HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-06 E&O Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT
ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
Board Room
Monday
March 27, 2006
4:00P.M.
This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting
in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that
a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions
· will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations
to the full board for its consideration and formal action.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION-OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
INFORMATION I ACTION ITEMS
3. ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 980-3 RESERVOIR
PROJECT (POSADA/SCHOLL) [1 0 minutes]
4. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE UTILITY AGREEMENT
NOS. 31757 AND 31758 WITH CAL TRANS FOR SR-905 UTILITY RELOCA-
TIONS (RIPPERGER/JUYBARI/RIENDEAU) [1 0 minutes]
5. ADJOURNMENT
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
Gary Croucher
Jose Lopez
1
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be
deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board.
If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24
hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on March 23, 2006, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the
regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at
least 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code
Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley, California on March 23, 2006.
Connie Rathbone, Assistant District Secretary
2
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY: Robert Scholl R. ~
Associate Civil Engineer
Rod Posad~~~t:r~ APPROVED BY:
(Chief) Chief of Development Services
Manny Magana~~
AGENDA ITEM 3
MEETING DATE:
PROJECT:
April 5, 2006
P2037 DIV. NO. 4
APPROVED BY:
(Asst. GM) Assistant General~anager, Engineering and Operations
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 980-3
Reservoir
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the 980-3 Reservoir.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the construction of the 980-3 Reservoir.
ANALYSIS:
The 15 million gallon 980-3 Reservoir will be constructed adjacent to
the existing 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs located within the District's
Use Area (See Attachment B for project location). On September 28,
2004, the District's General Manager signed a contract with BRG
Consulting, Inc to perform environmental services for the 980-3
Reservoir. These environmental services include the preparation of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to satisfy the conditions of the
California Environmental Quality ·Act (CEQA) . BRG Consulting has
completed an Initial Study and draft MND. Based on the findings of
these documents, and with proper mitigation measures taken as
outlined in the draft MND, the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
The Draft MND was submitted for 30-day public review on January 17,
2006 . Two comment letters were received; one of these being from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the other from the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (see Attachments C and D)
BRG Consulting has incorporated these comments into the MND and
finalized the document on March 1, 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the following strategic goal: Design and
construct new infrastructure -satisfy current and future water needs
for Potable, Recycled and Wastewater Services.
LEGAL IMPACT:
No legal impact is anticipated. However, in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act process, the Final MND will have
the normal 30-day legal challenge period once the Notice of
Determination (NOD) is recorded with the County of San Diego. The
NOD will be recorded within five (5) working days after Board
adoption of the MND.
General Manager
Attachments
RS/RP/MM:kr
p ,\WORKING\CIP 037\WO 30116\Staff Reports\BD 04-05-06, 980-3 Reservoir MND Adoption (RS) .doc
2
ATTACHMENT A
i SUBJECT/PROJECT: ! Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 980-3
l ..... ·············································· ··························· ....... J ~~-~--~-~-~~-~--~·-····· ................................ .. ···················-···················-·········· .................................... ···················-··· ··········-·-················· .............. :
COMMITTEE ACTION:
On March 27, 2006, the Engineering and Operations Committee met
to consider this item and supported staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The "Committee Action" is written in anticipation of the
Committee moving the item forward for board approval. This
report will be sent to the Board as a committee approved item,
or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed
from the committee prior to presentation to the full board.
Legend
Environmental Impact Area
t2L} Proposed Reservoir Site
I Habitat Management Area
--Existing Paved Access Roads
- -Unpaved Roads
-Proposed Access Road
··-··--· 40-ft Contours
100 200
ATTACHMENT B
SOURCE: AirPhoto USA 2004 Otay Water District and BRG Consulting Inc 2005 "
~-~ J .. l!__? 1. j r Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir ·~·~·~· Proposed Project
~,\1l1i'r~
I '"
3/3/05
FIGURE
3
Robert Scholl
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Kathie:
Christopher_ Otahal@fws.gov
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:26 PM
kathie@brginc.net; Robert Scholl
Comments on the Draft MND/IS for the 980-3 Reservoir
ATTACHMENT C
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) and Initial Study (IS) for the proposed Otay Water District (District)
980-3 Reservoir, dated January 17, 2006, and offer the following comments.
The Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BS (page 2 of the MND and page 20 of the IS)
should provide for the removal of vegetation from the construction footprint outside of
the California Gnatcatcher breeding season. Also, the Service recommends that the
proposed pre-construction surveys include a 300-foot buffer around the construction
footprint and along any access roads. To achieve these recommendations the Service
suggests that the first sentence of Mitigation Measure BS be replaced by the following:
To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds, all vegetation
clearing within the construction footprint shall be conducted outside
of the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 1 to August
31). To avoid indirect construction (other than vegetation removal)
noise impacts to California gnatcatchers and least Bell's vireos
during the breeding season, pre-construction surveys shall be
conducted to determine the exact location of nesting sites within 300
feet adjacent to the Environmental Impact Area as depicted in Figure
3 of the draft MND.
The IS (page 18) states that the proposed mitigation ratio for coastal sage scrub (1:1) is
based upon those of other local agency mitigation requirements such as the Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) sub-area plans for the City .of Chula Vista, City of
San Diego and the County of San Diego. However, it should be noted that projects that are
subject to discretionary actions by parties to the MSCP benefit from reduced mitigation
requirements compared to projects that are subject to discretionary action by entities not
party to the MSCP or for which their Subarea Plan has not yet been approved. The
application of the MSCP ratios to habitats that are not within an area that is governed by
an approved Subarea Plan, which would confer to the project the benefit of reduced
mitigation requirements, would not be appropriate. Such is the case with the habitat
impacts that would result from the reservoir and associated infrastructure. Consequently,
we recommend that, for such impacts, the draft EIR and IS should stipulate mitigation
ratios higher than those required by the MSCP. In particular, the mitigation ratio for
permanent impacts to coastal sage scrub should be increased to 2:1 to be consistent with
other Otay Water District projects.
Thank you for considering the Service's comments. If you have any questions regarding
this e-mail, please contact me at the address below.
'Sincerely,
Chris Otahal
******** Note the new zip code!!!
Chris Otahal
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
(760) 431-9440
******** Note the new zip code!!!
***********
***********
1
ATTACHMENT D
Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D.
Agency Secretary
Cai/EPA
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Maureen F. Gorsen, Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
February 16, 2006
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
E3 ~l: ~ ~t:~~
;l· r:..'P
"""') t.<J
~"' =~
Mr. Robert Scholl
Otay Water District
"' "<.) --:t~-:~--C4~:....'*~:;~7~:~.r.-&..-.;;;_.-0:?:-c~~::~~-.r~·~-,-to ... , -... -;_,...
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd
Spring Valley, California 91978
.;t::
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DEGLARATION (NO) FOR THE 980-3 RESERVOIR
PROJECT (SCH#2006012084)
Dear Mr. Scholl:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The proposed
project is the construction of a new 15.0 MG reservoir northwest of the existing 980-1
and 980-2 reservoirs". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has
comments as follows:
1) The NO should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
2) The document states that the NO would identify any known or potentially
contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the
NO should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify
these sites. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies:
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CaiSites):
A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control. ·
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Robert Scholl
February 14, 2006
Page 2
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) I Spills, Leaks,
Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional
Water Quality Control Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks .
. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The NO should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or
wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be
conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should
be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated.
-H may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required
to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no
immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with state regulations and policies.
4) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
Mr. Robert Scholl
February 14, 2006
Page 3
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
6) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease
and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is
determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should
identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted,
and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight.
7) If the site was used for agricultural purposes and weed abatement may have
occurred, onsite soils may contain pesticide and agricultural chemical residue.
If the project area was used for poultry, dairy and/or cattle industry operations,
the soil may contain related dairy, animal, or hazardous waste. If so, activities
at the site may have contributed to soil and groundwater contamination. Proper
investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site
prior to construction of the project.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. AI Shami, Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami@dtsc.ca.gov".
Sincerely,
~~
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch -Cypress Office
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CEQA #1301
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
SUBJECT: Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir
I.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See Initial Study.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See Initial Study.
III.DETERMINATION:
The Otay Water District (OWD) conducted an Initial Study for the proposed 980-3 Reservoir project,
and determined that the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect in the following
areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water
Quality, and Noise. Future development of the 980-3 Reservoir shall be required to implement the
mitigation measures identified in Section V of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Implementation of
the prescribed mitigation would avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental effects identified
by this analysis, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required for the
construction of the 980-3 Reservoir.
IV.DOCUMENTATION:
The attached Initial Study documents the evidence to support the above determination.
V.MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM:
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with
Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise,
and Mandatory Findings of Significance to below a level of significance:
Air Quality
A1. During clearing, grading, and earth moving, the OWD shall control fugitive dust by regular watering
of the site and access road. The following practices shall be implemented:
•Spread soil binders;
•Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings,
as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind;
•Use water trucks and sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move wet enough to
prevent dust raised when leaving the site; and,
•Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.
Biological Resources
B1. The impact to 0.1 acre of Coastal sage scrub and 0.9 acre of disturbed Coastal sage scrub shall be
mitigated through the preservation of Coastal sage scrub at a 2:1 ratio for a total mitigation requirement
of 2.0 acre of Coastal sage scrub. The 2.0 acres of Coastal sage scrub shall be preserved in the
OWD’s existing habitat management area.
B2. The permanent impact to 0.1 acre of native grassland and 0.8 acre of disturbed native grassland
shall be mitigated through the preservation of Coastal sage scrub at a 1:1 ratio for a total mitigation
requirement of 0.9 acre of native grassland. The 0.9 acre of native grassland shall be preserved in the
OWD’s existing habitat management area.
B3. The permanent impact to 1.5 acres of non-native grassland shall be mitigated through the
preservation non-native grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio for a total mitigation requirement of 0.8 acre of non-
native grassland. The 0.8 acre of non-native grassland shall be preserved in the OWD’s existing
habitat management area.
B4. Prior to construction of the project site (disposal of excavated material into the borrow pit) a pre-
construction survey shall be conducted to determine the exact location of Otay tarplant species. Once
their location has been determined the site shall be staked and these species shall be completely
avoided during the construction of the proposed project.
B5. To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds, all vegetation clearing within the construction
footprint shall be conducted outside the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 1 to August
31). To avoid indirect construction (other than vegetation removal) noise impacts to California
gnatcatchers and least Bell’s vireos during the breeding, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to
determine exact location of nesting sites within 300 feet adjacent to the Environmental Impact as
depicted in Figure 3 of the Initial Study.
Where noise associated with grading and construction will negatively impact an occupied nest for the
least Bell’s vireo during the breeding season (April 10 to July 31) and the California gnatcatcher during
the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), noise levels shall not exceed 60 dB(A). If an occupied
least Bell’s vireo and/or California gnatcatcher nest is identified in a pre-construction survey, a focused
noise survey shall be conducted to determine the potential noise level from the project site to the
location of the nest. If the noise level exceeds 60 dB(A) at the nesting site, noise reduction techniques
such as temporary noise walls or measures agreed upon between OWD and the USFWS to avoid
“take” of these species, shall be incorporated into the construction plans to reduce noise levels below
60 dB(A).
B6. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the exact location of nesting sites within
and/or adjacent to the project area. Where impacts associated with grading and clearing will negatively
impact raptors potentially nesting within the eucalyptus trees located on the northern end of the project
area, removal of eucalyptus trees shall occur outside the raptor breeding season (February 1 to August
30).
Cultural Resources
C1.During grading and earthwork the following shall be implemented by the OWD:
1.A qualified paleontologist and/or paleontological monitor shall be retained to implement the
monitoring program. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a Ph.D. or
master’s degree in paleontology or geology who is a recognized expert in the application of
paleontological procedures and techniques such as screen washing of materials and
identification of fossil deposits. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials and who is working under the
direction of a qualified paleontologist.
2.The qualified paleontologist shall attend any preconstruction meetings to consult with the
excavation contractor. The requirement for paleontological monitoring shall be noted on the
construction plans. The paleontologist’s duties shall include monitoring, salvaging, preparing
materials for deposit at a scientific institution that houses paleontological collections, and
preparing a results report. These duties are defined as follows:
a.Monitoring. The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site during the
original cutting of previously undisturbed areas of the sensitive formation to inspect for
well-preserved fossils. The paleontologist shall work with the contractor to determine the
monitoring locations and the amount of time necessary to ensure adequate monitoring of
the project.
b.Salvaging. In the event that well-preserved fossils are found, the paleontologist shall
have the authority to divert, direct, or temporarily halt construction activities in the area of
discovery to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Recovery is anticipated
to take from one hour to a maximum of two days. At the time of discovery, the
paleontologist shall contact the OWD. OWD must concur with the salvaging methods
before construction is allowed to resume.
c.Preparation. Fossil remains shall be cleaned, sorted, cataloged, and then deposited in a
scientific institution that houses paleontological collections (such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum).
d.Monitoring Results Report. A monitoring results report, with appropriate graphics,
summarizing the results (even if negative), analysis, and conclusions of the above
program shall be prepared and submitted to the OWD within three months following the
termination of the paleontological monitoring program.
3.A report of findings, even if negative, shall be filed with the OWD and the San Diego Natural
History Museum.
Geology/Soils
Same as Mitigation Measure WQ1, below.
Hydrology/Water Quality
WQ1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented at the project site during construction
and long-term operation of the Reservoir. The contractor specifications require the implementation of
BMPs to control water quality runoff during project construction. The following measures shall be
implemented:
•Develop and implement a Storm Water Prevention Pollution Plan (SWPPP);
•Comply with the City of Chula Vista’s SUSMP by selecting post-construction BMPs;
•Implement a selection of BMPs (e.g., silt fences, temporary gravel, sandbag barriers, etc.);
and,
•Prepare a Water Quality Technical Report prior to construction.
Noise
N1. The following shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project:
•Noise construction activities shall be scheduled only during the hours and days as permitted
by OWD standards, which are Monday through Saturday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
•A construction schedule shall be developed to minimize potential cumulative construction
noise impacts and that accommodate noise-sensitive time periods for the HMA.
•All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained muffling devices. Impact tools shall be shielded per manufacturer’s
specifications.
•Grading and construction equipment shall be stored on the project site while in use.
•Where appropriate, construction activity noise levels shall be monitored within the HMA during
sensitive avian species breeding seasons (April 10 to July 31 for the least Bell’s Vireo and
February 1 to August 31 for the California gnatcatcher). If the noise levels exceed an Leq of
60 dB(A), measures identified in Mitigation Measure B5 discussed above shall be
implemented.
VI.PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
Draft copies or notice of this Draft Negative Declaration were distributed to:
Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Mr. Don Chadwick, California Department of Fish and Game
Ms. Sandy Marquez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Terrence C. Dean, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
Mr. John H. Robertus, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Other Entities
East County Californian
Mr. David C. Fege, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Tim Cass, San Diego County Water Authority
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi, City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista Public Library, Eastlake Branch
Owner/Occupant
Jed & Norma Novero
Anthony & Claire Pipit
Viramontes Family Trust
Michael Speyrer & Laura Escandon
Corriera Living Trust
Martin & Liza Cabigas
Edurado Salea
Joel & Judith Apides
James & Patricia Battle
Auther Chew & Sheera Blanchette
Pacific Bay Properties
Arthur & Luz Cardones
Schottle Family Trust
Ward & Kelly Lannom
Thomas & Kathleen Bernard
Barbara & Veronica Ballard
David & Angelina O’Leary
Oscar & Dawn Navarro
Dagohoy & Crisamar
Eugene & Thelma Dablaing
Jose & Sylvia Jimenez
Robert & Jacquie Hardesty
Danilo & Maritas Pascasro
Anabel Villavicencio & Richard Holmes
Emilio Abordo
Richard & Deborah Ballard
Matt & Yolanda Sherard
Rowland & Mary Taylor
Kohlheim Family Trust
Ronald & Wendolyn Pierce
Johnson Family Trust
Carlos & Lissa Sanchez
Alfred & Michelle Cacace
Ricardo & Lydia Perez
Jose & Catherine Serrato
Mike Garrison & Merlita Sarmiento
Jerry & Timothy Wilson
Hecht Solberg Robinson, Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association
Donald L. Knox, McMillin Rolling Hills Ranch
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. The letters and
responses follow.
Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available for review at: Otay
Water District, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004, Contact Robert Scholl,
P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, (619) 670-2219; and the Chula Vista Public Library, Eastlake Branch, 1120
Eastlake Parkway, Chula Vista, CA 91913.
January 17, 2006
Kathie Washington Date of Draft Report
Assistant Project Manager
BRG Consulting, Inc.
(Environmental Consultant for OWD)
April 5, 2006
Date of Final Report
Public Review Comments and Responses
Email from Chris Otahal (U.S. FIsh and Wildlife Service), February 15, 2006 – Email
provided in Appendix F of the Initial Study
Comment 1:
The Biological Resources Mitigation Measure B5 (page 2 of the MND and page 20 of the IS)
should provide for the removal of vegetation from the construction footprint outside of the
California Gnatcatcher breeding season. Also, the Service recommends that the proposed pre-
construction surveys include a 300-foot buffer around the construction footprint and along any
access roads. To achieve these recommendations the Service suggests that the first sentence of
Mitigation Measure B5 be replaced by the following:
To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds, all vegetation clearing within the
construction footprint shall be conducted outside of the California gnatcatcher breeding
season (February 1 to August 31). To avoid indirect construction (other than vegetation
removal) noise impacts to California gnatcatchers and least Bell’s vireos during the breeding
season, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the exact location of
nesting sites within 300 feet adjacent to the Environmental Impact Area as depicted in Figure
3 of the draft MND.
Comment 2:
The IS (page 18) states that the proposed mitigation ratio for coastal sage scrub (1:1) is based
upon those of other local agency mitigation requirements such as the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) sub-area plans for the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego and
the County of San Diego. However, it should be noted that projects that are subject to
discretionary actions by parties to the MSCP benefit from reduced mitigation requirements
compared to projects that are subject to discretionary action by entities not party to the MSCP
or for which their Subarea Plan has not yet been approved. The application of the MSCP ratios
to habitats that are not within an area that is governed by an approved Subarea Plan, which
would confer to the project the benefit of reduced mitigation requirements, would not be
appropriate. Such is the case with the habitat impacts that would result from the reservoir and
associated infrastructure. Consequently, we recommend that, for such impacts, the draft EIR
and IS should stipulate mitigation ratios higher than those required by the MSCP. In particular,
the mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to coastal sage scrub should be increased to 2:1 to
be consistent with other Otay Water District projects.
Response to Comments 1 and 2:
The District has revised the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study to reflect all
comments made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 1 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:980-3 Reservoir
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Robert Scholl, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, (619) 670-2219
4. Project Location:525 Hunte Parkway, Chula Vista, CA 91914. The project area is
located in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista (Figures 1 and
2). Access to the project area is provided by an existing access road
for the Auld Golf Course and an unnamed paved road located along the
western edge of the golf course (Figure 3). The property is located in
Section 23 of Township 17 South, Range 1 West, of the San
Bernardino Base Meridian, USGS 7.5’ Jamul Mountains Quadrangle.
The project area is approximately 0.4-mile north of Proctor Valley
Road.
5. Project’s Sponsor’s Name and Address:Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
6. General Plan Designation:Open Space
7. Zoning:A-8; Agricultural
8. Description of Project:
The Otay Water District (OWD) is responsible for delivering potable and recycled water to customers within a current
jurisdictional area of 80,320 acres in southern San Diego County. The OWD is divided into five water service systems: the
La Presa, Hillsdale and Regulatory systems in the northern portion of the OWD, and the Central Area and Otay Mesa
systems in the southern portion of the OWD. This proposed project is located in the Central Area system, which comprises
37,700 acres of eastern Chula Vista.
The Central Area system is the fastest growing system in the OWD. The Central Area system had an average daily potable
water demand of 10.95 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) in 2002. Due to projected growth rates in the area, the system’s
ultimate average daily potable water demand is expected to increase to 29.40 MGD.
The Central Area system is divided into several pressure zones to accommodate the rolling terrain that generally rises in
elevation from west to east. Currently, the 980 Pressure Zone is the highest zone in the Central Area system. This
pressure zone had an average daily potable water demand of 2.04 MGD and a maximum daily demand of 4.58 MGD as of
2002. According to OWD’s Water Resources Master Plan, during the summer of 2006, maximum daily demands are
expected to reach 6.37 MGD; and, potable and recycled water demands in the 980 Pressure Zone are anticipated to
increase 11 percent per year (OWD, 2004).
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 2 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Currently, the 980 Pressure Zone is serviced by the 980-1 Pump Station, located near the intersection of Otay Lakes Road
and Lane Avenue. This pump station has a capacity of 8,000 gallons per minute and, during its off- and semi-peak electric
grid schedule from May to October, can supply the 980 Pressure Zone with 8.16 MGD of potable water. Storage for the
pressure zone is achieved by two 5.02 Million Gallon (MG) steel reservoir tanks, referred to as 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs
located in the OWD’s Use Area north of the Auld Golf Course (Figure 3).
The 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs provide a total existing operational storage capacity of 10.04 MG for the 980 Pressure
Zone. As discussed in the OWD’s Water Resources Master Plan, the existing capacity is adequate to provide storage
requirements until about the year 2006 (OWD, 2004). Due to rapid growth in the 980 Pressure Zone, additional storage is
needed now. An additional 15.3 MG will be needed to meet the ultimate storage requirements in the year 2020 (OWD,
2004). As such, additional storage capacity will be needed to meet the ultimate build-out projected storage requirements.
Therefore, to address this storage requirement, the OWD is proposing to construct a new 15.0 MG 980-3 Reservoir within
the same location as the existing Reservoirs. This 15.0 MG reservoir will be large enough to sustain ultimate build-out
storage requirements for the 980 Pressure Zone (Pers. Comm., Robert Scholl, November 5, 2004).
The proposed 980-3 potable water Reservoir would have a volume of 15.0 MG, a high water elevation of 981.5 feet, a
ringwall elevation of 948 feet and an interior diameter of 275 feet. Figure 4 provides a preliminary site plan for the proposed
project. The proposed Reservoir material would consist of a welded steel or concrete reservoir constructed above grade.
The Reservoir would be located on property owned by the OWD, northwest of the existing 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs.
The construction of the 980-3 Reservoir will be referred to hereinafter as the proposed project. The proposed project and
related activities will remain within a defined area – depicted as the “environmental impact area” on Figure 3.
Access and Fencing
The existing 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs access road is an unpaved road running along the western edge of the Auld Golf
Course at the OWD’s Use Area. The road will be paved as part of the previously approved 980 30-inch pipeline project.
The proposed project would obtain access from the same road and will extend it to a 16-foot paved road around the
perimeter of the new reservoir. During construction, access to the project site will be provided by existing dirt roads that will
be temporarily improved during construction with gravel for safety. All access roads for the proposed project are located
within the environmental impact area identified on Figure 3.
An eight-foot chain link fence currently encompasses the 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs and the OWD’s recycled water
holding Pond #4 site. The existing fence would remain in place and only be removed when it is required to construct the
new reservoir. When the removal of the existing fence is required, the contractor would provide security fencing to the
existing reservoirs. After the construction of the proposed project is complete, the existing fence would be connected to a
new eight-foot chain link fence surrounding the new reservoir.
Project Construction
Construction for the proposed project would only occur during the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm and would be completed in
approximately 16 months. Construction is scheduled to begin in September 2006 and be completed by December 2007.
Construction equipment will include a variety of equipment such as a backhoe, air compressor, crane, dozer, forklift, grader,
trucks, etc. All construction equipment will be stored at a staging area within the defined environmental impact area
identified on Figure 3.
An estimated 66,000 cubic yards of cut will be excavated from the project site and deposited in the large, deep disturbed
area that was previously excavated and used as a borrow pit in the southeastern portion of the project site (depicted as the
proposed fill area in Figure 3). Approximately 6,000 total truck trips would be required to move this quantity of material to
the borrow pit within the environmental impact area. However, some materials, such as grubbing spoils (i.e., cleared
vegetation) and other materials will have to be hauled off-site to a landfill. Such activity will generate only a few non-peak
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 3 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
hour truck trips. These off-site truck trips will be temporary and will not impact the existing peak, morning and evening traffic
periods on the surrounding roadway network.
Otay Water District’s Water Resources Master Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report
In August 2002, the OWD adopted a Water Resources Master Plan. The Master Plan is a comprehensive program for the
orderly and phased development of potable and reclaimed water supply, storage, transmission, and distribution in the
OWD’s service area and designated area of influence. The Master Plan is a revision and update to OWD’s 1995 Master
Plan to incorporates previous OWD planning efforts and approved land-use development plans, and growth projections
within the OWD service area consistent with the San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG’s) forecasts. The
proposed potable and recycled facilities, and expansions of existing facilities, have been identified with required capacity
and phasing. The planning is based on dwelling until and population projections for three increments of development;
Phase I (existing – 2006); Phase II (2006 – 2016); and Phase III (2017 – ultimate build out). The Water Resources Master
Plan only addresses potable and recycled water facilities, not wastewater facilities.
The potable water system capital improvement program facilities consist of pump stations, storage reservoirs, and
transmission mains to meet the projected demands within the project area. These capital improvement program (CIP)
facilities are the primary facilities that are planned, funded, and constructed by OWD. The secondary potable water facilities
are the distribution pipelines and lateral typically 12-inches or smaller in diameter to be planned, funded, and constructed by
the development project proponents as part of each development project, known as exaction projects.
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted by OWD in 2004. The Program EIR was prepared for
the Water Resources Master Plan in the capacity of a Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines. The Program EIR provides information regarding the environmental effects of the Water Resources
Master Plan and provides an update to the Master EIR that was prepared for a previous Water Resources Master Plan
prepared in 1995. As such, this Program EIR evaluates projects that were previously analyzed in previous Master EIR as
well as projects proposed in the current Water Resources Master Plan. The Final Program EIR for the Master Plan
examines issues of aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils/paleontology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/permitting, noise,
population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems. In addition, growth-
inducing, state law requirements for the coordination of land use and water supply planning, cumulative impacts, and
alternatives to the proposed Master Plan are evaluated in the Program EIR. The Program EIR identifies potential impacts of
existing projects, future projects and the kind of mitigation that is to be applied when individual projects are approved or
implemented are evaluated in general terms. The Program EIR recognizes that development of mitigation for a specific
project may require further evaluation or technical study at the time of subsequent evaluation.
9. Surrounding Land Use and Setting:
The project area lies at the base of both the San Miguel and Mother Miguel mountains within the City of Chula Vista
(Figures 1 and 2). The new 980-3 Reservoir will be constructed northwest of the existing Auld Golf Course which the
property is owned and leased by OWD. Land uses surrounding the project area include open space to the north, the Rolling
Hills Ranch residential community to the south, the Auld Golf Course and open space to the east, and the OWD maintained
San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA) to the west (Figure 3). The 980-1 and 980-2 Reservoirs are located
southeast of the project site. The project area is located within a relatively disturbed area. The relatively disturbed area
within the project area includes a paved access road and cart paths, the reservoirs, and the vegetated areas of the golf
course that are cultivated and maintained such as the greens, fairways, and sand traps.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Consultation)
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 4 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
ENIRONMENTAL 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 & 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
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 by 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 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 project, nothing further is required.
January 17, 2006
Signature Date
Kathie Washington Environmental Consultant for OWD
Printed Name For
;i /!
J ·, ' ' Car:np Pendleton
~-~.North · \./
)/
SOURCE' SANDAG and BRG Consulting Inc, 2005
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir
Regional Location
MEXICO
2/16/05
FIGURE
1
===============-,=---~-=--===================
5
-
1"\J {If J 0 0 :o. Otoy Water District 980-3 Reservoir FIGURE -~·~·~· Project Location 2
~Ji!'"''"'''lll. :;o"'" ""'1!
6
Legend
Environmental Impact Area
l222J Proposed Reservoir Site
CJ Habita t Management Area
--Existing Paved Access Roads
--Unpaved Roads
-Proposed Access Road
--40-ft Contours
SOURCE· AirPhoto USA 2004 Otay Wa ter District and BRG Consulting Inc 2005 ' ' .,
-~-m~rn-Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir
Proposed Projec t
~mKBJ~
7
1/16/06
FIGURE
3
.
''\·.
SOURCE: Otoy
·mm·~·
i}
\
\
EXISTING 980-1 RESfRVOIR 5 MG
CENTER OF TANK
Northing "" 1828839,6031
Eostlng = 6344472.2962
Otoy Water o·1strict 980-3 Reservoir
Preliminary Site Plan
EXISTING 980-2 RESERVOIR 5 MG
EXISTING POND 4 ----R'<l ----
l/16/06
FIGURE
4
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 9 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The project area is located on relatively disturbed vacant land and is generally surrounded on the north, west,
and east by relatively undisturbed vacant land. The existing OWD Reservoirs (980-1 and 980-2) and the
Auld Golf Course are located to the south. The project area is not located within a designated view corridor or
scenic vista, and there is limited public access in this area. Therefore, the project will not adversely affect a
scenic vista and no significant impact to this issue is anticipated.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Please see I a) above. There are no scenic highways, or scenic resources in, or in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, no impact to this issue is anticipated.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Please see I a) above. The proposed project will not degrade the existing visual character of the surrounding
area. Figure 5 provides a cross-section of the proposed project in relation to the existing elevation of the
site. The proposed reservoir will be located in immediate proximity to the existing reservoirs, and at the same
elevation and height as the existing reservoirs. While the project will result in new development within a
currently vacant area, the aesthetic impact is considered less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
The proposed new Reservoir will function primarily as an unmanned facility; however, there will be night
lighting at the Reservoir to provide a level of security and to facilitate night access to the facility. The
Reservoir will be designed to limit the introduction of new light to the area by incorporating the following
measures:
•Lighting is minimized on the sides of the reservoir that face undeveloped areas (north and east);
•All outdoor lighting fixtures will be shielded and located to minimize the potential for spillover light into
adjacent habitat areas; and,
•External features made of metallic or smooth surfaces that could generate glare from local lighting are
not proposed.
In addition, no lighting is proposed during construction, all construction will occur during daylight hours. The
proposed project will not generate light or glare, and the impact to this issue is considered less than
significant.
1010
1000
990
980
970
960
950
940
930
920
RESERVOIR SECllON A-A
GRAPHIC SCALE --i i j
(IN RET)
SOURCE OtayW~a~tegr~D~Is~tgnc~t~2~00~6~========================================================~====~~===================================================================== ~~~~~~~~16=1°6
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir FIGURE
980-3 Reservoir Cross Section 5
10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 11 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
II. 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?
There are no prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland designations within the
project area. The project area consists of land classified as farmland of local importance and grazing land.
However, currently the project area is not utilized for agriculture or grazing. The proposed project will not
convert the project area to a non-agriculture use, as there is no agriculture use on the project area. In
addition, as a Special District, there are no local land use plans or policies applicable to OWD. Therefore, no
impact to this issue is anticipated.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
The project area is zoned for agriculture by the City of Chula Vista. However, as discussed in the City of
Chula Vista’s General Plan, a public utility project is an allowed use in this zone and the site is not under a
Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The proposed project is located within a relatively disturbed area that is not used for agricultural operations.
The project would not involve changes that would convert farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact to this
issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 12 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
III. 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?
The proposed project will not obstruct the implementation of the Regional Air Quality Strategy developed
jointly by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. The OWD Water Resources Master Plan is consistent
with SANDAG regional growth forecasts. As such no significant impact to this issue is anticipated.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
The long-term operation of the proposed 980-3 Reservoir will not generate significant air emissions.
Occasional maintenance will be required, amounting to a few vehicular trips per year. Construction of the
project will result in a short-term increase in exhaust emissions by construction equipment and maintenance
vehicles. However, the operation of these vehicles will not generate emissions that exceed the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) significance thresholds of 137 lbs/day of ROG, 550 lbs/day of CO, 250 lbs/day of
NOX, 250 lbs/day of SO2, and 100 lbs/day of PM10. The construction fleet mix will include a crane,
bulldozers, excavators, roller, forklifts, trucks, concrete vibrators, compressor, concrete trowel machine, and
a power generator. This equipment will generate approximately 32.33 lbs/day ROG, 221.78 lbs/day of NOx,
0.18 lbs/day of SO2, 9.01 lbs/day of PM10, and 264.73 lbs/day of CO for the year 2006 and 32.28 lbs/day
ROG, 214.74lbs/day of NOx, 0.02 lbs/day of SO2, 8.08 lbs/day of PM10, and 266.89 lbs/day of CO for the year
2007. This will be less than the APCD significance thresholds. These air emission estimates are
conservative in that the estimates assume that all equipment would operate all together, which would not
occur. As such, this is a worse case scenario of the construction air emissions.
