HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-A POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT 5
r
POLICY/TEXT ,AIVIENDMENT(P/T) #5
IVIISCELLA9VEOU5 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMEIVTS TO
VARIOUS COMPREHENSIVE PL.AN CHAPTERS INCLUDING:
• CHAPTER 9 - THE EiVVIRONIVIENT
s APPENDIX B
~
CHAPTER 9 -
TI3E ENVIRONMENT Introduction
One of the key attractions of Auburn and the Puget So.und Region has
'always been the abundant natural resources found througliout the area.
The Green River Valley was'once a major supplier of agricultural goods
- for the iegion and famiing remains in some parts of the valley. Thick
forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are found tlvoughout the area. As -
the area develops, many of these features, which serve to make the area -
attractive in the first place, are being lost. The strong, emphasis placed on - ,
the designation and protection of resource lands and critical areas in the
Growth Management Act, the Countywide Policies and tliis plan reflect
the important role that these areas play in maintaining the health, safety
and welfaze of the area's citizens.
Issues Environmental Constraints '
and Land Use The City''s overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of
environmental informafion - and factors that are important to the
community: This information can be used to decide i~ where and how
cerfain kinds of development and other activities should be allowed.
City policy should recognize the natural ` constraints placed on
developmenf by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands. A
critical environmental concem is the proper management of gravel
extraction: This is an industry which has been acti4e in Auburn for many
yeazs and which remains a viable industry. The City should, establish cleaz
policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the City's environment, '
such as protection of the City's open space and ' signifi,cant wildlife
habitats. The 'policy should seek to ens.ure ample opportunity for the
City's residents to meet their `recreational needs: Policies'_should be established to protect the public health, safety and quality of life; and to
also protect : the azea's most unique, sensitive and productive ~DdeWd. 09 ~ I
Page 9-1 I , _ Amended20A,' '
Environment
ienvironmental resources. New development should be directed toward
are.as where their adverse impacts can be minimized.
This Plan has increased the specificity of the Ciry's policies relating to use and protection of the natural environment. It also provides a set of geneial
policies which will be used to require the mitigation of significant adverse
impacts. _
GOAL 18. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
To maintain and promote a safe and healthyenvironment and preserve the "
quality of life,, and to protect the area's most unique, sensitive and
productive .natural resources. To encourage natural resource -industries
" within the :city to operate in a, manner, which enhances, (rather than
detracts from),.the orc]erly development of the City.
Objective 18.1. To continue to enhance'and rriaintain the qualityof surface water, ground
water, and shoreline resources in tlie City and Region.
Policies:
EN-1 The City shall seek to ensure adequate and healthful supplies of
domestic water by protecting groundwatec from degradation,-by
providing for surface water infiltration, by minimizing or
j prohibiting unnecessary withdrawals of _ groundwater and by preventing. unintended groundwater discharges cau.sed by
disturbance of water-bearing geological formations.
.
EN-2 Stormwater drainage improvement projects that are proposed. to
discharge to groundwater, such as open water infiltration ponds;
shall provide for surface water pretreatment designed to
standards outlined in the Washington State, Department of
~ '
Ecology s Stormwater 1Vlanagement Manual for the Westerr► _
I ' ~ _ oe~etede ~;g~ soa s
Washington Drainage imProvement ProJects that may potentially -
result' in the exchange of surface and ground waters, such as ,
detention ponds, shall also incorporate.these standards. EN-3 The .Cityshall seek to minimize degradation to surface water
quality and aquatic habitat of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes
and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and, to
preserve and..enhance the aesthetic quality of such waters by
requiring the use of current Best. Management Practices for.
control of stormwater and nonpoint runoff. -
- , ~ Deletiea: os I
I Page 9_2
Amended 20AJ,,
;
Eovironmeot .
EN-4 The City.will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds; lakes and other water bodies with the goal. ,
of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the receiving
waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the
• water quality and habitat of receiving waters. •
EN-S The City Shoreline Master Program, shall govem the
development of all designated Shorelines of the City (Map 9.1).
Lands adjacent to these areas should be managed in a manner
consistent with that progrdm. .
EN-6 Where possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a
natural condition, and degraded streambanks should be enhanced
or restqred. EN-7 _ Uses along the Green and White Rivers should be limited to
. residential, agricultural; open space, rec;eational, mineral
resource extraction and public and quasi-public uses.
Commercial development shall only be allowed on the rivers, if
such development adds new public access to the shoreline area
and is constructed in a manner that will protect the shoreline and
water quality of the rivers through the use of Best Management
Practices.
EN-8 Storm drainage structures and facilitie`s' located within the .
shoreline environment, parklands, or public open space shall
incorporate high standards of design to enhance the natural
appearance, protect significant cultural resources and appropriate
use of the site and surrounding area. Any such facilities located
witliin the shoreline environment: shall be consistent with the
State Shoreline Management Act and the City's Shoreline
Management Program. If accessible to the general public, such facilities should, whenever possible, be designed to preclude the
need for securiry fencing, and should use native vegetation and
, be prope,rly maintained. EN-9 The Ciry shall discourage the use of septic tanks except in those
~ areas which are designated for i Residential_Conservancv and_ - ueietea: numi oses
have suitable soils.. ,
EN-10 The Ciry's design standards shall ensure that the post
' development peak stormwater runoff rates do not exceed the
' predevelopment rates.
EN-11 The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the
City is of equivalent quality to the water entering: : This will be
, I oeleroee: 09 ~
. ,
Page 9-3
I , Amended201(, •
Environment
accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface
and ground - waters through . education programs and
implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices.
EN-12 T'he City shall continue to work with adjacent jurisdictions to •
enhance and protect water, - quality in the region through
coordinated and consistent programs and regulations.
EN-13 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water
quality as part of its env'vonmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources
shall be a priority concern in such reviews.
EN-14 The City shall require the use of Best Management Practice.s to :
enhance and protect water-quality as.dictated by the.City's Design
and Construction Standards and the Washington State
Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for '
the_Westem Washington._.._In all_new development,._approved_ celetea: Puget souasasm .
~
water quality treatment . measures that are :;applicable and
represent the best available science or technology shall be
required prior to dischazging storm waters into the City- storm, ,
drainage system or into. environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. -
wetlands, rivers, and groundwafer:)
EN-15 The: City recognizes that "new development can have impacts
including, but not limited to, flooding, erosion and decreased
water guality on downstream communities and-natural drainage .
courses. T'he City shall : continue to actively participate in.
developing and implementing regional water quality, planning
and flood hazard reduction efforts within the Green River, Mill
Creek and White. River drainage basins. The findings and
recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but , not
limited to, the "Draft" Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
'for the M'ill Creek Basin;,the "Draft" Mill Creek Flood. Control
Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement, and
the Mill Creek Water Quality Management Plan, shall be
considered by the City as City programs and plans; are developed
and updated.
EN-16 The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing
natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and
storage. However, these natural systems can- be severely
impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled : release of
contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for.
storm drainage purposes, the City, shall carefully consider the
potential for adverse impacts through the environinental- review
Deletad: 09 ,I
Page 9-4
. I Amended 201
~
~
Environment
process. Important natural systems shall not be used for storm
drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated
that adyerse impacts can be adequately mitigated to a less than
significant level
EN-17 The City recognizes that stormwater tteatment facilities do not
function efficiently unless maintained. The City shall strive to
ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention ,
and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as
designed.
EN-17A Encourage the use of low impact development techniques in
public and private development proposals in order to minimize
impervious surfaces and improve water quality.
Objective 18.2. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality. of air resources in the
City and Region.
Policies:
EN-18 The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air
quality- as `will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and
animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and
conyenience of azea inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of
the natural amactions of the area.
EN-19 The City will continue to support and rely on the various State,
Federal and local programs to continue to protect and enhance air
quality.
EN-20 The Ciry shall encourage the retention of vegetation and
encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended ,
parEiculates. .
EN-21 Tlie City shall sup"port an increased role for public transportation .
as a means to reduce locally generated air emissions.
EN-22 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air
quality as a part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures.
Objective 18.3. To, continue to enhance atid maintain the quality of land, wildlife and
vegetative resources in the City and region.
ueleted: ov I
,
Page 9-5 .
I Amended 201J(,
Eoviroument
Policies: -
i
EN-23 T'he City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing ,
the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and
groundcover; by promoting° the design and development of
landscaped azeas which provide food and cover for wildlife;' and
by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat.
EN-24 The Ciry shall consider the impacts of new development on the
guality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats
(Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental
review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involvethe retention of.significant habitats
and the use of native landscape vegetation. .
EN-25 The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat
suitable for anadromous fish use oi that has the potential to be rehabilita.ted for fish use in the future is a bridge. The use of
culverts shall be discouraged as a crossing method for such
watercourses. Culvert systems may be considered if streambeds >
similar to natural channels can be provided, no loss of
anadromous fish habitat will occur or the cost of a bridge is
prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation.
EN-26 The City shall work in collaboration with other, agencies, the
development community and other affected or interested parties to protect identified wildlife corridors and encourage the
clustering of significant or adjacent resources to maintain
connectivity of these"systems.
Objective 18.4. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland
resources in the City and region.
Policies:
EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological
roles; that wetlands play in pmviding plant and animal habitat, '
protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood
and storm drainage systems, inaintaining water quality, and in
providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural
opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in
all new development and will also pursue opportunities to .
enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple.benefits
can be achieved.
~ ~~ed: 09 - I
,
Page 9-6
I Amended 201
( , ' _
Environment
EN-28 The City recognizes. that wetlands provide varying degrees of biological and hyd "rological functions and values to the
~ community deperiding on the size, complexity and location of the
individual sy'stem; and that the overall degree of functions and values, should be considered when reviewing proposals which
impact wetlands: In a, similaz manner; the levels of protection
afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its existing function
and va(ues. The City shall continue to promote policies and ,
practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically
connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and
aquatic habitat.
EN-29 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review
process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring ,
measures of important 'wetland areas. Such mitigation may
involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement
of importanf wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering. .
The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland '
functions and values.' A permanent deed restriction shall be
placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure tHat they
are preserved in PerPetuIh'•
.
EN-30 Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or provide
significant plant,and animal habitat opportunities aze recognized
by the City as the most important wetland systems, and shall
receive the highest degree of protection and mitigation through
conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands
which are limited in size, aze isolated. from major hydrological
systems or provide limited hydrological or plant and animal
habitat ` opportunities may be considered by the City for
development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate
mitigation. .
EN-31 Speculative filling of wetlands shall only be permitted if in
compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill
Creek; when it is adopted:
EN-32 It is the City's intent to pursue development 'of an area-wide
wetlands management program for the entire. Ciry to establish a
systems approach to wetlands management: The City shall work
with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the Special _
Area Management Plan (SANiP) for the Mill Creek Basin,; a draft
version of which has been developed with tlie U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The purpose of the SAMP is to establish uniform
wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning
~ uoewd: os 1
Page 9-7 I Amended 201
C,
Environment
area, to develop a regional consensus and predictabiliry by
identifying important wetlands which must be conserved and less
important wetlands which may be developed. The SAMP is
intended to enswe a b.alance of the City's commitrnent between -
environmental and economic development interests. The City
sha11 strive to sUreamline the permitting process for development
in the areas covered by the SAMP.
Map 9.3: General Location of Wetlands
Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located within
Auburn. Prepared on an atea-wide basis, the inventory map provides a
general delineation of lmown wetlands based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers definition and' the 1989 Federal Manual For ldentifying and
Delineating Jwisdictional Wetlands field Methodology. It is important to
note that this map is only a wetland inventory and not a wetland plan.
Over time wetlands develop; expand and contract in conjunction with
changing climatic, natural and artificial conditions.
The map does not imply that a parcel covered by a wetland designation is
fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in depth
wetland del.ineation is required. Therefore; future site specific wetland
studies conducted by the property owner will identify the precise location;
delineation and functional characteristics of known wetland areas, and
additional wetland areas not previously inventoried. The Auburn Planning
Department has wetland reports that can provide information regarding
soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife for these wetlands. • -
Objective 18.5. To recognize; the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation
and to promote its: retention and propagation. Consideration sha11 be given
to promoting the use of native.vegetation. Policies:
EN-33 The City recognizes the important -benefits of natiye vegetation
including its role in attracting native wildlife, preserving the
natural hydrology, and maintaining the natural character of the
Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can also reduce the
use.of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants thai may enter nearby water systems) and reduce watering
required of non-native species (thereby promoting conservation).
, The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an
integral part of public and private development plans through
strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following: ~ oweeed: 09 ~
Page 9-8
I .Au►ended 201
Enviroement
o Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes
and in public facilities.
o Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how
native, plants can be used in private development proposals. o Pursuing opportunities to educate the public about the
benefits of native plants: EN-33A Development regulations shall emphasize the use of native plant
materials that complement the natural character of the Pacific
Northwest and which are adapta6le to the c.limatic hydrological
characteristics of the. region. Regulations should provide
specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use.
EN-34 The City shall discowage the unnecessary disturbance of natural
vegetation in new development.
EN-35 The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in ,
landscaping for both public and private projects.
EN-36 The City shall update and amend its landscaping ordinances to
ensiire that sufficient landscaping is a required componenr of all
development: Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and
quantity of landscaping.
EN-37 The City shall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at
protecting large stands of trees and significant trees withim the
City.
EN-38 The Ciry shall develop a tree planting and maintenance program:
Objective 18.6. To promote energy efficiency and management of resources in the ' development and operation of public facilities and services, as well as in
private development. .
Policies:
EN-39 The Ciry shall encourage the use of renewable°energy and other
natural resources over non-renewable resources wherever
practicable and shall protect deposits or supplies of important
non-renewable natural resources from developments or activities
which will preclude their future utilization.
EN-40 T'he City of Auburn Energy . Management, Plan is hereby
incorporated as an element in this Comprehensive Plan.
- , ~ Wded: 09 I
Page 9_9 '
I Amended 201~. '
Environment
EN-41 The City encourages site design practices that maximize winter
exposure to solar radiation.
Objective 18,7. Enhance and maintain the quality of life for the City's inhabitants by
promoting a healthy environment and reducing the adverse impact of
environmental nuisances. ' Policies:
EN-42 The City shall seek to minimize the exposwe of area inhabitants
to the harmful effects of excess noise. Performance measures for
noise impact ori surrounding development should be adopted and
enforced. EN-43 The City shall seek to minimize the exposwe of area inliabitants
to excessive levels of light and glare. Performance measures for
light and glare exposure to surrounding development should be
'adopted and enforced. -
EN-44 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of azea inhabitants
from noxious plant species.
Objective 18.8. To establish management policies which effectively control the operation
and location of mineral extraction. in the City, in order to reduce the
inherent adverse impacts that such activities produce in an urban
environment.
Policies:
' EN-45 The cost_effective availability of sand and gravel materials is
needed to support the development of freeways; roads,. public
works, and private construction. Mineral eictraction may "
therefore be permitted if in accord' with these policies.
EN-46 Existing mineral extraction operations (as specifically authorized
by a Ciry pennit to mine) shall be allowed to continue operation
for the duration of, and in accord with, their existing permits.
EN47 Mineral extraction operations shall not be considered a permitted
use in any zoning district. They are to be reviewed as special
uses and shall be conducted. only in accord with the measures
needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the operation
shall be denied whenever any impact is deemed by the City
Council to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated.
~ ~ebed. 09 Il
' Page 9-10
I Amended 201
Environment
EN-48 . A final grading, drainage and erosion control plam shall be
submitted. with every application. Conditions of operation shall
be spelled out in detail with performance bonds. required to
enswe compliance. Failure to comply with tlie provisions will be
adequate grounds for suspension and subsequent termination of
the permit:
EN-49 The burden to demonstrate compliance with these policies and to
demonstrate the need for a new permit or a renewal of a permit
for any mineral extraction operation rests solely on the operator.
. The bwden to operate in compliance with _these policies and any
permit issued in accord with the. same shall also be on the .
operator.
EN-50 T'he City shall consider impacts of mining on groundwater and
surface water quality as well as possible changes in hydrology as a result of the mining during the environmental review process and require appropriate mitigating measuces to prevent water
qualiry. degradation.
EN-51 Mineral resource azeas or lands are those lands which have high
quality resources that can be commercially mined for a minimum
of twenty years (Map 9.4). Properties around.which urban growth
is occurring,should not be considered as mineral resource areas.
As required by RCW 36.70A.060, the City shall require
notification on all plats, short plats, development permits and
building permits issued for development within 500 feet of these
lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development for certain
periods of limited dwation.
EN-52 Additional mineral extraction operations or major expansion of
ezisting operations onto adjacent' parcels shall be permitted
within mineral resowce areas. Impacts of the operations must be
studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City
shall require implementation of all reasonable mitigating
measwes identified in those studies. Permits for the operation
and renewal of permits.for existing operations shall be denied
whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated.
EN-53 Additional mineral extraction operations or ezpansions of
existing ope;ations will only 6e allowed outside of mineral
resource azeas where it is advisable to mod'ify slope to create
usable, land (or to provide; another pulilic benefit _associated with
the site) and where the community will suff,er no substantial short
~ Dweoed: 09 I
Page 9-1] '
I Ameaded 20 1J(,
Environment
or long term adverse effect. Impacts of the operations. must be
studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City
shall require implementation of all reasonable mitigating
measures identified in those studies. . Permits for the operation
and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied
whenever any impact cannot be accepta.bly mitigated..
EN-54 New mineral extraction operations and expansion of exisfing ,
mineral extraction operations will not be permitted in areas designated for "open space" uses. -
- EN-55 The creation of usable land consistent with this comprehensive -
plan should be the end result of a mineral extraction operation.
The amount of material to be removed shall be consistent with
the end use. While this policy shall be rigidly applied to
developed areas and to all areas outside of mineral resource ,
azeas, some flexibility -may, be appropriate within ' mineral
resource azeas.
EN-56 Aesthetic qualities, erosion control, the effect on community and
the creation of usable land which is consistent with approved •
Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Ciry '
Reclamation Plans shall be the primary considerations in a
decision to grant a permit for a new mineral eztraction_ operation ;
or to extend'the scope of an existing mineral extraction operation
outside designated mineral resource azeas.
GOAL 19. HAZARDS
To minimize the risk from environmental and manmade hazards to present ~
and future residents of the communiry. .
Objective 19.1. To reduce potential hazards associated .with flood plains without uriduly
restrictirig the benefits associated with,the continued development of the
Lower Green River Valley floor. Po(icies:
EN-57 The City shall seek to protect human health and safety and to
minimize damage to the property of area inhabitants by
minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or inundation,
EN-58. Flood prone properties outside of the floodway may be
developa6le provided that such development can meet the De1L~n& Fedavl flaW
standards set forth in the,National Flood Insurance P~o~ram.._ /°d`~`-'
_ _ - - - - - - - - Wete~
. P _
odetied: 09 _ I
Page 942 , I Amended 201
~
I
0
- ' EnvironmenE
EN-59 Any subdivision of property within the flood plain shall avoid
creating lots which would be subject to serious threats to life,
health and property froia floodwaters. EN-60 Site plan review shall be required under SEPA for any significant
(e,g. over the SEPA threshold) development in the flood plain.
- Appropriate mitigating measures shall be cequired whenever
needed to reduce potential hazards.
EN-61 Any development within the floodway which would reduce the
capacity ofthe floodway shall beprohibited.
EN-62 The Giry shall enact ordinances and review development
proposals in, a manner which restricts and contro.ls the discfiarge
of storm water from new development. At a minimum the peak dischazge rate after development shall not ezceed the peak
discharge rate before development.
EN-63 The City's development standards should require control and
management of storm waters in a manner which minimizes -
impacts from'flooding.
EN-64 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on
frequently flooded areas (Map 9.5) as part of its environmental '
review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures.
As part of this review process, flood engineering. and impact
studies may be required. Within FEMA designated 100 year
I floodplains , the Citv of Aubum Re ug latory floodplain, and other .
designated frequently flooded areas, such mitigation may include
flood engineering studies, the provision. of compensatory flood ,
storage, floodproofing of structures, elevating. of structures, and
downstream or upstream improvements.
EN-65 Areas designated as frequently flooded areas should include 100
year future condition floodplains wherever futwe condition flows have been modeled and adopted by the City :as pait of a basin -
plan.
J
EN-66 Land uses and public and quasi-public facilities which would
present special risks, such as hazardous wasfe storage facilities, hospitals; schools, nursing homes, and police and fire stations,
should not -be, constructed in designated frequently flooded areas
unless no reasonable alternative is available. . If these facilities
aze located in designated frequently flooded areas, these facilities
and the access routes needed for their ope_ratioa,.should be built '
in a manner that protects public health and safety during at least
Deleeea: 09 ~
~
~
Page 9-13
I Amended 2010
1
. . . , e .
Environment
the 100 yeaz flood. In addition; special measures should be taken
to ensure that hazardous or toxic substances are not released into
flood waters.
EN-67 Developers in 'floodprone areas shall provide geotechnical
- inforrriation which identifies seasonal high groundwater ,
elevaxions for a basis to design stormwater facilities in conformance with City design criteria.
EN-68 The Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan, when complet.ed, shall
be the basis for the establishment of downstream drainage
conditions for development in that area.
Objective 19:2. To ensure that _development is properly located and constructed with
respect to the, limitations of the underlying soils and subsurface drainage.
Policies:
EN-69 T'he City. shall seek to ensure that land not be developed or
; otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or
significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide,
subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The Ciry's deyelopment
standards shall dictate the use of:Best Management Practices to
minimize the potential for these problems.
EN-70 Where there is a high probabiliry of erosion (see Map 9.6),
grading should be kept to a minimum and disturbed vegetation
should be res,tored as soon as feasible. The City's.development -
standards shall dictate the use of $est Management Practices for
clearing and grading activity. . . .
EN-71 The City shall' consider. the impacts of new development on
hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of
its environmental review process and require _ any appropriate
. mitigating measures.
' EN-72 Lazge scale speculative flling and grading activities not
associated with a development proposal shall be discouraged as. it -
reduces a vegetated. site's natural ability to provide erosion control and biofiltration, absorb storm water, and filter suspended , .
particulates. In instances where speculative„ filling is. deemed
appropriate, disturbed vegetation shall be restored as soon as
possible; and appropriate measures to control erosion and '
sedimentation until the site is developed shall be required. .
~ ndecea: 09 ~
Page 9-14 ,
I Amended 201~, .
Environment '
EN-73 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on Class
I and Glass III landslide hazard areas (Map 9.7) as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures. . The impacts of the new development, both
-
during and a8er construction, on adjacent.properties shall also be
considered.
EN-74 Auburn will seek to retain areas with slopes -in excess. of 40
percent as primarily open space areas in order to protect against
erosion and landslide hazards and to limit significant removal of
vegetation to hetp conserve Auburn's identity within the
metropolitan region. Slopes greater than 15 percent with zones of
emergent water (springs or ground water seepages) and all slopes
with mapable landslide potential identified by a' geotechnical "
study stiall be protected from alteration.
EN-75 The City will require that a geotechnical report prepazed by a
professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington with
expertise in' geotechnical engineering be submitted for all
significant acti'vities proposed within Class I and . Class III
landslide hazard azeas (Map 9.7). The City shall develop
, administrative guidelines which identify the procedures and information required for the geotechnical reports. . £N-76 New development within Class I and Class.III landslide hazard
areas (Map 9.7) shall be designed and located to minimize site _
disturbance and removal of vegetation; 'and to maintain the
natural topographic character of the site. Clustering of structures,
minimizing building footprints, and retaining trees and other
natural vegetation, shall be considered.
Objective 193. To reduce risks associated with the transportation and storage of
hazardous materials.
Policies: . .
EN-77 The City shall seek to.minimize the exposure of area inhabitants
to the risk of explosion or hazardous emissions; and to require
proposals involving the potential risk of an explosion or the '
release of hazardous substances to include specific measures '
which will protect the public health, safety and welfare:
EN-78 The risk of hazardous materials, substances and wastes shall be
incorporated into the Ciry's emergency management programs. •
, 1 oeletea: 09 ~
~
Page 9-15
I Amcnded 201
En'viron meut
EN-79 New commercial (other than retail coinmercial) or industrial uses
which involve the transport or storage of hazardous materials;
substances or wastes shall only be located in that portion.of the
designated Region Serving Area - of the City between the
Burlington Noithern Railroad tracks and east of the West Valley Highway..
