HomeMy WebLinkAbout3190; Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment; Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment; 2000-03-09Oiroux & Associates
Environmental Consudtants
1^
hi
A X R QUAL niTY X Mr> AOT AN AX. Y S X S
li RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT/REALIGNMENT
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
y Prepared for:
^ Citiy of Carlsbad
^ Attn: Doug Helming
• 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
li
Date:
^ Harch 9, 2000
27744 Sky Ptirk Circle, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92614 - Phone (949) 851-8609 - fax (949) 851-8612
TABX-E OF CONTENTS
Page No
Mi
k
m
k
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION i
1.1 Proposed Project 1
1.1.1 Roadway Realignment 1
1.1.2 Bridge Improvements 4
1.1.3 Project Conservation Design Elements 4
1.2 Air Quality Implications 5
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7
2 -1 Meteorology/Climate 7
2.2 Ambient Air Quality 8
2.2.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) 8
2- 2.2 Baseline Air Quality 11
2.2.3 Sources of Pollution 11
2.2.4 Air Quality Management Planning 11
3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 14
3- 1 Impact Thresholds 14
3.2 Microscale Impact Analysis 15
3-2.1 Sensitive Receptors 15
3-2.2 Analysis Methodology 16
3-2-2.1 Vehicle Mixes 16
3-2.2.2 Hot/Cold Start Percentages 16
3.2.2.3 Emission Factors 17
3.2.2.4 Background Concentration 18
3.2.2.5 Persistence 18
3.2.2.6 Meteorology 18
3.2.2.7 Traffic 18
3.2.3 Microscale Impact Results 18
3.2.3.1 One-Hour CO Concentrations 18
3.2.3.2 Eight-Hour Exposure - 20
3.3 Cumulative Impacts 20
3.4 No Project Alternative 20
3.5 Construction Activity Impacts 22
3.5.1 Fugitive Dust 22
3.5-2 Equipment Exhaust 22
3.6 Air Quality Conformity Analysis 25
4.0 SUMMARY 28
APPENDIX
-1-
9H
k
k Table of Contents
Page Two
il
li
PI
li
PR
to
m
m
m
m
List of Tables
Table 1 - Ambient Air Quality Standards
F
ll Table 2 - Oceanside Air Quality Monitoring Summary
IP> Table 3 - Microscale Imi)act Analysis Summary (1-Hour CO Cone.)
* Table 4 - Microscale Impact Analysis Summary (8-Hour CO Cone.)
r Table 5 - Emissions Factors for Construction Equipment and
li Vehicles Used in Grading/Compaction
^ Table 6 - Grading/Compaction Activity Emissions
p. List of Figures
^ Figure 1 - Regional Map
^ Figure 2 - Vicinity Map
-11-
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
^ 1.1 Proposed Project
Phase 1 of the proposed project entails a realignment of Rancho
^ Santa Fe Road from near La Costa Avenue to near the proposed
replacement bridge across San Marcos Creek. A two-lane connector
road would also be constructed from the realigned, six-lane Rancho
P» Santa Fe Road to south of the existing San Marcos Creek bridge
k crossing. The vacated roadway will be demolished and returned to
natural slopes/vegetation.
r During Phase 2, the City of Carlsbad's proposed Rancho Santa Fe
• Road improvement and bridge replacement project would realign and
widen approximately 3,500 linear feet of Rancho Santa Fe Road (S-
^ * 10) from two lanes to an ultimate six-lane Prime Arterial Roadway
k from just south of the bridge improvement to just north of Melrose
Drive (Figures 1 and 2).
(p
il The previous project EIR identified construction activities
necessary to complete grading for the roadway. The EIR identified
construction staging areas as well as locations for blasting
operations. Construction activities and equipment for the final
alignment plans conform with that anticipated by the EIR. As
required by the EIR, the proposed earthwork will be balanced
between cut and fill. The quantity of dirt and rock moved within
^ the project construction area would not exceed that evaluated by
the EIR. Staging and blasting areas anticipated to be used during
construction are included in the limits of grading and are
consistent with that anticipated by the EIR.
IW
Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in 2001 fiscal
year. Construction activities will begin with Phase 1 portion of
m the project. Construction of Phase 2 portion of the project will
begin in 2002 and will also take approximately eighteen months.
m
^ 1.1.1 Roadway Realignment
_ The proposed widening and realignment project is part of the City
? of Carlsbad's General Plan to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to meet
• its designation as a Prime Arterial Roadway. A Prime Arterial
Roadway has a 126-foot right of way containing six travel lanes, a
i» bike lane, an 18-foot raised median, sidewalks, curb, and gutter.
II The new bridge over San Marcos Creek is planned to accommodate the
Prime Arterial Roadway. The bridge replacement project would
involve construction of a new bridge in a location west of the
existing bridge. The existing bridge will be demolished. IP
m
lm
Orange
County
Mexico
r-SMiles Tijuana
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Bridge Replacement - Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis
Regional Map
FIGURE
\*
^^^»~-^«#f rA?A£A-^i^^^^^^
BASE IMAP SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle 1" -2000'
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement
APE / Vicinity Map
FIGURE
1.1.2 Bridge Improvements
IF The bridge would consist of six lanes and an overall 126-foot right
~ of way. The span over San Marcos Creek would extend for
approximately 375 feet and would range in height from 15 to 20 feet
P from the creek bottom to the bottom of the bridge. The bridge
• would be supported by manufactured fill slopes at the northern and
southern termini of the bridge. A total of twelve piers would
IP support the bridge span. Each pier would be constructed by
li excavating a pit and using driven iron piers to form and cast each
individual concrete pier. Following construction of the piers the
C excavation area would be refilled and returned to original grade.
Each pier would include 4' X 6' columns and 12' X 12' footings.
1.1.3 Project Conservation Design Elements
P
fel A number of measures have been incorporated into the project to
minimize impacts to biological resources. These include:
P«
L
o Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all
^ disturbed areas.
o Washing down or sweeping streets from which construction access
is taken to remove dirt carried from the new alignment to the
existing roadway to keep vehicles from pulverizing the dirt
^ into fine particles.
^ o Terminating soil excavation, clearing or grading when wind
speeds exceed 25 mph for an hourly average.
IW ^
Covering/tarping all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public
^ roadways unless additional moisture is added to prevent
fel material blow-off during transport.
E Requiring low-NO^ emission tuneups for all on-site construction
equipment as a minimum of ninety (90) days.
o Providing rideshare or transit incentives for construction
personnel.
Minimizing obstruction of through traffic lanes from
P construction equipment or activities.
Prohibiting engine idling while waiting to load or unload if
pi the expected wait exceeds ten (10) minutes.
k
o Scheduling partial or full street closures to off-peak traffic
hours.
k
m
il
k
The City will perform street sweeping should silt be carried
p over to adjacent public thoroughfares.
k
During construction, the City will:
P - use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas
•I where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when
leaving the site.
F
jfe - wet down areas in the late morning and after work is
completed for the day.
use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction
equipment.
P o The City will phase and schedule construction activities to
lb avoid high ozone days.
p« o Bikeways will be provided along Rancho Santa Fe Road as
L required by the City standards; if required by the North County
Transit District, bus shelters and benches and street pockets
will be installed on Rancho Santa Fe Road; bicycle storage
facilities will be provided at park-and-ride sites as required
i» by Caltrans.
^ 1.2 Air Quality Implications
I- The proposed bridge improvements and roadway realignment will
modify travel patterns in the project vicinity that may have
corresponding effects on air quality. Roadway realignment and
bridge widening will reduce vehicular congestion that shifts travel
P to slower, more polluting speeds. Within the range of arterial
fel roadway travel speeds, vehicular emissions of carbon monoxide (CO)
and reactive organic gases (ROG) are inversely proportional to
B travel speed. If mean speeds decrease by 50 percent due to
congestion, emissions per mile of travel are almost doubled.
