BRIAN ALBRIGHT DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR (858) 966-1301 5500 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 410, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 Administrative Office (858) 694-3030 www.sdparks.org
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION October 9, 2018
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation, as lead agency, is circulating for public review a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground and Nature Education Center.
Project Location: The Project is located within the County of San Diego’s Tijuana River Valley Regional Park just east of Border Field State Park approximately 1.3 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the project is located on two parcels totaling 79 acres (APNs 662-020-120-0 and 663-010-450-0) directly west of Saturn Boulevard and north of Monument Road.
Project Description: The Project will include approximately 70-75 primitive campsites that will serve a variety of uses, including: multi-use campsites, tent campsites, yurts, and equestrian campsites. No hookups for power, water, etc. will be included at any campsite. The Project will feature a day-use outdoor nature education center available to local residents and visitors. Campers, families, and school/youth groups will have access to a nature trail with interpretive panels, an amphitheater for educational programs, and nature play areas for kids and youth. Adjacent to the day-use area, a group camping area will provide overnight accommodations in a yurt village for school/youth groups and large families.
Availability: The Draft MND can be reviewed at the following locations: County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation, 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA 92123 or http://www.sdparks.org/content/sdparks/en/AboutUs/Plans/public-review-documents.html. Contact Dallas Pugh, Project Manager at (858) 966-1378 [email protected] or Crystal Benham, Group Program Manager at (858) 966-1370 [email protected].
Comments: Written comments regarding the Draft MND should be directed to Dallas Pugh, Project Manager, County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation, 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, California 92123 or [email protected] and must be received no later than November 7, 2018 (public review period October 9 – November 7). A final MND incorporating public input will be prepared for consideration by the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors at a future public hearing.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BRIAN ALBRIGHT RENEE HILTON DIRECTOR 5550 OVERLAND AVE, SUITE 410 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 Administrative Office (858) 694-3030 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (858) 966‐1301 (858) 966‐1302 www.sdparks.org
October 9, 2018
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Name: Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground and Nature Education Center
This Document is Considered Draft Until it is Adopted by the Appropriate County of San Diego Decision-Making Body.
This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental Initial Study that includes the following:
a. Initial Study Form b. Attached extended studies for air quality and greenhouse gases, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, hazardous materials, traffic and noise.
1. California Environmental Quality Act Negative Declaration Findings:
Find, that this Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the decision-making body's independent judgment and analysis, and; that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments received during the public review period, and; on the basis of the whole record before the decision-making body (including this Mitigated Negative Declaration) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Required Mitigation Measures:
Refer to the attached Environmental Initial Study for the rationale for requiring the following measures:
A. Biological Resources
MM-BIO-01: Clearing Restrictions. To mitigate for potentially significant impacts on sensitive nesting birds and raptors, the County will avoid vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities during the bird breeding season to keep the project in compliance with state and federal regulations regarding nesting birds (i.e., the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA] and California Fish and Game Code [CFGC]). The bird breeding season is defined as January 15 to September 1, which includes the tree-nesting raptor breeding season of January 15 to July 15, the ground-nesting raptor breeding season of February 1 to July 15, and the general avian breeding season of February 1 to September 1. If removal cannot be avoided during this time-period, a nesting bird survey will be conducted no more than 72 hours prior to ground-disturbing activities by a qualified avian biologist through the entirety of the project site, as well as a 900-foot buffer inspecting for northern harrier, a 500-foot buffer inspecting for raptors, and a 300-foot buffer inspecting for other nesting birds. This is necessary to definitively ascertain whether raptors or other migratory birds are actively nesting in the project site, or in a vicinity that could be indirectly impacted by work activities (i.e., through noise or visual disturbances). If the survey results are positive, the location of active raptor or migratory bird nests will be mapped by a qualified avian biologist. All construction activities in proximity to active nests will be delayed or otherwise modified as necessary to prevent nest failure (e.g., nest abandonment). Nesting northern harriers will be given a 900-foot avoidance buffer (per the Multiple Species Conservation Program [MSCP]), raptors will be afforded a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer, nesting special-status birds will be afforded at least a 300-foot buffer, and common birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC will be afforded a 50- to 100-foot buffer. Buffers may be adjusted based on the observations by the biological monitor(s) of the response of the nesting birds to human activity and will be conducted in coordination with the resource agencies United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
MM-BIO-02: Biological Monitoring. The County will retain a qualified biologist to conduct biological monitoring during project construction. After the surveyor has flagged the limits of disturbance (but prior to brushing, clearing, or other ground-disturbing activities or other construction activities or staging) the biological monitor will conduct a review of the limits of disturbance, to ensure that the project does not cause errant impacts on surrounding sensitive vegetation communities and to inspect the project area for sensitive species. The biological monitor will be on site during all vegetation, brushing, clearing, or initial grading that could disturb topsoil. The biological monitor will conduct weekly monitoring visits after initial grading to ensure that perimeter controls are in place and that errant biological impacts do not occur. The biological monitor will also monitor any and all avian nest avoidance buffers established during nesting bird surveys (see MM BIO-01) during the breeding season. Monitors will work with construction personnel to minimize and avoid disruption to breeding birds and other special-status wildlife potentially present within or adjacent to construction areas.
MM-BIO-03: Best Management Practices (BMPs): To reduce and avoid indirect impacts from the project construction, the following BMPs will be implemented: Appropriate construction scheduling and sequencing will be established to reduce the amount and duration of soil exposed to vehicle tracking. Vehicle speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour in the project area. Regular watering of roadways will be conducted to prevent and alleviate dust generation, but will not be applied in quantities with allow for water ponding. Limits of construction areas will be fenced or flagged and maintained throughout the construction activities. Appropriate stormwater BMPs will be established during the rainy season (October 1 to April 30) to reduce erosion and control siltation. BMPs may include silt fences, fiber rolls, and application of organic soil tackifiers (e.g., guar gum).
MM-BIO-04: Manure Management: To reduce indirect impacts from increased equestrian use of the project area, the County will implement a manure management program for the project. Manure will be periodically removed from the corral and pasture areas. Manure will be composted on site following the CalRecycle regulation for pathogen reduction (14 CCR § 17868.3), and raw manure will not be spread on site. On-site composting will be situated to avoid runoff into wetlands.
B. Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-01: Archaeological Monitoring. The County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all proposed ground-disturbing activities related to the implementation of the proposed project in order to minimize disturbance of subsurface archaeological deposits. Specifically, the following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts: All proposed ground disturbance, including grading and excavation for the project, will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist(s) who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, as promulgated in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 36, Section 61 or in the City’s Land Development Code. Prior to the start of construction, a monitoring plan will be prepared that describes the nature of the archaeological monitoring work, procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery, and reporting requirements. The archaeologist will be invited to the preconstruction meeting to inform all personnel of the high probability of archaeological materials being encountered during construction. If intact subsurface deposits are identified during construction, the archaeologist will be empowered to divert construction activities away from the find and will be given sufficient time and compensation to investigate the find and determine its significance. No soil will be exported off site until a determination can be made regarding the significance of the resource, especially if Native American resources are encountered. Recovered items will be treated in accordance with current professional standards by being properly provenienced, cleaned, analyzed, researched, reported, and curated in a collection facility meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as promulgated in 36 CFR 79, such as the San Diego Archaeological Center. The costs for curation will be included in the budget for recovery of the archaeological remains. A final Cultural Resources Monitoring report will be produced, which will discuss the monitoring program and its results and will provide interpretations of any recovered cultural materials.
MM-CUL-02: Protection of Human Remains. Any ground- disturbing activities on the project site must be considered as having the potential to encounter Native American human remains. Human remains require special handling and must be treated with appropriate dignity. Specific actions must take place pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5e, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, and Section 87.429 of the County of San Diego Grading, Clearing and Watercourses Ordinance. Should human remains be identified during ground-disturbing activities related to the project, whether during construction, maintenance, or any other activity, state- and county-mandated procedures will be followed for the treatment and disposition of those remains, as follows:
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, DPR will ensure that the following procedures are followed:
1) There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: a. A County (DPR) official is contacted. b. The County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. c. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, then: i. The coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. ii. The NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. iii. The Most Likely Descendent (MLD) may make recommendations to the landowner (DPR), or the person responsible for the excavation work, for the treatment of human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2) Under the following conditions, the landowner or its authorized representative will rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance: d. The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC. e. The MLD fails to make a recommendation. f. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. 3) Any time human remains are encountered or suspected and soil conditions are appropriate for the technique, ground penetrating radar (GPR) will be used as part of the survey methodology. In addition, the use of canine forensics will be considered when searching for human remains. The decision to use GPR or canine forensics will be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation among the County Archaeologist, the project archaeologist, and the Native American monitor (see MM-TCR-01). 4) Because human remains require special consideration and handling, they must be defined in a broad sense. For the purposes of this document, human remains are defined as: g. Fragmented or disarticulated human bone with no associated artifacts or grave goods. h. Cremations, including the soil surrounding the deposit. i. Interments, including the soils surrounding the deposit. j. Associated grave goods.
C. Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-01: Comply with Recommendations of Geotechnical Evaluation. The project will comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation. Remedial grading will be performed within structural building areas. Remedial grading will include the following: Removal of the existing site soils within the building pad, including fill and alluvium, to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the foundation system for structural buildings. Subsequent to the removal, a low ground pressure bulldozer or excavator should be used to fill in ruts and dress the surface at the removal bottom elevation. A layer of geosynthetic woven fabric (Mirafi HP 570 or an equivalent) should then be rolled out over the dressed excavation bottom. The geosynthetic woven fabric material should overlap approximately 2 feet. Heavy equipment traffic, including trucks, should not be allowed on the geosynthetic woven fabric. An initial 12 inches of aggregate base materials should be pushed out over the geosynthetic woven fabric with low-pressure construction equipment. Compaction effort should then be made to this aggregate base layer using smaller, low-pressure construction equipment. Again, heavy equipment traffic, including trucks, should not be allowed on the initial lift of aggregate. Then a layer of Triaxial geogrid TX-7 (or equivalent) should be placed over the initial layer of aggregate base materials, and the geogrid should overlap approximately 2 feet. Heavy equipment traffic, including trucks should not be allowed on the geogrid. After placement of the geogrid, another 12 inches of aggregate base materials should be pushed out over the geosynthetic woven fabric with low-pressure construction equipment. Compaction effort should then be made to this aggregate base layer using smaller, low-pressure equipment. This layer of aggregate base materials should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM International (ASTM) D 1557.
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM-HAZ-01: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Height Notification. The County will complete and submit the FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration application to the FAA for review. If the FAA concludes the project would not be an airspace obstruction or hazard, no further action would be required. If the FAA determines there would be a potential airspace obstruction or hazard, the project component(s) that has/have been identified as an obstruction or hazard will be modified to the satisfaction of the FAA.
MM-HAZ-02: Review by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. The project will be submitted to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. If the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority does not find the proposed project to be compatible with the NOLF-Imperial Beach Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project component(s) found to be incompatible with the NOLF-Imperial Beach ALUCP will be modified to the satisfaction of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. If the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority finds the proposed project to be compatible, nothing further is required.
E. Transportation and Traffic
MM-TRA-01: Prepare Traffic Control Plan and Submit Permit Form to City of San Diego. Prior to construction, a traffic control plan will be prepared for the project in accordance with the latest edition of the City of San Diego Standard Drawings, Appendix A: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the California Supplement; and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including Regional Supplement Amendments and City of San Diego Supplement Amendments. The traffic control plan and traffic control permit form will be submitted to the City of San Diego for review and approval.
MM-TRA-02: Vegetation Maintenance. Following construction of the proposed project but prior to opening, DPR will remove or trim the vegetation that currently obstructs the sight distance associated with the driveway along the north side of Monument Road. The vegetation will be removed or trimmed so that the sight distance meets Caltrans requirements, as documented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2016). A new sight distance study would be conducted after vegetation maintenance to confirm and document compliance with Caltrans requirements.
F. Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-01: Native American Monitoring. DPR will retain a Kumeyaay tribal member to monitor all project-related ground disturbance.
3. Critical Project Design Elements:
The following project design elements were the result of compliance with specific environmental laws and regulations and were essential in reaching the conclusions within the attached Environmental Initial Study. While the following are not technically mitigation measures, their implementation must be assured to avoid potentially significant environmental effects.
A. Aesthetics 1) The project’s architectural elements will incorporate natural materials and the campsites will be primitive in design to maintain consistency with the visual characteristics of the surrounding area. 2) The project will conform to the Light Pollution Code (Section 59.101- 59.115), including the Zone B lamp type and shielding requirements per fixture and hours of operation limitations for outdoor lighting and searchlights. In addition, the proposed project will control outdoor lighting and sources of glare in the following ways:
a) The project will not install outdoor lighting that directly illuminates neighboring properties. b) The project will not install outdoor lighting that would cast a direct beam angle towards a potential observer, such as a motorists, cyclist or pedestrian. c) The project will not install outdoor lighting for vertical surfaces such as buildings, landscaping, or signs in a manner that would result in useful light or spill light being cast beyond the boundaries of intended area to be lit.
B. Air Quality
1) Grading operations associated with the construction of the project will implement dust control measures.
C. Biological Resources
1) The project design is situated in disturbed habitat and avoids all native vegetation. 2) Construction activity is expected to take place during daylight hours, so use of the areas by nocturnal animals will not be affected. No fences will be installed which would preclude movement of animals.
D. Geology and Soils
1) To ensure the structural integrity of all buildings and structures, the project must conform to the Seismic Requirements as outlined within the California Building Code. 2) Although the project involves grading it is required to comply with the San Diego County Code of Regulations, Title 8, Zoning and Land Use Regulations, Division 7, Sections 87.414 (DRAINAGE – EROSION PREVENTION) and 87.417 (PLANTING).
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1) The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires because the project will comply with the regulations relating to emergency access, water supply, and defensible space specified in the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 3 and Appendix II-A of the Uniform Fire Code. The project is also required to comply with the County of San Diego Fire Service Conditions stipulated by the County Fire Services staff (i.e., County Fire Marshall) upon review and approval of the project. 2) The project is required to develop a Site Evacuation Plan (SEP) to ensure that County staff, visitors, and customers can safely and quickly evacuate in an emergency. The SEP will include the following:
a) Facility contact list i. Contains the names, responsibilities, and contact numbers of key building contacts. b) Building and site map i. Evacuation map outlining the evacuation route(s) and assembly area(s) for the facility. A copy of this map is provided to emergency responders. ii. Plan for fire vehicle access routes and water tank locations. c) Exit routes for the nature center d) Personnel roster description i. Used to take attendance at the assembly area following an evacuation. e) Site evacuation team i. Responsible for complete evacuation of, and accounting for all employees, visitors, and customers in their area of responsibility. f) Checklist for the facility evacuation coordinator i. Ensures consistency and completeness during an emergency. g) Checklist for the floor warden i. Ensures consistency and completeness during an emergency. h) Evacuation/fire drill observation form i) Voluntary individual site evacuation plan i. Designed to assist any employee with limitations or disabilities to evacuate in an emergency; created by the individual employee; is voluntary; and not a confidential document. j) Fire Safety Plan overview i. Establishes procedures for identifying fire hazards and preventing fires.
3) A Vector Management Plan will be prepared as a part of the proposed project, which will contain design measures and procedures to reduce potential vectors that are specific to the site. The plan will be reviewed by the County Department of Environmental Health, Vector Surveillance Program. The plan will contain measures intended to reduce the potential exposure of visitors or nearby residences to flies from manure caused by the equestrian uses.
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
1) The project would be covered under the County’s existing regional Waste Discharge Requirement Permit as long as the project’s site design measures and/or source control BMPs are consistent with the San Diego County Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The project also requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (i.e., General Construction Permit). The project will comply with all requirements of these permits. 2) A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be prepared for the project that will identify any special site design considerations, site design measures and/or source control BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs to reduce potential pollutants, including sediment from erosion or siltation to the maximum extent practicable from entering storm water runoff. 3) Construction of the facility would comply with County of San Diego Ordinance No. 8334 Flood Damage Prevention, which identifies specific construction standards for structures built in a special flood hazard area. These construction standards include: Anchoring structures to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement Construction materials and practices to minimize flood damage Designing and locating service facilities (electrical, heating, plumping, etc.) so as to prevent water from entering and accumulating during base flood conditions Constructing structures would adequate drainage paths for floodwaters Elevation and flood proofing Constructing structures with adequate flood openings
G. Noise
1) The project will not generate construction noise that may exceed the standards of the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36-410). Construction operations will occur only during permitted hours of operation pursuant to Section 36-410. Also, it is not anticipated that the project will operate construction equipment in excess of an average sound level of 75dB between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM. Also, it is not anticipated that the project will operate construction equipment in excess of 75 dB for more than 8 hours during a 24-hour period. 2) The project will not generate construction noise that may exceed the standards of the County of San Diego General Plan, Noise Element, Tables N-1 and N-2, which require a an acoustical study to be prepared for any use that may expose noise-sensitive area to noise in excess of a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA).
H. Utilities and Service Systems
1) The project proposes to discharge domestic waste to on-site wastewater systems (OSWS) as one option to handle wastewater produced by the proposed project. Discharged wastewater must conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) applicable standards, including the Regional Basin Plan and the California Water Code. California Water Code Section 13282 allows RWQCBs to authorize a local public agency to issue permits for OSWS “to ensure that systems are adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed and maintained.” The RWQCBs with jurisdiction over San Diego County have authorized the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH) to issue certain OSWS permits throughout the County and within the incorporated cities. DEH would review the OSWS lay-out for the project pursuant to DEH, Land and Water Quality Division’s “On-site Wastewater Systems: Permitting Process and Design Criteria.” DEH would also be the approving body for the project’s OSWS. 2) The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line option includes discharge of domestic waste to the existing sewer line located along Monument Road. The existing sewer line connects with the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP), located at 2995 Clearwater Way, San Diego. The SBIWTP discharges secondary treated wastewater to the South Bay Ocean Outfall. This discharge is currently regulated under Order No. R9-2014-0009, NPDES Permit No. CA0108928, Waste Discharge Requirements for the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, Discharge to the Pacific Ocean Via the South Bay Ocean Outfall (adopted on June 26, 2014, expires July 31, 2019). 3) The project will deposit all solid waste at a permitted solid waste facility, per the County Department of Environmental Health, Local Enforcement Agency issues solid waste facility permits with concurrence from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) under the authority of the Public Resources Code (Sections 44001-44018) and California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4 (Section 21440et seq.).
ADOPTION STATEMENT: This Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the above California Environmental Quality Act findings were made by the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation on October 9, 2018. This document is considered draft until it is adopted by the appropriate County of San Diego decision-making body.
______Dallas Pugh, Project Manager, Resource Management Division County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation
Attachments: CEQA Initial Study
Brian Albright Department of Parks and Recreation DIRECTOR PHONE (858) 966-1301 5500 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 410, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpr
October 9, 2018
CEQA Initial Study – Environmental Checklist Form (Based on the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G)
Project Name: Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground and Nature Education Center
Lead agency name and address: County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 410 San Diego, CA 92123
a. Contact: Dallas Pugh, Project Manager b. Phone number: (858) 966-1378 c. E-mail: [email protected]
Project location:
The proposed project is located in the western portion of the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park, just north of Monument Avenue and approximately 1.3 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The Tijuana River Valley Regional Park is located in southwestern San Diego County, just north of the United States border with Mexico, and east of the Border Field State Park. The project site is located within City of San Diego jurisdiction, and is in the Tijuana River Valley Community Plan area.