EN-80 Any existing wfiolesale storage or manufacturing of hazardous materials, substances or wastes in ttie designated Commuriity " - Serving: Area of the City, or within 2000 feet.of a school or medical facility, shall be considered a non-conforming use and
the City should assertively seek its removaL
EN-81 The treatment, storage, processing, handling and disposal of any ,
hazardous material, substances or. wastes shall be only in the
strictest compliance with any applicable local, state or federal .
law.
EN-82 The City shall consider the impacts posed by new development . ~
on risks associated with. hazardous materials, substances and
wastes as a part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures.
EN-83 The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle/King
Counry, and the.King,CountySolid Waste Interlocal Resolution
No..90-001, are hereby adopted and incorporated as an element
of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
EN-84 The City's surface water, ground water, sanitary, and storm
drainage systems shall be protected from :contamination by
hazardous materials or, other contaminants.
- r r m val of exi tin er und stora e h 11 onl
EN 85 Use o e o s g und gro g, tanks s a y
be done in the strictest compliance with applicable local, state
and federal law.
GOAL 20 POLIGIES FOR PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED FISH
SPECIES -
The Ciry re.cognizes that anadromous Salmonids require clean; cool, well-
oxygenated water in adequate quantity for survival and especially. dtiring
the critical periods of rearing and migration both before spawning and
after juveniles emerge. Salmonid eggs are highly affected during
incubafion and hatching by water temperature, flow velocity, water quality
and excessive turbidity. Streams composed of complex habitats with a -
. , IoeIetea: 09 . I
,
. Page 9-16 I Amended 20A
Eovironment
high proportion of riffles and pools provide productive spawning habitats;
as well as juvenile rearing areas in eddying and off-channel areas.
; Objective 20.1 To aid in the protection of listed and candidate endangered fish species.
Policies: •
_ EN-86 The City will continue to participate and support the various ' State, Federal and local programs including Water Resource
Invento"ry Area(WRIA) No. 9(Green River) and WRIA No. 10
(White-StuckRiver) to protect and restore endangered species. EN-87 The City shall seek to minimize surface waier guality and aquatic
habitat degradation of creeks, streams, rivers, p,onds, lakes and
other water bodies; to preserve and erihance fhe suitability of
such water bodies as habitai for restoration of endangered
species. .
EN-88 The City shall obtain information during, the review of
development proposals; as it relates to the Endangeced Species
Act, so that'best management practices and best ayailable science
are considered and included in the City's evaluation and
decision-making process, EN-89 The City shall identify the types and qualities of aquatic
_ resources witliin its borders and further develop plans and program for the protection and enhancement of these resources '
based on their characteristics.
GOAL 21 GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN AUBURN'S
SHORELINES
The following general policies.and regulations apply fo all shorelines of
the state that are located in. Auburn, regardless of the specific shoreline
environment designation in any one location.
Objective 21.1 Ensure conservation and restoration within Auburn's shorelines.
Polices•
EN-90 Prioritize enhancement;and restoration efforts at`public parks and
public open space lands.
Deleoad: 09 I
_ Page 9-17 :
I , Amended 201
Environment
EN-91 Work with owners of other publicly-owned land to encowage
restoration and enhancement projects.
EN-92 Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize
restoration opportunities identified in the Sfioreline Inventory
and Characterization Report.
EN-93 Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds
and, nonnative species to avoid adverse impacts to •hydrology,
and reduce the hazard of slope failwes or accelerated erosion.
EN-94 Integrate bioengineering and/or soft engineering approaches into
local and regional flood control measures, infrastructure, and
related capital improvement projects.
EN-95 Develop a program to implement restora#ion projects, including
funding strategies.
EN-96 Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects.
EN-97 Gontinue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 and 10 Forums,
the Muckleshoot Tribe, and other governmental and-non-
.governmental organizations to explore how local governments
(with their assistance) can best address the needs of preserving
ecological processes and shoreline functions.
EN-98 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
Green River Flood Control Zone.District, and the Inter-County .
River Improvement Agency to identify and implement flood
management strategies that protect existing development and
. restores floodplain and channel migration functions.
EN-99 Continue to work with the WRIA 9 and ] 0 Forums to restore
- shoreline habitats and seasonal ranges that support, listed .
enclangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous
fisheries.
oeleeea: os 11
Page 9-18 Amended 201
C,
" Eovironment
EN-100 Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise
attractive to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into
deyelopment projects. -
EN-101 Encourage restoration or enhancement of native riparian
vegetation through incentives and non-regulatory prograrns..
EN-102 Establish public, education materials to provideshoreline landowners tecliriical assistance about the benefits of native '
vegetation plantings. EN-103 Explore opporlunities with other educational organizations and ,
agencies to develop an on-going program of shoreline education
for all ages. . EN-104 Identify areas where kiosks and interpretive signs can enhance .
die educational experiences of users of shoreline areas.
EN-105 Develop strategies to fund shoreline-related educational and
interp;etiVe projects.
Objective 21.2 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.
Polices:
EN-106 Developments and activities in the City's shoreline should be
planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace
shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of ,
tlie ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes '
performed by vegetation. ' EN-107 Woody debris.should be left in river corrid'ors to enhance wildlife ' • habitat and. shoreline ecological , functions, except. where it
threatens personal safety or critical infra§tructure, such as 6ridge • ,
pilings. In such ,cases where debris poses a threat, it should be
dislodged; but should not be removed from the river.
ueletea: 09 ~
Page 9-19
I Amended 201 ,
i
Environment
Objective 213 Environmental Impact Mitigation.
Polices: ` .
EN-108 All shoreline use and development should be carried out in a
manner that avoids arad minimizes adverse impacts so that the
resulting ecological conditions do not become worse than the
current condition. This means assuring no net loss of ecological -
functions and processes and protecting critical areas designated
in Appendix A, Chapter 16, 10 "Critical Areas" that are located in
the shoreline. Should a proposed use and development
potentially create significant. adverse environmental impacts not
otherwise avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master
program, the Director should require mitigation measures to
ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objective 21.4 Critical Areas.
Policies: EN-109. Provide: a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline
that is at least equal to that which is provided by the. City's
critical azeas regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth
Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan.
EN-110 Allow activities in critical areas that protect and, where possible,
restore the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of
the City's shoreline. If conflicts between the SMP and the critical
area regulations arise, the regulations that aze most consistent
with the SMA or its WAC provisions will govern. EN-111 Treserve,: protect, restore and/or mitigate wetlands within and
associated with the City's shorelines to achieve no net loss of
wetland azea and wetland functions.
EN-112 Developments in shoreline areas that are -identified as
geologically hazardous or pose a foreseeable risk to people and '
improvements during the life of the development should. not be
allowed.
Objective 21.5 Public Access (including views).
I Weeed. 09 I
Page 9-20 , I Amended 2010
. .
Enviroomeut
Policies:
EN-113 Public acces$ improvements should not ;esult in adverse impacts
tottie natural character and quality of the, shoreline and
associated ~wetlands or result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. Developments and activities within the shoreline
should not impair or detract from the public's visual or physical 'access to the water. ,
EN-114 Protection and enHancement of the public's physical and visual '
access to shorelines should be encouraged.
EN-l 15 The amount and diversity of public access to sfiorelines should be
increased consistent with the natural shoreline characfer, '
property rights, and public safety. EN-116. Publicly owried_ shorelines should 6e limited to water-dependent
or public recreation uses, otherwise such. shorelines should
remain protected, undeveloped open space. .
EN-117 Public access should be designed to provide for public safety.
Public access facilities should provide auxiliary, facilities, such.as parking and sanifation facilities, when appropriate, and should be
designed to'be ADA accessible. -
Objective 21.6 Flood Hazard Reduction. .
Policies:
EN-118 The City should manage flood protection through the City's `
~ Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan, Comprehensive Plan,
stormwater regulations, and flood hazard area regulations.
EN-119 Discourage development within the. floodplains associated with
'
the Ciry's shorelines that would individually or cumulatively
result in an increase to the risk of flood damage.
EN-120 Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures should b.e given
preference over structural measwes. Structural flood hazard ,
reduction measures should be avoided whenever possible: When ~~leted; 09 ~
-
Page 9-21
~ - Amenaea 201
Environment
necessary, they should be accomplished in a manner that assures .
no net loss of ecological function and ecosystem-wide processes. .
- Non-structural measures include setbacks; land use controls
prohibiting or limiting development in areas that have--are
historically flooded, '"stormwater management plans, or
bioengineering measures.
EN-121 Where possible, public access should be integrated into publidy
financed flood controt and management facilities.
Objective 21.7 Water Quality, Storm Water and Non-Point Pollution.
Policies:
EN-122 T'he City should preyent impacts to water quality and storm water
quantity ttiat would result ,in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities,, or
recreational opportunities.' .
EN-123 Storm water management. treatment, conveyance, or discharge
facilities should be discouraged in the shoreline jurisdiction;
unless no other feasible alternative is available.
EN-124 Low impact development techniques that allow` for greater
amount of storm water to infiltrate into the soil should be
encouraged to reduce storm water run-off.
EN-125 Encourage conservation of existing shoreline.vegetation which ~
provides water quality protection'by slowing and filtering storm
: water run-off. '
Objective 21,8 Educational and Aicheological Areas and Hisforic Sites.
Policies:
EN426 Where possible, Educational and Archeological Areas and
Historic sites in the shoreline should be permanently preserved
forscientific study, education, and public observation.
ueleome 69
Page 9-22 .
I Amended 201
,
Environment
EN-127 Gonsideration should be given • to the National Historic ,
Preservation Act of 1966 and Chapter 43.51 RCW to provide for
the protection, rehabilitation, restontion and reconstruction of
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects located or
associated with the shoreline that aze significant in American,
Washington and local history, architecture, archeology or
- culture.
EN-128 Where feasible and appropriate, access trails to shorelines should
incorporate access to educational signage acknowledging
protected, historical, cultural and archeological sites oi areas in the shoreline.
Objective 219 Nonconforming Use and Development Standards.
Policies: ~
EN-129 Legally estabtished uses and developments that predate the
City's Shoreline Master Program (1973, as amended) should be
allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses provided that
future developmeat or redevelopment does not increase the
degree of nonconformity with this program. ,
GOAL 22 SHORELINE MODIFICATION
Shoreline modifications are generally related to construction of a physical
element sucfi as a levee, bulkhead, or pier at or near tlie edge of a river or
extending into the cliannel. Other modification actions include dredgirig,
filling, or vegetation clearing. Modifications are usually undertakerr in
support of or in preparation for an allowed shoreline use or development.
06jective 22.1 Prohibited Modifications
The following shoreline modifications are prohibited in all shoreline.
environments unless addressed separately in this shoreline master program
under another use:: ~ -
1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs:
2. Dune modifications; and •
3. Piers and docks. -
neleoea: 09 ~j
Page 9-23
I Amended 201_0,
Envirooment
Objective 22.2 Dredging Dredge Material Disposal: `
Policies: ,
EN-130 Dredging and dredge material disposal should be done in manner
which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. Where .
impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation measures are required that
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
EN-131 Dredge spoil disposal in water bodies, on shoreland's, or wetlands '
within a river's channel migration zone should be discouraged, ,
except as needed for habitat improvement.
EN-132 .New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if that .
is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance
dredging.
Objective 22.3 Piers and•Docks.
Policies: ~
EN-133 The City should discourage.the construction of new piers; docks,
or floats in the shoreline jurisdiction along the Green and White
Rivers.
Objective 22.4 Shoreline Sfabilization (bulkheads and revetments).
Policies:
EN-134 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necess.itate new or .
increased shoreline stabilization on the same or other affected ~
properties where there has been no previous need for ;
stabilization should be discouraged. ,
EN-135 New shoreline uses and development should be located away
from the shoreline in order to preclude the need for new,
.
stabilization strvctures.
~ C*IeWa: o9 I;
Page 9-24
I
01
Amended 2 g, '
. .
Environment EN=136 Structural or "hard" shoreline stabilization techniques and
structures should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that
non-structural or "soft" shoreline protection measures are not
feasible. EN-137 The cumulative effecf of allowing bulkheads or revetments along
river segments should be evaluated. If it is determined that the
cumulative effects of bulkheads or revetments would have an
adverse effect on shoreline functions or piocesses, then permits
for them should not be.granted.
EN-138 Bulkheads should not be permitted as a solution to geo-physical
problems such as mass slope failure; sloughing, or land slides.
Bulkheads and . revetments should only be approved_ for the
purposes of.protecting existing developments by preventing bank
erosion by the rivers. . .
Objective 2-2:422.5 Clearing and Grading.
. Policies:
EN-139 Clearing and grading activities should only be allowed in
association with a permitted shoieline development. EN-140 Clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum
necessary for the intended development, including residential
development.
~
Objective 22.6 Fill.
Policies:
EN-141 Fill placed waterward of the OHWM should be prohibited and
only allowed to facilitate water dependent uses restoration
projects. .
EN-142 Where permitted, fill should be the minimum necessary to
provide for the proposed use and should lie permitted only when
cdea0e:.o9 (
Page 9-25 ,
I Amended 20,1C,
Environment
tied to a specific development proposal that is permitted by the :
Shoreline Master Program. ,
EN-143 The perimeter of fill activities should be designed to avoid or
eliminate erosion and. sedimentation impacts, both during initial
fill activities and over rime. 06jective 22.7 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects. ,
Policies:
EN-144 All proposed shoreline habitat and;natural systems enfiancement
projects_should assure that:the activities associated with each
,
project address legitimate restoration needs and priorities and
facilitate implementation of the Restoration Plarr developed with
this Shoreline Master Program pursuant to WAC 173-26-
201 (2)(fl.
GOAL 23 SHORELINE USE
Shoreline use activities are developments or activities that exist or are
anticipated to occupy shoreline locations:
Objective 23.1 Prohibited Uses`within the Shoreline Environment.
Policies:
EN-145 The following uses should be prohibited in all shoreline
; environments unless addressed separately in the Shoreline '
' Master Program under another use: See Section 1-2 of the
Shoreline Master Program for definitions ofthe following uses:
1. Boat houses;
2. Commercial development;
' 3. Forest practices; -
4. Industrial development;
5. New or expanded mining; and
6. Permanent solid waste storage or transfer
facilities. ; _ -
odebea:_ os_
Page 9-26 ,
' I Amended 201
• Environment
~
Objective 23.2 Agriculture
Policies:
EN-146 This Program allows for existing, ongoing agricultura( activities
while also maintaining shorelirie ecological functions and
processes. ~
EN-147 Agricultural activities that do not meet the definition for existing
and ongoing agricultural.activities should not be allowed in the
' shoreline: _ EN-148 Appropriate farm management techniques and new development
construction should' be encouraged to`prevent contamination of
nearby water 6odies and adverse effects on valuable plant, fish,
and animal life from fertilizer, herbicides and pesticide use and
application. .
EN-149 A vegetative buffer should be encouraged to 6e placed and
maintained between agricultural lands and water bodies or
wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and resulting in
sedimentation, enhance water quality, provide shade, reduce
flood hazard, and maintain habitat fo; fish and wildlife.
EN-150 Public access to the shoreline should be encouraged where it does '
not conflicf with agricultural activities.
EN-151 Proposals to convert agricultural uses to other uses should
comply with all policies and regulations established by the '
Comprehensiye Plan and this Master Program for said uses and
should not result in a net loss of ecological functions.
Objective 23.3 Aquacultwe
Policies:
EN-152 Aquaculture is a water-dependent use; and when consistent with
controf of pollution and avoidance of adverse impacts to the _
; I celetee: 09 I
Page 9-27 ,
I Amended 201( .
'
Environment
environment and preservation of habitat for resident native
species; is an accepted use of the shoreline.
EN-153 Development of aquaculture facilities and associated activities; such as hatcheries and fish counting stations should assure no net
loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes..Aquacultural .
facilities should be designed and located so: as noi to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new non-native sp'ecies
which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly - ,
impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
EN-154 Since locations for aquaculture activities are somewhat limited
and require specific water quality, temperature, oxygen content, and adjacent land use conditions, and because the teclinology
associated with some forms ofaquaculture is still experimental,
some latitude should be given when implementing the regularions of this section, provided that potential impacts on
existing uses and shoreline ecological functions and processes are:given due consideration. Experimental aquaculture projects
should be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain
shoreline ecological functions and processes.
Objective 23.4 Boating Facilities. ~
Policies: EN-I55 Boating facilities should not be allowed unless they are
accessible to the general public or serve a community. '
, EN-156 New boat launching ramps should be allowed only where they
are located at sites with suitable environmental conditions,
shoreline configurations, access and neighboring uses. .
EN-157 Development of new or modifications to existing boat launching,
ramps and associated and accessory uses should not result in a "
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or other significant
adverse impacts.
Objective 23.5 In-Stream Structural Use.
Policies:
EN-158 Approval of applications for in-stream structures should require _
- inclusion of provisions for the protection and preservation of - -
, ~ ce~emd; 09_I
Page 9-28 ,
I Amended 201
Envirooment
ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including, ,but not limited to,. f sh and fish passage,
wildlife and water resowces,-shoreline critical,areas, hydro
geological processes, and natural scenic vistas.
EN-159 The location and.planning of in-stream structures should give
consideration to the full range of pu_blic-interests, watershed
functions and processes, and environmental concems, with
special emphasis on protecting and restoring prioriry habitats and
i .
species. •
EN-160 Non-structural and non-regulatory methods.'to protect, enhance,
and restore shoreline ecological functions and processes and other shoreline resowces should be encouraged as an alternative
to structural in-stream structures. .
Objective 23.6 Mining.
Policies: -
EN-161 Limit mining activities neaz the shoreline to existing _mining uses.
Objective 23.7 Recreation.
Policies: EN-162 Prioritize shoreline recreational development that provides public
access; enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the _
State over other non water-oriented recreational uses.
, EN4-63 Shoreline azeas with the potential forproviding recreation or
public access opportunities should be identified for this use and,
wherever possible, acquired and incorporateii into the Public
Park and open sp"ace system.
EN-164 Public recreational facilities should be located, designed and
operated in a rrianner consistent with the purpose of the
enviroriment de§ignation in which they are located and such that
no net loss of shoreline ecological function"s or ecosystem-wide
processes result
, 1 Dejetea: 09 I1
~
I - Page 9-29 . .
Amended 201
,
0771
EN-165 T1ie coordination of local; state, and federal recreation planning .
should be encouraged so as to mutually satisfy needs. Shoreline
recreational developments should be consistent with the Ciry's
Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Plan.
EN-166 Recreational development should not interfere with public use of
navigable waters. '
Objective 23.8 Residential Development.
Policies:
EN-167 New over-water residences, including floating homes, are not a
preferred use and should be prohibited.
EN-168 New multiunit residential development and land subdivisions for
more than four parcels should provide community and/or public
access in conformance to the City's public access planning and
this Shoreline Master Prograin. Adjoining access shall be
considered in making this determination.
EN-169 Accessory development (to either multiple family or single
family) should be designed and located to blend into the site as
much as possible:
EN-170 New residential development should avoid the need for new
shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures that
would cause significant impacts to other properties or public
improvements or a net ]oss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objective 23.9 Signs.
Policies:
EN-171 Signs should be designed, constructed and placed so that they are
compatible with the natural quality of the shoreline environment
and adjacent land and water uses.
~ cderoed: 09 ]
Page 9-.
I Amended 2011,1
Environmeot
Objective 23.10 Transportation.
•
Policies: EN-l72 Plan, locate, design and where appropriate construct, proposed
roads; non-motorized systems and parking facilities where routes
will ha,ve the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile
shoreline featu;es, will not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned '
. water-dependent uses. Where other options are available and
feasible, new roads or road expansions should riot be built within
shoreline jurisdiction: °
. EN-173 The number of river crossings should be minimized.
EN-174 Parking facilities in sfiorelines aze not preferred and shall be
allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then as remote from the shoreline as possible. '
EN-175 Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White
and Green Rivers wherever possi6le.
EN-176 Joint use of transportation corridors within the shoreline ,
jurisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation
should be encouraged.
EN-177 New railroad corridors should be prohibited:
Objective 23.11 Utilities.
Policies:
EN-178 Utiliry facilities should be designed and located to assure no net •
loss of shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natiual
landscape and vistas, preserve and protect fish and wildlife
habitat, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land
and shoreline uses. ~
EN-179 Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as
. power plants, sewage treatment plants, water reclamation piants, I~~: 09 I
Page 9-31 ,
I Amended 201
. ,
Environment
or parts of those facilities that are non-water-oriented should not :
be allowed in shoreline areas.
EN-180 Utilities should utilize existing transportation apd utilities sites,
rights-of way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of
rights-of-way and corridors should be encouraged. .
EN-181 Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as
power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall be,located outside ofthe
shoreline area where feasible. Where no other option exists,
utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under
bridges.
EN-182 New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require
extensive shoreline protection structures. . .
EN-183 Where storm water management, conveyance, and discharge
facilities are permitted in the shoreline, they should be limited to `
the minimum size needed to accomplish their purpose and should
be sited and designed in a manner that avoids, or mitigates
adverse effects to the physical,.hydrologic; or ecological functions.
EN-184 Stormwaterconveyance facilities should utilize existing
transportation and urility sites, rights=of-way and corridors, ~
whenever possible.. Joint use of right-of-way and corridors
should be encouraged.
~ oelecm: 09 ~
, .
Page 9-32
I Ainended 201J(,
- ~
i
POLICY/TEXT A11n EN Dn/i ENT, ##5 . ; MISCELLANEOlJS POLICY/TEXTAMEiVDfVIEIVTS TO
VARIOlJS COMPREHEN5IVE P1.A1V~.CHAPTERS IIVCLUDIiVG:
• CI-9APTER 9 -`THE ENVIROiVIVIENT
• APPEIVDIX $
~
,
APPENDIX B
REPORTS AND STUDIES '
Introduction The Comprehensive Plan presents the iesults of the comprehensive
planning process. A wide variety of other documents ha.ve been prepared
or utilized in the process. These other documents contain the background
' upon which the policy issues were assessed and the decisions made.
Consequently, while sepazately published, the "Comprehensive Plan" 'should be considered the full body of this information. These documents
are all available for review in the Planning Department at Aubum City
Hall; and many of them aze also available at the City Library. This section
identifies those documents.
Report to the Mavor on the Status ofPlanningg ln Auburn. December 1982:
Upon taking office in 1982, Mayor Roegner requested the Planning
Department to develop a comprehensive review of the status of the City's
Planning Prograin and its Comprehensive Plan. This report was prepared
by the then new Planning Director and published in December of 1982.
The purpose of :this report was to esta.blish a. common base of
understanding `regarding the role that eomprehensive planning should take
in the City. It culminated in a recommendation that the planning program
be completely revised and a new Comprehensive Plan developed. Wlule
tlie original recommendations have -been modified subsequent to the
publishing of the 1982 report, it was this report which began the policy
discussions leading to the development of this Comprehensive Plan.
Population Trends. 1984: This report assessed the overall growth rate of
the community and how it is related to the growth rates in other areas. The
report took a detailed look at the growth pattern in Aubum over the last
decade and compared this pattern to other areas in the Green River Valley,
King County, and the State. The report concluded that the growth in
Aubum is highly interrelated with the general growth that has occurred
over the decade in the Green River Valley. The consistency of this
interrelationship between the growth patterns of Aubum and the Green
Valley as a whole indicates that Aubum will contiriue to grow at a rate
Page B-1
Appendix B
similaz to the overall growth rate of this part of the County. Growth in
Auburn itself has been higher than in most other incorporated areas..
General _Population Characteristics 1980, January 1984.• This report
presented an oveiview of the population characteristics of the City of ,
Auburn: The report explored the population change in more detail tlian
the previous report, particularly in terms of change in sez, age, and racial
composition. T'he report also analyzed the composition of the City's
families and the employment patterns , of its residents as well as general
'f
income levels. FinallY the rePort zeroed in on the characteristics othe
City's low;income population. Aize`Group Analvsis. 1984: This report provides perhaps the most detailed
examination of some aspects of the City population of any of the Planning
reports. Three major demographic phenomena have strongly influeneed
the sociological character of.the community between 19814984; the post-
war baby boom, the subsequent baby-bust, and the growth of the, elderly
population. This report extensively analyzes the implication of these
' demographic phenomena on the community and compare these
demographic pattems to other communities. This report noted that since
different age groups exert different demands for various types of goods
and services, these demographic patterns have a profound effect on the
problems and needs of the community. Since age groups are also closely
related to housing and employment needs, the relevance of this report to
many of the policies of the Plan is very significant.