Conversely, doubling travel speeds by congestion elimination cuts
_ the emissions of CO and ROG in half.
* Roadway improvements may attract additional travel that would have
avoided a given area because of congestion. However, the proposed
E improvements would not promote more travel on Rancho Santa Fe Road
than is currently planned in the City of Carlsbad Circulation
Element of the General Plan. Traffic forecasts for the "no
in project" alternative are almost identical to the "with project"
L alternative. There is therefore no growth inducement that would
lead to higher air emissions.
P
Construction activities will generate temporary air pollution
emissions during demolition of the existing pavement/bridge and for
new construction. Because of the proximity of pollution-sensitive
avian habitats, a variety of design measures, including reduced
impact construction practices, will be used to minimize impacts to
the extent feasible.
F
il
p
ll
p
k
F
P
F
P
I"
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2 -1 Meteorology/Climate
The climate of Carlsbad, as with much of Southern California, is
largely controlled by the semi-permanent, high pressure system near
Hawaii and the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic thermal
reservoir. The San Diego North County climate is characterized by
cool summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, abundant sunshine,
and comfortable humidities. Winds are generally light until mid-
afternoon, when the daily sea breeze reaches maximum strength.
Unfortunately, the same factors that create a highly desirable
living climate combine to limit the ability of the air to disperse
the air pollution generated by the population atitracted, in part by
the climate.
Temperatures average 62 degrees Fahrenheit annually. Summer
afternoons reach the upper 70s, while winter mornings drop down
into the lower 40s. Because of the moderating influence of the
ocean, temperature extremes over 100 degrees or much below freezing
rarely, if ever, occur.
^ Rainfall in the local area averages 11 inches per year, but
ta moderate spatial variation may occur as a function of site
exposure. Most of the rain falls from late November to early
^ Apri1, when the fringes of mid-latitude storms pass through
^ Southern California. A shift in the storm track from year to year
can mean the difference between a drought year with half the annual
^ average rainfall versus a year with twice the normal total.
"* Winds across the Carlsbad area result mainly from temperature
differences between the ocean to the west and the mountains and
^ desert to the east. These winds are steered by local topography,
P but they are primarily onshore by day, especially in summer, and
primarily offshore at night especially in winter.
P .....
^ The daytime sea breeze typically has its origin over open waters
and thus brings clean air across North County, and locally
E generated emissions have little time to undergo photochemical
reactions and form smog. Similarly, the winter drainage winds blow
down from nearby open higher terrain and thus arrive relatively
"clean" in the local area. While daytime winds are typically E strong enough to rapidly ventilate the local area, nocturnal winds
often are nearly calm and thus do allow for the possible localized
stagnation of air pollutants near traffic intensive sources such as
pi Highway 78 or Interstate 5. With low background pollution levels
^ and a relatively low overall emissions density in inland areas
upwind of Carlsbad during nocturnal offshore flow, the potential
for any air pollution "hot spots" under stagnation conditions is,
F however, minimal in the Carlsbad area,
ii
One wind pattern that does lead to occasional unhealthful air
E quality is when offshore winds at night in the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB) blow onshore across North County the next day,
containing day-old air pollutants that already contain high levels
of ozone and other irritants. This pollution recycling which E sometimes occurs in late summer and early fall, may create some of
the most unhealthful air quality that is observed in the otherwise
typically healthful North County air quality environment. This
E weather pattern has not been prevalent in the last few years, and
air quality has also improved dramatically in the SCAB. The
Carlsbad area thus has not experienced any recent first-stage smog
-I (ozone) alerts as sometimes occurred 10-15 years ago.
• In addition to the winds that control horizontal transport
processes important in characterizing regional air pollution
E dispersion, San Diego County also has numerous temperature
inversions that control the vertical extent through which
pollutants can be mixed. When the onshore flow of cool, marine air
E undercuts a large dome of warm, sinking air with the oceanic high
pressure area, it forms a marine/subsidence inversion. These
inversions allow for good local mixing, but they act like a giant
lid over the area. As air moves inland, sources add pollution from
r below without any dilution from above. The boundary between the
P cool air near the surface and the warm air aloft is a zone where
air pollutants become concentrated. As the air moves inland and
^ meets elevated terrain of inland foothill communities, these
^ communities are exposed to many of the trapped pollutants within
this most polluted part of the inversion layer.
A second inversion type forms when cool air drifts into lower
*• valleys at night and pools on the valley floor. These radiation
inversions are strongest in winter when nights are longest and air
^ is coldest. They may lead to stagnation of ground-level pollution
ta sources such as automobile exhaust near freeways or major parking
facilities. While these radiation inversions are prevalent in the
p Carlsbad area in winter, low background pollutant levels and a
y limited development density, as noted above, minimize the impact of
these inversions on air quality. Any local air pollution problems
are therefore more related to the summer marine inversions and the E transport of polluted air into the local area rather than any
winter microscale stagnation.
P
ll 2.2 ATnhi«i>iTh Air Oualitv
m 2.2.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)
[
F ta
ta
In order to assess the air quality impact of the proposed bridge
reconstruction and roadway realignment, that impact, together with
baseline air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable
li AAQS. These standards are the levels of air quality considered
safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public
E health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of
the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection
such as asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from
other illness or disease, or persons in heavy work or exercise E called sensitive receptors. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional
exposure to air pollution levels somewhat above these standards
before adverse health effects are observed.
ll The Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 established national AAQS with
states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to
E include other pollution species. Because California already had
standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and
because of unique meteorological problems in California, there is
considerable diversity between State and federal standards
F currently in effect in California, as shown in Table 1.
k
Further amendments to the Act promulgated in 1977 specified that
fH all areas of the country must attain all national AAQS by 1982,
L with a possible extension to 1987 for some species if reasonable
further progress had been demonstrated by the 1982 interim
deadline. By the end of 1987, national air quality standards for
^ ozone (O3) and carbon monoxide (CO) were still being violated in
*• San Diego County. State standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
for respirable particulate matter (PM-10) also exceeded their
^ allowable maxima within the airshed. A new air quality planning
^ cycle was initiated to develop an air quality plan for the San
Diego Air Basin (SDAB) in response to an EPA call for a revision to
p« the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Preparation of an air quality
_ plan was also mandated by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA - AB-
2595) which required completion of a plan to also meet State AAQS.
F The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ordered EPA to periodically
ta review all AAQS in light of the most current health effects
information. After extensive review, two additional national clean
E air standards were adopted in 1997. These standards included an 8-
hour ozone exposure, and a new particulate standard for ultra-small
diameter particulates of 2.5 microns or less called "PM-2.5."
