otay water district draft initial study and negative ... · 1.3 project description the vista...

Otay Water District

Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration

Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project

CIP 2574 & CIP 2625

August 2, 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 – August 2018 Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations.…………………………………………………………………….…………………………..………..….…iii

List of Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….…...v

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 – August 2018 Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement ii

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 – August 2018 Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement iii

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 – August 2018 Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement iv

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 – August 2018 Vista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement v

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:\WO

RKIN

G\CI

P P25

74 12

-Inch

PL R

eplac

emen

t, 978

Zone

, Vist

a Vere

da\G

raphic

s\Exh

ibits-

Figure

s\Env

ironm

ental

\Reg

ional

Loca

tion M

ap.m

xd

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 REPLACEMENT0 6.53.25

Miles

FIGURE 1

Proposed ProjectVISTA VEREDA AND HIDDEN MESA ROADF

P:\

WO

RK

ING

\CIP

P25

74

12

-In

ch

PL R

ep

lace

me

nt,

97

8 Z

on

e,

Vis

ta V

ere

da

\Gra

ph

ics\E

xh

ibits-F

igu

res\E

nvir

on

me

nta

l\V

ista

Ve

red

a &

Hid

de

n M

esa

Ro

ad

.mxd

Existing Water Line Alignment

Proposed Water Line Alignment

HIDDEN MESARD

VISTA GRANDE

RD

VIST

A

VERE

DA

WATER LINE REPLACEMENT0 250125

Feet

FIGURE 2


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.


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.


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).

?.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least

one impact that is a "Potentially Significant lmpact" as indicated by the checklíst on the following pages.

_ Agriculture and ForestryLl Resources

n cultural Resources

Hazards & Hazardous

E M.t"r¡rlt

n vl¡neral Resources

n prui. services

Mandatory Findings of! Transportation/Traffic n Utititi.rTService Systems n Significance

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

[l t tinO that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

fl t tinO that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, therewill 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.

f t tinO that the proposed project MAY have a signifícant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

fl t tinO that the proposed project MAY have a "potentíally significant impact" or "potentially signifícant

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.

f] t tinO that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envíronment, 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 thatearlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon

the proposed project, nothing further is required.

J ¿---C-a?,<ts.:v¡ -Ytv'.1 -

I Aesthetics

I BiologicalResources

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions

tr Land Use / Planning

tr Population / Housing

n altQuality

I Geology/Soils

Hydrology / Water

n Quality

E ruoise

E Recreation

Date

(t*nv Vlzåa r Ðìz-I:.i a*Sigìãture -

ð-I -ì<a (r¡ht vn - ßa,vò

Printed Name For I

Negative DeclarationVista Vereda & Hidden Mesa Rd. Water Line Replacement 5

August 2018Otay Water District


3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/qh_lesa.aspx



http://frap.fire.ca.gov/assessment/2010/details

http://calfire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/resource_mgt_forestryassistance_legacy

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/protocols/usforest/usforestprojects_2014.htm

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/county_info.aspx



http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml




(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.





Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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

http://www.capcoa.org/

http://www.capcoa.org/


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


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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?

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html


https://www.fws.gov/endangered/





https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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,

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21755

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations.pdf

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations.pdf


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf


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.


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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?

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118.cfm


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.


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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.


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.



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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


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.


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

Appendix A

Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results

Helix Environmental

June 2018

of 2

Memorandum

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

7578 El Cajon Boulevard

La Mesa, CA 91942

[email protected]

619.462.1515 tel

619.462.0552 fax

www.helixepi.com

Date: June 21, 2018

To: Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd Otay Water District

Cc:

From: Victor Ortiz, Hunter Stapp HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Subject: Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results

HELIX Proj. No.: OWD-05.06

Message:

Per your request, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has completed air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling for the Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project (Project). The Project involves the transfer of the transmission capability of approximately 2,500 linear feet of existing 12-inch water main adjacent to Vista Vereda Road in the Hillsdale area of San Diego County to 3,000linear feet of new 12-inch pipeline in Hidden Mesa Road, with the majority of the existing pipeline to beabandoned in place.

The Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs during construction. Construction emissions would include fugitive dust, exhaust from heavy construction equipment, and tailpipe emissions from vehicle trips associated with workers commuting to and from the site and trucks hauling material. Fugitive dust control measures, including watering exposed grading areas and unpaved roads and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, are incorporated into the project design.

Modeling was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of land development projects throughout the state of California. Model results for criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions are shown in Table 1, Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Emissions, and Table 2, Estimated GHG Construction Emissions, respectively.

http://www.helixepi.com/

of 2

Memorandum (cont.)

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

7578 El Cajon Boulevard

La Mesa, CA 91942

619.462.1515 tel

619.462.0552 fax

www.helixepi.com

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 Source: CalEEMod (output data is attached)

Table 2 ESTIMATED GHG CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Phase Emissions

(MT CO2e/year)

Annual Emissions 332

Amortized Construction Emissions1 11

Screening Threshold2 900

Significant Impact? No Source: CalEEMod (output data is attached) 1 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with County

guidance. 2 Screening threshold from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

(CAPCOA).

As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions from Project construction would not exceed the applicable thresholds. (Enclosures)

Project Characteristics -

Land Use - Impact area of project.

Construction Phase -

Off-road Equipment -

Trips and VMT - Trip data provided.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

Area Coating - No operational emissions.

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 0.63 27,500.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

13

Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.6 40

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric

2019Operational Year

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

720.49 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement ProjectSan Diego County, Winter

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/18/2018 9:45 AMPage 1 of 13

Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project - San Diego County, Winter

2.0 Emissions Summary

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 13750 0

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 41250 0

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 12

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 10

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/21/2019 10/31/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/15/2019 1/2/2019

tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 27,500.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.63

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38




tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 434.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 10.00



2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year lb/day lb/day

2019 2.2928 21.2594 21.3786 0.0343 0.1171 1.3049 1.4220 0.0314 1.2371 1.2684 0.0000 3,353.1629

3,353.1629

0.6963 0.0000 3,370.5697

Maximum 2.2928 21.2594 21.3786 0.0343 0.1171 1.3049 1.4220 0.0314 1.2371 1.2684 0.0000 3,353.1629

3,353.1629

0.6963 0.0000 3,370.5697

Unmitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year lb/day lb/day

2019 2.2928 21.2594 21.3786 0.0343 0.1171 1.3049 1.4220 0.0314 1.2371 1.2684 0.0000 3,353.1629

3,353.1629

0.6963 0.0000 3,370.5697

Maximum 2.2928 21.2594 21.3786 0.0343 0.1171 1.3049 1.4220 0.0314 1.2371 1.2684 0.0000 3,353.1629