Housing, Market PatCer.ns and Characteristics in Auburn, November_ 1984:
This report, re viewed the housing supply of the City of Auburn and how it
has been changing. The purpose of the report was to assess the nature of
the housing supply in order to assist in the development of appropriate
land use policy. The report was divided into three sections, the fir"st of
which described the supply of various types of housing within the City
itself. The second section described how the broader Auburn area
community housing stock compares to the housing stock of ottier
communities. The third section described current construction patterns
and assessed the proposed housing development plans by the private
sector.. This report provides the back ground that was used by the plannirig
process to develop residential policies in this document.
Page B-2 Amended 2010 .
~
Reports and
, Studies
Population Forecasts, Februarv 1985: Any comprehensive planning
. process requires an understanding of, where the community seems to be
headed in the future. This report forecasted the City's population based on
a varietyof variables. The report is closely related to the Age Group
Analysis Report and the Housing Report identified above. The report
concluded that due to the availability of buildable land and the
development pressure of the last decade there is considerable potential for
a very high rate of growth in the community. The report also noted that
the need for school services, after a lull that is occumng at the present -
time, is expected to resume; demand for preschool type services will
increase, the demand for retired age group services will increase; the
impact of substantiated growth in the young adult population that has
shaped much of the last decade, is largely over; the need for new entry
type jobs in the labor force should subside; and the aging of the labor force
should result in very significant increases in family incomes and demand
for jobs appropriate for that age group. An appendix to this report
assessed the interrelationship betweeri the growth forecasted in this report,
and the growth forecasted by the Puget Sound Council of Govemments for
the region.
Existing Land Use Management Policv: December 1984: This is perhaps.
the most significant of the reports for many of the policy issues addressed
by this Plan. It is particularly important in terms of its implication on the
Comprehensive Plan Map itself. This report (which is closely related, to
the original report to the Mayor) contairis a complete analysis of planning
in the Cify and policy issues which are present in the current policy
framework. It addressed both very general policy issues as well as site.
specific conflicts in City ordinances. -
- Land Use and Development Policv ofthe CitofAuburn. September 1983:
One of the basic problems identified in the original report to the IVlayor
was the problem of the City's land use policy being contained in a.wide,
variety of documents. This report was originally prepared in order to
assist in identifying those policies. As such, it provides a very useful step
in the planning process by combining all ' the key land use policy _
statements tHat have been adopted by the City in one place. This report
merely compiles and restates that policy.
Downtown Report. November 1984: One of the most important concerns
identified eazly in the planning process. was the problems, needs and
potentials of the City's central business district. Due to this concern a
special committee was formed, botfi to address downtown needs
independently of the planning process, and to provide a source of advice to
the planning process regazding those needs. As a part of the Committee's
work, the Downtown Report wasprepared and issued. The report reviews
Page B-3 I
Amended 2010
Appeadix B.
. and analyzes the downtown of the City in order to provide a common
understanding of dowritown issues in developing the Comprehensiye Plan.
The report reviews types of concerns that generally present themselves in
downtown planning and applies those concerns to the current condition
and viability of Auburn's downtown. Related to -this report is a ieport
which implements some of the Gommittee's proposals for downtown in the
form.of off-street parking facilities. Economic Analysis. December of 1985: This report presents an economic
base study of the City. This base study is prepared from several different
perspectives. First the report assesses how the people who live in ~Auburn
gain their livelihood. Second, the report describes the type of employment that is available in the City. Third, the report describes the structure of the
City's business community as measured by ta.xable sales activity: Finally
the report compares the structure of the City's employment base to the
employment structure of the surrounding area. On the basis of this
analysis a projection of future economic activity can be gained.
Land Use Analvsis. December 1985: This report analyzes the current use
of the land in the City and how it is changing. It also describes arid assesses change in various regulatory actions related to land use such as
rezones and platting. Neikhborhoods Meeting Program, August 1985: This xeport documents
and summarizes the citizen input that was received by the City during its
eight neighborhood meetings. The first part of the report; provides an
- overview of the neighborhood meetings taken as a whole, identifying and
discussing those issues tha.t appeared to be most important to meeting
participants. The following sections then provide a record of each meeting
including a paraphrased listing of questions and comments offered by the
participants.
KidsPlan. July 1985: This report provides the results of the KidsPlan
program which was conducted during the spring of 1985. A survey form
was distributed to school children throughout Auburn in both public and
private elementary schools. Responses were received from 375 children, or
approximately 10% of all children attending school within the City of
Auburn. The survey was intended to obtain information regarding, the '
types of places and aspects of the community that are important to
children. _
Issues Papers, from August to December o 1985: The Plannirig -
Commission and Planning Department prepared a series of issue papers
which identified the various issues which needed to be addressed .by the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These issue papers serve as the basis
Page B-4
Amended 2010
Reports and
Studies
for the Comprehensive Plan and are derived from the studies and public
participation process described above. Each issue paper includes an
identification of alternative responses to the particulaz issue, a description
of the issue, the views of the neighborhood groups, the view of the
development community, the results of the studies as they relate to the
issue, a general recommendation by the Planning staff, and recommended
goals, objectives and policies. This report contains all twenty-six of those
issue papers.
Environmental Constraints and Opportunities: Januarv 1985: This report
seeks to develop an understanding of the environmental coriditions
- existing in the Ciry. The report describes and' assesses the environmental
conditions related to climate, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology, and ,
wildlife habitat. The report notes the constraints that aze imposed by
environmental conditions on development within the City. It refers to a
series of maps that have been used in'the planning process.
OTHER
REPORTS: All the reports described above were prepared by the Planning Department
. for the Comprehensive Plan itself. In addition to these studies there are:a
series of other reports that have been prepared by or for the City in recent
years,.independent of the comprehensive planning process. These reports
nonetheless provided substantial information used in the development of,
this plan.
' 1982 Comprehensive Traffic Plan. Citv ofAuburn. :Iul lv 982: This report
replaced the original traffic element wluch was adopted as part of the 1969
Comprehensive Plan. As the traffic element of the Plan, it describes botfi _
the present and anticipated future traffic ~problems that will be confronting
the community, the goals to be achieved in the management of iraffic and
a recommended traffic plan. It also includes policies and
, recommendations related to financing the traffic improvements. This
document was adopted formally as an element to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Auburn Park and Recreation Plan,: 1981: This plan assesses the park and
recreation needs of the community and presents a recommended capital
improvement program to develop,those facilities. The plan also includes
standards for: parks and recreation and recominends methods of financing
facilities. The document also includ'es recommendations relating,to open
space.. This plan was formally : adopted as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. ' 1982: This plan identifies sanitary
sewerage rieeds of the community arid recommends steps to meet those
Page B-5 I
Amended 2010
Appendix B
needs. It contains standards for service which should be applied to new
development. T'his document is based upon and is considered to be an
implementing tool for the 1969 Comprehensive Plan.
, Comprehensive Water Svstem Plan. June 1983: This plan ideritifies the
; water service needs of the community and recommends facilities and
progra.ms to meet those needs. It also contains standards for water se=vice
that should be applied to new development. This document is based upon
the 1969 Comprehensive Plan and is considered to be an implementing
tool for that plan. .
Communitv Development Block Grant Plan, Dece»tber 1984: This is an
annual plan developed to guide the administration of the City's Block
Grant Program. The Plan identifies important community needs and seeks
to develop a program to address those needs. The plan also identifies and
describes low income neighborhoods within the City.
Auburn Way South Sanitarv Sewer Studv: This report analyzed the
capacity of sewer service in southwest Auburn and identif ed significant
deficiencies in that service.
~ HousinQ Assistance Plan. October 1984: This plan is adopted in order to
guide any decisions related to the_ development of assisted housing in the
City: It specifically identifies high priority areas for such developinent.
The plan also presents a comprehensive analysis of housing conditioris in .
the City and cost of housing for various income groups.
Fire Services Studv. 1982: This report analyzed fire services needs in the
community and laid out a pTan of action to meet those needs. Of particular
importance, this report identified standards for fire station location and
needs.
Greenhouse Gas Inventorv for the City of Auburn, Washin on. Au ust
2010: This report documents the results of the first 2xeenhouse gas emissions
inventories conducted for the Citv of Auburn's municipal onerations:and the
broader Auburn communiri. The inventories were' conducted to provide the '
` Citv with information to better understand the nature_ _ and _ sources of
municipal and community greenhouse gas emissions, and to develop a
forecast for projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions in future vears. The
inventorv report provides a discussion framework for setting greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets, recommendations for strateg;ies to achieve the
- - - ,
- -
targeted emission reductions; and base year erriission levels for measuring
progress in meeting the Citv's Qreenhouse gas emission reduction objectives.
The report indicates that the Citv's municipal operaxions generated
approximatelY 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (mtCO-)e)
and the broader Auburn community generated just over 840,000 mtCO,e in
Page B-6
Amended 2010
Reports and _
. Studies
base vear 2008. The report projects that municipal and communitv
greenhouse "gas emission levels will increase approximately 10 percent over
base ;veaz levels bv 2015 and approximatelv 40 percent over base vear levels _
bv 2030 unless Auburn takes siQnificant actions to reduce its emissions.
ENVIRONIVIENTAL
REPOR'I'S Iri addition to studies and "plans identified above, there have been a series
of, environmental reports that were used in the development of various
maps and reports identified above. Most of these reports are referenced in
the Environmental Constraints and Opportunities report described above.
In recent years seyeral environmental impacf sta.tements were prepazed and were available during the planning process as further background
,
" information. These impact statements included:
; 1. Lakeland Hills
. ~ 2. Auburn Downs _ 3. Auburn 400
4. Mountain View Terrace
f
5. Balgray Holdings ,
6. Green Meadows
, 7. Academy Area Water System Improvements
8. Surface Mining Operations (Lakeview)
~
9. Londori Square 10. `Mourit Rainier Vista
11. Skyview
12. Proposed Groundwater. Withdrawals (Wells 3 and 4)
13. Stuck River Estates
14. Auburn Way South Sanitary Sewer System.
Page B-7
Amended 2010
Appendiz_B_ .
15., City of Auburn. Final Environmental Impact Statement = Citv of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Staff Dra.ft and Recommenda.tions. .
May 1986. 16. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance__ -
Downtown Desi ng~ dy. April 1990.
17. City of Aubum. Final Determination of Non-Sig,nifica:nce -
Comprehensive Storin Draina Plan. May 1990.
18. City of Auburn. Final Determina.tion of Non-Significance -
Comprehensive Plan Amendments on Citv Expansion and Urban
Growth. July 1991:
19. City of Auburn, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Auburn
North CBD Analvsis. November 1991.
20. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance -
Compreherisive Plan Amendments on Sensitive and Critical
Lands. January 1992. . Finally, a series of reports prepared by other agencies were used to assist
in analyzing environmental conditions:
l. King County, Sensitive Areas Map Folio, March, 1980. .
2. Dames & Moore,,Report of Hvdrogeologic Investigation, Coal
Creek and West Hill Spring Svstems, 1976.
3. Pool Engineering, Ground Water Supplv Studv, September 1982.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inventorv of Wetlands Green-
- Duwamish River Vallev, August, 1981..
5. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survev, King Countv Area,
November 1973.
6. King County, King Countv Wetlands Inventory, January 1983.
7. Green River Basin Program, Mill Creek Basin. Profile (n.d:). -
8. King County, A River of Green, (n.d.).
,
Page B-8
Amended 2010
Reports and
Stadies
9. State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, Draft
'Aquatic Land MaMement Plan for the Duwamish/Green River,
December 1981.
10. King County, Saving Farmlands and Open Space, July 1979. 11. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Wetlands Inventorv, Auburn,
Wash., July 1973.
12. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department. Final
Environmental.Impact Statement: Soos Creek Community Plan
Update, December 1991.
13. King County Pazks; Planning and Resources Department. Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Countywide
Planning Policies Proposed Amendments. May. 1994.
14. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Sta.tement: King Countv
- Comprehensive Plan. July 1994. 15. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services.
Proposed Lakeland Hills South :1Vlining and Reclamation Plan and
Planned Community Development: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. July 21, 1992.
16. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services.
Comprehensive Plan for Pierce Countv, Washington: Rina1 EIS. ,
September 20, 1993.
17. Pieree County, Department of Planning and Land Services.
Fina1' Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Elan for Pierce
Countv, Washin ton. June 1994.
18. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Final Environmental
Impact Statement - Vision 2020: Growth Strategy and
Tra.nsportation Plan for the - Central Puget Sound Region.
September 1990. . `
- Page B-9 I .
Amended 2010
GREEIVHOlJSE GAS INVENTORY FOR THE _
. CI~ OF AlJBlJRN
CASCADIA COIVSULTIIVG GROUP, AUGUSI' 2010
' i
Green'ho,use Gas
Inventory
' p 7
#or the Ci~~ of Auburn,. ~
d~
,
Washington
~
~ prepared by ~
C~ ~ . CONSULT~INC GROU~P
i
I 000
€
"The City Council of the City of ;
Auburn ocknow/edges iis ;
support for actions of local, ;
regional, national, and global ~
level susrainobility by nurturing ;
Auburn to be environmentalty, ;
~ economica/ly, and sociaNY ;
vital....., i
Counal Resolufion 4368
luly 7, 2008 ~
August 2010 ;
-
~
TY OF
CI
y * WASHINGTON
_ . , s T s 4 44 ~ ~ .t~ GR7'YOf , '~`t' - • r
Greenhouse Gas'inventory ~
~ ~
Rb
~ ~ ` crox~ ~
~ rN
,
Acknowledgments
Mayor and City Council
.~..w~..n..~._._:~ ~ ~v,.
= Peter B. Lewis, Mayor ~
Sue Singec, Deputy Mayor ~
~ . ~ .
? Nancy Backus, Councilmember f
~.~,..~.__~.,~~~...~.....~.~.~,V......~,~.,..✓,.....~.
; Virginia Haugen, Councilmember ~
F
Lynn Norman, Councilmember
; John Partridge, Councilmember
: Bilf Peloza, Councilmember
= Rieh Wagner, Councilmember
City Departments
Finance
Human Resources./ Facilities/ Risk & Property Management
~ Information Services
Legal
Mayor's Office
Parks, Arts & Recreation
_
' Planning & Development ~
~ Police
1 Public Works
Other Agencies
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability Puget Sound Regional Council
King County Metro Sound Transit
Puget Sound Energy Valley Regional Fire Authority
Cascadia
Michelle Caulfield, Dominique Gomez, and Christy Shelton of Cascadia Consulting Group
compiled this report with the help of many staff members at the City of Au6urn.
Cascadia gratefully acknowledges Mayor Lewis and the members of the Auburn City Council for
their support of this project.
~53
.
s O ~ g/11 S I s
Ackn wle ent
,
~
~
.
_ ~ .
~rntof ~ ~
~ n
: 6ree:nhouse `Gas inve,ntc"ry
14 : . ,
~ , . ~ . . " ~ S
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................2
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................3
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
4
Background and Key Objectives .....................................................................................:............................4
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology ...................................................................................................5
Step 1. Defi.ne the Scope and Set the Base Year ....................................................••---•-••-•-•-•-•---•---.•---....5
Step 2. Collect Dota ................................................................................................................................9
Siep 3. Analyze Dota and Calculate Emissions ...............................................................................:.....11
Key Findings ..............................................................................................................................................14
~
Mun ici pal 1 n ven to ry ..............................................................................................................................14
• Base Year (2008) Municipal Emissions ........................................................•••••--...............................-•-18
Community /nventory ...........................................................................................................................28
Emissions Forecast and Redudion Goals ................................................................................................34
Emissions Forecast.................................................................................................................................... 4
' Background on Emissions Reduction Fremeworks ...................................................................................36
Emissions Redudions Goals of Local Municipalities .................................................................................38
Discussion of Auburn's inventory and Forecast ........................................................................................39
Municipal Inventory and Forecast 39 Community Inveniory ond Forecasi ..................................:...................................:...............................39
Recommendations for Emissions Reduction Targets ................................................................................40
Auburn's Existing Commitment: U.S. Conference of Mayors' Gimate Protection Agreement .............40
Choosing a Baseline Year ........................................................:.............................................................40
Community vs. Municipa/ Reduction Targets .......................................................................................41
Taking Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 42
Municipal Recommendations .................................................................................:.................................43
Building Energy Consumpfion ...............................................................................................................43
Fleet ...........................................................................................44
Water 48
Solid Waste ...........................................................................................................................................49
Sfreet and Troffic Lighis ........................................................:..............................................:................50
Employee Commuting ............................................••-•-..........................................................................51
Community Best Practices .52
Tronsportation 52
euilding Energy Use ..,.........:........................................,.......................:...............................55
Solid Waste ..........................................................................................•-•---...........................................57
Next Steps 59
APPendix A: Detailed Data Sources ........................................................................................................60
~'able=of Cari#ehts
x 1
~
, _ . , _ . . - .
~ _ .
. _
- Greenhouse GasInventory
- . ~
WASHINGLOI+T
- ~
. M~~.. ~._.:..;._a_ ._.v._..
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
CACP Clean Air and Ciimate Protertion
CAFE Corporate Averege Fuel Economy
COP 15 United Nations Ctimate Change Conference held in Copenhagen, December 2009
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
eGRID EPA Emissions & Generetion Resource Integrated Database
EPA United 5tates Environmental Protection Agency
FfE Full time equivalent employee
GHG Greenhouse gas
GHGP Greenhouse Gas Protocol
GTEC Washington State's Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center
ICLEI ICLEI - Local Gwemments for Sustainability; previously the International Council for Local .
Environmenta I In itiatives
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LED Light-emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LGOP Local Government Operations Protocol
LID Low impact development
MPG Miles pergallon
mtCOZe Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
PSE Puget Sound Energy
PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council
VFD Variable frequency drive
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VRFA Valley Regional Fire Authority
WARM EPA WAste Reduction Model
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WRI World Resources Institute
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transpor[ation
,
Acro'nryms and Ablueviations
_ . . . . . , . : . .
. _ 2
,
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 0WOF ~ irN-
Executive Summary
In 2007, City of Auburn Mayor Peter Lewis signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement, formalizing Auburn's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In June .
2009, the City of Auburn contracted with Cascadia Consulting Group to conduct the City's first
greenhouse gas inventory. The inventory was designed to help the City understand current
impacts, set targets, and measure progress in its municipal and community carbon footprints.
Cascadia conducted inventories for the City's municipal operations and the Auburn community
as a whole using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection software. In consultation with City
staff, Cascadia established 2008 as the baseline year for conducting measurements and setting
targets. This report summarizes inventory results, forecasts emissions for 2015 and 2030,
discusses emissions reduction targets, and provides recommendations for municipal actions and
options for community best practices.
The City of Auburn's municipal operations generated approximately 10,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents (mtCOZe) in the base year 2008. The emissions inventory covered the
following sectors: building energy use, fleet fuel consumption, electricity used by water and
wastewater pump stations, solid waste, refrigerants, traffic and street lights, business travel,
and employee commuting. Emissions sources included electricity consumption, natural gas,
gasoline, and diesel. At the municipal level, building energy use generated the most emissions,
accounting for 34% of the City's total. Electricity consumption was the single largest source of
emissions, representing 56%oftotal munieipal emissions.
In 2008, the Auburn community generated just over 840,000 mtCOZe. The sectors for the
community inventory included transportation; solid waste; and residential, commercial, and
industrial energy use. Again, sources included electricity consumption, natural gas, gasoline, and
diesel. For the community inventory, transportation was the largest sector contributor,
accounting for more than 40% of total emissions for the year 2008. Electricity use was the single
largest source of emissions. Electricity use in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings
accounted for over 40% of emissions.
Cascadia also forecasted emissions for the years 2015 and 2030, based on current use and
growth rates. The forecast estimates emissions for a scenario in which no significant actions to
reduce emissions take place. Largely due to the high rate of population growth projected in the
City, community and municipal emissions are expected to increase approximately 10% by 2015
and approximately 40% by 2030, unless Auburn takes significant actions to reduce its emissions.
All actions that the City of Auburn takes to reduce emissions will improve this "worst-case
scenario" forecast of emissions.
As Auburn moves forward by setting emissions reduction goals, several existing frameworks can
offer guidance, including scientific frameworks (based on necessary emissions reductions to
stabilize global temperatures) and political action frameworks. The prevailing framework for the
past decade has been the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulates a 7% reduction of emissions below
1990 levels by 2012. More recently, prominent frameworks - including Washington State's
reduction goals and the federal government's reduction standards (from a recent Executive
Order) - set longer-term goals based on more recent base years. We recommend using 2008 as
a baseline year from which to set reduction goals, given the detailed inventory data available for
2008 as well as the current state and federal trends toward using more recent base years.
.
Executive Sammary _ 3
I
~
~x~ c~rroF~~""- f
T
~ Gttenhouse Gas In4entory
; xsx
,
. rxgtox ~
14,
_w___ _ ee~ _ .~~......e..
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Background and Key Objectives
Conducting a baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is an important first step toward
understanding and taking steps to reduce emissions in the City of Auburn. Key objectives for this
project include:
• Producing an accurate and well-documented baseline inventory that can be reproduced
in future years.
• Obtaining a better understanding of the most significant greenhouse gas sources at the municipal and community levels.
• Collecting the data necessary to inform climate action planning efforts, including
potential policy action by the Auburn City Council to set targets for reducing emissions.
• Making recommendations for reducing emissions from municipal operations.
• Identifying best practices that reduce community emissions.
This report presents the methodology and results for Auburn's municipal and community
greenhouse gas inventories for the baseline year of 2008. It also includes emissions forecasts for
2015 and 2030 and provides information on setting goals to reduce emissions. The discussion of
emissions reduction goals is followed by a look at what Auburn is already doing to reduce
emissions from municipal sources, recommendations for further action, and a section on
community best practices for climate action.
.
,
y ~BackgroundandKey Obje~~ . . , _
Y .
,
, . . -
.y
. , _ . . . : . ,
~ . . . . ~ . . _ . _ ,
-Green~house Gas tnventory
~
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology
This section provides an overview of the methodology for Auburn's community and municipal
inventories. Planning for and conducting the inventories included these three primary steps:
1. Define the scope and set the base year.
2. Collect data.
3. Analyze data and calculate emissions.
The sections below explain each of these steps in more detail.
STEP 1. DEFINE THE SCOPE AND SET THE BASE YEAR
The first step in conducting a greenhouse gas inventory is to determine which activities to
include in the inventory and to draw boundaries. Using a standard methodology, including
consistent boundaries, allows for inventory results and benchmarking that can be compared
with other entities conducting similar inventories. In 1998, the World Resources Institute (WRI), _
an environmental think tank, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD), a coalition of 200 international companies focused on sustainable development,
convened the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), a nongovernmental organization dedicated to
addressing the need for standardized methods for GHG accounting. In 2001, the GHGP released
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Now widely
used as the basis for greenhouse gas accounting, this protocol delineates emissions sources
using the three following scopes:
Scope 1 includes all direct sources of greenhouse gas emissions that originate from
equipment and facilities owned or operated by the entity. Scope 1 sources include fuels
burned through on-site combustion (such as natural gas consumption in buildings or
fleet diesel and gasoline consumption), on-site refrigerant losses, and electricity
produced on the site, if applicable.
Scope 2 includes all indirect greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, heat, or steam
imported from other entities.
Scope 3 includes all other indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions that may result
from the activities of the institution but that occur from sources owned or controlled by
another company or entity, such as emissions from leased spaces, business travel and
employee commuting (when not conducted in an organization's own fleet); embodied
emissions in material goods purchased by the institution; emissions from solid waste
disposal; and emissions from vendor services such as shipping or catering.
The World Resources Institute developed Figure 1 belovir to illustrate this method for drawing
boundaries for inventories.l WRI and WBCSD suggest that entities separately account for and
measure emissions from Scopes 1 and 2 at a minimum.
1 The Greenhouse Gas Profocol: A Corporace Accouniing and Reporting Standard (Revised Version), World
Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Figure 3. "Overview of
scopes and emissions across a value chain." Available online at http://www.ghjzqrotocol.org/files/ahiz-
protocol-revised.pdf
Greerlh ' ~ . : .u . . . . . . ; f . . ~ ouse Gas.lm►errtory~Methodology . 5f
. _ . , m
~
~ . , . _ ~ ` . .
~ .
, ,rc
L_._.....
- -
4 ~
; Greenhous
e G~as Inve~tory
~
~ T
WA3HIiJ
Figure 1: Overview of Emissions Sources and Scopes
,
,ti, ~1 , t 2 0-~ a, ~a»~F t~9'."'~'t •h fd 7 ~ sr ~.o s ~i
a:~' ' %
C02 SF6 CHa. N=+D HFCs PKs ; ,
~
r
yb i.`/ ~ +y" ~t✓,G~ ~~s
~ ~ ~ = s ~ ? i`' : yi } ~ 0 ~ . _
hH
.
