HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 15-26; LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H2O; GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY; 2016-06-01• • •
City of Carlsbad
Legoland Hotel
Project
Greenhouse
Gas Study
June 2016
EnvironmPn/a/ Sc1e,nlists Planners Engineers
--e
e
C
C
C
e
e
C
e
C
e
e • e
e
e
e
C
e
e
e
e
e
C
C
C
e
e
C
C
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
C
C
C
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Legoland Hotel Project
GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY
Table of Contents
Page
Project Description .................................................................................................................... l
Overview of Global Climate Change ..................................................................................... 2
Greenhouse Gas Inventory .......................................................................................... 4
Potential Effects of Global Climate Change .............................................................. 4
Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 7
Significance Thresholds ........................................................................................................... 12
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 13
Project Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 15
Emissions Reductions Strategies ............................................................................................. 17
Mitigated Project Emissions .................................................................................................... 20
List of Tables
Table l_City of Carlsbad's Projected Emissions Gaps ......................................................... 12
Table 2 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ................. 15
Table 3_Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases .............................................. 17
Table 4_Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Reduction Measures ........... 18
Table 5 _ Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases .............................................. 21
Appendices
Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results
r~ ~ "~ -~ ".f; ~. ,~ ··"~ .. 0·
'd ...... _. __ ... , f ....... ~ .. ~ ....... ,.,._.
JUN O 3 2016
r City of Carlsbad
C
«) Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
C
e
C
C
e
C
C
C
C) • e
e
e • C
C)
e
C This page intentionally left blank
e • C)
e
C • e
e
e
C
C
C • • e • C
C • fD
e r City of Carlsbad
ii e
e
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Lego land Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
1bis report presents an analysis of the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with
the proposed Legoland project located in Carlsbad, California. The report has been prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. for use by the City of Carlsbad in support of the environmental
documentation being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
The purpose of this study is to analyze the proposed project's GHG emissions and the
associated impact to global climate change. 1bis study describes global climate change, GHGs,
the current regulatory framework, quantifies GHG emissions for the proposed project,
compares forecast emissions to quantitative thresholds, and discusses the project's consistency
with both state and local legislation including the City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan (CAP) .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the construction of a 250-room hotel, which would be built in
place of an existing 137,999 square foot parking lot located between the resort's main gate and
the existing hotel. The proposed project is located at 1 Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California. The
proposed hotel (shown below in white) would be three stories and include 250 rooms with an
associated restaurant, gift shop, and outdoor play areas for children. The existing onsite parking
located on the south of the project site would remain and be used as parking for the new hotel.
r City of Carlsbad
e
e
e
C
,C
e
C
C
C
C
e
C
e • e
C • C
C
C
e
C)
e
e
C
e
e
C
e
C
~ • e
C • C
C • C
C
e
C
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
SETTING
Overview of Global Climate Change
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms) over an extended period of time. The term "climate change" is often used interchangeably
with the term "global warming," but "climate change" is preferred to "global warming" because it
helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against
which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes
that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously
changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in
the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling
trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by
a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However,
scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013), the understanding of
anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (95
percent or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities has been the
dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century (IPCC, 2013).
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases
(GHGs). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate
change include carbon dioxide (COi), methane (CI-L), nitrous oxides (NiO), fluorinated gases such
as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water
vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its
atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic
evaporation.
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, COi and CI-L
are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-
products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CI-L results from off-gassing associated with
agricultural practices and landfills. Observations of CO2 concentrations, globally-averaged
temperature, and sea level rise are generally well within the range of the extent of the earlier IPCC
projections. The recently observed increases in CI-L and NiO concentrations are smaller than those
assumed in the scenarios in the previous assessments. Each IPCC assessment has used new
projections of future climate change that have become more detailed as the models have become
more advanced .
Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than COi, include
fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (California Environmental Protection Agency
[CalEP A], 2006). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The
GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified
timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common
reference gas (COi) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas
emissions, referred to as "carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted
multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane CI-L has
r City of Carlsbad
2
e
" e
C
C
C
C
e
C
e
e
e
C • C
C
C
e
e
C)
e
e
e
C
e
C
C
C
e • e
e • C
C • C
tD
e
e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide on a
molecule per molecule basis (IPCC, 2007).
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. Without the
natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth's surface would be about 34 ° C cooler (CalEP A, 2006).
However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil
fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in
the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The following discusses the
primary GHGs of concern.
Carbon Dioxide
The global carbon cycle is made up of large carbon flows and reservoirs. Billions of tons of carbon
in the form of CO2 are absorbed by oceans and living biomass (i.e., sinks) and are emitted to the
atmosphere annually through natural processes (i.e., sources). When in equilibrium, carbon fluxes
among these various reservoirs are roughly balanced (United States Environmental Protection
Agency [U.S. EPA], 2014). CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric
concentration, with the first conclusive measurements being made in the second half of the 20th
century. Concentrations of CO:iin the atmosphere have risen approximately 40 percent since the
industrial revolution. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a pre-
industrial value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 391 ppm in 2011 (IPCC, 2007; Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2010). The average annual CO2 concentration growth rate
was larger between 1995 and 2005 (average: 1.9 ppm per year) than it has been since the beginning
of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960-2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year), although
there is year-to-year variability in growth rates (NOAA, 2010). Currently, CO:i represents an
estimated 74 percent of total GHG emissions (IPCC, 2007). The largest source of CO2 emissions,
and of overall GHG emissions, is fossil fuel combustion.
Methane
Methane (~) is an effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less
than that of CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is limited to 10 to 12 years. It has a GWP
approximately 25 times that of CO:i. Over the last 250 years, the concentration of ~ in the
atmosphere has increased by 148 percent (IPCC, 2007), although emissions have declined from
1990 levels. Anthropogenic sources of~ include enteric fermentation associated with domestic
livestock, landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining,
wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial processes (U.S.
EPA, 2014).
Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations of nitrous oxide (NiO) began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution
and continue to increase at a relatively uniform growth rate (NOAA, 2010). NiO is produced by
microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizers that contain
nitrogen, fossil fuel combustion, and other chemical processes. Use of these fertilizers has increased
over the last century. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion are
the major sources of N2O emissions. The GWP of nitrous oxide is approximately 298 times that of
CO:i (IPCC, 2007).
Fluorinated Gases (HFCS, PFCS and SF6)
Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
r City of Carlsbad
3
• C
e
e
C
~
C
C
C • e
tD
e
I)
e
C
C
e
C
C • • C
e • C)
e
e
e
C
e • " e
e • C • e • e
e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
sulfurhexafluoride (SF6), are powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial
processes. Fluorinated gases are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances such as
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, which have been
regulated since the mid-1980s because of their ozone-destroying potential and are phased out
under the Montreal Protocol (1987) and Oean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Electrical
transmission and distribution systems account for most SF6 emissions, while PFC emissions result
from semiconductor manufacturing and as a by-product of primary aluminum production.
Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities than COi., G-1°4, and N20, but these
compounds have much higher GWPs. SF6 is the most potent GHG the IPCC has evaluated .
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 46,000 million metric tons
(MMT, or gigatonne) COie in 2010 (IPCC, 2014). COi emissions from fossil fuel combustion and
industrial processes contributed about 65 percent of total emissions in 2010. Of anthropogenic
GHGs, carbon dioxide was the most abundant accounting for 76 percent of total 2010 emissions.
Methane emissions accounted for 16 percent of the 2010 total, while nitrous oxide and fluorinated
gases account for 6 and 2 percent respectively (IPCC, 2014).
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,870 MMT COie in 2014 (U.S. EPA, 2016). Total U.S. emissions
have increased by 7.4 percent since 1990; emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014 (U.S.
EPA, 2016). The increase from 2013 to 2014 was due to numerous factors including an increase in
total miles traveled by on-road vehicles and year-to-year changes in the prevailing weather. Since
1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent. In 2014, the
transportation and industrial end-use sectors accounted for 26 percent and 21 percent of COi
emissions (with electricity-related emissions distributed), respectively. Meanwhile, the residential
and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 12 percent of CO2 emissions (U.S. EPA, 2016).
Based upon the California Air Resources Board (ARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for
2000-2013, California produced 459.3 MMT COiE in 2013 (ARB, 2015). The major source of GHG in
California is transportation, contributing 37 percent of the state's total GHG emissions. Industrial
sources are the second largest source of the state's GHG emissions (CARB, 2015). California
emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However,
a factor that reduces California's per capita fuel use and GHG emissions, as compared to other
states, is its relatively mild climate. The ARB has projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions
for the year 2020 will be 509.4 MMT COie (ARB, 2014). These projections represent the emissions
that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.
Potential Effects of Global Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through
potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific
modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more
extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century .
