DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 San Diego

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013 San Diego BINATIONAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA January 14, 2013 Binational Hazardous Materials Prevention and Emergency Response Plan Among the County Of San Diego, the City of San Diego, California, and the City of Tijuana, Baja California January 14, 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2005-Present ...................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2003 .................................................................................................... 6 FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... 10 PARTICIPATING AGENCIES................................................................................................... 17 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 23 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 23 1.0 TIJUANA/SAN DIEGO BORDER REGION ................................................................. 25 1.1 General Aspects of the Region ........................................................................................ 25 1.1.1 Historical and Cultural Background ................................................................ 25 1.1.2 Geographic Location ........................................................................................ 26 1.1.3 Topography and Climate.................................................................................. 27 1.1.4 Population ........................................................................................................ 27 1.1.5 Economy .......................................................................................................... 28 2.0 REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 30 2.1 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 30 2.1.1 Roads................................................................................................................ 30 2.1.2 Media ............................................................................................................... 30 2.1.3 Railroads .......................................................................................................... 31 2.1.4 Airports ............................................................................................................ 31 2.1.5 Maritime Ports ................................................................................................. 32 2.2 Water and Sewage Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 33 2.2.1 Water ................................................................................................................ 33 2.2.2 Sewage ............................................................................................................. 34 2.2.3 Electricity/Natural Gas..................................................................................... 35 3.0 LAWS AND REGULATIONS........................................................................................ 36 3.1 Authority .......................................................................................................................... 36 3.1.1 Laws and Statutes ............................................................................................ 36 3.1.1.1 Laws and Statutes in the United States ....................................................... 36 3.1.1.2 Laws and Statutes in Mexico ...................................................................... 36 3.1.2 Regulations ...................................................................................................... 37 3.1.2.1 Regulations in the United States ................................................................. 37 3.1.2.2 Regulations in Mexico ................................................................................ 37 3.1.3 Binational Agreements..................................................................................... 37 3.2 Other Applicable Contingency Plans ............................................................................... 38 3.2.1 Binational Contingency Plans .......................................................................... 38 3.2.2 Mexico Contingency Plans .............................................................................. 38 3.2.2.1 Local and Regional Plans and Mutual Aid Agreements ............................. 38 Binational Hazardous Materials Prevention and Emergency Response Plan Among the County Of San Diego, the City of San Diego, California, and the City of Tijuana, Baja California January 14, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED SECTION PAGE 3.2.2.2 State of Baja California Plans ..................................................................... 38 3.2.2.3 Federal Plans ............................................................................................... 39 Binational Hazardous Materials Prevention and Emergency Response Plan Among the County Of San Diego, the City of San Diego, California, and the City of Tijuana, Baja California January 14, 2013 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION PAGE 3.2.3 United States Contingency Plans ..................................................................... 