ONWARD HISTORIC PRESERVATION! EXPLORING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION THROUGH LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA): A POLICY PERSPECTIVE by Terra Ettrick Wheeler A TERMINAL PROJECT Presented to the Historic Preservation Program , and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Historic Preservation Fall 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their support and love. Special thanks to my sister Kyra for her help with data presentation. In addition, my sincerest thanks to my committee members, Brian Rich, Erin Moore and Chris Bell. Brian's patient guidance was integral to my success. Thanks Chris for always having my back and being such an inspiration. And thanks to Baby Cat Dusty, Hell Beast and Lover of Life. • TERMINAL PROJECT APPROVAL PAGE Student: Terra Wheeler Title: Onward Historic Preservation! Exploring Environmental Impacts of New Construction Through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Policy Perspective This terminal project has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the • requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Historic Preservation program by: Christopher Bell : Chair Brian Rich: Member Erin Moore: Member Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts, Historic Preservation department. Degree awarded December 2016. 2 Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... .... .... ......... ..... ........ ......... ..... ...... ... ............... .......... ............ 1 TERMINAL PROJECT APPROVAL PAGE ... ..... ... ... ... .......... ....... ... .... ... .... .... .... ....... ..... . 2 Chapter I: Introduction ... ..... ...... ..... .... .......... .. ........ .. ...... ....... ....... .... ... .. ... ... ... .. ...... .. ... ........ 4 Preface ........... ... ... .......... ............. .... ..... ... .... .... .. .... ... ... ..... ........ .... ... ...... ... ... ............. ... .. ... 4 Overview .................... ........ ............... ...... ..... ........ .... ... .......... .... ...... ......... ... ....... .... ...... ... 5 Problem Statement .......... ........ ... .. .................. .. .. ..... .. ..... ..... ....... ... .. .... ... .... ..... ................ 7 Project Goals .... ...... ..... ............. .. .. .. ... .... .......... ...... .......... ... ....... ... ...... ... .. ... ... ..... ..... ........ 8 Research Methods ....... ................ ...... ...... ... ... ....... ... ... ................ ... ........ ... ..... .... ........ ...... 9 Chapter II: Policy Context .... ....... .... .......... .... ... .. ..... .... ....... .... .. ... ......... ... ........ ...... ... .. ..... . 11 Senate Bill 100: Thoughtful Land Use Planning .... ... ..... ....... ..... ... ....... .... .. ...... .... .. ... ... 11 Demolitions of Existing Buildings in Portland ... ... .... ......... ............. ....... ... .. ................. 15 Portland' s Commitment to Reducing Carbon Emissions .... ..... .......... .... ................. ..... 17 Chapter III: A Brief History of Sustainable Preservation ............... ... ... ... .. .. ...... .. .. .... ...... . 21 Environmentalism & Historic Preservation: Historical Overview ................ .. .. ........... 21 Chapter IV: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ...... ................. ..... .......... .... .. .. ........................ 25 Development & Application .............. ... ........ .. .. .... .... ..... ......... .. ................... ... ............. . 25 Historic Preservation and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Case Studies .. ................... .. 29 The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. A Report by Preservation Green Lab, National Trust for Historic Preservation .......... 29 Case Study 2: Parks Canada. ........ ...... .......... ... ........ .. ........ ... ................. ..... .. ... ... ..... .. 32 Chapter V: Sellwood: A Case Study Using LCA ............. ......... ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ................... 34 Single Family Demolition and Replacement at 8515 SE 21 st •• . •.. •.............. . ....• •.••.. ••...• 34 Athena Impact Estimator .. .... .... ........ ... .... ..... .. ... .. ..... .......... ............ .. ... ....... ... ... ........ 39 ISO 14044 ..... ........ .... .. .... ... .... ............... ........ ....... ..... ......... .. ..... ... ........ ............ ......... 40 Determination of the goal and scope ........ ..... ..... .......... ... .... .. .................. ... ... .... ..... ... 41 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis ... .......... ........... ................ ..... ...... .. .. ........ .. .... ............. 45 Life Cycle Impact Assessment.. .............. ... .... ......... ..... ....... ....... .............. ... ... .. .. ..... .. 47 Interpretation ....................... ......... .. .... ... ... ... ...... .... ........... ...... ......... .... ........ .............. 49 Application of Results ...................... ...... ..... ... .. ..... ... ....... ..... ... .......................... ...... .. 50 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ... .......................... .... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .... ............. 53 FUTURE RESEARCH .. ....... ............................ ... .. .... .. .... ....... ....................... ...... ...... .... .. . 55 APPENDIX .. .. ....... ........ ....... ....... .... ........... ........................... ..... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... ...... .. ......... 57 Glossary of Commonly Used Terms .. ..... ..... ........ .... .. ..... .. .... .. .... ............ ... ...... ..... ... .. .. ..... 82 3 • Chapter I: Introduction Preface The initial motivation for this project was the desire to root academic research and knowledge in practical application. After living in Portland, Oregon for ten years I began • to witness the destruction of historic resources in the inner Southeast Hosford - Abernethy neighborhood. Before this experience of demolitions, I was sheltered from the destruction of old buildings. I learned to appreciate the musty smell of an old basement and peeling paint at an early age. Growing up in Northampton, Massachusetts I was privileged to be protected from the devastation of demolition. Many years later after moving to Portland I fell in love with old buildings all over again. I began to question the contradiction between the city' s touted progressive policies and the destruction of existing buildings without consideration of the environmental impact. This project is an attempt to answer this long-held question; using scholarship to move from conceptual understanding to solidifying observations and experience through production of measurable impacts. 4 Overview The focus of this terminal project is to research and measure the environmental impact of demolitions of single-family homes in Portland through the lens of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is a method of estimating the life cycle impacts of a product, including the various processes used to process, manufacture, use and dispose of an item - in this context an entire building. This experiment is intended to create a standardized measurement of the carbon footprint that occurs as a result of demolition and associated new construction. The specific application is the approximately 400 demolitions of existing buildings that occurred in Portland, 2015 - 70% of which were single family homes 1 and the approximately 100 new single family homes that were built to replace them According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation Green Lab's report, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value ofB uilding Reuse, "additional research and analysis [is] needed to help comrmmities design and employ public-policy tools that will remove obstacles to building reuse. 2" Research conducted to inform policy has the potential to be a helpful tool for more effective preservation planning and advocacy. Data analysis and synthesis of accumulated data will yield results that will build upon existing knowledge, including several historic preservation case studies that utilize Life Cycle Assessment to assess carbon impacts of new construction. It is important to mention that the socio-cultural element of demolishing existing buildings is worthy of its own study. However, the scope of this work focuses on the connections between land use policies, carbon reduction and reuse of existing buildings. This 1 This number is based on original research conducted by the author. 2 Preservation Green Lab, National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value ofB uilding Reuse, p VW, 20 I I. 5 • research has the potential to influence policy decisions that will shape the sustainability of cities now and in the future, especially in the face of balancing pressures of development and reduction of carbon impacts . • 6 Problem Statement It is widely agreed that global warming and climate change are some of the biggest environmental challenges of the 2151 century. Global organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of scientists and policy makers who analyz.e climate change science and make recommendations, 3 have agreed that anthropogenic activities which generate heat trapping greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. 4 At the local level, individual cities are mobilizing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through creation of policies that promote buildings with low operational and material impacts relative to greenhouse gases. In Portland, Oregon, a city rich with a stock of existing buildings, approximately 400 existing buildings were demolished in 2015, 70% of which were wood framed single-family homes. 5 In the context of Portland' s policies to combat climate change at the local level , lack of information about carbon emission related impacts of demolitions and new construction is problematic. Data created from life cycle assessment impact analysis of new single- family homes that replace demolished existing single-family homes offers baseline information about the carbon footprint of new construction, which could inform current carbon reduction goals. 3 lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Introduction, December 2004, 4 Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather, 2007: Historical Overview ofC limate Change. [n: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report oft he 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), Chapter,Table 9.4. 5These figures are based on research of demolition permits issued in 2015 by the City of Portland Bureau of Development Services. 7 • Project Goals It is important to clarify specific intentions which guide this body of work. This terminal graduate project serves the purpose of three goals: I) Learn how to use Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to estimate the impacts of new construction. Explore the intersection of LCA and historic preservation. • 2) Discuss Oregon land use policies, including management of existing buildings within the City of Portland's Historic Preservation Plan, The Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Plan guide. Recommend potential policy adjustments based on original research and existing case studies that utilize LCA as a tool to advocate for reuse. 3) Assess the environmental value of new single-family residences using the Sellwood - Moreland neighborhood case study. Build on the findings of Preservation Green Lab report, "The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Reuse" which suggest that rehabilitation and reuse of existing buildings in Portland would help Portland meet its carbon reduction goals. 8 Research Methods Primary to the research methodology ohhis terminal project is analysis of Oregon's historic land use laws, Portland land use regulations, including historic preservation policies as well as review of demolition permits. The policy analysis included a review of the Portland Comprehensive Plan, Carbon Action Plan and the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973 (SB 100), Oregon' s seminal comprehensive planning legislation. I researched specific areas of overlap within these policies regarding management of existing buildings and historic resources; carbon reduction and demolitions in Portland. Demolition permits issued in 2015 by the City of Portland Bureau of Development Services were assessed for date of permit issue, address, building type. Additional information provided with demolition permits were also considered including drawings of existing buildings and plans for the new construction. Permits were organized by zip code to determine the neighborhood where the most demolitions occurred and from which the case study property was selected. Life Cycle Assessment modeling software Athena Impact Estimator v. 5 was utilized to process the impacts of new single-family home construction, the specific methodology of which is outlined in Chapter V Sell wood: A Case Study Using LCA. In the context of these environmental-based policies the impetus is to identify how the issue of demolition of existing buildings undermines the very goals of attaining a lighter environmental footprint. This issue is especially poignant when houses are demolished without a measurement of environmental impacts. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was chosen to make the seemingly "invisible" impacts visible through an avoided 9 impacts approach which analyzes the environmental impacts associated with new construction. Speaking the same language of professions closely related to the field of historic preservation is essential to strengthening relationships and working together towards a more sustainable future. Chapter II: Policy Context Senate Bill 100: Thoughtful Land Use Planning Oregon is known for its progressive land use planning policies. In 1973 Governor Tom McCall signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 100, a state-wide land use law which prioritized the natural environment including protection of forest and farm land from development. SB 100 created the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, in charge of carrying out the state law. The law was meant to protect livability and promote a high quality of life through state and local long term land use planning. Principles of SB 100 include: (A) Provide a healthy environment; (8) Sustain a prosperous economy; (C) Ensure a desirable quality oflife; and (D) Equitably allocate the benefits and burdens of land use planning. (b) Additionally, the land use program should, but is not required to, help communities achieve sustainable development patterns and manage the effects of climate change."6 This statewide planning law directed land use at the local level by mandating comprehensive planning. SB 100 defines a comprehensive plan as, "a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systerns." 