Council Meeting: February 11, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Santa Monica
Sustainable City Plan and Consideration of Governance Structure
This report requests that
City Council adopt the Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan, which is an update
and significant expansion of the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program adopted
by Council in 1994, and consider a governance structure.
In September 1994 City Council adopted the
Santa Monica Sustainable City Program (SCP).
This program was initiated two years earlier by the City’s Task Force on
the Environment “as a way to create the basis for a more sustainable way of
life – one that safeguards and enhances our resources, prevents harm to the
natural environment and human health, and sustains and benefits the community
and local economy – for the sake of current and future generations.”
The SCP includes internal and citywide goals in four main areas: (1) Resource Conservation, (2) Transportation, (3) Pollution Prevention and Public Health Protection, and (4) Community and Economic Development. Numerical sustainability indicators were developed as a means to measure progress toward meeting these goals. A 1990 baseline was developed for each indicator and a target for the year 2000 was set.
As
documented in the attached Sustainable City Program 2002 Status Report, the
City has made significant progress toward reaching the adopted Sustainable City
goals and targets. In recognition of
these achievements Santa Monica is now viewed as an international leader and
role model for municipal sustainability.
In
reviewing the progress made since the 1994 adoption of the program, the Task
Force on the Environment recognized the need to update and expand the
Sustainable City goals and indicators to provide a more complete picture of
community sustainability, and to develop new indicator targets for 2010. The Task Force felt that a comprehensive
update would allow Santa Monica to build on its initial success and better
address the challenges to sustainability that remain.
The
update process began in July 2001 with the formation of the Sustainable City
Working Group - a group of community stakeholders that included elected and
appointed officials, City staff, and representatives of neighborhood
organizations, schools, the business community and other community groups. The working group participated in a
facilitated review of the Sustainable City goals, indicators and targets over a
15-month period, which culminated in a public meeting on September 21,
2002. The working group proposed
significant changes and additions to the initial Sustainable City goals and
indicators, and assisted with the creation of new indicator targets. Early drafts of the proposed update were
revised to reflect the community input received during the summer of 2002. The attached Santa Monica Sustainable City
Plan that resulted from this update process was approved by the Task Force on
the Environment on November 18, 2002 and is being forwarded for City Council
adoption as part of this staff report.
The
Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan represents a comprehensive update of the
1994 Santa Monica Sustainable City Program that builds upon the success of the
original program. The name was changed
from “Program” to “Plan” to better reflect the long-term comprehensive nature
of the community’s vision and Santa Monica’s efforts to become a sustainable
city.
The
Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan is founded on nine Guiding Principles that
provide the basis from which effective and sustainable decisions can be
made. These Guiding Principles have
been revised and updated from the versions initially adopted in 1994. The Plan has also been expanded to include
eight Goal Areas:
Within
each Goal Area are specific goals, which comprise the core of the
community vision and represent what Santa Monica must achieve to further its
efforts to become a sustainable city.
For
each goal, specific indicators have been developed to measure progress
toward meeting the goals. Indicators
are tools that help to determine the condition of a system, or the impact of a
program, policy or action. When tracked
over time, indicators provide useful information to assist with
decision-making. Two types of
indicators are tracked as part of the Sustainable City Plan. System level indicators measure the
state, condition or pressures on a community-wide basis for each respective
goal area. Program level indicators
measure the performance or effectiveness of specific programs, policies or
actions taken by the City government or other stakeholders in the community to
address the goals.
Specific targets have been created for many of the indicators. The targets represent aggressive yet achievable milestones for the community. Unless otherwise noted, the targets are for the year 2010 using the year 2000 as a baseline.
In
recognition of the expansion of the Sustainable City Plan beyond the original
four goal areas, the Task Force on the Environment and community stakeholders
have recommended the formation of an advisory group with broad representation
in the community to provide leadership and guidance for implementation of the
Sustainable City Plan, and an interdepartmental staff working group to effect
its programs. A Sustainable City
Steering Committee (SCSC) would be created to serve as the primary advisory
body to the City Council and the community on policies, actions and implementation
strategies.
It
is proposed that the core of the SCSC be comprised of representatives from each
of the following:
Once
assembled this core group would identify representatives from other stakeholder
groups in Santa Monica who they feel should also be represented on the
SCSC. The SCSC would also include a
liaison from the City Council. SCSC
members would help to ensure that Sustainable City goals serve as the basis for
decision-making by their respective commissions, and the City departments and
sectors of the community with which they interact.
At
the City staff level, it is recommended that an interdepartmental Sustainable
City Implementation Group, chaired by a representative from the City Manager’s
office, be created to coordinate existing City activities so they are
consistent with the Sustainable City goals and facilitate the implementation of
innovative programs and policies to achieve the goals. Members of this group would serve as
Sustainable City liaisons to their respective departments. Staff support for the SCSC would be drawn
from this interdepartmental group.
The
SCSC and the staff Implementation Group would develop an implementation
strategy for meeting Sustainable City goals and targets, and coordinate
implementation, both interdepartmentally and between the City and community
stakeholder groups.
Within
one year following City Council adoption of the Sustainable City Plan, a
baseline indicators report and a Sustainable City Implementation Strategy will
be developed and presented to Council.