3,353.1629

0.6963 0.0000 3,370.5697

Mitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



2.2 Overall Operational


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e-004

Unmitigated Operational


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e-004

Mitigated Operational



3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Pipeline Replacement Trenching 1/2/2019 10/31/2019 5 217

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Pipeline Replacement Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48

Pipeline Replacement Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Pipeline Replacement Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Pipeline Replacement Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Pipeline Replacement Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37

Pipeline Replacement Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46

Pipeline Replacement Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0



3.2 Pipeline Replacement - 2019


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 2.2305 20.6217 20.9472 0.0319 1.3020 1.3020 1.2343 1.2343 3,101.2898

3,101.2898

0.6778 3,118.2338

Total 2.2305 20.6217 20.9472 0.0319 1.3020 1.3020 1.2343 1.2343 3,101.2898

3,101.2898

0.6778 3,118.2338

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area

Water Unpaved Roads

Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Vehicle Class

Hauling Vehicle Class

Pipeline Replacement 8 10.00 0.00 434.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0179 0.6069 0.1390 1.5600e-003

0.0350 2.3200e-003

0.0373 9.5800e-003

2.2200e-003

0.0118 170.1818 170.1818 0.0159 170.5786

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0444 0.0308 0.2924 8.2000e-004

0.0822 5.9000e-004

0.0827 0.0218 5.4000e-004

0.0223 81.6914 81.6914 2.6400e-003

81.7573

Total 0.0623 0.6377 0.4314 2.3800e-003

0.1171 2.9100e-003

0.1200 0.0314 2.7600e-003

0.0341 251.8731 251.8731 0.0185 252.3359

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 2.2305 20.6217 20.9472 0.0319 1.3020 1.3020 1.2343 1.2343 0.0000 3,101.2898

3,101.2898

0.6778 3,118.2338

Total 2.2305 20.6217 20.9472 0.0319 1.3020 1.3020 1.2343 1.2343 0.0000 3,101.2898

3,101.2898

0.6778 3,118.2338

Mitigated Construction On-Site



4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0179 0.6069 0.1390 1.5600e-003

0.0350 2.3200e-003

0.0373 9.5800e-003

2.2200e-003

0.0118 170.1818 170.1818 0.0159 170.5786

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0444 0.0308 0.2924 8.2000e-004

0.0822 5.9000e-004

0.0827 0.0218 5.4000e-004

0.0223 81.6914 81.6914 2.6400e-003

81.7573

Total 0.0623 0.6377 0.4314 2.3800e-003

0.1171 2.9100e-003

0.1200 0.0314 2.7600e-003

0.0341 251.8731 251.8731 0.0185 252.3359

Mitigated Construction Off-Site




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

User Defined Industrial 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

User Defined Industrial 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357

Historical Energy Use: N




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

User Defined Industrial

0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy



6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Unmitigated 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004


NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated



7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.5885 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 1.0000e-005

0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Total 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Unmitigated


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory lb/day lb/day


0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.5885 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 1.0000e-005

0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Total 0.5885 0.0000 1.0000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e-004

2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.3000e-004

Mitigated



8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

11.0 Vegetation

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number



Project Characteristics -

Land Use - Impact area of project.

Construction Phase -

Off-road Equipment -

Trips and VMT - Trip data provided.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

Area Coating - No operational emissions.

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 0.63 27,500.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

13

Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.6 40

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric

2019Operational Year

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

720.49 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement ProjectSan Diego County, Annual


Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement Project - San Diego County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 13750 0

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 41250 0

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 12

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 10

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/21/2019 10/31/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/15/2019 1/2/2019

tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 27,500.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.63





tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 434.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 10.00



2.1 Overall Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year tons/yr MT/yr

2019 0.2482 2.3072 2.3190 3.7200e-003

0.0124 0.1416 0.1540 3.3300e-003

0.1342 0.1376 0.0000 330.2969 330.2969 0.0685 0.0000 332.0095

Maximum 0.2482 2.3072 2.3190 3.7200e-003

0.0124 0.1416 0.1540 3.3300e-003

0.1342 0.1376 0.0000 330.2969 330.2969 0.0685 0.0000 332.0095

Unmitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year tons/yr MT/yr

2019 0.2482 2.3072 2.3190 3.7200e-003

0.0124 0.1416 0.1540 3.3300e-003

0.1342 0.1376 0.0000 330.2966 330.2966 0.0685 0.0000 332.0092

Maximum 0.2482 2.3072 2.3190 3.7200e-003

0.0124 0.1416 0.1540 3.3300e-003

0.1342 0.1376 0.0000 330.2966 330.2966 0.0685 0.0000 332.0092

Mitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Unmitigated Operational

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

1 1-2-2019 4-1-2019 0.7570 0.7570

2 4-2-2019 7-1-2019 0.7650 0.7650

3 7-2-2019 9-30-2019 0.7650 0.7650

Highest 0.7650 0.7650





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Pipeline Replacement Trenching 1/2/2019 10/31/2019 5 217


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0



3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area

Water Unpaved Roads

Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Pipeline Replacement Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48

Pipeline Replacement Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Pipeline Replacement Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Pipeline Replacement Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Pipeline Replacement Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37

Pipeline Replacement Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46

Pipeline Replacement Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Vehicle Class

Hauling Vehicle Class

Pipeline Replacement 8 10.00 0.00 434.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.2420 2.2375 2.2728 3.4600e-003

0.1413 0.1413 0.1339 0.1339 0.0000 305.2585 305.2585 0.0667 0.0000 306.9263

Total 0.2420 2.2375 2.2728 3.4600e-003

0.1413 0.1413 0.1339 0.1339 0.0000 305.2585 305.2585 0.0667 0.0000 306.9263

Unmitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 1.9100e-003

0.0665 0.0145 1.7000e-004

3.7100e-003

2.5000e-004

3.9600e-003

1.0200e-003

2.4000e-004

1.2600e-003

0.0000 16.9172 16.9172 1.5300e-003

0.0000 16.9555

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.2800e-003

3.2800e-003

0.0318 9.0000e-005

8.7000e-003

6.0000e-005

8.7600e-003

2.3100e-003

6.0000e-005

2.3700e-003

0.0000 8.1212 8.1212 2.6000e-004

0.0000 8.1277

Total 6.1900e-003

0.0698 0.0463 2.6000e-004

0.0124 3.1000e-004

0.0127 3.3300e-003

3.0000e-004

3.6300e-003

0.0000 25.0384 25.0384 1.7900e-003

0.0000 25.0832

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site



4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.2420 2.2375 2.2728 3.4600e-003