Long-term trends have found that each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the
previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been
the warmest. The global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about
0.89°C (0.69°C-1.08°q over the period 1901-2012 and about 0.72°C (0.49°C-0.89°q over the
r City of Carlsbad
4
C • e
e .,
e
C
C
C
e • C
e
e • C • e • e
e
e
,c
C
e • C)
e
e
e
C
e • e
C)
e • C • C • • e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
period 1951-2012 when described by a linear trend. Several independently analyzed data
records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station
observations are in agreement that LSAT as well as sea surface temperatures have increased. In
addition to these findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking
place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC, 2013).
According to the CalEPA's 2010 Climate Action Team Biennial Report, potential impacts of climate
change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per
year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CalEPA, 2010) .
Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a
result of climate change.
Air Quality
Higher temperatures, which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality
in California. Oimate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the
magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures
are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in
turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by
wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily dear the air of
particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby ameliorating the
pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions
and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma
attacks throughout the state (California Energy Commission [CEC], 2009).
Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and
precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in
California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty
remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future water supplies in
California. However, the average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada decreased by
about 10 percent during the last century, a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage.
During the same period, sea level rose eight inches along California's coast. California's
temperature has risen 1 °F, mostly at night and during the winter, with higher elevations
experiencing the highest increase. Many Southern California cities have experienced their
lowest recorded annual precipitation twice within the past decade. In a span of only two years,
Los Angeles experienced both its driest and wettest years on record (California Department of
Water Resources [DWR], 2008; CCCC, 2009).
This uncertainty complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the
relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well
understood. The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply by
accumulating snow during the state's wet winters and releasing it slowly during the state's dry
springs and summers. Based upon historical data and modeling DWR projects that the Sierra
snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050. Oimate
change is also anticipated to bring warmer storms that result in less snowfall at lower
elevations, reducing the total snowpack (DWR, 2008) .
r City of Carlsbad
5
C • C
C • C
r
C
C
e
e
e
C,
e • C • e
e
C
C
e
I)
C
e
e
C • e
e
C
I)
• C
C)
e ,.
C • C
e • e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall,
and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or
snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding;
coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. According to The Impacts of Sea-
Level Rise on the California Coast, prepared by the California Climate Change Center (CCCq
(CCCC, 2009), climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming
century. The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding. The rate of increase of
global mean sea levels over the 2001-2010 decade, as observed by satellites, ocean buoys and
land gauges, was approximately 3.2 mm per year, which is double the observed 20th century
trend of 1.6 mm per year (World Meteorological Organization [WMO], 2013). As a result, sea
levels averaged over the last decade were about 8 inches higher than those of 1880 (WMO,
2013). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise is
expected to accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC
report (2013) predicts a mean sea-level rise of 11-38 inches by 2100. This prediction is more than
50 percent higher than earlier projections of 7-23 inches, when comparing the same emissions
scenarios and time periods. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and
could jeopardize California's water supply due to salt water intrusion. In addition, increased CO2
emissions can cause oceans to acidify due to the carbonic acid it forms. Increased storm
intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to
handle storm events.
Agriculture
California has a $30 billion annual agricultural industry that produces half of the country's
fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant
water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand
could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater air
pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition,
temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom
or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (CCCC, 2006).
Ecosystems and Wildlife
Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological
effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the
rate of climate change. Scientists project that the average global surface temperature could rise
by l.0-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and 2.2-10°F (l.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with
substantial regional variation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense
rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major
impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species'
composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and
storage (Parmesan, 2006).
Local Effects of Climate Change
While the above discussion identifies the possible effects of climate change at a global and
potentially statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict with a similar
degree of accuracy what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. In general,
regional and local predictions are made based on downscaling statewide models (CalEPA, April
r City of Carlsbad
6
C • C
e • C
C
C
C
C • • • e • C • .,
&
C
C • e
C .,
• e • C
e
C • • e • C • C • e • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
2010) .
Regulatory Setting
The following regulations address both climate change and GHG emissions.
International Regulations
The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCq since it was produced in 1992. The UNFCCC is an international
environmental treaty with the objective of, "stabilization of GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system." This is generally understood to be achieved by stabilizing global GHG
concentrations between 350 and 400 ppm, in order to limit the global average temperature
increases between 2 and 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels (IPCC, 2007). The UNFCCC itself does
not set limits on GHG emissions for individual countries or enforcement mechanisms. Instead,
the treaty provides for updates, called "protocols," that would identify mandatory emissions
limits .
Five years later, the UNFCCC brought nations together again to draft the Kyoto Protocol (1997).
The Kyoto Protocol established commitments for industrialized nations to reduce their
collective emissions of six GHGs (CO2, ~ N2O, SF6, HFCs, and PFCs) to 5.2 percent below
1990 levels by 2012. The United States is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, but Congress has not
ratified it and the United States has not bound itself to the Protocol's commitments (UNFCCC,
2007). The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ended in 2012. Governments,
including 38 industrialized countries, agreed to a second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol beginning January 1, 2013 and ending either on December 31, 2017 or December 31,
2020, to be decided by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I
Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its seventeenth session (UNFCCC, 2011) .
In Durban (17th session of the Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa, 2011),
governments decided to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change. Work began on
that task immediately under a new group called the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban
Platform for Enhanced Action. Progress was also made regarding the creation of a Green
Climate Fund (GCF) for which a management framework was adopted (UNFCCC, 2011; United
Nations, 2011).
In December 2015, the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) adopted the Paris
Agreement. The deal requires all countries that ratify it to commit to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions, with the goal of peaking greenhouse gas emissions "as soon as possible" (Worland,
2015). The agreement includes commitments to (1) achieve a balance between sources and sinks
of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century; (2) to keep global temperature increase
"well below" 2 degrees Celsius (q or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and to pursue efforts to limit it
to 1.5 C; (3) to review progress every five years; and (4) to spend $100 billion a year in climate
finance for developing countries by 2020 (UNFCCC, 2015). The agreement includes both legally
binding measures, like reporting requirements, as well as voluntary or non-binding measures
while, such as the setting of emissions targets for any individual country (Worland, 2015) .
r City of Carlsbad
7
C • e
e • C
e
C
C
e
C • • C • e • .,
• e
e • • • e • e • C
C
C • • e • IJ • C • e • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Federal Regulations
The United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) held that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle
GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act.
The U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009.
This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters,
and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires
annual reporting of emissions. The first annual reports for these sources were due in March
2011 .
On May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule that took effect on January 2, 2011, setting a
threshold of 75,000 tons C02e per year for GHG emissions. New and existing industrial facilities
that meet or exceed that threshold will require a permit after that date. On November 10, 2010,
the U.S. EPA published the "PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases." The
U.S. EPA's guidance document is directed at state agencies responsible for air pollution permits
under the Federal Clean Air Act to help them understand how to implement GHG reduction
requirements while mitigating costs for industry. It is expected that most states will use the U.S .
EPA' s new guidelines when processing new air pollution permits for power plants, oil
refineries, cement manufacturing, and other large pollution point sources.
On January 2, 2011, the U.S. EPA implemented the first phase of the Tailoring Rule for GHG
emissions Title V Permitting. Under the first phase of the Tailoring Rule, all new sources of
emissions are subject to GHG Title V permitting if they are otherwise subject to Title V for
another air pollutant and they emit at least 75,000 tons C02e per year. Under Phase 1, no
sources were required to obtain a Title V permit solely due to GHG emissions. Phase 2 of the
Tailoring Rule went into effect July 1, 2011. At that time new sources were subject to GHG Title
V permitting if the source emits 100,000 tons C02e per year, or they are otherwise subject to
Title V permitting for another pollutant and emit at least 75,000 tons C02e per year .
On July 3, 2012 the U.S. EPA issued the final rule that retains the GHG permitting thresholds
that were established in Phases 1 and 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule. These emission thresholds
determine when Oean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing
industrial facilities.
California Regulations
California Air Resources Board is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and
local air pollution control programs in California. California has a numerous regulations aimed
at reducing the state's GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below .
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California's Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as
"Pavley"), requires ARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve "the maximum feasible
and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles." On June 30, 2009, U.S.
EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas
emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect
for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as "LEV (Low
r City of Carlsbad
8
C • C
C • C
t
C
e • C
e • e • C • • • C
e • C • e • e • C
e
C • • e • C
C
C • • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Emission Vehicle) III GHG" will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would
reach 22 percent reduction from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. The Advanced
Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions
Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG
emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34
percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016
levels (ARB, 2011).
In 2005, former Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, establishing
statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be
reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions
shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (CalEPA, 2006). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEP A
created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action
Team Report (the "2006 CAT Report") (CalEPA, 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a
recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are
strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission
reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state
agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the
reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/ infrastructure,
increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. In April
2015 Governor Brown issued EO B-30-15, calling for a new target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
California's major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB
32), the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies
the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent
reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires ARB to
prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the
2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and
verification of statewide GHG emissions .
