
project implementation.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-8 If at any time any human remains are discovered, abiding by the State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin
and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will
notify the Native American Heritage Commission.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
August 2007 Page 46
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification
Date
NOISE
MM-9 The project contractor shall implement, but not be limited to, the
following best management practices to the satisfaction of the District’s
engineer:
• Construction work on the project shall be limited to the
hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through
Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays or
federal holidays.
• All construction equipment with a high noise generating
potential, including all equipment powered by internal
combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled.
• All stationary noise generating equipment, such as
compressors, shall be located as far as possible to the north
side of the site.
• Machinery and mobile equipment, including motors, shall
be turned off when not in use.
• Sound blankets shall be used to the extent feasible.
.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
MM-10 Prior the issuance of the grading plan, the OWD shall contribute to a
fair share contribution to the San Diego County Traffic Impact Fees
(TIF) for traffic impacts.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
MM-11 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the applicant shall
develop and implement a traffic control plan to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer. The traffic control plan shall include the limitation
on construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
Condition of
approval
Plan Check Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit
OWD
Engineering Department
S-1
S-1 This comment is the cover letter from the State Clearinghouse and
Planning Unit regarding the review of the Negative Declaration. No
furtherresponseisnecessary.
Responses to Public Comments Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
RESPONSES COMMENTS
RTC-1
Responses to Public Comments Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
RESPONSES COMMENTS
RTC-2
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-2 This comment describes the requirements of CEQA with respect to
cultural resources and recommends several actions to adequately assess
the project's impacts to cultural resources. These recommendations are
discussedbelowinresponsetocommentsS-3throughS-7.
S-3 Thiscommentsuggestsconductingarecordsearch,whichwouldindicate
previous surveys in the area, previously recorded resources, and the
probability of unrecorded resources existing within the project area. As
discussedonpage2ofAppendixBandpage26oftheDraftMND,records
searcheswereconductedattheSouthCoastalInformationCenter(SCIC)
at San Diego State University in June and December 2006 for the Pump
Station 1485-1 Replacement Project.The SCIC search included a review
of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources located within
onemileoftheproposedprojectboundaries.Therecordssearchindicated
that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the
project area and that the nearest recorded archeological site is located 50
meters southwest of the project area. In addition to the records search, an
extensive field survey was conducted in December 2006. No cultural
resources were found within the project parcel as a result of the field
survey.However,asstatedonpage26oftheDraftMND,becausethereis
a potential for the proposed project to unearth unknown resources,
archeologicalmonitoringduringgradingwouldberequired.Therefore,a
records search was conducted, previously recorded resources were
reviewed,andtheprobabilityofunrecordedresourceswasdiscussed.
S-4 This comment provides the requirements of a report, which would
summarize the findings of a records search and archaeological inventory
field survey.Areport which details the findings and recommendations of
the records search and field survey was complete in January 2007 and is
attached as Appendix B to the Draft MND. Further, a copy of this letter
reportwassenttotheSouthCoastalInformationCenter.
S-5 This comment suggests contacting the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search to determine
the potential for sacred lands on the project site. However, because no
culturalresourceshavebeenpreviouslyrecordedandnonewereobserved
withintheprojectarea,thepotentialforsacredlandstoexistinthevicinity
of the project site is unlikely. Therefore, no record search would be
required.Also,seeresponsetocommentS-3.
Responses to Public Comments Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
RESPONSES COMMENTS
RTC-3
S-7
S-8
S-6 This comment recommends including a mitigation measure to address
accidental discovery of resources, including human remains, during
construction. As stated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program Summary of the Draft MND, mitigation measures, which
require that work be halted if a cultural resource was unearthed and the
resources significance to be determined, are included as a provision of
issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, the recommended mitigation
measureisincludedintheDraftMND.
S-7 This comment lists laws and regulations which mandate procedures in
the event of discovery of human remains. As stated in the Mitigation
MonitoringandReportingProgramoftheDraftMND,ifhumanremains
werediscoveredduringconstruction,nofurtherdisturbancewouldoccur
until the County Coroner was able to make a determination of the origin
and disposition of the remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code
7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.98, and Section 15064.5(d) of the
CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the project would comply with laws and
regulations which mandate procedures in the event of discovery of
humanremains.
S-8 This comment suggests that lead agencies avoid significant cultural
resources. However, as discussed in response to comments S-3 through
S-7, no significant cultural resources have been, or are anticipated to be,
discovered. However, mitigation measures have been provided which
wouldminimizeimpactstounrecordedsubsurfaceresourcesdiscovered
during grading. Therefore, with the records search, field survey, and
mitigation measures, significant impacts to cultural resources would be
avoided.
Responses to Public Comments Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
RESPONSES COMMENTS
RTC-4
Responses to Public Comments Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
RESPONSES COMMENTS
RTC-5
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
3242 FALCON ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
PH: 619-843-6640. FAX: 619-297-9005. E-MAIL: JIM@ROCKSBIO.COM
May 11, 2007
Mr. Kevin Smith
PBS&J
9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
Subject: Biological Resource Constraints Report for the Otay Water District 1485
Pump Station Project
Dear Mr. Smith,
This letter presents the results of the vegetation mapping and general biological
constraints analysis that Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) conducted at the Otay Water
District (OWD) 1485 Pump Station project site on February 20, 2007. The project area is
located in San Diego County, CA near the town of Jamul at the intersection of Lyons
Valley Road and Peg Leg Mine Road. The following is a discussion of potential
biological resource constraints on construction of the project. The field effort and this
report are focused on addressing what may be considered significant biological
constraints, but is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Additional biological constraints
may be identified by the resource agencies such as the California Dept. of Fish and Game
(CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE),
and local jurisdictions.
The proposed project and 100’ buffer area were surveyed on foot and all areas were
accessible. A routine wetland delineation per ACOE protocol was conducted. Focused
surveys for rare plants and animals were not conducted and the early season timing of the
survey precluded the observation of many plant species.
Vegetation Communities
The proposed location of the project is within Developed areas with Ornamental
vegetation (Figure 1). No vegetation communities that the resource agencies consider
sensitive were identified within the project site or buffer. Table 1 lists the vegetation
communities or land uses that occur within the project area and buffer and their relative
size.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Uses within the Proposed OWD 1485
Pump Station Project Area
Vegetation Community Total Acreage in the Survey Area
Developed 0.6
Developed/Ornamental 1.1
Total Approx. 1.7
Mr. Kevin Smith
May 11, 2007
Page 2 of 7
Developed areas include paved roads and parking areas, existing equipment staging
areas, and residential housing. Developed/Ornamental is also mapped here based on the
presence of planting of non-native horticultural plants such as Oleander (Nerium
oleander), Olive (Olea europea), Pepper Trees (Schinus molle, S. terebinthifolius), and
Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.).
Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species
No USFWS, CDFG, or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) sensitive habitats, plants,
or wildlife were observed within the proposed project area or buffer. The site is
Developed with associated Ornamental plantings and has very low potential to support
sensitive habitats, plants, or wildlife.
Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
The ACOE routine, onsite method was used to delineate jurisdictional areas during the
survey on February 20, 2007. There is an erosion scour at the edge of the gravel
driveway access area. It appears to collect stormwater runoff from Lyons Valley and Peg
Leg Mine Roads and site runoff. The scour occurs at the boundary between the
compacted gravel access area and the adjacent soft, loose soil where a pipe conveys water
under Peg Leg Mine Road and discharges onto the project site. The scour then allows
water to cross the site into a drainage swale that runs under Rio Madre and then along
Lyons Valley Road. This scour is an artificially created erosion feature and is not a
jurisdictional wetland or Other Waters of the U.S. The following section describes the
vegetation, hydrology, and soils associated with the erosion scour. None of these three
parameters meet ACOE criteria for wetlands or Other Waters of the U.S. Please see the
attached data sheet for additional information.
Vegetation
Vegetation along the scour is nearly absent. The only vegetation that is present are non-
native species such as Peruvian Pepper Tree (Schinus molle), Tree Tobacco (Nicotiana
glauca), and Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon). There are no hydrophytic species
present and the area is mostly barren. As a result, the drainage does not support a
dominance of wetland indicator species and does not meet the ACOE or CDFG criterion
of hydrophytic vegetation.
Hydrology
The erosion scour has been created by runoff across the gravel access area that consists of
fill material. Bed and banks are not present and other wetland hydrology indicators are
not present in the project site. The ACOE and CDFG wetland criterion of hydrology is
not present within the project site.
Soils
No hydric soil indicators were observed along the scour. The soil examined in the field
consisted of fill material likely put in place to build the existing gravel access area. The
soils would best be classified as sandy loam. The matrix color was 10YR 4/3 at a depth
Mr. Kevin Smith
May 11, 2007
Page 3 of 7
of 16 inches. The soils were well drained and lacked ACOE or CDFG hydric soil
indicators.
Jurisdictional Determination
The site does not support ACOE or CDFG jurisdictional areas and therefore an ACOE
Section 404 Permit or CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement is not required.
Conclusion
Based on onsite conditions observed during the biological survey, the site does not
support significant biological resource constraints to development. No USFWS, CDFG,
or CNPS sensitive habitat, plant or wildlife species were observed onsite and none are
expected because of a lack of suitable habitat. If impacts occur on Developed or
Developed/Ornamental areas, no mitigation is required.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at (619) 843-6640 if you have any questions or concerns about this report.
Sincerely,
Jim Rocks, Principal
Rocks Biological Consulting
Attachments: Site Photos
Wetland Delineation Field Data Sheet
This page intentionally left blank.
Mr. Kevin Smith
May 11, 2007
Page 4 of 7
OWD 1485 Pump Station Site Photographs – February 20, 2007
Photo 1. View of project site with gravel access road/parking and erosion scour.
Photo 2. View of erosion scour and existing equipment onsite.
Mr. Kevin Smith
May 11, 2007
Page 5 of 7
Photo 3. View of erosion scour showing pipe that conveys water under Peg Leg Mine
Road and onto the OWD 1485 Pump Station site causing erosion.
Photo 4. View of project site showing dense Ornamental vegetation (Olea europea)
onsite.
Mr. Kevin Smith
May 11, 2007
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Kevin Smith
May 11, 2007
Page 7 of 7
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX B
CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT
January 8, 2007
Kevin Smith
PBS&J
9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 200
San Diego, Ca 92123
Re: Cultural Resources Study for Otay Pump Station 1485-1
Dear Mr. Smith,
This report presents the results of a cultural resources study conducted by ASM Affiliates,
Inc. (ASM), for the proposed construction of the Otay Pump Station 1485-1, San Diego County
(Figure 1). The project is located in Section 3 of Township 17 South, Range 1 East on the Dulzura
quadrangle (Figure 2).The study was performed to determine the presence or absence of
potentially significant prehistoric and historic resources within the project boundaries. It consisted
of a review of all relevant site records and reports on file with the South Coastal Information
Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man, followed by an
intensive pedestrian survey of the proposed project area. No cultural resources were identified
within the proposed project as a result of the field survey or as a result of the records search, and
based on the results of the study it is unlikely that subsurface archaeological deposits exist in the
project area. Therefore, no cultural resources will be impacted by the project and no further
studies are recommended. The project description, study methods, and results are provided below.
Project Description
The Otay Water District (OWD) proposes the replacement of an existing pump station on
Lyons Valley Road. The existing pump station has reached the end of its use-life and replacement
of the facility is necessary. The new pump station will be built immediately south of the existing
pumps and associated equipment. The site will be graded and probably filled to improve drainage
in the pump station vicinity. An existing 12-inch culvert draining onto the project property from
the east will be deepened and extended westward to accommodate construction of the new facility.
The new pump station will be enclosed to protect the pumps and related equipment from the
January 8, 2007
Mr. Smith
Page 2 of 5
elements and direct sunlight. The existing pump station will continue to operate as long as possible
during construction of the new facility. A temporary pump station will be installed on the project
property when the existing pump station is demolished while new appurtenances are extended to
the new pump station. Decorative foliage is proposed around the pump station site.
Environmental and Cultural Setting
The project property is situated in Lyons Valley near the northeastern base of the Jamul
Mountains and the southern base of McGinty Mountain at approximately 1100 feet above mean
sea level (amsl).The Jamul and McGinty Mountains belong to the greater Peninsular Range
Province, characterized by north-south trending mountains and valleys. Lyons valley drains Steele
Canyon to the west and Jamul Creek to the south. The headwaters of an unnamed tributary of the
Sweetwater River are approximately 400 meters southwest of the project parcel. The native
vegetation community for the project vicinity is comprised of sage-scrub.
Human occupation of southern California is generally accepted to have taken place by at
least 9,000 years before present (B.P.) and potentially as early as 11,500 B.P. The prehistory of
the region is typically subdivided into three time periods: the Paleoindian Period (11,500 B.P.-
8500/7500 B.P.), the Archiac Period (8500 B.P.-1300/800 B.P.), and the Late Prehistoric
(1300/800 B.P.-200 B.P.). The Paleoindian Period is generally represented by exploitation of
coastal and major drainage systems, characterized archaeologically with cobble tools, ground stone
implements, and a limited amount of large projectile points (Demcak 1988; Moratto 1984). Drier
and warmer conditions in the Archaic Period were accompanied by cultural material changes
associated with an increase of terrestrial plant and animal resources, including mortars, pestles and
large stemmed and notched projectile points (Moratto 1984; Wallace 1955; Warren 1968). The
introduction of the bow and arrow, represented by relatively small projectile points in the
archaeological record, and an intensified use of bedrock mortars characterize the Late Prehistoric
Period (Demcak 1988; Wallace 1955; Warren 1968).
The proposed project is located within the traditional aboriginal territory of the Yuman
speaking Diegueño or “Kumeyaay” (Ipai-Tipai). These include the Kumeyaay, the Kamia, and
groups living in Baja California (Meigs 1939). In general, the Kumeyaay ranged from the coast
through the Peninsular Ranges and the Kamia resided in Imperial Valley and on the Colorado
River in historic times (Luomala 1978). Animal resources for the Kumeyaay consisted mostly of
small game such as rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), hares (Lepus californicus), woodrats (Neotoma spp.),
lizards, some snakes, and grasshoppers (Spier 1923:335-336; Gifford 1931:14; Shipek 1991:32).
Larger game, mostly mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and possibly pronghorn (Antilocapra
americana, now locally extinct) were also hunted.