0.1413 0.1413 0.1339 0.1339 0.0000 305.2582 305.2582 0.0667 0.0000 306.9260

Total 0.2420 2.2375 2.2728 3.4600e-003

0.1413 0.1413 0.1339 0.1339 0.0000 305.2582 305.2582 0.0667 0.0000 306.9260

Mitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 1.9100e-003

0.0665 0.0145 1.7000e-004

3.7100e-003

2.5000e-004

3.9600e-003

1.0200e-003

2.4000e-004

1.2600e-003

0.0000 16.9172 16.9172 1.5300e-003

0.0000 16.9555

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.2800e-003

3.2800e-003

0.0318 9.0000e-005

8.7000e-003

6.0000e-005

8.7600e-003

2.3100e-003

6.0000e-005

2.3700e-003

0.0000 8.1212 8.1212 2.6000e-004

0.0000 8.1277

Total 6.1900e-003

0.0698 0.0463 2.6000e-004

0.0124 3.1000e-004

0.0127 3.3300e-003

3.0000e-004

3.6300e-003

0.0000 25.0384 25.0384 1.7900e-003

0.0000 25.0832

Mitigated Construction Off-Site




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

User Defined Industrial 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

User Defined Industrial 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357



5.0 Energy Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Electricity Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Electricity Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Historical Energy Use: N




NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated



6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Electricity Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated

Electricity Use


Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Unmitigated 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.1074 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Total 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Unmitigated



7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.1074 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Total 0.1074 0.0000 1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-005

Mitigated




Category MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Outdoor Use


Land Use Mgal MT/yr


0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated



8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Outdoor Use


Land Use Mgal MT/yr


0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail


MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Category/Year



8.2 Waste by Land Use

Waste Disposed


Land Use tons MT/yr


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated

Waste Disposed


Land Use tons MT/yr


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type



11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number



Appendix B

Cultural Resources Review

of the


ICF

June 2018

525 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA +1.858.578.8964 +1.844.545.2301 fax icf.com

Memorandum

To: LisaCoburn‐BoydOtayWaterDistrict2554SweetwaterSpringsBlvdSpringValley,CA91978

From: KarolinaChmielArchaeologistICF525BSt.Suite1700SanDiegoCA,92101

Date: June29,2018

Re: Cultural Resources Review of the Vista Vereda Pipeline Replacement Project

OtayWaterDistrict(OWD)ispreparinganegativedeclarationfortheVistaVeredaPipelineReplacementProject(Project)locatedinElCajon,California.Aspartoftheenvironmentalprocess,OWDretainedICFtoperformaculturalresourcesrecordsearchanddesktopreviewforpotentialculturalresourceslocatedwithintheProjectarea.

Project Description

TheProjectconsistsofreplacinganexistingpipelinewithinanexistingneighborhoodinElCajon,CA.Themajorityofthenewpipelinewillbelocatedinthesametrenchastheexistingpipeline.Asmallsegmentofthenewpipelinewillbeplacedthreefeetawayfromtheexistingpipelineinashallowtrench.Thenewpipelinemeasures2inchesindiameter.TheProjectislocatedonVistaVeredafromVistaGrandeRoadtoprivatepropertiesjustnorthofVeredaCourt,inElCajon,California(Figure1).Theprojectmeasuresjustoveraquarter‐mileinlength.

Record Search and Desktop Review Results

ICFarchaeologistNaraCoxconductedarecordsearchattheSouthCoastInformationCenter(SCIC),locatedontheSanDiegoStateUniversitycampusonJune26,2018.TheSCICisthebranchoftheCaliforniaHistoricalResourcesInformationSystem(CHRIS)thathousesinformationonhistoricalresourcesinSanDiegoandImperialCounties.CHRISisarepositoryofinformationonrecordedhistoricalresources,amongotherhistoricalinformation,andismaintainedbytheCaliforniaOfficeofHistoricPreservation.Theobjectiveoftherequestwastoidentifystudiesandarchaeologicalandbuilt‐environmentresourcesinorwithinquarter‐mileoftheProjectarea.

Lisa Coburn‐Boyd June 29, 2018 Page 2 of 3

TherecordsearchrevealedthatnopreviouslyrecordedculturalresourceshavebeenidentifiedwithintheProjectarea.Twopreviouslyidentifiedculturalresources(CA‐SDI‐5671andCA‐SDI‐12174H)wererecordedwithinthequarter‐milebufferoftheProject.CA‐SDI‐5671consistedofaprehistoricsurfacelithicscatterandfoodprocessingsite.Theresourcewaslastupdatedin1987.CA‐SDI‐12174Hwasrecordedashistoricremnantsofaroad,cobblewall,corralandrockembankmentassociatedwitha1920speriodhouse.Theresourcewaslastupdatedin1991anddescribedashighlydisturbed.Therecordsearchalsorevealedthatsixstudieshaveoccurredwithinthequarter‐milebufferbutnoarchaeologicalsurveysoccurredwithintheProjectarea.

ICFarchaeologistKarolinaChmielconductedadesktopreviewofpubliclyavailablehistoricmapsandaerialstoassesstheProjectareaforarchaeologicalsensitivity.Historicaerialsrevealedthatsometimebetween1971and1980,portionsoftheareaweredevelopedforhousing(NETR1971,1980).NodevelopmentoccurredwithintheProjectareapriorto1971.Sometimeafter1980andpriorto1989,theentireProjectareawasdevelopedforhousing(NETR1989).Thehousingdevelopmentincludinggradingtounknowndepths.

Generally,areaswithhighprehistoricarchaeologicalsensitivityconsistofbaseoffoothills,valleys,andareasnearwatersourcessuchasadrainageorcreek.Areviewoftopographicmapsbetween1903and1975(USGS1903,1975)indicatesthattheProjectareaissituatedongentlyslopingsouthfacinghillswithnoimmediatewatersourcenearby.Therefore,thisareaisnotconsideredtohavehighsensitivityforprehistoricarchaeologicalresources.

Management Recommendations

ResultsoftherecordsearchindicatedthatnopreviouslyidentifiedculturalresourcesarelocatedwithintheProjectarea.Basedonreviewoftopographicmaps,theprojectareaisnotlocatednearwaterorfeaturesthathavehighpotentialforprehistoricarchaeologicalresources.Nodevelopmentoccurredpriorto1971inthearea,therefore,theProjectareahaslowpotentialforhistoricarchaeologicalresources.Additionally,theProjectareahasbeenpreviouslygradedforhousinganddisturbedbytheinstallationoftheoriginalpipeline.Overall,theProjecthaslowpotentialtodisturbintactculturalresources.Givenallthefactorsdiscussedabove,ICFisnotrecommendingarchaeologicalmonitoringduringconstructionoftheProject.

Althoughthereisnoevidencetosuggestthepresenceofhumanremains,intheunlikelyeventthathumanremainsareencounteredduringgrounddisturbingactivities,allworkwillceaseandtherequirementsofCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode§7050.5(a)(b)shallbefollowedandthecountycoronerwillbecontacted.ShouldtheremainsbeidentifiedasNativeAmerican,thecoronerwillcontacttheNAHCwithin24hoursandtheNativeAmericanHeritageCommissionwilldesignateaMostLikelyDescendentwithin48hours.TheMLDandOWDwillworktogethertodetermineappropriatetreatmentofthehumanremains.

