SR-106-030-02
EPWM:CP:BJ:DK/SustainableCityAdvisoryBody.doc
Council Meeting: October 28, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Sustainable City Advisory Body
INTRODUCTION
This report requests that City Council consider establishment of a Sustainable City
advisory body to advise City Council regarding policies, actions and implementation
strategies for the Sustainable City Plan (SCP).
BACKGROUND
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
1
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.
DISCUSSION
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
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?
Jurisdiction, Mission or Charge
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.
3
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, 2005.
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, 2005 through December 2005.
4
Constitution
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. If Council approves the creation of a time-
limited and project-focused task force or committee, staff will encourage Council to limit
the term of that body to no more than two years. Following the two-year term,
recommendations from that body regarding SCP implementation would be handed over
to staff, City boards and commissions, and city council for ongoing implementation and
oversight.
5
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.
Composition
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:
6
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
7
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
8
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.
No New Advisory Body Option
Although Council directed staff to review options for creation of a new advisory body to
provide input and direction for the SCP, an additional option Council may consider is to
use existing boards and commissions to fulfill this role. Under this option, Council would
direct existing boards and commissions to propose implementation strategies, holding
joint meetings as appropriate. This would require Council to provide clear expectations
of those bodies and to encourage coordination of the work of each of the boards and
commissions participating in this effort.
The benefit of this option is that it would utilize existing resources and would not require
the creation of an additional advisory body. A drawback of choosing this option is that it
would not ensure representation of community stakeholders, such as local educational
institutions and the business sector, whose interests may not be represented by an
existing board or commission. It could limit the input of community members with
9
specific expertise in various areas of sustainability in favor of board and commission
members who may or may not have similar expertise. It would make consistent
participation in the process difficult for the average interested resident who would have
to attend the meetings of various bodies to stay abreast of developments. Since the
explicit purpose of the proposed advisory body is to facilitate and support the
development of sustainable behavior throughout the entire community, this model may
be problematic.
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.
BUDGET / FISCAL IMPACT
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 and are included in the current Environmental
Programs Division budget.
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
10
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. The work of a new advisory body will additionally involve staff time from many
City departments whose work programs are part of the development and
implementation of SCP goals at a time when staff resources are stretched.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that City Council determine whether to establish, and, if so, select
the most appropriate form of Sustainable City advisory body to the 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
11