Project Coordinates: 32°32'47.91"N / 117° 5'56.10"W
Project Applicant name and address:
County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 410 San Diego, CA 92123
General Plan TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 2 - Community Plan: Tijuana River Valley Land Use Designation: Agriculture
Zoning Use Regulation: Open Space - Floodplain-1-1 and Agriculture- Residential-1-1 Minimum Lot Size: 10 acre(s) for AR-1-1
Description of project: The proposed project is a multi-use campground and equestrian facility with an outdoor nature education center that would be available to overnight campers, equestrian owners, and school groups. The proposed project is located on County-owned land within the City of San Diego’s municipal boundaries. The City of San Diego General Plan land use designation for the site is Open Space Parks. Zoning for the site is Open Space – Floodplain (OF-1-1) and Agricultural - Residential (AR-1-1).
The project site is located along the north side of Monument Road in the Tijuana River Valley, approximately 1.3 miles east of the Pacific Ocean (please see Figure 1 Regional Map and Figure 2 Project Vicinity). Access to the project would be provided by two private driveways; one off of Saturn Boulevard to access the equestrian area in the eastern portion of the project, and one off of Monument Road to access the main campground and outdoor nature education area in the western portion of the project. The proposed project would develop primitive campsites, yurts, large group campsites, and an equestrian facility that would offer a corral, a pasture, and paddocks for equestrian- friendly camping as well as day use by local residents and visitors (see Figure 3 Proposed Project). The proposed project site would also require public utility connections: a water pipeline connection to the existing City waterline at Smuggler’s Gulch (see Figure 3 Proposed Project) and two options available for disposing of sewage related to this project. Both options are still being considered so both are analyzed in this document. These utilities are discussed in more detail below.
The proposed project site encompasses the parcels identified by the APNs 662-020-120- 0 and 663-010-450-0. The proposed development on the project site is generally concentrated to the west and to the east; with the equestrian facilities primarily located in the eastern portion of the proposed site, and the campsites, yurts, and outdoor nature education center in the western portion.
The western portion of the project site would contain approximately 67 campsites. It is currently planned that 26 of these would be multi-use (tent or recreational vehicles (RVs)) campsites, 25 would be tent only campsites, eight would be large yurts, and eight would be small yurts. Two of the large yurts would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- accessible, and one of the small yurts would be ADA-accessible. Large yurts would measure approximately 24 feet in diameter, and the small yurts would measure approximately 16 feet in diameter. The yurts would be situated together in a yurt village layout, and are intended to be used as a group camping area for school/youth groups and large families. Each campsite would include an unpaved parking space of variable size, open area for a tent, picnic table, barbeque, and a fire ring. The multi-use campsite would Project Location ^_
0 2 4 [ Miles N 1:250,000 Source: USGS; ICF 2018 \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\County_of_San_Diego\County_Parks_&_Rec\TO40 TRVRP User: Campground 35528; Date: 8/14/2018 Studies\Figures\BRR\01_Regional.mxd; Technical Figure 1 Regional Vicinity Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground and Nature Education Center SATURN BLSATURN
SATURN BL SATURN
MONUMENT RD
MONUMENT RD
Legend Mexico Proposed Project Site
0 500 1,000 [ Feet N 1:12,000 Source: Imagery-Bing, 2018. \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\County_of_San_Diego\County_Parks_&_Rec\TO40 TRVRP Campground User: Studies\Figures\IS_MND\02_ProjectLocation.mxd; 19542; Date: 10/3/2018 Technical Figure 2 Project Location Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground and Nature Education Center SATURN BL SATURN
MONUMENT RD
MONUMENT RD
Legend Proposed Project Site Campsite Trash Enclosure/Manure Container Water Pipeline Connection Multi-use Campsite Trail On-Site Tie-In to Existing Sewer Option Caretaker Site Interpretive Area Project Design Small Yurt Restroom Building Bus Parking Large Yurt Corral Restroom/Shower/Office Building Nature Education Center Warm-up Pen On-Site Sewer Advanced Treatment System Option Activity Area Pasture 0 325 650 [ Feet Access Control/Check-in Booth Trash Enclosure Road (Unpaved) N 1 in = 650 ft Parking Lot (Unpaved) Source: Imagery-SanGIS, 2017. \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\County_of_San_Diego\County_Parks_&_Rec\TO40 TRVRP Campground User: Studies\Figures\IS_MND\03_ProposedProject.mxd; 19542; Date: 10/5/2018 Technical Figure 3 Proposed Project Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground and Nature Education Center TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 3 - be primitive, meaning that they would not include connections for RVs, such as water or electrical power hookups. Multi-use campsites are differentiated from tent sites in that the parking space is larger to accommodate RVs.
Site amenities on the western portion of the proposed project site would include one large restroom building with coin-operated showers, an office, entry booth, and a volunteer pad. The restroom and shower buildings would have outdoor lighting which would be located on the side of the building and would be down-shaded. There would not be any additional outdoor lighting. The western portion of the project site would be accessed by an unpaved driveway extending northwest onto the project site from Monument Drive, which would continue in a loop through the campground to provide onsite circulation. An unpaved bus parking area for day-use by school and youth groups would be located near the outdoor nature education center, which would include a nature trail with interpretive panels providing information about the local history and habitat, an amphitheater for educational programs or group gatherings, and nature play areas for kids and youth.
The eastern portion of the project site would consist of an equestrian area which would feature a corral, a pasture, warm-up pen, and approximately 12 multi-use campsites with accompanying paddocks. A small restroom facility and a trash enclosure/ manure container would be located adjacent to the corral. The manure from the equestrian facilities would be composed on-site following CalRecycle regulation for pathogen reduction (14 CCR § 17868.3). Southeast of the corral and pasture would be an unpaved parking lot, with parking spots large enough to accommodate equestrian trailers. The equestrian facilities would be for day or overnight use, and would not be used for equestrian shows or other large events. Trails would be developed in the eastern portion of the project site to connect to the existing regional trails.
An on-site connection to the existing sewer line is one of the two options available for sewage disposal at the proposed site. This option would consist of connecting into the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) existing sewer line at its force main, located across Monument Road from the southwestern corner of the proposed project site. The IBWC sewer line delivers sewage to the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP) water treatment facility. A pipeline would be connected from the force main to the restroom and shower facility in the western campground area. Approximately 1,200 feet of pipeline would be laid within the road in a trench with a depth of approximately 4 feet below ground, and a width of approximately 2 feet across. The pipeline would be trenched primarily along the existing road right-of-way, in the shoulder, and along the proposed driveway leading to the restroom and shower building in the western portion of the project site. Soil would be excavated to approximately four feet below surface level, sand would be layered in the trench, then the pipeline would be laid, and then the trench would be back-filled with the excavated materials. Approximately 355 cubic yards of soil would be excavated, and approximately half (178 cubic yards) of the excavated soil will be removed from the site.
Utilizing the IBWC sewer lines would require a federal act of legislation, which would include the following steps;
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 4 - Sponsorship/ introduction of new legislation to create the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground – IBWC sewer connection A Congressional approval of legislation Negotiations with IBWC on agreeable terms to modify or amend Minute 283 pertaining to the SBIWTP Agreement with Mexico to modify or amend Minute 283
This sewer option would also require the approval of an encroachment permit with the City of San Diego to be installed under Monument Road.
The on-site sewer advanced treatment system is the second option for disposal of sewage associated with the campground facilities. The system would be located in the western portion of the campground area, adjacent to the bathroom building. The treatment system would consist of a completely-integrated, fully-plumbed, engineered textile filter treatment. The textile filter treatment system includes the treatment, recirculation, and discharge stages of the treatment process entirely within an insulated fiberglass tank that measures approximately 7.6 feet high, seven feet wide, and could range from 14 feet to 42 feet long. The tank would be buried underground at a depth of approximately seven feet below surface level, with the top of the tank approximately six inches above ground. Approximately 27.6 cubic yards to 82.8 cubic yards of soil would be excavated based on the size of the tank that is determined to be necessary based on the final project design. The effluent would be discharged to an advanced treatment leach field, which would be a subsurface drip irrigation. The ground above the leach field would be landscaped with natural communities and would be fenced to prevent visitors from accessing the area. The associated aboveground improvements associated with the treatment system would be a manhole and a cleanout at ground surface level.
The project site would be connected to the City of San Diego waterline at Smuggler’s Gulch, approximately one mile east of the project site. The waterline will be installed along the existing Monument Road, underneath the existing paved road footprint. The waterline will connect to the project facilities on-site in the western portion of the campground, near the bathroom facilities. An approximate 5,000-foot long trench will be excavated in the shoulder of Monument Road to a depth of 4 feet below ground surface and a width of two feet wide. The bottom of the trench will be layered with sand, then the water pipe will be installed. The trench will then be backfilled with original excavated soil material. There will be approximately 1,481 cubic yards of excavated soil, and approximately 740 cubic yards of excess excavated material that will be trucked off-site. Lastly, the road will be repaved where necessary.
Construction would occur over 10 to 11 months. Construction equipment would include tractors, excavators, backhoes, rollers, a rubber tire loader, wheel tractor scrapers, an air compressor, a generator set, a crane, and a concrete truck.
Two to five full time County staff members would be required for managing daily operations and maintaining the facility. There would also be one on site volunteer to assist with daily operations. The proposed project would follow the campground rules and regulations the County has established for their campground facilities:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 5 - Check-in is at 2:00 p.m. and check-out is at 12:00 p.m. Quiet hours are from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. No smoking allowed anywhere in County Parks per section 41.118.5. When permitted, all campfires must be completely extinguished by 11pm until 7am. A maximum of 2 tents are allowed per campsite, RV sites may have one tent in addition to their one RV. The maximum occupancy for each campsite is anticipated to be 8 people. Dogs must be licensed and restrained on a leash not longer than 6 ft. and attended at all times. Fixing or attaching items to trees or any vegetation is prohibited. This includes piñatas, tree swings, roper ladders, and hammocks. Self-Supporting hammocks are allowed. No person is allowed to disturb the peace and quiet of a County park by any loud or unusual noise, or by the sounding of automobile horns or noise-making devices, or by the use of profane, obscene or abusive language or gestures. No person is allowed to use, transport, carry, fire, or discharge any fireworks, firearm, weapon, air gun, archery device, slingshot, or explosive of any kind across, in or into a County park. Overnight camping in County parks is contingent upon maintaining the immediate camping area in a safe and clean condition and complying with all park rules. Failure to comply with the above regulations would result in a suspension of camping privileges and a loss of all fees paid.
Surrounding land uses and setting: The proposed project is located in the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park (TRVRP), which is an approximately 1,800-acre open space area that is open to the public for hiking, biking, horseback riding, birdwatching, and other passive recreational activities. The project is specifically located along the western edge of TRVRP adjacent to Border Field State Park and other state-conserved lands. There are no established communities within the regional park; however, land uses east of the project site include a rural residential community consisting of scattered residences and equestrian- or agricultural-related facilities. Beyond these uses, approximately 1.3 miles to the north and 2.3 miles to the east, are residential developments consisting of single- family homes. Less than a mile south of the project site is the international border between the United States and Mexico. The project site and adjacent lands are within the floodplain and floodway of Tijuana River. Elevation at the campground sites ranges from 14 to 21 feet above mean sea level. The site is located approximately 1.8 miles from Interstate 5.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
Permit Type/Action Agency General Construction Storm water RWQCB Permit Coastal Development Permit (CDP) California Coastal Commission Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Federal Emergency Management Agency
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 6 - 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
YES NO
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and to reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see Public Resources Code §21083.3.2). Information is also available from the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code §5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code §21082.3(e) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project and involve at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Haz. Materials Hydrology and Water Emissions Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 8 - INSTRUCTIONS ON EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 9 - I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
A vista is a view from a particular location or composite views along a roadway or trail. Scenic vistas often refer to views of natural lands, but may also be compositions of natural and developed areas, or even entirely of developed and unnatural areas, such as a scenic vista of a rural town and surrounding agricultural lands. What is scenic to one person may not be scenic to another, so the assessment of what constitutes a scenic vista must consider the perceptions of a variety of viewer groups.
The items that can be seen within a vista are visual resources. Adverse impacts on individual visual resources or the addition of structures or developed areas may or may not adversely affect the vista. Determining the level of impact on a scenic vista requires analyzing the changes to the vista as a whole and also to individual visual resources.
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within the southern portion of the TRVRP which is considered a visual resource due to the contiguous views of one of the few remaining un-fragmented estuaries in the region (Department of Parks and Recreation 2017). TRVRP contains 22.5 miles of multi-use trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and interpretive education, as well as a sports complex, a Bird and Butterfly Garden, observation decks and a community garden. The proposed project would be located within the park and thus may be located in the viewshed of a scenic vista of the park. The project site would be within the viewshed of the TRVRP from Monument Road, which runs through the southern portion of the TRVRP from east to west. The viewshed and visible components of the landscape within that viewshed, including the underlying landform and overlaying land cover, establish the visual environment for the scenic vista. The visual environment of the subject scenic vista extends from Saturn Boulevard to the west towards the coastline, and north of Monument Drive to Sunset Avenue, which is north of the Tijuana River. The visual composition consists of an estuary habitat with areas of dense vegetation, trails, scattered residences and structures, and the Tijuana River riparian area.
The proposed project would require approximately 32.7 acres of grading for the parking lots and roadways designed for internal circulation, but the proposed project would not require cut and/or fill of slopes or landforms. The two sewage disposal options and the water pipeline connection would require construction equipment on site for trenching and installation activities; however, they would not include any above ground features that would interrupt the viewshed surrounding the project site. Equipment associated with construction activities may interrupt contiguous views of the river valley temporarily; however the potential impacts to visual resources would not be permanent.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 10 - The project is compatible with the existing visual environment in terms of visual character and quality because the TRVRP is currently used for passive recreational activities, including hiking, biking, horseback riding, interpretive education and nature-based play. There are existing structures in the TRVRP that support these activities, including the sports complex at the end of Sunset Avenue and the observation deck at Dairy Mart Ponds. The multi-use campground would consist of yurts and campsites with accompanying paddocks, restroom and shower facilities, and a nature education center, which would facilitate overnight and day use of the park, compatible with the current uses of the park. The proposed project would remove minimal vegetation and would not include structures over one story that would block view of the river valley. The structures proposed on site, including the yurts and bathroom buildings, would be low-profile and constructed of natural materials to better blend in with the surrounding environment. The proposed project structures would be smaller than the size and scale of other structures visible along Monument Road. The on-site sewer advanced treatment system would include a treatment tank that would be built in-ground with approximately 6 inches of the tank visible above the ground surface. The low-profile would be consistent with the other features of the proposed project and would not represent a significant impact on visual resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
The project would not result in cumulative impacts on a scenic vista based on an evaluation of the effects of the proposed project in combination with past, present, and future projects within the project viewshed. There are no other present or future projects in the Tijuana River Valley. Thus, there would not be a cumulative impact on visual resources. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
State scenic highways refer to those highways that are officially designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as scenic (Caltrans - California Scenic Highway Program). Generally, the area defined within a state scenic highway is the land adjacent to and visible from the vehicular right-of-way. The dimension of a scenic highway is usually identified using a motorist’s line of vision, but a reasonable boundary is selected when the view extends to the distant horizon. The scenic highway corridor extends to the visual limits of the landscape abutting the scenic highway.
No Impact: The proposed project, including the two sewer disposal options and the water pipeline connection, is not located near or visible within the composite viewshed of a state scenic highway and would not damage or remove visual resources within a state scenic highway. The highways closest to the project site are Interstate (I)-5, which is approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast, and State Route (SR)-905, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast; neither of which have been designated as scenic highways. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any substantial adverse effect on a scenic resource within a state scenic highway.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 11 - The project would not result in cumulative impacts on a scenic vista because the proposed project viewshed and past, present and future projects within that viewshed were evaluated to determine their cumulative effects. No cumulative projects were identified within the Tijuana River Valley. Refer to XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, for further discussion.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Visual character is the objective composition of the visible landscape within a viewshed and is based on the organization of the pattern elements line, form, color, and texture. Visual character is commonly discussed in terms of dominance, scale, diversity and continuity. Visual quality is the viewer’s perception of the visual environment and varies based on exposure, sensitivity and expectation of the viewers.
Less Than Significant Impact: The existing visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding can be described as a natural vegetated river valley. The topography of the area is generally flat along the floodplain with a gradual slope to the north and a high mesa to the south of the valley. The proposed campground site is generally disturbed vegetation communities. The surrounding visual character is primarily characterized by low-lying vegetation, gradual slopes, and riparian habitat along the Tijuana River course. Dirt paths, scattered residences, and accessory structures are also part of the visual character of the Tijuana River Valley. The visual environment has high continuity and is not interrupted by large-scale structures or other features.
The proposed project is intended for public day and overnight use. The proposed project would be compatible with the existing visual environment’s visual character and quality because the campground would not dominate the viewshed or strongly influence the pattern character of the surrounding environment. The low profile of the structures (yurts, restroom facilities, etc.) and the use of natural materials for the amphitheater and interpretive play areas would be compatible with the natural condition of the surrounding scene. Views from Monument Road may be interrupted momentarily, but would be consistent with other momentary interruptions from the existing nearby structures, such as residences and equestrian corrals. Views from a distance would not be interrupted as the proposed project would not be a large scale structure but rather would consist of several small structures, and would not dominate the landscape.
Construction of the proposed utility connections for the facility may result in isolated, temporary impacts on visual character due to the use of large equipment. Operation of these, however, would be entirely underground, and there would not be any aboveground structures or features that would negatively impact the surrounding visual character. The on-site sewer advanced treatment system would include a wastewater treatment tank that would be installed in-ground, with only approximately 6 inches of the tank visible above the ground surface. The top of the tank would be consistent with the other improvements proposed as part of the project, and would not significantly impact the surrounding visual character. TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 12 -
The proposed project not result in cumulative impacts on visual character or quality because it would not represent a dominant feature in the visual environment, would not interrupt the visual flow of the surrounding area, and would be consistent with existing structural features. In addition, there are no other planned projects in the Tijuana River Valley at this time. Therefore, the project would not result in any adverse project or cumulative level effect on visual character or quality on site or in the surrounding area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not generally involve nighttime construction work. The proposed project would comply with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Section 36.401, which restricts construction activities to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except for recognized holidays. If lighting is required for a specific construction activity, it would be isolated and temporary. There would not be permanent lighting or sources of glare associated with construction.
The proposed project would include lighting mounted on the side of the restroom and offices buildings, and at the volunteer pad. The light fixtures would be downturned to limit the reach of the lighting. There would not be any other outdoor lighting at the campground. The project site is located within Zone B as identified by the San Diego County Light Pollution Code. However, it would not adversely affect nighttime views or astronomical observations, because the project would conform to the Light Pollution Code (Section 51.201-51.209), including the lamp type and shielding requirements per fixture and hours of operation limitations for outdoor lighting and searchlights.
The proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on day or nighttime views because the project would conform to the Light Pollution Code. The Code was developed by the San Diego County Planning & Development Services and Department of Public Works in cooperation with lighting engineers, astronomers, and land use planners from San Diego Gas and Electric, Palomar and Mount Laguna observatories, and local community planning and sponsor groups to effectively address and minimize the impact of new sources light pollution on nighttime views. The standards in the Code are the result of this collaborative effort and establish an acceptable level for new lighting. Compliance with the Code is required prior to issuance of any building permit for any project. Mandatory compliance for all new building permits ensures that this project in combination with all past, present and future projects would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, compliance with the Code ensures that the project would not create a significant new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area, on a project or cumulative level.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 13 - Therefore, compliance with the Code, in combination with the design of the light fixtures ensures that the project would not create a significant new source of substantial light or glare.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Important Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, or other agricultural resources, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project, including the on-site sewer advanced treatment system, would be located on land designated as Farmland of Local Importance according to the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (Department of Conservation 2016). However, based on a review of historic aerial photography, there is no evidence of agricultural use on the campground site since 2009. This date is at least 7 years prior to the last FMMP mapping date (2016). In order to qualify for the Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance designations, land must have been cropped at some time during the 4 years prior to the last FMMP mapping date. Given the lack of agricultural use on the site within at least the past 9 years, the Farmland of Local Importance designation of this area according to the state is incorrect. The Farmland designation is likely misapplied as a result of the large scale of the statewide mapping effort which assigns Farmland designations based on aerial photography and limited ground verification. Therefore, due to the lack of historic agricultural use at the project site, the site does not meet the definition of an agricultural resource and no potentially significant project or cumulative level conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance to a non- agricultural use would occur as a result of the proposed project.
The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line and the water pipeline connection are underground utility improvements that are primarily located within the Monument Road right-of-way. These project components would not involve any activity that would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, no potentially significant project or cumulative level conversion of agricultural resources to a non-agricultural use would occur as a result of this component. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 14 - Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, is partially zoned Open Space – Floodplain (OF), and partially zoned Agriculture – Residential (AR), which is considered to be an agricultural zone. The majority of the water pipeline is located in the Monument Road right-of-way. The on-site sewer advanced treatment system would be located in the campground site, adjacent to the bathroom and shower facilities, and is primarily zoned AR. The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would be in land zoned AR and in Monument Road right-of-way. However, the proposed project would not result in a conflict in zoning for agricultural use, because active recreation is a permitted use in OF and AR zones, and is consistent with the activities that currently occur on site (hiking and equestrian trails), and thus would not create a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, the project site’s land is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, there would be no 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)), or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, do not contain forest lands or timberland. The County of San Diego does not have any existing Timberland Production Zones. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with existing zoning and a rezone of the property is not proposed. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland production zones.
d) Result in the loss of forest land, conversion of forest land to non-forest use, or involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The project site including any offsite improvements do not contain any forest lands as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), therefore project implementation would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. In addition, the project is not located in the vicinity of offsite forest resources.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 15 - e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Important Farmland or other agricultural resources, to non- agricultural use?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project site has been designated as Farmland of Local Importance. As a result, the proposed project was reviewed and was determined not to have significant adverse impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance or active agricultural operations to a non-agricultural use because the project site is not currently used for farming activities. The site was previously farmed, but based on a review of historic aerial photographs, has not been cultivated for agricultural use since 2009 (Google Earth 2018). This date is at least 7 years prior to the last FMMP mapping date (Department of Conservation 2016). In order to qualify for the Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance designations, land must have been cropped at some time during the 4 years prior to the last FMMP mapping date. As previously discussed under II.a, the designation may have been incorrectly identified. There are no active agricultural operations surrounding the campground site except for the property to the east of the campground site. The eastern portion of this adjacent property is designated as Prime Farmland. The proposed campground site is separated from the agricultural uses by Saturn Boulevard and accessory structures that are located on the portion of the property designated as Farmland of Local Importance. The land uses proposed as part of the Campground and Equestrian Facility Component would not interfere with the cultivation of nearby agricultural lands.
Therefore, no potentially significant project or cumulative level conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance to a non- agricultural use would occur as a result of the proposed project.
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 San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 16 - Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes development that was anticipated in the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) growth projections used in development of the RAQS and SIP. Operation of the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors that were considered as a part of the RAQS based on growth projections. As such, the proposed project is not expected to conflict with either the RAQS or the SIP. In addition, based on the technical memo prepared by ICF, dated October 4, 2018 (Appendix A), the operational emissions from the project would be below the screening levels and subsequently would not violate ambient air quality standards.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
In general, air quality impacts from land use projects result from motor vehicle emissions and from short-term construction activities. The San Diego County Land Use Environment Group (LUEG) has established guidelines for determining significance that incorporate the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD’s) established screening-level criteria for all new source review (NSR) in SDAPCD Rule 20.2. These screening-level criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions (e.g., stationary and fugitive emissions, as well as emissions from mobile sources) would not result in a significant impact on air quality. Because SDAPCD does not have screening-level criteria for emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the use of the screening level for reactive organic compounds (ROC) from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the Coachella Valley (which are more appropriate for the San Diego Air Basin) are used.
The results are documented in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A) and summarized below.
Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes grading of not more than 3,000 cubic yards of soil per day and/or not more than 5 acres of area per day. The project would require approximately 32.7 acres of grading for the parking lots and roadways designed for internal circulation. In addition, the proposed project would not require cut and/or fill slopes. Grading would occur over an approximately 16-week period. However, grading operations associated with the construction of the project would be subject to the County of San Diego Grading Ordinance, which requires the implementation of dust control measures. Emissions from the construction phase would be minimal, temporary, and localized, resulting in pollutant emissions below the screening-level criteria established by the LUEG guidelines for determining significance. In addition, the vehicle trips generated from the project would result in 762 Average Daily Trips (ADTs). According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, projects that generate less than 2,000 ADT are below the screening-level criteria established by the guidelines for criteria pollutants. As such, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 17 -
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)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
San Diego County is presently in nonattainment for the 1-hour concentrations under the California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for ozone (O3). The County is also presently in nonattainment for the annual geometric mean and for the 24-hour concentrations of particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) under the CAAQS. O3 is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the presence of sunlight. VOC sources include any source that burns fuels (e.g., gasoline, natural gas, wood, oil), solvents, petroleum processing and storage, and pesticides. Sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas include motor vehicles, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, dust from construction, landfills, agriculture, wildfires, brush/waste burning, and industrial sources of windblown dust from open lands.
Less Than Significant Impact: Air quality emissions associated with the project include emissions of PM10, NOX and VOCs from construction/grading activities, as well as VOCs as the result of increase of traffic from operations at the facility. However, grading operations associated with project construction would be subject to the County’s Grading Ordinance, which requires the implementation of dust control measures. Emissions from the construction phase would be minimal and localized, resulting in PM10 and VOC emissions below the screening-level criteria established by the LUEG guidelines for determining significance. The vehicle trips generated from the project would result in 762 ADTs. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, projects that generate less than 2,000 ADT are below the screening-level criteria established by the LUEG guidelines for determining significance for VOCs and PM10.
In addition, a list of past, present and future projects within the surrounding area was evaluated, and none emit significant amounts of criteria pollutants. As discussed in XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, no current or future projects were identified in the Tijuana River Valley. Therefore, the construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project are not expected to create a cumulatively considerable impact nor a considerable net increase of PM10 or any O3 precursors. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 18 - Discussion/Explanation:
Air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (Preschool-12th Grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. The County of San Diego also considers residences as sensitive receptors because they house children and the elderly.
Less Than Significant Impact: The following sensitive receptors have been identified within a quarter-mile of the proposed project (the radius determined by the SCAQMD in which the dilution of pollutants is typically significant): a single residential use approximately 500 feet from the project site, just east of Saturn Boulevard. However, based on review by an ICF air quality specialist, this project does not propose uses or activities that would result in exposure of these identified sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations and would not place sensitive receptors near carbon monoxide hotspots. In addition, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because the proposed project as well as past, present, and future projects have emissions below the screening-level criteria established by the LUEG guidelines for determining significance. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project could produce objectionable odors as a result of equestrian uses. However, given the location of the project and the nature of the odors, any impacts are not expected to affect a substantial number of people due to the distance to the closest sensitive receptor (a residence approximately 500 feet east) and the lack of other sensitive receptors in the area. Additionally, the proposed project would be in an area with existing equestrian uses, both public and private, so odors from these uses are already present in the surrounding area. As such, impacts as a result of odors generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. Moreover, the effects of objectionable odors are localized to the immediate surrounding area and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable odor. A list of past, present, and future projects within the surrounding area was evaluated and none of these projects create objectionable odors.
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 19 - Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: A Biological Resources Report (BRR) dated October 2018 prepared by ICF has been completed (Appendix B). The study area for the BRR encompassed 218.3 acres, including the 76-acre project site and a 500-foot buffer. Six sensitive plant species and nine sensitive animal species were observed in the study area. Development would occur within lands mapped as disturbed habitat and tamarisk scrub; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts would occur for sensitive vegetation communities. The BRR determined the project has the potential to indirectly impact least Bell’s vireo which is listed as a federally and state endangered species, and coastal California gnatcatcher, which is listed as a federally endangered species. The BRR also stated the project has the potential to indirectly impact several County Group I animal species, or species listed as a state Species of Special Concern. Indirect impacts are discussed below.
Noise from construction and operation of the proposed project could result in temporary or permanent impacts (respectively) on the behavior of other sensitive wildlife species using the surrounding habitat. Based on findings of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), noise levels greater than 60dB could impact gnatcatcher and other bird species. Least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, and white-tailed kite all have potential to nest within the study area and could be disturbed or displaced by noise effects of the proposed project. According to the Noise Analysis prepared by ICF dated October 4, 2018, operation of the proposed project would increase the ambient noise level by up to 5.5 dB CNEL to 54.6 dB CNEL. In addition, vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities would not occur during bird nesting season, as further described as part of MM-BIO-01.
The BRR also determined that the project has the potential to indirectly impact sensitive passerine avian species, most notably least Bell’s vireo, by potentially increasing brown- headed cowbird populations. Brown-headed cowbird is the only brood parasite in southern California and many native species are not well adapted to dealing with brood parasites as brown-headed cowbirds only appeared in significant numbers in San Diego County around 1915 (Unitt 2004). Brown-headed cowbirds feed on the ground, often among livestock (Unitt 2004). The project would increase equestrian use of the site with the addition of an equestrian corral, pasture, and additional multi-use trails. The increased presence of horses and manure has the potential to increase brown-headed cowbird use of the project area. The implementation of the proposed mitigation measures for biological resources, especially MM- BIO-04: Manure Management, would reduce this potential impact to the Brown-headed cowbird. The mitigation measures are described in full below.
The BRR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-01 through MM- BIO-04 would reduce the potential impacts on federally and state listed endangered species, Species of Special Concern, and County Group I animal species to less than significant. The mitigation measures are described in further detail below:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 20 - MM-BIO-01: Clearing Restrictions. To mitigate for potentially significant impacts on sensitive nesting birds and raptors, the County will avoid vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities during the bird breeding season to keep the project in compliance with state and federal regulations regarding nesting birds (i.e., the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA] and California Fish and Game Code [CFGC]). The bird breeding season is defined as January 15 to September 1, which includes the tree-nesting raptor breeding season of January 15 to July 15, the ground-nesting raptor breeding season of February 1 to July 15, and the general avian breeding season of February 1 to September 1. If removal cannot be avoided during this time-period, a nesting bird survey will be conducted no more than 72 hours prior to ground- disturbing activities by a qualified avian biologist through the entirety of the project site, as well as a 900-foot buffer inspecting for northern harrier, a 500-foot buffer inspecting for raptors, and a 300-foot buffer inspecting for other nesting birds. This is necessary to definitively ascertain whether raptors or other migratory birds are actively nesting in the project site, or in a vicinity that could be indirectly impacted by work activities (i.e., through noise or visual disturbances). If the survey results are positive, the location of active raptor or migratory bird nests will be mapped by a qualified avian biologist. All construction activities in proximity to active nests will be delayed or otherwise modified as necessary to prevent nest failure (e.g., nest abandonment). Nesting northern harriers will be given a 900-foot avoidance buffer (per the Multiple Species Conservation Program [MSCP]), raptors will be afforded a 500-foot no- disturbance buffer, nesting special-status birds will be afforded at least a 300-foot buffer, and common birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC will be afforded a 50- to 100-foot buffer. Buffers may be adjusted based on the observations by the biological monitor(s) of the response of the nesting birds to human activity and will be conducted in coordination with the resource agencies (USFWS and CDFW).
MM-BIO-02: Biological Monitoring. The County will retain a qualified biologist to conduct biological monitoring during project construction. After the surveyor has flagged the limits of disturbance (but prior to brushing, clearing, or other ground-disturbing activities or other construction activities or staging) the biological monitor will conduct a review of the limits of disturbance, to ensure that the project does not cause errant impacts on surrounding sensitive vegetation communities and to inspect the project area for sensitive species. The biological monitor will be on site during all vegetation, brushing, clearing, or initial grading that could disturb topsoil. The biological monitor will conduct weekly monitoring visits after initial grading to ensure that perimeter controls are in place and that errant biological impacts do not occur. The biological monitor will also monitor any and all avian nest avoidance buffers established during nesting bird surveys (see MM BIO-01) during the breeding season. Monitors will work with construction personnel to minimize and avoid disruption to breeding birds and other special-status wildlife potentially present within or adjacent to construction areas.
MM BIO-03: Best Management Practices (BMPs): To reduce and avoid indirect impacts from the project construction, the following BMPs will be implemented: Appropriate construction scheduling and sequencing will be established to reduce the amount and duration of soil exposed to vehicle tracking. Vehicle speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour in the project area. Regular watering of roadways will be conducted to prevent and alleviate dust generation, but will not be applied in quantities with allow for water ponding. Limits of construction areas will be fenced or flagged and maintained throughout the construction activities. TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 21 - Appropriate stormwater BMPs will be established during the rainy season (October 1 to April 30) to reduce erosion and control siltation. BMPs may include silt fences, fiber rolls, and application of organic soil tackifiers (e.g., guar gum).
MM BIO-04: Manure Management: To reduce indirect impacts from increased equestrian use of the project area, the County will implement a manure management program for the project. Manure will be periodically removed from the corral and pasture areas. Manure will be composted on site following the CalRecycle regulation for pathogen reduction (14 CCR § 17868.3), and raw manure will not be spread on site. On-site composting will be situated to avoid runoff into wetlands.
The on-site sewer advanced treatment system would be located on the project site within the project impact areas, and would comply with MM-BIO-01 through MM BIO-03, and thus would not contribute to additional impacts on sensitive species.
The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would be aligned with the proposed driveway and along Monument Road, which are disturbed habitat and a paved road. In addition, the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would also comply with MM-BIO-01 through MM BIO-03. Thus, the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would not result in significant impacts on sensitive species.
The water pipeline connection would occur within the project impact area and would primarily be located within the right-of-way for Monument Road from the project site to the tie-in to the existing City water line at Smuggler’s Gulch. Monument Road is a paved road and the proposed water line would be installed in the roadway and would not disturb any existing habitat. Therefore, the water pipeline connection would not result in significant impacts on sensitive species.
With the implementation of MM-BIO-01, MM-BIO-02, MM-BIO-03, and MM-BIO-04 the potential impacts on any special status species would be reduced to less than significant.
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: A BRR dated October 2018 prepared by ICF, has been completed (Appendix B). The BRR identified 10 different vegetation communities in the study area. The BRR states the impact area of the proposed project would avoid any sensitive habitat. The impact area would be situated within disturbed habitat, tamarisk scrub, and urban/developed land, none of which are sensitive natural communities.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 22 - The BRR determined the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to riparian or natural communities because: The project would not remove sensitive native or naturalized habitat. No wetland resources occur on site that fall under the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. Impacts to County/California Coastal Commission(CCC)/City jurisdictional habitat have been avoided. The proposed project would not utilize groundwater and therefore would not draw down the groundwater table to the detriment of groundwater-dependent habitat. The proposed project would not significantly increase long-term indirect impacts on the site. While the proposed project would increase human activity levels, all development has been sited with buffers from wetland habitat, reducing human impacts on native vegetation. Wetlands buffers have been incorporated into the project design to protect the functions and values of wetlands. Development has been sited at least 100 feet away from wetland vegetation. Trails are a resource-dependent activity that are situated in wetland buffers; they have been situated at least 50 feet away from wetland resources whenever possible.
The on-site sewer advanced treatment system would be located within the project impact area and would be consistent with the findings from the BRR discussed above.
The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line and the water pipeline connection would both be constructed within previously disturbed or developed areas, i.e. the proposed driveway in the western portion of the campground and Monument Road, which is asphalt paved. These two components would not result in significant impacts on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.
Therefore, project impacts on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Fish and Wildlife Code, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, or any other local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, are considered less than significant.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: Based on the BRR dated October 2018 and prepared by ICF (Appendix B), it has been determined that the proposed project site does not contain any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, stream, lake, river, or water of the U.S., that could potentially be impacted through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, diversion, or obstruction by the proposed development. The TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 23 - proposed project would avoid CDFW jurisdictional habitat, as well as County/CCC/City jurisdictional wetlands. The project would not utilize groundwater. Furthermore, wetland buffers have been incorporated into the project design to protect the functions and values of wetlands. Development has been sited at least 100 feet away from wetland vegetation. Therefore, no impacts would occur on wetlands defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under the jurisdiction of the USACE.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less than Significant Impact: Based on the BRR prepared by ICF (Appendix B), impedance of the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, the use of an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, and the use of native wildlife nursery sites would not be expected as a result of the proposed project for the following reasons: The proposed project is situated in disturbed habitat and avoids impacts to all native vegetation; The proposed project does not block or interfere with larger, established wildlife corridors or linkages through the Tijuana River Valley, nor does the project design preclude movement across the site. The proposed project will not impact known or potential nursery sites because it avoids impacts to native vegetation and limits development to only disturbed areas. The project would not create artificial wildlife corridors.
The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts on wildlife movement or nursery sites for the reasons listed above, but also because there are no other planned projects in the Tijuana River Valley at this time.
e) Conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan or any other local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 24 - Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The County of San Diego details that any of the following conditions would be considered a significant impact to any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan or any other local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources (County 2010):
1. For lands outside of the MSCP, the project would impact coastal sage scrub vegetation in excess of the County’s 5 percent habitat loss threshold as defined by the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Guidelines.
2. The project would preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NCCP. For example, the project proposes development within areas that have been identified by the County or resource agencies as critical to future habitat preserves.
3. The project will impact any amount of sensitive habitat lands as outlined in the Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO).
4. The project would not minimize and/or mitigate coastal sage scrub habitat loss in accordance with Section 4.3 of the NCCP Guidelines.
5. The project does not conform to the goals and requirements as outlined in any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), Watershed Plan, or similar regional planning effort.
6. For lands within the MSCP, the project would not minimize impacts to BRCAs, as defined in the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO).
7. The project would preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values, as defined by the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Guidelines.
8. The project does not maintain existing movement corridors and/or habitat linkages as defined by the BMO.
9. The project does not avoid impacts to MSCP narrow endemic species and would impact core populations of narrow endemics.
10. The project would reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of listed species in the wild.
11. The project would result in the killing of migratory birds or destruction of active migratory bird nests and/or eggs (MBTA).
12. The project would result in the “take” of eagles, eagle eggs or any part of an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act).”
The BRR prepared by ICF in October 2018 (Appendix B) contained analysis of the potential impacts related to each of these criteria. The BRR found the risk of potential impact related to the following criteria: TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 25 -
11. The project would result in the killing of migratory birds or destruction of active migratory bird nests and/or eggs (MBTA).
The BRR found that the proposed project could have potential to destroy birds or bird nests protected under the federal MBTA and FGC if grading or vegetation clearing is conducted during the breeding season for these taxa, defined as January 15–July 15 for tree nesting raptors, February 1–July 15 for ground-nesting raptors, and February 15–September 1 for other birds. Such impacts would violate the MBTA and FGC and would be considered significant.
