appendix iv - la city planning appendices/appendix iv...nat table 4-23 summary of ghg emissions from...

APPENDIX IV.O

Climate Change Technical Report Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Prepared by Environ International Corporation, May 2010

Climate Change Technical Report

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project

Prepared for: Thomas Properties Group

Los Angeles, California

On behalf of: Hanjin International Corporation

Prepared by: Stan R. Hayes, Principal

Eric C. Lu, Senior Manager

ENVIRON International Corporation Emeryville, California

Date: May 2010

Climate Change Technical Report.

0323501A i

Contents Page

1 Introduction 11.1 Emissions Inventory 11.2 Report Description 3

2 State of Science 42.1 Global Climate Change 42.2 The Greenhouse Effect 42.3 Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Their Emissions 62.4 Current and Projected Climatic Impacts of Global Warming 72.5 Socioeconomic Impacts of Global Warming 82.6 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 92.7 Global, National, and California-wide GHG Emissions Inventories 102.8 Potential for Reduction of GHG Emissions 11

3 Regulatory Setting 123.1 Federal Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions 123.1.1 Federal Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions 123.1.2 April 2007 Supreme Court Ruling 123.1.3 Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards 123.1.4 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 133.1.5 Reporting Requirements 133.2 Regional Agreements 143.2.1 Western Regional Climate Action Initiative (WCI) 143.3 California Legislation 143.3.1 Assembly Bill 32 (Statewide GHG Reductions) 143.3.2 Executive Order S-3-05 (Statewide GHG Targets) 153.3.3 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) 153.3.4 Senate Bill 1368 (GHG Emissions Standard for Baseload Generation) 153.3.5 Assembly Bill 1493 (Mobile Source Reductions) 153.3.6 Senate Bills 1078 and 107 (Renewables Portfolio Standard) 163.3.7 Executive Order S-14-08 (Renewables Portfolio Standard) 163.3.8 Senate Bill 375 (Land Use Planning) 163.3.9 Energy Conservation Standards 173.3.10 Senate Bill 97 (CEQA Guidelines) 173.3.11 Office of Planning and Research Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change 183.3.12 CARB Preliminary Draft Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim

Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Draft CARB Thresholds) 19

3.4 Local Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Policies 203.5 City of Los Angeles Policies 203.5.1 Green LA 203.5.2 Ordinance 179,820 213.6 Central City Community Policies 21

4 Greenhouse Gas Inventory 224.1 GHG Emissions Inventory Methodology 22


0323501A ii

4.1.1 GHG Emissions Scenarios 224.1.1.1 GHG Emissions Baseline 224.1.1.2 CARB 2020 No Action Taken 224.1.1.3 Evaluation of Proposed Project’s “New” Emissions 234.1.2 Units of measurement: Tonnes of CO2 and CO2 e 234.1.3 Indirect GHG Emissions from Electricity Use 234.1.4 Resources 234.1.4.1 Emissions Estimation Guidance 244.1.4.2 Emissions and Energy Use Studies 244.1.4.3 Emissions Estimation Software 244.2 Emissions Inventory – Operational Sources 254.2.1 Infrastructure Sources 254.2.1.1 Water and wastewater supply and treatment systems 264.2.1.2 Potable Water Source Supply and Conveyance 274.2.1.3 Potable Water Treatment and Distribution 274.2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment 274.2.1.5 Water and Wastewater emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario 284.2.1.6 Public Lighting 284.2.1.7 Public Lighting emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario 294.2.1.8 Building Mounted Signs 294.2.1.9 Building Mounted Signs emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario 294.2.2 GHG Emissions Associated with Energy Use in Residential Units 364.2.2.1 Estimate of Residential Energy Use Intensity 364.2.2.2 Energy Use in the Built Environment 374.2.2.3 Major Appliances 384.2.2.4 Plug-in Energy Use 394.2.2.5 Estimation of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use in Residential Buildings 394.2.2.6 GHG Emissions from Residential Buildings for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario 394.2.2.7 Uncertainties in Residential Building GHG Calculations 404.2.3 GHG Emissions Associated with Energy Use in Commercial Buildings 494.2.3.1 Estimate of Commercial Energy Use Intensity 494.2.3.2 Estimation of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use in Commercial Buildings 514.2.3.3 GHG Emissions from Commercial Buildings in the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario 514.2.3.4 Uncertainties in Commercial Building GHG Calculations 524.2.4 Mobile Sources 624.2.4.1 Estimating VMT from Mobile Sources 624.2.4.2 Estimating GHG Emissions from Mobile Sources 644.2.4.3 Transportation Emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario 654.2.4.4 Uncertainty Analysis 654.2.5 Area Sources 734.2.6 Solid Waste Emissions 764.2.7 Helistop Emissions 764.3 Emissions Inventory - Construction 814.3.1 URBEMIS Construction Emissions 814.3.2 GHG Emissions from Water Use During Construction 824.3.3 GHG Emissions from Electricity Use During Construction 824.3.4 GHG Emissions from Demolition Solid Waste Disposal During Construction 83


0323501A iii

4.3.5 Estimation of One-Time Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction 834.3.6 Uncertainties in Construction GHG Emissions Calculations 834.4 Variations of the Emissions Inventory 884.4.1 Land Use Equivalency Program 884.4.2 Design Flexibility Program 884.4.3 Building Configuration 884.5 Emissions Inventory - Sources Not Quantified 884.5.1 Vegetation Change 894.5.2 Refrigeration Leaks 89

5 Project Design Features 905.1 Project Design Features whose Emissions Reductions were Incorporated into the Analysis 905.1.1 Reductions in Emissions from Mobile Sources 905.1.2 Energy Savings 905.1.3 Water conservation 905.1.4 Area Sources 905.2 Project Design Features whose Emissions Reductions were not Incorporated into the

Analysis but would yield further GHG emissions savings 915.2.1 LEED Certification 915.2.2 Energy Use in the Built Environment 925.2.3 Reductions in Emissions from Mobile Sources 925.2.4 Solid Waste 92

6 Summary of Emissions 936.1 CEQA Baseline Emissions 936.2 Net Proposed Project Emissions 966.3 CARB 2020 No Action Taken Emissions 966.4 Inventory in Context 1006.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Inventory in Context 1006.4.2 Comparison with AB 32-mandated Emissions Limits 1006.4.3 Comparison with State, Global, and Worldwide GHG Emissions 100

7 Life Cycle Emissions of Building Materials 102

8 Executive Order S-03-05 110

9 Conclusion 112

10 Project Alternatives 11310.1 Alternative Scenario Emissions Estimation Methodology 11310.1.1 Infrastructure Emissions 11310.1.2 Energy Use in the Built Environment 11410.1.3 Mobile Source Emissions 11410.1.4 Area Sources 11410.1.5 Helistop Emissions 11510.1.6 Construction Emissions 11510.1.7 Land Use Equivalency Program 11510.1.8 Design Flexibility Program 11510.1.9 Building Configuration 11610.1.10 CARB 2020 No Action Taken (NAT) Comparison 11610.2 Project Alternative Emission Inventories 116


0323501A iv

10.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project 11610.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative 11910.2.3 Alternative 3: Phased Construction Alternative 13310.2.4 Alternative 4: Office-Only Alternative 13710.2.5 Alternative 5: Residential Only Alternative 15010.2.6 Alternative 6: Reduced Height Alternative 16910.2.7 Alternative 7: Zoning Compliant Alternative – No Helistop 17110.2.8 Alternative 8: Reduced Signage Alternative 17910.2.9 Alternative 9: Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative 17910.3 Summary Comparison of Alternatives to the Project and to the CARB 2020 NAT Scenarios 183

List of Tables

Table 4-1 GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Project Table 4-2 GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Project (without Regulatory

Reductions) Table 4-3 GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Existing Table 4-4 GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Existing (2020) Table 4-5 GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, NAT Table 4-6 Summary of Infrastructure Sources GHG Emissions Table 4-7 Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Title-24 Regulated Heating and

Cooling Table 4-8 Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Non-Title 24 Appliances and Plug-ins Table 4-9 Total Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit Table 4-10 Emission Factors for Different Energy Sources for Buildings Table 4-11 GHG Emissions from Renewables Power Standards Table 4-12 CO2

Table 4-13 CO Emissions per Residential Dwelling Unit

2

Table 4-14 Summary of GHG Emissions from Residential Building Types

Emissions from Electricity and Natural Gas Usage in Residential Dwelling Units

Table 4-15 Categorization of Commercial Land Use Table 4-16 Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Project Table 4-17 Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Project Table 4-18 Emission Factors by Energy Source Table 4-19 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types Table 4-20 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

Existing Table 4-21 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

Existing (2020) Table 4-22 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

NAT Table 4-23 Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types Table 4-24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture adjustments) from

Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), without Project Design Features or Regulatory Reductions

Table 4-25 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture Adjustments and TDM Reduction) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), Project

Table 4-26 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture Adjustments and TDM Reduction) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), including Pavley Standard


0323501A v

Table 4-27 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture adjustments) from Vehicles for Existing Hotel (all)

Table 4-28 GHG Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture adjustments) from Vehicles for Existing Hotel (all) in Year 2020, with Pavley Standards

Table 4-29 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), NAT Table 4-30 Summary of GHG Emissions from Mobile Sources Table 4-31 GHG Emissions from Area Sources, Project Table 4-32 GHG Emissions from Area Sources, Existing Table 4-33 Methane Generation Potential for Solid Waste Table 4-34 GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal, Project Table 4-35 GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal, Existing Table 4-36 GHG Emissions from Construction Activities Table 4-37 GHG Emissions from Electricity and Water Usage During Construction Table 4-38 GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal During Construction Table 4-39 Overall Construction GHG Emissions Table 6-1 Summary of Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wilshire Grand Redevelopment

Project Table 6-2 CEQA Baseline Emissions Summary for the Existing Wilshire Grand Hotel Table 6-3 GHG Emissions Increase for Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Table 6-4 GHG Emissions Comparison of NAT to Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Table 6-5 GHG Emissions Comparison of NAT to Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project,

without Regulatory Reductions Table 7-1 Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions From Materials Used for Buildings

as a Percentage of Total Building Emissions Table 7-2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Factors for the Manufacture of Cement Table 7-3 Quantities of Infrastructure Materials Table 7-4 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Manufacture of Infrastructure Materials Table 7-5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Transportation of Infrastructure Raw

Materials Table 7-6 Summary of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Buildings,

Infrastructure Table 10-1 Emissions from the Existing Wilshire Grand Hotel into 2020 (No Project

Scenario) Table 10-2 Overall Construction GHG Emissions - Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) Table 10-3 Categorization of Commercial Land Use for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) Table 10-4 Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2

(Reduced Density) Table 10-5 Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2

(Reduced Density) Table 10-6 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) Table 10-7 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

NAT, Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) Table 10-8 Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2

(Reduced Density) Table 10-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with Location Adjustments and TDM Reduction)

from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), including Pavley Standard - Alternative 2 Table 10-10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), NAT -

Alternative 2 Table 10-11 GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste, Alternative 2 –

Reduced Density


0323501A vi

Table 10-12 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) Scenario

Table 10-13 GHG Emissions from Construction Activities for Alternative 3 (Phased Construction)

Table 10-14 Overall Construction GHG Emissions for Alternative 3 (Phased Construction) Table 10-15 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 3 (Phased

Construction) Scenario Table 10-16 Categorization of Commercial Land Use - Alternative 4 (Office Only) Table 10-17 Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types - Alternative 4

(Office Only) Table 10-18 Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types - Alternative 4

(Office Only) Table 10-19 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

Alternative 4 (Office Only) Table 10-20 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

NAT, Alternative 4 (Office Only) Table 10-21 Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types, Alternative 4

(Office Only) Table 10-22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with Location Adjustments and TDM Reduction)


Alternative 4 Table 10-24 GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, Signage, Area Sources, Solid Waste,

and Construction, Alternative 4 – Office Only Table 10-25 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 4 (Office Only)

Scenario Table 10-26 Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Title-24 Regulated Heating and

Cooling, Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Table 10-27 Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Non-Title 24 Appliances and Plug-ins,

Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Table 10-28 Total Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit, Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Table 10-29 CO2

Table 10-30 CO Emissions per Residential Dwelling Unit, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

2

Table 10-31 Summary of GHG Emissions from Residential Building Types, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Emissions from Electricity and Natural Gas Usage in Residential Dwelling Units, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Table 10-32 Categorization of Commercial Land Use, Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Table 10-33 Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5

(Residential Only) Table 10-34 Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5

(Residential Only) Table 10-35 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Table 10-36 Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types,

NAT, Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Table 10-37 Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5

(Residential Only) Table 10-38 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with Location Adjustments and TDM Reduction)


Alternative 5


0323501A vii

Table 10-40 GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Signage, Area Sources, and Construction, Alternative 5 – Residential Only

Table 10-41 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Scenario

Table 10-42 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 6 (Reduced Height) Scenario

Table 10-43 GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Building Signage, Area Sources, Residential and Commercial Energy Usage, and Construction, Alternative 7 – Zoning Compliant

Table 10-44 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with Location Adjustments and TDM Reduction) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), including Pavley Standard - Alternative 7

Table 10-45 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), NAT - Alternative 7

Table 10-46 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) Scenario

Table 10-47 GHG Emissions from Building Mounted Signs, Alternative 8 - Reduced Signage Table 10-48 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 8 (Reduced

Signage) Scenario Table 10-49 GHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 9 (Zoning

Compliant Signage) Scenario Table 10-50 Summary of Net Project GHG Emissions with Net Alternative Emissions Table 10-51 Summary of Comparison to CARB 2020 NAT for Project and Alternatives

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Carbon Dioxide and Methane Concentrations have increased dramatically since the industrial revolution

Figure 2-2 Global Warming Trends and Associated Sea Level Rise and Snow Cover Decrease

List of Appendices

Appendix A URBEMIS Files for Construction Emissions Appendix B EMFAC File Output Appendix C Helicopter Emissions Analysis (Heliport Consultants) Appendix D References Appendix E Résumés

p:\t\thomas properties group\wilshire grand\climate change\report\wg ghg 062410.docx


0323501A viii

Acronyms AB 1493 Assembly Bill No. 1493 AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AF acre feet BOD5

BTU British Thermal Unit 5-day biological oxygen demand

C carbon CAFÉ corporate average fuel economy CAJA Christopher A. Joseph and Associates CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBD Central Business District CCAR California Climate Action Registry CCR California Code of Regulations CEC California Energy Commission CEUS California End Use Survey CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CF4

CFC chlorinated fluorocarbons tetrafluoromethane

CH4

CNRA California Natural Resources Agency methane

CO2

CO carbon dioxide

2e CO2

DHW domestic hot water equivalents

DOT Department of Transportation EIA United States Energy Information Administration EIR Environmental Impact Report EMFAC emissions estimation software programs ENVIRON ENVIRON International Corporation FAR Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report FCV fuel cell vehicle FFV flexible fuel vehicle GDP gross domestic product GGE greenhouse gas equivalent GHGs greenhouse gases GRP General Reporting Protocol GWP global warming potential H2

HFC hydrofluorocarbons O water

HR 2764 The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 HVAC heating, venting, and air conditioning IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers kW kilowatt kW-hr/yr kilowatt hours/year lbs pounds LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LDA light-duty auto


0323501A ix

LDT light-duty truck LED light emitting diode LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design mg/L milligram per liter MMTCO2e million metric tonnes of CO2

MW megawatts equivalent

NAT No Action Taken N2

NOP notice of preparation O nitrous oxide

O2

OAL Office of Administrative Law oxygen

OPR Office of Planning and Research PFC perfluorocarbon PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million RASS Residential Appliance Saturation Survey RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard SAR Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report SB 1368 Senate Bill 1368 SB 375 Senate Bill 375 SB 97 Senate Bill 97 SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS sustainable communities strategy SF6

sqft square feet sulfur hexafluoride

TAR Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report TBD to be determined TDM Transportation Demand Management TDV Time Dependent Valuation tonnes Metric tonnes; 1,000 kilograms UNEP United Nations Environment Programme URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model US United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGBC United States Green Building Council VMT vehicle miles traveled WCI Western Regional Climate Action Initiative WMO World Meteorological Organization W/sf Watts per square foot


0323501A ES-1

Executive Summary The Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project (“Project”) is a proposed mixed use development to be built in Los Angeles County, within the central business district (CBD) of the City of Los Angeles. The proposed Project is located on a 3.2-acre irregularly-shaped site located in the Central City Community Plan Area (Downtown). The proposed Project includes demolition of the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre (the Existing Hotel), and the development of a maximum of 560 hotel rooms and/or condo-hotel units, 100 residential units, 1,500,000 square feet of office uses, 50,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses, 20,000 square feet of fitness facility and spa uses, and 150,000 square feet of conference and meeting rooms, ballrooms, and other associated ancillary hotel areas. A landscaped pedestrian plaza at the corner of Figueroa Street and 7th Street, and a rooftop heliport would be provided. Approximately 1,900 parking spaces will be provided in eight levels of subterranean parking.

There is a general scientific consensus that most current global warming is the result of human activity on the planet. This man-made, or anthropogenic, warming is primarily caused by increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that keep the earth’s surface warm. This is called “the greenhouse effect” and contributes to global climate change. This report assesses the relationship between the proposed Project and GHG emissions, the primary drivers of anthropogenic climate change and the focus of California’s climate change policy.

Lawmakers at the national, state and local levels have introduced legislation and regulations aimed at better tracking and controlling GHGs. California enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 or AB 32), which established mandatory reductions in state-wide GHG emissions by 2020. The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), which addresses GHG analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, although new CEQA regulations have been adopted guiding the assessment of the significance of GHG emissions, there are still no binding rules or regulations that establish numeric thresholds for determining climate change analysis under CEQA.

Residents and the employees and patrons of commercial and municipal buildings and services use energy in the form of electricity and heating, and are transported by motor vehicles which directly or indirectly emit GHGs. The predominant GHG emissions resulting from residential, mixed-use and commercial developments are emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of tonnes of CO2 equivalents (CO2

The emissions inventory presented in this report is consistent with the methodologies established by the California Climate Action Registry, where possible. The proposed Project’s emissions inventory includes six categories of GHG emissions: emissions from construction activities, residential emissions, commercial building emissions, mobile source emissions, infrastructure emissions and area source emissions. The emissions from construction are a one-time emissions event while all of the other emissions occur annually throughout the life of the proposed Project.

e), calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific global warming potential.

Emissions from the various aspects of the proposed Project (with regulatory programs that may reduce GHG emissions) in 2020 are presented in Table ES-1. Both the construction emissions


0323501A ES-2

and emissions that are expected to occur each year after build-out of the proposed Project development are presented. There are an estimated 63,793 tonnes of CO2e construction emissions for the proposed Project. The annual emissions from the operation of the proposed Project amount to 45,405 tonnes CO2e/year. If the construction emissions are annualized assuming a 40-year development life, then the construction emissions account for approximately 1,595 tonnes, or 3.4 percent of the annual emissions. Taking these annualized construction emissions into account, the proposed Project’s total annual emissions are 47,000 tonnes/year. These estimates include conservative assumptions that likely overstate the GHG emissions that would result from this proposed Project1. The reduction in emissions due to the replacement of the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre is approximately 28,878 tonnes. As a result, the proposed Project’s total net2

The proposed Project’s estimated GHG emissions are consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)’s goal of reducing emissions 28.5 percent below California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2020 No Action Taken scenario. The CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario considers the emissions inventory without the proposed Project’s energy reduction commitments and regulations implemented to comply with the goals of Assembly Bill 32. The emission savings for the proposed Project represent a 31.2 percent reduction from a CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario for the proposed Project.

GHG emissions are 18,122 tonnes per year.

3 The proposed Project’s emissions take into consideration changes in emission factors due to implementation of Assembly Bill 1493 (“Pavley” regulation) and the 20 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS 2010). In addition, anticipated state and federal regulatory developments are expected to result in lower GHG emissions from the proposed Project than are represented in this analysis.4

Thus, while the proposed Project already results in an improvement equivalent to the 28.5 percent improvement necessary to achieve Assembly Bill 32's mandates, upon implementation of existing and anticipated legislative and regulatory mandates, actual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project will likely be considerably lower.

1 Where specific data is not yet available, ENVIRON made assumptions that would tend to over-estimate the

proposed project emissions. 2 The net emissions are calculated as the difference between the emissions due to the proposed Project and the

emissions of the Existing Hotel estimated for the year 2020. 3 The percent improvement of the proposed Project over the CARB 2020 No Action Taken is based on the total

proposed Project emissions, taking into account project design features and using emission factors that account for the implementation of Assembly Bill 1493 (“Pavley” regulation) and the 20 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS 2010). These emissions are compared with the total proposed Project emissions calculated consistent with the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario.

4 For example, if Executive Order S-14-08 (Renewables Portfolio Standard) becomes law, additional reductions in the proposed Projects emissions will result. Anticipated regulatory developments, their timing, and their impact on the proposed Project are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.


0323501A ES-3

Table ES-1 Summary of Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project (2020)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Los Angeles, California

Source GHG Emissions Percentage of Annual

CO2 e Emissions (%)

Construction (utilities, water, waste)

tonnes CO2

42,488

e total

NA

Construction (worker, hauling, equipment) 21,305 NA

Total (one time emissions) 63,793 NA Residential

tonnes CO2

216

e / year

0% Commercial 17,629 39% Mobile 14,399 32% Infrastructure (Water, Electricity, Gas) 7,883 17% Area 3 0% Solid Waste 5,114 11% Helicopter 162 0% Total (annual emissions) 45,405 NA

Annualized Construction Emissions tonnes CO2 1,595 e / year NA

Annualized Total tonnes CO2 47,000 e / year NA

Less Emissions from Existing Hotel at 2020 tonnes CO2 -28,878 e / year NA

Net proposed Project Total tonnes CO2 18,122 e / year NA


Introduction 1

1 Introduction This technical report evaluates the climate change issues associated with the proposed Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project (“proposed Project”). There are three scenarios analyzed in the report: Baseline, proposed Project, and CARB 2020 No Action Taken. Both the current operation of the existing hotel and the development and operation of the proposed Project emit GHGs. The “Baseline” scenario is defined as the GHG emissions attributable to the existing hotel and center in the year 2009. The CARB 2020 No Action taken scenario is equivalent to the California Air Resources Board definition in the AB 32 Scoping Plan as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.”5

GHG emissions include one-time (construction) and annual (direct and indirect) emissions of GHGs. Direct emissions of GHGs refer to GHGs that are emitted directly as a result of the proposed Project (e.g., onsite combustion sources). Indirect emissions are those emissions that result from the proposed Project, but that are not controlled by the proposed Project proponent (e.g., emissions due to electricity and water usage). This report discusses the scientific and regulatory developments surrounding global climate change, provides an estimate of the existing site GHG emissions, and the proposed Project GHG emissions. This report also places the emissions inventory from the proposed Project into context with applicable regulations such as Assembly Bill 32.

The CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario represents the proposed Project without the project design features and regulations implemented to comply with Assembly Bill 32. The differences between “Baseline”, “CARB 2020 No Action Taken”, and “Proposed Project” emissions represent a combination of project design features (e.g., energy efficiency) and state actions (e.g., adoption of the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Low Carbon Fuel Standard).

Residents, employees, and patrons of commercial and municipal buildings use electricity, heat their homes and water (typically with natural gas), and are transported in motor vehicles, all of which directly or indirectly emit GHGs. The principal greenhouse gases resulting from such sources are emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Carbon dioxide is considered the most important GHG, due primarily to the large emissions produced by fossil fuel combustion, especially for the generation of electricity and powering of motor vehicles. Methane and nitrous oxide are also emitted by fossil fuel combustion, but the amounts of these emissions are typically much less than carbon dioxide even when considering the differences in global warming potential.6

The GHG emissions inventory is based on the best available data for the existing hotel and the proposed Project. The available information is used to develop an estimate of the proposed Project's GHG emissions inventory.

1.1 Emissions Inventory As indicated in the Climate Change Scoping Plan adopted by the California Air Resources Board in December 2008 (“Adopted Scoping Plan” or “Scoping Plan”),7

5 CARB Scoping Plan, pg. F-3.

buildings and land use are major contributors to California’s GHG emissions. The existing Project Site and the

6 Global warming potential indicates, on a pound for pound basis, how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2.


Introduction 2

proposed Project are associated with direct and indirect GHG emissions that cut across different types of industries and emissions sources. The GHG emissions inventories will consider the following categories:

• Construction: emissions associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction, as well as construction worker and vendor trips

• Residential building operations: emissions associated with the building envelope and plug in appliances including space heating and cooling, water heating, and lighting

• Commercial building operations: emissions associated with the building envelope and plug in appliances including space heating and cooling, water heating, and lighting

• Transportation: emissions associated with residential, service and commercial vehicles, and transit

• Infrastructure operations: emissions associated with the supply and distribution of water, treatment of wastewater, and use of street lighting

• Area sources: emissions associated with fireplaces and lawn equipment.

Conventional GHG emissions accounting protocols spread the ownership and control of emissions across many parties (e.g., land owners, vehicle owners, construction contractors, utilities, etc.). However, as suggested by the Adopted Scoping Plan, this analysis recognizes that buildings and land-use represent a nexus that brings these factors together and offer opportunities to reduce emissions through changes in transportation, land use, building design, construction, and operations.

There is limited guidance on how to prepare the GHG emissions inventory under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).8 The proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) jurisdiction, but SCAQMD has not established guidelines for the preparation of GHG inventories for CEQA purposes. Therefore, the inventories have been developed based on the methodologies established by the California Climate Action Registry where possible. When guidance from the California Climate Action Registry is lacking, methodologies established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change9

In addition, an estimate of “life-cycle” GHG emissions from selected building materials is presented. Life-cycle emissions include all of the emissions caused by the existence of a product or project. For example, GHG emissions from the processes used to manufacture and transport materials used in the buildings and infrastructure. The life-cycle emissions for selected building material are included for comparison purposes only and are not included as part of the proposed Project’s emissions inventory, as these emissions would be attributable to

and best available science are used. Legislation and rules regarding climate change, as well as scientific understanding of the extent to which different activities emit GHGs, continue to evolve; as such, the inventory in this report is a reflection of the guidance and knowledge currently available including the Office of Planning and Research Advisory.

7 Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm (accessed 5/12/2009). 8 Both SCAQMD and CARB have recently released proposed significance thresholds, but these have not been

finalized at this time. 9 The WMO and the UNEP established the IPCC in 1988; it is open to all members of the United Nations and

WMO.


Introduction 3

other industry sectors under Assembly Bill 32. The life-cycle analysis is discussed further in Section 7.

1.2 Report Description This report contains seven sections. Following this introduction, Sections 2 and 3 detail the state of climate change science and the regulatory setting. Section 4 presents the methodology and the proposed Project GHG emissions inventory and compares these results to various benchmarks to gain perspective on what impact the proposed Project will have on overall GHG emissions. Section 5 describes various project design features that were incorporated into this analysis and also lists project design features that were not included but that would result in further GHG emission reductions. Section 6 summarizes the emission inventory results for the three scenarios. As mentioned above, Section 7 describes the life-cycle analysis for selected building materials. Section 8 generally discusses Executive Order S-03-5, which sets GHG targets for 2050. The main findings from the report are summarized in the conclusion, Section 9 and the proposed Project alternatives are discussed in Section 10.


State of Science 4

2 State of Science This section summarizes the scientific issues surrounding climate change and global warming. It also provides a discussion of the actions and phenomena that contribute to climate change and discusses global, national, and state GHG emission inventories.

2.1 Global Climate Change Global warming and global climate change are both terms that describe changes in the earth’s climate. Global climate change is a broad term used to describe any worldwide, long-term change in the earth’s climate which could be, for example, an increase or decrease in temperatures, the start or end of an ice age, or a shift in precipitation patterns. The term global warming is more specific than global climate change and refers to a general increase in temperatures across the earth. Although global warming is characterized by rising temperatures, it can cause other climatic changes, such as a shift in the frequency and intensity of rainfall or hurricanes. Global warming does not necessarily imply that all locations will be warmer. Some specific, unique locations may be cooler even though the world, on average, is warmer. All of these changes fit under the umbrella of global climate change.10

While global warming can be caused by natural processes, there is a general scientific consensus that most current global warming is the result of human activity on the planet.

11

2.2 The Greenhouse Effect

This man-made, or anthropogenic, warming is primarily caused by increased emissions of “GHGs” that keep the earth’s surface warm. This is called “the greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect and the role GHGs play in it are described below.

Greenhouses allow sunlight to enter and then capture some of the heat generated by the sunlight’s impact on the earth’s surface. The earth’s atmosphere acts like a greenhouse by allowing sunlight in, but trapping some of the heat that reaches the earth’s surface. When solar radiation from the sun reaches the earth, much of it penetrates the atmosphere to ultimately reach the earth’s surface; this solar radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and then re-emitted as heat in the form of infrared radiation.12 Whereas the GHGs in the atmosphere let solar radiation through, the infrared radiation is trapped by greenhouses gases, resulting in the warming of the earth’s surface.13

The earth’s greenhouse effect has existed far longer than humans have and has played a key role in the development of life. Concentrations of major GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor have been naturally present for millennia at relatively stable levels in the atmosphere, adequate to keep temperatures on earth hospitable. Without these GHGs, the earth’s temperature would likely be too cold for life to exist.

This phenomenon is referred to as the “greenhouse effect”.

10 Other definitions of “Greenhouse Effect” and “Global Warming” can be found on Merriam-Webster online:

http://www.m-w.com/ (accessed May 2010) . A definition for “Climate Change” can be found on dictionary.com which uses Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6).

11 From the IPCC “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (accessed May 2010).

12 All light, be it visible, ultraviolet, or infrared, carries energy. 13 Infrared radiation is characterized by longer wavelengths than solar radiation. Greenhouse gases reflect radiation

with longer wavelengths. As a result, instead of escaping back into space, greenhouse gases reflect much infrared radiation (i.e., heat) back to Earth.

http://www.m-w.com/�

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf�


State of Science 5

As human industrial activity has increased, atmospheric concentrations of certain GHGs have grown dramatically. Figure 2-1 shows the increase in concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane over time. In the absence of major industrial human activity, historical data suggests that natural processes have maintained atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in relative balance and global temperatures have remained at relatively stable levels over the last several centuries in comparison to recent data.14

Current theory suggests that as the concentrations of GHGs increased due to human activity, more infrared radiation was trapped, and the earth has been heated to higher temperatures than would have been in the case of the absence of humans. This is the process that is described as human-induced global warming.

Figure 2-1. Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations have increased dramatically since the industrial revolution.15

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began releasing components of its Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided a comprehensive assessment of climate change science in its Working Group I Report.

16

14 Examples of natural processes include the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere from respiration, fires, and

decomposition of organic matter. The removal of greenhouse gases is mainly from plant and algae growth and absorption by the ocean.

It states that there is a scientific consensus that the global increases in GHGs since 1750 are mainly due to human activities such as fossil fuel use, land use change (e.g., deforestation), and agriculture. In addition, the report states that it is likely that these changes in greenhouse gas concentrations have contributed to global warming. Confidence

15 Adapted from figure SPM-1 of the IPCC “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (accessed May 2010).

16 Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (accessed May 2010).


http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm�


State of Science 6

levels of claims in this report have increased since 2001 due to the large number of global climate model computer simulations run and the broad range of available climate models.

2.3 Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Their Emissions The term “GHGs” includes gases that contribute to the natural greenhouse effect, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water, as well as gases that are only human-made and that are emitted through the use of modern industrial products, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).17 These last three families of gases, while not naturally present in the atmosphere, have properties that also cause them to trap infrared radiation when they are present in the atmosphere. These six gases comprise the major GHGs that are recognized by the Kyoto Accords.18 There are other GHGs that are not recognized by the Kyoto Accords, due either to the smaller role that they play in climate change or the uncertainties surrounding their effects. Atmospheric water vapor is not recognized by the Kyoto Accords because there is not an obvious correlation between water vapor concentrations and specific human activities. Water vapor appears to act in a positive feedback manner; higher temperatures lead to higher water concentrations, which in turn cause more global warming.19

The effect each of these gases has on global warming is a combination of the volume of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). Global warming potential indicates, on a pound for pound basis, how much a gas will contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be caused by the same mass of carbon dioxide. It is a unitless quantity. Methane and nitrous oxide are substantially more potent than carbon dioxide, with global warming potentials of 21 and 310, respectively.

20 However, these natural GHGs are nowhere near as potent as sulfur hexafluoride and fluoromethane, which have global warming potentials of up to 23,900 and 6,500 respectively.21 In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds (lbs) or tonnes22

The most important greenhouse gas in human-induced global warming is carbon dioxide. While many gases have much higher global warming potentials than the naturally occurring GHGs, Carbon dioxide is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for 85 percent of the global warming potential of all GHGs emitted by the United States.

of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which are calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific global warming potential.

23

17 Senate Bill (SB) 104 adds nitrogen trifluoride, used in semi-conductor manufacturing as a GHG subject to

regulation by CARB.

Fossil fuel combustion,

18 This Kyoto Protocol sets legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries. The US has not approved the Kyoto treaty.

19 From the IPCC Third Assessment Report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/143.htm (accessed May 2010) and http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm (accessed May 2010).

20 GWP values from IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR, 1996) are still used by international convention and are used in this protocol, even though more recent (and slightly different) GWP values were developed in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001)

21 California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol - Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. SAR values, Appendix C. http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf (accessed May 2010)

22 In this report, “tonnes” will be used to refer to metric tonnes (1,000 kilograms). “Tons” will be used to refer to short tons (2,000 pounds).

23 Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, US Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf (accessed May 2010).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/143.htm�


http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf�

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf�


State of Science 7

especially for the generation of electricity and powering of motor vehicles, has led to substantial increases in carbon dioxide emissions and thus substantial increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In 2005, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were about 379 parts per million (ppm), over 35 percent higher than the pre-industrial (defined as the year 1750) concentrations of about 280 ppm.24

Concentrations of the second most prominent GHG, methane, have also increased due to human activities such as rice production, degradation of waste in landfills, cattle farming, and natural gas mining. In 2005, atmospheric levels of methane were more than double pre-industrial levels, up to 1774 parts per billion as compared to 715 parts per billion.

In addition to the sheer increase in the volume of its emissions, carbon dioxide is a major factor in human-induced global warming because of its lifespan in the atmosphere of 50 to 200 years.

25

Nitrous oxide concentrations have increased from about 270 parts per billion in pre-industrial times to about 319 parts per billion by 2005.

Methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifespan of only 12 years, but has a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide.

26

Chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs), used often as refrigerants, their more stratospheric-ozone-friendly replacements, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and fully fluorinated species, such as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and tetrafluoromethane (CF4), are present in the atmosphere in relatively small concentrations, but have extremely long life spans of 50,000 and 3,200 years each, making them potent GHGs.

Most of this increase can be attributed to agricultural practices (such as soil and manure management), as well as fossil-fuel combustion and the production of some acids. Nitrous oxide’s 120-year atmospheric lifespan means that, in addition to its relatively large global warming potential, its influence is long-lasting, which increases its role in global warming.

2.4 Current and Projected Climatic Impacts of Global Warming A strong indication that global warming is currently taking place is the fact that the top seven warmest years since the 1890s occurred after 1997. Furthermore, a global-average warming of about 0.2 degree Celsius per decade is projected by currently accepted climate models.

There is a scientific consensus that global climate change will increase the frequency of heat extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events. Other likely direct effects include an increase in the areas affected by drought and by floods, an increase in tropical cyclone activity, a rise in sea level, and recession of polar ice caps. The impacts of global warming have already been demonstrated by substantial ice loss in the Arctic.27

24 Page 2 of the IPCC “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.”

Figure 2-2 shows the rise of global temperatures, the global rise of sea level, and the loss of snow cover from 1850 to the present.

25 Page 4 of the IPCC “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” 26 Page 4 of the IPCC “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” 27 Statistics from IPCC Working Group I and II Reports.


State of Science 8

Figure 2-2. Global warming trends and associated

sea level rise and snow cover decrease.28

2.5 Socioeconomic Impacts of Global Warming Global temperature increases may have significant negative impacts on ecosystems, natural resources, and human health. Ecosystem structure and biodiversity will be compromised by temperature increases and associated climatic and hydrological disturbances.29 The availability and quality of potable water resources may be compromised by increased salinization of ground water due to sea-level rises, decreased supply in semi-arid and arid locations, and poorer water quality arising from increased water temperatures and more frequent floods and droughts.30

In addition to compromising food and water resources, there are other means through which climatic changes associated with global warming can affect human health and welfare. Warmer temperatures can cause more ground-level ozone, a pollutant that causes respiratory and other health problems. Ranges of infectious diseases will likely increase, and some areas will face greater incidences of illness and mortality associated with increased flooding and drought events.

These impacts on freshwater systems, in addition to the effects of increased drought and flood frequencies, can reduce crop productivity and food supply.

28 Figure SPM-3 of the IPCC “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” 29 From the IPCC Working Group II Report. 30 From the IPCC Technical Paper VI: “Climate Change and Water”. Available online at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf (accessed May 2010)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf�


State of Science 9

In its April 2007 Working Group II Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided an assessment of the “current scientific understanding of impacts of climate change on natural, managed and human systems, the capacity of these systems to adapt and their vulnerability”.31 Here, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that although some people will gain and some will lose because of global climate change, the overall change will be one of social and economic losses. California in particular is an area that could be negatively impacted by global warming. Global warming could alter the seasonal pattern of snow accumulation and snowmelt, which serve as primary sources for California’s drinking water and irrigation water supplies. The scientific community projects extensions in the periods of high forest fire risk. Climatic changes would also affect agriculture, a major California industry, which could result in economic losses. For example, the heat wave in July 2006 is estimated to have cost the California dairy industry in excess of one billion dollars.32

2.6 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

It is important to recognize that the climatic conditions experienced by the proposed Project over its designed lifetime are likely to be substantially different from those observed over the past century. Consequently, it is useful to consider the implications of changing climatic conditions for proposed Project performance. Alternative future scenarios33

Temperature Increase

for 2100 modeled in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) include:

• Low Emissions Scenario: 1.8°C (best estimate), with a range of 1.1°C to 2.9°C • High Emissions Scenario: 4.0°C (best estimate), with a range of 2.4°C to 6.4°C

Sea Level Rise

• Low Emissions Scenario: 0.18 to 0.38 meters (range) • High Emissions Scenario: 0.26 to 0.59 meters (range)

Potential implications for the proposed Project include34

31 Available online at:

:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html (accessed May 2010) 32 Office of the Governor. 33 Future GHG emissions are the product of very complex dynamic systems, determined by driving forces such as

demographic development, socio-economic development, and technological change. Their future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyze how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to assess the associated uncertainties. They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain. More information on the IPCC’s selection of scenarios is available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.htm . (accessed May 2010)

34 It is important to recognize that the climatic conditions experienced by the Project over its designed lifetime are likely to be substantially different from those observed over the past century. Consequently, it is useful to consider the implications of changing climatic conditions for Project performance.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html�

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.htm�


State of Science 10

Sea level: Rising sea levels are unlikely to directly impact the proposed Project due to its distance from the coast35

Temperature: Rising temperatures could have a variety of impacts, including stress on sensitive populations (e.g., sick and elderly), additional burden on building systems (e.g., demand for air conditioning), and, indirectly, increasing emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants associated with energy generation. It is not possible to reliably quantify these risks at this time.

.

Precipitation: Climate change is expected to alter seasonal and inter-annual patterns of precipitation. These changes continue to be one of the most uncertain aspects of future scenarios. For this proposed Project, the most relevant direct impacts are likely to be changes in the timing and volume of stormwater runoff, which affect water supply, conveyance, and treatment. It is not possible to reliably quantify the implications of these changes at this time.

Wildfire: Changes in temperature and precipitation may combine to alter risks of wildfire. Given its location, wildfire hazard is not likely to impact the proposed Project; note, it is not possible to reliably quantify the implications of wildfire changes at this time.

Water supply reliability: Changes in temperature and precipitation may also influence seasonal and inter-annual availability of water supplies. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider that climate change may affect water supply reliability. It is not possible to reliably quantify these risks for the proposed Project at this time.

2.7 Global, National, and California-wide GHG Emissions Inventories Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 26.8 billion tonnes (metric tonnes, each of which is 1,000 kilograms) of CO2e.36 In 2004, the United States (US) emitted about 7 billion tonnes of CO2e or about 24 tonnes of CO2e per year per person.37 Over 80 percent of the GHG emissions in the United States are comprised of CO2 emissions from energy related fossil fuel combustion. In 2004, California emitted 0.492 billion tonnes of CO2e, or about 7 percent of the US emissions. If California were a country, it would be the 16th largest emitter of GHGs in the world.38

In 2004, eighty-one percent of greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2e) from California were comprised of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, with 4 percent comprised of CO2 from

This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California. Compared to other states, California has one of the lowest per capita GHG emission rates in the country. This is due to California’s higher energy efficiency standards, its temperate climate, and the fact that it relies on substantial out-of-state energy generation.

35 California Climate Change Center. “The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast”. May 2009. CEC-500-

2009-024-F. http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.html Accessed October 5, 2009. Conclusions from the report are available through an interactive mapping application which shows no impact to the proposed Project site from a 100-year coastal flood event or a 1.4 meter sea level rise. http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.html .Accessed October 5, 2009.

36 Sum of Annex I and Annex II countries without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php (accessed May 2010). For countries that 2004 data was unavailable, the most recent year was used.

37 2006 Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Available online at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf (accessed May 2010).

38 Anywhere between the 12th and 16th depending upon methodology. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. California Energy Commission.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.html�

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.html�

http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php�



State of Science 11

process emissions. Methane and nitrous oxide accounted for 5.7 percent and 6.8 percent of total CO2e respectively, and high GWP gases accounted for 2.9 percent of the CO2e emissions.39

2.8 Potential for Reduction of GHG Emissions

Transportation is by far the largest end-use category of GHG emissions, covering both industrial transportation (i.e., shipping), as well as residential transportation.

In May 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced its Working Group III Report on the “scientific, technological, environmental, economic and social aspects” of reducing GHG emissions to alleviate climate change.40

39 Such as HFCs and PFCs.

The report concluded that, even with current policies for sustainable development and mitigation of climate change, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next several decades.

40 Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm (accessed May 2010).



Regulatory Setting 12

3 Regulatory Setting Climate change has only recently been widely recognized as a threat to the global climate, economy and population. As a result, the climate change regulatory setting – federal, state and local – is complex and evolving. This section identifies key legislation, executive orders, and seminal court cases related to climate change germane to the proposed Project.

3.1 Federal Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.1.1 Federal Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions In 2002, President George W. Bush set a national policy goal of reducing the GHG emission intensity (tons of GHG emissions per million dollars of gross domestic product) of the US economy by 18 percent by 2012. No binding reductions were associated with the goal. Rather, the USEPA administers a variety of voluntary programs and partnerships with GHG emitters in which the USEPA partners with industries producing and utilizing synthetic GHGs to reduce emissions of these particularly potent GHGs.

3.1.2 April 2007 Supreme Court Ruling In Massachusetts et al. vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (April 2, 2007) the US Supreme Court ruled that GHGs were air pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act and that the Act authorizes the USEPA to regulate CO2 emissions from new motor vehicles, should those emissions endanger the public health or welfare. The Court did not mandate that the USEPA enact regulations to reduce GHG emissions, but found that the only instances where the USEPA could avoid taking action were if it found that GHGs do not contribute to climate change or if it offered a “reasonable explanation” for not determining that GHGs contribute to climate change. On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

1) Endangerment Finding: The USEPA Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

2) Cause or Contribute Finding: The USEPA Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare

The finding itself does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles.41

3.1.3 Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards

In response to the Massachusetts et al. vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ruling, the Bush Administration issued an executive order on May 14, 2007, directing the USEPA and 41 Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html (accessed May 2010).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html�



Departments of Transportation and Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (discussed below) was signed into law, which requires an increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020. The Energy Independence and Security Act requires establishment of interim standards (from 2011 to 2020) that will be the “maximum feasible average fuel economy” for each fleet. On October 10, 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a final environmental impact statement analyzing proposed interim standards for model years 2011 to 2015 passenger cars and light trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a final rule for model year 2011 on March 23, 2009.42

On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a national policy for fuel efficiency and emissions standards in the US auto industry. The proposed rulemaking is a collaboration between the Department of Transportation and USEPA with the support of the United Auto Workers. The proposed federal standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles built in model years 2012 through 2016. If finalized, the proposed rule would surpass the 2007 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. On May 22, 2009, the Department of Transportation and USEPA issued a notice of upcoming joint rulemaking on this issue.

43,44

3.1.4 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted the waiver for California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles; this is described in more detail below.

In addition to setting increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for motor vehicles, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 includes other provisions:

• Renewable Fuel Standard (Section 202); • Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Section 301–325); • Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441).

Additional provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.”

3.1.5 Reporting Requirements Congress passed “The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008” (HR 2764) in December 2007, which includes provisions requiring the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. The measure directs USEPA to publish draft rules by September 2008, and final rules by June 2009 mandating reporting “for all sectors of the economy.” The USEPA published

42 See www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf

(accessed May 2010). 43 See

yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6fa790d452bcd7f58525750100565efa/451902cb77d4add5852575bb006d3f9b! (accessed May 2010).

44 See www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf (accessed May 2010).

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf�

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6fa790d452bcd7f58525750100565efa/451902cb77d4add5852575bb006d3f9b!OpenDocument�




draft GHG reporting rules on April 10, 2009. The comment period ended on June 9, 2009. As of the time of release of this document, the USEPA has not published final rules as directed by the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

3.2 Regional Agreements

3.2.1 Western Regional Climate Action Initiative (WCI) The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative is a partnership among seven states, including California, and four Canadian provinces that are implementing a regional, economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce global warming pollution. The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative will cap the region's electricity, industrial, and transportation sectors with the goal of reducing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. California is working closely with the other states and provinces to design a regional GHG reduction program that includes a cap-and-trade approach. CARB plans to develop a cap-and-trade program that will link California and the other member states and provinces.

3.3 California Legislation California has enacted a variety of legislation that relates to climate change, much of which sets aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. However, none of this legislation provides definitive direction regarding the treatment of climate change in environmental review documents prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At the time of this report, a state agency has not promulgated binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating any significant effects in CEQA documents. The discussion below provides a brief overview of the CARB and Office of Planning and Research documents and of the primary legislation that relates to climate change which may affect the GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project.

3.3.1 Assembly Bill 32 (Statewide GHG Reductions) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions. CARB is directed to set a greenhouse gas emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill sets a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving greenhouse gas reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. California needs to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 28.5 percent below business-as-usual predictions of year 2020 GHG emissions to achieve this goal.45

• June 30, 2007—Identification of discrete early action greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures. On June 21, 2007, CARB satisfied this requirement by approving three early action measures. These were later supplemented by adding six other discrete early action measures.

The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. Key AB 32 milestones are as follows:

45 CARB, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December.



• January 1, 2008—Identification of the 1990 baseline GHG emissions level and approval of a statewide limit equivalent to that level. Adoption of reporting and verification requirements concerning GHG emissions. On December 6, 2007, CARB approved a statewide limit on GHG emissions levels for the year 2020 consistent with the determined 1990 baseline.

• January 1, 2009—Adoption of a scoping plan for achieving GHG emission reductions. On October 15, 2008, CARB issued a "discussion draft" Scoping Plan entitled "Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change" (Draft Scoping Plan). CARB adopted the Draft Scoping Plan at its December 11, 2008 meeting.

• January 1, 2010—Adoption and enforcement of regulations to implement the discrete early action measures.

• January 1, 2011—Adoption of GHG emissions limits and reduction measures by regulation.

• January 1, 2012—GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 become enforceable.

3.3.2 Executive Order S-3-05 (Statewide GHG Targets) California Executive Order S-03-05 (June 1, 2005) mandates a reduction of GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Although the 2020 target is the core of AB 32, and has effectively been incorporated into AB 32, the 2050 target remains the goal of the Executive Order.

3.3.3 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Executive Order S-01-07 (January 18, 2007) requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in the average fuel carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California regulated by CARB. CARB identified the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32, and the final resolution (09-31) was issued on April 23, 2009.46

3.3.4 Senate Bill 1368 (GHG Emissions Standard for Baseload Generation)

Senate Bill (SB) 1368 prohibits any retail seller of electricity in California from entering into a long-term financial commitment for baseload generation if the GHG emissions are higher than those from a combined-cycle natural gas power plant. This performance standard applies to electricity generated out-of-state as well as in-state, and to publicly owned as well as investor-owned electric utilities.

3.3.5 Assembly Bill 1493 (Mobile Source Reductions) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) requires CARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. The bill requires the California Climate Action Registry to develop and adopt protocols for the reporting and certification of greenhouse gas emissions reductions from mobile sources for use by CARB in granting emission reduction credits. The bill authorizes CARB to grant emission reduction credits for reductions of

46 See www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm (accessed May 2010).

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm�



greenhouse gas emissions prior to the date of enforcement of regulations, using model year 2000 as the baseline for reduction.

In 2004, CARB applied to the USEPA for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act to authorize implementation of these regulations. The waiver request was formally denied by the USEPA in December 2007 after California filed suit to prompt federal action. In January 2008, the State Attorney General filed a new lawsuit against the USEPA for denying California’s request for a waiver to regulate and limit GHG emissions from these vehicles. In January 2009, President Barack Obama issued a directive to the USEPA to reconsider California’s request for a waiver. On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted the waiver to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles. As part of this waiver, USEPA specified the following provision: CARB may not hold a manufacturer liable or responsible for any noncompliance caused by emission debits generated by a manufacturer for the 2009 model year.

3.3.6 Senate Bills 1078 and 107 (Renewables Portfolio Standard) Established in 2002 under Senate Bill 1078 and accelerated in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard requires retail suppliers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1 percent of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20 percent by 2010.

3.3.7 Executive Order S-14-08 (Renewables Portfolio Standard) California Executive Order S-14-08 (November 11, 2008) mandates retail suppliers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent by 2020. This is a further increase in Renewables Portfolio Standard over Senate Bills 1078 and 107.

3.3.8 Senate Bill 375 (Land Use Planning) Senate Bill (SB) 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans, developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations relevant to the proposed Project area (including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG))47

SB 375 is similar to the Regional Blueprint Planning Program, established by the California Department of Transportation, which provides discretionary grants to fund regional transportation and land use plans voluntarily developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations working in cooperation with Council of Governments. The scoping plan adopted by CARB in December of 2008 relies on the requirements of SB 375 to implement the carbon emissions reductions anticipated from land use decisions.

, to incorporate a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) in their regional transportation plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as transit oriented development. SB 375 will be implemented over the next several years.

47 See www.scag.ca.gov/region/index.htm (accessed May 2010).

http://www.scag.ca.gov/region/index.htm�



SCAG will develop and finalize a sustainable communities strategy as part of its 2012 Regional Transportation Plan. Currently, SCAG is conducting workshops to integrate stakeholder input into the SCS elements. The draft Regional Transportation Plan and SCS is scheduled for release in November of 2011.48

3.3.9 Energy Conservation Standards

Energy Conservation Standards for new residential and commercial buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]).49

On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations).

In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608), dated December 2006, were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally-regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often seen as “business as usual,” they do exceed the standards imposed by any other state and reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

50

3.3.10 Senate Bill 97 (CEQA Guidelines)

Part 11 establishes voluntary standards on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Some of these standards have become mandatory in the 2010 edition of the Part 11 Code.

SB 97 required that the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) coordinate on the preparation of amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Pursuant to SB 97, CNRA adopted CEQA Guidelines amendments on December 30, 2009 and transmitted the Adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31, 2009. The amendments were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on February 16, 2010, and became effective on March 18, 2010.

With respect to the significance assessment, newly added CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, subdivision (b), indicates:

48 For more information, see www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/tech-SCAGsb375Approach (accessed May 2010). 49 Although new building energy efficiency standards were adopted in April 2008, these standards do not go into

effect until January 1, 2010. Thus, the 2005 standards that went into effect on October 1, 2005 remain the current Title 24 standards.

50 California Building Standards Commission, 2009. Green Building Standards Code. CCR, Title 24, Part 11. Available at: www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2009/part11_2008_calgreen_code. Accessed: January, 2010.

http://www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/tech-SCAGsb375Approach.pdf�

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2009/part11_2008_calgreen_code.pdf�



A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:

(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas 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;

(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 greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

The Guidelines apply retroactively to any incomplete environmental impact report, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or other related document.51

The amendments also provide that lead agencies should consider all feasible means of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions that substantially reduce energy consumption or GHG emissions. These potential mitigation measures may include carbon sequestration. If off-site or carbon offset mitigation measure are proposed they must be part of reasonable plan of mitigation that the agency itself is committed to implementing. No threshold of significance or any specific mitigation measures are indicated.

Among other things, CNRA noted in its Public Notice for these changes that impacts of GHG emissions should be considered in the context of a cumulative impact, rather than a project impact. The Public Notice states:

“While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before [CNRA] indicates that in most cases, the impact will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should center on whether a project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable.”

3.3.11 Office of Planning and Research Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change In June 2008, the Office of Planning and Research published a Technical advisory entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA (OPR Advisory). This guidance, which is purely advisory, proposes a three-step analysis of GHG emissions:

51 Senate Bill No. 97. CHAPTER 185. An act to add Section 21083.05 to, and to add and repeal Section 21097 of,

the Public Resources Code, relating to the California Environmental Quality Act. www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered (accessed May 2010).

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf�



• Mandatory Quantification of GHG proposed Project Emissions. The environmental impact analysis must include quantitative estimates of a proposed Project’s GHG emissions from different types of air emission sources. These estimates should include both construction-phase emissions, as well as completed operational emissions, using one of a variety of available modeling tools.

• Continued Uncertainty Regarding “Significance” of proposed Project-Specific GHG Emissions. Each EIR document should assess the significance of the proposed Project’s impacts on climate change. The Office of Planning and Research Advisory recognizes uncertainty regarding what GHG impacts should be determined to be significant and encourages agencies to rely on the evolving guidance being developed in this area. According to the Office of Planning and Research Advisory, the environmental analysis should describe a “baseline” of existing (pre-proposed Project) environmental conditions, and then add proposed Project GHG emissions on to this baseline to evaluate whether impacts are significant.

• Mitigation Measures. According to the Office of Planning and Research Advisory, “all feasible” mitigation measures or proposed Project alternatives should be adopted if an impact is significant, defining feasibility in relation to scientific, technical, and economic factors. If mitigation measures cannot sufficiently reduce proposed Project impacts, the agency should adopt whatever measures are feasible and include a fact-based statement of overriding considerations explaining why additional mitigation is not feasible. The Office of Planning and Research also identifies a menu of GHG emissions mitigation measures, ranging from balanced “mixed use” master-planned project designs to construction equipment and material selection criteria and practices.

In addition to this three-step process, the Office of Planning and Research Advisory contains more general policy-level guidance. It encourages agencies to develop standard GHG emissions reduction and mitigation measures. The Office of Planning and Research Advisory directs CARB to recommend a method for setting the GHG emissions threshold of significance, including both qualitative and quantitative options.

3.3.12 CARB Preliminary Draft Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Draft CARB Thresholds)

In October 2008, CARB released a draft proposal for identifying CEQA thresholds of significance for industrial, commercial and residential developments. The Draft CARB Thresholds propose a framework for developing thresholds of significance that rely upon the incorporation of a variety of performance measures to reduce GHG emissions associated with a proposed Project, as well as a numerical threshold of significance above which a proposed Project must include detailed GHG analysis in an EIR and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures. Although CARB proposed a 7,000 tons per year threshold for industrial projects, a numerical threshold for commercial and residential projects was not proposed, but is under development. In addition, the Draft CARB Thresholds incorporate SB 375 by providing that commercial and residential projects that comply with a previously approved plan, which, essentially, satisfies SB 375 and for which a certified final CEQA document has been prepared, is presumed to have a less than significant impact related to climate change. As of this time, CARB has suspended its work on CEQA thresholds.



3.4 Local Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Policies On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted its staff proposal for an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold for proposed Projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. Currently, the Board has only adopted thresholds relevant to industrial (stationary source) projects.52 To achieve a policy objective of capturing 90 percent of GHG emissions from new residential/commercial development projects and implement a “fair share” approach to reducing emission increases from each sector, SCAQMD staff has proposed combining performance standards and screening thresholds. The performance standards suggested have primarily focused on energy efficiency measures beyond Title 24 Part 6, California’s building energy efficiency standards, and a screening level of 3,000 tonnes CO2e per year based on direct operational emissions. Above this screening level, project design features designed to reduce GHGs must be implemented to reduce the impact to below a level of significance. The SCAQMD staff is in an ongoing effort to develop GHG CEQA significance thresholds. The CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group, which includes government agencies implementing CEQA and representatives from various stakeholder groups, are providing input for this effort. Information on the current developments of the CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group can be found on the SCAQMD website.53

3.5 City of Los Angeles Policies

3.5.1 Green LA The City of Los Angeles released its climate action plan, “Green LA: An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming”, in May 2007.54

• increasing the amount of renewable energy provided by LADWP;

The Green LA plan is a voluntary program that sets a goal of reducing the City’s greenhouse gas emissions to 35 percent below 1990 level by 2030. ClimateLA is the implementation framework that contains the details of the more than fifty action items that are included in Green LA. The majority of the actions described in the LA Green Plan are not project specific and include City-wide actions. Some of the measures the City of Los Angeles will take to achieve the 35 percent reduction goal include the following:

• improving the energy efficiency of all City departments and City-owned buildings; • converting City fleet vehicles, refuse collection trucks, street sweepers and buses to

alternative fuel vehicles; • providing incentives and assistance to existing LADWP customers in becoming more

energy efficient; • changing transportation and land use patterns to reduce dependence on automobiles; • decreasing per capita water use; • “greening” the Port of Los Angeles and the four airports operated by the City (including Los

Angeles International Airport and LA/Ontario International Airport); and • promoting expansion of the “green economy” throughout the City.

52 See www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm (accessed May 2010). 53 SCAQMD, 2010. Available: www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.html. Accessed: January 2010. 54 City of Los Angeles, Green LA, An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming (LA Green Plan),

Section V, pages 17 to 26. The plan is available at: environmentla.org/pdf/GreenLA_CAP_2007.pdf (accessed May 2010).

http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm�

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.html�

http://environmentla.org/pdf/GreenLA_CAP_2007.pdf�



While the Green LA plan focuses on municipal actions and goals, many of the project design features adopted by the proposed Project are included in the Green LA plan (see Section 4.13). For example, the proposed Project is committing to energy efficiency improvements resulting in a 15 percent improvement over the 2005 Title 24 Standard in addition to meeting the 2008 Title 24 Standard.55 Consistent with the goal of reducing per capita water use, the proposed Project is implementing water efficiency measures consistent with the City’s draft “Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code Establishing Water Efficiency Requirements for New Development and Renovation of Existing Buildings in the City of Los Angeles.”56 In addition, one of the goals of the Green LA Plan is to “Make available underutilized city land within 1,500 feet of transit for housing and mixed-use development.”57

3.5.2 Ordinance 179,820

As a mixed use development in the Central Business District, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal.

The City of Los Angeles also adopted a green building ordinance (Ordinance 179,820) in April 2008, which establishes a Green Building Program, in order to address the impact of climate change from new development. The purpose of the Green Building Program is to reduce the use of natural resources, create health healthier environments and minimize the negative impacts of development on local, regional, and global ecosystems. The program consists of a Standard of Sustainability and Standard of Sustainable Excellence. The Green Building Program would require that certain new development projects 50,000 square feet or larger or with more than 50 residential units must at a minimum, under the Standard of Sustainability, meet the intent of the criteria of the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system’s “certified” performance level. In meeting this requirement, the developer must submit a LEED checklist, provide a signed declaration from a LEED accredited professional asserting that the proposed Project meets the intent of the LEED rating system’s “certified” level, and provide a set of plans that identifies the LEED measures. The program under the Standard of Sustainable Excellence establishes an incentive program for projects that register with USGBC and achieve LEED silver rating such as priority processing services within the City departments.58

3.6 Central City Community Policies

As a project design feature, the proposed Project is committed to achieving LEED Core and Shell Silver certification level.

The Central City Community has no specific GHG emissions reduction goals or policies.

55 In most commercial building and end use categories, a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24 standards would

meet or exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards. (California Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF (accessed May 2010).

56 Draft Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code Establishing Water Efficiency Requirements for New Development and Renovation of Existing Buildings in the City of Los Angeles. 2009. Office of the City Attorney.

57 LA Green Plan. p. 23. 58 The ordinance is available at: clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-0705_ord_179820.pdf (accessed May 2010).

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF�

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-0705_ord_179820.pdf�


Greenhouse Gas Inventory 22

4 Greenhouse Gas Inventory This section describes the methods that ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) used to estimate GHG emissions for the Baseline (existing hotel), the proposed Project, and the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario. The section includes general information regarding the overall methodology followed by a more detailed discussion of the calculation methods and assumptions. The proposed Project is committed to LEED Core and Shell LEED Silver certification under the City’s Standard of Sustainable Excellence. Therefore, there is a potential for greater water and energy efficiency than the project design features. Potential energy reduction technologies include on-site energy generation, such as fuel cell, geothermal cogeneration, and solar energy.