Under the San Diego APCD Rules and Regulations, a construction site may be considered a stationary
source of air pollutant emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are subject to regulation by APCD and the
applicable local ordinances. The OWD will be required to comply with the applicable APCD regulations
regarding control of fugitive dust during grading. Additionally, implementation of this measure will address
the potential indirect, adjacency management issue related to dust on adjacent habitat (see Section IV
Biological Resources). Mitigation Measure A1 is proposed to ensure that watering on the project area during
grading operations is implemented in accordance with APCD regulations. With the implementation of this
mitigation measure, the air quality impact associated with construction activity will be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 13 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Mitigation Measure
A1.During clearing, grading, and earth moving, the OWD shall control fugitive dust by regular watering of
the site and access road. The following practices shall be implemented:
•Spread soil binders;
•Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as
necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind;
•Use water trucks and sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move wet enough to
prevent dust raised when leaving the site; and,
•Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.
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)?
Please see III b) above. The proposed project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
any air constituents or violate any air quality standard. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. There are no sensitive air quality receptors located in proximity to the project area and
access roads. Dust control measures will be implemented during construction of the project in accordance
with rules established by the San Diego APCD (see Mitigation Measure A1). No impact to this issue is
anticipated.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
The proposed project would not create objectionable odors. Odor as a result of construction vehicle
operation would be generated; however, the generation of odors would be temporary, and there are no
habitable land uses located in proximity to the construction area; therefore, the impact is not considered
significant. Furthermore, there are no residences located in proximity to the project site. The proposed
project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and no impact to this
issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 14 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
IV. 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?
A general biological survey and report was prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting for the proposed
project. This report, Biological Resources Report for the Proposed Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir
Project (November 21, 2005), is provided as Appendix A of this Initial Study. The following is summarized
from the biological technical report.
Vegetation Communities
Figure 6 depicts the habitats and sensitive species located on the project site. The project site consists of
seven vegetation communities. The project site is moderately diverse in native species because most of
the site has been disturbed, but the surrounding OWD Habitat Management Area (HMA) land supports
relatively high species diversity. The plant communities identified in the project site include Coastal sage
scrub (0.1 acre), disturbed Coastal sage scrub (0.9 acre), native grassland (0.1 acre), disturbed native
grassland (0.8 acre), non-native grassland (1.5 acres), eucalyptus woodland (0.9 acre), disturbed habitat
(3.6 acres), developed (0.5 acre), and barren (dirt roads/cleared areas) (3.0 acres).
Coastal sage scrub is supported in a small patch on the project area. Coastal sage scrub occurs at the
northern end of the project area, within the location on the western side of the proposed 980-3 Reservoir.
Disturbed Coastal sage scrub occurs at the northern portion of the project area, within the location of the
proposed 980-3 Reservoir. Based on the sparse growth pattern and presence of non-native species within
this area, it appears that the disturbed Coastal sage scrub has been disturbed (e.g., grubbing, does not
appear to have been graded) in the past and now occurs within a mosaic of native and non-native
Grassland.
Native grassland is located on the northeast corner of the project area. The native grassland is primarily
disturbed and supports the Purple needlegrass, Graceful tarplant, Common tarplant, and Blue-eyed grass.
Disturbed native grassland is located in the northern portion of the project area. This area is classified as
disturbed Native Grassland because the area appears to have been brushed or physically disturbed in the
past and has been invaded by weedy annual grasses and forbs between the Native Grassland species.
Non-native grassland is located in several small areas within the project area, but is primarily located in the
northern portion. The dominant grass on the project site is Italian rye with a lesser percent cover of red
brome, ripgutgrass, and wild oat.
Legend
Proposed Reservoi" Site
Sensitive Animal and Plant Species
I@ Least Belts Vireo ( Vi'eo be/Iii pusi/lus) Observations 12005)
California Gnatcalcher Observations 12005)
Coopers Hawk Observation 12005)
Son Diego Sunflower ( Viguiera laciniafa) ICNPS L~t 4)
Graceful T arplanl ( Holocarpha vrgota ssp. elongolo )ICNPS L~t 4)
Otoy T arplant ( Oeinandra conjugens )Federoly Endangered
ICNPS Ust 18)
Native Grassland
Disturbed Native Grassland
NorrNatlve Grassland
css
DCSS
NG
DNG
NNG
EUC
DH
DEY
BARE
CULVERT
SOURCE· Otay Water District, AirPhoto USA 2004 and BRG Consulting, Inc . and Rocks Biological Consulting 2005 1/16/06
.~:~·ffi· Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir FIGURE
Existing Biological Resources 6
~
15
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 16 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Eucalyptus woodland occurs as a dense stand in the eastern portion of the project area immediately east of
the existing reservoirs. Eucalyptus trees are also present in clusters along the dirt road in the southwest
portion of the project area.
Disturbed habitat is primarily located on the southern portion of the project area. Disturbed habitat is land
where the native vegetation has been significantly altered by agriculture, construction, or other land-
clearing activities, and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed
phase of a native plant association (e.g., disturbed Coastal sage scrub). Disturbed habitat is typically found
in vacant lots, roadsides, construction staging areas, or abandoned fields, and is dominated by non-native
species. Plant species present in the disturbed habitat onsite are primarily non-native and include Short-
pod mustard, Russian-thistle, Horseweed, and Australian saltbrush.
Developed areas within the project area include the paved access road and cart paths, the reservoirs, and
the vegetated areas of the golf course that are cultivated and maintained such as greens, fairways, and
sand traps.
Barren areas onsite include the dirt roads that run throughout the project area and the cleared area along
the bottom of the borrow pit in the southeast portion of the project area.
Wildlife Species
The wildlife species observed within the project area (within the limits of the environmental impact area) are
typical for a disturbed and developed site adjacent to native habitat areas. Bird species observed onsite
include the Red-tailed hawk, House finch, Common raven, Northern flicker, California towhee, and Cooper’s
hawk (a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern).
Mammals or their sign that were observed within the project area or in the adjacent HMA include Mule deer,
Coyote, California ground squirrel, and Audubon’s cottontail.
Invertebrates observed within the project area include the following butterflies: Monarch, Funereal
Duskywing, Common white, and Painted lady.
Sensitive Plant Species
Three sensitive plant species, the federally endangered Otay tarplant (CNPS List 1B), Graceful tarplant
(CNPS List 4), and San Diego sunflower (CNPS List 4) were observed within the project area (Figure 6).
Otay tarplant occurs in a small population along a disturbed slope above the borrow pit in the southeast
portion of the site (Figure 6). The population likely consists of less than 50 individuals, but some plants may
not have been observable because of the late season timing of the survey.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
No sensitive animal species were observed within the project area. Figure 6 depicts Three sensitive wildlife
species, the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo, the threatened California gnatcatcher, and the CDFG
Species of Special Concern Copper’s hawk was observed adjacent to the project area. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly were negative in
2005.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 17 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly were negative in
2005.
Based on annual surveys by AMEC Environmental, the least Bell’s vireo is known to nest in the scrubby
riparian habitat adjacent to Anderson Pond (Figure 6). Although not observed directly in the project area,
this species can forage up to 200 feet from the riparian edge and occasionally nest in non-riparian habitat.
During USFWS protocol surveys conducted in 2005, the federally threatened California gnatcatcher was not
observed within the project area; however, this species was observed within the 500-foot survey buffer
approximately 200 feet from the project site (Figure 6). This species nests almost exclusively in open sage
scrub in coastal San Diego County. The quality and quantity of the Coastal sage scrub onsite may not be
suitable to support nesting by the California gnatcatcher, but the site may be used for foraging.
Cooper’s hawk, a CDFG Species of Special Concern, is likely using the eucalyptus woodland onsite or
immediately adjacent to the project area for nesting, perching, and foraging (Figure 6).
Project Habitat Impacts
Figure 6 depicts the limits of project grading (environmental impact area) overlayed on the vegetation of the
project site. Table 1 depicts the impacts to habitat as a result of implementation of the proposed project. As
shown, the proposed project will impact 0.1 acre of Coastal sage scrub, 0.5 disturbed Coastal sage scrub,
0.1 acre of native grassland, 0.8 disturbed native grassland, 1.5 acres of non-native grassland, 0.9 acre of
eucalyptus woodland, 3.6 acres of disturbed habitat, 0.5 acre of developed land, and 3.0 acres of barren
land. The following describes the mitigation required to reduce the impact to a level less than significant.
TABLE 1
Habitat Impacts (acres)
Habitat Acreage of Impact
Coastal sage scrub 0.1
Disturbed Coastal sage scrub 0.9
Native grassland 0.1
Disturbed native grassland 0.8
Non-native grassland 1.5
Eucalyptus woodland 0.9
Disturbed habitat 3.6
Developed 0.5
Barren 3.0
TOTAL 11.4
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting, 2005.
Habitat Mitigation Requirements
To mitigate impacts on habitats, OWD proposes to conserve additional lands in their HMA that was
established to function as a conservation area to mitigate impacts that occur as a result of their projects and
activities. Areas of higher quality habitat that occurs within the project site should be set aside as conserved
mitigation land within the HMA. The mitigation ratios provided in Table 2 are consistent with those other local
agency mitigation requirements such as the City of Chula Vista (pursuant to their Habitat Loss and Incidental
Take Ordinance and MSCP), City of San Diego (pursuant to their Biology Guidelines and MSCP Subarea
Plan), and the County of San Diego (pursuant to their Biological Mitigation Ordinance and MSCP). Areas of
higher quality habitat that occur within the project site should be set aside as conserved mitigation land within
the HMA. OWD existing Coastal sage scrub habitat credits within their HMA, therefore OWD proposes to
mitigate all habitat impacts from the proposed project by preserving Coastal sage scrub habitat within the
HMA. Table 2 provides the mitigation requirements for impacts to vegetation communities within the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 18 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
activities. Areas of higher quality habitat that occurs within the project site should be set aside as conserved
mitigation land within the HMA. The mitigation ratios provided in Table 2 are consistent with those other local
agency mitigation requirements such as the City of Chula Vista (pursuant to their Habitat Loss and Incidental
Take Ordinance and MSCP), City of San Diego (pursuant to their Biology Guidelines and MSCP Subarea
Plan), and the County of San Diego (pursuant to their Biological Mitigation Ordinance and MSCP). Areas of
higher quality habitat that occur within the project site should be set aside as conserved mitigation land within
the HMA. OWD existing Coastal sage scrub habitat credits within their HMA, therefore OWD proposes to
mitigate all habitat impacts from the proposed project by preserving Coastal sage scrub habitat within the
HMA. Table 2 provides the mitigation requirements for impacts to vegetation communities within the project
area.
TABLE 2
Required Mitigation Acreage for Habitat Impacts
Habitat Acreage of
Impact
Proposed Mitigation
Ratio*
Proposed Mitigation
Acreage
Coastal sage scrub 0.1 2:1 0.2
Disturbed Coastal sage scrub 0.9 2:1 1.8
Native grassland 0.1 1:1 0.1
Disturbed native grassland 0.8 1:1 0.8
Non-native grassland 1.5 0.5:1 0.8
Eucalyptus woodland 0.9 Not Required --
Disturbed habitat 3.6 Not Required --
Developed 0.5 Not Required --
Barren 3.0 Not Required --
TOTAL 11.4 N/A 2.7
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting, 2005.
*Mitigation ratios are based on other local agency mitigation requirements (i.e., City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San
Diego).
Mitigation Measures for Habitat Impacts
B1. The impact to 0.1 acre of Coastal sage scrub and 0.9 acre of disturbed Coastal sage scrub shall be
mitigated through the preservation of Coastal sage scrub at a 2:1 ratio for a total mitigation requirement of 2.0
acre of Coastal sage scrub. The 2.0 acres of Coastal sage scrub shall be preserved in the OWD’s existing
habitat management area.
B2. The impact to 0.1 acre of native grassland and 0.8 acre of disturbed native grassland shall be mitigated
through the preservation of Coastal sage scrub at a 1:1 ratio for a total mitigation requirement of 0.9 acre of
native grassland. The 0.9 acre of native grassland shall be preserved in the OWD’s existing habitat
management area.
B3. The impact to 1.5 acres of non-native grassland shall be mitigated through the preservation non-native
grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio for a total mitigation requirement of 0.8 acre of non-native grassland. The 0.8 acre
of non-native grassland shall be preserved in the OWD’s existing habitat management area.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 19 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species
The proposed project site contains sensitive plant species. Focused sensitive plant surveys were conducted
for the project (Rocks Biological Consulting, 2005). The following sensitive plants have been identified within
the project area: federally endangered Otay tarplant, San Diego sunflower and the Graceful tarplant.
The proposed project proposes to avoid impacts to the Otay tarplant species located within the project area.
OWD believes that there is ample space within the borrow pit of the project area to dispose of the 66,000
cubic yards of excavated material from the reservoir site and would not result in impacts to the Otay tarplant
species located adjacent to the borrow pit. However, in order to further ensure avoidance of this species,
Mitigation Measure B4 shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to Otay tarplant species to a level
less than significant.
The San Diego sunflower and Graceful tarplant species are considered sensitive plant species; however,
neither of these species is listed as endangered or otherwise protected. These are common species within
the area. As such, impacts to these species will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures for Sensitive Plants
B4. Prior to construction of the project site (disposal of excavated material into the borrow pit) a pre-
construction survey shall be conducted to determine the exact location of Otay tarplant species. Once their
location has been determined the site shall be staked and these species shall be completely avoided during
the construction of the proposed project.
Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife Species
Direct impacts to sensitive wildlife species are not anticipated. However, the least Bell’s vireo and California
gnatcatcher are sensitive species that may be indirectly impacted by noise during construction. In 1991, the
USFWS adopted a 60 average decibels (dB(A)) noise level as a threshold for noise effects to protect
sensitive bird species such as the least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher. Potential noise effects on
these species must be avoided through project Best Management Practices and/or mitigation.
Potential noise impacts on least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher should be reduced or eliminated in
consultation with the wildlife agencies. As discussed above, the least Bell’s vireo occurs and nests
immediately adjacent to the project area and the California gnatcatcher was observed foraging within a
couple hundred feet of the project area (Figure 6). As discussed in Section XI. Noise of this Initial Study, a
noise study conducted for the proposed project concluded that noise levels will be 60 db(A) at a distance of
up to 955 to 1,045 feet from the center of construction activity during the grading phase (September 2006 to
March 2007) and 660 to 795 feet during the construction phase (April 2007 to October 2007). The breeding
season for the California gnatcatcher occurs approximately February 1 to August 31 and the least Bell’s vireo
typically breeds between April 10 and July 31. Based on the results of the noise study, the proposed project
has the potential to result in indirect construction related noise impacts on the least Bell’s vireo and California
gnatcatcher. Because it is not currently possible to determine the exact location of the nesting site within the
project area of these species (each year the nesting location would change), OWD proposes to conduct
surveys for these species prior to the start of construction to determine their exact location. In addition,
focused noise measurements can then be taken in the field near the location of these species. If the
California gnatcatcher or least Bell’s vireo are within the potential noise impact area, additional mitigation
measures identified in Mitigation Measure B5 shall be implemented to reduce the potential impact to these
species to a level less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 20 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
California gnatcatcher or least Bell’s vireo are within the potential noise impact area, additional mitigation
measures identified in Mitigation Measure B5 shall be implemented to reduce the potential impact to these
species to a level less than significant.
In addition, as discussed above, the Cooper’s hawk is potentially nesting within eucalyptus trees within the
project area. Potential impacts to the eucalyptus trees will result in direct impacts to the Cooper’s hawk if the
species is nesting in the trees at the time removal of the trees is proposed. As such, the Mitigation Measure
B6 shall be implemented to reduce the potential impact to these species to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measures for Sensitive Wildlife Species
B5. To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds, all vegetation clearing within the construction footprint
shall be conducted outside the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 1 to August 31). To avoid
indirect construction (other than vegetation removal) noise impacts to California gnatcatchers and least Bell’s
vireos during the breeding, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine exact location of
nesting sites within 300 feet adjacent to the Environmental Impact as depicted in Figure 3 of the Initial Study.
