HomeMy WebLinkAboutApn C - Air QualityAPPENDIX C
Air Quality Technical Report
Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Sectional Planning Area
Project
Final Air Quality Technical Report
May 2013
Prepared for:
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Prepared by:
3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
CONTENTS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page i
May 2013
1.
Contents
1.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 1
3.0 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 State .................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Local .................................................................................................................................. 12
4.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Health Effects Related to Air Pollutants ........................................................................... 16
4.3 Ambient Air Pollutant Levels ............................................................................................ 19
4.4 Attainment Status ............................................................................................................. 20
4.5 Sensitive Receptors and Locations ................................................................................... 21
5.0 Methodology and Significance Criteria ................................................................................... 21
5.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................................... 22
6.0 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 23
6.1 Issue 1: Conformance to Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .................... 23
6.2 Issue 2: Impacts to Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................ 34
6.3 Issue 3: Objectionable Odors ............................................................................................ 39
6.4 Issue 4: Consistency with Regional Plans .......................................................................... 40
6.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 43
6.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 46
7.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix A. Air Quality and GHG Data
CONTENTS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page ii
May 2013
1.
Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Existing and Planned Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ..................................................... 4
Figure 3 Site Utilization Plan ............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4 Development Phases ....................................................................................................... 25
Tables
Table 1 Village 8 West SPA Land Uses ............................................................................................. 2
Table 2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................... 9
Table 3 Air Quality Monitoring Data .............................................................................................. 20
Table 4 Attainment Status for the San Diego Air Basin ................................................................. 21
Table 5 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................. 23
Table 6 Approximate Duration of Project Construction Activities Per Development Phase ........ 26
Table 7 Maximum Daily Emissions Per Construction Activity ....................................................... 28
Table 8 Operation Maximum Daily Emissions ............................................................................... 29
Table 9 Mitigated Construction Maximum Daily Emissions by Activity (pounds/day) ................. 33
Table 10 Estimated Carbon Monoxide Concentrations................................................................... 35
Table 11 Project Consistency with RAQS Control Measures ........................................................... 42
1.0 SUMMARY
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 1
May 2013
2.
This technical report assesses the potential for air quality impacts to occur in conjunction with the type
and scale of development associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) plan, herein referred to as the “project.” The project consists of approximately 300 acres of
land in Otay Ranch known as Village 8 West, located entirely within the City of Chula Vista, California,
near the southeasterly edge of the City’s limits. This report is intended to satisfy the City of Chula Vista's
requirement for an air quality impact analysis by examining the impacts of the proposed project and
identifying mitigation measures where applicable to address significant air quality impacts.
1.0 Summary
The proposed project would result in emissions during construction and operation that would exceed
significance thresholds. Mitigation measures that require construction best management practices
(BMPs), improve traffic flow, and eliminate wood-burning fireplaces during operation would reduce
impacts, but not to a less than significant level. The proposed project would also result in a significant
and unavoidable conflict with applicable air quality plans because of the significant air emissions and
because the growth proposed in Village 8 West exceeds the growth projections in the applicable air
quality plans. Impacts would also be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.
The proposed project does not propose any major emitters of toxic pollutants or place new sensitive
receptors near a major freeway where they would be exposed to substantial toxic pollutant
concentrations. New gas stations accommodated under the Village 8 West SPA plan would be required
to comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) siting guidelines to avoid impacts to sensitive
receptors. Mitigation that requires new sources of TACs to demonstrate compliance with SDAPCD
criteria would ensure that impacts associated with TAC emissions are less than significant. The
proposed project would not result in emissions that would result in a carbon monoxide hot spot or a
source of substantial odors.
The analysis in this air quality report has been incorporated into the Village 8 West Air Quality
Improvement Plan (AQIP) as part of the final SPA plan.
2.0 Project Description
Figure 1, Project Vicinity, and Figure 2, Existing and Planned Land Uses in the Project Vicinity, illustrate
the project’s location and surrounding uses. Village 8 West is one of the designated fourteen villages
within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area. As prescribed in the Otay Ranch GDP,
Village 8 West is proposed to be an Urban Village with a mixed-use Town Center, higher density uses
around the Town Center and low-medium density residential uses to the south of the Town Center.
Urban Villages are intended to be adjacent to existing urban development and planned for transit-
oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses within one quarter mile of a transit stop or
station. The Village 8 West circulation system would provide a system of roadway and trail corridors to
support both vehicular and non-vehicular modes of transportation. This system includes the extension
of existing and planned roads, trails, and transit from adjacent villages as well as internal systems to
serve the SPA. Community streets are designed as “complete” streets, considering all modes of
transportation by providing vehicular travel lanes, bike lanes or bike routes, sidewalks, and transit lanes
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 2
May 2013
2.
where appropriate. Figure 3, Site Utilization Plan, illustrates the land use plan for the SPA. The
proposed land uses for Village 8 West are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Village 8 West SPA Land Uses
Land Use
Area
(Acres)
Residential
(Dwelling Units)
Office
(Square Feet)
Commercial
(Square Feet)
Mixed Use 40.7 899 50,000 250,000
Multi-family 29.5 530 -- --
Cluster Single-Family/Town homes 26.2 290 -- --
Single-Family 67.0 331 -- --
Schools 31.6 -- -- --
Community Purpose Facility 5.8 -- -- --
Parks 27.9 -- -- --
Open Space 39.1 -- -- --
Arterial Rights-of-Way and Basin 32.5 -- -- --
Total 300.3 2,050 50,000 250,000
Project Features
The Village 8 West SPA Plan incorporates several additional features into the site design that promote
alternative transportation use, reduce traffic congestion, encourage energy efficiency, and reduce area
source pollutants. These measures are listed in Appendix B of the SPA Plan, Air Quality Improvement
Plan, and include the following measures:
1. Provide shower and locker facilities at offices with more than ten occupants to encourage
bicycle use.
2. Design parking lots to promote use of mass transit and car pools.
3. Synchronize the traffic lights included as part of an individual development project with
previously installed traffic lights in order to reduce traffic congestion.
4. Utilize solar heating technology as practical. Generally, solar panels can be cost-effectively used
to heat water for domestic use and for swimming pools. Advances in solar technology in the
future may make other applications appropriate.
5. Enhance energy efficiency in building designs and landscaping plans.
6. Identify an environmental coordinator to be responsible for education and disseminating
information on ridesharing and/or mass transit opportunities, recycling, energy conservation
programs, etc.
7. Install only electric or natural gas fireplaces in new development. No wood burning fireplaces
are permitted.
0 250500
Feet
±Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2012
PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 1Not to Scale
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2012
EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 2
(OS)
(OS)
(OS)
(OS)
(P)
(P)
(P)
(P)
(P)(P)
(S)
(S)
(LM)
(LM)
(LM)
(LMV)
(LMV)
(MH)
(MH)
(MH)
(M)
(M)
(MU)
(MU)
(MU)
(RI)
(RI)
(RI)
(RI)
(MU)
(LMV)
(S)
(P)(EUC)
OtayOtay
RockRock
QuarryQuarry
FutureFuture
Village 4Village 4
FutureFuture
Village 8 EastVillage 8 East
Village Village
8 West8 West
OlympianOlympian
HighHigh
SchoolSchool
Ex. Vortac Ex. Vortac
SiteSite
Village 7Village 7
Otay Ranch Otay Ranch
CommunityCommunity
ParkPark
MSCPMSCP
Preserve AreaPreserve Area
Wo
l
f
C
a
n
y
o
n
Wo
l
f
C
a
n
y
o
n
(M
S
C
P
)
(M
S
C
P
)
Village 2Village 2
(Montecito)(Montecito)
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
La
Me
d
i
a
R
d
.
La
Me
d
i
a
R
d
.
San Diego San Diego
ReservoirReservoir
OtayOtay
Land FillLand Fill
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
MainMain
St.St.
S
R
-
1
2
5
S
R
-
1
2
5
Chula Vi
s
t
a
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Chula Vi
s
t
a
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
San Die
g
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
San Die
g
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Otay RiverOtay River
Village 3Village 3
Village 2Village 2
WestWest
San D iego C
ity Lim
i
t
San D iego C
ity Lim
i
t
Planning Area 20Planning Area 20
Plann
ing A
r
e
a
2
0
Plann
ing A
r
e
a
2
0
Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
Low Medium Village Density Residential (LMV)
Medium Density Residential (M)
Medium High Density Residential (MH)
Mixed Use (MU)
Open Space (OS)
Park (P)
School (S)
Research and Limited Industrial (RI)
Planned Roadway
General Development Planned Land Uses
Not to Scale
Eastern Urban Center (EUC)
±
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
0 400800
Feet ±SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
FIGURE 3
*
*
*
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2012
Low Medium Density Residential Village (LMV)
Land Use
Town Center (TC)
Medium High Density Residential (MH)
Medium Density Residential (M)
Open Space (OS)
Open Space (Preserve)
Park (P)
School
* Lotting and grading to be determined at Tentative Map
1 Transects are defined in Chapter 3 of the SPA Plan.
2 50k square feet of office retail; 250k square feet of retail commercial (excludes Live/Work).
3 School sites will revert to the underlying use if sites are not accepted by the school district. Parcel D shall revert to Town
Center and Parcel S shall revert to Medium High Density Residential.
4 Chula Vista Open Space Preserve.
5 Acreage does not include 19.6-acre San Diego Reservoir.
Town Center - 18-45 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres
1Transect Target
Res. Units
Target C’ml
2Sq.Ft. (K)
B1.4T-4: TC35 0
C6.9T-4: TC15636
F3.0T-4: TC5425
H-17.8T-4: TC33144
H-21.3T-4: TC0 12
J5.4T-4: TC16118
L14.2T-4: TC46065
X0.7T-4: TC0 0
Subtotal40.7
Medium High Density Residential - 11-18 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect Target
Res. Units
I6.8T-3:NC122
M8.5T-3:NC153
O8.9T-3:NC160
Subtotal29.5
Medium Density Residential
Attached/Detached - 6-11 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect Target
Res. Units
Q14.7T-2:NG160
U11.5T-2:NG130
Subtotal26.2
Low Medium Density Residential Village -
3-6 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect Target
Res. Units
N19.6T-2:NE117
P26.9T-2:NE124
V20.5T-2:NE90
Subtotal67.0 331
TOTAL163.4
Commercial and Residential
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use Gross AcresTransectDescription
RMH5.8SD: CPF
As de?ned by
CVMC Chapter
19.48
Subtotal 5.8
3Potential School (S) Sites
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross Acres
(Ac.)TransectDescription
DTC20.2T-4: TCMiddle
SMH11.4T-3: NCElementary
Subtotal 31.6
Parks (P)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross Acres
(Ac.)TransectClassi?cation
AP17.4SD: PCommunity
GTC3.0SD: PTown Square
TP7.5SD: PNeighborhood
Subtotal 27.9
Open Space (OS)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross Acres
(Ac.)TransectClassi?cation
4YCVOSP 15.6T-1: OPPreserve (MSCP)
OS-1OS23.5T-1: OSOpen Space
Subtotal 39.1
Other
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross Acres
(Ac.)TransectDescription
WTC2.4SD: RBasin
Right-of-
Way NA30.1NAArterials
Subtotal 32.5
TOTAL 136.9
Public, Quasi Public, and Other
5SPA Total Area: 300.3 Gross Acres
899300
E5.3T-3:NC 95
530
290
2,050Off-site Facilities Corridor/
Regional Trail Connection
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 6
May 2013
2.
This page intentionally left blank.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 7
May 2013
2.
Additionally, the Village 8 West SPA Plan requires development proposed under the SPA Plan to use the
recommendations set forth in Table 1-1 of the CARB’s Land Use and Air Quality Handbook (CARB 2005)
as a guideline for siting sensitive land uses. Implementation of these recommendations would ensure
that sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities
are sited appropriately to minimize exposure to emissions of TACs. Specifically, new sensitive uses
would not be located within 50 feet of any typical-sized gas station (assumed to have a throughput of
less than 3.6 million gallons per year). Due to physical size constraints, large gas stations (greater than a
throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or more) would not be permitted within Village 8 West.
The Village 8 West SPA Plan includes the extension of a utility easement off-site to the south of the SPA
to extend sewer facilities to connect to existing facilities, and connect the storm drain to Otay River. A
12-foot paved trail would be included within the 30-foot easement to provide access to the offsite
utilities and a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park trail system. Approximately 4.57 acres
would be graded offsite on the City of San Diego reservoir property.
The project area ranges in elevation from approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the
east to 400 feet AMSL in the west. The project site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of State
Route 125 (SR-125) and is surrounded on three sides by currently undeveloped land. Rock Mountain is
located to the west of the site, and bluffs abutting the Otay River Valley are located to the south. The
future location for Village 8 East (currently undeveloped) is located to the east of the site; Otay Valley
Regional Park and the Otay River Valley are along the southerly boundary; the Otay Valley Quarry and
portions of the future Village 4 (currently undeveloped) are located along the westerly boundary; and
the partially developed Village 7, including Olympian High School, is located immediately adjacent to the
northeast corner of the project area. An existing City of San Diego reservoir facility is located in
approximately the center of the site. The facility is not part of the proposed project.
This air quality technical report is being prepared in support of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
being prepared for the Village 8 West SPA project. The EIR being prepared for Village 8 West is a Second
Tier EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21093, the Village 8 West EIR tiers from the Supplemental EIR (SEIR
09-01) to the General Plan Update EIR (EIR 05-01; SCH #2004081066). The SEIR addresses the General
Plan/General Development Plan Amendments (GPA/GDPA) that redefine boundaries for Villages 4, 7,
and 8 to provide a clear definition of the proposed SPA. A program-level air quality technical report has
been prepared for the GPA/GDPA (Recon 2011). This technical report tiers from the analysis in the
GPA/GDPA air quality technical report and provides more project-specific analysis. The analysis and
conclusions of the GPA/GDPA air quality technical report are incorporated into the impact analysis
sections for the proposed project.
The results of this air quality report have been incorporated into the AQIP, which is included in the final
SPA for Village 8 West. The AQIP has been prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Growth
Management Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 19.09.050B, which requires an AQIP to be submitted
with all SPA Plans. The AQIP demonstrates how the final SPA plan for Village 8 West reduces vehicle
trips, improves traffic flow, and reduces vehicle miles traveled.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 8
May 2013
2.
3.0 Regulatory Framework
3.1 Federal
3.1.1 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) with states
retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. On April
2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants
covered by the CAA; however, no NAAQS have been established for greenhouse gases.
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most
susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people
already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise.
Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above
these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Current NAAQS are listed in Table 2. Areas that meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as
“attainment” areas while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as “non-attainment”
areas.
The CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan
referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing
areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution.
The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the
CAA. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and
regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The EPA has the
responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.
3.2 State
3.2.1 California Clean Air Act
The federal CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided
that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. The California CAA was adopted in 1988 and
establishes the state’s air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies, and standards of
progress. CARB, a part of the California EPA (CalEPA) is responsible for the coordination and
administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including
setting the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). CARB also conducts research, compiles
emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 9
May 2013
2.
Table 2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards (1) Federal Standards (2)
Concentration(3) Primary (3, 4) Secondary (3, 5)
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) -- Same as Primary Standards 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standards Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m --
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3
Same as Primary Standards Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) None 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppm (100 μg/m3)6 Same as Primary Standard
1-hour 0.18 ppm (470 mg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3)6 None
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) -- --
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)7
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3)7 --
Lead(8)
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 -- --
Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-Month
Average(9) -- 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility Reducing
Particles 8-hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23
per kilometer - visibility of 10
miles or more due to particles.
No Federal Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) No Federal Standards
Vinyl Chloride(8) 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) No Federal Standards
ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion (1) California standards for ozone, PM10, CO, NO2, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be
exceeded. The standards for sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. (2) National standards, other than 1-hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, 24-hour PM10, 24-hour PM2.5, and those based on annual averages, are not to
be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with
maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations is below 0.08 ppm. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained
when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile 24-hour concentrations is below 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the
3-year average of the 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations is below 65 µg/m3. (3) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based on a reference
temperature of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar). All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to
a reference temperature of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of
pollutant per mole of gas. (4) National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. (5) National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant. (6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area
must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that the EPA standards are in units of ppb. California standards are in units of
ppm. To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the
national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively. (7) On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also proposed a new automated Federal Reference Method using
ultraviolet technology, but will retain the older pararosaniline methods until the new methods have adequately permeated state monitoring
networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of 0.030 ppm,
effective August 23, 2010. The secondary SO2 standard was not revised at that time; however, the secondary standard is undergoing a
separate review by EPA. Note that the new standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the new
primary national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is
identical to 0.075 ppm. (8) The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects
determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these
pollutants. (9) National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008.