The potential violation of the MBTA or FGC would be avoided through seasonal restrictions and preconstruction surveys, as detailed in MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2.
The proposed project will not result in significant impacts under the following guidelines for the following reasons:
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts under the following guidelines for the following reasons:
Criteria 1 & 4. The proposed project would have no impacts on coastal sage scrub or maritime succulent scrub.
Criteria 2. The proposed project is consistent with the existing NCCP, the San Diego MSCP, and would not prelude the preparation of another subregional NCCP.
Criteria 3. The proposed project would not result in impacts on any sensitive habitat lands described by the RPO. Additionally, while the project is consistent with the RPO, it is not subject to the RPO.
Criteria 5. This area is consistent with the San Diego MSCP. It is not subject to any other HCP, HMP, SAMP, or other regional planning effort.
Criteria 6. This site is within the MSCP. Development of this site has been clustered in disturbed areas. While part of the development on the western end of the site is within MHPA (comprised of disturbed habitat), the proposed project would conserve sensitive habitat in the proposed project area that is not currently in the MHPA. Specifically, the project will impact 4.5 acres of disturbed habitat and 0.23 acre of urban/developed within the MHPA. Within the project site, outside of the MHPA, 37.5 acres of habitat will be conserved, including 2.4 acres of coastal scrub - disturbed, 28.1 acres of disturbed habitat, 3.5 acres of mule fat scrub-disturbed, 2.2 acres of southern willow scrub-disturbed, and 0.2 acre of tamarisk scrub, and 1.2 acres of urban/developed. The project will provide greater preservation of habitats that are biologically superior to the current MHPA onsite with respect to vegetation community type as well as functionality for common and special- status species. The site is surrounded by habitat meeting the definition of BRCA, and the proposed project would have no impacts on sensitive habitats.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 26 - Criteria 7. The proposed project is sited in disturbed habitat, preserves natural habitats within the project area, and does not preclude connectivity within an area of high habitat.
Criteria 8. The proposed project would not result in impacts on existing movement corridors or habitat linkages.
Condition 9. Least Bell’s vireo are listed by the MSCP as a narrow endemic species. The project avoids all breeding habitat for least Bell’s vireo and includes a 100-foot buffer between development and suitable habitat.
Criteria 10. The proposed project would not reduce the likelihood of recovery of listed species. The proposed project would avoid impacts on habitat of listed species.
Criteria 12. The proposed project is not situated within potential eagle foraging habitat, and no eagle nests are known from the area. Golden eagles nest on Otay Mountain but do not forage over habitat adjacent to highly urbanized areas, such as this site. The proposed project would not result in take of eagles.
Therefore, with the incorporation of MM-BIO-01 and MM-BIO-02 as described in the response to IV.a., the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan or any other local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources.
The Project is consistent with the MSCP and would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances or any HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP. Furthermore, neither the City of San Diego nor County of San Diego are aware of current or future projects or discretionary applications for development in the Tijuana River Valley because the majority of land is being conserved. Therefore, because the proposed project would be consistent with the MSCP and would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances or any HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP, the proposed project would not add to cumulative impacts related to local policies or plans.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: Based on an analysis of records and a survey of the property by a County of San Diego approved archaeologist on December 13, 2017, it has been determined that there would TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 27 - be no impacts on historical resources because none occur within the project site. The results of the survey are provided in an historical resources report titled, Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report, prepared by ICF (Appendix C). In addition, the water pipeline connection construction would occur within the road right-of-way, and there are no historical resources within the road. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: A file search and field survey were conducted for the proposed project to determine the presence or potential presence of archaeological resources within the project site. The results are documented in the confidential Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report (Appendix C) and summarized below.
A records and literature search was conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University on November 3, 2017 to identify previously documented resources within and near the project site. Sixty previously recorded cultural resources are present within a 1-mile radius, including five archaeological resources located within the project site and two near the water pipeline route along Monument Road. The pedestrian survey relocated two of the five previously documented resources within the project site and identified one previously undocumented archaeological isolate. Isolates by definition do not meet the standards for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and are therefore not considered significant resources. None of the other resources have been evaluated for listing in the CRHR.
Ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, could damage or destroy subsurface cultural resources. However, construction activities for the proposed project would extend approximately 4 feet below the surface, while the two relocated archaeological resources within the project site are located deeper. Therefore, the proposed project would not disturb these resources. In addition, construction for the water pipeline connection would occur entirely within the road right- of-way, which was previously disturbed during construction of the road.
Due to the number of archaeological resources recorded in the surrounding area, there is a potential for unidentified, subsurface archaeological resources to be present within the project site. If present below the surface, these archaeological resources could be damaged by ground- disturbing activities associated with the project. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-01 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
MM-CUL-01: Archaeological Monitoring. The County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all proposed ground-disturbing activities related to the implementation of the proposed project in order to minimize disturbance of TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 28 - subsurface archaeological deposits. Specifically, the following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts: All proposed ground disturbance, including grading and excavation for the project, will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist(s) who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, as promulgated in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 36, Section 61 or in the City’s Land Development Code. Prior to the start of construction, a monitoring plan will be prepared that describes the nature of the archaeological monitoring work, procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery, and reporting requirements. The archaeologist will be invited to the preconstruction meeting to inform all personnel of the high probability of archaeological materials being encountered during construction. If intact subsurface deposits are identified during construction, the archaeologist will be empowered to divert construction activities away from the find and will be given sufficient time and compensation to investigate the find and determine its significance. No soil will be exported off site until a determination can be made regarding the significance of the resource, especially if Native American resources are encountered. Recovered items will be treated in accordance with current professional standards by being properly provenienced, cleaned, analyzed, researched, reported, and curated in a collection facility meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as promulgated in 36 CFR 79, such as the San Diego Archaeological Center. The costs for curation will be included in the budget for recovery of the archaeological remains. A final Cultural Resources Monitoring report will be produced, which will discuss the monitoring program and its results and will provide interpretations of any recovered cultural materials. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
San Diego County has a variety of geologic environments and geologic processes that generally occur in other parts of the state, country, and the world. However, some features stand out as being unique in one way or another within the boundaries of the County.
No Impact: The site does not contain any unique geologic features that have been listed in the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Unique Geology Resources (2007a) nor does the site support any known geologic characteristics that have the potential to support unique geologic features.
d) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 29 - Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The project site is underlain by fill materials to a depth of approximately 1.5 feet and alluvium to approximately 61.5 feet (Appendix C). The alluvium is likely Pleistocene to Holocene age and mapped as geologic type “Q” (Department of Conservation 2010). Fossils or fossil deposits are generally regarded as older than 10,000 years and are typically not found within the end of the last late Pleistocene glacial event into the current period of the Holocene (County of San Diego 2007b). Therefore, unique paleontological resources or sites are not anticipated within the project site. In addition, construction for the water pipeline connection would occur entirely within the road right-of-way, which was previously disturbed during construction of the road. As a result, project construction, including the two sewer options and the water pipeline connection, would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: As previously discussed, a file search and field survey were conducted for this component of the proposed project to determine the presence or potential presence of cultural resources, including human remains, within the project site. The results are documented in the confidential Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report (Appendix C) and summarized below.
No previously recorded sites with human remains were identified within the project site. However, due to the number of archaeological resources recorded in the surrounding area, there is a potential for unidentified human remains to be present within the project site. If present, the human remains could be damaged by ground-disturbing activities associated with the project. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-02 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
MM-CUL-02: Protection of Human Remains. Any ground-disturbing activities on the project site must be considered as having the potential to encounter Native American human remains. Human remains require special handling and must be treated with appropriate dignity. Specific actions must take place pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5e, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, and Section 87.429 of the County of San Diego Grading, Clearing and Watercourses Ordinance.
Should human remains be identified during ground-disturbing activities related to the project, whether during construction, maintenance, or any other activity, state- and county-mandated procedures will be followed for the treatment and disposition of those remains, as follows.
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, DPR will ensure that the following procedures are followed: TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 30 - 1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: a. A County (DPR) official is contacted. b. The County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. c. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, then: i. The coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. ii. The NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. iii. The Most Likely Descendent (MLD) may make recommendations to the landowner (DPR), or the person responsible for the excavation work, for the treatment of human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2. Under the following conditions, the landowner or its authorized representative will rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance: a. The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC. b. The MLD fails to make a recommendation. c. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. 3. Any time human remains are encountered or suspected and soil conditions are appropriate for the technique, ground penetrating radar (GPR) will be used as part of the survey methodology. In addition, the use of canine forensics will be considered when searching for human remains. The decision to use GPR or canine forensics will be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation among the County Archaeologist, the project archaeologist, and the Native American monitor (see MM- TCR-01). 4. Because human remains require special consideration and handling, they must be defined in a broad sense. For the purposes of this document, human remains are defined as: a. Fragmented or disarticulated human bone with no associated artifacts or grave goods. b. Cremations, including the soil surrounding the deposit. c. Interments, including the soils surrounding the deposit. d. Associated grave goods.
In consultation among the County archaeologist, project archaeologist, and Native American monitor (see MM-TCR-01), additional measures (e.g., wet-screening of soils adjacent to the deposit or on site) may be required to determine the extent of the burial.
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: TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 31 -
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.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Special Publication 42 (SP 42), Revised 1997; the nearest active fault system is the Rose Canyon fault zone approximately 3 miles from the proposed site. There are two concealed faults mapped on the proposed campground site, one along the eastern boundary of the proposed equestrian facility and one in the center of the western campground area adjacent and east of the multi-use camping and nature education center area. The concealed fault lines are mapped as Quaternary faults, which are defined as, based on their movements, age undifferentiated within the past 1.6 million years as designated by the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance (2007). The proposed campground site is not located in a County Special Study Zone, which are late-Quaternary faults mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), which have been designated by the County (San Diego County 2007). The concealed faults are zoned as “potentially active, inactive, or activity unknown” by the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study Geologic Hazards and Faults Map, Tile 2 (2008). According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, Tijuana River Valley Regional Parks Campgrounds, prepared by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Science Consultants (Ninyo & Moore), on June 20, 2018, the mapped faults are not considered active (see Appendix D). For design purposes, the Geotechnical Evaluation considered the closest active fault zone to be the Rose Canyon Fault zone. The Geotechnical Evaluation concluded the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is considered low; however, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.
The proposed project would include the clearing and leveling of the proposed site for multi-use campgrounds; installation of paddocks, a corral, and pasture; construction of restroom and shower facilities; and grading and preparing primitive roadways and parking lots. The two sewer options and water pipeline connection would involve excavation for trenches with a maximum depth of 4 feet below ground, or for the on-site advanced sewage treatment tank, also with a maximum depth of 4 feet below ground. These proposed improvements would not include activities that may exacerbate geologic conditions of the fault on site. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to the exacerbation of rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 32 -
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: To ensure the structural integrity of all buildings and structures, the project must conform to the Seismic Requirements as outlined within the California Building Code. The County Code requires a soils compaction report with proposed foundation recommendations to be approved before the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, compliance with the California Building Code and the County Code ensures the project would not result in a potentially significant impact from the exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The project site is located within a “Potential Liquefaction Area” as identified in the County Guidelines for Determining Significance for Geologic Hazards. In addition, the proposed project is located in the geologic hazard category 31, which has a high potential for liquefaction, according to the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study (2008). The eastern portion of the water pipeline connection is located within geologic hazard category 32, identified as “low potential for liquefaction due to “fluctuating groundwater minor drainages” (City of San Diego 2008). The Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix D) analyzed liquefaction potential using subsurface borings and determined that the soil type below the historic high groundwater level is susceptible to liquefaction and could result in approximately 2–6.5 inches of seismically induced settlement. Based on these conditions, Ninyo & Moore recommended remedial grading be performed within structural building areas, which is further described in Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-01. The proposed mitigation would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
MM-GEO-01: Comply with Recommendations of Geotechnical Evaluation. The project will comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation. Remedial grading will be performed within structural building areas. Remedial grading will include the following: Removal of the existing site soils within the building pad, including fill and alluvium, to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the foundation system for structural buildings. Subsequent to the removal, a low ground pressure bulldozer or excavator should be used to fill in ruts and dress the surface at the removal bottom elevation. A layer of geosynthetic woven fabric (Mirafi HP 570 or an equivalent) should then be rolled out over the dressed excavation bottom. The geosynthetic woven fabric material should overlap approximately 2 feet. Heavy equipment traffic, including trucks, should not be allowed on the geosynthetic woven fabric. An initial 12 inches of aggregate base materials should be pushed out over the geosynthetic woven fabric with low-pressure construction equipment. Compaction effort should then be made to this aggregate base layer using smaller, low-pressure TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 33 - construction equipment. Again, heavy equipment traffic, including trucks, should not be allowed on the initial lift of aggregate. Then a layer of Triaxial geogrid TX-7 (or equivalent) should be placed over the initial layer of aggregate base materials, and the geogrid should overlap approximately 2 feet. Heavy equipment traffic, including trucks should not be allowed on the geogrid. After placement of the geogrid, another 12 inches of aggregate base materials should be pushed out over the geosynthetic woven fabric with low-pressure construction equipment. Compaction effort should then be made to this aggregate base layer using smaller, low- pressure equipment. This layer of aggregate base materials should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM International (ASTM) D 1557.
iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Based on the findings of the Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix D), landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were not noted underlying the proposed campground site. The project site is not within a “Landslide Susceptibility Area" as identified in the County Guidelines for Determining Significance for Geologic Hazards. Landslide Susceptibility Areas were developed based on landslide risk profiles included in the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego, CA (URS 2004). Landslide risk areas from this plan were based on data including steep slopes (greater than 25%); soil series data (SANDAG based on U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1970s series); soil- slip susceptibility from USGS; and Landslide Hazard Zone Maps (limited to western portion of the County) developed by DMG. Also included within Landslide Susceptibility Areas are gabbroic soils on slopes steeper than 15% in grade because these soils are slide prone. As the project is not located within an identified Landslide Susceptibility Area and the geologic environment has a low probability to become unstable, the project would have a less-than-significant impact from the exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wed Soil Survey, the soils on the proposed project site are primarily Chino silt loam, terrace escarpments, and Visalia sandy loam (USDA 2018). Chino silt loam is located in the western and central portions of the site, terrace escarpments are located along Monument Road, and Visalia sandy loam is located in the eastern portion of the project site. Chino silt loam has a soil erodibility rating of “moderate,”, Visalia sandy loam has a soil erodibility rating of “severe,” TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 34 - and terrace escarpments have a soil erodibility rating of “severe” as indicated by the Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, prepared by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation and Forest Service dated December 1973. However, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil for the following reasons:
The project will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be implemented during construction activities, and a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP) due to its location within a floodway/floodplain. The plans include BMPs during both construction and operation to ensure sediment does not erode from the project site; see IX.a for further discussion of the on-site BMPs. Although the project involves grading it is required to comply with the San Diego County Code of Regulations, Title 8, Zoning and Land Use Regulations, Division 7, Sections 87.414 (DRAINAGE – EROSION PREVENTION) and 87.417 (PLANTING). Compliance with these regulations minimizes the potential for water and wind erosion.
Due to these factors, it has been found that the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil on a project level.
In addition, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact because all the of past, present, and future projects included on the list of projects that involve grading or land disturbance are required to follow the requirements of the San Diego County Code of Regulations, Title 8, Zoning and Land Use Regulations, Division 7, Sections 87.414 (DRAINAGE – EROSION PREVENTION) and 87.417 (PLANTING); Order 2001-01 (NPDES No. CAS 0108758), adopted by the San Diego Region RWQCB on February 21, 2001; County Watershed Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (Ord. No. 9424); and County Storm Water Standards Manual adopted on February 20, 2002, and amended January 10, 2003 (Ordinance No. 9426). Refer to Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, for a comprehensive list of the projects considered.
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 an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed campground and equestrian facilities would involve 32.7 acres of grading that would result in the creation of areas of cut and areas underlain by fill. The on-site sewer advanced treatment system would result in 27.6 to 82.8 cubic yards of excavation for the installation of the tank. The water pipeline would require approximately 1,481 cubic yards of trenching along the road right-of-way. Approximately half of the excavated soils would be replaced. The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would require 355 cubic yards of excavation for trenching for the proposed sewer line connection. Approximately half of the excavated soils would be replaced. The two sewer options and water pipeline connection would not include any aboveground structures. The only buildings proposed TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 35 - would be the restroom and shower facilities, office, and entry booth. In order to assure that any proposed buildings are adequately supported (whether on native soils, cut, or fill), a Soils Engineering Report is required as part of the Building Permit process. That report would evaluate the strength of underlying soils and make recommendations on the design of building foundation systems. The Soils Engineering Report must demonstrate that a proposed building meets the structural stability standards required by the California Building Code, and the report must be approved by the County prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. With this standard requirement, impacts would be less than significant. For further information regarding landslides, liquefaction, and lateral spreading, refer to VI.a (iii–iv) above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located on expansive soils as defined within Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). This was confirmed by staff review of the Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation and Forest Service dated December 1973. The soils on site are Chino silt loam, which has a moderate shrink-swell behavior; Visalia sandy loam, which has a low shrink-swell behavior; and terrace escarpments, which have a variable shrink-swell behavior. However, the project would not have any significant impacts because it is required to comply with the improvement requirements identified in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Division III – Design Standard for Design of Slab-On-Ground Foundations to Resist the Effects of Expansive Soils and Compressible Soils, which ensure suitable structure safety in areas with expansive soils. Therefore, these soils would not create substantial risks to life or property. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes two options for the discharge of sewage waste. The first is the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line, which would entail tying into the IBWC existing sewer line at its force main and connecting it to the project site by underground sewer line. This would include approximately 800 feet of sewer line from the restroom in the southwestern portion of the campground site to the force main across Monument Road approximately 200 feet south of the southwestern corner of the proposed project property. This TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 36 - sewer line would discharge to the SBIWTP. Therefore, this option would not include any on-site septic or other waste discharge that would impact soils on the project site.
The second sewage disposal option is the on-site sewer advanced treatment system. This option includes the installation of a primarily filter treatment system. The advanced sewer treatment system would be located adjacent to the proposed restroom and shower facility in the southwestern portion of the campground site. The soils underlying this area are identified as Chino silt loam (USDA 2018). These soils are considered “moderate” for septic tank effluent disposal (USDA 1973). Discharged wastewater must conform to the RWQCB’s applicable standards, including the Regional Basin Plan and the California Water Code. California Water Code Section 13282 allows RWQCBs to authorize a local public agency to issue permits for on- site wastewater systems (OSWS) “to ensure that systems are adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed and maintained.” The RWQCBs with jurisdiction over San Diego County have authorized the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH) to issue certain OSWS permits throughout the County and within the incorporated cities. DEH would review the OSWS lay-out for the project pursuant to DEH, Land and Water Quality Division’s, “On-site Wastewater Systems: Permitting Process and Design Criteria.” Therefore, the project site has soils that may be capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as will need to be determined by the authorized, local public agency. In addition, the project would comply with the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 6, Div. 8, Chap. 3, Septic Tanks and Seepage Pits.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
The State of California has developed guidelines to address the significance of climate change impacts based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which contains two significance criteria for evaluating GHG emissions of a project. A project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The two questions were intended to satisfy the Legislative directive in PRC Section 21083.05. Therefore, the analysis contained herein relies upon Appendix G of the S t a t e CEQA Guidelines as the threshold of the significance for evaluating the environmental effects of the GHG emissions of the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that the “determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 37 - the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.”