Where noise associated with grading and construction will negatively impact an occupied nest for the least
Bell’s vireo during the breeding season (April 10 to July 31) and the California gnatcatcher during the
breeding season (February 1 to August 31), noise levels shall not exceed 60 dB(A). If an occupied least
Bell’s vireo and/or California gnatcatcher nest is identified in a pre-construction survey, a focused noise
survey shall be conducted to determine the potential noise level from the project site to the location of the
nest. If the noise level exceeds 60 dB(A) at the nesting site, noise reduction techniques such as temporary
noise walls or measures agreed upon between OWD and the USFWS to avoid “take” of these species, shall
be incorporated into the construction plans to reduce noise levels below 60 dB(A).
B6. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the exact location of nesting sites within
and/or adjacent to the project area. Where impacts associated with grading and clearing will negatively
impact raptors potentially nesting within the eucalyptus trees located on the northern end of the project area,
removal of eucalyptus trees shall occur outside the raptor breeding season (February 1 to August 30).
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project will not impact any wetland or riparian habitats. However, as indicated above,
implementation of the proposed project will impact approximately 0.1 acre of Coastal sage scrub, 0.9 acre of
disturbed Coastal sage scrub, 0.1 acre of native grassland, 0.8 acre of disturbed native grassland, and 1.5
acres of non-native grassland, which are considered sensitive habitat communities. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures B1, B2, and B3 identified above will reduce the impact to a level less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 21 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
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?
According to the Biology Survey of the project area (Rocks Biological Consulting, 2005), the project area
does not support jurisdictional wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. However, jurisdictional areas occur
immediately off-site adjacent (along western boundary) to the proposed access road near the location of the
least Bell’s vireo nesting site and a small drainage near the northwest corner of the project area (Figure 6).
The wetlands adjacent to the access road are associated with a large ponded area (locally known as the
Anderson Pond) and include small patches of riparian scrub and freshwater marsh. These wetlands occur
immediately adjacent to the access road along the western boundary of the project area. The drainage in the
northwest corner of the project area conveys overflow runoff from the existing Reservoirs into an ephemeral
drainage that typically conveys water during winter and spring storm events. It has been disturbed by a large
headwall and dirt road that are near the start of the drainage. The drainage is dominated by upland, native
species that are not indicative of wetlands. The proposed project will remain within the defined
environmental impact area identified on Figure 3 and the project will avoid any potential impact to these
drainages. The proposed project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on wetlands and impacts to this
issue are considered less than significant.
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?
The project area is located within a relatively disturbed area, north of the golf course and east and west of the
OWD’s HMA. The proposed project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any wildlife species
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed project site is not located in an area
identified as a wildlife corridor or for use by migratory species. However, as discussed above, the least Bell’s
vireo, California gnatcatcher, and Cooper’s hawk species have been observed adjacent to the project area.
These species would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. However, an indirect impact could
occur as a result of grading and construction activity. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B5 and B6, as
indicated above, would reduce the potential impact to a level less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 22 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The project area is located within a relatively disturbed area, north of the golf course and east and west of the
OWD’s HMA. The project area is not located within the City of Chula Vista MSCP or any other preservation
plan area. There are no ordinances or policies specific to the site. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The project area is located within a relatively disturbed area, north of the golf course and east and west of
the OWD’s HMA. The project area is not located within the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP or any other
conservation plan. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
A cultural resources survey was conducted for the project area (ASM Affiliates, 2005). The cultural resources
report is provided as Appendix B of this Initial Study. Based on the results of the cultural resources survey,
no historical resources as defined in §15064.5 were identified within the project area. Therefore, the
proposed project would not cause an adverse change of a historical resource. No impact to this issue is
anticipated.
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
A cultural resources survey was conducted for the project area (ASM Affiliates, 2005). The cultural resources
report is provided as Appendix B of this Initial Study. Based on the results of the cultural resources survey,
there are no archaeological resources located within the project area, and no impact to this issue is
anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 23 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
The project area is located within a relatively disturbed area. The project area is located on the Otay
Formation and a portion of the northern most area is located on metavolcanics. The Otay Formation is
identified as having a high paleontological sensitivity; there is no paleontological sensitivity for the
metavolcanic areas (Deméré, 1993). The construction of the proposed project will involve grading and
excavation activities within potential fossil-bearing geologic formations, which could potentially impact
significant paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure C1 is proposed to ensure that a program for the
monitoring and recovery of any potential paleontological resources that could be encountered during grading
and earthwork shall be implemented during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure C1,
the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
C1.During grading and earthwork the following shall be implemented by the OWD:
1.A qualified paleontologist and/or paleontological monitor shall be retained to implement the
monitoring program. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a Ph.D. or master’s
degree in paleontology or geology who is a recognized expert in the application of paleontological
procedures and techniques such as screen washing of materials and identification of fossil
deposits. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials and who is working under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
2.The qualified paleontologist shall attend any preconstruction meetings to consult with the
excavation contractor. The requirement for paleontological monitoring shall be noted on the
construction plans. The paleontologist’s duties shall include monitoring, salvaging, preparing
materials for deposit at a scientific institution that houses paleontological collections, and preparing
a results report. These duties are defined as follows:
a.Monitoring. The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed areas of the sensitive formation to inspect for well-preserved
fossils. The paleontologist shall work with the contractor to determine the monitoring locations
and the amount of time necessary to ensure adequate monitoring of the project.
b.Salvaging. In the event that well-preserved fossils are found, the paleontologist shall have the
authority to divert, direct, or temporarily halt construction activities in the area of discovery to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Recovery is anticipated to take from one
hour to a maximum of two days. At the time of discovery, the paleontologist shall contact the
OWD. OWD must concur with the salvaging methods before construction is allowed to
resume.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 24 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
c.Preparation. Fossil remains shall be cleaned, sorted, cataloged, and then deposited in a
scientific institution that houses paleontological collections (such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum).
d.Monitoring Results Report. A monitoring results report, with appropriate graphics,
summarizing the results (even if negative), analysis, and conclusions of the above program
shall be prepared and submitted to the OWD within three months following the termination of
the paleontological monitoring program.
3.A report of findings, even if negative, shall be filed with the OWD and the San Diego Natural
History Museum.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal ceremonies?
The proposed project will construct a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. A cultural resources
survey conducted for the project area (ASM Affiliates, 2005) and provided in Appendix B of this Initial Study,
found no human remains or cultural resources within the project area. It is unlikely that any human remains
will be found or disturbed. In compliance with OWD’s Master Plan Program EIR (OWD, 2004), if human
remains are discovered, any project activity that would impact the remains shall be stopped and County
Coroner and/or Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted immediately. No activity that
would impact the remains shall be resumed until disposition of the remains satisfactory to these agencies has
been implemented. Therefore, the impact to this issue is considered less than significant.
VI. 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 or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
A geotechnical reconnaissance has been conducted for the project site (Ninyo and Moore, 2004). The
geotechnical investigation is provided as Appendix C of this Initial Study. The project area is not located in a
hazard zone identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act, Special Publication 42, Revised 1994,
Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 25 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Although no active faults are known to transect the project site, the project site is considered to be in a
seismically active area, as is most of Southern California. The site is located in the Peninsular Range
Geographic Province. The area is identified by rugged, northwest trending mountain ranges to the east and
coastal plains to the west. Several earthquake fault zones exist in the regional vicinity of the project area
increasing the potential for earthquake damage on-site. The closest fault to the project site is the active Rose
Canyon Fault, which is located approximately 11 miles west of the project area. The maximum magnitude of
the fault is estimated at 6.9. The level of risk is similar to most of the Southern California region. The new
Reservoir will be primarily an unmanned facility and will be constructed to current seismic codes. Therefore,
the risk of loss, injury, or death is considered less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Please see VI a) i. above. There may be significant ground shaking from the Rose Canyon Fault zone.
However, the project proposes to construct a new Reservoir in a relatively disturbed area, and does not
otherwise involve the construction or placement of structures or development that would result in exposure of
people or property to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the impact to this issue is considered less
than significant.
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
According to the geotechnical reconnaissance conducted for the project (Ninyo and Moore, 2005) (Appendix
C of this Initial Study), the project site lacks a shallow groundwater table and relatively dense nature of the
subsurface materials. As such, the potential for liquefaction within the project area is considered low. No
impact to this issue is anticipated.
iv)Landslides?
The majority of the project area has been relatively disturbed by the development of the two existing
Reservoirs. Furthermore, the project area is relatively flat and would not be subject to the effects of
landslides as no landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding currently exist within the project area.
No impact to this issue is anticipated.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
The project area has been relatively disturbed by the development of the two existing Reservoirs; however,
the property has natural vegetation already established on portions of the project area. This vegetation
protects against soil erosion. In addition, the project area is underlain with Diablo Clay (DaC and DaD). The
Diablo Clay has a slight to no erosion hazard. The construction of the proposed project would involve
trenching into these soils, which has the potential for erosion as a result of runoff during storm events. The
project will be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for short-term erosion impacts
associated with construction activities and long-term water quality impacts. The proposed BMPs and
mitigation requirements are discussed in Section VIII Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study. With
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 26 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
the implementation of proposed mitigation measures identified in Section VIII, the potential impact associated
with soil erosion will be reduced to a level less than significant.
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?
Please see VI a) ii) and iv) above. The impact to this issue is considered less than significant.
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?
The project area is underlain with Diablo Clay, which has a high shrink-swell behavior and is considered an
expansive soil. However, the proposed project is the construction of a new Reservoir, and would not involve
the development of habitable structures. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a substantial risk
to life or property. In order to protect the new Reservoir from impacts related to expansive soils, the
implementation of the appropriate measures consistent with standard engineering practices will be
incorporated into project design and grading to ensure there is no potential for impact from expansive soils.
Therefore, the impact to this issue is considered less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, soil suitability for wastewater
disposal is not an issue and no impact will occur.
VII. 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?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The proposed project
will not require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impact to this
issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 27 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
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?
Construction and operation of the proposed project will not involve the use of hazardous materials.
Additionally, no habitable structures are located in proximity to the project area. The project will not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through foreseeable upset and accident conditions. No
impact to this issue is anticipated.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Please see VII a) above. The project area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing school and
would not emit hazardous emissions or require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or
substances. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The project area is not located on a hazardous materials site list pursuant to the Government Code Section
65962.5. Therefore, no impact to this issue is anticipated.
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 a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport. The project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 28 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
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?
No private airstrips are located near the site. Therefore, no impact to this issue is anticipated.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
The proposed project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The project
will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact to this issue is anticipated.
a) 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?
The proposed project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area and will not
involve the development of any structures. Therefore, the project will not expose people or structures to the
potential risk of wildland fires. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
A limited water quality evaluation has been prepared for the proposed project (Ninyo and Moore, 2005) and is
provided in Appendix D of this Initial Study. The water quality evaluation identifies that there are no existing
water quality violations within the surface water bodies that drain the project site. The proposed project is the
construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The proposed project has the potential to
impact water quality during construction by increasing erosion and transporting construction-related
debris/chemicals into downstream surface water in the event of rainfall. The water quality evaluation
identifies the need to protect surface water quality by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs)
during and post construction in compliance with the City of Chula Vista’s Standard Urban Storm-water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) in order to address potential short-term construction and long-term operation
impacts. The operation of the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements. The facility will not involve waste discharge. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
WQ1, will reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 29 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
requirements. The facility will not involve waste discharge. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
WQ1, will reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
WQ1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented at the project site during construction and
long-term operation of the Reservoir. The contractor specifications require the implementation of BMPs to
control water quality runoff during project construction. The following measures shall be implemented:
•Develop and implement a Storm Water Prevention Pollution Plan (SWPPP);
•Comply with the City of Chula Vista’s SUSMP by selecting post-construction BMPs;
•Implement a selection of BMPs (e.g., silt fences, temporary gravel, sandbag barriers, etc.); and,
•Prepare a Water Quality Technical Report prior to construction.
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)?
The proposed project will not utilize groundwater resources for operation. The proposed project is designed
to construct a new Reservoir that will store needed potable water for 980 Pressure Zone within the OWD
service area. The project will result in the creation of impervious surfaces; however, the site is not located
within an aquifer or groundwater recharge area. The project will not substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge and will not result in a new deficit in the aquifer volume. The impact to this issue is considered less
than significant.
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?
According to a limited water quality evaluation conducted for the proposed project (Ninyo and Moore, 2005)
(Appendix D of this Initial Study), the project site is located in the Lower Sweetwater Hydrologic Area
(909.10) of the Sweetwater Hydrologic Unit and drains into an unnamed tributary that discharges into the
Sweetwater River. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in an alteration of an existing
stream or river or substantial alteration of topography of the area. Approximately 75,000 square feet
impervious surface will be created as a result of constructing the new Reservoir on an area that is currently
bare dirt and ruderal vegetation. Roof runoff from the new Reservoir will be captured and will continue to
drain into the existing unnamed tributary onsite that existing runoff from the project area drains to. The
increase in impervious surface and corresponding runoff will be minimal and will not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Additionally, the project is proposed by the OWD, and drainage
improvements will comply with OWD specifications. Therefore, the impact to this issue is considered less
than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 30 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
increase in impervious surface and corresponding runoff will be minimal and will not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Additionally, the project is proposed by the OWD, and drainage
improvements will comply with OWD specifications. Therefore, the impact to this issue is considered less
than significant.
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?
The implementation of the proposed project will not result in an alteration of existing drainage courses or
substantial alteration of topography of the area. Impervious surfaces will be created as a result of the
construction of the new Reservoir on an area that is currently bare dirt and ruderal vegetation. The increase
in corresponding runoff volumes will be minimal, and can be adequately accommodated by the existing
drainage system. Therefore, the impact to this issue is considered 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?
See VIII a) and c). Implementation of the proposed project will result in a minor increase in runoff as a result
of the creation of impervious surfaces. The runoff will be captured and directed to existing natural drainage
courses onsite. However, this increase in runoff will be minor, and will not contribute water, which would
exceed the capacity of the drainage system. Additionally, traffic volume on the access roads to the project
area is negligible, and the creation of substantial pollutants as a result of petroleum products (e.g., oil,
gasoline) is not anticipated. The project will comply with applicable BMPs as required by the SWPPP and
Water Quality Technical Report prepared for the proposed project. The impact to this issue is considered
less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The proposed project will not affect groundwater sources. Surface water quality will not be substantially
degraded as described above. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The proposed project area is not located within a 100-year flood hazard boundary. Furthermore, the project
is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The project does not propose the
development of habitable structures. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 31 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
See VIII g). The project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The project area is not located within a 100-year flood hazard boundary. Furthermore, the project is the
construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area and does not involve the development of
habitable structures. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project area is located approximately nine miles from the coast at an elevation of 800 feet and is
therefore, not an area susceptible to a tsunami. There is also no risk of inundation as a result of a seiche
occurrence as the project site is not located on a lake. The site is located on a slightly elevated topography,
and is not in a floodplain area; therefore, the risk of mudflow is also considered low. Tsunamis, seiches, and
mudflows are not considered a significant hazard at the site. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The proposed project is located within a relatively disturbed and undeveloped area along the northern and
western edges of the Auld Golf Course. Currently, there is no established community on the project area. As
such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and no impact is
anticipated.
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?
As a Special District, there are no local land use plans or policies applicable to OWD. According to the City
of Chula Vista’s General Plan, the project area is zoned for agriculture. However, as stated in the General
Plan, public utilities such as the proposed project are allowed within this zone. Therefore, no impact to this
issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 32 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
According to the OWD, the project area is located adjacent to OWD’s Habitat Management Area (HMA). As
discussed in Section IV Biological Resources of this Initial Study, the proposed project will not conflict with
any applicable habitat conservation plan or the existing OWD HMA. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
X. 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?
The project area is located within a relatively disturbed area and adjacent to two existing Reservoirs. The
project area is not identified as containing significant mineral resources. Based on maps published by the
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification (1983),
the project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is defined as an area containing
mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. However, the project
site is not utilized for mineral resources mining or processing activity, nor is the site located in proximity to
these uses. Therefore, no impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. There are no locally
important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on any local plan, specific plan or general plan, or in the
vicinity of the project area. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
XI. 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?
An environmental noise study was prepared for the proposed project (Wieland Associates, Inc., 2005). This
report is provided as Appendix E to this Initial Study.