Source: CARB 2010a.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 10
May 2013
2.
The CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such
as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It
also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. The CARB also has primary
responsibility for the development of California’s SIP, for which it works closely with the federal
government and the local air districts.
In addition to standards set for the criteria pollutants, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen
sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles (see Table 2); however, these are not pollutants of
concern for Village 8 West because construction and operation of the proposed land uses would not
result in emissions of these pollutants. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare
of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Further, in addition to primary and secondary
CAAQS, the state has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of
short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health.
3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The public’s exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant public health issue in California. In
1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce
exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (AB 1807: Health and Safety Code Sections
39650-39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects
from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase. The second step is the risk
management (or control) phase of the process.
Diesel-exhaust particulate matter emissions have since been established as TACs. Following the
identification of diesel particulate matter as an air toxic in 1998, the CARB has worked on developing
strategies and regulations aimed at reducing the risk from diesel particulate matter. The overall strategy
for achieving these reductions is found in the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter
Emissions from Diesel Fueled Engines and Vehicles (CARB 2000). A stated goal of the plan is to reduce
the cancer risk statewide arising from exposure to diesel particulate matter by 85 percent by 2020. A
number of programs and strategies to reduce diesel particulate matter that have been or are in the
process of being developed include:
The Carl Moyer Program: This program, administered by the CARB, was initially approved in February
1999 and is regularly updated. The most recent program guidelines are the 2011 Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, approved in April 2011 and released in January 2012. It provides grants to private
companies, public agencies, or individuals operating heavy-duty diesel engines to cover an incremental
portion of the cost of cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive, and agricultural irrigation pump
engines.
California Diesel Fuel Regulations: The California Diesel Fuel Regulations (13 CCR 2281-2285 and 17 CCR
93114) set limits on the aromatic hydrocarbon and sulfur content for diesel fuel marketed in California.
Under these rules, starting in June 2006 in accordance with the phase-in schedule, vehicular diesel fuel
must not have a sulfur content that exceeds 15 parts per million (ppm) by weight. The regulations also
specify that on or after October 1, 1993, the aromatic hydrocarbon content of vehicular diesel fuel must
not exceed 10 percent by volume.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 11
May 2013
2.
On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel New Engine Program: This program develops strategies and regulations to
reduce diesel emissions from new on-road diesel-powered equipment. Emission control regulations
have been coordinated with the EPA and require that new engines manufactured in and subsequent to
2004 meet new emissions requirements for particulates and other pollutants.
Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Strategies Program: The goal of this program is to develop and implement
strategies for reducing diesel emissions from existing on and off-road diesel engines. The Retrofit
Assessment section is responsible for the development and implementation of procedures for assessing,
recommending, and approving emission control devices. The Retrofit Implementation section is
responsible for developing plans for retrofitting on- and off-road engines with emission reducing
technologies. To date plans being developed or implemented have targeted solid waste collection
vehicles, on-road heavy-duty public fleet vehicles, and fuel delivery trucks. Generally these plans
require that a percentage of the fleet, based on age of the vehicles, be retrofitted on a predetermined
schedule.
Other programs include:
Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program: The goal of this program is to develop
regulations to control emissions from diesel, gasoline, and alternative-fueled off-road mobile engines.
These sources include a range of equipment from lawn mowers to construction equipment to
locomotives.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program: This program provides
periodic inspections to ensure that truck and bus fleets do not emit excessive amounts of smoke.
Lower-Emission School Bus Program: Under this program, and in coordination with the California
Energy Commission, the CARB is developing guidelines to provide criteria for the purchase of new school
buses and the retrofit of existing school buses to reduce particulate matter emissions.
As an ongoing process, the CARB will continue to establish new programs and regulations for the control
of diesel particulate emissions as appropriate. The continued development and implementation of
these programs and policies will ensure that public exposure to diesel particulate matter will continue to
decline.
3.2.3 California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
This section of the Health and Safety Code states that a person shall not discharge from any source
whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort,
repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency
to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This regulation also applies to sources of
objectionable odors.
3.2.4 California Building Standards Code Title 24, Part 6
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code regulates energy uses including space heating
and cooling, hot water heating, and ventilation. The energy code allows new buildings to meet a
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 12
May 2013
2.
performance standard that allows a builder to choose the most cost effective energy saving measures to
meet the standard from a variety of measures including added insulation, improved HVAC systems, and
more efficient water heating and lighting systems. New construction and major renovations must
demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submission and approval of a Title
24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy
Commission. The Code is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency
technologies and methodologies as they become available. The most recent amendments to the Code,
known as Title 24 2008, or the 2008 Energy Code, became effective January 1, 2010. At a minimum,
residential buildings must achieve a 15 percent reduction in their combined space heating, cooling and
water heating energy compared to the Title 24 2005 standards.
3.3 Local
3.3.1 San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy and
State Implementation Plan
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the
administration and enforcement of air quality regulations for San Diego County. The SDAPCD regulates
most air pollutant sources, except for motor vehicles, marine vessels, aircrafts, and agricultural
equipment, which are regulated by the CARB or the EPA. State and local government projects, as well as
projects proposed by the private sector, are subject to SDAPCD requirements if the sources are
regulated by the SDAPCD. Additionally, the SDAPCD, along with the CARB, maintains and operates
ambient air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout San Diego County. These
stations are used to measure and monitor criteria and toxic air pollutant levels in the ambient air.
The SDAPCD and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing
and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality
standards in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)
was initially adopted in 1991, and is updated on a triennial basis. The RAQS was updated in 1995, 1998,
2001, 2004, and most recently in April 2009. The RAQS outlines the SDAPCD’s plans and control
measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for ozone. The SDAPCD has also developed
the SDAB’s input to the SIP, which is required under the federal CAA for pollutants that are designated
as being in non-attainment of national air quality standards for the basin.
The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as
well as information regarding projected growth in the county, to project future emissions and then
establish the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB
mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and
vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and by the County of San Diego as part of the
development of the County’s General Plan. As such, projects that propose development that is
consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plans would be consistent with the RAQS. In the
event that a project would propose development which is less dense than anticipated within the general
plan, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is
greater than that anticipated in the general plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be
in conflict with the RAQS and SIP, and might have a potentially significant impact on air quality.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 13
May 2013
2.
The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission
reduction strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The SIP also
includes rules and regulations that have been adopted by the SDAPCD to control emissions from
stationary sources. These SIP-approved rules may be used as a guideline to determine whether a
project’s emissions would have the potential to conflict with the SIP and thereby hinder attainment of
the NAAQS for ozone.
3.3.2 City of Chula Vista General Plan and Growth
Management Ordinance
Included in the Chula Vista General Plan is the Growth Management Ordinance. Air quality is identified
as an important part of the quality of life in Chula Vista and one of the stated policies of the element
(Policy GM 4.4) adapts city regulations to meet federal and state air quality standards. In addition, the
Growth Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 19.09.050B) requires an AQIP be prepared for
all major development projects (50 dwelling units or greater) as part of the SPA Plan process. The AQIP
for the project must comply with the city AQIP guidelines. Copies of AQIP Guidelines are available at the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description,
an AQIP has been prepared for Village 8 West, and is based on the results of this air quality technical
report.
3.3.3 City of Chula Vista General Plan
Objective E 6 of the Chula Vista General Plan contains multiple policies focused on the improvement of
air quality:
Objective E-6
Improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and TACs, and limit
the exposure of people to such pollutants.
Policies
E 6.1: Encourage compact development featuring a mix of uses that locate residential areas within
reasonable walking distance to jobs, services, and transit.
E 6.2: Promote and facilitate transit system improvements in order to increase transit use and
reduce dependency on the automobile.
E 6.3: Ensure that operational procedures of the City promote clean air by maximizing the use of
low- and zero-emissions equipment and vehicles.
E 6.4: Avoid siting new or re-powered energy-generation facilities and other major toxic air emitters
within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receiver or placing a sensitive receiver within 1,000 feet of a
major toxic emitter.
E 6.5: Ensure that plans developed to meet the City's energy demand use the least polluting
strategies, wherever practical. Conservation, clean renewables, and clean distributed
generation should be considered as part of the City’s energy plan, along with larger natural
gas-fired plants.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 14
May 2013
2.
E 6.6: Explore incentives to promote voluntary air pollutant reductions, including incentives for
developers who go above and beyond applicable requirements and for facilities and
operations that are not otherwise regulated.
E 6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality improvements in new
development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City's AQIP Guidelines or its
equivalent, pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program.
E 6.8: Support the use of alternative fuel transit, City fleet, and private vehicles in Chula Vista.
E 6.9: Discourage the use of landscaping equipment powered by two-stroke gasoline engines within
the City and promote less polluting alternatives to their use.
E 6.10: The siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways resulting from development
or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) as
part of the CEQA review of the project. Attendant health risks identified in the HRA shall be
feasibly mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to
help ensure that applicable federal and state standards are not exceeded.
E 6.11: Develop strategies to minimize carbon monoxide hot spots that address all modes of
transportation.
E 6.12: Promote clean fuel sources that help reduce the exposure of sensitive uses to pollutants.
E 6.13: Encourage programs and infrastructure to increase the availability and usage of energy-
efficient vehicles, such as hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, or those that run on
alternative fuels.
E 6.14: The City will implement a clean vehicle/alternative fuel program for City vehicles (except
safety vehicles and equipment, when not feasible) and promote the development of
infrastructure to support their use.
E 6.15: Site industries in a way that minimizes the potential impacts of poor air quality on homes,
schools, hospitals, and other land uses where people congregate.
3.3.4 City of Chula Vista Green Building Ordinance
The City of Chula Vista has adopted Green Building Standards (CVMC Chapter 15.12) and Energy
Efficiency Standards (CVMC Section 15.26.030) that require increased energy efficiency of 15 percent
beyond the 2008 Title 24, Part 6 energy requirements. No building permit shall be issued for any project
subject to the city requirements until the Building Official has determined that the plans and
specifications submitted for the building permit are in compliance with the Green Building Standard and
Energy Efficiency requirements.
3.3.5 Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Part II, Chapter 6, Section C of the GDP establishes goals to minimize the adverse impacts of
development on air quality including creating a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation network
which minimizes the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips.
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 15
May 2013
2.
Objective:
Minimize the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips to and from employment and
commercial centers to achieve an average of 1.5 persons per passenger vehicle during weekday
commute hours.
Policies:
■ Encourage, as appropriate, alternative transportation incentives offered to employees,
alternative work hour programs, alternative transportation promotional materials, information
on car pool and van pool matching services, transit pass information, space for car-pool and van-
pool-riders-wanted advertisements, information about transit and rail service, as well as
information about bicycle facilities, routes, storage, and location of nearby shower and locker
facilities.
■ Promote telecommuting and teleconferencing programs and policies in employment centers.
■ Establish or participate in education-based commute programs, which minimize the number and
length of single passenger vehicle trips.
■ Provide on-site amenities in commercial and employment centers to include childcare facilities,
post offices, banking services, cafeterias/delis/restaurants, etc.
3.3.6 SDAPCD Particulate Matter Reduction Measures
In addition to the RAQS and SIP, the SDAPCD adopted the “Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in
San Diego County” report in December 2005. This report is based on particulate matter reduction
measures adopted by CARB. The SDAPCD evaluated CARB's list of measures and found that the majority
were already being implemented in San Diego County. As a result of the evaluation, SDAPCD proposed
measures for further evaluation to reduce particulate emissions from residential wood combustion and
from fugitive dust from construction sites and unpaved roads. The SDAPCD requires that construction
activities implement the measures listed in Rule 55 to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Rule 55 requires
the following:
1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity 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. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or
track-out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of any of the equally effective trackout/carry-
out and erosion control measures listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These
measures include 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; watering for dust control; and using secured tarps or cargo covering, watering, or
treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks. Visible roadway dust must be
removed at the conclusion of each work day when active operations cease, or every 24 hours for
continuous operations.
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 16
May 2013
2.
3.3.7 Other APCD Rules and Regulations
The SDAPCD adopted Rule 67, Architectural Coatings, in December 2001, which establishes volatile
organic compounds content limits for architectural coatings. Additionally, APCD Rule 1210 implements
the public notification and risk reduction requirements of the State Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act, and
requires facilities to reduce risks to acceptable levels within five years. Rule 1200 establishes acceptable
risk levels, and emission control requirements for new and modified facilities that may emit additional
TACs. Rule 51 also prohibits nuisances, including objectionable odors.
4.0 Existing Conditions
4.1 Climate
Regional climate and local meteorological conditions influence ambient air quality. Village 8 West is
located in the SDAB. The climate of the SDAB is dominated by a semi-permanent high pressure cell
located over the Pacific Ocean. This cell influences the direction of prevailing winds (westerly to
northwesterly) and maintains clear skies for much of the year. It also drives the dominant onshore
circulation and helps create two types of temperature inversions, subsidence and radiation, that
contribute to local air quality degradation.
Subsidence inversions occur during warmer months, as descending air associated with the Pacific high-
pressure cell comes into contact with cool marine air. The boundary between the two layers of air
represents a temperature inversion that traps pollutants below it. Radiation inversions typically develop
on winter nights with low wind speeds, when air near the ground cools by radiation, and the air aloft
remain warm. A shallow inversion layer that can trap pollutants is formed between the two layers.
In the vicinity of the project area, the nearest climatological monitoring station that provides
precipitation data is located at the lower Otay Reservoir, approximately three miles east of the project
site. The normal precipitation in the lower Otay Reservoir area is 11 inches annually, occurring primarily
from December through March (WRCC 2011a). Temperature is recorded at the monitoring station
located in the community of Bonita, north of the Otay Ranch area. The normal daily maximum
temperature in Bonita is 81 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in August, and the normal daily minimum
temperature is 40 °F in December and January, according to the Western Regional Climate Center
(WRCC 2011b).
4.2 Health Effects Related to Air Pollutants
Federal and state laws regulate the air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile
sources. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as
primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from
sources. Carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and most fine particulate matter including lead and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) are primary air
pollutants. Of these, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. VOCs and
nitrogen oxides are criteria pollutant precursors that go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through
chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone and nitrogen dioxide are the principal
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 17
May 2013
2.
secondary pollutants. Diesel particulate matter is a mixture of particles and is a component of diesel
exhaust. The EPA lists diesel exhaust as a mobile source air toxic due to the cancer and non-cancer
health effects associated with exposure to whole diesel exhaust.
Presented below is a description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their
known health effects.
Carbon Monoxide is an odorless, colorless, and toxic gas. Because it is impossible to see, taste, or smell
the toxic fumes, carbon monoxide can kill people before they are aware that it is in their homes. At
lower levels of exposure, carbon monoxide causes mild effects that are often mistaken for the flu.
These symptoms include headaches, dizziness, disorientation, nausea, and fatigue. The effects of
carbon monoxide exposure can vary greatly from person to person depending on age, overall health,
and the concentration and length of exposure (EPA 2010). The major sources of carbon monoxide in the
SDAB are on-road vehicles, aircraft, and off-road vehicles and equipment.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,
which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. VOCs consist of non-methane hydrocarbons
and oxygenated hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain only hydrogen and
carbon atoms. Non-methane hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons that do not contain the un-reactive
hydrocarbon, methane. Oxygenated hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons with oxygenated functional groups
attached.
It should be noted that there are no CAAQS or NAAQS for VOCs because they are not classified as
criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain
chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. VOCs are also transformed into organic
aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 levels and lower visibility. Although
health-based standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to
high concentrations because of interference with oxygen uptake. In general, higher concentrations of
VOCs are suspected to cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss of coordination; nausea;
and damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system (EPA 1999).
The major sources of VOCs in the SDAB are on-road motor vehicles and solvent evaporation. Benzene, a
VOC and known carcinogen, is emitted into the air from gasoline service stations (fuel evaporation),
motor vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and from burning oil and coal. Benzene is also sometimes used
as a solvent for paints, inks, oils, waxes, plastic, and rubber. It is used in the extraction of oils from seeds
and nuts. It is also used in the manufacture of detergents, explosives, dyestuffs, and pharmaceuticals.
Short-term (acute) exposure of high doses of benzene from inhalation may cause dizziness, drowsiness,
headaches, eye irritation, skin irritation, and respiratory tract irritation. At higher levels,
unconsciousness can occur. Long-term (chronic) occupational exposure of high doses by inhalation has
caused blood disorders, including aplastic anemia and lower levels of red blood cells (EPA 1999).