After completing a comprehensive review and update process, ARB approved a 1990 statewide
GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT COie. The Scoping Plan was approved by ARB on
December 11, 2008, and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies
related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures.
Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, Advanced Oean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted over the last
five years. Implementation activities are ongoing and ARB is currently the process of updating the
Scoping Plan .
In May 2014, ARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan
update defines ARB' s climate change priorities for the next five years and sets the groundwork to
reach post-2020 goals set forth in EO S-3-05. The update highlights California's progress toward
meeting the "near-term" 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan.
It also evaluates how to align the State's longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State
policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy and transportation, and
land use (ARB, 2014) .
r City of Carlsbad
9
• • e • e
C
e
e
C • e • • e
e
C • C • e • • • • C • • • C
e
C
I) • e • e
e
C • • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental
issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In
March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the
State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG
emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or
qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.
ARB Resolution 07-54 establishes 25,000 MT of GHG emissions as the threshold for identifying
the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual
reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005 percent of California's total inventory of
GHG emissions for 2004 .
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state's ability to reach AB 32 goals by
directing ARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from
passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state's 18 major
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a "sustainable communities strategy"
(SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, ARB adopted final regional targets
for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was assigned GHG emission targets of
a 7% reduction in GHGs from transportation sources from 2005 levels by 2020 and a 13 %
reduction in GHGs from transportation sources from 2005 levels by 2035 .
Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) pursuant to SB 1038, SB 1078, SB 1250, and SB 107
requires retail sellers of electricity to increase the amount of renewable energy they procure
each year by at least 1 percent until 20 percent of their retail sales are served with renewable
energy.
• Senate Bill 1038 (Chapter 515, Statutes of 2002). The pertinent provisions of SB 1038 were
formerly codified in Public Utilities Code Sections 383.5 and 445, but are now codified in Public
Resources Code Sections 25740 through 25751 as a result of Senate Bill 183 (Chapter 666,
Statutes of 2003).
• Senate Bill 1078; Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002. The pertinent provisions of SB 1078 are codified
in Public Utilities Code Section 399.11 through 399.15. This law was subsequently amended to
add Sections 399.16, 399.17, and 399.12.5 under Senate Bill 67 (Chapter 731, Statutes of 2003),
Assembly Bill 200 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2005), and Assembly Bill 2189 (Chapter 747, Statutes
of 2006), respectively .
• Senate Bill 1250; Chapter 512, Statutes of 2006. SB 1250 amends pertinent provisions in Public
Resources Code Sections 25740 through 25751
• Senate Bill 107; Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006. SB 107 amends pertinent provisions in Public
Resources Code Sections 25740 through 25751 and Public Utilities Code Sections 399.11
through 399.16
In early 2010, ARB adopted a regulation for reducing SF6 emissions from electric power system
gas-insulated switchgear (17 CCR 95350). SF6 gas is commonly used as an arc quenching and
insulating medium for high and medium voltage switchgear systems used in electrical
substations. The regulation requires owners of such switchgear to: (1) annually report their SF6
r City of Carlsbad
10
C
e
C • e
C
e
C
C • e • • C • e • • • C • • C
e
C • I) • e
e
C • • I> • • e
C • • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
emissions; (2) determine the emission rate relative to the SF6 capacity of the switchgear; (3)
provide a complete inventory of all gas-insulated switchgear and their SF6 capacities; (4)
produce a SF6 gas container inventory; and (5) keep all information current for ARB
enforcement staff inspection and verification. Changes to the switching station owned by PG&E
and any gas insulated switchgear associated with the project would be subject to this regulation.
In April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X requiring California to generate 33 percent of its
electricity from renewable energy by 2020 .
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued an executive order B-30-15 to establish a statewide
mid-term GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. According to CARB,
reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030 ensures that California will
continue its efforts to reduce carbon pollution and help to achieve federal health-based air quality
standards. Setting clear targets beyond 2020 also provides market certainty to foster investment
and growth in a wide array of industries throughout the State, including clean technology and
clean energy. CARB is currently working to update the Scoping Plan to provide a framework for
achieving the 2030 target. The updated Scoping Plan is expected to be completed and adopted by
CARB in 2016 (CARB 2015) .
For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and reports
discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the
following websites: www.climatechange.ca.gov andwww.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm .
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the
State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG
emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis
and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion
to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and
climate change impacts. To date, a variety of air districts have adopted quantitative significance
thresholds for GHGs .
Local Regulations
The City of Carlsbad adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP), in September 2015. The CAP
outlines the city's goals for GHG reduction which are consistent with current statewide
regulations. By calculating a "modified baseline forecast" the City can compare the expected
emissions in 2020 and beyond to the Sate mandated emissions targets. The modified baseline is
the Cities current emissions adjusted to include both population growth and State reductions .
The difference between the modified baseline and the emissions target is referred to as the
emissions gap. The CAP has been enacted to eliminate this gap and thus meet the requirements
of AB32. The following table summarizes the City of Carlsbad's projected emissions gaps .
r City of Carlsbad
11
C
e
C
e
e
C
C
C
C • • • • C • • • C • C • • e
C
C • • • C
C
C • • C • e
C
C • • e • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Table 1
City of Carlsbad's Projected Emissions Gaps
Year Total Modified Baseline GHG Emissions Targets (MT C02e)
2020 473,082 535,763
2025 467,018 464,328
2030 452,762 392,893
2035 455,556 321,458
Emissions "Gap"
Target Met
2,690
59,869
134,098
As shown in the table, under the assumptions of the "total modified baseline" the City is
projected to meet the requirements of AB32. However, although there is no current mandatory
legislation extending past 2020, further State mandated reductions are probable in the future .
Therefore, the City has scaled the goals of AB32 in a linear fashion to approximate future CHG
emission targets. The CAP has been implemented to help the City meet these goals .
The emphasis of the CAP is on municipal facilities and operations followed by programs to
reduce emissions in the community. However, the CAP also includes a project level screening
threshold of 900 MT of CO2e. Projects which have projected emissions over 900 MT need to
complete the CAP project checklist and show compliance with the goals of the CAP.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Significance Thresholds
The State CEQA Guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of CHG emissions
from the proposed project. As described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, a lead agency shall
have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project,
and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or
methodology it considers most apprapriate provided it supports its decision with substantial
evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or
methodology selected for use; and/or
(2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.
Further, a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the
significance of impacts from CHG 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 adapted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse
gas emissions. Such requirements must be adapted by the relevant public agency through a
public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of
r City of Carlsbad
12
e
C
C
e
e
C
e • C
C • • • C • C • e • C • e
e
e
e • • • C
C
C • • • • • C
C • e
e • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
GHG 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 majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-
specific impact through a direct influence to global climate change; therefore, the issue of
climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards an
impact is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15355) .
The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of
GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set
quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate
change impacts. The City of Carlsbad has determined that a project that emits over 900 MT
would be less than significant if that project conforms to the goals of the Climate Action Plan .
Because the project is anticipated to emit over 900 MT of CO2e, it would be considered less than
significant if the project can show consistency with the Climate Action Plan.
Methodology
This analysis is based on the methodologies recommended by the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 0anuary 2008) CEQA and Climate Change white paper.
The analysis focuses on COi, N2O, and 0-L as these are the GHG emissions that onsite
development would generate in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6, were also considered for the analysis. However, the project is a hotel development; therefore,
the quantity of fluorinated gases would not be significant since fluorinated gases are primarily
associated with industrial processes. Calculations were based on the methodologies discussed in
the CAPCOA white paper 0anuary 2008) and included the use of the California Climate Action
Registry General Reporting Protocol 0anuary 2009) .
This analysis calculates GHG emissions by quantifying the project's amenities and design features
and also takes into account current state and federal measures that are intended to reduce GHG
emissions. State and federal measures that are built into the emissions model calculation include
Title 24 Energy Standards, Pavley (Clean Car Standards) and Low Carbon Fuel Standards.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, primarily due to the
operation of construction equipment and truck trips. Project construction was estimated to be
completed within approximately 15 months. For this analysis, it was assumed that construction
would commence in January 2017 and would be completed in March of 2018. Emissions
associated with the construction period were estimated using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that
would be used onsite at one time. Complete CalEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed
in the Appendix .
r City of Carlsbad
13
• • C
C • C
e
C"
e • • • • e • C • C • C
e
e
C
e
C • • • C
e
C
e • • • • C
C
e
e • • e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Although construction activity is addressed in this analysis, CAPCOA does not discuss whether
any of the suggested threshold approaches (as discussed below in GHG Cumulative Significance)
adequately address impacts from temporary construction activity. As stated in the CEQA and
Climate Ozange white paper, "more study is needed to make this assessment or to develop separate
thresholds for construction activity" (CAPCOA, 2008). Nevertheless, the SCAQMD has
recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over a 30-year period in conjunction with
the proposed project's operational emissions.
