San Diego County Unincorporated Area Watersheds: Public Awareness Telephone Survey Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

San Diego County Unincorporated Area Watersheds: Public Awareness Telephone Survey Report San Diego County Unincorporated Area Watersheds: Public Awareness Telephone Survey Report Prepared for County of San Diego Department of Public Works 9325 Hazard Way San Diego, CA 92123 Prepared by Rea & Parker Research P.O. Box 421079 San Diego, CA 92142 858-279-5070 www.rea -parker.com October, 2003 Table of Contents Pages Executive Summary i-iv Introduction and Methodology 1-6 Sample 2 Survey Instrument 3-4 Respondent Charac teristics 4-6 Survey Findings 7-23 Resident Behavior 9-12 Resident Attitudes and Preferences 12-14 Resident Knowledge and Awareness 14-20 Association Between Knowledge and Behavior 20-23 Charts Charts1 -37 Appendix A: Combined Distributio n of Responses A1 -A37 Appendix B: Santa Margarita Distribution of Responses B1 -B32 Appendix C: San Dieguito Distribution of Responses C1 -C30 Appendix D: San Diego River Distribution of Responses D1 -D29 Appendix E: San Diego Bay Distribution of Resp onses E1 -E28 Appendix F: Tijuana Distribution of Responses F1 -F28 Appendix G: Survey Instrument (English) G1 -G10 Appendix H: Survey Instrument (Spanish) H1 -H10 Executive Summary San Diego County contains nine Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plans that were developed by the County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and 18 cities in association with requisite National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System p ermits for discharges of urban runoff. San Diego County has chosen to conduct a scientifically valid telephone random sample survey of watershed residents concerning their awareness of watershed and water pollution issues. The survey was conducted in the unincorporated areas of 5 of the 9 County watersheds: Santa Margarita, San Dieguito, San Diego River, San Diego Bay, and Tijuana with the objective being to develop effective public education programs based upon the information derived from the survey. A total of 1,360 residents of the watersheds were surveyed, generating margins of error for each watershed of +/ -5.9% (with the exception of Tijuana +/ -5.8%) and for the overall sample +/ -2.7% @ 95% confidence. This San Diego County Unincorporated Area Wat ersheds Public Awareness Survey can be divided into 3 essential information components: behavior, attitude and preferences, and knowledge/awareness. That is to say, survey questions either determined some component of the Watershed residents’ behavior per taining to water pollution and urban runoff issues, their attitude about these issues, or their knowledge and awareness about watersheds and water pollution. Demographic information was also obtained for analytical purposes. Resident Behavior The popula tion of these watersheds behaves in a manner that is, for the most part, relatively consistent with public policy pertaining to water runoff and pollution. This is not to say that their behavior mirrors public policy precisely and leaves no room for impro vement. It is only to indicate that, with certain key exceptions, residents do seem to take care to handle their waste and other refuse with responsibility. More specifically, Within these watersheds, animal waste, pesticides, and drained pool/spa wate r are disposed of in a manner that is relatively consistent with public policy. A large proportion of the population of households in the survey area has undertaken efforts to reduce water usage and to purchase products specifically because they are enviro nmentally safe. On the other hand, lesser numbers have reduced or eliminated their use of fertilizer and fewer still have helped clean up a stream, lake or beach. Although there is a substantial amount of task -by -task variability among the watersheds rega rding their behavior, Santa Margarita tends to fare well overall in terms of adhering to what is the preferred behavior according to public policy. i There is significant behavioral collinearity among several subgroups. That is, several subgroups, as would be expected, behave similarly either because they have similar characteristics or because they contain the same individuals. The following subgroups tend to behave a like manner on many of the issues discussed: Spanish language respondents Renters Resi dents of their community for 3 years or less Residents with a High School education or less Younger age groups Also similar in their responses are: Longer term community residents Homeowners Older residents Residents with higher levels of education Each of these two subgroup sets has an issue or two where it performs more in line with public policy than the other; however, the latter subgroups do tend to perform in a somewhat more consistent manner with regard to public policy than the former subgroups. Resident Attitudes and Preferences Although the majority of the survey was devoted to the two major purposes of knowledge/awareness and behavior, there were questions that also sought to solicit resident attitudes, preferences, and opinions about var ious aspects of watershed protection. Residents were widely split on what the most effective means might be to bring