HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-18 EO&WR Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT
ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Board Room
TUESDAY
September 18, 2018
12:00 P.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 JU-
RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
DISCUSSION ITEMS
3. AWARD TWO (2) PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
AND INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACTS TO ALYSON CONSULTING AND VAL-
LEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, EACH IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$600,000. THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THE TWO (2) CONTRACTS WILL NOT EX-
CEED $600,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2019 AND 2020 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2020)
(MARTIN) [5 minutes]
4. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4351 AMENDING POLICY NO. 6, ANNUAL CAPITAL IM-
PROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES (KENNEDY) [5 minutes]
5. ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE VISTA VEREDA AND HIDDEN ME-
SA ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (KENNEDY) [5 minutes]
6. UPDATE ON THE POTABLE WATER, RECYCLED WATER, AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT STUDIES PREPARED BY THE DISTRICT AND OTHER AGENCIES
OVER THE LAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (KENNEDY) [5 min]
2
7. YEAR-END REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S FISCAL YEARS 2015-2018 STRATEGIC
PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 (SEGURA) [5 minutes]
8. ADJOURNMENT
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
Tim Smith, Chair
Gary Croucher
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be delib-
erated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis-
trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the
open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the
Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting
her at (619) 670-2280.
If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici-
pate 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 September 14, 2018 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 September 14, 2018.
/s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2018
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan Martin
Assistant Chief of
Engineering
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Two (2) As-Needed Construction Management and
Inspection Services Contracts for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award two (2) professional As-Needed Construction Management and
Inspection Services (CMIS) contracts and to authorize the General
Manager to execute the agreements with Alyson Consulting (Alyson)
and Valley Construction Management (Valley CM), each in an amount
not-to-exceed $600,000. The total amount for the two (2) agreements
will not exceed $600,000 during Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020 (ending
June 30, 2020).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into
two (2) professional As-Needed CMIS agreements with Alyson and
Valley CM, with each agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000
for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020. The total amount for the two (2)
agreements will not exceed $600,000 during Fiscal Years 2019 and
2020.
2
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the services of two (2) professional CMIS
consultants in support of the District’s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects for two (2) fiscal years, FY 2019 and FY 2020 (ending
June 30, 2020).
The District has used an as-needed contract for construction
management and inspection services during Fiscal Years 2016, 2017,
and 2018. The average fiscal year effort of the as-needed
construction manager used to support the District’s CIP for Fiscal
Years 2016 and 2017 equates to less than a full-time employee (FTE)
at a rate of 0.43 per year. During Fiscal Year 2018, the rate of
construction management usage increased to 0.74 FTE as a result of
the annual CIP construction. An analysis of the CIP workload for
Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020 estimates that a greater level of effort
will be required for as-needed construction management services.
The associated as-needed construction management services is
projected to peak in 2020 at 0.93 of a FTE per year. Staff will
evaluate the potential need to consider a full-time employee with
this specialized skill set at that time. Use of the As-Needed CMIS
has provided the District with the ability to obtain consulting
services in a timely and efficient manner.
The District staff will identify tasks for specific projects and
request cost proposals from the two (2) consultants during the
contract period. Each consultant will prepare a detailed scope of
work, schedule, and fee for each task order, with the District
evaluating the proposals based upon qualifications and cost. The
District will enter into negotiations with the consultants,
selecting the proposal that has the best value for the District.
Upon written task order authorization from the District, the
selected consultant shall then proceed with the project as described
in the scope of work.
The anticipated CIP projects that are estimated to require
construction management and partial inspection for Fiscal Years 2019
and 2020, at this time, are listed below:
CIP Capital Facilities Project
ESTIMATED
Construction
Management
COST
R2125 RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay
Lakes Road $10,000
R2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave $15,000
P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Ave $15,000
3
P2636 980-2 PS Surge Tank Interior/Exterior
Coating $10,000
P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating $35,000
P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating &
Upgrades $40,000
Various R. W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility
Improvements $60,000
P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 $10,000
P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Ave,
Chestnut/Apple $20,000
P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus St,
Coronado/Date/La Mesa $20,000
P2574 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone,
Vista Vereda $65,000
P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ,
Vista Grande $40,000
P2625 PL - 12-inch, 978 Zone, Hidden Mesa Road
$50,000
P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone,
Pence Dr./Vista Sierra Dr. $90,000
S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement
(Inspection) $80,000
Various Inspection in support of Development
Projects in the District $40,000
TOTAL: $600,000
The scopes of work for the above projects are estimated from
preliminary information and past projects. Therefore, staff
believes that a $600,000 cap on the As-Needed CMIS contracts is
adequate.
The As-Needed CMIS contracts do not commit the District to any
expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work on a CIP
project. The District does not guarantee work to the consultants,
nor does the District guarantee that it will expend all of the funds
authorized by the contract on professional services.
The District solicited for Construction Management and Inspection
Services by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water District’s
website and using BidSync, the District’s online bid solicitation
website on June 8, 2018. The advertisement was also placed in the
Daily Transcript. Ten (10) firms submitted a Letter of Interest and
a Statement of Qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for
As-Needed CMIS was sent to nine (9) firms resulting in five (5)
proposals received by July 27, 2018.
4
Alyson Consulting, San Diego, CA
G7ei, Inc., San Diego, CA
Louis Berger, San Diego, CA
Valley Construction Management, San Diego, CA
Wallace & Associates Consulting, Inc., Oceanside, CA
The four (4) firms that chose not to propose are CMI Contractors,
Inc. of Fresno CA, Murow CM of Irvine CA, Sigma Construction Group
of Chula Vista CA, and Vanir Construction Management, Inc. of San
Diego CA.
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals and interviewed the five (5) firms on
August 23, 2018. Valley CM and Alyson received the highest scores
for their services based on their experience, understanding of the
scopes of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their
composite hourly rate. Valley CM and Alyson were the most qualified
consultants with the best overall total score. A summary of the
complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B.
Valley CM and Alyson submitted the Company Background Questionnaire,
as required by the RFP, and staff did not find any significant
issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed
an internet search on the companies. Staff found the references to
be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the
internet search. Both Alyson and Valley CM are providing these
services to the District under the District’s current CMIS
agreement. Staff found that both firm’s performance under the
current agreements have been excellent.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The funds for these contracts will be expended for a variety of
projects, as previously noted above. These contracts are for as-
needed professional services based on the District’s need and
schedule, and expenditures will not be made until a task order is
approved by the District for the consultant’s services on a specific
CIP project.
Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager
anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the
professional as-needed consulting services required for the CIP
projects noted above.
The Finance Department has determined that the funds to cover these
contracts will be available as budgeted for these projects.
5
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the
Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient
manner” and the District’s Vision, “A District that is at the
forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable
rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
DM:jf
P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Construction Management\As Needed CM & Inspection Svcs FY19, FY20\Staff Report\BD 10-3-
18_As-Needed CMIS FY19-FY20_Staff Report\BD 10-03-18 As-Needed Engineering Construction Management and Inspection
Services.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Various
Award of Two (2) As-Needed Construction Management and
Inspection Services Contracts for Fiscal Years 2019 and
2020
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 18,
2018. The Committee 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.
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness
and Project
Understanding
Technical and
Management
Approach
INDIVIDUAL
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
Proposed Rates*
Consultant's
Commitment to
DBE
TOTAL -
WRITTEN
Additional
Creativity and
Insight
Strength of
Project Manager
Presentation and
Communication
Skills
Responses to
Questions
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL - ORAL
AVERAGE
TOTAL ORAL
TOTAL
SCORE
30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 150
Poor/Good/
Excellent
Kevin Koeppen 28 22 28 78 14 14 7 9 44
Brandon DiPietro 29 24 28 81 14 15 9 9 47
Michael Kerr 27 24 27 78 13 14 9 9 45
Charles Mederos 26 23 26 75 12 12 9 8 41
Dan Martin 28 24 28 80 14 15 9 9 47
Kevin Koeppen 24 19 25 68 10 10 6 6 32
Brandon DiPietro 26 22 23 71 12 10 6 7 35
Michael Kerr 23 20 22 65 11 10 6 7 34
Charles Mederos 23 23 20 66 10 9 8 8 35
Dan Martin 25 20 25 70 10 10 7 7 34
Kevin Koeppen 24 22 28 74 12 13 8 8 41
Brandon DiPietro 28 24 26 78 14 13 9 9 45
Michael Kerr 25 22 25 72 12 12 7 9 40
Charles Mederos 26 23 25 74 11 12 9 8 40
Dan Martin 27 23 27 77 14 14 9 9 46
Kevin Koeppen 26 22 26 74 12 12 7 8 39
Brandon DiPietro 28 23 25 76 13 12 7 8 40
Michael Kerr 24 22 24 70 11 12 7 6 36
Charles Mederos 26 22 22 70 10 10 8 7 35
Dan Martin 27 23 26 76 12 12 7 7 38
Kevin Koeppen 26 21 25 72 10 11 6 6 33
Brandon DiPietro 26 20 23 69 11 9 6 6 32
Michael Kerr 22 20 24 66 10 9 6 7 32
Charles Mederos 23 22 21 66 7107 731
Dan Martin 26 21 25 72 10 10 7 7 34
Consultant Weighted Rate Score
Alyson Consulting $142 8 *The fees were evaluated by comparing the weighted rates for six positions. The sum of the weighted rates are noted on the Rates Scoring Chart.
G7ei Inc.$126 15 Note: Review Panel does not see or consider rates when scoring other categories. Rates are scored by a staff member who is not on the Review Panel.
Louis Berger $161 1
Valley CM $136 11
Wallace & Associates $139 10
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
As-Needed Construction Management - Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020
WRITTEN ORAL
Louis Berger
ExcellentY86
83
RATES SCORING CHART
Wallace & Associates
Y
38
79Y
Valley CM 12284
G7ei Inc.68
45 131
34 117
1
MAXIMUM POINTS
8Alyson Consulting 78
REFERENCES
10
Excellent
75 Y 76
15
73 11
Y
32
42 118
69 111
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2018
SUBMITTED BY:
Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager
Dan Martin
Assistant Chief of Engineering
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief of Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4351 Amending Policy No. 6 for the Annual
Capital Improvement Program Development
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
adopt Resolution No. 4351 (see Attachment B) amending Policy No. 6
(see Attachment B, Exhibit 1) for the Annual Capital Improvement
Program Development.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To request that the Board adopt Resolution No. 4351 amending Policy
No. 6, the District’s Annual Capital Improvement Program Development.
ANALYSIS:
This policy was last updated on May 4, 2016. As a normal course of
business, the District reviews its policies to ensure they are
effective, efficient, and up to date. During a recent review of the
District’s Annual Capital Improvement Program Development Policy No.
6, staff noted that the General Manager’s authority was increased from
$50,000 to $75,000 on September 7, 2016. To keep Policy No. 6
2
consistent with this change and to avoid this occurring in the future,
staff proposes to modify the language in this policy to reference Code
of Ordinance Section 2.01, Authority of the General Manager. Staff
also noted the reference to a planning document was renamed in 2017
and included this change with this amendment (see Attachment B,
Exhibit 2) and noted the formal action of the Board is to approve this
planning document.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Adoption of Resolution No. 4351 supports the District’s Mission
statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the
customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and
efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that
is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at
affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BK/DM/RP:jf
P:\WORKING\Staff Repts Misc\BD 10-03-2018\BD 10-03-18 Staff Report Policy 06 Proposed Changes Report (BK-DM-RP).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B - Resolution No. 4351
Exhibit 1 – Strike-through Policy No. 6
Exhibit 2 – Final Amended Policy No. 6
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
VARIOUS
Adopt Resolution No. 4351 Amending Policy No. 6 for the
Annual Capital Improvement Program Development
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on September 18, 2018.
The Committee 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.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4351
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AMENDING POLICY 6
THE ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF
ORDINANCES
WHEREAS, the Otay Water District Board of Directors has been
presented with an amended Policy No. 6 of the District’s Code of
Ordinances for the management of the Otay Water District; and
WHEREAS, the amended Policy No. 6 has been reviewed and
considered by the Board, and it is in the interest of the
District to adopt the amended policy; and
WHEREAS, the strike-through copy of the proposed policy is
attached as Exhibit 1 to this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by
the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District that the
amended Policy No. 6, incorporated herein as Exhibit 2, is hereby
adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
Otay Water District at a board meeting held this 3rd day of
October 2018, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
________________________
President
ATTEST:
____________________________
District Secretary
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
06 10/15/84 5/4/161
0/3/18
Page 1 of 2
PURPOSE
To define the policy on the preparation and approval of the
annual Capital Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND
District staff develops and maintains a Water Resources
Facilities Master Plan (WRFMP), an Integrated Water Resources
Plan (IRP), a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), and a
Strategic Plan that, collectively, are used to prepare the
annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to identify the CIP
projects required for ultimate build out. The WRMP is revised
Eevery five years, and adopted by the Board certifies the PEIR
and approves the revised WFMP. Annually, staff prepares a six-
year moving window CIP that provides information on budget
assumptions, source of funds, allocation of funds, project
costs, project location, description, justification, scheduling,
etc. The six-year CIP is submitted and presented to the Board
of Directors to obtain approval for staff to proceed with
implementation to plan, design, and construct facilities and
programs necessary to meet the needs of the District.