4.1 GHG Emissions Inventory Methodology

4.1.1 GHG Emissions Scenarios

4.1.1.1 GHG Emissions Baseline This report uses the physical environmental conditions at the time of Publication of the proposed Project’s notice of preparation (NOP) as the CEQA baseline. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the physical environmental conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published “will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.”59 The proposed Project site is occupied by the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Center (“existing hotel”), which consists of 896 hotel rooms, 215,000 square feet of office uses, and 206,600 square feet of hotel amenity, and accessory retail and restaurant uses, and subterranean parking with 286 parking spaces.60

4.1.1.2 CARB 2020 No Action Taken

GHG emissions from these sources are calculated using existing data where available or estimation methodologies consistent with those used to assess the proposed Project emissions. Existing hotel calculations for each type of emissions are discussed in detail in the sections below.

The proposed Project’s inventory is compared with CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario to place the proposed Project’s GHG emissions in context. The CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario is equivalent to the California Air Resources Board definition in the AB 32 Scoping Plan as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.”61

59 Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental

Quality Act. Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports § 15125(a)

Consistent with this definition, the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario does not take into account the reductions due to AB 1493 (the Pavley Standard) and SB 1078 and 107 (the Renewable Portfolio Standard), both of which are GHG reduction actions pursuant to AB 32. This comparison will evaluate whether the proposed Project is consistent with AB 32 and the rules adopted by California to meet the 2020 emissions reduction goal by the California Air Resources Board.

60 Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Initial Study. July 2009. Prepared by Christopher A Joseph and Associates (CAJA).

61 CARB Scoping Plan, pg. F-3.



4.1.1.3 Evaluation of Proposed Project’s “New” Emissions Given the global nature of GHG impacts, it is difficult to determine which emissions from a given project are “new” on a global scale. The goal of estimating emissions of criteria pollutants from projects is to understand whether there are significant new emissions in California’s air basins, which have a limited ability to absorb additional criteria pollutant emissions without adverse air quality impacts. However, the impacts of GHG emissions, unlike those of criteria pollutants, are a function of their global concentrations, rather than local concentrations. For the proposed Project, trips associated with both residences and commercial growth are conservatively treated as new and included in the inventory.62

4.1.2 Units of measurement: Tonnes of CO

This will likely result in an over estimate of the “new” emissions associated with the proposed Project.

2 and CO2

In this report, "tonnes" will be used to refer to metric tonnes (1,000 kilograms). "Tons" will be used to refer to short tons (2,000 lbs). Additionally, exact totals presented in all tables and report sections may not equal the sum of components due to independent rounding of numbers.

e

4.1.3 Indirect GHG Emissions from Electricity Use The indirect GHG emissions from electricity use are based on emission factors specific to the energy source likely to supply power to the proposed Project. The proposed Project development is supplied with electricity by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Accordingly, indirect GHG emissions from electricity usage are calculated using the LADWP carbon-intensity factor (i.e., emissions factor) of 1,228 lb CO2e per MW-hr.63 This emission factor takes into account the most recently reported mix of energy sources used to generate electricity for LADWP and the relative carbon intensities of these sources.64

4.1.4 Resources

The emission factor will change as the LADWP mix of electricity sources changes. The emission factor used here represents data from 2007, the most recent year for which LADWP data is available from the California Climate Action Registry. In 2007, LADWP sources of electricity generation included fossil fuels, biogenic sources, renewable sources (i.e., wind, small hydro, solar, biomass, and various other sources), and zero-emission sources. LADWP also purchases generation capacity from other sources, such as co-generation and geothermal.

To estimate GHG emissions from the proposed Project, ENVIRON relied primarily on three different types of resources: emissions estimation guidance (e.g., from government-sponsored organizations), emissions and energy use studies (e.g., government-commissioned studies of

62 For GHGs, if the emissions simply moved from one basin to another, the emissions would not be new on a global

scale. To evaluate the GHG emissions inventory of a proposed Project, the evaluation could exclude trips that would have otherwise occurred even without the proposed Project, as well as include reductions in trip distances to the proposed Project if the expected trip distances are shorter than the trip distance that individuals might have otherwise traveled in the absence of the proposed Project.

63 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Database. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PUP Report. 2007.

64 When calculating indirect emissions due to electricity usage, it is important to consider that indirect emissions from using a given amount of electricity will vary with the fuel-mix used to produce electricity. For example, CO2 emissions per kW-hr from a coal-fired power plant are significantly higher than CO2 emissions per kW-hr from a natural gas-fired power plant. Therefore, to most accurately estimate GHG emissions from the proposed Project development, the carbon intensity of the specific mix of energy sources LADWP uses to generate electricity was used to calculate emissions since LADWP is the expected source of electricity for the proposed Project.



energy use patterns, energy surveys by other consulting firms), and emissions estimation software (e.g., building energy modeling software). These sources are described below.

4.1.4.1 Emissions Estimation Guidance This inventory was developed using guidance from two government-sponsored organizations to assist in the estimation of GHG emissions. The first is the California Climate Action Registry, which was established by the California Legislature to assist willing parties in estimating and recording their GHG emissions to use as a baseline for meeting future emissions reduction requirements. Publications by the California Climate Action Registry include not only recommendations on how to compile a GHG emissions inventory, but also relevant data on energy use and emissions that are utilized in this protocol. The second organization is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s main role is to assess information on climate change which is synthesized in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, including methodology reports. These reports also include relevant emission factors and specific scientific data that can be used to estimate GHG emissions from various activities.

4.1.4.2 Emissions and Energy Use Studies This inventory was also developed based in part on electrical and natural gas energy use surveys and literature information on patterns of energy use. Studies commissioned by the California Energy Commission provide data on energy use patterns associated with municipal activities, such as public lighting; natural resource distribution; and other activities. These data were used to estimate energy use patterns which were applied to the specific characteristics of the proposed Project to estimate GHG emissions. In addition to Energy Information Administration and California Energy Commission studies, studies performed by individual municipalities or scientific organizations were also used in this report. Note that Glumac technical reports include additional electrical and natural gas use estimates, which are based on other energy use studies or factors. The factors used in this analysis were selected such that an analysis for climate change impacts could be properly evaluated.

4.1.4.3 Emissions Estimation Software CARB, the SCAQMD, and other public and private organizations have developed several software programs to facilitate the calculation of GHG emissions from construction, motor vehicles, and urban developments by streamlining emissions estimation from these sources. This inventory was developed using several models to estimate GHG emissions from the proposed Project. These are the OFFROAD2007 model, the EMFAC model, and the URBEMIS model. The features of each of these models are described below.

OFFROAD – OFFROAD2007 is the most recent version of a model developed by CARB to estimate the activity and emissions of off-road mobile emissions sources, such as construction equipment. OFFROAD contains a database of default values for horsepower, load factor, and hours per day of operation and can calculate emission factors based on the type of equipment and year of use.

EMFAC – EMFAC, also developed by CARB, compiles real fleet data on the county-level for the state of California, including vehicle model year distributions, vehicle



class (e.g., light-duty auto (LDA), medium-duty truck, heavy-heavy-duty truck) distributions, and emission rate information to generate fleet-average emission factors for most criteria pollutants and CO2

URBEMIS – The URBEMIS software was created by SCAQMD, although it is used by other air districts as well. It estimates emissions associated with different aspects of urban development. The Operational Data module in URBEMIS calculates emissions from mobile sources operating during the use of a development based on emission factors from EMFAC and traffic use information specific to a development. Mobile source emissions during the construction phase are calculated separately in the construction module of URBEMIS. URBEMIS provides county, air district / air basin, or state wide averages for number of daily trips per housing unit and per student at an elementary school in the absence of more specific information from traffic engineers. URBEMIS also provides air district-specific default values for vehicle fleet characteristics (vehicle class distribution and technology categories) and travel conditions (average trip length, trip speed, and relative frequency of each type of trip). URBEMIS (Version 9.2.4), uses EMFAC2007 emission factors and calculates CO

. EMFAC2007 is the newest version of the program. Emission factors from EMFAC depend on the vehicle class, vehicle technology, speed, year of operation, average ambient air temperature, and relative humidity.

2

In addition to mobile source emissions, URBEMIS can also calculate emissions associated with the construction phase of a development and emissions from area sources, such as fireplaces, once the development is operational. The URBEMIS construction module enables separate emissions calculations from each of the three typical stages of any construction project: demolition, site grading, and building construction. Based on the timing of construction and size of the development, URBEMIS defaults can be used to estimate emissions. Alternatively, the user can override these defaults by entering specific information about the construction project, such as what types and numbers of equipment are going to be used. In terms of area sources, URBEMIS is equipped to estimate GHG emissions from three types of GHG-emitting area sources based either on program defaults or more specific project information inputted by the user. These uses are natural gas fuel combustion, hearth fuel combustion, and landscaping equipment.

emissions using District-specific default parameters for various inputs including vehicle fleet characteristics and travel conditions.

4.2 Emissions Inventory – Operational Sources

4.2.1 Infrastructure Sources This section explains estimates for emissions stemming from infrastructure sources such as drinking water and wastewater supply and treatment and lighting in public areas.

All water and wastewater supply, treatment and distribution for the proposed Project is expected to produce 1,898 tonnes of CO2e annually. In total, all infrastructure sources including water, wastewater, public lighting, and building mounted signs for the proposed Project are expected to produce 7,883 tonnes of CO2e annually.



4.2.1.1 Water and wastewater supply and treatment systems The majority of infrastructure sector GHG emissions are related to the energy used to convey, treat and distribute water and wastewater, which are indirect emissions associated with the production of electricity to power these systems. Additional emissions from wastewater treatment include direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the wastewater.

The amount of electricity required to treat and supply water depends on the volume of water involved. The proposed Project would generate a total water demand of 670 acre-feet (AF) per year, as provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010) and taking into account savings due to conservation measures such as high efficiency fixtures. The entire amount is assumed to be potable water supplied by LADWP. Three processes are necessary to supply potable water to residential and commercial users: (1) supply and conveyance of the water from the source; (2) treatment of the water to potable standards; and (3) distribution of the water to individual users.

Indirect emissions resulting from electricity use were determined by multiplying electricity use by the CO2 emission factor provided by the local electricity supplier, LADWP.65 Energy use for different aspects of water treatment (e.g. source water pumping and conveyance, water treatment, distribution to users) was determined using the stated volumes of water and energy intensities values (i.e., energy use per unit volume of water) provided by reports from the California Energy Commission (CEC) and a report by Robert Wilkinson on energy use for California’s water systems66

Emissions due to water supply, conveyance, and treatment were also estimated for the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel (Baseline scenario). Existing water demand was based on information provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010). The annual emissions from water treatment and distribution and wastewater treatment are approximately 740 tonnes CO2e per year. The methodologies used to calculate emissions generated by specific aspects of water treatment and supply systems for the existing hotel are analogous to those used for the proposed Project and are provided in the following sections. The results are summarized in Table 4-3.

. The emission factors and GHG emissions for all these processes are shown in Table 4-1. The annual emissions from water treatment and distribution and wastewater treatment are approximately 1,898 tonnes CO2e per year. Details on the emissions generated by specific aspects of water treatment and supply systems are provided in the following sections.

GHG emissions from water and wastewater sources in the existing building in 2020 were estimated using the existing water demand provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010) along with the electricity emission factor for the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard. These emissions are estimated to be 680 tonnes CO2e annually, as summarized in Table 4-4. The CARB 2020 No Action Taken water and wastewater emissions are shown in Table 4-5, for which GHG emissions are estimated to be 2,065 tonnes per year. These results are summarized in Table 4-6. 65 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Database. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PUP Report.

2007. 66 California Energy Commission 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF

California Energy Commission 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final proposed Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December. Wilkinson, Robert. 2000. Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and An Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures.



4.2.1.2 Potable Water Source Supply and Conveyance LADWP will provide water to the proposed Project. LADWP receives water from the State Water Project, groundwater and surface water:

• Eastern Sierra Nevada (via the Los Angeles Aqueduct); • The Colorado River (via the Colorado River Aqueduct); • Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (via the State Water Project/California Aqueduct, which are

purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California); • Local groundwater; and • Recycled water.

Supplying and conveying water to the proposed Project is estimated to account for 334 tonnes of CO2e emissions per year. The energy needed to supply and convey water to the proposed Project includes the energy required to convey and pump water from LADWP’s sources of water supply described above. The California Energy Commission has estimated that 950 kW-hr would be required to extract one acre-foot of water from Chino Basin groundwater.67 Wilkinson has estimated that 2,580 kilowatt-hours would be required to extract one acre-foot of water from the State Water Project.68

4.2.1.3 Potable Water Treatment and Distribution

Using these energy intensity factors, the expected potable water demand, and the LADWP carbon-intensity factor, GHG emissions from potable water supply and conveyance were calculated (see Table 4-1). Supplying and conveying water to the proposed Project from the State Water Project, groundwater, the Colorado River aqueduct and the Los Angeles Aqueduct is estimated to account for 198 tonnes, 33 tonnes, 103 tonnes, and 0 tonnes of CO2e emissions per year, respectively.

Treating and distributing potable water to the proposed Project are estimated to account for 145 tonnes69

4.2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment

and 122 tonnes of CO2e emissions per year, respectively. Based on the estimated potable water demands, these energy intensity factors, and the LADWP-carbon intensity factor, GHG emissions from potable water treatment and distribution were calculated as shown in Table 4-1.

Emissions associated with wastewater treatment include indirect emissions necessary to power the treatment process and direct emissions from degradation of organic material in the wastewater. Wastewater treatment indirect emissions for the proposed Project are estimated to account for 255 tonnes of CO2e emissions per year. Wastewater treatment direct emissions for the proposed Project are estimated to account for 1,042 tonnes of CO2e emissions per year.

67 California Energy Commission 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-

011-SF, p. 26. The report lists the energy required to extract one acre-foot of water from Chino Basin groundwater as 2,915 kilowatt-hours per million gallons.

68 Wilkinson, Robert. 2000. Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and An Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures, p. 27.

69 Treatment is based on the average value presented by California Energy Commission. CEC 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.



Indirect GHG emissions from the electricity necessary to power the wastewater treatment process were calculated for the proposed Project. The electricity required to operate a wastewater treatment plant is estimated to be 815 kW-hr per AF.70 Based on the expected amount of wastewater requiring treatment (670 AF per year71

Direct emissions from wastewater treatment include emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. The Local Government Operations Protocol developed by CARB was used to estimate the methane emissions assuming a septic system for the proposed Project.

), this energy intensity factor and the LADWP carbon-intensity factor, indirect emissions due to wastewater treatment were calculated as shown in Table 4-1.

72 The assumed daily 5-day carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (BOD5) of 200 mg/L-wastewater was multiplied by the protocol defaults for maximum methane-producing capacity (0.6 kg-methane/kg-BOD5) and septic systems correction factor (0.5) to obtain the direct methane emission. This value was then multiplied by methane’s global warming potential of 2173

4.2.1.5 Water and Wastewater emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario

to obtain the annual CO2 equivalent emissions of 1,042 tonnes, as shown in Table 4-1.

The CARB 2020 No Action Taken comparison for water and wastewater treatment and distribution was based on a community that would use approximately 672 acre-feet of water annually with 672 acre-feet of potable water, no recycled water, and 670 acre-feet of wastewater. The proposed Project plans to implement project design features that will result in 20 percent reduction in water demand, as compared with CARB 2020 No Action Taken for water and wastewater. These project design features include the installation of high efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as toilets, urinals, faucets, and showerheads, and high efficiency appliances, such as dishwashers, consistent with the City of Los Angeles’ water ordinance.74

4.2.1.6 Public Lighting

Therefore, these CO2e emissions from the proposed Project are expected to be lower than CARB 2020 No Action Taken. Table 4-6 summarizes this analysis. The implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this source, somewhat, but this has not been quantified.

Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Lighting sources considered in this source category include streetlights only. According to information received from PSOMAS (October 6, 2009), there are 17 street lights at the proposed Project. It was assumed that all 17 lights will have power ratings of 250 Watts and operate for 12 hours per day on average.75

70 CEC 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.

The emission factor for public lighting is the LADWP carbon-intensity factor adjusted to account for the proposed Project’s 20

71 Based on information provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010). 72 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol - for the quantification and reporting

of greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Version 1.0. September 2008. Developed in partnership by California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, The Climate Registry

73 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Second Assessment - Climate Change 1995. 74 Draft Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code Establishing Water Efficiency Requirements for New Development

and Renovation of Existing Buildings in the City of Los Angeles. 2009. Office of the City Attorney. 75 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), 2002. How-to Guide to Effective

Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials. October. www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf (accessed May 2010). Table 1.

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf�



percent commitment to green power, which is equivalent to the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard. Public lighting emissions in the proposed Project are estimated to account for 9 tonnes CO2e per year.

4.2.1.7 Public Lighting emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario The CARB 2020 No Action Taken comparison for public lighting assumes that energy efficient street lights will not be used. Thomas Properties Group, L.P. plans to incorporate energy-saving lighting fixtures where feasible. The potential benefits were conservatively assumed to be less than the 16 percent reduction in carbon-intensity factor due to 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard used for this analysis. Therefore, Table 4-6 shows that the proposed Project’s public lighting is slightly lower than CARB 2020 No Action Taken.

4.2.1.8 Building Mounted Signs The proposed Project is expected to include building mounted light-emitting diode (LED) display signs on the proposed office, hotel, and podium buildings. The average energy consumption of the LED displays is expected to be 7.551 Watts per square foot (W/sf), and the total net area that the building signs will occupy is 244,322 square feet.76

4.2.1.9 Building Mounted Signs emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario

It was assumed that the LED displays will be lit 19 hours per day on average. As described in the Public Lighting section 4.2.1.6 above, the LED displays will contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, due to the production of the electricity used to power these displays. The emission factor for public lighting is the LADWP carbon-intensity factor adjusted to account for the proposed Project’s 20 percent commitment to green power, which is equivalent to the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard. Emissions from the building mounted signs in the proposed Project are estimated to account for 5,976 tonnes CO2e per year.

The CARB 2020 No Action Taken comparison for the building mounted LED displays assumes that there would be no reduction in the carbon-intensity factor due to 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard. Therefore, Table 4-6 shows that the proposed Project’s building mounted signs emissions are lower than the building mounted sign emissions in the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario.

76 Based on information provided by Glumac Electrical Technical Report in May 2010.

DRAFT

Total CO2e Emissions(tonne CO2e per year)

Lighting

Public Lighting24,250 W 1,030 lb CO2e/MW-hr 12 hr/day 9

Building Mounted Signs31,844,875 W 1,030 lb CO2e/MW-hr 19 hr/day 5,976

5,985

Water and Wastewater 4

Groundwater Supply and Conveyance (Potable)5,6950 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.44 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 74 acre-feet/yr 33

State Water Project Supply and Conveyance (Potable)5,72,580 kW-hr/acre-foot 1.21 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 164 acre-feet/yr 198

Colorado River Aqueduct Supply and Conveyance (Potable)5,72,000 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.93 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 111 acre-feet/yr 103

Los Angeles Aqueduct Supply and Conveyance (Potable)5,70 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.00 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 322 acre-feet/yr 0

334

Water Treatment (Potable)8463 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.22 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 670 acre-feet/yr 145

145

Water Distribution (Potable)9391 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.18 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 670 acre-feet/yr 122

122

Wastewater Treatment (Indirect Emissions)10815 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.38 tonne CO2e/acre-foot 670 acre-feet/yr 255

Wastewater Treament Plant (Direct Emissions)11-- -- 6.3 tonne CO2e/tonne BOD5 165 tonne BOD5/yr 1,042

1,297

1,898

7,883

Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Project

Table 4-1

2. Emission factor for public lighting is based on the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. According to information received from Psomas (10/6/09), there are 17 street lights at the proposed Project. ENVIRON assumes 250W per light for the energy requirements and 12 lighting hours per day.


Units

Infrastructure Sources Total:

Source1

Water and Wastewater Total:

Source Quantity

Public Lighting Total:

Units

Water Supply and Conveyance Subtotal:

Water Treatment Subtotal:

Water Distribution Subtotal:

Wastewater Treatment Subtotal:

1. Public Lighting includes streetlights. Building mounted signs refer to LED displays mounted on the sides of the hotel/office structure. Emissions from the Water and Wastewater category are primarily due to the energy required for supply, treatment and distribution. GHG emissions attributed to electricity use are calculated using the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power carbon-intensity factor, accounting for the 2010 Renewable Portfolio Standard.

3. The Project is expected to include a building LED display. The average energy requirement for the LED display is 7.551 W/square foot, and the total signage area will be 244,322 square feet, based on information provided by Glumac and Thomas Properties Group.

Energy Requirements Units Emission Factor

4 Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas The total projected water demand for the proposed Project is 672 acre feet per year before accounting for reductions due to project design features The

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission LED - light-emitting diode RPS - Renewables Portfolio StandardCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent MW-hr - megawatt hour TBD - To Be DeterminedGHG - greenhouse gas NYSERDA - New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Tg - teragramkW-hr - kilowatt hour

Sources:California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Database. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PUP Report. 2007.

Wilkinson, Robert. 2000. Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and An Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures.

10. Emission factor for wastewater treatment is based information provided in CEC 2005 and the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

9. Emission factor for water distribution is based on a Navigant Consulting refinement of a CEC study on the energy necessary to distribute 1 million gallons of treated water and the Southern California-specific electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, including 2010 RPS. This factor is applied to potable water demand.

7. Emission factor for the State Water Project, Colorado River Aqueduct, and Los Angeles Aqueduct supply and conveyance are based on information provided by Wilkinson 2000 and the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The Los Angeles Aqueduct is a net energy producer; therefore, here it is conservatively assumed to produce no net GHG emissions.

5. Water supply and conveyance is based on four different sources: groundwater, State Water Project, Colorado River Aqueduct, and Los Angeles Aqueduct. ENVIRON assumed that 11% is supplied from local groundwater; 41% is from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is supplied by the California Aqueduct (60%) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (40%); and 48% is from the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), 2002. How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials. October. http://www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf.

11. Direct emission factor for the wastewater treatment plant accounts for fugitive methane emissions from wastewater. ENVIRON assumes fugitive emissions from septic systems, based on the following formula from the Local Governent Operations Protocol developed in partnership by Californian government agencies.

Annual CH4 emission (tonnes) = Daily BOD5 production x Bo x MCFseptic x 365.25 days/yr x 10-3 tonnes/kg, where Daily BOD5 production is in units of kg/day, Bo = 0.6 kg CH4/kg BOD5 removed and MCFseptic = 0.5 [unitless].

The emission factor is obtained from the product of Bo x MCFseptic, which is converted to CO2e emissions using the GHG global warming potential factor of 21 for CH4 based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report.

The source quantity is the annual BOD5 production which is based on annual wasterwater discharge and BOD5 concentration in the wastewater. ENVIRON assumes average BOD5 concentration of 200 mg/L.

California Energy Commission. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.California Energy Commission. 2005. California's Water-Energy Relationship . Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.

4. Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas. The total projected water demand for the proposed Project is 672 acre-feet per year, before accounting for reductions due to project design features. The Project is committing to a reduction in water demand due to additional conservation measures beyond those required by regulations, such as high efficiency plumbing fixtures (e.g. high efficiency toilets, self-closing faucets, low-flow showerheads, high efficiency dishwashers, etc.). This reduction of 1,795 gallons per day (2 acre-feet/yr) is reflected in the source quantities of each water subcategory.

6. Emission factor for groundwater supply and conveyance is based on information provided in CEC 2005 for Chino Basin and the electricity generation emission factor from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This factor is applied to potable water demand.

8. Emission factor for water treatment is based on information provided in CEC 2005 and the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This factor is applied to potable water demand.

E N V I R O N

SBarro

Rectangle

DRAFT


Lighting



7,136






398


173


146



1,346

2,063

9,199

Notes:

Energy Requirements

UnitsEmission

Factor

4 Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas The total projected water demand for the proposed Project is 672 acre-feet per year before accounting for reductions due to project design features





1. Public Lighting includes streetlights. Building mounted signs refer to LED displays mounted on the sides of the hotel/office structure. Emissions from the Water and Wastewater category are primarily due to the energy required for supply, treatment and distribution. GHG emissions attributed to electricity use are calculated using the existing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power carbon-intensity factor.


Units


Source1


Source Quantity


Units

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Project (without Regulatory Reductions)

Table 4-2



Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission kW-hr - kilowatt hour NYSERDA - New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LED - light-emitting diode TBD - To Be DeterminedGHG - greenhouse gas MW-hr - megawatt hour Tg - teragram



4. Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas. The total projected water demand for the proposed Project is 672 acre-feet per year, before accounting for reductions due to project design features. The Project is committing to a reduction in water demand due to additional conservation measures beyond those required by regulations, such as high efficiency plumbing fixtures (e.g. high efficiency toilets, self-closing faucets, low-flow showerheads, high efficiency dishwashers, etc.). This reduction of 1,795 gallons per day (2 acre-feet/yr) is reflected in the source quantities of each water subcategory.



California Energy Commission. 2005. California's Water-Energy Relationship . Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.






California Energy Commission. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.


9. Emission factor for water distribution is based on a Navigant Consulting refinement of a CEC study on the energy necessary to distribute 1 million gallons of treated water and the Southern California-specific electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This factor is applied to potable water demand.



E N V I R O N

SBarro

Rectangle

DRAFT


Lighting


Building Mounted Signs30 W 1,228 lb CO2e/MW-hr 0 hr/day 0

9






148


64


54


Wastewater Treament Plant (Direct Emissions)11-- -- 6.3 tonne CO2e/tonne BOD5 58 tonne BOD5/yr 367

474

740

749

Notes:


1. Public Lighting includes streetlights. Building mounted signs refer to LED displays mounted on the sides of the hotel/office structure. Emissions from the Water and Wastewater category are primarily due to the energy required for supply, treatment and distribution. GHG emissions attributed to electricity use are calculated using the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power carbon-intensity factor.

Units


Source1

GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, ExistingTable 4-3

2. Emission factor for public lighting is based on the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. According to information received from Psomas (10/6/09), there are 15 street lights at the existing site. ENVIRON assumes 250W per light for the energy requirements and 12 lighting hours per day


Units



Source Quantity


Energy Requirements

UnitsEmission

Factor




Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission kW-hr - kilowatt hour NYSERDA - New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LED - light-emitting diode Tg - teragram

GHG - greenhouse gas MW-hr - megawatt hour







assumes 250W per light for the energy requirements and 12 lighting hours per day.



4. Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas.5. Water supply and conveyance is based on four different sources: groundwater, State Water Project, Colorado River Aqueduct, and Los Angeles Aqueduct. ENVIRON assumed that 11% is supplied from local groundwater; 41% is from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is supplied by the California Aqueduct (60%) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (40%); and 48% is from the Los Angeles Aqueduct.





California Energy Commission. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.

3. The existing hotel does not have building mounted signs.


E N V I R O N

SBarro

Rectangle

DRAFT


Lighting


Building Mounted Signs30 W 1,030 lb CO2e/MW-hr 0 hr/day 0

8






124


54


45


Wastewater Treament Plant (Direct Emissions)11-- -- 6.3 tonne CO2e/tonne BOD5 58 tonne BOD5/yr 367

457

680

687

Notes:

Lighting Total:

UnitsEnergy

RequirementsUnits

Emission Factor


Table 4-4

2. Emission factor for public lighting is based on the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. According to information received from Psomas (10/6/09), there are 15 street lights at the existing site. ENVIRON assumes 250W per light for the energy requirements and 12 lighting hours per day.




4. Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas.5 W t l d i b d f diff t d t St t W t P j t C l d Ri A d t d L A l A d t ENVIRON d th t 11% i li d f l l d t 41% i f th

GHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, Existing (2020)

UnitsSource1 Source Quantity

3. The existing hotel does not have building mounted signs.






Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission kW-hr - kilowatt hour NYSERDA - New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LED - light-emitting diode RPS - Renewables Portfolio StandardGHG - greenhouse gas MW-hr - megawatt hour Tg - teragram






9. Emission factor for water distribution is based on a Navigant Consulting refinement of a CEC study on the energy necessary to distribute 1 million gallons of treated water and the Southern California-specific electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, including 2010 RPS. This factor is applied to potable water demand.



California Energy Commission. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.California Energy Commission. 2005. California's Water-Energy Relationship . Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.

10. Emission factor for wastewater treatment is based information provided in CEC 2005 and the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, including 2010 RPS.

8. Emission factor for water treatment is based on information provided in CEC 2005 and the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, including 2010 RPS. This factor is applied to potable water demand.

6. Emission factor for groundwater supply and conveyance is based on information provided in CEC 2005 for Chino Basin and the electricity generation emission factor from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, including 2010 RPS. This factor is applied to potable water demand.



E N V I R O N

SBarro

Rectangle

DRAFT


Lighting



7,136






399


174


146



1,346

2,065

9,202

Notes:

Units





Energy Requirements

UnitsEmission

Factor

4 Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas



Units


Source1


Source Quantity

Lighting Total:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions from Infrastructure Sources, NAT

Table 4-5



Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission LED - light-emitting diode NYSERDA - New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent MW-hr - megawatt hour TBD - To Be DeterminedGHG - greenhouse gas NAT - no action taken Tg - teragramkW-hr - kilowatt hour



California Energy Commission. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), 2002. How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials. October. http://www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf.


4. Source quantities for water and wastewater are based on information provided by Psomas.




Annual CH4 emission (tonnes) = Daily BOD5 production x Bo x MCFseptic x 365.25 days/yr x 10-3 tonnes/kg, where Daily BOD5 production is in units of kg/day, Bo = 0.6 kg CH4/kg BOD5 removed and MCFseptic = 0.5 [unitless].The emission factor is obtained from the product of Bo x MCFseptic, which is converted to CO2e emissions using the GHG global warming potential factor of 21 for CH4 based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report.






E N V I R O N

SBarro

Rectangle

DRAFT

Water/Wastewater Energy Use Public Lighting Building Mounted Signs Total Infrastructure1

NAT 2,065 10 7,126 9,202 Wilshire Grand, Existing (2009)2 740 9 0 749 Wilshire Grand, Existing (2020)3 680 8 0 687 Wilshire Grand, Proposed Project 1,898 9 5,976 7,883 Wilshire Grand, Proposed Project,

without Regulatory Reductions4 2,063 10 7,126 9,199

Percent Reduction, NAT to Proposed 8% 16% 16% 14%

Notes:

(tonne CO2e/yr)

4. The "Wilshire Grand, Proposed Project, without Regulatory Reductions" scenario represents the CO2e emissions from the proposed Project

2. The "Wilshire Grand, Existing (2009)" scenario represents the energy use and CO2e emissions from the existing hotel in the current year. 3. The "Wilshire Grand, Existing (2020)" scenario represents the energy use and CO2e emissions from the existing hotel in the project year 2020 if the project did not occur.

Table 4-6

Scenario

1. Total infrastructure includes water/wastewater treatment, public lighting, and lighted building mounted signs.

Los Angeles, California Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project

Summary of Infrastructure Sources GHG Emissions

Abbreviations:CO2e - Carbon Dioxide equivalents

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourNAT - no action takenyr - year

4. The Wilshire Grand, Proposed Project, without Regulatory Reductions scenario represents the CO2e emissions from the proposed Project (including any Project Design Features), without the emissions reductions due to regulatory requirements such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

E N V I R O N

SBarro

Rectangle



4.2.2 GHG Emissions Associated with Energy Use in Residential Units This section describes the methods used to estimate the GHGs associated with activities in proposed residential condominium units, which are primarily due to electricity and natural gas usage. GHGs are emitted during electricity generation from the combustion of fossil fuels. Onsite combustion of natural gas also emits GHGs. While fuel combustion generates methane and nitrous oxide, the emissions of these GHGs typically comprise less than 1 percent of CO2e emissions from electricity generation and natural gas consumption.77 In this section, the estimates for CO2 are assumed to be equal to CO2e because methane and nitrous oxide emissions are assumed to represent a negligible amount of global warming potential when compared to the CO2

Energy use in residential condominium units can be divided into two categories: (1) energy consumed by the built environment and (2) energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the unit, such as plug-in appliances. In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, including the HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) system, water heating, and some fixed lighting. Non-building or ‘plug-in’ energy use (e.g., refrigeration, cooking, lighting, etc.) is not governed by Title 24. The energy use for these two categories are estimated as described below.

emissions from emission sources for residential units.

4.2.2.1 Estimate of Residential Energy Use Intensity ENVIRON developed carbon dioxide intensity values (i.e., CO2 emissions per dwelling unit per year) for the residential building type for the proposed Project using the California Energy Commission’s 2003 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) database.78 Residential units within the proposed Project consist of 100 condominium units with an average size of two-bedrooms. The building type evaluated as representative of the planned residences at the proposed Project was an apartment or condominium building (with five or more units), which is the closest approximation to the residential units for the proposed Project.79 Note that the Electrical Technical Report80 uses electrical rates and the Natural Gas Technical Report81

The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey data is also based on climate zone. ENVIRON based its analysis on the data for CEC Climate Zone 11 (the climate zone in which the proposed Project is located).

uses the natural gas factors published in South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 1993 CEQA Handbook to estimate the proposed electrical consumption.

82 77 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (GRP), Version 3.1 (January). Available

at:

Where data were unavailable specific to condominiums with five or more

http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf (accessed May 2010). Table C2. The methane and nitrous oxide emission factors are negligible compared to the total CO2 emission factor for electricity generation in California.

78 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2003 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS). www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/ Accessed August 6, 2009. This website contains general information regarding RASS and the final report. The RASS data that were used to estimate GHG emissions for proposed Project can be found at: websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx . Accessed August 6, 2009.

79 The RASS database groups residences into five categories, from single family detached structures through condominium buildings with five or more units. While the proposed Project residential buildings have substantially more than five units, the energy characteristics of the proposed Project dwellings are assumed to represent those in the category of buildings with five or more units.

80 Glumac, Electrical Technical Report, May 2010. 81 Glumac, Natural Gas Technical Report, May 2010. 82 Based on the map located at: capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/FCZMap.aspx (accessed July 2009), the proposed

Project site is located in Forecasting Climate Zone 11, which is serviced by LADWP.


http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/�

http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/FCZMap.aspx�



units, the data for all households in Climate Zone 11 were used. If data were unavailable specific to Climate Zone 11, the data for condominiums with five or more units throughout the state were used. The methods that were used and the assumptions that were made in estimating energy use are described below.

4.2.2.2 Energy Use in the Built Environment In this report, the energy use in the built environment is considered to comprise end uses covered by California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24).83 Compliance with Title 24 is determined from the total daily valuation (TDV) of energy use in the built-environment (i.e., on a per square foot per year basis). The regulated energy uses include space heating and cooling, domestic hot water heating, and hard-wired lighting. Title 24 focuses on building energy efficiency per square foot; it places no limits upon the size of the house or the actual energy used per dwelling unit. The current 2005 Title 24 standards superseded the 2001 Title 24 standards. The 2008 Title 24 standards were adopted on April 23, 2008 and take effect in January, 2010.84

The 2003 California Energy Commission’s Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database was used to determine annual energy use for Title 24-regulated uses (space heating, space cooling, and domestic hot water systems), major appliances, and other energy uses (e.g., plug-in lighting). The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database is comprised of mostly older buildings, which are typically less energy efficient (on a per square foot basis) than newer buildings constructed to meet increasingly stricter efficiency standards. In this analysis, the energy use estimates from the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database were assumed to conservatively represent 2001 Title-24 compliant homes. The Title 24 standards have been updated twice (in 2005 and 2008) since the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey study, and the California Energy Commission has published reports estimating the percentage deductions in energy use resulting from these new standards.

85,86

The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database analysis provides annual electricity use for various aspects of heating and cooling systems and domestic hot water as well as annual natural gas usage for both the heating and domestic hot water (DHW) systems per dwelling unit. The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey study, however, does not have a separate category for hard-wired lighting, which is covered by Title 24. In order to estimate the energy use for hard-wired lighting, ENVIRON assumed that half of the indoor lighting

87

83 Details are available at

and all outdoor lighting energy use included in the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey study are hard-wired. Title 24-regulated electricity use and natural gas use values are presented in Table 4-7.

www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ (accessed May 2010). 84 The 2008 Standards will take effect for buildings for which the building permit application is submitted after

January 1, 2010. 85 California Energy Commission. 2003. Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency

Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDF (accessed May 2010).

86 California Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF (accessed May 2010).

87 Indoor lighting comprises 60 percent of the miscellaneous category, according to the RASS report.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/�

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDF�




The proposed Project has committed to making all new homes 15 percent more energy efficient than 2005 Title 24 requirements on a total daily valuation basis, and complying with 2008 Title 24 standards. Based on this commitment, the estimated Title 24 energy use is reduced 15 percent from the estimate of minimally compliant Title 24 (2005) residential buildings to estimate the future proposed Project energy usage.88

The proposed Project is also subject to the City of Los Angeles’ Green Building Program, established by Ordinance 179,820. The program requires a developer to meet the intent of the criteria of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED rating system’s “certified” performance level. The proposed Project is committed to achieving LEED Core and Shell Silver certification level, which exceeds the “certified” performance level. Therefore, the proposed Project will comply with the specific relevant sections of the ordinance through this commitment.

These calculations are shown in Table 4-9. The CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario energy usage is based on the Title 24 (2005) standards.

4.2.2.3 Major Appliances Major household appliances such as refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and cooking ranges are typically provided with a new residential unit; as a result, the developer has influence on the energy performance of these items. The energy use by major household appliances such as refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and cooking ranges are also estimated using the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database. The electricity usage for refrigerators was calculated by summing the product of the energy usage for one refrigerator and its Residential Appliance Saturation Survey Saturation Value and the product of the energy usage for a second refrigerator and its Residential Appliance Saturation Survey Saturation Value, which takes into account that some units may have more than one refrigerator. For dryers and cooking ranges, which can be either gas or electric, we also applied the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey Saturation Value to reflect the typical split between gas or electric within the Climate Zone. Table 4-8 summarizes the estimated major appliance energy use.

The proposed Project has committed to requiring Energy Star appliances for all major appliances rated by Energy Star in newly built residences when the builder supplies appliances with the new home. This includes refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers. There is no Energy Star rating for dryers at this time since there is no considerable difference in energy use between different dryer models. Energy Star ratings also are not available for cooking ranges. The average energy improvement for Energy Star rated appliances over standard appliances as reported in Energy Star Annual Report was used to determine the percent reduction in energy use from major appliances.

Table 4-9 shows the calculations for the improvement in energy use due to the proposed Project’s commitment to efficiency improvements over Title 24 and its commitment to requiring Energy Star major appliances where available. For the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario, ENVIRON assumed that no Energy Star appliances were used.

88 ENVIRON made a simplifying assumption that annual energy use and total daily valuation energy (that provided

by the RASS study) scale linearly with each other.



4.2.2.4 Plug-in Energy Use The additional energy use from loads such as plug-in lighting, office equipment, plug-in cooking equipment, and electronics are also part estimated using the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database. Since the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey database does not have a separate category for plug-in lighting, ENVIRON estimated that half of the indoor lighting was plug-in lighting. The electricity usage for miscellaneous energy loads (e.g. home entertainment devices, computers, and small kitchen appliances) were determined by summing the products of the energy usages for those appliances and their associated Saturation Values from the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey study, and including the remaining 40 percent of the miscellaneous category that is not attributed to lighting. ENVIRON has conservatively assumed that the residents will not be using Energy Star Plug-In lighting and thus the energy usage from this area is not reduced for the proposed Project GHG emissions inventory. Table 4-8 summarizes the estimated plug-in energy use for each residence type. Table 4-9 summarizes the combined energy use including the Title 24 systems, major appliances, and plug-ins.

The estimated residential plug-in energy-use values are likely overestimates. The estimates are based upon currently available technologies, which are likely less energy-efficient than future equipment models. If future residents use more energy-efficient equipment, and replace incandescent lights with fluorescent lights, the actual electricity use for plug-ins will be lower than is estimated here. Conversely, future residents may have more small plug-ins (e.g. MP3 players, cell phones, miscellaneous equipment) that could somewhat offset the savings from more energy-efficient equipment. However, because refrigerators, lighting, and large appliances contribute to the bulk of the electricity load, and these types of equipment will likely improve in energy efficiency in the future, the estimates presented here are still likely overly conservative.

4.2.2.5 Estimation of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use in Residential Buildings

Table 4-13 shows the yearly CO2 emissions from the proposed Project by incorporating the aforementioned emission factors and the number of dwelling units for each building type for Title 24 systems and all plug-in energy. Energy use data from Table 4-9 were multiplied by the emission factors presented in Table 4-10 to generate CO2 intensity values (i.e., CO2 emissions per dwelling unit). The most recently reported emissions and renewable energy percentages for the LADWP electricity portfolio were used to develop emission factors accounting for this commitment (equivalent to the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard), as shown in Table 4-11. The resulting emission factors are summarized in Table 4-10. Total CO2 emissions would be 281 tonnes per year without improvements over Title 24 and with the existing electricity portfolio (the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario). With 15 percent improvements over 2005 Title 24, Energy Star appliances and the 20 percent renewable portfolio, annual CO2 emissions would be reduced to 216 tonnes per year.

4.2.2.6 GHG Emissions from Residential Buildings for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario

The energy use and GHG emissions from the residential dwelling units in the proposed Project were compared to the energy use and GHG emissions from a minimally Title 24 compliant dwelling of the same size, based on 2005 Title 24 requirements (“CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario”). The CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario also assumed that the homes had



standard appliances rather than Energy Star appliances and that the fraction of renewable energy supplied to the proposed Project would remain at present levels (i.e., no reductions due to Renewables Portfolio Standard). The same distribution of home sizes and climate zone location is used for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken analysis. Table 4-14 summarizes the annual CO2 emissions from the proposed Project assuming a 20 percent renewable portfolio and from the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario.

Homes in the proposed Project are 15 percent more energy efficient than a minimally 2005 Title 24 compliant home for energy uses subject to Title 24. When typical plug-in energy use and the proposed Project’s commitments to Energy Star appliances and renewable power are taken into account, homes in the proposed Project are 23 percent less carbon intensive than a minimally 2005 Title 24 compliant home. As such, proposed Project residential units are heading toward meeting AB 32 goals on a per dwelling unit basis, without any decrease in GHG intensity from energy production, which is likely to occur. These comparisons are summarized in Table 4-13. It is important to recognize that areas in which the developer has control over the energy use, i.e. building envelope and major appliances, show an improvement over CARB 2020 No Action Taken. This comparison does not take into account the energy use of occupants, which is expected to decrease as people become more conscious of energy use and climate change issues, and more sensitive to the cost of energy.

4.2.2.7 Uncertainties in Residential Building GHG Calculations The estimation of residential building GHG emissions relies on assumptions that are uncertain (e.g., the amount of energy usage a homeowner will use). Such assumptions lead to uncertainty in the above analysis, but the analysis is based on the best available data. As described below, even given the areas of uncertainty, conservative estimates have been made to ensure that the GHG emissions for the residential units at the proposed Project are represented.

• Energy use will vary considerably depending upon the design of the home. The residential units to be built in the proposed Project will vary considerably in size, layout, and overall design. Energy use estimates for a given dwelling type were calculated using RASS data for the dwelling type that most closely resembles the type of residential units at the proposed Project (apartment building with five or more units).

• Built environment energy use will vary considerably depending upon the home owners’ habits regarding energy use. For instance, homeowners determine the set point of thermostats, the duration of showers, and the usage of air conditioning, among other things. The Project Applicant will have little, if any, influence over these choices made by the homeowner. Current median behavior attributes were assumed for this report. To the extent that individuals are becoming more energy conscious, this will tend to overestimate energy use in the future.

• Plug-in energy use will also vary considerably depending upon the appliances, lights, and other plug-ins installed by the homeowner. The Project Applicant will have little, if any, influence over these choices made by the homeowner. As above, the current median behavior attributes are represented here. To the extent that individuals are becoming more energy conscious, or appliances are becoming more energy efficient, the estimates provided here will tend to overestimate energy use in the future.

Type1 Heating3 CoolingDomestic

Hot Water4

Hard-Wired

Lighting5

2001 RASS Total

% Reduction due to 2005 Standards Relative to

20016,7

2005 Estimated

Total


20058

2008 Estimated

TotalHeating3

Domestic Hot

Water4

2001 RASS Total


20016,7

2005 Estimated

Total


20058

2008 Estimated

Total

Condominium with 5 or more

units91 136 42 583 852 24.3% 645 19.7% 518 3.5 9.9 13.3 15.7% 11.2 7% 10.5

Notes:

Abbreviations:

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourMMBTU - million british thermal unitsRASS - Residential Appliance Saturation Survey

Source:

Kema-Xenergy, Itron, RoperASW. California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) Volume 2, Study Results, Final Report. June 2004. 300-00-004.

8. Based on California Energy Commission report on estimated first-year electricity savings due to 2008 standards for single-family and multi-family homes, relative to 2005 standards.

California Energy Commission. 2003. Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDFCalifornia Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF

4. Domestic hot water can be heated using electricity and/or natural gas. The values shown equal the unit energy consumption multiplied by the saturation factor, which indicates the percentage of homes that report the use of an electric or natural gas hot water heater.

5. According to RASS, approximately 60% of energy use reported as "miscellaneous" can be attributed to lighting. RASS does not differentiate between hard-wired and plug-in lighting. The values shown here represent 50% of lighting energy use. All outdoor lighting was assumed to be hard-wired.

6. Reductions are taken with the assumption that the RASS estimate reflects heating/cooling/hot water electricity use for homes that are minimally compliant with 2001 Title 24 Standards (this version was the most current at the time of the RASS study). More than 90% of the homes that participated in the survey were constructed before 1997. Because older homes tend to use more energy, the numbers shown here may overestimate actual energy use at a new development such as Wilshire Grand.7. Based on report by California Energy Commission on estimated first-year electricity savings due to 2005 standards for single-family and multi-family homes, relative to 2001 standards.

Table 4-7Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Title-24 Regulated Heating and Cooling


DU - dwelling unit


Natural Gas Delivered (MMBTU/DU/yr)2

1. The type of dwelling unit in the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project is a high-rise condominium, based on information provided by Thomas Properties Group. The most representative category found in the RASS database was for an apartment building/condominium with 5 or more units.

2. Based on the Unit Energy Consumption data from the California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS), which collected data from over 21,900 households statewide. Only RASS data tabulated for apartment/condominium buildings with 5 or more units in the climate zone in which Wilshire Grand would be located (Climate Zone 11) were considered in this analysis.

Electricity Delivered (kW-hr/DU/year)2

3. Homes can be heated using electricity and/or natural gas. The values shown equal the unit energy consumption multiplied by the saturation factor, which indicates the percentage of homes that report the use of electricity or natural gas for heating.

E N V I R O N

Type Type1 RefrigeratorClothes Washer

Clothes Dryer

(Electric)3 DishwasherCooking Range

(Electric)4

Total Major Appliances

Plug-in

Lighting5

Plug-in

MELs6Total

Plug-insClothes Dryer

(Gas)3

Cooking Range

(Gas)4Total

Standard Appliances

Condominium with 5 or more units

744 14 274 59 104 1,195 377 1,405 1,783 1.4 2.3 3.7

Energy Star

Appliances7Condominium with 5

or more units633 10 274 47 104 1,067 94 1,405 1,500 1.4 2.3 3.7

Notes:

3. Dryers can use either gas or electric heat. The values shown here represent 50% of energy use for gas heating and 50% of energy use for electric heating.4. Cooking ranges can use electric or gas heat. The values shown here represent 50% of energy use for gas heating and 50% of energy use for electric heating.

Abbreviations:

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourMEL - miscellaneous electric loadMMBTU - million british thermal unitsRASS - Residential Appliance Saturation Survey

Sources:Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007 Annual Report. Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/pdf/2007AnnualReportFinal.pdfKema-Xenergy, Itron, RoperASW. California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) Volume 2, Study Results, Final Report. June 2004. 300-00-004.

DU - dwelling unit

Natural Gas Delivered (MMBTU/DU/yr)2Electricity Delivered (kW-hr/DU/year)2

7. Average energy savings above standard products are applied to refrigeration (15%), clothes washer (30%), dishwasher (20%), and lighting (75%) as reported in Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships 2007 Annual Report, Table 9.

2. Energy use per residential dwelling unit is based on information in RASS report.

5. RASS does not differentiate between hard-wired and plug-in lighting. The values shown here represent 50% of lighting energy use.6. Plug-in miscellaneous electric loads (MELs) include such end uses as TVs, personal computers, home office equipment, freezers, and fans. To estimates energy use for these loads, the unit energy consumption values for each end-use was multiplied by the saturation factor, which indicates the percentage of homes that report the end use.


Table 4-8Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Non-Title 24 Appliances and Plug-ins

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectLos Angeles, California

E N V I R O N

Title 241 Compliance Dwelling TypeTitle 24

Systems1,2

Major

Appliances3,4 Plug-ins5 Total

Title 24 Systems (Heating and Domestic Hot

Water)1,2

Major Appliances (Gas Dryers and

Oven Ranges)4Total

Minimally Title 24 Compliant (2005)

Condominium with 5 or more units 645 1,195 1,783 3,623 11 4 15



15% Improvement over 2005

Title 246 Condominium with 5 or more units 548 1,195 1,783 3,526 10 4 13

Minimally Title 24 Compliant (2008) and Energy Star

AppliancesCondominium with 5 or more units 518 1,067 1,500 3,085 10 4 14

15% Improvement over 2005 Title 24 and Energy Star

Appliances6Condominium with 5 or more units 548 1,067 1,500 3,115 10 4 13

Notes:1. Title 24 - California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 systems include heating, cooling, and domestic hot water.

5. "Plug-ins" refers to electricity use associated with plug-in lighting, plug-in appliances, and miscellaneous electric loads. 6. Thomas Properties Group has committed to a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24, in addition to meeting 2008 Title 24, and to the use of Energy Star appliances.

Abbreviations:

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourMMBTU - million british thermal units

Table 4-9Total Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit


[kW-hr / DU / year] (MMBTU natural gas / DU / year)

Natural Gas Delivered


Electricity Delivered

2. Heating systems can require electricity or natural gas. The values presented in this table represent the distribution based on saturation values of the electricity and/or natural gas use for each equipment type.3. "Major appliances" includes refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and cooking ranges.4. Dryers and oven ranges may be electric or gas. The values presented in this table represent 50% of energy use for gas heating and 50% of energy use for electric heating for each equipment type.

DU - dwelling unit

E N V I R O N

Energy Source Scenario Source Units lb CO2/source unit1

Existing Electricity Portfolio4 1.22820% Renewable Portfolio5

1.030

Natural Gas3- (MMBTU) 117.0

Notes:

Abbreviations:kW-hr - kilowatt-hourLADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Powerlb - poundMMBTU - million british thermal unitsRPS - Renewables Portfolio Standard

Sources:

Table 4-10Emission Factors for Different Energy Sources for Buildings


Electricity2 (kW-hr)

California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1 (January 2009). Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf

California Climate Action Registry Database: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2007 PUP Report. 2008. Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf

1. Estimated emission factors for total energy delivered before and after implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard. See Table 4-11 for derivation of these factors.2. Emission factor for electricity provided by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, obtained from the California Climate Action Registry Database.3. Emission factor for natural gas was obtained from California Climate Action Registry Reporting Protocol, Table C.7.

5. Thomas Properties Group has committed to the use of 20% renewable power, to be achieved through a combination of the LADWP RPS and Green Power Program. This is equivalent to the 2010 RPS.

4. California Climate Action Registry's most recently reported emission factor for electricity generation at LADWP (2007).

E N V I R O N

Energy

Delivered1

Percentage of Renewable

Energy Delivered1

Renewable Energy Source1 [million kWh] [%]Wind 159 12%Small hydro 760 57%Solar 12 1%Biomass 158 12%Various Types 253 19%

Total2 1,343 100%

% of Total Energy From Renewables1 5%% of Total Energy From Non-Renewables 95%

Total Energy Delivery2 29,141,703 MWhfrom renewables 1,342,844 MWh

from non-renewables 27,798,859 MWh

CO2 Emissions per Total Energy Delivered 1,228 lbs CO2/MWh delivered

Total CO2 Emissions3 16,230,815 metric tonnes CO2

CO2 Emissions per

Total Non-Renewable Energy41,287 lbs CO2/MWh delivered

Estimated Emission Factors for Total Energy Delivered5

2010 RPS (20%) 1,030 lbs CO2/MWh delivered

Notes:

Table 4-11GHG Emissions from Renewables Power Standards


1. The renewable energy portfolio for Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the power


Abbreviations:CO2 = carbon dioxide

kWh = kilowatt-hourLA DWP = Los Angeles Department of Water & Powerlbs = poundsMWh = Megawatt-hourPUP = Power/Utility ProtocolRPS = Renewables Portfolio Standard

5. The emission factors for total energy delivered are estimated by multiplying the percentage of energy delivered from non-renewable energy by the CO2 emissions per total non-renewable energy metric calculated above. The emission factor presented here is for the current 20% RPS goal for 2010. The estimate provided here and the 2007 PUP report issued by Los Angeles Department of Water & Power assume that renewable energy sources do not result in any CO2 emissions. This is not necessarily true for biogas- and biomass-sourced energy but some consider these sources to be "carbon neutral."

gy p g p , putility that is most likely to provide power to the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project development. The renewable energy distribution is based on data available at: http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp009507.jsp2. Total energy value reported for 2007 by Los Angeles Department of Water & Power in California Climate Action Registry. Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf

3. The amount of CO2 emissions is provided in Los Angeles Department of Water & Power's Power/Utility Protocol (PUP) Report for 2007 available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf

4. The emissions metric presented here is calculated based on the total CO2 emissions divided by the energy delivered from non-renewable sources.

E N V I R O N

Title-24

Systems1

Non-Title 24 Appliances and

Plug-insTotal

CO2

Electricity2

CO2 Natural

Gas3

CO2

Electricity2

CO2 Natural

Gas3

CO2

Electricity2

CO2 Natural

Gas3 CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total

Existing Electricity Portfolio4 792 1,315 3,656 427 4,448 1,742 0.96 1.85 2.81

20% Renewable Portfolio5 664 1,315 3,066 427 3,731 1,742 0.90 1.58 2.48









Notes:

1. Title 24 - California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code.

6. Thomas Properties Group has committed to a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24, in addition to meeting 2008 Title 24, and to the use of Energy Star appliances.

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CCAR - California Climate Action Registry LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and PowerCCR - California Code of Regulations lb - poundCO2 - carbon dioxide PUP - Power/Utility ProtocolDU - dwelling unit RPS - Renewables Portfolio StandardGRP - General Reporting Protocol tonne - metric tonnekW-hr - kilowatt-hour

Minimally Title 24 Compliant (2008) and

Energy Star Appliances



15% Improvement over 2005 Title 24 and Energy

Star Appliances6



15% Improvement over

2005 Title 246




(tonnes / DU / year)(lbs / DU / year)


Title-24 Systems1

Table 4-12CO2 Emissions per Residential Dwelling Unit


2. Converted from kW-hr to lb CO2 using emission factor from the California Climate Action Registry Database: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2007 PUP Report. 2008. 3. Converted from MMBTU to lb CO2 using emission factor from California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (CCAR GRP).

4. In the existing electricity portfolio, California Climate Action Registry's most recently reported emission factor for electricity generation at LADWP was used (2007).


Non-Title 24 Appliances and Plug-ins

Total

Title 241 Compliance Type Scenario

E N V I R O N

CO2 Emission Factor

Total CO2

EmissionsCO2 Emission

FactorTotal CO2


FactorTotal CO2

Emissions

(tonne CO2 / DU / year)

(tonne CO2 / year)


(tonne CO2 / year)


(tonne CO2 / year)

Existing Electricity Portfolio3 100 0.96 96 1.85 185 2.81 281

20% Renewable Portfolio4 100 0.90 90 1.58 158 2.48 248









Notes:1. Title 24 - California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code.2. Information provided by Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Initial Study (July 2009).

5. Thomas Properties Group has committed to a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24, in addition to meeting 2008 Title 24, and to the use of Energy Star appliances.

Abbreviations:CCR - California Code of RegulationsCO2 - carbon dioxide

LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and PowerRPS - Renewables Portfolio Standardtonne - metric tonne


Star Appliances5


Minimally Title 24 Compliant (2008) and

Energy Star Appliances






2005 Title 245Condominium with 5 or

more units



# Dwelling

Units2

Total

DU - dwelling unit

Title-24 Systems1 Non-Title 24 Appliances and Plug-ins



Table 4-13CO2 Emissions from Electricity and Natural Gas Usage in Residential Dwelling Units


E N V I R O N

Scenario RPS Scenario Energy SourceCO2e Emissions

[tonnes/yr]

Total CO2e Emissions

[tonnes/yr]

Electricity 146

Natural Gas 70

Electricity 144

Natural Gas 75

Electricity 202

Natural Gas 79

Notes:

Abbreviations:CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent

GHG - greenhouse gasLADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and PowerNAT - no action takenRPS - Renewables Portfolio Standardyr - year

Project (2008 Title 24, with Energy Star Appliances) 20% Renewable Portfolio1 219

1. Thomas Properties Group has committed to the use of 20% renewable power to be achieved through a combination of the LADWP RPS and Green Power Program.2. In the existing electricity portfolio, California Climate Action Registry's most recently reported emission factor for electricity generation at LADWP was used (2007).

NAT (Minimally 2005 Title 24 Compliant) Existing Electricity Portfolio2 281

Project (15% improvement over 2005 Title 24, with Energy Star Appliances)

20% Renewable Portfolio1 216

Table 4-14Summary of GHG Emissions from Residential Building Types


E N V I R O N



4.2.3 GHG Emissions Associated with Energy Use in Commercial Buildings This section describes the methods used to estimate GHG emissions associated with activities in commercial buildings such as lodging, amenities, commercial, retail, parking, and office space. The methods are applied to the existing Hotel and the proposed Project. Similar to the case for residential buildings, GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in commercial buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. The energy use in commercial buildings is also divided into energy consumed by the built environment (i.e., those governed by Title 24 including mechanical systems and hard-wired lighting)89

The energy usage for commercial buildings is estimated based on specific databases as discussed below, but the same emission factors are used for the commercial buildings as those used for the residential buildings. The resulting electricity use quantities were similarly converted to GHG emissions by multiplying by the appropriate emission factors obtained by incorporating information on local electricity production.

and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building such as plug-in appliances (refrigeration, cooking, office equipment, etc.).

90 Natural gas quantities were converted to GHG emissions by multiplying by the emission factor from the California Climate Action Registry.91

Similar to the residential section, in this section of this report, the estimates for CO2 are assumed to be equal to CO2e because methane and nitrous oxide emissions are assumed to represent a negligible amount of global warming potential when compared to the CO2 emissions from emission sources for commercial buildings.

The following sections describe the methodologies employed to estimate GHG emissions from commercial buildings.

92

4.2.3.1 Estimate of Commercial Energy Use Intensity

ENVIRON developed CO2 intensity values (CO2 emissions per sq. ft. per year) for building types for the proposed Project using data from the California Commercial End-Use Survey.93 The overall electricity use for the building types was calculated based on data provided by the California Energy Commission.94

89 Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and

Nonresidential Buildings.

The building types and subcategories are shown in Table 4-15, which also provides the mapping used to relate the proposed Project building types to CEUS building types. The proposed Project is located in California Energy Commission Forecasting Climate Zone 11. The proposed Project is expected to obtain electricity from LADWP and natural gas from Southern California Gas Company within Forecasting Climate Zone 11. However, the California Commercial End Use Survey data for Forecasting Climate

www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ (accessed May 2010). 90 The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power specific emission factor for electricity deliveries is 1,228 lbs

CO2/MWh. From the California Climate Action Registry Database. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PUP Report. 2007.

91 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (GRP), Version 3.1 (January). Available at: www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf (accessed May 2010). Table C7.

92 The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power emission factor represents CO2, but the emissions associated with N2O and CH4 are expected to contribute to less than 1 percent of the electricity generation CO2e emissions.

93 California Energy Commission (CEC). California Commercial End-Use Survey Results. Data available from Itron Inc. at capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx (accessed July 2009).

94 Workbooks for “SCE – FCZ9” downloaded from capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx for all building categories. Accessed July 2009.



http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx�




Zone 11 are not available. It was assumed that energy use data for Forecasting Climate Zone 9 would be similar to Forecasting Climate Zone 11 due to the geographic proximity of the two Forecasting Climate Zones.95

The California Commercial End-Use Survey data is based on a survey conducted in 2002 for existing buildings. Each building type has a characteristic electricity and natural gas use per square foot of building space. Electricity use per square foot (electricity intensity) for each building sample was extracted from the California Commercial End-Use Survey data. Similarly, the natural gas use per square foot (natural gas intensity) for each building sample was also extracted. Note that the Electrical Technical Report

96 uses the electrical rates and the Natural Gas Technical Report97

Similar to the residential analysis, the California Commercial End-Use Survey data was adjusted to 2005 Title 24 standards. The California Energy Commission discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards"). ENVIRON used these California Energy Commission average savings percentages to account for reductions in energy use due to updates to Title 24. The average savings percentages are: for electricity: 7.7 percent reduction in 2005; for natural gas: 3.2 percent reduction in 2005. This methodology results in a reduction of energy use for all building types for the 2005 Title 24 scenario, or CARB 2020 No Action Taken.

uses the natural gas factors published in South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 1993 CEQA Handbook to estimate the proposed electrical or natural gas consumption.