about a decrease in the amount of littering that occurs. Overall, making more public trash cans available was most favored, followed cl osely by citing and ticketing littering violators and having more community volunteer clean -up days. Public education is viewed as a less effective way to decrease the amount of litter in the community. Not to the surprise of any resident of San Diego County, a plurality of residents cited the Pacific Ocean as the most important body of water to their community, with San Vicente Reservoir, Lake Jennings, Sweetwater Reservoir, Otay Reservoir, Mission Bay, and El Capitan Reservoir next in order. Resident Kn owledge and Awareness Questions were addressed to survey respondents about their knowledge and awareness of watersheds and water pollution issues. Whereas, the behavior component of the survey demonstrated a recognizable level of consciousness about wate r pollution issues, that ii same sensitivity is less evident when knowledge and awareness of water pollution and watershed issues are tested. Knowledge was especially lacking in the first set of subgroups-- newer, younger, lesser educated, Spanish speaking, and renter residents. The consistency shown by these subgroups throughout the survey represents a significant opportunity for the provision of information on a very specific, targeted basis, with considerable chance for success. It is noteworthy, howev er, that, in the case of knowledge and awareness, Spanish language respondents fared particularly poorly. Regarding knowledge and awareness of watershed issues, these subgroups were joined on the lower knowledge/awareness scale by female residents of the watersheds, who demonstrated significantly lesser degrees of knowledge and awareness than did men. Santa Margarita residents typically did not demonstrate as much knowledge and awareness as did the other watersheds. Regarding particular issues: Awaren ess that water that goes down the storm drains goes directly to rivers, bays, and the ocean was high compared to other issues. Knowledge of what is a watershed was less than the storm drain issue. Awareness of whether respondents live in a watershed is ve ry lacking, as is, obviously, the ability to name the watershed they live in. Television and newspapers are the main media for messages about water pollution. Other media messages reach relatively small sections of the population. “We Live Downstream,” “T hink Blue,” and “You are the Solution to Water Pollution” are the more recognized water pollution slogans, garnering 36% -44% recognition. Residents in the watersheds revealed quite strongly that they were very unaware of hotlines that could be used to rep ort suspicious activities that might affect water quality. Association Between Knowledge and Behavior At the core of any public awareness study is an underlying assumption that knowledge leads to positive action—that the more a resident knows about w ater pollution and watersheds, the more his or her behavior will conform to the standards and policies set to maintain water quality in the region. The assumption makes significant inherent sense; yet merits testing, especially in this survey where Santa Margarita residents scored high on behavior and low on knowledge/awareness. In each of these watersheds, there is a statistically significant relationship between what an individual knows about watersheds and water pollution and how he or she behaves, and this relationship is such that the more that is known, the more correctly he or she behaves with regard to protecting water quality. The degree of correlation is low-to - iii moderate, meaning that there is a relationship, and the relationship is a positive one where knowledge and correct behavior are in lockstep on a low-to -moderate basis. The degree of association differed by watershed, with the strongest relationship between knowledge and action evidenced in Tijuana and Santa Margarita and the lowest as sociation, by far, being in San Diego River. Inasmuch as Tijuana and Santa Margarita frequently did not fare as well as the other watersheds on many of the knowledge and awareness issues, the stronger associations between knowledge and behavior that are evident in those watersheds indicates that public awareness campaigns in those areas can prove to be significantly beneficial. iv Introduction and Methodology San Diego County contains nine Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plans (WURMPs) that were dev eloped by the County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and 18 cities in association
Recommended publications
  • Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report
    Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan December 2015 (Revised - July 2016) Prepared for Vallecitos Water District This page is intentionally left blank. Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan Contents 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Vallecitos Water District .................................................................................................................... 11 5 Historical and Projected Water Demands ......................................................................................... 13 5.1 Demand Management ............................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1 BMP Categories ......................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Senate Bill X 7-7 ......................................................................................................... 16 6 Existing and Projected Supplies .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space and Agriculture (OS)