39 3.2.3.1 Local and Regional Plans and Mutual Aid Agreements ............................. 39 3.2.3.2 State of California Plans ............................................................................. 40 3.2.3.3 Federal Plans ............................................................................................... 40 4.0 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................... 41 4.1 Businesses Using, Handling or Storing Hazardous Materials (Fixed Facilities) ............. 41 4.1.1 Hazards Analysis ............................................................................................. 41 4.1.2 Recycling Centers ............................................................................................ 44 4.2 Risks Associated with Transportation ............................................................................. 45 4.2.1 Roads................................................................................................................ 45 4.2.2 Railroads .......................................................................................................... 46 4.2.3 Maritime Ports ................................................................................................. 47 4.2.4 Other Means of Transport ................................................................................ 47 4.3 Ports of Entry ................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Sensitive Populations and Vulnerable Areas ................................................................... 50 4.4.1 Sensitive Populations ....................................................................................... 51 4.4.2 Population Distribution .................................................................................... 53 4.4.3 Sensitive Natural Resources Areas .................................................................. 54 4.4.4 Tecate, California ............................................................................................. 55 4.4.5 Tecate, Baja California .................................................................................... 55 4.4.6 Drinking Water Supplies and Wastewater Treatment ..................................... 56 County/City of San Diego, California ............................................................................. 57 4.5 Counter terrorism ............................................................................................................. 57 4.5.1 U.S. Response .................................................................................................. 58 4.5.2. San Diego County Response ............................................................................ 59 4.5.3 Mexican Response ........................................................................................... 59 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES RESPONSE ..................................................... 60 5.1 Local Emergency Response ............................................................................................. 60 5.2 Declarations of Emergency .............................................................................................. 60 5.3 Levels of Mutual Aid Within Each Country .................................................................... 63 5.4 Federal Response ............................................................................................................. 64 5.4.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................... 64 5.4.2 Federal Attorney General for the Protection of the Environment .................... 65 5.5 Joint Response Team ....................................................................................................... 65 5.6 San Diego-Tijuana
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) List City Declared Monuments
    Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) List City Declared Monuments No. Name Address CHC No. CF No. Adopted Community Plan Area CD Notes 1 Leonis Adobe 23537 Calabasas Road 08/06/1962 Canoga Park - Winnetka - 3 Woodland Hills - West Hills 2 Bolton Hall 10116 Commerce Avenue & 7157 08/06/1962 Sunland - Tujunga - Lake View 7 Valmont Street Terrace - Shadow Hills - East La Tuna Canyon 3 Plaza Church 535 North Main Street and 100-110 08/06/1962 Central City 14 La Iglesia de Nuestra Cesar Chavez Avenue Señora la Reina de Los Angeles (The Church of Our Lady the Queen of Angels) 4 Angel's Flight 4th Street & Hill Street 08/06/1962 Central City 14 Dismantled May 1969; Moved to Hill Street between 3rd Street and 4th Street, February 1996 5 The Salt Box 339 South Bunker Hill Avenue (Now 08/06/1962 Central City 14 Moved from 339 Hope Street) South Bunker Hill Avenue (now Hope Street) to Heritage Square; destroyed by fire 1969 6 Bradbury Building 300-310 South Broadway and 216- 09/21/1962 Central City 14 224 West 3rd Street 7 Romulo Pico Adobe (Rancho 10940 North Sepulveda Boulevard 09/21/1962 Mission Hills - Panorama City - 7 Romulo) North Hills 8 Foy House 1335-1341 1/2 Carroll Avenue 09/21/1962 Silver Lake - Echo Park - 1 Elysian Valley 9 Shadow Ranch House 22633 Vanowen Street 11/02/1962 Canoga Park - Winnetka - 12 Woodland Hills - West Hills 10 Eagle Rock Eagle Rock View Drive, North 11/16/1962 Northeast Los Angeles 14 Figueroa (Terminus), 72-77 Patrician Way, and 7650-7694 Scholl Canyon Road 11 The Rochester (West Temple 1012 West Temple Street 01/04/1963 Westlake 1 Demolished February Apartments) 14, 1979 12 Hollyhock House 4800 Hollywood Boulevard 01/04/1963 Hollywood 13 13 Rocha House 2400 Shenandoah Street 01/28/1963 West Adams - Baldwin Hills - 10 Leimert City of Los Angeles May 5, 2021 Page 1 of 60 Department of City Planning No.