Sustainable Design of Municipal Capital Facilities

1. Triple Life Cycle Assessment –Toward Sustainable Design of Municipal Capital Facilities Richard Gelb Sustainable Building Coordinator, Seattle Parks and Recreation Strategic Advisor, Office of Sustainability and Environment richard.gelb@seattle.gov 206-684-0631 Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment www.cityofseattle.net/environment Seattle Parks and Recreation Sustainable Building Program www.cityofseattle.net/parks/sustainable

2. Seattle’s Urban Sustainability Agenda • Overarching goal: practice and promote sustainable solutions that: • Reduce resource consumption and prevent pollution and health risks; • Reduces life-cycle costs; • Build community and enhance social capital; • Achieve multiple benefits

3. Sustainable Development Program Overview – Departmental Perspective • Policies, Resources, Drivers: • City’s Comprehensive Plan • Neighborhood plans • Citywide Environmental Action Agenda • Sustainable Building Policy continuous improvement Achievement levels inform future goals and are reported via Departmental Environmental Management Systems and the Citywide Environmental Progress Report Topic today Step 1: Based on organizational mission, Environmental Management System (EMS) establish/review capital development goals Step 2: Use triple lifecycle assessment to inform sustainable design priorities Step 3: Assure Departmentally- relevant project features are integrated and accounted for via project scorecards

4. Sustainable design solutions are here Fiscal responsibility & economic vitality (Prosperity) Social equity & well-being (People) Ecological health & integrity (Planet)

5. The Fiscal Lifecycle UpstreamFirst costs – Purchasing Costs Lifecycle Fiscal Assessment Downstream – end of useful life and disposal costs MidstreamMaintenance and operations costs

6. The Fiscal Lifecycle Initial capital costs Disposal costs Staffing costs Janitorial costs Lifecycle Fiscal Assessment Facility flexibility -- costs to upgrade or adapt Maintenance costs – equipment durability Community/neighborhood economic development contributions Water costs Energy costs Revenue generation capacity

7. Upstream Social equity for vendors,Public Involvement DownstreamAdaptive re-use Lifecycle Social Benefit Assessment Midstream Life of project social benefits The Social Lifecycle

8. The Social Lifecycle Inclusive public involvement process Future proofing Use of WMBE’s design firms Lifecycle Social Benefit Assessment Building community and enhancing social capital Improved pedestrian access Crime deterrence Meeting needs of historically underserved Public art / improved aesthetics Integrated universal access Preserving/ enhancing neighborhood character Transportation connectivity

9. The Environmental Lifecycle Upstream – Emissions and Resource Use Lifecycle Environmental Assessment Downstream – end of useful life emissions and resource use Midstream – life of facility emissions and resource use, ecological enhancements

10. The Environmental Lifecycle Deconstruction of existing facility/ building re-use Indoor environmental quality and occupant health Lifecycle Environmental Assessment Materials and resource selection Habitat diversity and ecological function Water efficiency, rainwater harvest Stormwater management and water recharge Energy and atmospheric impacts

11. Sustainable design solutions (for public projects) can be seen when looking through these 3 lens concurrently: Upstream impacts/contributions Downstream – end of useful life impacts and contributions Lifecycle Fiscal Assessment Midstream – life of facility impacts and contributions Upstream impacts/contributions Upstream impacts/contributions Downstream – end of useful life impacts and contributions Lifecycle Social Benefit Assessment Downstream – end of useful life impacts and contributions Lifecycle Environmental Assessment Midstream – life of facility impacts and contributions Midstream – life of facility impacts and contributions

12. Screening-level Sustainable Design Assessment Initial capital costs Disposal costs Staffing costs Lifecycle Fiscal Assessment Facility flexibility -- costs to upgrade or adapt Maintenance costs – equipment durability Janitorial costs Community/neighborhood economic development contributions Water costs Energy costs Revenue generation capacity Inclusive public involvement process Deconstruction of existing facility/ building re-use Future proofing Materials and resource selection Indoor environmental quality and occupant health Use of WMBE’s design and construction firms Lifecycle Environmental Assessment Lifecycle Social Benefit Assessment Building community and enhancing social capital Transportation connectivity Habitat diversity and ecological function Crime deterrence Improved pedestrian access Water efficiency, rainwater harvest Meeting needs of historically underserved Public art / improved aesthetics Stormwater management and water recharge Energy and atmospheric impacts Integrated universal access Preservation/ enhancement of neighborhood character

13. Process for using Parks scorecards Design Program Schematic Design Program and project managers establish points target based on project scope, schedule, budget Project Manager (PM) and design team work to include more sustainable features (host design charette?) PM and design team conduct initial project scoring – compare to target PM submits a schematic phase scorecard as part of design review process Construction phase and project completion Design development Construction documents PM uploads final scorecard onto web-enabled database – department report achievements at regular intervals PM assures sustainable features and attributes are included PM assures sustainability elements are reflected in construction documents and design details

14. Sustainable Design Assessment --- Process Overview --- • Policies, Resources, Drivers: • City’s Comprehensive Plan • Neighborhood plans • Citywide Environmental Action Agenda • Sustainable Building Policy continuous improvement Achievement levels inform future goals and are reported via Departmental Environmental Management Systems and the Citywide Environmental Progress Report Step 2: Use triple lifecycle perspective to determine departmentally- relevant design priorities, then integrate and account for sustainable project features via scorecards Step 3: Use internal departmental and Design Commission review processes to help monitor and achieve overall design intent Step 1: Beginning with organizational mission and environmental management system (EMS) goals, establish/review the department’s capital program goals

15. Conclusion • This approach is being employed by Seattle Parks Department … is linked to an Environmental Management System • …. other City Departments are interested • The Seattle Design Commission will be using this approach as part of their design review process • We are moving toward a sustainable infrastructure program and policy that (likely) will be linked to a triple lifecycle approach