Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2016 7-25-2016 Additional Information III G. Community Sustainability Memo Memorandum DATE: July 22, 2016 TO: Deputy Mayor Largo Wales Councilmember Bob Baggett Councilmember Claude DaCorsi Councilmember John Holman Councilmember Bill Peloza Councilmember Yolanda Trout-Manuel Councilmember Rich Wagner CC: Nancy Backus, Mayor Kevin Snyder, Community Development and Public Works Director FROM: Chris Andersen, Environmental Services Manager SUBJECT: Community Sustainability Briefing, Part #1 Sustainability Overview and Review of Auburn Projects, Programs, and Activities INTRODUCTION Communities across the country are increasingly faced with new and greater challenges . . social, economic, and environmental. The City has been taking actions to promote a more sustainable Auburn for well over a decade. Yet, as environmental and societal conditions have changed, and communities are increasingly faced with new challenges, the necessity and urgency for achieving higher levels of sustainability has become greater. To provide City Councilmembers with a solid base of information to engage in further dialogue, develop and evaluate alternative strategies, undertake further actions to increase municipal and community sustainability, and to monitor progress toward achieving City sustainability objectives, the CDPW-Environmental Services (ES) Team will be providing the City Council with an informational briefing about community sustainability in Auburn. 2 AUBURN COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY BRIEFING SERIES OVERVIEW The briefing is planned to be conducted as a three-part series, beginning at the regular study session scheduled for July 25, 2016. The second and third parts of the briefing are scheduled for the following two City Council study sessions on August 8th, and August 22nd. Each part of the briefing will focus on different aspects of Auburn sustainability. Additional information about each part of the briefing series is provided below. Each part of the briefing series consists of a background memorandum and a staff presentation. This briefing memorandum is intended to support and serve as ‘read- ahead’ information for Community Sustainability Briefing Part 1. Briefing memorandums for Parts 2 and 3 of the series will be included with the meeting materials for the respective City Council study sessions. The memoranda and staff briefings follow the basic same basic outline, but where the memoranda will typically more detail and depth regarding specific topics, the staff presentation will typically provide more of a summary of this information that will be supplemented with illustrative examples or case studies. And of course, the study session presentations will provide an opportunity for discussion between Councilmembers and staff. Attached to each briefing memorandum you will find one or more appendices containing supporting documents and data for the information presented in the memo. Appendix A for each memo will always be a running list of acronyms, abbreviations, and key definitions that are presented during the series. Part 1: July 25, 2016 Community Sustainability: Sustainability Overview and Review of Auburn Activities Part 1 of the 3-part series discusses the basic concepts of sustainability, triple bottom line, and community sustainability, and sets the stage for further discussion about what community sustainability means to Auburn. This briefing also notes that a number of projects, programs and activities have been undertaken by the City over the past decade and provides a selected list of some of these. Part 2: August 8, 2016 Community Sustainability: The Scientific, Technological, and Economic Landscape Part 2 of the series will provide an overview of developments, trends, and current status of climate and sustainability science, emerging technologies, and economic and legal considerations affecting cities. This information is intended to serve as a “policy information baseline” for City decision-makers as they consider how to plan for sustainability in the future. Part 3: August 22, 2016 Community Sustainability: Positioning Auburn for the Future Part 3 of the series will be devoted to information and discussion about how Auburn is currently positioning itself to become more sustainable in the future, and what 3 additional approaches or actions may be appropriate to ensure the C ity is successful in achieving its sustainability objectives. A DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ‘Sustainability’ is a word that can have different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used, and it can have many different interpretations and opinions depending on the values and perspective s of those who are considering it. The extent to which community members have a common understanding and hold a common set of values regarding sustainability will have a direct effect on how successful the development and implementation of community sustainability plans and projects are in achieving thei r objectives. An additional consideration in community sustainability planning can be borrowed from a discussion on economic sustainability written by Professor Gregory Graff at Colorado State University, who notes that . . The application of sustainability as a decision-making criterion in a policy context, requires the decision-maker to be clear on three key questions: 1. What is to be sustained? 2. Over what period of time? 3. With how much certainty? While these questions are relatively straightforward to ask, they are not necessarily easy to answer. Professor Graff’s brief paper provides a fuller discussion of these questions and how they shape the consideration of sustainability in the decision -making process. The full text of the article is provided as an attachment to this memorandum (Graff, see attachment 1). Sustainability So stepping back a little, a basic definition for sustainability then is that sustainability is the ability to continue a defined behavior for an extended period of time; typically indefinitely. Of course context is important in establishing what we mean by sustainability. For example, a general definition of economic sustainability is the ability of an economy to support a defined level of economic production indefinitely. Another context-specific example is environmental sustainability, which is often defined as rates of renewable resource harvest, pollution creation, and non-renewable resource depletion that can be continued indefinitely. One of the most frequently quoted definitions used in the practice of municipal sustainability is from the 1987 publication Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which defined sustainability in the context of sustainable development, as: 4 ". . . development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Triple Bottom Line Sustainability A 2009 article in The Economist magazine entitled Triple bottom line, It consists of three Ps: profit, people and planet sources the phrase “triple bottom line” as first being used in 1994 by John Elkington, the founder of a British consulting firm called SustainAbility. The term was initially used in the context of measuring corporate profit, and it suggested that companies should be preparing three different bottom lines. The first bottom line is the traditional measure of financial profit and loss. The second bottom line is an organization’s “people account”- a measure of how socially responsible an organization has been in conducting its operations. And the third bottom line is the company's “planet” account- a measure of how environmentally responsible the company has been. The triple bottom line (TBL) method of evaluating an organization is also referred to as the ‘Three Ps’ of sustainability: profit, people and planet. Its goal is to measure the financial, social and environmental performance of a company over a period of time. Because companies do not operate in isolation from the rest of the global community and because their operations do result in impacts (beneficial or adverse, or more likely, both) to others, only a company that measures a TBL is taking account of the full cost involved in doing business. It is worth noting that the underlying the use of TBL is the fundamental principle that what you measure is what you get, because what you measure is what you are likely to pay attention to. (The Economist, 2009). A great article that explains the Triple Bottom Line sustainability monitoring and accounting framework has been published by the Indiana University Kelley School of Business and is attached to this memorandum as Attachment 2 (Slaper and Hall). Community Sustainability Community sustainability not only looks at sustainability through the triple bottom line lens, but also considers that each community is unique in terms of its opportunities, challenges, resources, and constraints, and that sustainability planning should recognize and reflect that uniqueness. The National League of Cities has established the Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) as a resource to cities seeking to develop and implement sustainability plans and actions. SCI offers the following guidance as part of thinking in terms of community sustainability . . . 