technical air quality analysis sabre springs/ pe ňasquitos transit center project › uploads ›...

Technical Air Quality Analysis Sabre Springs/ Peňasquitos Transit Center Project

Prepared for:

David Evans and Associates, Inc 110 West 'A' Street Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101

July 2010

Prepared by:

43410 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-0055

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Table of Contents

Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos Transit Center i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 2

2.1. Purpose of the Project ......................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................... 4

3.1. United States Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................... 4 3.2. California Air Resources Board ......................................................................................... 4 3.3. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District .............................................................. 4 3.4. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................ 5 3.5. Air Quality Attainment Status ............................................................................................ 6 3.6. Air Quality Maintenance Plans .......................................................................................... 7 3.7. Air Quality Conformity ...................................................................................................... 7 3.8. Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 8

4.0 Pollutants and Effects .......................................................................................................... 10 5.0 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................... 15

5.1. Climate and Topography .................................................................................................. 15 5.2. Local Air Quality Monitoring .......................................................................................... 15 5.3. Sensitive Receivers ........................................................................................................... 16

6.0 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................. 17 6.1. Construction Significance Criteria ................................................................................... 17 6.2. Operation Significance Criteria ........................................................................................ 18

7.0 Air Quality Impacts ............................................................................................................. 19 7.1. Construction Impacts ........................................................................................................ 19 7.2. Operational Emissions ...................................................................................................... 22 7.3. Compliance with CEQA Air Quality Impact Criteria ...................................................... 29

8.0 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 32 9.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 34

Appendices

Appendix A URBEMIS 2007 Output Results .................................................................... 35

Appendix B EMFAC2007 Output Results......................................................................... 50

Appendix C CALINE4 Output Results .............................................................................. 53

Appendix D CT-EMFAC Result Outputs .......................................................................... 75

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Table of Contents

Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos Transit Center ii

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 3

Figure 7-1. Receivers at Sabre Springs Parkway and Evening Creek Drive ................................. 25

Figure 7-2. Receivers at Sabre Springs Parkway and Carmel Mountain Express Drive ............... 26

Figure 7-3. Receivers at Sabre Springs and Rancho Carmel Drive ............................................... 27

List of Tables

Table 3-1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................... 6 Table 3-2. Forecast Countywide Emissions and Emission Budgets................................................ 8 Table 5-1. Ambient Air Quality at Escondido Monitoring Station ............................................... 16 Table 6-1. SDAPCD Emission Thresholds ................................................................................... 18 Table 7-1. Sabre Springs Transit Center Construction Schedule and Equipment List .................. 20

Table 7-2. Estimated Construction Emissions for Sabre Springs Transit Center .......................... 21

Table 7-3. Estimated CO2 Construction Emissions for Sabre Springs Transit Center .................. 22

Table 7-4. Maximum Daily Emissions .......................................................................................... 23 Table 7-5. Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations (ppm) .......................................................... 28 Table 7-6. Maximum CO2 Emissions (tons/year) ......................................................................... 29

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Introduction

Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos Transit Center 1

1.0 Introduction

As part of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Managed Lanes Project, five transit centers were planned for

construction along the I-15 corridor, one of which is now proposed to include an approximately 641-

car parking structure. The parking structure will be constructed in the Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos

Transit Center (proposed project) at the intersection of Sabre Springs Parkway and Carmel Mountain

Express Drive in the City of San Diego (City).

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential air quality impacts from greenhouse gas

emissions of the proposed project per the recent amendments made to the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA). Potential air quality impacts are analyzed for construction and operation of the

proposed project. Mitigation measures for air quality are recommended where necessary.

Mass transit projects proposed for federal funding must meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) in addition to NEPA. The CAA contains detailed transportation “conformity” requirements to

ensure that federally-funded transit projects conform to the applicable State (air quality)

Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP documents the measures that will be taken in a specific

nonattainment area in order to attain the national air quality standards. The conformity requirements

apply only in nonattainment and maintenance areas.

The conformity process is governed by a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 93 (40 CFR 93) “Determining Conformity of

Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air

Quality has also issued numerous guidance and procedures to determine a projects conformity status.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Project Description


2.0 Project Description

The proposed project consists of the construction of a four-level parking structure and associated

improvements within the Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos Transit Center, as shown in Figure 2-1. The

Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos Transit Center is presently characterized by an approximately 4-acre paved

park-and-ride facility that accommodates 150 surface parking spaces; transit amenities including bus

shelters, benches, and bike storage; and temporary buildings associated with the I-15 Corridor Express

Lanes (Managed Lanes) Project. The four-level parking structure would be located in the southern

portion of the transit center, adjacent to Carmel Mountain Express Drive and Sabre Springs Parkway,

and would accommodate approximately 641 parking spaces. Approximately 86 parking spaces would

be located immediately north of the parking structure in a reconfigured surface parking lot.

A new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) loop with eight bus bays and transit-related furnishings such as bus

shelters and benches would be located in the northern portion of the site adjacent to Ted Williams

Parkway. Circulation within the transit center would be revised to accommodate the new parking

structure. An unnamed paved driveway that currently bisects the transit center would be removed. A

second paved driveway that runs adjacent to Chicarita Creek along the western perimeter of the

project site would be widened to meet City of San Diego roadway design standards. Landscaping

would be installed throughout the newly configured transit center. Security lighting would be

installed within the parking structure and replaced where appropriate to provide adequate lighting

during early morning and nighttime hours. The transit center would continue to operate between the

hours of 5: 00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Project construction is expected to commence in summer 2011 and would continue for approximately

12 months. Staging of construction equipment and materials storage for the proposed parking

structure would be located within the transit center and/or at an existing nearby staging location just

south of Ted Williams Parkway, west of I-15. Construction would be phased to allow the transit

center to remain in service during construction of the project.

2.1. Purpose of the Project There is a need for additional vehicle parking spaces at the Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos I-15 Transit

Center to meet future demand associated with a high-frequency express bus system - Bus Rapid

Transit - along the I-15 corridor. The proposed project seeks to satisfy the need for additional parking

at the transit center and support the overall vision of the I-15 Managed Lanes Project.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Project Description


Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity Map

Project Location

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Regulatory Framework


3.0 Regulatory Framework

The air quality in the United States is governed by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to

being subject to requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent

regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). At the federal level, the CAA is administered

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In California, the CCAA is administered by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level and by the San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District (SDAPCD) at the regional and local levels.

3.1. United States Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is responsible for enforcing the CAA. The EPA is also responsible for establishing the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are required under the 1977 CAA

and subsequent amendments. The EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive

authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The

agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters and establishes various emissions

standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California.

3.2. California Air Resources Board In California, CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency

(CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the Federal CAA,

administering the CCAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

The CCAA, as amended in 1992, requires all State air districts to endeavor to achieve and maintain

the CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and

incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibly reducing

particles. CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is

responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission

sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB established passenger

vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective in March 1996. CARB oversees the functions of

local APCDs and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the

regional and county levels.

3.3. San Diego County Air Pollution Control Distri ct The SDAPCD operates entirely within the San Diego Air Basin (Basin) and has jurisdiction over the

entire area of San Diego County (County). The SDAPCD is responsible for monitoring air quality, as

well as planning, implementing and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and

federal ambient air quality standards in the district. Programs that were developed include air quality

rules and regulations that regulate stationary source, area source, point source and certain mobile

source emissions. The SDAPCD is also responsible for establishing permitting requirements for

stationary sources and ensuring that new, modified or relocated stationary sources do not create net

emission increases and, therefore, is consistent with the region’s air quality goals.



3.4. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standa rds As required by the CAA, the NAAQS have been established for major air pollutants: ozone, CO, NO2,

SO2, particulate matter, and lead. Pursuant to CCAA, the State of California has established the

CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and incorporate

additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles.

Since the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS, the CAAQS are used as the comparative

standard in the air quality analysis contained in this report. Both state and federal standards are

summarized in Table 3-1. The “primary” standards have been established to protect public health. The

“secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects

on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of the general welfare.



Table 3-1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time Concentrations

State Standards (CAAQS)

Federal Standards (NAAQS)

Ozone (O 3) 8 hour 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm

1 hour 0.09 ppm NA

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm

1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm 0.053 ppm

1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.10 ppm

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2)

Annual arithmetic mean NA 0.03 ppm



Particulate Matter (PM 10) Annual arithmetic mean 20 µg/m3 NA

24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3

Particulate Matter – fine (PM2.5)

Annual arithmetic mean No Separate State Standard

15 µg/m3

24 hour 12 µg/m3 35 µg/m3

Lead (Pb)

Rolling 3-month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3

Quarterly Average NA 1.5 µg/m3

30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 NA

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm NA

Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 NA

Vinyl Chlor ide (chloroethene) 24 hour 0.01 ppm NA

Visibility-Reducing Particles

8 hour (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time)

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 kilometer—visibility of 10 miles or more due

to partic les when relative humidity is less than 70

percent.

NA

Source: California Air Resources Board (11/17/08) and Environmental Protection Agency (10/13/06) mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter; NA=no standard implemented; ppm=part per million; µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter

[a] EPA Region 9, correspondence states that the old PM2.5 24-hour standard of 65 µg/m3 be utilized as this standard was the standard provided when the SIP was last approved.

3.5. Air Quality Attainment Status The CCAA requires CARB to designate areas within California as either attainment or non-attainment

for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas

are designated as non-attainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the

pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are

affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard, and

are not used as a basis for designating areas as non-attainment. Under the California standard, San

Diego County is in non-attainment for O3 and non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5 and an attainment



area for CO. Under the Federal standard, San Diego County is in non-attainment for 8-hour O3 and a

maintenance area for CO. All other pollutants are in attainment of Federal standards.

3.6. Air Quality Maintenance Plans All areas designated as non-attainment under the CCAA are required to prepare plans showing how

the area would meet the State air quality standards by its attainment dates. Because the San Diego area

is a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a maintenance area for CO, the Eight-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan was created for San Diego County and the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy

(RAQS) is the region’s plan for improving air quality in the region. Both plans address the CAA and

CCAA requirements and demonstrates attainment with ambient air quality standards.