' ~IaR
,
t' ~E a 3 z 'T~q
~~~P
'1~g+$ ~ . ~ .,r7 . .
7^ /r
Graphic courtery of World Resources Institute
While most municipal and community inventories generally follow the three scopes outlined
above, more specific guidelines are needed for the special situations common to inventories of
communities and city government operations, which differ from GHG accounting for individual
businesses. The sections below describe these considerations in more detail. ~
Municipal Inyentory
In consultation with City staff, Cascadia determined that the Local Government Operations
Protocol (LGOP) was the most appropriate guide for Auburn,s municipal inventory. Although this
protocol generally adheres to the principals and methods outlined in The Greenhouse Gas
Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, the LGOP is specifically tailored for
local governments and offers guidance on how to draw system boundaries, what activities and
information to include in the greenhouse gas inventories, and how to translate collected data
into greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action
Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry developed the
LGOP and released it in September 2008. Using this protocol better enables Auburn to compare
its greenhouse gas inventory with other municipalities that have drawn similar boundaries by
following the LGOP, although no two inventories are exactly alike.Z
The LGOP recommends that cities measure emissions using an "operational control approach"
in which emissions from buildings, equipment, and activities under their own operational
control are the basis of the emissions inventory. The LGOP states that this approach "most
Zln particular, emissions inventories may look very different depending on what community service
operations a city is responsible for. These operations may include water conveyance, wastewater
treatment, public transit operation, solid waste collection, and landfilling. Of these services, Auburn is
responsible for only water conveyance.
. q - _ _ . _
.
:
Greenhouse Gas Inverrtflry Methodology
6
.
. ~ ;
. ~ _ .
_ _ .
w. .
. , -
~ . : . . .
Greenfiouse Gas irventory
,
: .
M ~
_ ASHiNGTQNaccurately represents the emissions sources that local governments can influence.i3 Based on
this approach, facilities and activities over which the City of Auburn has operational control
(including the authority to introduce operating policies) are included as Scope 1 or 2 emissions.
Other emissions sources are included as "optional" Scope 3 emissions.
Following the guidelines provided in the LGOP, emissions from activities at buildings owned and
operated by the City of Auburn are included as Scope 1 and 2 emissions. These buildings include
City Hall, police and parks facilities, and other buildings that are owned by the City and primarily
house City staff and are used for City functions. Similarly, emissions from municipal operations
such as water pumps, street and traffic lights, and vehicle fleet use are included as Scope 1 or 2.
While the City does own a municipal airport, the emissions from the airport are considered
Scope 3 because the City does not operate the airport.° Similarly, several buildings that the City
owns but leases to tenants are included in the inventory butare considered Scope 3 emissions.
This category includes City-owned spaces that are leased to the Valley Regional Fire Authority,
the Auburn Chamber of Commerce, and the Auburn Avenue Theater, among others. Employee
commuting, business travel, and waste disposal are also included as Scope 3 emissions. More
information on each of these emissions sources is provided below.
Municipal Scope. The municipal inventory includes greenhouse gas emissions from
sources under the operational control of the City of Auburn. Primary emissions sources
include the following list. Most of the data from the municipal inventory is also included
in the community inventory (all electricity and natural gas consumption, solid waste,
and vehicle use within City boundaries).:
o Building energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption in City-
owned buildings. Natural gas that is combusted on-site is considered Scope 1,
and electricity is considered Scope 2. City-owned spaces that are leased and
operated by outside tenants are included as Scope 3 emissions.
o Vehicle fleet. Includes gasoline, diesel, propane, and othec fuels used in both
on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment. All emissions from fleet vehicles
are considered Scope 1.
o Street lights and traffic signals. Includes electricity used by street lights and
traffic signals. All emissions from municipal electricity consumption are
considered Scope 2. . ,
o Water and sewer pump stations. Includes electricity used by water and
wastewater pump stations. All emissions from municipal electricity
consumption are considered Scope 2.
o Solid waste. Includes all solid waste produced by municipal operations including
waste from City-owned facilities, street cleaning, and parks.
3 Local Government Operations Protocol: For the Quontification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventories, Version 1.1, September 2008, p. 14. California Air Resources Board, California
Climate Action Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, The Climate Registry. Available
online at httn://www.icleiusa.org/actioncenter/tools/Igo-arotocol-1.
4 The Aubum Municipal Airport is operated by an outside contractor which has control over maintenance,
utility payments, and daily operations.
. . . , _ v .
~ . 3 7
' Greenhouse Gas lrn►einory Methodnlogy ;
4
Greenhouse Gas Inventory * [
•-~trrcraN
Emissions are based on greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste
decomposition in landfill. All solid waste emissions from municipal wastes are
considered Scope 3.5
o Refrigerants. Includes refrigerants used in building and vehicular air
conditioning. All refrigerant-based emissions from City-owned facilities and fleet
vehicles are considered Scope 1.
o Employee commuting. Includes employee travel to the City of Auburn for work
each day not conducted in City-owned vehicles. All emissions from employee
commuting are considered Scope 3.
o Business travel. Includes employee travel for City business not conducted in
City-owned fleet. Does not include daily commuting to and from City for work
each day. May be within City boundaries or outside City boundaries. All
emissions from business travel are considered Scope 3.
Community lnventory
At the time of conducting the Auburn greenhouse gas inventory, the California Air Resources
Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, and The
Climate Registry reported that they were in the early stages of creating a Community
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol. As no documents have been released yet, the City of
Auburn's community protocol is based largely on ICLEI standards and common standards used
by other ICLEI members and available for review in their completed cornmunity inventory
reports. Community inventories typically include energy use within city boundaries, solid waste
produced in city boundaries, and vehicle miles traveled on roads within city boundaries.
Because the emissions from the community are from a variety of residential, commercial,
industrial, and municipal sources, the emissions from the community inventory do not fall into
Scope 1, 2, and 3 categories which are used for an entity measuring its own emissions, such as
the City's municipal operations inventory.
Community Scope. The community inventory includes greenhouse gas emissions
sources throughout the City and also includes Auburn,s municipal operations. Primary
emissions sources include:
o Residential energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption from
residences within the City of Auburn's boundaries.
o Commercial energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption from
commercial buildings within the City of Auburn's boundaries.
o Industrial energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption from
industrial facilities within the City of Auburn's boundaries.
o Transportation. Includes vehicle miles traveled on roads within the City o#
Auburn's boundaries. Does not differentiate between trips made by City
residents, trips that originate or end in City boundaries, and other drive-through
traffic (such as trips through Auburn's boundaries on State Routes 167 and 18).
5 Solid waste collection is conducted by an outside contractor, and emissions from contracted solid waste
collection vehicles are not included in the municipal inventory. These vehicles are included in total
transportation emissions within the community of Auburn in the community inventory. Emissions from
upstream manufacturing of goods consumed in City operations or in the community are not included in
'
the inventory.
~
Greerthouse Gas lnyentory.Me#hodology ; g
; . ,
-rar,roF
Greenhovse Gas I`nven#ory;~~~
o Solid waste. Includes emissions from the solid waste produced by Auburn's
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Waste from municipal
operations is included in the commercial sector. Does not include emissions
from solid waste collection services, which are included in "transportation"
emissions.
Setting a Base Year
Equally important as determining boundaries is setting a base year and determining which year
to inventory. Considerations include which years offer a complete and accurate data set and will
be representative of the general level of annual emissions, providing a useful base year to
forecast emissions for future years. The City of Auburn, in consultation with Cascadia Consulting
Group, decided to conduct inventories of the years 2007 and 2008 as they offered the most
complete data sets. On January 1, 2008, the City of Auburn annexed the Lea Hill and West Hill
communities, which were formerly part of unincorporated King County. Given this change in the
City's boundaries, the City of Auburn designated the 2008 calendar year as its base year. A
secondary consideration was that a more complete data set was available for the year 2008.
(Data regarding 2007 business travel were not available. Commuting data for 2007 were
available only for employees who worked at Auburn City Hall.) '
STEP 2. COLLECT DATA
Collecting data is often the most time-intensive step of conducting a greenhouse gas inventory.
Many Auburn staff members, working with utility providers and other vendors, provided
extensive sets of data for the various facilities and activities included in the municipal and
community inventories.
The City of Auburn's Planning & Development Department coordinated data collection for the
inventory. The main sources of data included utility bills and fleet records. Table 1 shows key
data elements and sources for the community and municipal inventories. For more information,
see Appendix A: Detailed Data Sources.
Gre4nfi6us6Gas~ lrn►entory ll~ethadotogy
N
.
~
„
1
. . ..i, k . . ~ _
a a . , . r. . .
,..,,...................s A ^"ii.n~an.ma......wvuaw.....,....a..x,..~. ........aw, , , .r ~ , _ _ . . . . . . . .
_ _ . _ - . . . _ § ~ ~
~Greenhous~e Gasinver~tary
er
'tA
e ~ wnsxuacro~r ~
.
~
.
Table 1: Data Collection Elements and 5ources
~ ~~mmu~~ty ~ 1 E
. . . . it f . .
,li:. ..w.......~.:..._.. . .e..~._ r..n...,.~.._,.:.
; Electricity and natural gas usage Puget Sound Energy (PSE) ;
~ .
~ Vehicle miles traveled ' Puget Sound Regional Counal
~
;
; Street traffic counts ? City of Auburn Department of Public Works
_ . . . ~ _ . . _ _
Solid waste Cit of Auburn, Department of Finance; drawn from
1 Waste Management, Allied Waste, and Murrey's Disposal '
- - - - -
Munic►paI
F~
3~ . . = . _ . , s
. . .
. . _ . ...1'::~E
Utility invoices City of Auburn Department of Finance and Puget Sound
-
Energy
i Vehicle fleet records City of Auburn Maintenance & Operations Department
;
~ Employee business travel miles ; City of Auburn departmental reimbursement records
traveled
.
Employee commuting miles Commute Trip Reduction Survey, web survey of City of
traveled ~ Auburn employees
:
; Solid waste City of Auburn estimation based on size of container and '
frequencyof pick-up by building
, '
Emissions sources with special considerations regarding data sources are discussed below.
Leased Space Emissions
Emissions from leased spaces (facilities owned by the City but operated by outside entities),
including the municipal airport, are considered an "optional" Scope 3 emission in the LGOP and
are included in this base year inventory. Because the City does not pay utility bills directly for
these spaces, the City requested permission from tenants to obtain these utility records.
Business Travel
Similar to utility information in leased spaces, business travel information was not tracked in a
central form or location prior to this project. For this reason, business travel information was
calculated by reviewing reimbursed expenses in each department. Business travel data were
collected only for the base year of 2008 to streamline the process during preparation of this
inventory.
Utility Use at Individual Facilities
Utility use at individual facilities was calculated based on meter data from PSE electricity and
natural gas invoices collected by the City of Auburn Finance Department. During the collection
effort, it was determined that not all meter numbers were initially correlated with individual
buildings. Cascadia worked with the Finance Department, PSE, and building managers to link
unidentified meter numbers with the corred buildings.-
~~,M.
G~l"~~R~I
rv ouse Gas Irnert ory Methc~dology`~,
10
N
4~s:.:...'.a...,. Fc _ " - _ . . ~.w __,a,.aua.~„..r~,.a..s~s.ti, .~c, . . _ . . r~~~,_ -
, -taixoF
Greenhause 6asInventory A-i - ~
WASHttJG7dN ~
Employee Commuting
The data collected on employee commuting habits led to slightly different calculation
methodologies for the 2007 and 2008 inventories. For the 2007 inventory, employee commuting
practices were based on the fndings of Auburn's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) survey.6
Because the CTR survey covered only employees that worked at Auburn City Hall, it was scaled
to estimate commuting emissions from all City employees based on the ratio of total City of
Auburn full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) versus the FTE count that took the survey. For the
year 2008, Cascadia surveyed all City staff members employed during the time of conducting the
inventory (summer 2009) who were also employed by the City during the year 2008. Over 370
staff, or 84% of employees, completed the online survey regarding their commuting habits.
While calculations of commuting emissions based on these two sources were as consistent as
possible, the 2007 CTR survey reported data in aggregate and did not allow for the same level of
specificity of emissions calculations as the online survey for 2008. In addition, the 2007 CTR
survey only provided information for City employees that worked at Auburn City Hall, and may
not accurately reflect the commuting habits of employees commuting to different buildings.
Solid Waste
Through contracts with waste haulers for residential and commercial waste collection, the City
of Auburn receives free waste pick-up from its municipal operations. Waste tonnages from
municipal operations were not tracked for 2007 or 2008. City of Auburn staff estimated waste
tonnages based on the size of containers and frequency of collection for each City building.
STEP 3. ANALYZE DATA AND CALCULATE EMISSIONS
In consultation with Cascadia, the City of Auburn chose to use the ICLEI Clean Air and Climate
Protection (CACP) software for the Auburn inventory. In 2001, ICLEI developed the CACP tool in
partnership with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The software is intended to help local governments conduct
greenhouse gas inventories, quantify the benefits of specific initiatives to reduce GHGs, and
create climate action plans for their communities and municipal operations.
With the release of the Local Government Operations Protocol, ICLEI worked to update the
original CACP software to more closely follow the methods, standards, and data requirements
that the LGOP specified. The CACP software, which is in use by over a dozen municipalities in Washington and many
more throughout the U.S., offered the most standard and comparable methodology for the City.
As an ICLEI member, Auburn will have continued technical assistance and access to CACP
updates for future inventories, making this an attractive tool for future greenhouse gas
inventories.
To supplement the CACP tool, Cascadia also developed in-house tools to facilitate the inventory
calculations. These tools included a web-based commuting survey to capture employee
commuting and an Excel-based module to help calculate emissions from both the employee
6 City employees complete a CTR survey every two years. The Washington State Department of
Transportation requires all Washington organizations with more than 100 employees to complete a CTR
report, as mandated by the state's Commute Trip Reduction laws.
~ • _ !
; Greenhouse Gas tnventory Methodology
11
~
j
~
,.~_..,m.._.~._...~
~
Greenhouse Gas Inventory v `
. ~~iN~ i
i
.
- . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . , . . ` ...~...._.,.~1
commuting survey and the Commute Trip Reduction survey (the Data Collection section
provides more information about these sources of data). These tools will also be available to the
City for future inventory calculations.
Figure 2. Screenshot of the CACP Tool Showing 2008 Energy Use Data for Auburn's City Hall sc 009
6b Y~ ~d flavat 8~stmts ~ tt~ '
_ _
tommumlrygaalyda Communlry~Aeasores ;;nv~rnttrs~it,";ra9y<;i:s _ Govemment Mgaaures
~ 2008
. .
E Bt~S m7tl flC~hS g~~ 8 TraMb 4y~rols j Port F~ks 3 AtrPdt Fe~Ies # tN6Der DNveY FaeMrs f Y.te~ Fe6es I Sdd We~e ~
'MenmafBLidnvFacOlesOrou.. . _ . . . . : . qry Nall T~ tp*a oumahy ~ergy
._a.._..... ~.e ElecnititY4GrbAvdragt).iMM/ : 7Q97.ZK: 103,iJ0;'. "._s'. .
.
CommereialCuat R~s! 0 Oi..
lasen 2e16a palete
r,k1 ou lvi a a Ns p~ o: o'
1~ ~ ► M Kcresenc . (USpc~ . . . o:
LarttM81 Gus aa b3oga (A~ 0 0
.
~ g~Pan wdureu cas Nb!ms) n ssc sr,sc
. , pruVane . (U58d) G 0 .
5isriarmyGaaoltne (U59m) 0'.
' . . . . ;
':tatfonarY LPG . NS YaU - 0': 0 i! VFereRing MOUrS : ~ . WGOd 12lct 11lOt:itllf d lIOffBk . 0 0:
_r._. . . v...i .................v .._W.;.. .,,.,.e.....,e , - . _ .
OecupaMs Note- Resierdnq BUiHir~' aM Ofi--.facddies Dtde
&7'i:
' FtonrAreA ' 1U0.1.s4.tt.
57M: _
eMW cormmmuw EwwWcrtcokwoasnrn~ cot m W .
_ ~ _ _ .W : _ _ _ _ . _
,
sm
Entering and Analyzing Data
While the CACP software has many emissions factors and data pre-loaded to facilitate
greenhouse gas calculations, several decisions had to be made prior to adding city-specific data.
In these decisions, Cascadia consulted with the LGOP, City of Auburn staff, ICLEI staff, and other
city inventories in the region to standardize the inventory to the extent possible.
First, Cascadia and City staff determined which emissions factors were appropriate for electricity
use in the City of Auburn. While the CACP software has electricity emissions factors pre-filled for
a number of utilities, no emissions factors for the Northwest were pre-loaded in the CACP tool.
Accordingly, the City of Auburn had two possible sources of emissions factors for electricity. The
first source of data is actual emissions reports from the City's utility provider, Puget Sound
Energy (PSE). The second source of data is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Emissions
& Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). USEPA compiles and updates the eGRID
database of regional emissions factors every few years. The most recent eGRID data (eGRID
2007 Version 1.1) refers to emissions from the year 2005.
Though Puget Sound Energy supplies electricity to the City of Auburn, the consultant team, in
consultation with City staff, chose to use eGRID emissions data for several reasons. First, while
PSE publishes information on its own fuel mix, nearly two-thirds of the electricity it provides is
Greerthouse Gas Irrientory Methodoiogy,
12
, . . . ~o : . _ . .
. , - ~ . . . . .
_ ;
, Green,hause Gas 'inven;tory
4VAS3i[NGTON
' .
. ~
- - -
purchased from other utility providers.' Thus, using PSE's specific emissions factor based on its
own fuel production may not accurately reflect the emissions from purchased energy. Second,
having a common regional emissions factor facilitates comparisons among greenhouse gas
inventories of different cities.
Another decision involved determining the appropriate ."level" for entering data into the CACP
tool. While some data were only available at one level (for instance, the community electricity
and natural gas information from PSE covered aggregate use citywide), other data were available in more detail. For instance, fleet data could be entered into the CACP by individual
vehicle, by vehicle type, or by department. In consultation with City staff, Cascadia chose to
enter data at the department level wherever possible in order to provide some additional detail
on the source of emissions while keeping in mind the need to efficiently replicate the inventory
in the future. '
Afinal decision in data entry was to determine which other indicators to include. Wherever
possible, Cascadia included supplementary information to help track progress and develop
relevant metrics. For instance, wherever possible, squere footage information was included for
each building.
After working with Auburn staff to determine the most appropriate emissions factors, level of
detail, and additional indicators, Cascadia staff members entered all collected data into the
CACP tool. Information was checked for accuracy, and ICLEI staff members were consulted
where anomalies existed. One major adjustment was made regarding solid waste data, as
discussed in the Solid Waste Discussion on page 31.
Once model selection and data input were completed, municipal and community greenhouse
gas emissions were calculated using the CACP software. Emissions are reported in metric tons of .
carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCOZe), the standard unit used in the LGOP and other greenhouse
gas reporting.
'PugetSound Energy, "Electricity: Overview." Available onlineat
htta://www.pse.com/energvEnvironment/ener.gvsupplv/Pases/EnersvSupplv ElectricitvOverview.aspx:
Accessed August 2009.
~reenfi ouse Gas lnventory~Nlethoclolo,gy ~ 13
' M
, . . . . . M1 . .
. p .
~ . . „ ; _ ' . . : i.; , . ,F. . ..3<,3 . . _ ' . . •
. . .e
s - . . . . .
. , . . . , . _ -i.: . .
i:,........ . . ' . . . . . , . . `-a.
_ _ _ ~ . _ ~.`-ia~xoF * .
Greenhouse Gas lnventory
.
~ Wi4SHIlVGTON
~
Key Findings
This section presents the key findings from Auburn's community and municipal greenhouse gas
inventories. These results are intended to provide an understanding of Auburn's greenhouse gas
impacts, including the sources and sec,tors contributing to the city's emissions. The findings will
also assist the City in any future climate action planning efforts and provide the ability to track
progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in future years.
MUNICIPAL INVENTORY
Auburn's municipal inventory is a measure of all greenhouse gas emissions produced by the City
of Auburn's municipal facilities and operations in a given year. Cascadia calculated Auburn's
greenhouse gas inventories for the years 2007 and 2008. In 2007, the City's operations
generated an estimated total of 9,000 mtCOZe.B
As Figure 3 illustrates, water/wastewater operations and building operations are the largest
emissions sectors for municipal operations 9 Sectors are industry or activity types such as
transportation, industrial energy use, or waste. In addition to emissions sectors, emissions
sources are energy types such as electricity, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline. Figure 4 shows
electricity is the single largest source of emissions, accounting for 61% of emissions from
municipal operations. Building emissions for the year 2007 include the municipal airport and
other leased spaces for 2007.10 Business travel was not included in the 2007 inventory.
S Although emissions tonnages are presented in tables and graphs as exact figures, all reported emissions
in this report are estimates.
9 The use of pie charts to represent emissions is not intended to indicate that 100% of emissions are
accounted for. This is an estimate of emissions, and while Scope 1 and2 emissions are as complete as
possible, only a few key Scope 3 emissions sources are included in the inventory. Each pie chart in this
document is meant to only represent the emissions measured in this inventory based on the boundaries
recommended by the LGOP.
lo The Valley Regional Fire Authority (VRFA), which leases space from the City, was established in 2007.
The VRFA merged the City-run Auburn Fire Department with other regional fire departments to create a
separate entity. Although the VRFA was established in 2007, its utility use was not separated from the City
until 2008. Thus, energy consumption from the VRFA are included in both inventories, but only marked as
'leased space' in 2008.
~Munilupa1 ings, 14.
~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ p.
I_ . . . _ ' . . . . . . .
~
r
Greenhouse Gas inventory
Y
1N,45HIIVGTQ '
,
5
Figure 3:2007 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtCO2e)
P'
o `
a
j~
.
71
Other (Solid ~
Waste &
Refrigerants),
125
. . . ~ ~ ~~rr.r..a+....~'V r,w,',"ea~•'~ ' ~ -
Figure 4:2007 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Source (mtCOZe)*
Diesel; 287
w ~
. Y x a fi . . . . .
_ .
ys ~
. . , ~ ~.n ' .
8i+. : R •
t
Natural Gas,
465
~
*"Other" incfudes solid waste and refrigeronts.
~
Mu~
niupal .]ndmgs°`~ 15
.@b S °39" ✓dk.' `~W ~+Nr d&sSd ,d~`~ ~i Y &
~1 . s7 ~3 ~ ~a+ a a C~ x - YR t t _ _ : E *z,~#ztw,~,. e~ ~~ir Y q~~ 4
w
~
~~Greenfiouse
. ~
~WA3HIN
.
. , :
;
`
In 2008, the City's operations generated an estimated total of 10,000 mtCO2e. Figure 5 and
a p ~~gg.y a n ~ .
y
~ . .
NO
Figure 6 show a .
~
breakdown of
these emissions
a . ~ d
by sector and
'V
source.
Other (Solid
Waste, Business Figure 5: 2008
Travel & Municipal
Refrigerants), 165 Inventory by
Emissions Sectoc
• (mtCO2e)
16
>
~
..~s€z~~ a„-?s~a~;,~ w.. r• - : ...~<..d~ ,,.r.. s"~~ ;a~~ .
Greenhouse Gas 'inventory~
~ . . . . . , . . „S w~HINGTON.
e ~
r,.-,..m . ' ' " . ~ ; _ . '
Figure 6: 2008 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Source (mtCOZe)
' ~-A
~ 0
~ . ~
Diesel, 445
, ~ 4 s r
' . ~~d ~ V ~@9,~ .
. • ' _ . : 1 : . .
' . ~ ~ . . . .
~yY . ~ • ~ ~ Y9 ~ ~ . .
,f.
!
-
Natural Gas, 461 '
*Other sources indude solid waste, refrigerants, and business travel.
As in 2007, buildings and water/wastewater operations are the sectors responsible for the most
emissions. Electricity use is the single largest source of emissions, representing 56% of total
emissions. The inventory for the baseline year 2008 includes emissions from all leased spaces
including the municipal airport.
While overall emissions grew from 2007 to 2008, the rough breakdown of emissions by source
and sector stayed largely the same. In both inventories, building energy use, electricity use for
water and wastewater pump stations, and emissions from the vehicle fleet were the the largest
1lfluniapal fnd~r~gs 17
2-^x31..§~+~ ~ ~a ~ . '
W
u..
