Survey Results and Analysis Denver Metropolitan …murp.cudenvercap.org/.../2018/01/Sustainability-Survey-1.pdfState of Sustainability Survey Survey Results and Analysis Denver Metropolitan

State of Sustainability Survey

Survey Results and Analysis Denver Metropolitan Area

December 2017

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 i

This report is the result of a partnership effort by the Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism (University of Colorado Denver College of Architecture and Planning), American Planning Association Colorado Chapter Sus-tainability Committee, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, and the authors are responsible for the acts and accuracy of this data. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of the partners listed above, nor do the contents constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Contributing AuthorsKylie Brown, Planning Consultant, previously with The Colorado Department of Local AffairsJulia Ferguson, Planning Consultant, previously, Sustainability Coordinator with Adams CountyJoe Green, Graduate Student, Masters in Urban and Regional Planning, CU DenverRocky Piro, Executive Director, Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism

The Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism at the University of Colorado Denver is a collaborative hub for urban planners, architects, engineers, economists, health professionals, public policy experts, and others to work together in using best available information and best practices to advance sustainable solutions for both the natural environment and the built environment. The Center partners with state, regional, and local agen-cies, as well as with private sector firms; local foundations; professional associations; and community groups.The College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado Denver is the only college in Colorado offering comprehensive programs in the design and planning of the built environment, from undergraduate through accredited professional master’s degrees to the doctorate.For further Information, visit us at: http://cap.ucdenver.edu.ccsu

Background

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 ii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

a. Survey Description & Methodology ........................................................................................ 11. Survey Questions ....................................................................................................... 12. Survey Distribution & Timeline .................................................................................. 23. Survey Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3

II. Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 4a. Analysis of All Jurisdictions ..................................................................................................... 4b. Best Practices for Implementing Sustainability ..................................................................... 14

III. Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 16

IV. Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A: Jurisdictions Surveyed ........................................................................................................A-1Appendix B: Matrix Responses ............................................................................................................... B-1Appendix C: Open-Ended Responses ...................................................................................................... C-1Appendix D: Survey Questions ..............................................................................................................D-1

List of Tables:Table 1: Description of survey sections .......................................................................................................2Table 2: Location of sustainability personnel within the jurisdiction ..........................................................5Table 3: Criterion used by communities to choose projects, policies and programs ..................................7Table 4: Other community plans that address sustainability ......................................................................8Table 5: Matrix Groups .............................................................................................................................10

Table of Contents

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 iii

Survey partners include the Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism (University of Colorado Denver College of Architecture and Planning), American Planning Association Colorado Chapter Sustainability Committee, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, Adams County, and municipalities in Adams County. Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism and Adams County staff took the lead in formulating the questions. Comments were provided by Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) & the American Planning Association Colorado Chapter (APA CO) Sustainability Committee. A pilot test was conducted with municipalities in Adams County. DRCOG staff distributed the survey. Results were compiled by student volunteers who are APA CO Chapter members.

The survey includes a total of 22 questions, divided into three sections. Section 1 addresses staffing and re-sponsibilities. Section 2 focuses on sustainability planning and actions in local jurisdictions. Section 3 includes questions on public participation and engagement.

Seven counties and 28 cities in the metropolitan area served by DRCOG responded to the survey. Collectively these jurisdictions represent more than 95% of the region’s population.

This report has resulted in a number of significant findings. A sampling is listed below.• Communities with the most robust sustainability programs and initiatives integrate sustainability into all

planning documents outside of just a stand-alone sustainability plan. • Sustainability positions can be housed across various departments in a jurisdiction. Thirty-two percent of

responding jurisdictions have dedicated sustainability staff, and an additional 36% have staff members that devote at least a portion of their time to sustainability efforts, but may not have sustainability duties iden-tified in their job descriptions.

• Nearly 90% of responding jurisdictions prioritizes open space preservation. Three quarters of jurisdictions address water conservation in their planning documents. Nearly all mid-size and larger cities have climate change provisions, as well smaller municipalities.

• Significant attention is given to increasing densities and creating more compact communities.• Jurisdictions of all sizes stress the importance of expanding bicycle and sidewalk networks, as well improv-

ing as access to transit. Over 75% of respondents address ‘complete streets’. • Almost half of jurisdictions link economic development to sustainability.• Half of the jurisdictions place an emphasis on assisting low income residents.• Over 85% of respondents include access to recreation and physical activity in their comprehensive plans.• Alternative Energy is addressed in more than 70% of local comprehensive plans, including provisions for

solar, wind, and geothermal. • It is common for jurisdictions to have recycling centers for the community and internal recycling programs

for government facilities.

This initial report on sustainability practices in metropolitan Denver is intended to be the first in a series of reports on the state of sustainability planning and practices in Colorado. Additional survey work is planned for the rest of the Front Range counties and then for the remainder of jurisdictions statewide. In addition, this initial report provides a foundation for more thorough investigation of local practices around specific sustain-ability topics, such as water planning and conservation.

Executive Summary

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 1

Across the state of Colorado and the nation local communities and municipalities are embedding a culture of sustainability, resiliency, and climate change awareness into their governing, structure, planning, and policymaking. The approach to integrating sustainability practices and programs within the structure of a local government varies across jurisdictions, but the need to address sustainability is clear. Cities consume two thirds of the world’s energy and contribute to seventy percent of the world’s CO2 emissions.1 As local leaders recognize the role that cities play in climate change, municipalities are taking varying approaches to addressing and planning for sustainability at a local scale.

In 2017, several independent efforts and proposal converged, with a common question in mind: What are Colorado’s local communities doing to address sustainability in policy and planning, and how can we learn from each other to successfully embed sustainability into the culture and decisions of each organization? Colorado’s diverse municipal landscape includes communities ranging from those with active and long-standing sustainability efforts, to communities that up until recently have not included sustainability as an organizational priority, but are interested in doing so. This group of planners and policy makers understood that communities of different size, geographical and sociodemographic characteristics, and political landscapes will have different approaches to sustainability, and a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible. By understanding the broad scope of local sustainability planning, we can better collaborate on regional sustainability efforts and support communities that are in the early stages of integrating sustainability into their planning and policy development.

Survey Description & Methodology:The State of Sustainability Survey was composed with input provided by several partner organizations including the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), jurisdictions in Adams County, and the board for the Center for Sustainable Urbanism. DRCOG provided support in communicating the survey efforts to their member jurisdictions, and the survey was sent to all cities and counties within DRCOG’s nine-county service area. Thirty-five jurisdictions opened the survey and 28 communities completed full responses; an analysis of their responses is contained herein. The responding jurisdictions represent more than 95% of the population of nine county metropolitan region. Future iterations of the survey will aim to expand the network of responses beyond the DRCOG region to encompass the entire Front Range and, eventually, all communities in Colorado. Through these efforts, a network of sustainability-aligned professionals can share best practices, proven techniques, and innovative approaches to sustainability in Colorado. Student volunteers were engaged through DOLA and the Center of Sustainable Urbanism to assist with designing the survey and analyzing and reporting the findings.

The core team, along with staff at the Denver Regional Council of Governments, investigated several options for survey format and design. Qualtrics is a survey platform regularly used by the University of Colorado Denver. After some initial testing of its utility, the team decided to use Qualtrics for the survey process.

1 For more information, see the UN Habitat report Hot Cities: Battle Ground for Climate Change (http://mirror.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/E_Hot_Cities.pdf)

Introduction


Survey QuestionsThe survey includes a total of 22 questions, divided into three sections. Section 1 includes a set of seven questions that address staffing and responsibilities for work in the area of sustainability at the local jurisdictional level. This section includes questions regarding where sustainability positions are housed within jurisdictions and how positions are funded. Section 2 focuses on sustainability planning and actions in local jurisdictions. There are 12 questions in this section, including questions on defining sustainability, sustainability plans and strategies, implementation actions and projects, and monitoring implementation and performance. Respondents were asked to complete a matrix which requested specific detail on issues of environmental protection and restoration, the built environment, mobility and accessibility, resilient economy, equity, health and wellness, energy, and waste management. Section 3 includes three questions on participation and engagement. Survey respondents were provided the opportunity to identify any additional information they felt would be relevant to the survey topic as well.

There is a variety of design to the questions. Some were posed in a “yes-or-no” format, others provided choices to select from, while still others used a matrix in which responses may be checked. Most questions also provided a comment box in which further information or descriptions may be provided.

Table 1 shows the sections of the survey and a description of questions contained in each.

Table 1: Survey Sections Section Subsection Description

PreliminarySection:RespondentIdentification

NA Therespondentidentificationsectionrequestedname,nameoforganizationandcontactinformation.

Section1:Staffing–SustainabilityPositions

NA QuestionsinSection1wereintendedtounderstandhowsustainabilityisorganizedandstaffedineachjurisdiction.

Section2:SustainabilityinPlanningandActions

Section2addressedhowjurisdictionsdefine,planfor,andimplementsustainability.Sectiontwowasfurtherdividedintofoursubsections.

Section2 2.1 Section2.1wasintendedtounderstandeachjurisdiction’sunderstandingofsustainabilityandhowsustainabilityisfactoredintoplanninganddecision-making.

Section2 2.2 Section2.2wasintendedtoconsiderhow“sustainability”isaddressedinplanningdocuments,suchascomprehensiveplansorsingletopicplans(suchasatransportationplan),implementationoractionsstrategies,and/orspecificlocalgovernmentprojects.Italsoaddressedhowjurisdictionsimplementedactionsandprojects.

Section2 2.3 Section2.3focusedontheactionstepsjurisdictionsidentifiedforimplementingsustainabilityprogramsorprojects,aswellasmonitoringprogramsdesignedtotrackimplementationormeasureperformance.

Section2 2.4 Section2.4consistedofamatrixidentifyingwhichsustainabilitytopicseachjurisdictionaddressesandhowdeeplythatjurisdictionimplementationssustainabilityprojects.

Section3:Conclusion

NA Section3askedrespondentstoprovideanyfurtherinformationaboutsustainabilityplansoractionsnotpreviouslyaddressedinthesurvey.


Survey Distribution & TimelineWhile interested in surveying communities up and down Colorado’s Front Range, and perhaps even statewide, the team opted to break the survey project into phases, and to focus the initial phase on jurisdictions within the nine-county Denver metropolitan area. The staff at DRCOG agreed to distribute the survey to all jurisdictions in its service area. The survey was distributed electronically in July 2017, with final responses from jurisdictions obtained by the end of September 2017 after follow-up phone calls and emails were conducted.

Survey AnalysisThe survey team utilized reports directly from Qualtrics and an additional level of analysis on individual responses from jurisdictions in order to analyze and report survey results. A number of communities opened the survey, but only responded to the first three questions related to sustainability plans and staffing. Twenty-eight communities responded to the full survey, and for the remainder of the survey report, only these 28 responding jurisdictions were analyzed.

Respondents were grouped into the following categories, and where possible analyzed based on these categories:

• Counties• Cities with a population over 100,000• Cities with a population between 50,000-99,999• Cities with a population under 49,999• Stand-alone cities/towns in rural areas


The State of Sustainability across jurisdictions in the DRCOG service area of Colorado varies widely, and there are best practices and lessons to be learned from the individual programs, policies, and actions currently being planned and implemented by local communities. The following sections provide an analysis of actual survey results, followed by suggestions on best practices for communities that are beginning to address sustainability, as well as those looking to grow and expand their sustainability programs. Finally, we will look at national examples of successful sustainability planning in order to understand how communities can integrate sustainability into the fabric of their governing.

Section 1: Staffing for Sustainability The survey begins with questions intended to understand the administrative and programmatic approach to sustainability that is used by jurisdictions—where ‘sustainability’ lives in their organization and how it drives the critical functions of the organization. Nine jurisdictions (32%) respond that they have dedicated staff working on sustainability-related efforts in their community. Of these, six communities have a manager or coordinator level position working on sustainability initiatives (some are part-time). In two instances, jurisdictions have assistants to city managers leading sustainability projects. There are a small number of communities in which a public affairs administrator and neighborhood engagement coordinator have sustainability responsibilities.

The number of responding jurisdictions more than doubles (19 jurisdictions, 68%) when “non-dedicated” staff working on sustainability-related projects are included in the sustainability staffing count. (Note: Non-dedicated staff is defined as having primary tasks in areas other than sustainability, and spending less than 50 percent of their time on sustainability-related work.)

Respondents were asked to provide information about future plans to staff a sustainability position. Five jurisdictions (18 %) are considering adding sustainability staff in the next five years. Eleven communities (39%) indicate that they do not intend to add sustainability staff in the future at this time, while 12 (43%) localities respond that they do not know at this time. Community size shows a slight correlation with the ability to commit resources towards staffing a sustainability position: 50% of communities with populations over 100,000 have at least one staff member dedicated to sustainability, while 21% of cities with populations below 50,000 have dedicated sustainability staff.

In the comments section, some communities provide additional information about their process for determining whether a new position dedicated to sustainability is warranted in their community. Two communities indicate that they are in the process of adding, or proposing to add, sustainability positions. One jurisdiction states that adding a position is contingent on funding, while another jurisdiction states that it is undertaking a sustainability “audit” which may result in creating a sustainability position. One city has formed a sustainability committee that will provide recommendations on sustainability programming and staffing to the city council.

Findings


Staff Time Devoted to SustainabilityJurisdictions with both dedicated and non-dedicated staff working on sustainability programs were asked about percentage of staff time devoted to six specific areas of work: (a) internal program development, (b) internal operations, (c) external policy development for regulations and standards, (d) external policy development for waste reduction, (e) interjurisdictional collaboration, and (f) community outreach and education. About two thirds of the respondents indicated that staff time is divided rather equally across all six of these activities. Eleven localities (39 percent) indicated that up to a quarter of their staff time was dedicated to internal operations. One jurisdiction stated that more than half of the staff time is spent on interjurisdictional collaboration. Two jurisdictions offered that they spend more than half of their staff time on community outreach and education. Please note that these figures will not add to 100 percent, as some jurisdictions with more than one dedicated or non-dedicated sustainability staff member completed the question for each staff member working on sustainability. Additional duties and focus areas where survey respondents specifically noted that sustainability staff spend a significant amount of work time include: resilience, data collection, neighborhood/community initiatives, and long-range planning.

Oversight and Funding for SustainabilityThere are various places within jurisdictions in which sustainability staff are housed—this is generally based on the programs and projects related to sustainability that the jurisdiction has chosen to prioritize, and where in the organization these programs and projects are a best fit. In five jurisdictions (nearly 18% of respondents) the sustainability staff is located in the city (or county) manager’s office or mayor’s office. In three instances (10% of respondents) the sustainability program is housed in the planning or community development department. The public works department oversees sustainability in one locality, and the parks department does in another. Two jurisdictions house sustainability in their facilities operations divisions or departments. One city reported that their staff dedicated to sustainability is distributed among several departments, including utilities, parks, and energy.

Table 2: Location of sustainability personnel within the jurisdiction

Eight jurisdictions fund their sustainability positions through their general fund budget cycle. One locality relies on grants and another locality utilizes a sustainability tax or assessment. Other jurisdictions use enterprise funds, matching grants, or sponsorship and exhibition fees.

Wherearepersonnelhoused? CountCity/CountyManagerorMayorsOffice 5PlanningandDevelopment 3PublicWorks 1ParksandRecreation 1Facilities(i.e.,governmentbuildings,etc) 2Other 1FundingSource CountGeneralfundbudgetcycle 8State,national,orfoundationalgrants 1Sustainabilitytaxorassessment 1Other 3


Section 2.1: Defining SustainabilityWhile the approach to and integration of sustainability in planning and policy at the County and municipal level varies greatly, our study shows that the majority of communities do address sustainability in some measure, either through a separate and dedicated sustainability plan or through elements of their comprehensive plan. Survey questions in section 2.1 were designed to provide information about the level to which the responding jurisdictions define sustainability and incorporate sustainability into their planning criterion.

In order to determine a baseline for how communities define sustainability, we asked jurisdictions to share their definitions of sustainability (as applicable) in the survey. 63% of jurisdictions indicate that they had a definition of sustainability, and one indicates that although they do not have a definition, they provide an explanation as to why they pursue sustainability. One community states that they are in the process of defining sustainability for their community in a forthcoming sustainability plan. Of those communities that do have definitions, 82% indicate that their definition encompassed what is commonly known as a ‘triple-bottom line’ approach, in which the concerns of environmental restoration and/or protection, social equity, and economic resiliency are all considered with relatively equal weight. One jurisdiction considers only economic resiliency in their definition of sustainability, and one considers only environmental issues in their definition of sustainability. Additionally, one jurisdiction does not include social equity in their definition. A small number of jurisdictions include additional criteria in their definition of sustainability: economic vitality, emissions reductions, intergenerational equity, and town values were all mentioned by at least one jurisdiction as a primary defining factor in how the community approaches sustainability.

• City of Lakewood Sustainability Plan: Sustainability means creating balance among the environment, the economy, and society to ensure that practices and decisions do not compromise the quality of life for future generations. Sustainability is not an end goal, but an approach that recognizes the interplay between natural, economic, and social interests. As our population and economy continue to grow, we depend on the resources and services that our surrounding ecosystems provide. Sustainable development requires an understanding of these systems and how we can survive and thrive within the patterns and cycles of the natural world.

• Sustain Arvada: Sustain Arvada is a way of honoring Arvada’s rich heritage and preserving our resources to foster economic prosperity, environmental stewardship and community vitality today and into the future. In Arvada, as in many places, both present and future generations will benefit from a more thoughtful approach to our use of water, energy, and other resources.

• City of Aurora: Sustainability in Aurora is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future.

• City of Commerce City: A sustainable community is one in which the economic, social, and environmental systems provide a productive, healthy, meaningful life for its residents as well as affording the opportunity for prosperity. It is a community working toward the betterment of local conditions, linking the local economy, community, and environment with the region and the world. In the long-term, it means meeting the needs of the present and planning for the future, by striving for the three Cs of sustainability:

Commerce and Economy: Vital economic development and fiscal stability, focusing on retaining existing businesses and attracting new businesses that fit with the goals of the community.

Context and Environment: Orderly growth and development that leads to a balanced city with great neighborhoods and commerce, sufficient infrastructure, connected parks and open space, and a positive appearance and image.

Community and Social Well-Being: Community and social facilities that provide for the safety, health, and well-being of its residents and promote efficient and wise use of resources, ensuring that future generations have opportunities for meaningful livelihoods.


When determining whether a project, policy, or program is feasible for a community to undertake, many local communities have criteria against which these policies are measured to determine whether they shall be pursued. In order to understand how communities prioritize projects and make decisions, we ask survey respondents to list their community’s primary criterion in choosing to implement actions or projects. Table 3 illustrates the proportion of communities from the survey that consider a certain criterion when choosing what projects, programs, and policies to implement.

Table 3: Criterion used by communities to choose projects, policies and programsCriterion %ofCommunitiesHealth 44%CompleteStreets 33%FiscalResponsibility 96%Recreation 56%WaterConservation 59%ProcessEfficiency 37%Sustainability 44%Other 33%

‘Fiscal Responsibility’ is considered a primary criterion by almost every community surveyed, and ‘water conservation’ and ‘recreation’ are noted as a primary decision-making criterion for more than half the responding communities as well. While ‘sustainability’ in general is only considered a primary criterion by 44% of communities, it can be argued that a broad definition of sustainability is likely to include many of these other categories and considerations. ‘Other’ items listed by communities as important in their prioritization of projects, policies, and programs are: economic development, affordability and equity, quality design, community desires, technology transfer, resiliency, density and traffic issues, and general health, safety, and welfare of the community. It should also be noted that two communities state that their criterion and priorities may shift based on the current political leadership in the communities (i.e. Council or Commissioner priorities) or the priorities of the specific department out of which a project, policy, or program is being initiated.

Section 2.2: Sustainability in Planning and PolicySection 2.2 of the survey is designed to understand how communities are integrating sustainability into their planning processes, and the level to which jurisdictions are including sustainability in their long-range planning documents. Survey results show that there are a number of communities that do not currently have a sustainability plan but are considering drafting a sustainability implementation or climate action plan in the next 1-5 years. Further, the majority of communities have addressed sustainability in some form in other planning documents including the community’s comprehensive plan or other functional planning documents.

Overall, many communities are addressing sustainability issues and policies via either their comprehensive plan, a separate and dedicated sustainability plan, or within other major community planning documents. Nearly 68% of jurisdictions indicate that sustainability is addressed in their community’s comprehensive plan, and 33% indicate that their community has one or more separate sustainability plans. Only one jurisdiction with a separate sustainability plan indicates that sustainability is not addressed in their comprehensive plan. Two respondents are unaware if their jurisdiction has a sustainability plan, which the survey team assumes to indicate that no such dedicated plan exists.


Many communities have also included elements of sustainability into the policy and programs defined in other community planning documents, such as a transportation plan or parks and open space plan. See Table 4 for a list of community planning documents that include sustainability.

Table 4: Other community plans that address sustainability

One may assume that those communities that have an existing definition of sustainability will be more likely to have a sustainability plan or include sustainability into elements of the comprehensive plan. Eighteen communities have a formal definition of sustainability and 20 have addressed sustainability in their comprehensive plan. Eight of the 19 jurisdictions with sustainability in the comprehensive plan also have one or more stand-alone sustainability documents or plans. Additionally, one community (City and County of Denver) does not have a formal definition of sustainability nor is sustainability addressed in their comprehensive plan, but they do have multiple planning and policy documents that address sustainability and climate action directly.

Community PlanningDocumentsthatAddressSustainabilityMakingConnectionsPlanTransportationMasterPlanSustainableAdamsCounty2030PlanParksandOpenSpacePlanBicycleMasterPlanSustainArvadaCommunityPlanWaterPlanOpenSpacePlanTransportationMasterPlanOpenSpaceMasterPlanParksandRecreationMasterPlanComprehensiveFloodandStormwaterMasterPlanResilienceStrategyBoulder’sClimateCommitment

CityofBrighton TransportationMasterPlanTownofDacono WaterConservationPlan

SolidWasteMasterPlanCommunityHealthImprovementPlanBalancedHousingPlanClimateChangePlanClimateAdaptationPlanClimateActionPlanMobilityPlan

CityofGolden GoldenVision2030LakewoodSustainabilityPlanLakewoodComprehensivePlanEconomicDevelopmentPlanParksPlanBikesandSidewalkPlan

TownofLoneTree ParksPlanTownofLyons FloodRecoveryPlan

TransportationPlanParksandOpenSpacePlan

CityofThornton HazardMitigationPlanCityofWestminster StrategicVision

CityofLittleton

TownofParker

AdamsCounty

CityofArvada

CityofAurora

CityofBoulder

CityandCountyofDenver

CityofLakewood


Community size is correlated to the degree to which a community addresses sustainability. Of those communities that have a population greater than 100,000 individuals (n=10 when including counties), 70% have addressed sustainability in a comprehensive plan and 50% have a dedicated sustainability plan. For communities with populations under 50,000 (n=14), 71% have addressed sustainability in a comprehensive plan and 21% have developed a dedicated sustainability plan.

Because the survey is designed to provide respondents with follow-up questions based on their answers, three communities which do not have sustainability addressed in their comprehensive plans, other planning documents, or a stand-alone sustainability plan were asked about future incorporation of sustainability planning and policy in the future. All three jurisdictions indicate that they do not intend to develop a sustainability plan and/or provisions to include sustainability in other plans, and they are not interested in learning from or collaborating with other local communities regarding sustainability integration.

Data from Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the survey indicate that those communities that are driven by a focus on sustainability, and in particular triple bottom line sustainability, are taking the next step to integrate sustainability elements into their comprehensive plans and other planning documents. Several communities note that while they do not currently have a dedicated sustainability plan, they are in the process of developing one or have plans to do so in the future. Further, survey data illustrates that even when a community may not have a stand-alone sustainability plan or policy documents, there are some common themes in the types of community planning documents that integrate elements of sustainability. Other than the community’s comprehensive plan, which is from the researchers’ standpoint an ideal document to include sustainability, transportation plans, economic development plans, and parks and open space plans are a natural fit for sustainability policy and programming frameworks to live.

Section 2.3: Implementation Steps and Performance MeasurementsSection 2.3 asks jurisdictions whether they have implemented action steps for sustainability programs and whether they monitor programs to track and measure performance. Of the respondents who do have sustainability language in their comprehensive plan or a separate sustainability plan, 61% do have specific action steps for implementation and 33% do not have any specific action steps. The results of this question are shown more clearly in the matrix question descriptions (Groups A-I) below. In a small number of jurisdictions (see results for Westminster and Littleton in Appendix B: Matrix Responses) it is a pattern to have projects sponsored or approved by local government in the absence of action plans for implementation. That is, these communities are implementing sustainability projects without formal guidance.

Of the seventeen jurisdictions that have defined specific action steps for implementation, thirteen (76%) have also defined target dates, responsibilities, and key metrics or performance indicators related to these sustainability efforts. By defining a timeline and quantitative targets related to sustainability goals, these communities are creating a formal framework for achieving these goals and a baseline against which they can measure success.