Sincerely,

Lisa Coburn‐Boyd June 29, 2018 Page 3 of 3

KarolinaChmiel,MA

ICFArchaeologist

Attachments:Figure1Projectlocation

References:

NETR(NationalEnvironmentalTitleResearch,LLC1971AerialofProjectarea.Accessedat:historicaerials.com1980AerialofProjectarea.Accessedat:historicaerials.com1989AerialofProjectarea.Accessedat:historicaerials.com

USGS1903ElCajon15‐minutetopographicmap.1:62500scale.1975ElCajon7.5‐minutetopographicmap.1:2400scale.

Figure 1Project Location

OWD Vista Vereda

\\PDC

CITR

DSGI

S1\Sa

n Dieg

o\proj

ects\

otay_

water

_dist

rict\V

ista_

Verde

_Cult

ural\m

apdo

c\Rec

ord_S

earch

.mxd

Date

: 6/29

/2018

195

66

±Source: ESRI Imagery

0 500

Feet

Project Area

Appendix C

Geotechnical Evaluation


Ninyo & Moore

December 2017

Geotechnical EvaluationVista Vereda Water Line Replacement

El Cajon, California

Otay Water District2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard I Spring Valley, California 91978

December 27,2017 | Project No. 107952011

C

Geotechnical I Envrronmental I Constructron lnspectron & Testrng I Forensrc Engrneerrng & Expert Witness

Geophysrcs I Engineenng Geology I Laboratory Testrng I lndustrral Hygrene Occupatronal Safety I Arr Quality I GIS

Nrogo\4[r¡$reì{f )l(r;lrllli:ilr ri irl! Itlilrl[:f ì1il. S'rr)lü:¡rs .,\)'ìSilrl¡rll:

I{¡ogoc.¡$ssreGool€chnlcel t Eny¡ronmontâl Scloncor Conrúltanlg

Geotechn ical Eval uationVista Vereda Water Line ReplacementEl Cajon, California

Mr. Stephen Beppler, PEOtay Water District2254 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard I Spring Valley, California 91978

December 27,20'17 | Project No. 107952011

ørøf

Jeffrey T. Kent, PE, GESenior Engineer

CLHJTIIGTF/gg

Gregory T. Farrand, PG, CEGPrincipal Geologist

Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)

T.

no¡i17 tù

5710 Rulfin Road I San Diego, California 92123 | p,858,576,1000 | www,ninyoandmoore.com

1

2

3

4

5

5.1

5,2

5.3

6

6.1

6.2

7

I8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

SGOPE OF SERVICES 1

SITE AND PROJECT DESGRIPTION 1

SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2

GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2

Regional Geologic Setting 2

Site Geology 3

5.2.1 Fiil 3

5.2.2 Granitic Rock 3

Groundwater 4

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4

Faulting and Seismicity 4

6.1.1 Surface Ground Rupture 5

6.1.2 Ground Motion 5

Landsliding 6

CONCLUSIONS 6

RECOMMENDATIONS 7

Earthwork 7

8.1.1 Site Preparation 7

8.1.2 Excavation Characteristics 7

8.1.3 Temporary Excavations and Shoring I8.1.4 Excavation Bottom Stability I8.1.5 Construction Dewatering I8.1.6 Modulus of Soil Reaction 10

8.1.7 Pipe and Trench Zone Backfill Materials 10

8.1.8 Backfill Placement and Compaction 11

Trenchless Piping lnstallation 11

Lateral Pressures for Thrust Blocks and Jacking 11

Flexible Pavement Reconstruction 12

Soil Gorrosivity 12

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | December 27, 2017

8.6

8.7

8.8

It0

Concrete Placement

Pre-Construction Conference

Plan Review and Construction Observation

LIMITATIONS

REFERENCES

13

13

13

14

16

5

10

12

TABLES1 - PrincipalActive Faults

2 - Pipe and Trench Zone Recommended Gradation

3 - Recommended Preliminary Pavement Sections

FIGURES

1 - Alignment Location

2 - Boring Locations

3 - Fault Locations

4 - Geology

5 - Lateral Earth Pressures for Braced Excavation

6 - Thrust Block Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram

APPENDICESA - Boring Logs

B - Laboratory Testing

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | December 27, 2017

I INTRODUGTION

ln accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the water

line replacement project located along Msta Vereda, Hidden Mesa Road, and Hidden Mesa Trail in

El Cajon, California (Figure 1). This report presents our findings and conclusions regarding the

geotechnical conditions at the subject alignment and our recommendations for the design and

construction of this project.

2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our scope of services included the following:

Reviewing background information including available topographic maps, geologic data, faultmaps, and aerial photographs.

a

a

a

Obtaining an excavation permit from the County of San Diego Department of Public Works.

Siting and staking of the boring locations for utility clearance by Underground ServiceAlert (USA).

Providing trafüc control measures during the performance of our subsurface exploration.

Performing a subsurface exploration program consisting of the drilling, logging, and sampling ofnine exploratory borings. The borings were logged and sampled in the field by Ninyo & Moorepersonnel. Bulk and in-place soil samples were collected from the borings and transported toour in-house laboratory for testing.

Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on representative soil samples to evaluategeotechnical characteristics and design parameters.

Performing geotechnical analysis of the data obtained from our site reconnaissance,subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing.

Preparing this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regardingthe geotechnical design and construction of the project.

3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project alignment is situated within several public and private roadways including Hidden Mesa

Road, Hidden Mesa Trail, and Vista Vereda within El Cajon, California (Figure 1). The noted roadways

consist of asphalt concrete (AC) pavement surfaces through undulating hills and drainages. Surface

elevations along the project alignment generally range between approximately 625 feet to 815 feet

above mean sea level (MSL). Based on the provided proJect exhibits and discussion with the client,

we understand that the project will involve the installation of a new water pipeline in order to replace

the existing, aging water line. ln general, traditional cut-and-cover trenching techniques are anticipated

a

a

a

a

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | Decenber 27 ,2017

for the installation of the new water line. Additionally, trenchless technologies may be used in certain

areas of the project alignment, however specifics are not known at this time.

4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our subsurface exploration for the project was performed on November 2,2017, December 4,

and 5, 2017. The subsurface exploration program consisted of the drilling, logging, and

sampling of nine small-diameter borings (B-1 through B-9) to depths of up to approximately

11/zfeet. The borings were drilled using either a limited-access track-mounted drill rig or a

truck-mounted drill rig utilizing 6 and 8-inch-diameter solid stem augers. During the drilling

operations, the borings were logged and sampled by Ninyo & Moore personnel. Representative

bulk and in-place soil samples were obtained from within the borings. The samples were then

transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the

exploratory borings are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the borings are included in Appendix A.