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxnard County Comprehensive Economic
    Oxnard Harbor District Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2020 Spring 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 10 2.1.0. DEMOGRAPHIC & SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 12 2.1.2. Population Density ............................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3. Households ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.4. Race and Ethnicity............................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5. Age..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.6 Housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.1.7 Overcrowding ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port of San Diego
    Port of San Diego The Port of San Diego manages San Diego Bay and its 34 miles of beautiful, natural waterfront for the people of California. The Port was established in 1962 under the Port Act and is charged with implementing the Tidelands Trust Doctrine. For over fifty years, the Port’s five-member cities - Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego - have worked together to develop and promote LEGENDPort of commerce, navigation, recreation and fisheries on and BNSFSan Diego UP/SP Trackage Rights Handling Carrier LEGEND around San Diego Bay. Self-funded, the port contributes Haulage Agreement BNSF billions annually to San Diego’s economy, benefiting the UP/SP Trackage Rights Handling Carrier community, local businesses and employees. The port’s Haulage Agreement cargo maritime business includes two cargo terminals. TERMINAL CAPABILITIES • Harbor: One (San Diego Bay) • Berths: 15 • Cranes: 1 mobile harbor crane • Depth: 30 ft. - 43 ft. • Facilities: Two marine cargo terminals • Rail-Served: On-dock terminal rail • Cargo Handled: Breakbulk Project Cargo Refrigerated Ro-Ro (Roll-on/Roll-off) Alex Williamson Brian Johnston Connie Le Fevre Greg Borossay Sales Manager Sales Manager Sr Trade Representative Maritime Commercial BNSF Railway BNSF Railway Port of San Diego Port of San Diego [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Office: 612-380-8852 Office: 817-304-6425 619-756-1949 619-686-6242 Port of San Diego TERMINAL CAPABILITIES OVERVIEW TENTH AVENUE MARINE TERMINAL • Depth: 30 ft. – 43 ft. • Berth(s): Eight, equaling 4,347 ft. • Cargo Handling Capabilities: • Port owned - 100 Ton Gottwald Crane • Stevedore owned and operated - Reach stackers, rail pusher (leased), utility trucks, fork lifts and heavy lifts • Rail-Served: On-dock rail adjacent to BNSF yard • Main yard: Seven spurs, equaling 9000 ft.
    [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]
  • Tecate Logistics Press Release
    NEWS RELEASE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Diego, California United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy For Further Information, Contact: Assistant U. S. Attorney Timothy C. Perry (619) 546-7966 For Immediate Release President of San Diego Customs Brokers Association Pleads Guilty to Overseeing $100 Million Customs Fraud NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY - November 15, 2012 United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy announced that Gerardo Chavez pled guilty today in federal court before United States Magistrate Judge Karen E. Crawford to overseeing a wide-ranging conspiracy to import Chinese and other foreign-manufactured goods into the United States without paying import taxes (also referred to as Customs duties). According to court documents, Chavez=s scheme focused on purchasing large, commercial quantities of foreign-made goods and importing them without paying Customs duties. Wholesalers in the United States would procure commercial shipments of, among other things, Chinese-made apparel and Indian-made cigarettes, and arrange for them to be shipped by ocean container to the Port of Long Beach, California. Before the goods entered the United States, conspirators acting at Chavez=s direction would prepare paperwork and database entries indicating that the goods were not intended to enter the commerce of the United States, but instead would be Atransshipped@ Ain-bond@ to another country, such as Mexico. This in-bond process is a routine feature of international trade. Goods that travel in-bond through the territory of the United States do not formally enter the commerce of the United States, and so are not subject to Customs duties.
