APPENDIX E: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

A

PPENDIX

E:

A

PPENDIX

E.i:

C

LIMATE

C

HANGE

E

MISSIONS FOR THE

V

ILLAGE AT

P

LAYA

V

ISTA

,

C

ITY OF

L

OS

A

NGELES

,

Climate Change Emissions For The

The Village at Playa Vista

C

ITY OF

L

OS

A

NGELES

Prepared For:

C

HRISTOPHER

A. J

OSEPH AND ASSOCIATES

11849 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 101

Los Angeles, CA 90064

Submitted By:

M

ESTRE

G

REVE

A

SSOCIATES

Fred Greve P.E.

Tanya Moon

27812 El Lazo Road

Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

949•349•0671

Fax 949•349•0679

December 4, 2008

Report #08-111

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page i

Table Of Contents

1.0

Background Information... 1

1.1 Project Description... 1

1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change... 1

1.3 Emission Inventories... 4

1.3 Sources of Greenhouse Gases in California ... 7

2.0

Regulatory Framework... 11

3.0

Analysis Overview... 16

4.0

Short term Construction Emissions ... 16

5.0

Estimate of Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... 18

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 1

1.0

Background Information

1.1

Project Description

The Village at Playa Vista project comprises approximately 111 acres and consists of two

components. The first component is the development of 2,600 dwelling units, 175,000 square

feet of office spaces, 150,000 square feet of retail spaces, and 40,000 square feet of community

serving uses. The proposed project would also include an Equivalency Program, in which a

maximum of 125,000 square feet of office development may be exchanged for up to 56,832

square feet of retail uses or up to 200 assisted living units, or a combination thereof. The second

component is the construction of a Riparian Corridor and restoration and maintenance of a

portion of the Westchester Bluffs adjacent to the Riparian Corridor (the “Habitat

Creation/Restoration Component”). The project site is located adjacent to Jefferson Boulevard to

the north, Bluff Creek Drive to the south, Campus Center Drive to the east, and Dawn Creek to

the west in the City of Los Angeles. The Proposed Project Site is presented as Exhibit 1.

1.2

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

The Earth’s climate has always been in the process of changing, due to many different natural

factors. These factors have included changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and

varying amounts of energy released from the sun. Differences such as these have caused

fluctuations in the temperature of the climate, ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth.

However, since the late 18th century, humans have had an increasing impact on the rate of

climate change, beginning with the Industrial Revolution.

Many human activities have augmented the amount of “greenhouse gases” (“GHGs”) being

released into our atmosphere, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and

deforestation. The gases increase the efficiency of the greenhouse effect, which is the process of

trapping and recycling energy (in the form of heat) that the Earth emits naturally, resulting in

higher temperatures worldwide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in

February 2007 that warming is unequivocal, expressing very high confidence (expressed as a

nine out of ten chance of being correct) that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has

been one of warming. According to NOAA and NASA data, the average surface temperature of

the Earth has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4 ºF since 1900. The warmest global average

temperatures in human record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two

years being 1998 and 2005.

1

This process of heating is often referred to as ‘global warming,’ although the National Academy

of Sciences prefers the terms ‘climate change’ as an umbrella phrase which includes global

warming as well as other environmental changes, in addition to the increasing temperatures.

Some of these effects include changes to rainfall, wind, and current patterns, as well as snow and

ice cover, and sea level.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 2

Depending on which GHG emissions scenario is used, climate models predict that the Earth’s

average temperature could rise anywhere between 3 to 10.5 ºF by the end of this century. The

degree of change is influenced by the assumed amount of GHG emissions, and how quickly

atmospheric GHG levels are stabilized. At this point, however, the climate change models are

not capable of accurately predicting all specific local temperature or climate impacts, but rather,

can only predict global trends.

2

_{Therefore, predicting exact climate changes at the Proposed}

Project Site is beyond the capability of climate change models at this time.

Exhibit 1

Proposed Project Site

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 3

Global GHG emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

(“MMT CO

2

EQ”) units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the

atmosphere are naturally occurring, while others are caused solely by human activities. The

principal GHGs

3

that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:

•

Carbon dioxide (CO

2

)

enters the atmosphere through the burning of

fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and

deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement.

•

Methane (CH

4

)

is produced and enters the atmosphere in a number of

ways, both natural and man-made (anthropogenic). Decomposition

occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of anthropogenic CH

4

emissions in California and in the United States as a whole. Livestock and

other agricultural processes such as enteric fermentation, manure

management, and rice cultivation are also significant sources of CH

4

in

California. Methane is also emitted through the production, transportation

and burning of coal, natural gas, and oil.

•

Nitrous oxide (N

2

O)

is released most often during the burning of fuel at

high temperatures. This GHG is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which

also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture.

3

_{Black carbon is a form of particulate air pollution that is most often produced from the burning of biomass,}

cooking with solid fuels, and diesel exhaust. Some studies have implicated black carbon as a source of

global climate change; however, the potential impact of black carbon on climate change is currently under

substantial dispute.

Black carbon is not assessed in this report for three primary reasons. First, no regulatory authority has

classified black carbon as a greenhouse gas and it is not regulated under AB 32 or any other law

implemented to address global climate change. Second, the tools are simply not available to quantify black

carbon emissions at this time. Emissions factors for black carbon have not been published by the

California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or other reputable bodies.