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a byproduct of fuel combustion and serve as integral components in the
process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of nitrogen oxides are nitric oxide and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Nitric oxide is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and
oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. Nitrogen dioxide is
a reddish-brown, irritating gas formed by the combination of nitric oxide and oxygen. Nitrogen oxides
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 18
May 2013
2.
act as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. Nitrogen oxides
are also an ozone precursor. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into
the atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air
contaminant for which a NAAQS has been adopted, or whose presence in the atmosphere will
contribute to the violation of one or more NAAQS. When nitrogen oxide and VOCs are released in the
atmosphere, they chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. While
the EPA’s NAAQS covers this entire family, nitrogen dioxide is the component of greatest interest and
the indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides.
Ozone is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. Ozone is
present in relatively high concentrations in the SDAB, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog
are generally related to ozone concentrations. Ozone may pose a health threat to those who already
suffer from respiratory diseases as well as healthy people. Additionally, ozone has been tied to crop
damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and pre-mature death. Ozone can also act as a
corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the embitterment of rubber products.
Lead (Pb) is a solid heavy metal that can exist in air pollution as an aerosol particle component. An
aerosol is a collection of solid, liquid, or mixed-phase particles suspended in the air. Lead was first
regulated as an air pollutant in 1976. Leaded gasoline was first marketed in 1923 and was used in motor
vehicles until around 1970. The exclusion of lead from gasoline helped to decrease emissions of lead in
the United States from 219,000 to 4,000 tons per year between 1970 and 1997. Even though leaded
gasoline has been phased out in most countries, some, such as Egypt and Iraq, still use at least some
leaded gasoline (United Nations Environment Programme 2010). Lead ore crushing, lead-ore smelting,
and battery manufacturing are currently the largest sources of lead in the atmosphere in the United
States. Other sources include dust from soils contaminated with lead-based paint, solid waste disposal,
and physical weathering of surfaces containing lead. The mechanisms by which lead can be removed
from the atmosphere (sinks) include deposition to soils, ice caps, oceans, and inhalation.
Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the kidneys, liver, and nervous system.
The more serious effects of lead poisoning include behavioral disorders, mental retardation, and
neurological impairment. Low levels of lead in fetuses and young children can result in nervous system
damage, which can cause learning deficiencies and low intelligence quotients. Lead may also contribute
to high blood pressure and heart disease. Lead concentrations once exceeded the state and national air
quality standards by a wide margin but have not exceeded these standards at any regular monitoring
station since 1982. Lead is no longer an additive to normal gasoline, which is the main reason that
concentration of lead in the air is now much lower. The project would not emit lead; therefore, lead has
been eliminated from further review in this analysis.
Sulfur Dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas. At levels greater than 0.5 ppm, the gas has a strong odor,
similar to rotten eggs. Sulfuric acid is formed from sulfur dioxide and is an aerosol particle component
that may lead to acid deposition. Acid deposition into water, vegetation, soil, or other materials can
harm natural resources and materials. Sulfur oxides include sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide. Although
sulfur dioxide concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and national standards,
further reductions are desirable because sulfur dioxide is a precursor to sulfates. Sulfates are a
particulate formed through the photochemical oxidation of sulfur dioxide. Long-term exposure to high
levels of sulfur dioxide can cause irritation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 19
May 2013
2.
changes in the defenses in the lungs. When people with asthma are exposed to high levels of sulfur
dioxide for short periods of time during moderate activity, effects may include wheezing, chest
tightness, or shortness of breath.
Particulate Matter consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and
mists. Two forms of fine particulate, also known as fugitive dust, are now recognized. Course particles
(PM10) include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e.,
10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles (PM2.5) have an aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 microns, that is 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch or less. Particulate
discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and
transportation activities; however, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to
the local particulate loading. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system,
especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems.
Fugitive dust poses primarily two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that of
respiratory problems attributable to the suspended particulates in the air. The second concern is that of
motor vehicle accidents caused by reduced visibility during severe wind conditions. Fugitive dust may
also cause significant property damage during strong windstorms by acting as an abrasive material agent
(similar to sandblasting activities). Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling
of proximate structures and vehicles.
Diesel particulate matter is a mixture of many exhaust particles and gases that is produced when an
engine burns diesel fuel. Many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic, including 16 that
are classified as possibly carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Diesel
particulate matter includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. Some short-term (acute)
effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation and exposure can cause coughs,
headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of ambient fugitive dust
pollution as well, and numerous studies have linked elevated fugitive dust levels in the air to increased
hospital admission, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those
suffering from respiratory problems (OEHHA 2001). Diesel particulate matter in the SDAB poses the
greatest cancer risk of all the toxic air pollutants.
4.3 Ambient Air Pollutant Levels
The SDAPCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County. The
purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of air pollutants and
determine whether the ambient air quality meets the NAAQS and the CAAQS. The closest ambient
monitoring station is the Otay Mesa Station, approximately four miles from the project site. However,
this station is located in a heavy industrial area that does not accurately reflect the existing conditions in
the project area. The next closest station is the Chula Vista station, located approximately five miles
from the project site, which better represents the development in surrounding areas. Table 3 presents a
summary of the ambient pollutant concentrations monitored at the Chula Vista station during the last
three years (2008 through 2010).
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 20
May 2013
2.
Table 3 Air Quality Monitoring Data
Pollutant Monitoring Station 2008 2009 2010
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) Chula Vista 1.87 1.43 1.56
Days above state or federal standard (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Peak 1-hour concentration (ppm) Chula Vista 0.072 0.065 0.050
Days above state 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm)
Chula Vista
0.107 0.098 0.107
Days above 1-hour state standard (>0.09 ppm) 1 1 1
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.084 0.075 0.083
Days above 8-hour state standard (>0.07 ppm) 4 3 3
Days above 8-hour federal standard (>0.075 ppm) 3 0 2
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm)
Chula Vista
0.004 0.003 0.002
Days above 24-hour state standard (>0.04 ppm) 0 0 0
Days above 24-hour federal standard (>0.14 ppm) 0 0 0
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
Peak 24-hour concentration (g/m3)
Chula Vista
54 58 45
Days above state standard (>50 g/m3) 1 2 0
Days above federal standard (>150 g/m3) 0 0 0
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Peak 24-hour concentration (g/m3) Chula Vista 32.9 43.7 22.7
Days above federal standard (>35 g/m3) 0 1 0
ppm = parts per million, g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2011
As shown in Table 3, the 1-hour ozone concentration exceeded the state standard once per year
between 2008 and 2010. The 8-hour ozone concentration exceeded the state standard in 2008, 2009,
and 2010, and the federal standard in 2008 and 2010. The daily PM10 concentration exceeded the state
standard in 2008 and 2009, but not in 2010. The federal standard was not exceeded during this period.
The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was violated once in 2009 but not in 2008 or 2010.
Neither the state nor federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide were
exceeded at any time during the years 2008 through 2010. The federal annual average nitrogen dioxide
standard has not been exceeded since 1978 and the California 1-hour standard has not been exceeded
since 1988 (SDAPCD 2007a). With one exception during October 2003, the SDAB has not violated the
state or federal standards for carbon monoxide since 1990 (SDAPCD 2007a).
4.4 Attainment Status
The classifications for ozone non-attainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, serious,
severe, and extreme. A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not
support a designation of attainment or non-attainment. The SDAB federal and state attainment status is
5.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIG NIFICANCE CRITERIA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 21
May 2013
2.
shown in Table 4. The SDAB is currently designated as a non-attainment area for the state standard for
PM10, PM2.5, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8-Hour Standard for ozone.
Table 4 Attainment Status for the San Diego Air Basin
Pollutant State Status Federal Status
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment
Ozone (1-hour) Serious Non-attainment --(1)
Ozone (8-hour) Serious Non-Attainment Non-attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Non-attainment Unclassified
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Non-attainment Attainment\Unclassified
(1) The federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005 and is no longer in effect for California.
Source: CARB 2011, EPA 2011
4.5 Sensitive Receptors and Locations
CARB defines sensitive receptors as residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical
facilities, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely
affected by changes in air quality. The project site is currently undeveloped and no sensitive receptors
are located on the site. The sensitive receptors closest to the project site include the following:
1. Olympian High School, approximately 100 feet east of the northeast corner of the project site;
2. Wolf Canyon Elementary school, approximately 875 feet (0.2 mile) northeast of the project site;
3. Residences located approximately 1,500 feet (0.3 mile) northeast of the project site; and
4. Residences located 1,750 feet (0.3 mile) north of the project site.
5.0 Methodology and Significance Criteria
5.1 Methodology
5.1.1 Construction
Regional impacts for construction are assessed using the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS 2007,
version 9.2.4) distributed by the CARB. The URBEMIS 2007 model uses EMFAC 2007 emission factors for
vehicle traffic and Off-Road 2007 for construction equipment. The construction analysis included
modeling of the projected construction equipment that would be used during each construction activity
and quantities of earth and debris to be moved. The analysis assessed maximum daily emissions from
individual construction activities, including site grading, paving, and building construction, as well as
simultaneous construction phases. Construction activities, scheduling, grading quantities, and the
construction equipment list (including size of equipment engines and load factor) were provided by the
project applicant. Project development would be constructed in sequential phases starting in 2013, and
5.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 22
May 2013
2.
to be conservative, the most intensive development phase was used for the worst-case daily
construction emissions. A complete listing of the assumptions used in the analysis and model output is
provided in Appendix A of this report.
5.1.2 Operation
Operational impacts are also assessed using the URBEMIS 2007 model. The model estimates daily
regional emissions from vehicle and stationary sources of pollutants that would result from
implementation of the project at full buildout. Mobile source emissions were calculated using an
average daily trip (ADT) estimate of 26,104 trips provided by the project’s traffic consultant and the
estimated vehicle trip length for Village 8 West of 4.62 miles that was determined in conjunction with
SANDAG (RBF 2013). Area sources of air emissions include natural gas combustion from water and
space heating, landscape equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. All air quality
modeling output files are provided in Appendix A of this report.
5.1.3 TAC Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Potential impacts related to the emission of TAC from stationary sources are evaluated using the siting
distances in the CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The handbook lists common sources of TAC
emission and recommends minimum distances for siting sensitive receptors away from each source.
Localized carbon monoxide concentrations are evaluated by using the CALINE4 microscale dispersion
model, in accordance with the Caltrans Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, in
combination with EMFAC 2007 emission factors. Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated for
the Existing + Project scenario, as well as three interim scenarios (2015, 2020, 2025) and full project
buildout (2030), based on intersection analysis found in the project traffic report (RBF 2013). CALINE4
modeling output files are provided in Appendix A of this report.
5.1.4 Odor Impacts
Potential odor impacts are evaluated by conducting a qualitative screening-level analysis, consisting of
reviewing the proposed project's site plan and project description to identify any new or modified odor
sources. If the project introduces a new odor source, or modifies an existing odor source, then
downwind sensitive receptor locations are identified and odor control measures recommended if
necessary to minimize potential impacts.
5.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact would be considered significant if the proposed
project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation. The City of Chula Vista has not established specific numeric thresholds related to
criteria air pollutants. The City relies on the significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). For this analysis, the calculated emissions of the project are
compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for individual projects,
provided in Table 5. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then the impact is considered
significant.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 23
May 2013
2.
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a potentially significant impact if
it would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a potentially significant impact if
it would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to consistency with applicable air
quality plans would be considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would result in
a conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the RAQS or SIP.
Table 5 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Emissions
(pounds/day)
Operation Emissions
(pounds/day)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Reactive organic gases (ROG)(1) 75 55
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
(1) Reactive organic gases are also sometimes referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Source: SCAQMD 2010
6.0 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
6.1 Issue 1: Conformance to Federal and State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
6.1.1 Impact Analysis
This section addresses the potential for the project to generate air pollutant emissions that exceed
ambient air quality standards. Construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions that would
be generated by implementation of the project are discussed below.
Construction
The air quality technical report prepared for the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR determined that potential
impacts related to construction would be less than significant because development would be required
to comply with standard dust minimizing practices. However, construction emissions and estimated
emission reductions from the BMPs were not quantified because the timing of future development and
the specific construction details could not have been known at the programmatic level. For these
reasons, the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR air quality report does not quantify the potential impacts of
construction of the Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM. Additionally, the report does not provide the
construction assumptions used to determine the potential impacts of construction of the Village 8 West
SPA project. Therefore, this project-specific analysis was conducted to estimate the criteria pollutant
emissions that would result from construction of the project.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 24
May 2013
2.
Air pollutant emission sources during project construction would include exhaust and particulate
emissions generated from construction equipment; fugitive dust from soil disturbance during site
preparation, grading, and excavation activities; and volatile compounds that evaporate during site
paving and painting of the structures. The project site is approximately 300 acres; however, only 261
acres of the site would be disturbed by onsite construction. The remaining onsite area consists of areas
designated for open space. An additional 1.95 acres would be disturbed for installation of the offsite
improvements and 4.57 acres would be graded on the City of San Diego reservoir property, for a total
disturbance area of approximately 268 acres.
Development within Village 8 West would include single-family residences, multi-family residences,
mixed-use commercial development, a community purpose facility, a middle school, and elementary
school, and parks. Construction would occur in sequential development phases, and take a minimum of
eight years to complete, although full buildout of the project is not expected until 2030. For the
purposes of modeling the worst-case daily construction scenario for one phase, the analysis years used
for construction were 2013-2015. This is conservative because increasingly stringent air quality
regulations on construction equipment would result in fewer emissions in later years. Village 8 West
would be constructed in five development phases, as shown in Figure 4, and would include the following
components:
■ The Orange phase would develop a maximum of 351 multi-family residential units, 117 single-
family units, a town square, and 174,000 SF of commercial space in primarily the western
portion of the project site.
■ The Blue phase would develop a maximum of 284 single-family residential units in the
southwestern area of the project site.
■ The Yellow phase would include a maximum of 765 multi-family units, 126,000 SF of commercial
land use, a community park, and a middle school in the northern portion of the project site.
■ The Purple phase would develop a maximum of 220 single-family residential units and a
neighborhood park in the southeast portion of the project site.
■ The Green phase would develop 313 multi-family residences, a community purpose facility, and
an elementary school in the eastern portion of the project site.
The sequencing of phases would be determined by market conditions. However, it is assumed that the
Orange and Blue phases would be constructed prior to the Yellow, Green, and Purple phases because
the Orange and Blue phases require blasting.
Each phase of project development would include the following construction activities: mass grading,
trenching for utilities and underground improvements, paving and surface improvement, building
construction, and exterior architectural coating, as shown in Table 6. The offsite improvements would
also require grading, trenching, and paving. For the purpose of isolating emissions from each type of
construction activity, it is assumed that the construction activities within one development phase would
occur consecutively, with no overlap. However, approximately nine months prior to completion of one
development phase, grading could potentially begin for the next phase. Any of the construction
activities in subsequent development phases would have the potential to overlap with the building
construction activities of the previous phase.
0 400800
Feet
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2012
DEVELOPMENT PHASES
FIGURE 4
Purple
Green
Plan AreaTarget UnitsC’ml Sq. Ft (K)
Orange
Orange
Yellow
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Blue
Purple
Orange
Plan AreaTarget UnitsC’ml Sq. Ft (K)
Blue
Plan AreaTarget UnitsC’ml Sq. Ft (K)
Yellow
Plan AreaTarget UnitsC’ml Sq. Ft (K)
B 35 0
G (Town Sq.)0 0
H2 0 12
H1 33 144
I 122 0
J 161 18
N 117 0
Subtotal468174
P 124 0
Q 160 0
284Subtotal 0
A (Comm. Park)0 0
D (Mid. Sch’l)0 0
C 156 36
E 95 0
F 54 25
L 460 65
Subtotal765126
Plan AreaTarget UnitsC’ml Sq. Ft (K)
T (Neigh Park)0 0
V 90 0
U 130 0
Subtotal220 0
M 153 0
R (CPF)0 0
O 160 0
S (Elem. Sch’l)0 0
Subtotal 3130
Total 2,050300
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
Note: Village 8 West is generally planned to
develop from north to south; however, the
sequencing of development phases would be
determined by market conditions and the PFFP.
Off-site Facilities Corridor/
Regional Trail Connection
Off-site Facilities Corridor/
Regional Trail Connection
±
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 26
May 2013
2.
Table 6 Approximate Duration of Project Construction Activities Per Development Phase
Construction Activity Duration
Mass Grading 3 months
Trenching 2 months
Surface Improvements 2 months
Building Construction and Coating 2 years
Grading in each phase would occur over a three month period. The phases are generally similar in area;
therefore, it assumed than the same amount of grading would occur in each phase. This analysis
assumes that a limit of 20 acres per day would be disturbed and/or graded. A total of 4.7 million cubic
yards would be graded as a result of the project and replaced within the disturbance area, or 940,000
cubic yards in each phase. It is assumed that a maximum of 35,000 cubic yards of material would be
graded each day. All cut material would be used on site and no hauling of material off site would be
required. The Orange and Blue phases of construction would involve blasting during the grading
operations and would require additional construction equipment compared to the Yellow, Green, and
Purple phases, including a rock drill, crushing unit, and rock spread. Use of this equipment is included in
the daily emission calculation for the grading activity. Typical grading equipment that would be used for
grading in all phases would include tractors, excavators, graders, and water trucks.