The County’s O3 Attainment Plan was finalized in May 2007 and outlines emission control strategies

that will be implemented in order to reduce O3 emissions throughout the County. Strategies in the

Attainment Plan include creating allowable emission budgets and control measures for stationary

sources through adoption of rules, permits, inspections and testing.

The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991, and is updated on a triennial basis, the last update was April

22, 2009. The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air

quality standards for O3. The APCD has also developed the air basin’s input to the SIP, which is

required under the CAA for areas that are out of attainment of air quality standards. The SIP includes

the SDAPCD’s plans and control measures for attaining the O3 NAAQS. The SIP is also updated on a

triennial basis. The latest SIP update was submitted by CARB to the EPA in 2007.

3.7. Air Quality Conformity In addition, San Diego’s metropolitan transportation organization (MPO), the San Diego Area

Governments (SANDAG) is required to periodically prepare Transportation Conformity Analyses

under the federal Transportation Conformity regulation. The Conformity Analysis forecasts future

countywide emissions from on-road vehicles, and must demonstrate the countywide vehicle emissions

will comply with on-road vehicle emission budgets. Table 3-2 lists the forecast countywide emissions

and compares them to the allowable emission budgets, as specified in the County’s Eight-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan (SDAPCD 2007) and SANDAG’s 2008 Transportation Conformity Analysis

(SANDAG 2008). In all cases the forecast emissions are well below the allowable emission budgets.

The difference between the forecast emissions and the allowable budget is the “emission surplus”. As

listed in the table, the emission surplus ranges from 2–65 tons per day for NOx and 4-30 tons per day

for ROG.



Table 3-2. Forecast Countywide Emissions and Emission Budgets

Year Emission Budget

(tons/day)

Forecast Emissions (tons/day)

Emission Surplus

(tons/day)

ROG

2008 53 49 4

2010 53 44 9

2020 53 28 25

2030 53 23 30

NOx

2008 98 96 2

2010 98 89 9

2020 98 48 50

2030 98 33 65 Source: SDAPCD. 2007

3.8. Climate Change The efforts devoted to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and

policy have increased dramatically in recent years. These efforts are primarily concerned with the

emissions of GHG related to human activity that include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,

tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a (s, s, s, 2

–tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane).

In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched an innovative and

pro-active approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493

requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG

emissions. On May 18, 2009, President Obama announced the enactment of a 35.5 mpg fuel economy

standard for automobiles and light duty trucks which will take effect in 2012. This standard is the

same standard that was proposed by California.

On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this

Executive Order is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels

by the 2020 and 3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, this goal was further

reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that CARB

create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable,

cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases. ”Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies

to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state’s Climate Action

Team.



With Executive Order S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel standard for

California. Under this executive order, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be

reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Climate change and GHG reduction is also a concern at the federal level; however, at this time, no

legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and

climate change. The EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The final rule

was signed on September 22, 2009 and was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009.

This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles

and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are

required to submit annual reports to EPA.

According to Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How to

Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate change in CEQA Documents (March 5, 2007), an

individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate

change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may

participate in a potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the contributions

of all other sources of GHG. In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project’s

incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” See CEQA Guidelines sections 15064(i)(1) and

15130. To make this determination the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the

effects of past, current, and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global

scale of all past, current, and future projects in order to make this determination is a difficult if not

impossible task.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Pollutants and Effects


4.0 Pollutants and Effects

As stated previously, federal, state and local agencies have established ambient air quality standards

for six criteria pollutants: CO, O3, PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, and Pb as presented in Table 3-1. O3 and

PM are generally considered to be regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air

quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, PM, NO2, SO2, and Pb are considered to be local

pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. In the project area O3 and CO are

pollutants of particular concern as the Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for O3 and a

maintenance area for CO.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the

amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. Effects on humans range from slight headaches to

nausea to death. For urban areas, the internal combustion engines of motor vehicles are the principal

sources of CO that cause ambient air quality levels to exceed the NAAQS. State and federal CO

standards have been set for both 1-hour and 8-hour averaging times. The state 1-hour standard is 20

parts per million (ppm) by volume, and the federal 1-hour is 35 ppm. Both the state and federal

standards are 9 ppm for the 8-hour averaging period. High CO levels develop primarily during winter

when periods of light wind combine with ground-level temperature inversions. These conditions result

in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. In addition, motor vehicles emit more CO in cool

temperatures than in warm temperatures.

Ozone (O3)

O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. O3

precursors, which include NOx and ROGs, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form

ozone. Ground-level and stratosphere-level O3 share the same chemical structure; however, their

effects differ greatly due to their positions in the atmosphere. Ground-level O3 has adverse effects due

to its potential impacts to human health, while stratospheric O3 has a protective effect by shielding the

earth’s surface from harmful radiation. When O3 is inhaled, it can cause a variety of health problems

such as chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. State and federal standards for O3 have

been set for a 1-hour averaging time. The state requires that O3 concentration not exceed 0.09 ppm of

O3 being produced in a given area in 1 hour. The federal 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the EPA

in 2005. The federal 8-hour O3 standard is 0.075 ppm and the state standard is 0.07 ppm.

Particulate Matter (PM10) & (PM2.5)

PM emissions are generated by a wide variety of sources, including agricultural activities, industrial

emissions, dust suspended by vehicle traffic and construction equipment, and secondary aerosols

formed by reactions in the atmosphere. The NAAQS for particulate matter applies to two classes of

particulate: PM2.5, particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, and PM10, particulate matter 10

microns or less in diameter. PM of ten microns in diameter and smaller pose the greatest health

problems by being able to bypass the nose and throat’s natural filtration systems and enter deep into

the lungs, heart, and bloodstream. This can cause difficulty with breathing (including aggravating



asthma), irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lung

problems. The state PM10 standards are 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) as a 24-hour average

and 20 µg/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The federal PM10 standard is 150 µg/m3 as a 24-hour

average. The federal standards for PM2.5 are 15 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m3 for annual and 24 hours

respectively. The state standard for PM2.5 is 12 µg/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. There is no

separate state standard for 24-hour PM2.5.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

NO2 belongs to a family of highly reactive gases called NOx. These gases form when fuel is burned at

high temperatures, and come principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as

electric utilities and industrial boilers. A suffocating, brownish gas, NO2 is a strong oxidizing agent

that reacts in air to form corrosive nitric acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates. It also plays a major

role in the atmospheric reactions that produce ground-level O3 (or smog), which can trigger serious

respiratory problems. The EPA's health-based national air quality standard for NO2 is 0.053 ppm.

Recently, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) have proposed to

the EPA a new standard for NO2 based on new epidemiologic and toxicological data that support the

need for a short-term NO2 standard. The NESCAUM also suggests that the current annual standard,

without a supplemental short-term standard, may not be adequately protective of public health. With

this evidence, the EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) have recognized

the need for a short-term NO2 standard. Further, short-term NO2 exposures (i.e., 30 minutes to 24

hours) have been linked to increased airway reactivity, worsened control of asthma, and increased

incidences of respiratory illnesses and symptoms. The NESCAUM recommends that the EPA

establish a one-hour NO2 NAAQS at a level no higher than 100 ppb, using the 99th percentile option.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

SO2 belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOx). These gases are formed when fuel containing

sulfur (mainly coal and oil) is burned, and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. SO2

contributes to respiratory illness, particularly in children and the elderly, and aggravates existing heart

and lung diseases. SO2 also contributes to the formation of acid rain, which causes damages to trees,

crops, historic buildings, and monuments; and makes soils, lakes, and streams acidic. The EPA's

health-based national air quality standard for SO2 is 0.030 ppm (measured on an annual average) and

0.14 ppm (measured over 24 hours).

Lead (Pb)

Pb is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. Once taken into

the body, Pb distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending

on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune

system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. The major sources of

Pb emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of

leaded gasoline, metal processing is the major source of Pb emissions to the air today. The highest



levels of Pb in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste

incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

On October 15, 2008 the EPA signed a final rule to tighten allowable Pb concentrations from 0.15

µg/m3 to 0.15 µg/m3. The EPA said it strengthened the standards after a thorough review of the

science on lead, advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and consideration of

public comments. The EPA has noted that the existing monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to

determine whether many areas of the country would meet the revised standards. As a result, the EPA

is redesigning the nation's lead monitoring network. No later than October 2011, the EPA will

designate areas that must take additional steps to reduce lead air emissions. States will have five years

to meet the new standards after designations take effect.

Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds

Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several

subsets of organic gases including Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Reactive Organic Gases

(ROGs). ROGs include all hydrocarbons except those exempted by the California Air Resources

Board (CARB). Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations.

VOCs are similar to ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal

law. The list of compounds exempt from the definition of VOC is included by the District and is

presented in District Rule 1102. VOCs are therefore a set of organic gases based on federal rules and

regulations. Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other

carbon-based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are the

primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation from petroleum

fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. Both ROG and VOC terminology will be used in

this analysis.

The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health

effects. High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing

the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons are

considered Toxic Air Contaminants, or air toxics. There are no health standards for ROG separately.

In addition, some compounds that make up ROG are also toxic. An example is benzene, which is a

carcinogen.

Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the

formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOX is emitted from

the use of solvents and combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally

from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A

brownish gas, nitrogen dioxide is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric

acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates.

NOX can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as

influenza. The effects of short-term exposure are still unclear, but continued or frequent exposure to



concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may cause

increased incidence of acute respiratory illness in children. Health effects associated with NOX are an

increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead

to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction. NOX can cause fading of

textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production

of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOX can also impair visibility. NOX is a major component of acid

deposition in California. NOX may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. NOX in the air is a

potentially significant contributor to a number of environmental effects such as acid rain and

eutrophication in coastal waters. Eutrophication occurs when a body of water suffers an increase in

nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water, producing an environment that is destructive

to fish and other animal life.

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride monomer is a sweet smelling, colorless gas at ambient temperature. Landfills, publicly

owned treatment works and PVC production are the major identified sources of vinyl chloride

emissions in California. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can be fabricated into several products such as PVC

pipes, pipefittings, and plastics.

In humans, epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl chloride

exposure to development of a rare cancer, liver angiosarcoma, and have suggested a relationship

between exposure and lung and brain cancers.

Hydrogen Sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas is produced during the anaerobic decomposition of manure as a byproduct

of bacterial reduction of sulfur-containing compounds, including proteins. H2S is colorless, with a

characteristic odor of rotten eggs. Atmospheric H2S is primarily oxidized to SO2, which is eventually

converted into sulfate, then sulfuric acid. When sulfuric acid is transported back to the earth through

“acid rain”, it can damage plant tissue and aquatic ecosystems.

While no Federal standard exists for H2S, a California standard exists. H2S is primarily associated

with geothermal activity and oil production activities, and is not monitored in the SJVAB because no

geothermal sites exist. The San Joaquin Valley is unclassified for H2S attainment.

Toxic Air Contaminants

According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air contaminant is "an

air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness,

or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." In addition, 189 substances that

have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the

United States Code are TACs under the state's air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the

California Health and Safety Code. The Toxic Air Contaminants which may be emitted by the

proposed facility are listed in Section 4.3 “Project Specific Public Health/Hazards.”



The TACS can cause various cancers depending on the particular chemicals, type and duration of

exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause short-term and/or long-term health effects. The

ten TACs posing the greatest health risk in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene,

carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride,

perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter.29 A description of these pollutants, their sources and

health effects are contained in Appendix III (“ARB Almanac, Chapter 5: Toxic Air Contaminant

Emissions, Air Quality and Health Risk”). Health risk guidelines are developed by the California Air

Pollution Control Officers Association for the list of chemicals regulated as toxic.

Greenhouse Gases

Global climate change gases are: methane, CO2, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon

tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. These various families of molecules react in the upper

atmosphere to create other chemicals that deplete ozone in the upper atmosphere resulting in increased

ultraviolet-B radiation. Stratospheric ozone protects the biosphere from potentially damaging doses of

ultraviolet-B radiation31 (UV-B). Recent depletion of stratospheric ozone could lead to significant

increases in UV-B reaching the Earth's surface.

UV-B radiation is responsible for a wide range of potentially damaging human and animal health

effects, primarily related to the skin, eyes, and immune system. Human exposure to UV-B depends

upon an individual's location (latitude and altitude), the duration and timing of outdoor activities (time

of day, season of the year), and precautionary behavior (use of sunscreen, sunglasses, or protective

clothing). An individual's skin color and age can influence the occurrence and severity of some of the

health effects from exposure to UV-B.32

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Environmental Setting


5.0 Environmental Setting

5.1. Climate and Topography San Diego County is located between the Pacific Ocean to the west; the Anza-Borrego Desert State

Park to the east; the Cleveland National Forest to the northeast; and the U.S./Mexican Border, which

constitutes the southernmost boundary line. The proposed project is located approximately 10 miles

inland from the coast. The climate of San Diego County is characterized by hot, dry summers and

mild, wet winters, and is dominated by a semi-permanent, high-pressure cell located over the Pacific

Ocean. The high-pressure cell maintains clear skies for much of the year. It also drives the dominated

onshore circulation and helps to create two types of temperature inversions, subsidence and radiation,

that contribute to local air quality degradation.

Within the project site and its vicinity, the average wind speed, as recorded at the San Diego County

Airport Monitoring Station, is approximately 6.2 miles per hour (mph). Wind in the vicinity of the

project site predominantly blows from the west. The annual average temperature in the project area is

approximately 65º Fahrenheit. The project area experiences an average winter temperature of

approximately 56º Fahrenheit and an average summer temperature of 70º Fahrenheit. Total

precipitation in the project area averages approximately 10 inches annually. Precipitation occurs

mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer.

5.2. Local Air Quality Monitoring Regional air quality is monitored locally by the SDAPCD in conjunction with CARB. These two

agencies operate a network of approximately ten air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin.

The SDAPCD relies on one or more monitoring stations to document local air pollutant concentration

levels. The EPA determines regional air quality status based on data collected from permanent

monitoring stations. An area is classified as “attainment" if the primary NAAQS have been achieved

and "non-attainment" if the NAAQS are not achieved. Within the project area PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2,

and Pb are currently in attainment with federal and state standards while O3 is designated as

nonattainment and maintenance for CO.

The Escondido monitoring facility, as shown in Figure 5-1, is the nearest air quality monitoring station

to the project area which provides monitoring data for NO2, CO, O3, PM10 and PM2.5. Currently, there

are only three monitoring stations that measure SO2 and no monitoring stations that measure Pb

concentrations near the project area. In recent years there has not been a credible risk of either

pollutant violating federal or state standards in this area. NO2 concentrations are not of concern due to

the limited amount of emissions related to the operation of the project. NO2 emissions measured at the

monitoring facility are well below the federal and state standards and have not exceeded standards for

over ten years.

Table 5-1 presents the last three years of monitoring data at the project’s closest monitoring station in

Escondido. Over the past three years, CO concentrations in the project area have been well below the

1-hour and 8-hour federal and state standards and no exceedances have been recorded for over ten

years. The EPA revoked the O3 1-hour standard in June 2005; however, there are still CAAQS for 1-

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Environmental Setting


hour concentrations. Therefore, both 1-hour and 8-hour O3 concentrations are included in Table 6-1.

Concentrations collected demonstrate that the area has exceeded the 8-hour O3 federal and state

standards. In 2006, O3 exceeded federal standards, in 2007 there was a decrease in exceedances, and

finally in 2008 a slight increase in exceedances.

Table 5-1. Ambient Air Quality at Escondido Monitoring Station

Ozone (O3) Carbon Monoxide

(CO)

Max 1-hour

Max 8-hour

Max 1-hour

Max 8-hour

Federal Standard No Federal Standard 0.075 ppm 35 ppm 9.0 ppm

State Standard 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm 20 ppm 9.0 ppm

2008 0.116 0.098 4.6 2.8

2007 0.094 0.077 5.2 3.2

2006 0.108 0.096 5.7 3.6 Source: EPA web page, http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html ppm = parts per million Address of Monitoring Station: 600 E. Valley Pkwy, Escondido, CA

5.3. Sensitive Receivers Land uses, such as schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, elderly care facilities, and other areas that are

occupied by people susceptible to air quality pollutants are considered sensitive air quality receptors.

Generally, people that are more susceptible to air quality are young children, the elderly, and people

with immune deficiencies. However, there are no hospitals, elder care facilities, or schools within 500

feet of the proposed project area.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Thresholds of Significance


6.0 Thresholds of Significance

A checklist provided in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

states that a project would have a significant adverse effect on air quality if any of the following

would occur as a result of a project-related component. Would the project:

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air

quality violation?

• Result in cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is nonattainment under any applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard

(including releasing emission which exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

All areas designated as non-attainment under the CCAA are required to prepare plans showing how

the area would meet the State air quality standards by its attainment dates. As mentioned in the

Section 5.5, San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy, both RAQS and SIP include SDAPCD’s plan

to improve air quality in the region. It addresses the CAA and CCAA requirements and demonstrates

attainment with ambient air quality standards.

6.1. Construction Significance Criteria SDAPCD has not established numerical emission thresholds for evaluation of development projects

under CEQA. For this report, assumed CEQA significance thresholds were developed based on the

regulatory applicability thresholds SDAPCD specifies for stationary industrial facilities under the

agency’s Rule 20.2, New Source Review, Non-Major Stationary Sources. Table 20.2-1 of that

regulation specifies “Air Quality Impact Assessment Trigger Levels” based on the industrial facility’s

proposed daily emissions. For this CEQA analysis of the Project, the significant emission thresholds

for construction and operation were assumed to be the same as those specified by SDAPCD under

Rule 20.2.

Rule 20.2 does not specify an emission threshold for ROG. For this CEQA analysis the emission

threshold for ROG was assumed to equal the NOx emission threshold set under Rule 20.2.

The proposed Project would exceed the SDAPCD significance criteria if daily construction emissions

were to exceed the SDAPCD emissions thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, or PM10, as listed in Table 6-1.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Thresholds of Significance


Table 6-1. SDAPCD Emission Thresholds

Criteria Pollutant Pounds Per Day

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 2501

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 250

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 250

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM) 100 Source: SPACD Rule 20.2 (2006) (1) No numerical emission thresholds for ROG were established by SDAPCD Rule 20.2. Therefore, for this analysis the assumed threshold for ROG was set to the same value as NOX.

6.2. Operation Significance Criteria The proposed project would exceed SDAPCD significance criteria if:

• Daily operational emissions were to exceed the assumed CEQA SDAPCD operational

emissions thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, or PM10, which were established for this CEQA

analysis based on the regulatory thresholds listed in Rule 20.2 for stationary industrial

sources. No CEQA numerical emission thresholds for ROG were established under Rule 20.2,

so for this analysis the CEQA threshold for ROG was set equal to the Rule 20.2 threshold for

NOx. The significance thresholds for operational emissions are listed in Table 6-1; or

• Project-generated on-road traffic causes CO concentrations at study intersections to violate

the CAAQS for either the 1- and 8-hour periods. CAAQS for the 1- and 8-hour periods are

20.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Air Quality Impacts


7.0 Air Quality Impacts

An air quality impact assessment will be conducted to determine the significance of the impact created

by the construction and operation of the proposed project on the surrounding area. The construction

and operation of the proposed Project has the potential to create air quality impacts in the nearby

vicinity. Short-term impacts are associated with the construction of the proposed project and long-

term impacts are associated with the operation of the proposed project. Construction may affect air

quality as a result of the following: construction equipment emissions, fugitive dust from grading and

earth moving, and emissions from vehicles to/from the sites by construction workers. Operation

related emissions would be generated primarily from vehicle emissions generated from the operation

of the proposed project.