Section 2.4: Sustainability Planning and Implementation ActivitiesThe survey included a detailed matrix that requested responses from jurisdictions related to the specific action steps taken to address sustainability. The matrix was divided into 9 sections on various sustainability-related topics, which each included a number of specific questions on activities that could be implemented in that topic area. Respondents were asked to identify whether these topics were: 1) addressed in the comprehensive


plan or sustainability plan; 2) formally adopted in Policy; 3) included in an Action Plan or Implementation Plan; 4) implemented in a local project; or 5) not applicable to that community. Each section of the matrix included a final open-ended question to garner responses on any additional actions or practices within that topic area not addressed in the matrix but being addressed by the jurisdiction. The full matrix of questions is included in Appendix B: Matrix Responses and Appendix D: Survey Questions, and the topic areas by group are shown in

Table 5. A full analysis of responses from communities by matrix group follows.

Table 5: Matrix GroupsMatrixGroup TopicAreaGroupA EnvironmentalRestorationandProtectionGroupB LivableBuiltEnvironmentGroupC MobilityandAccessibilityGroupD ResilientEconomyGroupE EquityGroupF HealthandWellnessGroupG EnergyGroupH WasteManagementandReduction—PublicFacingGroupI WasteManagementatGovernmentFacilities

Group A: Environmental Restoration and ProtectionThe questions in this section gauge how jurisdictions plan for environmental restoration and protection. Among the 28 responding jurisdictions, the protection of resource lands, critical areas, sensitive areas and especially open space preservation is commonly addressed. Communities’ comprehensive and/or sustainability plans specifically identify conservation of resource lands and open space at high rates. This includes 24 (84%) responses for resource lands, generally defined as those considered of high environmental value and not open to the public, and 25 (89%) for open space lands, which may be less environmentally sensitive and are often open for public use. Eight (28%) jurisdictions include the conservation of resource or sensitive lands in their planning documents, in formal policy, action plans, and projects. Likewise, 13 (46%) jurisdictions are similarly planning for policy and projects related to open space. Open space preservation had the most positive response rate of the Group A Matrix making it a priority for respondents.

There are a few categories that had notable response from the cities and counties with populations over 100,000. These cities tend to have denser urban centers as well as access to resources that smaller communities may not possess. Twenty (71%) jurisdictions of all sizes address water conservation planning in their comprehensive and sustainability plans. All 6 cities over 100,000 residents indicate that their community addresses water conservation with action plans and projects approved by local government.

Air quality and climate change, as well as measurement and reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, are addressed in more detail by cities with over 50,000 residents, including all six cities with over 100,000 residents. In jurisdictions with under 50,000 residents, 4 address these issue in their planning documents, one has adopted formal policies or projects, and one has implemented a project. Three of the five counties surveyed (60%) address air quality and climate change only in their comprehensive/sustainability plan and do not have policy, action plans, or projects.


Many of the communities that responded to the survey are taking steps to plan and implement protection and restoration actions. At the same time there are factors that can challenge restoration efforts. For example, projects related to cleaning up contaminated land may include high remediation costs. The response for land clean-up was lower, with 8 (29%) of jurisdictions responding that they are actively addressing land remediation in their planning documents. There are a few jurisdictions with active projects but no formal policy or planning in place.

Group B: Livable Built EnvironmentThis section asks jurisdictions how they integrate livability with the built environment into their planning. There were 26 (71%) jurisdictions that address the following topics in their planning documents: infill and redevelopment, complete communities, mixed use development, a variety of housing types, affordable housing, and higher density development. Seventeen (60%) respondents also address these topics in adopted policies, action plans, and/or projects. Fifteen (53%) jurisdictions discuss accessory dwelling units, and many have also adopted formal policy, action plans, or projects. Sixteen (57%) include green building standards in their comprehensive plans, and fewer than 15% of communities have action plans or projects approved by their local governments related to green building. Half the cities over 100,000 have formal policy for mixed use development and include this in their comprehensive/sustainability plan, action plans, and projects.

Group C: Mobility and AccessibilityThis section focuses on the integration of mobility and accessibility within a jurisdiction. A majority of jurisdictions respond that they had incorporated plans for alternative transportation options into their community. Twenty-one (75%) municipalities have incorporated ‘complete street’ design into their planning documents, while over 60% of respondents specifically mention expanding and increasing accessibility to transit, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian infrastructure. Jurisdictions were more likely to have actions plans and projects in place than to have adopted formal policies relating to these topics. in addition to the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed increasing alternative transportation options, seven (25%) incorporate car and bicycle sharing programs into their communities.

‘Living streets’, ‘green streets’, context sensitive design, and mode split goals are not widely addressed in the jurisdictions polled. Six (21%) communities have a formal policy related to ‘living streets;’ this the highest number of responses for these four categories. Less than 40% of communities address these topics in planning documents, less than 30% have formal policies, action plans, or projects approved by local government. There is a higher rate of responses from urbanized areas having provisions to expand the transit network, ‘complete streets’, and bike and car sharing. Five out of the six cities over 100,000 have both action plans and projects approved or sponsored by local government using ‘complete streets’ design criteria.

Group D: Resilient EconomyQuestions within this group focus on how communities address the creation of resilient economies. Fewer municipalities focus on these topics than those covered previously. Twelve (43%) jurisdictions speak to sustainable economic development in their planning documents, while seven (25%) discuss the advancement of green commerce. Nine (32%) jurisdictions include language relating to the advancement of the human and social capital of the community, while 12 (43%) host workforce training programs. Five (18%) of the surveyed jurisdictions directly address the advancement of a living wage for all their citizens within their planning documents. Less than 17% of the responding communities have projects approved by the local government that relate to sustainable economic development, green commerce, or sustainable government purchasing policies.


Group E: EquityThis section explores topics related to ways in which jurisdictions incorporate equity principles into their plans and policies. Generally, equity is less likely to be addressed in plans, policies or projects than other topics in this survey. In jurisdictions where equity is addressed in a planning document the principles were not commonly adopted in policy. Two jurisdictions (7%) have implemented projects relating to social and environmental equity. When asked specifically about assisting low-income residents, 14 communities (50%) report action plans being in place and 11 (39%) state that they have undertaken such projects.

Group F: Health and WellnessThe section examines the integration of health and wellness into the planning processes. Seventeen jurisdictions report addressing the integration of health and wellness into natural and built environments, as well as integrating such concepts into mobility and accessibility plans. Fourteen (50%) jurisdictions report having dedicated action plans for the integration of health into the natural environment, 12 (43%) into the built environment, and 12 (43%) into mobility and accessibility plans. While many communities actively integrate health and wellness into the planning process, four communities (14%) have actually implemented health impact assessments to help measure outcomes.

Twenty-four jurisdictions (86%) report increasing access to recreation and physical activity as part of their comprehensive plan, with the majority of respondents reporting related action plans. In addition to issues related to physical activity, many communities have taken steps to increase access to healthy foods. When asked whether any of their policies addressed the reduction in chronic diseases (like obesity, asthma, and diabetes) most respondents report that their plans and policies did not address this issue.

Group G: EnergyThis section discusses how municipalities integrate alternative/renewable energy into their energy supply and what they are doing to reduce their local energy footprint. The most commonly addressed policies in this category relate to energy efficiency and conservation practices. Twenty jurisdictions (71%) confirm that they address this topic in their comprehensive plan, and well over half of respondents affirm that rooftop solar panels were permitted in all zoning districts and that they have formally adopted policies related to reducing restriction on solar energy access. Less than a third of communities have plans, policies or projects related to other types of alternative energies, such as wind, geo-thermal, or waste-to-energy programs.

With regard to increasing energy efficiency in government fleets and facilities, 19 jurisdictions (68%) have projects in place, while 11 (39%) address these topics in plans or policies. Eleven jurisdictions (39%) have projects related to reducing fuel expenditures within the government fleet and nine (32%) have projects concerning renewable energy production in government facilities. Very few local governments have plans, policies or projects for buying energy offsets or credits.