Finally, no guidance on the importance, evaluation, or mitigation of black carbon has been provided by the

agencies leading regulation of the climate change issue. Therefore, while the Proposed Project will

generate some black carbon, the quantities are indeterminable at this time. The potential impact of the

black carbon emissions on climate change is also unknown at this time, however, it is anticipated that the

Proposed Project would have a very small impact on climate change based on its size relative to the global

nature of this issue.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 4

•

Fluorinated Gases

are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which

often include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur

hexafluoride. Though they are often released in smaller quantities, they

are referred to as High Global Warming Potential Gases because of their

warming forcing power. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes

for ozone depleting substances.

4

These gases have different potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming

potential (“GWP”). For example, one pound of methane has 21 times more heat capturing

potential than one pound of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide has 310 times more heat capturing

potential than one pound of carbon dioxide, and sulfur hexafluoride has 3,200 times more heat

capturing potential than one pound of carbon dioxide. When dealing with an array of emissions,

the gases are converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (“CO

2

EQ”) for comparison purposes. The

GWPs for common GHGs are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Global Warming Potentials (GWP)

Gas

Atmospheric

Lifetime (years)

Global Warming Potential

(

CO

2

EQ

)

Carbon Dioxide

50 - 200

1

Methane

12 ±3

21

Nitrous Oxide

120

310

HFC-23

264

11,700

HFC-134a

14.6

1,300

HFC-152a

1.5

140

PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF

4

)

50,000

6,500

PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C

2

F

6

)

10,000

9,200

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF

6

)

3,200

23,900

Source: EPA 2006. Non CO

2

Gases Economic Analysis and inventory. http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html),

December 2006

1.3

Emission Inventories

To put perspective on the emissions generated by a project and to better understand the sources

of GHGs, it is important to look at emission inventories. The United Nations has taken the lead

in quantifying GHG emissions and compiling the literature on climate change. The United

Nations estimate for CO

2

equivalents for the world and for the top ten CO

2

producing countries is

presented in Table 2.

________________________

4

_{No industrial uses are planned for the Proposed Project site, so no significant emissions of fluorinated gases}

are expected.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 5

Table 2

Top Ten CO

2

Producing Nations between 1990-2004

(Emissions in Million Metric Tons (MMT) CO

2

EQ)

Country

Emissions

Percent of Global

1. United States

7067.57

25.3%

2. China

4057.31

14.5%

3. Japan

1355.17

4.9%

4. India

1214.25

4.3%

5. Germany

1015.27

3.6%

6. Canada

758.07

2.7%

7. United Kingdom

665.33

2.4%

8. Brazil

658.98

2.4%

9. Italy

582.52

2.1%

10. France

562.63

2.0%

Total Global

27,940.70

100.0%

Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “National

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for the Period 1990–2004 and Status of Reporting,”

October 19, 2006.

As shown in Table 2, global CO

2

emissions total about 27,941 MMT CO

2

EQ (based on data

collected between 1990 and 2004). The United States released 7,068 MMT CO

2

EQ in 2004,

which is approximately 25% of the earth’s total emissions.

Within the United States, California has the second highest level of GHG production with Texas

having the highest. In 2001, 81% of total GHG emissions in California are CO

2

produced from

the burning of fossil fuels.

4

In relation to other states, California is the second highest producer

of CO

2

due to the burning of fossil fuels, as shown in Exhibit 2.

________________________

5

California Energy Commission, “Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to

2004,” December 2006.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 6

Exhibit 2

CO

2

Production Through Fossil Fuels by State

Source: California Energy Commission, “Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to

2004,” December 2006.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 7

1.4

Sources of Greenhouse Gases in California

The California Energy Commission (“CEC”) categorizes GHG anthropogenic generation by

source into five broad categories. The categories are:

•

Transportation

includes the combustion of gasoline and diesel in automobiles

and trucks. Transportation also includes jet fuel consumption.

•

Agriculture and forestry

GHG emissions are composed mostly of nitrous oxide

from agricultural soil management, CO

2

from forestry practice changes, methane

from enteric fermentation, and methane and nitrous oxide from manure

management.

•

Commercial and residential

uses generate GHG emissions primarily from the

combustion of natural gas for space and water heating.

•

Industrial

GHG emissions are produced from many industrial activities. Major

contributors include oil and natural gas extraction; crude oil refining; food

processing; stone, clay, glass, and cement manufacturing; chemical

manufacturing; and cement production. Wastewater treatment plants are also

significant contributors to this category.

•

Electric generation

includes both emissions from power plants in California as

well as power plants located outside of the state that supply electricity to the state.