Section 15064.4(b) further states a lead agency should consider the following non-exclusive list of factors when assessing the significance of GHG emissions:
1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; 2. The extent to which project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and 3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement statewide, regional, or local plans for the reduction or mitigation for GHG emissions.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1) states that “the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.” A cumulative impact may be significant when the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, climate change is the product of incremental contributions of GHG emissions on a global scale. GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons (HFCs), and nitrous oxide, among others. Human-induced GHG emissions are a result of energy production and consumption, and personal vehicle use, among other sources.
Full results of the GHG study are documented in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A) and are summarized below.
Less Than Significant Impact: The County of San Diego Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 14, 2018, outlines actions that the County would undertake to meet its GHG emissions reduction targets. Implementation of the CAP would require that new development projects incorporate more sustainable design standards and implement applicable reduction measures consistent with the CAP. To help plan and design projects consistent with the CAP, and to assist County staff in implementing the CAP and determining the consistency of proposed projects with the CAP during development review, the County has prepared a CAP Consistency Review Checklist (Checklist). This Checklist, in conjunction with the CAP, provides a streamlined review process for proposed discretionary projects that require environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Refer to the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change (Guidelines) for more information on GHG emissions, climate change impact requirements, thresholds of significance, and compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
If a project is consistent with the projections and land use assumptions in the CAP, its associated growth in terms of GHG emissions would have been accounted for in the CAP’s projections, and project implementation of the CAP reduction measures would contribute towards reducing the County’s emissions and meeting the County’s reduction targets. Projects that include a land use plan and/or zoning designation amendment that would result in an equivalent, or less, GHG‐intensive project when compared to the existing designation, would TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 38 - also be within the projections assumed in the CAP. The project is consistent with the zoning and land use projections for the project site. Thus, the project’s GHG emissions have been accounted for in the CAP’s projections.
Step 2 of the Checklist contains the CAP GHG reduction measures that projects are required to implement to ensure compliance with the CAP. Implementation of these measures ensures that new development is consistent with relevant CAP strategies and measures and would contribute towards achieving the identified GHG reduction targets. The project is a non- residential use that would not involve tenant-occupied uses, water heating, appliances or plumbing, more than 2,500 square feet of landscaping, farming equipment, or irrigation pumps. Thus, none of the CAP GHG reduction measures presented in the Checklist are applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions is determined to not be cumulatively considerable because it is determined to be consistent with the CAP.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact if it would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The state passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which set the GHG emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. The law requires that by 2020, state emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by reducing GHG emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions. The state subsequently passed Senate Bill (SB) 32 which set the new GHG emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. The law requires that by 2030, state emissions must be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by reducing GHG emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions.
To implement state mandates to address climate change in local land use planning, local land use jurisdictions are generally preparing GHG emission inventories and reduction plans and incorporating climate change policies into local general plans to ensure development is guided by a land use plan that reduces GHG emissions. The County of San Diego’s General Plan incorporates various climate change goals and policies. These policies provide direction for individual development projects to reduce GHG emissions and help the County meet its GHG emission reduction targets identified in the County’s CAP. The CAP includes GHG reduction measures that, if fully implemented, would achieve an emissions reduction target that is consistent with the State-mandated reduction target embodied for 2020 (AB 32) and 2030 (SB 32) and demonstrates progress towards the state’s 2050 GHG reduction goals. A set of project- specific implementing thresholds are included in the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and are used to ensure project consistency with the County’s CAP, GHG emission TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 39 - reduction target, and the various General Plan goals and policies related to GHG emissions that support CAP goals.
As noted in VII.a above, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions is determined to not be cumulatively considerable because it is determined to be consistent with the CAP, which is the most applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes to develop the property as a multi-use campground available for large groups, families, and equestrian enthusiasts. The project also includes two sewer options and a water pipeline connection. Construction of the project components may involve the temporary use and storage of small amounts of hazardous materials, including solvents, paints, oils, and lubricants. However, the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment because all storage, handling, transport, emission and disposal of hazardous substances would be in full compliance with applicable regulations such as the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) regulations. These regulations provide tracking methods, standards and procedures for the management of hazardous materials, as well as spill response measures. Because compliance with these regulations is mandatory, construction activities are not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public through use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Operation of the proposed project as a recreational facility would not involve the routine use and storage of hazardous materials. California Government Code § 65850.2 requires that no final certificate of occupancy or its substantial equivalent be issued unless there is verification that the owner or authorized agent has met, or is meeting, the applicable requirements of the Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 2, Section 25500-25520.
The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Division (DEH HMD) is the CUPA for San Diego County responsible for enforcing Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code. As the CUPA, the DEH HMD is required to regulate hazardous materials TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 40 - business plans and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk management plans. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is required to contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of on site. The plan also contains an emergency response plan that describes the procedures for mitigating a hazardous release, procedures and equipment for minimizing the potential damage of a hazardous materials release, and provisions for immediate notification of the HMD, the Office of Emergency Services, and other emergency response personnel such as the local fire agency having jurisdiction. Implementation of the emergency response plan facilitates rapid response in the event of an accidental spill or release, thereby reducing potential adverse impacts. Furthermore, the DEH HMD is required to conduct ongoing routine inspections to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations, to identify safety hazards that could cause or contribute to an accidental spill or release, and to suggest preventative measures to minimize the risk of a spill or release of hazardous substances.
Therefore, due to the strict requirements that regulate hazardous substances outlined above and the fact that operational activities would occur in compliance with local, state, and federal regulation, the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous substances or related to the accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any effect on an existing or proposed school. c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or is otherwise known to have been subject to a release of hazardous substances and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less than Significant Impact: The campground location is approximately a mile south of the main Tijuana River channel. When dry-season sewage and pollution flows occur, they are far from the campground site. During rainy season, this site typically stays dry. During the flood of 1993 there was some modest water flow to the site. After this flood, the City of San Diego TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 41 - constructed a pilot channel to quickly bring runoff to the main Tijuana River channel. Many residents live, and businesses operate, in Tijuana River Valley, and within the floodplain. The site has not been impacted by flood water since 1993. During extraordinary rain events, when the river valley floods, the campground may be subject to flooding and will be closed/evacuated.
Based on a regulatory database search conducted by Ninyo & Moore as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground (Phase I ESA), prepared on February 12, 2018 (Appendix E), the proposed campground/equestrian site, including the location of the on-site advanced sewage treatment system option, has not been subject to a release of hazardous substances that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The project site is not included in any of the following lists or databases: the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Establishment database, the San Diego County DEH Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Case Listing, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database (“CalSites” Envirostor Database), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) listing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Superfund Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, or the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL). Additionally, the project does not propose structures for human occupancy or significant linear excavation within 1,000 feet of an open, abandoned, or closed landfill, is not located on or within 250 feet of the boundary of a parcel identified as containing burn ash (from the historic burning of trash), is not on or within 1,000 feet of a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), does not contain a leaking Underground Storage Tank (UST) and is not located on a site with the potential for contamination from historic uses such as industrial uses, a gas station, or vehicle repair shop.
The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line and the water pipeline connection were not included in the Ninyo & Moore review of environmental databases. However, they are both located primarily in the right-of-way for Monument Road. A secondary search of the aforementioned environmental databases was conducted by ICF staff, which did not identify any hazardous release cases along the proposed routes for the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line and the water pipeline connection.
The Ninyo & Moore Phase I ESA (Appendix E) identified a previous Phase I investigation conducted in 1991 that occurred on the AM-Sod facility, located on a property adjacently north and east of the proposed campground site. Reportedly, the Am-Sod facility, a commercial sod farm with a nursery and equestrian center, historically included a portion of the proposed campground site. The 1991 Phase I identified surface soil staining on the western portion of the site during site reconnaissance related to a truck salvage/wrecking yard. The Phase I also stated that due to the location of the site within the 50-year Tijuana River floodplain, the site may be subject to periodic flooding and it is possible sewage effluents in Mexico are present in the river. Based on these two findings, the 1991 Phase I recommended “subsurface investigation and laboratory assessment of near surface soils” and evaluation of “bacteriological contamination of on-site surface waters and soils in the area of the constructed ‘effluent channel’ prior to site development”. Subsequently, two Soil Sampling Reports by Ninyo & Moore were performed on the Am-Sod facility in 2010. Soil sampling was conducted on former agricultural fields and soil TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 42 - berms. Based on the historic use of the proposed campground site as part of the Am-Sod facility, in the Phase I ESA Ninyo & Moore concluded the potential exists for subsurface contamination from pesticides and other contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) to be present in soil.
Due to the findings of the Phase I ESA, Ninyo & Moore conducted a Soil Sampling and Analysis and Human Health Screening Evaluation, Proposed Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Campground, prepared on March 29, 2018 (Appendix F), to investigate the existing soil conditions on the proposed campground site. The COPCs that were analyzed were TPH, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, plychlorinated biphenyls, Title 22 metals, OCPs, OPPs, chlorinated herbicides, total and fecal coliform, and salmonella. A Human Health Screening Evaluation was performed, utilizing the method specified in the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual (October 2015). The COPCs found on site were compared to the screening levels. Based on the calculated risks, the excess cancer risk from COPCs at the site is 5.2E-07 and the non- carcinogenic hazard index is 0.824. Both of these are below the respective target risk values of 1E-06 and 1. Fecal coliforms were evaluated s part of the Human Health Screening Evaluation because they are pathogenic indicators for potential sewage contamination. The maximum detected concentration of fecal coliforms was compared to the maximum acceptable pathogen concentration for fecal coliforms permitted by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery in compost produced for commercial sale in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 17868.3. Fecal coliforms were detected at a concentration of 80 MPN/g, which is significantly lower than the maximum acceptable concentration of 1,000 MPN/g. The HHSE stated the concentrations found onsite do not present a significant health risk. Therefore, the Phase II ESA concluded “the detected concentrations of COPCs in shallow soil at the site do not present a significant health risk assuming a residential land use scenario, which is the most conservative estimate” (Appendix F).
Therefore, based on the results of the database searches and the conclusions made by Ninyo & Moore based on their on-site investigations, soil sampling and Human Health Screening Evaluation, the proposed campground site does not contain hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. d) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project site is located approximately 1 mile southeast of Naval Outlying Landing Field – Imperial Beach (NOLF- TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 43 - Imperial Beach), and is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA), Review Area 2, according to the Naval Outlying Landing Field – Imperial Beach Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2015). The proposed project is also located within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Height Notification Surface area, which requires that notice be filed with the FAA for the construction of the project. In addition, the project would be required to undergo review by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. With compliance with MM-HAZ-01 and MM-HAZ-02, the proposed project would not conflict with the airport land use plan for the NOLF-Imperial Beach.
MM-HAZ-01: FAA Height Notification. The County will complete and submit the FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration application to the FAA for review. If the FAA concludes the project would not be an airspace obstruction or hazard, no further action would be required. If the FAA determines there would be a potential airspace obstruction or hazard, the project component(s) that has/have been identified as an obstruction or hazard will be modified to the satisfaction of the FAA.
MM-HAZ-02: Review by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. The project will be submitted to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. If the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority does not find the proposed project to be compatible with the NOLF- Imperial Beach ALUCP, the project component(s) found to be incompatible with the NOLF- Imperial Beach ALUCP will be modified to the satisfaction of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. If the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority finds the proposed project to be compatible, nothing further is required.
In addition, the proposed project site is not located within a Safety Compatibility Zone as designated by the NOLF – Imperial Beach Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The project would comply with Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies for the NOLF – Imperial Beach Airport, including airspace protection and overflight policies that apply to Review Area 2. The project does not propose any distracting visual hazards including but not limited to distracting lights, glare, or other obstacles or an electronic hazard that would interfere with aircraft instruments or radio communications. The proposed campground may be a source of campfire smoke; however, this would not represent a potential hazard to aircraft due to the height of aircraft, the small amount of smoke, and the temporary nature of the smoke, as it dissipates relatively quickly. The project does not propose construction of any structure equal to or greater than 150 feet in height, constituting a safety hazard to aircraft and/or operations from an airport or heliport. Lastly, the project does not propose any artificial bird attractor, including but not limited to reservoirs, golf courses with water hazards, large detention and retention basins, wetlands, landscaping with water features, wildlife refuges, or agriculture (especially cereal grains). Therefore, due to these project features, and the implementation of MM-HAZ-01 and MM-HAZ-2, the project would not constitute a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
e) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 44 - Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project is not within 1 mile of a private airstrip. As a result, the project would not constitute a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
The following sections summarize the project’s consistency with applicable emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.
i. OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY PLAN AND MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN:
Less Than Significant Impact: The Operational Area Emergency Plan is a comprehensive emergency plan that defines responsibilities, establishes an emergency organization, defines lines of communications, and is designed to be part of the statewide Standardized Emergency Management System. The Operational Area Emergency Plan provides guidance for emergency planning and requires subsequent plans to be established by each jurisdiction that has responsibilities in a disaster situation. The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan includes an overview of the risk assessment process, identifies hazards present in the jurisdiction, hazard profiles, and vulnerability assessments. The plan also identifies goals, objectives, and actions for each jurisdiction in the County of San Diego, including all cities and unincorporated areas. The project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not interfere with this plan because it would not prohibit subsequent plans from being established or prevent the goals and objectives of existing plans from being carried out. ii. SAN DIEGO COUNTY NUCLEAR POWER STATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
No Impact: The San Diego County Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Plan would not be interfered with by the project due to the location of the project, plant, and the specific requirements of the plan. The emergency plan for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station includes an emergency planning zone within a 10-mile radius. All land area within 10 miles of the plant is not within the jurisdiction of the unincorporated County, and as such a project in the unincorporated area is not expected to interfere with any response or evacuation. iii. OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY ELEMENT
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is over 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean coastline. The Oil Spill Contingency Element would not be interfered with because the project is not located along the coastline. In addition, the only use of oil required for the construction or operation TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 45 - of the proposed project would be associated with the temporary use of construction equipment, and vehicles accessing the site. No long-term storage of oil would occur on site.
iv. EMERGENCY WATER CONTINGENCIES ANNEX AND ENERGY SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN
No Impact: The Emergency Water Contingencies Annex and Energy Shortage Response Plan would not be interfered with because the project does not propose altering major water or energy supply infrastructure, such as the California Aqueduct.
v. DAM EVACUATION PLAN
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is within the dam inundation zone for the Rodriguez Dam, located in Tijuana, Mexico. The project is not a unique institution that would be difficult to safely evaluate in the event of a dam failure. Unique institutions, as defined by the Office of Emergency Services, include hospitals, schools, skilled nursing facilities, retirement homes, mental health care facilities, care facilities for patients with disabilities, adult and childcare facilities, jails/detention facilities, stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, or a similar use. While the proposed campground would contain an amphitheater in the natural education center area, it is to serve the purpose of a primitive gathering space for school groups or campers, and would not act as a large venue for performances. The amphitheater would be constructed out of natural materials and would be of a temporary nature. A “camping park” requires a conditional use permit within the Open Space – Floodplain zone, according to the City of San Diego Municipal Code. However, the proposed project is within the TRVRP and is not subject to City approvals. The project would comply with the County of San Diego Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and follow the permit conditions. Because the project does not propose a unique institution in a dam inundation zone and would comply with regulations related to development in floodplains, it would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the implementation of an emergency response plan.
g) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department (City of San Diego 2008). However, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires because it would comply with the regulations relating to emergency access, water supply, and defensible space specified in the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 3 and Appendix II-A of the Uniform Fire Code. The project is also required to comply with the County of San Diego Fire Service TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 46 - Conditions stipulated by the County Fire Services staff (i.e., County Fire Marshall) upon review and approval of the project.
In addition, the project is required to develop a Site Evacuation Plan (SEP) for the campground and equestrian facilities to ensure that County staff, visitors, and customers can safely and quickly evacuate in an emergency. The purpose of the SEP is to assist staff during an evacuation. The SEP will include the following:
Facility contact list o Contains the names, responsibilities, and contact numbers of key building contacts. Building and site map o Evacuation map outlining the evacuation route(s) and assembly area(s) for the facility. A copy of this map is provided to emergency responders. o Plan for fire vehicle access routes and water tank locations. Exit routes for the nature center Personnel roster description o Used to take attendance at the assembly area following an evacuation. Site evacuation team o Responsible for complete evacuation of, and accounting for all employees, visitors, and customers in their area of responsibility. Checklist for the facility evacuation coordinator o Ensures consistency and completeness during an emergency. Checklist for the floor warden o Ensures consistency and completeness during an emergency. Evacuation/fire drill observation form Voluntary individual site evacuation plan o Designed to assist any employee with limitations or disabilities to evacuate in an emergency; created by the individual employee; is voluntary; and not a confidential document. Fire Safety Plan overview o Establishes procedures for identifying fire hazards and preventing fires.
Therefore, based on compliance with the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 3 and Appendix II-A of the Uniform Fire Code, through compliance with the County of San Diego Fire Service conditions, and through development of the SEP, the project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving hazardous wildland fires. Moreover, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact because there are no present or future projects currently planned in the surrounding area. Future projects are required to comply with the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances and the Uniform Fire Code. h) Propose a use, or place residents adjacent to an existing or reasonably foreseeable use that would substantially increase current or future resident’s exposure to vectors, including mosquitoes, rats or flies, which are capable of transmitting significant public health diseases or nuisances?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 47 - Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed campground does not involve or support uses that allow water to stand for a period of 72 hours (3 days) or more. The proposed project would involve uses that would produce or collect animal waste, including the corral, pasture, warm-up pen, and the multi-use campsites with accompanying paddocks. Therefore, the project may expose people to significant impacts involving vectors. The proposed site improvements would also include a trash enclosure/manure container in which horse manure would be disposed of. The project site would be for day-use as well as overnight use, and guests with horses would be anticipated to stay for short amounts of time. The manure would be composted on site following CalRecycle regulation for pathogen reduction (14 CCR § 17868.3). The proposed project would not represent a permanent new source of exposure to vectors in the area. In addition, the Tijuana River Valley is sparsely populated with residences, and there are existing equestrian uses throughout the area, which create sources of vectors. A Vector Management Plan would be prepared as a part of the proposed project, which will contain design measures and procedures to reduce potential vectors that are specific to the site. The plan will be reviewed by the County Department of Environmental Health, Vector Surveillance Program. The plan must contain measures intended to reduce the potential exposure of visitors or nearby residences to flies from manure caused by the equestrian uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase current or future residents’ exposure to vectors, including mosquitoes, rats, or flies or create a cumulatively considerable impact because all uses on site or in the surrounding area are addressed through an existing Vector Management Plan.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any waste discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The construction of the proposed project, including the campground and equestrian facilities, the sewer disposal options, and the water pipeline connection, would include activities that would disturb surface soils, such as grading, leveling, and trenching. During construction, exposed soils have the potential to temporarily increase the amount of sediment in runoff from the project site during a storm event. The proposed project would disturb over 1 acre of land; therefore, it would be required to obtain from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit was adopted by TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 48 - SWRCB as Water Quality Order 2012-0006-DWQ and became effective on July 17, 2012. Compliance with the General Construction Permit would require the preparation of a SWPPP for the project site, which would identify potential pollutants and outline the BMPs that would be implemented during construction activities to prevent those pollutants from entering nearby water bodies.
In addition, the proposed project would be covered under the County’s existing regional Waste Discharge Requirement Permit. Under the regional permit the project site would be required to implement site design measures and/or source control BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs to reduce potential pollutants to the maximum extent practicable from entering stormwater runoff that would be consistent with the San Diego County Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).. These measures would enable the project to meet waste discharge requirements as required.