Study Methods
Methods used to assess the presence or absence of cultural resources within the property
included a search of existing records and an intensive field survey. The records searches were
conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), San Diego State University on June
5, 2006, and at the San Diego Museum of Man on December 4, 2006. The searches included areas
within one mile of the study area boundaries.
January 8, 2007
Mr. Smith
Page 3 of 5
The field survey was conducted on December 11, 2006, by ASM Project Archaeologist
Dave Iversen, under the direction of Principal Investigator Susan Hector, Ph.D. Field methods
consisted of walking transects at 5-m intervals from one corner of the project area to another while
examining the ground for artifacts or other evidence of human activity greater than 50 years old.
The survey area was transected from east to west and then back on adjacent transects until the
entire project area was covered. Existing ground exposures, including cut-banks and drainages,
were closely examined for possible buried cultural resources. Notes and digital photographs were
taken to document the overall character and existing condition of the project area.
Study Results
The records search indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources are located
within the project area, and At least 21 cultural resources are located within one mile of the project
area. The nearest recorded archaeological site (SDI-10818) is 50 meters southwest of the project
area. Extensive bedrock milling features with associated artifacts and ecofacts comprise the site.
Milling features at the site include slicks, basins, and mortars on granitic boulder outcrops.
Artifacts identified at the site include ground stone implements, bifaces, retouched flakes,
debitage, ceramics, as well as historic glass, metal, and pottery. Flaked stone material from the
site is described as quartz, chert, and metavolcanic. Ecofacts recorded at SDI-10818 consist of
both vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains. Additionally, a large artifact scatter containing
potential human remains (SDI-4744) is recorded approximately 400 meters south of the project
area.
The records search also demonstrates that no previous archaeological studies have been
conducted for the project property. Approximately 18 previous cultural resource studies have been
carried out within a one-mile radius of the project area. One study (RBR & Assoicates, Inc. 1987)
was conducted immediately west of and adjacent to the project property, and resulted in the
recordation of SDI-10818.
No cultural resources were found within the project parcel as a result of the intensive field
survey. The entire project area is graded and filled in association with the existing pump station.
The pump station sits on a concrete pad in the northwest corner of the property, and related
electrical vaults, manholes, and drainage culverts exist across the project area. The majority of the
exposed ground surface is covered with imported road gravel. Small drainages or swales run along
the north and south ends of the project parcel. A small, relatively dense stand of trees and
underbrush are in the northeast corner of the property, and may represent the least disturbed
portion of the project area. An approximately one-meter high cut-bank immediately west of the
project property slopes westward into a small swale containing a grove of undeveloped woods and
large granite boulders. The project parcel is bordered to the to the south by a cleared field, and
to the north and east by existing paved roads.
January 8, 2007
Mr. Smith
Page 4 of 5
Management Considerations
A search of records on file at SCIC and the Museum of Man indicates no cultural resources
are present within the project area, and no newly discovered prehistoric or historic cultural
resources were identified during the field survey. Based on the extensive ground disturbances to
the project property, it is also unlikely that subsurface archaeological resources exist within the
project area. As such, it is concluded that implementation of the proposed project will not result
in direct or indirect impacts to any cultural resources. Therefore, no further treatment or
investigations are recommended.
Should you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call me or
Dr. Susan Hector
Sincerely,
Dave Iversen
ASM Project Archaeologist
Attachments:
Figure 1 - Project vicinity map.
Figure 2 - Project location map.
January 8, 2007
Mr. Smith
Page 5 of 5
References:
Demcak, Carol R.
1988 Evaluation of Early Human Activities and Remains in the California Desert. Great
Basin Foundation, San Diego.
Gifford, Edward W.
1931 The Kamia of Imperial Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 97.
Luomala, Katharine
1978 Tipai and Ipai. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited
by R. F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Meigs, Peveril, III
1939 The Kiliwa Indians of Lower California. Ibero-Americana 15.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Shipek, Florence
1991 Delfina Cuero: Her Autobiography, an Account of Her Last Years and Her
Ethnobotanic Contributions. Ballena Press Anthropological Press Papers No. 37.
Spier, Leslie
1923 Southern Diegueño Customs. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 20:292-358.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In
Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams,
pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1.
Portales.
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
Figure 2. Project location map.
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX C
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX D
NOISE AND VIBRATION TECHNICAL REPORT
Draft Noise and Vibration Technical Report
for the proposed
Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
Prepared for:
The Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, California 91978
Prepared by:
9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92123
April 2007
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1
Introduction
This environmental noise analysis evaluates the potential noise impacts resulting from replacement of an
existing pump station in unincorporated San Diego County. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the
noise impacts of the project on the surrounding community. This includes the potential for the project to cause
a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within or around the project site or
to expose people to excessive noise levels.
Project Description
The proposed project is located in the County of San Diego within the community of Jamul. The proposed
project is intended to improve the transmission of potable water in the 1485 pressure zone and to convey flow
to the new 1485-2 Reservoir. The project includes the demolition and replacement of the 1485-1 pump station.
The proposed station would be constructed on the southern portion of the existing 1485-1 pump station
property owned by the Otay Water District. The replacement project would include three electrical driven
pumps in parallel rated at 500 gpm each; a diesel emergency generator; a perimeter fence, and landscaping.
The proposed station would be enclosed to protect the pumps and electrical equipment from the environment.
The current pump station would remain in service for as long as possible while the new station is being
constructed. The project would also include grading the site to improve the site drainage and the extension of
an existing 12-inch culvert stormwater drain under the property.
Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of
sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the
physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the
frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all
frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity.
The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a
manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a
base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources.
Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an
occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Table 1
lists noise levels for common events in the environment.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since
environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 2
dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise
occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
Leq, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period
of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the
same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale
does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “penalty”
added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., and an additional 5 dBA penalty during the
hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime. The
logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of
66.7 dBA CNEL.
Lmin, the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.
Lmax, the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.
Table 1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities
—110— Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 100 feet
—100—
Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet
—90—
Food Blender at 3 feet
Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area during Daytime
Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60—
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime
—30— Library
Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background)
—20—
Broadcast/Recording Studio
—10—
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
SOURCE: California Department of Transportation 1998
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 3
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels
during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when
the CNEL is below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. Noise levels greater
than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated,
natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban residential streets with noise levels
around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise
environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial
locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the
higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or
dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Generally, a difference of 3 dBA over 24 hours is a barely-
perceptible increase to most people. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA
would be perceived as a doubling of loudness.
Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such
as the weather and reflecting or shielding, also intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A
commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the
noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA. Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 dBA for
every doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. Generally, a single
row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a
solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were
constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 dBA with closed
windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer homes is generally 30 dBA or more.
Existing Noise Levels
The proposed project site currently contains an existing pump station, but is located in close proximity to
existing residential units to the south and east, with heavy vegetation to the west and bordered by Lyons
Valley Road to the north. Existing noise levels within the project site are primarily influenced by
environmental conditions such as vegetation moving in the wind, by activities at the nearby residential
properties, and by nearby roadways. Traffic on the local roadways is only generated primarily by the local
residents and occasional service vehicles using the roadways to access various homes in the area.
Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at five locations on the project site on February 7, 2007 in order
to identify representative noise levels near in close proximity to the existing nearby residences. The measured
noise levels are presented in Table 2. These daytime noise levels are relatively quiet and characteristic of
suburban residential environments.
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 4
Table 2 Existing On-Site Noise Levels
Noise Level Statistics Location Primary Noise Sources Leq Lmin Lmax
Southern edge of project site across dry creek bed Traffic on Lyons Valley Road 56.4 33.6 73.7
East of existing pump, across Peg Leg Mine Road Traffic on Lyons Valley Road 58.8 38.4 70.9
Northeast corner of Lyons Valley Road and Peg Leg Mine Road Traffic, garbage truck 69.7 38.7 81.7
North of Lyons Valley Road, in front of preschool Traffic, children playing 69.6 42.4 82.4
West of existing pump, across Rio Madre Lane Traffic on Lyons Valley Road, school
bus stopping 64.1 37.7 76.0
SOURCE: EIP/PBS&J, 2007.
Regulatory Framework
County of San Diego General Plan Noise Element
The California Government Code requires that a noise element be included in the general plan of each county
and city in the State. The Noise Element of the County of San Diego General Plan is a comprehensive program
for including noise control in the planning process. It is a tool that County planners use to achieve and
maintain compatible land uses with environmental noise levels.
County of San Diego Noise Ordinance
The County of San Diego Noise Ordinance includes restrictions on activities related to construction and
demolition. Section 31.460 includes restrictions on the hours and days when construction activity can occur
and restrictions on the noise levels generated by the activities. As per Section 31.460, it is unlawful for any
person to operate construction equipment between the hours of 7 P.M. of any day and 7 A.M. of the following
day and is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. In addition, Section 31.460 of the County of San Diego
Municipal Code makes loud noises exceeding a decibel level of seventy-five (75) dBA as measured from any
adjacent residential property line unlawful during the hours of 7 A.M. and 7 P.M.
Project Impacts
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Noise impacts would be considered significant if one or more of the following
conditions result from implementation of the proposed project:
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Cause a substantial periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 5
Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
Site Preparation and Construction Activities
Project development would require the use of heavy equipment for site grading and excavation and installation
of utilities. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other
sources of noise. During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment operating,
and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity.
The Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generating
characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These data is
presented in Table 3 and Table 4. The noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction
site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA measured
at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the
receptor and reduce by another 6 dBA to 72 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor.
Table 3 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment
Construction Equipment
Noise Levels at 50 Feet with Mufflers
(dBA Leq)
Front Loader 73–86
Trucks 82–95
Cranes (moveable) 75–88
Vibrator 68–82
Saws 72–82
Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83–88
Jackhammers 81–98
Pumps 68–72
Generators 71–83
Compressors 75–87
Concrete Mixers 75–88
Concrete Pumps 81–85
Back Hoe 73–95
Tractor 77–98
Scraper/Grader 80–93
Paver 85–88
1Machinery equipped with noise-control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise
emissions as that shown in this table.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1971 as presented in City of Los Angeles, 1998.
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 6
Table 4 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Noise Levels at 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Noise Levels at 50 Feet with Mufflers
(dBA Leq)
Ground Clearing 84 82
Excavation, Grading 89 86
Foundations 78 77
Structural 85 83
Finishing 89 86
Source: U.S. EPA, 1971 as presented in City of Los Angeles, 1998.EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971
The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residential units to the south and east of the project site.
Construction activities would generate noise levels of up to 82 dBA Leq at these homes during ground clearing,
86 dBA Leq during excavation and grading, 77 dBA Leq when cement foundations are poured, 83 dBA Leq
when the pump station enclosure is built, and up to 86 dBA Leq when finishing touches are applied. The project
applicant would be required to adhere to the policies outlined in the County of San Diego’s General Plan and
Noise Ordinance. This ordinance states the times at which construction activities producing noise levels over
60 dBA CNEL at residences may occur. Construction of the replacement pump station would not be
significant with implement of the following mitigation measure.
MM-1 The project contractor shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management
practices:
Construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays or federal holidays.
All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all
equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled
All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as
possible to the north side of the site
Machinery and mobile equipment, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use
Sound blankets shall be used to the extent feasible.
Operational On-Site Noise Levels
Future noise levels within the project site would continue to be dominated by environmental conditions and
human activity. Vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways would continue to the primary influence on noise
level within the project site. Traffic on the local roadways is primarily generated by the local residents and
occasional service vehicles using the roadways to access various homes and facilities in the area. As discussed
earlier, the existing noise levels at the project site and surrounding vicinity are low and characteristic of a
suburban residential environment. However, the replacement pump station is not considered a noise sensitive
use. Noise generated by the replacement pump station would be similar to the noise generating by the existing
pump station, which would not affect nearby residence. The primary source of noise in the project area is
OWD 1485-1 Pump Station Noise and Vibration Technical Report 7
traffic along Lyons Valley. At the residence to the south of the existing pump station, which is the sensitive
receptor closest to the project site, noise levels were monitored to average 56.4 dBA Leq, at would not change
substantial as a result of operation of the replacement pump station.
Noise levels would also be generated by human activity within the project site. Types of noise could include
people talking, doors closing, use of maintenance equipment, etc. Noise levels associated with these non-
roadway noise sources would average between 45 and 55 dBA Leq within the project site. These noise levels
would be similar to those generated by the existing residences that border the project site and are below the
existing noise levels monitored around the existing pump station, as shown in Table 2. Therefore, the overall
noise environment at these residences would not change as a result of project operation. This would not be a
significant impact.
Project Impacts
Based on the information presented in this analysis, construction and operation of the replacement pump
station would not cause a significant noise impact on the existing residences located in close proximity to the
project site. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-1 would ensure that impacts from construction activity
would remain less than significant.
References
Environmental Protections Agency. PA 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717.
San Diego, County of. 2006. General Plan 2020 Noise Element. Adopted February 1975. Amended September
2006
San Diego, County of. n.d. San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances. Noise Abatement and Control.
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX E
TRAFFIC STUDY
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement
San Diego County (Jamul)
February 15, 2007
Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Prepared by Justin Rasas (RCE 60690) with:
LOS Engineering, Inc.
6342 Ferris Square, San Diego, CA 92121
Phone 619-890-1253, Fax 619-374-7247
Job #642
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation ii February 15, 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................iv
1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Study Methodology...................................................................................................................4
2.1 Study Area Criteria...............................................................................................................4
2.2 Scenario Criteria...................................................................................................................4
2.3 Traffic Analysis Criteria.......................................................................................................4
2.3.1 Street Segments.................................................................................................................5
2.4 Significance Criteria.............................................................................................................5
2.4.1 County of San Diego General Plan Public Facilities Element (Part XII)........................7
2.5 Congestion Management Program Criteria..........................................................................8
2.6 Study Limitations..................................................................................................................8
3.0 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................9
3.1 Existing Street System..........................................................................................................9
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Analyses....................................................................10
4.0 Project Description..................................................................................................................13
4.1 Project Traffic Generation..................................................................................................13
4.2 Temporary Project Construction Traffic Distribution and Assignment.............................13
4.3 Project Driveway................................................................................................................14
5.0 Existing + Project Conditions.................................................................................................19
6.0 Cumulative Projects................................................................................................................21
7.0 Existing + Cumulative Conditions..........................................................................................24
8.0 Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions..........................................................................26
9.0 Build-Out (2030) Conditions..................................................................................................28
10.0 Build-Out (2030) + Project Conditions..................................................................................30
11.0 Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................................32
12.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................34
12.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures..................................................................................35
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Site Plan................................................................................................................................3
Figure 3: Existing Roadway Conditions............................................................................................11
Figure 4: Existing Volumes................................................................................................................12
Figure 5: Near-Term Traffic Distribution..........................................................................................15
Figure 6: Build-Out Traffic Distribution............................................................................................16
Figure 7: Near-Term Project Traffic Assignment (Construction Traffic).........................................17
Figure 8: Build-Out Project Traffic Assignment (Readings and Maintenance Traffic)....................18
Figure 9: Existing + Project Volumes................................................................................................20
Figure 10: Cumulative Project Locations and Volumes....................................................................23
Figure 11: Existing + Cumulative Volumes ......................................................................................25
Figure 12: Existing + Cumulative + Project Volumes.......................................................................27
Figure 13: Build-Out (2030) Volumes...............................................................................................29
Figure 14: Build-Out (2030) + Project Volumes...............................................................................31
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation iii February 15, 2007
List of Tables
Table 1: Street Segment Daily Capacity and LOS (County of San Diego).........................................5
Table 2: County of San Diego Significant Traffic Impact Thresholds................................................5
Table 3: Existing Segment ADT Volumes and Level of Service......................................................10
Table 4: Temporary Project Construction Traffic (6-9 month duration)...........................................13
Table 5: Existing + Project Segment ADT Volumes and Level of Service......................................19
Table 6: Cumulative Project Traffic Generation................................................................................22
Table 7: Existing + Cumulative Segment ADT Volumes and Level of Service...............................24
Table 8: Existing + Cumulative + Project Segment ADT Volumes and Level of Service...............26
Table 9: Build-Out (2030) Segment ADT Volumes and Level of Service.......................................28
Table 10: Build-Out (2030) + Project Segment ADT Volumes and Level of Service.....................30
Appendices
Appendix A……………………………….County of San Diego Circulation Element Classification
Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………Count Data
Appendix C.………...………………………………………………Cumulative Project Information
Appendix D…….……………….……………………………..SANDAG Build-Out 2030 Volumes
Appendix E…….……………….……………………….County of San Diego TIF Report Excerpts
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation iv February 15, 2007
Executive Summary
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement
The proposed 1485-1 Pump Station replacement project is located on the southeast corner of Lyons
Valley Road and Peg Leg Mine Road in the Jamul area of San Diego County, California. The
project site is currently occupied by an existing pump station that will be removed as part of this
project.
Two levels of project traffic generation will occur: temporary construction traffic (estimated to last
between 6 and 9 months) and permanent bi-monthly site visits there after. The near-term conditions
were analyzed using the temporary construction traffic and the build-out conditions were analyzed
using the permanent bi-monthly site visits there after. The specific traffic generation for each
scenario is described below.
1) The near-term temporary construction traffic is estimated to consist of a couple utility trucks
with multiple in and out trips as needed for materials, a large tractor trailer with a
backhoe/excavator, a flatbed truck for pump parts, and a concrete truck as needed. The
temporary construction period is estimated to last between 6 and 9 months. A Passenger
Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0 from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was applied
to the trucks to account for the slower operational characteristics. With the addition of the
PCE factor to the tractor trailers, flatbeds and concrete trucks, an estimate of 22 ADT is
calculated for all of the construction traffic.
2) The build-out permanent traffic is estimated to consist of 2 round trips per month that will
consist of one round trip every other week for readings and maintenance. On a daily basis,
the highest estimated traffic would be 2 ADT occurring bi-monthly.
Based on a review of San Diego County records, ten (10) nearby cumulative projects were
identified and included in this analysis. Six (6) scenarios were analyzed, which included existing,
existing + project, existing + cumulative, existing + cumulative + project, build-out (2030), and
build-out (2030) + project conditions.
The project is calculated to have no direct impacts under either existing or built-out (2030)
conditions. The project is calculated to have three (3) cumulative impacts under existing conditions.
To mitigate the cumulative impacts, the project applicant proposes to pay into the Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) program.
This page intentionally left blank.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 1 February 15, 2007
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine and analyze traffic impacts for the proposed 1485-1 Pump
Station Replacement. The project is to be located on the southeast corner of Lyons Valley Road and
Peg Leg Mine Road in the Jamul area of San Diego County, California. The location of the project
is shown in Figure 1. A preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2.
This report describes the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the project site and includes a
review of the existing and proposed activities for weekday daily traffic conditions during the project
construction and when the project is completed. The format of this study includes the following
chapters:
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Study Methodology
3.0 Existing Conditions
4.0 Project Description
5.0 Existing + Project Conditions
6.0 Cumulative Projects
7.0 Existing + Cumulative Conditions
8.0 Existing + Project + Cumulative Conditions
9.0 Build-Out (2030) Conditions
10.0 Build-Out (2030) + Project Conditions
11.0 Mitigation Measures
12.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 2 February 15, 2007
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: LOS Engineering, Inc.
No Scale
Pine Valley
Boulder
Campo
Warner
Springs
Santa
Ysabel
Julian
La Mesa
San Diego
Imperial
Beach
El Cajon
Chula Vista
United States
Fallbrook
Mexico
Riverside County
San Diego County
Camp Joseph Pendleton
Oceanside
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Escondido
Vista
San
Marcos
Santee
Temecula
Ramona
Poway
Pacific Ocean
Tecate
Legend
Existing Roadway
Proposed Roadway
PROJECT
LOCATION
N
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 3 February 15, 2007
Figure 2: Site Plan
Source: Otay Water District
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 4 February 15, 2007
2.0 Study Methodology
The parameters by which this traffic study was prepared included the determination of what
roadways are to be analyzed, the scenarios to be analyzed and the methods required for analysis.
The criteria for each of these parameters are included herein.
2.1 Study Area Criteria
The project study area is generally determined by the limits or extent of where 25 peak hour
project trips would travel to or from the site, which is based on the San Diego County Report
Format & Content Requirements Transportation and Traffic, September 26, 2006. No
intersections were analyzed as part of this study because the project is forecasted to generate less
than 25 peak hour trips. The following street/highway segments were analyzed as part of this
study:
1) SR-94 (Campo Road) from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Road
2) SR-94 (Campo Road) from Jamacha Road to Steele Canyon Road
3) SR-94 (Campo Road) from Steele Canyon Road to Lyons Valley Road
4) Lyons Valley Road from SR-94 (Campo Road) to Jefferson Road
5) Lyons Valley Road from Jefferson Road to Jamul Drive
6) Lyons Valley Road from Jamul Drive to Peg Leg Mine Road
2.2 Scenario Criteria
The number of scenarios to be analyzed is typically based on the size of the project, the number of
cumulative projects and whether the project conforms to current zoning. For this project, the
following scenarios were included:
1) Existing Conditions
2) Existing + Project Conditions
3) Existing + Cumulative Conditions
4) Existing + Project + Cumulative Conditions
5) Build-Out (2030) Conditions
6) Build-Out (2030) + Project Conditions
2.3 Traffic Analysis Criteria
The traffic analyses prepared for this study were based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) operations analysis using Level of Service (LOS) evaluation criteria. The operating
conditions of the study intersections, street segments, and highway segments are measured using the
HCM LOS designations, which ranges from A through F. LOS A represents the best operating
condition and LOS F denotes the worst operating condition. The individual LOS criteria for each
roadway component are described below.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 5 February 15, 2007
2.3.1 Street Segments
The street segments were analyzed based on the functional classification of the roadway using the
County of San Diego Average Daily Vehicle Trips capacity lookup table. The roadway segment
capacity and LOS standards used to analyze street segments are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1: STREET SEGMENT DAILY CAPACITY AND LOS (COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
Circulation Element
Road Classification
CROSS
SECTION
LOS
A
LOS
B
LOS
C
LOS
D
LOS
E
Expressway 126/146 <36,000 <54,000 <70,000 <86,000 <108,000
Prime Arterial 102/122 <22,200 <37,000 <44,600 <50,000 <57,000
Major Road 78/98 <14,800 <24,700 <29,600 <33,400 <37,000
Collector 64/84 <13,700 <22,800 <27,400 <30,800 <34,200
Town Collector 54/74 <3,000 <6,000 <9,500 <13,500 <19,000
Light Collector 40/60 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Rural Collector 40/84 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Rural Light Collector 40/60 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Recreational Parkway 40/100 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Rural Mountain 40/100 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Non-Circulation Roads
Residential Collector 40/60 NA NA <4,500 NA NA
Residential Road 36/56 NA NA <1,500 NA NA
Source: County of San Diego Department of Public Works Public Road Standards July 14, 1999.
2.4 Significance Criteria
Based on the San Diego County Report Format & Content Requirements Transportation and
Traffic, September 26, 2006, a project may have a direct and/or cumulative impact if the
significance criteria are exceeded, as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS
Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion
Allowable Increases on Congested Roads and Intersections
Road Segments Intersections
Operations 2-Lane
Road
4-Lane
Road
6-Lane
Road
Signalized Un-signalized
LOS E 200
ADT
400
ADT
600
ADT
Delay of 2 seconds 20 peak hour trips on a
critical movement
LOS F 100
ADT
200
ADT
300
ADT
Delay of 1 second, or 5 peak
hour trips on a critical movement
5 peak hour trips on a
critical movement
Source: County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance Table 1 from page 9. Note: A critical movement is one
that is experiencing excessive queues. By adding proposed project trips from a list of projects, these same tables are used to
determine if total cumulative impacts are significant. If cumulative impacts are found to be significant, each project that
contributes any trips must mitigate a share of the cumulative impacts. The County may also determine impacts have occurred on
roads even when a project’s traffic or cumulative impacts do not trigger an unacceptable level of service, when such traffic uses a
significant amount of remaining road capacity.
A direct impact would occur when the significance criteria is exceeded. If the proposed project
exceeds the values provided in the above table, then the individually proposed project would result
in a direct traffic impact. Specific improvements to mitigate direct impacts must be identified.
A cumulative impact would occur when two conditions are met: 1) will build-out of all near term
projects result in a cumulative traffic impact and 2) does the amount of traffic generated by the
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 6 February 15, 2007
individual proposed project contribute (even in a small part) to that cumulative impact. Both
conditions must be met for an individual project to result in a cumulative traffic impact. If the
traffic generated from all the near term projects (cumulative projects) would result in a cumulative
traffic impact then condition one is met. If the total amount of traffic generated exceeds the values
provided in the above table, then condition 2 is met and the individually proposed project would
result in a cumulative traffic impact. Fairshare contributions toward cumulative impacts may only
be provided when a specific project and schedule for completion of the project has been identified.
Potential mitigation measures can include traffic signal improvements, physical road improvements,
street re-striping and parking prohibitions, fair share contributions, and transportation demand
management programs.
The County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and
Content Requirements Transportation and Traffic, dated September 26, 2006 includes a
summary of how a project’s potential traffic impact would be perceptible to the average driver
on roadway segments:
“Based on these criteria [Table 2 above], an impact from new development on an LOS E
road would be reached when the increase in average daily trips (ADT) on a two-lane road
exceeds 200 ADT. Using SANDAG’s “Brief Guide for Vehicular Traffic Generation
Rates for the San Diego Region” for most discretionary projects this would generate less
than 25 peak hour trips. On average, during peak hour conditions, this would be only one
additional car every 2.4 minutes. Therefore, the addition of 200 ADT, in most cases,
would result in changes to traffic flow that would not be noticeable to the average driver
and therefore would not constitute a significant impact on the roadway. Significance
criteria were also established for four-lane and six-lane roads operating at LOS E and are
based upon the above 24 hour ADT significance criterion established for two-lane roads.
The two-lane road criterion was doubled to determine impacts to four-lane roads and
tripled to determine impacts to six-lane roads. This was considered to be conservative
since the 24 hour per lane road capacity for a 4-lane road is more than double that of a
two-lane road and the per lane capacity of a six-lane road is more than triple that of the
two-lane road. For LOS E roads, the additional significance criteria are 400 ADT for a
four-lane road and 600 ADT for a six-lane road. Similar to criterion for two-lane road,
the 400 ADT for a 4-lane road and 600 ADT for a 6-lane road criteria would generate
less than 25 per lane peak hour trips for most discretionary projects. On average, during
peak hour conditions, this would be only one additional car per lane every 2.4 minutes.
The addition of 200 ADT per lane (400 ADT for a 4 lane road or 600 for a 6-lane road),
in most cases, would result in changes to traffic flow that would not be noticeable to the
average driver and therefore would not constitute a significant impact on the roadway…”
“The second significance criteria listed in [Table 2 above] addresses roadways presently
operating at LOS F. Under LOS F congested conditions, small changes and disruptions
to the traffic flow on County Circulation Element Road can have a greater effect on
traffic operations when compared to other LOS conditions. In order to better account for
potential effects of increased traffic on LOS F road more stringent significance criteria
was established when compared to that for LOS E. Based on this guidance, an impact
from new development on an LOS F road would be reached when the increase in average
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 7 February 15, 2007
daily trips (ADT) on a two-lane road exceeds 100. Again, using SANDAG’s “Brief
Guide for Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region” for most
discretionary projects this would generate less than 12.5 peak hour trips. On average,
during peak hour conditions, this would be only one additional car every 4.8 minutes.
The addition of 100 ADT, in most cases, would not be noticeable to the average driver
and therefore would not constitute a significant impact on the roadway. The same
approach used to determine significance criteria for four-lane and six-lane roads
operating at LOS E was used to determine appropriate significance criteria for four-lane
and six-lane road operating at LOS F. Based on this approach, the significance criteria
for a four-lane road (200 ADT) and for a six-lane road (300 ADT) would generate less
than 12.5 per lane peak hour trips for most discretionary projects. On average, during
peak hour conditions, this would be only one additional car per lane every 4.8 minutes.
The addition of 100 per lane ADT (200 ADT for a 4-lane and 300 ADT for a 6-lane road)
would, in most cases, not be noticeable to the average driver and therefore would not
constitute a significant impact on the roadway. In summary, under extremely congested
LOS F conditions, small changes and disruptions to the traffic flow can significantly
affect traffic operations and additional project traffic can increase the likelihood or
frequency of these events. Therefore, the LOS F ADT significance criteria was set at 100
ADT (50% of the LOS E threshold) to provide a higher level of assurance that the traffic
allowed under the threshold would not significantly impact traffic operation on the road
segment.”
2.4.1 County of San Diego General Plan Public Facilities Element (Part XII)
The County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and
Content Requirements Transportation and Traffic dated September 26, 2006 includes a summary
of the Public Facilities Element of the San Diego County General Plan as follows:
“The County of San Diego General Plan Public Facilities Element establishes policies
and implementation measures regarding the assessment and mitigation of traffic impacts
of new development. One of the goals of the Public Facilities Element (PFE) is to
provide “A safe, convenient, and economical integrated transportation system including a
wide range of transportation modes (PFE, page XII-4-18).” The PFE also identifies an
objective in the Transportation Section to provide a “Level of Service C or better on
County Circulation Element roads (PFE, page XII-4-18).” The PFE, however,
establishes LOS D as an off-site mitigation threshold for discretionary projects. When an
existing Level of Service is already D, “a LOS of D may be allowed (PFE, page XII-4-
18).” According to the PFE, projects that significantly increase congestion on roads
operating at LOS E or LOS F must provide mitigation. According to the PFE, this
mitigation can consist of a fair share contribution to an established program or project to
mitigate the project’s impacts. If impacts cannot be mitigated, the project will be denied
unless a specific statement of overriding findings is made pursuant to Sections 15091 and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines to approve the project as proposed.”
The County of San Diego significance criteria is consistent with the aforementioned summary of
PFE Policy 1.1, which requires mitigation for projects that significantly increase congestion on
roads operating at LOS E or LOS F.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 8 February 15, 2007
PFE Policy 1.2 states “General Plan Amendments and Rezones shall be reviewed to ensure that any
proposed increases in density of intensity of use will not prevent the planned Circulation Element
road system from operating at its planned Level of Service at buildout.” The project does not
propose to change the existing site use as a pump station – just replace the old pump station with a
new pump station.
In summary, the County of San Diego traffic impact significance criteria covers the significance
criteria identified in PFE policies 1.1 and 1.2.
2.5 Congestion Management Program Criteria
The Congestion Management Program (CMP), adopted in January 2003 by the SANDAG Board,
is intended to determine if a large project (greater than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 peak hour
trips) will adversely impact the CMP transportation system. A CMP analysis is NOT included
because this project is calculated to generate less than 2,400 ADT and less than 200 peak hour
trips.
2.6 Study Limitations
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted professional traffic and transportation engineering principles and practice for the County of
San Diego at this time. No other warranty, express or implied is made.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 9 February 15, 2007
3.0 Existing Conditions
This section describes the study area street system, daily roadway volumes, and existing LOS.
3.1 Existing Street System
In the vicinity of the project, only the roadways where project traffic is anticipated to travel were
analyzed as part of this study, which included:
SR-94 (Campo Road) from Jamacha Boulevard to Jamacha Road is classified as a Prime Arterial
with bike lanes on the San Diego County Circulation Element map (A copy from the San Diego
County Circulation Element Map is included in Appendix A). This four-lane roadway is generally
constructed within approximately 78 feet of pavement with two twelve (12) foot travel lanes and a
paved shoulder/bike lane of approximately eight (8) feet in each direction with a center median of
approximately 14 feet delineated by double yellow striping on each side. The posted speed limit is
55 Miles per Hour (MPH).
SR-94 (Campo Road) from Jamacha Road to the Sweetwater River is classified as a Collector with
bike lanes on the San Diego County Circulation Element map. The narrowest portion of this
segment is a two-lane undivided roadway generally constructed within approximately 34 feet of
pavement with one twelve (12) foot travel lane and a paved shoulder/bike lane of approximately
five (5) feet in each direction. The portion of the roadway adjacent to the Rancho San Diego Towne
Center (southeast corner of Camp Road and Jamacha Road) is constructed as a 4 lane divided
roadway. A posted speed limit was not observed on this segment.
SR-94 (Campo Road) from Sweetwater River to Cougar Canyon Road is classified as a Prime
Arterial with bike lanes on the San Diego County Circulation Element map. This two-lane
undivided roadway is generally constructed within approximately 34 feet of pavement with one
twelve (12) foot travel lane and a paved shoulder/bike lane of approximately five (5) feet in each
direction. A posted speed limit was not observed on this segment.
SR-94 (Campo Road) from Cougar Canyon Road to Steele Canyon Road is classified as a Prime
Arterial with bike lanes on the San Diego County Circulation Element map. This two-lane
undivided roadway is generally constructed within approximately 46 feet of pavement with one
twelve (12) foot travel lane and a paved shoulder/bike lane of approximately five (5) feet in each
direction and a center Two Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL) of approximately 12 feet. A posted
speed limit was not observed on this segment.
SR-94 (Campo Road) from Steele Canyon Road to Lyons Valley Road is classified as a Prime
Arterial with bike lanes on the San Diego County Circulation Element map. This two-lane
undivided roadway is generally constructed within approximately 34 feet of pavement with one
twelve (12) foot travel lane and a paved shoulder/bike lane of approximately five (5) feet in each
direction. A posted speed limit was not observed on this segment.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 10 February 15, 2007
Lyons Valley Road from SR-94 to Peg Leg Mine Road is classified as a Collector with bike lanes
on the San Diego County Circulation Element map. This two-lane undivided roadway is generally
constructed within approximately 30 feet of pavement with one twelve (12) foot travel lane and 3
foot shoulder in each direction. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Between Jefferson Road and
Jamul Drive the northbound 85th percentile speed was measured at 57 MPH and the southbound 85th
percentile speed was measured at 51 MPH. Between Jamul Drive and Peg Leg Mine Road the
eastbound 85th percentile speed was measured at 54 MPH and the westbound 85th percentile speed
was measured at 54 MPH.
The existing roadway conditions are shown in Figure 3.
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Analyses
The following street/highway segments (source and count dates) were analyzed as part of this study:
1) SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Road (Caltrans 2005 factored up to 2007)
2) SR-94 from Jamacha Road to Steele Canyon Road (Caltrans 2005 factored up to 2007)
3) SR-94 from Steele Canyon Road to Lyons Valley Rd (Caltrans 2005 factored up to 2007)
4) Lyons Valley Road from SR-94 to Jefferson Road (LOS Engineering 2/08/07)
5) Lyons Valley Road from Jefferson Road to Jamul Drive (LOS Engineering 2/16/2006)
6) Lyons Valley Road from Jamul Drive to Peg Leg Mine Rd (LOS Engineering 8/22/2006)
The existing ADT volumes are shown on Figure 4, with count and speed data included in
Appendix B. The LOS calculated for the street segments are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: EXISTING SEGMENT ADT VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Current
Segment Classification LOS E Daily
(as built)Capacity Volume V/C LOS
SR-94 (Campo Road)
Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd Prime (4U+C) 37,000 73,900 1.997 F
Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Coll. & Prime (2U) 16,200 26,500 1.636 F
Steele Canyon to Lyons Valley Rd Prime (2U) 16,200 21,470 1.325 F
Lyons Valley Road
SR-94 to Jefferson Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 5,945 0.367 C
Jefferson Rd to Jamul Dr Collector (2U) 16,200 8,419 0.520 D
Jamul Dr to Peg Leg Mine Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 9,213 0.569 D
Notes: (as built) = # of current lanes (i.e. Prime (4U+C) = Prime with 4 lanes & center painted median; Coll. & Prime = portion is classified
as Collector and portion classified as Prime). Daily volume = 24 hour volume. LOS: Level of Service. V/C: Volume to Capacity ratio.
Existing
Under existing conditions, all study roadways were calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the
exception of the:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 11 February 15, 2007
Figure 3: Existing Roadway Conditions
No Scale
N
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
2U
2U
2U
2U + TWLTL
4U + center
painted median
2U
2U
TWLTL Two Way Left Turn Lane
LEGEND
2U Two Lane Undivided Roadway
4U Four Lane Undivided Roadway
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 12 February 15, 2007
Figure 4: Existing Volumes
9,213
ADT
ADT
ADT
ADT
5,945
ADT
21,470
8,419
73,900
ADT
26,500
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 13 February 15, 2007
4.0 Project Description
The project is a pump station replacement project that will replace an existing pump station that
has reached the end of its useful life with a replacement pump station to be constructed
immediately south of the existing pumps and equipment. Project access will remain unchanged
(existing driveway on Peg Leg Mine Road). The new pump station will be on Otay Water
District property.
4.1 Project Traffic Generation
Two levels of project traffic will occur: temporary construction traffic and permanent bi-monthly
site visits. The near-term conditions were analyzed using the temporary construction traffic and the
build-out conditions were analyzed using the permanent bi-monthly site visits there after.
The near-term temporary construction traffic is estimated to consist of a couple utility trucks with
multiple in and out trips as needed for materials, a large tractor trailer with a backhoe/excavator, a
flatbed truck for pump parts, and a concrete truck as needed. The temporary construction period is
estimated to last between 6 and 9 months. A Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0 from the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was applied to the trucks to account for the slower operational
characteristics. With the addition of the PCE factor for the tractor trailers, flatbeds and concrete
trucks, an estimate of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) is calculated for the total construction traffic.
The calculations are summarized in Table 4.
TABLE 4: TEMPORARY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (6-9 MONTH DURATION)
ADT
Vehicle Frequency ADT including
PCE factor
Two Utility Trucks Daily with multiple in and out trips
as needed for materials, etc.5 in & 5 out trips 10 NA 10
One Large Tractor Trailer
(for backhoe/excavator)Daily 1 in & 1 out 2 2 4
One flatbed with parts Occasionally 1 in & 1 out 2 2 4
One concrete truck Occasionally 1 in & 1 out 2 2 4
22
Notes: NA - Not Applicable. PCE - Passenger Car Equivalent
Daily worst case
assumptions
Total ADT
Number of Vehicles
and Type
PCE
Factor
The build-out permanent traffic is estimated to consist of 2 round trips per month that will consist of
one round trip every other week for readings and maintenance. On a daily basis, the highest
estimated traffic would be 2 ADT occurring bi-monthly.
4.2 Temporary Project Construction Traffic Distribution and Assignment
The near-term and build-out traffic patterns are anticipated to be same with the exception that
SANDAG shows a new alignment of SR-94 at built-out. The anticipated travel route toward San
Diego is via SR-94 (Campo Road). Jamul Drive and Steele Canyon Road also provide alternate
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 14 February 15, 2007
routes to reach Jamacha Road; however, SR-94 was selected for analysis as SR-94 appears to be a
more direct route toward San Diego and while it may not be used all of the time, has the potential to
be used at some point in time. The distribution for the near-term conditions (temporary construction
traffic) is shown in Figure 5 with the distribution for the build-out conditions (permanent readings
and maintenance traffic) shown in Figure 6. The near-term assignment of the temporary
construction traffic is shown in Figure 7. The build-out assignment of the permanent readings and
maintenance traffic is shown in Figure 8.
4.3 Project Driveway
The existing project driveway on Peg Leg Mine Road will be used for the replacement project.
Direct project access is NOT proposed to Lyons Valley Road.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 15 February 15, 2007
Figure 5: Near-Term Traffic Distribution
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Regional distribution
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
100%
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 16 February 15, 2007
Figure 6: Build-Out Traffic Distribution
No Scale
N
100%
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site
Jamul Dr
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
Ja
m
a
c
h
a
B
l
v
d
Sweetwater
River
LEGEND
Regional distribution
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 17 February 15, 2007
Figure 7: Near-Term Project Traffic Assignment (Construction Traffic)
22ADT
22
ADT
22
ADT
22
ADT
22
ADT
22
ADT
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 18 February 15, 2007
Figure 8: Build-Out Project Traffic Assignment (Readings and Maintenance Traffic)
2
ADT
ADT
ADT
2
ADT ADT
ADT
2
2
2
2
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site
Jamul Dr
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
Ja
m
a
c
h
a
B
l
v
d
Sweetwater
River
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 19 February 15, 2007
5.0 Existing + Project Conditions
This scenario accounts for the addition of project traffic onto the existing background traffic for
daily conditions. The daily traffic volumes for this scenario of existing + project are shown in
Figure 9. The LOS calculated for the street segments is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5: EXISTING + PROJECT SEGMENT ADT VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Current Existing Project
Segment Classification LOS E Daily Daily Daily Change Direct
(as built)Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume Volume V/C LOS in V/C Impact?
SR-94 (Campo Road)
Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd Prime (4U+C) 37,000 73,900 1.997 F 22 73,922 1.998 F 0.001 No
Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Coll. & Prime (2U) 16,200 26,500 1.636 F 22 26,522 1.637 F 0.001 No
Steele Canyon to Lyons Valley Rd Prime (2U) 16,200 21,470 1.325 F 22 21,492 1.327 F 0.001 No
Lyons Valley Road
SR-94 to Jefferson Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 5,945 0.367 C 22 5,967 0.368 C 0.001 No
Jefferson Rd to Jamul Dr Collector (2U) 16,200 8,419 0.520 D 22 8,441 0.521 D 0.001 No
Jamul Dr to Peg Leg Mine Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 9,213 0.569 D 22 9,235 0.570 D 0.001 No
Notes: (as built) = # of current lanes (i.e. Prime (4U+C) = Prime with 4 lanes & center painted median; Coll. & Prime = portion is classified
as Collector and portion classified as Prime). Daily volume = 24 hour volume. LOS: Level of Service. V/C: Volume to Capacity ratio.
Existing + Project
Under existing + project conditions, all study roadways segments were calculated to operate at LOS
D or better with the exception of the:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
The project not calculated to have any direct project impacts because the project traffic does not
exceed the allowable traffic threshold.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 20 February 15, 2007
Figure 9: Existing + Project Volumes
9,235
ADT
ADT
ADT
ADT
5,967
ADT
21,492
8,441
73,922
ADT
26,522
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site
2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 21 February 15, 2007
6.0 Cumulative Projects
Based on a review of San Diego County records, ten (10) nearby cumulative projects were
identified, which are anticipated to generate traffic and use identical roadways as the project. Other
potential cumulative projects, such as a proposed hotel casino in Jamul, would add traffic to the
study area roadways; however, since these other potential projects have not been formally
submitted, their specific traffic information cannot be obtained to be included within this analysis.
As the County has a TIF program, the applicant has a choice to pay a flat TIF fee per project trip
regardless of how many cumulative projects are involved.
A summary of the cumulative projects is included below with their respective and cumulative traffic
generation shown in Table 6.