The amount of GHGs released from each of these categories in California from 1990 to 2004 is

shown in Exhibit 3. A more detailed breakdown of California GHG emissions in both 1990 and

2004 are depicted in Table 3.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 8

Exhibit 3

CA Greenhouse Emissions by Sector (In MMT CO

2

EQ)

Source: California Energy Commission, “Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to

2004,” December 2006.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 9

Table 3

California GHG Emissions and Sinks Summary

(Million metric tons of CO2 equivalence)

Categories Included in the Inventory

1990

2004

ENERGY

386.41

420.91

Fuel Combustion Activities

381.16

416.29

Energy Industries

157.33

166.43

Manufacturing Industries & Construction

24.24

19.45

Transport

150.02

181.95

Other Sectors (Residential and Commercial/Institutional)

48.19

46.29

Non-Specified

1.38

2.16

Fugitive Emissions from Fuels

5.25

4.62

Oil and Natural Gas

2.94

2.54

Other Emissions from Energy Production

2.31

2.07

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES & PRODUCT USE

18.34

30.78

Mineral Industry

4.85

5.90

Chemical Industry

2.34

1.32

Non-Energy Products from Fuels & Solvent Use

2.29

1.37

Electronics Industry

0.59

0.88

Product Uses as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances

0.04

13.97

Other Product Manufacture & Use Other

3.18

1.60

Other

5.05

5.74

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, & OTHER LAND USE

19.11

23.28

Livestock

11.67

13.92

Land

0.19

0.19

Aggregate Sources & Non-CO2 Emissions Sources on Land

7.26

9.17

WASTE

9.42

9.44

Solid Waste Disposal

6.26

5.62

Wastewater Treatment & Discharge

3.17

3.82

EMISSION SUMMARY

Gross California Emissions

433.29

484.4

Sinks and Sequestrations

-6.69

-4.66

Net California Emissions

426.60

479.74

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007. Draft California Greenhouse Inventory by IPCC Category,

August 2007 (available at

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/rpt_Inventory_IPCC_Sum_2007-11-19.pdf). [Note: does not include aviation, which Exhibit 3 considers.]

Examination of Exhibit 3 and Table 3 indicates that the single largest source of California’s

GHGs is the transportation sector, such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, producing about

40% of the state’s total emissions in 2004. The electric generation sector is the second largest

GHG contributor in the state.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 10

While California has the second highest rate of GHG production in the nation, it should also be

noted that California has one of the lowest per capita rates of GHG emissions. As shown in

Exhibit 4, California has the fourth lowest per capita rate of CO

2

production from fossil fuels in

the United States.

5

Wyoming produced the most CO

2

per capita, while the District of Columbia

produced the lowest.

Exhibit 4

CO

2

Emissions From Fossil Fuels Per Capita (2001)

6

_{According to the California Energy Commission, “Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and}

Sinks: 1990 to 2004,” December 2006, due to the limited availability of data for state-by-state comparisons,

only CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion for the 1990 to 2001 period are considered in this exhibit.

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion compose 58 to 90 percent of the total GHG emissions of

individual states; on a national average, they composed 80 percent of total GHG emissions in 2004.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 11

2.0

Regulatory Framework

Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws.

The federal government began studying the

phenomenon of global warming as early as 1978 with the National Climate Protection Act, 92

Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to “assist the Nation and the world

to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications.”

The 1987 Global Climate Protection Act, Title XI of Pub. L. 100-204, directed the U.S. EPA to

propose a “coordinated national policy on global climate change,” and ordered the Secretary of

State to work “through the channels of multilateral diplomacy” to coordinate efforts to address

global warming.

In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess “the scientific, technical and

socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of

human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

In 1992, the United States ratified a nonbinding agreement among 154 nations to reduce

atmospheric GHGs.

On March 21, 1994, the United States joined other countries around the

world in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”).

Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on GHG emissions, national

policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and

adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to

developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC. Countries can sign the treaty to

demonstrate their commitment to reduce their emissions of GHGs or engage in emissions

trading. More than 160 countries, accounting for 55 percent of global emissions, are under the

protocol. United States Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Protocol in 1998.

However, in order for the Protocol to be formally ratified, it must be adopted by the U.S. Senate,

which has not been done to date.

In its 2007

Massachusetts v. EPA

6

decision, the United States Supreme Court held that GHGs

fall within the Clean Air Act’s definition of an “air pollutant,” and directed the EPA to consider

whether GHGs cause a substantial endangerment to public health. If so, the EPA must regulate

GHG emissions from automobiles under the Clean Air Act.

As of this writing, USEPA has yet

to issue a determination.

In December 2007, President Bush signed a bill raising the minimum average miles per gallon

(the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard) for cars, sport utility vehicles, and light

trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and mandating increased use of ethanol and other biofuels

over the next 15 years. This increase in CAFE standard will create a substantial reduction in

GHG emissions from automobiles, which is the largest single emitting GHG sector in California.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 12

As of this writing, however, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations or laws

setting a mandatory limit on GHG emissions.

California State Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws.

7

California has distinguished itself as

a national leader in efforts to address global climate change by enacting a range of legislation

and regulations, engaging in multi-national and multi-state collaborative efforts, and preparing a

wealth of information on the impacts associated with global climate change.

Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code

§ 38500 et seq.). In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. In general, AB 32 directs the California Air

Resources Board (“CARB”) to do the following:

•

On or before June 30, 2007, CARB shall publish a list of discrete early action measures

for reducing GHG emissions that can be implemented by January 1, 2010;

•

By January 1, 2008, establish the statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on

CARB’s calculation of statewide GHG emissions in 1990 (an approximately 25 percent

reduction in existing statewide GHG emissions);

•

Also by January 1, 2008, adopt mandatory reporting rules for GHG emissions sources

that “contribute the most to statewide emissions” (Health & Safety Code § 38530);

•

By January 1, 2009, adopt a scoping plan that indicates how GHG emission reductions

will be achieved from significant GHG sources through regulations, market mechanisms,

and other strategies;

•

On or before January 1, 2010, adopt regulations to implement the early action GHG

emission reduction measures;

•

On or before January 1, 2011, adopt quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable emission

reduction measures by regulation that will achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit by

2020; and

•

On January 1, 2012, CARB’s GHG emissions regulations become operative.