Indirect Emissions
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance,
hearth, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission
rates from CARB, USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide,
2011).
Operational emissions from electricity and natural gas use at the proposed project were estimated
using CalEEMod (see Appendix for calculations). The default values on which CalEEMod are
based include the California Energy Commission (CEC) sponsored California Commercial End
Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. CalEEMod
provides operational emissions of C(n, N2O, and Q-L. This methodology is considered reasonable
and reliable for use, as it has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private
stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC. It is also recommended by CAPCOA Oanuary 2008).
Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC s
methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of
waste (CalEEMod User Guide, 2011). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of
municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default
electricity intensity is from the CECs 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in
California using the average values for Northern and Southern California .
Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion
Emissions of COi and G-L from transportation sources were quantified using CalEEMod. Because
CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were quantified
using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Oanuary, 2009) direct
emissions factors for mobile combustion (see Appendix for calculations). The calculation
methodology used is consistent with, but more conservative than, The Climate Registry (March,
2013). Vehicle trips were estimated in CalEEMod using the default settings for a 250 unit hotel.
Emission rates for N2O emissions were based on the vehicle mix output generated by CalEEMod
and the emission factors found in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting
Protocol.
One of the limitations to a quantitative analysis is that emission models, such as CalEEMod,
evaluate aggregate emissions and do not demonstrate, with respect to a global impact, what
proportion of these emissions are "new" emissions, specifically attributable to the project in
question. For most projects, the main contribution of GHG emissions is from motor vehicles and
r City of Carlsbad
14
e
e
C
C
e
C
e
C • • C • • e
C
C • • • e
e
e
C
C
C • • • C
C
C
e • • • • C
C • • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but the quantity of these emissions appropriately
characterized as "new'' is uncertain. Traffic associated with a project may be relocated trips from
other locales, and consequently, may result in either higher or lower net VMT. For the proposed
project analyzed in this report, it is likely that some of the GHG emissions associated with traffic
and energy demand would be truly "new" emissions. However, it is also likely that some of the
emissions represent diversion of emissions from other locations. Thus, although GHG emissions
are associated with onsite development, it is not possible to discern how much diversion is
occurring or what fraction of those emissions represents global increases. In the absence of
information regarding the different types of trips, the VMT estimate generated by CalEEMod,
which assumes that all trips are new, is used as a conservative, "worst-case" estimate .
Project Impacts
The following summarizes the proposed project and compares calculated emissions to the City
of Carlsbad's Climate Action Plan and the established threshold of 900 MT of CO2e (see
Appendix for full CalEEMod worksheets).
Construction Emissions
Construction activity is assumed to occur over a period of approximately 15 months. Based on
CalEEMod results, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 657.4
metric tons of COie (as shown in Table 2). Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of
the project), construction of the proposed project would generate about 22 metric tons of COie
per year.
Table 2
Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Amortized Over A 30-Year Period
Annual Emissions
Year (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (C02e)
2017 584.7 metric tons
2018 72.8 metric tons
Total 657 .4 metric tons
Amortized over 30 years 21.9 metric tons per year
See Appendix for Ca/EEMod Results.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions include GHG emissions from area source, energy use, waste, water, and
transportation. Each of these operational emission sources is discussed below .
Area Source Emissions
The CalEEMod model was used to calculate direct sources of air emissions located at the project
site. This includes hearths/fireplaces, consumer product use, and landscape maintenance
equipment. Emissions associated with consumer products and landscaping equipment were
found to be 0.005 metric tons of CO2e per year .
,, City of Carlsbad
15
C • C
e
e
C
e
e
C
e
C
C
C
e
e
C
e
C • C • e
C
e
e • & • • • e
e • C • e
C
e
e • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Energy Use
The default setting in the CalEEMod output assumes that the operation of the onsite
development would consume both electricity and natural gas (see Appendix for calculations).
The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels yields COi, and to a smaller
extent, N2O and ~-As discussed above, annual electricity and natural gas emissions have
been calculated using default values from the CEC sponsored CEUS and RASS studies which
are built into CalEEMod.
The current CalEEMod version assumes all structures will be built to 2008 Title 24 standards. In
order to avoid over estimating the reductions due to compliance with Title 24, a 25%
improvement over 2008 Title 24 was credited to both the unmitigated and the mitigated
scenario. This is because the California Energy Commission estimates Title 24 2013 is
approximately 25% more efficient than 2008 Title 24. Using these variables, the unmitigated
project is expected to emit approximately 2,506 MT of CO2e per year due to electricity and
natural gas consumption.
Solid Waste Emissions
It was assumed that the project would divert 50% of the waste due to City of Carlsbad recycling
policies. The estimated emissions associated with waste generation were found to be 31 MT of
CO2e .
Water Use Emissions
The project would use approximately 7.0 million gallons of water per year. Based on the
amount of electricity generated in order to supply this amount of water, as shown in Table 3,
the project would generate approximately 38 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Transportation Emissions
Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the average daily trips derived from the
traffic analysis prepared by STC Traffic, Inc. and by the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
estimated in CalEEMod. Based on the CalEEMod estimate, onsite development would generate
an estimated 3,799,862 annual VMT .
Table 3 shows the estimated mobile emissions of GHGs for the project based on the estimated
annual VMT. As noted above, CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions related to mobile
sources. As such, N2O emissions were calculated based on the project's VMT using calculation
methods provided by the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol
Oanuary, 2009). The project would generate about 1,842 metric tons of COze units associated
with mobile emissions .
Combined Construction, Stationary and Mobile Source Emissions
Table 3 combines the construction, operational and mobile GHG emissions associated with
onsite development for the proposed project. Emissions associated with construction activity
(approximately 657 metric tons COze) are amortized over the anticipated 30-year life of the
project. As is shown in the table below, emissions for the project are estimated to be 4,439 MT of
COze, exceeding the 900 MT of COze screening threshold. Therefore, the project is required to
show compliance with the goals stated in the City of Carlsbad CAP.
r City of Carlsbad
16
C
C
e
C)
e
e
C
C
C
e
e
C
e
C
C
C • C • e
e • C
C
C • e • e
C
C
e
C
C • • C
C
C
C • • e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Table 3
Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual GHG Emissions
MT of C02e/year
Construction 21.9 (amortized over 30 years)
Operational
Area 0
Energy 2,506
Solid Waste 31
Water 38
Mobile
C02andCH4 1,759
N20 83
Total 4,439
Sources: See Appendix for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
Note: All numbers may not add due to rounding .
Emissions Reductions Strategies
As discussed above, the City of Carlsbad adopted its CAP in September, 2015. The goal of the
CAP is to reduce the City's GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, and prepare for
more stringent GHG reduction goals implemented in the future. The CAP has established that
new development projects emitting less than 900 MT of C02e annually would not contribute
considerably to cumulative climate change impacts, and therefore, do not need to demonstrate
consistency with the CAP. Projects that generate emissions above the 900 MT screening
threshold must prove compliance with the CAP by completing a project review checklist or
through a self-developed program approach. At the time of this study the City has not
developed a final checklist. Therefore, in compliance with the CAP and City guidance, projects
that exceed the GHG emission screening threshold must prove compliance with the CAP by
detailing the applicable sustainability initiatives that the project would include that will lead to
reductions in project-level GHGs and quantify those reductions.
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project's annual GHG emissions would exceed the 900
annual MT screening threshold. Therefore, the project applicant has developed a project specific
GHG emissions reduction program (Table 4) that details the proposed project's consistency
with the stated goals of the CAP and the project's applicability with those goals.
r City of Carlsbad
17
C
e
C
C
e
C
C
e • e
C
C
e
e
e
e
e
C • e • • e
C
e
e
C
e • e • e
C
C • e
C
C
C
C • • e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Table4
C . t ons1s ency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Reduction Measures
GHG Reduction Measures Project Applicability
Promote commercial and city facility Implement 3rd party "enhanced" commissioning, or improving building
operations commissioning.
Implementation of Green Building Code The project will follow all applicable
Green Building Codes.
Replace Incandescent bulbs with light emitting All lighting will be LED. diodes (LED) bulbs
Promote Transportation Demand Management A Transportation Demand Management
Plan has been Implemented
Infrastructure provisions for EV charging
Increase zero-emissions vehicle travel stations will be provided. Charging
stations will be provided if deemed
necessary by customer demand.
Included. The project will reduce GHG
emissions associated with water use by
Reduce the GHG intensity of water supply utilizing high efficiency fixtures, low
conveyance, treatment and delivery water use irrigation, and no irrigation
artificial turf where applicable. Recycled
water for irrigation will be implemented
where allowable by code.