The implementation strategy would outline specific actions by the City
and all sectors of the community that should be undertaken to meet the goals
and targets presented in the Plan. The indicators report will be updated and
presented to Council every two years following completion of the baseline
report. Updates will include an
explanation of the progress achieved toward meeting the program goals and
targets as well as a review of the continued community relevance and
feasibility of the indicators and targets. The indicators report will provide
useful information to City Council, City staff and community members on the
progress being made toward meeting the goals and targets of the Plan, and
provide a basis for decision-making about policies and actions that influence
the City’s ability to meet the goals and targets.
The
proposed Sustainable City Plan represents a considerable effort of many months
duration by City staff, Task Force and Board and commission members and
interested public participants. It
entails a significant expansion of the scope of sustainability efforts for a
community already recognized for its environmental programs and awareness. It will engage City staff time and monetary
resources and will also likely affect Santa Monica residents, businesses and
visitors for the next eight years and beyond.
For these reasons the City Council should give careful scrutiny to all
aspects of the plan.
The
plan includes several new Goal Areas that extend well beyond the prior
program’s primary focus on the natural environment, each with associated goals,
indicators and targets. These are:
Economic Development, Open Space and Land Use, Housing, Community Education and
Civic Participation, and Human Dignity.
Economic Development was a goal area in the original program although
there were few associated goals and indicators. In the proposed plan sustainable Economic Development is more
specifically envisioned. Council should
consider whether extending plan focus into each of these areas is appropriate
at this time.
The
goals and indicators of the proposed plan are ambitious. There is no way to determine potential City
budget impacts of pursuing them absent a specific implementation plan for each
of the goals. Moreover, implementation
will likely involve new behavioral expectations and, potentially, could lead to
the proposal of new regulatory restrictions on residents and businesses. Similarly, associated economic impacts
cannot be determined absent implementation specifics. While progress toward meeting the original goals has been measured,
and philosophical satisfaction can certainly be taken with program results to
date, it is not possible to measure the specific costs and benefits associated
with the attainment of many of the programs goals.
The
proposed plan, as noted above, extends the definition of sustainability well
beyond the environmental expertise provided by the Task Force on the
Environment. (The Task Force has provided advice, impetus and visibility in
support of the original program and would presumably continue in a similar role
in relation to many of the goals of the proposed plan). The concept of a steering committee for the
proposed plan stems from the perceived need for broader advisory expertise, and
a sense that, absent oversight and involvement by community stakeholders,
opportunities for achievement of targets may be lost.
The
proposed advisory body is envisioned to have input to Council on a wide range
of policies, programs and projects.
This input would be additive to that provided by existing Boards,
Commissions and the Task Force, as appropriate to the subject matter. Council must determine whether indeed such
an additional advisory body is desirable or whether the existing structure of
boards and commissions (and the Task Force) can provide appropriate and timely
input for Council decision-making. One
consideration must be whether the additional level of review and input will
delay Council policy formulation and project approvals.
The
proposal is largely silent on the form that the advisory body would take and
how appointments would be made. The
concept of a “committee”, a new term for a standing City advisory body, must
also be given consideration. The
proposal envisions a body that would be advisory to the community as well as
the Council, a role that no other City advisory group performs. If Council wishes to proceed, the merits of
an open-ended task force model versus the more formal, statutorily defined
Board/Commission model must be assessed.
Experience with the former suggests that it would be largely
self-determining, while the latter provides that Council define the body’s
charge, parameters, membership and terms of office by ordinance. The City Attorney advises that adopting the
model proposed may be legally problematic.
The model diverges significantly from the governmental structure
established by local law and would likely create legal controversy relating to
process issues.
The
work of any advisory body involves costs and staff support. The Environmental Task Force has been
largely supported by EPWM Environmental Programs Division staff and is funded
through the Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste and Stormwater funds. A broader advisory group would require
additional staff support from the City Manager’s office, given the
interdepartmental working group envisioned, and would draw support from the
General Fund as well as Enterprise funds given the expanded Goal Areas. Estimates of the costs associated with City
Boards and Commissions range from $15,000 to $100,000, varying with the
frequency of meetings, breadth of noticing, number of staff involved, and
regulatory role, if any.
The
proposed interdepartmental working group is a practical vehicle for keeping
sustainability goals in focus as the work of the City progresses. It would represent a dedication of staff
resources, which comes at some impact to existing workload and priorities but
is manageable absent significant staff reductions related to the challenging
budgetary climate over the next several years.
With
the conclusion of the original Sustainable City Program, it is time to
determine how best to continue progress into the first decade of the new
century. The efforts of the past year
merit recognition. The proposed plan and the proposal for advisory and
implementation bodies merit public discussion and close consideration in regard
to Council and community priorities and potential resource allocation.
There
is no way to assess the potential fiscal impact associated with adoption of the
Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan, absent a specific implementation plan for
each of the goals, although adoption sets a course that will clearly have
fiscal and perhaps economic impacts.
Presumably, creation of a Sustainable City Steering Committee would
entail costs similar to those associated with other City advisory and
regulatory bodies. Fiscal impacts
associated with implementation of the Sustainable City Plan will be detailed
when the implementation plan is presented to City Council.
Staff
recommends that City Council carefully consider and adopt the Santa Monica
Sustainable City Plan and consider the governance structure.
Prepared by: Susan McCarthy, City Manager
Craig Perkins, Director of Environmental and Public Works Management
Brian
Johnson, Environmental Programs Manager
Dean
Kubani, Sustainable City Coordinator
Attachments: