SP22-0003_Staff Report_Attach B4_Appx B_Air Quality_GHG — San Marcos City Council, October 24, 2023

Appendix B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report

DRAFT
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Technical Report
Marcos Specific Plan
JULY 2023
Prepared for:

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Chris Garcia
Prepared by:

605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Elena Nuño

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

14763 i JULY 2023

Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Air Quality Findings ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Air Quality Plan Consistency ..................................................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Non-Attainment Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.... 2

1.2.3 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................. 3

1.2.4 Other Emissions (Odors) ........................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Findings .................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Report Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 5 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................... 13

3.1.1 Meteorological and Topographical Conditions ..................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Pollutants and Effects ........................................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 State Regulations .................................................................................................................. 21

3.2.3 Local Regulations .................................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Regional and Local Air Quality Conditions ......................................................................................... 29

3.3.1 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Designation ....................................................................... 29

3.3.2 Local Ambient Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 30

3.4 Significance Criteria and Methodology .............................................................................................. 32

3.4.1 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................... 32

3.4.2 Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................. 33

3.5 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 37

3.5.1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (AQ-1) ............................................................................................................................ 37

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 ii JULY 2023

3.5.3 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (AQ-3) ...................................................................................................................................... 43

3.5.4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (AQ-4) ............................................................... 47 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................................. 48

4.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................... 48

4.1.1 Climate Change Overview ...................................................................................................... 48

4.1.2 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................ 48

4.1.3 Global Warming Potential ...................................................................................................... 50

4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................... 51

4.2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................... 51

4.2.2 State Regulations .................................................................................................................. 53

4.2.3 Local Regulations .................................................................................................................. 65

4.3 Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Climate Change Conditions ........................................................ 66

4.3.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 66

4.3.2 Potential Effects of Climate Change ..................................................................................... 68

4.4 Significance Criteria and Methodology .............................................................................................. 70

4.4.1 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................... 70

4.4.2 Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................. 72

4.5 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 74

4.5.1 GHG Emissions and GHG Emission Reduction Plans .......................................................... 74 5 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 82 6 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................................ 89 TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Impact Determinations .................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3. San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification ............................................................................................... 29 Table 4. Local Ambient Air Quality Data ........................................................................................................................ 30 Table 5. Air Quality Significance Thresholds – Construction and Operational Emissions.......................................... 33 Table 6. CalEEMod Land Use Development Summary for the Proposed Project ....................................................... 33 Table 7. Project Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 34 Table 8. Construction Scenario Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 35 Table 9. Development Intensity Comparison ................................................................................................................ 38 Table 10. Population, Housing, and Employment ........................................................................................................ 39 Table 11. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions - Unmitigated ........................... 41 Table 12. Estimated Maximum Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Unmitigated (Summer) ..................... 42 Table 13. Estimated Maximum Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Unmitigated (Winter) ........................ 42

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 iii JULY 2023

Table 14. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California ....................................................................................... 67 Table 15. City of San Marcos (Year 2012) Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ........................ 67 Table 16. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Unmitigated .............................................. 74 Table 17. Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated ............................................... 75 Table 18. Comparison of Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated ..................... 76 Figure(s)
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Project Site ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX
A CalEEMod Results

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 iv JULY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

14763 v JULY 2023

Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAcronym/Abbreviation DDefinition [[TTable Heading (RGB: 15, 443,77))]] μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California’s Green Building Standards
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAP climate action plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 methane
City City of San Marcos
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DPM diesel particulate matter
EIR environmental impact report
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCFCs hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kW kilowatt
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LOS level of service
MMT million metric ton
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MT CO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 vi JULY 2023

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
O3 ozone
PFC perfluorocarbon
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
Project Marcos Specific Plan Project
PV photovoltaic
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLCP short-lived climate pollutant
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SO4 sulfates
SOx sulfur oxides
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
VOC volatile organic compound
ZEV zero emission vehicle

14763 1 JULY 2023

1 Executive Summary
The purpose of this technical report is to assess the potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Marcos Specific Plan Project (Project) in the City of San Marcos (City). This assessment utilizes the significance th resholds in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and is based on the emissions-based significance thresholds recommended by the San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist rict (SDAPCD) and other applicable thresholds of significance.

1.1 Project Summary
The proposed Marcos Specific Plan Project (Project) includes a request for a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Rezone for a residential mixed-use development project on approximately 12.03-acre site. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA).

The project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive in the City of San Marcos (APNs 219-152-42, -44, -45, -51, -61, -70, -74, -75, -76, -77, -78, -79) The existing project site has been previously disturbed and is currently developed with paved areas and billboards. The project site is located in an urban area of the City surrounded on all sides by existing development, including commercial and industrial uses to the north, east, south, and west.

Additionally, the residential area would include a pool building, pool and spa area, barbeque area, picnic area, and play area for residents. The residential buildings would be located on the northwestern portion of the site, and commercial uses and the live-work units would be placed along the southern and eastern project boundaries.

Access to the residential area would be provided via Grand Avenue at a northern driveway, and access to the commercial area would be via Grand Avenue at a southern driveway and two driveways along Linda Vista Drive. The project would provide 204 garage parking spaces for residences, 34 residential guest parking spaces, and 278 commercial parking spaces.

The Project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD. Construction and operational criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.

1.2 Air Quality Findings
The air quality impact analysis evaluated the potential fo r adverse impacts to air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the Project. Impacts were evaluated for their significance based on the County of San Diego’s mass daily criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance (County of San Diego 2007), which is based on SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3 (SDAPCD 1998 and 2021). Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 2 JULY 2023

for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O 3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), and lead. Pollutants that are evaluated include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5. VOCs and NOx are important because they are precursors to O3.

1.2.1 Air Quality Plan Consistency
Regarding consistency with local air qual ity plans, the Project would not result in a more intensive land use than currently allowed under the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012), which SDAPCD’s Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) emissions forecast is based on. The Project site is designated as Commercial (C) in the City’s General Plan and is zoned Commercial (C). Although the Project would redesignate the site to Specific Plan Area and would develop a mix of residential and commercial uses, it would be less intensive than the current designation.

Further, the projected population, housing, and employment growth would be well within the SANDAG projections for the City. As such, the Project would be consistent with relevant air quality plans, and impacts would be lless than significant.

1.2.2 Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Non-Attainment Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

1.2.2.1 Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction of the Project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on- site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Estimated maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the applied significance thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5 during
construction in all construction years (2024–2025). Theref ore, Project construction air quality impacts would be less than significant.

1.2.2.2 Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Operation of the Project would generate operational criteria air pollutants from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips), area sources (i.e., consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment), and energy (i.e., natural gas). Maximum daily operational emissions would not exceed the County of San Diego’s operational significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, Project operational air quality impacts would be l less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 3 JULY 2023

1.2.3 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors

1.2.3.1 Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Operation of the Project would generate minimal new daily vehicle trips and would not expose sensitive receptors to localized high concentrations of CO or contribute traffic volumes to intersections that would cause a CO hotspot.

Operational CO hotspot impacts would be lless than significant.

1.2.3.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction activities would not generate emissions greater than the applied mass daily thresholds; therefore, Project-generated construction emissions are not anticipated to be substantial. Further, the exposure duration of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction would be a small portion of the 30-year exposure period and the nearest sensitive receptors are located at distance of over 2,000 feet away from the Project site. Given the short- term duration of construction and the dispersion of TACs through the intervening distance, the pollutant concentration would be further reduced.

Regarding long-term toxic air contaminant emissions, the Project would result in a minimal increase in daily truck traffic on the roadway network and would not require stationary sources (such as diesel emergency generators). Therefore, the exposure of Project-related TAC emission impacts to proximate sensitive receptors would be l less than significant.

1.2.4 Other Emissions (Odors)
The analysis of other emissions is focused on the potential for an odor impact to occur. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application, which would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. In addition, the Project would not include land-use types that would generate offensive odors during operation.

Therefore, Project construction and operations would result in odor impacts that are l less than significant.

1.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Findings
Global climate change is primarily considered a cumulative impact but must also be evaluated on a project-level under CEQA. A project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHG emissions. GHGs are gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Principal GHGs regulated under state and federal law and regulations include carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). GHG emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e), which account for weighted global warming potential factors for CH4 and N2O.

The City of San Marcos adopted the Final Climate Action Plan (CAP) on December 8, 2020. The Project’s GHG impact significance has been assessed based on compliance with the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist.

Construction and operational GHG emissions were quantified for informational purposes in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines 15064.4.

Construction of the Project would result in GHG emissions of 582.8 MT CO 2e. Estimated Project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 19.4 MT CO2e per year.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 4 JULY 2023

The estimated GHG emissions from operation of the Project would be approximately 1,690.40 MT CO 2e per year, including amortized construction emissions.

Development of the Project site would be consistent with the City’s CAP, which was prepared to be aligned with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) community-wide targets and put the City on trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in EO-S-3-05, as such the Project would not conflict with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan or the San Diego Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SANDAG RTP/SCS).

Regarding the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and AB 1279 (2045 carbon neutrality), the City’s CAP would provide its proportional share of reductions towards 2050, which would align with 2045 targets in concert with CARB measures for carbon capture and storage.

Based on the Project’s consistency with the City’s CAP, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs or generate GHGs that may have a significant impact on the environment. This impact would be l less than significant.

1.4 Summary of Findings
Table 1. Summary of Impact Determinations
Analysis
Report
Section
CEQA
Checklist
Question
Significance Determinations
Unmitigated Mitigated
Air Quality Management
Plan

3.5.1 AQ-1 Less than Significant No Mitigation Required.

Cumulatively
Considerable Net
Increase of Any Criteria
Pollutant

3.5.2 AQ-2 Less than Significant No Mitigation Required.

Sensitive Receptors 3.5.3 AQ-3 Less than Significant No Mitigation Required.

Other Emissions and
Odors

3.5.4 AQ-4 Less than Significant No Mitigation Required.

GHG Emissions and GHG
Reduction Plan

4.5.1 GHG-1 and
GHG-2
Less than Significant No Mitigation Required.

14763 5 JULY 2023

2 Introduction

2.1 Report Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this technical report is to assess the potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Marcos Specific Plan Project (Project). This assessment uses the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and is based on the emissions-based significance thresholds recommended by the County of San Diego (County), which is based on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) rules, and other applicable thresholds of significance.

This introductory Section provides a description of the Project and the Project location. Chapter 3, Air Quality, describes the air quality–related environmental setting, regulatory setting, existing air quality conditions, and thresholds of significance and analysis methodology, and presents an air quality impact analysis per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Chapter 4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, follows the same format as Chapter 3 and similarly describes the GHG emissions–related environmental setting, regulatory setting, existing climate changes conditions, and thresholds of significance and analysis methodology, and presents a GHG emissions impact analysis per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Chapter 5, References Cited, includes a list of the references cited.

Chapter 6, List of Preparers, includes a list of those who prepared this technical report.

2.2 Project Description
The proposed Project includes the development of a Specific Plan to guide future development on the approximately

12.03-acre Project site in the City of San Marcos in San Diego County (Figure 1, Project Location). The Project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive (Figure 2, Project Site). The existing site has been previously disturbed and is currently developed with paved areas and billboards. The Project site is located in an urban area of the City surrounded on all sides by existing development, including commercial and industrial uses to the north, east, south, and west.

The Project consists of construction of 102 multi-family residential units on 5.03 acres of the project site, and construction of 7,658 square feet (sf) of office space and 49,266 sf of specialty retail space and 7 live-work residential dwelling units on 6.05 acres of the project site (Figure 3, Site Plan). Residential units would be contained within 15 townhome buildings, and units would be a mix of six different unit types, ranging in size from two- to three- bedrooms. Additionally, the residential area would include a pool building, pool and spa area, barbeque area, picnic area, and play area for residents. The residential buildings would be located on the northwestern portion of the site, and commercial uses and the live-work units would be placed along the southern and eastern project boundaries.

Access to the residential area would be provided via Grand Avenue at a northern driveway, and access to the commercial area would be via Grand Avenue at a southern driveway and two driveways along Linda Vista Drive. The Project would provide 204 garage parking spaces for residences, 34 residential guest parking spaces, and 278 commercial parking spaces.

The Project site is currently designated and zoned Commercial (C) under the City’s General Plan and municipal code, respectively.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 6 JULY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 7 JULY 2023

Figure 1 Project Location

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 8 JULY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 9 JULY 2023

Figure 2 Project Site

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 10 JULY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 11 JULY 2023

Figure 3 Site Plan

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 12 JULY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

14763 13 JULY 2023

3 Air Quality

3.1 Environmental Setting

3.1.1 Meteorological and Topographical Conditions
The Project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and is subject to the SDAPCD guidelines and regulations. The SDAB is one of 15 air basins that geographically divide the State of California. The primary factors that determine air quality are the locations of air pollutant sources and the quantity of pollutants emitted.

Meteorological and topographical conditions, however, are also important. Factors such as wind speed and direction, air temperature gradients and sunlight, and precipitation and humidity interact with physical landscape features to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. Meteorological and topographical factors that affect air quality in the SDAB are described below.1

3.1.1.1 Regional Climate and Meteorological Conditions
The climate of the San Diego region, as in most of Southern California, is influenced by the strength and position of the semi-permanent high-pressure system over the Pacifi c Ocean, known as the Pacific High. This high-pressure ridge over the west coast often creates a pattern of late-night and early-morning low clouds, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature variation year-round. The SDAB is characterized as a Mediterranean climate with dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. Average temperature ranges (in degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) from the mid-40s to the high 90s, with an average of 201 days warmer than 70°F. The SDAB experiences 9 to 13 inches of rainfall annually, with most of the region’s precipitation falling from November through March, with infrequent (approximately 10%) precipitation during the summer. El Niño and La Niña patterns have large effects on the annual rainfall received in San Diego, where San Diego receives less than normal rainfall during La Niña years.

The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High maintains clear skies for much of the year and influences the direction of prevailing winds (westerly to northwesterly). The winds tend to blow onshore in the day and offshore at night. Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.

The favorable climate of the San Diego region also works to create air pollution problems. Sinking, or subsiding air from the Pacific High, creates a temperature inversion known as a subsidence inversion, which acts as a “lid” to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Weak summertime pres sure gradients further limit horizontal dispersion of pollutants in the mixed layer below the subsidence inversion. Poorly dispersed anthropogenic emissions combined with strong sunshine leads to photochemical reactions that result in the creation of ozone (O 3) at this surface layer.

In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation.

1 The discussion of meteorological and topographical conditions of the SDAB is based on information provided in the SDAPCD 2016 Monitoring Plan (SDAPCD 2017), the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality (County of San Diego 2007), the County of San Diego General Plan Update EIR (County of San Diego 2011), and the CARB Recommended Area Designation for the 2010 Federal Sulfur Dioxide Standard (CARB 2011).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 14 JULY 2023

In the fall months, the SDAB is often impacted by Santa Ana winds, which are the result of a high-pressure system over the Nevada and Utah regions that overcomes the westerly wind pattern and forces hot, dry winds from the east to the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana winds are powerful and can blow the SDAB’s pollutants out to sea. However, a weak Santa Ana can transport air pollution from the South Coast Air Basin and greatly increase O3 concentrations in the San Diego area.

Under certain conditions, atmospheric oscillation results in the offshore transport of air from the Los Angeles region to San Diego County. This often produces high O3 concentrations, as measured at air pollutant monitoring stations within San Diego County. The transport of air pollutants from Los Angeles to San Diego can also occur within the stable layer of the elevated subsidence inversion, where high levels of O3 are transported.

3.1.1.2 Topographical Conditions
Topography in the San Diego region varies greatly, from beaches in the west to mountains and desert in the east; much of the topography in between consists of mesa tops intersected by canyon areas. Along with local meteorology, topography influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the SDAB. Mountains to the east prohibit dispersal of pollutants in that direction and help trap pollutants in inversion layers.

The topography of the SDAB also drives pollutant levels, and the SDAB is classified as a “transport recipient,” whereby pollutants are transported from the South Coast Air Basin to the north and, when the wind shifts direction, from Tijuana, Mexico, to the south.

3.1.2 Pollutants and Effects

3.1.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The national and California standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include O
3, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), and lead. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing partic les are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. These pollutants, as well as toxic air contaminants (TACs), are discussed in the following paragraphs.2 OOzone. O3 is a strong-smelling, pale blue, reactive, toxic chem ical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a photochemical process involving the sun’s energy and O 3 precursors. These precursors are mainly oxides of nitrogen (NO x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The maximum effects of precursor emissions on O 3 concentrations usually occur several hours after they are emitted and many miles from the source. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O 3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and

2 The descriptions of the criteria air pollutants and associated health effects are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Criteria Air Pollutants” (EPA 2022a), as well as th e California Air Resources Board’s “Glossary” (CARB 2019a) and CARB’s “Common Air Pollutants” (CARB 2022a).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 15 JULY 2023

cloudless skies. O 3 exists in the upper atmosphere O 3 layer (stratospheric O 3) and at the Earth’s surface in the troposphere (ground-level O3)3. The O3 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate as a criteria air pollutant is produced close to the ground level, where people live, exercise, and breathe. Ground-level O3 is a harmful air pollutant that causes numerous adverse health effects and is thus considered “bad” O3. Stratospheric, or “good,” O3 occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, where it reduces the amount of ultraviolet light (i.e., solar radiation) entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Without the protection of the beneficial stratospheric O
3 layer, plant and animal life would be seriously harmed.

O3 in the troposphere causes numerous adverse health effects; short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can re sult in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes (EPA 2013).

Inhalation of O3 causes inflammation and irritation of the tissues lining human airways, causing, and worsening a variety of symptoms. Exposure to O 3 can reduce the volume of air that the lungs breathe in, thereby causing shortness of breath. O3 in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. The occurrence and severity of health effects from O 3 exposure vary widely among individuals, even when the dose and the duration of exposure are the same. Research shows adults and children who spend more time outdoors participating in vigorous ph ysical activities are at greater risk from the harmful health effects of O3 exposure. While there are relatively few studies on the effects of O 3 on children, the available studies show that children are no more or less likely to suffer harmful effects than adults. However, there are several reasons why children may be more susceptible to O 3 and other pollutants. Children and teens spend nearly twice as much time outdoors and engaged in vigorous activities as adults. Children breathe more rapidly than adults and inhale more pollution per pound of their body weight than adults. Also, children are less likely than adults to notice their own symptoms and avoid harmful exposures. Further research may be able to better distinguish between health effects in children and adults. Children, adolescent s, and adults who exercise or work outdoors, where O3 concentrations are the highest, are at the greatest risk of harm from this pollutant (CARB 2019b).

NNitrogen Dioxide. NO 2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO), which is a colorless, odorless gas. NO x plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O 3. NO x is formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. In addition, NO x is an important precursor to acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The two major emissions sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

NO
2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections (EPA 2016a).

A large body of health science literature indicates that exposure to NO 2 can induce adverse health effects. The strongest health evidence, and the health basis for the ambient air quality standards for NO2, results from controlled human exposure studies that show that NO2 exposure can intensify responses to allergens in allergic asthmatics.

In addition, several epidemiological studies have demonstrated associations between NO2 exposure and premature death, cardiopulmonary effects, decreased lung function growth in children, respiratory symptoms, emergency room visits for asthma, and intensified allergic responses. Infants and children are particularly at risk because they have

3 The troposphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere neares t to the surface of the Earth. The troposphere extends outward about 5 miles at the poles and about 10 miles at the equator.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 16 JULY 2023

disproportionately higher exposure to NO2 than adults due to their greater breathing rate for their body weight and their typically greater outdoor exposure duration. Several studies have shown that long-term NO2 exposure during childhood, the period of rapid lung growth, can lead to smal ler lungs at maturity in children with higher levels of exposure compared to children with lower exposure levels. In addition, children with asthma have a greater degree of airway responsiveness compared with adult asthmatics. In adults, the greatest risk is to people who have chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CARB 2019c).

CCarbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon, or fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as the Project location, automobile exhaust accounts for most CO emissions. CO is a nonreactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions—primarily wind speed, topogr aphy, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, which is a typical situation at dusk in urban areas from November to February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year, when inversion conditions are more frequent.

CO is harmful because it binds to hemoglobin in the bloo d, reducing the ability of blood to carry oxygen. This interferes with oxygen delivery to the body’s organs. The most common effects of CO exposure are fatigue, headaches, confusion and reduced mental alertness, light-headedness, and dizziness due to inadequate oxygen delivery to the brain. For people with cardiovascular disease, short-term CO exposure can further reduce their body’s already compromised ability to respond to the increased oxygen demands of exercise, exertion, or stress.

Inadequate oxygen delivery to the heart muscle leads to chest pain and decreased exercise tolerance. Unborn babies whose mothers experience high levels of CO exposure during pregnancy are at risk of adverse developmental effects. Unborn babies, infants, elderly people, and people with anemia or with a history of heart or respiratory disease are most likely to experience health effects with exposure to elevated levels of CO (CARB 2019d).

Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. The main sources of SO 2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO 2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels.

Controlled human exposure and epidemiological studies show that children and adults with asthma are more likely to experience adverse responses with SO2 exposure, compared with the non-asthmatic population. Effects at levels near the 1-hour standard are those of asthma exacerbation, including bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms of respiratory irritation such as wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, especially during exercise or physical activity. Also, exposure at elevated levels of SO 2 (above 1 parts per million [ppm]) results in
increased incidence of pulmonary symptoms and disease, decreased pulmonary function, and increased risk of mortality. Older people and people with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema) are most likely to experience these adverse effects (CARB 2019e).

SO
2 is of concern both because it is a direct respiratory irritant and because it contributes to the formation of sulfate and sulfuric acid in particulate matter [National Research Council (NRC) 2005]. People with asthma are of particular concern, both because they have increased baseline airflow resistance and because their SO2-induced increase in airflow resistance is greater than in healthy people, and it increases with the severity of their asthma (NRC 2005).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 17 JULY 2023

SO2 is thought to induce airway constriction via neural reflexes involving irritant receptors in the airways (NRC 2005).

PParticulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very smal l liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Coarse particulate matter (PM10) consists of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter, which is about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM 10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) consists of particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, which is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair.

PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., from motor vehicles and power generation and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM 2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOx), NOx, and VOCs.

PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport adsorbed gases such as chlorides or ammonium into the lungs, also causing injury.

Whereas PM
10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissue. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle and produce haze and reduce regional visibility.

Several adverse health effects have been associated with exposure to both PM2.5 and PM10. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hour duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days . These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases. In addition, of all the common air pollutants, PM2.5 is associated with the greatest proportion of adverse health effects related to air pollution, both in the United States and worldwide based on the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Project. Short-term exposures to PM
10 have been associated primarily with worsening of respiratory diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leading to hospitalization and emergency department visits (CARB 2017a).

Long-term exposure (months to years) to PM2.5 has been linked to premature death, particularly in people who have chronic heart or lung diseases, and reduced lung function growth in children. The effects of long-term exposure to PM10 are less clear, although several studies suggest a link between long-term PM 10 exposure and respiratory mortality. The International Agency for Research on Cancer published a review in 2015 that concluded that particulate matter in outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer (CARB 2017a).

Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and am munition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline,

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 18 JULY 2023

secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emissions sources of greater concern.

Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient (IQ) performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.

S
Sulfates. Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere and can result in respiratory impairment, as well as reduced visibility.

Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air can cause nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.

Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs.

Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations.

Visibility-Reducing Particles. Visibility-reducing particles are any particl es in the air that obstruct the range of visibility. Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the viewshed of natural scenery, reducing airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility-reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5.

Volatile Organic Compounds. Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs [also referred to as reactive organic gases (ROGs)]. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil-fueled power plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.

The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O3 and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate ambient air quality standards for VOCs as a group.

3.1.2.2 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants. A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects.

A toxic substance released into the air is considered a TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the state of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 19 JULY 2023

of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years.

Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by several sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogen ic (i.e., cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects.

Non-carcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on either short- term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.

D
Diesel Particulate Matter. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. More than 90% of DPM is less than 1 micrometer in diameter (about 1/70 the diameter of a human hair), and thus is a subset of PM

2.5 (CARB 2019f). DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (“soot,” also called black carbon) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer-causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3- butadiene (CARB 2019f). The CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (i.e., DPM) (17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on-road diesel engines, including trucks, buses, and cars, and off-road diesel engines, including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy- duty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM (CARB 2000). To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000). Because it is part of PM

2.5, DPM also contributes to the same non-cancer
health effects as PM 2.5 exposure. These effects include premature death; hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lu ng disease, including asthma; increased respiratory symptoms; and decreased lung function in children. Se veral studies suggest that exposure to DPM may also facilitate development of new allergies (CARB 2019f). Those most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects are children, whose lungs are still developing, and older people, who often have chronic health problems.

Valley Fever. Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United States. When fungal spores are present, any activity that disturbs the soil, such as digging, grading, or other earth-moving operations, can cause the spores to become airborne an d thereby increase the risk of exposure. The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline sandy soils.

The reported number of cases in California was 7,217 cases in 2020, with the Coccidioidomycosis incidence rate of 18.1 per 100,000 population in 2020 (CDPH 2022). Valley Fever is not considered highly endemic to San Diego.

Per the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, the 10-year average (2010–2019) for Coccidioidomycosis cases in the County of San Diego is 6.3 cases per 100,000 people per year. Similarly, among the total reported incidents of Valley Fever from 2009 through 2019, only 0.9% of the cases reported in the County were in in the City’s zip code that includes the project site (92069) (County of San Diego 2021).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 20 JULY 2023

Even if present at a site, earth-moving activities may not result in increased incidence of Valley Fever. Propagation of Coccidioides immitis is dependent on climatic conditions, with the potential for growth and surface exposure highest following early seasonal rains and long dry spells. Coccidioides immitis spores can be released when filaments are disturbed by earth-moving activities, although receptors must be exposed to and inhale the spores to be at increased risk of developing Valley Fever. Moreover, exposure to Coccidioides immitis does not guarantee that an individual will become ill—approximately 60% of people exposed to the fungal spores are asymptomatic and show no signs of an infection (USGS 2000).

OOdorous Compounds. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory, and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may only occur with an alteration in the intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors.

3.1.3 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The SDAPCD identi fies sensitive receptors as those who are especially susceptible to adverse health effects from exposure to TA Cs, such as children, the elderly, and the ill. Sensitive receptors include schools (grades Kindergarten through 12), day care centers, nursing homes, retirement homes, health clinics, and hospitals within two kilometers of the facility (SDAPCD 2019).

The nearest existing sensitive receptors is the Little People Preschool and Daycare located 707 feet south of the Project’s southern boundary. Other sensitive receptors include Mission Sports Park located 1,760 feet northeast of the Project’s northeastern boundary, multi-family resident ial uses located 2,020 feet southeast of the Project’s southern boundary and Bradley Park located 3,400 feet west of the Project’s western boundary.

3.2 Regulatory Setting

3.2.1 Federal Regulations

3.2.1.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
The federal Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air polluta nts; setting hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards; approving state attainment plans; setting motor vehicle emission standards; issuing stationary source emission standards and permits; and establishing acid rain control measures, stratospheric O 3 protection measures, and
enforcement provisions. Under the Clean Air Act, NAAQS are established for the following criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 21 JULY 2023

The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The NAAQS (other than for O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. NAAQS for O 3, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over 1- to 3-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a state implementation plan that demonstrates how those areas will attain the NAAQS within mandated time frames.

3.2.1.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants
The 1977 federal Clean Air Act amendments required th e EPA to identify National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to protect public health and welfare. HAPs include certain volatile organic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals. Under the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments, which expanded the control program for HAPs, 187 substances and chemical families were identified as HAPs.

3.2.2 State Regulations

3.2.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
The federal Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to CARB, with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality manage ment districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.

CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. As stated previously, an ambient air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harm to the public's health. For each pollutant, concentrations must be below the relevant CAAQS before a basin can attain the corresponding CAAQS. Air quality is considered “in attainment” if pollutant levels are continuously below the CAAQS and violate the standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O 3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, and PM2.5
and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded.

California air districts have based their thresholds of sign ificance for CEQA purposes on the levels that scientific and factual data demonstrate that the air basin can acco mmodate without affecting the attainment date for the NAAQS or CAAQS. Since an ambient air quality standard is based on maximum pollutant levels in outdoor air that would not harm the public's health, and air district thre sholds pertain to attainment of the ambient air quality standard, this means that the thresholds established by air districts are also protective of human health.

The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 2.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 22 JULY 2023

Table 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards
PPollutant AAveraging Time
CCalifornia Standardsaa National Standardsb
Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e
O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 Pg/m3) — Same as primary
standardf 8 hours 0.070 ppm (137 Pg/m3) 0.070 ppm
(137 Pg/m3)f
NO2g 1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 Pg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188
Pg/m3)
Same as primary
standard
Annual
arithmetic mean

0.030 ppm (57 Pg/m3) 0.053 ppm
(100 Pg/m3)
CO 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) None
8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
SO2h 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 Pg/m3) 0.075 ppm
(196 Pg/m3)
—
3 hours — — 0.5 ppm
(1,300 Pg/m3)
24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 Pg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
PM10i 24 hours 50 Pg/m3 150 Pg/m3 Same as primary
standard Annual
arithmetic mean
20 Pg/m3 —
PM2.5i 24 hours — 35 Pg/m3 Same as primary
standard
Annual
arithmetic mean
12 Pg/m3 12.0 Pg/m3 15.0 Pg/m3
Leadj,k 30-day average 1.5 Pg/m3 — —
Calendar quarter — 1.5 Pg/m3
(for certain areas)k
Same as primary
standard
Rolling 3-month
average
— 0.15 Pg/m3
Hydrogen
sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) — —
Vinyl
chloridej
24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) — —
Sulfates 24 hours 25 μg/m3 — —
Visibility
reducing
particles
8 hours (10:00
a.m. to 6:00
p.m. PST)
Insufficient amount to
produce an extinction
coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to the
number of particles when
the relative humidity is
less than 70%
— —
Source: CARB 2016

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 23 JULY 2023

NNotes: O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million by volume; Pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3= milligrams per cubic meter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PST = Pacific Standard Time.
a California standards for O 3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table o f Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b National standards (other than O 3, NO2, SO2, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The O 3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM 10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calend ar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM 2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most me asurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necess ary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. g To attain the national 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of ppb.

California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards, the uni ts can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. h On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO 2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the national 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment of the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. i On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM 2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 Pg/m3 to 12.0 Pg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 Pg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 Pg/m3 were also retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean averaged over 3 years. j CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as TACs 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. k The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 20 08, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year afte r an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

3.2.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The state Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 unde r AB 1807 (Tanner). The California TAC list identifies more than 200 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2728, the state list includes the (federal) HAPs. In 1987, the Legislat ure enacted the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. AB 2588 law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, id entification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years. TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. “High-priority” facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, the facility operator is required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 24 JULY 2023

In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines (CARB 2000).. Additional regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel, including the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation, the On-Road Heavy Duty (New) Vehicle Program, the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and the New Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines and Equipment program. These regulations and programs have timetables by which manufacturers must comply and existing operators must upgrade their diesel -powered equipment. There are several Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) that reduce diesel emissions, including In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) and In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025).

IIdling of Commercial Heavy-Duty Trucks (13 CCR 2485)
In July 2004, CARB adopted an ATCM to control emissions from idling trucks. The ATCM prohibits idling for more than five minutes for all commercial trucks with a gros s vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds. The ATCM contains an exception that allows trucks to idle while queuing or involved in operational activities.

In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) In July 2007, CARB adopted an ATCM for in-use off-road diesel vehicles. This regulation requires that specific fleet average requirements are met for NO
x emissions and for particulate matter emissions. Where average requirements cannot be met, best available control technology requ irements apply. The regulation also includes several recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

In response to AB 8 2X, the regulations were revised in July 2009 (effective December 3, 2009) to allow a partial postponement of the compliance schedule in 2011 and 2012 for existing fleets. On December 17, 2010, CARB adopted additional revisions to further delay the deadlines reflecting reductions in diesel emissions due to the poor economy and overestimates of diesel emissions in California. The revisions delayed the first compliance date until no earlier than January 1, 2014, for large fleets, with final compliance by January 1, 2023. The compliance dates for medium fleets were delayed until an initial date of January 1, 2017, and final compliance date of January 1, 2023. The compliance dates for small fleets were delayed until an initial date of January 1, 2019, and final compliance date of January 1, 2028. Correspondingly, the fleet average targets were made more stringent in future compliance years. The revisions also accelerated the phaseout of older equipment with newer equipment added to existing large and medium fleets over time, requiring the addition of Tier 2 or higher engines starting on March 1, 2011, with some exceptions: Tier 2 or higher engines on January 1, 2013, without exception; and Tier 3 or higher engines on January 1, 2018 (January 1, 2023, for small fleets).

On October 28, 2011 (effective December 14, 2011), the Executive Officer approved amendments to the regulation.

The amendments included revisions to the applicability section and additions and revisions to the definition. The initial date for requiring the addition of Tier 2 or higher engines for large and medi um fleets, with some exceptions, was revised to January 1, 2012. New provisions also allow for the removal of emission control devices for safety or visibility purposes. The regulation also was amended to combine the particulate matter and NO x fleet average targets under
one, instead of two, sections. The amended fleet average targets are based on the fleet’s NOx fleet average, and the previous section regarding particulate matter performance requirements was deleted completely. The best available control technology requirements, if a fleet cannot comply with the fleet average requirements, were restructured and clarified. Other amendments to the regulations included minor administrative changes to the regulatory text.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 25 JULY 2023

IIn-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025)
On December 12, 2008, CARB adopted an ATCM to reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions from most in-use on-road diesel trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The original ATCM regulation required fleets of on-road trucks to limit their NO x and particulate matter emissions through a
combination of exhaust retrofit equipment and new vehicles. The regulation limited particulate matter emissions for most fleets by 2011, and limited NO x emissions for most fleets by 2013. The regulation did not require any vehicle to be replaced before 2012 and never required all vehicles in a fleet be replaced.

In December 2009, the CARB Governing Board directed staff to evaluate amendments that would provide additional flexibility for fleets adversely affected by the struggling California economy. On December 17, 2010, CARB revised this ATCM to delay its implementation along with limited relaxation of its requirements. Starting on January 1, 2015, lighter trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,001 to 26,000 pounds with 20-year-old or older engines need to be replaced with newer trucks (2010 model year emissions equivalent as defined in the regulation). Trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds with 1995 model year or older engines needed to be replaced as of January 1, 2015. Trucks with 1996 to 2006 model year engines must install a Level 3 (85% control) diesel particulate filter starting on January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2014, depending on the model year, and then must be replaced after eight years. Trucks with 2007 to 2009 model year engines have no requirements until 2023, at which time they must be replaced with 2010 model year emissions-equivalent engines, as defined in the regulation. Trucks with 2010 model year engines would meet the final compliance requirements. The ATCM provides a phase-in option under which a fleet operator would equip a percentage of trucks in the fleet with diesel particulate filters, starting at 30% as of January 1, 2012, with 100% by January 1, 2016. Under each option, delayed compliance is granted to fleet operators who have or will comply with requirements before the required deadlines.

On September 19, 2011 (effective December 14, 2011), the Executive Officer approved amendments to the regulations, including revisions to the compliance schedule for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or less to clarify that all vehicles must be equipped with 2010 model year emissions equivalent engines by 2023. The amendments included revised and additional cr edits for fleets that have downsized; implement early particulate matter retrofits; incorporate hybrid vehicles, alternative-fueled vehicles, and vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition engines; and implement early addition of newer vehicles. The amendments included provisions for additional flexibility, such as for low-usage construction trucks, and revisions to previous exemptions, delays, and extensions. Other amendments to the regulations included minor administrative changes to the regulatory text, such as recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to other revisions.

California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
Section 41700 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 Section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 26 JULY 2023

3.2.3 Local Regulations

3.2.3.1 San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SSan Diego Air Pollution Control District
While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local air quality management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The project site is located within the SDAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD, and is therefore, subject to the guidelines and regulations of SDAPCD. Federal and State attainment plans adopted by the SDAPCD are summarized below.

Federal Attainment Plans
SDAPCD has prepared the 2020 Plan for Attaining the Na tional Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (2020 Attainment Plan) that demonstrates how the region will further reduce air pollutant emissions to attain the current NAAQS for ozone. The 2020 Attain ment Plan was approved by the SDAPCD on October 14, 2020. On November 19, 2020, CARB adopted the 2020 Attainment Plan for attaining the Federal 8-hour 75 ppb and 70 ppb Ozone standards and projects attainment for the standards by 2026 and 2032, respectively (SDAPCD 2020a). The 2020 Attainment Plan will be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the ozone NAAQS.

In December 2016, the SDAPCD adopted an update to the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County (2008 O3 NAAQS). The 2016 Final Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County indicates that local controls and state programs would allow the region to reach attainment of the federal 8-hour O 3 standard (1997 O3 NAAQS) by 2018 (SDAPCD 2016a). In this plan, SDAPCD relies on the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) to demonstrate how the region will comply with the federal O3 standard. The RAQS details how the region will manage and reduce O 3 precursors (NO x and VOCs) by identifying measures and regulations intended to reduce these pollutants. The control measures identified in the RAQS generally focus on stationary sources; however, the emissions inventories and projections in the RAQS address all potential sources, including those under the authority of CARB and EPA. Incentive programs for reduction of emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles, off-road equipment, and school buses are also established in the RAQS.

Currently, the County is designated as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 O 3 NAAQS and maintenance for the
1997 O3 NAAQS. As documented in the 2016 Final Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County, the County has a likely chance of obtaining attainment due to the transition to low emission cars, stricter new source review rules, and continuing the requirement of general conformity for military growth and the San Diego International Airport. SDAPCD will also continue emission control measures including ongoing implementation of existing regulations in ozone precursor reduction to stationary and area-wide sources, subsequent inspections of facilities and sources, and the adoption of laws requiring Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for control of emissions (SDAPCD 2016a).

State Attainment Plans
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 SDAB.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 27 JULY 2023

The RAQS for the SDAB was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated every 3 years, most recently in 2016 (SDAPCD 2016b). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS for O3. 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 and the cities in the County, to forecast future emissions and then determine from that 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, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of the development of their general plans (SANDAG 2020, 2021).

In December 2016, SDAPCD adopted the revised RAQS for the County. Since 2007, the San Diego region has reduced daily VOC emissions and NO
x emissions by 3.9% and 7.0%, respectively; SDAPCD expects to continue reductions through 2035 (SDAPCD 2016b). These reductions were achieved through implementation of six VOC control measures and three NOx control measures adopted in SDAPCD’s 2009 RAQS (SDAPCD 2009a); in addition, SDAPCD is considering additional measures, including three VOC measures and four control measures to reduce

0.3 daily tons of VOCs and 1.2 daily tons of NO x, provided they are found to be feasible region-wide. In addition, SDAPCD has implemented nine incentive-based programs, has worked with SANDAG to implement regional transportation control measures, and has reaffirmed the state emission offset repeal.

The 2022 RAQS was adopted by the SDAPCD Board on March 9, 2023. The RAQS seeks to protect public health and the environment by improving air quality. The 2022 update also complements regional actions addressing greenhouse gases and climate change.

Regarding particulate matter emissions reduction efforts, in December 2005, SDAPCD prepared a report titled “Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County” to address implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 656 in San Diego County (SB 656 required additional controls to reduce ambient concentrations of PM 10 and PM 2.5)
(SDAPCD 2005). In the report, SDAPCD evaluated the implementation of source-control measures that would reduce particulate matter emissions associated with resi dential wood combustion; various construction activities including earthmoving, demolition, and grading; bulk material storage and handling; carryout and trackout removal and cleanup methods; inactive disturbed land; disturbed open areas; unpaved parking lots/staging areas; unpaved roads; and windblown dust (SDAPCD 2005).

SDAPCD Rules and Regulations
As stated previously, SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient standards in the SDAB. The following rules and regulations apply to all sources in the jurisdiction of SDAPCD:
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Prohibits any activity causing air contaminant emissions darker than 20% opacity for more than an aggregate of 3 minutes in any consecutive 60-minute time period. In addition, Rule 50 prohibits any diesel pile-driving hammer activity causing air contaminant emissions for a period or periods aggregating more than 4 minutes during the driving of a single pile (SDAPCD 1997).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 51: Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge, from any source, of such quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property (SDAPCD 1976). SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. Regulates fugitive dust emissions from any commercial construction or demolition activity capabl e of generating fugitive dust emissions, including

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 28 JULY 2023

active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as track-out and carry-out onto paved roads beyond a project site (SDAPCD 2009b).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. Requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories (SDAPCD 2015a).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.7: Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts. This rule prohibits manufacturers, distributors, and end users of cutback and emulsified asphalt materials for the paving, construction or maintenance of parking lots, driveways, streets and highways from applying asphalt material or road oils which contain more than 0.5 percent by volume VOC which evaporate at 260º C (500 º F) or less (SDAPCD 1979).

3.2.3.2 San Diego Association of Governments
SANDAG is the regional planning agency for the County and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SANDAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the County. With respect to air quality planning and other regional issues, SANDAG has prepared San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) for the San Diego region (SANDAG 2015). The Regional Plan combines the big-picture vision for how the region will grow over the next 35 years with an implementation program to help make that vision a reality. The Regional Plan, including its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), is built on an integrated set of public policies, strategies, and investments to maintain, manage, and improve the transportation system so that it meets the diverse needs of the San Diego region through 2050. The Regional Plan was updated in 2021, which was the result of years of planning, data analysis, and community engagement to reimagine the San Diego region with a transformative transportation system, a sustainable pattern of growth and development, and innovative demand and management strategies (SANDAG 2021). The 2021 Regional Plan includes a SCS, which describes coordinated transportation and land use planning that exceeds the state’s target for reducing per capita GHG emissions set by CARB. The state-mandated target is a 19% reduction—compared with 2005—in per capita GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 2035. The 2021 Regional Plan achieves a 20% reduction by then. The 2021 Regional Plan also puts forth a forecasted development pattern that is driven by regional goals for sustainability, mobility, housing affordability, and economic prosperity.

3.2.3.3 City of San Marcos
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) includes various policies related to reducing Air Quality and GHG emissions. Air quality policies that would be applicable to the Project include:

Land Use and Community Design Element
PPolicy LU-2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 29 JULY 2023

Mobility Element
PPolicy M-2.1: Work with new development to design roadways that minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate within residential neighborhoods; while maintaining the City’s desire to provide connectivity on the roadway network.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment.

Policy COS-4.8: Encourage and support the generation, transmission and use of renewable energy.

3.3 Regional and Local Air Quality Conditions

3.3.1 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Designation
Pursuant to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments, th e EPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved.

Generally, if the recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated as “unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. Areas that achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation are re-designated as maintenance areas and must have approved Maintenance Plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards. The California Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, called for the designation of areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment,” but based on CAAQS rather than the NAAQS. Table 3 depicts the current attainment status of the Project site with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3. San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
National Standards California Standards
Ozone (O3) – 1-hour Attainment (maintenance)a Nonattainment Ozone (O3) – 8-hour Nonattainment (severe) Nonattainment Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Unclassifiable/attainmentb Attainment Carbon monoxide (CO) Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment Respirable particulate matter
(PM10)
Unclassifiable/attainment Nonattainmentt
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Unclassifiable/attainment Nonattainment Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (SO4) No national standard Attainment
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) No national standard Unclassified

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 30 JULY 2023

Table 3. San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification
PPollutant
DDesignation/Classification
NNational Standards CCalifornia Standards
Vinyl chloride No national standard No designation
Visibility-reducing particles No national standard Unclassified SSources: EPA 2021a (national); CARB 2020 (state).

Definitions: Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/maintenance = achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation; nonattainment = does not meet the standards; uncl assified or unclassifiable = insufficient data to classify; unclassifiable/attainment = meets the standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data.

Notes: SDAB = San Diego; O3 = ozone; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide.
a The national 1-hour standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) wa s in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in SIPs. b The western and central portions of the SDAB are designated attainment, while the eastern portion is designated unclassifiable/ attainment.

In summary, the EPA has designated the SDAB as a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour O 3 standard, and CARB has designated the SDAB as a nonattainment area for the state 1-hour and 8-hour O3 standards. The SDAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for the state 24-hour and annual PM 10 standards and as a nonattainment area for the state annual PM 2.5 standard. The SDAB is designated as unclassified or attainment for all other criteria air pollutants.

3.3.2 Local Ambient Air Quality
CARB, air districts, and other agencies monitor ambient air quality at approximately 250 air quality monitoring stations across the state. SDAPCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County, which measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and the NAAQS. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations 10 feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. The SDAPCD monitors air quality conditions at 11 locations throughout the SD AB. Escondido – East Valley Parkway monitoring station ceased to collect data post-2015; thus, due to proximity to the site and similar geographic and climactic characteristics, the Camp Pendleton, San Diego-Rancho Carmel Drive, San Diego–Kearny Villa Road, and El Cajon- Lexington Elementary School monitoring station concentrations for all pollutants are considered most representative of the Project site. Ambient concentrations of pollutants from 2019 through 2021 are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Averaging Time Unit
Agency/
Method
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration
by Year Exceedances by Year
20199 20220 20211 20119 20220 20211
Ozone (O3) –– CCamp Pendleton
Maximum 1-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.12 0.075 0.094 0.074 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.070 0.065 0.074 0.059 0 3 0
Federal 0.070 0.064 0.074 0.059 0 3 0

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 31 JULY 2023

Table 4. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
AAveraging Time UUnit
AAgency/
MMethod
AAmbient
AAir
Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration
by Year Exceedances by Year
20199 20220 20211 20119 20220 20211
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) –– SSan Diego – Rancho Carmel Drive Maximum 1-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.18 0.054 0.054 0.054 0 0 0
Federal 0.100 0.054 0.054 0.054 0 0 0
Annual
concentration
ppm State 0.030 0.014 0.014 0.013 — — —
Federal 0.053 0.014 0.014 0.013 — — —
Carbon Monoxide (CO) –– SSan Diego – Rancho Carmel Drive Maximum 1-hour
concentration
ppm State 20 4.1 3.3 3.0 0 0 0
Federal 35 4.1 3.3 3.0 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour
concentration
ppm State 9.0 2.5 1.7 1.8 0 0 0
Federal 9 2.5 1.7 1.8 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) –– EEl Cajon-LLexington Elementary School Maximum 1-hour
concentration
ppm Federal 0.075 0.000
8 0.0017 0.002 0 0 0
Maximum 24-
hour
concentration
ppm Federal 0.14 0.000
3 0.0004 0.002 0 0 0
Annual
concentration
ppm Federal 0.030 0.000
07 0.0000
9 ND — — —
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)a –– SSan Diego – El Cajon –– LLexington Elementary School Maximum 24-
hour
concentration
Pg/m
3 State 50 37.4 ND ND 0.0 (0) ND (0) ND (0)
Federal 150 38.7 ND ND 0.0 (0) ND (0) ND (0)
Annual
concentration
Pg/m
3 State 20 23 ND ND — — —
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)a –– SSan Diego – Kearny Villa Road Maximum 24-
hour
concentration
Pg/m
3 Federal 35 16.2 47.5 20.9 0.0 (0) 5.8 (2) 0.0 (0)
Annual
concentration
Pg/m
3 State 12 ND ND ND — — —
Federal 12.0 7.0 8.7 — — —
Sources: CARB 2022b; EPA 2022a.

Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume; ND = insufficient data available to determine the value; — = not available; Pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Data taken from CARB iADAM (http://www.CARB.ca.gov/adam) and EPA AirData (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/) represent the highest concentrations experienced over a given year.

Daily exceedances for particulate matter are estimated days because PM 10 and PM 2.5 are not monitored daily. All other criteria pollutants did not exceed federal or state standards during the ye ars shown. There is no federal standard for 1-hour ozone, ann ual PM10, or 24-hour SO2, nor is there a state 24-hour standard for PM2.5.

The Camp Pendleton monitoring station is located at 21441 West B Street, Camp Pendleton, California.

The San Diego-Rancho Carmel Drive monitoring station is located at 11403 Rancho Carmel Drive, San Diego, California.

The El Cajon-Lexington Elementary School monitoring station is located at 533 First Street, El Cajon, California.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 32 JULY 2023

a Measurements of PM 10 and PM2.5 are usually collected every 6 days and every 1 to 3 days, respectively. Number of days exceeding the standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are the measured number of samples that exceeded the standard.

3.4 Significance Criteria and Methodology

3.4.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project impacts to air quality is based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this air quality analysis, a significant impact would occur if the Project would (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether the Project would have a significant impact on air quality.

CCounty of San Diego and SDAPCD
Neither the City of San Marcos nor the SDAPCD have deve loped CEQA thresholds of significance for air quality; however, the County of San Diego has established CEQA screening-level thresholds for air quality impact analyses based on the SDAPCD Air Quality Impact Assessments trigger levels, which are based on emissions levels identified under the New Source Review program. As part of its air quality permitting process, SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 and Rule 20.3 requiring the pr eparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments for permitted stationary sources (non-major and major stationary sources, respectively) (SDAPCD 2020b, 2021). SDAPCD sets forth quantitative emission thresholds below which a stationary source would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. Because SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3 do not identify a VOC threshold, the County of San Diego established a VOC threshold based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s VOC threshold.

For CEQA purposes, the screening-level thresholds established by the County of San Diego can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions would not result in a significant impact to air quality for projects within San Diego County. Accordingly, the thresholds listed in Table 5 are used to evaluate whether Project- related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 5, the Project could have th e potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants and thus, could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality; conversely, emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. A project that involves a use that would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off-site receptors.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 33 JULY 2023

Table 5. Air Quality Significance Thresholds – Construction and Operational Emissions
PPollutant
TTotal Emissions
PPounds per
HHour
PPounds per
DDay TTons per Year
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) — 100 15
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) — 55 10
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 25 250 40
Sulfur oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Lead and lead compounds — 3.2 0.6
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) — 75a 13.7
SSource: SDAPCD Rules 20.2(d)(2) and 20.3(d)(2).
a VOC threshold based on South Coast Air Quality Management Dis trict (SCAQMD) levels for Coachella Valley, which have similar federal and state attainment status to San Diego.

3.4.2 Approach and Methodology
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the Project (CAPCOA 2022). CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quan tify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction activities and operation of a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the land use type used to represent the Project and its size, construction schedule, and anticipated use of construction equipment, were based on information provided by the Project applicant or default model assumptions if Project specifics were unavailable. Table 6 provides a summary of the land use inputs included in the CalEEMod modeling for construction and operation.

Table 6. CalEEMod Land Use Development Summary for the Proposed Project Project Component
CalEEMod Land Use
Type
Land Use
Amount
(Size)
Land Use
Size Metric
Building
Square
Footage
Land Use
Acreage
Multi-family
Residential
Townhomes including
garages
Residential –
Condo/Townhouse
109a du 169,282b 3.0
Commercial Uses –
Specialty Retail/Strip
Commercial
Retail – Regional
Shopping Center

49.266 ksf 49,266 2.0
Commercial Uses –
Standard Office
Commercial – General
Office Building

7.658 ksf 7,658 0.21
Commercial Parking
and Residential
Visitor Parking
Parking – Parking Lot 312c sp 0 3.5
Residential
streets/alleys
Parking – Other
Asphalt Surfaces
2 ac 0 2

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 34 JULY 2023

Table 6. CalEEMod Land Use Development Summary for the Proposed Project PProject Component
CCalEEMod Land Use
TType
Land Use
Amount
(Size)
Land Use
Size Metric
Building
Square
Footage
Land Use
Acreage
Miscellaneous
surface areas
(walkways,
loading/unloading
areas, etc.)
Parking – Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces

1.32 ac 0 1.32
Notes: ksf = 1,000 square feet; du = dwelling unit; ac = acre, sp = parking space a. Includes 7 live-work units included on the commercial site. b. Includes 16,293 square feet of common space, and 7,162 square feet of live/work space. c. Includes 34 parking spaces for residential visitors

3.4.2.1 Construction Emissions
Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project were estimated using CalEEMod for the following emission sources: operation of off-road construction equipment, fugitive dust, VOC off-gassing from paving and architectural coating, on-road hauling, and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. Construction scenario assumptions, including phasing, equipment mix, and vehicle trips, were based on CalEEMod default values with an estimated construction start date in February 2024 and buildout completed in May 2025.

Table 7 provides a summary of the Project construction schedule. The construction schedule used in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required pursuant to CEQA guidelines.

Table 7. Project Construction Schedule
Construction Task Start Date End Date Workdays
Demolition 2/6/2024 3/5/2024 20
Site Preparation 3/6/2024 3/20/2024 10
Grading 3/21/2024 4/18/2024 20
Building Construction 4/19/2024 3/7/2025 230
Paving 3/8/2025 4/5/2025 20
Architectural Coating 4/6/2025 5/4/2025 20
CalEEMod default trip length values were used for the distances for worker, vendor truck, and haul truck trips. It was assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 5 days per week (22 days per month) during Project construction. Constru ction scenario assumptions, including phasing, vehicle trips, and equipment mix, used for estimating Project-generated construction emissions are shown in Table 8.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 35 JULY 2023

Table 8. Construction Scenario Assumptions
TTask
One--Way Vehicle TTrips Equipment
Worker
One-Way
Trips per
Day
Vendor
Truck One-
Way Trips
per Day
Haul
Truck
One-Way
Trips per
Day Equipment Type Quantity
Daily
Usage
Hours
Demolition 14 0 64 Rubber-tired
dozers
2 8
Excavators 2 8
Concrete/
Industrial Saws
1 8
Site Preparation 18 0 0 Rubber-tired
dozers
3 8
Tractors/loaders/
backhoes
4 8
Grading 20 0 0 Graders 1 8
Excavators 2 8
Tractors/
loaders/
backhoes
2 8
Rubber-tired
dozers
1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Building
Construction
92 22 0 Forklifts 3 8
Generator sets 1 8
Cranes 1 7
Welders 1 8
Tractors/
loaders/
backhoes
3 7
Paving 16 0 0 Pavers 2 8
Paving
equipment
2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural
Coating
20 0 0 Air compressors 1 6
Construction of Project components would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. This rule requires that construction of project components include steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line (SDAPCD 2009b). Compliance wi th Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM 2.5) that may be
generated during grading and construction activities. To reflect implementation of proposed dust control strategies, it was assumed that the exposed areas would be watered two times per day (55% reduction in PM10 and PM2.5).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 36 JULY 2023

3.4.2.2 Operational Emissions
Project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions were estimated for area sources, energy sources, and mobile sources using CalEEMod. The first full year of operations was assumed to be 2026, consistent with the anticipated end of construction. This provides a conservative estimate as emissions would decrease as the buildout year increase because of improved vehicle technologies and more stringent regulations. The calculation of area, energy, and mobile air pollutant emissions is explained below.

AArea Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with natural gas usage in space heating and water heating are calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text. Given the Project’s density, it was assumed that the residential portion of the project would not include woodburning fireplaces.

Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes ; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. Other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings are not considered consumer products (CAPCOA 2022). Consumer product VOC emissions are estimated in CalEEMod based on the floor area of nonresidential buildings and on the default factor of pounds of VOC per building square foot per day. For parking lot land uses, CalEEMod estimates VOC emissions associated with use of parking surface degreasers based on a square footage of parking surface area and pounds of VOC per square foot per day.

VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings such as in paints and primers using during building maintenance. CalEEMod calculates the VOC evaporative emissions from application of nonresidential surface coatings based on the VOC emission factor, the building square footage, the assumed fraction of surface area, and the reapplication rate. The VOC emissi on factor is based on the VOC content of the surface coatings, and SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings) governs the VOC (or ROG) content for interior and exterior coatings, which is 50 grams per liter VOC for the interiors and exteriors of the buildings. The CalEEMod default of 100 grams per liter was assumed for parking area coatings. The model default reapplication rate of 10% of area per year is assumed. Consistent with CalEEMod defaults, it is assumed that the nonresidential surface area for painting equals 2.0 times the floor square footage, with 75% assumed for interior coating and 25% assumed for exterior surface coating (CAPCOA 2022). For the parking lot, the architectural coating area is assumed to be 6% of the total square footage, consistent with the supporting CalEEMod studies provided as an appendix to the CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA 2022).

Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emission s from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated from landscape equipment use are estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of nonresidential building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days. For San Diego County, the average annual “summer” days are estimated to 365 days; however, it is assumed that landscaping equipment would likely only operate during the week (not weekends), so operational days were assumed to be 180 days per year in CalEEMod (CAPCOA 2022).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 37 JULY 2023

EEnergy Sources
As represented in CalEEMod, energy sources include emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage (non-hearth). Electricity use would contribute indirectly to criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the emissions from electricity use are only quantified for GHGs in CalEEMod, because criteria pollutant emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is typically off-site. Therefore, for the purposes of the air quality analysis, the energy source parameters focus on criteria air pollutants generated because of natural gas consumption within the built environment. Natural gas consumption is attributed to systems like heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and water heating. CalEEMod assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 code.

Mobile Sources
The Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) because of the passenger vehicle trips associated with the residential uses and commercial uses (i.e. residents, visitors, employees, customers).

Emissions from the mobile sources during operation of the Project were estimated in CalEEMod. The daily trip rates were taken from Traffic Impact Analysis average daily trips per day with an 18% reduction for internal capture. The daily trip rate was assumed for 7 days per week. The re sidential passenger vehicle trips were assumed to be CalEEMod default trip lengths of 9.75 miles for home-work trips, 4.32 miles home-shopping, and 4.75 for home- other trips. A home-work trip represents trips traveling in either direction between home and work locations. A home- shop trip represents trips traveling in either direction between home and shopping destinations (generally retail). A home-other trip represents trips traveling in either direction between home and all other locations that are not work or shopping destinations (e.g., school, park, gym).

The commercial passenger vehicle trip lengths were assumed to be CalEEMod default trip lengths of 12.42 miles home-work trips, 6.65 miles for work-other trips, and 5.98 miles for other-other trips. A home-work trip is the same as defined above for residential. A work-other trip is made by an employee traveling in either direction between a work location and all other locations that are not home. An other-other trip is made by a person traveling in either direction between land uses that do not involve home or work locations (e.g. school, park, gym).

Vehicle emissions occur during startup, operation (running), and idling, as well as from evaporative losses when the engines are resting. The emissions factors for motor vehicles were determined using CalEEMod defaults.

3.5 Impact Analysis

3.5.1 Would the project conflict wi th or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (AQ-1)
As previously discussed, the SDAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the basin—specifically, the SIP and RAQS. 4 SANDAG is responsible for developing forecasts and data that are used by SDAPCD in preparing the SIP and RAQS.

The federal O3 maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in 2012. The SIP includes a demonstration

4 For this discussion, the relevant federal air quality plan is the Ozone Maintenance Plan (SDAPCD 2012). The RAQS is the applicable plan for purposes of State air quality planning. Both plans reflect growth projections in the basin.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 38 JULY 2023

that current strategies and tactics will maintain acceptable air quality in the basin based on the NAAQS. The RAQS, most recently updated in 2016, outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for O3. The SIP and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions as well as information regarding projected growth in the County as a whole and the cities in the County, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of the development of their general plans.

While the SDAPCD and City do not provide guidance regard ing the analysis of impacts associated with air quality plan conformance, the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality does discuss conformance with the RAQS (County of San Diego 2007). The guidance indicates that, if the Project, in conjunction with other projects, contributes to growth projections that would not exceed SANDAG’s growth projections for the City, the Project would not be in conflict with the RAQS (County of San Diego 2007). If a project includes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the Project might conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality.

3.5.1.1 General Plan/Zoning Comparison of Development
The Project site is designated as Commercial (C) in the City’s General Plan and is zoned Commercial (C). The Project proposes to redesignate the site to Specific Plan Area (SPA) and create a mixed-use development. The Project would add a total of 102 townhomes and 7 live/work units along with specialty retail/commercial/office uses. The City’s Commercial designation and zoning allows for a several permitted uses. A mixture of commercial retail and office was selected to reflect potential development on the pr oject site. Based on the City’s development code, the Commercial designation would allow for greater development intensity based on generation of more vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as shown in Table 9, below. As such, the Project would result in less criteria air pollutant emissions, and thus less intensive uses, than development allowed under the existing Commercial designation.

Table 9. Development Intensity Comparison
DDevelopment LLand Use Developed
RResidents EEmployees TTotal Vehicle
TTrips Perr
Year
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Proposed Project 102 townhomes, 7
live/work units
49,266 square feet of
commercial/specialty retail
7,658 square feet of office
329 115 763,476 3,329,732
Existing General
Plan Land Use
Designation
Commercial
Mixed Use Development -
129,000 square feet of
regional retail and 40,000
square feet of office, 1
acre of parking (based on
< 0.7 FAR)
0 366 1,829,408 7,413,261
Sources: City of San Marcos General Plan, 2012, City of San Marcos Municipal Code 2022, ITE 2008, SANDAG 2008

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 39 JULY 2023

3.5.1.2 SANDAG Comparison of Population, Housing, Employment SANDAG produces a Regional Growth Forecast, which is important for developing regional plans and strategies mandated by federal and state governments such as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the RTP/SCS, the Air Quality Management Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The most recent RTP/SCS was adopted in December 2021 with a planning horizon of 2016 through 2050.

The growth forecasts are appended to the RTP/SCS. Appendix F of the 2021 Regional Plan describes the trends in population, housing, and employment. The San Diego region is expected to grow by nearly 437,000 people and the growth in population will add about 440,000 jobs and more than 280,000 housing units (SANDAG 2021).

The forecast process includes two main phases. The first phase of the forecast is produced using California Department of Finance (DOF) population projections and rates developed by SANDAG based on historic economic and demographic trends. The size and makeup of the work ing age population in the region and high labor force participation is used to project future job growth. The pr ojected higher values in working age population, coupled with older residents staying in the labor force longer results in more jobs in the region by the end of the forecast period. Housing units and households in the region were forecasted based on rates developed from historical data as well as assumptions of housing unit development and household formation in the future. The second phase of the forecast allocates the forecasted growth down to the jurisdictions and smaller geographical areas. The subregional forecast distributes growth based on a variety of factors, including available capacity for housing and accessibility to jobs and transportation. SANDAG works with the region’s 18 cities, the County of San Diego, and other agencies that manage land use to understand local land use plans, such as general plans, community plans, and specific plans, as well as constraints to development and already permitted projects to develop the subregional projections for housing and employment. Table 10 shows the population, housing units, and employment projections for the City and the San Diego region for the 2021 Regional Plan.

Table 10. Population, Housing, and Employment
Year
City of San Marcos San Diego Region
PPopulation HHousiing
UUnits
EEmployment PPopulation HHousiing
UUnits
EEmployment
2016 94,258 30,539 41,527 3,309,510 1,190,555 1,646,419 2025 102,775 34,681 47,021 3,470,848 1,288,216 1,761,747 2035 103,903 34,931 54,548 3,620,348 1,409,866 1,921,475 2050 120,247 41,016 62,306 3,746,073 1,471,299 2,086,318 Change in
Number
(2016-2050)
25,989
(27.6%)
10,477
(34.3%)
20,779
(50.0%)
436,563
(14.2%)
280,744
(23.6%)
439,899
(26.7%)
Source: SANDAG Regional Plan 2021, Appendix F: Regional Growth Forecast and Sustainable Communities Strategy Land Use Pattern As shown above the Project is expected to add 329 residents in 109 dwelling units and 115 employment opportunities. The added residents would represent approximately 1.2% of the anticipated population growth, 1% of the housing growth, and 0.6% of the employment growth over the RTP/SCS planning horizon. Based on the above information, the increase in population and employment would be well within the growth projections.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 40 JULY 2023

LLevel of Significance Before Mitigation
Per CEQA Guideline Section 15206(b), the Project would not be considered regionally significant because it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, or population projections within the San Diego region, which are the basis of the RAQS projections. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Furthermore, the Project would not result in substantial construction or operational emissions that would conflict with the local Air Quality plan.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the RAQS or SIP and proposed development would be consistent with the growth in the region. Impacts would be l less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

3.5.2 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (AQ-2)
Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the SDAB adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SDAPCD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are used in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on air quality. If a project’s emissions would exceed the applied significance thresholds, it would have a cumulatively considerable co ntribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

Construction and operation of the Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants, which may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment under the NAAQS or CAAQS. As discussed previously, the SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O 3 and a state nonattainment area for O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5. The following discussion quantitatively evaluates potential short-term construction and long-term operational impacts that would result from implementation of the Project.

Construction Emissions
Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing from architectural coatings and asphalt pavement application) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, delivery trucks, and worker

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 41 JULY 2023

vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emissions levels can only be estimated, with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts.

As discussed under 3.4.2.1, criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity were quantified using CalEEMod. Construction emissions were calculated for the estimated worst-case day over the construction period associated with each phase and reported as the maximum daily emissions estimated during each year of construction (2024–2025). Construction schedule assumptions, including phase type, duration, and sequencing, were based on information provided by the applicant or CalEEMod defaults and are intended to represent a reasonable scenario based on the best information available. NO x and CO emissions would primarily result from the
use of construction equipment and motor vehicles.

Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions would primarily result from grading and site preparation activities. The Project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. This rule requires that the Project take steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated during grading and construction activities. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the Project would ensure that active sites be watered at least two times daily. The application of architectural coatings, such as exterior application/interior paint and other finishes would produce VOC emissions. The contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of SDAPCD’s Rule 67.7, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt, which would limit VOC emissions from asphalt off-gassing.

Table 11 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the Project.

Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 11. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions - Unmitigated
YYear
VVOC NNOxx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds Per Day
2024 3.72 36.0 33.7 0.06 10.7 5.58
2025 70.5 11.5 17.1 0.03 1.36 0.63
Maximum Daily
EEmissions

70.5 36.0 33.7 0.06 10.7 5.58
Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns ; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns.

See Appendix A for complete results.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emission s results from CalEEMod. Althou gh not considered mitigation, these estimates reflect the “mitigated” CalEEMod results to account for SDAPCD Rule 55 - Fugitive Dust Control, assuming wateri ng of the Project site two times per day.

As shown in Table 11, maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during construction; and short-term construction air quality impacts would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 42 JULY 2023

Operation of the Project would generate VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicular traffic generated by residents, employees, customers, and visitors; energy sources from natural gas usage; area sources, including the use of landscaping equipment, consumer products, natural gas hearths, and from architectural coatings. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, Operational Emissions, pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod using a combination of Project-specific information and CalEEMod default values.

Table 12 and Table 13 present the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with Project operation (year 2026) during summer and winter. De tails of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 12. Estimated Maximum Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Unmitigated (Summer)
EEmissions Source
VVOC NNOxx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Mobile 8.02 4.10 41.00 0.09 2.94 0.57
Area 1.22 1.77 9.38 0.01 0.14 0.14
Energy 0.08 0.69 0.34 <0.01 0.06 0.06
Total 14.40 6.56 50.80 0.10 3.14 0.77
Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns ; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.01; negative values are presented in parentheses.

See Appendix A for complete results. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 13. Estimated Maximum Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Unmitigated (Winter)
Emissions Souurce
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Mobile 7.82 4.51 40.7 0.08 2.94 0.57
Area 5.35 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 0.14
Energy 0.04 0.69 0.34 <0.01 0.06 0.06
Total 13.2 6.89 41.8 0.10 3.13 0.76
Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold EExceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns ; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.01; negative values are presented in parentheses.

See Appendix A for complete results. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, maximum daily operational emissions from the Project would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SO x, PM10, or PM2 .5; long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 43 JULY 2023

As discussed in Section 3.3, Regional and Local Air Quality Conditions, the SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB, including motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. Construction and operation of the Project would generate VOC and NOx emissions (which are precursors to O3) and emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. However, as indicated in Tables 11 and 12, Project-generated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the emission- based significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5.

Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a construction project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. Construction schedules for potential future projects near the Project area are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be considered speculative. However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require air quality analysis and, where necessary, mitigation if the project would exceed applied thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by the SDAPCD. For example, cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SDAB. In addition, cumulative VOC emissions would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings).

Based on the Project-generated construction and operational emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative air quality impact would be lless than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

3.5.3 Would the project expose se nsitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (AQ-3)
Air quality varies as a direct function of the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems arise when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health impacts on those persons termed “sensitive receptors” are the most serious hazards of existing air quality conditions in the area. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB, include children, older adults, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases; however, for the purposes of this analysis, residents are also considered sensitive receptors. As such, sensitive

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 44 JULY 2023

receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

HHealth Impacts of Carbon Monoxide
Mobile source impacts occur on two scales of motion. Regionally, Project-related travel would add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local airshed and the SDAB. Locally, project generated traffic would be added to the roadway system near the Projec t site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is composed of many vehicles “cold-started” and operating at pollution-inefficient speeds and is operating on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO hotspots in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SDAB is steadily decreasing.

CO transport is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapi dly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors such as residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with urban roadways or intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots.

To verify that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standards, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted using the County of San Diego screening threshold of 3,000 peak trips (County of San Diego 2007). Based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (CR Associates 2022), there would be approximately 126 trips during the AM peak-hour and 189 trips during the PM peak-hour, which would be minimal in comparison to the screening threshold of 3,000 peak trips. Therefore, the Project would not result in a CO hotspot and would result in a l less than significant impact.

Health Effects of Other Criteria Air Pollutants
Project construction and operation would not exceed significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of ROGs and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the SDAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source location to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive O 3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur because exceedances of the O3 CAAQS/NAAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest. The holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative due to the lack of reliable and meaningful quantitative methods to assess this impact. The Project would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC or NOx; therefore, implementation of the Project would contribute minimally to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health effects.

In addition to O3, NOx emissions contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 (since NO2 is a constituent of NO x). Health effects that result from NO 2 and NOx include respiratory irritation, which could be experienced by nearby receptors during the periods of heaviest use of off-road construction equipment. However, Project construction would be relatively short term, and off-road construction equipment would be operating at various portions of the site and would not be concentrated in one portion of the site at any one time. In addition,

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 45 JULY 2023

existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. Because Project generated NOx emissions would not exceed the significance threshold, the Project would not result in potential health effects associated with NO2 and NOx.

CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The associated potential for CO hotspots were discussed previously and were determined to be a le ss-than-significant impact. Furthermore, the existing CO concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with this pollutant.

Construction and operation of the Project would also not exceed thresholds for PM 10 or PM 2.5 and would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter or would obstruct the SDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Additionally, the Project would implement dust control strategies and be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. Due to the minimal contribution of particulate matter during construction and operation, the Project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with PM 10 or PM2.5.

In summary, the Project would not result in any potentially significant contribution to local or regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants. Impacts would be lless than significant. Furthermore, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and there are currently no modeling tools that could provide reliable and meaningful additional information regarding health effects from criteria air pollutants generated by individual projects.

Health Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, Project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or hazardous air pollutants. State law has established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program and aimed at TACs that are a problem in California. The state has formally identified more than 200 substances as TACs, including the federal hazardous air pollutants, and is adopting appropriate control measures for sources of these TACs. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. The following measures are required by state law to reduce DPM emissions:
Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.

Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SDAPCD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million (SDAPCD 2015b). “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 46 JULY 2023

9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period will contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015).

As shown in Table 11, maximum daily PM10 or PM2.5 emissions generated by construction equipment operation and haul- truck trips during construction, which is based on exhaust and fugitive dust generated by equipment operation and vehicle travel, would be well below the significance thresholds. Moreover, total construction of the Project would last approximately 15 months, after which Project-construction TAC emissions would cease. Thus, the duration of the proposed construction activities would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year residential exposure period recommended by OEHHA. Concentrations of mobile-source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70% at a distance of approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). The nearest existing sensitive receptors are multi-family residential uses located 2,020 feet southeast of the Project site. Therefore, construction would take place substantially farther than 500 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the temporary nature of construction activities and the dispersive properties of DPM, the nearest residential receptors would not be impacted regarding construction health risks. Regarding long-term TAC emissions, the Project would result in a minimal increase in daily truck traffic on the roadway network and would not require stationary sources (such as diesel emergency generators). Therefore, the exposure of Project-related TAC emission impacts to proximate sensitive receptors would be l
less than significant.

Valley Fever
As discussed above in Section 3.1.2.2, the average incidence rate within the County is below the statewide average.

Furthermore, construction of the Project would comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. SDAPCD Rule 55 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. Based on the low incidence rate of coccidioidomycosis on the Project site and in the County, and with the Project’s implementation of dust control strategies and Valley Fever awareness and training, it is not anticipated that earth- moving activities during Project construction would result in exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to Valley Fever.

Therefore, the Project would have a lless-than-significant impact with respect to Valley Fever exposure for sensitive receptors.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 47 JULY 2023

3.5.4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (AQ-4)
Construction and operation of the Project would result in various emissions; however, criteria air pollutants, fugitive dust, and TACs are addressed under Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5. 3 above. As such, this impact analysis is focused on the potential for an odor impact to occur. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

Odors would be generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the Project.

Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be considered l less than significant.

Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project does not propose and would not engage in any of these activities or other potential activities that would generate operational odors. The Project entails residential and commercial uses and would not create any new sources of substantial odors during operation. Therefore, the Project would result in an odor impact that is lless than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 48 JULY 2023

4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.1 Environmental Setting

4.1.1 Climate Change Overview
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (i.e., decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere (EPA 2022b).

The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: Short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth, the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation, and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that cont ributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.

The scientific record of the Earth’s climate shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales and that, in general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in GHG concentrations.

Recent climate changes, in particular the warming observed over the past century, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming since the mid-twentieth century and is the most significant driver of observed climate change (IPCC 2013; EPA 2022b). Human influence on the climate system is evident from the increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and improved understanding of the climate system (IPCC 2013). The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from emissions associated with land use changes (IPCC 2013).

Continued emissions of GHGs will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system, which is discussed further in Section 4.3.2, Potential Effects of Climate Change.

4.1.2 Greenhouse Gases
A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere.

As defined in California Health and Safety Code, Section 38505(g), for purposes of administering many of the State’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). (See also CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364.5.) Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2,

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 49 JULY 2023

include fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the most common GHGs and their sources.5 CCarbon Dioxide. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a by-product of human activities and is the principal anthropogenic GHG that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. Natural sources of CO2 include respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; volcanic out-gassing; and decomposition of dead organic matter. Human activities that generate CO2 are from the combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood and changes in land use.

Methane. CH4 is produced through both natural and human activities. CH 4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. Methane is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.

Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural biological processes, although fuel burning and other processes also create N2O. Sources of N2O include soil cultivation practices (microbial processes in soil and water), especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, manure management, industrial processes (such as in nitric acid production, nylon production, and fossil-fuel-fired power plants), vehicle emissions, and using N2O as a propellant (e.g., rockets, racecars, and aerosol sprays).

Fluorinated Gases. Fluorinated gases (also referred to as F-gases) are synthetic powerful GHGs emitted from many industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are commonly used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs], and halons). The most prevalent fluorinated gases include the following:
Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs are synthetic chemicals used as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing.

Perfluorocarbons: PFCs are a group of human-made chemical s composed of carbon and fluorine only.

These chemicals were introduced as alternatives, with HFCs, to the ozone depleting substances. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Since PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere, these chemicals have long lifetimes, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 years.
Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6 is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, semiconductor manufacturing, the magnesium industry, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
Nitrogen Trifluoride: NF3 is used in the manufacture of a variety of electronics, including semiconductors and flat panel displays.

Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are synthetic chemicals that have been used as cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and aerosol propellants. CFCs are chemically unreactive in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the production of CFCs was prohibited in 1987 due to the chemical destruction of stratospheric O3.

5 The descriptions of GHGs are summarized from the Intergov ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (1995), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), CARB’s “Glossary of Terms Used in GHG Inventories” (2015), and EPA’s “Overview of Greenhouse Gases” (2016b).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 50 JULY 2023

HHydrochlorofluorocarbons. HCFCs are a large group of compounds, whose structure is very close to that of CFCs— containing hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms— but including one or more hydrogen atoms. Like HFCs, HCFCs are used in refrigerants and propellants. HCFCs we re also used in place of CFCs for some applications; however, their use in general is being phased out.

Black Carbon. Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature de ath. It is produced from the inc omplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and forest fires. Black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short-lived species that varies spatially, which makes it difficult to quantify the global warming potential. Diesel particulate matter emissions are a major source of black carbon and are TACs that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect public health. In relation to declining diesel particulate matter from the CARB’s regulations pertaining to diesel engines, diesel fuels, and burning activities, CARB estimates that annual black carbon emissions in California have reduced by 70% between 1990 and 2010, with 95% control expected by 2020 (CARB 2014). The majority of anthropogenic sources come from transportation—specifically, heavy-duty vehicles. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result of California’s air quality programs.

The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely fr om woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion. The forestry category includes non-agricultural prescribed burning and wildfire emissions (CARB 2022f).

Water Vapor. The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains a climate necessary for life.

Ozone. Tropospheric O3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from both natural sources and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O 2), plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric O3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation.

Aerosols. Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

4.1.3 Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (EPA 2022b). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time- integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO 2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 51 JULY 2023

measured in metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The current version of CalEEMod (Version 2022) assumes that the GWP for CH 4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of CH 4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO 2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). The GWP values identified in CalEEMod were applied to the Project.

4.2 Regulatory Setting

4.2.1 Federal Regulations
MMassachusetts v. EPA. In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In December 2009, the administrator signed a final rule with the following two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act:
The Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs—CO 2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the “endangerment finding.”
The Administrator further found the combined emissions of GHGs—CO 2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs—from new
motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This is the “cause or contribute finding.” These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020, and directs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks. Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy-efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

Federal Vehicle Standards. In 2007, in response to the Massachusetts v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Bush Administration issued Executive Order (EO) 13432 directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011; and, in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012 through 2016 (75 Fed. Reg. 25324–25728).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 52 JULY 2023

In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to th is directive, the EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO 2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency.

The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 Fed. Reg. 62624–63200). On January 12, 2017, the EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022– 2025 cars and light trucks.

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014 through 2018. The standards for CO 2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories:
combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6% to 23% over the 2010 baselines (76 Fed. Reg. 57106–57513).

In August 2016, the EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO 2 emissions by
approximately 1.1 billion MT and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (EPA and NHTSA 2016).

In August 2018, EPA and NHTSA proposed to amend certain fuel economy and GHG standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards for model years 2021 through 2026. Compared to maintaining the post-2020 standards then in place, the 2018 proposal would increase U.S. fuel consumption by about half a million barrels per day (2% to 3% of total daily consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration) and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of one degree Celsius by 2100 (EPA and NHTSA 2018). California and other states have stated their intent to challenge federal actions that would delay or eliminate GHG reduction measures and have committed to cooperating with other countries to implement global climate change initiatives.

In 2019, the EPA and NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (SAFE-1), which revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero- emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California. In Ma rch 2020, Part Two was issued which set CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks for model years 2021 through 2026. In March 2022, EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards and ZEV sales mandate. EPA’s March 2022 action concludes its reconsideration of the 2019 SAFE-1 rule by finding that the actions taken under the previous administration as a part of SAFE-1 were decided in error and are now entirely rescinded.

I
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law by President Biden in August 2022.

The bill includes specific investment in energy and climate reform and is projected to reduce GHG emissions within the U.S. by 40% as compared to 2005 levels by 2030. The bill allocates funds to boost renewable energy infrastructure (e.g., solar panels and wind turbines), includes tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles, and includes measures that will make homes more energy efficient.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 53 JULY 2023

4.2.2 State Regulations
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets, building energy, renewable energy and energy procurement, mobile sources, solid waste, water, and other state regulations and goals. The following text describes EOs, legislation, regulations, and other plans and policies that would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues.

SState Climate Change Targets
The state has taken several actions to address climate change. These include EOs, legislation, and CARB plans and requirements. These are summarized below.

EO S-3-05. EO S-3-05 (June 2005) identified California’s GHG emissions reduction targets and laid out responsibilities among the state agencies for implementing the EO and for reporting on progress toward the targets.

This EO identified the following targets:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels EO S-3-05 also directed the California Environmental Protection Agency to report biannually on progress made toward meeting the GHG targets and the impacts to Californ ia due to global warming, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry. The Climate Action Team was formed, which subsequently issued reports from 2006 to 2010.

AB 32. In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the Legislature enacted AB 32 (Núñez and Pavley). The bill is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (September 27, 2006). AB 32 provided initial direction on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives.

EO B-30-15. EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. EO B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate achieving this goal, EO B-30- 15 called for CARB to update the Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e. The EO also called for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reduction programs in support of the reduction targets.

SB 32 and AB 197. SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills. SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B-30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to the Board as nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and TACs from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions reduction measures when updating the scoping plan.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 54 JULY 2023

EEO B-55-18. EO B-55-18 (September 2018) establishes a new statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” This EO directs CARB to “work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.”
Assembly Bill 1279. The Legislature enacted AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, in September 2022. The bill declares the policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. Additionally, the bill requires that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions be reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.

CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. One specific requirement of AB 32 is for CARB to prepare a “scoping plan” for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions by 2020 (Health and Safety Code, Section 38561(a)), and to update the plan at least once every 5 years. In 2008, CARB approved the first scoping plan. The Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan) included a mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculat ed to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emission limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives. The key elements of the Scoping Plan include the following (CARB 2008):
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards
Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33%
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California’s GHG emissions
Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to exis ting state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (17 CCR, Section 95480 et seq.)
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high GWP gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation The Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions because they have broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant direct and indirect GHG emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Specifically, the Scoping Plan encouraged local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations and for community emissions to reduce GHGs by approximately 15% from then levels (2008) by 2020. Many local governments developed community-scale local GHG reduction plans based on this Scoping Plan recommendation.

In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:

Building on the Framework (First Update) defined the state’s GHG emission reduction priorities for the next 5 years and laid the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The First Update concluded that California is on track to meet the 2020 target but recommended a 2030 mid-term GHG reduction target be established to ensure a continuum of action to reduce emissions. The First Update recommended

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 55 JULY 2023

a mix of technologies in key economic sectors to reduce emissions through 2050 including: energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large-scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and the rapid market penetration of efficient and clean energy technologies. As part of the First Update, CARB recalculat ed the state’s 1990 emissions level, using more recent global warming potentials identified by the IPCC, from 427 MMT CO2e to 431 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014).

In 2015, as directed by EO B-30-15, CARB began working on an update to the Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long- term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. The Governor called on California to pursue a new and ambitious set of strategi es, in line with the five climate change pillars from his inaugural address, to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. In the summer of 2016, the Legislature affirmed the importance of addressing climate change through passage of SB 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016).

In December 2017, CARB’s Governing Board adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2030 Scoping Plan) (CARB 2017b). The 2030 Scoping Plan builds on the successful framework established in the initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies that will serve as the framework to achieve the 2030 GHG target and define the state’s climate change priorities to 2030 and beyond. The strategies’ “known commitments” include implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency (including the mandates of SB 350), increased stringency of the LCFS, measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, measures identified in the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and increased stringency of SB 375 targets. To fill the gap in additional reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target, it recommends continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program and a measure to reduce GHGs from refineries by 20%.

The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32, and the EOs and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. A project is considered consistent with the statutes and EOs if it meets the general policies in reducing GHG emissions to facilitate the achievement of the state’s goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. As discussed in several cases, a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every planning policy or goals to be consistent. A project would be consistent, if it will further the objectives and not obstruct their attainment.

CARB released the 2022 Scoping Plan Update in November 2022, which outlines the state’s plan to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier, while also assessing the progress the state is making toward reducing GHG emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as is required by SB 32 and laid out in the Second Update. The carbon neutrality goal requires CARB to expand proposed actions from only the reduction of anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions to also include those that capture and store carbon (e.g., through natural and working lands, or mechanical technologies). The carbon reduction programs build on and accelerate those currently in place, including moving to zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen (CARB 2022f).

The 2022 Scoping Plan also emphasizes that there is no realistic path to carbon neutrality without carbon removal and sequestration, and to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goal, carbon reduction programs must be supplemented by strategies to remove and sequester carbon. Strategies for carbon removal and sequestration include carbon capture and storage from anthropogenic point sources, where CO 2 is captured as it leaves a facility’s

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 56 JULY 2023

smokestack and is injected into geologic formations or used in industrial materials (e.g., concrete); and carbon dioxide removal from ambient air, through mechanical (e.g., direct air capture with sequestration) or nature-based (e.g., management of natural and working lands) applications.

The 2022 Scoping Plan included Appendix D, Local Actions, which includes recommendations intended to build momentum for local government actions that align with the State’s climate goals, with a focus on local GHG reduction strategies (commonly referred to as climate action planning) and approval of new land use development projects, including through environmental review under CEQA. The recommendations provided in Appendix D are non-binding and should not be interpreted as a directive to local governments, but rather as evidence-based analytical tools to assist local governments with their role as essential partners in achieving California’s climate goals. Appendix D recognizes consistency with a CEQA-qualified GHG reduction plan such as a Climate Action Plan as a preferred option for evaluating potential GHG emission impacts under CEQA. Absent a qualified GHG reduction plan, Appendix D provides additional potential threshold options including key attributes that residential and mixed- use projects should achieve that would align with the Stat e’s climate goals, a net-zero threshold, and use of air district recommended thresholds of significance.
6 CCARB’s Regulations for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CARB’s Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (17 CCR 95100–95157) incorporated by reference certain requirements that EPA promulgated in its Final Rule on Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (Title 40, CFR, Part 98). Specifically, Section 95100(c) of the Mandatory Reporting Regulation incorporated those requirements that EPA promulgated in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009; July 12, 2010; September 22, 2010; October 28, 2010; November 30, 2010; December 17, 2010; and April 25, 2011. In general, entities subject to the Mandatory Reporting Regulation that emit over 10,000 MT CO 2e per year are required to report annual GHGs
through the California Electronic GHG Reporting Tool. Cert ain sectors, such as refineries and cement plants, are required to report regardless of emission levels. Entities that emit more than the 25,000 MT CO2e per year threshold are required to have their GHG emission report verified by a CARB-accredited third-party verified.

EO B-18-12. EO B-18-12 (April 2012) directed state agencies, departments, and other entities under the governor’s executive authority to take action to reduce entity-wide GHG emissions by at least 10% by 2015 and 20% by 2020, as measured against a 2010 baseline. EO B-18-12 also established goals for existing state buildings for reducing grid-based energy purchases and water use.

SB 605 and SB 1383. SB 605 (2014) requires CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) in the state; and SB 1383 (2016) requires CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018. SB 1383 also establishes specific targets for the reduction of SLCPs (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for methane and HFCs, and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon) and provides direction for reductions from dairy and li vestock operations and landfills. Accordingly, and as mentioned above, CARB adopted its Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP Reduction Strategy) in March 2017. The SLCP Reduction Strategy establishes a framework for the statewide reduction of emissions of black carbon, methane, and fluorinated gases.

Assembly Bill 1757. AB 1757 (September 2022) requires the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to determine a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration, and for nature-based climate solutions that reduce

6 The threshold approaches outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, are recommendations only and are not requirements; they do not supplant lead agencies’ discretion to develop their own evidence-based approaches for determining whether a project would have a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 57 JULY 2023

GHG emissions for future years 2030, 2038, and 2045. These targets are to be determined no later than January 1, 2024 and are established to support the state’s goals to achieve carbon neutrality and foster climate adaptation and resilience.

BBuilding Energy
Title 24, Part 6. The California Building Standards Code were established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically established Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure that new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC) and revised if necessary (California Public Resources Code Section 25402(b)(1)). The regulations receive input from members of industry, as well as the public, in orde r to “reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” (California Public Resources Code Section 25402). These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (California Public Resources Code Section 25402(d)) and cost effectiveness (Cal ifornia Public Resources Code Sectio n 25402(b)(2–3)). As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment. The current Title 24 standards are the 2022 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, which became effective January 1, 2023.

The 2022 standards build upon the 2019 standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 standards include measures that further reduce energy use in single family, multifamily, and nonresidential buildings, through the following strategies (CEC 2021a):
New prescriptive and performance standards for electric heat pumps for space conditioning and water heating, as appropriate for the various climate zones in California, Require PV and battery storage systems for newly constructed multifamily and selected nonresidential buildings, Updated efficiency measures for lighting, building envelope, HVAC, and Improvements to reduce the energy loads of certain equipment covered by (i.e., subject to the requirements of) the Energy Code that perform a commercial process that is not related to the occupant needs in the building (such as refrigeration equipment in refriger ated warehouses, or air conditioning for computer equipment in data processing centers).

Title 24, Part 11. In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as California’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen) and establishes minimum mandatory standards and voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requ irements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took ef fect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and hospitals. The 2019 CALGreen standards are the current applicable standards. For nonresidential projects, some of the key mandatory CALGreen 2019 standards involve requirements related to bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, shade trees, water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, ou tdoor potable water use in landscaped areas, recycled

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 58 JULY 2023

water supply systems, construction waste management, excavated soil and land clearing debris, and commissioning (24 CCR Part 11).

TTitle 20. Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. The CEC certifies an appliance based on a manufacturer’s demonstration that the appliance meets the standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air condit ioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing each type of appliance covered under the regulations and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance and water design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards fo r federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.

SB 1. SB 1 (Murray) (August 2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar energy systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the Public Resources Code, including Chapter 8.8 (Calif ornia Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for ratepayer-funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet minimum energy efficiency levels and performance requirements. Section 25780 established that it is a goal of the state to establish a self-sufficient solar industry. The goals included establishing solar energy systems as a viable mainstream option for both homes and businesses within 10 years of adoption and placing solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption. SB 1, also termed “Go Solar California,” was previously titled “Million Solar Roofs.” California AB 1470 (Solar Water Heating). This bill established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007.

The bill makes findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand. The bill defines several terms for purposes of the act. The bill requires the commission to evaluate the data available from a specified pilot program, and, if it makes a specified determination, to design and implement a program of incentives for the installation of 200,000 solar water heating systems in homes and businesses throughout the state by 2017.

Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement
SB 1078. SB 1078 (Sher) (September 2002) established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which required an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (see SB 107, EO S-14-08, and S-21-09).

SB 1368. SB 1368 (September 2006) required the CEC to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emission performance standards for the long-term procurement of electricity by local publicly owned utilities. These standards must be consistent with the standards adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission.

AB 1109. Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required the CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general- purpose lighting, to reduce electricity consumption 50% for indoor residential lighting and 25% for indoor commercial lighting.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 59 JULY 2023

EEO S-14-08. EO S-14-08 (November 2008) focused on the contribu tion of renewable energy sources to meet the electrical needs of California while reducing the GHG emissions from the electrical sector. This EO required that all retail suppliers of electricity in California serve 33% of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Furthermore, the EO directed state agencies to take appropriate actions to facilitate reaching this target. The CNRA, through collaboration with the CEC and California Department of Fi sh and Wildlife (formerly the California Department of Fish and Game), was directed to lead this effort.

EO S-21-09 and SBX1-2. EO S-21-09 (September 2009) directed CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with the goal of EO S-14-08 by July 31, 2010. CARB was further directed to work with the California Public Utilities Commission and CEC to ensure that the regulation builds upon the RPS program and was applicable to investor- owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, direct access providers, and community choice providers. Under this order, CARB was to give the highest priority to those renewable resources that provide the greatest environmental benefits with the least environmental costs and impacts on public health and can be developed the most quickly in support of reliable, efficient, cost-effective electricity system operations. On September 23, 2010, CARB initially approved regulations to implement a Renewable Electricity Standard. However, this regulation was not finalized because of subsequent legislation (SB X1-2, Simitian, statutes of 2011) signed by Governor Brown in April 2011.

SB X1 2 expanded the Renewables Portfolio Standard by establishing a renewable energy target of 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33% by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years. Under the bill, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells usin g renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation (30 megawatts or less), digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location.

SB X1-2 applies to all electricity retailers in the state in cluding publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet the renewable energy goals previously listed.

SB 350. SB 350 (October 2015, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act) further expanded the RPS by establishing a goal of 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 included the goal to double th e energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (e.g., heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the California Public Utilities Commission, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. Regarding mobile sources, as one of its elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector , recognizing that such electrification is required for achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction targets (see California Public Utilities Code Section 740.12).

SB 100. SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350 establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the ac hievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 60 JULY 2023

SSenate Bill 1020. SB 1020 (September 2022) revises the standards from SB 100, requiring the following percentage of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources:
90% by December 31, 2035
95% by December 31, 2040
100% by December 31, 2045
Mobile Sources
State Vehicle Standards (AB 1493 and EO B-16-12). AB 1493 (July 2002) was enacted in a response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s CO2 emissions. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. EO B-16-12 (March 2012) required that state entities under the governor’s direction and control support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero-emissions vehicles. It ordered CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission, and other rele vant agencies to work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve benchmark goals by 2015, 2020, and 2025. On a statewide basis, EO B-16-12 established a target reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. This directive did not apply to vehicles that have special performance requirements necessary for the protection of the public safety and welfare.

As explained under the “Federal Vehicle Standards” description above, EPA and NHTSA approved the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and Two, which revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero- emission vehicle mandates in California. As also explai ned above, in March 2022, EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards and ZEV sales mandate. EPA’s action concludes its reconsideration of the 2019 SAFE-1 rule by finding that the actions taken under the previous administration as a part of SAFE-1 were decided in error and are now entirely rescinded.

Heavy Duty Diesel. CARB adopted the final Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Regulation, Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Section 2025, on December 31, 2014, to reduce PM and NOx emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The rule requires PM filters be applied to newer heavier trucks and buses by January 1, 2012, with older vehicles required to comply by January 1, 2015. The rule will require nearly all diesel trucks and buses to be compliant with the 2010 model year engine requirement by January 1, 2023. CARB also adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit idling of diesel-fueled commercial vehicles on December 12, 2013. This rule requires diesel-fueled vehicles with gross vehicle weights greater than 10,000 pounds to idle no more than 5 minutes at any location (13 CCR 2485).

EO S-1-07. EO S-1-07 (January 2007, implementing regulation adopted in April 2009) sets a declining LCFS for GHG emissions measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in Cali fornia. The initial target of the LCFS was to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020 (17 CCR 95480 et seq.).

In September 2018, CARB approved amendments for the LCFS that require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by year 2030. The carbon intensity measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 61 JULY 2023

SSB 375. SB 375 (Steinberg) (September 2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 requires CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035 and to update those targets every 8 years. SB 375 requires the state’s 18 regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to prepare a SCS as part of their RTP that will achieve the GHG reduction targets set by CARB . If a MPO is unable to devise an SCS to achieve the GHG reduction target, the MPO must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies.

A SCS does not: (i) regulate the use of land; (ii) supersede the land use authority of cities and counties; or (iii) require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it (California Government Code Section 65080[b][2][K]). Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.

In 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the region al metropolitan planning organizations. The targets adopted for SANDAG in 2010 are a 7% reduction in per-capita passenger-vehicle GHG emissions by 2020 and a 13% reduction by 2035, measured relative to 2005 GHG emissions. In 2018, CARB adopted the second round of SB 375 reduction targets, and increased SANDAG’s 2020 target to a 15% reduction in per-capita passenger-vehicle GHG emissions, and the 2035 target to a 19% reduction using the same 2005 baseline.

SANDAG completed and adopted its 2050 RTP/SCS in October 2011. In November 2011, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.

After SANDAG’s 2050 RTP/SCS was adopted, a lawsuit was filed by the Cleveland National Forest Foundation and others (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497). regarding analysis of EO S-3-05’s 2050 goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels. The Supreme Court of California held that the Environmental Impact Report at issue was sufficient to inform the public, based on the information available at the time, about the regional plan’s GHG impacts and its potential inconsistency with state climate change goals without including an explicit analysis of the consistency of projected 2050 GHG emissions with the goals in the executive order.

In 2015, SANDAG adopted the next iteration of its RTP/SCS in accordance with statutorily mandated timelines and no subsequent litigation challenge was filed. More specifically, in October 2015, SANDAG adopted San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) (SANDAG 2015). Like the 2050 RTP/SCS, San Diego Forward: Regional Plan meets CARB’s 2020 and 2035 reduction targets for the region (SANDAG 2015). In December 2015, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region. The Regional Plan was updated in 2021, which was the result of years of planning, data analysis, and community engagement to reimagine the San Diego region with a transformative transportation system, a sustainable pattern of growth and development, and innovative demand and management strategies (SANDAG 2021).

Advanced Clean Cars Program and Zero-Emissions Vehicle Program. The Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) I program (January 2012) is a new emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog- and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 62 JULY 2023

regulations: the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions and a technology forcing regulation for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) that contributes to both types of emission reductions (CARB 2022b). The package includes elements to reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars. To improve air quality, CARB has implemented new emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that in 2025 cars will emit 75 percent less smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold in 2015. The ZEV program will act as the focused technology of the ACC I program by re quiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of ZEVs and plug-in hybrid EVs in the 2018 to 2025 model years.

The ACC II program establishes the next set of LEV and ZEV requirements for model years after 2025 to contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality standards (CARB 2022c).

The ACC II rulemaking package, also considers technological feasibility, environmental impacts, equity, economic impacts, and consumer impacts. The ACC II regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and became effective on November 30, 2022.

A
AB 1236. AB 1236 (October 2015) (Chiu) requires a city, county, or city and county to approve an application for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, as defined, through the issuance of specified permits unless the city or county makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The bill provided for appeal of that decision to the planning commission, as specified. The bill provided that the implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of elec tric vehicle charging stations is a matter of statewide concern. The bill required electric vehicle charging stations to meet specified standards. The bill required a city, county, or city and county with a population of 200,000 or more residents to adopt an ordinance, by September 30, 2016, that created an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, as specified. The bill also required a city, county, or city and county with a population of less than 200,000 residents to adopt this ordinance by September 30, 2017.

EO N-79-20 (September 2020) requires CARB to develop regulations as follows: (1) Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs sold in the State towards the target of 100% of in-State sales by 2035; (2) medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the State towards the target of 100% of the fleet transitioning to zero-emission vehicles by 2045 everywhere feasible and for all drayage trucks to be zero emission by 2035; and (3) strategies, in coordination with other State agencies, the EPA and local air districts, to achieve 100% zero-emission from off-road vehicles and equipment operations in the State by 2035. EO N-79-20 called for the development of a Zero- Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which was released February 2021, to be updated every 3 years, that ensures coordination and implementation of the EO and outlines actions to support new and used ZEV markets.

In addition, the EO specifies identification of near-ter m actions, and investment strategies, to improve clean transportation, sustainable freight, and transit options; and calls for development of strategies, recommendations, and actions by July 15, 2021, to manage and expedite the responsible closure and remediation of former oil extraction sites as the State transitions to a carbon-neutral economy.

Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Regulation. The purpose of the ACT Regulation (June 2020) is to accelerate the market for zero-emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector and to reduce emissions NOx, fine particulate matter, TACs, GHGs, and other criteria pollutants generated from on-road mobile sources (CARB 2022c). Requiring medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to transition to zero-emissions technology will reduce health risks to people living

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 63 JULY 2023

in and visiting California and is needed to help Califo rnia meet established near- and long-term air quality and climate mitigation targets.

WWater
EO B-29-15. In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Reso urces has modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among ot her changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.

EO B-37-16. Issued May 2016, EO B-37-16 directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to adjust emergency water conservation regulations through the end of January 2017 to reflect differing water supply conditions across the state. The SWRCB also developed a proposal to achieve a mandatory reduction of potable urban water usage that builds off the mandatory 25% reduction called for in EO B-29-15. The SWRCB and Department of Water Resources will develop new, permanent water use targets that build upon the existing state law requirements that the state achieve 20% reduction in urban water usage by 2020. EO B-37-16 also specifies that the SWRCB permanently prohibit water-wasting practices such as hosing off sidewalks, driveways, and other hardscapes; washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off nozzle; using non-recirculated water in a fountain or other decorative water feature; watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff, or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians.

EO N-10-21. In response to a state of emergency due to severe drought conditions, EO N-10-21 (July 2021) called on all Californians to voluntarily reduce their water use by 15% from their 2020 levels. Actions suggested in EO N- 10-21 include reducing landscape irrigation, running dish washers and washing machines only when full, finding and fixing leaks, installing water-efficient showerheads, taking shorter showers, using a shut-off nozzle on hoses, and taking cars to commercial car washes that use recycled water.

Solid Waste
AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383. In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code, Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000.

AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro]) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal. CalRecycle conducted several general stakeholder workshops and several focused workshops and in August 2015 published a discussion document titled AB 341 Report to the Legislature, which

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 64 JULY 2023

identifies five priority strategies that CalRecycle believes would assist the state in reaching the 75% goal by 2020, legislative and regulatory recommendations and an evaluation of program effectiveness (CalRecycle 2012).

AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, effective 2016) requires businesses to recycle their organic waste (i.e., food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste) depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires local jurisdictions across the state to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. The minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.

SB 1383 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) establishes targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of the Statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025. CalRecycle was granted the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20% of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025 (CalRecycle 2019).

OOther State Actions
SB 97. SB 97 (Dutton) (August 2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. In 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The advisory indicated that the lead agency should identify and estimate a project’s GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities (OPR 2008). The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a level that is less than significant. The CNRA adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010.

Under the amended Guidelines, a lead agency has the disc retion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4(a)). The Guidelines require a lead agency to consider the extent to which the Project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)). The Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features or off-site measures. The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emission threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. The CNRA also acknowledges that a lead agency may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (CNRA 2009a).

With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4(a)). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: (1) the extent a project may

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 65 JULY 2023

increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)).

E
EO S-13-08. EO S-13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea-level rise. Therefore, the EO directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009, and an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014. To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the state for the following areas:

Agriculture, Biodiversity and Habitat, Emergency Management, Energy, Forestry, Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and Resources, Public Health, Transportation, and Water. Issuance of the Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans followed in March 2016. In January 2018, the CNRA released the Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, which communicates current and needed actions that state government should take to build climate change resiliency.

4.2.3 Local Regulations

4.2.3.1 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District The SDAPCD does not have established GHG rules, regulations, or policies.

4.2.3.2 City of San Marcos
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its CAP on December 8, 2020 (City of San Marcos 2020). The CAP acts as a roadmap to address challenges of climate change within the City. The CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP and establishes GHG emission reduction targets and identifies achievable, locally based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. The CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory for 2012, GHG emissions forecasts for 2020 and 2030, local GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures to help the City achieve the 2030 target, climate adaptation measures for the City, and implementation and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the City’s measures and targets are achieved. The CAP established GHG emissions reduction goals of 4% below 2012 levels by 2020 and 42% below 2012 levels by 2030 (City of San Marcos 2020). The CAP was prepared in accordance with the requirements within CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and the CAP Consistency Checklist was used to evaluate the Project’s significance with respect to GHG emissions.

City of San Marcos General Plan
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) includes various policies related to reducing Air Quality and GHG emissions. Applicable policies include the following:

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 66 JULY 2023

Land Use and Community Design Element
PPolicy LU-2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Policy LU-2.3: Promote landscaping (e.g., native, drought tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.

Policy LU-2.7: Promote the instillation of trees to reduce the urban heat-island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.

Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.

Mobility Element
Policy M-2.1: Work with new development to design roadways that minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate within residential neighborhoods; while maintaining the City’s desire to provide connectivity on the roadway network.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COS-4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.

Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment.

Policy COS-4.8: Encourage and support the generation, transmission and use of renewable energy.

Policy COS-4.9: Encourage use and retrofitting of existing buildings under Title 24 of the California Building Energy Code.

4.3 Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Climate
Change Conditions

4.3.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide in 2020 (the most recent year for which data is available) totaled approximately 49,800 MMT CO 2e, excluding land use change and forestry (PBL 2022). The five largest emitting countries and the European Union (EU-27), together acco unt for about 60% of total global GHG emissions: China (27%), the United States (12%), the European Union (about 7%), India (7%), the Russian Federation (4.5%) and Japan (2.4%). These countries also have the highest CO2 emission levels. (PBL 2022).

Per the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2020 (EPA 2022b, total United States GHG emissions were approximately 5,981 MMT CO2e in 2020 (EPA 2022b). The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO
2, which represented approximately 76.4% of total GHG emissions (4,760 MMT CO 2e). The largest source of CO 2, and of overall GHG emissions, was fossil-fuel combustion, which accounted for approximately 92.8% of CO 2 emissions in 2018 (5,031.8 MMT CO 2e). Relative to 1990, gross

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 67 JULY 2023

United States GHG emissions in 2020 are lower by 7.3%, down from a high of 15.2% above 1990 levels in 2007.

GHG emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 by 10.6% and overall, net emissions in 2020 were 21.4% below 2005 levels (EPA 2022c).

According to California’s 2000–2020 GHG emissions inventory (2022 edition), California emitted 369.2 MMT CO2e in 2020, including emissions resulting from out-of-state electrical generation (CARB 2022d). The sources of GHG emissions in California include transportation, industrial uses, electric power production from both in-state and out- of-state sources, commercial and residential uses, agriculture, high-GWP substances, and recycling and waste. The California GHG emission source categories and their relative contributions in 2022 are presented in Table 14.

Table 14. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California SSource Category
AAnnual GHG Emissions
((MMT CO22e) Percent of Total
Transportation 136.60 37%
Industrial uses 73.84 20%
Electricity generationa 59.07 16%
Residential and commercial uses 36.92 10%
Agriculture and Forestry 33.22 9%
High GWP substances 22.15 6%
Recycling and waste 7.38 2%
Totals 369.2 100%
Source: CARB 2022b.

Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; GWP = global warming potential; MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Emissions reflect 2020 California GHG inventory.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.
a Includes emissions associated with importe d electricity, which account for 18.46 MMT CO2e.

Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 13.8 MT per person to 9.3 MT per person in 2020, a 33% decrease. In 2016, statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG Limit of 431 MMT CO2e and have remained below the Limit since that time (CARB 2022a).

The City has established a goal to reduce its community-wide GHG to reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (City of San Marcos 2020). The City’s community-wide GHG emissions inventory for baseline year 2012 is presented in Table 15 for informational purposes.

Table 15. City of San Marcos (Year 2012) Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Source Category
Annual GHG Emissions
(MMT CO2e) Percent of Total
On-Road Transportation 322,000 54%
Electricity 162,000 27%
Natural Gas 75,000 12%
Solid Waste 15,000 3%
Off-Road Transportation 14,000 2%
Water 9,000 1%

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 68 JULY 2023

Table 15. City of San Marcos (Year 2012) Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
SSource Category
AAnnual GHG Emissions
((MMT CO22e) Percent of Total
Wastewater 3,000 <1%
Total 599,000 100%
Source: City of San Marcos 2020.

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Totals may not sum due to rounding.

4.3.2 Potential Effects of Climate Change
In California, climate change impacts have the potential to affect sea-level rise, agriculture, snowpack and water supply, forestry, wildfire risk, public health, and electricity demand and supply. The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in average global tropospheric temperature. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed mean surface temperature for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between

0.75°C and 0.99°C) higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (IPCC 2018). Scientific modeling predicts that continued emissions of GHGs at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the twenty-first century than were observed during the twentieth century. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C (1.8°F) of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to

1.2°C (1.4°F to 2.2°F) (IPCC 2018). Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C (2.7°F) between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (IPCC 2018).

Although climate change is driven by global atmospheric conditions, climate change impacts are felt locally. A scientific consensus confirms that climate change is already affecting California. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment identified various indicators of climat e change in California, which are scientifically based measurements that track trends in various aspects of climate change. Many indicators reveal discernible evidence that climate change is occurring in California and is having significant, measurable impacts in the state. Changes in the state’s climate have been observed, including an increase in annual average air temperature with record warmth from 2012 to 2016, more frequent extreme heat events, more extreme drought, a decline in winter chill, an increase in cooling degree days and a decrease in heating degree days, and an increase in variability of statewide precipitation (OEHHA 2018).

Warming temperatures and changing precipitation patterns have altered California’s physical systems—the ocean, lakes, rivers and snowpack—upon which the state depends. Winter snowpack and spring snowmelt runoff from the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains provide approximately one-third of the state’s annual water supply.

Impacts of climate on physical systems have been observed, such as high variability of snow-water content (i.e., amount of water stored in snowpack), decrease in snowmelt runoff, glacier change (loss in area), rise in sea levels, increase in average lake water temperature and coastal ocean temperature, and a decrease in dissolved oxygen in coastal waters (OEHHA 2018).

Impacts of climate change on biological systems, including humans, wildlife, and vegetation, have also been observed, including climate change impacts on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. As with global observations, species responses include those consistent with warming: elevational or latitudinal shifts in range, changes in the timing of key plant and animal life cycle events, and changes in the abundance of species and in

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 69 JULY 2023

community composition. Humans are better able to adapt to a changing climate than plants and animals in natural ecosystems. Nevertheless, climate change poses a threat to public health, as warming temperatures and changes in precipitation can affect vector-borne pathogen transmission and disease patterns in California as well as the variability of heat-related deaths and illnesses. In addition, since 1950, the area burned by wildfires each year has been increasing.

The CNRA has released four California Climate Change Assessments (2006, 2009, 2012, and 2018), which have addressed the following: acceleration of warming across the state, more intense and frequent heat waves, greater riverine flows, accelerating sea level rise, more intense and frequent drought, more severe and frequent wildfires, more severe storms and extreme weather events, shrinking snowpack and less overall precipitation, and ocean acidification, hypoxia, and warming. To address local an d regional governments need for information to support action in their communities, the Fourth Assessment includes reports for nine regions of the state, including the San Diego Region, where the Project is located. Key projected climate changes for the San Diego Region include the following (CNRA 2019):
Temperature is projected to increase substantially, along with mean temperature, heat wave frequency will increase, with more intensity and longer duration.
Precipitation will remain highly variable but will change in character, with wetter winters, drier springs, and more frequent and severe droughts punctuated by more intense individual precipitation events. Wildfire risk will increase in the future as climate warms. The risk for large catastrophic wildfires driven by Santa Ana wind events will also likely increase as a result of a drier autumns leading to low antecedent precipitation before the height of the Santa Ana wind season. The sea level along San Diego County is expected to rise. High tides combined with elevated shoreline water levels produced by locally and distantly driven wind-driven waves will drive extreme events. Longer-term sea level will increase rapidly in the second half of the century and will be punctuated by short periods of storm-driven extreme sea levels that will imperil existing infrastructure, structures, and ecosystems with increasing frequency.

A
Agriculture. Some of the specific challenges faced by the agricultural sector and farmers include more drastic and unpredictable precipitation and weather patterns; extreme weather events that range from severe flooding to extreme drought, to destructive storm events; significant shifts in water availably and water quality; changes in pollinator lifecycles; temperature fluctuations, including extreme heat stress and decreased chill hours; increased risks from invasive species and weeds, agricultural pests and plant diseases; and disruptions to the transportation and energy infrastructure supporting agricultural production.

Biodiversity and Habitat. Specific climate change challenges to biodiversity and habitat include species migration in response to climatic changes, range shift and novel combinations of species; pathogens, parasites and disease; invasive species; extinction risks; changes in the timing of seasonal life-cycle events; food web disruptions; threshold effects (i.e., a change in the ecosystem that results in a “tipping point” beyond which irreversible damage or loss has occurred).

Energy. Specific climate change challenges for the energy sector include temperature, fluctuating precipitation patterns, increasing extreme weather events, and sea-level rise.

Forestry. The most significant climate change related risk to forests is accelerated risk of wildfire and more frequent and severe droughts. Droughts have resulted in more large-scale mortalities and combined with increasing temperatures have led to an overall increase in wildfire risks. Increased wildfire intensity subsequently increases

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 70 JULY 2023

public safety risks, property damage, fire suppression and emergency response costs, watershed and water quality impacts, and vegetation conversions.

OOcean and Coastal Ecosystems and Resources. Sea-level rise, changing ocean conditions, and other climate change stressors are likely to exacerbate long-standing challenges related to ocean and coastal ecosystems in addition to threatening people and infrastructure located along the California coastline and in coastal communities.

Sea-level rise, in addition to more frequent and severe coastal storms and erosion, are threatening vital infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power plants, ports and airports, gasoline pipes, and emergency facilities, as well as negatively impacting the coastal recreational assets such as beaches and tidal wetlands.

Public Health. Climate change can impact public health through various environmental changes and is the largest threat to human health in the twenty-first century. Changes in precipitation patterns affect public health primarily through potential for altered water supplies, an d extreme events such as heat, floods, droughts, and wildfires. Increased frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat and heat waves are likely to increase the risk of mortality due to heat- related illness, as well as exacerbate existing chronic health conditions. Other extreme weather events are likely to negatively impact air quality and increase or intensify respiratory illness, such as asthma and allergies.

Transportation. Although the transportation industry is a source of GHG emissions, it is also vulnerable to climate change risks. Increasing temperatures and extended periods of extreme heat threaten the integrity of the roadways and rail lines. High temperatures ca use the road surfaces to expand, which leads to increased pressure and pavement buckling. High temperatures can also cause rail breakages, which could lead to train derailment. Other forms of extreme weather events, such as extreme storm events, can negatively impact infrastructure, which can impair movement of peoples and goods, or potentially block evacuation routes and emergency access roads.

Increased wildfires, flooding, erosion risks, landslides, mudslides, and rockslides can all profoundly impact the transportation system and pose a serious risk to public safety.

Water. Climate change could seriously impact the timing, form, amount of precipitation, runoff patterns, and frequency and severity of precipitation events. Higher temperatures reduce the amount of snowpack and lead to earlier snowmelt, which can impact water supply availability, natural ecosystems, and winter recreation. Water supply availability during the intense dry summer months is heavily dependent on the snowpack accumulated during the winter time. Increased risk of flooding has a variety of public health concerns, including water quality, public safety, property damage, displacement, and post-disaster mental health problems. Prolonged and intensified droughts can also negatively groundwater reserves and result in increased overdraft and subsidence. The higher risk of wildfires can lead to increased erosion, which can negatively impact watersheds and result in poor water quality.

4.4 Significance Criteria and Methodology

4.4.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions impacts is based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this GHG emissions analysis, the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 71 JULY 2023

Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, such as the Project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated on a project-level under CEQA.

With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or performance-based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change” (14 CCR 15064.4[c]). The CEQA Guidelines provide that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment (14 CCR 15064.4[b]):
The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

In addition, the CEQA Guidelines specify that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7[c]).

The extent to which a project increases or decreases GHG emissions in the existing environmental setting should be estimated in accordance with Section 15064.4, Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the State CEQA Guidelines. The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that when calculating GHG emissions resulting from a project, lead agencies shall make a good-faith effort based on scientific and factual data (Section 15064.4 (a)), and lead agencies have discretion to select the model or methodology deemed most appropriate for enabling decision makers to intelligently assess the project’s incremental contribution to climate change (Section 15064.4 (c)).

The State CEQA Guidelines do not indicate an amount of GHG emissions that constitutes a significant impact on the environment. Instead, they authorize the lead agency to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.7(c)).

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research technical advisory titled, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, states that “public agencies are

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 72 JULY 2023

encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact” (OPR 2018). Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice” (OPR 2008).

The City adopted the Final CAP on December 8, 2020. The City’s CAP meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to development projects. The CAP relies on a screening threshold and a CAP Consistency Checklist to determine whether a project’s emissions would be consistent with GHG emissions estimated within the City’s CAP. Projects that are consistent with the City’s CAP, as determined through the CAP Consistency Checklist, would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact regarding GHG emissions. If a project is not consistent with the City’s CAP, as determined through the CAP Consistency Checklist, potentially significant cumulative GHG impacts would occur.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15183.5, the Project’s consistency with the CAP is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment. Nevertheless, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, GHG emissions resu lting from construction and operation of the Project were quantitatively estimated.

4.4.2 Approach and Methodology

4.4.2.1 Construction
CalEEMod Version 2022 was used to estimate potentia l Project-generated GHG emissions during construction.

Construction of the Project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling, and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. All details for construction criteria air pollutants discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, are also applicable for the estimation of construction-related GHG emissions. As such, see Section 3.4.2.1 for a discussion of construction emissions calculation methodology and assumptions.

4.4.2.2 Operation
As with Air Quality, emissions from the operational phase of the Project were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2022.

Operational year 2026 was assumed as the first full year after completion of Project construction.

AArea Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from the Project’s area sources, which include operation of gasoline- powered landscape maintenance equipment, which produce minimal GHG emissions. See Section 3.4.2.2, for a discussion of landscaping equipment emissions calculations.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 73 JULY 2023

EEnergy Sources
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. CalEEMod assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 code. The estimation of operational energy emissions for the Project were based on CalEEMod land use defaults and total area (i.e., square footage) of the Project’s land use.