1) TPM 20709 (Saflar) – A two-lot single-family residential project on Lyons Valley Road.
The traffic generation for this cumulative project is calculated at 24 ADT with 2 AM
and 3 PM peak hour trips.
2) TPM 20720 (Preski/Gonya) – A four-lot single-family residential subdivision project at
16887 Skyline Truck Trail. The traffic generation for this cumulative project is
calculated at 48 ADT with 4 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips.
3) TPM 20802 (Impink) – A four-lot single-family residential subdivision project at 3115
Vista De Chaparros Drive. The traffic generation for this cumulative project is
calculated at 48 ADT with 4 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips.
4) TM 5289 (Jamul Highlands) – A 23-lot single-family residential subdivision project
with access from Jamul Highlands Road. The traffic generation for this cumulative
project is calculated at 276 ADT with 22 AM and 27 PM peak hour trips.
5) TPM 20599 (Blanco) – A 4-lot single-family residential subdivision project. The traffic
generation for this cumulative project is calculated at 48 ADT with 4 AM and 4 PM
peak hour trips.
6) TPM 20868 – A 2-lot single-family residential subdivision project at the corner of
Hillside Drive and Via de Jamul. The traffic generation for this cumulative project is
calculated at 24 ADT with 2 AM and 3 PM peak hour trips.
7) TPM 20686 (Tibbot) – A 4-lot single-family residential subdivision project near Bee
Valley Road. The traffic generation for this cumulative project is calculated at 48 ADT
with 4 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips.
8) TPM 20726 (Robnett) – A 4-lot single-family residential subdivision project near Honey
Springs Road. The traffic generation for this cumulative project is calculated at 48 ADT
with 4 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips.
9) TPM 20781 (Deichler) – A 2-lot single-family residential subdivision project near
Honey Springs Road. The traffic generation for this cumulative project is calculated at
24 ADT with 2 AM and 3 PM peak hour trips.
10) Simpson Farms – A residential subdivision of 98 homes and a retail/commercial project
of 115,000 square feet. The project is to be located on the northeast corner of SR-94
(Campo Road) and Jefferson Road in the Jamul area of San Diego County,
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 22 February 15, 2007
TABLE 6: CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION
Cumulative Projects ADT IN OUT IN OUT
1) TPM 20709 (Saflar)24 1 1 2 1
2) TPM 20720 (Preski/Gonya) 48 1 3 3 1
3) TPM 20802 (Impink)48 1 3 3 1
4) TM 5289 (Jamul Highlands) 276 7 15 19 8
5) TPM 20599 (Blanco)48 1 3 3 1
6) TPM 20868 24 1 1 2 1
7) TPM 20686 (Tibbot)48 1 3 3 1
8) TPM 20726 (Robnett)48 1 3 3 1
9) TPM 20781 (Deichler) 24 1 1 2 1
10) Simpson Farms 7690 170 161 307 260
Total 8278 185 194 347 276
AM PM
The individual and group cumulative project locations and volumes are shown on Figure 10 with
support data included in Appendix C.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 23 February 15, 2007
Figure 10: Cumulative Project Locations and Volumes
1,448ADT
ADT
ADT
ADT
493
ADT
1,946
ADT
2,277
3,400
1,909
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
#1 TPM 20709
#2 TPM 20720
#3 TPM 20802
#4 TM 5289
#5 TPM 20599
#6 TPM 20868
#7 TPM 20686
#8 TPM 20726
#9 TPM 20781
#10 Simpson Farms
Cumulative Projects
#1-4
#7-9
#6
#10
#5
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 24 February 15, 2007
7.0 Existing + Cumulative Conditions
This scenario accounts for the addition of cumulative project traffic onto the existing daily traffic
conditions. The daily traffic volumes for this scenario of existing + cumulative projects are shown
in Figure 11. The LOS calculated for street segments are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7: EXISTING + CUMULATIVE SEGMENT ADT VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Current Cumulative
Segment Classification LOS E Daily Daily Daily
(as built)Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume Volume V/C LOS
SR-94 (Campo Road)
Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd Prime (4U+C) 37,000 73,900 1.997 F 1,946 75,846 2.050 F
Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Coll. & Prime (2U) 16,200 26,500 1.636 F 2,277 28,777 1.776 F
Steele Canyon to Lyons Valley Rd Prime (2U) 16,200 21,470 1.325 F 3,400 24,870 1.535 F
Lyons Valley Road
SR-94 to Jefferson Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 5,945 0.367 C 493 6,438 0.397 C
Jefferson Rd to Jamul Dr Collector (2U) 16,200 8,419 0.520 D 1,909 10,328 0.638 D
Jamul Dr to Peg Leg Mine Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 9,213 0.569 D 1,448 10,661 0.658 D
Notes: (as built) = # of current lanes (i.e. Prime (4U+C) = Prime with 4 lanes & center painted median; Coll. & Prime = portion is classified
as Collector and portion classified as Prime). Daily volume = 24 hour volume. LOS: Level of Service. V/C: Volume to Capacity ratio.
Existing + CumulativeExisting
Under Existing + cumulative conditions, all study roadway segments were calculated to operate at
LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 25 February 15, 2007
Figure 11: Existing + Cumulative Volumes
10,661
ADT
ADT
ADT
ADT
6,438
ADT
24,870
10,328
75,846
ADT
28,777
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 26 February 15, 2007
8.0 Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions
This scenario accounts for the addition of project traffic onto the existing + cumulative traffic for
daily conditions. The daily traffic volumes for this scenario of existing + cumulative + project
conditions are shown in Figure 12. The LOS calculated for the street segments are shown in
Table 8.
TABLE 8: EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT SEGMENT ADT VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Current Project
Segment Classification LOS E Daily Daily Daily Change Cumulative
(as built)Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume Volume V/C LOS in V/C Impact?
SR-94 (Campo Road)
Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd Prime (4U+C) 37,000 73,900 1.997 F 22 75,868 2.050 F 0.053 Yes
Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Coll. & Prime (2U) 16,200 26,500 1.636 F 22 28,799 1.778 F 0.142 Yes
Steele Canyon to Lyons Valley Rd Prime (2U) 16,200 21,470 1.325 F 22 24,892 1.537 F 0.211 Yes
Lyons Valley Road
SR-94 to Jefferson Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 5,945 0.367 C 22 6,460 0.399 C 0.032 No
Jefferson Rd to Jamul Dr Collector (2U) 16,200 8,419 0.520 D 22 10,350 0.639 D 0.119 No
Jamul Dr to Peg Leg Mine Rd Collector (2U) 16,200 9,213 0.569 D 22 10,683 0.659 D 0.091 No
Notes: (as built) = # of current lanes (i.e. Prime (4U+C) = Prime with 4 lanes & center painted median; Coll. & Prime = portion is classified
as Collector and portion classified as Prime). Daily volume = 24 hour volume. LOS: Level of Service. V/C: Volume to Capacity ratio.
Existing Existing + Cumulative + Project
Under Existing + cumulative + project conditions, all study roadway segments were calculated to
operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
The project is calculated to have three (3) cumulative impacts because traffic from the project plus
traffic from the proposed cumulative projects exceed the allowable traffic thresholds. The roadways
with cumulative impacts include:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (more than 200 ADT on a 4 lane
roadway at LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (more than 100 ADT on a 2
lane roadway at LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (more than 100 ADT on
a 2 lane roadway at LOS F, ADT basis)
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 27 February 15, 2007
Figure 12: Existing + Cumulative + Project Volumes
10,683
ADT
ADT
ADT
ADT
6,460
ADT
24,892
10,350
75,868
ADT
28,799
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site
2 Lane
Bridge
Jamul Dr
Sweetwater
River
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 28 February 15, 2007
9.0 Build-Out (2030) Conditions
Build-out (2030) conditions were analyzed using SANDAG year 2030 forecasted ADTs for the
study area roadways (Appendix D). The roadway operations were calculated using the number of
lanes shown in the SANDAG model under year 2030 conditions.
The daily traffic volumes are shown in Figure 13. The LOS calculated for the street segments
are shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9: BUILD-OUT (2030) SEGMENT ADT VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
SANDAG (2030)
Segment Classification LOS E Daily
(SANDAG # of lanes)Capacity Volume V/C LOS
SR-94 (Campo Road)
New Alignment over Sweetwater River Prime (4 Ln) 37,000 50,000 1.351 F
Sweetwater River to Steele Canyon Rd Prime (4 Ln) 37,000 41,000 1.108 F
Steele Canyon to Lyons Valley Rd Prime (2 Ln) 16,200 35,000 2.160 F
Lyons Valley Road
SR-94 to Jefferson Rd Collector (4 Ln) 34,200 9,000 0.263 A
Jefferson Rd to Jamul Dr Collector (4 Ln) 34,200 17,000 0.497 B
Jamul Dr to Peg Leg Mine Rd Collector (4 Ln) 34,200 20,000 0.585 B
Notes: Buildout Classification as coded in SANDAG model.
Daily volume is a 24 hour volume. LOS: Level of Service. V/C: Volume to Capacity ratio.
Buildout
Under build-out (2030) conditions, all study roadway segments were calculated to operate at
LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 along the new alignment over Sweetwater River (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Sweetwater River to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 29 February 15, 2007
Figure 13: Build-Out (2030) Volumes
20,000
ADT
ADT
ADT
9,000
ADT ADTADT
41,000
50,000
35,000
17,000
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site
Jamul Dr
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
Ja
m
a
c
h
a
B
l
v
d
Sweetwater
River
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 30 February 15, 2007
10.0 Build-Out (2030) + Project Conditions
This scenario accounts for the addition of project traffic onto build-out (2030) volumes for daily
traffic conditions. The daily traffic volumes for this scenario are shown in Figure 14. The LOS
calculated for the street segments are shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10: BUILD-OUT (2030) + PROJECT SEGMENT ADT VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
SANDAG (2030)Project
Segment Classification LOS E Daily Daily Daily Change Build-Out
(SANDAG # of lanes)Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume Volume V/C LOS In V/C Impact?
SR-94 (Campo Road)
New Alignment over Sweetwater River Prime (4 Ln) 37,000 50,000 1.351 F 2 50,002 1.351 F 0.000 No
Sweetwater River to Steele Canyon Rd Prime (4 Ln) 37,000 41,000 1.108 F 2 41,002 1.108 F 0.000 No
Steele Canyon to Lyons Valley Rd Prime (2 Ln) 16,200 35,000 2.160 F 2 35,002 2.161 F 0.000 No
Lyons Valley Road
SR-94 to Jefferson Rd Collector (4 Ln) 34,200 9,000 0.263 A 2 9,002 0.263 A 0.000 No
Jefferson Rd to Jamul Dr Collector (4 Ln) 34,200 17,000 0.497 B 2 17,002 0.497 B 0.000 No
Jamul Dr to Peg Leg Mine Rd Collector (4 Ln) 34,200 20,000 0.585 B 2 20,002 0.585 B 0.000 No
Notes: Buildout Classification as coded in SANDAG model. Daily volume is a 24 hour volume. LOS:Level of Service. V/C:Volume to Capacity ratio.
Buildout Buildout + Project
Under build-out (2030) + project conditions, all study roadway segments were calculated to
operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 along the new alignment over Sweetwater River (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Sweetwater River to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
The project not calculated to have any built-out impacts because the project traffic does not exceed
the allowable traffic threshold.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 31 February 15, 2007
Figure 14: Build-Out (2030) + Project Volumes
20,002
ADT
ADT
ADT
9,002
ADT ADTADT
35,002
17,002
50,002
41,002
No Scale
N
LEGEND
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
Project
Site
Jamul Dr
Peg Leg
Mine Rd
Ja
m
a
c
h
a
B
l
v
d
Sweetwater
River
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 32 February 15, 2007
11.0 Mitigation Measures
The project is calculated to have no direct impacts under either existing or built-out (2030)
conditions. The project is calculated to have three (3) cumulative impacts under existing conditions.
This section describes the recommended mitigation measures.
To mitigate the cumulative impacts, the project applicant proposes to pay into the Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) program. The County of San Diego has developed an overall programmatic
solution that addresses existing and projected future road deficiencies in the unincorporated portion
of San Diego County. This program includes the adoption of a TIF program to fund improvements
to roadways necessary to mitigate potential cumulative impacts caused by traffic from future
development. Based on SANDAG regional growth and land use forecasts, the SANDAG Regional
Transportation Model was utilized to analyze projected build-out (year 2030) development
conditions on the existing circulation element roadway network throughout the unincorporated area
of the County. Based on the results of the traffic modeling, funding necessary to construct
transportation facilities that will mitigate cumulative impacts from new development was identified.
Existing roadway deficiencies will be corrected through improvement project funded by other
public funding sources, such as TransNet, gas tax, and grants. Potential cumulative impacts to the
region’s freeways have been addressed in SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This
plan, which considers freeway buildout over the next 30 years, will use funds from TransNET, state,
and federal funding to improve freeways to projected level of service objectives in the RTP.
The proposed project generates temporary construction traffic estimated at 22 ADT to occur for a 6
to 9 month period under near-term conditions. Under built-out conditions, the project is estimated
to generate 2 ADT on a bi-monthly basis. These trips will be distributed on circulation element
roadways in the County that were analyzed by the TIF program, some of which currently or are
projected to operate at inadequate levels of service. These project trips therefore contribute to a
potential significant cumulative impact and mitigation is required. The potential growth represented
by this project was included in the growth projections upon which the TIF project is based.
Therefore, payment of the TIF, which will be required at issuance of building permits, in
combination with other components of the program describe above, will mitigate potential
cumulative impacts to less than significant.
The cumulative impacts are calculated to occur on Caltrans’ State Route 94. The “County of San
Diego Transportation Impact Fee Report” dated January 2005 and adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on April 13, 2005 states in the Executive Summary on page i "The TIF program
differentiates between 'local' transportation facilities (collectors and minor streets) that benefit
primarily the community in which they are located, and 'regional' facilities (state routes, prime
arterials, major roads, and other regionally significant roadways)." also on the same page of the
Executive Summary "Regional facilities costing a total of $581M were identified, including
states routes, prime arterials, and major roads." The applicant agrees to pay into the TIF program
(which has a regional and local component) that will mitigate the potential cumulative impact on
State Route 94, which is a "state route" and is included in the TIF as documented above. TIF
report excerpts are included in Appendix E that show where the report states in the
Transportation Needs Assessment on page 6 “The traffic assessment and TIF program included
State operated highways (2 to 4 lane arterial roadways with at-grade intersections), and did not
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 33 February 15, 2007
include fully access controlled freeways of Interstate facilities, the improvement of which would
be beyond the scope of the TIF program.” The portion of SR-94 analyzed within this report is a
2 to 4 lane arterial roadway with at-grade intersections. Also included in Appendix D are
excerpts showing the base year and build-out deficiencies that list SR-94, Campo Road, and
Lyons Valley Road.