Utilize public transportation Facility will be 0.01 miles from a bus
station .
The project will create a hotel near the
Increase diversity existing theme park, reducing the
number of trips taken from other farther
away hotel options.
r City of Carlsbad
18
C
C
C:
e
C
e .,
C
C
I!
e
e
C
e
e
e • C
e • • e
e
C
e
e
e
e • e
e
e
C
C • e
C
C
C
e • e
e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
The project will be located on a site Urban Infill previously developed with a parking lot.
Parking Reduction The project will reduce parking spaces
resulting in a 6% decrease in VMT.
Promote commercial and city facility commissioning, or improving building operations
The project will implement advanced commissioning of the completed facility to ensure that all
HV AC systems and lighting controls are functioning as intended. Commissioning of large
buildings such as hotels has been shown to reduce overall energy consumption by as much as
13% in new buildings (Evan Mills. 2009).
Implementation of Green Building Code
The project will follow all requirements laid out by Title 24. Title 24 requires buildings meet
strict guidelines for water conservation, construction waste diversion, and energy efficiency.
Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory and has been included in the City's "modified baseline".
Replace Incandescent bulbs with light emitting diodes (LED) bulbs
The proposed project would utilize LED lighting throughout in order to reduce both electricity
consumption and cooling loads. Because LED's use up to 55% less electricity than comparable
standard bulbs, they also significantly reduce the heat produced and therefore, the cooling
loads of the building.
Promote Transportation Demand Management
The project will implement a rigorous transportation demand management plan. The plan will
provide incentives for employees to use alternative transportation methods other than single
occupancy vehicles which will in turn reduce overall VMT and associated emissions. The
following TOM methods will be implemented at the site:
• Employee carpool parking spaces close to theme park entrance
• Shuttle service between local hotels and LEGOLAND
• School bus drop-off and parking area near theme park entrance
• Pedestrian entrance from Grand Pacific Resort, and private entrance from Sheraton Carlsbad
• Subsidized meals for employees to discourage trips to restaurants
• Free meals to employees on holidays and busiest days of the year
• Bike racks, lockers and showers for employees
• On-site services for existing hotel guests (restaurants, rental car services, concierge services);
Increase zero-emissions vehicle travel
Provisions will be included in the plan to allow for the installation of electric vehicle charging
stations as demand from guests increases.
r City of Carlsbad
19
e
e
C
e
C
e
e
C
e
e
e
e
C
C
C
e • • e • e
e
C
C • e
e
e • • • • e
e
C • • • • • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Reduce the GHG intensity of water supply conveyance, treatment and delivery
The project will reduce GHG emissions associated with water use by utilizing high efficiency
fixtures, low water use irrigation, and no irrigation artificial turf where applicable. Reducing the
amount of water consumed will reduce GHG emissions associated with transporting, cleaning,
and finally treating wastewater. Furthermore, the facility will utilize recycled water for
irrigation as allowable by code.
Utilize public transportation
The project is located within close proximity (0.01 miles) to public transportation. This siting
allows park visitors to take public transit instead of driving their own vehicles and therefore
reducing overall VMT and emissions.
Increase diversity
The project will provide 250 hotel rooms in close proximity to the existing Legoland resort.
Visitors to the park will be able to stay at these hotels rather than hotels located farther from the
resort and therefore reduce the number of trips required daily. This close proximity reduces the
projects overall VMT and associated emissions .
Urban Infill
The project will be located on an existing parking lot. Infill development helps increase density,
protect greenspace, and reduce VMT .
Parking Reduction
The project will be built on top of an existing parking lot and will result in a net reduction of 640
parking spaces. Therefore, it is assumed the project will have a 6 % trip reduction due to a
decrease in parking spaces.
Mitigated Project Emissions
The estimated mitigated emissions for the project were run using CalEEmod. The following
mitigation measures were taken into account using the model:
• 25 % water use reduction
• LED lighting
• Optional transportation demand management plans open to 100% of employees
• Increased diversity
• Parking reductions
• Distance to public transportation
• Assumed 50% waste diversion
Some reduction measures such as building commissioning and future electric charging stations
were not included in the assessment. However, these attributes are expected to further decrease
emissions. Furthermore, compliance with current Title 24 was applied to both the unmitigated
and mitigated scenario due to the fact that the CalEEMod only includes 2008 Title 24 as a
default. Table 5 shows the estimated GHG emissions associated with the project after the
inclusion of the above described mitigation measures .
r City of Carlsbad
20
• e
C
C
C
e • C
C
r-
e
C
C
C
e
C • e
C
I)
C
C
C
C
e
e
e
e
C; • C
e
C • e
e
C • C) • • • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Table 5
Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual GHG Emissions
MT of C02e/year
Construction 21.9 (amortized over 30 years)
Operational
Area 0
Energy 2,204
Solid Waste 31
Water 36
Mobile
C02andCH4 1,119
N20 51
Total 3,463
Sources: See Appendix for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
Note: All numbers may not add due to rounding.
The projects greenhouse gas mitigation measures would reduce overall emissions from an
estimated 4,439 MT of C02e to an estimated 3,463 MT of C02e. This represents a reduction of
976 MT of C02e or approximately 22%. A majority of these emissions were saved through a
reduction of 1,442,281 vehicle miles traveled. VMT reduction was achieved through the location
of the project, a reduction in parking spaces, and an optional transportation demand
management program for employees. Additional reductions were achieved through a reduction
in water use (5%) and implementation of energy saving technologies such as LED lighting
(12 % ) . Additional reductions from building commissioning are expected to result in an
additional 13 % decrease in building energy consumption.
By reducing GHG emissions through a variety of techniques including TDM, LED lighting, site
selection, and water efficiency, the proposed project has shown compliance with the emissions
reductions goals outlined in the CAP and the draft CAP checklist. By complying with all State
ordinances such as Title 24, the project has shown that it will not detract from the City of
Carlsbad's ability to meet the goals set forth by AB32. Furthermore, the project has included
additional GHG reduction measures which will help further the goals of the City as they
continue to work towards post 2020 emissions reductions. Therefore, the project is expected to
have a less than significant impact .
r City of Carlsbad
21
e ,,,,. -C • C
C
t..:
C
C ..
C
e
C
C • e
C
e
e • • e • e • C
f'
C
C
e
C
e
e • e
C • e
C • e • •
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2010. Updated CEQA Guidelines.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing
Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures, August 2010 .
California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory -2015 Edition. June
2015. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking,
Public Hearing to Consider the "LEV III" Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and
Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the
On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and
Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. December 7, 2011. Retrieved from:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/20l2/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2020 BAU Forecast, Version: May 27, 2014. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/ inventory/ data/ tables/ 2020_bau_forecast_by _scoping_cate
gory _2014-05-22. pdf
California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan Website. Updated June 2014. Accessed
September, 2014. Available:http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Frequently Asked Questions About Executive Order B-
30-15. April 2015. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/2030 carbon target adaptation faq.pdf
California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009.
California Climate Change Center. Climate Scenarios for California. 2006.
California Climate Change Center. The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. May 2009.
California Department of Water Resources. October 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate
Change Adaption Strategies for California's Water .
California Energy Commission. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and
Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. March 2009 .
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Climate Action Team Biennial Report.
Final Report. April 2010.
r City of Carlsbad
22
-Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
~ California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), March 2006. Climate Action Team Report
C: to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
C
C
C
C
C
e
C
C
C
C
C
e
e
C
C
C • • e
e
e
e
e
e
California Natural Resources Agency. December 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaption Strategy.
City of Carlsbad, Climate Action Plan, September, 2015.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M.
Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, 0., R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S.
Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Annual Greenhouse Gas Index.
September 2010, updated 2014. Accessed September 2014. Retreived from:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ gmd/ aggi/ aggi.html.
Parmesan, C. August 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide,
prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation. February 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Tables A9-11-A and
A9-12-A, November 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold
Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15: "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds -
Option 1", September 2010 .
Udall, Brad. "Recent Research on the Effects of Climate Change on the Colorado River," in
Intermountain West Climate Summary (May 2007) [Appendix 0, Exhibit 7) (citing N.
Christensen and D.P. Lettenamair, "A Multi.model Ensemble Approach to Assessment of
r City of Carlsbad
23
C
C ,,... -C
C
C
C
e
e
e
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
e
e
e • e
e
e
C
e
e
C
C
e
e
e
e
C,
C
e
C
e
Legoland Hotel Project
Greenhouse Gas Study
Oimate Change Impacts on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River
Basin," Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussion 3:1-44 (2006).