    Part Three: General Plan Elements – Open Space and Agriculture Open Space and Agriculture (OS) A. Introduction State law requires the Open Space Element to provide plans and measures for the preservation and conservation of open-space lands, which can include open space for the preservation of natural resources; the managed production Refer to the Safety Element of resources (including agricultural lands); outdoor for Open Space recreation (including areas of historic and cultural value, related to Public areas suited for park and recreation purposes, access to Health and Safety. beaches, rivers and streams, and areas which serve as links Refer to the between major recreation and open-space reservations); Safety and Land open space for public health and safety; open space in Use Element for a support of the mission of military installations, and open discussion of space for Native American historical, cultural, or sacred military sites1. installations. Approximately five percent of the planning area is dedicated to open space, parks, and agricultural uses. Only 2.3 percent of land within the planning area remains vacant. Parks – Open Due to the highly developed nature of the community, the space lands whose City faces significant challenges in the provision of primary purpose is recreation additional open space and recreational facilities. (Institute for Local Despite a lack of vacant land, opportunities exist within the Government) urban fabric of the community to provide new recreational and open space areas. Possible solutions include: rooftop gardens; closing or converting a limited number of redundant streets for the purpose of creating mini parks, community gardens, and plazas; incorporating trail systems into utility corridors; turning vacant parcels into parks or community gardens; and the enhancement of public street rights-of-way for use as open space.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose and Need for the Project Chapter 1.0 – Purpose and Need for the Project
    CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT CHAPTER 1.0 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 1.1 INTRODUCTION The General Services Administration (GSA) proposes the reconfiguration and expansion of the existing San Ysidro Land Port of Entry (LPOE). The San Ysidro LPOE is located along Interstate 5 (I-5) at the United States (U.S.)-Mexico border in the San Ysidro community of San Diego, California. The proposed San Ysidro LPOE improvements are herein referred to as the “Project.” The total area of the Project Study Area, which comprises the anticipated maximum extent of disturbance, including improvements, staging areas, and temporary impacts resulting from Project construction, encompasses approximately 50 acres. Figure 1-1 illustrates the regional location of the Project, and Figure 1-2 shows the Project Study Area and the Project vicinity. The Project is included in the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP; SANDAG 2007); and the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP; SANDAG 2008), which covers Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 through 2013. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.2.1 Purpose of the Project The purpose of the Project is to improve operational efficiency, security, and safety for cross-border travelers and federal agencies at the San Ysidro LPOE. Project goals include: Increase vehicle and pedestrian inspection processing capacities at the San Ysidro LPOE; Reduce northbound vehicle and pedestrian queues and wait times to cross the border; Improve the safety of the San Ysidro LPOE for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the border, and for employees at the LPOE; Modernize facilities to accommodate current and future demands and implementation of border security initiatives, such as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program (US-VISIT), and the Secure Border Initiative (SBI).
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego River Park Master Plan
    San Diego River Park Master Plan City of San Diego, California DRAFT – May 2013 San Diego River Park Master Plan The City of San Diego Adopted by the: Council of the City of San Diego Draft: May 2013 Resolution Number: R- San Diego River Park Master Plan – Draft May 2013 | i San Diego River Park Master Plan Amendments Amendment Date Approved by Resolution Date Adopted by City Resolution Planning Commission Number Council Number San Diego River Park Master Plan Certified by the California Coastal Commission on San Diego River Park Master Plan – Draft May 2013 | ii Mayor Bob Filner City Council Planning Commission District 1, Councilmember Sherri Lightner Eric Naslund, Chairperson District 2, Councilmember Kevin Faulconer Tim Golba, Vice-Chairperson District 3, Council President Todd Gloria Robert Griswold District 4, Councilmember Vacant Stephen Haase District 