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 34 February 15, 2007
12.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
The proposed 1485-1 Pump Station replacement project is located on the southeast corner of Lyons
Valley Road and Peg Leg Mine Road in the Jamul area of San Diego County, California. The
project site is currently occupied by an existing pump station that will be removed as part of this
project.
Two levels of project traffic generation will occur: temporary construction traffic (estimated to last
between 6 and 9 months) and permanent bi-monthly site visits there after. The near-term conditions
were analyzed using the temporary construction traffic and the build-out conditions were analyzed
using the permanent bi-monthly site visits there after. The specific traffic generation for each
scenario is described below.
1) The near-term temporary construction traffic is estimated to consist of a couple utility trucks
with multiple in and out trips as needed for materials, a large tractor trailer with a
backhoe/excavator, a flatbed truck for pump parts, and a concrete truck as needed. The
temporary construction period is estimated to last between 6 and 9 months. A Passenger
Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0 from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was applied
to the trucks to account for the slower operational characteristics. With the addition of the
PCE factor to the tractor trailers, flatbeds and concrete trucks, an estimate of 22 ADT is
calculated for all of the construction traffic.
2) The build-out permanent traffic is estimated to consist of 2 round trips per month that will
consist of one round trip every other week for readings and maintenance. On a daily basis,
the highest estimated traffic would be 2 ADT occurring bi-monthly.
Based on a review of San Diego County records, ten (10) nearby cumulative projects were
identified and included in this analysis.
Six (6) scenarios were analyzed, which included existing, existing + project, existing + cumulative,
existing + cumulative + project, build-out (2030), and build-out (2030) + project conditions.
Operational findings by scenario are summarized below:
Under existing conditions, all study roadway segments were calculated to operate at LOS D or
better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
Under existing + project conditions, the project was calculated to have no direct impacts
because the project traffic does not exceed the allowable traffic threshold. All study roadway
segments were calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
LOS Engineering, Inc. Otay Pump Replacement Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 35 February 15, 2007
Under existing + cumulative conditions, all study intersections and roadways were calculated to
operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
Under existing + cumulative + project conditions, the project is calculated to have three (3)
cumulative impacts, which include:
1) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Blvd to Jamacha Rd (more than 200 ADT at LOS F,
ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Jamacha Rd to Steele Canyon Rd (more than 200 ADT at LOS
F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (more than 200 ADT at
LOS F, ADT basis)
Under build-out (2030) conditions, all study intersections and roadways were calculated to
operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 along the new alignment over Sweetwater River (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Sweetwater River to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
Under build-out (2030) + project conditions, the project is calculated to have no build-out
impacts because the project traffic does not exceed the allowable traffic threshold. All of the
study roadway segments were calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
1) The segment of SR-94 along the new alignment over Sweetwater River (LOS F, ADT basis)
2) The segment of SR-94 from Sweetwater River to Steele Canyon Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
3) The segment of SR-94 from Steele Canyon Rd to Lyons Valley Rd (LOS F, ADT basis)
12.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures
The project is calculated to have three (3) cumulative impacts. To mitigate the cumulative impacts,
the project applicant proposes to pay into the TIF program.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
County of San Diego Circulation Element Classification
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 1 of 29
ffi
;$;\v Sl (
:l
-= *}1-5r.frili>,"-. : ir?'ili .- *,'"',U
:.--.:^ -'jf,- t:!
*n .if '\k':if.
{. tl. '-1,
,9,22<aAt 'alTa.
!fr,.,.
loaos. ^ ^I
JA MUL
Ul ilieu.l
'fatl
\'I tr
DEHESA ^.rt-t---'K-:" ""
)
a
!-. o^!
-!-'-'qt ^ ) . a A
St.r>:tTT-Trr
,lt
,,/
ta
:v
L,,, ,
o. O.l
l
'."g-
l.o- "f
))
-"7;31
"o\
t ll ttsc2
Sraa!ltlar n"trroll
tv
a
t|'agrfr
':,qlt
sA 1o€.-'
-t 1-' -'< - Rreht ol w.t
l' ' i'"ii:ll,",l '...
,2.
':, )'t"-
/
,/.'
/r'
./a
---1
/'at'l'
a
LEGEND
FREEWAYS TI{REE LANE COLI."ECTOR
-r- FREEWAYS (Proposed) RURAL COLLECTORS
IIITIII DORESSWAYS RURALUGHTCOUESTORS ffi
IIIIIIIIIIII PRIilEARTERIA S UGHTCOLLECTORS ffi
tAfoR RoADS FURAL IIOUNTAIN ROADS .....................oo.....
-rrr-r- RECREATIOMTPARI(WAVS BICYCIENE|YQfiKSYS[E|, a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
COLLECTOR ROADS
INCORPORATED CITIESOtay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 2 of 29
Appendix B
Count Data
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 3 of 29
Caltrans Data
District Route
Rte
Suf County
PM
Prefix
Post
mile Description
Back
Peak
Hour
Back
Peak
Month
Back
AADT
Ahead
Peak
Hour
Ahead
Peak
Month
Ahead
AADT
Year 1997
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 3200 35500 34500 3900 43500 42000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 3900 43500 42000 1250 14000 13600
11 94 SD 17.35 STEEL CANYON ROAD 1250 14000 13600 1400 15300 14800
Year 1998
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 3250 36000 35000 4000 44500 43000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 4000 44500 43000 1300 14300 13800
11 94 SD 17.35 STEEL CANYON ROAD 1300 14300 13800 1400 15600 15100
Year 1999
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 3350 38500 37000 4150 47500 45500
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 4150 47500 45500 1350 15200 14600
11 94 SD 17.35 STEEL CANYON ROAD 1350 15200 14600 1450 16700 16000
Year 2000
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 4150 48000 46500 4900 57000 55000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 4900 57000 55000 1750 19900 19300
11 94 SD 17.35 STEELE CANYON ROAD 1750 19900 19300 1550 18000 17400
Year 2001
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 3750 49000 48000 4500 58000 57000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 4500 58000 57000 1550 20300 19900
11 94 SD 17.35 STEELE CANYON ROAD 1550 20300 19900 1350 17700 17400
Year 2002
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 4000 51000 49500 4800 61000 59000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 4800 61000 59000 1650 21200 20600
11 94 SD 17.35 STEELE CANYON ROAD 1650 21200 20600 1450 18500 18000
Year 2003
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 3800 45000 44000 5000 59000 58000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 5000 59000 58000 1750 20800 20300
11 94 SD 17.35 STEELE CANYON ROAD 1750 20800 20300 1550 18100 17700
Year 2004
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 4150 50000 48500 5500 66000 64000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 5500 66000 64000 1900 22900 22300
11 94 SD 17.35 STEELE CANYON ROAD 1900 22900 22300 1650 19900 19400
Year 2005
11 94 SD 14.33 JAMACHA ROAD 4150 50000 49500 5500 66000 65000
11 94 SD 14.86 JCT. RTE. 54 NORTH 5500 66000 65000 1900 23000 22700
11 94 SD 17.35 STEELE CANYON ROAD 1900 23000 22700 1650 20000 19800
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 4 of 29
ADT GROWTH CALCULATIONS
Based on AADT counts from Caltrans website (shown on previous page).
SR-94 between Jamacha and SR-54 North
Delta in Change % change Average Growth
Year Years ADT in ADT for year shown Factor Per Year
1997 42,000
1998 1 43,000 1,000 2.3%
1999 1 45,500 Caltrans 2,500 5.5%
2000 1 55,000 Historical 9,500 17.3%
2001 1 57,000 Data 2,000 3.5%
2002 1 59,000 2,000 3.4%
2003 1 58,000 -1,000 -1.7%
2004 1 64,000 6,000 9.4%
2005 1 65,000 1,000 1.5%6.85%
2007 Forecast 73,900
SR-94 between SR-54 North and Steele Canyon
Delta in Change % change Average Growth
Year Years ADT in ADT for year shown Factor Per Year
1997 13,600
1998 1 13,800 200 1.4%
1999 1 14,600 Caltrans 800 5.5%
2000 1 19,300 Historical 4,700 24.4%
2001 1 19,900 Data 600 3.0%
2002 1 20,600 700 3.4%
2003 1 20,300 -300 -1.5%
2004 1 22,300 2,000 9.0%
2005 1 22,700 400 1.8%8.36%
2007 Forecast 26,500
SR-94 between Steele Canyon and Lyons Valley
Delta in Change % change Average Growth
Year Years ADT in ADT for year shown Factor Per Year
1997 14,800
1998 1 15,100 300 2.0%
1999 1 16,000 Caltrans 900 5.6%
2000 1 17,400 Historical 1,400 8.0%
2001 1 17,400 Data 0 0.0%
2002 1 18,000 600 3.3%
2003 1 17,700 -300 -1.7%
2004 1 19,400 1,700 8.8%
2005 1 19,800 400 2.0%4.22%
2007 Forecast 21,470
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 5 of 29
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Lyons Valley Road btwn SR-94 & Jefferson Rd
File Number: 68601
Counter ID: 89319
Report Duration:
Thursday Feb 08, 2007 - 00:00 to
Thursday Feb 08, 2007 - 23:59
Other Notes:
None at this time.
Time Total Volume Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59 32 0 32
01:00 - 01:59 14 0 14
02:00 - 02:59 17 0 17
03:00 - 03:59 19 0 19
04:00 - 04:59 56 0 56
05:00 - 05:59 208 0 208
06:00 - 06:59 362 0 362
07:00 - 07:59 369 0 369
08:00 - 08:59 459 0 459
09:00 - 09:59 305 0 305
10:00 - 10:59 243 0 243
11:00 - 11:59 250 0 250
12:00 - 12:59 322 0 322
13:00 - 13:59 318 0 318
14:00 - 14:59 381 0 381
15:00 - 15:59 542 0 542
16:00 - 16:59 487 0 487
17:00 - 17:59 472 0 472
18:00 - 18:59 376 0 376
19:00 - 19:59 224 0 224
20:00 - 20:59 202 0 202
21:00 - 21:59 138 0 138
22:00 - 22:59 91 0 91
23:00 - 23:59 58 0 58
Total 5945 0 5945
AM Peak
Hour 8:15
9:14 0:00
0:59
8:15
9:14
Volume 497 0 497
PM PeakHour 15:00
15:59 12:00
12:59
15:00
15:59
Volume 542 0 542
Report Generated by "Turning Point Traffic Service" all rights reserved
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 6 of 29
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Lyons Valley Rd btwn Jamul Dr & Jefferson Rd
File Number: 54506
Counter ID: N026
Report Duration:
Thursday Feb 16, 2006 - 05:00 to
Friday Feb 17, 2006 - 04:59
Other Notes:
None at this time.
Time North Bound
Volume South Bound
Volume
Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59 36 7 43
01:00 - 01:59 15 3 18
02:00 - 02:59 10 7 17
03:00 - 03:59 10 18 28
04:00 - 04:59 12 46 58
05:00 - 05:59 26 182 208
06:00 - 06:59 89 361 450
07:00 - 07:59 241 468 709
08:00 - 08:59 261 417 678
09:00 - 09:59 163 320 483
10:00 - 10:59 130 217 347
11:00 - 11:59 170 160 330
12:00 - 12:59 220 229 449
13:00 - 13:59 226 233 459
14:00 - 14:59 282 228 510
15:00 - 15:59 413 340 753
16:00 - 16:59 451 267 718
17:00 - 17:59 363 297 660
18:00 - 18:59 300 207 507
19:00 - 19:59 244 112 356
20:00 - 20:59 179 74 253
21:00 - 21:59 148 44 192
22:00 - 22:59 105 36 141
23:00 - 23:59 39 13 52
Total 4133 4286 8419
AM Peak
Hour 8:15
9:14 6:30
7:29
8:15
9:14
Volume 269 491 731
PM Peak
Hour 16:00
16:59 15:00
15:59
15:15
16:14
Volume 451 340 761
Report Generated by "Turning Point Traffic Service" all rights reserved
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 7 of 29
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Lyons Valley Rd btwn Jamul Dr and Peg Leg Mine
Rd
File Number: 63301
Counter ID: N026
Report Duration:
Tuesday Aug 22, 2006 - 00:00 to
Tuesday Aug 22, 2006 - 23:59
Other Notes:
None at this time.