Approximately two months would be required for installation of the utilities in each phase. The most
intensive utility installation activity that would require heavy equipment is trenching. Trenching
activities would typically require excavators, dump trucks, dozers, backhoes, and water trucks. Paving
and surface improvements would be required for approximately 12 percent of the project area (31
acres). Approximately six acres would be paved during each phase and would be accomplished in
approximately two months. Approximately two acres would be required for the offsite improvements
during one phase of development. A maximum of approximately 8 acres would be paved during one
phase. Typical construction equipment required for paving would include graders, pavers, and rollers.
Because building construction within Village 8 West would be completed by multiple developers,
multiple areas of the site may be under construction at one time. Building construction activities are
estimated to last a minimum of approximately two years and would typically require dump trucks,
concrete trucks, excavators, backhoes, and water trucks. It is assumed that architectural coating
activities would occur simultaneously with the building construction activities; therefore, the coating
activities would also last approximately two years. The Yellow phase is projected to require the most
and greatest diversity of development, including the highest number of residential units, almost one half
of the proposed commercial development, the largest proposed recreational use, and a middle school.
Therefore, the land uses proposed in the Yellow phase were used to determine maximum daily
emissions from architectural coating and building construction. Construction of the offsite
improvements is also included in the worst-case construction scenario. The URBEMIS 2007 model does
not take into account the additional construction standards adopted by the CARB after 2007. For
example, beginning in 2008, heavy-duty diesel engines were required to be shut down when idling more
than five minutes at any location within California. Therefore, actual project emissions may be less than
calculated by the URBEMIS 2007 model.
Table 7 summarizes the maximum daily emissions of grading (assuming a maximum of 20 acres per day),
trenching, paving, construction, and coating in comparison with the thresholds of significance (as
mentioned earlier, the Yellow phase was chosen as the basis for the worst case daily emissions). As
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIO N MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 27
May 2013
2.
shown in Table 7, when considering the typical scenario of each construction phase occurring
consecutively with no overlap, project related emissions would be below the significance thresholds
during the underground utility (trenching) and building construction and coating activities. Construction
of the project would exceed the significance thresholds for nitrogen oxides, PM10, and PM2.5 during
grading, and the nitrogen oxide threshold during surface improvements (paving). Impacts to air quality
resulting from grading and surface improvement activities during each development phase would be
potentially significant.
Additionally, any of the construction activities of a subsequent development phase would have the
potential to overlap with building construction activities in the previous development phase. For
example, if the Blue phase is constructed after the Orange phase, the earlier construction activities, such
as grading, in the Blue phase would potentially overlap with the later construction activities, such as
building construction and architectural coating in the Orange phase. Although it is unlikely, it is possible
that all four categories of construction activities could occur simultaneously on the site within different
development phases. To estimate this worst-case scenario, Table 7 provides the total amount of
emissions that would occur if all types of construction activities occur simultaneously on one day. Since
other development phases would be less intensive than the Yellow phase, the total emissions shown in
Table 7 represent a conservative estimate.
As indicated by the maximum combined daily emissions provided in Table 7, simultaneous construction
activities would combine to exceed the significance thresholds for VOCs, nitrogen oxides, PM10, and
PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, simultaneous construction activities between development phases would
potentially worsen significant impacts during construction.
The blasting operations in the Orange and Blue phases would also generate fugitive dust. The URBEMIS
2007 model takes into account emissions from construction equipment required for blasting, but does
not include particulate emissions that would result from use of explosives. Therefore, fugitive dust
emissions during grading of the Orange and Blue phases would be higher than estimated on the days
that blasting occurs. However, blasting activities would only occur on a few days. Additionally, the
project would result in significant particulate matter emissions during grading with or without blasting;
therefore, mitigation is already required to minimize dust. However, because blasting would contribute
to the potentially significant particulate matter impact from grading activities on the days that it would
occur, specific dust-minimizing measures to be applied during blasting activities would be required.
Dust from construction activities would also have the potential to impact sensitive biological resources
in the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve area to the south of the project area.
Dust has the potential to disrupt plant vitality in the short-term. Potential impacts to the MSCP Preserve
would primarily result from construction of the offsite improvements and the single-family residences
near the southern area of the site. Impacts would cease once construction is complete. However, the
Biological Resources Report prepared for Village 8 West (URS 2012) determined that potential indirect
impacts to biological resources, including dust from construction, would be potentially significant.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 28
May 2013
2.
Table 7 Maximum Daily Emissions Per Construction Activity
Construction Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mass Grading(1) 174 44 379 0 4,345 918
Trenching(2) 22 6 51 0 2 2
Surface Improvements (paving)(3) 52 15 121 0 5 4
Building Construction and Coating Phases(4) 161 36 81 0 4 3
Combined Daily Total for all Construction Activities 409 101 632 0 4,356 927
Significance Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Bold = exceeds significance threshold
CO = carbon monoxide; VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
Modeling assumptions: Emissions are based on assumptions for the Yellow development phase, plus additional equipment
added to account for blasting within the Blue and Orange phases, and offsite improvements. Worst-case construction activities
for the Yellow development phases were assumed to occur during 2013-2015.
(1) Assumes a three month period and a maximum land disturbance of 20 acres per day. A total of approximately 268 acres
would be disturbed over five development phases. A total of 4.7 million cubic yards would be graded and replaced within
the disturbance area, or 940,000 cubic yards in each phase. All cut material would be used on site and no hauling of
material off site would be required. Equipment list for grading includes an excavator, two graders, four heavy duty
trucks, five dozers, 12 scrapers, and two water trucks. A drill rig, crushing unit, and tractor would be required for blasting
in the Orange and Blue phases and are included in the modeled equipment list.
(2) Assumes a two month period. Equipment list includes two excavators, two dump trucks, a dozer, two backhoes, and a
water truck.
(3) Assumes a two month period. Paving and surface improvements would be required for approximately 12 percent of the
SPA area (31 acres), or six acres per phase. Assumes an additional two acres for offsite improvements. Equipment list
includes a grader, a paver, a roller, and 27 dump trucks and concrete trucks.
(4) Assumes a two year period and architectural coating activities would occur simultaneously with the building construction
activities. Assumes building construction would require a total of 11 dump trucks and concrete trucks, an excavator, a
backhoe, and a water truck. Calculations are based on the Yellow phase, which includes development of 765 multi-family
units, 126,000 SF of commercial land use, a community park, and a middle school. Assumes model defaults for low VOC
coating (250 grams of VOC per liter or less).
Source: URBEMIS 2007. See Appendix A for data sheets.
Operation
To estimate the most conservative estimate for operational air quality emissions, the project
assumptions for the full buildout year (2030) were used in the analysis. The full buildout condition
represents the greatest amount of vehicle trips and land use development. The major source of long-
term operational air quality impacts from the project would be emissions produced from project-
generated vehicle trips. Vehicle trip generation is based on the project traffic study, which was
prepared by RBF Consulting (2013). The projected ADT rate for the project is 26,104 trips. The vehicle
trip emissions account for internal capture from mixed-use development and the reduction in vehicle
trips compared to similar developments that do not provide access to transit. Two bus stops are
proposed in the Village 8 West Town Center, one along west-bound Main Street and one along east-
bound Main Street. The projected ADT also takes into account the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program included in the SPA Plan. The TDM includes strategies to reduce vehicle
trips and miles traveled and to design a multi-modal transportation system, and establishes a
Transportation Management Association to provide transportation services in a particular area to
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 29
May 2013
2.
reduce vehicle miles and implement other TDM strategies. Pollutant emissions from vehicles were
calculated using the EMFAC 2007 emission factors that are used in URBEMIS 2007.
In addition to vehicle trips, the project would emit pollutants from on-site area sources, such as burning
natural gas for space and water heating, including fireplaces; landscape maintenance equipment;
consumer products; and periodic repainting of interior and exterior surfaces (architectural coatings).
The area source assumptions include a 15 percent increased efficiency beyond the URBEMIS default
Title 24 standards (2005) to reflect the 2008 Title 24 standards. This assumption is conservative because
required compliance with the Chula Vista Green Building Standards (CVMC Chapter 15.12) and Energy
Efficiency Standards (CVMC Section 15.26.030) would improve energy efficiency beyond the 2008 Title
24 standards.
The vehicular and area source emissions associated with operation of the project are summarized in
Table 8. As shown, the project would exceed the daily regional thresholds for VOCs, nitrogen oxides,
and PM10 during operation of the development in Village 8 West. Therefore, a significant impact would
occur. The air quality technical report for the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR estimated emissions that would
result from the increase in building potential accommodated by the GPA/GDPA compared to the
previous GDP, including the increase in building potential in Village 8 West. The findings in this report
are consistent with the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR conclusion that significant impacts would occur.
Table 8 Operation Maximum Daily Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/ day)
CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
Vehicular Sources (1) 368 40 31 1 201 39
Area Sources
Natural Gas (2) 20 3 34 0 0 0
Hearth (fireplaces)(3) 1 0 4 0 0 0
Landscape 38 6 0 0 0 0
Consumer Products 0 105 0 0 0 0
Architectural Coatings(4) 0 15 0 0 0 0
Total Emissions 427 169 69 1 201 39
Significance Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No Yes Yes No Yes No
Bold = exceeds significance threshold
CO = carbon monoxide; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
Modeling assumptions: Calculations assume the full development of project at buildout (2030). Output is for summer
emissions, with the exception of hearth emissions, where winter emissions were added to the daily emissions for a worst-case
condition. Other assumptions include:
(1) Based on an ADT of 26,104 trips and an estimated vehicle trip length of 4.62 miles, which accounts for internal capture
from mixed-use development, the reduction in vehicle trips compared to similar developments that do not provide access
to transit, and the TDM program in the SPA Plan. A four percent vehicular emission reduction for VOC, NOx, CO, and
PM10 emissions was applied for traffic light synchronization based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993).
(2) Assumes buildings comply with 15% above 2005 Title 24 standards.
(3) Assumes 15 percent of homes would have fireplaces, consistent with assumptions of the GPA/GDPA SEIR. No wood
burning fireplaces would be allowed.
(4) Includes the use of low VOC coatings (250 grams of VOC per liter or less).
Source: URBEMIS 2007. See Appendix A for data sheets.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 30
May 2013
2.
6.1.2 Mitigation Measures
Construction
Mitigation measure Air-1 below is from the Otay Ranch GDP Final Program EIR (EIR 90-01) (Ogden 1992),
and mitigation measure Air-2 is from the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR (SEIR 09-01). These measures and
project-specific measure Air-3 would reduce impacts related to emissions of nitrogen oxides, PM10, and
PM2.5 during construction. Mitigation measure Air-1 lists the BMPs recommended in the Otay Ranch
GDP Final Program EIR to reduce construction emissions. Mitigation measure Air-2 lists the BMPs
recommended in the 2005 General Plan Update EIR and the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR for reducing fugitive
dust emissions during grading. Mitigation measure Air-3 includes additional project-specific measures
to reduce nitrogen oxides, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during all construction activities. These measures
would also minimize potential indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources from dust. Future
construction activities would also be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55 requirements for grading
and the SDAPCD Rule 67 requirements for low VOC coatings.
Air-1 Short-term Air Quality Violations Reduction Measures. The following techniques to reduce
construction emissions shall be implemented during all construction activities:
1. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units (i.e., phase
construction to minimize impacts)
2. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment
3. Use electrical construction equipment as practical
4. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
5. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment
6. Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
7. Stabilize (for example hydroseed) graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize
fugitive dust
8. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust
Air-2 Dust Control Measures. Mitigation of PM10 impacts requires active dust control during
construction. As a matter of standard practice, the City of Chula Vista shall require the
following standard construction measures be included on all grading plans to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, and shall be implemented during construction to the extent
applicable:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable San
Diego APCD dust control agents twice daily during dust-generating activities to reduce
dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable APCD dust control agents shall be
applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and
spills.
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately
to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 31
May 2013
2.
routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry
weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible
and as directed by the city and/or APCD to reduce dust generation.
7. To the maximum extent feasible:
i. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection
systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction
activities.
ii. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
8. Equip construction equipment with pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together
with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, to the
extent available and feasible.
9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible.
10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be
minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
Air-3 Construction Best Management Practices. During all construction activities for the project,
the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following BMPs to reduce the
emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the following best management practices shall be included on all grading
plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be implemented during construction
to the extent applicable:
1. All construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology
devices certified by CARB. A copy of each unit’s best available control technology
documentation shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of
equipment.
2. Approach routes to the site shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt.
3. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the
construction site prior to public road entry.
4. Install wheel washers or rumble plates adjacent to a paved apron prior to any vehicle
entry on public roads.
5. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence.
6. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel
on unpaved surfaces has occurred.
7. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads.
8. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to
minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and
unloading queues should turn their engines off when not in use to reduce vehicle
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 32
May 2013
2.
emissions. Construction emissions should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions
peaks and shall be discontinued during second stage smog alerts.
9. During construction, site grading activities within 500 feet of a school in operation shall
be discontinued or all exposed surfaces shall be watered to minimize dust transport off-
site to the maximum degree feasible, when the wind velocity is greater than 15 miles
per hour in the direction of the school.
10. During blasting, utilize control measures to minimize fugitive dust. Control measures
may include, but are not limited to, blast enclosures, vacuum blasters, drapes, water
curtains, or wet blasting.
Operation
The Otay Ranch GDP Final Program EIR includes land use policies, siting/design policies, and
transportation-related management actions to mitigate operational emissions (Ogden 1992). All
applicable measures have already been incorporated into the SPA plan, such as provision of bike lanes,
providing services near residences, and providing transit support facilities such as bus stops, as listed in
the Project Description.
6.1.3 Significance after Mitigation
Construction
The 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR determined that construction emissions from implementation of the
GPA/GDPA would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the measures listed
in mitigation measure Air-1 through Air-3. However, construction emissions and emissions reductions
were not quantified because no specific construction details were available at the programmatic level of
analysis. Additionally, the GPA/GDPA SEIR mitigation measures only addressed fugitive dust emissions
(PM10 and PM2.5). Construction of the proposed project would also result in significant emissions of
nitrogen oxides during grading, and additional significant emissions of nitrogen oxides and VOCs would
result from simultaneous construction activities.
The Otay Ranch GDP Final Program EIR and GPA/GDPA SEIR do not quantify the emissions reductions
associated with the recommended BMPs. However, the URBEMIS 2007 provides emission reductions
for some of the BMPs required in the mitigation measures. Table 9 summarizes the construction related
emissions for a single phase of Village 8 West with implementation of mitigation measures Air-1 through
Air-4. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce significant emissions of nitrogen
oxides, PM10, and PM2.5 during grading and significant nitrogen oxides emissions during surface
improvements, but not to a less than significant level.
Additionally, simultaneous construction activities would still have the potential to result in exceedances
of the significance thresholds for VOCs, nitrogen oxides, PM10, and PM2.5. Additional available mitigation
measures to reduce emissions would require the use of electric powered earth movers or aqueous
diesel fuel. Use of electric power earth movers is not feasible because a large enough power source that
would be needed to supply energy to such large equipment is not available on the site. A commitment
to use aqueous diesel fuel is currently not feasible because this fuel is not widely used or available in San
Diego County. However, the project would incorporate electrically-powered tools and smaller
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 33
May 2013
2.
equipment that would be served by hard wired temporary power sources until more permanent power
sources are available. If a reliable source of diesel aqueous fuel becomes available, it would be used
during project construction. Use of an alternative fuel type of such as natural gas or propane instead of
electricity is not a feasible alternative because these fuels would increase nitrogen oxides and VOC
emissions. Therefore, construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Table 9 Mitigated Construction Maximum Daily Emissions by Activity (pounds/day)
Construction Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Mass Grading Total Emissions(1) 174 44 379 0 4,345 918
Trenching(2) 22 6 51 0 2 2
Surface Improvements (paving)(3) 52 15 121 0 5 4
Building Construction and Coating Phases(4) 161 36 81 0 4 3
Combined Daily Total for all Construction Activities (unmitigated) 409 101 632 0 4,356 927
Mitigated Emissions(5)
Mass Grading Total Emissions(1) 174 44 323 0 2,460 522
Trenching(2) 22 6 44 0 1 1
Surface Improvements (paving)(3) 52 15 103 0 4 3
Building Construction and Coating Phases(4) 161 36 72 0 4 3
Combined Daily Total for all Construction Activities (mitigated) 409 101 542 0 2,469 529
Significance Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Bold = Exceeds significance threshold
CO = carbon monoxide; VOC = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
Source: URBEMIS 2007. See Appendix A for data sheets.