United Nations (n.d.). November 2011. Gateway to the United Nations Systems Work on Climate
Change: Durban conference delivers breakthrough in international community's response to
climate change. Accessed September 2014. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2011/12/durban-climate-conference-
delivers-breakthrough/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). August 2007. United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (November 2011). Outcome of the
work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the
Kyoto Protocol at its sixteenth session.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. March 15, 2012. Report of the
Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11
December 2011.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. December 12, 2015. Adoption of the
Paris Agreement. Accessed at
https: // unfccc.int/ resource/ docs/ 2015 / cop21/ eng/109r01.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014. U.S. EPA #430-R-11-005. April 2016. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/ emissions/ usinventoryreport.html
Worland, J. December 12, 2015. What to Know About the Historic 'Paris Agreement' on Climate
Change. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/ 4146764/paris-agreement-climate-cop-
21 /
World Meteorological Organization. March 2013. A summary of current and climate change
findings and figures.
r City of Carlsbad
24
C
e
C
C
C
C:
e
C
C
e
C
C
C
e
C
C
C
e
C
e
C
C
e
C c Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results
C
C
e
C
e
e
C • e
e
e
e
C:
C
C
C
e
• CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
• • 1.0 Project Characteristics
Land Usage
Land Uses
Hotel
• 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Size
250.00
.Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban Wind Speed (mis)
13 • • Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric
CO2 Intensity 720.49 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
.1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
.Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
• Vehicle Trips -8 trips per room as stated in the traffic study
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
.Area Mitigation -Low voe paints
Energy Mitigation -
.Water Mitigation -
Waste Mitigation -
Mobile Commute Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name
2.6
0.029
Page 1 of 1
Legoland
San Diego County, Annual
Metric Lot Acreage
Room
Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Default Value
8.33
40
2014
0.006
New Value
tblAreaMitigation i UselowVOCPaintNonresidentialExterioj 250 100
Date: 6/2/2016 7:09 PM
Floor Surface Area
363,000.00
···············,iiiilreiiM·1,iiiii11ci;;·······················t0.E!-cciwv6EPai~~~~~~esi<ieniiii"i"inie.:iort ··················· ············2so·························· ······t······· ······1·00············· .. ···············
----.. ······················ .................... : ............................... \/~h,fA ............................... : ........................................................................... : .................................................................. . tblAreaMitigation I UselowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorV I 250 · 100
·······················,iiiilreaMiiiiia110n··········•··········· f useCciwv6EPain~~~iciii"niiii11niii",:;o;vail ··•···· ··················2sii"···•················ . ························1 ao······························
............................................................................. ~ .................................... llq .................................. J ............................................................................ ; ................................................................. ..
tblVehicleTrips . ST_ TR . 8.19 ' 8.00
···············t·biVeh·(c·1eTrips·· ······················t··············· ···········--·su~rR····· ···········i ··························· ...... 5. 95 ··········· ······•···· ··················•·· .... s~oo······
tblVehicleTrips
2.0 Emissions Summary
• 2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction •
Mitigated Construction • •
WD_TR i 8.17 i 8.00
Population
0
11,759
• •
• 2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational •
. ' . .
Energy ii 0.1191 ! 1.0828 ! 0.9095 i,, 6.5000e-! :,, 0.0823 i.: 0.0823 !,, ! 0.0823 i. 0.0823 i, 0.0000 :: i . ' 003 j 0.0923····: 0.0360 2.922.6688
Mobile ji 1.4326 t 2.9147 t 13.5322 ! 0.0210 t 1.4285 t 0.0395 f 1.4680 . 0.3820 i 0.0363 0.4183 i ·o:····· ss:iff. ···o:iiiiii"i°···!····o:oooo···(·············1-:rsii."1646·············
0.0000 i 62.2689 Waste :: : i : i j 0.0000 · 0.0000 j ! 0. : ... o.·oooo
Waler :: ' ; : ............. ; ................. i° .. 0.0000 .. (· 0.0000 ···'.-················-'. ... 0.0000 ···:,···· 0.0000··••;, ·:to... .. ... 566 .. r .. ·o:207s .... (s:1:iiiiie'. .. f" .............. 37:s·100 .............. ..
g j
1.6421
• Mitigated Operational •
Area , 005 ! 1. 005 . 005 ' 005 005 ! 4.~3 005
Energy ! 0.0948 ! 0.8615 j 0.7236 ! 51;~ ! i 0.0655 ' 0.0655 i : 0.0655 l 0. 0000 ! 2. 1~.110 j2. 194.11001 0.0685 ! 0.0277 i 2.204.1225
Mobile ii 1.2812 i 2.0259 i 10.3068: 0.0134 0.8863·T··o:ii2sg····· 0.9122 ! 0.2370 0.0237 .0000 j 1.11~.41811.117.4182! 0.0600 0.0000 1.118.6774
Waste ···r··· ···········•···· ... ······t·········· .. ·····: ···+ ················r-o.0000·· i .(i:iiiiiiii···l ··+··0.0000 ·+· 0.0000 ··i"iss21·r··a:oooo···j····1i·i1!i':i"i ·j .. ··o:ii2·io· i o.oooo···t········ 31.1344
Waler ii ·············:··················'·················! ~ 0.0000 ' 0.0000 i ' 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 2.01 19 i 27.9685" 29.9804+··0:201s· ! 5.~~~ i 35.9283
.3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase • • •
! Demolition ·············.····· .................. Tsii~ Preparatio~... iSite Preparation !1/28/2017 . 10: .................................................. ..
jGrading !Grading ................ 'f21i112011 ............ !3/10/20fr° ............ ! .................. 5f ................ 20( ............................................................ .
.................... i ............................................................... j ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i .............................. .i ................................ j ...........•......... l ..................... ; ............................................ .
!Building Construction !Building Construction ?11/2017 ! 1/26/2018 : 5j 230!
jPaving !Paving j1/27/2018 j2123/2018 5j 201
)Architectural Coating !Architectural Coating .......... \2124/2018 ........... i3i23/20.i'ii° ........... , •si ................ 201 ................ ..
• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
.Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Residential Indoor: O; Residential Outdoor: O; Non-Residential Indoor: 544,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 181,500 (Architectural Coating -sqft)
ype Amount Usage Hours Horse ower Load actor
jAir Compressors 1 ( 6.00j 78( 0.4 ································· t Excavators ········i· 3i 8.001 ····· 162(........ 0.3
..................................... .l~~.~~~t~/·l·~~.~--~·a·l·~·3.:~ .................. .J........... . .. 11. . ....... 8.:~1................... 81 ! .......................... ~ .. 7. ..
) Excavators ; 1 i 8.00\ 162\ 0.3
............... i6~~;;-; .................................................... t........ 1 ! 1.00[ 226t 0.2
tForklifts ! _______ 3\ 8.ooi ......... 89t 0.2
......................................................................... .'.~~".~'.3.t.°.r .. 5.~.~ .................................... :.... ............................ 1 I........................ : 84j 0.1
2 125\ 0.4 .......................................................................... .. ................................................. t............ 2i 8.ool aot o.3
..................................... ! Rubber Tired Dozers ....... r....... .. ........... 2!· 8.oo! ....... 2ssi"' ........................ 0 .. 4 ..
trading ! Rubber Tired Dozers ! 1 i a.ooi 255i 0.4
s·u1ici;;;·ii·cci·ri.iii:iciiori··············· ................... tr,aciors1Loacie·raisaci<'iicies·· ·········jj·........... 1.ool 91i ....................... oj··
rading tGraders ____ t 1j 8ooi mt 0.41
............... tr,acio~siloaders/Backhoes.. ·t•· .. . 3\ .... . . ... 8.oo! 97t 0.3
, .. avlng ·············•······· ....................... ······•·· .. · .. 1Paving. Eq.~i~:~~'. ................................................................. ..
Site Preparation ?ractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1Rubber Tired Dozers T 3\
1welders t 11
800\
800!
.. ............. 130: .. .
97j
Wo,ker Vehicle
Class
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
......................... 1! 18.ooi o.oo! o.oof 1ii:sor 7.3ot 20.oojLD_Mix tHoT_Mix IHHDT
Grading 1 61 15.oo[ o.ool o.oot 10.801 7.3 20.ooko_Mix !HDT_Mix iHHDT
lding Construction ) .. if 152.ooi 59.00[ 0.OOj 10.80j 7.3 , 20.oo!LD_Mix jHDT_Mix jHHDT
ing i 6! 15.00[ ................. ifoof... 0.00\ 10.80i 7.30i 20.00!LD_Mix iHDT_Mix iHHDT
itectural Coating l .......... i.i 30.ooi .............. ii:oi{ o.oot .......... fo:soJ" ................. 7jor....... 20 oojLD_Mix ........... \ii:r(Mi~ ....... :.H·HDT .. .