Laboratory testing of representative soil samples included tests to evaluate in-situ moisture content

and dry density, gradation (sieve) analysis, Atterberg limits, shear strength, expansion index,

Modified Proctor density relationships, soil corrosivity, and R-value. Additionally, an outside

laboratory was used to evaluate sulfide content and redox potential of site soils. The results of our

in-situ moisture content and dry density tests are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The

remaining laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix B.

5 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our findings regarding regional and site geology and groundwater conditions are provided in the

following sections.

5.1 Regional Geologic Setting

The project alignment is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic

Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately

900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of

Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990; Harden, 2004). The province varies in width from

approximately 30 to 100 miles and generally consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic

metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern

California batholith. The portion of the province in eastern San Diego County that includes the

project area consists generally of Cretaceous-age granitic rocks.

2Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California I 10795201 1 | Decenber 27 , 2017

The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of suÞparallel faults and fault zones trending

roughly northwest. Several of these faults are considered to be active. The Elsinore, San Jacinto and

San Andreas faults are active fault systems located east of the project alignment and the Rose

Canyon, Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente faults are active faults located west

of the project alignment (Figure 3). Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within

this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of rightlateral, strike-slip movement. The Rose

Canyon Fault Zone, the nearest active fault system, has been mapped approximately 15.2 miles west

of the project site.

5.2 Site Geology

The results of our geologic reconnaissance and subsurface exploration indicate that the site is

generally underlain by fill and Cretaceous-age granitic rocks of the southern California batholith

(Todd, 2004) as shown on Figure 4. Generalized descriptions of the earth materials encountered

during our subsurface exploration are presented below. Additional descriptions of the materials

encountered in our exploratory borings are shown on the logs in Appendix A.

5.2.1 Fiil

Fill was encountered in our exploratory borings B-1 through B-9 at the ground surface or

underlying the AC pavements and extending to depths of up to approximately 10 feet. The

fill generally consisted of various shades of brown, dry to moist, loose to very dense, well

graded sand with silt and silty sand with cobbles.

5.2.2 Granitic Rock

Granitic rock was encountered in our exploratory borings B-1,B.-2 and 84 through B-9 underlying

fill materials and extending to the total depths explored of approximately 11% feet. As

encountered, the granitic rock generally consisted of reddish brown, brown, tan, gray, and black

medium- to coarse-grained, granitic rock that was weathered. Several outcrops of large granite

boulders were observed at the surface along the project alignment and the possibility of

subsurface core stones exists.

3Ninyo&Moore f VistaVeredaWaterLineReplacement,El Cajon,California 110795201 1 lDecenber27,2017

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings. Due to the site topography, presence

of existing drainages that cross the project alignment, and the presence of existing underground

utility trench lines, zones of seepage and perched water conditions should be anticipated.

Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography,

subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation practices, groundwater pumping, and other factors which

may not have been evident at the time of our field evaluation.

6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

ln general, hazards associated with seismic activity include ground surface rupture, strong ground

motion, liquefaction, and landslides. These considerations are discussed in the following sections.

6.1 Faulting and Seismicity

The project alignment is considered to be within a seismically active area. Based on our review of

the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as our geologic field

reconnaissance, the subject alignment is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults

(i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and

2,000,000 years, respectively). Major known active faults in the region consist generally of en-

echelon, northwest-striking, right-lateral, strike-slip faults. These include the Rose Canyon,

Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente faults, located to the west of the project

alignment, and the Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas faults, located to the east of the project

alignment. The locations of these faults are shown on Figure 4.

Based on published geologic data, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the closest active fault to the

site, and is mapped approximately 15.2 miles west of the site. A rupture along this fault zone is

capable of generating a maximum moment magnitude (M."") 6.9 earthquake (USGS, 2008).

The project alignment is not located within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies

Zone for earthquake faults. Table 1 lists selected principal known active faults that may affect

the subject site and the maximum moment magnitude as published by the United States

Geological Survey (USGS, 2008). The approximate faultto-site distances were calculated using

the USGS fault parameters web-based design tool (USGS, 2008).

4Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | December 27, 2017

ApproximateFault-to-Site Distance

miles (kilometers)

Maximum MomentMagnitude

(Mmax)

Table I - Principal Active Faults

Fault

Rose Canyon

Palos Verdes

Coronado Bank

Elsinore (Julian Segment)

Earthquake Valley

Elsinore (Coyote Mountain Segment)

Newport-lnglewood (Offshore Segment)

San Jacinto (Anza Segment)

San Jacinto (Superstition Mountain Segment)

Laguna Salada

15.2

26.5

26.5

29.3

33.6

36.3

40.1

57.5

58.5

60.0

(24.5)

(42.6)

(42.6\

(47.2)

(54.1)

(58.4)

(64.5)

(92.5)

(e4.1)

(e6.6)

6.9

7.3

7.4

7.4

6.8

6.9

7.3

6.7

7.1

7.3

The principal seismic hazards at the subject site are surface fault rupture and strong ground

mot¡on. Liquefaction is not a consideration for the project due to the shallow depth of granitic

rock at the site. A brief description of these hazards and the potential for their occurrences on

site are discussed below.

6.1.1 Surface Ground Rupture

Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconna¡ssance, no active

faults are known to cross the project site. The active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located

approximately 15.2 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, the probability of damage from

surface ground rupture is considered to be low. However, lurching or cracking of the ground

surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.

6.1.2 Ground Motion

The 2016 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum

Considered Earthquake (MCE$ ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate

seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. The MCEp ground motion

response accelerations are based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent

damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for

structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-

source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the

MCER for the project alignment was calculated as 0.399 using the United States Geological

Survey (USGS, 2017) seismic design tool (web-based).

5Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 10795201 1 | Decenber 27 , 2017

The 2016 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be evaluated,

where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEc) peak

ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance with the American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCE6 peak ground acceleration is

based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of

exceedance in 50 years. The MCE6 peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class

effects (PGAM) was calculated as 0.389 using the USGS (2017) seismic design tool that yielded

a mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration of 0.329 for the project alignment and a site

coefücient (Fpc¡) of 1.178 for Site Class C.

6.2 Landsliding

Based on our review of referenced geologic maps, literature and topographic maps, and

subsurface exploration, landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were not noted

underlying the project alignment. The potential for significant large-scale slope instabilig along

the project alignment is not a design consideration.

7 GONCLUSIONS

Based on our review of the referenced background data, geologic field reconnaissance, subsurface

exploration, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed project is

feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Geotechnical considerations include the following:

Based on the results of our background review and subsurface exploration, the geologicunits that underlie the project alignment include fill and granitic rock.