Furthermore, in compliance with the City’s CAP, the Project would incorporate approximately 16,422 square feet of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels with an estimated 5,200-kilowatt hours (kwh) per unit. The total production is estimated at 530,400 kwh annually.

CalEEMod default energy intensity factors (CO2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per kilowatt-hour) for San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) is based on the value for SDG&E’s energy mix in 2021. These default intensity values were used for the Project analysis.

Mobile Sources
All details for criteria air pollutants discussed in Section 3.4.2.2 are also applicable for the estimation of operational mobile source GHG emissions.

Regulatory measures related to mobile sources include AB 1493 (Pavley) and related federal standards. AB 1493 required that CARB establish GHG emission standards for automobiles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state.

In addition, the NHTSA and EPA have established corporate fuel economy standards and GHG emission standards, respectively, for automobiles and light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. Implementation of these standards and fleet turnover (replacement of older vehicles with newer ones) will gradually reduce emissions from the Project’s motor vehicles. The effectiveness of fuel economy improvements was evaluated for motor vehicles in 2026 to the extent it was captured in CalEEMod.

Solid Waste
The Project would generate solid waste, and therefore, result in CO2e emissions associated with landfill off-gassing.

CalEEMod default values for solid waste generation were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste for the Project. However, consistent with AB 939, a 50% waste diversion was assumed.

Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the Project require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the Project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, and GHG emissions will be generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values. The electricity use for water supply, treatment, distribution, and wastewater treatment are based on the electricity intensity factors from CalEEMod for the County and the indoor and outdoor water use default values in CalEEMod. Regarding indoor water use, the Project would install low-flow water fixtures pursuant to CALGreen standards, which would reduce the Project’s water consumption.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 74 JULY 2023

4.5 Impact Analysis
This section evaluates the GHG emissions impacts associated with the Project. The significance criteria described in Section 4.4.1, Thresholds of Significance, were used to evaluate impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project.

4.5.1 GHG Emissions and GHG Emission Reduction Plans
Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (GHG-1) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (GHG-2)
CConstruction Emissions
Construction of the Project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, haul trucks, on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles.

Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence in February 2024 and would last approximately 15 months, ending in May 2025. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off-road equipment and off-site sources including vendor trucks and worker vehicles. Table 16 presents construction emissions for the Project in 2024 through 2025 from on-site and off-site emission sources.

Table 16. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Unmitigated Year
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
2024 477 0.02 0.02 0.23 483
2025 99 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 100
Total 576 0.02 0.02 0.28 583
Amortized Construction Emissions Over 30 years 19
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R=refrigerants, CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.

The values shown are the annual emissions reflect CalEEMod “mitigated” output.

Totals may not add due to rounding.

See Appendix A for complete results.

As shown in Table 16, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of would be approximately 583 MT CO2e over the construction period. Estimated Project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 19 MT CO 2e per year. As with Project-generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during construction of the Project would be short-term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 75 JULY 2023

OOperational Emissions
Operation of the Project would generate GHG emissions through vehicle trips by residents, employees, customers, and visitors to and from the Project site; landscape maintenance equipment operation; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the Project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment.

The estimated operational Project-generated GHG emissions are shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated Emission Source
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
metric tons per year
Mobile 1,339 0.09 0.07 1.97 1,364
Area 82 <0.01 <0.01 0 82
Energy 157 0.02 <0.01 0 159
Water 4 0.29 0.01 0 14
Waste 6 0.62 0.00 0 22
Refrigerants 0 0 0 0.24 0
Total 1,5588 1..03 0.088 2.221 1,6641
Amortized 30-Year Construction Emissions 19
Project Operations + Amortized Construction Total 1,6660 Notes: The table shows the “mitigated” amounts from the CalEEMod output because the Project includes solar PV for the 102 townhomes and compliance with building code measures which CalEEMod shows as “mitigation”.

CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R=refrigerants; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent See Appendix A for complete results.

As shown in Table 16, estimated annual Project-generated GHG emissions would be approximately 1,660 MT CO2e per year as a result of Project operation; with amortized construction emissions of approximately 19 MT CO 2e per year, total Project emissions would be approximately 1,660 MT CO2e per year.

City of San Marcos’ Climate Action Plan Consistency
This section evaluates the Project’s impacts to GHG in accordance with the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist. New discretionary development projects subject to CEQA review that are below the applicable screening size listed in the CAP Checklist would emit less than 500 MT CO2e annually and would not contribute considerably to cumulative climate change impacts, and therefore, would be considered consistent with the CAP and associated emissions projections.

For projects that are subject to CAP consistency review, the next step in determining consistency is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in development of the CAP. This section allows the City to determine a project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 76 JULY 2023

Step 1
Question 1
Step 1 of the CAP Checklist determines land use consistency. Question 1 of Step 1 asks if a project is less than a certain size. If so, it is deemed consistent with the City’s CAP by emitting fewer than 500 MT CO 2e per year and would be less than significant. As shown in Table 17, the Project exceeds 500 MT CO 2e, as such it exceeds the screening threshold, therefore the Project would answer “Yes” to this question and must proceed to Question 2 of Step 1.

Question 2
Question 2 of Step 1 asks if the project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation. The Project site is designated as Commercial (C) in the City’s General Plan and is zoned Commercial (C). The Project is proposing a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site as Specific Plan Area (SPA) and develop a mix of uses consisting of residential, commercial and office uses. The Project would answer “No” to this question and must proceed to Question 3 of Step 1.

Question 3
Question 3 of Step 1 asks for projects including a General Plan Amendment to determine if the project would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated emissions generated under the existing designation. This question recognizes that a General Plan Amendment would not necessarily make the Project inconsistent with the growth projections included in the CAP. For example, if a project includes a General Plan land use amendment that would result in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive proj ect when compared to the existing designations, it would still be within the projections assumed in the CAP. In addition to providing evidence to support the conclusion that the project would generate fewer emissions than existing designations, these projects would demonstrate consistency with the CAP through completion of Step 2 of the Checklist.

As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1, and shown in Table 9, the existing land use designation and zoning would result in greater vehicle trips and VMT compared to the proposed Project. Table 18 provides a comparison of GHG emissions between the existing land use designation and the proposed Project.

Table 18. Comparison of Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated
DDevelopment
CCO22 CH4 N2O R CO2e
metric tons per year
Proposed Project 1,605.00 1.66 0.08 2.21 1,671.00
Existing General Plan –
Mixed Use Development
Retail (129,000 sf) and
Office (40,000 sf), and 1
acre of parking
2,752.00 0.20 0.14 4.03 2,804.00
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R=refrigerants; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent See Appendix A for complete results.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 77 JULY 2023

As shown in Table 18, the proposed Project would generate fewer GHG emissions than the existing land use designation; the Project would answer “Yes” to this question and then proceed to Step 2 of the Checklist.

Step 2
The second step of CAP consistency review is to evaluate a project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP. Each checklist item is associated with a specific GHG reduction measure in the City’s CAP. “N/A” should only be checked based on the direction provided in each checklist item question. All projects for which the measure is applicable must demonstrate that the project would implement measures consistent with the checklist item, or fully substantiate how the item would be infeasible for project implementation. “N/A” responses are subject to Planning Division review and approval. If “N o” is provided as a response to a question, the project would be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP and would result in a significant GHG impact.

Checklist Item 1. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T-2) This checklist item applies to multi-family residential and non-residential projects. It asks if the project will install electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or better) in at least 5% of the total parking spaces provided on site.

The Project would answer “Yes” to this question. The CAP requires 12 Level 2 chargers on the west side of the Project (5% of 238 parking spaces) and 14 Level 2 Chargers on the east side of the Project (5% of 278 parking spaces.). The applicant would work with the City to ensure the appropriate percentage of Level 2 charges are incorporated into the site plan review and CAP consistency process.

Checklist Item 2. Bicycle In frastructure (Measure T-8) This checklist item applies to residential and non-residential projects. It asks if the following conditions are met, would the project pay its fair-share contribution to bicycle infrastructure improvements of the following:
Intersection or roadway segment improvements are proposed as part of the project. The City’s General Plan Mobility Element identifies bicycle infrastructure improvements at any intersection(s) or roadway segment(s) that would be improved as part of the project.

The Project would answer “Yes” to this checklist question. There are no Class II bicycle facilities along project frontage. However, per the City of San Marcos General Pl an, there are planned Class II bicycle facilities along the segments of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive fronting the Project. Based on the preliminary review of the Project site plan, the Project would construct a Class I bike path at its project frontage along the segments of Linda Vista Drive and Grand Avenue.

Checklist Item 3. Transportation Demand Management (Measure T-9) This checklist item applies to residential and non-reside ntial projects. Will the project develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that includes, at a minimum, all of the TDM strategies listed below? Provide discounted monthly transit pass or provide at least 25 percent transit fare subsidy to residents/employees.
Provide designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking spaces.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 78 JULY 2023

Provide pedestrian connections between all internal uses and to all existing or planned external streets around the project site(s).
Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or bicycle racks, showers, and clothes lockers. Encourage telecommuting for employees (allow one telecommute day per week or compressed work weeks) or provide a telecommute work center with common office space and equipment available to residents.
-or
Would the project implement and monitor for four (4) years a TDM program that demonstrates an alternative transportation (i.e. carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, telecommute) mode share of at least 29 percent for all residents?
The Project would answer “Yes” to this checklist question.. The Transportation Impact Study prepared for the Project evaluated each land uses’ VMT impacts independently as mixed-use project. Per Section 2.1.2.5 of the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG), the Project is located in an efficient VMT per capita area, therefore, the residential component is deemed to have less than significant VMT impacts, however, the CAP measure for TDM would still apply. The retail component of the Project would develop less than 50,000 square feet, and as such, would be considered “local-serving retail”, therefore, it would have less than significant VMT impacts, however CAP TDM measures would still be required. The office component of the Project was the only land use that was determined to result in a potentially significant VMT impact. Mitigation would be implemented to reduce the VMT impact to less than significant and would include voluntary TDM measures such as providing transit information to tenants, offering transit passes or fares, providing rideshare and micro mobility parking on-site as well as bicycle racks. Additionally, tenants within the office area would be encouraged to implement telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and/or compressed work weeks.

Checklist Item 4. Reduce Parkin g Near Transit (Measure T-12) This checklist item applies to multi-family residential projects. If located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, would the project provide at least 27% fewer parking spaces than required for the same use based on the City’s municipal code parking requirements?
The Project would answer “N/A” this checklist item. The City’s CAP defines a major transit stop as a bus or light-rail station with fixed service and 10-minute minimum headways during peak hours. The Project site is within one half mile of the transit lines serviced by North County Transit District (NCTD) described below:
B
Bus Route 347 – This bus route is serviced along West Mission Road and North Las Posas Road within the project study area. This bus route connects the Palomar College Transit Center to the CSU San Marcos SPRINTER Station. Operations start at 5:31 AM and end at 7:21 PM between Monday and Friday with 30- minute intervals. On Saturdays, operations start at 7:22 AM and ends at 7:08 PM with 60-minute intervals.

This route does not operate on Sundays.

Bus Route 445 – This bus route is serviced along West Mission Road and North Las Posas Road within the project study area. This bus route connects the Palomar College Transit Center to the Carlsbad Poinsettia Station (COASTER Connection). Between Monday and Friday, operations start at 6:34 AM and end at 10:19 AM with 30-minute intervals for the morning period. Similarly, between Monday and Friday, operates start

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 79 JULY 2023

at 3:36 PM and ends at 7:19 PM with 30-minutes intervals for the afternoon period. This route does not operate on Saturdays or Sundays.
SSPRINTER – This light rail line runs between Oceanside Transit Center and Escondido Transit Center (eastbound and westbound direction). The nearest stop to the Project site is the Palomar College Transit Center. Operations start at 4:17 AM and end at 9:10 PM between Monday and Sunday with 30-minute intervals.

As shown above, although the Project is located near transit, however, none of the stops would qualify as a major transit stop, therefore, this measure would not be applicable.

Checklist Item 5. Water Heaters (Measure E-1)
This checklist item applies to residential projects and asks if the project would install one of, or a combination of, the following water heater types in place of natural gas water heaters:
Electric heat pump water heater
Instantaneous electric water heater
Electric tank
Solar water heater with heat pump water heater backup Solar water heater with electric tank backup
The Project would answer “Yes” to this checklist item. The Project would develop 102 townhomes and 7 live/work dwelling units; as such, this measure would be applicable. The applicant would work with the City to identify the exact technology that would be implemented during the site plan and CAP review process.

Checklist Item 6. Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E-2) This checklist item applies to non-residential projects and asks if the project would install photovoltaic systems with a minimum capacity of two watts per square foot of gross floor area? The Project would answer “Yes” to this checklist item. The Project is proposing to develop a Specific Plan Area, as such some of the final commercial building layouts and design may still be refined. In all circumstances, the applicant will work in concert with the City to install a photovoltaic system to meet the City’s CAP requirement.

Checklist Item 7. Landscapin g Water Use (Measure W-1)
This checklist item applies to residential and non-residential projects and asks if the project would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

The Project would answer “Yes” to this checklist item. The Project design will comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Checklist Item 8. Urban Tr ee Canopy (Measure C-2)
This checklist item applies to residential and non-residential projects and asks if the project is providing more than 10 parking spaces, will the project plant at least one tree per five parking spaces provided?

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 80 JULY 2023

The Project would answer “Yes” to this checklist item. The Project would design its landscaping to meet the requirement of at least one tree per five parking spaced provided.

SSummary
The Project was shown to implement all applicable checklist items within the City’s CAP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, and impacts to GHG emissions would be l less than significant.

Consistency with Senate Bill 32, Assembly Bill 1279, and Executive Order S-3-05 EO S-3-05 identified the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. AB 1279 establishes a policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and for statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to be reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2045.

Each Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the initial Scoping Plan and subsequent updates, while also identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets increasingly stringent GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Scoping Plan updates have continued to express optimism in meeting future year targets of 2050 and 2030, as evaluated in the 2014 and 2017 Scoping Plans (respectively), and most recently, the 2045 goal addressed in the 2022 Scoping Plan under EO B-55-18, which AB 1279 codified and expanded on.

While there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future year analysis, CARB forecasted in the 2014 Scoping Plan that compliance with the current Scoping Plan would put the state on a trajectory of meeting the long-term 2050 GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance was unknown at the time (CARB 2014). The 2017 Scoping Plan outlined a strategy to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target. The proposed scenario in the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path not just to carbon neutrality by 2045, but also to the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target (CARB 2022d). The modeling in dicates that, if the plan described in the proposed scenario is fully implemented, and done so on schedule, the state is on track to reduce its emissions to 260 MMT CO
2e by 2030 (CARB 2022d).

The City’s CAP outlines the measures for the City to ac hieve its share of state GHG reductions. The City’s GHG reduction targets are consistent with the CARB’s recommendations for community-wide targets. As discussed in the CAP, by meeting the 2030 target, the City will meet the 2030 state goal identified in SB 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 target identifi ed in EO S-3-05. Regarding, AB 1279, it is important to note that the state’s carbon neutrality goal does not preclude any individual project from emitting GHG emissions.

AB 1279 codifies EO B-55-18, however, its enactment wa s linked to the concurrent enactment of SB 905, which requires CARB to create a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program that, fundamentally, will sequester carbon emitted by other projects. Therefore, the state’s carbon neutrality goal does not preclude all individual projects from emitting GHG emissions.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 81 JULY 2023

As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the CAP and, therefore, would be consistent with state GHG reduction goals and progress towards achieving carbon neutrality.

CConsistency with SANDAG RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the SANDAG’s RTP/SCS has been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions attributable to passenger vehicles in the San Diego regi on. In October 2015, SANDAG adopted its Regional Plan, which was subsequently updated in 2021. The RTP/SCS is not directly applicable to the Project because the underlying purpose of the RTP/SCS is to provide direction and guidance on future regional growth (i.e., the location of new residential and nonresidential land uses) and transportation patterns throughout the City and greater San Diego County, as stipulated under Senate Bill 375. CARB has recognized that the approved RTP/SCS is consistent with Senate Bill 375. The SANDAG Regional Plan is generally consistent with the local government plans. Since the Project is within the scope of development that was anticipated in the General Plan (see Section 3.5.1), it would not result in growth that would conflict with the Regional Plan.

Summary
Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions or generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the Project’s impacts on GHG emissions would be l less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 82 JULY 2023

5 References
CalRecycle. 2019. California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Accessed November 2022. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

January 2008.

CAPCOA. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide, Version 2022.1. Prepared by ICF, in collaboration with Sacramento Metopolitan Air Quality Management District, Fehr & Peers, STI, and Ramboll. April. Accessed November 2022. https://caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/CalEEMod_User_Guide_v2022.1.pdf
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed December 2022. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.

CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessed December 2022.

CARB. 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. October 2008. Accessed December 2022. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.

CARB. 2009. “Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control”. December 2009.

CARB. 2011. Recommended Area Designation for the 2010 Federal Sulfur Dioxide Standard. June 2011.

Accessed December 2016. CARB Staff Report: June 2011 - SO 2 Area Designation Recommendations.

CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014. Accessed December 2022.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_c hange_scoping_plan.pdf
CARB. 2015. “GHG Inventory Glossary”. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory- glossary.

CARB. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards” May 4, 2016. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf CARB. 2017a. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10)” August 2017. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health.

CARB. 2017b. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Accessed December 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 83 JULY 2023

CARB. 2017c. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March 2017. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf.

CARB. 2019a. “Glossary.” Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary.

CARB. 2019b. “Ozone & Health.” Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ozone-and- health.

CARB. 2019c. “Nitrogen Dioxide & Health.” Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health.

CARB. 2019d. “Carbon Monoxide & Health.” Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health.

CARB. 2019e. “Sulfur Dioxide & Health.” Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/sulfur- dioxide-and-health.

CARB. 2019f. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

CARB. 2020. State Area Designations. October 2020. Accessed December 2022. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.

CARB 2022a. Common Air Pollutants. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air- pollutants.

CARB. 2022b. “Ambient air quality data.” [digital CARB data]. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed December 2022 at https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.

CARB. 2022c. “Advanced Clean Cars Program”. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about
CARB. 2022d. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet. August 20, 2021. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf CARB. 2022e. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory—2022 Edition.” October 26, 2022. Accessed November 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000- 2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.

CARB. 2022f. 2022 Scoping Plan Update. November 16, 2022. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan- documents
CDPH. 2022. CDPH Infectious Diseases Branch Yearly Summaries of Selected Communicable Diseases in California, 2012-2020. Accessed December 2022.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/YearlySummariesofSele ctedCommDiseasesinCA2012-2020.pdf#page=42.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 84 JULY 2023

City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan. Adopted February 14, 2012. http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan.

City of San Marcos. 2020. City of San Marcos Final Climate Action Plan. Adopted December 2020. Accessed December 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25084.

City of San Marcos. 2022. Municipal Code. Accessed December 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances.

CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009a. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.

CNRA. 2009b. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://resources.ca.gov/docs/ climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf.

CNRA. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk: An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. July 2014. Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/ Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf.

CNRA. 2016. Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans. March 2016. Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/Safeguarding%20California- Implementation%20Action%20Plans.pdf.

CNRA. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. January 2018.

Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/ safeguarding-california-plan-2018-update.pdf.

CNRA. 2019. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: San Diego Region Report. March 2019. Accessed April 2022 at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg_Report-SUM-CCCA4-2018- 009_SanDiego_ADA.pdf.

County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. Land Use and Environment Group. Department of Planning and Land Use.

Department of Public Works. March 19, 2007.

County of San Diego. 2011. San Diego County General Plan Update: Final Environmental Impact Report. EIR No. 02-ZA-001. SCH No. 2002111067. August 2011. Accessed December 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/gpupdate/environmental.html.

County of San Diego. 2021. County of San Diego Communicable Disease Registry - Coccidioidomycosis Case Counts and Rates by Zip Code San Diego County Residents 2012-2020. Accessed December 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/JVR/AdminRecord/IBR/COUNTY%20OF% 20SAN%20DIEGO%202021%20Coccidioidomycosis_ZipCode_SanDiegoCounty_2010_2019.pdf

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 85 JULY 2023

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. EPA/600/R-10/076F. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 2013.

EPA. 2016a. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria. EPA/600/R-15/068.

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 2016.

EPA 2016b. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. Accessed December 2022. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases_.html EPA. 2018. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” March 8, 2018. Accessed December 2022. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air- pollutants.

EPA. 2021a. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” December 2, 2021. Accessed December 2022. https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/index.html.

EPA 2022a. “Criteria Air Pollutants”. August 9, 2022. Accessed December 2022. https://www.epa.gov/criteria- air-pollutants
EPA. 2022b. “Air Data: Access to Air Pollution Data.” September 22, 2022. Accessed December 2022 at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.

EPA 2022b. “Climate Change”. Accessed December 2022. https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science EPA. 2022c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2019. EPA 430-R-21-005. April 2021.

Accessed December 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg- inventory-2021-main-text.pdf.

EPA and NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2016. EPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond.

August 2016. Accessed December 2022.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NL.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NL.PDF.

EPA and NHTSA. 2018. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 'SAFE' Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks. Proposed Rule August 2018. Accessed December 2022. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-08-24/pdf/2018-16820.pdf.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. IPCC Second Assessment: Climate Change 1995. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed December 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Accessed December 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 86 JULY 2023

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.K.

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley. New York, New York:

Cambridge University Press. Accessed December 2022. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by R.K. Pachauri and L.A.

Meyer. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed December 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/ 2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.

IPCC. 2018. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Accessed December 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SPM_version_report_LR.pdf Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2008.

NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11208.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program.

Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. Accessed January 2019. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

OEHHA. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 9, 2018. Accessed December 2022. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

PBL (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). 2022. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2021 Summary Report. Accessed November 2022. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/ files/downloads/pbl-2022-trends-in-global-co2-and_total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2021-summary- report_4758.pdf
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015.

Accessed December 2022. http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20- %20combined.pdf.

SANDAG. 2020. “Series 14: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast.” Accessed December 2022. https://gis.sandag.org/docs/Series%2014_Regional_Growth_Forecast_and_Baseline_Subregional_Alloc ation.pdf

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 87 JULY 2023

SANDAG. 2021. SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 10, 2021. Accessed December 2022. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 1976. Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule

51. Nuisance. Effective November 8, 1976. Accessed December 2022. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R50-1-51.pdf.

SDAPCD. 1979. Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule 67.7. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts.

Effective August 29, 1979. Accessed December 2022.
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/
Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R67-7.pdf.

SDAPCD. 1997. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Effective August 13, 1997.

Accessed December 2022. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R50.pdf.

SDAPCD. 1998. Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. Effective December 17, 1998. Accessed December 2022. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Rules_and_Regulations/Permits/APCD_R20-2.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County. December 2005. Accessed December 2022.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/ PM-Measures.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2009a. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 2009. Accessed November 2022. http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/2009-RAQS.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2009b. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. June 24, 2009. Accessed November 2022. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/ Prohibitions/APCD_R55.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2012. Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County. Adopted December 5, 2012. Accessed December 2022. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/ 8_Hour_O3_Maint-Plan.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2015a. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. June 24, 2015.

Accessed December 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SD/CURHTML/R67.0.1.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2015b. Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County.

SDAPCD. 2016a. 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County. Updated December 2016.