7 Included in the 1973 legislation was a mechanism to contain sprawl called the Urban Growth Boundary, "a 60regon Revised Statutes, Vol. 5 State Government, Government Procedures, Land Use 19 7. 010 (2) in OregonLaw.;.org, accessed May 2016, http://www.oregonlaw.;.org/ors/ 197 .0 IO . 7 Oregon Revised Statutes, Vo l. 5 State Government, Government Procedures, Land Use Chapter 197 Comprehensive Land Use Planning I, accessed May 2016, https://www.oregonJaw.;.org/ors/ 197 .015. 11 land use planning line to control urban expansion onto farm and forest lands." 8 Metro is a directly elected regional planning agency that covers Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah counties, including 24 cities. This agency controls the growth of this boundary and manages long term development. 9 Every 6 years Metro publishes an "Urban Growth Report" to determine whether to expand the Urban Growth boundary. The report considers whether the existing available land inside the boundary can accommodate projected housing needs and employment growth for the next 20 years . 10 Last year in 2015 Metro chose not to expand the boundaries, concluding that enough land exists within the UGB to serve the needs of the growing Portland region. Population growth in the Portland regional area is a complex and multilayered issue that affects management of existing buildings in a number of different ways. According to Metro an additional 400,000 people will live in Portland region between 2015 and 2035 . 11 In order to meet the increase in population, redevelopment and infill provide needed development including housing and other amenities. Redevelopment is defined as , "development on a tax lot where the original structure has been demolished and there is a net increase in housing units." 12 Infill is, "development on a tax lot where the original structure has been left intact and the lot is considered developed." 13 In the • context of historic preservation, redevelopment has the most potential to adversely affect 8 Metro, Urban Growth Boundary: Overview, accessed May 2016 http:/ /www.oregonmetro.gov/urban- growth-boundary. 9Metro, What is Metro?, accessed May 2016, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/regional-leadership/what-metro 10Metro, 2014 Urban Growth Boundary Report, accessed November 2015, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-report. 11 Metro, Metro Guide 2015 Growth Management Decision, accessed November 2015, http: //www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/Growth-management-factsheet-20160115.pdf,2 . 12Metro, 2014 Urban Growth Boundary Report: Revised Draft, accessed November 2015, http: / /www.oregonmetro.gov/s ites/default/fil es/2014-urban-growth-report-Revised-Draft- FINAL. pdf, 7. 13fbid . 12 historic existing buildings and neighborhoods as it often involves demolition and replacement of existing residential and commercial buildings. The City of Portland' s Comprehensive Plan is a strategy to manage change and provide a vision of the city' s growth for the next 20 years. Challenges facing the city in addition to anticipated population growth include housing, transportation, infrastructure, equity, jobs and the myriad impacts of a changing climate. Within the Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan there are goals and objectives for climate change and protection of historic resources. In Chapter 7, "Environment & Watershed Health," Goal 7.A Climate has a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Connection between the built environment and climate, is stated in Goal 7.C: Resilience: "Portland ' s built and natural environments function in complementary ways and are resilient in the face of climate change and natural hazards ." Carbon reductions in the built environment are more specifically defined in Chapter 4: "Design and Development," which includes a goal to, " reduce carbon emissions and promote energy and resource efficient neighborhoods and buildings." 14 Under "Residential Areas" of chapter 4: Policy 4.17 Demolitions. Encourage alternatives to the demolition of sound housing, such as rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, especially affordable housing, and when new development would provide no additional housing opportunities beyond replacement. Policy 4.18 Compact single-family options. Encourage development and preservation of small resource-efficient and affordable single-family homes in all areas of the city. 15 14 Ibid. 15 City of Portland, 2035 Comprehens ive Plan - Chapter 4: Design Development, GP4-7. 13 Demolitions are also included in the Historic and Cultural Resources section of Design and Development chapter. This is important because the specific language used indicates a concern about the appropriate destruction of a historic resource: Policy 4 .50 Demolition. Protect historic resources from demolition. When demolition is necessary or appropriate, provide opportunities for public comment and encourage pursuit of alternatives to demolition or other actions that mitigate for the loss. 16 Policy 4.60 Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of buildings, especially those of historic or cultural significance, to conserve natural resources, reduce waste, and demonstrate stewardship of the built environment. 17 One way that the Comprehensive Plan executes its development plan is through zoning change management. While planning and zoning regulations coordinated with preservation ordinances and designation offer the strongest preservation protections, they can al so be the most destructive, "zoning laws can either encourage or undermine preservation activities." 18 In Portland changes in zoning are managed through the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) which also manages permitting for property use, including demolitions. According to BDS, "The Portland Zoning Code (Title 33) is intended to implement Portland ' s Comprehensive (or long-range) Plan and related land use plans in a manner that protects the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Portland." 19 Zoning regulations are applied to neighborhoods depending on their location and the projected use of an area. Zoning changes that support demolition of existing structures occur when more dense development becomes a priority. However, zoning intended to increase population density is not always the cause of demolitions as we see 16 Ibid., GP4- I 2 . 17 Ibid., GP4- I 3. 18 Robert E. Stipe, A Richer Heritage, The University ofNorth Carolina Press, 2003, 167 . 19City of Portland, Bureau of Development Services, Overview of the Zoning Code, accessed November 2015 , https: //www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/411725 . 14 later in the case study of a single family demolished in a R5 Zone, Single Dwelling Zone. Under Tile 33 , the purpose of a Single Dwelling Zone is, "to preserve land for housing and to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zones implement the comprehensive plan policies and designations for single-dwelling housing." 20 In this context single family homes can be demolished and replaced with other single family homes. Demolishing existing single-family homes, including those that have been identified as important historic resources has both socio-cultural and environmental implications. From a carbon impacts perspective, the embodied energy in both the existing single-family home and the larger new single-family home construction though not readily apparent occur throughout the buildings ' life cycle, creating a carbon debt that has not been calculated. It is therefore questionable whether this type of development is benefitting the larger community. Demolitions ofE xisting Buildings in Portland The City of Portland is robust with a diverse building stock, both designated historically significant at the local and national level as well as historic ( over 50 years old) but not identified as significant. The former buildings are those that fall in the category of vernacular architecture or "commonplace architecture .. .individual buildings, [a nd] assemblages of such buildings. " 21 In the context of a city that is experiencing rapid population growth and development pressures, management of historic resources is challenging and controversial. The City of Portland's historic preservation program 2°C ity of Portland, Title 33 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 33. I I 0, 110-1. 2 1 Thomas Carter and Elizabeth Collins Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture: A Guide to the Study of Ordinary Buildings and Landscapes. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press , 2005), xiv. 15 which operates from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, helps individuals and organizations to identify, and protect historic resource. The program uses a variety of land use planning tools including Historic Resource Overlay Zones and Conservation Districts as well as National Register of Historic Places Districts to protect these resources. Management of existing buildings, including incentives for preserving historic resources are also outlined in Title 33 , Planning and Zoning, Chapter 33.445 Historic Resource Overlay Zone. The goal of Title 33 is to, "increase the potential for historic • resources to be used, protected, renovated and preserved. Incentives make preservation more attractive to owners of historic resources because they provide flexibility and economic and opportunities." 22 Demolition delays offer a type of short term protection for buildings that are in immediate endanger of being destroyed. The process of demolitions, from issuing of permits to issuing demolition delays is managed by the Bureau of Development Services (BDS). Recent regulation that was passed in Portland mandates a demolition day of 35 days for single family residential buildings that are in zoned R for residential with the exception of homes located in commercial zones. For those buildings listed in the Historic Resources Inventory, a delay of 120 days applies. 23 Demolition delays are " intended to allow an adequate amount of time to help save viable housing in the City while recognizing a property owner' s right to develop or redevelop property." 24 Historically demolition ordinances were implemented to give time for buildings to be 22 City of Portland, Title 33, Planning and Zoning Chapter 33.445 Hi storic Resource Overlay Zone, 33 .445 .610 ''Historic Preservation Incentives", 445. 23 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services, UPDATED September 12, 2016: Historic Resource Inventory (HR!) Buildings and Demolition Delay Policy Effective September 1, 2016, accessed November 2016, http:/ /www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/5883 52. 24 [bid. 16 rehabbed and brought up to code. 25 The recent ordinance was a result of concern from the community about demolishing single family homes that are in good conditions and are being demolished in preparation for redevelopment. There is an opportunity to build on Oregon's progressive land use and conservation ethic, including concerns for carbon emissions by looking at existing buildings as having environmental value. Portland/s Commitment to Reducing Carbon Emissions Discussion about the role of climate change in state land use planning laws began in 1988 with the Oregon Task Force on Global Warming created by Governor Goldschmidt and included twelve state agencies. The goal of the task force was to analyze the scientific data about global climate change and determine how it would affect Oregon. The report issued to Goldschmidt found that, "climate change from global warming is a serious threat" and "Oregonians can insure themselves against some of the changes by taking prudent actions to slow the emissions of greenhouse gases and by planning to adapt to changes." 26 The report made it clear that Oregon had a responsibility to reduce its global warming impact and prepare itself for the ramifications of climate change by utilizing state land use planning framework at the local and state level. The state ' s move towards reduction of greenhouse gases became part of forward thinking environmental land use policy began in 1989 with ORS 468A.205 Policy; greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, 25 City of Portland, Bureau of Development Services, Demolition Delay Ordinance and F.xception to Delay Notification When Applicant Simultaneously Applies/ or a Building Permit/or a Replacement Residence, Accessed December 2016, https: / /www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/4943 71. 26 Oregon Department of Energy, Oregon Task Force on Global Warming Report to the Governor and Legislature, June 1990. 17 • (1) The Legislative Assembly declares that it is the policy of this state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon pursuant to the following greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals: (a) By 2010, arrest the growth of Oregon's greenhouse gas emissions and begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (b) By 2020, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are 10 percent below 1990 levels. ( c) By 2050, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are at least 75 percent below 1990 levels. 27 Portland has lowered its carbon emissions by 14% below 1990 levels - 35% percent per person. 28 At the local level , Portland became the first city in the U.S. in 1993 when it set carbon dioxide reduction goals Portland ' s 1993 CO2 reduction strategy established a reduction target of 20 percent below 1990 emissions by 2010. The current iteration of these efforts is found in the 2015 Climate Action Plan. The 2015 Action Plan contains eight categories that contain specific objectives and goals to meet the reduction of 80% reduction of 1990 levels by 2050 with an interim goal of 40% by 2030. Within these eight categories there is little mention about the environmental benefit of historic resource use. 1n the Consumption and Solid Waste category, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation is one of the objectives to be accomplished by 2020: "8E Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse - Promote rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and energy and seismic upgrades of buildings to conserve natural and historic resources, reduce waste and improve public safety."29 The focus of this category is the upstream reduction of carbon emissions and it is here where carbon emissions and reuse are clearly connected. Reduction of carbon emissions associated with energy use through improvements of energy efficiency and "reducing the 27 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes, Vol. IO Highways, Military, Juvenile Code, Human Services, Chapter 468A, Air Quality, Policy, Greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, accessed November 2016 https:/ /www.oregonlaw.;.org/ors/468A205. 