Based on the results of the noise report, the construction noise levels associated with the proposed project
will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction
equipment. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term. Table 7-1 of
the noise report (Appendix E of this Initial Study) provides typical noise levels associated with various types
of construction-related machinery. Based on OWD standards, construction will occur between the hours of
7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 33 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
equipment. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term. Table 7-1 of
the noise report (Appendix E of this Initial Study) provides typical noise levels associated with various types
of construction-related machinery. Based on OWD standards, construction will occur between the hours of
7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Based on the estimated construction noise levels identified in Table 7-1 of the noise report and an analysis
conducted to estimate the combined equipment noise levels that will be experienced during each month of
construction, the average noise level (Leq) for the proposed project will range from 92 to 93 dB(A) at a
distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity during the grading phase (September 2006 to
March 2007) and from 88 to 90 dB(A) during the construction phase (April 2007 to October 2007).
The closest noise sensitive land use is the residential uses located south of the project area. The distance of
the closest residential unit to the proposed project construction site is approximately 5,500 feet. At this
distance, the 8-hour average noise level produced by the construction equipment is estimated to range from
37 to 43 dB(A). This is below the County of San Diego standard of 75 dB(A) for residential uses; therefore,
proposed project will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established by County of San
Diego’s noise ordinance.
The existing HMA surrounding the project area can be considered noise sensitive due to the potential
presence, or use of the sensitive avian species, such as the least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher
observed adjacent to the project area (Rocks Biological Consulting, 2005). Based on wildlife regulatory
agencies it is recommended that noise levels not exceed 60 dB(A) within habitat areas to protect various bird
species (Wieland Associates, Inc., 2005). As discussed in the noise report, it is estimated that the
construction equipment noise level generated by the proposed project will be 60 dB(A) at a distance of 955 to
1,045 feet from the center of the construction activity during the grading phase and at a distance of 660 to
795 feet during the construction phase. As such, wildlife species within the HMA located within 955 feet of
the project site during the grading phase and 660 feet during the construction will be significantly impacted by
noise generated by the proposed project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N1, the potential
impact would be reduced to a level less than significant.
As discussed in Section IV Biological Resources, there is the potential for construction activity to create noise
impacts to sensitive avian species (least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher) located adjacent to the
project area, if nesting is present during the time of construction. Please refer to Section IV Biological
Resources of this Initial Study. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B5 will ensure that no significant
impact to nesting sensitive avian species occurs during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the
impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
N1. The following shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project:
•Noise construction activities shall be scheduled only during the hours and days as permitted by OWD
standards, which are Monday through Saturday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 34 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
•A construction schedule shall be developed to minimize potential cumulative construction noise impacts
and that accommodate noise-sensitive time periods for the HMA.
•All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained muffling devices. Impact tools shall be shielded per manufacturer’s specifications.
•Grading and construction equipment shall be stored on the project site while in use.
•Where appropriate, construction activity noise levels shall be monitored within the HMA during sensitive
avian species breeding seasons (April 10 to July 31 for the least Bell’s Vireo and February 1 to August 31 for
the California gnatcatcher). If the noise levels exceed an Leq of 60 dB(A), measures identified in Mitigation
Measure B5 discussed above shall be implemented.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The construction and operation of the proposed project will not result in the exposure of persons to or the
generation of excessive vibration or groundborne noise levels. Project construction and the subsequent
operation of the project will not involve the use of machinery that will create excessive ground vibrations.
Additionally, there are no habitable structures located in close proximity to the project site that would be
affected by potential vibration. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
The proposed project will be constructed in an area of low, rural ambient noise. The proposed project will not
produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise in the project vicinity above levels without the
project. Additionally, there are no habitable structures located in close proximity to the project site. No
impact to this issue is anticipated.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
See XI a) above. The construction phase of the proposed project will produce a temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. However, the
implementation of Mitigation Measure N1, discussed above, will reduce this potential impact to a level less
than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 35 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
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?
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project area. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
XII. 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)?
The proposed project does not involve a use that would induce growth in the region. According to OWD’s
Water Resources Master Plan (OWD, 2002), a large percentage of undeveloped land is undergoing
significant change. More than 29,000 acres of land within the OWD’s planning area are being planned and
developed. Growth forecasts used to develop the OWD’s Water Resources Master Plan indicate that at
ultimate buildout, the OWD will serve a population of nearly 277,000 residing in over 84,000 dwelling units.
Many of the proposed facilities in the adopted Master Plan and Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
including the proposed project, are community service facilities, principally connected with water supply and
delivery, necessary to support economic and population growth. The size of the OWD’s water supply system
is predicted on population and demand factors related to local land use decisions. In the Master Plan
updating process, changes in the OWD facility sizing, phasing, and capacity will be related to the orderly,
planned growth in its service area. In this sense, the OWD does not, in its Master Plan, induce growth in its
service area; rather the OWD has identified facilities and additional pipelines to support the growth that is
dependent on land use decisions made by the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and the City of
San Diego. The proposed project will be a third Reservoir to hold water for the 980 Pressure Zone within the
Central Area system. The proposed project was included in the Master Plan in order to plan for the ultimate
buildout demands of the system. Therefore, the proposed project will not induce, directly or indirectly,
substantial growth in the area. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 36 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
The proposed project will not displace existing housing. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
The proposed project will not displace existing housing or people. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
XIII. 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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir. There would be a positive effect on fire protection
services, as the project would improve the reliability of water service and storage for the area. The project
would not substantially impact existing or result in the need for the creation of new public services. No
impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 37 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
The proposed project will not result in an increase in population (which would generate a demand for
recreational uses) nor is the project site located in an area planned for recreational uses. No impact to this
issue is anticipated.
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?
The proposed project does not involve recreational facilities. Additionally, the proposed project will not result
in an increase in population, which would generate a demand for recreational uses. No impact to this issue is
anticipated.
XV. 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)?
An estimated 66,000 cubic yards of earth material will be excavated from the project site and deposited in a
large, deep disturbed area that was previously graded and used as a borrow pit in the southeastern portion of
the project area. This area is within the environmental impact area identified on Figure 3. Approximately
6,000 total truck trips will be required to export this quantity of material to the borrow pit. All truck trips will
occur onsite and will not require the use of the off-site roadway network. However, there will be some
materials, such as grubbing spoils and other materials that will have to be hauled off-site to a landfill. Such
activity will generate a few truck trips, but these truck trips will be temporary and will avoid the existing peak
morning and evening traffic periods on the surrounding roadway network. As such, the impact to this issue is
considered less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 38 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
The proposed project will generate a few truck trips that will haul material off-site. However, these trips will
be temporary and will not occur during peak, morning or evening, traffic periods. Therefore, the proposed
project will not result in a cumulative increase in traffic. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The proposed project area is not located within an airport approach or departure path. The project would not
result in an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. No
impact associated with this issue is anticipated.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
The proposed project does not involve the construction of any new public roadways, nor does it propose the
use of dangerous equipment that would pose a hazard to the public. Currently, a portion of the project is
accessed by an existing dirt road. As part of the project, this dirt access road will be temporarily paved with
loose gravel, in part to improve safety for construction and maintenance vehicles traveling to and from the
980 Reservoirs. Public access to the access road will be restricted. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Adequate emergency access will be provided to the project area via the paved access road. No impact to
this issue is anticipated.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
The proposed project will not generate a demand for parking. Maintenance vehicles will park within the
perimeter areas parallel to the access road. These areas will remain within the proposed environmental
impact area as depicted on Figure 3. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 39 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
g) Conflict with adopted policies plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The project will not
generate vehicle trips that would conflict with an adopted policy, plan, or program supporting alternative
transportation. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The proposed project
will not generate wastewater that enters the public sewer system; therefore, wastewater treatment
requirements would not be exceeded. The new Reservoir will be used to store potable water to be used in
the 980 Pressure Zone and would not be disposed of in the public sewer. No impact to this issue is
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?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area to meet existing potable
water demand in 980 Pressure Zone of the OWD service area. The proposed project would not require the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. No impact to this issue is 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?
See VIII a) and c). New stormwater drainage facilities are not required for the proposed project, therefore no
impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 40 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area. The overall concept of
the project is consistent with the OWD Water Resources Master Plan (OWD, 2002), that provides for the
availability of water to be provided from a number of possible sources. The project is consistent with the
Master Plan and will provide potable water to accommodate the planned ultimate buildout of the 980
Pressure Zone. The project will not require the addition of new or expanded entitlements for water supplies.
No impact to this issue is anticipated.
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?
The proposed project is the construction of a new Reservoir within a relatively disturbed area and no
wastewater will be generated by the project. The project will not treat any water, and will not have any
facilities producing wastewater. No impact to this issue is anticipated.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
Construction waste will be minimal, and is anticipated to be disposed of at the Otay Landfill in South Chula
Vista. According to the Draft Countywide Siting Element, the Otay Landfill has a remaining capacity of
31,336,166 tons and is anticipated to close in 2027 assuming the current disposal rates continue. The Otay
Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs during
construction. Negligible waste would be generated associated with the operation of the proposed project.
No impact to this issue is anticipated.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project does not represent a significant generator of solid waste and the project would comply
with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to the generation of solid waste.
No impact to this issue is anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 41 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
XVII. 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 or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
See IV and V. The proposed project will result in an impact to 0.9 acre of Coastal sage scrub, 0.9 disturbed
Coastal sage scrub, 0.1 acre of native grassland, 0.8 disturbed native grassland, and 1.5 acres of non-native
grassland. The project site is also located adjacent to OWD’s HMA which has been identified as habitat for
the least Bell’s vireo, California gnatcatcher, and Cooper’s hawk. Implementation of mitigation measures
proposed within this document will reduce the potential biological impacts to a level less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade important examples of major
periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively 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)?
All project impacts will be mitigated to a level less than significant and are not considered cumulatively
considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the proposed project will not result in a potential impact to the health
and well being of human beings either directly or indirectly.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 42 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
XVIII.EARLIER ANALYSIS
In 2002, a Master Plan was prepared for the OWD that included this project in order to meet the projected ultimate
buildout water demands for the OWD 980 Pressure Zone. Pursuant to the Master Plan, a Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared in 2004. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with
the information provided in the PEIR.
XIV.REFERENCES USED IN THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, 2004.
California Division of Mines & Geology. Jamul 7 1/2 Minute Quadrangles, 1975.
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989.
Deméré, Tom, Paleontological Resources for County of San Diego, 1993.
Draft Countywide Siting Element, County of San Diego, 2004.
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoirs, Preliminary Design Report, September 2004.
Otay Water District 18-Hole Golf Course, Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, 1999.
San Diego County Soil Survey, San Diego Area, United States Department of Agriculture, June 2003.
Scholl, Robert. Otay Water District. Personal Communication. November 5, 2004.
Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, Title
14, 2000.
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9), Regional Water Quality Control Board, September 8,
1994.
Water Resources Master Plan, Otay Water District, 2002
Water Resources Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Otay Water District, 2004.
Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production-
Consumption Region, Department of Conservation, Divisions of Mines and Geology, 1983.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoir 43 January 2006
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
XVIII.EARLIER ANALYSIS
In 2002, a Master Plan was prepared for the OWD that included this project in order to meet the projected ultimate
buildout water demands for the OWD 980 Pressure Zone. Pursuant to the Master Plan, a Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared in 2004. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with
the information provided in the PEIR.
XIV.REFERENCES USED IN THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, 2004.
California Division of Mines & Geology. Jamul 7 1/2 Minute Quadrangles, 1975.
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989.
Deméré, Tom, Paleontological Resources for County of San Diego, 1993.
Draft Countywide Siting Element, County of San Diego, 2004.
Otay Water District 980-3 Reservoirs, Preliminary Design Report, September 2004.
Otay Water District 18-Hole Golf Course, Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, 1999.
San Diego County Soil Survey, San Diego Area, United States Department of Agriculture, June 2003.
Scholl, Robert. Otay Water District. Personal Communication. November 5, 2004.
Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, Title
14, 2000.
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9), Regional Water Quality Control Board, September 8,
1994.
Water Resources Master Plan, Otay Water District, 2002
Water Resources Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Otay Water District, 2004.
Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production-
Consumption Region, Department of Conservation, Divisions of Mines and Geology, 1983.
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst. GM):
AGENDA ITEM 4
STAFF REPORT
MEETING April 5, 2006
DATE:
C.I.P./ P2440 I DIV. 2
G.F. NO: W030129 NO.
Regular Board
Marta Riende a~ Ron Ripperger ~
Mehdi Arbabian d-t~tiJ/1
Chief, Engine~{~g and Planning
W030130
Manny Magana~~
Assistant General ~nager, Engineering and Operations
SUBJECT: Approve Utility Agreement Nos. 31757 and 31758 with Caltrans for
SR 905 Utility Relocations
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to execute Utility
Agreement Nos. 31757 and 31758 with Caltrans for SR 905 Utility
Relocations. (See attached Exhibit A for project location, and
Exhibit B for Utility Agreements)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization to execute Utility Agreement Nos. 31757
and 31758 with Caltrans for relocation of District facilities within
SR 905 right-of-way.
ANALYSIS:
Caltrans is currently in the process of completing land acquisition
and design for SR 905 located within Otay Mesa. Part of this process
is to relocate existing utilities where conflicts exist. The
District's existing pipelines within public streets or easements will
need to be relocated to accommodate the new freeway
Responding to a request from Caltrans, staff submitted claim letters
for all five (5) crossings where the District has utility conflicts.
Subsequently, the District received notices to relocate. The District
has prior and superior rights at each crossing. At two (2) of these
crossings, Gailes Boulevard/Dublin Drive and Pacific Rim Court, staff
has completed the utility agreements which are ready for District
approval. A third agreement was approved within the General
Manager's signatory authority and the remaining two (2) will go to
the Board for approval in the near future.
Utility Agreement No. 31757:
The scope of work for Utility Agreement No. 31757 is to relocate
approximately 250 linear feet of 12-inch ACP located on Gailes
Boulevard/Dublin Drive within the SR 905 right-of-way. The
relocation is necessary due to the lower finished grade elevations
for the proposed freeway as well as for the protection of the new
potab~e water pipeline.
This relocation will consist of the installation of approximately 360
linear feet of 12-inch CML&C pipe within the 871 pressure zone. The
new pipeline will be installed inside a 24-inch steel casing for the
protection of the carrier pipe as required by Caltrans. The
installation of the pipeline, including the tie-ins, will not
adversely affect any District customers. Staff will coordinate the
necessary short-term shutdowns to minimize the impact on system
operations.
The calculated depreciation cost for the 12-inch ACP is $2,167. The
estimated construction cost for the new pipeline relocation is
$125,865. Additionally, the total design and inspection costs
incurred by the District for this relocation are estimated to be
$61,538. The total cost that Caltrans will reimburse the District at
completion of the construction work is estimated at $185,236.
Consistent with the conditions of all other utility agreements
between the District and Caltrans, actual costs may not exceed 125
percent of the estimated cost in the agreement without a revised
amendment being executed.
Utility Agreement No. 31758:
The scope of work for Utility Agreement No. 31758 is to relocate
approximately 440. linear feet of 12-inch ACP located in Pacific Rim
Court within the SR 905 right-of-way. This relocation is also
necessary due to the lower finished grade elevations for the proposed
freeway.
This relocation will consist of the installation of approximately 480
linear feet of 12-inch CML&C pipe within the 871 Pressure Zone. The
new pipeline will be installed inside a 24-inch steel casing for the
protection of the carrier pipe. This installation will not adversely
affect any District customers.
The calculated depreciation cost for the existing 12-inch ACP is
$3,465. The estimated construction cost for installing the new 12-
2
inch steel pipe is $174,320. Additionally, the total design and
inspection costs to be incurred by the District for this relocation
is estimated at $54,819 . The total cost to be reimbursed by Caltrans
is $225,674 .
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approved total budget for CIP P2440 is $2,700,000 . Expenditures
to date are $344,743 . Execution of Utility Agreement Nos . 31757 and
31758 imposes an estimated financial impact of $416,542 on the
District, which will be reimbursed except for depreciation of $5,632.
Total commitments and expenditures to date including these agreements
are $755,653. At this time engineering does not anticipate a need to
modify the CIP budget
Finance has determined that all funding for this project will be
available from the Replacement Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement, "To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District, in a professional, effective, efficient, and
sensitive manner ... " This project fulfills the District's Strategic
Goals No. 1 -Community and Governance, and No. 5 -Potable Water, by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Legal counsel reviewed both Utility Agreements for consistency and
content.