Time East Bound
Volume West Bound
Volume
Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59 34 12 46
01:00 - 01:59 20 7 27
02:00 - 02:59 15 11 26
03:00 - 03:59 9 19 28
04:00 - 04:59 9 42 51
05:00 - 05:59 21 167 188
06:00 - 06:59 63 387 450
07:00 - 07:59 231 539 770
08:00 - 08:59 289 436 725
09:00 - 09:59 166 368 534
10:00 - 10:59 142 225 367
11:00 - 11:59 152 217 369
12:00 - 12:59 216 216 432
13:00 - 13:59 209 251 460
14:00 - 14:59 308 227 535
15:00 - 15:59 501 338 839
16:00 - 16:59 453 242 695
17:00 - 17:59 471 320 791
18:00 - 18:59 394 242 636
19:00 - 19:59 276 154 430
20:00 - 20:59 225 95 320
21:00 - 21:59 180 54 234
22:00 - 22:59 139 38 177
23:00 - 23:59 69 14 83
Total 4592 4621 9213
AM Peak
Hour 8:15
9:14 6:45
7:44
8:15
9:14
Volume 302 570 793
PM Peak
Hour 15:00
15:59 15:00
15:59
15:00
15:59
Volume 501 338 839
Report Generated by "Turning Point Traffic Service" all rights reserved
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 8 of 29
Speed Report
Date:8/22/06 Site: [633.01] Lyons Valley Rd btwn Jamul Dr and Peg Leg Mine Rd
EASTBOUND
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74+Total
00:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 10 13 5 0 1 0 34
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 6 5 2 0 0 20
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 0 15
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 9
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 9
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 6 2 2 0 0 21
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 21 25 6 3 0 0 63
07:00 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 45 82 69 23 1 0 0 231
08:00 0 1 1 0 8 5 14 47 85 101 21 6 0 0 289
09:00 0 3 0 1 2 3 14 27 59 39 13 4 1 0 166
10:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 29 52 32 13 6 0 0 142
11:00 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 25 57 37 19 4 0 0 152
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 40 81 48 29 4 1 1 216
13:00 0 0 0 1 1 2 8 22 89 56 26 4 0 0 209
14:00 0 0 1 0 4 11 25 67 93 71 33 2 0 1 308
15:00 0 2 3 5 3 14 35 96 169 132 32 9 1 0 501
16:00 0 0 0 0 2 13 16 78 176 134 27 7 0 0 453
17:00 0 0 1 0 2 6 10 62 172 170 42 2 4 0 471
18:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 60 154 125 40 5 0 0 394
19:00 0 0 0 1 2 2 17 52 97 68 26 8 1 2 276
20:00 0 0 1 0 0 10 16 48 84 45 16 2 3 0 225
21:00 0 0 1 0 0 1 12 33 46 54 28 5 0 0 180
22:00 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 21 34 44 16 10 4 0 139
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 23 20 5 6 1 2 69
Totals 0 7 10 9 28 80 219 781 1599 1305 433 93 21 7 4592
% of Totals 0%0%0%1%2%5%17%35%28%9%2%0%0%100%
0 4 3 2 12 13 56 193 381 338 113 29 6 1 1151
% AM 0%0%0%0%0%1%4%8%7%2%1%0%0%25%
AM Peak Hour 09:00 07:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 07:00 08:00 04:00 03:00 08:00
Volume 3 1 1 8 5 14 47 85 101 23 6 4 1 289
0 3 7 7 16 67 163 588 1218 967 320 64 15 6 3441
% PM 0%0%0%0%1%4%13%27%21%7%1%0%0%75%
PM Peak Hour 15:00 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 22:00 17:00 19:00 15:00
Volume 2 3 5 4 14 35 96 176 170 42 10 4 2 501
1143 3425
85th Percentile
Report Generated by "Turning Point Traffic Service" all rights reserved 48.4 49 54
Average Speed 50th PercentileOtay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 9 of 29
Speed Report
Date:8/22/06 Site: [633.01] Lyons Valley Rd btwn Jamul Dr and Peg Leg Mine Rd
WESTBOUND
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74+Total
00:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 1 1 0 0 12
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 11
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 7 1 1 0 0 19
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 9 12 11 1 0 0 42
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 62 53 20 6 2 1 167
06:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 16 63 139 134 24 6 0 0 387
07:00 0 0 0 0 1 17 35 83 198 166 34 3 2 0 539
08:00 0 0 2 0 0 4 11 82 173 126 34 4 0 0 436
09:00 0 0 0 0 1 3 22 77 156 91 14 4 0 0 368
10:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 46 86 67 14 3 0 0 225
11:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 11 41 77 56 28 0 1 0 217
12:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 38 80 69 16 4 0 0 216
13:00 0 0 0 0 0 8 12 50 106 55 17 3 0 0 251
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 59 63 67 16 5 1 0 227
15:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 27 61 148 83 14 2 0 0 338
16:00 0 0 0 0 1 4 16 47 84 63 22 5 0 0 242
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 79 133 70 24 3 0 0 320
18:00 0 0 0 1 3 2 12 43 115 49 15 2 0 0 242
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 32 63 34 7 0 0 0 154
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 27 27 16 4 2 0 0 95
21:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 12 18 11 3 3 0 0 54
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 13 9 4 1 1 0 38
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 3 0 0 1 14
Totals 0 0 2 3 13 53 257 884 1764 1249 326 60 8 2 4621
% of Totals 0%0%0%1%6%19%38%27%7%1%0%0%100%
0 0 2 1 8 30 112 429 910 720 181 30 6 1 2430
% AM 0%0%0%1%2%9%20%16%4%1%0%0%53%
AM Peak Hour 08:00 06:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 05:00 05:00 05:00 07:00
Volume 2 1 2 17 35 83 198 166 34 6 2 1 539
0 0 0 2 5 23 145 455 854 529 145 30 2 1 2191
% PM 0%0%0%3%10%18%11%3%1%0%0%47%
PM Peak Hour 12:00 18:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 15:00 15:00 17:00 14:00 14:00 23:00 15:00
Volume 1 3 8 27 79 148 83 24 5 1 1 338
2427 2190
85th Percentile
Report Generated by "Turning Point Traffic Service" all rights reserved 48.0 48 54
Average Speed 50th PercentileOtay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 10 of 29
Speed Statistics
SpeedStat-545.6-NB
Site:6.0NS
Description:Lyons Valley Rd btwn Jamul Dr and Jefferson
Filter time:5:00 Thursday, February 16, 2006 => 5:00 Friday, February 17, 2006
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F99)
Filter:Cls(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ) Dir(N) Sp(5,100) Sep(>0)
Vehicles = 4133
Posted speed limit= 37 mph, Exceeding = 3779 (91.43%), Mean Exceeding = 50.04 mph
Maximum = 89.5 mph, Minimum = 10.0 mph, Mean = 48.6 mph
85% Speed = 57.3 mph, 95% Speed = 62.2 mph, Median = 48.8 mph
10 mph Pace = 45 - 55, Number in Pace = 1778 (43.02%)
Variance = 74.82, Standard Deviation = 8.65 mph
Speed Bins
Speed | Bin | Below | Above | Energy | vMult | n * vMult
0 - 5 | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 4133 100.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
5 - 10 | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 4133 100.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
10 - 15 | 2 0.0% | 2 0.0% | 4131 100.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
15 - 20 | 2 0.0% | 4 0.1% | 4129 99.9% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
20 - 25 | 10 0.2% | 14 0.3% | 4119 99.7% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
25 - 30 | 41 1.0% | 55 1.3% | 4078 98.7% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
30 - 35 | 167 4.0% | 222 5.4% | 3911 94.6% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
35 - 40 | 465 11.3% | 687 16.6% | 3446 83.4% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
40 - 45 | 751 18.2% | 1438 34.8% | 2695 65.2% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
45 - 50 | 814 19.7% | 2252 54.5% | 1881 45.5% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
50 - 55 | 954 23.1% | 3206 77.6% | 927 22.4% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
55 - 60 | 578 14.0% | 3784 91.6% | 349 8.4% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
60 - 65 | 242 5.9% | 4026 97.4% | 107 2.6% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
65 - 70 | 74 1.8% | 4100 99.2% | 33 0.8% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
70 - 75 | 24 0.6% | 4124 99.8% | 9 0.2% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
75 - 80 | 5 0.1% | 4129 99.9% | 4 0.1% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
80 - 85 | 3 0.1% | 4132 100.0% | 1 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
85 - 90 | 1 0.0% | 4133 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
90 - 95 | 0 0.0% | 4133 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
95 - 100 | 0 0.0% | 4133 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
Total Speed Rating = 0.00
Total Moving Energy (Estimated) = 0.00
Speed limit fields
| Limit | Below | Above
0 | 37 (PSL) | 354 8.6% | 3779 91.4%
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 11 of 29
Speed Statistics
SpeedStat-545.6-SB
Site:6.0NS
Description:Lyons Valley Rd btwn Jamul Dr and Jefferson
Filter time:5:00 Thursday, February 16, 2006 => 5:00 Friday, February 17, 2006
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F99)
Filter:Cls(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ) Dir(S) Sp(5,100) Sep(>0)
Vehicles = 4287
Posted speed limit= 37 mph, Exceeding = 4145 (96.69%), Mean Exceeding = 46.59 mph
Maximum = 73.8 mph, Minimum = 14.6 mph, Mean = 46.1 mph
85% Speed = 51.2 mph, 95% Speed = 54.4 mph, Median = 45.9 mph
10 mph Pace = 41 - 51, Number in Pace = 3014 (70.31%)
Variance = 28.42, Standard Deviation = 5.33 mph
Speed Bins
Speed | Bin | Below | Above | Energy | vMult | n * vMult
0 - 5 | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
5 - 10 | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
10 - 15 | 1 0.0% | 1 0.0% | 4286 100.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
15 - 20 | 10 0.2% | 11 0.3% | 4276 99.7% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
20 - 25 | 3 0.1% | 14 0.3% | 4273 99.7% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
25 - 30 | 8 0.2% | 22 0.5% | 4265 99.5% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
30 - 35 | 44 1.0% | 66 1.5% | 4221 98.5% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
35 - 40 | 375 8.7% | 441 10.3% | 3846 89.7% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
40 - 45 | 1308 30.5% | 1749 40.8% | 2538 59.2% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
45 - 50 | 1627 38.0% | 3376 78.7% | 911 21.3% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
50 - 55 | 737 17.2% | 4113 95.9% | 174 4.1% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
55 - 60 | 139 3.2% | 4252 99.2% | 35 0.8% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
60 - 65 | 24 0.6% | 4276 99.7% | 11 0.3% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
65 - 70 | 6 0.1% | 4282 99.9% | 5 0.1% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
70 - 75 | 5 0.1% | 4287 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
75 - 80 | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
80 - 85 | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
85 - 90 | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
90 - 95 | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
95 - 100 | 0 0.0% | 4287 100.0% | 0 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
Total Speed Rating = 0.00
Total Moving Energy (Estimated) = 0.00
Speed limit fields
| Limit | Below | Above
0 | 37 (PSL) | 142 3.3% | 4145 96.7%
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 12 of 29
Appendix C
Cumulative Project Information
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 13 of 29
a
:4
{,o
f
4_^
+(11) a,\
I(q) ;,:
..t
..' .jj' ."
j.' .,j
:
I
Iqi'4_ i:1-:\i
..l;_ 1 (2):
a:t:
arzi(1]i
4_^
(16) +
:t,
+
@
t
a
""2"""
(6)
9^_
+
l-
4 (3):
14 (7\ ::
Jamacha Rd
Cougar
Canyon Rd
(22)
9L
+
l-
...jJ"
-rj
.j" J""
.j r"
l'r'
Steele Canyon . '"::t'
Rd 'i:"'
Lj..'I J.'
I ...::.r| -'l.r-
j"""""""""""""
!i+\./-6
Lyons
Valley Rd
<_.r
2Lane
Bridge
:1: fr
: TPM2O7O9
' TPM20720
TPM 20802
TM 5289
Olive
Vista Dr
Campo Rd
317
ADT
/
4_^
+- <,,
oo
t
(10)18
i+ 9
: \,/
t-
,r
4--,
+: <.,
9L
e
a-
7,ZZZ ADf volumes shown along segments
(, Intersection Reference Number to LOS Tables
Study Intersection - Un-signalized
Study Intersection - Signalized
oo
+NI
No Scale
u
@
t
LEGEND
XX AM oeak hour volumes at intersections
m0 PM peak hour volumes at intersections
Total ( T a,D-7 0q
Proposed
Land Use
o-7;ro TP t4 \ofloz T H SZbq
AM
Rate Size & Units ADT o/o S lN OUT o/o S IN OUT
Residential - Estate 12 /DU 33 DU 395 8o/o 0.3 0.7 10 22 10o/o 0.7 0.3 28
Source: SANDAG Bief Guideof VehicularTraffrcGeneration RafesfortheSanDlego Region, April2002andlTETthEdition
Trip Generation. DU - Dwelling Unit; ADT-Average Daily Traffic; Split-percent inbound and outbound.
12
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 14 of 29
a
I
t1()\\-/
i
i..........,.....,...........
4_,--)
n,,
h1(1) -
j
,.
9L
+
l-
4_^
+:<.,
oo
t
0
(1)
I-^_ 1 (0)
<- 2 (1)
..f(7
.tc
t
(2)
Jamacha Rd
Steele Canyon ,.. ''
Rd
...::""'
.':::::i"
Campo Rd
+-<',
Z t-ane\
Bridge Cougar
Canyon Rd
9r-
+
l-
46
ADT
/
Lyons
Valley Rd
Olive
Vista Dr
__^_>
v
1
(3)
rl,c
t
(1)
4__^
+(3) -,,\
(1I
9L
+
l€
4_
LEGEND
XX(Yr)
2777,\\-/oo
-4->N_i
No Scale
+
@
t
AM oeak hour volumes at intersections
PM peak hour volumes at intersections
ADT volumes shown along segments
lntersection Reference Number to LOS Tables
Study Intersection - Un-signalized
Study Intersection - Signalized
TPM 20599 PMProposedAM
L;;; usl Rate size & Units ADT % sptit ttrt ow oz" sptit lN oUT
Residential - Estate 12 /DU Ma'/" 0.3 a] 1 3 1oo/o 0.7 o.
ffiefGuideofVehicutarTraffrcGenerationRafesfortheSanDiegoRegion,April2002and|TE7thEdition
Trip Generation. DU - Dwelling unit; ADT-Average Daily Traffic; Split-percent inbound and outbound.
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 15 of 29
a
.to
t:2
4_,-+
/E\\J,l -\,
/\
4(?) ;,
Z t-ane\
Bridge
\'4-
<_.
..r o
(7
1
- (9)
Jamacha Rd
Cougar
Canyon Rd
9c
+
l-
Steele Canyon
Rd
'130
ADT
/
+
@
t
(1)
d__^(7) +-<'t
tlt
9L
+
l-
2 (1)
5 (3)
+=(.,
94
Campo Rd
Lyons
Valley Rd
4-_,
+-t,,
(e)
.1,
t2 |\./
t7(1)
130
ADT -t'
Olive
Vista Dr
TPM 20868x
TPM 20686
TPM 20726
Ev
coaLotsq)
a
:li\y
:A
: v,/
:4:l
-li
,.. TPM 20781
i---"" , -\
:
a:d-_,(e) +- (-,
9L
+7
l- o
0(:1)
t_
LEGEND
XX AM peak hour volumes at intersections
(Yy) PM peak hour volumes at intersections
Z,IZZ ADf volumes shown along segments
(!, Intersection Reference Number to LOS Tables
O Study Intersection - Un-signalized
O Study Intersection - signalized
rotat (T PH 20 tte"B , -IPr4 2obb6, TPH 2:o1:"6 TPl--ao.lat \-----------E------PM
Proposed
Land Use Rate Size & Units ADT o/o Spllt ttrt OUf y'it IN OUT
Residential - Estate 12 /DU .l 3 I lQo/o 0'7 0'3 10 4
<^>N_l
No Scale
rl,
@
t
"GenerationRafesfortheSanDiegoRegion,Apri|2002andlTE7thEdition
Trip Generation. DU - Dwelling Unit; ADT-Average Daily Traffic; Split-percent inbound and outbound.
