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 .