Item 8-A
Council Meeting: September 9, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Establish a
Sustainable City Advisory Body
This report requests that
City Council establish a Sustainable City advisory body to advise City Council
regarding policies, actions and implementation strategies for the Sustainable
City Plan (SCP).
On
February 11, 2003 City Council unanimously adopted the Santa Monica SCP, which
is a comprehensive update and expansion of the Sustainable City Program adopted
by Council in 1994. Council also asked
staff to return with a discussion of options for the creation of an advisory
body to provide leadership and guidance for implementation of the SCP.
The
SCP was developed with the assistance of the Sustainable City Working Group – a
group of community stakeholders assembled by the Task Force on the Environment
and City staff that included elected and appointed officials, City staff and
representatives of neighborhood organizations, schools, the business community
and other community groups – in a public process that began in July 2001 and
continued through September 2002. The process resulted in a comprehensive
update of the 1994 Sustainable City Program and expanded the focus of the
program beyond the four original goal areas of Resource Conservation,
Environmental and Public Health, Transportation and Community and Economic Development
to include Housing, Economic Development, Open Space and Land Use, Community
Education and Civic Participation, and Human Dignity.
Since
the inception of the Sustainable City Program in 1994, the Task Force on the
Environment has served as the principle advisory body to City Council on
sustainability issues. In recognition
of the expansion of the SCP beyond the original four goal areas, the Task Force
on the Environment and the Sustainable City Working Group recommended the
formation of an advisory group with broad representation in the community and
expertise in the new goal areas to provide leadership and guidance for
implementation of the SCP.
In considering formation of any
advisory body, the threshold questions for Council consideration are:
1) What,
specifically, does the Council intend the group to accomplish? This establishes the jurisdiction,
“charge”, or “mission” that will govern the scope and nature of actions the
group may undertake.
2) What method of
constitution is appropriate for the work the Council intends the group to
undertake? Should it be a new Board or
Commission established by ordinance or a time and purpose limited task force?
3) Should the
composition of the group be closely specified to include individuals possessing
particular expertise or other qualifications to best carry out the intended
purpose?
A focused charge allows the advisory
body to channel its energy and resources and should provide Council with the
intended policy-enhancing input. An
unlimited or poorly defined charge can ultimately be costly and frustrating for
both the advisory body and the Council.
It can also create legal issues and problems.
One or more of the following charges
might be appropriate for an ongoing advisory body in support of the Sustainable
City Program:
1) To make
recommendations to the City Council regarding implementation of the SCP.
2) To encourage
consideration of SCP goals and targets in the earliest stages of policy and
project development.
3) To review and
report to Council and other community organizations and institutions on
progress in meeting SCP goals at least biennially.
4) To follow
legislative and policy development at the regional, state, federal and
international level that could impact attainment of SCP goals and recommend
that Council and other community organizations and institutions advocate for or
against as appropriate.
5) To interact
with other City Boards and Commissions and with organizations and institutions
in the community to bring SCP-related matters to their attention in a timely
manner.
6) To convene
stakeholders and consider what successor to the SCP might be appropriate in
contemplation of its comprehensive review in 2010.
7) To consider
the near- and long-term social, environmental, health and financial impacts on
the City, its residents, businesses, visitors, institutions and organizations
when formulating its policy recommendations.
The following charge might be
appropriate for a task force (a body limited in both duration and purpose):
1) To advise
Council and staff during development and adoption of an implementation plan for
the SCP. The target date for adoption
is March, 2004.
2) Based on the
adopted implementation plan, to assist Council and staff with an initial
informational campaign. Presentations
to City Boards and Commissions, other public institutions in the community, and
business and resident organizations would occur from April, 2004 through
December 2004.
Creation of a new Board or Commission
to advise on the SCP is clearly one option before Council. The City Code and Charter establish the
preponderance of the advisory bodies to the City Council. The legal basis for a group’s formation as
well as its charge and composition are thus clearly established. Because Boards and Commissions may differ
from time to time with each other and with the Council, it is helpful to have
the function and role definitions of the various bodies codified. The codification makes the structure of our
local government clear and readily ascertainable to the public. Moreover, the fact that boards and
commissions advise and are subordinate to the Council ensures democratic
accountability.
Exceptions to this form of constitution
are virtually always time-limited and specific project-focused task forces or
committees such as the Civic Center Working Group or a Charter Review
Committee. Only the Environmental Task
Force (ETF) has been perpetuated without a Code or Charter mandate over an
extended period of time. The rationale
for maintaining that status was reviewed by Council several years ago and
should be reconsidered from time to time.