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 16 of 29
LOS Engineering, Inc. Simpson Farms Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic and Transportation 23 March 20, 2006
Figure 9: Total Project Assignment
13(27)
18 (17)23 (49) 32 (32) 48 (99) 62 (71)
11 (22) 37 (73) 4 (10)
14 43 8(24) (54) (6)
63 4 59 13 25 18
(124) (12) (59) (26) (55) (32)
10 (5) 63 (124) 7 (11)
14 (34)5 (11) 10 (16)
73 23 8 14(93) (39) (14) (29)35 16 1 1
(60) (33) (0) (2)
21 (35) 1 (2)
4 (12) 10 (5)
35 (60) 5 (8)
27 27 4 1
(55) (55) (8) (2)
10 30 58 10(16) (52) (48) (16)
14 (24) 17 (39)4 (8) 5 (8)4 (12) 1 (2) 58 (48) 39 (92)
10 2 17 35 35 58(5) (1) (39) (82) (82) (92)
19
(45)
28 (45)
25 (55) 7 (11)
ADT
ADT
ADT ADT 371 ADTADT
2,629
ADT
ADT
ADT ADT
2,795
1,101
1,920 2,150
1,598
ADT1,643
1,592
2,907
176
No Scale
N
LEGEND
XX AM peak hour volumes at intersections(YY) PM peak hour volumes at intersections
Z,ZZZ ADT volumes shown along segments
1 Intersection Reference Number to LOS Tables
8
4
1 2 3
7
10
9
11
65
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Rd
Olive
Vista Dr
Lyons
Valley RdCampo Rd
Steele Canyon
Rd
Jamacha
Rd
PROJECT
SITE
2 Lane
Bridge Cougar
Canyon Rd
Ja
m
a
c
h
a
B
l
v
d
Jamul Dr12
3
4
6
7
8 10
9 Maxfield
Rd
Church
Dwy
12
13
5 13
11
12
Sweetwater
River
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 17 of 29
Appendix D
SANDAG Build-Out 2030 Volumes
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 18 of 29
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 19 of 29
Appendix E
County of San Diego TIF Report Excerpts
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 20 of 29
County of San Diego
Transportation Impact Fee Report
County of San Diego
John L. Snyder
Director of Public Works
Robert D. Christopher
LUEG Program Manager
Robert Goralka, PE
Traffic/Transportation Planning Manager
Chandra Wallar
Assistant Director of Public Works
S. Jeff Bosvay
Public Works Program Coordinator
F. Nick Ortiz
Traffic/Transportation Planning Specialist
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Eugene F. Shank, PE
David R. Spencer, PE
Michael R. Crull, PE
Melissa S. Wisdom
Wilson & Company
Mark E. Peterson, AICP Sherry Ryan, PhD
Stephen C. Cook
SD-S03-317-00
January 2005
7807 Convoy Court, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92111
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 21 of 29
County of San Diego i
Working with stakeholder groups, the County of San Diego (County)
has identified the need to develop a County transportation impact fee
(TIF) program to mitigate the indirect, cumulative traffic impacts of
development throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. State
law allows such programs, and about 60% of the counties in California
have implemented them. The proposed program will fund the
construction of identified transportation facilities and allocate the
associated costs equitably among future developing properties. The
program will not pay for fixing existing deficiencies.
For purposes of the County TIF, the unincorporated area of the County
was divided into three regions: North, South and East. San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) regional land use forecasts
and traffic models were used to determine the amount of expected
future development and the types of transportation improvements
needed. Future growth was evaluated on the basis of Equivalent
Dwelling Units (EDU’s), and it was found that future development
(assuming build-out) would yield a total of 168,349 additional EDU’s
as follows:
¨ 60,652 EDU’s in the communities of the North region
¨ 54,579 EDU’s in the communities of the South region
¨ 53,118 EDU’s in the communities of the East region
The TIF program differentiates between “local” transportation
facilities (collectors and minor streets) that benefit primarily the
community in which they are located, and “regional” facilities (state
routes, prime arterials, major roads, and other regionally significant
roadways) that benefit both the community and surrounding area – in
this case the North, South or East region. Thus each community will
have a different TIF rate comprised of a local component and a
regional component.
The following facility costs and TIF rates were determined:
¨ Local facilities costing a total of $328M were identified, including
streets of collector classification and below. This resulted in local
TIF rates varying by community from $0 to $5,408.
¨ Regional facilities costing a total of $581M were identified,
including state routes, prime arterials, and major roads. This
Executive Summary
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 22 of 29
Executive Summary (continued)
County of San Diego ii
resulted in regional TIF rates of $4,731 for the North region,
$2,859 for the South region, and $2,596 for the East region.
¨ Combining the local and regional components, total TIF rates vary
from $2,596 in several communities to $10,139 in Bonsall.
¨ TIF rates for the communities of Fallbrook and Ramona were
studied separately in the Fallbrook and Ramona Transportation
Impact Fee Report, January 2005.
Further studies, including required environmental review, may result
in the identification of different project alternatives with different
costs. Also, the County is currently working on a general plan update
(GP 2020). The County TIF program may be periodically reviewed
and/or amended to accommodate such project changes. It is
recommended that the TIF rates be indexed annually in order to keep
up with future increases in the cost of construction.
Aside from TIF revenues, other revenue sources will be required to
fund the non-eligible portions of the identified facilities (including
existing deficiencies). Having TIF funds available can help the County
leverage these other funding programs, especially state and federal
grant programs.
The TIF program will satisfy the requirement of the recently voter-
enacted TransNet sales tax extension (Proposition A) for a $2,000 fee
for each new single family dwelling unit for regional transportation
facilities.
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 23 of 29
FINAL REPORT
Transportation
Needs
Assessment
County
Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) Program
(Project Number: X4310-034)
Prepared for:
Department of Public Works
5201 Ruffin Road, Suite D
San Diego, CA 92123 - 1295
7807 Convoy Court, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
January 2005
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 24 of 29
Transportation Needs Assessment
County Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program
(Project Number: X4310-034)
Prepared by:
701 B Street
Suite 1220
San Diego, CA 92101
Prepared for:
Department of Public Works 7807 Convoy Court, Suite 200
5201 Ruffin Road, Suite D San Diego, CA 92111
San Diego, CA 92123 - 1295
January 2005
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 25 of 29
County
Transportation Impact Fee Program 6
TABLE 2.2 (continued)
County of San Diego
Roadway Segment Daily Capacity and LOS Standards
Circulation Element Roads Level of Service
Class X-Section A B C D E
Light Collector 40/60 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Rural Collector 40/84 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Rural Light
Collector 40/60 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Recreational
Parkway 40/100 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Rural Mountain 40/100 <1,900 <4,100 <7,100 <10,900 <16,200
Source: County of San Diego Public Road Standards (amended July 1999)
State Facilities
The traffic assessment and TIF program included State operated highways (2 to 4 lane arterial
roadways with at-grade intersections), and did not include fully access controlled freeways or
Interstate facilities, the improvement of which would be beyond the scope of the TIF program.
For State highways, the procedure for calculating LOS involves the estimation of peak hour
roadway volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. The resulting peak hour v/c ratio is then compared to
accepted ranges of v/c values corresponding to various Levels of Service. The procedure for
calculating LOS on State highways is also affected by the grouping of segments in the SANDAG
transportation model and assumptions related to the peak period versus peak hour traffic flows,
as discussed below.
Grouping of Roadway Segments: Roadway segments in SANDAG’s transportation model
network are grouped to facilitate data reporting, as well as to reflect the availability of existing
traffic counts. Typically, LOS is assigned to an entire group of segments (referred to as a
roadway section) based upon the lowest performing segment in the group. Thus means that
when a roadway segment is identified as being substandard LOS, the roadway segments (of
similar cross-section) on either side are also identified as substandard.
Peak Hour versus Peak Period: SANDAG’s transportation model assignment process outputs
AM peak period, PM peak period, and off-peak period traffic volumes. Methodologies for
calculating LOS on state facilities requires peak hour directional traffic volumes. To obtain peak
hour directional traffic volumes from the peak period traffic volumes, SANDAG applies an
hourly distribution factor to the peak period traffic volume. The hourly distribution factor is
developed from hourly traffic count data collected at permanent Caltrans count stations. With
the estimated peak hour directional traffic volume and freeway capacity, SANDAG calculates a
peak hour v/c ratio.
The v/c ratio ranges utilized by SANDAG for determining LOS A through F on the State
highways is displayed in Table 2.3.
Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 26 of 29
Appendix A
Base Year Deficiencies
State Facilities
CPA Name Lanes
Additional Lane Miles
Required
Bonsall MISSION 2 6.77
Bonsall PALA 2 0.56
Fallbrook PALA 2 0.30
Jamul-Dulzura CAMPO 2 4.39
Jamul-Dulzura SR-94 2 0.83
Lakeside SR-67 2 7.81
Ramona JULIAN 2 0.89
Ramona MAIN 4 0.22
Ramona SR-67 2 5.40
Spring Valley SR-54 EB 4 0.31
Sweetwater SOUTH BAY PARKWAY 2 1.70
Valle De Oro CAMPO 2 2.87
12/17/2004Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 27 of 29
Appendix B
Buildout Deficiencies
County Facilities
6 of 16
CPA Name From Cross Street To Cross Street
Existing
Classification
Required
Classification
Additional
Lane Miles
Required
Jamul-Dulzura LYONS VALLEY JAMUL RIO GRANDE Light Collector Collector 0.85
Jamul-Dulzura LYONS VALLEY JEFFERSON RESERVOIR Light Collector Collector 0.39
Jamul-Dulzura LYONS VALLEY RESERVOIR JAMUL Light Collector Collector 0.36
Jamul-Dulzura LYONS VALLEY RIO GRANDE SC 760 Light Collector Collector 0.70
Jamul-Dulzura PROCTOR VALLEY CALLE BUENO GANA SCHLEE CANYON Light Collector Town Collector 0.41
Jamul-Dulzura PROCTOR VALLEY MAXFIELD ZONE CONNECTOR Light Collector Collector 0.22
Jamul-Dulzura PROCTOR VALLEY MELODY CALLE BUENO GANA Light Collector Town Collector 0.11
Jamul-Dulzura PROCTOR VALLEY SCHLEE CANYON MAXFIELD Light Collector Collector 0.52
Jamul-Dulzura PROCTOR VALLEY ZONE CONNECTOR JEFFERSON Light Collector Collector 0.16
Lakeside ASHWOOD WILDCAT CANYON ZONE CONNECTOR Light Collector Collector 0.85
Lakeside ASHWOOD ZONE CONNECTOR ZONE CONNECTOR Light Collector Collector 0.76
Lakeside ASHWOOD ZONE CONNECTOR MAPLEVIEW Light Collector Collector 0.36
Lakeside CHANNEL LAKESIDE UNKNOWN Light Collector Collector 0.26
Lakeside EL NOPAL 11354 RIVERFORD Light Collector Collector 0.22
Lakeside EL NOPAL UNKNOWN 11354 Light Collector Town Collector 0.21
Lakeside EL NOPAL UNNAMED LKS UNKNOWN Light Collector Town Collector 0.12
Lakeside I-8 BUSINESS 13490 LOS COCHES/CM CA Light Collector Collector 0.81
Lakeside I-8 BUSINESS JACKSON HILL LAVALA Light Collector Collector 1.01
Lakeside I-8 BUSINESS LOS COCHES/CM CA UNKNOWN Light Collector Collector 0.32
Lakeside I-8 BUSINESS PINKARD LAKEVIEW/13754 Light Collector Town Collector 0.23
Lakeside I-8 BUSINESS UNKNOWN JACKSON HILL Light Collector Collector 0.59
Lakeside JULIAN CACTUS LOS COCHES/MAINE Light Collector Town Collector 0.18
Lakeside JULIAN PINO LAKEVIEW Light Collector Town Collector 0.16
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA EL MONTE ZONE CONNECTOR Light Collector Collector 1.00
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA HARRITT HWY 8/BLOSSOM VA Light Collector Collector 0.23
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA HWY 8/BLOSSOM VA RAMP I-8 WB Light Collector Collector 0.10
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA PINKARD HARRITT Light Collector Collector 0.20
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA RAMP I-8 WB RAMP I-8 WB Light Collector Collector 0.06
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA RAMP I-8 WB SIERRA ALTA Light Collector Collector 0.14
Lakeside LAKE JENNINGS PA ZONE CONNECTOR PINKARD Light Collector Collector 1.74
Lakeside LAKESIDE RIVERSIDE ZONE CONNECTOR Town Collector Collector 0.28
Lakeside LAKESIDE ZONE CONNECTOR CHANNEL Town Collector Collector 0.15
Lakeside LOS COCHES BOWER LAKEVIEW Town Collector Collector 0.40
Lakeside LOS COCHES DEL SOL ZONE CONNECTOR Town Collector Collector 1.01
Lakeside LOS COCHES LAKEVIEW I-8 BUSINESS Town Collector Collector 0.58
12/17/2004Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 28 of 29
Appendix B
Buildout Deficiencies
State Facilities
CPA Name Lanes
Additional Lane Miles
Required
Bonsall MISSION 2 14.02
Bonsall PALA 2 2.55
Central Mountain JULIAN 2 5.21
Fallbrook PALA 2 11.43
Fallbrook PALA-NEW 2 1.01
Jamul-Dulzura CAMPO 2 15.13
Jamul-Dulzura SR-94 2 0.83
Lakeside SR-67 3 7.13
Mountain Empire TECATE 2 2.93
North County Metro SAN PASQUAL VALLEY 2 2.24
North County Metro SR-78 2 2.01
North County Metro SR-78 NEW 4 0.00
North Mountain JULIAN 2 2.71
Pala-Pauma SR-76 2 2.50
Ramona JULIAN 2 4.81
Ramona MAIN 4 2.56
Ramona SR-67 2 8.90
Ramona SR-78 2 3.85
Valle De Oro CAMPO 2 2.75
12/17/2004Otay Water District 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement TIA Appendix Page 29 of 29
Responses to Public Comments Pump Station 1485-1 Replacement Project
RESPONSES COMMENTS
RTC-6