Table 4-16 lists the breakdown of electricity use among several end uses for electricity in various commercial building types. Table 4-17 lists the percentage breakdown of end uses for natural gas in various commercial building types. The estimated emission factors for electricity and natural gas use are provided in Table 4-18. For the existing electricity portfolio, the electricity emission factor most recently reported to the California Climate Action Registry for electricity generation by LADWP98

95 Itron, 2006. California Commercial End-Use Survey Results. Prepared for the California Energy Commission

(CEC). March. Figure 2-1.

was used (2007). Emission factors were calculated for the 20 percent renewable portfolio (2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard) scenario using the LADWP’s fraction of power currently provided by renewable sources of electricity (see Table 4-11). The end use data provide an estimate of the percent of the total energy use comprised by Title 24 regulated (built environment) and plug-in electricity in each building type. The Title 24-regulated electricity use (cooling, space heating, water heating, lighting, ventilation) and the non-built electricity use (office equipment, refrigeration, cooking, etc.) are presented in Table 4-19. The Title 24-regulated natural gas use and the non-built natural gas use (primarily from cooking) are presented in Table 4-19.

www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-005/CEC-400-2006-005.PDF (accessed May 2010).

96 Glumac, Electrical Technical Report, May 2010. 97 Glumac, Natural Gas Technical Report, May 2010. 98 California Climate Action Registry Database: Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 2007 PUP Report. 2008.

Available at: www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf. Accessed May 2010.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-005/CEC-400-2006-005.PDF�

https://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf�



4.2.3.2 Estimation of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use in Commercial Buildings

The proposed Project has committed to making all new commercial buildings 15 percent more energy efficient than 2005 Title 24 standards, in addition to complying with the 2008 Title 24 standards, on a total daily valuation basis.99

Table 4-19 also shows the yearly CO2 emissions from the proposed Project by incorporating the emission factors developed as discussed above and the square footage of each of the main building categories. The CO2 intensity values (CO2 emissions per square foot building area) were generated by multiplying the emission factors presented with the energy use data. Due to the project design features of reducing built energy use 15 percent below that in 2005 Title 24 and using 20 percent renewable electricity, a reduction of 4,225 tonnes of CO2 per year is realized from the proposed commercial buildings. These measures bring the overall CO2 emissions associated with commercial energy use in proposed buildings down to 17,629 tonnes CO2 per year.

These calculations are shown in Table 4-19. Non-Title 24 regulated energy uses (e.g. appliances) are assumed to use the same amount of energy as a 2005 Title 24 compliant building. Appliances in the commercial building category are generally not supplied with the building and are therefore not under the control of the developer. Consequently, no energy reductions were applied to the non-Title 24 energy uses.

GHG emissions resulting from energy use in existing commercial buildings in 2009 were also calculated. Using typical annual electricity and natural gas usage based on metering data, along with GHG emission factors for electricity (using the existing electricity portfolio) and natural gas, the emissions were estimated to be 13,342 tonnes CO2e per year, as shown in Table 4-20. To compare, the annual GHG emissions associated with commercial energy use in existing buildings in 2020 are estimated to be 11,942 tonnes CO2 per year, as shown in Table 4-21.

4.2.3.3 GHG Emissions from Commercial Buildings in the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario

The GHG emissions from energy use in commercial buildings for the proposed Project were compared to GHG emissions from a minimally 2005 Title 24 compliant building (“CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario”).100

99 ENVIRON made a simplifying assumption that annual energy use and total daily valuation energy (that provided

by the CEUS study) scale linearly with each other.

The approach is similar to that used for the proposed Project commercial GHG calculations. However, the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario assumes the commercial buildings are minimally compliant with 2005 Title 24, and the existing electricity portfolio GHG emission factor for electricity is used. The same mix of commercial building types and square footage is assumed. The GHG emissions associated with commercial buildings for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario are shown in Table 4-22. The CARB 2020 No Action Taken GHG emissions associated with commercial energy use are estimated to be 21,854 tonnes CO2e per year. For energy use subject to Title 24, the proposed Project commercial buildings will be 15 percent better than the 2005 Title 24 standards (per the proposed Project’s commitment). Unlike residential homes, the developer has little control over the appliances and plug-in energy use that will occur in the buildings. When typical plug-in

100 The comparison is to the 2005 Title 24 standards, which were in effect in 2008.



energy use is considered for the commercial buildings, the proposed Project is 19 percent better than 2005 Title 24. This does not account for commercial occupants’ use of energy efficient appliances.

4.2.3.4 Uncertainties in Commercial Building GHG Calculations The estimation of commercial building GHG emissions relies on assumptions that are uncertain (e.g., the amount of energy usage a tenant will use). Such assumptions lead to uncertainty in the above analysis, but the analysis is based on the best available data. As described below, even given the areas of uncertainty, conservative estimates have been made to ensure that the GHG emissions for the commercial uses at the proposed Project are represented.

• Not all building categories that may actually exist in the proposed Project are represented in this analysis. However, all of the commercial building area is accounted for and the best available assessment of the building type composition for the proposed Project was used. The tables provided in this section present the differences in energy intensities from building type to building type.

• Although it is unknown exactly how the buildings will be designed, each building will be 2008 Title 24 compliant. Therefore all design features of the building that make it less energy efficient will be offset by design features that make it more energy efficient.

Building Type1 CEUS Building Type2 Quantity Units Area per Unit3,4 [SF/unit] Total Area1 [SF]Hotel Lodging 560 rooms 641 358,960Office All Office 1,500,000 SF 1 1,500,000

Retail/Restaurant Restaurant 50,000 SF 1 50,000Fitness Facility/Spa Health 20,000 SF 1 20,000

Ancillary Hotel Areas, Meeting Rooms and Ballrooms

Miscellaneous 205,000 SF 1 205,000

Parking Warehouse 1,900 spaces 325 617,5002,751,460

Notes:

Grand Total Area

1. Building types and areas were provided by Thomas Properties Group.2. ENVIRON selected building types from the California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) that most closely matched the building types specified by Thomas Properties Group.

3. The area per unit for hotel rooms is based on the anticipated average size of a hotel room in the Project, provided by Thomas Properties Group.4. ENVIRON estimated the area per unit. The area per unit for a parking space is based on the area of an average parking space including landscaping around the space

Table 4-15Categorization of Commercial Land UseWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project


Abbreviations:

Sources:Parking Solutions: A Comprehensive Menu of Solutions to Parking Problems. TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Updated July 22, 2008. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm

SF - square feetCEUS - California Commercial End-Use Survey

landscaping around the space.

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1

All Office 1.0% 0.7% 21% 7% 1% 24% 4% 4% 15% --- 4% 17% 0.5%Health 2% 2% 21% 3% 4% 22% 15% 3% 5% --- 3% 22% 0.13%

Lodging 0.1% 8% 25% 6% 6% 24% 7% 4% 3% --- 9% 9% ---Miscellaneous 4% 2% 14% 11% 0.8% 21% 12% 14% 2% 0.0% 10% 8% 1%

Restaurant 0.1% 29% 14% 9% 0.01% 12% 3% 1.0% 2% --- 22% 8% 0.3%Warehouse 2% 0.3% 9% 5% 0.9% 48% 10% 4% 5% 0.0% 7% 8% 1%

Included in Title 24 Building

Envelope Energy Budget?2 No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes

Notes:1. The electricity end-use distribution percentages listed for each building type are based on CEUS data.

Abbreviations:

Table 4-16Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Project


2. Only end uses regulated by Title 24 are included in the Title 24 building envelope energy budget. Hard-wired lighting (exterior lighting and some interior lighting) are part of Title 24, but are not considered part of the building envelope energy budget.

Mis

cella

ne

ou

s

Mo

tors

Air

Co

mp

ress

ors

Co

oki

ng

Wa

ter

He

atin

g

Off

ice

Eq

uip

me

nt

Pro

cess

Re

frig

era

tion

Ve

ntil

atio

n

He

atin

g

Inte

rio

r L

igh

ting

Co

olin

g

Ext

eri

or

Lig

htin

g

Abbreviations:

Source:

CEUS - California Commercial End-Use Survey

California Commercial End-Use Survey. Performed by Itron, under contract to the California Energy Commission. 2006.

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1

All Office 3% 2% 76% 0.0% --- 19%Health 3% 2% 56% 0.5% 10% 29%

Lodging 14% --- 21% 2% 0.5% 64%Miscellaneous 4% 12% 25% 2% 16% 41%

Restaurant 80% --- 4% --- --- 16%Warehouse 2% --- 78% 2% --- 18%


Envelope Energy Budget?2 No No Yes No No Yes

Notes:

Table 4-17Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Project


Pro

cess

Wat

er H

eatin

g

Coo

king

Coo

ling

Hea

ting

Mis

cella

neou

s

otes1. The natural gas end-use distribution percentages are based on CEUS data.

Abbreviations:

Source:California Commercial End-Use Survey. Performed by Itron, under contract to the California Energy Commission. 2006.

2. Only end uses regulated by Title 24 are included in the Title 24 building envelope energy budget.


E N V I R O N

Energy Source Scenario UnitConversion Factor1

[lb CO2/Unit]Conversion Factor1

[tonne CO2/Unit]

Existing Electricity Portfolio4 1.228 5.57E-0420% Renewable Portfolio5 1.030 4.67E-04

Natural Gas3- kBTU 0.117 5.31E-05

Notes:

Abbreviations:

Table 4-18Emission Factors by Energy Source


2. Emission factor for electricity provided by Los Angeles Department of Water & Power for the year 2007, obtained from the California Climate Action Registry Database.3. Emission factor for natural gas obtained from California Climate Action Registry Reporting Protocol, Table C7.


kWhElectricity2

4. California Climate Action Registry's most recently reported emission factor for electricity generation at LADWP (2007).

1. Estimated emission factors for total energy delivered before and after implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard. See Table 4-11 for derivation of these factors.

Abbreviations:

LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

RPS - Renewables Portfolio Standard

Sources:

California Climate Action Registry Database: Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 2007 PUP Report. 2008. Available at: https://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf

kWh - kilowatt-hour

lb - pound

CO2 - carbon dioxide

California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1 (January 2009). Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf

kBTU - 1000 British thermal units

E N V I R O N

CO2e EF5

[tonnes/SF-yr]Usage Rate6

[Unit/SF-yr]CO2e EF5

[tonnes/SF-yr]

CO2e Emissions7

[tonnes/yr]Usage8

[Unit/yr]CO2e Emissions7

[tonnes/yr]

Title 242,3 Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall

Electricity kWh 5.87 + 9.56 = 15.43 8.59E-03 14.55 6.80E-03 10,609 21,822,900 10,193Natural Gas kBTU 11.76 + 0.63 = 12.39 6.57E-04 10.62 5.64E-04 898 15,933,473 845Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 23.29 1.09E-02 228 465,704 218

Natural Gas kBTU 59.77 + 11.07 = 70.84 3.76E-03 61.88 3.28E-03 69 1,237,543 66Electricity kWh 3.45 + 5.74 = 9.19 5.12E-03 8.67 4.05E-03 1,512 3,112,781 1,454




Natural Gas kBTU 1.01 + 0.04 = 1.04 5.54E-05 0.89 4.74E-05 31 551,456 29

Grand Total Area 2,751,460 16,033 33,123,930 15,472

2,252 40,646,151 2,157

17,629

Notes:

Energy Source

Electricity Total10

Natural Gas Total10

Non-Title 244

Grand Total10

617,500

50,000

20,000

358,960

1,500,000

205,000

Health

Lodging

Warehouse9

Miscellaneous

Restaurant

All Office

CEUS Building TypeTotal Area

[SF]Unit

Usage Rate1

[Unit/SF-yr]

1. Usage rates were taken from the 2006 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS), performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC). ENVIRON used data for Forecasting Climate Zone (FCZ) 9. It is assumed that energy use data for FCZ 9 would be similar to FCZ 11, the sector in which the Wilshire Grand development is located, due to the geographic proximity of the two FCZs.

Annual Total(with 15% Improvement over 2005

Title 24)

Table 4-19Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types


2005 Title 2415% Improvement over 2005

Title 242008 Title 24

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission kBTU - kilo (1000) British thermal units SF - square feetCEUS - California Commercial End-Use Survey kWh - kilowatt-hour tonnes - metric tonnesCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent RPS - Renewables Portfolio Standard yr - yearEF - emission factor SCE - Southern California Edison

Sources:

3. Includes only Title 24-regulated building envelope uses of electricity (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating) and gas (heating, water heating), as discussed in footnote 1 of Table 4-16.4. Includes all other uses of electricity (cooking, refrigeration, exterior lighting, interior lighting, office equipment, miscellaneous, process, motors, air compressors) and gas (cooling, cooking, miscellaneous, process) not included in the Title 24-regulated building envelope, as discussed in footnote 3 above.

2. Title 24 usage rates shown in this table have been adjusted to reflect improvements in Title 24 building codes since their introduction in 2002. CEC discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards") as well as from 2005 to 2008 ("Impact Analysis 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings"). ENVIRON used these CEC average savings percentages, which are: for electricity: 7.7% reduction in 2005 and 4.9% reduction in 2008; for gas: 3.2% reduction in 2005 and 9.4% reduction in 2008.

California Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF

California Energy Commission. 2003. Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDF

5. CO2e emission factors (EF) are calculated by multiplying the corresponding usage rates or usages by the conversion factors listed in Table 4-18.6. The usage rate with 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24 is calculated as the 2005 Title 24 usage reduced by 15% plus the non-Title 24 usage.

8. The total annual usage is calculated as the usage rate (with 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24) multiplied by the total area. The Project will commit to 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24, in addition to meeting 2008 Title 24.

7. The total annual CO2e emissions are calculated as the CO2e emission factor multiplied by the total area.

10. The sum of the annual CO2e emissions from may not exactly add up to the totals listed due to rounding.9. The "Warehouse" category was used to represent the Project parking structure.

E N V I R O N

Building Type Energy Source Usage Rate2

[Unit/yr]Unit CO2e Emissions3

[tonnes/yr]Electricity 15,579,139 kWh 8,677

Natural Gas 87,917,879 kBTU 4,66513,342

Notes:1. The existing property is entirely non-residential; therefore, all energy used on site is included here.


GHG - greenhouse gaskBTU - kilo (1000) British thermal units

Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, ExistingTable 4-20

3. The total annual CO2e emissions are calculated as the usage rate multiplied by the appropriate CO2e conversion factor.

Non-Residential1

Grand Total

Los Angeles, CaliforniaWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project

2. Typical annual electricity and natural gas usage calculated using metering data from years 2006-2009.

( )kWh - kilowatt-houryr - year

E N V I R O N

Building Type Energy Source Usage Rate2

[Unit/yr]Unit CO2e Emissions3

[tonnes/yr]Electricity 15,579,139 kWh 7,277

Natural Gas 87,917,879 kBTU 4,66511,942

Notes:1. The existing property is entirely non-residential; therefore, all energy used on site is included here.


GHG - greenhouse gaskBTU - kilo (1000) British thermal unitskWh - kilowatt-hour

Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, Existing (2020)Table 4-21

3. The total annual CO2e emissions are calculated as the usage rate multiplied by the appropriate CO2e conversion factor, including 2010 RPS.

Non-Residential1

Grand Total


2. Typical annual electricity and natural gas usage calculated using metering data from years 2006-2009.

RPS - Renewables Portfolio Standardyr - year

E N V I R O N

NAT (Minimally 2005 Title 24 Compliant)

CO2e EF5

[tonnes/SF-yr]CO2e Emissions6

[tonnes/yr]Title 242,3 Overall Overall Overall

Electricity kWh 5.87 + 9.56 = 15.43 8.59E-03 12,891Natural Gas kBTU 11.76 + 0.63 = 12.39 6.57E-04 986Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 278

Natural Gas kBTU 59.77 + 11.07 = 70.84 3.76E-03 75Electricity kWh 3.45 + 5.74 = 9.19 5.12E-03 1,837




Natural Gas kBTU 1.01 + 0.04 = 1.04 5.54E-05 34Grand Total Area 2,751,460 Electricity Total 19,442

Natural Gas Total 2,411Grand Total 21,854

Notes:1. Usage rates were taken from the 2006 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS), performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC). ENVIRON used

Table 4-22Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, NAT


2005 Title 24

Usage Rate1

[Unit/SF-yr]CEUS Building TypeTotal Area

[SF]Unit

Non-Title 244

205,000

All Office

Health

Lodging

Miscellaneous

Restaurant

617,500Warehouse

358,960

Energy Source

50,000

20,000

1,500,000

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission NAT - no action takenCEUS - California Commercial End-Use Survey SCE - Southern California EdisonCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent SF - square feetEF - emission factor tonnes - metric tonneskBTU - kilo (1000) British thermal units yr - yearkWh - kilowatt-hour

Sources:California Energy Commission. 2003. Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDF

6. The total annual CO2e emissions are calculated as the CO2e emission factor multiplied by the total area.5. CO2e emission factors (EF) are calculated by multiplying the corresponding usage rates or usages by the conversion factors listed in Table 4-18.

1. Usage rates were taken from the 2006 California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS), performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC). ENVIRON used data for Forecasting Climate Zone (FCZ) 9. It is assumed that energy use data for FCZ 9 would be similar to FCZ 11, the sector in which the Wilshire Grand development is located, due to the geographic proximity of the two FCZs.2. Title 24 usage rates shown in this table have been adjusted to reflect improvements in Title 24 building codes since their introduction in 2002. CEC discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards"). ENVIRON used these CEC average savings percentages, which are 7.7% reduction for electricity and 3.2% reduction for gas in 2005.3. Includes only Title 24-regulated building envelope uses of electricity (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating) and gas (heating, water heating), as discussed in footnote 1 of Table 4-16.4. Includes all other uses of electricity (cooking, refrigeration, exterior lighting, interior lighting, office equipment, miscellaneous, process, motors, air compressors) and gas (cooling, cooking, miscellaneous, process) not included in the Title 24-regulated building envelope, as discussed in footnote 3 above.

E N V I R O N


[tonnes/yr]


[tonnes/yr]Electricity 15,472

Natural Gas 2,157

Electricity 8,677Natural Gas 4,665Electricity 7,277

Natural Gas 4,665

Electricity 19,442Natural Gas 2,411

Notes:

20% Renewable Portfolio1

13,342

17,629

11,942


NAT Existing Electricity Portfolio2

Existing Electricity Portfolio2

Existing20% Renewable Portfolio (2010)


Table 4-23


Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types

Project

21,854



E N V I R O N



4.2.4 Mobile Sources This section estimates GHG emissions from mobile sources. The mobile source emissions considered for this proposed Project will be from the typical daily operation of motor vehicles by proposed Project residents, patrons and workers (patrons and workers are hereafter referred to as “non-residents”) of the proposed Project hotel and amenities and commercial trips associated with the office building. ENVIRON estimated GHG emissions based upon all miles traveled by the proposed Project residents and patrons regardless of internal or external destinations or purpose of trip. Traffic patterns, trip rates, and trip lengths are based upon data provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting.101

The California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol

102

4.2.4.1 Estimating VMT from Mobile Sources

recommends estimating GHG emissions from mobile sources at an individual vehicle level, assuming knowledge of the fuel consumption rate for each vehicle as well as the miles traveled per car. Since these parameters are not known for a future development, the California Climate Action Registry guidance is too specific to use as recommended. The analysis is instead based on a more general approach described below.

This section explains the general approach used to estimate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) made by the residents of the proposed Project and by the patrons and employees/workers (collectively, non-residents) of the proposed Project. Underlying data for the calculations were taken from the trip generation estimates provided to ENVIRON.103

Traditional traffic models focus upon designing roads and planning a development such that traffic delays will be avoided during peak travel hours and provide the total number of daily vehicles on a road. Several steps must be taken to go from a traditional traffic model to a set of calculations that describe vehicle miles traveled made by proposed Project residents, which include:

• Determine trip rates based on reductions for project design features. • Determine the difference in weekend and weekday driving patterns. • Determine how many trips are taken by modes other than cars. • Calculate final vehicle miles traveled based upon the above scenarios.

4.2.4.1.1 Determine Trip Ra tes Bas ed on Reduc tions for Pro jec t Des ign Fea tures ENVIRON was provided information regarding the number of trips, with and without Transportation Demand Management (TDM) credit. This analysis also included information on the breakdown of the types of trips for residents and non-residents. Trips are categorized based on their origin and destination. For example, a home based work trip is a trip directly from home to work with no stops in-between, or directly from work to home. A home based shopping trip is a trip directly from home to shopping or from shopping to home. A home based other trip is a trip directly from home to another destination such as school. Non-home based

101 ENVIRON was provided with trip purpose percentages and trip length estimates from Gibson Transportation

Consulting on 8/13/2009. 102 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. January. 103 Trip generation estimates provided to ENVIRON by Gibson Transportation Consulting on 8/13/2009.



trips are trips between work and other types of destinations such as going to the bank during one’s lunch hour. For all trip types, directionality is unimportant. The distribution of trip types follows information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting (Gibson). Per Gibson, none of the non-home based trips are pass-by trips or diverted trips. Pass-by trips are short trips located near each other such as going to different stores in the same area. Diverted trips are those trips that are intermediate from a primary trip such as stopping at the gym after work before returning home.

4.2.4.1.2 Determine the d iffe rence in weekend and weekday driving pa tte rns The trip information provided was based on weekday conditions. ENVIRON calculated weekend traffic by applying differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based upon a report by Sonoma Technologies.104 Weekend traffic was assumed to be 80 percent of the weekly capacity.105

4.2.4.1.3 Determine how many trips a re taken by modes o ther than cars

It is likely that a portion of the proposed Project residents would take public transportation when travelling out of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project has committed to enhancements of the public transportation in the region. In addition, the proposed Project TDM program includes features that support mode shifts, defined as shifts from private vehicle trips to alternative forms of transportation. Such features include bicycle amenities, a Transportation Information Center, and discounted transit passes for employees. Trip rate information provided to ENVIRON by Gibson included reductions due to the TDM mode shift features.

4.2.4.1.4 Calcu la te fina l VMT bas ed upon the above Scenarios Each type of trip (i.e., home-based office, home-based school, etc.) is associated with an average trip length as included in the information provided to ENVIRON by Gibson. Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were calculated by multiplying the number of trips by the average trip length for each type of trip.

VMT = Number of Trips * Average Trip Length

The average trip lengths provided to ENVIRON for each trip type are shown in Table 4-24.

The value calculated here includes all VMT generated by proposed Project residents and non-residents commuting within the proposed Project site and all VMT generated by proposed Project residents and non-residents commuting to and from the proposed Project. The total VMT for proposed Project residents and non-residents not taking into account the proposed Project TDM program is 42,103,978, as shown in Table 4-24. The total VMT for proposed Project residents and non-residents accounting for trip reductions due to the proposed Project TDM program is 34,875,684, as shown in Table 4-25. The individual VMTs were multiplied by the appropriate emission factors to calculate GHG emissions for each land use.

104 Sullivan, DC, et al. 2004. Collection and Analysis of Weekend/Weekday Emissions Activity Data in the South

Coast Air Basin. Sonoma Technologies prepared for CARB. May. 105 A conservative adjustment for weekend travel was assumed for all the trips since information was not available to

distinguish between trips on major highways and trips on small streets. The Sonoma Technologies report gives a range of values, but does not present a weighted value, thus a conservative percent reduction in the number of trips was selected.



4.2.4.2 Estimating GHG Emissions from Mobile Sources The CO2 emissions from mobile sources were calculated with the trip rates, trip lengths and emission factors for running and starting emissions from EMFAC2007 as follows:

CO2 emissions = VMT * EFrunning

Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled

EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions

The CO2 calculation involves the following assumptions:

• The emission factor depends upon the speed of the vehicle. Here, it was assumed that trips were 30 miles per hour.106

• EMFAC emission factors from the year 2020 were used for EF

running

Startup emissions are CO2 emitted from starting a vehicle. Startup emissions were calculated using the following assumptions:

based on Los Angeles County fleet mix.

• The number of starts is equal to the number of trips made annually. • The breakdown in vehicles was EMFAC fleet mix for Los Angeles County in 2020. • The emission factor for startup was calculated based on a weighted average of wait times

between starts, based on URBEMIS defaults.

Fleet distribution types from EMFAC2007 were used for the year 2020, a year selected to represent full build out.

Carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles were calculated as described in the paragraphs below. Nitrous oxide, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons107 are also emitted from mobile sources. The USEPA recommends assuming that methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons account for 5 percent of mobile source GHG emissions, taking into account their global warming potentials.108

Table 4-24 shows the CO2 emissions from vehicles associated with residents of the proposed Project as calculated according to the methodology described above. Vehicles associated with the proposed Project will emit approximately 20,470 tonnes CO2e per year, without taking into account Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program reductions or future regulatory activity.

Therefore, in each of the scenarios discussed below, CO2 emissions from vehicles were divided by 0.95 to account for non-CO2 GHGs.

The analysis also evaluates the potential reduction in mobile emissions due to the Traffic Demand Management Program. Table 4-25 shows the CO2 emissions from vehicles associated with residents and commercial users of the proposed Project incorporating the Traffic Demand

106 URBEMIS defaults to a vehicle speed of 30 mph for all trip types if no proposed Project specific data is entered. 107 HFCs can be emitted from air conditioning systems. 108 USEPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of

Transportation and Air Quality. February. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.pdf, accessed May 2010)

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.pdf�



Management Program. Vehicles associated with the proposed Project will emit approximately 16,955 tonnes CO2e per year, without taking into account future regulatory activity.

The analysis also evaluates the potential reduction in mobile emissions due to regulatory programs such as AB 1493 (Section 3.3.5). Table 4-26 shows the CO2 emissions from vehicles associated with residents and commercial users of the proposed Project as calculated incorporating the emissions reductions resulting from AB 1493. Vehicles associated with the proposed Project will emit approximately 14,399 tonnes CO2e per year. A sample EMFAC run for Los Angeles County is given in Appendix B.

In Table 4-27, mobile source GHG emissions for the existing hotel in 2009 were estimated to be 15,567 tonnes CO2e per year. GHG emissions from mobile sources at the existing hotel in 2020, which take into account the Pavley Standards, were estimated to be 13,878 tonnes of CO2e per year, as shown in Table 4-28.

4.2.4.3 Transportation Emissions for the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario The proposed Project GHG emissions due to transportation are also compared to a CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario. ENVIRON estimated the emissions for a CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario assuming none of the project design features included in the proposed Project’s TDM program, including mixed use, local serving retail, and pedestrian friendliness. In addition it was assumed that the proposed Project was developed in Los Angeles but not located in the Central Business District.

Trip rates resulting from the above assumptions were applied to the same methodology outlined for the proposed Project traffic calculations including the weekend trip rate adjustment. The CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario would release 30,095 tonnes of CO2e per year (see Table 4-29). The proposed Project represents a 52 percent reduction in VMT and CO2e emissions per year compared to CARB 2020 No Action Taken. These results, along with those for the proposed Project, are summarized in Table 4-30.

4.2.4.4 Uncertainty Analysis ENVIRON was provided with various inputs to estimate GHG emissions from mobile sources. As described above the mobile source emission estimates are based on URBEMIS default values and settings. As such, these values are somewhat uncertain but represent the best available data. It should be noted that estimated fleet distribution and emission factors will likely improve based on current and anticipated regulations.

per Gibson Transportation Consulting Trip

Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unadjusted 1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 3

Daily Trips, with Location

Adjustments4

Annual Trips, with Location Adjustments

Trip Type% Trip

Type5 Trip Purpose6 % Trip

Purpose6

Trip Length [by Trip

Purpose]6

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual VMT7

(miles)Startup8

(g/start)Running9

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions10

(tonnes)

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 24.1% 11.3 24,701 243,924 2 95 97 102Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 13.3% 6.8 13,632 81,296 1 32 33 34Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 29.0% 6.8 29,723 177,263 2 69 71 75

Home-Based School 18.8% 5.4 19,269 91,142 1 35 37 39Home-Based Recreation 14.8% 6.8 15,169 90,465 1 35 36 38

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 1,660,949 18,735,504 148 7,291 7,439 7,830Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 1,130,562 10,050,695 100 3,911 4,012 4,223Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 405,717 2,762,933 26 1,075 1,101 1,159Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 229,629 2,041,399 15 794 809 852Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 33,465 227,898 2 89 91 96Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 18,941 168,383 1 66 67 70Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 145,371 989,977 9 385 394 415Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 82,278 731,447 5 285 290 305Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 3,809,405 36,392,326 *** *** 313 14,163 14,476 15,238

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Home-Based School 0.0% 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Home-Based Recreation 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 554,440 3,964,248 43 3,407 3,450 3,632Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 45,732 326,987 4 281 285 300Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 198,660 1,420,417 15 1,221 1,236 1,301

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 798,832 5,711,651 *** *** 62 4,908 4,970 5,232

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 4,608,238 42,103,978 *** *** 375 19,071 19,446 20,470

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide, cont'd): Gibson Transportation Consulting Project Trip Generation Estimates (11/30/2009), Project Alternatives Traffic Study (3rd Draft)CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs) URBEMISCBD - Central Business District LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs) EMFAC User GuideURBEMIS - URBan EMISsions modeling software MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs) Sonoma TechnologiesVMT - vehicle miles traveled

Notes:1. Daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. Trips are assumed to be one-way.

3. Annual number of trips = Weekday/weekend adjusted daily number of trips*3654. Adjustments for transit/HOV usage, walking, location in the Central Business District of downtown Los Angeles and internal capture were provided by Gibson.5. % trip type data for home-based trips are URBEMIS defaults for high rise residential condos. Based on information provided by Gibson, all non-residential trips are assumed to be primary trips.

7. VMT was adjusted to account for diverted and pass-by trips using the following default information from URBEMIS: diverted trip length is assumed to be 25% of primary trip length. Pass-by trip length is assumed to be 0.1 miles. 8. Startup emission factors are taken from EMFAC. ENVIRON calculated a weighted average startup emission factor based on URBEMIS start times.9. Running emission factors are taken from EMFAC at 30 mph (URBEMIS default). 10. CO2e = CO2 / 0.95: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends assuming that CH4, N2O, and HFCs are 5% of emissions on a CO2e basis.

LHDT1, LHDT2 - Light-Heavy-Duty (8501-10,000 lbs; 10,001-14,000 lbs)

659 240,535

2,147 2,147 783,655

1,669,875

659

Total for All Vehicles

2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed to be 80% of weekday capacity forhome-based trips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.

92.1

78.4

102,494

110.0

All Land Uses

Subtotal for Group A Vehicles

2,791,511

3,260

Subtotal for Group B Vehicles

3,917,910 7,648

98,138

1,189,786

269

1,168

10,734 3,917,910

4,575

659

2,147

4,575

659

418

10,734

Condo/Townhouse

2,147

102,494

63.3

88.9

394 143,852

1,669,875

240,535

281

All Land Uses

Condo/Townhouse

Hotel

General Office

Emission Factors

60.7

1,189,786

426,308

98,138269

2,791,511General Office

Hotel


Land Use Annual EmissionsTrip CharacteristicsNumber of Trips and VMT completed by Group X of

Vehicles

Vehicle Class

389.2

Retail/Restaurant

74.4

3,260

7,648

783,655

Table 4-24

Fitness Facility

Total Number of Project Trips completed by All (Group A + Group B) Vehicles

10,734

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture adjustments) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), without Project Design Features or Regulatory Reductions

Group APassenger Vehicles

Vehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs

(LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV)

Pavley Standards Applicable11

859.3

10,734

281143,852

75.3

418 394

4,575 4,575

11. AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) refers to the reduction of GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light and medium-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter, as required by the state of California (see ARB 2008a). The regulated vehicle classes are shown here for comparison purposes only; a reduction in GHG emissions is not applied in this calculation scenario.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008a. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions For the United States and Canada Under U.S. CAFEStandards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/reports/pavleycafe_reportfeb25_08.pdf.

6. Trip purpose categories and the associated trip lengths and percentages were provided by Gibson, and are the average values for all of Los Angeles County. Information specific to downtown Los Angeles was not available. The following assumptions were made by ENVIRON: a) All home-based and work-based trips are performed by Group A vehicles only; b) All other-based trips are performed by Group B vehicles only.

426,3081,168


Group BDelivery TrucksVehicles > 8,500

lbs(LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, HHDT)

Pavley Standards Not Applicable

Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unadjusted1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 3


Adjustments 4


Trip Type% Trip


Purpose6


Purpose]6

(miles)

% Trip Reduction

due to TDM7

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT8Startup9

(g/start)Running10

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running

CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions11

(tonnes)

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 24.1% 11.3 17% 20,461 202,048 2 79 80 84Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 13.3% 6.8 17% 11,291 67,340 1 26 27 28Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 29.0% 6.8 17% 24,621 146,831 2 57 59 62

Home-Based School 18.8% 5.4 17% 15,961 75,495 1 29 31 32Home-Based Recreation 14.8% 6.8 17% 12,565 74,934 1 29 30 32

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 17% 1,375,802 15,519,045 122 6,040 6,162 6,486Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 17% 936,470 8,325,220 83 3,240 3,323 3,498Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17% 336,065 2,288,600 21 891 912 960Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 17% 190,207 1,690,937 12 658 670 705Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17% 27,720 188,773 2 73 75 79Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 17% 15,689 139,475 1 54 55 58Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17% 120,414 820,021 7 319 326 344Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 17% 68,152 605,874 4 236 240 253Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 3,155,417 30,144,593 *** *** 259 11,731 11,991 12,622

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0

Home-Based School 0.0% 5.4 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Home-Based Recreation 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 17% 459,255 3,283,677 36 2,822 2,858 3,008Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 17% 37,881 270,851 3 233 236 248Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 17% 164,554 1,176,564 12 1,011 1,023 1,077

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 661,691 4,731,091 *** *** 51 4,065 4,117 4,334

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 3,817,108 34,875,684 *** *** 311 15,797 16,108 16,955

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation Consulting Project Trip Generation Estimates (11/30/2009), Project Alternatives Traffic Study (3rd Draft)CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto URBEMISCBD - Central Business District LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) EMFAC User GuideTDM - Transportation Demand Management Program MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs) Sonoma TechnologiesURBEMIS - URBan EMISsions modeling software LHDT1, LHDT2 - Light-Heavy-Duty (8501-10,000 lbs; 10,001-14,000 lbs)VMT - vehicle miles traveled MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs)

HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs)




7. % trip reduction due to the Transportation Demand Management Program project design feature is based on information provided by Gibson. The % trip reduction due to the TDM program was assumed to apply equally among all land uses and was based on the total number of trips with and without the TDM reduction.

659 659 240,535

783,655


Vehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs(LDA, LDT1, LDT2,

MDV)


1,669,875

240,535

783,655

4,575

659

2,147

394


2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed to be 80% of weekday capacity for home-based trips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.

426,3081,168

Group BDelivery Trucks

Vehicles > 8,500 lbs(LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, HHDT)


4,575 4,575

2,147

859.3

Retail/Restaurant

10,734

3,260

98,138269

1,189,786

2,147

Table 4-25

Fitness Facility


Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture Adjustments and TDM Reduction) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), Project

98,138

4,575

Fitness Facility

3,917,910

143,852

659

2,147

3,260

102,494

1,189,786

7,648

143,852

3,917,91010,734

74.4

2,791,511

281

10,734

418

1,669,875

2,791,511

281394

7,648

102,494

Condo/Townhouse

General Office 10,734

418

389.2

Number of Trips and VMT completed by

Group X of VehiclesTrip Characteristics

269

1,168 426,308


Land Use Annual Emissions

Vehicle Class

Emission Factors

All Land Uses

Retail/Restaurant

Hotel

All Land Uses

General Office

Condo/Townhouse


63.3


75.3

12. AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) refers to the reduction of GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light and medium-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter, as required by the state of California (see ARB 2008a). The regulated vehicle classes are shown here for comparison purposes oreduction in GHG emissions is not applied in this calculation scenario.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008a. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions For the United States and Canada Under U.S. CAFE Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/reports/pavleycafe_reportfeb25_08.pdf.


88.9

60.7

92.1

78.4

110.0


Hotel

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unadjusted1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 3


Adjustments 4


Trip Type% Trip


Purpose6


Purpose]6

(miles)

% Trip Reduction

due to

TDM7

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT8Startup9

(g/start)Running10

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions11

(tonnes)

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 24.1% 11.3 17% 20,461 202,048 1 63 64 67Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 13.3% 6.8 17% 11,291 67,340 1 21 22 23Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 29.0% 6.8 17% 24,621 146,831 1 46 47 50

Home-Based School 18.8% 5.4 17% 15,961 75,495 1 23 24 26Home-Based Recreation 14.8% 6.8 17% 12,565 74,934 1 23 24 25

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 17% 1,375,802 15,519,045 97 4,816 4,914 5,172Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 17% 936,470 8,325,220 66 2,584 2,650 2,790Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17% 336,065 2,288,600 17 710 727 766Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 17% 190,207 1,690,937 10 525 534 563Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17% 27,720 188,773 1 59 60 63Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 17% 15,689 139,475 1 43 44 46Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17% 120,414 820,021 6 254 260 274Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 17% 68,152 605,874 3 188 191 201Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 3,155,417 30,144,593 *** *** 207 9,355 9,562 10,065

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0

Home-Based School 0.0% 5.4 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Home-Based Recreation 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 17% 459,255 3,283,677 36 2,822 2,858 3,008Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 17% 37,881 270,851 3 233 236 248Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 17% 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 17% 164,554 1,176,564 12 1,011 1,023 1,077

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 661,691 4,731,091 *** *** 51 4,065 4,117 4,334

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 12,625 4,608,238 *** *** 3,817,108 34,875,684 *** *** 258 13,421 13,679 14,399

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation Consulting Project Trip Generation Estimates (11/30/2009), Project Alternatives Traffic Study (3rd Draft)CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto URBEMISCBD - Central Business District LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) EMFAC User GuideTDM - Transportation Demand Management Program MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs) Sonoma TechnologiesURBEMIS - URBan EMISsions modeling software LHDT1, LHDT2 - Light-Heavy-Duty (8501-10,000 lbs; 10,001-14,000 lbs)VMT - vehicle miles traveled MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs)

HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs)



8. VMT was adjusted to account for diverted and pass-by trips using the following default information from URBEMIS: diverted trip length is assumed to be 25% of primary trip length. Pass-by trip length is assumed to be 0.1 miles. 9. Startup emission factors are taken from EMFAC. ENVIRON calculated a weighted average startup emission factor based on URBEMIS start times.10. Running emission factors are taken from EMFAC at 30 mph (URBEMIS default). The Group A running emission factor is adjusted to account for a reduction in emissions due to implementation of the Pavley Standard, based on a February 2008 ARB Report.11. CO2e = CO2 / 0.95: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends assuming that CH4, N2O, and HFCs are 5% of emissions on a CO2e basis.

7. % trip reduction due to the Transportation Demand Management Program project design feature is based on information provided by Gibson. The % trip reduction due to the TDM program was assumed to apply equally among all land uses and was based on the total number of trips with and without the TDM reduction.

2,147 2,147 783,655

4,575 4,575 1,669,875

659 659 240,535

3,917,91010,734

1,669,875

659 659 240,535

75.3

48.4

92.1

78.4

426,308

102,494

110.0






Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse

All Land Uses

Hotel

1,168

418 143,852

2,147 2,147 783,655

269

1,189,786


7,648 2,791,511

98,138

3,260

281


281

3,917,910

394418 143,852

10,734

Condo/Townhouse

98,138


Land Use Annual EmissionsTrip Characteristics Emission Factors

Vehicle Class

General Office

3,260

50.5

70.9

269

4,575 4,575

426,308

59.3

Hotel 1,189,786

2,791,5117,648

102,494

Retail/Restaurant

General Office

All Land Uses

Table 4-26


Group X of Vehicles

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture Adjustments and TDM Reduction) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), including Pavley Standard



MDV)


10,734

Fitness Facility

310.4


1,168

12. AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) refers to the reduction of GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light and medium-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter, as required by the state of California (see ARB 2008a). The reduction in GHG emissions is applied in this calculation scenario.

2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed to be 80% of weekday capacity for home-btrips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.



859.3

10,734

394

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unadjusted 1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 3


Adjustments4


Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose6


Purpose]6

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT7

(miles)

Startup8

(g/start)Running9

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions10

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 372,143 4,197,772 34 1,653 1,687 1,776Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 253,307 2,251,903 23 887 910 958Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 649,147 4,420,692 43 1,741 1,783 1,877Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 367,406 3,266,238 24 1,286 1,310 1,379Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 6,703 45,649 0 18 18 19Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 3,794 33,728 0 13 14 14Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 252,961 1,722,662 16 678 694 731Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 143,171 1,272,793 9 501 510 537Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

13,593 13,593 4,961,445 9,015 3,290,585 *** *** 2,048,632 17,211,437 *** *** 150 6,778 6,927 7,292




13,593 13,593 4,961,445 9,015 3,290,585 *** *** 1,241,953 8,879,964 *** *** 107 7,755 7,861 8,275

13,593 13,593 4,961,445 9,015 3,290,585 *** *** 3,290,585 26,091,401 *** *** 256 14,532 14,789 15,567



3. Annual number of trips = Weekday/weekend adjusted daily number of trips*365.4. Adjustments for transit/HOV usage, walking, location in the Central Business District of downtown Los Angeles and internal capture were provided by Gibson.5. % trip type data for home-based trips are URBEMIS defaults for high rise residential condos. Based on information provided by Gibson, all non-residential trips are assumed to be primary trips.




2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed to be 80% of weekdaycapacity for home-based trips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.

741,8202,032





Retail/Restaurant

0 0

Table 4-27

Fitness Facility

Total Number of Existing Trips completed by All (Group A + Group B) Vehicles

2,405

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture adjustments) from Vehicles for Existing Hotel (all)

0

393.8

132

3,736

7,320

76.6

2,405 877,825

7,320





All Land Uses

Condo/Townhouse

General Office

Hotel

Retail/Restaurant

General Office

0

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse

Hotel

3,736

000

7,320

2,405

5,216


Land Use Annual EmissionsTrip CharacteristicsNumber of Trips and VMT completed by

Group X of Vehicles

Vehicle Class

Emission Factors

63.1

65.7

0

91.7

741,820

19,657

1,903,658

625,450

0

2,032

54

5,216

1,714

0

132

3,736


2,671,800

48,180

1,363,640

All Land Uses

625,450

7,320

2,405

2,671,800

877,825 119.51,714

132 132 48,180 19,65754

1,903,658



6. Trip purpose categories and the associated trip lengths and percentages were provided by Gibson, and are the average values for all of Los Angeles County. Information specific to downtown Los Angeles was not available. The following assumptions were made by ENVIRON: a) All home-based andwork-based trips are performed by Group A vehicles only; b) All other-based trips are performed by Group B vehicles only.

3,736 1,363,640 83.5


873.3

99.2

86.7

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unadjusted 1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 3


Adjustments4

Annual Trips, with

Location Adjustments

Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose6

Trip Length [by

Trip Purpose]6

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT7

(miles)

Startup8

(g/start)Running9

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions10

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 372,143 4,197,772 26 1,303 1,329 1,399Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 253,307 2,251,903 18 699 717 755Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 649,147 4,420,692 33 1,372 1,405 1,479Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 367,406 3,266,238 19 1,014 1,032 1,087Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 6,703 45,649 0 14 15 15Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 3,794 33,728 0 10 11 11Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 252,961 1,722,662 12 535 547 576Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 143,171 1,272,793 7 395 402 423Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

13,593 13,593 4,961,445 9,015 3,290,585 *** *** 2,048,632 17,211,437 *** *** 115 5,342 5,457 5,744




13,593 13,593 4,961,445 9,015 3,290,585 *** *** 1,241,953 8,879,964 *** *** 96 7,631 7,727 8,134

13,593 13,593 4,961,445 9,015 3,290,585 *** *** 3,290,585 26,091,401 *** *** 212 12,972 13,184 13,878



3. Annual number of trips = Weekday/weekend adjusted daily number of trips*365.4. Adjustments for transit/HOV usage, walking, location in the Central Business District of downtown Los Angeles and internal capture were provided by Gibson.5. % trip type data for home-based trips are URBEMIS defaults for high rise residential condos. Based on information provided by Gibson, all non-residential trips are assumed to be primary trips.



00



3,736 1,363,640 75.3


859.3

92.1

78.4

0

110.01,714

5,216

625,450

19,65754

1,903,658

All Land Uses

7,320

132 132 48,180

2,671,800

877,825

3,736

2,405

7,320Hotel


2,671,800

48,180132

3,736

0

2,405 877,825General Office

0

2,032

54

5,216

1,714

50.5

0

70.9

741,820

19,657

1,903,658

625,450

48.4


Land Use Annual EmissionsTrip CharacteristicsNumber of Trips and VMT completed by

Group X of Vehicles

Vehicle Class

Emission Factors

7,320

2,405General Office

0Condo/Townhouse

Retail/Restaurant

Hotel

310.4

132

3,736

7,320

59.3

1,363,640

Table 4-28

Fitness Facility

Total Number of Existing Trips completed by All (Group A + Group B) Vehicles

2,405

GHG Emissions (with CBD and Internal Capture adjustments) from Vehicles for Existing Hotel (all) in Year 2020, with Pavley Standards

0




Retail/Restaurant

0 0





All Land Uses

Condo/Townhouse

Fitness Facility

11. AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) refers to the reduction of GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light and medium-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter, as required by the state of California (see ARB 2008a). The reduction in GHG emissions is not applied in this


2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed to be 80% of weekdaycapacity for home-based trips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.

741,8202,032


E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unadjusted 1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted 3

Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose5

Trip Length [by

Trip Purpose]5

(miles)

Annual Trips Annual VMT6

(miles)Startup7

(g/start)Running8

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2 Emissions

(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions9

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 2,331,156 26,295,445 207 10,234 10,441 10,990Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 1,586,754 14,106,239 141 5,490 5,631 5,927Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 569,427 3,877,800 36 1,509 1,545 1,627Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 322,286 2,865,121 20 1,115 1,135 1,195Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 82,022 558,573 5 217 223 234Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 46,423 412,703 3 161 164 172Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 267,226 1,819,811 16 708 724 763Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 151,245 1,344,572 9 523 532 560Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 *** *** 5,500,392 52,240,391 *** *** 449 20,331 20,779 21,873




18,533 18,509 6,755,827 *** *** 1,255,434 8,976,355 *** *** 97 7,713 7,811 8,222

18,533 18,509 6,755,827 *** *** 6,755,827 61,216,746 *** *** 546 28,044 28,590 30,095

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation Consulting Project Trip Generation Estimates (11/30/2009), Project Alternatives Traffic Study (3rd Draft)CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs) URBEMISNAT - no action taken LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs) EMFAC User Guide

MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs) Sonoma Technologiessoftware LHDT1, LHDT2 - Light-Heavy-Duty (8501-10,000 lbs;

VMT - vehicle miles traveled 10,001-14,000 lbs)


3. Annual number of trips = Weekday/weekend adjusted daily number of trips*3654. % trip type data for home-based trips are URBEMIS defaults for high rise residential condos. Based on information provided by Gibson, all non-residential trips are assumed to be primary trips.


Table 4-29

Fitness Facility


Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), NAT

394 143,852

Group APassenger VehiclesVehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs(LDA, LDT1, LDT2,

MDV)


4,575

659


10,734

2,147

4,5754,575

659

2,147

659




Retail/Restaurant

3,917,910

394

783,655

4,575

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse

Hotel

240,535

859.3

Retail/Restaurant


All Land Uses

2,147

389.2


Land Use Annual EmissionsTrip Characteristics Emission FactorsNumber of Trips and VMT completed by Group X of

Vehicles

659

Vehicle Class

74.4

General Office 88.93,917,91010,734

Condo/Townhouse 418

10,734

Hotel


63.3

60.7

92.1143,852418

1,669,875

240,535

78.4


110.0

URBEMIS - URBan EMISsions modeling

All Land Uses


783,6552,147 75.3

1,669,875



2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed to be 80% ofweekday capacity for home-based trips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.


E N V I R O N

Group A1

(Pavley standard applicable)

Group B2

(Pavley standard not applicable)

Total

Condo/Townhouse 239 0 239General Office 9,984 0 9,984Hotel 1,665 3,008 4,673Fitness Facility 137 248 385Retail Restaurant 596 1,077 1,673

Total 12,622 4,334 16,955Condo/Townhouse 190 0 190General Office 7,962 0 7,962Hotel 1,328 3,008 4,336Fitness Facility 110 248 358Retail Restaurant 475 1,077 1,553

Total 10,065 4,334 14,399Condo/Townhouse 0 0 0General Office 2,734 0 2,734Hotel 3,257 5,912 9,168Fitness Facility 34 61 95Retail Restaurant 1,268 2,302 3,570

Total 7,292 8,275 15,567Condo/Townhouse 0 0 0General Office 2,154 0 2,154Hotel 2,565 5,811 8,376Fitness Facility 26 60 86Retail Restaurant 999 2,263 3,262

Total 5,744 8,134 13,878Condo/Townhouse 405 0 405General Office 16,917 0 16,917Hotel 2,822 5,097 7,919Fitness Facility 406 734 1,141Retail Restaurant 1,323 2,391 3,714

Total 21,873 8,222 30,095

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs)GHG - greenhouse gas LHDT1, LHDT2 - Light-Heavy-Duty (8501-10,000 lbs; 10,001-14,000 lbs)HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs) MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs)lbs - pounds MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs)LDA - Light Duty Auto NAT - no action taken

Notes:1. Group A vehicles consist of passenger vehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV).2. Group B vehicles consist of delivery trucks and vehicles > 8,500 lbs (LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, HHDT).

Table 4-30

CO2e Emissions(tonnes/yr)

NAT

Scenario Pavley Scenario Land Use

No Pavley

Project

Pavley

No Pavley

Existing

Pavley

No Pavley

Summary of GHG Emissions from Mobile SourcesWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project


E N V I R O N



4.2.5 Area Sources Area sources emissions stem from hearths (including gas fireplaces, wood-burning fireplaces, and wood-burning stoves) and small mobile fuel combustion sources such as lawnmowers. Fuel combustion associated with these sources produce direct GHG emissions. Emissions from natural gas-fired stoves and natural gas heating are already included in the residential sources (see Table 4-7 through 4-14).109

The proposed Project will have 100 natural gas fireplaces in its residential units. Wood-burning stoves or fireplaces are prohibited. Direct GHG emissions from these sources were estimated by multiplying the energy use per year by the CO2 emission factor for natural gas combustion. Annual energy use was determined by the number of fireplaces, the average energy use of each fireplace, and the URBEMIS default fireplace usage rate value of 200 hours/year. In the absence of site-specific energy use values for fireplaces at the proposed Project, the URBEMIS default values of 20,000 BTU/hour/fireplace for multi-family residences was used. Table 4-31 shows an estimated 0.3 tonnes CO2 will be generated annually by fuel combustion in natural-gas fireplaces. As mentioned in the residential and commercial sections, it is assumed that methane and nitrous oxide emissions from fuel combustion will contribute a negligible amount of global warming potential when compared to CO2 emissions from the natural gas fireplaces.

GHG emissions from area sources were calculated using the URBEMIS method.

Landscaping emissions originate from equipment such as lawn mowers, blowers, trimmers and chain saws.110 For residential areas, landscape-based GHG emissions are directly related to the number of residential units, the annual equipment usage rate, and landscape equipment CO2 emissions factors. For commercial areas, landscape-based GHG emissions are related to the number of business units, the annual equipment usage rate, and landscape equipment CO2 emission factors. The annual usage rate (number of days of use per year) was conservatively assumed to be 365 days.111

URBEMIS output files for operational emissions from the existing hotel in 2009 were provided to ENVIRON

Table 4-31 shows an estimated 2.3 tonnes CO2 will be generated per year.

112

109 The methods used to calculate natural gas use for heating, water heating, and cooking described in the residential

emission calculations are conservative and may cause slight differences in the natural gas usage determined using URBEMIS as was used in the air quality section of the draft EIR. Both methods are appropriate for the purpose of the individual sections. URBEMIS is designed for worst day local emissions of criteria pollutants as opposed to total emissions of GHGs.

, and included area source emissions. Table 4-32 summarizes the area source emissions from the existing hotel in 2009, estimated to be 1.82 tonnes CO2 per year. Because emissions from natural gas fireplaces are associated with residential units, and the existing hotel does not contain any residential units, all of the area source emissions from the existing hotel are due to landscaping emissions. In addition, because the Pavley Standards and the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard do not affect landscaping, it is assumed that the area source emissions from the existing hotel in 2020 are the same as the area source emissions from the existing hotel in 2009.

110 According to Appendix B of the URBEMIS User’s Guide, landscaping emissions from commercial land uses also includes contributions from air compressors, generators and pumps, which are affiliated with commercial applications.

111 URBEMIS assumes that landscaping occurs only during the summer. URBEMIS User’s Guide, version 9.2, Appendix B. p. B-5.

112 Provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates to ENVIRON on January 7, 2010.

Annual CO2 Emissions Annual CO2 Emissions1

(ton/year) (tonne/year)

Hearths - Natural Gas Fireplaces2 0.35 0.32Landscaping Equipment 2.56 2.32

Area Sources Total: 2.64

Notes:

Sources:

2. It was conservatively assumed that each of the 100 proposed dwelling units will have a natural gas fireplace. No wood-burning stoves or fireplaces were assumed at the Project Site.

1. Annual emission estimates are based on URBEMIS output files .

URBEMIS file

Source

Table 4-31GHG Emissions from Area Sources, Project


E N V I R O N

Annual CO2 Emissions Annual CO2 Emissions1

(ton/year) (tonne/year)

Hearths - Natural Gas Fireplaces2 0.00 0.00Landscaping Equipment 2.01 1.82

Area Sources Total: 1.82

Notes:

Sources:

Table 4-32GHG Emissions from Area Sources, Existing


2. The existing hotel does not have any residential units; therefore, it is assumed that there are no natural gas fireplaces.

1. Annual emission estimates are based on URBEMIS output files provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates.

URBEMIS file

Source

E N V I R O N



4.2.6 Solid Waste Emissions Solid waste generated at the proposed Project will emit GHGs in the form of methane and carbon dioxide after it is sent to landfill. Emission factors, specified in volume of gas per unit mass of solid waste, were multiplied by the mass of solid waste generated at the proposed Project113

Table 4-35 summarizes the GHG emissions due to solid waste disposal from the existing hotel. The method used to calculate the solid waste emissions from the existing hotel was analogous to the method used for the proposed Project emissions. Table 4-35 shows that an estimated 2,369 tonnes of CO2e will be released annually from the existing hotel’s solid waste sent to landfill.

to estimate total emissions from this source. The methane generation potential of typical US municipal solid waste landfills, expressed per ton of waste generated, was used as the emission factor for methane, as shown in Table 4-33. The composition of landfill gas at typical US municipal solid waste landfills was used to estimate the volume ratio of carbon dioxide to methane in landfill gas. Then, the carbon dioxide emission factor was estimated by scaling the methane emission factor by this ratio. Finally, the emission factor for methane was multiplied by the global warming potential of methane and was added to the emission factor for carbon dioxide in order to estimate the total GHG emission factor. Table 4-34 shows that an estimated 5,114 tonnes of CO2e will be released annually from the proposed Project’s solid waste sent to landfill.

4.2.7 Helistop Emissions The proposed Project includes a helistop on the roof of the proposed office. This section describes the estimation of emissions from the helistop. Emissions related to the helistop are due to the combustion of fuel by the helicopter engines, and are determined by the number of helicopter flights, distances traveled and types of engines used. Estimated helicopter emissions were provided to ENVIRON by Heliport Consultants.114 The calculations were based on the assumption that helicopter operations would average 480 flights115 per year, comprised of 80 percent short flights (less than 100 miles) and 20 percent long flights. It was further assumed that 98 percent of the flights would be made by a single engine helicopter and 2 percent would be made by a twin engine helicopter. Emission factors were provided by the manufacturer of helicopters of the type expected to be used at the helistop.116

113 As listed in Section IV.J.3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Emissions were calculated based on climbing, cruising, descent, and idling times established based on the helicopter manuals with the help of experienced pilots. The proposed helistop will operate on-call charter services. Therefore, a helicopter would not be stationed at the helistop. The proposed helistop will not provide helicopter refueling or repair services. Total emissions for the helistop, as provided to ENVIRON, were estimated to be 162 tonnes of CO2. For the purposes of this section, CO2 and CO2e are assumed to be equivalent. Based on the manufacturer’s

114 Emissions calculations were transmitted via e-mail from Ricarda Bennett on October 7, 2009. 115 A helicopter flight is defined as a takeoff and a landing. A helicopter operation is defined as a takeoff or a landing. 116 Emissions data were provided to ENVIRON by Heliport Consultants. Emission factors were for the Eurocopter

AS350 B2 and Agusta A109E Power models, manufactured by Turbomeca.



assertions, the representative helicopter engines analyzed do not have methane emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions are not measured.117

117 CO2 equivalent emissions from nitrous oxide for jet fuel are estimated to be on the order of 1% of CO2 equivalent

emission from CO2 (based on data in Table C.3 and Table C.6 of the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1. January 2009).

GHG Emission Factor Units

CH41 3,530 ft3/ton waste

Notes:

Abbreviations:CH4 - methane

ft3 - cubic feetGHG - greenhouse gasMSW - municipal solid wasteton - short ton (2,000 pounds)USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

Sources:

1. The mean methane generation potential for solid waste is found in USEPA AP-42, Section 2.4, p. 2.4-4, for typical US MSW landfills.

USEPA AP-42 - Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition. Chapter 2, Section 2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Section, November 1998. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

Table 4-33Methane Generation Potential for Solid Waste


E N V I R O N

CategoryAmount of Solid Waste Generated

(tons/yr)

CH4 Potential

Emissions1

(ft3/yr)

CH4 Potential

Emissions2

(tonne/yr)

Volume Ratio of

CO2/CH4 in LFG3

CO2 Potential

Emissions4

(ft3/yr)

CO2 Potential

Emissions2

(tonne/yr)

CO2e Potential

Emissions5

(tonne/yr)

Residential 117 412,304 8 299,857 16 179Retail/Amenities 1,164 4,110,156 78 2,989,204 155 1787Office 1,643 5,798,025 110 4,216,745 219 2521Hotel 409 1,443,064 27 1,049,501 54 627Total 3,332 11,763,549 222 8,555,308 444 5,114

Notes:



CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent

deg - degreesF - Fahrenheit

ft3 - cubic feetGHG - greenhouse gaslb-mol - pound-moleLFG - landfill gasMSW - municipal solid wasteton - short ton (2,000 pounds)tonne - metric ton (1,000 kilograms)USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

Sources:

GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal, ProjectWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project


Table 4-34

0.73

2. The potential emissions are converted from cubic feet per year to tonnes per year by dividing by the molar volume of a gas at 68 deg F (385 ft3/lb-mol), multiplying by the molecular weight of the gas, and converting to tonnes.3. The volume ratio of CO2 to CH4 is based on the approximate composition of landfill gas (40% CO2 by volume and 55% CH4), as stated in USEPA AP-42, Section 2.4, p. 2.4-4, at steady state conditions.


1. The methane emissions from a landfill depend on certain characteristics of the landfill in which the waste is disposed and is estimated based on a first order exponential decay equation. The methane generation potential listed in Table 4-33 is used to estimate the maximum potential methane emissions from the landfill.

4. The carbon dioxide potential emissions are estimated assuming the volume of carbon dioxide generated by the solid waste is equal to the volume ratio of CO2 to CH4 times the volume of methane generated by the solid waste.5. The CO2e potential emissions equal the sum of the CO2 emissions and the CH4 emissions multiplied by methane's global warming potential.

E N V I R O N

CategoryAmount of Solid

Waste Generated1

(tons/yr)

CH4 Potential

Emissions2

(ft3/yr)

CH4 Potential

Emissions3

(tonne/yr)

Volume Ratio of

CO2/CH4 in LFG4

CO2 Potential

Emissions5

(ft3/yr)

CO2 Potential

Emissions3

(tonne/yr)

CO2e Potential

Emissions6

(tonne/yr)

Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0Retail/Amenities 653 2,306,326 44 1,677,328 87 1003Office 237 837,493 16 609,085 32 364Hotel 653 2,306,326 44 1,677,328 87 1003

Total 1,544 5,450,144 103 3,963,741 206 2,369

Notes:1. The existing hotel does not have any residential units; therefore, the amount of solid waste generated for the residential category is zero.



CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent

deg - degreesF - Fahrenheit

ft3 - cubic feetGHG - greenhouse gaslb-mol - pound-moleLFG - landfill gasMSW - municipal solid wasteton - short ton (2,000 pounds)tonne - metric ton (1,000 kilograms)USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

Sources:

0.73

3. The potential emissions are converted from cubic feet per year to tonnes per year by dividing by the molar volume of a gas at 68 deg F (385 ft3/lb-mol), multiplying by the molecular weight of the gas, and converting to tonnes.4. The volume ratio of CO2 to CH4 is based on the approximate composition of landfill gas (40% CO2 by volume and 55% CH4), as stated in USEPA AP-42, Section 2.4, p. 2.4-4, at steady state conditions.


2. The methane emissions from a landfill depend on certain characteristics of the landfill in which the waste is disposed and is estimated based on a first order exponential decay equation. The methane generation potential listed in Table 4-33 is used to estimate the maximum potential methane emissions from the landfill.

5. The carbon dioxide potential emissions are estimated assuming the volume of carbon dioxide generated by the solid waste is equal to the volume ratio of CO2 to CH4 times the volume of methane generated by the solid waste.6. The CO2e potential emissions equal the CO2 emissions added to the CH4 emissions multiplied by methane's global warming potential.

GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal, ExistingWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project


Table 4-35

E N V I R O N



4.3 Emissions Inventory - Construction This section describes the estimation of GHG emissions from construction activities at the proposed Project. There are typically three major construction phases for an urban development: demolition, site grading, and building construction. The building construction phase can be broken down into three subphases: building construction, architectural painting, and asphalt paving. GHG emissions from these construction phases are largely attributable to fuel use from construction equipment and worker commute. ENVIRON was provided with an estimate of construction emissions by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates (CAJA) in the form of URBEMIS output files.118 Additional details regarding the inputs for these construction emissions are included in the Air Quality Section of the Draft EIR. The URBEMIS119 model estimates emissions from several different aspects of urban development including construction sources based on emission factors and information specific to the development. The OFFROAD2007120 and the EMFAC2007121

4.3.1 URBEMIS Construction Emissions

models are used to generate emission factor data for construction equipment and motor vehicles, respectively. These data are used by URBEMIS to develop emissions estimates.