B EPA's authority to promulgate national clean air standards without
specific direction from the U.S. Congress was challenged as a
"state's rights" issue and enforcement of the new standards was
stayed by a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals. A request for
E a rehearing by the Department of Justice on behalf of EPA was
denied. Unless the issue is heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, or
Congress modifies the Clean Air Act to specifically incorporate
p these standards, any planning efforts on behalf of these standards
L are indefinitely on hold.
ta
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging
Time Concentration Method Primary Secondary .Method
Ozone (O3)
1 Hour 0.09 ppra{lSO^Lg/m') Ultraviolet
Photometry 0.12 ppm (235 lig/m')'-Same as
Primary Standard
Ethylene
Chemiliuninescence
Ozone (O3)
8 Hour —
Ultraviolet
Photometry
0.08 ppm (157 jig/m')
Same as
Primary Standard
Ethylene
Chemiliuninescence
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM,J
Annual Geomcuic Mean 30 M-g/m' Size Selective
Inlet Sampler
ARB Meihod
P (8/22/85)
— Same as
Primary Standard
Ineniai
Separation and
Gravimetic
Analysis
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM,J
24 Hour 50 |ig/m'
Size Selective
Inlet Sampler
ARB Meihod
P (8/22/85)
150^g/m'
Same as
Primary Standard
Ineniai
Separation and
Gravimetic
Analysis
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM,J Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
—
Size Selective
Inlet Sampler
ARB Meihod
P (8/22/85) 50 [ig/m'
Same as
Primary Standard
Ineniai
Separation and
Gravimetic
Analysis
Fine
Particulate
Matter
24 Hour
No Separate State Standard
65 ^g/m' Same as
Primary Standard
Ineniai
Separation and
Gravimetic
Analysis
Fine
Particulate
Matter Annual
ArilhmeUic
Mean
No Separate State Standard
15 fig/m'
Same as
Primary Standard
Ineniai
Separation and
Gravimetic
Analysis
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm {] 0 mg-'m') Non-dispersive
Infrared
Phoiomecry
(NDIR)
9ppm(l0mg/m^)
None
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Photomeny
(NDIR)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m')
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Phoiomecry
(NDIR)
35 ppm (40rag/ni') None
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Photomeny
(NDIR)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO) 8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm (7 mg/m')
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Phoiomecry
(NDIR)
—
None
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Photomeny
(NDIR)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO,)
Annual
Arilhmetric
Mean
— Gas Phase
Chcmiluminescence
0.053 ppm (lOOjxg/m')
Same as
Primary Standard Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO,) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (470jig/m'i
Gas Phase
Chcmiluminescence
Same as
Primary Standard Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Lead
30 days
average
1.5 M-g/m^
AIHL Method 54
(12/74)
Atomic Absorption
— _ High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption Lead Caiendar Quarter
—
AIHL Method 54
(12/74)
Atomic Absorption 1.5 jig/m'
Same as
Primary Standard
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO,)
Annual
Arithmctiic
Mean —
Ruorcscencc
0.030 ppm (80 Ug/m') —
Pararosoaniline
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO,)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm(105(tg/m') Ruorcscencc 0.14 ppm (365 jig/m') — Pararosoaniline
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO,)
3 Hour —
Ruorcscencc
— 0.5 ppm (1300 ^ig/m')
Pararosoaniline
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO,)
I Hour 0.25 ppm (655 ^g/m')
Ruorcscencc
—
Pararosoaniline
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
(10 am 10
6 pm, PST)
In sufficient arnount to produce an exiinciton
coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer—visibility
of ten miles or more (0.07—30 miles or morc
for Lake Tahoe) due to panicles when thc
relative humidicy is less than 70 percent.
Method: ARB Method V (8/18/89). .
No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 jig/m'
Turbidimetric
Barium Sulfaic-AIHL
Method 51 (2A76)
No
Federal
Standards
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 ug/m')
Cadmium
Hydroxide
STRactan
No
Federal
Standards
p
p
III
ill
IM
2.2.2 Baseline Air Quality
Air quality in Carlsbad is best documented from measurements made
at a monitoring station in Oceanside operated by the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) at 1701 Mission Avenue. Table 2
summarizes the monitoring data from the last six years, as
published by the California Air Resources Board. These data show
that the State standard for 10-micron diameter or less particulate
matter is the most frequently exceeded (about 10 days per year, on
HI average). The State standard for ozone is exceeded on around 5
days per year. The only federal standard exceeded in Oceanside in
the last six years was the national clean air standard for ozone.
This standard was last exceeded in 1993. Standards for carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO^) and nitrogen dioxide (NO^) are
not exceeded.
fel Ozone trends in coastal North County have been steadily downward
from their occasionally very high maxima in the late 1970s. The
ip» last first-stage smog alert (ozone > 0.20 ppm for one hour) was in
. 1988. In 1994, the federal one hour ozone standard was met for the
first time near Carlsbad. It continued to be met through 1998.
Peak annual ozone levels from 1994-98 were within 0.02 ppm of
meeting the State standard. Ultimate attainment of the more
stringent State ozone standard is considered feasible in the not-
too-distant future. With relatively low background levels of
certain species, such as CO, directly related to automobile
hm traffic, the data in Table 2 suggests that the Carlsbad area can
accommodate additional vehicular growth without significantly
1-^ impacting local air quality.
2.2.3 Sources of Pollution
Nitrogen oxides (NO^) and reactive organic gases (ROG) are the two
P precursors to photochemical smog formation. In 1995 in San Diego
County, 64% of the 278 tons per day of ROG emitted came from mobile
(cars, ships, planes, heavy equipment, etc.) sources. For NO^, 91%
of the 238 tons emitted daily were from mobile sources. Computer
modeling of smog formation using a San Diego Air Basin (SDAB)-
specific version of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) has shown that a
reduction of around 25% each of NO^ and ROG would allow the San
Diego Air Basin to meet the federal ozone standard on days when
there is no substantial transport of pollution from the South Coast
Air Basin or other airshed. Based upon emissions forecasts or
ii mobile and stationary sources, the projected attainment date for
such emissions reductions was 1999-2000.
2-2-4 Air Quality Management Planning
The continued violations of national AAQS in the SDAB, particularly
those for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be
»" 11
In
lii
p'
fel
IF'
•it
P'
il
i"
PI
il
p«
i«
IF"
iH
•ik
ili
il
il •* il ii» *« MM
TABLE 2
OCEiNSIDE AIR QDALITY HOHITORIHG SDHHASY
(days exceeding standards and laxiiui observed concentrations)
Pollutant/Standard
Ozone:
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (*)
1-Hour > 0.12 ppm (**)
Hax 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
Carbon Monoxide:
1-Hour > 20. ppn {*)
8-Hour > 9. ppi (*/**]
Hax. 1-flour Cone, (ppa)
Hax. 8-Hour Cone, (ppi)
Hitroaen Dioxide:
1-Hour > 0.25 ppm (*)
Hax. 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
Sulfur Dioxide:
1-Hour >0.25 ppm (*)
24-Hour >0.04 ppm (*)
Hax. 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
Hax. 24-Hour Cone.i
Respirable Partieulates fPH-10):
24-Hour > 50 nq/n^ (J
24-Hour > 150 jiq/Tir ( )
Hax. 24-Hr. Cone. (|iq/m
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Key:
(a)
(*)
(**)
Source:
Monitoring for SO^ discontinued in iiiid-1993, data from 1994-96 from downtown San Diego.
California state standard, not to be exceeded.
National air quality standard, not to be exceeded more than once per year.
State and Federal standard.
California Air Resources Board, "California Air Quality Data", Vols. XXV-XXIX, 1993-97.
San Diego APCD (sdapcd.co.san-diego.ca.us), 1998
1998
7 2 5 4 6 3
4 0 0 0 0 0
0,16 0.11 0.11 0.11 O.U 0.10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5. 5, 4, 4. 6. . 3.