Accessed December 2022.
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/8-Hr-O3%20Attain%20Plan- 08%20Std.pdf

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 88 JULY 2023

SDAPCD. 2016b. 2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County. December 2016.

Accessed December 2022. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/8- Hr-O3%20RACT%20Demo-08%20Std.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2017. Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 2016. Effective June 30, 2017. Accessed December 2017. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/monitoring/2016_Network_Plan.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2019. Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessments (HRAs). May 2019. Accessed December 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD_Hot_Spots_Supplemental_Guidelines.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2020a. 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County. Accessed December 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Air%20Quality%20Planning/Att%20A%20(Attainment%20Plan)_ws.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2020b. Rule 20.2 – New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. October 16, 2020. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-20.2.pdf SDAPCD. 2021. Rule 20.3 – New Source Review Major Stationary Sources and PSD Stationary Sources. October 14, 2021. Accessed December 2022 at
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-20.3-2021.pdf.

US Green Building Council. 2008.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2000. Operational Guidelines (version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas 1 Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 89 JULY 2023

6 List of Preparers
Jennifer Reed, Air Quality Services Manager
Elena Nuño, Air Quality Specialist

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN / AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT

14763 90 JULY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix A
CalEEMod Results
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
1 / 95
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
2 / 95

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
3 / 95

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.3.1. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.4.1. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.5.1. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
4 / 95

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
5 / 95

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
6 / 95

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
7 / 95

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
8 / 95

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
9 / 95

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name San Marcos Specific Plan
Lead Agency City of San Marcos
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 9.80
Location 33.140389807114516, -117.18649824052213
County San Diego
City San Marcos
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6271
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse 109 Dwelling Unit 3.00 169,282 70,608 0.00 304 Residential Component
Regional Shopping
Center

49.3 1000sqft 2.00 49,266 10,000 0.00 — Specialty Retail San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
10 / 95
General Office
Building

7.66 1000sqft 0.25 7,658 1,000 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 312 Space 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

2.00 Acre 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

1.32 Acre 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Transportation T-14* Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 4.28 70.5 34.4 31.2 0.06 1.45 10.7 12.1 1.33 3.82 5.15 — 6,801 6,801 0.28 0.13 5.02 6,827 Mit. 4.28 70.5 34.4 31.2 0.06 1.45 5.05 6.50 1.33 1.59 2.93 — 6,801 6,801 0.28 0.13 5.02 6,827 %
Reduced
——————5 3 % 4 6 % —5 8 % 4 3 % ———————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
11 / 95
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 4.42 3.72 36.0 33.7 0.06 1.60 21.1 22.7 1.47 10.3 11.7 — 8,116 8,116 0.39 0.79 0.28 8,360 Mit. 4.42 3.72 36.0 33.7 0.06 1.60 9.10 10.7 1.47 4.10 5.58 — 8,116 8,116 0.39 0.79 0.28 8,360 %
Reduced
——————5 7 % 5 3 % —6 0 % 5 3 % ———————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . 1 . 5 04 . 1 51 0 . 81 2 . 70 . 0 20 . 4 42 . 0 62 . 5 00 . 4 00 . 6 71 . 0 8— 2 , 8 8 1 2 , 8 8 1 0 . 1 30 . 1 11 . 3 62 , 9 1 9 Mit. 1.50 4.15 10.8 12.7 0.02 0.44 1.43 1.86 0.40 0.38 0.79 — 2,881 2,881 0.13 0.11 1.36 2,919 %
Reduced
——————3 1 % 2 5 % —4 3 % 2 7 % ———————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.27 0.76 1.97 2.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.07 0.12 0.20 — 477 477 0.02 0.02 0.23 483 Mit. 0.27 0.76 1.97 2.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.26 0.34 0.07 0.07 0.14 — 477 477 0.02 0.02 0.23 483 %
Reduced
——————3 1 % 2 5 % —4 3 % 2 7 % ———————
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—7 5 . 0 2 5 0 5 5 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 ——5 5 . 0 —————————
U n m i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
M i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—7 5 . 0 2 5 0 5 5 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 ——5 5 . 0 —————————
U n m i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
12 / 95
M i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
Exceeds
(Annual)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—1 3 . 7 4 0 . 0 1 0 0 4 0 . 0 1 5 . 0 ——1 0 . 0 ————————— U n m i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
M i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 4.28 3.60 34.4 31.2 0.06 1.45 10.7 12.1 1.33 3.82 5.15 — 6,801 6,801 0.28 0.13 5.02 6,827 2025 1.02 70.5 7.50 10.7 0.01 0.35 0.17 0.48 0.32 0.04 0.35 — 1,663 1,663 0.07 0.02 0.71 1,671 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 4.42 3.72 36.0 33.7 0.06 1.60 21.1 22.7 1.47 10.3 11.7 — 8,116 8,116 0.39 0.79 0.28 8,360 2025 1.79 1.58 11.5 17.1 0.03 0.44 0.92 1.36 0.40 0.22 0.63 — 3,773 3,773 0.17 0.13 0.12 3,816 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 1.50 1.25 10.8 12.7 0.02 0.44 2.06 2.50 0.40 0.67 1.08 — 2,881 2,881 0.13 0.11 1.36 2,919 2025 0.30 4.15 1.95 2.91 < 0.005 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.07 0.03 0.10 — 596 596 0.03 0.02 0.29 603 A n n u a l ——————————————————
2024 0.27 0.23 1.97 2.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.07 0.12 0.20 — 477 477 0.02 0.02 0.23 483 2025 0.05 0.76 0.36 0.53 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 98.7 98.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 99.8 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
13 / 95

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 4.28 3.60 34.4 31.2 0.06 1.45 5.05 6.50 1.33 1.59 2.93 — 6,801 6,801 0.28 0.13 5.02 6,827 2025 1.02 70.5 7.50 10.7 0.01 0.35 0.17 0.48 0.32 0.04 0.35 — 1,663 1,663 0.07 0.02 0.71 1,671 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 4.42 3.72 36.0 33.7 0.06 1.60 9.10 10.7 1.47 4.10 5.58 — 8,116 8,116 0.39 0.79 0.28 8,360 2025 1.79 1.58 11.5 17.1 0.03 0.44 0.92 1.36 0.40 0.22 0.63 — 3,773 3,773 0.17 0.13 0.12 3,816 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 1.50 1.25 10.8 12.7 0.02 0.44 1.43 1.86 0.40 0.38 0.79 — 2,881 2,881 0.13 0.11 1.36 2,919 2025 0.30 4.15 1.95 2.91 < 0.005 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.07 0.03 0.10 — 596 596 0.03 0.02 0.29 603 A n n u a l ——————————————————
2024 0.27 0.23 1.97 2.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.26 0.34 0.07 0.07 0.14 — 477 477 0.02 0.02 0.23 483 2025 0.05 0.76 0.36 0.53 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 98.7 98.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 99.8

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . 9 . 8 11 4 . 46 . 5 65 0 . 80 . 1 00 . 2 72 . 8 73 . 1 40 . 2 60 . 5 10 . 7 79 2 . 11 1 , 9 9 1 1 2 , 0 8 3 1 0 . 00 . 4 63 0 . 41 2 , 5 0 0 Mit. 9.81 14.4 6.56 50.8 0.10 0.27 2.87 3.14 0.26 0.51 0.77 54.5 11,935 11,990 6.22 0.45 30.4 12,310 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
14 / 95
%
Reduced
———————————4 1 % < 0 . 5 % 1 % 3 8 % 1 % —2 %
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . 8 . 6 21 3 . 26 . 8 94 1 . 80 . 1 00 . 2 62 . 8 73 . 1 30 . 2 60 . 5 10 . 7 69 2 . 11 1 , 5 8 4 1 1 , 6 7 6 1 0 . 10 . 4 82 . 2 21 2 , 0 7 4 Mit. 8.62 13.2 6.89 41.8 0.10 0.26 2.87 3.13 0.26 0.51 0.76 54.5 11,528 11,583 6.27 0.48 2.22 11,884 %
Reduced
———————————4 1 % < 0 . 5 % 1 % 3 8 % 1 % —2 %
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . 8 . 7 81 3 . 45 . 4 14 3 . 70 . 0 90 . 1 62 . 7 32 . 8 90 . 1 50 . 4 80 . 6 39 2 . 19 , 6 0 0 9 , 6 9 2 1 0 . 00 . 4 61 3 . 41 0 , 0 9 3 M i t . 8 . 7 81 3 . 45 . 4 14 3 . 70 . 0 90 . 1 62 . 7 32 . 8 90 . 1 50 . 4 80 . 6 35 4 . 59 , 5 4 4 9 , 5 9 9 6 . 2 10 . 4 61 3 . 49 , 9 0 4 %
Reduced
———————————4 1 % 1 % 1 % 3 8 % 1 % —2 %
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.60 2.45 0.99 7.98 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.09 0.12 15.2 1,589 1,605 1.66 0.08 2.21 1,671 Mit. 1.60 2.45 0.99 7.98 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.09 0.12 9.02 1,580 1,589 1.03 0.08 2.21 1,640 %
Reduced
———————————4 1 % 1 % 1 % 3 8 % 1 % —2 %
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—7 5 . 0 2 5 0 5 5 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 ——5 5 . 0 —————————
U n m i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
M i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
15 / 95
—————————55.0——10025055025075.0—Threshol
d
U n m i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
M i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
Exceeds
(Annual)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—1 3 . 7 4 0 . 0 1 0 0 4 0 . 0 1 5 . 0 ——1 0 . 0 ————————— U n m i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————
M i t . —N o N o N o N o N o ——N o —————————

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 8.52 8.02 4.10 41.0 0.09 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,801 8,801 0.54 0.40 28.9 8,962 Area 1.22 6.30 1.77 9.38 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,174 2,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,177 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,007 1,007 0.18 0.01 — 1,016 W a t e r ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 W a s t e ———————————7 5 . 1 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 1 7 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 —2 6 3 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
T o t a l 9 . 8 11 4 . 46 . 5 65 0 . 80 . 1 00 . 2 72 . 8 73 . 1 40 . 2 60 . 5 10 . 7 79 2 . 11 1 , 9 9 1 1 2 , 0 8 3 1 0 . 00 . 4 63 0 . 41 2 , 5 0 0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 8.34 7.82 4.51 40.7 0.08 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,421 8,421 0.59 0.42 0.75 8,563 Area 0.20 5.35 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,007 1,007 0.18 0.01 — 1,016 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
16 / 95
W a t e r ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 W a s t e ———————————7 5 . 1 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 1 7 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 —2 6 3 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
T o t a l 8 . 6 21 3 . 26 . 8 94 1 . 80 . 1 00 . 2 62 . 8 73 . 1 30 . 2 60 . 5 10 . 7 69 2 . 11 1 , 5 8 4 1 1 , 6 7 6 1 0 . 10 . 4 82 . 2 21 2 , 0 7 4 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 8.16 7.66 4.30 39.0 0.08 0.07 2.73 2.80 0.06 0.48 0.54 — 8,089 8,089 0.57 0.40 11.9 8,236 Area 0.55 5.74 0.42 4.43 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 496 496 0.01 < 0.005 — 496 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,007 1,007 0.18 0.01 — 1,016 W a t e r ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 W a s t e ———————————7 5 . 1 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 1 7 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 —2 6 3 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
T o t a l 8 . 7 81 3 . 45 . 4 14 3 . 70 . 0 90 . 1 62 . 7 32 . 8 90 . 1 50 . 4 80 . 6 39 2 . 19 , 6 0 0 9 , 6 9 2 1 0 . 00 . 4 61 3 . 41 0 , 0 9 3 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Mobile 1.49 1.40 0.78 7.11 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.51 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 1.97 1,364 Area 0.10 1.05 0.08 0.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 82.1 82.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.2 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 167 167 0.03 < 0.005 — 168 W a t e r ———————————2 . 8 0 1 . 3 9 4 . 1 9 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 1 —1 3 . 5 W a s t e ———————————1 2 . 4 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 4 1 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 —4 3 . 5 R e f r i g . ————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4
Total 1.60 2.45 0.99 7.98 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.09 0.12 15.2 1,589 1,605 1.66 0.08 2.21 1,671

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
17 / 95
Mobile 8.52 8.02 4.10 41.0 0.09 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,801 8,801 0.54 0.40 28.9 8,962 Area 1.22 6.30 1.77 9.38 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,174 2,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,177 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 951 951 0.14 0.01 — 957 W a t e r ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 W a s t e ———————————3 7 . 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 6 3 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 —1 3 1 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
Total 9.81 14.4 6.56 50.8 0.10 0.27 2.87 3.14 0.26 0.51 0.77 54.5 11,935 11,990 6.22 0.45 30.4 12,310 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 8.34 7.82 4.51 40.7 0.08 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,421 8,421 0.59 0.42 0.75 8,563 Area 0.20 5.35 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 951 951 0.14 0.01 — 957 W a t e r ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 W a s t e ———————————3 7 . 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 6 3 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 —1 3 1 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
T o t a l 8 . 6 21 3 . 26 . 8 94 1 . 80 . 1 00 . 2 62 . 8 73 . 1 30 . 2 60 . 5 10 . 7 65 4 . 51 1 , 5 2 8 1 1 , 5 8 3 6 . 2 70 . 4 82 . 2 21 1 , 8 8 4 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 8.16 7.66 4.30 39.0 0.08 0.07 2.73 2.80 0.06 0.48 0.54 — 8,089 8,089 0.57 0.40 11.9 8,236 Area 0.55 5.74 0.42 4.43 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 496 496 0.01 < 0.005 — 496 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 951 951 0.14 0.01 — 957 W a t e r ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 W a s t e ———————————3 7 . 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 6 3 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 —1 3 1 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
T o t a l 8 . 7 81 3 . 45 . 4 14 3 . 70 . 0 90 . 1 62 . 7 32 . 8 90 . 1 50 . 4 80 . 6 35 4 . 59 , 5 4 4 9 , 5 9 9 6 . 2 10 . 4 61 3 . 49 , 9 0 4 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Mobile 1.49 1.40 0.78 7.11 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.51 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 1.97 1,364 Area 0.10 1.05 0.08 0.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 82.1 82.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.2 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
18 / 95
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 157 157 0.02 < 0.005 — 159 W a t e r ———————————2 . 8 0 1 . 3 9 4 . 1 9 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 1 —1 3 . 5 W a s t e ———————————6 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 6 . 2 2 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 0 —2 1 . 8 R e f r i g . ————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4
Total 1.60 2.45 0.99 7.98 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.09 0.12 9.02 1,580 1,589 1.03 0.08 2.21 1,640

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.00 2.52 24.0 20.7 0.03 1.03 — 1.03 0.95 — 0.95 — 3,284 3,284 0.13 0.03 — 3,295 Demolitio
n
——————5 . 4 6 5 . 4 6 —0 . 8 3 0 . 8 3 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.94 8.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.38 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.14 1.32 1.14 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 180 180 0.01 < 0.005 — 181 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 3 0 0 . 3 0 —0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 ———————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
19 / 95

0.51<0 . 0 0 5<0 . 0 0 5< 0.0050.490.49—0.010.01<0 . 0 0 50.070.07<0 . 0 0 5< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005Onsite truck
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.24 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.8 29.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.9 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 —0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.35 0.10 6.54 2.28 0.03 0.08 1.19 1.27 0.08 0.32 0.41 — 4,696 4,696 0.25 0.75 0.26 4,927 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.07 7.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 257 257 0.01 0.04 0.24 270 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.6 42.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.7

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
20 / 95
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.14 1.32 1.14 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 180 180 0.01 < 0.005 — 181 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 3 0 0 . 3 0 —0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.24 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.8 29.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.9 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 —0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
21 / 95
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.35 0.10 6.54 2.28 0.03 0.08 1.19 1.27 0.08 0.32 0.41 — 4,696 4,696 0.25 0.75 0.26 4,927 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.07 7.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 257 257 0.01 0.04 0.24 270 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.6 42.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.7

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
22 / 95
———————10.110.1—19.719.7——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.94 8.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.38 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 5 4 0 . 5 4 —0 . 2 8 0 . 2 8 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 1 0 0 . 1 0 —0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 160 160 0.01 0.01 0.02 162 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
23 / 95
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.42 4.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7 . 6 7 7 . 6 7 —3 . 9 4 3 . 9 4 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.94 8.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.38 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
24 / 95
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1 —0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 —0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 160 160 0.01 0.01 0.02 162 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.42 4.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
25 / 95
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————9 . 2 0 9 . 2 0 —3 . 6 5 3 . 6 5 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.91 8.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.37 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————9 . 2 0 9 . 2 0 —3 . 6 5 3 . 6 5 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.94 8.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.38 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.88 1.65 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
26 / 95
———————0.200.20—0.500.50——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 9 0 . 0 9 —0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.78 197 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 183 183 0.01 0.01 0.02 185 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
27 / 95
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————3 . 5 9 3 . 5 9 —1 . 4 2 1 . 4 2 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.91 8.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.37 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————3 . 5 9 3 . 5 9 —1 . 4 2 1 . 4 2 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 8.94 8.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.38 Average
Daily
——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
28 / 95
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.88 1.65 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 2 0 0 . 2 0 —0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 —0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.78 197 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 183 183 0.01 0.01 0.02 185 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.2 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
29 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.72 0.60 5.64 6.60 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,206 1,206 0.05 0.01 — 1,210 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
30 / 95
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.20 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 200 200 0.01 < 0.005 — 200 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.42 0.39 0.31 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 890 890 0.04 0.03 3.58 904 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.77 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 560 560 0.02 0.08 1.44 586 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.42 0.38 0.34 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 840 840 0.04 0.03 0.09 851 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.80 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 561 561 0.02 0.08 0.04 585 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.17 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 426 426 0.02 0.02 0.77 433 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 282 282 0.01 0.04 0.31 294 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 70.6 70.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 71.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 46.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 48.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
31 / 95
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.72 0.60 5.64 6.60 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,206 1,206 0.05 0.01 — 1,210 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.20 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 200 200 0.01 < 0.005 — 200 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.42 0.39 0.31 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 890 890 0.04 0.03 3.58 904 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.77 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 560 560 0.02 0.08 1.44 586 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
32 / 95
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.42 0.38 0.34 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 840 840 0.04 0.03 0.09 851 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.80 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 561 561 0.02 0.08 0.04 585 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.17 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 426 426 0.02 0.02 0.77 433 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 282 282 0.01 0.04 0.31 294 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 70.6 70.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 71.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 46.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 48.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
33 / 95

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.15 1.35 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 310 310 0.01 < 0.005 — 311 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.25 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 51.3 51.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.40 0.36 0.31 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 824 824 0.04 0.03 0.09 835 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.76 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 551 551 0.02 0.08 0.04 575 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 107 107 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 109 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 71.1 71.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 74.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
34 / 95

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.15 1.35 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 310 310 0.01 < 0.005 — 311 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.25 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 51.3 51.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
35 / 95
Worker 0.40 0.36 0.31 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 824 824 0.04 0.03 0.09 835 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.76 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 551 551 0.02 0.08 0.04 575 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 107 107 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 109 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 71.1 71.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 74.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 P a v i n g —0 . 7 2 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
36 / 95
P a v i n g —0 . 7 2 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 P a v i n g —0 . 0 4 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 P a v i n g —0 . 0 1 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 0.01 0.57 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 143 143 0.01 0.01 0.01 145 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.92 7.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.04 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
37 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 P a v i n g —0 . 7 2 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 P a v i n g —0 . 7 2 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
38 / 95
P a v i n g —0 . 0 4 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 P a v i n g —0 . 0 1 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 0.01 0.57 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 143 143 0.01 0.01 0.01 145 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.92 7.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
39 / 95
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
—7 0 . 3 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
—3 . 8 5 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
40 / 95
————————————————0.70—Architect
ural
Coatings
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.71 193 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.91 9.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
41 / 95
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
—7 0 . 3 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 7 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.71 193 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
42 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.91 9.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

2.12 1.98 1.12 11.3 0.03 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.02 0.15 0.17 — 2,556 2,556 0.14 0.11 8.47 2,601 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
43 / 95
5,75418.50.270.375,6485,648—0.370.320.041.881.830.050.0627.22.745.696.02Regional Shopping
Center
General
Office
Building

0.38 0.35 0.24 2.47 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 597 597 0.03 0.02 2.00 607 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 8.52 8.02 4.10 41.0 0.09 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,801 8,801 0.54 0.40 28.9 8,962 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

2.08 1.94 1.23 11.1 0.02 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.02 0.15 0.17 — 2,445 2,445 0.15 0.12 0.22 2,483 Regional
Shopping
Center

5.89 5.55 3.01 27.3 0.05 0.05 1.83 1.88 0.04 0.32 0.37 — 5,406 5,406 0.41 0.28 0.48 5,501 General
Office
Building

0.37 0.34 0.26 2.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 571 571 0.03 0.02 0.05 579 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 8.34 7.82 4.51 40.7 0.08 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,421 8,421 0.59 0.42 0.75 8,563 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
44 / 95
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.37 0.35 0.22 2.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 408 408 0.02 0.02 0.61 414 Regional
Shopping
Center

1.05 0.99 0.52 4.68 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 837 837 0.06 0.04 1.22 853 General
Office
Building

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 95.2 95.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 96.6 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.49 1.40 0.78 7.11 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.51 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 1.97 1,364

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

2.12 1.98 1.12 11.3 0.03 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.02 0.15 0.17 — 2,556 2,556 0.14 0.11 8.47 2,601 Regional
Shopping
Center

6.02 5.69 2.74 27.2 0.06 0.05 1.83 1.88 0.04 0.32 0.37 — 5,648 5,648 0.37 0.27 18.5 5,754 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
45 / 95
6072.000.020.03597597—0.040.04<0 . 0 0 50.200.20<0 . 0 0 50.012.470.240.350.38General Office
Building
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

2.08 1.94 1.23 11.1 0.02 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.02 0.15 0.17 — 2,445 2,445 0.15 0.12 0.22 2,483 Regional
Shopping
Center

5.89 5.55 3.01 27.3 0.05 0.05 1.83 1.88 0.04 0.32 0.37 — 5,406 5,406 0.41 0.28 0.48 5,501 General
Office
Building

0.37 0.34 0.26 2.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 571 571 0.03 0.02 0.05 579 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 8.34 7.82 4.51 40.7 0.08 0.07 2.87 2.94 0.07 0.51 0.57 — 8,421 8,421 0.59 0.42 0.75 8,563 A n n u a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
46 / 95
4140.610.020.02408408—0.030.03<0 . 0 0 50.160.15<0 . 0 0 5< 0.0052.000.220.350.37Condo/T ownhous
Regional
Shopping
Center

1.05 0.99 0.52 4.68 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 837 837 0.06 0.04 1.22 853 General
Office
Building

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 95.2 95.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 96.6 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.49 1.40 0.78 7.11 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.51 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 1.97 1,364

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————5 5 . 6 5 5 . 6 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 8 . 1 Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————5 3 . 7 5 3 . 7 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 6 . 1 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
47 / 95

16.4—<0 . 0 0 50.0115.715.7————————————General
Office
Building
Parking
Lot
————————————1 6 . 5 1 6 . 5 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 7 . 2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
T o t a l ————————————1 4 1 1 4 1 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 1 —1 4 8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————5 5 . 6 5 5 . 6 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 8 . 1 Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————5 3 . 7 5 3 . 7 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 6 . 1 General
Office
Building
————————————1 5 . 7 1 5 . 7 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 6 . 4 Parking
Lot
————————————1 6 . 5 1 6 . 5 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 7 . 2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
T o t a l ————————————1 4 1 1 4 1 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 1 —1 4 8 A n n u a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
48 / 95