•

On January 1, 2020, achieve 1990 levels of GHG emissions.

In December 2007, CARB issued a final quantification of 1990 emissions at 427 million metric

tons of CO

2

equivalent emissions.

8

8

_{CARB’s “California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit”, public released on}

November 16, 2007.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 13

AB 32 takes into account the relative contribution of each source or source category to protect

adverse impacts on small businesses and others by requiring CARB to recommend a

de minimis

threshold of GHG emissions below which emissions reduction requirements would not apply.

AB 32 also allows the Governor to adjust the deadlines mentioned above for individual

regulations or the entire state to the earliest feasible date in the event of extraordinary

circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm.

CARB “Early Action Measures” (June 30, 2007). On June 21, 2007, CARB approved its early

action measures to address climate change, as required by AB 32. The three measures include:

(1) a low carbon fuel standard, which will reduce the carbon-intensity in California fuels, thereby

reducing total CO

2

emissions; (2) reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air

conditioning system maintenance through the restriction of “do-it-yourself” automotive

refrigerants; and (3) increased CH

4

capture from landfills through the required implementation of

state-of-the-art capture technologies. Other early action measures are under consideration.

CARB Mandatory Reporting Regulations (December 2007). Under AB 32, CARB propounded

regulations to govern mandatory GHG emissions reporting for certain sectors of the economy,

most dealing with approximately 94 percent of the industrial and commercial stationary sources

of emissions. Regulated entities include electricity generating facilities, electricity retail

providers, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, cement plants, cogeneration facilities, and industrial

sources that emit over 25,000 metric tons of CO

2

from stationary source combustion.

Senate Bill 375 (September 2008).

In September 2008, SB 375 was signed by Governor

Schwarzenegger. SB 375 is a comprehensive global warming bill that helps to achieve the goals

of AB32. It requires the Metropolitan Planning Organization to include and adopt, in their

regional transportation plan, a sustainable community strategy that will meet the region’s target

for reducing GHG emissions.

Senate Bill 97 (2007). By July 1, 2009, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)

is directed to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible

mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by the California

Environmental Quality Act. The Resources Agency is required to certify and adopt these

guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR is required to periodically update these guidelines as CARB

implements AB 32. In addition, SB 97 states that the failure to include a discussion of GHG

emissions in any CEQA document for a project funded under the Highway Safety, Traffic

Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, or projects funded under the

Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 shall not be a cause of action

under CEQA. This last provision will terminate by its terms on January 1, 2010.

Executive Order S-01-07 (2007). Executive Order S-01-07 calls for a reduction in the carbon

intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. As noted above, the

low-carbon fuel standard (“LCFS”) was adopted by CARB as one of its three “early action

measures” on June 21, 2007.

Senate Bill 1368 (2006) (Public Utilities Code §§ 8340-41).

SB 1368 required the California

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 14

February 1, 2007, for all electricity providers under its jurisdiction, including the state’s three

largest privately-owned utilities. Pub. Res. Code § 8341(d)(1). These utilities provide

approximately 30 percent of the state’s electric power. After the PUC acted, the CEC adopted a

performance standard “consistent with” the PUC performance standard and applied it to local

publicly-owned utilities on May 23, 2007 (over one month ahead of its June 30, 2007 deadline).

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 8341(e)(1). However, the California Office of Administrative Law

(“OAL”) found four alleged flaws in the CEC’s rulemaking. The CEC overcame these alleged

flaws and adopted reformulating regulations in August 2007.

Senate Bill 107 (2006).

Senate Bill 107 (“SB 107”) requires investor-owned utilities such as

Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric, to generate

20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Previously, state law required

that this target be achieved by 2017.

Western Regional Climate Action Initiative (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

Washington)(2007).

Acknowledging that the western states already experience a hotter, drier

climate, the Governors of the foregoing states have committed to three time-sensitive actions:

(1) by August 26, 2007, to set a regional goal to reduce emissions from the states collectively,

consistent with state-by state goals; (2) by August 26, 2008, to develop “a design for a regional

market-based multi-sector mechanism, such as a load-based cap and trade program, to achieve

the regional GHG reduction goal;” and (3) to participate in a multi-state GHG registry “to enable

tracking, management, and crediting for entities that reduce GHG emissions, consistent with

state GHG reporting mechanisms and requirements.”

Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005).

Executive Order S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG

emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; 1990 levels by 2020; and for an 80 percent reduction in GHG

emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. It also directs the California Environmental Protection

Agency (“CalEPA”) to prepare biennial science reports on the potential impact of continued

global warming on certain sectors of the California economy.

California’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Program (2005).

In 2002, California

established its Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Program, which originally included a goal

of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent by

2017. The state’s most recent 2005 Energy Action Plan raises the renewable energy goal from

20 percent by 2017, to 33 percent by 2020.

Title 24, Part 6, California Code of Regulations (2005). In 2005, California adopted new energy

efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings in order to reduce California’s

energy consumption. This program has been partially responsible for keeping California’s per

capita energy use approximately flat over the past 30 years.