7.1. Construction Impacts Construction emissions would include emissions associated with fugitive dust, heavy construction

equipment, and construction workers commuting to and from the site. Emissions from the heavy

construction equipments and associated construction activities were estimated using the URBEMIS

2007 model based on the conceptual schedule listed in Table 7-1. Heavy equipment requirements and

associated emissions for site grading, building construction, and paving activities were estimated

based on the URBEMIS2007 default values and professional judgment. Emissions associated with

worker travel to the construction site and construction truck deliveries were estimated based on default

values in the URBEMIS2002 model.



Table 7-1. Sabre Springs Transit Center Construction Schedule and Equipment List

Construction Phase and Duration

Equipment Type and Number of Equipment

Demolition and Clearing (1 week)

(3) Concrete Saw (1) Dozer

(2) Air Compressor (2) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe

(1) Dump Truck

Construct Temporary Parking (3 weeks)

(2) Dump Truck (1) Bulldozer

Grading (1 week)

(1) Grader (2) Dozer

(2) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) Water Truck

Construct Parking Garage (7 months)

(2) Crane Welders

(2) Forklifts (1) Generator Set (2) Cement Mixer

(2) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) Drilling Rig

Demo Temporary Parking (1 week)

(2) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) Dump Truck

Construct Surface Parking/Bus/Loop/Paving/Landscaping

(2 months)

(1) Cement Mixer (1) Paver (1) Roller

(2) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) Dump Truck

Source: DEA, 2010 Demolition and clearing anticipated to start in early to mid-spring 2011. Approximately 3.5 acres will be disturbed during project construction.

As required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in its CEQA Air

Quality Handbook, best available control measures (BACM) to control fugitive dust generation will

be implemented during construction (SCAQMD 1997). These mitigation measures are also included

as inputs in URBEMIS 2007 to estimate emissions generated during construction of the proposed

project. The mitigation measures include the following:

• Multiple applications of water during grading between dozer/scraper passes.

• Paving, chip sealing, or chemical stabilization of internal roadways after completion of

grading.

• Use of sweepers or water trucks to remove “track-out” at any point of public street access.

• Termination of grading if winds exceed 25 mph.

• Stabilization of dirt storage piles by chemical binders, tarps, fencing or other erosion control.



• Hydroseeding of graded lots.

For purposes of applying the URBEMIS2007 model, it was assumed all of the above dust control

measures would be implemented as part of the project (i.e., not CEQA mitigations). The measures

were applied in the URBEMIS2007 model to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Non-mitigated ROG

emissions from architectural coatings were estimated assuming the facility wide average coatings

exhibit a ROG content of 250 grams per liter (that ROG content corresponds to extensive use of

solvent-based coatings).

Table 7-2 provides a summary of the emission estimates for the construction of the proposed project.

URBEMIS2007 model outputs are provided in Appendix A. The time frame included in Table 7-2 is

an example of a rigorous construction schedule demonstrating a worst-case scenario for annual

construction emissions. If the activities listed in the table occur over a longer period of time than

anticipated, it is assumed the annual emissions would decrease because the same amount of work

would happen over a longer period of time.

Table 7-2. Estimated Construction Emissions for Sabre Springs Transit Center

Daily Thresholds 250 250 550 250 100 100 Above or

Below Threshold

Pollutant ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction

Activities Month and

Year Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)

Demolition June 2011 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Below

Coatings and Asphalt

June 2011 0.11 0.49 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Below

Grading June 2011 0.11 0.49 0.38 0.00 0.11 0.05 Below Structure Construction

July 2011 to January 2012

1.21 4.16 5.86 0.00 0.05 0.05 Below

Demolition January 2012 0.44 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Below Coatings and Asphalt

February to March 2012

0.33 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Below

As shown in Table 7-2, construction of the proposed project will not cause a significant impact to the

surrounding area. The calculated emission results from URBEMIS2007 demonstrate that the

construction of this proposed project will not exceed average daily thresholds created by the

SDAPCD. Thus, construction related impacts on regional air quality will be less than significant.

Construction of the proposed project will not worsen ambient air quality, create additional violations

of Federal and State standards, or delay the Basin’s goal for meeting attainment standards. The air

quality impacts associated with the project construction would be less than significant.

Construction GHG Analysis Currently, there is no federal, state, or local guidance on performing a quantitative analysis for GHG

emissions from transit projects for construction operations. However, construction activity for the

proposed project can potentially create short-term GHG emissions within the proposed project area.



The only GHG pollutant that can be accurately modeled at this time is CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions

from vehicular traffic are the primary GHG pollutant of concern from the construction of the proposed

project. Air quality model, URBEMIS 2007, can estimate CO2 emissions from construction activity

scheduled for the proposed project. CO2 emissions from construction will primarily come from

heavy construction equipment and construction workers commuting to and from the site. CO2

emissions from construction of the proposed project were estimated utilizing the same methods

described in the prior section. During project construction, the URBEMIS2007 computer model

predicts that a peak activity day in the single worst case year of construction will generate the

following CO2 emissions shown in Table 7-3. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that non- CO2

GHG emissions are negligible, and that the total project construction GHG burden can be

characterized by the peak activity days shown in Table 7-3. The estimated annual GHG emissions are

presented in Table 7-3 for all the above activities occurring in a single year.

Table 7-3. Estimated CO2 Construction Emissions for Sabre Springs Transit Center

Construction Activities

Month and Year

Peak Activity

Days

Maximum Daily CO2

Emissions (pounds/day)

Maximum Yearly

Emissions (tons/year)

Demolition June 2011 10 18 0

Coatings and Asphalt June 2011 16 65 1

Grading June 2011 13 71 0 Structure Construction

July 2011 to January 2012

156 802 63

Demolition January 2012 13 24 0

Coatings and Asphalt February to March 2012

58 183 5

Total 69

With the enactment of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (AB 32; Stats. 2006,

chapter 488) CARB was tasked with maintaining a GHG inventory which provides estimates of the

amount of GHGs emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within California.

A new 2010 edition of California's greenhouse gas emission inventory was released May 28, 2010,

and includes emissions estimates for years 2000 to 2008. In 2008, the statewide annual GHG

inventory in CO2-equivalent levels (including all non- CO2 gases weighted by their thermal absorption

potential) was approximately 485,000,000 metric tons. The worst-case project construction impact of

69 tons/year represents approximately 0.000014 percent of the statewide burden.

7.2. Operational Emissions The proposed project is located in a CO maintenance area; therefore, Federal air quality conformity

standards must demonstrate transportation activities associated with the proposed project will not

cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the



NAAQS. To satisfy this requirement, air quality modeling was used to demonstrate whether any new

violations are likely to occur or if existing conditions will worsen as a result of the project.

Furthermore, under the California standard, San Diego County is in non-attainment for O3 and non-

attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. Under the Federal standard, San Diego County is in non-attainment for

8-hour O3. All other pollutants are in attainment of Federal standards. Therefore, conformity

standards for O3 are required. Due to the state non-attainment status for PM10 and PM2.5 analysis on

the potential impacts from these pollutants will be assessed. Caltrans CT-EMFAC model was used to

estimate emissions for existing, 2030 without project, and 2030 with project conditions for PM10,

PM2.5, SOx, and O3 precursors (ROG and NOx). The maximum daily emissions are shown in Table 7-

4.

Table 7-4. Maximum Daily Emissions

Pollutant

Existing Maximum

Daily Emissions

(pounds/day)

2030 Without Project

Maximum Daily


2030 With Project

Maximum Daily


SDAPCD Daily

Emission Thresholds

(pounds/day)

ROG 0.0234 0.0132 0.0155 250

NOx 0.0410 0.0184 0.0207 250

SOx 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 250

PM10 0.0026 0.0029 0.0033 100

PM2.5 0.0025 0.0026 0.0031 100

As shown in Table 7-4 the estimated daily emissions for existing, 2030 without project, and 2030 with

project conditions are well below the SDAPCD Daily Emission Thresholds. O3 precursors, ROG and

NOx, emissions slightly decrease from existing conditions to future conditions due to future

improvements in vehicle technology, such as reducing vehicles dependency on fuel consumption,

reducing idling emission factors, and increasing use of sustainable fuels. However, future VMTs are

expected to increase from existing to future operations, resulting in an increase in emissions for SOx,

PM10, and PM2.5 from 2030 without project to 2030 with project conditions. Despite these slight

increases in future emissions, the estimated emissions are still well below the SDAPCD Daily

Emissions Threshold. Therefore, operation of the proposed project will not exceed local air quality

regulations.

CO Hot Spot Analysis Localized CO impacts resulting from the project alternatives were evaluated following the California

Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) guidance document, Transportation Project-Level Carbon

Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol), (UCD, 1997). Localized CO impacts were analyzed by estimating



maximum ambient CO concentrations near intersections having the greatest potential impact as a

result of the project for the year 2030. Further, CO concentrations were estimated for existing

conditions and no build conditions and compared with build conditions. The predicted concentrations

were then compared with NAAQS and CAAQS for CO.

The CO hot spot modeling was performed according to the methodology outlined in the CO Protocol.

The CO emission factors were calculated with EMFAC2007, using default vehicle population data for

the air basin. Emission factors were estimated for approach (1 mph) and acceleration (10 mph) vehicle

speeds at each intersection. Parameters used in the EMFAC2007 modeling and the resulting emission

factors are presented in Appendix B. CO concentrations were calculated using Caltrans’ CALINE4, a

dispersion model that predicts CO impacts near roadways. CO concentrations were estimated using

traffic data obtained from the Traffic Engineers for the proposed project. As indicated in the EPA

Guidelines (EPA, 1992) and consistent with Caltrans’ CO Protocol, CALINE4 utilized meteorological

conditions of 1.64 feet (ft) per-second wind speed; 3,280 ft mixing height; and a extremely stable

(Class G) atmosphere. The worst-case wind angle was chosen from CALINE4 run types which allow

evaluation of the wind angle that produces the highest CO concentration at each receptor.

Receivers were placed around intersections at worst-case curbside locations. Receivers were placed

10 ft from the edge of roadway to ensure they were not within the mixing zone of travel lanes and

were in a location accessible to the public, as shown in Figures 7-1 through 7-3. Concentrations were

calculated at a receiver height of 5.9 feet. CALINE4 models were created for existing and future build

condition 2030. CALINE4 modeling output results are presented in Appendix C.