POLICY
The General Manager, or his designee, shall prepare a proposed
six-year CIP for submission to the Board of Directors for their
review prior to and approval by June 30 of each fiscal year.
The CIP projects shall be reviewed and updated annually to
consider appropriate revisions based on the most recent WRFMP,
IRP, Strategic Plan, and market condition information. The
timing of projects shall be based on necessity and availability
of financing. The intent is that new CIP projects will be
installed as development requires the facilities. With regard
to all CIP projects, it is acknowledged that compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act adds a measure of unpre-
dictability with regard to the timing of CIP projects.
The WRFMP, IRP, and the CIP projects shall be divided into two
phases: Phase I - one to six years; and Phase II - seven to
ultimate buildout. CIP project sheets for projects in Phase I
shall be prepared and identify estimated total cost, cash
expenditure timing, location, description, justification,
funding allocation, and schedule. For the Phase II CIP
projects, the CIP shall identify the need for the projects,
along with their estimated total cost and funding allocation.
EXHIBIT 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
06 10/15/84 5/4/161
0/3/18
Page 2 of 2
Upon approval by the Board of Directors of the annual six-year
CIP, staff is authorized to proceed with planning, design,
construction, etc. of those projects that have budgets within
the current fiscal year. The General Manager is authorized to
redistribute funds between approved CIP projects as long as the
total project budget is not exceeded and the District has
adequate CIP reserves to fund the project. In addition, the
General Manager is authorized to exceed the budget for specific
CIP projects under the following conditions:
a. For CIP projects less than or equal to $50,000 that
authorized under Code of Ordinances Section 2.01,
Authority of the General Manager, the cumulative amount
of the specific CIP project expenditures does not exceed
that authorized under Code of Ordinances Section 2.01,
Authority of the General Manager.
b. For CIP projects more than $50,000 that authorized under
Code of Ordinances Section 2.01, Authority of the
General Manager, the amount being authorized does not
exceed the lesser of 25% of the specific CIP project
budget amount or that authorized under Code of
Ordinances Section 2.01, Authority of the General
Manager.
c. The total fiscal year CIP budget is not exceeded.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
06 10/15/84 10/3/18
Page 1 of 2
PURPOSE
To define the policy on the preparation and approval of the
annual Capital Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND
District staff develops and maintains a Water Facilities Master
Plan (WFMP), an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP), a Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), and a Strategic Plan that,
collectively, are used to prepare the annual Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and to identify the CIP projects required for
ultimate buildout. Every five years, the Board certifies the
PEIR and approves the revised WFMP. Annually, staff prepares a
six-year moving window CIP that provides information on budget
assumptions, source of funds, allocation of funds, project
costs, project location, description, justification, scheduling,
etc. The six-year CIP is submitted and presented to the Board
of Directors to obtain approval for staff to proceed with
implementation to plan, design, and construct facilities and
programs necessary to meet the needs of the District.
POLICY
The General Manager, or his designee, shall prepare a proposed
six-year CIP for submission to the Board of Directors for their
review prior to and approval by June 30 of each fiscal year.
The CIP projects shall be reviewed and updated annually to
consider appropriate revisions based on the most recent WFMP,
IRP, Strategic Plan, and market condition information. The
timing of projects shall be based on necessity and availability
of financing. The intent is that new CIP projects will be
installed as development requires the facilities. With regard
to all CIP projects, it is acknowledged that compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act adds a measure of unpre-
dictability with regard to the timing of CIP projects.
The WFMP, IRP, and the CIP projects shall be divided into two
phases: Phase I - one to six years; and Phase II - seven to
ultimate buildout. CIP project sheets for projects in Phase I
shall be prepared and identify estimated total cost, cash
expenditure timing, location, description, justification,
funding allocation, and schedule. For the Phase II CIP
projects, the CIP shall identify the need for the projects,
along with their estimated total cost and funding allocation.
Upon approval by the Board of Directors of the annual six-year
CIP, staff is authorized to proceed with planning, design,
EXHIBIT 2
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
06 10/15/84 10/3/18
Page 2 of 2
construction, etc. of those projects that have budgets within
the current fiscal year. The General Manager is authorized to
redistribute funds between approved CIP projects as long as the
total project budget is not exceeded and the District has
adequate CIP reserves to fund the project. In addition, the
General Manager is authorized to exceed the budget for specific
CIP projects under the following conditions:
a. For CIP projects less than or equal to that authorized
under Code of Ordinances Section 2.01, Authority of the
General Manager, the cumulative amount of the specific
CIP project expenditures does not exceed that authorized
under Code of Ordinances Section 2.01, Authority of the
General Manager.
b. For CIP projects more than that authorized under Code of
Ordinances Section 2.01, Authority of the General
Manager, the amount being authorized does not exceed the
lesser of 25% of the specific CIP project budget amount
or that authorized under Code of Ordinances Section
2.01, Authority of the General Manager.
c. The total fiscal year CIP budget is not exceeded.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2018
SUBMITTED BY:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Environmental Compliance
Specialist
Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager
Dan Martin
Assistant Chief of
Engineering
PROJECT:
P2574 -
001101
&
P2625-
001101
DIV. NO.
5
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Vista Vereda and
Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
approves the adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Vista Vereda
and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project (see Exhibit A
for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board approval for the adoption of a Negative Declaration
(ND) for the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement
Project (Project).
2
ANALYSIS:
The District is proposing the construction of pipeline replacement
project on Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road. The Project would
replace approximately 1,800 linear feet of an existing 12-inch
pipeline adjacent to Vista Vereda road in the Hillsdale area of San
Diego County. The original pipeline was installed in 1959 in utility
easements as the area had not been developed. Over the past 50+
years, the subdivision of the land and construction of single-family
homes have greatly changed the terrain along the pipeline alignment.
The existing 20-foot wide easement that runs from Vista Vereda to
Hidden Mesa Trail goes through backyards and side yards with areas of
steep terrain adjacent to residences, restrictive access issues, and
poses significant risks to nearby homes in the event of a pipeline
failure.
The replacement pipeline would begin at the intersection of Vista
Grande Road and travel north to a point between Vereda Court and
Hidden Springs Court, at which point it would turn west for
approximately 400 feet. The Hidden Mesa pipeline would begin at the
intersection of Hidden Mesa Trail and continue easterly for
approximately 2,500 feet to the intersection of Vista Grande Road.
The goals of the Project are to maintain the transmission network and
provide a distribution service to the Vista Vereda area while also
improving the access and minimizing the risk associated with damage
to private properties during routine maintenance or emergency repairs
within the system.
After review of several alternatives during the planning phase of the
Project, the District proposed the alternative that would transfer
the transmission capability of the pipeline that currently exists in
Vista Vereda road to a replacement pipeline in Hidden Mesa Road. A
new distribution water line would be constructed in Vista Vereda road
with service laterals to any residential lots that are not adjacent
to Vista Vereda. The existing waterline in Vista Vereda would be
abandoned in place. The existing pipeline in Hidden Mesa Road would
be removed and replaced with a 12-inch PVC pipeline.
District staff prepared the initial study and ND for the Project.
Technical studies to support the initial study were prepared by ICF
and Helix Environmental under their as-needed environmental services
contracts with the District. Based on the findings of the initial
study and ND, the Project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
3
The twenty day notice period for the public to comment on the draft
ND began on August 2, 2018 and closed on August 21, 2018. There were
no comment letters received during the notice period. The final
initial study/ND is attached (Attachment C).
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high quality and reliable water and wastewater services to the
customers of the Otay Water District, in a professional, effective,
and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "A District
that is innovative in providing water services at competitive rates,
with a reputation for outstanding customer service."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
LC-B/BK
P:\WORKING\CIP P2574 12-Inch PL Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda\Staff Reports\Board 10-03-18\BD 10-03-18, Neg Dec,
(LC-B-BK).docx
Attachments: Exhibit A – Project Location Map
Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B1 – Budget Detail (P2574)
Attachment B2 – Budget Detail (P2625)
Attachment C – Final Negative Declaration
OTAY WATER DISTRICTVISTA VEREDA AND HIDDEN MESA ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENTLOCATION MAPEXHIBIT A
CIP P2574CIP P2625FP:\\WORKING\CIP P2574 12-IN PL REPLACEMENT, 978 ZONE\VISTA VEREDA, GRAPHICS\EXHIBITS\LOCATION MAP
!\
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITENTS
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
F
0 600300
Feet
VIS T A G R A N D E R D
M E S A
HIDDEN
RD
VISTA VEREDA
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2574-001101
P2625-001101
Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Vista Vereda and
Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 18,2018. The
Committee 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.
Level Title1 Committed Expenditure
s
Outstanding
Commitment
Projected
Final Cost
Vendor
Budget Budget Cost Type $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$1,223.75 $1,223.75 $0.00 $1,223.75 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL
PLANNING INC
$1,012.50 $1,012.50 $0.00 $1,012.50 ICF JONES & STOKES INC
$1,900.00 $1,900.00 $0.00 $1,900.00 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING
INC
Regulatory Agency
Fees
$50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Standard Salaries $77,920.26 $77,920.26 $0.00 $77,920.26
Total $82,106.51 $82,106.51 $0.00 $82,106.51
$130,693.51 $130,693.51 $0.00 $130,693.51 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
$3,487.25 $3,487.25 $0.00 $3,487.25 NINYO & MOORE
GEOTECHNICAL
$28,582.00 $28,582.00 $0.00 $28,582.00 NINYO & MOORE
GEOTECHNICAL AND
$2,612.00 $2,612.00 $0.00 $2,612.00 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
$836.50 $12,559.00 ($11,722.50)$836.50 C BELOW INC
$11,722.50 $0.00 $11,722.50 $11,722.50 C BELOW, INC.
Service Contracts $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
Standard Salaries $99,988.89 $99,988.89 $0.00 $99,988.89
Total $278,922.65 $278,922.65 $0.00 $278,922.65
Construction Standard Salaries $568.46 $568.46 $0.00 $568.46
Total $568.46 $568.46 $0.00 $568.46
Budget $2,000,000.00
Total $361,597.62 $361,597.62 $0.00 $361,597.62
Project Budget Detail
P2574-PL - 12" & 14" PL Repl 803Z & 978Z
1/1/2000 - 8/31/2018
Planning Consultant Contracts
Design Consultant Contracts
9/5/2018 2:37:04 PM
Level Title1 Committed Expenditures Outstanding
Commitment
Projected
Final Cost
Vendor
Budget Budget Cost Type $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Planning Standard Salaries $814.57 $814.57 $0.00 $814.57
Total $814.57 $814.57 $0.00 $814.57
$836.50 $12,559.00 ($11,722.50)$836.50 C BELOW INC
$11,722.50 $0.00 $11,722.50 $11,722.50 C BELOW, INC.
$2,612.00 $2,612.00 $0.00 $2,612.00 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
$96,040.00 $96,040.00 $0.00 $96,040.00 RICK ENGINEERING
COMPANYStandard Salaries $31,789.45 $31,789.45 $0.00 $31,789.45
Total $143,000.45 $143,000.45 $0.00 $143,000.45
Construction Standard Salaries $99.08 $99.08 $0.00 $99.08
Total $99.08 $99.08 $0.00 $99.08
Budget $1,500,000.00
Total $143,914.10 $143,914.10 $0.00 $143,914.10
Project Budget Detail
P2625-PL - 12" 978 Zone in Hidden Mesa Road
1/1/2000 - 8/31/2018
Design Consultant
Contracts
9/5/2018 5:49:02 PM
Otay Water District
Final Negative Declaration
for the
Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project
CIP 2574 & CIP 2625
September, 2018
Prepared by:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978
Negative Declaration Otay Water District – September 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement ii
Final Negative Declaration
Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project:
The proposed project is located in the Hillsdale area of the County of San Diego. The proposed project is
a capital improvement project for the Otay Water District to replace an existing water main within a
District easement that is located outside of the existing roadway corridors. The project would replace
approximately 1,800 linear feet of the 2,500 existing 12-inch water main adjacent to Vista Vereda Road.
The transmission capability of the pipeline in Vista Vereda would be transferred to a new replacement
pipeline in Hidden Mesa Road. The new pipeline in Vista Vereda would be a distribution pipeline with
laterals to any residents not directly adjacent to Vista Vereda.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
See the project description in the attached Negative Declaration/Initial Study.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The proposed project would be located in the Hillsdale community within the County of San Diego.
Further detailed information of the environmental setting is included in the attached Negative
Declaration/Initial Study.
III. DETERMINATION:
The Otay Water District has conducted an Initial Study for the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road
Water Line Replacement Project, which determined that the proposed project would not have any
significant environmental effects. The preparation of a negative declaration is appropriate and the
preparation of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is not required.
IV. DOCUMENTATION:
The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Determination.
V. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
The Draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study was made available on the District’s website and a notice of
its availability was published in a local newspapers with distribution in the communities affected by the
project. Notice of the availability of the Draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study was mailed to all
residents living in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignments.
VI. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW:
(X) 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.
( ) Comments addressing the findings of the Draft Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or
completeness of the lnitial Study were received during the public input period.
Copies of the Final Negative Declaration and any lnit¡al Study material are available for review upon
request at: Otay Water District, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley, CA9L978-2096. To ensure
availability or to make an appointment, please call Lisa Coburn-Boyd at (619) 670-22L9.