Construction emissions calculated within URBEMIS include the following categories:

• Construction Equipment • Construction equipment emissions are comprised of emissions from off-road equipment

used during demolition, grading, building construction, and paving. • GHG Emissions from Construction Worker Commute • Emissions from worker commute are associated with workers involved in the demolition,

site grading phase and all construction subphases. GHGs are emitted from worker vehicles in two ways: running emissions, produced by driving the vehicle, and startup emissions, produced by turning the vehicle on. The majority of worker commute emissions are running emissions.

• GHG Emissions from Vendor Trips • Similar to worker commuting trips, GHGs emitted from vendor vehicles trips are based on

running and startup emissions. • Demolition Hauling • Demolition hauling involves removing material from the site during demolition phases. The

number of roundtrips is multiplied by the roundtrip length to determine total VMT. • The URBEMIS model only provides CO2

118 URBEMIS output files were provided to ENVIRON by CAJA as included in Appendix IV.G to the EIR.

emissions estimates for the categories listed above. The USEPA recommends assuming that methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons account for 5 percent of on-road vehicle GHG emissions, taking into

119 Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) (Version 8.7 – 2002 / Version 9.2.4 – 2008). Jones & Stokes Associates. Prepared for: South Coast Air Quality Management District. www.urbemis.com (accessed May 2010).

120 California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Emissions Inventory Program. December 2006. www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm (accessed May 2010).

121 Emission Factors (EMFAC2007) model (Version 2.3). November 2006. California Air Resources Board. www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm (accessed May 2010).

http://www.urbemis.com/�

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm�

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm�



account their global warming potentials.122 ENVIRON assumed that all worker trips and all vendor trips would consist of on-road vehicles, and the CO2 emissions from those trips were divided by 0.95 to account for non-CO2 GHGs. The contributions of methane and nitrous oxide from diesel construction equipment to overall GHG emissions are likely small (< 1 percent of total CO2e).123 Therefore, ENVIRON assumed that the CO2 emissions from diesel construction equipment are approximately equal to the CO2e emissions. Table 4-36 shows total one-time GHG emissions for construction (for Scenario 1, which is the proposed Project scenario), including off-road equipment, worker commuting, vendor trips, and demolition hauling to be 21,305 tonnes CO2

4.3.2 GHG Emissions from Water Use During Construction

e for the proposed Project development.

This section describes the methodology used to estimate GHG emissions from the electricity required to treat and supply water for the Project site during construction.

The amount of electricity required to treat and supply water depends on the volume of water involved. The water demand during construction is estimated to be 20 million gallons over the full construction period.124

Indirect emissions resulting from electricity associated with the total water demand were determined by multiplying electricity use by the CO2 emission factor provided by the local electricity supplier, LADWP. Energy use for different aspects of water treatment (e.g. source water pumping and conveyance, water treatment, distribution to users) was determined using the stated volumes of water and energy intensities values (i.e., energy use per unit volume of water) provided by reports from the California Energy Commission (CEC).

ENVIRON estimated GHG emissions assuming emission factors for potable groundwater from the LADWP. Three processes are necessary to supply potable water to commercial users: (1) supply and conveyance of the water from the source; (2) treatment of the water to potable standards; and (3) distribution of the water to individual users.

125

4.3.3 GHG Emissions from Electricity Use During Construction

The emission factors and GHG emissions for all of these processes are shown in Table 4-37. The total one-time emissions from supplying the electricity used to supply, convey, treat, and distribute water during construction are approximately 66 tonnes of CO2e.

This section describes the methodology used to estimate emissions from electricity used at the Project site during the construction. The anticipated electricity demand is 10 million kilowatt hours (kW-hrs) over the course of the 54 month construction period.126

122 USEPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of

Transportation and Air Quality. February. (

Indirect emissions resulting from electricity use were determined by multiplying electricity use by the CO2 emission factor provided by the local electricity supplier, LADWP. The emission factors and GHG emissions for electricity use during construction are shown in Table 4-37. The total one-time

www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.pdf, accessed May 2010) 123 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. 124 The estimated quantity of water used during the construction phase was provided by Turner Construction

Company in their proposal dated July 31, 2009. p. 72. 125 California Energy Commission 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC-700-

2005-011-SF, 126 The estimated power demand during the construction phase was provided by Turner Construction Company in

their proposal dated July 31, 2009, p. 72.




emissions from supplying the electricity used during construction are approximately 5,570 tonnes of CO2e.

4.3.4 GHG Emissions from Demolition Solid Waste Disposal During Construction This section describes the methodology used to estimate emissions from the disposal of solid waste during construction. The estimated total amount of solid waste due to demolition of the existing hotel and due to construction of the Project was provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates.127

Emission factors, specified in volume of gas per unit mass of solid waste, were multiplied by the mass of demolition waste

This waste will emit GHGs in the form of methane and carbon dioxide after it is sent to landfill. The proposed Project has committed to diverting 75 percent of construction waste; it is assumed that there are no GHG emissions from recycling the debris.

128

4.3.5 Estimation of One-Time Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction

to estimate total emissions from this source. The methane generation potential of typical US municipal solid waste landfills, expressed per ton of waste generated, was used as the emission factor for methane, as shown in Table 4-33. The composition of landfill gas at typical US municipal solid waste landfills was used to estimate the volume ratio of carbon dioxide to methane in landfill gas. Then, the carbon dioxide emission factor was estimated by scaling the methane emission factor by this ratio. Finally, the emission factor for methane was multiplied by the global warming potential of methane and was added to the emission factor for carbon dioxide in order to estimate the total GHG emission factor. Table 4-38 shows that a one-time emission of approximately 36,853 tonnes of CO2e will result from the disposal of demolition solid waste.

Table 4-39 shows the one-time CO2e emissions from construction of the proposed Project, which are estimated to be 63,793 tonnes CO2e. Sources of emissions during construction include equipment usage, worker trips, hauling trips, electricity use, water use, and the disposal of solid waste.

4.3.6 Uncertainties in Construction GHG Emissions Calculations As described above, ENVIRON was provided with the onsite equipment and mobile source emission estimates from CAJA, and the estimated water and electricity use during construction of buildings. The onsite equipment and mobile source emissions are, in part, based on URBEMIS default values and settings. As such, while these values are somewhat uncertain, they are based on commonly accepted methodology.

127 The estimated quantity of solid waste disposed of during the construction phase was provided by Christopher A.

Joseph and Associates on January 19, 2010. 128 Provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates on January 19, 2010.

Total CO2 Emissions3

% CO2 Emissions from

Gasoline Vehicles4

GHG Emissions from

Gasoline Vehicles5

GHG Emissions from

Diesel Equipment6 Total GHG Emissions(tons CO2/year) (%) (tonnes CO2e/year) (tonnes CO2e/year) (tonnes CO2e)

2011 3,594.78 4% 121 3,147 3,2672012 7,145.58 23% 1,556 5,004 6,5602013 4,515.43 90% 3,883 407 4,2912014 5,142.68 89% 4,361 522 4,8832015 2,419.65 94% 2,168 135 2,303

Total 22,818.1 12,090 9,215 21,3052011 3,594.78 4% 121 3,147 3,2672012 6,845.09 24% 1,548 4,739 6,2872013 2,284.72 84% 1,825 338 2,1642014 1,324.74 46% 582 649 1,2312015 2,474.12 95% 2,237 119 2,3562016 3,687.35 85% 2,983 512 3,4942017 982.46 96% 898 38 936

Total 21,193.3 10,194 9,542 19,736

Notes:

1

2

3 The total CO2 emissions from each ear of constr ction d e to constr ction eq ipment sage and d e to ehicles sed for orker comm tes ere pro ided b CAJA

1. Scenario 1 represents a one-phase construction scenario (i.e., all buildings are constructed simultaneously). This is the Project construction scenario.2. Scenario 2 represents a two-phase construction scenario (i.e., one building is constructed first, then the second building is constructed); this is an alternative construction scenario.

Construction Phase

Table 4-36GHG Emissions from Construction Activities


Scenario1,2

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CAJA - Christopher A. Joseph & Associates HFC - hydrofluorocarbonCH4 - methane N2O - nitrous oxideCO2 - carbon dioxide tons - short tons (2,000 pounds)

CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent tonnes - metric tons (1,000 kilograms)GHG - Greenhouse Gas URBEMIS - Urban Emissions Model

3. The total CO2 emissions from each year of construction due to construction equipment usage and due to vehicles used for worker commutes were provided by CAJA in URBEMIS files. The emissions from these construction activities do not include emissions due to electricity and water usage (See Table 4-37) or demolition waste disposal (See Table 4-38).4. The percent CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles is based on information provided by CAJA in URBEMIS files. ENVIRON assumed that emissions from worker trips and vendor trips were from gasoline vehicles.

6. The contributions of CH4 and N2O to overall GHG emissions is likely small (< 1% of total CO2e) from diesel construction equipment. (California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.1. ENVIRON estimates)

5. The URBEMIS files provided by CAJA estimated CO2 emissions only. The CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles are calculated and then adjusted to account for other GHGs. The USEPA recommends assuming that CH4, N2O, and HFCs account for 5% of GHG emissions from on-road vehicles, taking into account their GWPs. (USEPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. February.)

E N V I R O N

Total CO2e Emissions(tonne CO2e)

ElectricityElectricity1

-- -- 0.00056 tonnes CO2/kW-hr 10,000,000 kW-hr 5,570

Electricity Total: 5,570

Water 1,2

Groundwater Supply and Conveyance (Potable)3,4949.85 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.53 tonnes CO2/acre-foot 6.75 acre-feet 4

State Water Project Supply and Conveyance (Potable)3,52580 kW-hr/acre-foot 1.44 tonnes CO2/acre-foot 15.02 acre-feet 22

Colorado River Aquaduct Supply and Conveyance (Potable)3,52000 kW-hr/acre-foot 1.11 tonnes CO2/acre-foot 10.14 acre-feet 11

Los Angeles Aquaduct Supply and Conveyance (Potable)3,50.00 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.00 tonnes CO2/acre-foot 29.46 acre-feet 0

36Water Treatment (Potable)6

463.36 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.26 tonnes CO2/acre-foot 61.38 acre-feet 16

16Water Distribution (Potable)7

391.02 kW-hr/acre-foot 0.22 tonnes CO2/acre-foot 61.38 acre-feet 13

13Water Total: 66

Construction Water and Electricity Total: 5,635

Notes:1. Source quantities for electricity and water used during the construction phase provided by Turner Construction Company in their proposal dated July 31, 2009.

UnitsSource

QuantityUnitsUnits

Emission Factor

Table 4-37GHG Emissions from Electricity and Water Usage During Construction


SourceEnergy

Requirements

2. Based on information provided by Thomas Properties Group, all water used during the construction phase is assumed to be potable and provided by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).




3. Water supply and conveyance is based on four different sources: groundwater, State Water Project, Colorado River Aquaduct, and Los Angeles Aqueduct. ENVIRON assumed that 11% is supplied from local groundwater; 41% is from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is supplied by the California Aqueduct (60%) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (40%); and 48% is from the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

Abbreviations:CEC - California Energy CommissionCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent

GHG - greenhouse gaskW-hr - kilowatt hour

Sources:



7. Emission factor for water distribution is based on a Navigant Consulting refinement of a CEC study from 2006 (see below) on the energy necessary to distribute 1 million gallons of treated water and the Southern California-specific electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This factor is applied to potable water demand.

California Energy Commission. 2005. California's Water-Energy Relationship . Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.California Energy Commission. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.

4. Emission factor for groundwater supply and conveyance is based on information provided in CEC 2005 for Chino Basin and the electricity generation emission factor from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This factor is applied to potable water demand.5. Emission factor for the State Water Project, Colorado River Aquaduct, and Los Angeles Aqueduct supply and conveyance are based on information provided by Wilkinson 2000 and the electricity generation emission factor from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The Los Angeles Aqueduct is a net energy producer; therefore, here it is conservatively assumed to produce no net GHG emissions.

E N V I R O N

Demolition Waste

Category1

Amount of Solid

Waste Disposed2

(tons)

CH4 Emission

Factor3

(ft3/ton waste)

CH4 Emissions

(ft3)

CH4 Emissions4

(tonne)

Volume Ratio of

CO2/CH4 in LFG5CO2 Emissions6

(tonne)

CO2e Emissions7

(tonne)

Concrete/mixed rubble 12,011 42,397,065 801 1,598 18,426Wood 7,206 25,438,239 481 959 11,056Drywall 3,603 12,719,120 240 480 5,528Asphalt Roofing 1,201 4,239,706 80 160 1,843Total 24,021 84,794,130 1,603 3,197 36,853

Notes:

Concrete/mixed rubble 50%Wood 30%Drywall 15%Asphalt Roofing 5%

GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal During ConstructionWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project


3,530 0.73

1. The exact types and amounts of each type of demolition waste are unknown. The types of demolition waste are assumed to be represented by the construction and demolition waste list on EPA's website. It was assumed that the types of waste generated by the demolition of the existing Wilshire Grand hotel would be represented by the four categories with the highest percentages:

Table 4-38

3. The methane emissions from a landfill depend on certain characteristics of the landfill in which the waste is disposed and is estimated based on a first order exponential decay equation. The methane emission factor listed is the methane generation potential and is used to estimate the maximum potential methane emissions from the landfill.

2. The estimated total amount of solid waste generated due to demolition of the existing hotel and construction of the Project (96,084 tons) was based on information provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates. Of the solid waste generated during demolition/construction, it is estimated that 75% of the debris will be taken to recycling facilities. It is assumed that there are no GHG emissions from recycling the debris.

4 The potential emissions are converted from cubic feet per year to tonnes per year by dividing by the molar volume of a gas at 68 deg F (385 ft3/lb-mol) multiplying

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CH4 - methane LFG - landfill gas

CO2 - carbon dioxide MSW - municipal solid waste

CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent ton - short ton (2,000 pounds)

ft3 - cubic feet tonne - metric ton (1,000 kilograms)GHG - greenhouse gas USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

Sources:

USEPA Construction and Demolition Materials: Basic Information. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/cd/basic.htmUSEPA AP-42 - Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition. Appendix A: Miscellaneous Data & Conversion Factors. September 1985

5. The volume ratio of CO2 to CH4 is based on the approximate composition of landfill gas (40% CO2 by volume and 55% CH4), as stated in USEPA AP-42, Section 2.4, p. 2.4-4, at steady state conditions.

6. The carbon dioxide emissions are estimated assuming the volume of carbon dioxide generated by the solid waste is equal to the volume ratio of CO2 to CH4 times the volume of methane generated by the solid waste.


7. The CO2e potential emissions equal the sum of the CO2 emissions and the CH4 emissions multiplied by methane's global warming potential.

4. The potential emissions are converted from cubic feet per year to tonnes per year by dividing by the molar volume of a gas at 68 deg F (385 ft3/lb-mol), multiplying by the molecular weight of the gas, and converting to tonnes.

E N V I R O N

Total GHG Emissions(tonnes CO2e)

Construction1 21,305

Sub-total Construction (worker, hauling, equipment usage) 21,305

Electricity Usage 5,570Water Usage 66Solid Waste Disposal 36,853

Sub-total Construction (utilities, water, waste)42,488

Total All Construction 63,793

Note:1. The construction emissions are the based on the URBEMIS files provided by CAJA for the one-phase construction scenario (Project scenario). The construction emissions were due to activities such as on-road and off-road equipment usage, vendor trips, and worker commutes.

Table 4-39Overall Construction GHG Emissions


Activity


Abbreviations:CAJA - Christopher A. Joseph & AssociatesCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent

GHG - Greenhouse Gastonnes - metric tons (1,000 kilograms)URBEMIS - Urban Emissions Model

vendor trips, and worker commutes.

E N V I R O N



4.4 Variations of the Emissions Inventory

4.4.1 Land Use Equivalency Program As described in Section II (Project Description) the Project would include a Land Use Equivalency Program to maintain flexibility of Project uses and floor areas in order for the Project to respond to the changing needs of the Southern California economy. The Land Use Equivalency Program is designed to direct how development will occur on the Project Site and allow for flexibility so that land uses could be exchanged for other permitted land uses such that no additional significant environmental impacts would result from any exchange that is consistent with the Land Use Equivalency Program.

The comparison between the Project and the CARB 2020 NAT scenario was qualitatively evaluated for the Land Use Equivalency Program. The differences between the Project inventory and the CARB 2020 NAT scenario would reflect the changes in building energy due to the exchanges in the Equivalency Program. The traffic mitigation features of the Project would not change and the Project’s energy efficiency commitments for the built environment would be implemented under any of these scenarios, exceeding 2005 Title 24 by 15 percent. The regulatory programs (Pavley and RPS) would also still apply to these Land Use Equivalency scenarios. Since the primary project design features and regulatory programs that help reduce the Project emissions compared to the CARB 2020 NAT scenario would not change, it is expected that each Land Use Equivalency scenario emission inventory would show similar reductions compared to its corresponding CARB 2020 NAT scenario as that estimated for the Project Design Flexibility Program.

4.4.2 Design Flexibility Program The design of the Project as a conceptual plan allows for flexibility in the finalized building design within a determined set of parameters. Given the project commitments that have been incorporated into the GHG emissions inventory, changes to the design parameters listed in the Design Flexibility Program are not expected to meaningfully change the GHG emissions inventory included in this report. Therefore, it is expected that the GHG emissions inventory under the Design Flexibility Program would show similar reductions compared to its corresponding CARB 2020 NAT scenario as that estimated for the Project.

4.4.3 Building Configuration A conceptual site plan has been provided for the proposed Project, but the precise location of the buildings on-site has not been determined. The GHG emissions quantified in this inventory (including operational and construction emissions) are not dependent on building configuration or orientation. For example, no credit was taken for solar orientation in the analysis of building energy use. Consequently, the GHG emissions inventory would not change if the configuration of the buildings changed.

4.5 Emissions Inventory - Sources Not Quantified Several emissions sources were not quantified in this inventory, due to their estimated relatively small129

129 Typically less than 1 percent of the overall inventory based upon previous studies.

contribution to GHG emissions. These sources include emissions from recreational



sources and refrigeration leaks which are described in more detail below.130

4.5.1 Vegetation Change

Emissions from these sources are expected to be de minimis.

This section discusses positive and negative GHG emissions associated with vegetation removal and re-vegetation. The permanent removal of existing vegetation can contribute to net GHG increases by reducing existing carbon sequestration capacity.131 Areas that are temporarily disturbed but re-vegetated with the same vegetation type are assumed to have no net impact. Following completion of a project, some areas may become re-vegetated with trees, shrubs and other vegetation. These areas could potentially sequester more CO2 from the atmosphere than was sequestered in pre-development. The difference between the total pre-development sequestered CO2 and the post-redevelopment sequestered CO2 is the one-time CO2 released from clearing the vegetation less the CO2 sequestered by new plantings.132

In the case of the proposed Project, there will be no significant permanent changes in the extent of vegetation on the post-redevelopment proposed Project site relative to the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel. While the proposed Project will involve planting of vegetation, the area of the proposed Project and amount of revegetation is such that changes in emissions are assumed to be negligible. Consequently, no emissions from vegetation change were included in the inventory.

The overall CO2 emissions due to vegetation change result from two processes: 1) the change in the amount of CO2 sequestered by vegetation, which would lead to a one-time GHG release, and 2) the amount that can be expected to be sequestered by new plantings.

4.5.2 Refrigeration Leaks Emissions associated with leaks of high global warming potential gases such as from refrigeration leaks were not quantified. At the entitlement stage of development, the degree of uncertainty in the potential facilities with sources that may have refrigeration leaks make a meaningful quantification of GHG emissions difficult. In addition, since refrigeration systems will be new, they are likely efficient and should be designed to reduce the amount of leaks of high global warming potential gases. As a result of this uncertainty, ENVIRON did not quantify these emissions at this time.

130 Black carbon was also not considered. Major sources of black carbon emissions are not present at the proposed

Project. 131 In this section, it is assumed that all mature land-types (at least 20 years old) are at steady-state. See The World

Resource Institute (WRI) “Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry Guidance for GHG proposed Project Accounting” protocol available online at: www.ghgprotocol.org/files/lulucf-final.pdf (accessed May 2010).

132 In this section we assume that mature ecosystems do not have a net influx or outflux of carbon.

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/lulucf-final.pdf�


Project Design Features 90

5 Project Design Features The proposed Project incorporates many design features to reduce GHG emissions. This section describes the design features that were incorporated into this analysis either directly or indirectly. This section also lists those features that were not quantified in this analysis, but would likely yield further GHG emissions reductions.

5.1 Project Design Features whose Emissions Reductions were Incorporated into the Analysis

5.1.1 Reductions in Emissions from Mobile Sources133

• Flexible work schedules and telecommuting programs

• Alternative work schedules • Pedestrian-friendly environment • Bicycle amenities (bicycle racks, lockers, showers etc.) • Rideshare/carpool/vanpool promotion and support • Mixed-use development • Education and information on alternative transportation modes • Transportation Information Center (TIC) • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program • Transportation Management Coordination Program • Discounted transit passes for eligible employees/residents

5.1.2 Energy Savings • Homes and businesses will use 2008 standards for Title 24 Part 6 energy efficiency

standards or exceed the 2005 Standards for Title 24 Part 6 energy efficiency standards by at least 15 percent, whichever is more stringent.

• The proposed Project will use at least 20 percent green power. The 20 percent usage will be achieved through a combination of LADWP’s Renewables Portfolio Standard commitment and the proposed Project’s participation in LADWP’s Green Power Program.

• Appliances for residential units would be Energy Star rated.

5.1.3 Water conservation • The proposed Project will incorporate low flow water fixtures, such as toilets, urinals,

faucets, and showerheads, as well as high efficiency appliances, such as dishwashers thereby reducing water consumption and water heating fuel (natural gas).

5.1.4 Area Sources • Wood-burning fireplaces are prohibited.

133 Design features are based on the proposed Project Transportation Demand Management Program



5.2 Project Design Features whose Emissions Reductions were not Incorporated into the Analysis but would yield further GHG emissions savings

There are number of design features that may be included that will result in the reduction of GHG emissions from the proposed Project. These cannot be quantified, but they are listed in this section. In the case of the built environment, a combination of some of these project design features, while not individually quantified, may be incorporated to meet the 15 percent reduction over 2005 Title 24 or 2008 Title 24 to which the proposed Project has committed.

5.2.1 LEED Certification The Project is pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification from the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) for its efforts toward an energy efficient, sustainable, and environmentally-friendly design. The Project would be designed to meet, at a minimum, a certification level of Silver. This Project commitment is also expected to meet the mandatory requirements and various voluntary requirements of the 2008 California Green Building Standards. In addition to the Project’s favorable building orientation, sustainable design features not already described above may include:

• Roof- or building-mounted photovoltaic panels; • Building-integrated photovoltaics; • Daylighting of work areas; • Operable windows and fresh air circulation; • Dual piping to enable the use of recycled water; • Recycling during demolition and construction; and, • On-site power generation in the form of a co-generation plant.

These features, if implemented, would help to reduce GHG emissions from the Project lower than that estimated in this report. Several features will help reduce the electricity demand, in turn reducing indirect GHG emissions from the Project, including favorable building orientation, daylighting, operable windows and fresh air circulation, the use of dual piping, and co-generation. Favorable building orientation helps to reduce the demand for artificial lighting, heating, and cooling. Daylighting of work areas further reduces the demand for artificial lighting. Operable windows and fresh air circulation reduce the demand for conditioning by allowing occupants to use unconditioned outside air when appropriate. The use of dual piping means that potable water can be substituted with recycled water where appropriate, such as in landscaping, reducing the demand for water treatment. Finally, an on-site co-generation plant provides heat as a co-benefit of electricity generation, reducing the need for artificial space and/or water heating, both of which would require energy inputs. All of the above reductions in energy demand in turn reduce indirect GHG emissions.

Photovoltaic panels represent a renewable source of electricity, replacing largely non-renewable grid-source electricity, which would lead to GHG emissions through fossil fuel combustion. Further, generating electricity on-site in this manner minimizes transmission and distribution losses, reducing the overall electricity demand.

Other features help reduce GHG emissions in other ways. Recycling during demolition and construction helps reduce GHG emissions by eliminating the energy demands associated with mining and manufacturing virgin materials.



5.2.2 Energy Use in the Built Environment • Installing energy efficient heating and cooling systems, equipment, and control systems • Installing Energy Monitoring Dashboards to provide real-time and historical feedback to

residents on their homes’ energy consumption (Applicable to residential condo units) • The proposed Project may incorporate on-site generation. Potential options include co-

generation, absorption cooling, fuel cells, geothermal, wind turbines, and thermal energy storage

• Installing efficient lighting and lighting control systems • Installing light colored 'cool' roofs 134

• Providing education on energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste recycling services

• Installing Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning, refrigeration, and fire suppression equipment that do not contain CFCs

• For mechanically or naturally ventilated spaces in the building, meet the minimum requirements of Section 121 of the California Energy Code or the applicable local code, whichever is more stringent

• MERV 6 or higher filters are installed on central air and heating systems • Installing energy-efficient pumps and motors for wastewater/stormwater conveyance,

firewater, domestic water, pools and spas.

5.2.3 Reductions in Emissions from Mobile Sources • Connections to mass transit facilitate and promote alternative transportation.

5.2.4 Solid Waste • The proposed Project sets a solid waste diversion target of 65 percent for operational

waste. • The proposed Project will also establish a construction waste diversion program to divert

up to 75 percent of construction related waste.135

• Recycling centers will be provided in readily accessible areas within buildings for depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials.

• All structures constructed or uses established within any part of the Project shall be designed to permanently be equipped with clearly marked, durable, source-sorted recycling bins at all times to facilitate the separation and deposit of recyclable materials.

• Primary collection bins shall be designed to facilitate mechanized collection of such recyclable waste for transport to on-or-off site recycling facilities.

134 Cool roof technology can reduce urban heat island impacts. Specific features may include high SRI roof materials

(roofs sloped at 2:12 will have an SRI of at least 78 and roofs sloped greater than 2:12 will have an SRI of at least 29) and cool roof coverings and coatings. Although these features are recognized by the Climate Action Team, they are difficult to quantify at the level of specification available for the proposed Project. Consequently, the proposed Project does not take credit for these PDFs when calculating the proposed Project’s break from CARB 2020 NAT. This may contribute to an underestimation of the net reduction from CARB 2020 NAT.

135 The estimated waste diversion rate for demolition waste was provided by Turner Construction Company in their proposal dated July 31, 2009, p. 71.


Summary of Emissions 93

6 Summary of Emissions The emissions and relative magnitude of emissions from the various aspects of the proposed Project when AB 1493 (Pavley) is taken into account are presented in Table 6-1. One-time construction emissions are estimated to be 63,793 tonnes CO2e. Emissions from mobile sources are estimated to be 14,399 tonnes CO2e per year, or 32 percent of the annual proposed Project emissions. Emissions from residential buildings of 216 tonnes CO2e per year comprise less than 1 percent of the annual proposed Project emissions. Emissions from commercial buildings of 17,629 tonnes CO2e per year comprise 39 percent of the annual proposed Project emissions. Emissions from infrastructure systems (water distribution and public lighting) are estimated to be 17 percent of the annual proposed Project emissions. Emissions from area sources (fireplaces and lawn maintenance) are estimated to be 3 tonnes, or less than 1 percent of the annual proposed Project emissions. Emissions from the helistop are estimated to be 162 tonnes, or less than 1 percent of the annual proposed Project emissions. If the construction emissions are annualized assuming a 40-year development life, the annual emissions are 47,000 tonnes per year. Although some measures that are being implemented as a part of AB 32, such as the new fuel efficiency standards, are incorporated into the calculations, other measures that have yet to be implemented are not included. Accordingly, actual emissions are likely to be lower as more measures to implement AB 32 are enacted.

6.1 CEQA Baseline Emissions As discussed in section 4.1, the emissions from the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre (“Existing Hotel”) represent the baseline emissions. Emissions from the Existing Hotel were estimated from commercial sources, mobile sources, solid waste disposal, area sources, and infrastructure system. The Existing Hotel does not have residential dwellings. Emissions associated with commercial energy use in the Existing Hotel were calculated based on electricity use from 2006 through 2009. The annual CO2e emissions associated with commercial energy use in existing buildings are estimated to be 13,342 tonnes CO2e per year. Emissions associated with mobile sources were calculated based on trip generation rates and trip lengths provided to ENVIRON by Gibson Transportation Engineering. The annual CO2e emissions due to mobile sources associated with the existing buildings are estimated to be 15,567 tonnes CO2e per year. Emissions due to water supply, conveyance, and treatment were also estimated for the Existing Hotel. Existing water demand was based on information provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010). The annual emissions from infrastructure sources (water treatment and distribution, wastewater treatment, and public lighting) are approximately 749 tonnes CO2e per year. Emissions from solid waste disposal were based on estimates of the amount of solid waste generated by the Existing Hotel.136 The annual emissions from solid waste disposal are approximately 2,369 tonnes CO2e per year. The annual emissions from area sources (i.e., landscaping emissions) are approximately 2 tonnes CO2e per year.137

136 As indicated in Section IV.J.3 of the EIR.

The total annual emissions for the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre were estimated to be 32,029 tonnes of CO2e per year. These results are summarized in Table 6-2.

137 URBEMIS output files provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates on 1/7/2010.

Percentage of Annual

CO2e Emissions8

(%)

Construction (utilities, water, waste)1 42,488 NAConstruction (worker, hauling,

equipment)1 21,305 NA

Total (one time emissions) 63,793 NA

Residential2 216 0%Commercial3 17,629 39%Mobile4 14,399 32%Infrastructure5 7,883 17%Area 3 0%Solid Waste6 5,114 11%Helicopter7 162 0%Total (annual emissions) 45,405 NA

Annualized Construction Emissions9 tonnes CO2e / year 1,595 NA

Annualized Total, Project10 tonnes CO2e / year 47,000 NA

Less Emissions from Existing Hotel at

202011 tonnes CO2e / year -28,878 NA

Net Project Total12 tonnes CO2e / year 18,122 NA

Notes:

tonnes CO2e total

tonnes CO2e / year

1. Construction emissions are one-time emissions reported in total metric tonnes during the construction period 2011-2015. Emissions for worker commute, truck hauling trips, and equipment usage were provided in URBEMIS files by CAJA. Sources of emissions include electricity usage, water usage, and demolition waste disposal, and construction equipment and vehicles associated with worker commuting and vendor trips.

Summary of Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectTable 6-1


Source GHG Emissions


Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CAJA - Christopher A. Joseph & AssociatesCH4 - methane GHG - Greenhouse Gas


CO2e - carbon dioxide

g p

2. Residential emissions for apartment dwelling units include emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use. Emissions estimates were developed from the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) database. As specified in the report "Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Initial Study", a total of 100 dwelling units are considered.

9. One-time emissions (construction) are "annualized" in this row. This is done by dividing by an annualization factor, 40 years, effectively converting the one-time emissions into an annual emission rate. One-time emissions are not annualized in their respective rows above.

5. Infrastructure emissions account for emissions due to energy production associated with water supply and public/street lighting. Energy use estimates for water supply are based primarily on CEC's 2005 "California's Water-Energy Relationship" report. Emissions from street lighting were based upon studies of other cities.

8. Percentages only apply to annual CO2e emissions; annual and one-time CO2e emissions cannot be directly compared.

4. Mobile source emissions were calculated using EMFAC emission factors and information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. Mobile source emissions account for residential and non-residential trips. CO2 emissions were scaled to reflect CO2e emissions based on data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

3. Commercial emissions for grocery, misc. retail/commercial/office, hotel, public safety, and institutional buildings account for electricity and natural gas use. Emissions estimates for non-residential buildings were developed from the 2006 Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) database, published by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

7. Estimated helicopter emissions were provided by Heliport Consultants. Emissions related to the helipad are due to the combustion of fuel by the helicopter engines, and are determined by the number of helicopter flights, distances traveled and types of engines used.

12. The net project total is equal to the annualized total project emissions minus the emissions due to the replacement of the existing hotel.

6. Solid waste emissions account for emissions due to the degradation of solid waste in landfills.

10. The annualized total project emissions are calculated as the sum of the total annual emissions and the annualized construction emissions.

URBEMIS - Urban Emissions Model

EMFAC - Emission Factors Database

11. The emissions reduction due to the replacement of the existing hotel at 2020 is equal to the total emissions due to the operation of the existing hotel, if the existing hotel continued to operate in 2020.

E N V I R O N

GHG Emissions(tonnes CO2e / year)

Existing Hotel1

(2009)Residential2 0

Commercial3 13,342

Mobile4 15,567

Infrastructure5 749

Area6 2

Solid Waste7 2,369

Helicopter8 0Total (annual emissions) 32,029

Notes:


CEQA Baseline Emissions Summary for the Existing Wilshire Grand Hotel

Table 6-2

Source


1. Existing hotel emissions are based on energy use and metering data provided by Thomas Properties Group

Abbreviations:NA - not applicable

4. Existing mobile emissions is based on the trips due to the land uses in the existing hotel and no traffic mitigation measures.

6. The existing emissions from area sources were provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates in URBEMIS output files.7. Existing solid waste emissions are based on the solid waste generated in the existing hotel.8. The existing hotel does not include a helistop, so no emissions are included for this category.

5. Infrastructure emissions included here are related to water treatment, waste water treatment, and street lighting. This is a very conservative estimate since appropriate emission factors to adjust wastewater direct emissions are unavailable.

3. Existing commercial emissions reflect typical annual usage calculated using metering data from year 2008.

provided by Thomas Properties Group.2. The existing hotel does not contain any residential units.

E N V I R O N



6.2 Net Proposed Project Emissions The net increase in emissions due to the proposed Project is equal to the proposed Project inventory minus the estimated emissions for the “No Project Alternative” (existing hotel operating in 2020). The emissions inventory for the “No Project Alternative” is discussed in Section 10.1. The net increase, accounting for the removal of GHG emissions due to the replacement of the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel is presented in Table 6-3. The absence of the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel is estimated to result in the removal of approximately 28,878 tonnes per year, which is estimated from the electricity, natural gas usage, water usage, wastewater treatment, solid waste, area sources, and associated mobile sources. The proposed Project has an estimated total of 47,000 tonnes per year. Therefore, the net increase in emissions is 18,122 tonnes per year.

6.3 CARB 2020 No Action Taken Emissions In order to demonstrate an improvement heading towards meeting the reduction goals set for 2020, we compare the GHG emission inventory expected for the proposed Project to the GHG emissions that would occur from a community that would be built today without the project design features and energy reduction commitments made by the proposed Project Applicant and without the regulations that have been promulgated to comply with AB 32 (i.e., the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario). The CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario represents the GHG emission inventory if projects continued to be built according to current standards, and was the scenario that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) used to estimate the required 28.5 percent reduction in emissions.

The major categories of the GHG emission inventory were considered separately, as described in Section 4. These categories include residential (see Section 4.2.2.6) and commercial buildings (see Section 4.2.3.3), mobile sources (see Section 4.2.4.3), public lighting and building mounted signs (see Section 4.2.1.7 and Section 4.2.1.9, respectively), and water sources (see Section 4.2.1.5). The remaining categories include solid waste and area sources. ENVIRON conservatively assumed that emissions from area sources and solid waste were not reduced compared to the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario.

The proposed Project is consistent with the AB 32 goals. The emission savings combined for the proposed Project represent a 31.2 percent reduction from a CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario taking into consideration the proposed Project’s sustainability features and changes in emission factors due to implementation of the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard for 20 percent renewables and the Pavley regulation mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles (see Table 6-4). The proposed Project would be 21.1 percent better than CARB 2020 No Action Taken due solely to the proposed Project’s own sustainability features and commitments that lead to reductions in energy usage and trips generated as shown in Table 6-5.

Net Project GHG

Emissions1

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project (15% over 2005 Title 24)


(2008 Title 24)

Existing Hotel(2020)

(tonnes CO2e / year)

Construction 63,793 63,793 NA 63,793Total (one-time emissions) 63,793 63,793 NA 63,793

Annualized Construction Emissions21,595 1,595 NA 1,595

Residential3 216 219 0 216

Commercial4 17,629 18,285 11,942 5,687

Mobile5 14,399 14,399 13,878 521

Infrastructure6 7,883 7,883 687 7,196

Area7 3 3 2 1

Solid Waste8 5,114 5,114 2,369 2,745

Helicopter9 162 162 0 162Total (annual emissions) 45,405 46,065 28,878 16,527

Annualized Total1047,000 47,660 28,878 18,122

Notes:

GHG Emissions Increase for Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectTable 6-3

Source



1. The net project GHG emissions are calculated as the difference between the GHG emissions due to the Project and the emissions due to the existing hotel, if the existing hotel continued to operate in 2020. A positive number indicates that the emissions will increase relative to the existing hotel, and a



GHG - greenhouse gasNA - not applicableURBEMIS - URBan EMISsions modeling software

7. The existing emissions from area sources were provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates in URBEMIS output files.8. Existing solid waste emissions are based on the solid waste generated in the existing hotel.

6. Infrastructure emissions included here are related to water treatment, waste water treatment, and street lighting. The emissions for the existing hotel are based on metering data from year 2008. This is a very conservative estimate since appropriate emission factors to adjust wastewater direct emissions are unavailable.

4. Existing commercial emissions reflect typical annual usage calculated using metering data from years 2006-2009.

hotel, if the existing hotel continued to operate in 2020. A positive number indicates that the emissions will increase relative to the existing hotel, and a negative number indicates that the emissions will decrease relative to the existing hotel.

10. One-time emissions for construction are annualized over 40 years and then added to the total annual emissions.9. The existing hotel does not include a helistop, so no emissions are included for this category.

5. Existing mobile emissions are based on the trips due to the land uses in the existing hotel and no traffic mitigation measures.

3. The existing hotel does not contain any residential units.

2. One-time emissions (construction) are "annualized" in this row. This is done by dividing by an annualization factor, 40 years, effectively converting the one-time emissions into an annual emission rate. One-time emissions are not annualized in their respective rows above.

E N V I R O N

Percentage Improvement

over CARB 2020 NAT 1

CARB 2020 NATWilshire Grand

Redevelopment Project (15% over 2005 Title 24)


(2008 Title 24)(%)

Construction 63,793 63,793 63,793 0%Total (one-time emissions) 63,793 63,793 63,793 0%

Residential2 281 216 219 23%

Commercial3 21,854 17,629 18,285 19%

Mobile4 30,095 14,399 14,399 52%

Infrastructure5 9,202 7,883 7,883 14%

Area6 3 3 3 0%

Solid Waste6 5,114 5,114 5,114 0%

Helicopter6 162 162 162 0%Total (annual emissions) 66,710 45,405 46,065 31.9%

Annualized Total7 68,305 47,000 47,660 31.2%

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of NAT to Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project

Table 6-4

Source



Notes:


GHG - greenhouse gasNAT - no action taken

5. CARB 2020 NAT infrastructure emissions reflect the proposed water, wastewater, and public lighting usage, without reductions due to additional water conservation measures or energy efficient lighting.

3. CARB 2020 NAT commercial emissions reflect minimally 2005 Title-24 compliant buildings with no renewable credits.

1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.2. CARB 2020 NAT residential emissions reflect minimally 2005 Title-24 compliant homes without Energy Star appliances.

7. One-time emissions are annualized over 40 years and then added to the total annual emissions.

4. CARB 2020 NAT mobile emissions are based on a comparison of trip rates adjusted for a less densely populated area of Los Angeles and no traffic mitigation measures.

6. CARB 2020 NAT area, solid waste, and helicopter emissions are assumed to be equal to the project emissions (i.e., the project does not incorporate project design features that reduce the emissions from these categories).

E N V I R O N

Percentage Improvement over CARB 2020 NAT

CARB 2020 NATWilshire Grand Redevelopment

Project(%)

Construction 63,793 63,793 0%Total (one-time emissions) 63,793 63,793 0%

Residential2 281 244 13%

Commercial3 21,854 20,606 6%

Mobile4 30,095 16,955 44%

Infrastructure5 9,202 9,199 0%

Area6 3 3 0%

Solid Waste6 5,114 5,114 0%

Helicopter6 162 162 0%Total (annual emissions) 66,710 52,283 21.6%

Annualized Total7 68,305 53,878 21.1%

Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of NAT to Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project, without Regulatory Reductions

Table 6-5

Source

GHG Emissions1

(tonnes CO2e / year)



GHG - greenhouse gasNAT - no action takenRPS - Renewables Portfolio Standard

1. The GHG emissions for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project are the emissions due to the Project, without reductions due to regulatory requirements such as RPS and the Pavley Standard.2. CARB 2020 NAT residential emissions reflect minimally 2005 Title-24 compliant homes without Energy Star appliances.



6. CARB 2020 NAT area, solid waste, and helicopter emissions are assumed to be equal to the project emissions (i.e., the project does not incorporate project design features that reduce the emissions from these categories).



E N V I R O N



6.4 Inventory in Context

6.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Inventory in Context This section is intended to place the GHG emissions from the proposed Project in context with respect to intensity, consistency with AB 32 goals, and magnitude. In addition, the emissions from the proposed Project at build-out are compared to California and global GHG emissions in order to put the proposed Project emissions in a global context.

6.4.2 Comparison with AB 32-mandated Emissions Limits As noted earlier, AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emission in 2020 be equal to 1990 levels. California-wide GHG emissions in 1990 were 0.427 billion tonnes.138 It is projected that emissions in 2020 under a No Action Taken (CARB 2020 No Action Taken) Scenario accounting for growth will be 0.596 billion tonnes139. This means that it would require a 28.5 percent decrease in emissions from CARB 2020 No Action Taken by 2020 to achieve AB 32 goals. The population in California is projected to be 44,000,000 in 2020.140

6.4.3 Comparison with State, Global, and Worldwide GHG Emissions

In order to achieve AB 32 mandated goals, the per capita emissions would have to be 10.1 tonnes CO2e. The California per capita CO2 emissions includes industries such as heavy industry, refining, and transportation of materials. AB 32 will be reducing emissions in a variety of different ways, including increasing energy efficiency and introducing more renewable energy sources. It is difficult to compare the proposed Project per capita emissions to the AB 32 goals as it is not clear what fraction of the reduction will be achieved in which sectors, or the apportionment of reduction between energy efficiency and renewable resources. In addition, since the proposed Project has a small number of residents, allocating the proposed Project emissions from all land uses within the proposed development to the residents does not accurately reflect each person’s contribution to the state greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, a per capita estimate of proposed Project emissions was not generated.

The emissions from the proposed Project at build-out are compared to California and global GHG emissions to put the emissions from the proposed Project in context. The proposed Project’s annual emissions are approximately 45,405 metric tonnes CO2e per year, and 63,793 tonnes of one-time construction emissions. If the construction emissions are annualized by a development lifetime of 40 years (1,595 tonnes CO2e per year), the overall yearly emissions are approximately 47,000 tonnes CO2e per year.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2e per year.141 In 2004, the US emitted about 7 billion tonnes of CO2e.142 Over 80 percent of the GHG emissions in the US are comprised of CO2 emissions from energy related fossil fuel combustion. In 2004, California emitted 0.480 billion tonnes of CO2

138

e, or about 7 percent of the US emissions.

www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm (accessed May 2010) . California Air Resources Board. 139 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm#summary_forescast (accessed May 2010). 140 Climate Change Scoping Plan (AB 32 Scoping Plan), Appendix C, 2008. California Air Resources Board.

p. C-91. 141 Sum of Annex I and Annex II countries without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)

unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php (accessed May 2010). For countries that 2004 data was unavailable, the most recent year was used.

142 2006 Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Available online at: epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf (accessed May 2010).

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm�

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm#summary_forescast�





45,405 tonnes of CO2

e per year from the proposed Project would be approximately 0.00017 percent of the world wide emissions, 0.00065 percent of the United State’s emissions, or 0.0095 percent of California’s annual GHG emissions.


Life Cycle Emissions of Building Materials 102

7 Life Cycle Emissions of Building Materials An estimate of “life-cycle” GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions from the processes used to manufacture and transport materials used in the buildings and infrastructure) is presented in this section. This estimate is to be used for comparison purposes only and is not included in the final inventory. Recognizing the uncertainties associated with a life-cycle analysis, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) released a white paper which states: “The full life-cycle of GHG emissions from construction activities is not accounted for in the modeling tools available, and the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level.”143 Furthermore, for a life-cycle analysis for building materials, somewhat arbitrary boundaries must be drawn to define the processes considered in the life-cycle analysis.144

The calculations and results discussed here (see Tables 7-1 through 7-6) are estimates and should be used only for a general comparison to the overall GHG emissions estimated in this Climate Change Technical Report. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emissions vary based on input assumptions and assessment boundaries (e.g., how far back to trace the origin of a material). Assumptions made in this report are generally conservative. However, due to the open-ended nature of life cycle assessments, the analysis is highly uncertain. Additionally, these estimates likely double count emissions from other industry sectors.

Tables 7-1 through 7-6 summarize the evaluation of the life cycle GHG emissions associated with the building materials for this proposed Project. The evaluation estimated the life cycle GHG emissions for buildings based on available literature for building Life Cycle Assessments. According to these studies, approximately 75 - 97 percent of GHG emissions from buildings are associated with energy usage during the operational phase; the other 3 – 25 percent of the GHG emissions are due to material manufacture and transport. Using the GHG emissions from the operation of buildings, 3 to 25 percent of building emissions corresponds to approximately 1.2 - 13 percent of the proposed Project emissions.

The evaluation also calculated the life cycle GHG emissions for certain components of infrastructure (roads, storm drains, utilities, gas, electricity, and cable). This analysis only considered the manufacture and transport of concrete, asphalt, and steel. The majority of the emissions result from the manufacture of these materials in part because the steel, asphalt, and concrete are provided locally and thus the transportation emissions are relatively small. If a 40 year lifespan of the infrastructure is assumed, the total annualized emissions from embodied energy in infrastructure materials are approximately 2.9 percent of the proposed Project emissions.

The overall life cycle emissions, annualized by 40 years, are 1,848 – 7,245 tonnes CO2 / year, or 4.1 – 16 percent of the annualized GHG emissions from the proposed Project. The bulk of 143 CAPCOA. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

proposed Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Available online at: www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf (accessed May 2010).

144 For instance, in the case of building materials, the boundary could include the energy to make the materials, the energy used to make the machine that made the materials, and the energy used to make the machine that made the machine that made the materials.

http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf�



Life Cycle Emissions of Building Materials 103

these emissions (1.2 - 13 percent) are from general life cycle analysis studies and do not reflect specific information from the proposed Project.

3% 25%

17,844 552 5,948

Notes:


GHG = greenhouse gasLCA = life cycle analysis

Sources:

Table 7-1


2. Represents CO2 emissions from electricity and natural gas use. From the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Climate Change Report.

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions From Materials1 Used for Buildings as a Percentage of Total Building Emissions

3. Percentages are based upon LCA studies below. The studies compared energy used in the manufacture and transport of materials to energy use from electricity and natural gas. Varying lifetimes of homes were assumed in each study. As homes become more energy efficient, the portion of GHGs from embodied energy increases.

1. All materials were analyzed. See references below for more details.

GHG Emissions from Energy Usage Associated with Residential and Non-

Residential Buildings2

Embodied Energy as Percentage of Overall Energy3

(tonnes CO2 / year)


Sources:

Adalberth, K., A. Almgren, and E.H. Petersen. (2001) Life Cycle Assessment of Four Multi-Family Buildings. International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings , 2.

Winther, B.N. and A.G. Hestnes. (1999) Solar versus green: The analysis of a Norwegian row house. Solar Energy , 66(6): p. 387.

Sartori, I. and A.G. Hestnes. (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy and Buildings , 39(3): p. 249.

Keoleian, G.A., S. Blanchard, and P. Reppe. (2000) Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies for improving a single-family house. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 4(2): p. 135.

Scheuer, C., G.A. Keoleian, and P. Reppe. (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications. Energy and Buildings , 35(10): p. 1049.

E N V I R O N

Calcining Emissions4 Fossil Fuel Emissions5

EIA1 0.5 -

0.5 -

Battelle3

Notes:1. From the Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. Calculations are detailed in the Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004, pg 35 - 38.

2. From AP-42 section 11.6: Portland Cement Manufacturing. Approximately 500 kg of CO2 are released per Mg of cement produced during the calcining process; total manufacturing emissions depend on energy consumption (pg 11.6-6). Table 11.6-8 specifies 2,100 lbs CO2

per ton of clinker produced (ENVIRON used the higher value instead of 1,800 lbs / ton to be conservative). Clinker is a precursor to cement. Using a clinker factor of 0.88 lb clinker/lb cement (from the Battelle report) yields an emission factor of 0.92 tonnes CO2/tonne cement.

0.99

EPA AP-422 0.75 - 1.190.92


Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Factors for the Manufacture of CementTable 7-2

Data Source(tonnes CO2/tonne cement)


3. From Table 2-3 of the Battelle report. The North American average emission factor is 0.99 kg CO2/kg cement; the global average is 0.87 kg CO2/kg cement.

4. There are two main sources of CO2 emissions from the manufacture of cement: the calcining process and fossil fuel combustion. Calcining emissions result from the chemical reaction of converting limestone (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). CaO is a

Abbreviations:AP-42 = Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission FactorsCO2 = carbon dioxide

EIA = Energy Information AdministrationEPA = Environmental Protection Agencykg = kilogramMg = megagram = 1,000 kgNA = not available

Sources:

precursor to concrete and CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

5. Fossil fuel combustion usually provides the energy necessary to manufacture cement. The emissions from the fossil fuel combustion vary depending on the type of fuel used; in general the combustion accounts for slightly less than half of the CO2 emissions from the manufacture of cement.

Battelle. Humphreys, K. and Mahasenan, M. Climate Change: Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry. March 2002.

EPA AP42 Section 11.6: Portland Cement Manufacturing. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s06.pdf

EIA Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. August 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/csia/special_topics.html

E N V I R O N

Projected Material

Needed1 Density2 Total Weight3

(cu ft) (lb/cu ft) (tonnes)New 4,050,000 148 272,155

Total 4,050,000 --- 272,155150,000

Projected Material


(cu ft) (lb/cu ft) (tonnes)New 36,000 144 2,359

Total 36,000 --- 2,3591,333

Projected Material



Total 72,000 --- 4,4092,667

Projected Material


(cu ft) (lb/cu ft) (tonnes)

Total Asphalt (cu yd)

Total Aggregate Base (cu yd)

AGGREGATE BASE

Table 7-3Quantities of Infrastructure Materials


CONCRETE


Total Concrete (cu yd)ASPHALT

STEEL


Total 47,757 --- 10,8861,769

Notes:

Abbreviations:cu ft = cubic footcu yd = cubic yardft = footlb = pound

5. Total material weight of asphalt, aggregate base, and steel provided by Thomas Properties Group.

4. Density of asphalt and aggregate base calculated using the volume and weight of material provided by Thomas Properties Group.

Total Steel (cu yd)

7. Density of steel conservatively assumed to be 8.05 grams per cubic centimeter.6. Volume of steel calculated using the weight and density of steel.

2. Conversion factors and density of concrete provided by AP-42 Appendix A.

3. Total material quantities (tonnes) for concrete is calculated by converting cubic feet of material into mass in tonnes using the material density and the conversion factor of 0.00045 tonnes/lb.

1. Volume of concrete, asphalt, and aggregate base provided by Thomas Properties Group.

E N V I R O N

Emission FactorVolume of Material

Mass of Material

Emissions from

Manufacture of Material5

(tonnes CO2/tonne material) (cu yd) (tonnes) (tonnes CO2)

Cement1 0.99 22,500 25,515 25,259

Asphalt2 0.02 1,333 2,359 41

Aggregate Base3 0.26 2,667 4,409 1,153

Steel4 2.3 1,769 10,886 25,038TOTAL 51,492

Notes:

Table 7-4

1. Concrete is composed of cement, water, aggregate, and chemical admixtures; concrete mixtures are approximately 15% cement by volume (Portland Cement Association). Cement accounts for almost all of the CO2 emissions associated with the manufacture of concrete. The cement emission factors provided by AP-42 cover a wide range of processing technologies and emission factors, so ENVIRON used the cement emission factor provided by the Battelle report.2. From AP-42 section 11.1: Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Tables 11.1-5 and 11.1-7. ENVIRON assumed an average emission factor from batch mix hot asphalt plants and drum mix hot asphalt plants.

Material


Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Manufacture of Infrastructure MaterialsWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project

3. From AP-42 section 11.20: Lightweight Aggregate Manufacturing. Table 11.20-4. ENVIRON summed the emission factors for rotary kilns and clinker coolers with dry multicyclone.

4. The emission factor for steel is based on the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory via the SimaPro LCA software package. Emissions are for hot rolled steel at the plant and include extraction of limestone, lime production, exploration, mining and processing of iron ore and coal, transportation to mill by ship, rail and truck (burnt lime, dolomite, iron ore and coal), primary processes (sinter


cu yd = cubic yard

Sources:

SimaPro LCA Software. Available at: http://www.pre.nl/simapro/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. Table 2.14. Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf.

Portland Cement Association. Cement and Concrete Basics. http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_concretebasics.asp

EPA AP-42 section 11.1: Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Tables 11.1-5 and 11.1-7. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s01.pdf

Battelle. Humphreys, K. and Mahasenan, M. Climate Change: Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry. March 2002.

5. Because the manufacture of cement is the main contributor to CO2 emissions in the production of concrete, ENVIRON assumed that the emissions from the manufacture of cement are equal to the emissions from the overall manufacture of concrete.

plant, coke ovens, stoves, boilers, blast furnace and BOF), casting line and hot strip mill.

E N V I R O N

Distance from Source

Location2 Mass-Distance3

Local Source Local Source Truck Local Source Total

(tonnes material)

(miles) (tonne-miles)

Concrete 272,155 5 1,360,777 344 344

Asphalt 2,359 5 11,793 3 3

Aggregate Base 4,409 5 22,045 6 6

Steel 10,886 5 54,431 14 14

TOTAL 367

Notes:

Table 7-5

2. Distances from source to project location provided by Thomas Properties Group.


Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Transportation of Infrastructure Raw Materials

Emissions to Transport to

Construction Site5

(tonnes CO2)

253

(grams CO2/tonne-mile)

1. The total mass transported is assumed to contain only virgin materials. For manufacturing emissions, only the amount of cement is considered; however, for transportation emissions, the entire mass of virgin concrete is considered because the concrete mix is transported from the source locations.


Emission Factor4

4. Emission factors for truck calculated from DOE EERE energy intensity indicators. EERE data is presented in BTU / ton-mile. These were converted using AP-42 conversion factors for energy in different types of fuel, and CCAR GRP emission factors for mass CO2 emitted per gallon of fuel. Trucks are assumed to run

Total Mass

Transported1

3. Mass distance is the mass of material multipled by the distance traveled. ENVIRON assumed that all infrastructure raw materials come from local sources.

Material

Abbreviations:AP-42 - Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission FactorsBTU - British thermal unitsCCAR - California Climate Action RegistryCO2 - carbon dioxide

DOE - United States Department of EnergyEERE - Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyGHG - greenhouse gasGRP - General Reporting Protocol

Sources:DOE EERE energy intensity indicators. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/trend_data.html Transportation sector data.AP-42 conversions available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/appendix/appa.pdf

gy yp , 2 p gon diesel. 5. Emissions calculated by multiplying the mass-distance by the emission factor. Because of the close proximity of the source locations to Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project, ENVIRON conservatively assumed that all infrastructure materials will be transported by truck.

E N V I R O N

Emissions from

Manufacture

of Materials3

Emissions from Transportation

of Materials4

Assumed Lifetime of Emissions

Source5

Total Annual Emissions from

Wilshire Grand7

LCA Fraction of

Total Emissions8

(years) (tonnes CO2 / year) (%)

Low Estimate 1.2%High Estimate 13%

51,492 367 2.9%

73,934 - 289,785 73,934 - 289,785 1,848 - 7,245 4.1% - 16%

Notes:

Buildings2

Infrastructure

TOTAL

552


22,076

Table 7-6Summary of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Buildings, Infrastructure


(tonnes CO2)

Emissions Source1

Total Annualized

Emissions6

(tonnes CO2 /

year)

40

2. Emissions from buildings are shown as a range from a low to a high estimate based on the range presented in Table 7-1. The values in Table 7-1 are multiplied by the assumed lifetime of 40 years to yield total emissions in tonnes CO2.

8. The LCA fraction of total emissions is calculated by dividing the total annualized emissions by the total emissions from Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project.7. From the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Climate Change Report.6. Total emissions are divided by the assumed lifetime of emissions sources to yield the total annualized emissions.5. The assumed lifetime of emissions source may be adjusted; here ENVIRON has assumed a conservatively short lifetime of 40 years.4. Emissions from the transportation of materials for infrastructure are from Table 7-5.3. Emissions from the manufacture of materials for infrastructure are from Table 7-4.

Total Emissions

51,859237,92722,076

1. ENVIRON estimated LCA emissions from two sources: buildings and infrastructure.

237,92745,405

5,9481,296

Abbreviations:

Sources:Values are calculated using Tables 1 through 5 and the emissions presented in the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Climate Change Report.

CO2 = carbon dioxideLCA = life cycle assessment

y g y p j

E N V I R O N


Executive Order S-03-05 110

8 Executive Order S-03-05 This section further discusses the goals of Executive order S-03-05, which mandates that California emit 80 percent less GHGs in 2050 than it emitted in 1990. The measures described below are the types of measures that will yield required reductions to meet the goals of Executive order S-03-05. Although these types of measures are expected to occur and are consistent with the proposed Project development plan, the proposed Project is not claiming any credit for these measures.

As of 2004, California was emitting 12 percent more GHG emissions than in 1990. For California to emit 80 percent less than it emitted in 1990, the emissions would be only 18 percent of the 2004 emissions. Accounting for a population growth from 35,840,000 people in 2004 to approximately 55,000,000 people in 2050, the emissions per capita would have to be only 12 percent of what they were in 2004. This means 88 percent reductions in per capita GHG emissions from today’s emissions intensities must be realized in order to achieve California’s 2050 GHG goals. Clearly, energy efficiency and reduced vehicle miles traveled will play important roles in achieving this aggressive goal, but the decarbonization of fuel will also be necessary.

The extent to which GHG emissions from traffic at the proposed Project will change in the future depends on the quantity (e.g. number of vehicles, average daily mileage) and quality (i.e. carbon content) of fuel that will be available and required to meet both regulatory standards and residents’ needs. As discussed above, renewable power requirements, the low carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions standards will all decrease GHG emissions per unit of energy delivered or per vehicle mile traveled. In this section we discuss the impact that future regulated fuel decarbonization may have on vehicular emissions for the proposed Project.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) published "State Alternative Fuels Plan"145 in which it noted the existence of “challenging but plausible ways to meet 2050 [transportation] goals.” The main finding from this analysis is that reducing today’s average per capita driving miles by about 5 percent (or back to 1990 levels), in addition to the decarbonization strategies listed below, would achieve S-03-05 goals of 80 percent below 1990 levels. The approach described below is directly146

An 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with personal transportation can be achieved even though population grows to 55 million, an increase of 50 percent. The following set of measures could be combined to produce this result:

from the CEC report.

• Lowering the energy needed for personal transportation by tripling the energy efficiency of on-road vehicles in 2050 with: a. Conventional gas, diesel, and flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) averaging more than 40

miles per gallon (mpg).

b. Hybrid gas, diesel, and FFVs averaging almost 60 miles per gallon. 145 State Alternative Fuels Plan. December 2007 CEC-600-2007-011-CMF. Available online at:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-011/CEC-600-2007-011-CMF.PDF (accessed May 2010).

146 Ibid. Page 67 and 68.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-011/CEC-600-2007-011-CMF.PDF�


Executive Order S-03-05 111

c. All electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) averaging well over 100 miles per gallon (on a greenhouse gas equivalents (GGE) basis) on the electricity cycle.

d. Fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) averaging over 80 miles per gallon (on a GGE basis).

• Moderating growth in per capita driving, reducing today’s average per capita driving miles by about 5 percent or back to 1990 levels.

• Changing the energy sources for transportation fuels from the current 96 percent petroleum-based to approximately: a. 30 percent from gasoline and diesel from traditional petroleum sources or lower GHG

emission fossil fuels such as natural gas.

b. 30 percent from transportation biofuels.

c. 40 percent from a mix of electricity and hydrogen.

• Producing transportation biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen from renewable or very low carbon-emitting technologies that result in, on average, at least 80 percent lower life cycle GHG emissions than conventional fuels.

• Encouraging more efficient land uses and greater use of mass transit, public transportation, and other means of moving goods and people.


Conclusion 112

9 Conclusion ENVIRON prepared an emissions inventory for the proposed Project. This emissions inventory was prepared consistent with the methodologies established by the California Climate Action Registry where possible. The proposed Project emissions inventory considers six categories of GHG emissions: emissions from construction activities, residential emissions, commercial building emissions, mobile source emissions, infrastructure emissions, and area source emissions. The emissions from construction would be a one-time emissions event, while the other emissions would occur annually, throughout the life of the proposed Project.