The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line option includes discharge of domestic waste to the existing sewer line located along Monument Road. If this option was chosen, the project site would connect with the existing sewer line, which connects with the SBIWTP, which discharges secondary treated wastewater to the South Bay Ocean Outfall (RWQCB San Diego 2018). This discharge is currently regulated under Order No. R9-2014-0009, NPDES Permit No. CA0108928, Waste Discharge Requirements for the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, Discharge to the Pacific Ocean Via the South Bay Ocean Outfall (adopted on June 26, 2014, expires July 31, 2019). Therefore, this sewer option would comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit and would not violate wastewater discharge requirements.
The on-site sewer advanced treatment system option proposes to discharge domestic waste to an OSWS. Discharged wastewater must conform to the RWQCB’s applicable standards, including the Regional Basin Plan and the California Water Code. California Water Code Section 13282 allows RWQCBs to authorize a local public agency to issue permits for OSWS “to ensure that systems are adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed and maintained.” The RWQCBs with jurisdiction over San Diego County have authorized DEH to issue certain OSWS permits throughout the County and within the incorporated cities. DEH will review the OSWS lay-out for the project pursuant to DEH, Land and Water Quality Division’s, “On-site Wastewater Systems: Permitting Process and Design Criteria.” DEH would also be the approving body for the project’s OSWS. Therefore, the on-site sewer advanced treatment system would not violate waste discharge requirements, as determined by the RWQCB- authorized local public agency, DEH.
Finally, the project’s conformance to the waste discharge requirements listed above ensures the project would not create cumulatively considerable water quality impacts related to waste discharge because, through the permit, the project would conform to Countywide watershed standards in the JRMP and BMP Design Manual, derived from state regulation to address human health and water quality concerns. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on water quality from waste discharges.
b) Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, could the project result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 49 -
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project lies in the Cottonwood hydrologic subarea, within the Tijuana hydrologic unit. According to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list, the site is tributary to already impaired waterbodies, which include the Tijuana River and the Tijuana River Estuary. Constituents of concern include heavy metals, indicator bacteria, and pesticides. Construction activities associated with all components of the proposed project may include the use of construction equipment that may be the source of potential pollutants. However, the proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP as part of obtaining the General Construction Permit. The SWPPP would include BMPs designed to control stormwater runoff quality during construction activities. Compliance with the General Construction Permit would reduce potential pollution of impaired water bodies due to construction activities.
Operation of the project proposes the following activities that are associated with potential pollutants: equestrian paddocks, a corral, pasture, and parking spots for equestrian trailers, which may create a source for manure. The proposed project would be required to develop a SQMP. The SQMP will comply with the requirements of the County of San Diego Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual, which is a guidance manual for the compliance with local County of San Diego Watershed Protection Ordinance (Sections 67.801 et seq.) and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2013-001, as amended by Order No. R9-2015-001 and Order No. R9-2015-0100) requirements for stormwater management. The site design measures and/or source control BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs employed on site would serve to reduce any runoff to the maximum extent practicable so as not to increase the level of these pollutants in receiving waters. Examples of BMPs that may be implemented on site are protection of outdoor material storage areas or trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal; minimizing impervious areas; and minimizing disturbance of natural areas, soils, and vegetation. Because the proposed impervious surfaces at the project site are hydraulically disconnected and make up less than 5% of the total graded area, self-mitigating areas are anticipated to treat the impervious areas.
As discussed in the response to IX.a, the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would tie-in to an existing sewer line that connects to the SBIWTP for treatment, and is eventually discharged to the South Bay Ocean Outfall, located approximately 4 miles offshore in the Pacific Ocean. This discharge is not upstream from either of the impaired waterbodies. This discharge is currently regulated under Order No. R9-2014-0009, NPDES Permit No. CA0108928, Waste Discharge Requirements for the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, Discharge to the Pacific Ocean Via the South Bay Ocean Outfall (adopted on June 26, 2014, expires July 31, 2019). Therefore, because the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line would be discharging to a treatment system that is subject to the requirements of the NPDES permit, it would not contribute pollutants to the impaired waterbodies downstream from the project site.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 50 - As discussed in the response to IX.a, the on-site sewer advanced treatment system would be permitted by DEH. DEH will review the proposed OSWS lay-out pursuant to the “On-site Wastewater Systems: Permitting Process and Design Criteria” and will approve the proposed OSWS if and when it meets this criteria. Compliance with these criteria would prevent the OSWS from resulting in any polluted discharge. Therefore, the on-site sewer advanced treatment system would not result in polluted discharge that would contribute to pollution to downstream waterbodies that are already impaired.
Lastly, the BMPs in the SQMP would be consistent with the regional surface water and stormwater planning and permitting process that has been established to improve the overall water quality in County watersheds. As a result the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact on an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Regional surface water and stormwater permitting regulations for County of San Diego includes the following: San Diego Region, Order No. R9-2013-0001; County Watershed Protection Ordinance; Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO); and the County BMP Design Manual. The stated purposes of these ordinances are to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the County of San Diego residents; to protect water resources and to improve water quality; to cause the use of management practices by the County and its citizens that would reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges on waters of the state; to secure benefits from the use of stormwater as a resource; and to ensure the County is compliant with applicable state and federal laws. The Watershed Protection Ordinance has discharge prohibitions and requirements that vary depending on type of land use activity and location in the County. Each project subject to WPO is required to prepare a SQMP that details a project’s pollutant discharge contribution to a given watershed and propose BMPs or design measures to mitigate any impacts that may occur in the watershed. c) Could the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The RWQCB has designated water quality objectives for waters of the San Diego Region to protect the existing and potential beneficial uses of each hydrologic unit. The project lies in the Cottonwood hydrologic subarea, within the Tijuana hydrologic unit that has the following existing and potential beneficial uses for inland surface waters, coastal waters, reservoirs and lakes, and groundwater: municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; industrial process supply, industrial service supply; freshwater replenishment; contact water recreation; non-contact water recreation; warm freshwater habitat; cold freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat; commercial and sport fishing; preservation of biological habitats of special significance; estuarine habitat; marine habitat; migration of aquatic organisms; shellfish harvesting; and, rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat.
The proposed project would require construction activities, such as grading, leveling, and trenching, that may result in potential sources of pollution to receiving waters, including sediment TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 51 - and contaminated stormwater runoff. The SWPPP required for the project would include BMPs designed to reduce potential impacts on stormwater quality related to these construction activities. The BMPs would include methods to control sedimentation and erosion control during ground-disturbing activities; for example, dewatering, soil covers, gravel bags, and fiber rolls.
Operation of the parking areas and equestrian facilities (paddock, corral, pasture) proposed as part of the project may be sources of polluted stormwater runoff that may result in the degradation of beneficial uses in the hydraulic unit. Visitors to the equestrian facility would be required to collect manure from their horses and deposit it in the manure container located on site. The manure container would be emptied on a regular basis and disposed of in the compost enclosure located on the project site. The frequent removal of manure from the corral, pasture, and paddocks, and disposal within the compost enclosure would reduce the potential of polluted runoff to contribute to degradation of water quality of nearby surface waters. The SQMP would contain site design measures and/or source control BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs that would be employed during operations to reduce potential pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable such that the proposed project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses.
The operation of the two sewer options and the water pipeline would not result in any operation impacts on surface water quality or degradation of beneficial uses as they would be operating underground and are not anticipated to result in any surface water discharges. As previously discussed in the response to IX.a, the on-site tie-in to existing sewer line would discharge to a facility subject to NPDES requirements. The on-site advanced sewer treatment system would be subject to DEH review and approval. The sewer options would not result in impacts on surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses.
In addition, the proposed BMPs are consistent with regional surface water, stormwater and groundwater planning and permitting process that has been established to improve the overall water quality in County watersheds. As a result, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Refer to IX.b, for more information on regional surface water and the stormwater planning and permitting process. d) 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)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The project would obtain its water supply from the City of San Diego Water Department, which obtains water from surface reservoirs, desalinization, recycling, and imported TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 52 - water sources. The water pipeline connection would involve connecting the project site to the City water line approximately 1 mile east of the project site at Smuggler’s Gulch. The project would not use any groundwater for any purpose, including irrigation, or domestic or commercial demands. In addition, the project does not involve operations that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge including, but not limited to the following: the project does not involve regional diversion of water to another groundwater basin; or diversion or channelization of a stream course or waterway with impervious layers, such as concrete lining or culverts, for substantial distances (e.g. ¼ mile). These activities and operations can substantially affect rates of groundwater recharge. Therefore, no impact on groundwater resources is anticipated.
e) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes a campground facility that would include tent campsites, multi-use campsites, yurts for group camping, restroom and shower facilities, an outdoor nature education center, trails and interpretive play areas, equestrian facilities, a water pipeline connection, and one of two sewer disposal options. As previously discussed, a SWMP would be prepared for the proposed campground site, which would contain site-specific design measures, source control, and/or treatment control BMPs to reduce potential pollutants, including sediment from erosion or siltation, to the maximum extent practicable from entering stormwater runoff. These measures would control erosion and sedimentation and satisfy waste discharge requirements as required by the Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component of the San Diego Municipal Permit (San Diego RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001), as implemented by the San Diego County JRMP and County BMP Design Manual. The SQMP would specify and describe the implementation process of all BMPs that would address equipment operation and materials management, prevent the erosion process from occurring, and prevent sedimentation in any on-site and downstream drainage swales. The Department of Public Works would ensure that the Plan is implemented as proposed. Due to these factors, it has been found that the project would not result in significantly increased erosion or sedimentation potential and would not alter any drainage patterns of the site or area on- or off site. In addition, because erosion and sedimentation would be controlled within the boundaries of the project, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. For further information on soil erosion refer to Section VI, Geology and Soils, question b. f) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 53 -
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would involve construction activities that may temporarily alter drainage patterns, such as grading and trenching. However, these are temporary activities, and construction BMPs would be implemented as part of the SWPPP required for the project, in order to reduce potential impacts on drainage patterns.
Operation of the proposed project would include self-mitigating drainage areas for the impervious areas. The proposed project would not significantly alter established drainage patterns or significantly increase the amount of runoff for the following reasons:
Drainage would be conveyed to either natural drainage channels or approved drainage facilities. The project would not increase water surface elevation in a watercourse with a watershed equal to or greater 1 square mile by 1 foot or more in height. The project would not increase surface runoff exiting the project site equal to or greater than 1 cubic foot/second. This project does not propose grading that would substantially modify existing landforms or create significant changes in the existing drainage patterns in the project area which would result in flooding on- or off site.
Therefore, the project would not 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. Moreover, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable alteration or a drainage pattern or increase in the rate or amount of runoff because the project would not substantially increase water surface elevation or runoff exiting the site, as detailed above. g) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: There are no existing or planned stormwater drainage systems proposed by the project, nor does the project require such systems. The proposed campground would be primitive and would not involve paving, or otherwise converting pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. h) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 54 - Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would involve potential sources of polluted runoff including grading and trenching activities. However, implementation of the SWPPP would address the potential sources of polluted runoff and require the appropriate BMPs be implemented at the project site.
Similarly, operation of the proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, proposes the following potential sources of polluted runoff: the parking area for vehicles and equestrian trailers, and equestrian corral and paddock facilities. However, the SQMP prepared for the project site would include site design measures and/or source control BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs that would be employed such that potential pollutants would be reduced in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Refer to IX.a–c for further information.
i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, including County Floodplain Maps?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is mapped within the Special Flood Hazard Area, designated as Zone AE, a regulatory floodway, as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) effective on May 16, 2012 (FEMA 2012). However, the project is not proposing to place residences within these areas and would not alter access roads or other improvements that would limit access during flood events or affect downstream properties. The proposed project would be used for temporary day-use or overnight use, and would not be used for permanent residences.
j) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is mapped within a Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA 2012). However, the proposed project is not proposing to place structures, access roads TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 55 - or other improvements which would impede or redirect flood flows in these areas. The elements of the proposed project are temporary structures meant for short-term occupation or day-use. The structures are intended to be compatible with the surrounding environment and there would be minimal grading and leveling of the site.
k) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project site lies within a special flood hazard area as identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 06073C2161G (FEMA 2012). The Campground and Equestrian Facility Component would include campsites, yurts, and equestrian facilities that would allow for day- or overnight use, but would not be permanent structures intended for human occupation. The proposed campground would be for family or school group trips and recreational activities. Construction of the facility would comply with County of San Diego Ordinance No. 8334 Flood Damage Prevention, which identifies specific construction standards for structures built in a special flood hazard area. These construction standards include: Anchoring structures to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement Construction materials and practices to minimize flood damage Designing and locating service facilities (electrical, heating, plumping, etc.) so as to prevent water from entering and accumulating during base flood conditions Constructing structures would adequate drainage paths for floodwaters Elevation and flood proofing Constructing structures with adequate flood openings
Compliance with the San Diego County Ordinance 8334 would ensure the structures developed within the special flood hazard area would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death related to potential flood hazards. l) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project lies within a mapped dam inundation area for a major dam/reservoir within San Diego County, as identified on an inundation map prepared by the dam owner. However, after review of the inundation map for the Rodriguez Dam, as well TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 56 - as reviewing the definition of “Unique institutions,” as defined by the Office of Emergency Services, campgrounds are not considered permanent facilities and would not include structures designed for permanent human occupancy. “Unique institutions” include hospitals, schools, skilled nursing facilities, retirement homes, mental health care facilities, care facilities for patients with disabilities, adult and childcare facilities, jails/detention facilities, stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, or a similar use. While the proposed campground would contain an amphitheater in the natural education center area, it is to serve the purpose of a primitive gathering space for school groups or campers, and would not act as a large venue for performances. The amphitheater would be constructed out of natural materials and would be of a temporary nature. A campground is an allowable use within a floodplain overlay zone, according to the City of San Diego Municipal Code. In addition, the project would comply with the County of San Diego Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. As the project does not propose a unique institution in a dam inundation zone, the project would not result in a significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death from dam failure. m) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
i. SEICHE
No Impact: The project site is not located along the shoreline of a lake or reservoir; therefore, could not be inundated by a seiche. ii. TSUNAMI
No Impact: The project site is located more than 1 mile from the coast; therefore, in the event of a tsunami, it is not likely to be inundated. iii. MUDFLOW
No Impact: Mudflow is type of landslide. The site is not located within a landslide susceptibility zone. Also, the Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix D) determined landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were not noted underlying the proposed campground site. In addition, though the project does propose land disturbance that would expose unprotected soils, the project is not located downstream from unprotected, exposed soils within a landslide susceptibility zone. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would expose people or property to inundation due to a mudflow.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 57 -
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project includes a campground with multi-use campsites, yurts, an outdoor nature education center, trails, interpretive play areas, restroom and shower facilities, equestrian facilities, a water pipeline connection, and two sewer options. The proposed project would be located in the TRVRP, which is a regional park open to the public for hiking, biking, horseback riding, birdwatching, and other passive recreational activities. There are no established communities within the regional park. The proposed project would be consistent with these surrounding uses. The area surrounding the TRVRP is a rural residential community consisting of scattered residences and equestrian- or agricultural-related facilities. Beyond these uses, approximately 1.3 miles to the north, and 2.3 miles to the east, are residential developments consisting of single-family homes. The proposed project would not divide any of these existing communities. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located within the TRVRP, which is owned and operated by the County of San Diego, so the proposed project would be subject to County of San Diego land use plans and regulations. The proposed project would not conflict with the goals and policies of the County of San Diego General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, which is developed to conserve and manage important natural resources in the County of San Diego, while also providing park and recreation opportunities for the residents of the County. The proposed project would also be consistent with the County of San Diego Parks Master Plan (Parks Master Plan), which combines the goals and policies of several regional land use planning documents, including the General Plan, the Park Lands Dedication Ordinance, the MSCP, the Trails Program and Community Trails Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Watershed Master Plans, the Bicycle Master Plan, and the County policies and ordinances, to present a long-range plan for the development and management of parks and recreational spaces in the County (County of San Diego 2016). The Parks Master Plan incorporates the vision of the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Watershed Master Plan, which seeks to create a balance between providing natural recreational opportunities and protecting the valuable habitat bordering the Tijuana River. The proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies for future development within this area. Furthermore, because the project will avoid all sensitive vegetation communities onsite, the County will continue to look for opportunities, TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 58 - including future grant opportunities, to enhance and restore the areas being avoided on the Project area. This is consistent with the Management Framework Plan and Area Specific Management Directives (ASMDs) for the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park. Lastly, the proposed project would be consistent with the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Public Use Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) which analyzes the feasibility of developing several campground options in the TRVRP, including the proposed project (County of San Diego 2017). The Feasibility Study took into account the goals and policies of the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation when analyzing the proposed project, and determined the project to be consistent with these goals when it recommended the project.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: The project site has been classified by the California Department of Conservation – Division of Mines and Geology (1996) as an area of “Identified Mineral Resource Significance” (MRZ-2).
However, the project site is within the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park, for which goals have been proposed that are incompatible to future extraction of mineral resources on the project site (County of San Diego 2016, 2017). For example, three of the goals for this park are to preserve and protect natural resources, create a regional destination, and balance active and passive recreation. A future mining operation at the project site would likely create a significant impact on biological and cultural resources as a result of construction and operational activities of an active mine. In addition the potential noise, traffic, and air quality impacts resulting from an active mine could discourage visitors from utilizing the other recreational activities within the park. Therefore, implementation of the project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value because the mineral resource has already been lost due to incompatible land uses. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 59 - Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located in an area that has MRZ-2 designated lands. However, the proposed project would not result in the loss of locally important mineral resources because the project site is within the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park for which goals have been proposed that are incompatible with future extraction of mineral resources on the project site (County of San Diego 2016, 2017). The placement of the proposed use on the project site would not result in a loss of mineral resources because the feasibility of future mining at the site is already impacted by existing land use incompatibilities. Based on current land use conditions, a future mining operation at the project site would likely create a significant impact on biological and cultural resources and recreation, thereby reducing the feasibility of future mining operations occurring, regardless of the proposed project.
Therefore, no potentially significant loss of availability of a known mineral resource of locally important mineral resource recovery (extraction) site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan would occur as a result of this project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project is a campground with an outdoor nature education center and equestrian center, and would be occupied by families, student groups, equestrians, and other recreational visitors. Based on a site visit completed by ICF on September 25, 2018, and as described in the Noise Analysis prepared by ICF and dated October 4, 2018 (Appendix G), the surrounding area supports undeveloped lands and low-density residential. The project would not expose people to potentially significant noise levels that exceed the allowable limits of the County of San Diego General Plan, County of San Diego Noise Ordinance, and other applicable standards, as detailed below.
General Plan – Noise Element
The County of San Diego General Plan, Noise Element, Tables N-1 and N-2, addresses noise- sensitive areas and requires an acoustical study to be prepared for any use that may expose noise-sensitive area to noise in excess of a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 60 A- weighted decibels (dBA). Moreover, if the project is excess of 60 dBA CNEL or 65 dBA CNEL, modifications must be made to the project to reduce noise levels. Noise sensitive areas include residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, or similar facilities as mentioned within Tables N-1 and N-2. Based on a Noise Analysis prepared by ICF dated October 4, 2018, project implementation would not expose existing or planned noise-sensitive areas to road, airport, heliport, railroad, industrial, or other noise in excess of the 60 dBA CNEL or 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the project TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 60 - would not expose people to potentially significant noise levels that exceed the allowable limits of the County of San Diego General Plan, Noise Element.