Assembly Bill 1493 (2002) (Health and Safety Code § 43018.5).

Assembly Bill 1493 (“AB

1493”) required CARB to develop and adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for

automobiles.

Not only have litigants challenged their legality in federal court, but also USEPA

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 15

writing, California and other states who seek to adopt California’s GHG emissions standards for

automobiles are challenging USEPA’s denial in federal court.

Climate Action Registry (2001). California Senate Bills 1771 and 527 created the structure of the

California Climate Action Registry (“Registry”), and former Governor Gray Davis signed the

final version of the Registry’s enabling legislation into law on October 13, 2001. These bills

establish the Registry as a non-profit entity to help companies and organizations establish GHG

emissions baselines against which future GHG emission reduction requirements could be

applied. Using any year from 1990 forward as a base year, participants can record their annual

GHG emissions with the Registry. In return for this voluntary action, the State of California

promises to offer its “best efforts” to ensure that participants receive consideration for their early

action if they are subject to any future state, federal, or international emissions regulatory

scheme.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Plans, Policies, Regulations and Laws.

The

South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) adopted a “Policy on Global

Warming and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion” in April 1990. The policy commits the SCAQMD

to consider global impacts in rulemaking and in drafting revisions to the Air Quality

Management Plan. In March 1992, the SCAQMD Governing Board reaffirmed this policy and

adopted amendments to the policy to include the following directives:

•

Phase out the use and corresponding emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methyl

chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane or TCA), carbon tetrachloride, and halons by December

1995;

•

Phase out the large quantity use and corresponding emissions of hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs) by the year 2000;

•

Develop recycling regulations for HCFCs (e.g., SCAQMD Rules 1411 and 1415);

•

Develop an emissions inventory and control strategy for methyl bromide; and

•

Support the adoption of a California GHG emission reduction goal.

The legislative and regulatory activity detailed above is expected to require significant

development and implementation of energy efficient technologies and shifting of energy

production to renewable sources. The SCAQMD’s Working Group is developing a proposed set

of GHG CEQA significance thresholds; however, nothing is published at this time.

City of Los Angeles Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws.

In May 2007, the City of Angeles “Green LA, An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting

Global Warming,” outlining the goals and actions the City has established to reduce the

generation and emission of GHGs from both public and private activities, which sets forth a goal

for the City of Los Angeles to reduce CO

2

emissions to 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 16

the reduction of water consumption and waste, an increase in greening and open space, and a

reduction in emissions from transportation. To achieve this, the City will:

•

Increase the generation of renewable energy;

•

Improve energy conservation and efficiency; and

•

Change transportation and land use patterns to reduce dependence on automobiles.

3.0

Analysis Overview

This assessment reviews the estimated GHG emissions of the Proposed Village at Playa Vista

Project. The analysis quantifies, when possible, GHG emissions through 2010, 2020, and 2040

from construction and operations of the Proposed Project and the three equivalency scenarios.

The analysis goes on to assess potential cumulative effects of these emissions.

4.0

Short term Construction Emissions

On-site Construction

Temporary impacts will result from Proposed Project construction activities.

The primary source

of GHG emissions generated by construction activities is from use of diesel-powered

construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e., generators, worker vehicles, materials

delivery, etc.).

The GHG air pollutants emitted by construction equipment would primarily be

carbon dioxide.

9

Typical emission rates for construction equipment were obtained from URBEMISv9.2.4, which

was released in 2007. Carbon dioxide (CO

2

) emissions were calculated utilizing

URBEMIS9.2.4. URBEMISv9.2.4 specifically calculates emissions for ROG, CO, NOx, SO

2

,

PM

10

, PM

2.5

and CO

2

.

While the URBEMISv9.2.4 model does not include other GHG emissions

generated by the proposed project (such as CH

4

, N

2

O, and Fluorinated Gases), CO

2

emissions

comprise approximately 99.6 percent of emissions from burning diesel fuel.

10

_{Consequently,}

non-CO

2

GHG emissions represent a very small percentage (approximately 0.4 percent) of the

total short-term construction GHG emissions and would not represent a significant source of

GHG emissions generated by the proposed project during construction, even when combined

with CO

2

emissions. Therefore, non-CO

2

construction GHG emissions have not been quantified

in this analysis.

The Proposed Project Site comprises a total of approximately 111 acres, of which approximately

23 acres are open space parks and riparian/habitats. Subsequent to the City Council approval of

the Proposed Project and certification of the EIR in September 2004, construction of the

Proposed Project began, and continued until the September 13, 2007 appellate court decision

9

_{When one gallon of diesel fuel is burned it produces 22.384 pounds of CO}

2

, 0.000534 pounds of CH

4

, and

0.0001928 pounds N2O. Based on the global warming potential of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O relative to

CO

2

, the total pounds of CO

2

-equivalent (CO

2

EQ) emissions from diesel fuel is 22.455 CO

2

EQ/gallon,

which is 99.6 percent of the total emissions. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQS), Source

Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, November 2006.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 17

enjoining further construction on the site and mandating the superior court to vacate the 2004

approvals. Between September 2004 and September 13, 2007, a substantial portion of the

infrastructure improvements were completed within the Proposed Project Site, including all

streets and utilities in the northern half of the Site, and sewer, storm drains, curb and gutter, and

the riparian corridor in the southern half. All mass grading was complete and surcharge was

placed for the entire Proposed Project Site. Remaining construction is limited to 1) surcharge

removal, 2) installation of water, electric, and gas lines, and the pavement of roadways in the

southern half of the Site, 3) completion of streetscape (sidewalks, street lights, etc.) and parks,

and 4) building construction. This analysis accounts for the GHG emissions associated with all

construction activities associated with the Proposed Project, whether they occurred between

September 2004 and September 13, 2007 or would be associated with completion of the

Proposed Project.