....~.,............,~.....~.....~..._,,.,,M.« _,,:,.,.».....,F„ - -~..:,,.,,..-~..~,,,~~„~m,. . . :
, . - r c~'
G reen h ouse Ga s_,
Inventary
~ . ° ° _
WASHINGTON (
emissions sectors..Electricity use was the largest source of emissions, accounting for 56% of
total emissions in the base year 2008. Table 2 shows the changes by source and sector.
Table 2: Comparison between 2007 and 2008 Municipal Emissions by Sector and Source
; . : . . P . a~i, •i~ .G. +.^_S. g ~ uL.~ wn.... . ~ .
a _-^z,.,a x, . - • i e . -::-..naa:a.~ 7 ~c...'a.n...'c. . . . . . _ " ¢ """'S
~ Buildings-Electnaty ~ 1,623 1,725 ~ 6% ~
~ Buildings - Natural Gas , 465 461
~Vehicle Fleet - Diesel 287 424 48%
' Vehicle Fleet - Gasoline ; ~1,132 1,317 i 16%
Water/Wastewater - Elettcicity ? 2,715 2,671 ~ 4% `
~ Streetlights and Traffic Signals - Electricity ' 1,308 1,332 2% <
Employee Commute - Gasoline & Diese!' 1,296 963 ~ 26%
~ Waste 121 114 -6%
Refrigerants 3 4 ~ 33% ~
~
Business Travel 0 47 n/a
~ Leased Buildings - Electricity & Natural ~ 489 1305 ~ n/a 3
1, Gas'*' - ~ ~
*A differeni methodology was used io ca/cu/ate emp/oyee commuting from 2007 to 2008.For more information, see
the Employee Commuting sedion on page 11.
**The numberof leased buildings changed from 2007 to 2008. Most notabfy, the account for ihe Valley Regional Fire
Authority was not considered "leased space" until 2008. See the footnote on page 14 for more informofion.
As Table 2 shows, vehicle fleet emissions, both from gasoline and diesel consumption, were the
areas with the greatest growth in emissions from 2007 to 2008. Refrigerant emissions (from air
conditioning refrigerant losses) also increased from 2007 to 2008. Given that refrigerants are a
small source of overall emissions, however, this change represents a relatively small difference
in overall emissions (less than 1 mtCOZe). Emissions from employee commuting appear to have
decreased over 25% from 2007 to 2008. However, the emissions from employee commuting
were calculated using different data sources (see Step 2. Data Collection on page 9).
While 2007 offers a valuable data point, given that a more complete data set was available for
2008 and given the annexation of Lea Hill and West Hill at the start of 2008, the inventory for
the year 2008 is considered a more accurate metric from which to measure progress in future
years.
_ ' :
Municipal Fndngs 18
; .
.
~
crrrc~
` , . Greenhouse Gas "lnven,tory
°
WASHINGTOId~
; .
. r. _ . , - ~a.s~<,~,,..._ ...sM.....~....~..._..,.,~... _ -
BASE YEAR (2008) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS
Figure 5 on page 16 shows Auburn's municipal emissions broken down by sector and source.
Scope is also a helpful framework to detail emissions sources (see discussion on page 5 for more
information). Figure 7 andTable 3 show emissions by scope and sector.
Figure 7: 2008 Municipal Emissions by 5cope (mtCOZe)
Solid 1Alasbe,
<114
Busines's Travei,
. .
47
~
Refngerants, 4
a
Natural Gas
• • ` ti~~. " from Buitdin$s, 461
.
Seope l
; • 3aope 2
C ~
gt:t:W:3
• ,{q ,f,.As . .
fi
\
Table 3: 2008 Municipal Emissions by Scope
Scope 1 Vehicle Fleet 1,741 21206
; Natural Gas (part of Building Energy Use) 461 =
~ Refrigecants ~ 4 ,
? Scope 2 i Electricity- Buildings 1,725 ~ 5,728 .
Elettricity- Streetlights and 7raffic Signals 1,332
~ Electricity - Water & Wastewater Pump ~ 2,671
Scope 3`1 Employee Commuting ~ 963 ; 2,429 1
I Business Travel 47
Emissionsfrom Leased Spaces 1,305 i ~
Solid Waste 114 ~ ~
Scope 2 emissions, or electricity use for City-owned and operated facilities, are the largest
source of emissions at approximately 6,000 mtCOZe, or 55% of total emissions. Scope 1
emissions, which include emissions from the vehicle fleet, refrigerant losses, and natural gas
usage at City-owned and operated buildings accountfor roughly 2,000 mtCO2e, or~ 219'0 of all ,
Mun~npal ngs~
~ 19~
ffi..a.w....~. ° :.._..S".,:A.~~.E..u.' "..;.:s»......,.u.,,>_.,~. ..A:,o,,i ' ' _ , . . . . . _ .
. .
Greenhou"se Gas,lnventory ~
. f
wnsxwcror~
emissions. Scope 3 emissions, which include emissions from employee commuting, business ,
travel, leased spaces, and solid waste account for approximately 2,000 mtCOZe, or 22% of totaf
emissions. Emissions from each of these sectors, as well as data on cost and other metrics, are
provided in more detail below.
Municipal emissions from 2008 result primarily from energy use in different sectors (e.g.,
employee commuting, building energy use). In addition to the resulting greenhouse gas
emissions, energy consumption in each sector represents a significant portion of the City
operations budget. Figure 8 shows the relative costs and emissions from energy consumption in
each sector. While electricity consumption at water and wastewater pump stations represents the largest contributor to overall emissions at approximately 2,700 mtCOZe, fuel to power
Auburn's vehicle fleet represents the largest energy cost to the City at $668,281 annually.
Figure 8: 2008 Municipal Emissions and Costs by Sector
mtC02e
$3,000 800,000
2,671
700,000
$2,500 .
f.600,000
$2,000 $ s ssoo,319
500,000
a d x ~ ~
1,500 ,t _ 1,332 400,000
_I
300,000
~
$1,000
,
, a
. 1 ' xm R 1, Z0D,O/~
VQ
5500 & ~ 100,000
$42,819
~
$0 .......51 . ~ 0
Buildings BusinessTravel Streetlights& Water&Waste VehicleFleet
TrafficSigaals WaterPump
Stations
0 Energy Cost E] mtCOze
In addition to cost, other metrics allow for comparison across years and benchmarking with
similar municipal operations. Table 4 provides metrics for Auburn's overall municipal
greenhouse gas inventory and for the City's specific sectors and sources. Metrics and
information on the emissions from each sector are provided in more detail in the following
sertion.
. 3%M 11t1 (T1~5
~ M
~capal F'ind 20
~
~ ~"a"
' . ' . , . . , ,
. ..z .
...;G . ~ . .
.
r ...-o> . . . _....,_n , ....v e. a .e . . . . ..i..,. Z
_ ................da..._.._.......< . ..........................n,..,...........w.e._....~ x ..,.a...<.. , . . . , . .
...w... . . . . 1 ~ ~f$ GTIYOf
~
Greenhoase Gas lnyentory
' wasatNcrc~x
~
Table 4: Key Metrics for the 2008 Municipal Inventory
'Building Ernissions(Per 1000 sq;ft) 9:90 ~$10:30 ;
; Vehicle Fleet Emissions (per FTE) } 3.91 ; $10.90 ~
; Streetlight and Traffic Signai Emissions (per light) = 0.50 , $3.70
j Water/Sewage Emissions (per capita) ~ 0.04 $8.42
Water fmissions (per 1000 gallon) 0:01 $1.07
~ Waste Emissions (per-FTE) 0:11 n/a*
Employee Commute (per FTE) 2:16 ; n/a*
Business Travei (per FTE) ~ 0.11 ; $96.22
i ' LOveralF Emissions (per, caprta) . 0.15 1 °/a
"The City of Auburn pays for neither waste disposal from municipal operotions (free municipal solid waste pickup is ,
included in the City's waste contrad) nor employee commuting costs.
Buildings
City buildings contribute about one-third (34%) of Auburn's municipal footprint. Table 5 shows
the emissions per squere foot.of the ten buildings with the highest emissions per square foot.
Table 5: Emissions and Energy Cost per 1000 sq ft for 10 Buildings with Highest Energy Use per sq ft
, r x
~ Veteran's Memorial'Building $2,287 ~
' City Hall ~ 12 1 $2,449
Isaac Evans Restroom ; 12 ~ . $2,798
Justice Center ~ 13 i $2,820
Packs Recreation and Arts Admin'ishlation 17 $2,873.
Building . b ~
Senior Center 14 ~ $3,085
Vet's Resttoom 11 - . , . $3;162,
Brannan Restroom 29 € $16,830
~ . , Game-Farm_Park#1°(restroom) ~ '78 ; ~ $29,920 `gGame Farm Park #2 (restroom) 16 ? $32,479
11Aunicipal #'indin~
~ gs~
~ ~ ? ~ _ r . . f
< ;s-.., . ' ' ..rcr~? t . _ ; i +M. h+w"e . .
4.
Greenhouse Gas inventory
a
.
,
. . , . . r~
0
_ . e . _ :
Vehicle Fleet
Auburn's fleet contributes nearly 2,000 mtCO2e to the City's overall municipal footprint,
representing roughly 17% of the 2008 municipal emissions. Figure 9 shows the breakdown of ~
emissions by department.
Figure 4: 2008 Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Department oc Division (mtCOZe)*
~4 a
~
~
;i^^
`3, ~,y,,.,p aR gg: .
a ; ~ r~ ~
,eY~ . ~ -
.
~ ay'~~~~j.~ ~pie . A ' di d~t", Gc~ . • .
y°
8~.~'" ~ ~s a~t • G ' ~ . .
,r 'a .
Sewer, 81 p° _ ~ • _
~di,
Engineering 88 e4
Building, 47
Other,.34
"Other" inctudes emissions from ihe following departments: Finance, Legal, Planning, Solid Waste, Equipment
Rental, Mayor, and Court/Probation. Table 6 shows the emissions from the fleet use of those departments.
Cost
Auburn's vehicle fleet is a significant source of municipal energy costs. In 2008, vehicle fuel costs
accounted for 30% of Auburn's energy-related costs (total costs also include buildings,
streetlights and traffic signals, water and wastewater pump stations, and business travel). Figure
10 shows a detailed cost breakdown of 2008 municipal fleet costs.
TWMPM7 umc ~ n
~ f ,
ipal ~i
R n 22
-
0-
Green~Mouse Gas 'inven#ory
- ' i
WASIiINGTON j
'
Figure 10: 2008 Municipal Energy Costs with Additional Detail on Fleet Costs by Department or Division
Building, Engineering,
$18,120 $33.972
Sewer,
Dther, $13,083 $30,954
. ~.e~.;
e
. s•
Q I A .~b,z J . •~L
Business Travel,
$42,819 •
*"Other" inc/udes emissions from the following departments: Finonce, tegal, Planning, Solid Woste, Equipment
~ Rental, Mayor, and Court/Probation.
Fuel efFiciency is a useful indicator of greenhouse gas impacts. Table 6 shows the average fuel
efficiency for fleet vehicles used in 2008 by department.
Table 6: 2008 Fleet Detailed Report by Department or Division
~ ~
; eu~~a~~g , ; a~ S$41s,1zo ~ si.o
~ Court/Probation ,368 ; 12.3
Engineecing 88 ~ $33;973 ~ 10.4 ~
; Equip Rental ~ 8 ~ $2,988 ' 14J
I Fnance $373 15.9
; Legal ~ 0 ` $76
21.0~
~ Mayor ; 8 ~ $2,998 18.7
: Parks 195 $74,848
~ Planning $712- 29.7
; Pohce ; 736 i $283,177 ; 9.0
,
~ Sewer $30,954 i 8.5
, Solid Waste 4 ; $1,568 ; 38J
Storm ~ 147$56,256 8.5
' Street ~ 229 $87,276 7.3
Water> 184 `E $70,595 10~A ~
~*Does nof include off-road vehicles. Fuel eff ciency is calculated by dividing rotal miles iraveled in on-road vehic/es by
fuel purchased for on-rood vehicles. The Solid Waste Division primarify used one of three Toyofa Priuses, which
accounted for their high mileoge-weighted fue! efficiency of 38.7 mpg.
Mtm~apal ~ndings ~ 23
„
~ Greenhouse Gas Inventory
~
, :
,
Employee Commuting
Employee commuting makes up roughly 99'0 of Auburn's municipal inventory. Auburn employees
use various forms of transportation for commuting, including driving, carpooling, taking the bus,
taking the train, walking, and biking. Figure 11 shows the employee mode split (each mode is
represented by the number of employees that participate in that mode at least once per week).
Figure 11: Auburn Employee Commuting Habits by Staff Member Participation in Various Modes (at
least once per week)
Bike/1Nalk, 11.
g
Carpool,l5
~ • - ~
_ . . Y.f +d.
Business Travel
At less than 50 mtCO2e in 2008, business travel ac¢ounts for less than half of 1 percent of
Auburn's overall inventory, but it does represent over $40,000 in expenses to the city. Table 7
shows the miles, emissions, and cost by mode of business travel.
Table 7: Miles, Emissions, and Cost for 2008 Business Travel
Zmlll FFeMn
280 j: 0.1 i $12
1 Train 747 ~ 0.1 ! $301
Car 42,042 , 16:6 ~ $24;322 ~
` Plane 128,645 [ 29.6 ~ $18,185
~ Total 171,714 } 46.4 ; $42,819
b *E *i 4 ~n H .
IVlurnape) ~'mdings ~ 24 A a~
. ' .
' s , • ~ „ r : aa : ~ i
~ ~ ~ -~~-r--~-~-~~--
Green'house Gas Inventory
,
wasH~NCroN
~
Street and Tra}j~`ic Lights
Cumulatively, street and traffic lighting make up 12% of the total municipal inventory. The City
has two kinds of street and traffic lights: metered and flat-rate. Electricity use for metered lights
is measured by PSE, and the City pays for these lights 6ased on monthly electricity consumption. -
Flat-rate lights are not metered; the City pays PSE a flat monthly rate for these lights. The split
between metered and flat-rate lights and street versus traffic light greenhouse gas impacts is shown,in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Greenhouse Gas Impacts from Street and Traffie Lights (mtCO2e)
Metered Traffic
Signals, 45
~ j~
~ ~ ~ ° '
Ig
Flat-rate Traffi'c Signals, 69
•a~ -
sz
,
~•~.~~a
~ ~ -
~
,x
. = ,
unt Find 25
~
w.
~
Gree,hhouse Gasinventory~
~m.
L ,7 WASHINGTqN e= _,_.w_..,...,w,.__.....,.,a,......,~. _..M...... a
. .z.. ~ ~
Water and Wastewater Pump Stations
Auburn does not have a wastewater treatment plant within its boundaries, so emissions from .
the treatment of water and wastewater are not included in Auburn's municipal inventory (the
City of Auburn .is served by the King County Wastewater Treatment DiVision). However; Auburn
does operate municipal water pumps. The energy used to pump and deliver clean water,
remove wastewaterfrom the community, end pump excess stormwater contributed nearly
3,000 mtCOZe to Auburn's municipal inventory in 2008, roughly 26% of Auburn's total municipal
inventory. As Figure 13 indicates, 94% of these emissions result from water delivery.
Figure 13: Emissions from Energy Used at Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Pump Stations (mtCOZe)
5ewerPump StormwaterPump
Stations, 89 Stations, 61
8 A
~ . ' . ,
V . .
~
M
~ g
g ~ pj~ ~y~ ~~k $ } . .
. •kx y,[4 ~ASa% . p ~ &
F
S~.gY~ i . . .
~ . 3 - . . .
' -,:~,Pg , +I • ~q .
z' Z.,° . . .
y
• ~`a:g..^°>.' ,
In 2008, water pump stations delivered nearly 500 million gallons of water. As shown in Figure 5
on page 16, the City generated roughly 0.01 mtCO2e of GHG emissions per 1,000 gallons of
freshwater pumped. In addition to these emissions, the electricity used at water, wastewater,
and stormwater pump stations cost the City of Au6urn $568,651 in 2008. Figure 14 shows that
the delivery of freshwater to Auburn residents and businesses accounts for 94% of pump station
costs and 24% of Auburn's total municipal energy costs.
r
;
, . P n
26
~
.
,
..s. . -
.
, . . , - . - . „ < . gw:~ . , '
~ .r ~ ~ _ r._ _ ~ r _ .
Gr.eenhouse Gas Inventory
~ WASHIN~i
° ' .
Figure 14: 2008 Municipal Energy Costs with Additional Detai) on Water Pump Station Costs
. - .VT.~LS.'- r~ e . ~ ' • .
ump
0,841
r
~ . ~
aterPump
tions, $15
BusinessTravel, ° ,942
$ 42,819
WQSte
According to the ICLEI CACP software, emissions from solid waste produced by the City of
Auburn contributed just over 100 mtCO2e to Auburn's emissions in 2008, or less than 1% of the
municipal inventory. For a more thorough discussion of emissions from waste, see Solid Waste
Discussion on page 31. Regardless of the methodology used to calculate emissions from waste,
several metrics can help track progress in waste reduction.
At the time of the inventory, solid waste tonnages generated by municipal operations at City
buildings were not tracked. As part of its solid waste contact, the City receives free solid waste
pick-up at all City buildings, and thus the City has not receive invoices indicating garbage,
recycling, or yard waste tonnages. Solid waste tonnagesgenerated at City buildings were
estimated based on the size of containers and the frequency of colledion (see Table 8).
,
MUflICipd~ ~7T1t~111$S 27
~t ~ ' ~ s~• ~M
.
z.- . . ' ' .,R . ..e s~ _ _
- ..a...~.,~a.,......«H _......h.. , . _
_ ~.~.....a~ . ~ . , .a... ~ 3 . M
. . . . . . ' . a
~ . ~~Gre,enhouse Ges:inventory
w,tsxINccant
Table 8: 2008 Solid Waste Tonnage Estimates by Building/Activity
}
. e
.
s II d 'p:"'° ~ @.•• 6.. ~_v C 8 Q '4~
; Aubucn Airport _ ~ y 28 ~ A 28 ; 0 5
; General Services Administration ' 42 j~ 28 ~ 1;
FMountain Vi,ew Cemetery 42 1 6 = 3 ,
~ Parks Recreation and Arts 42 ; 56 ~ 1
, Administration Building
Auburn Maintenance & Operations ~ 42 < ~42 ~ 105 ~
€ Golf Course - Maintenance 56 6~ 0
_ _
`.Litterand Illegal Dumping from City 106 0~ 0
~ Streets ~
~ Juice Center ; 112 4` 1
~ Parks Maintenance & O peratio"n5 ; 112 10 ; 168
= Senior Center ~ 112 ; 56 ' 1
~ City`Hall = 168 ` 225 , 1
~ Golf Course - Clubhouse ; 225 ~ 42 = 0
_
s StreetSweepings/Decant Facilify 972 ~ 0: 0
: City of Auburn Parks 2,050 : 91 ~ 112
Based on the estimates of solid waste tonnages, the City of Auburn achieved a 19% recycling
rate in the year 2008 for municipal waste generation.ll Figure 15 shows the breakdown of total
garbage, recycling, and yard waste disposed based on City estimates.
Figure 15: 2008 Estimated Solid Waste Disposal by Type
.
.".~Y
; $w.,. . , ~"!•S a d~.
p
r : .w
11 More information on solid waste and recycling is provided in the Municipa/ Recommendations on page
50.
k~-~~ ~~~q Mu~u~pal f'indmgs ~ ~ 28
' zr y
.
b,
` t
, . , , . : , .
E._~. _ _ _ . .
. .
az
. , . , .
.
: .r..s::
, v. > . _ . . ~ _ ; S . ~ . . .
_ ,
eenhous,e Gas'lnventory'
:Gr
'
~Y['t •...s~+" WASHIN lt'TaW
t
COMMUNITY INVENTORY
Auburn's community inventory is a measure of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
activities within the city limits. The inventory was compiled for both 2007 and 2008; as noted
previously. A key difference between the two years was the increase in the physical size and
population of the City of Auburn at the beginning of 2008 with the annexations of Lea Hill and
West Hill.
In 2007, the Auburn community generated approximately 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (mtCOZe). Figure 16 and Figure,l7 show the breakdown of community emissions by
sector and source.12 As in the municipal inventory, sectors are industry or activity types such as
transportation, industrial energy use, or waste. E.missions sources are energy types such as
electricity, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline. ,
Figure 16: 2007 Community Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtCO2e)
Solid Waste, 1,588
y 4cgA 3
~W
9KfsY*4a~~ t F~ ry~ ~ . %.5-. .
a4"
• e t4 w^S6. ~ h ~mb . ~ eP k .
v
~;~+,w G`b,~ % . y§✓.bY'e~~q.. . ,
lz Although emissions tonnages are presented in tables and graphs as exact figures, all reported emissions
in this report are estimates.
77
`Communaty Find~ngs, ; 29
~
L
_..n.~.
.
~ . Md ~ . r. ~
~Greenhouse~ Gas Iriuentory~ ~ ~
wASHwcrOrr ~
- ..t
. . .
Figure 17: 2007 Community inventory by Emissions Source (mtCO2e)
Waste, 1,588
; ~a . ~ •
ka2;•~a 5~a~~" r ~ ~ e
~ d 4 ~a
g ~
`V^.~~~
0~.
"RR
~ e.
Transportation accounts for approximately 367;000 mtCOZe, or 46% of.the Auburn's community
emissions for 2007. This figure corresponds with similar estimations of transportation's impact
in other regional and statewide inventories.The State of Washington estimates that
transportation makes up 48% of emissions statewide. Commercial energy use was the second
largest sector contributing to community emissions, accounting for approximately 160,000
mtCOze, or 20% of total community emissions. Electrieity and gasoline were the two largest ,
emissions sources in 2007, accounting for 40% and 39% of the inventory, respectively.
In the base year 2008, the Auburn community generated 843,000 mtCOZe. Figure 18 and'Figure
19 show the breakdown of 2008 community emissions by source and sector.
F....
:
Communi 1ndi 30
tY F~gs ;
~ ~ -
a
~ ~ . ~
, , r ~ ri s . , s • ~ ~ ~
Greenhouse Gas Inventory t <
,
W'' oF ;
WASHII~IG'LON ~
.
i . _ ~
d . _ ~ . S'~ A S
Figure 18: 2008 Community Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtCO2e)
Solid Waste, 1,072
sV~
W A,~
. ~ • . ~ a
~ g
Figure 19: 2008 Community Inventory by Emissions Source (mtC02e) ,
Waste, 1,072 -
. ~ aa .
~
, d ca~ ° , .
H....i _z
~a a
Similar to the 2007 inventory, 2008 transportation emissions account for approximately 356,000
mtCO2e, or 42%, of the city's community emissions for 2008. Commercial energy use was the
second largest sector contributor to community emissions, accounting for approximate 178,000
mtCO2e, or 21% of total community emissions. Electricity was the single largest emissions source
in 2008. Electricity emissions accounted for 4190 of the community, inventory, or 343,000
mtCOZe. Gasoline was the second largest source of emissions, accounting for 35% of the
community inventory by source.
~~amvmunity Pindj1ngs ~ 31
'7 . ~f
-b+
&
J °z~ .
; Gre enhouse Gas inventory.
'
Solid waste, as calculated by the ICLEI CACP software, accounts for less than 1% of the total
community inventory. A full discussion of the greenhouse gas impact of solid waste and
alternative calculations to the CACP methodology is provided under Solid Waste Discussion
below.
While estimated emissions from transportation and solid waste decreased from 2007 to
2008, all other emissions sectors increased during this time period. Part of this increase
may be due to the annexation of Lea Hill and West Hill, which expanded the City of.
Auburn's boundaries on January 1, 2008. Table 9 provides a comparison between 2007
and 2008 community emissions by source and sector. Table 9: Comparison between 2007 and 2008 Community Emissions by Sector and Source
;~4., ._~~w.. r• ' z a a ~.?~'4P .