9.62—<0 . 0 0 50.019.219.21————————————Condo/T
ownhous
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————8 . 8 8 8 . 8 8 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —9 . 2 8 General
Office
Building
————————————2 . 6 0 2 . 6 0 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 7 2 Parking
Lot
————————————2 . 7 3 2 . 7 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 8 5 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
T o t a l ————————————2 3 . 4 2 3 . 4 0 . 0 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 4 . 5

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —< 0 . 0 0 5 Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————5 3 . 7 5 3 . 7 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 6 . 1 General
Office
Building
————————————1 5 . 7 1 5 . 7 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 6 . 4 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
49 / 95
Parking
Lot
————————————1 6 . 5 1 6 . 5 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 7 . 2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
T o t a l ————————————8 5 . 9 8 5 . 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 —8 9 . 7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —< 0 . 0 0 5 Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————5 3 . 7 5 3 . 7 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 6 . 1 General
Office
Building
————————————1 5 . 7 1 5 . 7 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 6 . 4 Parking
Lot
————————————1 6 . 5 1 6 . 5 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 7 . 2 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
T o t a l ————————————8 5 . 9 8 5 . 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 —8 9 . 7 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —< 0 . 0 0 5 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
50 / 95

9.28—<0 . 0 0 50.018.888.88————————————Regional
Shopping
Center
General
Office
Building
————————————2 . 6 0 2 . 6 0 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 7 2 Parking
Lot
————————————2 . 7 3 2 . 7 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 8 5 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
T o t a l ————————————1 4 . 2 1 4 . 2 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 4 . 9

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.07 0.03 0.57 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 718 718 0.06 < 0.005 — 720 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.3 68.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.5 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.6 78.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
51 / 95
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 865 865 0.08 < 0.005 — 868 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.07 0.03 0.57 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 718 718 0.06 < 0.005 — 720 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.3 68.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.5 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.6 78.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 865 865 0.08 < 0.005 — 868 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 — 119 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
52 / 95
General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 143 143 0.01 < 0.005 — 144

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.07 0.03 0.57 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 718 718 0.06 < 0.005 — 720 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.3 68.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.5 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.6 78.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
53 / 95
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.07 0.03 0.57 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 718 718 0.06 < 0.005 — 720 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.3 68.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.5 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.6 78.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 — 119 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
54 / 95
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 143 143 0.01 < 0.005 — 144

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.20 0.10 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 Consum
er
Products
—4 . 8 6 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 3 9 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.02 0.95 0.08 8.66 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.8 Total 1.22 6.30 1.77 9.38 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,174 2,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,177 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
55 / 95
Hearths 0.20 0.10 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 Consum
er
Products
—4 . 8 6 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 3 9 ————————————————
Total 0.20 5.35 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 79.9 79.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.0 Consum
er
Products
—0 . 8 9 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 0 7 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.09 0.09 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.19 Total 0.10 1.05 0.08 0.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 82.1 82.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.2

4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.20 0.10 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 Consum
er
Products
—4 . 8 6 ————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
56 / 95
————————————————0.39—Architect
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.02 0.95 0.08 8.66 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.8 Total 1.22 6.30 1.77 9.38 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,174 2,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,177 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.20 0.10 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 Consum
er
Products
—4 . 8 6 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 3 9 ————————————————
Total 0.20 5.35 1.69 0.72 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 0.00 2,148 2,148 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,150 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 79.9 79.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.0 Consum
er
Products
—0 . 8 9 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 0 7 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
57 / 95

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————7 . 3 4 4 . 0 7 1 1 . 4 0 . 7 6 0 . 0 2 —3 5 . 7 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————6 . 9 9 3 . 1 7 1 0 . 2 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 2 —3 3 . 3 General
Office
Building
———————————2 . 6 1 1 . 1 5 3 . 7 6 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 1 —1 2 . 4 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————7 . 3 4 4 . 0 7 1 1 . 4 0 . 7 6 0 . 0 2 —3 5 . 7 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————6 . 9 9 3 . 1 7 1 0 . 2 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 2 —3 3 . 3 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
58 / 95
General
Office
Building
———————————2 . 6 1 1 . 1 5 3 . 7 6 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 1 —1 2 . 4 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————1 . 2 1 0 . 6 7 1 . 8 9 0 . 1 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 9 1 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————1 . 1 6 0 . 5 2 1 . 6 8 0 . 1 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 5 1 General
Office
Building
———————————0 . 4 3 0 . 1 9 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 0 5 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————2 . 8 0 1 . 3 9 4 . 1 9 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 1 —1 3 . 5

4.4.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
59 / 95
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————7 . 3 4 4 . 0 7 1 1 . 4 0 . 7 6 0 . 0 2 —3 5 . 7 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————6 . 9 9 3 . 1 7 1 0 . 2 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 2 —3 3 . 3 General
Office
Building
———————————2 . 6 1 1 . 1 5 3 . 7 6 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 1 —1 2 . 4 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————7 . 3 4 4 . 0 7 1 1 . 4 0 . 7 6 0 . 0 2 —3 5 . 7 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————6 . 9 9 3 . 1 7 1 0 . 2 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 2 —3 3 . 3 General
Office
Building
———————————2 . 6 1 1 . 1 5 3 . 7 6 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 1 —1 2 . 4 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
60 / 95

0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Parking
Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 6 . 9 8 . 3 9 2 5 . 3 1 . 7 4 0 . 0 4 —8 1 . 4 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————1 . 2 1 0 . 6 7 1 . 8 9 0 . 1 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 9 1 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————1 . 1 6 0 . 5 2 1 . 6 8 0 . 1 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 5 1 General
Office
Building
———————————0 . 4 3 0 . 1 9 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 0 5 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————2 . 8 0 1 . 3 9 4 . 1 9 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 1 —1 3 . 5

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
61 / 95
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————4 3 . 4 0 . 0 0 4 3 . 4 4 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 —1 5 2 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————2 7 . 9 0 . 0 0 2 7 . 9 2 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 —9 7 . 5 General
Office
Building
———————————3 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 8 4 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 0 —1 3 . 4 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————7 5 . 1 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 1 7 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 —2 6 3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————4 3 . 4 0 . 0 0 4 3 . 4 4 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 —1 5 2 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————2 7 . 9 0 . 0 0 2 7 . 9 2 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 —9 7 . 5 General
Office
Building
———————————3 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 8 4 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 0 —1 3 . 4 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
62 / 95

0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Parking
Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————7 5 . 1 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 1 7 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 —2 6 3 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————7 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 7 . 1 9 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 0 —2 5 . 2 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————4 . 6 2 0 . 0 0 4 . 6 2 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 0 —1 6 . 1 General
Office
Building
———————————0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 —2 . 2 2 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 2 . 4 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 4 1 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 —4 3 . 5

4.5.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
63 / 95
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————2 1 . 7 0 . 0 0 2 1 . 7 2 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 —7 6 . 0 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————1 3 . 9 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 9 1 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 —4 8 . 8 General
Office
Building
———————————1 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 1 . 9 2 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 —6 . 7 1 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————3 7 . 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 6 3 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 —1 3 1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————2 1 . 7 0 . 0 0 2 1 . 7 2 . 1 7 0 . 0 0 —7 6 . 0 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————1 3 . 9 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 9 1 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 —4 8 . 8 General
Office
Building
———————————1 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 1 . 9 2 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 —6 . 7 1 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
64 / 95

0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————3 7 . 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 6 3 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 —1 3 1 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
———————————3 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 3 . 5 9 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 —1 2 . 6 Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————2 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 1 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 —8 . 0 7 General
Office
Building
———————————0 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 —1 . 1 1 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————6 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 6 . 2 2 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 0 —2 1 . 8

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
65 / 95
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————————1 . 2 1 1 . 2 1
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4
General
Office
Building
————————————————0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————————1 . 2 1 1 . 2 1
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4
General
Office
Building
————————————————0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————————0 . 2 0 0 . 2 0
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————————0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4
General
Office
Building
————————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
66 / 95
T o t a l ————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————————1 . 2 1 1 . 2 1
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4
General
Office
Building
————————————————0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhous
e
————————————————1 . 2 1 1 . 2 1
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4
General
Office
Building
————————————————0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 4 7 1 . 4 7
A n n u a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
67 / 95

0.200.20————————————————Condo/T
ownhous
Regional
Shopping
Center
————————————————0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4
General
Office
Building
————————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5
T o t a l ————————————————0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
68 / 95
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipme nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
69 / 95

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
70 / 95
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
71 / 95
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
72 / 95
Sequest — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
73 / 95
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
74 / 95
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
75 / 95
R e m o v e ——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 2/6/2024 3/5/2024 5.00 20.0 Pavement removal Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/6/2024 3/20/2024 5.00 10.0 Site Prep Grading Grading 3/21/2024 4/18/2024 5.00 20.0 Grading
Building Construction Building Construction 4/19/2024 3/7/2025 5.00 230 Bldg Construction Paving Paving 3/8/2025 4/5/2025 5.00 20.0 Paving
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/6/2025 5/4/2025 5.00 20.0 Painting

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
76 / 95
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
77 / 95
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Tr ip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 14.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 64.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 1.00 2.00 HHDT
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 2.00 HHDT
Grading ————
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
78 / 95
Grading Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 1.00 2.00 HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 92.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 22.0 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 16.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 — HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Tr ip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 14.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 64.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 1.00 2.00 HHDT
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
79 / 95
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 2.00 HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 1.00 2.00 HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 92.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 22.0 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 16.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 — HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
80 / 95

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 342,796 114,265 85,386 28,462 17,825

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,104 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.82

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
81 / 95
Parking Lot 3.50 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.00 100%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 1.32 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 540 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 540 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Condo/Townhouse 536 536 536 195,742 3,053 3,053 3,053 1,114,322 Regional Shopping
Center
1,616 1,616 1,616 589,992 5,953 6,654 6,654 2,245,905
General Office
Building

88.6 88.6 88.6 32,323 721 721 721 263,147
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Condo/Townhouse 536 536 536 195,742 3,053 3,053 3,053 1,114,322 San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
82 / 95
Regional Shopping
Center
1,616 1,616 1,616 589,992 5,953 6,654 6,654 2,245,905
General Office
Building

88.6 88.6 88.6 32,323 721 721 721 263,147
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 102
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 7
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
83 / 95
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 102
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 7
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
342796.05 114,265 85,386 28,462 17,825

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
84 / 95

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 450,100 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 2,241,556
Regional Shopping Center 434,258 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 213,194 General Office Building 127,081 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 245,232 Parking Lot 133,555 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 2,241,556
Regional Shopping Center 434,258 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 213,194 General Office Building 127,081 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 245,232 Parking Lot 133,555 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 3,829,505 1,289,661
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
85 / 95
Regional Shopping Center 3,649,257 149,442
General Office Building 1,361,085 14,944
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 3,829,505 1,289,661
Regional Shopping Center 3,649,257 149,442
General Office Building 1,361,085 14,944
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 28.9 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 51.7 0.00
General Office Building 7.12 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13.2. Mitigated
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
86 / 95
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 14.4 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 25.9 0.00
General Office Building 3.56 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
87 / 95

10.02.502.50< 0.0052,088R-410ACondo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
88 / 95
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
89 / 95

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 14.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles ( mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundationdepth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
90 / 95
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
S e a L e v e l R i s e 100N / A
Wildfire 100N / A
Flooding 000N / A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
S e a L e v e l R i s e 1112
Wildfire 1112
Flooding 1112
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
91 / 95

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 42.6
AQ-PM 28.1
AQ-DPM 76.8
Drinking Water 24.2
Lead Risk Housing 39.5
Pesticides 35.7
Toxic Releases 27.8
Traffic 61.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 78.6
Groundwater 67.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 82.7
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 96.6
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 3.22
Cardio-vascular 14.1
Low Birth Weights 40.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
92 / 95
Education 78.3
Housing 82.8
Linguistic 77.9
Poverty 78.2
Unemployment 36.4

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 14.57718465
Employed 17.95200821
Median HI 15.05196972
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 34.96727833
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 1.873476197
Transportation —
Auto Access 7.878865649
Active commuting 68.52303349
Social —
2-parent households 81.04709355
Voting 41.66559733
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 17.16925446
Park access 56.96137559
Retail density 84.51174131
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
93 / 95
Supermarket access 77.74926216
Tree canopy 38.40626203
Housing —
Homeownership 8.623123316
Housing habitability 19.36353137
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 79.81521879 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 64.18580778
Uncrowded housing 31.19466188
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 5.902733222
Arthritis 9.2
Asthma ER Admissions 99.1
High Blood Pressure 21.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 21.2
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 3.1
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 5.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 18.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 13.9
Cognitively Disabled 11.9
Physically Disabled 7.5
Heart Attack ER Admissions 99.6
Mental Health Not Good 25.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 2.7
Obesity 34.9
Pedestrian Injuries 81.7
Physical Health Not Good 17.6
San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
94 / 95
Stroke 5.6
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 68.3
Current Smoker 35.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 16.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 16.3
Elderly 23.2
English Speaking 15.1
Foreign-born 80.3
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 47.4
Traffic Density 77.2
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 72.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 49.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 59.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 15.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No San Marcos Specific Plan Detailed Report, 3/9/2023
95 / 95
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project Description
Construction: Construction Phases Estimated schedule
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Estimated Equipment
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Soil balanced on-site Construction: Trips and VMT Even numbered trips
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on TIA
Operations: Hearths No wood burning devices
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 1 / 27
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 2 / 27

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 3 / 27

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 4 / 27

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 5 / 27

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 6 / 27

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 9.80
Location 33.14024187811373, -117.1857424538883
County San Diego
City San Marcos
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6271
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Regional Shopping
Center
129 1000sqft 3.00 129,000 2.00 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 1.00 Acre 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 7 / 27
——0.000.2540,0001.001000sqft40.0General Office
Building

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Unmit. 125 24,275 24,400 14.3 1.18 77.4 25,187
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Unmit. 125 23,238 23,363 14.4 1.25 2.71 24,099
Average Daily (Max) — — — ————
Unmit. 125 17,469 17,594 14.0 0.96 25.0 18,255
A n n u a l ( M a x ) ———————
Unmit. 20.7 2,892 2,913 2.32 0.16 4.14 3,022

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Mobile — 23,414 23,414 1.49 1.08 76.7 23,850
Area — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.1
Energy — 817 817 0.22 0.02 — 828
Water 31.9 14.0 46.0 3.28 0.08 — 152
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 8 / 27
Waste 93.0 0.00 93.0 9.30 0.00 — 326
Refrig. — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Total 125 24,275 24,400 14.3 1.18 77.4 25,187
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Mobile — 22,407 22,407 1.63 1.15 1.99 22,792
A r e a ———————
Energy — 817 817 0.22 0.02 — 828
Water 31.9 14.0 46.0 3.28 0.08 — 152
Waste 93.0 0.00 93.0 9.30 0.00 — 326
Refrig. — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Total 125 23,238 23,363 14.4 1.25 2.71 24,099
Average Daily — — — ————
Mobile — 16,623 16,623 1.22 0.86 24.3 16,934
Area — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.3
Energy — 817 817 0.22 0.02 — 828
Water 31.9 14.0 46.0 3.28 0.08 — 152
Waste 93.0 0.00 93.0 9.30 0.00 — 326
Refrig. — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Total 125 17,469 17,594 14.0 0.96 25.0 18,255
A n n u a l ———————
Mobile — 2,752 2,752 0.20 0.14 4.03 2,804
Area — 2.47 2.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54
Energy — 135 135 0.04 < 0.005 — 137
Water 5.29 2.32 7.61 0.54 0.01 — 25.1
Waste 15.4 0.00 15.4 1.54 0.00 — 53.9
Refrig. — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Total 20.7 2,892 2,913 2.32 0.16 4.14 3,022
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 9 / 27

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 20,787 20,787 1.36 0.98 67.9 21,180
Parking Lot — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Office Building — 2,627 2,627 0.13 0.10 8.79 2,670 Total — 23,414 23,414 1.49 1.08 76.7 23,850
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 19,896 19,896 1.50 1.04 1.76 20,246
Parking Lot — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Office Building — 2,511 2,511 0.13 0.11 0.23 2,547 Total — 22,407 22,407 1.63 1.15 1.99 22,792
A n n u a l ———————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 2,435 2,435 0.19 0.13 3.55 2,482
Parking Lot — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Office Building — 317 317 0.02 0.01 0.48 322
Total — 2,752 2,752 0.20 0.14 4.03 2,804

4.2. Energy
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 10 / 27

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 140 140 0.10 0.01 — 147
Parking Lot — 4.71 4.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.93
General Office Building — 82.0 82.0 0.06 0.01 — 85.7
Total — 227 227 0.17 0.02 — 237
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 140 140 0.10 0.01 — 147
Parking Lot — 4.71 4.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.93
General Office Building — 82.0 82.0 0.06 0.01 — 85.7
Total — 227 227 0.17 0.02 — 237
A n n u a l ———————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 23.3 23.3 0.02 < 0.005 — 24.3
Parking Lot — 0.78 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.82
General Office Building — 13.6 13.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 14.2 Total — 37.6 37.6 0.03 < 0.005 — 39.3

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 179 179 0.02 < 0.005 — 179
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 11 / 27
Parking Lot — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building — 411 411 0.04 < 0.005 — 412
Total — 589 589 0.05 < 0.005 — 591
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 179 179 0.02 < 0.005 — 179
Parking Lot — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building — 411 411 0.04 < 0.005 — 412
Total — 589 589 0.05 < 0.005 — 591
A n n u a l ———————
Regional Shopping
Center
— 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.7
Parking Lot — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building — 68.0 68.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.2 Total — 97.6 97.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 97.9

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Consumer Products — — — ————
Architectural Coatings — — — ————
Landscape Equipment — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.1
Total — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.1
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Consumer Products — — — ————
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 12 / 27
Architectural Coatings — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
A n n u a l ———————
Consumer Products — — — ————
Architectural Coatings — — — ————
Landscape Equipment — 2.47 2.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54
Total — 2.47 2.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center

18.3 8.04 26.3 1.88 0.05 — 86.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building 13.6 5.98 19.6 1.40 0.03 — 64.7 Total 31.9 14.0 46.0 3.28 0.08 — 152
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center

18.3 8.04 26.3 1.88 0.05 — 86.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building 13.6 5.98 19.6 1.40 0.03 — 64.7 Total 31.9 14.0 46.0 3.28 0.08 — 152
A n n u a l ———————
Regional Shopping
Center

3.03 1.33 4.36 0.31 0.01 — 14.4
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 13 / 27
General Office Building 2.26 0.99 3.25 0.23 0.01 — 10.7 Total 5.29 2.32 7.61 0.54 0.01 — 25.1

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center

73.0 0.00 73.0 7.30 0.00 — 255
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building 20.0 0.00 20.0 2.00 0.00 — 70.1 Total 93.0 0.00 93.0 9.30 0.00 — 326
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center

73.0 0.00 73.0 7.30 0.00 — 255
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building 20.0 0.00 20.0 2.00 0.00 — 70.1 Total 93.0 0.00 93.0 9.30 0.00 — 326
A n n u a l ———————
Regional Shopping
Center

12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.3
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General Office Building 3.32 0.00 3.32 0.33 0.00 — 11.6 Total 15.4 0.00 15.4 1.54 0.00 — 53.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 14 / 27

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
—————0 . 6 2 0 . 6 2
General Office Building — — — — — 0.10 0.10
T o t a l —————0 . 7 2 0 . 7 2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Regional Shopping
Center
—————0 . 6 2 0 . 6 2
General Office Building — — — — — 0.10 0.10
T o t a l —————0 . 7 2 0 . 7 2
A n n u a l ———————
Regional Shopping
Center
—————0 . 1 0 0 . 1 0
General Office Building — — — — — 0.02 0.02
T o t a l —————0 . 1 2 0 . 1 2

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 15 / 27
A n n u a l ———————
T o t a l ———————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
A n n u a l ———————
T o t a l ———————

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
A n n u a l ———————
T o t a l ———————
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 16 / 27

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
A n n u a l ———————
T o t a l ———————

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
T o t a l ———————
A n n u a l ———————
T o t a l ———————

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — ————
Avoided — — — ————
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 17 / 27
S u b t o t a l ———————
Sequestered — — — ————
S u b t o t a l ———————
R e m o v e d ———————
S u b t o t a l ———————
————————
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — ————
Avoided — — — ————
S u b t o t a l ———————
Sequestered — — — ————
S u b t o t a l ———————
R e m o v e d ———————
S u b t o t a l ———————
————————
A n n u a l ———————
Avoided — — — ————
S u b t o t a l ———————
Sequestered — — — ————
S u b t o t a l ———————
R e m o v e d ———————
S u b t o t a l ———————
————————

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 18 / 27

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Regional Shopping
Center
4,870 5,949 2,722 1,721,764 17,934 24,492 11,205 6,536,923 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Office
Building
390 88.4 28.0 107,644 3,172 720 228 876,338

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 19 / 27
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Regional Shopping Center 1,137,078 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 558,237 Parking Lot 38,159 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
General Office Building 663,783 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 1,280,921

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Regional Shopping Center 9,555,355 29.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
General Office Building 7,109,350 3.74

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Regional Shopping Center 135 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
General Office Building 37.2 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 20 / 27
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 21 / 27

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 22 / 27
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundationdepth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
S e a L e v e l R i s e 100N / A
Wildfire 100N / A
Flooding 000N / A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
S e a L e v e l R i s e 1112
Wildfire 1112
Flooding 1112
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 23 / 27
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 42.6
AQ-PM 28.1
AQ-DPM 76.8
Drinking Water 24.2
Lead Risk Housing 39.5
Pesticides 35.7
Toxic Releases 27.8
Traffic 61.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 78.6
Groundwater 67.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 82.7
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 24 / 27
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 96.6
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 3.22
Cardio-vascular 14.1
Low Birth Weights 40.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 78.3
Housing 82.8
Linguistic 77.9
Poverty 78.2
Unemployment 36.4

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 14.57718465
Employed 17.95200821
Median HI 15.05196972
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 34.96727833
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 1.873476197
Transportation —
Auto Access 7.878865649
Active commuting 68.52303349
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 25 / 27
Social —
2-parent households 81.04709355
Voting 41.66559733
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 17.16925446
Park access 56.96137559
Retail density 84.51174131
Supermarket access 77.74926216
Tree canopy 38.40626203
Housing —
Homeownership 8.623123316
Housing habitability 19.36353137
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 79.81521879 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 64.18580778
Uncrowded housing 31.19466188
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 5.902733222
Arthritis 9.2
Asthma ER Admissions 99.1
High Blood Pressure 21.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 21.2
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 3.1
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 5.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 18.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 13.9
Cognitively Disabled 11.9
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 26 / 27
Physically Disabled 7.5
Heart Attack ER Admissions 99.6
Mental Health Not Good 25.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 2.7
Obesity 34.9
Pedestrian Injuries 81.7
Physical Health Not Good 17.6
Stroke 5.6
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 68.3
Current Smoker 35.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 16.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 16.3
Elderly 23.2
English Speaking 15.1
Foreign-born 80.3
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 47.4
Traffic Density 77.2
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 72.9
Other Decision Support —
San Marcos Existing GP - Commercial - Mixed Use Regional Retail-Office Detailed Report, 1/30/2023 27 / 27
2016 Voting 49.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 59.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 15.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Assumed five acres of the site.

San Marcos City CouncilOctober 24, 2023

San Marcos City Council
October 24, 2023