5, Councilmember Mark Kersey Sue Peerson District 6, Councilmember Lorie Zapf Michael Smiley District 7, Councilmember Scott Sherman District 8, Councilmember David Alvarez District 9, Councilmember Marti Emerald City Attorney Jan Goldsmith San Diego River Park Master Plan – Draft May 2013 | iii Acknowledgements San Diego River Park Foundation Development Services Department and San Diego River Coalition Kelly Broughton, Director Rob Hutsel, Executive Director Nancy Bragado, Principal Planner Michael Beck, Chair of the Board of Directors Robin Shifflet, Park Designer/Project Manager M. Lea Rudee, Ph.D., Vice Chair Jeff Harkness, Park Designer Janie DeCelles, Secretary Myra Herrmann, Senior Planner Charles V. Berwanger, Treasurer Dan Monroe, Senior Planner Jo Ann Anderson Dan Normandin, Senior Planner Sam Duran Brian Schoenfisch, Senior Planner Joan Embery Alan Grant City of San Diego Park and Recreation Board Cary Lowe Wilbur Smith, Chairperson James Peugh Bruce Brown Phil Pryde Rick Bussell James Ryan Amy Denhart Tom Sudberry William Diehl Claudia Dunaway Vickie Granowitz Master Plan Design Consultants Bobby Hughes Civitas, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • H. Fluvial Hydraulics Study
    APPENDIX H Fluvial Hydraulics Study OOttaayy RRiivveerr EEssttuuaarryy RReessttoorraattiioonn PPrroojjeecctt ))/89,$/++<'5$8/,&66678'< Prepared for 3RVHLGRQ:DWHU//& Prepared by (YHUHVW,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQVXOWDQWV,QF $SULO (9(5(67 27$<5,9(5(678$5<5(6725$7,21352-(&7 )/89,$/+<'5$8/,&6678'< Prepared For: 3RVHLGRQ:DWHU//& )OHHW6WUHHW6XLWH &DUOVEDG&$ &RQWDFW6WDQ:LOOLDPV Prepared By: (YHUHVW,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQVXOWDQWV,QF :HVW2FHDQ%RXOHYDUG6XLWH /RQJ%HDFK&$ &RQWDFW'DYLG&DQQRQ (YHUHVW3URMHFW1XPEHU3 $SULO Otay River Estuary Restoration Project Fluvial Hydraulics Study Report 7$%/(2)&217(176 ,1752'8&7,21 %DFNJURXQG 3XUSRVH 2EMHFWLYHV (;,67,1*&21',7,216'(6&5,37,21 3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ 2WD\5LYHU 2WD\5LYHU)ORRGSODLQDQG(VWXDU\ 352326('352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 2YHUYLHZ ,QWHUWLGDO$OWHUQDWLYH 6XEWLGDO$OWHUQDWLYH 678'<$3352$&+ 2YHUYLHZ 0RGHO6HWXS 0RGHO%RXQGDU\&RQGLWLRQV )/22',03$&7$1$/<6(6 $SSURDFK )ORRG0RGHOLQJ )ORRG,PSDFWV %LNH3DWK,PSDFWV 6XPPDU\ Everest International Consultants, Inc. i Otay River Estuary Restoration Project Fluvial Hydraulics Study Report (526,21,03$&7$1$/<6,6 $SSURDFK 9HORFLW\5HVXOWV (URVLRQ,PSDFWV 6XPPDU\ )/89,$/6(',0(17$7,21$1$/<6,6 $SSURDFK 6HGLPHQW/RDGLQJIURP2WD\5LYHU:DWHUVKHG 3RWHQWLDO6HGLPHQW'HOLYHU\)URP2WD\5LYHUWR3URSRVHG:HWODQG 3RWHQWLDO6HGLPHQWDWLRQ5DWHDWWKH3URSRVHG:HWODQG ())(&72)6($/(9(/5,6( 2YHUYLHZ )ORRG0RGHOLQJ5HVXOWV &21&/86,216$1'5(&200(1'$7,216 5()(5(1&(6 $33(1',;$ )/89,$/$1$/<6,6$7%$<6,'(3$5.,03(5,$/%($&+$ $33(1',;% (526,213527(&7,21)257+(6287+%$<6+25(%,.(:$<%5,'*(% Everest
    [Show full text]
  • Mussel Self-Inspection Launch Certification Permi Tt
    Don Pedro Recreation Agency Quagga & Zebra Mussel Prevention Program MMMUUUSSSSSSEEELLL SSSEEELLLFFF---IIINNNSSSPPPEEECCCTTTIIIOOONNN LLLAAAUUUNNNCCCHHH CCCEEERRTTTIIIFFFIIICCCAAATTTIIIOOONNN PPPEEERRRMMMIIITTT Display Permit on Dashboard When Launching CA Fish & Game Code Sections 2301 & 2302 DPRA Regulations and Ordinances Sections 2.2.1 & 2.2.3 Answer all questions below, complete, sign & date this Permit and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle before launching your vessel. 1. Is your vessel and all equipment clean of all mud, dirt, plants, fish or animals and drained of all water, including all bilge areas, fresh water cooling systems, lower outboard units, ballast tanks, live-wells, buckets, etc. and completely dry? Yes __ No __ If you answered No to question #1, you may not launch your vessel. Your vessel must be cleaned, drained and completely dry before it will be permitted to launch. Do not clean or drain your vessel by the lake or at the launch ramp. 2. If you answered Yes to question #1, has your vessel been in any of the infested waters listed on the back page of this form within the last 30 days? Yes __ No __ If you answered No to question #2, you are ready to launch, complete, sign and date this Launch Certification Permit and display it on the dashboard of your vehicle. 3. If you answered Yes to question #2, was your boat and trailer thoroughly cleaned and allowed to completely dry for at least 30 days since you last launched, or has it been professionally decontaminated? (Thoroughly cleaned Yes __ No __ requires removal of all dirt and organic material from the boat, flushing and draining of all live wells, bilge areas, ballast tanks and fresh water cooling systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Sweetwater Regional Park
