|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Ramon City Council voted last week to add a new Sustainability Advisory Committee to the city’s roster of advisory bodies and to resume discussions at a later date on the proposed dissolution of two existing committees.
The council met last Tuesday for what turned into a lengthy debate on a proposed resolution to consolidate the city’s advisory bodies by dissolving the existing Transportation Advisory Committee and Open Space Advisory Committee as part of the establishment of the new committee.
The establishment of a new Sustainability Advisory Committee has been on the horizon for some time as part of the city’s Climate Action Plan, which was developed with the help of a citizens task force.
The new committee is set to serve as the continuation of community engagement efforts in the implementation of the Climate Action Plan, signaling the next phase of the process after the plan was prepared with the help of a citizens’ task force that has now run its course.
While a majority of voices at Tuesday’s meeting were in favor of establishing the new committee, many felt blindsided by the proposed dissolution of the two existing committees as part of the resolution presented by staff that evening.
The conversation started with a presentation from staff on the new committee and their reasoning behind recommending the dissolution of the existing committees as part of the same resolution.
“One of the reasons we’re here tonight is that it is a council goal to review the subcommittees, in particular the advisory committees,” City Manager Steven Spedowfski said. “We think it is important to define what the roles of advisory committees are.”
Spedowfski noted that some of the city’s advisory bodies have been around “since before I was in high school”, and that staff had noted in recent years that some of the committees’ charges “need to be addressed or clarified” or removed altogether “because basically the committees are no longer performing those functions”.
“The committees that we’re speaking about tonight, and some of the committees that we’ve addressed in the past, I’ve either been the lead staff for in my career throughout the city or have staffed the committees. And there are some recurring themes with some of the challenges that we do see with the advisory committees,” Spedowfski said. “We want to make sure that everybody gets a meaningful experience out of volunteering on a committee and make sure that the committees are achieving goals through the direction of the council.”
The Climate Action Plan Citizens Task Force made its final recommendation for the new Sustainability Advisory Committee’s charges in September, which guided staff’s design of the resolution, according to deputy city manager Christina Franco.Â
“Now that the CAP has provided a recommendation for the standing committee, staff also wanted to take this opportunity to provide a recommendation, in line with council’s goals … to provide cost-effective and responsive services to sustain quality of life,” Franco said.
In addition to the charges developed by the CAP taskforce, staff’s proposal that evening consisted of adding those of the sustainability and transportation advisory committees in order to consolidate them with the new sustainability committee.
“From there, their scope would be climate action guidance, transportation review and recommendations, general plan and policy review, the bicycle and active transportation implementation, open space preservation activities, and of course community engagement,” Franco said.
That wide-ranging scope of charges – and the range of specialized knowledge required – was at the heart of numerous critiques of the recommendation from staff that ensued during that evening’s public comment period.
“On the staff report, it pretty much shows that you’re going to have a single multi-disciplinary advisory body for three or more groups,” said former mayor and councilmember Greg Carr. “That’s not going to make it. That’s a lot of stuff to do.”
Open Space Advisory Committee Chair Robert Peoples urged the council to vote against dissolving the committee, arguing that the issues specific to that committee could be overlooked in the proposed structure of the new committee.
“Consolidation would substantially reduce and possibly eliminate longstanding citizen involvement in, and city focus on, open space protection and use,” Peoples said. “The substantial, non-climate change roles and functions of open space are of great importance to the city, and I believe won’t receive adequate attention under the new committee.”
Kyle Levy, who works in the city’s Parks and Community Services Department, spoke as a private citizen that evening to ask that the council refrain from dissolving the two advisory committees before at least getting input from their members on the challenges cited by staff – and discussing potential solutions.
“When you serve on an advisory committee for the city, it engages you in the processes – you learn about the Brown Act, you learn about how things work their way through the staff level, how decisions are made, and it’s very beneficial for members of the community to have that experience,” Levy said.
“And when you decrease the number of opportunities … you decrease the number of messengers in the community who can spread that information about how the city works, and build trust in the government,” he continued.
In addition to the 10 comments received in person that evening, the council received numerous others on the same topic.
Mayor Mark Armstrong said that he appreciated the input from the public, and acknowledged that the recommendation from staff might have caught many off-guard. He said that following the public comment period, his initial inclination was to hold off on making a decision until after further discussion.
“It’s kind of new to everybody – maybe not 100% new, because there’s been a little bit of telegraphing that there’s a wholesale review of committees going on, and some consolidation and things like that,” Armstrong said.
Last year, the city’s advisory bodies were whittled down by four, bringing the total count to five: the arts, library, and senior advisory committees, as well as the transportation and open space committees.
While reducing the number of advisory committees and workload for staff has been a priority for Armstrong since he was elected to office last year, Councilmember Marisol Rubio expressed frustration and dismay over the fact that dissolving two of the committees was being presented alongside the resolution to establish the Sustainability Advisory Committee.
“What should have been brought forward today is just a consideration for the Sustainability Advisory Committee,” Rubio said. “Period. Because that’s what they (the CAP task force) were chartered to do. And that’s what we wanted to be considered.”
Rubio added that the value of an integrated, multidisciplinary Sustainability Advisory Committee was “vital”, but that establishing the committee and maintaining the two existing committees did not have to be mutually exclusive.
“We can have a Sustainability Advisory Committee and keep the other committees,” Rubio said.
While opposing the dissolution of the two existing committees, Rubio was emphatic about the importance of establishing the new committee as the product of the CAP task force’s months of work and consideration, rather than delaying its approval.
Rubio made a motion to approve the new committee and “to leave the other committees alone, because they were never part of this.”
“It’s not like they can’t be integrated later … if we want to do that,” Rubio said. “But that is not conditional on today’s decision whatsoever.”
That motion was later seconded by Sridhar Verose and approved in a 3-2 vote with Richard Adler in favor, while Armstrong and Robert Jweinat voted against the move.
After further discussion, the council voted unanimously to hold a workshop with the transportation and open space advisory committees to discuss whether – and how – to incorporate their work into the new committee.