Emissions from the various components of the proposed Project are presented in Table 6-1. This table identifies the construction emissions that would be attributable to the proposed Project, and the annual emissions expected to occur each year after the full build out of the development for the life of the project. There are approximately 63,793 tonnes of CO2e construction emissions. The total annual emissions from the operation of the proposed Project amount to approximately 45,405 tonnes. Of this amount, 32 percent result from vehicular emissions associated with residential and commercial activities, and 39 percent result from the energy use associated with residential and commercial buildings. If the construction emissions are annualized assuming a 40-year development life (which is likely low), then the construction emissions account for approximately 3.4 percent of the overall emissions. As discussed above, these figures reflect conservative assumptions that likely overstate the GHG emissions that would result from this proposed Project. Taking into accounting the absence of GHG emissions associated with the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel, the net increase in annual emissions for the proposed Project is 18,122 tonnes.

The proposed Project’s estimated GHG emissions are consistent with AB 32's goal of reducing emissions 28.5 percent below CARB 2020 No Action Taken overall. The proposed Project emissions inventory represents a 31.2 percent reduction from the proposed Project’s CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario. The proposed Project emissions take into consideration changes in emission factors due to implementation of two AB 32 scoping plan measures: the Renewables Portfolio Standard and the Pavley regulation. In addition, anticipated state and federal regulatory developments are expected to result in even lower GHG emissions from the proposed Project than are represented in this analysis. Thus, while the proposed Project already results in an improvement over the CARB 2020 No Action Taken Scenario equivalent to the 28.5 percent improvement necessary to achieve AB 32's mandates, upon implementation of existing and anticipated legislative and regulatory mandates, actual emissions associated with the proposed Project will likely be considerably lower.


Project Alternatives 113

10 Project Alternatives This EIR considers several alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision-making in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. As described below in greater detail, the alternatives to the Project that are analyzed in this EIR include: 1) No Project Alternative; 2) Reduced Density Alternative; 3) Phased Construction Alternative; 4) Office Only Alternative; 5) Residential Only Alternative; 6) Reduced Height Alternative; 7) Zoning Compliant Alternative; 8) Reduced Signage Alternative; and 9) Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative. This section describes the methods that ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) used to estimate GHG emissions associated with each project alternative. Two analyses were performed for each scenario. First, the net emissions associated with each alternative were calculated as the total emissions for that alternative less the emissions of the existing Hotel project at 2020. Second, the total emissions (not the net emissions) for each alternative were compared to the CARB 2020 NAT emissions scenario for that alternative. The methodologies used to calculate the emissions for each source type included in the alternatives inventories are described in section 10.1 below. The components of each alternative and unique details of the inventory for each alternative are described in section 10.2.

10.1 Alternative Scenario Emissions Estimation MethodologyAs in the Project inventory, the emissions inventory for each alternative included emissions from infrastructure sources, building energy use, mobile sources, area sources, solid waste, heliport activity, and construction.

10.1.1 Infrastructure emissions include emissions from water (treatment and distribution), wastewater, public lighting (including building mounted signage), and solid waste.

Infrastructure Emissions

Emission intensity for water treatment and distribution and wastewater treatment (emissions per unit volume of water) for each alternative was assumed to be the same as for the Project. Consequently, emissions from water treatment and distribution and wastewater treatment for each alternative were calculated by multiplying the volume of water demand (or wastewater generation) by the emission intensity previously calculated for the Project. Water demand for each alternative was provided in the Water System Technical Report.147 Wastewater generation for each alternative was provided in the Wastewater/Sewer System Technical Report.148

It was assumed that the public outdoor areas would not change significantly for any alternative except Alternative 1. Emissions from public lighting (excluding signage) for Alternatives 2 through 9 were assumed to be the same as those for the Project. Emissions from landscaping equipment were also assumed to be the same as those for the project for Alternatives 2 through 9.

The building mounted signage program is included in each alternative except the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1), the Residential Only Alternative, and the Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative. Electricity usage for the signage program for each applicable alternative was

147 PSOMAS, Water System Technical Report, May 2010. 148 PSOMAS, Wastewater/Sewer System Technical Report, May 2010.



provided by Glumac.149

Emissions from solid waste for Alternatives 2 through 9 were calculated based on the same waste generation rates used for the project. Waste estimates and waste generation rates were provided by CAJA.

Emissions from the building mounted signage were calculated using the electricity emission rates used for the project inventory (taking into account reductions due to the 2010 RPS).

150

10.1.2

Emission factors, specified in volume of gas per unit mass of solid waste, were multiplied by the mass of solid waste estimated for each alternative to estimate total emissions from this source.

Emissions from building energy use for the alternatives were estimated using the same basic methodology as was used to estimate the building energy emissions for the Project. As described in Section 4.6.1. and 4.7.1, ENVIRON developed CO2 intensity values (CO2

emissions per square-foot per year) for building types for the proposed Project using data from the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey and from California Commercial End-Use Survey. For the each alternative, the planned square footage for each land use type (residential, hotel, office and amenity space) was used with the CO2 intensity values to calculate CO2 emissions. In general, the analyses for the alternatives assume that the breakdown of the total area among the different amenity types (e.g., retail/restaurant, fitness facility, and ancillary hotel areas/meeting rooms) would be in the same proportion as that assumed for the Project (18% retail/restaurant, 7% fitness facility, and 75% ancillary hotel areas). As for the Project, the reductions in the electricity emission factor due to the 2010 RPS were taken into account.

Energy Use in the Built Environment

10.1.3 As described in Section 8.2, emissions from mobile sources are related to the total vehicle miles traveled, which in turn, is a function of the number of trips and trip distances. ENVIRON was provided with the total number of trips for each Alternative scenario by Gibson.

Mobile Source Emissions

151

10.1.4

Emission estimates for each alternative were based on the mobile source calculation methodology for the Project, but scaled to reflect the number of trips and break down of land uses provided for each scenario. In addition, as for the Project, reductions due to AB 1493 (i.e., the Pavley Standard) were accounted for in each alternative’s emissions inventory.

Area source emissions stem from hearths and small mobile fuel combustion sources such as lawnmowers. Each residential hearth was assumed to produce the same emissions as those calculated for the Project. Consequently, emissions from hearths for each Alternative were scaled based on the number of residential dwelling units. Emissions from landscaping equipment were assumed to be the same for each alternative as for the Project, with the exception of the No Project Alternative.

Area Sources

149 Glumac, Electrical Technical Report, May 2010. 150 As included in Section IV.J.3 of the EIR. 151 Gibson Transportation, Transportation Study for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project. January, 2010.



10.1.5 A helistop is proposed to be included for all alternatives except the No Project Alternative, the Residential Only Alternative, and the Zoning Compliant Alternative. Emissions from the helistop for each applicable alternative were assumed to be the same as those calculated for the Project.

Helistop Emissions

10.1.6 Construction emissions comprise 3.4 percent of the project inventory. Construction emission intensity (CO

Construction Emissions

2e emissions per square foot of floor area) for the Reduced Density, Office Only, Residential Only, Reduced Height, Zoning Compliant, Reduced Signage, and Zoning Compliant Signage alternatives was assumed to be the same as for the project. A unit emissions intensity (tonnes CO2e per square foot of floor area) was calculated for the Project and applied to the area of each of the above alternatives. This includes emissions from construction equipment, worker commuting, vender trips, and hauling. Emissions from construction water usage and electricity were also assumed scale with area. The Phased Construction alternative was assumed to have a different unit emission intensity. Emissions for the Phased Construction alternative were provided to ENVIRON by CAJA.152 Emissions from construction related solid waste were assumed to scale with the amount of solid waste generated.153

10.1.7

The Reduced Density Alternative, Phased Construction Alternative, Reduced Height Alternative, Zoning Compliant Alternative, Reduced Signage Alternative, and Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative each include an equivalency program similar to that for the Project. The Land Use Equivalency Program is designed to direct how development will occur on the Project Site and allow for flexibility so that land uses could be exchanged for other permitted land uses such that no additional significant environmental impacts would result from any exchange that is consistent with the Land Use Equivalency Program.

Land Use Equivalency Program

The comparison between the proposed Project and the CARB 2020 NAT scenario was qualitatively evaluated for the Land Use Equivalency Program. The differences between the Alternative inventory and its corresponding CARB 2020 NAT scenario would reflect the changes in building energy and traffic due to the exchanges in the Equivalency Program. The traffic mitigation features of the Project would not change and the Project’s energy efficiency commitments for the built environment would be implemented under any of these scenarios, exceeding 2005 Title 24 by 15 percent. The regulatory programs (Pavley and RPS) would also still apply to these Land Use Equivalency scenarios. Since the primary project design features and regulatory programs that help reduce the Project emissions compared to the CARB 2020 NAT scenario would not change, it is expected that each Land Use Equivalency scenario emission inventory would show similar reductions compared to its corresponding CARB 2020 NAT scenario as that estimated for the Project.

10.1.8 The design of the Project as a conceptual plan allows for flexibility in the finalized building design within a determined set of parameters. Given the project commitments that have been

Design Flexibility Program

152 Christopher A Joseph and Associates. Appendix IV.G-4 of the EIR. 153 The amounts of solid waste generated for each alternative were provided in Section IV.J.3 of the EIR.



incorporated into the GHG emissions inventory, changes to the design parameters listed in the Design Flexibility Program are not expected to meaningfully change the GHG emissions inventory included in this report. Therefore, it is expected that the GHG emissions inventory under the Design Flexibility Program would show similar reductions compared to its corresponding CARB 2020 NAT scenario as that estimated for the Project.

10.1.9 Similar to the Project, the precise location of the buildings on-site for each alternative has not been determined. The GHG emissions quantified in the inventories for the Alternatives (including operational and construction emissions) are not dependent on building configuration or orientation. Consequently, the GHG emissions inventory would not change for any alternative if the configuration of the buildings changed.

Building Configuration

10.1.10 Similarly to the Project evaluation, the CARB 2020 NAT scenario emissions from building energy usage, building signage, and electricity for water treatment and distribution for each alternative were calculated assuming no reduction in electricity emission factor due to the 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard. The CARB 2020 NAT scenario emissions from mobile sources for the alternatives were calculated using trip numbers provided by Gibson that did not take into account the Project’s proximity to transit, Transportation Demand Management features, and emission reductions due to the Pavley regulations.

CARB 2020 No Action Taken (NAT) Comparison

154

10.2

10.2.1

Project Alternative Emission Inventories

The No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed, and no other project is built in its place. Specifically, the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project Site will remain in its current condition, that is, developed with the Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre. The emissions from the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre (“Existing Hotel”) projected to operations and conditions in 2020 represent the “No Project Alternative” emission inventory. The analysis assumes that no modifications are made to the existing structures. The Project’s Equivalency Program, its signage program and its flexibility in building configuration are not included in this alternative.

Alternative 1: No Project

As discussed in section 4.16.1, emissions from the Existing Hotel were estimated from commercial sources, mobile sources, area sources and infrastructure system sources. Emissions associated with commercial energy use in the Existing Hotel were calculated based on electricity use from 2006 through 2009, adjusting for emission factors based on the 2010 RPS. The annual CO2e emissions associated with commercial energy use in existing buildings are estimated to be 11,942 tonnes CO2e per year. Emissions associated with mobile sources were calculated based on trip generation rates and trip lengths provided to ENVIRON by Gibson155

154 Gibson Transportation, Transportation Study for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project. January, 2010.

, adjusting for emission factors projected for calendar year 2020. The annual CO2e emissions due to mobile sources associated with the existing buildings are estimated to be 13,878 tonnes CO2e per year.




Emissions due to water supply, conveyance, and treatment were also estimated for the Existing Hotel. Existing water demand was based on information provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010).156

The total annual emissions for the existing Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre were estimated to be 28,878 tonnes of CO2e per year. These results are summarized in Table 10-1. The No Project Alternative emissions inventory is less than the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. Since this alternative does not include any development, there is no comparison to a CARB 2020 NAT scenario.

The annual emissions from water treatment and distribution and wastewater treatment are approximately 680 tonnes CO2e per year. Emissions due to existing public lighting are approximately 8 tonnes CO2e per year (see Table 4-4). As there is currently no information on a reduction in emission factors for landscaping equipment in 2020, the emissions due to area sources are assumed to be the same as the current existing hotel, 1.82 tonnes CO2e per year, as shown in Table 4-32.

156 PSOMAS, Water System Technical Report, May 2010.

PSOMAS, Wastewater/Sewer System Technical Report, May 2010.


Existing Hotel1

(2020)Residential2 0

Commercial3 11,942

Mobile4 13,878

Infrastructure5 687

Area 2

Solid Waste6 2,369

Helicopter7 0Total (annual emissions) 28,878

Notes:1. Existing hotel emissions in 2020 represent the expected emissions from the current existing hotel if it continued operations into 2020 and are based on current energy use and metering data provided by Thomas Properties


Emissions from the Existing Wilshire Grand Hotel into 2020 (No Project Scenario)

Table 10-1

Source


Abbreviations:NA - not applicableRPS - Renewable Portfolio Standards

on current energy use and metering data provided by Thomas Properties Group, and account for future regulations such as RPS.2. The existing hotel does not contain any residential units.

4. Existing mobile emissions is based on the trips due to the land uses in the existing hotel and no traffic mitigation measures.

7. The existing hotel does not include a helistop, so no emissions are included for this category.

6. Existing solid waste emissions are based on the solid waste generated by the existing hotel.

5. Infrastructure emissions included here are related to water treatment, waste water treatment, and street lighting. This is a very conservative estimate since appropriate emission factors to adjust wastewater direct emissions are unavailable.

3. Existing commercial emissions reflect typical annual usage calculated using metering data from years 2006-2009.

E N V I R O N



10.2.2 Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the Project Site would be developed with the same office, residential, and hotel development as the Project, but would be reduced in overall density. The Reduced Density Alternative would include the demolition of all existing structures, including existing subterranean parking, and redevelopment of the Project Site with maximum of 560 hotel rooms and/or condo-hotel units, 100 residential units, 1,250,000 square feet of office uses, and 210,000 square feet of amenity areas. A helistop is proposed for the office. The Reduced Density Alternative would include provision of approximately 1,566 parking spaces in a maximum of eight levels of subterranean parking. With the exception of the office and amenity floor areas and parking, all other aspects of the Alternative would be the same as described under the Project.

Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative

For the Reduced Density Alternative, the planned reduced areas of office and amenity space were used with the CO2 intensity values to calculate CO2 emissions from building energy use. It was assumed that the percent breakdown of the total area among the different amenity types (e.g., retail/restaurant, fitness facility, and ancillary hotel areas/meeting rooms) was the same as that assumed for the Project (18% retail/restaurant, 7% fitness facility, and 75% ancillary hotel areas). The emissions from building energy use are summarized in Tables 10-3 through 10-8.

The reduction in the square footage of the office and amenity land uses results in a reduction in the number of trips generated by those land uses. ENVIRON was provided with trip generation rates associated with this scenario by Gibson.157

Emissions from water and wastewater were assumed to scale according to the water demand and wastewater generated. The water demand and wastewater generated for the Alternative 2 scenario was provided by PSOMAS (June 22, 2010). The emissions from water and wastewater are shown in Table 10-11. Based on information provided by Thomas Properties Group, the building signage area is 203,520 square feet, and it was assumed that the emissions from building signage for Alternative 2 would scale based on the reduction in signage area. The emissions from the building mounted signs are shown in Table 10-11. The number of streetlights, and hence, the emissions from public lighting, were assumed to be the same as in the Project.

The analysis of mobile emissions for this alternative assumes the same percent breakdown of trips by land use as that used for the Project evaluation (2.3% residential, 57.9% office, 24.7% hotel, 3.6% fitness facility, and 11.6% retail/restaurant). The emissions are summarized in Tables 10-9 and 10-10 for the alternative and the CARB 2020 NAT alternative scenario, respectively.

Construction emissions analyzed include emissions from diesel fueled construction vehicles, construction worker commutes, vendor trips, and demolition hauling trips. Vehicle activity for each of these categories was assumed to scale with the reduction in building square footage in this alternative, based on information provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates for the Project.158

157 Gibson, Transportation Study for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project. January, 2010.

The ratio of diesel and gasoline vehicles was assumed to be the same as in the Project scenario. Emissions from electricity and water were assumed to scale with the

158 Christopher A. Joseph and Associates email communication January 2010.



reduction in building square footage, and solid waste emissions were assumed to scale with the amount of solid waste generated. The total construction emissions are shown in Table 10-2.

The Reduced Density Alternative emissions inventory is less than the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The net emissions inventory for this alternative is 10,907 (refer to Table 10-50) tonnes CO2e/year.159

159 The net emissions inventory is calculated by subtracting the existing site emissions inventory at 2020 from the

alternative emissions inventory.

The emissions related to this alternative, which recognize the combined savings from the Project sustainability features and the changes in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles), represent a 31.9% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for the Reduced Density alternative (see Table 10-12). Therefore, this Alternative 2 is consistent with AB 32 goals.

Total Project GHG Emissions Total Alternative 2 GHG Emissions2

(tonnes CO2e) (tonnes CO2e)

Construction1 21,305 18,025

Sub-total Construction (worker, hauling, equipment usage) 21,305 18,025

Electricity Usage 5,570 4,712Water Usage 66 56

Solid Waste Disposal3 36,853 36,482

Sub-total Construction (utilities, water, waste)42,488 41,250

Total All Construction 63,793 59,275

Note:



1. The construction emissions are the based on the URBEMIS files provided by CAJA for the one-phase construction scenario (Project scenario). The construction emissions were due to activities such as on-road and off-road equipment usage, vendor trips, and worker commutes.

Table 10-2Overall Construction GHG Emissions - Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)

Activity


2. ENVIRON assumed that the construction emissions and emissions from electricity and water usage during construction for the reduced density scenario are proportional to the reduced density building area. 3. ENVIRON assumed that the emissions due to construction-related solid waste disposal are proportional to the amount of solid waste generated (95,118 tons of solid waste for Alternative 2).

E N V I R O N

Building Type1 CEUS Building Type2 Quantity Units Area per Unit3,4 [SF/unit] Total Area1 [SF]Hotel Lodging 560 rooms 641 358,960Office All Office 1,250,000 SF 1 1,250,000


Ancillary Hotel Areas, Meeting Rooms and Ballrooms

Miscellaneous 156,545 SF 1 156,545


Notes:

Abbreviations:

Sources:

Table 10-3Categorization of Commercial Land Use for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)Los Angeles, California

Parking Solutions: A Comprehensive Menu of Solutions to Parking Problems. TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Updated July 22, 2008. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm

SF - square feet

Grand Total Area



3. The area per unit for hotel rooms is based on the anticipated average size of a hotel room in the Project, provided by Thomas Properties Group.4. ENVIRON estimated the area per unit. The area per unit for a parking space is based on the area of an average parking space including landscaping around the space.

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1


Lodging 0.1% 8% 25% 6% 6% 24% 7% 4% 3% --- 9% 9% ---Miscellaneous 4% 2% 14% 11% 0.8% 21% 12% 14% 2% 0.0% 10% 8% 1%





Abbreviations:

Source:

Mis

cella

ne

ou

s

Mo

tors

Air

Co

mp

ress

ors

Co

oki

ng

Coo

ling

Ext

eri

or

Lig

htin

g

Table 10-4Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)





Wa

ter

He

atin

g

Off

ice

Eq

uip

me

nt

Pro

cess

Re

frig

era

tion

Ve

ntil

atio

n

He

atin

g

Inte

rio

r L

igh

ting

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1


Lodging 14% --- 21% 2% 0.5% 64%Miscellaneous 4% 12% 25% 2% 16% 41%




Notes:1. The natural gas end-use distribution percentages are based on CEUS data.

Abbreviations:

Source:

Table 10-5Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)


Pro

cess

Wat

er H

eatin

g




Coo

king

Coo

ling

Hea

ting

Mis

cella

neou

s

E N V I R O N

CO2e EF5



[tonnes/SF-yr]Usage8


[tonnes/yr]Title 242,3 Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall

Electricity kWh 5.87 + 9.56 = 15.43 8.59E-03 14.55 6.80E-03 18,185,750 8,495Natural Gas kBTU 11.76 + 0.63 = 12.39 6.57E-04 10.62 5.64E-04 13,277,894 705Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 23.29 1.09E-02 355,628 166

Natural Gas kBTU 59.77 + 11.07 = 70.84 3.76E-03 61.88 3.28E-03 945,033 50Electricity kWh 3.45 + 5.74 = 9.19 5.12E-03 8.67 4.05E-03 3,112,781 1,454

Natural Gas kBTU 21.26 + 4.06 = 25.32 1.34E-03 22.13 1.17E-03 7,945,213 422

Electricity kWh 2.89 + 9.89 = 12.78 7.12E-03 12.34 5.77E-03 1,932,473 903

Natural Gas kBTU 12.89 + 6.91 = 19.80 1.05E-03 17.86 9.48E-04 2,796,443 148

Electricity kWh 10.33 + 38.53 = 48.87 2.72E-02 47.32 2.21E-02 1,806,608 844Natural Gas kBTU 45.35 + 187.78 = 233.13 1.24E-02 226.33 1.20E-02 8,641,658 459Electricity kWh 0.83 + 3.87 = 4.70 2.62E-03 4.58 2.14E-03 2,329,326 1,088

Natural Gas kBTU 1.01 + 0.04 = 1.04 5.54E-05 0.89 4.74E-05 454,516 24Grand Total Area 2,327,910 27,722,566 12,949

34,060,757 1,80714,756

Notes:

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CEC - California Energy Commission RPS - Renewables Portfolio StandardCEUS - California Commercial End-Use Survey SCE - Southern California EdisonCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent SF - square feetEF - emission factor tonnes - metric tonneskBTU - kilo (1000) British thermal units yr - yearkWh - kilowatt-hour

Sources:

Electricity TotalNatural Gas Total

Non-Title 244

Grand Total

508,950

Energy Source

38,182

15,273

358,960

1,250,000

Warehouse (Parking)

Miscellaneous (Ancillary Hotel Areas, Meeting

Rooms and Ballrooms)

Restaurant (Retail/Restaurant)

156,545

All Office (Office)

Health (Fitness Facility/Spa)

Lodging (Hotel)

Usage Rate1


[SF]Unit


Title 24)

Table 10-6Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)



Title 24


2. Title 24 usage rates shown in this table have been adjusted to reflect improvements in Title 24 building codes since their introduction in 2002. CEC discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards"). ENVIRON used these CEC average savings percentages, which are: 7.7% reduction for electricity and 3.2% reduction for gas in 2005.3. Includes only Title 24-regulated building envelope uses of electricity (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating) and gas (heating, water heating), as discussed in footnote 1 of Table 10-4.4. Includes all other uses of electricity (cooking, refrigeration, exterior lighting, interior lighting, office equipment, miscellaneous, process, motors, air compressors) and gas (cooling, cooking, miscellaneous, process) not included in the Title 24-regulated building envelope, as discussed in footnote 3 above.

California Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF



8. The total annual usage is calculated as the usage rate (with 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24) multiplied by the total area.7. The total annual CO2e emissions are calculated as the CO2e emission factor multiplied by the total area.

E N V I R O N


CO2e EF5

[tonnes/SF-yr]

CO2e Emissions6


Electricity kWh 5.87 + 9.56 = 15.43 8.59E-03 10,742Natural Gas kBTU 11.76 + 0.63 = 12.39 6.57E-04 821Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 212


Natural Gas kBTU 21.26 + 4.06 = 25.32 1.34E-03 482

Electricity kWh 2.89 + 9.89 = 12.78 7.12E-03 1,114

Natural Gas kBTU 12.89 + 6.91 = 19.80 1.05E-03 164

Electricity kWh 10.33 + 38.53 = 48.87 2.72E-02 1,039Natural Gas kBTU 45.35 + 187.78 = 233.13 1.24E-02 472Electricity kWh 0.83 + 3.87 = 4.70 2.62E-03 1,333



Notes:


Sources:California Energy Commission. 2003. Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDFCalifornia Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF


1. Usage rates were taken from the 2006 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS), performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC). ENVIRON used data for Forecasting Climate Zone (FCZ) 9. It is assumed that energy use data for FCZ 9 would be similar to FCZ 11, the sector in which the Wilshire Grand development is located, due to the geographic proximity of the two FCZs.2. Title 24 usage rates shown in this table have been adjusted to reflect improvements in Title 24 building codes since their introduction in 2002. CEC discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards"). ENVIRON used these CEC average savings percentages, which are 7.7% reduction for electricity and 3.2% reduction for gas in 2005.

3. Includes only Title 24-regulated building envelope uses of electricity (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating) and gas (heating, water heating), as discussed in footnote 1 of Table 10-4.

4. Includes all other uses of electricity (cooking, refrigeration, exterior lighting, interior lighting, office equipment, miscellaneous, process, motors, air compressors) and gas (cooling, cooking, miscellaneous, process) not included in the Title 24-regulated building envelope, as discussed in footnote 3 above.

Table 10-7Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, NAT, Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)


2005 Title 24

Usage Rate1


[SF]Unit

Non-Title 244

156,545

All Office (Office)


Lodging (Hotel)

Miscellaneous (Ancillary Hotel Areas, Meeting

Rooms and Ballrooms)


Warehouse (Parking)

358,960

1,250,000

508,950

Energy Source

38,182

15,273

E N V I R O N


[tonnes/yr]Total CO2e Emissions


Natural Gas 1,807


Notes:





18,304

14,756



Table 10-8

Los Angeles, CaliforniaWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)

Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types, Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)

Alternative 2 (Reduced Density)

E N V I R O N

per Gibson Transportation Consulting Trip Estimates

Mitigated Daily Trips, with Location

Adjustments1

Annual Trips, with Location

Adjustments2Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose4


Purpose]4

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT5Startup6

(g/start)Running7

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions8

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 1,225,976 13,829,011 87 4,292 4,379 4,609Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 834,488 7,418,598 59 2,302 2,362 2,486Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 299,442 2,039,200 15 633 648 682Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 169,479 1,506,667 9 468 476 501Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 24,716 168,317 1 52 53 56Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 13,989 124,361 1 39 39 41Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 107,318 730,833 5 227 232 244Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 60,740 539,978 3 168 171 179Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,318 3,401,242 *** *** 2,811,601 26,860,571 *** *** 186 8,336 8,523 8,971



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 409,208 2,925,838 32 2,514 2,546 2,680Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 33,776 241,501 3 208 210 221Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 146,657 1,048,597 11 901 912 960

9,318 3,401,242 *** *** 589,641 4,215,936 *** *** 46 3,623 3,669 3,862

9,318 3,401,242 *** *** 3,401,242 31,076,507 *** *** 232 11,959 12,191 12,833

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation Consulting Project Alternatives Traffic Study Report, 3rd DraftCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto URBEMISCBD - Central Business District LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) EMFAC User GuideTDM - Transportation Demand Management Program MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs) Sonoma Technologies

URBEMIS - URBan EMISsions modeling software

VMT - vehicle miles traveled MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs) HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs)

Notes:



75.3

48.4

136.8

78.4

314,715

75,453

110.0






Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse

862


5,645 2,060,464

72,481

314,715

878,1292,406

207

862

Condo/Townhouse

72,481



Vehicle Class

199Fitness Facility

General Office

2,406310.4

88.1

2,060,4645,645

75,453

878,129

50.5

70.9

207

859.3

Retail/Restaurant

General Office

All Land Uses

Table 10-9


Group X of Vehicles

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (with Location Adjustments and TDM Reduction) from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), including Pavley Standard - Alternative 2





Hotel





199

1. Mitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with location adjustments and TDM measures applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use is based on the Project trip break down. Trips are assumed to be one-way. Weekday/weekend adjustments are applied based on a report by Sonoma Technologies.

All Land Uses

Hotel

Total Number of Project Trips completed by All (Group A + Group

B) Vehicles


E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unmitigated1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted3

Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose5

Trip Length [by

Trip Purpose]5

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT6

(miles)

Startup7

(g/start)Running8

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions9

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 2,074,354 23,398,714 184 9,106 9,291 9,779Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 1,411,955 12,552,283 125 4,885 5,010 5,274Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 506,656 3,450,330 32 1,343 1,375 1,447Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 286,759 2,549,284 18 992 1,010 1,063Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 73,031 497,340 5 194 198 209Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 41,334 367,461 3 143 146 153Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 237,825 1,619,590 14 630 645 679Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 134,605 1,196,638 8 466 474 499Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

16,491 16,470 6,011,374 *** *** 4,894,186 46,483,740 *** *** 404 18,090 18,494 19,468




16,491 16,470 6,011,374 *** *** 1,117,187 7,987,889 *** *** 87 6,864 6,951 7,316

16,491 16,470 6,011,374 *** *** 6,011,374 54,471,629 *** *** 491 24,954 25,445 26,784

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation Consulting Project Alternatives Traffic Study Report, 3rd DraftCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs) URBEMISNAT - no action taken LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs) EMFAC User Guide



Notes:




9,552

6,568

Table 10-10

Fitness Facility


Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles in Project Year 2020 (all), NAT - Alternative 2

350 127,667


MDV)


371

9,552

6,568 6,568

3,486,309

350




Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse

Hotel859.3

Retail/Restaurant


All Land Uses

75.3


Land Use Annual EmissionsTrip Characteristics Emission FactorsNumber of Trips and VMT completed by

Group X of Vehicles

Vehicle Class

389.2

110.4

General Office 88.93,486,3099,552

2,397,398

Condo/Townhouse

All Land Uses

6,568 2,397,398

127,667371


Hotel


63.3

60.7

136.8

78.4


110.0




2. ENVIRON has assumed that the number of daily trips provided by Gibson are weekday daily trips. Daily trips were adjusted to account for differences between the weekend and the weekday traffic based on a report by Sonoma Technologies. The weekend traffic was assumed tobe 80% of weekday capacity for home-based trips and 100% of weekday capacity for commercial-based trips.

5. Trip purpose categories and the associated trip lengths and percentages were provided by Gibson, and are the average values for all of Los Angeles County. Information specific to downtown Los Angeles was not available. The following assumptions were made by ENVIRON:a) All home-based and work-based trips are performed by Group A vehicles only; b) All other-based trips are performed by Group B vehicles only.

1. Unmitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with no mitigation measures or adjustments applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use type is based on the Project trip break down. Trips are assumed to be one-way.

E N V I R O N

The emissions for the categories listed below are estimated by scaling the Project emissions.

Solid Waste

Alternative 22

Solid Waste Generated(tons/yr)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Solid Waste Generated

(tons/yr)Alternative 3,332 5,114 2,774 0.83 4,258CARB 2020 NAT5

3,332 5,114 2,774 0.83 4,258Notes:

GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste, Alternative 2 - Reduced DensityTable 10-11


5. As in the Project Scenario, there are no project design features or regulatory requirements that would affect the emissions from solid waste in Alternative 2. Therefore, the emissions due to solid waste for the Alternative 2 CARB 2020 NAT scenario are equal to the alternative scenario emissions.

4. The CO2e emissions from solid waste generated by Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

ScenarioProject1

Scaling

Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 24

(tonne/yr)

1. The total amount of solid waste generated is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions for the Project.

2. The amount of solid waste generated for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) was provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the solid waste generated by Alternative 2 to the solid waste generated by the Project.

Water (Potable)

Alternative 22

Potable Water Demand(acre-ft/yr)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Potable Water Demand

(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 601 385 0.57 345CARB 2020 NAT 672 719 385 0.57 411Notes:

1. The total water demand is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for the Project.2. The potable water demand for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) was provided by Psomas.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the water demand for Alternative 2 to the water demand for the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

ScenarioProject1

Scaling

Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 24

(tonne/yr)

E N V I R O N

GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste, Alternative 2 - Reduced DensityTable 10-11


Wastewater

Alternative 22

Wastewater Generated(acre-ft/yr)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Wastewater Generated

(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 1,297 385 0.57 744CARB 2020 NAT 670 1,346 385 0.57 772Notes:

Building Mounted Signs

Alternative 22

Signage Area(sq ft)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Signage Area

(sq ft)Alternative 244,322 5,976 203,520 0.83 4,978

ScenarioProject1

Scaling

Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 24

(tonne/yr)

1. The total wastewater generated is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to wastewater treatment for the Project.2. The wastewater generated by Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) was provided by Psomas.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the wastewater generated by Alternative 2 to the wastewater generated by the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from wastewater treatment for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

ScenarioProject1

Scaling

Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 24

(tonne/yr)

Alternative 244,322 5,976 203,520 0.83 4,978CARB 2020 NAT 244,322 7,126 203,520 0.83 5,936Notes:

3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the signage area for Alternative 2 to the signage area for the Project.4. The CO2e emissions from building mounted signs in Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

1. The total signage area is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to signage electricity usage for the Project.2. The signage area for Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) was provided by Thomas Properties Group.

E N V I R O N



CARB 2020 NATAlternative 2 (Reduced

Density)(%)


Residential2,3 281 216 23%

Commercial4 18,304 14,756 19%

Mobile5 26,784 12,833 52%


Area2,7 3 3 0%

Solid Waste7 4,258 4,258 0%

Helicopter2,7 162 162 0%Total (annual emissions) 56,921 38,303 32.7%


Notes:1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 2 (Reduced Density) Scenario

Table 10-12

Source





appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.

3. CARB 2020 NAT residential emissions reflect minimally 2005 Title-24 compliant homes without Energy Star appliances.



7. CARB 2020 NAT area, solid waste, and helicopter emissions are assumed to be equal to the alternative emissions (i.e., the alternative does not incorporate project design features that reduce the emissions from these categories).

2. ENVIRON has assumed that the emissions for Alternative 2 are the same as the Project emissions for this category.



E N V I R O N



10.2.3 Under the Phased Construction Alternative, the Project Site would be developed with the same office, residential, and hotel development as the Project, but would be built in two phases. In Phase I, Building B (the Hotel), the subterranean parking, the outdoor plaza, and the Podium would be constructed. Phase I of construction is anticipated to require approximately 47 months inclusive of demolition and construction. Phase II would include construction of Building A (the Office) and is anticipated to require approximately 28 months of construction. With the exception of the construction scenario, all other aspects of the Alternative would be the same as described under the Project.

Alternative 3: Phased Construction Alternative

Since the buildings and uses in this scenario are identical to those in the Project, it is assumed that there will be no changes in GHG emissions associated with building energy use compared to the Project. Similarly, emissions from the signage program, helistop, area sources, public lighting, water, wastewater and solid waste were assumed to be the same as those for the project.

Following the full build out of Alternative 3 (completion of phase 2), the mobile source activity is estimated to be the same as that of the project. Consequently, mobile source emissions for this alternative were assumed to be the same as for the Project.

In contrast to the Project for which construction is scheduled over a 54 month period, construction for this alternative would proceed in two phases of 47 months and 28 months, for a total of 75 months of construction. ENVIRON was provided with CO2 emissions estimates for construction equipment, worker commuting, vendor trips, and demolition hauling for the two phases of construction by CAJA.160

The Phased Construction Alternative emissions inventory is similar to the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The net emissions for this alternative are 18,083 tonnes CO2e/year (see Table 10-50). The emissions related to this alternative, which take into account the combined savings from the Project sustainability features and the reductions in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles) represent a 31.2% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for this alternative (see Table 10-15). Therefore, this alternative is consistent with AB 32 goals.

Emissions from usage of water and electricity during construction and for construction solid waste were assumed to be the same as those for the Project. The construction emissions are shown in Tables 10-13 and 10-14.

160 Christopher A. Joseph and Associates. Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact

Report, Appendix IV.G-4, January 2010. The URBEMIS output files are also included as Appendix A of this technical report.

Total CO2 Emissions2

% CO2 Emissions from

Gasoline Vehicles3

GHG Emissions from

Gasoline Vehicles4

GHG Emissions from

Diesel Equipment5 Total GHG Emissions(tons CO2/year) (%) (tonnes CO2e/year) (tonnes CO2e/year) (tonnes CO2e)

2011 3,594.78 4% 121 3,147 3,2672012 6,845.09 24% 1,548 4,739 6,2872013 2,284.72 84% 1,825 338 2,1642014 1,324.74 46% 582 649 1,2312015 2,474.12 95% 2,237 119 2,3562016 3,687.35 85% 2,983 512 3,4942017 982.46 96% 898 38 936

Total 21,193.3 10,194 9,542 19,736

Notes:

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd):CAJA - Christopher A. Joseph & Associates HFC - hydrofluorocarbonCH4 - methane N2O - nitrous oxideCO2 - carbon dioxide tons - short tons (2,000 pounds)

CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent tonnes - metric tons (1,000 kilograms)GHG - Greenhouse Gas URBEMIS - Urban Emissions Model

Construction Phase

Table 10-13GHG Emissions from Construction Activities for Alternative 3 (Phased Construction)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 3 (Phased Construction)Los Angeles, California

Scenario1

2

2. The total CO2 emissions from each year of construction due to construction equipment usage and due to vehicles used for worker commutes were provided by CAJA in URBEMIS files. The emissions from these construction activities do not include emissions due to electricity and water usage or demolition waste disposal. These emissions are assumed to be the same as the Project emissions.

1. Scenario 2 represents a two-phase construction scenario (i.e., one building is constructed first, then the second building is constructed); this is the Project Alternative 3 construction scenario.

3. The percent CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles is based on information provided by CAJA in URBEMIS files. ENVIRON assumed that emissions from worker trips and vendor trips were from gasoline vehicles.

5. The contributions of CH4 and N2O to overall GHG emissions is likely small (< 1% of total CO2e) from diesel construction equipment. (California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2008. General Reporting Protocol. Version 3.0. ENVIRON estimates)

4. The URBEMIS files provided by CAJA estimated CO2 emissions only. The CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles are calculated and then adjusted to account for other GHGs. The USEPA recommends assuming that CH4, N2O, and HFCs account for 5% of GHG emissions from on-road vehicles, taking into account their GWPs. (USEPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. February.)

E N V I R O N

Total GHG Emissions(tonnes CO2e)

Construction1 19,736

Sub-total Construction (worker, hauling, equipment usage) 19,736

Electricity Usage2 5,570

Water Usage2 66

Solid Waste Disposal2 36,853

Sub-total Construction (utilities, water, waste) 42,488

Total All Construction 62,224

Note:



1. The construction emissions are the based on the URBEMIS files provided by CAJA for the two-phase construction scenario (Alternative 3 scenario). The construction emissions were due to activities such as on-road and off-road equipment usage, vendor trips, and worker commutes.

Table 10-14Overall Construction GHG Emissions for Alternative 3 (Phased Construction)Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 3 (Phased Construction)

Activity


2. The emissions due to electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste disposal during construction are assumed to be the same as in the Project scenario.

E N V I R O N



CARB 2020 NATAlternative 3 (Phased

Construction)(%)



Commercial2,4 21,854 17,629 19%

Mobile2,5 30,095 14,399 52%

Infrastructure2,6 9,202 7,883 14%

Area2,7 3 3 0%

Solid Waste2,7 5,114 5,114 0%



Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 3 (Phased Construction) Scenario

Table 10-15

Source



1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side





appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.2. ENVIRON has assumed that the emissions for Alternative 3 are the same as the Project emissions for this category.





E N V I R O N



10.2.4 Under the Office-Only Alternative, the Project Site would be developed with office and associated retail and parking uses only. Hotel and residential units would not be included in the development. A helistop is proposed for the office under this alternative. The Office-Only Alternative would include the demolition of all existing structures, including existing subterranean parking, and redevelopment of the Project Site with approximately 1,750,000 square feet of office and 90,000 square feet of amenity retail and restaurant. The Office-Only Alternative would include provision of approximately 1,384 parking spaces in a subterranean parking garage. Vacation of Francisco Street would also occur under this Alternative. All other aspects of the project would be the same as described under the Project, except that the Land Use Equivalency Program would not be a component of this alternative.

Alternative 4: Office-Only Alternative

For the Office-Only Alternative, the energy usage in the built environment was estimated based on the office-only building type, which also includes retail/restaurant and fitness facility/spa areas. This alternative does not include meeting rooms, hotel common areas, hotel rooms, or condominiums. The emissions due to building energy use are summarized in Tables 10-16 through 10-21.

The mobile source emissions were estimated based on the trip generation rates provided by Gibson.161

Emissions from the helistop, landscaping, and public lighting were assumed to be the same as those estimated for the Project from these sources.

The analysis for this alternative assumes the same percent breakdown of trips by land use as that used for the Project evaluation. The emissions are summarized in Tables 10-22 and 10-23 for the alternative and the CARB 2020 NAT alternative scenario, respectively.

Construction emissions were calculated by scaling the Project emissions by the relative total square footage for the Office Only alternative and the Project. The relative area of the two configurations and the resulting construction emissions are shown in Table 10-24. This table also includes the infrastructure emission estimates. The emissions due to water/wastewater usage were scaled based on the water/wastewater demand, and the emissions due to the building mounted signs were scaled based on the signage area (169,801 square feet).

The Office-Only Alternative emissions inventory is less than the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The net emissions for this alternative is 8,413 tonnes CO2e/year (see Table 10-50). The emissions related to this alternative, which take into account the combined savings from the same Project sustainability features and the same changes in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles) represent a 32.7% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for this alternative (see Table 10-25). Therefore, this alternative is consistent with AB 32 goals.


Building Type1 CEUS Building Type2 Quantity Units Area per Unit3 [SF/unit] Total Area1 [SF]Office All Office 1,750,000 SF 1 1,750,000



Notes:

Abbreviations:

Sources:

Table 10-16Categorization of Commercial Land Use - Alternative 4 (Office Only)Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 4 (Office Only)



SF - square feet

Grand Total Area



3. ENVIRON estimated the area per unit. The area per unit for a parking space is based on the area of an average parking space including landscaping around the space.

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1






Abbreviations:

Source:

Mis

cella

ne

ou

s

Mo

tors

Air

Co

mp

ress

ors

Co

oki

ng

Coo

ling

Ext

eri

or

Lig

htin

g

Table 10-17Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types - Alternative 4 (Office Only)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 4 (Office Only)Los Angeles, California




Wa

ter

He

atin

g

Off

ice

Eq

uip

me

nt

Pro

cess

Re

frig

era

tion

Ve

ntil

atio

n

He

atin

g

Inte

rio

r L

igh

ting

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1



Included in Title 24 Building Envelope

Energy Budget?2 No No Yes No No Yes


Abbreviations:

Source:

Table 10-18Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types - Alternative 4 (Office Only)


Pro

cess

Wat

er H

eatin

g




Coo

king

Coo

ling

Hea

ting

Mis

cella

neou

s

E N V I R O N

CO2e EF5






Electricity kWh 5.87 + 9.56 = 15.43 8.59E-03 14.55 6.80E-03 25,460,050 11,892Natural Gas kBTU 11.76 + 0.63 = 12.39 6.57E-04 10.62 5.64E-04 18,589,052 986Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 23.29 1.09E-02 598,762 280

Natural Gas kBTU 59.77 + 11.07 = 70.84 3.76E-03 61.88 3.28E-03 1,591,127 84Electricity kWh 10.33 + 38.53 = 48.87 2.72E-02 47.32 2.21E-02 3,041,737 1,421

Natural Gas kBTU 45.35 + 187.78 = 233.13 1.24E-02 226.33 1.20E-02 14,549,730 772Electricity kWh 0.83 + 3.87 = 4.70 2.62E-03 4.58 2.14E-03 2,058,612 962

Natural Gas kBTU 1.01 + 0.04 = 1.04 5.54E-05 0.89 4.74E-05 401,692 21

Grand Total Area 2,289,800 31,159,161 14,554

35,131,602 1,864

16,419

Notes:


Sources:

Electricity Total

Natural Gas Total

Non-Title 244

Grand Total

449,800

Energy Source

64,286

25,714

1,750,000

Warehouse (Parking)


All Office (Office)


Usage Rate1


[SF]Unit


Title 24)

Table 10-19Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 4 (Office Only)



Title 24






E N V I R O N


CO2e EF5

[tonnes/SF-yr]

CO2e Emissions6


Electricity kWh 5.87 + 9.56 = 15.43 8.59E-03 15,039Natural Gas kBTU 11.76 + 0.63 = 12.39 6.57E-04 1,150Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 357





Notes:




1. Usage rates were taken from the 2006 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS), performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC). ENVIRON used data for Forecasting Climate Zone (FCZ) 9. It is assumed that energy use data for FCZ 9 would be similar to FCZ 11, the sector in which the Wilshire Grand development is located, due to the geographic proximity of the two FCZs.2. Title 24 usage rates shown in this table have been adjusted to reflect improvements in Title 24 building codes since their introduction in 2002. CEC discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards"). ENVIRON used these CEC average savings percentages, which are 7.7% reduction for electricity and 3.2% reduction for gas in 2005.3. Includes only Title 24-regulated building envelope uses of electricity (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating) and gas (heating, water heating), as discussed in footnote 1 of Table 10-17.4. Includes all other uses of electricity (cooking, refrigeration, exterior lighting, interior lighting, office equipment, miscellaneous, process, motors, air compressors) and gas (cooling, cooking, miscellaneous, process) not included in the Title 24-regulated building envelope, as discussed in footnote 3 above.

Table 10-20Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, NAT, Alternative 4 (Office Only)


2005 Title 24

Usage Rate1


[SF]Unit

Non-Title 244

All Office (Office)



Warehouse (Parking)

1,750,000

449,800

Energy Source

64,286

25,714

E N V I R O N




Natural Gas 1,864


Notes:





20,391

16,419



Table 10-21

Los Angeles, CaliforniaWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 4 (Office Only)

Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types, Alternative 4 (Office Only)

Alternative 4 (Office Only)

E N V I R O N



Adjustments1



% Trip


Purpose4


Purpose]4

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT5Startup6

(g/start)Running7

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions8

(tonnes)

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 1,729,377 19,507,376 123 6,054 6,177 6,502Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 1,177,139 10,464,767 83 3,248 3,331 3,506Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 17,069 116,241 1 36 37 39Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 9,661 85,885 0 27 27 29Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 55,611 378,711 3 118 120 127Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 31,475 279,811 2 87 88 93Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

8,547 3,119,655 *** *** 3,020,332 30,832,793 *** *** 212 9,569 9,781 10,295

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 23,326 166,783 2 143 145 153Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 75,996 543,373 6 467 473 498

8,547 3,119,655 *** *** 99,323 710,156 *** *** 8 610 618 650

8,547 3,119,655 *** *** 3,119,655 31,542,949 *** *** 219 10,179 10,398 10,946




Notes:



Total Number of Project Trips completed by All (Group A +

Group B) Vehicles


75.3

48.4


163,082

50,056


7,963 2,906,517

78.4

163,082

110.0

50,056





Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

447

447



Vehicle Class

137Fitness Facility

General Office

310.4

2,906,5177,963

50.5

70.9

859.3

Retail/Restaurant

General Office

All Land Uses

Table 10-22


Group X of Vehicles




MDV)






137

1. Mitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with location adjustments and TDM measures applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use is based on the Project trip breakdown, accounting for the greater percentage of office land use compared to the Project. Trips are assumed to be one-way. Weekday/weekend adjustments are applied based on a report by Sonoma Technologies.

All Land Uses

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips

- Unmitigated1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted3

Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose5

Trip Length [by

Trip Purpose]5

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT6

(miles)

Startup7

(g/start)Running8

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions9

(tonnes)

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 3,000,556 33,846,276 267 13,172 13,439 14,146Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 2,042,396 18,156,896 181 7,066 7,248 7,629Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 51,719 352,207 3 137 140 148Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 29,272 260,229 2 101 103 109Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 126,374 860,609 8 335 343 361Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 71,526 635,863 4 247 252 265Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

15,247 15,247 5,565,220 *** *** 5,321,843 54,112,080 *** *** 465 21,059 21,524 22,657

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 70,678 505,345 6 434 440 463Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 172,699 1,234,799 13 1,061 1,074 1,131

15,247 15,247 5,565,220 *** *** 243,377 1,740,144 *** *** 19 1,495 1,514 1,594

15,247 15,247 5,565,220 *** *** 5,565,220 55,852,224 *** *** 484 22,554 23,038 24,251




Notes:


6. VMT was adjusted to account for diverted and pass-by trips using the following default information from URBEMIS: diverted trip length is assumed to be 25% of primary trip length. Pass-by trip length is assumed to be 0.1 miles. 7. Startup emission factors are taken from EMFAC. ENVIRON calculated a weighted average startup emission factor based on URBEMIS start times.8. Running emission factors are taken from EMFAC at 30 mph (URBEMIS default). 9. CO2e = CO2 / 0.95: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends assuming that CH 4, N2O, and HFCs are 5% of emissions on a CO 2e basis.


13,816

1,431

Table 10-23

Fitness Facility




MDV)


13,816

1,431 1,431

5,042,952Group BDelivery Trucks



Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility 859.3

Retail/Restaurant


All Land Uses

75.3



Group X of Vehicles

Vehicle Class

389.2

General Office 88.95,042,95213,816

522,268

All Land Uses

1,431 522,268



63.3

60.7

78.4


110.0






1. Unmitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with no mitigation measures or adjustments applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use type is based on the Project trip breakdown, accounting for the greater percentage of office land use compared to the Project. Trips are assumed to be one-way.

E N V I R O N


Solid Waste

Alternative 42


CO2e Emissions



3,332 5,114 2,113 0.63 3,244

Notes:

Water (Potable)

ScenarioProject1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 44

(tonne/yr)

1. The total amount of solid waste generated is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions for the Project.2. The amount of solid waste generated for Alternative 4 (Office Only) was provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the solid waste generated by Alternative 4 to the solid waste generated by the Project.4. The CO2e emissions from solid waste generated by Alternative 4 (Office Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.


GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, Signage, Area Sources, Solid Waste, and Construction, Alternative 4 - Office OnlyTable 10-24

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 4 (Office Only)

Water (Potable)

Alternative 42


CO2e Emissions


(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 601 324 0.48 291CARB 2020 NAT 672 719 324 0.48 347

Notes:

ScenarioProject1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 44

(tonne/yr)

1. The total water demand is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for the Project.2. The potable water demand for Alternative 4 (Office Only) was provided by Psomas.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the water demand for Alternative 4 to the water demand for the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for Alternative 4 (Office Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

E N V I R O N



Wastewater

Alternative 42


CO2e Emissions


(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 1,297 324 0.48 627CARB 2020 NAT 670 1,346 324 0.48 651

Notes:

Building Mounted Signs Lighting

Alternative 42

Signage Area(sf)

CO2e Emissions


(sf)Alternative 244,322 5,976 169,801 0.69 4,153

4. The CO2e emissions from wastewater treatment for Alternative 4 (Office Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

ScenarioProject1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 44

(tonne/yr)

ScenarioProject1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 44

(tonne/yr)

1. The total wastewater generated is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to wastewater treatment for the Project.2. The wastewater generated by Alternative 4 (Office Only) was provided by Psomas.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the wastewater generated by Alternative 4 to the wastewater generated by the Project.

, , , ,CARB 2020 NAT 244,322 7,126 169,801 0.69 4,952

Notes:

1. The total signage area is based on information provided by Thomas Properties Group for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions for the Project due to electricity usage by the signs.2. The total signage area for Alternative 4 (Office Only) was provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the signage area for Alternative 4 to the signage area for the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from building mounted signs for Alternative 4 (Office Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

E N V I R O N



Area Sources

ScenarioCO2e Emissions - Alt 41

(tonne/yr)

Alternative 2.32CARB 2020 NAT2

2.32

Note:

Construction

Alternative 42

Area(sf)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Area(sf)

Worker trips, hauling, equipment usage 21,305 16,814

1. The CO2e emissions due to area sources for Alternative 4 are only due to landscaping activities because there are no residential units (and therefore, no natural gas fireplaces). It is assumed that the emissions due to landscaping activities will be equal to the landscaping emissions from the Project.

2. As in the Project Scenario, there are no project design features or regulatory requirements that would affect the emissions from area sources in Alternative 4. Therefore, the emissions due to area sources for the Alternative 4 CARB 2020 NAT scenario are equal to the alternative scenario emissions.

Project1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 44

(tonne/yr)

Category

gElectricity Usage 5,570 4,396Water Usage 66 52Solid Waste Disposal5 36,853 36,296

Notes:

2,901,460 2,289,800 0.79

5. The CO2e emissions due to the disposal of solid waste generated during construction and demolition is based on the ratio of the amount of solid waste generated by Alternative 4 construction and demolition of the existing hotel (94,633 tons) to the amount of solid waste generated by the Project construction and demolition of the existing hotel (96,084 tons).

1. The square footage of the Project is based on the square footages of the commercial building types and is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions from construction due to worker trips, equipment usage, electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste disposal for the Project.2. The square footage of the commercial building types in Alternative 4 (Office Only) were provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the square footage in Alternative 4 to the square footage in the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions due to the construction categories for Alternative 4 (Office Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project for that category by the scaling factor for that category.

E N V I R O N



CARB 2020 NAT Alternative 4 (Office Only) (%)


Residential2 0 0 --

Commercial3 20,391 16,419 19%

Mobile4 24,251 10,946 55%


Area6 2 2 0%

Solid Waste6 3,244 3,244 0%



Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 4 (Office Only) Scenario

Table 10-25

Source



1 The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate There are some source categories where





1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.2. There are no residential units in the Alternative 4 scenario.





E N V I R O N



10.2.5 Under the Residential-Only Alternative, the Project Site would be developed with residential and associated retail, restaurant, and parking uses only. Office space would not be included in the development. The helistop would not be included in this alternative. The Residential-Only Alternative would include the demolition of all existing structures, including existing subterranean parking, and redevelopment of the Project Site with approximately 1,100 residential units and approximately 170,000 square feet of pedestrian-oriented retail. The Residential-Only Alternative would include provision of approximately 1,433 parking spaces in subterranean parking. The building mounted signage area will be 108,481 square feet. Vacation of Francisco Street would also occur under this Alternative. This alternative does not include an Equivalency Program or a helistop. All other aspects of the Alternative would be the same as described under the Proposed Project.

Alternative 5: Residential Only Alternative

For the Residential-Only Alternative, the energy usage was estimated based on the residential-only building type, which also includes retail/restaurant, fitness facility/spa areas, and common residential areas. This alternative does not include meeting rooms or office space. The emissions are summarized in Tables 10-26 through 10-37.

The mobile source emissions were estimated based on the trip generation rates provided by Gibson.162

Construction emissions were calculated by scaling the Project emissions by the relative total square footage for the Residential Only alternative and the Project. The relative area of the two configurations and the resulting construction emissions are shown in Table 10-40. This table also includes the infrastructure emission estimates. The water/wastewater emissions are scaled based on the water/wastewater demand, and the building mounted sign emissions are scaled based on the signage area.


The Residential Only Alternative emissions inventory is less than the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The net emissions for this alternative total -11,209 tonnes CO2e/year (see Table 10-50). The emissions related to this alternative, which take into account the combined savings from the Project sustainability features and the changes in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles), represent a 38.8% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for this alternative (see Table 10-41). Therefore, this alternative is consistent with AB 32 goals.


Type1 Heating3 CoolingDomestic

Hot Water4

Hard-Wired

Lighting5

2001 RASS Total


20016,7

2005 Estimated

TotalHeating3

Domestic Hot

Water4

2001 RASS Total


20016,7

2005 Estimated

Total

Condominium with 5 or more

units91 136 42 583 852 24.3% 645 3.5 9.9 13.3 15.7% 11.2

Notes:

Abbreviations:

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourMMBTU - million british thermal unitsRASS - Residential Appliance Saturation Survey

Source:

Kema-Xenergy, Itron, RoperASW. California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) Volume 2, Study Results, Final Report. June 2004. 300-00-004.


Table 10-26Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Title-24 Regulated Heating and Cooling, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 5 (Residential Only)Los Angeles, California



3. Homes can be heated using electricity and/or natural gas. The values shown equal the unit energy consumption multiplied by the saturation factor, which indicates the percentage of homes that report the use of electricity or natural gas for heating.

6. Reductions are taken with the assumption that the RASS estimate reflects heating/cooling/hot water electricity use for homes that are minimally compliant with 2001 Title 24 Standards (this version was the most current at the time of the RASS study). More than 90% of the homes that participated in the survey were constructed before 1997. Because older homes tend to use more energy, the numbers shown here may overestimate actual energy use at a new development such as Wilshire Grand.7. Based on report by California Energy Commission on estimated first-year electricity savings due to 2005 standards for single-family and multi-family homes, relative to 2001 standards.

2. Based on the Unit Energy Consumption data from the California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS), which collected data from over 21,900 households statewide. Only RASS data tabulated for apartment/condominium buildings with 5 or more units in the climate zone in which Wilshire Grand would be located (Climate Zone11) were considered in this analysis.

DU - dwelling unit

5. According to RASS, approximately 60% of energy use reported as "miscellaneous" can be attributed to lighting. RASS does not differentiate between hard-wired and plug-in lighting. The values shown here represent 50% of lighting energy use. All outdoor lighting was assumed to be hard-wired.

4. Domestic hot water can be heated using electricity and/or natural gas. The values shown equal the unit energy consumption multiplied by the saturation factor, which indicates the percentage of homes that report the use of an electric or natural gas hot water heater.

E N V I R O N

Type Type1 RefrigeratorClothes Washer

Clothes Dryer

(Electric)3 DishwasherCooking Range

(Electric)4

Total Major Appliances

Plug-in

Lighting5

Plug-in

MELs6Total

Plug-insClothes Dryer

(Gas)3

Cooking Range

(Gas)4Total

Standard Appliances


744 14 274 59 104 1,195 377 1,405 1,783 1.4 2.3 3.7

Energy Star

Appliances7Condominium with 5

or more units633 10 274 47 104 1,067 94 1,405 1,500 1.4 2.3 3.7

Notes:

3. Dryers can use either gas or electric heat. The values shown here represent 50% of energy use for gas heating and 50% of energy use for electric heating.4. Cooking ranges can use electric or gas heat. The values shown here represent 50% of energy use for gas heating and 50% of energy use for electric heating.

Abbreviations:

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourMEL - miscellaneous electric loadMMBTU - million british thermal unitsRASS - Residential Appliance Saturation Survey

Sources:Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007 Annual Report. Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/pdf/2007AnnualReportFinal.pdfKema-Xenergy, Itron, RoperASW. California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) Volume 2, Study Results, Final Report. June 2004. 300-00-004.

DU - dwelling unit


7. Average energy savings above standard products are applied to refrigeration (15%), clothes washer (30%), dishwasher (20%), and lighting (75%) as reported in Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships 2007 Annual Report, Table 9.

2. Energy use per residential dwelling unit is based on information in RASS report.

5. RASS does not differentiate between hard-wired and plug-in lighting. The values shown here represent 50% of lighting energy use.6. Plug-in miscellaneous electric loads (MELs) include such end uses as TVs, personal computers, home office equipment, freezers, and fans. To estimates energy use for these loads, the unit energy consumption values for each end-use was multiplied by the saturation factor, which indicates the percentage of homes that report the end use.


Table 10-27Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit: Non-Title 24 Appliances and Plug-ins, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)


E N V I R O N

Title 241 Compliance Dwelling TypeTitle 24

Systems1,2

Major

Appliances3,4 Plug-ins5 Total

Title 24 Systems (Heating and Domestic Hot

Water)1,2

Major Appliances (Gas Dryers and

Oven Ranges)4Total



15% Improvement over 2005

Title 246 Condominium with 5 or more units 548 1,195 1,783 3,526 10 4 13

15% Improvement over 2005 Title 24 and Energy Star

Appliances6Condominium with 5 or more units 548 1,067 1,500 3,115 10 4 13

Notes:1. Title 24 - California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 systems include heating, cooling, and domestic hot water.

5. "Plug-ins" refers to electricity use associated with plug-in lighting, plug-in appliances, and miscellaneous electric loads. 6. Thomas Properties Group has committed to a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24 and to the use of Energy Star appliances.

Abbreviations:

kW-hr - kilowatt-hourMMBTU - million british thermal units

Table 10-28Total Energy Use per Residential Dwelling Unit, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

[kW-hr / DU / year] (MMBTU natural gas / DU / year)

Natural Gas Delivered


Electricity Delivered

2. Heating systems can require electricity or natural gas. The values presented in this table represent the distribution based on saturation values of the electricity and/or natural gas use for each equipment type.3. "Major appliances" includes refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and cooking ranges.4. Dryers and oven ranges may be electric or gas. The values presented in this table represent 50% of energy use for gas heating and 50% of energy use for electric heating for each equipment type.

DU - dwelling unit

E N V I R O N

Title-24

Systems1

Non-Title 24 Appliances and

Plug-insTotal

CO2

Electricity2

CO2 Natural

Gas3

CO2

Electricity2

CO2 Natural

Gas3

CO2

Electricity2

CO2 Natural

Gas3 CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total







Notes:

1. Title 24 - California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code.

6. Thomas Properties Group has committed to a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24 and to the use of Energy Star appliances.

Abbreviations:CCAR - California Climate Action RegistryCCR - California Code of RegulationsCO2 - carbon dioxide

GRP - General Reporting ProtocolkW-hr - kilowatt-hourLADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Powerlb - poundPUP - Power/Utility ProtocolRPS - Renewables Portfolio Standardtonne - metric tonne





2005 Title 246


Star Appliances6


(tonnes / DU / year)(lbs / DU / year)


Table 10-29CO2 Emissions per Residential Dwelling Unit, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

2. Converted from kW-hr to lb CO2 using emission factor from the California Climate Action Registry Database: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2007 PUP Report. 2008. 3. Converted from MMBTU to lb CO2 using emission factor from California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (CCAR GRP).