Figure 7-1. Receivers at Sabre Springs Parkway and Evening Creek Drive

Sabre Springs/ Peňasquitos Transit Center Project Technical Air Quality Analysis

Not to Scale

Receiver #1

Receiver #2

Project Location

Evening Creek Drive

Sabre Springs Parkway

Receiver #4

Receiver #3



Figure 7-2. Receivers at Sabre Springs Parkway and Carmel Mountain Express Drive


Not to Scale

Project Location

Carmel Mountain Express Drive


Receiver #1

Receiver #2

Evening Creek Drive

Receiver #4

Receiver #3



Figure 7-3. Receivers at Sabre Springs and Rancho Carmel Drive


Not to Scale

Project Location

Receiver #1

Receiver #2

Ted Williams Parkway

Receiver #4

Receiver #3

Rancho Carmel Drive




Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations were estimated at each of the three intersections for

existing year (2010) and for the no build and build year 2030. Modeled CO concentrations were

combined with current ambient CO background concentrations and compared to the 1-hour and 8–

hour CO NAAQS, as shown in Table 7-5.

Table 7-5. Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations (ppm)

Intersection Location Existing No Build 2030

Build 2030

Above or Below Standard

1-Hour Concentrations (ppm) Standard = 35 ppm

Sabre Springs Parkway and Evening Creek Drive 4.8 3.9 4.0 Below

Sabre Springs Parkway and Carmel Mountain Express Drive 4.7 3.6 4.0 Below

Sabre Springs Parkway and Rancho Carmel Drive

4.9 3.5 4.1 Below

8-Hour Concentrations (ppm) Standard = 9 ppm

Sabre Springs Parkway and Evening Creek Drive

3.4 2.7 2.8 Below

Sabre Springs Parkway and Carmel Mountain Express Drive 3.3 2.5 2.8 Below

Sabre Springs Parkway and Rancho Carmel Drive 3.4 2.5 2.9 Below

Results from the CO hot-spot modeling analysis demonstrate that future predicted CO concentrations

are lower than existing levels due to the decrease in emissions factors resulting from improved vehicle

technology and lower ambient levels. Further, the comparison between future no-build and both build

alternative CO concentrations indicate that CO concentrations are expected to be slightly lower in the

no build condition. Build conditions are slightly higher due to the slight increase in traffic the new

Transit Center will generate while in operation. Operation of the Transit Center will attract more

vehicles to the proposed project area; however, throughout the region traffic will decrease due to the

increase of ridership on the passenger trains that travel throughout San Diego County. It is anticipated

that the project would not contribute to a violation of CO standards and therefore local CO project-

level transportation conformity requirements would be satisfied.

GHG Quantitative Analysis A quantitative analysis estimating CO2 emissions for existing and future (2030) without and with

project conditions was performed using Caltrans’ CT-EMFAC. Inputs used to estimate CO2

emissions were peak and off peak total VMT, vehicle mix, and VMT distribution by speed. CO2

emissions are expected to increase from existing conditions to 2030 conditions due to increases in

total VMT. However, in future 2030 conditions, the total VMT is expected to increase from without

project to with project conditions; therefore, there is a slight increase of CO2 emissions. Currently,

there are no federal or state standards set for CO2 emissions, therefore the estimated emissions shown

in Table 7-6 are only useful for a comparison between alternatives. CT-EMFAC model outputs are



provided in Appendix D. The numbers are not necessarily an accurate reflection of what the true CO2

emissions will be because CO2 emissions are dependent on other factors that are not part of the model

such as the fuel mix. As stated in a prior section the statewide annual GHG inventory in CO2-

equivalent levels (including all non- CO2 gases weighted by their thermal absorption potential) was

approximately 485,000,000 metric tons. The 2030 with project operation impact of 8.29 tons/year

represents approximately 0.0000017 percent of the statewide burden.

Table 7-6. Maximum CO2 Emissions (tons/year)

Pollutant Existing 2030Without Project 2030 With Project CO2 Emissions 5.38 7.91 8.29

7.3. Compliance with CEQA Air Quality Impact Crite ria As shown in the prior sections, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would cause

any significant air quality impacts as defined by the CEQA impact criteria described in the Section

6.0, Threshold of Significance.

Impact AQ-1: Would the proposed project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The construction and operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct

implementation of any air quality plans created by the EPA or SDAPCD. Implementation of the

proposed project would be within the standards set in both the RAQs and any applicable SIP. As

shown in the prior section the construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less

than significant impact on the surrounding project area. As described previously emissions associated

with project constructions would be well below the SDAPCD emission thresholds and would not

cause or contribute to a violation of significance criteria. As shown in the Construction Impact section

maximum daily construction emissions generated by the proposed project would be an

inconsequentially small fraction of the forecast countywide emissions.

Would the proposed project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

As shown in prior section the construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less

than significant impact on the surrounding proposed project area. The implementation of the proposed

project would not violate and NAAQS or CAAQS. Further, implementation will not worsen, extend,

or keep the proposed project area from reaching Federal attainment of O3 or CO within the planned

date of attainment.

Furthermore, as shown in the CO hot-spot analysis CO concentrations adjacent to all intersections

affected by the proposed project will be well below the NAAQS and CAAQS.



Would the proposed project result in cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under any applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

The construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in O3

concentrations, in which the area is designated as nonattainment. Neither will the proposed project

result in an increase in CO concentrations, in which the area in maintenance. Furthermore, the

emissions associated with project constructions would be well below the SDAPCD emission

thresholds and would therefore not cause or contribute to a violation of significance criteria.

In addition, the proposed project area is in non-attainment of federal standards for O3 emissions. Air

quality modeling was completed to demonstrate that the operation and construction of the proposed

project would not result in a considerable increase in emissions of ROG and NOX (precursors to 03).

Modeling demonstrated that the estimated ROG and NOx emissions are far below the SDAPCD

emission thresholds and would not cause or contribute to a significant impact.

The proposed project area is also in non-attainment for state standards of PM10 and PM2., but in

attainment for federal standards. However, air quality modeling was also completed to demonstrate

the construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause a significant increase to

existing conditions. The modeling performed estimated emissions from the construction and

operation of the propose project to be well below the SDAPCD emission thresholds.

Would the proposed project expose sensitive receivers to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors (including, but not limited to, schools,

hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers) to substantial pollutant concentrations. A field

survey was conducted in within the proposed project area and no schools, hospitals, resident care

facilities, or schools were located within 500 feet of the proposed project location. Most of the

pollutants emitted from the construction and operation of the proposed project would dissipate within

a short distance of it origin. In addition dust suppression techniques, such as watering, would be

required according to SDAPCD regulations during construction to prevent the fine particles from

leaving the surfaces and becoming airborne through the action of mechanical disturbance or wind. The

fugitive dust or tailpipe emissions would not cause ambient concentrations that would approach

CAAQS or NAAQS limits at a distance past 500 feet, since at that distance the concentrations would

dissipate to below a significant level.

Would the proposed project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The operation of the proposed project will not be a significant source of offensive orders. Any odors

generated from the proposed project will be similar in nature to odors from the existing Transit Center.

The proposed project site is located in a mixed commercial land use area and residential area. A site

visit determined that there were no unusual or objectionable odors detected from on-site or off-site



land uses. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to be exposed to, or generate, significant

odors.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Mitigation Measures


8.0 Mitigation Measures

After a detailed analysis, it has been determined that air quality impacts created from the construction

and operation of the project are minimal, thus no mitigation measures are required. However,

Caltrans’ Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative requirement is required

to be a part of all construction contracts and should effectively reduce and control emission impacts

during construction. The provisions of the Caltrans’ Standard Specifications, Section 7-1.0F “Air

Pollution Control” and Section 10 “Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with the SDAPCD

rules, ordinances, and regulations.

The SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, specifies actions or control measures to prevent, reduce,

or mitigate particulate matter emissions generated from construction, demolition, excavation,

extraction, and other earthmoving activities. The following standards are included in Rule 55:

1. Airborne Dust Beyond the Property Line: No person shall engage in construction or

demolition activity subject to this rule in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into

the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3

minutes in any 60 minute period.

2. Track-Out/Carry-Out: Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from

transport trucks, erosion, or track-out/carry-out shall:

a. be minimized by the use of any of the following or equally effective trackout/ carry-

out and erosion control measures that apply to the project or operation: track-out

grates or gravel beds at each egress point, wheel-washing at each egress during

muddy conditions, soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or

seeding; and for outbound transport trucks: using secured tarps or cargo covering,

watering, or treating of transported material; and

b. be removed at the conclusion of each work day when active operations cease, or

every 24 hours for continuous operations. If a street sweeper is used to remove any

track-out/carry-out, only PM10-efficient street sweepers certified to meet the most

current South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 requirements shall

be used. The use of blowers for removal of track-out/carry-out is prohibited under

any circumstances.

Furthermore, it is also recommended that the following Best Available Control Measures (BACM) be

implemented to minimize the emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 during construction as a preventative

measure:

• Minimize land disturbances

• Utilize watering trucks to minimize dust

• Cover trucks when hauling dirt

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis Mitigation Measures


• Put grading and earth moving on hold when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the

soil is wet enough to prevent dispersion.

• Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if they are not removed immediately

• Sweep nearby paved streets at least once per day if there is evidence of dirt that has been

carried onto the roadway.

• Revegetate disturbed land as soon as possible

• Remove unused materials.

Draft Technical Air Quality Analysis References


9.0 References

CARB California Air Resource Board web page, www.arb.ca.gov

CARB California Air Resources Board Ambient Air Quality Standards Chart,

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm

CARB California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2002. EMFAC 2007, Version 2.30,

Calculating emission inventories for vehicles in California.