~
~ Residential- Electricity 80,341 107,332 34% ;
; Residential- Natural Gas 34,125 50,100 47%
Commercial- Electric'ity ~ 125,522 ~ 131,123 : 4% i
Commercial- Natural Gas 34,587 46,657 35% £
Industrial- Electric'rty 110,508 104,277 -6% ~
~ Industrial- Natural Gas 45,301 46,584 3% 4
Transportatiorr Diesel ~ 59,098 ~ 57,648 -2% E
' Transportation- Gasoline 308,138 298,534 i -3% ~
Waste ; ~1,588 1,072 32% #
Total 799,209 ' 843,328 ; 6% ;
Solid Waste Discussion
The solid waste section of the CACP tool has several inputs. First, a user specifies the total waste
production in tons. In this inventory, the community of Auburn generated roughly 47,000 tons
of municipal solid waste during 2008. Second, the user determines which "waste disposal
technology" is used for solid waste management. Options include Uncollected, Open Dump,
Open Burning, Managed Landfill, Controlled Incineration, and Compost. Auburn's municipal
solid waste is sent to the King County's Cedar Hills Landfill, a managed landfill. Then, the user
specifies the waste composition mix by percentage of the following: Paper Products, Food
Waste, Plant Debris, Wood or Textiles, and All Other Waste. Data for this field for the City of
Auburn came from the King County Waste Monitoring Program, 2007 Waste Characterization
Study, June 2008. Lastly, the CACP tool requires a methane recovery rate for the managed
landfill. King County reports that Cedar Hills attains a 90% methane capture rate.13
13 Personal Communication Mizanur Rahman, Ph.D., MBA, P.Eng., Engineer III and Project Manager,
Engineering Services Section, Solid Waste Division, King County Dept. of Natural Resources & Parks.
August 04 2009.
C.
ommunity Findangsv_~ ~32 . '
. : . ,
_ _ ~ ~ . _ .
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
WASiitNGTON E
Based on this data, the original reports from the CACP tool indicated that solid waste production
in the community inventory resulted in net negative emissions (or emissions reductions). This
calculation was largely dependent on the default data regarding the landfill carbon
sequestration rates and the high methane capture at Cedar Hills. Although the high methane
capture certainly decreases overall emissions, the greenhouse gas inventory results should not
indicate that increasing waste production results in lowering overall emissions. To address this
issue, ICLEI staff suggested that the default sequestration rates be lowered in the CACP model.
With lower sequestration rates, the CACP model analysis showed some net emissions (albeit
small) from solid waste production. Based on these updated sequestration rates, the nearly
39,000 tons of solid waste disposed by Auburn was responsible for approximately 2,042 mtCOZe.
The compost produced by the community was responsible for a net negative -906 mtCOZe, for a
net total of 1,072 mtCOZe from solid waste. The ICLEI tool does not account for recycling
tonnages.
A 2009 USEPA report notes that material production and waste management are responsible for
42% of U.S. emissions.14 The CACP tool's emissions from waste do not account for any upstream
processing or embodied emissions of products or for the energy used for waste collection or
processing. The emissions shown in this inventory are only from decomposition of waste in a
landfill. A more thorough review of the emissions associated with materials consumed in the
City of Auburn was beyond the scope of this inventory. Some additional information on
emissions reductions from recycling is provided in the Municipal Recommendations section on
page 49.
Discussion of Community /nventory
Auburn's community inventory shows that, like Washington State as a whole, transportation
emissions are the largest contributor to community emissions. Although transportation
emissions actually decreased between 2007 and 2008, transportation emissions account for
over 40% of the overall footprint of the community for both inventory years. The largest
emissions source for the 2008 inventory was electricity.
With 2008 as a base year, the City has the ability to track progress in reducing emissions. The
development of key metrics also allows for comparison across years. Table 10 provides key
metrics for Auburn's overall community emissions in relevant categories.
la "Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management
Practices," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and-Emergency Response,
September 2009. Available online at
htta://www.eaa.gov/oswer/docs/ighiz land and materials manasement.pdf. Accessed Odober 2009.
. . ~ . . _
i Community Findings 33
~
1
a4 ~ ' t
<Gree~house Gas inve:ntory 01.
, .a
- . ~
~
~
~
;
,
4
.
Table 10: Key Metrics for 2008 Community Inventory
.
_e.._ • ,
Residential emissions per household , 5.22 ~
~ Residential emissions per capita 2.33 ~
Commercial and industrial emissions per employee 14.65 ;
; Waste emissions per capita ~ 0.02 ;
~ Overall,Community'eiWissions~per capita 12.5
0 =
In addition to key metrics, viewing Auburn's community emissions in relation to county, state, '
and federal emissions may provide context. Table 11 shows annual emissions estimates for the
world, the United States, Washington State, King County, and the City of Auburn. Auburn makes
up a little more than 0.003% of global emissions, while accounting for less than 0.001% ofthe
world population. More locally, Auburn is responsible for 3.7% of King County's emissions while
comprising 3.69/o of the population. For more information about emissions in King County and
emissions reduction goals on the internationat, federal, state, and county level, see Emissions
Forecast and Reduction Goa/s on page 34. .
Table 11: Auburn Annual Community Emissions in Contextls
~ 100;07D 7Q%qQQj_ 07D`s
. . v._,.._._... ...a _
~ ~'Untted Siat~~ ` 7,100,000,000 ; - 26.3% ` 299;000,000 ~ 4.5%~
,r , .....~aR e..xa.h ...m " _
.»ik._...._'_____..... _ T., _.,_,-~+_,.,._~_..,........._._.._.a_....,....~ w~...~.::,.._.._ . _ _ , .
';11~lasiain~bon~ &4,ODD,000?k~ ff 31 % 10~b `
i., h . . i~ .
d.~...~~'w'~s?~.' «^.ks8e~a:; •
i
. . _ - _ . .
,
itg~~COit1~t1~~,~~ 23,000,000 0 099~6 3,$75,500 0,03Yo,.
~
~ *ar~~_ ~ul~
les~t3 0019b ;
ls Adapfed from King County 2007 Cfimate Action Plan, p. 52: Available online at
htta://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2007/pdf/climateplan.qdf. Accessed September 2009. Additional
data from The VNorld Bank, httb://seo.worldbank.ore/. and U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,
http://www.census.sov/aooest/estimates.html. These estimates are provided to give a sense of the City
of Auburn's place in a larger global greenhouse gas context and does not represent a precise comparison
of all emissions.
r-~ V.~~.,
C munity ~Find1!
34
dm ~S-
~
.
M.. ~ . _ . ~
f
, ;
..ti ;
. . _ ..e . ~ a. .,_aa_.~ .«~.,..,,....c,.AV. .
~ ' ..,......,~.,m..~ - ....,.........a ~:.:..a..a.. .......N,...,,,, . , .-~a:
3 Greenhouse Gas lnventory
' ' , WASHINGTON ;
€
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals
Emissions Forecast
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Auburn is one of the ten fastest growing
cities in the Puget Sound region.16 To determine how emissions levels for the community and
municipal inventory are likely to change, Cascadia calculated an emissions forecast for the years
2015 and 2030 based on baseline year (2008) data. Emissions forecasts are calculated by scaling
baseline emissions (calculated in the inventory) to approximate the rate of growth of key
indicators including population, economic growth, and energy demand. To provide a long-range
forecast of.emissions, Cascadia staff reviewed available data sources and identified 2030 as the
longest-term goal with reliable forecasts for population, economic growth, and energy demand.
2015 was chosen as an interim year to provide a view of shorter-term emissions changes.
Based on population forecast data from PSRC and energy information from the U.S. Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration, initial forecasts show that community emissions
are projected to increase 11% by 2015 and 43% by 2030, in the absence of new efforts to reduce emissions.l7 During this time period, population is estimated to increase 11% by 2015 and 35%
by 2030. Figure 20 shows the increase in each area from 2008 levels to 2015 and 2030
projections. Emissions from municipal operations are likely to increase at a slightly lower rate, as
shown in Figure 21. Table 12 on page 36 provides more detail on the changes in both
inventories.
16Puget Sound Trends, Puget Sound Regional Council. Released October 2008. Available online at
http://psrc.ors/publications/pubs/trends/d3oct08.adf. Accessed September 2009.
17 Population data from: 20065ub-County (Small Area) Foretasts of Populotion and Emp/oyment, Central
Puget Sound Region, Puget Sound Regional Council. Released October 26, 2006. Available online at
htta://www.psrc.or,g/data/forecasts/index.htm. Accessed September 2009.
Energy data from: Annua/ Energy Dutfook 2009, Supp/emental Tab/es ro ihe Annual Energy Out/ook 2009,
Updated Reference Case with ARRA, Energy Information Administration. Released April 2009. Available
online at htta://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supalement/stimulus/regionalarra.html. Accessed September
2009.
_ o.~ _ ..._v.
_ ~_o;~.P •
E"m'issions For4cast and Reduction Goals 35
1
. Z _ ~
~Y
M ;
~G~eenhouse GasL n
iventor,y ~
~
Crort `
' . ;
.......,2 wnsxtN
, a ...........'~,~.,....n..1.__..... ~..i,.....,..,..,....~.~ea.,..aa ,Mw,.....~......,.....__ T _ "i
Figure 20: Community Emissions Forecast for 2015 and 2030 (in mtCOze)
1,400,000 -
1.200,000
~m-
1,000,000
Solid Waste
~
80d,000
svV"~~ m Transportation
0 Industrial Energy Use
500,000
a Commercial Energy Use
400,000 13 Residential Energy Use
a
•
_ . e
200,000
0 ~
2008 2015 2030
Figure 21: Municipel Emissions Forecast for 2015 and 2030 (in mtCOZe)*
16,000
14,000
. .
12,000
10,000
13 Other
5,000 a Commuting
~~~•~~o Vehicle Fleet
s. tc
6,000 StrFetlights & Tra-fic Signals
7. : ~ m VJater & Wastewater Delivery
• ~ ~
4,000 o k3uildings and Facilities
. _ ' .3.'~'i.3^'. •
; ~e, •
2,000
, .p~~ t...~ a"S y
0
2008 2015 2030
*"Other" includes Solid Waste, Business Travel, and Refrigeronts.
a~r 36
~ ~ f,~~ Em~ss~:ons Forecast antl Re ti on Goals j
~ ~
Greenhouse Gas Inventory +~r
~L►~~
f+~~~-~+'" ~NASHINGTQN
Table 12: Community and Municipal Inventory Forecasts for 2015 and 2030 without Action to Reduce
Emissions
'et: c . o o thanio .
~t -
tO • 2015 e O - ~ ~ ~
Ini
e0•
0~• JevelA
i Buildings and Facilities 2,186 2,433 10.1% 2,961 35.5%
€ Water & Wastewater 2,671 2,972 10.1% 3,618 ; 35.5%
Delivery
.................................................i..........................................................:........................................... .
~ Streetlights & Traffic 1,332 1,482 10.1% 1,804 35.5%
~ Signals -
.
i Vehicie Fleet 1,741 1,859 6.4% 2,436 ' 39.9%
e......
~ Commuting 963 1,028 6.4% 1,348 39.9%
~ Other (Solid Waste, 1,469 1,635 " 10.1% 1,990 ; 35.5% i
; Business Travel, and ~
; Refrigerants) '
. ! !
...............~...............~...........~..............................e........................._......... . __.....I
j Total 10,362 11,410 9.2% 14,157 ; 36.6% ~
Community
' Residential Energy Use 'i 157,433 i 175,192 10.1% 213,246 ; 35.5%
~ Ccmmercial Energy Use 177,780 223,275 20.496 287,060 ' 61.5%
; Industrial Energy Use ! 150,861 163,524 ~ 7J9'o 207,029 ; 37.2% ~
; Transportation 356,182 380,381 6.496 498,398 39.9% 1
1 Solid Waste 1,072 1,193 10.1% 1,452 35.596 ~
Total 843,328 943,565 10.6% 1,207,184 43.1%
_ _
~
Background on Emissions Reduction Frameworks
Several types of emissions reduction frameworks can inform and guide the City of Auburn as it
sets its emissions reduction goals. The first type of framework is science-based in that it bases
the emissions reduction targets on the necessary reductions to stabilize greenhouse gas levels
and minimize climate change impacts. One such example is the recommendations put forth by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC recommends a reduction of
50-85% below 1990 levels in worldwide emissions to stabilize global temperature at an increase
of no more than 2.5 degrees Celsius. ~
A second type of framework is a political action emissions reduction agreement, such as the
Kyoto Protocol or the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. Both of these agreements
recommend that governments strive to reduce emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The
Kyoto Protocol goals were reviewed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP
15) held in Copenhagen in December 2009. The meeting in Copenhagen did not produce an
updated reduction agreement.
A third framework blends political considerations, climate science, and greenhouse gas
inventory data. For example, the State of Washington and King County have set emissions
Emissions Foretast and Reduction Goals 37
;
Greenhouse Gas'inventory
~~F
.
. . '
~
wasxwcrox
reduction goals based in part on existing political frameworks such as the Kyoto Protocol and in
part on an examination of their own emissions inventories to evaluate the realistic
opportunities.
Table 13 shows examples of these three frameworks.
Table 13: Existing Frameworks for Emissions Reduction Goals
5 W,~
; Intergovernmental Panel ; Recommends a 50-85% ; IPCC 4th Assessment Report, ;
; on Climate G'hange ; permanent reduction below Working Group Ilf ;
' 1990 levels by2050 to stabilize ~
carbon dioxide levels at 450 ~
; parts per million
; Kyoto Protoco) 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 United Nations Framework~
Convention on Climate Change, ~
; Kyoto Protocol,1997
~ U.S. Conference of ; 7% below 1990 leuels by 2012 ; Some 900 mayors across U.S.
~
; Mayors' Climate F have signed on (including ~
! Protection Agreement ~ Auburn's Mayor Peter Lewis) ;
,
.................................................:..............................................._..._~................................_..................__...._..___._..._...............__........~....._~._.._M......_......~.._.._._.._-.__...---------- T..............
' U.S. Federal Government I 28% below 2008 baseline by ' Executive Order- Federal
2020 for Scope 1& 2 emissions Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic
Performance, E.O. 13514,
October 5, 2009
j Sta#e of Washington Reduce to 1990 levels by 2020, ; Executiye Order 07-02 ~
; 25% below 1990 levels by 2035, ; Washington Climate Change
' 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 . Challenge__
E _ _ . .
~ Washington State 159'o below 2005 emissions Senate Bill 5560 (2009-10)
; Departments levels by 2020, 36% below 2005 : Regarding state agency climate '
levels by 2035, 57.5% below ! leadership
2005 levels by 2050 or 70%
i below the expected 2050
emissionsl$
~ . .._.v........_ _ . . _ . _ _ ,
' ` State of California ~ Reduceto 1990 ievels'by 2020, Executive Order 5-03-05, ;
80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Establishing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reducfion TargeLs i
L
~ King County 80% below 2007 levels by 2050 Part ofthe Cool Counties
initiative
: _ _
is Reductions of this level are estimated to be needed in order to meet the targets set in Executive Order
07-02 using a more current baseline year (2005).
~ . _ . , _ . , _ . .
: f;missions. forecast and.Reductio.n; Goals 38
.
. ,
_
,
t . ,y, ' . , , . f . . _ . . -
~ Greerthouse Gas inve,ntory ~~.........a........_~ ~ , j
wnsHnvcrorr ;
Emissions Reductions Goals of Local Municipalities
As the City of Auburn sets emissions reduction targets, examples from other local jurisdictions
may be helpful in understanding the regional context for emissions reduction goals. Table 14
shows the inventory results and emissions reduction goals for 11 local municipalities. Of these
local jurisdictions, Bellingham has set the most aggressive target of 70% below year 2000
emissions levels by 2020. A common emissions reduction target, 7% below 1990 levels by 2012,
follows the example of the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequen# U.S. Conference of Mayors'
Climate Protection Agreement (of which the City of Auburn is a signatory). For most cities, if the
city's mayor signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement and did not
set a separate goal through Council Resolution or other means, the Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement goal is listed as the goal for both their municipal and community inventory.
Table 14: Local Municipalities' Reduction Goals for their Municipal Emissions
Q ~•~.`i II. d~p E6~ . f p - 0 ~ G 3d-e16
~.-~.t #~.Rl x
6, r r
. , .'.:r d.
. . . . w ' i „ .
°120219 14,557 1 0.84 ~ 15% below 20001evels by 2020
' AnacoKes 2000 ~
Bellingham 2000 19,945 67,171 ~ 0.3 70% below 2000 levels by 2020
~ Bepewe 2001 14,716 , 109,569 0.13 ~ 7% below 19901eyels by 2012 =
~ Edmonds 1999 , 2,645 = 39,515 0.07 None available ~ -
: IGrkland 2000 ~ 5,422 ~ 45,054 ~ 0.12 20% below 2005 levels by2fl20 ~
lynnwood 2001 ~ 11,182 ~ 33,847 ` 0.33 ~ 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 ~
Seattle 1990 563,374 - 7% below 1990'levels by2012 ~ .
. = Spokane ~ 2005 ; 70,835 ~ 195,629 = 0:36 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 ;
Tacoma = 1990 113,880 ~ 176,664 ~ 0.64 7% below 19901evets by 2012 ~
Vancouver 2006 45,925 143,560 ; 0.32 7% below 1990 levels by 2012
Washcugal 2008 ; 2,360 11,326 0.21 None available
* The City of Seatt/e's community inventory was ca/culated before fhe development of a common municipal inventory
calcu/ation method. The results of this inventory ore not comparob/e with the Cify of Auburn's municipal inventory.
Table 15 shows the community emissions reduction targets of seven local jurisdictions. There
are fewer examples of community emissions reduction targets because fewer Washington cities
have measured community emissions and made emissions reduction targets publicly evailable.
The City of Spokane has set an aggressive target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2020. Like the
municipal inventory reduction targets, a common emissions reduction target, 7% below 1990
levels by 2012, follows the example of the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent U.S. Conference
of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement.
39
and,Reducti
. , . _ . ;
~ ' . ~ . - : . . ~ . .
~ _ • _ ~ _ ~
crr,roF
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Aligu'~N
wnsltuvGTON
Table 15: Local Municipalities' Reduction Goals for their Community Emissions
~."'EI t:.,~~~! 'J v.4tUU~~ ! S a ° ~ ~~431.°A.~ L7 & a ' a > ts !t .
u'€
t
• .s._. . ,
Anacortes "20d6=~ 178,910 Y~14,557 -12 ~ 15% below 2000 levels by 2020 :
= Bellingham 2000 950,793 , 67,171 ` 14 ( 28% below 2000 levels by 2020 ~
} Bellevue i 2001 ~ 1,692,197 ~ 109,569 ~ 34 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 ;
; Lynnwood 2001 11,182 c 33,847 ~ 12 , 7% below 1990 levels by 2012
F
Seattle 1990 7,187,000 ~ 563,374 ` 13 9 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 ,
; Spokane 2005 ¢ 3,229,308 ~ 195,629 17 ; 30% be,low 2005 levels by 2030 ~
; Tacoma 1990 ' S,109,675 176,664 ° 28 x, 796 below 1990 levets by 2012 =
Discussion of Auburn's Inventory and Forecast
MUNICIPAL INVENTORY AND FORECAST
Emissions from building energy consumption (including leased buildings), travel in the City's
vehicle fleet, and energy used by water and wastewater pump stations account for over 7,900
mtCO2e or nearly 80% of emissions from municipal operations. Therefore, aggressive energy-
saving measures in these areas - such as building system optimization, energy efficiency
retrofits, fuel-efficiency requirements, and vehicle maintenance best practices - may '
dramatically reduce emissions. Furthermore, the City has direct control over these emissions
sources and can readily implement energy-saving measures. While the municipal inventory is
likely to increase in the absence of new efforts to reduce emissions, population growth is
unlikely to affect overall municipal emissions at the same rate as community emissions.
As the City takes action to reduce emissions, it is also worth noting that initiatives that reduce
energy consumption generally will reduce costs as well. Although many efforts may require
upfront investment, they will also help the City cut total operating costs over time.
COMMUNITY INVENTORY AND FORECAST
The main sources of emissions in the community of Auburn as a whole are transportation and
energy use from industrial, commercial, and residential sources. Transportation is the single
largest emissions source, but building energy use is more significant when taken as a whole
(instead of broken into residential, commercial, and industrial). While the City can encourage
Auburn residents and businesses to reduce energy consumption and reduce vehicle miles, the
City does not have direct control over most of the emissions in the community inventory.
Initiatives to encourage energy conservation include educational campaigns regarding utility
partnerships and energy efficiency rebates or changing city code to support energy efficiency in
new and existing buildings. Commute trip reduction campaigns, improving and increasing bike
lanes, increasing the number of park-and-ride spaces, and improving access to public
transportation are examples of ways to help reduce vehicle miles traveled. While important,
these activities may not generate reductions quickly.
- ____w__---- _
Emissions forecast and Reduction Goals 40
l
Greenhouse Gas Inventory cffyor
URN
"_,VAS1i1NGToN E
,
_ i
Furthermore, due in part to Washington State's efforts to reduce emissions statewide through
the Growth Management Act, the City of Auburn will likely take on significant population growth
over the next decade. This population growth within the City of Auburn helps the state to meet
its own emissions reduction goals through increased urban density and reduced land sprawl, but
may mean that even if Auburn significantly reduces emissions reductions per person, its overall
(or absolute) emissions may continue to grow. This situation does not mean that the City cannot
take important action to reduce emissions from community sources, but it may suggest that an
absolute emissions reduction goal will be difficult to reach.
Recommendations for Emissions Reduction Targets
AUBURN'S EXISTING COMMITMENT: U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS' CLIMATE PROTECTION
AGREEMENT
In 2007, City of Auburn Mayor Peter Lewis signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection.
Agreement. By signing this agreement, Mayor Lewis committed the City of Auburn to the
o following three actions:
1. Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through
actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to
public information campaigns;
2. Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and
programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the
United States in the Kyoto Protocol 7%a reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and
3. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which
would establish a national emission trading system19
This agreement is a good starting point for Auburn in considering emissions reductions targets.
Although the agreement includes a quantitative target, the emphasis of the agreement is on
taking action rather than on the specific numerical goal, particularly now that there is a
relatively short time frame for meeting the target (by 2012). Given this time frame, many other
cities that are signatories of the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement have followed up
on their commitment with longer-term goals, often linked to more recent base years. Locally,
this group includes Bellevue, Bellingham, Kirkland, and Spokane. In addition, many of these
cities specify separate goals for community and municipal operations, which the U.S. Mayors'
Climate Protection Agreement does not distinguish. For more information on these reduction
goals, see Table 14 on page 38 and Table 15 on page 39. Thus, in setting emissions redurtion
targets, Auburn can look to many examples that use the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement as a starting point but set longer-term emissions reduction targets (beyond 2012),
with more recent baselines and separate targets for municipal and community reductions.
CHOOSING A BASELINE YEAR
Emissions reduction targets are usually framed as a redurtion target of a certain percentage
below an entity's base year inventory. The baseline year for the Auburn community and
municipal inventory was 2008. The inventory baseline year, 2008, is most likely the best baseline
year for the emissions reduction targets as well. While 1990 is a common baseline year for
19 U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. Available online at
htto://www.usmavors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm. Accessed Odober 2009.
Emissions Farerast and Reduction Goa1s ! 41
;
1 ~
Greenhouse Gas tnvento,ry crryof
~ WASHWG3'ON
emissions reduction targets (following from the Kyoto Protocol), there are several reasons that
2008 is a more appropriate reduction goal base year for the City of Auburn.
First, to use 1990, the City would need to "backcast" to estimate emissions from 1990. Like
forecasting, backcasting (estimating emissions from years previous to an inventory) is not an
exact science. While population and other data could be used to estimate 1990 emissions levels,
2008 data will be far more accurate. Second, although many of the example emissions reduction
frameworks provided in
Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15 use the Kyoto framework and set 1990 as a baseline, using
1990 as a baseline year is becoming less common in more recent emissions reduction
frameworks. Planned reductions in the recent Executive Order for federal agencies and the 2009
Washington State legislation for state agencies use more recent base years (2008 and 2005,
respectively).20 Given these trends, Cascadia recommends Auburn set an emissions reduction
goal that references the baseline inventory of 2008, a year for which actual inventory data
exist5.
0
COMMUNITY V5. MUNICIPAL REDUCTION TARGETS
Given the differences in the level of control and influence that the City has over the community
and municipal inventories, Auburn should consider setting separate targets for the municipal
and community inventories.
Based on the many opportunities fior emissions reduction that may also yield significant cost
savings and other benefits; Auburn is well-placed to join with other climate leaders in the Puget
Sound region to set an aggressive reduction target for its municipal emissions. Many energy and
cost-saving programs, incentives, and rebates can support local governments in saving energy
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency projects that may qualify for
federal stimulus or other grant funding. The City should consider setting an emissions reduction
goal close to the State's goals for its own agencies -15% below 2005 emissions levels by 2020,
and 36% below 2005 levels by 2035, using the City's own baseline year of 2008.