DU - dwelling unit



Total


E N V I R O N

CO2 Emission Factor

Total CO2


FactorTotal CO2


FactorTotal CO2

Emissions


(tonne CO2 / year)


(tonne CO2 / year)


(tonne CO2 / year)

Existing Electricity Portfolio3 1,100 0.96 1,051 1.85 2,037 2.81 3,089

20% Renewable Portfolio4 1,100 0.90 988 1.58 1,743 2.48 2,731

Existing Electricity Portfolio3 1,100 0.81 894 1.85 2,037 2.66 2,931

20% Renewable Portfolio4 1,100 0.76 840 1.58 1,743 2.35 2,582

Existing Electricity Portfolio3 1,100 0.81 894 1.62 1,786 2.44 2,679

20% Renewable Portfolio4 1,100 0.76 840 1.39 1532 2.16 2,371

Notes:1. Title 24 - California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code.2. Information provided by Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Initial Study (July 2009).

5. Thomas Properties Group has committed to a 15% improvement over 2005 Title 24 and to the use of Energy Star appliances.

Abbreviations:CCR - California Code of RegulationsCO2 - carbon dioxide

LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and PowerRPS - Renewables Portfolio Standardtonne - metric tonne


Star Appliances5






2005 Title 245Condominium with 5 or

more units

# Dwelling

Units2

Total

DU - dwelling unit




Table 10-30CO2 Emissions from Electricity and Natural Gas Usage in Residential Dwelling Units, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)


E N V I R O N


[tonnes/yr]


[tonnes/yr]

Electricity 1,601

Natural Gas 771

Electricity 2,219

Natural Gas 869

Notes:



1. Thomas Properties Group has committed to the use of 20% renewable power, to be achieved through a combination of the LADWP RPS and Green Power Program.2. In the existing electricity portfolio, California Climate Action Registry's most recently reported emission factor for electricity generation at LADWP was used (2007).

NAT (Minimally 2005 Title 24 Compliant ) Existing Electricity Portfolio2 3,089

Alternative 5 (Residential Only) - (15% improvement over 2005

Title 24, with Energy Star Appliances)

20% Renewable Portfolio1 2,372

Table 10-31Summary of GHG Emissions from Residential Building Types, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)


E N V I R O N

Building Type1 CEUS Building Type2 Quantity Units Area per Unit3,4 [SF/unit] Total Area1 [SF]Retail/Restaurant Restaurant 121,429 SF 1 121,429

Fitness Facility/Spa Health 48,571 SF 1 48,571Parking Warehouse 1,433 spaces 325 465,725

635,725

Notes:

Abbreviations:

Sources:

Table 10-32Categorization of Commercial Land Use, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 5 (Residential Only)



SF - square feet

Grand Total Area



3. The area per unit for hotel rooms is based on the anticipated average size of a hotel room in the Project, provided by Thomas Properties Group.4. ENVIRON estimated the area per unit. The area per unit for a parking space is based on the area of an average parking space including landscaping around the space.

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1

Health 2% 2% 21% 3% 4% 22% 15% 3% 5% --- 3% 22% 0.13%Restaurant 0.1% 29% 14% 9% 0.01% 12% 3% 1.0% 2% --- 22% 8% 0.3%Warehouse 2% 0.3% 9% 5% 0.9% 48% 10% 4% 5% 0.0% 7% 8% 1%




Abbreviations:

Source:

Mis

cella

ne

ou

s

Mo

tors

Air

Co

mp

ress

ors

Co

oki

ng

Coo

ling

Ext

eri

or

Lig

htin

g

Table 10-33Electricity End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)





Wa

ter

He

atin

g

Off

ice

Eq

uip

me

nt

Pro

cess

Re

frig

era

tion

Ve

ntil

atio

n

He

atin

g

Inte

rio

r L

igh

ting

E N V I R O N

CEUS Building Type1

Health 3% 2% 56% 0.5% 10% 29%Restaurant 80% --- 4% --- --- 16%Warehouse 2% --- 78% 2% --- 18%




Abbreviations:

Source:

Table 10-34Natural Gas End-Use Distribution for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)


Pro

cess

Wat

er H

eatin

g




Coo

king

Coo

ling

Hea

ting

Mis

cella

neou

s

E N V I R O N

CO2e EF5






Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 23.29 1.09E-02 1,130,994 528Natural Gas kBTU 59.77 + 11.07 = 70.84 3.76E-03 61.88 3.28E-03 3,005,462 159Electricity kWh 10.33 + 38.53 = 48.87 2.72E-02 47.32 2.21E-02 5,745,504 2,684

Natural Gas kBTU 45.35 + 187.78 = 233.13 1.24E-02 226.33 1.20E-02 27,482,824 1,458Electricity kWh 0.83 + 3.87 = 4.70 2.62E-03 4.58 2.14E-03 2,131,497 996

Natural Gas kBTU 1.01 + 0.04 = 1.04 5.54E-05 0.89 4.74E-05 415,914 22

Grand Total Area 635,725 9,007,995 4,208

30,904,200 1,640

5,847

Notes:


Sources:

Electricity Total

Natural Gas Total

Non-Title 244

Grand Total

465,725

Energy Source

121,429

48,571

Warehouse (Parking)



Usage Rate1


[SF]Unit


Title 24)

Table 10-35Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)



Title 24






E N V I R O N


CO2e EF5

[tonnes/SF-yr]

CO2e Emissions6


Electricity kWh 11.04 + 13.90 = 24.94 1.39E-02 675Natural Gas kBTU 59.77 + 11.07 = 70.84 3.76E-03 183Electricity kWh 10.33 + 38.53 = 48.87 2.72E-02 3,305

Natural Gas kBTU 45.35 + 187.78 = 233.13 1.24E-02 1,502Electricity kWh 0.83 + 3.87 = 4.70 2.62E-03 1,219

Natural Gas kBTU 1.01 + 0.04 = 1.04 5.54E-05 26Grand Total Area 635,725 Electricity Total 5,199


Notes:




1. Usage rates were taken from the 2006 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS), performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC). ENVIRON used data for Forecasting Climate Zone (FCZ) 9. It is assumed that energy use data for FCZ 9 would be similar to FCZ 11, the sector in which the Wilshire Grand development is located, due to the geographic proximity of the two FCZs.2. Title 24 usage rates shown in this table have been adjusted to reflect improvements in Title 24 building codes since their introduction in 2002. CEC discusses average savings for improvements from 2002 to 2005 ("Impact Analysis for 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards"). ENVIRON used these CEC average savings percentages, which are 7.7% reduction for electricity and 3.2% reduction for gas in 2005.3. Includes only Title 24-regulated building envelope uses of electricity (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating) and gas (heating, water heating), as discussed in footnote 1 of Table 10-33.4. Includes all other uses of electricity (cooking, refrigeration, exterior lighting, interior lighting, office equipment, miscellaneous, process, motors, air compressors) and gas (cooling, cooking, miscellaneous, process) not included in the Title 24-regulated building envelope, as discussed in footnote 3 above.

Table 10-36Energy Usage and Resulting GHG Emissions for Commercial Building Types, NAT, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)


2005 Title 24

Usage Rate1


[SF]Unit

Non-Title 244



Warehouse (Parking) 465,725

Energy Source

121,429

48,571

E N V I R O N




Natural Gas 1,640


Notes:





6,910

5,847



Table 10-37

Los Angeles, CaliforniaWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Summary of GHG Emissions from Commercial Building Types, Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

Alternative 5 (Residential Only)

E N V I R O N



Adjustments1



% Trip


Purpose4


Purpose]4

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT5Startup6

(g/start)Running7

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions8

(tonnes)

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 24.1% 11.3 159,945 1,579,453 14 490 504 531Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 13.3% 6.8 88,268 526,409 8 163 171 180Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 29.0% 6.8 192,464 1,147,810 17 356 373 393


Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 21,266 144,824 1 45 46 48Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 12,036 107,004 1 33 34 36Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 69,285 471,832 3 146 150 158Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 39,214 348,614 2 108 110 116Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,546 929,218 *** *** 805,473 5,501,887 *** *** 65 1,708 1,773 1,866



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 29,062 207,793 2 179 181 190Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 94,683 676,983 7 582 589 620

2,546 929,218 *** *** 123,745 884,776 *** *** 9 760 770 810

2,546 929,218 *** *** 929,218 6,386,663 *** *** 75 2,468 2,543 2,676




Notes:




171

1. Mitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with location adjustments and TDM measures applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use is based on the Project trip break down, accounting for the greater percentage of residential land use compared to the Project. Trips are assumed to be one-way. Weekday/weekend adjustments are applied based on a report by Sonoma Technologies.

All Land Uses





Table 10-38


Group X of Vehicles




MDV)


859.3

Retail/Restaurant

All Land Uses

310.4

88.1663,670

50.5Fitness Facility 171



Vehicle Class


Group B) Vehicles

Condo/Townhouse


62,365

203,182557

557




Pavley Standards Not Applicable Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse

78.4

203,182

663,670


1,818

75.3

48.4

136.8

1,818

62,365

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips

- Unmitigated1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted3

Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose5

Trip Length [by

Trip Purpose]5

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT6

(miles)

Startup7

(g/start)Running8

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions9

(tonnes)

Primary 85.0% Home-Based Work 24.1% 11.3 502,722 4,964,376 56 1,932 1,988 2,092Diverted 10.0% Home-Based Shop 13.3% 6.8 277,436 1,654,556 31 644 675 710Passby 5.0% Home-Based Other 29.0% 6.8 604,935 3,607,679 67 1,404 1,471 1,548

Home-Based School 18.8% 5.4 392,165 1,854,938 43 722 765 805Home-Based Recreation 14.8% 6.8 308,725 1,841,161 34 717 751 790

Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 116,728 794,920 7 309 317 333Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 66,066 587,328 4 229 233 245Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 285,223 1,942,367 17 756 773 814Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 161,431 1,435,122 10 559 568 598Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,291 8,944 3,264,724 *** *** 2,715,430 18,682,449 *** *** 269 7,271 7,540 7,937



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 159,517 1,140,549 13 980 993 1,045Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 389,777 2,786,903 29 2,395 2,424 2,552

9,291 8,944 3,264,724 *** *** 549,294 3,927,452 *** *** 42 3,375 3,417 3,597

9,291 8,944 3,264,724 *** *** 3,264,724 22,609,901 *** *** 311 10,646 10,957 11,533




Notes:


6. VMT was adjusted to account for diverted and pass-by trips using the following default information from URBEMIS: diverted trip length is assumed to be 25% of primary trip length. Pass-by trip length is assumed to be 0.1 miles. 7. Startup emission factors are taken from EMFAC. ENVIRON calculated a weighted average startup emission factor based on URBEMIS start times.8. Running emission factors are taken from EMFAC at 30 mph (URBEMIS default). 9. CO2e = CO2 / 0.95: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends assuming that CH 4, N2O, and HFCs are 5% of emissions on a CO 2e basis.






1. Unmitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with no mitigation measures or adjustments applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use type is based on the Project trip breakdown, accounting for the greater percentage of residential land use compared to the Project. Trips are assumed to be one-way.



63.3

60.7

136.8

78.4


Condo/Townhouse

All Land Uses

3,229 1,178,742

2,085,9826,061

389.2

110.4

1,178,742



Group X of Vehicles

Vehicle Class

859.3

Retail/Restaurant

All Land Uses

75.3



Pavley Standards Not Applicable Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

Condo/Townhouse 5,715

6,061

3,229 3,229

Table 10-39

Fitness Facility



5,715 2,085,982Group APassenger VehiclesVehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs(LDA, LDT1, LDT2,

MDV)



3,229

E N V I R O N


Solid Waste

Alternative 52


CO2e Emissions



3,332 5,114 1,175 0.35 1,804Notes:

W t (P t bl )

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 54

(tonne/yr)



Project1

2. The amount of solid waste generated for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) was provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the solid waste generated by Alternative 5 to the solid waste generated by the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from solid waste generated by Alternative 5 (Residential Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

Table 10-40GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Signage, Area Sources, and Construction, Alternative 5 - Residential Only


Scenario

Water (Potable)

Alternative 52


CO2e Emissions


(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 601 304 0.45 272CARB 2020 NAT 672 719 304 0.45 325Notes:

1. The total water demand is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for the Project.2. The potable water demand for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) was provided by Psomas.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the water demand for Alternative 5 to the water demand for the Project.

Scenario

4. The CO2e emissions from water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

Project1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 54

(tonne/yr)

E N V I R O N



Wastewater

Alternative 52


CO2e Emissions


(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 1,297 304 0.45 587CARB 2020 NAT 670 1,346 304 0.45 610Notes:


Alternative 52

Signage Area(sf)

CO2e Emissions


(sf)Alternative 244,322 5,976 108,481 0.44 2,653

1. The total wastewater generated is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to wastewater treatment for the Project.2. The wastewater generated by Alternative 5 (Residential Only) was provided by Psomas.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the wastewater generated by Alternative 5 to the wastewater generated by the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from wastewater treatment for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

Project1

Scenario

Project1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 54

(tonne/yr)

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 54

(tonne/yr)

Scenario

Alternative 244,322 5,976 108,481 0.44 2,653CARB 2020 NAT 244,322 7,126 108,481 0.44 3,164Notes:1. The total signage area is based on information provided by Thomas Properties Group for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions for the Project due to electricity usage by the signs.2. The total signage area for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) was provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the signage area for Alternative 5 to the signage area for the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from building mounted signs for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

E N V I R O N



Area Sources

Alternative 52

NG Fireplaces CO2e

Emissions1

(tonne/yr)

Residential Units2

(du)Residential Units3

(du)

Alternative 0.35 100 1,100 11 2.32 6.17CARB 2020 NAT6

0.35 100 1,100 11 2.32 6.17Notes:

5. The CO2e emissions from natural gas fireplaces and landscaping activities for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from natural gas fireplaces for the Project by the scaling factor, and adding the CO2e emissions from landscaping activities for the Project. It is assumed that the emissions from landscaping activities for Alternative 5 are the same as the emissions from landscaping activities for the Project.

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 55

(tonne/yr)

Scenario

Project

Scaling Factor4

Landscaping CO2e Emissions -

Project1

(tonne/yr)

6. As in the Project Scenario, there are no project design features or regulatory requirements that would affect the emissions from area sources in Alternative 5. Therefore, the emissions due to area sources for the CARB 2020 NAT scenario are equal to the alternative scenario emissions.

4. The scaling factor is the ratio of the number of residential units in Alternative 5 to the number of residential units in the Project.

1. The CO2e emissions from natural gas fireplaces and landscaping activities for the Project scenario were estimated using URBEMIS.2. The number of natural gas fireplaces for the Project scenario was based on the number of residential units in the Project scenario (assumed that each residential unit would have one natural gas fireplace).3. The number of residential units in Alternative 5 was provided by Thomas Properties Group.

Construction

Alternative 52

Area(sf)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Area(sf)

21,305 16,7845,570 4,388

66 5236,853 36,457

Notes:

2. The square footages of Alternative 5 (Residential Only) were provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the square footage in Alternative 5 to the square footage in the Project.

Solid Waste Disposal5

4. The CO2e emissions due to the construction categories for Alternative 5 (Residential Only) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project for that category by the scaling factor for that category.

Worker trips, hauling, equipment usage

2,901,460 2,285,725 0.79Electricity UsageWater Usage


1. The square footage of the Project is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions from construction due to worker trips, equipment usage, electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste disposal for the Project.

CategoryProject1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 54

(tonne/yr)

E N V I R O N



CARB 2020 NATAlternative 5 (Residential

Only)(%)


Residential2 3,089 2,372 23%

Commercial3 6,910 5,847 15%

Mobile4 11,533 2,676 77%


Area6 6 6 0%

Solid Waste6 1,804 1,804 0%

Helicopter7 0 0 --Total (annual emissions) 27,450 16,227 40.9%


Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 5 (Residential Only) Scenario

Table 10-41

Source



1 The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate There are some source categories where appropriate





1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.




6. CARB 2020 NAT area and solid waste emissions are assumed to be equal to the alternative emissions (i.e., the alternative does not incorporate project design features that reduce the emissions from these categories).7. The Alternative 5 (Residential Only) scenario does not include a helistop, per information provided by Thomas Properties Group.

E N V I R O N



10.2.6 Under the Reduced Height Alternative, Buildings A and B would be the same height, both at approximately 53 stories, or a maximum of 717 feet tall. The Reduced Height Alternative would include the demolition of all existing structures, including existing subterranean parking, and redevelopment of the Project Site with maximum of 560 hotel rooms and/or condo-hotel units, 100 residential units, 1,500,000 square feet of office uses, and 275,000 square feet of amenity areas. The Reduced Height Alternative would include provision of approximately 1,900 parking spaces in a maximum of eight levels of subterranean parking. The Equivalency Program, signage program, and helistop are included in this alternative. All other aspects of the Alternative would be the same as described under the Project.

Alternative 6: Reduced Height Alternative

Since the building uses in this Alternative 6 are identical to those in the Project, it is assumed that there will be negligible changes in GHG emissions associated with building energy use. Similarly, emissions from the signage program are assumed to be the same as for the Project.

The mobile source activity is estimated to be the same as that of the project. Consequently, mobile source emissions for this Alternative 6 were assumed to be the same as for the Project as estimated for 2020.

Construction emissions were assumed to be the same as that estimated for the Project since the overall square footage of the structures are represented to be equivalent as the Project. The infrastructure emissions are also assumed to be the same as that estimated for the Project since the building uses are identical to those in the Project.

The Reduced Height Alternative emissions inventory is expected to be similar to the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. Like the Project, the emissions related to this alternative, which recognize the combined savings from the same Project sustainability features and the same changes in emission factors there were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles), represent a 31.2% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for alternative (see Table 10-42). Therefore, like the Project, this alternative is consistent with AB 32 goals.




Height)(%)

Construction2 63,793 63,793 0%Total (one-time emissions) 63,793 63,793 0%


Commercial2,4 21,854 17,629 19%

Mobile2,5 30,095 14,399 52%


Area2,7 3 3 0%

Solid Waste2,7 5,114 5,114 0%



Notes:1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 6 (Reduced Height) Scenario

Table 10-42

Source













E N V I R O N



10.2.7 Alternative 7: Zoning Compliant Alternative – No Helistop Under the Zoning Compliant Alternative, the Project Site would be developed up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 6:1, based on a 2.7-acre site (which would not include the centerline of surrounding streets or vacation of Francisco Street). The Zoning Compliant Alternative would include the demolition of all existing structures, including existing subterranean parking, and redevelopment of the Project Site with maximum of 350 hotel rooms and/or condo-hotel units, 50 residential units, 350,000 square feet of office uses, and 132,500 square feet of amenity areas. The Zoning Compliant Alternative would include provision of approximately 917 parking spaces in a subterranean parking, in compliance with code requirements. This Alternative would not vacate Francisco Street or include a helistop. All other aspects of the Alternative would be the same as described under the Project. The Zoning Compliant alternative would include the building signage program.

For the Zoning Compliant Alternative, the planned reduced areas of hotel, residential, office and amenity space were used with the CO2 intensity values to calculate CO2 emissions from building energy use. It was assumed that the percent breakdown of the total area among the different amenity types (e.g., retail/restaurant, fitness facility, and ancillary hotel areas/meeting rooms) was the same as that assumed for the Project. The infrastructure emissions were scaled based on the water/wastewater demand, and the emissions from the signage program were calculated based on electricity demand provided by Glumac.163

The mobile source emissions were estimated based on the trip generation rates provided by Gibson.

The emissions from residential and commercial building usage and from infrastructure are summarized in Table 10-43.

164

Emissions from the helistop, landscaping, and public lighting were assumed to be the same as those estimated for the Project from these sources.


Construction emissions were calculated by scaling the Project emissions by the relative total square footage for the Zoning Compliant alternative and the Project. The relative area of the two configurations and the resulting emissions are shown in Table 10-43.

The Zoning Compliant Alternative emissions inventory is less than the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The net emissions for this alternative total -6,857 tonnes CO2e/year (see Table 10-50). The emissions related to this alternative, which recognize the combined savings from the Project sustainability features and the changes in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles), represent a 28.3% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for this alternative (see Table 10-46). Therefore, this alternative is not consistent with AB 32 goals.

163 Glumac, Electrical Technical Report, May 2010. 164 Gibson Transportation, Transportation Study for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project. January, 2010.


Solid Waste

Alternative 72


CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)


Alternative 3,332 5,114 1,059 0.32 1,625CARB 2020 NAT5

3,332 5,114 1,059 0.32 1,625

Notes:

Table 10-43GHG Emissions from Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Building Signage, Area Sources, Residential and Commercial Energy Usage, and Construction, Alternative

7 - Zoning CompliantWilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant)


2. The amount of solid waste generated for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) was provided by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates.

4. The CO2e emissions from solid waste generated by Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.5. As in the Project Scenario, there are no project design features or regulatory requirements that would affect the emissions from solid waste in Alternative 7. Therefore, the emissions due to solid waste for the Alternative 7 CARB 2020 NAT scenario are equal to the alternative scenario emissions.

3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the solid waste generated by Alternative 7 to the solid waste generated by the Project.

Scenario Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

Project1

Water (Potable)

Alternative 72

Potable Water Demand

(acre-ft/yr)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)

Potable Water Demand

(acre-ft/yr)Alternative 670 601 166 0.25 148CARB 2020 NAT 672 719 166 0.25 177

Notes:

1. The total water demand is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for the Project.2. The potable water demand for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) was provided by Psomas.

4. The CO2e emissions from water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the water demand for Alternative 7 to the water demand for the Project.

Scenario

Project1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

E N V I R O N



Wastewater

Alternative 72


CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)


Alternative 670 1,297 166 0.25 320CARB 2020 NAT 670 1,346 166 0.25 332

Notes:


Alternative 72

Signage Area(sf)

CO2e Emissions


(sf)

Alternative 244,322 5,976 170,917 0.70 4,181CARB 2020 NAT 244,322 7,126 170,917 0.70 4,985

1. The total wastewater generated is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to wastewater treatment for the Project.

Scenario

Project1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

2. The wastewater generated by Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) was provided by Psomas.

4. The CO2e emissions from wastewater treatment for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the wastewater generated by Alternative 7 to the wastewater generated by the Project.

ScenarioProject1

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

Notes:

1. The total signage area is based on information provided by Thomas Properties Group for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions for the Project due to electricity usage by the signs.2. The total signage area for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) was provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the signage area for Alternative 7 to the signage area for the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions from building mounted signs for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

E N V I R O N



Area Sources

Alternative 72

NG Fireplaces

CO2e Emissions1

(tonne/yr)

Residential

Units2

(du)

Residential Units3

(du)

Alternative 0.35 100 50 0.5 2.32 2.495CARB 2020 NAT6

0.35 100 50 0.5 2.32 2.495

Notes:

Residential

1. The CO2e emissions from natural gas fireplaces and landscaping activities for the Project scenario were estimated using URBEMIS.

2. The number of natural gas fireplaces for the Project scenario was based on the number of residential units in the Project scenario (assumed that each residential unit would have one natural gas fireplace).

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 75

(tonne/yr)


Scenario

Project

Scaling Factor4

Landscaping CO2e

Emissions -

Project1

(tonne/yr)

3. The number of residential units in Alternative 7 was provided by Thomas Properties Group.

5. The CO2e emissions from natural gas fireplaces and landscaping activities for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from natural gas fireplaces for the Project by the scaling factor, and adding the CO2e emissions from landscaping activities for the Project. It is assumed that the emissions from landscaping activities for Alternative 7 are the same as the emissions from landscaping activities for the Project.6. As in the Project Scenario, there are no project design features or regulatory requirements that would affect the emissions from area sources in Alternative 7. Therefore, the emissions due to area sources for the CARB 2020 NAT scenario are equal to the alternative scenario emissions.

Alternative 72

Residential Units(du)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Residential Units

(du)

Alternative 100 216 50 0.50 108CARB 2020 NAT 100 281 50 0.50 141

Notes:1. The number of residential units is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to energy usage (electricity and natural gas) from the residential units for the Project.

Scaling Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

Scenario

Project1

2. The number of residential units in Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) was provided by Thomas Properties Group.

4. The CO2e emissions due to energy usage from the residential units for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) is estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.


E N V I R O N



Commercial

Quantity UnitsCO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Quantity Units

Office 1,500,000 sf 11,038 350,000 sf 0.23 2,576Hotel 560 rooms 1,876 350 rooms 0.63 1,173Amenities 275,000 sf 3,365 132,500 sf 0.48 1,621Parking 1,900 spaces 1,349 917 spaces 0.48 651

17,628 6,020Office 1,500,000 sf 13,877 350,000 sf 0.23 3,238Hotel 560 rooms 2,319 350 rooms 0.63 1,449Amenities 275,000 sf 4,007 132,500 sf 0.48 1,931Parking 1,900 spaces 1,651 917 spaces 0.48 797

21,854 7,415

Notes:

3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the square footage or number of rooms/parking spaces in Alternative 7 to the square footage or number of rooms/parking spaces in the Project.

Alternative

CARB 2020 NAT

Scaling

Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

1. The square footage of the office and amenities categories and the number of hotel rooms and parking spaces are based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to energy usage (electricity and natural gas) from these categories for the Project.2. The square footage of the office and amenities categories and the number of hotel rooms and parking spaces in Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) were provided by Thomas Properties Group.

Project1

Scenario CategoryAlternative 72

Total

Total

4. The CO2e emissions due to energy usage from the office, hotel, amenities, and parking garage for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project for that category by the scaling factor for that category.

Construction

Alternative 72

Area(sf)

CO2e Emissions

(tonnes/yr)Area(sf)

21,305 7,9295,570 2,073

66 2536,853 35,319

Notes:


Solid Waste Disposal5

CategoryCO2e Emissions -

Alt 74

(tonne/yr)

Scaling Factor3

2,901,460 1,079,875 0.37

Project1

Worker trips, hauling, equipment usageElectricity UsageWater Usage

1. The square footage of the Project is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions from construction due to worker trips, equipment usage, electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste disposal for the Project.2. The square footage of the commercial building types in Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) were provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the square footage in Alternative 7 to the square footage in the Project.

4. The CO2e emissions due to the construction categories for Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project for that category by the scaling factor for that category.

E N V I R O N



Adjustments1



% Trip


Purpose4


Purpose]4

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT5Startup6

(g/start)Running7

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions8

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 769,547 8,680,491 55 2,694 2,749 2,893Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 523,809 4,656,665 37 1,445 1,482 1,560Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 187,976 1,280,116 9 397 407 428Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 106,391 945,816 5 294 299 315Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 27,077 184,393 1 57 59 62Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 15,325 136,239 1 42 43 45Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 88,215 600,745 4 186 191 201Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 49,928 443,862 2 138 140 148Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

6,110 2,230,192 *** *** 1,815,756 17,245,277 *** *** 120 5,352 5,472 5,760



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

130

79,404

48.4

136.8


3,543 1,293,356

258,695

47,487

110.0


lbs(LHDT1 LHDT2

Condo/Townhouse 130

Condo/Townhouse



Vehicle Class


Group B) Vehicles

Fitness Facility

General Office

1,510310.4

88.1

1,293,3563,543

47,487

551,249

50.5

70.9

218

709Retail/Restaurant

General Office

All Land Uses

Table 10-44


Group X of Vehicles






Hotel

859.3Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 256,882 1,836,706 20 1,578 1,598 1,683Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 37,002 264,566 3 227 230 242Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 120,552 861,947 9 741 750 789

6,110 2,230,192 *** *** 414,436 2,963,219 *** *** 32 2,546 2,578 2,714

6,110 2,230,192 *** *** 2,230,192 20,208,496 *** *** 152 7,898 8,050 8,474

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation ConsultingCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto URBEMISCBD - Central Business District LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) EMFAC User GuideTDM - Transportation Demand Management Program MDV - Medium-Duty Trucks (5751-8500 lbs) Sonoma Technologies



Notes:




75.3


258,695

551,249

78.4

79,404


(LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, HHDT)


Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

1,510

709





218

1. Mitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with location adjustments and TDM measures applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use is based on the Project trip breakdown. Trips are assumed to be one-way. Weekday/weekend adjustments are applied based on a report by Sonoma Technologies.

All Land Uses

Hotel

E N V I R O N


Estimates

Total Daily Trips -

Unmitigated1

Total Daily Trips -

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted2

Total Annual Trips-

Weekday/ Weekend

Adjusted3

Trip Type

% Trip


Purpose5

Trip Length [by

Trip Purpose]5

(miles)

Annual Trips

Annual

VMT6

(miles)

Startup7

(g/start)Running8

(g/mile)

Annual Startup CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Annual Running CO2

Emissions(tonnes)

Total Annual CO2

Emissions (tonnes)

Total Annual CO2e

Emissions9

(tonnes)



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 59.5% 11.3 1,080,066 12,183,145 96 4,741 4,837 5,092Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 40.5% 8.9 735,171 6,535,670 65 2,544 2,609 2,746Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 142,981 973,699 9 379 388 408Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 80,925 719,419 5 280 285 300Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 34.1% 6.8 349,370 2,379,208 21 926 947 997Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 19.3% 8.9 197,737 1,757,883 12 684 696 733Passby 0.0% Other-Other 0.0% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,123 9,112 3,325,729 *** *** 2,652,898 24,993,868 *** *** 216 9,727 9,943 10,466



Primary 100.0% Home-Based Work 0.0% 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0%Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

4,973

Table 10-45

Fitness Facility



183 66,649


MDV)


194

4,973

3,956 3,956

1,815,237

183


Vehicles > 8,500 lbs(LHDT1, LHDT2,

Condo/Townhouse

859.3

Retail/Restaurant


All Land Uses



Group X of Vehicles

Vehicle Class

389.2

110.4

General Office 88.91,815,2374,973

1,443,843

Condo/Townhouse

66,649194

Hotel


63.3

60.7

136.8

110.0

Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 195,393 1,397,060 15 1,201 1,216 1,280Primary 100.0% Home-Based Other 0.0% 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Diverted 0.0% Work-Other 0.0% 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Passby 0.0% Other-Other 46.6% 7.2 477,438 3,413,681 36 2,933 2,969 3,126

9,123 9,112 3,325,729 *** *** 672,831 4,810,741 *** *** 51 4,134 4,185 4,405

9,123 9,112 3,325,729 *** *** 3,325,729 29,804,608 *** *** 267 13,861 14,128 14,872

Abbreviations: Abbreviations (cont'd): Abbreviations (cont'd): Sources:CO2 - carbon dioxide Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Vehicle Classes (from EMFAC User Guide): Gibson Transportation ConsultingCO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent LDA - Light Duty Auto MHDT - Medium-Heavy-Duty (14,001-33,000 lbs) URBEMISNAT - no action taken LDT1, LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks (0-3750 lbs) HHDT - Heavy-Heavy-Duty (33,001-60,000 lbs) EMFAC User Guide



Notes:




3,956

( , ,MHDT, HHDT)


Retail/Restaurant

Fitness Facility

Hotel

75.3

All Land Uses

3,956 1,443,843


78.4







1. Unmitigated daily number of trips are the total trips for all vehicle classes for each land use type with no mitigation measures or adjustments applied, based on information provided by Gibson Transportation Consulting. The break down of trips into land use type is based on the Project trip break down. Trips are assumed to be one-way.

E N V I R O N



CARB 2020 NATAlternative 7 (Zoning

Compliant)(%)


Residential2 141 108 23%

Commercial3 7,415 6,020 19%

Mobile4 14,872 8,474 43%


Area6 2 2 0%

Solid Waste6 1,625 1,625 0%

Helicopter7 0 0 --Total (annual emissions) 29,559 20,887 29.3%


Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) Scenario

Table 10-46

Source



1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where





1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.2. CARB 2020 NAT residential emissions reflect minimally 2005 Title-24 compliant homes without Energy Star appliances.



6. CARB 2020 NAT area and solid waste emissions are assumed to be equal to the alternative emissions (i.e., the alternative does not incorporate project design features that reduce the emissions from these categories).7. The Alternative 7 (Zoning Compliant) scenario does not include a helistop, per information provided by Thomas Properties Group.

E N V I R O N



10.2.8 Alternative 8: Reduced Signage Alternative Under the Reduced Signage Alternative, the Project Site would be developed with the same office, residential, and hotel development as the Project. However, overall signage (as designated under the Signage Supplemental Use District [Wilshire Grand SUD]) would be reduced to 3 percent less than the Project. The Reduced Signage Alternative would adopt the same signage regulations as set forth in the Wilshire Grand SUD for the Project; however, Sign Level 2 would have reduced overall signage coverage and Sign Level 3 would be replaced by architectural lighting. Sign coverage for Sign Levels 1 and 4 would remain unchanged. Under this Alternative, Sign Level 2 would allow 50 percent coverage of the buildings’ facades, rather than 80 percent coverage of the buildings’ facades, as under the Project. With the exception of the Wilshire Grand SUD, all other aspects of the Reduced Signage Alternative would be the same as described under the Project.

The building signage emissions were scaled based on the reduction in overall signage area. The emissions are summarized in Table 10-47. Emissions from all other aspects of this Alternative were assumed to be the same as the Project.

The Reduced Signage Alternative emissions inventory is expected to be similar to the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The emissions related to this alternative, which recognize the combined savings from the Project sustainability features and the changes in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles), represent a 31.2% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for this alternative (see Table 10-48). Therefore, this alternative is consistent with AB 32 goals.

10.2.9 Alternative 9: Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative Under the Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative, the Project Site would be developed with the same office, residential, and hotel development as the Project. However, signage would be limited to what is currently permitted under the zoning code. Other characteristics (e.g., lighting, landscaping, etc.) are assumed to be generally similar to those of the Project, including the Land Use Equivalency Program and Design Flexibility Program, for the purpose of analyzing this Alternative. In addition, all applicable Project mitigation measures and design features would be implemented under this Alternative.

In this alternative, it is assumed that the signage program would be the same as the Existing Hotel (i.e. no signage). Emissions from all other aspects of this Alternative were assumed to be the same as the Project.

The Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative emissions inventory is expected to be similar to the emissions inventory estimated for the Project. The emissions related to this alternative, which recognize the combined savings from the Project sustainability features and the changes in emission factors that were included for the Project (due to implementation of the 2010 RPS requirement for 20% renewables and the Pavley Standard mandating higher fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles), represent a 32.9% reduction from the CARB 2020 NAT scenario for this alternative (see Table 10-49). Therefore, this alternative is consistent with AB 32 goals.


Building Mounted Signs

Alternative 82

Signage Area(sq ft)

CO2e Emissions


(sq ft)Alternative 244,322 5,976 236,992 0.97 5,797CARB 2020 NAT 244,322 7,126 236,992 0.97 6,912Notes:

4. The CO2e emissions from building mounted signs in Alternative 8 (Reduced Density) are estimated by multiplying the CO2e emissions from the Project by the scaling factor.

ScenarioProject1

Scaling

Factor3

CO2e Emissions -

Alt 84

(tonne/yr)

GHG Emissions from Building Mounted Signs, Alternative 8 - Reduced SignageTable 10-47

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project - Alternative 8 (Reduced Signage)

1. The total signage area is based on information provided for the Project scenario. The CO2e emissions are the estimated emissions due to signage electricity usage for the Project.2. The signage area for Alternative 8 (Reduced Signage) was provided by Thomas Properties Group.3. The scaling factor is the ratio of the signage area for Alternative 8 to the signage area for the Project.

E N V I R O N




Signage)(%)



Commercial2,4 21,854 17,629 19%

Mobile2,5 30,095 14,399 52%


Area2,7 3 3 0%

Solid Waste2,7 5,114 5,114 0%



Notes:1. The percentage improvement over CARB 2020 NAT is an estimate. There are some source categories where appropriate comparisons are available It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 8 (Reduced Signage) Scenario

Table 10-48

Source





appropriate comparisons are available. It is estimated that this value is on the conservative side.








E N V I R O N



CARB 2020 NATAlternative 9 (Zoning Compliant Signage)

(%)



Commercial2,4 21,854 17,629 19%

Mobile2,5 30,095 14,399 52%


Area2,8 3 3 0%

Solid Waste2,8 5,114 5,114 0%



Notes:

Wilshire Grand Redevelopment ProjectGHG Emissions Comparison of CARB 2020 NAT to Alternative 9 (Zoning Compliant Signage) Scenario

Table 10-49

Source













6. ENVIRON has assumed that the emissions due to water and wastewater usage and public lighting usage are the same as the Project emissions. The emissions from the building mounted signs are assumed to be the same as the existing hotel (0).

E N V I R O N



10.3 Summary Comparison of Alternatives to the Project and to the CARB 2020 NAT Scenarios

Table 10-50 presents a comparison of the new Project emissions inventory with the net emissions inventory for each alternative. Table 10-51 presents a comparison of each alternative’s total emissions to the CARB 2020 NAT scenarios for that alternative.

Net Emissions Inventory

Difference from Project

18,122 NAAlternative 1 No Project/Current Operation Alternative 0 -18,122Alternative 2 Reduced Density Alternative 10,907 -7,215Alternative 3 Phased Construction Alternative 18,083 -39Alternative 4 Office Only Alternative 8,413 -9,709Alternative 5 Residential Only Alternative -11,209 -29,331Alternative 6 Reduced Height Alternative 18,122 0Alternative 7 Zoning Compliant Alternative -6,857 -24,979Alternative 8 Reduced Signage Alternative 17,943 -179Alternative 9 Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative 12,146 -5,976

ScenarioProject

Table 10-50Summary of Net Project GHG Emissions with Net Alternative Emissions


E N V I R O N

Improvement over CARB 2020 NAT

31.2%Alternative 1 No Project/Current Operation Alternative NAAlternative 2 Reduced Density Alternative 31.9%Alternative 3 Phased Construction Alternative 31.2%Alternative 4 Office Only Alternative 32.7%Alternative 5 Residential Only Alternative 38.8%Alternative 6 Reduced Height Alternative 31.2%Alternative 7 Zoning Compliant Alternative 28.3%Alternative 8 Reduced Signage Alternative 31.2%Alternative 9 Zoning Compliant Signage Alternative 32.9%

ScenarioProject

Table 10-51Summary of Comparison to CARB 2020 NAT for Project and Alternatives


E N V I R O N


Appendix A URBEMIS Files for Construction Emissions

(Christopher A. Joseph and Associates)

12/22/2009 6:50:42 PM

Page: 1

File Name: Q:\Wilshire Grand\URBEMIS Runs\Proposed Project Construction Emissions - Scenario 1 (Peak Equipment).urb924

Project Name: Proposed Project Construction Emissions - Scenario 1 - Tier 2 Peak Equipment

Project Location: South Coast AQMD

On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)

Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

12/22/2009 6:50:42 PM

Page: 2

2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.41 9.49 25.73 0.05 0.20 0.47 0.67 0.07 0.43 0.50 5,142.68

2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 1.41 8.34 25.73 0.05 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.07 0.36 0.43 5,142.68


Percent Reduction 0.00 9.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.88 9.89 0.00 14.04 12.13 0.00












ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5 CO2

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

Summary Report:

12/22/2009 6:50:42 PM

Page: 3

10/2/2009 6:44:22 PM

Page: 1

File Name: F:\MSWord 2009 Projects\Thomas Properties Wilshire Grand\AQ Data\URBEMIS Runs\Construction Emissions\Proposed Project Construction Emissions - Scenario 2 (Ave. Equipment).urb924





Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)


2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 10.98 67.12 66.17 0.06 0.25 2.81 3.06 0.09 2.58 2.67 16,540.07

2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 36.56 347.34 455.23 0.83 293.41 13.88 307.10 61.46 12.67 74.04 94,044.17








PM2.5 CO2


Summary Report:

10/2/2009 6:44:22 PM

Page: 2

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 5/2/2011-12/31/2011 Active Days: 210

30.01 265.48 142.34 0.12 60.93 23.55 34,236.0245.74 15.20 9.57 13.98

60.93Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

30.01 265.48 142.34 0.12 23.55 34,236.0245.74 15.20 9.57 13.98

Demo On Road Diesel 5.93 75.57 29.08 0.11 0.38 3.04 3.42 0.12 2.79 2.92 11,429.76

Demo Worker Trips 0.22 0.52 8.69 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.05 1,203.10

Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 23.85 189.39 104.58 0.00 0.00 12.13 12.13 0.00 11.16 11.16 21,603.16







10/2/2009 6:44:22 PM

Page: 3


4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.60 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41

1.60Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41

Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.06 0.97 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 144.35

Building Vendor Trips 0.70 7.26 6.67 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.27 0.29 1,708.53

Building Off Road Diesel 3.69 33.12 14.19 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 1.13 1.13 6,245.26


27.18 241.73 137.27 0.12 59.09 21.86 34,235.8545.74 13.36 9.57 12.29

59.09Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

27.18 241.73 137.27 0.12 21.86 34,235.8545.74 13.36 9.57 12.29



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



31.78 347.34 160.19 0.42 307.10 74.04 58,250.53293.41 13.68 61.46 12.58

305.49Mass Grading 02/09/2012-08/22/2012

27.37 306.90 138.36 0.40 72.61 50,152.39293.35 12.15 61.44 11.17

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 18.96 235.43 90.90 0.37 1.33 9.29 10.61 0.44 8.54 8.98 39,970.09

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.38 0.88 14.95 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.04 0.05 0.09 2,225.43

Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 291.91 0.00 291.91 60.96 0.00 60.96 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 8.03 70.59 32.51 0.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 0.00 2.58 2.58 7,956.88

1.60Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 4


4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.75 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87

1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87

Building Worker Trips 2.71 6.32 107.66 0.17 0.77 0.42 1.19 0.28 0.37 0.65 16,023.06

Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.37 1.18 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.05 313.02



4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.60 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41

1.60Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41





8.94 58.60 133.68 0.17 3.78 3.02 23,058.360.79 2.99 0.28 2.74

2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 5


36.56 316.31 455.23 0.83 17.22 13.83 94,044.173.33 13.88 1.16 12.67

13.43Building 10/31/2012-11/10/2012 27.62 257.70 321.55 0.65 10.81 70,985.812.54 10.89 0.88 9.93




2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87





8.94 58.60 133.68 0.17 3.78 3.02 23,058.360.79 2.99 0.28 2.74

2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 6


16.58 112.73 271.64 0.40 7.25 5.64 47,411.631.76 5.49 0.63 5.01

3.47Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 54.12 137.95 0.22 2.62 24,353.270.97 2.50 0.34 2.27




2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87





12.39 94.08 158.35 0.23 5.51 4.49 29,610.140.98 4.53 0.35 4.14

3.47Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 54.12 137.95 0.22 2.62 24,353.270.97 2.50 0.34 2.27




2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 7


11.46 85.65 148.49 0.23 5.07 4.09 29,608.950.98 4.09 0.35 3.74

3.26Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 48.88 128.55 0.22 2.43 24,352.080.97 2.29 0.34 2.08




1.81Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.42 36.77 19.94 0.00 1.66 5,256.860.01 1.80 0.00 1.66





7.03 48.88 128.55 0.22 3.26 2.43 24,352.080.97 2.29 0.34 2.08

3.26Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 48.88 128.55 0.22 2.43 24,352.080.97 2.29 0.34 2.08





1.83 12.56 26.21 0.04 0.90 0.73 4,647.620.17 0.74 0.06 0.67

0.90Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.83 12.56 26.21 0.04 0.73 4,647.620.17 0.74 0.06 0.67



Building Off Road Diesel 1.04 7.90 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.47 0.47 900.19

10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 8


1.65 11.49 24.72 0.04 0.82 0.66 4,647.440.17 0.65 0.06 0.60

0.82Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 11.49 24.72 0.04 0.66 4,647.440.17 0.65 0.06 0.60





5.16 37.72 42.20 0.04 2.36 2.06 8,148.930.19 2.17 0.07 1.99

0.82Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 11.49 24.72 0.04 0.66 4,647.440.17 0.65 0.06 0.60




1.54Building 02/18/2014-09/30/2014 3.50 26.23 17.48 0.01 1.40 3,501.500.02 1.52 0.01 1.40




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 9


10.98 85.97 66.15 0.05 4.25 3.77 16,254.760.23 4.02 0.08 3.69

1.88Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70




0.82Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 11.49 24.72 0.04 0.66 4,647.440.17 0.65 0.06 0.60




1.54Building 02/18/2014-09/30/2014 3.50 26.23 17.48 0.01 1.40 3,501.500.02 1.52 0.01 1.40




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 10


10.78 84.37 66.17 0.06 4.18 3.70 16,540.070.25 3.93 0.09 3.61

0.76Building 09/29/2014-11/04/2014 1.46 9.89 24.74 0.05 0.58 4,932.750.20 0.57 0.07 0.51




1.88Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70




1.54Building 02/18/2014-09/30/2014 3.50 26.23 17.48 0.01 1.40 3,501.500.02 1.52 0.01 1.40





7.28 58.14 48.69 0.06 2.64 2.29 13,038.580.23 2.41 0.08 2.21

0.76Building 09/29/2014-11/04/2014 1.46 9.89 24.74 0.05 0.58 4,932.750.20 0.57 0.07 0.51




1.88Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 11


3.48 14.69 109.01 0.20 1.95 1.25 20,384.220.93 1.02 0.33 0.92

1.95Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.48 14.69 109.01 0.20 1.25 20,384.220.93 1.02 0.33 0.92





5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.88 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70

1.88Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70





6.72 38.63 126.21 0.21 3.31 2.50 23,885.730.95 2.37 0.34 2.15

1.37Building 12/14/2015-03/22/2016 3.24 23.94 17.20 0.01 1.24 3,501.510.02 1.34 0.01 1.24




1.95Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.48 14.69 109.01 0.20 1.25 20,384.220.93 1.02 0.33 0.92




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 12


6.24 35.22 119.17 0.21 3.15 2.34 23,883.870.95 2.20 0.34 2.00

1.26Building 12/14/2015-03/22/2016 3.05 21.85 16.96 0.01 1.14 3,501.500.02 1.23 0.01 1.13




1.89Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 13.38 102.21 0.20 1.20 20,382.370.93 0.96 0.33 0.87





3.18 13.38 102.21 0.20 1.89 1.20 20,382.370.93 0.96 0.33 0.87

1.89Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 13.38 102.21 0.20 1.20 20,382.370.93 0.96 0.33 0.87





8.33 51.87 124.51 0.21 3.41 2.58 28,488.220.96 2.45 0.35 2.23

1.52Building 07/14/2016-10/26/2016 5.15 38.50 22.29 0.01 1.38 8,105.850.04 1.49 0.01 1.37




1.89Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 13.38 102.21 0.20 1.20 20,382.370.93 0.96 0.33 0.87




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 13

Off-Road Equipment:

On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2696.71

1 Graders (0 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 9 hours per day

7 Excavators (248 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 9 hours per day

Phase: Demolition 5/2/2011 - 1/16/2012 - Demolition and Abatement

Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 107850.2

Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 2.259319E+07

1 Rubber Tired Loaders (396 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 9 hours per day

Phase Assumptions


3.44 16.62 101.06 0.22 2.10 1.35 22,366.321.00 1.10 0.36 0.99

2.10Building 03/10/2017-04/19/2017 3.44 16.62 101.06 0.22 1.35 22,366.321.00 1.10 0.36 0.99





2.93 12.14 95.71 0.20 1.85 1.16 20,381.160.93 0.92 0.33 0.82

1.85Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 2.93 12.14 95.71 0.20 1.16 20,381.160.93 0.92 0.33 0.82





3.18 13.38 102.21 0.20 1.89 1.20 20,382.370.93 0.96 0.33 0.87

1.89Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 13.38 102.21 0.20 1.20 20,382.370.93 0.96 0.33 0.87




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 14


2 Bore/Drill Rigs (317 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 9 hours per day

1 Water Trucks (396 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 4 hours per day

1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (150 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 9 hours per day


Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 1/17/2012 - 9/6/2012 - Shoring (Lagging) and Tiebacks

1 Pumps (53 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 0 hours per day

2 Forklifts (95 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 9 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 9/8/2012 - 11/24/2012 - Garage Construction - Matt Layout & Rebar

2 Cranes (0 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 0 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

Total Acres Disturbed: 2.7

Phase: Mass Grading 2/9/2012 - 8/22/2012 - Excavation and Export

Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low

Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 2.7


9 Skid Steer Loaders (396 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 9 hours per day


31 Off Highway Trucks (0 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 9 hours per day



2 Rubber Tired Dozers (412 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 9 hours per day


Onsite Cut/Fill: 2245 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day


Off-Road Equipment:

10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 15




Phase: Building Construction 11/24/2012 - 6/18/2013 - Garage Construction - Garage Decking


Off-Road Equipment:


Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 9/27/2014 - Hotel Construction - Super Structure








Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 9/10/2012 - 2/26/2013 - Onsite Improvements #1 (Site Utilities)






Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 10/31/2012 - 11/10/2012 - Garage Construction - Foundation Matt Pour

10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 16


Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 3/27/2015 - 3/9/2017 - Office Construction - Super Structure

Phase: Building Construction 9/29/2014 - 11/4/2014 - Hotel Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish


Off-Road Equipment:

Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 12/14/2015 - 3/22/2016 - Onsite Improvements #3 (Driveway/Paving/Landscape)




1 Trenchers (150 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 9 hours per day



Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 2/18/2014 - 9/30/2014 - Onsite Improvements #2 (Driveway/Paving/Landscape)


1 Pavers (95 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 9 hours per day





Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 9/17/2014 - 12/31/2014 - Offsite Improvements #1



10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 17

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Phase: Building Construction 3/10/2017 - 4/19/2017 - Office Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish






Off-Road Equipment:



1 Trenchers (150 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 9 hours per day



1 Pavers (95 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 9 hours per day




Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 7/14/2016 - 10/26/2016 - Offsite Improvements #2

10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 18


27.18 195.11 137.27 0.12 54.57 17.70 34,235.8545.74 8.84 9.57 8.13

54.57Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

27.18 195.11 137.27 0.12 17.70 34,235.8545.74 8.84 9.57 8.13



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



30.01 214.74 142.34 0.12 55.79 18.82 34,236.0245.74 10.06 9.57 9.25

55.79Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

30.01 214.74 142.34 0.12 18.82 34,236.0245.74 10.06 9.57 9.25



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.36 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19

1.36Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 19


4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.36 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19

1.36Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19





31.78 325.30 160.19 0.42 165.07 43.42 58,250.53152.74 12.33 32.08 11.34

163.71Mass Grading 02/09/2012-08/22/2012

27.37 287.76 138.36 0.40 42.21 50,152.39152.67 11.04 32.06 10.15





1.36Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19





4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.70 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83

1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 20


8.94 49.85 133.68 0.17 3.03 2.33 23,058.360.79 2.24 0.28 2.05

1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83





36.56 301.10 455.23 0.83 16.00 12.71 94,044.173.33 12.66 1.16 11.55

12.97Building 10/31/2012-11/10/2012 27.62 251.25 321.55 0.65 10.38 70,985.812.54 10.42 0.88 9.50




1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 21


8.94 49.85 133.68 0.17 3.03 2.33 23,058.360.79 2.24 0.28 2.05

1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83





16.58 100.54 271.64 0.40 6.24 4.71 47,411.631.76 4.49 0.63 4.08

3.21Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 50.69 137.95 0.22 2.38 24,353.270.97 2.24 0.34 2.04




1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 22


7.03 45.66 128.55 0.22 3.03 2.22 24,352.080.97 2.06 0.34 1.87

3.03Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 45.66 128.55 0.22 2.22 24,352.080.97 2.06 0.34 1.87





12.39 82.31 158.35 0.23 4.54 3.60 29,610.140.98 3.57 0.35 3.26

3.21Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 50.69 137.95 0.22 2.38 24,353.270.97 2.24 0.34 2.04




1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22





11.46 74.76 148.49 0.23 4.23 3.31 29,608.950.98 3.25 0.35 2.96

3.03Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 45.66 128.55 0.22 2.22 24,352.080.97 2.06 0.34 1.87




1.20Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.42 29.09 19.94 0.00 1.10 5,256.860.01 1.19 0.00 1.09




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 23


1.65 9.30 24.72 0.04 0.66 0.51 4,647.440.17 0.50 0.06 0.45

0.66Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 9.30 24.72 0.04 0.51 4,647.440.17 0.50 0.06 0.45





1.83 10.20 26.21 0.04 0.72 0.57 4,647.620.17 0.55 0.06 0.51

0.72Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.83 10.20 26.21 0.04 0.57 4,647.620.17 0.55 0.06 0.51





5.16 30.81 42.20 0.04 1.79 1.54 8,148.930.19 1.60 0.07 1.47

0.66Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 9.30 24.72 0.04 0.51 4,647.440.17 0.50 0.06 0.45




1.13Building 02/18/2014-09/30/2014 3.50 21.51 17.48 0.01 1.03 3,501.500.02 1.11 0.01 1.02




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 24


10.98 67.12 66.15 0.05 3.03 2.65 16,254.760.23 2.81 0.08 2.57

1.24Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10




0.66Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 9.30 24.72 0.04 0.51 4,647.440.17 0.50 0.06 0.45




1.13Building 02/18/2014-09/30/2014 3.50 21.51 17.48 0.01 1.03 3,501.500.02 1.11 0.01 1.02




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 25


10.78 66.99 66.17 0.06 3.06 2.67 16,540.070.25 2.81 0.09 2.58

0.70Building 09/29/2014-11/04/2014 1.46 9.17 24.74 0.05 0.52 4,932.750.20 0.50 0.07 0.45




1.24Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10




1.13Building 02/18/2014-09/30/2014 3.50 21.51 17.48 0.01 1.03 3,501.500.02 1.11 0.01 1.02





7.28 45.48 48.69 0.06 1.93 1.64 13,038.580.23 1.70 0.08 1.56

0.70Building 09/29/2014-11/04/2014 1.46 9.17 24.74 0.05 0.52 4,932.750.20 0.50 0.07 0.45




1.24Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 26


6.72 32.31 126.21 0.21 2.81 2.03 23,885.730.95 1.86 0.34 1.69

1.00Building 12/14/2015-03/22/2016 3.24 19.60 17.20 0.01 0.91 3,501.510.02 0.98 0.01 0.90




1.81Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.48 12.70 109.01 0.20 1.12 20,384.220.93 0.88 0.33 0.79





5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.24 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10

1.24Building 09/17/2014-12/31/2014 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10





3.48 12.70 109.01 0.20 1.81 1.12 20,384.220.93 0.88 0.33 0.79

1.81Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.48 12.70 109.01 0.20 1.12 20,384.220.93 0.88 0.33 0.79




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 27


6.24 29.43 119.17 0.21 2.69 1.92 23,883.870.95 1.74 0.34 1.58

0.92Building 12/14/2015-03/22/2016 3.05 17.86 16.96 0.01 0.83 3,501.500.02 0.90 0.01 0.83




1.77Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 11.58 102.21 0.20 1.09 20,382.370.93 0.84 0.33 0.75





3.18 11.58 102.21 0.20 1.77 1.09 20,382.370.93 0.84 0.33 0.75

1.77Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 11.58 102.21 0.20 1.09 20,382.370.93 0.84 0.33 0.75





8.33 40.47 124.51 0.21 2.75 1.97 28,488.220.96 1.79 0.35 1.63

0.99Building 07/14/2016-10/26/2016 5.15 28.90 22.29 0.01 0.89 8,105.850.04 0.95 0.01 0.87




1.77Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 11.58 102.21 0.20 1.09 20,382.370.93 0.84 0.33 0.75




10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 28


3.44 15.01 101.06 0.22 1.99 1.25 22,366.321.00 0.99 0.36 0.89

1.99Building 03/10/2017-04/19/2017 3.44 15.01 101.06 0.22 1.25 22,366.321.00 0.99 0.36 0.89





2.93 10.52 95.71 0.20 1.73 1.06 20,381.160.93 0.81 0.33 0.72

1.73Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 2.93 10.52 95.71 0.20 1.06 20,381.160.93 0.81 0.33 0.72





3.18 11.58 102.21 0.20 1.77 1.09 20,382.370.93 0.84 0.33 0.75

1.77Building 03/27/2015-03/09/2017 3.18 11.58 102.21 0.20 1.09 20,382.370.93 0.84 0.33 0.75




NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%

For Excavators, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

For Rubber Tired Loaders, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Demolition 5/2/2011 - 1/16/2012 - Demolition and Abatement

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

For Skid Steer Loaders, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

For Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 29

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

For Forklifts, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%

For Pumps, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:


PM10: 10% PM25: 10%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/8/2012 - 11/24/2012 - Garage Construction - Matt Layout & Rebar

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/10/2012 - 2/26/2013 - Onsite Improvements #1 (Site Utilities)


NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%

NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

For Rubber Tired Dozers, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/9/2012 - 8/22/2012 - Excavation and Export

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

PM10: 61% PM25: 61%

For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 1/17/2012 - 9/6/2012 - Shoring (Lagging) and Tiebacks

For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%

NOX: 40% PM10: 53% PM25: 53%

For Graders, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 30


NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%


For Pavers, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 2/18/2014 - 9/30/2014 - Onsite Improvements #2 (Driveway/Paving/Landscape)


For Trenchers, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/17/2014 - 12/31/2014 - Offsite Improvements #1

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%


NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%



NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 10/31/2012 - 11/10/2012 - Garage Construction - Foundation Matt Pour

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 9/27/2014 - Hotel Construction - Super Structure

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%



The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 11/24/2012 - 6/18/2013 - Garage Construction - Garage Decking


NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 31

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%


NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 12/14/2015 - 3/22/2016 - Onsite Improvements #3 (Driveway/Paving/Landscape)

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

For Pavers, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

For Trenchers, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 7/14/2016 - 10/26/2016 - Offsite Improvements #2


NOX: 40% PM10: 53% PM25: 53%


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%


NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%


NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 3/27/2015 - 3/9/2017 - Office Construction - Super Structure


NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/29/2014 - 11/4/2014 - Hotel Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%


10/2/2009 6:44:23 PM

Page: 32


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 3/10/2017 - 4/19/2017 - Office Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%


NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%



NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%


NOX: 40% PM10: 53% PM25: 53%

10/2/2009 6:44:41 PM

Page: 1

File Name: F:\MSWord 2009 Projects\Thomas Properties Wilshire Grand\AQ Data\URBEMIS Runs\Construction Emissions\Proposed Project Construction Emissions - Scenario 2 (Ave. Equipment).urb924





Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)












PM2.5 CO2


Summary Report:

10/2/2009 6:44:41 PM

Page: 2





2017 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.15 0.57 4.54 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.05 982.46

2017 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.15 0.64 4.54 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.06 982.46







12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 1

File Name: Q:\Wilshire Grand\URBEMIS Runs\Proposed Project Construction Emissions - Scenario 1 (Peak Equipment).urb924





Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)


12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 2

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust

PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5 CO2












PM2.5 CO2


Summary Report:

12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 3


27.18 241.73 137.27 0.12 59.09 21.86 34,235.8545.74 13.36 9.57 12.29

59.09Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

27.18 241.73 137.27 0.12 21.86 34,235.8545.74 13.36 9.57 12.29



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



30.01 265.48 142.34 0.12 60.93 23.55 34,236.0245.74 15.20 9.57 13.98

60.93Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

30.01 265.48 142.34 0.12 23.55 34,236.0245.74 15.20 9.57 13.98



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.60 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41

1.60Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 4


4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.60 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41

1.60Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41





32.32 354.02 162.78 0.43 313.89 75.65 59,385.63299.94 13.95 62.83 12.83

312.29Mass Grading 02/09/2012-08/31/2012

27.91 313.58 140.94 0.41 74.22 51,287.49299.87 12.41 62.81 11.42





1.60Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 40.44 21.83 0.02 1.43 8,098.140.07 1.54 0.02 1.41





4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.75 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87

1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 5


8.94 58.60 133.68 0.17 3.78 3.02 23,058.360.79 2.99 0.28 2.74

2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87





36.56 316.31 455.23 0.83 17.22 13.83 94,044.173.33 13.88 1.16 12.67

13.43Building 10/31/2012-11/10/2012 27.62 257.70 321.55 0.65 10.81 70,985.812.54 10.89 0.88 9.93




2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 6


8.94 58.60 133.68 0.17 3.78 3.02 23,058.360.79 2.99 0.28 2.74

2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87





16.58 112.73 271.64 0.40 7.25 5.64 47,411.631.76 5.49 0.63 5.01

3.47Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 54.12 137.95 0.22 2.62 24,353.270.97 2.50 0.34 2.27




2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87




1.75Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.65 113.29 0.17 1.15 17,801.500.78 0.96 0.28 0.87




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 7


7.03 48.88 128.55 0.22 3.26 2.43 24,352.080.97 2.29 0.34 2.08

3.26Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 48.88 128.55 0.22 2.43 24,352.080.97 2.29 0.34 2.08





12.39 94.08 158.35 0.23 5.51 4.49 29,610.140.98 4.53 0.35 4.14

3.47Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 54.12 137.95 0.22 2.62 24,353.270.97 2.50 0.34 2.27




2.04Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 39.95 20.39 0.00 1.87 5,256.870.01 2.03 0.00 1.87





11.46 85.65 148.49 0.23 5.07 4.09 29,608.950.98 4.09 0.35 3.74

3.26Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 48.88 128.55 0.22 2.43 24,352.080.97 2.29 0.34 2.08




1.81Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.42 36.77 19.94 0.00 1.66 5,256.860.01 1.80 0.00 1.66




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 8


8.36 53.98 172.67 0.30 4.14 3.04 31,203.741.31 2.83 0.47 2.57

0.90Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.83 12.56 26.21 0.04 0.73 4,647.620.17 0.74 0.06 0.67




1.18Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.31 23.72 21.57 0.06 0.95 6,169.410.22 0.96 0.07 0.88




2.06Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 4.22 17.70 124.89 0.20 1.36 20,386.710.93 1.14 0.33 1.02




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 9


7.58 48.58 161.29 0.30 3.90 2.81 31,202.281.31 2.59 0.47 2.35

0.82Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 11.49 24.72 0.04 0.66 4,647.440.17 0.65 0.06 0.60




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




2.02Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 16.25 116.68 0.20 1.32 20,385.360.93 1.09 0.33 0.98




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 10


13.41 96.83 185.23 0.31 5.78 4.52 39,308.111.35 4.44 0.48 4.05

0.82Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 11.49 24.72 0.04 0.66 4,647.440.17 0.65 0.06 0.60