Otay Water District
Ausust 2, 20L8
Date of Draft Report
September 4, 2018
Date of Final Report
Negative Declaration
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement ilt
Otay Water District - September 2018
Negative Declaration Otay Water District – September 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations.…………………………………………………………………….…………………………..………..….…iii
List of Tables and Fgures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...viii
Chapter 1 Project Description.…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Authority to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................................. 2
Chapter 2 Determination .............................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 3 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form................................................................................. 4
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................... 4
3.2 Determination ............................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 6
I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 6
II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 7
III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 9
IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 12
V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 13
VI. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 16
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 19
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 21
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 23
X. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 26
XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 27
XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 28
XIII. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 30
XIV. Public Services................................................................................................................... 31
XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 33
XVI. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................................... 34
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 36
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 38
Chapter 4 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40
Negative Declaration Otay Water District – September 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement v
APPENDICES
Appendix A Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Modeling Results, Helix Environmental Planning, June 2018
Appendix B Cultural resources Review of the Vista Vereda Pipeline Replacement Project,
ICF, June 2018
Appendix C Geotechnical Evaluation – Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, Ninyo &
Moore, December 2017
Negative Declaration Otay Water District – September 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACP asbestos concrete pipe
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs best management practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
dBA A-weighting decibels
District Otay Water District
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Greenbook Greenbook Committee of Public Works Standards
GHG greenhouse gas
IBC International Building Code
IS Initial Study
Leq average noise level
Negative Declaration Otay Water District – September 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement vii
MBTA Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MTCO2e metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
PDR Preliminary Design Report
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
PVC poly vinyl chloride
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SOX sulfur oxides
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TMP Traffic Management Plan
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act of 1975
Negative Declaration Otay Water District – September 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement viii
Table Page
1 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Emissions ............................................................ 10
2 Estimated Constuction GHG Emissions ................................................................................................ 20
Figure Follows Page
1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Pipeline Alignments ................................................................................................................... 1
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 1 Otay Water District
Chapter 1 Project Description
1.1 Introduction
The Otay Water District (District) is proposing the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line
Replacement Project to replace water lines in Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road. The project is a capital
improvement project for the District to replace an existing water main within a District easement that is
located outside of the existing roadway corridors. The project would replace approximately 1,800 linear
feet of the 2,500 existing 12-inch water main adjacent to Vista Vereda Road. The transmission capability
of the pipeline in Vista Vereda Road would be transferred to a new replacement pipeline in Hidden Mesa
Road. The new pipeline in Vista Vereda would be a distribution pipeline with laterals to any residents not
directly adjacent to Vista Vereda.
1.2 Project Location
The Vista Vereda pipeline work would be located within an existing 20-foot wide District easement in a
residential neighborhood located in the Hillsdale area of San Diego County. See Exhibit 1 for the project
regional location. The pipeline work would begin at the intersection of Vista Grande Road and Vista
Verde and proceed north for approximately 1,400 feet. The pipeline work would then proceed west at a
point approximately 500 feet past the intersection of Vista Vereda and Vereda Court, and continue
westerly for approximately 400 feet. The pipeline in Hidden Mesa Road is also located in a residential
neighborhood. The Hidden Mesa Road pipeline work will begin at the intersection of Hidden Mesa Road
and Hidden Mesa Trail and proceed east on Hidden Mesa Road for approximately 2,500 feet,
terminating at the intersection of Hidden Mesa Road and Vista Grande Road. The pipeline replacement
in Hidden Mesa Road is located completely within the roadway and would be replaced in the same
trench as the existing pipeline.
1.3 Project Description
The Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement project is a capital improvement project
for the Otay Water District (District) that would replace approximately 1,800 linear feet of an existing
2,500 foot 12-inch water main adjacent to Vista Vereda Road in the Hillsdale area of San Diego County.
The existing water main is located in the center of a 20-foot wide District easement that is located adjacent
to Vista Vereda Road. The replacement pipeline would begin at the intersection of Vista Grande Road and
travel north to a point between Vereda Court and Hidden Springs Court, at which point it would turn west
for approximately 400 feet. The Hidden Mesa pipeline would begin at the intersection of Hidden Mesa
Trail and continue easterly for approximately 2,500 feet to the intersection of Vista Grande Road (See
Exhibit 2 for the pipeline alignments).
The existing water main and District easement is located outside of the existing Vista Vereda roadway and
traverses the front yards of multiple residential lots, with the majority of the residents encroaching into
the easement with private amenities, landscape features, driveways, retaining walls and structures. The
portion of the project alignment that extends westerly to Hidden Mesa Trail is located in the rear and side
yards of residential lots that contain numerous trees, a significant grade difference up a large earthen
slope adjacent to a residential structure, and is adjacent to overhead San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
utilities. In addition, there are areas within this portion of the existing pipeline that include large rocks
Regional Location MapVISTA VEREDA AND HIDDEN MESA ROADF
P:\WORKING\CIP P2574 12-Inch PL Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Environmental\Regional Location Map.mxd
Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources:National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA,ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.
PROJECT SITE
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT06.53.25
Miles
FIGURE 1
Proposed ProjectVISTA VEREDA AND HIDDEN MESA ROADF
P:
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
C
I
P
P
2
5
7
4
1
2
-
I
n
c
h
P
L
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
9
7
8
Z
o
n
e
,
V
i
s
t
a
V
e
r
e
d
a
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
V
i
s
t
a
V
e
r
e
d
a
&
H
i
d
d
e
n
M
e
s
a
R
o
a
d
.
m
x
d
Existing Water Line Alignment
Proposed Water Line Alignment
HIDDEN MESA
RD
VIST
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
R
D
VI
S
T
A
V
E
R
E
D
A
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT
0 250125
Feet
FIGURE 2
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 2 Otay Water District
and shallow pipe segments with retaining walls placed directly over the top of pipe, potentially
compromising the structural integrity of the main line. The constraints and the location of the existing
water line and the encroachments have resulted in limited access to the water line. Maintenance and
repair of the water line is negatively impacted by its location.
The goals of the replacement project would be to maintain the transmission network, provide a
distribution service to the Vista Vereda area while simultaneously improving the access and minimizing
the risk associated with damage to private properties during routine maintenance or emergency repairs
within the system.
After review of several alternatives during the planning phase of the project, the District proposes the
alternative that would transfer the transmission capability of the pipeline that currently exists in Vista
Vereda Road to a new 12-inch replacement pipeline in Hidden Mesa Road. A new distribution water line
would be constructed in Vista Vereda Road with service laterals to any residential lots that are not
adjacent to Vista Vereda. The majority of the Vista Vereda pipeline would be 12- and 8-inch in diameter,
but there would also be segments of 4-inch, 2-inch and 1-inch diameter pipe. The 12-, 8- and 4-inch
pipeline segments would be poly vinyl chloride (PVC) piping and the 2- and 1-inch segments would be
copper piping. The existing waterline in Vista Vereda would be abandoned in place. The existing asbestos
cement pipeline (ACP) in Hidden Mesa Road would be removed and replaced with a 12-inch PVC pipeline.
Exhibit 2 shows the proposed project alignments.
The proposed water pipelines would be installed by open trench construction. The open trench
excavation would consist of excavating down to the appropriate depth, installing the new pipe, and then
backfilling the trench. If the trench is located under pavement, the existing pavement would be saw-cut
and removed, the excavation filled with granular backfill, and the cut pavement replaced. Excess soil and
cut pavement would be hauled from the site and disposed of at locations approved for such use. The
proposed pipelines would be placed underground at approximate depths between 3 and 10 feet.
Construction would be primarily limited to normal working hours 8 to 10 hours per day, between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is anticipated that construction of the pipelines would require
approximately 10 months. Once construction of the project is complete, operation would be passive, with
only periodic drive-by inspection of the pipelines being done by District operations staff.
1.4 Authority to Prepare a Negative Declaration
As provided in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15070 (Title 14 – California Code of
Regulations), a Negative Declaration (ND) may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial
Study (IS) shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The District is the lead agency and is responsible for planning, constructing, and operating
the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road water lines.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 3 Otay Water District
Chapter 2 Determination
In conformance with State CEQA Guidelines, the District prepared an Initial Study and completed an
Environmental Checklist Form (see Chapter 3) for the proposed Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road water
line replacement project. During the Initial Study process, the lead agency determined that the proposed
project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Based on the findings of the Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist Form prepared for this project, the District has determined that
preparation of the ND is the appropriate environmental documentation for purposes of CEQA compliance.
Chapter 3 of this ND contains the Initial Study Checklist and provides an analysis of all environmental
issues.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 4 Otay Water District
Chapter 3 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project title: Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement
2. Lead agency name and address: Otay Water District, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley,
CA 91978
3. Contact person and phone number: Lisa Coburn-Boyd, 619-670-2219
4. Project location: Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road, Hillsdale area, unincorporated San Diego
County
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Otay Water District, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring
Valley, CA 91978
6. General plan designation: County of San Diego Semi-Rural Residential
7. Zoning: County of San Diego Rural Residential
8. Description of project: See Section 1.3
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: See Section 1.2
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: County of San Diego (encroachment permit,
excavation permit, traffic control permit), San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Construction General Storm Water Permit or Water Pollution Control Plan).
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENT¡ALIY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant lmpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
n BiologicalResources
Greenhouse Gas
I Emissions
I Land Use / Planning
f Population / Housing
I Transportation/Traflíc
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources I n¡r Quality
X cultural Resources I Geology /Soils
Hydrology / Water
I Quatity
f ruo¡t"
I Recreation
Hazards & Hazardous
f] Materials
fl vlineral Resources
n pr¡l¡c services
Mandatory Findings of
Utilities/Service Systems n Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initialevaluation:
I t tnA that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I t tinO 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.
! t tinO that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
fl t finU 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 2l 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.
! t fina 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 proposed project, nothing further is required.
Atr,attz.+ I 7,ô11
re Date O '
Glav Wa#-r Di¿I¡ì¿*Lìsd. bhu¡n.àovd
Printed Name For I
Negative Declaration
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 5
August 20L8
Otay Water District
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 6 Otay Water District
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
a. No Impact. The proposed project would consist of underground pipelines that would not be visible
once construction is complete. In addition, no designated scenic vistas have been identified within the
project site or vicinity. Therefore the project would not impact a scenic vista.
b. No Impact. The proposed project would include placement of pipelines beneath existing roadways or
other disturbed/developed areas within and surrounded by urban development. The project would
not result in impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would occur.
c. Less than Significant Impact. Short-term visual impacts would occur during construction due to
trenching, stockpiling, and other construction-related activities. However, the project site would be
restored to its current condition following installation of the pipelines. The proposed pipeline would
not be visible following construction. Therefore, impacts to visual character and quality would be less
than significant.
d. No Impact. The proposed project would entail the installation of an underground pipeline that would
not create a new permanent source of substantial light or glare. Therefore, no impact would occur as
a result of the project.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 7 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
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. In
determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 8 Otay Water District
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
a. No Impact. The project site is not within or near farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance). The proposed project would not convert farmland to non-
agricultural uses. Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources would occur.
b. No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract land is
present in the existing or proposed pipeline alignments. Therefore, there would be no impact to
agricultural resources.
c. No Impact. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of
the project would not conflict with existing zoning for such lands, and no impact would occur.
d. No Impact. The project site is not within or near forest land. Accordingly, project construction and
operation would not convert forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
e. No Impact. The project would not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 9 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
a. No Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is currently
classified as a nonattainment area under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone (O3) identified in the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is responsible for developing
and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality
standards in the Basin. The SDAPCD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) contains a comprehensive
list of pollution control strategies to reduce emissions, and achieve ambient air quality standards.
These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment
projections prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which is the regional
planning agency for San Diego County. The proposed project would result in the replacement of two
existing water pipelines. The project would not result in population growth; it would instead serve the
existing population and accommodate any future growth in the immediate area. Because the
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 10 Otay Water District
proposed project is consistent with the regional growth forecasts, pursuant to APCD guidelines, it
would be considered consistent with the region’s AQMP. In addition, the proposed project would
comply with all existing and new rules and regulations as they are implemented by the County,
SDAPCD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and/or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
related to emissions generated during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with the applicable air quality attainment plan, and no impact would occur.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed pipelines would not emit any pollutants. An
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis of the project was conducted by Helix
Environmental in June, 2018 (Appendix A). Construction emissions were calculated by using California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer program accepted
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) that can be used to estimate
anticipated emissions associated with land development projects in California. CalEEMod has separate
databases for specific counties and air districts. The San Diego County database was used for the
proposed project. The model calculates emissions of ROG, NOx, PM2.5, PM10, and CO. For this analysis,
the results are expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day), and are compared with the mass daily emissions
thresholds that were established by the APCD.
Construction emissions include exhaust emissions from off-road construction equipment, on-road haul
trucks, and vehicles used by workers to commute to and from the site. The model also calculates
particulate emissions from dust generated during grading activities and particulates in the exhaust of
off-road and on-road vehicles. The analysis of construction emissions assumes watering active grading
areas a minimum of twice daily to control dust.