3.3 4.0 3.3 2,8 3,0 2.3
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.12 0.12 0.14 O.U O.U 0.09
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 . . 0 0 0 0 0
0.02 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0,04
0.012'^' 0,013 0.017 0.013 0.014 0.011
2/61 3/63 4/59 1/60 0/60 0/45
0/61 0/63 0/59 0/60 0/60 0/45
68. 75. 80. 63. 50. 36.
in
il
pi
Pl
fel
pi
il developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken
to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment
pi planning process is embodied in a regional air quality management
plan developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG. Several plans had
been adopted in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the title
Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS). Until recently, the 1982
^' RAQS was the last federally-approved (EPA) air quality plan for
fel attainment of the federal ozone standard. More recent planning
efforts have been modifications, improvements and updates of the
^» earlier RAQS efforts,
il
The California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) required that a state clean
air plan be developed to address meeting State standards as well as
the often less stringent federal criteria. A basin plan was
•* therefore developed and adopted in 1991 that predicted attainment
of all national standards by the end of 1997 from pollution sources
within the air basin, but little could be done about the problem of
il interbasin transport. Since the South Coast Air Basin is predicted
to exceed the national ozone standard until the year 2010, the San
«t Diego Air Basin, will also not experience completely healthful air
for the next several years.
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994
during the process of updating the 1991 State Plan. This local
plan was combined with those from all other California non-
attainment areas with serious ozone problems to create the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9-
10, 1994, and forwarded to the EPA for their approval. After
mt considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds
with the worst smog problems, EPA approval of the SIP was finalized
in 1996.
0*
mw
id
•* All progress towards attainment, including offsetting the effects
il of growth, is expected to derive from existing local, state and
federal rules and regulations. Controversial rules previously
i«» evaluated that were judged by some people as overly intrusive into
personal lifestyles (mandatory trip reduction programs or minimum
average vehicle occupancy goals) are not needed to predict
attainment. Any violations of federal ozone standards beyond the
year 2000 are forecast to occur only on days when transport from
fc* the Los Angeles Basin creates substantially elevated baseline
levels upon which any local basin impacts would be superimposed.
A limited number of violations of the more stringent State ozone
ll standard will likely continue to occur until near the end of the
current decade.
li
p*
ta
P» 13
in
mm
km
Pl
ii
p»
it
3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
p»
3-1 Impact Thresholds
p»
il
For purposes of this analysis, an air quality impact is considered
substantially adverse if it causes violations of ambient air
quality standards, if it measurably worsens an existing violation,
or if it causes emissions to be generated for which there is no
safe exposure. The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is a non-attainment
il area for the federal ozone standard and for the State standards for
ozone and PM-10. The basin meets standards for other pollutants,
pi including CO, which is a primary pollutant directly emitted from
vehicles.
Ozone, and to some extend PM-10, are regional pollutants that
undergo further chemical reactions of their precursor emissions
i» before they reach their ultimate unhealthful form. Because this
process may require several hours and occur many miles from the
p» precursor release point, there is no effective way to translate
jlg emissions into ambient air quality on a project-specific basis.
This is particularly true for transportation projects where
p, individual source vehicles are distributed over a large roadway
grid. Thus, while potential impacts for CO can be explicitly
evaluated, measurable exacerbation of ozone or PM-10 levels from
roadway projects can only be analyzed indirectly. Regional air
quality impact analysis from roadway projects is conducted by
verifying that the proposed project has been included in terms of
scope, schedule and analysis methodology in regional mobility plans
p« which, in turn, have been included in any air quality attainment
plans.
A project-related air quality impact would therefore be considered
substantially adverse if:
ttw
il
1) It causes a localized violation of CO standards in areas of any
project-related traffic concentration, or.
m*
2) As presently proposed, the proposed project has not been
included in a transportation improvement plan (TIP) or if the
schedule, scope or the analysis methodology used in the TIP
•* have changed substantially since the project was included in
the plan.
il Transportation projects may have regional impacts by causing
modification of patterns of travel or congestion. However,
mw regional effects involve the interaction of the entire
transportation system. System-wide impact analyses are conducted
as part of regional transportation plans. Project consistency with
adopted regional plans is presumptive evidence of a less than
adverse regional air quality impact.
ll
mw
il
mm 14
ii
mm
il
it
Air Quality impacts for the proposed project are therefore
pi explicitly analyzed only in terms of potential microscale air
L. quality impacts. Regional impacts are presumed to already have
been evaluated as part of the transportation improvement plan(s)
p, which included this project. This microscale analysis focuses on
r the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Phase 1. The Phase 2 APE
fe* was evaluated in a previous report and reviewed/approved by
Caltrans environmental staff. The previous report used a
P» screening-level CO "hot spot" analysis. This current study uses a
more detailed computer dispersion analysis for CO emissions. One
specific sensitive receptor within the Phase 2 APE was therefore
included in the following discussion to update and refine the
previous Phase 2 report. This analysis thus covers both Phases 1
and 2.
it
pl
it
il 3.2 Microscale Impact Analysis
P« 3-2.1 Sensitive Receptors
il People who are highly sensitive to air pollution exposure are
called "sensitive receptors." Typical sensitive receptor locations
include residences, health care facilities, schools, parks, etc.
^* Within the project area, sensitive receptors consist predominantly
of residential uses. A description of the eight sensitive receptor
locations selected for roadway emissions impact analysis include:
i
1. Child Care Facility within
il 2. Residence - Espera Court
m* 3. Residence - Cadencia
ii 4. Residence - Muslo/Fosca
il
^
5. Residence - Cabo/Trigo
II 6. Residence - Del Rio Court
m 7. Residence - Dorado Place
8. Residence - Cuesta Place
il
PI
ll
Note: Receptors 2-8 are Phase 1 APE analysis locations.
15
k
k
k
z
pi
il
3.2.2 Analysis Methodology
The CALINE4 model was used to predict microscale CO exposures at
the above 8 receptor sites. Hourly CO calculations were made for
worst-case meteorological conditions ("G" stability [strong
inversion] and wind speeds of 0.5 m/sec) with the computer model
* allowed to determine the wind direction that maximizes the
predicted impact. Calculations were made for existing conditions,
F for a project opening year (2000) and for "ultimate" traffic
ife conditions at area buildout (2015). Future year CO levels were
calculated with and without the proposed project.
3.2.2-1 Vehicle Mixes
The "default" vehicle mix data shown in Table B-2 of the most
recent Caltrans CO Protocols (1997) was used for both freeway and
arterial roadways. The percentages of various types of vehicles
used to develop vehicular emissions data were as follows:
Cateaorv Total (%y
Light Duty Auto 69.0
Light Duty Trucks 19.4
Medium Duty Trucks 6.4
Heavy Duty Trucks (gas) 1.2
Heavy Duty Trucks (diesel) 3.6
Buses 0.0
Motorcycles 0.5
fft
= Total distribution doesn't add up to exactly 100% due to
g rounding.
3.2.2-2 Hot/Cold Start Percentages
fel A vehicle's most recent driving history will determine combustion
efficiency and associated CO emission rates. Within the first 3.59
pv miles of travel, combustion will be in a transient (hot or cold
L start) mode. Once a vehicle reaches its optimum efficiency mode,
it is considered "hot stabilized," The Caltrans CO Protocols
_ recommend a range of 5-15 percent cold starts for traffic in an
16
k
p»
li a.m. peak hour. The 15 percent value was used as a conservative
estimate. This percentage was applied to both freeway and arterial
m traffic.
k 3.2.2.3 Emission Factors
r Emission factors using the above mixes and operating histories were
" determined using the EMFAC7G California emissions computer model.
Newer cars emit less pollution than older cars. Cars are less
pollution efficient when first started, when the air is cold, or
li when traveling in lower gears at slow speeds. Trucks emit more
pollution per mile than do cars. EMFAC combines its forecasts for
m the make-up of the future vehicle fleet (by age) with anticipated
y fleet mixes and operating characteristics to generate a composite
emission factor.