5 “While acknowledging the basic definition as well as the triple bottom line of sustainability, local governments should also determine what sustainability means to their community. Before embarking on a sustainability plan or program, it is helpful to get the key players together to discuss their definitions of sustainability as well as the specific purposes they see for the proposed program” (Sustainable Cities Institute, National League of Cities, NLC 2016). AUBURN SUSTAINABILITY IN REVIEW Over the last ten years, Auburn has undertaken many efforts to increase the City’s level of sustainability. An early City action toward sustainability was taken in 2007 by Mayor Pete Lewis, when he signed the US. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Since 2007, the City has completed numerous projects, and undertaken many programmatic actions and activities that promote one or more elements of community sustainability. A selected list of projects programs and activities in provided in Appendix B. A selected list of City legislative actions, plans, and policies is included in Appendix C. These appendices are by no means an exhaustive list of City accomplishments, but rather are intended to provide a representative summary of the many activities has undertaken to increase the sustainability of its municipal operations as well as that of the larger community. 6 SOME SUSTAINABILITY QUESTIONS FOR AUBURN In Part 2 of the briefing series, staff will present information about how the sustainability planning landscaped has changed in recent years, and will provide an overview of the current state of science, technology, and legal/economic issues and considerations that cities are facing now and into the future. The following are some questions that we encourage Councilmembers to consider as we move through the briefing series:  What does community sustainability mean in/for Auburn?  What does a sustainable Auburn look like?  How does community resilience fit into Auburn’s definition/view of sustainability?  What is Auburn’s timeline for factoring sustainability into decision-making. . 1 year, 5, 20, more?  Who is responsible for achieving Auburn’s sustainability objectives?  What is the City’s level of ability and commitment to increasing its level of sustainability, e.g. on what level is Auburn able and willing to trade short-term costs and benefits to realize longer-term benefits? How do economists define sustainability? Gregory D. Graff, PhD Assistant Professor Agricultural & Resource Economics Colorado State University Concepts integral to the contemporary idea of “sustainability” have always been central to economics. Economics is, after all, the study of how humans allocate scarce resources. Adam Smith inquired in 1776 into how human populations can produce greater standards of living from a fixed set of inputs through a division of labor coupled with trade in the outputs of that labor guided only by the “invisible hand” of individuals’ collective free decisions, based on their own self interests, to buy or to sell and for how much. In the mid 1800s John Stuart Mill and Thomas Malthus debated whether the growth of such a system of production and reallocation could be sustained as populations grew but the fixed base of natural capital needed to sustain them remained constant. In the 1930s and 40s, John Hicks formalized a concept later called Hicksian income, that describes the level at which an individual, a household, or a whole economy could consume and still leave their stock of productive capital intact so as to be able to keep on consuming at that level indefinitely. Yet, today’s notion of sustainability—as popularized by the Brundtland commission in 1987 as the ability “to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs”—comes most directly out of ecology, where the concept is both tangible and intuitive. We can observe an ecosystem at carrying capacity, with population levels sustained in a steady state dynamic equilibrium. We can also observe an ecosystem collapse. The lessons for humankind seem straightforward enough: we can either maintain a dynamic equilibrium within the planet’s carrying capacity, or we can consume beyond its capacity and cause our civilization, the human species, or even the planetary ecosystem to collapse. When framed in such broad terms, “sustainability” is something that everyone can support. Indeed, the great appeal of “sustainability” as a policy goal lies largely in its lack of specificity, in its fluidity and ambiguity, in its ability to project different messages to different constituencies and thereby allow for a degree of political consensus. Who, after all, would be against “sustainability” and thus, by implication, for the end of the world as we know it? Left to such breadth and flexibility, however, the concept of sustainability becomes far less useful if we want to apply it as a decision-making criterion within a specific policy context (such as the one before us today over modifying the capacity of an aviation fleet to utilize biofuels.) Economists have therefore sought to craft sharper definitions of sustainability, largely by focusing on three big questions implied by the conventional notion of not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Those questions are, to paraphrase Lele and Norgaard (1996), what exactly is to be sustained, over what time period, and with how much certainty? What is to be sustained? For economists, the first challenge in creating a useful definition of “sustainability” has been to identify just what should be sustained or, mathematically speaking, what value (or values) should be non- decreasing over time. Were we asked to create an indicator of sustainability, what would we measure? Robert Solow (1991) argued that what needs to be sustained is our “generalized capacity to create well being”, while emphasizing that this capacity need not consist of “any particular thing or any particular natural resource”, since resources are at least to some degree fungible or substitutable. If one resource were to run low, we could draw upon another to maintain our well being. Most economists would agree that ultimately what we are interested in sustaining is our well being as humans on planet earth. Ecologists and others might argue for a broader measure that explicitly includes the well being of other species or even geophysical processes. While economic concepts of well being, such as aggregate utility or social welfare, may perhaps appear anthropocentric, they in fact encompass much of the planet, given our dependency on natural capital and the services it provides. Actual economic measures of well being are, however, imperfect. They include aggregate indices such as GNP, consumption, demographic or public health indicators, and quality of life or “happiness” indices. Within a specific sector such as agriculture we can get a bit more precise, with indices such as available calories or nutrients per capita. However, in some sense, these are just outputs. To assure that these measures of well being are non-decreasing over time, it is essential to focus on sustaining our “capacity to create” well being, which on the full scope of our capital base, including natural capital, physical capital, human capital, social capital and intellectual capital. The second part of Solow’s formulation—that about substituting resources—is absolutely essential to conceptualizing sustainability of our capital base. Economists have long differentiated resources based on whether and how much their stocks are depleted when they are use. For simplicity, there are renewable resources (like fish or forests), non-renewable but durable resources (like fresh water or metals, which can to some extent be recycled), and non-renewable non-durable resources (like oil or natural gas, which cannot be recycled at all). A finite non- renewable non-durable resource, like oil, will eventually get used up. Still, economist John Hartwick in 1977 suggested a strategy whereby using up a non-renewable resource could still be considered “sustainable”. If, in the process of consuming the resource, the value of what is consumed is re-invested into some other form of capital— such as a renewable resource, human capital, or intellectual capital—then the net value of our collective capacity to create well-being will not decrease. The same rule applies in the long run to non-renewable durable resources (like copper or steel). They likewise cannot last indefinitely, since thermodynamically no recycling process can recover 100% of the resource, but they can be drawn down over a much longer time frame if routinely recycled. The sustainability rule for renewable resources, like forests or products