The on-site fill should be generally excavatable with conventional heavy-duty earth movingconstruction equipment in generally good condition. However, difficult excavating conditionsshould be anticipated due to the presence of granitic rock.

Due to the presence of undocumented fill, caving and/or sloughing of excavations should beanticipated. The contractor should be prepared to address these conditions.

On-site excavations that encounter granitic rock may generate oversize materials that arenot suitable for reuse in trench backfill.

Materials derived from on-site excavations performed in existing fill materials are generallyconsidered unsuitable for reuse as backfill within the pipe zone and/or trench zone ascompared to the WaterAgencies'Standards (2011). However, excavations into granitic rockmay generate materials that are generally considered suitable for reuse as backfill withinthe pipe zone and/or trench zone as compared to the Water Agencies' Standards (2011),provided they are screened of oversize materials.

a

a

a

a

6Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California I 10795201 1 | December 27, 2017

a Based on the soil corrosivity testing presented in Appendix B, test results indicate the sitesoils are not considered corrosive based on American Concrete lnstitute (ACl) 318-14 andCaltrans (201 2) corrosion criteria.

No active faults are reported underlying or adjacent to the alignment. The active RoseCanyon fault has been mapped approximately 15.2 miles west of the project alignment.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

ïhe following sections include our geotechnical recommendations for the design of the

proposed project. These recommendations are based on our evaluation of the site geotechnical

conditions and our understanding of the planned construction.

8.1 Earthwork

ln general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented

in this report. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations

or guidelines presented herein.

8.1.1 Site Preparat¡on

Prior to performing site excavations, the project alignment should be cleared of vegetation,

surface obstructions, rubble and debris, abandoned utilities and foundations; and other

deleterious materials. Existing utilities within the project limits, if any, should be re-routed or

protected from damage by construction activities. Obstructions that extend below finish

grade, if any, should be removed and the resulting holes filled with compacted soils.

Materials generated from the clearing operations should be removed from the project site

and disposed of at a legal dumpsite.

8.1.2 ExcavationCharacteristics

Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the

results of our exploratory borings, our site observations, and our experience with similar

materials. ln our opinion, the existing fill are generally expected to be rippable with heavy-

duty trenching equipment. Additionally, due to the presence of undocumented fills, the

contractor should anticipate caving and/or sloughing of excavations.

a

7Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | Decenber 27 ,2017

Due to the presence of granitic rock, the contractor should expect to encounter difficulty

when performing the trench excavations along the project alignment. The contractor should

be prepared for heavy ripping conditions. Additionally, excavations into the granitic rock

may generate oversize materials.

8.1.3 Temporary Excavations and Shoring

For temporary excavations, we recommend that the following Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) soil classifications be used:

FiilGranitic Rock

Type CType B

Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should

be evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the OSHA

regulations. Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA

recommendations. For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding

personnel safety should be met using appropriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by

laying back the slopes to no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in fill or alluvium and

1:1 in granitic rock. Temporary excavations that encounter seepage may be shored or

stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of the seepage zone. Excavations

encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On-site safety of

personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.

ln areas with limited space for construction where temporary excavations may not be laid back at

the recommended slope inclination, a shoring system with bracing may be incorporated to stabilize

the excavation sidewalls during construction. The shoring system should be designed using the

magnitude and distribution of lateral earth pressures presented on Figure 5. The recommended

design earth pressures are based on the assumptions that (a) the shoring system is constructed

without raising the ground surface elevation behind the shoring, (b) that there are no surcharge

loads, such as soil stockpiles, construction materials, or vehicular traffc, and (c) that no loads act

above a 1:1 plane extending up and back from the base of the shoring system. For shoring

subjected to the above-mentioned surcharge loads, the contractor should include the efiect of

these loads on lateral earth pressures acting on the shoring wall.

INinyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | Decenber 27,2017

Settlement of the ground surface may occur behind the shoring wall during excavation. The

amount of settlement depends on the type of shoring system, the quality of contractor's

workmanship, and soil conditions. Settlement may cause distress to adjacent structures, if

present. To reduce the potential for distress to adjacent structures, we recommend that the

shoring system be designed to limit the ground settlement behind the shoring to Tzinch or less.

Possible causes of settlement that should be addressed include vibration during installation of

the sheet piling, excavation for construction, construction vibrations, dewatering, and removal of

the support system. We recommend that the potential settlement distress be evaluated

carefully by the contractor prior to construction.

The contractor should retain a qualified and experienced engineer to design the shoring

system. The shoring parameters presented in this report are for preliminary design purposes

and the contractor should evaluate the adequacy of these parameters and make appropriate

modifications for their design. We recommend that the contractor take appropriate measures to

protect workers. OSHA requirements pertaining to worker safety should be observed. We

further recommend that the construction methods provided herein be carefully evaluated by a

qualified specialty contractor priorto commencement of the construction.

8.1.4 Excavation Bottom Stability

Excavations bottoms that expose granitic rock are anticipated to be generally stable and

should provide suitable support to the proposed pipeline. Howeve¡ if unstable excavation

bottom conditions are exposed, they may be mitigated by overexcavating the excavation

bottom to suitable depths and replacing with a layer of compacted 3/a- to 17z-inch crushed

gravel encased in a woven geotextile (e.g., Mirafi@ 600X geotefile or an approved

equivalent). Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on

evaluation in the field by the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.

8.1.5 ConstructionDewatering

Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. However, existing

utility trench lines may act as conduits for perched water conditions. Where groundwater,

seepage, and/or perched water are encountered, dewatering measures during excavation

operations should be prepared by the contractor's engineer and reviewed by the design

engineer. Considerations for construction dewatering should include anticipated

drawdown, piping of soils, volume of pumping, potential for settlement, and groundwater

INinyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacemenl, El Cajon, California | 10795201 1 | December 27 , 2017

discharge. Disposal of groundwater should be performed in accordance with guidelines of

the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB).

8.1.6 Modulus of Soil Reaction

We anticipate some trenching will be used on this project. The modulus of soil reaction (E)

is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed at the sides of buried flexible

pipelines for the purpose of evaluating deflection caused by the weight of the backfill above

the pipe. For pipelines constructed in granular fill soils and granitic rock materials, we

recommend that a modulus of soil reaction of 1,600 pounds per square inch (psi) be used

for design for 0 to 5 feet deep excavations and 2,200 psi for excavations exceeding 10 feet

depth, provided that granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the pipe, as

recommended in this report.