^ As a worst-case assumption, maximum CO exposure was anticipated to
• occur during the A.M. peak traffic hour on a cool morning. The
mean January minimum in Carlsbad is 46°F. The CO Protocols suggest
P an analysis air temperature of "min + 5**F." A temperature of 50°F
^ was assumed.
Vehicular emissions are very sensitive to travel speeds, especially
for inbound traffic at traffic-controlled intersections. Inbound
speeds vary considerably as a function of average intersection
delay. "Average" delays were applied to inbound traffic with the
following assumed travel speeds:
IM
p» Intersection Outbound - 25 mph
Intersection Inbound - 10 mph
* Arterial Mid-Block - 35 mph
II The resulting emission factors (grams/mile) were as follows:
I Roadway 2000 2015
Inbound 20.70 10.20
li Outbound 12.23 5.68
PI Mid-Block 10.65 4,71
m
k
wm 17
IP
li
li
3.2.2.4 Background Concentrations
^ The second-highest maximum one-hour CO concentrations from the last
three years of Oceanside air quality monitoring was used as the
background concentration upon which any local impacts will be
2 superimposed. This value is 4.0 ppm.
This level was presumed to persist from now until 2015. With
p continued vehicular emissions improvements, including substantial
H future market penetration by low emitting vehicles (LEVs) or zero-
emitting (electric) vehicles (ZEVs), future baseline CO levels may
be somewhat lower than those assumed above.
• 3-2-2-5 Persistence
P A one-hour to eight-hour persistence of 0.6 was assumed as a basis
li for scaling calculated one-hour CO concentrations to an equivalent
eight-hour exposure.
P
1^ 3.2-2.6 Meteorology
Worst-case winds and temperature conditions were used to generate
^ the assessment. Winds of 0.5 m/sec and a strong temperature
p inversion (Stability Class=G) were used. The model option to allow
for selection of the worst-case wind angle was selected.
mm
^ 3-2-2.7 Traffic
^ Traffic volumes supplied by LLG Traffic Consultants in their
project traffic modeling dated April 10, 1998 were used for
^ existing and future conditions. The same with-project volumes were
assumed for the future no project alternative except that the no-
P proiect traffic would use the existing roadway configuration.
i
p 3.2.3 Microscale Impact Results
i
3.2.3.1 One-Hour CO Concentrations
B Results of the microscale analysis are summarized in Table 3. The
maximum predicted one-hour CO concentration occurs at Receptor 4,
a single-family home on the corner of Fosca Way and Muslo Lane.
Iff The combined worst-case background plus theoretical worst-case
ii local exposure of 7 ppm compares to the most stringent California
standard of 20 ppm and the federal standard of 35 ppm.
r Emissions reductions are predicted to offset local traffic growth
or the effects of any changes in roadway geometry. Future buildout
one-hour CO levels are predicted to decline. An even greater
m
k
pi 18
IP
m
k
M
MICROSCALE IMPACT ANALYSIS StJMMARY
p (One-Hour CO Concentrations [ppm])
p
fel
< 2015 >
P
li Receptor Existing No Proi- w/Proj.
- 1 5 5 5
•2 6 6 5
""3 6 6 5
IK
4775
f—
ta. 5 6 5 5
mm 6 6 5 5
•"7 5 5 5
P 8 6 6 6
li
F
i
^ Includes 4.0 ppm one-hour background concentration
Source: CALINE4 Model, results in Appendix.
P
k
p
p
il
p
Ife margin of safety is predicted to exist between maximum one-hour
exposures at any nearby sensitive receptors at buildout.
P
3.2.3.2 Eight-Hour Exposures
E Maximum eight-hour CO levels relative to the State and/or federal
standard of 9 ppm are shown in Table 4. The maximum opening day
worst-case, eight-hour CO exposure is 4.3 ppm (48 percent of the
standard). Maximum eight-hour CO levels at buildout conditions
P would decrease to 4.1 ppm, or 46 percent of the standard.
H
Microscale air quality impacts do not exceed the thresholds for
E substantial adverse impacts appropriate for this project.
3.3 Cumulative Impacts
h Cumulative impacts may result from other areawide roadway
improvements. These improvements are expected to improve traffic
P flow along Rancho Santa Fe Road by reducing possible congestion
k effects created by roadway capacity deficits. Any anticipated
cumulative impacts from other anticipated improvements would be air
p» quality positive in the project vicinity.
^ Phase 1 and 2 construction may overlap for a short period of time,
and may therefore create a cumulative construction activity impact.
However, the overlap period is limited, and would occur after most
ta> major grading for Phase 1 is completed. The level of potential
construction activity impact derives from the size of the
disturbance "footprint." By the time that Phase 2 construction
. activity reaches a maximum, the Phase 1 disturbance area will have
become reduced to the new road surface without substantial off-
roadway activity. Temporary cumulative construction activity
? impacts from simultaneous Phases 1 and 2 construction will be less
• than when Phase 1 is in its most substantial disturbance activity
level alone.
fe) 3.4 No Project Altemative
B Changes in roadway geometry associated with project implementation
create a small difference in microscale CO exposure at most project
area receptors. By relocating the roadway away from the nearest
homes, reductions in 8-hour CO levels of up to 1.6 ppm are
f attainable. A very minor increase of +0.1 ppm would occur along
fel the southern project terminus with a widened roadway. Since there
are no significant microscale impacts associated with the project,
p and since project versus no-project differences are small, the no-
1^ project condition is not an environmentally preferred alternative.
The project is preferred in terms of a small overall air quality
benefit, but the project is not necessary to prevent or mitigate
any significant microscale air quality impact. P
li
20
TABLE
P
k
MICROSCALE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
(Eight-Hour CO Concentration [ppm])
IP
P
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Existing
3.1
3.5
3.5
4.3
3.4
3.4
3 . 2
3.4
<
No Proi
3.1
3.4
3.4
4.1
3.2
3,2
3,1
3.3
2015 >
w/Proi.
3,1
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.0
3,4
P
P
k
p
ll
p
k
m
li
Calculated from: CO^ * 0.6 (persistence)
Source: CALINE4 Model, results in Appendix,
[
[
3.5 Construction Activity Impacts
The primary air quality impacts from construction activity are in
the form of fugitive dust and emissions from the operation of
heavy-duty equipment. Fugitive dust results from such activities
as clearing and grubbing, grading, and earth removal and transport.
Operation of construction equipment also generates air pollutants
from the combustion of diesel fuel or gasoline. The mobile nature
of the equipment and the linear progression of roadway projects
minimizes adverse impact potential from construction equipment
exhaust emissions.
3-5-1 Fugitive Dust
F Fugitive dust is usually of a larger particle size, such that much
li of the material settles out before traveling very far from the
project. The major impact would be from settling dust which could
F» be a temporary nuisance to local residents. Defining the settling
I out distance of PM-10 due to project construction is difficult due
to changes in climate, meteorology, wind speed and direction of
occurrence on a diurnal basis. EPA documents (AP-42; 1995) suggest
I that the deposition zone for large diameter particles is generally
^ within 100 feet of the disturbance area. The number of dust-
sensitive uses within 100 feet of any project construction
^ disturbance area is minimal.
^ The problem of fugitive dust can normally be addressed
pi satisfactorily by standard contract requirements to control dust
using reasonable and feasible control measures, Watering,
compaction, soil stabilizers/binders, and clean-up of spillage or
track-out are standard measures anticipated to be utilized for dust
g abatement as required by the City of Carlsbad,
m 3.5.2 Equipment Exhaust
Equipment exhaust emissions will vary from day to day as a function
e of activity level. Emissions will also vary from one contractor to
another as a function of equipment used for a given task. The
maximum equipment activity level was assumed to occur during
clearing, grading, delivery and dumping of base rock and compaction
g of the roadway subgrade.