CARB California Air Resource Board. 2004 Revision to the California State

Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide Updated Maintenance Plan For

Ten Federal Planning Areas. July 2004

Caltrans California Department of Transportation web page, http://www.dot.ca.gov/

Caltrans California Department of Transportation. CT-EMFAC: A Computer Model

to Estimate Transportation Project Emissions. December 2007

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web page. Air Section,

www.epa.gov

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. AIRData Monitor

Values.

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments. Final 2008 Regional

Transportation Improvement Program. July 2008.

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality

Handbook. 2006

SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 2009 Regional Air Quality

Strategy Revisions. April 2009.

SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment

Plan for San Diego County. May 2007.

UCD University of California, Davis (UCD). Institute of Transportation Studies.

1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol Revised.

December

Technical Air Quality Memo - Sabre Springs/Peňasquitos Transit Center 35

Appendix A URBEMIS 2007 Output Results


Appendix B EMFAC2007 Output Results


Title : San Diego County Subarea Winter CYr 2010 Default Title

Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Run Date : 2010/06/03 15:06:49

Scen Year: 2010 -- All model years in the range 1966 to 2010 selected

Season : Winter Area : San Diego

*****************************************************************************************

Year: 2010 -- Model Years 1966 to 2010 Inclusive -- Winter

Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006

County Average San Diego County Average

Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour)

Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 41F Relative Humidity: 42%

Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL

0 0.000 0.000 22.357 49.254 0.000 0.000 4.724

1 6.008 7.143 9.104 25.012 24.480 44.511 7.874

5 5.485 6.528 8.431 25.012 24.480 44.511 7.327

10 4.671 5.556 6.679 17.245 15.859 36.781 6.004

15 4.072 4.837 5.516 12.283 10.888 31.914 5.083

20 3.616 4.289 4.713 9.207 7.921 29.059 4.428

25 3.262 3.862 4.141 7.444 6.105 27.763 3.958

30 2.983 3.526 3.728 6.231 4.984 27.841 3.610

35 2.764 3.263 3.432 5.409 4.309 29.327 3.359

40 2.597 3.061 3.230 4.886 3.945 32.483 3.192

45 2.477 2.916 3.112 4.618 3.825 37.872 3.108

50 2.405 2.827 3.080 4.591 3.926 46.526 3.117

55 2.390 2.802 3.145 4.818 4.267 60.268 3.244

60 2.445 2.857 3.338 5.346 4.909 82.347 3.536

65 2.602 3.022 3.715 6.263 5.980 118.691 4.082

70 2.602 3.023 3.886 7.734 7.712 180.441 4.723

75 2.603 3.025 4.160 10.052 10.529 289.250 5.839


Title : San Diego County Subarea Winter CYr 2010 Default Title

Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Run Date : 2010/06/03 15:56:24

Scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected

Season : Winter Area : San Diego

*****************************************************************************************

Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- Winter

Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 County Average San Diego County Average

Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile; grams/idle-hour)

Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 41F Relative Humidity: 42%

Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL

0 0.000 0.000 21.347 44.531 0.000 0.000 4.255

1 1.551 1.821 2.427 6.213 11.533 28.111 2.176

5 1.478 1.731 2.326 6.213 11.533 28.111 2.097

10 1.345 1.569 2.028 3.990 7.432 23.750 1.813

15 1.228 1.428 1.799 2.598 5.077 20.883 1.599

20 1.124 1.305 1.616 1.892 3.677 19.072 1.440

25 1.033 1.197 1.466 1.610 2.823 18.086 1.320

30 0.952 1.101 1.340 1.429 2.297 17.827 1.222

35 0.879 1.017 1.234 1.317 1.980 18.307 1.145

40 0.815 0.943 1.143 1.260 1.808 19.655 1.087

45 0.758 0.877 1.065 1.248 1.750 22.151 1.050

50 0.706 0.819 1.000 1.277 1.793 26.311 1.036

55 0.661 0.767 0.945 1.349 1.947 33.050 1.054

60 0.620 0.722 0.901 1.467 2.239 44.000 1.118

65 0.583 0.682 0.869 1.644 2.727 62.143 1.256

70 0.583 0.682 0.893 1.900 3.519 93.079 1.552

75 0.583 0.682 0.931 2.271 4.808 147.701 2.072


Appendix C CALINE4 Output Results


CALINE 4

Existing Outputs


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL

JUNE 1989 VERSION

PAGE 1

JOB: Sabre Spring & Carmel Mtain - Existing

RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE)

POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide

I. SITE VARIABLES

U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 547. (M)

BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S

CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S

MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM

SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C)

II. LINK VARIABLES

LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W

DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)

----------------*-------------------------*------- -----------------------

A. Link A * 0 0 150 0 * AG 0 6.0 .0 9.9

B. Link B * -150 -4 0 -5 * AG 60 8.0 .0 13.5

C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 95 8.0 .0 9.9

D. Link D * 0 4 -150 4 * AG 155 6.0 .0 9.9

E. Link E * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 8.0 .0 9.9

F. Link F * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 8.0 .0 9.9

G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1045 6.0 .0 13.5

H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 950 8.0 .0 13.5

I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 40 8.0 .0 9.9

J. Link J * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 1010 6.0 .0 13.5

K. Link K * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 1065 8.0 .0 13.5

L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 0 8.0 .0 9.9

III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

* COORDINATES (M)

RECEPTOR * X Y Z

------------*---------------------

1. Recpt 1 * 13 13 1.8

2. Recpt 2 * 13 -13 .5

3. Recpt 3 * -13 -13 .5

4. Recpt 4 * -13 13 .5



JUNE 1989 VERSION

PAGE 2

JOB: Sabre Spring & Carmel Mtain - Existing



IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )

* * PRED * CONC/LINK

* BRG * CONC * (PPM)

RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H

-------------*-------*-------*--------------------- -------------------

1. Recpt 1 * 189. * 4.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .6

2. Recpt 2 * 350. * 4.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .2

3. Recpt 3 * 9. * 4.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0

4. Recpt 4 * 170. * 4.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3

* CONC/LINK

* (PPM)

RECEPTOR * I J K L

------------*--------------------

1. Recpt 1 * .0 .2 .0 .0

2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .3 .0

3. Recpt 3 * .0 .2 .7 .0

4. Recpt 4 * .0 .5 .2 .0



JUNE 1989 VERSION

PAGE 1

JOB: Sabre Spring & Evening Creek - Existing



I. SITE VARIABLES

U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 530. (M)

BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S

CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S

MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM

SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C)

II. LINK VARIABLES

LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W

DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)

----------------*-------------------------*------- -----------------------

A. Link A * 0 -5 150 -5 * AG 165 6.0 .0 13.5

B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 30 8.0 .0 13.5

C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 500 8.0 .0 9.9

D. Link D * 0 5 -150 5 * AG 500 6.0 .0 13.5

E. Link E * 150 5 0 5 * AG 105 8.0 .0 13.5

F. Link F * 150 2 0 0 * AG 20 8.0 .0 9.9

G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 985 6.0 .0 13.5

H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 410 8.0 .0 13.5

I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 25 8.0 .0 9.9

J. Link J * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 465 6.0 .0 13.5

K. Link K * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 1100 8.0 .0 13.5

L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 130 8.0 .0 9.9

III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

* COORDINATES (M)

RECEPTOR * X Y Z

------------*---------------------

1. Recpt 1 * 13 13 1.8

2. Recpt 2 * 13 -13 .5

3. Recpt 3 * -13 -13 .5

4. Recpt 4 * -13 13 .5



JUNE 1989 VERSION

PAGE 2

JOB: Sabre Spring & Evening Creek - Existing



IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )

* * PRED * CONC/LINK

* BRG * CONC * (PPM)

RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H

-------------*-------*-------*--------------------- -------------------

1. Recpt 1 * 261. * 4.5 * .0 .0 .2 .3 .0 .0 .2 .0

2. Recpt 2 * 350. * 4.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0

3. Recpt 3 * 8. * 4.8 * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0

4. Recpt 4 * 10. * 4.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0

* CONC/LINK

* (PPM)

RECEPTOR * I J K L

------------*--------------------

1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .2 .0

2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .4 .0

3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .8 .0

4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 1.0 .0


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Rancho Carme Dr - Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 572. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 -4 150 -4 * AG 180 6.0 .0 13.5 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 660 8.0 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 335 8.0 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 2 -150 2 * AG 0 6.0 .0 9.9 E. Link E * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 8.0 .0 9.9 F. Link F * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 8.0 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1240 6.0 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 1045 8.0 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 0 8.0 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -4 0 -4 -150 * AG 1070 6.0 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -4 0 * AG 410 8.0 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 40 8.0 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 11 -11 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 11 11 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -11 -11 .5 4. Recpt 4 * -11 11 .5 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 187. * 4.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 2. Recpt 2 * 186. * 4.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .8 3. Recpt 3 * 11. * 4.7 * .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 171. * 4.7 * .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Rancho Carme Dr - Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .2 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .2 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .2 .3 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .6 .0 .0


CALINE 4

NO BUILD 2030 OUTPUTS


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Carmel Mtain - No Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 547. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 0 150 0 * AG 240 1.8 .0 9.9 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 160 2.2 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 4 -150 4 * AG 0 1.8 .0 9.9 E. Link E * 150 0 0 0 * AG 5 2.2 .0 9.9 F. Link F * 150 0 0 0 * AG 65 2.2 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 35 1.8 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 30 2.2 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 10 2.2 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 20 1.8 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 5 2.2 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 740 2.2 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 13 13 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 13 -13 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -13 -13 .5 4. Recpt 4 * -13 13 .5


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Carmel Mtain - No Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 348. * 3.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 349. * 3.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 10. * 3.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 100. * 3.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Evening Creek - No Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 530. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 -5 150 -5 * AG 220 1.8 .0 13.5 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 80 2.2 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 550 2.2 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 5 -150 5 * AG 165 1.8 .0 13.5 E. Link E * 150 5 0 5 * AG 35 2.2 .0 13.5 F. Link F * 150 2 0 0 * AG 90 2.2 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1290 1.8 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 725 2.2 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 20 2.2 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 780 1.8 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 825 2.2 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 130 2.2 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 13 13 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 13 -13 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -13 -13 .5 4. Recpt 4 * -13 13 .5