1.88Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70




2.02Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 16.25 116.68 0.20 1.32 20,385.360.93 1.09 0.33 0.98




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 11


13.21 95.23 185.26 0.32 5.72 4.45 39,593.421.37 4.35 0.49 3.96

1.88Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70




0.76Building 09/29/2014-11/04/2014 1.46 9.89 24.74 0.05 0.58 4,932.750.20 0.57 0.07 0.51




2.02Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 16.25 116.68 0.20 1.32 20,385.360.93 1.09 0.33 0.98




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 12


11.75 85.34 160.51 0.27 4.96 3.87 34,660.671.18 3.78 0.42 3.45

1.88Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.82 48.25 23.95 0.01 1.71 8,105.830.04 1.85 0.01 1.70




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




2.02Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 16.25 116.68 0.20 1.32 20,385.360.93 1.09 0.33 0.98




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 13


5.38 32.94 127.33 0.26 2.90 1.99 26,553.861.14 1.76 0.41 1.59

0.95Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 1.90 18.25 18.32 0.06 0.74 6,169.640.22 0.73 0.07 0.67




1.95Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.48 14.69 109.01 0.20 1.25 20,384.220.93 1.02 0.33 0.92





10.80 76.09 150.37 0.27 4.54 3.48 34,659.711.18 3.37 0.42 3.07

1.65Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.42 43.15 23.04 0.01 1.49 8,105.850.04 1.61 0.01 1.48




0.95Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 1.90 18.25 18.32 0.06 0.74 6,169.640.22 0.73 0.07 0.67




1.95Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.48 14.69 109.01 0.20 1.25 20,384.220.93 1.02 0.33 0.92




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 14

Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low

Off-Road Equipment:




Phase: Demolition 5/2/2011 - 1/16/2012 - Demolition and Abatement

Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 2.259319E+07

Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 107850.2


Phase: Mass Grading 2/9/2012 - 8/31/2012 - Excavation and Export

Total Acres Disturbed: 2.7

Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 2.7




Phase Assumptions


5.98 38.63 133.50 0.28 3.20 2.23 28,538.941.21 1.99 0.43 1.80

0.95Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 1.90 18.25 18.32 0.06 0.74 6,169.640.22 0.73 0.07 0.67




2.25Building 06/03/2015-07/21/2015 4.08 20.38 115.18 0.22 1.49 22,369.301.00 1.25 0.36 1.13




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 15




Phase: Building Construction 9/8/2012 - 11/24/2012 - Garage Construction - Matt Layout & Rebar


Off-Road Equipment:



Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 9/10/2012 - 2/26/2013 - Onsite Improvements



31 Off Highway Trucks (0 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 9 hours per day



2 Rubber Tired Dozers (412 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 9 hours per day


Onsite Cut/Fill: 2300 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day


Off-Road Equipment:


2 Bore/Drill Rigs (317 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 9 hours per day




Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 1/17/2012 - 9/6/2012 - Shoring & Tiebacks

12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 16


Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 9/27/2014 - Hotel Construction - Super Structure

Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 6/2/2015 - Office Construction - Super Structure



Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 9/17/2014 - 1/23/2015 - Offsite Improvements









Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 10/31/2012 - 11/10/2012 - Garage Construction - Foundation Matt Pour




Phase: Building Construction 11/24/2012 - 6/18/2013 - Garage Construction - Garage Decking


Off-Road Equipment:

12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 17

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust

PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5 CO2



Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 6/3/2015 - 7/21/2015 - Office Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish

Off-Road Equipment:

Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 7/21/2015 - Hotel & Office Tenant Improvement Deliveries








Off-Road Equipment:


Phase: Building Construction 9/29/2014 - 11/4/2014 - Hotel Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish


12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 18


27.18 195.11 137.27 0.12 54.57 17.70 34,235.8545.74 8.84 9.57 8.13

54.57Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

27.18 195.11 137.27 0.12 17.70 34,235.8545.74 8.84 9.57 8.13



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



30.01 214.74 142.34 0.12 55.79 18.82 34,236.0245.74 10.06 9.57 9.25

55.79Demolition 05/02/2011-01/16/2012

30.01 214.74 142.34 0.12 18.82 34,236.0245.74 10.06 9.57 9.25



Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 45.30 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00



4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.36 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19

1.36Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 19


4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.36 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19

1.36Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19





32.32 326.36 162.78 0.43 91.26 28.02 59,385.6378.92 12.35 16.67 11.36

89.90Mass Grading 02/09/2012-08/31/2012

27.91 288.82 140.94 0.41 26.82 51,287.4978.85 11.06 16.65 10.17





1.36Building 01/17/2012-09/06/2012 4.41 37.54 21.83 0.02 1.21 8,098.140.07 1.29 0.02 1.19





4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.70 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83

1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 20


8.94 49.85 133.68 0.17 3.03 2.33 23,058.360.79 2.24 0.28 2.05

1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83





36.56 301.10 455.23 0.83 16.00 12.71 94,044.173.33 12.66 1.16 11.55

12.97Building 10/31/2012-11/10/2012 27.62 251.25 321.55 0.65 10.38 70,985.812.54 10.42 0.88 9.50




1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83




12/22/2009 6:53:49 PM

Page: 21


8.94 49.85 133.68 0.17 3.03 2.33 23,058.360.79 2.24 0.28 2.05

1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83





16.58 100.54 271.64 0.40 6.24 4.71 47,411.631.76 4.49 0.63 4.08

3.21Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 50.69 137.95 0.22 2.38 24,353.270.97 2.24 0.34 2.04




1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22




1.70Building 09/08/2012-11/24/2012 4.19 18.22 113.29 0.17 1.11 17,801.500.78 0.92 0.28 0.83




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 22


7.03 45.66 128.55 0.22 3.03 2.22 24,352.080.97 2.06 0.34 1.87

3.03Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 45.66 128.55 0.22 2.22 24,352.080.97 2.06 0.34 1.87





12.39 82.31 158.35 0.23 4.54 3.60 29,610.140.98 3.57 0.35 3.26

3.21Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.64 50.69 137.95 0.22 2.38 24,353.270.97 2.24 0.34 2.04




1.33Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.75 31.63 20.39 0.00 1.22 5,256.870.01 1.32 0.00 1.22





11.46 74.76 148.49 0.23 4.23 3.31 29,608.950.98 3.25 0.35 2.96

3.03Building 11/24/2012-06/18/2013 7.03 45.66 128.55 0.22 2.22 24,352.080.97 2.06 0.34 1.87




1.20Building 09/10/2012-02/26/2013 4.42 29.09 19.94 0.00 1.10 5,256.860.01 1.19 0.00 1.09




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 23


8.36 49.27 172.67 0.30 3.78 2.70 31,203.741.31 2.47 0.47 2.24

0.72Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.83 10.20 26.21 0.04 0.57 4,647.620.17 0.55 0.06 0.51




1.18Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.31 23.72 21.57 0.06 0.95 6,169.410.22 0.96 0.07 0.88




1.88Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 4.22 15.34 124.89 0.20 1.19 20,386.710.93 0.95 0.33 0.86




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 24


7.58 44.19 161.29 0.30 3.58 2.52 31,202.281.31 2.27 0.47 2.06

0.66Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 9.30 24.72 0.04 0.51 4,647.440.17 0.50 0.06 0.45




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




1.86Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 14.05 116.68 0.20 1.17 20,385.360.93 0.93 0.33 0.84




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 25


13.41 80.50 185.23 0.31 4.82 3.64 39,308.111.35 3.47 0.48 3.16

0.66Building 06/19/2013-09/27/2014 1.65 9.30 24.72 0.04 0.51 4,647.440.17 0.50 0.06 0.45




1.24Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10




1.86Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 14.05 116.68 0.20 1.17 20,385.360.93 0.93 0.33 0.84




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 26


13.21 80.37 185.26 0.32 4.85 3.65 39,593.421.37 3.48 0.49 3.16

1.24Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10




0.70Building 09/29/2014-11/04/2014 1.46 9.17 24.74 0.05 0.52 4,932.750.20 0.50 0.07 0.45




1.86Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 14.05 116.68 0.20 1.17 20,385.360.93 0.93 0.33 0.84




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 27


11.75 71.21 160.51 0.27 4.15 3.13 34,660.671.18 2.98 0.42 2.71

1.24Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.82 36.32 23.95 0.01 1.12 8,105.830.04 1.20 0.01 1.10




1.06Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 2.10 20.84 19.88 0.06 0.84 6,169.490.22 0.84 0.07 0.77




1.86Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.83 14.05 116.68 0.20 1.17 20,385.360.93 0.93 0.33 0.84




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 28


5.38 30.95 127.33 0.26 2.76 1.86 26,553.861.14 1.62 0.41 1.46

0.95Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 1.90 18.25 18.32 0.06 0.74 6,169.640.22 0.73 0.07 0.67




1.81Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.48 12.70 109.01 0.20 1.12 20,384.220.93 0.88 0.33 0.79





10.80 63.39 150.37 0.27 3.84 2.84 34,659.711.18 2.66 0.42 2.42

1.08Building 09/17/2014-01/23/2015 5.42 32.43 23.04 0.01 0.97 8,105.850.04 1.05 0.01 0.96




0.95Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 1.90 18.25 18.32 0.06 0.74 6,169.640.22 0.73 0.07 0.67




1.81Building 06/19/2013-06/02/2015 3.48 12.70 109.01 0.20 1.12 20,384.220.93 0.88 0.33 0.79




12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 29


5.98 36.64 133.50 0.28 3.06 2.10 28,538.941.21 1.85 0.43 1.67

0.95Building 06/19/2013-07/21/2015 1.90 18.25 18.32 0.06 0.74 6,169.640.22 0.73 0.07 0.67




2.11Building 06/03/2015-07/21/2015 4.08 18.40 115.18 0.22 1.36 22,369.301.00 1.11 0.36 1.00




NOX: 40% PM10: 53% PM25: 53%

NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%


NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Demolition 5/2/2011 - 1/16/2012 - Demolition and Abatement


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%


For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:

PM10: 61% PM25: 61%


PM10: 84% PM25: 84%

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/9/2012 - 8/31/2012 - Excavation and Export

For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 30


NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%


NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%



The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/10/2012 - 2/26/2013 - Onsite Improvements

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%



NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 10/31/2012 - 11/10/2012 - Garage Construction - Foundation Matt Pour

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%

NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%


For Bore/Drill Rigs, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 1/17/2012 - 9/6/2012 - Shoring & Tiebacks

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


NOX: 46% PM10: 62% PM25: 62%

For Rubber Tired Dozers, the Use Aqueous Diesel Fuel mitigation reduces emissions by:

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/8/2012 - 11/24/2012 - Garage Construction - Matt Layout & Rebar

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%



PM10: 10% PM25: 10%


NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%

12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 31

NOX: 22% PM10: 32% PM25: 32%


NOX: 40% PM10: 53% PM25: 53%


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/17/2014 - 1/23/2015 - Offsite Improvements

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%

NOX: 25% PM10: 38% PM25: 38%



The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 9/29/2014 - 11/4/2014 - Hotel Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish

NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%


NOX: 30% PM10: 45% PM25: 45%



NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 6/2/2015 - Office Construction - Super Structure

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%

NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%



The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 11/24/2012 - 6/18/2013 - Garage Construction - Garage Decking


The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 6/19/2013 - 9/27/2014 - Hotel Construction - Super Structure


NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%


NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%


12/22/2009 6:53:50 PM

Page: 32

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%


NOX: 35% PM10: 48% PM25: 48%

NOX: 23% PM10: 26% PM25: 26%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Building Construction 6/3/2015 - 7/21/2015 - Office Construction - Roof/Rough-ins/Finish



Appendix B EMFAC File Output

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2020 - Group AVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/07/30 18:19:19Scen Year: 2020 -- All model years in the range 1976 to 2020 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2020 -- Model Years 1976 to 2020 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006

County Average Los Angeles County Average

Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile)

Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%

Speed LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV ALL ALL ALL ALL MPH NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

25 3.366 0.036 0.196 0.036 2.928 0.051 0.107 0.052 3.064 0.065 0.134 0.065 10.367 0.086 0.101 0.097 7.774 0.049 0.124 0.05130 2.876 0.029 0.168 0.029 2.502 0.041 0.091 0.042 2.618 0.052 0.115 0.053 8.854 0.07 0.087 0.079 6.64 0.04 0.106 0.04135 2.571 0.025 0.147 0.025 2.237 0.035 0.08 0.036 2.34 0.045 0.101 0.045 7.913 0.059 0.076 0.068 5.935 0.034 0.093 0.03560 2.893 0.023 0.106 0.023 2.517 0.033 0.058 0.033 2.633 0.041 0.072 0.041 8.907 0.055 0.055 0.065 6.68 0.032 0.067 0.03365 3.393 0.026 0.106 0.026 2.952 0.037 0.058 0.038 3.088 0.047 0.072 0.047 10.45 0.063 0.055 0.074 7.836 0.036 0.067 0.038

Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 26.334 1.075 0.815 1.076 40.001 1.64 0.654 1.639 39.661 1.922 0.722 1.924 128.694 2.22 0.651 2.351 94.358 1.449 0.688 1.46430 23.609 0.987 0.674 0.988 35.861 1.502 0.541 1.501 35.556 1.763 0.597 1.766 115.373 2.038 0.539 2.155 84.591 1.33 0.569 1.34435 22.289 0.912 0.583 0.913 33.856 1.387 0.469 1.386 33.569 1.628 0.517 1.63 108.925 1.883 0.466 1.994 79.863 1.228 0.493 1.24160 36.335 0.667 0.561 0.669 55.191 1.069 0.451 1.074 54.722 1.202 0.497 1.207 177.564 1.441 0.448 1.625 130.19 0.912 0.474 0.93565 46.794 0.642 0.638 0.644 71.078 1.059 0.513 1.067 70.475 1.162 0.565 1.168 228.679 1.423 0.51 1.66 167.667 0.885 0.539 0.914

Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 2.419 0.082 1.198 0.082 2.167 0.126 1.226 0.135 2.422 0.196 1.204 0.197 7.424 0.246 1.223 0.255 5.6 0.131 1.219 0.13330 2.53 0.076 1.145 0.077 2.266 0.118 1.172 0.126 2.533 0.183 1.152 0.183 7.764 0.23 1.169 0.239 5.856 0.122 1.165 0.12435 2.642 0.073 1.135 0.073 2.367 0.112 1.161 0.121 2.646 0.174 1.141 0.174 8.109 0.219 1.158 0.229 6.116 0.116 1.155 0.11860 3.218 0.074 1.846 0.075 2.882 0.119 1.889 0.134 3.222 0.182 1.855 0.183 9.875 0.232 1.884 0.243 7.448 0.121 1.878 0.12465 3.334 0.079 2.263 0.08 2.986 0.129 2.316 0.147 3.338 0.195 2.275 0.196 10.23 0.249 2.309 0.262 7.717 0.13 2.302 0.133

Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 535.572 380.6 356.797 380.601 550.658 479.121 347.333 478.097 550.582 484.71 348.125 484.669 751.158 661.026 346.224 660.792 676.298 443.813 348.948 443.76430 469.639 333.745 356.797 333.759 482.868 420.138 347.333 419.576 482.801 425.038 348.125 425.017 658.685 579.649 346.224 579.488 593.04 389.177 348.948 389.17435 427.432 303.751 356.797 303.773 439.471 382.379 347.333 382.114 439.411 386.839 348.125 386.83 599.487 527.554 346.224 527.44 539.742 354.2 348.948 354.22860 466.351 331.409 356.797 331.423 479.487 417.196 347.333 416.658 479.421 422.062 348.125 422.042 654.073 575.59 346.224 575.433 588.888 386.452 348.948 386.45265 530.579 377.051 356.797 377.053 545.523 474.654 347.333 473.665 545.448 480.19 348.125 480.151 744.154 654.862 346.224 654.634 669.992 439.675 348.948 439.629

Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.00430 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.00435 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.00360 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.00465 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.011 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.004

Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 0.035 0.013 0.128 0.013 0.026 0.016 0.062 0.017 0.04 0.035 0.079 0.035 0.037 0.035 0.057 0.035 0.036 0.021 0.074 0.02130 0.03 0.011 0.11 0.011 0.022 0.013 0.053 0.013 0.034 0.028 0.067 0.028 0.031 0.028 0.049 0.028 0.031 0.017 0.064 0.01735 0.027 0.009 0.096 0.009 0.02 0.011 0.046 0.011 0.03 0.024 0.059 0.024 0.028 0.024 0.043 0.024 0.027 0.014 0.056 0.01460 0.03 0.009 0.069 0.009 0.022 0.01 0.033 0.011 0.034 0.023 0.042 0.023 0.032 0.022 0.031 0.022 0.031 0.014 0.04 0.01465 0.035 0.01 0.069 0.01 0.026 0.012 0.033 0.012 0.04 0.026 0.042 0.026 0.037 0.026 0.031 0.026 0.036 0.016 0.04 0.016

Pollutant Name: PM10 - Tire Wear Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.00830 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.00835 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.00860 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.00865 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008

Pollutant Name: PM10 - Brake Wear Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.01330 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.01335 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.01360 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.01365 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

Pollutant Name: Gasoline - mi/gal Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 15.096 23.173 0 23.173 14.241 18.39 0 18.39 14.245 18.162 0 18.161 9.002 13.33 0 13.326 11.036 20.522 0 20.5230 17.196 26.422 0 26.421 16.209 20.968 0 20.967 16.215 20.706 0 20.706 10.227 15.198 0 15.193 12.552 23.398 0 23.39635 18.849 29.029 0 29.029 17.746 23.037 0 23.036 17.753 22.749 0 22.749 11.156 16.698 0 16.692 13.72 25.707 0 25.70560 16.654 26.649 0 26.648 15.445 21.15 0 21.149 15.458 20.896 0 20.895 9.233 15.331 0 15.324 11.679 23.603 0 23.60165 14.426 23.434 0 23.434 13.305 18.6 0 18.599 13.317 18.379 0 18.378 7.809 13.482 0 13.476 9.982 20.756 0 20.755

Pollutant Name: Diesel - mi/gal Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53%


25 0 0 28.251 28.251 0 0 29.021 29.021 0 0 28.954 28.954 0 0 29.113 29.113 0 0 28.889 28.88930 0 0 28.251 28.251 0 0 29.021 29.021 0 0 28.954 28.954 0 0 29.113 29.113 0 0 28.889 28.88935 0 0 28.251 28.251 0 0 29.021 29.021 0 0 28.954 28.954 0 0 29.113 29.113 0 0 28.889 28.88960 0 0 28.251 28.251 0 0 29.021 29.021 0 0 28.954 28.954 0 0 29.113 29.113 0 0 28.889 28.88965 0 0 28.251 28.251 0 0 29.021 29.021 0 0 28.954 28.954 0 0 29.113 29.113 0 0 28.889 28.889



Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip)

Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: ALL

Time LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

5 1.644 0.018 0 0.018 1.314 0.022 0 0.022 1.375 0.028 0 0.028 5.395 0.043 0 0.049 3.989 0.023 0 0.02410 1.63 0.036 0 0.036 1.303 0.044 0 0.044 1.363 0.055 0 0.055 5.349 0.084 0 0.09 3.954 0.046 0 0.04720 1.646 0.069 0 0.069 1.315 0.085 0 0.084 1.377 0.106 0 0.106 5.4 0.163 0 0.168 3.992 0.088 0 0.08930 1.72 0.099 0 0.099 1.374 0.122 0 0.121 1.438 0.152 0 0.152 5.643 0.234 0 0.24 4.172 0.127 0 0.12840 1.852 0.126 0 0.126 1.48 0.155 0 0.154 1.549 0.195 0 0.195 6.077 0.3 0 0.306 4.493 0.162 0 0.16350 2.043 0.15 0 0.15 1.632 0.186 0 0.184 1.709 0.233 0 0.233 6.703 0.359 0 0.366 4.955 0.194 0 0.19560 2.124 0.172 0 0.172 1.697 0.213 0 0.211 1.776 0.268 0 0.268 6.968 0.412 0 0.419 5.152 0.222 0 0.223

120 1.893 0.238 0 0.238 1.513 0.294 0 0.292 1.583 0.38 0 0.38 6.211 0.583 0 0.589 4.592 0.312 0 0.312180 2.061 0.21 0 0.21 1.647 0.262 0 0.26 1.724 0.337 0 0.337 6.762 0.518 0 0.524 4.999 0.276 0 0.276240 2.228 0.223 0 0.223 1.781 0.278 0 0.276 1.864 0.357 0 0.357 7.312 0.549 0 0.556 5.406 0.292 0 0.293300 2.396 0.235 0 0.235 1.915 0.294 0 0.291 2.004 0.377 0 0.377 7.862 0.58 0 0.588 5.812 0.309 0 0.309360 2.564 0.247 0 0.247 2.049 0.309 0 0.307 2.144 0.397 0 0.397 8.412 0.611 0 0.619 6.219 0.325 0 0.326420 2.731 0.259 0 0.259 2.183 0.324 0 0.322 2.285 0.417 0 0.417 8.962 0.641 0 0.65 6.626 0.341 0 0.341480 2.899 0.271 0 0.271 2.316 0.339 0 0.336 2.425 0.436 0 0.436 9.512 0.67 0 0.68 7.032 0.356 0 0.357540 3.066 0.283 0 0.283 2.45 0.354 0 0.351 2.565 0.455 0 0.455 10.062 0.699 0 0.709 7.439 0.371 0 0.372600 3.234 0.294 0 0.294 2.584 0.368 0 0.365 2.705 0.473 0 0.473 10.612 0.728 0 0.739 7.846 0.387 0 0.388660 3.402 0.305 0 0.305 2.718 0.382 0 0.379 2.845 0.492 0 0.492 11.162 0.756 0 0.767 8.252 0.401 0 0.402720 3.569 0.316 0 0.316 2.852 0.396 0 0.393 2.986 0.51 0 0.51 11.712 0.784 0 0.796 8.659 0.416 0 0.417

Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: ALL


5 11.08 0.223 0 0.224 16.775 0.312 0 0.312 16.63 0.36 0 0.361 56.126 0.497 0 0.562 40.677 0.29 0 0.29810 9.812 0.44 0 0.44 14.854 0.614 0 0.611 14.726 0.71 0 0.711 49.7 0.98 0 1.036 36.02 0.572 0 0.57820 7.574 0.853 0 0.853 11.467 1.191 0 1.182 11.368 1.378 0 1.378 38.366 1.899 0 1.939 27.805 1.109 0 1.11330 5.735 1.239 0 1.239 8.683 1.729 0 1.715 8.608 2.003 0 2.003 29.052 2.757 0 2.784 21.055 1.611 0 1.61340 4.296 1.599 0 1.598 6.503 2.23 0 2.211 6.447 2.587 0 2.586 21.759 3.555 0 3.572 15.77 2.079 0 2.07950 3.255 1.932 0 1.931 4.928 2.694 0 2.67 4.885 3.128 0 3.127 16.487 4.292 0 4.301 11.949 2.512 0 2.51160 2.613 2.238 0 2.237 3.956 3.119 0 3.092 3.922 3.627 0 3.626 13.235 4.968 0 4.972 9.592 2.911 0 2.909

120 7.893 3.275 0 3.274 11.949 4.457 0 4.418 11.846 5.314 0 5.313 39.979 7.145 0 7.174 28.974 4.24 0 4.241180 12.471 2.673 0 2.673 18.88 3.7 0 3.67 18.717 4.369 0 4.368 63.17 5.875 0 5.935 45.782 3.477 0 3.482240 16.564 2.859 0 2.859 25.077 3.954 0 3.922 24.86 4.681 0 4.68 83.903 6.274 0 6.357 60.808 3.72 0 3.727300 20.172 3.026 0 3.026 30.539 4.183 0 4.15 30.275 4.96 0 4.96 102.178 6.634 0 6.738 74.053 3.938 0 3.947360 23.295 3.175 0 3.175 35.266 4.387 0 4.353 34.962 5.208 0 5.209 117.996 6.955 0 7.077 85.517 4.132 0 4.143420 25.932 3.305 0 3.305 39.259 4.566 0 4.531 38.92 5.425 0 5.425 131.355 7.237 0 7.374 95.199 4.302 0 4.314480 28.084 3.417 0 3.417 42.518 4.72 0 4.684 42.15 5.609 0 5.61 142.257 7.481 0 7.63 103.1 4.447 0 4.461540 29.751 3.51 0 3.51 45.041 4.849 0 4.812 44.652 5.762 0 5.762 150.701 7.685 0 7.844 109.219 4.568 0 4.583600 30.933 3.584 0 3.585 46.83 4.953 0 4.915 46.426 5.882 0 5.883 156.687 7.851 0 8.016 113.558 4.665 0 4.681660 31.629 3.641 0 3.641 47.885 5.032 0 4.994 47.471 5.971 0 5.972 160.215 7.978 0 8.147 116.115 4.738 0 4.754720 31.841 3.678 0 3.679 48.205 5.086 0 5.047 47.788 6.028 0 6.029 161.285 8.066 0 8.236 116.89 4.787 0 4.803

Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: ALL


5 0.71 0.083 0 0.083 0.635 0.117 0 0.116 0.711 0.198 0 0.198 2.184 0.269 0 0.271 1.645 0.132 0 0.13210 0.772 0.092 0 0.092 0.69 0.129 0 0.128 0.773 0.217 0 0.217 2.374 0.296 0 0.298 1.788 0.145 0 0.14520 0.884 0.108 0 0.108 0.791 0.149 0 0.148 0.885 0.251 0 0.251 2.719 0.345 0 0.347 2.048 0.169 0 0.16930 0.982 0.121 0 0.121 0.878 0.166 0 0.165 0.983 0.279 0 0.279 3.019 0.385 0 0.388 2.273 0.189 0 0.18940 1.064 0.132 0 0.132 0.952 0.18 0 0.178 1.065 0.302 0 0.302 3.272 0.418 0 0.42 2.464 0.205 0 0.20550 1.131 0.14 0 0.14 1.012 0.19 0 0.189 1.132 0.319 0 0.319 3.479 0.442 0 0.445 2.62 0.217 0 0.21760 1.184 0.145 0 0.145 1.059 0.197 0 0.196 1.185 0.331 0 0.331 3.64 0.459 0 0.462 2.741 0.225 0 0.226

120 1.203 0.155 0 0.155 1.076 0.211 0 0.21 1.204 0.355 0 0.355 3.699 0.491 0 0.494 2.786 0.241 0 0.241180 1.174 0.158 0 0.158 1.05 0.215 0 0.213 1.175 0.361 0 0.361 3.611 0.499 0 0.502 2.719 0.245 0 0.245240 1.136 0.156 0 0.156 1.016 0.213 0 0.212 1.137 0.358 0 0.358 3.494 0.496 0 0.498 2.631 0.243 0 0.243300 1.089 0.155 0 0.155 0.974 0.211 0 0.209 1.09 0.354 0 0.354 3.348 0.49 0 0.493 2.522 0.24 0 0.241360 1.032 0.152 0 0.152 0.923 0.208 0 0.206 1.033 0.349 0 0.349 3.174 0.482 0 0.485 2.39 0.237 0 0.237420 0.966 0.149 0 0.149 0.864 0.203 0 0.202 0.967 0.341 0 0.341 2.971 0.472 0 0.475 2.238 0.232 0 0.232480 0.891 0.146 0 0.146 0.797 0.198 0 0.196 0.892 0.333 0 0.333 2.74 0.461 0 0.463 2.063 0.226 0 0.226540 0.806 0.141 0 0.141 0.721 0.192 0 0.19 0.807 0.323 0 0.322 2.48 0.447 0 0.448 1.868 0.219 0 0.219600 0.712 0.136 0 0.136 0.637 0.185 0 0.184 0.713 0.311 0 0.311 2.191 0.431 0 0.432 1.65 0.211 0 0.211660 0.609 0.131 0 0.131 0.545 0.177 0 0.176 0.61 0.298 0 0.297 1.874 0.413 0 0.414 1.411 0.203 0 0.203720 0.497 0.125 0 0.125 0.444 0.169 0 0.167 0.497 0.283 0 0.283 1.528 0.392 0 0.393 1.151 0.193 0 0.193

Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: ALL


5 111.902 11.747 0 11.749 115.051 14.675 0 14.561 115.034 14.856 0 14.858 156.948 19.893 0 20.029 141.11 13.533 0 13.54310 121.432 13.373 0 13.375 124.848 16.755 0 16.623 124.83 16.947 0 16.949 170.314 22.888 0 23.032 153.126 15.443 0 15.45320 139.927 17.094 0 17.096 143.864 21.498 0 21.326 143.843 21.719 0 21.72 196.254 29.655 0 29.813 176.449 19.801 0 19.8130 157.671 21.441 0 21.441 162.107 27.018 0 26.799 162.084 27.279 0 27.279 221.141 37.46 0 37.628 198.824 24.876 0 24.88240 174.663 26.412 0 26.412 179.577 33.314 0 33.041 179.552 33.626 0 33.625 244.973 46.303 0 46.477 220.252 30.668 0 30.67150 190.904 32.009 0 32.008 196.275 40.388 0 40.052 196.247 40.762 0 40.758 267.751 56.183 0 56.36 240.731 37.177 0 37.17660 206.393 38.232 0 38.228 212.199 48.238 0 47.833 212.169 48.685 0 48.679 289.475 67.101 0 67.277 260.263 44.403 0 44.396

120 279.289 87.529 0 87.508 287.147 110.049 0 109.091 287.106 111.19 0 111.161 391.717 151.701 0 151.789 352.186 101.368 0 101.305180 279.509 99.549 0 99.522 287.373 125.211 0 124.114 287.332 126.493 0 126.458 392.025 172.778 0 172.815 352.463 115.325 0 115.244240 279.728 111.505 0 111.473 287.598 140.282 0 139.047 287.558 141.708 0 141.666 392.332 193.69 0 193.676 352.74 129.2 0 129.102300 279.948 123.399 0 123.362 287.824 155.263 0 153.89 287.783 156.836 0 156.787 392.64 214.437 0 214.373 353.017 142.995 0 142.878360 280.167 135.229 0 135.187 288.05 170.153 0 168.644 288.009 171.875 0 171.819 392.948 235.02 0 234.905 353.293 156.707 0 156.573420 280.387 146.997 0 146.949 288.275 184.953 0 183.308 288.235 186.827 0 186.764 393.256 255.437 0 255.273 353.57 170.339 0 170.187480 280.606 158.701 0 158.648 288.501 199.662 0 197.882 288.46 201.69 0 201.621 393.564 275.69 0 275.477 353.847 183.889 0 183.72540 280.826 170.342 0 170.284 288.727 214.281 0 212.367 288.686 216.466 0 216.39 393.872 295.778 0 295.516 354.124 197.357 0 197.171600 281.045 181.921 0 181.857 288.952 228.809 0 226.762 288.911 231.154 0 231.071 394.179 315.702 0 315.391 354.4 210.744 0 210.541660 281.265 193.436 0 193.367 289.178 243.247 0 241.067 289.137 245.754 0 245.664 394.487 335.46 0 335.101 354.677 224.05 0 223.829720 281.484 204.888 0 204.814 289.404 257.594 0 255.283 289.363 260.266 0 260.17 394.795 355.054 0 354.647 354.954 237.274 0 237.036

Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: ALL


5 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 010 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 020 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 030 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 040 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0 0 050 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0 0 060 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0 0 0

120 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.005 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.001 0 0.001180 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.005 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.001 0 0.001240 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.005 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.001 0 0.001300 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.002 0 0.002 0.005 0.001 0 0.001360 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.002 0 0.002 0.005 0.002 0 0.002420 0.003 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.003 0 0.003 0.005 0.002 0 0.002480 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.003 0 0.003 0.005 0.002 0 0.002540 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.003 0 0.003 0.005 0.002 0 0.002600 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.003 0 0.003 0.005 0.002 0 0.002660 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.007 0.003 0 0.003 0.005 0.002 0 0.002720 0.003 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.003 0 0.003 0.004 0.003 0 0.003 0.007 0.004 0 0.004 0.005 0.002 0 0.002

Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 65F Relative Humidity: ALL


5 0.011 0.001 0 0.001 0.008 0.001 0 0.001 0.013 0.001 0 0.001 0.012 0.002 0 0.002 0.012 0.001 0 0.00110 0.01 0.001 0 0.001 0.007 0.001 0 0.001 0.011 0.003 0 0.003 0.01 0.003 0 0.003 0.01 0.002 0 0.00220 0.008 0.002 0 0.002 0.006 0.003 0 0.003 0.009 0.006 0 0.006 0.008 0.006 0 0.006 0.008 0.003 0 0.00330 0.006 0.003 0 0.003 0.004 0.004 0 0.004 0.007 0.008 0 0.008 0.006 0.009 0 0.009 0.006 0.005 0 0.00540 0.004 0.004 0 0.004 0.003 0.005 0 0.005 0.005 0.011 0 0.011 0.005 0.011 0 0.011 0.004 0.006 0 0.00650 0.003 0.005 0 0.005 0.002 0.006 0 0.006 0.004 0.013 0 0.013 0.003 0.014 0 0.014 0.003 0.008 0 0.00860 0.003 0.006 0 0.006 0.002 0.007 0 0.007 0.003 0.015 0 0.015 0.003 0.016 0 0.016 0.003 0.009 0 0.009

120 0.007 0.009 0 0.009 0.005 0.011 0 0.011 0.008 0.024 0 0.024 0.008 0.025 0 0.025 0.007 0.015 0 0.015180 0.011 0.01 0 0.01 0.008 0.012 0 0.012 0.013 0.027 0 0.027 0.012 0.028 0 0.028 0.012 0.016 0 0.016240 0.015 0.011 0 0.011 0.011 0.013 0 0.013 0.017 0.029 0 0.029 0.016 0.03 0 0.03 0.015 0.018 0 0.018300 0.018 0.012 0 0.012 0.014 0.014 0 0.014 0.021 0.031 0 0.031 0.019 0.032 0 0.032 0.019 0.019 0 0.019360 0.021 0.013 0 0.013 0.016 0.015 0 0.015 0.024 0.033 0 0.033 0.022 0.034 0 0.034 0.022 0.02 0 0.02420 0.023 0.013 0 0.013 0.017 0.016 0 0.015 0.027 0.034 0 0.034 0.025 0.036 0 0.035 0.024 0.021 0 0.021480 0.025 0.014 0 0.014 0.019 0.016 0 0.016 0.029 0.035 0 0.035 0.027 0.037 0 0.037 0.026 0.021 0 0.021540 0.027 0.014 0 0.014 0.02 0.017 0 0.016 0.031 0.036 0 0.036 0.028 0.038 0 0.038 0.028 0.022 0 0.022600 0.028 0.015 0 0.015 0.021 0.017 0 0.017 0.032 0.037 0 0.037 0.029 0.038 0 0.038 0.029 0.022 0 0.022660 0.029 0.015 0 0.015 0.021 0.017 0 0.017 0.033 0.037 0 0.037 0.03 0.039 0 0.039 0.029 0.023 0 0.023720 0.029 0.015 0 0.015 0.021 0.017 0 0.017 0.033 0.038 0 0.038 0.03 0.039 0 0.039 0.03 0.023 0 0.023



Table 4: Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip)



5 0.358 0.04 0 0.04 0.708 0.048 0 0.048 0.698 0.051 0 0.051 0.151 0.053 0 0.053 0.28 0.045 0 0.04510 0.663 0.074 0 0.074 1.304 0.089 0 0.089 1.286 0.095 0 0.095 0.277 0.097 0 0.097 0.517 0.082 0 0.08220 1.143 0.126 0 0.126 2.213 0.152 0 0.151 2.182 0.162 0 0.162 0.471 0.166 0 0.166 0.88 0.14 0 0.1430 1.485 0.161 0 0.161 2.825 0.196 0 0.194 2.786 0.207 0 0.208 0.601 0.213 0 0.213 1.129 0.18 0 0.1840 1.618 0.174 0 0.174 3.047 0.212 0 0.21 3.005 0.224 0 0.225 0.648 0.231 0 0.231 1.221 0.195 0 0.195

Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips).



Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour)

Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL

Temp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

65 0.861 0.055 0 0.055 0.662 0.067 0 0.066 0.654 0.075 0 0.075 0.14 0.079 0 0.079 0.368 0.063 0 0.063



Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour)



65 0.051 0.004 0 0.004 0.04 0.005 0 0.005 0.039 0.006 0 0.006 0.008 0.006 0 0.006 0.022 0.005 0 0.005

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2020 - Group AVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/07/30 18:19:19Scen Year: 2020 -- All model years in the range 1976 to 2020 selectedy gSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2020 -- Model Years 1976 to 2020 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006


Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour)



65 0.437 0.027 0 0.027 0.389 0.034 0 0.034 0.385 0.04 0 0.04 0.082 0.043 0 0.043 0.202 0.032 0 0.032



Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour)



65 0.028 0.002 0 0.002 0.025 0.003 0 0.003 0.024 0.003 0 0.003 0.005 0.003 0 0.003 0.013 0.002 0 0.002



Table 7: Estimated Travel Fractions

Pollutant Name: Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL

LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV ALL ALL ALL ALLNCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

%VMT 0 0.571 0 0.571 0 0.075 0.001 0.076 0 0.245 0 0.245 0 0.108 0 0.108 0 0.999 0.001 1%TRIP 0 0.589 0 0.589 0 0.071 0.001 0.072 0 0.234 0 0.234 0 0.104 0 0.104 0 0.999 0.001 1%VEH 0 0.587 0 0.588 0 0.072 0.001 0.072 0 0.235 0 0.235 0 0.104 0 0.105 0 0.998 0.001 1



Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute)



1 1.123 0.012 0 0.012 1.586 0.304 0 0.302 1.568 0.345 0 0.345 0.311 0.338 0 0.338 0.69 0.151 0 0.1512 0.865 0.011 0 0.011 0.882 0.155 0 0.154 0.871 0.176 0 0.176 0.175 0.173 0 0.172 0.426 0.08 0 0.083 0.779 0.013 0 0.013 0.647 0.108 0 0.107 0.639 0.122 0 0.122 0.129 0.12 0 0.12 0.337 0.058 0 0.0584 0.736 0.015 0 0.015 0.529 0.086 0 0.085 0.523 0.097 0 0.097 0.106 0.095 0 0.095 0.293 0.049 0 0.0495 0.711 0.017 0 0.017 0.459 0.073 0 0.073 0.453 0.082 0 0.082 0.092 0.081 0 0.081 0.267 0.044 0 0.044

10 0.66 0.02 0 0.02 0.317 0.049 0 0.048 0.313 0.053 0 0.053 0.065 0.053 0 0.053 0.214 0.034 0 0.03415 0.644 0.021 0 0.021 0.27 0.041 0 0.041 0.266 0.045 0 0.045 0.056 0.045 0 0.045 0.196 0.031 0 0.03120 0.637 0.022 0 0.022 0.246 0.038 0 0.038 0.243 0.042 0 0.042 0.051 0.042 0 0.042 0.187 0.03 0 0.0325 0.633 0.022 0 0.022 0.231 0.037 0 0.037 0.228 0.04 0 0.04 0.048 0.041 0 0.041 0.182 0.03 0 0.0330 0.632 0.022 0 0.022 0.23 0.037 0 0.037 0.227 0.04 0 0.04 0.048 0.04 0 0.04 0.182 0.029 0 0.02935 0.631 0.022 0 0.022 0.229 0.036 0 0.036 0.226 0.039 0 0.039 0.048 0.04 0 0.04 0.181 0.029 0 0.02940 0.631 0.022 0 0.022 0.228 0.036 0 0.036 0.225 0.039 0 0.039 0.048 0.04 0 0.04 0.181 0.029 0 0.02945 0.63 0.021 0 0.021 0.228 0.036 0 0.035 0.225 0.039 0 0.039 0.047 0.039 0 0.039 0.18 0.029 0 0.02950 0.598 0.021 0 0.021 0.227 0.035 0 0.035 0.224 0.038 0 0.038 0.047 0.039 0 0.039 0.175 0.028 0 0.02855 0.553 0.021 0 0.021 0.226 0.035 0 0.035 0.223 0.038 0 0.038 0.047 0.038 0 0.038 0.167 0.028 0 0.02860 0.516 0.021 0 0.021 0.225 0.035 0 0.034 0.222 0.038 0 0.038 0.047 0.038 0 0.038 0.16 0.028 0 0.028


0

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2020 - Group BVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/07/30 18:19:19Scen Year: 2020 -- All model years in the range 1976 to 2020 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2020 -- Model Years 1976 to 2020 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006




Speed LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD MPH NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685.012 685.012 519.435 654.614 685.012 685.012 522.498 617.025 685.012 685.012 1505 1360.5430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567.895 567.895 519.435 558.998 567.895 567.895 522.498 548.903 567.895 567.895 1505 1339.90735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 497.421 497.421 519.435 501.462 497.421 497.421 522.498 507.912 497.421 497.421 1505 1327.49160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 585.19 585.19 519.435 573.118 585.19 585.19 522.498 558.963 585.19 585.19 1505 1342.95465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 712.968 712.968 519.435 677.438 712.968 712.968 522.498 633.286 712.968 712.968 1505 1365.465





Time LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 .667 22.208 0 20.662 170.667 22.437 0 17.635 170.667 9.546 0 2.98110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185.2 26.889 0 24.997 185.2 27.031 0 21.243 185.2 19.039 0 5.83220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213.408 37.03 0 34.386 213.408 37.015 0 29.086 213.408 37.866 0 11.48630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240.47 48.213 0 44.735 240.47 48.063 0 37.764 240.47 56.482 0 17.07640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266.386 60.436 0 56.044 266.386 60.174 0 47.276 266.386 74.887 0 22.60250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 291.155 73.699 0 68.312 291.155 73.349 0 57.623 291.155 93.081 0 28.06360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314.778 88.004 0 81.54 314.778 87.587 0 68.805 314.778 111.063 0 33.461

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425.955 188.63 0 174.546 425.955 188.625 0 148.152 425.955 188.899 0 56.831180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.29 216.171 0 199.972 426.29 216.044 0 169.681 426.29 223.17 0 67.085240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.625 243.204 0 224.931 426.625 242.983 0 190.834 426.625 255.419 0 76.734300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.96 269.731 0 249.422 426.96 269.444 0 211.611 426.96 285.644 0 85.778360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427.294 295.752 0 273.445 427.294 295.424 0 232.011 427.294 313.847 0 94.217420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427.629 321.265 0 297.001 427.629 320.926 0 252.035 427.629 340.027 0 102.05480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427.964 346.272 0 320.088 427.964 345.948 0 271.683 427.964 364.184 0 109.278540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.299 370.772 0 342.708 428.299 370.491 0 290.954 428.299 386.319 0 115.901600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.633 394.766 0 364.86 428.633 394.555 0 309.849 428.633 406.43 0 121.919660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.968 418.252 0 386.544 428.968 418.139 0 328.367 428.968 424.519 0 127.331720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429.303 441.232 0 407.76 429.303 441.244 0 346.51 429.303 440.586 0 132.138

NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

Year: 2020 Model Years 1976 to 2020 Inclusive Annual

000000000000





LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHDNCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

%VMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.202 0.045 0.248 0 0.044 0.031 0.075 0 0.033 0.156 0.189%TRIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.427 0.035 0.463 0 0.092 0.025 0.117 0 0.09 0.21 0.299%VEH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.187 0.04 0.228 0 0.04 0.029 0.069 0 0.028 0.108 0.137






1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.705 0.37 0 0.303 2.554 0.293 0 0.171 2.074 0.267 0 0.0472 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.463 0.194 0 0.159 1.39 0.151 0 0.088 1.149 0.141 0 0.0253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.049 0.137 0 0.112 1.002 0.106 0 0.062 0.84 0.101 0 0.0184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .842 0.11 0 0.09 0.808 0.085 0 0.049 0.685 0.082 0 0.0155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .718 0.094 0 0.077 0.692 0.072 0 0.042 0.593 0.071 0 0.013

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .469 0.063 0 0.051 0.458 0.049 0 0.028 0.407 0.05 0 0.00915 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .385 0.054 0 0.044 0.38 0.042 0 0.025 0.344 0.044 0 0.00820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .343 0.05 0 0.041 0.34 0.04 0 0.023 0.313 0.042 0 0.00725 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .318 0.049 0 0.04 0.316 0.039 0 0.023 0.294 0.041 0 0.00730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .317 0.049 0 0.04 0.315 0.039 0 0.023 0.292 0.041 0 0.00735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .315 0.048 0 0.039 0.314 0.038 0 0.022 0.291 0.041 0 0.00740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .314 0.048 0 0.039 0.312 0.038 0 0.022 0.29 0.04 0 0.00745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .313 0.047 0 0.039 0.311 0.038 0 0.022 0.289 0.04 0 0.00750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .312 0.047 0 0.038 0.31 0.037 0 0.022 0.288 0.04 0 0.00755 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .311 0.047 0 0.038 0.309 0.037 0 0.022 0.287 0.039 0 0.00760 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.046 0 0.038 0.308 0.037 0 0.021 0.286 0.039 0 0.007

HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUS SBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLNCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

685.012 685.012 2042.684 2021.764 685.012 685.012 1505 1309.912 0 685.012 2677.203 2014.071 136.195 161.622 0 152.342 685.012 685.012 1505 1408.096 685.012 685.012 1505 762.251 140.208 632.362 1712.649 1286.74567.895 567.895 1924.234 1903.335 567.895 567.894 1505 1282.048 0 567.895 2677.203 1975.087 123.948 153.688 0 142.834 567.895 567.895 1505 1394.255 567.895 567.895 1505 656.166 127.194 526.228 1647.17 1207.596497.421 497.421 1827.808 1807.309 497.421 497.42 1505 1265.281 0 497.42 2677.203 1951.629 114.559 151.465 0 137.995 497.421 497.421 1505 1385.927 497.421 497.421 1505 592.331 117.358 462.62 1593.867 1151.467

585.19 585.19 1676.05 1659.241 585.19 585.19 1505 1286.163 0 585.19 2677.203 1980.844 97.413 243.541 0 190.21 585.19 585.19 1505 1396.299 585.19 585.19 1505 671.832 100.98 550.822 1509.975 1131.551712.968 712.968 1711.772 1696.382 712.968 712.968 1505 1316.563 0 712.968 2677.203 2023.377 98.779 299.506 0 226.248 712.968 712.968 1505 1411.4 712.968 712.968 1505 787.574 103.27 671.376 1529.722 1187.567


170.667 9.546 0 2.952 170.667 9.546 0 4.146 0 9.546 0 3.179 35.653 1.772 0 15.408 170.667 9.546 0 1.184 170.667 9.546 0 8.788 40.43 19.162 0 13.512185.2 19.039 0 5.734 185.2 19.039 0 8.241 0 19.039 0 6.34 38.689 3.533 0 17.683 185.2 19.039 0 2.306 185.2 19.039 0 17.375 43.873 24.544 0 17.149

213.408 37.866 0 11.251 213.408 37.866 0 16.362 0 37.866 0 12.61 44.582 7.028 0 22.142 213.408 37.866 0 4.532 213.408 37.866 0 34.407 50.556 35.891 0 24.809240.47 56.482 0 16.706 240.47 56.482 0 24.392 0 56.482 0 18.809 50.235 10.483 0 26.482 240.47 56.482 0 6.733 240.47 56.482 0 51.246 56.966 48.017 0 32.98

266.386 74.887 0 22.097 266.386 74.887 0 32.33 0 74.887 0 24.938 55.649 13.898 0 30.702 266.386 74.887 0 8.908 266.386 74.887 0 67.893 63.106 60.924 0 41.662291.155 93.081 0 27.426 291.155 93.081 0 40.177 0 93.081 0 30.996 60.823 17.275 0 34.802 291.155 93.081 0 11.058 291.155 93.081 0 84.348 68.973 74.61 0 50.857314.778 111.063 0 32.693 314.778 111.063 0 47.933 0 111.063 0 36.984 65.758 20.612 0 38.783 314.778 111.063 0 13.183 314.778 111.063 0 100.612 74.57 89.076 0 60.563425.955 188.899 0 55.497 425.955 188.899 0 81.506 0 188.899 0 62.904 88.984 35.058 0 56.762 425.955 188.899 0 22.384 425.955 188.899 0 171.016 100.907 182.108 0 122.796

426.29 223.17 0 65.489 426.29 223.17 0 96.28 0 223.17 0 74.316 89.054 41.419 0 60.591 426.29 223.17 0 26.418 426.29 223.17 0 201.968 100.986 209.897 0 141.23426.625 255.419 0 74.892 426.625 255.419 0 110.181 0 255.418 0 85.055 89.124 47.404 0 64.195 426.625 255.419 0 30.214 426.625 255.419 0 231.093 101.066 236.925 0 159.16

426.96 285.644 0 83.705 426.96 285.644 0 123.211 0 285.644 0 95.12 89.194 53.013 0 67.575 426.96 285.644 0 33.771 426.96 285.644 0 258.39 101.145 263.192 0 176.585427.294 313.847 0 91.928 427.294 313.847 0 135.368 0 313.847 0 104.512 89.264 58.247 0 70.731 427.294 313.847 0 37.091 427.294 313.847 0 283.861 101.224 288.697 0 193.505427.629 340.027 0 99.561 427.629 340.027 0 146.654 0 340.027 0 113.23 89.334 63.106 0 73.662 427.629 340.027 0 40.172 427.629 340.027 0 307.506 101.304 313.442 0 209.92427.964 364.184 0 106.605 427.964 364.184 0 157.067 0 364.184 0 121.274 89.403 67.59 0 76.369 427.964 364.184 0 43.016 427.964 364.184 0 329.323 101.383 337.425 0 225.83428.299 386.318 0 113.059 428.299 386.319 0 166.609 0 386.318 0 128.645 89.473 71.698 0 78.852 428.299 386.319 0 45.621 428.299 386.319 0 349.314 101.462 360.648 0 241.236428.633 406.43 0 118.923 428.633 406.43 0 175.279 0 406.43 0 135.343 89.543 75.43 0 81.11 428.633 406.43 0 47.988 428.633 406.43 0 367.478 101.542 383.109 0 256.136428.968 424.519 0 124.197 428.968 424.519 0 183.077 0 424.519 0 141.366 89.613 78.787 0 83.145 428.968 424.519 0 50.118 428.968 424.519 0 383.815 101.621 404.809 0 270.532429.303 440.585 0 128.882 429.303 440.586 0 190.002 0 440.585 0 146.716 89.683 81.769 0 84.954 429.303 440.585 0 52.009 429.303 440.585 0 398.325 101.7 425.748 0 284.423

NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALLHHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUS SBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLNCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

0 0.005 0.34 0.346 0 0.004 0.012 0.016 0 0.009 0.018 0.026 0.021 0.037 0 0.058 0 0.001 0.01 0.011 0 0.029 0.003 0.032 0.021 0.363 0.615 10 0.009 0.023 0.032 0 0.014 0.019 0.033 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.028 0 0.047 0 0 0.003 0.004 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.02 0.663 0.317 10 0.003 0.065 0.068 0 0.005 0.01 0.014 0 0.003 0.007 0.01 0.138 0.205 0 0.344 0 0.002 0.012 0.013 0 0.105 0.011 0.116 0.139 0.579 0.282 1


6.097 0.507 0 0.008 1.41 0.292 0 0.069 0 1.808 0 0.602 0.014 0.005 0 0.008 2.617 1.432 0 0.17 2.003 1.409 0 1.277 0.033 0.436 0 0.1593.156 0.268 0 0.004 0.817 0.151 0 0.036 0 0.924 0 0.308 0.014 0.059 0 0.042 1.419 0.747 0 0.088 1.246 0.722 0 0.655 0.025 0.232 0 0.0852.176 0.191 0 0.003 0.619 0.107 0 0.025 0 0.633 0 0.211 0.015 0.087 0 0.06 1.02 0.521 0 0.062 0.999 0.496 0 0.45 0.022 0.167 0 0.0611.686 0.155 0 0.002 0.52 0.087 0 0.021 0 0.489 0 0.163 0.015 0.103 0 0.071 0.82 0.409 0 0.048 0.876 0.385 0 0.349 0.021 0.136 0 0.051.392 0.134 0 0.002 0.461 0.075 0 0.018 0 0.402 0 0.134 0.015 0.113 0 0.077 0.7 0.342 0 0.041 0.801 0.318 0 0.288 0.02 0.117 0 0.0430.803 0.092 0 0.001 0.341 0.053 0 0.013 0 0.233 0 0.077 0.016 0.132 0 0.09 0.46 0.21 0 0.025 0.651 0.187 0 0.17 0.02 0.082 0 0.030.606 0.078 0 0.001 0.301 0.046 0 0.011 0 0.179 0 0.059 0.017 0.137 0 0.093 0.38 0.168 0 0.02 0.599 0.146 0 0.133 0.02 0.071 0 0.0260.508 0.072 0 0.001 0.281 0.044 0 0.01 0 0.154 0 0.051 0.018 0.138 0 0.094 0.339 0.148 0 0.018 0.571 0.127 0 0.116 0.021 0.066 0 0.0250.449 0.069 0 0.001 0.268 0.043 0 0.01 0 0.14 0 0.047 0.019 0.138 0 0.095 0.315 0.137 0 0.016 0.554 0.117 0 0.106 0.021 0.064 0 0.0240.446 0.068 0 0.001 0.267 0.042 0 0.01 0 0.139 0 0.046 0.019 0.136 0 0.094 0.313 0.136 0 0.016 0.551 0.116 0 0.105 0.021 0.064 0 0.0240.444 0.068 0 0.001 0.266 0.042 0 0.01 0 0.138 0 0.046 0.019 0.135 0 0.092 0.312 0.135 0 0.016 0.548 0.115 0 0.105 0.021 0.063 0 0.0230.442 0.067 0 0.001 0.265 0.041 0 0.01 0 0.137 0 0.046 0.019 0.133 0 0.091 0.311 0.134 0 0.016 0.545 0.114 0 0.104 0.021 0.062 0 0.023

0.44 0.067 0 0.001 0.264 0.041 0 0.01 0 0.136 0 0.045 0.019 0.131 0 0.09 0.31 0.133 0 0.016 0.543 0.113 0 0.103 0.021 0.062 0 0.0230.438 0.066 0 0.001 0.263 0.041 0 0.01 0 0.135 0 0.045 0.018 0.129 0 0.089 0.308 0.132 0 0.016 0.54 0.112 0 0.102 0.02 0.061 0 0.0230.437 0.066 0 0.001 0.263 0.041 0 0.01 0 0.134 0 0.045 0.017 0.128 0 0.088 0.307 0.131 0 0.016 0.538 0.112 0 0.101 0.02 0.061 0 0.0220.435 0.066 0 0.001 0.262 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.133 0 0.044 0.017 0.126 0 0.086 0.306 0.131 0 0.015 0.536 0.111 0 0.101 0.019 0.06 0 0.022

0600 281 045 187 869 0 188 212 281 318 232 327 0 227 624 281 663 232 206 0 232 093 354 415 319 614 0 318 917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2009 Group AVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/08/24 14:55:46Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006





30 469.639 340.82 363.766 341.652 470.068 423.848 347.944 423.151 470.618 424.084 352.054 424.196 591.636 581.19 346.634 580.629 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2009 Group AVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/08/24 14:55:46Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006





5 111.902 10.394 0 11.201 112.011 13.217 0 15.05 112.148 13.251 0 13.669 141.115 17.393 0 18.373 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 121.432 12.683 0 13.544 121.55 15.92 0 17.835 121.699 15.938 0 16.383 153.133 21.389 0 22.423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 139.927 17.619 0 18.58 140.063 21.796 0 23.842 140.235 21.785 0 22.278 176.457 29.97 0 31.101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 157.671 23.034 0 24.084 157.824 28.299 0 30.43 158.018 28.263 0 28.796 198.833 39.336 0 40.547 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 040 174.663 28.928 0 30.055 174.833 35.428 0 37.598 175.047 35.37 0 35.937 220.261 49.489 0 50.763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 190.904 35.299 0 36.493 191.089 43.184 0 45.347 191.323 43.108 0 43.702 240.741 60.428 0 61.747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 206.393 42.149 0 43.399 206.593 51.566 0 53.677 206.846 51.476 0 52.089 260.274 72.152 0 73.501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120 279.289 89.7 0 91.05 279.561 111.071 0 111.997 279.903 111.03 0 111.617 352.201 152.487 0 153.684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0180 279.509 102.884 0 104.099 279.781 127.214 0 127.39 280.123 127.146 0 127.64 352.478 175.045 0 175.986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0240 279.728 115.807 0 116.889 280 143.075 0 142.515 280.343 142.985 0 143.388 352.755 197.127 0 197.818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0300 279.948 128.47 0 129.422 280.22 158.655 0 157.371 280.563 158.547 0 158.86 353.031 218.733 0 219.179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0360 280.168 140.871 0 141.696 280.44 173.953 0 171.958 280.783 173.833 0 174.057 353.308 239.862 0 240.068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0420 280.387 153.012 0 153.712 280.659 188.969 0 186.277 281.003 188.842 0 188.979 353.585 260.514 0 260.487 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0480 280.606 164.892 0 165.47 280.879 203.703 0 200.328 281.223 203.573 0 203.626 353.862 280.691 0 280.434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0540 280.826 176.511 0 176.97 281.099 218.156 0 214.11 281.443 218.028 0 217.997 354.138 300.39 0 299.911 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0600 281 045. 187 869. 0 188 212. 281 318. 232 327. 0 227 624. 281 663. 232 206. 0 232 093. 354 415. 319 614. 318.917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0660 281.265 198.967 0 199.196 281.538 246.217 0 240.869 281.883 246.107 0 245.914 354.692 338.361 0 337.451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0720 281.484 209.803 0 209.921 281.758 259.825 0 253.845 282.103 259.731 0 259.459 354.969 356.631 0 355.515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Relative 53%


0420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427 629 330 996 0 312 467 427 629 331 439 0 264 791 427 629 340 027 0 114 871

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2009 Group BVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/08/24 14:55:46Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006



Pollutant Name: Carbon DioPollutant Name: Carbon Dioxidexide TemTemperature:perature: 65F Relative Humidity: 53% 65F Humidity:


30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567.895 567.894 520.955 560.097 567.895 567.895 533.821 553.912 567.895 567.895 1505 1343.782






5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170.667 15.641 0 16.71 170.667 15.342 0 14.277 170.667 9.546 0 9.35210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185.2 22.817 0 23.553 185.2 22.632 0 20.17 185.2 19.039 0 12.65920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213.408 37.464 0 37.5 213.408 37.484 0 32.156 213.408 37.866 0 19.19430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240.47 52.502 0 51.795 240.47 52.697 0 44.41 240.47 56.482 0 25.62440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266.386 67.931 0 66.437 266.386 68.272 0 56.931 266.386 74.887 0 31.94950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 291.155 83.752 0 81.428 291.155 84.209 0 69.719 291.155 93.081 0 38.16860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314.778 99.963 0 96.767 314.778 100.508 0 82.775 314.778 111.063 0 44.282

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425.955 188.77 0 180.556 425.955 188.776 0 153.258 425.955 188.899 0 71.09180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.29 219.801 0 209.336 426.29 219.966 0 177.642 426.29 223.17 0 81.017240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.625 249.539 0 236.918 426.625 249.828 0 200.987 426.625 255.419 0 90.358300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.96 277.984 0 263.3 426.96 278.36 0 223.294 426.96 285.644 0 99.114360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427.294 305.137 0 288.483 427.294 305.564 0 244.562 427.294 313.847 0 107.285420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427 629. 330 996. 0 312 467 427 629 331 439 0 264 791 427 629 340 027 0 114 871. . . . . . .480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427.964 355.562 0 335.252 427.964 355.985 0 283.982 427.964 364.184 0 121.871540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.299 378.835 0 356.838 428.299 379.202 0 302.134 428.299 386.319 0 128.287600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.633 400.816 0 377.225 428.633 401.091 0 319.248 428.633 406.43 0 134.117660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.968 421.503 0 396.412 428.968 421.65 0 335.322 428.968 424.519 0 139.363720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429.303 440.897 0 414.401 429.303 440.882 0 350.359 429.303 440.585 0 144.023

LDA LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD

Year: 2009 Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive Annual

020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 075 0 0 065 0 647 0 063 0 0 065 0 0 014





LDALDA LDA LDA LDALDA LDLDT1T1 LDT1LDT1 LDT1 LDT1LDT1 LDT2 LDTLDT22 LLDT2DT2 LDTLDT22 MDV MDV MMDVDV MDV LHLHD1D1 LHD1 LHLHD1D1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHDNCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

%VMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.214 0.043 0.258 0 0.046 0.032 0.078 0.001 0.034 0.167 0.202%TRIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.418 0.027 0.451 0.002 0.091 0.024 0.116 0.011 0.085 0.199 0.295%VEH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.185 0.031 0.219 0.001 0.04 0.028 0.069 0.004 0.027 0.103 0.134

Title : LA County Avg Annual CYr 2009 Group BVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/08/24 14:55:46Scen Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Los Angeles*****************************************************************************************Year: 2009 -- Model -- Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Annual -- Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006





1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.029 0.415 0 0.357 1.824 0.356 0 0.218 1.727 0.323 0 0.0612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.191 0.227 0 0.195 1.21 0.191 0 0.118 1.258 0.179 0 0.0353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.912 0.165 0 0.143 1.005 0.138 0 0.086 1.101 0.133 0 0.0274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.772 0.135 0 0.117 0.902 0.113 0 0.071 1.021 0.111 0 0.0235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.688 0.118 0 0.102 0.84 0.098 0 0.062 0.974 0.098 0 0.02