A consideration in determining the
appropriate method of constitution is the likely duration of the function. From its adoption, the SCP extends to
2010. This is a sufficiently lengthy
period of time to warrant formal constitution by ordinance if Council feels the
need for advice will extend over the plan’s duration.
Another factor may be the anticipated
composition of the group. The City
Attorney advises that there may be legal problems with creating a standing body
with a broad charge related to sustainability whose members serve in other
official capacities. California law
prohibits holding inconsistent offices.
Generally speaking, offices are considered “inconsistent” if there is
any overlap in jurisdiction. For
example, this prohibition could be violated if a body with the ongoing charge
of ensuring that sustainable building practices are followed includes members
that serve on other bodies with jurisdiction over aspects of land use or
building design. The prohibition would
not be violated if the body created were an ad hoc committee that would disband
once a narrowly defined task was completed.
Creation of a new Board or Commission
to advise on the SCP is one option before Council. New Boards and Commissions have been formed over the years, and
Councils have sometimes closely specified the qualifications of individual
members in the enabling legislation based on the specific charge of the
body. If an ongoing body is
constituted, appropriate qualifications for potential appointees might include:
a) residing or
doing business in Santa Monica
b) possessing
demonstrated expertise or interest in the social, economic and environmental
goal areas of the SCP
c) having
knowledge of and appropriate relationships with public, non-profit and private
sector organizations that can assist in realizing the goals of the SCP
As noted in the preceding section,
inclusion of members of standing boards, commissions and governing boards of
other public agencies in an ongoing advisory body could be problematic under
California law. Nevertheless,
coordination between the efforts of boards and commissions can be assured
through joint meetings as well as by attendance by board and commission members
at the meetings of other advisory bodies.
Moreover, the Council always serves as the coordinator of all
governmental efforts.
If Council finds a time-limited and
task-specific advisory body appropriate, staff’s experience with the
Sustainable City Working Group suggests that it should include individuals who
can represent and provide an information conduit to the Boards, Commissions and
Task Forces whose work is closely related to one or more SCP goal areas. This approach is also consistent with most
ad hoc committees created by Council.
(There has been some difference of opinion among Council members about
whether those groups should also include individuals who can represent the perspective
and interests of residents and/or resident groups, individuals who can
represent the perspective and interests of the local business community and/or
business organizations, and individuals who can represent the perspective and
interests of other local institutions or whether membership should be more
restricted and simply facilitate widespread input.)
Council has two options in regard to
appointments from standing bodies or organizations they wish to see represented
on a time-limited and task-specific task force. One is to accept applications from individual members of the
organizations and select one from each.
The other is to allow the bodies themselves to designate a
representative. In regard to
individual residents or business persons, Council would presumably follow the
customary advertising, application and appointment process used for other
advisory bodies. While it has become
customary for some Boards, Commissions and Task Forces to interview and
recommend potential members to the Council, such bodies are not
self-perpetuating and the responsibility for appointments remains the
Council’s.
If Council selects the time-limited and
task-specific model, the following base composition for the SCP advisory body
might be appropriate:
One member of
the Planning Commission
One member of
the Housing Commission
One member of
the Recreation and Parks Commission
One member of
the Social Services Commission
One member of
the Task Force on the Environment
Two persons who are City residents and who may also be members of homeowner/neighborhood organizations
Two persons
who own or operate businesses in the City and who may also be members of
business organizations
Council may also wish to invite the
Santa Monica – Malibu Unified School District
and Santa Monica College to designate one representative each who would
serve as a voting members of the advisory group and keep those institutions
informed of SCP issues.
Regardless of which model the Council
selects, clear role definition, selection of the appropriate means of
constitution and careful attention to composition will ultimately benefit the
City should the work of the body generate controversy or legal action.
Existing
staff assists the Task Force on the Environment. The value of their time in attending, preparing for and following
up after meetings is approximately $11,000 per year. Principal staff who support the Task Force are exempt employees
and do not receive overtime pay.
Supplies and expenses for the Task Force on the Environment are
approximately $1000 per year.
It
is anticipated that costs to support the new Sustainable City advisory body,
using existing staff, will be similar to those for the Task Force on the
Environment. While a Sustainable City implementation
plan has yet to be developed, $47,500 has been included in the Environmental
Programs Division budget for FY 2003-04 for that purpose and to cover the costs
of the new advisory body. If necessary, funds to cover costs for the new
advisory body for future years will be included in future budget requests.
Staff
recommends that City Council determine and establish the most appropriate form of
Sustainable City advisory body to advise City Council.
Prepared by: Susan McCarthy, City Manager
Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public Works Management
Brian
Johnson, Environmental Programs Manager
Dean Kubani, Sustainable City Coordinator