Groups H and I: Waste ManagementThese questions relate to waste management techniques within a municipality as well as within government buildings. Throughout these two sections it is significantly more common for jurisdictions to have projects and action plans in place than to address the topics with a plan or policy. The survey asks a series of questions about how communities collected recycling. Twenty-one jurisdictions (75%) confirm they provide community recycling drop-off centers, while 12 (43%) report collecting recycling for single and dual family residences at the curb. Five municipalities (18%) collect recycling for multi-family residences curbside. Hazardous waste was most commonly collected through special collection events, but 14 respondents (50%) report providing community drop-off centers and three communities (11%) collecte hazardous waste with an at-your-door-


service program. Fourteen jurisdictions (50%) report collecting yard waste for composting, and four (14%) collect food waste for the same purpose. Six municipalities (21%) report pay-as-you-throw policies.

Twenty municipalities collect recycling within their government facilities through single-stream bins desk-side and in common areas, while eight have composting bins within their common areas. Four report requiring a minimum of 30% post-consumer recycled content in the paper used by their facilities. Fourteen jurisdictions use yard-waste compost or mulch for government operations.

Section 3: Community Participation in SustainabilityQuestions in this section relate to how jurisdictions solicit feedback from their communities. Seven jurisdictions state they have no public participation process. Four state they encourage public participation through comment periods at city and town council meetings, while nine report regularly engaging their community through special public meeting and hearings. Seven municipalities encourage participation extensively and ask their residents to analyze issues and select preferred alternatives. When asked what specific opportunities were provided to residents to participate in planning for sustainability, the most common answers include resident committees and surveys, social media, public hearings, and public workshops. One jurisdiction utilizes games to encourage public interaction.

The survey concludes with an open-ended question designed to solicit ideas or projects that were of particular interest. Many jurisdictions share how their community plans to integrate sustainability into their planning processes in the future. A selection of their unique answers are catalogued below.

“Sustainability has been a core component of the Boulder community for many decades. Yet, we continue to evolve our approach to identifying strategies that continue to cultivate a long-term, systemic and positive approach to community sustainability.” City of Boulder

“While sustainability is a theme running throughout the comprehensive plan, most of our implementation has been in one-off projects that happen to promote sustainability in addition to the primary reason the project was conducted (recreation, transportation, etc.).” Commerce City“The County has a Sustainability Commission appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. They meet on a regular basis and the purpose of the commission is to create an informational clearinghouse and an open compendium of sustainability best practices.” Jefferson County

“We are about to get started on a community-driven sustainability plan with metrics and regular reporting. That will be in place in the next year.” Westminster

“The annual Sustainable Denver Summit is a unique (among major American cities) commitment-based event that anchors an annual process for community engagement.” Denver

“Revising our Zoning Code to provide a menu of sustainability options in greenfield and infill development. Working with business customers to promote cool roofs, passive solar and district-wide energy options.” Aurora


Best PracticesThe State of Sustainability study illustrates that there are several best practices that communities have utilized when adopting a framework of sustainability. As these practices tend to vary by community population and the level to which sustainability is currently integrated into the community framework, the following section has been divided into best practices for communities with integrated sustainability programs, and best practices for those in the early stages of planning for sustainability. We conclude with a list of best practices implemented by communities across the country that are leaders in sustainability.

Best Practices for Communities with an Integrated Sustainability Framework• Build new functional planning documents by incorporating principles of sustainability. Most of the

communities surveyed that have established sustainability programs also incorporate these principles into other functional planning documents, such as transportation plans, recreation plans, economic development plans, and others. This ensures that the prioritization of sustainability is fully integrated into current and future plans.

• Incorporate sustainability into any project for which it may be applicable. Sustainability principles can be integrated into many types of projects that may not be directly addressed in the community’s sustainability plan. The City of Commerce City has been successful in integrating sustainability into transportation, recreation, and planning projects.

• Regularly track and report on metrics related to sustainability, including the return on investment (ROI) of projects. Tracking sustainability metrics allows communities to measure results, identify issues and opportunities, define new targets, and effectively communicate sustainability program activities. By communicating these metrics, a jurisdiction can effectively ‘tell the story’ of their sustainability efforts in order to highlight program successes and garner support for future initiatives. Lakewood is an example of a jurisdiction which regularly tracks and reports on sustainability indicators, trends, GHG emissions, and other data.

• Collaborate with other local jurisdictions through Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) and partnerships with special districts (school districts, hospitals, water districts, etc). Many communities find that sustainability does not stop at their borders, and by collaborating with neighboring entities they can achieve more impactful results. The Hazardous Materials Management Facility in Boulder County is an example of an effective IGA that allows the county to partner with its municipalities to provide hazardous waste disposal services. In Adams County, the Regional Sustainability Network has provided a forum for conversation, collaboration, and resource sharing among communities interested in sustainability.

• Create business and neighborhood sustainability programs. Programs like Partners for a Clean Environment (Boulder County), Certifiably Green Denver (City and County of Denver), and the Sustainable Neighborhoods Network (City of Lakewood and City and County of Denver) provide ample opportunities for citizens and business leaders to engage in sustainability programs, projects, and policy development. Many community programs provide support and resources such as supporting energy efficiency in buildings, organizing community education and outreach events, and incentivizing the purchase of ‘greening’ technologies such as renewable energy systems and electric vehicles. These programs both build a network of support for a jurisdiction’s sustainability initiatives, and at times can support the community in reaching certain sustainability goals and targets (i.e. a community greenhouse gas reduction target).

• Define focus areas that make sense for the community based on community characteristic and size. Sustainability priorities should be crafted to meet the unique needs of each community in order to ensure


support from both the public and elected officials. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach rarely results in effective programs and policies. As such, the size, geographic location, and socio-demographic characteristics (among others) should be taken into consideration as a jurisdiction develops and implements its sustainability plan. For example, rural communities may wish to focus on enhancing natural environment, recreation, and tourism. For urban areas, the focus may be directed more towards transportation and mobility, affordable housing, and a healthy built environment.

Best Practices for Communities that are Embarking on Building a Sustainability Framework• Gather information from existing state, regional, county, and local resources. The guiding documents from

these various agencies and jurisdictions can inform both existing and new sustainability initiatives. For example, the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), Urban Land Institute (ULI), and the American Planning Association (APA) provide examples of planning documents and projects from all jurisdiction sizes and capacity levels. Jefferson County established a clearinghouse along with a sustainability commission appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.

• Break down silos and engage all departments within the jurisdiction and work collaboratively to address all facets of sustainability. The City of Boulder has taken on an interdepartmental approach to sustainability, planning, and implementation.

• Define qualitative and quantitative targets and goals that tie to key performance indicators. Routine evaluation of whether goals are being implemented and desired outcomes achieved is critical for successful sustainability programming.

• Create opportunities for the public to engage in all aspects of sustainability. Provide opportunities for residents and businesses to get involved in sustainability initiatives to build community support and authentic engagement. Thornton provides an example of more expansive public involvement.

• Sustainability projects can be implemented on their own merit. Oftentimes, plan updates and amendments can take time and should not preclude moving forward with timely sustainability oriented projects. Such projects can also provide value to existing and future long-range planning.


The results reported on this report reflect what was shared by local staff in their responses as provided directly to the survey team. There was no additional follow-up to check on reliability of responses, nor was there any effort on the part of the survey team to provide supplemental information in addition to what the local staff offered.

The survey team has noted that most communities had a single staff member providing all the responses for this survey; as such, the individual completing the survey may not have full awareness of all plans, policies, and activities related to sustainability across the jurisdiction. Additionally, it should be noted that many individuals associate ‘sustainability’ with environmental issues only, and there were a number of communities that declined to respond or complete the full survey, including the matrix portion addressing all elements of sustainability (such as social equity, economic resiliency, transportation planning, etc.).

The survey was limited to jurisdictions – both counties and municipalities – within the nine county area served by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Other agencies or organizations which were not included in the survey – for example, special service districts – may also be responsible for specific aspects of planning and service provision related to sustainability.

Data Limitations


The project team envisions two additional phases of survey work to enhance this initial report on the State of Sustainability among jurisdictions in metropolitan Denver.

Phase II – Additional Front Range CommunitiesIn this phase, the team conducts the survey in four additional counties along Colorado’s Front Range: (1) El Paso, (2) Larimer, (3) Pueblo, and (4) Weld. The survey includes both municipalities and the counties themselves.

Phase III – Additional Communities StatewideThe final phase of the project extends the survey to remaining jurisdictions across the state. This will include nearly 50 additional counties and more than 200 additional municipalities – both cities and towns.

In addition, the project team anticipates taking certain topic areas and expanding the scope of questions in order to gather additional detail and specifics on various sustainability efforts which jurisdictions are undertaking. For example, the team is working on developing more detailed questions for jurisdictions that are engaging in integrated land use and water planning.