    [Show full text]
  • Comisi6n Estatal De Servicios P0blicos De Tijuana
    COMISI6N ESTATAL DE SERVICIOS P0BLICOS DE TIJUANA Jullo2008 www.cuidoelagua.or 1- www.cespt.gob.mxg INDICE 1.- ANTECEDENTES CESPT (Cobertura de Agua y Eficiencia) 2.- EL AGUA COMO PROMOTOR DE DESARROLLO 3.- PROBLEMÁTICA BINACIONAL 4.- CERO DESCARGAS 5.- PROYECTO MORADO Y CERCA 6.- METAS CESPT 2013 1.-ANTECEDENTES CESPT I www.cespt.gob.mx ANTECEDENTES CESPT • Empresa descentralizada del Gobierno del estado encargada del servicio de agua potable y alcantarillado para las ciudades de Tijuana y Playas de Rosarito. • Más de 500,000 conexiones. • 1,764 empleados. • 7 Distritos de operación y mantenimiento. • 13 Centros de atención foráneos y 5 cajeros automáticos. • 3 Plantas potabilizadoras. • 13 plantas de tratamiento de aguas residuales operadas por CESPT y una planta de tratamiento operada por los Estados unidos. • Arranque de una nueva planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales (Monte de los Olivos). • 90 % del suministro de agua proviene del Río Colorado (250 Kms de distancia y 1060 mts de altura) Cobertura de Agua y Eficiencia 50 46 43.9 41.9 42.2 42.2 40 41 40.1 38.9 38.2 CR EDIT 33.5 JA O P 31.5 PON LAN ES MAE 30 B STR ID 25 NA O, -BA 26.4 27.3 %-2 DB NO 2% ANK- 3 B 25.5 25.2 24.2 EPA 5%- RA 26.1 20% 25% S 24.8 23.5 20 21.7 21.5 19 . 2 19 18 . 8 18.5 10 0 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 CRECIMIENTO DE LA POBLACIÓN Eficiencia Física desde 1990 hasta 2009 1990 to 2009 58.1 % hasta 81.5 % 773,327 - 1,664,339 hab (115.3%) Promedio Anual 6.4 % COMUNICADO Fitch Rating• conflnna Ia callflc:aciOn de A+(mex) de Ia ComlsiOn Estatal de Servlclos P&lbllcos de Tijuana (CESPT) N.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from San Diego's Border Wall
    RESEARCH REPORT (CBP Photo/Mani Albrecht) LESSONS FROM SAN DIEGO'S BORDER WALL The limits to using walls for migration, drug trafficking challenges By Adam Isacson and Maureen Meyer December 2017 " The border doesn’t need a wall. It needs better-equipped ports of entry, investi- gative capacity, technology, and far more ability to deal with humanitarian flows. In its current form, the 2018 Homeland Security Appropriations bill is pursuing a wrong and wasteful approach. The ex- perience of San Diego makes that clear." LESSONS FROM SAN DIEGO'S BORDER WALL December 2017 | 2 SUMMARY The prototypes for President Trump's proposed border wall are currently sitting just outside San Diego, California, an area that serves as a perfect example of how limited walls, fences, and barriers can be when dealing with migration and drug trafficking challenges. As designated by stomsCu and Border Protection, the San Diego sector covers 60 miles of the westernmost U.S.-Mexico border, and 46 of them are already fenced off. Here, fence-building has revealed a new set of border challenges that a wall can’t fix. The San Diego sector shows that: • Fences or walls can reduce migration in urban areas, but make no difference in rural areas. In densely populated border areas, border-crossers can quickly mix in to the population. But nearly all densely populated sections of the U.S.-Mexico border have long since been walled off. In rural areas, where crossers must travel miles of terrain, having to climb a wall first is not much of a deterrent. A wall would be a waste of scarce budget resources.