28 City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, ' 'Portland City Council Adopts New Climate Action Plan," Accessed December 2106, http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/535638?. 29 City of Portland and Multnomah County, 2015 Climate Action Plan , 90. 18 carbon intensity of energy supplies" is focused with the Buildings and Energy category. This category has some focus on reuse but is largely focused on new construction. Three objectives to be accomplished by 2030 include the following established goals and intentions: 1. Reduce the total energy use of all buildings built before 2010 by 25 percent. 2. Achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions in all new buildings and homes. 3. Supply 50 percent of all energy used in buildings from renewable resources, with 10 percent produced within Multnomah County from on-site renewable sources, such as solar. Smaller steps to accomplish these goals vary from energy ratings system for commercial buildings to building markets for construction of net zero buildings. Objective 2 reflects the concept that new construction with advanced energy efficiency is one way to move toward carbon reductions: "The best time to begin addressing building efficiency is in the initial building design stage. Buildings that have been designed and built with performance as a primary goal are capable of significantly outperforming similar, previously built buildings that have been retrofitted for efficiency." 30 Emphasis on the design stage of building to reduce carbon emissions of new construction is typical of green building design because it offers more control over application of specific technologies and avoids the need to consider the existing building envelope. Integrative approaches that explore the potential of existing buildings to further carbon reduction goals is one way to build upon a legacy of thoughtful land use planning laws. The conservation ethic inherent within comprehensive planning combined with an • impetus to reduce current carbon impacts offer a new way to approach historic preservation policy. For example, within the "Buildings and Energy" of the Carbon 30 The City of Portland and Multnomah County, June 2015 Climate Action Plan Local Strateg ies to Address Climate Change, Buildings & Energy, 66. 19 Action Plan it is recognized that "policy choices affect carbon emissions" 31 listing a group of partnerships with public agencies, businesses and organizations including Energy Trust of Oregon, Earth Advantage, PGE, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and Oregon Department of Energy to further energy efficiency and renewable energy. Integration with local preservation organizations such as the Architectural Heritage Center or Restore Oregon with these organizations has the potential to facilitate a collaborative discourse regarding the benefits of reuse, including life cycle assessment. 3 1 fbid. , 59. 20 Chapter Ill: A Brief History of Sustainable Preservation Environmentalism & Historic Preservation: Historical Overview The building and construction industry have long been associated with having a large environmental footprint. Historic Preservation provides a way to mitigate these impacts, including reduction of carbon emissions through reuse. According to the IPCC, "as buildings are very long-lived and a large proportion of the total building stock existing today will still exist in 2050 in developed countries, retrofitting the existing stock is key to a low-emission building sector." 32 In regards to energy conservation the preservation field has historically focused on benefits of retaining the embodied energy of old buildings. In the 1970's during the oil embargo America had energy conservation on its mind - before the concerns of climate change were well established. Sustainable Preservation today is inclusive of the overlapping areas of sustainability and historic preservation. In her book "Sustainable Preservation", Preservation Architect Jean Carreon points out the "need for immediate action to address climate change and the related environmental degradation is increasingly urgent, and the major role that the building industry must take in abating the crisis is unequivocal." 33 The shift toward • 32 Lucon 0 ., D. 0rge-Vorsatz,A Zain Ahmed, H. Akbari , P. Bertoldi, L.F. Cabeza, N. Eyre, A Gadgil , L.D.D. Harvey, Y. Jiang, E. Li photo, S. Mirasgedis, S. Murakami, J. Parikh, C. Pyke, and M .V. Vilarifio, 2014: Buildings. ln: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group lll 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, p 690 . 33 Jean Carroon and Richard Moe, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings (Hoboken: Wiley, 2010),3. 21 utilization of common environmental assessment tools is one way that historic preservation can work towards collaborative climate change solutions. Historic preservation and sustainability include many areas of overlapping concern. Looking at the timeline of historic preservation and sustainability presented in University of Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Graduate Erika Leigh Hasenfus' s thesis, Measuring the Energy Capital Value in Historic Structures, we can see how important dates of the two fields intersected (Figure 1) . The historic preservation evolution timeline • begins with National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966, in the same decade that Rachel Carson' s Silent Spring was published. In 1979 34 the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was put out at the same time of the second oil crisis and is based on the earlier study put out by the 1976 report Energy Use for Building Construction completed by the University of Illinois. In his article "Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: A Needed Reassessment," Mike Jackson discusses the importance of this study and some of its limitations, "one of the most useful aspects of the report is a summary of the typical embodied-energy values for various building types presented in MBtu/sq. ft. " 35 He also discusses how the report may have underestimated the embodied energy of historic buildings due to the fact that they had, "more volume and greater amounts of rnaterials." 36 The term "embodied energy" began to be used by the preservation community to represent the accumulated energy that was locked up in old buildings. One of the pioneers who developed embodied energy, Bruce Hannon, initially began his study of embodied energy for a diverse range of products from beverage cans 34 Erika Leigh Hasenfus, Measuring the Cap ital Energy Value in Historic Structures, Master 's Thesis, (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2013), 24. 35 Mike Jackson, "Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: A Needed Reassessment," APT Bulletin, Vol. 36, no. 4 (2005): 4 7. 36 lbid. 22 to goods and services; determining the embodied energy costs of "the entire amount of energy and of labor of every type that had to be extracted because of the existence of this unit." Hannon then partnered with a New York architect to study how embodied energy could be applied to existing and remodeled buildings. As the concerns of global warming increased so has sustainability related efforts to mitigate climate change. Historic Preservation has mirrored those efforts, most notably with the Preservation Green Lab's life cycle approach to building reuse. tr l ' P lio , .-1 Tm,../m l~l: 1/rn1 prm . Ra hd arson I~: , auonal Hu on Ptncna11on C' U\'C' l'lkr tor Ilk" Proc llOII hon C'DC) I.hr Cultural lu Cirm,tli. O u : PrncrvatJoo Bnd ~ _ - fflurn 1K I: n \ i11 Hnwr 8l'ltl.lut ; ' mlC'm~ I - .t: 1-C' mt.I mrio dnunulnllJO,ll 1,0 19 : lbc lkpartlllC'ttl cl 6n"'10 19'.i: Gntd, /,nnablr I ftOC'd IJn, n. lhc ml ruas be-aim. lram : wlumu Ir Dn, 11 aml Hutunc l'rnrnallo,, . · ~ C. Pat!. I : Our (ot11mo,r fur11u . Hrundtland oo Prt'M'.nabon C oa rcpon d I (' man<:c- l'rC's.: ol 1l : /~ u nr•I &uJJm {!"'1 11/t.111 ortd • ummtl on • ustam bk tlu I-:. UOfllltt'lllaJ \ (JUJ(" (J Buudut &JUI': Dn•t,I llltDI pu 1!.hrd _ 7: lnkrJ. .... ....-.... Ot-• 1trucl!nla,. . ,cr.atlfet mmercaat Use PeMlil teee• Wt bued Oftl"M! Vllut Ol~ wOl"t. pet,. 1-- ---------------------i t:ln'l"IH lndlc61.&t'le't'tlJe(toufkiedt.o -tnett-atelldt1llaf) Prrwkl RS Pflffl'IH na. of•• equp:nm, rr..atenllfl labor o,,,,elhead, .-id the p,oft br lht wart. Wldbttd 011 thl5 ap~c.rhan Pho"" ')L •,4c1 'R r 1-:-:"""-"' ~11-- , -c-,,-,,.-..-.- '--'.~,~..~ . .~.... -..- ~-.,-., -,_- _- .-..-. .-.. - - ..- -- ..-. .- ..-.. te=~'s~~~c::.-:.---------1 Ofell:f\a1qlt • Qw.vi., sii;lnatu,..· { ' ~---- ... Btairt!Hnitme. ~"l l 'Sr~, i t f All contniatnlt'ldsubc:ontr.1ctcnare~to,bl t-----,-, - ---,---,..c...,r+-----:.------------i lt0enMCI ,nth Ile Oregon Construi:ricin(Qntr•dm ~ 1:--::-.-..,., .......;.-._/·-· - .;;....~-.,.;..._.;;;.;...~---------I :=i~i~..::.::-b:=:~l mnlld n to. 1-'-----...:C...:...!..:=="---::::..<;'--..L...:.:::..___: _ _____ -I Stattt'Mltt of Fact I cM-fy Nil the (KIi, -..:1 lnfl:NMalon Figure 3. Demolition Permit issued by the City ofP ortland Bureau of Development Services. Each permit and proposed new development is issued a number with an RS (Residential Single). 34 A typical demolition permit includes a variety of information including the names of previous and current owner, new construction plans (often including architectural drawings), required environmental-related documentation including sewer systems, soil sampling, asbestos and lead paint abatement information and sometimes a footprint of the house slated for demolition (Figure 4). Documentation of existing buildings such as floor plans and photographs of the existing building are often not included in the permit documents. Information about the existing building is specifically in the context of demolition and as a result the level of documentation varies. • ,, - ·=- I .~~--- • .:..=:::.:,__ .JL •- , ' h ---...... - - • ..J ~. ....,, - DMI.$, fM'lrC r.MI«-...... = .., V -~..,k 7 ,..,f-••11• / L J ,-.··-=.::__•~-I1~ ~--.-=-. Figure 4. Site plan ofa ddress 5624 SE 22nd existing buildings to be removed. • 35 5 c' .. ,,. /., } __, 7--. ' cl.. .. ,,.,'N.. . .,, 1.,..-1,·r rr , '1. • ( ~"_f')'f'' ;'t~. . 't'f' 'x .f WI f,J i ,-C.>..y,_c .<. - .. .,;zt__- .~, - """ l --- Figure 5. Address 8515 SE 21st Ave. hand sketched site plan including footprint of existing building to be demolished. Without consistent documentation of existing buildings, proper analysis of specific building construction assemblies is a challenge. This is important in terms of capturing a more accurate estimate of the embodied energy in the existing building. Missing information about the building's details including floor plans, types of building materials, fixtures, HV AC systems etc. suggest a fast-paced process that does not consider impacts of what is being lost. Furthermore, without an environmental assessment of either the existing or new replacement construction it is impossible to 36 determine the environmental value of reuse in comparison to the impact of new construction. In the context of this project, methodology of permit research is an integral part of the investigation into the intersection of land use planning, management of historic resources and ultimately demolition-driven redevelopment. As a written record permits offer an impartial offering of pertinent information regarding building typology, construction material , applicable land use (zoning) and specific neighborhood location. Determination of the case study property was based on analysis of demolition permits issued in 2015. Permits were reviewed for location, housing type and date of construction. Each permit and corresponding physical address were accessed using the City of Portland, Bureau of Development Services (BDS) "Metro Reports" which is a listing of a variety of permits including commercial and residential. The weekly "Issued Residential Reports" from January 1 - December 30, 2015 served as primary source material from which a list of demolition permits was established. A top-down approach was taken, beginning with the total demolition permits issued city-wide, next permits were sorted by zip code and then by neighborhood (see appendix for complete table). This methodology was utilized to maintain a level of objectivity with no preference given to a particular neighborhood based on the author's personal preference. Analysis concluded the zip code of 97202 had the largest number of permits issued - 51 in total • (figure 6). Within the 97202 zip code, the neighborhood of Sell wood-Moreland neighborhood had a total of 21 demolition permits issued. 37 Total Demolition Permits Neighborhood Issued in 2015 within zip code 97202 Sellwood-Moreland 21 Richmond 5 Woodstock 3 East Moreland 8 Creston-Kenilworth 7 Hosford-Abernethy 5 Brooklyn 2 Total Permits 51 Figure 6. Table represents the total ofd emolition permits issued in the 97202 zip code. The process of case study property selection was based on the availability of complete architectural drawings for new construction. In the initial process of narrowing down the case study property, two types of new construction were selected to represent common redevelopment scenarios: demolition of existing single family homes with replacement of new single residential home and demolition of existing single family homes with replacement of multi-family housing (apartments). However, based on the limited time and the complexity of calculating the Life Cycle Impacts with recognition of potential energy savings per unit of new multi-family construction, the latter option was eliminated. The table below illustrates the four properties remaining from the 21 that had the most complete documentation including architectural drawings. 