Ultimately, the Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism would welcome hosting a statewide website and information hub on sustainability practices and programs in the State of Colorado. Such a hub would provide jurisdictions with information on best practices and practical tools that could be used to advance updated sustainability frameworks and strategies among jurisdictions throughout the state.

Next Steps

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 A-1

Counties that RespondedAdamsArapahoeBroomfield, City and CountyClear CreekDenver, City and CountyDouglasJefferson

Cities that RespondedArvada AuroraBoulderBrightonCastle RockCentral CityCherry HillsCommerce CityDaconoEdgewaterEnglewoodFederal HeightsFoxfieldFrederickGoldenLafayetteLakewoodLarkspurLittletonLone TreeLongmontLyonsNorthglennParkerSuperiorThorntonWestminsterWheat Ridge

Appendix A: Jurisdictions Surveyed

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 B-1

The following tables present the results from the questions that were presented in a matrix format. The tables have an n-value of 28.

Group A: Environmental Restoration and Protection

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalProtectionofLan 24 86% 15 54% 12 43% 12 43% 3 11%LandClean-Up 8 29% 5 18% 6 21% 6 21% 16 57%WaterConservation 21 75% 17 61% 15 54% 15 54% 4 14%Low-ImpactDevelopment 17 61% 7 25% 8 29% 8 29% 6 21%AirQuality/ClimateChange 14 50% 5 18% 5 18% 5 18% 9 32%GHGEmissions 9 32% 7 25% 6 21% 9 32% 14 50%OpenSpace 25 89% 19 68% 15 54% 15 54% 2 7%

N/AProjectActionPlanPolicyCompPlan

Group B: Livable Built Environment

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalInfill&Redevlopment 25 89% 15 54% 16 57% 17 61% 1 4%CompleteCommunities 20 71% 9 32% 10 36% 9 32% 5 18%MixedUseDevelopment 26 93% 15 54% 14 50% 14 50% 2 7%HousingForAll 24 86% 14 50% 13 46% 10 36% 2 7%AffordableHousing 22 79% 12 43% 12 43% 12 43% 5 18%AccessoryDwellingUnits 15 54% 11 39% 11 39% 5 18% 8 29%GreenBuildingStandards 16 57% 9 32% 4 14% 5 18% 8 29%HighDensity/TOD 22 79% 13 46% 12 43% 13 46% 4 14%HighDensity/Infrastructure 20 71% 11 39% 9 32% 10 36% 6 21%ClusteredSubdivisionDesign 14 50% 6 21% 5 18% 4 14% 11 39%AdequatePublicServices 17 61% 17 61% 10 36% 10 36% 3 11%ParkingEfficiency 14 50% 10 36% 11 39% 7 25% 6 21%

CompPlan Policy ActionPlan Project N/A

Appendix B: Matrix Responses


Group C: Mobility and Accessibility

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalCompleteStreets 21 75% 13 46% 15 54% 13 46% 4 14%GreenStreets 11 39% 4 14% 9 32% 5 18% 10 36%LivingStreets 12 43% 6 21% 8 29% 8 29% 8 29%ContextSensitiveDesign 12 43% 5 18% 8 29% 7 25% 9 32%Mode-SplitGoals 11 39% 4 14% 11 39% 6 21% 11 39%ExpandingSidewalks 19 68% 9 32% 15 54% 17 61% 5 18%ExpandingTransit 19 68% 10 36% 16 57% 15 54% 6 21%AccesstoTransit 21 75% 10 36% 15 54% 15 54% 6 21%ExpandingBicycles 23 82% 14 50% 20 71% 18 64% 3 11%BikeSharing 7 25% 2 7% 7 25% 6 21% 13 46%CarSharing 7 25% 3 11% 7 25% 4 14% 14 50%ChargingStations 11 39% 7 25% 11 39% 13 46% 10 36%


Group D: Resilient Economy

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalSustainableEconomicDevelopment 12 43% 3 11% 8 29% 5 18% 11 39%Human/SocialCapital 9 32% 2 7% 4 14% 4 14% 15 54%GreenCommerce 7 25% 1 4% 4 14% 3 11% 15 54%LivingWages 5 18% 2 7% 4 14% 2 7% 17 61%WorkforceTraining 10 36% 5 18% 10 36% 12 43% 11 39%SustainableGovernmentPurchasing 7 25% 5 18% 9 32% 4 14% 13 46%


Group E: Equity

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalSocialEquity 14 50% 5 18% 4 14% 2 7% 12 43%EnvironmentalEquity 9 32% 3 11% 2 7% 2 7% 14 50%AssistingLowIncome 10 36% 8 29% 14 50% 11 39% 11 39%



Group F: Health and Wellness

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalIntegrationNaturalEnvironment 17 61% 9 32% 14 50% 11 39% 7 25%IntegrationBuiltEnvironment 17 61% 12 43% 12 43% 7 25% 5 18%IntegrationMobility/Access 17 61% 6 21% 12 43% 9 32% 7 25%HealthImpactAssessment 4 14% 5 18% 6 21% 7 25% 12 43%Local/HealthyFoodAccess 15 54% 9 32% 11 39% 11 39% 6 21%AccesstoRecreation/PhysicalActivity 24 86% 16 57% 16 57% 14 50% 1 4%AccesstoHealthCare 9 32% 5 18% 6 21% 7 25% 12 43%SafeNeighborhoods 16 57% 8 29% 10 36% 9 32% 5 18%ReductioninChronicDisease 8 29% 3 11% 5 18% 4 14% 13 46%IncreaseinPhysicalActivity 21 75% 11 39% 12 43% 11 39% 3 11%


Group G: Energy

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalEnergyEfficiency/Conservation 20 71% 12 43% 15 54% 13 46% 2 7%RooftopSolarPermittedZoning 19 68% 18 64% 14 50% 16 57% 3 11%CommercialLarge-ScaleSolarZones 11 39% 7 25% 8 29% 5 18% 12 43%On-SiteWindTurbines 10 36% 8 29% 3 11% 2 7% 13 46%Geo-ThermalEnergy 10 36% 4 14% 2 7% 3 11% 13 46%Waste-to-Energy 4 14% 0 0% 2 7% 2 7% 18 64%EnergyReductionTargets 10 36% 7 25% 7 25% 7 25% 15 54%ConductEnergyAudits 12 43% 7 25% 11 39% 13 46% 7 25%FuelReduction-GovFacilities 9 32% 9 32% 10 36% 11 39% 9 32%EnergyEfficiency-GovFacilities 11 39% 11 39% 15 54% 19 68% 5 18%RenewableEnergy-GovFacilities 9 32% 5 18% 9 32% 9 32% 11 39%BuyEnergyOffsetsorCredits 4 14% 2 7% 2 7% 4 14% 17 61%


Group H: Waste Management

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalRecyclingDrop-OffCenters 9 32% 6 21% 14 50% 21 75% 5 18%CurbsideTrashSingle/DualFamily 9 32% 8 29% 10 36% 12 43% 8 29%CurbsideRecyclingSingle/DualFamily 9 32% 8 29% 10 36% 12 43% 8 29%CurbsideTrashMultiFamily 6 21% 3 11% 4 14% 5 18% 14 50%CurbsideRecyclingMultiFamily 6 21% 2 7% 4 14% 5 18% 15 54%CurbsideTrashCommercial 6 21% 2 7% 4 14% 4 14% 16 57%CurbsideRecyclingCommercial 6 21% 2 7% 4 14% 3 11% 17 61%RecyclingHazWasteSpecialEvents 13 46% 10 36% 14 50% 22 79% 3 11%RecyclingHazWasteDoorService 1 4% 1 4% 2 7% 3 11% 17 61%RecyclingHazWasteDrop-OffCenters 8 29% 5 18% 8 29% 14 50% 8 29%CommunityYardWasteComposting 8 29% 5 18% 8 29% 14 50% 10 36%CommunityFoodWasteComposting 5 18% 3 11% 4 14% 4 14% 19 68%Pay-As-You-ThrowProgram 4 14% 5 18% 4 14% 6 21% 1 4%



Group I: Waste Management at Government Facilities

Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %Total Count %TotalSingleStream-CommonAreas 10 36% 6 21% 11 39% 21 75% 5 18%SingleStream-Desk-Side 10 36% 6 21% 10 36% 20 71% 7 25%Require30%RecycledOfficePaper 4 14% 2 7% 3 11% 4 14% 19 68%Composting-CommonAreas 5 18% 2 7% 5 18% 8 29% 16 57%YardWaste/MuchGovOperations 7 25% 4 14% 8 29% 14 50% 10 36%


State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 C-1

Question: Are there any other projects, programs or goals that your local jurisdiction has implemented in regards to sustainability that you would like to tell us about?