Noise Ordinance – Section 36.404
Based on the Noise Analysis prepared by ICF, dated October 4, 2018, non-transportation noise generated by the project is not expected to exceed the standards of the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36.404) at or beyond the project’s property line. The site is zoned AR- 1-1 and OF-1-1 and does not have a specific 1-hour average sound limit. The adjacent properties are also zoned AR-1-1 and OF-1-1 but are treated as low-density residential based on the existing land use and have a 1-hour average sound limit of 50 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime. The Noise Analysis states that the project’s noise levels at the adjoining properties would be up to 38 dBA and would not exceed County Noise Standards.
Noise Ordinance – Section 36.409
Based on the Noise Analysis prepared by ICF, dated October 4, 2018, the project would not generate construction noise that may exceed the standards of the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36.409). Construction operations would occur only during permitted hours of operation pursuant to Section 36.409. Also, it is not anticipated that the project would operate construction equipment in excess of an average sound level of 75 decibels (dB) between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Finally, the project’s conformance to the County of San Diego General Plan and County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36-404 and 36.410) ensures the project would not create cumulatively considerable noise impacts because the project would not exceed the local noise standards for noise-sensitive areas, and the project would not exceed the applicable noise level limits at the property line or construction noise limits, derived from state regulation to address human health and quality of life concerns. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable exposure of persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, and applicable standards of other agencies. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes campsites where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operation and/or sleeping conditions. However, the facilities are set back 200 feet from any public road or transit right-of-way with projected noise contours of 65 dB or more. any property line for parcels zoned industrial or extractive use. or any permitted extractive uses. A setback of 200 feet ensures that the operations do not have any chance of being impacted by groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Harris, Miller Miller and Hanson TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 61 - Inc. 1995). In addition, the setback ensures that the project would not be affected by any past, present, or future projects that may support sources of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise.
Also, the project does not propose any major, new or expanded infrastructure such as mass transit, highways, or major roadways or intensive extractive industry that could generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impact vibration-sensitive uses in the surrounding area.
Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels on a project or cumulative level.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project involves the following permanent noise sources that may increase the ambient noise level: increased traffic on local roads and low-intensity on-site activities (vehicles, camping, equestrian activities, hiking, etc.). As indicated in the response to XII.a, the project would not expose existing or planned noise-sensitive areas in the vicinity to a substantial permanent increase in noise levels that exceed the allowable limits of the County of San Diego General Plan, County of San Diego Noise Ordinance, and other applicable local, state, and federal noise control.
Also, the project is not expected to expose existing or planned noise-sensitive areas to noise 10 dB CNEL over existing ambient noise levels based on the Noise Analysis prepared by ICF dated October 4, 2018. Operation of the project would increase the ambient noise level by up to 5.5 dB CNEL. Studies completed by the Organization of Industry Standards (ISO 362; ISO 1996 1- 3; ISO 3095; and ISO 3740-3747) state an increase of 10 dB is perceived as twice as loud and is perceived as a significant increase in the ambient noise level.
The project would not result in cumulative noise impacts based on the list of past, present, and future projects in the vicinity that were evaluated. It was determined that the project, in combination with past, present, and future projects, would not expose existing or planned noise- sensitive areas to noise 10 dB CNEL over existing ambient noise levels. As discussed in Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, no future projects are proposed in the Tijuana River Valley.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 62 - Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project does not involve any uses that may create substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity including but not limited to extractive industry; outdoor commercial or industrial uses that involve crushing, cutting, drilling, grinding, or blasting of raw materials; truck depots, transfer stations, or delivery areas; or outdoor sound systems.
Also, general construction noise is not expected to exceed the construction noise limits of the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36.409), which are derived from state regulations to address human health and quality of life concerns. Construction operations would occur only during permitted hours of operation pursuant to Section 36-410. Also, it is not anticipated that the project would operate construction equipment in excess of 75 dB for more than 8 hours during a 24-hour period. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located within an ALUCP for airports for the NOLF – Imperial Beach. However, project implementation is not expected to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels in excess of the CNEL 60 dBA. This is based on staff’s review of projected County noise contour maps (CNEL 60 dBA contours) and a Noise Analysis prepared by ICF dated October 4, 2018. The location of the project is outside of the CNEL 60 dBA contours for the airport. The Noise Analysis found the project would not change the operations at NOLF – Imperial Beach or alter the aircraft noise exposure at existing noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition, based on the list of past, present, and future projects there are no new or expanded public airports projects in the vicinity that may extend the boundaries of the CNEL 60 dB noise contour. As discussed in Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, there are no future projects proposed in the Tijuana River Valley. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise on a project or cumulative level.
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?
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 63 - Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project is not located within 1 mile of a private airstrip; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport- related noise levels.
In addition, based on the list of past, present, and future projects there are no new or expanded public airports projects in the vicinity that may extend the boundaries of the CNEL 60 dB noise contour. As discussed in XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, there are no future projects proposed in the Tijuana River Valley. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise on a project or cumulative level.
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)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in an area because the project does not propose any physical or regulatory change that would remove a restriction to or encourage population growth in an area including, but limited to the following: new or extended infrastructure or public facilities; new commercial or industrial facilities; large- scale residential development; accelerated conversion of homes to commercial or multi-family use; or regulatory changes including General Plan amendments, specific plan amendments, zone reclassifications, sewer or water annexations, or Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) annexation actions. The project involves the expansion of the existing Tijuana River Valley Regional Park facilities; however, this expansion is being conducted to provide additional facilities in order to accommodate the existing and planned population. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 64 - Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not displace any existing housing because the site is currently used for open space and recreational purposes. No existing housing is located within the project site.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not displace a substantial number of people because the site is currently used for open space and recreational purposes. No existing housing or other buildings are located within the project site.
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 service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, involves the expansion of an existing governmental facility, the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park, which would be used as a campground and other educational areas; however, its construction is not necessary to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance service ratios or objectives for any public services. The expansion is being conducted to provide additional facilities for the existing and planned population. Because the project is growth TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 65 - accommodating, new or physically altered government facilities would not be required. Therefore, the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because the project does not require new or significantly altered services or facilities to be constructed.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, does not propose any residential use, including but not limited to a residential subdivision, mobile home park, or construction for a single-family residence that may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities in the vicinity. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, involves expanding the existing recreational facilities offered at the Tijuana River Valley Regional Park. The expanded facilities are discussed in the project description above and could include a ropes course, amphitheater, and nature play areas. However, as outlined in this Initial Study, the expanded facilities would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment because all related impacts from the proposed recreation facilities have been mitigated to a level below significance.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of the 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?
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 66 - Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
The County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance for Traffic and Transportation (Guidelines) establish measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. These Guidelines incorporate standards from the County of San Diego Public Road Standards and Mobility Element, the County of San Diego Transportation Impact Fee Program, and the Congestion Management Program.
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Chen Ryan to identify vehicular impacts associated with the proposed project. The detailed technical report can be found in Appendix H. The TIA was performed in accordance with the County of San Diego Traffic Impact Guidelines and CEQA, as the proposed project involves development of a County of San Diego park. Considering the study area includes an intersection and roadway segments located within the City of San Diego, the intersection and roadway segment analyses were prepared consistent City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual. The applicable City of San Diego standards are identified in the TIA.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: Construction of the proposed project would require a maximum of approximately 18 vehicles per day. In addition, construction of the water pipeline along Monument Road would require temporary closure of one lane. This could temporarily reduce the effectiveness for the performance of Monument Road. However, Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-01 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
Operation of the proposed project would result in a total of 762 ADT on a peak day, including 58 AM peak hour trips (27 in, 32 out) and 117 PM peak hour trips (33 in, 84 out). However, the project would not have a significant impact related to a conflict with any performance measures establishing measures of effectiveness of the circulation system because the addition of the proposed project’s traffic would not exceed City roadway segment and intersection level of service (LOS) standards and thresholds. The proposed project trips would not result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume of capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections in relation to existing conditions. In addition, the project would not conflict with policies related to non-motorized travel such as mass transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities.
In addition, no cumulative projects were identified within the vicinity of the project study area. Additional neighboring development(s) are not likely due to the conservation of land adjacent to the project site and throughout the Tijuana River Valley by federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Cumulative conditions were therefore determined to be equivalent to existing conditions. Consequently, roadway segments and intersections within the project study area are projected to continue operating at LOS A with implementation of the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any policies establishing measures of the effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and no mitigation is required.
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 67 - MM-TRA-01: Prepare Traffic Control Plan and Submit Permit Form to City of San Diego. Prior to construction, a traffic control plan will be prepared for the project in accordance with the latest edition of the City of San Diego Standard Drawings, Appendix A: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the California Supplement; and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including Regional Supplement Amendments and City of San Diego Supplement Amendments. The traffic control plan and traffic control permit form will be submitted to the City of San Diego for review and approval. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
The designated congestion management agency for the San Diego region is SANDAG. SANDAG is responsible for preparing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) of which the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is an element to monitor transportation system performance, develop programs to address near- and long-term congestion, and better integrate land use and transportation planning decisions. The CMP includes a requirement for enhanced CEQA review applicable to certain large developments that generate an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak hour vehicle trips. These large projects must complete a traffic analysis that identifies the project’s impacts on CMP system roadways and their associated costs, and identify appropriate mitigation. Early project coordination with affected public agencies, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) is required to ensure that the impacts of new development on CMP transit performance measures are identified.
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project proposes an increase of 762 ADTs on a peak day, including 58 AM peak hour trips (27 in, 32 out) and 117 PM peak hour trips (33 in, 84 out). The additional 762 ADTs from the proposed project do not exceed the 2,400 trips (or 200 peak hour trips) required for study under the region’s Congestion Management Program. Therefore the project would not conflict with travel demand measures or other standards of the congestion management agency.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 68 - Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The main compatibility concerns for the protection of airport airspace are related to airspace obstructions (building height, antennas, etc.) and hazards to flight (wildlife attractants, distracting lighting or glare, etc.). The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, is located within the NOLF – Imperial Beach AIA Review Area 2 (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2015) and therefore requires FAA notification, as discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-01 is required. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on 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)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not place incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) on existing roadways. A sight distance study was performed and determined that the two driveways associated with the proposed project do not meet Caltrans sight distance requirements due to the presence of vegetation (Appendix H), as illustrated in the table below.
Table 1. Sight Distance Analysis Results
Corner Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance Speed Limit Measured Required Measured Required Location (mph) (feet) (feet) Adequate? (feet) (feet) Adequate? East of 25 70’ 275’ No 63 150 No Driveway #1 West of 25 117’ 275’ No 123 150 No Driveway #1 North of 25 205’ 275’ No 197 150 Yes Driveway #2 South of 25 430’ 275’ Yes 315 150 Yes Driveway #2 Source: Appendix H
The lack of adequate sight distance at the driveways could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (dangerous intersection). Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-02 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
MM-TRA-02: Vegetation Maintenance. Following construction of the proposed project but prior to opening, DPR will remove or trim the vegetation that currently obstructs the sight distance associated with the driveway along the north side of Monument Road. The vegetation will be TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 69 - removed or trimmed so that the sight distance meets Caltrans requirements, as documented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2016). A new sight distance study would be conducted after vegetation maintenance to confirm and document compliance with Caltrans requirements.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
No Impact: The proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would not result in inadequate emergency access. The project is not served by a dead-end road that exceeds the maximum cumulative length permitted by the San Diego County Consolidated Fire Code; therefore, the project has adequate emergency access. Additionally, roads used to access the proposed project site are up to County standards. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes a campground and educational facilities and would generate 762 ADT. Project implementation would not result in the construction of any road improvements or new road design features that would interfere with the provision of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. In addition, the project does not generate sufficient travel demand to increase demand for transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. Therefore, the project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Historical Resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), or
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 70 - Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Pursuant to AB 52, consultation was initiated with culturally affiliated tribes. Barona Band of Mission Indians, Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, Jamul Indian Village, and Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians indicated that the project area has cultural significance to their tribes. AB 52 consultation is complete. Per the requests of the tribes, as well as the cultural sensitivity of the project area as identified in the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report (Appendix C), Native American monitoring will be conducted during project construction. Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-01 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
MM-TCR-01: Native American Monitoring. DPR will retain a Kumeyaay tribal member to monitor all project-related ground disturbance.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Portable restroom facilities would be provided for construction workers during construction of the proposed project. Wastewater generated at the portable restroom facilities would be minimal and not be disposed of at the project site, but would be hauled away and the waste disposed at an appropriate facility in accordance with RWQCB regulations. Potential impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project, including the proposed sewer options, are analyzed throughout the applicable sections of this Initial Study, including III. Air Quality, V. Cultural Resources, VI. Geology and Soils, VII, Greenhouse Gas Emission, VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, and XII. Noise. TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 71 -
Operation of the proposed project, including the water pipeline connection, would not involve industrial operations or other uses that could generate wastewater containing harmful levels of toxins. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be limited to the restrooms and live-on volunteer facilities. Horse manure would be composted on site. As discussed in the project description, the proposed project includes two options for wastewater disposal.
The on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line includes discharge of domestic waste to the existing sewer line located along Monument Road. The existing sewer line connects with the SBIWTP, located at 2995 Clearwater Way, San Diego. The SBIWTP discharges secondary treated wastewater to the South Bay Ocean Outfall, which extends westward into the ocean approximately 23,600 feet from the mouth of the Tijuana River and terminates in a diffuser-wye structure approximately 95 feet below sea level (RWQCB San Diego 2018). This discharge is currently regulated under Order No. R9-2014-0009, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0108928, Waste Discharge Requirements for the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, Discharge to the Pacific Ocean Via the South Bay Ocean Outfall (adopted on June 26, 2014, expires July 31, 2019). Therefore, because the project would be discharging wastewater to a wastewater treatment system that is required to satisfy the conditions in the NPDES permit, the project with the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line is consistent with the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, including the Regional Basin Plan.
The on-site sewer advanced treatment system proposes to discharge domestic waste to an OSWS. This option involves one treatment vault located near the restrooms. Discharged wastewater must conform to the RWQCB’s applicable standards, including the Regional Basin Plan and the California Water Code. California Water Code Section 13282 allows RWQCBs to authorize a local public agency to issue permits for OSWS “to ensure that systems are adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed and maintained.” The RWQCBs with jurisdiction over San Diego County have authorized DEH to issue certain OSWS permits throughout the County and within the incorporated cities. DEH would review the OSWS lay-out for the project pursuant to DEH, Land and Water Quality Division’s “On-site Wastewater Systems: Permitting Process and Design Criteria.” DEH would also be the approving body for the project’s OSWS. Therefore, the project with the on-site sewer advanced treatment system would be consistent with the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB as determined by the authorized, local public agency. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 72 - No Impact: The project, including the sewer disposal options and water pipeline connection, does not include new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project does not require the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities because existing treatment facilities have the capacity to support the project (see XVIII.e). Therefore, the project would not require any construction of new or expanded facilities, 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant: The project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, involves new stormwater drainage facilities during construction and operation. The SQMP, as discussed in the project description and Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, would include BMPs that would be implemented during construction. In addition post construction BMPs would be implemented and would include self-mitigating areas to treat the majority of the impervious areas. The impervious surfaces for this project are hydraulically disconnected and are less than 5% of the total graded area. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: The project, including the two sewer components and water pipeline connection, requires water service from the City of San Diego Water District. Construction of the project would require minimal water use to suppress dust. As discussed in the project description, once operational the project would not provide hookups for water, and the only water used during operation would be for the restrooms, coin operated showers, and irrigation. The two restroom facilities (the large restroom building with showers and the small restroom building) would have a flow rate of 111 gallons per minute. It is assumed the restrooms would be utilized for approximately 10% of their capacity, which would result in a 16,000 gallons per day. Irrigation would be necessary for the pasture and the natural vegetation around the nature education center. During the establishment period, it is estimated the site would require 14,000 gallons per day of water. After the temporary establishment period, the irrigation needs would be reduced to approximately 3,300 gallons per day for the long-term. The total water usage per day for the project once it is in full operation would be approximately 19,300 gallons per day. According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the City of San Diego Water TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 73 - District had a total water demand of 198,957 acre-feet per year in 2015 (City of San Diego 2016). The project’s water demand would be less than 1% of the total water demand for the City in 2015. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Portable restroom facilities would be provided for construction workers during construction of the proposed project, including the two sewer options and water pipeline connection. Wastewater generated at the portable restroom facilities would be minimal and not be disposed of at the project site, but would be hauled away and the waste disposed at an appropriate facility in accordance with applicable regulations. Potential impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project, including the proposed sewer options, are analyzed throughout the applicable sections of this Initial Study, including III. Air Quality, V. Cultural Resources, VI. Geology and Soils, VII, Greenhouse Gas Emission, VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, and XII. Noise. As discussed in the project description, the proposed project includes two options for wastewater disposal.
The proposed project with the on-site advanced sewer treatment system would rely completely on an OSWS; therefore, the project with this option would not interfere with any wastewater treatment provider’s service capacity.
The proposed project with the on-site tie-in to the existing sewer line requires wastewater service from the International Boundary & Water Commission. The South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed to handle 25.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage (International Boundary & Water Commission 2018). The project is projected to generate 0.00063 MGD, which is about 0.0025% of the plant’s capacity. Therefore, the project with this option would not interfere with any wastewater treatment provider’s service capacity. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the project, including construction of the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would generate solid waste. All solid waste facilities, including landfills, require solid waste facility permits to operate. In San Diego County, TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 74 - the County Department of Environmental Health, Local Enforcement Agency issues solid waste facility permits with concurrence from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) under the authority of the Public Resources Code (Sections 44001-44018) and California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4 (Section 21440 et seq.). There are five, permitted active landfills in San Diego County with remaining capacity.
The project would generate approximately 20 cubic yards of solid waste per week (1,040 cubic yards per year) once operational. This waste would be disposed of at the Sycamore Landfill at 8514 Mast Boulevard in Santee, California. The Sycamore Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 147,908,000 cubic yards with approximately 113,972,637 cubic yards remaining (CalRecycle 2018). The project’s annual solid waste generation would be approximately 0.0009125% of the current remaining capacity. Therefore, there is sufficient existing permitted solid waste capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
Less than Significant Impact: Implementation of the project, including construction of the two sewer options and water pipeline connection, would generate solid waste. All solid waste facilities, including landfills, require solid waste facility permits to operate. In San Diego County, the County Department of Environmental Health, Local Enforcement Agency issues solid waste facility permits with concurrence from the CIWMB under the authority of the Public Resources Code (Sections 44001-44018) and California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4 (Section 21440 et seq.).
The Sycamore Landfill permit was issued on September 11, 2017, and the facilities are inspected monthly (CalRecycle 2018). Because the project would deposit all solid waste at this permitted solid waste facility, it would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
XIX. 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, substantially 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 75 -
Discussion/Explanation:
Per the instructions for evaluating environmental impacts in this Initial Study, 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 were considered in the response to each question in sections IV and V of this form. In addition to project specific impacts, this evaluation considered the projects potential for significant cumulative effects. Resources that have been evaluated as significant would be potentially impacted by the project, particularly biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, safety hazards, traffic, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation has been included that clearly reduces these effects to a level below significance. This mitigation includes MM-BIO-01 through MM-BIO-04 to reduce potential impacts to sensitive species; MM-CUL-01 and MM-CUL-02 to minimize disturbance of subsurface archaeological deposits and human remains; MM-GEO-01 to reduce impacts related to seismic-related ground failure; MM-HAZ-01 and MM-HAZ-01 to reduce potential airport safety hazards; MM-TRA-01 and MM-TRA-02 for traffic related impacts, and MM-TCR-01 to reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that, after mitigation, significant effects associated with this project would result. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance. 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)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
After review of the County of San Diego’s planned projects in the project vicinity, it was determined there are no projects proposed for the Tijuana River Valley.
Per the instructions for evaluating environmental impacts in this Initial Study, the potential for adverse cumulative effects were considered in the response to each question in sections I through XVIII of this form. In addition to project specific impacts, this evaluation considered the projects potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 76 -
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact Incorporated
Discussion/Explanation:
In the evaluation of environmental impacts in this Initial Study, the potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings were considered in the response to certain questions in sections I. Aesthetics, III. Air Quality, VI. Geology and Soils, VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, IX Hydrology and Water Quality XII. Noise, XIII. Population and Housing, and XVI. Transportation and Traffic. As a result of this evaluation, there were determined to be potentially significant effects to human beings related to the following VI. Geology and Soils, VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and XVI. Transportation and Traffic. However, mitigation has been included that clearly reduces these effects to a level below significance. This mitigation includes MM-GEO-01, MM-HAZ-01 and MM-HAZ-02, and MM-TRA-01 and MM-TRA-02. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that, after mitigation, there are adverse effects to human beings associated with this project. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance.
XX. REFERENCES USED IN THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
All references to federal, state and local regulation are available on the Internet. For federal regulation refer to http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/. For state regulation refer to www.leginfo.ca.gov. For County regulation refer to www.amlegal.com. All other references are available upon request.
County of San Diego Wireless Communications Ordinance [San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances. AESTHETICS (www.amlegal.com) California Street and Highways Code [California Street and Design Review Guidelines for the Communities of San Diego Highways Code, Section 260-283. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/) County. (Alpine, Bonsall, Fallbrook, Julian, Lakeside, Ramona, Spring Valley, Sweetwater, Valley Center). California Scenic Highway Program, California Streets and Highways Code, Section 260-283. Federal Communications Commission, Telecommunications Act (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/scpr.htm) of 1996 [Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. LA. No. 104- 104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). County of San Diego, Planning & Development Services. The (http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt) Zoning Ordinance of San Diego County. Sections 5200-5299; 5700-5799; 5900-5910, 6322-6326. ((www.co.san-diego.ca.us) Institution of Lighting Engineers, Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution, Warwickshire, UK, 2000 County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation. (http://www.dark-skies.org/ile-gd-e.htm) Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Public Use Feasibility Study. January 2017. International Light Inc., Light Measurement Handbook, 1997. (http://www.sdparks.org/content/sdparks/en/AboutUs/Plans/Par (www.intl-light.com) ksImprovementPlan.html.) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Lighting Research Center, County of San Diego, Board Policy I-73: Hillside Development National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP), Policy. (www.co.san-diego.ca.us) Lighting Answers, Volume 7, Issue 2, March 2003. (www.lrc.rpi.edu) County of San Diego, Board Policy I-104: Policy and Procedures for Preparation of Community Design Guidelines, Section US Census Bureau, Census 2000, Urbanized Area Outline Map, 396.10 of the County Administrative Code and Section 5750 et San Diego, CA. seq. of the County Zoning Ordinance. (www.co.san- (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/ua2kmaps.htm) diego.ca.us) US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management County of San Diego Light Pollution Code, Title 5, Division 9 (BLM) modified Visual Management System. (www.blm.gov) (Sections 59.101-59.115 of the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances) as added by Ordinance No 6900, effective US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway January 18, 1985, and amended July 17, 1986 by Ordinance Administration (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway No. 7155. (www.amlegal.com) Projects. TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 77 - US Department of Transportation, National Highway System Act County of San Diego, Guidelines for Determining Significance for of 1995 [Title III, Section 304. Design Criteria for the National Biological Resources, 2007. Highway System. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/nhsdatoc.html) County of San Diego, Implementing Agreement by and between AGRICULTURE RESOURCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and of Fish and Wildlife and County of San Diego. County of San Monitoring Program, “A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Diego, Multiple Species Conservation Program, 1998. Monitoring Program,” November 1994. (www.consrv.ca.gov) County of San Diego, Multiple Species Conservation Program, California Department of Conservation, Office of Land County of San Diego Subarea Plan, 1997. Conversion, “California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Holland, R.R. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Assessment Model Instruction Manual,” 1997. Communities of California. State of California, Resources (www.consrv.ca.gov) Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California Department of Conservation. San Diego County California, 1986. Williamson Act 2013/2014. Memorandum of Understanding [Agreement Between United (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/San_Diego_w_13_14_WA. States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California pdf). Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California California Farmland Conservancy Program, 1996. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), San Diego (www.consrv.ca.gov) County Fire Chief’s Association and the Fire District’s Association of San Diego County. California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act, 1965. th (www.ceres.ca.gov, www.consrv.ca.gov) Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v County of Stanislaus (5 Dist. 1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 155-159 [39 Cal. Rptr.2d 54]. California Right to Farm Act, as amended 1996. (www.ceres.ca.gov) (www.qp.gov.bc.ca) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. Corps County of San Diego Agricultural Enterprises and Consumer of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Information Ordinance, 1994, Title 6, Division 3, Ch. 4. Engineers, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y- Sections 63.401-63.408. (www.amlegal.com) 87-1. 1987. (http://www.wes.army.mil/) County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, Weights and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's wetlands: our Measures, “2002 Crop Statistics and Annual Report,” 2002. ( vital link between land and water. Office of Water, Office of www.sdcounty.ca.gov) Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. EPA843-K-95-001. 1995b. (www.epa.gov) Google Earth. 2018. Aerial Images 2009, 2010. Accessed September 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. Department United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource of Interior, Washington, D.C. 1996. (endangered.fws.gov) Conservation Service LESA System. (www.nrcs.usda.gov, www.swcs.org). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey for the San Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Diego Area, California. 1973. (soils.usda.gov) Endangered Species Act. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 1998. (endangered.fws.gov) AIR QUALITY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Assessment and CEQA Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, South Coast Air Land Protection Plan for the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. Quality Management District, Revised November 1993. Portland, Oregon. 1997. (www.aqmd.gov) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vernal Pools of Southern County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s Rules and California Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Regulations, updated August 2003. (www.co.san-diego.ca.us) Wildlife Service, Region One, Portland, Oregon, 1998. Federal Clean Air Act US Code; Title 42; Chapter 85 Subchapter (ecos.fws.gov) 1. (www4.law.cornell.edu) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory. 2002. (migratorybirds.fws.gov) BIOLOGY California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Southern CULTURAL RESOURCES California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of Conservation Planning Process Guidelines. CDFW and California (2010), 2010. California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 1993. (http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/; accessed (www.dfg.ca.gov) September 21, 2018) County of San Diego, An Ordinance Amending the San Diego California Health & Safety Code. §18950-18961, State Historic County Code to Establish a Process for Issuance of the Building Code. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Loss Permits and Declaring the Urgency Thereof to Take Effect Immediately, Ordinance No. California Health & Safety Code. §5020-5029, Historical 8365. 1994, Title 8, Div 6, Ch. 1. Sections 86.101-86.105, Resources. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) 87.202.2. (www.amlegal.com) California Health & Safety Code. §7050.5, Human Remains. County of San Diego, Biological Mitigation Ordinance, Ord. Nos. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) 8845, 9246, 1998 (new series). (www.co.san-diego.ca.us) California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, (AB 978), 2001. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 78 - California Public Resources Code §5024.1, Register of Historical United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey for the San Resources. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) Diego Area, California. 1973. (soils.usda.gov) California Public Resources Code. §5031-5033, State Landmarks. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. 2018. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) Uniform Building Code 1997 edition published by the Western California Public Resources Code. §5097-5097.6, Archaeological, Fire Chiefs Association and the International Conference of Paleontological, and Historic Sites. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) Building Officials, and the National Fire Protection Association Standards 13 &13-D, 1996 Edition, and 13-R, 1996 Edition. California Public Resources Code. §5097.9-5097.991, Native American Heritage. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) URS. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego, California. 2004. City of San Diego. Paleontological Guidelines. (revised) August 1998. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS County of San Diego, Guidelines for Determining Significance for San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Airport Land Use Unique Geology, 2007a. Compatibility Plan for Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach, 2015. County of San Diego, Guidelines for Determining Significance Paleontological Resources, 2007b. American Planning Association, Zoning News, “Saving Homes from Wildfires: Regulating the Home Ignition Zone,” May 2001. County of San Diego, Local Register of Historical Resources (Ordinance 9493), 2002. (www.co.san-diego.ca.us) California Building Code (CBC), Seismic Requirements, Chapter 16 Section 162. (www.buildersbook.com) Demere, Thomas A., and Stephen L. Walsh. Paleontological Resources San Diego County. Department of Paleontology, California Education Code, Section 17215 and 81033. San Diego Natural History Museum. 1994. (www.leginfo.ca.gov)
Moore, Ellen J. Fossil Mollusks of San Diego County. San Diego California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Preliminary Society of Natural history. Occasional; Paper 15. 1968. Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. October 2015. U.S. Code including: American Antiquities Act (16 USC §431-433) 1906. Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 USC California Government Code. § 8585-8589, Emergency Services §461-467), 1935. Reservoir Salvage Act (16 USC §469-469c) Act. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) 1960. Department of Transportation Act (49 USC §303) 1966. National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC §470 et seq.) 1966. California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. April 1998. National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC §4321) 1969. (www.dtsc.ca.gov) Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC §1451) 1972. National California Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and §25117 and Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC §1431) 1972. Archaeological §25316. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) and Historical Preservation Act (16 USC §469-469c) 1974. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 USC §35) 1976. California Health & Safety Code § 2000-2067. American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC §1996 and (www.leginfo.ca.gov) 1996a) 1978. Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC §470aa-mm) 1979. Native American Graves Protection California Health & Safety Code. §17922.2. Hazardous Buildings. and Repatriation Act (25 USC §3001-3013) 1990. Intermodal (www.leginfo.ca.gov) Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (23 USC §101, 109) California Public Utilities Code, SDCRAA. Public Utilities Code, 1991. American Battlefield Protection Act (16 USC 469k) 1996. Division 17, Sections 170000-170084. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) (www4.law.cornell.edu) California Resources Agency, “OES Dam Failure Inundation GEOLOGY & SOILS Mapping and Emergency Procedures Program”, 1996. (ceres.ca.gov) California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, City of San Diego, Fire-Rescue Department. Very High Fire Special Publication 42, Revised 1997. (www.consrv.ca.gov) Hazard Severity Zone Map. February 24, 2008. (https://www.sandiego.gov/development- California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and services/industry/hazards/) Geology, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42, revised 1997. (www.consrv.ca.gov) County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division. California Accidental Release California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Prevention Program (CalARP) Guidelines. Geology, Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/, www.oes.ca.gov) and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, 1997. (www.consrv.ca.gov) County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division. Hazardous Materials Business City of San Diego. Seismic Safety Study, Geologic Hazards and Plan Guidelines. (www.sdcounty.ca.gov) Faults. Grid Tile 2. Dated April 3, 2008. Uniform Building Code. (www.buildersbook.com) County of San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances Title 6, Division 8, Chapter 3, Septic Ranks and Seepage Pits. Uniform Fire Code 1997 edition published by the Western Fire (www.amlegal.com) Chiefs Association and the International Conference of Building Officials, and the National Fire Protection Association County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Land Standards 13 &13-D, 1996 Edition, and 13-R, 1996 Edition. and Water Quality Division, February 2002. On-site (www.buildersbook.com) Wastewater Systems (Septic Systems): Permitting Process and Design Criteria. (www.sdcounty.ca.gov) County of San Diego Natural Resource Inventory, Section 3, Geology. TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 79 - HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY San Diego Association of Governments, Water Quality Element, Regional Growth Management Strategy, 1997. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report (www.sandag.org Number 476 Non-point Source Pollution: A Handbook for Local Government San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, NPDES Permit No. CAS0108758. (www.swrcb.ca.gov) California Department of Water Resources, California Water Plan Update. Sacramento: Dept. of Water Resources State of San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality California. 1998. (rubicon.water.ca.gov) Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. (www.swrcb.ca.gov)
California Department of Water Resources, California’s LAND USE & PLANNING Groundwater Update 2003 Bulletin 118, April 2003. (www.groundwater.water.ca.gov) California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-04, Update of Mineral Land California Department of Water Resources, Water Facts, No. 8, Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego August 2000. (www.dpla2.water.ca.gov) County Production Consumption Region, 1996. (www.consrv.ca.gov) California Disaster Assistance Act. Government Code, § 8680- 8692. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000-21178; California Code of Regulations, Guidelines for California State Water Resources Control Board, NPDES General Implementation of CEQA, Appendix G, Title 14, Chapter 3, Permit Nos. CAS000001 INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES (97-03- §15000-15387. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) DWQ) and CAS000002 Construction Activities (No. 99-08- DWQ) (www.swrcb.ca.gov) California State Mining and Geology Board, SP 51, California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures, California Storm Water Quality Association, California Storm January 2000. (www.consrv.ca.gov) Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, 2003. County of San Diego, Board of Supervisors Policy I-84: Project California Water Code, Sections 10754, 13282, and 60000 et seq. Facility. (www.sdcounty.ca.gov) (www.leginfo.ca.gov) County of San Diego, Board Policy I-38, as amended 1989. Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, (www.sdcounty.ca.gov) Region 7, Water Quality Control Plan. (www.swrcb.ca.gov) County of San Diego, General Plan as adopted August 3, 2011. County of San Diego Regulatory Ordinance, Title 8, Division 7, (ceres.ca.gov) Grading Ordinance. Grading, Clearing and Watercourses. (www.amlegal.com) County of San Diego. Resource Protection Ordinance, compilation of Ord.Nos. 7968, 7739, 7685 and 7631. 1991. County of San Diego, Groundwater Ordinance. #7994. (www.sdcounty.ca.gov, http://www.amlegal.com/,) County of San Diego, Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Public Use Feasibility Study, 2017. County of San Diego, Project Clean Water Strategic Plan, 2002. (www.projectcleanwater.org) County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation, Parks Master Plan. February 2016. County of San Diego, Watershed Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance, Ordinance Design Review Guidelines for the Communities of San Diego Nos. 9424 and 9426. Chapter 8, Division 7, Title 6 of the San County. Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances and amendments. (www.amlegal.com) MINERAL RESOURCES County of San Diego. Board of Supervisors Policy I-68. Diego California Department of Conservation – Division of Mines and Proposed Projects in Flood Plains with Defined Floodways. Geology, Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate (www.co.san-diego.ca.us) Materials in the Western San Diego Production-Consumption Region, 1996. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 06073C2161G. May 2012. County of San Diego, Parks Master Plan, 2016. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 1972, Title County of San Diego, Tijuana River Valley Regional Park Public 33, Ch.26, Sub-Ch.1. (www4.law.cornell.edu) Use Feasibility Study, 2017. Freeze, Allan and Cherry, John A., Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, National Environmental Policy Act, Title 42, 36.401 et. seq. 1969. Inc. New Jersey, 1979. (www4.law.cornell.edu) Heath, Ralph C., Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, United States Subdivision Map Act, 2011. (ceres.ca.gov) Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper; 2220, 1991. U.S. Geologic Survey, Causey, J. Douglas, 1998, MAS/MILS National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. (www.fema.gov) Mineral Location Database.
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. (www.fema.gov) U.S. Geologic Survey, Frank, David G., 1999, (MRDS) Mineral Resource Data System. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, California Water Code Division 7. Water Quality. (ceres.ca.gov) NOISE Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, California State Building Code, Part 2, Title 24, CCR, Appendix International Wastewater Treatment Plan, 2018 Chapter 3, Sound Transmission Control, 1988. (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/progra (www.buildersbook.com) ms/iwtp/; accessed September 27, 2018) County of San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 3, Div 6, Chapter 4, Noise Abatement and Control, effective February 4, 1982. (www.amlegal.com) TRVRP Campground and Nature Education Center October 2018 - 80 - County of San Diego General Plan, Noise Element, effective San Diego Association of Governments, 2020 Regional August 3, 2011. (ceres.ca.gov) Transportation Plan. Prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments. (www.sandag.org) Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (revised January San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Airport Land Use 18, 1985). (http://www.access.gpo.gov/) Compatibility Plan for Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach, 2015. Harris Miller Miller and Hanson Inc., Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ALUCP’S (http://ntl.bts.gov/data/rail05/rail05.html) http://www.san.org/sdcraa/airport_initiatives/land_use/adopted _docs.aspx International Standard Organization (ISO), ISO 362; ISO 1996 1- 3; ISO 3095; and ISO 3740-3747. (www.iso.ch) US Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Title 14, Chapter U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 1, Part 77. (www.gpoaccess.gov) Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. “Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Abatement Policy and Guidance,” Washington, D.C., June 1995. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14. Natural Resources Division, CIWMB Division 7; and Title 27, POPULATION & HOUSING Environmental Protection Division 2, Solid Waste. (ccr.oal.ca.gov) Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 USC 5309, Title 42--The Public Health And Welfare, Chapter 69-- California Integrated Waste Management Act. Public Resources Community Development, United States Congress, August 22, Code, Division 30, Waste Management, Sections 40000- 1974. (www4.law.cornell.edu) 41956. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) National Housing Act (Cranston-Gonzales), Title 12, Ch. 13. CalRecycle, SWIS Facility Detail Sycamore Landfill, 2018 (www4.law.cornell.edu) (https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA- 0023/Detail/; accessed October 1, 2018) San Diego Association of Governments Population and Housing Estimates, November 2000. (www.sandag.org) City of San Diego. Water District Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. US Census Bureau, Census 2000. (http://www.census.gov/) (https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2015_uwmp_repor t_0.pdf) RECREATION County of San Diego, Board of Supervisors Policy I-78: Small County of San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 8, Wastewater. (www.sdcounty.ca.gov) Division 10, Chapter PLDO, §810.101 et seq. Park Lands Dedication Ordinance. (www.amlegal.com) International Boundary & Water Commission, South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2018 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (https://www.ibwc.VIgov/Mission_Operations/sbiwtp.html; accessed September 28, 2018) California Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code, Section 21001 et seq. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, International Wastewater Treatment Plan, 2018 California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/progra California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, January 2002. ms/iwtp/; accessed September 27, 2018) California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Environmental Engineering – Noise, Air Quality, and Annex T Emergency Water Contingencies, October 1992. Hazardous Waste Management Office. “Traffic Noise Analysis (www.co.san-diego.ca.us) Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects,” October 1998. (www.dot.ca.gov) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service LESA System. California Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual. 2016. (www.dot.ca.gov/design/manuals/hdm.html) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, California. 1973. California Public Utilities Code, SDCRAA. Public Utilities Code, Division 17, Sections 170000-170084. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
California Street and Highways Code. California Street and US Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Aviation Regulations Highways Code, Section 260-283. (www.leginfo.ca.gov) (FAR), Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Title 14, Chapter County of San Diego, Alternative Fee Schedules with Pass-By 1, Part 77. Trips Addendum to Transportation Impact Fee Reports, March 2005. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/land/pdf/TransImpactFee/atta (BLM) modified Visual Management System. cha.pdf) US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway County of San Diego Transportation Impact Fee Report. January Administration (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway 2005. (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/permits- Projects. forms/manuals.html) Fallbrook & Ramona Transportation Impact Fee Report, County of San Diego, January 2005. (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/permits-forms/manuals.html) Office of Planning, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report, April 1995.