38 Address Development Level of Date of type Architectural Construction Information 1650 SE Single to apt Very complete 1904 Harold St. 5624 SE 22nd Single to apt Very complete 1910-1920 Ave. (northern) 8515 SE 21st Single to single Very complete 1909 Ave (southern) 1416 SE Single to single Very complete 1908 Clatsop St. (southern) Figure 7. Table Shows the process ofe limination used to determine the specific case study property. Of the two properties remaining, both of which are existing single family homes replaced with new single-family homes, 8515 SE 21st Ave. was selected with a basic toss of the com. Athena Impact Estimator In order to meet the stated Project Goal 1 which was focused on gaining an understanding of LCA through practical application, it was determined that the LCA modeling software Athena Impact Estimator (IE) was an appropriate choice given its use in architecture and construction practice. The free software is available through the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, an environmental think tank that specializes in Life Cycle Assessment for products, including buildings. Athena Impact Estimator is a 39 whole building analysis; its stated purpose is to "understand how to reduce embodied impacts of the construction sector." 65 This tool is used most often in the design stages of new constructions and renovations. While there are a few case studies of historic buildings that utilize Athena Impact Estimator, the software is not traditionally used by the Historic Preservation field . The fact that the building assemblies are not reflective of old materials makes the process of estimation a bit more complicated and may be one reason that it hasn' t been widely utilized by the preservation cornmuni ty. The software uses its own Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database, which has specific metrics associated with different types of materials used predominantly for new construction. This software utilizes building assemblies, which includes walls, windows, beams/columns, floor systems along with other items not included and appear under "extra construction" category. While this project focuses on the carbon emissions associated with demolitions, the software has seven different impact areas, which include fossil fuel use, global warming potential , acidification, human health particulates, eutrophication, owne depletion and smog. For the purposes of this project, the focus will be carbon emissions - global warming potential (GWP). ISO 14044 The LCA modeling for this case study is very loosely based on the standards established by the International Organization for Standardization or ISO. ISO defines itself as an, 65 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, User Manual and Transparent Document: Impact Estimator f or Buildings v. 5, (September, 2014), 5. 40 " ... independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership of 163 national standards bodies. Through its members, it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges. "66 ISO Standards ISO 14044:2006, "Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment - Principles" offers a framework of guidelines for life cycle assessment (LCA) including, "definition oft he goal and scope oft he LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LC!) phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LC/A) phase, the life cycle interpretation phase, reporting and critical review oft he LCA, limitations oft he LCA, the relationship between the LCA phases, and conditions for use ofv alue choices and optional elements. "67 This project utilizes four stages of the ISO including, 1) Definition of the goal and scope of the LCA, 2) Life cycle inventory analysis 3) Life cycle impact assessment and 4) Interpretation of Results. Determination of the goal and scope The goal of this Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is to identify the global warming potential (GWP) impact of a new single-family house construction in Portland, Oregon. It is important to note the scope serves the purpose of meeting the stated Goals outlined in the beginning of the study. This LCA is not expansive by design - a "streamlined LCA,"68 limited in scope for the purpose of preliminary data creation. The table below summarizes the scope. 66 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), About ISO, Accessed November 2016 h~:// www .iso.org/iso/home/about.htm. 67 Ibid. 68 Robert H. Crawford. Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment, (New York: Spoon Press, 2011 ), 42 . 41 Figure 8. A new single-family home construction located at 8515 SE 21st Ave., Portland Oregon. photo taken by author, April 2016. • Year Built 2016 Location 8515 SE 21 s t Ave Building Height 2-story Square Footage 2,911 Structure Type Prefab Truss System Envelope 2x6 wood framing, R-21 batt insulation, OSB Sheathing Layout 4 bedroom, 3 bath Cladding Wood Figure 9. New single family home property information. System Boundary Diagram The goal and scope of this LCA is illustrated through a System Bmmdary Diagram, a graphic which defines the relevant, "inputs, outputs and processes that are to be included 42 in an LCA study."69 The system boundary illustrates which processes of the product (single family home) system are included in the study. This LCA includes analysis of inputs and outputs of energy and resources used to build the assemblies of which the new single family is constructed. These processes are correlated in the Life Cycle Inventory, each with an attached environmental impact. This system boundary does not include the inputs and outputs of operating a building over its life time or demolition phase. , System Boundary I ......... ···-······· ····---··--·--··-···---·--·······. ... ·------: i I En~gv ... ~ I I I !: I I : R:aw aterial Material ! Extraction Manufacture Construction i I I 'Dsemolition . ~ratiM t--!·. ............ ··---···1 . ... . -.................... ···---·--j 1 1 Impact Category: Global Warming Category lnd icator: Globa l Warmi ng Pot entia l in carbon equiva ency {C02--e) Figure 10. System boundary diagram illustrates the streamlined LCA. Inputs include energy used during the process ofr aw material extraction, material manufacture, construction. Outputs include waste which for the purpose oft his study is measured in carbon equivalency. Functional Unit The purpose of the functional unit is to provide a description of the product that will be assessed using a "common unit of measurement" 70 that can be used as a comparison against other products. The functional unit in this study is a newly constructed 2,900 69Robert H. Crawford, Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment, (New York: Spoon Press, 2011 ), 25 . 70 Ibid., 44. 43 square foot home. The single-family home includes the major building assemblies, including the foundation, exterior & interior walls, windows, doors, garage door, roof and 1st and second floors. • 1-z , w u " Ill ' w ~J ElEVAJl()N cc V ~~- a.511:?"'~':2~-- • 00 COL..ll"tiOET U;:.:~--·~~,f.l.,f...W: •~• a;,:~;m---~• I Mnall~ .. ~iE-;:f:°-:~, ~~-----. l 1 Li I u □ n J ~ [ID 1O J LLl ,c~ r SIDE LEVA TJO!i Figure 11 . Functional unit for this LCA includes the building envelope, interior jloors,foundation, windows, and roofo fa 2,900 square foot, two-story single- family house. Architectural drawings by Crescent Custom Homes. 44 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis The Life Cycle Inventory step is an integral part of the LCA because it includes the mechanism by which materials - in this case the building assemblies - are assessed and assigned specific values. 71 Specifications from the architectural drawings of the new single-family house were entered in Athena Impact Estimator. The Athena LCI Database including the information found in the Impact Estimator has its own "ISO 14040/ 14044 - compliant unit process LCA data" 72 of products, materials as well as the energy use, transportation, construction and demolition processes of construction assemblies. Most applicable to this study are the raw material extraction, material manufacture, and construction of the assemblies of a 2,900-square foot single family home. The list of building materials below which included in each assembly are part of Athena's Life Cycle Inventory. Each unit of material has an associated impact. For example, for the total 1139 square feet of 1/2 Gypsum Fibre Board there are impacts associated with the extraction, production and manufacture of the material. 7 1 American Institute of Architects (AlA), Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice, (Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architects , 20 I 0), 16. 72 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, User Manual and Transparent Document: Impact Estimator for Buildings v. 5, (September, 2014), 15. 45 BILL OF MATERIALS Bill of Materials Report Project: New Single Family Home 8515 SE 21st Ave + - Tot.I Columns& Unit Quanily ee .... Floors Found- Roofs w• -·- MonV- Moss Unil #15 0'llanic Fett 100sf 226 74511 0 0 0 94.0873 132 6585 0 1 6946 Tom (short) 1/T Regular Gypsum Board sf 6130 1164 0 0 0 0 61301164 0 5 0599 Tons (short) S/8" Regular Gypsum Board sf 4040 5748 0 ,no 9999 0 2269.5749 0 0 4 2579 Tons (short) 6 mil Polyethylene sf 344 7600 0 0 344.7600 0 0 0 0 0053 Tons (short) Aluminum ExtruSK>n Tons (short) 0 0763 0 0 0 0 00763 0 0 0763 Tons (short) Concrete Benchmark 3000 psi yd3 18 8371 0 0 18.8371 0 0 0 36 4122 Tons (short) Expanded Polystyrene sf (1") 46 7154 0 0 0 0 46 7154 0 0 0034 Tons (short) FG Batt R20 sf(1 ") 23538 7996 0 0 0 0 23538 7996 0 0 6493 Tons (short) FG Batt R40 sf (1") 35182 0850 0 35182 0850 0 0 0 0 0 8086 Tons (short) FG LF Open BlowR31--40 sf (1") 25541 .6738 0 0 0 25541 6738 0 0 05439 Tons (short) Fiber Cement sf 1380 1333 0 0 0 0 1380 1333 0 1 9777 Tons (short) Fme Aggregate Natural Tons (short) 9 0000 0 0 0 0 0 90000 90000 Tons (short) Galvanized Sheet Tons (short) 0 3801 0 0 0544 0 0.2347 0 0910 0 03801 Tons (short) Glass Based shingles 30yr 100sf 34 6637 0 0 0 346637 0 0 4 5581 Tons (short) Glazilg Panel Tons (short) 0 1490 0 0 0 0 01490 0 0 1490 Tons (short) Joint Compound Tons (short) 1 039! 0 0 1810 0 0.2320 0 6265 0 1 0395 Tons (short) Large Dimension Softwood Lumber , kin-dried Mbfm targe 5 2560 0 5 2560 0 0 0 0 4 1046 Tons (short) dimension Nails Tons (short) 0 312! 0 00882 0 00516 0 1728 0 0 3125 Tons (short) Onented Strand Board - (318") 4 4887 0 0 0 2 7365 1 7522 0 2 7757 Tons (short) ~ aper Tape Tons (short) 0 0115 0 0 0021 0 00027 0 0072 0 0 0119 Tons (short) ' d 0. L 4 .. 16 ~ 'i ')0 PM Bill of Materials Report Project: New Single Family Home 8515 SE 21st Ave PVC VYindow Frame lbs 1282 5380 0 0 0 0 1282 5380 0 0 6413 Tons (short) Rebar, Rod, l.Jgh1 Sections Tons (shof1) 04687 0 0 0.4687 0 0 0 0 4687 Tons (short) Screws Nu!S & Bolls Tons (short) 0 179, 0 0 0 0 0 1792 0 0 1792 Tons (short) Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kifn--dried MbfmsmaJI dimension 2761720 0 0 0 2 6897 6 2423 267 8400 21 0 3227 Tons (short) Softwood Plywood ms! (3181 105891 0 59681 0 0 4 6208 0 5 1227 Tons (short) Solvent Based Alkyd Paint Gallons (us) 0 10:ll 0 0 0 0 0 1038 0 0 0003 Tons (short) Water Based Latex Paint Gallons (us) 194060! 0 37 4011 0 47 9310 1081282 0 0 6073 Tons (short) Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wt.re Tons (shof1) 00301 0 0 0.0301 0 0 0 0 0301 Tons (short) Figure 12. The 'bill ofm aterials report ' is calculated by the Athena Impact Estimator life cycle inventory ofb uilding materials. 46 Life Cycle Impact Assessment This study examines global warming potential (GWP) associated with new construction. GWP is based on the analysis of energy flows and the process by which materials consurre resources and energy while outputting waste in the form of greenhouse gases (GHG). This impact category is measured in 'carbon equivalency' expressed as CO2E - in kg or tonnes CO2 equivalent. 73 Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent of the GHGs, the other three being methane and nitrous oxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first defined GWP in the 1990s as a system of measuring multiple gases, which were identified in the Kyoto Treaty and were specifically used to, "help assess the climate impacts of switching from chlorofluorocarbons to hydrofluorocarbons." 74 A wider application of the GWP soon became popular and was used to, "compare the climate impact of emissions of CO2 with non-CO2 greenhouse gases".75 Life Cycle Inventories are a database of items that have an associated GHG footprint which result from processing of materials. Each item has an associated estimated impact that is expressed in carbon equivalency. 76 The report below from the Impact Estimator is generated from the materials that comprise different assemblies of the new single-family house construction. • 73 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, User Manual and Transparent Document: Impact Estimator for Buildings v. 5, (September, 2014), 46. 74 Keith Shine, 'The global warming potential- the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. An editorial comment," Climatic Change, no. 96 (2009), 467. 75 Keith Shine, 'The global warming potential- the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. An editorial comment,"Climatic Change, no. 96 (2009): 4 76. 76 Athena Sustainable Materials Lnstitute , User Manual and Transparent Document: Impact Estimator for Buildings v. 5, (September, 2014), 46. 47 Operational vs Embodied Global Warming Potential (A to C) Project New Single Family Home 8515 SE 21st Ave - Operational G',\fP (.00 kg CO2 eq) - Embodied GWP (77,350.50 kg CO2 eq) Operational GWP Embodied GWP Unit Total 0.0 77 ,350.5 kg CO2 eq 77,350.5 Figure 13. A report generated from Athena Impact estimator representing the embodied energy global warming potential ofb uilding assemblies in carbon equivalency (co2 eq) . 