As part of the State of Washington's emissions reduction strategy through the Growth Management Act, the City of Auburn expects to increase its population in the coming decades.
While Auburn's growth and the growth of other urban centers may help Washington to reduce
overall emissions through concentrating population in urban centers, helping to reduce sprawl
and decrease transportation emissions, this growth poses an additional challenge for Auburn to
reduce net community emissions.
Nevertheless, the City can build on existing efforts and look to successful initiatives in other
cities for ways to reduce emissions from both municipal and community sources. More detail on
taking action is provided in the next sections.
20 See
Table 13: Existing Frameworks for Emissions Reduttion Goals on page 37 for more detail.
.---_._M_-________
; Emissions forecast and Reduction Goals; 42
.~Greenhouse Gas'inyentory
, . „ . . : . . _ . ,
t+t ~
` V1'ASHING70
Taking Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions .
Auburn's greenhouse gas inventory offers a solid foundation for taking action. As with the
inventory, this section addresses emissions both from the City's municipal operations and from
the larger Auburn community: It includes the following sections:
• Recommendations to reduce the emissions from Auburn's municipal operations. The
City of Auburn's major greenhouse gas emissions arise from energy use in buildings, '
fleet travel, business travel and commuting, water and wastewater pumping, street and
traffic lighting, and waste generation.
• Best practices that affect community,emissions. Emissions in the community inventory
stem from energy used (electricity, and natural gas); solid waste produced by residential, .
commercial, and industrial sectors; and transportation that takes place witHin Auburn's
city boundaries.
Options to reduce emissions from community and municipal sources are discussed in detail in
the next section. A section on Next Steps follows, summarizing main themes and providing some
guidance on how to establish priorities and implement key strategies.
Greenhouse~Gas Reduct~on Strateg~es 43
YY 3 ' 1 . 1 T'38~~ y .d ~ ~ 4R "F .9fw,"~~~~~ ~ , ~ .
kZ.v_"_ . .TS~it« . ..L . , .
Greenhouse Gas Inventory `"Yof ~
. wnsxtNCrorr
€
Municipal Recommendations
BUILDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Auhurn Making Strides
Auburn is already taking several steps to reduce energy consumption at municipal facilities.
These actions include:
• Turning off computers at night.
• Using LED lights for display signs.
• Installing occupancy sensors in many City buildings.
• Currently working to upgrade heating and air conditioning system in City Hall.
• Using VendorMiser (a device that reduces energy use on vending machines by
connecting machine lighting to a motion sensor) on soda dispensing machines.
•Purchasing Energy Star-certified replacement appliances wherever possible.
• Designing to achieve a LEED Silver rating for a planned future Community Center.
• Conducting audits of building energy use.
~
Recommendations
Even with Auburn,s current adions to reduce energy use, the City,s 2008 municipal inventory
showed that City building energy use was responsible for over a third of total municipal
emissions and cost the City nearly $500,000 in utility charges.
Furthermore, utility invoices indicated that just nine buildings
were responsible for over 80% of all building emissions. Key Focus on Key Buildings
opportunities to reduce emissions from building energy use
include the following actions. riThe City of san Diego focused
• on key buildings to reduce
• Implement energy efficiency management and energy use. Upgrades at the
performance monitoring systems. The U.S. City's Operations Center
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. included new heat-reducing
Department of Energy's Energy Star Portfolio ' window awnings, efficient Ts
`
Manager is a free online tool to track building energy fluorescent lighting with
daylight and occupancy
and water use. To use Portfolio Manager, th2 City Can sensors, and a high-efficiency
set up a free account, enter basic information about < air conditioning system with
each building such as square footage and location, programmable thermostats.
and then upload monthly energy and water The retrofit has reduced energy
consumption from bills. Using Portfolio Manager will ~ consumption by 38%, saving
help the City monitor building performance, identify the City $14;000 a year.
efficienty opportunities, and benchmark against % http://www.sandiexo.aov/envir
similar buildings. Using this online tool will also onmental- '
streamline future greenhouse gas inventories by services/energv/prosramsaroie
providing all necessary municipal building energy use ~ cts/savine/retrofits.shtml
data in a single easy-to-use database?'
J
21 ENERGY STAR, "Portfolio Manager." Available online at httos://www.energvstar.gov/istar/ampam/.
Accessed September 2009. '
~
_ Munidpal #tecoriimenctations,; 44
, .
.
f . . . . _ ' . ' . . _ . ' . . . . _ ' _ .
~ ' . . . . . . ' . ~ .
.
Greenhouse Gas inventory
~
w,osHwcrorr
• Install additional motion sensor-controlled lighting in municipal building spaces. The
City has begun to use motion sensors in City buildings to reduce energy consumption in
unoccupied spaces. Auburn should continue to add motion sensors; bathrooms,
kitchens, and conference rooms are often key opportunities for electricity savings.
• Work with utilities to conduct energy audits of all City buildings and identify cost-
effective updates and retrofits. Auburn can work with utilities to continue to improve
the energy efficiency of municipal buildings. The City has also secured funding to hire a
Resource Conservation Manager in partnership with Puget Sound Energy, Washington
State University, and the City of Federal Way. The Resource Conservation Manager can
lead this effort, and the City can ensure the RCM has access to City records, to staff
assistance, and to the City Council to present findings and recommendations.
• Focus on key buildings including City Hall, the Justice Center, and the Senior Center.
Prioritizing retrofits and upgrades at key buildings will provide the quickest return on
investment. These three buildings represent the largest energy consumers of all City
buildings and are all included in an energy audit produced by McKinstry (Rough Order of
Magnitude, March 2010). Continuing to work with McKinstry and investing in efficiency
at these buildings can have a significant impact on Auburn's overall municipal footprint.
FLEET
Auburn Making Strides Hybrid Police Vehicles
Auburn is reducing emissions from fleet driving in several The police fleet of the City of
ways. These reductions include the following efforts: Mountlake Terrace currently includes
hybrid vehicles. Other cities around
• Practicing preventative maintenance practices to f the country have also purchased hybrid vehicles for police use,
ensure that vehicles run as efficiently as possible ;ncluding cities in New York, Hawaii,
(e.g., regularly checking tire pressure, replacing air ~ North Carolina, tvew Jersey, Utah,
filters regularly, keeping tires aligned). ' Texas, and California. The City of
• Encouraging employees to use the most fuel- ~ Mercer Island estimates that
efficient vehicle possible for a task and to carpool replacing two Crown victoria models
When possible. with hybrid Toyota Highlanders will
• Purchasing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles save $4,000 a year and reduce
where possible. emissions by 13 mtCOze annually.
www.ci.mountlake-
terrace.wa.us/.../090320 GreenFleet
Recommendations ~ 4HvbridslnService.adf,
Transportation using fleet vehicles accounts for 17% of the WWWmercergov.org/files/05%205ust `
overall emissions from municipal operations and the largest ainabilitv.pdf
energy expense for the sectors evaluated in the inventory.
While the City is already taking steps to upgrade vehicles,
significant opportunities remain to reduce emissions and
costs associated with fleet miles.
In 2008, the Auburn fleet included 141 light trucks and 65 passenger cars. Table 16 on page 46
compares the fuel efficiency and weighted fuel efficiency (based on how many miles were
driven in each vehicle) of on-road vehicles to federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
; Municipat Recommendatians 45
~ _ . . _ w ~ ._._Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~ `y ~
WASIitYdGTON
standards for that model year. CAFE standards were established by the U.S. Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975.
These data indicate the significant opportunity for the City to increase fuel efficiency by
continuing to "swap out" less efficient vehicles for more efficient ones and by creating policies
for employees to use the most fuel-efficient vehicles whenever possible. In addition to the
specific vehicles and fuels used, driving and maintenance practices can also affect fuel efficiency.
Specific recommendations for Auburn to increase fuel efficiency of its fleet through smart
vehicle choices and best management practices include the following.
• Join Evergreen Fleets. Coordinated by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Evergreen Fleets
provides members with tools, best practices, and "green star" certification for greening
fleets.22 Benefits include lower operating costs, reduced emissions, improved operating
efficiency, and recognition. Current membership includes more than 50 public and private
entities in Washington State.
• Purchase the most fuel-efFicient vehicles possible. Appropriately sizing vehicles is the first
step to greater fuel efficiency.
• Establish a commitment to purchase the greenest options possible. Hybrid, E-85 Flex Fuel
(a motor fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), biodiesel, and natural
gas vehicles are readily available in a variety of diverse applications to meet the needs of
many fleets. Auburn has already demonstrated a commitment in this direction by
purchasing several hybrid vehicles.
• Formalize vehicle use policies. The City currently has informal vehicle use policies to
encourage employees to choose the most fuel-efficient vehicle appropriate for a given
errand or task. Auburn should formalize this policy to increase travel in fuel-efficient
vehicles and decrease travel in less fuel-efficient vehicles.
o Look across Auburn's departments to ensure that vehicles are appropriately scaled
to the need. The Parks, Police, and Street departments are among those with the
lowest fuel efficiencies and highest annual mileage. While the duties of these
departments often require larger vehicles, there may be instances in which smaller
vehicles can be substituted.
o A review of the information collected for the Auburn inventory points to the
potential benefits of having vehicle choice policies. The data shows that while the
City does have several hybrid vehicles, the average fuel efficiency of the 15 most
used vehicles (not including the police fleet) is 11 miles per gallon. City staff drove
the City's Toyota Prius hybrid vehicles an average of 5,000 miles each, compared to
an average of nearly 16,500 miles in the three most used (non-Police) vehicles
overall. Table 17 on page 47 provides more detail on the 15 most used non-police
vehicles.
ZZ Evergreen Fleets. Available online at http://www.evergreenfleets.ors/. Accessed September 2009.
Municipa) Recommendatians 46
~____..~u ,e _
~ .
` - cITxof.
&reenhouse Gas Inventory
;
. Was~zINGox; . ~
~
• Formalize best management pradices for fleets and facilities. Auburn should build on
existing policies to implement best management practices for maintaining and using fleet
vehicles and formalize these practices as policy. This effort may include establishing and
enforcing a"no idle" policy. (The EPA estimates that idling diesel trucks consume 0.8 gallons
of fuel per hour when idling.) In addition, Auburn can formalize the regular preventive
maintenance-including keeping tires inflated, monitoring fuel filters, and changing motor oil
regularly to ensure that these pradices continue.
• Capitalize on the upcoming electric vehicle investments and programs in the Puget Sound
region. Some $22 million in electric vehicle infrastructure investments will be coming to the
Puget Sound region in the next several years through American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funds for the Nissan/eTec pilot grant'3the Puget Sound Clean Cities Coalition
grant,24 and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds to specific jurisdictions for
electric vehicles and plug-in stations (including Auburn, Bellevue, and King County). Auburn
should be aggressive about leveraging these opportunities to improve its overall fleet
efficiency with additional electric vehicles and to foster greater citizen adoption of electric
vehicles (see Community Measures).
. Work to increase the fuel efficiency of the police fleet. As in most cities, Auburn's Police
Department is the largest fleet user. In 2008, the Auburn police fleet traveled roughly
777,000 miles and used 83,000 gallons of gas for a total of over $283,000 in fuel costs. The
average fuel efficiency of the 15 mosf used police vehicles, shown in Table 18 on page 47,
was 8 miles per gallon. While the effediveness of the police fleet is of utmost importance, Auburn can save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by driving the more fuel-
efficient vehicles already in the fleet and by upgrading to hybrid and efficient vehicles
wherever possible.
. Promote alternative modes. Look into the feasibility of making a bicycle and helmet
available to City employees for short work trips.
Table 16: On-Road Vehicles by Fuel Efficiency in Comparison to Federal CAFE Standards Average .
. .
a del Year Effitiency Efficiehcy Stand. d
-e
LightTrucks. . 2004 1Q:9 mpg 95 ;mpg - ,20.7 rn'pg> ;
Passenger Cars 2005 14.7 mpg 10.2 mpg 27.5 mpg
23 The EV Projed Overview, http://www.theevaroiect.com/overview.php
24 US Department of Energy, "Recovery Act Announcement: Secretary Chu Announces Nearly $300 Million
in Clean Cities Grants to Support Clean Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Development." Available online
at http://appsl.eere.energv.aov/news/progress alerts.cfm/oa id=232. Accessed February 2010.
25 Fuel efficiency is weighted by how many miles were driven in each vehicle.
~ . _
.
. . _ - = ~ M Municipal R mecom4h416tacrfis' 47
? . ~
.
Greenhouse Gas inventory
=j = wnsxwcTorr
Table 17: Average Fuel Efficiency, Miles Traveled, and Fuel Consumption of 15 Most Used (Highest
Mileage) Vehicles in Auburn Fleet (not including police fleet)
e-.. 008 Mi'leage . . .
(gallons)
Stree# Mitsubishi Flatbed ~ 12 18,600 1,512
! Mayor Chrysler Town & Country 19 16,437 879
Water Ford Service Truck 7 i 14,353 2,142
Street Ford Dump Truck ~ 7 14,340 ; 1,938
Parks Ford F150 11 ~ 14,253 1,320
' Storm Ford Truck ~ 9 13,708 1,523
Water Chevy Van 10 ~ 13,638 1,378
Parks Mitsubishi ~ 40 ; 13,425 333
Engineering Ford F150 90 13,132 1,372
; Parks Ford F150 10 12,815 1,350
~ Sewer • Ford Ranger 12 12,363 1,022
Parks Ford Ranger 14 ; 12,044 889
Stneet Chevy P/U 9 11,804 1,312
' Engineering Chevrolet 1/2 Ton P/U 12 ; 11,575 965
Parks Ford Van 21 10,950 534
Table 18: Average Fuel EfFiciency, Miles Traveled, and Fuel Consumption of 15 Most Used (Highest
Mileage) Vehicles in Auburn Police Fleet*
oe ,
• . . .
i Ford Crown Victoria 8 30,901 3,806
' Ford Crown Victoria i 8 29,658 ; 3,726
j Ford Crown Victoria 8 28,158 3,657
~ Ford Crown Victoria ! 9 ~ 28,083 ! 3,206
; Ford Crown Victoria 8 ~ 27,285 3,528
; Ford Crown Victoria 8 ~ 26,298 ; 3,415
! Ford Crown Victoria ~ 9 26,257 ~ 2,984
' Ford Crown Victoria ; 8 ~ 25,554 ; 3,079 ;
; Ford Crown Victoria~ 8 ~ 23,390 2,888
; Ford Crown Victoria ~ 11 ~23,169 ; 2,207 ;
i~Ford Crouvn Victoria 8 22,902 ~ 3,054
; Chevy Tahoe 10 ' 22,847 2,377
3
~ Ford Crown Victoria ~ 8 i 22!789 2I885
` Ford Crown Vidoria ' 7 ; 22,744 ; 3,116 ;
ord Crov+rn Yctoria ~ 8~ ; 24,181 2,523 E
*Staff from the Maintenance & Operations Department provided information on fuel effitiency, mileage, and fuel
consumption for all f/eet vehic/es. Fue/ efficiency varies by make, model, and model year. Maintenance & Operations
staff were not able to provide the mode( year for each vehicle.
, . - _ _ _
' Municipal Recommendations 48
i
_
~ Greenhause Gas !inventory
"A~ . ;
~ WASHLIdGTON ' ~
WATER
Auburn Making Strides
Auburn is responsible for delivering clean water to residents, managing stormwater, and ,
conveying wastewater to the King County wastewater treatment plant. The City has already
implemented many best practices including the following:
• Using inclining block rate structure for water bills to promote conservation.
• Fully metering the entire water system. ,
• Implementing a low-flow showerhead giveaway program, estimated to save 2 million
gallons of water annually.
• Establishing goals to become a leader in water conservation and becoming a member of
the Partnership for Water Conservation.
• Putting in place policies to reduce irrigation needs for public and private landscaping,
including use oftimed sprinklersand rain sensors.
• Having infrastructure monitoring and improvements such as leak detection and repair,
estimated to save 6.6 million gallons annually and reduce the City's leakage rate to
8.4%. • Using variable-frequency drives (VFD) on water pumps to save energy.
Recommendations
Electricity used to pump water and wastewater represents 25 percent of Auburn's municipal
greenhouse gas emissions. These activities also translate into significant energy costs to the city
- the second largest sector in the inventory, just behind vehicle fleets. The City has direct
control over these activities and equipment, and it can use utility rebates to help offset upfront -
. costs and achieve a greater return on investment over a shorter period of time. Water
conservation as a whole will also become an increasingly important strategy for local
governments to adapt to the impacts of climate change on water availability. Below are some
key recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use and
transport of water and wastewater in Auburn.
• Reduce the amount of water that needs to be treated. Use low impact development
(LID) techniques to capture rainwater where it falls, thereby minimizing the amount of
stormwater captured in storm drains and subsequently pumped to nearby creeks and
rivers. Permit LID techniques by applicants and develop materials to educate applicants
about how these techniques might be applied. Create incentives to foster LID
techniques where possible.
• Minimize the amount of water being delivered. Auburn can reduce water demand by
promoting conservation measures such as expanding the existing efficient fixture
upgrade program for residences and other customers; offering rebates or other
incentives for residents and business to install water-saving devices; and promoting
efficient irrigation techniques with major water users such as golf courses, parks, and
schools. For more information, see US EPA's WaterSense Program.Z6
26 EPA WaterSense, www.eaa.gov/watersense.
lVfurod 'paR~omm ertda ~ons~; 49- .
.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory CnT OF~~3:ti~1 '
- wnsxtxcrorr
. .
• Improve the efficiency of equipment to treat, store, and transport water. Continue to
retrofit pump stations with high efficiency motors, variable-frequency drives, and
controls, beginning with planned pump replacements and expansions. When the City of
Bremerton added variable-frequency drives to pumps, PSE paid for 50% of project costs.
The City saw a payback period of 1.5 years and cut pump energy use by 80%.27
• Continue to locate and fix leaks. In the City's 2008 Water Use Efficiency report to the
Washington State Department of Health, Auburn city engineers estimated an 8.4%
leakage rate in its distribution system, or an annual volume of 264 million gallons.28
While the City is meeting its targets in this area, it could take further action to reduce its
leakage rate.
• Ensure sources can provide adequate capacity. Auburn's Comprehensive Water Plan
indicates that declines have been observed in the production of several supply wells 29
Pumps at these wells may operate in excess of the available supply, using energy that
does not translate into water supply.
SOLID WASTE
Au6urn Making Strides
The City has infrastructure to recycle a wide range of materials in all City buildings, and it
recently added food waste composting to several buildings in December 2008. The City was able
to achieve a 19% recycling rate in 2008, meaning that of all municipally generated waste, the
City diverted approximately 19% by volume to recycling or composting.30 Other examples of
steps Auburn is already taking to reduce waste are listed below.
• Recycling in City buildings, including food scraps and compostables in six City buildings.
• Providing recycling infrastructure in most public parks.
• Recycling electronic waste, automotive parts, and rechargeable batteries.
• Using double sided printing.
• Using e-mail for employee and vendor communication.
• Sharing office equipment (cameras, laptops, projectors) to reduce consumption.
• Using water filtration instead of water bottles at City buildings.
• Providing durable dishes in each City facility lunch room to reduce consumption on
paper goods.
• Conducting waste audits of City buildings, parks, and facilities.
Z' Personal Communication with Tom Baker, Electronics Technician, City of Bremerton Electronics
Department, May 15, 2009.
28 Annual Water Use Efficiency Performance Report Form, 2008. Available online at
htto://www.aubumwa.gov/Assets/PW/AuburnWA/Docs/WaterUseEfficiencvReport.pdf. Accessed
September 2009.
29Comprehensive WaterPlan, 2008. Available online at
htto:!/weblink.auburnwa.gov/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=160537. Accessed September 2009.
30 The estimates are based on the size and frequency of collection of waste, recycling, and yard waste
containers at City buildings in 2008. The City did not track adual waste tonnages in 2008 as waste
collection is included in the City's waste contract.
Municipal Recornmendations 50
Greenhouse Gas :inventary ~ ~
M~ l
WASi3WG70N €
Recommendations
While emissions from waste are only a small part of the municipal emissions based on the model
used for Auburn's inventory, USEPA's WAste Reduction Model (WARM) indicates that increasing
the recycling rate to 50% by diverting an additional 1,000 tons to recycling and an additional 500
tons to compost/yard waste would reduce waste-related emissions by over 1,800 mtCOZe a
year.31 Auburn can get started with the steps below.
• Track waste production at City buildings by requiring the City's hauler to report waste,
recycling, and compost tonnages on monthly basis. Share cost and tonnage
information with building staff during educational campaigns.
• Continue to conduct waste audits of City buildings, parks, and facilities. Continuing to
monitor progress and identifying key target materials will help focus the City's efforts
and increase recycling over time.
• Based on waste audit results, determine what additional infrastructure is needed to
increase diversion. Continue to add compost bins to City facilities where possible,
especially in facilities that have food service areas (e.g., Golf Course Clubhouse, Senior
Center, parks). Work with food vendors at City parks to use composteble or recyclable
seroiceware.
• Add a waste and recycling component to the City's new employee training to ensure
that employees are aware of recycling policies and waste prevention procedures (e.g.,
duplex printing, electronic communication).
STREET AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS
Auburn Making Strides
To reduce energy consumption associated with street and traffic lights, Auburn has worked to
replace approximately 95% of City traffic signals with LED lights. Efforts are underway to convert
approximately 1,000 streetlights along arterial streets within the City to lower-wattage LED
fixtures.
Recommendations
Electricity used to power street and traffic lights accounted for over 1,300 mtCOZe in Auburn's
2008 municipal inventory, and cost the City $500,000. Street and pedestrian lights are the next
frontier for lighting efficiency for municipalities. Governments across the country are using
ARRA funds to pilot some of these new technologies. Auburn should continue to monitor these
new technologies as well as local demonstrations to assess street lighting efficiencies.
• Where possible, switch to metered traffic and street lights to take advantage of the
cost savings from efficient fixtures (including LED lights). The City pays a significant
amount more on "flat-rate" lighting. Wherever possible, the City should move to
metered street lighting and then upgrade to energy-efficient LED bulbs to reduce costs
and emissions.
31 Unlike the CACP calculations, WARM includes upstream emissions calculated through a life-cycle
analysis. The inclusion of upstream emissions greatly increases the emissions associated with waste.
- .
( . . a,. • ° , . Munldpal Recommentiations 51
I 3
i
._w.._ - _ .
cr"OF
Greenhouse Gas inventory U
WASHINGTflN ~
• Investigate solar-powered fixtures. Solar panels can help power street lights, reducing
emissions and saving utility costs after an initial investment.
EMPLOYEE COMMUTING
Auburn Making Strides
The City of Auburn is addressing emissions from employee commuting through participation in
Washington's Commute Trip Reduction programs. This includes filling out the Commute Trip
Reduction survey and offering employees a$50/month subsidy for taking public transit.
' Recommendations
Auburn can continue to reduce single occupancy vehicle miles through several initiatives that
encourage carpooling and reduce commuting miles.
• Encourage employees to use alternative
transportation for commuting. Review the
City's policies on public transportation Four Day Work-Week
passes and determine whether increasing
public transportation subsidies could [The State of Utah switched to a four day
work week during 2008. Over the first
increase the use of public transportation.
year, the "4/10" weeks saved$2.3 million
• Where possible, encourage biking by in energy and fleet costs and $4.1 million
providing bike racks, showers, and locker in overtime pay.
rooms in all major City buildings. Adding http://www.dhrm.utah.EOV/Working4Uta
bike lockers and shower rooms to public h FinalReaort Dec2009.odf
buildings will allow City staff and visitors to
travel to work by bike. Bike facilities can
help buildings to qualify for Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) points.
• Add a carpooling feature to the employee intranet. Such a feature could help employees
identify possible carpool options.
• Encourage flex-work policies that reduce commuting. Wherever possible, make "flex"
schedule options available to employees. Possible schedules include four-ten-hour days, or
working remotely at least one day a week.
Mu
' . nicipal Recomrnendations`- 52
•
.
. . . .
Greenhouse Gas inventory cny cw
WASHINGlON
Community Best Practices
The City of Auburn has more control over greenhouse gas emissions from its own municipal
activities than emissions from the community as a whole. The City, however, can take steps to
promote and provide incentives for GHG reductions throughout the broader community.
Transportation and building energy use were by far the largest contributors to Auburn's
communitywide GHG inventory in 2008, representing about 40% and 60% of emissions,
respectively. The discussion below addresses these two categories as well as solid waste, which,
though its impacts are smaller, offers significant opportunities for savings.