Table 5 lists the type of equipment likely to be in use during such
activity. Table 6 combines the equipment inventory with
representative load factors during typical grading/compaction
activities. There are no established standards of significance for
construction activity air pollution emissions. The San Diego APCD
k
m 22
p
fel
p
p
ll
TABLE 5
EHISSIONS FACTORS FOR C(»ISTROCTIC»I SQDIPHEHT
AHD VEHICLES USED IH GRADING/OOHPACTIOH
li
1^
Ili
Ouan. CO ROG NOx SOx PH-10 Source li
1^
Ili Dozer Ib/br. 1.79 0.19 4.17 0.35 0.02 AP-42, II-7.1
P Backhoe Ib/hr. 0.43 0.16 2.01 0.13 0,14 AP-42, 3.3-1
Loader Ib/hr. 0.57 0.25 1.89 0.18 0.17 AP-42, II-7.1
p
k
Compactors Ib/hr. 1.01 0.08 0.06 <0.01 0.02 AP-42, II-7.2 p
k Haul Truck lb/1000 mi. 19.84 3.42 28.04 Negl. 4.50 EHFAC7G
Employee Coimute lb/1000 mi. 31.81 3.35 4,54 Hegl. 0.06 EHFAC7G
Water Truck lb/1000 mi 56.99 11.57 38.71 Hegl. 4.98 EHFAC7G
p k
p
m
IH
Key: AP-42 = EPA compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Faetors (Sth Ed., 1995).
EHFAC7G = ARB Vehicular Emissions Computer Hodel (1997).
p
il
im
TABLE 6
GRADIHG/COHPACTIOM ACTIVITY EHISSICfflS
(Pounds/Day)
Pi Elissions (pounds/8-Hr. day)
p Source
Daily
Load CO ROC HOx SOx PH-10
Dozer 501 7.2 0.8 16.7 1,4 0.1
IP
Backhoe 50% 1.7 0.6 8.0 0.5 0.6
-Loader 50% 2.3 1.0 7.6 0.7 0.7
wm
P Compaetors 100% 8.1 0.6 0.5 <0.1 0.2
mm Haul Truck
mm (50 trips e 20 mi/trip) 1000 mi. 19.8 3.4 28.0 Negl. 4.5
wm Employee Commute (25 empl.)
m e 40 miles/eapl./day) 1000 mi. 19,1 2.2 2.4 Negl. 0.1
wm
IP Hater Truck 50 mi. 2,8 0.6 1.9 0.2
mm Fugitive Dust* 2.3 ac. 60.6
P
mm Daily Total (pounds) 61.0 9.2 65.1 2.6 67.0
* = assuming a 50' disturbance corridor within 20O0 feet of simultaneous construction on any given day.
IP*
p
ii
P
IH
considers any stationary (smokestack) emissions source of more than
100 pounds per day of any pollutant as a potentially major source.
If those same criteria are applied to the on- and off-site
equipment exhaust emissions, as well as to soil disturbance
fugitive dust, none of the thresholds are exceeded by project
activities. Total daily construction activity impacts, from
equipment exhaust and from fugitive dust, would not create a
significant air quality impact.
Indirect emissions increases could result durinq construction in
public roadways if lane closures, detours or other interference
with local traffic measurably worsened congestion on already
heavily traveled roadways. A fifty percent reduction in mean
travel speed may double the localized emissions of ROG and CO from
impacted traffic. Limited lane closures during the a.m. and p.m.
peak travel periods, and use of temporary steel plates on any
excavated roadway links, is recommended to reduce any indirect
congestion effects for any in-roadway construction within existing
roadway travel lanes.
3-6 Air Quality Conformity Analysis
The proposed project is included in the 1998-'04 Regional
Transportation Improvement program as follows:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive
Realign and widen from four to six lanes, replace existing bridge
over San Marcos Creek. City will request $6,100,000 from Caltrans
HBRR program.
Funding: $ 2,000,000 ISTEA Special Projects (federal)
(FY2000) $ 2,250,000 Regional Surface Transportation Program
(federal)
$25,050,000 Local Funds
Source: 1998-04 RTIP; SANDAG; August, 1998.
An air quality conformity analysis was performed for the 1998-'04
Regional TIP. In this analysis, the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must ensure that
transportation plans, programs, and projects in non-attainment
25
PI
m
p areas conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for overall
air quality improvement by reducing pollutant emissions to meet
m National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Transportation
^ plans, programs, and projects must demonstrate conformity in order
to be approved.
^ The U.S, EPA and Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a final
*• rule for transportation conformity on August 15, 1997 as required
by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) (Section 176(c)(3)(A),
P Based upon this regulation, conformity of transportation plans and
fel programs occurs if the following is demonstrated:
Pi (1) The Regional TIP provides for the timely implementation of the
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) contained in the
adopted SIP,
^ (2) A quantitative analysis is conducted on the cumulative
P emissions of projects programmed within the Regional TIP,
including all regionally significant projects,
pi
^ (3) Implementation of the projects and programs within the
Regional TIP must meet emission budgets (targets) developed by
local and state air quality agencies and approved by EPA. The
^ 1998-'04 Regional TIP must meet a 1999 NO^ and ROG emissions
li budget established by the 1994 SIP submittal demonstrating
attainment of the federal ozone standard by 1999, and a carbon
P monoxide emissions budget established in the CO Maintenance
p Plan,
m
p
fel Caltrans," FHWA^ FTA, APCD, ARB, and EPA,
e Each of the three requirements is demonstrated to be met, shown as
follows:
P
i
p
In addition to the acquired emissions tests, consultation with
transportation and air quality aqencies is required, SANDAG worked
closely with the Conformity Working Group (CWG) in preparation of
the air quality analysis of the 1998-'04 Regional TIP, including
(1) The SIP contains four TCMs called "T-Tactics," including -
T-1 Ridesharing
T-2 Transit
P T-3 Bicycles
fel T-5 Traffic Improvements
Of the $3.55 billion committed in the 1998-'04 RTIP, $1.12 billion,
or 31% of all programmed funds, are allocated to T-Tactic
implementation.
26
z
(2) Emissions modeling from the transportation system was
performed. All capacity-increasing improvements that are on
the Regionally Significant Arterial System or other Principal
Arterials were included.
The change from baseline (1990) emission levels was as
follows:
|f N0« emissions - 53% reduction
fel ROG emissions - 78% reduction
CO emissions - 68% reduction
PI
^ (3) Emissions that would allow for attainment of federal clean air
standards, versus forecast emissions for the "with-RTIP"
^ scenario, were as follows:
li < EMISSIONS (tons/day) —>
p CO NO ROG
ll
Attainment Budget 1195 114 90
pi
p 2000 "RTIP" 633 108 78
2010 "RTIP" 436 82 42
mm 2020 "RTIP" 434 88 36
Based upon an evaluation of funds programmed and a quantitative
emissions analysis, the 1998-'04 Regional TIP meets the conformity
regulations contained within the federal guidelines published on
August 15, 1997 and the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990 at Section 176(c).
27
p
p
p
m
p
p
4.0 SUMMARY
Microscale air quality impacts were evaluated for three (3)
scenarios using carbon monoxide (CO) as an indicator for any
potential "hot spots." This microscale analysis focused on the
Phase 1 APE, but included a sensitive receptor location within the
•fe Phase 2 APE to update/refine the air quality impact report
previously completed for the Phase 2 APE.