    Welcome to Sweetwater Regional Park You’ll find more outdoor RULES & REGULATIONS SWEETWATER adventures in these other CAMPFIRES: Must be confined to existing barbeques or fire rings. See ranger for current campfire rules. SUMMIT San Diego County PETS: Pets are permitted if they are properly restrained and under the control of the camping parks! owner. Dogs must be licensed, restrained on a CAMPGROUND leash not longer than six feet, and attended at all times. A San Diego County Agua Caliente – A very popular park during WASTE WATER: Please dispose of all waste water in an the winter, this desert oasis 20 miles south of approved dump station, never on the ground. Camping Park Borrego Springs is known for its beauty and VEGETATION & All plants, animals, natural features, solitude, and for the soothing mineral waters o the west you can see San Diego Bay and the downtown San Diego, so in a matter of minutes NATURAL and archaeological resources are fully in its two naturally fed pools. FEATURES: protected and may not be damaged, injured, TPacific Ocean. To the east are majestic views of you can get from your campsite to the Gaslamp or removed. Please check with your ranger the Sweetwater Reservoir and rugged backcountry Quarter and its fine dining, or to the world famous for firewood — he or she generally has a mountains. You’re standing in the campground of San Diego Zoo and museums of Balboa Park. There Dos Picos – Sheltered by steep, boulder-strewn supply to sell for campfires. Please do not Sweetwater Regional Park, and surrounding you are several golf courses nearby, and Sweetwater mountain slopes, this park near Ramona is gather it from within the park.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Source Water System
    CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE WATER SYSTEM 2.0 Description of the Source Water System During the last 100 years, the CSD’s water system has evolved into a very complex system. It is now estimated to serve a population of 1.4 million people spread out over 370 square miles (Table 2.1). The CSD treats imported raw water and local runoff water at three City WTPs which have a combined capacity of 378 MGD. The CSD treats water by conventional technologies using coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. Recently, all CSD water treatment plants have been modified to provide for the addition of fluoride to the potable water supply. To ensure safe and palatable water quality, the CSD collects water samples at its reservoirs, WTPs, and throughout the treated water storage and distribution system. The CSD’s use of local and imported water to meet water demand is affected by availability, cost, and water resource management policies. Imported water availability decreases the need to carry over local water for dry years in City reservoirs. CSD policy is to use local water first to reduce imported water purchases; this policy runs the risk of increased dependence on imported water during local droughts. Table 2.1 - City of San Diego General Statistics Population (2010) 1,301,621 Population (Estimated 2014) 1,381,069 Population percent change 6.1 Land Area Square Miles 370 Population Density per Square Mile 3733 Water Distribution Area Square Miles 403 Number of Service Connections (2015) 279,102 2.1 Water Sources (Figure 2.1) Most of California's water development has been dictated by the multi-year wet/dry weather cycles.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
    4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES This section evaluates the potential impacts to visual resources and aesthetics associated with implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS. The information presented was compiled from multiple sources, including information from the San Diego County Draft General Plan and its associated Draft EIR (2010), and the SANDAG 2030 RTP EIR (2007). 4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Character The San Diego region is an area of abundant and varied scenic resources. The topography of the region contributes greatly to the overall character and quality of the existing visual setting. In general terms, the region is characterized by four topographical regions: coastal plain, foothills, mountains, and desert. The visual character of each is described briefly below. The coastal plain ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and varies from rolling terraces to steep cliffs along the coastline. The coastal plain provides expansive views in all directions, with the coastline visible from some local roadways. Much of the coastal plain is already developed with varying densities of urban and suburban development. Agricultural uses within the coastal area include row crops, field flowers, and greenhouses. The foothills of the San Diego region range in elevation from 600 to 2,000 feet AMSL and are characterized by rolling to hilly uplands that contain frequent narrow, winding valleys. This area is traversed by several rivers as well as a number of intermittent drainages. The foothills are also developed with various urban and rural land uses. Agriculture consists of citrus and avocado orchards as well as row crops.
    [Show full text]
  • East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029
    Attachment 1 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029 December 2018 Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029 Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 December 2018 | KJC-24.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................ F-1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................... 18 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 19 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 23 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]