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.518 0.085 0 0.074 0.714 0.07 0 0.045 0.875 0.073 0 0.01615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.461 0.077 0 0.067 0.67 0.064 0 0.041 0.84 0.067 0 0.01420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 431. 0 075. 0 0 065 0 647 0 063 0 0 04 0 82 0 065 0 0 014. . . 0.04 0.82 . .25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.413 0.075 0 0.065 0.632 0.063 0 0.04 0.807 0.065 0 0.01430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.411 0.075 0 0.064 0.628 0.062 0 0.04 0.803 0.065 0 0.01435 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.409 0.074 0 0.064 0.625 0.062 0 0.039 0.799 0.064 0 0.01440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.408 0.073 0 0.063 0.623 0.061 0 0.039 0.795 0.064 0 0.01445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.406 0.073 0 0.063 0.62 0.061 0 0.039 0.792 0.063 0 0.01450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.403 0.072 0 0.062 0.612 0.06 0 0.038 0.779 0.063 0 0.01455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.398 0.072 0 0.062 0.603 0.06 0 0.038 0.763 0.062 0 0.01360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.395 0.071 0 0.061 0.595 0.059 0 0.038 0.749 0.062 0 0.013

0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 704 214 876 0 214 678


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 482.74 393.294 352.846 393.787


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114.952 11.979 0 12.790 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124.741 14.565 0 15.4260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.74 20.154 0 21.1060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161.967 26.299 0 27.3280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179.423 33 0 34.0930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196.106 40.257 0 41.4010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212.017 48.069 0 49.2510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286.9 102.63 0 103.7750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287.126 117.67 0 118.6340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287.351 132.421 0 133.2090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287.577 146.884 0 147.4980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287.802 161.058 0 161.5040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288.028 174.945 0 175.2240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288.253 188.544 0 188.660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288.479 201.854 0 201.8110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 704 214 876 0 214 678. . .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288.929 227.61 0 227.260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289.155 240.056 0 239.557

0427 629 340 027 0 171 177 427 629 340 027 0 202 956 427 629 340 027 0 81 792 86 235 64 196 0 80 331 427 629 340 027 0 46 456 427 629 340 027 0 317 822 221 392 327 495 0 225 39


567.895 567.895 1924.234 1861.875 567.895 567.895 1505 1118.955 567.895 567.895 2832.251 2292.137 120.763 142.668 0 127.691 567.895 567.894 1505 1379.327 567.895 567.895 1505 649.072 170.034 545.509 1640.024 1165.306


170.667 9.546 0 19.125 170.667 9.546 0 7.852 170.667 9.546 0 3.419 34.416 1.802 0 25.679 170.667 9.546 0 2.807 170.667 9.546 0 19.145 88.358 14.133 0 14.343185.2 19.039 0 24.138 185.2 19.039 0 13.553 185.2 19.039 0 5.721 37.347 3.594 0 28.305 185.2 19.039 0 4.129 185.2 19.039 0 28.185 95.882 21.67 0 19.672

213.408 37.866 0 34.025 213.408 37.866 0 24.853 213.408 37.866 0 10.282 43.036 7.149 0 33.422 213.408 37.866 0 6.744 213.408 37.866 0 46.075 110.486 36.94 0 30.432240.47 56.482 0 43.727 240.47 56.482 0 36.014 240.47 56.482 0 14.786 48.493 10.664 0 38.359 240.47 56.482 0 9.322 240.47 56.482 0 63.711 124.496 52.471 0 41.327

266.386 74.887 0 53.242 266.386 74.887 0 47.037 266.386 74.887 0 19.233 53.719 14.138 0 43.116 266.386 74.887 0 11.863 266.386 74.887 0 81.092 137.913 68.263 0 52.356291.155 93.081 0 62.571 291.155 93.081 0 57.922 291.155 93.081 0 23.622 58.714 17.573 0 47.693 291.155 93.081 0 14.366 291.155 93.081 0 98.219 150.737 84.316 0 63.519314.778 111.063 0 71.715 314.778 111.063 0 68.669 314.778 111.063 0 27.955 63.478 20.968 0 52.09 314.778 111.063 0 16.833 314.778 111.063 0 115.092 162.967 100.63 0 74.817425.955 188.899 0 112.099 425.955 188.899 0 115.308 425.955 188.899 0 46.772 85.898 35.663 0 72.44 425.955 188.899 0 27.593 425.955 188.899 0 188.702 220.526 185.739 0 133.393

426.29 223.17 0 125.492 426.29 223.17 0 135.183 426.29 223.17 0 54.714 85.965 42.134 0 74.223 426.29 223.17 0 31.87 426.29 223.17 0 217.979 220.699 216.935 0 153.638426.625 255.419 0 138.096 426.625 255.419 0 153.886 426.625 255.419 0 62.186 86.033 48.222 0 75.904 426.625 255.418 0 35.895 426.625 255.419 0 245.53 220.872 246.709 0 172.96

426.96 285.644 0 149.912 426.96 285.644 0 171.415 426.96 285.644 0 69.19 86.1 53.928 0 77.482 426.96 285.644 0 39.667 426.96 285.644 0 271.354 221.046 275.06 0 191.359427.294 313.847 0 160.939 427.295 313.847 0 187.772 427.294 313.847 0 75.726 86.168 59.253 0 78.957 427.294 313.847 0 43.188 427.294 313.847 0 295.451 221.219 301.988 0 208.836427 629. 340 027. 0 171.177 427 629. 340 027. 0 202 956. 427 629. 340 027. 81 792. 86 235. 64.196 0 80 331. 427 629. 340 027. 0 46 456. 427 629 340 027 0 317 822 221 392 327 495 0 225 39. . . . . .427.964 364.184 0 180.626 427.964 364.184 0 216.967 427.964 364.184 0 87.391 86.303 68.756 0 81.602 427.964 364.184 0 49.472 427.964 364.184 0 338.466 221.566 351.579 0 241.022428.299 386.319 0 189.287 428.299 386.319 0 229.805 428.299 386.319 0 92.521 86.37 72.935 0 82.771 428.299 386.318 0 52.235 428.299 386.319 0 357.383 221.739 374.241 0 255.731428.633 406.43 0 197.159 428.633 406.43 0 241.47 428.633 406.43 0 97.182 86.438 76.732 0 83.838 428.633 406.43 0 54.747 428.633 406.43 0 374.573 221.912 395.481 0 269.518428.968 424.519 0 204.243 428.968 424.519 0 251.963 428.968 424.519 0 101.374 86.505 80.148 0 84.802 428.968 424.519 0 57.006 428.968 424.519 0 390.037 222.086 415.298 0 282.382429.303 440.585 0 210.537 429.303 440.586 0 261.283 429.303 440.586 0 105.098 86.573 83.181 0 85.664 429.303 440.585 0 59.012 429.303 440.585 0 403.773 222.259 433.693 0 294.324

Y YHHD HHD HHD OBUS UBUS UBUS SBUS MH MH MH MH

00 064 0 0 004 0 887 0 034 0 0 015 0 858 0 151 0 0 041 0 166 0 267 0 0 198 0 786 0 164 0 0 028 0 587 0 258 0 0 252 0 219 0 097 0 0 046

HHD HHD HHHHDD HHD OBOBUSUS OBUS OBUOBUSS OBUOBUSS UUBUSBUS UBUS UBUUBUSS UBUS MCMCYY MCYMCY MCMCY MCMCY SSBUSBUS SBUSBUSS SBSBUSUS SBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLALL ALL ALL ALLNCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

0 0.014 0.294 0.308 0 0.008 0.012 0.02 0 0.007 0.022 0.029 0.042 0.019 0 0.062 0 0.001 0.01 0.012 0.002 0.027 0.003 0.032 0.047 0.37 0.583 10.004 0.016 0.022 0.041 0.001 0.023 0.016 0.04 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.035 0.013 0 0.048 0 0 0.003 0.004 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.059 0.649 0.293 10.001 0.005 0.062 0.069 0 0.007 0.008 0.016 0 0.003 0.008 0.011 0.259 0.095 0 0.353 0 0.002 0.012 0.014 0.007 0.099 0.009 0.116 0.274 0.463 0.263 1


2.089 0.386 0 0.02 1.532 0.17 0 0.072 3.01 1.349 0 0.334 0.138 0.002 0 0.095 1.721 1.13 0 0.157 1.091 2.086 0 1.855 0.312 0.513 0 0.2051.665 0.211 0 0.012 1.201 0.091 0 0.039 1.885 0.709 0 0.177 0.139 0.112 0 0.131 1.236 0.613 0 0.088 0.819 1.113 0 1.001 0.251 0.284 0 0.1171.523 0.154 0 0.009 1.09 0.066 0 0.029 1.51 0.498 0 0.126 0.141 0.168 0 0.149 1.074 0.442 0 0.065 0.728 0.79 0 0.718 0.231 0.209 0 0.0881.451 0.126 0 0.007 1.034 0.055 0 0.024 1.322 0.393 0 0.1 0.142 0.199 0 0.16 0.992 0.357 0 0.054 0.686 0.63 0 0.579 0.222 0.173 0 0.0751.407 0.11 0 0.007 1 0.048 0 0.021 1.208 0.331 0 0.085 0.144 0.218 0 0.167 0.943 0.307 0 0.047 0.663 0.536 0 0.496 0.218 0.152 0 0.0671.315 0.078 0 0.005 0.929 0.037 0 0.016 0.979 0.208 0 0.055 0.152 0.256 0 0.185 0.842 0.208 0 0.034 0.615 0.348 0 0.331 0.213 0.112 0 0.052

1.28 0.068 0 0.005 0.902 0.035 0 0.015 0.9 0.169 0 0.045 0.159 0.265 0 0.193 0.806 0.178 0 0.03 0.597 0.287 0 0.278 0.215 0.101 0 0.0471 21. 6 026 064. 0 0.004 0 887. 0 034. 0 0 015. 0 858. 0 151. 0 041. 0 166. 0.267 0 0 198. 0 786. 0 164. 0 0 028. 0 587 0 258 0 0 252 0 219 0 097 0 0 046. . . . . .

1.245 0.061 0 0.004 0.876 0.035 0 0.016 0.832 0.141 0 0.038 0.173 0.267 0 0.203 0.772 0.157 0 0.027 0.579 0.242 0 0.238 0.223 0.095 0 0.0461.239 0.061 0 0.004 0.872 0.034 0 0.015 0.828 0.14 0 0.038 0.172 0.263 0 0.201 0.769 0.156 0 0.027 0.576 0.24 0 0.236 0.222 0.094 0 0.0451.233 0.061 0 0.004 0.868 0.034 0 0.015 0.824 0.139 0 0.038 0.172 0.259 0 0.199 0.765 0.155 0 0.027 0.573 0.239 0 0.235 0.221 0.093 0 0.0451.228 0.06 0 0.004 0.864 0.034 0 0.015 0.82 0.138 0 0.038 0.171 0.256 0 0.198 0.762 0.154 0 0.026 0.571 0.237 0 0.233 0.22 0.093 0 0.0451.223 0.06 0 0.004 0.86 0.033 0 0.015 0.816 0.137 0 0.037 0.17 0.252 0 0.196 0.758 0.153 0 0.026 0.568 0.236 0 0.232 0.219 0.092 0 0.0441.198 0.06 0 0.004 0.845 0.033 0 0.015 0.805 0.136 0 0.037 0.166 0.249 0 0.192 0.746 0.152 0 0.026 0.563 0.234 0 0.23 0.214 0.091 0 0.0441.165 0.059 0 0.004 0.826 0.033 0 0.015 0.791 0.135 0 0.037 0.159 0.246 0 0.187 0.73 0.151 0 0.026 0.557 0.233 0 0.229 0.208 0.09 0 0.0431.137 0.059 0 0.004 0.81 0.033 0 0.015 0.779 0.135 0 0.037 0.154 0.243 0 0.182 0.716 0.15 0 0.026 0.552 0.232 0 0.228 0.202 0.09 0 0.043


Appendix C Helicopter Emissions Analysis

(Helicopter Consultants)

Wilshire Grand Project HelistopAnnual Helicopter Emissions Data by Representative Helicopters, Trip Length, and Number of Projected Annual Trips

Assumptions:Helicopter: Eurocopter AS350 B2 a.k.a. Astar (single engine) Helicopter: Agusta A109E Power (Twin Engine)Engine Manufacturer: Turbomeca Engine Manufacturer: TurbomecaEngine Type: Turboshaft Engine Type: TurboshaftEngine Model: Arriel 1D1 Engine Model: Arrius 2k1Short Flight Length: 48 miles roundtrip Short Flight Length: 48 miles roundtripLong Flight Length: 255 miles roundtrip Long Flight Length: 255 miles roundtripCruising Speed: 120 kts (138 mph) Cruising Speed: 150 kts (173 mph)Fuel: JetA Fuel: JetA

Assumption:> Helicopters used most often: The single engine helicopters would be chartered most often - 98% of the time; twin engine aircraft 2%> Trips flown most often: The short trips around the Southern California area would be flown 80% of the time; long trips 20% of the time

Table 1-A

ModelProjected flights per

year

Projected flights per

month

Projected flights per peak day

Projected flights per

average dayAS350 470.4 39.2 1.96 1.274A109 9.6 0.8 0.04 0.026Total Annual

Total Annual Emissions (1)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xls Beg: 10/1/09

Rev: 10/6/09

Total Annual Flights: 480.0 40.0 2.0 1.3

Table 1-B

CO2 HC CO NOx

AS350 1 98% Short 80% 376.32 69,172,947.200 3,939.130 112,647.942 133,714.336AS350 1 98% Long 20% 94.08 88,736,569.600 4,998.941 136,818.819 173,101.712A109 2 2% Short 80% 7.68 1,836,216.320 407.926 4,092.416 4,072.550A109 2 2% Long 20% 1.92 2,383,964.160 401.083 4,519.168 5,369.395

Total Annual Emissions: 162,129,697.280 9,747.079 258,078.346 316,257.994

Note: Emissions produced by the A109 helicopter have been multiplied by 2 because it is a twin-engine aircraft. Heliport Consultants 10/6/09

Emissions produced (grams)# of engines

Modelmodel % of total flights

Trip typetrip type % of total flights

Total annual flights of model and trip combination

Total Annual Emissions (1)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xls Beg: 10/1/09

Rev: 10/6/09

Day Week Month YearProjected Flights per Peak:

2 5 (5 days out of 7)

40 (20 days out of 30)

480 (240 days out of 365)

Projected Flights per Average:

1.3 480 (365 days out of 365)

CNEL time periods

Percent Percent of 2 Flights per day

7am - 7 pm 80% 1.67pm - 10 pm 15% 0.310pm - 7 am 5% 0.1

Helicopter Type Flights/year Percent Flights/

Flights per day by

MODELED HELICOPTER USAGE

WILSHIRE GRAND HELISTOP OPERATION PARAMETERS

Table 2-A

Number of Helicopter Flights1

Table 2-B

Time of Day Usage

Table 2-C

Flights/ year

day by helicopter

TOTAL 480 100.00% 2

Bell 206L 236 49.17% 0.98AS 350 236 49.17% 0.98Agusta 109 6 1.25% 0.03Sikorsky S76 2 0.42% 0.01

Total 480 100% 2.00

1. A Helicopter flight is a takeoff AND a landing. A helicopter operation is a takeoff OR a landing.

Heli Operations (2)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xls

9/15/09Revised 10/7/09

Heliport Consultants

Wilshire Grand Project HelistopSummary of Helicopter Emissions Data for Representative Single Engine Helicopter for One Short and One Long Trip in Southern California

Assumptions:Helicopter: Eurocopter AS350 B2 a.k.a. Astar (single engine)Engine Manufacturer: TurbomecaEngine Type: TurboshaftEngine Model: Arriel 1D1Long Flight Length: 255 miles roundtrip*Short Flight Length: 48 miles roundtrip*Cruising Speed: 120 kts (138 mph)Fuel: JetA

Helicopter: AS350 B2 AstarEngine: Arriel 1D1

Table 3-AEmissions measurements from Turbomeca:

CO2 HC CO NOx

Take-off/climb 598.4 0.031 0.625 1.439 30Cruise 500.5 0.028 0.744 0.982 22Landing/descent 334.5 0.021 0.614 0.445Idle (t/o+ldg) 134.2 0.013 0.998 0.102 5

Table 3-BEmissions Tables: Short Trip Grams produced within Time in Mode

CO2 HC CO NOx

Take-off/climb 0.25 2,493.333 0.129 2.604 5.996Cruise 21.00 175,175.000 9.800 260.400 343.700Landing/descent 0.30 1,672.500 0.105 3.070 2.225Idle (t/o+ldg) 2.00 4,473.333 0.433 33.267 3.400

Total Emissions: 183,814.167 10.468 299.341 355.321

Table 3-CLong Trip Grams produced within Time in Mode

CO2 HC CO NOx

Take-off/climb 0.50 4,986.667 0.258 5.208 11.992Mode Time in Mode (Min).

Mode

Emissions (kg/h)

Smoke Number

Mode Time in Mode (Min).

AS350 Emissions (3)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xlsPrinted:6/23/2010/7:06 PM

Beg. 10/1/09Rev: 10/6/09

Take-off/climb 0.50 4,986.667 0.258 5.208 11.992Cruise 111.00 925,925.000 51.800 1,376.400 1,816.700Landing/descent 0.60 3,345.000 0.210 6.140 4.450Idle (t/o+ldg) 4.00 8,946.667 0.867 66.533 6.800

Total Emissions: 943,203.333 53.135 1,454.282 1,839.942

Notes from the manufacturer: Heliport Consultants 10/6/20091. CH4 emission: zero emissions for the Arriel 1D1

2. SOx emission: Turbomeca does not measure this, the quantity of “S” being extremely low.3. Turbomeca does not have N2O emission data.

4. Turbomeca emissions standards test follow ICAO, ARP 1179 and 1256.

Definitions:1. Operation - a helicopter operation is either one landing or one takeoff2. Flight - a helicopter flight is two operations or one landing plus one takeoff3. Idle time mode equals time spent in Flight idle plus Ground idle after landing and prior to takeoff.

References:1. Formula are equal to ("Time in mode" * "emission index" * 1,000)/60

*1000 is used to convert from kg to g /60 is to convert from g/hour to g/min

2. Power settings and times in mode for the modeling have been established from helicopter flight manuals and with the help of experienced pilots knowledgeable about the aircraft. The result is anestimation of the time in mode for landing/takeoff/cruise

AS350 Emissions (3)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xlsPrinted:6/23/2010/7:06 PM

Beg. 10/1/09Rev: 10/6/09

Wilshire Grand Project - HelistopSummary of Helicopter Emissions Data for Representative Twin Engine Helicopter for One Short and One Long Trip in Southern California

Assumptions:Helicopter: Agusta A109E Power (Twin Engine)Engine Manufacturer: TurbomecaEngine Type: TurboshaftEngine Model: Arrius 2k1Short Flight Length: 48 miles roundtripLong Flight Length: 255 miles roundtripCruising Speed: 150 kts (173 mph)Fuel: JetA

Helicopter: Agusta A109E PowerEngines: 2 Turbomeca Arrius 2k1

Table 4-AEmissions measurements from Turbomeca:

CO2 HC CO NOx

Take-off/climb 100 506 0.05 0.68 1.4 1.9Cruise 75 409 0.055 0.69 0.93 1.6Landing/descent 38 280 0.078 0.82 0.47 1.1Idle (t/o+ldg) 7 161 0.27 1.8 0.2 0.8

Table 4-BEmissions Tables: Short Trip Grams produced within Time in Mode (per engine)

CO2 HC CO NOx

Take-off/climb 0.27 2,277.000 0.225 3.060 6.300Cruise 16.00 109,066.667 14.667 184.000 248.000Landing/descent 0.32 1,493.333 0.416 4.373 2.507Idle (t/o+ldg) 2.50 6,708.333 11.250 75.000 8.333

Total Emissions: 119,545.333 26.558 266.433 265.140

Table 4-CLong Trip Grams produced within Time in Mode (per engine)

CO2 HC CO NOx

T k ff/ li b 0 54 4 554 000 0 450 6 120 12 600Mode Time in Mode (Min).

Mode Power (% W00)

Emission index (kg/h)

Smoke Number

Mode Time in Mode (Min).

A109 Emissions (4)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xlsPrinted: 6/23/2010 7:06 PM

Take-off/climb 0.54 4,554.000 0.450 6.120 12.600Cruise 88.00 599,866.667 80.667 1,012.000 1,364.000Landing/descent 0.64 2,986.667 0.832 8.747 5.013Idle (t/o+ldg) 5.00 13,416.667 22.500 150.000 16.667

Total Emissions: 620,824.000 104.449 1,176.867 1,398.280

Notes from the manufacturer: Heliport Consultants 10/6/20091. CH4 emission: zero emissions for the Arrius 2k1

2. SOx emission: Turbomeca does not measure this, the quantity of “S” being extremely low.3. Turbomeca does not have N2O emission data.

4. Turbomeca emissions standards test follow ICAO, ARP 1179 and 1256.

Definitions:1. Operation - a helicopter operation is either one landing or one takeoff2. Flight - a helicopter flight is two operations or one landing plus one takeoff3. Idle time mode equals time spent in Flight idle plus Ground idle after landing and prior to takeoff.

References:1. Formula are equal to ("Time in mode" * "emission index" * 1,000)/60

*1000 is used to convert from kg to g /60 is to convert from g/hour to g/min

2. Power settings and times in mode for the modeling have been established from helicopter flight manuals and with the help of experienced pilots knowledgeable about the aircraft. The result is anestimation of the time in mode for landing/takeoff/cruise

A109 Emissions (4)P:\T\Thomas Properties Group\Wilshire Grand\Climate Change\report\appendices\App C Helicopter\App D Helicopter +Annual Emissions Data.xlsPrinted: 6/23/2010 7:06 PM


Appendix D References


References Adalberth, K., A. Almgren, and E.H. Petersen. 2001. “Life Cycle Assessment of Four Multi-

Family Buildings.” International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 2.

Battelle. Humphreys, K. and Mahasenan, M. 2002. “Climate Change: Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry.” March.

Bennett, Ricarda. 2009. “Helistop Emissions Calculations”. Transmitted via e-mail. October 7.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. “CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from proposed Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.” Available online at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. “AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document.” Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm [Accessed May 12, 2009]. December.

CARB. “California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit.” Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm [Accessed May 2010].

CARB. “Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2020 Forecast.” Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm#summary_forescast [Accessed May 2010].

CARB. 2008. “Local Government Operations Protocol - for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories.” Version 1.0. September. Developed in partnership by California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, The Climate Registry.

CARB. “Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program.” Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm [Accessed May 2010].

CARB. 2008. “Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions For the United States and Canada Under US CAFE Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations.”

California Building Standards Commission. 2009. “2008 California Green Building Standards Code,” CCR, Title 24, Part 11. Available online at: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2009/part11_2008_calgreen_code.pdf. [Accessed: January, 2010].

California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). 2009. “General Reporting Protocol (GRP),” Version 3.1. Available at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf [Accessed May 2010]. January.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. “California Commercial End-Use Survey.” Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-005/CEC-400-2006-005.PDF [Accessed May 2010]. March.


http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm�

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm�

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm#summary_forescast�

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm�





CEC. “California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings,” Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ [Accessed May 2010].

CEC. 2005. “California’s Water-Energy Relationship,” Final Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.

CEC. 2003. “Impact Analysis: 2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.” Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-014.PDF [Accessed May 2010].

CEC. 2007. “Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.” Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT_ANALYSIS.PDF [Accessed May 2010].

CEC. 2006. “Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004.”

CEC. 2007. “Los Angeles Department of Water 2007 Annual Entity Emissions: Electric Power Generation/Electric Utility Sector.” Available at: https:www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/16/2007/LADWP_2007_PUP_Report.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

CEC. 2006. “Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California,” PIER Final proposed Project Report. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118. December.

CEC. 2003. “Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS).” Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/ [Accessed August 2009].

CEC. 2007. “State Alternative Fuels Plan,” CEC-600-2007-011-CMF. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-011/CEC-600-2007-011-CMF.PDF [Accessed May 2010]. December.

California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. 2005. “Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports. § 15125(a).” Available online at: http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html [Accessed May 2010]. October 26.

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). “Senate Bill No. 97, Chapter 185.” Available online at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

Christopher A Joseph and Associates. 2009. “Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Initial Study.” July.

City of Los Angeles (City of LA). “Green LA, An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming (LA Green Plan),” Section V, Pages 17 to 26. Available at: http://environmentla.org/pdf/GreenLA_CAP_2007.pdf [Accessed May 2010].






http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/�



http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html�

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf�

http://environmentla.org/pdf/GreenLA_CAP_2007.pdf�


City of LA 2009. “Draft Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code Establishing Water Efficiency Requirements for New Development and Renovation of Existing Buildings in the City of Los Angeles.” Office of the City Attorney.

City of LA. “Ordinance No. 179820.” Available online at: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-0705_ord_179820.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

Energy Information Administration. 2007. “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007.” Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/csia/special_topics.html [Accessed May 2010]. August.

Gibson Transportation Consulting. 2010. “Transportation Study for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project.” January.

Glumac. 2010. “Electrical Technical Report.” May.

Glumac. 2010. “Natural Gas Technical Report.” May.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

IPCC. 1995. “Second Assessment - Climate Change.”

IPCC. 2001. “Third Assessment Report (TAR).” Available online at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/143.htm [Accessed May 2010] and http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm [Accessed May 2010].

IPCC. 2008. “Climate Change and Water,” Technical Paper VI. Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf [Accessed May 2010]. June.

IPCC. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,” Working Group II Report. Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm [Accessed May 2010].

IPCC. “Mitigation of Climate Change,” Working Group III Report. Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm [Accessed May 2010].

IPCC. “The Physical Science Basis,” Working Group I Report. Available online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm [Accessed May 2010].

Itron, Inc. “Annual Summary Statistics.” Available online at: http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx. [Accessed July 2009].

Itron, Inc. “Forecasting Climate Zone Map.” Available online at: http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/FCZMap.aspx. [Accessed July 2009].

KEMA-XENERGY, Itron, RoperASW. 2004. “California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study.” Volume 2, Study Results, Final Report. 300-00-004. June.

Keoleian, G.A., S. Blanchard, and P. Reppe. 2000. “Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies for improving a single-family house.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(2): p. 135.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). 2007. “California Climate Action Registry Database,” Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PUP Report.

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-0705_ord_179820.pdf�

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/csia/special_topics.html�




http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf�





http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/FCZMap.aspx�


Merriam-Webster. “Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English," Preview Edition (v 0.9.6). Available online at: http://www.m-w.com/ [Accessed May 2010].

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available online at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2002. “How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials.” Available online at: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf [Accessed May 2010]. October.

Pacific Institute. “The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast”. May 2009. CEC-500-2009-024-F. Available online at: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.html. [Accessed October 5, 2009].

Portland Cement Association. “Cement and Concrete Basics.” Available online at: http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_concretebasics.asp [Accessed May 2010].

PSOMAS. 2010. “Water Systems Technical Report.” May.

PSOMAS. 2010. “Wastewater/Sewer System Technical Report.” May.

Sartori, I. and A.G. Hestnes. 2007. “Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article.” Energy and Buildings, 39(3): p. 249.

Scheuer, C., G.A. Keoleian, and P. Reppe. 2003. “Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications.” Energy and Buildings, 35(10): p. 1049.

SimaPro LCA Software. Available at: http://www.pre.nl/simapro/ [Accessed May 2010].

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). “SCAG’s Approach to Implementing California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375).” Available online at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/tech-SCAGsb375Approach.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). “Proposal: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans.” Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm [Accessed May 2010].

Sullivan, D.C., et al. 2004. “Collection and Analysis of Weekend/Weekday Emissions Activity Data in the South Coast Air Basin,” Sonoma Technologies prepared for CARB. May.

Turner Construction Company. Proposal. July 31, 2009.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Time Series – Annex I.” Available online at: http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php [Accessed May 2010].

URBEMIS. “User’s Guide”, Version 9.2, Appendix B.

United States Department Of Energy. “EERE energy intensity indicators.” Transportation sector data. Available online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/trend_data.html [Accessed May 2010].

http://www.m-w.com/�



http://www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf�

http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_concretebasics.asp�

http://www.pre.nl/simapro/�

http://www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/tech-SCAGsb375Approach.pdf�

http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm�



United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006.” Available online at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf [Accessed May 2010].

USEPA. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Available online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html [Accessed May 2010].

USEPA. 2009. “President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy.” News Release. Available online at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6fa790d452bcd7f58525750100565efa/451902cb77d4add5852575bb006d3f9b!OpenDocument [Accessed May 2010]. May.

USEPA. 2005. “Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle.” Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.pdf [Accessed May 2010]. February.

USEPA. 2008. “Energy Star® and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2007 Annual Report.” Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/pdf/2007AnnualReportFinal.pdf [Accessed May 2010]. October.

USEPA. 1998. “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Fifth Edition. Chapter 2, Section 2.4 (Final Section). November. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ [Accessed May 2010].

USEPA. 1985. “Miscellaneous Data and Conversion Factors.” Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Fifth Edition. Appendix A. September.

USEPA. 1995. “Portland Cement Manufacturing.” Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Fifth Edition. Chapter 11, Section 11.6 (Final Section). January. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ [Accessed May 2010].

USEPA. 2004. “Hot Mix Asphalt Plants.” Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Fifth Edition. Chapter 11, Section 11.1 (Final Section). April. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ [Accessed May 2010].

USEPA. “Construction and Demolition Materials: Basic Information.” Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/cd/basic.htm [Accessed May 2010].

Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “Parking Solutions: A Comprehensive Menu of Solutions to Parking Problems.” TDM Encyclopedia. Available online at: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm [Accessed May 2010].

Wilkinson, Robert. 2000. “Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and An Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures.”

Winther, B.N. and A.G. Hestnes. 1999. “Solar versus green: The analysis of a Norwegian row house.” Solar Energy, 66(6): p. 387.

World Resource Institute (WRI). “Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry Guidance for GHG proposed Project Accounting Protocol.” Available online at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/lulucf-final.pdf [Accessed May 2010].


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html�




http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/pdf/2007AnnualReportFinal.pdf�

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/�



http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/cd/basic.htm�

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm�

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/lulucf-final.pdf�


Appendix E Résumés

Stanley R. Hayes

1

EDUCATION

Graduate Studies, Engineering and Applied Mathematics, University of Southern California and University of California, Irvine.

1968 MS, Aeronautics & Astronautics, Stanford University

1967 BS, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University

EXPERIENCE

Stan Hayes is a Principal at ENVIRON in Emeryville, California. He has more than twenty-five years of experience in environmental engineering and science, with particular emphasis on air impact analysis, air-related environmental impact analysis, air quality modeling, Clean Air Act strategic assessment and permitting, exposure and health risk analysis, air toxics, ozone, air pollution abatement, and regulatory compliance. His experience includes the following:

As a Principal at ENVIRON, Stan is responsible for

New business development, particularly in air policy analysis, corporate and facility air strategic planning, air quality impact assessment, environmental exposure analysis, and air toxics and criteria pollutant health risk assessment.

Preparation of proposals for major technical projects, and subsequent project design, staffing, and management.

Expert testimony before federal, state, and local agencies, including expert witness and litigation support work, across a broad range of areas, including air dispersion modeling, emission inventory development, and population exposure analysis.

Management of profit-and-loss for practice area, development and maintenance of client relationships, staff hiring, project staffing and management, and growth.

Publication of technical reports and scientific papers, conference presentations, and expert testimony before national, state, and local regulatory and legal bodies.

Projects directed by Stan at ENVIRON include

Air dispersion, exposure, and health risk assessments for a wide range of industrial and other facilities, including mining operations, refineries, petrochemical complexes, airports, power plants, and manufacturing plants. Work involved emission characterization, air dispersion modeling, population exposure calculation, and multipathway cancer and noncancer health risk assessment.

Expert witness and litigation support in toxic tort cases in Arkansas, Alabama, California, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming, involving a broad range of industrial facilities, including petroleum refineries, petrochemical complexes, and manufacturing facilities. Work involved industrial process analysis, development and verification of emission inventories, air dispersion modeling, and population exposure assessment.

Stanley R. Hayes

2

Corporate and facility strategic analyses (e.g., Title V/Clean Air Act) for more than twenty facilities in fifteen states. Work entailed emissions inventory development, calculation of potential to emit, determination of applicable federal requirements, identification and evaluation of alternative corporate response strategies, design of permit conditions allowing maximum operation flexibility, and permit preparation.

Air-related analysis of airport operations (particularly for environmental impact assessments), including emission estimation, aircraft air toxics speciation, dispersion modeling, and health risk assessment.

Particulate matter and ozone analyses, including health risk assessment, population exposure analysis, control strategy design and development, air monitoring data analysis, analysis of alternative U.S. national ambient air quality standards, and regulatory policy analysis.

A major multi-year research program for the Electric Power Research Institute to develop and apply innovative exposure assessment models and data bases. The modeling methodology examined exposure to fine particulate matter and acidic aerosols and gases.

Development and application of Monte Carlo air toxics exposure assessment models for a number of clients, including several national industrial trade organizations. Models obtain more realistic results than standard regulatory methods by considering activity patterns, indoor-outdoor differences, residency duration, and other sources of variability.

Analyses of major air quality-related legislation, regulations, and technical support documents for many leading U.S. trade associations, including the American Automobile Manufacturing Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Western States Petroleum Association, the National Petroleum Refiners Association, the American Industrial Health Council, the Specialty Steel Institute of the United States, and the Asbestos Institute, and for a variety of law firms and individual manufacturers.

While at Systems Applications in San Rafael, California, Stan held the following positions: Vice President and Director, Environmental Sciences; Manager, Risk Assessment Services; Senior Project Manager; and Senior Scientist. He was responsible for staff hiring in Environmental Sciences, project management, and growth of corporate environmental planning and engineering services; these services included risk assessment, exposure analysis, management of air toxics, urban planning, development of alternative fuels, urban air shed modeling applications, regulatory compliance analysis, permitting, emissions inventory development, and policy analysis.

Major areas of expertise are as follows:

Environmental Engineering and Science: Air quality modeling; regulatory compliance (including the Clean Air Act and Title V permitting); risk assessment and management; exposure analysis; indoor air quality; air pollution health effects; regulatory policy analysis; hazardous materials/air toxics; alternative motor vehicle fuels; litigation support/expert testimony; atmospheric sciences; air pollution formation/dynamics; air pollution abatement strategies.

Economics: Regulatory impact analysis; economics of regulated firms; effects of federal deregulation; cost-benefit analysis; financial behavior of regulated firms; impact of regulatory policies; federal telecommunications policy.

Stanley R. Hayes

3

Land Use Planning: Development of general plans; planning commission and city council presentations; zoning/land use planning regulations; land use development procedures.

While at McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Company, Huntington Beach, California, Mr. Hayes was a Senior Engineer/Scientist, Aerospace Research. Major areas of expertise include aerospace mechanical engineering; optimal flight/trajectory design; earth/planetary orbital mechanics; aerospace flight and vehicle dynamics; federal space policy analysis; large-scale computer program design.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS & ACTIVITIES

Fellow, Air & Waste Management Association; conferred June 2006.

Member, 1995-2006, 2009-, Advisory Council, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Greater San Francisco Area); Chair, 1999-2000; Vice Chair, 1998-1999; Secretary, 1997-1998; Chair, Air Quality Planning Committee, 2006; Chair, Technical Committee, 1996-1998.

General Conference Chair, Air & Waste Management Association Specialty Conference on “Harmonizing Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Processes,” Baltimore, Maryland, September 1-2, 2009.

General Conference Chair, Air & Waste Management Association Specialty Conference on “Planning for the Future: Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Inventories & Clean Energy Linkages,” San Francisco, California, March 7-9, 2006.

Co-Chair, Air & Waste Management Association Specialty Conference on “Environmental Security After 9-11,” San Francisco, California, August 22-23, 2002.

Chair, Air & Waste Management Association's Inter-Committee Task Force on Environmental Security (ITF-9), 2002-2005; Chair, Effects Division, 2001-2003, Vice Chair, 2000-2001; Chair, Health Effects and Exposure Technical Committee (EE-1), 1994-1997; member, Meteorology Committee (AB-3) and Risk Assessment/Management Committee (EE-5); member, Editorial Advisory Committee, 2002-2005.

Chair, Air & Waste Management Association Annual Meeting technical sessions: “Interactions Between Climate Change and Traditional Air Programs,” 2007; “Homeland and Environmental Security,” 2004; “Plenary Panel: Homeland & Environmental Security,” 2003; “Approaches to Exposure and Risk Assessment,” 2001 and 2000; “Approaches to Risk Assessment and Management,” 1999; “Ambient Air Quality Standards: Ozone,” 1998 (Co-Chair); “Health & Exposure: Implications for Ozone and PM Standard Setting,” 1997; “Ozone: Ecological and Health Effects Pertinent to Standard Development,” 1996; “Recent Advances in Exposure Assessment,” 1995 and 1993; “Ambient Standards,” 1984.

Member, Steering Committee for Climate Protection Summit, San Francisco, California, November 10, 2006.

Member, Comparative Risk Project, Human Health Committee, State of California, 1993-1994.

Chair, Society for Risk Analysis annual meeting technical session, MPM-L "Dose Response," 1989.

Co-chair, Waste Management (AB 939) Advisory Committee, County of Marin; also Chair, Hazardous Materials Subcommittee; 1988-1994.

Stanley R. Hayes

4

Member, Hazardous Materials Task Force, County of Marin, 1985-1988.

Chair, Planning Commission, San Anselmo, California 1988, 1983, and 1982; Vice-Chair, 1987 and 1981; Member, 1979-1995.

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

Mr. Hayes is principal author of several hundred technical reports and a number of scientific papers and conference presentations. He has provided expert testimony in court and before national, state, and local regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Science Advisory Board's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the California Air Resources Board, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Los Angeles area). Selected references are listed below: S. Hayes. 2009. Review and evaluation of the Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model.

Presented at 2009 EPA/ECOS TRI National Training Conference, Bethesda, Maryland, March 30 – April 2.

S. Hayes. 2007. Interactions between climate change and traditional air programs: key issues and questions. Presentation and panel moderator, 100th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June.

S. Hayes. 2007. “What AB 32 Means for California (A Perspective from California and the EU.” Keynote Address. Optimizing Your Strategic Response to AB 32: California’s Carbon Management Requirements, San Francisco (January 24) and Los Angeles (January 25).

S. Hayes. 2006. Climate change: managing the opportunities and risks. Invited luncheon speaker, 16th Annual AEHS Meeting & West Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments and Water, San Diego, California, March.

M. Scott and S. Hayes. 2006. Corporate strategy: opportunities for emissions reduction credits. Presented at Specialty Conference on Planning for the Future: Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Inventories & Clean Energy Linkages, Air & Waste Management Association, San Francisco, California. March.

S. Hayes. 2006. Conference chair welcome address. Presented at Specialty Conference on Planning for the Future: Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Inventories & Clean Energy Linkages, Air & Waste Management Association, San Francisco, California. March.

S. Hayes. 2006. Monitoring vs. modeling: assessing community risk. Presented at Conference on Community Monitoring Programs, Air & Waste Management Association, Golden West Section, San Francisco, California, February.

S. Hayes. 2005. Petroleum refinery residual risk: what the data tell us. Presented at 98th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Air & Waste Management Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June.

S. Hayes. 2005. Modeling outside the box: stochastic risk analysis. Presented at conference on “Air Toxics in California: Running the Numbers – Presenting the Results,” Air & Waste Management Association, Golden West Section, San Francisco, California, January.

S. Hayes. 2003. Emerging air risk issues. Presented at 2nd Annual Environmental and Regulatory Conference & Exposition, Industrial Environmental Association and California Manufacturers & Technology Association, San Diego, California, November.

S. Hayes. 2003. Characterizing air toxics composition of jet exhaust for airport health risk assessments. Paper #81121. Presented at 96th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Air & Waste Management Association, San Diego, California, June.

Stanley R. Hayes

5

D. Daugherty, W. Li, K. Mertz, and S. Hayes. 2003. The importance of surface roughness selection in AERMOD modeling for shoreline sources. Paper #81161. Presented at 96th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Air & Waste Management Association, San Diego, California, June.

S. Hayes. 2003. Toxics New Source Review: practical implications of proposed changes. Presented at conference on “Technical Details of Changes Affecting Toxics NSR Regulations in California,” Air & Waste Management Association, Golden West Section, San Francisco, California, May.

S. Hayes. 2003. Importance of Kyoto Protocol to management of greenhouse gases. Presented to Women’s Environmental Council, Orange County Chapter, Costa Mesa, California, May.

S. Hayes, J. Hower, and M. Scott. 2003. Profit from effective greenhouse gas management – a six-step plan. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, CEP, 36-43, May.

S. Hayes. 2002. Proposition 65: exposure to airborne emissions. Presented at conference on “Understanding How Proposition 65 Affects Your Business,” Nossamen, Guthner, Knox & Elliot et al., San Francisco, California, March.

M. Scott and S. Hayes. 2002. Managing greenhouse gas emissions: expanding corporate challenges and sizing up the credit risks. Presented at Environmental Bankers Association Meeting, San Diego, California, January.

S. Hayes, M. Scott, J. Hower, and S. Hardy. 2002. Managing GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions: an action plan. Air & Waste Management Association, EM, 26-34, January.

S. Mann and S. Hayes. 2001. Development and analysis of a residual risk assessment database. Paper #368. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Orlando, Florida, June.

D. Daugherty and S. Hayes. 2001. Screening-level risk analyses of fluid catalytic cracking units at twenty-five refineries. Paper #504. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Orlando, Florida, June.

S.R. Hayes and J.R. Marshall. 1999. Designing optimal strategies to attain the new U.S. particulate standards: some initial concepts. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 49: PM-192-198.

S. Hayes. 1999. Air quality control: some scientific considerations. Presented at Legislative Briefing Seminar on Air Quality, Water and Public Infrastructure, California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, Napa, March.

S. Hayes and J. Marshall. 1998. Development of an exposure-based strategy for attaining U.S. particulate standards. Paper 98-MP26.05. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, San Diego, California, June.

S. Hayes and J. Marshall. 1998. Designing optimal strategies to attain the new U.S. particulate standards: some initial concepts. Presented at "PM2.5: A Fine Particle Standard" International Specialty Conference, Air & Waste Management Association and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Long Beach, California, January.

S. Hayes and S. Pye. 1997. Exposure and health risk considerations in setting new U.S. particulate standards. Paper 97-MP9.05. Invited paper, presented at 90th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Toronto, Canada, June.

S. Hayes. 1997. Comparative health protection of alternative U.S. ozone standards. Invited paper, presented at Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry Meeting, Washington, D.C., May.

Stanley R. Hayes

6

S. Hayes. 1997. Air quality considerations in electric industry restructuring. Presented at National Conference of State Legislatures, Assembly on State Issues/Spring 1997, San Francisco, April.

S. Hayes. 1997. Particulate matter: some scientific considerations. Presented at Legislative Briefing Seminar on Energy Issues and Air Quality, California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, Napa, March.

S. Hayes, A. Stuart, S. Pye, L. Levin, and J. Killus. 1996. Assessing exposure to airborne particulate matter. Paper 96-WA68.06. Invited paper, presented at 89th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Nashville, June.

S. Hayes. 1995. Toward greater realism in air toxics exposure assessment. Paper A767. Invited paper, presented at 88th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, San Antonio, June.

S. Hayes, S. Pye, and L. Levin. 1994. Sensitivity analysis of a Monte Carlo exposure assessment model for acidic aerosols and gases. Paper A766. Invited paper, presented at 87th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Cincinnati, June.

R.G. Whitfield, H.M. Richmond, S.R. Hayes, A.S. Rosenbaum, T.S. Wallsten, R.L. Winkler, M.L.G. Absil, and P. Narducci. 1994. Chapter 5, Health Risk Assessment of Ozone. In: Ozone: Effects on Public Health and Ecological Impacts, Why Society Must Control Tropospheric Ozone, ed., D.J. McKee. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

S. Hayes. 1993. Air toxics risk assessment in California - How certain are we about true environmental risks? Presenter and moderator, panel discussion, 4th Annual Issues in Air Toxics, Air & Waste Management Association, Sacramento, November.

S. Hayes and J. Westbrook. 1993. Analysis of environmental regulatory requirements for petroleum companies. Invited paper, California Petroleum Industry Environmental Workshop, Bakersfield, November.

R.L. Winkler, T.S. Wallsten, R.G. Whitfield, H.M. Richmond, S.R. Hayes, and A.S. Rosenbaum. 1993. An assessment of the risk of chronic lung injury attributable to long-term ozone exposure. Accepted for publication, Operations Research, September.

S. Hayes, J. Wilhelmi, S. Pye, L. Gates, and L. Levin. 1993. Development of a modeling methodology for assessing exposure to acidic aerosols and gases. Paper A1394. Invited paper, presented at 86th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Denver, June.

S. Hayes and J. Wilhelmi. 1993. Monte Carlo exposure assessment using the Air Toxics Exposure Model (ATEX). Paper A1391. Invited paper, presented at 86th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Denver, June.

S. Hayes and J. Wilhelmi. 1992. Use of probabilistic Monte Carlo techniques in air toxics exposure assessment. Presented at Third Annual Conference on Current Issues in Air Toxics, Air & Waste Management Association, Sacramento, November.

S. Hayes and R. Harris. 1992. Monte Carlo techniques in air toxics exposure assessment. Invited paper, Presented at 1992 Annual Meeting, Society for Risk Analysis, San Diego, December.

S. Hayes. 1991. Addressing indoor/outdoor differences and population activity/mobility in air toxics risk decisions. Paper 91-170.9. Invited paper for presentation at the 84th Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, Vancouver, June.

S. Hayes and J. Bradstreet. 1991. Air toxics and the new Clean Air Act. ENVIRON Report, pp. 5-9, Winter 1991.

Stanley R. Hayes

7

S. Hayes. 1991. Use of an indoor air quality model (IAQM) to estimate ozone levels indoors. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 41(2):161-170.

S. Hayes. 1991. Exposures via the air. Presented at CEEM Conference on Risk Assessment and Its Uses in Environmental Regulations, Ballston, Virginia, November.

S. Hayes. 1991. Incorporating indoor/outdoor differences and population activity/mobility patterns into air toxics risk assessment. Presented at Air & Waste Management Association Conference on Current Issues in Air Toxics, Sacramento, October.

B.R. Weir, G.E. Anderson, S.R. Hayes, and S.M. Greenfield. 1990. Specification of indoor air model characteristics. Indoor Air '90, Montreal, August.

T.S. Wallsten, H.M. Richmond, R.G. Whitfield, A.S. Rosenbaum, S.R. Hayes, and R.L. Winkler. 1990. Chronic lung injury risk assessment for ozone. Paper 90-150.7 presented by Wallsten at the 83rd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, June.

R.L. Winkler, R.G. Whitfield, T.S. Wallsten, S.R. Hayes, A.S. Rosenbaum, and H.M. Richmond. 1990. Health risk due to ozone chronic lung injury: An assessment of expert judgments. Invited paper presented by Hayes at the Specialty Conference on Tropospheric Ozone and the Environment, Air & Waste Management Association, Los Angeles, March.

G.E. Anderson, A.S. Rosenbaum, S.R. Hayes, and G.W. Lundberg. 1990. Development of a multipathway human exposure model for toxics in the South Coast Air Basin. Paper presented at the 1990 EPA/AWMA Symposium on Total Exposure Assessment Methodology, Las Vegas, November.

S.R. Hayes, A.S. Rosenbaum, and H. Richmond. 1989. Ozone risk assessment implementation: Transferring risk analysis technology to ozone nonattainment planning. Paper MPM-J4 presented at the Annual Meeting, Society for Risk Analysis, San Francisco, November.

S.R. Hayes and A.S. Rosenbaum. 1989. Application of an urban-scale population exposure model (NEM/SAI) to ozone risk assessment. Paper WAM-B3 presented at the Annual Meeting, Society for Risk Analysis, San Francisco, November.

S.R. Hayes and A.S. Rosenbaum. 1989. Acute ozone exposure-response relationships for use in ozone risk assessment. Paper MPM-J3 presented at the Annual Meeting, Society for Risk Analysis, San Francisco, November.

S.R. Hayes. 1989. Estimating the effect of being indoors on total personal exposure to outdoor air pollution. JAPCA 39(11):1453-1461.

S.R. Hayes, A.S. Rosenbaum, and B.S. Austin. 1989. Assessing the effect of ozone nonattainment plans on acute ozone exposure and health risk. Paper No. 89-027.007 in Proc. 82nd Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., Anaheim, California, June.

S.R. Hayes, A.S. Rosenbaum, T.S. Wallsten, R.L. Winkler, R.G. Whitfield, and H. Richmond. 1989. A health risk assessment for use in setting the U.S. primary ozone standard. In Atmospheric Ozone Research and Its Policy Implications, T. Schneider and S. Lee, eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1988. Invited paper presented at the Third US-Dutch International Symposium, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, May.

G.E. Anderson and S.R. Hayes. 1988. The effect of population mobility on urban human health risk from emissions from an industrial stack. Paper 88-128.7 in Proc. 81st Annual Meeting, Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Dallas, June.

Stanley R. Hayes

8

S.R. Hayes et al. 1987. Assessing pulmonary function and symptom health risks associated with ozone exposure: A summary of recent progress. Paper 87-43.4 in Proc. 80th Annual Meeting, Air Pollut. Control Assoc., New York, June.

S.R. Hayes and G.E. Moore. 1986. Air quality model performance: A comparative analysis of 15 model evaluation studies. Atmos. Environ., 20(10):1897-1911; 1985. Paper prepared for the International Conference on Atmospheric Sciences and Applications to Air Quality, Seoul, Korea, May.

S.R. Hayes and G.E. Moore. 1985. Air quality model performance: A comparative analysis of model evaluation studies and their implications. In Proc. 78th Annual Meeting, Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Detroit, June.

S.R. Hayes, C. Seigneur, and G.W. Lundberg. 1985. Numerical modeling of ozone population exposure: Application of a photochemical model. Paper 85-23.6 in Proc. 78th Annual Meeting, Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Detroit, June.

S.R. Hayes, J.L. Haney, and C.S. Burton. 1984. An evaluation of several alternative formulations of the national ambient air quality standards for SO2. Paper 84-109.2 in Proc. 77th Annual Meeting, Air Pollut. Control Assoc., San Francisco, June.

S.R. Hayes. 1982. An uncertainty analysis of EKMA-derived control requirements for ozone and nitrogen dioxide abatement. Paper 82-20.5 in Proc. 75th Annual Meeting, Air Pollut. Control Assoc., New Orleans, June.

J.P. Killus, G.E. Anderson, and S.R. Hayes. 1981. Simulation of ozone formation in Denver, Colorado, using a photochemical grid model. Paper presented to the American Meteorological Society, Oregon Chapter.

S.R. Hayes. 1980. The use of a computer terrain model in plume visibility analysis. Paper presented at the Symposium on Plumes and Visibility: Measurements and Model Components, Grand Canyon, Arizona, November.

S.R. Hayes. 1979. A technique for plume visualization in power plant siting. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 29(8):840-843, August.

S.R. Hayes. 1979. The changing regulatory environment: An appraisal of model needs in the analysis and examination of potential air quality impacts of NOx emissions from large point sources. In Proc. 10th International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application, NATO/CCMS, Rome, October.

S.R. Hayes. 1978. A consideration of measures and standards of performance of air quality simulation models. In Proc. Ninth Meeting of the Expert Panel on Air Pollution Modeling, NATO/CCMS, Toronto, Canada.

Eric C. Lu, MS, PE

1

EDUCATION

1999 MS, Chemical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley

1996 BS, Chemical Engineering, Brown University (Honors)

REGISTRATIONS & AFFILIATIONS

Licensed Professional Engineer (Chemical): California CH6248

Certified Permitting Professional: South Coast Air Quality Management District (M6053)

Accredited Greenhouse Gas Lead Verifier with sector specialty in Refineries and Cement (ARB Executive Order H-09-037)

EXPERIENCE

Eric Lu is a Senior Manager in the Air Sciences Group at ENVIRON. He as more than ten years experience in air quality and carbon management, Eric has broad knowledge of air quality and GHG regulatory issues on the federal, state, and local levels. He has developed air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories for clients in various industries for internal reporting and for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, and for CARB and EPA’s Mandatory Reporting Rules. Eric also specializes in regulatory compliance, including air permitting, emission estimation, air dispersion modeling, and litigation support. Eric has experience in other environmental compliance areas such as hazardous waste, wastewater, and stormwater and has conducted numerous compliance audits for a variety of facilities. He has conducted and managed indoor and ambient air sampling programs for a variety of pollutants including biological agents (mold and bacteria), particulates, metals, and volatile organic compounds in both commercial and residential settings. Eric also uses this expertise and his ability to conduct a variety of analytical and research oriented tasks to provide technical support to litigation teams. His work here has included the following:

Evaluated air quality and climate change impacts including the preparation of complex air emissions inventories (criteria pollutant, toxics, greenhouse gases), air dispersion models, and risk evaluations in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) requirements. The projects have included residential, commercial, mixed-use, renewable energy, and industrial land uses.

Performed reviews of third party environmental impact reports completed in support of CEQA to identify deficiencies in the technical evaluations and disclosed documentation. Provided public comments on behalf of interested parties.

Prepared and/or reviewed the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for commercial and residential developments. This included developing GHG inventories for various aspects of the development (e.g., construction, energy use of buildings, mobiles sources, vegetation change and municipal sources); summarizing the current state of science and regulatory setting; presenting mitigation options; and evaluating the significance of development emissions.

Assessed the greenhouse gas reporting requirements for landfills as required by the State of California and the US Environmental Protection Agency. This included the development of emission estimate tools to comply with each set of requirements.

Assisted various facilities to maintain compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule and Regulations. These facilities have included pet food manufacturers,

Eric C. Lu, MS, PE

2

airport/airline facilities, gas production facilities, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. These facilities have encountered issues related to the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market rules (RECLAIM) and Title V. Assisted with Annual Emissions Reporting and permitting.

Conducted environmental compliance audits of various facilities including a safe manufacturer and a coating manufacturer. These audits included the review of operations as they pertained to air, stormwater, hazardous waste, and wastewater regulations. Further assistance was also provided to help the clients maintain compliance in these areas.

Conducted extensive ambient air and indoor air sampling for volatile organic compounds and particulates related to remediation sites, commercial offices, and landfills.

Assisted with an ongoing toxic tort case involving an oil and gas production facility. Evaluated potential volatile organic and toxic emissions and assisted with source testing to create an emissions inventory.

Conducted Phase I Environmental Assessments of semiconductor test labs, dairy facility, flexographic printing operations, readymix facilities, commercial developments, hard wood flooring manufacturers, and warehouse distribution facilities.

Assisted with an ongoing toxic tort case involving hydrogen sulfide emissions in a city-wide area. Analyzed hydrogen sulfide monitoring data for potential source contribution. Evaluated ISC modeling using the monitoring data for a comparative statistical analysis.

Created a novel database system to organize and to analyze mold investigation information for a large apartment complex. The database allows the multimedia display of information. The ongoing litigation is pending.

Prepared and submitted permit applications to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a client’s solvent usage operations and a diesel emergency generator. Developed the emission estimates and conducted ISC screening modeling as required by BAAQMD guidelines, prepared the permit application, and negotiated with the BAAQMD to obtain a permit.

Assisted with a toxic tort case involving a paint burn-off oven. The analysis conducted included the review of numerous technical publications on combustion of polyurethane materials, the evaluation of emission estimates and ISC modeling by the plaintiffs, the development of case strategy, modeling of the case scenario, the preparation of trial materials. The testimony provided by ENVIRON aided in a victory for our client in this case.

Performed indoor air sampling for potential biological contamination in commercial buildings and in residential buildings. These investigations were conducted in the context of litigation support on mold indoor air quality (IAQ) issues and for private clients.

Developed and constructed an air monitoring network designed to monitor PM10 and H2S during construction on a previously contaminated area. Maintained a system of eight, remote, battery and land-based powered monitors and meteorological station equipped to measure data down to one-minute intervals. Monitors included a radio-transmission system. Data was analyzed for exceeding program thresholds in order to maintain control systems on the construction site.

Assisted with permitting compliance for a large hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility. Conducted the compliance ambient air monitoring program which collects whole air and total suspended particulate samples at five stationary sites. Prepared risk assessments based on the program, and quarterly reports for review by the local air district and the California EPA's Department of Toxic Substances and Control.

Eric C. Lu, MS, PE

3

Developed visual basic macros to assist in the analysis and preparation of meteorological data for use in air modeling (ISC and CALPUFF). The macros were designed to perform quality assurance checks, substitution for missing values, and formatting for the air modeling programs.

Assisted clients in maintaining local air permit requirements. This has included the gathering of required facility information, analysis of local air rules and regulations, negotiation with the local air quality management district, and completion of required permit application forms and cover letters.

Development of a new hire orientation program. The program is designed specifically for associates who are entering the work environment for the first time. Its goals are to ease the transition for the new hire and to promote their personal and professional growth while maintaining a happy and productive work atmosphere for the entire group.

Conducted Indoor Air Quality sampling and analysis for mold and fungi growth. The sampling analysis included air, bulk, surface, and wall space samples. The sampling work was followed by analysis of the laboratory results and the preparation of a report of findings and recommendations.

Performed analysis for the development of a State Implementation Plan, which included the use of back trajectories, spatial plots, meteorological and monitoring data, and satellite images. Assisted in regional air dispersion modeling using CALPUFF.

Conducted meteorological data analysis, puff dispersion modeling, and Gaussian dispersion modeling analysis to determine the impact area of an emergency gas release.

Maintained a database of emissions and plaintiff information covering a period of 50+ years in order to create ICST modeling files. The modeling work was performed as litigation support.

Created excel based model to predict the performance of gas emission scrubbers. This model was used to validate scrubbers used to abate toxic air emissions including phosphine and chlorine. The results helped the client meet demands made by the local fire department and litigation terms.

Created a diffusion model to estimate the transport of gas through a concrete slab. This model incorporates multiple diffusion pathways to accurately predict the amount of soil gas that may penetrate a concrete foundation.

Conducted a performance audit of an ambient air monitoring program. Oversaw the spike test procedure, meteorological station calibration, and the routine operations of the ambient air monitoring program.

Performed VISCREEN analyses to comply with a visibility impairment analysis required for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applicants.

Performed SCREEN3 and ISCST modeling in order to determine the feasibility of process expansion at a high-tech facility.

Conducted analyses to compare and contrast the ability of AERMOD and ISCST to model concentration profiles with complex terrain.

Assisted on a facility review for a potential Title V major facility permit for a resin manufacturing and substrate coating facility. Included in the permit preparation were a review of facility records and throughput calculations, a thorough emissions inventory, the determination of all applicable regulations, and the identification of operation limitations.

Eric C. Lu, MS, PE

4

Analyzed volatile organic compound emissions data and prepared ongoing quarterly reports for waste treatment client in order to demonstrate compliance with Federal and State regulations. Products enable client to satisfy permit requirements to continue operation.

Researched radioactive aerosol sampling methods and developed a fact sheet explaining radioactivity and analysis methods currently available. The fact sheet was used to educate potential reviewers of client’s methods and procedures for radioactive aerosol sampling.

Prepared quarterly reports of a fenceline ambient air monitoring program. Assessed the monitoring and laboratory results consisting of meteorological, inorganic, organic, asbestos, and radiological data for compliance. Submission of report helps client satisfy permit requirements.

Used Ohio EPA STARShip program to modify a client’s Title V permit. This included removing an emissions unit that was shutdown and adding a new unit. Title V revisions helped client comply with Federal and State regulations.

Modeled soil effects on vapor concentrations of volatile organics using a USEPA-approved soil gas model (VLEACH). Results helped validate calibration procedures used by client.

Researched emission studies for alternative-fueled vehicles and speciation profiles for diesel and natural gas vehicles.

Developed a statistical model representing the frequency of fugitive dust emissions based on meteorological data.

Used Geographical Information Systems (GIS) based methods of displaying and interpreting data for litigation support. This included mapping source information, concentration isopleths, plaintiff address locations, air monitoring, and census data.

Estimated actual, maximum theoretical, and potential emissions from industrial operations for regulatory compliance and litigation support. Emission estimation techniques applied include mass balance, engineering calculations, and use of published emissions factors. Results enable the accurate determination of pollutant emissions in accordance with Federal and State regulations.

Prior to joining ENVIRON, Eric held the following positions:

Research Assistant, Professor Enrique Iglesia, University of California at Berkeley.

Researched non-oxidative methane conversion to higher hydrocarbons with continuous hydrogen removal via hydrogen-selective inorganic membranes.

Developed procedures for the synthesis of thin-films on porous substrates. Explored the use of metal cation-exchanged zeolites for non-oxidative methane conversion.

Applications Intern, ASPENTECH, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Developed databases for PolymersPlus (modeling program for polymer processes).

Programmed in FORTRAN to create subroutines in PolymerPlus.

Performed case studies using AspenPlus (simulation program for chemical processes).

Engineering Intern, Covofinish, Inc., Pascoag, Rhode Island.

Recovered precious metals from electrolytic plating solutions.

Eric C. Lu, MS, PE

5

Prepared electrolytic plating solution additives for commercial distribution.

Measured metal content in solutions using atomic absorption spectroscopy.

AWARDS

National Science Foundation Fellowship, Honorable Mention 1997

Brown University Outstanding Student Award in Chemical Engineering 1996

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS & ACTIVITIES

Tau Beta Pi Honorary Engineering Society (1996)

Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society (1996)

Member, Air & Waste Management Association

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

Lu, E. C. Mold Sampling Lessons and Experiences. Presented at the Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology. San Francisco, California. November, 2002.

appendix iv - la city planning appendices/appendix iv...nat table 4-23 summary of ghg emissions from...

Documents