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction • a.2 Demolition -2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
• •
NOx co 502 F:;.;.: I m I PM10 PM10 PM10 Tallll
,:;.;.:
PM2.5
CUI N20 C02a
•
• • •
ated Construction Off-Site
Hauling
Vendor
Worker
!,.:.,;.·: 0.0000 : 0.0000 l 0.0000 r 0.0000 : 0.0000 1
s s.84ooe-11.0000e-\
• Mitigated Construction On-Site •
•
• Mitigated Construction Off-Site •
Unmitigated Construction On-Site •
• •
t 0.0000 ! 0.0000
· 1.0000e-; 3.3000e-i 0.0000 i .. ,.01n ... : .... ,.0111"·' ·s.ooooe-·["ii.oooo ... ' .................. i.:01ea
005 004 005 '
. ............... .
.................
• .· 0.0138 .............................................................................................. 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 18.1577 18.1577
• • Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
. i 1 . : : I : ~1~1~1~t~1~r~'~t~i~1~1~1 ~
· i 3 7000e-. 3 SOOOe-i 1.0000e-i 7.2000e-i 1.0000e-i 7.3000e-i 1.9000e-! 0.0000 0.6466 0.6466 : 3.00008-i 0.0000 ; 0.6473 I =!= ~:=!~-~ =!
.Mitigated Construction On-Site •
•
0.0242 ..o.2sas ···i o.1e10 t 2.0000e-i ····+ 0.013s i, ··o:01·3e···t·············
i ~ i :
auling '
0.0127 --·y 0.0000. ! 18.1577 1 18.1577
: . :
5.5600e-t 0.0000····;,
003 ! 18.2745
Vendor ~ 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ! 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000
Worker fi 2.BOOOe-l 3.7000e-l 3.SOOOe-1 1.0000e-l 7.2000e-l 1.0000e-; 7.3000e-l 1.9000e-l 0.0000 1 2.0000e-i 0.0000 l 0.6466 / 0.6466 l 3.0000e-1 0.0000 0.6473""'"" ......
jj ~'~\003\005 '004 ·005·~,~, :~· · · ·005\
Unmitigated Construction On-Site •
• •
.. 0.0000 ···:··· 27. 7893
• •
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site •
Hauling
g l : = : • . \ = 1 .
0.0000 Vendor !! 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 l 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 0.0000 '. 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 i
·········worke;··········~·-·.i",·7000;··1··s:2000;··! .. s:54oo;·f ··1·.-~:·t·1:2ooo;:··(1:oooo;:··1··iiiOOe:·t··i2000e:··1···················~············,---+--c-o."'ooc:007 +··i·o·-;:;-7 .. ·f 1.0777 i 5.00008-t 0.0000 ! 1.0788
1~ ~·-:• -1•·-~1 •1
•
: :
0.0346 0.3598 3.00008-: ~· ; o.02CJ.4 : o.02CJ.4 : i 0.0188 i 0.0188 ; 0.0000 , 21.6111 : 21.6111 : 8.4600e-: 0.0000 : ; ' 003 ; .
27.7893···············
• ated Construction Off-Site •
j • 1 l 0.0000 j 0.0000 t 0.0000 j 0.0000 ··············t 0.0000 l 0.0000 i 0.0000
Worker ~ u:-162:-i s~~•-1 1=-i 12::·····i1·· c1.·:oa-ccc
5
c····•j;, ... ,.c·,cc·:····,··.c·c;:cc·.
:: : : : :
ota
.5 Building Construction • 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
• •
ated Construction Off-Site
f 0.0000 t 0.0000 ! 0.0000
' 0.0000 i 1.0788
• •
•
• •
•
auhng
Vendor ii 0.0645 i 0.5410 i 0.8011 i 1.4700e-i 0.0403 i 7.7400e-i 0.0480 i 0.0115 0.0187 i 0.0000 : 131 .3959: 131.3959: 9.9000e-: 0.0000 ' 131.4167
ii ' '003 '003 i ' ' ' ' '004i
Worker i. 0.0496 I 0.0657 I 0.6213 t 1.5~~-: 0.1280 l 9·=--1 0.1289 + 0.0340 i 8.8~ r 0.0349 t 0.0000 ? 114.6624: 114.6624: 5.8300e-l 0.0000 ! 114.7849
:: : : : :
itigated Construction Off-Site
: :
0.0645 I 0.5410 I 0.8011 f ,~~ I 0.0403 : 7 7~~--!
0.0496 . 0.0657 : 0.6213 i 1.5700e-: 0.1280 : 9.5000e-i
[ j 003 j
0.0480 l
0.1289 !
\ 1.1200e-r 0.0151 t 0.0000 r 131.3959 i 131.3959 ! 9.9000e-o.oooii ... ( ............. i':j;·:4151
003 ' ' ; ; 004 ;
: 0.0000 : 114.6624 j 114.6624 j 5.8300e-0.0000 : 114.7849
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
•
• •
•
ated Construction Off-Site
I ROG IJ& &I S02 FuoL I rm I PM10 PM10 PM10 Tollll ™ PM2.5
rm
PM2.5
6H4 N20 &m
•
• • Mitigated Construction On-Site
•
•Mitigated Construction Off-Site •
. ' . . ~ 5_1100e-i o.04s5 l 0.0129 t 1.4000e-l 3.8400e-s.8000e-! 4.5200e-T 1.1000e-l s.3oooe-1 1.1300e-f 0.0000 t 12.2989 ! 12.2989 t 9.ooooe-0.0000 ---------------··12_3009··············· •i i i= a =i•i•i=. a ' i ·~
::···:··············ii···:··cccce-\ 5.7100e-\ 0.0535 \ 1.5000e-\ 0.0122 \ 9.0000e-\ 0.0123 \ 3.2400e-\ 8.0000e-\ 3.3200e-' 0.0000 ' 10.5102 \ 10.5102 ! 5.2000e-0.0000 I ········10.5210···············
003'003 1 1 =1 '005' 003' . ' '
nmitigated Construction On-Site •
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site • ~ = i:1:1.:1:1=~:1:1:1:i::1::~:;1~:1 : I
...... ... . .. <... ............... · ................ ) ... ···-········ -.......... ······'···············...i. .............................. • ................................ '· ....... ·-·' ---···· .................. :................... ....... ···--. • •
• 0.0000 Vendor ~ 0.0000 j 0.0000 ! 0.0000 i 0.0000 · 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 l 0.0000
n 4.2000e-i ··s:oooo;··:··s:2e00e-T········ ........ t· . . . .. ·t ............... I ••• • •••• ···1' i2000e-~ 1.0000e-r
0.0000 : 0.0000
1
0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 ! 0.0000 .
··········•···o·oooo---r····roii'i' .; .. ·i':o:i12 · 1 sooo0e:t--ii'oooo ----,--1.7o3~s3· ·· · ···· ·
~004 \004'003! ' 005
.Mitigated Construction On-Site •
• Mitigated Construction Off-Site •
auling
0.0000 j 0.0000 i ···o.0000···+ 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ······t··················-0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ··t .. 0.0000 ···! 0.0000 Vendo,·········t··o:iiiioo···-i-0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000···•
Woriter g 4.2000e-1 5.6000e-1 s.2800e-j --i·-:;:2000e::+:;:0000e:·t·1.2100e-i 3.2000e:··j . 3.3000e:·: ·· 0.0000 ; 1.0372 ! 1.0372 ! 5.0000e-! 0.0000 j 1.0383
~ 004 i 004 i 005 i 003 004
Unmitigated Construction On-Site •
. : :
...... ; ................... ; ••••.••.•.......... ~ ......•.....•..•.. ; .....•......•••... ; .•.....•........... ; .................. .; .................. j ......................•....•................. i 1.5100e-i 1.5100e-i 0.0000 i 2.5533 i 2.5533 i 2.4000e-i 0.0000 i 2.5584
003 003 004 i
• Unmitigated Construction Off-Site •
: : : : ··········v.iido;··········r: 0.0000 I 0.0000 .. , ··o·.oooo··r 0.0000 I 0.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ! 0.0000 f 0.0000 l 0.0000 !
Worl<er g 8.5000e-! 1.1300e-! 0.0106 i 3.0000e-i 2.4100e-i 2.0000e-! 2.4200e-! 6.4000e-! 2.0000e-! 6.6000e-.. 0.0000 2.0744 2.0744 i 1.0000e-! 0.0000
• •
... J ....... ~ _..: 003 1 ............... ~ ...... ()()~ ...... :. 003 · O()~·····L····0()·3······~······~···· .: 005. ... : ..... °.04 . .. ....... . ............... . ............ 004 . ..! ........................ .