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Evening Creek - No Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 350. * 3.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 351. * 3.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 10. * 3.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 170. * 3.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .1 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .1 .0 .0


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Rancho Carme Dr - No Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 572. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 -4 150 -4 * AG 50 1.8 .0 13.5 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 50 2.2 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 95 2.2 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 2 -150 2 * AG 55 1.8 .0 9.9 E. Link E * 150 0 0 0 * AG 15 2.2 .0 9.9 F. Link F * 150 0 0 0 * AG 10 2.2 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 100 1.8 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 5 2.2 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 45 2.2 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -4 0 -4 -150 * AG 15 1.8 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -4 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 11 -11 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 11 11 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -11 -11 .5 4. Recpt 4 * -11 11 .5 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 277. * 3.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 260. * 3.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 277. * 3.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 259. * 3.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Rancho Carme Dr - No Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0


CALINE 4

BUILD 2030 OUTPUTS


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Carmel Mtain - Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 547. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 0 150 0 * AG 0 1.8 .0 9.9 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 140 2.2 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 410 2.2 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 4 -150 4 * AG 560 1.8 .0 9.9 E. Link E * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 F. Link F * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1675 1.8 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 1265 2.2 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 130 2.2 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 1410 1.8 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 1700 2.2 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 13 13 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 13 -13 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -13 -13 .5 4. Recpt 4 * -13 13 .5


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Carmel Mtain - Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 189. * 3.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 2. Recpt 2 * 350. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 9. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 170. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .1 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .3 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .2 .1 .0


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Evening Creek - Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 530. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 -5 150 -5 * AG 240 1.8 .0 13.5 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 100 2.2 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 550 2.2 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 5 -150 5 * AG 880 1.8 .0 13.5 E. Link E * 150 5 0 5 * AG 125 2.2 .0 13.5 F. Link F * 150 2 0 0 * AG 55 2.2 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1325 1.8 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 750 2.2 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 65 2.2 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 855 1.8 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 1525 2.2 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 130 2.2 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 13 13 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 13 -13 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -13 -13 .5 4. Recpt 4 * -13 13 .5


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Evening Creek - Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 261. * 3.9 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 350. * 3.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 9. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 10. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .1 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .3 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .4 .0


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Sabre Spring & Rancho Carme Dr - Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 572. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 3.5 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 6.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------- ----------------------- A. Link A * 0 -4 150 -4 * AG 295 1.8 .0 13.5 B. Link B * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 1055 2.2 .0 13.5 C. Link C * -150 -4 0 0 * AG 415 2.2 .0 9.9 D. Link D * 0 2 -150 2 * AG 0 1.8 .0 9.9 E. Link E * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 F. Link F * 150 0 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 G. Link G * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1850 1.8 .0 13.5 H. Link H * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 1680 2.2 .0 13.5 I. Link I * 2 -150 0 0 * AG 0 2.2 .0 9.9 J. Link J * -4 0 -4 -150 * AG 1700 1.8 .0 13.5 K. Link K * -5 150 -4 0 * AG 645 2.2 .0 13.5 L. Link L * -2 150 0 0 * AG 50 2.2 .0 9.9 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 11 -11 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * -11 -11 .5 3. Recpt 3 * -11 11 .5 4. Recpt 4 * 11 11 .5 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*--------------------- ------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 187. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 2. Recpt 2 * 11. * 4.0 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 171. * 4.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 4. Recpt 4 * 186. * 4.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4


CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Sabre Spring & Rancho Carme Dr - Build 2030 RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L ------------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .1 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .1 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .3 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .1 .0 .0


Appendix D CT-EMFAC Result Outputs


CO2 Output Results


Title : Existing Version : CT-EMFAC 2.6 Run Date : 21 July 2010 11:57 AM Scen Year : 2010 Season : Annual Temperature : 67F Relative Humidity : 62% Area : San Diego County Peak User Input : Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours 4847 VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph) (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75 % 2.2 14.5 32.0 28.1 14.2 5.3 2.3 1.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offpeak User Input: Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours 2497 VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph) (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75 % 2.2 14.5 32.0 28.1 14.2 5.3 2.3 1.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ========================================================================================= Running Exhaust Emissions (grams) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant Name : CO2 speed(mph) Emission Factor(grams/mile) VMT by Speed VMT-Speed Distribution (%) Emissions by Speed 5 1,194.995000 161.57 2.20 193,072.952160 10 909.192000 1,064.88 14.50 968,180.376960 15 718.207000 2,350.08 32.00 1,687,843.906560 20 589.462000 2,063.66 28.10 1,216,451.508768 25 504.995000 1,042.85 14.20 526,633.025760 30 448.168000 389.23 5.30 174,441.326976 35 411.543000 168.91 2.30 69,514.551216 40 390.708000 88.13 1.20 34,432.314624 45 383.323000 14.69 0.20 5,630.248224 50 388.638000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 55 407.345000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 60 441.720000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 65 496.090000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 70 502.941000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 75 513.731000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 ---------------- Total 7,344.00 100.00 4,876,200.211248 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Idling Emissions (grams) (Currently NOT Available) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Emissions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant Name Total Emissions (grams) Total Emissions (Kilograms) Total Emissions (US Tons) CO2 4,876,200.211248 4,876.200211 5.375090647


Title : 2030 No Project Version : CT-EMFAC 2.6 Run Date : 20 July 2010 01:02 PM Scen Year : 2030 Season : Annual Temperature : 67F Relative Humidity : 62% Area : San Diego County Peak User Input : Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours 7029 VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph) (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75 % 6.1 21.2 35.1 21.4 9.9 3.6 1.9 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offpeak User Input: Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours 3012 VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph) (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75 % 6.1 21.2 35.1 21.4 9.9 3.6 1.9 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ========================================================================================= Running Exhaust Emissions (grams) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant Name : CO2 speed(mph) Emission Factor(grams/mile) VMT by Speed VMT-Speed Distribution (%) Emissions by Speed 5 1,187.933000 612.50 6.10 727,610.150433 10 902.680000 2,128.69 21.20 1,921,527.694560 15 712.155000 3,524.39 35.10 2,509,912.672605 20 583.754000 2,148.77 21.40 1,254,355.417596 25 499.446000 994.06 9.90 496,478.791314 30 442.754000 361.48 3.60 160,044.944904 35 406.247000 190.78 1.90 77,503.396413 40 385.515000 80.33 0.80 30,967.648920 45 378.224000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 50 383.628000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 55 402.429000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 60 436.914000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 65 491.428000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 70 498.583000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 75 509.838000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 ---------------- Total 10,041.00 100.00 7,178,400.716745 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Idling Emissions (grams) (Currently NOT Available) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Emissions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant Name Total Emissions (grams) Total Emissions (Kilograms) Total Emissions (US Tons) CO2 7,178,400.716745 7,178.400717 7.912832304


Title : 2030 Project Version : CT-EMFAC 2.6 Run Date : 20 July 2010 01:09 PM Scen Year : 2030 Season : Annual Temperature : 67F Relative Humidity : 62% Area : San Diego County Peak User Input : Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours 7230 VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph) (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75 % 3.6 18.5 34.6 23.6 12.4 4.1 2.1 1.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offpeak User Input: Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours 3725 VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph) (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75 % 3.6 18.5 34.6 23.6 12.4 4.1 2.1 1.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ========================================================================================= Running Exhaust Emissions (grams) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant Name : CO2 speed(mph) Emission Factor(grams/mile) VMT by Speed VMT-Speed Distribution (%) Emissions by Speed 5 1,187.933000 394.38 3.60 468,497.016540 10 902.680000 2,026.68 18.50 1,829,438.989000 15 712.155000 3,790.43 34.60 2,699,373.676650 20 583.754000 2,585.38 23.60 1,509,225.916520 25 499.446000 1,358.42 12.40 678,457.435320 30 442.754000 449.16 4.10 198,865.172870 35 406.247000 230.06 2.10 93,459.153585 40 385.515000 109.55 1.00 42,233.168250 45 378.224000 10.96 0.10 4,143.443920 50 383.628000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 55 402.429000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 60 436.914000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 65 491.428000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 70 498.583000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 75 509.838000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 ---------------- Total 10,955.00 100.00 7,523,693.972655 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Idling Emissions (grams) (Currently NOT Available) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Emissions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant Name Total Emissions (grams) Total Emissions (Kilograms) Total Emissions (US Tons) CO2 7,523,693.972655 7,523.693973 8.293452966


ROG, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 Output Results


Title : Sabre Springs 2010 Existing

Version : CT-EMFAC 2.6

Run Date : 06 September 2010 08:57 PM

Scen Year : 2010

Season : Annual

Temperature : 67F

Relative Humidity : 62%

Area : San Diego County

Peak User Input :

Total VMT Volume (vph) Road Length(mi) Number of Hours

4847

VMT Distribution(%) by Speed(mph)

(mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75

% 2.2 14.5 32.0 28.1 14.2 5.3 2.3 1.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Offpeak User Input:


2497


(mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75

% 2.2 14.5 32.0 28.1 14.2 5.3 2.3 1.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

=====================================================================================

================

Running Exhaust Emissions (grams)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pollutant Name : TOG_exh

speed(mph) Emission Factor(grams/mile) VMT by Speed VMT-Speed Distribution (%)

Emissions by Speed

5 0.899000 161.57 2.20 145.249632

10 0.587000 1,064.88 14.50 625.084560

15 0.393000 2,350.08 32.00 923.581440

20 0.284000 2,063.66 28.10 586.080576

25 0.226000 1,042.85 14.20 235.683648

30 0.188000 389.23 5.30 73.175616

35 0.164000 168.91 2.30 27.701568

40 0.150000 88.13 1.20 13.219200

45 0.144000 14.69 0.20 2.115072

50 0.146000 0.00 0.00 0.000000


55 0.156000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.176000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.209000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.235000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.276000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 7,344.00 100.00 2,631.891312