For the purposes of estimating emissions associated with construction activities, a timeframe of
January 2019 through October 2019 was applied to the analysis. The District anticipates that a
construction crew of approximately 8 to 10 workers would typically be present on site during active
construction. The calculated daily construction emissions are shown in Table 1. Specific inputs to
CalEEMod and details of the results are included in Appendix A. As shown in Table 1, the maximum
daily construction emissions would be less than the SDAPCD significance thresholds and, therefore,
less than significant.
Table 1
MAXIMUM DAILY CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 2 21 21 <0.5 1 1
SDAPCD Thresholds 75 100 550 250 100 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
See Appendix A for model output data.
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter; and PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 11 Otay Water District
c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be located within the SDAB, which is
currently in attainment for all national and state Ambient Air Quality Standards except for federal and
state one-hour ozone standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 standards. For the reasons described above
in Item III.a, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any
of these criteria pollutants, including precursors to ozone. In addition, daily emissions would be low,
temporary in duration, and localized within the immediate project vicinity. Accordingly, cumulative
impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors along the existing and proposed pipeline alignments
include residences. For the reasons described for Item III.a, the proposed project would not generate
substantial pollutant concentrations. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
e. Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction activity, a temporary short-term odor impact
may occur as result of diesel emissions. However, due to the short-term nature of construction and
the small size of the project, odor impacts associated with construction would less than significant. In
the short term, diesel exhaust from construction equipment may create noticeable odors near the
proposed pipeline alignment; however, the diesel exhaust odors would be temporary and minor, and
would not affect a substantial number of people at any given time since the equipment location would
change depending on which segment of the alignment is being constructed. There would not be any
operational emissions associated with the proposed potable water pipelines. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 12 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 13 Otay Water District
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The Vista Vereda pipeline project site consists of an existing developed
area surrounded by development and associated ornamental landscaping. The project site does not
contain any sensitive biological resources nor does it contain any candidate, sensitive or special status
species. There are a number of trees encroaching into the easement for the Vista Vereda pipeline
segment that could be removed during construction. If tree removal is scheduled to occur between
February 1 and August 15, surveys for nesting bird species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
If any active nests are found, removal of the affected vegetation and/or trees would be delayed until
it has been determined that the nests are no longer active. The Hidden Mesa Road pipeline project
site is completely contained with an existing roadway. Therefore, the impact of the project would be
less than significant.
b. No Impact. The project site consists of an existing developed area surrounded by development and
associated ornamental landscaping. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is
located within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitats or other
sensitive communities would occur as a result of the project.
c. No Impact. The project site consists of an existing developed area surrounded by development and
associated ornamental landscaping. No jurisdictional wetlands or waterways occur within or
immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected wetlands.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project would not interfere with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites. There are no waterways with the ability to support fish on the project sites and
no native wildlife nursery sites occur within the project area. The project site consists of an existing
developed area surrounded by development and associated ornamental landscaping. Removal of
ornamental landscaping could disturb potentially suitable nesting habitat for birds/raptors, as
described in 4.a., but the scattered ornamental plantings and roadside vegetation do not serve as a
wildlife corridor because they do not link areas of native habitat. Therefore, impacts to wildlife
movement from the project would be less than significant.
e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the replacement of two sections of
existing pipeline. Although several trees may need to be removed, the trees are ornamental landscape
and are not covered by a tree preservation policy. Additionally, the project would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the project impact would
be less than significant.
f. No Impact. The proposed project occurs completely within Otay Water District easements and is not
subject to any adopted regional conservation plans. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
such plans, policies, or ordinances and no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 14 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
a. No Impact. The Vista Vereda pipeline is proposed to be located adjacent to an existing pipeline and
the construction would occur in a previously developed area, surrounded by modern era residences.
The Hidden Mesa pipeline will be entirely constructed in a residential street in the same trench as an
existing pipeline. A cultural resources record search and desktop review was conducted for the project
by ICF in June, 2018 (Appendix B). Historic resources were not identified within or adjacent to the
project site. Furthermore, the project site has been previously graded to allow for the existing
development. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. No Impact. In addition to the cultural resources record search which found that the project area has
low potential for historic archaeological resources, a geotechnical report of the proposed pipeline
alignments was conducted by Ninyo & Moore in December, 2017 (Appendix C). The subsurface
exploration done for the study indicated that the sites for both the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa
pipeline replacements are underlain by fill to depths of up to 10 feet. Additionally, the study found
granitic rock underneath the fill. Native soils would not be disturbed by the installation of the
pipelines. Therefore, there is no possibility for the substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource. There would be no impact as a result of the project.
c. No Impact. As stated in V.b., a geotechnical report of the proposed pipeline alignments was
conducted by Ninyo & Moore in December, 2017 (Appendix C). The subsurface exploration done for
the study indicated that the sites for both the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa pipeline replacements
are underlain by depths of up to 10 feet of fill. Additionally, the study found granitic rock
underneath the fill. Native soils will not be disturbed by the installation of the pipelines. Therefore,
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 15 Otay Water District
there is no possibility for the destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature. There would be no impact as a result of the project.
d. Less than Significant Impact. Although, the geotechnical report found no native soils in the pipeline
work areas, and the cultural resources study found no evidence to suggest the presence of human
remains, there is still a minor possibility that human remains could be found at the site. In the event
that human remains are discovered during Project activities, the procedures outlined in Section
7050.5 of the California Health and Human Safety Code would be followed and the county coroner
will be contacted. Should the remains be identified as Native American, the coroner will contact the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours and the NAHC will designate a Most
Likely Descendent (MLD) within 48 hours. The MLD and the District will work together to determine
appropriate treatment of the human remains. Therefore, impacts on human remains would be less
than significant.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 16 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
a.i. Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical evaluation of the project alignment was conducted by
Ninyo and Moore. (Appendix C) The project alignment is considered to be within a seismically
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 17 Otay Water District
seismically active area. The closest known fault is the Rose Canyon Fault which is approximately
15.2 miles west of the site. There are no known active faults underlying the site or projecting toward
the site and the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Surface rupture due
to faulting beneath the site is considered low and the impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is located in seismically active southern California,
and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the
site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in
the region, in particular the nearby San Andreas Fault Zone. An earthquake along any of the known
active fault zones in the region could result in severe ground shaking and consequently that could
potentially result in significant impacts to the proposed water lines, including rupture or severing of
the pipelines (depending on factors such as event duration, motion frequency, and underlying
soil/geologic conditions). The project design, however, would incorporate measures to
accommodate projected seismic loading, pursuant to existing guidelines such as the “Greenbook”
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook Committee of Public Works
Standards, Inc. 2012), and the International Building Code (IBC; International Conference of Building
Officials 2012). In addition, the project design would follow guidelines within the California Building
Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2). Based on the incorporation of applicable
measures into project design and construction, the potential impacts associated with strong seismic
ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii. Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the phenomenon whereby soils lose shear strength
and exhibit fluid-like flow behavior. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects
to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Loose,
granular soils are most susceptible to these effects, with liquefaction generally restricted to
saturated or near-saturated soils at depths of less than 100 feet. The project alignment is primarily
underlain by granitic rock with a thin mantle of man-made fill, residual soil, colluvium, and younger
alluvial deposits that are Holocene in age and younger. The deeper rock units are not considered
susceptible to seismic-induced soil liquefaction or ground settlement. The young alluvial materials
are considered to have a low potential for liquefaction, but their areal extent along the proposed
pipeline alignment is limited. Given that the project does not include the construction of any
habitable structures, and that the construction of the proposed pipelines would incorporate
standard guidelines from the Greenbook, IBC, and CBC, impacts associated with liquefaction would
be less than significant.
a.iv. No Impact. There are no known (mapped) landslides in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Accordingly, no impacts associated with landslides would occur.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project has a minor potential to increase wind or water
erosion of soils on or off site during project construction, due to the presence of soil piles and exposed
trenches. However, implementation of the project design features would reduce the potential
impacts to less than significant.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 18 Otay Water District
c. No Impact. As discussed in Items VI.a.iii and VI.a.iv, above, the project area is not located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project.
Therefore, no impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils would occur.
d. No Impact. Expansive soils are generally high in clays or silts that shrink or swell with variation in
moisture. Expansive (or shrink-swell) behavior is attributable to the water-holding capacity of clay
minerals, and can adversely affect the structural integrity of facilities including underground pipelines.
The majority of soil materials along the proposed pipeline alignment are considered non-expansive.
In addition, the majority of the proposed pipeline alignment would occur within existing roadways or
other developed areas, which were designed and built to account for effects of expansive soils.
Portions of the proposed pipelines to be placed in unpaved, non-engineered areas would incorporate
standard engineering techniques in accordance with the IBC and CBC to avoid adverse effects of
expansive soils. Therefore, no impacts related to expansive soils would occur.
e. No Impact. The proposed project would involve installation of a new potable water pipeline. Septic
tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be a part of the proposed project.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 19 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
a. Less than Significant Impact. California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying heat trapping properties and
atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units for
comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it
normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs related to the
project are CO2 (CO2e = 1), CH4 (CO2e = 21), and N2O (CO2e = 310). The County utilizes a screening-
level emission level of 900 metric tons (MT) CO2e to evaluate whether a project must conduct further
analysis. This screening threshold is based on a report by the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) entitled “CEQA & Climate Change,” dated January 2008. The 900 MTCO2e per
year screening threshold was developed by analyzing the capture of 90 percent or more of future
discretionary development for residential and commercial projects. County guidance also
recommends including construction emissions (amortized over a typical duration of 20 years) in the
screening threshold. The proposed project’s construction-related contribution to GHG emissions
would primarily result from fuel combustion in construction equipment, construction worker
commute trips, and hauling/delivery truck trips. Construction-related GHG emissions result from CO2,
CH4, and N2O that is released during the combustion of gasoline or diesel fuel in on- and off-road
vehicles and equipment. Estimated annual GHG emissions from construction activity (Appendix A,
Helix Environmental, June 2018) are provided in Table 2, below.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 20 Otay Water District
Table 2
ESTIMATED GHG CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Annual Emissions 332
Amortized Construction Emissions1 11
Screening Threshold2 900
Significant Impact? No
1 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with County guidance.
2 Screening threshold from California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA).
The project is the replacement of existing underground pipelines with no operational emissions of
greenhouse gases, therefore the only source of GHG emissions would be during construction. As
shown in Table 2, the estimated increase in annual GHG emissions from amortized construction
emissions would be 11 MT CO2e per year. This value is significantly less than the County of San Diego
screening threshold of 900 MT CO2e per year. It is generally accepted as very unlikely that any
individual development project would generate GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact
global climate change; therefore, any impact would be considered on a cumulative basis. Because the
proposed project’s GHG emissions would be less than 900 MT CO2e per year, the emissions would not
be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b. Less than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, established statutory limits on GHG emissions in California. Under AB 32, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for adopting rules and regulations to reduce statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the
state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit and future emissions reduction targets
established by Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The County guidelines were established for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32. As discussed in Section
VII.a, project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the regional significance threshold established
by the County of San Diego. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in emissions that would
adversely affect state-wide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals, as described in AB 32 and
EO S-21-09. Emissions would therefore have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to
global climate change impacts, and the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 21 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 22 Otay Water District
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
a. Less Than Significant Impact. Like nearly all construction projects, project equipment would use
diesel fuel and other common petroleum-based products, but not in quantities that would be
considered beyond that of any standard construction project and not of the quantities that would
present any danger to the public. All materials would be transported and used in accordance with
standard practices. Ongoing operation of the pipelines would not entail any transport, storage, or use
of hazardous materials Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. See response to 7.a, above.
c. Less than Significant Impact. A portion of the project (Vista Vereda pipeline segment) is located
within a quarter mile of an elementary school (Vista Grande Elementary School). While small amounts
of hazardous materials (such as fuel, lubricants, etc.) would be present on the site during project
construction, these materials would be typical of those used at construction sites, and would be
handled in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements. Standard construction
procedures would prevent the use of these materials from causing a significant hazard to the nearby
schools or its students and staff. Following installation of the pipeline, the area would be returned to
pre-existing (i.e., current) conditions, and no hazardous substances would be used for the project
following construction. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d. No Impact. A review of the EnviroStor database of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm) shows that the project site is not included in
this listing. Therefore, there would be no impact.
e. No Impact. The project site is not located within 2 miles of an airport land use plan, public airport, or
public use airport; therefore, no impacts would occur.
f. No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; thus, no impacts
would occur.
g. No Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be implemented to ensure
that roadways remain open and accessible during construction. If project construction limits traffic
to one lane along any of the roadways, traffic would be flagged around the work site. Traffic would
not be affected after pipeline installation is complete. Therefore, no impact would occur.
h. No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires because it would consist of the construction and operation of
an underground pipeline. Therefore, no impact related to wildland fires would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 23 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 24 Otay Water District
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
a. Less Than Significant Impact. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project
would be limited to short-term construction-related erosion/sedimentation. All District construction
bid documents for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) require a contractor to provide an erosion
control plan or a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (for projects that would result in
land disturbance of 1 acre or more). The Erosion Control Plan would comply with the storm water
regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, while
the SWPPP would comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. These plans would be based
on site-specific hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics, and identify a range of Best Management
Practices (BMP) to reduce impacts related to storm water runoff, including sedimentation BMPs to
control soil erosion. The construction contractor would identify the specific storm water BMPs to be
implemented during construction of the proposed project, and would prepare and implement the
final Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP for the project. Therefore, water quality impacts would be less
than significant.
b. No Impact. Groundwater along the proposed pipeline alignments in Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa
Road is anticipated to be located at depths below the trenching depth for the pipelines. Although
groundwater may be encountered during trenching activities, particularly in the wet (rainy) season,
the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
c. No Impact. Installation of an underground pipeline would not affect local drainage patterns. No rivers
or streams would be altered, and the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or
siltation. In addition, the project would implement construction BMPs to minimize erosion and runoff.