0.0000
2.0765
Total I •·:f 11·~ I o.o\oe 0.0000 2.0fU 2.07!U O.W 2.070
• Mitigated Construction On-Site •
1.5100e-i 1.5100e-t 0.0000 i 2.5533 i 2.5533 r 2.4000e-t 0.0000 r 2.5584
003 003 . 004 '
.Mitigated Construction Off-Site •
auhng
··········v.~do~········l··o.oooo ! 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 r 0.0000 . .' .... 0.0000····!··· 0.0000 . ..i. .. o.~ .... :
Worker g 8.50000-i 1.1300e-i 0.0106 i 3.0000e-i 2.41000-! 2.0000e-i 2.4200e-i 6.4000e-i 2.0000e-i · 0.0000 2.0744 2.0744 · 1.0000e-i 0.0000
H004 \oo3 \005 ·003 ·005\003·004 :oos ! 004'
4.0 Operational Detail -Mobile
.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ncrease Diversity
.Increase Transit Accessibility
Limit Parking Supply
.mplement Trip Reduction Program
Provide Riade Sharing Program • •
~~~ I 1. . .
0.0000
2.0765
Unmitigated TI 1.4326 i 2.9147 \ 13.5322 T 0.0210 1 1.4285 i 0.0395 ! 1.4680 T 0.3820 i 0.0363 1 0.4183 T 0.0000 11.756.913 1.756.9132! 0.0882 + 0.0000 ! 1,758.7646 g i . ! . . . . ' . . . 2
• .2 Trip Summary Information
Land Use
Hotel
Total 3,799,862
4.3 Trip Type Information • • •
2,357,580
•
•s.o Energy Detail
4.4 Fleet Mix
.Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
.Install High Efficiency Lighting
•
LH 1
0.037177!
" Peas-by
4
MH
0.00346
5
i i i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 1.730.834!1,730.8348! 0.0697 i 0.0144 i 1.736.7661 , i i , i , 8 ! ! ! i Unmitigated
NaturalGes
Mitigated
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0948
1
0.8615 I 0.7236 t 5.~~-· I 0.0655 I 0.0655 t
1
0.0655 t 0.0655 ~ 0.0000 : 937.8016: 937.8016 1 0.0180 0.0172 : 943.5089
0.1191 i 1.0828 i 0.9095 t 6.5000e-i 0.0823 j 0.0823 i i 0.0823 j 0.0823 + 0.0000 t 1,178.729\1.178.7292! 0.0226 . 0.0216 ' . 1,185.9027 ........ . i i 003 i i i i ! 2 .
.5.2 Energy by Land Use -NaturalGas
Unmiti ated •
• • Mitigated •
•
• •
• •
•
• Mitigated •
•s.o Area Detail
• 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
•
Use Low VOC Paint -Residential Interior
Use Low voe Paint -Residential Exterior
Use Low voe Paint -Non-Residential Interior
Use Low voe Paint -Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
.Use Low voe Cleaning Supplies • • ~
: : :
Unmitigated 1.8386 i 2~ j 2~-i 0.0000 i j 1~: 1~ i ! 1~: 1~-0.0000 I 4~~ i 4~~ i 1~ i 0.0000 i 4.7500e-003
•
•
6.2 Area by Subcategory
Unmitigated
. . .
~:~:,:· 1.4177 ··r··············+ ···T···············t ·······• 0.0000 t 0.0000 !·· • 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 ·+ 0.0000 i 0.0000 l 0.0000 t 0.0000
4.7500e-003 Landscaping II 2.4000e-i 2.0000e-: 2.4000e-: 0.0000 : ! 1.0000e-! 1.0000e-! I 1.0000e-i 1.0000e-I 0.0000 I 4.4700e-i 4.4700e-i 1.0000e-i 0.0000 i
................. ~. ~ .. L .... I)()~······~· . O()~ ... :. .. . ....... : ................. , .... ()()5. .... i ..... 005······:· ............. ~ ...... 1)()5. ...... : ....... 1)()~ : ............... : .... ·1)()·3····· : ....... I)()~······: ...... ()()5. .. ....1 .................. : ............................................ .
• •
• 9 Total
•Mitigated •
• 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
•
Apply Water Conservation Strategy
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
nstall Low Flow Toilet
.Install Low Flow Shower
•
8.0000
31 .5566 .. 0.2078 \ 5.1300e-( 37.5100
• • 7.2 Water by Land Use
• Unmitigated
• • • Mitigated
. 003 (
......................................................................................... ,.,., ..................... .
•
4.71oo..&i3
• §:-' __ '0_111_, _____ l __ a_.w ___ a_.20_,_•...,l _; __ 1:_:=_..,l _s_; __ n_._.s I
• 8.0 Waste Detail
.8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
.Institute Recycling and Composting Services • Category/Year •
• 8.2 Waste by Land Use
.Unmitigated •
• Mitigated •
•
• 9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
e 10.0 Vegetation
• • • • •
Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet
N20 Mob/le Emissions
From URBEMIS 2007 Vehicle Fleet Mix Output:
Annual VMT: 2,357,580
Percent
VehicleT"""' Tv""
Light Auto 46.0%
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 10.3%
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.2%
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.2%
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 2.1%
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5%
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0%
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 2.9%
Other Bus 0.1%
Urban Bus 0.1%
Motorcycle 1.1%
School Bus 0.1%
Motor Home 0.4%
Total 100.0°/4
Total Emissions (metric tons)=
VG Prop lnvstmnts New Med Ofc Bldg
N;tU
CH4 Emission
CH4 Emission Emission Factor
Factor la/milel* la/milel** In/mile)*
0.04 0.0184 0.04
0.05 0.00515 0.06
0.05 0.0116 0.06
0.12 0.01464 0.2
0.12 0.00252 0.2
0.09 0.00045 0.125
0.06 0.0006 0.05
0.06 0.00174 0.05
0.06 0.00006 0.05
0.06 0 00006 0.05
0.09 0 00099 0.01
0.06 0 00006 0.05
0.09 0.00036 0.125
0.05663
Emission Factor by Vehicle Mix (g{mil x Annual VMT(mll x 0.000001 metric tons/g
N20
Emission
lnlmilel**
0.0184
0.00618
0.01392
0.0244
0.0042
0.000625
0.0005
0.00145
0.00005
0.00005
0.00011
0.00005
0.0005
0.070435
Conversion to Carbon Dioxide Equivalency (C02e) Units based on Global Warming Potential (GWP)
CH4 21 GWP
N2O 310 GWP
1 ton (short, US)= 0.90718474 metric ton
Annual Mobile Emissions:
Total Emissions Total C02e units
N20 Emissions: 0.1661 metric tons N2O 51.48 metric tons CO2e I Project Total: 51.48 metric tons C02e
References
• from Table C.4: Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for Mobile Sources by Vehicle and Fuel Type (g/mile).
in California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009 .
Assume Model year 2000-present, gasoline fueled.
•• Source: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009 .
••• From URBEMIS 2007 results for mobile sources
• • • • • • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet
N20 Mobile Emissions
From URBEMIS 2007 Vehicle Fleet Mix Output:
AnnualVMT: 3,799,862
Percent
Vehicle Tune Type
Light Auto 46.0%
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 10.3%
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 23.2%
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.2%
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 2.1%
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5%
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0%
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 2.9%
Other Bus 0.1%
Urban Bus 0.1%
Motorcycle 1.1%
School Bus 0.1%
Motor Home 0.4%
Total 100.0%
Total Emissions (metric tons) =
VG Prop lnvstmnts New Med Ofc Bldg
IIUU
CH4 Emission
CH4 Emission Emission Factor
Factor la/mile\* la/milel** In/mile)*
0.04 0.0184 0.04
0.05 0.00515 0.06
0.05 0.0116 0.06
0.12 0.01464 0.2
0.12 0.00252 0.2
0.09 0.00045 0.125
0.06 0.0006 0.05
0.06 0.00174 0.05
0.06 0.00006 0.05
0.06 0.00006 0.05
0.09 0.00099 0.01
0.06 0.00006 0.05
0.09 0.00036 0.125
0.05663
Emission Factor bv Vehicle Mix (glmll x Annual VMT(mll x 0.000001 metric tons/a
N20
Emission
/a/mile)**
0.0184
0.00618
0.01392
0.0244
0.0042
0.000625
0.0005
0.00145
0.00005
0.00005
0.00011
0.00005
0.0005
0.070435
Conversion to Carbon Dioxide Equlvalency (C02e) Units based on Global Warming Potential (GWP)
CH4 21 GWP
N2O 310 GWP
1 ton (short, US)= 0.90718474 metric ton
Annual Mobile Emissions:
Total Emissions Total C02e units
N20 Emissions: 0.2676 metric tons N2O 82.97 metric tons CO2e I Project Total: 82.97 metric tons C02e
References
* from Table C.4: Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for Mobile Sources by Vehicle and Fuel Type (g/mile).
in California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009 .
Assume Model year 2000-present, gasoline fueled.
** Source: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009 .
*** From URBEMIS 2007 results for mobile sources