The number of heavy equipment operated utilized for each construction phase (i.e., grading,

trenching and installation of utilities, building construction, etc.) were obtained from the Draft

EIR Appendix E-1. Individual construction activities were grouped into the following five major

construction phases, and the number of equipment used was based on a conservative “worst

case” average of the grouped activities.

Site Grading includes clearing, stripping, scarifying, compacting, fill, mass excavation, and

grading. Grading emissions for the Proposed Project were estimated utilizing URBEMISv9.2.4.

The number of heavy equipment operated during a peak grading period include 2 graders, 3

rubber tired dozers, 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes, 2 water trucks, and 20 dump trucks all operated

8 hours per day. These heavy equipment could operate simultaneously at any one time.

Trenching includes the installation of storm drain, sewer, potable and reclaimed water, gas and

electric utilities, following the completion of the mass grading. The heavy equipment utilized

include 1 loader, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe, 1 trencher, and 1 water truck.

Building Construction is the construction of the buildings proposed by the project. Equipment is

planned to be utilized during a peak construction period include 1 crane, 2 cement trucks, 1

forklift, 1 loader, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe, 4 other equipment and 17 trucks.

Asphalt paving includes installation of streets, sidewalks and landscape. The majority of diesel

engine exhaust emissions are generated from the paving equipment and asphalt material haul

trucks. Based on the construction information from the Draft EIR Appendix E-1, the asphalt

paving for the project would occur over 85,087 square yards or approximately 17.6 acres. The

heavy construction equipment required includes 1 grader, 1 dozer, 1 loader, 2 rollers and 4 other

equipment.

Architectural coatings include painting exterior and interior walls as well as coatings applied to

windows and window casings. Architectural coating emissions for the Proposed Project were

estimated utilizing URBEMISv9.2.4.

11

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 18

Off-Site Roadway Improvements

Off-site construction includes street improvements at seven locations in the vicinity of the

project site. The locations of the street improvements are along Centinela Avenue Corridor, and

the intersections of Centinela Avenue/Culver Boulevard, La Tijera Boulevard/ Centinela

Avenue, Inglewood Boulevard/Culver Boulevard, Washington Place/Centinela Avenue,

Overland Avenue/Culver Boulevard, and Sawtelle Avenue and Culver Boulevard.

The

construction data were obtained from the Draft EIR Appendix E-1. The off-site construction

emissions were estimated utilizing URBEMISv9.2.4.

Total Construction Emissions

Using the estimates from URBEMISv.9.2.4 of emissions from off-site street improvements as

well as on-site mass site grading, trenching, building construction, asphalt paving, and

architectural coatings for the Proposed Project, the peak air pollutant emissions were calculated

and presented in Table 4. These emissions represent the total CO

2

emissions for construction.

Worksheets showing the specific data used to calculate the grading emissions are presented in

Appendix A.

Table 4

Peak Construction Emissions

Construction Emissions

Activity

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Tons

CO2 MMTs

ON-SITE

- Site Grading/Construction Equip.

2,611

0.002

- Trenching

39

0.000

- Building Construction Equip.

54,703

0.050

- Asphalt Paving Construction Equip.

124

0.000

- Architectural Coating

104

0.000

OFF-SITE

- Street Improvements

270

0.000

Total Emissions:

57,851

0.053

Other GHG emissions (such as CH

4

, N

2

O, and Fluorinated Gases) are not calculated in URBEMIS v.9.2.4;

however, CO

2

emissions comprise approximately 99.6 percent of emissions from burning diesel fuel. See Section

4.0, footnote 9.

MMT = million metric tons

Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

5.0

Estimate of Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The analysis considers direct and indirect emissions of the operation of the Proposed Project

after build out resulting from motor vehicle trips, on-site combustion of natural gas, off-site

emissions from the generation of electricity consumed by the Proposed Project, as well as

emissions generated by potable and recycled water usage associated with the Proposed Project.

To calculate greenhouse emissions, the Proposed Project’s daily vehicle trip generation provided

in the Draft EIR (August 2003) was utilized. See Appendix B for summary of traffic trip data

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 19

from the Proposed Project. Other emissions will be generated from the Proposed Project through

combustion of natural gas as well as off-site GHG emissions from the generation of electricity.

The natural gas and electricity consumption for the entire Proposed Project were obtained from

Tables 156, 157 and 158 of the 2003 Draft EIR.

12

Greenhouse gas emissions also will be

generated by potable and recycled water usage associated with the Proposed Project. The

treatment and conveyance of water is a major source of electricity consumption in California.

Potable and recycled water usage for the Proposed Project also was obtained from the 2003 Draft

EIR. The 2003 Draft EIR’s Table 163 and Table 164 stated that, on an average daily basis, the

entire project requires 0.503 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water and 63,624 gallons

of reclaimed water usage.