48 • Interpretation Results of the Impact Estimator indicate that the Embodied Energy Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 73,350.5 kg or tonnes CO2 eq. ( carbon equivalency). It is worth noting that carbon equivalency is represented by the metric measurement, "tonne." In order to maintain a level of accuracy, the tonne is used for initial calculations and then later translated into imperial system measurements for easy comprehension. To put this into context, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Life Cycle Assessment conducted in 2010 as part of waste prevention strategy the impacts of a standard single family home. The report used a standard home size of 2,262 sq. ft. built with modern construction materials and used "as a baseline to which all waste prevention practices can be evaluated against."77 As illustrated in the graph below the majority of the climate change impacts were from the operational energy which occurred during the life cycle of the house. The DEQ study looked at the impacts associated with Pre-Occupancy, Occupancy and Post-Occupancy. This study of the 8515 SE 2151 Ave single family home is the Pre-Occupancy phase which includes original materials production, construction and materials transportation. Based on those phases it appears that the total of 73,000 kg CO2E is within the range of these categories (Figure 14). • • 770regon-Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Prepared for DEQ by Quantis, Earth Advantage, and Oregon Home Builders Association,A Life Cycle Assessment Based Approach to Prioritizing Methods ofP reventing Waste from Residential Building Construction, Remodeling, and Demolition in the State of Oregon Phase 1 Report Version 1.2, (Salem: Quantis, 2009), I 0. 49 IV. Phase 1 Results Overview of results for the standard home The total climate change impact over the l i fe cycle of the standard home are shown in Figure 5. ()f1gmal Materials Production 12 Replacement Ma enals Production Iii Maletial Transporta on El Construcbon ~ Maintenance ■Occupancy - Nalural Gas □Occupancy- Electnc,ty • Matenal nd-of-ll e • -200000 0 200.000 400 000 600,000 800.000 1 000 000 1.200.000 1 400.000 Climate Change lmpacl (kg CO2 Eq) Figure 5: Climate change impact for the standard home by stage of the home life cycle Figure I 4. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) , A Life Cycle Assessment Phase I Report, indicates Impacts of Climate Change in kg Carbon Equivalencies. Application of Results The LCA results is most relevant when applied to the accumulated demolitions of existing single-family homes that were replaced with new single-family homes. This is in alignment with a finding from the Preservation Green Lab Report, The Greenest Building, "reuse-based impact reductions may seem small when considering a single building. However, the absolute carbon-related impact reductions can be substantial when these results are scaled across the building stock of a city." 78 Applying this recorrnnendation to Portland, analysis of the 118 existing single-family homes replaced 78 Preservation Green Lab, National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value ofB uilding Reuse, (20 11 ), VIII. 50 with new single-family homes in 2015 reveals the average home size of 2,500 square feet. 79 Figure 15. This graph shows a total of 118 new single family homes Built that replaced demolitions of existing single family homes. In context of the average size of new construction, this number is within the range used in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which utilized a slightly smaller standard size of 2,262 square feet. 80 The case study property of 2,900 square feet with an estimated impact of 73,000 kg of CO2 Equivalency, equates to 25 kg/ sq. ft. The total square footage of the 118 existing single-family houses demolished and 79 This number is derived from original research by author. 80 Oregon-Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Prepared for DEQ by Quantis , Earth Advantage, and Oregon Home Builders Association,A Life Cycle Assessment Based Approach to Prioritizing Methods ofP reventing Waste from Residential Building Construction, Remodeling, and Demolition in the State of Oregon Phase 1 Report Version 1.2, (Salem: Quantis,2009), 11. 51 replaced with new single-family houses is approximately 295 ,000 sq. ft. Multiplying the 25 kg/sq. ft. by the 295 ,000 sq. ft. is a total of 7,399,050 kg of CO2e. Figure 16. Total carbon for new single family construction that replaced existing buildings in 2015 broken down by month. Converting the kilograms to tons, the total estimated impacts in tons of carbon equivalents is approximately 8,000 tons. To put this number into perspective, according to the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator 8,000 tons is equivalent to CO2 emissions from 816,000 gallons of gasoline and 1,072 homes' electricity use for one year. s1 The total 8,000 tons of CO2e is an estimate of impacts and should consider a margin of error which assumes that construction materials of the case study property differ from that of the materials used in the construction of the 118 new single-family homes. This variation of construction materials means that the kg/sf calculation utilized for the 7 million kg of CO2 is an estimate. For example, roofing and siding material likely vary with new single family house construction and as a result estimated impacts would affect the total embodied energy. 8 1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, Accessed November 2016, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. 52 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS While this research effort stands somewhat outside the paradigm of conventional historic preservation, there is value in taking on issues that directly affect the field using a diverse set of tools such as Life Cycle Assessment. I view the results as standing on the precipice of possibility. By looking at the destruction of existing buildings from a macro level within Portland ' s efforts to minimize carbon impacts there is opportunity to broaden historic preservation. This new perspective could assist Portland with the challenges of balancing protection of historic resources with development pressures, shifting demographics and population growth. Fostering a better understanding of how reuse compliments and builds the foundation of a sustainable city is one way we as preservation professionals can continue to make the field relevant. And while there is no expectation that cities must be frozen in time, there is opportunity to think about management of existing buildings from a perspective of added environmental value. Connecting demolition of single family homes with replacement new single family homes is the first step towards an integrated policy approach that is in alignment with objectives of progressive Oregon environmental policy, historic preservation efforts and local Portland efforts to minimize carbon emissions. Suggestions for policy adjustments that encourage reuse and consider impacts of new construction are targeted at specific regulations that will yield the most impact. These suggestions are in part based on suggested further research that could guide these changes. An integrated policy model will allow a progressive approach to historic preservation and mitigation of carbon 53 impacts. Collaboration between seemingly disparate areas within the city is integral to begin asking the questions posed throughout my research. A pilot program such as the Historic Initiative that funded the Parks Canada LCA case study would provide a good first step to determine the initial first steps to clearly connect management of historic resources and carbon emission goals. Amending the Carbon Action Plan to more strongly build the case for retention of existing buildings (both those identified as • significant and vernacular) would be a good first start. In addition, adding incentives for reuse that are coached in terms of carbon emissions would be helpful, perhaps through a carbon tax that makes it more costly tearing down a single-family home and replace with a new single family home. A carbon tax is discussed in the Climate Action Plan as a potential future course of action. In this case, the preservation community could rally to include demolitions of buildings in new proposed policy. Creating a dialogue and partnering with organizations such as Earth Advantage and Oregon Trust would be a good first step to building bridges between traditional preservation groups and those focused on energy efficiency through technology. 54 FUTURE RESEARCH In order to fully understand the overall implications of carbon impacts of new construction and demolitions it is important to consider the triple bottom line of sustainability. The economic and socio-cultural elements are as important as the carbon impacts of climate change that occur as a result of demolitions. Gentrification is clearly evident in the current redevelopment of properties, when single family homes are purchased, demolished and then sold for (approximately) double the amount of the original home's selling price. Implications of demographic shifting as a result of increased property value and the perceived loss of historic resources are all worthy of further research. Recent demolitions are part of a historical pattern of displacement in Portland, most recently which occurred on a large scale to the African American community which experienced significant displacement during urban renewal and in the 1990s and 2000s in North and NE Portland. The larger forces that have affected urban redevelopment in this area are similar to currently at the root of recent demolitions. These underlying power dynamics include lack of representational leadership and weak process democracy. Identification of specific policy effectiveness would be helpful to determine where specific adjustments should be made. For example, policies outlined in the 2035 Portland Comprehensive Plan are not easily revised once the public comment period is closed and the policy is voted into action by the City Council. However, an ordinance like the Demolition Ordinance which went into effect in February 2015 and outlines specific procedures for delaying destruction of historic resources has more flexibility and could be more easily implemented. In addition, a policy like the Climate Action Plan 55 which plans in five year increments would also be a good place to include more provisions for protection of historic resources. Further research that includes a historical perspective on the effectiveness of specific properties would be a good starting point. However, before undertaking any specific research it is essential to consult with public agencies as well as community leaders to ensure that the right questions are asked. 56 APPENDIX A. Demolition permits requested and issued in 2015 by month. Note that permits issued in 2016 were considered in overall total of2015 demolitions. Pages 57-69. Co mm Resi Date Date of erci den Permit# Requested Issue Address Zip Code Type al tial January single story 1 1/27 /15 1/27/16 50 SE 13th Ave restaurant X 2 story 2 1/7/15 1/7/ 15 5000 SE LINCOLN ST building X 3 1/16/15 1/16/16 8157 N LOMBARD ST 900SFoffice x office/medic 4 11/26/14 1/29/15 7705 SE DIVISION ST al X 2 story apartment with 5 1/9/15 1/9/16 1459 SE ANKENY ST commercial X 2 story 6 1/13/15 1/13/15 5625 E BURNS! DE ST comm X Duplex 7 12/5/14 1/12/15 3205 NE MULTNOMAH apartment X 8 11/20/14 1/30/15 2534 N ARGYLE ST 97217 single family X 9 1/26/15 1/26/15 3327 SE 65TH AVE 97206 single fa mi Iv X 10 1/26/15 1/26/15 9509 SW 46TH AVE 97219 single fa mi Iv X 11 12/16/14 1/23/15 9024 SE YAMHILL ST 97216 single family X 12 1/23/15 1/23/15 2403 SE ANKENY ST 97214 single family X 13 12/12/14 1/21/15 1113 N TERRY ST 97217 single fa mi Iv X 14 1/16/15 1/16/15 1507 SE MARION ST singlefamilv X 15 12/3/14 1/15/15 1706 SE 130TH AVE 97233 single family X 16 1/15/15 1/15/15 31 97203 single family X 17 1/13/15 1/13/15 2238 NE GLISAN ST 97232 single X 18 8/13/14 8/13/15 11405 SE RAMONA CT 97266 singlefamilv X 19 12/5/14 1/12/15 9635 SW 48TH AVE 97219 single family X 20 15-103036-000-00-RS 1/9/15 1/9/15 5217 NE 28TH AVE 97211 single fa mi Iv X 21 15-102336-000-00-RS 1/8/15 1/8/15 3225 NE 29TH AVE 97212 single fa mi Iv X 22 14-251140-000-00-RS 1/5/15 1/5/15 1144 SE Ml LLER ST 97202 single family X 23 14-252421-000-00-RS 12/24/14 1/30/15 1537 NE 72ND AVE 97213 s i ngl e fa mi I y X 24 13-189259-000-00-RS 8/6/13 1/5/15 7127 SE 122ND DR 97236 single family X 57 February Co mm Resi Date Date of erci den Permit# Requested Issue Address Zip Code Type al tial 1 15-113331-000-00-CO 2/2/15 2/12/15 4041 NE ML KING BLVD 97212 office X 2 15-122518-000-00-CO 2/20/15 ~nder revi ev 7134 NE HALSEY ST 97213 gas station X 3 15-123405-000-00-CO 2/24/15 2/24/15 6300 N LOMBARD ST 97203 bus i nes s X 4 15-123502-000-00-CO 2/24/15 2/24/15 6214 N LOMBARD ST 97203 business X 5 15-119101-000-00-CO 2/26/15 2/26/15 1241 NW JOHNSON ST 97209 bus i ness X 6 15-123230-000-00-RS 2/23/15 2/23/15 7308 N TYLER AVE 97203 single family X 7 15-123785-000-00-RS 2/24/15 2/24/15 3215 SE BROOKLYN ST 97202 single family X 8 15-123804-000-00-RS 2/24/15 2/24/15 021 SW IOWA ST 97201 single family X 9 13-224396-000-00-RS 12/24/13 2/25/15 2152 SE 130TH AVE 97233 single family X 10 15-107216-000-00-RS 1/20/15 2/25/15 5226 N HARVARD ST 97203 single family X 11 15-107371-000-00-RS 1/20/15 2/25/15 3959 NE MALLORY AVE 97212 si ngle family X 12 14-192498-000-00-RS 8/12/14 2/26/15 3415 SE DIVISION ST 97214 single fa milv X 13 15-10413 9-000-00-RS 1/13/15 2/26/15 3936 SE REEDWAY ST 97202 single family X 14 15-122559-000-00-RS 2/20/15 2/20/10 7215 N LANCASTER AVE 97217 si ngle family X 15 15-103810-000-00-RS 1/12/15 2/20/15 1525 SE 35TH PL 97214 si ngle family X 16 15-120188-000-00-RS 2/17/15 2/17 /15 609 SE 67TH AVE - Unit, 97206 single family X 17 14-191442-000-00-RS 7 /31/14 2/13/15 418 N COMMERCIALAVI 97227 si ngle fami ly X 18 14-165087-000-00-RS 7/2/14 2/13/15 3435 NE 51ST AVE 97213 si ngle family X 19 14-211345-000-00-RS 9/11/14 2/13/15 5323 NE 12TH AVE 97211 si ngle family X 20 15-118822-000-00-RS 2/12/15 2/12/15 27 N MASSACHUSETTS A 97217 si ngle family X 21 15-118391-000-00-RS 2/11/15 2/11/15 3660 SE NEHALEM ST 97202 single family X 22 14-255356-000-00-RS 12/31/14 2/11/15 7847 SE RAYMOND ST 97206 single fami ly X 23 15-117410-000-00-RS 2/10/15 2/10/15 10219 SE RAMONA ST 97266 si ngle famil y X 24 14-253609-000-00-RS 12/24/15 2/10/15 4241 NE Al NSWORTH ST 97218 single fami ly X 25 14-222934-000-00-RS 10/8/14 2/9/15 100 N COOK ST 97227 si ngle family X 26 14-254082-000-00-RS 12/31/14 2/6/15 8236 SW 11TH AVE 97219 si ngle fami ly X 27 15-115346-000-00-RS 2/6/15 2/6/15 6709 N MONTANA AVE 97217 si ngle fami ly X 28 15-11584 9-000-00-RS 2/6/15 2/6/15 4210 SE 28TH AVE 97202 si ngle family X 29 15-11486 7-000-00-RS 2/4/15 2/4/15 3139 NE 48TH AVE 97213 singlefami lv X 30 15-11424 7-000-00-RS 2/3/15 2/3/15 oS0 SW TAYLORS FERRY F 97219 single fami ly X 31 15-113992-000-00-RS 2/3/15 2/3/15 8226 SE 19TH AVE 97202 single fami ly X 32 15-112413-000-00-RS 2/3/15 2/3/15 9411 N TYLER AVE 97203 si ngle family X 33 15-113594-000-00-RS 2/2/15 2/2/15 7305 NE SISKIYOU ST 97213 single family X 34 14-229552-000-00-RS 10/23/14 2/27 /15 4025 N MISSISSIPPI AVE 97227 single fami ly X 35 14-212141-000-00-RS 9/12/14 2/2/15 5243 NE 15TH AVE 97211 single family X 36 14-212140-000-00-RS 9/12/14 