    [Show full text]
  • March 19, 2012 by SDPTA Chair Jim Unger
    March 19, 2012 By SDPTA C hair Jim Unger Overview– Jim Unger Overview– Jim Unger Port of San Diego Facts: Port includes Five Member Cities: Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, San Diego Board of 7 Port Commissioners: Chairman Lou Smith, Coronado Commissioner Vice Chair Ann Moore, Chula Vista Commissioner Secretary Lee Burdick, San Diego Commissioner Commissioner Dan Malcolm, Imperial Beach Commissioner Bob Nelson, San Diego Commissioner Dukie Valderrama, National City Commissioner Scott Peters, San Diego Overview The San Diego Unified Port District a nd Tidelands businesses contributes 30% of Gross Regional Product 77,000 Jobs Partnership with the Port and its tenants Overview The Port is self-sustaining from revenues collected from the Port Tenants with NO TAX DOLLARS FROM CITIZENS Overview Partnership with the Port of San Diego – Participation on the Following Port/Tenant Committees: Maritime, Marketing, Real Estate, Cruise Ship, Public Art, Environmental, Accessibility, Port with no Borders Scholarship & Tidelands Forestry. Downsizing of Port - new President/CEO Wayne Darbeau 13 departments down to 6 & decreased employee headcount by 100 without lay-offs. Background California Statelands Commission Public Trust Policy (2 excerpts below t aken from Public Trust Policy) Lands are owned by t he public and held in trust for the people by t he State of California. Uses of trust lands are generally l imited to those that are water dependent or related, and include commerce, fisheries, and navigation, environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Copy of Censusdata
    P. 30 Means of Transportation to Work for workers 16 years and over [16] City State Total: Bicycle % who bicycle Mackinac Island city Michigan 217 132 60.83% Stanford CDP California 5,711 2,381 41.69% Tangier town Virginia 250 66 26.40% Mason village Wisconsin 21 5 23.81% Ocean Beach village New York 64 14 21.88% Sand City city California 132 28 21.21% Isla Vista CDP California 8,360 1,642 19.64% Unity Village village Missouri 153 29 18.95% Hunter city Kansas 31 5 16.13% Crested Butte town Colorado 1,096 176 16.06% Davis city California 31,165 4,493 14.42% Rocky Ridge town Utah 160 23 14.38% Pelican city Alaska 77 11 14.29% Key West city Florida 14,611 1,856 12.70% Saltaire village New York 24 3 12.50% Keenes village Illinois 41 5 12.20% Longville city Minnesota 42 5 11.90% Stock Island CDP Florida 2,152 250 11.62% Goodland CDP Florida 74 8 10.81% Agenda city Kansas 28 3 10.71% Volant borough Pennsylvania 56 6 10.71% Tenakee Springs city Alaska 39 4 10.26% Tumacacori-Carmen C Arizona 199 20 10.05% Bearcreek town Montana 52 5 9.62% Briny Breezes town Florida 84 8 9.52% Barada village Nebraska 21 2 9.52% Layton city Florida 117 11 9.40% Evansville CDP Alaska 22 2 9.09% Nimrod city Minnesota 22 2 9.09% Nimrod city Minnesota 22 2 9.09% San Geronimo CDP California 245 22 8.98% Smith Island CDP Maryland 148 13 8.78% Laie CDP Hawaii 2,103 176 8.37% Hickam Housing CDP Hawaii 2,386 196 8.21% Slickville CDP Pennsylvania 112 9 8.04% Laughlin AFB CDP Texas 1,150 91 7.91% Minidoka city Idaho 38 3 7.89% Sykeston city North Dakota 51 4 7.84% Shipshewana town Indiana 310 24 7.74% Playita comunidad (Sa Puerto Rico 145 11 7.59% Dillard city Georgia 94 7 7.45% Putnam town Oklahoma 27 2 7.41% Fire Island CDP New York 191 14 7.33% Shorewood Hills village Wisconsin 779 57 7.32% Grenora city North Dakota 97 7 7.22% Buffalo Gap town South Dakota 56 4 7.14% Corvallis city Oregon 23,475 1,669 7.11% Boulder city Colorado 53,828 3,708 6.89% Gunnison city Colorado 2,825 189 6.69% Chistochina CDP Alaska 30 2 6.67% Grand Canyon Village Arizona 1,059 70 6.61% P.