Accordingly, no impact would occur.
d. No Impact. Installation of an underground pipeline would not affect local drainage patterns. The
proposed project would not increase the rate or volume of surface runoff from the project area,
primarily because it would not create new impervious surfaces. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 25 Otay Water District
e. Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in the response to Item IX.d, above, the proposed project
would not significantly increase the local surface runoff volumes. Accordingly, short-term pollutant
generation would be less than significant.
f. No Impact. No potential water quality impacts other than those described above in this section are
anticipated.
g. No Impact. The proposed project does not involve construction of residential units. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
h. No Impact. Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps (2012), the proposed
potable water lines are not within a mapped 100-year floodplain. Accordingly, no impact associated
with flooding would occur.
i. No Impact. The proposed project would include the installation and operation of underground
potable water pipelines. Therefore, the project would not cause people or structures to be located in
an inundation risk area associated with a dam or levee, and no impact would occur.
j. No Impact. The proposed project would include the installation and operation of potable water
pipelines. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to an inundation
risk area for seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 26 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
a. No Impact. Installation and operation of the proposed underground potable water pipelines within
existing roadways and other disturbed/developed areas would not divide an existing community.
Specifically, construction would not result in physical barriers or road closures that would divide or
prohibit access to the surrounding community. Accordingly, no associated impact would occur.
b. No Impact. The proposed project would include the installation and operation of potable water
pipelines. The land use designation from the County General Plan within and immediately adjacent
to the proposed pipelines is Semi-Rural Residential. This land use designation does not preclude utility
lines/facilities. The zoning designation within and immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline
alignments is Rural Residential. This zoning does not preclude public utility corridors. The proposed
project would, therefore, not conflict with zoning or general plan land use designations, and no impact
would occur.
c. No Impact. The project is not subject to any adopted regional conservation plans. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with such plans, policies, or ordinances and no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 27 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a. No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed beneath existing roadways and other
disturbed/developed areas. The project site is not currently used for mineral resource extraction, nor
is it located in an area with the known potential for mineral resources. Therefore, no impact to
mineral resources would occur.
b. No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed beneath existing streets, developed areas,
and in disturbed areas. The project site is not currently used for mineral resource extraction, nor is it
located in an area with the known potential for locally important mineral resources. Additionally, the
site is not designated in the County General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no
impact to mineral resources would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 28 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE:
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
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?
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The County of San Diego’s Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Section 36.4
(i.e., Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4) discusses County noise requirements. Sections 36.408 through
36.411 of the Noise Ordinance establish noise limitations for construction activities. Except for
emergency work, it is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, construction
equipment between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or that exceeds an average sound level of 75 dB for an
8-hour period, when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located
or on any occupied property where the noise is being received. Construction noise would be most
impactful during the trenching phase of the project. During this phase, an excavator would move along
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 29 Otay Water District
the pipeline route digging the trench and loading the materials into a dump truck. An excavator and
a dump truck operating for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day would generate a 75 dBA LEQ
noise contour of 75 feet. In addition, all construction equipment would be properly outfitted and
maintained with manufacturer-recommended noise-reduction devices. Therefore, trenching
activities would not exceed the 75 dBA LEQ noise limit for the residences on Vista Vereda or Hidden
Mesa Road and the impact would be less than significant.
b. No Impact. Ground-borne vibration is a concern for projects that require heavy construction activity
such as blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. Ground-borne vibration
can result in a range of impacts, from minor annoyances to people to major shaking that damages
buildings. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made sources attenuates rapidly with
distance from the source of vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially
older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly and sick), and vibration-sensitive
equipment. Construction activities associated with the project will be limited to trenching and
placement of pipe and do not have the potential to result in ground-borne vibration. Therefore, no
impact will occur.
c. No Impact. Project-related noise generation would be primarily limited to short-term construction
activities. Pipeline facilities, once installed, are passive and would not generate noise. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project may create elevated short-term
construction noise impacts but as discussed in item XII.a., these noise impacts would not exceed the
County noise limitations for construction activities. Therefore, the impacts would be less than
significant.
e. No Impact. The proposed project consists of underground pipelines. The project would not include the
construction of aboveground structures that would result in people being exposed to noise from a
public airport. In addition, the project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of a public
airport.
f. No Impact. The proposed project consists of underground potable water pipelines and is not within
the vicinity of a private airport. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 30 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a. No Impact. The proposed project would include the replacement of existing potable water pipelines
to allow for easier maintenance and repair. The replacement pipelines would not be growth inducing
because the capacity of the pipelines would not change or extend potable water service to any areas
not already being served. Therefore, no impact associated with population growth would occur.
b. No Impact. The proposed project would not displace any housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c. No Impact. The proposed project would not displace any people. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 31 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) 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?
a. Fire Protection – Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of an underground
potable water pipeline would not generate a demand for increased fire protection services. During
construction, fire protection may be required, but these would be short-term demands and would not
require increases in the level of service offered or affect these agencies’ response times. Because of
the low probability and short-term nature of potential fire protection needs during construction, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
b. Police Protection – Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts to police protection would be less than
significant for reasons similar to those provided for “Fire Protection,” above. Therefore, the project
would result in less than significant impacts.
c. Schools – No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on school services because it
would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate school-aged children, and would
not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into this area. Therefore, the
project would have no impact on schools.
d. Parks – No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on parks for reasons similar to
those provided for “Schools,” above. Therefore, the project would have no impact on parks.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 32 Otay Water District
e. Other Public Facilities – No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the introduction of a
temporary or permanent human population into this area. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in any long-term impacts to other public facilities.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 33 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. 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?
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?
a. No Impact. The proposed project would not generate any residents who would require parks or other
recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur to such facilities.
b. No Impact. The proposed project neither includes recreational facilities nor requires the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 34 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not include any components that would
result in long-term traffic generation. While construction activities would likely generate a small
number of trips associated with construction equipment and worker vehicles, these trips would be
limited to the construction period, and would not be considered substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load in the project vicinity. During construction, access and the use of roadways along Vista
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 35 Otay Water District
Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road may be temporarily disrupted. However, as stated in Section VIII, a
TMP would be implemented during construction of the proposed project. Roadways would remain
open to traffic. If project construction limits traffic to one lane, traffic would be flagged around the
work site. In addition, pedestrian and bicyclist access along the affected roadways would be
maintained. Following construction of the proposed project, vehicle trips would be nominal
(approximately once per month), and limited only to routine maintenance activities. Impacts
associated with temporary increases in traffic associated with construction would be less than
significant and the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including alternative modes
of transportation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion of Item XVI.a, above. The proposed project would not
conflict with an applicable congestion management program, and impacts would be less than
significant.
c. No Impact. The project would not include any aviation components or structures where height would
be an aviation concern. Therefore, no associated impact to traffic patterns would occur.
d. No Impact. The proposed project would not include design features that would affect traffic safety,
nor would it cause incompatible uses (such as tractors) on local roads. Therefore, no associated
impact would occur.
e. Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, access along some local
streets may be limited for brief amounts of time. The TMP for the project would include measures
(such as flagging and detouring) that would divert traffic to an appropriate route. Except for brief
periods, access would be maintained to commercial and residential driveways along the proposed
project alignment. Traffic would not be affected after project construction. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
f. No Impact. The proposed project would have no impact on alternative transportation plans.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 36 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
a. No Impact. Because it would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate sewage,
the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of any wastewater facilities
or exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. No Impact. The proposed project would provide the District with improved service capabilities and
reliability. It would not, however, require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no associated impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 37 Otay Water District
c. No Impact. The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of storm water
drainage facilities. Therefore, no associated impact would occur.
d. No Impact. The project would not require new or expanded entitlements for water service.
Therefore, no associated impact would occur.
e. No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities or the expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, no
associated impact would occur.
f. No Impact. Solid waste generation during pipeline construction would be short-term and minimal.
Construction debris (e.g., asphalt, concrete) would be recycled, as feasible. Excess soil would be
hauled from the site, and would be disposed of at locations approved for such use. Operation of the
pipelines would not generate any solid waste or affect landfill capacities. Therefore, no associated
impact would occur.
g. No Impact. The proposed project would comply with all applicable, federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 38 Otay Water District
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. 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?
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a. Less than Significant Impact. Based on the evaluations, technical studies, and discussions in this Initial
Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment
or have any more than a less than significant impact on fish or wildlife species and/or their habitat.
The project would also not impact any examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory. Therefore the project would result in a less than significant impact.
b. No Impact. The project sites would be located in developed areas that are not planned for additional
development. The work that would be done is an improvement, replacing aging infrastructure to
ensure reliable water supply to existing customers within the District’s service area. Therefore, there
are no cumulatively considerable effects of the project and there would be no impact.
c. Less than Significant Impact. The project would not consist of any use or any activities that would
negatively affect any persons in the vicinity. In addition, all resource topics associated with the project
have been analyzed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, and found to pose no impact or less
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 39 Otay Water District
than significant impact. Consequently, the project would not result in any environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly; therefore, no impact
would occur.
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 40 Otay Water District
Chapter 4 References
Cultural Resources Review of the Vista Vereda Pipeline Replacement Project, ICF, June 2018
EnviroStor Database, California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
FEMA Flood Map Service Center, San Diego County, California and Unincorporated Areas,
Map number 06073C1668G
Geotechnical Evaluation – Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, Ninyo & Moore, December
2017
Otay Water District 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update Final Program Environmental
Impact Report, Atkins, November 2016
Preliminary Design Report – Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement Project (CIP 2574), Rick
Engineering, December 2017
San Diego County Municipal Code, Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Section 36.4: 36.401-36.423
Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling
Results, Helix Environmental Planning, June 2018
Negative Declaration August 2018
Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 41 Otay Water District
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 3, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager
Dan Martin
Assistant Chief of
Engineering
CIP./G.F. NO: Various
DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Item–Summary of Potable Water, Recycled Water,
and Wastewater Treatment Studies Prepared over the Last
Twenty-Five Years
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To update the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) on potable water, recycled water, and wastewater
treatment studies prepared by the District and other agencies
over the last twenty-five years.
ANALYSIS:
REGIONAL STUDIES FOR THE SOUTH BAY
There have been many studies to look at alternate sources of
potable water, recycled water, and wastewater treatment in
reports prepared by the District or other agencies over the last
twenty-five years. A list of the potable water, recycled water,
and wastewater treatment studies are attached as Exhibit A (with
an embedded link directing to the document). The studies
2
contain overlapping service areas of projects in the South Bay
and a brief summary is provided below and on the list of
studies.
Desalinated Water
This section includes various feasibility studies for a
binational seawater desalination project by multiple agencies
with participation from both sides of the border and includes a
study for a regional brine concentrate conveyance system. The
Rosarito Beach Desalination project report and studies look at a
wide range of subjects from legal issues, water quality, and
regulatory approval requirements.
Ground Water Projects
This section includes various studies for groundwater projects
within the District’s boundary and in cooperation with
Sweetwater Authority. Water rights, brine disposal, and the
poor quality of local groundwater resources represents key
economic constraints to development of this resource. Reports
in this section include a “Water Rights Primer” by Allen-
Matkins, history of the City’s acquisition of the Southern
California Mountain Water Company and all of its system of water
works including the Lower Otay Dam. Developing wells at Daley
Ranch within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge was
considered, but did not go beyond a proposal stage.
Wells on Cuyamaca College were studied and concluded that with
the limited depth of sediments and the low potential for storage
well yields (approximately 15 gallons per minute) a well would
produce 16 to 50 acre-feet per year (AFY) per well with TDS
concentrations up to 1,700 mg/L and would require treatment.
The June 2009 report on the Otay Basin Brackish Groundwater
concept estimated the total cost for a joint project between
Sweetwater Authority and the District to develop a groundwater
project would cost $67 million or approximately $2,086 per acre-
feet (AF) and assumed a regional brine discharge line would be
available and noted without this regional brine line this
project would not be feasible.
A study of the Middle Sweetwater River was performed in 2010 and
estimated that the District’s customers’ use of imported water
would allow for development of between 815 to 1,330 AFY of water
and was expected to grow, but instead water conservation has
reduced the amount of water use by 10%. Artificial storage and
recovery was considered using imported untreated water for
emergencies or on a seasonal basis with recharge ponds or wells.
Work on this study was stopped, so both the regulatory issues
were not explored and water quality testing on the groundwater
was not initiated to understand the required treatment for the
3
seasonal variation of TDS. The District completed the pipeline
extension to connect to the Levy WTP in 2010, which lowered the
concern over reliability in the northern service area of the
District.
Another section in the groundwater studies includes information
on the Rancho Del Rey (RDR) well site completed in January 2011,
and concluded the yield would be about 425 gallons per minute
with a TDS up to 2,500 mg/L at a preliminary cost of $1,500 per
AF. The small volume of production, the cost of construction,
and brine disposal were key economic constraints to further
development of the RDR project. A later cost estimate, with
higher capital costs including the disposal of brine and the
requirement to staff this facility 24 hours a day, has this cost
closer to $2,500 per AF.
Other Studies
This section has many planning level studies and supply
enhancements for short-term improvements before the Water
Authority’s Pipeline 4 was extended further south and included
expansion of existing local water treatment plants. Included in
these studies is the East County Regional Treated Water
Improvement Program, which included the participation of Otay
Water District, Helix Water District, Padre Dam, and Lakeside
working with the Water Authority, which now provides an
alternate source of treated water for the northern service area
of the District.
Recycled Water
This section has many studies going back to the initial
expansion of Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility
(RWCWRF) to 1.3 MGD and the development of a recycled water
system in the District’s service area. An alternative source
for recycled water from the International Boundary and Water
Commission Wastewater Treatment Plant is included in a high
level study as well as studies for a Membrane bioreactor (MBR)
in Chula Vista and County of San Diego studies for wastewater
treatment plants. A concept to expand the use of recycled water
in the District’s northern service area is included, but
concerns about water quality impacts on the use of recycled
water upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir and the cost of the
infrastructure has put that concept on hold.
A high level study is also included in this section for the
concept to produce potable reuse as a supply augmentation to the
Sweetwater Authority’s Reservoir from the RWCWRF and the City of
San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant estimated the
total cost of water to be in excess of $4,000 per AF, with a
limited total supply of 2,800 AFY.
4
Wastewater Studies
Two reports in this section looked at wastewater flow
projections for the Jamacha basin. Private septic system
conversions are expected to be the largest growth in the basin.
A report on a potential wastewater diversion project to the City
of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant to allow more
recycled water to be produced in the summer is included, but the
project was not supported by the City of San Diego and the City
of Chula Vista.
Staff continues to look for potable, recycled water, and
wastewater treatment opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To
provide high value water and wastewater services to the
customers of the Otay Water District in a professional,
effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s
Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to
provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation
for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BK/DM/RP:jf
P:\Bob Kennedy\Water Supply Studies\Staff Report\Staff Report - Water Studies Alternative Info Item-(BK).doc
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Exhibit A – List of Potable Water, Recycled
Water, and Wastewater Treatment
Studies
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Various
Informational Item–Summary of Potable Water, Recycled
Water, and Wastewater Treatment Studies Prepared over
the Last Twenty-Five Years
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on
September 18, 2018. The Committee 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
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
1
Conveyance Pipeline Alignment
Evaluation from Playas De Rosarito
Desalination Plant to Delivery Points in
Playas de Rosarito, Tijuana, and San
Diego Final Report
Ingeniería
Integral June 2012 29,000 (to
US border)
Conveyance
Cost~$260/AF
[$303/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost of
conveyance facilities
and power.
2
Conveyance Pipeline Alignment
Evaluation from Playas De Rosarito
Desalination Plant to Delivery Points in
Playas de Rosarito, Tijuana, and San
Diego - Executive Summary
Ingeniería
Integral June 2012 29,000 (to
US border)
Conveyance
Cost~$260/AF
[$303/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost of
conveyance facilities
and power.
3
Pre-Feasibility Report of Water
Management Opportunities in Baja
California
Boyle/AECOM May 2008 Not Available
Water demand and
supply study for Baja
Mexico
Looked at potential desal,
groundwater and recycled
water supply alternatives for a
future study to prioritize
alternatives and noted the
Ensenada desal plant would
be going out to bid.
4
Draft Technical Memorandum: Water
Quality Parameters in Desalinated Water
and Corrosion Control
AECOM January
2014 Not Available
5
Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection
System Project CIP P2451 – White Paper
Draft; CDPH Permit Approval Road Map
AECOM January
2014 Not Available
6 Otay Water District Boron Study Atkins July 2011 Not Available
7
Technical Memorandum No. 1
Preliminary Treatment and Regulatory
Considerations – Binational Desalination
Feasibility Study
CDM June 2008 Not Available
Desalination Studies
1
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
8
Technical Memorandum No. 2
Preliminary Alternatives – Conveyance of
Supply from Excess Flows from Mexican
Desalination Facility
CDM August 2009 11,000 to
45,000 $16.2M to $30.8M
Conceptual level
analysis of conveyance
cost only north of the
border with treatment
costs estimated to add
$400k to $25.7M
Demand was planned for 25
MGD with a potential for it to
be a regional resource.
9
Draft Technical Memorandum No. 3;
Environmental Considerations –
Binational Desalination Feasibility Study
CDM January
2009 Not Available
10 Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance
and Disinfection System Project CDM June 2010 $16.2M to $30.8M
[$19.5 to $37.1]
Conveyance cost only
north of the border with
treatment costs
estimated to add $400k
to $25.7M. Cost of
delivery and desal
water to be at or near
cost of treated SDCWA
supply.
Demand was planned for 25
MGD with a potential for it to
be a regional resource.
11 Boron Treatment AECOM May 2011
Total Capital and O
& M cost ranged
from $167/AF
[$200/AF] for 1
MGD to $82/AF
[$98/AF] for 10
MGD
This is conceptual level
analysis of the cost for
additional Boron
treatment for a flow of 1
MGD to 10 MGD to
reduce from 1 mg/L to
0.7 mg/L
12 Water Quality Thresholds for Boron
Rosarito Ocean Desalination Plant
Michael R.
Welch, Ph.D.,
P.E.,
Consulting
Engineer
February
2011 Not Available
2
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
13
Water Quality Thresholds and California
Department of Public Health Issues
Rosarito Ocean Desalination Plant
Michael R.
Welch, Ph.D.,
P.E.,
Consulting
Engineer
March 2011 Not Available
14
San Diego County Water Authority
Rosarito Beach Binational Desalination
Plant Feasibility Evaluation and
Preliminary Design Phase 1 Final Report
Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc.May 2010 Not Available
The report conclusion was that
there are no fatal flaw issues
at this time. The report looked
at desal meeting approx.
50,000 AFY for US and
Mexico with a additional
potential to exchange 100,000
AFY of Colorado River water.
15 Key Issues for Desalination in California:
Cost and Financing
Pacific
Institute
November
2012
$1,900 [$2,200] to
more than $3,000/
AF [$3,500/AF]
The conceptual level
analysis of cost to
produce water from a
desalination plant only
with energy estimated
to be 36% of the cost
16
Feasibility Study of Seawater Desalination
Development Opportunities for the San
Diego/Tijuana Region Final Report (505
pages)
SDCWA
Binational
TAC with PB
Water, A
Division of
Parsons
Brickerhoff
Quade &
Douglas, Inc.
March 2005 24,200
$1,420/AF
[$2,070/AF] for
Rosarito desal plus
conveyance costs
north of Border to
add $600/AF
[$875] for a total
cost of $2,020/AF
[$2,945/AF].
Multiple sites and
conveyance options
were studied.
3
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
17
San Diego County Water Authority San
Diego Regional Concentrate Conveyance
System Feasibility Study Final Report
Camp Dresser
and McKee
Inc. (CDM)
October
2009
21,800 to
43,600
Brine disposal
costs (Appendix D)
estimated to range
$360/AF [$445/AF]
to $645/AF
[$795/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis based on
limited users alternative
study. Assumed
maintenance costs for
gravity sewers and
force mains are the
same
Potential use for groundwater
and MBR recycled water
facilities. The limited users
alternative study estimated the
potential yield to be 4,000 AFY
to10,300 AFY
18
Project Report – A Literature Review and
Bench Scale Study to Evaluate
Chloramine Stability, DBP Formation and
Nitrification Potential in Distribution
System Carrying Blended Stream of
Desalinated Sea Water and Treated
Surface Waters
CH2MHILL September
2012 Not Available
19 San Diego County Water Authority
Groundwater Report SDCWA June 1997 Not Available
20
Feasibility Study for the Groundwater
Development Alternatives on the Daley
Ranch
Enviromine
Environmental
and Mine
Permitting
Services
June 1997 Not Available
21 Otay Basin Brackish Groundwater
Desalination Feasibility Study
MWH
Americas, Inc.
and RBF
Consultants
June 2009 2,650 $2,086/AF
[$2,560/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost is for
4.8 MGD split with
OWD and SWA with
RO treatment and
conveyance cost to
deliver 2,650 AFY to
458 PZ and a second
PS to lift to 624 PZ. A
brine conveyance
pipeline was assumed
to be nearby.
Without a regional brine
conveyance system the report
notes this project "would likely
not be viable." The legal issue
with the City of San Diego and
Pueblo rights must be
resolved before any
groundwater project can be
developed in the SD
Formation.
Groundwater Studies
4
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
22
Well Construction Report 32nd Street
Monitoring Well San Diego, Task Order
#11 and #12
URS June 2014 480 to 640
AFY Not Available
Single well production
estimate and would
require treatment to
meet potable water
standards. TDS 2,550
mg/L
SD Formation well is expected
to produce between about 300
and 400 gpm. The 400 gpm
would lower the water table
below the saturated non-
marine sediments, which could
decrease well yield with time.
23
A Geochemical Approach to Determine
Sources and Movement of Saline
Groundwater in a Coastal Aquifer
USGS
California
Water
Science
Center USGS
Denver
Federal
Center
July 2013 Not Available
The presence of
modern water in only
the shallowest
monitoring wells and
the eastern part of the
study area indicates
very little modern (<60
years old) groundwater
is present in the coastal
aquifer. Instead, the
low carbon 14 activities
indicate most of the
groundwater in the
coastal aquifer was
recharged many
thousands of years ago.
24
Table S1. List of the 7 USGS multiple-
depth monitoring-well sites and 6
domestic wells where water-quality
samples were collected in San Diego
County, California
USGS
California
Water
Science
Center USGS
Denver
Federal
Center
Not Available
5
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
25
Table S2. Chemical data collected from
the 7 USGS multiple-depth monitoring-
well sites and 6 domestic wells in San
Diego County, California
USGS
California
Water
Science
Center USGS
Denver
Federal
Center
Not Available
26
Table S3. Isotopic data collected from the
7 USGS multiple-depth monitoring-well
sites and 6 domestic wells in San Diego
County, California
USGS
California
Water
Science
Center USGS
Denver
Federal
Center
Not Available
27
San Diego County Water Authority San
Diego Regional Concentrate Conveyance
System Feasibility Study Final Report
Camp Dresser
and McKee
Inc. (CDM)
October
2009
21,800 to
43,600
Brine disposal
costs (Appendix D)
estimated to range
$360/AF [$445/AF]
to $645/AF
[$795/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis based on
limited users alternative
study. Assumed
maintenance costs for
gravity sewers and
force mains are the
same
No regional conveyance
system was developed.
28
County of San Diego Monitoring Well and
Boring Construction and Destruction
Permit Site: 770 Rancho Del Rey PY,
Chula Vista
County of San
Diego April 2010 Not Available
29
Electric Log Gamma Ray Otay Monitoring
Well Site: 770 Rancho Del Rey Pkwy,
Chula Vista
Pacific
Surveys June 2010 Not Available
30 Rancho del Rey Piezometer AECOM June 2010 Not Available
31 Daily Drilling Reports and
Well/Piezometer Development Records AECOM September
2010 Not Available
6
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
32 Technical Field Data – Pumping Tests Site:
Rancho Del Rey AECOM November
2010 Not Available
33 Laboratory Report Site: Rancho Del Rey
GW Well Development TestAmerica July 2010 Not Available
34 Pump Performance ITT November
2010 Not Available
35
Figure 1 Location Map Rancho del Rey
Well #1; Boring/Well Log Site: Rancho
del Rey Pkwy and Terra Nova Dr.; Figure
3 As-Built Well Diagram Rancho Del Rey
Well #1
AECOM November
2010 Not Available
36 Summary of Well Construction
Operations Rancho Del Rey Well #1 AECOM January
2011 700 Not Available
Pump rate of 425 GPM
with resting periods of a
couple of hours twice a
week to give the well
time to recover.
37
Table 1 – Well Installation Chronology
Rancho Del Rey Well #1; Table 2 –
Monitoring Well Water; Table 3 – As-Built
Well Design; Table 4 – Recommended
Pump Rate and Depth Setting; Table 5 –
Water Quality Reports
AECOM October
2010 Not Available
38 Groundwater Treatment Feasibility Study
Boyle
Engineering,
Corp.
September
1996 500 $1,270/AF
[$2,325/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost. TDS of
2,250 mg/L and Boron
of 2.67 mg/L will require
alternative treatment
and blending
methodologies.
Alternate recycled water or
potable supply however the
District put this project on hold
due to the high unit cost of the
product water, the regulatory
requirements, the high cost of
brine disposal and the City
potential claim of Pueblo
rights.
7
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
39 Rancho Del Rey Well Head Treatment
System
Separation
Processes,
Inc.
November
2010 600 Not Available
40 Rancho Del Rey Wellhead Treatment
Project Feasibility Study
Separation
Processes,
Inc.
December
2010 600 $1,500/AF
[$1,800/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost. Brine
disposal was included
but after discussions
with the City is probably
too low. Also DDW has
indicated plant may
need to be staff full time
which is expected to
increase unit cost.