HJ/RR/MA/KR
Attachments
p,\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Staff Reports\BD 04-05-06, I-905 Utility Agreement 31757, 31758.doc
3
ATTACHMENT A
r···siie-ji~:criilRoJEcf:· ·····~·-·Api;;·y:·c;:;;~·····ut·i .. ii ty·······Ag.ree~~nt····No·s:········j·i·;:/5 7 an·d. ······j-·1·7·5·9· ···~i .. th··· ············-············· ················-·!
! ........... ·································· ..................................... l ... ~.~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ans ..... ~~ .. ~ ....... ~~ ....... ~ .. ~.~-··· ~~ .. ~.~~ .. ~ .. ~·-···~·~·~ oca.~ .. ~ .. ~.:.~. ····························-········-······-···--·····-···············-···-····· ····-···--·~
COMMITTEE ACTION:
On March 27, 2006, the Engineering and Operations Committee met and
supported staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The "Committee Action" is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the committee prior to
presentation to the full board.
EXHIBIT A
r sU8JEC.TiPROJEcT: TAp·p·r·o:;;e·····u:·t: "iiit.Y" A9"r.eeme-n"t-·-·No·s··:·······31 7 57 ar12i"""3i";:/5"8"""";i·t-h
I Caltrans for SR 905 Utility Relocations
i .................... . ·····························-··········-·-····-...... i .................. -......................... ,_ ......................................................... . ··············································-········· .. ,,, ___ .... !
5
PRO.JECT
SITE
VICINITY MAP
(j) PACIFIC RIM CT
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31758
@ CACTUS ROAD (APPROVED)
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31759
@ BRITANNIA BLVD (NEAR FUTURE)
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31756
@ GAlLES BL VDIDUBLIN RD
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31757
@ AIRWA ¥/HARVEST RD (NEAR FUTURE)
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31755
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SR 905 UTILITY RELOCATIONS
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT 8
r·sus:~·Ecr/PROJEcr:·-·r-A:J?J?r0;e;-·ut:"iii"·t:·y l-\9ree~erit .... No.s. 317 57 ··a:·;;~i 3i'7"5_s ....... ;It:·h
. I Caltrans for SR 905 Utility Relocations
l.. I ~ •••••••n•••••••••-•><••••••••••o•"'''''''''''''"''''''''-''''''''' ••••••••OOol.o••O O••O•• 0 ''''''''''''''''''-''''''''''"'''''''"' ''''''''''"''''''"'''''''''''''''''"''''"'''-'''''''''''''''''''"'"''"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''"'''''''''''"'''H'''''H'''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''""''''''"'''''''''-''''"'''''-''"''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''n''''''' ·········· .J
6
STc(TE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 11
P. 0. BOX 85406 MS-S-54
SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5406
(619) 688-6682
FAX (619) 688-2570
February 2, 2006
Otay Water District
Ron Ripperger
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
Dear Mr. Ripperger:
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER. Govemor
11-SD-905
KP R9.3/R18.62
E.A.: 091821
UtilitYNo. 3.1757.
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Enclosed are four originals and one photocopy of the Utility Agreement No. 31757 covering the
relocation ofwater facilities to accommodate the STATE'S construction on Route 905, E.A. 091821.
If you find the Agreement satisfactory, please execute and return all original copies, and keep the
"Owner File Copy": Please return the originals to this office for further processing. The Owner File
copy is for your files until we can return a fully executed original document to you.
Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (619) 688-6682.
~ ~ie Rodriguez
Utility Coordinator
Right of Way Division
Enclosure
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UTILITY AGREEMENT
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
Dist
11
Co
SD
federal Aid. No.: A905 (OlS)
Rte
905
Owners File:OWD Drawing 46-7
KP (P.M.)
R9.3/R18.62
(R5.8/Rll.6)
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION: On the Project X Yes QNo
On the Utilities ~Yes 0 No
Page 1 of 4
EA
091821
UTILITY AGREEMENT N0 .. __ ~31=-:.7.,:;;..57.:...,._____;DATE:--. --------'---__;_ _ _:.._...;_.
The State of California acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter called "STATE" proposes to
construct a new freeway (Phase 1) in San Diego CountY: in San Diego from 1.1 km east of the Route 905/805 separation to 0.6 km
west of the Mexico B~rder and OTA Y WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter called "OWNER", owns and maintains water facilities within
the limits of STATE's project. · ·
It is hereby mutually agreed that:
I. WORK TO BE DONE
In accordance with Notice to Owner 31757 dated 1112/06 OWNER shall relocate OWNER's water facilities. All work
shall be performed substantially in accordance with OWNER's Drawing No. 46-7 dated July 12, 2005 consisting of
eight sheets, a copy of which is on file in the District office of the Department of Transportation at 2878 Camino Del
Rio South, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92108. Deviations from the OWNER's plan described above initiated by either
the STATE or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto under a Revised Notice to Owner. Such
Revised Notices to Owner, approved by the STATE ·and agreed to/acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an
approved revision of the OWNER's plans described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said
deviation shall commence prior to written execution by the OWNER of the Revised Notice to Owner. Changes in the
scope of the work will require an amendment to this Agreement in addition to the revised Notice to Owner.
II. LIABILITY FOR WORK:
Existing facilities are located in their present position pursuant to rights superior to those of the STATE and will be
relocated at STATE expense.
III. PERFORMANCE OF WORK:
Ownc.<r agrees to cause the herein described. work to be performed by a contract with the lowest qualified bidder,
selected pursuant to a valid competitive bidding procedure, and to furnish or cause to be furnished all necessary
labor, materials, tools and equipment required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion.
r
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.)
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
IV. PAYMENTFOR WORK:
Page 2 of 4
I UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31757
The STATE shall pay its share ofthe actual cost of the herein-described work within 90 days after receipt of five (5)
copies of OWNER's itemized bill in quintuplicate, signed by a responsible official of OWNER's organization and
prepared on OWNER's letterhead; compiled on the basis of the actual and necessary cost and expense. The
OWNER shall maintain records of the actual costs incurred and charged.or allocated to the project in accordance
with recognized accounting principles. The OWNER's billing cost to STATE is $185,236.00.
It is understood and agreed that the STATE will not pay for any betterment or increase in capacity of OWNER's
facilities in the new location and that OWNER shall give credit to the STATE for the accumulated depreciation or
"used life" on the replaced facilities and for the salvage value of any material or parts salvaged and retained or sold
byOWNER.. .
Not more frequently than once a mo.nth, but at least quarterly, OWNER will prepare and submit progress bills for. .
. costs incurred not to exceed OWNER's recorded costs as of the billing date kss estimated credits applicable to
compieted work. ·Payment of progress bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made under the
terms of this Agreement. Payment of progress bills which exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made after
receipt and approval by STATE of documentation supporting the cost increase and after an Amendment to this
Agreement has been executed by the parties to this Agreement.
The OWNER shall subrriit·a final biil to th~ STATE ~ithln 360 days ~fter th~ completio~ ~fthe w~rk de~crib~d in·
Section I. above. If the STATE has not received a final bill within 360 days after notifiCtion of completion of·
OWNER's work described in Section I. ofthis Agreement, and STATE has delivered to OWNER fully executed
Director's Deeds, Consents to Common Use or JointUse Agreements as required for OWNER's facilities, STATE·
will provide written notification to OWNER of its intent to ~lose its file within 30 days and OWNER hereby
acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be deemed to have been abandoned. If the
STATE processes a final bill for payment more than 360 days after notification of completion of OWNER's work,
payment of the late bill may be subject to allocation and/or approval by the California Transportation Commission.
The final billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs charged to the project, less the credits
provided for in this Agreement, and less any amounts covered by progress billings. However, the STATE shall not
pay final bills which exceed the estimated cost of this Agreement without documentation of the reason for the
increase of said cost from the OWNER and approval of documentation by STATE. Except, if the final bill exceeds
the OWNER's estimated costs solely as the result of a revised Notice to Owner as provided for in Section I, a copy
of said revised Notice to Owner shall suffice as documentation. In either case, payment of the amount over the
estimated cost of this Agreement may be subject to allocation and/or approval by the California Transportation
Commission.
In any event if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this agreement, an Amended Agreement shall be
executed by the parties to this Agreement prior to the payment of the OWNER's final bill. Any and all increases in
costs that are the direct result of deviations from the work described in Section I of tbis Agreement shall have the
prior concurrence of STATE.
Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by the OWNER for a period of three years
fr.om the date of the final payment and will be available for audit by State and/or Federal auditors. Owner .agrees to
·comply with Contract Cos"t Principles and Procedures as set forth in 48-CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, etseq., 23 CFR,
Chapter 1, Part 645 and/or 18 CFR, Chapter 1. Parts 101,210, et all If a subsequent State and/or Federal audit
determines payments to be unallowable, OWNER agrees to reimburse STATE upon receipt of STATE billii.1g.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of STATE's request of June 15, 2004 to review, study and/or prepare
relocation plans and estimates for the project associated with this Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.)
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS: (Continued)
Page 3 of 4
I UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31757
If STATE's project which precipitated this Agreement is canceled or modified so as to eliniinate the necessity of
work by OWNER, STATE will notify OWNER in writing and STATE reserves the rightto terminate this
Agreement by Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and conditions for
terminating the Agreement.
All obligations of STATE under the terms of thi.s Agreement are subject to the passage of the annual Budget Act by
the State Legislature and the allocation of those funds by the California Transportation Cmmnission.
OWNER shall submit a. Notice ~[Completion to the STATE within 30 day~ of the completion ofthe ~ork describ~d
herein.
Where OWNER has prior rights in areas ·which will be within the highway right of way and where OWNER's
facilities will remain on or be relocated on STATE highway right of way, a Joint Use Agreement or Consent to
Common Use Agreement shall be executed by the parties.
It is Ul)dersto9d tP.at said highway is.a Feder.~l aid high~ay and accordingly, 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645 is hereby
incorporated into this Agreement. · ·
* * * *
. UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.)
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
Page 4 of 4
I UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31757
THE ESTIMATED COST TO STATE FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS$ =18=5--'-"2=3=6.=00"-----~-
CERTIFICATION OF' FUNDS
l hereby certify upon my own personal knowled-ge that budgeted funds are
available for the period and purpose of tlie expenditure shown here. ·
FUND TYPE EA AMOUNT
Design Funds $
Construction Funds . " $
,4~~ /-;2 7-C:Md(
RW Funds 091829 $185,236.00
/J(Q Accounting Officer Date
v ITEM CHAP STAT FY AMOUNT
;u.(,o-iDI -~J'9~ 5? ~t):) o~,-{,{' cJ,J(.,()() . £)()c(;L .... ~() I .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above Written:
STATE: OWNER: OTA Y WATER DISTRICT
By-~~~~~~~~~------~~-+-----'ef . 'ght ofW~y
By .
Name/Title
Delegated, DA VI . JOHNSON, Chief
Utility Relocation Branch
DO NOT WRITE BELOW-FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY
Date
Distribution: 3 originals to R/W Program Accounting & Analysis
3 originals returned to R/W Planning & Management
REV!
Debbie Rodriguez
Utilit Coordinator
.....
I I I I I I I I ........
I I I I I I I I ~ ._::~ I II I I.·.·.·.·. ........ Date . . ...: ·.:--:.:.:.: ~:.:
Date
June 28, 2005
Ms. Debbie Rodriguez
Caltrans, District 11
P. 0. Box 85406 MS-S-54
San Diego, CA 92186-5406
SUBJECT: 1-905 Utility Relocation, Claim Letter;
Project: P2440-002000
12-lnch Pipeline on Gailes Boulevard/Dublin Drive
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
The purpose of this letter is to establish that the Otay Water District (District) has
prior rights of occupancy for the 12-inch ACP potable water pipeline on Gailes
Boulevard/Dublin Drive within the Interstate 905 (1-905) right-of-way. As we have
jointly determined, this pipeline must be permanently relocated in order to
accommodate the construction of the new 1-905 and meet all Caltrans right-of-way
encroachment requirements.
The subject pipeline was constructed in 1988 within a 20-foot-wide permanent
easement, granted to the District on Map No. 12279 (dated October 14, 1988 ). A
copy of the recorded map was transmitted to you on July 1, 2004. The pipeline was
accepted by the District in 1989 and has since been lawfully operated and
maintained. I have enclosed herewith the Resolutions that provide proof that such
pipeline was built under two separate agreements with Turnberry Associates and
accepted by the District. The segment of pipe that requires relocation is within a
previously established easement; therefore, it is understood that Caltrans is
responsible for 100 percent of the cost of a permanent relocation, minus a
depreciation credit.
The estimated construction cost for this relocation is $125,865.00. Depreciation on
the 12-inch ACP pipe is calculated to be $2,167 .41. I have enclosed a copy of our
depreciation calculations for your files. Additionally, we have estimated that the
total design and inspection fees incurred by·.the District for this relocation will be
$61 ,538. The District will invoice Caltrans for reimbursement of all final design,
inspection, and construction costs following completion of the project.
Ms. Debbie Rodriguez
June 28, 2005
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this particular
·pipeline relocation, please contact· me at (619) 670-2279 or Martha Juarez at (619)
670-2273.
Sincerely,
Ron Ripperger, P.E.
Engineering Design Manager
MJ/RR:$eh
Enclosures
cc: fVJehdi Arbabian (w/o enclosures)
Martha Juarez
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Pianning\Correspondence\Ltr Caltrans Gailes-Dublin Claim Ltr 6-28-05.doc
1-905 Utility Relocations
Gailes Blvd./Dublin Dr.
Project: Relocation of 300 mm (12") ACP Pipeline
Design Eng: Hirsch & Co.\Cecil Rehr
Prepared By: ....:.T..:..:ra:::.n.:..:.;h~H..:..:U::..zY..:..:n.:..:.h __ -'--~"'-'---..,.------------""--
Date: 6/27/2005
CIP No. W440
W.O. No. 30129
WO 1932/1935 RESOLUTION NO. 2826 and 2827 Accepting Work Completed Under Subdivision Agreement(s) with Turn berry Associates.
for the Construction of a Water in Brown Field Business Park Units 1 & 2.
1 12" ACP-CL 200
2 2"8.0. EA 00
Current Construction Cost! L ___ ..:::..$..:....15::....!.,=69:....:0:..:...0:....:0;:__jl
Unit cost for pipeline based on current market and construction costs of recent similar projects.
Estimated construction costs (ECC) for the years 1988 and 2005 have been determined by using the Engineering News-Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) Number.
Date CCI No. ECC
2005 7415 $15 690
1988 4519 $9,562
Depreciation Calculations
-life Cycle for ACP per OWD. = 75-yrs .
Current Age of existing)\CP = 2005-1988 = 17 yrs
Assuming Straight-line Depreciation over the life cycle: Depreciation Cost = (Current Age I Life Cycle)* Value in 1988
*9
TOTAL PROJECT DEPRECIATION COST=
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\WO 30129 Gailes-Dublln\Gailes-Dublin Depreciation Estimate 6-23-05
LOCATION: ESTIMATE BY:' A·E FIRM: SHEET
CHULA VISTA W.PAPAC HIRSCH & COMPANY 3 OF 3
TITLE: STATUS: CHECKED BY: DATE:
1-905 OWD 06.27.05
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY. MATERIAL COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING EST
NO. UNIT· UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
GAlLES BLVD./DUBLIN DR.
12" CML&C, .25 wall 355 If 70.00 $~4.850.00
24" Stl. Casing, .375 wall 257 ·If 275.00 $70,675.00
12" GV (for isolation) 1 ea 1,400.00 $1,400.00
2"ARV 1 ea 3,500.00 $3;500.00
4"8.0. 1 ea 4,500.00 $4,500.00
Conn. To Existing 2 ea 2,500.00 $5,000.00
CP System 1 Is 3,600.00 $3,600.00
Restoration 1 Is 2,200.00 $2,200.00
8" CL200 PVC Fireline 104 If 60.00 $6,240.00
8" CL200 GV 1 ea 900.00 $900.00
8" Conn. To Existing 2 ea 1,500.00 $3,000.00
SUBTOTAl $125;865.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $318,585.00
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Schedules-Costs\COST ESTIMATE PacRim"Cactus-Gailes 3 of 3
1-905 Estimated fees for Design and Construction Services
Pacific Rim Court
OWD Design
R~view Consultant lnsp~ction CM TOTAL
$8,400 ·$27,441 $1.1,000 $7,978 $54,819
100 hrs 125 hrs 66 hrs
Dublin Road/Gailes Blvd.