of agriculture, is more straightforward: if we keep the harvest rate in balance with the growth rate, its capacity to create well-being can be maintained indefinitely. It must be noted that investments in intellectual capital—knowledge or technology—can be particularly important for achieving sustainability. Historically it has shown a tendency to increase, in some cases quite dramatically, the productivity of all other forms of capital, thus requiring less capital to maintain the same level of well-being, sometimes much less. Greater productivity through gains in knowledge is effectively how we have (repeatedly) escaped the dilemma posed by Malthus 150 years ago. Substitution between resources is one of the most highly contentious issues in the debate about sustainability. First of all, tradeoffs between the use of different resources or types of capital are seldom equivalent and transitions may not be smooth. Moreover, the prospect of complete exhaustion or loss of some convinces us that not everything is fungible: there are resources small and large that cannot be replaced with a substitute, whether essential ecological processes, coastal lowlands threatened with rising sea levels, species threatened with extinction, or unique landscapes such as Yosemite or Yellowstone. Finally, different resources are owned and controlled by different countries, industries, or individuals. Shifting from reliance upon one to another can have enormous implications for who can capture rents, an issue over which wars have been fought throughout history. Over what time period? Economists have observed that levels of interest rates or, more abstractly, of social discount rates mean we significantly undervalue the future use of resources relative to their use in the present. At first look, it may appear as if we only value the use of resources while we are alive. This has led economists to recognize the time aspect of sustainability as a moral question, a question of intergenerational fairness. It is, fundamentally, about distributive equity between those who value resources today and those, yet unborn, who will value those resources tomorrow. The current generation’s inability or unwillingness to appreciate future generations’ well being has been called a “tyranny of the present”. Fortunately, theoretical models of the economy, imbued with some measure of altruism toward one’s direct descendents combined with a general “existence value” of the future of the planet, show future generations no worse off than the present (Asheim, 1991). With how much certainty? Finally, the third crucial aspect of defining sustainability is the level of certainty over how our well being and our capacity to maintain it is sustained. Economists have clarified what factors in the calculation are impossible for us to know with certainty. We cannot know even who the future generations are going to be, or even how many there will be. We cannot know what their intrinsic preferences will be: what will they value? We cannot know what technologies will be available, how efficiently they will be able to utilize what resources and thus what the relative scarcity of different forms of natural and physical capital will be. The best guidance we can take today is to maintain reasonably safe lower bounds on the levels of natural capital with which we have been endowed, to invest sufficiently in the potentially most durable forms of capital—the human and intellectual—and to avoid imposing too much certainty on the future, in the negative sense, by not introducing too many completely irreversible changes. 4  Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? tiMothy F. Slaper, Ph.D.: Director of Economic Analysis, Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana University Kelley School of Business tanya J. hall: Economic Research Analyst, Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana University Kelley School of Business Sustainability has been an often mentioned goal of businesses, nonprofits and governments in the past decade, yet measuring the degree to which an organization is being sustainable or pursuing sustainable growth can be difficult. John Elkington strove to measure sustainability during the mid-1990s by encompassing a new framework to measure performance in corporate America.1 This accounting framework, called the triple bottom line (TBL), went beyond the traditional measures of profits, return on investment, and shareholder value to include environmental and social dimensions. By focusing on comprehensive investment results— that is, with respect to performance along the interrelated dimensions of profits, people and the planet— triple bottom line reporting can be an important tool to support sustainability goals. Interest in triple bottom line accounting has been growing across for-profit, nonprofit and government sectors. Many businesses and nonprofit organizations have adopted the TBL sustainability framework to evaluate their performance, and a similar approach has gained currency with governments at the federal, state and local levels. This article reviews the TBL concept, explains how it can be useful for businesses, policy-makers and economic development practitioners and highlights some current examples of putting the TBL into practice. The Triple Bottom Line Defined The TBL is an accounting framework that incorporates three dimensions of performance: social, environmental and financial. This differs from traditional reporting frameworks as it includes ecological (or environmental) and social measures that can be difficult to assign appropriate means of measurement. The TBL dimensions are also commonly called the three Ps: people, planet and profits. We will refer to these as the 3Ps. Well before Elkington introduced the sustainability concept as “triple bottom line,” environmentalists wrestled with measures of, and frameworks for, sustainability. Academic disciplines organized around sustainability have multiplied over the last 30 years. People inside and outside academia who have studied and practiced sustainability would agree with the general definition of Andrew Savitz for TBL. The TBL “captures the essence of sustainability by measuring the impact of an organization’s activities on the world ... including both its profitability and shareholder values and its social, human and environmental capital.”2 The trick isn’t defining TBL. The trick is measuring it. Calculating the TBL The 3Ps do not have a common unit of measure. Profits are measured in dollars. What is social capital measured in? What about environmental or ecological health? Finding a common unit of measurement is one challenge. Some advocate monetizing all the dimensions of the TBL, including social welfare or environmental damage. While that would have the benefit of having a common unit—dollars—many object to putting a dollar value on wetlands or endangered species on strictly philosophical grounds. Others question the method of finding the right price for lost wetlands or endangered species. Another solution would be to calculate the TBL in terms of an index. In this way, one eliminates the incompatible units issue and, as long as there is a universally accepted accounting method, allows for comparisons between entities, e.g., comparing performance between companies, cities, development projects or some other benchmark. An example of an index that compares a county versus the nation’s performance for a variety of components is the Indiana Business Research Center’s Innovation Index. There remains some subjectivity even when using an index however. For example, how are the index components weighted? Would each “P” get equal weighting? What about the sub-components within each “P”? Do they each get equal weighting? Is the people category more important than the planet? Who decides? Another option would do away with measuring sustainability using dollars or using an index. If the users of the TBL had the stomach for it, each sustainability measure would stand alone. “Acres of wetlands” would be a measure, for example, and progress would be gauged based on wetland creation, destruction or status quo over time. The downside to this approach is the proliferation of metrics that may be pertinent to measuring sustainability. The TBL user may get metric fatigue. Having discussed the difficulties with calculating the TBL, we turn our attention to potential metrics Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011  5  for inclusion in a TBL calculation. Following that, we will discuss how businesses and other entities have applied the TBL framework. What Measures Go into the Index? There is no universal standard method for calculating the TBL. Neither is there a universally accepted standard for the measures that comprise each of the three TBL categories. This can be viewed as a strength because it allows a user to adapt the general framework to the needs of different entities (businesses or nonprofits), different projects or policies (infrastructure investment or educational programs), or different geographic boundaries (a city, region or country). Both a business and local government agency may gauge environmental sustainability in the same terms, say reducing the amount of solid waste that goes into landfills, but a local mass transit might measure success in terms of passenger miles, while a for-profit bus company would measure success in terms of earnings per share. The TBL can accommodate these differences. Additionally, the TBL is able to be case (or project) specific or allow a broad scope—measuring impacts across large geographic boundaries—or a narrow geographic scope like a small town. A case (or project) specific TBL would measure the effects of a particular project in a specific location, such as a community building a park. The TBL can also apply to infrastructure projects at the state level or energy policy at the national level. The level of the entity, type of project and the geographic scope will drive many of the decisions about what measures to include. That said, the set of measures will ultimately be determined by stakeholders and subject matter experts and the ability to collect the necessary data. While there is significant literature on the appropriate measures to use for sustainability at the state or national levels, in the end, data availability will drive the TBL calculations. Many of the traditional sustainability measures, measures vetted through academic discourse, are presented below. Economic Measures Economic variables ought to be variables that deal with the bottom line and the flow of money. It could look at income or expenditures, taxes, business climate factors, employment, and business diversity factors. Specific examples include: • Personal income • Cost of underemployment • Establishment churn • Establishment sizes • Job growth • Employment distribution by sector • Percentage of firms in each sector • Revenue by sector contributing to gross state product Environmental Measures Environmental variables should represent measurements of natural resources and reflect potential influences to its viability. It could incorporate air and water quality, energy consumption, natural resources, solid and toxic waste, and land use/land cover. Ideally, having long-range trends available for each of the environmental variables would help organizations identify the impacts a project or policy would have on the area. Specific examples include: • Sulfur dioxide concentration • Concentration of nitrogen oxides • Selected priority pollutants • Excessive nutrients • Electricity consumption • Fossil fuel consumption • Solid waste management • Hazardous waste management • Change in land use/land cover Social Measures Social variables refer to social dimensions of a community or region and could include measurements of education, equity and access to social resources, health and well-being, quality of life, and social capital. The examples listed below are a small snippet of potential variables: • Unemployment rate • Female labor force participation rate • Median household income • Relative poverty • Percentage of population with a post-secondary degree or certificate • Average commute time • Violent crimes per capita • Health-adjusted life expectancy Data for many of these measures are collected at the state and national levels, but are also available at the local or community level. Many are appropriate for a community to use when constructing a TBL. However, as the geographic scope and the nature of the project narrow, the set The level of the entity, type of project and the geographic scope will drive many of the decisions about what measures to include. 6  Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center of appropriate measures can change. For local or community-based projects, the TBL measures of success are best determined locally. There are several similar approaches to secure stakeholder participation and input in designing the TBL framework: developing a decision matrix to incorporate public preferences into project planning and decision-making,3 using a “narrative format” to solicit shareholder participation and comprehensive project evaluation,4 and having stakeholders rank and weigh components of a sustainability framework according to community priorities.5 For example, a community may consider an important measure of success for an entrepreneurial development program to be the number of woman-owned companies formed over a five-year time period. Ultimately, it will be the organization’s responsibility to produce a final set of measures applicable to the task at hand. Variations of the Triple Bottom Line Measurement The application of the TBL by businesses, nonprofits and governments are motivated by the principles of economic, environmental and social sustainability, but differ with regard to the way they measure the three categories of outcomes. Proponents who have developed and applied sustainability assessment frameworks like the TBL encountered many challenges, chief among them, how to make an index that is both comprehensive and meaningful and how to identify suitable data for the variables that compose the index. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), for example, consists of 25 variables that encompass economic, social and environmental factors. Those variables are converted into monetary units and summed into a single, dollar-denominated measure.6 Minnesota developed its own progress indicator comprised of 42 variables that focused on the goals of a healthy economy and gauged progress in achieving these goals.7 There is a large body of literature on integrated assessment 8 and sustainability measures that grew out of the disciplines that measure environmental impact. These are not constrained by strict economic theory for measuring changes in social welfare.9 Researchers in environmental policy argue that the three categories—economic, social and environmental—need to be integrated in order to see the complete picture of the consequences that a regulation, policy or economic development project may have and to assess policy options and tradeoffs. Who Uses the Triple Bottom Line? Businesses, nonprofits and government entities alike can all use the TBL. Businesses The TBL and its core value of sustainability have become compelling in the business world due to accumulating anecdotal evidence of greater long-term profitability. For example, reducing waste from packaging can also reduce costs. Among the firms that have been exemplars of these approaches are General Electric, Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, 3M and Cascade Engineering.10 Although these companies do not have an index- based TBL, one can see how they measure sustainability using the TBL concept. Cascade Engineering, for example, a private firm that does not need to file the detailed financial paperwork of public companies, has identified the following variables for their TBL scorecard: • Economic o Amount of taxes paid • Social o Average hours of training/ employee o From welfare to career retention o Charitable contributions • Environmental/Safety o Safety incident rate o Lost/restricted workday rate o Sales dollars per kilowatt hours o Greenhouse gas emissions o Use of post-consumer and industrial recycled material o Water consumption o Amount of waste to landfill Nonprofits Many nonprofit organizations have adopted the TBL and some have partnered with private firms to address broad sustainability issues that affect mutual stakeholders. Companies recognize that aligning with nonprofit organizations makes good business sense, particularly those nonprofits with goals of economic prosperity, social well-being and environmental protection.11 The Ford Foundation has funded studies that used variations of the TBL to measure the effects of programs to increase wealth in dozens of rural regions across the United States.12 Another example Companies recognize that aligning with nonprofit organizations makes good business sense, particularly those nonprofits with goals of economic prosperity, social well-being and environmental protection. Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011  7  is RSF Social Finance,13 a nonprofit organization that uniquely focuses on how their investments improve all three categories of the TBL. While RSF takes an original approach to the TBL concept, one can see how the TBL can be tailored to nearly any organization. Their approach includes the following: • Food and Agriculture (economic): Explore new economic models that support sustainable food and agriculture while raising public awareness of the value of organic and biodynamic farming. • Ecological Stewardship (environmental): Provide funding to organizations and projects devoted to sustaining, regenerating and preserving the earth’s ecosystems, especially integrated, systems-based and culturally relevant approaches. • Education and the Arts (social): Fund education and arts projects that are holistic and therapeutic. Government State, regional and local governments are increasingly adopting the TBL and analogous sustainability assessment frameworks as decision- making and performance-monitoring tools. Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont, Utah, the San Francisco Bay Area and Northeast Ohio area have conducted analyses using the TBL or a similar sustainability framework. Policy-makers use these sustainability assessment frameworks to decide which actions they should or should not take to make society more sustainable. Policy-makers want to know the cause and effect relationship between actions— projects or policies—and whether the results move society toward or away from sustainability. The State of Maryland, for example, uses a blended GPI-TBL framework to compare initiatives—for example, investing in clean energy—against the baseline of “doing nothing” or against other policy options.14 Internationally, the European Union uses integrated assessment to identify the “likely positive and negative impacts of proposed policy actions, enabling informed political judgments to be made about the proposal and identify trade-offs in achieving competing objectives.”15 The EU guidelines have themselves been the subject of critique and have undergone several rounds of improvement.16 The process of refining the guidelines shows both the transparency of the process and the EU commitment to integrated assessment. Regional Economic Development Initiatives The concept of the triple bottom line can be used regionally by communities to encourage economic development growth in a sustainable manner. This requires an increased level of cooperation among businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments and citizens of the region. The following examples throughout the United States show various ways the TBL concept can be used to grow a region’s economic base in a sustainable manner. Cleveland, Ohio In 2009, the mayor of Cleveland convened the Sustainable Cleveland 2019 (SC2019) Summit to bring together hundreds of people interested in applying the principles of sustainability to the design of the local economy.17 The SC2019 is a 10-year initiative to create a sustainable economy in Cleveland by focusing on a TBL-like concept. The city uses four key areas for measuring sustainability: the personal and social environment, the natural environment, the built environment (e.g., infrastructure and urban growth patterns) and the business environment. Each key area has six goals. At this point, specific measurement indicators have not been fully developed; however, the city is looking to create a dashboard that could be combined to create an index for overall project success. This dashboard would allow for quick year-to-year assessment in the SC2019 progress. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the Surrounding Region In 2005, the Grand Rapids region created the nation’s first “Community Sustainability Partnership” to develop a roadmap to lead Grand Rapids to sustainability. The region employs 14 major indicators related to the region’s quality of life and environmental factors to determine progress made towards sustainability. Rather than create an index, target goals were established for each indicator. More detailed information of the metrics used for each indicator can be found in their TBL report.18 Below are brief explainations of the variables used to measure their TBL. • Environmental Quality o Waste: trends in recycling, refuse and yard waste o Energy: energy consumption, natural gas The concept of the triple bottom line can be used regionally by communities to encourage economic development growth in a sustainable manner. 8  Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center consumption and alternative fuel usage o Water: water consumption o Air Quality: toxic release inventory and number of air pollution ozone action days o Built Environment: number of LEED registered and certified projects o Land Use and Natural Habitat: inventory of land use and forest canopy o Transportation: public transportation ridership • Economic Prosperity o Personal Income: personal income per capita o Unemployment: unemployment rate o Redevelopment, Reinvestment and Jobs: results from brownfield redevelopment investment and job creation o Knowledge Competitiveness: third-party report ranking U.S. regions • Social Capital and Equity o Safety and Security: crime statistics o Educational Attainment: degree attainment levels o Health and Wellness: infant mortality rate and blood lead levels trends o Quality of Life: home ownership, poverty, and reduced price and free lunches trends o Community Capital: 211 calls for assistance, voter participation and population and ethnicity Summary The Triple Bottom Line concept developed by John Elkington has changed the way businesses, nonprofits and governments measure sustainability and the performance of projects or policies. Beyond the foundation of measuring sustainability on three fronts—people, planet and profits— the flexibility of the TBL allows organizations to apply the concept in a manner suitable to their specific needs. There are challenges to putting the TBL into practice. These challenges include measuring each of the three categories, finding applicable data and calculating a project or policy’s contribution to sustainability. These challenges aside, the TBL framework allows organizations to evaluate the ramifications of their decisions from a truly long-run perspective. n Notes 1. John Elkington, “Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development,” California Management Review 36, no. 2 (1994): 90–100. 2. Andrew Savitz, The Triple Bottom Line (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006). 3. Peter Soderbaum, “Positional Analysis and Public Decision Making,” Journal of Economic Issues 16, no. 2 (June 1982): 391–400, www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4225177.pdf. 4. Terre Satterfield, Paul Slovic and Robin Gregory, “Narrative Valuation in a Policy Judgment Context,” Ecological Economics 34 (2000): 315–331. 5. Stephen R. J. Sheppard and Michael Meitner, “Using Multi-Criteria Analysis and Visualization for Sustainable Forest Management Planning with Stakeholder Groups,” Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005): 171–187. Another example can be found in Katrina Brown et al., “Trade- Off Analysis for Marine Protected Area Management,” Ecological Economics 37, no. 3 (June 2001): 417–434. 6. See Herman E. Daly, John B. Cobb and Clifford W. Cobb, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy towards Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989) and John Talberth, Clifford Cobb and Noah Slattery, “The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006: A Tool for Sustainable Development,” www. environmental-expert.com/Files/24200/ articles/12128/GPI202006.pdf. 7. Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality Board, “Smart Signals: An Assessment of Progress Indicators,” March 2000, www.green.maryland.gov/mdgpi/pdfs/GPI- Minnesota.pdf. 8. Integrated assessment is used as a general rubric for all sustainability assessment frameworks, including TBL. The proliferation of frameworks and their acronyms often complicates the issues associated with implementing a TBL framework for evaluating economic development initiatives. Except for a couple of sustainability frameworks, the accessibility components and measures can be easily organized into the three TBL categories (economic, social and environmental). 9. Theo Hacking and Peter Guthrie, “A Framework for Clarifying the Meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008):73–89 and Wouter de Ridder et al., “A Framework for Tool Selection and Use in Integrated Assessment for Sustainable Development,” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 9, no. 4 (December 2007): 423–441. 10. Cascade Engineering, “The Triple Bottom Line Report,” 2009, www.cascadeng.com/ pdf/TBL_2009.pdf. 11. Nancy Fell, “Triple Bottom Line Approach Growing in Nonprofit Sector,” Causeplanet, January 21, 2007, and Peter Senge, et al., The Necessary Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 2008). 12. For example, see Nancy Stark and Deborah Markley, “Rural Entrepreneurship Development II: Measuring Impact on the Triple Bottom Line, Wealth Creation in Rural America,” July 2008, www.yellowwood.org/ wealthcreation.aspx. 13. “Focus Areas,” RSF Social Finance, http:// rsfsocialfinance.org/values/focus/. 14. “Maryland’s Genuine Progress Indicator: An Index for Sustainable Prosperity,” Maryland: Smart, Green and Growing, www.green.maryland.gov/mdgpi/. 