2/2/15 5245 NE 15TH AVE 97211 single family X 58 March 1 15-140823-000-00-CO 3/27/15 3/1/15 11.4400 N RIVERGATE BLV[ 97203 commercial X 2 15-134872-000-00-CO 3/27/15 3/27/15 6931 NE ML KING BLVD 97211 commercial X 3 15-134864-000-00-CO 3/27/15 3/27 /15 6931 NE ML KING BLVD 97211 commercial X 4 15-135402-000-00-CO 3/27/15 3/27 /15 8045 NE AIRPORT WAY 97218 commercial X 5 15-135391-000-00-CO 3/27 /15 3/27 /15 8019 NE AIRPORT WAY 97218 commercial X 6 15-135400-000-00-CO 3/27 /15 3/27 /15 8035 NE AIRPORT WAY 97218 commercial X 7 15-135397-000-00-CO 3/27 /15 3/27 /15 8025 NE AIRPORT WAY 97218 commercial X 8 15-135379-000-00-CO 3/18/15 3/18/15 8007 NE AIRPORT WAY 97218 commerc ial X 9 15-130267-000-00-RS 3/9/15 3/9/15 6419 SE RAMONA ST 97206 5+ unit X 10 15-142 791-000-00-RS 3/31/15 3/31/15 5406 SW WOODS CT 97211 single family x 11 15-117630-000-00-RS 3/2/15 3/2/15 1630 N HOLMAN ST 97217 single family X 12 14-216481-000-00-RS 10/1/14 3/3/15 4407 N HAIGHT AVE 97217 single fami ly X 13 15-128655-000-00-RS 3/4/15 3/4/15 3122 NE44THAVE 97213 single fa mi ly X 14 15-128958-000-00-RS 3/5/15 3/3/15 5855 NE PRESCOTT ST 97218 single family X 15 15-128994-000-00-RS 3/5/15 3/5/15 9144 N SMITH ST 97203 single fa mi ly X 16 14-197800-000-00-RS 8/13/14 3/6/15 6117 SE 65TH AVE 97206 single fami ly X 17 14-240434-000-00-RS 11/20/15 3/6/15 ~70 NW BEUHLA VISTA Tl 97210 single family X 18 15-129672-000-00-RS 3/6/15 3/6/15 4 700 SE RURAL ST 97206 single family X 19 15-129938-000-00-RS 3/6/15 3/6/15 b06 NE EMERSON ST Uni 97211 single family X 20 15-129127-000-00-RS 3/5/15 3/5/15 2605 SE 21ST AVE 97202 single family X 21 15-108165-000-00-RS 1/29/14 3/9/15 6111 N CONCORD AVE 97217 single family X 22 15-132063-000-00-RS 3/11/15 3/11/lS 0405 N WI LLAMffiE BLVI 97203 single family X 23 15-132060-000-00-RS 3/11/15 3/11/15 3314 NE 75TH AVE 97213 single family X 24 14-143041-000-00-RS 5/15/14 3/11/16 16 N MONTANA AVE, 97, 97217 single family X 25 15-132115-000-00-RS 3/11/15 3/11/15 11104 NE FARGO ST 97220 single fami ly X 26 15-114173-000-00-RS 2/3/ 15 3/12/15 1933 NW 23RD PL 97210 single fami ly X 27 14-222937-000-00-RS 10/18/14 3/12/15 32 N COO K ST 97227 single family X 28 15-135059-000-00-RS 3/17/15 3/17/75 3558 NE 44TH AVE 97213 single fami ly X 29 15-134313-000-00-RS 3/17/17 3/ 17/15 5723 SE ASH ST 97215 single fami ly X 30 14-249048-000-00-RS 12/30/15 3/18/1 5 8311 SE BROOKLYN ST 97266 single fami ly X 31 15-137 283-000-00-RS 3/20/15 3/20/15 2826 SE 49TH AVE 97206 single family X 32 15-137 5 71 -000-00-RS 3/23/16 3/23/15 3722 SE TAYLOR ST 97214 single famil y X 33 15-137 568-000-00-RS 3/23/15 3/23/15 6011 N AMHERST ST 97203 single fami ly X 34 15-118382-000-00-RS 2/11/15 3/24/15 1333 SE 84TH AVE 97216 single fa mi ly X 35 15-139508-000-00-RS 3/25/15 3/25/15 2122 NE ALAMEDA ST 97212 single family X 36 15-141044-000-00-RS 3/27 /15 3/27/15 2318 NE RODNEY AVE 97212 single family X 37 14-159551-000-00-RS 5/21/14 3/27 /15 6205 N MINNESOTA AVE 97217 single family X 38 15-140553-000-00-RS 3/30/15 3/30/15 2531 SE 18TH AVE 97202 single family X 39 15-123030-000-00-RS 2/23/15 3/31/15 4934 NE 41ST AVE 97211 single family X 40 15-123061-000-00-RS 2/23/15 3/31/15 2640 SE ANKENY ST 97214 si ngle family X 41 15-12 2 641-000-00-RS 2/20/15 3/31/15 2740 SE 26TH AVE 97202 single fa mily X 59 April commercial/ 1 15-142778-000-00-CO 3/31/15 4/9/15 801 NE FAILING ST 97212 church X 2 15-146143-000-00-CO 4/8/15 4/8/15 5045 SE FOSTER RD 97206 commercial X 3 15-146475-000-00-CO 4/8/15 4/8/15 4937 SE DIVISION ST 97215 commercial X 4 14-253939-000-00-CO 1/20/15 4/27 /15 2140 NW QUIMBY ST 97210 commercial X 5 15-122518-000-00-CO 2/20/15 4/1/15 7134 NE HALSEY ST 97213 commercial X 6 15-146484-000-00-CO 4/8/15 4/8/15 4851 SE DIVISION ST 97215 commercial X 7 15-150320-000-00-CO 4/16/15 4/16/15 17406 SE MILWAUKIE AVE 97202 commercial X 8 14-189228-000-00-CO 4/10/15 4/10/15 1481 NW 13TH AVE 97209 commercial X 9 15-156081-000-00-CO 4/24/15 4/24/15 2357 SE 50TH AVE 97215 commercial X 10 15-143127-000-00-CO 4/1/15 4/1/15 6437 SE DIVISION ST 97215 commercial X 11 15-150331-000-00-RS 4/16/15 4/16/15 0 SE MILWAUKIE AVE, 97 97202 single family X 12 14-253383-000-00-RS 12/23/14 4/1/15 5350 SE 18TH AVE 97202 single family X 13 15-155521-000-00-RS 4/23/15 4/23/15 7534 SW 31ST AVE 97219 single family X 14 15-115860-000-00-RS 2/6/15 4/20/15 7558 SE DIVISION ST 97206 single family X 15 15-124723-000-00-RS 2/25/15 4/15/15 3408 N HUNT ST 97217 single family X 16 15-148495-000-00-RS 4/14/15 4/14/15 7211 N RICHARDS ST 97203 si ngle family X 17 15-151424-000-00-RS 4/17/15 4/17/15 6825 N GREENWICH AVE 97217 single family X 18 14-23 42 98-000-00-RS 11/5/14 4/14/15 897 SW GREENWOOD RD single family X 19 15-132707-000-00-RS 3/18/14 4/24/15 8911 N HAVEN AVE 97203 single family X 20 15-132371-000-00-RS 3/12/15 4/17 /15 1650 SE HAROLD ST 97202 singlefamilv X 21 15-1475 77-000-00-RS 4/10/15 4/10/15 3646 SE MARTINS ST 97202 single family · X 22 15-14 7691-000-00-RS 4/10/15 4/10/15 4816 NE CAMPAIGN ST 97218 single family X 23 15-135239-000-00-RS 3/17/15 4/22/15 3405 NE 74TH AVE 97213 si ngle family X 24 15-12 7 6 7 2-000-00-RS 3/3/15 4/9/15 015 SW IOWA ST 97201 single family X 25 15-12 9919-000-00-RS 3/9/15 4/28/15 6606 SE TOLMAN ST 97206 si ngle family X 26 15-151294-000-00-RS 4/17/15 4/17/15 934 SE REX ST 97202 single family X 27 14-248732-000-00-RS 12/12/14 4/21/15 5036 N ALBINA AVE 97217 si ngle family X 28 15-122338-000-00-RS 2/20/15 4/3/15 7134 N RICHMOND AVE 97203 si ngle family X 29 15-12 2529-000-00-RS 2/20/15 4/1/15 1435 NE 72ND AVE 97213 si ngle fa mi Iv X • 30 15-117608-000-00-RS 4/21/15 4/21/01 7650 N DECATUR ST 97203 single family X 31 14-255403-000-00-RS 4/1/15 4/1/15 5909 SW NEBRASKA ST 97221 single family X 32 15-133345-000-00-RS 3/13/15 4/20/15 4813 SE BROOKLYN ST 97206 si ngle family X 33 15-143248-000-00-RS 4/2/15 4/2/15 13118 SE WOODWARD 57 97202 single family X 34 15-105484-000-00-RS 1/16/15 4/2/15 5244 NE 32ND AVE 97211 si ngle family X 35 14-241038-000-00-RS 11/21/14 4/17/15 ~246 NW PETTYGROVE S 97210 single family X 36 14-251552-000-00-RS 12/19/14 4/16/15 3355 SE 16TH AVE 97202 single family X 60 May Apartments 1 15-169932-000-00-CO 5/13/15 5/13/15 311 SE 97TH AVE 97216 (4 Plex) X Assembly 2 14-218003 -000-00-CO 9/26/14 5/18/15 3823 NE GLISAN ST 97232 (Church) X 3 14-182266-000-00-CO 5/8/15 5/8/15 1953 NW OVERTON ST 97209 BUSINESS X Mercantile 4 13-208960-000-00-CO 9/24/13 5/12/15 5025 NE 101ST AVE 97220 (conv. Store) X 5 15-167426-000-00-CO 5/8/15 5/18/15 9111 NE HALSEY ST 97220 storage X storage 6 15-163404-000-00-CO 5/1/15 5/1/15 611 SW KINGSTON AVE sheds 7 15-167401-000-00-CO 5/8/15 5/18/15 1505 NE 92ND AVE 97220 utility 8 15-154922-000-00-RS 4/22/15 5/28/15 7340 N MACRUM AVE 97203 singlefamily x 9 15-150944-000-00-RS 4/17/15 5/29/15 2602 NE 13TH AVE 97212 single family X 10 15-153183-000-00-RS 4/21/15 5/27/15 820 NE 69TH AVE 97213 single family X 11 14-171398-000-00-RS 3/17/15 5/27 /15 8249 SE BUSH ST 97266 single family X 12 15-153166-000-00-RS 4/21/15 5/27/15 1721 NE HIGHLAND ST 97211 single family X 13 15-12 7808-000-00-RS 4/14/15 5/27/15 10923 NE FREMONT ST 97220 single family X 14 15-143141-000-00-RS 4/1/15 5/26/15 3810 SE 69TH AVE 97206 single family X 15 15-144620-000-00-RS 4/14/15 5/26/15 25 SE 143RD AVE 97233 single family X 16 15-144591-000-00-RS 4/14/15 5/26/15 14232 E BURNSIDE ST 97233 single family X 17 15-144608-000-00-RS 4/14/15 5/26/15 14238 E BURNSIDE ST 97233 single family X 18 15-150830-000-00-RS 4/17/15 5/26/15 258 SW HUMPHREY BLV 97221 single family X 19 15-100701-000-00-RS 1/6/15 5/22/15 6108 SE STEELE ST 97206 single family X • 20 15-1465 71-000-00-RS 4/8/15 5/18/15 12036 SE PINE ST 97216 single family X 21 14-251632-000-00-RS 12/19/14 5/18/15 7912 NE SCHUYLER ST 97213 single family X 22 15-146489-000-00-RS 4/9/15 5/18/15 3914 N GANTENBEI N AVE 97227 single family X 23 15-136643-000-00-RS 3/19/15 5/15/15 727 SE 130TH AVE 97233 single family X 24 15-143 715-000-00-RS 4/2/15 5/14/15 4723 NE 13TH AVE 97211 single family X 25 15-169939-000-00-RS 5/13/15 5/13/15 301 SE 97TH AVE 97216 single family X 26 09-136539-000-00-RS 6/17/09 5/13/15 5327 N VANCOUVER AVE 97217 ? 27 14-240241-000-00-RS 11/20/14 5/12/15 7604 SE CLAY ST 97215 single famil y X 28 15-135087-000-00-RS 3/17/15 5/11/15 4425 SE 72ND AVE 97206 single family X 29 15-144 73 7-000-00-RS 4/3/15 5/11/15 6419 SE RAMONA ST 97206 5+ unit X 30 15-140942-000-00-RS 3/27 /15 5/7 /15 5804 NE 11TH AVE 97211 single family X 31 14-254162-000-00-RS 12/29/14 5/15/15 B40 NE KILLINGSWORTH 97211 single family X 32 14-244625-000-00-RS 12/3/14 5/14/15 1924 SE 50TH AVE 97215 single family X 33 15-139715-000-00-RS 3/25/15 5/4/15 6903 SE HAROLD ST 97206 single family X 34 15-138392-000-00-RS 3/23/15 5/1/15 6708 SE RAMONA ST 97206 single family X 61 June assembly 1 15-132586-000-00-CO 3/20/15 6/19/15 6941 N CENTRAL ST 97203 (boiler bldg) x 2 15-129733-000-00-CO 3/20/15 6/12/15 c405 SE WOODWARD ST 97206 gymnasium X 3 15-177660-000-00-CO 6/1/15 6/1/15 5235 NE 112TH AVE 97220 X Office 4 15-180130-000-00-CO 6/9/15 6/9/15 D010 NW PETTYGROVE S 97209 Building X 5 15-188109-000-00-CO 6/18/15 6/18/15 5 711 E BURNSIDE ST 97213 commercial X 6 15-129735-000-00-CO 3/20/15 6/12/15 15405 SE WOODWARD ST 97206 shop bldg X 7 15-193874-000-00-CO 6/29/15 6/29/15 411 SE 14TH AVE 97214 commercial X 8 15-193880-000-00-CO 6/29/15 6/29/15 411 SE 14TH AVE 97214 commercial X 9 15-118590-000-00-CO 3/10/15 6/22/15 8448 NE 33 RD DR storage X 10 15-164067-000-00-RS 5/4/15 6/23/15 7217 SW VIRGINIA AVE 97219 duplex X 11 15-164071-000-00-RS 5/4/15 6/23/15 7219 SW VIRGINIA AVE 97219 duplex X 12 15-164059-000-00-RS 5/4/15 6/23/15 7221 SW VIRGINIA AVE 97219 duplex X 13 15-163942-000-00-RS 5/4/15 6/30/15 959 NW MONTE VISTA TE 97210 si ngle family X 14 15-162088-000-00-RS 5/4/15 6/26/15 4833 NE 18TH AVE 97211 single family X 15 15-172234-000-00-RS 5/18/15 6/25/15 7405 SE 64TH AVE 97206 single family X 16 15-172188-000-00-RS 5/18/15 6/24/15 3037 SE PINE ST 97214 single family X 17 15-172180-000-00-RS 5/18/15 6/24/15 4942 NE 35TH AVE 97211 single family X 18 15-170015-000-00-R 5/15/15 6/24/15 3116 N VANCOUVER AVE 97227 single family X 19 15-171739-000-00-RS 5/15/15 6/24/15 5624 SE 22ND AVE 97202 singlefamilv X 20 15-165634-000-00-RS 5/6/15 6/19/15 4233 SE YAMHILL ST 97215 single fami ly X 21 15-154951-000-00-RS 4/22/15 6/19/15 1939 SW IOWAST 97201 single family X 22 15-161139-000-00-RS 4/29/15 6/18/15 3738 SE NEHALEM ST 97202 single family X 23 15-166493-000-00-RS 5/7/15 6/16/15 1807 N KI LPATRICK ST 97217 single famil y X 24 15-160553-000-00-RS 5/1/15 6/16/15 8952 N FORTUNE AVE 97203 single family X 25 15-165129-000-00-RS 5/8/15 6/15/15 10931 SW 61ST AVE 97219 single family X 26 15-150921-000-00-RS 4/17/15 6/12/1 5 5834 N M ISSISSIPPI AVE 97217 single family X 27 15-160486-000-00-RS 5/1/05 6/11/15 750 NE 94TH AVE 97220 si ngle family X 28 15-163615-000-00-RS 5/1/15 6/10/15 4060 SE MALL ST 97202 single family X 29 15-156199-000-00-RS 4/2/15 6/10/15 525 NE ROSA PARKS WA 97211 single family X 30 15-164079-000-00-RS 5/4/15 6/9/15 4123 N MICHIGAN AVE 97217 si ngle familv X 31 15-15 9588-000-00-RS 4/27 /15 6/5/15 3841 SE 150TH AVE 97236 single family X 32 15-156076-000-00-RS 4/27 /15 6/4/15 6320 SE CARLTON ST 97206 single family X 33 14-216483-000-00-RS 9/23/14 6/2/15 4541 N WILLIAMS AVE 97211 single fami ly X 34 15-156145-000-00-RS 4/24/15 6/4/15 4821 SE BROOKLYN ST 97206 si ngle family X 62 July 1 15-195245-000-00-CO 7 /1/15 7 /1/15 4920 SW LANDING DR 97201 commerci al X 2 15-197390-000-00-CO 7 /7 /15 7 /7 /15 1685 SE UMATILLA ST 97202 commerci al X 3 15-197161-000-00-CO 7/10/15 7/10/15 1240 NE 122ND AVE 97230 commerc ia l X 4 15-2 10275-000-00-CO 7 /31/15 7 / 31/15 821 NW EVERETT ST 97209 commerci al X 5 15-210264-000-00-CO 7 /31/15 7 /31/15 303 NW PARK AVE 97209 commercial X 6 15-210282-000-00-CO 7 /31/15 7 /31/15 338 NW 9TH AVE 97209 commercial X 7 15-200509-000-00-CO 7/13/15 7 /13/15 (5617 NE PORTLAND HW\ 97218 commercial X 8 15-183262-000-00-RS 6/9/15 7 / 31/15 2834 SE 20TH AVE 97202 si ngle fami ly X 9 15-209652-000-00-RS 7 /31/15 7 /31/15 8 SE CRYSTAL SPRINGS B 97206 si ngle family X 10 15-175055-000-00-RS 5/22/15 7 /1/15 3930 NE 20TH AVE 97212 si ngle family X 11 15-174826-000-00-RS 5/ 22/ 15 7 /2/15 2025 N ALBERTA ST 97217 single fami ly X 12 15-178253-000-00-RS 6/ 1/15 7 /7 /15 10945 SW 64TH AVE 97219 si ngle fami ly X 13 15-168069-000-00-RS 6/3/15 7/9/15 3106 SE CLINTON ST 97202 single fami ly X 14 15-171360-000-00-RS 5/15/15 7/10/15 3015SWIDAHOST 97201 si ngle fa mily X 15 15-170016-000-00-RS 5/13/15 7/10/15 3934 NE 66TH AVE 97213 si ngle fami ly X 16 15-180063-000-00-RS 6/3/15 7 /10/15 3110 SE FRANCIS ST 97202 si ngle fami ly X 17 15-177676-000-00-RS 5/29/15 7 /10/15 3731 SE FLAVEL ST 97202 si ngle fami ly X 18 15-151283-000-00-RS 4/20/15 7/13/15 4922 NE GOING ST 97218 single family X 19 15-142489-000-00-RS 4/ 1/15 7/13/15 2736 N HUNT ST 97217 si ngle family X 20 15-180114-000-00-RS 6/8/ 15 7/14/15 ,048 NE 8TH AVE - Unit A single fami ly X 21 15-181388-000-00-RS 6/5/15 7/14/15 4110 SE CLINTON ST 97202 single fami ly X 22 15-181224-000-00-RS 6/5/15 7 /15/15 625 N PORTSMOUTH AV 97203 si ngle fami ly X 23 15-181344-000-00-RS 6/5/15 7 /15/15 406 N WILLAMITTE BLVI 97203 si ngle fami ly X 24 15-181316-000-00-RS 6/5/15 7 /15/15 308 N WILLAMITTE BLVI 97203 si ngle fami ly X 25 15-181335-000-00-RS 6/5/15 7 / 15/15 316 N WILLAMITTE BLVI 97203 single family X 26 15-181176-000-00-RS 6/ 5/ 15 7 /15/15 605 N PORTSMOUTH AV 97203 si ngle family X 27 15-181460-000-00-RS 6/5/15 7 /15/15 414 N WILLAMITTE BLVI 97203 si ngle family X 28 15-125327-000-00-RS 3/3/15 7/15/15 4512 NE 26TH AVE 97211 single fami ly X 29 15-173105-000-00-RS 5/27 / 15 7/16/15 1414 SE FRAN KUN ST 97202 si ngle fami ly X 30 15-182220-000-00-RS 6/8/15 7/16/15 109 NE 42ND AVE, 9723 97232 single famil y X 31 15-150819-000-00-RS 4/17/15 7/20/15 4270 SW MELVILLE AVE 97201 si ngle fam i ly X 32 15-192008-000-00-RS 7/ 20/15 7/20/15 4909 SE MITCHELL ST 97206 si ngle fami ly X 33 15-186083-000-00-RS 6/15/15 7 /22/15 9022 NE IRVING ST 97220 single fam i ly X 34 15-186072-000-00-RS 6/ 15/15 7 /22/15 4319 N BORTHWICK AVE 97217 single fami ly X 35 15-17 5 7 46-000-00-RS 5/28/15 7 /22/15 5626 NE 30TH AVE 97211 si ngle family X 36 15-182998-000-00-RS 6/ 9/15 7/23/15 7333 N WESTANNAAVE 97203 si ngle family X 37 15-186036-000-00-RS 6/16/ 15 7 / 23/15 2115 SE 44TH AVE 97215 si ngle famil y X 38 15-183752-000-00-RS 6/10/15 7 /24/15 1806 N ALBERTA ST 97217 si ngle famil y X 39 15-17 4896-000-00-RS 5/28/15 7/24/15 b716 N BORTHWICK AVE 97217 si ngle fam i ly X 40 15-187711-000-00-RS 6/ 17 / 15 7/27/15 6608 SE 43RD AVE 97206 single fami ly X 63 41 15-186858-000-00-RS 