Pollutant Name : SO2


Emissions by Speed

5 0.012000 161.57 2.20 1.938816

10 0.009000 1,064.88 14.50 9.583920

15 0.007000 2,350.08 32.00 16.450560

20 0.006000 2,063.66 28.10 12.381984

25 0.005000 1,042.85 14.20 5.214240

30 0.004000 389.23 5.30 1.556928

35 0.004000 168.91 2.30 0.675648

40 0.004000 88.13 1.20 0.352512

45 0.004000 14.69 0.20 0.058752

50 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 7,344.00 100.00 48.213360

Pollutant Name : PM2.5


Emissions by Speed

5 0.129000 161.57 2.20 20.842272

10 0.087000 1,064.88 14.50 92.644560

15 0.061000 2,350.08 32.00 143.354880

20 0.045000 2,063.66 28.10 92.864880

25 0.036000 1,042.85 14.20 37.542528

30 0.030000 389.23 5.30 11.676960


35 0.026000 168.91 2.30 4.391712

40 0.024000 88.13 1.20 2.115072

45 0.023000 14.69 0.20 0.337824

50 0.023000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.025000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.027000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.032000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.035000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.038000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 7,344.00 100.00 405.770688

Pollutant Name : PM10


Emissions by Speed

5 0.140000 161.57 2.20 22.619520

10 0.095000 1,064.88 14.50 101.163600

15 0.066000 2,350.08 32.00 155.105280

20 0.048000 2,063.66 28.10 99.055872

25 0.039000 1,042.85 14.20 40.671072

30 0.032000 389.23 5.30 12.455424

35 0.028000 168.91 2.30 4.729536

40 0.026000 88.13 1.20 2.291328

45 0.025000 14.69 0.20 0.367200

50 0.025000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.027000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.030000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.034000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.038000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.042000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 7,344.00 100.00 438.458832

Pollutant Name : NOX


Emissions by Speed

5 1.482000 161.57 2.20 239.443776

10 1.162000 1,064.88 14.50 1,237.390560


15 0.954000 2,350.08 32.00 2,241.976320

20 0.846000 2,063.66 28.10 1,745.859744

25 0.793000 1,042.85 14.20 826.978464

30 0.758000 389.23 5.30 295.037856

35 0.737000 168.91 2.30 124.488144

40 0.731000 88.13 1.20 64.421568

45 0.738000 14.69 0.20 10.839744

50 0.762000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.802000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.866000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.959000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 1.064000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 1.220000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 7,344.00 100.00 6,786.436176

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Idling Emissions (grams) (Currently NOT Available)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pollutant Name : TOG_los

Emission Factor(grams/min) total running time(hrs) Emissions

0.045000 460.70 1,243.892098

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Emissions

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pollutant Name Total Emissions (grams) Total Emissions (Kilograms) Total Emissions (US Tons)

TOG 3,875.783410 3.875783 0.004272320

SO2 48.213360 0.048213 0.000053146

PM2.5 405.770688 0.405771 0.000447286

PM10 438.458832 0.438459 0.000483318

NOX 6,786.436176 6.786436 0.007480765


Title : Sabre Springs No Project 2030



Scen Year : 2030

Season : Annual

Temperature : 67F



Peak User Input :


7029


(mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75

% 3.6 18.5 34.6 23.6 12.4 4.1 2.1 1.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Offpeak User Input:


3012


(mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75

% 3.6 18.5 34.6 23.6 12.4 4.1 2.1 1.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

=====================================================================================

================


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Emissions by Speed

5 0.309000 361.48 3.60 111.696084

10 0.200000 1,857.59 18.50 371.517000

15 0.135000 3,474.19 34.60 469.015110

20 0.099000 2,369.68 23.60 234.597924

25 0.079000 1,245.08 12.40 98.361636

30 0.067000 411.68 4.10 27.582627

35 0.060000 210.86 2.10 12.651660

40 0.056000 100.41 1.00 5.622960

45 0.054000 10.04 0.10 0.542214


50 0.056000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.061000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.070000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.086000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.103000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.132000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,041.00 100.00 1,331.587215



Emissions by Speed

5 0.011000 361.48 3.60 3.976236

10 0.009000 1,857.59 18.50 16.718265

15 0.007000 3,474.19 34.60 24.319302

20 0.006000 2,369.68 23.60 14.218056

25 0.005000 1,245.08 12.40 6.225420

30 0.004000 411.68 4.10 1.646724

35 0.004000 210.86 2.10 0.843444

40 0.004000 100.41 1.00 0.401640

45 0.004000 10.04 0.10 0.040164

50 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,041.00 100.00 68.389251



Emissions by Speed

5 0.096000 361.48 3.60 34.701696

10 0.064000 1,857.59 18.50 118.885440

15 0.045000 3,474.19 34.60 156.338370

20 0.034000 2,369.68 23.60 80.568984

25 0.026000 1,245.08 12.40 32.372184


30 0.022000 411.68 4.10 9.056982

35 0.019000 210.86 2.10 4.006359

40 0.018000 100.41 1.00 1.807380

45 0.017000 10.04 0.10 0.170697

50 0.017000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.019000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.021000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.024000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.025000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.026000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,041.00 100.00 437.908092



Emissions by Speed

5 0.104000 361.48 3.60 37.593504

10 0.069000 1,857.59 18.50 128.173365

15 0.049000 3,474.19 34.60 170.235114

20 0.036000 2,369.68 23.60 85.308336

25 0.028000 1,245.08 12.40 34.862352

30 0.024000 411.68 4.10 9.880344

35 0.021000 210.86 2.10 4.428081

40 0.019000 100.41 1.00 1.907790

45 0.019000 10.04 0.10 0.190779

50 0.019000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.020000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.022000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.026000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.027000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.028000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,041.00 100.00 472.579665



Emissions by Speed

5 0.467000 361.48 3.60 168.809292


10 0.375000 1,857.59 18.50 696.594375

15 0.310000 3,474.19 34.60 1,076.997660

20 0.268000 2,369.68 23.60 635.073168

25 0.245000 1,245.08 12.40 305.045580

30 0.228000 411.68 4.10 93.863268

35 0.217000 210.86 2.10 45.756837

40 0.210000 100.41 1.00 21.086100

45 0.208000 10.04 0.10 2.088528

50 0.211000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.220000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.236000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.261000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.292000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.340000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,041.00 100.00 3,045.314808

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



0.021000 680.43 857.346769

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Emissions

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOG 2,188.933984 2.188934 0.002412887

SO2 68.389251 0.068389 0.000075386

PM2.5 437.908092 0.437908 0.000482711

PM10 472.579665 0.472580 0.000520930

NOX 3,045.314808 3.045315 0.003356885


Title : Sabre Springs Project 2030



Scen Year : 2030

Season : Annual

Temperature : 67F



Peak User Input :


7230


(mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75

% 6.1 21.2 35.1 21.4 9.9 3.6 1.9 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Offpeak User Input:


3725


(mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 >75

% 6.1 21.2 35.1 21.4 9.9 3.6 1.9 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

=====================================================================================

================


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Emissions by Speed

5 0.309000 668.26 6.10 206.490795

10 0.200000 2,322.46 21.20 464.492000

15 0.135000 3,845.21 35.10 519.102675

20 0.099000 2,344.37 21.40 232.092630

25 0.079000 1,084.55 9.90 85.679055

30 0.067000 394.38 3.60 26.423460

35 0.060000 208.15 1.90 12.488700

40 0.056000 87.64 0.80 4.907840


45 0.054000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

50 0.056000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.061000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.070000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.086000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.103000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.132000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,955.00 100.00 1,551.677155



Emissions by Speed

5 0.011000 668.26 6.10 7.350805

10 0.009000 2,322.46 21.20 20.902140

15 0.007000 3,845.21 35.10 26.916435

20 0.006000 2,344.37 21.40 14.066220

25 0.005000 1,084.55 9.90 5.422725

30 0.004000 394.38 3.60 1.577520

35 0.004000 208.15 1.90 0.832580

40 0.004000 87.64 0.80 0.350560

45 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

50 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.004000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.005000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,955.00 100.00 77.418985



Emissions by Speed

5 0.096000 668.26 6.10 64.152480

10 0.064000 2,322.46 21.20 148.637440

15 0.045000 3,845.21 35.10 173.034225

20 0.034000 2,344.37 21.40 79.708580


25 0.026000 1,084.55 9.90 28.198170

30 0.022000 394.38 3.60 8.676360

35 0.019000 208.15 1.90 3.954755

40 0.018000 87.64 0.80 1.577520

45 0.017000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

50 0.017000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.019000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.021000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.024000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.025000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.026000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,955.00 100.00 507.939530



Emissions by Speed

5 0.104000 668.26 6.10 69.498520

10 0.069000 2,322.46 21.20 160.249740

15 0.049000 3,845.21 35.10 188.415045

20 0.036000 2,344.37 21.40 84.397320

25 0.028000 1,084.55 9.90 30.367260

30 0.024000 394.38 3.60 9.465120

35 0.021000 208.15 1.90 4.371045

40 0.019000 87.64 0.80 1.665160

45 0.019000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

50 0.019000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.020000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.022000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.026000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.027000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.028000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,955.00 100.00 548.429210



Emissions by Speed


5 0.467000 668.26 6.10 312.075085

10 0.375000 2,322.46 21.20 870.922500

15 0.310000 3,845.21 35.10 1,192.013550

20 0.268000 2,344.37 21.40 628.291160

25 0.245000 1,084.55 9.90 265.713525

30 0.228000 394.38 3.60 89.918640

35 0.217000 208.15 1.90 45.167465

40 0.210000 87.64 0.80 18.404400

45 0.208000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

50 0.211000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

55 0.220000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

60 0.236000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

65 0.261000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

70 0.292000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

75 0.340000 0.00 0.00 0.000000

----------------

Total 10,955.00 100.00 3,422.506325

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



0.021000 804.13 1,013.201658

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Emissions

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOG 2,564.878813 2.564879 0.002827295

SO2 77.418985 0.077419 0.000085340

PM2.5 507.939530 0.507940 0.000559907

PM10 548.429210 0.548429 0.000604540

NOX 3,422.506325 3.422506 0.003772667