“Sustainability has been a core component of the boulder community for many decades. Yet, we continue to evolve our approach to identifying strategies that continue to cultivate a long-term, systemic and positive approach to community sustainability.” Boulder“Georgetown Energy Prize Semi-Finalist” Brighton“While sustainability is a theme running throughout the comprehensive plan, most of our implementation has been in one-off projects that happen to promote sustainability in addition to the primary reason the project was conducted (recreation, transportation, etc.).” Commerce City“The County has a Sustainability Commission appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. They meet on a regular basis and the purpose of the commission is to create an informational clearinghouse and an open compendium of sustainability best practices.” Jefferson County“Garden in a Box - we provide some funding to lower the cost. Fun bike ride events. Majestic View Nature Center educational tours with school children.” Arvada“We are about to get started on a community-driven sustainability plan with metrics and regular reporting. That will be in place in the next year.” Westminster“- The natural flood plain below Chatfield Dam was the result of city efforts that changed federal legislation and forced the Army Corps of Engineers to avoid channelization and to create a natural floodplain. - The city has preserved the natural drainageways of the tributaries west and east of the Platte and has established an extensive system of parks and trails that take advantage of those tributaries and follow natural connections throughout the city and into the surrounding jurisdictions. - The citywide plan identifies activity areas and corridors that have the infrastructure in place, or readily available, to accommodate additional development activity and density. - The city has a bike sharing program for city employees. - The city has undertaken Station Area Master Plans for its two light rail stations in order to better direct and accommodate development and densification. - The city encourages residential solar installation by waiving fees.” Littleton“The annual Sustainable Denver Summit is a unique (among major American cities) commitment-based event that anchors an annual process for community engagement.” - Denver“Revising our Zoning Code to provide a menu of sustainability options in greenfield and infill development. Working with business customers to promote cool roofs, passive solar and district-wide energy options.” Aurora “Sustainable Neighborhoods Program: http://sustainableneighborhoodnetwork.org/ Lakewood Sustainability Cooperative: http://www.lakewood.org/Scoop/ Best for Colorado: http://www.lakewood.org/Sustainability/Sustainable_Business/Best_for_Colorado.aspx” Lakewood

Appendix C: Open-ended Responses

State of Sustainability Survey • 2017 D-1

OVERVIEW Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey regarding sustainability initiatives and activities in your community. The purpose of this survey is to establish a ‘State of Sustainability’ benchmark. Survey results will be compiled into a State of Sustainability Report, anticipated to be completed and published in the late fall of 2017. The purpose of the survey is to gather and provide information for local and state-wide policy makers, planners, and government officials with an interest in understanding various approaches to sustainability. The report will serve as a resource for sharing ideas, tools, and best practices among local communities.

This survey should be completed by one individual in your jurisdiction. Where available, it is suggested that a sustainability staff person internal to your jurisdiction complete the survey. Otherwise, a city/county manager, planning director, or other staff person familiar with sustainability should complete the survey. Please complete all questions to the best of your knowledge. Certain questions may warrant a follow-up conversation for more information, and we may reach out to you in the future regarding this information.

The initial survey is being distributed to jurisdictions in the 9-County Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) service area. Future phases of this survey project will include communities across the Front Range and then state-wide.

The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Thank you for your time in providing this valuable information! For questions or additional information, please contact Julia Ferguson, Adams County Sustainability Coordinator, at [email protected] or 720.523.6287, or Rocky Piro, Executive Director of CU Denver’s Colorado Center for Sustainable Urbanism, at [email protected] or 303.315.0013.

CONTACT INFORMATIONa. Nameb. Contact info i. Phone ii. Email iii. Mailing Address c. Organizationd. Position/Title

e. May we contact you (or another staff person in your jurisdiction) with further questions regarding your responses to this survey?

a. Yes b. No

Comment Box: If yes, provide the contact information.

Appendix D: Survey


SECTION 1: STAFFING – SUSTAINABILITY POSITION(S)Questions 1 through 7 are intended to understand how sustainability is organized and staffed at your jurisdiction.

1. Does your jurisdiction have one or more dedicated staff member(s) devoted to sustainability projects, programs, and initiatives?

(Note: Dedicated staff is defined as spending 50 percent or more of their time on sustainability work. Examples could include a Sustainability Coordinator, Sustainability Manager, or Sustainability Officer)

a. Yes b. No

Comment Box: If yes, provide the staff title(s)

2. If your jurisdiction does not currently have staff dedicated to sustainability, are you considering adding at least one dedicated sustainability position in the next 5 years?

a. Yes b. No c. I don’t know

Comment Box: If yes, please describe your jurisdiction’s plan to add staff.

3. Does your dedicated staff address any of the following? (Click on all that apply)

a. Energy use, including energy conservation, alternative energy, clean energy

b. Water, including water conservation, water reuse, water-land use planning integration

c. Waste management, including waste reduction, recycling, composting

4. If your jurisdiction has dedicated staff working on sustainability, where in the organization are position(s) housed? (Click on all that apply)

a. City/County Manager or Mayors Officeb. Planning & Developmentc. Public Works d. Parks & Recreatione. Facilities (i.e., government buildings, etc.)f. Other (please explain):


Comment Box: If other, please describe where in the organization the staff is housed.

5. If your jurisdiction has dedicated staff working on sustainability, are the position(s) funded through any of the following mechanisms: (Click on all that apply)

a. General fund budget cycleb. State, national, or foundational grantsc. Sustainability tax or assessmentd. Other (please explain):

Comment Box: If other, please describe other funding sources.

6. Does your jurisdiction have non-dedicated staff that work on sustainability-related projects?(Note: Non-dedicated staff is defined as having primary tasks in areas other than sustainability, and spending less than 50 percent of their time on sustainability-related work.)

a. Yes b. No

Comment Box: If yes, describe the projects and the regular areas of responsibility of the staff.

7. What percent of the work week would you say your staff collectively spends on each of the activities below?

15 % 15-30% 30-50% 50% or more not applicablea Internal policy development related to

sustainability in areas of procurement, waste reduction, or process improvement

b Internal operations related to sustainability, including, but not limited to, energy, water, or waste reduction

c External policy development related to sustainability in code, regulation & development

d External policy development related to sustainability in waste reduction

e Collaborating with regional or neighboring jurisdictions & organizations

f Conducting community outreach & education efforts related to sustainability

g Other focus areas (please explain):


Comment Box: Please describe other focus areas.

SECTION 2: SUSTAINABILITY In PLANNING and ACTIONSThis section addresses how your jurisdiction defines sustainability, how sustainability is addressed in decision-making and planning, and what actions and projects are underway or planned to advance sustainability.

2.1 DEFINITIONS and DECISION-MAKING Questions 8 through 11 are intended to understand your jurisdiction’s understanding of sustainability and how sustainability is factored into planning and decision-making.

8. Describe or provide a link to your jurisdiction’s definition or statement for “sustainability.”

Comment Box: Describe or provide a link.

9. Does the definition address any of the following?

a. Social equity and benefitsb. Environmental restoration and/or protection and benefitsc. Economic resiliency and benefitsd. Other (please explain):

Comment Box: Please describe other aspects of your jurisdiction’s definition.

10. Which of the following does your community consider as a primary criterion in choosing to implement actions or projects? (check all that apply):

a. Healthb. Complete Streetsc. Fiscal responsibility/fiscal savingsd. Recreatione. Water conservationf. Process efficiencyg. Sustainabilityh. Other (please explain):

Comment Box: If other, describe additional criteria considered.


2.2 PLANS AND STRATEGIES | IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS / PERFORMANCE / PROJECTSQuestions 12 through 16 consider how “sustainability” is addressed in planning documents, such as comprehensive plans or single topic plans (such as a transportation plan), implementation or actions strategies, and/or specific local government projects. It also addresses implementation actions and projects.

11. Comprehensive Plan. Has your community developed and adopted sustainability provisions or a sustainability element within your comprehensive plan?


Comment Box: Describe and/or provide a link to the comprehensive plan section or element.

12. Separate Sustainability Plan. Does your community have a stand-alone sustainability plan or strategy independent of the comprehensive plan?


Comment Box: Describe and/or provide a link to your sustainability strategy.