600 AF of product water with a
brine stream disposal of 60 to
70 GPM
41
Rancho Del Rey Wellhead Treatment
System Option 3B – Seawater RO with
Blending w Desal Rev 1A Summary of
O&M Costs
SPI December
2010
$1,500/AF
[$1,800/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost.
42 Water Well Drillers Reports
State of
California The
Resources
Agency Dept
of Water
Resources
2004 Not Available
8
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
43 Summary of Project Status: Middle
Sweetwater River Pilot Project AECOM February
2011
815 to
1.330 Not Available
For now, OWD has
opted to re-focus their
options for additional
water resources and
place this project in a
“hold” status.
In the late 1980s a value of
815 AFY of OWD-derived
recharge within the Middle
Sweetwater River Basin was
mutually agreed upon by
OWD and the Sweetwater
Authority. Since that time this
region has experienced
significant growth and applying
this percentage of growth to
the previous value of 815 AFY
yields an annual recharge
value of approximately 1,330
AFY.
44
Preliminary Feasibility Study
Groundwater Supply Development at
Cuyamaca College
Michael R.
Welch, Ph.D.,
P.E.,
Consulting
Engineer
January
1998 15 to 50 Not Available
Because of low storage
coefficient and low
transmissivity, well yields
within the fractured rock
aquifer beneath the campus
may be on the order of 5 to 15
gallons per minute (gpm).
45 Chapter Three Groundwater
Development Strategies
Michael R.
Welch, Ph.D.,
P.E.,
Consulting
Engineer
January
1998 Not Available
RO and blending is an
option however brine
disposal must also be
addressed.
46 Figure 4.1 Aerial Photo of Cuyamaca
College Vicinity March 2009 Not Available
9
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
47 Middle Sweetwater River Basin
Conjunctive Use Alternatives
Michael R.
Welch, Ph.D.,
P.E.,
Consulting
Engineer
September
1994 425 to 915
$440 [$810] to
$1330/AF
[$2,445/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost.
Doesn't include cost for
imported water for
recharge of
groundwater.
Conjunctive use credit
of $110 to $250 per AF
from MWD was
expected if project was
developed. Also need
to
Conjunctive use study to
consider groundwater
withdrawals offset by release
from Loveland Reservoir or
swap imported water for basin
recharge.
48 Volume 1 Middle Sweetwater River
System Study Water Resources Database NBS Lowry December
1991 Not Available
49
Volume 1 Middle Sweetwater River
System Study Water Resources Audit
Water Resources Audit
NBS Lowry June 1991 Not Available
50 Volume 2 Middle Sweetwater River
System Study Alternatives Evaluation NBS Lowry May 1993 690 to
2,180
$368 [$680] to
$621/AF
[$1,155/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost.
Recharge aquifer with
imported water or
extract raw water both
requiring additional cost
for RO and brine
disposal.
Study to improve water quality
of Sweetwater River and
reservoir however alternatives
notes that improvements in
surface water quality may not
be significant.
51
Volume 2 Doc B Middle Sweetwater River
System Study Alternatives Evaluation
Appendices
NBS Lowry May 1993 Not Available
52 Final Draft South San Diego/Otay Mesa
Water Study
Wilson
Engineering
September
1999 Not Available
No supply indicated except for
information for an emergency
interconnection and the City's
transmission system.
Other Studies
10
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
53
Feasibility of IPR/DPR - RWCWRF
Purification Plant to Sweetwater
Reservoir
Atkins June 2016 900 to
2.824
$3,450 [$3,715] to
$4,380/AF
[$4,715/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost.
Regulatory
requirements might
increase cost.
Regulatory requirements need
to be better defined and the
unit cost must be reduced to
make this a viable source. The
restated Metro JPA agreement
may have a negative impact
on the cost of this alternative
supply.
54 Water Quality Studies B.P. 01-33W
Master Plan for Future Plant Facilities
Montgomery
Watson Harza
(MWH)
November
2003 11,200
$94/AF [$150/AF]
for the cost of
treatment
Conceptual level
analysis of cost
assuming plant
operating at full
capacity. Capital and O
& M cost for
conveyance are
excluded.
No potential at this time.
Previous discussions noted
Purdue may not be available
during peak summer months
but conservation and the
expansion of their Reynolds
plant may present
opportunities if a noth-south
interconnection was available.
55 San Diego Intertie Feasibility Study
(Report to NR&C)
City of San
Diego Public
Utilities
April 2011 Not Available
The intertie study was
re-directed to a San
Diego Basin Study
which is still in draft.
Many of the regional
projects, including Otay
WD water supply
projects are included in
this study.
56 Draft on East County Treated Water
Distribution Study MWH May 2004 13,400 $21 M [$30.8 M]Final Cost of project
Completed project that
provides an alternate supply
for the northern service area
of the District.
11
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
57 South County Water Supply
Enhancement Study
James M.
Montgomery
Consulting
Engineers,
Inc. (JMM)
December
1989 Not Available
Projects completed by Otay
WD included the 640-1, 640-2
and 624-3. Otay also built
TLOPS and contributed to the
expansion of Levy to 100
MGD.
58 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan
Update Final
Carollo
Engineers June 2016 320 to
14,500 Not Available
All projects that have the
potential to provide an
alternate source of water was
listed in this report.
59 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update Atkins March 2016 0 to
23,000 Not Available
All projects that have the
potential to provide an
alternate source of water was
listed in this report.
60 Acquisition of Additional Wastewater
Capacity Project Final Report
RMC Water
and
Environment
April 2012 4,400 to
6,700
Not Available. The
report only noted
the current price of
recycled water
from the City of
San Diego.
This would not meet the
summer peak demand.
The City of Chula Vista has
20.864 MGD of wastewater
capacity in Metro and since
this report was prepared their
flows have dropped 1.1 MGD,
a reduction of 6.7% (FY 2016
~ 15.438 MGD to Metro). The
main driver of this project was
the City needing additional
capacity in Metro but it will be
many years before they will
need to consider this project.
61 Update of Reclaimed Water Market
Assessment for the Southern Service Area
Montgomery
Watson March 1995 2,500 to
3,500 Not Available
Saltwater intrusion
barrier to replace
extracted groundwater
east of I-5 and in the
Tijuana River basin
Sweetwater Authority is not
interested in the groundwater
recharge project at this time.
Recycled Water Studies
12
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
62
Spring Valley Sanitation District Rancho
San Diego Pump Station Sewer Flow
Projection Study Final
M&E (Metcalf
& Eddy)May 1997 11,200 Not Available
The District was not
interested in this
project.
The project would be
dependent on the availability
of low interest loans, grants,
rebates and buyers for the
sale of the recycled water.
63
Feasibility of IPR/DPR - RWCWRF
Purification Plant to Sweetwater
Reservoir
Atkins June 2016 900 to
2.824
$3,450 [$3,715] to
$4,380/AF
[$4,715/AF]
Conceptual level
analysis of cost.
Regulatory
requirements might
increase cost.
Regulatory requirements need
to be better defined and the
unit cost must be reduced to
make this a viable source. The
restated Metro JPA agreement
may have a negative impact
on the cost of this alternative
supply.
64 South Bay Reclaimed Water Business
Plan, Phase 1 Report
A Partnership
of South Bay
Agencies,
Industries and
Stakeholders
November
1998 Not Available
The projected OWD firm
reclaimed water demands,
considered under the current
financial assumptions, will
yield insufficient revenues to
achieve breakeven levels
within the analysis period.
65
North District Recycled Water System
Development Project Phase I Concept
Study
PBS&J December
2008
700 to
1,500
$14 to $15 M
[$17.1 to $18.3
M]for 11.3 miles of
pipeline.
Annual cost for testing
and monitoring is not
included.
Water quality objectives for
the basin and the cost of the
infrastructure needed to
convey and store recycled
water in the North District were
identified as major constraints.
13
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
66
Wastewater System Planning Studies List
of References – Otay Water District
Reclamation Project Facilities Plan –
Phase 1
John S. Murk
Engineers,
Inc.
December
1989 1,458
The breakeven
point was
estimated to
require a minimum
delivery of 26,200
AF over the life of
the facilities at a
cost of $464/AF
[$962/AF].
Includes subsidy from
MWD and low cost
loans.
OWD had adopted a water
allocation policy limiting the
number of new water meter
connections and development
of a recycled water system
would offset the potential
restriction on the number of
potable services.
67
Wastewater System Planning Studies List
of References – Otay Water District
Reclamation Project Facilities Plan –
Phase 1 – Appendices A-L
John S. Murk
Engineers,
Inc.
December
1989 Not Available
The RWCWRF assessment
identified improvements
needed to increase production
at this facility.
68
Wastewater System Planning Studies List
of References – Jamacha Basin Water
Reclamation Facilities Final Project
John S. Murk
Engineers,
Inc.
March 8,
1989 Not Available
69
Wastewater System Planning Studies List
of References – Jamacha Basin Water
Reclamation Facility Sludge Management
Alternative Study
Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc.
December
1993 Not Available
The study determines, at the
current 1.3 MGD capacity, it
was cheaper to continue to
send sludge to Metro than to
build and operate sludge
processing facilities at the
treatment plant.
70
Technical Memorandum: Recycled
Water Supply Augmentation Planning
Level Study
Malcolm
Pirnie/Arcadis
January
2012
5,200 to
15,950
$590 to $670/AF
[$700 to $800/AF]
RO needed to lower
TDS. Effluent data
needs to be assessed
to assure water quality
meets Title 22
standards.
Potential alternative recycled
water supply if the District
can't reach an agreement with
the City of San Diego.
Wastewater Studies
14
Exhibit A
List of Potable Water, Recycled Water and Wastewater Treatment Studies
No.Title Name Prepared by Date AFY
Original Unit Cost
$ and [Unit Cost
2018 $]
Assumptions or
Comments Potential
71
Spring Valley Sanitation District Rancho
San Diego Pump Station Sewer Flow
Projection Study Final
PBS&J April 2010 Not Available
Wastewater flow projections
for the Jamacha Basin
estimate septic system
conversions to be the largest
growth of 0.55 to 0.67 MGD.
72
Memorandum On Research on Potential
Sewer Flows from Chula Vista to South
Bay Water Reclamation Plant, including
City of San Diego/City of Chula Vista
Southbay Wastewater Collection System
Map; City of San Diego Salt Creek Trunk
Sewer Diversion Structure
Jim Peasley
OWD March 2010 Not Available
Up to an additional 2.5 MGD
diverted to the SBWRF
however the Cities of San
Diego and Chula Vista did not
support this project.
Wastewater flow with lower
TDS could also reduce need
for demin or RO facilities at
SBWRF.
73 Wastewater Management Plan Final
Report
Malcolm
Pirnie/Arcadis May 2013 Not Available
Wastewater flow projections
for the Jamacha Basin. Septic
system conversions to add
0.23 to 0.33 MGD to basin
flow.
15
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 3, 2018
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
SUBMITTED BY: Adolfo Segura, Chief of Administrative Services
APPROVED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: FY18 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FY15-18 STRATEGIC PLAN
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see “Attachment A”.
PURPOSE:
To provide a year-end report on the District’s FY15-18 Strategic
Performance Plan for FY18.
ANALYSIS:
Summary
The current Otay Water District Strategic Plan is a four-year plan
ranging from the start of FY15 through the end of FY18. This report
details the year-end results for the last year of our four-year plan.
Strategic Plan Objectives – Target 90%
Strategic Plan objectives are designed to ensure the District is
executing mission designed objectives and making the appropriate high-
level changes necessary to guide the agency’s efforts to meet new
challenges and positively adapt to change. FY18 year-end results are on
target at 95%, with 19 of 20 active items completed or on schedule. One
objective is on hold.
The following objective has been put on hold:
1. Streamline Input of Operations Data – The SCADA Roadmap has been
received, however, review and implementation of the plan will be
incorporated into the new 4-year, 2019-2022 Strategic Plan.
Performance Measures (Metrics) – Target 75%
Performance measures are designed to track the District’s day-to-day
performance, and are based on AWWA industry benchmarks, WAS operational
standards, and core financial targets. These items measure the
effectiveness and efficiency of daily operations and core services. The
overall goal is that at least 75% of these measures be rated “on target”.
FY18 year-end results are above target with 40 of 42 (95%) items achieving
the desired level or better. Seven measures are reported at year’s end:
Enterprise Technology Services Availability
Injury Incident Rate
Debt Coverage Ratio
Reserve Level
Accounts Per FTE
Water Rate Ranking
Sewer Rate Ranking
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
COMPLETED ON SCHEDULE BEHIND ON HOLD
19
0 0 1
Completed On Schedule Behind On Hold
19 of 20 Active Objectives are Completed or On Schedule (95%)
Items Not On Target
1. Project Closeout – Quarter four results were highly influenced by the
P2534/P2544 project (133 days). Liquidated damages were assessed on
this project for late delivery and the contractor was not responsive
to project closeout items.
2. Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD – The year-to-date result is
$1,165.82 vs. the year-to-date target of $1,050.00. The Reclamation
Plant experienced process upsets and more material was used to improve
effluent quality to meet regulatory compliance.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET
40
2
On Target Not on Target
40 of 42 Performance Measures are On Target (95%)
Next Steps
Kick-off of the new 4-year, 2019-2022 Strategic Plan, and track
deliverables and metrics with the new ESM+ cloud-based strategic
performance solution.