15. Commission of the European Communities, “Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment,” May 6, 2002, http:// trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/ february/tradoc_121479.pdf. 16. EU Secretariat General, “Memo: The Main Changes in the 2009 Impact Assessment Guidelines Compared to 2005 Guidelines,” http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ index_en.htm. 17. Sustainable Cleveland 2019, “Action and Resources Guide: Building an Economic Engine to Empower a Green City on a Blue Lake,” October 2010, www.gcbl.org/system/files/SC2019+Executiv e+Summary+%289SEP10%29.pdf. 18. City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, “Community Triple Bottom Line Indicator Report,” September 2008, www.grpartners. org/pdfs/resources/TBLFinal1.pdf. A-1 APPENDIX A Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Key Definitions Acronyms and abbreviations and technical definitions are used throughout within this memorandum and during the presentation. For your reference, each of those acronyms are defined here: CAP: Climate Action Plan. A set of strategies intended to guide efforts for climate change mitigation. GHG: Greenhouse Gas. A gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect on the planet by absorbing infrared radiation, e.g. carbon dioxide ICLEI: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. An international association of local governments and national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. K4C: King County-Cities Climate Collaboration. A climate collaboration partnership between King County and 13 cities to coordinate and enhance the effectiveness of local government climate and sustainability action. LID: Low Impact Development. Refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of storm water in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat. LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. A national, third party certification program for design, operation, and construction of high performance green buildings. TBL: Triple Bottom Line. This method of evaluating an organization is also referred to as the ‘Three Ps’ of sustainability: profit, people and planet. It’s goal is to measure the financial, social and environmental performance of a company over a period of time. APPENDIX B Selected City of Auburn Projects, Programs, Activities with elements of sustainability Listed below is a list of selected programs, projects, and activities Auburn has participated in between 2006 and 2016. They are organized by the main “driver,” or general purpose of the activity, as listed on the right. Also listed are the sustainable elements for each project in looking through the Triple Bottom Line lens, e.g. Environmental, Social, Economic, or more likely, a combination of these. Project Name Project Summary Main Project Driver Sustainable Elements/ Benefits M&O Storm Improvements This project constructed a new detention and treatment system for drainage at the M&O Facility and expand and improved the previously existing decant facility. Economy Environmental Economic Social Auburn International Farmers Market City of Auburn coordinates the Auburn International Farmers Market hosts over 40 vendors on Sundays June 5-September 25, offering a variety of fresh locally grown farm-based foods, hand- crafted items, and concession stand. It also includes free performances, guest chef demonstrations, children's activities, and classes on health, nutrition, and gardening. Economy Environmental Economic Social Annual Clean Sweep Events Clean Sweep is a City-wide, annual event where community volunteers get together to work on projects that benefit the entire community. In recent years, it has doubled as one of the City’s Earth Day events, as they share many of the same sustainable values. Economy Environmental Economic Social South Division Street Promenade Project The South Division Street Promenade Project involved the construction of new facilities and replacement of existing facilities along the South Division Street corridor from East/West Main Street to 3rd Street SE/SW, including adjacent streets. South Division Street was reconstructed, including many “green” features such as pervious pavement, trees and hanging plants, and dark- sky approved light fixtures. Transportation Environmental Economic Social Les Gove Community & Event Center This project constructed a new 21,000 SF community and teen center at the Les Gove Community Campus. The community center will include a multi-purpose room for events, administration offices, fitness room, classroom, storage, and lobby. The connected teen center (the REC) will include a computer lab, classroom, art/makers room, lobby, stage and lounge area, and a kitchen that will also be used by the community center. Social Environmental Economic Social Mayor’s Taskforce on Homelessness In November 2015, Mayor Nancy Backus convened a citizen task force to address homelessness in Auburn. This task force was comprised of community leaders, service providers, citizens, faith community, police and fire, school district, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, business owners and key city staff. The Task Force completed their work in April 2016 and presented a suggested action plan to the City Council on May 23, 2016. Social Environmental Economic Social City Implementation of Composting & Recycling Auburn began implementing a composting program and curbside recycling program in the Early 2000s. By 2004, Auburn was composting municipal food waste. Environment Environmental Auburn Designated as a Tree City USA The TREE CITY USA program is designed to recognize communities that effectively manage their urban forest and meet the four TREE CITY USA standards. Auburn has continually been selected for this national recognition for effectively managing its urban trees as a valuable natural resource. The National Arbor Day Foundation, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and Washington State Department of Natural Resources' Urban and Community Forestry Program, recognizes towns and cities across Washington and the United States that meet the standards of the TREE CITY USA program. Auburn must meet the following four standards:  Have an established legal tree governing body (Auburn's Tree Board),  Maintain a comprehensive community forestry program that spends at least $2 per capita on the urban forest,  Maintain a tree care ordinance, and  Hold an annual Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation (celebrated locally on the second Wednesday in April). Environment Environmental Social Auburn Environmental Park Expansion, Wetland Boardwalk The wetland boardwalk project entailed the design and construction of an approximately 1,200- foot ADA-accessible wetland trail and elevated wooden boardwalk and the restoration of 2.4 acres of wetland habitat. Its features include boardwalk observation areas, interpretive signage, bicycle racks, benches and picnic tables, and parking area improvements at the park's Western Avenue entrance. Over 2,500 native wetland trees and shrubs were planted as part of the habitat restoration element of the project. Environment Environmental Economic Social Auburn Environmental Park Wetland Restoration This project is an ongoing effort to restore the approximately 200 acre area to include natural wetland features and offer habitat to native plants and animals. The area is the center of many environmental projects including the removal of invasive plant species, planting of native species, habitat feature installments, stream restoration, and more. Environment Environmental Social Mill Creek 5K Restoration Project This project constructed a new culvert for Mill Creek to pass under 15th Street NW and stream restoration of Mill Creek. The area historically served as vital habitat for migrating salmon and provided ideal conditions for rearing and storm refuge. Due to agricultural and industrial activity, the Mill Creek region has lost this critical habitat. In many areas of Mill Creek, the stream is straight, shallow, and does not offer quality riparian vegetation and in-channel structure. As part of this project, restoration of this area included: riparian enhancements including the planting of live stakes, channel relocation and reconstruction, replacement of the culvert beneath 15th St NW with a new, fish passable culvert, and woody debris additions. Environment Environmental Social Green River, Fenster Levee Setback Phase 1 & 2 The first phase of the Fenster project included the design and construction of a levee setback on the Green River to provide salmon habitat and flood storage benefits. Approximately 700 linear feet of existing rock levee were removed from the left (west) bank of the river, to reconnect the river with a portion of its historic floodplain. A new buried rock revetment was constructed approximately 200 feet from the river's edge to maintain flood protection for existing homes and infrastructure. Project features included removal of invasive species, excavation of an off-channel backwater, revegetation using native plants, and installation of 60 pieces of large wood with root wads along the shoreline. The second phase of the Fenster project built upon prior salmon recovery restoration efforts by the City, King County, and others to set back or completely