Modeling assumptions: Emissions are based on assumptions for the Yellow phase, plus additional equipment added to account
for blasting within the Blue and Orange phases, and offsite improvements. Worst-case construction activities for the Yellow
phase were assumed to occur during 2013-2015. (1) Assumes a three-month period and a maximum land disturbance of 20 acres per day. A total of approximately 268 acres
would be disturbed over five development phases. A total of 4.7 million cubic yards would be graded and replaced within
the disturbance area, or 940,000 cubic yards in each phase. All cut material would be used on site and no hauling of
material off site would be required. Equipment list for grading includes an excavator, two graders, four heavy duty trucks,
five dozers, 12 scrapers, and two water trucks. A drill rig, crushing unit, and tractor would be required for blasting in the
Orange and Blue phases and are included in the modeled equipment list. (2) Assumes a two-month period. Equipment list includes two excavators, two dump trucks, a dozer, two backhoes, and a
water truck. (3) Assumes a two-month period. Paving and surface improvements would be required for approximately 12 percent of the
project area (31 acres), or six acres per phase. Assumes an additional two acres for offsite improvements. Equipment list
includes a grader, a paver, a roller, and 27 dump trucks and concrete trucks.
(4) Assumes a two-year period and architectural coating activities would occur simultaneously with the building construction
activities. Assumes building construction would require a total of 11 dump trucks and concrete trucks, an excavator, a
backhoe, and a water truck. Based on the Yellow phase, which includes development of 765 multi-family units, 126,000 SF
of commercial land use, a community park, and a middle school. Assumes model defaults for low VOC coating (250 grams
of VOC per liter or less). (5) Assumes use of diesel particulate filters and diesel oxidation catalysts for all equipment. Due to a calculation error in the
URBEMIS 2007 model, the total reduction in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that would occur as result of watering exposed
surfaces, applying chemical stabilizers, and replacing ground cover cannot be calculated because the URBEMIS 2007 model
overestimates the reduction in emissions. SCAQMD recommends application of the single highest control measure.
Watering twice daily was applied for the project. Additionally, emission reductions estimates are not available for all of the
BMPs. Emissions would likely be reduced compared to these estimates, but not to a less than significant level.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 34
May 2013
2.
Operation
The applicable measures of the Otay GDP Final Program EIR mitigation measures have already been
incorporated into the SPA Plan, such as provision of bike lanes, providing services near residences, and
providing transit support facilities such as bus stops. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available at the project level to reduce vehicular emissions other than reducing vehicle trips. The
project trip generation rates account for the approximately 40 percent reduction in vehicle trips that
would occur as a result of the mixed-use areas, transit use, and availability of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities proposed as part of the SPA Plan. In addition, future vehicular emissions may be lower than
estimated due to increasingly stringent California fuel efficiency requirements. Some measures cannot
be implemented at the SPA level, such as providing video-conference facilities in work places or
requiring flexible work schedules. Additionally, there are no feasible mitigation measures currently
available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers.
Operation emissions of VOCs, nitrogen oxides, and PM10 would be significant and unavoidable.
6.2 Issue 2: Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
CARB defines sensitive receptors as residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical
facilities, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely
affected by changes in air quality. The two primary pollutants of concern regarding health effects for
land development are carbon monoxide and diesel particulates. An analysis of the proposed project’s
potential to expose sensitive receptors is provided below.
6.2.1 Impact Analysis
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections and parking garages, have the potential
to create high concentrations of carbon monoxide, known as carbon monoxide hot spots. An air quality
impact is considered significant if carbon monoxide emissions create a hot spot where either the
California 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the federal and State eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm is
exceeded. This typically occurs at severely congested intersections (level of service [LOS] E or worse).
The air quality technical report for the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR determined that carbon monoxide hot
spots would not occur as a result of development under the GPA/GDPA because the SDAB is in
attainment of both the federal and state carbon monoxide standards, background carbon monoxide
concentrations are well below federal and state limits, and all studied intersections in the traffic report
prepared for the GPA/GDPA SEIR are projected to operate at LOS D or better.
The traffic study prepared for Village 8 West (RBF 2013) used project-level trip generation analysis and
distribution to evaluate the intersections in the project vicinity that would carry the majority of project
traffic. The traffic study analyzed the Existing + Project scenario, as well as three interim scenarios
(2015, 2020, 2025) and full project buildout (2030). The traffic study concluded that within each analysis
scenario, some intersections would operate at an LOS E or F. Intersections that operate at an LOS E or F
have the potential to generate carbon monoxide hot spots. In some locations, the interim scenario
resulted in a more congested intersection than the full buildout scenario, due to differences in project
trip distribution as roadway improvements are implemented. To estimate the most conservative
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 35
May 2013
2.
conditions for the hot spot analysis, carbon monoxide concentrations were analyzed at the most
congested intersection for each analysis scenario that would experience the longest delays:
■ Existing (2010) + Full Project Buildout: Main Street/Magdalena Avenue – LOS F (PM Peak Hour),
164 second delay
■ 2015 + Phased Project Buildout: Olympic Boulevard/I-805 northbound on-ramp – LOS F (AM
peak hour), 116 second delay
■ 2020 + Phased Project Buildout: Olympic Boulevard/I-805 northbound on-ramp – LOS F (AM
peak hour), 117 second delay
■ 2025 + Phased Project Buildout: Birch Road/Eastlake Boulevard – LOS F (PM peak hour), 454
second delay
■ 2030 + Full Project Buildout: Main Street/Magdalena Avenue – LOS F (PM Peak Hour),
144 second delay
The California Line Source (CALINE 4) model was used to estimate the potential carbon monoxide impact
at the above intersections during the most congested peak hour. Receptor locations were set 30 feet
from the roadway centerline at the intersection, although actual receptor locations are generally at a
greater distance. Carbon monoxide emission factors were generated using the EMFAC 2007 model,
using the carbon monoxide emission factor associated with the appropriate analysis year for the total
vehicle mix during conditions in January at a temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit and 50 percent
relative humidity. The assumed vehicle speed is 5 miles per hour. An ambient 1-hour carbon monoxide
concentration of 2.0 ppm was used to reflect ambient conditions, based on the data reported at the
Chula Vista air quality monitoring station. This concentration estimate is conservative for future years,
since carbon monoxide ambient concentrations have been showing a generally downward trend based
on historical data. Table 10 displays the estimated carbon monoxide concentrations at the nearest
receptor from the affected intersections. See Appendix A for model output data sheets.
Table 10 Estimated Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Analysis Scenario Intersection
1-Hour CO
Concentration (ppm)
8-Hour CO
Concentration (ppm) Impact?
Existing + Full Project Buildout Main Street/Magdalena Avenue 2.8 2.0 No
2015 + Phased Project Buildout Olympic Parkway/I-805
northbound on-ramp 3.5 2.4 No
2020 + Phased Project Buildout Olympic Parkway/I-805
northbound on-ramp 3.1 2.2 No
2025 + Phased Project Buildout Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway 3.0 2.1 No
2030 + Full Project Buildout Main Street/Magdalena Avenue 2.9 2.1 No
Significance Threshold 20.0 (State) /
35.0 (Federal)
9.0 (State and
Federal)
CO = carbon monoxide
See Appendix A for model output sheets.
Modeling assumptions: One-hour carbon monoxide concentrations were calculated using the worst-case wind angle scenario in
the CALINE 4 model. Receptor locations were set 30 feet from the roadway centerline. Carbon monoxide emission factors were
generated using the EMFAC 2007 model, using the carbon monoxide emission factor associated with the appropriate analysis
year for the total vehicle mix during conditions in January at a temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit and 50 percent relative
humidity. The assumed vehicle speed is 5 miles per hour. An ambient 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 2.0 ppm was
used to reflect ambient conditions. The 8-Hour carbon monoxide concentration is based on a persistence factor of 0.7 for
urban uses (Caltrans 1997).
Source: CALINE 4 using EMFAC 2007 emission factors.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 36
May 2013
2.
The highest estimated 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration would be 3.5 ppm at the Olympic
Parkway/I-805 northbound on-ramp intersection during the 2015 + Phased Project Buildout scenario.
This would not exceed the California 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the federal 1-hour standard of 35
ppm. Based on an urban persistence factor of 0.7 (for an urban area), the maximum cumulative 8-hour
carbon monoxide concentration at the intersection would be 2.4 ppm, which is below the 9 ppm
California and federal 8-hour standard. The carbon monoxide concentrations at all of the remaining
intersections under each scenario are also below the state and federal standards. Therefore, potential
carbon monoxide impacts are less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The Chula Vista General Plan addresses the siting of sensitive receptors to avoid exposure to TACs.
Objective E-6 in the General Plan is to improve local air quality by minimizing the production and
emission of air pollutants and TACs, and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants. This objective
includes the following policies related to TACs:
■ Policy E 6.4: Avoid siting new or re-powered energy-generation facilities and other major toxic
air emitters within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receiver or the placement of a sensitive receiver
within 1,000 feet of a major toxic emitter.
■ Policy E 6.10: The siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways resulting from
development or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a HRA as part of the
CEQA review of the project. Attendant health risks identified in the HRA shall be feasibly
mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure
that applicable federal and state standards are not exceeded.
The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective lists land uses that are
considered major air toxic emitters. These land uses are generally industrial and processing land uses
that require a permit from the SDAPCD to operate, including chrome plating facilities, refineries, rail
yards, and distribution centers. The SPA Plan proposes residential, mixed-use, school, and park land
uses. It does not propose any major toxic emitters. However, CARB does consider dry cleaning facilities
and gas stations to be stationary sources of TAC emissions that should not be located near sensitive
receptors. Based on CARB siting recommendations within the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, a
detailed HRA should be conducted for proposed sensitive receptors within 300 feet of a large gas station
(defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater), 50 feet of a “typical”
gas station (a facility with a throughput of less 3.6 million gallons per year), or within 300 feet of a dry
cleaning facility that uses perchloroethlyene (CARB 2005). Although the SPA Plan would include
primarily residential and commercial uses, the proposed land uses may allow the development of gas
stations and dry cleaning facilities, as these are common uses within mixed-use and resident-serving
development. Dry cleaning facilities and gas stations are allowable in the Town Center, subject to a
conditional use permit. However, only storefront dry cleaning facilities or facilities that do not use
perchloroethlyene are allowable in the Town Center, subject to a conditional use permit. Due to
physical size constraints, large gas stations with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or more
would not be permitted within the compact Town Center. Development of a typical-sized gas station in
Village 8 West would be possible, but would be subject to the CARB siting recommendations and would
not be allowed within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor. Additionally, new sources of TAC emissions such
as gas stations are required to obtain authority to construct and operate from the SDAPCD, at which
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 37
May 2013
2.
time location-specific details are analyzed. Sources must comply with established criteria, as established
in SDAPCD Rule 1200, requiring demonstration that risks are below thresholds and that sources are
constructed and operated with appropriate controls. Provided that new sources of TAC emissions
proposed within Village 8 West comply with SDAPCD standards, the impact associated with risk of toxic
exposure to sensitive receptors is considered less than significant.
The 2005 General Plan EIR lists the Otay Landfill as a major toxic emitter, and therefore new sensitive
uses such as residences should not be located within 1,000 feet of this facility. The health risk
assessment included in the technical appendices for the Final EIR for the Otay Landfill Development and
Expansion Plan indicated that the incremental excess cancer risk of 10 in 1 million was limited to an area
within 1,000 feet of the landfill (County of San Diego 2000). The proposed residences in Village 8 West
would be located more than 2 miles east of the Otay Landfill. Therefore, potential impacts associated
with TACs from the Otay Landfill are considered less than significant.
Exposure to diesel particulate matter generated by traffic on roadways is also a concern identified in the
Chula Vista General Plan Update and CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. City and CARB
guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway should be avoided.
CARB also recommends siting sensitive land uses more than 500 feet from urban roads with 100,000
vehicles per day. The air quality report prepared for the GPA/GDPA SEIR determined that significant
impacts from diesel particulate matter would not occur because the GPA/GDPA area, including Village 8
West, lies outside of the land use avoidance guidelines established by the CARB for roadways generating
more that 100,000 vehicle trips per day (I-805 and SR-905).
The nearest sensitive receptors to these roadways would be the single-family residences proposed at
the southern end of the project site. The nearest roadway, SR-905, is located approximately 1.5 miles
south of the project site and is outside of the avoidance guidelines. SR-125 would carry less than
100,000 trips per day. Additionally, this roadway is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the project
site. SR-125 would not result in significant diesel particulate matter concentrations at the project site.
The traffic impact analysis prepared for the project does not identify any roadway segments that would
carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day at build-out of the project (RBF 2013). Consequently, the
project lies well outside of the land use avoidance guidelines established by the CARB, thus impacts
related to toxic air emissions would be less than significant.
Sensitive receptors may also be exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions from land uses that
attract large numbers of diesel trucks or buses, such as distribution centers or regional transit centers.
The SPA Plan does not include any distribution centers. Commercial land uses would intermittently
attract diesel trucks for the delivery of goods. However, in 2004, the CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic
Control Measure (ATCM) to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public
exposure to diesel particulate matter and other TACs and their pollutants. The measure applies to
diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are
licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. The measure does not allow
diesel fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than five minutes at any given time. This measure
may be enforced by either the Chula Vista Police Department or the SDAPCD.
Potential localized air toxic impacts from on-site sources of diesel particulate matter would be minimal
since only a limited number of heavy-duty trucks would access the project site. The trucks that would
frequent the area would not idle for extended periods of time. Village 8 West does not include a transit
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 38
May 2013
2.
center; MTS buses would intermittently briefly idle at the proposed bus stops in the Town Center to load
and unload passengers. The MTS buses are subject to the CARB’s Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule and
Emission Standards for New Urban Buses (California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 1956). This
rule includes requirements for transit agencies to include alternative-fuel buses in their fleet, meet fleet-
wide nitrogen oxides and diesel particulate matter emissions reduction requirements, and zero-
emissions bus purchase requirements. As older buses are phased out under the CARB program, new
buses would either be alternatively fueled or powered by diesel engines with limited diesel particulate
matter emissions. In the meantime, fleet-wide emissions standards would reduce exposure to
emissions from older buses by reducing their use or installation of retrofits to reduce emissions.
Therefore, required compliance with existing CARB regulations would reduce potential impacts related
to commercial deliveries and bus service to a less than significant level.
Diesel particulate matter would result from operation of construction equipment. As shown in Table 7,
construction of Village 8 West would result in significant particulate matter emissions during grading
activities, including fugitive dust and diesel emissions from construction equipment. However, diesel
particulate matter is considered to have a long-term health effect (eight years or more) (CalEPA).
Grading would be a short-term event (a total of 15 months over five phases) and would be spaced
throughout the project site. Diesel particulate emissions from construction would be substantially
reduced following completion of grading. Additionally, the majority (98 percent) of particulate matter
emissions during grading are from fugitive dust. Emissions of particulate matter from diesel sources
during grading would be well below the significance thresholds. Therefore, emissions would not result
in a significant long-term health risk to surrounding receptors.
6.2.2 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to the exposure
of sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide hot spots and TACs. However, to assure compliance with
established criteria, the following mitigation measure is required.
Air-4 SDAPCD TAC Emission Criteria Compliance. Prior to approval of the building permit for any
uses that are regulated for TAC emissions by the SDAPCD, the project applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee)
that the use complies with established criteria (such as those established by SDAPCD Rule
1200 and CARB). Specifically, gas stations would not be allowed to be constructed within
50 feet of a sensitive receptor, in compliance with CARB siting recommendations.
6.2.3 Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation measure Air-4 ensures that any use within Village 8 West that emits TACs would comply with
SDAPCD criteria, and therefore impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 39
May 2013
2.
6.3 Issue 3: Objectionable Odors
6.3.1 Impact Analysis
Offensive odors can present a nuisance to the general public, but seldom result in permanent physical
damage. Offensive odors may cause agitation, anger, and concern to the public, especially in residential
neighborhoods located near major sources of odor.
Construction associated with implementation of the project could result in minor amounts of odor
compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust. However, construction equipment would
be operating at various locations throughout the project site and construction would not take place all
at once. The use of architectural coatings and solvents may also emit odors from the evaporation of
volatile organic compounds. SDAPCD Rule 67 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from
coatings and solvents, and the project would incorporate the use of low-VOC coatings. In addition,
construction near existing sensitive receptors would be temporary. Therefore, consistent with the
findings of the air quality technical report for the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR, impacts associated with
nuisance odors during project construction would not be significant.