Committee Reports – Slideshow
The Strategic Plan results are presented to both the Finance and
Administration Committee and the Engineering, Operations, and Water
Resources Committee with a specific focus on the most relevant
information for each Committee (see “Attachment B”).
Strategic Plan is available on the Board VPN
All of the Strategic Plan results and associated details are provided
in a real-time, interactive web-based application available to the Board
via secured remote access, VPN. The District Secretary can facilitate
any password or access issues.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
Informational item only; no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Strategic Plan and Performance Measure reporting is a critical element
in providing performance reporting to the Board and staff.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Committee Action Report
Attachment B – PowerPoint Presentation
5
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: FY18 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FY15-18 STRATEGIC
PLAN
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, & Water Resources Committee met on September
18, 2018, and the Finance & Administration Committee met on September
19, 2018, to review this item. Both Committees support presentation to
the full Board for their review.
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.
1
STRATEGIC PLAN
FY18 YEAR-END REPORT
2
Introduction
3
OWD Strategic Plan FY15 –FY18:
The District’s Strategic Plan is developed with the Balanced Scorecard (BSC)strategic planning and
management methodology,which is used and widely adopted by businesses across the globe.The BSC
itself was developed by Kaplan and Norton and was originally published in 1992,in the Harvard
Business Review.The model has evolved over time and is now in its fourth-generation.In brief,the BSC
emphasizes alignment of business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization with goals and
measures in four basic areas:financial,customer,business processes,and learning and growth.
The District’s strategic plan is designed to track key organizational project objectives and essential day-
to-day performance measures.Closing out the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan,staff completed 32 of 33
projects and averaged performance measure execution of 89%or better throughout the four-year plan.
4
Deliver high quality services to meet and increase confidence
of the customer
1.Increase customer confidence in the District
2.Improve and expand communications
3.Provide effective water services
Manage the financial issues that are critical to the District
1.Improve financial information and systems
2.Maintain District financial strength
Maximize efficiency and effectiveness
1.Actively manage water supply as well as support for water and sewer
services
2.Identify and evaluate improvements to enterprise and departmental
business processes
Provide leadership and management expertise
1.Reinforce a results-oriented and accountable culture
2.Focus on achieving a lean flexible workforce
Balanced Scorecard Strategies and Goals
Customer
Financial
Business
Processes
Learning
& Growth
$$
5AWWA Benchmarks
1 Technical Quality Complaint
Potable Water Compliance Rate
Collection System Integrity
Sewer Overflow Rate
2
3
4
6Objectives
95% are Completed or On Schedule
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Completed
On Schedule
Behind
On Hold
19
1
Completed
On Schedule
Behind
On Hold
Objective Report
20 Total
7
ON HOLD
Objectives
1.Streamline Input of Operations Data
8Performance Measures
95% On Target
Measure Report
42 Total
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
On Target
Not on Target
40
2
On Target
Not on Target
9Performance Measures
1.Project Closeout Time
2.Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD
NOT ON TARGET
10
Year-End Results
Administrative Services
11Enterprise Technology Services Availability
Target: No less than 99.5%availability per quarter in a year
Annual Average:3.60 hours of downtime per month/1.83 days of downtime in a year
99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
12Employee Turnover Rate
Target: Less than 5%turnover in a year
# of voluntary resignations (not including retirements)/average # of employees
0 0
0.75 0.75
1.50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
13Training Hours Per Employee
Target: 12 hours of general formal training per employee in a year
(excludes safety training)
Total qualified training hours for all employees/average # of FTEs
4.94 5.50
3.91
3.77
18.11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD/AVG
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
14Safety Training Program
Target: 24 hours of safety training per field employee in a year
# of safety training hours for the quarter/ # of field employees
6.50
11.14
5.43
11.45
30.38
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD/AVG
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
15Injury Incident Rate
Target: Be at or below the National Average for Utilities-Water Sewage and other Systems
A rate of 6.80 or less work-related injuries and illnesses
4.4 4.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q4 AVG
Target 2017 2018
Annual Average:Number of injuries and illnesses (200,000) / Employee hours workedMeasurement Method
16
Engineering
17CIP Project Expenditures vs. Budget
Target: 95% of budget but not to exceed 100%in a year
Being below target gives the measure a “not on target” status
Actual quarterly expenditures/Annual budget
9.3
19.5
39.8 29.8
97.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
18Construction Change Order Incidence (w/o allowances)
Target: No more than 5%per quarter in a year
0.1
0.5
1.6 1.3 1.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method Total cost of Change Orders (not including allowances)/
Total original construction contract amount (not including allowances)
19
Mark-Out Accuracy
Target: No less than 100%mark-out accuracy per quarter in a year
100 100 100 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
# of mark-outs performed without an at-fault hit, which is damage to
a District facility that results from a missing or erroneous mark-
out/Total # of mark-outs performed
Measurement Method
*FY15 –FY17 results are 100%
20Project Closeout Time
Target: No more than a 45 day average per quarter in a year
0
64.5
21
131
70.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
# of days between NOSC and NOC for all construction
projects within the quarter/# of construction projects within the
quarter
Measurement Method
21Annual Recycled Water Site Inspections
Target: 100%of recycled sites inspected in a year
(There are 153 recycled water use sites scheduled for FY18)
Cumulative % of recycled sites inspected per
quarter of those required by DEH
28.75
54.90
77.12
100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
22Recycled Water Shutdown Testing
Target: No less than 90%of recycled site shut down tests in a year
(There are 39 recycled water use sites due for shutdown in FY18)
Cumulative % of recycled site shutdown tests performed per year
compared to those scheduled
28
49
69
86 86
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
23
Finance
24
# of all calls answered/ # of all calls received during
a quarter
Answer Rate
Target: No less than 97%average answer rate per quarter in a year
97.82
97.27
98.20
98.66
98.00
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
25
Total operations O&M costs/ # of accounts
O&M Cost Per Account
Target: Less than $561.00 per account in a single year
(Target is based on Operating Budget)
Measurement Method
117
265
392
549 549
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
26
# of correct bills during the reporting period/ # of total bills
during the reporting period
Billing Accuracy
Target: No less than 99.8%billing accuracy per quarter in a year
99.97 99.99 99.99 99.98 99.98
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
27Overtime Percentage
Target: Less than 100%of budgeted overtime per quarter in a year
(target is based on Operating Budget; FY18 Overtime Budget is $133,800)
Actual overtime costs (including comp time)/
Budgeted overtime costs
103
117
91 89
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
28Sewer Rate Ranking
Target: Bottom 50 percentile for the 28 sewer service providers in San Diego
(Otay ranks 6 out of 28 sewer service providers)
6 6
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Otay ranking for the average bill for sewer/ # of
sewer agenciesMeasurement Method
29Water Rate Ranking
Target: Bottom 50 percentile for the 22 member agencies in San Diego
(Otay ranks 3 out of 22 member agencies)
Otay ranking for the average water bill among
CWA member agencies
3 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
30Debt Coverage Ratio
Target: Above 150%to have sufficient debt coverage
(This is measured at year end)
Qualified net operating revenues/debt service
requirements (measured at year end)
200 200
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
31Reserve Level
Target: Equal or exceed 85%
(This is measured at year end)
# of reserve funds that meet or exceed fund
target levels/ Total # of reserve funds
100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
32Percent of Customers Paying Bills Electronically
Target: No less than 75%per quarter in a year
# of customers paying bills electronically/ Total
# of customersMeasurement Method
76.95 76.78 76.74 77.75 77.05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
33Distribution System Loss
Target: Less than 5%of unaccounted water loss per quarter in a year
100 [volume purchased (from CWA) –(volume sold (to customers)
+ volume used District usage)] / volume purchased (from CWA))Measurement Method
4.1 4 3.5 3.3 3.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
34
Operations
35Technical Quality Complaint (AWWA)
Target: No more than 9 complaints
per 1000 customer accounts in a year
1000 (# of technical quality complaints per quarter)/#
of active customer accounts per reporting period
AW
W
A
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
Measurement Method
1.49 1.19 0.79 0.75
4.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target AWWA 2016 2017 2018
AW
W
A
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
36Planned Potable Water Maintenance Ratio in $
Target: 66% or greater of all labor dollars spent on preventative maintenance
per quarter in a year
Total planned maintenance cost/ Total
maintenance costMeasurement Method
72 72 74
72 72
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
37
Total planned maintenance costs/Total
maintenance costs
Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $
Target: 70%or greater of all labor spent on preventative maintenance
per quarter in a year
Measurement Method
70
64
79 84
74
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
38Planned Wastewater Maintenance Ratio in $
Target: 77% or greater of all labor dollars spent on preventative maintenance
per quarter in a year
Total planned maintenance cost/Total
maintenance costMeasurement Method
67.72
96.38
84.65 83.33 82.47
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
39Direct Cost of Treatment Per MGD
Target: No more than $1050 per MG spent on wastewater treatment per quarter in a single year
(Targets each quarter will vary based on high and low demand times)
Total O&M costs directly attributable to
sewer treatment/ Total volume in MGMeasurement Method
1238.54
1573.51
1049.65 956.96
1165.82
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
40O&M Cost Per MG Processed of Wastewater
Target: No more than $1925 per MG spent on O&M for wastewater treatment in a year
(Targets each quarter will vary based on high and low demand times)
Total O&M cost/ MGP
FYTD O&M Cost = (Power Cost) + (Staff Cost) +
(Equipment Cost) / FYTP MGP
Measurement Method
1978.39
1825.90
1171.80
1309.21
1534.73
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
41Leak Detection Program
Target: Perform leak detection on
20%of potable distribution system
%of potable distribution pipelines surveyed. The calculation is
miles of pipe surveyed divided by total miles of pipe times 100.
20 20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q3 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
Measurement Method
*FY15 –FY16 results are 20%
42Percent of PMs Completed –Fleet Maintenance
Target: No less than 90%of scheduled PM’s completed
per quarter in a year
# of PM’s completed/ # of PM’s scheduled to
be completed Measurement Method
100 100 100 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
Target 2016 2017 2018
*FY16 &FY17 results are 100%
43Percent of PMs Completed –Reclamation Plant
Target: No less than 90%of scheduled PM’s completed
per quarter in a year
# of PM’s completed/ # of PM’s scheduled
to be completed in a reporting period Measurement Method
100
95
100
97 98
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
44Percent of PMs Completed –Pump/Electric Section
Target: No less than 90%of scheduled PM’s completed
per quarter in a year
# of PM’s completed/ # of PM’s scheduled to
be completed in a reporting periodMeasurement Method
100 100 100 100 100
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
*FY15 –FY17 results are 100%
45System Valve Exercising Program
Target: Exercise 770 valves per quarter or
3080 valves by the end of fiscal year
Actual number of valves exercised in
the reporting periodMeasurement Method
974
775 859 797
3405
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
46Potable Water Distribution System Integrity
Target: No more than 16 leaks and breaks
per 100 miles of distribution piping in a year
100 (annual total number of leaks + annual total
number of breaks) / total miles of distribution pipingMeasurement Method
3.26
1.82 2.01
2.39
9.50
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
47Potable Water Compliance Rate (AWWA)
Target: No less than 100%of all health related drinking
water standards each quarter in a year
100 (# of days the primary health regulations
are met)/ # of days in the reporting periodMeasurement Method
100 100 100 100 100
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target AWWA 2016 2017 2018
AW
W
A
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
*FY15 –FY17 results are 100%
48Collection System Integrity (AWWA)
Target: No more than 3.6 system failures
per 100 miles of collection system pipeline in a year
100 (total number of collection system failures during the
year) / total miles of collection system pipingMeasurement Method
0 0 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target AWWA 2016 2017 2018
*FY15 –FY16 had 0 system failures
AW
W
A
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
49Recycled Water System Integrity
Target: No more than 6.6 leaks or breaks per 100 miles
of recycled distribution system in a year
(100 x # of leaks or breaks)/ # of miles of
distribution systemMeasurement Method
0.89
0
0.89 0.89
2.67
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
50Sewer Overflow Rate (AWWA)
Target: 0 overflows per quarter in a year
100 (total number of sewer overflows during the reporting
period) / total miles of pipe in the sewage collection systemMeasurement Method
0 0 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target AWWA 2016 2017 2018
AW
W
A
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
*FY 15 –FY 16 results are 0 overflows
51Emergency Facility Power Testing
Target: 100%of the District’s facilities tested per year
(The District currently has 34 powered ready facilities)
Number of facilities tested / total facilities Measurement Method
29
47
76
106
106
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
52Tank Inspection and Cleaning
Annual Target: Clean and inspect 7 tanks or more per year
Number of tanks cleaned and inspectedMeasurement Method
1
4
2
0
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
53Main Flushing and Fire Hydrant Maintenance
Target: 215 or more mains flushed and fire hydrants maintained in a single year
(The target of 215 is comprised of 165 hydrants and 50 mains)
Number of mains flushed and hydrants
maintainedMeasurement Method
50 141 131 121
443
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
54Critical Valve Exercising
Target: Exercise 631 identified critical valves in a year
Number of critical valves exercised in a
reporting periodMeasurement Method
625
6 2 0
633
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Target 2016 2017 2018
55
Next Steps
56
1 Kick-off of the 2019-2022 Strategic Plan
Track deliverables and metrics with the new ESM+ cloud-
based strategic performance solution2