8.1.7 Pipe and Trench Zone Backfill Materials

ln accordance with the Water Agencies' Standards (2011), we recommend that imported

granular material be used within the pipe and trench zones for pressurized piping. lmported

material should have a sand equivalent no less than 30 as evaluated by ASTM D 2419, a

coefficient of uniformity of 3 or greater, and should conform to the following gradation:

Table 2 - Pipe and Trench Zone Recommended Gradation

U.S. Standard Sieve Size I percent eassinj by Weight

25mm (1")

19mm (3/4")

4.75mm (No. a)

600um (No.30)

75um (No. 200)

100

90-100

50-95

25453-15

Native materials should not be used in the trench zone unless the native materials meet the

requirements above and specific written permission has been obtained from the District

Engineer. Based on the results of our laboratory testing, some materials generated from on-

site excavations may be suitable for reuse as trench zone backfill based on the guidelines

within the WaterAgencies' Standards (2011).

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 10795201 1 | Decenber 27 ,2017 10

8.1.8 Backfill Placement and Compaction

Trench backfill should be placed at or above the laboratory optimum moisture content and

compacted by mechanical methods in uniform horizontal lifts to a relative compaction of

90 percent as evaluated by the latest edition of ASTM D 1557. The upper 12 inches of

street subgrade and aggregate base materials beneath pavement areas should be

compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by the latest edition of

ASTM D 1557. The lift thickness of fill will depend on the type of compaction equipment

used, but generally should not exceed I inches in loose thickness. Successive lifts should

be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. Special care

should be taken to avoid pipe damage when compacting trench backfill above the pipe.

8.2 Trenchless Piping lnstallationWe anticipate that the rehabilitation will utilize open trenching. However, in the event that

trenchless piping installation methods (e.9., microtunneling and/or jack-and-bore methods) are

utilized, the following recommendations should be considered.

The materials encountered during our subsurface exploration included fill and granitic rock. The

contractor should anticipate a varying degree of drilling difficulty along the alignment. For

example, the loose fills may result in the loss of soil material at the drilling or casing head, while

drilling through granitic rock may result in excessive amounts of pipe friction and/or refusal.

Additionally, minor ground surface settlements may occur from the pipe jacking operations.

The contractor should provide means to reduce the surficial settlement and the effects on

surface improvements and adjacent underground utilities. We recommend that an

experienced specialty contractor be used for the microtunnel or jack-and-bore operations.

8.3 Lateral Pressures for Thrust Blocks and Jacking

Thrust restraint for buried pipelines and lateral pressures for jacking may be achieved by transferring

the thrust force to the soil outside the pipe through a thrust block. Thrust blocks may be designed

using the lateral passive earth pressures presented on Figure 6. Thrust blocks should be backfilled

with granular backfill material, compacted as outlined in this report.

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Ca¡on, California | 10795201 1 | Decenber 27,2017 11

8.4 FlexiblePavementReconstructionWe anticipate that trench excavations in existing pavement areas will involve resurfacing along

the trench alignment. ln general, trench resurfacing should be 1-inch thicker than the existing

pavement section in accordance with the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings (San Diego

Regional Standards Committee, 2012).

For the design of new pavement sections, we have used Traffic lndices of 5, 6.5, 7, and LAdditionally, based on the results of our laboratory testing, an R-value of 65 was also used in

the preliminary design of pavement sections. The preliminary recommended pavement sections

are presented in the following table:

Residential Collector

Light Collector

Community Collector

Major

5

6.5

7

8

3

3

3

4

5

I9

10

Table 3 - Recommended Preliminary Pavement Sections

Caltrans Class 2 AggregateBase (in)Asphalt Concrete (in)Design Traffic lndex Road Classification

Notes:Aspha¡t concrete ¡s Type A, Dense-graded Hot Mix Asphalt complying with Caltrans Stândard Specification 39-2 (2015)Class 2 Aggregate Base Complying with Caltrans Standard Specification 26-1.02 (2015).

lf traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re-evaluated.

Additionally, we recommended that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade and aggregate base

materials be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by the current

version of ASTM D 1557. Additionally, we recommend that AC materials be compacted to

95 percent relative compaction as compared to the laboratory evaluated Hveem density. We

recommend that the geotechnical consultant re-evaluate the pavement design, based on the R-

value of the subgrade material exposed at the time of construction.

8.5 Soil CorrosivityLaboratory testing was performed on representative samples of near-surface soils to evaluate

soil pH, electrical resistivity, water-soluble chloride content, and water-soluble sulfate content.

The soil pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in general accordance with California

Test (CT) 643. Chloride content tests were performed in general accordance with CI 422.

Sulfate testing was performed in general accordance with CT 417. The laboratory test results

are presented in Appendix B.

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | Decenber 27,2017 '12

The pH of the tested samples ranged from 6.5 lo 7.4. The electrical resistivities of the tested

samples ranged from approximately 1,700 to l,800ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm). The chloride

contents of the tested samples ranged from approximately 25 to 35 parts per million (ppm). The

sulfate contents of the tested samples ranged from approximately 0.005 to 0.017 percent by weight

(i.e., 50 to 170 ppm). Based on the laboratory test results, ACI 318, and Caltrans (2012) corrosion

criteria, the project alignment would not be classified as corrosive, which is defined as having earth

materials with an electrical resistivity of less than 1,000 ohm-cm, more than 500 ppm chlorides,

more than 0.10 percent sulfates (i.e., 1,000 ppm), and/or a pH of 5.5 or less.

Additionally, a soil sample was sent to an outside laboratory to evaluate oxidation-reduction (redox)

potential and sulfide content in accordance with American Water Works Association (A\AfuVA) C105

Standards. Testing indicated a redox potential of 150 millivolts and a negative reading forsulfides,

as presented in Appendix B.

8.6 Goncrete Placement

Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can

be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. As stated above, the soil

samples tested in this evaluation indicated water-soluble sulfate contents of approximately

0.005 and 0.017 percent by weight (i.e., approximately 50 and 170 ppm). According to ACI

318, the potential for sulfate attack is negligible for a water-soluble sulfate content of less than

0.10 percent by weight (i.e., less than 1,000 ppm) in soils. Due to the potential for variability of

soils, we recommend consideration be given to using Type llA/ cement for concrete structures

in contact with soil per ACI 318.

8.7 Pre-Construction Conference

We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading. The

owner or his representative, the civil engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should be in

attendance to discuss the plans, the project, and the proposed construction schedule.

8.8 Plan Review and Construction Observation

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of

observed conditions. lf conditions are found to vary from those described in this report, Ninyo &

Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations will be provided upon request. Ninyo &

Moore should review the final project drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 10795201 1 | December 27, 2017 13

construction. Ninyo & Moore should perform the needed observation and testing services during

construction operations.

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore

will provide additional geotechnical evaluations during final design of the project and

geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. ln the event that it is decided

not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that the selected

consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicating that they fully

understand Ninyo & Moore's recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the

design parameters and recommendations contained in this report. Construction of proposed

improvements should be performed by qualified subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques

and construction materials.