The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook identifies a list of the most common sources of odor
complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as
sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations.
The project proposes the development of residential, commercial, school, and park land uses.
Residential development does not typically result in a source of nuisance odors associated with
operation. The project does not propose any specific new sources of odor that could affect sensitive
receptors. The mixed-use Town Center would potentially result in residences located near commercial
land uses with the potential to generate some odors, such as refuse containers or kitchen exhaust vents
for restaurants. However, these odor sources would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 51, which
prohibits nuisance odors.
The Otay Landfill, located approximately two miles west of the project site, is considered to be a major
odor-generating facility in Chula Vista. This facility has the potential to produce odors that can be
detected outside of the landfill boundary. Odor control practices are in place at all landfills, and odor
control is under the purview of the SDAPCD. Landfill odor control practices include application of odor
absorbing materials or collecting and treating gases from the landfill before they are released into the
surrounding community.
The 2005 General Plan EIR included a summary of the health risk assessment that was conducted to
support the Final EIR prepared for the Otay Landfill Development and Expansion Plan (County of San
Diego 2000). As part of the expansion, the landfill was also upgraded to include control odor facilities,
such as installing flares to dispose of excess landfill gases. This assessment also included an evaluation
of nuisance odor issues. The analysis indicated that a buffer of 1,000 feet should be used as a screening
threshold for health risk and nuisance odor impacts. The EIR included mitigation measure 5.11-2 that
requires that no residential use be permitted within 1,000 feet of the Otay Landfill while the landfill was
open and operating, unless a project-specific analysis is completed demonstrating that odor effects are
below the odor thresholds for common compounds emitted by the landfill. One such compound is
hydrogen sulfide, which has an odor threshold of 0.0045 ppm.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 40
May 2013
2.
The distance between the landfill and the proposed residences within the Village 8 West SPA plan (two
miles) is beyond the screening distance (1,000 feet) established by the General Plan EIR as resulting in a
significant impact. However, even at a distance of two miles, it is possible that odors from the Otay
Landfill may be detected occasionally (depending on wind direction or other meteorological factors) by
the proposed residents of Village 8 West. Facilities that cause nuisance odors are subject to
enforcement action by the SDAPCD. Regarding odor impacts, the California Health and Safety Code
Section 41700 and SDAPCD Rule 51 prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of
air contaminants or other material, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public
health or damage to property. The SDAPCD responds to odor complaints by investigating the complaint
determining whether the odor violates SDAPCD Rule 51. The inspector takes enforcement action if the
source is not in compliance with the SDAPCD rules and regulations (SDAPCD 2010). In the event of
enforcement action, odor-causing impacts must be mitigated by appropriate means to reduce the
impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Such means include shutdown of odor sources or
requirements to control odors using add-on equipment.
Therefore, consistent with the air quality technical report for the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR, the project
would not create or result in objectionable odors that may affect a substantial number of people, and
odor impacts are less than significant.
6.3.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
6.4 Issue 4: Consistency with Regional Plans
6.4.1 Impact Analysis
The air quality plans relevant to this discussion are the SIP and RAQS. The SIP includes strategies and
tactics to be used to attain and maintain acceptable air quality in the SDAB based on the NAAQS; while
the RAQS includes strategies for the Basin to meet the CAAQS. Consistency with the RAQS is typically
determined by two standards. The first standard is whether the proposed project would exceed growth
assumptions contained in the RAQS. If the proposed project would exceed the RAQS growth
assumptions, the second standard is whether the proposed project would increase the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations, contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of
air quality standards or interim reductions as specified in the RAQS.
The RAQS rely on information from the CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions,
as well as information regarding projected growth in the County of San Diego, to forecast future
emissions and then determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through
regulatory controls. The CARB mobile source emissions projections and the SANDAG growth projections
are based on population and vehicle use trends and land use plans developed by the cities and the
County as part of the development of their respective general plans. As such, projects that propose
development consistent with, or less than, the growth projections anticipated by a general plan would
be consistent with the RAQS. The growth projections in the RAQS, most recently updated in 2009, are
based on the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan prepared by SANDAG (2003). For Village 8 West, the
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 41
May 2013
2.
City of Chula Vista General Plan is the document governing future land use that was considered as part
of SANDAG’s projections. The growth projections for the City of Chula Vista in the City’s General Plan
and the General Plan EIR, adopted in December 2005, are consistent with the projections in the 2030
Regional Transportation Plan. However, the General Plan was amended in 2013. The amendment
increased the number of units in Village 8 West by 494 units. This project is consistent with the General
Plan as amended but since the RAQS have not yet been updated to be consistent with the General Plan,
this project is inconsistent with the RAQS.
Because the proposed project would conflict with the growth assumptions of the RAQS, it is subject to
the second criterion for determining consistency with the RAQS: whether the proposed project would
increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, contribute to new violations, or delay
the timely attainment of air quality standards or interim reductions as specified in the RAQS.
The City has experienced violations of the state and federal ozone, state PM10, and state and federal PM
2.5 ambient air quality standards between 2008 and 2010. The SDAB is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for the state standard for PM 10, PM 2.5, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal
8-Hour standard for ozone. The proposed project would allow residential, mixed use, school, and park
uses. It is not anticipated that development constructed as a result of the proposed project would result
in significant stationary sources that would result in any air quality violations. As shown in Table 8,
PM10, and PM2.5 unmitigated emissions from area sources are less than significant; however emissions of
VOCs, an ozone precursor, would be significant.
Additionally, the proposed project would also have the potential to result in air pollutant emissions from
increased traffic on area roadways that may lead to air quality violations, consistent with the conclusion
in the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR air quality technical report. As shown in Table 8, pollutant emissions from
vehicular emissions alone would exceed the thresholds for PM10. Additionally, construction of the
proposed project would result in temporary significant emissions of VOCs, nitrogen oxides, PM10, and
PM2.5. Operational and construction emissions would be significant and unavoidable, even with
implementation of BMPs and other mitigation in measures GDP EIR-1, GPA/GDPA SEIR 5.5.5-1, and V8W
Air-1. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion of the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR air quality technical report,
emissions from the project may lead to air quality violations.
The project would be consistent with all applicable transportation and area source control measures
proposed in the RAQS to reduce emissions in the region, as shown in Table 11. However,
implementation of the project would exceed the growth projections in the RAQS and would exceed the
significant thresholds for ozone precursors and particulate matter during construction and operation.
Therefore, impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would be potentially
significant.
6.4.2 Mitigation Measures
As discussed under Issue 1, mitigation measures Air-1 through Air-3 would reduce construction
emissions of VOC, nitrogen oxides, PM10, and PM2.5. However, even with implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures, construction and operational impacts would exceed the significance thresholds
and contribute to potential air quality violations. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 42
May 2013
2.
applicable air quality plans would also be significant and unavoidable, consistent with the conclusion of
the GPA/GDPA SEIR air quality analysis.
Table 11 Project Consistency with RAQS Control Measures
RAQS Control Measure Proposed Project Consistency
Transit Improvements Village 8 West would be transit ready for future extension of transit service into the area.
Transit service would consist of bus service, including Rapid Bus Service. The bus system
would provide local connections between residential, employment, and major activity centers
within Village 8 West and Otay Ranch, as well as regional connections. Additionally, Rapid
Bus Service has a higher level of service with more frequent headways and is designed to be
faster and easier for riders to use than traditional bus service. Two potential transit stops are
proposed on the project site.
Park-and-Ride Facilities The SPA Plan and TM does not specifically propose park and ride facilities; however, the SPA
plan is designed to provide transit stops in easily accessible areas and provide bicycle and
pedestrian connections to transit stops so the transit riders would not need to drive to transit
stops.
Bicycle Facilities Within the Town Center, on-street bike lanes would be provided. Main vehicular
thoroughfares would include dedicated, striped, on-street Class II bike lanes. Local streets
would not provide dedicated lanes for bicycles; however, the traffic volumes on parkway
residential streets would be low enough to accommodate bicycles as well as vehicles. A
village pathway that currently terminates at the south end of Magdalena Avenue would be
extended through the project site and would provide a multi-use trail. A greenbelt trail would
ultimately connect to the Salt Creek Trail as part of the Otay Valley Regional Park system.
Smart Growth Development SANDAG’S Smart Growth Concept Map identifies Village 8 West as a Community Center to
provide low to mid-rise residential and commercial buildings within one quarter mile of a
transit center. The Village 8 West SPA Plan is consistent with this concept. The proposed
project promotes smart growth principles such as mixed-use development, a range of housing
choices, walkability, proximity to employment centers, environmentally sensitive design,
providing adequate infrastructure, and by providing a variety of transportation choices.
Pedestrian Facilities The pedestrian circulation network includes an interconnected system of village pathways,
sidewalks, and rural trails. All streets in Village 8 West would include a sidewalk or trail.
Multiple pathways would be provided through parks, the Town Center, and multi-family
neighborhoods to provide direct pedestrian connections between the various transects in
Village 8 West and to adjacent villages.
Traffic Calming Practices The SPA Plan and TM would implement several traffic calming measures including urban
couplets; intersection bulb-outs; narrow, multi-modal streets; and a circulation pattern
design with multiple connections to more evenly distribute traffic.
Support Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit is the highest level of transit service being considered for the Otay Ranch
area. Village 8 West supports extension of the transit system by providing accessible transit
stops and accommodating reserved transit lanes on project roadways.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 43
May 2013
2.
6.5 Cumulative Impacts
6.5.1 Consistency with Air Quality Standards and
Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Emissions
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to criteria air pollutants is the
SDAB. San Diego County is presently designated as being a non-attainment area for the NAAQS ozone
standard. The County is also a non-attainment area for the CAAQS standards for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5.
Therefore, a significant cumulative impact to air quality for ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx), PM10, and
PM2.5 currently exists. Consequently, the greatest concern involving criteria pollutants is whether a
project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10, PM2.5, or exceed screening-
level criteria thresholds of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX).
A localized pollutant concentration analysis is applicable to the analysis of the cumulative impacts of
construction emissions because construction emissions would be temporary. Pollutant emissions would
disperse or settle out following construction and would not contribute to long-term concentrations of
emissions in the SDAB. Long-term regional impacts associated with operation of Village 8 West are
discussed below. Short-term emissions from construction would present a localized health concern if
multiple construction projects would take place at the same time and would exceed the significance
thresholds. Therefore, construction projects that do not take place at the same time do not contribute
to the same short-term cumulative impact.
The City has not adopted specific emission thresholds by which to evaluate the significance of air quality
impacts of projects within its jurisdiction. Additionally, the SDAPCD has not established screening
thresholds for localized impacts. In lieu of any set quantitative air quality significance thresholds for
localized impacts, the Localized Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD (SCAQMD 2009) are
used to determine potential cumulative impacts. Based on the thresholds, NOx emissions decrease
approximately 95 percent beyond approximately 1,300 meters (4,270 feet). Therefore, cumulative
projects 4,270 feet from project site are excluded from the cumulative NOx analysis. According to the
Localized Significance Thresholds, PM10 decreases approximately 95 percent by 400 meters (1,300 feet),
and PM2.5 by 440 meters (1,430 feet). SCAQMD has not established a threshold for VOCs. However,
VOCs disperse quickly (California Indoor Air Quality 2011); therefore, it is assumed that VOC pollutant
concentrations would disperse by 95 percent beyond 4,270 feet, similar to NOx. Therefore, cumulative
projects 1,300 feet from the project site are excluded from the cumulative PM10 analysis, projects 1,430
feet from the site are excluded from the PM2.5, and projects 4,270 feet from the site are excluded from
the cumulative VOC analysis.
The closest cumulative projects to the project site with the potential to generate cumulative
construction emissions are Village 4, adjacent to the western edge of the project site, and Village 8 East,
adjacent to the eastern edge of the project site. Similar to the proposed project, these villages would be
completed in several development phases. Construction would not occur across the entire project site
at once. It is unlikely that development of Village 8 West and an adjacent village would occur
concurrently along the edge of the project site. The Village 4 and Village 8 East projects propose similar
mixed-use development as Village 8 West and are assumed to require a similar construction schedule
and equipment list. Due to the length of construction period for the proposed project and adjacent
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 44
May 2013
2.
projects, it is possible that concurrent construction would take place within the cumulative impact
screening distances. The GPA/GDPA air quality analysis determined that implementation of BMPs for
construction would reduce impacts to a less than significant level; however, construction emissions and
emissions reductions from BMPs were not quantified. Therefore, additional analysis was required for
the proposed project construction emissions due to the programmatic level of analysis. The proposed
project would result in potentially significant NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during construction, as
shown in Table 7, and potentially significant VOC emissions if construction phases would occur
simultaneously. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant impact. Mitigation measures Air-1 through Air-3 would reduce impacts, but
not to below the significance thresholds. Impacts would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.
Operation of the project would emit carbon monoxide, VOCs, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Neither the City of
Chula Vista nor the SCAQMD has established thresholds for determining cumulative air quality impacts.
The SCAQMD cumulative methodology is based on performance standards and emission reduction
targets to comply the air quality plans for the South Coast Air Basin. These plans are not applicable to
the SDAB; therefore, this methodology does not apply to the proposed project. According to the County
of San Diego significance threshold, which does apply to projects in the SDAB, a project would result in a
significant cumulatively considerable contribution to an air quality impact if the project does not
conform to the RAQS or if the project has a significant direct impact to air quality. Most of the
cumulative projects that would occur in the project area are planned growth consistent with the Otay
Ranch GDP and City General Plan, consistent with the 2005 General Plan growth projections that are
accounted for in the RAQS. However, the proposed project would exceed the growth projections of the
RAQS and would potentially conflict with the RAQS, as discussed in Issue 4. Additionally, as shown in
Table 8, the proposed project would result in significant emissions of VOCs, NOx, and PM10 during
operation. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in a cumulatively considerable and unavoidable contribution to a significant cumulative impact,
consistent with the conclusion of the GPA/GDPA air quality analysis.
6.5.2 Sensitive Receptors
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to sensitive receptors is the SDAB.
Cumulative impacts related to carbon monoxide and TACs are discussed below.
Carbon Monoxide
The traffic study prepared for the project evaluated the intersections in the project vicinity that would
carry the majority of project traffic. The traffic study analyzed the Existing + Project scenario, as well as
three interim scenarios (2015, 2020, 2025) and full project buildout (2030). The traffic impact analysis
for the project analyzed potential traffic impacts from buildout of the proposed project and cumulative
growth in the region under each phase of development. Table 10 shows the maximum carbon
monoxide concentration that would result from the most congested intersections in the study area
during interim development phases and full project buildout in 2030. As shown in this table, a carbon
monoxide hot spot would not occur at the most congested intersections that would operate at LOS F
with implementation of the proposed project in combination with cumulative growth. The cumulative
impact related to carbon monoxide hot spots would be less than significant.
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 45
May 2013
2.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Impacts related to siting new sensitive receptors near sources of TACs would generally be site specific
because the placement of one sensitive receptor near a source of TACs would not affect the placement
of other sensitive receptors. However, a cumulative impact could occur if cumulative projects propose
new sources of the TACs that would result in the exposure of people in surrounding projects to
significant TAC emissions. Future development in the villages surrounding Village 8 West, including
Village 4, Village 8 East, Village 2, and Village 7 propose similar development compared to the proposed
project, including residential, commercial and park uses. As described in Issue 2, these land uses are not
considered major toxic emitters. However, these developments would potentially include gas stations.
Based on CARB siting recommendations, a detailed HRA should be conducted for proposed sensitive
receptors within 300 feet of a large gas station or 50 feet of a typical gas station (CARB 2005). These
uses would be sited to serve the village in which they are placed. In addition, new emitters of TACs
would need to comply with SDAPCD criteria, such as Rule 1200, and mitigation measure Air-4 requires
that these uses demonstrate SDAPCD compliance to the City. Due to the limited range for potential
impacts from these sources, development of gas stations in one village would not result in the exposure
of sensitive receptors in another village to substantial TAC emissions. Similar to the proposed project,
potential diesel particulate matter emissions from commercial land uses and bus routes proposed in the
adjacent villages would be subject to existing CARB regulations that would reduce potential impacts
related to commercial deliveries and bus service to a less than significant level. Therefore, cumulative
impacts related to TACs would be less than significant.
6.5.3 Objectionable Odors
Impacts relative to objectionable odors are generally limited to the area in close vicinity to the odor
source and are not cumulative in nature because the air emissions that cause odors disperse beyond the
sources of the odor. As the emissions disperse, the odor becomes less and less detectable. Further,
nuisance odor issues are regulated by the SDAPCD through Rule 51. Similar to the proposed project,
none of the adjacent villages propose development that is a typical source of odor complaints.