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$15,120 $27,440 $11,000 $7,978 $61,538
180 hrs 125 hrs 66 hrs
Britannia Blvd.
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$16,800 $60,700 $11,900 $10,956 $100,356
200 hrs 140 hrs 92 hrs
Cactus Road
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$5,040 $10,354 $5,902 $4,421 $25,717
60 hrs 90hrs 37 hrs
Airway Road/Harvest Road
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$25,200 $69,200 $17,850 $12,831 $125,081
300 hrs 210 hrs 107 brs
..
TOTALS by Column:
$70,560 $195,135 $57,652 $44,164 $367,511
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Schedules-Costs\Fees estimate for Claim letters
i
STATE OF CAj"IFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORT AT'-"IOcuN_,_,A'-'-ND~HO"'-'U'-"S'-"IN""G-"-"A"'-"GE"'""N'-"C-'--Y ----------------"'A"'-'R"-'NO"'-'Le'oD~S"""G'-'-'lW"-',c"'\R""Z""'-EN.:ccE'-"G'dcGE"-"R"-'G"'-'o"-'ve"-'m"'"or
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT-11
P. 0. BOX 85406 MS-54
"AN DIEGO, CA 92186-5406
)lONE (619) 688-6682
t<'AX (619) 688-2570
January 23, 2006
•
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91977-7299
Attention: Ron Ripperger
11-SD-905
KP: R5.8-R11.6
EA: 091821
UTIL NO: 31757
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Enclosed is Notice to Owner No. 31757 covering the relocation of water facilities in Gailes
Boulevard/Dublin Drive.
If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 688-6682.
Sincerely,
Q~
.Utility Coordinator
Right of Way Djvision
Enclosures
"Ca/trans improves mobility across California"
SDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA· DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOTICE TO OWNER
RW 13-4 (Rev. 9/96)
.. ~OTICE TO OWNER Dist. County Route
11 so 905
Federal Aid No.: A905 (015)
Number 31757 Owners File: OWD Drawing #46-7
Date:
To: Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91977-7299
01-12-06 I Freeway:
PAGE 1 OF 1
KP(PM) E.A.
(R5.8-R11.6) 091821
[X]Yes [ ] No
Because of the State Highway construction project: In San Diego County in San Diego from 1.1 KM east of
the Route 905/805 separation to 0.6 KM west of the Mexico border.
Which affects your facilities: Water facilities (12-inch ACP potable water pipeline) in Gailes
Boulevard/Dublin Drive.
You are hereby ordered to: Relocate water facilities in Gailes Boulevard/Dublin Drive as shown on Otay
Water District Plan Drawing 46-7.
~our work schedule shall be as follows: The relocation work is to be completed by the competitive bid
contr~ct and performed in accordance with the Construction Contract 091824 as shown in the work windows
listed in the Special Provisions that all work will be completed by 6/30/06 or prior to construction.
Notify Luis Jerez, at telephone number{619)688-6473, 48 hours prior to·initial start of work, and 24 hours prior
to subsequent restart when your work schedule is interrupted.
Liability for the cost of the work is: 100% STATE 0% OWNER. Liability is based on Owner's rights are
superior .to those of the State.
Resident Engineer
Permits
RIW
PEDRO ORSO-DELGADO
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
By'f....._}.~~~:_;Q~~:=__--
DA VID W. JOHN
DISTRICT UTILITY COORDINATOR
THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERMIT. OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT BEFORE STARTING WORK.
NOTE·
1 . SEE PHOTOS 7 ,8, & 9
DWG C-6 FOR ACCESS.
I.E. PACIFIC INC
646-190-!6
VISTA SOUTH
·MELROSE
646-170-06
90"
DRAINAGE
CULVERT
I
DETERIORATED AC
Vl 0
I-905
fOR WORK IN THIS AREA,
SEE DWG C-2
\ SITE PLAN-PACIFIC RIM CT
SCALE: 1" -50'
..
SEE OWG C-4 FOR
WORK IN THIS AREA
I-905
I
35' UTIUJY
DANTE CORP
645-190-17
EASEMENT GRANTED TO ·
OTAY WATER DISTRICT STATE OF
PER MAP 12145, DATE!a\LIFORNIA
AUGUST 10, 1988 646-170-15
MANAGING G P INC
646-220-05
GATEWAY PARK
DR
--..... ·r-
--... r-
0
DUBLIN DR
w. ~-·-
.c
0 Q_
0 ~
·~
g a
... .0 .o N
" § ....
N
· GRAPHIC SCALE
BROWN FIELD
BUSINESS PARK LP
646-220-28
0 50' 100' 150' ~~~T~S~~~~·~1'~'-~50~'~~~~
8 ~L~----------------~------------
:rz--AcP !"' , I ---.. r---------~
I j
!
I I 20' WIDE WATER /
EASEMENT GRANTED TO -·-OTAY WATER DISTRICT f / PER MAP 12279, DATEq
OCTOBER 14, 1988 \
SITE PLAN-GAlLES BLVD/DUBLIN DR
SCALE: 1"=50'
HIRSCH & COMPANY
CONSUL T/NG ENGINEERS
+499 RUFFIN ROAD, STE. 300
SAN DIEGO. CAUFORN1A 92123
PH (858) 565-4S..5 FAX (858) 565-45+1
ORA'MNG REFERENCES: OWO DWG I 46-7, PACIFI
GATEWAY PARK, & DWG # 43-7. BROWN FIELD
BUSINESS PARK UNIT I 2, OWO DWG .. I ~2-7, RDfiWfoJ C'IC"I n n,,,..,. ,,.. __ -·-. ~
PARKER. PROPERTIES INC
646-220-04
IIBVIS!ONS
D ON D
•
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
25M SliiBTliATBR SPRIIIGB BOUI.EVAIID
SPRIIIG VAU.EY, c.l 81178-20110
818 -870-2222
I-905 UTILITY RELOCATION
EXIST. SITE PLANS
PACIFIC RIM CT & ~~181~1!.1.1111~0"~;r:....: --'----t~~c~in-BlBY~, -==:::! GAlLES BLVD./DUBLIN DR.
PIIOIICT IIWIAGBB
CM103·
RCB HO. DATI
RECORD DRA'II'lNGS Rex NO. DATI! ... .. ____ ~-----
0 / "' 0 / :;
·.r:: ;E
8 :X:
"' g
N
>-~ ...
N
I . · l I I I V.·l!!! N 1 a: 11n 1!:1 I T · 1 I ·. I I I . ! I I I -QJ !!.'i l I I I
. · .·. · 1+oo 2+oo · ·· PROF! LE .· 3+oo Hoo·
SCALE: HORIZ. 1"-20' 5+00
\
1
''· ,.-VERT,. 1"=4' ~ "-._, ..:.~ , ·"-_ . . · .i· ! ---j-------~~-,~r~ !£~ ---_(-:;.:~':.""' ,. ·~:,~~~~~,;:::;--' r------,;------:-~~ • ...
I L5 ~ ' 1'~-/I~.) ~ --~ Ll~Nll!I!QtlS_J@ /, ~-;,dl \)'ill....._:::---·~ . . ---'~-~·-~:=-~ ... ~_)<(=-' .-.----s-f--Es15".!:-~:...E~~-GAILS_:.-E?~-.J_ --~-; )~ .... ,.--_..-EX 15" .,---------------~ .• , ~--/"'--)-SEE PHOTO ~ . ii • I I (3-.L: ~v "..t"'~"lf'Qgo,S.Q __ ._. __ . ··-·· . -so.--. -so .. -.
· /.w.. W EX 12" ~CP (CLEifOO) f· . /-r~s--~;-~:~~~SEWEB.=s ~:>---),_,____ .:.:__5 .-.;;:. ___ ••.• , ~"-k" ..J.-· -~----·---:-:so·· . -~ . ··so·· ··so·· .. so .. --
/' /?' -.. ·-.. .. . .. ---QSC / L~-......... ·-----.--~ · · """j / f. · ANcHo.R BLocK f 2 )"'=-· ~:: ;:, ·-..,l'il!l -~r-s...DL.15:.E.YfJEWFJL_s----s----s--~x-x x---x· x-x-\1' /l ___ ~ ~ ~-.. :;;------,: --f-:-_ _g_E D_ETAIL ;\c-•11 ,...--"··~-.i 7 _, ... !.;x 12" ACP .. {f.\-~200 .w.. ,.>"' . .____,,
'
" {-rX_ ------_ "' -I -~Y , _ .-_,1 _, /, .. w .. •, .. w.. ..v ---"1.-···// / -.,., __ ==-.. "Q;\ ---~~---rr. -w (I /--~---·---~--~ -----------' ~ ! J / -.\ r-c +,lf I)\ -'k -/ _MEYL 8"__fYC_a -· L ... "" - - -
Elf
1
r. '25' WATER EASEMENT-(f) I pv}.&l, ·;-c_.,;...Agy·::~-~-~-----. __ .------~----· EX 25' s~~e:.::~-~5.~------/ 1 \ _ \ H ~' • I ~~ / . ~:rb~AIL c-5 ~ ___ L/ \
____ CONCRETE Y r : ~~ -~-~----. . . __,....---:---~~\ rf ;It -, \ H
1
. 1\~, STA. ~~;;;g-------~· · EX·-~. GENERAL UTIUTY ~ . · . . · .. ,1 · "-'· , . >..-· ·.. . · . ···. .. . . ,/""'·" ~. ·. \.>•'EX 12" AC (Cl-200)}~' ~~ . ~ 1785725.49 EASEMENT
j . . .,..--....: . . . ( . / . ~ EE NOTE 1 . . ' I . <! JJ814J.99 . . . J AIIII"I-IOR RLor.ll{ 2\ \: I'* ( . ··-. /"'' I . ' . / ! ·' ,.. . CO~NECTlON PQINT-""'•'0'-·----------
. . SEE OETA)L \ C-5l ·\ ·. · ! · . .-' · . . . b.c'!!0 . · c{V J'-ROTATE 90' B~ND TO
I '---..7
1 ~ , ' f · . . · PROPOSEJ;l-·'1'2"· C~L& (871 PZ) . /~ l>/ , ~~ERTICAL Al!.GNMENT
STA 1 +Oci.OO . · . : I '--·-· 488-----.STE&·PiPE, .250 W THICKNESS. , . · l<C) 1-, I-<+-1-1--EXI~T\D DITCH i
E 6338091.09 fl. ·, J£ THICKNESS. •:. i ,f -0 :I 1--:n!REPAIR IMPR9YEMENTS
CONNECTION POINT! ~ P'------- --__ q --. -----~(SEE NOTE J \ \ _jl-1 VI· TO MATCH 9<1ST ; I 1-2+00 \_ --r--'-. _ ~ I . CONDITIONS.' @S
1. SEE DWG CP-1 FOR
CATHODIC PROTECTION DETAILS.
2. NOTIFY FIRE DEPT PRIOR TO
COMPLETING NEW LINE SERV1CE
CONNECTION.
J. REMOVE EXIST. 12" ACP & DISPOSE
OF PER W.A.s:
NOTE: ALL VEGETATION REMOVED II SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND AND
. AREA OF WORK SHALL BE LEFT
~ BEFORE OR BETTER.
STA. l+16.D9 i i/ '"" EX 12"/ACP (CL-,200) 3+00 \ '\ I"IY f SEE PHOI<f ~ ~
N 1785990.80 -~~ ~~; J-i--·---·-···-·· -.... _ '. 1 -,b!: ! STA. 3+79.47 C 6 . v/ /
VERT. ALIGNMENT J-.1. ro MATCH EXIST / . -. · 1 SEE DETAIL 1 \c-sJ ! i . J I ROTAT~ 90' To
~~~~~~~s9;o yo/ ~REPAIR IMPROVEMENTS /. /~·-··==---------") t ----THRUST R~_/T'\~~ ~ ~ I' ··~; . ~E~~g~g~Hi q~o# .
STA. 1+18.1~ i:t g~~ok~~~ @ FIRE SERVICE_/ xs :_,·, __ ,
1 1 VERT/ALLIGNMENT /
PROPqSED
2 J-4. ·C-6 · { 6 \ 1 SEEiNOTE 1 / AIR RELEAsE ; / GAlLES BLVD sEE DETAIL_./; \c:::sJN' 1 , .-----...·
VALVE t:t / SCALE: 1":o20
1
• '--.7 j Tl-lliUST BLOCK ( 2_j /. OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SEE W.A.S. STD EXIS'i"FIRE SERVICE 6 ' SEE DETAIL \C-51 / • • 2GM SRJmrATBR SPIIIHGS BOUUVARD
DWG WP-02 ........._ SEE PHOTO \-c=fi?-6. __ --------'-7;;;;;:;;;;;;:;;-----~-+.:::::.!~--::-::-=-:--:-;sp:IIIH:-:G~V=ALLEY!!;=--!:. ~CA~. ~&l~i77:8;;::-2:::ooo~---l ' -.'--7 _ ,... au -&70-22111
~~§~~~~~RIVIS~~~o~Ks§~~~§~lP~Pn 1-905 UTIUTY RELOCATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 4' e-s;;;----8' 12' I
HIRSCH & COMPANY _liD
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
#99 RUFFIN ROAD, STE. 300
SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92!2J
PH (858) 565-4545 FAX (858) 565-4541
DISioK BY: _!sc.w, PLAN & PROFILE
DlllW!fBY: CUCQDBY: GAlLES BLVD/DUBLIN DR. PROIIICT IIANAGIR
t"IV!.IA4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 11
P. 0. BOX 85406 MS-S-54
SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5406
(619) 688-6682
FAX (619) 688-2570
February 2, 2006
Otay Water District
Ron Ripperger
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
Dear Mr. Ripperger:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Govemor
11-SD-905
KP R9.3/R18.62
E.A.: 091821
UtilityNo. 31758
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Enclosed are four originals and one photocopy of the Utility Agreement No. 31758 covering the
relocation ofwater facilities to accommodate the STATE'S construction on Route 905, B.A. 091821.
If you find the Agreement satisfactory, please execute and return all original copies, and keep the
"Owner File Copy". Please return the originals to this office for further processing. The Owner File
copy is for your files until we can return a fully executed original document to you.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 688-6682.
Sincerely,
0Jk~ ~ie Rodri~u:~ -Q Q
Utility Coordinator
Right of Way Division
Enclosure
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
I '
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UTILITY AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 4
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
Dist Co Rte KP (P.M.) EA
11 SD 905 R9.3/R18.62 091821
(R5.8/R11.6)
Federal Aid No.: A905 (015)
Owners File:
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION: On the Project X Yes g. No
On the Utilities [8J Yes 0 No
UTILITY AGREEMENT N0. ___ 3::;;..;:.1:;..:..7.:;;.;58~-·DATE'--. __ ..:....__ ____ _
The State of California acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter called "STATE" proposes to
construct a new freeway (Phase 1) in San Diego County in San Diego from 1.1 km east of the Route 905/805 separation to 0.6 km
west of the Mexico Border and OTA Y WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter called "OWNER", owns and maintains water facilities within
the limits of STATE's project.
It is hereby mutually agreed that:
I. WORK TO BE DONE
In accordance with Notice to Owner 31758 dated 1112/06 OWNER shall relocate OWNER's water facilities. All work
shall be performed substantially in accordance with OWNER's Drawing No. 46-7 dated July 12, 2005 consisting of
eight sheets, a copy of which is on file in the District office of the Department of Transportation at 2878 Camino Del
Rio South, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92108. Deviations from the OWNER's plan described above initiated by either
the STATE or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto under a Revised Notice to Owner. Such
Revised Notices to Owner, approved by the STATE and agreed to/acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an
approved revision of the OWNER's plans described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said
deviation shall commence prior to written execution by the OWNER of the Revised Notice to Owner. Changes in the
scope of the work will require an amendment to this Agreement in addition to the revised Notice to Owner.
II. LIABILITY FOR WORK:
Existing facilities are located in their present position pursuant to rights superior to those of the STATE and will be
relocated at STATE expense.
III. PERFORMANCE OF WORK:
Owner agrees to cause the herein described work to be performed by a contract with the lowest qualified bidder,
selected pursuant to a valid competitive bidding procedure, and to furnish or cause to be furnished all necessary
labor, materials, tools and equipment required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion.