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities for Regional Collaboration on the Border: Sharing the European Border Experience with the San Diego/Tijuana Region
    Opportunities for Regional Collaboration on the Border: Sharing the European border experience with the San Diego/Tijuana region Dr. Freerk Boedeltje, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego State University, May 2012 How to read this white paper? This white paper highlights best practices and barriers for local cross border cooperation across the European Union and will suggest policy options relevant to the San Diego-Tijuana region. The research done in Europe has been carried out as part of two large scheme EU wide projects sponsored under the 5th and 6th framework Programme of European Commission. Code named EXLINA and EUDIMENSIONS, the research consisted of a consortium of multiple universities across the European Union and took 8 years between 2002 and 2009. Both project have sought to understand the actual and potential role of cross border co-operation beyond the external borders of the EU and focused on specific local development issues, including economic development, cultural and educational matters, urban development, local democracy and environmental issues. The research was designed to address practical aspects of cross-border co- operation across and beyond the external borders of the European Union. The case studies that covered most part of the external borders of the EU centred on how changes within Europe’s political space are being interpreted and used by actors with a stake in bi-national/cross-border cooperation. This whitepaper compares and contrast the San Diego-Tijuana realities with cross border cooperation in border regions of the European Union. In addition to improving our understanding how local border regions function within a global context, the whitepaper highlight best practices and barriers for local cross border cooperation and will suggest policy options relevant to the San Diego Region and the Tijuana Tecate and Playas de Rosarito Metropolitan Zone.
    [Show full text]
  • Transboundary Issues and Solutions in the San Diego/Tijuana Border
    Blurred Borders: Transboundary Impacts and Solutions in the San Diego-Tijuana Region Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 4 2 Why Do We Need to Re-think the Border Now? 6 3. Re-Defining the Border 7 4. Trans-Border Residents 9 5. Trans-National Residents 12 6. San Diego-Tijuana’s Comparative Advantages and Challenges 15 7. Identifying San Diego-Tijuana's Shared Regional Assets 18 8. Trans-Boundary Issues •Regional Planning 20 •Education 23 •Health 26 •Human Services 29 •Environment 32 •Arts & Culture 35 8. Building a Common Future: Promoting Binational Civic Participation & Building Social Capital in the San Diego-Tijuana Region 38 9. Taking the First Step: A Collective Binational Call for Civic Action 42 10. San Diego-Tijuana At a Glance 43 11. Definitions 44 12. San Diego-Tijuana Regional Map Inside Back Cover Copyright 2004, International Community Foundation, All rights reserved International Community Foundation 3 Executive Summary Blurred Borders: Transboundary Impacts and Solutions in the San Diego-Tijuana Region Over the years, the border has divided the people of San Diego Blurred Borders highlights the similarities, the inter-connections County and the municipality of Tijuana over a wide range of differ- and the challenges that San Diego and Tijuana share, addressing ences attributed to language, culture, national security, public the wide range of community based issues in what has become the safety and a host of other cross border issues ranging from human largest binational metropolitan area in North America. Of particu- migration to the environment. The ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality has lar interest is how the proximity of the border impacts the lives and become more pervasive following the tragedy of September 11, livelihoods of poor and under-served communities in both San 2001 with San Diegans focusing greater attention on terrorism and Diego County and the municipality of Tijuana as well as what can homeland security and the need to re-think immigration policy in be done to address their growing needs.
    [Show full text]
  • An Employee-Owned Company
    An Employee-Owned Company February 12, 2018 Mr. Michael Brekka RV Communities LLC 7855 Herschel Avenue, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Reference: Cultural Resources Survey for the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan, La Mesa, California (RECON Number 4167-2) Dear Mr. Brekka: This letter describes the results of a cultural resources survey conducted for the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan by RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON). The project site is located in the urbanized floodplain of Alvarado Creek in the City of La Mesa (Figure 1). The entire project area has been disturbed by urbanization to varying degrees. No previously recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are within or immediately adjacent to the project. The San Diego RV Resort was constructed sometime between 1953 and 1964 as a mobile home park and is over 50 years old. As such, it is potentially eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 1.0 Introduction The project is located on the south side of Interstate 8, approximately 1,500 feet east of 70th Street/Lake Murray Boulevard and approximately 1,000 feet west of the Interstate 8/Fletcher Parkway intersection. Alvarado Creek runs immediately on the southern boundary of the western portion of the project, then turns north, dividing the project area into two pieces. The western portion is approximately twice the size of the eastern portion. The project is in an unsectioned portion of the Mission San Diego land grant, Township 16 South, Range 2 West, on the 7.5-minute U.S.
    [Show full text]