Therefore, a cumulatively significant impact associated with objectionable odors would not occur.
6.5.4 Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to consistency with air quality
plans is the SDAB. The RAQS and SIP are intended to address cumulative impacts in the SDAB based on
future growth predicted by in the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update. As discussed above, the
SDAB is currently a nonattainment area for state and federal standards for ozone, and state standards
for PM10, and PM2.5. Development consistent with the applicable general plan would be generally
consistent with the growth projections in the air quality plans. However, a project that conflicts with
these growth projections would conflict with the RAQS and SIP and result in cumulative impact.
Cumulative development generally would not be expected to result in a significant impact in terms of
conflicting with RAQS because the cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate that the
proposed development is consistent with local planning documents, such as the Otay Ranch GDP and
City General Plan. However, as discussed in Issue 4, the proposed project would exceed the growth
projections accounted for in the RAQS and SIP, and would potentially contribute to a regional
exceedance of air quality violations. Operational emissions of VOCs, NOx, and PM10 would be significant
7.0 REFERENCES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 46
May 2013
2.
and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable and
unavoidable contribution to a potentially significant cumulative impact.
6.6 Conclusion
Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to exceed the significance thresholds for
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and VOCs if construction phases would occur simultaneously. Mitigation
measures Air-1 through Air-3 would reduce NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction, but not
to a less than significant level. Operation of the proposed project would have the potential result in
significant emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Criteria
pollutant emissions during construction and operations would result in significant and unavoidable
direct and cumulative impacts. No carbon monoxide hot spots would occur as a result of the project
and the project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial diesel particulate
matter emissions. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in new sources of TACs in close
proximity to sensitive receptors. Mitigation measure Air-4 ensures that proposed emitters of TACs
demonstrate compliance with SDAPCD criteria and impacts related to TAC emissions are less than
significant. Cumulative impacts related to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No direct
or cumulative impacts related to objectionable odors would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures
are required. The proposed project would exceed the growth projections in the RAQS and contribute to
potential air quality violations. Mitigation measures Air-1 through Air-3 would reduce impacts, but not
to a less than significant level. Direct and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The
results of this air quality report have been incorporated into the project’s AQIP, which is included in the
SPA for Village 8 West.
7.0 References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2004. 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan
for Carbon Monoxide. July 22.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective. April.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006. EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 1.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Revised September 8,
2010. Accessed on February 3, 2011, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010b. Gaseous Criteria Pollutants. December 10. Accessed June
3, 2011, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/criteria.htm
7.0 REFERENCES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 47
May 2013
2.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Ambient Air Quality Data Statistics – Top 4 Measurements
and Days Above the Standard. Accessed September 21, 2011, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. 2011 Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards – Ozone, PM10, PM2.5, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Lead, Sulfur Dioxide,
Sulfates, Hydrogen Sulfide, Visibility Reducing Particulates. September. Accessed February 16,
2012, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment
Guidelines – The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. August.
California Indoor Air Quality. 2011. VOC Questions. Accessed May 31, 2011, available at http://www.cal-
iaq.org/vocs/voc-questions
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1989. CALINE 4 – A Dispersion Model for Predicting
Air Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadways. Version 1.32. June 1989.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol. Revised December 1997.
City of Chula Vista. 2005a. Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan. December 13.
City of Chula Vista. 2005b. Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact
Report. December.
City of Chula Vista. 2011. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Land Company
General Plan Amendment and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (SEIR 09-01).
Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc.
County of San Diego. 2000. Final Environmental Impact Report – Otay Landfill Development and
Expansion Plan, Volume 1. Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde for the Department of
Planning and Land Use. February.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2001. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust fact
sheet. May 21. Accessed in May 2010, available at
http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/diesel4-02.pdf
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report Otay
Ranch (EIR 90-01). December.
Recon. 2011. Air Quality Technical Report for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment/
General Plan Amendment.
RBF Consulting, Inc. 2013. Otay Ranch Village 8 West Traffic Impact Analysis Report. March 8.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 1969. SDAPCD Regulation IV, Rule 51. January 1.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2001. SDAPCD Regulation IV, Rule 67 – Architectural
Coatings. December 12.
7.0 REFERENCES
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Air Quality Technical Report
Page 48
May 2013
2.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San
Diego County. December.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2007a. Air Quality is San Diego, 2007 Annual Report.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2007b. Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San
Diego County. May 2007.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009a. The San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy
Revision. April.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009b. Compliance Advisory – Notice of Adoption of
New Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. September 23.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2010. Nuisance Complaint Program. June 12, 2000.
Available at http://www.sdapcd.org/comply/complaint/complaint_prog.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. Appendix C – Mass Rate Localized
Significance Thresholds (LST) Look-Up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009. Accessed June 18,
2010, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/appC.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Thresholds of Significance. Accessed in
May, 2010, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/lst/lst.html
United Nations Environmental Programme, Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles. 2010. Middle East,
North Africa, and West Asia Lead Matrix. April.
URS. 2012. Otay Land Company Village 8 West Biological Resources Report. August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Section 13.2.6, Abrasive Blasting. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. The Cost and Benefit of the Clean Air Act: 1990-
2010, Appendix D—Human Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality. Updated
April 23. Accessed November 3, 2010, available at http://www.epa.gov/iedweb00/co.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for all
Criteria Pollutants. April 21. Accessed August 23, 2011, available at
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#CALIFORNIA
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2011a. Lower Otay Reservoir, California (045162), Period of
Record Monthly Climate Summary. Accessed February 3, 2011, available at
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5162
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2011b. Bonita, California (040968), Period of Record Monthly
Climate Summary. Accessed February 3, 2011, available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0968
Air Quality Data
SO
2
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.000.000.00
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
14
.
9
4
14
.
9
4
0.
0
0
13.7413.7444,418.15
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
43
.
6
9
37
9
.
1
4
16
7
.
8
8
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
4,
3
3
0
.
0
0
90
4
.
2
8
0.00904.280.00
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
D
u
s
t
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
4,
3
3
0
.
0
0
14
.
9
6
4,
3
4
5
.
0
1
90
4
.
2
9
13.76918.0645,319.56
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
08
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
43
.
8
7
37
9
.
4
8
17
3
.
9
9
0.
0
1
4,
3
3
0
.
0
4
14
.
9
6
4,
3
4
5
.
0
1
90
4
.
2
9
13.76918.0645,319.56
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO2
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
8
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
A
c
t
i
v
e
Da
y
s
:
6
5
43
.
8
7
37
9
.
4
8
17
3
.
9
9
0.
0
1
4,
3
3
0
.
0
4
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
S
u
mm
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
RO
G
NO
x
CO
SO
2
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1
0
2.
5
7
3.
6
8
0.
4
0
2.322.7134,195.92
4.
1
2
0.
4
0
2.723.1234,195.92
20
1
5
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
34
.
9
2
64
.
3
9
15
0
.
7
8
1.
1
1
20
1
5
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
63
.
4
5
71
.
7
0
15
0
.
7
8
1.
1
1
3.
0
1
3.
9
8
0.
4
0
2.592.9934,197.32
20
1
4
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
35
.
8
6
72
.
5
4
16
1
.
0
7
1.
1
1
2.
8
7
3.
3
7
4.
4
8
0.
4
0
3.063.4534,197.32
20
1
4
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
64
.
4
9
80
.
7
7
16
1
.
0
7
1.
1
1
11
.
2
3
2,
4
5
9
.
8
9
51
1
.
3
8
10.33521.7145,319.56
4,
3
4
5
.
0
1
90
4
.
2
9
13.76918.0645,319.56
20
1
3
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
43
.
8
7
32
2
.
6
1
17
3
.
9
9
2,
4
4
8
.
6
6
20
1
3
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
43
.
8
7
37
9
.
4
8
17
3
.
9
9
4,
3
3
0
.
0
4
14
.
9
6
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM2.5 PM2.5CO2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
S
o
u
t
h
C
o
a
s
t
A
Q
M
D
On
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
O
F
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
Su
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
CO
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
Ur
b
e
m
i
s
2
0
0
7
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
9
.
2
.
4
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
(
P
o
u
n
d
s
/
D
a
y
)
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
H
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
1
0
0
0
1
9
6
6
2
O
t
a
y
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
s
8
W
&
9
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
\
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
8
W
e
s
t
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
R
e
p
o
rt
\
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
D
a
t
a
\
V
8
W
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
0
2
2
0
1
2
.
u
r
b
9
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
V
8
W
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00114.46
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
51
.
9
9
0.
0
4
0.
6
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
5
7
1.
4
7
0.
3
3
0.480.8019,086.02
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
3.
1
9
6.
1
2
11
2
.
3
3
0.
2
0
0.
9
0
0.
6
8
0.
8
8
0.
0
7
0.620.695,730.33
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
1.
6
8
16
.
7
7
16
.
2
4
0.
0
5
0.
2
0
1.
7
6
1.
7
6
0.
0
0
1.621.629,265.11
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
6.
6
0
48
.
7
7
21
.
5
4
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
3.
0
1
4.
1
1
0.
3
9
2.723.1134,081.47
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
11
.
4
6
71
.
6
6
15
0
.
1
0
0.
2
6
1.
1
0
3.
0
1
4.
1
2
0.
4
0
2.723.1234,195.92
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
2
6
1
63
.
4
5
71
.
7
0
15
0
.
7
8
0.
2
6
1.
1
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00114.47
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
0
2
0.
0
4
0.
7
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.000.000.00
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
51
.
9
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00114.47
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
51
.
9
9
0.
0
4
0.
7
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
5
7
1.
4
7
0.
3
3
0.480.8019,087.65
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
3.
4
9
6.
6
8
12
0
.
6
4
0.
2
0
0.
9
0
0.
7
8
0.
9
8
0.
0
7
0.710.785,730.09
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
1.
8
6
19
.
1
6
17
.
6
3
0.
0
5
0.
2
0
2.
0
3
2.
0
3
0.
0
0
1.861.869,265.11
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
7.
1
5
54
.
8
9
22
.
0
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
3.
3
7
4.
4
7
0.
3
9
3.053.4534,082.85
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
.
5
0
80
.
7
3
16
0
.
3
4
0.
2
6
1.
1
0
3.
3
7
4.
4
8
0.
4
0
3.063.4534,197.32
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
2
6
0
64
.
4
9
80
.
7
7
16
1
.
0
7
0.
2
6
1.
1
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
7
0.
0
2
0.020.04932.48
Pa
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
1
9
0.
3
5
6.
3
3
0.
0
1
0.
0
4
0.
0
6
0.
0
7
0.
0
0
0.050.06290.14
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0.
1
2
1.
5
1
0.
5
8
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
4.
6
5
4.
6
5
0.
0
0
4.284.2817,574.03
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
14
.
5
7
11
8
.
7
4
45
.
1
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.000.000.00
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
-
G
a
s
0.
5
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
4.
7
4
4.
7
9
0.
0
2
4.364.3818,796.65
As
p
h
a
l
t
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
15
.
3
8
12
0
.
6
0
52
.
0
6
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
4.
7
4
4.
7
9
0.
0
2
4.364.3818,796.65
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
4
3
15
.
3
8
12
0
.
6
0
52
.
0
6
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
0.010.01248.66
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
0
5
0.
0
9
1.
6
9
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
1.
9
0
1.
9
0
0.
0
0
1.751.757,159.01
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
6.
1
1
51
.
3
9
20
.
1
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
1.
9
0
1.
9
2
0.
0
0
1.751.767,407.67
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
6.
1
6
51
.
4
8
21
.
8
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
1.
9
0
1.
9
2
0.
0
0
1.751.767,407.67
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
9
/
2
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
4
4
6.
1
6
51
.
4
8
21
.
8
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
7
0.
0
2
0.020.04901.40
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
1
8
0.
3
4
6.
1
2
0.
0
1
0.
0
4
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
1
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
2
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
9
/
2
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
2
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
4
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
4
7
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
(
4
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
0
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
(
1
7
4
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
1
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
4
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
3
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
2
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
5
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
(
3
7
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
12
S
c
r
a
p
e
r
s
(
4
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
3
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
On
R
o
a
d
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
a
v
e
l
(
V
M
T
)
:
0
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
1
B
o
r
e
/
D
r
i
l
l
R
i
g
s
(
29
1
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
5
l
oa
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
C
r
a
w
l
e
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
1
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
4
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
C
r
u
s
h
i
n
g
/
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
(
3
1
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
8
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
4
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
a
s
e
:
M
a
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
8
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
M
a
s
s
S
i
t
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
/
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
c
r
e
s
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
:
5
2
.
2
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
i
l
y
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
:
2
0
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
D
e
t
a
i
l
:
L
o
w
O
n
s
i
t
e
C
u
t
/
F
i
l
l
:
3
5
0
0
0
c
u
b
i
c
y
a
r
d
s
/
d
a
y
;
O
f
f
s
i
t
e
C
u
t
/
F
i
l
l
:
0
c
u
b
i
c
y
a
r
d
s
/
d
a
y
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00114.46
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
0
2
0.
0
4
0.
6
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.000.000.00
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
51
.
9
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
1
0
0
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
8
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
8
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
1
0
0
Ru
l
e
:
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
ns
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
ns
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
1
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
4
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
11
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
2
8
6
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
2
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
1
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
27
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
2
8
1
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
8
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
P
a
v
e
r
s
(
1
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
R
o
l
l
e
r
s
(
1
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
Ph
a
s
e
:
P
a
v
i
n
g
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
P
a
v
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ac
r
e
s
t
o
b
e
P
a
v
e
d
:
8
.
2
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
1
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
(
1
5
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
1
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
1.
4
7
0.
3
3
0.480.8019,087.650.710.785,730.09
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
3.
4
9
6.
6
8
12
0
.
6
4
0.
2
0
0.
9
0
0.
5
7
9,265.11
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
1.
8
6
19
.
1
6
17
.
6
3
0.
0
5
0.
2
0
0.
7
8
0.
9
8
0.
0
7
0.
0
0
1.
5
2
1.
5
2
0.
0
0
1.401.40
3.
9
7
0.
3
9
2.592.9834,082.85
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
7.
1
5
46
.
6
6
22
.
0
7
0.
0
0
2.592.9934,197.32
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
.
5
0
72
.
5
0
16
0
.
3
4
0.
2
6
1.
1
0
2.
8
6
932.48
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
2
6
0
35
.
8
6
72
.
5
4
16
1
.
0
7
0.
2
6
1.
1
1
2.
8
7
3.
9
8
0.
4
0
0.
0
4
0.
0
3
0.
0
7
0.
0
2
0.020.04
0.
0
7
0.
0
0
0.050.06290.14
Pa
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
1
9
0.
3
5
6.
3
3
0.
0
1
3.213.2117,574.03
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0.
1
2
1.
5
1
0.
5
8
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
6
0.00
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
14
.
5
7
10
0
.
9
3
45
.
1
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
3.
4
9
3.
4
9
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.000.00
3.
6
3
0.
0
2
3.293.3118,796.65
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
-
G
a
s
0.
5
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
3.293.3118,796.65
As
p
h
a
l
t
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
15
.
3
8
10
2
.
7
9
52
.
0
6
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
3.
5
7
248.66
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
4
3
15
.
3
8
10
2
.
7
9
52
.
0
6
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
3.
5
7
3.
6
3
0.
0
2
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
0.010.01
1.
4
2
0.
0
0
1.311.317,159.01
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
0
5
0.
0
9
1.
6
9
0.
0
0
1.321.327,407.67
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
6.
1
1
43
.
6
8
20
.
1
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
1.
4
2
7,407.67
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
6.
1
6
43
.
7
7
21
.
8
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
1.
4
3
1.
4
4
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
1.
4
3
1.
4
4
0.
0
0
1.321.32
0.
0
7
0.
0
2
0.020.04901.40
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
9
/
2
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
4
4
6.
1
6
43
.
7
7
21
.
8
1
0.
0
0
0.000.000.00
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
1
8
0.
3
4
6.
1
2
0.
0
1
0.
0
4
0.
0
2
44,418.15
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
11
.
2
0
11
.
2
0
0.
0
0
10.3110.31
2,
4
4
8
.
6
2
51
1
.
3
7
0.00511.370.00
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
43
.
6
9
32
2
.
2
7
16
7
.
8
8
0.
0
0
10.33521.7145,319.56
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
D
u
s
t
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
2,
4
4
8
.
6
2
0.
0
0
45,319.56
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
08
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
43
.
8
7
32
2
.
6
1
17
3
.
9
9
0.
0
1
2,
4
4
8
.
6
6
11
.