P
In (1) Existing Conditions - 2000
(2) Buildout Year - 2015 (no project)
(3) Buildout Year - 2015 (with project).
fel Air quality impacts were well below the most stringent ambient air
quality standards for CO for one- and/or eight-hour exposures, with
p associated adverse impacts therefore not expected.
k
Regional air quality impacts were evaluated relative to regional
transportation improvement plans (RTIP) which are a component of
the Regional Air Quality Strategic/State Implementation Plan
(RAQS/SIP). The project is contained in an RTIP that has been
demonstrated to conform to the RAQS/SIP, Accordingly, no
^ substantial adverse regional air quality impacts related to Plan
m conformance would occur from project implementation,
p» Temporary construction activity impacts will be regulated/
minimized by standard conditions required in all City contracts for
*"* roadway projects, with no associated substantial adverse air
^ quality impacts,
^ Based upon the above information, implementation of the proposed
project or the no-project alternative would not result in any
substantial adverse air quality as defined in this report. Because
^ the project would relocate the roadway away from existing housing,
a small air pollution benefit would accrue from the proposed
OT* project.
*" Cumulative roadway operational impacts have b^en arialyzed in terms
of systemwide traffic projections for areawide buildout, including
^ combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 development. Microscale air quality
W impacts were demonstrated to be individually and cumulatively less
than significant. Construction activities for Phases 1 and 2 may
p» briefly overlap. However, the peak equipment/soil disturbance
^ level during the limited cumulative overlap period will be less
intense than from mass grading during Phase 2 which was found to
have a less-than-significant impact. Cumulative construction
^ activity impacts are therefore less than significant,
M
m 28
p
p
^ CALINPUT Input Data Files Ife
CALINE4 Model Output
CALINE4 Hodel Run Codes:
RSF-EXIST = Existing
2015-WP = Year 2015; With Project
2015-NP = Year 2015; No Project
Note: CALINPUT data files show «BRG= 0.0 DEGREES." All CALINE4
model runs were actually made with the "WORST CASE WIND
ANGLE" option- The printout routine in the model version
used does not have the ability to indicate that worst-case
wind angles were used-
The same receptor locations were used for all 3 runs.
REPORT FOR FILE
pn
P
RSFEXIST
1. Site Variables
U= 0,5 M/S
BRG= 0,0 DEGREES
CLASS= G STABILITY
MIXH= 1000.0 M
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES
Z0=
VD=
VS=
AMB=
TEMP=
100.0 CM
0.0 CM/S
0.0 CM/S
4.0 PPM
10,0 DEGREE (C)
k 2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
p DESCRIPTION * XI Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
te
(G/MI)
p A . COSTA-W 0 514 338 242 AG 550 20.7 0.5 14.0
pB . COSTA-E 338 242 617 0 AG 40 20.7 0.5 14.0
, MEL-IN 1438 2904 1072 3460 AG 350 20.7 0.5 18.0
% . MEL-OUT 1438 2904 1072 3460 AG 296 12.2 0,5 18,0
. ST,A-IN 2264 2550 1438 2904 AG 1 20.7 0,5 18.0
. ST.A-OUT 1438 2904 2264 2550 AG 1 12.2 0,5 18.0
lib . QUEST-IN 2550 2286 1657 2538 AG 218 20,7 0,5 10.0
H . QUESTOUT 1657 2538 2550 2286 AG 194 12.2 0.5 10,0
n . RSF-1 171 0 338 242 AG 2000 20.7 0.5 14,0
te^ . RSF-2 800 716 338 242 AG 1043 20.7 0.5 10,0
K , RSF-3 338 242 800 716 AG 1014 12.2 0.5 10.0
pi . RSF-4 800 716 1052 1132 AG 2057 10.7 0.5 14.0
, RSF-5 1052 1132 1498 1914 AG 2057 10.7 0.5 14.0
. RSF-6 1498 1914 1768 2140 AG 2057 10.7 0.5 14.0
0 . RSF-7 1768 2140 1710 2449 AG 1014 20.7 0.5 10.0
. RSF-8 1710 2449 1768 2140 AG 1043 12,2 0.5 10.0
. RSF-9 1710 2449 1436 2851 AG 2187 20,7 0.5 14.0
R , RSF-X 1 1 1 2 AG 1 20.7 0.5 10.0
twe . RSF-10 1406 3460 1436 2851 AG 880 20.7 0.5 10.0
. RSF-11 1436 2851 1406 3460 AG 1363 12.2 0.5 10.0
Ml * MIXW
fel * L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI I DTI IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC • NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) • A. 0 0 0 0.0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0
P C. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 P
D. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 • E. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F, 0 0 0 0,0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
p G. 0 0 0 0,0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
li H, 0 0 0 0,0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I, 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
pi J. 0 0 0 0.0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IP K. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ml M. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
P 0. 0 0 0 0.0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0,0
P. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
Q. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0
p
p
R. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
S. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
T. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
3 . Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 1543 2927 1.0
RECEPTOR 2 1123 1296 3.0
RECEPTOR 3 1047 1157 3.0
RECEPTOR 4 880 864 3.0
RECEPTOR 5 823 807 3.0
RECEPTOR 6 629 599 3.0
RECEPTOR 7 462 457 3.0
RECEPTOR 8 320 297 3.0
te
p
p
m
k
0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE RSFEXIST
P
fel * PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) •k (DEG) * A B c D E F G H
RECPT 1 * 5.1 * 168 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 2 * 5.8 * 37 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 3 * 5.9 * 36 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 4 * 7.2 * 36 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 5 * 5.6 * 213 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
RECPT 6 * 5.6 * 214 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 7 * 5,4 * 208 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 8 * 5.7 * 197 * 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0
li
RECEPTOR
PRED
CONC
(PPM)
te RECPT 1 *
RECPT 2 *
^ RECPT 3 *
RECPT 4 *
^ RECPT 5 *
RECPT 6 *
RECPT 7 *
RECPT 8 *
mm
mm *
*
RECEPTOR *
^ RECPT 1 *
ia RECPT 2 *
RECPT 3 *
P RECPT 4 *
H RECPT 5 *
RECPT 6 *
_ RECPT 7 *
RECPT 8 *
te
*WIND *
* BRG *
*(DEG)*
* *
* 168 *
37
36
36
213
214
208
197
COCN/LINK
(PPM)
IJK M N O
5.1
5.8
5.9
7.2
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.7
PRED
CONC
(PPM)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.0
*WIND *
* BRG *
*(DEG)*
* *
* 168 *
37
36
36
213
214
208
197
COCN/LINK
(PPM)
Q R S
0.8
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0,1
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
p
te
REPORT FOR FILE 2015-WP
1. Site Variables
P
k
U= 0.5 M/S
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES
CLASS= G STABILITY
MIXH= 1000,0 M
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES
Z0= 100.0 CM
VD= 0.0 CM/S
VS= 0.0 CM/S
AMB= 4.0 PPM
TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w
p DESCRIPTION * XI Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
A. COSTA-W 0 514 338 242 AG 1200 10.2 0.5 14.0
P^ . COSTA-E 338 242 617 0 AG 80 10.2 0.5 14.0
Cc . MEL-IN 1438 2904 1072 3460 AG 2250 10,2 0.5 18.0
•D
. MEL-OUT 1438 2904 1072 3460 AG 1750 5,7 0.5 18.0
E . ST.A-IN 2264 2550 1438 2904 AG 870 10.2 0.5 18.0
PF . ST.A-OUT 1438 2904 2264 2550 AG 850 5.7 0.5 18.0
feiG . QUEST-IN 2550 2286 1657 2538 AG 1030 10.2 0.5 14.0
H . QUESTOUT 1657 2538 2550 2286 AG 1590 5.7 0.5 14.0
ml . RSF-1 171 0 338 242 AG 4400 10.2 0.5 30.0
y . RSF-2 1034 569 338 242 AG 2300 10.2 0.5 18.0
"K . RSF-3 338 242 1034 569 AG 2300 5.7 0.5 18.0
. RSF-4 1034 569 1390 867 AG 4590 4,7 0.5 30.0
!^M . RSF-5 1390 867 1509 1841 AG 4590 4,7 0,5 30.0
iPN . RSF-6 1509 1841 1768 2140 AG 4590 4,7 0.5 30.0
0 . RSF-7 1768 2140 1710 2449 AG 2300 10.2 0.5 18.0
^P . RSF-8 1710 2449 1768 2140 AG 2290 5.7 0.5 18.0
pQ . RSF-9 1710 2449 1436 2851 AG 3530 10,2 0.5 30.0
R . RSF-X 1 1 1 2 AG 1 20,7 0,5 10.0