remove all of the levees within a two - mile stretch of high quality habitat between project site and the Neeley bridge at SR-18. The project removed the remaining 520 feet of the 50 year old agricultural levee at Fenster Nature Park to reconnect the river with more of its historic floodplain. The buried rock revetment constructed in the first phase was extended 900 feet to maintain flood protection for the area. As with Phase 1, invasive plants were removed and over 7,000 native trees and shrubs were planted. The habitat improvements will benefit Chum, Coho, and Endangered Species Act-listed Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon and steelhead that migrate through and spawn in this reach. Environment Environmental Social White River Buffer Restoration Project This project's purpose was to restore a section of buffer along the White River. This restoration benefits salmon habitat and improves water quality along a 2,100 linear foot section of White River buffer near Roegner Park. Approximately 410 native shrubs were planted in this area after the removal of invasive plant species in order to restore the area. These plantings help shade the river, filter pollutants before entering the water, and add riparian habitat to this area. Two educational signs were developed and installed as a part of this project to educate the public about the importance of buffer zones and the connection between restoration projects such as this and improved habitat and water quality. Environment Environmental Social Coal Creek Habitat Restoration Project Coal Creek project's design included the planting of approximately 220 native trees and shrubs and the removal of noxious weeds along Coal Creek where it outlets at the White River in Game Environment Environmental Social Farm Wilderness Park. The plants added to this area provide shade to the creek to reduce the water's temperature, reduce the amount of sediment loading into the creek, and provide for a vegetated bioswale to reduce road pollutants flowing into the creek. The planting of this vegetation ultimately benefits water quality and habitat in the immediate vicinity and in the White River Basin within the Puyallup River Watershed. Public interpretive signage was also developed and installed. Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project Goals for this culvert replacement project included opening up stream habitat in Mill Creek for salmon and other species by addressing a fish passage barrier and a constraint to in-stream flows through the replacement of the existing undersized stream culvert at Peasley Canyon Rd S. As a part of the project, invasive plant species were removed and the site was replanted with native plant species. Transportation Environmental Social City of Auburn Greenhouse Gas Inventory Project The City of Auburn conducted an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions associated with its municipal operations and an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions associated with activities in the community. The inventory was based on 2008 data and is intended to serve as a baseline for the City's greenhouse gas reduction and climate action efforts. The study report was finalized in 2010. Environment Environmental Economic Social Auburn Wetland Mitigation Assessment This assessment was part of an overall long-term program to improve the effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation projects in Auburn. The study provides baseline information to support further efforts in conducting a comprehensive assessment of the success of projects in meeting both ecological and regulatory objectives. As a part of the project, the City produced a best practices publication entitled Wetland Mitigation in the Green River Valley: 5 Essential Strategies for Project Success. Environment Environmental Economic Sustainable Living Field Trips, Workshops, & Virtual Tour Series 2016 A series of events where citizens can learn more about sustainable living through several field trips and activities:  Organic Farm Tour of Red Barn Ranch: July 15  King County Cedar Hills Landfill Tour and Bio Gas Energy Presentation: August 5  Threadcycle Tour & Workshop: August 18  Cascade Recycling Center Virtual Tour and Cedar Grove Composting Company Presentation: September 15  Green Cleaning & Healthy Homecare Workshop: October 20  “Just Eat It” – Sustainability Movie: November 10 Environment Environmental Social 2015 Low Impact Development (LID) Code The State of Washington Department of Ecology has mandated that the City of Auburn and other jurisdictions in the State adopt Low Impact Development (LID) and LID related regulations and Environmental Environmental Social and Standards Update standards by no later than December 31, 2016. The adoption of LID regulations and standards will have far reaching implications on public and private activities involving land within the City limits. LID will affect future City capital projects and maintenance and operations activities. It will also affect how residents, businesses, property owners and land developers develop and operate their properties. Staff from the Storm Utility presented information to the City Council regarding the integration of LID principles and technologies into the Auburn Municipal Code and City Design Standards. This is the beginning of a series of presentations that City staff will be making to the City Council and the Planning Commission over the next 12 months and is part of the broader public education effort. Environmentally Friendly Car Wash Kits The City of Auburn offers car wash kits, which allow organizations to host a car wash event with minimal impact on the environment. Environment Environmental The Reddington Levee Setback Project This levee is part of a larger overall flood management strategy for the lower Green River. The project is located in the City of Auburn along the left (west) bank of the Green River. The project area is 1.3 miles in length and extends from 26th Street Northeast/Brannan Park (River Mile 29.5) north to the southern boundary of the Port of Seattle’s wetland mitigation project at 43rd Street Northeast (River Mile 28.2).The Reddington Levee Setback Project goals are to: Reduce flood risks to residents of Auburn and the Green River Valley and Improve natural river functions to enhance habitat. Environment Environmental Social Sustainable Documentary Showings Over the years, the City has hosted several movie nights in which sustainability-themed documentaries have been shown, including: Trashed, Addicted to Plastic, and Chasing Ice. Social Environmental Social Earth Month 2016 In 2016, the City hosted many different Earth Day events throughout the month, including:  Staff Electronics Recycling Event  Arbor Day Celebration  Mayor’s Earth Day Proclamation  PSE/TechniArt Energy Efficient Lighting Display  Attending the Annual Children’s Water Festival  Hosting Natural Yard Care workshops Social Environmental Social Mentor Night at Green River College On Saturday, January 16th 2016, the City's Environmental Services team attended Mentor Night at Green River College; an annual event hosted by the College's student chapter of the Society of American Foresters (SAF). Mentor Night allows students to talk with representatives from a wide range of organizations that employ forestry, natural resource, and environmental staff, including timber companies, natural resource consulting firms, and state and local government agencies. Social Environmental Economic Social Working with the community The City works with community members on sustainable projects, programs and activities in a multitude of ways, including providing technical assistance, working together to restore sensitive natural areas such as the Auburn Environmental Park, and more. Social Environmental Social Green Housekeeping Handbook City of Auburn Facilities Division upholds many sustainable practices and uses several “green” products to maintain municipal buildings. Some of these methods include: Installing “green” carpet, using Sustainable Earth and ECO Green products that meet EPA standards for high post- consumer content, sorting and recycling waste, upholding Green Seal standards, using low level VOCs products, avoiding phosphate and aerosol products. Social Environmental Economic Social Auburn Minor Housing Repair Program The City of Auburn Housing Repair Program provides eligible homeowners grants of up to $5,000 - $7,000 for emergency home repairs. As the City’s largest homeless prevention program, these grants are only available to homeowners who live within the city limits of Auburn and are within the low to moderate income limits of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines. This program enables homeowners to remain in safe, comfortable housing when they don’t have the means to make needed repairs to their home. Leaky roofs, unsafe stairs, floor repair, plumbing/sewer repairs, access for the physically impaired, weatherization and heating