6/ 17 /15 7/ 27/15 2224 SE 32ND PL 97214 singlefami lv X 42 15-184516-000-00-RS 6/19/15 7/30/15 ~105 NE SACRAMENTO S 97220 single fami ly X August 1 15-213193-000-00-CO 8/7/15 8/7/15 !423 SE HAWTHORNE BLV 97214 apartments X triplex 2 15-227598-000-00-CO 8/28/215 8/28/15 3029 SE FRANKLIN ST 97202 apartments X 2 story 3 15-215012-000-00-CO 8/10/15 8/10/15 1437 SW BROADWAY 97201 commercial x warehouse 4 15-119430-000-00-CO 3/27/15 8/31/15 1362 NW NAITO PKY 97209 storage X 5 15-213221-000-00-CO 8/7/15 8/7 /15 811 SE STARK ST 97214 commercial x 6 15-216966-000-00-CO 8/12/15 8/12/15 1551 SW TAYLOR ST 97205 commercial x 7 15-207290-000-00-CO 8/18/15 8/18/15 1831 NW 28TH AVE 97210 commercial X 8 15-196400-000-00-RS 7/6/15 8/11/15 pl8 SE DIVISION ST, 972( 97206 duplex X 9 15-196394-000-00-RS 7/6/15 8/12/15 6930 NE 15TH AVE 97211 duplex X 10 15-151367-000-00-RS 4/17 /15 8/25/15 7980 SE 6TH AVE 97202 single family X 11 15-177683-000-00-RS 5/29/15 8/25/15 3416 NE ALAMEDA ST 97212 singlefamilv X 12 15-175623-000-00-RS 5/26/15 8/25/15 5049 SW NEVADA CT 97219 single family X 13 15-181 581-000-00-RS 6/8/15 8/26/15 4511 SE MADISON ST 97215 single family X 14 15-125101-000-00-RS 2/26/15 8/27/15 203 N HOLLAND ST 97217 single family X 15 15-151395-000-00-RS 4/17/15 8/28/15 7524 SE LONG ST 97206 single family X 16 15-227766-000-00-RS 8/31/15 8/31/15 2658 NW THURMAN ST 97210 single family X 17 15-151322-000-00-RS 4/17 / 15 8/25/15 7974 SE 6TH AVE 97202 single family X 18 15-200442-000-00-RS 7/13/15 8/24/15 5012 SE 50TH AVE 97206 single family X 19 15-202965-000-00-RS 7 /17 /15 8/24/15 10020 NE PACIFIC ST 97220 single family X 20 15-186808-000-00-RS 6/16/15 8/21/15 6223 SE TOLMAN ST 97206 single family X 21 14-246239-000-00-RS 12/5/15 8/21/15 4065 N MICHIGAN AVE 97227 singlefamilv X 22 15-201831-000-00-RS 7/15/15 8/20/15 6524 NE GRAND AVE 97211 single family X 23 15-199260-000-00-RS 7/10/15 8/19/15 5414 SE TAYLOR ST 97215 single family X 24 15-199731-000-00-RS 7/13/15 8/19/15 2024 SE HAROLD ST 97202 single family X 25 15-175558-000-00-RS 5/26/15 8/18/15 5030 SE HAROLD ST 97206 single family X 26 15-219786-000-00-RS 8/18/15 8/18/15 7834 SE TAYLOR ST 97215 singl e family X 27 15-165609-000-00-RS 5/6/15 8/18/15 8330 SW 45TH AVE 97219 single family X 28 15-168486-000-00-RS 5/11/15 8/18/15 8052 N JERSEY ST 97203 single family X 29 15-197102-000-00-RS 7/7/15 8/17/15 4842 SE OGDEN ST 97206 single family X 30 15-172453-000-00-RS 5/18/15 8/14/15 4021 NE 7TH AVE 97212 single family X 31 15-163229-000-00-RS 5/1/15 8/14/15 625 NE RANDALL AVE 97232 single family X 32 15-193 721-000-00-RS 7/1/15 8/13/15 3207 SE WASHINGTON S 97233 single family X • 33 15-166488-000-00-RS 5/7 /15 8/11/15 3030 SE REX ST 97202 single family X 34 15-195412-000-00-RS 7/2/15 8/7/15 4015 SW ALICE ST 97219 single family X 35 15-195431-000-00-RS 7 /2/15 8/7/ 15 9221 SW 40TH AVE 97219 single family X 36 15-194122-000-00-RS 6/30/15 8/6/15 1450 SW JEFFERSON ST 97201 single fami Iv X 37 15-194183-000-00-RS 6/30/15 8/5/15 7850 SW 30TH AVE 97219 single family X 38 15-194213-000-00-RS 6/30/15 8/15/15 8514 SW 46TH AVE 97219 single family X 39 15-191206-000-00-RS 6/24/15 8/4/15 2727 NE BRAZEE CT 97212 single family X 40 15-2 2 77 46-000-00-RS 8/31/15 8/31/15 2652 NW THURMAN ST 97210 singlefamilv X 41 15-148920-000-00-RS 5/11/15 8/3/15 14506 SW ORMANDY WA' 97221 single family X 64 September 1 15-237380-000-00-CO 9/16/15/ 9/16/15 4537 NE FREMONT ST 97213 restaurant X 2 15-210014-000-00-CO 9/29/15 9/29/01 1626 NE 9TH AVE 97232 school X factory/i ndu 3 15-232377-000-00-CO 9/4/15 9/4/15 2330 NW RALEIGH ST 97210 stria I X 4 15-132872-000-00-CO 3/17/15 9/25/15 810 N FREMONT ST 97227 storage X 5 15-210048-000-00-RS 7 /31/15 9/23/15 8500 SE SH ERRETT ST 97266 single family X 6 15-214853-000-00-RS 8/10/15 9/23/15 7471 N HURON AVE 97203 single family X 7 15-207779-000-00-RS 7 /28/15 9/23/15 4160 SW PATRICK PL 97201 single family X 8 15-219786-000-00-RS 8/18/15 9/23/15 7834 SE TAYLOR ST 97215 single family X 9 15-214987-000-00-RS 8/11/15 9/18/15 7345 SW 54TH AVE 97219 single family X 10 15-214991-000-00-RS 8/11/15 9/18/15 7339 SW 54TH AVE 97219 single family X 11 15-216725-000-00-RS 8/12/15 9/18/15 7933 N COURTENAY AVE 97203 single family X 12 15-235904-000-00-RS 9/16/15 9/16/15 4525 NE FREMONT ST 97213 single family X 13 15-235887-000-00-RS 9/16/15 9/16/15 4515 NE FREMONT ST 97213 single family X 14 15-206999-000-00-RS 7/27/15 9/16/15 1017 SE 50TH AVE 97215 single family X 15 15-211673-000-00-RS 8/6/15 9/15/15 2821 N WILLIS BLVD 97217 single family X 16 15-211351-000-00-RS 8/4/15 9/15/15 4005 SE LAMBERT ST 97202 single family X 17 15-234254-000-00-RS 9/10/15 9/10/15 7627 SE MILWAUKIE AVE 97202 single family X 18 15-211665-000-00-RS 8/4/15 9/9/15 5025 N AMHERST ST 97203 single family X 19 15-181327-000-00-RS 6/5/15 9/9/15 3215 NE 42ND AVE 97212 single family X 20 15-209617-000-00-RS 7/31/15 9/9/15 2602 N TERRY ST 97217 single family X 21 15-199303-000-00-RS 7/10/15 9/9/15 920 NE SUMNER ST 97211 single family X • 22 15-208252-000-00-RS 7 /28/15 9/4/15 1554 NE 74TH AVE 97213 single family X 23 15-195677-000-00-RS 7 /2/15 9/4/15 1221 SE MALDEN ST 97202 single family X 24 15-210278-000-00-RS 7/31/15 9/25/15 9232 N SMITH ST 97203 single family X 25 15-170043-000-00-RS 5/13/15 9/4/15 5252 NE MULTNOMAH S 97213 single family X 65 October 1 15-245720-000-00-CO 10/9/15 10/9/15 10721 NE SANDY BLVD 97220 mercantile X 2 15-256511-000-00-CO 10/26/15 10/26/15 431 NW 9TH AVE 97209 storage X 3 15-238039-000-00-RS 9/18/15 10/29/15 3945 NE MALLORY AVE 97212 single family X 4 15-240274-000-00-RS 9/22/15 10/29/15 9138 N VAN HOUTEN AVI 97203 single family X 5 13-129119-000-00-RS 3/19/13 10/30/15 1136 SE OAK ST 97214 single family X 6 15-2192S5-000-00-RS 8/18/15 10/28/15 623 NE THOMPSON ST 97212 single family X 7 15-219268-000-00-RS 8/18/15 10/28/15 633 NE THOMPSON ST 97212 single family X 8 15-233525-000-00-RS 9/9/15 10/26/15 6414 NE 34TH AVE 97211 single family X 9 15-227440-000-00-RS 8/28/15 10/23/15 4826 N MISSOURI AVE 97212 single family X 10 15-222484-000-00-RS 8/21/15 10/23/15 5605 SE 67TH AVE 97206 single family X 11 15-235736-000-00-RS 9/14/15 10/23/15 343 NE 75TH AVE 97214 single family X 12 15-1784 70-000-00-RS 6/1/15 10/23/15 6005 NE 6TH AVE 97211 single family X 13 15-235262-000-00-RS 9/15/15 10/22/15 4224 SE 101ST AVE single family X 14 15-236125-000-00-RS 9/14/15 10/21/15 12320 SE REEDWAY ST 97236 single fa mi I y X 15 15-23 27 42-000-00-RS 9/8/15 10/21/15 3721 SE NEHALEM ST 97202 single family X 16 15-253065-000-00-RS 10/21/15 10/21/15 f1005 NE COLUMBIA BLV[ 97211 single family X 17 15-21544 7-000-00-RS 8/11/15 10/21/15 1307 NE 111TH AVE 97220 single family X 18 15-204611-000-00-RS 7 /21/15 10/20/15 5403 NE 17TH AVE 97211 single family X 19 15-204598-000-00-RS 7 /21/15 10/20/15 5329 NE 17TH AVE 97211 single family X 20 15-2342 71-000-00-RS 9/10/15 10/16/15 342 NE 74TH AVE 97213 si ngle family X 21 15-23 2949-000-00-RS 9/8/16 10/16/15 5903 SE KNIGHT ST 97206 single family X 22 15-228311-000-00-RS 8/31/15 10/16/15 5236 SE HENDERSON ST 97206 single family X 23 15-232666-000-00-RS 9/8/15 10/15/15 1535 NE JAR Rm ST 97211 si ngle family X 24 15-229647-000-00-RS 9/1/15 10/14/15 7715 SE 22ND AVE 97202 single family X 25 15-22 7 491-000-00-RS 9/4/15 10/13/15 7104 N KERBY AVE 97217 single family X 26 15-230543-000-00-RS 9/2/15 10/8/15 2410 NE REGENTS DR 97217 single family X 27 15-196491-000-00-RS 7/6/15 10/8/15 3731 SE NEHALEM ST 97202 si ngle family X 28 15-181333-000-00-RS 6/8/15 10/5/15 9004 SE STEELE ST 97266 single family X 29 15-17 5524-000-00-RS 5/26/15 10/5/15 3403 NE 76TH AVE 97213 single family X 30 15-2435 75-000-00-RS 10/2/15 10/2/15 1640 SE TACOMA ST 97202 si ngle fami ly X 31 15-24 3483-000-00-RS 10/2/15 10/2/15 1926 NE MASON ST 97212 single family X 66 November 1 15-251903-000-00-CO 11/6/15 11/6/15 2913 SE STARK ST 97214 restaurant X 2 15-259283-000-00-CO 11/4/15 11/4/15 7434 N CHARLESTON AVI 97203 church X 3 15-259271-000-00-CO 11/4/15 11/4/15 8221 N LOMBARD ST 97203 business X 4 15-259275-000-00-CO 11/4/15 11/4/15 8247 N LOMBARD ST 97203 business X single 5 15-266654-000-00-RS 11/23/15 11/23/15 1515 SE 44TH AVE 97215 famikly X single 6 15-245856-000-00-RS 10/2/15 11/24/15 5919 NE 11TH AVE 97211 famikly X single 7 15-243625-000-00-RS 9/29/15 11/24/15 172 2 NE LI BERTY ST 97211 famikly X single 8 15-230603-000-00-RS 9/4/15 11/25/15 8205 SE 69TH AVE 97206 famikly X single 9 15-266665-000-00-RS 11/19/15 11/19/15 334 SE HAWTHORNE BLV 97215 famiklv X single 10 15-232942-000-00-RS 9/8/15 11/19/15 3535 SW LOGAN ST 97219 famikly X single 11 15-151329-000-00-RS 4/17/15 11/8/15 524 NE 128TH AVE famiklv X single 12 15-250111-000-00-RS 10/13/15 11/17/ 15 935 N WEBSTER ST 97217 famiklv X single 13 15-2307 46-000-00-RS 10/12/15 11/17/15 4805 NE GARF! ELD AVE 97211 famikly X single 14 15-24 7517-000-00-RS 10/7/ 15 11/16/15 3935 NE RODNEY AVE 97212 famikly X single 15 15-24 74 75-000-00-RS 10/8/15 11/13/15 1410 NE JUNIOR ST 97211 famiklv X single 16 15-24 7511-000-00-RS 10/7/ 15 11/13/15 3925 NE RODNEY AVE 97212 famiklv X single 17 15-246608-000-00-RS 10/6/15 11/13/15 5747 SE CARLTON ST 97206 famikly X single 18 15-241527-000-00-RS 9/24/15 11/12/15 920 SE TACOMA ST 97202 famiklv X single 19 15-23 7880-000-00-RS 9/18/15 11/12/15 5110 SE 111 TH AVE 97266 famikly X single 20 15-240283-000-00-RS 9/22/15 11/10/15 1724 N SUMNER ST 97217 famikly X single • 21 15-24 2909-000-00-RS 9/28/15 11/4/15 3679 SE KNAPP ST 97202 famikly X single 22 15-259973-000-00-RS 11/4/15 11/4/15 7434 N CHARLESTON AVE 97203 famikly X single 23 15-207009-000-00-RS 7/27/15 11/2/15 5205 NE 25TH AVE 97211 famikly X single 24 15-244127-000-00-RS 10/21/15 11/30/15 2486 NW RALEIGH ST 97210 famikly X single 25 15-228507-000-00-RS 9/1/15 11/2/15 10345 SE RAMONA ST 97266 famikly X single 26 15-240267-000-00-RS 9/22/15 11/2/15 6025 SE LAMBERT ST 97206 famikly X ~ 7 December 1 15-193736-000-00-CO 12/16/15 12/16/15 6941 N CENTRAL ST 97203 assembly X 2 15-275272-000-00-CO 12/10/15 12/10/15 200 SE MILWAUKIE AV 97202 business X 3 15-274928-000-00-CO 12/9/15 12/9/15 900 NE ML KING BLVI 97212 business X 4 15-282059-000-00-CO 12/29/15 12/29/15 2270 NW GLISAN ST 97210 business X 5 15-275807-000-00-CO 12/21/15 12/21/15 818 SE 6TH AVE 97214 business X 6 15-240438-000-00-CO 9/29/15 12/23/15 6504 NE 29TH AVE 97211 business X 7 15-187851-000-00-CO 6/26/15 12/4/15 135 NW9THAVE 97209 business X 8 15-269170-000-00-CO 12/4/15 12/4/15 413 N INTERSTATE AV 97212 business X 9 15-282045-000-00-CO 12/29/15 12/29/15 2280 NW GLISAN ST 97210 business X 10 15-240498-000-00-CO 9/29/15 12/23/15 2930 NE DEKUM ST 97211 school X 11 15-203916-000-00-CO 7/24/15 12/28/15 5205 SE 86TH AVE 97266 school X 12 15-203900-000-00-CO 7/24/15 12/28/15 5205 SE 86TH AVE 97266 school X 13 15-193744-000-00-CO 12/16/15 12/16/15 6941 N CENTRAL ST 97203 school X 14 15-193725-000-00-CO 12/16/15 12/16/15 6941 N CENTRAL ST 97203 school X 15 15-270482-000-00-CO 12/1/15 12/1/15 535 NW 11TH AVE 97209 school X 16 15-277932-000-00-CO 12/16/15 12/16/15 3610 SE 29TH AVE 97202 warehouse x 17 15-278354-000-00-CO 12/17/15 12/17/15 2837 SE 17TH AVE 97202 warehouse x 18 15-277923-000-00-CO 12/16/15 12/16/15 3612 SE 29TH AVE 97202 warehouse x 19 15-252499-000-00-RS 12/17/15 12/17/15 1208 SE ANKENY ST 97214 duplex X single family 20 15-257565-000-00-RS 10/28/15 12/4/15 846 N GREENWICH AV 97217 house X single family 21 15-253825-000-00-RS 10/21/15 12/23/15 4439 N WILLIS BLVD 97203 house X single family 22 15-256345-000-00-RS 10/26/15 12/3/15 2581 NE 30TH AVE 97212 house X single family 23 15-260567-000-00-RS 11/4/15 12/23/15 5117 SE CORA ST 97206 house X single family 24 15-262608-000-00-RS 11/10/15 12/30/15 5030 NE 28TH AVE 97211 house X single family 25 15-258715-000-00-RS 10/30/15 12/11/15 3836 SE 26TH AVE 97202 house X 68 single family 26 15-259304--000-00-RS 11/2/15 12/18/15 8515 SE 21ST AVE 97202 house X single family 27 15-2Ei0105-000-00-RS 11/4/15 12/15/15 5610 N GREELEY AVE 97217 house X single family 28 15-2Ei0566-000-00-RS 11/4/15 12/11/15 6305 NE 27TH AVE 97211 house X single family 29 15-267963-000-00-RS 11/20/15 12/30/15 5810SE REEDWAYST 97206 house X single family 30 15-269921-000-00-RS 12/1/15 12/1/15 9045W GIBBS ST 97201 house X single family daylighbsm 31 15-269933-000-00-RS 12/1/15 12/1/15 836 SW GI BBS ST 97201 nt X single 21340 NW WATSON family 32 15-280370-000-00-RS 12/22/15 12/22/15 RD 97506 house X single 6856 N GREENWICH family 33 15-257553-000-00-RS 10/28/15 12/4/15 AVE 97217 house X single family 34 15-252406-000-00-RS 10/9/15 12/1/15 1201 NE HOLLAND ST 97211 house X single 3344 SW PALATINE family 35 15-251343-000-00- RS 10/16/15 12/28/15 ST 97219 house X single family 36 15-250940-000-00-RS 10/21/15 12/3/15 3942 NE 76TH AVE 97213 house X single family 37 15-249395-000-00-RS 10/12/15 12/15/15 5018 SE CARL TON ST 97206 house X single family 38 15-246297-000-00-RS 10/5/15 12/4/15 8226SE 63RD AVE 97206 house X single family 39 15-250239-000-00-RS 10/13/15 12/14/15 5729 N ALBINA AVE 97217 house X single fam ily 40 15-248021-000-00-RS 10/8/15 12/15/15 6325 SE 48TH AVE 97206 house X single 2937 NE ROSA PARKS family 41 15-241419-000-00-RS 9/29/15 12/23/15 WAY 97211 house X single 2925 NE ROSA PARKS family 42 15-241417-000-00-RS 9/29/15 12/23/15 WAY 97211 house X single family • 43 15-232167-000-00-RS 9/4/15 12/28/15 1416SE CLATSOP ST 97202 house X single family 44 15-223077-000-00-RS 8/21/15 12/30/15 3910SE 34TH AVE 97202 house X single family 45 15-227371-000-00-RS 8/28/15 12/10/15 4522 SE 41ST AVE 97202 house X single family 46 15-220504-000-00-RS 10/19/15 12/28/15 1616 SE 87TH AVE 97216 house X single family 47 15-209220-000-00-RS 7/29/15 12/3/15 3620 NE 43RD AVE 97213 house X single family 69 48 15-208074-000-00-RS 7/28/15 12/2/15 2003 SE YAMHILL ST 97214 house X single family 49 15-173393-000-00-RS 5/20/15 12/29/15 3505 N WILLIS BLVD 97217 house X single 4431 SW CORONADO fami ly SO 15-254257-000-00-RS 10/21/15 12/3/15 ST 97219 house X B. Demolition permits issued in 20 15 were categorized into single-family, multi- family and commercial. Percent of Single Family Single Family Demolitions Month Total Single Family % of total January 17 71% February 31 86% March 32 78% April 26 72% May 26 76% June 22 65% July 35 83% August 32 78% September 21 84% October 29 94% November 22 85% December 31 62% Percent of Multi-Family Multi Family Demolitions Month Total Multi Family % of total January 1 4% February 0 0% March 1 2% • April 0 0% May 2 -. 