Table 5

Projected Daily Trips, Energy, and Water Consumption from Proposed Project

PROPOSED PROJECT

PROPOSED PROJECT

- Trips

24,220 dt

- Electricity Usage

53,010 KWh/day

- Natural Gas Consumption

484.73 kcf/day

- Potable Water Consumption

0.503 mgd

-Reclaimed water usage

63,624 gpd

Notes: KWh=kilowatt-hour

mgd = million gallons per day

gpd = gallons per day

dt = daily trips

Table 6 analyzes the projected emissions from the Proposed Project. More specific data utilized

in calculating the emissions are provided in the appendix. CARB’s EMFAC2007 emissions

database provided the appropriate emission rate and vehicle trip length for each category of

vehicle. The emission rates utilized for natural gas and electrical usage were obtained from the

EPA’s AP-42, Tables 1.4.3 and Table 3.1-2a, respectively. The electrical consumption required

to deliver water depends on how far the water must be pumped to the user. Generally, the

LADWP water comes from a variety of sources, ranging from local groundwater supplies to

distant areas.

13

Roughly half of the water services the LADWP area comes from the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (a consortium of local water districts) and

that most of that water comes from the Colorado River aqueduct.

14

_{Other significant sources for}

LADWP include local wells, which would both have a lower (but an unknown) energy

consumption rate.

As a conservative case assumption, the average electrical consumption rate

for potable water is assumed to be 2,000 KWh/acre-foot, which represents the typical energy

requirement for water coming through the Colorado River Aqueduct.

15

For recycled water, the

12

_{The daily electricity consumption of 53.01 MWh from the 2003 DEIR Table 156 was utilized for the}

Proposed Project.

13

_{City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, “2005 Urban Water Management Plan”.}

14

_{City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, “2005 Urban Water Management Plan”.}

15

_{Wilkinson, Robert, Director, Water Policy Program, Bren School of Environmental Science and}

Management, UCSB, and Gary Wolff, Principal Economist and Engineer, The Pacific Institute, “2005

Integrated Energy Policy Report to the California Energy Commission.” Wilkinson, Robert, Director,

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 20

rate of 400 KWh/acre-foot is typically used.

16

However, emission rates for most sources of N

2

O, another GHG, are not available. N

2

O is a very

minor emission in the combustion process. N

2

O emissions will be very small and likely will

account for only 0.1% or less of the GHG emissions for this type of project. N

2

O is a very minor

emission in the combustion process. As a result, N

2

O emissions are not included in this report.

To determine the total carbon dioxide equivalent of GHG emissions from the Proposed Project,

the source emissions were calculated by multiplying the CH

4

and CO

2

emissions in pounds per

day by GWP constants of 21 and 1, respectively. The total CO

2

equivalent is the sum of these

CH

4

and CO

2

numbers.

17

The CO

2

equivalents were then converted to metric tons (MT) per year.

Table 6

Total Estimated Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Year 2010

MT/Year

MMT/Year

Total

CO

EQ

Total

CO

EQ

Percent

Source

of Total

Emissions

PROPOSED PROJECT

- Vehicular Trips

24,440

0.024

58%

- Natural Gas Consumption

9,634

0.010

23%

- Electrical Usage

7,679

0.008

18%

- Potable water usage

56

0.000

0%

- Potable water usage

15

0.000

0%

Total Emissions :

41,825

0.042

Note: The vast majority of the CO2 equivalency estimated to be emitted

from the proposed project are CO2 emissions.

MMT=Million metric tons per year.

Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

The Proposed Project is projected to emit a total of 41,825 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide

equivalent GHGs. Table 6 shows that 58% of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions (as

expressed in CO

2

equivalents) generated by the Proposed Project are projected to be from motor

vehicles. Natural gas consumption and electric usage are the next biggest contributors and

account for 23% and 18% of the GHG emissions, respectively.

Water Policy Program, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB, and Gary Wolff,

Principal Economist and Engineer, The Pacific Institute, “2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report to the

California Energy Commission.”

16

_{Wilkinson, Robert, Director, Water Policy Program, Bren School of Environmental Science and}

Management, UCSB, and Gary Wolff, Principal Economist and Engineer, The Pacific Institute, “2005

Integrated Energy Policy Report to the California Energy Commission.”

17

_{This analysis of operational GHG emissions from the Proposed Project includes assessments of methane}

(unlike the construction analysis) because emissions factors for methane are available for operational GHG

emissions from sources such as CARB’s EMFAC2007 and EPA’s AP-42, Tables 1.4.3 and Table 3.1-2a.

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 21

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Proposed Project

The GHG emissions also were projected for future years beyond 2010 and are presented in

Table 7. The change in the GHG emissions corresponds to changes in the projected

EMFAC2007 CO

2

emission rates.

Table 7

Project Trend Of GHG Emissions

(metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents)

Year

MT

CO

2

EQ

MMT

CO

2

EQ

2010

41,825

0.0418

2020

41,574

0.0416

2030

41,771

0.0418

2040

42,134

0.0421

Table 8 compares the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project to total emissions in California,

the United States, and globally. This comparison shows that the Proposed Project’s emissions

represent a very small fraction of total GHG emissions

Table 8

Relative Contribution of Proposed Project Emissions to Global GHG Emissions

MMT CO

2

eEQ

Year

Percent

Contribution of

Proposed Project

GHG Emissions

Project Emissions

0.0418

2010

State of California

480

2004

0.0086%

United States

7,068

2004

0.0006%

World

27,941

2004

0.00015%

Sources: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for the

Period 1990-2004 and Status of Reporting,” October 19, 2006; California Energy Commission, “Inventory of California

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004,” December 2006.