system repairs are examples of work funded with Minor Home Repair grants. The City of Auburn does not perform the housing repairs; instead, it hires local contractors and vendors from our Small Works Roster to do the work. The City of Auburn will solicit quotes and hire a qualified contractor or vendor on behalf of the homeowner. The City of Auburn pays the contractor directly. Homeowners will not pay for anything themselves unless they want extra work done not covered under the program. Auburn's Minor Housing Repair Program is a voluntary program. While there is no application deadline for this program, funds for this program are limited. Eligible applicants are taken on a first-come, first-serve basis, according to the priority system established by the City. The City’ Minor Housing Repair Program is able to help 50 or more households a year, many of whom are elderly and/or disabled and on a fixed income. Social Environmental Economic Social APPENDIX C Legislative and Policy Actions Below is a list of selected legislative actions taken by the City as steps toward a more sustainable Auburn. Actions are listed in reverse chronological order. City adopted Imagine Auburn - 2015 Made a major update to the Auburn Comprehensive Plan that included the following policies and action plan items: (Imagine Auburn can be accessed via the following link: http://www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comp_plan.htm) o Land Use Core Policy No. 9: Implement measures to promote buildings that conserve energy and water and that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. o Short Term (2016-2018) Land Use Action Plan Item No. 7: Update the City’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate Action Plan. o Moderate Term (2019-2025) Land Use Action Item No. 11: Develop and implement a citywide greenhouse gas reduction plan. o Capital Facilities Core Policy No. 10: Sustainable development practices will be incorporated into capital facility project design and construction. The City will support and implement efforts to promote climate action objectives by using low impact development techniques, energy and water conservation measures, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Capital Facilities Policy No. CF-62: Public and institutional facilities should incorporate practices that reduce energy consumption, reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, conserve water, and that preserve native vegetation. Ratification of the 2014 amendments (Resolution No. 5138) King County Countywide Policies - 2015 The City ratified the 2014 amendments to the regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments establish new countywide reduction targets from 2007 levels of 25-percent in 2020, 50-percent in 2030, and 80-percent in 2050. Administrative Policy 200-18B - 2013 The City issued regarding reduction of fuel use associated with employee driving City fleet vehicles. Policy applies to all City employees, and addresses idling reduction and other aspects of vehicle operation to reduce fuel consumption. Amended Zoning Code Chapter 18.47 ACC created by Ordinance No. 6365 - 2011 The City amended its zoning code to provide recognition of, and zoning standards for, electrical vehicle charging stations and infrastructure. Auburn Comprehensive Plan Climate Policies - Amended 2011 In 2011, the City’s land use comprehensive plan was amended to add Goal 24 and policies EN-185 through EN-193 addressing climate protection and air quality, including policies requiring the adoption of emissions reduction targets and development of a climate action plan and for both municipal and community emissions. Completion of Municipal Greenhouse Gas Inventory - In August 2010 The City completed an inventory of municipal and community greenhouse gas emissions. A copy of the inventory can be accessed via the following link: http://www.auburnwa.gov/Assets/PCD/AuburnWA/Docs/2015+Comp+Plan+Visioning+- +Imagine+Auburn/Appendix+I+-+Auburn+Greenhouse+Gas+Inventory.pdf Chapter 18.49 created by Ordinance No. 6245 - 2009 The City amended its zoning code to provide flexible residential and mixed use development incentives for more environmentally sustainable developments that exceed minimum City zoning requirements. Examples of activities credited under ACC 18.49 include: 1. Incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) features 2. Meeting design requirements for LEED or Built Green environmental ratings 3. Construction with at least 10 percent post-consumer content/recycled materials 4. Demolition/construction that achieves at least a 90-percent landfill diversion rate 5. Incorporation of water conservation measures and high-efficiency appliances 6. Incorporation of alternative energy or energy conservation features 7. Conducting an assessment of project's carbon footprint 8. Examples of development incentives provided under ACC 18.49 include: 9. Residential density bonus of up to 150-percent 10. Alternative (flexible) lot dimensional standards 11. Alternative (flexible) engineering and site design standards 12. Reduced parking requirements 13. Expedited development permit processing Resolution No. 4477 - May 4th 2009, signed by Mayor Peter B. Lewis The City Council adopted resolution No. 4477 adopting the ICLEI ‘5 Milestones’ approach to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions in Auburn. Section 1 That the City of Auburn shall join ICLEI as a Full Member and pledges to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change. Section 2 That the City of Auburn shall undertake ICLEI’s five milestones to reduce both greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions throughout the community, and specifically:  Conduct a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast to determine the source and quantity of greenhouse gas emissions in the jurisdiction;  Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target;  Develop an action plan with both existing and future actions which when implemented will meet the local greenhouse gas reduction target;  Implement the action plan; and  Monitor and report progress. Section 3 That the City of Auburn requests assistance from ICLEI as it progresses through these milestones. Section 4 That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 5 that this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Resolution No. 4368 - July 7th 2008, signed by Mayor Peter B. Lewis The City Council adopted a resolution of sustainability that in part, resolved to avoid actions that result in global warming. Section 1 The City Council of the City of Auburn acknowledges its support for actions of local, regional, national, and global level sustainability by nurturing Auburn to be environmentally, economically, and socially vital, enacting green construction standards that make good financial sense, promoting local environmental preservations, using energy and other resources prudently, and avoiding actions that contribute to global warming or other adverse environmental impacts. Section 2 The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of the legislation. Section 3 That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Signatory to U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement In 2007, Auburn Mayor Peter B. Lewis signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, formalizing the City’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases generally, and specifically to strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets which is a reduction of 7% from 1990 levels by 2012. Summary information about the agreement can be accessed via the following link: http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm . A copy of the Climate Protection Agreement can be viewed at via the following link: http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/documents/mcpAgreement.pdf References Below is a list of works cited throughout this memorandum. Bierbaum, Rosina; Stults, Missy. Adaptation to Climate Change: Context Matters. Michigan Journal of Sustainability Environmental Protection Agency( EPA) , n.d. Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development. Web. 22 July 2016. Graff, Gregory D. How Do Economists Define Sustainability? National Center for Food and Policy website, accessed on July 22, 2016, URL: http://www.ncfap.org/documents/biofuels_aviation/Greg%20Graff%20- %20Economics%20and%20Policy.pdf National League of Cities (NLC), Sustainable Cities Institute Website. 2016. Accessed on July 22, 2016, URL: http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/about/about-sustainability. Slaper, Timothy F. and Hall, Tanya J. 2011. The Triple Bottom Line: What is It and How Does it Work? Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center Website, accessed on July 22, 2016, URL: http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/pdfs/article2.pdf The Economist. November 17, 2009. Triple bottom line, It consists of three Ps: profit, people and planet .