13. Has your community addressed sustainability significantly in any other community or functional planning documents, such as a facilities plan, transportation plan, economic development plan, parks and open space plan, climate change action plan, or other functional plans?


Comment Box: Describe and/or provide links

14. If your jurisdiction does not currently have sustainability provisions in an adopted plan, does your jurisdiction have plans to develop a sustainability plan and/or sustainability provisions in the near future (1-5 years)?


15. If your jurisdiction does not have a formal sustainability plan or strategy, would you be interested in learning from other local jurisdictions regarding how to develop and formulate effective sustainability plans and strategies?

a. Yes b. No


2.2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS and MONITORINGQuestions 17 through 19 are focused on action steps for implementing sustainability programs and/or projects, as well as monitoring programs designed to track implementation and/or measure performance.

16. Does your comprehensive plan or sustainability strategy include specific action steps for implementation?


17. If “Yes,” are there target dates for completing each actions and are responsibilities for implementing the actions defined?


18. If ‘Yes’, does your sustainability plan include specific metrics or key performance indicators?


2.3 CHECKLIST OF SUSTAINABILITY TOPICS and ISSUES, POLICIES, ACTIONS and PROJECTS19. Please check all that apply. There are four columns for you to complete.

1. Planning Provisions Addressing Sustainability. In the first column, please indicate whether the topic provided is addressed in your comprehensive plan and/or sustainability strategy.

2. Adopted Policies. In the second column, please indicate whether your jurisdiction has adopted specific policies that provide guidance for direction for addressing the topic.

3. Implementation Actions. In the third column, please indicate whether your jurisdiction has identified specific action steps to implement activities or tasks related to the topic.

4. Sustainability Projects. In the final column, indicate whether your jurisdictions is undertaking any projects or programs related to the topic.

AddressedinCompPlanorSustainabilityStrategy

FormallyadoptedinPolicy ActionPlanorImplementationStepProjects(approvedorsponsored

bylocalgovernment)

1Protectionofresourcelands,criticalareas,sensitiveareas

2 Contaminatedlandclean-up

3

Waterconservationand/or“one-water”planning(watersupply,wateruse&reuse,watershedrestoration,andwatermanagement,includingwastewater)

4Low-impactdevelopmentinfrastructure(e.g.,bio-swales,raingardens,etc.)

5 Airqualityandclimatechange

6 Inventoryofgreenhousegasemissions,settingtargetsforemissionsreduction,measurereductions

7 OpenSpacepreservation

GroupA-EnvironmentalRestorationandProtection




bylocalgovernment)1 Infillandredevelopment

2Completecommunities,i.e.,placeswithhousingforallsectors,completemobilityoptions,andanarrayofserviceswithinthecommunity

3 Mixedusedevelopment

4Housingtypesandchoicesforalldemographicsectors

5 Affordablehousing6 Accessorydwellingunits

7Sustainableorgreenresidentialorcommercialbuildingstandards

8Higherdensitydevelopmentnearpublictransitnodes–stopsandstations

9Higherdensitydevelopmentinareaswithexistinginfrastructure

10 Clustered(conservation)subdivisiondesign

11Ensurethatadequateservicesprovidedattimenewdevelopmenttakesplace

12 Improvedparkingefficiency

GroupB-LivableBuiltEnvironment



bylocalgovernment)

1‘Completestreets’designcriteria–thatis,streetsthataccommodatesafepedestrian,bicycle,transit,andvehicularmovement

2 ‘Greenstreets’designcriteria–thatis,streetsthatuselowimpacttechniquesforstormwaterinfrastructure,alongwithlandscapeamenities

3‘Livingstreets’designcriteria–thatis,safeactivitiesonsidewalks,suchascafesand/orsidewalkretail

4

Contextsensitivedesign–especiallyformajorthoroughfares–thatallowsforroadwaystobedesigntofitthebuiltenvironmentinwhichtheyarelocated

5Establishmode-splitgoalstoincreasealternativestodrivingalone

6 Expandingthesidewalknetwork7 Expandingtransit

8Improvingaccessibilitytotransittoprovidechoicesforall

9 Expandingthebicyclenetwork10 Bikesharingprograms11 Carsharingprograms12 Chargingstationsforelectricvehicles

GroupC-MobilityandAccessibility



bylocalgovernment)1 Sustainability-basedeconomicdevelopment

2Advancementofthehumanandsocialcapitalofthecommunity–soallcanachievetheireconomicpotential

3 Advancementofgreencommerceandbusiness4 Advancementoflivingwagesforall5 Workforcetrainingprograms

6 Sustainablepurchasing(withinlocalgovernment)

GroupD-ResilientEconomy



bylocalgovernment)1 Socialequity

2

Environmentaljusticeequity–thatis,respondingtodamagethathasbeendoneindisadvantagedcommunitiesinthepast;andensuringtangiblebenefitsoccurinthesecommunitiesfromnewprojects

3 Assistanceforlowincomeresidents

GroupE-Equity




bylocalgovernment)

1Integrationofhealthandwellnessintoplanningforthenaturalenvironment

2Integrationofhealthandwellnessintoplanningforthebuiltenvironment

3Integrationhealthandwellnessintomobilityandaccessibilityplanning

4 Healthimpactassessment5 Localfoodaccess/healthyfoodaccess6 Accesstorecreationandphysicalactivity7 Accesstohealthcare8 Safeneighborhoods

9Reductioninchronicdiseases,suchasobesity,diabetes,asthmaandrespiratoryailments

10Increaseinphysicalactivity,includingwalkingandbiking

GroupF-HealthandWellness



bylocalgovernment)1 Energyefficiencyandconservation

2Rooftopsolarasapermitteduseinallzoningdistricts

3Commerciallarge-scalesolarindesignatedzonedistricts

4 On-sitewindturbines5 Geo-thermalenergy6 Waste-to-energy7 Setenergyreductiontargets8 Conductenergyaudits9 Fuelreduction–forgovernmentfleet

10Energyefficiency–byupgradinggovernmentfacilities

11Renewableenergydevelopment/production–atgovernmentfacilities

12Purchaserenewableenergyoffsetsorcredits–forlocalgovernment

GroupG-Energy



bylocalgovernment)1 Recyclingdrop-offcenters

2Curbsidetrashremovalforsingle/dualfamilyresidential

3 Curbsiderecyclingforsingle/dualresidential

4Curbsidetrashremovalformultifamilyresidential

5 Curbsiderecyclingformultifamilyresidential6 Curbsidetrashremovalforcommercial7 Curbsiderecyclingforcommercial

8Recyclingofhouseholdhazardouswastethroughspecialcollectionevents

9Recyclingofhouseholdhazardouswastethroughat-your-doorservice

10Recyclingofhouseholdhazardouswastethroughdrop-offcenters

11Community-widecollectionofyardwastematerialforcomposting

12Communitywidecollectionoffoodwasteforcomposting

13Pay-as-you-throwprogramthatchargescustomersbasedontheamountofwastediscarded

GroupH-WasteManagement/WasteReduction



bylocalgovernment)

1Singlestreamrecyclinginbreakroomsandcommonareas

2Singlestreamrecyclingwithdesk-sidecollectionbins

3Requireaminimumof30%post-consumerrecycledcontentforofficepaperuseingovernment

4Foodwastecompostinginbreakroomsandcommonareas

5Yardwasteprocessingintocompostormulchforlocalgovernmentoperations

GroupI-Wastemanagementatgovernmentfacilities


SECTION 3: PARTICIPATION and ENGAGEMENT

20. To what level does your jurisdiction conduct public participation in developing and implementing sustainability plans and strategies in your community? Check the box below that most closely aligns with how citizens in your jurisdiction are engaged in sustainability.

a. Our community encourages extensive public participation, including analyzing issues, selecting preferred alternatives, and monitoring outcomes

b. Our community encourages regular public participation, through scheduled meetings & public hearings

c. Our community encourages some public participation, such as comment periods at council meeting

d. There is no public participation process for sustainability strategies

21. What opportunities are made available to residents in your community for participating in developing and implementing planning strategies for sustainability? (check all that apply)

a. Resident committees, commissions, and/or task forces b. Public workshops or design charrettes c. Community surveys d. Social media, including interactive websites e. Formal public hearings f. Other (Comment Box: please explain):

Comment Box: Please describe other community engagement strategies.

CONCLUSION

22. Are there any other projects or programs that your local jurisdiction has implemented in regards to sustainability that you would like to tell us about?

Comment Box: Please describe other projects or programs you would like to share.