The following sections highlight examples of best practices from other jurisdictions around the
region and the nation. The lists are not intended to be prescriptive recommendations or to be
exhaustive, but rather they offer illustrative examples the City may consider in planning new
initiatives that aim to reduce emissions from the larger Auburn community.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation accounted for more than 4090 of Auburn's community emissions for the base
year inventory in 2008. Transportation in the community inventory includes all emissions from
vehicle miles traveled on roads within city boundaries. These emissions are not limited to
vehicle miles traveled by Auburn residents, although residents are certainly responsible for a
portion of the total. While many transportation patterns and overall emissions will depend on
larger regional planning and national fuel efficiency standards, cities can take several steps to
reduce transportation emissions in their communities. Reducing transportation emissions can
involve changes increasing vehicle and travel system efFiciency, using alternative fuels, and
reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or demand management. Best practices for reducing GHG
emissions from transportation include the following examples.
• Cities around the nation are successfully using many transportation demand
management and commute trip reduction strategies to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and increase the use of alternative modes. Broad efforts include improving
transit access and frequency, supporting ridesharing, improving infrastructure to
support walking and biking, and compact and transit-oriented development or
smart growth. For example, Washington State's Growth and Transportation
EfFiciency Center (GTEC) program works with local governments, businesses,
schools, and neighborhoods to encourage commuters to ride transit, carpool,
vanpool, walk, bike, telecommute, and use other commute options besides driving
alone. In Tukwila, the GTEC program involves an area wide transit flexpass,
vanpools, marketing, parking management, bus and rail transit stations, and
sidewalk and roadway improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.32 Some cities
have had success with downtown circulators or shuttles connecting significant
employment, education, and retail centers. For example, in Emeryville, California,
32
Washington State Department of Transportation, "Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers."
Available online at htta://www.wsdot.wa.eov/TDM/GTEC.htm. Accessed February 2010.
' Cort~mnnity Best Practises 53
j
_
Greenhouse Gas invenfory A~~ ~ ~~d~ ~
. ~ ;
WAS}iINGTdN ~
local businesses fund Emery Go Round, a entirely privately funded shuttle
connecting rapid transit and rail to the business distrid.33
• Electric vehicles and other forms of clean mobility offer opportunities for reducing
GHG emissions associated with commuting, freight movement, and other travel.
The federal government is investing more than $20 million in the Puget Sound
region through the eTec/Nissan's EV Project and other federal funding.34 Local
governments can position themselves for EV infrastructure investments, including
public charging stations and "smart" vehicle-to-grid connections for EVs.
• In addition to leading by example through their own use of electric vehicles and
development of supportive infrastructure, cities can use rebates, special parking
spaces or reduced fees, permitting, and other incentives to promote and support
cleaner cars and fuels among residents and businesses. For example, electric
vehicles in Sacramen#o, California are eligible for free parking and recharging in
designated facilities.35 Washington State offers a sales tax exemption for the
purchase of new vehicles that exceed 40 miles per gallon, and the City of Aspen,
Colorado offers a$100 rebate on license registration for hybrid vehicles.
. Parking policies-including minimums, maximums, on-street parking, and private
parking-can support VMT reductions. A number of cities use parking maximum
ratios to limit the number of parking spaces included in new construrtion; some
have also lowered or removed minimum parking requirements. These efforts can
help "unbundle" the price of parking from the purchase price of a property and
identify the cost of "free" parking. On-street parking prices and time limits can
encourage parking turnover, facilitate business access, and support alternative
modes of travel into downtown areas, as can taxes on private parking facilities. For
example, Redmond uses parking maximums to help reduce single-occupant vehicle
travel and support transit, ridesharing, biking, and walking; the parking maximums
may be lowered further.36 Free parking for hybrids, electric cars, and car-share
vehicles can also support their use.
• Car-sharing can reduce vehicle use when households (or businesses) are able to
_ reduce the number of cars they own. Studies in North America show that each car-
' sharing vehicle removes 15 private cars from the community, on average, reducing
parking demand and VMT. 37 The cars they replace tend to be older, high polluters,
33 Emeryville Transportation Management Association, "Emery Go-Round." Available online at
http://www.emervizoround.com/aboutus. Accessed February 2010.
34 The EV Projed, http://www.theevproiect.com.
35 City of Sacramento (California), "Parking Services: Electric Vehicles."Available online at
htta://www.citvofsacramento.ors/transportation/aarking/offstreetother.html: Hybrid Cars, "Hybrid and
Plug-in Incentives and Rebates." Available online at http://www.hvbridcars.com/local-incentives/resion-
bv-resion.html. Accessed February 2010.
36 City of Redmond (Washington), "Downtown Redmond Parking Study." Available online
athttp://www.redmond.gov/connectingredmond/studies/parkinsstudv.aso. Accessed February 2010.
' 37 Cohen, Adam P., Susan A. Shaheen, and Ryan McKenzie, Carsharing: A Guide for Local Planners,
Research Report UCD-ITS-RP-08-16. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis,
2008. Available online at http://aubs.its.ucdavis.edu/aublication detail.phq?id=1240. Accessed February
2010.
Best Pracxices 54
CnYOF ~
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
, WASHtNGTON
~
. while the car-share vehicles are typically high-efficiency, low-emission vehicles. In
. 1999, King County issued the first Request for Proposals for car-sharing services
(and pledged support), and the result was the nation's first large-scale car-sharing
program. Today, Zipcar (a private company) has hundreds of shared vehicles in
Seattle, including hybrids, and is beginning to expand to the surrounding cities.
Cities can encourage car-sharing through using and promoting car-sharing, adopting
parking policies such as establishing designated parking locations for car-share
vehicles, and encouraging car-sharing in new developments. For example,
Philadelphia replaced its municipal fleet with car-sharing vehicles, and Seattle has
designating parking spots for car-sharing vehicles.38
• Replacing stop signs and traffic signals with roundabouts can reduce fuel use
associated with stop-and-go traific. According to the Washington State Department
of Transportation, roundabouts save lives, save time, and reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by more than one-third when they replace well-suited traffic signals and
stop signs. The nearby cities of Federal Way and Covington have several examples of
modern roundabouts 39 Other access management strategies can also improve
roadway safety and reduce emissions.
• Coordinating traffic lights can minimize idling and trafric congestion. Optimizing
traffic signals can reduce idling time and the need for acceleration and deceleration,
in addition to reducing traffic in congestion areas. Portland's award-winning traffic
signal optimization effort has saved more than 157,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions in six years-the equivalent of removing 30,000 passenger
vehicles from the road for an entire year.40
• Commun'ity anti-idling campaigns or ordinances can reduce greenhouse gas
emission and air pollution. Many anti-idling ordinances apply to commercial
vehicles, such as a delivery trucks and buses, but some rules can apply to all drivers,
including passenger cars. For example, the City of Aspen adopted an ordinance
limiting idlingto five minutes with.up to a$1,000 fine and conducted an "Idling Isn't
Cool!" campaign to educate community members. Naidling signs on businesses and
public places can also help remind drivers to reduce this emissions source 41
38 Ibid.
39 Washington State Department of Transportation, see "Why Build Roundabouts?" section,
http://www.wsd ot.wa.sov/N R/rd on ivres/8C13 D92 B-A820-4669-A55 F-
7183678D6539/0/U5395ColumbiaDrto5R240Folio 07 29 2009.qdf: WSDOT, "Washington's
Roundabouts," http://www.wsdot.wa.sov/Safetv/roundabouts/washingtons.htm.
40 "Smart City award goes to Portland Bureau of Transportation;' C'ity of Portland (Oregon), February
2010. Available online at htta://www.portlandonline.com/mavor/?a=288204&c=49521. Accessed
February 2010.
al City of Aspen and Pitkin County, "Engine Idling," Code Section 13.08.110, Title 13: Health and Quality of
the Environment. Available online at
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/Citvlclerk/municode/COAspenTl3.ndf. Accessed February
2010.
~ . Community Best Practices 55 .
j
. _
_
crrnroF
Greenhouse Gas inventory
~!~~.,.~~a►l~1 '
wnsHtNc;oN
BUILDING ENERGY USE
In 2008, building energy use - including electricity and natural gas -from residential, commercial, and industrial sources accounted for roughly 60% of total community emissions,
40% of these emissions where from electricity consumption. The emissions from building energy
use depend on several key factors including the mix of fuel used to create electricity, energy
demand, and the efficiency with which energy is consumed. Accordingly, efforts to reduce
emissions from energy consumption include increasing availability of renewable energy,
conserving energy (decreasing demand), and increasing energy efficiency. While the City can
exert more control over its own energy consumption and facilities, many local governments
have also adopted best practices regarding building energy use in their communities. These
initiatives provide valuable examples for the City of Auburn to consider.
• Local government can partner with utilities to help link businesses and residents with .
rebates and other incentives to support energy audits, weatherization, and other
building retrofits. Puget Sound Energy offers a range of rebates for lighting, controls,
HVAC, appliances, and other equipment and products. Cities can share information and
promote rebate programs through their website, community events, and other venues
to ensure that businesses and residents are aware ofthese programs.
• Direct-install programs, though resource-intensive, can yield impressive energy
efficiency gains. Boulder, Colorado's ClimateSmart program conducts neighborhood
"sweeps" that send teams door-to-door to conduct energy audits, provide education,
weatherize homes, and install energy-efficient products, such as compact fluorescent
light bulbs, low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators, water heater wraps, water pipe
insulation, furnace filters, refrigerator/freezer thermometers, and setback
thermostats 42 Seattle City Light recently started a direct-install program for compact
. fluorescent light bulbs.
• Funding and incentives support energy efficiency upgrades in homes and businesses.
Either on their own or in partnership with the private sector, cities can offer low-interest
loans, energy-efFicient mortgages, local improvement districts for energy efficiency, or
bond measures. Jurisdictions can work to advance innovative repayment methods via
utility bills or property taxes, a strategy the City of Berkeley pioneered as part of its
Sustainable Energy Financing District.43 Tax credits or "feebates" can also create
incentives for energy efficiency. For example, Montgomery County., Maryland, offers a
Green Building property tax credit for commercial buildings that achieve LEED-EB
(Existing Building) certification." Portland has proposed a fee on buildings that meet
only the state's minimum energy code requirement; funds collected would be used to
42 City of Boulder, City of Longmont, and Boulder County (Colorado), ClimateSmart. Available online at
htta://www.beclimatesmart.com/. Accessed February 2010.
43 City of Berkeley (California), "Berkeley FIRST: Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar
Technology."Available online at http://www.ci.berkelev.ca.us/ContentDisalav.asax?id=26580. Accessed
February 2010.
44 Montgomery County (Maryland), "Property Tax Credit - Energy and Environmental Design." Available
online at
http://www. montgo mervcou ntvmd.jzov/sovtmpl.asp?u rl=/content/fina nce/Cou ntvTaxes/I nfo%20Taxes/t
ax credit exempt.ASP#o19. Accessed February 2010.
3
; Community Best Practices 56
)33
3
3
~ _...._._m_."____..~......_......._
. _
Greenhouse Gas inventory ~
• ~~~~Hlld~
waive the fee or provide rewards for new buildings that exceed the performance
standards.45
• Energy disclosure reporting requirements inform potential buyers or renters about the
relative efficiency of a property and can create incentives for owners to retrofit their
buildings. Adopted in early 2010, Seattle's Energy Disclosure Ordinance requires large
commercial and multifamily property owners to measure energy use and provide the
City and prospective buyers or tenants with ratings to allow comparison across different
buildings.46 Disclosure mandates could include historical energy use, energy
performance checklists, and/or energy performance ratings or labels. Making energy
consumption data available provides useful information to potential tenants and
investors and encourages property owners to reduce energy use where possible.
• Integrating a green building or energy efficiency rating system into building codes can
boost energy efficiency throughout the community. For example, some cities have
adopted LEED standards or Energy Star Building standards (or other similar standards)
for their own buildings as well as new private developments.
• Cities can enad mandates that require upgrades to commercial or residential
buildings. For example, Burlington, Vermont, has established minimum energy
efficiency standards for both single- and multifamily rental properties 47 Austin, Texas,
has proposed mandatory upgrades for "energy hog" properties that use 50% more
energy than the city's average building.48
• Enacting policies to support and promote renewable energy and distributed
generation technologies, such as solar panels and rooftop wind turbines, can help
generate clean energy in urban settings. Cities can support and encourage renewable
energy through their own leadership as well as supportive regulations and permitting.
For example, Sonoma County, California, developed an Energy Independence Program
that includes financing, supportive policies, and other efforts to promote solar
photovoltaic, solar thermal, and other efficiency and renewable energy improvements 49
Efforts can include promotion of "net-zero" or even net-positive buildings that produce
more energy than they consume.
45 City of Portland, "City of Portland Proposed High Pe►formance Green Building Policy." Available online
at http://www.portlandonline.com/bas/index.cfm?c=45879. Accessed February 2010.
ab City of Seattle, "Energy Disclosure Ordinance identifies energy waste, gives property owners and
tenants tools to improve energy efficiency," February 1, 2010. Available online at
http://www.seattle.gov/mavor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10497&dept=48. Accessed February 2010.
47 City of Burlington (Vermont) and Burlington Eledric, Code of Ordinances, Article VII, "Minimum Energy
Efficiency Standards Ordinance:" Available online at
httos://www.burlinp,tonelectric.com/pase.ohp?pid=43&name=time of sale. Accessed February 2010.
48 Austin Energy, "Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) Ordinance for Owners of Commercial
Buildings." Available online at
http://www.austinenergv.com/About%20Us/Environmental%201nitiatives/ordinance/commercial.htm.
Accessed February 2010.
49 Sonoma County Energy Independence, "Energy Independence Program." Available online at
htta://www.sonomacountvenersv.ors/. Accessed February 2010.
~ Community Be3t Practices 57 3
.
.
arY OF ~
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
WWASHIMGTON
SOLID WASTE
Waste represented only a small part of Auburn's community emiss'ions. However, alternative
methods of calcutation such as the EPA's WAste Reduction Model (WARM) suggest that by
reducing its waste stream, communities can substantially reduce upstream emissions associated
with the manufacturing and transportation of materials.50 While these emissions are not
included Scope 1 or 2 inventories, and were not covered by Auburn's 2007 or 2008 inventory,
the benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reductions are real.sl Key opportunities for Auburn
include actions that support source reduction efforts, increased recycling and composting, and
efficiency in collection and processing.
• Auburn's new solid waste contract slated for bid in 2012 offers a major opportunity
for waste prevention and increased diversion. The City's new waste contract offers an
excellent opportunity to focus efforts on waste prevention, increased recycling, and
food waste collection and reduce associated emissions. Best practices include adopting
pay-as-you-throw garbage rate structures that embed the cost of recycling collection
into the garbage fee and ensure communitywide organics collection. Contracts can also
require haulers to estimate their carbon emissions from collection and processing and
to identify the steps they will take to reduce emissions where possible. Cities can also
partner with their waste hauler to provide business incentives and education and
outreach that support recycling and composting.
.
• Mandatory recycling and bans on the disposal of recyclable or compostable materials
can increase diversion and enhance recovery of valuable materials. For example,
multiple cities in King County ban yard waste from disposal as garbage, and Seattle
prohibits residents from disposing of retyclables and businesses from disposing of paper
and cardboard in their garbage.52 Including multifamily, commercial, and industrial
buildings in recycling programs will expand their impact and improve consistency
between home and workplace recycling. Local ordinances can also support reuse and
recycling of construction and demolition materials.
• Local campaigns encouraging recycling, composting, reuse, and source reduction can
prevent waste-and its associated greenhouse gas impacts. Communitywide or
targeted promotional campaigns can focus on particular materials, practices, sectors, or
geographic areas. For example, Seattle's ban on non-recyclable or compostable food-
service packaging reduces waste going to the landfill and supports recycling and
composting.s3
so U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "WAste Reduction Model." Available online at
htta://www.epa.gov/climate/WARM/Warm home.html: USEPA, "Climate Change - Waste." Available
online at httq://www.epa.gov/climatechanpe/wvcd/waste/index.html. Accessed Februarv 2010.
sl USEPA, "West Coast Forum on Climate Change, Waste Prevention, Recovery and Disposal." Available
online at http://vosemite.eaa.gov/r10/ECOCOMM.NSF/Programs/wcf. Accessed February 2010.
52 City of Seattle, "Ban on Recyclables in Garbage." Available online at
http://www.citvofseattle.net/UTIL/About SPU/Recvcliniz Svstem/Historv & Overview/Ban on Recvclab
les in Garbage/index.asp. Accessed February 2010.
53 Resource Venture, "Seattle's New Food Packaging Requirements." Available online at o
htto://www.resourceventure.or,g/foodpluscompostables. Accessed February 2010.
.
. Cflmmunity Best Practices 58
i i
i
;
ia,aroF
,
Greenhouse Gas lnyentory ~
wnsHuvcroN ;
r
• Commercial recycling or conservation assistance programs can help businesses reduce
waste, shrink their carbon footprints, and save money. For example, Portland Metro
Area's Recycle at Work program provides inform.ation, resources such as recycling boxes, and technical assistance to help businesses reduce their waste.54 Seattle's
Resource Venture assists businesses with reducing waste, conserving water, and
reducing energy use ss
54 Metro (Oregon) Recycle at Work, httn://www.recvcleatwork.com/
ss Resource Venture, www.resourceventure.org
~Communlty Best PrdcUces~`~ "
~ . . , - .
r s
~ _ ~ . , ' ~,a_..-e:-°^
Greenhouse Gaslnventory H ~
- = i
wnsHINcrorr . . !
Next Steps
Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions wiil require a sustained effort over time and a
portfolio of actions and initiatives by Auburn, its citizens, and, indeed, communities across the nation and around the globe. The actions presented above provide Auburn with a menu of
choices from which to forge a path forward and provide leadership on this vital issue.
It was beyond the scope of this study to
evaluate each ofthese options in terms of ~
GHG reductions achieved, cost- ~ Evaluating Actions
effectiveness, leverage, feasibility, and An extensive analysis of climate protection actions
other related criteria. Therefore, the next Was not a part of this study. As the City of Auburn
step in this process is for Auburn to review moves forward to meet its climate protection goafs,
and discuss these options, develop a short the following criteria should be considered when
list that makes sense for the City, quantify evaluating actions.
potential savings and associated costs, and
then establish priorities.
• Reduction Potential: total achievable GHG
Auburn then will be in a strong position to reduction potential.
formulate an action plan to reduce • Cost-effectiveness: costs of
emissions in both the short and longer implementation and the potential savings
terms. With a plan in place, generated.
• Feasibility: ease of achievement and
implementation can begin immediately,
potential to overcome barriers.
especially on some of the options that . Rapid Deployment: opportunity to effect
represent "low-hanging fruit." The City will
changes quickly.
then need to track and measure progress . Regional Impact: level of opportunity in
over time, reporting to its citizens and the Puget Sound region.
businesses on progress made toward a
cleaner, sustainable, prosperous low-
carbon future.
S k~ F,S"
4&#y Y x - 1Vext Steps 60
~
b:.
-
<
i_. . , . . . . _ . _ _ . - _ . " .
~ _ . . . , . . . ' . . . . . ' . .
.
` arroc ~~"r.
Greenhouse Gas fnventory - 1
_l
- WASH[NGTON ~
z #
Appendix A: Detailed Data Sources
e.„.,Ocganization/ Department Data Supplied
City of Auburn Cemetery Cemetery vehicle fleet
City of Auburn Finance Finance Department Liaison, requested data from PSE
City of Auburn Finance Relevant PSE account numbers for Auburn facilities,
cost information on PSE electric and natural gas
accounts, list of business travel invoices used to pull
records, fuel data
City of Auburn Engineering Public Works greenhouse gas inventory liaison
City of Auburn Engineering Electricity use for street and traffic lights
City of Auburn Golf Course Golf course fleet data
City of Auburn Human Resources Square footage, addresses of non-parks City facilities,
PSE data release forms for renters living in COA
properties, occupancy data
City of Auburn Maintenance & Auburn fleet data, fuel usage, refrigerants, pump
Operations station list
City of Auburn Maintenance & Auburn fleet data
Operations
City of Auburn Parks Parks Facilities energy use, Parks Department travel ,
City of Auburn Parks Parks Department liaison
City of Auburn Police Police Department liaison, Police Department travel
City of Auburn Legal Legal Department liaison, Legal Department travel
City of Auburn Finance So1id waste data esfimates (based on container size and
Department frequency of pick-up)
City of Auburn White River Valley White River Valley Museum electricity and natural gas
Museum account numbers, cost information and data release
Puget Sound Energy Electricity and natural gas consumption
King County Metro Information on 2008 fuel use and passenger miles for
commuting calculations
Pierce Transit Information on 2008 fuel. use and passenger miles for
commuting calculations
Sound Transit Information on 2008 fuel use and passenger miles for
commuting calculations
r:~~ = ae~,ea, ' W,Appe;ndW~ 51
_ : :
~a_
~
,
cmoF Greenhouse Gas fnventory ~
iNASHWGTON
, o
Organization/ Department Data Supplied ~
Puget Sound Regionai Council 2006 Average Weekday VMT in City of Auburn
(PSRC) boundaries
City of Auburn Public Works City of Au6urn Traffic Counts
Puget Sound Energy Community Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
City of Auburn Finance Data from Waste Management, Allied Waste Services,
Department and Murrey's Disposal on community waste generation
City of Auburn Human Resources CTR report (2007)
Department
.
OrganizationJDepartment Data Supplied
City of Auburn Engineering City transportation projects that may reduce
Department greenhouse gases
City of Auburn Finance Full time Employee counts for City of Auburn - used for
Department metrics
City of Auburn Human Resources City Facilities projects that may reduce greenhouse
Department gases .
City of Auburn Maintenance and Total gallons pumped by water pump stations - used for
Operations Department metrics
City of Auburn Mayor's Office Demographic data, City economic development efforts
City of Auburn Planning & City planning projects and city code changes that may Development Department reduce greenhouse gases
Washington State Department of WSDOT Internal Greenhouse Gas Inventory, WSDOT
Transportation (WSDOT) Annual Traffic Report (2008)
Washington Office of Financial Information on Auburn population - used for metrics
Management and forecasting
Puget Sound Regional Council Information on expected population growth in region -
used for forecasting
The Department of Energy, Energy Information on expected growth in energy demand by
Information Administration region and sertor - used for forecasting
.
"xr, . 4' 62
=APpendix , .
,
a. ,
~
, I . . . ' . . • - , . . .
RESOLUTION NO. 4368
ESTABLISHING SUPPORT FOR LOCAL, REGIONAL AND
NATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY
' RESOLUTION NO. 4 3 6 8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, ESTABUSHING SUPPORT ` FOR
INCREASED LOCAL, . REGIONAL, NATIONAL, AND
GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY
WHEREAS, sustainability seeks to balance and support the needs of the
i
community, the,environment, the economy, and the needs of future generations; and
WHEREAS, sustainabilify has.emerged and become a local, regional, national,
and global concem; and
WHEREAS, local govemments have passed resolutions to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and to.work to increase sustainability; and
WHEREAS, City Council has heard policy discussion on community sustainability
and global climate protection by Councilmember Wagner at-the City Council Committee
of the Whole Meeting March 31, 2008; and -
WHEREAS, progress towards sustainability includes City actions such. as, the
encouragement of hybrid vehicles and_ the reduction of fossil fuel use, the sponsorship
of green projects, the development of green design and construction standards, the
promotion of commute trip reductian programs and mass transit, the promotion of
environmental preservation, water reclamation, recycling, the conservatian and reuse of
water, the enforcement and management of air qualify including the reduction of
emissions through efforts such as an engine idling ordinance, the overall reduction of -
energy consumption and more efficient use of resources; and
WHEREAS, actions for sustainability are likely fo ensure community
; sustainability, minimize negat'ive impacts on the nafural environment, help ensure
Resolution No. 4368
June 30, 2008
Page 1 of 2
adequate long-term local, regional, and national global resources, and can help reduce
global warming and climate change.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN:
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Aubum acknowiedges its support for
actions of local, regional, national, and global level sustainability by nurturing Auburn to
be environmenfally, economically, and socially vital, enacting green construction
;standards that make good financial sense, promoting local environmental preservations,
using energy and other resources prudently, and avoiding actions that contribute to
global warming or other adverse enviro nmental impacfs.
Section Z. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation..
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full-Jorce upon
passage and signatures hereon,
Dated and Signed this day of , 2008.
C U
P ER B. EWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
~
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
AP V TO FO
_
Qaniel B. H', Cify Attomey
Resolution No. 4368
June 30, 2008
Page 2 af 2