2
3
2,
4
5
9
.
8
9
51
1
.
3
8
2,
4
4
8
.
6
6
11
.
2
3
2,
4
5
9
.
8
9
51
1
.
3
8
10.33521.71
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO2
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
8
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
A
c
t
i
v
e
Da
y
s
:
6
5
43
.
8
7
32
2
.
6
1
17
3
.
9
9
0.
0
1
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
Su
m
m
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
RO
G
NO
x
CO
SO
2
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
5
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
5
5
%
Fo
r
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
0.000.00114.46
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
P
h
a
s
e
:
M
a
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
ng
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
8
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
M
a
s
s
S
i
t
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
/
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
ri
p
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
S
o
i
l
S
t
a
b
l
i
z
i
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
e
W
a
t
e
r
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
2
x
d
a
i
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
0.00
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
0
2
0.
0
4
0.
6
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.000.00
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00114.46
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
23
.
4
3
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.480.8019,086.02
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
23
.
4
5
0.
0
4
0.
6
7
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
5,730.33
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
3.
1
9
6.
1
2
11
2
.
3
3
0.
2
0
0.
9
0
0.
5
7
1.
4
7
0.
3
3
0.
2
0
0.
6
8
0.
8
8
0.
0
7
0.620.69
1.
3
2
0.
0
0
1.221.229,265.11
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
1.
6
8
16
.
7
7
16
.
2
4
0.
0
5
2.312.7134,081.47
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
6.
6
0
41
.
4
5
21
.
5
4
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
1.
3
2
34,195.92
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
11
.
4
6
64
.
3
5
15
0
.
1
0
0.
2
6
1.
1
0
2.
5
7
3.
6
7
0.
3
9
1.
1
1
2.
5
7
3.
6
8
0.
4
0
2.322.71
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00114.47
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
2
6
1
34
.
9
2
64
.
3
9
15
0
.
7
8
0.
2
6
0.000.000.00
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0.
0
2
0.
0
4
0.
7
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
114.47
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
23
.
3
4
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.000.00
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
23
.
3
6
0.
0
4
0.
7
2
0.
0
0
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
Fo
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
P
h
a
s
e
:
T
r
en
c
h
i
n
g
9
/
2
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
C
r
a
w
l
e
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
C
r
u
s
h
i
n
g
/
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
C
r
u
s
h
i
n
g
/
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
B
o
r
e
/
D
r
i
l
l
R
i
g
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
se
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
er
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
es
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
B
o
r
e
/
D
r
i
l
l
R
i
g
s
,
t
he
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
mit
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
C
r
a
w
l
e
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
S
c
r
a
p
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
ta
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
Fo
r
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
S
c
r
a
p
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
ta
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
P
a
v
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
R
o
l
l
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
R
o
l
l
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
Fo
r
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
P
h
a
s
e
:
Pa
v
i
n
g
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
P
a
v
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
P
a
v
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
ta
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Pa
g
e
:
1
3/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
R
O
G
:
1
0
%
Fo
r
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
e
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
:
U
s
e
L
o
w
V
O
C
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
on
s
b
y
:
R
O
G
:
1
0
%
Fo
r
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
e
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
:
U
s
e
L
o
w
V
O
C
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
on
s
b
y
:
R
O
G
:
1
0
%
Fo
r
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
P
h
a
s
e
:
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
1
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
au
l
t
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
D
es
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
te
r
i
o
r
:
U
s
e
L
o
w
V
O
C
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
R
O
G
:
1
0
%
Fo
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
te
r
i
o
r
:
U
s
e
L
o
w
V
O
C
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
Fo
r
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Fo
r
O
f
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
r
u
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
O
x
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
ta
l
y
s
t
1
5
%
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
N
O
X
:
1
5
%
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
P
h
a
s
e
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
D
es
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
,
t
h
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
(
D
P
F
)
3
r
d
T
i
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
:
P
M
1
0
:
2
5
%
P
M
2
5
:
2
5
%
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:35:23 AM
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)128.84 41.02 62.61 0.00 0.19 0.18 50,588.53
Architectural Coatings 14.74
0.11 64.17
Consumer Products 105.17
Landscape 5.87 0.46 38.54 0.00 0.11
50,524.36
Hearth - No Summer Emissions
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Natural Gas 3.06 40.56 24.07 0.00 0.08 0.07
39.38 162,384.79
Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total.
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)170.50 72.91 446.43 1.16 208.84
111,796.26
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)41.66 31.89 383.82 1.16 208.65 39.20
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2
0.17 43,009.88
Percent Reduction 0.36 14.82 5.77 0.00 10.53 5.56 14.98
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)128.38 34.94 59.00 0.00 0.17
PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)128.84 41.02 62.61 0.00 0.19 0.18 50,588.53
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: H:\Environmental\Projects - Current\100019662 Otay Villages 8W & 9 Technical Studies\Village 8 West Air Quality Report\Technical Data\V8W
Project Name: V8W Operation
Project Location: South Coast AQMD
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:35:23 AM
39.20 111,796.26
Operational Settings:
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)41.66 31.89 383.82 1.16 208.65
0.670.68 0.55 6.62 0.02 1,919.92
Community Purpose Facility 0.05 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.23 0.04 123.43
General office building 3.58
0.21 596.00
Strip mall 8.57 7.99 92.05 0.29 52.63 9.87 27,877.98
City park 0.24 0.17 1.98 0.01 1.12
4.10 11,649.63
Junior high school 8.38 6.13 72.52 0.22 40.22 7.55 21,447.51
Elementary school 4.55 3.33 39.39 0.12 21.85
7.12 20,471.49
Apartments low rise 11.63 7.87 98.26 0.29 51.20 9.64 27,710.30
Single family housing 7.56 5.81 72.59 0.21 37.82
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2
0.17 43,009.88
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0%
Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 10%
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)128.38 34.94 59.00 0.00 0.17
Architectural Coatings 14.74
Consumer Products 105.17
Landscape 5.87 0.46 38.54 0.00 0.11 0.11 64.17
Hearth - No Summer Emissions
CO2
Natural Gas 2.60 34.48 20.46 0.00 0.06 0.06 42,945.71
Area Source Mitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Industrial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title 24 15.00
Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected
Mitigation Description Percent
ReductionResidential Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title
24
15.00
Commercial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title
24
15.00
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:35:23 AM
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1
Travel Conditions
Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 20.0 80.0
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 83.3 16.7
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Auto 90.9 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
121,899.38
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
26,116.15
2,091.37
Community Purpose Facility 5.00 1000 sq ft 5.80 29.00 136.21
General office building 9.00 1000 sq ft 50.00 450.00
656.95
Strip mall 26.20 1000 sq ft 250.00 6,550.00 30,765.35
City park 5.00 acres 28.00 140.00
12,765.44
Junior high school 5.50 1000 sq ft 915.00 5,032.50 23,501.77
Elementary school 5.50 1000 sq ft 497.00 2,733.50
22,086.25
Apartments low rise 71.70 4.50 dwelling units 1,429.00 6,430.50 29,896.04
Single family housing 114.00 7.65 dwelling units 621.00 4,750.65
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:35:23 AM
47.5
Community Purpose Facility 2.0 1.0 97.0
General office building 35.0 17.5
92.5
Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0
City park 5.0 2.5
70.0
Junior high school 20.0 10.0 70.0
Elementary school 20.0 10.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land
use)
30.0
% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1
Trip speeds (mph)30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
4.7
Rural Trip Length (miles)17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6
Urban Trip Length (miles)4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:38:46 AM
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)123.08 42.52 24.90 0.01 0.24 0.23 53,023.71
Architectural Coatings 14.74
Consumer Products 105.17
Landscaping - No Winter
Emissions
50,524.36
Hearth 0.11 1.96 0.83 0.01 0.16 0.16 2,499.35
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Natural Gas 3.06 40.56 24.07 0.00 0.08 0.07
39.43 153,871.75
Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total.
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)163.47 80.75 399.64 0.92 208.89
100,848.04
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)40.39 38.23 374.74 0.91 208.65 39.20
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2
0.22 45,445.06
Percent Reduction 0.37 14.30 14.50 0.00 8.33 4.35 14.29
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)122.62 36.44 21.29 0.01 0.22
PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)123.08 42.52 24.90 0.01 0.24 0.23 53,023.71
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: H:\Environmental\Projects - Current\100019662 Otay Villages 8W & 9 Technical Studies\Village 8 West Air Quality Report\Technical Data\V8W
Project Name: V8W Operation
Project Location: South Coast AQMD
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:38:46 AM
Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected
39.20 100,848.04TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)40.39 38.23 374.74 0.91 208.65
0.670.67 0.66 6.44 0.02 1,732.08
Community Purpose Facility 0.05 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.23 0.04 111.20
General office building 3.58
0.21 536.99
Strip mall 9.06 9.58 90.12 0.23 52.63 9.87 25,114.84
City park 0.22 0.20 1.93 0.00 1.12
4.10 10,503.12
Junior high school 7.93 7.35 70.79 0.17 40.22 7.55 19,336.73
Elementary school 4.31 3.99 38.45 0.09 21.85
7.12 18,487.85
Apartments low rise 10.75 9.44 95.82 0.23 51.20 9.64 25,025.23
Single family housing 7.40 6.97 70.79 0.17 37.82
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2
0.22 45,445.06
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0%
Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0%
Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 15%
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)122.62 36.44 21.29 0.01 0.22
Architectural Coatings 14.74
Consumer Products 105.17
0.16 2,499.35
Landscaping - No Winter
Emissions
Hearth 0.11 1.96 0.83 0.01 0.16
CO2
Natural Gas 2.60 34.48 20.46 0.00 0.06 0.06 42,945.71
Area Source Mitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Industrial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title 24 15.00
Mitigation Description Percent
ReductionResidential Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title
24
15.00
Commercial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title
24
15.00
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:38:46 AM
Motor Home 1.1 0.0 90.9 9.1
Travel Conditions
Motorcycle 2.7 33.3 66.7 0.0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 20.0 80.0
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 83.3 16.7
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Auto 90.9 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
121,899.38
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
26,116.15
2,091.37
Community Purpose Facility 5.00 1000 sq ft 5.80 29.00 136.21
General office building 9.00 1000 sq ft 50.00 450.00
656.95
Strip mall 26.20 1000 sq ft 250.00 6,550.00 30,765.35
City park 5.00 acres 28.00 140.00
12,765.44
Junior high school 5.50 1000 sq ft 915.00 5,032.50 23,501.77
Elementary school 5.50 1000 sq ft 497.00 2,733.50
22,086.25
Apartments low rise 71.70 4.50 dwelling units 1,429.00 6,430.50 29,896.04
Single family housing 114.00 7.65 dwelling units 621.00 4,750.65
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter
Page: 1
2/20/2012 11:38:46 AM
47.5
Community Purpose Facility 2.0 1.0 97.0
General office building 35.0 17.5
92.5
Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0
City park 5.0 2.5
70.0
Junior high school 20.0 10.0 70.0
Elementary school 20.0 10.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land
use)
30.0
% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1
Trip speeds (mph)30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
4.7
Rural Trip Length (miles)17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6
Urban Trip Length (miles)4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer
4 main-magdalena 2010.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: Main St - Magdalena Ave 2010 PM
RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE)
POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M)
BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S
CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S
MIXH= 10. M AMB= 2.0 PPM
SIGTH= 25. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Main-west * -150 0 0 0 * AG 1269 7.4 .0 13.2
B. Main-east * 0 0 150 0 * AG 0 7.4 .0 13.2
C. Magdalena-N * 0 150 0 0 * AG 1289 7.4 .0 13.2
D. Magdalena-S * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 0 7.4 .0 13.2
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------*---------------------
1. SE Recep * 9 -9 1.5
2. NW Recep * -9 9 1.5
3. NE Recep * 9 9 1.5
4. SW Recep * -9 -9 1.5
IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )
* * PRED * CONC/LINK
* BRG * CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D
-------------*-------*-------*--------------------
1. SE Recep * 346. * 2.5 * .0 .0 .5 .0
2. NW Recep * 18. * 2.5 * .0 .0 .5 .0
3. NE Recep * 260. * 2.8 * .5 .0 .3 .0
4. SW Recep * 10. * 2.8 * .3 .0 .5 .0
Page 1
5 olympic-805NBramp 2015.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: Olympic Pkwy-805 NB ramp 2015 AM
RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE)
POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M)
BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S
CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S
MIXH= 10. M AMB= 2.0 PPM
SIGTH= 25. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Olympic-west * -150 0 0 0 * AG 3141 4.6 .0 13.2
B. Olympic-east * 0 0 150 0 * AG 4724 4.6 .0 13.2
C. 805NB-N * 0 150 0 0 * AG 2388 4.6 .0 13.2
D. 805NB-S * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 1361 4.6 .0 13.2
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------*---------------------
1. SE Recep * 9 -9 1.5
2. NW Recep * -9 9 1.5
3. NE Recep * 9 9 1.5
4. SW Recep * -9 -9 1.5
IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )
* * PRED * CONC/LINK
* BRG * CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D
-------------*-------*-------*--------------------
1. SE Recep * 347. * 3.3 * .0 .7 .5 .0
2. NW Recep * 104. * 3.5 * .1 1.0 .4 .0
3. NE Recep * 251. * 3.2 * .6 .2 .4 .0
4. SW Recep * 74. * 3.4 * .1 1.0 .0 .2
Page 1
6 olympic-805NBramp 2020.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: Olympic Pkwy-805 NB ramp 2020 AM
RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE)
POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M)
BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S
CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S
MIXH= 10. M AMB= 2.0 PPM
SIGTH= 25. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Olympic-west * -150 0 0 0 * AG 3333 3.2 .0 13.2
B. Olympic-east * 0 0 150 0 * AG 5009 3.2 .0 13.2
C. 805NB-N * 0 150 0 0 * AG 2374 3.2 .0 13.2
D. 805NB-S * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 1352 3.2 .0 13.2
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------*---------------------
1. SE Recep * 9 -9 1.5
2. NW Recep * -9 9 1.5
3. NE Recep * 9 9 1.5
4. SW Recep * -9 -9 1.5
IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )
* * PRED * CONC/LINK
* BRG * CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D
-------------*-------*-------*--------------------
1. SE Recep * 347. * 2.9 * .0 .5 .4 .0
2. NW Recep * 104. * 3.1 * .0 .7 .2 .0
3. NE Recep * 251. * 2.9 * .5 .2 .2 .0
4. SW Recep * 76. * 3.0 * .0 .7 .0 .1
Page 1
7 birch-eastlake 2025.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: Birch Rd-East Lake PM 2025
RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE)
POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M)
BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S
CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S
MIXH= 10. M AMB= 2.0 PPM
SIGTH= 25. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Birch-west * -150 0 0 0 * AG 5442 2.4 .0 13.2
B. Birch-east * 0 0 150 0 * AG 1225 2.4 .0 13.2
C. Eastlake-N * 0 150 0 0 * AG 1675 2.4 .0 13.2
D. Eastlake-S * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 4354 2.4 .0 13.2
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------*---------------------
1. SE Recep * 9 -9 1.5
2. NW Recep * -9 9 1.5
3. NE Recep * 9 9 1.5
4. SW Recep * -9 -9 1.5
IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )
* * PRED * CONC/LINK
* BRG * CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D
-------------*-------*-------*--------------------
1. SE Recep * 282. * 3.0 * .6 .0 .0 .3
2. NW Recep * 168. * 3.0 * .4 .0 .0 .5
3. NE Recep * 257. * 2.8 * .6 .0 .1 .0
4. SW Recep * 22. * 2.7 * .4 .0 .2 .1
Page 1
8 main-magdalena 2030.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: Main St-Magdalena PM 2030
RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE)
POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M)
BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S
CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S
MIXH= 10. M AMB= 2.0 PPM
SIGTH= 25. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Main-west * -150 0 0 0 * AG 7567 2.1 .0 13.2
B. Main-east * 0 0 150 0 * AG 6660 2.1 .0 13.2
C. Magdalena-N * 0 150 0 0 * AG 1451 2.1 .0 13.2
D. Magdalena-S * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 0 2.1 .0 13.2
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------*---------------------
1. SE Recep * 9 -9 1.5
2. NW Recep * -9 9 1.5
3. NE Recep * 9 9 1.5
4. SW Recep * -9 -9 1.5
IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE )
* * PRED * CONC/LINK
* BRG * CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D
-------------*-------*-------*--------------------
1. SE Recep * 287. * 2.9 * .7 .1 .0 .0
2. NW Recep * 107. * 2.9 * .1 .6 .0 .0
3. NE Recep * 256. * 2.9 * .7 .1 .1 .0
4. SW Recep * 287. * 2.9 * .9 .0 .0 .0
Page 1