p^ . RSF-10 1406 3460 1436 2851 AG 1450 10.2 0,5 18.0
te . RSF-11 1436 2851 1406 3460 AG 1490 5,7 0.5 18.0
r» MIXW
te * L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTl IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) 1 (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
A. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0
B. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
C. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Li D, 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
m E. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
F. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
G. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ll H. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
I. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
p J. 0 0 0 0.0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(, K. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0,0
M. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IP N. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
te 0. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
P. 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
*p Q, 0 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
te
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE 2015-WP
P * PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (DEG) * A B C D E F G H
RECPT 1 * 5.2 * 308 * 0,0 0.0 0.5 0,2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 2 * 4.6 * 35 * 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
RECPT 3 * 4.6 * 34 * 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0,1 0.1
RECPT 4 * 4.5 * 32 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
RECPT 5 * 4.5 * 215 * 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 6 * 4.7 * 216 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 7 •k 5.0 •k 210 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 8 * 5,7 * 197 * 0.4 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
p
RECEPTOR
* PRED
* CONC
* (PPM)
*WIND *
* BRG *
*(DEG)*
* *
* 308 *
35
34
32
215
216
210
197
COCN/LINK
(PPM)
IJK M N O
RECPT
C RECPT
RECPT
RECPT
RECPT
I RECPT
• RECPT
RECPT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0,3
0.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0,2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,1
0.1
0,1
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RECEPTOR
* PRED
* CONC
* (PPM)
.*
* 5.2
*WIND *
* BRG *
*(DEG)*
* *
* 308 *
35
34
32
215
216
210
197
COCN/LINK
(PPM)
Q R S T
RECPT
te RECPT
RECPT
P RECPT
ll RECPT
RECPT
— RECPT
r RECPT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
p
te
te
REPORT FOR FILE 2015-NP
1, Site Variables
p
fel
U= 0.5 M/S
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES
CLASS= G STABILITY
MIXH= 1000.0 M
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES
Z0= 100.0 CM
VD= 0.0 CM/S
VS= 0.0 CM/S
AMB= 4.0 PPM
TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
p LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w
fel DESCRIPTION * XI Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
COSTA-W 0 514 338 242 AG 1200 10.2 0.5 14.0
COSTA-E 338 242 617 0 AG 80 10.2 0.5 14.0
•fc. MEL-IN 1438 2904 1072 3460 AG 2250 10.2 0,5 18.0
D. MEL-OUT 1438 2904 1072 3460 AG 1750 5.7 0.5 18,0
HE . ST.A-IN 2264 2550 1438 2904 AG 870 10.2 0,5 18.0
. ST.A-OUT 1438 2904 2264 2550 AG 850 5.7 0.5 18.0
G. QUEST-IN 2550 2286 1657 2538 AG 1030 10.2 0.5 14.0
. QUESTOUT 1657 2538 2550 2286 AG 1590 5.7 0.5 14.0
RSF-1 171 0 338 242 AG 4400 10.2 0,5 14.0
RSF-2 800 716 338 242 AG 2300 10.2 0.5 10.0
K, RSF-3 338 242 800 716 AG 2300 5.7 0.5 10.0
RSF-4 800 716 1052 1132 AG 4590 4.7 0.5 14.0
RSF-5 1052 1132 1498 1914 AG 4590 4.7 0.5 14.0
N. RSF-6 1498 1914 1768 2140 AG 4590 4.7 0.5 14.0
•PT). RSF-7 1768 2140 1710 2449 AG 2300 10.2 0.5 10.0
RSF-8 1710 2449 1768 2140 AG 2290 5.7 0.5 10.0
Q. RSF-9 1710 2449 1436 2851 AG 3530 10.2 0.5 14.0
RSF-X 1 1 1 2 AG 1 20.7 0.5 10.0
RSF-10 1406 3460 1436 2851 AG 1450 10.2 0.5 10.0
RSF-11 1436 2851 1406 3460 AG 1490 5.7 0.5 10.0
p
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTl IDT2
B LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
I A. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
p C, 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
il D. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
E. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
p F. 0 0 0 0.0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
te G. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
H. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IP I. 0 0 0 0,0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
J. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
te K. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
M. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0,0 0.0
m N. 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 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ml P. 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE 2015-NP
te
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
te k CONC * BRG (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (DEG) * A B C D E F G H
1 RECPT 1 * 5.2 * 308 * 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 2 * 5.6 k 37 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,1 0.0 0.1 0.1
RECPT 3 5.7 * 37 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
P
IL
RECPT 4 * 6.9 k 37 * 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
ll RECPT 5 * 5.3 * 213 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 6 * 5.3 * 213 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
p RECPT 7 * 5.2 * 208 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L RECPT 8 * 5.5 * 196 * 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
p
ti PRED
CONC
*WIND
* BRG
COCN/LINK
(PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (DEG) * I J K L M N 0 p
mt RECPT 1 * 5.2 * 308 * 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
f RECPT 2 * 5.6 * 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
L RECPT 3 * 5.7 * 37 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
PI RECPT 4 * 6.9 * 37 * 0.0 0.0 0,0 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 5 * 5.3 * 213 * 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 6 * 5.3 k 213 * 0,2 0.7 0.4 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L RECPT 7 * 5.2 k 208 * 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 8 * 5.5 * 196 * 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECEPTOR
* PRED *WIND *
* CONC * BRG *
* (PPM) *(DEG)*
COCN/LINK
(PPM)
Q R S T
RECPT 1 * 5. 2 * 308 * 0.0 0 .0 0 .2 0. 1
te RECPT 2 * 5. 6 * 37 * 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0, 0
RECPT 3 * 5. 7 * 37 * 0,0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0
p RECPT 4 * 6. 9 * 37 * 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0
RECPT
RECPT
5 * 5. 3 * 213 * 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0 RECPT
RECPT 6 * 5. 3 k 213 * 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0
RECPT 7 * 5. 2 k 208 * 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0
^ RECPT 8 * 5. 5 k 196 * 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0
te
PI
p
m
te
p
te
p
te
p
6.0 REPORT PREPARERS
This technical report was prepared by Hans Giroux of Giroux &
Associates. Mr. Giroux has 30+ years of experience in atmospheric
sciences with the last 21 years focused on air quality studies in
support of environmental (CEQA/NEPA) clearance for proposed
projects. He has worked extensively throughout northern San Diego
County within the last two decades, including a number of projects
in the Carlsbad area. Mr. Giroux has interacted with staffs of
various air quality planning agencies on numerous projects,
including roadway improvement projects with agencies such as
SDAPCD, Caltrans, SANDAG, etc. He has been listed on the San Diego
County list of qualified consultants in the area of air quality and
noise since the inception of the list in 1989.
P
te
ii
te
1^
te 22