9 LIMITATIONS

The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical

report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care

exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty,

expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented

in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations

may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during

construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional

subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is

designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore

should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the

content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report is intended for design purposes only. lt does not provide sufücient data to prepare an

accurate bid by contractors. lt is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform

an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent

evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the

adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 107952011 | December 27, 2017 14

Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site

conditions. lf geotechnical conditions difierent from those described in this report are encountered, our

ofüce should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request.

It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural

processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. ln addition, changes to the

applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or

the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in

part or in whole, by changes overwhich Ninyo & Moore has no control.

This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings,

conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at

said parties' sole risk.

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California I 10795201 1 | Decenber 27,2017 15

1O REFERENCES

American Concrete lnstitute (ACl), 2014, ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements forStructural Concrete and Commentary.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings andOther Structures, ASCE 7-10.

Building News, 2015, "Greenbook", Standard Specification for Public Works Construction: BNIPublications.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2016, California Building Code (CBC):California Code of Regulations ,Title 24, ParI2, Volumes 1 and 2.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of KnownActive Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada:lnternational Conference of Building Officials: dated February.

California State Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015, CorrosionGuidelines (Version 2.1), Division of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion TechnologyBranch:dated January.

California State Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015, StandardSpecifications.

Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, 8., Branum, D., and Willis, C.J., 2003, The Revised 2002California Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps: California Geological Survey: dated June.

Geotracker, 20 17, http://qeotracker. swrcb. ca. qov/.

Google lnc., 20 17, www. qooqleearth. com

Harden, D.R., 2004, California Geology 2nd Edition: Prentice Hall, lnc.

Hartley, J.D., and Duncan, J.M., 1987, E' and lts Variation with Depth: American Society of CivilEngineers (ASCE), Journalof Transportation Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 5: dated September.

Historic Aerials, 2017, www historicaerials.com/viewer

Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California GeologicalSurvey, California Geological Map Series, Map No. 6.

Ninyo & Moore, ln-house Proprietary Data.

Ninyo & Moore, 2017, Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Otay Water District VistaVereda Water Line Replacement, San Diego County, California, Proposal No. P02-01043:dated July 12.

Norris, R.M. and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, lnc.

San Die Regional Standards Committee, 2015, San Diego Regional Standard Drawings: datedJuly 26

Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego MetropolitanArea, SanDiego County, California, El Cajon Quadrangle, Plate C, California Geologic SurueyLandslide Hazard ldentification Map No. 33, Open-File Report 95-03.

Tan, S.S., 2002, Geologib Map of the El Cajon 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego County, California: ADigital Database, Scale 1:24,000.

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California I 10795201 1 | Decenber 27 , 2017 16

Todd, V.R., Alvarez, R.M., and Techni Graphic Systems, lnc., 2004, Preliminary geologic map ofthe El Cajon 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, Scale 1:100,000.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1953, Aerial Photographs, FlightAXN-9M-45:dated April 14

United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012, Flood lnsurance RateMap (FIRM), Map Numbers 06073C1668G: dated May 16.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps - FaultParameters Database, World Wide Web,http://qeohazards.usos.qov/cfusion/hazfaults search/.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2015, El Cajon Quadrangle, California, San DiegoCounty, 7.S-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2017, U.S. Seismic Design Maps website,https://earthquake. usqs.qov/desiqnmaps/us/aoolication. ph o.

USDA, 1953, FlightAXN-9M, Number29,30,81, and 82 Scale 1:20,000: datedApril 14.

WaterAgency's Standards, 2011, Standard Specifications for Potable Water, Recycles Waterand Sewer Faculties, Construction Specifications, Standard Drawings and ApprovedMaterials: dated November 23.

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California | 10795201 1 | Decenber 27 , 2017 17

FIGURES

Ninyo & Moore I Vista Vereda Water Line Replacement, El Cajon, California I 107952011 | December 27,2017

10795201 12126t2417 AOB

tnô9o{ss-+(D-(oq

3ÞTzomx

-!{lÛUiltu

-

^1:r,'ri';r:: rtì ¡Ji;l! 1

7 51r,Jr{ lr.1tl:.:

Â;,¡r:¿ Arr

iosn,: .1.,*

,,,'çi\ /-

;ti

r¡

ar

r, år;1,I

Ij1

ior,

.i.b.¡

1J_

:ì

:ur

trù¡r5i {\,å }

!

!

rù*

Çñ

':it+'

I

õttaali'

!

f

2\

-/ù L¡r

U.:fi

(-,tlv

.'

(-

v¿s

/, i::

û\

-.{l

,i

I-lf

¿

"t4_

'?a " h.1l {.,'. /¡ ')-rî, 'þ. a:¡a¿:?1: i-'

-:-' L; .

a

'{'

! ¡--

\}

,1'Õttll I

,-:,'N

=¡t.tþ.

"', ^

€\'

,;;7J{i/

1ô

??lo

âf,

")n,, l-',-1o2**

=mz{

/%t-t1õ.:þ

{:uIt-Hl

- r\t' -

l,_.1 J

aI

11 ¡.¡l

3,$"¡

I

'/< ¡lËn''

lr

.'{

UJe

!:4ur

>']f

ñiüFqil

-4

I

II

-t\J'

\'¡

Q

.i,lrsil.:le Lr.r

LJ l,rålfHt[ì pl

\, iì iÀ!'fl.1 Ln

!]¡o

'r'

.si'

dr.$

¿.'

!:*'

&

=úñr

Iq

I,':-i:ri¡

îþ

.d,

tî

,1^

'iút)

e,

J'.:

¡I

:-

'-¡rJr[,.rs.

zo!m

onmojozIomzaozØ

zO

ooIõzØ

Ãm

!!ÃoX

il-¡1

ØoCÃol-1.ì

m

A

€onoIo!.oo!

U')tm7moÉ>

-Íi oin zor- =Pz m

õrrr z:27 +g ti ã= IÈí Þt-) > -¡T= -iN zt+ Oì 5= Z

ñF

;ê4rD

6)

6'

Þñ=.

9¿@q

oo

0=

_@ooo

TmmI

-oo

0o

oN

o

BORING LOCATIONS

VISTA VEREDA WATER LINE REPLACEMENTEL CAJON, CALIFORNIA

107952011 | 121',17

NOTE: DIRECTIONS, Dl|MÊNSIONSAND LOCAÍ ONSARÉAPPROXI|\,1AIE. I SOURCE: GOOGLE ÊARrH 2017 1,000

N¡ogoa¡f[ssreGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants

LEGEND

+

0+ 500

FEET

B-9 BORTNGrD=11 5 TD=TOTAL DEPTH lN FEET

FIGURE 2

otay water district draft initial study and negative ... · 1.3 project description the vista...

Documents