6% June 3 9% July 0 0% August 4 10% September 0 0% October 0 0% November 0 0% December 1 2% 70 Percent of Commercial Commercial Demolitions Month Total Commercial % of total January 6 25% February 5 14% March 8 20% April 10 28% May 5 15% June 9 26% July 7 17% August 5 12% September 4 16% October 2 6% November 4 15% December 18 36% C. The total demolitions including all three categories was 420. The last column includes the total number of new single-family houses constructed. • # of Single #of Family New Months Demolitions Construction January 24 9 February 36 13 March 41 11 April 36 10 May 34 7 • June 34 13 July 42 11 August 41 6 September 25 10 October 31 10 November 26 7 December 50 12 420 119 71 D. Total of single family homes demolished and new single family construction. Demolitions New Construction vs Demolitions Month Total Single Family % of total Total Single Family % of total January 17 71% 9 38% February 31 86% 13 36% March 32 78% 10 24% April 26 72% 10 28% May 26 76% 7 21% June 22 65% 13 38% July 35 83% 11 26% August 32 78% 6 15% September 21 84% 10 40% October 29 94% 10 32% November 22 85% 7 27% December 31 62% 12 24% E. Graph shows the existing to new single family construction. Blue column indicates existing single family houses demolished. Red columns indicate replacement single family houses. 72 F. Square footage of new single family home construction was calculated by month using Zillow.com and Google Maps. Carbon equivalency calculated using 25 kg/sq. ft. Pages 73-77. Square Carbon Square Foot of New Single Month Footage Equivalent Family House January 1974 49350 4 Beds 1,974 sq. ft. January 1956 48900 3 beds 3 baths 1,956 sq. ft. January 2162 54050 2 beds 2 baths 2,162 sq. ft. January 2972 74300 3 beds 2.5 baths 2,972 sq. ft. January 2880 72000 4 beds 2.5 baths 2,880 sq. ft. January 3081 77025 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,081 sq. ft. January 2432 60800 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,432 sq. ft. January 2814 70350 2 beds 3.5 baths 2,814 sq. ft. January 2402 60050 4 Beds 3 Baths 2,402 sq. ft. February 2531 63275 4 beds 2.5 baths 2,531 sq. ft. • February 3050 76250 3 beds 4 baths 3,050 sq. ft. February 2361 59025 4 beds 3 baths 2,361 sq. ft. February 2377 59425 4 beds 3.5 baths 2,377 sq. ft. February 2335 58375 3 Beds 3 Baths 2,335 sq. ft. February 1872 46800 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,872 sq. ft. February 2832 70800 4 beds 3 baths 2,832 sq. ft. February 2539 63475 4 beds 3.5 baths 2,539 sq. ft. • February 2408 60200 4 beds 2 baths 2,408 sq. ft. February 2922 73050 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,922 sq. ft. February 2902 72550 4 beds 2.5 baths 2,902 sq. ft. February 2459 61475 3 beds 2.1 baths 2,459 sq. ft. February 2241 56025 4 beds 2.1 baths 2,241 sq. ft. March 2859 71475 4 Bedroom 3 1/2 Bath 2859 sq. ft. 73 March 3120 78000 2 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,120 sq. ft. March 3228 80700 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,228 sq. ft. March 2480 62000 4 beds 3 baths 2,480 sq. ft. March 2432 60800 4 beds 3 baths2,432 sq. ft. March 2878 71950 3 beds 3 baths 2,878 sq. ft. March 2265 56625 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,265 sq. ft. March 2112 52800 3 Beds 1.5 Baths 2,112 sq. ft. March 1965 49125 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,965 sq. ft. March 2526 63150 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,526 sq. ft. April 2256 56400 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,256 sq. ft. April 1445 36125 1,445 sq. ft. April 1841 46025 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,841 sq. ft. April 2375 59375 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,375 sq. ft. April 1566 39150 3 Beds 2.1 Ba 1,566 sq. ft. April 2000 50000 3 bed 2.5 baths 2,000 sq. ft. April 2432 60800 5 Beds 3.5 Baths 2,432 sq. ft. April 3067 76675 4 Beds 3 Baths 3,067 sq. ft. April 3082 77050 4 Beds 3 Baths 3,082s sq. ft. April 1689 42225 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,689 sq. ft. • May 2485 62125 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,485 sq. ft. May 2150 53750 2 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,150 sq. ft. May 2083 52075 3 beds 3 baths 2,083 sq. ft. May 1570 39250 3 beds 2.5 baths 1,570 sq. ft. May 2093 52325 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,093 sq. ft. May 1589 39725 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,589 sq. ft. May 1965 49125 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,965 sq. ft. 74 June 2724 68100 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,724 sq. ft. June 1950 48750 4 Beds 3.5 Baths 1,950 sq. ft. June 2818 70450 4 Beds 3.5 Baths 2,818 sq. ft. June 2587 64675 4 beds 3 baths 2,587 sq. ft. June 2463 61575 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,463 sq. ft. June 2507 62675 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,507 sq. ft. June 1922 48050 3 Beds 3.5 Baths 1,922 sq. ft. June 2582 64550 2 Beds 4 Baths 2,582 sq. ft. June 1586 39650 3 beds 4.1 baths 1,586 sq. ft. June 2592 64800 5 Beds 3 Baths 2,592 sq. ft. June 2728 68200 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,728 sq. ft. June 1940 48500 4 beds 2 baths 1,940 sq. ft. June 3310 82750 4 beds 3 baths 3,310 sq. ft. July 2746 68650 2 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,746 sq. ft. July 3141 78525 5 Beds 3 Baths 3,141 sq. ft. July 2150 53750 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,150 sq. ft. July 2008 50200 3 beds 2.1 baths 2,008 sq. ft. July 2467 61675 4 Beds 3 Baths 2,467 sq. ft. July 2967 74175 5 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,967 sq. ft. July 2800 70000 4 Beds 3.5 Baths 2,800 sq. ft. • July 1764 44100 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,764 sq. ft. July 3353 83825 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,353 sq. ft. July 2578 64450 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,578 sq. ft. July 2785 69625 4 Beds 4 Baths 2,785 sq. ft. August 1949 48725 4 beds 3 baths 1,949 sq. ft. August 2156 53900 3 Beds 3 Baths 2,156 sq. ft. 75 August 3050 76250 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,050 sq. ft. August 3459 86475 5 Beds 3.5 Baths 3,459 sq. ft. August 2540 63500 3 Beds 3 Baths 2,540 sq. ft. August 4512 112800 4 Beds 4.5 Baths 4,512 sq. ft. September 3680 92000 4 beds 4 baths 3,680 sq. ft. September 2127 53175 3 beds 2.5 baths 2,127 sq. ft. September 4135 103375 4,153 3 Beds 3 Bathrooms sq. ft. September 2216 55400 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,216 sq. ft. September 2237 55925 3 beds 2.5 baths 2,237 sq. ft. September 3355 83875 4 Beds 3 Baths 3,355 sq. ft. September 2467 61675 4 Beds 3 Baths 2,467 sq. ft. September 2335 58375 3 Beds 3 Baths 2,335 sq. ft. September 1593 39825 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,593 sq. ft. September 1950 48750 1 Bed 3.5 Baths 1,950 sq. ft. October 2161 54025 4 Beds 3 Baths 2,161 sq. ft. October 2207 55175 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,207 sq. ft. October 2631 65775 5 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,631 sq. ft. • October 2606 65150 4 Beds 3.5 Baths 2,606 sq. ft. October 2591 64775 4 Beds 3.5 Baths 2,591 sq. ft. October 1643 41075 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,643 sq. ft. October 2491 62275 4 Beds 3 Baths 2,491 sq. ft. October 2265 56625 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,265 sq. ft. October 2888 72200 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,888 sq. ft. October 5385 134625 5 Beds 4 Baths 5,385 sq. ft. 76 November 3131 78275 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,131 sq. ft. November 2915 72875 4 Beds 2 Baths 2915 sq. ft. November 2374 59350 4 beds 2.5 baths 2,374 sq. ft. November 2280 57000 3 Beds 2 Baths 2,280 sq. ft. November 3670 91750 4 beds 3 baths 3,670 sq. ft. November 1555 38875 2 beds 2 baths 1,555 sq. ft. November 1950 48750 4 Beds 3 Baths 1,950 sq. ft. December 3409 85225 4 beds 3 full baths 3,409 sq. ft. December 3488 87200 5 beds 5 baths3,488 sq. ft. December 2911 72775 5 Beds 3 Baths 2,911 sq. ft. December 2514 62850 4 beds 2 baths 2,514 sq. ft. December 2578 64450 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,578 sq. ft. December 3046 76150 3 Beds 2.5 Baths 3,046 sq. ft. December 1412 35300 3 Beds 2 Baths 1,412 sq. ft. December 1900 47500 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,900 sq. ft. December 2410 60250 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,410 sq. ft. December 1984 49600 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 1,984 sq. ft. December 1865 46625 3 beds 3 baths 1,865 sq. ft. December 2418 60450 4 Beds 2.5 Baths 2,418 sq. ft. • Average Square 2,508 7,399,050 Total of Carbon Equivalent (kg) Foot Total Square 295,962 Feet 77 G. Total carbon equivalency (kg/C02E) for new single family homes by month. Carbon Equivalent # of New in Month Houses Kilograms January 9 566825 February 13 820725 March 10 646625 April 10 543825 May 7 348375 June 13 792725 July 11 718975 August 6 441650 September 10 652375 October 10 671700 November 7 446875 December 12 687925 H. Graph representing the relationship between new single-family construction and carbon impacts, measured in carbon equivalency (kg). 78 I. Graph representing total demolitions including single-family, commercial and multi-family. J. Total demolitions by percentage - single family houses were approximately 70% of all demolitions. • 79 Bibliography Athena Sustainable Materials Institute in association with Morrison Hershfield Limited, Prepared for Parks Canada.A Life Cycle Assessment Study of Embodied Effects for Existing Historic Buildings. Canada: Athena Materials Institute. 2009. Carter, Thomas and Elizabeth Collins Cromley. Invitation to Vernacular Architecture: A Guide to the Study of Ordinary Buildings and Landscapes . Knoxville: The UniversityofTennessee Press, 2005. Carroon, Jean and Richard Moe. Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings. Hobo ken: Wi I ey, 2010. City of Portland and Multnomah County. 2015 Climate Action Plan. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Draft. July 2014. City of Portland Bureau of Planning. Zoning Code Title 33 Planning and Zoning: Chapter 24.55 Building Demolition. 2016. City of Portland Bureau of Planning. Zoning Code Title 33: Planning and Zoning: Chapter 33.445 Historic Resource Overlay Zone. 2016. Jackson, Mike. "Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation : A Needed Reassessment." APT Bulletin 36.4 (2005): 47-52. • Hasenfus, Erika Leigh . Measuring the Capital Energy Value in Historic Structures . (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Introduction." December, 2004. Haynes, Richard. "Embodied Energy Calculations within Life Cycle Analysis of Residential Buildings." 2013. 80 H. R. Le Treut, Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather. 2007: Historical Overview of Climate Change 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). Chapter, Table 9.4. Maddex, Diane., and National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. New Energy from Old Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1981. McManus, Marcelle C. and Caroline M. Taylor, "The changing nature of life cycle assessment," in Biomass & Bioenergy. 2015. National Trust for Historic Preservation: Preservation Green Lab. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. 2011. Simonen, Kathrina. Life Cycle Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014. State of Oregon. Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines Goal 5: Natural resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. State of Oregon Revised Statutes, Vol. 5 State Government, Government Procedures, Land Use 197.010 (2) in OregonLaws.org, accessed May 2016. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/197.010 State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality, A Life Cycle Assessment Based Approach to Prioritizing Methods of Preventing Waste from Residential Building Construction, Remodeling, and Demolition in the State of Oregon. Phase 1 Report, Version 1.2 Prepared for DEQ by Quantis, Earth Advantage, and Oregon Home Builders Association. October, 2009. • Stipe, Robert . A Richer Heritage. The University of North Carolina Press, 2003, 167. 81 Glossary of Commonly Used Terms Embodied Energy Energy used in raw material acquisition, production of materials, and the assemblage of those materials into a building. 82 Global Warming Potential Referred to as a "reference measure" 83, carbon dioxide is the common reference standard for global warming or greenhouse gas effects. All other greenhouse gases are referred to as having a "CO2 equivalence effect" which is simply a multiple of the greenhouse potential (heat trapping capability) of carbon dioxide. This effect has a time horiz.on due to the atmospheric reacitivty or stability of the various contributing gases over time. The International Panel on Climate Change (2001) 100-year time horiz.on figures have been used here as a basis for the equivalence index: CO2 Equivalent kg = CO2 kg + (CH4 kg x 23) + (N2O kg x 296) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) A science-based comparative analysis and assessment of the environmental impacts of product systems. Unlike other environmental impact systems LCA includes a 'cradle to grave' and ' functional unit' approach to assessing impacts. 84 Operational Energy Energy requirement of the building during its life from commissioning to demolition - this does not include renovations and maintenance. 85 Primary Energy Measured in Mega-joules (MJ), and includes all non-renewable energy, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materials into products and buildings, including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy sources - for example, natural gas used as a raw material in the production of various plastic (polymer) resins. In addition, the measure captures the pre- combustion (indirect) energy use associated with processing, transporting, converting and delivering fuel and energy. This measure provides a close approximation of the fossil fuel use. 86 82 Jean Carroon and Richard Moe, Sustainable Preservation: Greening F.xisting Buildings, (Hoboken: Wiley, 2010), 7. 83 Athena Sustainable Materials lnstitute, User Manual and Transparent Document: Impact Estimatorf or Buildings v. 5, (September, 2014), 46 . 84 Walter Klopfer, The Background and Future Prospects ofL CA, (Springer Netherlands, 20 14 ), 2. 85Richard Haynes, Embodied Energy Calculations within Life Cycle Analysis ofR esidential Buildings, 2013,3. 86 Athena Sustainable Materials lnstitute, Prepared for Parks Canada, A Life Cycle Assessment Study of Embodied Energy Effects for F.xisting Historic Buildings, (Canada: Athena Materials lnstitute, 2009), 4. 82