The emissions generated by this Proposed Project, therefore, will contribute a very small amount

to the overall climate change issue. By way of comparison, the global data from the United

Nations indicates that the project would contribute less than

0.00015%

to the GHG burden for

the planet.

Even when compared to California’s GHG emissions, the Proposed Project’s

individual contribution is quite small (approximately 0.0089% of 2004 California emissions).

Equivalency Program Emissions

The Proposed Project also includes an Equivalency Program in which a maximum of 125,000

square feet of office development may be exchanged for up to 56,832 square feet of retail uses or

up to 200 assisted living units, or a combination thereof. Within the Equivalency Program, there

are three equivalent scenarios: 1) All Retail, 2) All Assisted Living, and 3) Retail/Assisted

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 22

Living. The analysis compares daily trips, energy, and water consumption of the three

equivalency scenarios and quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions that result from each

scenario.

Table 9

Projected Daily Trips, Energy, and Water Consumption from Equivalency

Scenarios

All Retail in

Equivalency

Program

All

Assisted-Living in

Equivalency

Program

Retail/Assisted

Living in

Equivalency

Program

- Trips

23,931

24,178

24,070

- Electricity Usage

40,090 KWh

43,174 KWh

43,172 KWh

- Natural Gas

Consumption

481.93 kcf

518.24 kcf

515.98 kcf

- Potable Water

Consumption

0.488 mgd

0.527 mgd

0.514 mgd

-Reclaimed water usage

56,999 gpd

62,347 gpd

56,999 gpd

Notes: KWh= kilowatt-hour, kcf = thousand cubic feet, mgd = million gallons per day, gpd = gallons per day

Sources: Trips: Appendix B,2008 Report from Raju & Associates Technical Report Summarizing ADTs from

2003 Traffic Study; Electricity & Natural Gas: 2003 Draft EIR, Tables 156, 157 and 158; Water: 2003 Draft EIR,

Tables 163 and 168

As indicated in Table 9, the All Retail equivalency scenario will generate the fewest trips

(23,931) and use the least amount of energy (40,090 KWh of daily electricity usage, 481.93

thousand cubic feet of daily natural gas consumption, 0.488 million gallons per day of potable

water consumption, and 56,999 gallons per day of reclaimed water consumption). The All

Assisted Living equivalency scenario is anticipated to generate 24,178 daily trips, 43,174 KWh

of daily electricity usage, 518.24 thousand cubic feet of daily natural gas consumption, 0.527

million gallons per day of potable water consumption, and 62,347 gallons per day of reclaimed

water consumption. The Retail/Assisted Living equivalency scenario is anticipated to generate

slightly fewer daily trips (24,070) and slightly less energy and water consumption (43,172 KWh

of daily electricity usage, 515.98 thousand cubic feet of daily natural gas consumption, 0.514

million gallons per day of potable water consumption, and 56,999 gallons per day of reclaimed

water consumption).

Mestre Greve Associates

Village at Playa Vista

Page 23

Table 10

Total Estimated Emissions From Equivalency Scenarios – Year 2010

MT/Year

MMT/Year

Total

CO

EQ

Total

CO

EQ

Source

% of Total

Emissions

All Retail in Equivalency

Program

- Vehicular Trips

24,149

0.024

58%

- Natural Gas Consumption

9,578

0.010

23%

- Electrical Usage

7,679

0.008

19%

- Potable water usage

55

0.000

0%

- Non-potable water

13

0.000

0%

Total Emissions :

41,474

0.041

All Assisted-Living in

Equivalency Program

Vehicular Trips

24,398

0.024

57%

Natural Gas Consumption

10,300

0.010

24%

Electrical Usage

8,269

0.008

19%

- Potable water usage

59

0.000

0%

- Non-potable water

15

0.000

0%

Total Emissions :

43,041

0.043

Retail/Assisted-Living in

Equivalency Program

Vehicular Trips

24,289

0.024

57%

Natural Gas Consumption

10,255

0.010

24%

Electrical Usage

8,269

0.008

19%

- Potable water usage

58

0.000

0%

- Non-potable water

13

0.000

0%

Total Emissions :

42,884

0.043

The vast majority of the CO2 equivalency estimated to be emitted from the proposed project is CO2 emissions.

Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Of the three scenarios in the Equivalency Program, the All Retail scenario would generate fewer

emissions than if the program were not applied, while the All Assisted Living scenario would

generate the highest emissions. If the Equivalency Program is utilized, then a range of between

41,474 and 43,041 total carbon dioxide equivalent GHGs would be emitted.

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Equivalency Scenarios

The GHG emissions also were projected for future years beyond 2010 and are presented in Table

11. The analysis indicates that between 2010 and 2020, the GHG emissions in CO

2

equivalent

will drop and then rise slightly thereafter. The rise and fall in the GHG emissions are directly

proportional to the rise and drop in the projected EMFAC2007 CO

2

emission rates.