UTILITY AGREEMENT {Cont.)
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
IV. PAYMENT FOR WORK:
Page 2 of 4
I UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31758
The STATE shall pay its share of the actual cost ofthe herein-described work within 90 days after receipt offive (5)
copies of OWNER's itemized bill in quintuplicate, signed by a responsible official of OWNER's organization and
prepared on OWNER's letterhead, compiled on the basis of the actual and necessary cost and expense. The
OWNER shall maintain records of the actual costs incurred and charged or allocated to the project in accordance
with recognized accounting principles. The OWNER's billing cost to STATE is $225,674.00.
It is understood and agreed that the STATE will not pay for any betterment or increase in capacity of OWNER's
facilities in the new location and that OWNER shall give credit to the STATE for the accumulated depreciation or
"used life" on the replaced facilities and for the ~alvage value of any material or pa1ts salvaged and retained or sold
by OWNER.
Not more frequently than on<;:e a month, but at least quarterly, OWNER will prepare and submit progress bills for
costs incurred not to exceed OWNER's recorded costs as o[the billing date less estimated credits applicable to
completed work. Payment of progress bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made under the
terms of this Agreement. Payment of progress bills which exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made after
receipt and approval by STATE of documentation supporting the cost increase and after an Amendment to this
Agreement has been executed by the parties to this Agreement.
The OWNER shall submit a final bill to the STATE within 3 60 days after the completion of" the work described in
Section I. above. If the STATE has not received a final bill within 360 days after notifiction of completion of
OWNER's work described in Section I. of this Agreement, and STATE has delivered to OWNER fully executed
Director's Deeds, Consents to Conimon Use or Joint Use Agreements as required for OWNER's facilities, STATE
will provide written notification to OWNER of its intent to close its file within 30 days and OWNER hereby
acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be deemed to have been abandoned. If the
STATE processes a final bill for payment more than 360 days after notification of completion of OWNER's work,
payment of the late bill may be subject to allocation and/or approval by the California Transportation Commission.
The fmal billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs charged to the project, less the credits
provided for in this Agreement, and less any amounts covered by progress billings. However, the STATE shall not
pay final bills which exceed the estimated cost of this Agreement without documentation of the reason for the
increase of said cost from the OWNER and approval of documentation by STATE. Except, if the final bill exceeds
the OWNER's estimated costs solely as the result of a revised Notice to Owner as provided for in Section I, a copy
of said revised Notice to Owner shall suffice as documentation. In either case, payment of the amount over the
estimated cost of this Agreement may be subject to allocation and/or approval by the California Transportation
Commission.
In any event if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this agreement, an Amended Agreement shall be
executed by the parties to this Agreement prior to the payment of the OWNER's final bill. Any and all increases in
costs that are the direct result of deviations from the work described in Section I of this Agreement shall have the
prior concurrence of STATE.
Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by the OWNER for a period of three years
from the date of the final payment and will be available for audit by State and/or Federal auditors. Owner agrees to
comply with Contract Cost Principles and Procedures as set forth in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., 23 CFR,
Chapter 1, Part 645 and/or 18 CFR, Chapter 1. Parts 101,210, et all If a subsequent State and/or Federal audit
determines payments to be unallowable, OWNER agrees to reimburse STATE upon receipt of STATE billing.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of STATE's request ofJune 15, 2004 to review, study and/or prepare
relocation plans and estimates for the project associated with this Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.)
RW 13-5 (Rev. 1 0/95)
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS: (Continued)
Page 3 of4
I UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31758
If STATE's project which precipitated this Agreement is canceled or modified so as to eliminate the necessity of
work by OWNER, STATE will notify OWNER in writing and STATE reserves the right to terminate this
Agreement by Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and conditions for
terminating the Agreement.
All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the passage of the annual Budget Act by
the State Legislature and the allocation of those funds by the California Transportation Commission.
OWNER shall submit a Notice of Completion to .the STATE within 30 days of the completion of the work described
herein.
Where OWNER has prior rights in areas which will be within the highway right of way and where OWNER's
facilities will remain on or be relocated on STATE highway right of way, a Joint Use Agreement or Consent to
Common Use Agreement shall be executed by the parties.
It i!l understood that Sflid J:lighway is a Feder~l aid highway and a~cordingly, 2~ CFR 64~ is her~ by incorporated into
this Agreement. · · · · · · · · · ·
* * * *
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.)
RW 13-5 (Rev. 10/95)
Page 4 of 4
I UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 31758
THE ESTIMATED COST TO STATE FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $ =22=5-=6'-'-7-'-'4."""'00"---------
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are
available for the period and purpose· of the expenditure shown here.
/4-S ;J)t_-JC_ 1-J 7-J.ocJ {
/ )lQ Accounting Officer Date
V ITEM CHAP STAT FY. AMOUNT
~660· !CJ 1-t)19r:?, 36' ~tJJ tflqb~ t
t»er:J -c2b ~(7</'.~
FUND TYPE EA
Design Funds
Construction Funds
RWFunds 091829
AMOUNT
$
·$
$225,674.00
.......... .......... . . . . . . . . . .
I I I I I I I I I I .·.·~·.··.·.·.·.·.· .·.·.:_·.·.·.·.·.·
:1-1 11: I I I I I I I I I . . . . ..... I I I I I I. I I
I I I I I I I I I I ............ . . . . . . . . . .. ' ........ . . . . .. . . . . . •· . . .-. ·-··: ......... . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written.
OWNER: OTAY WATER DISTRICT
"By· _________________ _
Name/Title Date
DO NOT WRITE BELOW-FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY
EA FUNDING VERIFIED:
Sign:>
Print>
Date·
Distribution: 3 originals to R/W Program Accounting & Analysis
3 originals returned to RIW Planning & Management
Sign>
Print>
Debbie Rodriguez
Utility Coordinator Date
June 28, 2005
Ms. Debbie Rodriguez
Caltrans, District 11
P. 0. Box 85406 MS-S-54
San Diego, CA 92186-5406
SUBJECT: 1-905 Utility Relocation, Claim Letter;
12-lnch Pipeline on Pacific Rim Court
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
Project: P2440-003000
The purpose of this letter is to establish that the Otay Water District (District) has prior rights of
occupancy for the 12-inch ACP potable water pipeline on Pacific Rim Court within the
proposed Interstate 905 (1-905) right-of-way. As we have jointly determined, this pipeline must
be permanently relocated in order to accommodate the construction of the new 1-905 and meet
all Caltrans right-of-way encroachment requirements.
The subject pipeline was constructed under one project within a 20-foot-wide permanent
easement. A copy of the recorded easement document was transmitted to you on July 1,
2004. I have enclosed herewith the Resolution that provides proof that such pipeline was built
under an agreement with Gateway Otay Park. The pipeline was constructed in 1989 and
accepted by the District in 1990 and has since been lawfully operated and maintained. The
segment of pipe that requires relocation is within a previously established easement; therefore,
· it is understood that Caltrans is responsible for 100 percent of. the cost of a permanent
relocation, minus a depreciation credit.
The estimated construction cost for this relocation is $17 4,320.00. Depreciation on the 12-inch
ACP pipe is calculated to be $3,465.45. I have enclosed a copy of our depreciation
calculations for your files. Additionally, we have estimated that the total design and inspection
fees. incurred by the District for this relocation will be $54,819.00. The District. will invoice
Caltrans for reimbursement of all final des·ign, inspection, and construction costs following
completion <?f the project.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this particular pipeline
relocation, please contact me at (619) 670-2279 or Martha Juarez at (619) 670-2273.
Sincerely,
Ron Ripperger, P .E.
Engineering Design Manager
MJ/RR:seh
Enclosures
cc: Mehdi Arbabian (w/o enclosures)
Martha Juarez
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Pianning\Correspondence\Ltr Caltrans Pacific Rim Claim Ltr 6-28-05.doc
1-905 Utility Relocations
Pacific Rim Court
Project: Relocation of 300 mm (12") ACP Pipeline
Design Eng: Hirsch & Co.\Cecil Rehr
Prepared By: ...:T...:..:ra=..:n.!!.h!...!H'-!;u~y~n~h-----~~-~--'----------
Date: 6/27/2005
CIP No. W440
W.O. No. 30·130
WO 1825 RESOLUTION NO. 2997 Accepting Work Completed Under an Agreement with Gateway Otay Park for the Construction of a
Water for Pacific Park
12" ACP-CL 200 .00
Actual Construction Cost l.___ __ ---""$2::..:6::.!.,..:...:1 O::..:O:...::.o::..:o:...-~1
Unit cost for pipeline based on current market and construction costs of recent similar projects.
Estimated construction costs (ECC) for the years 1988 and 2005 have been determined by using the Engineering News-Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) Number. ·
Date CCI No. ECC
2005 7415 $26,100
1989 4615 $16,244
Depreciation Calculations
Life Cycle for ACP per OWD = 75 yrs
Current Age of existing ACP = 2005-1989 = 16 yrs
Assuming Straight-line Depreciation over the life cycle: Depreciation Cost= (Current Age I Life Cycle) • Value in 1989
. = *1
TOTAL PROJECT DEPRECIATION COST=
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\WO 30130 Pacific Rim\Pac Rim Ct Depreciation Estimate 6-23-05
LOCATION: ESTIMATE BV: A·E FIRM: SHEET
CHULA VISTA W.PAPAC HIRSCH & COMPANY 1-0F3
TITLE: STATUS: CHECKED BY: DATE:
1-905 OWD 06.27.05
DESCRIPTION QUANTilY MATERIAL COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING EST
NO. UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
PACIFIC RIM
12" CML&C, .25 wall 481 If 70.00 $33,670.00
24" Stl. Casing, .375 wall 438 If 275.00 $120,450.00
12" GV (for isolation) 1 ea 1,400.00 $1,400.00
2"ARV. 1 ea 3,500.00 $3,500.00
4" 8.0. 1 ea 4,500.00 $4,500.00
Conn. Tci Existing 2 ea 2,500.00 $5,000.00
CP System 1 Is 3,600.00 $3,600.00
Restoration 1 Is 2,200.00 $2,200.00
SUBTOTAL $174,320.00
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Schedules-Costs\COST ESTIMATE PacRim-Cactus-Gailes 1 of 3
1-905 Estimated fees for Design and Construction Services
Pacific Rim Court
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$8,400 $27,441 . $11,000 $7,978 $54,819
100 hrs · 125hrs 66hrs
Dublin Road/GaiJes Blvd.
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$15,120 $27,440 $11,000 $7,978 $61,538
180 hrs 125 hrs 66 hrs
Britannia Blvd.
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$16,800 $60,700 $11,900 $10,956 $100,356
200 hrs 140 hrs 92 hrs
Cactus Road
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$5,040 $10,354 $5,902 $4,421 $25,717
60hrs 90 hrs 37 hrs
Airway Road/Harvest Road
OWD Design
Review Consultant Inspection CM TOTAL
$25,200 $69,200 $17,850 $12,831 $125,081
300 hrs 210hrs 107.hrs
TOTALS by Column:
$70,560 $195,135 $57,652 $44,164 $367,511
P:\WORKING\CIP W440-P2440\Schedules-Costs\Fees estimate for Claim letters
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT-11
P. 0. BOX 85406 MS-54
<''-AN DIEGO, CA 92186-5406
HONE (619) 688-6682
FAX (619) 688-2570
January 23, 2006
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91977-72.99
Attention: Ron Ripperger
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER, Govemor
11-SD-905
KP: R5.8-:R11.6
EA: 091821
UTIL NO: 31758
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient I
Enclosed is Notice to Owner No. 31758 covering the relocation of water facilities in Pacific Rim.
If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 688-6682.
SQ~·
DEBBIE RODRIGUEZ
Utility Coordinator
Right of Way Division
Enclosures
"Cal trans improves mobility across California"
SDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA· DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOTICE TO OWNER
RW 13-4 (Rev. 9/96)
~OTICE TO OWNER Dist.
11
County Route
so .. 905
Federal Aid No.: A905 (015)
Number 31758 · Owners File: OWD Drawing #46-7
Date:
To: Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91977-7299
1/12/06 I Freeway:
PAGE 1 OF 1
KP(PM) E.A.
(R5.8-R11.6) 091821
[X] Yes [ ] No
Because of the State Highway construction project: In San Diego County in San Diego from 1.1 KM east of
the Route 905/805 separation to 0.6 KM west of the Mexico border.
Which affects your facilities: Wateffacilities· (12-inch ACP potable water pipeline) in Pacific Rim Court.
You are hereby ordered to: Relocate water facilities in Pacific Rim Court as shown on Otay Water District
Plan Drawing 46-7.
\Your work schedule shall be as follows: The relocation work is to be completed by competitive bid contract
jand performed in accordance with the Construction Contract 091824 as shown in the work windows listed in the
Special Provisions that all work will be completed by 6/30/06 or prior to construction.
Notify Luis Jerez, at telephone number (619)688-6473, 48 hours prior to initial start of work, and 24 hours prior
to subsequent restart when your work schedule is interrupted.
Liability for the cost of the work is: 100% STATE 0% OWNER. Liability is based on Owner's rights are
superior to those of the State.
ICC: Resident Engineer
Permits
RIW
PEDRO ORSO-DELGADO
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERMIT. OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT BEFORE STARTING WORK.
.c
0 Q_
0 u :I:
I
"' g
N
-x-x
· STA. 1 +00.00
N 1786260.89
E 6332855.87
CONNECTION POINT
NOTE: ALL VEGETAllON REMOVED
SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND AND
AREA OF WORK SHALL BE LEFT AS
BEFORE OR BETTER.
PROFILE
SCALE: HORI~. 1"=20'.
· ·. VERT. 1"=4'
DATI
DATI
Slllll' • or 10 SBDTS
DIU'IrniQ HO.
~~-.. , ..
~ ..J
: g
::,;
···. "' "' "' ~ 0 Cl / .,. < lU -::
0 ·/ "' 0 / ::;
"' 0 n.
0 u J: -" >. • 0 ~ a.
t: :: "' E 0 ro
. .,
0 0 ·. N
"' 0 ::,; ... "'
" 0 "
·.· ...
NOTE·
1. SEE PHOTOS 7,8, & 9
. DWG C-6 FOR ACCESS.
:~
..
I.E. PACIFIC INC ·.
646-190-16
VISTA SOUTH
MELROSE
. 646-170:-06
BROWN FIELD
BUSINESS PARK LP
646-220-28 .
-.::.. ..
THE RELOCATION PLANS WILL CLEAR THE PROJECT.
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50' 1.00' 150' ~~~~~~~~.~~~~ VERT SCALE: I"'" 50'
.. l I . i
:· .
I-905
FOR WORk IN. THIS AREA,
. SEE DWG C-2
Vl 0
\. ·. -~TI; 1 ~~N-PACIFIC RIM CT
SEE DWG C-4 FOR
WORK IN THIS AREA
I-905 .
20' WIDE WATER ~'
EASEMENT GRANTED TO .----
OTAY WATER DISTRICT f
PER MAP 12279. DATEq
OCTOBER 14, 1988. \
: ~PROPOS<D . ( •. / '"Z CONS7 <ASEMENT
r-
1
/ i I
/
MANAGING G P INC
646-220-05 .
PARKER PROPERTIES INC
646-220-04
DANTE CORP
646.-190-17
. ... · .. ' .. ·.
·GATEWAY PARK
DR
: ...
: ....
:.~.
:.:· ........ · .. ,
--... .-r-·
:; · .. :~~~~~~~-=-~!~~~-~~~-~ ._~j~~~f
'-""·' ,._....__.... ~o,H ', ..... ~ ... --; .. -..... ,,• -~-' Oo .,.. ...;,, Oo ~ 0
. DUBLIN DR
D. '
. SITE PLAN-GAlLES BLVD/DUBLIN. DR OTAY WATER DISTRICT
23~ SWRnl.t.TIIR SPRINGII BOULE'IAIUI
SPRING VAU.EY CJ. DIV711-20INI SCALE: 1"•50'
HIRSCH & COMPANY
CONSUL T!NG ENGINEERS
4499. RUFFIN ROAD, SlE. 300
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
PH (858) S85-4545 FAX (858) 565-454-1 .
1-905 UTIUTY RELOCATION
EXIST. SITE PLANS .
PACIFIC RIM CT &. ~~;;;,;:==::::@~m-=====1 GAlLES BLVD./DUBLIN .DR.
D.I.TB